This page is dedicated to occasional news stories that question the installation of artificial turf playing fields in a community. Ordinarily, www.SynTurf.org will digest the news item into the form of an entry and provide, when available, a link to a website where the matter originated or it is discussed at a greater length. You may want to check also the page titled "Just Words!'

[No. 58] Chicago, Illinois: Grassroots organization raises awareness bout crumb rubber. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 2, 2011. On Monday, March 21, 2011, a Chicago-area grassroots organization HealthyPlay (www.healthyplay.org) held a panel discussion at The Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum, N. Cannon Drive, in Lincoln Park. Titled “Toxic Chemicals: The Safety of Synthetic Fields and How Environmental Laws, the symposium heard from Dr. Joel Forman, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community and Preventive Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health and  member of the CDC Lead in Pregnancy Workgroup; Dr. Susan Buchanan, Clinical Assistant Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, a specialist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine and a family physician, and director of the Great Lakes Center for Children's Environmental Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Dr. Helen Binns, Professor in Pediatrics and Preventive Medicine, Children's Memorial Hospital Chicago, specializing in studies on preventive care delivery, lead poisoning, obesity, and tobacco addiction; and Carolyn Raffensperger, Executive Director of Science and Environmental Health Network, an environmental lawyer specializing in fundamental changes in law and policy necessary for protection and restoration of public health and the environment.

According to a citizen’s report of the meeting received by SynTurf.org, the evening was a successful presentation. There was a relatively large audience of concerned parents and no outspoken advocates of turf over grass. Dr. Forman gave an objective and fair balanced slide presentation describing all the dangers of artificial turf to juvenile health and safety and pluses of natural grass. The only counter-arguments he felt obliged to mention were the need to combat juvenile obesity with available athletic facilities and the quick drying advantage of artificial turf after rains. He did observe that the true maintenance costs of artificial turf are realistically probably greater than sodding new more durable natural grass varieties in a well drained field.

Dr. Forman’s facts and warnings were echoed by Caroline Raffensberger, an environmental lawyer from Iowa, and the daughter of a Chicago surgeon who had often labored to solve the problem of the “unexplained” continuing increase in numbers of childhood tumors and diseases, which are the product of exposure to pollution. She said the law is presently unfair because it puts the burden of proof of toxicity entirely on the victim rather then making the burden of proving safety on the manufacturer. She emphasized that there is often a long period of latency between exposure to dangerous substances and the appearance of symptoms when it is too late for treatment and cure. She eloquently argued that there is compelling evidence of the dangers of artificial turf and of the shredded scrap tire infill and the best practice is to avoid dangers not put kids at risk and regret it later.

For more information about this organization and how you can helped them achieve their goals, please contact dfrank@fwparker.org or healthyplayatfwp@gmail.com .

Do you want these destroying your clean water? Artificial turf fields are wrong for Great Falls!

[No. 57] Fairfax, Virginia: Artificial turf fields are wrong for Great Falls. The Great Falls Clean Water (www.greatfallscleanwater.org) is the web-based grass roots effort “to clarify and voice our concerns as Great Falls citizens about the proposed artificial turf field at Leo Santaballa field.” The website asks that people call Supervisor John Foust and communicate to him their concerns at 703-356-0551. There is also a web-based petition that people can participate in. The group’s message is pretty straight forward: “Artificial turf fields contain 30,000 pulverized used tires. These tires leach heavy metals and toxic chemicals into our lakes, streams and drinking water.”

The proposed field is being built directly upstream of a 6 acre lake. The lake and the streams that are part of the watershed contain fishing. In Virginia, there is no requirement to clean the effluent prior to it being drained into streams and lakes. According to Amy Stephan, a Great Falls resident, the field could dump about 20 million gallons of contaminated effluent directly into stream and lake in the next decade. "Our whole community uses well water for primary drinking water source,” she wrote to SynTurf.org. 

www.greatfallscleanwater.org can be contacted at contactus@greaterneighbors.com .

[No. 56] Newton, Mass.: On an already pared down project, Newton agrees to a battery of tests on city’s first artificial turf fields. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. November 8, 2009. [SynTurf.org Note: for earlier reports on aspects of this story see

http://www.synturf.org/process.html and http://www.synturf.org/newtonbrief.html ].

In 2005, Mayor David Cohen, and a developer decided that 5 acres of natural grass playing fields at the Newton South High School should be converted to artificial turf fields, because the place, owing to a decade of neglect and lack of maintenance, had poor drainage and, besides, this way the players could have many more playing hours. They took their case in June 2005 to a meeting of the School Committee. The committee okayed the idea as long as the money for it would not come from the public schools budget. The Mayor suggested that he would seek the money from Community Preservation Fund.       

By October 2005, the project had begun to attract the attention of the public. The first issue of concern was whether this was a proper use of the Community Preservation Fund, which by law had to be for open space, community housing, historical preservation, and acquisition, creation and preservation of land for recreational use. The proponents argued that the project was creating and preserving land for recreational use. The opponents pointed out that the project was in effect rehabilitation of land for recreational use and under that scenario the money could not be spent because the fields had not been created or acquired originally with Community Preservation Fund.    

By January-February 2006, there were other voices who opposed the project. A boisterous group of neighbors had concerns about the impact of the project on their living environment. Some objected to the risk that the project posed to the ecology of the area, pointing out also some of the geotechnical aspects of the site that had bedeviled the earlier sports fields with differential settling and hydrological woes, as the parcel was originally a peat bog.

The fiscalists objected to the price tag. And a group of individuals from the cross-section of the city objected to the project on the grounds of environmental and human health risk associated with the use of plastic fields and crumb rubber infill. A few purists believed that softball, and football and soccer should be played on natural grass.   

The process within which misgivings about the project could be aired did not favor the opponents. In numerous public hearings, while the purveyors of the product, the consultants and city officials were given generous amounts of time, the opponents were largely limited to a few minutes of comments. The smattering of literature about the downside of artificial turf was no match for the well-polished presentation of the sellers, whose “studies” showed no risks. In time, this “fact” would be proven a half-truth – as well as other myths about not watering, low maintenance cost, surface temperatures, no relation to MRSA, and inertness of the infill materials. In the months prior to the groundbreaking research out of Connecticut (www.ehhi.org) there was very little that the city officials could take seriously coming from the opponents of the turf project. What the opponents turned up in way of published research was immediately dismissed as “junk science.” That many communities already had turf fields and nobody would have it if it were risky almost made the case for the proponents.     

While the project in Newton was going through its slow approval paces, in the nearby community of Wayland a full-blown controversy was brewing over the conversion of the high school athletic field from grass to artificial turf, raising the potential for contamination of the nearby water wells from leachates from the turf field. That project, too, was supposed to be funded by Community Preservation Fund. Even though the Mass. Department of Revenue had indicated the money from the Fund could not be used for the project, the Town of Wayland was pushing ahead with the funding anyway.        

In Newton, by the spring of 2006, three louder voices had emerged against the project: the abutters to the fields were for the most part represented by Stephen Farrell. One Jeffrey Seideman spoke on behalf of the fiscalists. The job of addressing the risk of the potential harm to the environment and human health fell on a Guive Mirfendereski, an attorney with very limited prior exposure to city politics, and his colleagues. There eventually were concerns raised by the League of Women Voters of Newton, the Green Decade Coalition and the Newton Conservators, but none took an active part in dissuading the city from going forward.

Mirfendereski wore two hats: on the one hand, he researched the funding of the proposed project and informed the public and the officials of the likely illegality of it under the Community Preservation Act. On the other hand, he researched the shortcomings of artificial turf as a product and set out to verify the claims made by the purveyors and promoters of artificial turf fields. In Newton, the latter effort gave birth to www.joepublius.com , a localized website dedicated at the time to the aspects of the Newton South field project, and later to www.SynTurf.org , a national and international forum that would serve as clearing house of information, mostly sourced from for primary sources.

The political situation in Newton would not allow the opponents to have a meaningful say in the scope and conditions of the project. The only road for calling the public’s greater attention to the health and environmental risks went through the Middlesex Superior Court. In March 2008, Mirfendereski filed suit against the city, seeking a declaration form the court that the spending of monies from the Community Preservation Fund would violate the Community Preservation Act. The case was dismissed instantly, because the proposed spending from the Community Preservation Fund was not a done deal (premature) and, anyway, such challenges to city’s action required a lawsuit brought by no less than tax taxable inhabitants of Newton (standing).    

The fact of the suit garnered sufficient press interest in the subject-matter. A few outlets picked up Mirfendereski’s writings on the proposed unlawful use of Community Preservation Fund by Newton as by other municipalities. Simultaneously, the press began to pay attention to artificial turf as a product. If the funding for the turf project could be affected, Mirfendereski reasoned, perhaps the opponents of turf fields could gain sufficient leverage to affect the project’s scope and condition.    

In April 2006, Jeffrey Seideman and nine others stepped forward and volunteered to form a 10-taxpayer plaintiff group for the purposes of squashing the proposed use of Community Preservation Fund for the artificial turf field at Newton South High School. They placed their trust in Mirfendereski to see the case to the end, pro bono publico. But there was one problem: The Newton South turf field was still in a state of limbo, the city having not as yet acted on the appropriation for it from the Community Preservation Fund. The legal issue would have been whether Community Preservation Fund could be used to rehabilitate an existing natural grass playing field (with or without artificial turf) that was not originally acquired or created with Community Preservation Fund.

As fate would have it, on May 1, 2009, the City of Newton’s Board of Aldermen, unknowingly or defiantly, approved Community Preservation Fund monies for the rehabilitation of two unrelated city parks, Stearns and Pellegrini, which had not been acquired or created originally with Community Preservation Fund. The requisites of standing (10 taxpayers) and maturity (actual appropriation) being in place, on May 25, 2006, the “Newton 10” filed a complaint in Middlesex Superior Court against the city of Newton, seeking a declaration that the approved funding for Stearns-Pellegrini project violated the Community Preservation Act.       

In September 2006, the Superior Court ruled against the city’s use of the Community Preservation Fund in the Stearns-Pellegrini case. The city appealed the decision and soon thereafter the Supreme Judicial Court sought the case for direct review by the state’s highest appellate division. In October 2008, the SJC ruled against the City of Newton (Seideman and others v. City of Newton, SJC-10135, 2008 WL 4668200).  

By time the Seideman decision came down, the City of Newton had forsworn the use of Community Preservation Fund for the conversion of the grass fields at Newton South High School. The Committee on Community Preservation of the Board of Aldermen, the city’s legislative organ, had told the mayor that it would not approve of the Community Preservation Fund being spent on the turf project. The city next opted to look for funds elsewhere in order to underwrite the project. To be funded partially by monies in the general revenue account, from specialized accounts, and by borrowing – finally, in December 2008, the Board of Aldermen voted 20-4 to fund the rehabilitation of playing fields at Newton South high School, to have two artificial turf fields and two natural grass fields. The unavailability of funds from the Community Preservation Fund for the project

managed to trim the scope of the 5-acre turf project to 2 fields. 

The “2+2 Option,” as it came to be known satisfied Stephen Farrell, and many of the abutters, as well as many of the fiscalists, but not all who still believed the price tag for the project was way too much at a time when the city was facing a budget crunch.

