Blaster’s Forum Discussion

Blaster’s Forum 2005

Ramada Inn & Conference Centre, Edmonton, AB

October 23, 2005

 1.0    Urban Blasting Recommendations

·  As a result of a number of problems with flyrock on construction projects in BC, we held a discussion regarding striking a committee to look into setting recommendations for best industry practice guidelines for urban blasting.

·  Pat McLaughlin has concerns that the clients of blasting firms have to be willing to pay more for blasting work in an urban area.  We need to educate the developers that there is value in adopting best industry practice guidelines.  To be sure, municipalities will be looking to adopt these guidelines for blasting in their jurisdictions, and some of our guidelines may become law.  We need to be careful with recommendations and carry out a parallel education program.

·  Paul Jeannotte said that where this started was with the Mayor of Langford, BC who is promoting this issue, because the alternative is the public wants to ban blasting in his municipality.

·  Alastair mentioned that in the Victoria area, there have been a number of flyrock incidents, and there is public and regulatory pressure for industry to take action and come up with recommendations.

·  Ed Taje mentioned that in BC, blasting in mines is regulated by the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines who is looking at restrictions on Mine Blasting within 1 km. of urban areas.  They are currently asking mining companies for input.  In the SW Region, there have been mining operations that were shut down for up to 8 months due to flyrock problems.  The best way they have found to regulate the industry is to hit them in the pocket book.  They are also requiring blasters to be licenced for urban blasting.

·  Stan Holtby stated that the blasting insurance companies would be a driving force behind adoption of the guidelines within the blasting industry.  Stan feels that municipalities will not sign off on blasting guidelines for fear of accepting responsibility if things go wrong.

·  Paul Jeannotte mentioned that the City of Langford, BC has asked that a Blasting Engineer sign off all blasting plans.

·  Alastair Grogan said that at the end of the day, when something goes wrong, everyone gets named in a lawsuit.

·  Dave Hudak mentioned that ultimately, it is the “Blaster of Record” who is responsible in the event of a blasting accident.

·  Ron Elliott mentioned that if there were best industry practices guidelines in place this could help the blasters who are being asked to push the button on a shot where they were not in favour of the way it was designed or loaded, but must suffer the consequences when things go wrong.  A number of blasters have been in this situation and have lost their blasting tickets.  There is nothing the blaster can do but walk off the job.  If best industry practice guidelines were in place, at least a blaster could refer to the guidelines and say “this is the way I want to carry out the blasting operation”.  Right now he has nothing to back him up when a company says that this is the way they require the blaster to do the job.

·  Gary Kreller asked how many of those present are blasters.  He said that blasters who are working in an urban area have a responsibility to do the job right and ensure that all precautions are being taken.  Gary gets calls from Municipalities all the time looking for some assistance.  The WCB is there to enforce the regulations.  Lack of communication with the neighbours is a major concern, lack of proper PR.  Being pro-active and forming a committee to set recommendations would be a big help to give municipalities some of the guidelines they are looking for.

·  Ron Elliott said that the consensus seems to be that this is a good idea.  We would have to look at who would want to be a part of this committee.  We should recommend to the Board of Directors that a committee be set up.

·  Dave Hudak said we should send out notices to the membership asking who would like to participate on such a committee.  They need to be prepared to dedicate time to this and be prepared to sell it, once the guidelines are established.

·  Alastair Grogan said that in the USA, there are a number of jurisdictions where not only the blaster is held responsible for a blasting accident, but the company is also held responsible.

·  Dave Hudak mentioned that even if we set up recommendations for “Best Industry Practices”, there is no guarantee that they will be followed.  We are not legislating anything and this will not eliminate rogue operators who do not wish to follow the guidelines. 

Dave also recommended that we set up a section of our WEB Site as a Blaster’s Forum to get feedback from our members on issues such as this.  This does not cost us anything.

·  Ron Elliott said that we could also send out a letter to members to gain their feedback.

2.0    Post Blast Fumes

Pat McLaughlin mentioned that in blasting of wet areas, production of Nitrous Oxide fumes is a problem.  He wants to hear from the manufacturers present, what is being done to prevent this.

·  Terry Matts said there is no simple solution to the problem.  Often, lack of confinement is the culprit.  Bulk emulsion getting into cracks and then deflagrating is also a partial cause of incomplete detonation resulting in production of NOx fumes.

·  Lyle Workman stated that the problem is more prevalent with emulsion blends than straight emulsion.  In the strip coal mines in Wyoming, this is a major problem.

·  Ron Elliott mentioned that the addition of aluminum or urea to the explosive has helped somewhat to control NOx, but that this also drives up the cost of the explosive, and many customers are not interested in paying the premium to eliminate what they perceive as a minor issue.