Way ayland land Massachusetts Pub ublic lic Fo Forum um on n - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Way ayland land Massachusetts Pub ublic lic Fo Forum um on n Nat atur ural al and and Synt nthetic ic Tur urf Field Field Systems s March Ma ch 14, 20 14, 2018

Introd oducti tions ons West ston & & Sa Sampso son (Gene Bolinger, Michael Moonan, Marie Rudiman) Public Forum on Natural and Synthetic Turf Systems

Meet eeting A ng Agen genda 1. High School + Loker Project Update 2. Preliminary Design Plans - High School | Loker Conservation and Recreation Area 3. Synthetic Turf Field is Recommended | Why Synthetic Turf? 4. Synthetic Turf System Components 5. Synthetic Turf Infill Options 6. Concerns About Synthetic Turf Systems 7. Toxicology of Synthetic Turf Systems 8. Summary | Open Discussion | Q+A

High S gh School hool + + Loker er Pro rojec ect Up t Upda date te 1. Fall 2017 Town Meeting design funds authorized (2 phases at High School + multi-use synthetic turf at Loker) 2. Design process has commenced 3. Regular PMBC meetings 4. Public Meeting held 5. Public input received 6. Designs will respond to resident concerns April 2 nd Town Meeting | Warrant Articles 7. 8. If YES, design and permitting efforts continue 9. Additional opportunities for public input

Why Synthetic Turf? Wayl ayland nd H High S gh Schoo ool Phase hase 1 1 P Prelimin liminar ary D y Design P sign Plan lan – In Pro In Progress

Why Synthetic Turf? Loker er Conser nservati tion + n + Rec ecreati reation A on Area rea Pre Prelimina nary De Design Pl n Plan n – In Pro In Progress

Why a y a Synth ntheti etic T Turf urf F Fiel eld? Pro’s + s + Co Cons s for Na Natural Tu Turf F Fields: s: • Initial cost - cheaper to construct and replace/re-sod • Playability can be limited by weather • Higher maintenance costs • Limited playing time - it is recommended that use of high performance fields be limited to 400-600 hours per year • Native soils may contain elevated levels of various metals, carcinogens, etc. • Environmental impacts related to improper maintenance • Requires irrigation for proper turf maintenance

Why a y a Synth ntheti etic T Turf urf F Fiel eld? Pro’s + s + Co Cons s for Sy Synthetic Tu Turf F Fields: s: • More Playing Time - Can support higher intensity of use and can extend the playing season • Less intensive maintenance program • Conserves water • Fewer Injuries due to even playing surface and consistent G-max performance • Higher Initial Cost - More expensive to build, repair and replace • Potential heat hazards

High S gh School hool - Why S y Synth ntheti etic T Turf urf? 1. Consistent with multiple planning initiatives 2. Precedent well established 3. System has performed well 4. Supports heavy use 5. Reduces burden on other field assets 6. Without, shifts use to other over burdened fields 7. Limited renovation options for several other High School field facilities 8. A pledge to manage + monitor the installation 9. Materials can be recycled

Why Synthetic Turf? High S gh School hool F Fiel eld Usage Usage Hours of Usage + Performance

Why Synthetic Turf? Nei eighb ghbori ring C ng Comm mmuni niti ties es w with S th Synth ntheti etic T Tur urf F Fiel elds

Why Synthetic Turf? Du Dual C Coun ounty L Leagu eague M e Members embers W With S h Synth ntheti etic T Turf urf F Field(s (s)

Why Synthetic Turf? Synth ntheti etic T Tur urf S System stem C Comp mponent nents

Synth ntheti etic T Tur urf F Fiel eld I Infill Op Options ons Rubber | Plastic Natural | Organic Minerals/Coated Minerals Wide use, best performance + Organic Longest life before replacement resiliency Some recycled Prone to migrating, more Less resiliency, harder surface maintenance Perception of toxicity Requires shock pad, higher Requires shock pad, higher cost cost Heavy metals in trace amounts, Moisture required to retain Can be abrasive not releasable resiliency, can freeze Shock pad required with some May contain pesticides, heavy products metals in trace amounts that are releasable

Synth ntheti etic T Tur urf F Fiel eld I Infill Op Options ons

Concerns erns A Abou bout S t Synth ntheti etic T Tur urf S Systems ms 1. Infill Composition 2. Heat 3. Bacteria 4. Injury Prevalence and Abrasive Qualities 5. Maintenance 6. Infill / Fiber Migration

Toxicology of Synthetic Turf Systems Risk = Ex Ri k = Exposure x Toxicity Bioa ioavailability of of ch chemic micals ls in in sy synthetic turf fie f field lds  We e wi will a analyz yze pro roposed c d crum rumb b ru rubb bber p pri rior to to installation  Me Meta tals  Benzo nzothia iazole le  PAH AHs, SV , SVOCs  VOC OCs  Ways ys we we looked a ked at a t ava vailable da data ta to to de dete term rmine e if the the ri risks ks a are re accepta table  Com Compari riso son t to o applicable st standards  Ingest stion of of cru rumb ru rubber er part rticles ( (CR CRP) P)  Derm rmal c con ontact wi with CR CRP P and t turf rf bed ed  Inhalation of of chem emicals t that may v vol olatilize f from rom t the e syn synthetic f field  Leaching of g of chemicals i s into grou o groundwater  We e wi will eva evalua uate da e data ta we we collect f fro rom pro roposed ed fields ds in the the same manner 

Toxicology of Synthetic Turf Systems Compar arison t to Applicab cable le S Stand andar ards

Toxicology of Synthetic Turf Systems Compar arison t to Soil il B Back ackgr ground nd

Toxicology of Synthetic Turf Systems Evalu valuation T n Through R Ris isk As Assessment nt Risk A Assessment is a way to es o estimate pot potential h hea ealth r risks from ex expo posure t to c o chem emicals Risk = = Ex Expo posure x x Tox oxicity Con onclusion: Potential Risks are an Acceptable Exposure/Negligible Exposure – Residential Receptor – Age 1 through 31 years – 30 year exposure

Toxicology of Synthetic Turf Systems Con onservati tive R Risk sk Asse ssessm ssment A Assum ssumpti tions • Maximum detected concentrations were used • Subchronic exposure (1 yr old) 2 days/wk/30 weeks • Chronic exposure 3 days/wk/30 weeks • Exposure through ingestion and dermal contact • Ingest 100 mg/kg crumb rubber on each day of exposure • Crumb rubber sticking to face, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet • Assumes crumb rubber can be ingested like soil and adheres to skin like soil. Reality: far less exposure!

Summa mmary | Op Open en Di Disc scus ussion on | Q Q + A THANK YOU!!