Mount Greylock High School Turf Info
Making the decision to install an artificial turf field is a challenging one. Just like many issues and decisions we grapple with as a community, it is complex and multi-layered. Proponents cite increased access to fields, reduction in rescheduling practices and games, and easier maintenance as benefits. Others are concerned about health and environmental impacts. And we all realize there are trade-offs involved that are not easy to evaluate.
On this page you'll find the FAQ from the Phase II Capital Gifts Sub-Committee along with some additional thoughts to consider highlighted in grey boxes. Please feel free to post a comment or send us a note.
We've done our best to be as accurate as possible with the information available. If you know something that we don't - please get in touch!
Executive Summary (this is not the recommendation of the Phase II Sub Committee)
It is recommended that further consideration be given to this project before a decision to proceed is made.
It is unfortunate, but not uncommon, that after months or years of committee work, issues finally come to public attention. It is understandable that the school committee might wish to proceed without additional deliberation, but it is not advisable to do so.
This is a community project. It has the potential to impact the health of our children (positively and negatively), to impact our environment, and it comes with a significant price tag.
A successful outcome can only be obtained with broad informed community support.
1. Dozens of letters have been written by our community expressing concerns about potential health impacts, environmental impact, opportunity costs, public consultation during the process. Many members of our community are unaware of this proposed project. An opportunity for the public to learn more about this project and provide input to the school committee is warranted.
2. Scientific studies have not concluded that these fields are safe. Some parents are concerned about their children being required to use these fields during PE class. It is unlikely that a conclusive study will be completed in the near future. It would be therefore prudent of the school committee to assess community support prior to committing to artificial turf.
3. There is potential impact to water and ground resources from micro plastics and heavy metals. The project design should be reviewed by independent hydrologist, storm water management engineer, environmental management consultant and/or Conservation Commission. And appropriate environmental safe guards be included in the design.
4. An environmental impact assessment should be conducted. Plans/costs for testing and monitoring on-site water resources should be considered.
6. A long term management plan for the proposed turf field and existing natural grass fields should be included in the analysis.
7. Alternative approaches to meeting the needs of the athletic program has not been shared with the community. Consideration should be given to the pros/cons of alternative approaches. These may include:
- sharing resources with other institutions
- alternatives for PE class
- paying for buses to alleviate transportation for relocated games
- installing water systems to support maintenance of all fields
- evaluating the priorities of the athletic program or other extra-curricular programs
- implementing sustainable management practices for natural grass fields.
8. A more thorough financial analysis should be shared with the community.
It is understood, that most decisions have positive and negative impacts. We are most successful when we clearly understand the potential downsides to our decisions and plan in advance to mitigate harm and reduce risks.
Our comments are based on the information provided in the FAQ and documents received from the school through Public Records request. If there are other reports available, we are unaware of them.
Text in white background is from the school website:
Athletic fields improvements needed at Mount Greylock Regional School
Frequently Asked Questions:
Why is Mount Greylock Regional School (MGRS) investing in athletics?
-
Since the fall of 2016, multiple sub-committees have been formed to address necessary improvements to the MGRS campus; these needs were not included in the scope of the Building Project.
-
A review of the entire athletic complex for the Mount Greylock Regional School site was conducted as part of this process. This then resulted in several rounds of planning studies that evaluated the existing site and identified areas for improvements.
-
Presently it is the responsibility of the Phase II Capital Gift Subcommittee comprised of members of the school committee, athletic staff, parents and students to lead the effort. They were appointed by and report to the MGRS School Committee.
-
The Phase II Subcommittee works with Traverse Landscape Architects who were hired by the school to develop and design the plans for improvements.
Plans for improvements include:
-
Meeting ADA compliance standards. Providing accessible routes, including paths and parking, to athletic facilities. Such improvements are a requirement of the Building Project through the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board. Link to MAAB Rules and Regulations: https://www.mass.gov/aab-rules-and-regulations
-
Complying with Title IX regulations. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits the exclusion from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal Financial Assistance. In short, equal facilities for all. The current shortfall in the Mount Greylock Regional School athletic facility is softball. The plan provides improvements to the existing softball field, located next to the varsity baseball field, including a new infield, dugouts and backstop. Link to US Department of Education Title IX and Sex Discrimination: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html
-
Providing quality, playable fields on a safe, reliable basis. The fields at Mount Greylock Regional School are heavily utilized, especially the principal game field, John Allen Field, and have become increasingly so over recent years with the addition of lacrosse to the spring athletic program. This expanded use has placed increased demands on the playing surface during both the fall and spring seasons and has been detrimental to the quality and usability of the playing surface.
