• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

'OUR RECORD IS GOO

BUT...5 Havard: I want to read to you a resolution by the

British Fire Services Association Conference last June. "That this conference recommends and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce immediate regulations to control the conveyance of dangerous liquids and chemicals by road in the U.K., and to prevent such loads being transported by road throughout centres of population." I want to ask you why, in your opinion, the B.F.S.A. felt impelled to make a major statement. Do you think it is right?

McMullen: I would support the sentiments behind that

resolution. As far as the Association of Chemical Manufacturers is concerned, we have felt for some time that it would be in the general interest in the chemical industry if we had comprehensive regulations for the movement of dangerous chemicals by road. It is in the general interest that there should he regulations of that sort; provided, that is, that they are reasonable ones.

Wild: I think anyone would agree with the

sentiment; but I think the statement was most naive. It is not possible, in this small island, to divorce centres of main chemical industry from our towns. This may be desirable. but it is practically impossible. You just cannot divorce movement by road from populated areas.

Wesson: The intention behind the resolution is

undoubtedly good but, as it has been phrased. it is wildly impractical. In the first place, the accident record for the carriage of goods of this kind is superb. I think in using the phrase " carriage " they failed to differentiate between transport through and delivery to a point in a built-up area. Any blanket resolution that bars delivery traffic from going into these areas obviously can't be made to work. I think there is a broader issue and I am sure that some of the other people here will want to pick up the point and answer it in mere detail.

One can and should discriminate very carefully between

carriage in bulk in properly designed tank vehicles (which are themselves expensive, carefully designed and with a higher safety factor built in) and carriage of smaller packages, often by common carriers, or as part of a mixed load. This distinction is an essential one to draw. I think one also gets an immediate split between carriage where the vehicle is working exclusively for one firm, who themselves are specialists and who take all the precautions that the general public could reasonably seek, and carriage (which is on a much smaller scale) by carriers who, perhaps. might not be so careful.

You can't discriminate • between delivery points for these materials. This would mean a complete reorganization of industry as we know it. Secondly, the most important point that has been made is that it is far more important to discriminate against the carriage of mixed cargoes than against the carriage of cargoes in bulk. I say this because mixtures of chemicals produce effects that I don't think anybody knows enough about.

Dennett: Looking at this from the fireman's point of

view, carriage in bulk is increasing and involves large quantities of dangerous and hazardous substances. One of the main things the fireman wants to know is what the substance is. and its dangers. I don't think you can take it right out of built-up areas; the stuff must go through on delivery to places in these areas.

It is important, though, to know what you have got to deal with and what its hazards are. There should be some sort of sign which informs the public services, because they might have to evacuate basements or adjoining areas because of spillage. Take, for instance, the liquefied petroleum gases—which are carried in bulk now in considerable amounts. If you did get a rupture of one of these tankers, the vapour is very heavy and in a built-up area could go down to basements. If somebody couldn't get round in time to tell people to put out flames, lights and what have you, an explosion would almost inevitably result.

Another factor is the spillage of corrosive acids and suchlike. We do. whenever we get spillage of anything that is serious, radio back to our main control and they inform the main drainage authority.

There are certain things that it would be extremely dangerous to put water on. The record of accidents on these loads so far is not too bad but, with increasing numbers of movements, it may not stay so. I believe that chemical manufacturers would be wilting to do something about this. and I think a lot of them do. They have printed instructions to their drivers. They provide their drivers with special gear, protective clothing, and the like. Some people do mark on Their vehicles the fact that they are inflammable, hut it is not always done.

Wesson: When we come to the point of the volun

tary marking of various vehicles to help the fire-fighting authorities in knowing what they have to deal with, no sensible man could do other than go all the way with the idea. I think it would be better done on a voluntary basis, if that is possible, rather than attempting to legislate.

Havard: Can I ask your views on the portable

roll-up tank, when used to carry chemicals?