Mirfendereski’s faction continued to voice its opposition to the project on the grounds of concern for the impact of the project on the environment and human health. The informational campaign about the turf had borne some fruit -- four Aldermen came around and voted against the project for actual potential concerns over the impact of the crumb rubber and other aspect of turf fields. Moreover, in January 2009, the Board of Aldermen adopted a resolution (22-0-2 absent) “proposing to His Honor the Mayor to ensure that the installation of synthetic in-filled turf athletic fields on city-owned property shall use sustainable, recyclable, lead-free, non-toxic products to the maximum extent feasible.” For the coverage of this resolution, see http://www.synturf.org/process.html (Item No. 19). The resolution came too late, the money was already appropriated and the Mayor showed little inclination to go along with the resolution – the city had bought the drainage system with the carpet, and the carpet with the crumb rubber infill – no substitutes allowed.         

If there was going to be one more battle left in this struggle it would come at the time when the project would have had to receive permission from Newton’s Conservation Commission. This commission is charged with permitting projects or aspects of projects that touch on wetland areas. As it turned out, a very small part of the Newton South Athletic Field Renovation Project was located in the 100-feet buffer zone that separated a vegetated wetlands from the proposed field-and-track part of the project at the western end of the site. This was enough for the commission to look at the project, but not all of it – just the part that was inside the wetlands area. Even though the commission knew that the project would be impacting the underground (culverted) Meadow Brook, it only would take jurisdiction over the 100-foot border area. As long as the commission and, later, the Mass. department of Environmental Protection, considered the issues, the project could not proceed to completion within the 100-foot border area. Insignificant to the larger issue of turf fields, this was an opportunity to be seized. 

The Mirfendereski faction, now consisting of the minimum number of residents and abutters, 14 in all - took their concerns to the public hearing at the Newton Conservation Commission, but within the narrow confines of the protections afforded to the environment under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act.    

The first of the two sessions before the Conservation Commission took place in January 2009. It was only then that the environmental aspects of the project were vetted, with ample time afforded to the “Newton 14” to state their case. Opponents presented written and oral testimony. Kurt Tramposch and Tom Sciacca, veterans of a similar proceeding in the nearby Town of Wayland, presented their testimony. The Commission continued the public meeting until the next month, refusing to go along with the city environmental officer’s opinion to approve and permit the project on the spot. At its second meeting on the project, in February 2009, the Conservation Commission approved the project with conditions. The vote was 4 to 2, the two opposing being Chairman Ira Wallach and Commissioner Norman Richardson. For the condition imposed on the project by Newton Conservation Commission, see http://www.synturf.org/newtonbrief.html (October 29, 2009).

The Conservation Commission’s conditions included the following: (a) pland to ensure crumb rubber does not migrate into the wetlands by ensuring that catch basins are inspected every 6 months for an 18-month period; (b) inspection of the vinyl screening every 6-months for a period of 18-months for rubber granules and removal thereof; (c) EPA-approved lead wipe test on the installed synthetic turf to determine the amount of lead dust or bio-availability of the lead in the specified products; (d) the synthetic turf installed shall meet or exceed the lead wipe testing standards adopted by the EPA for “bare soil in children’s play areas,” and shall be less than or equal to 400 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area (µg/sq. ft); (d) no herbicides, pesticides, or insecticides shall be used on the fields within 100 ft buffer zone, except with the prior written permission of the Commission; (e) prior to work commencing, the city shall collect no less than three (3) grab samples of the substrate from the bordering vegetated wetland adjacent to the proposed work in the buffer zone and have the samples analyzed for the presence and concentration of heavy metals, to include: zinc, iron, manganese, barium, lead and chromium.

The Newton-14 believed that the Conservation Commission’s conditions did not go far enough in ensuring that the leachate from the fields did not harm the wetlands. Therefore, they – now called “Petitioners” appealed the decision of the Newton Conservation Commission to the Mass. Depart of Environmental Protection’s Wetland Division. On June 6, MassDEP Wetlands Division issued its Superseding Order overrode the Newton Conservation Commission’s conditions, setting forth its own conditions. Chief among these was that the “snout” catch basins be inspected and cleaned if needed be at the beginning and end of each “field season” (spring and fall), in perpetuity. Further, the city would agree to three times per year for five years (April-November) testing the leachate to the levels of Mass. Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00), with sampling being for zinc, cadmium, chromium and lead.

The Petitioners viewed the MassDEP’s Superseding Order wanting in that not only it overrode the Newton Conservation Commission’s conditions, but also it fell short of providing a basis for monitoring the long term effect of the crumb rubber leachate from the artificial turf field and the effect of the fields’ drainage system on the South Meadow Brook. Therefore, in June 2009, the Petitioners appealed the Wetland Division’s Superseding Order of Conditions. 

The case was now in the hands of the Mass. DEP’s Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR). There being no stomach for an alternative dispute resolution (mediation) or settlement, the parties were on the path to an adjudicatory hearing for October 27, 2009, before an administrative law judge. On the one side was the City of Newton, represented by a tax-payer funded law department and environmental officer and a few tax-payer funded “consultants” from the same company that was installing the fields, and taxpayer-funded Mass. DEP lawyers and experts. On the other side of the fray were the Newton 14, with no financial support whatsoever.

By the time the Newton-14 were to present their case it had become painfully obvious that they could not match the resources of the city and the state agency. In a proceeding that would have hinged on “scientific” testimony, the Newton-14 would have fallen short for two reasons:  first, unlike the case in Fairfield, Connecticut, a few years back, the Petitioners did not have the financial resources to hire experts; and second, whatever the Petitioners’ experts could possibly state to the tribunal was nothing new, all that having being already published in studies. The worst of it was that the mass. DEP operated for the long term on the notion that grinding used tires and using it on artificial turf field was a beneficial use of the used tires. This policy, though not law, was assailable in view of recent revelations about the harmful and toxic nature of crumb rubber, but not in a judicial proceeding where the burden was on the Newton-14 in a setting where the judgment of an administrative agency is usually controlling.   

The Newton-14 changed tack by resolving to move the posture of the case away from the hearing of “factual” evidence and the “science” to an issue that could be decided purely as a matter of statutory and/or regulatory interpretation. Key to this approach was a condition in the MassDEP’s own superseding order that had forbade the use of tires and parts of tires as fill. Another issue was that the South Meadow brook, though culverted, constituted a riverfront resource and the Newton Conservation Commission and MassDEP should have delineated it as a resource subject to protections of the wetlands law. In August 2009, the Newton-14 filed two motions for summary judgment/decision of these two issues of law.

The Newto-14 strategy now ensured that any decision from the hearing/trial by the OARD in October 2009 could be appealed further up the chain within the MassDEP and further in the courts of the Commonwealth. That meant more time would have to pass before the city and the consultants could finish the part of the project that was located in the wetland’s area. The area consisted of a few dozen yards of the track and the dozen square-feet of the soccer portion of the multipurpose field. The city must have realized that it was not helping the situation by not coming to a settlement with the Newton-14.

In early October 2009, the president of the boosters at Newton South High School made an impromptu overture to the Newton-14 by asking a member at the street corner what it took to settle this matter. Through his good offices, the Newton-14 conveyed their conditions and ultimately a settlement emerged.

The Settlement Agreement, dated October 20, 2009, recognized MassDEP’s superseding order of conditions as the final permit of record in the case, which means that the city is obligated to MassDEP for the conditions that were placed in the superseding order of conditions – notably: (1) The City will undertake sampling for zinc, cadmium, chromium and lead 3 times during the playing season (April-November) for a minimum of five years, to the levels indicated in the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00); (2) “Snout” catch basins shall be inspected and cleaned if needed be at the beginning and end of each “field season” (spring and fall). This condition shall be in perpetuity.

Furthermore, the Settlement Agreement binds the City to the Newton Conservation Commission’s own conditions, as further amended by the agreement – notably:

(1) Newton shall inspect the trench drain and in-line catch basins every 6-months for a period of 18-months for crumb rubber granules. If crumb rubber granules are found, the crumb rubber granules will be removed;

(2) Newton shall inspect the vinyl screening on the 4’ high chain link fence in proximity of the bordering vegetated wetlands every 6-months for a period of 18-months for crumb rubber granules. If crumb rubber granules are found, these crumb rubber granules will be removed;

(3) If a significant accumulation of crumb rubber granules are found within the trench drain or at the base of the vinyl screen, or in both locations, Newton shall continue to inspect along the wetland line at 6-month periods for an additional period of 18 months to detect crumb rubber granules. If a significant accumulation of crumb rubber granules are detected, Newton shall take steps to further prevent the crumb rubber granules from reaching the wetland;

(4) Newton shall perform an EPA approved lead wipe test on the installed synthetic turf to determine the amount of lead dust or bio-availability of the lead in the specified products. The synthetic turf product installed shall meet or exceed the lead wipe testing standards adopted by the EPA for bare soil in children’s play areas;

(5) No herbicides, pesticides, or insecticides shall be used on the fields within the 100 foot buffer zone to the wetlands, pursuant to Newton’s Integrated Pest Management Policy, maintained and executed by the City of Newton’s Department of Parks and Recreation, and as may be amended from time to time;

(6) Newton shall collect no less than three (3) grab samples of the substrate from the bordering vegetated wetland adjacent to the proposed work in the buffer zone. These samples shall be analyzed by a certified laboratory for the presence and concentration of heavy metals, to include: zinc, iron, manganese, barium, lead and chromium.

In addition, the City agreed to the following that was not a part of the MassDEP superseding order or the Conservation Commission’s conditions:

(1) Newton agrees that at the future time of full replacement of the synthetic turf carpet, Newton shall consider the use of alternative in-fill material other than crumb rubber in-fill, including in-fill materials made of natural ingredients that are biodegradable which is demonstrated to have performance viability comparable to crumb rubber, if then available;

(2) The initial wipe test done of the surface of the synthetic fields shall be performed within 90 days of the issuance of the Final Decision and SOC final permit of record in this matter, without the benefit of irrigation or precipitation preceding the test by three days followed by annual wipe tests performed during the month of September for a period of five years;

(3) Newton shall collect no less than three (3) grab samples of the substrate from the bordering vegetated wetland adjacent to the proposed work in the buffer zone. These samples shall be analyzed by a certified laboratory for the presence and concentration of heavy metals, to [also] include copper, and cadmium;

(4) Newton shall test the water from the Well #1 only of the two wells used to irrigate the fields which constitute the project for the presence of metals including zinc, iron, manganese, barium, lead, chromium, copper, and cadmium. The baseline test of water from Well #1 shall be conducted within ninety (90) days after the issuance of the Final Decision and SOC final permit of record in this matter, followed by annual tests for five years following the initial test.

In return for the foregoing, the Newton-14 sought to withdraw their appeal. On October 29, 2009, the Mass. Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs accepted the Newton-14’s withdrawal of appeal and dismissed the appeal.

Now begins the task of monitoring the city’s performance under the Settlement Agreement. The text of the Settlement Agreement, basic documents, and the consolidated list of the conditions on the project are set forth in http://www.synturf.org/newtonbrief.html (October 29, 2009).

[No. 55] Woodinville, Washington: Parents for Safe Sports Fields stopped one turf field, second to follow. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. November 8, 2009. There are some last names that just coincide with a bearer’s avocation - a bricklayer named Mason, a jeweler named Goldsmith, or an activist named Block, a soccer coach, who managed to block the installation of artificial turf field at his son’s school in Woodinville, Washington. Now it seems that luck and savvy will have him and his colleagues, Parents for Safe Sports Fields ( http://www.parentsforsafesportsfields.com/ ) score another success.

In August of 2009 the City Council awarded a contract for the construction of the Woodinville Sports Field Project, to convert grass playing fields into synthetic infilled turf. Construction work was expected to begin in late 2009 and be completed by spring of 2010. But Block and his group would not hear of it. In October the faced down the City Council, arguing that the chemicals in the shredded rubber tires on synthetic fields can cause cancer. They asked that the project be delayed until there is more proof the fields are safe. Regardless, the project was on course for a beginning date of November 1.