Fall and spring sports (girls’ and boys’ soccer, football and girls’ and boys’ lacrosse) have been unable to play their home games and often not conduct practices due to unsafe, poor field conditions resulting from overuse and adverse weather conditions. Teams are being bused or driven by parents off-site to play their home games on the synthetic turf fields at MCLA and Williams College when available, representing cost implications and causing disruption for players, staff and parents. Additionally, the postponement of games results in a concentrated schedule of make-up games that pose an increased injury risk due to insufficient recovery time for athletes and conflicts with other aspects of the school calendar, both academic and extracurricular. The plan calls for the construction of a synthetic turf field that will significantly increase the hours of available field use to meet the needs of the school while allowing for rehabilitation of the natural grass fields, especially John Allen Field, for improved safety and quality.
Addressing other shortcomings – principal priority, a track.The other key athletic resource not presently available to our students is a track. Practices for track and field are largely dependent on the availability of the Williams College track and field facility which is also where “home” meets are held. This requires busing students to practices and meets at Williams. The construction of a new all-weather track located behind the school, at the location of the former cinder track, is included in the plan.
COMMENT: The track is currently an add/alternate in the bid package. If the bids prices are too high, it is our understanding that the track will not be included in the project despite the fact that track is one of the most popular sports and the team cannot practice at MGRS. During the 2017/18 academic year, about 100 students participated in track and 70 in lacrosse.
Why is Mount Greylock Regional School installing a synthetic turf field?
-
Synthetic turf provides a safe, reliable, consistent playing surface for the current and future athletes at the high school in all weather and all seasons.
-
The synthetic turf field will serve as an added resource for the student athletes and PE, significantly increasing the amount of play time by affording use when grass fields are unplayable.
-
The synthetic turf field also helps the school expand its ADA objective given synthetic turf affords accessibility that a natural grass surface does not.
-
The minimal level of maintenance required for a synthetic turf field makes it a sustainable solution that does not impose significant additional demands on the school buildings and grounds staff or operating budget.
The lower maintenance cost is offset by the high capital cost, and additional field maintenance equipment required. Over 20-25 year period the cost of an artificial turf field is comparable to a natural grass field.
What impact does synthetic turf have on playing time?
-
Synthetic turf playing fields exponentially increase playing and practice time because they can be used daily and in all types of weather, without worry of damage to the playing surface. Playability is enhanced since the fields remain uniform and consistent, season after season.
-
For Mount Greylock Regional School, it is estimated that Physical Education (PE,) representing approximately 370 students per day, will gain 1 – 2 days per week in the fall for outdoor activity and during the spring months, March – May, it will afford the opportunity to participate in outdoor play that is virtually non-existent at present. The potential overall annual gain is 7 – 10 weeks of outdoor PE.
COMMENT: There are many alternatives for outdoor play for PE classes. There are plenty of grassed areas that can be used that are not official fields. Additional equipment such as monkey bars or other age appropriate play equipment can be installed, mountain bikes could be purchased for exploring cross country trails, rock climbing or bouldering equipment could be installed.
-
Team sports will no longer have to cancel or move practices and games due to field conditions.
-
While turf grass managers recommend against using a natural grass field for more than 20 – 24 hours per week or 680 – 816 hours per year for a three-season window, synthetic turf can be utilized nearly 3,000 hours per year with no "rest” required.
-
Link to STMA Guide on Natural Grass Vs. Synthetic Turf: https://www.stma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/STMA-Syn-and-Nat-Guide-4th-Edition-FINAL.pdf
COMMENT: The 3000 hours / yr over estimates the amount of time the field could be used in practice. MGRHS expects to use the field 25 hrs per week. (based on comment that the later in this document that brushing is required once / 100hrs or about once per month) Assuming it is available for 26 weeks per year, total available hours are 650! This is equal to the number of hours that a grass field is playable.
In fact, if all current fields remain for use, only the additional hours during early spring and on rain and post-rain days can be counted as a benefit in playing time to the artificial turf field. Of course, these are critical times for lacrosse teams to prepare for their season of play.
