The Incinerator #2

[Juballee]

IMO, had the incinerator been purchased for the MRO, I'm sure many questions would have been asked of Mr. Penner as they relate to use in an aviation facility.

Sometimes when you call a business and have questions about a specific product but the questions involve using it for a different purpose, the businesses can sometimes get upset that you would be misusing their item and not want to deal with you, or at least not want to give you a warranty on it now. It is possible in my mind, that questions were asked that would fit with with the manufacturers specific use but still answer their questions about capacity, fuel consumption and time entailed.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Sometimes when you call a business and have questions about a specific product but the questions involve using it for a different purpose, the businesses can sometimes get upset that you would be misusing their item and not want to deal with you, or at least not want to give you a warranty on it now. It is possible in my mind, that questions were asked that would fit with with the manufacturers specific use but still answer their questions about capacity, fuel consumption and time entailed.

I agree with this. An aviation incinerator might cost much more due to the certification and regulation it undergoes. This might seem like overkill when most of the "dangerous international garbage" is just US origin. WM could be very tied of laying out cash by the time the incinerator was purchased and cheap and functional may have been all they were looking for.

 

[MsSherlock]

'Disposing of dead animals in incinerator' would seem to bring it up....

Which apparently was the reason for purchase....nothing unusual there IMO.....

:dunno:

Blomquist, IMO, there is something extremely unusual about a legit business lying to a supplier about the purchase of a piece of equipment. IMO, mature adult business people have no need to lie and don't make a habit of it. The death of TB is a prime example of why businesses shouldn't lie about buying equipment, especially their incinerators-you never know when someone is going to get carjacked, murdered and thrown into it...when it's parked off site at a "livestock-less" farm that you own. One lie often leads to another. MOO

 

[Archangel7]

Please inform us of exactly what waste a defunct MRO or any other MRO would generate that would be burned on site, what MRO exactly is doing this and what permits are required if an MRO is found.

My experience has been that copious amounts of waste water are generated when engine parts are cleaned with toxic chemicals and water. No way a pig incinerator is adequate or safe.

I fly out of several aerodromes from Toronto to Peterborough and even Muskoka, no incinerators, and any leaded fuel, Jet A, oil, oil sludge, etc. would be recycled by a contractor.

However my onsite experiences are simply that and if others know more about it, I for one would be interested. On DM's MRO....there was nothing else needed at the MRO prior to intaking revenue, apparently, except DM's cooperation, per AS.

I can't even imagine the potential danger facing the aerodrome property by having an animal incinerator at an on site MRO. Which is likely why it wasn't at the hangar to start with.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Please inform us of exactly what waste a defunct MRO or any other MRO would generate that would be burned on site, what MRO exactly is doing this and what permits are required if an MRO is found.

My experience has been that copious amounts of waste water are generated when engine parts are cleaned with toxic chemicals and water. No way a pig incinerator is adequate or safe.

I fly out of several aerodromes from Toronto to Peterborough and even Muskoka, no incinerators, and any leaded fuel, Jet A, oil, oil sludge, etc. would be recycled by a contractor.

However my onsite experiences are simply that and if others know more about it, I for one would be interested. On DM's MRO....there was nothing else needed at the MRO prior to intaking revenue, apparently, except DM's cooperation, per AS.

I can't even imagine the potential danger facing the aerodrome property by having an animal incinerator at an on site MRO. Which is likely why it wasn't at the hangar to start with.

I guess you don't like my theory ha ha

The idea is that any garbage in the plane form normal operations has to be dealt with specially. Airports normally have incinerators. They use this to get rid of their "international" garbage that has special rules for disposal.

 

[Sillybilly]

I guess we have to consider that thousands of dead farm animals could be arriving on those huge planes every day :waitasec:

I believe this is what an airport incinerator consists of:

http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/Multimedia/photos/2010/July/auckland-greenpeace-activists/

Informative powerpoint presentation wrt considerations/requirements related to incinerator at Sangster International Airport:

http://www.powershow.com/view/9abc0...rnational_Airport_powerpoint_ppt_presentation

 

[Sillybilly]

from:
http://www.cookislandsnews.com/2010/July/Wed21/other.htm

A New Zealand airport incinerator:

burns about a tonne of rubbish every week offloaded from international aircrafts and Airport Authority Chief Executive Joe Ngamata said working with the airlines that service the country has enabled a significant reduction in emissions in the last five years.

and costs

an estimated $300,000 with operating and maintenance cost $100,000, Bridge said this more efficient model is beyond the budget of the Airport Authority which would need government support for this expenditure.

no small potatoes

 

[SnooperDuper]

Maybe the MRO only needed a little incinerator because they expected to deal with airplane garbage, just not a lot of it?

