www.SynTurf.org

[No. 19] San Francisco: District 5 Supervisor calls for moratorium on turf. On August 18, 2009, San Francisco’s 5^th District Supervisor, Ross Mirkarimi, presented to the Board of Supervisors Resolution 091045, which requests that the Recreation and Park Department temporarily suspend the program of converting natural turf playing fields to artificial surfaces pending release of a report by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on the health and environmental impacts of synthetic turf fields. The measure is referred for adoption without committee reference, and will be on the agenda at the next Board meeting. The Board of Supervisors will be in recess from August 19, 2009 through September 08, 2009. There are no regularly scheduled Board and Committee meetings from August 19, 2009 through September 08, 2009. The next regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting, after recess, will be held on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=109600 .

According to a news report in the San Francisco Examiner (August 18, 2009), “Mirkarimi said the department plans to install the turf at Kimball Park ‘soon,’ and wants to ensure that doesn’t happen there or anywhere for a while, if at all. ‘There are a lot of unanswered questions about the conversion of the normal park ground to the artificial turf and the synthetic turf,’ Mirkarimi said Tuesday. He said he wants more community process, and also the resolution states no artificial turfs should be installed until the release ‘of a report by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on the health and environmental impacts of synthetic turf fields.’ That report is due out September 2010. The resolution was co-sponsored by Supervisor John Avalos. The resolution says: ‘There are several scientific studies pointing out toxic substances including heavy metals and volatile airborne corrosives associated with these synthetic turfs, the ingestion of only ten grams of which is considered seriously, irrevocably carcinogenic.’” Joshua Sabatini, “Effort to stop artificial turf growth,” in San Francisco Examiner, August 19, 2009, available at http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/under-the-dome/Effort-to-stop-artificial-turf-growth-53633907.html .

[No. 18] Hartford, CT: Turf moratorium bill moves out of committee.  According to a news story in Connecticut Post (March 18, 2009), on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, the artificial turf field moratorium bill was voted out of the Environment Committee, in a 21-11 vote. The moratorium, which would last until February 1, 2009, is limited to state-funded projects. It grandfathered two fields being built for the state university system. Furthermore, a provision that required warning signs to be posted at artificial turf fields was stripped from the bill. The state is due to conclude its study of artificial turf fields by February 1, 2010. The bill now heads to the public health committee, before making it, if ever, to the full General Assembly; even then the governor may not be obliged to sign it into law. For more on this story, see Brian Lockhart, “Committee passes artificial turf ban,” in Connecticut Post, March 18, 2009, available at http://www.connpost.com/ci_11943937 .

SynTurf.org Note: There is no reason to hold one's breath about the future of the bill becoming law. The sausage factory, that is our forum for making laws, will allow this bill to languish in committee until about October 2009. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it will be announced that in view of the impending release of the state turf study one should hold off on the bill. The study will conclude what most these studies conclude and have concluded – more research, more evidence is needed. In the meantime, the turf industry will go on selling its products in Connecticut and elsewhere, their lobbyists and PR people will work hard, as is their right, to create even greater markets for turf fields by exploiting the weakness of the political establishment in our municipalities and school districts, as is also their right.

What neither the industry nor our government has a right to do is to jeopardize our health, life and limb on a theory that there is no generalized proof of harm from artificial turf. There are already incidences of alleged personal, individual, harm suffered from this product and that is the next battlefront for limiting the proliferation of turf fields – to challenge turf in the courts of law as a matter of, among other theories, trespass, nuisance, endangerment, personal injury and consumer protection. It has often been the case in our country -- where the politicians fail us, and our regulators nod off at the switch if not giving the industry the nod, and public interest foundations at times take donations from developers and polluters – it is the bar that have had to step in – and it already has begun. See http://www.synturf.org/lawsuits.html and http://www.synturf.org/lead.html (Item No 31).     

[No. 17] Connecticut: Turf moratorium before the legislature. According to a news report in the Westport News (January 23, 2009), State Rep. Kim Fawcett and five co-signers have a bill in the current session of the General Assembly “that would cut off new state funds for turf fields until July 1, 2010, pending the findings of a state study of artificial turf fields.” For more on this story, see Frank Luongo, “Health Department commits to peer review of turf risk assessment - Toxin-warning measure reaches legislature in turf moratorium bill,” in Westport News, January 23, 2009, available at http://www.westport-news.com/ci_11536734 . For background on the moratorium bill before the legislature, see http://www.synturf.org/moratoriums.html (Item No. 16).

