FIRE INQUIRY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 68, Issue 136, 20 March 1948, Page 6

FIRE INQUIRY

Electrical Expert Questioned

HOSE CONTACT DANGER DISCOUNTED (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Mar. 19. % Although Mr T. A. Gressom, one of the counsel for Ba|lantyne’s, made it clear when, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the fire resumed its sitting to-day that the only point of controversy with Mr S. M. Nicol, testing engineer of the State Hydro-electric Department, was on Ballantyne’s contention that the fire started in the electrical mains cable, the crossexamination of Mr Nicol was not finished at 3.30 p.m. when the commission adjourned until Aprii 6.

Highly technical evidence was given by Mr Nicol in the continuation of his cross-examination by Mr Gresson, The risk to a fireman playing a direct jet of hose from further than two feet on a fusing cable was discounted by Mr Nicol in his replies to questions by Mr B. A. Barrel’, counsel for three trade union®.

“Yesterday we appeared to be at cross purposes,” said Mr Gresson when resuming Ills cross-examination. “I respect your opinion as a testing engi neer and recognise the value of your report. In trying to clear up any possible misunderstanding on that point, I want to begin by telling you how much of the report we entirely agree with. I will inform you bluntly how much of your finding® we accept, and tell you the differences between your evidence and that of our own experts, and confine my questions to that. Technical advice I am given accords in large measure with your opinions but differs in certain important respects. You would agree with me it is a difficult and technical matter?

“I agree with the latter unquestionably—with the former, possibly,” replied Mr Nicol. Mr Gresson: There is room for two genuine conflicting opinions?—Yes. I think there might be room for more. On present advice, Ballantyne’s entirely agreed that there was no evidence to show that the supply of electricity or the protective devices within the Lichfield Street sub-station were in any way improper, said Mr Gresson. They also accepted his finding that the fire did not originate in the service entrance mains, service fuses, or main electrical switchboard.

Mr Nicol: I Said it was not due to electricity. “Our contention is that it started in the electrical mains cable,” said Mr Gresson. “That is the only point of controversy between us.” The potential danger of electricity if it escaped and preventive measures taken to minimise the risk® by insulation, mechanical measures, and earthing had been the subject of questioning on Thursday. Mr Gresson said he had omitted to refer to an important protective device, the fuses.

Witness said the fuses at the substation in Lichfield Street protecting the main power lines to the fuse panel in Ballantyne’s were set to blow at 600 amperes and the fuses at Ballantyne’s panel were set to blow at 300 amperes. His tests showed that similar fuses to those on the panel blew at 325 amperes. Removal of Installations

He did not know, said Mr Nicol, when he was asked by Mr Gresson if .he knew that Mr Salvesen had authority from the police to begin work on the removed installations on the Thursday after the fire. lie had no reason to doubt Mr Salvesen’s accuracy and truthfulness on points on which lie disagreed with him. Mr Gresson: If Mr Salvesen says he found no earth from the armouring at the Colombo Street. end of* the installation you would accept his word? —Yes. “Not that there was no earth, but that he could not find it?” asked the chairman. "Yes,” agreed witness.

Remains of a clip on the main entrance pipe ’and of an earth wire on the cable-end box were found, agreed Mr Nicol. The purpose of the earth clip was to conduct any electricity on its way into the building and escaping into the entrance pipe and to deliver it to the end box. Was there any evidence of those wires being attached to any water pipe in the vicinity? Could you see any suitable earthing point of that type?—l did not see it. So any electricity those wires were called to handle would go down the cable to earth at the inner end of the installation?—lt is conceivable; or some considerable point along it. Asked what precise instructions were given him by the police when he began the investigations, Mr Nicol said his instructions were from the acting-District Electrical Engineer, to whom his report was addressed. Instruction Questions

What did you consider you were instructed to do?—To do the whole thing I did. (Laughter.) You had to examine the whole of the installation?—No.

What part had to he omitted? — None. (Laughter.) Did you have to get information about the sub-station?—Which one.

Not the one on the top of (Jashmere Hills. Don’t be foolish on the point. You knew perfectly well it was the Lichfield Street sub-station to which 1 was referring, didn’t you?—No. (Laughter.) Did you have any idea at the time you were instructed that the cable might be at fault?—No idea on the subject at all.

Is it fair to say you had a neutral attitude and decided to investigate it? Yes, at that stage and at all times. The report represented two months of tests and investigations, said Mr Nicol, and involved his staff and him in a great deal of work. Ilis personal effort was done over and above his normal duties.

Did you make inquiries as to who installed the cable—that Thompson and Dorrcen installed the cable in 1936?—The facts wore drawn to my notice.

I-Ie had considered the date of installation. and it was implied by his reference to the specification of the cable.

There is a duty on the local authority to inspect, test and certify in writing that any installation is safe before supplying current to that installation’?—Yes.

Did you make any inquiry whether that had taken place over this cable?— No.

DoiVt you consider that a point of possible relevance in the matter?—lt is. Why overlook it ?—lt is a point of possible relevance and I did not have

any reason to doubt that the cable had been certified to the satisfaction of all concerned.

You did not think it was of signifiance?—That is so.

“Why did you not draw attention to the armour being unearthed in your neutral report?—asked Mr Gresson.

Mr R. A. Young (for the Crown) said the question was not fair to the witness. The unearthing was clearly reported. “He reveals the fact that it was unearthed; but why not add the helpful expert comment that it was a breach of regulations and was dangerous?” replied Mr Gresson. The chairman remarked that a scientist had a wider audience than that in the chamber. Mr Gresson: A number of significant facts appear in your report. You do comment on quite a number of them ? Witness: I do.

Thus, in general terms, your comment is summarised in its shortest form in your findings?—Yes. Every one of those comments is against the possibility of the cable causing the fire? There is no comment that hints the cable could have caused the fire? 1 don’t know whether that is correct.

You do concede the possibility having been taken into account; but you find no evidence in support of that view?—Finding a condition which was not expected would bo immediately followed up with very careful tests to discover what might be the outcome of such a condition. Are you satisfied there wore, apart from the earthing breach, no other significant breaches of the regulations in this installation? Did you find anv other?—My answer must be this: there were no other breaches of the regulatiohs which, in my opinion, had a direct bearing upon whether or not this cable caused the fire. Do you think it was fair to decide in advance what had a direct bearing? Should you not have referred to anything which had a reasonable, possible bearing? It was the possibility of an electrical fire that you were inquiring into?—Yes. Which required you to take into ac count all reasonable possibilities?— Yes.

Do you consider you did take into consideration all reasonable possibilities?—Yes.