FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom W on December 21, 2009, 09:25:42 AM
-
I haven't seen this mentioned. There has been quite some comeback from the general public saying that it was a revenge sentance from the F&RS. It was my friends father who died in the fire so they can swing for all i care.
A father and son have been jailed for manslaughter following an explosion at a fireworks factory in which two firefighters lost their lives.
Alpha Fireworks owner Martin Winter, 52, was jailed for seven years, and his 25-year-old son, Nathan Winter, sentenced to five years for the deaths of retained firefighter Geoff Wicker, 49, and support officer Brian Wembridge, 63.
The incident took place at Marlie Farm in Shortgate, East Sussex on 3 December 2006. Nathan Winter was preparing a fireworks display for a Christmas lights ceremony in Eastbourne and was working outside one of the buildings on the farm when one of the fireworks caught fire. This caused a number of other fireworks to explode, and the fire spread through buildings on the site.
Firefighters arrived at the scene, including Mr Wembridge who was filming the blaze for training purposes, and Mr Wicker, who was erecting a standing fire hose to spray water on the flames. The fire reached a metal container illegally packed with fireworks, causing a huge explosion that killed both men and injured 20 others.
The metal container was being used to house fireworks before being shipped the Middle East, and was not authorised by the company’s licence to store fireworks. This licence was subsequently revoked by the HSE following its investigation into the incident.
HSE chief inspector of explosives, Neil Morton, said: “This case is a stark reminder of the terrible consequences of not following the correct procedures when handling hazardous material. If Alpha Fireworks had handled and stored the fireworks correctly, the fire and subsequent explosion would not have happened.
“Companies that work in the high-hazard industries must remember that regulations and standards are there to protect workers and the public. Complying with the law and following the well-established principles of good work practices when using and storing explosives can prevent people being killed or hurt.”
Following a five-week trial at Lewes Crown Court both Martin and Nathan Winter were found guilty of manslaughter on 16 December. Alpha Fireworks was found guilty of breaching reg.4 of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosive Regulations 2005, for failing to take adequate steps to prevent a fire, and reg.10 of the same Regulations, for storing fireworks without a licence. The company was sentenced on 14 December and was fined £30,000, but no costs were awarded.
The company had no previous convictions and complied with the HSE’s investigation.
The Fire Brigades Union, which represents the majority of fire crews in East Sussex, welcomed the manslaughter convictions. FBU brigade secretary for East Sussex, Steve Huggins, said: “These two men showed utter contempt for firefighter and public safety and we welcome their conviction. Both men should pay heavily for what they did, but it is important to ensure that all the lessons are properly learned, so no one else is killed in similar circumstances.
“Nationally the monitoring and enforcement of fireworks regulations is patchy at best and non-existent at worse. There is very little co-ordination between the agencies, which are meant to be responsible for the regulations.
“We have major concerns with the use of shipping containers for the storage of fireworks. Containers are used across the country by people in the firework industry and any supermarket selling fireworks around 5 November.”
Mr Huggins concluded: “There are major concerns at the lack of training and preparation for firefighters. The training gaps identified at the trial are not only in East Sussex but remain across the fire service three years after this tragedy.”
Some interesting comments here
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4797446.Father_and_son_jailed_for_fireworks_factory_manslaughter/
-
I have, in the past, been involved in the wholesale and retail sale of fireworks, and to a lesser extent, designing and firing firework displays.
As well as storage and display facilities at the point of sale, we also had our main storage facilities spread over many locations.
I found that the control and inspection of all our facilities was scrupulously carried out by the trading standards department of our local County Council.
Any proposed firework storage facility was checked before we could use it. Our main storage areas were at least 100m away from where members of the public had right of way and any other firework storage facilities.
Our retail storage consisted of a maximum of 50Kg of firework close to the sales area and a maximum of 300Kg in a secure seperate building from the sales area. The weights mentioned is for the whole firework and not just the explosive material (approximately 90% of the weight of a firework is the packaging and the ballast used to stop them falling over).