Hours of use for dedicated new natural grass field for lacrosse:
10 weeks * 3 hrs per day * 6 days per week = 180 hrs less 20% due to rain = 144 hrs.
Additional hrs available if the field is comprised of artificial turf.
Lacrosse = 10 weeks * 3 hrs per day * 6 days per week less 144 hrs = 36 hrs.
Soccer = 180 hrs - 144 hrs = 36 hrs
Total additional hours due to artificial turf 72 hrs/year.
Other issues to consider are how many games are postponed/cancelled. Are their alternatives to rescheduling that don't have a significant impact on the students?
Since most Berkshire County high schools play/practice on natural grass fields, it would seem that MGHS is not overly disadvantaged with respect to practice hours.
What about the current grass playing fields?
-
All current grass fields will remain, including John Allen Field, for use by all sports that currently use them.
-
While, overall, natural grass may provide the most desirable playing surface, meeting the school’s demands for fields requires the addition of a more durable system (i.e., synthetic turf field).
-
To effectively improve and maintain natural grass fields to exclusively meet the demands that Mount Greylock Regional School has for field space requires continual maintenance and repair (including watering, mowing, fertilizing, and aerating) to keep the surface safe and playable. This is labor intensive, expensive and beyond the capacity of the school.
COMMENT: Adding an artificial turf, despite its lower maintenance requirements, will not reduce the “labor intensive, expensive and beyond the capacity of the school"maintenance of fields. If all current grass fields remain, overall field maintenance will increase in labor intensity, expense, complexity and additional equipment will be required.
-
Due to increasingly varying climatic conditions, rain, snow, or heat, and the short growing season in Williamstown, it is difficult to allow repairs and maintenance to take hold on grass fields. These weather conditions, combined with the high impact play typically seen at the high school level, place significant demands on the amount of required maintenance and limit the availability of the fields.
-
Grass is dormant in the spring and fall when the fields are heavily used resulting in damage occurring before maintenance programs can start.
-
Key components of grass maintenance programs are time sensitive and overlap with when the fields are in greatest demand.
COMMENT: A key issue driving the decision to add artificial turf appears to be getting lacrosse on the field in the spring before it has time to recover from the fall soccer season. Adding an additional natural grass field dedicated to lacrosse can alleviate some of the challenges with field repair.
-
There is no water source presently available to support irrigation of the grass fields. The school water is supplied by wells which have significant demands placed on their capacity with the completion of the new school building and the requirements of the fire suppression system. Contamination also exists in some areas making drilling for new clean wells more challenging.
COMMENT: There are, potentially, other options for providing irrigation. It is our understanding that a well is required to provide irrigation for the current field. Could this well also support a new grass field? Given that Berkshire Country is and will be experiencing increased rainfall, an opportunity exists to collect and store this water for use during drier periods. Has this alternative source of water been evaluated?
Since the grass fields will continue to be used, an overall plan for the maintenance of all fields should also be included in the proposed improvement plans for the site.
-
Because the athletic fields are in high demand and heavily utilized, shutting a field for a season or more to restore a natural grass field would displace teams.
What are the components of synthetic turf fields and natural grass systems and how are they maintained?
-
Synthetic turf systems are typically made up of three (3) critical components:
1. Drainage system: A series of flat drains connected to a perforated perimeter pipe that conveys water that is not infiltrated out of the system.
2. Base stone system: An 8”-10” stone system that includes washed stone followed by 1”-2” of a washed topping stone. This stone system allows for the movement of water.
3. Synthetic turf system: The synthetic turf system includes a shock pad, turf carpet (primary backing, secondary backing and fibers) and infill.
Synthetic turf systems require minimal regular maintenance:
-
Brushing is required every 100 hours; it is anticipated this will translate to once a month at MGRS when school is session.
-
No watering is required.
-
No use of fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides is required.
COMMENT:
The infill material in synthetic turf is made of crumb rubber composed of used tires and represents about 25% of the volume of scrap tires generated. Sports surfaces accounted for 17% of all crumb rubber use.
Ground Rubber Markets Source: Rubber Manufacturers Association: 2013 U.S. Scrap Tire Management Summary
Crumb rubber contains a cocktail of toxic chemicals, including benzothiazole, carbon black, and heavy metals.
Crumb rubber infill is made of used tires so the actual constituents of each field vary. Because crumb rubber is a recycled material, the presence and concentrations of chemicals of potential concern is expected to vary between products and even among batches from the same manufacturer. Some purchasers of artificial turf specify contaminant limits in their project specifications.