And then - on November 3, 3009, good fortunate smiled on Block and his group – The voters elected with very wide margins four city council candidates whom Block and group had supported for their position on artificial turf. It has not been easy or inexpensive for these taxpayers to battle a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy! “We have spent a large sum on legal, toxicology and on promoting the 4 candidates we want elected,” wrote Block to SynTurf.org. “People always get the government they deserve so we’ll see what happens here,” he wrote.

[No. 54] Montgomery County, Maryland: MoCo Safe Healthy Playing Fields Coalition. The heating of artificial turf surfaces is a well established fact. But we still get a kick out of grass roots finding out for themselves how hot this can really get. So when we received this temp reading story for Blair High School we were not surprised. It came to us by way of the Parents Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland. It has a web group at http://groups.google.com/group/safe-healthy-playing-fields-coalition-?lnk=srg (called MOCO Safe Healthy Playing Fields) and keeps a blogpost at http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/search?q=turf . The Coalition “is dedicated to ensuring that athletic playing fields in Montgomery County Maryland offer a safe and healthy place for athletes of all ages.” Here is the story that came with the picture on the left: Parents Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland, “Artificial Turf: 167 degrees! We have a winner,” August 16, 2009, available at http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/search?q=turf (scroll down to item):

Artificial Turf: 167 degrees! We have a winner.

Folks, it looks like we have a winner! This measured temperature of 167.3 degrees was taken today, August 16, at the AT field at Montgomery Blair High School, Montgomery County Maryland at 2:30 PM EST. The air temperature in the full sun was 93 degrees Fahrenheit.

Thanks to our reporter Kathy Michels for this stunning photo. [T]hanks also to our County Council, Board of Education and Planning Board who created this heat island in the middle of our county. Now that’s what [they] call planning!

 

[No. 54] Bowen Island, British Columbia: Living Bowen Coalition opposes artificial turf. The following is an excerpt from a letter published on Bowen Island Undercurrent, “Group expresses concerns about council’s decision to install artificial turf field,” June 26, 2009, available at http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/letters/49210442.html :

We represent many Bowen Island community members who are very concerned about council’s decision to approve the construction of a synthetic grass turf field on Bowen Island Community School grounds. This decision goes against every value of conservation and protection that so many people on Bowen expect to be upheld. At this time in history when all information available calls for visionary protection of our environment, this irreversible, destructive act is about to happen, and right in front of the children. We feel we have to act now to protest this decision and ask council to reconsider it.

 

Edna Thomson, Libby Beck, Brenda McLuhan, Sam Knowles, Susanne Koeplin and Emily van Lidth de Jeude 

 

On behalf of the Living Bowen Coalition

[No. 53] Glen Ellyn, Illinois: A grass roots effort takes hold. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. May 3, 2009. Glen Ellyn is situated 23 miles west of Chicago. An affluent village, Glen Ellyn is part of Glenbard Township. Located across Glenbard West High School is Glenbard West is Duchon Field, which has been named one of the top 10 places to watch highs chool football by ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/highschool/rise/football/news/story?id=3653316

[No. 52] Seattle, Wash.: Battle brewing over turf field installations. Last year [2008] the voters approved a levy of which $10.4 million is about to go to installation of artificial turf fields in Seattle’s a Lower Woodland #7, Lower Woodland #2, Delridge and Genesee playfield #1. With the exception of the price tag, it might have turned out a non-story but not for the fact that the turf at Genesee previously had tested positive for lead. According to a news story on KING5-TV (April 14, 2009), “some parks advocates are speaking out against the city's plan to install artificial turf,” asking for a moratorium on the new installations until the city studies the dangers. “Some critics fear the fake fields, saying they may contain lead and arsenic.” “One potential problem is crumb rubber - tiny filaments of tire rubber on the surface of the turf.  It sticks on you and doesn’t easily come off.” One park advocate, Mire Latoszek, said, “There are reports of people playing on fields who come home and have little particles crumb rubber on their clothes. They can’t get it off their socks.” Another critic of turf, Mark Holland, saw no redeeming value in the city hiding behind the statement from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission last summer that children are not at risk from exposure to lead in the turf. “ They use the recent study from the Consumer Products Safety Division and this is the same organization that told us for the past 15 years that we didn’t have to worry about lead in children’s toys,” said Holland. Source:  Linda Brill, “Seattle playfields entangled in turf battle,” on KING5-TV, April 14, 2009, available at http://www.king5.com/sports/stories/NW_041409WAB-aritificial-turf-KS.d55a7bd4.html .

[No. 51] San Carlos, California: Save San Carlos Parks is SynTurf.org’s Environmentalist of the Year for 2008. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 12, 2009. Every spring SynTurf.org recognizes an individual, or group of grassroots activists or even an idea that embodies the mission of this site that is to ward off the mindless proliferation of artificial turf fields in our communities. In 2008, the recognition of Environmentalist of the Year for 2007 went to Patrick Barnard and his Save the Park group for their effort to end the municipality’s plan to install artificial turf in Quebec’s Westmont Park (http://www.synturf.org/westmountbrief.html).

This spring we recognize as Environmentalist of the Year for 2008 a group of activists that go by the name of Save San Carlos Parks. They have been at it for more than 2 years. For the background stories on San Carlos as reported on this site, please go to http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item Nos. 29, 30, 33), http://www.synturf.org/sayno.html  (Item No. 45).

The struggle by Save San Carlos Parks to save the natural grass playing fields from going plastic and crumb rubber has taken a few interesting evolutionary turns. The first time SynTurf.org reported on San Carlos it was in October 2007 when the school board went along 3-2 with city’s plans to install artificial turf at Heather Elementary School. The narrow vote buoyed the activists and they came out swinging even harder. They submitted a 200-plus Internet signature petition to the school board and forced it to reconsider its decision in light of having sought no community input as to the environmental and health concerns about turf fields. In December of 2007, the city tried its best to sell its plans with glossy presentations, ersatz arguments and some mocking of the oppositionists.

February 2008, the school board was ready once again to consider the turf field proposal. This time, the activists took their protest to the streets, with pickets and signs and printed T-shirts. They held a march on Thursday, February 28, 2008, along the streets and parks that stretched from Burton Park and Brittan and Greenwood Avenues to Central Middle School and later to White Oak Elementary School, where the San Carlos school district’s board was to meet on the issue. We noted at the time, “this may well be the first time that the opponents of artificial turf fields have taken to protest march, even though marches of this kind are common in favor of upkeep and preservation of parks as public land.”    

On Wednesday, March 19, 2008, Save San Carlos Parks were handed a sweet hand of fate. The city manager could not reach an agreement with the city’s elementary school district on a long-term “use agreement” that could make the turf proposal go forward. The respite was not to last long, as this issue was bound to resurface. For that little time, however, the impasse nevertheless delighted Joy Papapietro, one of the activists who helped organize the march and a letter-writing campaign. “Our work is not done,” she wrote to SynTurf.org, “we will go on to help any community in San Carlos that wants to fight [the turf].” 

It is once again spring and turf is back on the agenda in San Carlos. Drummed out of Heather Elementary School, it is now being considered for Highlands Park Lower Athletic Field. The activists have not sat by idly. The modest Internet campaign blog that Save San Carlos Parks had launched in 2007-2008 soon became a clearinghouse (http://grassplease.blogspot.com) of information about similar turf battles in the surrounding communities. It forum has evolved into a regional resource http://savesancarlosparks.blogspot.com and it is presently a full-fledged website with a broader mission at http://www.savesancarlosparks.org (email: SaveSanCarlosParks@yahoo.com).

Save San Carlos Parks’ next quest is to get the city mayor and council “to reject the replacement of the natural grass field at Highlands Park with artificial turf.” The matter will be before the council on Monday, April 13, 2009. As a prelude of things to come, perhaps, on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, the San Carlos Youth Advisory Council recommended that the city council not move forward with synthetic turf on the Highlands Park Lower Athletic Field. The group, which is made of middle school and high school students who offer opinions to the city council, prefers to see the money spent on less expensive projects with a broader community benefit.

Directed at the April 13 proceedings of the city council, a letter-writing campaign to the council and a petition drive are well under way to save Highland Park from faux grass. By SynTurf.org’s last count (April 9, 2009) http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?greensc1 a petition drive to that effect has garnered 539 signatures supporting Save San Carlos Parks. In the meantime, a straw voting exercise of sorts has been going on the website of the San Mateo Daily (http://www.smdailyjournal.com), showing (as of April 9, 11:20 AM EST) a tally of  606 votes, with 59%  to 41% running against the turf proposal. Among the reasons cited against the proposal are traffic concern (3%), health concerns (52%) and subject needs more study (4%). The proponents (41%) believe the proposal will increase the use of the fields for the community.

No matter what the outcome of the April 13 meeting, the recognition here conferred on Save San Carlos Parks is first and foremost for their effort to organize, inform the public, and articulate a position in a civil manner. A decision in their favor would be an icing on the cake. Save San Carlos Parks have made their point and in that they serve as an example for citizen advocacy campaigns. We hope many across the country would emulate their energy and style as they go ahead to make the point in fvaor of natural grass playing fields and non-synthetic playing surfaces.

[No. 50] Hartford, Connecticut: Parents seek moratorium on turf field. On March 2, 2009, a group of parents went before the Connecticut state legislature and pled their case for a moratorium on the new installations of artificial turf fields. The matter is contained in a bill before the state legislature. The hearing agenda appeared at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/ENVdata/pha/2009PHA00302-R001100ENV-PHA.htm . The earlier proposed Bill 5280 was posted at http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5280&which_year=2009&SUBMIT1.x=12&SUBMIT1.y=11&SUBMIT1=Normal . The

Raised Senate Bill No. 924 was posted at http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00924&which_year=2009.

According to news item in the Connecticut Post (March 2, 2009), the purpose of the one-year moratorium is so the material used in synthetic turf fields can be studied. One major objection to the fields is the use of shredded used tires as infill, the material that makes the field cushiony and allows the blades to stay upright. According to Patricia Taylor, one of the proponents of the moratorium, “These fields are simply a waste-management strategy for the disposal of shredded rubber tires. We don't need to use chemicals like pesticides on artificial fields because artificial fields are chemicals…. Parents lack basic information and guidance on what is in these fields and how to keep their children safe.” Rep. Kim Fawcett, D-Fairfield, who is a co-sponsor of the moratorium bill, stated that the measure does not aim to close any existing fields. “We’re just saying that since the attorney general funded a study and the Agricultural Experiment Station is spending the next year studying what is really in this crumb-rubber tire. Since we’re doing that it doesn’t really make sense to put any more fields in. And it’s just a temporary moratorium.” According to the Post, “Fawcett said the crumb rubber and lead may be affecting human health and possibly contaminating bodies of water, including the public drinking supply.” Source: Ken Dixon, “Moratorium on artificial turf fields urged,” in Connecticut Post, March 2, 2009, available at http://www.connpost.com/ci_11820683 .

SynTurf.org Note: The Environment Committee has until March 20 to vote on the legislation and move it along to the Senate and House. March 20 marks the arrival of spring and indeed what more appropriate statement in favor of a renewed covenant with nature, if this bill advances. SynTurf.org has two major concerns with the advancing and possibly its enactment.