300 Kg of fireworks roughly equates to boxes of fireworks stacked to a height of 2 foot either side of a standard 20 foot container with a central gangway.
Our main storage facilities also consisted of 20 foot transport containers. We were allowed to store 7 tonnes in each of these. This equated to it being packed floor to ceiling either side with a central access gangway.
When fireworks arrive from China a standard 20 foot container is packed floor to ceiling (with no central gangway) with fireworks.
As I said our facilites were checked regularly. At least once per year, and usually when the inspectors knew that there were likely to be most full of stock.
I felt that the regulations were sufficiently strict and from my experience I cannot imagine that a fire in a sealed transport container packed full with BS compliant fireworks would be able to blow it apart.
I presume that tests have been carried out to check this. If not, they need to be, because this is how fireworks arrive in the UK and are transported in the UK.
I am no longer involved with fireworks, but when I was, I truly believed the whole process of transport and storage was adequately regulated and policed.
However, there was one 'trick' that many retail outlets used and that was to store their main firework stock in a large van close to the point of sale, By doing this they could avoid the maximum 300Kg local storage weight limit by arguing that the fireworks were actually not in 'storage' but in 'transit' at the time they were in the van. (higher limits apply to transit).
I have also noticed that it seems these days that firework retailers are getting away with selling directly from their 300Kg store i.e from a storage/transport container. This, I feel, is illegal but I see it happening all the time; a container plonked down not far from a public highway and someone selling fireworks directly from it. It would never have been allowed in my day!
-
Thanks Wiz for this insight.
I agree that the use of steel shipping containers is universal. Whilst when I was in the fire service we often often recognised the potential hazards of an enclosed and sealed steel storage unit in terms of an explosion risk the units have other advantages of security, non combustibility and if they were carefully sited well away from other exposures then in balance the risks may be tolerable. As you point out they have travelled more than half way round the world like this, driven up our motorways and into our city centres.
The most difficult risks to balance are security versus explosion hazards/ projectiles and shrapnel. It would be safer obviously to store them in a container with a lightweight roof but this would be insecure. This is reflected also inthe explosives magazines used by quarries and the like which invariably made of very heavy steel construction. The difference is of course that these are licensed and always miles away from any surrounding property and population.
As far as I am aware there are not many recorded major accidents with them - its usually the manufacturers that have the accidents. fires and explosions. But an appropriate and useful outcome from the alpha fireworks tragedy would be a review of the safety of these things and the potential for harm- hopefully the HSE will be commissioned to do a study on this, they have a facility for this type of test at their laboratory in Buxton.
Another thought is that there are regulations covering the conveyance of explosives and marking of trailers etc, also covering packaging and labelling - it would be interesting to know how diligently these are being applied and policed. I was in a warehouse a few weeks ago and noted boxes of xmas crackers with explosives labelling on them. In some areas there are also local enactments requirting the labelling marking of sites where hazardous materials are stored.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051082.htm#sch2
-
Unlicensed or unregistered storage is unacceptable and this case in particular was a clear breach of MSER. I do think that the last point in the OP should not be overlooked, nor understated. The various reports from the trial all seem to indicate that the observer / cameraman did remain in a position of danger whilst colleagues placed ground monitors despite being instructed (allegedly on more than one occasion) to leave. Whilst the fire spreading to an unlicenced container of fireworks caused the mass explosion, it would seem that if the observer wasn't present then the outcome may have been different.
Not being a FF i'm not really sure how you arrive at a lack of training - there have been clear evacuation distances etc for the various hazard types, particulary in class 1 (explosives) for years now - certainly since the last incident when a FF was killed in Peterborough back in 1989. The operational procedures / safety distances would apply to any incident involving hazardous goods whether they are being stored or transported - the only real difference between the two being the enforcement responsibility.
With licensing / registration responsibility varying between different agencies across the country I think its fair to say that the communication between relavent parties may not be where it should. Within a week of the incident at Marlie farm, our container was visited by the local FRS (Surrey) despite being licensed with Surrey CC trading standards for the previous 5 years. The OIC stating that he had 'no idea we were even there' - the same story for another two companies within 20 miles of us.
