Keavany: Put moratorium on synthetic turf

June 06. 2016 11:51PM

There has been much discussion and a great deal of heated rhetoric lately regarding the use of synthetic turf (comprised of monofilament carpet with tired derived “crumb rubber” infill) in Medway. Those in favor argue that synthetic turf is a cost effective alternative to natural grass. However those opposed to synthetic turf are very concerned about the long-term effects that these materials may have on our children. To date limited studies on synthetic turf have estimated that any potential release of toxic chemicals would be “below the levels of concern.”
On February 12, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) launched a multi-agency action plan to study key environmental human health questions related to crumb rubber exposure. In April 2016 a group of concerned parents from Medway got together and filed a citizens petition (Article 1) which would put a three-year moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf with crumb rubber infill in the town. Their goal is to obtain more information about the long term effects of tire derived crumb rubber infill and its potential effects on the children that play on these fields.
For the record I am not a scientist, researcher or doctor. I am simply a concerned parent of three school-aged children (10, 9 and 5 years of age) who play sports regularly. I do not know what the results of the EPA study will be but I see NO downside to approving a temporary halt of any further installation of tire derived crumb rubber until we have a better idea of the long term impact to our children.
On Thursday, June 9, the residents of Medway will vote on Article 1, which will put a 3-year moratorium on the engineering, planning, construction or installation of any synthetic turf (monofilament carpet with tire derived infill). What does this mean? Voting YES on the article only affects the future use of tire-derived crumb rubber, nothing more. Existing fields can still be used and public parks projects can still move forward using alternative materials. I urge all Medway residents to vote YES on Article 1 to allow the EPA the time to research this topic more extensively.
LUKE KEAVANY
Medway

http://www.milforddailynews.com/article/20160606/OPINION/160607119

Will California Play Fair with Synthetic Turf?

California has been passed the ball -- to conduct a realistic and credible study of tire crumb synthetic turf.
Does the government have what it takes?
​The following is a chronicling of its progress, (and history):

SYNTHETIC TURF, the facts + the history

Nov 9, 2015 @ 09:07 AM 2,821 views

EPA Misses Congressional Deadline For Artificial Turf Safety Response

Mike Ozanian

Forbes Staff

Traffic cop at the intersection of money and sports

A worker displays crumb rubber for a photograph at the Emterra Tire Recycling facility in Brampton, Ontario, Canada,Photographer: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg

Two weeks ago, the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator looking for more information about the safety of crumb rubber fields. The deadline for the response was November 6. 
The EPA failed to adhere to the deadline. On Friday, EPA spokesperson Liz Purchia told NBC News that the agency was “in the process of responding” to the Energy Committee’s list of questions.
After the congressional letter was sent to the EPA, two senators urged federal officials to lead an “independent investigation into the health risks of crumb rubber” turf, a surface made of recycled tires used on playgrounds and athletic fields across the country, according to NBC. The full letter can be seen here.
Democratic senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Bill Nelson of Florida sent a letter to Chairman Elliot Kaye of the Consumer Product Safety Commission asking the CPSC to “devote additional resources to conclusively determine whether these products can be safely played on by young children and people of all ages.”
In May, Kaye testified before congress regarding the CPSC’s stance on the stance on the safety of artificial turf. His response to representative Pallone is incredible. He basically says that a 2008 report that said crumb rubber used in artificial turf field “is safe” did not mean to convey to parents that the turf fields “were safe to play on.” and that the 2008 report does not reflect the CPSC’s current views. You can watch his testimony below.

Recommended by Forbes

But the CPSC seems to be moving in the opposite direction of what congress and the senate would like. Last week, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals, reported that the CPSC has decided not to enforce toxic lead limits required by law for children’s products in artificial turf playgrounds, and that  the CPSC has been unable to supply a cogent explanation for this action, even in the face of litigation demanding relevant records. 

http://turfgrassforum.blogspot.com/2016/06/rep-pallones-questions-during-cmt-cpsc.html
 

Kaye’s testimony is consistent with a letter the CPSC sent to senator Elizabeth Warren in July in response to questions the Town of Medway Board of Health regarding crumb rubber in artificial turf. In part, the letter to senator Warren says “the agency is not in a position to comment on the potential health risks from crumb rubber infill on artificial surfaces.”

But the letter also says, “Regarding the Town of Medway Board of Health’s reference to a review study of crumb rubber, in 2013, CPSC staff informed PEER that our Office of Compliance wold undertake a review and determine whether any enforcement action was appropriate regarding the issue. Upon further exploration, Compliance staff concluded, at that time, specific product enforcement was unlikely to be the best option, based upon the need for individual health assessments.”
So what the agency said in 2008 doesn’t mean artificial turf is safe. But the CPSC also won’t say that turf is not safe. And they don’t have, nor are they likely to ever have, enough information to rule on the safety of artificial turf.
The House and Senate need answers.

FULL ARTICLE ON FORBES website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/11/09/epa-misses-congressional-deadline-for-artificial-turf-safety/#421ebe539cb2