[ back ]
BUTLER - Artificial turf study allays fears
(by Stephen Janoski - Staff Writer - August 06, 2008)
BUTLER - A recently released report by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may ease the public’s fears over the safety of artificial turf fields such as the one proposed to be built on Memorial Field in Butler. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to begin its own study in a few weeks and the state health department is conducting its review of the CPSC findings.
A three-question Sept. 30 referendum is being held on the proposed improvements to three fields in the borough. Upgrading Memorial Field to an artificial field turf composes the second question and would cost the borough about $600,000.
Board of Education members have stated that with the increased usage of the borough’s fields, a turf field would greatly benefit the school system’s children, who would be able to use the surface all year without fear of destroying the grass.
However, concerns about the safety of artificial fields have been widespread. Several states have tested the chemicals making up the turf, specifically the lead content in the pigment used to vary the colors on the field.
Citizens have been especially concerned about children playing on these fields, as they are particularly susceptible to the maladies associated with prolonged exposure to high levels of lead.
CPSC test
Hoping to allay these fears, the CPSC concluded in a July 30 report that “young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in these fields.”
New fields were found to have “no lead, or generally the lowest lead levels,” the report said.
“Although small amounts of lead were detected on the surface of some older fields, none of these tested fields released amounts of lead that would be harmful to children,” the report concluded.
Concerns about the safety of the artificial fields arose after random tests of older Newark and Hoboken fields found questionable levels of lead in fibers making up the turf.
The CPSC used a “wipe test” to calculate the risk, which involves dragging a 15-centimeter, square wipe moistened with de-ionized water over a length of turf and then analyzing the wipe. Each value was divided by five to make up the difference between the absorption powers of a hand versus a wipe, then further divided by two to account for loss of lead residue that would likely happen when children are outside.
Julie Vallese, senior spokesperson for the CPSC, stated that the agency tested for lead that leaches out of the field and is available for exposure.
“The CPSC did not find any levels through our evaluations that we’d consider harmful to children,” said Vallese.
She went on to say older fields tested the highest for lead, but those levels were still “below what would be deemed unsafe.”
Butler Board of Education member Andrew Knapp was glad to hear about the study.
“Good. The whole thing was crazy. New Jersey’s the only state doing this, and I don’t think there’s been one case of anyone getting sick from these fields,” said Knapp.
EPA involvement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spokesperson Dale Kemery said that the federal agency has not conducted its own study and could not comment on a study done by another agency.
However, an EPA study is set to begin within the next two weeks that will test samples from four locations across the country to test possible contamination not only by lead, but also by 31 other chemicals found in tires.
“This is a first glimpse into whether there’s a problem or not. We’re going to take a look. This is to see if we need a bigger investigation,” Kemery said.
The EPA will take samples of the air 3 feet above the fields to see if vapors are seeping out of the turf and into the atmosphere. It will also conduct wipe tests of the turf itself, in similar fashion to the CPSC, to see if any of the chemicals present a danger either through skin contact or ingestion.
Results of the study are expected by early fall.
However, Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, has little faith in either the CPSC or the EPA to conduct a reliable test.
“These are the same people that couldn’t find the lead in children’s toys coming from China,” he said. “Every agency at the federal level has been so twisted and stacked with pro-industry people that I don’t trust them. I’ve got real concerns.”
Tittel said that if the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) pronounced the fields safe, he would feel more at ease.
“I’d have more assurance then,” he said. “I don’t have any with the CPSC’s report.”
He claimed that for now, following the “precautionary principle” would be best — “Don’t do harm,” and don’t lay down other fields yet.
Bob Norman, a Butler resident, also remains concerned.
“No one is making mention of the rubber crumbs that make up the base of the fields,” Norman said. “They’re only testing the grass blades themselves, not the base that the fields are made of.”
Dawn Thomas, spokeswoman for the NJDHSS, conceded that the department’s tests focused on the fibers of the blades themselves. However, she also said that the department’s scientists are reviewing the CPSC study, and the results seem to mirror their own.
“At first glance, the CPSC study does support the statement that we were making all along, which was that the DHSS concern was for the older fields that had degradation, which created a dust that contained lead and that represented a potential cumulative exposure,” stated the NJDHSS in writing.
While the department maintains that children should continue to wash their hands after playing on the fields, it also stated that it never called for fields to be closed.
“Our primary concern was for children under 7 because their young brains are still developing,” the NJDHSS said. “It was a concern about the cumulative impact of all lead in the environment.”
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) spokeswoman Karen Hershey said that the state agency was looking at and evaluating the report. She also said the DEP was certainly interested in the issue, as well as the DHSS findings.
Green light for Butler?
The upgrade to Memorial Field is the second question on the borough’s Sept. 30 referendum. Residents could accept or reject the artificial turf field with no impact on other proposed measures.
School Board President Rosemarie Lakawicz was encouraged by the findings and hopes the results ease people’s minds.
“This is a controversial issue, but I think that the scare brought everything to a head with the manufacturers, and they’re going to be more diligent with what they use. It brought a lot of good attention to this,” she said.
“The Board of Education is going to make sure that there is no nylon in our product. These agencies have said that this is not a risk, so we’re going to move forward on it,” she said.
“I don’t know if this will make any ‘no’ votes on the referendum change, but the lead issue was a good excuse,” she said.
However, Lakawicz said that should the EPA (or other agency) take issue with the fields, the board would drop its plans.
“If the EPA comes out with a differing report that had irrefutable evidence that this was going to kill our kids, we would not do it,” said Lakawicz.
Interim Superintendent of Schools Elaine Baldwin agreed.
“They’re a third party at the federal level, and they’re saying it’s safe. Of course, our standards and state standards may differ, so it will be interesting to see what the state says after reviewing it. But I hope this allays some of the fears that people have,” said Baldwin.
She went on to say that the board will monitor the situation and subsequent reports, and that the board will “continue to do everything to ensure that the kids are safe.”
[ back ]
