Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Healthy School Environments

Appendix E: State School Environmental Health Statutes At-a-Glance

Disclaimer:
The statutes in the table below are current as of July 2013 and subject to change. These statutes are unofficial, and are presented solely for general informational purposes as a public service. Although reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that these statutes are current, complete and accurate, the United States Environmental Protection Agency does not warrant or represent that they are current, complete and accurate. These statutes are subject to change on a regular basis. Readers are advised to consult the appropriate state for its official statutes, as well as for amendments and any subsequent changes or revisions thereto.

Additionally, applicability of the statutes to schools was determined based on the language of the statutes. That language may be relevant for school districts and state and local legislatures wishing to implement or strengthen state and local environmental health statutes or regulations. Model legislation was based on whether it could have an ameliorative effect on environmental health hazards in schools if properly enforced.

State Children's Environmental Health Asbestos Asthma Carbon Monoxide Green Cleaning Indoor Air Quality Lead Mercury Pesticides Radon Smoking
AL ■[P]
AK ■[P]
AS
AZ
AR
CA ■[P]
CO
CT ■[P] ■[P] ■[P] ■[P]
DE ■[P]
DC ■[P]
FL ■[P]
GA
HI ■[P] ■[P]
ID
IL ■[P]
IN
IA ■[P] ■[P]
KS
KY ■[P]
LA
ME ■[P] ■[P]
MD ■[P] ■[P]
MA ■[P] ■[P]
MI ■[P] ■[P]
MN
MS ■[P/S] ■[P/S] ■[P/S] ■[P]
MO ■[P]
MT
NE ■[P]
NV
NH
NJ ■[P] ■[P]
NM
NY ■[P] ■[P] ■[P] ■[P]
NC
ND
OH ■[P]
OK ■[P] ■[P]
OR
PA
PR
RI
SC ■[P]
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT ■[P]
VI
VA ■[P] ■[P]
WA
WV
WI ■[P]
WY

Notes:

[P] – This indicates that proposed legislation may amend the current law; it applies to specific statutes noted below. Any [P] in citations is not part of the correct Bluebook format and is merely an indication of proposed legislation.

[S] – This indicates that a sunset provision will cause statute to expire on a certain date without further legislative action; it applies to specific statutes noted below. Any [S] in citations is not part of the correct Bluebook format and is merely an indication of a sunset provision.

The years in parentheses in citations below reflects the currency of both the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases used.

OVERVIEW OF STATUTES & RECOMMENDATIONS

Children’s Environmental Health

  • The three states with children’s environmental health statutes created administrative bodies to advise on children’s health issues. The powers of the administrative bodies are limited as they work with or under other agencies with more legislative authority. Given the narrow scope of these statutes, it seems unlikely that these bodies serve anything more than an advisory function.
  • Model Legislation: MD. CODE ANN., HEALTH-GEN. §§ 13-1501 to -1506 (West 2013).
    • Summary:
      • The Maryland legislature found that children are exposed to a variety of risks in school and are thus more susceptible to illness. Further, poverty is a major factor of exposure. The solution to complex environmental health problems involves complete cooperation and communication between affected communities and many disciplines including science, medicine, public health, economics and public policy.
      • The statute creates a State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council.
      • Duties of the Council include reviewing existing rules, regulations and standards to see that they adequately protect the health of children from environmental exposure; reviewing proposed regulations and recommending adjustments to ensure protection of children’s health; commenting on proposed regulations during the relevant comment period; gathering and disseminating information to the public about how to reduce, treat, and eliminate environmental exposures in children; recommending uniform guidelines for state agencies to follow to help reduce children’s exposure; and creating education programs that include relevant information about reducing exposure risks.
    • Reasoning:
      • Compared to the other statutes, Maryland’s is by far the most comprehensive. While Maryland’s Council appears limited to an advisory function, it can review proposed legislation to ensure the goals of the statute are met. The Council is also not limited to a single person, like Illinois’ statute, and has a broad range of duties other than simply reviewing proposed legislation, unlike California’s statute.
  • Other Statutes:
    • California – CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 900 to 901 (West 2013).
    • Illinois – 20 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 2313/1-/10 (2013).