[No. 16] Connecticut: Two state legislators want moratorium on turf. According to a news report in the Westport News (January 9, 2009) the Connecticut state representatives Joe Mioli and Kim Fawcett “are proposing legislation in the General Assembly that would buy time for a new state study designed to determine whether or not the recycled synthetic rubber crumb used as infill material on the fields has an impact on human health and the environment.” “Mioli has introduced a bill that would establish an across-the-board moratorium on state and municipal spending, including public school spending, on new turf installations, while Fawcett's proposed moratorium would be restricted to the use of state funding for such installations. Both measures would be pending on and tied to the outcome of the study.” For more on this story, see Frank Luongo, “Mioli and Fawcett call for turf moratorium,” in Westport News, January 9, 2009, available at http://www.westport-news.com/ci_11416644 . For an earlier reporting on Fawcett’s intentions, see http://www.synturf.org/moratoriums.html (Items Nos. 13 and 14).

[No. 13] Connecticut legislator wants a year-long turf moratorium. The Stamford Advocate reported, on August 4, 2008, the General Assemblyman Kimberly Fawcett, whose district includes Fairfield and Westport, is seeking “to halt the installation of artificial turf for one year in Connecticut … until the state Department of Environmental Protection concludes an analysis.” For more on this story, go to Brian Lockhart, “ Effort made to renew turf debate,” in The Advocate (Stamford), August 4, 2008, available at http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/norwalkadvocate/news/ci_10089651 .

[No. 12] Sacramento, Calif.: Bill to investigate synthetic turf passes the Senate by a vote of 28 to 6. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. May 13, 2008. On May 12, 2008, the California Senate passed SB 1277, authored by Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria). It will require the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, in conjunction with the Department of Public Health and California Integrated Waste Management Board, to conduct a study investigating the health and environmental impacts of natural versus synthetic turf fields. The bill now passes to the Assembly. According to the release from Sen. Maldonado’s press office:

"Thousands of children across the state play on these fields every day of the week.  Recent studies conducted in New Jersey and across the nation indicate that there could be seriously problems with these fields," Maldonado commented.  "Excessive levels of lead on some older fields in New Jersey prompted the closure of two fields.  It is important that we know our children are using safe and healthy playing surfaces."

Synthetic turf fields, which have increased in popularity over the past several years, are made up of a combination of polyethylene plastics and recycled tires.  The presence of volatile organic chemicals from these tires, as well as deadly bacteria that can remain on the synthetic grass blades, has prompted several states to take a closer look at potential negative impacts associated with these fields.

Studies have shown that athletes who use synthetic turf are seven times more likely to receive open skin lesions (referred to as turf burn).  These open lesions are often the source of contracting and vehicle for spreading dangerous infections.  In fact, a 2003 study of MRSA infections among St. Louis Rams football players found that all eight MRSA infections began at turf burn sites.

"Medical experts have found that staphylococci and other bacteria can survive on polyethylene plastic, the compound used to make synthetic turf blades, for more than 90 days.  Blood, sweat, skin cells and other materials can remain on the synthetic turf because the fields are not washed or cleaned.  In short, playing on these fields is like playing on a giant used band aid.  I am glad to see that the Senate recognized the importance of further investigating the safety of these fields," Maldonado concluded.

In addition to authoring SB 1277, Senator Maldonado has asked the California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, to look into whether these fields should have a Proposition 65 warning.  The Attorney General has indicated he will investigate the matter and will have a decision in the next month.

[No. 11] Turf moratorium bills introduced in New Jersey legislature. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 27, 2008. On March 13, 2008, Assemblyman John E. Rooney introduced A2512 that establishes a moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf pending a comprehensive public health study. The companion bill (S1549) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Gerald Cardinale. The Assembly bill is now before the Environment and Solid Waste Committee. Text of the legislation is available at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A3000/2512_I1.PDF or click here.

New Jersey now joins a select number of states legislatures that are considering the curbing the mindless proliferation of artificial turf fields. Site specific environmental impact assessments, health and other studies are often required by the bills. For a list of communities seeking moratoria on artificial turf fields, see http://www.synturf.org/moratoriums.html and  http://www.synturf.org/sayno.html and http://www.synturf.org/goslow.html. 

The preamble section of the bill reads in part: “The Legislature further finds and declares 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.”

Per the statement that accompanied the bill, the purpose of the bill is to require an assessment of the public health and environmental impacts of the use of synthetic turf in indoor and outdoor settings. It requires the Department of Health and Senior Services, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Protection, to conduct a comprehensive review of all available data relating to the potential health risks and effects of synthetic turf, with particular attention to the crumb rubber content of the synthetic turf. It will impose a moratorium on the sale and installation of synthetic turf for a period of 180 days from the bill’s effective date or until the Department of Health and Senior Services reports to the Governor and the Legislature on its findings and recommendations.

