www.SynTurf.org

Sunshine is the best disinfectant -- L. Brandeis

Home

Introduction

PrecautionaryPrinciple

EHHIBrief

FactSheets

BraunIntertecReport

BreakingNews

Events

Warnings!

GrassRootsNotes

Moratoriums

Say, "No!"

Go, Slow

CDC

CPSC

EPA

TheWestmountBrief

TheSanFranciscoBrief

TheNewtonBrief

TheWestportBrief

NantucketBrief

WellesleyBrief

AthleticHealth

StaphNews

Staph&TurfBrief

Players' View

Beckham'sLament

The B.C. Brief

WrapUp Articles

ForbiddenFields

JustWords!

CrumbRubber

Lead

Zinc

Silica

Nitrosamines

Weights&Measures

ParticulateMatter

Migration

Heat Effect

SciaccaHeatStudy

CarbonFootprint

Maintenance/Replacement

WaterDamage

Process

Vandalism

IndustryNotes

Miscellanea

Consultation

Contact

Index (alphabetical)


On This Page:


No. 12  California turf bill passes in the Senate, goes to Assembly (May 2008). 

No. 11  Turf moratorium bill introduced in New Jersey legislature (March 2008).

No. 10  Turf moratorium bill advances in New York City (March 2008).

No. 09  Turf moratorium bill in Minnesota legislature (March 2008). 

No. 08  New York activists want a city moratorium on turf (February 2008).

No. 07  California state senator introduces turf moratorium bill (February 2008).

No. 06   Greenwich (Conn.) Selectmwoman calls for moratorium on turf (January 2008).

No. 05   New York State Senate bill calls for moratorium on turf fields.

No. 04   RAMP (Rochester, New York) calls for moratorium on turf fields.

No. 03   New York State Assembly bill calling for moratorium on turf fields.

No. 02   Environment & Human health, Inc. calls for moratorium on artificial turf.

No. 01  The Garden City: How hallowed is thy name?

[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.

For the text of the press release click here. Sen. Maldonado’s press office can be reached at (916) 651-4015. For a background on this story see, http://www.synturf.org/moratoriums.html (Item No. 7).


[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.

Per the statement, in 2004, the Legislature enacted P.L.2004, c.46, which established in the Department of Environmental Protection a Local Tire Management Program for the proper cleanup of abandoned tire piles and to provide grants to counties and municipalities for proper cleanup of abandoned tire piles within their respective jurisdictions. While various options for waste tire use are essential to reduce the significant stockpiles of waste tires, these uses should not threaten or compromise public health or the environment. Limited testing of synthetic turf has occurred, identifying levels of concern of lead, arsenic cadmium, chromium and other contaminants. However, more information is necessary to make informed decisions on the appropriate uses of this material. In the interest of preventing adverse health impacts and contamination to natural resources, this bill would require that a comprehensive investigation on the potential threats associated with the use of synthetic turf be conducted.

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.

 

           §2. This local law shall take effect sixty days after enactment.

[No. 09] St. Paul, Minn.: Turf bill is introduced in the state legislature.  SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 21, 2008. On March 13, 2008, three members of the Minnesota legislature introduced a bill designated as House File No. 4056: “A bill for an act relating to health; limiting the use of synthetic turf on certain athletic fields; requiring the commissioner of health to study the impacts of the use of crumb rubber; requiring reports; appropriating money; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 145.” The bill was referred to the Committee on Health and Human Service.
 

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.

2. Commissioner of health must 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. The commissioner of health must report the finding of this study to the legislature by June 30, 2009, according to section 3.195.

3. [An amount be] appropriated from the general fund to the commissioner of health in fiscal  year 2009 to prepare impact reports and study the use of crumb rubber within synthetic turf.
 
Even though the bill was introduced too late in the legislative session, it is likely that it will come up for enactment in the next session. Nevertheless it is an important public policy document and in line with efforts elsewhere in the country to regulate the proliferation of an artificial turf fields. For similar legislative efforts, see http://www.synturf.org/moratoriums.html. For a growing list of communities saying “no” to turf, go to http://www.synturf.org/sayno.html. 
 
