Board Of Health Discusses Pros And Cons Of Artificial Turf With Ban Under Consideration

In a wide-ranging discussion Tuesday, the Board of Health heard arguments for and against the use of artificial turf playing fields on Nantucket. No votes were taken, and it remains unclear whether the Board of Health will institute an island-wide ban on turf.

Over the course of roughly four hours, a broad selection of experts, many obtained by the Nantucket Public Schools (NPS) and the Nantucket Land and Water Council, laid out the benefits and risks of artificial turf, covering much of the same ground as a prior series of debates before the School Committee. The issue will be discussed again at the Board of Health’s regularly scheduled meeting on March 19th.

The roundtable discussion was scheduled after the Board of Health announced that it would consider a ban on turf in the wake of a School Committee vote to endorse an athletic facilities upgrade that includes an artificial turf playing field at Vitto Capizzo Stadium. Consultants, doctors, scientists, researchers, and other subject matter experts went back and forth in a lengthy hearing moderated by the town’s health and human services director Jerico Mele.

While the Board of Health is not ruling on the NPS field specifically, much of the testimony heard Tuesday was focused on the merits of the particular proposal the School Committee endorsed. Experts discussed the specific materials proposed for the field, the tests that will be used to determine if it contains any of the toxic so-called “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, the proposed stormwater management plan, and expected usage patterns, among other details.

Still, even if the Board of Health’s decision on whether to ban turf is made based on the details of the plan presented by NPS, it will apply to any other potential turf fields on Nantucket as well.

The two sides of the debate remain much the same as they have since the School Committee first endorsed a plan featuring a natural grass field last fall, before backtracking under pressure from the community.

Those against artificial turf argue that it contains harmful substances, including microplastics. Those in favor of turf argue that the dangers are overstated and that turf is far more durable than natural grass, allowing for much greater use before posing a danger to athletes.

Much of the debate centers on PFAS. In the past, artificial turf contained PFAS. Now, the debate is murkier. NPS consultants claim that the materials for the proposed field at Vitto Capizzo stadium will include no intentionally-added PFAS, which could actually be safer than natural grass, considering the background levels of PFAS present in Nantucket’s soil. On the other side of the debate, some anti-PFAS experts claim that the tests used to make those claims aren’t sensitive enough to detect all PFAS, and that the proposed artificial turf material is likely to add some PFAS to the environment.