Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to require chain‑of‑custody for artificial turf fields wins backing from clean‑water advocates; committee seeks industry data
Summary
H 7,141 would create a publicly accessible chain‑of‑custody and an inventory of outdoor artificial turf fields to prevent illegal dumping and inform DEM planning; environmental and community witnesses cited PFAS and microplastic risks and urged transparency, while committee members asked for industry and hauler testimony on current disposal practices.
Representative Boylan introduced House Bill 7,141 to establish a chain‑of‑custody system and a DEM‑maintained inventory of outdoor artificial turf fields. The sponsor said the measure addresses disposal risks, large volumes of plastic waste generated by turf replacement (saying Rhode Island has 56 turf fields covering 123 acres in a preliminary inventory), and enforcement gaps ahead of the state’s 2029 PFAS ban on covered products.
Emily Howe of Clean Water Action testified in support, saying the bill would create traceability so turf “doesn't disappear into illegal or improper disposal,” help DEM protect surface and groundwater (including Narragansett Bay), and provide the data necessary to evaluate microplastic pollution risks. She also raised public-health concerns about injuries on turf and urged municipalities to avoid future unfunded cleanup liabilities.
Roberta Lacey (Burrillville) cited a DEM/DOH letter that warned of PFAS risks near a local turf project and referenced an instance where a well down-gradient from a turf field had PFAS levels reportedly triple the state drinking-water standard. Tracy Stewart (Massachusetts) described opaque disposal chains, industry lobbying against similar bills, and failures of promised recycling facilities; she argued the chain‑of‑custody requirement would provide public accountability.
Committee members asked about current disposal practices, the capacity of recycling facilities (including recent facilities in Massachusetts), and whether industry, distributors and haulers would appear to explain existing contracts and handling. DEM submitted written comments but did not provide an in-person presentation. The committee closed the hearing after questioning and a record of written testimony.
