PO Box 2215 Santa Rosa, CA, 95405
Tel: (707)333-2239
Atlético Santa Rosa
September 4, 2024
Dear City of Santa Rosa Officials and City Council,
My name is Adolfo Mendoza, President of Atletico Santa Rosa, and I represent over 500 soccer (mostly low- income) Hispanic families here in Santa Rosa.
We understand that one of your committees is studying a possible ban on synthetic turf. There have been anecdotal reports about environmental and health concerns including injuries and heat related issues related to artificial turf and much misinformation has been spread by outside groups with their own personal agenda on several issues related to synthetic turf.
Our teams have collectively played and/or practiced thousands of hours on synthetic turf over the past decade. As far as injuries go, our experience is that players and coaches have been injured on the unmaintained natural grass fields in our city and region many, many times more than on synthetic turf fields, which provide an even and consistent playing surface.
Regarding heat, our experience in this region is that our coaches, teams, and players manage heat very well. We rarely need to cancel or cut short games or practices due to heat on the turf (maybe the same amount as poor air quality days due to smoke) and have never experienced heat related injuries. There are also mitigations for heat, (like poor air quality days) but these are rarely ever needed. I ask, why pick on heat regarding synthetic turf when asphalt and rubber playgrounds, tennis courts, pickleball courts, outdoor basketball courts all have similar surface temperatures as synthetic turf but somehow that is never brought up or been an issue? Are we also now going to ban and start tearing out school and city asphalt playgrounds, basketball and pickleball courts? What about driveways and backyard concrete decks? Those get just as hot as the sand at the beach. Let’s ban that too while we are at it.
Our club has also studied the safety of synthetic turf and have found numerous peer reviewed health and safety studies from the U.S. EPA, the State of California and other studies from leading Universities and governments from around the world that all show synthetic turf to be safe.
By contrast, most grass fields are in horrible and unsafe playing conditions due to overuse and lack of proper maintenance and experience long periods of disuse due to storms, rain, and disrepair. Many kids have grass allergies and when kids fall on natural grass fields, they are encountering chemicals like herbicides and pesticides as well as other chemicals like pfas from the environment that accumulate in our soil. Did you know there is more Pfas in the soil of natural grass fields than in any synthetic turf field? Did you do a test for this as part of your study? Did you know there are more pfas chemicals in shampoo, dental floss, and women’s makeup than in a synthetic turf field? Are you going to ban those products as well? The simple fact is that our city has a major field supply and demand issue. Currently, many teams in our club have no fields to play on and it’s only the beginning of the Fall season. We have so many sports and players competing for such a small number of fields, especially in the winter months. Almost all outdoor sports now go year-round. You simply can’t solve a demand issue by banning the one product that helps to solve this demand problem. Are you going to apologize to the 14-year-old girl that has a dream of getting a college soccer scholarship but fails because she was not able to train year-round when other girls who she is competing against
PO Box 2215 Santa Rosa, CA, 95405
Tel: (707)333-2239
Atlético Santa Rosa
in other communities are able to play on safe turf fields year-round? Have you considered that by not having enough playing fields that our Santa Rosa sports families must travel far distances in a car to be able to play on fields year-round? What does all that extra car travel do for the environment, not to mention all the wasted time and money families have to spend by traveling much more than they should. Child athletes get back home late from training when they travel farther than they need to, and this affects their schoolwork, sleep and mental and physical health.
Also, synthetic turf technology is constantly evolving for the better and working to meet the needs of our communities. There are now much more environmentally friendly turf products on the market and great natural organic infill options available instead of crumb rubber infill. These natural fills also reduce surface temperatures by 30-40 degrees. Are you aware that turf fields can now be 100% recycled and turned into new consumer products? Are you aware that there is a synthetic turf recycling plant in Sacramento that has already recycled old turf fields from the city of San Franscico as well as Cal Berkeley Memorial Stadium? None of this is mentioned in the study that was just released.
When you as a city are studying the health effects of synthetic turf, you also need to study the mental and physical health effects on our children from sitting around and increasing screen time between November and April because the fields are shut down. Why would you take away thousands of hours of physical and mental health activities from youths and adults in our community who need to be physically active year-round? Why would you ban any product when all the legitimate environmental and health studies show it to be perfectly safe? Why wouldn’t you listen to the people who use both natural grass and synthetic turf and ask them what they prefer and what their experiences on both surfaces have been? Why would you put politics over the real needs and health of our community?
Our families and I would say most other sports teams, parents, and families prefer synthetic so that the children can keep playing and stay healthy year-round. The city has a RESPONSBILITY to provide enough safe playing fields for our community. So far, you have completely failed! There are not enough fields at all for the current youth and adult sports demand in our city and county, so if you want to ban turf, then your responsibility as a city should be to build at least 20-30 new natural grass fields and to properly maintain those so our community can play year-round on safe fields but the reality is that will never happen with the city budget. We need more natural grass and synthetic turf fields.
I will predict this, if this crazy ban idea ever gets to a vote at city council, you will see our community sports families out in force to oppose this and anyone who votes to take away playing fields from our kids instead of building new fields then our sports families will quickly rally and vote those out of office. Furthermore I strongly suggest translating your report in Spanish to involve the Spanish speakers in our community.
Respectfully,
Adolfo Mendoza
PO Box 2215 Santa Rosa, CA, 95405
Tel: (707)333-2239
Atlético Santa Rosa
From: Dan Hackett
To: Montoya, Michelle
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment, 9/4/24 CAS meeting, Item 6.1 Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 2:49:00 PM
Santa Rosa Empire Soccer Club submits this letter to the City's Climate Action Subcommittee in conjunction with the 9/4/24' s Agenda Item 6.1, "Update on Artificial Turf Restrictions Investigations." Empire Soccer Club serves over 1700 kids in our community, with thousands of tax-paying parents and relatives who support those same kids.
These 1600 kids need places to play soccer, be active, and be part of a team. However, getting and maintaining safe, quality, year-round field spaces in Santa Rosa has been and remains a major obstacle to our kids. As noted in your measure M Outreach survey, MORE athletic fields are needed and all-weather turf is critical to meet year-round demand.
There are many communities that spend the money and resources to allow for year round, safe grass playing surfaces (see Davis Soccer Complex and Sacramento's Cherry Island Complex, as just two examples). In truth, there are great advantages and reasons to prefer grass fields.
But developing and maintaining grass fields in our community is not without its challenges. The grass fields we have in Santa Rosa are consistently improperly watered, compacted, ridden with cracks, holes, and gopher mounds, and eventually become unsafe after a certain point in late summer every year. In short, the fields we have are not playable even when open, and then they are closed November to April each year. Until the City of Santa Rosa can overcome these challenges and meet the need with natural grass fields, ALL options for playing fields need to remain on the table as the only way to meet the needs of our soccer players and their families.
The science and conclusions around whether turf fields are "safe" or "unsafe" remain unsettled. What we do know is, those fields are much safer for sport than improperly maintained grass, and they are healthier than kids sitting around, being on screens, or engaging in unproductive behaviors (or worse).
Until more is actually known and supported by reliable scientific evidence, the value of kids (and especially this generation, still coming out of the impacts of Covid isolation) being active year-round and part of a positive team is clear and infinitely immeasurable. Those benefits cannot and should not be cast aside based on the current state of the science and the pros and cons--ALL of EACH of them-- are known and weighed given our community's needs..
Whether the Committee recommends that the City Council ban turf in other settings is beyond this soccer club. But as to any action as to sports fields, NO BAN is the only way to ensure our kids--i.e., the kids of this City--have the fields they need to play their sport, grow in their game, remain active and healthy, and have options for positive living year-round. Empire is pleased to see and fully supports City staff's recommendation to EXEMPT sports fields from any turf ban the City may consider.
Respectfully submitted,
-Dan Hackett, President, Santa Rosa Empire Soccer Club
From: CMOffice
To: Montoya, Michelle
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Artificial Turf study
Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 4:20:04 PM
Attachments: Handout - Manufacturing Water Consumption - FieldTurf - MAY2024.pdf Carbon Footprint.pdf
2021_Itten-etal_LCA-turf-sports-fields_Executive-Summary.pdf Brochure - Sustainability, Sustain The Game - FieldTurf - JUN2023.pdf Handout - Goal Zero Road - FieldTurf - NOV2022 (2).pdf
Artificial Turf & Heat One Pager.pdf
Cher L. Guasco | Senior Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office |100 Santa Rosa Ave, Rm 10 | Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Tel. (707) 543-4647 | Fax (707) 543-3030| [email protected]
All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.
From: Andrew Rowley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Rogers, Chris <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Nutt, Jason <[email protected]>; CMOffice <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; Ander, Emily <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; Dunston, Daryel <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Artificial Turf study
To Santa Rosa City council and staff,
I am a resident of Santa Rosa and also involved in the synthetic turf industry as well a soccer coach of a u12 team in Santa Rosa. I have read the just released study on artificial turf and wanted to just point out a few items to address some of the comments contained in the report.
DTSC – We are aware of the work plan and inclusion of artificial turf. We support any work plans around ensuring the safety of Californians and believe in the safety of these products.
Our company and the industry has never shied away from collaborating with agencies, including the US EPA as well as many local municipalities that have scrutinized artificial turf and continue to believe in its safety.
Water Usage – The city’s report states that the manufacturing process requires large amounts of water to produce a field. This is not accurate and in fact, the report fails to mention that using artificial turf over natural grass saves over a million gallons of water annually per field. See attached (Manufacturing Water Consumption)
Carbon Footprint – See attached (Carbon Footprint, Goal Zero & LCA Study)
Recycling – See attached (Sustain the Game & Goal Zero). The report states there are no local options available for recycling. This is not accurate as our company has been fully recycling fields in Northen California for the past 18 months.
Heat- See attached heat report. Temperatures at 2 feet and 5 feet above the surface of the field are the same for natural grass as artificial turf
I am happy to be a local resource for anyone at the city who would like any studies, additional information about anything related to artificial turf.
Best Regards,
Andrew Rowley
Fieldturf/Tarkett
The Salt Lake County Council in Murray City, Utah, estimated that converting a natural grass field to synthetic turf can save 2 million gallons of water per year per surface, which equates to over 16 million gallons of water over the field’s expected lifetime.
As part of our commitment to Protect People & Planet, we’re working year over year to minimize the environmental impact of our manufacturing process and operations, so you can be proud knowing your field is contributing to your sustainability goals.
LET’S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE NET RESULTS
OF A FIELDTURF FIELD ON FRESHWATER:
A FieldTurf field has a positive water footprint.
A FieldTurf field can save 2 million gallons of water per year.
FieldTurf is committed to minimizing the impact of our manufacturing process & operations.
ONE OF THE MOST BENEFICIAL ASPECTS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF IS THAT IT HELPS
PRESERVE WATER, MAKING IT AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS CHOICE FOR COMMUNITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS SEEKING TO REDUCE WATER USAGE.
1.800.724.2969 | [email protected] | fieldturf.com 16M
GALLONS OF FRESH
WATER PRESERVED
PER STANDARD FIELD
OVER THE FIELD’S
EXPECTED LIFETIME
204K
GALLONS
OF FRESH WATER
PER STANDARD FIELD
MANUFACTURED
+15M
NET GALLONS
OF FRESH WATER
PRESERVED
PER STANDARD
FIELD
WATER
PRESERVED
WATER
USED
WATER
FOOTPRINT
– =
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
RESEARCH GUIDE
23 When it comes to comparing greenhouse gas emissions, it’s important to consider the total lifetime of artificial turf vs natural grass.
..............
On the overall balance of things, artificial turf is assumed to produce a higher carbon footprint than natural grass due to manufacturing and disposal over the total course of its lifetime, even though there are much more emissions from the maintenance of natural grass.