Asbestos

  • As a whole, national state asbestos statutes are very similar. Most broadly, they pertain to any public building and not just schools. Overall, they require certification and licensure before any contracting can occur for an asbestos abatement program. Most require substantial monitoring before and during any programs. Additionally, most provide for state or federal money for abatement programs in public buildings, including schools.
  • Model Legislation: CAL. GOV’T CODE § 37116 (West 2013); CAL. EDUC. CODE §§ 49410 to 49410.7 (West 2013).
    • Summary:
      • California’s statutes provide that school districts in a city can request to borrow funds from the city to remove asbestos from schools.
      • The California legislature found that exposure to asbestos significantly increases the likelihood of contracting cancer. As asbestos materials age, they become unstable and the particles gain access to air.
      • Federal money is available for schools that wish to pursue asbestos removal programs, and schools must comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for testing and inspecting asbestos materials.
      • Testing and removal of friable asbestos is far more detailed. Air monitoring is required before a friable asbestos abatement program begins.
      • Schools with current asbestos abatement programs must not be open during cleanup.
    • Reasoning:
      • California specifically provides a section about friable asbestos, which must be treated and removed differently than non-friable asbestos. This distinction is important given children’s susceptibility to environmental hazards.
      • Furthermore, requiring that asbestos abatement programs in the state follow the EPA’s guidelines means that abatement programs are done uniformly, regardless of the economic status of the school district.
      • Both local and federal money are available to school districts for abatement programs.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Alabama – ALA. CODE §§ 22-39-1 to -5 (2013).
    • Alaska – ALASKA STAT. §§ 18.31.010 to .050, .200, .250 to .260, .400 to .430 (2013).
    • Arkansas – ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 20-27-1001 to -1002, -1005 to -1007 (2012).
    • Colorado – COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 25-7-501 to -511.6 (2013).
    • Connecticut – CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 19a-332 to -332(a), 20-435 to -442, 22a-252 (2013).
    • Delaware – DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, §§ 7801 to 7807 (2013); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 29, § 6962 (2013) [P].
    • District of Columbia – D.C. CODE §§ 8-111.01 to .14 (2013).
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. §§ 469.001 to .009, .012 to .014 (2013).
    • Georgia – GA. CODE ANN. §§ 12-12-1 to -21, 20-2-19 (2013).
    • Hawaii – HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 342p-1 to -44 (2013).
    • Illinois – 20 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 3510/1-/10 (2013); 105 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 105/1-/4, /6a-/7, /9-/16 (2013); 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 207/1-/999 (2013).
    • Indiana – IND. CODE §§ 13-17-6-1 to -12 (2013).
    • Iowa – IOWA CODE §§ 88b.1 to .6, .8, .11 to .12 (2013).
    • Kansas – KAN. STAT. ANN. § 12-5401 (2012).
    • Kentucky – KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 56.062, 224.20-300 to -320 (West 2013).
    • Louisiana – LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 30:2341 to :2346 (2012).
    • Maine – ME. REV. STAT. tit. 38, §§ 1271 to 1284 (2013).
    • Maryland – MD. CODE ANN., ENVIR. §§ 6-401 to -425 (West 2013); MD. CODE ANN., EDUC. § 7-419 (West 2013).
    • Massachusetts – MA. GEN. LAWS ch. 149, § 6a (2013).
    • Michigan – MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 338.3401 to .3418, 388.861 to .864 (2013).
    • Minnesota – MINN. STAT. §§ 326.71 to .785, .81 (2013).
    • Mississippi – MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 37-138-1 to -29, -302 (2013).
    • Missouri – MO. REV. STAT. §§ 643.263 to .265 (2013).
    • Montana – MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 75-2-501 to -511, -513 to -519 (2013).
    • New Hampshire – N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 141-E:1 to :25 (2013).
    • New Jersey – N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 34:5a-32 to -44 (West 2013).
    • North Carolina – N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 130a-444 to -452 (2013).
    • Ohio – OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 3710.01 to .99 (West 2013).
    • Oklahoma – OKLA. STAT. tit. 40, §§ 450 to 457 (2013) [P].
    • Oregon – OR. REV. STAT. §§ 468a.700 to .760 (2013).
    • Pennsylvania – 63 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 2101 to 2112 (2013).
    • Rhode Island – R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 23-24.5-1 to -26 (2013).
    • South Dakota – S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 34-44-1 to -34 (2013).
    • Texas – TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §§ 1954.001 to .402 (West 2013).
    • Utah – UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 19-2-101 to -110, -112 to -127 (West 2013).
    • Vermont – VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, §§ 1331 to 1332 (2013).
    • Virginia – VA. CODE ANN. §§ 2.2-1162 to -1167 (2013).
    • Washington – WASH. REV. CODE §§ 49.26.100 to .901 (2013).
    • West Virginia – W. VA. CODE §§ 16-32-1 to -16 (2013).
    • Wisconsin – WIS. STAT. §§ 254.11, .21, .22 (2013).

