Let’s Put The NPS Grass To The Test

To the editor: This would be an appropriate time to test the NPS soil again.

The question is not whether clean water matters. It definitely does. But in this context, the real question is whether banning turf addresses a meaningful risk to our water supply, or whether it distracts from much larger and better documented threats. When attention shifts to turf that is tested non-detect for PFAS, it raises a reasonable question as to whether or not this is an actual health risk to our community.

Nantucket Public Schools has already tested its soil for PFAS. In 2021, soil sampling conducted for the school showed PFAS present at levels higher than those associated with the proposed turf. In some cases, those soil levels were many times higher than the lowest level that laboratories can detect. This does not indicate an emergency, but it does show that PFAS at this site is not hypothetical. It is already present, and in greater quantities than a non-detect turf product.

If decisions are made based only on concerns about turf while ignoring data from the soil already in place, the community is not being served by a complete or balanced evaluation of risk. Public health decisions are strongest when all available information is considered.

So, let’s test the soil again. Transparency is the simplest way to address lingering questions. The School Committee took this approach by hiring Weston & Sampson to provide an independent review when there was concern surrounding the topic of turf and PFAS. The study showed no threat to our environment or our kids.If new soil testing confirms PFAS levels at or above those found in 2021, why would a non detect turf be banned when existing grass contains higher pfas levels? There is always a possibility that new soil testing could show lower levels. That is precisely why testing matters. Decisions are strongest when they are based on current and complete information.

I struggle to see how a turf ban would help the School Department address its real challenges. Athletic demand already exceeds available field capacity, and maintaining natural grass fields at roughly 1,100 hours of annual use can become unsafe for students. Safety is a responsibility of the BOH and NPS, and banning turf would expose children to unsafe field conditions that run counter to those missions.

Some have raised liability concerns related to installing turf, but banning turf does not eliminate liability. It simply shifts it. Injuries caused by field failure and overuse are predictable outcomes, not theoretical ones.

It is important to recognize that if artificial turf were banned, current field conditions would not remain unchanged. The Nobadeer turf field, which the high school already relies on heavily, would likely be removed, placing even more pressure on NPS’s already overburdened grass fields. A ban would create a problem NPS has no realistic way to solve, while exposing it to a different set of risks.

Protecting our water supply is paramount, but it must be discussed with proper context and what constitutes a real risk. Nantucket is a sole-source aquifer, and the school is located in a Zone II recharge area. That is real, but those areas are regulated, and that oversight is appropriate. Public facilities such as schools, athletic fields, roads, and parks are often located in or near Zone II areas. Nantucket is not unique in this regard. Our research found more than 20 Massachusetts communities that manage schools with turf within Zone II recharge areas using data, state guidelines, and ongoing oversight.

Whether inside or outside a Zone II recharge area, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection does not identify artificial turf as a formal threat to aquifers. Its source water protection programs identify the largest contributors to groundwater contamination as septic systems, pesticide and fertilizer use, landfills, cesspools, underground fuel tanks, stormwater runoff, and hazardous material storage.

A ban on turf would move NPS backward, not forward, and would leave students, families, and the town facing the same challenges we are trying to solve today.

Best,
Graham Veysey