Natural grass systems come in a wide range of designs. The most common system used is a grass system with native soils. These systems are made up of four (4) critical components:
-
Perimeter drainage system: This system can be modified with additional 2” lateral drainage to assist in the movement of water in poor draining soils.
-
Base stone system: 8”-10” of well-draining stone to allow water to move through the soil layers.
-
Loam: A good quality modified soil to bring to a well-draining sandy loam.
-
Turf grass: Typically, in the northeast, this system is made up of a hybridized Kentucky Blue Grass selected for its resistance to cold weather and ability to recover.
-
Additionally, grass systems require irrigation systems to maintain healthy stands of grass and allow for recovery.
Grass systems require regular, consistent maintenance:
-
Minimum weekly lawn mowing and regular seasonal maintenance, such as aeration and overseeding, are used to maintain grass fields.
-
Fertilizers, pesticides and other supplements are commonly used on natural grass athletic fields to maintain their quality and consistency.
-
On average in a typical New England summer a natural grass athletic field uses between 400 and 500 gallons of water per day in order to maintain a healthy playing surface.
-
Constant attention is imperative to the success of a grass system; if neglected, prior care and maintenance is forfeited often requiring replacement of the grass surface.
-
Note that there is not an organic athletic field system; there are only organic maintenance practices. Typical field construction, including costs, applies to a field whether it is maintained organically or with synthetic fertilizers.
Is synthetic turf safe?
-
Numerous independent organizations as well as state and federal agencies have validated the safety of synthetic turf fields. The states of California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as the Netherlands, are among the most prominent and pertinent.
COMMENT:
Many states and federal agencies have been concerned about the safety of playing fields made of crumb rubber. None have been able to conclusively state that these fields are safe. Typically they note that a link to cancer has not been found, but more research is required.
Across the country and in Europe, individuals, towns and cities, state and national governments are grappling with questions related to the health and safety of these fields. Some examples:
The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and ECHA put forward a proposal for a potential restriction of eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in granules and mulches used in synthetic turf pitches.
MASSACHUSETTS
“Massachusetts Department of Public Health does not endorse any consumer products, including ATFs. (ATF - Artificial Turf Field)." See note below for more information from Mass DPH.
CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD, CT — "A bill that would prohibit the state and its municipalities from purchasing and using artificial turf on playing fields was the subject of a public hearing last week (February 2019) before the Environment Committee." https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Proposed-artificial-turf-ban-gains-ground-in-CT-13624809.php
WESTPORT, CT— Concerned the town’s playing fields may have adverse health impacts on Westport’s kids, the town’s legislative body passed a ban on crumb rubber, or synthetic field infill.
“Crumb rubber is known to be highly toxic and dangerous in other ways to children and, in fact, all people,” Representative Town Meeting member Wendy Batteau said of synthetic playing field infill.
Batteau and fellow RTM member Ellen Lautenberg spearheaded the effort to craft a ban on synthetic turf. Officially titled, “Ordinance prohibiting the application of synthetic infill material on playing fields on town property,” the ban passed the RTM unanimously Oct. 16.
NEW JERSEY
"Recommendations for lead concerns:
-
Those who have installed, are installing, or plan to install artificial turf fields should ask vendors to conduct appropriate testing to determine the levels of potential contaminants, including lead, in the turf and associated materials.
-
If a field is found to have high lead levels, field managers can consider limiting access to the field, especially for the most vulnerable population of children under 7 years of age.
-
As a precaution, until further guidance is available, custodians of all turf fields, but especially turf fields with nylon fibers, can implement the following recommendations, in addition to testing their turf field:
-
Dust suppression, in the form of watering down the field, can be conducted before and after the field is being utilized,
-
Encourage individuals who use the field to perform aggressive hand/body washing after playing on the field;
-
Clothes that were worn on the field should be taken off inside out and washed separately.
Additional Recommendations:
-
Despite the national scope of the issue, there is no federal guidance regarding artificial turf or limits on components of these products.
-
Some municipalities are developing procedures to take when ambient temperature and humidity is high, to minimize the risks of burns, dehydration and heat exhaustion in athletes.
-
Children should shower and wash thoroughly after playing on artificial turf fields."
-
There are presently over 12,000 synthetic turf fields in the United States with 1,200 – 1,500 new installations each year. Crumb rubber infill is the most commonly used infill. It has been the subject of 88 separate scientific studies. They have concluded that there are no elevated risks to human health nor the environment.
