www.SynTurf.org

No. 24]Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Fact Sheet Artificial/Synthetic Turf (9 September 2007). February 2016. 

No. 23] Mount Sinai’s Brief. March 2016.

No. 22] The Rockwood Brief (October 31, 2015). November 2015.

No. 21] The SynTurf.org’s Brief: Eight Good Reasons Why Artificial Turf Is One Bad Idea (Newton, Massachusetts, USA - 30 January 2015). November 2015.

No. 20] Perth, Western Australia: Natural grass is tougher than most think! March 2015.

No. 19] Guive Mirfendereski on artificial turf. February 2015.

No. 18] Dr. Philip Landrigan on health hazards of artificial turf. November 2014.

No. 17] What to know and what to ask about artificial turf. May 2014.

No. 12] Artificial turf in the mirror: A 3-part report by The Mirror, Highland Park, New Jersey. November 2009

No. 11]  Turf Fields: Playing with Kids' Health. May 2009 

No. 10] NIH on turf -- in a glimpse. May 2009. 

No. 09] What’s in the artificial turf fiber? January 2009.

No. 08] Debunking the Myth of Low-Cost Turf Fields: A multi-source comparative study of the annualized cost of natural grass vs. artificial turf fields. October 2008

No. 07] Sorensen goes to the heart of the matter (July 2008).

No. 06]  This is no Sweden -- the crumbing of Calif. Senate Bill 1277 and other issues (May 2008). 

No. 05]  How Green is Artificial Turf? A Fox News report (Fenruary 2008).

No. 04]  Synthetic Turf: Health debate takes root (March 2008).

No. 03]  The Staph & Turf Brief -- What's the connection? (November 12, 2007).

No. 02]  The Westport Brief: Citizens Question Safety of Rubber Crumb  in Artificial Turf (September 28, 2007).

No. 01]  Beckham's Lament: The Pains & Strains of Playing on Infilled Turf (September 17, 2007).

[No. 13] European Seed Association pitches natural turf. The following article appeared in Pitchcare Magazine, Issue 40 (December 2011/ January 2012) and was reposted by European Seed Association in Synthetics on 24 February 2012 – available at http://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/natural-or-artificial-turf-the-esa-argue-the-case-for-natural-surfaces.html . The on-line version of this article contains pictures that are worth a glance.

 Magazine - Natural or artificial turf? The ESA argue the case for natural surfaces

 Artificial turf releases more greenhouse gases in its production, transportation and processing than the  maintenance of natural turf ever would

If you’re considering investing in the installation or renewal of a municipal or club sports surface, perhaps the most important decision you must make is whether to specify natural or artificial turf.

Decision makers take many different factors into consideration when deciding on whether to install or renew turf pitches. These can be practical, climatic and financial, alongside public, political and personal considerations.

There’s no denying that the arguments are compelling on both sides, and it may seem like a tough decision - but it isn't. Natural turf brings a multitude of benefits, from its unbeatable environmental credentials to the commonly-held belief that ‘the beautiful game’ simply cannot be played on anything but a natural grassed football pitch. That said, football’s international governing body, FIFA itself, has lent its support to artificial turf in recent years, aiding product development and giving rise to its more accepted, widespread use.

The technology has, indeed, improved, overcoming many of the problems associated with early-generation pitches. But, it is also true that the natural solution has come on in great leaps and bounds. Thanks to the ongoing endeavours of plant breeders within both traditional and innovative new species, grass seed solutions have been introduced that provide key characteristics such as wear, drought and disease resistance.

Maintenance regimes have also been much improved. Last year’s South African Football World Cup is a terrific illustration of this. Natural turf was the predominant playing surface across the tournament's stadium pitches and training grounds. This, despite the fact that FIFA mooted playing on all artificial turf due to the country’s exceedingly hot and arid conditions. But, in practice, and for the most part, natural turf turned out to be the better option - a great result for grass!

The natural choice - With municipalities and sports clubs under increased pressure to make the most of their sports and amenity surfaces with minimal inputs and spend, many decision makers are swayed by artificial turf manufacturers’ promises of longer playing hours, less maintenance and lower costs. Do these persuasive facts and figures, together with the prevalence and approval of artificial turf's use, prove it is the superior, more modern choice? As the voice of the European natural grass seed industry, the ESA (European Seed Association) strongly believes that this is not the case, and is keen to promote the benefits of choosing natural turf wherever and whenever possible. Here, we'll explore the advantages of choosing natural turf.

How natural grass can help cut your carbon footprint  - One of the strongest arguments for installing natural turf is that it is by far the most sustainable, and environmentally and carbon-friendly option. We are, each of us, responsible for our planet's cleaner, greener future and have our part, no matter how small, to play. It is up to individuals to make positive choices, be that recycling household waste, cycling to work or, indeed, choosing natural over artificial turf in a professional capacity.

What’s more, with many clubs and municipalities actively seeking to cut their carbon footprint or become carbon neutral, installing and preserving natural turf pitches can be a vital contributor to this. To illustrate - for every artificial pitch that is installed, a natural pitch needs to be established to compensate for the greenhouse gases produced and neutralise the carbon.

Deforestation is, quite rightly, one of the most decried acts against our environment. But, you may be interested to learn that the annual oxygen production and carbon dioxide fixation from one hectare of grass exceeds that of one hectare of forest. Grass is vital to carbon sequestration - the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in the soil reservoir, which is third only to the other carbon sequestration reservoirs; the earth’s outermost surface, the crust, and underground oil and gas reserves. This means that, hectare for hectare, turf grass will sequester more carbon into the soil each year than woodland.

Conversely, the artificial yarns or fibres that make up artificial turf are manufactured predominantly from petrochemicals - one of the main contributors to global warming. Indeed, 2010 research conducted by the University of Berkley in the States concluded that: “Artificial turf releases more greenhouse gases in its production, transportation and processing than the maintenance of natural turf ever would”.

In the ESA’s new ‘Natural turf: why it remains the natural choice for football, sports and playing surfaces’ discussion document, we look at these benefits in greater detail - visit www.tinyurl.com/ESAdoc to request a copy or find out more.

Cost benefits - Natural turf is very cost-effective compared to artificial, as the below ESA figures reveal. Annual costs for an artificial surface are high; often far higher, per playing hour, than a natural surface due to the considerable initial investment costs. Maintenance costs for natural and artificial surfaces are, in fact, very similar, contrary to claims that artificial saves on maintenance. Indeed, many turf professionals report an increase in maintenance costs after installing an artificial pitch - it's certainly not a case of installing an artificial pitch and leaving it at that.

Counting the costs of artificial vs natural turf  - Other cost-factors to consider: To make an artificial pitch investment worthwhile over the course of its lifetime, a pitch needs to be played on for over 1,000 hours per year. But, think about it; that means at least three hours of play or training, seven days a week, all year round. Come rain, wind or shine. How many football and sports clubs, and municipal sites require that level of use? Artificial surfaces are often said to have a lifespan of fifteen years. But, so far, no such surface has remained in-field for that length of time. It is now thought that a ten year life expectancy is more realistic.

This increases annual costs considerably, because the depreciation costs per year are very high and, in turn, raises the question of how they are recycled at the end of their life.

When making competitive comparisons, many artificial turf stakeholders and users fail to take factors such as the introduction of new and improved grass varieties and species into account, and over-calculate maintenance costs as a result. Natural turf costs are also impacted by climatic conditions and the intensity of use - not to mention the skills and resources of the grounds team.

Whilst natural turf renews and repairs itself, an artificial surface will deteriorate and depreciate, regardless of how much you spend on maintenance, from the day it's installed until the day it's replaced.

Human health benefits - Did you know that studies have shown that the smells, sensations and experiences of being on or near natural grass bring a number of health and wellbeing benefits? It can reduce stress levels and even reduce your heart rate. That’s because grass is alive, vital, fresh; it grows - it makes people feel happy and healthy.

Many players and sports professionals prefer it. Spectators prefer it precisely because it brings the unpredictability and excitement to a game that a sterile, artificial surface aims to eradicate. Parents often prefer their children to play on natural surfaces. Grass stains and dirt are all part of 'the beautiful game'. These may be evocative arguments, but they are true.

There are also a number of health and safety concerns surrounding the use of artificial turf. There is evidence that playing on the early-generation artificial surfaces brings a slightly higher risk of injuries, such as turf toe, anterior cruciate ligament injuries, foot lock, turf burn and concussion. The jury is still out on the new-generation pitches in terms of risk of injury. But, studies have shown a higher incidence of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection among American football players who play and train on artificial grass. This is because it is believed the ‘carpet burns’ caused by artificial turf create an entry point into the body for MRSA bacteria. Natural turf, on the other hand, contains an array of beneficial bacteria, which self-sanitise the surface and absorb human bodily fluids like sweat, spit, vomit, blood and urine, etc., as well as animal excreta and algae that could otherwise cause infection.

Some manufacturers promote the absence of bacteria in artificial turf as a positive, but how widely and regularly are pitch sanitation products used and how effective are they? And how healthy are they for both humans and the environment?

Another downside of artificial turf, in terms of human health and player comfort, is it gets far, far hotter than natural turf. A US study, comparing a test venue’s average temperatures between 7.00am and 7.00pm, showed that the artificial surface heated to 47ºC, with a high of 69ºC; compared to natural turf’s 26ºC, with a high of 32ºC. Whilst irrigation does reduce temperature, it quickly rises again. Even in shade, artificial has a higher surface temperature than natural. This can result in increased fatigue, aggravated skin and fall injuries and - in the extreme - melted footwear, blisters and burns.

Cutting-edge natural turf solutions - Just as the artificial turf sector has sought to resolve issues, such as an increased risk of injury and concerns about sustainability, etc., associated with the early-generation artificial pitches, our industry has worked tirelessly to introduce new and innovative natural turf solutions.

Thanks to rigorous and ongoing European and global breeding, research and development programmes, together with advances in turf management techniques, today’s natural turf solutions improve year-on-year, providing outstanding wear-and shade-tolerance, excellent tensile strength, faster establishment and many more desirable characteristics besides. Here are just a few of the major breakthroughs in grass seed breeding and natural turf solutions made in recent years:

 • According to figures from the Dutch recommended list, perennial ryegrass - the main grass variety used in sports and amenity applications - has improved its wear tolerance by one percent year-on-year. This means that a sports field yielding 330 hours play per year in 1975, would, in 2010, have benefitted from an additional 117 hours of extra play, bringing the total possible hours of play per year to an impressive figure of over 450. What's more, some modern pitches use a special soil construction that can yield up to 750 hours of play and training.

 • Breeding has also vastly extended the growing season for natural grasses. Varieties are now available that achieve very early growth after the winter and long into the autumn, aiding repairs and renovations all year round, regardless of conditions. The result is a stronger performance right through winter as well as an improved winter colour.

 • The recent development of a very fast-establishing turf-type annual ryegrass, capable of germinating in temperatures as low as 3.5ºC, means germination and growth can be achieved quickly and year-round - even in cooler autumn and winter months. Famously used on the training pitches at the 2010 South Africa World Cup, this unique annual ryegrass was praised by an independent sports turf expert working for FIFA as being “of an exceptionally high standard”.

 • The strong-rooting characteristics of top quality grass varieties are also being enhanced by mixing artificial fibres into the topsoil. Or, alternatively, by combining real grass with artificial grass, woven together into a fibre surface, as per the Desso system. These provide a very strong and stable surface, less prone to divots. As a result, they offer all the benefits of natural grass together with the peace of mind of artificial fibres in periods of stress.

 • Last, but by no means least, the issue of shade - a real problem for some of our top stadia - has been solved, thanks to the introduction of shade-tolerant species and varieties, not to mention the use of lighting rigs.

As a result, whatever the sport or application - be it municipal/grassroots level, or professional - and regardless of usage requirements, local/climatic pressures or individual considerations, there is a natural turf solution to suit and succeed. The natural solution scores on all fronts; environmental, financial, longevity and safety, plus players and spectators alike prefer it!

PART I: Artificial grass at HPHS bears a closer look: All that’s recycled is not green, by Leigh Davis, special to The Mirror (Highland Park, New Jersey), June 18, 2009, available at http://www.highlandparkmirror.com/hpmfts1.html :

It’s not easy being green. One case in point is the meteoric rise in installations of synthetic turf athletic fields, Highland Park among them.

As the last touches are put on the new Middlesex County Recreation Complex at Highland Park Middle/High School; as parents and student athletes clamor for the field to be completed; questions remain about the turf’s safety and sustainability. Both topics shed some light on the decision process that led one of New Jersey’s pre-eminent “green communities” to replace a living soil-and-grass field with plastic grass, “FieldTurf ®” manufactured by European flooring conglomerate Tarkett SAS.

Some parents have asked, “Is it safe for my kid to play on that?” Manufacturers claim that they have addressed the documented problems of older synthetics; that is, injuries and exposures to chemicals like lead and chromium.

Questions about lead poisoning risks have driven much of the public concern about these fields. Lead chromate is used to maintain the green of the synthetic turf “grass” and also the yellow of permanent field lines.

At a recent borough council meeting, borough administrator Karen Waldron stated that lead problems are associated with synthetic turfs from the 1980s and earlier. Yet in June 2008, when six synthetic turf fields were closed by the state Department of Health for having high lead levels, two of the fields were 2002 FieldTurf installations at Northern Valley Regional High School. Tarkett’s response: the company was “astonished,” and questioned the reliability of the testing.

The Northern Valley fields have since re-opened, but with usage conditions, barring children under 7 from using the synthetic fields, and calling for users 8 years and older to follow federal guidelines.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) followed up with their own testing, and said new fields were “safe” and contain very little lead. Trumpeted in the media and by Tarkett as a victory, these findings have been accepted by the state.

The borough has provided test reports on the grass blades, showing lead levels well below DEP cut-offs for what is considered “safe.” The methodology used for these tests was not identified.

In June 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a public health advisory for artificial turf users, recommending: “aggressive hand and body washing” after use; turning clothes inside out after use “to avoid tracking contaminated dust to other places;” washing exposed clothes separately; and keeping shoes worn on the synthetic field outside. Users are also advised not to eat while on a synthetic field, and to avoid “contaminating drinking containers with dust…from the field.”

The Connecticut-based nonprofit Environment and Human Health Inc. (EHHI), though, has criticized the CPSC tests for analyzing only a small sample of turf blades from a few fields, and for ignoring the base layer of crumb rubber infill. The crumb rubber, made from used tires, is considered hazardous waste in some states and “special waste” in others.

Synthetic turf is comprised of several layers. Green “grass” blades made from polyethylene and/or polypropylene — common plastics used for grocery bags — are embedded in a polymer surface and surrounded by tiny granules of crumb rubber as infill. The Highland Park field uses a combination of natual silica sand and crumb rubber as its infill. Another component of rubber tires is latex, an allergen that can cause anaphylaxis in people with serious latex sensitivity. In 2006, researchers from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found the latex in rubber tires enough of a major risk to recommend discontinuing use of crumb rubber as infill.

The Material Safety Data Sheet obtained from the borough states that “rubber is not listed as a carcinogen.” However, tire rubber contains a litany of chemicals suspected of health effects: ethylene-propylene, styrene-butadiene, vulcanizing agents, fillers, plasticizers…carcinogenic PAHs and volatile organic compounds. A 2007 report by EHHI, titled Artificial Turf, identifies 25 different chemicals in crumb rubber, including irritants such as benzotheazole and n-hexadecane, butylated hydroxanisole (known to cause cancer and implicated in hormone disruption), and 4-(t-octyl) phenol, a corrosive that can injure mucous membranes. A California Office of Human Health Assessment review of dozens of studies found 49 different chemicals that could be released from tire crumb -- seven of which were cancer-causing.

In 2006, Dr. Jun-Feng Zhang from Rutgers’ Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, working with developmental psychologist William Crain of City College of New York, tested FieldTurf in Manhattan’s Riverside Park, looking for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and toxic metals. They found six PAHs above tolerable levels for soil. They also found zinc at above-tolerable levels, and low levels of lead and arsenic. Although these researchers found that PAHs cannot be absorbed in the digestive track, lead in the crumb rubber could.

