THE FIRE INQUIRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume 78, Issue 24133, 27 November 1941, Page 11

THE FIRE INQUIRY

SCOPE OF REGULATIONS QUESTION of using water OPINIONS OF WITNESSES ' The statement.that it was a debatable point whether water* should be played on electrical fires was made at the' sitting yesterday of the commission of inquiry into the fire in the premises 0 f John Burns and Company, Limited, on August 19. The regulations govern- - j n g electrical installations in buildings and the working practices of electricians a lso came under review in the evidence submitted. The inquiry is being conducted by Mr. F. Iv. Hunt, with Mr. y R. Meredith as assisting counsel. Eicrht other counsel are representing interested local authorities and parties. Howard Keith Brown, an electrical , engineer, said his firm was doing the alterations to the electrical installation at Burns' premises. It had done all such ■work since 193S and Campbell was one of its employees. A permit for the work jj a d been taken out, but no specifications of the work had been given by his firm when applying for it. When the work was completed it would be inspected by the Electric-Power Board officials. The regulations provided that installations could not be used until passed, but that -was not always possible. "Where you have an installation working and are altering it piecemeal you have to keep it going," he said. Question o! Permit Witness said his firm had not carried o ut the original installation. The switchboard was described by witness, ■who said it had no top cover. He produced a permit issued by the Auckland Electric-Power Board authorising work to- be carried out for three months from the date of issue in May, 1940. If the work was uot completed within the stipulated period a firm was supposed to apply for another permit. His firm tad no other permit than the one he had mentioned. Mr. Meredith: Then the Power Board gave you practically an open cheque and a free hand P . Witness: Yes; although strictly speaking a new permit should have " been taken out. Witness said he knew the regulations which required switchboards to be enclosed. He did not agree that their purpose was to confine any outbreak of fire as the regulations would not prevent anybody from using three-ply timber to enclose the board. He said he was not aware of any exception ever being taken to the switchboard having no top cover." The Use of Water "Campbell was outside his duties in attending to the broken plug-point," said witness. "Three fuses had blown when Campbell -caused an earth at the point terminal." His firm did not install £ny fuses on the board and he understood thev were replaced from time to time by one of Burns' employees. Campbell had been engaged the day before in altering the fire alarm and witness assumed that he would advise the Fire Brigade when he disconnected it. To Mr. North (for the Metropolitan Fire board), witness said Campbell was the only employee his firm had working on the premises that day. He had not told Burns' that Campbell was not a licensed wirernan.

Mr. North: Have you got similar views to Campbell in regard to turning water on an electrical" fire ? Witness: Campbell told me he had said not to put water on. Had I been there I might have done the same as Campbell. It is a debatable point whether it is wise-to put water on such a fire. I think I would have turned off the'main switch first. Quality Aspect Asked to explain his reasons, witness said it was known that pure water was a non-conductor of current. "Who is to say that the waiter coming from a hose has not a mineral content or is not rusty from a long unused hose?" he added. "I would not put rusty water on a switchboard fire, as one could get a shock that way." In-replv to Mr. Goldstine (for the Queensland Insurance Company), he said that, although Campbell was not a licensed wireman, he was one of the best all-round wiremen he had employed. He did not know that the Underwriters' Association regulations required only a qualified wireman to disconnect the alarm system from the fire brigade. The work was being carried out under the directions and in conjunction with the engineer of the fire alarm company, who was not a licensed wireman. There was nothing about that in the Power Board regulations. "I would have done the same as Campbell," continued witness, in stating that he knew the fuse had not been withdrawn before work was started on the plug-point. The blowing of the fuse was not caused by Campbell using a screwdriver. Witness demonstrated what had been done, stating that, when Campbell had taken off the point, a part of the casing had accidentally touched the conduit and caused an earth. "If the fuse on the board had been a gone one it would have blpwn in the usual way and ruptured the circuit, and nothing wore would have occurred," he added. No Certificates Given Witness said it was pretty obvious that the arcing at the board commenced the fire. It was sustained long enough to ignite .the wires at the back of-the board. "The majority of electricians work on live points every day," he said. "The drawing of a fuse is only a physical protection for the *- workman, and the fuse is for the protection of the system." Questioned by Mr. Terry (for the Auckland Electric-Power Board), wit-ness.-said it was agreed between himself the board that the alterations would be a lengthy job. To Mr. Inder '(his counsel), witness said no certificates were ever given sfter inspections by the Power Board officials. If the work was not satisfactory, a report was received, and the Work specified had to be rectified. In the absence of any report, it was taken for granted that everything was all right. To Mr. R. Girling-Butchi'r (for Internal Affairs Department), witness said rie would hardly have thought that a fire would occur at any point along the circuit as the result of Campbell's action. "There are many big switchboards in Auckland which are not totally enclosed," he added. Report of Fire . Jack Campbell said he had been working on and off at Burns' premises for Brow n since 1938. There had never been a cover on top of the switchboard, but at the directions of Brown the wall behind it had been lined with asbestos. The day previous to the fire had telephoned the lire brigade when lie disconnected and reconnected the alarm system. Qn thf morning of the fire, he disconnected it again, and was on his way to telephone the brigade when he was called to the telephone to speak to his employer. He then went to the main office to attend to the plug-point which the office boy had then reported to him. ."1 got one of the broken pins out With a screwdriver, but the other was jammed, so 1 unscrewed the point from the conduit box and pulled it away to to shake the pin out." he con- - tinned. "My finger must have touched a terminal, as 1 got a shock." He

denied having poked at the back of the point with his screwdriver, causing an arc. ' b He was then told that the switchboard was on fire, and he hurried downstairs to the ground floor. "I saw Lees with the fire hose," said witness, "and le said he was going to play it on the board. I said: Hang on and see if the juice is off. I thought it would be safer for him to wait as, if the water was dirty, he might get electrocuted, i went to the master switch but found that someone had already turned it off. Lees later commenced to use the hose. To Mr. Goldstine, witness said ho had made about seven or eight attempts without success to qualify as a wireman. He knew he was not supposed to touch the point. Mr. Goldstine: You took a gamble in not pulling the fuse and it did not come off? Witness: That is so. Mr. Goldstine: And that was the cause of a fire causing £250,000 damage Mr. Inder: You have no right to sav that; it isn't fair. That is what we are here to find out. Mr. Goldstine (to witness): Would you take the same gamble again? Witness: I would not take it at the present time. I might do it later, as it is the practice of all electricians to work on live points. * To Mr. Kingston (for the Vigilant Automatic Fire Alarm Company), witness said that had the system not been disconnected the hammering of the carpenters might have caused a false alarm. Mr. Inder: If the alarm system had been working would the fire at the switchboard have rung the alarm to the brigade? Witness: No; not until the fire reached the system on the stairs. An inspector of the Waitcmata Elec-tric-Power Board, Stanley Gordon Waite, said he had worked with Campbell on Burns' premises in 1939 and on several other jobs. "Campbell's work is comparable with any work in the city." he stated. To Mr. Reed (for John Burns and Company), witness said a competent electrician was not taking any risk in working on the point without drawing the fuse. Technically, the fuse should be drawn, but hundreds of electricians did not trouble to draw fuses. Mr. Reed: Would you be in favour of the regulations being revised to prohibit that practice? Witness: Yes, I would. When witness was replying to Mr. North regarding the advisability of switchboards being enclosed, Mr. Hunt intervened: "That won't be a debatable point after this." The inquiry will be continued to-day.