CVU Turf Field: The Concerns Are Many
Citizens' group assembles a panel to discuss the potential known and unknown health and environmental concerns of artificial turf and, in the end, offered a compromise: A well-engineered grass field.
(Editor’s note: click the audio player above if you wish to hear the entire panel discussion and Q&A period. And click here for video, audio and text from the Community Field Project proposal.)
By Geoffrey Gevalt
The Record Staff
Forty-two people squeezed into Carpenter-Carse Common Room Friday night (and another 44 were online) to learn more about the hidden dangers of turf fields and the growing movement around the country to ban and restrict them.
The panel discussion followed by two days a presentation by The Community Field Project outlining the proposal to build a privately financed $5.5 million artificial field at CVU High School. (Video, audio and story can be found here.)
The panel, organized by Responsible Growth Hinesburg and led by Jennifer Decker, featured four experts on PFAS – commonly referred to as “forever chemicals:”
Kyla Bennett, Director of Science Policy and Northeast & Mid-Atlantic Director at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; former EPA Wetlands Enforcement Coordinator.
Irene Wrenner, Vermont State Senator for Chittenden North in 2023-24, a co-sponsor of the law which took effect in January and which places a ban on artificial turf containing PFAS in Vermont.
Marguerite Adelman, Vermont PFAS Coalition Coordinator and a member of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s Earth Democracy Committee.
David Bond, professor at Bennington College and associate director at the Center for the Advancement of Public Action and leader of efforts at the college to respond to the discovery of PFAS in Bennington.
The presentation provided the audience with a tsunami of facts and studies about the harmful effects of PFAS and micro- and nano-plastics. Those present heard about the new law in Vermont attempting to curb PFAS and about the ordeal in Bennington after its water table was contaminated with PFAS from a now-closed plant that made non-stick substances for frying pans.
A definition of PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: they are a complex group of synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since the 1950s. You can find them in everything from household products to clothing, packaging to carpets. PFAS have a chain of linked carbon and fluorine atoms which binds together so strongly they don’t degrade easily or at all. And they get in your body and they are linked to cancers, immune suppression, and developmental issues. There are some 15,000 of the substances and all are associated with plastics.
Bennett said that her organization is a nonprofit “that works with whistleblowers in the scientific, environmental and health areas.” She walked the group through the various layers of artifical turf, talked about the plastics that are commonly used in the layers and then reported that “every lab report I have seen, whether it was done by an NGO [non-governmental organization] or an individual citizens’ group or even industry, if the tests are properly done, every single one I’ve seen has PFAS.”
Her concerns went beyond PFAS and centered on micro- and nano-plastics (so small you can’t see them) that break away from the turf. “You can ingest them, you can inhale them and you can definitely absorb them.”
She added that both PFAS and micro- and nano-plastics “lead to severe health impacts, including cancer.”
The issue she says is that the industry – as well as state laws – tests for a tiny percentage of all the types of PFAS. No one, she said, tests the thousands of PFAS substances in this class beyond the 30 or 40 commonly tested.
Further, the designation “PFAS-free” uses “detection levels” that are not “aggressive” enough – meaning that if PFAS appear below a certain number, they are legally considered free of that chemical even though, she said, PFAS are present. So when companies say they are “PFAS-free” or “there is no health risk … it is just not a true statement,” said Bennett.
Adding to a not-knowing-what-we-don’t-know problem: “Nobody. No one. Not EPA, not industry, not individual scientists, no one has done a human health risk study on artificial turf.” So no one can say for sure that it’s safe. And “just because it’s legal [that it meets state standards] doesn’t mean it’s safe.”
Ending her portion of the discussion on a brighter note, Bennett showed a slide of an alternative: grass athletic fields in Springfield, Massachusetts. “Serving 150,000 people, all of their playing fields are organic grass. They love it. It’s a wonderful option.”
