104 replies to this topic

[exat808]

Just in from the day job and catching up on this thread.
The creation of a suitably phrased disapplication to MSER Reg 9 would require consideration of a number of separate issues which when bolted together would give a legally sound basis of an exemption. Points to be considered might include -
1. What is to be manufactured? Use of the the terms "fireworks" and "pyrotechnic" would need careful consideration. MSER Reg 2 defines fireworks as articles classified under the UN system with the numbers 0333 to 0337. Fireworks manufactured by yourselves will be unclassified (unless submitted to HSE for a CAD which is not what you require the dissapplication for). Pyrotechnic also has a definition at Reg 2. this is a very loose definition designed to capture all pyro articles and substances. So - step 1 - define your product in a form of words that captures only what you seek to achieve and does not provide a legal loophole for potential misuse.
2. Where is it to be manufactured? Are you considering a wholly unrestricted approach to this matter or should the manufacture be restricted to specific locations for example by inclusion of wording in the disapplication such as "at the place of intended demonstration". A strong safety case will be expected to support either approach.
3. How much is to be made? Does 100gr work for the hobby at present of can you safely argue for more? Currently the HSE will advise that under the present MSER Reg9 dissapplication the making of a 100gr sample is acceptable for the purposes specified, but that the next 100gr sample made at the same site must differ from the first and so on.
4. What is the explosive to be used for? You must look at words or phrases that capture your intentions eg "experimentation", "testing", "research", "development".
5. What is the explosive not to be used for? As in 4 above you must exclude those activities that would indicate commercial manufatcure. "Not for sale", "Not for public entertainment purposes" come to mind?
6. What other restrictions? To tidy up any disapplication it may be prudent to offer up exclusions such as "the maximum amount of exposed pyrotechnic substance on the site shall not exceed **kg" "a maximum of **kg of completed articles shall be present on the site"

My thoughts above are not exhaustive by any means but having had many years experience of developing legislation it should give the forum something to consider.
Some views on black powder will follow after tea!!!

[digger]

Some views on black powder will follow after tea!!!

Now there is a chestnut, I have come across this issue on the commercial side of things. Far more dangerous compositions can be allowed when black powder is not. This should be interesting.

[martyn]

Thank you so much - that is exactly the type of advice I was proposing that we pay for - IF the society thinks it's worthwhile and IF the money can be raised can you suggest who might be interested in taking it on? yourself ? a colleague?

[exat808]

Thank you so much - that is exactly the type of advice I was proposing that we pay for - IF the society thinks it's worthwhile and IF the money can be raised can you suggest who might be interested in taking it on? yourself ? a colleague?

Martyn, thank you for the comments. I have a passion for all matters explosive ( 36 years handling/using/writing etc) and I seek to encourage open and safe use of all articles and substances.
I am a full member of the Institute of Explosives Engineers (MIExpE) and would strongly recommend that UKPS should approach the Institute via our website at http://iexpe.org/ ( there is no gain in this for me!) and request details of a suitable consultant in the field of pyrotechnic manufacture and storage.

[crystal palace fireworks]

Well done, excellent work exat808.

I will contribute my thoughts to some aspects of it of later!

[Arthur Brown]

HSE is our only friend for this! Only the HSE can promote regulatory change. IF we can persuade them that we a re skilled and competent people with a well thought out proposal then we may get heard.

You'd have to chat to Mark L MP to see what his opinion was. He may be in favour of the status quo with a few established companies and nothing new, or he may be amenable to changes.

[pyrotechnist]

Provision in favour of small firework manufacturer who may obtain a license from the local authority.


A firework factory shall not be deemed to be a small firework factory for the purposes of this Act if there is upon the same factory at the same time—

• More than [150 kilograms] of any explosive other than manufactured fireworks and coloured fires and stars; or
• More than [250 kilograms] pounds of manufactured fireworks, either finished or partly finished; or
• More than [12 kilograms] of coloured fires or stars, not made up into manufactured fireworks.

The occupier of a small firework factory shall not be required to obtain a license under Part One of this Act for such factory if he has obtained [F2a licence under the next following section].