Asthma

  • Only Mississippi has a statute governing asthma in schools that goes beyond mere medical files for asthmatic students.
  • Model Legislation: MISS. CODE ANN. § 37-11-71 (2013) [P/S].
    • Summary:
      • Mississippi’s statute requires that each school district have a plan on file in case a student with asthma experiences an emergency.
      • Additionally, local school health councils must conduct a school health needs assessment that addresses and supports the following: healthy school environment, physical activity, staff wellness, counseling/psychological services, nutrition services, family/community involvement, health education and health services.
      • This assessment must be used in the development of long-range maintenance plans that include specific indoor air quality components for each school.
    • Reasoning:
      • Mississippi’s statute addresses not only asthma as a health condition in children but ways in which a school can mitigate the impacts of asthma while these children are in school.
      • However, it contains a sunset provision that automatically repeals the statute on July 1, 2014.
      • A more effective, long-term asthma solution in schools would be a statute without an automatic expiration date.
  • Other Statutes: N/A.

Carbon Monoxide

  • Only Connecticut has a carbon monoxide statute that applies directly to schools. This statute requires that all schools in the state, public or nonpublic, must have carbon monoxide detection and warning systems installed. Additionally, it provides a more comprehensive fire safety code, adding requirements on top of carbon monoxide.
  • Model Legislation: CONN. GEN. STAT. § 29-292 (2013).
    • Summary:
      • Connecticut requires that all schools have carbon monoxide detection and warning systems installed. Additionally, testing and inspection must take place at regular intervals.
      • Any system installed must meet or exceed third-party laboratory standards.
      • Maintenance must comply with manufacturer’s instructions and schools are prohibited from having battery-operated detection systems.
    • Reasoning:
      • This is the only statute that specifically requires carbon monoxide monitoring in schools. It provides fairly detailed procedures for installing and maintaining the systems. It also provides penalties: if a school does not abide by certain regulations, it will not receive an occupancy permit.
  • Other Statutes: N/A.

Green Cleaning

  • The statutes as a whole cover a wide range: some focus on simple educational programs for environmentally friendly cleaning products in schools, while others provide guidelines and establish commissions or agencies to create recommendations. Few explicitly require environmentally friendly cleaning. Most have no penalties for noncompliance.
  • Model Legislation: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, §§ 1781 to 1784 (2013).
    • Summary:
      • Vermont’s statute requires that distributors or contractors use environmentally friendly cleaning products and air fresheners in all public schools. These cleaning products must be verified environmentally friendly by a third-party. Nothing in the statute will subject a person or entity to fines.
    • Reasoning:
      • While there is no penalty for noncompliance, Vermont’s statute requires that schools receive from distributors and that contractors use environmentally friendly cleaning products.
      • The statute lists specifically what it considers environmentally friendly as well as what it considers suitable air fresheners.
      • Other statutes delegate the duty of finding what constitutes an environmentally friendly product to an agency or commission, which will likely lead to varied results. With the definitions explicitly provided in the statute, implementation of the statute will likely be easier for schools, distributors, contractors, and third-party verifiers.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Connecticut – CONN. GEN. STAT. § 10-231g (2013).
    • District of Columbia – D.C. CODE § 38-825.01 (2012).
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. § 1000.08 (2013).
    • Hawaii – HAW. REV. STAT. § 302A-1509 (2013).
    • Illinois – 105 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 140/1-/99 (2013).
    • Iowa – IOWA CODE § 8A.318 (2013).
    • Missouri – MO. REV. STAT. § 161.365 (2013).
    • Nevada – NEV. REV. STAT. § 386.419-.4195 (2011).
    • New York – N.Y. EDUC. LAW § 409-i (McKinney 2013) [P].
    • Tennessee – TENN. CODE ANN. § 49-2-121 (2013).