Because the manufacturing and disposal of artificial turf can generate high emissions, FieldTurf is working to reduce the footprint of its manufacturing facilities and innovate to provide end-of-life options that divert used fields away from landfills by recycling them back into useful materials.
Carbon intensity also plays a role in comparing both field solutions.
A study by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences conducted a lifecycle analysis for different types of fields ranging from natural turf with and without drainage, hybrid turf, and artificial turf unfilled and filled.
They measured the carbon intensity of greenhouse gases for each option per hour of use, noting that the hours of use vary significantly between the natural turf and artificial turf (with more play time on artificial turf).
The results show that kgCO2e per hour of use begins to converge as hours of use increase.
For example, you may only be able to get 500 hours of use from the natural turf without drainage (lowest footprint option), while you may be able to get 1600 hours of use from the artificial turf filled (highest footprint option)—yet the greenhouse gas footprint per hour of use for both field types would be the same.
WHAT HAS A HIGHER CARBON FOOTPRINT,
ARTIFICIAL TURF OR NATURAL GRASS?
RETURN TO CONTENTS PAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
RESEARCH GUIDE
24 The annual usage time not only depends on the turf type, but also on other factors like the existing infrastructure for lighting that allows for longer daily usage of the sports fields Greenhouse gas emissions in kg CO2-eq according to IPCC (2013) per hour of use, depending on the total hours of use per year visualized for the natural, hybrid, and artificial turf sports fields under study; data points indicate the theoretical hours of use.
Version 1.0, Wädenswil, 28. Januar 2021
Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and
Natural Turf Sports Fields – Executive
Summary
Prepared by
René Itten, Lukas Glauser und Matthias Stucki
Institute of Natural Resource Sciences
Zurich University of Applied Sciences
Imprint
Title Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and Natural Turf Sports Fields – Executive Summary Client Grün Stadt Zürich, Tiefbau - und Entsorgungsdepartement, Stadt Zürich, Beatenplatz 2, CH -8001 Zürich Contractor ZHAW Institute of Natural Resource Sciences
Authors René Itten, Lukas Glauser and Matthias Stucki, Life Cycle Assessment Research Group Projec t support Stefan Brunner, Johannes Neher (both Grün Stadt Zürich), Martin Rinderknecht (Sportrase n Architektur) and Stefanie Jurthe (Sportrasen -Coaching) Review panel Thomas Kägi, Carbotech AG, Zürich, LCA expert Jürgen Sutter, ÖKO-INSTITUT E.V., Darmstadt, LCA expert Hans-Jörg Kolitzus, Institut für Sportbod entechnik, Diessenhofen, Expert for turf sports fields Title page Picture : Grün Stadt Zürich
Project management René Itten, Life Cycle Assessment Research Group, Zurich University of Applied Sciences Contact [email protected]
https://www.zhaw.ch/iunr/lca
Institute of Natural Resource Sciences , Zurich University of Applied Sci ences, Grüental, Postfach CH - 8820 Wädenswil
Disclaimer This report is based on sources believed to be reliable. The ZHAW and the authors give no guarantee as to the completeness of the information provided and disclaim any legal liability for damages of any kind.
Acknowledgement The authors thank Madleine Berg and Jasper Hamlet (b oth FIDRA) for the exchange on microplastic emissions.
Citation Itten R., Glauser L. and Stucki M. 2020. Life Cycle Assessment of Turf Sports Fields – Executive Summary.
Institute of Natural Resource Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Wädenswil Version Version 1 28/01/2021 16:24:00
Copyright © 2020
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHOD
Football is among the most popular sports globally. All that is needed for a football match is players, a ball and a sports field. However, the latter is not simply grass, but rather a precisely defined and constructed structure, which can be made of natural, hybrid or artificial turf. It is the aim of the city of Zurich to reduce both the primary energy consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions that are produced by each resident. In order to analyse and compare the environmental impact of differen t types of turf sports fields, Grün Stadt Zürich commissioned the Zurich University of Applied Sciences to carry out a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study.
In cooperation with the sports field experts who build and maintain the sports fields in the city of Zurich, primary data for the entire life cycle of the turf sports fields was collected. Based on this data, life cycle inventories were compiled for two sp orts fields using natural turf, two using artificial turf, and one using hybrid turf, covering all life cycle phases as summarised in Tab. S.1.
Tab. S.1 Overview of different types of natural and artificial turf sports fields under study Type Description
Natural turf , no drainage Natural turf without d rainage layer Natural turf, drainage Natural turf with drainage layer according to DIN Hybrid turf, rein forced Hybrid turf using natural turf reinfor ced with plastic fibres Artificial turf, unfilled Artificial turf without infill made of plastic or other granu late Artificial turf, filled Artificial turf filled with granulate made of primary plastic s
The Life Cycle Inventory model includes the production and construction of the turf sports fields, as well as maintenance, renovation, dismantling and disposal. The LCA study does not include indirect environmental impacts caused by the users of the turf sports fields, such as during travel to and from the site or through the required sports clothing or nutrition. The data that was used for this study was derived from input data from the city of Zurich. The results, therefore, only have limited transferability to other geographical regions.
The functional unit of this study is defined as one hour of use of the respective artificial and natural sports field in the city of Zurich . Artificial turf fields can be used more intensively than natural turfs, which results in a higher number of annual usage hours. The consideration of different annual usage hours allows for a fair comparison of the different types of turf.
The study is largely based on the requirements of ISO 14040 / 14044 (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b; ISO, 2017). The study was also subjected to a critical review in parallel with the study according to ISO 14040 / 14044 (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b; ISO, 2017) by a committee of three independent experts:
This executive summary is derived from the full report from Itten et al. (2020). The full report on the study is available in German at https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-20774.
2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PER HOUR OF FOOTBALL
The LCA includes a selection of the indicators recommended by the Jo int Research Council of the European Commission for the Organisational and Product Environmental Footprint (Fazio et al., 2018) shown in Fig. S.1. Based on the theoretical maximum hours of use, which differs according to the type of turf, the unfilled artificial turf sports field has the lowest environmental impact of all the indicators examined, except for greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy demand over the entire life cycle.