A person having [F2a licence under the next following section] who manufactures an explosive (other than nitro–glycerine or any prescribed explosive) for the purpose only of the manufacture of coloured fires or a manufactured firework in accordance with this Act, and does not sell the same except in the form of coloured fires packed in the manner required by this Act, or of a manufactured firework, shall not be deemed to manufacture an explosive in an unauthorised place.

That is the small manufacturers license.

Edited by pyrotechnist, 24 June 2010 - 07:37 PM.

[phildunford]

Some very constructive stuff here - rest assured we will have a good look at this thread at the next committee meeting & I'll also point Wayne this way...

Edited by phildunford, 24 June 2010 - 07:36 PM.

[pyrotechnist]

What I find so interesting is the cost for a license then was 10 pounds and 2 pound for renewal.

[exat808]

The black powder bit!

The start point is that acquisition/keeping of GP is legislated by the Control of Explosives Regulations 1991 (COER). A definition of GP is found in COER Reg 2 and basically says that if the substance is classified under the UN system as 0027 then it is GP.
The controversy may arise with any GP/BP manufactured but not classified - where do we go from there? I think that the answer is in the amended Reg 2 definition in COER which states that the "substance" if packaged for transport would be classified as an explosive under Class 1 of the UN system.
My take on this is that if you make an intimate mixture of chemicals of the accepted constituents or variants of GP/BP and that finished substance "if packaged for transport" would be classified etc then it is GP/BP and requires certification.
Possession/acquisition of GP/BP whether classified or not is in my opinion subject to certification under COER. It would be of course for any enforcing authority to make a determination by forensic examinatioin if any substance was GP/BP or not.

[pyrotechnist]

I heard it was due to not many people using it at the time.

[exat808]

The now revoked 1875 Act exemption for small quantities of fireworks discounted the "protected works distances" applicable for the quantities specified. Any exemption applied for may have to justify a disapplication from MSER Reg 5 and Schedule 2 in respect of separation distances.

[crystal palace fireworks]

Ok, what is going to define a small firework manufacturing license in terms of where and how a building is made?.

If Im not mistaken, I guess most of us are going to want to make (manufacture) fireworks from home for differing reasons (i.e from a shed in the garden), this means that one building (temporary structure) is going to be used for different processes over different periods.

We need to convince the HSE on what constitutes a safe temporary structure (given current seperation distances are going to be difficult for most of us to comply with). For this purpose, a temporary structure for firework making should be designed to cope with the following;

1, To deflect material upwards in case of a blast.

2, To cope with the above, a shed should be lined on 4 sides upto head height (say 6ft) in sandbags or perhaps a water barrier (plastic tanks of water) for containment purposes, the sandbag or water barrier could be sandwiched between the internal plywood wall and outer corrugated metal sheeting of the shed,...this would be easy on the eye.

3, A small seperate covered drying & storage area (annex & cupboard outside of shed) should also be sandbagged.

4, Interior shed walling should be flame proofed.

5, The shed should be mounted in such a way so as to collect residue (black powder and the like) via a enclosed tray beneath the shed that can be removed for periodic or regular cleaning purposes (this will help reduce ground contamination & fire issues).


Agreed limits on quantities of composition & fireworks to be manufactured should be tiered according to size of the shed allowed for a given size plot of garden/land, and that there are agreed distances with some secondary barriers from nearby commercial residentual buildings/houses if the plot or surrounding buildings allow.

To convince the HSE of our proposals, we are going to have to work with the MIExpE and other organistions to test the actual physical viability of proposals. This is going to cost the UKPS money in terms of materials, hiring of testing facilities, inspections, and publishing the results of our findings.

We also need to register licensees with the police in terms of a CRB check at the very minimum.

We need to think about what other types of land are suitable or are allowed for firework manufacture.

Testing; We need to re-define the word `testing` for the purpose of a small manufacturing license,........this means we have to think about what constitutes disturbing neighbours in respect of planning authorities granting us licenses or what does not.

Hope this does not put a dampener on proceeedings!