Indoor Air Quality

  • State indoor air quality statutes deal with a variety of contaminants, ranging from mold to HVAC systems inspection. Others focus primarily on green cleaning. There is no statute that encompasses all facets of indoor air quality safety in schools.
  • Model Legislation: CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 4b-15b, 10-231e, 10-231f (2013).
    • Summary:
      • These statutes as a whole provide strong indoor air quality requirements for schools. While it is not mandatory, school boards in Connecticut may establish an air quality committee to provide the board information about the respective school’s indoor air quality.
      • Additionally, they provide a protocol for periodic assessment and remediation of indoor air quality.
      • HVAC systems must be maintained according to prevailing maintenance standards.
      • Public buildings, including schools, must satisfy the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Associations’ guidelines for indoor air quality.
    • Reasoning:
      • Connecticut has the most comprehensive statutes that address indoor air quality in schools. The statutes allow the creation of a committee which provides information to schools on how to better indoor air quality and establishes protocols for uniformity.
      • Other state’s statutes lack the broad scale requirements for assessment, remediation, and maintenance that Connecticut’s statutes have.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Arizona – ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 15-2131 to -2132 (2013).
    • Arkansas – ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 6-21-801 to -814 (2012).
    • California – CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §§ 42630 to 42647 (West 2013).
    • District of Columbia – D.C. CODE § 38-825.01 (2013).
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. § 1013.23 (2013).
    • Georgia – GA. CODE ANN. §§ 20-2-506, 50-37-1 to -8 (2013).
    • Hawaii – HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 321-411 to -413 (2013) [P].
    • Illinois – 105 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/34-205 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 87/1-/15 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 105/15 (2013).
    • Indiana – IND. CODE § 16-19-3-7 (2013).
    • Kentucky – KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 56.777 (West 2013).
    • Louisiana – LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 37:2186 (2012).
    • Maine – ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5, § 1742-E (2013); ME. REV. STAT. tit. 26, § 565-A (2013); ME. REV. STAT. tit. 30-A, § 5953-C (2013) [P].
    • Maryland – MD. CODE ANN., EDUC. § 5-301 (West 2013) [P].
    • Mississippi – MISS. CODE ANN. § 37-11-71 (2013) [P/S].
    • Nebraska – NEB. REV. STAT. § 79-10, 110 (2012).
    • New Hampshire – N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 200:11-a to :48 (2013).
    • New York – N.Y. PUB. BLDGS. LAW § 83 (McKinney 2013) [P].
    • North Carolina – N.C. GEN. STAT. § 115C-521.1 (2013).
    • Oklahoma – OKLA. STAT. tit. 61, §§ 212 to 213 (2013); OKLA. STAT. tit. 70, § 5-131.2 (2013).
    • Oregon – OR. REV. STAT. § 433.521 (2013).
    • Rhode Island – R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 37-24-1 to -6 (2013).
    • Tennessee – TENN. CODE ANN. § 49-2-121 (2013).
    • Texas – TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 385.001 to .003 (West 2013); TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §§ 1958.001 to .304 (West 2013).
    • Washington – WASH. REV. CODE §§ 70.162.005 to .900 (2013).
    • West Virginia – W. VA. CODE §§ 18-9E-1 to -5 (2013).
    • Wisconsin – WIS. STAT. § 118.075 (2013).