What would have happened if the fire had broken out adjacent to a container which was licensed for the storage of hazard type 1.1 ? if there was / is a lack of training would the outcome have varied and who would then be held accountable ?
Paul
-
It would appear that the use of unlicensed storage was the reason that the prosecution succeeded. I'm guessing that this storage probably wasn't even a transport container. I still find it hard to believe that a storage container could be blown apart even if it was stacked full of fireworks.
Could it be that the difficulty and cost of getting storage facilities licensed, lead to people taking risks and using any old storage facility? And if you are going to ignore the licensing requirements it is just another small step to overload whatever unlicensed storage facility you are using.
I can't believe that the people in question did not have any licensed storage facilities at all, so what led them to take the risk of also using unlicensed storage facilities?
I was quite surprised to read the prosecuted persons defence arguments in the newspaper report - you generally never get to hear 'both sides of the story' in a newspaper report when someone is found guilty.
I also was surprised to read that firefighters were accused of ignoring warnings to move back to safer distances because of the unlicensed firework storage.
-
For everyone who has any doubt that ISO containers full of fireworks may not be lethal in a fire situation, please see this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuWxr7Djjo
I don't know how to make this a proper link but please copy and paste into your browser.
The reporting on the trial was very sketchy but fortunately the judge and jury heard all the evidence.
Thanks
-
Morph.
It is a proper link! You can do things you don't know how to! I can't even do things I think I can do.
Stu
-
In my very old days of inspecting explosive stores there were a number of steel buildings about 3m by 3m often in remote areas used for storing quarry explosives the difference from a containers, was that they were timber lined (floors, walls and roof) and were earthed.
-
For everyone who has any doubt that ISO containers full of fireworks may not be lethal in a fire situation, please see this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuWxr7Djjo
I don't know how to make this a proper link but please copy and paste into your browser.
The reporting on the trial was very sketchy but fortunately the judge and jury heard all the evidence.
Thanks
The video images in morph's link are stunning!
So much so, I can hardly believe my eyes!
I would have to ask how the fireworks were denoted? It looks like it was by using some sort of nuclear device judging by the result of some of the 'tests'.
I know that fireworks normally contain only a small percentage of explosive by overall weight. I know this because I've often taken them apart to check construction for quality control purposes. They are normally mostly cardboard and clay (for stability ballast). There is very little explosive in them.
If a container of fireworks can explode as per the videos in Morph's link, then the transport and storage of such should be stopped immediately. Many ships come into Uk ports with dozens of shipping containers every summer. If there was to be an accident it is likely to wipe out Harwich.
These containers are then shipped by road - a disaster waiting to happen.
A container a third-full of fireworks is currently allowed to be sited close to the public. An explosion a third of the size of the ones shown on the link would be deadly.
If these shipping containers provide so little protection, why are they allowed to be used?
In response to jayjay post, I would confirm that shipping containers used for site storage of 7 tonnes of fireworks need to be placed on a concrete plinth, bolted down and also earthed at two points and sited 100m away from public rights of way. None of this would be much use if they explode as per the containers in Morph's link!
-
Wiz,
A bit of further reading about the test conditions can be found here http://www.chaf.info/wp.htm
There was also an incident at sea which can be seen here
http://www.pyro-pages.com/weeth/hyunfort.htm
If these links work I will call myself an expert!
-
I fail to see why transport of fireworks by such manner is automatically a huge risk all of a sudden.
The container in question at Marlie farm was in very close proximity to a significant heat source for a good hour or prior to the explosion.
The issue here was the location of the storage. If these containers are transporting explosives, there are very tight control measures to safeguard their passsage. (e.g. ADR, Shipping regs etc)
What worries me more is the fact that anybody can legally carry 49.9kg of 1.1 explosive in the boot of their car without any control measures whatsoever. OK, I accept that it is a rare occurence, but I think you would be surprised of the amount that does get floated around the country for various reasons.
