ARTIFICIAL TURF
ERIC O’DONNELL,MANAGING DIRECTOR, SPORTS LABSS
The growing popularity of 3G/4G pitches
means that each year around 1 million sq m of artificial turf needs to be replaced. The
industry now faces a challenge – how to do this in an environmentally friendly way?
A
s the number of artificial sports pitches increases across Europe, so does the need to renovate and refurbish them. It is in the
artificial turf industry’s interests – as well as the end users’ – that existing stock is kept in good, safe and playable condition. The maintenance and upgrading of pitches, however, creates by-products – tonnes of sand and rubber and thousands of square metres of unwanted turf. This all needs to be discarded – or recycled – in an appropriate manner. Currently, around 100 full-size pitches
are replaced in the UK each year. The number of smaller pitches being replaced is harder to count, but will add significantly to the total volume of material in need of disposal on an annual basis. Best estimates put the total figure of artificial turf to be disposed at around 1 million sq m each year. Presently, the majority of this unwanted turf ends up in landfill or in other unspecified sites. The industry is aware of the issue,
but has found balancing a high volume/low margin production with a sustainability policy – which would make recycling more affordable – challenging. The competition and the relative over-supply in the market means that upgrading to a recyclable product is seldom considered due to the initial cost of purchasing the product. Processes do exist, for example, to deal with the difficult to recycle polymers within artificial turf, but these
62
processes are expensive to deliver. What the sector needs to aim for is a
multi-faceted approach to recycling – encompassing development of products which can be more easily recycled and the adoption of a low waste approach at all levels of production and delivery. Other measures should include cost effective plants and the setting up of processes to allow infill and turf materials to be better developed into new raw materials and converted to new products. Luke Edwards, commercial director at
Murfitts Industries – a leading producer of rubber granules used in sport pitches – says that recycling shouldn’t be seen as a problem, but rather as a challenge. “Recycling is certainly achievable and using current methods it is possible to recycle around 90-95 per cent of the
materials,” Edwards says. “The challenge we have is really twofold. Firstly, recycling methods tend to be complex and expensive – so the key is to bring down the cost to make recycling more accessible. Secondly, we need to balance cost with solutions that are both practical and feasible, at the same time as respecting the fact that the old turf is a waste material.
CHALLENGES An example of how the lack of incentive creates barriers to recycling is the way a client can easily dispose of an artificial pitch by sub-contracting a specialist firm to remove and cart off the old turf system and infill for as little as £1.50 per sq m. In most cases there is no audit trail of where the used materials end up. Even if proper landfill is used, the cost of disposal is unlikely to be more than £2 - £3 per sq m. Compare that with the cost of recycling a used pitch – around £5 - £6 per sq m, depending on what is done with the turf at the end of its life – and it’s clear to see why recycling is not seen as a cost- friendly option. While recycling costs are likely to
While methods exist which would allow up to 90-95 per cent of materials to be recycled, the high cost of doing so remains a barrier
come down in the future, a lot has to happen before there is any incentive to recycle in the UK. At present, there is no reprocessing plant in the country and funding agencies do not incentivise contractors to have sustainable practices by offering a bonus or dividend. It’s not all doom and gloom though; there are products and companies offering
sportsmanagement.co.uk issue 2 2015 © Cybertrek 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92