Burrillville Council Hears Divergent Views on Proposed High School Turf After PFAS Tests and Legal Challenge

BURRILLVILLE, R.I. — Town officials and outside consultants told the Burrillville Town Council on Sept. 5 that laboratory tests on the artificial turf and crumb-rubber infill planned for Burrillville High School showed either non-detect results or trace amounts of PFAS and that the town will institute multi-year monitoring. Residents and outside experts disputed those conclusions, raised questions about long-term weathering and groundwater impacts, and an injunction request to halt the installation is active in Providence County Superior Court.

The meeting, held in the high school auditorium, began with the council president reading a solicitor’s statement that the town had been served the morning of Sept. 5 with a complaint from plaintiff Roberta Lacey seeking a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to stop the installation. The town noted a status conference is scheduled for Sept. 13 to exchange exhibits and set a hearing timetable.

Jeff McCormick, the town’s director of public works and project manager, described construction progress and said the town had installed two new monitoring wells at the high school and sampled existing irrigation and abandoned wells to establish a pre-installation baseline. “We have to do our due diligence,” McCormick said, outlining quarterly sampling of wells and runoff monitoring from the turf underdrain system.

The technical presentations focused on three laboratory methods. Elizabeth (Liz) Denley, chemistry director for TRC, said TRC ran solvent extraction (to find directly extractable PFAS in material), a TOP assay (to reveal oxidizable precursors that could transform into regulated PFAS), and a SPLP leach test (to estimate what might leach under acidic precipitation-like conditions). “Both these materials showed non-detect results for the PFAS chemicals” in the solvent extraction, Denley said, and the SPLP leachate concentrations were trace and well below Rhode Island DEM/DOH groundwater criteria and the U.S. EPA MCLs used for context.

Dennis Anderson, a town councilor and retired engineer, walked attendees through a conservative mass calculation based on the most conservative test results. Using the TOP assay numbers and worst-case assumptions, Anderson concluded the total PFAS mass in the turf material equated to roughly 53 milligrams — “the equivalent weight of one drop of water,” he said — and that the fraction that could leach out was very small according to the SPLP results.

Consultants from Northeast Water Solutions and TRC emphasized the site-specific nature of PFAS behavior and the need for ongoing monitoring and, if necessary, pilot-scale treatment before any required full-scale drinking-water treatment. Robert Ferrari of Northeast Water Solutions and other technical speakers outlined treatment options used elsewhere (granular activated carbon and selective anion-exchange resins), noting pilot testing is typically needed to confirm performance.

Residents, local water experts and outside advocates strongly challenged the methodology and conclusions. Several speakers said the SPLP and TOP assays do not account for long-term ultraviolet degradation and mechanical abrasion that they fear could increase PFAS mobility over years of exposure. One speaker, referencing other towns, said a nearby school’s turf installation contributed to a later well closure; another asked who would pay remediation costs if PFAS concentrations rose. Multiple commenters cited nearby legacy sources including capped landfills and wastewater infrastructure when arguing the project adds unacceptable cumulative risk to a town already managing PFAS in multiple locations.

Attorney Karen Browning and other non-resident advocates spoke on behalf of the plaintiff and argued the project may violate local zoning overlay protections designed to safeguard aquifers, and urged the council to consider whether special-use permitting or other approvals had been satisfied. The council repeated that the lawsuit constrains the depth of back-and-forth discussion the town can undertake while litigation proceeds, but the meeting allowed presenters to state their findings and for the public to comment.

The council compiled and reported written input: the president read a tally of letters the clerk provided and read a supporting letter from School Committee member Don Allen. Town staff said they would post follow-up materials and responses to some technical questions on the municipal website when appropriate.

No formal vote was taken on the turf project at the meeting; councilors closed the session after brief remarks. The president reiterated the town’s view of the technical evidence: “This project will not affect our environment,” he said, while acknowledging dissenting views from residents and that more monitoring and follow-up remain necessary. A status conference in the litigation was scheduled for Sept. 13, and the town said it will continue quarterly monitoring and share results with the public.

What’s next: The court process is ongoing; the town has installed monitoring wells and has pledged quarterly sampling and runoff monitoring, and consultants said pilot treatment would be pursued only if monitoring or regulatory thresholds indicated treatment was required.