First, is that it does not go far enough to ban the use of crumb rubber altogether, period. Knowing what we know of this obnoxious addition to our landscape and not trusting what we do not as yet know, the crumb rubber most go, period. Also, SynTurf.org believes that the existing turf fields ought to be ripped out and ground reclaimed for installation of natural grass fields. There is very little sense to allow this abomination to health and the environment to continue of some dubious economic argument that one should let the fields run their natural life-cycle and then be replaced. Therefore, it is the view of this publication that the Raised Senate Bill 924 is timid and the parents and activists, including EHHI and Mount Sinai testimonies, are pursuing a half-loaf at a time when they are fully entitled and should demand unapologetically the full loaf, beginning with an immediate ban on youth and adult play on turf fields (not even with “informed consent”) until the state-sponsored study of the fields is complete.

[No. 49] San Francisco, Calif.: Updates from http://sfparks.googlepages.com . The web forum called  http://sfparks.googlepages.com is dedicated to saving the San Francisco area’s dwindling green space, especially from conversion to artificial turf. The group has compiled a very useful digest of recent news stories about turf. It can be seen at http://sfparks.googlepages.com/savekimbell . For earlier posts about this group, see http://www.synturf.org/sanfranciscobrief.html (Item No. 04).

[No. 48] East Harlem, NY: Meet the East Harlem Preservation organization. East Harlem Preservation (EHP) is a volunteer advocacy organization founded in 2005 to promote, preserve, and protect the neighborhood’s rich cultural, architectural and environmental history ( http://www.eastharlempreservation.org ). The EHP provides news and updates on large-scale development, displacement, synthetic turf,  and other issues of public concern to residents and business owners in East Harlem/El Barrio and surrounding areas. The website and a monthly electronic newsletter are also available to help promote the work of local nonprofit cultural, educational, health, economic development, and environmental organizations. EHP is led by Marina Ortiz and may be contacted at marinajortiz@gmail.com .

[No. 47] San Jose, Calif.: Grassroots opposition to turf fields picking up steam.  SynTurf.org has learned that Trace Elementary School parents are taking their fight against the turf plans for the school to the cyberspace. The website www.TraceTigers.org  is being reconfigured as a tool to inform and advocate against the school district’s decision to place a turf field in this community. The contact for the website is turf@zavlabs.com and it is managed by Steve Zavala, whose objection to turf was the subject of a news article that appeared earlier this month in the press (see below Item No. 45).

[No. 46] San Carlos, Calif.: Stop the synthetic turf at Highland Parks! A grassroots effort has been under way in San Carlos to stave off the onslaught of artificial turf fields. The group’s work is accessible via http://savehighlands.blogspot.com  and also http://savesancarlosparks.blogspot.com.

[No. 45] San Jose, Calif.: No turf in the Rose Garden, please! The San Jose Unified School District is about to hit a wall, finally, over its quiet and systematic replacement of natural grass playing fields with artificial turf. The venue: Trace Elementary School. The opponents: the parents, who have launched an effort to “keep plastic out of the Rose Garden.” The reference is to the Rose Garden neighborhood in San Jose, a gentrified residential area that rings the San Jose Municipal Rose Garden, a 5.5 acre park with thousands of rose bushes. For the Trace-PIE manifesto on turf, see http://www.rgnpa.org/pdf/Artificial%20Lawn%20Turf%20Steve%20Zavala.pdf  or click here.

According to a news article in The Mercury News (January 8, 2009), be it at the school board meetings or strategy sessions at Starbucks, the parents “argue that turf's heat-absorbing properties makes it too hot to play on in extremely warm weather. They plead that turf adds yet another artificial element to a city and planet in desperate need of more, not less, natural green space. Most of all, they worry that turf will increase potentially harmful chemical exposure to their children.”

One parent, Steve Zavala, “has spent countless hours online, reading every study about turf that he can find. A few summers ago, he and his daughter walked on the synthetic field at Lincoln High School and found it too hot for comfort.” “At first it was the heat that really bothered me,” he said, “But then I was staying up until 3 and 4 in the morning doing research, and I was shocked by how many concerns there are. This is really scary to me.” Another parent, Stephanie Taylor, is “alarmed by recent reports that plastic water and baby bottles as well as several children's toys contained harmful plastics like bisphenol A, or BPA. She's concerned that turf could ultimately prove to be just as toxic.” “It is clearly possible that further study could reveal unknown toxicity in turf and turf maintenance products as well,” she said, “Why experiment on our children?”

The State Senator Abel Maldonado, who represents Santa Cruz, Monterey, and the southeastern part of Santa Clara County, shares the parents’ concerns, particularly as to germs and bacteria left on the turf fields, because once turf is installed, there's no regulations about how to clean or disinfect it. Kids bleed, sweat and spit on turf fields during sports; dogs poop on them at night. “Blood, sweat, skin cells and other materials can remain on the turf because the fields are not washed or cleaned. It’s like playing on a giant used Band-Aid. I’m not against turf, but I want to make sure that it’s totally safe for kids. The parents at Trace have a right to raise concerns.”[1]

[No. 42] Chicago, Illinois: Turf field controversy lands in court. In August 2008 the Park District approved a plan to install an artificial turf soccer field at Lincoln Park, in the northeast of the city. The proposal was not without its opponents whose concerns were ignored by several city agencies -- in a manner that is typical of the usual sort of David-versus-Goliath struggle that is waged by the grassroots activists and residents against the politicians and their patrons in the sports and business communities.

Everything was moving along just swimmingly for the construction project -- until Tuesday, October 14, 2008, when Protect Our Parks (www.protectourparks.org), a not-for-profit corporation (http://www.cklpp.org) and Eurydice Chrones, a Lincoln Park resident, filed a three-count lawsuit against, among others, the Latin School of Chicago, Park District, Board of Commissioners, Chicago Plan Commission, City of Chicago, Commissioner of Chicago Department of Environment, Chief Environmental Officer of City of Chicago, the turf manufacturer and others. The press release announcing the commencement of litigation is available at http://www.cklpp.org/assets/2008/10/15/Release__Lead_Suit_10-13.pdf or click here. The Complaint is available at http://www.cklpp.org/assets/2008/10/15/Pop_Environmental_Health_Complaint.pdf or click here. For more information on the suit and how to help in the cause, contact The Committee to Keep Lincoln Park Public at info@cklpp.org (telephone: 312-276-5165).

The suit alleges that the soccer field is toxic because the field’s artificial turf contains lead. The suit seeks an injunction against the construction of the turf field at the south end of the park and removal of all artificial turf from the field. The suit alleges that artificial turf can cause serious health problems for children and adults when the crumb rubber’s chemical compounds are released into the air and ground water. On environmental grounds, the suit alleges that the defendants have failed to design a drainage system that protects Lake Michigan, which will receive the drainage, discharge and runoff from the field directly and without any treatment or processing.

The complaint also alleges that the designated site immediately borders the heavily traveled lanes of Lake Shore Drive traffic, which further exposes children to the cumulative toxic effect of constantly breathing exhaust fumes from automobiles as well as polluted contaminants from factories carried by prevailing winds and deposited on the lakefront park. For a news paper account of this story, please see “Group claims controversial Lincoln Park soccer field is toxic,” in Chicago Sun-Times, October 14, 2008, available at http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1221547,lincoln-park-soccer-101408.article .

[No. 41] Stamford, Conn.: The West Beach Park Brief. By Guive Mirfendereski, SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. September 22, 2008. After a two-day bifurcated proceeding, on September 15, 2008, the Zoning Board voted 4-1 to okay the installation of two artificial turf fields at West Beach Park. According to The Advocate, “Most board members said they were persuaded by the city's argument that there is no conclusive evidence that artificial turf fields pose a public health or environmental hazard” and besides, “grass fields are too expensive to maintain.” Among the string of officials who appeared before the Board was Dr. Johnnie Lee, the city’s health director. He said, “Based on the research available now, no one has been able to show me that there are any ill effects to the environment or the public health by the installation of artificial turf.” The gallery exploded in applause, much to the chagrin of the grassroots opponents of the project. “We are over 2,000 families strong,” said John Cote, a Stamford soccer dad. Source: Elizabeth Kim, “Board approves artificial turf fields, “in The Advocate (Stamford), September 16, 2008, available at http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/norwalkadvocate/news/ci_10475540 .

Wow!  The Board’s decision was contrary to every bit of recent emerging scientific data about the risk of artificial turf fields. The Board completely ignored the precautionary principle ( http://www.synturf.org/precautionaryprinciple.html ), which holds that if all the facts are not yet in, the onus or burden of proof should rest on the proponents to show with objective data that what they propose does not or could not do harm.   

In Stamford, as in many other municipalities around the country, the Board chose to go along with the faulty view that since there is no study showing definitive harm from turf then the turf must be safe, even though there are several recent tests showing potential harm from turf fields. Each of these new studies caution that moretests and dat are necessary. As a sage once said: To the one who thirsts, no drop is slight; to one hiding from light, no star bright. Translation: there is not much that an ostrich can learn when it lives with its head in the sand.

What happened at the meetings of the Zoning Board this month is a familiar scenario that repeats itself time and time again around the country: The opponents of artificial turf arrive in smaller numbers, accompanied with their notes, experts and scientific data; the proponents show up in uniforms along with parents and public officials who are hell-bent on having artificial turf fields. Then, the circus begins: first is the meaningless disclosure by the proponents that they would love grass fields if they could have them weatherproof and in immaculate conditions 24/7, but because that is not possible artificial turf is the way to go. Next comes the other part of the charade - To give an appearance of fairness, the opponents are given every opportunity to present their case – but to no avail. The proceedings almost always ends by some platitude about “we have heard both sides” and believe that artificial turf, while not the best option, is the only practical solution to our community’s needs at this time: it allows for extended playing time with very low maintenance cost. The, the ostrich pulls its head out of the sand and shakes hands with the sports lobby. 

Artificial turf is big business and it is allied with a state and federal bureaucracy that sees no problem in transferring plastic and used tires from landfills to playing fields. There is money to be made. The sports lobby that is aligned with the turf industry is a formidable force in every sports-crazed community – and as the Stamford soccer dad intimated, no politician can ignore their “numbers.” So, it is easy to see how a handful of residents opposing the installation of turf in their communities always has an uphill battle – politically, financially and, yes, science-wise. It takes many more independent and peer-reviewed tests of artificial turf components, many more responsive bureaucrats and public health officials, and a good many individuals adversely affected by turf to get the message across to a tone-deaf town hall.    

In Stamford, the Zoning Board reviewed and approved the fields based on the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Act, since the proposed turf fields would be less than 1,000 feet from Long Island Sound. The Board found that the artificial turf fields would not cause "unreasonable pollution" to water or air. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Connecticut Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquaculture both provided statements that the crumb rubber infill is not harmful. The City of Stamford also put forth an individual who has been a consultant to an artificial turf field manufacturer, along with engineers from Milone & McBroom and Woodard & Curran firms.

At the heart of the opposition movement to the turf field project was a grassroots group called Save West Beach Park. It was founded in June 2008 by Penney Burnett, Mary Uva and Maureen Carson, whose affiliation with the Shippan Point Garden Club would have not meant anything if they did not concern themselves with the environmental issues associated with the turf project. When the news of their opposition spread, others joined the cause and the list of objections to the project grew beyond the ecological considerations – loss of park space, location of the fields, cost and, yes, effect of turf fields (and increased traffic and activity) on property values.

