School officials in the Auburn Enlarged City School District have a vision of future athletics at Holland Stadium.

The stadium, located on the grounds of East Middle School, would play host to a myriad of physical education classes and athletic competitions, more than what is currently seen at the facility. Not worrying about damaging the field, students and athletes would be able to play outside well into the fall and emerge from winter's hibernation early.

And the district's field band could practice and perform on an enhanced field that compares to that of other districts.

According to these officials, this vision for Auburn is possible only with upgrading to synthetic turf.

Indeed, installing synthetic turf at Holland Stadium is embedded in the district's proposed capital project estimated at $15.68 million. Taxpayers are likely to vote in May.

While locally the controversy on turf has been over cost, there is a larger question asked in state, national and international circles over health and environmental safety.

Auburn is looking at a new generation of synthetic turf for the stadium. Not the Astroturf of old, but rather what amounts to artificial grass, a surface often indistinguishable from natural grass from a distance.

The health and safety question isn't about the type of grass; it's about the infill, composed of “crumb rubber,” recycled rubber tires, that contain chemicals and materials some believe to be carcinogenic.

“Obviously we won't include anything hazardous in our specs,” Auburn Board of Education President David Lansford said.

But school leaders wonder how they will know if the materials used in synthetic turf are safe.

Philip W. Wise, a principal with the Rochester-based SWBR Architects with whom the school district contracts, has been scanning the Internet, reading scientific studies and contacting boards of health and government agencies to answer that question.

Wise is looking at specific manufacturers and requesting any tests done on their products to ensure that the materials they use are safe, he said. From there he will consult with the school district, presenting the pros and cons of each system.

“We're trying to collect as much information ahead of time and then we plan to put out a performance specification,” he continued. “When the manufacturers bid on the project they will have a certain quality standard by which to meet different aspects of the product and if they can meet that criteria then they will be acceptable to provide the track.”

But Wise isn't stopping there. Aware of several reports that question the safety of crumb rubber, he said he will be speaking to a toxicologist to see if the chemicals place students at risk.

“Crumb rubber has been questioned by different entities, by different owners on exactly what is in it and that is a question that we need more information on because we're not sure whether crumb rubber from one processor is the same crumb rubber from a different processor,” he said.

Scientists across the globe and legislators in our own backyard are evaluating the health and environmental safety of next generation synthetic turf, specifically the use of crumb rubber, to determine whether the materials found in the infill would pose a health hazard to those who use it regularly.

Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides, a Rochester-based consumer protection organization, collected last year five clean and unused samples of synthetic turf - all from different manufacturers - and had it tested for heavy metals and biohazards.

RAMP found that all five samples contained a plasticizer banned in California and other carcinogens, President Judy Braiman said. Three samples contained levels of arsenic above the existing state limit, including one that was seven times higher and another that was five times higher.

Levels of cadmium in one sample were 1.4 times higher than acceptable limits while in another sample it was 1.1 times the limit, she said.

The study also found other metals such as chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, thallium and zinc.

“We always believed that school boards and school officials were worried about the health and safety and environment of students,” Braiman said. “This is big business.”

Last fall the state senate and assembly introduced identical legislation calling for a six-month moratorium on the sale and installation of synthetic turf containing crumb rubber infill until the department of health studies the material.

Assemblymen Steve Englebright, of Suffolk County, and William Colton, of Kings County, and Senator James S. Alesi, of Monroe County, sponsored the bills, currently in committee. There is no timeline for when the bills will go to the respective floors for a vote.

“(Englebright) was interested and concerned about the use of synthetic turf after hearing reports of contaminants flying out of mats and leaching into soil and groundwater,” said Marilyn DuBois, a senior policy analyst in the assembly who also works on the Legislative Committee on Toxic and Hazardous Waste and the Committee on Solid Waste Management. “He felt we needed a moratorium and we needed an objective evaluation on the research done on turf.

“Millions of dollars are being spent to install this material and it seemed prudent to take a step back and make sure we are not creating more problems than we might be correcting,” added DuBois, who drafted the assembly bill for Englebright.

But local legislators believe a moratorium is unnecessary and call the raised health issue overblown.

“I certainly know of the hundreds of professional and college games that are played on artificial turf, and I'm a little skeptical over this legislation,” said Sen. Michael F. Nozzolio, R-Fayette. “We certainly haven't heard of any claims by any of these athletes that have been participating. I'm just not ready to jump on board with this legislation.”

Indeed, there is reason to doubt the validity of health and environmental concerns. While crumb rubber typically contains hazardous chemicals, there is no conclusive evidence linking synthetic turf to suggested health effects like birth defects and cancer.

Studies conducted by D.A. Birkholz, director of research and development at ALS Laboratory Group in Canada, assess there is low risk of exposure to the hazardous materials in crumb rubber.

Birkholz's report, “Assessing the Health and Environmental Impact from the Use of End-of-Life Tire Rubber Crumb as Artificial Turf in Sports Arenas,” stated there is low risk of exposure via inhalation as crumb rubber does not contain chemicals with high vapor pressures. Skin exposure is low risk because the “carrier solvent is needed to extract toxic chemicals from tire crumb and to penetrate protective skin layers,” the report stated. Furthermore, oral ingestion is deemed a low risk as ingestion seems unlikely.

Another study published in “Environmental Health Perspectives” in January 2006 by researchers Mark E. Anderson, Katherine H. Kirkland, Tee L. Guidotti and Cecile Rose reaffirmed Birkholz's research. The group acknowledged that work with tire crumb may expose workers to carcinogenic materials.

“The tire crumb product has been studied for safety in its intended use as a playground surface amendment using the methods of risk assessment, genotoxity assays, and ecotoxicity assays,” stated the report. “The investigators concluded that it probably would not represent an exposure hazard to children or risk to the environment.”

And a study conducted by Penn State's Department of Crop and Soil Sciences reported that microbial populations of Staphylococcus aureus - commonly known as staph - are higher on natural turf athletic fields than they are on infill systems.

Wise is collecting these reports and information on turf and will present it to the board of education, he said.

School leaders expect to find a manufacturer that meets the district's specifications, but there are contingencies in place if no safe turf can be found.

“If we could not find an artificial surface that is safe we will most definitely consider upgrading our present natural turf,” Auburn Superintendent Joseph D. “J.D.” Pabis said. “However, this does not give us the flexibility that we are trying to seek in maximizing playing time at the facility.”

Not every Auburn school official is supportive of the synthetic turf option. Board of education member Joseph Leogrande worries about the long-term impact of installing the new surface.

“It's always been the cost,” said Leogrande. “Down the road, in 10 years, we're going to have to replace it with no state aid. It will be a full shot, like one or two million dollars. Combined with the toxicity and the very expensive surface, I think we can put the money somewhere in the shcool for education. That's what we're here for.”

For Braiman, no artificial turf is worth the health risk.

“All I know is that we try to lessen our contact with known carcinogens and known heavy metals,” she said. “I can't tell you if my child or my grandchild is going to come down with cancer after playing on it. I can't say that at all, but I can say that the chemicals in this are carcinogenic, are metals and harmful to your bodies.

“Why play Russian Roulette with our children's health?”

Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net