Nantucket Board of Health hears experts on artificial turf, PFAS and microplastics; no decision made
Loading...
Summary
At a March special meeting, the Nantucket Board of Health heard competing expert views on a proposed high-school artificial turf and track, with scientists urging strict PFAS and microplastic testing and school officials citing student access and heavy field use; the board took no action and requested more data.
The Nantucket Board of Health convened a special roundtable on March 11 to review scientific evidence and operational planning for a proposed artificial turf and track at the high school, hearing experts on pediatric health, chemistry, exposure testing and stormwater management but taking no vote.
Dr. Margaret Ann Price, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, opened the expert presentations by stressing the value of team sports for teenagers, saying team play "provides a protective environment for teenagers" and arguing that lost playing time can harm social support and mental health. School leaders and athletic staff told the board the proposed surface would substantially increase usable hours compared with the town’s natural grass fields, which are often unplayable.
Scientists advising the Land and Water Council and independent consultants emphasized different risk and testing perspectives. Dr. Sarah Evans, an environmental pediatrician at Mount Sinai, outlined evidence gaps and said children are a uniquely vulnerable population "closer to the ground where dust and chemicals settle," warning that artificial turf is a complex product that can contain PFAS and plastics and that "we do not have prospective epidemiological studies" of long-term health effects from turf exposure.
Consultants retained to assist the school described laboratory approaches designed to assess exposure. Marie Ruderman, a risk assessor with Weston & Sampson, and Liz Genley of TRC explained a three-part testing regimen the presenters proposed: (1) solvent extraction/16.33 analysis for targeted PFAS, (2) the TOP (total oxidizable precursor) assay to convert precursors to measurable PFAS, and (3) SPLP (synthetic precipitation leaching procedure) to estimate what could leach under rain-event conditions. TRC reported example SPLP results that were "orders of magnitude" below EPA and Massachusetts drinking-water criteria.
That conservative testing approach drew sharp comment from Dr. Kyla Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), who argued that laboratory reporting limits, not only reported nondetects, should be scrutinized and that "no intentionally added PFAS" does not equate to "PFAS free." Bennett urged testing with low detection limits (parts-per-trillion where feasible), recommended TOP and SPLP on batches destined for installation, and warned that micro- and nanoplastics shed from turf fibers are unlikely to be fully captured by stormwater controls and could migrate into the island’s sole-source aquifer.
Consultants working for the Land and Water Council and Horsley Witten Group highlighted stormwater design and monitoring gaps for the project site. Charlie of Horsley Witten recommended designing mechanical capture for floating and large particulates (walk-off mats, hooded catch basins, deep-sump catch basins) but warned that dissolved PFAS would not be removed by mechanical filters and that a monitoring program — including groundwater baseline sampling before installation and repeated rounds afterward — would be necessary to detect any statistical change in aquifer loading.
School officials, including Superintendent Beth Hallett and facilities and athletics staff, said the district wants rigorous testing of any materials that will be installed and stressed operational trade-offs. Hallett told the board that the proposed materials "do not include any intentionally added PFAS to the surf system" as presented by the school and said the district seeks to minimize risk while restoring a field that, in its current state, is often unusable.
No regulatory decision was reached. The board confirmed the session was informational and that follow-up discussion is expected at a regular meeting later in March. The only formal motion recorded at the session was a routine motion to adjourn, which passed.
What’s next: presenters and town consultants recommended pre‑installation batch testing of the exact materials being supplied (16.33/solvent extraction, TOP and SPLP with detection limits set to the lowest technically achievable values), assembling groundwater baseline data (multiple sampling rounds) and asking designers to show how stormwater and maintenance practices will minimize microplastic migration. The board asked stakeholders to submit follow-up technical questions to the health department; no timetable for a decision on the field was set.
The meeting included extensive audience and board questioning of testing parameters, detection limits and long-term monitoring needs; experts differed on whether current lab reporting limits and existing soil background data are sufficient to judge risk. The session highlighted the technical trade-offs the town must weigh between student playing time and potential additions to the island’s existing PFAS and microplastic load.