In their quest, Save West Beach Park went all out. On hand to support the group’s brief were a lawyer, an environmental scientist, and thermodynamics engineer, and Dr. William Crain, professor of psychology and a pioneer in alerting the public about the negatives of artificial turf fields.[1] Tom Sciacca, and MITeducated engineer, whose research is featured on this site,[2] testified before the Zoning Board about the thermodynamics of artificial turf fields and the attendant heat stress risks that come with playing on turf fields in hot summer months.[3] On behalf of an intervenor, REMA Ecological Services concluded in its report to the Zoning Board: “It is our professional opinion that as designed and presented there is a reasonable likelihood of unreasonable pollution and degradation of natural resources, specifically the near-shore tidal environment.  Furthermore, we have identified an alternative that if properly designed and implemented would have a lesser environmental impact to the tidal marine resources.” For the full text of the REMA analysis, click here. REMA also offered a spreadsheet entitled, “Assessment of Potential Environmental Impact of Leachate from Playing Fields with Synthetic Rubber Crumb, Extrapolating from laboratory Data.” The testimony of Sigrun Gadwa, an environmental scientist, outlined the benefits of children growing up playing on natural grass (click here). 

The principals of REMA, Sigrun Gadwa and George Logan were no newcomers to the turf debate. In October 2007, their work, as summarized in this document, with its particular emphasis on the adverse ecological impact of zinc, helped defeat the proposed installation of a turf field at Fairfield Country Day School.[4] In Fairfield, the cause of the opponents of the field project was helped immeasurably by the stinging cross-examination of the studies that turf manufacturer had offered in support of the claim that turf fields were safe.

Most important of all Save West Beach Park also had the support – albeit muted – of many parents who did not want their kids to be playing on turf fields. If there is a soft underbelly to the turf debate it is in the ranks of parents. Any grassroots effort at stopping the proliferation of artificial turf fields must first and foremost educate the parents about the dangers of artificial turf. The Biblical reference notwithstanding, in this one case, the child (and his/her coach) should not lead.

[No. 40] Montreal, Canada: Residents complain about the smell of turf as health hazard. Jeanne Mance Park is located in Montreal. According to a report by the CBC, the residents who live near the park are complaining to the city’s environment department about the park’s synthetic turf soccer field being a health hazard. “It reeks of recycled tire or rubber, and I figure if something smells this bad, it's got to be bad for your health," said Hazel Field, who lives nearby and uses the park. Canadian Broadcast Corporation, “Artificial soccer turf a health hazard, Jeanne-Mance Parks users say,” in CBC News, July 30, 2008, available at http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/07/30/soccer-pitch.html . Update [September 4, 2008]: The audio/video track of CBC's reporting is available at VIDEO: Gerri Barre reports. Artifical soccer turf a health hazard, Jeanne-Mance Park users say .

[No. 39] Toronto, Canada: Citizens petition to stop turf-and-dome project at Memorial Park. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. August 3, 2008. SynTurf.org has learned, the Toronto school board is exploring a proposal by North Toronto Soccer Club to pay for the “upgrade" of Memorial Park's playing field. The proposal entails the replacement of the natural grass surface with artificial turf. To make matters uglier yet, the soccer club wants to add a seasonal inflatable dome, or “bubble” over the field. 
With the lessons of Westmount (Quebec) in mind (see http://www.synturf.org/westmountbrief.html ),

a group of Toronto citizens have launched an on-line grassroots petition to halt this proposal. The group is called Our Home, No Dome and has a website at www.ourhomenodome.com . The organizers do not oppose the improvement of the soccer field, but oppose the installation of artificial turf and the three-storey high bubble. The website has links to the petition and other interesting material. To contact the group, write to Bob Greenfield at robert.greenfield@gmail.com .

[No. 38] Bainbridge, Washington: PlasticFieldsForNever petitions to ban artificial turf fields. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. July 18, 2008. PlasticFieldsForNever.org has submitted a 1,100 signature-petition to the city for a ballot measure this November to ban artificial turf fields on island’s sports fields. The group is concerned about turf’s effect on the environment. “Artificial fields are the equivalent of grinding up all your plastic shopping bags, dumping them in a city park, and letting the granules wash into Puget Sound,” Chris Van Dyk told the Kitsap Sun. 

Source: Tristan Baurick, “Bainbridge group petitions to ban artificial turf fields,” in the Bainbridge Islander, July 18, 2008, available at http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/jul/17/bainbridge-group-petitions-to-ban-artificial/?story_detail_bainbridge-islander=1 .

[No. 37]  Stamford’s Grassfileds.org rolls out campaign against turf. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. May 1, 2008.

Stamford, Connecticut, is considering a project that will install four artificial turf fields at three venues -- West Beach, Westhill High School and Lione Park, for an estimated cost of $5.7 million. The opponents of the plan say that the material used in turf “smells, causes environmental contamination, lacks aesthetics and is intensely warm in summer,” according to a story in the Stamford Advocate (.Wynne Parry, “Suits seek to bury plans for synthetic fields,” in Stamford Advocate, April 30, 2008, available at  http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_9102188). Two separate lawsuits have challenged the plan on technical governance grounds, which means that they allege the town has played loose with its own rules as to costing and planning board approval.

The residents opposed to the turf fields have organized a nifty website that features a plethora of relevant information and links to materials that question the health, environmental, safety and fiscal aspects of turf field mania. The website is   http://stamford.grassfields.org/. For more information as to how you can help this grassroots effort in combating plastic fields, please contact is maureenscarson@aol.com.

This group is planning to host this month a symposium on “tire turf,” which will feature a number of prominent people in the field. 

[No. 36] Morris Township, New Jersey: Make room for the turtles! SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 25, 2008.

What American child does not grow up hearing, if not reading, about the duck and her ducklings that stopped traffic when crossing as street in Boston, Massachusetts? The shrine to this delightful tale of priorities is celebrated in sculpture form on the grounds of the Boston Common.

To combat the unnecessary despoliation of the environment, a group of Morris-area residents have established a website called PreserveHarding.com (http://www.preserveharding.com) and have instituted a petition drive (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/PreserveHarding/index.html) that  opposes the transfer of the land from Harding Township to Morris Township, as well as the proposed  80-foott night lighting, artificial turf fields, public announcement system, and 9 AM to 10:30 PM seven-day per week use hours.

The opponents of the project have the U.S. Department of the Interior on their side. In March 2008, the Department's Fish and Wildlife office issued a written statement saying that the Department considerd the concerns about the adverse impact of the proposed turf fields on Harding Township's natural resources to have merit. For a copy of the letter click here.   

For more about this story, see Leslie Kwoh and Robert E. Williams III, “Slow critters block expansion,” March 23, 2008, available at http://www.nj.com/morristown/index.ssf/2008/03/slow_critters_block_rec_fields.html.

[No. 35]  Bainbridge Island, Washington: Here we go again! SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 25, 2008.
 
Last night (April 24), the Bainbridge Island School Board approved a plan to install an artificial turf field at Bainbridge High School. This is the culmination of a process that began almost four years ago when the Board made the decision that one day Bainbridge High would have an artificial turf field.  Two years ago, Bainbridge floated a bond for field renovations, but at the time the officials were tightlipped as to what they intended to install as a playing surface.

Last December it came to light that artificial turf was indeed on the menu and practically at the exclusion any other alternative.

To combat the turf proposal a group of citizens mobilized into PlasticfieldsforNever.org ( www.plasticfieldsforNever.org), threatening a lawsuit against the city , if need be, to stop the project. Meanwhile a bond issue was approved in January 2008.

The advisory group that considers capital improvement projects under the School Board’s jurisdiction required that the field renovation project be subjected to the state’s environmental impact study (EIS) law. That requirement would have made it incumbent on the city to consider all the alternatives to renovation of the field, including natural grass. Though approved, the EIS has been sidestepped in the latest round of what can only be called as the “Bainbridge Shuffle.” The city government has issued a non-significant finding which means the EIS is no longer necessary, which means turf is in , any alternative is out.

PlasticfieldsforNever.org plans to fight this proposal, including in the courts, if need be. To find out more about this and assist in this endeavor, contact Chris Van Dyk at info@plasticfieldsforNever.org or cvandyk5@msn.com or call at (206) 854-6127. The opponents intend to complete their signature drive to place a measure on the ballot that would raise sales tax by a half-cent to pay for natural grass fields, while banning artificial turf on the island. This will allow the city to rotate its 15 natural grass playing fields, Van Dyk told SynTurf.org.   

The Board member Patty Fielding has been quoted in the Bainbridge Review as saying

“We’ve essentially made the decision to go with artificial turf” and the Bioard has studies the available science on the issue. “Based on everything we’ve looked at we don’t see any scientific evidence of health or environmental risks,” Fielding has stated.

For the more on this story, see Chad Schuster, “Another turf war looms as opponents gird for battle,” in Bainbridge Review, April 23, 2008, available at

http://www.bainbridgereview.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=96&cat=23&id=1200458&more=0 .

For back ground on the Bainbridge brief, see http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item No. 23).

As a public service to Bainbridge School Board, SynTurf.org offers the following links to studies that provide sufficient evidence regarding the potential harm from turf to health and the environment:

http://www.synturf.org/braunintertecreport.html,

http://www.synturf.org/ehhibrief.html, and

http://www.synturf.org/breakingnews.html (Item No. 3).

But then no amount of light will ever illuminate a mind that is buried in the sand.

[No. 34] Auburn, New York. Byrna Weir Opposes Turf in Auburn. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 8, 2008. On February 24, 2008, SynTurf.org reported on Board of Education member Joseph Leogrande’s concern about the cost of replacing an artificial turf field. That story appeared at (http://www.synturf.org/maintenance.html (No.14). In the story, we referred to Alyssa Sunkin’s “Turf trials” that was published in The Citizen, February 9, 2008 (http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2008/02/10/local_news/news01.txt).

After reading Alyssa Sunkin's February article in The Citizen about an artificial turf field proposed for the Auburn Enlarged City School District, noting that a vote would occur in May, I assumed that the public would have ample time to become informed. To be well-informed is to cast a negative vote. Knowledge of research showing serious children's injuries, infectious disease and long-term illnesses, as well as environmental degradation has helped defeat artificial turf elsewhere.

Texas has artificial turf in at least 18 percent of its high school football stadiums, and an MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) infection rate among players that is 16 times higher than the estimated national average. One Austin teenage player has died of MRSA linked to the turf, while another death in Brooklyn and one in Virginia have not been verified.

How could any parent vote yes to a budget item that might kill a student?

How could a school board go ahead when a moratorium on artificial turf installation had been proposed?

How could the New York State School Boards Association be opposed to such a moratorium? Recent research on five major brands of turf, done by reputable labs, have revealed levels of carcinogenic substances that are in violation of the Department of Environmental Conservation's levels for brown fields (hazardous waste sites). No one would suggest sending kids to play on a hazardous waste site, but only a NO vote on the Auburn school budget can prevent this happening. The Citizen article ended, “...no conclusive evidence linking synthetic turf to suggested health effects like birth defects and cancer.” As Philippe Grandjean, MD, Harvard School of Public Health, said in speaking of mercury in tuna, “It is very unwise to wait until we have complete scientific truth.”

[SynTurf.org Editorial]: The narratives that are hereby made a part of a very public discussion about artificial turf are further testaments to three important points: First, any activism begins with good information and good information typically leads to activism against politicians blinded by the bling and armed with bad information; second, information that provokes action should be spread in simple and personal terms; third:  grassroots action is a lot easier to mobilize than people think. Maybe not every effort to slow down or stop the proliferation of turf fields can succeed, but there is no doubt that the closer the public looks at artificial turf the lesser it likes it – in terms of its cost and its proven detrimental effect on the environment, potential health risks, replacement and disposal, heat island effect, carbon footprint, and other drawbacks. But then some also walk around with all manners of injection and implants. In the world of sports, however, there is one paradox that befuddles: If performance-enhancing drugs are looked down upon, is there any compelling reason to have synthetics for a playing field?     

