Pesticide Ordinance of the City of San Francisco
7oct96
[Pesticides]Amending the San Francisco Administrative Code by adding Chapter 39 thereto to require city departments to minimize the use of pesticides and develop integrated pest management policies.
Note: This entire section is
new.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of
San Francisco:
Section 1. The San Francisco Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 39, Sections 39.1 through 39.8, to read as follows:
CHAPTER
3.9
City Pesticide Management
Sec. 39.1 Purpose and Findings
Sec. 39.2 Definitions
Sec. 39.3 Ban on Use of Toxicity
Category I Pesticides
Sec. 39.4 Reduction in Use of
Pesticides
Sec. 39.5 Notice of Pesticide
Use
Sec. 39.6 Development and
Implementation of Integrated Pest Management
Sec. 39.7 Recordkeeping of
Pesticide Applications
Sec. 39.8 Exemptions
SEC. 39.1. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS
Supervisors hereby finds and declares that it shall be the policy of the City and County of San Francisco to eliminate or reduce the use of pesticide applications by City departments to the maximum extent feasible and to develop and implement Integrated Pest Management policies in city departments.
Whenever used in this ordinance the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below.
(a) "Agricultural Commissioner" means the County Agricultural Commissioner for the City and County of San Francisco.
(b) "City department" means any department of the City and County of San Francisco. City department does not include any other local agency or any federal or state agency.
(c) "Commission on the Environment" means the Commission on the Environment provided for by San Francisco Charter Section 4.118.
(d) "Integrated Pest Management" means a pest management method that combines biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to minimize health, environmental and financial risks. The method uses extensive knowledge about pests, such as; infestation thresholds, life histories, environmental requirements and natural enemies to complement and facilitate biological and other natural control of pests. The method uses the least toxic synthetic pesticides only as a last resort to controlling pests.
(e) "Pesticide" means economic poison as defined in Division 7 of the California Food and Agricultural Code.
(f ) "Toxicity Category I Pesticide" means any pesticide that meets United States Environmental Protection Agency criteria for Toxicity Category I under Section 158.10 of Part 156 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 39.3 BAN ON USE OF TOXICITY CATEGORY I PESTICIES. Effective January 1, 1997, no city department shall use any Toxicity Category I Pesticide, any pesticide containing a chemical identified by the State of California as a chemical known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity pursuant to the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, and any pesticide classified as a human carcinogen, probable human, carcinogen or possible human carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
SEC 39.4. REDUCTION IN USE OF PESTICIDES. By January 1, 1998, any City department that uses one or more pesticides other than the pesticides subject to the ban under Section 39.3, shall reduce by fifty percent (50%) the cumulative volume of such pesticides that it used in calendar year 1996. By January 1, 2000, any City department that uses one or more pesticides other than the pesticides subject to the ban under Section 39.3, shall reduce by one hundred percent (100% ) the cumulative volume of such pesticides that it used in calendar year l996, except for those pesticides that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and approved for use for purposes of protection of public safety or public health, based on a recommendation from the commission on the Environment.
SEC 39.5. NOTICE OF PESTICIDE USE (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) hereof, within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the effective date of this ordinance, any City department using any pesticide shall comply with the following notification procedures:
( 1 ) Signs shall be posted at least four days before application of the pesticide and remain posted at least four days after application of the pesticide.
( 2 ) Signs sha11 be posted (a) at every entry point where the pesticide is applied if the pesticide is applied in an enclosed area, and (b) in highly visible locations around the perimeter of the area where the pesticide is applied if the pesticide is applied in an open area .
( 3 ) Signs shall be of a standardized design that are easily recognizable to the public and workers.
( 4 ) Signs shall contain the name and active ingredient of the pesticide, the target pest, the date of pesticide use, the signal word indicating the toxicity category of the pesticide, the date for re-entry to the area treated, and the name and contact number for the city department responsible for the application.
