Emotional Morning at Inquest
Prince George, B.C.- The Coroner’s Inquest into the deaths of Alan Little and Glenn Roche has wrapped for the week, but it has been one very emotional day. Juror #2 rose to ask former Lakeland Operations Superintendent Bill Barwise questions about the state of the mill’s cleanliness leading up to the April 23rd explosion. Having had experience in mills himself, Juror #2 was overcome with emotion and could not continue his line of questioning. Chief Coroner Lisa Lapointe called for a break, and half an hour later, the inquest resumed with Juror #2 prepared to continue.
Testimony continued with Mike Richard, who was the General Manager of the Mill at the time of the explosion, taking the stand.
Richard had worked in forestry mills since 1978. He said that although he had seen fires in mills over his many years of experience, “I never saw an explosion, never.”
He has testified he was aware wood dust posed a fire hazard, but even though he was on the Safety Committee had not read a Fire Code, and has not read one to this day. When asked why he had not read the Fire Code, he responded “I didn’t feel I needed to read it.”
He also testified he was not aware that a dust collection system is supposed to be “interlocked” with production machinery so that if the dust collection system is not working, the rest of the equipment shuts down. He said he was also not aware the National Fire Prevention Association had recommendations for maximum amounts of dust, (1/8 of an inch on 5% of floor space) . He said when deciding how much dust was too much, “It was a judgement call.”
When presented with a copy of a Health and Safety regulation, which carried the Lakeland Mill logo, and which stated compressed air must not be used to clean because it posed a risk of injury fire or explosion in the mill, he said he believed that regulation had been circulated because people where using compressed air to clean their clothes.
Compressed air can cause dust dispersion, one of the five elements necessary for a dust explosion.
Coroner’s Counsel John Orr asked why a Fire Safety Plan had not been developed, even though the Fire Prevention Officer had repeatedly cited the mill for not having such a plan in place. “I didn’t put it on a priority list” said RIichard “If I had made it a priority it would have been done sooner.”
Richard is to continue his testimony on Tuesday. The Inquest resumes Monday morning with a witness from out of town.
Comments
This is becoming very revealing. I think a lot of the non multi mill operations should be following this very carefully to understand the implications of the information coming out of the supervisors on the floor.
Just hope company looks closely at what is being said and their response, its the old saying can’t happen to me after Burns lake all the flags should have went up for company, Worksafe,fire inspectors. But like the manager said was not a real priority.
Production was the priority. There was plenty of money for production upgrades. Nothing done about dust in the slasher barker areas for 20 years. No money for that apparently.
Yah who’s. Seriously where did the brains go with these folks. It doesn’t matter what type of dust it is (sugar dust, wheat dust, coal dust, saw dust) the finer the particles the greater the danger of an explosion becomes. I just can’t believe what I am reading, these folks are complete idiots and how the heck did they keep there employment this long being that stupid. Wow what I am hearing was taught in grade school science class. Amazing, simply amazing. Criminal action should be brought down just based on the stupidity of the testimony.
I agree with you Professional, it’s more than a little difficult to fathom what I’ve just read, shame full, and I thought the previous testimony was stunning. There is something really wrong here , for sure.
Anonymity is a wonderful thing
20/20 hindsite is a wonderful thing! The most basic right of any employee is ” Right to refuse unsafe work” I think the Safety committee which includes Management and employees both failed here.
If having a Fire Safety Plan was a requirement for every sawmill prior to the two disasters no one in charge of enforcing such a regulation made any attempt to inform many mill operators. Most, I suspect.
I operate a sawmill, and it was only after the disasters, well after them, in fact, that we were told we’d have to develop a Fire Safety Plan.
When I went to the local Fire Department, (to whom I’d been referred by the powers-that-be at WorkSafeBC), I was informed that they had not yet developed a ‘template’ for such a Plan, and no one on their staff had yet been trained in what was needed.
It is my understanding that the requirement for a Fire Safety Plan for sawmills was not a priority with Fire Departments, but rather having such Plans in place for apartment buildings and large retail establishments like shopping malls, supermarkets, etc., was much more important to them.
Some months after I’d made my enquiry, I was provided with the ‘template’ they’d developed. It was indeed based on requirements for apartments and shopping malls. It is a good idea. One of the best initiatives that have come out of these two tragedies. I doubt having such a Plan would’ve prevented what happened, but it could have been of great assistance in the event of a more normal fire in enabling the Fire Department to have a better idea of what they’re dealing with, where any potential danger areas with inflamables were stored, etc.
It is also unfortunate that management and employees loath each other so much. That in itself was probably the biggest contributor to this incident!
history wrote:-“Production was the priority. There was plenty of money for production upgrades. Nothing done about dust in the slasher barker areas for 20 years. No money for that apparently,”
——————————————————————————————
Ever try to get money from a banker for something that is not ‘productive’, history? Do they regularly give loans to people on welfare, or EI? Even though the sources of income from both might be far more certain than income gained from doing something ‘productive’. What has the forest industry just come through, history? One of the worst recessions since the Great Depression of the 1930’s, no? How did the mills that’ve survived manage to do so? By being more ‘productive’ than the competion, no? Back in the 1930’s they just rolled back everyone’s wages, just like that. A strictly management decision, no consultation with the workforce required. Want to work, here’s what we can pay, take it or leave it. Did Lakeland do that? Or did they try their best to make their plant more ‘productive’, and keep their people employed. You people above seem to have a view that those of us who own businesses are all ‘rolling in the clover’. Go and try to do what Lakeland and the rest of us were trying to do, and remember we’re not the ones who actually ‘make’ money ~ only the banks can do that ~ we can only ‘get’ money, and the competition to get it is pretty intense, and we don’t just lose our ‘jobs’ when we fail to do so, but everything we’ve invested in our businesses, too, and sometimes even more than that.
Cougs nailed a big part of it. And nobody pushes the “us versus them” agenda more than union execs. I’ve been in many non union shops, some with profit sharing programs in place, and there is ten times the teamwork between ownership, management and workers in a non-union shop. The day of the union has long passed the world by and their numbers are shrinking every day. More and more shops are going without the redundancy of a union. Find me a guy that wants to be in a union and I will find you the laziest rabble rouser on the crew. Don’t believe me? Make it simple: change the regulations so that union membership is voluntary for those who want it and you can opt out if you don’t want it: unions will be gone overnight.
interceptor–Making a statement like that is total hogwash. One thing you have to remember is a union is only as strong as its members and I would say that you would not be a good candidate.
Comments for this article are closed.