For the other turf sports field types, the results differ , depending on the environmental impacts studied.
In the case of the natural turf sports fields, the construction and operation life cycle stages alone cause more than 80 % of the environmental impacts for all of the indicators analysed shown in Fig. S.1. During operation, the environmental impact of natural and hybrid turf is si gnificantly higher compared to artificial turf, especially for eutrophication, since the production of the required mineral fertiliser is energy-intensive and the emissions that result from its application have eutrophying effects.
The environmental impacts of artificial turf sports fields are driven by the construction and renovation life cycle stages , which account for more than 65 % of the environmental impacts for all indicators shown in Fig. S.1. The renovation stage has higher impacts for artificial turf sports fields compared to natural turf sports fields, due to the additional material required to replace the artificial turf layer.
The filled artificial turf sports field has the highest environmental impacts per hour of us e for greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater eutrophication, mineral resource use as well as total primary energy demand and non -renewable primary energy demand, mainly due to the required filling material. The replacement as well as the disposal of the filling material causes additional impacts for the filled artificial turf sports fields in the renovation and operation life cycle stages. Furthermore, the filled artificial turf sports field causes microplastic emissions due to the discharge of filling material.
There is no established methodology to account for the environmental impacts caused by microplastic emissions recommended by the Joint Researc h Council of the European Commission for the Organisational and Product Environmental Footprint (Fazio et al., 2018). Therefore, the microplastic emissions are not represented in Fig. S.1. The environmental impacts of microplastic emissions are discussed in a separate chapter in the full report for the study in German (Itten et al., 2020).
Accordingly, an unfilled artificial turf sports field is always the preferable option with lower environmental impacts compared to a filled artificial turf sports field for all the indicators analysed in this study.
3 Fig. S.1: Environmental impacts of the different turf sports fields per theoretical hour of use for the different midpoint categories according to the recommendations from Product Environmental Footprint by Fazio et al. (2018), greenhouse gas emissions by IPCC (2013), primary energy demand by Frischknecht et al. (2007), and human and eco-toxicity by USETox (Rosenbaum et al., 2011) divided into the contributions of construction, renovation, operation and disposal. The theoretical number of hours of use is 480 and 800 hours for natural turf without and with drainage layer construction, and 1,000 and 1,600 hours for hybrid and artificial turf sports fields, respectively.
In addition to the midpoint indicators in Fig. S.1, the aggregated total environmental impacts according to the Ecological Scarcity Method according to Frischknecht et al. (2013) are shown in Fig. S.2. The comparison per hour of use considers the environmental impacts caused by the construction, operation and disposal of the sports fields as well as the annual usage hours. The results also show the differences between the theoretically possible and the actual annual usage hours accounted for in the city of Zurich.
The high result for hybrid turf in Fig. S.2 is subject to uncertainty, since for this type of turf usage data from only one hybrid turf sports field was available. The differences between natural turf and artificial turf are more robust. For both the theoretical and the effective annual usage hours , the unfilled artificial turf has the lowest environmental impact per hour of use. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Natural turf, no drainage, 480h
Natural turf, drainage, 800h
Hybrid turf, reinforced, 1000h
Artificial turf, unfilled, 1600h
Artificial turf, filled, 1600h
Greennhouse gas
emissions
Natural turf, no drainage, 480h
Natural turf, drainage, 800h
Hybrid turf, reinforced, 1000h
Artificial turf, unfilled, 1600h
Artificial turf, filled, 1600h
Air pollutants
Natural turf, no drainage, 480h
Natural turf, drainage, 800h
Hybrid turf, reinforced, 1000h
Artificial turf, unfilled, 1600h
Artificial turf, filled, 1600h
Ionising radiation
Natural turf, no drainage, 480h
Natural turf, drainage, 800h
Hybrid turf, reinforced, 1000h
Artificial turf, unfilled, 1600h
Artificial turf, filled, 1600h
Eutrophication,
freshwater
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Eutrophication,
marine
Eutrophication,
terrestrialLand useMineral resources
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
USEtox, human
healthUSEtox, EcotoxicityPrimary energy, totalPrimary energy, non- renewable
Natural turf
Hybrid turf
Artificial Turf
Construction
███
███
███
Renovation
███
███
███
Operation
███
███
███
Disposal
███
███
███
4 Fig. S.2: Total environmental impacts of the different turf sports fields per theoretical and actual hour of use according to the ecological scarcity method (Frischknecht et al., 2013) divided into the 11 most important contributions from construction, renovation, operation and disposal.
The annual usage hours have a major influence on the environmental impact s of sports turf, particularly because different types of turf for sports fields allow for different maximum annual usage hours. If the number of annual usage hours is identical, the natural turf without drainage causes the lowest total environmental impacts and the filled artificial turf causes the highest total environmental impacts according to the Ecological Scarcity Method 2013. However, since natural and hybrid turf allows for fewer hours of use, on average an artificial turf causes lower greenhouse gas emissions and a lower total environmental impacts per hour of use according to the Ecological Scarcity Method than a natural or hybrid turf. A natural turf with a drainage layer construction, which is played on for 800 hours per year, causes approximately the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions per hour of use as an unfilled artificial turf, which is played on for 1,600 hours. However, if an unfilled artificial turf is only used for 800 hours per year, it causes significantly more greenhouse gas emissions per hour of use than a natural grass turf with a drainage layer or a hybrid turf. Fig. S.3 shows the greenhouse gas emissions per hour of use for the different types of turf under study depending on the total annual usage hours.
