THE FIRE INQUIRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume 78, Issue 24141, 6 December 1941, Page 14

THE FIRE INQUIRY

INSPECTION SYSTEM BfOWER BOARD'S POSITION EVIDENCE OF ENGINEER Th>e inspection system carried out by the I Auckland Electric-Power Board linden the electricity supply regulations was by Mr. E. Hutchison, its supply engineer, in evidence given before' the commission of inquiry into the fir«> at the premises of John Burns and Company, Limited, on August 19. The inquiry, which is being conducted by Mr. \'F. K. Hunt, with Mr. V. R. Mereditli, officiating as assisting counsel, completed its second week of daily sittings yesterday. In continuing his evidence, Eric Hutchison said the board usually had 14 inspectors now reduced to 12. Progress inspections were not required by the regulations, but as a matter of good practice the board had carried them out. In May, 1940, the board issued a penmit to H. K. Brown and Company for alterations at John Burns. No certificate was received and no final inspection made. Change in Inspectors "Progress .inspections were not made, this being caused by a change in the inspectors)' zones and the failure of the inspeotor to pass on. the information to the one who took over," continued witness. "We admit we have fallen down on this occasion." Steps had been taken to prevent a recurrence. ' His board would have no objection to the Public Works Department taking over inspections as suggested by Mr. F. F. Gilmore, chief electrical inspector for the Fire Underwriters' Association of New Zealand, in his evidence. Witness produced an application for a permit to do certain work. It was dated November 30, 1941, and stated the work of installing light, power and heating would be commenced as from that date if authorised- The application was received by the board the previous day. The Chief Post Office "Yesterday the premises were inspected and it was found that three § h.p. motors and one 1-3 h.p. motor were connected to the board's supply," said witness. "They had been connected for two months and the board hafl no knowledge whatever of this work. The first we knew was when the application was received for a permit for the work. "The application was from the Public Works Department and the work has been carried out at the chief post office in Auckland," continued witness. The application was produced to show the practice that was prevalent and with which the board had to contend. Questioned by Mr. Meredith, witness said the switchboard was a potential electrical hazard and agreed .that a cover on the top would have delayed the Bpread of the flames. The regulations did not call for a cover being provided for this typo of board. "A Colossal Job" _ The regulations called for re-inspec-tion of installations within every five years. Burns' premises were last inspected in that sense in 1934 and were due for re-inspection in 1939. That inspection had not been made, but in the interval at least 20 visits had been made to _ the premises. To Mr. North, he admitted those inspections were well in arrears. Witness pointed out that there were 65,000 consumers in the board's area. The five-yearly inspections was a colossal job. New Zealand was the first country within his knowledge that had instituted this system. He did not think it was necessary to make a survey of all buildings as suggested by Mr. Goldstine. Survey of Switchboards Mr. Hunt: I am going to recommend that a survey be made to find out how many big switchboards are not properlv encased. To Mr. Inder (for H. K. Brown and Company), witness said he believed it would not be necessary for Brown to touch the switchboard in making any alterations. "Any man in Campbell's f)Sition would have responded to John urns' request to attend to the power point," he added. Charles Cyril Floyd also gave evidence. The inquiry was adjourned until Monday,,