For the text of the bill, go to http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS85/HF4056.0.pdf, or click here. To track the progress of the bill, so to https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF4056&ssn=0&y=2008.

[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. 06] Greenwich, Conn. Selectwoman calls for moratoirum on turf. The Greenwich (Conn.) Selectwoman Lin Lavery has called for a moratorium on installation of artificial turf fields. According to a  news story reported on January 13, 2008, "We need to be much more cautious than we have been," Lavery told Hoa Nguyen of Greenwich Time. "Now that there are so many of these fields installed, let's see what the effects are," she told the reporter. “Turf battle: Lavery wants health study on artificial fields,” available at http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-a1turfsundayjan13,0,1765213.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines.

Update: January 18, 2008: For another press story on this item, see   Frank Luongo, “Moratorium on Synthetic Turf Fields Proposed in Greenwich,” in Westport News, January 18, 2008, available at http://www.westport-news.com/ci_8010059.


[No. 05] Turf moratorium bill field in NY State Senate. November 12, 3007. On November 12, 2007, Senator Jim Alesi (R- Perinton) introduced legislation (S.6531) that would assess the public health and environmental impacts of the use of synthetic turf in indoor and outdoor settings. This bill, which is being carried in the Assembly by Long Island Assembly member Steve Englebright (D- Setauket), would establish a 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 would also require an environmental impact assessment for each site-specific installation of artificial turf. In 2004, the New York Legislature passed the Waste Tire Management Act, which provided for the collection and recycling/reuse of millions of waste tires stockpiled in New York State. While various options for waste tire use are essential to reduce the significant stockpiles of waste tires, these uses should not threaten or compromise public health or the environment. Limited testing of synthetic turf has occurred, identifying levels of concern of lead, arsenic cadmium, chromium and other contaminants. However, Senator Alesi feels more information is necessary to make informed decisions on the appropriate uses of this material. A few years back, Senator Alesi was successful in passing legislation that reduced carcinogens in playgrounds, and so it consistent with that endeavor to investigate the potential dangers of these compounds on artificial playing fields. Source: Seantor Alesi’s website: http://www.senatoralesi.com/press_archive_story.asp?id=18264. The text of the bill, its summary and current status may be accessed at http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi.

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. 03]  Artificial Turf Moratorium: New York takes first step.

On October 24, 2007, the New York State Assemblymen Englebright and Colton introduced legislation that will establish a moratorium on the installation of synthetic turf pending a comprehensive public health study. The bill will also seek to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to environmental impact assessments of the use of synthetic turf, and seek to repeal certain provisions upon expiration thereof. Specifically, the bill provides for a public health study by the department of health on the use of crumb rubber in synthetic turf, a six month moratorium on its use and installation pending the health department’s report; and provides for a site specific environmental impact statement whenever synthetic turf use is proposed. This is the first instance of a legislative initiative to regulate the proliferation of artificial turf fields. The bill has been sent to the health committee for further consideration. For Bill Text A09503 of the 2007-2008 Regular Session go to http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A09503&sh=t or see below:

9503
2007-2008 Regular Sessions
I N  A S S E M B L Y
October 24, 2007
___________

Introduced  by M. of A. ENGLEBRIGHT, COLTON -- read once and referred to the Committee on Health

AN ACT to establish a moratorium on the installation of  synthetic turf pending  a  comprehensive  public  health study; to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to environmental  impact  assessments  of  the  use of synthetic turf; and providing for the repeal of certain provisions upon expiration thereof