( b ) City departments shall not be required to post signs in accordance with section (a) in right of way locations that the general public does not use for recreational purposes. However, each city department that uses pesticides in such right of way locations shall develop and maintain a public access telephone number about pesticide applications in the right of way areas. Information readily available by calling the public access number shall include for any pesticide that will be applied within the next four days or has been applied within the last four days: a description of the area of the pesticide application, the name and active ingredient of the pesticide, the target pest, the date of pesticide use, the signal word indicating the toxicity category of the pesticide, the re-entry period of the area treated and the name and contact number for the City department responsible for the application. Information about the public access telephone number shall be posted in a public location on at the city department's main office building.
SEC. 39.6. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLIMENTATION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY. ( a ) Each city department that uses pesticides shall develop and implement an Integrate Pest Management (IPM) Policy. For purposes of development of the policies, Integrated Pest Management shall have the meaning given in this ordinance.
( b ) The City department shall use an independent consultant with at least three years experience in developing and implementing IPM policies that emphasize the least toxic alternatives to pesticides to assist the City department in preparation of its IPM policy. The IPM policy shall identify resources the City department has and will need to implement the policy, including personnel trained in IPM practices. The policy shall identify the actions the city department is taking to obtain any needed resources to implement the policy.
( c ) The Agricultural Commissioner shall assist City departments in implementing IPM policies to the extent resources are available to the Agricultural Commissioner to provide such assistance.
( d ) Each City department required to develop an IPM policy shall submit a draft of its IPM policy to the Commission on the Environment. The Commission shall review and may make recommendations on the draft IPM policy regarding conformity with long-term plans for environmental sustainability adopted by the Commission.
(e) After the Commission on the Environment has completed its review of the draft IPM policy, the City department shall submit the draft IPM policy to the board or commission for the department or the City Administrator for any department under the city Administrator. If the Commission on the Environment recommended any modifications in the draft IPM policy, the City department shall advise the board, commission or City Administrator, as applicable, of such recommendations and any proposed modifications to the draft IPM policy which the department determines are appropriate.
(f) No later than July 1, 1997 and quarterly thereafter, City departments that use pesticides shall report to the Commission on the Environment on the status of their efforts to adopt and implement IPM policies and to comply with the other provisions of the ordinance. The Commission on the Environment shall provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors on the status of City department efforts.
SEC. 39.7. RECORDKEEPING OF PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS. ( a ) Each department, board or commission that uses pesticides shall keep records of each pesticide application. Each application record shall include the following information:
( 1 ) the pesticide used.
( 2 ) the site of the pesticide application.
( 3 ) the date the pesticide was used.
( 4 ) the name of the pesticide applicator.
( 5) the application equipment used .
(b) Application records shall be made available to the public upon request in accordance with the provisions of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 67.
SEC. 39.8. EXEMPTIONS. This chapter will not apply to use of any pesticide for the purpose of improving or maintaining water quality at drinking water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, reservoirs and related collection, distribution and treatment facilities
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LOUISE H RENNE
City Attorney
Pesticide Watch Education Fund
Summary of Proposed Amendments To The San Francisco Pesticide ordinance
In October of 1996, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to unanimously pass a landmark pesticide ordinance to protect children and others from the hazards of pesticides in public facilities. The major provisions of the ordinance, which apply to all San Francisco departments, include:
An immediate ban of the most toxic pesticides, including Toxic Category I pesticides, all pesticides listed under California's Prop 65 as a known carcinogen or reproductive toxin, and all pesticides listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a known, possible or probable carcinogen.
- A 50% reduction in cumulative pesticide use from 1996 to 1998.
- Notification of all pesticide use four days prior and after an application.
- Development of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program by all city departments, with assistance from an IP1H expert.
- A complete ban of all pesticide use by the year 2000.
