Board of Health Reiterates Its Opposition to Poured-in-Place Rubber for Elementary School Playground

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Board of Health, September 4, 2025

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Risha Hess (Chair), Premila Nair, Jack Jemsek, and Betsy Brooks (one vacancy)

Staff: Kiko Malin (Public Health Director) and Maheen Ahmed (Assistant)

In a 3-1 vote, the Board of Health (BOH) reiterated its support for its February 8, 2024 statement that rubber poured-in-place (PIP) should be avoided in the playground at the new elementary school. The previous unanimous decision was revisited because the town has become aware of problems with installation of Corkeen at a site in Easton, MA, the only known installation in the state. Corkeen is the natural alternative made from cork that was chosen by the Elementary School Building Committee (ESBC). The ESBC is scheduled to revisit its decision on the playground surface at its meeting on September 12. The Conservation Commission also denied permission for poured-in-place rubber because of its environmental risks and the location of the school adjacent to the Fort River, so an attempt by the ESBC to switch to rubber PIP would require another review by the Conservation Commission

Although the BOH was not asked by the ESBC to weigh in on the playground surface, board members last year felt that there were enough concerns about the safety of the rubber surfaces that it was a public health issue. They invoked the precautionary principle of public health, which advocates for taking preventive action to protect human health and the environment from potential harm, even when scientific evidence is not fully conclusive. It suggests that the burden of proof for safety should rest on those proposing an action, rather than on the public to prove potential harm. With the only remaining members of the BOH from 2024 being Premila Nair and Risha Hess, the question was raised as to whether the current board would support the previous statement or issue a revised one. 

In introducing the topic, Public Health Director Kiko Malin explained that the issue has come up again because of issues with an installation in Easton, Massachusetts. The product has worked well in Europe for some time, but experience in the United States is limited by its recent introduction. The board was made aware of the concerns around using rubber PIP through the Toxic Use Reduction Institute’s (TURI)December 2023 report on playground surfacing, 

Nair cited the testimony of then BOH member Timothy Randhir, UMass Professor of Environmental Science, with a specialty in watershed science. Randhir noted that crumb rubber, which is manufactured from recycled tires, contains multiple toxic substances including heavy metals, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons that are released into the environment from products that contain this material. Randhir noted that “people are using it (crumb rubber) but also there’s concern and the science is catching up with a lot of studies emerging.”

BOH member Jack Jemsek strenuously objected to the 2024 decision, saying he could not endorse it. He stated, “I’m in disagreement with the statement that there is contamination within a building material. What is more important is, ‘Is there exposure or not?” He maintained that since the crumb rubber was sealed beneath the poured rubber surface, children would not be exposed. He said that he talked to a playground engineer who stated that the standard for playgrounds is poured-in-place rubber, which is safe and accessible to children with mobility issues. He added, “I find it interesting that Amherst is a town that is questioning this surface which is accepted throughout [the state].”

Jemsek then cited a 2018 article from the Environmental Protection Agency and another from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that said that exposures to crumb rubber in playgrounds are “likely limited” and not much greater than background exposure in the environment. The CPSC webpage states, ”While no specific chemical hazards from recycled tires and playground surfacing are known by the CPC at this time, the following precautions to limit exposure are recommended: avoid mouth contact with playground surfacing materials, including mouthing, chewing, or swallowing play rubber; avoid eating food or drinking beverages while directly on playground surfaces; limit the time at a playground on extremely hot days; consider changing clothes if evidence of tire materials is visible on fabrics; and clean any toys that were used on the playground.” Jemsek asserted that these precautions were “sanitary type stuff, but they identified no specific chemical hazards.” He acknowledged that “in a perfect world you would want to use natural materials.”

The recent Amherst playgrounds at Kendrick Park (2021) and Groff Park (2019) were constructed with rubber PIP prior to many of the recent studies coming to light and before newer natural materials were available. Nair felt strongly that the town should not pivot away from a safer product because of the experience of one town. She also noted that engineered wood fiber is another natural alternative. 

BOH member Betsy Brooks noted that her grandchildren live in San Francisco where there are many rubber-surfaced playgrounds, and many of them have started to degrade. She stated, “It seems like we don’t want to use materials that have safety concerns with young children.” She felt that making a statement about the playground surface was something that a BOH should do. Risha Hess agreed, saying, “We know that elementary kids put things in their mouths and don’t always wash their hands or their toys.”

In public comment, Maria Kopicki urged the BOH to honor the extensive research that went into the February 2024 statement and maintain its objection to poured-in-place rubber. “This is an elementary school. It’s going to be used by littles and their younger siblings. These little guys are going to put things in their mouth, they crawl on the ground, and if you look at the information from the CPSC, this is not a good product for littles.”

The BOH reissued its letter to the ESBC. Jemsek said he would write a dissenting opinion.