It seems our local environmental community still is concerned over the use of rubber crumbs in artificial turf, even after thousands of synthetic fields have been installed around the nation and the world.
About the Culver City High School Athletic Field installation, one would think these well-known concerns about using rubber crumbs in an artificial turf installation and the field's proximity to the Ballona Creek already would have been addressed during the design and installation of its underground drainage system.
Local Concerns
Since the Ballona Creek Renaissance and Heal the Bay have expressed lingering concerns about the filter-system’s effectiveness, our School Board thinks it should pay a for-profit engineering firm almost $15,000 to address these concerns. Since it is the two organizations asking the questions, shouldn’t they step up and pay for at least part of their question-induced survey?
It makes me wonder: Are they just questioning an already proven underground system design? Or are they treating it like a hybrid drainage system designed for this specific field? If an experimental, hybrid design was needed, I could understand their environmental concerns about the project. But this does not seem to be the case.
Semi-Quantitative Analysis
California Watershed Engineering’s (CWE) approved proposal clearly states that their completed report should not be considered a standard-setting or a compliance assessment.
What is the Board really getting for this expensive semi-quantitative assessment?
• Will this report give the School District a definitive answer? No.
• Will it put to rest these groups' environmental concerns, once and for all? Probably not.
The engineering group promises to conduct a semi-quantitative testing. Semi-quantitative testing is scientific doublespeak for accurately guessing how many rubber crumbs they think they found. They will not literally count the number of rubber crumbs. Their report will provide a guesstimate.
Just the Beginning?
I wonder if our District has assurance from these local environmental groups that once the testing is done, they won't continue to ask for the same testing next year and every year after that. Hopefully, the District will not have to continually pay to monitor these rubber crumbs annually just to calm someone's concerns over using standard rubber crumbs so close to the Creek.
Zero Tolerance?
Have both parties agreed on an established threshold where if the number of crumbs is below an agreed-upon limit, no more testing would have to be done, at least for awhile? Do these two environmental watchdog groups harbor an unrealistic, zero-tolerance for these types of roaming rubber crumbs?
Simpler Should Be Better
There should be a less costly way to go about this rubber crumb investigation. Instead of hiring an engineering firm that says it will follow strict, costly scientific protocol, resulting in only giving us a guess, would it not be more practical to have a hands-on, student-led science class project come up with a precise count of the rubber crumbs?
Again, CWE’s proposed agreement says that their report is not setting a standard or showing any compliance. What good is it going to do the District if the final report doesn't set a standard or establish compliance? What are we paying for? A $15,000 guess.
Overkill?
The image of an overly complex, fantastic contraption drawn by cartoonist Rube Goldberg keeps coming to mind.
After their report on missing crumbs, maybe CWE could give us an updated estimate on how many holes it now takes to fill the Albert Hall in Manchester, England.
Mr. Laase may be contacted at GMLaase@aol.com
