Athletic Fields

A pivotal part of the Pennington Project is the proposed enhancement of the athletic fields located above our stadium field. This initiative aims to address several critical issues, including erosion, drainage, playability, and access, which have been identified as key factors in our comprehensive improvement strategy. Our objective is to provide an athletic infrastructure that supports our students' athletic prowess, ensures their safety, and fosters community engagement.

The Need for Enhanced Athletic Fields

Our district proudly supports a vibrant sports community, with over 1,100 student-athletes participating in 18 PIAA athletics programs. These dedicated individuals compete in the highly competitive Central League, showcasing their skills against top-tier schools. However, our current infrastructure, consisting of only one competition-ready field, poses significant scheduling and safety challenges, especially during unpredictable weather conditions in spring. The erosion and deterioration of our existing grass fields have raised safety concerns, with uneven surfaces posing risks to our athletes.

Enhancing our athletic fields with additional turf options would address these challenges by providing a safe, consistent playing surface for a variety of sports, enabling year-round use, and offering scheduling flexibility. Moreover, turf fields are cost-effective, require less maintenance than natural grass fields, and are environmentally friendly, aligning with our district's sustainability goals.

Synthetic Turf vs. Grass Fields: A Balanced Discussion

As we consider the future of our athletic facilities, a key decision lies ahead: the choice between synthetic turf and natural grass fields. Both options come with their unique benefits and considerations, and we aim to present a balanced perspective to facilitate an informed decision by the board and the community.

Synthetic Turf Fields:

Advantages:

  • Year-Round Use: Unaffected by weather, providing consistent playability.

  • Safety and Performance: Offers a consistent surface, reducing the risk of injuries caused by uneven terrain.

  • Cost-Effectiveness: Less maintenance than grass, saving on long-term costs related to upkeep.

  • Community Engagement: Increases availability for school and community activities.

Considerations:

  • Surface Temperature: Can become hotter than grass, potentially increasing heat-related discomfort.

  • Injury Risk: Concerns over a slightly higher risk of certain injuries, though advancements in technology are improving safety.

  • Environmental Impact: Potential microplastic shedding, though modern designs are addressing this issue.

Natural Grass Fields:

Advantages:

  • Natural Cooling: Grass stays cooler than synthetic turf, reducing heat-related issues.

  • Environmental Benefits: Contributes to biodiversity and absorbs carbon dioxide.

  • Biodegradable: No concern regarding microplastics.

Considerations:

  • Maintenance: Requires significant upkeep, including mowing, watering, and pest management.

  • Playability: Affected by weather conditions, limiting year-round use.

  • Cost: Ongoing maintenance costs can accumulate over time.

Field House

Another factor that the district has added into the planning and design process is the inclusion of a field house. This structure would house a fitness center, bathrooms, concession area, and a viewing deck that would provide vistas of both the upper fields and the stadium. The renderings included on this page provide a representation of what the architects envision for this area.

Moving Forward

As we continue to deliberate on the best path forward for our athletic field enhancements, we invite our community to engage in this important discussion. The decision between synthetic turf and natural grass fields will significantly impact our district's athletic programs, student-athlete safety, and community use of our facilities. We are committed to making an informed decision that reflects the needs and values of our community while striving for excellence in all we do.

The Pennington Project: A Look at the Artificial Turf Debate

As we progress with the Pennington Project, one of its goals is to enhance our sports and recreational facilities. A key consideration is the choice between artificial turf and natural grass, especially in light of concerns regarding "forever chemicals" or PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). This discussion is vital, as it touches upon health, environmental sustainability, and long-term cost-effectiveness. Below, we present a summary of a recent article published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the topic. To read the full article and access its attachments, please CLICK HERE.

Advantages of Artificial Turf

  • Durability and Accessibility— Artificial turf offers superior durability and year-round accessibility, crucial for the high activity levels of students and athletes in the district.

  • Maintenance Efficiency— The lower maintenance requirements of artificial turf, as compared to natural grass, offer potential long-term economic and environmental benefits.

