Pittsfield Board Won't Endorse Turf Field Without More Information
 The Board of Health wants an assessment of any health risks related to the development of a artificial turf field at BCC before making a decision whether to endorse the project. |
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Board of Health says proponents of a controversial new artificial turf field at Berkshire Community College have not yet sufficiently proven the case for its safety.
"I don't think it's realistic to ask this board to make a determination when due diligence has not been done," said Dominica D'Avella, leading the board's continued discussion of the proposed turf field Wednesday night.
"I think the burden of proof is on the proponents of the project, that it's safe, and we haven't heard that," concurred Board Chairwoman Roberta Orsi.
All board members present agreed that they did not feel they have been provided yet with sufficient responses to their questions about the safety of the material to be used in creating the field, and have found existing research data available on potential health risks inconclusive.
"The scientific literature seems unclear," said Orsi. "You could really argue it either way."
The proposed field is estimated at about $2 million; the state is providing $1.1 million and the city has pledged $200,000 toward the multipurpose facility, which is expected to host high school and league games as well as BCC teams. Fund raising and fees will cover the rest.
The field has already passed the Conservation Commission and the state Department of Environmental Protection last week rejected an appeal from a group opposing the field.
Opponents have pointed to health concerns regarding the recycled "crumb rubber" used in the construction of such fields.
Orsi also said a description of the materials sent over this month by the committee coordinating the project was "a little vague," and "would require a more qualified expert" to properly assess.
Ideally, the board would like to see such assessment done by an independent consultant who specializes in this area, and will recommend this in a draft letter to be sent from the board soon.
This request is in line with guidelines received from an analyst with the state's Executive Office of Health and Human Services that a qualified risk assessment expert should be consulted to review the most current scientific data on the impact of the materials to be used in the turf field.
"I don't think it's up to us to make a determination on something as large as whether or not this will have human health risks, I think that's what the process is supposed to do, and the process absolutely hasn't done that," insisted D'Avella.
D'Avella said that at present, "Any decision we make we are potentially ending up on the wrong side of history. To err on the side of gambling with our community's health seems like a bad bet."
Board members were also adamant that they should have been included in the field's lengthy development and approval process earlier.
"There have been some issues in terms of the integrity and transparency of the process," said D'Avella, noting that in the three-year process, "this just came on our radar a few months ago."
"This entire situation could have been avoided if we'd been involved in the process from the beginnning," agreed Dr. Cynthia Geyer.
The board agreed by consensus to have a letter drafted by the Health Department indicating its recommendations, and requested that it be sent both to the ad hoc turf field committee but also the college administration.
"It's concerning to me that BCC has not come to the table on this," D'Avella said. "At some point, the college has to come to the conversation."
Tags: BCC, board of health, toxins, turf field,