COMMENT: Environment and Human Health, Inc (EHHI) reviewed 22 studies that the synthetic turf industry cite to support claims of safety. They conclude that many of them had serious testing flaws and limitations. These studies do not serve as proof that synthetic turf fields are safe. http://www.ehhi.org/artificial-turf.php
-
The New York State Department of Health has provided extensive information on the use and play of synthetic turf fields and crumb rubber infill that address heat stress, injury, infection, latex allergy and chemical exposure. This report was most recently updated in October 2018 and provides an extensive list of resources on the topics of synthetic turf. Link to the NYS DOH report: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm
COMMENT: This is not a scientific study. New York State Department of Health summarizes other studies and may over-simplify the results.
-
The California Office of Environmental Assessment completed its multi-year study of air quality above crumb rubber infilled synthetic turf, and bacteria in the turf, in October 2010 and reported that there were no public health concerns. They have continued and updated their study in 2016. Link to the OEHHA Study: https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/document/safety-study-artificial-turf-containing-crumb-rubber-infill-made-recycled
-
Also, the California EPA released a report dated July 2009 which indicated there is a negligible human health risk from inhaling the air above synthetic turf.
COMMENT: The studies referenced above could not be found.
-
The Connecticut Department of Public Health announced in July 2010 that a new study of the risks to children and adults playing on synthetic turf fields containing crumb rubber infill shows "no elevated health risks.” Link to the CDPH study: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Departments-and-Agencies/DPH/dph/communications/pdf/ArtificialTurfFs2015decpdf.pdf?la=en
COMMENT: From the Connecticut Department of Health July 2010, page 5, study referenced above:
"The 2010 risk assessment of five artificial turf fields in Connecticut does not provide conclusive evidence about the safety of artificial turf fields.
There is still uncertainty and additional investigation is warranted.
Like all scientific studies, our evaluation of artificial turf fields has limitations. It did not specifically evaluate the risks from dermal exposure or ingestion of the crumb rubber, two pathways which are expected to be of lower concern and have received some attention in previous studies. The data are still from a small number of fields and days of sampling. Finding VOCs such as benzene only in personal monitoring samples raises questions about the utility of those data that could not be resolved in the current study. The default approach was to include the questionable data for this screening level risk assessment. The potential for allergic reactions at these fields was not a focus and in general is difficult to analyze."
-
The US EPA has recently released its Part 1 of its further studies and research regarding the topic which is “the largest tire crumb rubber study conducted in the Unites States” provide the following general assessment, “In general, the findings from the report support the premise that while chemicals are present as expected in the tire crumb rubber, human exposure appears to be limited based on what is released into air or simulated biological fluids (gastric fluid, saliva and sweat)”. Link to the EPA Study Part 1: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/federal-research-recycled-tire-crumb-used-playing-fields
COMMENT: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) have filed a complaint under the Information Quality Act regarding this study.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first attempt to characterize the toxic elements in artificial turf made from shredded tires should be recalled, according to a legal complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Ecology Center (Michigan). The group charges that EPA’s report contains inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable information and must be retracted, so that the work can be done correctly.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first attempt to characterize the toxic elements in artificial turf made from shredded tires should be recalled, according to a legal complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Ecology Center (Michigan). The group charges that EPA’s report contains inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable information and must be retracted, so that the work can be done correctly.
Failing to examine more than half the chemicals associated with recycled tire crumb, and failing to assess cumulative exposures for synthetic turf field users that can occur through different exposure pathways for individual toxic substances and mixtures of toxic substances;Using a flawed methodology for measuring lead levels that relied on composite sampling that mask lead hot spots, such as those found on recycled rubber playgrounds in Washington DC where testing showed lead levels of nearly 4,000 parts-per-million and more in some samples;Excluding artificial grass blades and other components from analysis, testing fields at low temperatures, and ignoring particulates and other toxic contributors; and, Failing to consider that children may be uniquely vulnerable to and affected by even low levels of toxic substances.
“This report does not meet EPA’s own standards for scientific quality and should be withdrawn,” stated PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with EPA, noting that there are already more than 12,000 artificial turf fields in the U.S. “It is highly misleading for EPA to suggest that it has a valid reason to assert that tire crumb turf is safe.”
