FIREDAMP.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 191, 14 August 1922, Page 6

FIREDAMP.

. THE PTr___3__t-tO CASE. BURNING NAKED LIOHTS. CAUSES OF DISASTER. COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. Reserved decision was given by Mr. | Poynton, S.M., in the important action I brought liv William Barclay, Inspector jof Mines (Mr. Meredith) against j Andrew Burt, manager of the PukeImiro Colliery (Mr. Ostler and Mr. I Rogerson). This was a case arising out :of an alleged breach of the Coal Mines ! Amendment Act. 1014. The charge ! against defendant was that on May 8, in-22, he allowed naked lights, other than locked safety lamps, to be used in the collicrv. being a mine in which there was likely to be any such quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous. Mr. Poynton said that, defendant had been manager of the Pukemiro collieries jfor seven years. Until May. 1920. gas ' had not been encountered in any of the different parts worked. There was only one seam of coal in the mine which was of the same nature throughout the field. Other mines of the field used safety j lamps. In some places the scam emitted j large quantities of gas methane, known ; among miners as firedamp. In one mine. some miles from this one. there was a disastrous explosion in 1014. involving a large loss of life. ("las ignitions were frequent in some mines, one of which had ■ from 150 to 200 a year. I In May. 1020, two miners in this mine entered n heading in the morning to start work. The face was about sft fin high. The naked light on the head of the first . man ignited some gas near the roof. He ! threw himself down to escape the consei quences. The other man stopped and watched thegas burn. Various tests had been made of gas escnpes. The heading who-; they took place was near a fault. Faults were numerous in this mine, though the ventilation was exceptionally good, and the commendable practice was fol'owed of shutting off worked-out areas , with brick partitions, having no doors. , thus sealing them up and preventing danger from accumulations of gas in old : workings, so prolific of disasters in the I past. | On the ignitions being reported the i Mines Department acted promptly, notice being given the management to take certain precautions. Following this, work was discontinued until April of the present year. On learning of the intention to resume work at this place again communications passed between the manage- , ment and inspectors, when the management agreed to use safety lamps, but changed its intention, and miners had since worked in the forbidden area with naked lights. "The whole object of the provisions by statute and n>_lations for the use of safety lamps is the prevention of accidents," said the magistrate. "So many disasters have occurred through explosions of gas and coal dust in all coal producing countries that unceasing vigilance was necessary to prevent them. If naked lights were absolutely forbidden (in all mines where ignitions had occurred, ior might occur, there would hardly be any explosions. There was, unfortunately, a disinclination to use safety lamps owing to their cost and imperfections. They gave a poor light and sometimes caused accidents (though not explosions) on this account. They diminished the output and also prevented smoking by the miners. For these reasons they were disliked by mineowners and miners, too. In most eases where they were used it was only under pressure of the authorities or the imminent risk of disaster. This conflict of I opinion, or father of interests, would continue until more stringent legislation was effected, or some form of lamp invented that would surpass The nakeu light in efficiency and be not too costly. Notwithstanding the most careful supervision, explosions still occurred. "Safe mines had a bad record. Three great New Zealand mine disasters—the Kaitangata, Brunner and Taupiri explo- , sions—occurred in what were considered safe mines unlil they were proved otherj wise. The Mount Mulligan disaster in i Queensland l_st year, which caused the loss of 75 lives, occurred also in a "safe" I mine. i Numerous cases were quoted by the Magistrate to show the danger of naked lamps in coal mines. Much evidence was ! given as to the nature of the dust found in Pukemiro mine, which was shown to be highly explosive. Although such evidence was not strictly relevant to the charges, it showed the "danger of naked lights. A comparatively small ignition of gas mij.'ht start a dust explosion At present t.iere eras little fear of that occurring owing to the care taken but it called for sustained precautions. > It had to be remembered that between Alay 11, 1920, and May 8, 1922 (the date concerning which defendant was charged) nearly two years had passed and no" had been detected in the interval Since l resuming in May this year the workings had been carried past that particular place and there appeared to have been very little a;as met with. Of course another fault might be worked into and gas again be found, but on the evidence this could not be said to be "likely " The' splendid ventilation of this mine would itself prevent any accumulation of jr a s and so long as it was maintained at its! present standard of efficiency there was l t£_ daDger of an - v dangerous accumttla"ln an able and lucid paper by the Inspecting Engineer and Chief Inspector of Mines, dated June 3 last." said Mr ioynton. be summarised the facts re gardinj? previous mining disasters in New Zealand. They were in mines where gas was not supposed to exist in dangerous quantities. All explosions occurred in the morning, shortly after the day shift commenced. The examination required by law before tho men entered waVako°n S Y Z™ , e - leeted or Sufficient. -Naked lights and srunpowder were used in all the mines-all the explosions beincaused by one or the other. The ventihi" ting fans were stopped or n.n at reduced speeds during the night preceding the explosions thus permitting tbe accumulation of gas. The opinions of the managers prtor to the explosions were that the mines were safe. All the explosions were due to some illegal or improper In this case, however, the magistrate said he was of opinion that there was not suflicient evidence to sustain a con" viction on either charge. It was not sufficient that there was a possibility or even a probability of a dangerous accumulation of gas: it must be "likely" to occur and this had not been established ijoth charges were dismissed.