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

   1    Section  1.  Legislative findings. The legislature finds that increas-
   2  ingly, synthetic turf is being installed in many locations in  New  York
   3  state, including parks, athletic fields and other settings where natural
   4  grass  was previously grown. In recent years, crumb rubber fill is being
   5  used as a component of synthetic turf and mulch.  Crumb  rubber  is  the
   6  result  of  processing  waste  tires, which contain numerous components,
   7  some of which are known to be hazardous to people and  the  environment.
   8  The hazardous components include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, vana-
   9  dium, zinc and acetone. Health effects associated with these components,
   10  at  dangerous  levels,  include  birth  defects,  cancer, nervous system
   11  damage and immune system suppression. While various  options  for  waste
   12  tire  use  are essential to reducing the significant stockpiles of waste
   13  tires, such uses should not threaten or compromise public health.
   14  The legislature finds that more information is necessary  to  make  an
   15  informed  decision  on the appropriate uses of synthetic turf containing
   16  crumb rubber. In the interest of preventing adverse health  impacts  and
   17  contamination to natural resources, the legislature finds that a compre-
   18  hensive public health study on the potential threats associated with the
   19  use of synthetic turf is warranted.
   20    Therefore,  the  legislature  finds  that it is consistent with public
   21  policy to require such comprehensive public health study to be undertak-

        EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets { } is old law to be omitted.
                                                                  LBD14348-02-7

       A. 9503                             2

    1  en immediately; and, in the meantime, to temporarily suspend the instal-
    2  lation and use of synthetic turf products that contain crumb rubber.
    3    S  2.    Moratorium on the sale and installation of synthetic turf. 1.
    4  Definitions. For the purposes of this act,  the  following  terms  shall
    5  have the following definitions:
    6    a.  "Crumb rubber" means ground rubber derived from waste tires, which
    7  contain one or more of  the  following  ingredients:  arsenic,  cadmium,
    8  chromium, lead vanadium, zinc, and acetone;
    9    b.  "Synthetic  turf" means any materials or compositions that include
   10  crumb rubber as a component used in place of  grass  to  surface  parks,
   11  outdoor  playing or athletic fields, indoor athletic facilities or other
   12  venues.
   13    2. Moratorium. A moratorium is hereby  established  on  the  sale  and
   14  installation  of synthetic turf for a period of 6 months from the effec-
   15  tive date of this act or until the department of health reports  to  the
   16  governor  and  the  legislature  on  its findings and recommendations as
   17  required in section three of this act.
   18    S 3. Public health study of the use of synthetic turf.  1.  The  state
   19  department  of  health,  in  cooperation with the department of environ-
   20  mental conservation, shall immediately undertake a review of all  avail-
   21  able data relating to the potential health risks and effects of synthet-
   22  ic  turf,  with particular attention to the crumb rubber content of such
   23  synthetic turf.
   24    2. The commissioner of health, or his or her designee, shall:
   25    a. Solicit input from environmental and public health specialists, and
   26  other stakeholders in an open, public process;
   27    b. Examine various routes of exposure and the health and environmental
   28  impact of these pathways including,  but  not  limited  to,  small  fill
   29  particle inhalation, volatility, leaching to groundwater, dermal absorp-
   30  tion,  and  persistence  in  the environment of original and degradation
   31  by-products;
   32    c. Prepare a report to the governor and the legislature which includes
   33  research and studies conducted on synthetic turf which were  the  source
   34  of  the report findings and recommendations for appropriate and inappro-
   35  priate use of synthetic turf, crumb rubber and waste tires. Such  report
   36  shall  be  filed  within  six  months of the effective date of this act,
   37  unless the commissioner of health requests in writing, an  extension  of
   38  time; and
   39    d.  Conduct  an  outreach program to inform local governments, private
   40  organizations, schools and the public regarding  the  findings  of  such
   41  report. If necessary, information on safe alternatives to synthetic turf
   42  in  settings  where  this  material is a potential or actual health risk
   43  should be disseminated to the public.
   44    3. All other departments or agencies  of  the  state  or  subdivisions
   45  thereof, and local governments shall, at the request of the commissioner
   46  of  health, provide expertise, assistance, and data that will enable the
   47  commissioner to carry out his or her powers and duties.
   48    S 4. Section 8-0109 of the environmental conservation law  is  amended
   49  by adding a new subdivision 10 to read as follows:
   50    10.  NOTWITHSTANDING  ANY  LAW,  RULE OR REGULATION TO THE CONTRARY, A
   51  SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHALL BE PREPARED  FOR  ANY
   52  ACTION  THAT  INCLUDES  THE  USE OF SYNTHETIC TURF. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
   53  SUBDIVISION, "SYNTHETIC TURF" MEANS ANY MATERIALS OR  COMPOSITIONS  THAT
   54  INCLUDE  CRUMB  RUBBER  AS A COMPONENT USED IN PLACE OF GRASS TO SURFACE
   55  PARKS, OUTDOOR PLAYING OR ATHLETIC FIELDS, INDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITIES OR
   56  OTHER VENUES. SUCH IMPACT STATEMENT SHALL INCLUDE THE  POTENTIAL  PUBLIC

