California Bill May VOID HOA
Bans on Artificial Grass

Calif Assembly Bill 1793 –
introduced Feb 10, 2010 –
May Help Expand Market in California

Set Example for Other States

Promotes Water-Use Efficiency & Artificial Grass Turf Use

California has set the TREND for many milestones in the artificial

grass industry – if you do business in California or support those
who do business here – please step up to the plate on the following:

Assembly Bill 1793 has been introduced to the Calif Legislature by Assembly Member Lori Saldana and we can use your support in helping this important bill pass through the process

“This bill would provide that a provision of any of the governing documents of a common interest development would be void and unenforceable if it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass.”

We ask that you either send us an email and say that you’d like to add your Company and Contact name to our letter of support

OR you can use our letter as a template and write YOUR OWN

copy of letter here:
California’s Artificial Grass Bill Overturns HOA BANS on Use
http://www.asgi.us/ab.1793/AB1793_ASGi_Letter.pdf

Please email us – ASAP if you would like to add your contact information to OUR version of this letter – send your note to: A N N I E @ A S G I . U S

ALL ASGi members are strongly encouraged to participate and will get an additional request through your membership emails.
You only need to reply once …

Thank you, in advance, for your support of this IMPORTANT BILL!

All the best
Annie Costa
Exec Director
ASGi

Questions? – Give me a call at 530-432-5851

OR Contact the Honorable Lori Saldana’s office staff directly:

Erica Costa (no relation) erica.costa@asm.ca.gov

————
Annie Costa
Executive Director
ASGi

http://www.asgi.us

Toll-Free USA 888-705-8880
Direct: 530-432-5851
Cell: 530-237-7878
FAX: 530-432-5659

Join ASGi and Support Your Industry!
http://www.asgi.us/join

ASGi January 8, 2010 AB.1793, Calif State, HOAs, Legislation, Water Savings, lawsuits AB.1793, Artificial Grass, Artificial Grass Association, Artificial Grass Fields, artificial grass install guide, Artificial Grass Lawns, artificial turf, Market, synthetic grass, synthetic turf No Comments

Calif AG Strikes Agreement To Limit Lead (Pb) in Artificial Turf Grass Yarn From Crystal Products, AstroTurf & SynLawn

Brown Creates Nation’s First Enforceable Lead Standards for Artificial Turf Grass Yarns

OAKLAND-Fighting to ensure the safety of children’s playgrounds and ball fields, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed off on an agreement requiring Georgia-based AstroTurf, LLC, [Crystal Products Co., Inc. d/b/a SYNLawn, UGTH Equipment, LLC, General Sports Venue, LLC, and Synthetic Turf Resources, LLC (“Settling Defendants”), among the Defendants named in the complaint,] to virtually eliminate lead from its artificial grass, creating the country’s first enforceable lead standards for artificial turf products.

“As schools and daycare centers replace grass with artificial turf, extreme care must be taken to minimize lead exposure,” Brown said. “This agreement is the first of its kind and will help make playgrounds and ball fields safe for our children.”

In 2008, Brown filed suit against AstroTurf, Crystal Products, and SynLawn for excessive lead levels after testing by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found high levels in artificial turf products. Brown’s office independently tested AstroTurf and other artificial turf products and confirmed CEH’s findings. AstroTurf immediately took steps to begin reformulating its products.

Today’s consent judgment requires AstroTurf to reformulate its products so that they contain less than 100 parts per million (ppm), and to further reduce lead levels to 50 ppm by June 2010. Lab results found that some AstroTurf products contained more than 5,000 ppm lead. Lead was added to keep the colors vibrant over time. AstroTurf will be prohibited from selling any existing stock that doesn’t meet these standards.

AstroTurf will also provide a grant of $60,000 to the Public Health Trust to fund “wipe testing” of dislodgeable lead on artificial turf fields at daycare centers, schools and public playing fields in California. If the level of dislodgeable lead exceeds the specified replacement level, AstroTurf will provide replacement turf to the daycare center, school or public field at no cost.

AstroTurf will also provide a mailed warning to all customers who purchased its products in California in the past five years. The warning will (1) inform customers that the turf products contain lead; (2) explain “good maintenance practices” that can effectively reduce exposures to lead; and (3) advise the customers of the availability of the program to test and replace old turf products. AstroTurf will also establish a website to provide information to the public on lead content in its products.

