Please don’t forget that ECHA’s deadline to respond to the draft opinion of its Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) on the restriction dossier on intentionally added microplastics, expires on 1st September 2020.
Those wishing to convince SEAC that the market is not ready yet to do away with polymeric infill for third generation synthetic turf fields, will have to answer the following 5 questions:
- Will there be enough alternative synthetic turf systems that meet relevant performance standards available, and in sufficient quantities, for all types of pitches by the end of the six-year transitional period proposed?
- How many pitches would need to be replaced before the end of their expected lifetime and what would the impacts of such a replacement be?
- Is there evidence to suggest that indoor artificial pitches should be treated differently from outdoor pitches?
- Is it true that only 10-20% of pitches would need to be replaced be?
- Is it correct that the average cost of containment is considered to be 30,000 € per field?
Please note that SEAC wants answers to these questions to be substantiated with evidence. The comments can be submitted online by following this link.
A comprehensive ESTC response will be submitted by the end of the week latest. Our response will be substantiated by the literature review undertaken based on results from our own tests in Sweden. Here, consultancy company Ecoloop concluded that published data from various studies shows that, providing a synthetic turf field is fitted with mitigating measures, maintenance correctly by responsible operators and players use boot cleaning brushes, etc., infill dispersion can be limited to max. 7 gr/m2 per year.