Town Committees weigh in on artificial turf concerns
Sherborn Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Groundwater Protection Committee and Open Space Committee have all expressed concerns about toxic chemicals leaching out of the fields and into surrounding wetlands and groundwater. Advisory Committee had a close vote, 5 to 4, narrowly in favor of the fields. The Minority Report from Advisory details a number of financial issues and concerns about process that prompted them to recommend a No vote.
Sherborn Board of Health Statement on Artificial Turf
Regarding player injury, including concussion, lower extremity musculoskeletal injury and abrasion, there is insufficient evidence to support a benefit of either natural or artificial turf over the alternative. As a result, these considerations should not materially impact the choice of turf from a public health standpoint.
Regarding impact on ground and surface water, there is evidence that compounds contained in artificial turf can have toxic effects. These compounds can enter ground and surface water from an artificial field, but the concentrations reached and impact on water supply and public health cannot be quantified at this time.
Approved Statement of 4-29-21 meeting of the Sherborn Open Space Committee:
The Open Space Committee has serious concerns about the proposed installation of artificial turf fields at Laurel Farms (Annual Town Meeting 2021 Warrant Article 9).
Artificial turf field materials are known to contain hazardous chemicals that may be released into the environment, risking contamination of nearby wetlands and interconnected groundwater flows as well as a nearby brook with broader connections to the Charles River.
Taking risks with our groundwater resources runs counter to the vision and goals adopted by the town. The 2018 Open Space and Recreation Plan was “guided by our collective vision of a future Sherborn in which water resources will be protected and maintained for residents’ needs and long-term environmental and human health.” Similarly, a major goal of the 2019 Sherborn Master Plan is to "ensure that water protection and conservation practices in Sherborn provide the best possible protection of shared water resources based on the best available scientific evidence."
Conservation Commission statement to Advisory Committee:
Impacts to wetlands are a concern of and regulated by the Sherborn Conservation Commission. Laurel Farm is in the buffer zone of wetlands on the north and east sides of the fields and there might be wetlands within the field itself.
Wetlands have essential functions, recognized and protected by state and local law, specifically including:
quality of water supplies
quality of ground water
prevention of pollution
wildlife habitat and wildlife.
Wetlands act like sponges and play an invaluable role in storing surface water and runoff, filtering it, and retaining it while it percolates and contributes to groundwater supply. Here in Sherborn, our groundwater and aquifers are the source of the water we rely on in our daily lives and the wetlands at Laurel Fields overlay an important aquifer.
Wetlands maintain and improve water quality through trapping nutrients, sediments and contaminants, but this capacity has limits. More research is needed on the impact of chemical dispersal from artificial turf on wetland health and functions.
Many studies show that a wide range of hazardous materials make up artificial turf and its constituents (such as infill, backing and blades), even the newer designs. This includes PFAS, which is increasingly being flagged as a drinking water contaminant at very low levels. There are also other toxic organic compounds and metal as part of hundreds of tons of synthetic polymers and other materials.
The Commission is concerned about the introduction of hazardous materials that could contaminate wetlands and interconnected groundwater as well as a nearby brook with broader connections.
Because of the risk, a number of other nearly towns has decided against artificial fields or have delayed consideration in order to learn more about the health and environmental impacts of artificial turf.
For Sherborn, questions will include: What specific materials are going to be included in the project? And how much and to what extent will be the toxic materials move via water and air?
Therefore, the SCC recommends, at a minimum, further study of artificial turf while also, more importantly, considering alternatives with lower environmental impacts, such as natural fields that are mostly or totally organically managed and have been implemented elsewhere. For these reasons, the Commission recommends no action on this warrant article.
Advisory Committee Minority Report
While we appreciate that many (though not all) town athletes who use Laurel Fields are strongly in favor of this project, we believe that the potential risks to human health and the environment, as well as financial risks to the taxpayers at large are significant enough to warrant further analysis before such a project is authorized.
The potential risks of artificial turf to human health and the environment have frequently been cited. Testing of turf surfaces routinely detects the presence of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), select metals, and PFAS substances (the latter often referred to as “forever chemicals” because their chemistry keeps them from breaking down under typical environmental conditions, so they build up over time in groundwater, soil, plants – and human bodies.) Health risks associated with these chemicals are well documented. While it may not be possible to quantify with certainty the degree to which these chemicals will leach into groundwater or soil, it is well established that such leaching does occur, and that children are more vulnerable than adults to the effects of such chemicals. We understand that the town committees tasked with evaluating the health and environmental effects of these types of projects – including the Board of Health, Conservation Commission and Groundwater Protection Committee, among others – have only recently been made aware of this project and have not had an opportunity to conduct proper reviews. In light of the potential risks to human health and the environment, we believe it is critical that the relevant town committees conduct appropriate reviews before citizens are asked to vote on whether to approve the project.
