Are There Other Solutions Besides A Turf Field?

To the editor: As parents and community members who have been following the recent discussions by the School Committee and Board of Health concerning artificial turf, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time, thought, and careful attention the Board of Health is giving to this matter.

Particularly given that Vito Capizzo Stadium lies within our wellhead protection district and directly over our public drinking water supply, the risk of a poorly informed decision having a significant negative impact on our environment and drinking water makes the role of the Board of Health in this community conversation especially critical.

After reviewing the materials and hearing comments from various perspectives at recent meetings, we feel a deep compassion for our student-athletes and recognize the urgency of finding a healthy and safe solution to address the overutilization and poor quality of our existing athletic fields. To that end, we would like to share several questions that have come up for us during these conversations.

1) At a recent Board of Health meeting, Kyla Bennett, Ph.D., JD, the Director of Science Policy for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, who participated in a PFAS Forum on the island in 2024, explained that she reviewed the lab test results provided by the artificial turf company and found that instead of testing for parts per trillion—the level at which state and federal agencies regulate PFAS in drinking water—the company had the lab test for parts per million.

Kyla Bennet explained that using a significantly larger unit of measurement (parts per million) to detect a powerful contaminant that is unsafe in extremely small quantities (parts per trillion) is inadequate and ineffective. In terms of methodology, this would be akin to testing the sugar content of a can of Coca-Cola using kilograms instead of grams. Because there would be only a tiny fraction of a kilogram of sugar in a single can, the test would come back as “non-detect.” That does not mean there is no sugar present—only that the measurement used was far too large to detect it. To then claim the soda is “sugar-free” would clearly be inaccurate.

Since this field would be located over our public water supply, it is vital that the testing measures utilized are relevant to drinking water standards. Given that the tests in question use a vastly different order of magnitude, how can we consider the results to be reliable or meaningful?

2) Even if the above concern did not exist, the sample materials tested were provided to the lab by the turf company over a year ago, in the fall of 2024. At a recent Board of Health meeting, a representative from Weston & Sampson -the engineering firm hired by the school to review this project- stated clearly that to be confident in any test results, the exact lot and batch number of the field to be installed on our island would need to match what was tested. However, when a School Committee member previously asked whether our actual turf could be independently tested and analyzed before being shipped over on the boat, the response was that the sample would have to be sent directly from the artificial turf manufacturer to the lab.

So, how could we know for sure that it was actually our field that was tested? A for-profit turf company’s primary motivation is to sell artificial turf. Given this, and that the test results they provided were based on a methodology that is not meaningful, for our community to proceed without a transparent, straightforward procedure approved by the Board of Health for testing our actual field would be irresponsible in the extreme. Our community needs to see verified, meaningful results in which we can have full confidence, prior to any turf field being accepted for transport to the island.

3) Relatedly, we are wondering how Weston & Sampson can be considered a truly independent third party that is qualified to provide us with impartial analysis of the potential impacts of an artificial turf system. As a member of the public brought up in a recent Select Board’s meeting, a truly independent third party has no financial interest in the outcome. How can a firm that financially benefits from the installation of artificial turf fields throughout the region - and therefore could be said to have an investment in their continued relationship with artificial turf providers- be considered impartial and Independent?

4) Weston & Sampson representatives have indicated that while turf fields do continually shed plastic “blades,” containment systems are in place that should capture these and prevent these materials from overflowing during storms. However, according to our research, these fibers can also simply be carried off by wind, which is ever-abundant on this island. They can be inadvertently carried off by athletes themselves, despite brushing. Maintenance equipment and activities can physically pull fibers from the backing and transport them off the field.

In addition, over time, UV exposure and temperature fluctuations cause plastic blades to become brittle, fragment, and erode into microplastics (pieces smaller than 5 mm), which can further break down into nano plastics. This would happen to both those blades that escaped directly into our ecosystem and to those that were still on the field. Are these existing containment systems capable of capturing micro and nano plastics and chemicals that leach from the plastic blades still on the field as they degrade over time? To answer this question, once again, our community would need to see analysis and testing of these containment systems by genuinely independent third-party experts in water quality and engineering.

5) Given the above concerns, and the significant risks and long-term potential impacts of outdoor artificial turf on the health of our public water supply, we ask: are there other solutions that we, as a community, have yet to explore and could consider? Are we utilizing all of our existing athletic fields on the island to their best potential? Could entities such as the Land Bank or the Town partner with the school to secure and help maintain additional fields? Recreation, open space and community health are clearly high priorities for the Land Bank, an entity which has both resources and deep experience in land stewardship, and they do tremendous good for our island.

It is our hope that together our community can collaborate to create expanded, well-maintained grass playing fields that would ultimately be far better for the health of our students, our environment, and our community as a whole.

Our thanks, again, go to the Board of Health for their continued time, care, and consideration.

Sincerely,

Carol Benchley
Lyman R. "Mitch" Blake Jr. Patricia Bridier
Melissa Dudley
Jan Ellsworth
Linda Ferrantella
Alison K. Forsgren
Nigel Goss
John Kuszpa
Lucy Leske
Holly McGowan
Sandy Mitchell
Leah Mojer
JR Norcross
Emily Osley
Anne Perkins
Laurie Richards
Susan K. Richards
Peter H. Richards
Susan E. Robinson
Christine Sanford
Paul P. Stewart
James Sulzer
Jack Weinhold
Michelle Whelan
Jacob Gardner Williams