BALLANTYNE’S FIRE INQUIRY

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25448, 20 March 1948, Page 8

BALLANTYNE’S FIRE INQUIRY

Questioning Of Electrical Expert HOSE CONTACT DANGER THEORY DISCOUNTED Although Mr T. A. Gresson, one of the counsel for Ballantyne’s, made it clear when the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the fire resumed its sitting yesterday 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 cross-examination of Mr Nicol was not finished at 3.30 p.m. when the commission adjourned until April 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. Barrer, counsel for three trade unions.

“Yesterday we appeared to be at cross purposes,” said Mr Gresson when resuming his cross-examination. “I respect your opinion as a testing engineer 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 sx>u bluntly how much of your findings we accept and tell you of 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 risks by insulation, mechanical measures, and earthbeen the subject of questioning on Thursday. Mr Gresson said he re £i r an important Protective device, the fuses. J l5 ” 8 S r fuse s at the substation in Lichfield street protecting the main power lines* to the fuse panel m Ballantyne’s were set to blow at amperes and the tases at Ballanrynes panel were set t o blow at 300 amperes. His tests showed that simithose on the panel blew at 325 amperes.

Wo Knslallations 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 ril® r ?syoyed installations on the Thursto y dm?M m e c T Kad no reas «” Mr Salvesen’s accuracy and h£n D ° mtS ° n Which he dis ' S.ilvesen says he the the arm °uring at the Colombo street end of the instaila--1 ° ! n„? u ,S ul S accept Ms word?—Yes there was no earth but ehairSian° n °‘ find it? " “ ked the

agreed witness ,™ emai ” s of a dip on the main entbonSM'” pe J m u d of an earth wire on S? N£!S' en mv box were foul >d, agreed Clio N wa-' In l71 ® P, ur P° se of the earth to , c °nduct any electricity on its way into the building and ** ca J™X g the entrant p?/ e Ind the and boS wiZ? a ?, y avldenc e of those Pipe^n^th’e B n e »it POint ° f thst iJnLTI 7 electricity those wires were --Li , to handle would go down the <nSSi t »- ea » kh ,? t 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 investigation. Mr Nicol said his instructions were from the ectmg-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 nart had to be omitted?—None —(laughter). Did you have to get information about the sub-station?—Which one? Not the one on the top of Cashmere Hills? Don’t be foolish on the point? You knew perfectly well it was the Lichfield street sub-station to which I 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. His personal effort was done over and above his normal duties. Did you make inquiries as to who installed the cable—that Thompson and Dorreen installed the cable in 1936?—The facts were drawn to my notice. He had considered the date of installation. and.it was implied by his re*erence 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. Don’t you consider that a point of possible relevance in the matter?—lt 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 significance?—That is so. Unearthing of Armour "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 < wider audience than that in the chamber. Mr Gresson: A number of significant facts appear in your report. You do eomment on nuite a number of them? Witness: I do. Thus, ip general terms, your comment is summarised in its shortest rorm ’ n y°ur -findings?—Yes. Every one of those comments is against the possibilitv of the cable fire? There is no comment that hints the cable could have caused the fire?—l 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 be immediately followed up with very careful tests to discover what might be the outcome ol such a condition.

Are you satisfied theie were, apart from the earthing breach, no other significant breaches of the regulations in this installation? Did you find any other? —My answer must be this: there were no other breaches of the regulations 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 account all reasonable possibilities?— Yes.

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

Possible Chafing of Cable Mr Nicol said, in reply to questions, that he did not inquire as to the holes through which the cable passed, except in a general way. He did not consider it a relevant matter to bring into his report. He had noticed that the earth wire from the entrance pipe and thence to joint-end box was too small in size to conform to«the regulations. The chafing of the cable at the entrance could cause a fire and therefore the necessity was to minimise the chafing. The entrance pipe was relatively smooth, but could have been si toother. He thought he could have properly required it to be more smooth.