The most important factor for the environmental impact is the annual usage hours. Artificial and hybrid turf can be played on for much longer per year than natural grass. At optimal capacity utilisation, artificial turf sports fields have significantly lower environmental impacts per hour of use. 0 50'000 100'000 150'000 200'000
Natural turf, no drainage, 480h
Natural turf, drainage, 800h
Hybrid turf, reinforced, 1000h
Artificial turf, unfilled, 1600h
Artificial turf, filled, 1600h
Natural turf, no drainage, 561h
Natural turf, drainage, 413h
Hybrid turf, reinforced, 327h
Artificial turf, unfilled, 1382h
Artificial turf, filled, 1382h
theoreticalactual
Total environmental impacts in eco-points per hour of use Construction Substructure Construction Turf Construction Facilities Construction Rest Renovation Operation Fertiliser
Operation Sanding Operation Mowing Operation Plant protection Operation Rest Disposal
5 However, the annual usage time not only depends on the turf type, but also on other factors like the existing infrastructure for lighting that allows for longer daily usage of the sports fields.
Fig. S.3: Greenhouse gas emissions in kg CO2-eq according to IPCC (2013) per hour of use depending on the total hours of use per year visualised for the natural, hybrid and artificial turf sports fields under study; data points indicate the theoretical hours of use. 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Greenhouse gas emissions in kg CO2-eq per hour of use
Hours of use
Natural turf, no drainage Natural turf, drainage Hybrid turf, reinforced Artificial turf, unfilled Artificial turf, filled Natural turf, no drainage, 480h Natural turf, drainage, 800h Hybrid turf, reinforced, 1000h Artificial turf, unfilled, 1600h Artificial turf, filled, 1600h
6 REDUCTION POTENTIALS FOR THE FOOTPRINT OF FOOTBALL
The environmental impact of artificial and natural turf sports fields can be effectively reduced by optimising the annual usage hours of the existing fields. The optimisation of the annual usage hours also efficiently reduces the pressure for the construction of additional sports fields. In general, intensively used pitches have significantly lower environmental impacts per hour of us e than extensively used pitches. The data on annual usage hours suggest s that the use of the existing turf sports infrastructure in the city of Zurich is not fully optimised. Therefore, before new construction or conversions are carried out, the utilisation of existing sports fields should first be increased.
When planning new sports turf, the number of hours of use should be estimated as accurately as possible so that the optimum type of turf can be selected for the sports field. This means that for high intensity of use, artificial turf is more environmentally sustainable, and for less intensive use, a form of natural grass is. In general, the chosen sites should allow for the highest possible number of annual usage hours.
At present, almost all artificial turf is produced from primary plastic. Environmental impacts caused by the construction of artificial turf sports fields could be reduced by using recycled secondary plastics.
However, the use of recycled secondary plastics may also have adverse effects which increase the environmental impact, e.g. due to the use of plastic granulate contaminated with heavy metals made from scrap tires as infill for filled artificial turf sports fields.
A customer , such as the city of Zurich , could and should encourage artificial turf producers to use recycled secondary plastics in cases where these will have a positive impact on the environment . It could also be investigated whether existing artificial turf could be renewed or recycled instead of disposing it in municipal solid waste incineration plants.
The choice of turf type is only relevant for new construction or replacement of sports turf. For existing sports turf, however, there are possibilities to optimise the environmental impacts caused by the maintenance of the existing sports fields. In the case of the investigated natural and hybrid turf sports fields, fertilisation causes a high sh are of greenhouse gas as well as eutrophying emissions. With a reduced use of mineral fertiliser, these environmental impacts can be reduced accordingly.
Although mowing sports turf only contributes just under 6% of the total environmental impact of natural grass turf in drainage layer construction, this amount could be significantly reduced by transitioning from conventional mowing with diesel engines to mowing robots powered by certified green electricity.
With these recommendations, the life cycle assessment study supports the environmental optimisation of the planning and management of artificial and natural turf sports fields.
7 REFERENCES
Fazio, S., Castellani, V., Sala, S., Schau, E., Zampori, L., & Diaconu, E. (2018). Supporting Information to the Characterisation Factors of Recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method. Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centr e, Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Frischknecht, R., Büsser Knöpfel, S., Flury, K., Stucki, M., & Ahmadi, M. (2013). Swiss Eco-Factors 2013 According to the Ecological Scarcity Method. Methodological Fundamentals and Their Application in Switzerland (Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 1330) (p. 256). Berne: Federal Office for the Environment.
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.-J., Doka, G., Dones, R., Heck, T., Hellweg, S., Hischier, R., Nemecek, T., Rebitzer, G., & Spielmann, M. (2007). Overview and Methodology. Dübendorf, CH: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .
Cambridge University Press.
ISO. (2006a). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework.
ISO 14040:2006; Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
ISO. (2006b). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines.
ISO 14044:2006. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
ISO. (2017). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines.
ISO 14044:2006/AMD 1:2017 . Geneva: International Organizatio n for Standardization (ISO).
Itten, R., Glauser, L., & Stucki, M. (2020). Ökobilanzierung von Rasensportfeldern : Natur -, Kunststoff- und Hybridrasen der Stadt Zürich im Vergleich . Wädenswil, Schweiz: ZHAW Institut für Umwelt und Natürliche Ressourcen.
Rosenbaum, R. K., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Henderson, A. D., Margni, M., McKone, T. E., van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M. Z., Shaked, S., Li, D. S., Gold, L. S., & Jolliet, O. (2011). USEtox - the UNEP- SETAC Toxicity Model: Recommended Characterisat ion Factors for Human Toxicity and Freshwater Ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(8), 710–727.
1995
• FieldTurf is founded by two athletes who believe in
a better game for all. They promise to Change The
Game for athletes with a surface that offers improved
performance and safety.
1997
• The first 3rd-generation infill turf, a revolutionary playing surface, is installed at Ringgold High School in PA.
2009
• Introduce the “Green Machine,” the only unit able to
remove both rolls of artificial turf and infill unharmed. 2010
• The first field to be completely recycled.
• Flagship manufacturing facility in Calhoun, GA opens, allowing for continued investment and focus on quality
and excellence.
2014
• The first infill recycling center in the Pacific Northwest is launched, enabling infill to be recycled from aged
fields to avoid landfills.
2016
• EcoMax — the first synthetic turf infill made partially of recycled materials — is introduced.