       A. 9503                             3

    1  HEALTH  RISKS  FROM EXPOSURE TO SYNTHETIC TURF AND MAINTENANCE PRODUCTS,
    2  INCLUDING INHALATION IMPACT, VOLATILITY IMPACTS, AND IMPACT OF HAZARDOUS
    3  LEVELS OF CONSTITUENTS OF SYNTHETIC TURF.  ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS  SHALL
    4  BE  ASSESSED,  INCLUDING  MIGRATION OF CHEMICALS FROM THE SYNTHETIC TURF
    5  INTO AIR, WATER AND  SOIL. SUCH STATEMENT SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
    6  THE MOST DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL    IMPACT  STATEMENT  REQUIRED  BY  THIS
    7  SECTION  OR  BY ANY SUCH RULE OR REGULATION PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THIS
    8  SECTION.
    9    S 5. Section 27-1901 of the environmental conservation law is  amended
   10  by adding a new subdivision 2-a to read as follows:
   11    2-A.  "CRUMB  RUBBER"  MEANS  GROUND  RUBBER DERIVED FROM WASTE TIRES,
   12  WHICH CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING INGREDIENTS: ARSENIC,  CADMI-
   13  UM, CHROMIUM, LEAD VANADIUM, ZINC, AND ACETONE.
   14    S  6.  This  act shall take effect immediately; (a) provided, however,
   15  that sections two and three of this act shall continue in full force and
   16  effect for six months from such effective date, or until the  department
   17  of  health  reports  to  the governor and the legislature as required by
   18  section three of this act, whichever date is later, when upon such  date
   19  the  provisions  of  sections  two and three of this act shall be deemed
   20  repealed; and
   21    (b) provided that the commissioner of health shall notify the legisla-
   22  tive bill drafting commission upon filing the report required in section
   23  three of this act in order that the commission may maintain an  accurate
   24  and  timely  effective data base of the official text of the laws of the
   25  state of New York in  furtherance  of  effectuating  the  provisions  of
   26  section  44  of the legislative law and section 70-b of the public offi-
   27  cers law.
[End of legislative document]

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.


It should not take a former Vice President of the United States and a United Nations panel of international experts to tell us that our climate is changing for the worse and we, as humans, have contributed handsomely to it. We have known that already and for some time from observing the changes in our own backyards.[1]


March 1, 2007, marks the first anniversary of the first lawsuit that challenged the use of Community Preservation Act funds for installation of artificial turf on a playing field that was owned by the municipality prior to the enactment of the Act.[2] The suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, but the ensuing publicity surrounding it enlarged and encouraged a group of Newton activists to continue opposing the project as it moved from one public hearing to the next. Regardless, on June 21, 2006, the Community Preservation Committee decided to recommend CPA money to convert some 3.5 acres of natural grass playing fields at Newton South High School into synthetic turf. The coalition of activists pressed on and ultimately, on November 28, 2006, the Aldermanic committee on community preservation put the brakes to the project. It voted to hold the item, signaling as inappropriate the use of CPA money for this project.[3]


The publicity surrounding the Newton turf controversy echoed in Wayland, where a group of taxpayers ultimately went to court to challenge that town’s appropriation of CPA money for a synthetic turf project.[4] That suit is still pending, while an environmental challenge has been made at the state level to an order of conditions that was issued by the town’s conservation commission.[5] In Concord, the CPA money is being considered for carving a part of the Walden Woods and turning it into artificial turf for the benefit of Concord-Carlisle High School.[6] Come the academic year 2007-2008, Lincoln-Sudbury High School will boast three artificial turf fields, in part funded with CPA money.[7] In January, Wayland’s state representative, Tom Conroy, filed legislation that specifically will allow CPA money for installation of synthetic turf fields.[8] On the heel of an artificial turf field funded by the Kraft family in Brookline last year,[9] the Roche family in Needham has pledged $2 million toward the installation of fake turf fields at the DeFazio and Memorial Parks.[10] In Wellesley, the town is eyeing to install at the Sprague playing fields an artificial turf surface, possibly to be funded with Community Preservation money.[11]