New Jersey officials have approved FieldTurf because they say the lead concentrations are very low, but “many in the medical profession don’t agree with the regulators,” says Dr. Crain. “Medical scientists are sure even small amounts of lead can cause neurological damage in children.”

The manufacturer claims reduced likelihood of abrasions from sliding on their fields. Tarkett’s marketing materials also claim that players don’t experience “the accelerated fatigue and muscle/joint stress” associated with other synthetic turf fields.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances like tobacco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are usually found as a mixture containing two or more of these compounds, such as soot. Some PAHs are manufactured. These pure PAHs usually exist as colorless, white, or pale yellow-green solids. PAHs are found in coal tar, crude oil, creosote, and roofing tar, but a few are used in medicines or to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides.

There are few peer-reviewed studies supporting this claim. In a five-year study of football injuries at a Texas high school, sports medicine researchers Michael Meyers, PhD and Bill Barnhill, MD, found more muscle strains and abrasions, and much higher rates of injury on hot days (above 70 degrees F), with FieldTurf compared to grass. Researchers say more studies are needed before they can draw any solid conclusions about relative injury rates or potential for increased infections.

Heat stress from increased temperatures found on synthetic surfaces is another risk. Researchers at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University found temperatures 60 degrees hotter than natural grass, and 140-degree surface temperatures in the sun when air temperatures were between 78 and 85 degrees F. At Brigham Young University (BYU), Williams and Pulley actually recorded turf surface temperatures as high as 200 degrees F. They found that synthetic fields averaged 8 degrees higher than asphalt -- 39 degrees higher than real grass. Watering cools the field but temperatures, and heat stress risks, go back up within twenty minutes after watering.

The presence of the pesticide chlordane in the HPHS field topsoil has been cited as another reason justifying its replacement with plastic. However, covering the field with plastic is hardly the only remediation available to the topsoil contamination. Ironically, pesticide use is sometimes required with synthetic surfaces anyway.

In an economic system where every dinosaur oil salesman has found creative ways to package his waste products for unsuspecting customers, the decision to replace the athletic field called for a healthy dose of precaution.

The Precautionary Principle

Better safe than sorry. Look before you leap . . . Don’t run with the scissors. When in doubt, throw it out. Wise advice from Mom, these mantras are also restatements of “The Precautionary Principle.”

The conventional approach to risk assessment places the burden of proof of harm on skeptics. Changes are presumed innocuous until proven otherwise, making it nearly impossible to show causality between complex chemical exposures and problems like cancer or learning disabilities. The long time between exposure and consequences, and other variables, can prevent our ability to make a direct connection.

Developed in 1998, and since endorsed by numerous NGOs including the American Public Health Association and European Chemical Industry Council, the Wingspread Consensus Statement of the Precautionary Principle states that risky activities require precaution, even without scientific proof of cause and effect. Under this ethic, the burden of proof shifts from the public to those advocating a risky activity. The decision process must be “open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties…[and] involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

In short, as we often say to our children, “Be safe. Take care.” The full Wingspread Statement and list of signatories can be found at: www.sehn.org/wing.html.

What are the relative costs and benefits of FieldTurf versus a natural grass field? Park and program directors around the county can report on their experience over recent years. Part II of this series examines the sustainability of the synthetic surface.

PART II: New HPHS field is expected to last about a decade: Care and feeding of your new artificial grass: Care and feeding of your new artificial grass by Leigh Davis, special to The Mirror (Highland Park, New Jersey), June 18, 2009, available at http://www.highlandparkmirror.com/hpmfts2.html : 

Highland Parkers take seriously the move toward a more “green” society, including the emphasis on living sustainably. The diversion of twelve million tires (about 4% of annual waste) out of landfills is among the arguments used to cast artificial turf as a poster child for wise resource use. Other sustainability claims include: reduced water demands, elimination of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, lower maintenance, and back-end recyclability of the plastic and rubber components. Does the product measure up to its marketing?

It’s commonly assumed that replacing natural grass with a synthetic field will yield a net savings in water. The water use for any field can vary greatly between different climate zones, seasons of use, and how the fields are maintained. On the front end, 24 gallons (about 200 pounds) are used to manufacture just one pound of plastic. While you contemplate the weight in pounds of a plastic football field, consider this: on the back end, when the Chappaqua Central School District considered artificial turf, their Athletic Field Turf Committee was concerned about “possible heavy metal contamination of soil and ground water upon disposal.”

While the plastic does not need watering to stay crisp and green, its high surface temperatures ensure that an artificial field will need to be hosed down on warm days. Some schools also hose down fields prior to play to remove animal droppings and other contaminants not removed by raking.

Landscape architect David Neault (who lives in southern California, not New Jersey) calculates in his professional blog that about 12,600 gallons are used per game to “cool, wash off sweat, dust and bacteria before the game and during half-time” at his daughter’s recreation field.

Another consideration in Highland Park was poor drainage of the previous field. The artificial field uses an engineered sub-surface filtration system, of a scale that will locally lower the water table and deprive the soil of both water and sunlight. As the health of the living soil beneath the field diminishes, it can no longer retain water. Ken Sorvig, a researcher at the University of New Mexico, says, “When you remove the vegetation from an area so completely, you’re actually contributing, in the long run, to drought.”

According to Mayor Frank, the school district was using pesticides on the previous grass field, whereas artificial turf requires no pesticides. However, the synthetic turf industry and our local installation contractor both recommend the application of herbicides to kill natural grass or broadleaf weeds that might grow through the turf.

Over ten years, a single artificial field emits 55.6 tons of CO2; grass absorbs 16.9 tons over the same decade.

Compost fertilization, an irrigation system, and overseeding are some sustainable approaches to natural grass turf fields. Chip Osborne, an expert in organic turf maintenance, has successfully used natural techniques on “high-use [grass] athletic fields” in the township of Marblehead, Massachusetts.

In support of organic turf management, Osborne cites a Cornell University study finding chemically-maintained grass turf to be more disease-susceptible, due to its “very low organic matter content and depleted soil microorganisms.”

Initiatives in the borough, county and state seek to reduce our “carbon footprint,” to slow global warming, by recycling, shopping locally, biking, and walking. The claim by artificial turf manufacturers that their product saves the petroleum needed to mow natural turf might resonate with the “carbon conscious” Highland Parker. Not included in this fossil-fuel calculation is that artificial turf is almost completely a petroleum product.

An Athena Institute study for the San Francisco Department of the Environment found that synthetic turf fields are responsible for the emission of 55.6 tons of CO2 over ten years. By comparison, a natural gas field absorbs 16.9 tons over the same decade. To make the synthetic field itself “carbon neutral,” Highland Park would have to plant more than 1800 trees – not including the energy expended in manufacturing the grass blades or grinding the tires and transporting the whole dinosaur to your local football field.

Artificial turf costs “far exceed” those of natural grass over the long term, says Fresenburg . . . he recommends a premium sand-capped grass field, plus a maintenance fund.

Another “hot button” topic in climate change and sustainability is the urban heat island effect. The U.S. EPA says that the effects of heat islands on communities include “increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality.”

According to Stuart Gaffin of the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, artificial turf’s contribution to heat island effect “rivals” that of asphalt or a black roof. The new Environmental Center on River Road includes a “green roof,” intended to mitigate heat island effects; it will take quite a few more projects to offset the 57,600 sq. yards of plastic and rubber by the high school.

Advocates say that reduced maintenance results in less expense with synthetic turf. In most cases, Chip Osborne says, “hard and fast budget numbers to prove these claims. . . . aren’t available. Most municipalities do not have accurate figures on the costs of their chemical programs.”

In a University of Missouri study comparing the two surfaces, extension specialist Brad Fresenburg, PhD, found that artificial turf costs “far exceed” those of natural grass over the long term. He recommended using the money that would be spent on a synthetic field to put in a sand-capped, premium field instead, and putting what’s left in a maintenance fund.

Warranted for eight years, the field can be expected to last about ten to twelve years according to the industry’s Synthetic Turf Council. County Parks and Recreation Director Ralph Albanir says that replacing the field is considered maintenance, and there will be no Open Space funds available to replace it. In return for the $1.7 million county grant, though, the borough has exchanged public access “in perpetuity.”

How much will a petroleum-based field, which costs $600,000 today, cost in ten years?

Where shall we go to stay?

Grinding up tires for use as infill does indeed keep them out of landfills, for a time. Around the year 2020, the turf will end up either in a landfill or an incinerator. William McDonough, author of Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, calls this “downcycling--” recycling a product into a product of lesser quality or re-usability.

Middlesex County considers replacing the field as “maintenance;” there will be no Open Space funds available for that phase of the project.

“Nobody is recycling artificial turf into other products,” says Dana Draper of the Institute Recycling Network. This would be “tremendously difficult…since it is made of so many types of plastic.”

As McDonough says, synthetic turf fields have not been designed from the perspective of recycling them. It’s not so different from the carpets often seen on the curb on trash day. When this almost two-acre carpet needs to be replaced, where will it go -- and at what cost for disposal and replacement?

Meanwhile, according to the Danish Football Association, the typical football field loses about three tons of infill each year — deposited in cars, homes, schools, and users’ stomachs and lungs along the way.

McDonough recently said, “Artificial turf has not been examined in terms of cradle-to-cradle [sustainability]. Until then, we should use the precautionary principle.”

The Precautionary Principle

Better safe than sorry. Look before you leap . . . Don’t run with the scissors. When in doubt, throw it out. Wise advice from Mom, these mantras are also restatements of “The Precautionary Principle.”

The conventional approach to risk assessment places the burden of proof of harm on skeptics. Changes are presumed innocuous until proven otherwise, making it nearly impossible to show causality between complex chemical exposures and problems like cancer or learning disabilities. The long time between exposure and consequences, and other variables, can prevent our ability to make a direct connection.

Developed in 1998, and since endorsed by numerous NGOs including the American Public Health Association and European Chemical Industry Council, the Wingspread Consensus Statement of the Precautionary Principle states that risky activities require precaution, even without scientific proof of cause and effect. Under this ethic, the burden of proof shifts from the public to those advocating a risky activity. The decision process must be “open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties…[and] involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

In short, as we often say to our children, “Be safe. Take care.” The full Wingspread Statement and list of signatories can be found at: www.sehn.org/wing.html.

Costs, benefits, risks -- and the precautionary principle. When and how did Highland Park decide that artificial turf was the best choice for the athletic complex?

PART III: How We Learned To Stop Worrying . . . And Love Our Artificial Turf by Leigh Davis, special to The Mirror (Highland Park, New Jersey), June 18, 2009, available at http://www.highlandparkmirror.com/hpmfts3.html :

Since 2007, at least eight towns in New Jersey have either rejected new synthetic fields or torn up old ones found to contain high levels of lead. The current trend among professional outdoor stadiums is toward natural grass. Meanwhile, the Connecticut attorney general blasts the Consumer Product Safety Commission for ignoring crumb rubber in their pronouncement that all artificial fields are safe.

Amid the debate on synthetic turf's safety and sustainability, the borough's choice for the new municipal complex was driven by drainage and durability improvements, rather than health or environmental or quality-of-life concerns. In response, local activists have proposed that Highland Park pass a municipal "precautionary principle" ordinance -- similar to the groundbreaking statute now operating in Lyndhurst, New Jersey.

Mayor Meryl Frank states that she decided an artificial field would be safe based on her review of a single report provided to her by Maplewood Mayor Fred Profeta, with whom she co-chairs the Green Mayors Committee. Maplewood had commissioned the report by Rutgers' Center for Green Building during their consideration of artificial turf for their DeHart Park. (The city voted against the artificial turf in a November referendum.) This report is not on file in Highland Park, despite its central role in determining the field's environmental safety.

In June 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a public health advisory for artificial turf users, recommending:

•"aggressive hand and body washing" after use;

•turning clothes inside out after use "to avoid tracking contaminated dust to other places;"

•washing exposed clothes separately;

•and keeping shoes worn on the synthetic field outside.

Users are also advised not to eat while on a synthetic field, and to avoid "contaminating drinking containers with dust... from the field."

The report is a literature review of synthetic turf's environmental issues, submitted to Maplewood in May 2008 -- sixteen months after Frank applied for county funds for the project, and almost two years after discussions began among the borough, the Board of Education, and Edwards Engineering.

While the Precautionary Principle calls for an "open, informed and democratic" decision process that will "include potentially affected parties," decisions about the athletic field were complicated by a murky communication process. Borough parents received no notification before the county grant application; according to Frank, they should have read about it in the paper or seen it on HPTV, the borough's cable access broadcast. Two accounts in the Star-Ledger, in December 2006 and March 2007, did mention the artificial turf; neighbors living within 200 feet of the school were invited to a meeting to address construction traffic and noise concerns in February 2007. The borough Board of Health and Environmental Commission were never consulted.

Notification to the community at large, in the Highland Park Quarterly issues of 2007, came months after decisions were made. The Quarterly describes the coming "renovation" and "improved" fields, without mentioning artificial turf. The Spring 2007 Quarterly even announces a team of "borough and school representatives. . . will work together to devise a plan which best serves the needs of the community," even though the decision to proceed with artificial turf had been made before June 2006 and the proposal went to Middlesex County in January 2007.

Over ten years, a single artificial field emits 55.6 tons of CO2; grass absorbs 16.9 tons over the same decade. While the plastic does not need watering to stay crisp and green, its high surface temperatures ensure that an artificial field will need to be hosed down on warm days. Some schools also hose down fields prior to play to remove animal droppings and other contaminants not removed by raking.

Communication between the borough and the Board of Education, too, showed significant gaps and confusion. School board members reported having no knowledge of environmental health issues until they were raised last fall at a board meeting. At that time, schools Superintendent Wood cited the borough adminstrator as reporting that all components of the turf, including the crumb rubber, were tested for toxicity; but the borough disputes Wood was told this.

Further, while Frank continues to say a benefit of the synthetic turf was to eliminate pesticides, the school district reports they stopped pesticide use on the field in 2004.

The Precautionary Principle also calls for "examination of the full range of alternatives." While a detailed study of natural grass options does not appear to have entered the decision process in Highland Park, grass options do exist. In Marblehead, Massachusetts, the school football fields are all natural grass, maintained using organic methods. Purdue University and the Philadelphia Eagles have replaced their Kentucky Bluegrass field with new Bermuda grass over a sand-based drainage system. The new Bermuda grass system, developed at Purdue's Turfgrass Research and Diagnostic Center, "creates a firm, dry surface by draining off water."

South Plainfield, who also received Open Space funds, went with another option: They chose "virgin" rather than recycled rubber, despite its higher cost, citing concern that recycled tire crumb gets too hot.

Another component of rubber tires is latex, an allergen that can cause anaphylaxis in people with serious latex sensitivity. In 2006, researchers from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found the latex in rubber tires enough of a major risk to recommend discontinuing use of crumb rubber as infill.

The Precautionary Principle requires that precautionary measures be taken when there is evidence suggesting potential harm, even in the face of uncertainty about cause and effect. And it shifts the burden of proof from the public to those advocating an activity, in this case the use of artificial turf. Frank, who last spring received the presitigious Frank J. Oliver Environmental Award from NJ Environmental Lobby at their Precautionary Principle Conference, said that testing the FieldTurf blades for lead and chromium, along with her review of the Rutgers report, constitutes a prudent exercise of precaution since it demonstrated "no definitive scientific proof" of a health risk.

A difference between Highland Park's project and some others, like the Maplewood city park proposal, is its funding by Open Space monies through the county's Parks and Recreation department. Ralph Albanir, the department's director, now says that synthetic turf is not required in order to apply for this Open Space funding. Frank says she was convinced by other Open Space-funded towns' use of synthetic turf to believe that Highland Park would not receive funding for a natural grass project. The assumption remains untested.

Precautionary Principle signatory Carolyn Raffensberger, MA, JD, executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, asks rhetorically, "Why do we think the only two choices are toxic, herbicide-laden grass and toxic, synthetic turf? .... It's a failure of imagination."