• Safety study supported by FieldTurf wins AOSSM’s STOP Sports Injuries Award, which recognizes top research
leading toward significant awareness and change in the
prevention of traumatic and overuse injuries in youth
sports.
2019
• ThermaGreen, creators of innovative shock pads made
of post-industrial cross-linked polyethylene, is added
to the FieldTurf family.
2021
• FieldTurf introduces Goal Zero, a new commitment to
divert 100% of job site and manufacturing waste from
landfills by 2025 in North America.
2022
• FieldTurf launches industry-first carbon offset program. • FieldTurf surface at Mercedes-Benz Stadium is fully
recycled during replacement.
• FieldTurf fibers are now produced with green energy
at Morton Extrusionstechnik – electrical power.
2023
• Tarkett’s ambitious 2030 climate targets approved
by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) – Fully
aligned with the Paris Climate Agreement objective.
OUR JOURNEY
1997
1995
2010
2009
2014
2010
2016
2016
2021
2022
2023
2019
2022
2022
WE CONSERVE
WATER
Water is a human right that is essential
to life, and its stewardship is core
to our sustainability strategy.
From manufacturing to installation,
our products address water
efficiency, scarcity, and quality.
Every FieldTurf field is estimated to
save 2 million gallons of water annually
vs natural grass.
WE NURTURE HUMAN
POTENTIAL
People are central to what we do.
We focus on unlocking their innate
talents, ensuring they have the
agency to take action and fulfill their
potential, and we motivate them
through transparency and open
communication.
WE BUILD FOR
THE FUTURE
We focus on efficient production
using green energy, reducing
the environmental impact of our
operations, and achieving the highest
quality manufacturing certifications
(ISO 9001-2015, ISO 14001-2015,
ISO 45001-2018).
WE SAFEGUARD
ATHLETES
We were founded with the promise to
make athletes safer during the game —
and now we extend that promise to all
the lives we touch through rigorous
safety testing, product performance,
and respect for the well-being of our
people and our communities.
WE USE SUSTAINABLE &
RECYCLED MATERIALS
We innovate our choice of product
components and materials using
closed-loop design thinking that
respects workers and the planet,
resulting in a more sustainable
product.
OUR COMMITMENT
Building for tomorrow: it’s our sustainability commitment.
That means our innovation isn’t limited to product specs. Our promise to keep players safe on our turf has naturally evolved into an obsession — one with a singular focus to completely eliminate its potential to harm not just people but the environment, too.
Now in everything we do, we strive for the lowest impact on people and the planet — from our zero turf to landfill commitment, to circular design, to the utmost care for those who play on and handle our products.
PEOPLE. PLANET. PERIOD. OUR SUSTAINABILITY IS FOCUSED.
BUILDING
YOUR FIELD
USING
YOUR FIELD
REPLACING
YOUR FIELD
FIBER PRODUCTION WITH GREEN ENERGY
FieldTurf polyethylene fibers are extruded with green energy. All of the electrical power consumed at Morton Extrusionstechnik, our state-of-the-art fiber extrusion plant, is certified to have been generated from renewable energies.
WATER SAVINGS
Your FieldTurf field is estimated to save 2 million gallons of water annually versus a natural grass field.
INFILL REUSE
When replacing your aged surface, you can choose to either reuse the existing infill on your next project or leverage our Infill Take Back program. The reclaimed material is collected, cleaned, and recycled in future projects. Both options deliver a material that has been tested and proven to equal new infill in quality and durability, but with the added bonus of greatly reducing your project cost and carbon footprint.
CARPET RECYCLING
All the components in the systems manufactured by FieldTurf are 100% recyclable. FieldTurf is expanding its partnerships with recycling facilities across North America to be able to recycle carpet from anywhere, anytime, once it’s reached the end of its life.
CREATE NEW MATERIALS
Using a proprietary process that upcycles the material into a high-grade polyurethane & polypropylene blend, the carpet can be transformed into various products like nailer boards, planters, and park benches.
INFILL FROM RECYCLED & NATURAL MATERIALS
FieldTurf has an extensive portfolio of traditional, natural, and alternative infill systems. SBR, styrene- butadiene rubber, is a recycled material derived from passenger car tires. Our PureFill, PureGeo, PureSelect (USDA Certified Biobased Product), and TrueBlend infills help repurpose natural materials like cork, coconut peat, and olive cores, helping divert thousands of pounds from landfills.ELIMINATE THE USE OF FERTILIZER & CHEMICALS Your FieldTurf field will help eliminate the use of hundreds of pounds of fertilizer and nitrogen annually.
When not managed properly, these materials can negatively affect plant, animal, and human environments.
INSTALLATION WITH ZERO JOB SITE WASTE
Through our Goal Zero commitment, FieldTurf will divert 100% of its manufacturing and job site waste in North America by the target date of 2025.
REDUCED MAINTENANCE
Your FieldTurf field will help drastically reduce the need for maintenance, which causes negative impacts due to line painting, gas-powered mowers, grass clipping waste, and more.
CARBON OFFSET
With the FieldTurf Carbon Offset Program, you can now calculate the exact emissions from the manufacturing, transport, and installation of the surface and offset them so your project achieves carbon neutrality.
INCREASED ACTIVITY
Your FieldTurf field will allow for increased use versus a natural grass field, encouraging athletics, recreation, and physical activity across your community.
SUSTAINABLE
AT EVERY
STAGE
16 BILLION
SAVED
Over 16 billion gallons
of water saved annually
One artificial turf field is
estimated to save 2 million
gallons of water annually
versus a natural grass field
7 MILLION
POUNDS
RECYCLED
Over 7 million pounds of
post-industrial material
is recycled annually at our
manufacturing facilities
17 MILLION
RECYCLED
Over 17 million tires recycled
into raw materials to build
new fields annually
Over 50 million pounds
of infill cleaned and re-used
in new fields
4 MILLION
SAVED
Over 4 million pounds
of fertilizer saved annually
When not managed properly,
these materials can negatively
affect plant, animal, and
human environments.
