Fibers | Artificial Grass & Synthetic Lawn Industry INFO

CT Congresswoman and Atty General – CPSC Artificial Turf Evaluation Flawed

CT Attorney General Calls Synthetic Turf Study Dangerously Deceptive, Urges Its Removal And Revision

August 19, 2008

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today called on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to immediately remove and revise a report on its website that may dangerously and deceptively mislead citizens into believing that artificial turf has been proven safe.

Get full release here

DeLauro Takes CPSC to Task on Findings in Hastily Compiled and Flawed Report

August 08, 2008:

Washington, DC: Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3) sent a letter to Nancy A. Nord, acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, questioning the agency’s recently issued report on lead in synthetic turf fields and pressing for a thorough investigation. While the agency declared the fields safe, its conclusions, which were issued so hastily that even the synthetic turf industry was surprised at how quickly they were compiled, appear to be based on flawed methodology and less than sound science.

“It is my understanding that the methodology used in the CPSC study may have been flawed. As such, the report’s conclusion may have been premature, providing less than adequate rationale to conclude that children are safe from exposure to lead when playing on these fields, or that the fields are safe overall, given the numerous other chemicals that may be found in synthetic turf and the crumb rubber of which it is largely composed,” DeLauro writes in the letter. “Clearly, additional study is needed before synthetic turf fields can definitively be declared safe.”

Read Letter HERE

ASGi August 19, 2008 Artificial Turf Yarn Fibers, CPSC, Field Related Info, Grass Surface Info, Health & Environment, Heat, Industry News, Infill Solutions, Lead & Heavy Metals , artificial turf health risks, blumenthal, CPSC, delauro, fibers, hazards of crumb rubber infill, lead, outgassing and synthetic grass, PAHs, sports fields, Yarns No Comments

Calif Artificial Turf Installer – FAQs regarding Prop 65 and Synthetic Grass

Q – You currently have inventory and you think or are positive that it contains lead.

Consider getting a total lead test from a California Certified Testing Lab to verify the lead content and keep the reports on record – most labs will do this, confidentially, for under $100 and it requires very few fibers. If your products remain the same, consistent formulation, retesting materials should be done, intermittently, to insure your products will continue to meet or exceed safe harbor limits

You can request to return the materials under the terms and conditions set forth in your agreements with your materials supplier.

You can sell it in the State of California as long as you post and disclose the above warning IF the total lead content or wipe test results exceed, approximately 100ppm. If the results of a total lead test are 100ppm or lower, you know your products will meet safe harbor limits here in California and no further disclosure is required.

You can sell the materials outside the state.

Q – You want to specify and/or purchase and import artificial grass or synthetic turf to use, resell and install in California

To avoid any possible notices of violation, specify fibers that will not exceed the safe harbor provision of California’s Proposition 65 Daily Exposure limits (1/2 microgram per day – approximately 100ppm)

You should request a Total Lead Content Test be completed by a California Certified Testing Lab for verification and proof of documentation to be delivered with your materials order (tests are relevant only to the materials tested) – if the Total Lead Content exceeds 100ppm, you should also request a wipe test, for your records, if the materials are installed and used in the state.

Ask that these tests are provided to you for every dye lot, color and resin type of fiber present in your finished surface materials. If the formulation of the products do not change, a set of test results for a product specification, kept on file, should be adequate, for product styles that are consistent. All special orders for yarns should include a Total Lead Content test, per dye lot, as well. If you handle materials that exceed the safe harbor number, regardless of your company’s size, a WARNING is required to be posted and disclosed to all employees. OSHA safety standards (OSHA and any CDC Health and Safety Alerts DO Apply).Review the recently released CDC: Health Alert here.

———– Directly from Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ————-

Q: I recently bought a product that came with a Proposition 65 warning.

How do I find out more about the warning and the chemicals in the product?

A: Businesses are not required to provide OEHHA with any information regarding their Proposition 65 warnings. To receive more information about the chemicals of concern and the levels of exposure related to a particular product’s use, one should contact the manufacturer of the product. The decision to provide a Proposition 65 warning is made by the respective business based upon its knowledge of the types of chemical exposures it is responsible for causing to individuals. A business is not required to notify our office or any other regulatory agency when it decides to provide a warning.

Because we do not know why a business has chosen to provide a warning, we generally cannot respond to specific questions regarding the safety of a product’s use, why a warning is being given, for which listed chemical the warning is being given, how long the chemical exposures have been occurring, and at what level a chemical exposure is occurring. The responses to these exposure questions should be obtained from the business.

The list of chemicals subject to Proposition 65 is available at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html.

