Department of Environmental Protection Checks Out Newton South Fields
Mike Abell of the Department of Environmental Protection checks out the plans for the Newton South playing fields.
By Ben Terris
Town Correspondent
The Department of Environmental Protection visited the athletic fields at Newton South Thursday to determine whether plans for synthetic turf playing fields would violate the Wetlands Protection Act.
After holding two public hearings the Newton Conservation Commission voted to permit the construction of these fields in February, and issued a list of conditions in early March to keep the nearby wetlands safe. But, a group of 12 Newton residents, represented by attorney Guive Mirfendereski, feel like the conditions do not go nearly far enough.
Mirfendereski filed a 29 page brief to the DEP outlining possible problems ranging from potential toxicity leaching into the wetlands from the rubber crumbs used on the turf field to the creation of “heat-islands” caused by the synthetic material’s ability to retain heat, something that he says could “create a harmful semi-arid climate adjacent to the wetlands.”
In response to the brief, the DEP sent Mike Abell, an environmental analyst, to the site to hear both sides of the story and check out the field for himself. Until the DEP makes a ruling on the project, there is to be no construction on land within 100 feet of the wetlands. Gale Associates, the engineering and planning company in charge of the project hope to begin construction in the next 60 days, according to Paul Tyrell, the Chief Civil Engineer.
The Globe wrote about concerns over artificial turf earlier this year.
Standing in front of a semi-circle that included Tyrell, Anne Phelps, the Senior Environmental Planner for the city of Newton, and Mirfendereski, Abell listened to all sides of the story.
Tyrell began by pointing out that the vast majority of the project took place beyond the 100-foot buffer zone of the wetlands and that they had brought out an independent wetlands specialist to make sure everything they did was up to code.
“We have used complete due process in thinking about the project,” Tyrell said. “And when you finish looking this over, I think you will see that there will be no additional impact on the wetlands, and that our environmental footprint will be zero.”
Next, Phelps, said that she had pored through hundreds of pages of reading and could not find any evidence that the artificial turf would damage the ecosystem.
“My biggest concern was whether leaching could reach the wetlands,” she said. “In all the research I did, it looked like the leachate could be demonstrably harmful but couldn’t find a way from the proposed design that it would find its way into the wetlands.”
After Mirfendereski spoke about the major points of the brief, the group walked around the field and the wetlands so Abell could take a look. After about ten minutes of checking out the edge of the fields and the where the drainage system would be put in, he told the group that the department would have a decision within 70 days of the appeal, which was accepted on March 25th.
When the visit was over Mirfendereski said he felt it “went well” but had his concerns about the DEP.
“The DEP takes the job seriously, but they are at the same disadvantage as everyone else,” he said. “They might not be any better at divining the possible consequences of turf fields to both the environment and to human health than anyone else.”
For more coverage of Newton, go to www.boston.com/newton. Follow us on Twitter @newtonupdates.
Comment
Permalink
E-Mail
"But, a group of 12 Newton residents, represented by attorney Guive Mirfendereski, feel like the conditions do not go nearly far enough."
What a pack of "not in my backyard" (people)
It's a shame that the lawyer had "concerns" about the DEP. The DEP has no conflict of interest in this case, they are merely defending their voiceless client (a.k.a. the environment). I wonder how many hours Mr. Mirfendereski has whacked the Group of 12 for over this non-issue. It must be nice for a dozen so-called residents to be able to pay an attorney for something like this, when most people are struggling to pay for groceries to feed their kids.
none of the 12 residents are nimbi, as they live far from the fields, some across town. besides, in my opinion, nothing is wrong with being a nimby - nimbism is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government driven by visions that are economically and environmentally sustainable. good for them i happen to think that if inot in my backyard then it should not be in anyone else's either. are you, Cildar, of the same belief?