Sections 3-6 of the bill provide as follows:
3.  There is hereby established a moratorium on the sale and installation of synthetic turf    for a period of 180 days from the effective date of this act or until the Department of Health and Senior Services reports to the Governor and the Legislature on its findings and recommendations as required in section 4 of this act.
4. a. The Department of Health and Senior Services, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Protection, shall immediately undertake a review of all available data relating to the potential health risks and effects of synthetic turf, with particular attention to the crumb rubber content of the synthetic turf.
     b.  The Commissioner of Health and Senior Services shall:
     (1)  Solicit input from environmental and public health specialists, and other stakeholders in an open, public process;
     (2)  Examine various routes of exposure and the health and environmental impact of these pathways including, but not limited to, small fill particle inhalation, volatility, leaching to groundwater, dermal absorption, and persistence in the environment of original and degradation by-products;
     (3)  Prepare a report to the Governor and the Legislature which includes research and studies conducted on synthetic turf which were the source of the report findings and recommendations for appropriate and inappropriate use of synthetic turf, crumb rubber and waste tires. The report shall be filed within six months of the effective date of this act, unless the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services requests, in writing, an extension of time; and
     (4)  Conduct an outreach program to inform local governments, private organizations, schools and the public regarding the findings of the report. If necessary, information on safe alternatives to synthetic turf in settings where this material is a potential or actual health risk should be disseminated to the public.
     c.  All other departments or agencies of the State or subdivisions thereof, and local governments shall, at the request of the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, provide expertise, assistance, and data that will enable the commissioner to carry out the provisions of this act.
5.  The provisions of any other law, or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, to the contrary notwithstanding, a site-specific environmental impact statement shall be prepared for any action that includes the use of synthetic turf. The environmental impact statement shall include the potential public health risks from exposure to synthetic turf and maintenance products, health risks from exposure to synthetic turf and maintenance products, including inhalation impact, volatility impacts, and impact of hazardous levels of constituents of synthetic turf.  Environmental impacts shall be assessed, including migration of chemicals from the synthetic turf into air, water and soil. The environmental impact statement shall meet the requirements of the most detailed environmental impact statement required by law.
6.  This act shall take effect immediately, and section 3 shall expire on the 180th day thereafter except as may otherwise be provided pursuant to section 4 of this act.

[No. 10] Turf moratorium bill  to be filed in  New York City. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 26, 2008.

Thanks to NYC Park Advocates and others, three members of the City’s Council are “pushing to get an estimated 30 million pounds of pulverized tires out if city parks, saying there are too many unanswered health questions about using the material in artificial turf.” Adam Lisberg, “Council members push for removal of pulverized tires from city parks,” in Daily New, March 26, 2008, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/26/2008-03-26_council_members_push_for_removal_of_pulv-1.html.
The progressive and enlightened members of the council favoring the detoxification of artificial turf fields and playing grounds are Eric Gioia (D-Queens), Maria Baez (D-Bronx), and Letitia James (Working Families Party -Brooklyn). Today they will introduce a bill that will “ban any more artificial turf fields that use tiny bits of ‘crumb-rubber infill’ as a cushion, and would require existing fields to be torn up and replaced within a year,” according to The New York Daily News.  “We shouldn’t be taking any risks when it comes to the health of our children, especially when alternatives are available,” Councilman Gioia, who will co-sponsor the moratorium bill, told Daily News. 
For other coverage of this news item also see “Legislation would erect fence to artificial turf, The New York Sun, March 26, 2008, available at http://www2.nysun.com/article/73649; Amy Zimmer, “Old-tire turf war is on at City Council,” in Metro (New York), March 26, 2008, available at http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Oldtire_turf_war_is_on_at_City_Council/12091.html.

The removal of the crumb rubber (and also the carpet) inevitably will raise questions about disposal, not without some environmental consequence, which will challenge the criteria and requirements for solid waste disposal. The councilman ought to address that issue before any vacuuming of the parks and fields begin in earnest. Either way, if the disposal of crumb rubber (and the carpet) is no problem, then the project should begin sooner than later. If the disposal is a problem, then all the more reason not to have our children and youth wallow in a toxic rubber-and-plastic landfill.

In an e-mail to SynTurf.org, NYC Park Advocates (www.nycparkadvocates.org) provided the following text of the moratorium bill:

A local law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, to prohibit the use of certain synthetic turf on surfaces used for recreational purposes.

§18-135  Limiting the use of synthetic turf on surfaces used for recreational purposes.

§1. a. For purposes of this section, the term "recreational purposes" shall mean any hobby, diversion, sports or other recreational activity, including, but not limited to bicycling, picnicking, camping, kite flying, roller skating, or rollerblading.

b. It shall be 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.

c. 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.  

d. 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.

The Bill provides for the following:

1. No person may install synthetic turf 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.

[No.  08] New York City: Citizen Groups Seeks Moratorium on Turf. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 29, 2008. On February 28, 2008, by letter, several citizen groups and individuals asked the city’s parks and health officials to halt the installation of turf fields until the health department concludes a study of  the health risks associated with the turf fields. Among the signatories of the letter are Betsy Gotbaum, a former city parks commissioner, New Yorkers for Parks, and local members of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest and Natural Resources Defense Council.