Q. Are any businesses exempt from Proposition 65?

A. Yes. Small businesses with less than 10 employees, governmental agencies, and public water systems are exempt from the warning requirement and discharge prohibition of Proposition 65. This is addressed in the definition for “person in the course of doing business” in section 25249.11(b) of the Health and Safety Code, which states, “‘Person in the course of doing business’ does not include any person employing fewer than 10 employees in his or her business; any city, county, or district or any department or agency thereof or the state or any department or agency thereof or the federal government or any department or agency thereof; or any entity in its operation of a public water system as defined in Section 4010.1.”

Q: Are governmental agencies exempt from the disclosure requirement under Proposition 65?

A: No. Designated governmental employees, as the term is used in Government Code Section 82019, are required to disclose illegal and threatened illegal discharges of hazardous waste to the local Board of Supervisors and the local health officer. Additional information about the disclosure requirement is available in a fact sheet at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/P65Facts.html .

Q: As a business, how do I know if I need to provide a Proposition 65 warning?

A: The statute states that “no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state (California) to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning…” Based upon your knowledge of your business operations and chemicals used, you should review the Proposition 65 list at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html and determine which chemicals would likely be involved in exposures to individuals.

OEHHA has established safe harbor levels (levels of exposure that trigger the warning requirement) for some, but not all, listed chemicals. Businesses that cause exposures greater than the safe harbor level must provide Proposition 65 warnings. These safe harbor levels are available in the February 2008 Status Report available at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/Feb2008StatusRpt.pdf . Over time, we expect to adopt additional safe harbor numbers as explained in the report.

[* For lead, the target safe harbor daily exposure level for ALL exposure risk is 1/2 microgram per day.]

If there is no safe harbor level for a chemical, businesses that knowingly expose individuals to that chemical would generally be required to provide a Proposition 65 warning, unless the business could show that risks of cancer or reproductive harm resulting from the exposure would be below levels specified in Proposition 65 and its accompanying regulations. Determining health risks is very complex, and we recommend that businesses consult a qualified professional if they believe an exposure to a listed chemical may not require a Proposition 65 warning.

Q: Can you send me the Proposition 65 signs that businesses are required to post?

A: We do not have Proposition 65 warning signs. Businesses are responsible for providing clear and reasonable warnings. The form, content and suggested language for some Proposition 65 warnings can be found in regulation in Title 27, Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 25601 ( http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/RegsArt6.pdf ).

Q. What is the acceptable concentration in my product for chemicals listed under Proposition 65*?

A. Under Proposition 65, there are no acceptable concentrations established for any listed chemical in any given product. An exposure that causes a significant risk of harm from a listed chemical through the use of a product would trigger the warning requirement, not merely the fact that a listed chemical is present in a product. The concentration of a listed chemical would certainly factor into the level of exposure that would result from an individual using a given product. But concentration alone is not sufficient to determine if warnings are required.

———- to continue to investigate this subject on your own – follow these links ————–

ASGI Members Only Conf Call – July 31 – Lead in Fibers

STC: Industry Statement to Voluntarily Lower Lead Level Standards -
are they low enough?

EPA : http://www.epa.gov

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov

CDC: Health Alert

CPSC: http://www.cpsc.gov

Proposition 65 – general information in layman’s terms

Prop65 Clearinghouse and Links for Legal, forms, etc

Calif AG’s Prop 65 – Enforcement Site - locate current information on any notices of violation posted there

Dept of Justice – Calif: http://www.doj.ca.gov

———————————————————————-

Proposition 65 NOTICES:

Notice One Served: 5-15-2008
60 Day Deadline: July 15, 2008
PDF of notice online at:

http://proposition65.doj.ca.gov/PDF/2008/2008-00204.pdf

Noticing Party: Center for Environmental Health – http://www.cehca.org
Alleged Violators: Beaulieu Group, LLC; Beaulieu of America, Inc.; C&M Holding, Inc.; Home Depot USA, Inc.; Home Depot, Inc.
Chemical: Lead and lead compounds
Source: Artificial Turf

Notice Two Served: 6-23-2008
60 Day Deadline: August 23, 2008
PDF of notice online at:

http://proposition65.doj.ca.gov/PDF/2008/2008-00289.pdf

Noticing Party: Center for Environmental Health – http://www.cehca.org
Alleged Violators: Ace Hardware Corporation; Astro Turf, LLC; Atlas Carpet Mills, Inc.; Best Turf for Less, Inc.; Crystal Products, Inc.; ForeverLawn, Inc.; Habitat International, Inc.; Lowe’s Companies, Inc.; Newgrass, LLC; Orchard Supply Hardware Corporation; ProGreen International, Inc.; Shaw Industries, Inc.; Synthetic Turf International, LLC; Turf Headquarters; U.S. Turf Company, LLC
Chemical: Lead
Source: Artificial Turf

CDC Recommendations on Testing:

Lead Testing of Artificial Turf Fields
Facility managers who choose to have the turf at a field tested for lead should contact their local or state department of health and/or environment about appropriate sample collection and analytic methods. CDC and ATSDR recommend using appropriate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or American Society for Testing and Materials methods.