In case you missed it, TO LE are back at the farm on a warrant re: LB

 

[puppyraiser]

Going back to photos of the incinerator, it looked like it was in very good condition and didn't appear to have been stored outdoors for almost a year. That leads me to believe it may have been kept inside the barn or garage area. Is it possible that it had been used a year ago and ash from it was found somewhere inside the barn? Wish those observant neighbours AKA "pesky trespassers" had provided a bit more info with the photo- like if it had always been out in the bush area and just moved to a different spot.

 

[swedie]

Well I think we should stop assuming the incinerator was purchased with the intent of being used at Millardair. It seems pretty obvious to me that it wasn't. IF it was, why might I ask was it doing sitting on the farmland? Why was it delivered to the farmland instead of Millardair hangar? It was meant to be used on the farmland, delivered to the farmland and has been there since.

We know DM did not have any farmland animals, I doubt he was at the property much and/or long enough to be concerned about those wild critters, which may I add most of them typically only come around at night and not near humans as they are timid, and we know DM rented out the fields for planting so it's not likely he bought it for getting rid of infected crops in. IMHO he bought it to get rid of criminal evidence of some sort. Whether it was people or vehicle parts, time will tell. MOO. Sadly I don't think TB was the first victim, LB may have been a victim and I have a strange feeling there were other victims prior to LB. The incinerator was not used obviously on other victims, so maybe in time someone will discover remains around DM's properties. Now that LE are back at the farmland, maybe it wouldn't hurt for them to go into all the treed areas on his property searching. MOO.
HTH and MOO.

 

[expat cdn]

Would they have any use for an incinerator if they were manufacturing drugs? If they were cooking up meth, there may be left over waste? not sure..

 

[MsSherlock]

Would they have any use for an incinerator if they were manufacturing drugs? If they were cooking up meth, there may be left over waste? not sure..

expat, the more I look at that old dairy barn, the more I realize that it's functionality was probably not compromised by a few barn boards falling off the hay storage area of it. The livestock area of it, would have fairly high ceilings, concrete walls and floors, plus running water and drains in the milk room. IMO, the incinerator being on a trailer, may have been easily wheeled into the working area of the barn. IMO, most cattle barns like this one would have a set of large barn doors somewhere in the concrete section, leading from the pasture area into the barn on the livestock level, where the milking cattle would enter the barn twice a day for milking. JMHO, but the incinerator may not have been out in the field all the time and could have been used anywhere and anytime to burn anything when the need arose. The possibilities could be endless MOO

 

[ArianeEmory]

This line of speculation leads me to another question I've been wondering about: I know there were a lot of hangar/car project photos from various Facebooks; we never really saw the interior of the barn, though, right?

 

[puppyraiser]

expat, the more I look at that old dairy barn, the more I realize that it's functionality was probably not compromised by a few barn boards falling off the hay storage area of it. The livestock area of it, would have fairly high ceilings, concrete walls and floors, plus running water and drains in the milk room. IMO, the incinerator being on a trailer, may have been easily wheeled into the working area of the barn. IMO, most cattle barns like this one would have a set of large barn doors somewhere in the concrete section, leading from the pasture area into the barn on the livestock level, where the milking cattle would enter the barn twice a day for milking. JMHO, but the incinerator may not have been out in the field all the time and could have been used anywhere and anytime to burn anything when the need arose. The possibilities could be endless MOO

I'm confused as to why there was a burnt area back in the bush where the incinerator had be sitting when first seen by the neighbour (before it had been moved to a different spot). Do these things throw off so much heat that the ground scorched underneath? Or was it because the chute was opened and hot material fell on the ground?

If it does throw off heat, then wouldn't it be dangerous to be used inside an old barn with hay or straw laying around.... or possibly flammable chemicals? Would they have towed it back and forth from barn to bush?

 

[Archangel7]

I guess you don't like my theory ha ha

The idea is that any garbage in the plane form normal operations has to be dealt with specially. Airports normally have incinerators. They use this to get rid of their "international" garbage that has special rules for disposal.

No, I like your theory. I was differentiating what a MRO does wrt what an Airport/Airline might do in a proper setting. Obviously aerodrome has restaurants and thus ignition sources, but they meet standards and are well away from fuel/maintenance.

When I take my vehicle to the mechanic, he doesn't vacuum my vehicle and remove the trash. He and his crew only work the brakes, engine, suspension, etc.

A fume sucking pig incinerator at a MRO would be a sure contract killer and likely Transport Canada illegal due to a flame source for ignition of nearby cleaning and draining work.

 

[Juballee]

No, I like your theory. I was differentiating what a MRO does wrt what an Airport/Airline might do in a proper setting. Obviously aerodrome has restaurants and thus ignition sources, but they meet standards and are well away from fuel/maintenance.

