TOO FEW INSPECTORS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 213, 28 November 1927, Page 3

TOO FEW INSPECTORS

LONDON FIRE HOLOCAUST FIVE DIE IN FILM FACTORY "The outbreak of fire could have been avoided by the use of some other method of drying. The method of drying was grossly improper,” said Mr. Macklin, Inspector of Factories, at the resumed inquiry into the fire at Film Waste Products, Ltd. The fire occurred at the firm’s premises at Union Wharf, ftedhill Street, St. Pancras, on September 9, and five lives were lost. Miss Ada Dunch, an inspector of factories, said when she visited the place in January things were not satisfactory. and a letter was sent with regard to certain breaches of the celluloid regulations. She r reived a telephone message that :i part of the requirements had been carried out. Questioned by a Home Office representative, Miss Dunch said there were 2,309 factories in her district and 2,546 workshops. About half of them were subject to special codes and regulations. Her staff consisted of one half-time man and some assistance given by another inspector. Do you find it difficult to carry out the annual inspection?—lt is impossible. When she visited the premises in January two women were employed. The most serious breach of the regulations was that large quantities of celluloid film were stored in the workroom instead of in the store. Replying to Mr. G. A. Herbert (for relatives of Miss Smith) Miss Dunch said she was not prepared to say it was a dangerous building. “I cannot say my mind was at ease about the place,” said Miss Dunch, in reply to Mr. Du Cann (for Film Products. Ltd.). ‘T always had in my mind that a caution had been sent, and that it was on my list of dangerous factories.”

Mr. Edward Lionel Macklin, engin-eering-inspector of factories, ascribed the cause of the fire to the over-heat-ing of the drier by means of steam and the subsequent contact of the celluloid with the interior of the drier. It is a well-known cause of the ignition of celluloid. “The outbreak of fire* could been avoided by some other method of drying,” said Mr. Macklin. “The method of drying was grossly improper.” What method might have been adopted?—Hot air. . Witness added that more frequent inspection of these places was lnghl> desirable, but it was impossible with the existing staff. In his opinion the exits were adequate in number, but they were not readily accessible. It was quite impossible. he thought, for static electricity to be produced in the drier.