Newton is starting to mirror the Peoples Republic of Cambridge
David G: You wrote - "It's a shame that the lawyer had "concerns" about the DEP. The DEP has no conflict of interest in this case, they are merely defending their voiceless client (a.k.a. the environment)." Yes, precisely and nobody suggested otherwise. There is a process and it takes its course. The concern is legitimate because turf fields have not as yet been vetted down by our DEP and Dept of Health for its long terms effect on kids and the enviorment. The state ought to be testing these effects and keeping records of them. Most of all, doing no harm, and follwoing the precautionary principle. Unless they do that, they would have to rely on data generated by biased sources of every kind. Never you mind the cost of this action for the Newton 12, it does not come out of your pocket; but the $ 5 million put aside for this project by the city of Newton comes out of taxpayers' pocket. And In case you did not hear, we are also the proud parents of a $200 million high school, which too is another dig at the taxpayers of this city.
I hear that most of the group of 12 are from the North side. I doubt that they are paying him anything. They were just assembled by Guive to faciliate his appeal. This is just more of the same from Guive who just doesn't know when to graciously give up. So now he creates a group to appeal a project that has been reveiwed for years and approved by the aldermen and Conservation Commission. He is the one costing the taxpayers unnecessary dollars with all of his self-serving antics. Now he may be denying the kids their fields and costing the city legal and extra construction dollars. And this obstructionist thinks he stands a chance running for alderman?
These field are a part of the Heritage Landdsacpe of Newton, as per the State Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Newton Conservation Commission voted 4-2 against the turf in the vegetated wetlands border; it is still a remarkable dissent considering that the Commission is handpicked by the Mayor; and it did its job right but not enough was put in the conditions to ensure that we do not end up with equivalent of 22,000 used tires on this landscape. The Board of Alderman passed a resolution that askes for this stuff to be recyclable, no crumb, non-toxic and 100% lead free, etc. But the Mayor has shown no inlcination to go along. Instead he has bought into the argument that the fields are sold as a "system" - you get the drainage, and with it you get the carpet and the crumb too. Then when you ask about alternatives in this menu the consultant and vendor say, "well that will invalidate the warranty." What a scam. Any wonder why none of this went out to bid, as it should have. Even less of a wonder -- the people who designed this porject are in charge of its implementation too. I look forward to a vigorous campaign for Alderman at Large from Ward 1 and when elected I will ensure the maintenance and saving of our natural grass playing fields for the benefit of all.
In a recent opinion piece in the New Haven Register, Nancy Alderman, President of Environment and Human Health, Inc. wrote the following: "Recycling is good - but there are certain things that should not be recycled. We should not recycle asbestos, we should not recycle lead and we should not recycle rubber tires, certainly not where children play."
If your community can begin to understand that synthetic turf fields containing crumb rubber infil and rubber mulch productsl are simply a waste management system to dispose of shredded rubber tires, regardless of whether or not this system is safe for human beings and the environment, you may begin to think differently about letting people play on them.
I think you're lucky to have vigilant people like the 12 Newton residents represented by Guive Mirfendereski in your community asking the questions they are. Rather than impugn them, you should support their right to engage in a transparent, protective process that considers the health of human beings and the environment.
So a group of 12 citizens are scrutinizing the plans....what's wrong with that? Ms. Phelps states: “In all the research I did, it looked like the leachate could be demonstrably harmful but couldn’t find a way from the proposed design that it would find its way into the wetlands.” Who buys a million dollar product with such a selling point? It ablsolutely sounds crazy
"Absence of data proves only ignorance"
You go after them baker's dozen! The only mantra I ever hear from the "pro-turf" side is that the kids need more play time. They don't need more play time, what they need is more family time.
You should be thanking Guive for watching out for the wetlands and the community. The manufacturer's of this product have no right to call tires recycled. They are used and YOU the people who used these tires have already paid a fee to dispose of them once, don't you realize that you'll have to pony up the funds to dispose of again after they damage the fragile eco system? Don't be fooled by "new tires" either they have the same ingredients.
Would anybody shave their natural hair off their head to wear a plastic wig? Putting in a syn-turf field takes space away from the public community. Be smart, just say no!
If the public is interested in a solution that is the best of both worlds, then please visit the web-site: www.geosafeplay.com and then be sure to click into the video section to see what has been offered in Europe for many years to their great satisfaction; and to see it in person, go to the ISB in Cambridge. This system was presented, but unfortunately we were not invited to bid. Maybe next time!