BOX 4: Grinding up tires for use as infill does indeed keep them out of landfills, for a time. Around the year 2020, the HPHS field will end up either in a landfill or an incinerator. William McDonough, author of Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things , calls this "downcycling" -- recycling a product into a product of lesser quality or re-usability. Middlesex County considers replacing the field as "maintenance;" there will be no Open Space funds available for that phase of the project.

For consumers who want to be more green in their choices, the organization New American Dream distributes a "wallet buddy" sleeve for your credit card: "Every dollar I spend is a statement about the kind of world I want and the quality of life I value." Carolyn Raffensberger observes, "Aside from the obvious health and lifecycle issues... we are increasingly isolating our children from the natural world and surrounding them with chemicals." resulting in what Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, calls "nature deficit disorder."

It has even been suggested that the "turf wars" represent a culture clash, between those who are biased toward nature and those whose conception of modern life is "clean and free of the inconveniences of nature." As the world faces a choice between sustainability and ecological collapse, synthetic turf fields offer a window on the kind of world we want for ourselves and the generations to come.

BOX 5: The Precautionary Principle

Better safe than sorry. Look before you leap . . . Don’t run with the scissors. When in doubt, throw it out. Wise advice from Mom, these mantras are also restatements of “The Precautionary Principle.”

The conventional approach to risk assessment places the burden of proof of harm on skeptics. Changes are presumed innocuous until proven otherwise, making it nearly impossible to show causality between complex chemical exposures and problems like cancer or learning disabilities. The long time between exposure and consequences, and other variables, can prevent our ability to make a direct connection.

Developed in 1998, and since endorsed by numerous NGOs including the American Public Health Association and European Chemical Industry Council, the Wingspread Consensus Statement of the Precautionary Principle states that risky activities require precaution, even without scientific proof of cause and effect. Under this ethic, the burden of proof shifts from the public to those advocating a risky activity. The decision process must be “open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties…[and] involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

In short, as we often say to our children, “Be safe. Take care.” The full Wingspread Statement and list of signatories can be found at: www.sehn.org/wing.html.

[No. 12] Oregon grass seed stays connected to fall sports: Turfgrass holds many advantages over artificial turf. By Oregon Department of Agriculture, in Oregon Natural Resources Report, September 10, 2009, available at http://naturalresourcereport.com/2009/09/oregon-grass-seed-stays-connected-to-fall-sports/  or click here.

The college and high school football season is underway. This weekend, the NFL begins its regular season games. Prep soccer matches are now being played not to mention all the youth soccer and football teams that are practicing and playing. Underneath all the cleats, you are likely to find an Oregon agricultural product. Despite its many advantages, natural turf spawned by grass seed is facing competition from artificial turf but remains the choice of most teams and organizations.

“Athletic fields- which include everything from little league baseball to high school soccer to college football fields- have been an important consumer to the grass seed industry,” says Rob Golembiewski, turfgrass specialist with Oregon State University’s Department of Horticulture. “I believe it’s important to continue marketing turfgrass for athletic field use. While the general public sees high profile college or pro fields on television, there are probably thousands more being maintained.”

Oregon’s $510 million grass seed industry supplies seed for about two-thirds of the world’s cool weather grasses. Some of those grasses are used for forage, but a majority is targeted at turf- the essential ingredient for football, soccer, baseball, golf, and just about any other kind of outdoor athletic activity you can think of. Oregon’s turf seeds have been developed for more than a half a century to provide the durability and regenerative capacity that create an ideal playing surface.

“Cooperative work with professional sports teams has led to significant improvements in turfgrass breeding and product development,” says Bill Dunn, executive vice-president, Seed Research of Oregon. “Pro teams prefer natural grass fields. This preference helps balance the move to artificial turf.”

The National Football League has generally stated a preference for real grass. Of the 31 teams that begin play this weekend, only 12 have artificial playing fields in their home stadiums. Only four of the 30 Major League Baseball teams use something other than turfgrass. Currently, the new generation of artificial turf that uses crumb rubber in the base appears to be gaining popularity at the collegiate level, although most colleges and universities still play on real grass.

A vast majority of high schools in Oregon are playing football and soccer on natural grass, although the trend appears to be shifting for various reasons. Approximately 50 Oregon high schools now have artificial turf, but that leaves 245 schools that practice and play games exclusively on natural grass.

“The vast majority of outdoor activities are still played on natural grass,” says Tom Welter, executive director of the Oregon School Activities Association. “Most of the athletes’ time is spent practicing, and that’s not on those artificial turf fields. Certainly the number of schools installing artificial surfaces has grown tremendously. But it’s still the exception and not the rule.”

Because of the expense of artificial turf, any schools contemplating the switch can only afford to replace the surface of the main stadium area and not any of the practice fields. Proponents say teams can play on the artificial turf repeatedly- several days a week- and the rain that falls later in the season will not lead to a torn up or muddy field in need of restoration. In fact, both OSU and the University of Oregon, each located in the heart of grass seed production, have artificial turf installed at Reser and Autzen stadiums respectively. The heavy use both receive during inclement weather has led to the choice of foregoing turfgrass playing surfaces.

But supporters of the real grass believe maintenance and long-term costs are reduced.

“If school districts look at the data that is available, they will find that when maintenance and construction costs are combined, natural grass fields generally average out to less cost per year than artificial fields,” says OSU’s Golembiewski. “In addition, with continuing efforts to go green and increase sustainability in our communities, a synthetic turf is a move in the wrong direction. While synthetic fields do not require fertilizer or pesticides, they are made of plastic and then filled with pulverized rubber particles. They are in need of disposal when the field reaches its life capacity of eight to ten years. And they need similar irrigation amounts as a natural grass field since both need water in the warmer months.”

Environmental advantages of turfgrass include the absorption of carbon dioxide emissions and its corresponding release of oxygen into the atmosphere. Real grass also provides a filtering system for water and air pollution. The amount of heat radiated by artificial turf is in contrast to the cooler surface and air temperature above the canopy of turfgrass.

Polls have shown that most athletes prefer turfgrass and feel that it is easier on their bodies. Studies support the claim that real grass reduces the potential for injury and lessens the chance of infections. Grass fields “give” when the player turns or makes a cut, while artificial turf does not. A University of Iowa study showed that NFL teams had more major knee injuries on artificial turf when compared to natural grass. Turf burns and the malady known as turf-toe are unique to artificial surfaces.

A year ago, Oregon grass seed farmers essentially provided the natural playing surfaces for many of the sports venues at the Olympic Games in Beijing, China.

“In all likelihood, any kind of world class athletic event played or contested on grass is done thanks to Oregon grass seed,” says Dalton Hobbs, assistant director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. “We can point with pride to the Rose Bowl in football, World Cup soccer competition, golf championships like the U.S. Open and The Masters- these are events played on a turf product that has Oregon written all over it.”

Research continues on developing turfgrass varieties that are more drought-tolerant, wear-tolerant, and recover more quickly from damage or heavy use. In the meantime, the current oversupply of some grass species makes every customer important to the industry, including those who are responsible for athletic fields.

For more information, contact Bruce Pokarney at (503) 986-4559.

[No. 11] Turf Fields: Playing with Kids' Health, by Tom Sciacca and Guive Mirfendereski, published on WickedLocal.com/Sudbury, May 14, 2009, available at http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/sports/x1393575128/Turf-Fields-Playing-with-Kids-Health :

You’re a little dumber than you ought to be. Me, too.

Why? Because we all have lead in our bodies.

Lead is an incredibly pervasive and widespread poison, and there is no known safe level. A few years ago it was even more ubiquitous when it was used as a gasoline additive, paint component and pesticide.

According to estimates made by Dr. Philip Landrigan, a leading expert at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, we all lost an average of five IQ points if we grew up in postwar America before lead was removed from gasoline. That’s a huge number. And because IQ follows a normal distribution curve, if you look at the very bright cohort above 130 or the challenged cohort below 70, they are decreased and increased by about 50 percent, respectively. This is such a huge effect it could well account for any loss of American competitiveness in the last 50 years. And the rise in special education needs. Or, if you are on the bright side of the curve, it could account for your failure to win that Nobel prize.

This is not a possible, or a future, or a potential effect. It is measurable right here and now. And the effects are permanent. Once poisoned, always dumber. No wonder the federal regulators make such a big deal of it.

And there is lead in most artificial turf athletic fields. It’s been confirmed by private citizens and The Boston Globe in Sudbury and Wayland, along with a number of other towns.

Turf field lead is found unpredictably mostly in the colored plastic strands used to simulate grass, but also sometimes in the ground-up used tires that constitute the real playing surface. It is difficult to predict where it will pop up because the supposed field "manufacturers" are actually only marketers; the actual manufacture of the various components of these products is subcontracted out to firms all over the world. Every part of a field in one town may have been manufactured by different firms than the parts of the field in the next town. The ground-up tire "crumbs" are even more unpredictable, because they come out of the waste stream. Every tire model has a different composition, and tires also pick up additional contaminants from rolling down the road. So the tire composition of every turf field is unique.

High levels of lead were initially discovered by chance in two older "Astroturf" fields in New Jersey, where they had quietly poisoned players and downstream wetlands for decades. Astroturf is an older technology consisting basically of a plastic carpet laid on concrete. The marketers of the newer generation of "infill" artificial turf immediately claimed there was no problem with their product. Testing all over the country proved otherwise. Lead may be catastrophically toxic, but it is also a very useful industrial tool for brightening and fixing colors in plastic. Many of the suppliers to the turf marketers apparently thought so, anyway, as the metal was found unpredictably in different colors on different fields. In at least one case, in Concord, it is the green strands covering most of the field that are contaminated.

Once it was proven there was in fact lead in the newer fields, the marketers switched strategies from complete denial to a claim there was too little to matter and/or it can’t be absorbed by people using the fields. They cited measurements of the concentrations in many fields as being below "safe" levels. But no researcher has ever established a safe level for lead. In fact, the lower the levels, the larger the proportional effect seems to be. So half the lead will drop your IQ by somewhat more than half as much. And researchers in New York proved the lead in turf fields can in fact be absorbed into the body through the digestive tract. So as players tromp and grind the plastic strands into dust, they kick it up, breathe it in, swallow it in their saliva, absorb it into their bloodstream, and get dumber. Forever.

What should parents do? First, they should demand thorough testing of all parts of any fields their kids play on to identify those sections with lead. In most cases only limited areas will be involved. But parents should demand that whatever contaminated areas are identified be replaced. Do not be mollified by claims the levels are "safe." Any "safe" levels were established as a compromise between the level of poisonous effects and the cost of removal from, for example, large tracts of soil, and even those compromised standards are being ratcheted down almost continuously. Even the smallest amounts will harm your child’s health, permanently. Demand it be eliminated!

In the near future, the sports industry may well come to sanction the use of alternatives to the plastic carpet, as yarn made from fibers made from plants like hemp and jute and sugar cane may create a natural playing surface. Such non-plastic options may largely eliminate the lead problem.

The Burning Issue

Turf field marketers a few years ago talked about these fields getting "a little hotter than grass fields in July and August."

"A little hotter"? How about over 160 degrees? In New England!

Or over 140 degrees? In April! In New England!

Again, the initial move of the marketers was to deny it happened at all. When that became obviously silly, the next step was to minimize the problem. Now, they are resorting to "it’s a problem, but nobody actually gets hurt by it."

One strategy to minimize the problem was asserting the common misconception that the fields get no hotter than other, already familiar dark outdoor surfaces like asphalt. But measurements showed otherwise, and in a paper I published in January of 2008, I explained why. The black tire crumb not only absorbs solar energy like any other black surface, but also acts as an insulator that prevents that energy from soaking into the ground. As a result, all the energy is concentrated on the surface and temperatures rise much higher than any other outdoor surface. Further measurements taken in 2008 confirmed that mechanism, and confirmed that injurious temperatures are reached even in April.

A second strategy used by the marketers to minimize the problem is to point out that air temperatures over the fields are only mildly elevated, and claiming the players are not really exposed to the heat under their feet. But that ignores the transfer of heat to the players’ bodies by radiation – the same mechanism that allows an infrared heater to heat a room’s occupants in the winter without heating the air between them. Since most people who walk out on a turf field in midday can feel the extreme heat blasting up at them, that proved a weak defense as well.

So the marketers are left with claiming the issue is one of mere inconvenience, and players just need to suck it up when it’s hot out. Unfortunately, that can be a deadly mistake.

According to a researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 25 high school football players died as a result of heat related injuries between 1995 and 2005. Heat injuries are hardly mere inconvenience.

The very first of the new generation of turf fields were only installed in 1999, and most of the fields currently in place were installed after the decade used in the above statistic. But since the grass fields where most of these deaths occurred do not get significantly hotter than air temperature, and in fact can remain somewhat cooler than that, it should be obvious that the furnace-like conditions created by turf fields can only increase the danger.

The magic of the free market is already addressing the problem, with a number of alternatives to ground-up tires for infill now coming available, many claiming to heat up less. These will in general be more expensive than the current waste tire alternative, and need to be carefully evaluated by potential buyers.

What should parents do? First, recognize the seriousness of the problem. Don’t let the macho culture of sports get in the way of protecting your child’s health.

Second, insist that all coaches are trained and equipped to deal with heat issues. They should be trained to recognize the signs of heat stress and act immediately. They can send the child to rest in the shade, make them drink more water, spray them with a hose … or call off the event entirely if conditions are too extreme. They should be equipped with infrared thermometers to measure field temperatures and guidelines defining maximum acceptable temperatures above which precautions must be taken.

Third, think twice about proposals to build or replace a tire-based turf field. Natural grass fields built with the same kind of foundation and drainage as turf fields can handle much more stress than traditional grass fields. And the new alternatives to old tires are being accepted in Europe, which has been leading the U.S. in recognition of the health and environmental issues with turf fields. As this is written it is too early to say if they will take hold in the U.S. market.

And fourth, just say no. If it’s a hot sunny day between about 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., when conditions are most extreme, just don’t let your child play on a turf field. Remember, about two kids a year die playing high school football from heat, even on grass fields. Is being on the team worth his life?

This column is an adapted excerpt from a forthcoming book by Tom Sciacca of Wayland and Guive Mirfendereski, tentatively titled "Turf Fields: Playing with Kids’ Health." Copyright by the authors, all rights reserved.

[No. 10]  NIH on turf -- in a glimpse. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. May 15, 2009. The  Institute for Children’s Environmental Health (www.iceh.org) has a “Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative.” A while back ICEH wrote to National Institutes of Health (FIC) to ask if artificial truf fields ought to be included among the products banned by the latest legislation about lead in children’s toys and playthings. New law restricts lead in products. Turf fields were not included in the ban, but the Synthetic Turf Council has volunteered to follow the new standards, which will all but eliminate lead in turf fields made in the United States. Currently about 10 percent of turf fields use pigment that contains lead. Salem Statesman Journal, Oregon, 22 August 2008 [http://www.dlfis.com/upload/sjarticle-808220370.pdf ].” SynTurf.org recommends a look at Beth Casper, “Danger underfoot?,” in Statesman Journal (Salem Oregon), August 22, 2008. Click here for the article.
 

 

[No. 09] What’s in the artificial turf fiber? By Guive Mirfendereski, SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. January 7, 2009. Revised January 16, 2009.

In the past year or so, the debate surrounding the health and environmental implications of artificial turf fields has focused primarily on the nasty substances that are contained in the crumb rubber. Made primarily from used tires, crumb rubber is the rubbery granule or pellet that is used as “infill” on or below the carpet surface.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products  (January 2007) found  49 chemicals could be released from tire crumbs, with many of them suspected to cause health effects. The most common types of synthetic rubber used in tires are composed of ethylene–propylene and styrene–butadiene combined with vulcanizing agents, fillers, plasticizers, and antioxidants in different quantities, depending on the manufacturer. Tire rubber also contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, and volatile orgnaic compounds.