Lead

  • Nearly every state has a statute that mitigates lead risks, though most are predominately focused on reducing the risks of lead-based paint. However, most states fail to take into account the various methods of lead hazards (paint, pipes, etc.), and only a few states realize the importance of separate statutes to protect children. Of the states that specifically address children, most only address children up to age six.
  • Model Legislation: CAL. EDUC. CODE §§ 32240 to 32245 (West 2013).
    • Summary:
      • The Lead-Safe School Protection Act requires that the State Department of Health Services conduct a sample survey of public schools to develop risk factors and predict lead contamination.
      • It develops environmental lead testing methods and standards for use by schools and contractors.
      • The State Department of Health Services must evaluate current cost-effective lead abatement technology.
      • The act also requires that the State Department of Health Services work with the State Department of Education to develop voluntary guidelines for schools, requesting that they attempt to minimize lead hazards while doing school repair, maintenance, and abatement procedures.
      • The statute bans lead-based paint, lead plumbing and solders, and other potential sources of lead contamination in the construction of any new school facility or in the modernization or renovation of any existing school facility.
      • The act provides specific opportunities for funding.
    • Reasoning:
      • The Lead-Safe School Protection Act goes above and beyond the legislation in most states to specifically address lead related problems in school.
      • The statute calls for inter-branch cooperation and continued research, and even provides a source of funding for lead abatement in schools.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Alabama – ALA. CODE §§ 22-37a-1 to -9 (2013).
    • Alaska – ALASKA STAT. § 18.60.705 (2013).
    • Arizona – ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 36-1672 to -1676 (2013).
    • Arkansas – ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 20-27-601 to -608, -2501 to -2509 (2012).
    • Colorado – COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 25-5-1101 to -1104 (2013).
    • Connecticut – CONN. GEN. STAT. § 10-206 (2013) [P]; CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 8-219e, 10-282 (2013).
    • Delaware – DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, §§ 2601 to 2605 (2013).
    • District of Columbia – D.C. CODE §§ 8-231.01 to .08, .10 to .20 (2013).
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. § 381.006 (2013).
    • Georgia – GA. CODE ANN. §§ 31-41-10 to -19 (2013).
    • Hawaii – HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 342P-1 to -44 (2013).
    • Illinois – 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/1 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/2 (2013) [P]; 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/3-/6.1 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/6.2 (2013) [P]; 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/6.3-/7.1 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/7.2 (2013) [P]; 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/8 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/8.1-/8.2 (2013) [P]; 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/9-/10 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/11 (2013) [P]; 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/11.05 (2013); 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 45/11.1 to /11.2 (2013) [P]; 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 45/12-/17 (2013).
    • Indiana – IND. CODE §§ 16-41-39.8-1 to -15 (2013).
    • Iowa – IOWA CODE §§ 135.100 to .105(d) (2013).
    • Kansas – KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 65-1,200 to -1,213 (2012).
    • Louisiana – LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 30:2351 to :2351.59 (2012).
    • Maine – ME. REV. STAT. tit. 38, §§ 1291 to 1298 (2013).
    • Maryland – MD. CODE ANN., ENVIR. §§ 6-1001 to -1005 (West 2013); MD. CODE ANN., EDUC. § 7-403 (West 2013).
    • Massachusetts – MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 111, § 197E (2013).
    • Michigan – MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 333.5451 to .5474, .5474b (2013) [P]; MICH. COMP. LAWS § 333.5474c[1] (2013); MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 333.5475 to .5477 (2013) [P].
    • Minnesota – MINN. STAT. §§ 144.9501 to .9505, .9507 to .9509, .9512 (2013).
    • Mississippi – MISS. CODE ANN. § 49-17-519 (2013).
    • Missouri – MO. REV. STAT. §§ 701.300 to .302, .304 to .330, .334 to .349 (2013).
    • Nevada – NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 442.700, 444.350 (2011).
    • New Hampshire – N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 130-A:1 to :18 (2013).
    • New Jersey – N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 24:14A-5, 26:2Q-1 (West 2013); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 26:2Q-2 (West 2013) [P]; N.J. STAT. ANN. § 26:2Q-3 to -12 (West 2013).
    • New York – N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW §§ 1370 to 1370-c (McKinney 2013) [P]; N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW §§ 1370-d to 1372 (McKinney 2013); N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW § 1373 (McKinney 2013) [P]; N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW § 1374 (McKinney 2013); N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW § 1375 (McKinney 2013) [P]; N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW § 1376-a (McKinney 2013) [P].
    • North Carolina – N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 115C-521.1, 130A-131.5 to -131.9H (2013).
    • Ohio – OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 3742.01 to .10, .14 to .20 (West 2013); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 3742.30 to .33 (West 2013) [P]; OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 3742.34 to .50 (West 2013); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3742.51 (West 2013) [P]; OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3742.99 (West 2013).
    • Oregon – OR. REV. STAT. §§ 431.917 to .922, 701.505 to .520 (2013).
    • Pennsylvania – 35 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 5901 to 5916 (2013).
    • Puerto Rico – P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 12, § 8002c (2010).
    • Rhode Island – R.I. GEN. LAWS. §§ 23-24.6-1 to -27 (2013).
    • South Carolina – S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 44-53-1310 to -1320, -1350 to -1400, -1430 to -1460, -1480 to -1495 (2012).
    • Texas – TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 88.001 to .009 (West 2013).
    • Vermont – VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, § 1751 (2013) [P]; VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, §§ 1752 to 1753 (2013); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, § 1754 (2013) [P]; VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, §§ 1755 to 1767 (2013).
    • Virginia – VA. CODE ANN. § 32.1-46.1 (2013).
    • Washington – WASH. REV. CODE §§ 70.103.010 to .090 (2013).
    • West Virginia – W. VA. CODE §§ 16-35-1 to -13 (2013).
    • Wisconsin – WIS. STAT. §§ 254.11-.13, .15-.158, .162-.168, .172, .174-.182, .30 (2013).