When I take my vehicle to the mechanic, he doesn't vacuum my vehicle and remove the trash. He and his crew only work the brakes, engine, suspension, etc.

A fume sucking pig incinerator at a MRO would be a sure contract killer and likely Transport Canada illegal due to a flame source for ignition of nearby cleaning and draining work.

I have to say, depending on what kind of car you have, they sometimes do vacuum it or wash the windows and freshen it up a little while they have it, from what I have seen.

I think the point is that there are likely health and safety standards that can affect even the wrappers of the snacks the crew ate on the flight to the MRO if it was coming from a foreign country. It wouldn't be a lot to burn, not necessitating the larger industrial waste incinerator, but I imagine the rules would say that it must be incinerated, not what specific size of incinerator, as long as it reaches a temperature that would destroy any bacterial agents as well as the item itself.

Also, I have to assume that they could be using things like welding torches and such when repairing an aircraft. I think they would be allowed to have some ignitions in the Aerodrome, as you call it (which charmingly makes me think of people in hats waiting for Zeppelins) and would have standards for the safe keeping of flammable materials, like every other workplace that has them.

 

[Sillybilly]

I think the point is that there are likely health and safety standards that can affect even the wrappers of the snacks the crew ate on the flight to the MRO if it was coming from a foreign country.

<rsbm>

I doubt those little wrappers are more dangerous than the toxic smoke billowing from an incinerator inside the hangar.

 

[MsSherlock]

I'm confused as to why there was a burnt area back in the bush where the incinerator had be sitting when first seen by the neighbour (before it had been moved to a different spot). Do these things throw off so much heat that the ground scorched underneath? Or was it because the chute was opened and hot material fell on the ground?

If it does throw off heat, then wouldn't it be dangerous to be used inside an old barn with hay or straw laying around.... or possibly flammable chemicals? Would they have towed it back and forth from barn to bush?

Puppyraiser, IMO, it's hard to say if the burn marks came from the incinerator or perhaps were the result of little bonfire that may have been set up to provide a bit of light or sit around while the incinerator was burning away. MOO

 

[MsSherlock]

For Information: Rules governing incineration of farm animals in Ontario Canada-
Incineration Source: http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight....earchUrlHash=AAAAAQALaW5jaW5lcmF0b3IAAAAAAAAB

Incineration requirements

11. (1) In addition to complying with section 9, every operator who disposes of a dead farm animal by incinerating it shall ensure that the requirements set out in this section are satisfied. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (1).

(2) An operator must not use an incinerator to incinerate dead farm animals unless the incinerator is a type that has been issued a Verification Certificate by ETV Canada Incorporated certifying that it has a secondary chamber that is capable of maintaining the gases that enter it from the primary chamber for,

(a) at least 1 second at a temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius or higher; or

(b) at least 2 seconds at a temperature of 850 degrees Celsius or higher. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (2).

(3) An incinerator used to incinerate dead farm animals must be located at least,

(a) 30 metres from a highway;

(b) 15 metres from the lot line of the registered parcel of land on which the incinerator is located;

(c) 100 metres from every livestock housing facility, outdoor confinement area and residential structure that is located on land that is not part of the registered parcel of land on which the incinerator is located;

(d) 100 metres from the lot line of land that has an industrial or parkland use; and

(e) 200 metres from the lot line of land in a residential area and from land that has a commercial, community or institutional use. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (3).

(4) The following rules apply to the incineration of a dead farm animal in an incinerator:

1. The burner flame in the secondary chamber must be lit and operating before the burner flame in the primary chamber is lit.

2. At all times during the incineration, the temperature in the secondary chamber must be no less than the minimum temperature specified in the ETV Canada incorporated issued Verification Certificate for the type of incinerator being used.

3. All gases that enter the secondary chamber from the primary chamber must remain in the secondary chamber for,

i. at least 1 second at a temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius or higher, or

ii. at least 2 seconds at a temperature of 850 degrees Celsius or higher.

4. The dead farm animal must be incinerated until, on a visual inspection, there is no remaining,

i. soft animal tissue,

ii. bones or bone fragments larger than 15 centimetres in any dimension, and

iii. any other animal matter larger than 25 millimetres in any dimension. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (4).

(5) The maximum weight of dead farm animals that may be incinerated on a farm in each 24-hour period is 1,000 kilograms, calculated using the weight of each dead farm animal immediately before it was incinerated. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (5).

(6) If an incinerator has been used to incinerate dead farm animals, that incinerator must not be used to incinerate any other material. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (6).

 

[Snoofo]

I would gave never guessed so many regs for an incinerator! Thx Ms.S!