[ID] => 9890
[post_author] => 34
[post_date] => 2018-08-28 09:56:33
[post_date_gmt] => 2018-08-28 08:56:33
[post_content] => Thirty years ago, HCB notched up a significant milestone: 100 issues since it was first published in January 1980. Things were a bit easier for the staff in those days: no website to feed, no social media, no weekly newsletter. So all the congratulatory editorial coverage was poured into a bumper issue, with several articles by leading figures in the industry looking back at the progress that had been made in recent years in improving safety in the transport of dangerous goods by all modes.
Kicking off those articles, editor Mike Corkhill recalled that, less than a year after HCB opened for business, keen readers were worried that it would have covered everything by the time 1980 was out. But, as we know, things don’t necessarily work out like that. Just in terms of regulation, there had been an extensive revision of ADR and RID to bring them into line with the UN model, and the US, through the fabled HM-181 rulemaking, was heading in the same direction.
In fact, so dramatic had been those changes that Mike felt able in September 1988 to report that most of the pundits corralled into giving their opinions felt that the regulations were nearing their final form and that “only fine-tuning remains”. We can laugh now, but then they didn’t have lithium batteries to worry about in those far-off days.
Consultant Hugh Martin did in fact have plenty of ideas for making the IMDG Code more user-friendly, many of which came to fruition when IMO revamped the Code some years later to fit the UN model. John Cox, former secretary of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel, felt the Technical Instructions were working well and that the focus should swing towards compliance, as recent serious incidents in Boston and Nashville and over Mauritius had shown what could happen if the regulations were ignored.
Herbert Kennard (‘HJK’ to HCB readers) highlighted the difficulty in maintaining modal harmonisation, using the recently adopted provisions for IBCs to show how different regulatory bodies could take very different approaches, despite the existence of a UN model to follow. This would, he predicted, cause problems in European transport when both road and sea legs were involved.
Consultant Bob Lakey, looking at the transport of chemicals in bulk by sea, said that the adoption of Marpol Annex II – which at that time had been in place for just over a year – was “a truly remarkable feat” that would provide both economic and environmental benefits. It also stood the test of time – at least until GHS came along and forced industry to take a close look at some of the provisions.
Helmut Gerhard, managing director of WEW (now part of Thielmann), provided a lucid explanation of the multifarious offerings that could fall under the broad definition of ‘tank container’, still a relatively new concept in international trade although one that, through its promise of safety and reliability, held out the promise of playing a considerable role.
Harri Mostyn, chief dangerous goods officer at PIRA, wondered if there were a better alternative to the UN performance testing regime for packagings; as it was now being taken up by the US and had also been used as the model for new IBC provisions, he thought not.
[post_title] => 30 years ago: September 1988
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_name] => 30-years-ago-septe
[post_modified] => 2018-07-27 11:59:23
[post_modified_gmt] => 2018-07-27 10:59:23
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://www.hcblive.com/?p=9890
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
30 years ago: September 1988
// By Peter Mackay on 28 Aug 2018
This content is for FREE Membership and Premium Membership members only. Log InRegister