PART 2 of 2: Response to the Board of Health's "Position Statement Synthetic Turf - 2013"

PART 2 of 2:

2.         If Surface Temperatures Reach Unacceptable Levels, Simply Close the Field.

            It is undisputed that plain black crumb rubber infill absorbs sunlight and can cause the surface temperature on artificial turf fields to increase dramatically on hot, sunny days.  The AFSC’s research found studies with results similar to the BYU study.  But once again, the BofH has known for a least a year that the AFSC recommended light-colored TPE or encapsulated rubber that reduces high surface temperatures by as much as 30%.  In any event, occasional hot surface temperatures are not a reason to forego the installation of an artificial turf field.  Very simply put, if the surface temperature reaches an unacceptable level, recreation officials can close the field until temperatures fall to an acceptable range.  And since there are little to no school or youth sports leagues running from mid-June to mid-August, this is practically a non-issue.  Accordingly, the health risks associated with high surface temperatures are easily controlled.

3.         Quality Field Disinfectants Are Hospital Grade and Approved by the EPA and/or Organic in Nature, Providing Similar Protection from Surface Bacteria.

            The growth of bacteria on any man-made surface does not mean that there is an inherent problem with the surface, in this case artificial turf.  It simply means that when synthetic surfaces get contaminated, they need to be cleaned and disinfected.  Just as this is true for wrestling mats, exercise equipment, therapy equipment, gymnasium floors, protective gear and uniforms, the same is true for artificial turf.  The BofH’s statement that the disinfectants used to clean artificial turf fields are “not declared safe, non-toxic or harmless for human health and the environment” is overbroad, since there are some disinfectant brands that have received the EPA’s approval as “hospital grade.”

The BofH cites Edmar Chemical Company’s website to support its position.  While certain chemicals contained in its TurfStat Pro liquid disinfectant may be considered hazardous to those who ingest it or get it in their eyes when wet, once dry, it is not considered a health risk.  TurfStat Pro is an “EPA registered, broad spectrum, hospital grade disinfectant and sanitizer”:  “The U.S. EPA only approves disinfectants after rigorous testing for efficacy and safety.”  http://www.edmarchem.com/Websites/edmar/images/pdf/TurfStatPRO-WhyDoINeedtoDisinfectMySyntheticTurf.pdf. 

More importantly, Professional Sports Field Services, LLC provides a wholly organic cleanser named “PSF 110 Natural Enzyme Sports Surface Cleanser” that can replace chemical disinfectants, quickly destroys and eliminate infectious bacteria (including MRSA and staph), mold, mildew, viruses and germs and is 100% safe and biodegradable.  Since PSFS sells this cleanser to companies that maintain artificial turf fields, use of their product can, once again, render moot the BofH’s exaggerated disinfectant concerns.  In any event, a 2008 study by Penn State University found that staph survived for an equal time on natural grass as it did on artificial turf and it has a very low rate of survival, particularly when exposed to UV light and higher temperatures.  According to the Bedford, Massachusetts Board of Health, “There is no current evidence that transmission of these pathogens from contact with artificial turf is any greater than natural grass.”  Letter from Bedford Bd. Of Health to Bedford Outdoor Recr. Area Study Comm., 2 (Sept. 11, 2012).  Accordingly, the BofH’s statement that turf disinfectants are “not declared safe, non-toxic or harmless for human health and the environment” is overbroad, somewhat misleading and easily rendered moot.

            I understand the role of the BofH in our community, and commend it for its diligence on many health and environmental issues.  In this instance, however, it appears that the BofH’s Statement is either moot, exaggerated, outdated and/or somewhat misleading.  In summary, the BofH knew before the Statement was released that the AFSC’s proposed artificial turf field would neither contain plain black crumb rubber infill nor use wholly-outdated nylon fibers containing lead.  The proposal would use light-colored, non-toxic infill or encapsulated crumb rubber to keep surface temperatures lower and recreation officials would develop a protocol to ensure that play is halted on those rare occasions in which surface temperatures nonetheless reach unacceptably high levels.  The maintenance agreement that accompanies the installation of the artificial turf field can easily be drafted to require the use hospital grade disinfectants and/or PSF 110 – Natural Enzyme Sport Surface Cleanser.

            I hope that the foregoing discussion reduces some of the unnecessary fears raised by the BofH’s Statement.  As the former Chairman of the AFSC and as an Executive Member of the Friends of Swampscott Athletic Fields, I know that all of the renovation’s proponents are committed to installing a quality, multi-sport, artificial turf field complex that does not pose a real risk to human health or the environment; one that will serve our community and live up to Swampscott’s long and proud tradition of achievement in sports for decades to come.

Christian J. Urbano

Former Chairman, Athletic Field Study Committee

Executive Member, Friends of Swampscott Athletic Fields