REMOVAL OF INSTALLATIONS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25447, 19 March 1948, Page 8

REMOVAL OF INSTALLATIONS

Further questioned, Mr Nicol said that a private electrical engineer removed some electrical installation the day before witness began his investigation. To the chairman, Mr Gresson said the engineer was engaged by Ballantyne’s to take away the installations for safekeeping, as the Army was searching for bodies and generally clearing debris. “On behalf of the M.E.D., I must say that the explanation is not accepted,” said Mr Lascelles. “Nothing should have been done to touch the electrical installations. It was done without notice to the M.E.D. or State Hydro-electric Department. The department is charged with investigating electrical calamities of this kind and it is like shifting the body of a murdered person.”

Earthing Not Found No evidence of earthing at the cableend box at the end of the circuit breaker was found, Mr Nicol said, in reply to Mr Gresson’s questioning. The evidence suggested that the armouring or lead sheathing of the cable was not joined to the cable-end box and no other form of earthing could be found at that end in relation to the cable. Mr Gresson: As no earth was at the cable-end box at Colombo street, then it most certainly should have been earthed to the switch-board end?—Yes. If it was not earthed at either end, it was contrary to safe electrical practice and contrary to specific regulations?—Yes, with one proviso we should also add —if also, it was earthed at no other point. To do otherwise would be risky?— Yes. If not earthed, it would amount to an electrical hazard?—Possibly. But in the light of our teste and measurements, the absence of the connexion of earth, although it was contrary to the regulations, did not necessarily turn the cable into a fire risk of itself. You mean the cause of the fire? I am not asking you to suggest it necessarily caused the fire? —Although it may have been contrary to regulations, it does not necessarily cause the cable to become a fire hazard. “Not necessarily, but possibly? ’ asked the chairman. Mr Nicol: Yes. Mr Gresson: You have a pre-existing condition for fire risk, the non-earthing of the armouring and lead sheath? The chairman: It opens the way? “Yes, to a certain extent,” replied Mr Nicol. Passing of Installation Mr Gresson: The regulations require earthing of metal sheathing up to the specification of the authorised inspector, so we can agree it is an important matter? —Yes. It is designed to reduce electrical hazard?—Yes. If you found no earth in any installation,, you would not have been prepared to pass it?—No. I would not And why?—Because it would not conform with the regulations.

And why do you think the regulations require earthing? Is it not as a measure of safety?—Yes, to make Installations safe

Among other effects, proper earthing would reduce any risk of heating?— Yes.

With proper earthing could heating ocfcur?—Yes.

To an extent that would matter?— That is rather a complex question. Mr Nicol quoted a case where heating had occurred in an earth wire. The insulation of terminal boxes was discussed and Mr Nicol informed Mr Gresson that it was not always a safe practice to fill boxes with bituminous material. The contractors had thought it desirable to do so at the Colombo street end. The risk was that moisture would reduce the insulating capacity of the bituminous filled or oil-impreg-nated insulating paper. He was not prepared to say there was not sufficient “sealing down” at the switchboard end where bituminous filling

If you had been in charge of the installation and thought it desirable to put bituminous filling in the box at the Colombo street end would you not have thought it desirable at the other end?—Not necessarily. There are other means equally as satisfactory. The cross-examination was not finished when the commission adjourned till this morning.