WESTFIELD — “Forever chemicals” might be lurking again in Westfield, this time behind a proposed synthetic turf field for Westfield High School, a renovation that many in the community say is decades overdue.
City councilors are set to vote Tuesday on whether to approve new athletic fields at Westfield High School, to be funded from a $11.1 million bond from Westfield Gas & Electric. While many are in favor of the proposal, some worry about environmental concerns of adding more PFAS chemicals to Westfield’s waterways.
At an April 4 meeting on the fields, many residents mentioned wanting to feel proud of their city when hosting athletic games and wanting to give student athletes equal footing with their competition by having a designated and maintained practice space.
Robert Parent, head coach of the high school football team, said the new fields would give Westfield “something the city can call its own.”
The city resident said that not only would it provide a much-needed outside space where athletes can practice and perform, but it could also serve as a source of local revenue by hosting events for the city.
Insufficient as-is
Parent notes that track athletes are practicing up and down hallways in the high school, and that many of the high school teams are regularly asking permission to practice on the fields of Westfield State University and Southwick Regional School.
“I’ve been head coach for 10 seasons, and we have been clamoring for a field upgrade since I started. This has been a city debate for two decades,” said Parent.
In the City Council meeting April 4, Councilor Ralph Figy of Westfield said that the city’s need for better outside spaces for student athletes goes back to the days before he was a high school track and field coach. Other residents who came before the board agreed that on many days, student athletes are not able to play on a natural grass field because of the wet conditions.
Mayor Michael A. McCabe said via email that “synthetic surfaces far exceed playing time standards of grass” and will provide more options for athletes on wet New England days.”
Because of negative data on crumb-rubber filling, however, McCabe chose BrockFill as the filling for Westfield’s project. The fill is made up of loblolly pines and does not overheat like synthetic turf.
Under scrutiny
Synthetic turf fields have come under scrutiny recently with the spotlight on injuries of pro athletes, causing many NFL stadiums to switch back to natural grass fields. Various cities across the commonwealth also have opposed transitioning to artificial turf because of its chemical materials, in particular the forever chemicals, per- and polyfluorinated substances, known as PFAS.
Amherst and Leverett are two local communities that have rejected the switch to artificial turf, but other towns, like West Springfield, have welcomed the fields. The city used them to host its 250th anniversary this past year.
There are almost 15,000 recognized PFAS chemicals, many linked to serious health issues affecting the thyroid, immune system, kidneys, liver, reproductive organs and even resulting in some cancers. It is the bioaccumulation of PFAS chemicals that scientists are particularly concerned with, as they build up over time in the body and have been shown to be multigenerational.
‘How much can we live with?’
Jessica Britton of Westfield said that she is in favor of a new field, but not one that contains synthetic materials such as PFAS. She worries about exposure to the children using the fields, as well as the effects on people living downstream of runoff.
“PFAS is an evolving situation,” said Britton. “What threshold is enough? How much can we live with?”
Councilor Richard Sullivan acknowledged this concern with an amendment to the proposal that the city use an outside, independent, third-party lab to test at least twice for PFAS before installing the turf field. Sullivan said that if the testing results are above the standards for PFAS, then the city will look at other materials that could make this field happen.
Sullivan stated that “we all want what’s best and safe for our kids.”
Westfield Residents Advocating For Themselves Director and City Councilor Kristen Mello is worried that the synthetic turf industry will determine the test parameters.
“The people who get hired to do this know how to do this, and the things that are regulated don’t show up,” said Mello. “Their liability is over. Then they end up in the environment, and communities end up having to deal with this problem.”
The city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is a town that has been here before. It was promised an synthetic turf field that was “PFAS-free” and later found this not to be the case, angering the community.
Doc: PFAS-free fields do not exist
Dr. Kyla Bennett is the director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, director of science policy at PEER and has 10 years experience working at the Environmental Protection Agency. She said she has tested dozens of artificial turf fields, and that PFAS-free fields do not exist yet.
She explained that, even if the filling of the synthetic turf fields is moving away from toxic materials, like crumb-rubber, the blades of grass are made up of micro-plastics that are coated with PFAS, which over time will break off and can travel into waterways.
“Natural grasses emit oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide,” said Bennett. “(Synthetic turf) is a fossil fuels product that emits methane and carbon dioxide. It’s doing the opposite and contributing to climate change.”
Graham Peaslee, a physics and astronomy professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on PFAS research in synthetic turf and consumer products, concurred.
He said in an email that with synthetic turf, there “are a steady stream of short-chain and long-chain PFAS that will wash off the blades, especially after exposure to sunlight and water. If it ends up as irrigation water or inlets to drinking water plants then people will be more exposed.”
Only testing for some PFAS chemicals
Dr. Rachel Massey, senior research associate with Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, said she has seen some of the PFAS-free marketing claims, and that it’s important to understand exactly what is meant by the term “PFAS-free.”
She said the first consideration is to know which PFAS chemicals are being tested. As a class of almost 15,000 PFAS chemicals, Massey said that simply by testing for two PFAS chemicals could be enough to be marketed as “PFAS-free.”
“Let’s use the example of a box of cookies,” said Massey. “If you (only) test for almonds and walnuts and don’t find them, and then you say that the cookies are ‘nut-free.’ This is the most important issue with ‘PFAS-free’ turf.”
Massey said the second thing to consider are detection limits. In drinking water, PFAS is measured in the parts per trillion, but with synthetic urf regulations it can be in the parts per million or parts per billion. She compared this to measuring for a teaspoon of sugar versus a pound of sugar in a recipe. If the recipe says that there is not a pound of sugar present, it does not necessarily mean that it is sugar-free. There could still be sugar in smaller quantities present.
Testing methods are the third consideration, according to Massey.
“There are multiple ways to test for PFAS, and the test method that you use influences the result you get,” said Massey. “If testing for one individual chemical, you might not get (an accurate parts per million) than if testing for levels of PFAS as a class. There are several methods to test for PFAS. Two of the most important methods would be testing as a class of PFAS to show the presence or absence of fluorine or organic fluorine.”
Currently, there are no regulations regarding PFAS in synthetic turf, but Mello said that “1 ppm for total organic fluorine of the solid materials is an achievable detection limit in a commercial lab.”
A history of PFAS
Meanwhile, Westfield isn’t unfamiliar with PFAS plumes. In the 1970s, the Air Force used firefighting foam that contained PFAS, including at nearby Barnes Air National Guard Base.
It seeped into the ground, polluting the water. The issue surfaced in 2020 when regulations changed, and levels of PFAS found in some city’s wells years earlier exceeded new federal limits.
At present, no chemicals have been cleaned up at the base or nearby.
Pending federal litigation filed by the city and state seeks to hold the PFAS-laden firefighting foam makers accountable.
Regarding the fields, the vote will be held in City Hall Council Chambers, on the second floor, at 59 Court St. at 7 p.m.
This story has been updated to reflect that the turf described is synthetic turf, not the name brand AstroTurf, and that PFAS regulations changed in 2020.
Ad Choices