Rieke Field Issues

As you are all aware, the field has been closed to those under 11 because of concerns about the lead content in the green "turf" material (and in the dust that rises from it). The Oct. 14 PTA meeting will include a panel on this issue (see this post).

The field is owned by Portland Parks & Recreation, but the land is owned by PPS. This creates a somewhat difficult "shared responsibility" issue that the relevant agencies are working out.

At the Hillsdale Neighborhood Association meeting on October 1, PPS and Parks presented more information about the field results. My unofficial notes for the event come after the jump...

This issue first arose last spring in NJ when the state noticed unusual levels of lead in an artificial turf field at a school there. After a Health Advisory issued from the Centers for Disease Control, PPS tested the field using two different methods -- one involves using a kind of "rapid response" test on the field material, and this resulted in readings of 2000 ppm for the green turf material, and only 200 ppm for the white lined turf material. If one directly converted identical material into dust -- which is of course not the case -- the CDC would recommend that children under 6 not be exposed to such dust. (CDC says that you should limit the exposure of children under 6 to 400ppm+ dust.)

Because we don't just have a pile of dust sitting around, PPS tried to test the dust based on a "wipe sample" like the one that used to conduct the tests in NJ. This wipe sample indicated that there were 654 ug/sf of lead (that's micrograms per square foot). This doesn't directly translate to the CDC standard, which assumes you have a vat of dust and sets the 400ppm limit based on that idea. There is, however, a HUD standard that indicates that indoor lead on the floor should not exceed 40 ug/sf. The field is outside, of course, and exposure isn't as constant as if it were in someone's home. So, again, there's not a direct comparison. The tests don't necessarily indicate that there is a matter of concern associated with the field, but the best equivalent limits from the government seemed to suggest a matter of concern, and so PPS and Parks decided to limit use of the field to smaller kids; certainly to those under 6, and apparently to all elementary-aged kids in light of the administrative difficulties associated with trying to bar only K / 1st grade students and not others from the field.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has tested fields in NJ. Based on CPSC’s evaluation of those fields -- which resulted in "wipe tests" of about 99 ug/sf (so well below that on our field, but there's some question about whether the sampling methodologies are actually identical or not -- CPSC's may well have been more conservative) -- they concluded that the level of exposure wouldn't be high enough to cause concern. It's not that there would be no exposure, just that the exposure levels would be only about 10% of the level of concern. (Though, as the PPS health & safety official said, this stuff isn't good, and any exposure is not a good thing.) Based on what we know, and despite CPSC’s results, it’s our understanding that NJ immediately replaced their fields.

There was a follow-up meeting at Rieke on Monday, October 6, in which Parks officials indicated that levels on the field that "weren't as high" as those found by PPS -- though they didn't say what the levels were. Both PPS and Parks are conducting additional tests on the field and on surrounding areas. (Obviously, to close the field but to send kids to a place where there are high levels of lead dust isn't an optimum solution.)

In addition, CDC continues to do testing to try and decide whether there is a relationship between athletic field exposure and blood lead levels. (I should note that in conversations with some parents at Rieke, we've found that blood tests of their kids are revealing blood lead levels that are of no particular concern.) My strong impression is that any results from that testing is a long way away, and that in any event, there's almost nothing that's likely to happen that would make PPS and Parks say "OK, there's not any level of concern presented by this field any more."

So ... that leaves us with the question of replacement, and as everyone knows (and as Parks conceded), replacement is something that is going to need to happen soon -- the field is at the end of its useful life, lead or no lead. It's my understanding that Parks is currently evaluating options and gathering information about replacement costs, but it's also likely to cost a lot (i.e., close to $500K) and it seems unlikely that there's much hope of this appearing in a capital bond any time soon. Whether it continues to be closed or not because of lead may determine the level of pressure on replacement, but it's not a triggering issue.

If you want to know more, come to the Monday PTA meeting....