The need for additional turf fields in our district arises from several compelling reasons:

‣ High Demand: Our thriving sports community consists of over 1,100 student-athletes actively participating in 18 PIAA athletics programs. These athletes compete in the highly competitive Central League, which includes schools such as Ridley, Haverford, Wallingford Swarthmore, Tredyffrin Easttown, Lower Merion, and Springfield. Having only one turf field available creates scheduling challenges, especially during the unpredictable spring weather.

‣ Safety Concerns: The condition of our existing grass fields has significantly deteriorated due to factors like erosion. These fields now pose safety risks to our athletes, with mounds, ruts, holes, and uneven surfaces. Addressing these issues is crucial for the safety and well-being of our student-athletes and the effective operation of our sports programs.

‣ Year-Round Use: Additional turf fields would enable year-round use, regardless of weather conditions, and would significantly increase playable hours on our existing fields. This ensures that student-athletes can practice and compete without interruptions due to inclement weather.

‣ Enhanced Safety and Competitiveness: Turf fields provide a safe and consistent playing surface for a variety of sports, including field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, and softball. This consistency ensures better footing for players, enhancing athlete safety and performance.

‣ Scheduling Flexibility: Turf fields offer scheduling flexibility, accommodating increased use and simultaneous practices or games, making it easier to manage busy student-athlete schedules. Additionally, these fields can be used by the community for various sports and recreational activities, promoting community engagement.

‣ Cost and Resource Savings: Turf fields are cost-effective and require less maintenance than natural grass fields. They eliminate the need for weekly mowing, fertilizing, and pesticide application, contributing to a more environmentally friendly and sustainable approach to maintaining our sports facilities.

Artificial turf fields are generally considered safe for sports and recreational activities. However, like any surface, they come with their own set of considerations and potential risks. Here are some factors to consider:

‣ Surface Temperature: Artificial turf can become significantly hotter than natural grass on sunny days, which can lead to discomfort and an increased risk of heat-related illnesses for athletes. This issue is more pronounced in regions with hot climates.

‣ Injury Risk: Some studies have suggested that artificial turf may have a slightly higher injury risk compared to natural grass, particularly when it comes to non-contact injuries such as skin abrasions, turf burns, and joint injuries. However, the evidence on this is mixed, and advancements in turf technology have led to safer playing surfaces.

‣ Impact on Joint Health: There have been concerns that the hardness of artificial turf may contribute to joint injuries, particularly in soccer and football. However, newer turf systems often include shock-absorbing underlayers to mitigate this concern.

‣ Microplastics: Artificial turf fields are made from plastic materials, and over time, tiny particles of plastic (microplastics) can break off and become a concern for the environment. This issue is more related to the disposal and maintenance of artificial turf fields.

‣ Proper Maintenance: The safety of artificial turf fields largely depends on proper maintenance, including regular cleaning and disinfection to prevent bacterial and fungal growth.

It's important to note that many advancements have been made in artificial turf technology to address these concerns and make these fields safer. Additionally, local regulations and maintenance practices can vary, so the safety of a specific artificial turf field may depend on how it's installed and maintained.

Ultimately, the decision on whether artificial turf fields are considered "dangerous" should take into account factors like field quality, maintenance procedures, and local climate conditions.

The district has established a comprehensive approach to maintain the fields and surrounding areas at the highest standard. We currently collaborate with two trusted service providers:

‣ Grounds Maintenance by Joy Services, Inc.: Joy Services, Inc. is responsible for the upkeep of our outdoor spaces, including fields and surrounding greenery. Their expertise in grounds maintenance ensures that our outdoor areas remain safe, attractive, and functional.

‣ Custodial Services by SSC: Our custodial services, managed by SSC, play a crucial role in maintaining the cleanliness and orderliness of our facilities. This extends to both indoor and outdoor spaces.

We maintain close communication and coordination with these service providers to ensure that the maintenance of all district facilities aligns with the high expectations of our school community. By leveraging the expertise and commitment of these partners, we are confident in our ability to provide a safe, clean, and well-maintained environment for all students, staff, and visitors.