The PEER complaint is filed under the Information Quality Act that requires federal agencies to rely upon or distribute data that is objective, complete, and accurate. A previous such PEER complaint caused EPA to rescind its official safety endorsement for tire crumb turf in late 2013.
https://www.peer.org/news/press-releases/epa-fumbles-artificial-turf-science.html
-
In July 2008, a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission staff report approved the use of synthetic turf by children and people of all ages.
-
Outside the US, the Dutch RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) issued a comprehensive paper in 2017 entitled “Playing Sports on Synthetic Turf Fields with Rubber Granulate” concluding it is safe to play on such fields. Link to the Dutch study: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2017-0016.pdf
-
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has evaluated the many studies and have published their assessment of the studies and potential risks. Link to Mass DPH FAQ: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/artificial-turf-fields
COMMENT: from the Mass Dept of Public Health referenced above -
“Massachusetts Department of Public Health does not endorse any consumer products, including ATFs. (ATF - Artificial Turf Field) The purpose of this fact sheet is to summarize currently available information and offer suggestions for ways to minimize possible exposure to potentially harmful chemicals during use of ATFs.
Are there tips for safer use of ATFs?
Yes. MDPH recommends these common sense steps to minimize potential exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in ATFs.
When playing on ATFs
-
Always wear shoes.
-
Do not swallow any crumb rubber that accidentally enters the mouth. Monitor young children to prevent swallowing.
-
If playing indoors, ensure adequate ventilation.
-
Be aware of any heat-related illnesses.
After playing on ATFs
-
Wash hands after use and before eating (especially young children).
-
Clean all clothing and equipment.
-
Take off shoes before entering the house to prevent tracking in any crumb rubber.
-
Clean all turf burns with soap and water.
Do not use ATFs
-
On extremely hot days because the crumb rubber absorbs heat and may be too hot to play on when temperatures are high.
-
For passive recreation (e.g., sitting, laying).”
What are the concerns with heat and synthetic turf?
-
During the summer months on hot sunny days, when synthetic turf is exposed to direct sunlight, synthetic turf fields have reported surface temperatures significantly hotter than the surface temperature of a natural turf field. In such conditions, many coaches will schedule practices and games for the cooler times of day and limit the number and duration of practices. They should also follow the heat-acclimation guidelines published by the National Athletic Trainers' Association.
-
Link to the National Athletic Trainers’ Association heat acclimation guidelines: https://www.nata.org/practice-patient-care/health-issues/heat-acclimatization
-
Specific to Mount Greylock Regional School, on days of excessive heat, the grass fields will provide the obvious choice for any practices or games.
-
Further, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) has recently issued a Heat Modification Policy, effective July 1, 2019, that all schools, statewide, must follow for conducting all sports during times of extremely high environmental conditions. http://miaa.net/gen/miaa_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/MIAA_Heat_Modification_Policy_Revisions_FINAL_11619.pdf
How does synthetic turf compare to natural grass on player injury rates?
-
Three 2010 long-term studies published by researchers from Norway and Sweden compared acute injuries on synthetic turf and natural grass. The studies examined the type, location and severity of injuries sustained by hundreds of players during thousands of hours of matches and training over a four to five-year period. Many types of acute injuries to men and women soccer players, particularly knee injury, ankle sprain, muscle strains, concussions, MCL tears, and fractures were evaluated. The researchers concluded that the injury risk of playing on artificial turf is no greater than playing on natural grass.
Is there a concern for the increased potential to develop staph or other bacterial infections on synthetic turf? Do synthetic turf fields need to be disinfected?
-
Penn State University’s Center for Sports Surface Research did an extensive study on the development of staph infections in synthetic turf and natural grass. In both cases they found that there is “no evidence of anyone getting staph infection directly from synthetic turf” and that synthetic turf is “not a hospitable environment for staph bacteria”. The study also indicates that UV rays in the turf create an environment that is not a breeding ground for turf and acts as disinfectant.
-
Link To Penn State’s Center for Sports Surface Research, “Synthetic Turf and Staph Infections – Cause for Concern?: https://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/documents/staph.pdf
What about environmental concerns associated with stormwater run-off? Have other communities in the State of Massachusetts investigated concerns regarding run-off of crumb rubber infill on boarding waterways?
COMMENT: Not all storm water is directed back into the ground. At times of heavy rain, storm water will carry pellets and potentially other contaminants off the field and into the storm drains leading to the Green River.