I remember watching a demonstation years ago when I was in the mob of 10 grams of nitro powder (1.4 classification) in a sealed ammo box being detonated. Pretty impressive!!
-
I fail to see why transport of fireworks by such manner is automatically a huge risk all of a sudden.
The container in question at Marlie farm was in very close proximity to a significant heat source for a good hour or prior to the explosion.
.......
Well I never imagined it was much of a risk either.
Even a fully loaded 20 foot container of fireworks doesn't actaully have that much explosive material in it and I imagined that if it all went off inside a locked shipping container it would hardly dent the surface. But check out the videos in Morphs link of the tests carried out by that sinister sounding organisation; CHAF - i.e quantification and Control of the Hazards Associated with the Transport and Bulk Storage of Fireworks and it looks like they actually go up like something similar to an atom bomb! The whole container is blown to kingdom come!
By the way, whoever these CHAF people are, they are obviously concerned enough about the risks to actually form a special organisation to quantify and control the hazards
-
Thats exactly my point Wiz.
Maybe I did not explain myself very well. A sealed container with even 20kg of medium grade explosive would still have some horrific results.
I fully agree with the research performed by Chaf as I have a close family member involved in research in this industry.
My point is that transportation should not be a huge issue if the correct protocols are adheared to.
-
Yes. Wot FSO said.
They key to the 'potential' problem is that it is the strength of the container and how well it is sealed that ensures that there is a huge blast. The pressure builds up and is restricted by the strength of the container, but when the container finally gives way the release of pressure is extremely sudden. However, if it is sealed then there should be no ignition, thus no explosion. Some sort of venting of the containers would reduce the blast considerably, but at the cost of making ignition more of a possibility.
Look at how shops are supposed to store fireworks, in metal cages, or in sealed rooms with no ignition sources. (Not in closed dustbins like we used to suggest :)) I think when fireworks are seized and they go for destruction they generally use cages. No explosion (apart from all the mini ones) as the blast is not constrained, it is just a pretty light show.
Remember the old 'bangers' that actually used to go 'BANG'? Ever take all the powder out of a few of them and light that instead? Just a 'whoosh/fizz/burnt fingers' instead. (Or for the more naughty among you, reinforce the banger with masking tape, to ensure more of a bang/lost fingers)
http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/news--events/latest-news/fire-service-release-video-of-fireworks-destruction-.aspx
The video link here gives a good indication of the difference.
-
Spot on Civvy ;)
-
Apparently both are going to appeal. BBC says against sentence and conviction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8584820.stm
-
If anyone can get a copy of the latest FBU magazine, it is worth a read around this case.
-
Even better, found a link
http://www.fbu.org.uk/newspress/ffmag/2010/FBU_FF_Mar10_LR.pdf (http://www.fbu.org.uk/newspress/ffmag/2010/FBU_FF_Mar10_LR.pdf)
-
Apparently both are going to appeal. BBC says against sentence and conviction.
Surely you should only appeal one? You either did it, and the sentence is too Harsh, or you didn't do it?
-
yes Civvy I must agree that a double-barrelled appeal seems a bit odd. If they get the conviction quashed the sentence falls automatically. If the conviction is upheld after appeal surely the sentence would be subject of a different appeal?
Or is this a convenient legal process to address both issues at once?
-
Or you're going to try to say first that you didn't do it, but if that fails then you don't want to go to prison for having done it...
Not a lawyer but I suspect it's the "convenient legal process" answer?
-
Interesting 2 sides to this one. Illigal storage on one side and apparent failure of safety procedures on the other.
Now if you were to assault someone and they had say perhaps a bad heart and they died from it, that would you the attackers fault. If you drive someone over and they don't get good medical care and die, it would be your fault. So if you store explosives badly and people don't fight the fire well, you're still guilty.
In my personal opinion it is right that they go to jail. But not even being a fire fighter, I've seen enough fire work explosion videos to know that you don't want to be anywhere near them, certainly not withing 100 metres, so it really does raise some questions about why everyone was so close.
Anyone else dealt with a fireworks fire? How close to it were you?
