Toxic arenas

[DD]

Anyone else read the article? I wonder if the supplier can be sued for costs and removal for mis selling a product?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Link to article.
https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/new...ena-surface-warning-environment-agency-661424
I'm surprised at this. Chopped up cable offcuts have surely been used for decades. Wasn't the original and very posh Parkway Pasada surface made from this, and that was around in the 80s? Anyhow, I'd think that chopped rubber, like I legitimately have on my arena as do thousands of others, would be at least as 'toxic' and likely to leach as chopped plastic cable, but that is approved and OK. Maybe the problem with cable is an oversight of documentation.

ETA the Pasada surface is still available.

 

[ycbm]

It is, and was always, Pasada, in the early days, the 'posh person's' surface and very expensive. . A friend has it. I made my own version and still have ten tons of it in various places, sold by Manchester plastics who now own the Pasada name. This sounds like part of the plastic backlash to me. It's standard electrical wiring coating, how toxic can it be? Have the Environment Agency nothing better to do than chase down a product that's been in use for thirty years?

 

[whiteflower]

One of my arenas has it, was resurfaced a few years ago by one of the big names building arenas in the UK and at a very high cost, as part of a waxed surface. So what are they saying I now have to go back to them and tell them they need to removed the whole thing and redo it......

 

[Chuckieee]

I didn’t find the H&H article very helpful either. How are these surfaces toxic?

Is it on contact with skin, ingested, what precisely?

Yes it is a waste material but used in this way, on top of a membrane, I’d expect that it would be okay. I can see that if it was just chucked onto soil, it could work itself down into the water table etc but I think most of these surfaces sit on sand, then on stone then on membrane? I don’t know. The article isn’t clear but the title is Catchy enough.....TOXIC!

For the moment, I guess riders should simply resist the urge to eat their ménage then ��

 

[catkin]

One of my arenas has it, was resurfaced a few years ago by one of the big names building arenas in the UK and at a very high cost, as part of a waxed surface. So what are they saying I now have to go back to them and tell them they need to removed the whole thing and redo it......

I suspect that the article has missed a bit of explanation somewhere. It specifically says to beware of being offered cheap or free stuff which may be not quite what it seems (say for a DIY project). That's a bit different to the arena built by reputable suppliers as it mentions there are licenced plastics products, and (one would hope!) such a company would have the requisite permissions/licences.

 

[BBP]

I have some knowledge of this sort of stuff but not this exact issue, so don’t take what I say as gospel.

Generally, for waste to be used for a purpose it must not pose an unacceptable risk to the environment. This is monitored in a few ways. If it’s riskier stuff, it needs an environmental permit that sets out under exactly what conditions it can be used (i.e must have sealed drainage, or be in an enclosed secure building). If it’s lower risk, like rubber for arenas, it falls under an exemption, which you register with the EA for free, and that also sets out what tonnage of what waste you can use. So for a U8 exemption you are permitted to bring in 1000 tons of shredded or granulated rubber or end of life tyres for use in your horse manège. Or a U1 allows you to bring in a set tonnage of certain types of wood chip or hardcore to construct a track. But they are specific about exactly which codes of waste you can use (for example some woodchip comes from virgin wood, ie tree surgery waste, whilst some is shredded pallets which may contain nails and chemically treated wood, so is coded differently. One has a potential negative environmental impact if used on a track and the other much less so, so they are regulated differently). Then you get wastes that are treated in such a way that they are almost like a new product, but they have to pass certain tests to prove that they meet the ‘end of waste’ criteria and do not pose any further risk to the environment than a brand new product designed for the purpose.

My guess is that shredded electrical cable plastics fall into this latter category and that for legitimate use in arenas they need to meet end of waste criteria that show them to be free from metals and leachable chemicals and to be as good as granules produced with the specific intention of being an arena surface material. This treatment and testing of waste will cost a legitimate company a fair wack and as such the plastic granules they sell will cost the customer a fair chunk.

My guess is that unscrupulous waste companies have seen a gap in the market for purchasers who don’t know any better, and that they are trying to sell badly treated stuff at a low price, without the purchaser being aware that it’s not the high end material that so and so up the road got. They just think they are getting a bargain but are actually being used by the waste producer as a free landfill. Theoretically if I’m right, the person accepting the waste could be prosecuted for knowingly permitting the deposit of waste without a permit and asked to remove it. If the waste is tested be hazardous (think of the chemicals used to make the plastic less flammable, bromine based stuff) then this could cost an absolute fortune. But that is exactly the absolute fortune that they have saved these illegal traders, who would have had to treat it properly or send it to landfill themselves.

That’s my take on what is behind it anyway.

 

[Goldenstar]

It’s a badly written article with a silly ott title the standard of journalism at hand h is notwhat it used to be .

 

[Rowreach]

I have some knowledge of this sort of stuff but not this exact issue, so don’t take what I say as gospel.

Generally, for waste to be used for a purpose it must not pose an unacceptable risk to the environment. This is monitored in a few ways. If it’s riskier stuff, it needs an environmental permit that sets out under exactly what conditions it can be used (i.e must have sealed drainage, or be in an enclosed secure building). If it’s lower risk, like rubber for arenas, it falls under an exemption, which you register with the EA for free, and that also sets out what tonnage of what waste you can use. So for a U8 exemption you are permitted to bring in 1000 tons of shredded or granulated rubber or end of life tyres for use in your horse manège. Or a U1 allows you to bring in a set tonnage of certain types of wood chip or hardcore to construct a track. But they are specific about exactly which codes of waste you can use (for example some woodchip comes from virgin wood, ie tree surgery waste, whilst some is shredded pallets which may contain nails and chemically treated wood, so is coded differently. One has a potential negative environmental impact if used on a track and the other much less so, so they are regulated differently). Then you get wastes that are treated in such a way that they are almost like a new product, but they have to pass certain tests to prove that they meet the ‘end of waste’ criteria and do not pose any further risk to the environment than a brand new product designed for the purpose.

My guess is that shredded electrical cable plastics fall into this latter category and that for legitimate use in arenas they need to meet end of waste criteria that show them to be free from metals and leachable chemicals and to be as good as granules produced with the specific intention of being an arena surface material. This treatment and testing of waste will cost a legitimate company a fair wack and as such the plastic granules they sell will cost the customer a fair chunk.

My guess is that unscrupulous waste companies have seen a gap in the market for purchasers who don’t know any better, and that they are trying to sell badly treated stuff at a low price, without the purchaser being aware that it’s not the high end material that so and so up the road got. They just think they are getting a bargain but are actually being used by the waste producer as a free landfill. Theoretically if I’m right, the person accepting the waste could be prosecuted for knowingly permitting the deposit of waste without a permit and asked to remove it. If the waste is tested be hazardous (think of the chemicals used to make the plastic less flammable, bromine based stuff) then this could cost an absolute fortune. But that is exactly the absolute fortune that they have saved these illegal traders, who would have had to treat it properly or send it to landfill themselves.

That’s my take on what is behind it anyway.

That is what I understood too. Ever since rubber and plastics started being used in arena surfaces there has been a big question mark over how to dispose of old surfaces, but that is another topic ...