Mercury

  • Most statutes ban mercury in some form, but the scope of each statute varies widely. Some states only ban mercury in thermometers while others ban mercury altogether in schools. Some states provide mitigation programs, the most comprehensive of which offer funding. Many of the mitigation programs, however, are only voluntary.
  • Model Legislation: MD. CODE ANN., ENVIR. § 6-906 (West 2013).
    • Summary:
      • The statute, in its entirety, states:
        “(a) Beginning October 1, 2003, no primary or secondary school, except for a school engaged in vocational training, may use or purchase for use elemental or chemical mercury in a primary or secondary classroom.
        (b) The Department shall provide outreach assistance to schools relating to the proper management, recycling, and disposal of mercury and mercury-added products.”
    • Reasoning:
      • This statute was chosen for its breadth and flexibility because it rids harmful mercury from primary and secondary schools while recognizing the importance of mercury in vocational training.
      • Maryland also provides education on how to manage and properly dispose of mercury, ensuring its risks are widely known.
  • Other Statutes:
    • California – CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25532 (West 2013).
    • Connecticut – CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 22a-612 to -627 (2013).
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. § 403.7186 (2013).
    • Illinois – 415 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/22.23b (2013).
    • Indiana – IND. CODE §§ 13-20-17.5-1 to -7 (2013).
    • Louisiana – LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 30:2575 (2012).
    • Maine – ME. REV. STAT. tit. 38, §§ 1661, 1661-C (2013).
    • Massachusetts – MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 21H, § 6G (2013).
    • Michigan – MICH. COMP. LAWS § 380.1274b (2013).
    • Minnesota – MINN. STAT. § 121A.33 (2013).
    • Nebraska – NEB. REV. STAT. § 28-1350 (2012).
    • New Hampshire – N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 149-M:53 (2013).
    • North Carolina – N.C. GEN. STAT. § 130A-310.60 (2013).
    • Ohio – OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3734.62 (West 2013).
    • Oregon – OR. REV. STAT. § 455.355 (2013).
    • Pennsylvania – 35 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6030.6 (2013).
    • Rhode Island – R.I. GEN. LAWS § 23-24.9-6 (2012).
    • Vermont – VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 10, § 7109 (2013).
    • Washington – WASH. REV. CODE §§ 70.95M.010, .040 (2013).
    • Wisconsin – WIS. STAT. § 118.07 (2013) [P].

Pesticides

  • Most statutes establish a notice program and many also have integrated pest management plans, which include when and how pesticides should be used.
  • Model Legislation: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 13:1F-19 to -33 (West 2013).
    • Summary:
      • New Jersey established a committee to develop a model school integrated pest management plan based upon EPA recommendations. Within 18 months, the schools must implement the committee’s integrated pest management plan.
      • New Jersey also requires that each school designate an integrated pest management coordinator to carry out the school’s integrated pest management plan.
      • Schools must also keep up-to-date and accurate records.
      • Each school will give annual notice to all parents or guardians of children attending a school, and staff members of a school or school district of all pesticides used on the schools premises. Notice is also to be provided 72 hours before pesticides are applied on school property.
      • The statute distinguishes between pesticides that can be applied during the school year and those that must be applied during the summer.
      • Lastly, it brings New Jersey into compliance with a number of EPA pesticide guidelines.
    • Reasoning:
      • The act provides a plethora of smart, attainable solutions.
      • The statute requires an approach that focuses on pesticide abatement and risk management at every level, and delegates duties to parties closest to the problem and most likely to have an interest in remedying the problem.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Arizona – ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15-152 (2013).
    • California – CAL. EDUC. CODE §§ 17608 to 17613 (West 2013).
    • Connecticut – CONN. GEN. STAT. § 10-231c (2013) [P].
    • District of Columbia – D.C. CODE §§ 8-431 to -440 (2013).
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. §§ 482.155, 1000.08 (2013).
    • Georgia – GA. CODE ANN. § 8-7-1 (2013).
    • Illinois – 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 235/10.2 (2013).
    • Indiana – 357 IND. ADMIN. CODE. §§ 1-16-1 to -9 (2013).
    • Louisiana – LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 3:3381 to :3389 (2012).
    • Maine – ME. REV. STAT. tit. 7, §§ 51 to 53-E, 53-H to 54, 56 to 59, 2422 (2013).
    • Maryland – MD. CODE ANN., AGRIC. § 5-208.1 (West 2013).
    • Massachusetts – MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, §§ 1 to 2 (2013) [P]; MASS. GEN. LAWS ch.132B, §§ 3 to 6 (2013); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, § 6A (2013) [P]; MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, §§ 6B to 6D (2013); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, § 6E (2013) [P]; MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, §§ 6F to 7 (2013); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, § 7A (2013) [P]; MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, §§ 8 to 9 (2013); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, § 10 (2013) [P]; MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, §§ 11 to 12 (2013); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, §§ 13 to 14 (2013) [P]; MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 132B, §§ 14A to 16 (2013).
    • Michigan – MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 324.8301 to .8306, .8307a to .8317, .8319 to .8336 (2013).
    • Minnesota – MINN. STAT. § 121A.30 (2013).
    • Mississippi – MISS. CODE ANN. § 37-11-71 (2012) [P/S].
    • Montana – MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 80-8-401 to -405 (2013).
    • New York – N.Y. EDUC. LAW § 409-h (McKinney 2013); N.Y. SOC. SERV. LAW § 390-g (McKinney 2013).
    • Oregon – OR. REV. STAT. §§ 634.700, 634.705 to .750 (2013).
    • Pennsylvania – 24 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 7-772.1, .2 (2013).
    • Rhode Island – R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 23-25-37, -38 (2013).
    • Texas – TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 1951.212 (West 2013).
    • Virginia – VA. CODE ANN. § 22.1-132.2 (2012).
    • Washington – WASH. REV. CODE §§ 17.21.410, .415 (2013).
    • West Virginia – W. VA. CODE §§ 19-16A-1 to -27 (2013).
    • Wisconsin – WIS. STAT. § 94.715 (2013).
    • Wyoming – WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-375 (2013).