Presently, the CPA funding for artificial turf is not at issue in Newton.[12] Here, chances are that the less controversial aspects of the project would lose their acuteness to time and compromise. But for a smaller number, the project will continue to be of concern for ecological and environmental reasons. Chief among them are water runoff, use of rubber crumb that contains heavy metals, and the “heat island” effect of synthetic surfaces.[13] The last-mentioned issue is the subject of this paper.


During the public debate about the Newton project, the opponents submitted to the Community Preservation Committee a study that was conducted at Brigham Young University about heat measurements at its synthetic turf field.[14] Overall, the study showed that synthetic turf surface was 37° F hotter than asphalt and 86.5° hotter than natural turf. At one point (1 PM of June 24, 2002) the artificial turf surface measured 174° F; it was wetted, but within five minutes its temperature rose from a low of 85° F to 120° and climbed to 164° F within twenty minutes thereafter. Because at 122° F it takes less than 10 minutes to cause injury to the skin, the Safety Office at the University set a maximum playable temperature of 120° F for the synthetic turf field.


In Newton, the Community Preservation Committee dismissed the Utah study on the grounds that Newton is climatologically different from Utah and, besides, wetting can reduce excessive surface heat. Player health and safety aside, the committee failed to recognize the adverse environmental impact of the “heat island” effect produced by synthetic turf surfaces.

In the Utah study, at one point (2 PM on June 24, 2002), the surface temperature of the artificial turf surface measured 180° F, while the air at five feet above the ground measured 100° F. By contrast, the natural turf surface measured 93.5° F, while the air five feet above measured 96° F. What this data suggests is that natural turf is cooler than synthetic turf and the air five feet above the synthetic turf surface is considerably hotter than the air superjacent to natural turf.


There is hardly any debate about the therapeutic and environmental advantages of natural grass cover over synthetic turf.[15] As listed in a letter, dated November 9, 2006, from Robert O'Quinn, the editor of Turf News (Lawn Institute, Chicago), to the Newton aldermen, the natural grass cover, among other things, generates oxygen, cools the air, acts as water filter and purifier, traps water for ground recharge, controls air pollution, reduces glare, reduces temperature, dissipates solar heat, and so forth.[16]

The lack of grass cover in urban areas contributes to the “heat island” effect whereby a city can register a temperature 10° F to 30° F hotter than the outlying rural areas. This is caused in part by the absence of evapotranspiration that trees and grass provide. “Not only buildings, streets, sidewalks and paved plazas reflect tremendous levels of heat and glare during the day, but they also retain significant amounts of heat energy during the night, so cooling seldom occurs in built-up areas.”[17]

In the case of synthetic turf, be it rain or deliberate wetting of the surface, the water is conducted to a specially engineered drainage system before release into storm drains, catch basins or other outbound medium. Consequently, unlike in the case of natural grass, the water does not naturally soak into the soil, replenish soil moisture, recharge the groundwater supplies, or flow naturally into streams, filtered by the roots of natural turf.[18]

One of this country’s preeminent experts on “heat island” effect is Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.[19] On January 22, 2007, she spoke on “Climate Change in Our Back Yard” at a lecture sponsored by Newton’s Green Decade Coalition.[20] Presently she is exploring the mitigation of the “heat island” effect by turning rooftops green. Any “by turning rooftops green,” she does not mean to cover them in artificial turf.[21]


Dr. Stuart Gaffin of the Earth Institute at Columbia University is the lead-researcher on urban “heat island” effect in relation to synthetic turf. In the summer 2006 the Institute conducted urban heat island (UHI) “reconnaissance” around Manhattan and the Bronx, as a follow-up to the UHI study that Drs. Rosenzweig and William Solecki had conducted in 2005. According to Dr. Gaffin, the Institute’s findings were consistent with the results of the Utah studies.[22]