In the past two years, SynTurf.org has published/reprinted or discussed articles about crumb rubber and its composition. We need not repeat or belabor the point here, other than to footnote the findings by RAM[1] and EHHI.[2]

Until December 2007, the synthetic turf carpet had been flying below the radar -- it was not alike its abrasive predecessor and was cushiony and high-tech. There had been little, if any, curiosity on the part of the public and environmentalists to question the composition of turf’s poly-grass fiber itself – the substance of the plastic fields. This inattention may have been largely because of the prevalence of plastic products in our lives and the laudable efforts to recycle plastics. Crumb rubber, made from used tires, on the other hand was news and it drew the lion’s share of the public attention. So, it seemed, it would suffice to know that artificial turf carpet was tufted from yarn made of nylon, polyethylene or polypropylene, which in turn can be made from recycled plastic.

Plastic is the general common term for a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic solid materials. Presently, the plastic that comprises artificial turf yarn (fibers) is some variation of plastic – such as like nylon, polyethylene, polypropylene or recycled polyvinyl chloride. Nylon is a common designation for a family of synthetic polymers known generically as polyamides. Polyethylene is a thermoplastic used in consumer products such as plastic shopping bags. Polypropylene is a thermoplastic polymer and is used in a wide variety of applications, including garment textiles, artificial turf yarn, and plastic parts and reusable containers.  

With such wide range of acceptability in modern life, who would suspect artificial turf fiber to pose any harm when it is coming from the same people who brought us such innocuous petrochemical products as nylon stockings, carpets, and baby bottles, even though they are all derived from petroleum.

In December 2007, a serious of serendipitous tests on a turf field in New Jersey detected very high levels of lead on the turf carpet itself. It took a while before the health authorities sorted out the data – separating the wheat from the chafe. As it turned out, the lead was a part of the degrading turf fiber itself. The same element that had made the crumb rubber into a villain, even though the zinc in crumb rubber posed a far greater risk, was about to bring into question the soundness of the artificial turf fiber.   

The synthetic turf industry went into damage control and squarely blamed the lead problem on the perennial whipping horse – the old-school nylon turf, the stuff of yore, and identified the lead chromate as the culprit.[3] Lead chromate is used along with dyes and chemicals to give the turf its green color and to protect it from the sun’s ultraviolet rays.

In the “old versus new” and “nylon versus non-nylon” spin foisted by the turf industry, an important point or tow ere lost: Polypropylene is liable to chain degradation from exposure to ultraviolet radiation such as that present in sunlight. So, in the case of artificial turf and for other outdoor uses, UV-absorbing additives, including carbon black, are added to the turf yarn in order to give it some protection from UV.  Because the polymer can also be oxidized at high temperatures, an anti-oxidants may be added to prevent polymer degradation.

As subsequent tests in 2008 in other parts of the country showed, the lead chromate, however, was not exclusive to old-school turf fibers. Even with the new generation of turf fibers – in the color green or in the other colors (red, blue and yellow) that are often used to delineate the boundaries of the multisports fields – the fiber contained lead in amounts well in the excess of the “allowable” parts-per-million standard set by the American Academy of Pediatricians, the U.S. Congress, and sate and federal health and environmental agencies for soil and products that come into contact with children. 

Oleamide. Polypropylene plastics also may contain oleamide. It is a compound that is used to improve the properties of plastics by acting like a lubricant and corrosion inhibitor. Oleamide has been detected as leaking out of laboratory equipment made of polypropylene plastics.

Phthalates. The three most widely used thermoplastic polymers are polyethylene, polypropylene and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). In the case of PVC especially, plasticizers must be added to make it flexible. Artificial turf fiber also contains plasticizers – most commonly phthalates. Phthalates, or phthalate esters, are substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility. Phthalates are being phased out of many products over health concerns, even though there is no labeling requirements for phthalates specifically, so it is not possible to identify phthalate-containing items by markings alone, for example on hard plastic or polyvinyl chloride product or products made of recycled plastics. Chemical analysis, for example, by gas chromatography, can establish the presence of phtalates. In laboratory tests, phthalates have shown to damage rodents’ liver and testes.

In 2004, a Swedish-Danish research team found a very strong link between allergies in children and the phthalates DEHP and BBzP. The first systematic review of the evidence relating phthalates to asthma found evidence of association between phthalates in the home and asthma especially in children, but this evidence was limited by imprecise data on exact levels of exposure. Phthalates migrate from polyvinyl chloride plastics and into the dust, where they may be inhaled. In 2007, a cross-sectional study of U.S. males concluded that urine concentrations of four phthalate metabolites correlate with waist size and three phthalate metabolites correlate with the cellular resistance to insulin, a precursor to Type II diabetes. The authors note the need for follow-up longitudinal studies, as waist size is known to correlate with insulin resistance. Beginning in 2009 some phthalates will be restricted in California (for children's toys). A federal law effective as of February 10, 2009, restricts three types of phthalates permanently and puts interim restrictions on three others.

Bisphenol A. To the extent that artificial turf fiber is made of plastic and plastic contains bisphenol A (BPA, A stands for acetone), then one must suspect artificial turf fiber as containing BPA. BPA is in the production of polycarbonate. Polycarbonate are thermoplastic polymers, which are easily worked, molded, and thermoformed and, because of their resistance to temperature and impact, they are widely used in the production of items like food storage containers and plastic bottles.  It is used in the synthesis of certain polymers and as an antioxidant in some plasticizers, and as a polymerization inhibitor in polyvinyl chloride. Even though apparently it has a low acute toxicity, BPA is an endocrine disruptor. Low doses of BPA can mimic the body's own hormones, possibly causing negative health effects. There is thus concern that long term low dose exposure to BPA may induce chronic toxicity in humans. Thus far the evidence implicates BPA in permanent changes to genital tract, changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens, increased prostate weight, lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus, decline in testicular testosterone, breast cells predisposed to cancer, prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer, decreased maternal behaviors, and reversed the normal sex differences in brain structure and behavior. As an environmental contaminant, BPA interferes with nitrogen fixation at the roots of leguminous plants associated with the bacterial symbiont Sinorhizobium meliloti. Despite a half-life in the soil of only 1–10 days, its ubiquity makes it an important pollutant. According to Environment Canada, BPA can harm fish and organisms over time. Studies also indicate that it can currently be found in municipal wastewater.

Acetone. Bisphenol A is derived from acetone, which is a solvent, most familiar to most by its smell and properties as a nail polish remover. It is used to thin paint and is also used to make plastic, fibers, drugs, and other chemicals. In vapor form, acetone may be irritating to the eyes, depress the central nervous system, and pose a potential pulmonary aspiration risks. Environmentally, however, acetone dissipates slowly in soil, animals, or waterways; it is a significant issue with respect to groundwater contamination due to its high solubility in water. Acetone may pose a significant risk to fish and to oxygen depletion in aquatic systems.

Urethane. The yarn that eventually becomes the simulated grass blades in an artificial turf field is fixed, tufted or woven into a backing that typically is made of urethane or latex. Polyurethane formulations cover an extremely wide range of stiffness, hardness, and densities. They are widely used, including among other things in durable elastomeric tires, high performance adhesives and sealants, and fibers. Polyurethane products are often called “urethanes.”

Rubber (and Latex). The yarn that eventually becomes the simulated grass blades in an artificial turf field is fixed, tufted or woven into a backing that typically is made of urethane or latex. Latex and other rubbers are used in making the “latex” backing. Some people have a serious latex allergy, and exposure to latex products such as latex gloves can cause anaphylactic shock. Some allergic reactions are not from the latex but from residues of other ingredients used to process the latex into other articles. These allergies are usually referred to as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). The various forms of synthetic rubber includes elastomers, ethylene propylene rubber (EPM) and ethylene propylene diene (EPDM) rubber. An elastomer is a polymer with the property of elasticity; thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) is used in making the turf granules or crumb pellets, as are EPM and EPDM.

[No. 08] Debunking the Myth of Low-Cost Turf Fields: A multi-source comparative study of the annualized cost of natural grass vs. artificial turf fields. By Guive Mirfendereski, SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. October 17, 2008. 
 

Preface. For far too long, the promoters and purveyors of artificial turf fields have mesmerized the public officials and unsuspecting taxpayers into thinking that it is actually economical and even “green” to turn natural grass fields into low-maintenance plastic fields. While the “green” part of the sales pitch emphasizes recycling of tires and plastics, no-watering, no-fertilizer and no-pesticide, the “economical” part of the sales pitch is achieved by understating the annual cost of maintenance in terms of categories that are usually associated with natural grass fields! This brief compares the annualized cost of an artificial turf field with a natural grass across several lifecycle scenarios.

For the purpose of this brief, SynTurf.org will use as illustration the figures set forth by Gale Associates, a sports field development consulting firm, in respect to a turf project contemplated for Newton. Mass. (April 2008) and for Winchester, Mass. (July 2008), and compare those figures with the cost schedules from other sources.

The turf industry’s economic model deliberately underestimates the maintenance cost schedule for artificial turf fields. That is because the distortion serves two purposes. First, the distortion impresses the cash-strapped municipality with the fiction that the field is practically maintenance-free and therefore allows the municipality to save on the cost of maintaining natural grass fields. Secondly, perhaps more pernicious, the distortion tends to sugar coat the initial exorbitant installation cost by giving the impression that the turf field will “pay for itself” in no time because of the savings from maintaining the alternative. There is therefore an inherent and logically consistent and necessary need to downplay the cost of maintenance of an artificial turf field. 

On July 17, 2008, SynTurf.org attended the Manchester Field Public Hearing Presentation in Winchester, Mass. Gale Associates presented a slide entitled “Maintenance Cost: Natural Grass vs. Artificial Turf.” Using a football field as the basis, Gale’s overhead projection flashed a slide for comparative maintenance cost of natural grass versus artificial turf. It contained the following information:[1]

Natural Grass                                                                          Synthetic Turf

Cutting                           $  2,317                                           $   1,121 (brooming)

Fertilizer                             3,080                                                 0

Sod and Installation          10,792                                                 0

Field markings                    5,500                                                 0

Irrigation                               467                                                  0

Total                            $ 22,156                                              $   1,211

As a footnote, the Gale slide noted “Replacement cost of synthetic turf is approximately $440,000. Assuming a useful life of 12 years, the annual cost is approx $37,000.” Yet the annualized replacement cost of the turf field was not factored in the annual cost of maintenance. However, the Town of Winchester’s own cost comparison document included the amount, thereby showing the annual maintenance cost for a turf field as $ $38,121 versus $22,156 for natural grass.[2]

In its representations to the City of Newton, Gale Associates offered the following comparative cost schedule:[3]

Natural Grass                                                                           Synthetic Turf

Mowing                         $  5,500                                        Sweeping     $2,000

Watering and repairs          5,000                                        Misc. repairs     500

Irrigation                            3,000  

Treatment                          5,000

Aeration, other                   6,000

Line markings                    3,500

Total                            $ 28,000                                                            $ 2,500  

The foregoing is at best disingenuous, as it suggests that “maintenance of an artificial turf field” consists only of sweeping and miscellaneous repairs. That may very well be so, if one defines “maintenance” as such. However, where a schedule of natural grass maintenance cost includes irrigation, line markings and treatment, then an honest comparison should include comparable/equivalent items in the case of artificial turf as well. Obviously, fake grass needs no fertilizer, but it does need a variety of –icidal treatments if the field is to be kept hygienic and free of pests, fungus, bacteria and herbs. In many jurisdictions, turf fields are watered in order to keep the surface cool and abate dust prior to play time. Yet, in the Gales numbers neither irrigation nor treatment was listed as a cost component for an artificial turf field.     

New Jersey Education Association.  A well maintained turf field requires a rigorous maintenance program, with many elements. The following is an excerpt from a fact sheet developed by the New Jersey Education Association:

Artificial turf fields require personnel and equipment for dragging, infill additions, redistribution, cleaning, and carpet repair. Specialized equipment includes a sweeper, groomer, field magnet, and roller….Both types of fields require a line painter, cart for towing equipment, and a top dresser. Both also require irrigation and perhaps boom spraying. In the case of artificial turf these are for cooling as opposed to grass growth. Local associations should be alert to the need to retrain grounds staff if they will be required to maintain artificial turf. Some maintenance tasks may require specialized equipment and skills that could be outsourced.[4]

Michigan State University. In May 2005, the Michigan State University’s athletic turf manager, Amy Fouty, shared the following maintenance cost of the turf field under her charge with the participants at the Synthetic Turf Infill Seminar, in Detroit, Michigan. With $6,220 for supplies, $3,500 for equipment, and $8,000 outside contractor repair, her total annual maintenance cost in 2004-2005 came up to $22,760. Fouty’s maintenance cost schedule is reproduced below from a news account that appeared in Athletic Turf News:[5]

- Consultation and/or Training: $1,200 to $3,000/day plus expenses
- Repairs: $30 to $70/linear foot
- Crumb Rubber:  $.50 to $1.00/pound applied

-  Boom Sprayer:  $1,000 to $35,000
-  Sweeper: $500 to $3,000
-  Broom: $500 to $3,000
-  Painter: $500 to $3,000
 - Groomer: $1,500 to $2,000
-  Cart: $2,500 to $16,000 (for towing equipment)  
-  Field magnet: $500 to $1,000
-  Rollers: $250 to $2,000

2004-2005 Maintenance Budget

-  Seam repairs:  $8,000  ($30/linear foot; outside contractor)
-  Apply crumb Rubber: $5,000 (1 x per year; 20/hrs per application; 10 tons of

    top dressing at $500 per ton)

-  Spray field: $216 (4x per year; 3.5 oz rate per 1,000 sq. ft.; 3 hrs each; 12

    hrs/year)
-  Fabric softener: $120 (at $7 per 64 oz. container)
-  Disinfectant:  $100 (at $5 per gallon)
-  Sweep Field, Parker Sweeper: $1,500 (4x per year; 8 hours each; 32 hrs/year) 
-  Broom:   $500
-  Groomer:  $1,500
-  Hand Pick: $2,800 (3x per week; 1 hr each; 156 hrs/year at $18/hr)

 - Paint Field: $1,000 (2x per year; 30 hrs each; 60 hrs/year; 30-40 gal/yr at

    $25/gal.)
-  Total Straight Hourly Cost: $5,040 (field only; 280 hrs at $18/hr; benefits not

    included)

Total maintenance Cost:  $22,760

Turfgrass Resource Center. The cost of equipment required for maintaining an artificial turf field is $23,250 - $127,000 and natural grass is $42,800 - $205,500. TGRC also compares the annual maintenance costs for turf and grass as follows:[6]

Natural Grass                                                      Artificial Turf

Painting                 $800 - $12,300                     Painting          $ 1,000 - $10,000 

Top dressing (sand)    0  -     5,400                     Top dressing             ??

Dragging                     0  -        200                     Brushing           1,000 -     5,000

Fertilizers             1,200  -   11,000                     Disinfecting              ??

Pesticides                650  -      6,300                    Repair                1,000 -    3,000       

Aeration                  700  -        960                     Cooling              5,000 -  10,000                

Sod replacement     833  -    12,500                    Weeding                500 -    1,000               

Irrigation                 300

Total                   $8,133 -  $48,960                                            $ 8,500 - $ 29,000

Sports Turf Managers Association. The typical cost range to maintain a synthetic turf field will vary and can range from $5,000 to $25,000 per year, including labor, minimal equipment depreciation and water. In the case of natural grass, annual cost of maintenance (not including equipment and labor) can vary between $4,000 to $11,000 per the three case studies reported below:[7]

A Denver-area native soil field, with Kentucky bluegrass and perennial ryegrass that hosts approximately 110 soccer events annually will spend between $5,500 and $8,000 per year to maintain that field.

In New York state, a high school native soil field with perennial ryegrass and Kentucky bluegrass that hosts approximately 15 fall football games and 30 LaCrosse games in the spring will spend approximately $4,000 annually  

A Denver-area sand-modified field constructed of 90% sand and 10% peat, with four varieties of Kentucky bluegrass that hosts 35 football games and 10 other events, is between $9,000-$11,000 annually.