The Los Angeles City Attorney and Solano County District Attorney joined Brown in the case against AstroTurf. In addition to its obligation to replace products that exceed acceptable lead levels, the company will pay $170,000 in civil penalties, grants and attorney fees.

“Today’s agreement with AstroTurf sets a strong standard for other companies who have not yet agreed to eliminate lead risks to children from turf,” said CEH Executive Director Michael Green. “Lead is a stunningly toxic chemical that has no place in playing fields for children. We applaud the Attorney General, the LA City Attorney, the Solano County DA and AstroTurf for this accord to protect California’s children.”

For More Information Please Contact Calif AG’s office at:
(916) 324-5500

Download a copy of the PROP 65 Consent Judgment HERE

ASGi August 14, 2009 ASTM, Artificial Turf Yarn Fibers, Bans of Turf, CDC Info, CPSC, Calif State, Crumb Rubber, EPA, Health & Environment, Infill Solutions, Lead & Heavy Metals, OSHA, PE & PP Yarn Fibers, PP Yarn Fibers, Parks & Rec, Prop 65, Testing, cpsia, lawsuits, standards Add new tag, Artificial Grass, Artificial Grass Association, Artificial Grass Fields, artificial grass install guide, artificial turf, Artificial Turf Georgia, artificial turf information, Artificial Turf Market, california, Field Related Info, hazards, heavy metals, Prop 65 Artificial Turf Settlement, synthetic grass, synthetic turf, Synthetic Turf Council, Testing No Comments

Why Would You Test Artificial Turf Yarns for Lead?

CLICK a Heading for PAGE LINK:

Why Would I Test for Lead Content

in Artificial Turf and Synthetic Grass Yarn Fibers ?

Professional designers, architects and builders know that Material Safety Data Sheets, warranties, guarantees and terms and conditions are generally required as part of your response to a bid proposal for:

public works projects
commercial projects
developments
municipal projects

You may need to provide test results …

In your bid response to the above
For records for employee safety – see OSHA and OSH guidelines and you may have special requirements to meet; one is knowing the composition of your materials, two is disclosing the exposure to your employees three is having safety meetings to discuss this information and the fourth is having records of that information on file and available in the event of need.
Your fire department will need to know of the materials stored in case of fire, keep a set of data off site
Your building, fire, liability and health insurance carriers may require this information to underwrite an appropriate policy, to cover you for all liabilities

TESTING STANDARDS

Type of Tests for Lead (Pb) in Artificial Turf and Synthetic Grass

Though ASTM is working diligently on publishing a voluntary standard test protocol, the artificial turf market, today, does not have a specific test used or required. There are no industry, product specific rules, standards, regulations or bans that cite artificial turf and synthetic grass must comply to – however – there are out door and indoor surface standards that are always considered. Lead in soils in playground areas (EPA 400ppm), lead in paint (CPSA, CPSIA – 600ppm for consumer products; Children’s Products >Feb 2009 = 300ppm, with further reductions to follow), to name two.

How do I Read the Results of a Test?

Sample Conversion:

Parts Per Million (ppm) to milograms per kilogram (mg/Kg) to % of weight

6000 ppm = 6000 mg/Kg = 0.60 % by weight

600 ppm = 600 mg/Kg = 0.06% by weight

60 ppm = 60 mg/Kg = 0.006% by weight

6 ppm = 6 mg/Kg = 0.0006 % by weight

TYPES OF TESTS

Total Lead Content (“Digestive”) Tests are performed on a small sample of finished fibers. Approximately 1 to 3 ounces of yarn fibers are needed of each type of blade represented in the finished goods sample. The fibers are “digested” in specific acids and other chelating agents – results are analyzed and the total amount of lead present in the materials is the stated finding. Results can vary from non-detectable levels (>10ppm) to results that are stated in the thousands of parts per million.

Results are generally cited by the following:

parts per million
micrograms per kilo gram
% of weight

Results of common NIOSH test protocols to determine total lead content contained within the materials being tested will include all encapsulated lead chromate and other lead compounds, regardless of their type – it doesn’t tell you if the lead is “available”, “accessible” or “absorbable”, just that it is there.