My thanks to Guive for continuing to check the project out. Many people have lingering concerns about the synthetic turf. On the one hand, I am glad the fields will get a drainage system. This has been a problem since the opening of the high school in 1959. On the other hand, utilizing all of the legal and administrative options in examining this issue is a plus, not a minus, by Guive. David Cohen utilize every legal and quasi-legal administrative option in promoting synthetic turf.
--Big Don
Guive, one more time I like to thank you . And never give up for a good cause.
Those of you who want to face reality, go Newton YMCA at Newton Corner, see if you can walk barefoot on that synthetic turf in the summer. I couldn't and I didn't enjoy the smell of it. Then I called the DEP and asked them why they allow such a terrible way of recycling the used tires and sneakers. They said they don't like to discard the whole tires in landfills because mosquitos breed in them! So, in order to prevent mosquitos from breeding they let children wallow in this carcinogenic materials, poison the environment and create heat islands! There aremuch better ways of reuse tires in roads, sidewalks and building blocks where the rubber can be safely sealed.
Roaring Lion....I am not from Newton.....please explain what you meant when you stated "I hear that most of the group of 12 are from the North side. I doubt that they are paying him anything"
I HOPE people notice the distinction between the negative posts (e.g., #1, #2, #4, and #6) and the favorable posts. The former simply resort to name-calling, nasty remarks, and put-downs of Mr. Mifendereski and 12 brave citizens who passionately question the health, safety, environmental impact, and viability of synthetic fields. If one is not wise enough to inquire and learn about the many substantiated concerns, he or she is left only to ignorantly question the motives of the appealing participants. It is sad that perhaps a minority made up of "sports proponents" might be at the root of this money-pit ($5M), over-the-top, limited lifetime (8-10 years), costly and hard-to dispose of, and most importantly potentially dangerous synthetic field project, especially in times when we need to be more "green." Consider that the children of those who so fervently promote these synthetic surfaces may be the very same adults who discover they’ve contracted resultant cancers and sue the City of Newton 20 years from now!
On top of that, one must wonder about the political goings-on with the Mayor and his cronies when they elect to spend roughly double the $2.5M needed to properly drain and create quality natural turf fields while also incurring huge multi-million dollar expenditures to dispose of and replace the playing surfaces after a mere 8-10 years. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE IN TIMES OF BUDGET SHORTFALLS?
Such poor choices result in: lower standards of academics, teacher layoffs and larger classrooms, severely reduced class and after school program offerings (60% elimination of clubs, loss of numerous AP and other courses), enormous school infrastructure problems (e.g., end-of-life and inefficient school heating systems, peeling lead paint, inferior classrooms, lack of handicap access, and other shortcomings in most of our school facilities)? When times are tough and money is short, shouldn't Newton tighten its belt and allocate available taxpayer dollars to the most beneficial programs? I wonder why we'd ever choose to build $5M fields for athletes when children come home complaining about the lack of availability of desirable courses or about chilled classrooms (50 degrees at Oak Hill-Feb 09)?
Our city's leadership should represent ALL of the taxpayers and not the few (far from the People's Republic remark). I believe the main driver for all this bizarre, excess spending (synthetic turf, excessive NNHS, etc.) is Mayor Cohen's ego, i.e., his 'need' for such monuments, rather than a reputation of good decision-making, to serve as his “legacy.” Bravo to Mr. Mirfendereski and the 12 citizens who take action on behalf of so many of us whose voices are muted among the roar of a small herd of mooing cattle (athletic supporters).
Unfortunately the best documented problem with these fields (though far from the only one) is not regulated by any local, state, or federal agency because it is unique to this product: the hazardous extreme temperatures they can reach. Locally surface temperatures in the 160's have been documented on sunny June and July days. Neither sports personnel nor parents understand the danger, and many mistakenly believe it is no worse than on black asphalt and that it is a mere inconvenience. But in fact 25 high school football players died from 1995 through 2005 from heat related illness, and that is BEFORE the construction of significant numbers of these fields. Parents who allow their children to play on these fields on sunny days are putting them in danger, largely due to their ignorance. But the officials who insist on building these fields in spite of warnings and put children in danger are guilty of negligence!
Congrats to Guive and the 12 citizens. They have taken the fight to the Feds when the local government would not listen. We could not get them to listen about the health concerns or the financial concerns, hopefully the wetlands will keep our city from making a disastrous mistake.
Things to do in Newton