           

It is “much more expensive to maintain synthetic fields that are highly visible, frequently televised, or when used for multiple sports. The cost can even be higher if field markings must be painted and cleaned often, or if frequent repairs are necessary.”[8]

San Francisco Recreation & Parks. A study by the San Francisco Recreation & Parks estimates the annual cost of maintaining a natural grass soccer field at $42,000, as compared to $6,000 for artificial turf. The comparative breakdown of the cost items are as follows:[9]

Natural Turf                                                                    Artificial Turf

Labor                             $29,000                             Labor                   $4000

Material/supplies              10,000                              Repairs/materials    2,000

Equipment (annualized)       3,000

Total                              $42,000                              Total                    $6,000

Costa Mesa, California.[10] The total maintenance cost of an artificial turf field ranges from a low of $8,500 up to $29,000 per year, per field. “There are several specialized pieces of equipment required to properly maintain artificial turf fields. These include: A machine that brushes/grooms/rakes the surface to evenly redistribute the infill material; a vacuum for removing surface debris; a ‘sanitizer’ or boom sprayer for the application of disinfectant materials; a utility vehicle; roller; top-dresser; field magnet; and a line painter. The total one time cost to purchase the equipment is estimated to be $75,000 -$100,000. Annual fuel cost, maintenance costs and depreciation expense for these vehicles is estimated to be $15,000 - $20,000.”

The maintenance of the field, including the purchase and application of materials; redistribution of infill material and sanitizing would be approximately $27,000 per year, plus an estimated $2,000 per year in water costs to cool the field in the summer months. The total cost per year for all necessary maintenance of an artificial turf field, including equipment, is estimated to be $44,000 - $49,000, and is broken down as follows:

$4,000 Grooming (redistribution of infill performed monthly)

 $4,000 Sweeping (performed weekly)

 $7,000 Sanitizing (performed monthly)

 $1,000 Repair of surface

 $2,000 Water cost (cooling)

 $5,000 Infill material replenishment cost

 $6,000 [Misc.] maintenance (paint touch-up, magnetic debris removal, etc.)

 $15-20,000 Vehicle maintenance & depreciation

In comparison, the cost to provide “maintenance activities and pay for water and electrical utilities, excluding lights , for one typical soccer field, is approximately $32,500 - 34,500 per year. This is a cost estimate based on the City of Costa Mesa’s Farm Sports Complex operational costs for one of the six fields at that facility:

$10,000 per year per field for turf maintenance (contracted service cost)

$3,000 per year for fertilizer and miscellaneous amendments

$1,500 per year for irrigation, testing, repair and maintenance

$3 - 5,000 per year for turf renovation

$13,000 per year for irrigation water and electricity

$2,000 per year for staff administration and vehicle costs”[11]

B. TRUE ANNUAL COST OF TURF FIELDS.

SynTurf.org believes sound fiscal planning requires a lifecycle approach to the costing of artificial turf fields – which includes installation cost, replacement/renovation cost, disposal cost of the old carpet, and, where applicable, cost of security and surveillance to safeguard the fields from trespass, unauthorized use and vandalism.

In Newton, SynTurf.org or the grassroots citizen group Save the Grass Fields were not the first to suggest this. In September 2006, Susan Rosenbaum, President of the League of Women Voters (Newton), stated, “Using this [artificial turf] material in this location [Newton South fields], requires vetting thoroughly and realistically of both first and long term maintenance and replacement costs.”[12] In June 2007, Brooke Lipsitt and Kevin Dutt, co-chairs of Newton’s High Performance Building Coalition, wrote:

The economic analysis should include a life cycle assessment of all costs that will be incurred with each option. We recommend analysis over a period of 50 years, in order to take fully into account the need for replacement or restoration of the fields. This must include not only the initial costs, but also the maintenance, drainage and replacement costs of each option. It should also clearly identify areas where projected costs may vary widely or have great uncertainty. Even if the financial analysis shows no difference over the period of study, both options have environmental — ecological, health and safety — impacts that must be closely examined. Examination of these issues should include both site-specific and neighborhood impacts.[13]

The following excerpts highlight the approaches taken by various studies to lifecycle costing of artificial turf fields.

Warranty. The consequences of a shoddy or superficial maintenance practice can void the seller’s warranty.  According to Sports Turf Managers Association, among exclusions or events that voids a typical turf warranty are use of improper cleaning methods; acts of God and other conditions beyond reasonable control; normal wear; failure to properly maintain, protect, or repair; burns, cuts, accidents; failure of subbase; use of incorrect grade of infill; failure to maintain infill at correct level; and use of improper footwear or equipment.[14] 

According to Sports Turf Managers Association, it is “much more expensive to maintain synthetic fields that are highly visible, frequently televised, or when used for multiple sports. The cost can even be higher if field markings must be painted and cleaned often, or if frequent repairs are necessary.”[15]

2. Replacement of Carpet. As previously mentioned, at a recent presentation in Winchester, Mass., Gale Associates provided the following footnote to a maintenance cost schedule for turf vs. grass fields: “Replacement cost of synthetic turf is approximately $440,000. Assuming a useful life of 12 years, the annual cost is approx $37,000.” Even though this presentation did not include the annualized cost of replacement ($37,000) in the maintenance schedule,[16] the Town of Winchester’s own website included the amount, thereby showing the annual maintenance cost for a turf field as $ $38,121 versus $22,156 for natural grass.[17]

The cost of replacement/renovation depends on a variety of elements, which may go beyond replacing the carpet and include also the addressing any structural damage or problems with drainage or the subbase. The “Third Generation” artificial turf field has not been around for too long, most installations being well within their 8-year industry warranty. Therefore, it is difficult to have real cost figures for replacement/renovation cost. The consensus seems to be that in today’s market the replacement of the carpet alone costs about $500,000 per field.  

SynTurf.org’s own research has pulled the following range from published reports:

Name of venue                                      Years of use                        Amount

Saunders Stadium (South Boston)                 5                                $500,000[18] 

Boston University                                          7                          Not available        

Stanford High School (Conn.)              Not available                      $925,000[19]

Brookfiled High School (Conn.)                    2                                $450.000[20]

The annualized share of the cost of replacement also depends on the lifecycle of the artificial turf. As the examples above show, the lifespan of an artificial turf is not necessarily 12 years, as claimed by Gale and other industry sources. The industry warranty is 8 years. The average age of an artificial turf field may well prove to be 10 years in most cases, especially if their raison d’être is to accommodate greater playing time. Assuming a replacement cost of $500,000 and a lifecycle of 10 years, the annualized cost of replacement as includable in the annual maintenance cost for an artificial turf field would be $50,000.

3. Subbase work. The cost of this item in the replacement or extraordinary repair of an artificial turf field depends very much on the ill that is to be addressed and it is not susceptible to any intelligent discussion here. The areas that may be addressed could include of or mote of the following: drainage, watering system, replacement of the sand, rubber and geo textile, or flooding.

4. Replacement/Renovation: Costa Mesa estimate.[21]

Not included in the maintenance cost estimates provided in the previous section is the renovation expense for artificial turf sports fields. …[N]atural turf fields are renovated annually, they do not typically require a major renovation (replacement of surface) after 8-12 years like the artificial turf sports fields. It should be noted that a poorly maintained turfgrass field may require expensive renovation at some point in its expected life. While current fields in the area have not been in use for the eight year warranty period that is typical for several brands of artificial turf, the fields at some point will need to be replaced. Considerations associated with the replacement of the surfacing include:

Recycling cost of the playing surface or the potential for landfill disposal

                      of man made surface and rubber infill material if not recyclable.

Replacement cost of the surfacing

Replacement cost of the infill material

Repainting of field lines

Costs associated with the removal and replacement of the playing surface, including the cost to remove, transport, landfill, replace, install infill, and re-stripe are estimated to be approximately 30-40% of the original construction costs. The increase in these costs adjusted for inflation or the potential restrictions on landfilling the worn field have not been considered. For a typical artificial turf field costing $625,000 to $860,000 to construct, the estimated replacement cost would range from $187,500 to $344,000. With no replacement projects having been completed locally, no data is available to provide a more accurate estimate […].

5. Disposal of Old Carpet and Materials. Sports Turf Managers Association estimates the cost of “tear-out and disposal” of artificial turf at $1.75 to $2.25 per sq. ft., exclusive of transportation costs or additional landfill surcharges for environmentally controlled products.[22] What gets hauled away is the carpet and any associated underlay mat, crumb rubber or other infill and sand, if any mixed in the infill.

6. Installation. Any lifecycle approach to the costing of an artificial turf field naturally must account for the cost of its installation. The cost of installing an artificial turf varies with the price of the product, cost of preparatory work, site conditions, type of surface, type of infill and substructure/subbase work, prevailing wage, and so one.

            Gale Associates (Newton) The Gale Associates’ estimate for an artificial turf field in Newton South is $950,000 as opposed to the reconstruction of the natural grass field at $425,000.[23]

            San Francisco Recreation & Parks estimates the cost of installation for turf at $800,000 and natural grass at $260,000).[24]

            Sports Turf Managers Association estimates that artificial turf costs $7.80 to $10.75 per sq. ft. to install. This compares to the following variations per sq. ft. of installed natural grass: $2.50 to $5.25 if dome with native soils; $3.50 to $5.25 if done with combination of native soils and sand; and $6.60 to $7.95 if done with sand and drainage.[25]

7. Protection.  The cost of installation of an artificial turf field often does not take into account the cost of equipment and protocols required to protect the community’s investment in turf fields. There are reported instances of arson and other forms of vandalism such as driving onto a field and graffiti. To protect against such damage and/or to apprehend the perpetrators, the municipalities have begun to acquire surveillance equipment, institute police patrols of the area and install fences, where fences were not a part of the original design.[26]

In a survey recently conducted by Athletic Turf News 46% of respondents reported that their facilities had suffered repeated acts of vandalism, 36% reported their fields had been vandalized, but generally it’s uncommon and 18% said they’ve experienced no vandalism problems.[27]

In August 2007, arsonist set ablaze to rolls of turf waiting to be installed at Charlestown High School, in Charlestown, Mass.[28] In the same month, vandals set fire to the logo in the midfield of the turf field at Arlington High School (Arlington, Mass.), causing damage to the turf estimated at $50,000.[29] In March 2008, vandals left a crater-like burn mark on the turf field at Richmond High School, Richmond, California. According to the police, someone rammed a van through two locked sets of gates on campus, drove to the center of the school's field and set the vehicle on fire. The fire damaged a section approximately 20 feet by 30 feet on the $3.5 million turf field.[30] In June 2008, the Board of Education in Annapolis, Maryland, scheduled a meeting to consider installation of a $41,000 wireless security camera system in the stadium at Broadneck High School.[31] In Jackson, New Jersey, the town voted in June 2008 to purchase surveillance equipment for the protection of its artificial turf at the Jackson Justice Complex.[32] Not to be undone by pranksters, the artistic community too has taken to the turf fields, apparently seeing it as an inviting canvas. In June 2008, vandals caused $10,000 damage to the turf field at Mackie Park in Delta, British Columbia, leaving behind their tags and graffiti,  prompting the municipality to institutes security patrols and turn on field lights for extended hours to discourage vandals.[33]  

C. LIFECYCLE COST. To construct a lifecycle cost model for an artificial turf field one begins with the number of years in the carpet’s lifecycle.

Springfield College, Springfield, Mass. As reported by Turf grass Resource Center, when installation and maintenance costs were combined, natural grass was a more affordable choice than artificial turf:[34]

Cost to Install                             $ 800,000                    $ 400,000

Cost to Maintain per Year                 5,000                         28,000

8 Yrs maintenance costs                  40,000                       224,000

8-Yr total costs combined             840,000                       624,000

Average cost per year                $ 105,000                    $   78,000

San Francisco Recreation & Parks. On the bases of the numbers provided by the San Francisco Recreation & Parks, SFParks estimates an average annual cost for natural grass and turf fields as:[35]

Lifecycle/yrs                                  Artificial Turf           Natural Grass

         8                                              $106,000                  $74,500

       10                                                  86,000                    68,000               

       15                                                  59,333                    59,333

The foregoing supposes an installation cost of $800,000 (artificial) versus $260,000 (grass), with an annual maintenance cost of $6,000 for artificial turf and $42,000 for natural grass. In this model, it appears that it will take 15 years for the average annual lifecycle cost to even out.

SynTurf.org’s Model. A more vigorous lifecycle model would include costs not typically entertained by the turf industry or public officials who seek to understate the true cost of turf fields in order to promote the product as a great “deal.” The following is a rudimentary model for the annualized cost of an artificial turf field assuming 8, 10, 12 and 15-year lifecycles.  

                                                                     8 yrs        10 yrs       12 yrs       15 yrs

Installation                       $ 800,000          100,000     80,000      67,000      53,000

Annual Maintenance            15,000             15,000     15,000      15,000      15,000

Replacement of Carpet       500,000            62,500     50,000      42,000      33,000

Disposal:

 130,000 sq. ft. @ $2/sq. ft.        260,000            32,500     26,000       22,000      17,000

Security equipment               40,000              5,000       4,000         3,400        2,700

The foregoing model does not include the finance cost of any borrowing to install or replace artificial turf fields. The model excludes cost of insurance. The model also presupposes just one replacement/renovation in the lifecycle of the field.

Whether an artificial turf field pays for itself depend very much on the savings that it engenders from not maintaining natural grass fields.

15 years of annual maintenance      $ 225,000

One-time replacement of carpet        500,000

Disposal of carpet                             260,000

Total                                              $ 985,000

In a 12-year lifecylce for an artificial turf carpet:

12 years of annual maintenance    $ 180,000

One-time replacement of carpet      500,000

Disposal of carpet                          260,000

Total                                           $ 940,000

Assuming a very generous $50,000 in an annual maintenance of a Newton natural grass field, it will take 18.8 years for a single artificial turf field to pay for itself.  Add to this mix the $800,000 cost of installation of a turf field; it will take 34.8 years for the turf field to pay for itself. By then, the field would be near to its third replacement.  

In a 10 year lifecycle for an artificial turf carpet:

10 years of annual maintenance    $ 150,000

One-time replacement of carpet       500,000

Disposal of carpet                           260,000

Total                                           $  910,000

Assuming a very generous $50,000 in an annual maintenance of a Newton natural grass field, it will take 18.2 years for a single artificial turf field to pay for itself. Add to this mix the $800,000 cost of installation of a turf field, it will take 34.2 years for the turf field to pay for itself. By then, the field would be a few years away from its third carpet replacement. 

In an 8 year lifecycle for an artificial turf carpet:

8 years of annual maintenance        $ 120,000

One-time replacement of carpet        500,000

Disposal of carpet                            260,000

Total                                             $ 880,000

Assuming a very generous $50,000 in an annual maintenance of a Newton natural grass field, it will take 17.6 years for a single artificial turf field to pay for itself. Add to this mix the $800,000 cost of installation of a turf field, it will take 33.6 years for the turf field to pay for itself. By then, the field would be on its third carpet. 

POSTSCRPT. A long time ago, some people confronted the promoters of turf fields with studies that suggested turf fields heat up in the summer months, to almost double the ambient temperatures, far greater than natural grass or cement pavement. The industry denied the findings by such statements as “the fields run a little warm,” and later by saying “the fields get hot but there have been no problems with them.” The myth that rubber granulates are inert and therefore harmless was debunked last summer by researchers in New York, New Jersey, California and Connecticut. Turf manufacturers are being sued by the State of California for violating the state’s lead warning law. The myth of maintenance (or no need for it), too, has been debunked. It is now time to realize that the numbers that paint the product as economically attractive and viable also do not add up.

What else is there about this product that one really does not know about? What will eventually be the negative externalities associated with turf in terms of the environment, habitat, health, water quality and vegetation. Who will bear the cost of monitoring and clean up, if need be, of the harmful substances that off-gas, leach and migrate from the fields into the air, soil and water?

In a suburban environment, for reasons of aesthetics, nature and other consideration, homes that abut or are in the vicinity of artificial turf fields do not fetch the same valuation or market price as properties that abut wetlands, natural grass fields and settings. The adverse economic impact on the home owner is usually the result of use-related activities such as increase in noise and light pollution, traffic and parking, air pollution and debris and rubbish. The lower valuation or assessment of a home in a turf setting works to the detriment of the property owner as well as the taxing municipal authority.