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

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

For background information about what is going on in Gotham, see http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item No. 21) and http://www.synturf.org/crumbrubber.html (Item Nos. 20, 21 and 22).

[No. 07]  Sacramento, Calif.: Senator introduces turf suspension bill. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 29, 2008. On February 19, 2008, the California state Senator Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, introduced a bill that prohibits the installation of crumb rubber synthetic turf on an athletic playing field within the boundaries of a public or private school or public recreational park unless and until the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has prepared a site specific environmental impact report on this installation.

The Bill draws its legitimacy from existing law that requires all new playgrounds open to the public built by a public agency or any other entity to conform to the playground-related standards set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials and the playground-related guidelines set forth by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The text if the Senate Bill 1277 of 2008 is reproduced here or may be accessed at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1277_bill_20080219_introduced.html.

No. 04] The RAMP Report Calls for Moratorium on Turf Fields. Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides (RAMP) is a citizens’ environmental coalition in Rochester New York. It is led by a health and environment advocate named Judy Braiman (judybraiman@frontiernet.net). In October 2007, RAMP issued a study that concluded “Many questions remain unanswered regarding whether or not there are potential health or ecological hazards that can result from installations of synthetic playing fields.  Due to the unresolved public health and environmental issues, it is prudent public health policy to avoid installation of new synthetic turf fields until the health and environmental issues can be fully evaluated.” The study pointed to the filing on October 24, 2007, of the Assemblymen Englebright and Colton that called for a moratorium on new synthetic turf installations pending a careful review of information regarding potential human health implications and an evaluation of potential impacts.

 The RAMP Study consisted of a laboratory screening analysis of clean unused samples of fill from five synthetic turf suppliers. The screening was conducted by Paradigm Laboratories in Rochester in reference to an information summary and health-related links that were provided by Sciencecorps in Lexington, Massachusetts. The Study reported, “The chemicals listed above have the potential to cause serious harm under some conditions, and many are persistent in the environment. There is limited evidence regarding the potential for chemicals present in fill to move from into air, soil, and water under real world conditions.  However, many are known to readily move through soil and other media when they are not bound within materials. The likelihood of their release from the fill matrix requires more evaluation under varied real-world conditions. The potential for environmental contamination, human exposures, health impacts, and ecological impacts as a result of the release of chemicals from fill is not fully characterized.”

The text of the RAMP, Synthetic Turf Chemicals, October 2007, is reported on the website of the Institute of Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany as an emerging environmental issue (“Possible Health Effects of Synthetic Turf” http://www.albany.edu/ihe/emerging.htm) at http://www.albany.edu/ihe/SyntheticTurfChemicalsdar.htm. The Study is reported also at

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/nyeljp-turf_files/SyntheticTurf%20RAMP%20Sciencecorps%20Site.htm.

No. 02] EHHI recommends a moratorium on installing new synthetic fields until testing has been completed --  http://www.ehhi.org/turf/pr_turf_moratorium.shtml

Press Release

[North Haven, Connecticut, July 11, 2007] Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) has been concerned about the number of communities and schools that have, or are in the process of, installing very expensive synthetic fields without any testing of their out-gasing potential or without understanding what the health effects from these fields might be.
The new synthetic fields are made of a synthetic grasslike material to which large amounts of ground up rubber tires are added -- as in-fill. It is the out-gassing from these ground up rubber tire pellets that have been of the greatest concern.

Because of this concern EHHI has asked and paid the CT Agricultural Experiment Station's chemical laboratory to test the out-gasing potential of these rubber tire pellets that go into the fields.

The preliminary report came out today and the CT Agricultural Experiment Station's preliminary testings show that volatile organic compounds are out-gasing from the rubber pellets and that this out-gassing increases as the temperature rises.

As well,  the CT Agricultural Experiment Station has completed a scientific literature review of synthetic fields and the materials that they are made from.   The results of the preliminary testing as well as the literature review demands that additional testing be done on these ground up rubber tire pellets in order to be protective of children's health.

EHHI's Public Health Toxicologist, David Brown, Sc.D. is concerned that some of these organic compounds could effect children's respiratory health as well as having other health effects.

Because of these preliminary findings and until additional testing is completed,  EHHI is recommending that no additional synthetic fields be installed until the additional testing is completed. Synthetic fields are extremely expensive and can cost up to $750,000.  Once these expensive fields are installed. towns and schools will probably not want to remove them no matter what is found.

No. 01] The Garden City: How Hallowed Is Thy Name?: A call for state and municipal regulation of synthetic turf fields, by Guive Mirfendereski, www.JoePublius.com, February 5, 2007.