1. Presence of PFAs: According to a detailed letter from FieldTurf (October 2024), their synthetic turf products undergo extensive testing for PFAS compounds. Results show that only trace amounts of PFAS compounds, below EPA reporting limits, were detected. These compounds were not the most concerning PFAS, such as PFOA or PFOS, and even under aggressive conditions (TOP assay), the levels remained significantly below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency soil health guideline levels. This suggests that the PFAS in FieldTurf products pose no significant risk​.

2. Broader Environmental Impacts:

• Recycled Content: FieldTurf uses CRM rubber infill, which is made from 100% recycled tires, thus conserving water and reducing maintenance compared to natural turf​.

• Infill and Water Conservation: FieldTurf is designed to eliminate water usage, reducing the environmental impact associated with watering natural grass fields. This also leads to reduced fertilizer and pesticide use.

• Sand and Rubber Infill: Whibco’s silica sand (used in the infill mix) is predominantly quartz, with minimal impurities, suggesting no adverse environmental effects from its use​.

FieldTurf’s environmental benefits include a reduction in water and chemical use, and its infill materials are sourced from recycled content.

3. Injuries vs. Natural Turf: Studies over multiple years indicate that playing on FieldTurf significantly reduces injuries compared to natural grass:

• A seven-year study of high school football fields showed 43% fewer ACL injuries on FieldTurf versus natural grass, along with fewer ligament tears and concussions​.

• Collegiate soccer and football studies also demonstrated fewer injuries, including concussions, on FieldTurf compared to natural grass. In particular, a six-year soccer study reported 25% fewer injuries, while a three-year college football study noted 21% fewer severe injuries​.

4. Financial Comparison Over 10 Years: While specific financial details were not directly provided in the documents, artificial turf has clear long-term cost benefits when factoring in maintenance:

• Initial Installation Costs: Artificial turf has higher upfront costs compared to natural grass due to materials like rubber infill and shock pads​.

• Maintenance Savings: Over 10 years, natural grass fields require consistent watering, mowing, fertilization, and reseeding, while artificial turf significantly reduces or eliminates these ongoing costs​​.

• Water and Chemical Savings: The savings from eliminating water and pesticide/fertilizer costs are substantial over the long term​.

FieldTurf Vertex offers environmental advantages through recycled materials, reduced water use, and chemical-free maintenance. It reduces injury risks significantly compared to natural grass, and though initial installation costs are higher, ongoing savings in water, maintenance, and chemicals make it cost-effective over 10 years. Additionally, concerns over PFAS are minimal, with trace levels posing no health risks.

According to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Gmax values for synthetic turf fields must be less than 200. This can be achieved with or without a shock pad. A shock pad may be required to achieve a Gmax number less than 200 when alternative infill is used or a pile height of less than 2” is installed. The Fieldturf Vertex product has a 2” pile height with 5lbs of infill (3lbs rubber, 2lbs sand) and a Gmax value of less than 200.This is proven through a testing process that involves dropping a 20 pound missile from a 2’ elevation at a minimum of 10 different locations across the field.  

The impact of adding padding (shock pads) to artificial turf fields is more complex than previously assumed. A recent seven-year study challenges the conventional wisdom that shock pads always reduce injuries. In fact, the study found that fields with shock pads had a 65% higher incidence of injuries, including player-to-turf collisions, neck trauma, shoulder injuries, and lower leg injuries. This contradicts the earlier belief that shock pads would necessarily make fields safer. The study also showed no significant difference in concussion rates between fields with and without shock pads, emphasizing that helmet technology, rather than field padding, plays a greater role in reducing concussion risks. Therefore, the addition of padding may not always lead to reduced injury rates unless lighter-weight infill systems are used, where shock pads are needed for adequate performance.

Impact on Useful Life and the Athletic Director’s Position: From a longevity perspective, while shock pads may reduce wear and tear by absorbing some of the impact, regular maintenance of the turf—such as grooming, decompacting, and cleaning—plays a much larger role in preserving the field’s performance and lifespan. Mr. Brunner, along with Bob Sanderson, strongly believe in the importance of proactive maintenance and investment in high-quality protective gear, particularly helmets, over the installation of shock pads. This strategy ensures that the turf remains in optimal condition, while also prioritizing athlete safety. In Garnet Valley, this approach has proven to be more effective in ensuring athlete safety and field performance. While shock pads may be beneficial in specific cases, such as with lighter infill systems, consistent maintenance and investment in top-tier equipment remain the preferred strategy for maximizing safety and turf longevity.