Does the US have/need a certified bolting program?

[fuzzy-hair-man]

OK this might be a bit controversial but anyway.

So to explain, Tasmania here in Australia and the UK that I know of have started with certified bolts (P hangers) placed, tested and inspected by a caving authority there are a couple of reasons behind this that I know of but there may be more I'll go into the ones I know of below.

OK, so as I understand it some parts of the US are starting to use more Alpine style caving techniques (redirects and rebelays) which means that bolts are becoming more common in caves.

Bolts only really have a fixed life, and their strength and usefulness is dependent on age, how well they were placed, and the experience and skill of the person placing the bolt.

Most commonly bolts are placed as they are thought to be needed with no documentation and no certification or minimum skill required from the person placing the bolt, and the best you get in terms of testing is if the party got to the bottom and back up again without incident. A comparatively minor shock load on the bolt may have caused it to fail and it is very difficult to tell.

So that's one issue, another issue is that bolts aren't documented as they are placed by individual parties as they are seen to be required so there is no indication of how long the bolt has been there and if it needs to be replaced or if it can be trusted.

The above two problems have lead to yet another problem.
Lets say I'm doing a caving trip and spot a bolt at the pitch head that I consider badly placed or in dodgy rock or that looks old and decide that I'm not going to trust it and decide to place my own bolt. Fair enough right? safety first?

But this with many parties and time leads to "bolt farms" springing up at pitch heads where there are many bolts scattered around the pitch head and it becomes a cave conservation issue. Additionally not all bolts are very easy to find especially if the hanger has been taken out as is mostly the case. If a party don't find the bolt then they very likely will place their own

So a large part of this problem is that a cave party doesn't know which bolts they can and cannot trust and there is no documentation, replacement and or inspection program.
The rest is that they may not be able to find the bolts that have already been placed.

How Tasmanian cavers (the only really vertical caves in Australia) and the UK (as I understand it - paul?) have tackled this is using their P hanger programs. A P hanger is a bolt manufactured for this purpose by DMM? and is not readily available to the public. This means that if you spot a P hanger in a cave you know you can trust it as it was placed by qualified people and tested and will be inspected regularly.

To explain a bit more of what I know about P hangers these use an epoxy type glue system and are set in the hole. If and when the P hanger wears out they can be replaced by drilling out the hole and gluing in a new P hanger so a new hole is not needed.

Tasmania and I imagine the UK test their P hangers after they have been placed, in Tasmania this is done using a system similar to what is used to test lifts. All of the people placing anchors need to be trained to do so, the placed P hangers are also documented (date, location, batch nos? person who placed it) and some pretty thorough rigging guides are written so people can find the P hangers (they are pretty visible anyway as far as I know). For pull down trips mailons are put into the P hanger to prevent the P hanger wearing out as the rope is pulled through.

Sorry for the long post, one of the reasons I mention it is I though the US could learn by the problems experienced in the UK and Tasmania and put in a bolting program before it becomes a problem or there is an accident.

Of course if you've already got one then let me know and I'll get back in my box

[Scott McCrea]

Anonymous bolt placers are harder to sue.

Good idea and I wish it would work here, but we have too many lawyers.

[fuzzy-hair-man]

Anonymous bolt placers are harder to sue.

Good idea and I wish it would work here, but we have too many lawyers.

I'm not sure of the legal implications to tell the truth, or how they got around them. I think the program is pretty well organized and quite thorough so they may be able to show that all possible care has been taken, and that may absolve them of some responsibility.

[paul]

How Tasmanian cavers (the only really vertical caves in Australia) and the UK (as I understand it - paul?) have tackled this is using their P hanger programs. A P hanger is a bolt manufactured for this purpose by DMM? and is not readily available to the public. This means that if you spot a P hanger in a cave you know you can trust it as it was placed by qualified people and tested and will be inspected regularly.

To explain a bit more of what I know about P hangers these use an epoxy type glue system and are set in the hole. If and when the P hanger wears out they can be replaced by drilling out the hole and gluing in a new P hanger so a new hole is not needed.

Tasmania and I imagine the UK test their P hangers after they have been placed, in Tasmania this is done using a system similar to what is used to test lifts. All of the people placing anchors need to be trained to do so, the placed P hangers are also documented (date, location, batch nos? person who placed it) and some pretty thorough rigging guides are written so people can find the P hangers (they are pretty visible anyway as far as I know). For pull down trips mailons are put into the P hanger to prevent the P hanger wearing out as the rope is pulled through.

Yes, you have that correct. In my area, the Peak District, we are nearly at the end of a cycle of testing all the P bolts placed in local caves and mines. There are over 300 and so far all have passed a 6KN pull with a hydraulic tester pulling the P bolt perpendicularly to the rock - and some of these have been in place for over 10 years.

I believe the situation is the same in other UK caving areas.

There is some relevant information on the Council of Northern Caving Clubs Website which is the organisation for caving in the Yorkshire Dales, here in the UK.

[Stridergdm]

Anonymous bolt placers are harder to sue.