Radon

  • The states with actual radon statutes provide that schools must be checked for radon. Most of these statutes delegate authority to various departments in the state and are overall vague.
  • Model Legislation: R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 23-61-1 to -12 (2012).
    • Summary:
      • The statute designates a unit within the Rhode Island Department of Health to administer the provisions of the Radon Control Act and provides that unit with the necessary staff, equipment, and funding. It also provides the unit the ability to issue regulations to accomplish the statute’s purpose.
      • It establishes a licensing program for screening, diagnosing, and mitigating radon poisoning.
      • “The director, or his or her designee, is authorized to inspect any public or high priority building, during business hours, or by appointment at another time agreed to by the inspector and the owner, occupant or other person in charge of the building.”
      • It establishes funding for the program, and incorporates a severability clause so if any part of the statute is unconstitutional, the rest will stand.
    • Reasoning:
      • It comprehensively mitigates radon in schools through notification, licensing, inspections, fees, use, and funding.
      • Regulation of private schools can be constitutionally difficult, thus the severability clause is crucial.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Connecticut – CONN. GEN. STAT. § 10-220 (2013) [P]; CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 10-231f, 19a-37b (2013).
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. § 404.056 (2013).
    • Illinois – 105 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/10-20.48 (2013); 420 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 44/20 (2013).
    • Iowa – IOWA CODE § 257.31 (2013) [P].
    • Kentucky – KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 211.9101 to .9135 (West 2012).
    • Maine – ME. REV. STAT. tit. 22, §§ 771 to 774 (2013).
    • Maryland – MD. CODE ANN., ENVIR. § 8-301 (West 2013) [P].
    • Michigan – MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 324.5501 to .5542 (2013).
    • Minnesota – MINN. STAT. § 123B.571 (2013).
    • Nebraska – NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 71-3501 to -3520 (2012) [P].
    • New Hampshire – N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 125:9, :15-a (2013).
    • New Jersey – N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 52:27D-123a to -123e (West 2013).
    • Ohio – OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3723.08 (West 2013).
    • Oregon – OR. REV. STAT. § 455.365 (2013).
    • Pennsylvania – 63 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 2001 to 2014 (2013).
    • Virginia – VA. CODE ANN. § 22.1-138 (2013) [P].
    • West Virginia – W. VA. CODE §§ 18-9E-1 to -3 (2013).
    • Wisconsin – WIS. STAT. § 254.34 (2013).