*Data representing 2022 achievements
MAKING
A REAL
DIFFERENCE
EVERY
YEAR
“Zero turf to landfill” is our long-term goal. We’re investing in field- recycling efforts, partnerships, and technology to innovate our end-to-end process to offer an industry-leading solution to schools, cities, and private venues that are replacing their synthetic turf fields.
And as part of Goal Zero, you can join us on our mission.
You can rely on FieldTurf to recycle or infill-divert your aged carpet and infill to the highest environmental standards in the industry. Few suppliers can offer a full post-consumer field recycling program, with many offering empty promises of recycling and, instead, leveraging third-party vendors to inventory old carpets to avoid landfills.
Our industry-first Goal Zero commitment demonstrates our unwavering promise to protect people and the planet.
When AMB Sports and Entertainment
embarked on replacing the surface at
Mercedes-Benz Stadium in 2022, the
organization trusted FieldTurf to ensure all
components of the field avoided being sent
to landfills in the replacement of the surface.
When crews removed the existing FieldTurf surface at Mercedes- Benz Stadium to install the new field, the infill was removed for future use, and the carpet was transported to FieldTurf’s recycling partner. There, proprietary technology removed any remaining infill to produce a clean blend of the face and backing fiber polymers. The clean blend was then pelletized and transformed into pallets, composite wood for decking and siding, and advanced chemical recycling.
OUR
COMMITMENT:
Reach an
industry-leading
achievement of
being the first
artificial turf
producer to
divert 100% of
our job site and
manufacturing
waste from
landfills by 2025.
OUR ZERO
WASTE-TO-
LANDFILL
COMMITMENT
PROGRAMS
All the components in the systems manufactured by
FieldTurf are 100% recyclable. FieldTurf is expanding
its partnerships with recycling facilities across North America to be able to recycle carpet from anywhere,
anytime, once it’s reached the end of its life.
PROGRAM 2
RECYCLE
Extend the life of your field by installing a brand new field right on top of the existing surface. The process repurposes the existing field to help provide added
safety and performance to the new field.
PROGRAM 1
RE-COVER
With the FieldTurf Carbon Offset Program, you
can now calculate the exact emissions from the
manufacturing, transport, and installation of the
surface and offset them so your project achieves
carbon neutrality.
When replacing your aged surface, you can choose to
either reuse the existing infill on your next project or leverage our Infill Take Back program. The reclaimed
material is collected, cleaned, and recycled in future
projects. Both options deliver a material that has
been tested and proven to equal new infill in quality
and durability, but with the added bonus of greatly
reducing your project cost and carbon footprint.
FieldTurf is dedicated to increasing our number
of recycling facilities that can take back infill and
reprocess it. The Infill Take Back Program may not
be available in your area.
PROGRAM 4
CARBON OFFSET
PROGRAM 3
INFILL REUSE & TAKE BACK
LIMIT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT OF
YOUR FIELD
1 2
FIELD REMOVAL
The aged carpet and infill are
removed from the venue and
prepared for transport.
INFILL REGENERATION
The carpet rolls are sent to
a Tarkett Sports recycling facility
to extract the infill, clean it,
and separate it for reuse.
3 4
CARPET RECYCLING
The aged carpet is sent to a
specialized facility to be cut,
processed, and refined into a blend.
PRODUCT MANUFACTURING
Using a proprietary process that
upcycles the material into a high-
grade polyurethane & polypropylene
blend, the carpet can be transformed
into various products like nailer
boards, planters, and park benches.
FIELD
SURFACE
RECYCLING
STEP 1
PLAN YOUR FACILITY
One size does not fit all. Location, product, size,
and date can vary the impact of your project.
Once your scope and products are finalized,
our proprietary carbon calculator will assess
your total potential emissions.
STEP 2
CALCULATE THE IMPACT
FieldTurf’s exclusive surface intensity calculator
can calculate the exact amount of CO
2e emissions
that will result from your project.
This is achieved by tallying the emissions from
a field’s specific materials, manufacturing,
transport, and installation.
STEP 3
OFFSET THE EMISSIONS
Your voluntary offsets are simply added to your
invoice. Offsets are provided through the Carbonfund
Foundation’s Carbonfree
® Partner Program.
This program funds third-party validated and verified
renewable energy, forestry, and energy efficiency
projects supporting a low-carbon transition for the
planet. Every project will be awarded a certified
carbon free sign to display at their facility.
Carbon emissions for each project are calculated using FieldTurf’s proprietary surface intensity calculator.
Actual emissions may occasionally vary due to uncontrolled project-related factors.
THIS FIELD IS
fieldturf.com
With the FieldTurf Carbon Offset Program, you can now calculate the exact emissions from your new surface and offset them so your project achieves carbon neutrality.
JOIN OUR
JOURNEY
TO CARBON
NEUTRALITY
The power of sport has a global reach. It drives community development and collaboration, empowers youth and individuals, adds to health and education, and can help us create a more inclusive society.
Through our Better Tomorrow Program, we partner with leading organizations building sport capacity, whether it’s mentoring coaches or making the game more accessible, ensuring future generations continue to play.
Partners with Good Sports, who helped equip
over 500,000 kids in 2022.
Partners with the Cure Classic All-Star Game,
part of the Orlando Sports Foundation and its mission
to “bring teams together to find a Cure for Cancer”.
Partners with Make-A-Wish® Georgia, helping grant
wishes for exceptional kids in Georgia
The High School Broyles Award is presented by FieldTurf, honoring the nation’s top high school assistant
football coaches.
Partners of leading national associations to support
future generations of coaches & athletes.
Supported over 800 community initiatives with employees volunteering 3,500 days and over 1.1 million euros
of product donations between 2017 and 2022 through
our Tarkett Cares program.