Environmental and Health Considerations

  • PFAS Concerns— Significant concerns persist about the environmental and health impacts of PFAS in artificial turf. These chemicals are known for their persistence and potential harm.

  • Industry Response— Companies like AstroTurf and ELA Sport are actively working to reduce or eliminate PFAS in their products, aiming for safer, environmentally friendly options.

Research Insights from EPA and CDC/ATSDR Reports:

  • Exposure Characterization (Volume 1 and 2)— The reports from 2024 focus on potential chemical exposures from tire crumb rubber, highlighting that exposure levels to certain chemicals are present but the full health impact remains under-characterized. This includes a biomonitoring study which found no significant differences in PAH concentrations between users of synthetic turf and natural grass fields.

  • Response to External Peer Review (Volume 3)— The research underwent rigorous external peer review, affirming the thoroughness and clarity of the data. The peer reviews suggested that while the results are promising, they should inform future risk assessments rather than concluding definitive safety levels.

  • Latest EPA Findings (April 16 Report)— The largest study ever conducted on crumb rubber infill in the U.S. reaffirmed the safety of synthetic turf fields using crumb rubber infill, finding no significant difference in chemical exposure between players on synthetic turf versus grass fields. The report also cites three independent studies supporting the safety of synthetic turf:

    • Netherlands National Institute for Health and Environment— Asserted that the health risks from playing sports on synthetic turf fields are virtually negligible.

    • European Chemicals Agency— Found no reason to advise against playing sports on synthetic turf containing recycled rubber granules.

    • National Toxicology Program— Observed no evidence of toxicity in mice from ingestion of crumb rubber.

In response to ongoing community concerns regarding PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in artificial turf, we've received statements from Sprinturf, ELA Sport, and AstroTurf. These companies have provided critical clarifications on the safety standards and chemical compositions of their artificial turf products.

Sprinturf’s Initiative:

  • No PFAS Chemicals: Sprinturf confirms no PFAS chemicals are used in its turf manufacturing. This includes fibers, primary backing, and urethane coatings.

  • Independent Testing: PFAS testing across 30 compounds has shown non-detectable levels, affirming the safety of their products.

ELA Sport’s Assurance:

  • Safety Compliance: Chemicals in ELA Sport’s turf are under regulatory levels and are not considered a health risk. This includes chemicals from crumb rubber infill.

  • Ongoing Efforts: ELA Sport continues to make strides in eliminating intentionally added PFAS from their production processes.

AstroTurf’s Statement:

  • PFAS-Free Manufacturing: AstroTurf has specified that all ingredients used in their turf are free from PFAS. Their raw materials and finished products have been thoroughly tested and have shown PFAS concentrations below detectable limits.

  • Proactive Measures: In 2020, AstroTurf removed a fluorinated polymer from their turf production to further ensure the absence of PFAS.

The commitment of Sprinturf, ELA Sport, and AstroTurf to PFAS-free products highlights their stance on environmental responsibility and consumer safety. These insights attempt to provide reassurance regarding the use of their artificial turf in our school facilities. The board will continue to monitor advancements and regulatory compliance from these manufacturers to ensure the safety and well-being of our community.

The School Board is committed to making informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of our community and the environment. The debate around artificial turf, especially regarding PFAS, underscores the need for continued research, transparency from manufacturers, and open dialogue within our community. Ultimately, the Board will strive to balance the benefits of modern sports facilities with our environmental and health responsibilities.

Further Readings

Supportive of Artificial Turf

  • ELA Sport Response to Health Issues with Turf–Click Here

  • Use of PFAS in FieldTurf’s Products–Click Here

  • AstroTurf Statement on PFAS–Click Here

  • Synthetic Turf vs. Natural Turf Cost Analysis–Click Here

Unsupportive of Artificial Turf

  • Reporting Links Cancer to Athletes, Firefighters–Click Here

  • 3 Articles on the Dangers of Artificial Turf (sent to GVSD Board by a community member)–Click Here

  • What does the science say about the grass vs. turf debate in sports?–Click Here, Click Here.