Massachusetts Sierra Club addresses Sherborn’s artificial turf proposal
The Massachusetts chapter of Sierra Club has written a letter addressing Sherborn Town Meeting on the problems with artificial turf. Here’s what it says:
May 10, 2021
Dear Sherborn Town Meeting:
The Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club has been leading efforts to address the interrelated issues of climate change, toxics and plastic pollution.
The Sierra Club was founded on promoting outdoor activities in nature. However, we do not support the growing trend to install artificial turf athletic fields and related synthetic surfaces.
First, we can’t keep fossil fuels in the ground if we keep using them for plastics. Second, synthetic plastic surfaces are much hotter than grass, and will create a heat island for the athletes and the neighborhood. Heat island is often thought to exacerbate climate impacts of our hotter, drier summers.
The two fields would remove three acres of natural ecosystem that sequester carbon, and cover it with plastic. This will result in a loss of habitat for birds, small mammals, insects, earthworms, etc. Turf is unsanitary and unpleasant to walk on compared to natural grass. Turf is often sanitized with chemical biocides, which is not required for grass and would further degrade the surrounding habitat.
A turf field consists of a large number of undocumented mixtures of petrochemical plastics and chemicals of varying toxicity. All plastics are toxic throughout their entire lifecycle whether they are single-use or not.
This discovery of PFAS chemicals in turf has been widespread. For example, recently a variety of toxic PFAS chemicals were found in laboratory tests of all five major components for a proposed artificial field on Martha’s Vineyard. Some of the PFAS may derive from the plastic manufacturing process. However, the plastic grass blades there (from TenCate GreenFields) are made in part with fluoropolymers, which share the same chemistry as PFAS and are often included with them. The PFAS improves the strength and durability of the blades, but is also a “forever” pollutant. PFAS is so problematic that this should be reason enough to reject artificial turf entirely.
A large typical component of turf systems is a polyurethane base. The primary plastic for crumb rubber infill is styrene-butadiene. Styrene and polyurethane are both based on benzene and highly toxic to manufacture, and are not food-grade materials. The Federal government has identified styrene, butadiene and benzene as carcinogens.
Plastic surfaces generate non-biodegradable microplastics through mechanical action and ultraviolet radiation. Chemical leachate is also a concern for turf because so much of the plastic is in direct contact with the underlying soil. Rainwater will wash chemicals and microplastics into the soil and the storm water system. Microparticles and leachate can be ingested by aquatic animals and enter the human food chain. Wind will blow plastic microparticle dust onto people and the surrounding area. Athletes, coaches and groundskeepers will be the most heavily exposed.
Each synthetic field eventually becomes over 100 tons of bulky solid waste. Plastic recycling is not really working for food packaging and is infeasible for turf. Films like synthetic blades and foams in underlayment are extremely problematic. Polyurethane is not typically recycled anywhere. Pipes for drainage are likewise very cumbersome to recycle.
Several communities including Andover, Brookline, Springfield, Swampscott, Newburyport and Methuen have rejected artificial turf.
The Sierra Club urges Sherborn Town Meeting to oppose this multi-field complex especially given the surrounding ecologically sensitive areas, which include an Audubon sanctuary and the Charles River watershed.
Respectfully,
Deb Pasternak
Mass. Sierra Club, Chapter Director deb.pasternak@sierraclub.org