Passage of the ordinance has received widespread media coverage and inquiries from around the world. It is truly a landmark achievement, and has placed San Francisco on the cutting edge of urban IPM. In order to ensure its effectiveness, a number of proposed changes to the ordinance have been suggested. Below is a summary of the major proposed changes:
Proposed change: Adds all persons or entities that enter into agreement with City Departments to use City property to the ordinance. Reason for change: The original ordinance did not cover many people who may apply pesticides in public places, including people who contract or lease property with the City. Expected Impact By including more people in the ordinance, total pesticide use in San Francisco public places will decrease more than under the original ordinance.
Proposed change: Establishes a city-wide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy and requires each City department to develop an IPM implementation plan based on the city-wide policy.
Reason for change: Under the original ordinance, each City department was required to develop and implement their own IPM plan. Requiring each City department to create their own plan creates unnecessary work because excellent models already exist for IPM plans.
Expected impact: By establishing a central IPM plan, individual City departments will all work under the same guidelines for reducing pesticide use and addressing pest problems. This streamlined process will allow City departments to focus efforts on implementation of the plan.
Proposed change: Replace the 50% reduction of pesticide use goal in 1998 with a ban of all Class II pesticides in 1998.
Reason for change: Protecting public health is the most important goal of the pesticide ordinance. By focusing on banning the worst pesticides, the ordinance will eliminate those pesticides that are most likely to cause harm to children and others. In addition, because the City does not buy or use pesticides in a centralized fashion, it is difficult to determine which departments should reduce which pesticides to reach the 50% goal.
Expected impact: Overall pesticide use and toxicity will decrease dramatically by 1998 because all of the most hazardous pesticides will be eliminated from use.
Proposed change: Allows for the posting of permanent signs in public buildings and vehicles for the use of baits instead of requiring posting four days prior and after the u6e of the pesticide.
Reason for change: Baits used in many public buildings and vehicles are used regularly by departments to control ants and other pests. Posting signs four days prior and after usage would be costly and would not provide additional information to the public about the use of pesticides.
Expected impact: By placing permanent signs in prominent locations in buildings and vehicles in which the baits are used, the public will be adequately informed about their use and will avoid unnecessary posting of signs for an on-going activity.
Proposed change: Establishes an IPM policy implementation program under the Agricultural Commissioner to assist City departments and property users in implementing the IPM plan. Reason for change: Many departments covered under the ordinance lack the technical experti6e necessary to manage pest problems using IPM and lack access to finding the information.
Expected impact: By centralizing information about pest problems and alternatives, City departments will be better able to effectively address pest problems with non-toxic alternatives.
Proposed change: Exempts from all provisions of the ordinance antimicrobial agents necessary to protect public health until January 1, 1999.
Reason for change: Effective alternatives for certain uses of pesticides including treatment of heating ducts for airborne diseases are not yet readily available.
Expected impact: A task force will look into alternatives for anti-microbials and make recommendations to the Department of the Environment for changes to begin in 1999.
Proposed change: Allows City departments to petition the Commission on the Environment for a particular pesticide for a particular use upon a finding that the City department or property user has made a good-faith effort to explore alternatives, demonstrated that effective, economic alternatives of the banned pesticide do not exist for that particular use, and have developed a reasonable plan for investigating alternatives.
Reason for change: The original ordinance provided no flexibility for departments to use certain banned pesticides for treatment of a pest problem under any circumstance. There may be some instances where a banned pesticide may need to be used for certain one-time uses where an effective alternative has not yet been found.
Expected impact: City departments and property owners will use some banned pesticides in certain circumstances for a short period but will be forced to aggressively pursue alternatives.
Proposed change: Allows the Commission on the Environment to permanently exempt reduced risk pesticides that are commonly used as part of an IPM plan.
Reason for change: The definition of pesticides is extremely broad, and a ban on the use of all pesticides precludes the use of certain low-toxicity pesticides commonly used in organic agriculture and urban IPM to control pests.
Expected impact: Certain low-toxicity pesticides, like insecticidal soaps and BT, may be exempted and used as effective tools in the IPM plan.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |