Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board seeks lab clarification after synthetic turf retesting; asks staff to compel lab attendance
Loading...
Summary
Board members said the company and consultant have not explained detection limits and cancer-risk units in synthetic turf testing; staff will compile questions for the lab, seek written answers and invite a lab representative to the next meeting.
Board members told staff they remain unconvinced by the revised synthetic turf testing report and asked for clearer explanations of detection limits, units and cancer-risk metrics before they are comfortable accepting the results. The board directed staff to send written questions to the consultant and lab, obtain written answers and request that a laboratory representative attend the Board of Health’s next meeting.
The update described two rounds of analysis: the town’s independent retesting and materials provided by the turf company and its consultant, Fuss & O’Neill. Board members said the written materials returned by the consultant did not address key points raised at a prior meeting, including the relationship between method detection limits (MDLs) and the risk-based levels used to calculate excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR).
Julie (staff member) reviewed the lab materials for the board and staff summarized key points for arsenic: the reporting limit was identified as 3.35 (units not clarified in the report), an ELCR figure of 2.5 was cited and the method detection limit (MDL) was 0.5. Board members said those numbers were not presented in comparable units and left open the possibility that meaningful risk could exist below the laboratory’s MDL. As one board member put it, “If there’s a risk below your level of detection, then you haven’t given us any information.”
Staff reported they had hired Fuss & O’Neill to assist, but the consultant deferred interpretation to the lab’s analytical staff. The board agreed staff should draft a short set of specific questions for the consultant and laboratory, circulate them to the board for approval, then request written responses and ask an analyst who performed the testing to attend the board’s September meeting (staff suggested the next full meeting on Sept. 19).
Board members also requested that the lab provide plots with three reference lines: the detection limit, the measured sample level and the risk-based level for cancer, and that an SOP describing units and conversions be supplied. Staff said they would ask the consultant and lab for the requested plots and for clarification in writing by August to allow board review before September.
No formal vote was taken; the board’s decision was to pursue additional information and a lab presentation rather than accept the current written results as final.