In addition, proponents of the Article assert that this project will pay for itself, and that rental fees from use of the fields will be sufficient to build, maintain, safely remove and replace the fields. Initial costs for installing the field are estimated at $4M, but no formal engineering or construction plan for the project has been obtained, so this estimate could vary substantially. Also, the life span of these fields is expected to be no more than 8-10 years, so frequent replacement will be necessary. Due to the toxicity of substances in the turf, it is expensive to safely remove it during replacement, and there are questions about the ability to recycle turf materials. Recreation Commission projections that rental fees will be sufficient to cover all costs associated with the fields are just that – projections – based on a host of unknowns. And no amount of rental fees would be sufficient to cover the costs of a major environmental clean-up effort in the event that soil or groundwater in the area were seriously contaminated by the turf.
The Recreation Department projects that the turf fields would be used 20-25% of the time by Sherborn teams and the rest of the time by teams based outside of Sherborn. As a result, we are concerned about the risk/benefit ratio of this project. At best, only those citizens who play turf-friendly sports will benefit – and only for 20-25% of the time that the fields are in use. Yet Sherborn taxpayers at large will necessarily share the financial, health and environmental risks of the project.
We also expect that if artificial turf is installed at Laurel Fields and increased usage of the fields is as robust as the Recreation Committee hopes, there will likely be an effect on traffic patterns and traffic safety at the intersection of the Fields and Rt. 27, as well as increased demand on DPW resources to maintain and clean the area. To our knowledge, no significant analysis has been done with respect to any of these issues.
We are aware of a number of towns – including Wellesley, Concord, Marblehead and Sharon – who are organically managing town playing fields and/or have placed moratoriums on artificial turf fields pending further study of the associated risks. We believe that Sherborn taxpayers should not be asked to approve the design and construction of artificial turf fields on town property at this time, in the absence of 1) an engineering and construction plan for the project, 2) reports of the relevant town committees tasked with evaluating health and environmental risks, 3) a more robust analysis of ALL costs (financial and other) associated with this project and 4) information about potentially less expensive and safer ways to improve the quality of the playing experience on Laurel Fields. Accordingly, we recommend against passage of this Article.
LAUREL FARMS PROJECT FACT SHEET - Groundwater Protection Committee – approved May 5, 2021
Note: I was not able to import several images from this report but include the text below. You can find the full report here.
Summary: Chemicals used in artificial turf fields pose significant threats to groundwater quality that the Town depends on for its water supply. Recommendations: 1) Invest in natural grass field improvements, or 2) relocate proposed Laurel Farms project away from the important aquifer at this site, or 3) Use plant or mineral based materials for the artificial turf field infill that are much less dangerous than the commonly used “crumb rubber” (recycled auto tires).
The Sherborn Recreation Commission is proposing a construction project at the athletic fields complex at Laurel Farms on Rt 27/North Main Street. A warrant article to fund the project will be considered at the Sherborn 2021 Annual Town Meeting, May 15. The project is supported by a public-private effort, the Sherborn Recreation Commission and the private “Friends of Laurel Farms”, that jointly plan to raise private funds of $3 million, for the estimated $4 million needed for the initial design, permitting, and fields construction. Town residents will be asked to approve a bond of $1 million to cover the estimated cost difference on May 15.
The Groundwater Protection Committee has serious concerns about this project because of the potential risks to groundwater from the proposed artificial turf fields. This Fact Sheet provides a brief outline of the project (1), an initial look at the basic components of artificial turf, and some of the groundwater and environmental risks posed by synthetic materials that may be used in its construction. Other Sherborn town boards have also posted recent statements and related concerns about the project (Conservation Comm, Board of Health, Open Space Committee, see references 2-4).
Laurel Farms Project
The focus of the project (Figure 1) is the installation of two artificial turf athletic fields (darker green), 340 X 390 ft, totaling 132,600 sq. ft. or about three acres (3.04 acres), replacing two existing natural grass fields. The project also includes doubling the size of the existing gravel parking lot to accommodate 194 cars. The artificial fields may require site grading and 1-2 ft of added soil fill to accommodate the field mounding and draining required. A wetlands and stream (Indian Brook) are located on the property, close to the proposed fields.
Artificial Turf
Modern artificial turf fields are a complex, multi- layer system designed to withstand heavy field usage and wide ranging weather conditions. Figure 2 shows the components of a typical system comprised of a top layer of plastic synthetic grass blades surrounded by a second layer of turf infill. The infill layer can be made of many different materials with varying chemical contamination risks to groundwater. The underlying resilient pad and gravel base complete the system. Precipitation falling on the field flows through to the gravel base, and the water is then directed into the ground through an engineered stormwater management system.
Risks to Groundwater
Sherborn residents depend entirely on wells drilled into natural groundwater layers called aquifers to meet all water needs. Aquifers are replenished by rainfall and snowmelt which filters through soil and surface water (streams, rivers, ponds, and wetlands). Most of these wells are privately owned by individual homeowners. Laurel Farms
lies above a large Sherborn aquifer (see map, Figure 3), previously identified in the Town’s definitive 2003 report on groundwater resources (5). This high-yielding aquifer, shown in red with black lines, is already surrounded by potential water quality threats including the former Sherborn and Natick municipal landfills, a municipal golf course, and the heavily traveled Rt 27. An additional source of industrial chemicals now impacting Sherborn ground and surface waters (PFAS, volatile organics) is nearby in Framingham, the General Chemical site (133 Leland St).