Asked why later readings of instrumlnt? x- the Lichfield street sub-station of loads were not ™ Ms report, Mr Nieol said 1,?. ev > < ?ence at electrical burning rather disclosed something almost instantaneous. The maximum demand device m that sub-station did not, and could not, take into account such instantaireous flow of current ti, did *Z ou ask for nether readTnan the one in vour report?— T “ey w ere proffered by the M.E.D. why do you suppose they were proffered.—Because it was proper to bring together every conceivable availat>le P ,ece of information. rJJr2?9 d< ?m? you re f er them in your reß°rt- They are in my possession «nd are possessed by the M.E.D If you thought it might be helpful to all concerned to have the readings perfectly well it would be helpful to have the latest readings which are in your possession. me why vou have not produced them or referred to them in your report?—Those readings cannot take account of short periods of flow ?L.? xc ® s s ,ve current. I claim that, while giving due regard to their values extent of comparing readings taken subsequent to the fire, it was my considered opinion that no P se ful purpose could be served bv givln£ them in the report. aiA*® Y° u Prepared, .as a competent electrician.go on record as saying subsequent readings were irrelevant? , , The v were relevant and are available. I would prefer the M.E.D. figures to. be submitted, rather than

he chairman: They mignt oe relevant to the inquiry: but were they re J®y an t to vour investigation?—No. The fact that three pieces of bitumen were found on the concrete floor of the cellar under the bitumen or oil impregnated filled cable could have been mentioned in the report, said Mr J* lc . 01 - He would not agree that the fact that they were found was important. He admitted there had to be a considerable flow of current through to electrically burn the armouring of the cable as had happened. Fire and Damage ~ ress °n: Is there room for argument that the fire preceded the general damage in the armouring?—Yes. DU ll. cann ot see any ground for such a belief.

The possibility that electrical damyou?—the fire iS conceded b y

- T L! S ? Possibility that should be rightly takeft into account?—That is my opinion.

I claim that just prior to the blowing of the fuses, a current of 100 amperes, plus a minor, small tolerance was flowing in the circuit, and. furthermore that the whole of that current can reasonably be accounted for as being taken bv the normal, as far as it was. electrical installation at Ballantyne’s.” said witness. . Witness said he did not think the nesting of the seven-foot length of cable at the laboratory was done in a that carrying the 20ft cable at Ballantyne’s. said Mr Nicol. Mr Gresson: If this cable was unearthed should that have been apparent to the inspecting authority?—The answer to a nart of your question is that it is the sort of thing that is checked for: the answer to the part whether or not it could be readily checked is that there could be a set of circumstances which might quite well mislead a reasonably careful electrical inspector.

But he would regard it as one of the first essentials that he should satisfy himself it was properly earthed?—Yes It is equally important with others.

Faulty Installation He was not prepared to say at the moment positively one way or the other whether or not the installation was faulty, said Mr Nicol to Mr B. A. Barrer (for three unions). Can we conclude you did not see any evidence of faultv installation?—lf the installation could be considered to be strictlv not in accordance with the regulations and that is consideerd to be faulty then I may say the installation was faultv.

Assuming the cable had been installed in 1936. would it materially deteriorate?—No. A cable of this sort is ronsidered to have an infinite life. Would it be required bv the regulations on servicing to say if it was all right?—Only to the extent of interference with it such as structural alterations or work carried out by people who were not electrical people Assuming that through the fault in the cable, it started to develop heat, would vou expect that heat to develop for a considerable period before smoke was produced from a fairly sudden process’—ln the case of this particular cable, the only way in which that could occur, in the light of evidence, is suddenly and over a period of only a few seconds, or possibly less than one second. It would go very quickly?—That is mv belief.

If an unqualified man attempted to disconnect the power at the switchboard at Congreve’s cellar, would it be a dangerous thing to do? Mr Ronald

Ballantyne has told us that when he first heard of the fire, he went alone with the idea of disconnecting this cable at the street. Is that a thing he could have done as a man of no experience in electricity? If he could have done it, would it have been dangerous to himself?—lt is a thing he could have done if he had a small knowledge of how to withdraw a fuse and, ordinarily, no great risk would have been incurred in doing so. It is not the accepted practice, but there is no reason why it should not have been done in emergencies. * Effect off Water Jet

A fireman has given evidence of playing a direct jet of water on an electric cable?—l can only disagree that it is dangerous; but there is ample evidence to show that with a jet of water being plaved upon like conductors the potentialities are many times greater than the potentialities in Colombo street. Would it have been a risk to play water upon that cable, if spluttering? —No risk whatsoever.

Equally to one playing a fire extinguisher?—l believe no harm would result from the actual contact of liquid with the fire; but of necessity a person would probably have .to be a little closer than with a hose and that in itself may be a danger

The test is how close you get to it with your jet of water?—Strictly, yes. How far could one go to a fusing cable of this kind to play water?—The nictate I have of thi« fusing cable is that electricity would be present only for a brief space of time, and the likelihood of one playing an extinguisher or water upon the .cable at precisely the same instant as it was being fused by the flow of current is extremely small: and even if that occur. I think one could be quite close to it. within two or three feet as far as the water jet is concerned, without any damage.