All other considerations aside, there is no doubt that Newton and other municipalities across the nation are being misled, perhaps willingly, as to the annual maintenance costs of natural grass versus artificial turf. If indeed, a municipality is addressing its “structural deficits” and fiscal constraints then perhaps the installation of artificial turf fields should be avoided as a veritable money pit, economically and fiscally unsustainable, now and in the future.

[No. 07] A Powerful Testimonial: Sorensen gets to the heart of the matter. The following is the reprint of a piece that appeared on www.healthychild.org . It is entitled What Lies Beneath: Toxic Turf Under Our Toes, and is by Janelle Sorensen. It is posted at  http://healthychild.org/resources/article/what_lies_beneath_toxic_turf_under_our_toes .

What Lies Beneath: Toxic Turf Under Our Toes
Janelle Sorensen
Healthy Child Healthy World
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 02, 2008

In an effort to recycle the growing waste piles of used tires, manufacturers across the country have begun making artificial turf out of the discarded rubber. They are using scrap tires as crumb rubber in-fill on playing fields, as shredded loose fill around playgrounds, as composite solid playing surfaces, and even as landscaping mulch. While it seems an environmentally-friendly option at face value, there is growing concern over the potential impacts these materials may have on children’s health. Initial research shows potential chemical and heavy metal leaching depending on a wide variety of external factors, like climate, rainwater pH, and usage. Overall, it’s better to be safe than sorry and we should put a moratorium on using recycled tires where our children play until more extensive research has been conducted.

My kids love the first opportunity of the season to kick off their shoes, peel off their socks, and run around outside with bare feet. I admit, my toes appreciate a little dirt in between them now and then, too, but more and more these days, I am wondering about what lies beneath. Not so much in my own yard, but at my neighbors and at the park and the playground. I’ve worried about pesticides for years now, but recently a new concern has arisen. It all started when I noticed a big truck dumping new ground covering around my daughter’s school playground. What the heck was it?
After school I followed her back to the playground and smelled its acrid odor before I saw it (my nose is my initial alarm system for toxic intruders and in this case, the bells were ringing loudly). As we stepped closer I saw that the ground covering was a loose fill of what appeared to be shredded tires. Wait a minute, I thought to myself, aren’t tires considered hazardous waste? Isn’t that why we can’t just toss them in the garbage? Why are we using these where our kids play?
This definitely warranted an eco-mom investigation and what I discovered was confusing to say the least.

The Tale of the Tire

Apparently, tires have been a solid waste issue for many decades now and with an increasing amount of vehicles on the road, the issue continues to grow. At the end of 2003 alone, the US had generated close to 300 million scrap tires. Without government intervention regulating disposal, tires were left to pile up creating breeding grounds for mosquitoes and spontaneously igniting into toxic bonfires. They aren’t, as I had initially assumed, hazardous waste. They only necessitate special disposal to avoid the accumulation of tires that prompts the aforementioned breeding grounds and toxic fires.
Fortunately, markets now exist for 80% of scrap tires-up from 17% in 1990. These markets - both recycling and beneficial use - continue to grow. Almost half of the tires are burned for fuel, another 20 percent are used in civil engineering projects, about 8 percent is ground up and recycled into other products and about 4 percent is ground up and used in rubber-modified asphalt. The remainder are exported, retreaded, used “miscellaneously”, or land-filled.
Many of these applications are indeed a beneficial second life for a product so integral to modern life. Still, I questioned the physical make-up of tires and the initial research I was finding demonstrating toxic chemicals and heavy metals leaching out of tires. Studies basically show the levels to be minimal, but the mom and environmental health advocate in me always questions “safe levels.” If there’s a safer alternative, why accept even a “minimal” risk? I am a huge proponent of recycling, but why are we using a potentially risky material where our children play?

A Second Life: Tires as Turf for Athletic Fields and Playgrounds

We’ve been using artificial turf for decades and it takes a variety of forms, including rubberized asphalt, playground surfaces, and landscape mulches. The original AstroTurf fields are beginning to degrade and release alarming amounts of lead into the environment. These fields are being torn up and replaced with the latest fake, partially constituted of old tires. Initially touted as an environmentally responsible way to recycle old tires, more are questioning the logic behind using a material too risky to dispose of in landfills for ground cover where our children play.
While the media is mostly covering the use of what’s known as “crumb rubber” as infill on synthetic athletic field coverings, scrap tires can also be recycled into solid surfaces, as well as used as loose fill like in the situation of my daughter’s school. In this case, the rubber is simply shredded and dumped around the base of a play structure.
My initial research found that contention over the use of this product is growing across the US. Many states and municipalities are halting the continued use of tire turf until more studies are conducted to ensure the safety of the surface.
There are almost no studies on potential health impacts (especially long-term) from using tire rubber, but preliminary reports have found definitive evidence of potential risk. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), in a January 2007 report Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products, found that 49 chemicals could be released from tire crumbs.
Recycled crumb rubber contains a number of chemicals that are known or suspected to cause health effects. The most common types of synthetic rubber used in tires are composed of ethylene–propylene and styrene–butadiene combined with vulcanizing agents, fillers, plasticizers, and antioxidants in different quantities, depending on the manufacturer. Tire rubber also contains polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Rubber leachates are also complex solutions, some of which are known to be harmful to human health; effects of exposure range from skin and eye irritation to major organ damage and even death. Long term exposure can lead to neurological damage, carcinogenesis, and mutagenesis.
While these findings lead one to believe the material is indeed toxic, it is argued that since the rubber is “vulcanized,” the toxins are locked in. Some companies claim the material is indestructible and non-biodegradable, completely safe and non-toxic. Simultaneously, they admit that there is an odor at first (which is evidence of chemicals volatilizing from the material….not locked in after all).
Every study I have come across has only served to emphasize that the devil is in the details. It depends on what form the recycled rubber takes, what degree of usage is endured, and what climate and other environmental factors may impact degradation. Since there are relatively few studies on leaching and health impacts when using scrap tires in these various ways, I have had to try to examine the evidence already available from other uses and make assumptions about what it means for my daughter.
The State of Evidence (or Lack Thereof)
In 1994, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency found that due to heavy metals and other pollutants in tires there is a potential risk for the leaching of toxins into the groundwater when placed in wet soils. Admitting the almost unpredictable nature of tires, this report stated “research has shown that very little leaching occurs when shredded tires are used as light fill material, however limitations have been put on use of this material; each site should be individually assessed determining if this product is appropriate for given conditions.”

A 1998 study from the University of Massachusetts reviewed all of the existing literature in order to assess the safety of using recycled tires as light fill in civil engineering projects. While they concluded that it appeared safe, they also stated that “it would be prudent to perform field studies on these areas over longer periods of time. It is important to recognize that the impact of scrap tires on the environment varies according to the local water and soil conditions, especially pH value.”

The 2007 study conducted by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that recycled tires posed minimal risk when used as shredded loose fill, but again reiterated the importance of understanding local climate impacts because the tires may degrade differently in different conditions. They also concluded that they needed further research on the potential toxicity of crumb rubber.

Later in 2007, the Connecticut Department of Analytical Chemistry conducted some of the first experiments on the potential toxicity of crumb rubber. “The laboratory data presented here support the conclusion that under relatively mild conditions of temperature and leaching solvent, components of crumb rubber produced from tires (i) volatilize into the vapor phase and (ii) are leached into water in contact with the crumbs…Based on these data further studies of crumb rubber produced from tires are warranted under both laboratory, but most especially field conditions.”

Each of these studies and others like them have each examined only one small piece of the puzzle. Compiled together, the picture still isn’t very clear. We don’t know long-term impacts. We don’t know how the various heavy metals and chemicals might interact and impact a developing child’s system. We don’t even know how much or which heavy metals and chemicals might leach in any specific application.

In the Face of Uncertainty

Our gap in knowledge has prompted actions nationwide including a federal investigation of artificial surfaces by the EPA and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Unfortunately, the federal focus will be solely on lead and not the plethora of other heavy metals and toxic chemicals comprising crumb rubber, scrap rubber, or solid surface composites.
Luckily, as we’ve been seeing a lot lately, states are picking up where the feds leave off. New York state assembly members have imposed a moratorium on the purchase and installation of synthetic turf pending further investigation into potential health effects. Separate bills in New Jersey and California legislatures would ban the installation of new fields until the completion of comprehensive health and environmental studies.
Connecticut Senate Minority Leader John McKinney is working with the commissioners of the state's departments of public health and environmental protection to find a way to use existing funds for a study. A bill by Minnesota State Rep. Phyllis Kahn also calls for a health study on the impacts of crumb rubber use. The earliest results from these studies are expected to be public by the end of the year. Still, most of these studies are limited at best, only addressing the use of crumb rubber on athletic fields. It’s a legitimate concern, but what about solid surface and loose fill like my daughter’s school playground?
While we wait for the jury’s verdict, I have a few questions of my own. It’s commendable to find alternative uses for old tires, but why where our children play? Why not use old tires for parking lots or industrial building components? Why not just make tires that aren’t so toxic to begin with? Michelin is beginning to experiment with new formulations since Europe’s new REACH policy will compromise their ability to sell tires there. Will Michelin sell us safer tires, too? And how about creating synthetic turf from safer materials? Or what about nature’s standards, like grass (grown without pesticides, of course) and sand? I know abrasion and impact absorption and durability are all factors, but why do we prioritize acute impacts so far above chronic ones?
Aside from my growing list of questions, I’m encouraged by the amazing innovations that address everyone’s concerns. According to the March 2008 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, one new alternative is infill made from plant-derived materials. Synthetic turf manufacturer Limonta Sport produces Geo Safe Play, an infill made from coconut husks and cork. Company spokesperson Domenic Carapella says, "There are certainly alternatives to crumb rubber. There is no longer a reason to sacrifice the playing quality and more importantly the health of children [playing on synthetic turf]."
So often we dive into the unknown when we start using new products. We assume that they have been comprehensively tested for safety, but they aren’t required to be. When will we learn our lesson? It’s better to be safe than sorry, so while I’m still unclear about whether recycled tires are safe or not, I’m advocating for a moratorium on its use until we know more. I’m still looking, I’m still learning. Watch the Healthy Child blog for updates on what I uncover.
Resources:
LEED certifiable synthetic grass?
Serious Questions About New Generation Artificial Turf that Require Answers
The Myth of Rubberized Landscapes
Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Turf
Synthetic Turf Health Debate Takes Root
Synthetic Turf – Environment and Human Health, Inc

Update on Toxic Turf:
The US Centers for Disease Control announced an official public health alert regarding potential lead exposure from synthetic turf. http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00275
Independent testing commissioned by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has found high levels of lead in artificial turf, including turf and indoor/outdoor grass carpet purchased from major retailers. CEH has initiated legal action against retailers and manufacturers to eliminate lead risks. http://www.cehca.org/press-releases/eliminating-toxics/legal-action-launched-on-lead-in-artificial-turf/
The article above states that NY passed a moratorium, but while one was initiated, it never actually passed. In addition, a bipartisan, two-house toxic turf study bill died in the New York State Legislature on June 23rd. Observers cited pressure from local 'crumb rubber'/recycling companies, and from schools with renovation projects in the pipeline.

Related Articles

The Myth of Rubberized Landscapes

Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Turf

Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Turf: Follow-Up Analyses

[No. 06] This is not Sweden: The crumbing of California Senate Bill 1277 under industry pressure and other musings about new efforts to study/ regulate artificial turf fields. By Guive Mirfendereski, SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. May 22, 2008.

Preface. While legislation is the art of compromise, often between the ideal and the possible, it is also true that the legislative process is often an exercise in selling out the public interest to interest groups. “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made,” remarked the Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck. The intimation is that sausage making is an ugly and messy undertaking, of a variety that can make the stomach turn. That is the feeling one gets when tracking the fate of the Senate Bill 1277 from introduction until its passage in the California Senate.

A California dream? On May 12, 2008, the California Senate passed and sent to the Assembly a measure entitled “An act relating to synthetic turf.” Its single article provided, “(a) By September 1, 2010, the Integrated Waste Management Board, in consultation with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the State Department of Public Health, shall prepare and provide to the Legislature and post on the board's Internet Web site a study that compares the effects of synthetic turf and natural turf on the environment and the public health.  (b) For purposes of this section, synthetic turf means any composition material used to cover or surface a field as an alternative to grass.”[1] In a press release announcing the passage of the bill, Sen. Maldonado said, “I am glad to see that the Senate recognized the importance of further investigating the safety of these fields.”[2]

The version of SB 1277 that passed the Senate fell far short of the bill that Senator Maldonado had filed originally on February 19, 2008. Introduced as an amendment to California’s Health and Safety Code, the bill had sought to prohibit the installation of  crumb rubber-containing synthetic turf within the boundaries of a public or private school or public recreational park unless and until the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment had prepared a site specific environmental impact report on the installation. The bill had also required that, on or before June 30, 2009, the State Department of Public Health to prepare and make available to the public a health study on the use of crumb rubber within synthetic turf.[3]

What began with a bang in February 2008 ended with a whimper in May, after the detractors of the bill made certain to water down its purpose and then confine its promulgation to the very board that promotes the purveyance of crumb rubber in the name of recycling used tires from the landfill to into playgrounds. Nevertheless, Sen. Maldonado has asked the state Attorney general, Jerry Brown, to look into the issue whether the state should be “formally warning parents about unsafe chemicals in artificial turf fields.” [17]

 The lesson of SB 1277. The lesson from the dilution of the Maldonado bill is perhaps that the legislature is not the right place for addressing common concerns about artificial turf fields. Given the pernicious influence of money and pull on the legislative process, perhaps one should seek equally the regulation of artificial turf fields as an environmental matter through executive action. That is certainly the Swedish model and it is worth studying.
Elsewhere, In Sweden … In Sweden, the treatment of crumb rubber in artificial turf installations has been an interesting example of how an enlightened government would approach the potential harm that can come from the harmful substances in crumb rubber, even though recycling used tires is a problem for the Swedes as well.
 

The KemI report. In July 2006, Kemikalieinspektionen (KemI), the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate published a report called “Synthetic Turf from a Chemical Perspective.”[18] The “summary” section of the report stated, “Synthetic turf often contains rubber granulate from waste tyres, which in turn contain several substances of very high concern. A discussion is currently being carried out in several European countries, including Norway, Italy and Germany, concerning the properties of synthetic turf and the possible risks of using it.”[19] The report acknowledged, “It is a good strategy to recycle material from worn-out products,” but “recycling, however, may conflict with attempts to minimize the risk of using chemicals.”[20]

The KemI report was not out to get the crumb rubber industry. This is evident from the following: “Although substances of very high concern are present in synthetic turf, this may not necessarily be a direct risk for human health or the environment. The direct risk depends on the extent to which people and the environment are exposed to the hazardous substances.”[22] Even though KemI believed “[t]he health risks for players are probably low [in indoor settings],” but “the exposure levels and any allergic reactions, however, have been poorly studied.”[23] Nevertheless, KemI believed, “There is a local environmental risk” and explained it in the following terms: “Current knowledge allows the conclusion to be drawn that synthetic turf that contains rubber from recycled tyres may give rise to local environmental risks. Investigations have shown that zinc and phenols can leach from the rubber granulate, and these substances can affect aquatic and sediment-dwelling organisms, if they reach neighbouring water courses. The total amount of these substances that leaches from synthetic turf is small, and thus any effect on the environment that they have is expected to be local.”[24]

The foregoing notwithstanding, KemI sated, “Synthetic turf that contains substances of very high concern should not be used when laying new surfaces. Material that contains substances of very high concern should not be used, as specified by the environmental objectives of the Swedish parliament. This means that granulate formed from recycled rubber should not be used when laying new surfaces of synthetic turf.”[25]

With respect to the question of what to do with crumb rubber infill turf fields already in place, KemI made the suggestion that the “[e]xisting synthetic turf surfaces may remain in place. The rubber from recycled tyres that is present in newly laid synthetic turf surfaces need not be immediately replaced, since the current health and environmental risks are assessed as being small.”[26] “In the long term, however,” the report stated, “the rubber should be replaced by alternatives. Material that contains less hazardous substances should be used when it is necessary to add new rubber. Furthermore, the recycled rubber should be replaced when it displays signs of break-down and the formation of smaller particles.”[27]

KemI also acknowledged, “More knowledge is needed. Certain investigations and assessments have been carried out in order to illuminate the risks of using synthetic turf, but there remain major gaps in our knowledge. This is particularly true with respect to the extent to which the hazardous substances are released from the rubber, and the subsequent exposure to these substances of people and the environment.”[28]  

As to who bears the burden of ensuring that the turf products are safe, KemI stated, perhaps naively, “The responsibility for investigating and assessing the health and environmental risks lies with the companies that manufacture and supply synthetic turf. These companies should seek more knowledge and they should spread this knowledge as long as rubber from recycled tyres remains in synthetic turf surfaces.”[29]

No industry should be expected to cut its own nose by “investigating and assessing the health and environmental risks” associated with synthetic turf. And if there is such an attempt, one needs to be skeptical of industry-funded or biased studies, studies of other studies, and of studies that do not ask the right questions.

