Festival Fireworks Court Case

[Drew Peacock]

Fatal fireworks explosion was manslaughter, court told | UK news | guardian.co.uk

[»PureParty]

hmm, some of the statements in that article make interesting reading

[redandwhitepyro]

Seems very odd that they refer to steel ISO containers which almost every company use, as neither the BPA or EIG or HSE have stated they consider them unfit for use. If you go back to the Firework Co. explosion at Uffculme some years ago the HSE tried to recreate the same explosion with the same quantities and class of fireworks as was supposedly stored, and all it did was blow the doors off.

We can only assume they were allegedly overweight for hazard types stored, which may possibly be a reason why it exploded the way it did, but it seems wrong to imply the use of steel containers as not fit for purpose, when clearly under present laws and MSER 2005 they have not been shown to be otherwise, just correct weight limits per hazard division and safe distances observed. Might be some questions about preraration areas and distances between storage areas, and ensuring strorage areas are always closed prior to any type of preparatory work is carried out even at distance.

As said, interesting to see what the facts were and the possible implications for further modifying MSER if the current limitations are not seen as effective.

Such a sad case for everyone concerned and hope it is wrapped up speedily and fairly.

[»PureParty]

Seems very odd that they refer to steel ISO container

Exactly, the line being taken by the prosecution seems to be that the container storage heightened the risks, although as will all news stories, we don't get the detail.

[redandwhitepyro]

The store itself surely does not heighten the risk which is what it seems to infer, its what is stored in it which heightens the risk, and whether the MSER limits were breached is more likely to be the issue ?

The documents the HSE gives out which shows the way to seperate out the HT1.3 and HT1.4 items in steel ISO stores surely infers they are safe to use in this way ?

Must be a limits issue you would think.

[RocketRev]

I'm thinking this is likely to be a key issue in the prosecution case....

"The ISO container was not authorised by the company's licence for the storage of fireworks by Festival Fireworks," he said

The merits and demerits of using steel ISO containers for storage may be debated, but the key thing may well be that if that particular container hadn't been used for hazardous materials storage, then there wouldn't have been an incident at that location. If I remember rightly, the incident happened in the complex of buildings on the site, with plenty of flammable stuff around - a workshop containing gas cylinders and a residential property. That maide the fire incident worse and required the Fire Bridage's intervention. If the stuff had been stored in a more distant container and had caught fire / exploded, the risk to other buildings and people would not have been there, the subsequent collateral damage would not have occurred and the Fire Brigade could have stood back at a safe distance and allowed the container to burn.

I've a feeling that all the questioning to establish who put stuff in that specific container and that they knew the hazards and risks of what they were handling and knew the rules about what could be kept where is going to lead up to the claim that that container was knowingly not authorised for such use as it was knowingly put to. If that's established and it can be proved that the container wasn't authorised for that use, then I don't think the suitability or otherwise of steel ISO containers needs to enter into it.

[Drew Peacock]

Originally Posted by redandwhitepyro

The store itself surely does not heighten the risk which is what it seems to infer, its what is stored in it which heightens the risk, and whether the MSER limits were breached is more likely to be the issue ?

The documents the HSE gives out which shows the way to seperate out the HT1.3 and HT1.4 items in steel ISO stores surely infers they are safe to use in this way ?

Must be a limits issue you would think.

If it is a COMAH or lower COMAH site (which it must be) then you have to register every building you are using and every building has a limit for 1.1 1.3 1.4 etc. If you have a licensed COMAH site and for example you have 20 mags licensed it doesn't mean you can simply plonk a container on the site as an additional store. I read it that the container shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[blackbat]

Originally Posted by Drew Peacock

. I read it that the container shouldn't have been there in the first place.

That's what I heard quite a few months back, something along the lines of an additional temporary container being on the site, above and beyond the licenced storage capacity. Whether that's what the case is resting on will no doubt come out in the days ahead.

[Drew Peacock]

Originally Posted by blackbat

That's what I heard quite a few months back, something along the lines of an additional temporary container being on the site, above and beyond the licenced storage capacity. Whether that's what the case is resting on will no doubt come out in the days ahead.

Not sure if its even a case of beyond the storage capacity. Even if you are licensed for 200 tonnes NEC each building must be listed on a site plan, so if you are only holding 100 tonnes you still cant just plonk a container down as an additional store

[RocketRev]

Originally Posted by Drew Peacock

If it is a COMAH or lower COMAH site (which it must be) then you have to register every building you are using

Interesting...... I thought one of the purposes of the registrations was that the emergency services would know exactly what was where in the event they were called to an incident. Apart from registrations ensuring storage so as to minimise risk, I thought they helped emergency service crews to know what they face and exactly where they need to take particular precautions. So if the container in question wasn't authorised for fireworks storage, as the report says the prosecution claims, then the Fire Officers checking the status of the site they were being called to may not have known about the particular hazard in that location..... with the result that they could have unwittingly walked right into the big bang.