The main potential danger to groundwater from artificial turf fields is the chemicals inherent in turf “infill”, which is made from various synthetic and/or natural materials (see Figure 4). The infill is comprised of small particles, hence the common name of “crumb”. The risk comes from the tendency of infill to be transported 1) via athlete’s shoes/clothes, and 2) from chemical runoff and leachate from the infill to the ground under the field and to the adjacent natural grass fields, and ultimately into nearby surface water, and groundwater.
Crumb rubber is one of the most dangerous, most popular, and lowest-cost infill materials. It is made from recycled, ground-up auto and truck tires. Tire crumb rubber contains a wide range of chemicals (Figure 5) from the original tire manufacturing process: most are toxic and some are carcinogens (6). Several are likely to leach out over time into surface and groundwater as the tire crumb gradually degrades. The US EPA has estimated back in 2016 that at least 350 synthetic chemicals may be present in crumb rubber (6) and ongoing studies continue to build on this knowledge and numbers of constituent chemicals. Toxicity data exists for only a fraction of these chemicals.
There is no practical way to know before field construction and expensive testing which materials contain chemicals of concern and what concentrations/quantities are present in any given batch of tire crumb as it is a recycled material made from a random mix of tires. The two proposed artificial fields represent the equivalent infill amount of about 10,000 to 20,000 recycled tires, or approx 250,000 to 500,000 pounds of crumb rubber (calculation: 2 to 4 lbs infill per sq ft, ave tire 20 lbs in weight).
There are many safer alternatives to tire crumb rubber for a choice of infill materials. They can be grouped into two categories: Synthetic materials like TPE (thermo plastic elastomer), EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber), Nike Grind (recycled sneakers), and natural materials mostly made from agricultural by-products and sand. The table here (Figure 6) compares the general expected presence or absence of some of the major toxic chemical classes in a common group of infill materials.
Some conclusions can be drawn from this table. Tire crumb contains the most chemicals and metals of concern and has the highest concentration of PAHs. Mineral or plant based infills and acrylic coated sand in general have the lowest presence of these various chemicals. Synthetic resins like EPDM and TPE lie somewhere in the middle.
One example of a safer and recently commercialized infill material is BrockFILL. It is made from trees, a renewable resource, that are processed into uniformly shaped particles (8).
The risks to Sherborn’s surface water and groundwater due to runoff of pollutants from the infill material are significant and of course easier to prevent than to later remediate. Not covered here are additional environmental concerns, including reports of PFAS from manufacturing of the plastic blades and microplastics pollution from long-term degradation of the artificial turf (these fields have an approx. 10-yr lifetime, then need to be replaced and disposed). Hence the Groundwater Protection Committee makes the following three initial recommendations to Town officials and residents to significantly reduce the risks and the potential negative impacts on irreplaceable Sherborn groundwater resources by this proposed project:
Invest instead in new natural grass fields at Laurel Farms and eliminate the proposed artificial turf fields. Towns in Massachusetts have successfully taken this route in the past few years (Marblehead, Springfield). Several towns in MA have also considered banning municipal artificial turf fields due to groundwater threats (Sharon, Concord, Martha’s Vineyard, Wayland).
If artificial turf fields are absolutely required, and $4 million is available, consider relocating the project to an alternate site not in such proximity to a major identified Sherborn groundwater aquifer, particularly not one that has been previously identified as a potential site of a future public water supply well to serve the water-challenged Sherborn downtown region (9).
If the project is to be built, insure a natural or plant-based material be used for the infill. These materials pose significantly less risk to groundwater as they contain much lower concentrations of toxic components (synthetic organic chemicals and toxic metals).
References:
Sherborn Recreation Commission slide presentation to Board of Health, March 17, 2021, pdf file.
Sherborn Conservation Comm, Position on Warrant Article 9 – Turf Field at Laurel Farms, approved April 9, 2021.
Sherborn Board of Health, Statement on Artificial Turf, approved April 7, 2021.
Sherborn Open Space Committee, Statement on Town Meeting 2021 Article 9, approved April 29, 2021
2003 Woodard & Curran, Town of Sherborn Groundwater Protection Study, pdf available at:
https://www.sherbornma.org/groundwater-protection-commmittee/files/2003-%E2%80%9Ctown-sherborn-
groundwater-protection-study-plan%E2%80%9D
2019, Athletic Playing Fields: Choosing Safer Options for Health and the Environment, UMASS Lowell Toxics Use Reduction Institute, pdf available at: https://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Community/Artificial_Turf
US EPA. December 2016. Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds. EPA/600/R-16/364. Page 42 mentions the 350 chemicals. Document available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 12/documents/federal_research_action_plan_on_recycled_tire_crumb_used_on_playing_fields_and_playgrounds_st atus_report.pdf
See: https://www.brockusa.com/brockfill/
2017 Annual Town Meeting presentation, Sherborn Town Center Water and Wastewater Options Committee, pdf
copy of slide presentation accessible at: https://www.sherbornma.org/groundwater-protection- commmittee/files/2017-sherborn-town-center-water-and-wastewater-options
