HUNTLY DISASTER

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2298, 31 October 1914, Page 8

HUNTLY DISASTER

~ a . COMMISSIONERS' REPORT CAUSES-GAS AND DUST INSUFFICIENT PRECAUTION. The report of the Royal Commission set up to inquire into the cause of the accident which occurred in the Huntly mine on September 12, by which 43 men were killed, was tabled in tho House of Representatives yesterday. ■. The Commission finds that tho explosion was duo beyond any reasonable doubt to tho emission of fire-damp from the roof of a part of tho mine known as' Ao. 5 boro, in old workings. At 6omo distance not exactly ascertainable from ' tills part of the mine; the man Martin passed on the fateful morning, carrying a naked light, as the custom of* tho mine was, and an explosion of fire-damp followed. This explosion served to disturb and put in motion the coaldust on tho floor and sides of the bord, .which being, as recent analysis has • shown, of a most highly inflammable nature, ignited with a terrific explosion, and the liberated gases sweeping through the bords and passages of the mine with enormous velocity hurled to great distances, and in most cases destroyed, every obstacle in their path. ' No man within tho immediate range of the explosive action escaped alive. The exact spot whore Martin was standingwhen the explosion took place cannot bo determined with certainty. It seems prbbablo from the evidence, that his body, which when found was, with the exception of the socks and boots on bis feet, entirely devoid of clothing, was carried by the force of tho explosion aconsiderable distance. His coat, which • was not destroyed, was found near '.tho • third stenton from the door. abilities'are that he was carrying his coat on his arm, and that it was the . first thing torn from him -by the force of the explosion. If he had been wear- -. ing it at tho time, it is almost conclu-. , sively certain that it would have diaappeared with the rest of his clothing. ' Dangerous Dust, The important part played by coaldust in a. coal-mine explosion was again brought prominently under notice by the Huntly disaster (says the Commis- • »ioners). Dust was plentiful in the mine, but according to the evidenco thev quantity was not large compared witn\ that found in some mines iri . Great Britain. It waß, however, sufficiently abundant to compel the In-spector-of Mines to call the attention' of the manager to it, and to direct him to take steps to mitigate it by water- . ing the travelling road. Mr. Bennie . did this primarily out of consideration ~. for the men who had to use the travel-: , ling way, but ho_ also realised its dan- \ ger, and in two successive memoranda to.the manager directed his attention to the matter. '. ' ' It is only fair to the Inspector of Mines and to tho mine manager to say . that, though as a matter of general knowledge the danger of dust explo-., 6i'ons in a coal-mine was known and', recognised, tho extraordinarily inflammable nature of-tho dust iri this mine' was unsuspected until after tho accident. ; Analyses then mado by Professor Harold Baily Dixon, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.S., of the .University of Manchester, and Dr. Maclaurin; D.Sc, F.C.S., ' Dominion Analyst, first revealed its un- ' usual notency in creating a disaster. In'the. opinion of your Commis- . sioners, some legislative provision should be made having for its object the prevention or.' mitigation of "the... danger arising from tho presence ..of .. dust in a mine. Lights and Ventilation. . For the daily examination -of tho* mine by firemen and deputies beforo ..' work was commenced safety-lames were used. Minors and others used acetylene lamps and other naked_ lights. • Stationary electric lights were installed . . .' nt the shaft-bottom. At the time of the accidont naked lights only were carried in. the mine. . N • There,, is no evidenco that firedamp was permitted to accumulate' in *4ho M actual -working , places and roads to and- from such working places "~ in contravention Rule 3, but with Tespect to tho old workings we are.. satisfied: that sufficient examination for gas-was not made, and; that.gas was allowed to accumulate in dangerous quantities. In contravention of Special Rule!, tho manager did not see that the mine was properly ventilated in all parts, and "did not seo that the working of the mine was carried on with all sonable provisions for the safety of tho persons employed. In contravention of Special Rule 18j the door for ventilation and safety mir-/ noses connecting bord No. 0, in which the disaster occurred, with the working portion of No. 5 district, and which was only used occasionally. tv-ir not ; locked, or even provided with n lock. In contravention of Snecial Rule 13, the old working and T»turn air-courses of the mine, also bords ( 4.' 5. and ft, No. 5 district. wore : in«dequ>;t<>iv fenced, persons being therefore liable to inadvertently enter.the same._. Notwithstanding renepted itrnitions ■ and explosions in TV>lrih's and the adjoining Extended Colliery, any one of . which" might have created a disaster. Hip manager continued to nermit naked lights to be used, although under Roecinl Rule 14 it was his dnty to ( - direct the undeTviewer to see that locked' safety-lamps only were used and : naked lights excluded wheresoever and • whensoever danger frorii fire-damp was apprehended. "No Regular or Systematic Examlna 1 . tlon." The daily examination of No. 5 dis-= . trict, in which tho explosion originated, was entrusted'to John Whorskey, tho., holder of a fireman and deputy's corti- : ficato of servico without examination. ; He had hold an appointment in that. capacity prior to tho passing of the Coal-mines Amendment Act, 1909, which first required to pass an examination. Wharskcy, with both tho. oilier examining deputies, John Skellern and H. Peckliani, was killed in tho explosion. Nouo of these men had passed tho Minos Department's gas test, the only two officials in the mine ■ who had.passed such test being Deputy John Darby (deceased) and Joseph, Young, formerly assistant inspector of tho old workings, buL now out of llio company's employ. • The frequent occurrence of gas in the old workings was, in our opinion, a. source of danger, and there is no evi- . donco that No. G bord was examined on ■ the morning of-September 12. Had tho provisions of the Act been strictly adtiered to on that occasion the explosion would have been averted.. We.consider, therefore, that no regular or systematic examination for gaa was made in the old Workings On tho day of tho explosion Whorskey entered the mino at about 5 a.m., and about 7 a.m. wrote in his reportbook that his district was safe; lie rel>crtcd no gas or other dangers. His Jaily reports were of a formal nature, seldom or ever varying. If. Whorskey ;iad entered No. G bord, in which Martin's body was found, and where tho utter was passing along and met his loath on tho morning of the disaster, le (Wliorskcy) could not have failed to liscoyer firedamp with his safety-lamp, is with the minimum explosive mixture —viz., 5.0 per cent.—his lamp would lave become filled with "(lame, and'with, i 4 per cent, mixture tho flame would lave risen to the top of his lamp-glass. Wo cannot refrain from referring to

