Brighton residents urge pause on synthetic turf, cite health, environmental and process concerns

At the Dec. 16 Brighton Central School District Board of Education meeting, several residents urged the board to pause or reconsider a planned synthetic turf installation, citing health, environmental and procedural concerns.

Helen Frank of Brighton told the board that microplastics research has expanded sharply since 2015 and warned that "even plastics and synthetic materials without PFAS and POPs can still produce secondary microplastics through weathering and environmental stress." She asked where the district would publish the specific materials to be used in the turf.

Bridget Platania, a Brighton parent with pediatric health training, told the board she reviewed literature and queried local environmental experts before speaking. Platania highlighted short- and long-term safety questions including orthopedic and heat-related injuries and potential carcinogen exposure. She cited New York State Senate Bill S6868, which she said "prohibits the installation or replacement of synthetic turf at outdoor athletic fields and facilities owned or operated by municipalities or school districts in the state," and asked how the district would respond if the measure is enacted.

Registered nurse and parent Christopher Ross criticized the district's handling of the project, saying the consultant documents he reviewed were industry-linked and noting published tests that, he said, examined only nine PFAS compounds while ‘‘current estimates are that there are more than 12,000 PFAS compounds.'' Ross called on the board to "have the courage to pause this project."

Neighbor Pam Delaney said the plan presented to the district differs substantially from what voters saw, and urged the board to request a New York State Education Department change order and to amend the project's environmental filing when plans change. Delaney told the board the district had issued 39 change orders this year and that additional documentation is typically required for changes over $35,000.

Physician and parent Elizabeth (Betsy) Cox cited recommendations from the Children's Environmental Health Center and asked when the district's environmental review was conducted and how nearby risks were assessed, noting a contractor's on-site laser warning sign near a daycare and group home.

Superintendent McGowan acknowledged the community's submissions and said the district and board were reviewing the feedback. He said the district would work through a "couple of things" and send a communication "relatively soon," while also disputing suggestions that project documents had been purposely falsified.

No formal action on the turf project was taken at the meeting. Board members did not vote on changing or pausing the project during the Dec. 16 session.

What it means: Commenters pressed questions about (1) material specifications and testing breadth for PFAS and other contaminants; (2) when the district's environmental assessments were completed and whether changes to the plan require an amended SEQR (environmental review) declaration; and (3) the district's contingency if state legislation limits synthetic turf installations.

Next steps: The superintendent said the district would review public input and circulate a communication. The board did not announce a timeline for any change-order filings or for further public hearings on the turf project.