Risk Management-Cato Ridge Explosion PMY 420

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Risk management ................................................................................................................. 3 Brief report ............................................................................................................................ 3 Causes ................................................................................................................................. 3 Due care ............................................................................................................................... 4 Principles of risk management .............................................................................................. 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 7

1. Risk management
Risk management is a management function whose objective is the protection of people, assets and earnings by avoiding or minimising the potential for loss from pure risk, and the provision of funds to recover from losses that do occur.

2. Objectives of risk management

a) Prevent the losses from occurring b) Minimise the magnitude of the loss if the event does occur c) Deal with the event while it is occurring (Emergency Planning) and; d) Recover from the loss as economically as possible once it has occurred. (Contingency Planning)

3. Brief report
On 24 September 2008, a water leakage into furnace number six of the Cato Ridge Furnace caused a boiler explosion that resulted in the wall of the control room facing the furnace to collapse, allowing the flames to engulf the entire room. 6 workers died from the explosion, smoke and fire while 4 others sustained serious burn injuries.

4. Causes
In this particular incident, there were several causes some direct and others indirect. Although detailed reports of the incident are not available the following was found: Direct Water leakage into the number six furnace, which caused the explosion of a boiler. The explosion and fires caused the death and injury to the workers. Indirect Failure to stop the furnace. The foreman on duty failed to switch off the furnace after complains of water leakages. Management also ignored the warnings from external inspecting engineers. The engineers recommended that the furnace be switched off but this did not happen.

5. Due care
For a facility like Cato Ridge Furnance, The Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 provides general duties of employers to their employees of which the following were highlighted: Taking such steps as may be reasonably practicable to eliminate or mitigate any hazard or potential hazard to the safety or health of employees, before resorting to personal protective equipment;

Providing such information, instructions, training and supervision as may be necessary to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;

The Mining Industry is offered the concept of Due Diligence through the requirements of the Mine Health and Safety Act, 29 of 1996 to improve the existing unacceptable amount of injuries to workers. Due diligence means taking care, that means taking all reasonable care in circumstances to protect the health & safety of workers. When the employer does not prove due diligence, then he/she is negligent and thus liable for the injuries or deaths that occur as a result. Understand Duties
One of the requirements needed to exercise due diligence is for the employer to understand his/her duties. One of the duties the employer looked: 1. Was every reasonable precaution taken in the circumstances to protect the workers? The production manager was aware that the furnace had leakage problems. He was advised by external consulting engineers that the furnace should be stopped. No precautions were taken as he insisted that the explosion was unlikely. Leakages have been reported the whole week and attempts at repairing proved feutal. Operations still continued after the problem could not be solved.

Show all Due Care

Due care is shown when the employer carries out his duties and understands the risks associated with the work. It is reported that the previous operations manager, Robert Burger wrote a statement before his death stating that the furnance has been refurbished since its commissioning in 1990. He

argued that the company has spent over R30 million on major overhauls in 1995, 1999, 2002 and 2005. It is also reported that artisans attempted to repair the furnace leakages a week before the leakage, but leaking continued. Section 7.5 of the MHSA act 29 of 1996 as amended, states that: Every employer must

provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risk to the health of employees. As far as reasonably practicable, every employer must Identify the relevant hazards and assess the related risks to which persons who are not employees may be exposed where, "Reasonable practicable" is defined in the MHS Act to mean practicable having regarding to: The severity and scope of the hazard or risk concerned; The state of knowledge reasonably available concerning that hazard or risk & any means of removing or mitigating that hazards or risk; The availability and suitability of means to remove or mitigate that hazard or risk; and The cost of removing or mitigating that hazard or risk.
The operational and general manager did not understand the risks involved as they assumed that the likelihood was negligible, therefore the measures that they put in place were not reasonable practicable. In addition to the explosion, the operation has been allegedly working at standards that are well below the international standards thus exposing the workers to manganese dust. This cleary shows that the safety culture at the smelter is poor.

Foresee Risks
The risk was not completely forseen

Without understanding the risks involved, the manager could not forsee the risk. The external engineers assisted in forseeing the risks, but management ignored the warnings. It is reported that the blast was the second blast in nearly three months. A worker had died on December 14, 2007, in a similar blast. This clearly shows that management chose to ignore the warning signs.

Address Risks

Therefore, the risk could not be addressed completely

Since the risk could not be forseen, it could not be treated. The degree to which management and employees value safety will determine the level of "acceptable risks" in any situation. The risk of a leakage was acceptable in the eyes of management. The foreman in the previous shift before the incident was well aware of the leakage, but like his manager took the risk as acceptable.

Assess Training
If the workers were sufficiently trained and made aware of the dangers or hazards of the furnace, they could have realised that it was extremely risky to work under those conditions and refuse to work.

6. Principles of risk management

Management and employees have a social obligation towards their people, co-workers and themselves to ensure effective health, safety and environmental protection. Management also has a responsibility towards safeguarding the public, contactors and visitors who may be affected by the activities of their operation. It is when these responsibilities are not upheld that harmful events occur. The risk management process is based on the classic management problem solving approach. The four components being: Risk Identifications Risk Evaluation Risk Control Risk Financing

The management of the blast furnace clearly did not follow the risk management process and hence could not effectively deal with the risk which resulted in an unwanted incident. The incident is a classical depiction of Vincolis domino theory were accidents are the

inevitable outcome of a casual chain of acts. Management loss of control: Management failed to do its job which planning, organising, leading and controlling (especially controlling).
Origin: basic causes Job factors

The furnace was always troubled with leakages and nothing was done about it. The foreman accepted this norm and continued running the furnace. Immediate causes: The leakage that caused the boiler explosion Contact: The contact is the explosion of the boiler Loss: The loss that resulted from the explosion included people and equipment

7. Conclusion
The management of the plant did not understand the risks involved with the leakage. It is for this reason that they could not carry out their statutory duties effectively. Understanding the duties is one of the requirements to proof due diligence. If due diligence cannot be proved, then management should be held responsible for deaths of the six workers.

8. References
Sappa, 2009.Assmang boss denies ignoring problems before explosion. Available online: http://www.miningweekly.com/article/assmang-boss-denies-ignoring-problems-beforeexplosion-2009-09-22 Accessed [20/09/2010] IOL, 2008.One killed in Manganese factory explosion. Available online: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=124&art_id=nw20080224133500418C216 300. Accessed [20/09/2010] Sapa, 2009. Assmang boss accused of gambling with workers. Available online: liveshttp://www.miningweekly.com/article/assmang-boss-accused-of-gambling-with-workerslives-2009-09-21 [Accessed: 20/09/2010] Louw, C., 2010. Iron and steel employers disregard labour laws Sowetan. Available online: http://groups.google.com/group/cosatu-dailynews/browse_thread/thread/2344d534da11b762?pli=1 [Accessed: 20/09/2010]