feeling of a courtroom, which was a suitable atmosphere for the business of the Erebus Mine Accident Investigation Board.
Dust motes swam in the rays of the low winter Sun that illuminated the rectangular chamber. The room was filled with over 300 people, sitting at tables facing the elevated stand at the front of the room.
Here, surrounded by microphones, display screens and recording equipment, Chairman Trent and the rest of the board sat looking out at the audience. Robert Trent was 62, overweight, but with a piercing gaze in his pale blue eyes, and an incisive mind that had led a dozen major investigations before this one. He took a long sip from the glass of water on the desk, before continuing his address.
‘Planetary Mining Inc., whom I will refer to from now on as “PMI”, are not in favour of any attempt to revisit the mine, as it is a designated space grave, and because of the distress this may cause to those relatives who are not disputing the findings of the original investigation. In this respect, PMI are supported by the FSAA, and by this investigation board. The Space Graves Commission, however, have indicated that they would allow the mine to be entered for investigative purposes, if there is sufficient weight of evidence that an entry is necessary.’
Matt cast his gaze around the room. He was seated at one of the tables in the third row, close to the lawyers for the class action. Most of the people in the room were lawyers, in fact; a disaster of this scale produced many grieving families. Matt wondered what each of them was seeking. For some, it would be closure; the need to know what had happened to their loved ones, so that they could try to move on after all these years. For others, it might be revenge, the desire to strike back at whoever had been responsible. For some, it would be the prospect of increased compensation for their loss, but there was no prospect of that unless there was a reversal of the previous finding that PMI were not negligent. And there was no chance of that unless the FSAA sanctioned an investigative mission.
Matt returned his attention to Trent.
‘This issue is what we will be presenting our findings on today. We have been directed by a Federal Court of Appeal to re-examine the available evidence, and new evidence recently brought to light, and reach one of three possible conclusions based on this, as follows. One, that the board do not make any change to the original findings, and the final report stands. Two, that the board consider changes are necessary to the findings, and submit a revised final report. Three, that the board cannot come to a decision without an investigative mission to the mine.
‘In order to do this, it is necessary to review the conclusion that the previous board came to, just over six years ago.’
Trent motioned to one of the assistants on the podium, and the room darkened. An animated diagram appeared on the main projection screens, and on the various smaller screens placed at intervals round the room.
The animation zoomed in to a large crater on Mercury’s surface, and dropped down to the crater floor, and a three-dimensional cutaway view of the mine.
‘The findings of the board were based on the extensive telemetry data obtained from the mine, and from the transmissions from the survivors of the original explosion and decompression. Using this evidence, the board pieced together a sequence of events that showed that an explosion in the fuel refinery caused an explosive pressure wave, which spread throughout the mine workings and burst the main pressure doors, resulting in the loss of all air from the mine.’
The animation showed a sudden flash of light, followed by a slow-motion explosion from the refinery, out on the crater floor. A red explosive shock wave spread out from the refinery, working its way through the passages and shafts of the mine, back to the accommodation levels. The animation zoomed in to the main portal of the mine, and an enlarged cutaway of the entrance hangar, as the explosive shock wave arrived. It filled the hangar, and the animation showed the main doors buckling under the load, and finally failing, bursting open in slow motion and venting the mine atmosphere into space.
Matt had seen the animation a dozen times, but it never failed to send a chill through him as he imagined what it must have been like for the mine personnel that day. He shivered, as he recalled the dream of the night before.
‘The FSAA investigation board determined that, had the emergency pressure doors in the main access ways been closed immediately, as the emergency procedures required, the explosion would have been contained, and the mine would not have been breached. Simulations conducted for the board showed that only six doors would have had to be closed, to completely contain the explosion.
‘For this reason, the board concluded that the probable cause of loss of life was the failure by mine personnel to follow standard emergency procedure and ensure that the emergency pressure doors were closed. In addition, the probable cause of the refinery explosion was the failure to follow standard maintenance procedures, resulting in the catastrophic failure of one of the gas turbocompressors.’
At this, a low murmur spread across the audience, like distant thunder. That part of the report had effectively halted any possibility of increased compensation for the victim’s families, until the case had reached the Court of Appeal.
Trent sat back, his eyes scanning the room. He waited for the noise to subside completely before he continued.
‘Certain new information has been presented recently, however, that could support alternative scenarios. It has been suggested that the additional data shows an attempt by the mine controllers to operate pressure doors to contain the explosion. Also, that the overpressure at the hangar doors due to the explosion was well within the design limits, and the doors should not have failed.’
The room was silent now; everyone was listening to Trent’s words.
‘This is the key issue that this board has been directed to focus on. At the time of the original enquiry, the evidence pointed overwhelmingly to the conclusion reached at that time. Does the new evidence make a compelling enough case for this board to change the original findings?
‘The sub-committees that are represented here today have thoroughly examined the original report against all the evidence now available, and you will be hearing their conclusions in turn shortly.’
Trent moved his hand to indicate the men and women ranked on either side of him at the elevated table. They were all experts in their field; mine design, ventilation systems, industrial plant design, airlock systems, human factor engineering, and other disciplines. Most of them had contributed to the original report, and Matt wondered how many careers were riding on the outcome of this review.
‘The review of the evidence is necessarily complex and involved, and we will be making available full copies of our revised report once this presentation is complete. I have asked each of the sub-committee team leads to make summary presentations in turn, to draw out the new information, and to help you all understand how we have come to our conclusion, which I will present at the end of the individual presentations.
‘I am going to hand over now to the first sub-committee, which has been dealing with the detailed investigation into the data record. It’s important that you give all of the presentations your full attention. Thank you. Dr Graice, you have the stand.’
Matt listened carefully to the first presentation, but as the heads of further sub-committees came and went from the stand, he found his attention wandering. Even though the presentations were summaries, they contained a great deal of procedural and background material, much of which he was familiar with.
As the presentations moved on to the sequence of events in the fuel refinery explosion and the subsequent breach, however, Matt couldn’t stop himself from reliving the terror of that day in his imagination. His palms started to sweat, and he felt dizzy as he listened to the events being recounted in cold, objective detail. He reached out to pour himself a glass of water, and saw that his hand was shaking.
Matt had faced the original investigation board, including some of the people on the sub-committees, in the long interview sessions that had followed the accident. They hadn’t been interested in Matt’s theories; they wanted facts, events they could corroborate against the data record.
It was one thing to sit in a lawyer’s office, and look at sheets of paper that grieving relatives put in front of him, and tell them that the data showed a systems malfunction, or components failing when they shouldn’t have. It was quite another thing to be in front of the investigation board, to put forward your opinions in the face of these people with their vast experience and calm, dispassionate minds.
Maybe they were right, Matt thought; perhaps it really had happened the way they had said. Maybe he had made a mistake to get so involved with the families, and had lost his objectivity – and career – in the process.