[No. 33] San Carlos, Calif.:  Turf Plan falls victim to political squabbling. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 21, 2008. On Wednesday, March 19, 2008, the City Manager Mark Weiss announced that San Carlos has failing to reach an agreement with the San Carlos Elementary School District for a long-term use agreement that included the filed at Heather School. Under a plan, San Carlos was hoping to install an artificial turf field at that school.

This is by no means that death knell for artificial turf in San Carlos. While the City is giving up on renovating school fields, there is still plenty of opportunity for turf to rear its head in plans to install athletic fields at City parks and non-school sites.

The decision has nevertheless delighted Joy Papapietro, who helped organize a march and letter-writing campaign that opposed turf on health and environmental grounds.

“Our work is not done,” cautioned Papapietro in an e-mail to SynTurf.org, “we will go on to help any community in San Carlos that wants to fight [the turf].” 

For a news article on this story, see Michelle Durand, “City cuts turf talk short,” in San Mateo Daily Journal, March 21, 2008, available at http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=89064. For background, see http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item Nos. 29 and 30).

[No. 32] Belmont, North Carolina. Disposal of turf fields is a concern for resident. SynTurf.org, Newton, mass. March 19, 2008.  Belmont is a tiny town in Gaston County, North Carolina. Here, like elsewhere, there is great demographic pressure on the town’s athletic fields. The town is considering a bond issue to pay for the installation for a turf field at South Point High School’s football stadium. While the reservation about this project is most fiscal, there is at least one lone voice seeing to alert the public about the human and environmental concerns about artificial turf. Meet one Richard Turner, who has raised the question about the disposal of turf fields at the end of their life. He has also questioned the harm that can come to athletes from breathing rubber particulates or bacteria breeding in the turf. He told The Gaston Gazette “Football should be played on grass.” See, Donny Wisor, “Turf war in Belmont, division over whether rec bond money should pay for $600,000 artificial turf at South Point,” in The Gaston Gazette, March 18, 2008, available at http://www.gastongazette.com/news/south_18325___article.html/belmont_turf.html.

Earlier this month, a group of citizens sued the town and the judge agreed that monies from the Open Space trust fund could not be spent on a part of the project that affected land not owned entirely by the town.

The town officials are feeling the heat. Mayor Randy Brown has said the town government plans to rescind the ordinance that would have funded the project. However, VAST suspects a gimmick in the works. This rescinding of the ordinance is to render the referendum moot. All this is “about circumventing the public's will," VAST spokesperson, Karen Borden, told SynTurf.org in an e-mail.

For background on this story see http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item No. 28). For more on this story, see Todd McHale, “Evesham group turns in petition to force vote on artificial turf,” in Burlington County Times, March 13, 2008, available at http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-03132008-1502889.html.

[No. 30]  San Carlos, Calif.: Update – Turf Protest Marches On. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 29, 2008. Yesterday, under the sunny skies of San Carlos, an impressive group of parents and children marched in protested of the proposed installation of a turf field at Heather Elementary School. By SynTurf.org’s reckoning this may well be the first time that the opponents of artificial turf fields have taken to protest march, even though marches of this kind are common in favor of upkeep and preservation of parks as “public” land.    

For more on this story go to Heather Murtagh, “Protest targets turf,” in San Mateo Daily Journal, February 29, 2008, available at http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=88094.

For background on this story go to http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item No. 29).

For more on this story go to Timothy Williams, “Groups Urge a Moratorium on City Use of Artificial Turf,” in The New York Times (Regional), February 29, 2008, available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/nyregion/29turf.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. 

San Carlos is located in California’s San Mateo County. Dubbed as “The City of Good Living,” this affluent “small town” is perched on the San Francisco Peninsula, half way between San Francisco and San Jose. Like most places in this country, population pressures are taxing the municipal planners to create greater public recreational opportunities, including athletic and playing fields.

In October 2007, the San Carlos School Board approved by a vote of 3-2 to accept the City’s offer to install artificial turf at Heather Elementary School. The Board Vice President Mark Olbert and Trustee Carrie DuBois opposed the proposal. In December 2007 the City held a number of works shops to discuss its master plan for parks, open space, buildings and other recreational facilities. One of the items in the master plan has to do with installation of artificial turf fields where there is now natural grass fields.  

To many of San Carlos’  28,000 inhabitants, synthetic turf is non-starter. After all, the City touts its leadership position in Green initiatives dealing with climate protection and all geographical levels. See http://www.ci.san-carlos.ca.us/gov/depts/cm/green_programs_n_climate_protection/default.asp. It should be no surprise that a group of San Carlos parents and other residents should organize to protest the proposed installation of an artificial turf field at the Heather Elementary School.

http://www.sanmateodailynews.com/article/2008-2-23-scturf.

Joy Papapietro and about 200 people have signed a petition to force the School Board to reconsider its hasty decision to go turf, not seeking greater community input as to the environmental and health concerns about turf fields. “We just believe it is an elementary school, not an athletic field," DuBois has told San Mateo Daily News, adding that artificial turf does not make sense at elementary schools.

The most organized in this oppositionist camp is Voters Against Synthetic Turf http://votersagainstsyntheticturf.blogspot.com), whose Karen A. Borden and David J. Silver may well be able to gather the necessary signatures to put the Township Council’s decision to a referendum. In order to recall the bond ordinance and put it to a public vote, they have 20 days hence [until March 10, 2008] to get 15 percent of the voters who cast ballots in the last election for state Assembly to sign a petition stating they favor such a referendum. In the span of just five days the group claims to have collected 400 signatures. They need a total s of 1,100 signatures in order to force a referendum on the issue. This group deserves your support and you can contact it at vast_2008@yahoo.com.

The sources consulted for this story include the various articles by Todd McHale of Burlington County News, including “Turf plan foes say put issue to a vote,” in Burlington County News, February 21, 2008, available at http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-02212008-1491395.html.

[No. 27] Longmeadow, Mass. Turf flies in Longmeadow. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. January 30, 2008.

On Wednesday, January 23, 2008, the Longmeadow Community Preservation Committee held a public hearing to discuss the merits of Synthetic Turf Plan. Click here for the plan.    

Bill Ravanesi does not favor the installation of artificial turf at the high school and is opposed also to the spending of Community Preservation Act (“CPA”) funds for the project. He used his allotted 4 minutes of time to draw attention to three salient points:

(1) Impropriety of spending CPA money to rehabilitate recreational land that was not created or acquired originally with CPA money. The law forbids this in plain and clear language.

(2) Health and environmental risks associated with the use of crumb rubber on artificial turf fields. He stated, “While manufacturers claim the fields are safe, the potential health effects of exposure to these chemicals - endocrine disruption, neurological impairment and cancer – can take years to develop. Without long term field testing, no one is in a position to say the exposure is harmless, particularly in children.”

(3) Availability of other options for addressing playing field needs.

The bulk of the hearing however went to the proponents of the plan, who have hitched their wagon to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, a quartet of slick industry executives who use power point presentations and glossy handbooks to peddle artificial turf to cash-strapped municipalities as an ultimate “environment friendly” solution for playing field woes. The officials and unsuspecting public fall for the gimmick every time, until they awake to realize that this product is not a horse but a donkey.  If everyone in in a hurry to get this deal closed is because the more time the public has to learn about turf the less attractive it begins to look.

The Community Preservation Committee has scheduled a hearing on the project for February 6, 2008.

[No. 26] Ridgefield, Conn. gears up for “No” vote on turf. A group of resident sin Ridgefield, Conn. have set up a website in an effort to get the word out in the community on the risks associated with artificial turf.  According to the its e-mail to SynTurf.org, the group intends to build greater “awareness on this public health issue.” Ridgefield will be holding a referendum on February 26, 2008, on new artificial turf fields for the town. The group’s website is www.grassfields.org. Contact info@grassfields.org  to learn more about how you can help the group achieve its objectives. For the background on this story, see below at Item No. 24.

[No. 25] Nicollet Island, Minn.: Turf in a historic setting?! By Guive Mirfendereski, SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. January 18, 2008.

Arguably the only inhabited island in the Mississippi River, Nicollet Island is north of downtown Minneapolis. Its 48 or so acres are often described today as supporting a bucolic mood, but the fact is that Nicollet had been once one of the rougher parts of Minneapolis and St. Paul, dominated by grain mills and rail yards. Today, the island’s northern section is residential, its midriff is commercial and the southern part is industrial.

But by its age, Nicollet is also home to some 43 houses from the 19^th century, with many architectural styles, that date from the 1860's to the 1890's. Mostly located in the upper part of the island, among the historic homes are 22 restored Victorian-era houses. Inhabited by some 150 people, the island further boasts acres of parkland and also trails for jogging, biking, and walking. The Pavillion and the Bell of Two Friends, a gift from the Japanese city of Ibaraki, are located on the south side of the island. To learn more about Nicollet Island visit http://fieldguide.fmr.org/site_detail.php?site_id=120.

One of the enduring institutions on Nicollet is DeLaSalle High School, a creation of the Archbishop John Ireland that dates to October 1900, when it opened its doors to pupils of all socio-economic strata. Today, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, more commonly known as the Christian Brothers, manage the institution. The premises of the school are located in the Grove Street district.

It is familiar scenario in most parts of the country: the expansion of sports facilities by schools often rubbing up against resdiential woes and worries, which can include environmental impact and quality of life issues, property values, peace and quiet, health concerns, and degradation of historical and natural resources. For the past two years, plan by DeLaSalle to build a 750-seat stadium on municipal land near the school has met with stiff oppostion by a number of residents and civic groups.

Supported by  Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, in March 2006, the City council granted permission for the plan. However, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission opposed the plan, fearing that the 140-year old street would be destroyed in the process. The City council president however voted to overrule the Preservation Commission’s objection to the plan. The value of the public parkland involved is about $2 million, which DeLaSalle would like to have for free.

On October 16, 2007, the celebrants of the plan assembled at L.L. Gray Gym for a ceremonial groundbreaking of the school’s very first home field for football and soccer. Many of the municipal officials who saw the project through to permitting were in attendance. One benefactor, also DeLaSalle graduate like many of the other actors in this scenario, offered $3 million toward the project. While the officials stepped outside to break ground, the students watched on telecast screens. To top the festivities, the school was treated to cupcakes decorated with small soccer balls and footballs.

Meanwhile there are no less than three lawsuits pending against the project. Three civic organizations – Friends of the Riverfront, National Trust for Historical Preservation and the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota – are asking that the City of Minneapolis and DeLaSalle comply with state law and explore alternatives before destroying natural and/or historic resources. More and detailed infromation on the suits is available at www.ourbeautifulriver.org. 

DeLaSalle’s original plan provided for natural grass fields. But now, SynTurf.org has learned, the school is returning to the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission in order to get permission to install artificial turf instead. There certainly is a strong policy preference not to allow turf in historical venues. Recently, the National Park Service nixed plans for Alexandria, Va., to install artificial turf fields at Jones Point Park. For details see http://www.synturf.org/sayno.html (Item No. 08). But then when shortsighted and unscrupulous developers and public officials went ahead and demolished acres upon acres of the historic Walden Woods in Concord, Mass. for the sake of athletic fields, which will include several artificial turf fields, the state regulatory agency stood by despite public request for protection of this historic resource.  For details, see Friends of Thoreau Country at  http://www.friendsofthoreaucountry.org.

