An Act requiring indoor contamination assessment certifications and environmental quality certifications of child day-care centers; providing for powers and duties of the Department of Health, the Dep . . .artment of Environmental Protection and the Department of Human Services; establishing the Child Day-Care Center Grant Program; and imposing penalties.
HB335, the Child Day-Care Center Protection Act, would add new licensing prerequisites for anyone seeking to open a child day-care center in Pennsylvania. Before licensure, an applicant would have to obtain a municipal certification stating whether the proposed site was previously used by a “high-hazard business” such as a nail salon, dry cleaner, gasoline station, or funeral home. If the site had such a prior use, the applicant would then need an indoor contamination assessment certification from the Department of Health and an environmental quality certification from the Department of Environmental Protection showing the property has been remediated under the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act.
The bill is aimed at protecting children from exposure to contamination in buildings that were formerly used for hazardous commercial purposes, especially in older structures or sites with industrial histories. It would not apply to child day-care centers that are already operating and licensed under the Human Services Code, so the new requirements would primarily affect new applicants and new facilities. The bill also directs the Department of Human Services to deny licensure if the required certifications are not completed and submitted.
HB335 would also create a Child Day-Care Center Grant Program within the Department of Environmental Protection to help offset the costs of inspection, testing, and certification. Funding would come from appropriations through the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund, and the bill authorizes the Department of Health, DEP, and DHS to adopt regulations to carry out the law. It further establishes civil penalties for violations, including false statements or misrepresentations in required filings, with fines up to $25,000 for a first offense and $50,000 for later offenses, plus separate penalties for continuing violations.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly protective of children’s health and safety, emphasizing environmental risks in child care settings and the Commonwealth’s responsibility to prevent exposure to contamination. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate or formal voting pattern to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. Based on the bill’s framing, its sponsors appear to be advancing a public-health and environmental-safety measure rather than a controversial regulatory expansion.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the added licensing burden on prospective child care operators, the cost and time required to obtain multiple certifications, and the scope of the “high-hazard business” definition, which includes common commercial uses such as nail salons and dry cleaners. Another possible issue is administrative complexity, since the bill assigns roles to three state agencies and requires municipal verification, remediation review, and enforcement procedures. Supporters would likely emphasize child safety and contamination prevention, while critics may focus on compliance costs and delays for opening new centers.
HB335 would amend Pennsylvania’s child day-care licensing framework by adding environmental screening and certification requirements for new child day-care center applicants under Article X of the Human Services Code. It would also expand the operational roles of the Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of Human Services, while creating a grant program funded through the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund to help cover inspection, testing, and certification costs. The bill would not impose these new certification requirements on already licensed and operating centers.
The bill’s overall tone is precautionary and child-protective, with the stated goal of preventing exposure to contamination in child care facilities and ensuring safer environments for young children. No committee discussion or vote history is available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and sponsorship context. The measure appears designed to appeal to public-health and environmental-safety concerns.
Likely areas of contention include the cost and administrative burden placed on new child care providers, especially small operators, and whether the certification process could slow the opening of needed child care slots. The breadth of the “high-hazard business” category may also draw scrutiny because it includes relatively common businesses such as nail salons and dry cleaners, potentially triggering additional review for many properties. Another possible dispute is whether the grant program and state agency coordination are sufficient to offset the new compliance requirements.