Article by Rich Donnell,
Editor-In-Chief
The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Labour in British Columbia can’t seem to get on the same page with regard to the two tragic sawmill explosions that occurred early in 2012.
But before you even get into that, you have to wrap your mind around the eerily similar incidents that occurred at the Babine (Hampton Affiliates) sawmill in Burns Lake, BC on January 22, 2012, and the one that happened at the Lakeland Mills sawmill in Prince George, BC on April 23, 2012. The explosion at Babine occurred at about 8 p.m., killed two and injured 20. The one at Lakeland happened at 9:30 p.m., also claimed two lives and injured 22. An investigating body of both accidents pointed to motor gear reducer mechanisms of basement level waste conveyors at both mills as the likely ignition spots, inspired by sawdust and frictional heating. The respective reports do vary with regard to the specifics of the mechanisms involved and the operational sequence of their relationship to the surrounding sawdust that in combination resulted in the explosions. Both reports touched on the fact that both mills were processing some mountain pine beetle diseased logs, and that the related dry sawdust could have contributed to the explosion.
The author of the reports was WorkSafeBC, which administers the Workers Compensation Act for the BC Ministry of Labour. They’re back in the news again because Lakeland Mills is appealing $724,000 in fines that WorkSafeBC levied on Lakeland because of alleged worker and safety violations related to the explosion. Lakeland’s action comes a few months after Hampton Affiliates stated it was appealing about a million dollars in fines from WorkSafeBC for similar violations in its explosion.
In both cases WorkSafeBC conducted its investigation shortly after the explosions and delivered its reports to Crown Counsel of the Criminal Justice Branch, Ministry of Justice. In both cases Crown Counsel reviewed the reports and stated that WorkSafeBC probably had it right, but Crown Counsel decided not to bring charges against either company because the evidence that could be presented in court by Crown Counsel wasn’t enough to gain a conviction. Crown Counsel said in both cases that the manner in which WorkSafeBC conducted parts of its investigations would likely render some evidence inadmissible in court. And Crown Counsel said that both companies would likely succeed in court anyway with a defense of due diligence.
And, after these determinations by Crown Counsel, WorkSafeBC promptly fined both companies, which led to the ongoing appeals by both companies.
As confusing as all of this is, perhaps what’s most important is that since the accidents, WorkSafeBC has led efforts to emphasize sawdust control in sawmills, first producing a report, “Wood Dust In Sawmills, Compilation of Industry Best Practices,” and then putting into motion a “Combustible Dust Strategy,” and actually visiting sawmills and auditing their sawdust dynamics and controls.
In the end it’s the mirror image of theses two disasters and their follow-up cases that, from a distance, is so intriguing to many of us. For the families involved, it’s a mirror image of personal loss and heartbreak.