Authority says Astotec breached ban before explosion
Friday 28th August 2026 on 19:45 in
Austria
Astotec continued producing the primary explosive KDNBF despite an official ban, the Wiener Neustadt district authority told ORF. The cause of the explosion at the pyrotechnics company in Winzendorf, in the Wiener Neustadt district, remains unclear. One employee was seriously injured in the blast on August 20.
The authority said the production of potassium dinitrobenzofuroxan, or KDNBF, had been prohibited at the company since July 8. Investigators are now examining the continued production of the substance and whether it contributed to the explosion.
Astotec confirmed to ORF that it continued producing KDNBF between July 8 and the explosion, but said this was done only on a laboratory scale. The company interpreted the official requirements differently and said it did not consider the production a deliberate breach of the order.
The dispute follows a workplace accident at the end of June, when a solvent caused a fire involving contaminated KDNBF, according to the authority. In a letter dated July 8, the district authority ordered several measures, including the immediate suspension of the production of KDNBF.
The order also required Astotec to stop using, processing and producing a pyrotechnic material known internally as P2 Satz. It separately prohibited the company from synthesising KDNBF itself until it received an official amendment approval for its operations.
The authority said the ban also covered the company’s laboratory. “The laboratory operation was not excluded and was therefore included,” it said in a written statement to ORF.
According to the authority, the order was not followed. Because another accident occurred on August 20, a formal prohibition was subsequently required, it said. The formal order issued on August 24 was identical in content to the original procedural order.
Astotec referred to a discussion with an official expert on July 21. According to the company, the expert had said the laboratory operation was probably not covered by the ban. Astotec said it had documented the discussion in writing and also referred to a letter from the district authority dated July 31.
The authority rejected that interpretation. It said legal questions had to be decided by the authority, not by official experts. The July 31 letter had only forwarded experts’ statements on improvement measures submitted by Astotec, it said. Those documents were considered insufficient, and no exemption for the laboratory had been granted.
The Wiener Neustadt public prosecutor’s office is also examining the events preceding the explosion. Its investigation currently concerns the August 20 accident, but prosecutors are closely checking whether the district authority’s orders were followed.
Witness interviews have already taken place, according to the prosecutor’s office. The investigation is being conducted on suspicion of negligently causing bodily injury against people responsible who have not yet been identified. An expert in fire and explosion investigations has been appointed. It remains unclear whether the continued production of KDNBF was connected to the explosion.
The labour inspectorate also found shortcomings after the June 29 incident. These included incomplete documentation of employee training, an outdated workplace assessment and a missing review of the effectiveness of the assessment of psychological stress.
Astotec subsequently submitted work instructions and other documents. The labour inspectorate said the submissions were not yet complete and granted the company a deadline until August 21. No further inspection took place before the August 20 explosion, and the laboratory and its extraction system had not been inspected, according to the inspectorate.
Astotec gave a different account of the outstanding issues. The company said the requested documents had all been submitted by the end of July. It said only the review of the effectiveness of measures addressing psychological stress required an extension because the occupational physician responsible was absent.