McMullen: Here you have to be rather careful. Each

case has to be dealt with on its merits. I think that you will probably want some protection besides just

the skin of the tank in a lot of cases. Various countries have got different ideas about this, and I think there are grounds for care Wild: If there is any consideration of carrying

dangerous chemicals with any sort of hazard involved,. bags, as we call them in the trade, are simply out. They are too vulnerable.

Cater: I muSt agree with Barry here. My own

experience has been that you get enough trouble with steel tanks without going infor bags. I remember doing a lot of work with Pickfords about 15 years ago using a gadget that Tony McMullen's company produced for us; although we never used it on anything more lethal than fuel oil, the gallons of fuel oil that we threw over the highways and byways during the ensuing five years had to be seen to be believed. say no more than that.

McMullen: want to get this thing quite clear. You

say it is quite out, but it depends upon what is round it, doesn't it? You can use one of these bags, if-you' like, as a liner to an ordinary shell—if you' want to use the shell for different things. It depends what it-sits in. You were talking about, it sitting on a flat wagon. I imagine, but it's a different matter if you put it in something.

Wild: I was considering them us merely being a load-carrying bag on a flat-platform lorry. I think, in this context, it's extremely undesirable that they should be used for any product which is in any way hazardous. -As an interior vessel, protected in some cases by a metallic exterior, theymay be more safe.

Cater: I wo..id go a bit further than Barry on

that point; even to use a flexible lining within a shell is dangerous. An internal leakage into the exterior shell could prove to be a mixing agent for two chemicals that-just don't agree with each other.

Wild: I shouldn't like to be quoted as subscribing to these views about a metal container housing a bag. I was just discussing it academically, in relation to hazardous loads.

Wesson: I feel exactly the same over this collapsible container point. I think it is a matter of straight economics and operating practicability for the company concerned. If two or more collapsible tanks are contained in one outer metal shell, then I don't think the public danger aspect is much affected; but if it comes to contemplating a collapsible tank without such a shell. I would be horrified at the prospect of using this method for dangerous chemicals, where outside contractors carrying mixed loads are concerned. The only economic attraction that I can envisage with collapsible tanks is when a back load is to be carried on a general haulage vehicle. But I think the physical risks and problems will rule it out.

I can't envisage any chemical company consigning a bulk load of corrosive or dangerous chemical by a public carrier in a collapsible tank in a vehicle which was then going to bring something else back on the return journey. I feel sure that such a chemical firm would be consigning that load initially in either one of their own or in a properly designed hired tank wagon. The specialized driver-knowledge to deliver chemicals in bulk safely would make the use of general carriers impractical.

Wild: The reputation of ICI is beyond compare.

But does Tony think that a less-reputable chemical company might be more interested in low rates than in the safety factor?

McMullen: In any industry you may have some irresponsible firm. I must admit that when -I mentioned this. 1 wasn't thinking so much of hazardous loads. It isn't something that we use ourselves, but I know of a company which does use•this system on a complicated run. I didn't want the impression to be given that there wasn't anything in a system of this sort.

Dennett: These bags could puncture or pierce. If they were ever used for carrying inflammable materials, there might be a hazard from static electricity. I should have thought it was possible to build up a static potential which could produce a spark that might perforate the container.

Havard: I think we are going down a rather narrow path. Can we move on to a slightly different point? It appears to me that the question of the passage of dangerous loads has, over the years, been unsuccessfully bandied round until it has been forced onto what to me seems to be an obviously reluctant Government. If what I think is true, why is it that the various parties (operators, manufacturers, insurers, fire services, and so on) have not managed to come to a voluntary agreement? Who is to blame for a voluntary agreement not having already been reached?

Wild: My own information is that this question

has been under active consideration for the past seven years, at feast. with a Home Office study group; but the group has sat only on two occasions. The tanks on the road are increasing in number and I think it is very right and very proper that the public, the fire service, the operators and the suppliers should be very, very concerned about it. I deplore, quite frankly, the inactivity of any government in ignoring this problem. I think they have a duty to the public to pay the very closest attention to the problem and make sure that everything is as carefully looked after as it possibly can be without spreading alarm.

Hariud: I would like to underline that last point: the haulage industry would do itself a grave misjustice if it created alarm over this, for there is no cause for alarm. I do nevertheless feet that it is very important for the industry to take up.

Wild: I don't want to oversimplify the problem, but I think we can bring it down to three major points. First, there is the manufacturer, loading and mloading staff and the tanker drivers. Secondly. there is the Dublic and, thirdly, there are the public services (the fire service ind the police), who may be concerned at any time.

I think it is the duty of a supplier and the duty of an )perator to inform their employees as much as possible about he product being carried, by way of instruction in first-aid reatment, hazards. and so on. I think we have to ask ourselves Rider what circumstances would the public be concerned, and his is where the question of alarm comes in. If you suddenly vrite on a tank; "Keep off, highly dangerous", you are going o get an alarmed public. But, in my submission, the only ime the public will be concerned is if anything happens to the ank. This is the exception rather than the rule, as Geoffrey las already pointed out. This country has a very splendid 'ecord in this respect. Therefore, tell the public about what rou are carrying; but tell them in such a way that they don't mcome alarmed.

Then we come to the third point—our public services. They ire the people who are going to be called upon if anything iappens to the tank under the worse possible circumstances, and t is everybody's duty to ensure that some poor fireman, who nay be the first to appear on the scene and possibly find an njured driver, must know and must have access to the proper vay in which the substance being carried has to be treated. fhis can be done in many ways. I think that it is best to carry nstructions in the cab, and on the back of the cab, suitably lisplayed, so that the fireman can go straight to it and find out vhat is being carried and know the proper way in which it hould be dealt with.

Let's face it, the fire department has a big job here. I don't :now how many chemicals there are, but it must run into .1most a thousand different sorts now, many of which require lifferent treatments. The poor fireman has to go along there .nd expose himself to the risk. If the instructions are in the ab, or on the back of the cab, this would be constructive.

far ard: Who is to blame for this lack of voluntary

agreement, Barry?

Vild: The legislative body. Powers of this sort

can only be by statute. I don't think it an be sufficiently positive by voluntary agreement. It must be tatutory. I don't think it need be very complex legislation, nit I think it must come.

'ater: I am rather of the opinion that there isn't

enough instruction given to people who are oncerned with handling cargoes over long distances. By people" I mean drivers or people handling materials in lants. Over the years I've been round many chemical plants hroughout Great Britain, and I have always been absolutely mazed at the lack of knowledge of the content and the ■ otential danger of materials that are being handled. I have een drivers loading, for instance, in petroleum installations iearing hobnail boots and using steel keys. I've seen them lamming doors back and forth on rickety old cabs that have ad damaged panels and this sort of thing.

I've seen drivers tackling some grades of sulphuric acid with iater. I've seen them loading and off-loading cresylic acids rithout wearing goggles and gloves, purely because they have ever received any instructions as to the potential dangers of the lateriats that they are handling. I think it is rather like hutting the stable door after the horse has bolted to put a

otice on the vehicle if the driver, or operator in an installaon, doesn't know the sort of precautions he should take to revent an accident.

If a driver is sitting on top of a load of high explosive, for tstance, he doesn't drive it as though he has got a load of abbages. He takes that extra bit of care that he doesn't ormally take with a load that isn't dangerous. I feel that the whole problem has got to be tackled on the basis of education— prevention rather than cure. I don't believe in cure, I believe in prevention.

Havard: As I did to Barry, Ron, can I ask you who

is to blame for any lack of agreement at the moment?

Cater: I think the blame lies with the haulier who

doesn't want to get himself involved in legislative practices; he thinks he already has enough restrictions, and quite rightly so. It also lies with the manufacturer. who doesn't want to divulge how his material is manufactured for fear of competition from other companies, and it lies with the authorities, who won't turn round and say: "You will comply with these regulations".

Havard: So far we have had Barry saying that he

thinks the Government's to blame. Ron saying he thinks the haulier is to blame. Charles, who do you think is to blame for the current lack of agreement on this problem?

Denizen: One of the real difficulties is the problem of

finding a simple way of marking. Barry mentioned having notices in the cab; now I can tell you that certain firms do that already. But it may not always be possible. One should try to get down to the sort of simplified code that you have painted on a packing case. In other words. you have a simple picture that tells people the story. That doesn't alarm the public but it does tell people that the tank is carrying a substance which may be both inflammable and explosive. It may be inflammable and toxic, it may be toxic without being inflammable, or it may be a highly corrosive substance.

In addition. I would have a telephone number displayed, which some people do, where at all times you can telephone for more details of the cargo.

Who to blame? I don't really know. I do sit on some of these standing committees. and I know that quite often the industry themselves are difficult to win over. There are many firms in the market purely as haulage contractors; they will haul anything that brings them money and they don't really worry what they haul.

I am going to come back, perhaps quite as an aside, to this business of alarming the public. Some time back we were asking the laboratories that used radiation sources to put on their doors the sign "Danger, Radiation". This told people that there was a radioactive source which might be dangerous in a fire or if an accident occurred. We found that by putting this sign on, they couldn't get cleaners to go in there—it really did alarm the public. They couldn't get the cleaners to go in and clean the laboratories or store rooms, even though the materials were not at all dangerous but were a radiation factor. So 1 think that you have got to keep in mind this question of unnecessarily alarming the public. One doesn't want a panic on one's hands as well as a hazard.

Harard: You said you didn't know who was to

blame. Charles. Would you like to suggest who you think should take the lead in trying to get an agreement?

Dennett: It must be the Secretary of State, who is

responsible for carriage of certain hazards. The important thing is not to produce legislation which is not workable—that has happened!

Havard: Speaking here as a representative of the

manufacturer, rather than as a transport man, who do you think is to blame, Tony?

McMullen. I don't think it is necessarily a case for allocating blame. From time to time, over the years. we have been on the verge of having regulations, In fact. there are draft regulations dated 1947. It seems to me that we are on the verge of having regulations now.

One has to keep one's eye on what the Economic Commission for Europe is doing on the International Regulations for the Movement of Dangerous Goods by Road, which has now got to such a pitch that maybe this year the convention will be ratified by five nations. That has rather tended to make the Home Secretary take a wait-and-see attitude as to what the complexion of the international code was likely to be because, if we are to have anything nationally, it would obviously be sensible to relate it to the international regulations.

I don't really think that a voluntary scheme is practical. There are too many people involved. I think that one reason why nothing has happened lies with the evolution towards the present situation. Because of what was going on internationally, and the sort of starts we have made nationally, it was not possible for anyone other than the legislature to start things moving again.

Havard: Just to take one point, Tony. 1 have done

a fair bit of wandering around Europe and America talking to hauliers, and it doesn't seem to me that this country is necessarily behind other countries in this matter. Would you say we are or we aren't?

McMullen: I don't think we are behind. I think the

reputable haulier and the reputable manufacturer who does his own transport work sticks to a very high standard of practice. I've recently been doing some analysis of the draft international proposals and comparing them with my own company's practice. There is not very much which we would have to alter in what we do. There arc certain things that have got to be laid down which might be a little bit troublesome. There's going to be a system of testing vehicles and that sort of thing, but we shall get that nationally anyway. People have said, you see, that there will be cause for concern; that we shall have foisted 'on movement in this country a lot of ideas which have been evolved on the Continent. I don't think that there is any fear that this is going to make the movement of our traffic more difficult or more expensive.

Wesson: I have been trying to think of a straight

answer to your question: "Who should be blamed?" I still hesitate to say anyone is to be blamed, but I can tell you of two reasons why things didn't get further. The first official meeting at the Home Office was October 8, 1959. I was present and the general spirit of that meeting was all anybody could have desired. But there were two things over which it fell down very quickly. One relates to the thought at that stage (with the Common Market apparently then not far away) of trying to adopt something that fitted in with the international symbols. We very quickly got bogged down over certain symbols, the most objectional of which was felt to be the use of the word " poison " and a skull and crossbones. Everybody was concerned at the effect on public morale of vehicles chasing about all over the island bearing those symbols and we all thought, I think rightly at the time, that it was going to stir up a scare in the public mind and the facts didn't merit It.

The second point that held things up was when we got down to a detailed discussion on the possible application of some suitable but much less-scaremongering symbols. We then realized that "whilst it would be quite straightforward to get reputable haulage .contractors and C licence operators to fall in line with some voluntary use of symbols on these lines, none of us knew what could be done about the haulage contractor who was either carrying mixed loads or was carrying a load for one firm today and for another one tomorrow, and whose driver and vehicle were not going to return to home base.

We all felt that the danger of an incorrect marking was even worse than the danger of no marking at all. With no marking, the fire brigades and police would probably play safe. But the prospect of an incorrect marking—due to the driver having forgotten to take today's plate out and having gone back to his boss's depot instead of the factory where he had last been loaded, then going out tomorrow for a different customer with a different product—was absolutely frightening. And it was at that point that the initial meeting broke up. There was a further meeting, something like a year-and-a-half later, when the same ground was gone over again, with no conclusion.

B32

Havard: I thoroughly agree with Geoffrey on this

question of getting a driver to alter the plate. I think this is death to any scheme at all.

Wild: I'm interested in that particular topic. I don't want anyone to think that identification in the cab and on the back of the cab is all I want. I did divide my argument into three categories: one, the producer and servant; two, the public; and three, the public services. I had said earlier that we mustn't spread alarm and despondency among the public, and here I go along with Geoffrey; although if we are going to condemn the thing just because we put the skull and crossbones on the side of the tank, I think this is defeatist. There is an old Chinese proverb that says: "One picture is worth ten thousand words"; I think this is very true.

The question of the professional haulier must be divided into two points. There is the professional haulier who has a contractual commitment with many large companies where his vehicles are under the control, technically and trafficwise, of the company with whom he contracts. Secondly, there is the haulier who has the trunk section of his fleet in bulk liquids. My company has a very large number of A licence vehicles and one tank may carry as many as nine different cornmodities in a week.

Now you say that you condemn the idea of the driver changing the plate. I don't know any simple answer to this. It is a matter of disciplinary control. It has been suggested many years ago that there is a perfectly simple system of marking—that is by colours. You can have a number of different colours„ one for corrosives, one which signifies flarnmables, one for poisons, and so on each colour denotes what the product is. It is also important to bear in mind that sometimes a tank is more dangerous when empty than it is when full, because of residual fumes. Certainly the fire services ought to know about it.

You say the driver shouldn't do it, Alan. But this is a question of disciplinary control, demanded by statute. It would have to be done by the driver.

Dermal: We get the problem of hazardous cargoes coming into the docks. The dock police inform us of them. They are under a manufacturer's name. We don't know what the chemical is, so we start searching. We get on to the Association of Chemical Manufacturers. They say: "It's something from West Germany ", or something like that. We get on to the police. We get the consignee and he says: "No, I don't know anything about it, I'm merely transporting it for Joe Bloggs up in Birmingham ", or somewhere like that.

And so you don't know what sort of cargo you've got lying in the docks or what sort of cargo is going to be transported through towns. Quite often the transport people don't know what it is. It comes over as hazardous dead cargo with a peculiar chemical name which may be in English or even Gothic German. We have extreme difficulty, and in some isolated cases we have just not been able to trace what it is.

If we could get to an international symbol on these things, life could be simplified a great deal.

This discussion will continue in next week's issue, in particular dealing with the question of the European agreement on movement of dangerous goods.