Highlights from other presenters
In general, the panelists had these points:
Most studies show that athletes receive more injuries, not less, on artificial turf and are also subject to intense heat – the fields are some 40 degrees hotter than grass fields according to a spokesman for FieldTurf, the company aligned with the CVU proposal.
As was said at the presentation of the proposal on Wednesday, the cost of replacing the field in 12-15 years is, currently, about $600,000; the presumption is that would have to be borne by taxpayers.
(In an interview with The Record on Sunday, Eli Lesser-Goldsmith, said he is putting together a “pro-forma” analyzing the annual cost savings from having an artificial turf field and the probable income from the facility which he believes will show that public money will not be needed.)
While FieldTurf and other manufacturers talk about recycling the old materials, Bennett said she knew of no recycling actually being done with materials from old fields.
Former State Sen. Wrenner outlined Vermont’s ban on manufacture or installation of artificial turf containing PFAS, pointing out that it was seven women who were part of the group that signed onto the original bill drafted by Sen. Ginny Lyons. Wrenner then discussed the technical aspects of the law and said that it was probably going to be strengthened in the next session.
Adelman dove deeper into the topic of how PFAS and micro- and nano-plastics spread and how our bodies collect them. Forever. Using a fictious 14-year-old boy, Gabe, as a prop she showed slides that explained how much PFAS and micro- and nano-plastics Gabe is already absorbing in everyday life. But why, she asked, add to the growing environmental danger – plastics – with a plastic field.
Bond told the story of how Bennington’s water supply was contaminated by PFAS from runoff of a now-closed plant that made the materials for non-stick frypans. “In the 1970s, soutwest Vermont tried to become the global hub of Teflon production in the world. … the discovery [of PFAS in the wells] completely overwhelmed the town.” And the contamination, he said, will eventually cost $50 million to hook up 400 homes to the town water system that comes from a well in the mountains.
Is there an alternative?
The question-and-answer period was more a time for residents to express themselves. One man said he was still trying to come to an opinion on the issue; he said he could understand the students’ and school’s need for adequate fields but was still unsure about the risks. A woman said the whole idea of spending $5.5 million on athletics made her apoplectic. Another asked why there weren’t selectboard members or school board members in the room.
Several pointed out that within the district, Hinesburg bears the most risk in this enterprise, not to mention that neighbors would be most immediately at risk from airborne chemicals, micro-plastic and lights. One attendee reminded everyone of the current water contamination problem from the town dump – who will be liable if there were a problem?
Several said they could understand what the kids and parents and coaches wanted – some decent playing fields. They also noted that the students already play on other schools’ artificial turf fields.
It is important, said another, to not let this become a divisive issue, to respect the perspective and points of view of others.
One noted (accurately, The Record notes) that the project will most likely have to be reviewed by the Act 250 Board, the Agency of Natural Resources and the Hinesburg Development Review Board (for at least three reasons: drainage, stands and lights). And it is unclear whether some additional state agency would be involved to administer the new PFAS ban.
In The Record interview, Lesser-Goldsmith said his group was fully prepared for the permitting process and would follow through to the end.
But the most common question, which often became a statement, was ‘Why can’t there be an alternative?’ Would the group proposing the artificial turf consider doing grass? Like Springfield, Massachusetts, and countless other New England communities? Why plastic?
“We wouldn’t be having this conversation except for somebody putting up $5 million of their personal money,” said Carol Jenkins of Hinesburg. “I think it would be amazing if the donors would explore the possibility of a grass field, because I think of a lot of the improvements that people are talking about as far as the bleachers, the accessibility, you know, the more play time for the kids, more practice time for the kids, better drainage, all of those things could be achieved in a way that matches Vermont’s values, which are green and for the environment.”
In the interview, Lesser-Goldsmith pushed back on the idea of a grass field. He said all possibilities were examined and artificial turf is the best idea. “That is what we are offering.”
Marguerite Adelman provided these references for more about PFAS and micro- and nano-plastics:
