Safex Newsletter No.84 July 2026


It is remarkable that we are already approaching the midpoint of 2026. This has been a particularly busy and productive period for Safex International, highlighted by our Congress in Lisbon. We once again extend our sincere thanks to our hosts, Orica, for their support and hospitality. In particular, we acknowledge Amanda Santos from the Lisbon office for her dedication, attention to detail, and significant contribution to making the Congress such a success.

The Congress brought together 184 participants representing 26 companies from across the globe. Delegates returned with a shared message: the event provided valuable learning and reinforced awareness of the safety challenges and objectives facing our industry worldwide. These insights will be shared with our membership as part of our continued commitment to achieving zero harm.

I extend my sincere gratitude to all attendees for their participation, engagement, and support. This was one of the most successful Congresses I have had the privilege of attending.

This Newsletter opens with a message from our Chairman, John Rathbun, who reflects on the Congress and the highly successful CEO meeting.

Andy Begg has brought together contributions from the Expert Panel and individual Associates, resulting in the following insightful articles on incidents and safety management:

Also included are Vignettes of Lisbon and Surroundings, photographed and compiled by Noel Hsu, which provide a visual reflection of the Congress venue and its surroundings.

I trust that you will find this Newsletter both interesting and informative. As this is my final edition as Secretary General of this outstanding organisation, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to every contributor who has supported the Newsletter over the past 12 years.

Piet Halliday , Secretary General

Summary of Congress Activities in Lisbon

Dawn Goosen
Expert Panel – Safex International

1) Top takeaways (what stood out)

  • Operations focus: BOS was repeatedly positioned as an operations do/avoid guide—not a substitute for engineering standards or Management of Change (MoC).
  • Sensitivity → controls: “Friction sensitivity” is frequently misunderstood; the key need is translating sensitivity language into concrete frontline controls (tools, methods, housekeeping, supervision, limits).
  • Initiation pathways: Initiating events don’t always lead to initiation—understanding pathways and conditions is essential to selecting effective controls.
  • Energy control: “De risking” energy inputs was emphasized as a practical lever to reduce initiation likelihood.
  • Confinement/contamination: Severe outcomes can arise from small quantities when confined—often during maintenance/clean out where residue and compatibility hazards are easily missed.
  • MoC as safety critical: MoC was framed as a decision process (pause → assess → agree controls → verify effectiveness), not paperwork.
  • Learning culture: Structured exercises and incident reviews including visuals (photos/videos where permissible) were highlighted as most valuable to build understanding. Much audience interaction occurred during these sessions.

2) Noteworthy practices worth piloting

  • BOS interface with other risk tools: A one page “what BOSS covers / what it doesn’t” + escalation triggers to engineering/MoC.
  • Sensitivity-to-controls quick reference: Simple translation guidance for friction/impact/static sensitivity (what changes operationally).
  • Maintenance “golden procedures”: Standard templates for high risk clean out/maintenance tasks (e.g., filters/screens/extraction), including a mandatory confinement check (“where could residue be trapped after reassembly?”).
  • MoC quality check: Lightweight review steps + quarterly sampling of recent changes to confirm hazards, controls, and effectiveness review are real (not only a paper record)

3) Possible discussion points

  • BOS scope & escalation: Where do we see boundary confusion, and what short guidance would reduce gaps?
  • Sensitivity-to-controls: What “minimum viable” friction sensitivity guidance should we publish that is actionable at the frontline?
    Maintenance/decontamination: Which recurring tasks most need golden procedures, and what minimum verification do we expect?
  • MoC effectiveness: Are triggers and quality checks consistent across functions/sites—what needs to be included in the Good practice guide for Management of Change in Explosives operations ?
  • The evolution of AI and use in the industry was a significant topic in presentations - what are the risks , how do we ensure nothing is missed?

4) Decisions we should aim to capture (outputs)

  • Panel guidance to publish: (BOSSscope/escalation; friction sensitivity → controls; MoC triggers/quality check; decontamination expectations)
  • Newsletter topics (pick 1–2): hidden confinement during maintenance; friction sensitivity in practice; unmanaged change as an accident driver; incident learning with visuals
  • Website content: MoC triggers/examples checklist; sensitivity→controls reference; maintenance decontamination template; short case-study learning notes

5) Workgroup update (for awareness)

Security GPG (storage/transport/sale of explosives + security sensitive precursors, e.g., AN)

  • Latest draft circulated for final comments by 20 May; final submission to SAFEX by 03 June.
  • Transport of Explosives GPG: paused to complete Security GPG; restart led by Fleur Hannaford (Orica) following Noel Hsu’s retirement.

Primaries workgroup (lead: Joa Roorda – Austin)

  • The Primaries Workgroup has completed a comprehensive e-learning module alongside a Good Practice Guide dedicated to primaries manufacturing.
  • During the session, the group delved into best practices for handling lead azide and DDNP, addressing not only key BOSS requirements but also practical concerns such as the challenges posed by incompatible materials and the persistent issue of dust accumulation.
  • An interactive group exercise further enriched these discussions, as participants evaluated various risk conditions and collectively determined which controls required the most urgent attention. This hands-on approach proved highly effective in surfacing differing perspectives and ultimately aligning the group’s priorities.
  • An excellent case study was shared that showcased the value of expert panel collaboration. A specialized team visited a facility focused on lead azide and detonator loading to investigate repeated ignition incidents (11 scince 2022) on a rigid element assembly pressing line. Their analysis took into account factors such as the sensitivity and shape of crystals, choice of construction materials, potential for grit ingress, housekeeping practices, and the methods used for transporting and packaging lead azide. This comprehensive review provided invaluable insights for improving safety and operational reliability within the industry.

In summary, providing expert support at the conference proved difficult because of members’ availability. Please let us know if you support regular catch up's to review challenges in industry and how we can support. In Andy's words "Let's get together and talk". We are proposing to perhaps start with booster plant BOS and
reflect in outcome of investigations published so far.