Natural vs. Artificial Turf for CCHS Concord CAN Discussion Summary Concord CAN recommends support for natural grass playing surfaces in Concord, as opposed to artificial turf for cost, health, and environmental reasons. This paper discusses the various aspects of artificial turf vs. natural grass. Cost Comparisons Comparing the costs of an artificial turf vs. a natural grass playing field is complex and there are several ways that the comparison can be misleading (We have decided to focus on a comparisons based on ‘total costs’ because comparisons based on the number of uses of a field per year can be misleading. ) We have used data from three different articles that show the higher, overall costs of artificial vs. natural. While it is difficult to get apples-­‐to-­‐apples comparisons, looking at different sources, in two of the cases, artificial surface was compared to sand-­‐cap natural grass. The third was for Bermuda grass on native soil. What’s interesting is that the cost differential is quite similar at $1,200,000 to $1,500,000 over 20 years (assumes the artificial surfaces last between 8 -­‐ 10 years). When the cost of disposing of the hazardous materials (for two field replacements), plus the cost of mitigation, and the cost of protecting the field for one event per year are added, the total incremental costs are between $85,000 and $100,000/ year. While costs for CCHS may be different, we think it is safe to say that an artificial field adds costs to the school budget vs the alternative. The costs on a ‘per use’ basis may be similar, but the overall effect on the budget is to add new costs: !Incremental!Cost
!Three!Sources!Reviewed
for!Artificial
!'How!Taxpayers!Get!Fooled'!3!Forbes!Magazine!(1)
$1.5M
!'Dirt!on!Turf'!(2)
$1.5M
!'Synthetic!Turfgrass!Costs!Far!Exceed...'!(2)!(3)
$1.2M
!Plus!Other!Costs!(from!'Dirt!on!Turf'):
!Hazardous!disposal!of!materials!3!2!removals
!Covering!field!for!graduation!events!($15K/event)
!Total!for!other!costs
!Summary
!Total!20!year!costs:!incremental!costs!for!artificial
!Total!incremental!costs!per!year!for!artificial!surface
$180K
$300K
$480K
$1.7M!3!$2M
$85K!6!$100K
(1)!comparison!is!to!Bermuda!grass!on!native!soil
(2)!comparison!is!to!sand3cap!natural!surface
(3)!Uiniversity!of!Missouri!study
Concord CAN, February 2015, V3 1 Removal of Synthetic Turf Removal of synthetic turf fields at the end of a typical life cycle is not always budgeted for these projects and costs as much as $1.00/square ft. as the materials are considered hazardous waste. For a 90,000 square ft. field or a total of $90,000 every 8-­‐10 years. The School Committee should ensure that these costs are included. (Data are shown in table above under ‘Other Costs’.) Use of Artificial Turf Field for Ceremonies An artificial surface field will need to be covered for any events requiring non-­‐athletic use, such as graduations. The cost per event to cover the field with tarps and plywood is estimated at $15,000 -­‐ $25,000 per event. (Data are shown in table above under ‘Other costs’.) Example of Spreadsheet Showing Life Cycle Costs The following table is fairly typical of spreadsheets comparing the life cycle costs for different playing surfaces. It is from ‘Dirt on Turf’ and shows two different types of natural grass fields in comparison to artificial (‘synthetic’). There are as many as four different natural grass field types in the various analyses, including different grass types (e.g. Bermuda) and infrastructures (e.g. native soil, sand-­‐capped, etc.). Note that the spreadsheet shows replacement after 10 years and maintenance costs for each 10-­‐year period but that ‘other costs’ such as hazardous waste disposal are not included. Also note the difference in cost between the two natural grass options. The first option is considered in the article to be a ‘top quality high school or NCAA field’ and has been called out in this paper as one of the three natural grass costing examples: CCHS Need for Additional Field Capacity The driver for artificial turf fields is the apparent shortage of field-­‐time for the various teams. This is measured in ‘uses’ of the various fields where a ‘use’ is a practice or a home Concord CAN, February 2015, V3 2 game. The CC at Play documentation shows an existing shortfall of 550 uses per year. This is being addressed by the addition of one natural field, which adds 200 uses per year, and the conversion of the football field to artificial turf, which provides an additional 550 uses/year. This enables CCHS to meet all of its forecast practice and game events for its teams. The following table was extracted from the CC at Play website. CO2 Mitigation While Concord does not currently budget for CO2 mitigation, given that we are interested in the challenges of combating climate change, it is a good idea to understand the net life-­‐
cycle effects of our policy choices on the environment and especially on CO2 levels. The following is from the Athena Institute, which compared the life cycle CO2 effects of natural vs. artificial surfaces for a single, standard playing field at Upper Canada College. Here’s their conclusion: ‘As per U.S. DOE, 1998, a medium growth coniferous tree, planted in an urban setting and allowed to grow for 10 years, sequesters 23.3 lbs of carbon, equivalent to 0.039 metric tons of CO2. The tree planting offset required to achieve a 10-­‐year carbon neutral synthetic turf installation [for one playing field] is estimated to be 1861 trees.’ If the Town of Concord wants to budget for CO2 mitigation (i.e. account for the externalities), the costs would be equivalent to the planting of 1861 trees every 10 years for each artificial playing field in Concord. Over a 10-­‐year period, planting 1861 coniferous trees results in carbon neutrality for the proposed CCHS synthetic turf field when compared to the alternative (a natural grass field). Conclusions It all depends on how much health, environmental and sustainability risks the town is willing to make for playing fields. The options available to address the CCHS playing field capacity problem are as follows: Concord CAN, February 2015, V3 3 •
•
•
•
Go ahead with conversion of the football field to synthetic turf with rubber infill and infrastructure funds from the Community Preservation Committee Upgrade the existing natural grass field and optimize it with new, hardy grasses Continue with the existing natural grass fields maintenance approach at CCHS Develop other new natural playing fields in Concord In making a determination as to whether to proceed with artificial turf, the case needs to be made that scarce capital should be dedicated to solving the shortage of playing fields as opposed to dealing with some other priority at the schools. It is up to us to weigh the benefit of adding playing capacity for CCHS against the following risks: • The need to manage the growth in the CCHS budget • The importance of this additional playing capacity vs. the 55 ton carbon footprint of fossil fuels and toxic chemicals whose mitigation requires planting 1900 trees at considerable expense. o Sadly, the idea of recycling of hazardous waste into lawn chairs will not alter health risks faced by athletes • The difficulty of ‘making do’ with what we have • The cost to maintain superior natural grass Last and perhaps most important, there are health risks involved in converting a natural grass field to artificial turf. Health and environmental interest groups in Massachusetts and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs questioned the use of CPA funds for installation of artificial turf fields. These groups and Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) have concerns over health and environmental impact of synthetic turf and refused to authorize taxpayer funds for artificial turf fields. This left open a strategy for CPC to fund the infrastructure and not the field surface… a workaround that ignores potential health and environmental impact. Additionally, the EPA has closed the Scrap Tire Work Group, a recycling research institute, amid growing concerns of health risks of crumb rubber, leaving corporate partners to continue their work in finding ways to recycle rubber tires. While there are no conclusions as yet, there is considerable interest in this subject and this suggests that there are risks involved in making investments in artificial turf, both given the high initial cost and the fact that it carries an enormous carbon footprint and chemical exposure. Once a field is converted to artificial turf, it is very difficult to convert back to natural grass. The overriding point is that artificial turf is both more expensive and risky from an environmental and health perspective and does not comply with Concord Sustainability Principles. Unless the addition of more playing time is worth this premium in both cost and risk, we should pursue the alternative: high quality natural grass, drought and heat resistant, secures carbon and short leaves to reduce mowing. Concord CAN, February 2015, V3 4