Common test protocols used in most of the studies and results cited have been “digestive” tests that are standards developed by NIOSH and air quality tests, developed by the EPA. For total lead content the NIOSH 3050/6010 is often used because it is a very aggressive digestive test that will provide usable information when determining how much lead could be “available”, “accessible” or “absorbed” during exposure to new and even older materials.

For the future, any product designed and marketed to children, under the age of 12, will also be required to only cite Total Lead Content and the CPSC has an aggressive reduction schedule ALL industries are conforming to, starting Feb 10, 2009. [to keep up to date - register for CPSC/CPSIA Portal Pages here]

Wipe Test Results are cited by the amount of lead dust found on the surfaces of materials sampled – not what might be “inside” the materials, but available ON the surface materials that could be wiped off; on to clothing, skin, etc – so, in theory, a material can have a total lead content of 600ppm and yet findings on the results from a standard wipe test might show a different amount could be wiped off, if any lead wipes off, at all. This test does NOT tell you what type of lead dust is found, just that an amount is there, on the surfaces.

The standard wipe test used to determine surface lead has been the NIOSH 9100b. Because there are so many variables in the test data aquisition (how many wipes, in what direction, how hard did the tester press down) – wipe tests results don’t often offer a complete finding. High results for lead content here would demand a closer look with the more aggressive Total Lead Content test, mentioned above

XRF – X-Ray Florescence technology is able to take readings of how much of any heavy metal a sample might contain, without the use of damaging any materials. The “XRF unit”, which looks like a hand-held computer with a handle) can determine the approximate total lead content contained within the sample by simply taking a reading, under the appropriate conditions, reflected off the surfaces of the materials.

XRF technology, again, much like a wipe test, has mixed results due to the variables in aquiring sample data and a high lead content finding with XRF technology would warrant doing further review on the materials.

More on LEAD TESTING HERE

CDC Publishes Preliminary Lead Test
Methods FACT SHEET

CPSIA, GCC, COC, Certificates of Conformity and other important topics, links, RSS feed, and other valuable resources are all available (at no cost for the general public) by registering for ASGi’s CPSIA Portal Pages HERE

============================================================

UPDATES on Lead – and the Artificial Turf and Synthetic Grass Market

Ten Cate Thiolon Announces Lead-Free Artificial Turf Yarns

Californians: Current Proposition 65 and Artificial Turf Info:
- Update 08-06-08 regarding California’s AGs assessment and lead exposure and key artificial turf market violations status
- Information on Proposition 65 – FAQs
  - OEHHA Proposition 65 – In Plain Language
  - Calif Attorney General’s Enforcement Site
  - CDC Publishes Preliminary Lead Test
    Methods FACT SHEET Lead, Unsafe At Any Level:
    World Health Organization Bulletin – 2002
    
    Gavaghan, Helen
    Lead, unsafe at any level. Bulletin of the World Health Organization
    2002, vol.80, n. 1, ISSN 0042-9686.

Lead Testing:
- Basic info and common testing methods & resources
- Why test your artificial grass and synthetic turf for lead?

Lead Exposure in US Markets:
- EPA – Lead exposure in children: HERE
- Frequently Asked Questions (ASTDR response – PDF download)
  RE: Dangers of Lead Exposure at Home and Work
- Environmental Health Perspectives (2002): Lead, Pollution & our children’s health
- Mt. Sinai, Center for Children’s Environmental Health: Lead presentation – Dr. Landrigan
- Why environmental health professionals are concerned about lead in artificial grass and other products, specifically around children – Video 1 and Video 2
- Lead and its links to: ADHD, ADD in children and hyper tension in adults
- Lead and its links to: Risks to reproductive systems in children, childhood cancer

CDC Lead Alert:
- Guidelines for regular clean up after exposure for those installing or using artificial turf or synthetic grass that contains lead in excess of minimum standards of exposure – USA National = approx. 400 to 600ppm; Calif = 100ppm.