Pellets also migrate off the fields in clothing. Maintenance practices - snow plowing, storing of extra crumb rubber pellets, spillage can contribute to dispersal of the crumb rubber to waterways. Studies have shown elevated levels of zinc, which is toxic to aquatic life in storm water from artificial turf fields.
Best practices for artificial turf design include areas for snow storage, installing a barrier around the perimeter to contain pellets on the site and settling ponds to remove contaminants. In Sweden, the amount of microplastics entering the sea and waterways is estimated at 70 kg (or 293 million particles) per year for each artificial playing field. http://www.kimointernational.org/feature/microplastic-pollution-from-artificial-grass-a-field-guide/?fbclid=IwAR09AWuLOwnhH5nF-ZLdvPNvDtxAu8DMpUVWLGAT9SlraaTq8f-JYIeqGNk
-
The Conservation Commission in the Town of Newton required as part of the installation of its synthetic turf field in 2009 to provide environmental testing on the storm drainage system including the migration of crumb rubber particles in the trench drains and manholes, lead wipe sampling and wetland soil sampling for a period of three years from 2010-2013. All reports and studies are currently available as public record in the Town of Newton, Massachusetts. Over that time the study concluded the following:
-
“Lead was not detected on the football field surface.”
-
“Metals were found in the wetland soil samples at concentrations consistent with MADEP published background levels for natural soil.”
-
“Trench drains and in-line catch basins appear to be functioning as designed. Crumb rubber was present in small to moderate amounts. Storm water structures (trench drains and in-line catch basins) should be cleaned as soon as practicable once construction is complete to minimize crumb rubber from being flushed into the storm drainage system (and exiting the site) by heavy spring rains.”
-
“Any collected crumb rubber should be kept onsite and be re-deposited on the turf playing fields.”
-
COMMENT: This project does not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission in Williamstown since it is not bordering on a water resource. However, it is connected to the Green River via storm water system and is near the school drinking water sources (on-site wells). It is possible for the school district or any individual to request that the Conservation Commission of Williamstown review and make recommendations related to storm water.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has not yet reviewed this project. They have jurisdiction over storm water management and erosion control during construction of projects not adjacent to wetlands. During the recent school building construction program, the parking lot was under construction before plans had undergone the required review by the ZBA.
One study example from Connecticut, DEP: "The DEP concludes that there is a potential risk to surface waters and aquatic organisms associated with whole effluent and zinc toxicity of stormwater runoff from artificial turf fields....The DEP suggests that use of stormwater treatment measures, such as stormwater treatment wetlands, wet ponds, infiltration structures, compost filters, sand filters and biofiltration structures, may reduce the concentrations of zinc in the stormwater runoff from artificial turf fields..."
https://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialturf/dep_artificial_turf_report.pdf
What are the differences in maintenance costs and practices in synthetic turf vs. natural grass?
-
Synthetic turf maintenance:
▪ Grooming: The field is required to be groomed and swept every 100 hours of use.
▪ Magnet: Removal of metallic objects, e.g. hairpins, from the field once per season.
▪ Spot grooming: Spot brushing high use areas once per season.
▪ Replacement areas: Replacement of high use areas (Typically year 8)
▪ Adding infill (Typically year 8)
▪ GMax/HIC/Rotational Resistance/Vertical Deformation testing (Typically years 9-12)
(Note: Grooming equipment is included in the construction costs.)
8 years of one-time annual visits, including grooming, seam repair, and testing, are included in the construction costs.
8-year warranty with an anticipated lifespan of 10-12 years based on estimated usage.
Annual Costs: $6,000-$8,000
Additional Costs of $12,000-$15,000 (typically year 8) to address replacement areas and additional infill.
-
Natural grass maintenance:
▪ Mowing
▪ Watering
▪ Aerating
▪ Fertilization
▪ Weed and Pest Control
▪ Line Painting
▪ GMax /HIC testing
▪ Slice seeding
▪ Dethatching
3 – 5 years to establish a grass field
Consistent levels of annual care and maintenance required.
Annual Costs: $12,000-$14,000
Link to STMA “A Guide to Synthetic and Natural Turfgrass for Sports Field”: https://www.stma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/STMA-Syn-and-Nat-Guide-4th-Edition-FINAL.pdf
COMMENT: It is unclear from this report whether all long term management and maintenance have costs been considered. For example,
-
Maintenance of the storm water management system
-
Grooming equipment maintenance
-
Storage facility for grooming equipment
-
Maintenance of the lighting system
-
Training associated with maintaining the field.