the frequent occurrence of gas in dangerous quantities in tlio working-places of the mine, to which we thini that sufficient importance was not attached by the manager. Character of Explosives Used. ■■'■•' The only explosives used in the Huntly mines up to the date of this inquiry was Curtis and Harvey's blasting-pow-deK' No objection had been taken to its uso by the inspector or. any other ■ person. The. mine was regarded as a safe mine, notwithstanding the occasional discovery of gas, as this was not looked upon as a source of danger. Th« extreme inflammability of the dust in the mine was unsuspected until an- ; alyses were made of it after the explosion. ■ * The nature of the explosives used in the mine does not affect our opinion as to the cause of the explosion, for it is quite clear from the evidence that no shot was fired in the mine oil the day of the accident. About the Manager. In view of what has been stated, and -of the fact that the Coal Mines Act and the special rules thereunder'have to some extent been either nglected or disrgarded by the manager, Mr. Fletcher, it cannot be said that the mine was in all respects well and safely managed by him. If Mr. Fletcher had performed his obvious duty in causing safety-lamps only to be used in-Ralph's Colliery the disaster would'never have occurred. He ,had ample warnings' by previous explosions. A manager has .not only to comply with the requirements of the. law, but lie has a duty to his fellow-men' beyond mere statutory obligations. Had' the Mines Department known of these cases at the time no doubt legal provision would have been" made for the Inspector of Mines to enforce the use of safety-lamps by which the disaster would have been averted. . ■ ' , • , - Of the several <_cases of'injury to workmen by the ignition of gas in Ralph's Mine and the Taupiri Extended, only in one instance—that of Kelly tho matter reported to the Inspector of Mines. It is unfortunate that' the Coal Mines Act does not enforce tho reporting of all'cases; of, injury by gas-ignition, whether trivial or serious. It only requires a report where the accident is attended with "serious injury to any person," leaving it' to the manager to decide as to what is or is not a serious injury. The manager in these cases decided the injuries were not serious, but we are of opinion that where the man is incapacitated from work for fourteen or more days, as was the case in more than one instance, the injury shouldnot be treated as anything less than serious. The Inspector of Mines. With regard to the efficiency of the inspection of the mine by the Inspector of Mines for the district, your Com■ missioners find that the present occupant of the position, Mr. Boyd Behnie, has . been assiduous and conscientious in the discharge of his duties, and has shown himself to be a capable and painstaking officer; but we consider that' on occasions he has been satisfied with less than -a strict and prompt compliance with orders given by him to tho manager with respect to matters relating to tho working, and safety of tho mine. Hb'has regularly visited and' inspected the mine, usually four times annually,' except during the present year, when up to the time of the disaster bo had made seven visits to th? mine. - , Wo have no reason to think that his inspection's were otherwise than thorough and conscientious so far as regards the working part'of the mine, but we are'.of opinion that it would have been if more attention had been' given by him.to the old workings, which actu- ; ally,formed part of the return 'airway of.. v the mine. It is, however, due to the inspector'to say that it was'at "his' instigation that this part of the mine was regularly inspected by the company's officials. With regard to the occasional disMveries of gas in different places in the mine, it appears to us that the inspector does not .seem to have realised to its; full extent the gravity of the situa- : tidji, as disclosed by the presence from time to time of this gas. In our opinafter the explosion by which Kelly • was injured, the use of safety-lamps, should have been insistently urged upon the manager. The inspector quite hou- •'. ,'estly considered that the gas occurring in the mine could be kept harmless by ' careful inspection and' properi ventilation, and that no risk was run of any ignition or explosion by continuing the use of naked Mights. That in this hewas 'guilty of an error of judgment is too abundantly proved by the-terrible accident which resulted from the continued use of naked lights. Powers of the Inspector. Doubt has been expressed as to whether an order given by.the inspector for the use of safety-lamps could be enforced by him under, the present Act • or special rules. In tho opinion of the inspector, and apparently of tho officers of the Mines Department, the.inspector has no power to do'so. There is. no direct authority given by the Act " or rules to the inspector to order the use of safety-lamps j hut we are of opinion that Section 59 of tho Act, though not apparently framed for such purpose, may bo employed on an emergency to effect the purpose by ah; indirect method. The inspector duly reported to tho Under-Secretary of Mines the results of his inspections and his observations on tho condition and. working of tho mine, and after the accident to Kelly instructions were received by him from the head of the Department to prosecute the manager for a breach of Special Rule 14 for not providing safety-lamps, Biibject, however, to a favourable legal opinion of tho case being obtained. In consequence of an adverse'.opinion boing received by the. inspector from tho firm of solicitors ■■ to whom he referred the matter, no. proceedings were- taken against the manager; Before there was time for the Department to. consider the position, and to decide what furthor steps should be. taken to securo 'the safety of the mine, tho disaster apprehended by the inspecting engineer of tho Mines Department (ns shown by his several memoranda to the TTndcr-Sobrc-tarv) unfortunately occurred. - . Mr. Reed is entitled to credit for bringing so forcibly under tho 'notice of the Mines Department bis fear of impending danger in the Taupiri. Company's mine by reason of tho gas known to exist there. We agree' with him in his view that, not being ■ the In- • spector of Mines for tli<y_-district-, ho had no right to interpose-in any directions or orders civon to-the manager, although his right as an Inspector of Mines to inspect the ririne. is beyond .question. Wo cannot refrain, however, from saying that wo' regret that Mr. • Reed did not, in the interests, of human life, personally visit and examine the mino and acquaint the manager, of his very strong convictions as to the imminent danger threatening the mine. We also regard it as unfortunate that specific instructions were not civen him by tho'Mines DepartmenMo do so. Mr. Reed had no occasion to visit the mino for a considerable time: before learning of the presence of gas there, - but ho. had, while at tho Thames on other official business, arranged with the District Inspector to visit the mine in his company only a short timo before the explosion, and ho had with him two electrical lamps for trial there, but. being called away to the Wcst'Coast on official business, the visit of inspection to the mine was unfortunately deferred. The Workmen's Inspectors. No evidence, was given by the workmen's inspectors before the Commission, but from the evidence of othoi witnesses we learned that only two in-

