MAKIKIHI FIRE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLX, Issue 22028, 30 July 1941, Page 7

MAKIKIHI FIRE

Destruction Of Flax Factory Coroner’s Inquiry Opened Possible Causes Discussed An inquiry by the Coroner into the fire at the linen flax factory at Makikihi on June 25 was opened in the Courthouse in Timaru yesterday before Mr H. Morgan. In all about 15 witnesses are to be called, and at the conclusion of yesterday’s sitting only two had been heard. Mr W. D. Campbell appeared for the Department of Industries and Commerce and Mr A. D. Mcßae for the New Zealand Workers’ Union, Mr McRae said that he had been instructed to watch proceedings for the Union. He understood that there was no suggestion of Ff th Column activity or sabotage, but as a result of the fire a number of workers lost their employment, and the Union was anxious to assist the Court in determining the cause of the fire, and by offering suggestions which might be helpful in future. Mr Campbell said that the primal? purpose of the Court was to ascertain the cause of the fire, but he did not know whether they would be able to satisfy the Court on this point. He hoped they would not be held within too close limits, so that they might be able to produce suggestions, which might prevent similar catastrophies in the future. He intimated that he proposed calling expert evidence to detail the linen flax process, and suggested that the Court might desire to examine the lay-out of the factory, particularly that of the water supply for Are fighting purposes. The Magistrate agreed to hear the expert evidence first and then visit both the Washdyke and Makikihi factories so as to familiarise himself with the process and the plant. Process Described Joseph William Hadfield, director of linen flax manufacture, said that there were 10 State factories and one privately-owned factory in the Dominion. The flax came from the true linen flax plant, which was specially selected for the fibre which surrounded the stem. Witness explained the method of harvesting the crop and the treatment of the stifcw in the mill. He said that the water for fire fighting purposes was drawn from hot and cold water tanks inside the building. The wet ar was drawn into a main outside the building, to which hydrants were attached. If this supply failed then a pump could be taken to a well about 30 yards from the building. It was from this well that the water for the processing was drawn. Electric light and power were used throughout the building, the light being protected by a gas proof cover, specially designed for a dusty atmosphere. The switch for the lights in the shive room were in the scutching room, and all the wires were outside the room. This was done because of the inflammable nature of the shive.

Discussing theories as to the cause of the fire, witness said that it might have started in the scutcher. Not infrequently material became wound round a shaft, and the friction became so great as to ignite the material. It was suggested that with the exhaust system in use, some of the ignited material might have been blown into the shive store. If this had happened, it was most likely that the men would have noticed the smell. In the opinion of the witness, spontaneous combustion was impassible in the circumstances. Spontaneous combustion was likely to occur from chaff from the straw, but not from the fibre after it had been processed, and the evidence would show that the Are originated in the shive room. The Magistrate: Does that exhaust the theories as to the fire? Mr Campbell: No. There is the obvious theory that someone had matches or smoked in the building, although smoking and the carrying of wax matches was strictly prohibited. It was possible also that the fire might have originated from an electrical source, either from wires being required to carry more current than they were intended to or from a short circuit, but an expert would discount these. There had been trouble with the scutcher, and it was possible that a projection from this machine might have caused a spark, but none of the theories was supported by the evidence. Theories Advanced At this stage the Court adjourned to enable the Magistrate to visit Washdyke and inspect the plant and layout of the factory. Continuing, Mr Hadfield said that before the fire he had circularised the managers of factories asking what steps they had taken to see that their fire fighting appliances were serviceable in the event of an emergency and subsequent to the fire he had circularised instructions to managers. In reply to Mr Campbell, witness said that he could suggest several ways in which a fire could occur, but he had no suggestion to offer so far as Makikihi was concerned. Fire could be caused by wax matches, by a cigarette butt, spontaneous combustion, heat from a lamp, an electrical fault, or a spark from the plant caused by friction. He could not advance any of these possible causes as the trouble in Makikihi. The dust and fluff which rose from the scutching operations, then tow, then shive, then flax and finally seed was the order in which he would place the material in the factory in regard to inflammability. Flax when baled was difficult to burn, and a good deal of it was salvaged after the fire. He had no doubt but that the fire started in the shive room, and destroyed all the factory south of that point, the boiler house and tanks being very little damaged. In the Court, witness said that the factory was constructed of timber and wall board, the roof being galvanised iron.

Frank Douglas Grant, registered civil engineer and engineer to the Public Works Department, said that he was seconded to the industry as works superintendent. Witness produ-cd plans of factories similar to that at Makikihi, and said that in the rebuilding it had been decided to construct the shive room in concrete instead of wood. It was also intended in future to use more steel and steel truss material at an additional cost of 50 per cent. To build entirely in concrete would take at least six months before any machinery could be put in. Time was the essence of the contract, as fibre was urgently required, and the time factor and difficulty of obtaining materials were the primary considerations in building the factories in wood in the first place. The factories could not be built in iron, because it was not obtainable, and so they were forced to build as they had done. With thoroughly seasoned timber, it was possible to protect a factory against fire by using certain coatings on the _ wood, but in the case of Makikihi ordinary building timber was used, and no attempt was made to protect it by means of coatings. There were no fire blocks in the building originally, but it was intended to put

in fire doors in the reconstructed factory. It was hardly feasible to construct fire blocks in buildings of the type. The openings in the roof were necessary because of the dusty operations, but they would cause a draught in the event of fire, and this draught and dust would cause the rapid spread of the fire. Minimising Danger

Referring to the minimising of the danger of fire, witness said that from a constructional point of view he could offer no suggestions other than those already embodied; excepting that in his opinion all wall boarding used should be of asbestos. Witness went on to say that the fire main at Makikihi was a six inch reinforced concrete pipeline which covered both sides of the building, and was connected with the internal piping serving the tanks. Outside the building the main was fitted with stand pipes. The valve to direct the water was inside the building, but this would be a disadvantage if the valve was closed and had to be opened to feed the stand pipe. There might be excessive heat and smoke, and someone might have to go inside to turn on the water. This system was being discontinued, and an independent pipe was being run from the tanks to the fire main. If anything went wrong with the main, the trailer pump would draw its supply from the well which supplied the tanks. Mr Campbell: You know that when the trailer pump was connected to the stand pipe there was no water?—Yes. Why was that there was no water delivered?—There could have been a blockage such as by ice in the stand pipe or the valve may not have been opened. When the trailer pump did not act at the main it was taken to the well and did not function there either. What would be your explanation for that?—l would say that the pump had not been dried out properly, or ice may have formed inside the pump. Witness added that in his opinion, in factories of the type it was desirable that that automatic sprinklers should be installed, although they were costly. The Magistrate: That does not matter.

Continuing witness said that failing that he would suggest a pressure hose operated electricafiy. The factories worked only at specified periods during the day, nightwatchmen being employed on shifts. As far as possible the men were trained in fire fighting work. Witness discussed the theories advanced by Mr Hadfield as to the possible cause of the fire, and said that he agreed that any one of them could cause an outbreak. He did not think an electrical fault could have been the cause, for had there been a fault, the switch would have been blown at the switchboard.

Mr Campbell: The manager will say that while he was in the shive room the light went out, and went on again without anyone touching the switch. Witness: That is possible, due to a short in the circuit, which might have been caused by the shaking of the building. S. Barltrop gave expert evidence concerning the machinery In the building, and the inquiry was adjourned until 11 o’clock this morning.