-
Disposal cost at year 10. Artificial turf fields are expected to last 8-10 years.
There is also no discussion related to who will do the maintenance work. Will it be contracted out or done in house?
To appropriately understand the cost implications of the fields, an net present value (NPV) is presented here showing impact of both capital and annual maintenance costs in today's dollars. See table below.
The capital costs are not cited in this FAQ but were reported in presentation by Traverse at a Forum.
Capital cost for artificial turf - $1.1 M and capital cost for natural grass - $0.5M (from Traverse previous report). Natural grass field is assumed to be reconstructed in year 12, and artificial turf is removed/reconstructed in years 10 and 20.
Over a 25 year period, (using costs estimates cited by Traverse), the turf field will cost between $650,000 (7% discount rate) and $770,000 (3% discount) more than a natural grass field and will need to be replaced 2 times. Replacing the artificial field every 8-12 years, results in approximately 100,000 lbs of synthetic rubber pellets and plastic grass carpet being disposed in the landfill. There may be opportunity to recycle some of the used turf surface.
The savings of installing a natural grass field, would cover 75% of the costs of an additional natural grass field. In other words, almost 2 additional natural grass fields could be installed instead of one artificial field. Or perhaps, 1 additional natural grass field and a water storage facility to support all fields. Of course, further investigation is required.
Alternatively, if the $700,000 savings is invested at 5%, an annual return of $35,000 could used to support other needs at the school.
Who is Traverse Landscape Architects and what is their experience?
Traverse Landscape Architects is a highly regarded landscape architecture firm based in Providence, RI. Arthur Eddy, one of three principals at the firm, and Justin Robertshaw head up the athletic vertical of the company. Art has been a landscape architect for over 16 years and has been involved in many athletic projects throughout New England. Justin Robertshaw has been a landscape architect for over ten years and his focus has been solely on the design and oversight of athletic projects. Both Art and Justin have worked on a wide range of athletic projects including natural grass fields, synthetic turf fields, tracks and hard court sports facilities at the recreational, high school and NCAA level.
Link to Traverse Landscape Architects website: www.traversela.com
COMMENT:
In conclusion, it is recommended that further consideration be given to this project before a decision to proceed is made.
It is unfortunate, but not uncommon, that after months or years of committee work, issues finally come to public attention. It is understandable that the school committee might wish to proceed without additional deliberation, but it is not advisable to do so.
This is a community project. It has the potential to impact the health of our children (positively and negatively), to impact our environment, and it comes with a significant price tag.
A successful outcome can only be obtained with broad informed community support.
1.Dozens of letters have been written by our community expressing concerns about potential health impacts, environmental impact, opportunity costs, public consultation during the process. Many members of our community are unaware of this proposed project. An opportunity for the public to learn more about this project and provide input to the school committee is warranted.
2. Scientific studies have not concluded that these fields are safe. Some parents are concerned about their children being required to use these fields during PE class. It is unlikely that a conclusive study will be completed in the near future. It would be therefore prudent of the school committee to assess community support prior to committing to artificial turf.
3. There is potential impact to water and ground resources from micro plastics and heavy metals. The project design should be reviewed by independent hydrologist, storm water management engineer, environmental management consultant and/or Conservation Commission. And appropriate environmental safe guards be included in the design.
4. An environmental impact assessment should be conducted. Plans/costs for testing and monitoring on-site water resources should be considered.
6. A long term management plan for the proposed turf field and existing natural grass fields should be included in the analysis.
7. Alternative approaches to meeting the needs of the athletic program has not been shared with the community. Consideration should be given to the pros/cons of alternative approaches. These may include:
- sharing resources with other institutions
- alternatives for PE class
- paying for buses to alleviate transportation for relocated games
- installing water systems to support maintenance of all fields
- evaluating the priorities of the athletic program or other extra-curricular programs
- implementing sustainable management practices for natural grass fields.
8. A more thorough financial analysis should be shared with the community.
It is understood, that most decisions have positive and negative impacts. We are most successful when we clearly understand the potential downsides to our decisions and plan in advance to mitigate harm and reduce risks.
Our comments are based on the information provided in the FAQ and documents received from the school through Public Records request. If there are other reports available, we are unaware of them.