-
I agree that the firework company obviously deserved to be prosecuted for the offences in respect of the storage regulations. What is the use of safety regulations, if they are going to be ignored, especially as this case shows the deadly results of what can happen when they are ignored.
I also was also surprised that it seems from the report that warnings given by the offenders to the firemen were ignored. Strangely, the report seems to include the firefighters and Police admitting that the offenders advised them that they should keep well away from the storage container because it was liable to explode in the fire, but also the accusation that the offenders didn't tell them specifically that there was explosive material in the container. I find this contradiction confusing.
The video of an a container of fireworks exploding in a fire, previously added to a reply on the subject of this case astounded me. It seems that even legal amounts of fireworks in a container can explode with catastrophic results. I cannot believe that anyone, let alone a fireman, who has seen this video, would willingly stand within even 1000 metres of any storage container of fireworks involved in a fire. Questions must be asked as to why professionals were killed and injured in this incident in the circumstances as reported.
-
Difficult call for the emergency reponse. The police would rightly be cautious of an 'alleged' offender telling them to keep away - as there may be something to be gained by the 'offender', i.e. getting rid of evidence against themselves.
-
But even if the shipping container was not there, it seems to be that fire fighters ought to keep well back from all fires with fireworks. Other videos of fireworks on youtube etc all indicate that large distances are necessary.
-
Firefighters are there to protect the public. To do this they have to take some risks and the amount of risk they are expected to take depends on the potential benefits of taking that risk- can life be saved or a huge incident be prevented.
If all goes well your approach will depend on the information available and the nature of the incident. It may be necessary to make a cautious approach to the heart of the incident to search and rescue and gain intelligence. Then withdraw first to an inner cordon from which operations are managed and establish an outer cordon from which the public will be excluded.
With the benefit of hindsight it appears that information gathering, communications and risk assessment were all open to question in this case, but hind sight is a wonderful thing.
Let us hope that firefighters are never prevented from taking a calculated risk to save a life. It would be easy to say for example to the emergency services "never set foot on the motorway unless it has been closed" but many lives would be lost as a result.
Fireworks, gas cylinders, chemicals- very often you dont know they are there till you are looking at them.
Approach and gathering of information are key to the next stages of Planning, organisation, control, management re-assessment and review.
-
Kurnal, I'm afraid to say things are getting to the point operationally where too many "health & safety " constraints are leading to some of the scenarios you mention . (ie motorway to be closed before personnel are committed)
But I guess that's another topic for another day.
As with all cases where someone has died, be they members of the public, or serving personnel, I find its probably better not to speculate about the events that occurred, as this often leads to unhelpful rumour mongering and such like.
It is important however that lessons are learnt from incidents such as this, so that hopefully it can't happen again.
-
Firefighters are there to protect the public. To do this they have to take some risks and the amount of risk they are expected to take depends on the potential benefits of taking that risk- can life be saved or a huge incident be prevented.
If all goes well your approach will depend on the information available and the nature of the incident. It may be necessary to make a cautious approach to the heart of the incident to search and rescue and gain intelligence. Then withdraw first to an inner cordon from which operations are managed and establish an outer cordon from which the public will be excluded.
With the benefit of hindsight it appears that information gathering, communications and risk assessment were all open to question in this case, but hind sight is a wonderful thing.
Let us hope that firefighters are never prevented from taking a calculated risk to save a life. It would be easy to say for example to the emergency services "never set foot on the motorway unless it has been closed" but many lives would be lost as a result.
Fireworks, gas cylinders, chemicals- very often you dont know they are there till you are looking at them.
Approach and gathering of information are key to the next stages of Planning, organisation, control, management re-assessment and review.
Wise words. I am I agree with them as well as sharing Retty's concearns that things might have already gone too risk adverse. However it was known that this was a fire involving fireworks early - there can be no doubt of that - and yet it is clear that the fire fighters are very close.
When ever I consider fire risks and need to use an extreme example to illustrate a point, I talk about a timber constructed fire work storage factory.
