The below challenges the very existence of the MDF from day 1. I will leave you to distribute it as you see fit, but I would be interested in Anne Colombus’ response. I did ask her these questions at the Hornby Working Mens Club meeting but she would not answer stating she wanted the meeting to focus on the then current fire issues. From Anne Columbus’ email 27 June 4:01 PM below:- She says:- “(MDF is a commercial building material)“ However, that IN ITSELF does not … “fall within the category of materials allowed on this site” as she states. It ALSO has to be a “resource recovery of …. (the MDF from) …. commercial building demolition”. Take note, MDF (Medium Density Fibreboard) is NOT “wood” nor “timber”. To prove the MDF is allowed at this facility one needs to prove ALL of the following; it is:- 1/ there for “resource recovery”; and 2/ from a “commercial building”; and 3/ the commercial building was being “demolished”. 4/ ** see below 1/ there for “resource recovery” ? My understanding in the building industry, and in my research, is that MDF as a “resource” can not be “recovered” other than if the board is relatively undamaged and reused for its original purpose, i.e. as a wall board, floor board, cabinet; in which case it would need to be stacked, protected under cover and kept dry; MDF can NOT be broken down and recycled into MDF again; Given that the MDF in question has been dumped into the pit over several years, it must be physically and water damaged; I can not see how this “resource” could be “recovered” for its original purpose. I’ve had a lengthy talk with a very knowledgeable expert from the manufacturer of MDF, Nelson Pine, Environment and Research and Development Manager Phillip Wilson. He confirmed that discarded MDF can not be recycled back into MDF. He knows of no recyclable use for it and said it is best combusted at high temperatures in a properly designed burner, theirs burns at up to 900 C; or buried in a properly constructed land fill where the urea paraldehyde leach could be captured if need be; He added further helpful comments as below. If a genuine “resource recovery” can not be proven for the MDF, then it is not permitted by the resource consent as described in Anne Columbus’ email. If the above can be proved; then in addition it would also need to be shown that it is:- 2/ from a “commercial building” ? Did All the MDF come from “commercial buildings”, i.e. NOT residential buildings or other sources. If residential building or other source use MDF is found on site the operation would NOT comply with the resource consent. If both the above can be proved; then in addition it would also need to be shown that:- 3/ the commercial building was being “demolished“ when the MDF was taken? Did ALL the MDF come from “commercial buildings” that were being “demolished” Disused MDF as a result of improvements being made does NOT fit the definition of “commercial building demolition”. If any ONE of the above 1/ - 3/ can NOT be proved, then the MDF operation on site is not in accordance with the resource consent as described by Anne Columbus. It would not be possible to separate what is compliant from non-compliant therefore all would be non-compliant. If 1/ is the case, and it seems it must be (unless there is evidence and proof to the contrary), then any MDF dumped in a pit would be non-compliant. Any MDF for “resource recovery” would need to be relatively undamaged and stacked in its sheet form protected under cover and kept dry. 4/ ** MDF from Old Islington Site? Has burnt/unburnt MDF been “transferred from the old Islington site?” If so, how does that comply with the resource consent? In addition to 1/ above about MDF NOT being recoverable or recyclable:- If the MDF came from another “site” then it never complied. It needs to come from a “commercial building demolition” to comply with the resource consent. CONCLUSION: It appears clear that any MDF dumped in a pit is NOT a “resource” than can be “recovered” (or recycled). Any MDF found on site that is NOT from a “commercial building” makes the whole operation non-compliant. It would not be possible to separate residential and other use MDF from commercial building MDF. Any MDF found on site that did NOT arrive on site from a “commercial building demolition” makes the whole of the operation non-compliant. It would not be possible to separate MDF from other sources to that that arrived from commercial building demolition. SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION OF MDF: Whilst talking with Phillip Wilson from Gold Pine, the topic of spontaneous combustion arose. He said in order for this to happen the right moisture content is required and it ends up being a runaway exothermic reaction started off with bacteria ... creating chemical reaction … extreme heat … rapid combustion fire due to the extreme heat. He went into quite a bit of technical depth on it. He said he would be very surprised if it could happen with MDF, and that it was highly unlikely. He described the requirements for bacteria etc requiring moisture whereas MDF was a dry product that included wax. He said in bark it could occur, and to a lesser extent with wood chips. Is there any evidence that the fire “combusted” rapidly? or did it start slowly? The answer could be in that maybe? Regards and good luck Colin
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:47:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015