When it comes to DeLaSalle's decision to go with artificial turf -- is it an afterthought or could it be that the omission from the original plan was deliberate in order to avoid greater opposition to the plan on health and environmental grounds? Regardless, if Friends of Riverfront and its allies have any say in it, the school is expected to have yet another tough fight on its hands before it can ever fill the stands.

Last summer Environment and Human Health, Inc. (www.ehhi.org) released a toxicological report on the health and environmental consequences of the leachates, off-gassing and particulates that emanate from artificial turf fields, in particular the crumb rubber infill that is made of shredded used tires and are loose on the surface of the playing field. Since that report, the Connecticut attorney-general has called for a cautious approach to installation of turf fields and has asked for further study of the field’s potential harm to health and environment. Over the boarder from Ridgefield, in New York the legislature is considering a bill that will put a moratorium on the installation of the fields until the health risks associated with them can be studied, requiring all the same that a site-specific environmental impact assessment precede any installation of a turf fields.

If  you would like to become active in opposing the project, let SynTurf.org know and we will be happy to put you in touch with other concerned folks.

[No. 23] Bainbridge Island (Washington) activist threatens lawsuit over artificial turf. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. January 4, 2008. Bainbridge Island is a city located on an island of the same name within the Central Puget Sound Basin, east of the Kitsap Peninsula and west of the City of Seattle. The island is five miles wide and ten miles long.

On January 10, 2007, the Bainbridge Island School Board will be considering a $2.5 million bond proposal for field “improvement” that ultimately could end up paying for artificial turf fields at Bainbridge Island High School. Chris Van Dyk of www.plasticfieldsforNever.org is leading an effort to have the money earmarked specifically for several natural grass fields instead. To read more on this story, please go to Tad Sooter, “Van Dyk plans a new front in turf wars,” in Bainbridge Island Review, January 2, 2008, available at http://www.bainbridgereview.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=96&cat=23&id=1132000&more=0. To help spread the word on this important citizen initiative, contact Chris van Dyk at info@plasticfieldsforNever.org or cvandyk5@msn.com or call at (206) 854-6127.

Dr. Chalker-Scott may be reached at lindacs@wsu.edu, or at (253) 445-4542.

[No. 22] Maplewood, NJ residents submit anti-turf petition. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. December 17, 2007. Updated on December 28, 2007. Today Maplewoodvotes.org submitted 960 signatures on a petition against a bond that would finance the installation of artificial turf fields in Maplewood, New Jersey. The number of signatures required for certification of the petition is 583.  minimum that is required for certification of the petition. If certified, the town must either rescind the ordinance or put it up for a referendum.

The text of the petition reads:

“We, the undersigned registered voters in Maplewood, New Jersey oppose Maplewood Ordinance 2528-07, approved by the Maplewood Township Committee on November 20, 2007, authorizing the issuance of $2,850,000 in bonds to finance part of the expense of proposed construction at DeHart Park including the installation of synthetic turf fields.  Pursuant to NJSA 40:49-27, we hereby petition the Maplewood Township Committee to put the question of incurring this indebtedness to a referendum of Maplewood voters.”

[No. 21] New York City Council holds hearing on Artificial Turf. SynTurf.org, Newton. December 16, 2007. In the morning of December 13, 2007, New York City Council’s Parks and Recreation Committee held an oversight hearing on the use of artificial turf in city parks.[1] The Committee is chaired by Helen D. Foster, a Democrat from the Bronx.[2]

According to the briefing paper that was prepared by the Committee’s staff, the hearing was to examine the relative merits of using artificial compared to natural turf and when and how Department of Parks and Recreation would look into if there are adverse health and environmental effects by using artificial turf.[3]

The Committee invited a variety of interested parties to participate in the hearing. The list of invitees included representatives of the Departments of Parks and Recreation, representatives of Friends of Columbus Park, Prospect Park Alliance,  FieldTurf Inc., Center for Climate Systems Research, The Juniper Park Civic Association, Healthy Child Healthy World, New Yorkers for Parks, elected officials, athletic organizations and other concerned community groups. The other attendees also included Joel Kupferman from New York’s enviornlaw.org (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org) and Geoffrey Croft of New York City Park Advocates (http://nycparkadvocates.org), who testified at the hearing. NYC Parks Advocates is in a relentless pursuit of infroming the public about the disappearance of the grass playing fields in the New York City area.

Following a brief explanation of the various forms of constructing playing fields, the Briefing Paper defended the use of artificial turf fields as a necessary complement to New York City’s landscape as a matter of durability and playability of fields. The Briefing Paper, however, could not ignore the recent clamor about health and environmental implications of artificial turf:

“The use of artificial turf has raised some long-term environmental and health concerns not only in New York City, but in other regions throughout the United States, as well.  Although artificial turf offers all-weather playability and lower maintenance costs than natural turf, it increases surface temperatures dramatically, not only contributing to global warming and the local heat island effect by absorbing sunlight and emitting heat, but possibly affecting the health of children using the fields.  Furthermore, removing grass takes away habitats that serve birds and plant life in the city as well.”[4]

The Briefing Paper acknowledged the findings of the Crain-Zhang toxicology test of crumb rubber, which found harmful substances far above safety standards set by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, including a concentration of highly carcinogenic benzo(a)pyrene that was found to be more than eight times above acceptable soil levels. Yet the Briefing Paper seemed to dismiss this study on the grounds that “the study did not determine if the chemicals could be absorbed into the body.”[5] 

The Brief paper also acknowledged  that “further testing of artificial turf to determine whether there are any adverse health effects has become an important issue with concerned communities who have children/athletes using artificial fields.”[6] The Briefing Paper noted the City’s denial of requests for further testing of the crumb rubber on its fields even though the funding for such testing has beeb secured by researchers indeonet of the City. “Questions still remain,” stated the Briefing Paper.

According to one source who attended the meeting, the comments by the turf industry representatives were dismissed of the concerns about the health and environmental implications of artificial turf. According to a source at www.maplewoodvotes.org, the two NYC offices that seem to favor the turf fields are the Department of Health, which insists they are safe, and Department of Parks and Recreation that is in the business of increasing and maintaining the inventory of the city’s playing fields. According to NYC Parks Advocates, since 1997 the city has installed 77 artificial turf fields, with some 23 additional ones in planning stages. “To make matters worse,” Croft testified, “DPR has also removed more than 47 former natural turf fields and replaced them [with] artificial turf. They are in the process of removing many more.” As of this writing no result has been reported from the hearing. For the pre-hearing coverage of the event, see Patrick Arden, “Toxic turf concerns get Council hearing,” in Metro USA, NY, December 13, 2007, available at http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Toxic_turf_concerns_get_Council_hearing/11086.html.

[No. 19] Delaware Riverkeeper slams artificial turf on cost and other issues! October 16, 2007. In a letter addressed to the Radnor Township [Pennsylvania] School Board, Delaware Riverkeeper (www.delawareriverkeeper.org) sought to dispel the myth associated with installation of artificial turf playing field at a middle school in the town. The letter pointed out, among other things, artificial turf costs excessively more than natural grass under every cost scenario applicable to the situation, and the environmental, educational and social affects of artificial turf could not be justified. See the text of the letter at http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/newsresources/factsheet.asp?ID=53 (October 16, 2007).

DelawareRiverkeeper.org has a very well informed Fact Sheet on Artificial/Synthetic Turf. It can be accessed at http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/newsresources/factsheet.asp?ID=50 (September 9, 2007). It discusses the actual and potential adverse impact of artificial turf fields with regard to stormwater considerations, water quality issues (leachate and discharge containing harmful particulates and substances), heat island effect, and costs in dollars and cents terms.

From a cost standpoint, Fact Sheet states: “It is generally agreed that artificial turf costs more to install than natural grass, while natural grass costs more to maintain.  Installation and maintenance costs for each must be assessed on a case by case basis depending on site specific conditions.  But generally speaking, when the installation and maintenance costs of artificial turf are assessed for the life span of the turf, particularly when the cost of disposal is added, the cost of installing and maintaining natural grass is far less.  The guaranteed life and/or lifespan of artificial turf is 8 to 10 years.  Some attempt to claim a longer life in order to assert a lower annual cost.” Footnotes omitted.

The comparative cost figures for artificial turf and natural grass as set forth in Delaware Riverkeeper.org’s Fact Sheet:

Per San Francisco Recreation & Parks (2005):

Installation:                 turf $800,000    v.    natural grass  $260,000

Annual maintenance:  turf $6,000        v.    natural grass  $42,000

Cost of disposal: turf  unknown (significant/hazardous waste)   v.  natural grass  $0

Av. annual cost for   8 yrs:  turf  $106,000  v.   natural grass   $74,500

Av. annual cost for 10 yrs:  turf  $86,000    v.   natural grass   $68,000

Av. annual cost for 15 yrs:  turf  $59,333    v.   natural grass   $59,333  

Per Facts about Artificial Turf and natural Grass (Turfgrass Resource Center):

Cost of construction and maintenance per sq. ft.: turf  $7.80-$10.75  v. natural grass  $6.50-$7.95 (with high quality soil amendments), or $2.50-$5.25 (with native soils)

Cost of disposal per sq. ft.:  turf $1.75-$2.25  v. natural grass  $0

Springfield College case study installation and maintenance: turf &105,000  v. natural grass  $78,000

Av. annual cost for 8 yrs(without disposal cost): turf 800,000 install and annual maintenance of $5,000 v. natural grass $400,000 and $28,000, respectively

Av. annual cost for 10 yrs (without disposal cost): turf $85,000  v. natural grass $68,000

Av. annual cost for 25 yrs (without disposal cost): turf  $58,377  v. natural turf  $54,666

Per A Guide to Synthetic and Natural Turfgrass for Sports Fields:

Cost of installation per sq. ft.: turf  7.80-$10.75  v. natural grass  $2.50-$5.25 (if done with native soils), $3.50-$5.25 (if done with combination of native soils and sand), $6.50-$7.95 (if done with sand drainage)

Annual maintenance:  turf $5,000-$25,000  v. natural grass $4,000-$11,000 (per the case studies provided)

[No. 17] New Jersey environmentalists question spending “Green Acres” money on turf. November 23, 2007. According to NorthJersey.com, environmentalists are questioning why state officials are letting towns pay for synthetic turf fields with "Green Acres" funds. One such person is Dee Ann Ipp, a Teaneck resident, who told NorthJersey.com that many voters would be upset to learn they supported an open space fund "in which millions of dollars can be spent on something that isn't green at all." Source: Colleen Diskin, “Critics worry about artificial turf’s impact on ecosystem,” in The Record, northern New Jersey, November 23, 2007, available at http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MjI0OTg5JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg.

[No. 14] Fayetteville-Manlius, Onondoga County (Syracuse), New York. October-November, 2007. Three years ago, the voters of this Central New York community turned down a $6-million proposal to build a new stadium at F-M High School, complete with artificial turf fields. Like a bad penny, the idea resurfaced again this year when in September some thousand petitioners asked for a $4-million turf project. Losing no time, on October 29, 2007, the Fayetteville-Manlius School Board approved the plan for the project to go before the voters on December 13 of this year. See WSYR-TV, Channel 9 report: http://www.topix.com/city/manlius-ny/2007/10/turf-field-vote-approved-in-fayetteville-manlius; http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0475ace4-fc2a-4c39-a070-5e7d846fbb6b&rss=112.