PROTECTING
THE FUTURE
OF PLAY
69%
of raw materials do not
contribute to resource
scarcity
close to
115,000
tons of flooring collected from 2010 to 2022 by
Tarkett ReStart
® collection and recycling program
in our 8 recycling centers across the globe
RENEWABLE,
ABUNDANT OR
RECYCLED MATERIALS
FLOORING
TAKE-BACK
WATER
CONSUMPTION
RECYCLED
RESOURCES
-59%
145,000
17%
2030 global objective: 30%
of our raw materials
are recycled materials
tons of recycled
materials in
production
versus 2010 (m
3)
Preserving resources
through circular economy
TARKETT HUMAN
CONSCIOUS
DESIGN
TM
Our commitment to stand with
present & future generations.
To create flooring and sports
surfaces that are good for people
and for the planet. And to do it
every day.
It’s a holistic way of doing
business, capable of marrying the
specific expectations of each of
our customers with the profound
challenges of protecting our
planet. Working together with our
partners, we deliver safer and
healthier spaces in which people
can reach their full potential.
For over 140 years, we have
proudly been undertaking this
commitment. We launched our
first recycling-focused circular
economy initiative in 1957, have
raised indoor air quality standards
for more than a decade, and
excel in researching and
designing solutions for diverse
environments.
We hold people and the planet at
the heart of our operations–and
we’re dedicated to proving it, day
after day.
ACROSS OUR GROUP,
WE’RE LEADING THE FIELD
IN SUSTAINABILITY. LEARN
ABOUT OUR ACHIEVEMENTS:
Fighting climate change
RENEWABLE
ENERGY
13 43%
plants purchasing 100%
renewable electricity
of total energy
consumption comes
from renewable energies
GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
-41%
2030 objective: -50% vs. 2019
& -30% scope 1+2+3 vs. 2019
Scope 1 & 2
versus 2019
146,921 tons CO2e
(Scope 1 & 2) in 2022 from production sites
and car leasing
Using good materials for people’s
health and the environment
Respecting and
developing teams
Supporting local communities
and global initiatives
95%
of our raw materials are third-party
assessed for their impact on people’s
health and the environment based on
Cradle to Cradle
® criteria
of flooring solutions have low VOC
(volatile organic compounds) emission
levels (10 times lower than the most
stringent world standard)
of our flooring solutions containing PVC
(vinyl and carpet) are phthalate-free
1 on a global level (% of m² produced)
96%
CRADLE TO CRADLE ®
MATERIALS
ASSESSMENT
INDOOR AIR
QUALITY
HEALTHY INDOOR
ENVIRONMENT /
PHTHALATE-FREE
99%
injury frequency rate (Recordable Lost Time
Accident Frequency Rate FR1t)2
SAFETY
INTERNAL
MOBILITY
DIVERSITY
54%
2025 objective: 70%
27%
2025 objective: 30%
of open management positions filled
by an internal candidate
of women among managers
& senior executives
3.36 2025 objective: 1.0
COMMUNITY
SUPPORT
EXPERTISE
SHARING
community initiatives with employees
volunteering 3,500 days and over
1.1 million euros of product donations
between 2017 and 2022
professionals or students trained as
professional installers or in flooring
installation techniques from 2012 to 2022
800
52,000
69%
of plants equipped with a
closed loop water system
250 euros / ton CO2e
This is the shadow carbon price we apply
internally to assess the impact of our
investments on our carbon footprint
Engaging with our value chain
to promote climate solutions
and circular economy
80%
37 of requested suppliers
completed a third-party
CSR assessment
(in spend)
showrooms in
21 countries
Deploying our responsible
sourcing program
Engaging with customers, architects,
designers and end-users
HELP US SUSTAIN THE GAME
AND MAKE THE WORLD BETTER
fieldturf.com
© Copyright 2023, FieldTurf USA, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
THE ROAD TO GOAL ZERO
1 2
FieldTurf’s commitment to divert 100%
of job site and manufacturing waste
from landf lls by 2025 in North America.
An Industry-First
FIELD
REMOVAL
The aged carpet
and infill is removed
from the venue
and prepared for
transport.
INFILL
REGENERATION
The carpet rolls are
sent to a Tarkett
Sports facility in
Oregon to extract
the infill, clean it, and
separate for reuse.
fieldturf.com
3 4
CARPET
RECYCLING
The aged carpet
is sent to Circular
Polymers in California
to be cut, processed,
and refined into
a blend.
PRODUCT
MANUFACTURING
Using a proprietary
process that upcycles
the material into a high-
grade polyurethane
& polypropylene
blend, the carpet can
be transformed into
various products like
nailer boards, planters,
and park benches.
See Goal Zero in action at Mercedes-Benz Stadium,
home of the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta
United of Major League Soccer. All components
of the field avoided being sent to landfills in the
replacement of the surface in February 2022.
fieldturf.com
Banning the use of artificial turf is a miss-guided policy Scientific studies and real-world experience have shown that artificial turf provides a safe, non-toxic, environmentally sound choice for athletic fields that allows for more playing time and economic savings over natural grass.
Laboratory studies have shown that artificial turf with natural fill under full sun conditions remains within tolerance category 1 for the FIFA 14 heat test method (<122 °F) ● Laboratory testing was performed to determine
the relative effect infill can have on the surface
temperature of a synthetic turf system
● Synthetic turf carpet with infill was exposed to
infra-red heat lamps for a prolonged period to
simulate the heating of the sun in a controlled
environment per FIFA Test Method 14 heating
apparatus
● Results for synthetic turf with PureFill are
shown here
Natural infill produces a cooler surface than crumb rubber infill ● Studies in 2024 showed that – under
identical conditions – the use of
natural infill results in approximately
20 degrees cooler temperature on the
surface of artificial turf than the use
of crumb rubber
Temperatures at 2 feet and 5 feet above the surface of the field are the same for natural grass as artificial turf and environmental testing across three
surfaces showed minimal differences in surface
temperature
● Researchers at the University of Georgia
found that wet bulb globe temperature
(WGBT) for artificial turf was no different
to a well-watered grass field (Grundstein &
Cooper, 2020)
● In this chart, A = artificial turf, G = grass,
and T = hardcourt tennis court