Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

STRONGMAN INQUIRY Production Helped By Exemption Rule

(From Our Own Reporter) GREYMOUTH, May 24. An exemption from the shot-firing regulation on preholing and side-cutting of mine faces had assisted production at the Strongman mine but the enforcement of the regulation this year had only affected output to a small degree.

This was stated today in evidence before the Commission of Inquiry into the mine disaster on January 19.

The commission comprises Mr J. K. Patterson, S.M., chairman, and Messrs W. Elliott, S. R. Eyeington, A. V. Prendiville and T. H. McGhie. Counsel are Mr R. C. Savage, of Wellington, for the Mines Department; Mr D. J. Tucker, of Gfeymouth, for the New Zealand State Coalmines; Mr R. A. Young, of Christchurch, for the Grey Valley Deputies’ and Underviewers’ Union; and Mr W. D. Taylor, of Greymouth, for the United Mineworkers of New Zealand and relatives of deceased.

In 39 years he had never seen chalk or other marks in a workplace Indicating the direction of shots, an inspector of mines, John Cowan, told the commission this morning. He had been asked by Mr Elliott whether four of the boreholes in O’Donnell’s face close to the floor had been drilled at an angle. The Green’s No. 2 section had changed between his last visit in November and the time of the explosion in January. He told Mr Eyeington that roofs could change overnight and the reports in the deputy’s book of breaking timbering suggested greater roof weight. Stoppings on the old Green’s No. 1 section were blown out by the force of the

explosion and these had to be resealed before the air service could be restored during the rescue operation. Same Opinion

Mr Cowan said that as a member of the final inspection team he had concurred with the other signatories in their findings, and did not hold a differing opinion. He told Mr Eyeington that he had reported to the Chief Inspector of Mines on activities on the day of the explosion. To Mr Prendiville he said that in four visits it took him about 16 hours to completely inspect the Strongman mine. “We are always concerned about shots breaking through into a goaf (worked-out area),” he said. It was normal for the miners to test-bore ahead. If they thought they were near a goaf they could be instructed to do so. It was practical to expect the miners to test-bore; it was practical to ventilate the fringes of a goaf to prevent the accumulation of gases. There had not been excessive heating in Strongman compared with other mines. The fan servicing the mine ventilation was, he believed, the same one which was operating in 1952 when he worked there. The horsepower of the fan had increased but he could not give a figure for the annual increases in the size of the mine workings. Asked, for his comments by Mr Patterson on the Strongman management he said he found it to be competent, and safety regulations had been complied with. Mr Patterson: And 19 men died?

Objection Made Mr Savage lodged a formal objection to the suggestion that the management was responsible for the deaths of the 19 men when such a thing had not been established. Mr Patterson said witness placed reliance on the deputies’ report book. Shown the book, Mr Cowan said that of seven entries signed “C. Syme,” one on December 23 was not in the same handwriting and suggested that someone else had written and signed it. Mr Patterson: Does that shock you?—Yes, it does. Mr Young at this stage objected that this new allegation had not been put to Mr Syr..e and he asked for the right to reply to the suggestions.

Mr Cowan left the box at 2.10 p.m. after eight and a half hours.

Robert Marshall, Chief Inspector of Mines for New Zealand since 1960, told . Mr Savage that the application for an exemption from regula-

tion 226 covering holing and side-cutting had not yet been fully discussed, “but I am quite happy with it.” Course Suggested

He felt that responsibility for exemptions should not rest solely on the inspectorate but on a composite committee representing management, inspectorate and shotfirers. He considered it could be desirable for deputies to undergo a course in shot-fi ring when preparing for their tickets.

To Mr Tucker, Mr Marshall said he was manager of the Strongman mine between 1952 and 1954, and considered that at the present time the total area of the mine was little different from his time, although several parts had been closed and new sections opened. The load on the ventila tion fan was probably only slightly higher today. The only place a shot-firer could properly learn the job was in the mine, he told Mi Patterson.

Asked bj- Mr Young, he said there was no provision for a new manager to be given a history of the mine he was taking over. The files on the mine would b e available in the mine office for his perusal. Blew Through Mr Marshall agreed with the suggestion that the explosion started in the goaf behind O’Donnell’s place as a result of a shot blowing through from the face.

He considered it important that stone-dusting of accessible and open goafs should be made mandatory in the regulations. Another amendment he would like to see was the manager should be given some help and the law should be changed to bring that about.

Witness told Mr Young that he considered two inspectors in the Grey district were adequate. To Mr Patterson he said that he would join with the commission in urging an efficient underground telephone system in a mine of this size, after Mr Patterson pointed out that evidence had been given of telephones being a mile apart underground. Mr Marshall was asked if he agreed that a committee under a warden was the proper body to consider exemptions. He said the membership did not provide for a representative of the inspectorate. Report Books

Mr Young said his client union had sought a reduction in the number of detonators a shot-firer could take into the mine from the present maximum of 40, but witness said a check of report books throughout New Zealand had shown that few, if any of them, were firing 40 shots on a shift.

To Mr Taylor, Mr Marshall said he had never heard of the special regulations com : mittee provided for in the act being set up in the 53 years it had been on the statutes.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19670525.2.41

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31378, 25 May 1967, Page 3

Word Count
1,090

STRONGMAN INQUIRY Production Helped By Exemption Rule Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31378, 25 May 1967, Page 3

STRONGMAN INQUIRY Production Helped By Exemption Rule Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31378, 25 May 1967, Page 3