I'm skill keen to hear if this is normal, or if most fire fighters would expect to have been working from further away.
-
M.R. we are not 'speculating' on something before the 'facts' have been considered. We are now discussing it after the incident and the resultant court case and all as reported in the media. This is now surely something open for discussion. The latest discussion was prompted by reports that the offenders were considering/lodging an appeal.
-
Wiz
I do not know but there could be seperate investigations in progress into the activities of the fire service at this incident. This will be what MR is getting at.
-
Firefighters are there to protect the public. To do this they have to take some risks and the amount of risk they are expected to take depends on the potential benefits of taking that risk- can life be saved or a huge incident be prevented.
If all goes well your approach will depend on the information available and the nature of the incident. It may be necessary to make a cautious approach to the heart of the incident to search and rescue and gain intelligence. Then withdraw first to an inner cordon from which operations are managed and establish an outer cordon from which the public will be excluded.
With the benefit of hindsight it appears that information gathering, communications and risk assessment were all open to question in this case, but hind sight is a wonderful thing.
Let us hope that firefighters are never prevented from taking a calculated risk to save a life. It would be easy to say for example to the emergency services "never set foot on the motorway unless it has been closed" but many lives would be lost as a result.
Fireworks, gas cylinders, chemicals- very often you dont know they are there till you are looking at them.
Approach and gathering of information are key to the next stages of Planning, organisation, control, management re-assessment and review.
Wise words. I am I agree with them as well as sharing Retty's concearns that things might have already gone too risk adverse. However it was known that this was a fire involving fireworks early - there can be no doubt of that - and yet it is clear that the fire fighters are very close.
When ever I consider fire risks and need to use an extreme example to illustrate a point, I talk about a timber constructed fire work storage factory.
I'm skill keen to hear if this is normal, or if most fire fighters would expect to have been working from further away.
Hi Chris
The very simplistic answer is that at an incident fire crews are described as being either in “offensive, transitional or defensive” mode.
It’s 'fire brigade speak' to describe what the crews are doing tactically to deal with a particular incident and only these three terms are ever used.
Generally unless the incident involves a threat to life and limb where crews need to enter a burning building for instance, the brigade will wherever possible fight a fire defensively (i.e stand outside the building on fire and squirt water at it from a safe distance). Conversely therefore an example of crews being in offensive mode would be where they need to enter a burning building to affect a rescue.
Transitional mode describes the period when crews are changing from offensive mode to defensive mode.
I’m being very simplistic here, but atleast you get the gist.
If crews were engaged at an incident where there was not a threat to life or limb, then you would expect the crews to be defensive mode; that is to say crews have established the relevant safety cordons, put in place all the necessary control measures to protect the public and their colleagues, and are squirting water at the blaze from a safe distance.
In reality however there are a multitude of variables that exist at any given incident which mean that tactical modes can change rapidly. I can give you a very simplistic round-about answer, but don’t forget unless you are physically at an incident watching the whole thing unfold, its very difficult for me, or anyone else who wasn’t present, to suggest what the crews should have been doing at any given point.
-
I understand the difficulties in commenting on the particular case - but I think it is perfectly possible for people to say that in a fire with fireworks if it is normal to be so close to the fire or if fire fighters tend to be several hundreds metres back.
-
I understand the difficulties in commenting on the particular case - but I think it is perfectly possible for people to say that in a fire with fireworks if it is normal to be so close to the fire or if fire fighters tend to be several hundreds metres back.
Chris there is no simple answer it depends on circumstances this is what others are saying in more detail. I agree in most cases it would be fought at long range using ground monitors, providing they knew what they were dealing with but not always it depends on the circumstances.
-
I understand the difficulties in commenting on the particular case - but I think it is perfectly possible for people to say that in a fire with fireworks if it is normal to be so close to the fire or if fire fighters tend to be several hundreds metres back.
Chris I think I answered your question .
The answer is they would normally fight the fire from a safe distance HOWEVER I also gave the ryder that this should not be taken as absolute gospel because incidents are dynamic and things can and do change.