Banned in Sweden?!  In light of the foregoing, many among the opponents of the mindless proliferation of artificial turf fields in public parks and playing fields concluded in 2006-2007 that crumb rubber is banned in Sweden. This site reflected that conclusion in a banner proclamation as well.[30]  What was it in the Swedish political process that could turn a KemI recommendation into something with as much force of law than an edict?     

The Swedish practice.  In fall 2007, Barnard and his Save the Park! Group, which was combating an artificial turf plan for the historic Westmount Park, near Montreal,[31] inquired about the state of Swedish governmental regulations of artificial turf fields --  first from Ms. Nina Cromnier, Director of Division of Ecomanagement and Chemicals at the Swedish Ministry of Environment and later from Mrs. Christina Rudin Snöbohm, Senior Technical office of KemI, Swedish Chemicals Agency.

In responding to an inquiry by from Barnard, in December 2007, Ms. Cromnier advised, there is “no specific legislation in place at the governmental level regarding synthetic soccer fields, such as a moratorium.” “There are some recommendations issued by KemI,” and it could better answer Barnard’s questions on how the recommendations were being applied, because KemI had the expertise on the subject. “The Swedish administrative system,” Cromnier continued, “consists of relatively small ministries …. The government has delegated  regulatory power regarding regulations for specific chemicals to KemI.  Most part of the administrative work is thus carried out by KemI in this field.”[32]
 

On January 1, 2008, Barnard wrote to Rudin Snöbohm at KemI, seeking clarification of the regulatory regime governing synthetic turf fields using infill made from recycled rubber tires. On January 30, 2008, Rudin Snöbohm replied, “I guess you have already got the answer that you needed from Nina Cromnier and from our report Synthetic turf from a chemical perspective. It is right that there [is] no specific Swedish legislation regarding synthetic soccer fields. But we have the recommendation that you are aware of and you will find it in the above mentioned report. 

Rudin Snöbohm emphasized, “Synthetic turf that contains substances of very high concern should not be used when laying new surfaces for soccer fields. This means that granule formed from recycled rubber should not been used when laying new surfaces.”

Accrodng to  Rudin Snöbohm, at the time KemI was not reviewing the recommendation. In conclusion, she referred Barnard to KemI’s recommendation about synthetic turf and more information about A Non-Toxic Environment to http://www.kemi.se/default____550.aspx.[33]

Recommendation as a Means of Control. When SynTurf.org wrote to Swedish Chemicals Agency to also obtain their permission for citing the Barnard-Rudin Snöbohm correspondence in this article, in her reply[36] Rudin Snöbohm inlcuded a document entiled, Recommendation as a Means of Control (Septmebr 2007) by Faugert & Co Utvärdering AB. This company evaluated the reception and impact of KemI’s recommendation on “usage of rubber granules from recycled tyres as filling material (between the straws) in synthetic turfs, mainly for outdoor football courts.”[37]

The KemI recommendation, the Faugert survey stated, “aims at creating a behavioural change in buyers – avoiding rubber granules from recycled tyres when laying artificial turf on sports pitches since recycled tyres contain several substances hazardous to health and environment – through addressing target groups such as local authorities (kommuner) and football associations planning for or laying artificial turfs, as well as retailers, laying firms and producers of artificial turf. The recommendation is accompanied by a report made by KemI presenting available data and research made on the subject in order to inform and simplify transformation on turf-choice behaviour.”[38] “A recommendation of this kind is a way of clarifying and assisting actors in their choice of materials and

is supposed to act as a ‘soft’ way of enforcing the prevailing environment legislation and set environment goals.”[39]

According to the Faugert survey, the operative (and therefore the compelling) parts of the recommendation from the KemI are:

“Tyres contain several Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) with particularly hazardous properties such as causing cancer, disrupting reproduction or adversely affecting genetic material. Examples are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates and certain metals.”

“Studies show that the local environment may be affected if certain hazardous substances, such as zinc and phenols, leach from the rubber granules and enter rivers and streams, where they may affect organisms.”

"It is the responsibility of companies to make sure that the artificial turf they sell is safe for humans and the environment. KemI urges anyone intending to lay artificial turf to request information about its chemical content and to stipulate requirements when buying so that substances of very high concern (SVHC) can be avoided. Swedish companies, for their part, should demand that their suppliers push ahead with the development of better alternatives.”[40]

The Faugert survey found that the KemI recommendation had induced some behavioral change. The survey showed “a proven decrease in demand for rubber granules from recycled tyres. The results show that 91% of the football courts with artificial turf laid before the recommendation contained granules from recycled tyres, whereas only 40 % of the football courts laid after the recommendation contained that same material, in spite of a total increase in the number of football courts laid. Instead alternative materials are used, such as other forms of rubber granules, plastic granules and sand. Quite a few of the respondents express doubts about the alternative materials offered on the market, since their durability, sustainability and playability as compared to other materials are not known.”[41]

Among the suppliers, the Faugert survey found, “the recommendation led to behavioural changes amongst them as well as amongst buyers, though to a varying degree. Some pointed to the fact that some buyers, right at the time when the recommendation was issued, altered their filling material plans. Some of them also say that if it had not been for the recommendation, granules from recycled tires would still be the primary choice amongst buyers.” [42]

Is KemI just a meatball factory?  The Faugert survey found, “Suppliers are a major node in this system, an important target group for the recommendation since they are responsible for the effects of their products and the accompanying information which they distribute. To what extent they have really taken this responsibility in the case of artificial turf can be debatable.”[43]

“The important to remember,” Faugert survey concluded, “is that KemI acts in contexts where other drive forces are also affecting the possible outcomes of a recommendation like this. KemI is an actor amongst others, whose actions and results are affected by contexts. The impact of this recommendation has to be viewed with regard to contextual aspects and actions of others – such as media, FIFA or those mentioned above – in order to fully understand recommendation compliance levels.”[45]

The East Coast Approach. Naturally, to reach a non-toxic environment in any setting, Sweden or California, would require a diminution of toxins and harmful substances in the environment. The answer seems to be in not adding more infill crumb rubber artificial turf fields to the landscape. Yet that will not come to pass unless there is a substantial commitment to the testing of the effect of harmful substances from crumb rubber and other components of artificial turf fields on human health and the environment.

Beginning with Crain & Zhang test results (September 2006),[46] in the United States there have been a total of three relevant studies that have actually generated hard raw data about the potentially harmful substances that reside and emanate from crumb rubber that is made of used tires. They are known generally as the Crain & Zhang Study (latest revision, December 2007),[47] Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides/State University of New York at Albany Study (2007),[48] and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES)/Environment and Human Health (EHHI) Study (2007).[49] Based on their own tests, all three have concluded that more tests are required to ascertain the effect of potentially harmful compounds that come with artificial turf fields. The EHHI and RAMP have asked for a moratorium on the installation of turf fields until further tests can be done on the effects of turf substances on human health and the environment.[50]

When the results of the CAES/EHHI research study came out in August 2007, Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, pledged to provide $200,000 from the state over the next two years for additional testing of artificial turf fields. He “urged parents and the school communities not to panic about the artificial turfs but to be aware of the potential effects.” “There is a need for more studies, information and awareness,” he said. “This kind of particle can be dangerous to youth. They pose issues to health, and people need to be aware.”[51] Subsequently, in March 2008, a measure was introduced in the Connecticut legislature for funding of a toxicological study of crumb rubber in artificial turf fields.[52] But that did not go anywhere for fiscal reasons. However, recently, monies have been found within the executive department of the state government to finance a comprehensive testing of crumb rubber by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. The $200,000 earmarked for the research will come from a $750,000 settlement that the Attorney General and Department of Environmental Protection obtained from a developer-builder in connection with the construction of Montville Commons Shopping Center.[53]    

The very first artificial turf bill was filed in New York State Legislature by Senator Alesi in October 2007. The Alesi bill called for 6-month moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf pending a comprehensive assessment of the potential adverse impacts of synthetic turf on public health and the environment. The bill also required an environmental impact assessment for each site-specific installation of artificial turf.[54] The background to the bill recognized the need for recycling used tires, but it also recognized that the new uses for old tires “should not threaten or compromise public health or the environment.” [55]

In March 2008, a bill was introduced in the New Jersey Legislature (A2512), which established a moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf pending a comprehensive public health study. The preamble of the bill acknowledged that “more information is necessary to make an informed decision on the appropriate uses of synthetic turf containing crumb rubber. In the interest of preventing adverse health impacts and contamination to natural resources, a comprehensive public health study on the potential threats associated with the use of synthetic turf is warranted.” “The Legislature therefore determines that it is consistent with public policy to require that a comprehensive public health study be undertaken immediately; and, in the meantime, to temporarily suspend the installation and use of synthetic turf products that contain crumb rubber.”[56]

The Midwest Approach. In March 2008, three members of the Minnesota legislature introduced a bill designated (House File No. 4056) which prohibited the installation of artificial turf fields on an athletic playing field within the boundaries of a public or private school or a public park, until the Department of Health, in consultation with the state Pollution Control Agency, has prepared a site specific impact report on the health and environmental effects of the use or installation of synthetic turf on that athletic playing field. The bill directed the commissioner of health to “study the health impacts related to the use of crumb rubber within synthetic turf, and review all available data relating to the potential health risks and health effects of synthetic turf, with particular attention to the crumb rubber content of the synthetic turf. In conducting this study, the commissioner must examine the health and environmental impact of various pathways of exposure including, but not limited to, small fill particle inhalation, volatility, leaching into groundwater, dermal absorption, and the persistence in the environment of the original and degraded byproducts of crumb rubber.”[57]

The New York City’s radical approach. No piece of proposed legislation in a jurisdiction packs as much punch against crumb rubber artificial turf as the measure filed by three New York City councilmen in March 2008. The bill made it unlawful “to use crumb rubber or crumb rubber infill for any purpose in any park or for any surface intended for use at any time for recreational purposes within the city of New York.” Also, “All parks or other surfaces intended for use at any time for recreational purposes within the city of New York that presently contain crumb rubber or crumb rubber infill shall be changed within one year from the enactment of this legislation to materials that do not contain crumb rubber or crumb rubber infill.” And, “For six months following the enactment of this legislation, there shall be no construction or renovation in any park or of any surface intended for use at any time for recreational purposes within the city of New York that utilizes any material made in whole or in part from synthetic or artificial turf.”[58]

The forces that advocated the filing of the NYC legislation acted from a set of principled beliefs, quite apart from the naïve approach in other jurisdictions. The big city tough talk in this bill embodied the realistic assumption that the turf industry would be pushing hard to keep its crumb rubber product in its NYC marketplace. The NY parks advocates also assumed and correctly that there was no further need for a study about crumb rubber and its potential effect on human health and the environment. First, research tests had shown already that crumb rubber contained harmful substances. Second, studies that had been conducted by public health officials in other jurisdictions had proven to be the review of the existing research literature, which was either irrelevant or biased in favor of the turf industry. Third, the officials who had approved these filed in the first place would not admit to any implied liability by sanctioning studies that they could not control as to outcome. This last point echoed the “conflict of interest” issue raised in the Faugert survey about KemI’s recommendation against crumb rubber. As the NY parks advocates, correctly, one could not put the fox in charge of the chicken coop or, as a Persian parable teaches, to be asking a fox tail to bear witness to the Fox’s innocence.

In the Persian parable, a fox is brought before a judge to answer for a few chickens that went missing on the night when he was guarding the coop. The fox denied any wrong doing, claiming that he was awake the entire night and saw no evidence of foul play. The judge asked if anyone witnessed his vigilance, to which the fox replied, “your honor, you can ask my tail, it will vouch for my testimony.”

The NY parks advocates suspicion of any government-sponsored study of crumb rubber proved justified when in mid-May 2008 a working draft (march 2008) of a study by the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) surfaced. Prepared by TRC Environmental, Inc. of Windsor, Connecticut, the study is entitled “A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks from Synthetic Turf Fields.” [59] It confirmed what everyone conversant in this subject knows: Crumb rubber used in synthetic fields is made from used tires. “These contain several [chemicals of potential concern]. Studies have found that crumb rubber contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), benzothiazole, and certain metals. Studies have also shown that phthalates, alkylphenols and benzene may become bonded to tires during their use.”[60] 

Already within the foregoing paragraph from the study’s executive summary is clear where the consultant’s bias is tending. It admits that crumb rubber contains “certain metals,” but it minimizes the presence of metals of concern by not naming lead, cadmium, zinc or others. To make it even more clear that the study will not damn crumb rubber, the consultant states that “people may theatrically be exposed to COPCs from the crumb rubber infill by several possible ways.” [61] 

The study is “an assessment of available literature,”[62] which means that it interprets the research and tests conducted by others. The conclusion that the study draws is what the works like RAMP, EHHI and Crain & Zhang have already established – that there is knowledge gap that can only be bridged by testing for human exposure to COCPs under real-life conditions. “[I]n this review,” the consultant stated, “a health risk was not identified as a result of ingestion, dermal or inhalation exposure to crumb rubber.”[63] “The primary health concern with the use of artificial turf fields,” the consultant mused, “is the potential for causing physical health effects associated with heat stress and dehydration, which are potential risks for children playing in nay hot environment.”[64] As for the knowledge gaps that the study identified,[65] the consultant made its own assessment of risks of exposure to COCPs,[66] which simply did nothing to diminish its recommendation that “Going forward, the NYC [Department of Parks and Recreation] should continue to hold their suppliers and vendors to high standards when purchasing synthetic turf systems.”[67]

The publication Metro NY saw straight through the report’s bias: Its headline for May 15, 2005, screamed “City gives a pass to toxic turf ballfields,” while another news article in the same issue declared, “Doctor on fake turf: it’s a ‘potential risk.’” [68]

According to a May 15^th news report in The New York Times (N.Y. / Region), the DHMH study did not sway Betsy Gotbaum, the city’s public advocate, and organizations including New Yorkers for Parks, Riverkeeper, the Natural Resources Defense Council and New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. They said “they had decided to continue to call for a moratorium on installing new turf fields.” The health department also said it was “conducting a review of scientific studies to better understand the potential health effects for people who use artificial turf fields.” “The department is still reviewing comments from staff and colleagues in the scientific community and expects the report to be released by the end of the month.” Stuart Gaffin, an associate research scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, said the study’s analysis was less than authoritative. “It seems that it was a good college-student level Internet database report,” Dr. Gaffin said. “It is not definitive and should not be the final answer on this.” TRC Companies referred questions to the health department and the parks department declined to comment.[69]

All eyes on California, again. On April 22, 2008, the California Integrated Waste Management (CIWMB) considered the draft of a scope of work for “Evaluation of the Safety of Artificial Turf Fields Containing Crumb Rubber from Recycled Tires.”[70] The proposed study will look into whether chemicals and particles from crumb rubber could be “inhaled by people playing on these fields, leading to adverse health effects.  In addition, questions have arisen about whether crumb rubber turf fields cause skin abrasions that are more serious and more prone to bacterial infection than abrasions occurring on natural turf.  This agreement will address these health issues.” Ibid. The work will be done by the state agency called Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which will “[review] existing research, identifying gaps in existing research knowledge, and conducting new field testing and lab analyses. Ibid.

