Fire, explosion risk in surfboard making

Press, 4 December 1979, Page 25

Fire, explosion risk in surfboard making

Back-yard surfboard industries create fire and explosion risks for the manufacturers and their neighbours, according to a senior building inspector in Christchurch.

Mr E. Hughes, chief building inspector for the Waimairi County, said that polyeurethene resin, which was used in surfboard construction, created a high fire risk because of its low flash point, gave off highly toxic fumes, and could explode.

He was submitting evidence to a council subcommittee which was considering an application for consent to use a Spencerville shop to sell surfboards, craft products, and plants.

Mr Hughes said that anyone contemplating using the resin for surffa o a r d manufacturing should have an automatic foam extinguishing system installed to reduce the risk of fire. This would not prevent an explosion, however, and supplies of resin should be isolated from any building, preferably in a reinforced concrete shelter. He said that the amount of resin used did not sigil ftlh reduce the hazard. A dangerous goods licence was required if a gallon or more of resin was stored, he said. W.J., J.M., and R. G.

McAuley had also asked the council for consent to make surfboards in two sheds at the back of the Spencerville shop, at the corner of Heyders Road and Lower Styx Road. They said that they wished to make the surfboards for a year until they knew whether the area had business potential. They intended to make about eight boards on five days of the week. The shop would also provide an outlet for small handcrafts such as wooden toys, pottery, macrame, and paintings which were produced in the area.

No objection to the application had been received by the council, but the assistant county planner (Miss A. F. Young) said that she could not support the application for planning consent to make surfboards. She said that the fabrication of the boards was a potentially dangerous process, and referred to Mr Hughes’ comments.

The applicants said that they used five-pint lots of resin, for each board, and these were taken as required from a 44-gallon drum.

Mr Hughes said that a 44-gallon drum of poly-

eurethene resin in a residential area was a dreadful prospect. The resin was liable to spontaneous combustion, he said. “To allow such a hazardous industry in a residential zone ’would give open slather for industries of similar hazard,” said Mr Hughes. The applicants said that the cost of buying resin in five-pint lots was three times the cost of buying in bulk, 44-gallon drums. Two pints of resin were used at any one time, and they proposed to make only one or two boards a day.

Mr Hughes said that if the drum of resin were placed in a reinforced concrete shelter there would probably be no danger to the building, or adjacent buildings, but persons working in the building would be at risk.

Miss Young said that she had found the resin fumes “offensive” when she visited the building. Another factor was that no land was zoned for commercial use in the area.

The council sub-com-mittee adjourned its hearing to allow it to receive written submissions from Mr Hughes and from a dangerous goods inspector.