Getting the Fundamentals Right

By Bob Woolley

Introduction

In high-hazard industries, we don’t get many second chances. In explosives operations, where tolerances are tight and consequences are severe, safety isn’t upheld by extraordinary innovation — it’s maintained through unrelenting attention to the basics. The principles that govern safe manufacture, storage, and transport are well known across the industry. Yet it’s precisely because they are familiar that they’re at risk of being taken for granted.

The challenge isn’t in knowing what to do. It’s in doing it properly, consistently, and with full awareness of how small deviations can escalate into serious incidents. Disciplined application of fundamental controls — especially during change — remains the strongest safeguard we have.

Getting the Fundamentals Right

The controls that underpin explosives safety are not abstract. They are present in the condition of a traverse, the clarity of a workplace rule, the accuracy of a stock record, or the cleanliness of a process bench. While these may appear routine, their strength lies in the precision with which they’re applied. When incidents occur, it’s rarely due to lack of knowledge — it’s due to erosion of these basics.

One of the most common fault lines is change. Adjustments to equipment, production rates, materials, layouts, or staffing levels can introduce new risks that slip past existing safeguards. If changes are implemented informally, without re-evaluating their implications, control measures quickly become misaligned with real-world operations. This is where the gap opens between work as imagined — how we believe processes are being carried out — and work as done, which often includes informal adaptations and workaround behaviours.

Managing change properly means asking critical questions every time something shifts: Does this affect segregation? Do risk assessments need updating? Have emergency plans been reviewed? Have staff been re-briefed or retrained? Even small changes can have significant impacts if they interact with other factors already close to a critical threshold. When change is managed casually, assumptions multiply — and assumptions in this industry are dangerous.

That same principle applies across all core controls. Risk assessments must be active tools — updated when raw materials, conditions, or processes evolve. Competence must be more than certification; it requires practical understanding and the ability to detect when something’s “off.” Systems of work must reflect operational reality, not outdated theory, and workplace rules must be enforced, not merely displayed.

Housekeeping is often underestimated, yet it’s one of the clearest indicators of safety culture. Residues, waste, grit, and clutter are not benign — they are potential fuel sources, ignition risks, and obstructions to escape. Effective housekeeping removes energy pathways before they can form and ensures that degradation, damage, or abnormal conditions aren’t allowed to go unnoticed.

Likewise, structural protections such as barriers and traverses are only effective if they match design intent and are maintained. Vegetation growth, erosion, or the accumulation of nearby combustibles can degrade their performance long before failure becomes visible.

Segregation and stock management form another critical layer. Initiators must be kept away from main charges. Incompatibles must never mix. Stock must be rotated, packaging inspected, and records kept accurate to avoid reliance on guesswork. Failures in segregation often don’t present themselves until it’s too late — when an initiating source meets a vulnerable product under the right conditions.

Even standard tasks such as internal transport can introduce elevated risk. Vehicles may enter proximity with explosives buildings, personnel, and materials that would otherwise be segregated. These moments of interaction require strict adherence to defined routes, load security, time limits, and discipline in parking and handling. Routine is never an excuse for relaxation.

Emergency preparedness remains the final defence — but only if plans are accurate, rehearsed, and built on reliable assumptions. The speed and clarity of response in a critical moment depends on whether escape routes are clear, alarms are working, communication protocols are understood, and information about explosives on site is accessible. Drills must reflect likely pressures, not ideal conditions.

All these systems — prevention, control, response — must be tied together by an organisational culture that values accuracy, attention, and follow-through. The fundamentals of safety do not stand alone. They operate in layers, each one relying on the others to be effective. Where any link weakens — through inattention, drift, or misalignment — risk accumulates silently.

Summary

Explosives safety is not maintained by new systems or periodic campaigns — it is upheld by getting the basics right, every day, with no exceptions. Risk evaluation, change control, competence, housekeeping, segregation, emergency planning — none of these are revolutionary. But they are unforgiving when applied inconsistently or treated as background detail.

The key is discipline. A culture that values precision, identifies gaps between procedure and reality, and treats each change as a potential risk, not just an operational adjustment. It’s this culture — embedded in habits, reinforced through action — that protects people, assets, and communities.

Because in this industry, fundamentals aren’t just important. They’re everything.