The hurry-up offense of the proponents of the project soon ran into a block when it was learned that only 5 days earlier two Assemblymen in Albany had introduced a bill in favor of 6-month moratorium on the sale and installation of artificial turf fields until the health effects of turf fields could be studied (for the Englebright-Colton bill, see this site’s page “Moratoriums”).

The news of the moratorium legislation bolstered the position of the grassroots Anti-Synthetic Turf Action Group of F-M (http://www.geocities.com/fmturf/health.html, email: fmturf@yahoo.com). It launched a website and concerned parents like Valerie Clarke and other citizens began a campaign of public information about the health implications of artificial turf fields and the need for further studying of the product.

By November 15, 2007, the Board of Education was prepared to consider putting off the vote on the turf project. See Elizabeth Doran, “F-M may put off vote on Stadium – District: Turf’s possible health hazards is reason for postponement of Project,” in Syracuse.com, November 15, 2007, at http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf?/base/news-12/119512094741570.xml&coll=1.

On November 19, 2007, the Board of Education voted to postpone the turf project. The Board indicated it would discuss the project in December anyway and it may put it before the voters in March 2008, hoping for a project start date sometime in the fall of 2008. The Board member Dawn Cottrell was quoted as saying, “We are responsible and liable for the safety of our students. Any word that this might endanger our students’ health should be investigated before we put this for a vote.” Elizabeth Doran, “F-M delays vote on new stadium,” in Syracuse.com, November 20, 2007, at http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-12/119555254742880.xml&coll=1.

Comments of officials like Cottrell smack with genuine insincerity and pretend- ignorance. In fact, the health and safety risks associated with artificial turf fields were known wide and far already at the time of the Board’s vote in October. In fact, a group of parents and concerned citizens made a presentation to the Board on October 29 about the subject. See http://www.geocities.com/fmturf/health.html. And yet, Cottrell had the audacity to claim after the vote on November 19 that any word of turf endangering students’ health warranted a postponement of the turf project!

What had changed suddenly between October 29 and November 19? SynTurf.org would speculate the Board changed its mind for now because the proposed moratorium legislation might nix the state financial help for the project. This would put the entire financial burden of the project on the residents/taxpayers, who already in 2004 had shown no stomach for such extravagant projects. Therefore, by taking a necessary wait-and-see attitude, the Board at the same time placated the anti-turf action group, which was quick to commend the Board of Education for its prudent decision. See http://www.geocities.com/fmturf/health.html.

The following is an excerpt from a concerned parent in the Fayetteville-Manlius community, which offers a sober analysis of the isuues that require attention:
“[I]t is important that the public becomes informed about the pros and cons of synthetic turf and the potential health hazards associated with tire crumbs. There is a plethora of information to sift through. We must be certain that we scrutinize the articles we read in order to evaluate the information as biased or unbiased, strong or weak, valid or invalid. We are in an advantageous position to learn what there is to know about tire crumbs and to make an educated choice about whether or not to install this type of turf on high school playing fields. We can either choose to follow the recommendations from certain groups who advise that more data is needed in order to properly assess the potential health hazards associated with tire crumbs before exposing our children to this material, or we can choose to proceed with the installation of this type of synthetic turf playing field because we are comfortable with the available evidence that it is indeed safe. The choice is ours, but we cannot turn back the clock and pretend that we didn’t know both sides of the argument.” For more of this editorial/guest column, see Valerie Clarke, “Synthetic Turf: Is it safe?” in cnylink.com (Eagle Newspapers), December 12, 2007, available at http://cnylink.com/cnynews/article.php?article_id=tP1197476171t4760094b0ac94.

[No. 09] Westmount, Quebec: The city of Westmount is situated on the western slopes of Mount Royal in Canada’s Quebec Province. It encompasses an urban forest, with numerous parks and playgrounds, and boasts more than 11,000 trees in its public green spaces alone. On May 28, 2007, more than a thousand residents presented a petition to the City Council, opposing plans for the installation of artificial turf fields at Westmount Park. Among the opponents of the project were Save the Park, Westmount Park School Council, and Narnia day care center. In addition to a litany of health, environmental and cost concerns, the petitioners’ gripe was informed also by the experience with the turf installation at the city’s Jeanne Mance Park, whence “a rubber odour emanates from the surface and travels a considerable distance from the park.” To read more about  this story: Martin C. Barry, “Synthetic turf opponents present 1,000-strong petition to council,” June 5, 2007, available at http://www.westmountexaminer.com/article-110612-Synthetic-turf-opponents-present-1000strong-petition-to-council.html.

[No. 08] Newton/Wayland/Wellesley, Massachusetts: “On a cloudless summer morning, Kurt Tramposch, a public health consultant from Wayland, looked out across acres of green, artificial-turf playing fields in Waltham. Others might have seen a vista of potential play, a landscape made for fun. Not Tramposch. ‘Some of us look at this and see a tire dump,’ he said. Tramposch and a small group of allies have come together to oppose what some call progress - a growing wave of installations of artificial turf throughout the [Boston area’s] western suburbs. They are fighting the battle on blogs, before town officials, and even in the state Legislature, arguing that there are too many health and environmental questions surrounding fake grass. In some communities, they have taken local officials to court… And they are unafraid to take on a very powerful force in local politics: sports boosters.” To read more about this story: Meghan Woolhouse, “Grass-roots uprising: Health, environmental issues slow dash to build artificial playing fields,” The Boston Globe, September 13, 2007, available at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/13/grass_roots_uprising/.
 
[ No. 07] Wayland, Massachusetts: In November 21, 2006, the Town of Wayland’s Conservation Commission decided to clear the project to install an a artificial turf field at Wayland High School. Ten residents appealed the ConCom’s decision to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, asking the department to determine if the water quality issues were properly addressed by the commission. In March 2007, the department sent a letter to the town stating that the town must make sure the field drained safely and way from the water wells. In May 17, 2007, the department affirmed the conditions that the town’s conservation commission had placed on the project. In June 2007, the “Wayland 10” appealed the department’s decision, requesting an adjudicatory hearing. A letter from the United States Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service proved crucial for the residents’ case. It told the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that the Wayland-10’s concerns about toxicity of the leachate from rubber crumb from the proposed field should be addressed. By July 23, 2007, the Wayland “minutemen” managed to get the town to agree to a rigorous testing and monitoring of the run-off and leachate from artificial turf field in order to protect the town’s drinking water and wetlands. According to the agreement, the town will hire an independent consultant to test for contaminants that may leach from the synthetic turf, which, as designed, is comprised of 40,000 ground-up rubber tires.  Under the agreement, the town will take steps to remediate problems if the consultant finds contaminants that endanger drinking water or wetlands.  In exchange for these built-in safeguards and independent oversight, the residents agreed not to pursue further litigation pertaining to the field project. To read more about this story: Peter Reuell, “Wayland agrees to regularly test field,” The MetroWest Daily News, July 25, 2007, available at http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1396328823.
 
[No. 06] Wellesley, Massachusetts: In February 2007, Town of Wellesley’s school committee moved quickly to approve the installation of two artificial turf fields at the Sprague Elementary School. The tide turned against the project when in March, 2007, the town’s selectmen voted to institute user fees on youth athletic programs as a way to pay for the proposed turf fields. In voting against user fees, the lone selectmen, David Himmelberger, questioned the safety of the turf plan as a whole. “I have grave reservations about this vote and about this project … I don’t think the Sprague student community should be placed at risk to gain more fields … this product has never been evaluated for use by elementary school kids. There are latex allergy issues and asthma issues that haven’t been addressed,” he was reported as saying. By the time of the Annual Town Meeting a critical number of citizens had garnered siffcient attention and literature to educate the town meeting members on the potential health risks associated with artifcial turf. The first time Article 22 came up for a vote, it was defeated. The defeat did not deter the propoents of the proejct to call for reconsideration of the vote. The recosideration came a week later at the Town Meeting on April 10-11, 2007, after five hours of debate in the span of two nights. On April 11, the majority of members at the meeting voted for the resolution to fund the turf fields, but the measure fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to pass. To read more about this story:  Brad Reed, “Split board backs user fees,” The Wellesley Townsman, March 8, 2007, available at http://www.townonline.com/wellesley/homepage/x110101603; Brad Reed, “Turf’s out,” The Wellesley Townsman, April 12, 2007, available at http://www.townonline.com/wellesley/archive/x1222193239.

[No. 05] Westport, Connecticut: “The Westport Brief,” provides a brief recounting of the efforts of a few concerned mothers in Westport, Connecticut, who raised questions about dangers of artificial turf and in the process got the state’s attention. Previously, surveys and tests had claimed that the rubber crumb, which is made mostly of ground up used tires, posed no threat to human health. That myth is now being debunked by the results of a new test commissioned by Environment and Human Health, Inc., a North Haven, Connecticut, non-profit organization (http://www.ehhi.org) dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and improving public policy. To read more about this story: www.synturf.org (this site), page “WrapUpArticles," Article No. 3.

[No. 04] Wilmington, Massachusetts: “Always a lush, deep green, practically indestructible and needing virtually no maintenance, the newest generation of artificial turf – with its grass like feel and remarkably forgiving, bouncy surface – has become all the rage for year-round sports facilities. You can play as well in the rain as on a clear day, if it snows, just brush the white stuff off. Muddy fields, a memory; holes in the ground, what’s that? So who wouldn’t be enamored playing on, or even just looking at this newest of scholastics sports necessities? Try more than half of student athletes at Wilmington High School.” To read more about this story: Franklin B. Tucker, “Wilmington athletes not sold on turf,” April 12, 2007, available at http://www.townonline.com/wilmington/homepage/x1107229452.

[No. 03] Woodside, California: Situated on the San Francisco Peninsula, Woodside is one of the wealthiest small towns in the country. With a population slightly over 5,400, it is home to many captains of industry and persons of renown. As its name implies, it is wooded, with redwoods in the western hills and oak and eucalyptus trees in the lower areas. So, naturally, the proposal to install two artificial turf fields at Woodside School would have not been exactly “consistent with Woodside values.” Faced with an on-line petition, which was curiously dubbed “Keep One WES Soccer Field Natural Grass," on July 19, 2007, the Woodside Elementary School District agreed to use natural grass on the soccer field meant for K-3 children at Woodside School, but kept the turf plan for the filed to be used by the middle school. To read more about this story: David Boyce, Petition effort succeeds: Grass will grow on Woodside k-3 soccer field,” The Almanac, July 25, 2007, available at http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=4617.

[No. 02] Atherton, California: Unlike Woodside, California, where the opponents of artificial turf valued “half of a loaf” as a compromise between the happiness of having grass fields and utility, on April 3, 2007, the Menlo Park City Council opted for none of it for Encinal School, an Atherton elementary school, where the proposal would have installed an adult-size turf soccer field. Three of the five Council members voted against the proposal. They said that there were “too many unanswered questions concerning the effects on the surrounding neighborhood, and the health, safety and environmental impacts of artificial turf.” Among the concerns, they cited “injuries caused by playing on the harder surface, the fact that the artificial turf gets warmer than grass, and the environmental effects of replacing grass with an artificial surface.” The opposition to the turf plan was mobilized by an impressive on-line petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Encinal). To read more about this  story:  Rory Brown, “No artificial turf at Encinal School: Existing grass field will be refurbished, but won’t be available until February,” The Almanac, April 11, 2007, available at http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=3929.

[No. 01] Seoul, South Korea: “Artificial turf causing skin disease at nation’s schools: Education ministry opens investiogation into the safety of poisonous materials,” Hankyoreh Media Company, Seoul- South Korea, July 2-3, 2007, at http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/219645.html.