Good idea and I wish it would work here, but we have too many lawyers.

On the other hand, a certified program CAN work in a situation like this.

Imagine you own a cave on private land and you know that cavers have bolted it.

Someone goes in, clips into a bolt, descends, bolt pops, they get injured.

Depending on the state, that bolt could be known as a "improvement" and the landowner held liable. (Generally speaking in NYS this is true. If you have a natural attraction and NO improvements are made, you generally can't be held liable. If improvements are made, you're aware and don't remove them or inspect them, etc, you generally CAN be.)

So now, as a landowner, you're on the hook for some anonymous jerk who can't properly place a bolt. Whether you win or lose, you lose just based on court costs.

Now, assume a different course of action.

You've had a certified bolt placer come, remove all old bolts, and put in any necessary bolts, properly placed.

Now you're probably less likely to have any problems. And if you do, when you do get sued (since this IS America , the plaintiff has a higher burden to overcome. They have to prove the bolt-placer failed to follow proper guidelines. This can be a tougher standard at times than if there are no guidelines and just "best judgement."

And it potentially protects you as the landowner since you took steps to guarantee safe improvements to your natural wonder.

Personally I think the idea does have merit.

[batrotter]

You also have the issue of introducing some government official to oversee us peons. If you need a "certified" person, then the feds will have to certify that person. It adds a layer of government that we don't need. Let the people fend for themselves and not some government agency.

[Tim White]

In TAG, as soon as I tell a cave owner that I want to set a bolt in his cave and have it approved by a "certified" bolt inspector, everyone will be denied asscess to his once "open" cave.

That is just the way is is in the South. I'm not suggesting that it is good. Just the way it is.

[GoHighGoDeep]

I know in the climbing community, particularly in the Muir Valley in the Red River Gorge, KY, the group that owns the land has gone through and tested ALL the bolts on sport routes in the area. I believe they did this with some sort of come-along/dynameter rig. It might behoove some of the cave preservation organizations in the US to take a hint from this and devise a way to test bolts in their properties.

Testing/certifying bolts(and bolters) would be really tricky in US caving... Bolting equipment is readily available, and a lot of the time it's simply not practical to get people to get certified. There's no incentive... people without the certification are going to be bolting too, why should caver XYZ spend the money/time to get the certification when caver ABC is setting bolts without having the certification.

Personally, I think it should be part of our ethic as responsible cavers to learn to set bolts properly if you need to bolt something, and if you don't know how to bolt properly, either find a course or learn from someone who has pretty extensive bolting experience.

[caverdoc]

This looks like it could be a potential legal nightmare. As a member of perhaps the most scrutinized profession in America (medicine) there are no shortage of "monday morning quarterbacks" who will examine your every move/certification/choice of gear-medication-procedure. Trial lawyers make their fortune through second-guessing other people, and will even find an "expert" to testify how THEY would have done the procedure/diagnosis (substitute BOLT PLACEMENT here). I have yet to be sued (knock wood) but use risk management in both medicine and caving.

Certification typically shows that you demonstrated an acceptable level of knowledge (80% in most trauma/emergency certifications, ACLS, etc) and performance on key skills.

Who would be the certifying agency? FEMA? OSHA? How about caves on federal land like BLM or forestry service areas?

I set quite a few bolts in my career. I've also seen some truly spooky bolt placements. Most of my placements are well-known within the caving communities where I've been ("that's a good bolt, Doc set it in 1998..."). I think the "organized" bolting in England has been good for the caves, maybe the NSS Vertical Section or local grotto could do something similar for American caves.

Dr J

[Scott McCrea]

What's more, a certified bolter would probably need to be insured or bonded. That means the insurance company lawyers would be involved. Meaning all certified bolters would be required to wear full body harnesses, respirators, contamination suits, duct tape, etc and would have to carry caution tape and cones to block off the work area.

I think we (US cavers) have been doing a pretty good job bolting and self-policing. I've seen some bad bolts but they are usually fixed, replaced or beefed up somehow.

So, question is, is there a problem? Are US cave bolts failing? Anyone know of accidents involving failed bolts?

[Anonymous_Coward]

Having just returned from Tasmania, I must say I was impressed with the management of the caves there. Fantastic caves, good conservation ethic in place, and appropriate National Park management. We did a Kubla Khan Cave through-trip and used some of the P-bolts that have been described here. Although I prefer hanging from an expansion bolt to something that glues in, the P-bolts we used were well-placed and solid.

In the US, I see this as more of a conservation/aesthetic issue than a safety one. Certified bolting would cut down on bolt farms. As far as safety is concerned, most bolt placements in the US are doubled to ensure safety. You can generally tell if bolts are safe by looking at their placement and checking to see they are not loose. I'm not sure I like the idea of bolts being weight tested before use, any more than I would want to have my harness pull-tested before wearing it. However, I'll admit being naive to the significance of 6kn as opposed to breaking strength of a P-bolt. Anyone more familiar with the physics care to weigh in?

Due to my recent lesson in the differences between US and Australian culture, I don't think the certified bolting idea will take off in America. US cavers are much too independent-minded, secretive, and distrustful of government regulation to allow it to happen. (all traits I admire by the way) That is to say, uncertified bolting will continue in either scenario. Australian cavers have more of a club mindset and are already required to pay into club insurance just to have access to caves. My wife and I joined Illawarra Speleological Society so that we could cave in Australia. It was well worth it.

[fuzzy-hair-man]

Generally I think certification in Tassy is not by any government agency or anything like that, it's run through the caving clubs, I think it's generally concerned with making sure the person knows what they are doing (P hangers are special bolts and mixing the glue and ensuring a good set are tricky) once a proper placement has been achieved the P bolts are very strong. Proper instalation is tested using the pull test.

As far as I know the epoxy/resin glue in the P hanger is at least as strong as an expansion bolt and I'd bet it is probably stronger.

The 6kn pull test is a pull straight out from the wall (as paul said) this is really a worst case senario the bolt should never be loaded this way as this is it's weakest pull direction. So if it passes 6 kn in the test it should have significantly more when loaded properly (proper bolt placement should ensure this is the case).

If bolts have only started emerging in US then you probably won't see a lot of theses problems until further down the track when the problem has grown and the damage has been done.

Lastly, How do you know if a existing bolt is safe? has anyone tested it? it might only fail with a fall on the bolt. Is there a small rock fracture you can't see that means it will just pull out?

[LifeOnALine]

I think the idea of "tested" and "certified" are entirely different topics. One is a practical issue of performance, the other is a liability issue, and they often don't come together. If performance was guaranteed you wouldn't need liability!

Testing a permanent anchor (resin or expansion) makes sense if it's practicable, as it shows the installer did their job right. I've seen industrially-fitted anchor points fail on their initial test because of poor placement, failure of the base material or quality control on resins and although the installer being "trained" gives it a fighting chance, it's no guarantee of strength. Resin anchors are more reliably strong but they can also be installed badly without the subsequent users being able to check (how deep is the hole? was the resin in-date or not?). With an expansion bolt you can see more of what's going on - but the payoff is they're horribly unreliable in the first place.

If you argue that anchors need an after-fit test, then it follows that they'll need a retest every so often to account for damage or deterioration. A resin P-hanger may last 10 years, but it's still easy to kill - so in a regular free-access site these things are far from indestructible. Having said that it's an easy enough process to perform a test if you have the equipment, and there's a UIAA spec for how strong they need to be that works fine for caving as well as climbing.

Certification implies that someone accepts legal responsibility for it, and that's a major problem in caves. The systems of anchor installation used in the UK and elsewhere aren't "certified". Testing happens purely for research and as a quality control process but the bolt isn't guaranteed any more than a random anonymous one is. I install anchors for industry, but the insurance assumes that I get to specify the use and maintenance - for example I may put a 6-month ticket on an eyebolt but the certificate will say that if anyone overloads it, falls on it, lifts equipment on it, bends it, cooks it, even looks at it in a funny way, the ticket is void and the eyebolt is dead. In a cave where you don't know who's using it and what they're doing to it in your absence, any 'certificate' will be void the instant the installer leaves the entrance. You could still claim against them if it turns out the resin wasn't legal or the hanger was made from pasta, but the idea there'd be some "guarantee" of the anchor doesn't work. If the bolt failed because a salad-phobic overloaded it the day before, there's no hope of claiming against the installer even if their name's on it.

I can see the point in an independent testing program where someone respected by the community pulls anchors and publishes a list of the ones that passed *purely for information* but to extend that to a liability system has been tried with rock climbing many times, and always fails to hold water when it's called to account. The UK system works well, as people trust the 'official' anchors more than the old drive-ins they replaced, but everyone accepts that nobody's going to pay your medical bills if that gravity thing happens so they still take as much care as they did before.

~DM~

[fuzzy-hair-man]

I can see the point in an independent testing program where someone respected by the community pulls anchors and publishes a list of the ones that passed *purely for information* but to extend that to a liability system has been tried with rock climbing many times, and always fails to hold water when it's called to account. The UK system works well, as people trust the 'official' anchors more than the old drive-ins they replaced, but everyone accepts that nobody's going to pay your medical bills if that gravity thing happens so they still take as much care as they did before.

~DM~

By certification what I meant(not nessicarily what I say) is that the people are trained (certified) to place the bolts, so that placement is good and that the bolt is installed correctly. This means other cavers can be reasonably sure that if they see a P hanger that it was placed by someone who knows what they were doing and has been tested so that they can be reasonably sure it's safe (no garrantee given).

I wasn't suggesting each bolt be certified, just a more reliable alternative offered to the current 'random bolts'

I'm not overly familiar with the process, I had just heard some things about them and thought it was worth mentioning here so please let us/me know more.

[Scott McCrea]

I think the idea of "tested" and "certified" are entirely different topics. One is a practical issue of performance, the other is a liability issue, and they often don't come together. If performance was guaranteed you wouldn't need liability!

Good post. Thanks Dave.

salad-phobic