Additional Information
For additional information about testing, dust suppression measures, and other topics related to NJDHSS’s work to address lead in artificial turf visit NJDHSS’s artificial turf website at
http://www.state.nj.us/health /artificialturf/index.shtml.

For a list of state health departments, visit the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers (ASTHO) site at
http://www.astho.org/index.php?template=regional_links.php.

ASTHO also provides a list of state environmental health directors at: http://www.astho.org/index.php?template=enhancing_environmental_health_s.html.

DISCLAIMER:

This update is intended for informational purposes only and should not be used or construed to be legal advice. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of other members, affiliates and subscribers.

If you feel you need advice, seek the services of an experienced attorney.

ASGi August 7, 2008 Artificial Turf Yarn Fibers, Lead & Heavy Metals, Prop 65 Artificial Grass, fibers, lead, limits, proposition 65, standards, synthetic turf, Yarns No Comments

Synthetic Turf and California’s Proposition 65 Notices of Violation – an update from ASGi

ASGI Member/Subscriber UPDATE
California’s Proposition 65 Notices of Violation
August 06, 2008

“One message has become abundantly clear after speaking with as many diverse groups as ASGi has spoken to in the past month – our markets’ new product offerings are recognized and appreciated as ergonomically, economically and environmentally sound investments and, frankly, people LOVE the options and solutions that professional quality artificial grass solutions, properly installed, provide.

People across the country, and especially in drought-ridden states, like California, see the benefits, and just want to know that the products are safe and deliver, as promised.” Annie Costa, Exec Dir, of ASGi

With all the attention focused on concerns about lead found in some new artificial turf fibers and older, existing installed fields, it’s time to re-emphasize that 70+% of the test results of yarn materials used in sports fields and landscape projects in the USA, today, show findings of “undetectable” lead levels, and though not “lead-free”, California officials may be comfortable allowing the market to label artificial grass and synthetic turf yarn materials, testing at 100ppm or less, as “lead-safe”. Though recent concerns really revolved around a very small portion of our product offerings, it has helped bring more attention and definition to our industry, helping continue to establish artificial grass as a viable and safe solution, in general.

And, what if the lead isn’t detectable in the new fibers?

Great news, if lead content isn’t there when the fibers are new, it won’t be there in 5, 15 or even in 50 years. So for the majority of today’s choices of artificial grass fibers and solutions, lead content in artificial turf yarn is a moot point – it’s just not there.

But what about artificial grass products that have fibers that do contain detectable levels of lead?

Lead content can vary in any type of basic resin you select due to the color and amount of pigments used and the amount of ultra violet stabilizers added – all of these elements added into the basic fiber resins make an impact on color fastness, UV protection and the life-cycle (aging) of the surfaces under outdoor, high traffic conditions. The price for these benefits is a higher lead content, by weight, in the fibers and test results can range, for products found on the market today, from 600ppm to over 10 times that amount or more.

This week our goal was to get an update on the status of notices of violation that were recently served to 18 artificial turf suppliers and ask some specific questions regarding Prop 65 and how current and future events and settlements may effect the average specifier, installer, distributor, dealer, wholesaler, retailer or commercial property owner or public works project developer that would like to import, sell or use artificial grass materials on a project in the State of California.

To continue, click HERE

you must be an ASGi Downloads Library Subscriber or ASGi Member to complete reading this article and have access to other downloads … Click the link above – register and immediately go to the rest of the article …

ASGi August 6, 2008 Artificial Turf Yarn Fibers, Prop 65 Artificial Grass, fibers, lead, limits, proposition 65, standards, synthetic turf, Yarns No Comments

Artificial Turf Lead Survey
Published By CPSC, End of Summer

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) spokesman Scott Wolfson stated yesterday that a national survey of 50 artificial turf fields undertaken because of concern about lead levels in the fields’ fibers in Newark and Hoboken (CT) will not be complete until late this summer (2008).

“It’s good to have a target date for the information,” said Annie Costa, ASGi Executive Director. “Businesses and customers in the landscape and leisure sports market make decisions and move at a fast pace compared to the steps involved in the purchase of a sports field for a community or school, which may take a year or more. We would all like to know results, sooner than later.

“While we patiently await the CPSC’s survey findings, we are continuing to see increased interest in artificial grass systems and sales growth in the landscape market. To spite recent concerns voiced about several east coast sports fields we are drawing customers that want to save water, eliminate toxins and chemicals from their yards and enhance the form and function of their living space, outdoors.