Smoking

  • Nearly every state has a statute that heavily regulates smoking in schools; most prohibit smoking in schools completely. States vary as to whether smoking is allowed on buses, whether smoking is prohibited in certain areas around the school, and how provisions should be enforced.
  • Model Legislation: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 17:240 (2012).
    • Summary:
      • “[N]o person shall smoke, chew, or otherwise consume any tobacco or tobacco product in any elementary or secondary school building.”
      • “Smoking shall be prohibited on any school bus transporting children attending any public elementary or secondary school.”
      • The governing body of each school determines the penalty, and the superintendent is the enforcer.
    • Reasoning:
      • The statute is the most progressive in eliminating smoking risks from schools. Not only does it ban smoking, but bans use of all tobacco products in schools and on buses.
      • The statute has an explicit definition, demonstrating the broad scope of the statute and avoiding any uncertainty as to what counts as a tobacco product.
      • It puts implementation mechanisms in the hands of those closest to the problem, which allows for flexibility and customization.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Alabama – ALA. CODE § 22-15A-6 (2013) [P].
    • Alaska – ALASKA STAT. § 18.35.305 (2013) [P].
    • American Samoa – AM. SAMOA CODE ANN. §§ 13.1301 to .1309 (2010).
    • Arizona – ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 36-601.01 (2013).
    • Arkansas – 2013 Ark. Acts 1099.
    • California – CAL. EDUC. CODE § 48901 (West 2013) [P].
    • Colorado – COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 25-14-103.5, -204 (2013).
    • Connecticut – CONN. GEN. STAT. § 19A-342 (2013) [P].
    • Delaware – DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 2903 (2013).
    • District of Columbia – D.C. CODE § 7-1701 (2013); D.C. CODE § 7-1702 (2013) [P]; 2012 D.C. Legis. Serv. 19-270.
    • Florida – FLA. STAT. § 386.209 (2013) [P]; FLA. STAT. § 386.212 (2013).
    • Georgia – GA. CODE ANN. § 31-12A-4 (2013).
    • Hawaii – HAW. REV. STAT. § 302A-102 (2013) [P].
    • Idaho – IDAHO CODE ANN. § 39-5503 (2013).
    • Illinois – 410 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 82/15 (2013).
    • Indiana – IND. CODE § 7.1-5-12-12 (2013).
    • Iowa – IOWA CODE § 142D.3 (2013) [P].
    • Kansas – KAN. STAT. ANN. § 72-53, 107 (2012).
    • Kentucky – KY. REV. STAT. § 438.050 (West 2012) [P].
    • Maine – ME. REV. STAT. tit. 22, § 1542 (2013) [P]; ME. REV. STAT. tit. 22, § 1578-B (2013).
    • Maryland – MD. CODE, HEALTH-GEN. § 24-504 (West 2013).
    • Massachusetts – MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 270, § 22 (2013) [P].
    • Michigan – MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 333.12601 to .12603 (2013) [P].
    • Minnesota – MINN. STAT. § 144.4165 (2013).
    • Mississippi – MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-32-29 (2013) [P].
    • Missouri – MO. REV. STAT. § 191.775 (2013) [P].
    • Montana – MONT. CODE ANN. § 20-1-220 (2013).
    • Nebraska – NEB. REV. STAT. § 71-5729 (2012).
    • Nevada – NEV. REV. STAT. § 202.2491 (2011).
    • New Hampshire – N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 155:66 (2013).
    • New Jersey – N.J. STAT. ANN. § 26:3D-58 (West 2013) [P].
    • New Mexico – N.M. STAT. ANN. § 24-16-4 (2013).
    • New York – N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW § 1399-o (McKinney 2013) [P].
    • North Carolina – N.C. GEN. STAT. § 115C-407 (2013).
    • Ohio – OHIO REV. CODE. ANN. § 3313.751 (West 2013).
    • Oklahoma – OKLA. STAT. tit. 63, § 1-1523 (2013) [P].
    • Oregon – OR. REV. STAT. § 433.845 (2013).
    • Pennsylvania – 35 PA. CONS. STAT. § 1223.5 (2013).
    • Puerto Rico – P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 24, § 892 (2010).
    • Rhode Island – R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 23-20.9-1 to -5, -7 to -11 (2013).
    • South Carolina – S.C. CODE ANN. § 44-95-20 (2013) [P]; S.C. CODE ANN. § 59-67-150 (2013).
    • Tennessee – TENN. CODE ANN. § 39-17-1604 (2013).
    • Texas – TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 38.006 (West 2013).
    • Utah – UTAH CODE ANN. § 26-38-3 (West 2012).
    • Vermont – VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 16, § 140 (2013).
    • Virgin Island – V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 19, § 1483 (2012).
    • Virginia – VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-2824 (2013) [P].
    • Washington – WASH. REV. CODE § 28A.210.310 (2013).
    • West Virginia – W. VA. CODE § 16-9A-4 (2013).
    • Wisconsin – WIS. STAT. § 101.123 (2013).

Tools for Schools

  • Few states have statutes that implement the EPA’s Tools for Schools program. Of those that do, most simply state their intention to comply with the program.
  • Model Legislation: CONN. GEN. STAT. § 4b-15b (2013).
    • Summary:
      • The relevant section of the statute states: “(a) Prior to acceptance of all or part of any building under a lease, lease renewal or purchase, where such premises are to be occupied by state employees or others, each state department shall provide for an inspection of the premises and shall develop a protocol for periodic assessment and remediation of indoor air quality issues in such facility. Such protocol shall include the best practices for commercial office space and shall include all applicable provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Program.”
      • The statute applies the EPA’s Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Program to all buildings which are occupied by state employees (which includes public school employees).
    • Reasoning:
      • The statute explicitly mentions and implements the EPA’s Tools for Schools Program.
  • Other Statutes:
    • Mississippi – MISS. CODE ANN. § 37-11-71 (2013) [P/S].
    • New Hampshire – N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 200:11-a (2013).
    • Tennessee – TENN. CODE ANN. § 49-2-121 (2013).
    • Texas – TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 42.352 (West 2013) [P].

Jump to main content.