spections were made by the workmen's inspectors during the pa6t twelve months—that is, practically, since the new union was formed after the first strike during 1912. • Inspector Bonnie in his ovidonce complained that he had received no help from tho union or their check inspectors'. The referonce to them in his letter tofttho Under-Secretary as the creation of-the mining"lximpanies was not supported by any witnesses produced before the Commissioners, who declined to hear evidence attempting to show victimisation. Miscellaneous Findings. Your Commissioners have arrived at certain conclusions with respect to the prevention of future accidents in mines, but they find that in most instances their intended recommendations .have been anticipated by the Coal-Mines Amendment Bill now before Parliament. This is particularly so with regard to— (a) Ventilation; (b) safety-lamps; (e) duties of inspectors. • ' ■ We are of opinion that the exist- - ing law does not give the Inspector of Mines direct authority to order the uso of safety-lamps or other appliances. There is no provision in the Act giving in precise terms any such authority. Section 58 might ■ be employed as a last" resource by • an'inspector as an indirect method of-compelling tho uso of safetylamps or otheKtfecessary appliances, but it was not framed.for such purpose, and the use of it is, at best, - a clumsy and unsatisfactory expedient. 'We recommend the insertion in '• the Act of a direct and definite section, giving the inspector power to order the use of safety-lamps and - any.appliances he deems necessary. . The Inspector.of Mines is a careful and competent officer, zealous and conscientious in his work; but •he was remiss in not exacting ■ prompt and strict obedience to his orders, in not more frequently visiting the old workings, and he committed an error .of judgment in not insisting on safety-lamps being used in the mine after the accident , to the miner Kelly. ' .