1. Review the scientific studies in the published literature that report on the potential health effects of crumb rubber turf fields to determine what chemicals and particles have been identified as being released from recycled rubber crumb into the air above the fields.  Survey what is known concerning skin abrasion and infection rates among athletes using these fields compared to athletes playing on natural turf.  Identify gaps in research knowledge on these topics.

2. Perform air sampling above the crumb rubber fields to quantify the volatile organic chemicals (individual and total) and inhalable rubber particulates (PM_2.5) released into the breathing space.  Sampling will be performed so as to test whether the amount of chemicals released by crumb rubber fields is influenced by the ambient temperature and whether more particulates are released during intervals of intense use (e.g., during practices or games). 

3. For different age groups and different frequencies of field use, compare inhalation exposure estimates for chemicals and particulates identified in Task 2 above to health-based screening levels collected from the published literature or from OEHHA evaluations, to determine whether adverse health effects would occur.  Identify mitigation measures that could be taken.

4. In collaboration with high school and college athletic trainers, measure rates of skin abrasion and skin infection for athletes competing on artificial turf fields compared to natural turf in the same geographic area.  Additionally, ASTM method F1015 will be followed to quantify abrasiveness of artificial turf fields compared to natural turf.  Lastly, bacterial counts will be made for samples of rubber crumb and artificial grass blades taken from artificial turf fields, unused rubber crumb supplied by recyclers, and natural soil samples.  Identification of Staphylococcus aureus (the bacteria responsible for MRSA) will also be performed.[71]

The advantage that CIWMB/OEHHA study will have over others done under governmental auspices so far would be to also include a testing component. However, that should be done in real life conditions. For example, the sampling of air above the crumb rubber fields alone will not tell accurately the exposure of players to volatile organic chemicals and inhalable rubber particulates released into the breathing space. To accurately measure that the sampling should also take place under play conditions, when kicks and traction forces, as well as falling face down into the carpet, could result in higher readings and also cause mechanically a greater likelihood of inhalation of particulates or vapors. The effect of cooling heated turf surfaces with water may produce a different result as to inhalation of vapors transported in the field’s microclimate by way of humidity.

Conclusion. It will be some time before the completion and release of the CIWMB/OEHHA work. In the meantime the municipal officials are stuck with a high demographically-induced demand for more playing fields, an aggressive sports lobby that sees very little wrong with artificial turf and an aggressive marketing by the sellers of turf field systems. Where turf comes under scrutiny and question, a municipality is apt to convene a citizen’s task force group to decide for itself if turf is the way to go. Often, the task force operates in the face of similar pressures that face the parks and recreation departments. Some cursory review of the inclusive scientific studies leads to the broad claim that there is no evidence that turf is a risk to health and the environment.

Recently, SynTurf.org obtained a copy of a Briefing Binder that the San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks supplied to the City’s Task Force on Synthetic Playfields.[72]

The Briefing Binder contains a letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Director of the S.F. Department of the Environment, to Yomi Agunbiade, Director of S.F. Department of Recreation and Parks, dated January 9, 2008. Citing his department’s study (December 2007) and an OEHHA study (2007), Blumenfeld recommended, among other things, the following: (a) Due to need for information regarding potentially toxic constituents, require full ingredients disclosure from manufacturers; (b) If hand-to-mouth exposure by children can be reasonably expected, post signs reminding parents to wash children’s hands after play; (c) Due to concern over end-of-life disposal, require the synthetic turf vendors guarantee take back of the product at end of life, and provide documentation that the product is recycled; (d) Do not permit the use of disinfectants on synthetic turf areas without full review by the Department of Public health; (e) Obtain comments from the S.F. Public utilities Commission on the potential leaching concerns associated with synthetic turf products; and (f) Obtain comments from the Department of Public Health’s Environmental Heath Section on the human health risks associated with artificial turf.

The Briefing Binder also contains a letter from June Weintraub and Richard Lee, SFDPH’s Environmental health Section, dated February 6, 2008, to Dawn Kamalanathan, Planning Director of S.F. Dept. of Recreation and Parks. According to it, SFDPH does not recommend a moratorium on the installation of turf fields and its sole recommendation is that “[i]t may be helpful to perform air monitoring on artificial turf playfields in San Francisco during hot weather to help further assess relevant exposure to users in the breathing zone.” The letter dismissed the CAES/EHHI study as biased against turf.

The Briefing Binder’s main course is a report entitled “Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products,” dated January 2007, by the OEHHA for the CIWMB. While not about synthetic turf fields, specifically, the report is a harbinger of what OEHHA might conclude about artificial turf fields under its current terms of reference from CIWMB. According to its executive summary, the 2007 OEHHA study found it unlikely that a one time ingestion of tire shred would produce adverse health effect, and the cancer risk from one-time ingestion is well below a di minims level. Similarly, gastric digestion simulation did not produce an unacceptable cancer risk in the event of a one-time ingestion, but it is uncertain what effect a similar dose spread over a lifetime would have on a person. The wipe sampling of playground surfaces found zinc and four PAHs measuring at a level at least three times background. Chromic ingestion of chrysene (a PAH) would produce a cancer risk just higher than the di minimis risk level. The study also found tire-derived surfaces and synthetic rubber EPDM would not cause skin sensitization in children, nor would they be expected to elicit skin reactions in children already sensitized to latex. The study also doubted if rain events would produce leachates in concentrations that otherwise has been shown to be toxic “to a variety of organisms including bacteria, algae, aquatic invertebrates, fish, frogs and plants.”

The S.F. Department of Recreation and Parks’ Briefing Binder also includes the summary and conclusions of the CAES/EHHI study. The EHHI report rebuts the 2007 OEHHA study on the supposition that “health assessments that indicate de minimis risk should not be applied to synthetic turf paradigm and may not be appropriate for playgrounds with open layers of recycled tire crumbs.” “It is prudent to conclude that there will be human exposures to chemicals released during the use of synthetic turf fields,” EHHI stated. Also, “[h]ealth endpoints of concern are numerous, including acute irritation of the lungs, skin and eyes, and chronic irritation of the lung, skin, and eyes. Knowledge is somewhat limited about the effects of semi-volatile chemicals on the kidney, endocrine system, nervous system, cardiovascular system, immune system, developmental effects and the potential to induce cancers.”

Another opus in the Briefing Binder is a study done for the Parks and Recreation District and School District of metropolitan Bainbridge, Washington (undated, 2007/2008?). This study too is a review of the available “scientific” literature. It concludes, “Overall, the balance of the studies reviewed indicate that human health risks from playing on synthetic turf fields is minimal, even though low concentrations of some chemicals have been demonstrated to leach from the tire crumb, or volatilize as vapor.” The report relies in part on a conclusion of a French study (Aliapur/Ademe) that while there was a detectable concentration of a number of organic compounds and metals in water runoff from synthetic turf fields, but they were generally lower than the applicable drinking water standards. Aliapur is an organization dedicated to recycling used tires and the findings of that study have already been debunked, or at least called into question, by the CAES/EHHI study.[73]    

[No. 05] How Green is Artificial Turf?, by Meg Shannon,  Fox News, February 6, 2008, available at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329065,00.html

[No. 04]  Luz Claudio, “Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root, “ in Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 116, no. 3, pages A116-A122 (March 2008). This article is available from the source at

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-3/focus.html or http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-3/EHP116pa116PDF.PDF; or click here.

No. 2]  The Westport Brief: Citizens Question Safety of Rubber Crumb  in Artificial Turf, by Guive Mirfendereski, www.SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass., Launched: September 28, 2007; Revised with corrections and a section on Wellesley, Mass.: September 30, 2007; revised November 12, 2007. 

THIS article provides a 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 crumb rubber, 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.

In the words of EHHI’s director of toxicology, Dr. David Brown: “Although the health implications are unclear, the evidence is sufficient to create a burden of proof of safety before more fields are installed. Therefore, EHHI stands by its recommendation that no new fields that contain ground up rubber tire crumbs be installed until additional research is been done.”[1]

The Genesis
The saga that eventually has become the Westport brief began neither this year nor in Connecticut. Its origins lie in the work of William Crain and Junfeng Zhang in the spring and Summer 2006.[2] The duo became interested in the possible presence of toxicants in the rubber granules that are applied loosely on the surface of the artificial turf field. Because the granules are much more accessible to children and athletes than they had supposed, they decided to analyze a sample for two possible sets of toxicants -- polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and toxic metals. The duo first collected a sample from Manhattan's Riverside Park in May 2006, and they gathered a second sample in June 2006 from a different part of the park. The analyses on both samples were conducted at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of Rutgers University.[3] Dr. Crain paid for the analyses.[4]

The PAH results for the first sample showed six PAHs were above the concentration levels that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) considered sufficiently hazardous to public health to require their removal from contaminated soil sites. The study also stated that it was highly likely that all six PAHs are carcinogenic to humans. The PAH results for the second sample showed the concentration levels of the six PAHs were above the DEC's tolerable levels for soil.The analyses revealed levels of zinc in both samples that exceed the DEC's tolerable levels. Lead and arsenic also were present, and many scientists believe that these metals should not be introduced into the environment at all.[5]

”We want to emphasize that the findings are preliminary,” the professors wrote. “PAHs in rubber might not act the same way as in soil, and we do not yet have information on the ease with which the PAHs in these rubber particles might be absorbed by children or adults -- by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin.” They concluded: “However, the findings are worrisome. Until more is known, it wouldn't be prudent to install the synthetic turf in any more parks.”[6]

Westport Moms
In Spring 2007, three Westport residents -- Tanya Murphy, Stacy Prince and Patricia Taylor – began asking questions about the harm that may come to children from the crumb rubber used on artificial turf fields. The town had two synthetic turf fields and planned to install two more.[7] Armed with the Crain-Zhang study in Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, Stacy Prince contacted the local officials and a reporter from Westport News, Frank Luongo. Luongo’s coverage of the story piqued Patricia Taylor’s interest in the subject and she contacted first Prince, then Environment and Human Health, Inc. In May 2007, Tanya Murphy published a piece in Westport News, entitled “Organic Fields Are the Way to Go”[8] and contacted EHHI with her concerns bout the harmful effect of the ground-up tires used in turf.

Enter, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
To parents of school age children and environmentalists, Environment and Human Health, Inc. is well known for its pivotal role in a series of state laws dealing with banning pesticides from school and day care centers, and regulating the sale and storage of lawn care pesticides. Previously, Dr. Brown had been helpful to Patricia Taylor’s understanding of the state’s voluntary program and federal regulations pertaining to remediation that Westport had to undertake in order to clean up a contaminated site that it had purchased for school use.

EHHI is composed of physicians, public health officials and policy experts. Nancy Alderman, MES, is the president.[9] Besides Ms. Alderman and the aforementioned Dr. Brown,[10] the organization’s board of directors[11] includes also Susan Addiss, past Commissioner of Health of the State of Connecticut;[12] Dr. Barry Boyd, an oncologist at Greenwich Hospital;[13] Mark Cullen, professor of Medicine and Public Health at Yale University School of Medicine;[14] Robert LaCamera, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Yale University School of Medicine;[15] William Segraves, Associate Dean of Yale College and Dean's Adviser on Science Education;[16] Hugh Taylor, an associate professor at Yale University School of Medicine’s Department of  Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences and Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology;[17] and John Wargo, who is Director of the Yale Program on Environment and Health and author of Our Children's Toxic Legacy.[18]  The board also includes Russell Brenneman, co-Chair of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters and co-Chair of the Connecticut Greenways Committee.[19]

The aforementioned comprise an extraordinary group of experts in the field of medicine and public policy. So when they, the EHHI speak, others listen:

“In the spring of 2007 Environment and Human Health Inc., received numerous inquiries about health concerns with respect to children’s exposures to ground-up rubber tire “crumbs” that are the in-fill material in the new synthetic turf fields. Such fields have been installed, or are being proposed, in towns all over Connecticut and many other states.

“The safety information about the new synthetic fields has mainly focused on the health benefits from the reduction of joint injuries due to the use of the rubber tire crumbs in the new fields. Public health analysis of the health risks from human exposures from the rubber crumb has not been adequately addressed up to this point.

“Research finds that the new synthetic fields are surfaced with a product called “in-fill” that is made from recycled tires. This material is referred to as “tire crumbs” and constitutes the primary playing surface. We estimate these crumbs to be as much as 90% by weight of the fields. The tire crumbs are roughly the size of grains of course sand. They are made by shredding and grinding used tires. Tire crumb materials are spread two to three inches thick over the field surface and packed between ribbons of green plastic used to simulate green grass.

“Review of the immediately available literature about these new fields found that similar health concerns had been raised in other states as well as in other countries. In addition to athletic fields, shredded tires are being used on playgrounds and as gardening mulch. 

“There have been some studies done on the health effects from exposures to the rubber crumb material, but many of these studies present only partial assessments of the human health risk potential. As well, many studies have major data gaps with respect to the chemicals released, as well as the actual levels of exposures to humans and the environment.

”From the information that is available, it was found that tire crumbs contained volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) with carcinogenic potential, which could be extracted from the crumbs in the laboratory. Health reports from workers in the rubber fabrication industry and in the rubber reclamation industry describe the presence of multiple volatile organic hydrocarbons, semi-volatile hydrocarbons and other toxic elements in the air. Studies at tire reclamation sites report the leaching of similar sets of chemicals into the ground water. Occupational studies document a spectrum of health effects ranging from severe skin and eye irritation and respiratory irritation to three forms of cancer.

“The relationship between exposures to the rubber workers and those experienced by people using athletic fields or children in playgrounds covered with ground-up rubber tire material is not known, but we do know that many of the same chemicals that rubber workers are exposed to are being released from the ground-up rubber tire crumbs.

“Based on uncertainty with respect to what these exposures mean for children’s health, as well as the environmental leaching of the materials into the ground water, EHHI decided to initiate an exploratory study with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to determine the chemicals released into the air and water under ambient conditions.”[20]

On July 9, 2007, the EHHI issued a press release asking for a moratorium on the installation of new fields until the CAES study is completed. The release stated that EHHI's public health toxicologist was concerned that some organic compounds from the crumb rubber could affect children's respiratory health as well as having other health effects.

Enter, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station: The CAES Study
Established in 1875, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES) in New Haven, Connecticut, is a state-sponsored research institution that aims to develop, advance, and disseminate scientific knowledge, improve agricultural productivity and environmental quality, protect plants, and enhance human health and well-being through research for the benefit of Connecticut residents and the nation. As its motto “Putting Science to Work for Society” suggests, the mission of the Station is to seek solutions across a variety of disciplines for the benefit of urban, suburban, and rural communities.[21]

In June 2007 EHHI contacted CAES’s Department of Analytical Chemistry to ascertain if the Department’s laboratory would be willing to examine crumb rubber produced from used tires. Given time and personnel limitations, the Department agreed to conduct a very modest study of the material. Funding in the amount of $2000 was received from EHHI to offset the cost of items such as analytical and instrumental supplies and chemical standards. On August 8, 2007, the Department released its preliminary results and on August 17^th CAES issued its report, entitled “Examination of Crumb Rubber Produced from Recycled Tires.”[22] The results came back positive, showing that hazardous metals in the turf granules leach into water, and that at 140 degrees Fahrenheit (a temperature that synthetic turf can reach during summer), other toxic chemicals are released into the air.[23]

The study posed and answered three questions:

            1. Are compounds volatilizing or out-gassing from the tire crumbs? It found organic compounds volatilizing from tire crumbs, consisting mainly of benzothiazole, butylated hydroxyanisole, n-hexadecane and 4-(t-octyl) phenol.

             2. What is the identity of the volatilized compounds derived from the tire crumbs? It identified benzothiazole, hexadecane, 4-(tert-Octyl)-phenol and butylated hyroxyanisole or BHT alteration product among the main compounds that out-gassed for crumb rubber in vapor phase concentrations.

            3. Can organic or elemental components be leached from the tire crumbs by water? It found the elements zinc, selenium, lead and cadmium to be among the main substances that leach into water from crumb rubber.