[ID] => 11258
[post_author] => 34
[post_date] => 2019-07-26 09:09:40
[post_date_gmt] => 2019-07-26 08:09:40
[post_content] => These days, a cost of doing business in the dangerous goods logistics sector lies in the numerous certifications, assessments and audits that need to be undergone before contracts will be signed. It is easy to assume that these hurdles have been imposed by the authorities or by the chemical industry but, looking back through the August 1989 issue of HCB, it is evident that much of the impetus came from logistics service providers (or ‘transport companies’, as they were normally known in those far-off days).
We reported in that issue on discussions that had taken place at the Tankcon 89 event – a long-gone trade show specifically for the road tanker transport sector – over the need for a harmonised concept of quality management in the fuel distribution industry. The problem was emerging as a result of the increasing use of audits by inspection bodies and shippers, leading to hauliers promoting the use of the relatively new British Standard BS 5750.
It seems strange to think that this was once a new idea; BS 5750 rapidly became commonplace in all sorts of industrial sectors, taken up and expanded into the ISO 9000 series and supplemented now by ISO 14000 and, for those in the chemical supply chain, SQAS, Responsible Care and all the sectoral and modal standards that apply.
Elsewhere in the August 1989 issue, there was a though-provoking article by Martin Castle, who at the time was chief officer, dangerous goods at Pira International. He was promoting the idea of having a single set of regulations for the transport of dangerous goods by air, which would have the benefit not only of saving shippers a lot of money through not having to have duplicate sets of rulebooks, but would also make enforcement simpler. Martin acknowledged the right of individual airlines – and, indeed, states – to issue their own restrictions on top of those provided in the ICAO Technical Instructions, but felt it pointless for the IATA DG Regulations to also merely reproduce the text of the Technical Instructions.
Martin’s proposal came at a time of significant change in the air transport rules, which had only just adopted the UN package testing provisions, and work was going on to adapt the UN’s new limited quantity provisions to be suitable for air transport. These changes would further reduce the variations between the UN system and that developed by IATA, which had been discussed at a joint IATA/ATA meeting in Houston in April. The two associations agreed that the UN limited quantity system was not so far away from IATA’s existing provisions for ‘non-specification packagings’, which had been in use for more than 30 years.
Pira International reappeared in the August 1989 issue in its role as the operator of the UK’s packaging certification scheme, following what we called “severe criticism” of its annual charges levied on the packaging industry. The charges had been introduced to cover the running of the scheme, after the UK Department of Transport had withdrawn funding. DTp and Pira had agreed to meet the Chemical Industries Association and the Association of Drum Manufacturers to sort out the issue but it was clear that fees in the UK were, one way or another, going to remain higher than in other European countries.
[post_title] => 30 Years Ago: August 1989
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_name] => 30-years-ago-august-1989
[post_modified] => 2019-07-12 14:12:58
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-12 13:12:58
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://www.hcblive.com/?p=11258
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw