The Committee was told by the MCPS artificial turf vendor that the MCPS artificial turf fields that have been installed are 100% recyclable.
Well maybe, except when the artificial turf materials are thrown in a dumpster with other trash. See the pictures here that were taken during the installation of the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf earlier this year.
And then there is the crumb rubber that is spilled next to the dumpster and in the parking lot. See picture below.
Image above shows spilled black crumb rubber in the parking lot during the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf installation.
Why were FieldTurfTarkett and the proponents of this environmental hazard the only ones speaking, according to this post? Where are the citizens of this county? If they attended this meeting, why didn't they speak up? Were they waiting to be 'invited?' How polite of them. Time to enter the Wayback machine and go to pre-revolutionary times so that these polite people can be comfortable waiting for the royal court to call upon them. Mr. Peabody, we have some passengers for you.
This County Council Committee did an excellent job this afternoon in process, substance and outcome. At the request of George Leventhal and against the advice of staff, they altered the agenda on the fly and asked for a community representative to serve as a discussant. The audience chose Dr. Kathy Michels to speak. Roger Berliner made her stop after a few minutes to get reaction from the agencies and then asked her to continue on to her next point. Leventhal, Berliner and Floreen asked excellent questions such as given the uncertainties about impact on ground water, do you think it is prudent to build artificial turf fields. Their questions about recycling the fields led to the vendor commmitting to 100% recycle all existing AT fields in MoCo and MCPS to include this in future contracts. As good as their questions were, their followup questions were even better. Which converted "not my job" answers to we will work with X agency to get that information. It was excellent. Exactly the kind of oversight MoCo deserves. sheldon fishman
So what was the ultimate outcome? Are we going to keep getting a couple of new artificial turf fields every year while MoCo "studies" the issue? While we "consult the experts?"
Why don't we try a pilot of a really really nice grass field, complete with "whatever it takes" to maintain it, and really see what the real cost is? (and when I say "pilot", I mean a real pilot, not an "MCPS-style-county-wide-pilot."
Maybe but the Councilmembers did a very good job to try to get as sound a basis as possible for proceeding (or stopping). Leventhal pressed all Agencies hard on when was the next go/ no go decision point on Artificial Turf (Paint Branch in March 2011). Then he and Berliner pushed very hard to obtaiin a commitment for cost comparison with grass fields, environmental sampling of water, and a literature search. Also got a commitment to release a draft report to the community. One exchange typifies the tone of the meeting. Council asked about impact on water table of chemicals in AT. The answer was it in no different than the runoff from a parking lot. Council pressed on with that is a good point but the comparison here is artificial turf with crumb rubber versus grass field with fertilizer. Leventhal was very explicit and colorfull with his insistance that the Agencies answer that question. Council was respectful but very firm on pushing the Agencies to commit to get the best answers long before the go / no go decision point on the next AT field. My view is Council did a good job of oversight today and came up with a reasonable game plan. Their view was this is not an emergency situation because the next decision point in March 2011 and no Agency has the green light to proceed. Sensible, reasonable, responsible. Not the words I use often about County oversight.
The council T&E ( Council members Leventhal, Berliner and Floreen) responding to substantial citizen input and concerns, did a great job today of asking good questions and following them up. We also appreciate the efforts of staff and the county agency's involved. A number of concerned citizens took time off from work , family and busy schedules to review the staff report, comment on it and attend the session. I invite anonymous to be as constructive and proactive him or her/self. As Sheldon notes the committee did allow those present to ask questions although that is not usual in such sessions. We all appreciated the opportunity to finally get some facts straight and questions asked. It was a good example of how the county council can be thoughtful and focus on problem solving in the face of competing and complex interests and issues. It is only a start but at least we are finally on the road to addressing the problems and we hope finding better solutions for well used sports fields.
Lyda has a good point and we did push for such a REAL pilot of better grass fields. The Soccerplex Stadium Field was offered up as on existing example - but it is not maintained organically or with leaf compost. Apparently the soccerplex is starting to use hybrid gas/electric mowers and electric carts for other maintenance at least- so moving in the right direction for 21st century natural turf.
The dumpsters full of AT rug at WJ beg the question: where did all that plastic turf go after Field Turf had already promised MCPS to recycle all their product ? Was it recycled, or landfilled (and if so what was the cost to Montgomery County of landfilling it?). IF not recycled- this reflects badly on Field Turf's commitment to recycling their product as stated. FieldTurf's pride in recycling ONE field, out of thousands installed, backs up our research that this product has not typically been recycled . In fact in his last testimony (at the MCCPTA forum in October 2009) John McShane stated disposal was the customer's problem.
The soccerplex fields are not Field Turf and the manager does not know how they will be disposed of. How will private school fields be disposed of? Field Turf's assertion for county fields notwithstanding , our solid waste facilities WILL be swamped soon by acres of plastic and many hundreds of tons of tire waste they are not prepared for from private schools and the soccerplex. Much of this plastic turf may be tainted with lead pigments- unlike California where testing was required after lead was found in many manufacturer's fields, Maryland requires no testing for lead. The council should seriously look at imposing a special fee for testing and disposing of this special hazardous waste before it becomes the taxpayers problem fiscally and environmentally. If it contains lead it will need very special and potentially very expensive, disposal.
The Council also hasn't asked to see the "contract" that MCPS supposedly uses to buy artificial turf from the vendor without any competitive bids. Let's see the contract. Let's see Council staff get a copy of the buying contract and make it public.
I dare them.
Then the public can understand why MCPS paid $300,000 more for an artificial turf field than M-NCPPC.
Thanks to everyone that took time off work, unpaid, to attend this meeting. I have done so on many, many occasions. This time I could not take unpaid time off work. It is great that the Councilmembers Leventhal and Berliner pushed back. Thank you both. Ms. Michels, and Mr. Fishman, I would reiterate, citizens do not wait to be 'allowed' to speak. We are citizens. The staff and the councilmembers work for us. That is all, that is their role. Again I would in the strongest terms ask that citizens speak out and not wait to be 'invited.' Dr. Michels among others should have been 'at the table' to begin with. Thanks again to Safe, Healthy Playing Fields Coalition for continued effort (unpaid, I note).
And then there is the crumb rubber that is spilled next to the dumpster and in the parking lot. See picture below.
Why were FieldTurfTarkett and the proponents of this environmental hazard the only ones speaking, according to this post? Where are the citizens of this county? If they attended this meeting, why didn't they speak up? Were they waiting to be 'invited?' How polite of them. Time to enter the Wayback machine and go to pre-revolutionary times so that these polite people can be comfortable waiting for the royal court to call upon them. Mr. Peabody, we have some passengers for you.
ReplyDeleteThis County Council Committee did an excellent job this afternoon in process, substance and outcome. At the request of George Leventhal and against the advice of staff, they altered the agenda on the fly and asked for a community representative to serve as a discussant. The audience chose Dr. Kathy Michels to speak. Roger Berliner made her stop after a few minutes to get reaction from the agencies and then asked her to continue on to her next point. Leventhal, Berliner and Floreen asked excellent questions such as given the uncertainties about impact on ground water, do you think it is prudent to build artificial turf fields. Their questions about recycling the fields led to the vendor commmitting to 100% recycle all existing AT fields in MoCo and MCPS to include this in future contracts. As good as their questions were, their followup questions were even better. Which converted "not my job" answers to we will work with X agency to get that information. It was excellent. Exactly the kind of oversight MoCo deserves.
ReplyDeletesheldon fishman
So what was the ultimate outcome? Are we going to keep getting a couple of new artificial turf fields every year while MoCo "studies" the issue? While we "consult the experts?"
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we try a pilot of a really really nice grass field, complete with "whatever it takes" to maintain it, and really see what the real cost is? (and when I say "pilot", I mean a real pilot, not an "MCPS-style-county-wide-pilot."
Maybe but the Councilmembers did a very good job to try to get as sound a basis as possible for proceeding (or stopping). Leventhal pressed all Agencies hard on when was the next go/ no go decision point on Artificial Turf (Paint Branch in March 2011). Then he and Berliner pushed very hard to obtaiin a commitment for cost comparison with grass fields, environmental sampling of water, and a literature search. Also got a commitment to release a draft report to the community. One exchange typifies the tone of the meeting. Council asked about impact on water table of chemicals in AT. The answer was it in no different than the runoff from a parking lot. Council pressed on with that is a good point but the comparison here is artificial turf with crumb rubber versus grass field with fertilizer. Leventhal was very explicit and colorfull with his insistance that the Agencies answer that question. Council was respectful but very firm on pushing the Agencies to commit to get the best answers long before the go / no go decision point on the next AT field. My view is Council did a good job of oversight today and came up with a reasonable game plan. Their view was this is not an emergency situation because the next decision point in March 2011 and no Agency has the green light to proceed. Sensible, reasonable, responsible. Not the words I use often about County oversight.
ReplyDeleteThe council T&E ( Council members Leventhal, Berliner and Floreen) responding to substantial citizen input and concerns, did a great job today of asking good questions and following them up. We also appreciate the efforts of staff and the county agency's involved.
ReplyDeleteA number of concerned citizens took time off from work , family and busy schedules to review the staff report, comment on it and attend the session. I invite anonymous to be as constructive and proactive him or her/self. As Sheldon notes the committee did allow those present to ask questions although that is not usual in such sessions. We all appreciated the opportunity to finally get some facts straight and questions asked. It was a good example of how the county council can be thoughtful and focus on problem solving in the face of competing and complex interests and issues. It is only a start but at least we are finally on the road to addressing the problems and we hope finding better solutions for well used sports fields.
Lyda has a good point and we did push for such a REAL pilot of better grass fields. The Soccerplex Stadium Field was offered up as on existing example - but it is not maintained organically or with leaf compost. Apparently the soccerplex is starting to use hybrid gas/electric mowers and electric carts for other maintenance at least- so moving in the right direction for 21st century natural turf.
ReplyDeleteThe dumpsters full of AT rug at WJ beg the question: where did all that plastic turf go after Field Turf had already promised MCPS to recycle all their product ? Was it recycled, or landfilled (and if so what was the cost to Montgomery County of landfilling it?). IF not recycled- this reflects badly on Field Turf's commitment to recycling their product as stated.
ReplyDeleteFieldTurf's pride in recycling ONE field, out of thousands installed, backs up our research that this product has not typically been recycled . In fact in his last testimony (at the MCCPTA forum in October 2009) John McShane stated disposal was the customer's problem.
The soccerplex fields are not Field Turf and the manager does not know how they will be disposed of. How will private school fields be disposed of? Field Turf's assertion for county fields notwithstanding , our solid waste facilities WILL be swamped soon by acres of plastic and many hundreds of tons of tire waste they are not prepared for from private schools and the soccerplex. Much of this plastic turf may be tainted with lead pigments- unlike California where testing was required after lead was found in many manufacturer's fields, Maryland requires no testing for lead. The council should seriously look at imposing a special fee for testing and disposing of this special hazardous waste before it becomes the taxpayers problem fiscally and environmentally. If it contains lead it will need very special and potentially very expensive, disposal.
Sheldon,
ReplyDeleteField Turf did NOT promise to recycle the Richard Montgomery and Walter Johnson High School football field artificial turf for free.
Recycling costs money. None of our elected officials were on the ball enough to ask the question. They never do want to delve into cost information.
But in California, they did get the answer. So we know that to recycle an artificial turf field would cost at least $28,800.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/07/28800-to-recycle-artificial-turf.html
The Council also hasn't asked to see the "contract" that MCPS supposedly uses to buy artificial turf from the vendor without any competitive bids. Let's see the contract. Let's see Council staff get a copy of the buying contract and make it public.
I dare them.
Then the public can understand why MCPS paid $300,000 more for an artificial turf field than M-NCPPC.
Thanks to everyone that took time off work, unpaid, to attend this meeting. I have done so on many, many occasions. This time I could not take unpaid time off work. It is great that the Councilmembers Leventhal and Berliner pushed back. Thank you both. Ms. Michels, and Mr. Fishman, I would reiterate, citizens do not wait to be 'allowed' to speak. We are citizens. The staff and the councilmembers work for us. That is all, that is their role. Again I would in the strongest terms ask that citizens speak out and not wait to be 'invited.' Dr. Michels among others should have been 'at the table' to begin with. Thanks again to Safe, Healthy Playing Fields Coalition for continued effort (unpaid, I note).
ReplyDelete