Chapter 29: Risk Management
Risk can be defined as uncertainty, the chance of loss, or the probability or possibility of something happening differently than expected. With blasting, the two main possibilities are the successful and uneventful completion of the project or an unplanned event (an accidental occurrence) that puts the job in jeopardy. From the standpoint of economics, a blasting accident can result in such undesirable consequences as project delays, cost overruns, and claims from regulatory agencies, legal actions, and negative publicity. Therefore, the user of explosives must carefully evaluate the potential risk of every project whether the job consists of a single blast or a series of blasts over a long period of time.
METHODS OF HANDLING RISK
There is no escape from the existence of risk since simply ignoring or overlooking risk results in the minimal assumption of risk. The blasting professional can choose to deal with risk in four different ways. The blaster can reject, transfer, reduce, or assume the risk.
It is important that the blasting professionals keep their perspective (according to the work that they do on a blasting contractor or specialty blaster in quarries, mines, etc.) as a result the following risk tools are being expanded. For example, a blasting contractor that uses risk transfer via contract to make a quarry owner responsible for a blast once a borehole has not fully completed the risk transfer if the quarry owner can still fall back on the blasting contractor's insurance program when the blast knocks out a number of commercial grade glass planes on the building. Keep the indemnity, warranty, and limitation sections of the blasting contract in mind as you walk through its imaginary box scenario to test your risk handling efforts.
Risk Rejection
Risk rejection is simply the decision to avoid taking on a risk due to a high probability of an undesirable outcome. For some situations, risk rejection should be the first, and sometimes the only, option. Most blasters are justifiably proud of their skills, abilities and past accomplishments, but occasionally this can lead to over-confidence. If, after evaluation, in the blaster's opinion the job does not meet the test of prudence, an alternate method should be considered. Accordingly, a true explosives professional must recognize when a project or blasting project is beyond his or her capabilities because of size, complexity or technical demands. In addition, the potential for loss (injury and property damage) may outweigh the benefits (profit). When confronted with such a probability, the wise blaster should discuss with customers his or her evaluation of the project. Often times a discussion can assist with making changes that can turn a blasting project initially considered as impossible or "walk-a-way" into one that can be accomplished with a desired result for all. At other times the risk cannot be minimized enough to allow blasting as a viable option and therefore requires the blaster to acknowledge and communicate that not blasting is the proposal.
Caution Sometimes not blasting is the best decision.
Risk Transfer
Risk transfer is often considered when risk rejection is not possible. Risk transfer is the legal transfer by contract and/or insurance policy of the financial responsibility for bodily injury or property damage arising from a project accident. A common method is the utilization of a sub-contractor as opposed to a company employee. As one example, a trenching company may have to conduct a series of blasts in the immediate vicinity of a high voltage power line. The company blaster lacks experience in isoclothetic initiation, so either the explosive vendor supplies one of their employees who have considerable expertise with this method or an outside blasting sub-contractor with the requisite expertise is hired to perform that blasting.
Using subcontractors to assist in blasting, drilling or other operations may not be the best method of risk transfer unless there is a full understanding that they will be legally responsible for any injuries and property damage that their operations cause. One of the best methods to achieve a desirable level of protection from the actions of any subcontractor is to have a written contract that has been drafted by legal counsel. In particular, the contract should specify the types and amounts of insurance coverage that the subcontractor will have to carry. The contract should also clearly define the responsibilities and agreed upon limitations and liabilities of each party. When a subcontractor is used, it is recommended that you acquire a certificate of insurance from the subcontractor naming you as Additional Insured for work they complete on your behalf. Be aware that in some jurisdictions, the permit holder may not be able to waive liability.
Risk Reduction
Risk reduction is the process of adopting procedures (blaster training updates, prohibition of drill cutting stemming, storing flammables properly) and using assets (proper PPE, use of crushed rock stemming, fire extinguishers, sprinklers, alarms) to prevent or reduce the effects of a loss occurrence. Most blasters on a daily basis practice risk reduction. While much of this effort is aimed at increasing employee safety, there are substantial numbers of risk reduction techniques that have direct applications in limiting the company's loss potential to injury and damage claims from the general public. While liability insurance can be considered a form of risk reduction, it should not be relied on exclusively. Without the common risk reduction methods such as pre-blast surveys, scaled distance rules, blast site security, seismographic monitoring, accurately completed blast logs, and the wide variety of blasters "analytical tools" available, the loss-producing potential on many blasting projects may make liability insurance coverage too costly for most explosive users.
Risk Assumption
In assuming the risk, the professional blaster has reviewed and completely understands the complexity of the blasting project at hand. After this analysis, if the blaster has determined explosives to be the optimal method, a detailed blast plan should be made to achieve the desired results, keeping in mind that blasting is both science and engineering. Failure to conduct a proper analysis can result in uninformed risk assumption where the blaster has no idea of the magnitude of potential losses. One example would be a blaster taking a small foundation demolition at a decommissioned site and unintentionally rupturing an old, underground transmission pipe.
STEPS TO CONTROL RISK
The obvious question is: How much risk reduction is appropriate for a given blast project? By using the steps in table 29.2 control measures can be developed that both reduce the potential for loss and provide a degree of cost effectiveness. Before bidding any blasting project consider the items in table 29.1.
Some Issues To Consider Before Bidding a Blasting Project
Table 29.1 – Some issues to consider before bidding a blasting project.
Periodically review the effectiveness of each method listed in table 29.2 and determine if the risk reduction method has indeed limited the potential for loss. If there are still problems with corrective action or develop new controls.
Some Methods Of Controlling Risk
Table 29.2 – Some methods of controlling risk.
In recent years, products have been developed that can assist the blaster-in-charge with their job responsibilities for safely acquiring desired blasting results. These include computerized blast design programs, Global Positioning System (GPS) units, laser profiling, borehole deviation measuring instruments, advancements in seismic modeling and analysis, assessment tools for explosives storage and manufacturing facility clearances, digital video photography, along with articles and publications for furthering education by the International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE).
Nothing is more important that the training, knowledge and education of the blaster in the field. Various tools can assist the blaster-in-charge in making crucial decisions every day, but the final decision rests solely on the blaster-in-charge.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 27, ATF, Washington, D.C.
Department of Transportation (DOT). Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 49. DOT, Washington, D.C.
Department of Transportation (DOT). National highway traffic safety administration (NHTSA). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 49. DOT, Washington, D.C.
Department of Transportation (DOT). Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Code of Federal regulations, title 49. DOT, Washington, D.C.
Google websites.
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME). IME SAfETT Database Quintas, IME, Washington D.C.
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME). Safety Library Publications (SLP). IME, Washington D.C.
International Society of Explosives Engineers (ISEE). 1998. ISEE Blasters' Handbook™, 17th Edition ISEE, Cleveland, OH.
J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc., Neenah, WI
Labelmaster, Chicago, IL.
Mine Safety And Health Administration (MSHA). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 30, MSHA, Washington, D.C.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincey, MA.
National Safety Council, 1121 Spring Lake Drive Itasca, IL.
Occupational Safety And Health Administration (OSHA). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 29, OSHA, Washington, D.C.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Environment (OSMRE), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 42. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.