On November 22, 2006, Dr. Gaffin met with New York City officials involved in the long-term planning of infrastructure for the city. Subsequently, on December 12, 2006, Drs. Gaffin and Rosenzweig wrote to Mayor Bloomberg’s Long-Range Sustainability Planning Office, conveying their “concerns about the potential proliferating use of ‘sports-turf’ in outdoor recreational areas,”[23] which fall under the jurisdiction of the office’s open space planning for the city. The New York study “sampled many different urban surfaces, including sports turf surfaces in playgrounds and fields. The extremely high surface temperatures we recorded on sports turf was striking. Indeed, it appears that such surfaces are among the hottest possible for urban areas, rivaling dark roofs and fresh asphalt. Typical early afternoon surface temperatures during the summer were in the 140 – 160 degree Fahrenheit range.”[24]

The study identified four physical reasons for such temperatures on the turf. They are: (1) In trying to simulate grass coloring, the manufacturers employ dark pigments. Using an approximate albedo meter the study recorded albedos of only 7%, meaning only 7% of incident sunlight radiation is reflected from the surfaces. Such low albedos are comparable to freshly laid pitch asphalt. (2) There is a filamentous structure to the turf surface, simulating grass blades again, we assume. These filaments however also lower the albedo by creating micro light traps. (3) The surfaces are impervious so that no water vapor from the soil can evaporate. And since they are non-living, there is obviously no transpiration of water either.  This also means that turf may be contributing to the urban runoff problem and combined sewage overflows (CSO), depending on where the runoff flows. (4) The surfaces are low mass and "cushion-y", for obvious reasons. The low mass means that they heat up very rapidly in sunlight, as compared to dense surfaces.[25]

The Gaffin/Rosenzweig letter recognized, however, “using natural grass fields may not be an option in many communities and playgrounds,” but it felt that this did not mean “the sports turf manufacturers should be given a ‘free pass’ to continue to manufacture their product without regard to the two concerns of the urban heat island and urban CSO water pollution impacts.”[26]

”In the same way that urban rooftops and asphalt are being re-envisioned and re-engineered to reduce UHI and CSO impacts (green roofs, pervious pavement, light surfaces),” the letter continued, “turf manufacturers should also be approached about possible re-designs that reduce temperature and runoff.”[27]

Of the four causes listed above, Drs. Gaffin and Rosenzweig suggested three possible alternatives. These are: “(1) Using lighter pigments that still enable good sports performance. There may even be ways to alter the "near infrared" albedo of the turf that does not affect its visible spectrum. Such work is being studied at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories Heat Island group in connection with rooftops. (2) Exploring less filamentous systems that reduce micro light trapping. (3) Exploring creating pervious versions of the turf that may enable both evapo-transpiration and reduced runoff.  This would probably have the biggest temperature reduction benefit.”[28]

”The Mayor's Long Term Planning Office,” the letter suggested, “may have just the clout needed to prompt new design concepts from the manufacturers. In the era of global warming, the New York urban outdoor sports market, and world urban outdoor sports market, may increasingly demand and reward alternative sports turf designs that minimize adverse environmental impacts.”[29] In conclusion, the letter conveyed Dr. Rosenzweig’s understanding from anecdotal information about “a new product in Europe that may permit grass fields to survive with much less maintenance.”[30]

While Utah may be in different time and climate zones, New York City is literally down the road from Newton and Massachusetts. If the current adulation for Al Gore’s multimedia opus An Inconvenient Truth should not be an exercise in hypocrisy, then our environmentalists, public health professionals, conservationists and elected officials should think locally and act accordingly.


Newton and other municipalities must take seriously the findings and recommendations of the researchers at the Earth Institutes. There is a dire need to devise city- and state-wide policies regarding the installation of synthetic turf fields, on private and municipal land, with the view to minimizing or eliminating the adverse impact on our living environment of what Peter Alden, the state’s preeminent naturalist, has called “eco-desert rug.”[31]

Website powered by Network Solutions®