ASGi June 19, 2008 Health & Environment, Lead & Heavy Metals, UPDATES Artificial, CDC, CPSC, fibers, Field Related Info, lead, Synthetic Turf Council, tests, turf, Yarns No Comments

Synthetic Turf Council Statement to CPSC re: Lead Use In Artificial Turf Market

Abstract:

Dr. Eddy Bresnitz,
Deputy Commissioner and State Epidemiologist, NJDHSS, said,
“Available evidence suggests that there is no acute health risks due to use of artificial turf fields, and risks due to chronic and repeated exposure are unlikely.” The three NJ fields tested negative for lead in the air above them, and the soil below them. The blood lead levels of over 70 children who regularly played on one of the fields tested at or below the national average.

_________________________________________________

The Facts

In over 40 years, there has been no evidence or science to suggest that synthetic turf poses a risk to human health or the environment.

· Encapsulated Lead Chromate in Synthetic Turf is Not a Health Hazard. Recent disclosures by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services that 3 synthetic turf sports fields tested with elevated levels of lead resulted in a warning about lead levels in synthetic turf. It is an ingredient in pigments used to color and improve colorfastness in many consumer products like synthetic turf. Over 90% of synthetic turf fibers contain pigments with very low or undetectable levels of lead chromate;

· Encapsulated Lead chromate is almost completely insoluble. It is encapsulated in glass and resin, and diluted so that it has extremely low bioavailability. It is not absorbed by the body if ingested or inhaled. It does not leach into the environment;

· Extremely Low Bioavailability of Encapsulated Lead Chromate. The Center for Disease Control’s Lead Prevention Program (1997-2006) identified no risks from synthetic turf during its investigation of 763,216 childhood exposures to lead. Of the nearly 40,000 cases of high blood lead concentrations in children reported in 2006, none were attributed to exposure to synthetic turf.

· Scientists Support Synthetic Turf Has Few Health Risks.

“There is no scientific evidence of a health risk for children or adults based on recent test results and current knowledge of the chemical structure of aged synthetic turf products,” concluded Davis Lee, Ph.D., synthetic organic chemistry, and David Black, Ph.D., forensic toxicology, April 21, 2008. Drs. Lee and Black calculated that a 50-lb. child would have to ingest an over 10 square feet of synthetic turf to receive 90 ppm of lead, the U.S. toy industry’s voluntary standard for migratory lead.

Market Developments for Synthetic Turf Fibers:

New Research is underway to ensure the product is safe. New pigment formulations are being developed to continue to reduce encapsulated lead chromate levels for all of our colors without compromising performance required by buyers.

To download a PDF of the complete statement, please go to our F.R.E.E. Public Download Library by clicking on this link: STC_Statement_CPSC_Lead_05.08_.pdf

ASGi May 16, 2008 Field Related Info, Grass Surface Info, Health & Environment, Industry News, Lead & Heavy Metals, Nylon Yarn Fibers, PE, PE & PP Yarn Fibers, PP Yarn Fibers, Prop 65 artificial turf, fibers, Field Related Info, Market, STC, synthetic turf, Synthetic Turf Council, Yarns No Comments

Lead in New PE and PP Yarn Fibers – No Different Than Lead Found in New Nylon Yarns

Dyes, Coatings, Pigments and Colorants come from all sorts of sources and have been used in our world for thousands of years. Vegetable juices, native ore (iron) and even exotic materials such as the remains of ground and pressed insects have been used, with varying degrees of success, to add color to a whole host of consumer goods.

As environmental and health sciences have caught up to the use of these colorants, safer and even more effective pigments and coatings have been developed; many using compounds of heavy-metals, ores and other natural materials that are now encapsulated (coated) to make them safe. see Encapsulation Reduces BioAvailablity of Lead Pigments and Lead & Encapsulated Lead Chromate, Only One Can Harm You

Coloring plastics, is a world unto itself. The high heat that the raw olefin “plastics” endure to become the finished green blade of artificial grass is damaging to all but the most “stout” of pigments. If the appropriate pigment is not used, colors may not be true and they are highly likely to fade, quickly.

Whether a polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) or nylon (PA) fiber – ALL artificial turf fiber materials use pigments and other additives to insure fade-resistant color fast-ness.

Here’s a publicly available letter we received from TenCate – ThiolonGrass that speaks to the “heavy-metal” content of PE artificial turf and synthetic grass yarn fibers – HERE.

Thiolon supplies over 60% of the polyethylene fibers used in sports fields, landscape and leisure sports artificial grass surfaces here in US markets. ThiolonGrass is one, of several companies, that provide PE and PP fibers to NAFTA markets – though this document will ONLY represent the products available through Thiolon Grass manufacturing mills that use their fibers.

Press Release RE:
Thiolon’s Strategic Partnership with Canadian Manuf. – Fieldturf