Types of Lead:
- Natural Occurring, Compounds, Encapsulation

Lead in Artificial Turf Fibers – FAQs:
- what kind and how much is found in artificial grass fiber materials

Info on Encapsulation and Bio-Availability:
- Washington State Univ – Report on Bio-availability of lead chromate – 1991
- New Jersey Follow Up Study – May 2008 – see public downloads library here

Recent national, state and agency tests, reports, etc:
- CPSC Announcement and Assessment: July 2008
- NY Artificial Turf Surface Test Assessment and Study – May 2008

ASGi December 24, 2008 Artificial Turf Yarn Fibers, General Conformity Certificate (GCC), Lead & Heavy Metals, lawsuits artificial turf, crumb rubber infill, Field Related Info, hazards, lead, new york, parks, Pb, synthetic grass No Comments

Chicago Community Park Association Sues Over “Lead in Artificial Turf Field”

Chicago watchdog group – Protect Our Parks – POP – HAS instigated a law suit against local officials on the basis of the characteristics of components of the artificial turf crumb rubber infill. (see links below)

The original lawsuit, filed on or around April 14, 2008, was based upon a series of issues revolving around the way the defendants in the case had gone about contracting for the construction of the field – that it was made without proper notice, proper building permits and the possible limit of the use of the field to the public.” Copy of the first complaint HERE (April 16 – 2008)

POP alleges that the defendants have totally ignored the recent safety warning from U.S. Center for Disease Control that cautioned persons exposed to existing artificial turf fields not eat or drink anything on the field, shower and scrub vigorously after play, turn their clothes inside out and launder separately from other clothing, and leave their shoes out of doors, all to limit the exposure to the contaminants in the dust emitted from the turf fields.

POP alleges that the Park District and Latin School have disregarded all warnings and made no effort to conduct independent tests of either the soil, ambient air, or the turf product, before picking the site solely for its convenience to the Latin School, located at the edge of the park, which is used by Latin as a virtually private play field.

The second lawsuit alleges that the installation of this artificial turf product is in violation of the Chicago Lead Bearing Substances Ordinance, and asks for an immediate Injunction preventing its installation. NEW POP Complaint is posted HERE (Oct 14, 2008)

—————————————————-

Original Press Release about the first complaint – PDF Available HERE

First complaint HERE (April 16 – 2008)
First Legal Fact Sheet – HERE

New Complaint is posted HERE (Oct 14, 2008)
New Press Release is posted HERE

——————————————————-

Original Headline:

Group claims controversial Lincoln Park soccer field is toxic

October 14, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS

A project to build a controversial Lincoln Park soccer field that was approved in August despite opposition from neighbors was hit with another stumbling block Tuesday.

Protect Our Parks, a not-for-profit corporation, and Eurydice Chrones, a Lincoln Park resident, filed a three-count lawsuit claiming the soccer field is toxic because the field’s artificial turf contains lead.

The suit claims lead is a toxic metal and the primary users of the field, infants and children, would be particularly susceptible to lead’s toxic effect.

The suit seeks to stop the construction of the artificial field at the south end of the park and to order the removal of all artificial turf on the field. The field is located at 1840 N. Cannon Dr.

The community group has already lost several battles with the Chicago Park District and The Latin School of Chicago over the field at the south end of the park.

The community group previously attempted to get the Park District to return the soccer field to its original meadow-like state, but instead the Park District voted to keep building the soccer field.

The community group also claimed the Park District didn’t factor in opposition from community residents about building the field, and the community group was not given enough time to challenge the Park District’s decision to go ahead with the project.

The suit Tuesday claims artificial turf, which is comprised of rubber tire crumbs, can cause serious health problems for children and adults when the chemical compounds are released into the air and ground water.

The suit claims the Park District and Latin School of Chicago have failed to design a drainage system that protects Lake Michigan. The field lies adjacent to Lake Shore Drive, and is designed to drain and discharge all runoff directly into Lake Michigan without treatment or waste processing.

The suit names multiple defendants including the Latin School of Chicago, Park District, Gery J. Chico, President, Board of Commissioners, Chicago Plan Commission, city of Chicago, Suzanne Malec-McKenna, Commissioner, Chicago Department of Environment, Sadhu Johnston, Commissioner for Environmental Issues, FieldTurf USA, Inc., a Florida Corporation, among others.