30 Years Ago

A LOOK BACK AT AUGUST 1990

Thirty years ago, environmental considerations in the transport of dangerous goods were beginning to emerge more strongly. That change in attitude was driven in no small part by a number of major environmental disasters, not least the wreck of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989, which prompted the passing of the Oil Pollution Act 1990 in the US, and the explosion and fire aboard the tanker Mega Borg off Galveston in June 1990.

HCB’s August 1990 issue reflected that shift, with a special report on oil tankers focusing on moves at the IMO designed to head off unilateral action by states (not least the US), with proposals not just for the improvement of the existing liability and compensation regimes but also changes to vessel design, in particular the mandatory use of double hulls. As usual, there was push-back from the shipping industry, fearing the costs involved, as well as from some safety experts who felt that double hull designs just provide an additional space for potentially explosive atmospheres to gather.

Environmental considerations were also focusing attention on the potential for rail transport to offer a cleaner way to move liquids in bulk in Europe, while also helping to reduce road congestion – and in anticipation of the opening up of transport options given the impending arrival of the European single market. The August 1990 issue provided a roundup of recent activity among the continent’s main tank wagon lessors – a list led by Brambles-owned CAIB and VTG, then still part of Preussag.

The shift towards what in today’s parlance might be termed ‘sustainable transport’ had been given a further boost by the growing realisation of the costs involved in having accidents, whether or not those accidents involved environmental pollution. An interesting section in the August 1990 issue looked at insurance in the transport of dangerous goods, beginning with an interview with Robert Godden, manager of the marine division of ICI’s in-house insurance company. He noted that improvements over many years in the way that dangerous goods had been handled, stored and transported meant that very few major insurance claims had come forward. He was, however, concerned about the potential for new and more restrictive legislation appearing in Europe and elsewhere, which would inevitably lead to higher costs for dealing with accidents.

John Nicholls, a director of Through Transport Mutual Services – now TT Club – looked in particular at claims arising from the use of tank containers. He enumerated the ways in which any accident involving dangerous goods can generate liabilities and, particularly for tank operators, the various third party liabilities involved. His article also gave a lucid and brief explanation of the mysterious ‘general average’ concept applied to goods caught up in an accident at sea.

By way of explanation, Nicholls provided a few recent examples, covering such aspects as fraudulent claims, inadvertently overheated cargo, domestic haulage laws in Africa, and the results of a leaking tank on a vessel during passage through the Panama Canal. He warned in particular of claims in the US, especially those involving bodily injury, as juries hearing such cases can respond emotionally. Recent coverage in the pages of HCB on the work of TT Club and the problems it finds in the transport chain show that some things don’t really change.

30 YEARS AGO

A LOOK BACK AT SEPTEMBER 1990

The standards and regulations that apply to the transport, storage and handling of dangerous goods have developed over decades, driven by the expectations of governments and the public that those activities should be safe. But industry has also played its part, drawing up standards and procedures to protect its reputation and maintain its licence to operate.

Advances in those standards and regulations have often come in response to major accidents, many of which took place in the 1970s and 1980s, before safety standards received the strong focus that is applied to them today. That has certainly been the case in Europe, with the Flixborough and Seveso disasters leading to the current EU Seveso regime for managing high-hazard facilities, as well as the result of numerous oil tanker spills framing the EU’s approach to regulating oil shipping.

Another incident that led to new standards took place in Basle, Switzerland on 1 November 1986, when a massive fire broke out at the Sandoz chemical plant; it was not just the fire itself, but the pollution of a long stretch of the Rhine with toxic run-off that prompted action. In fact, the Sandoz plant was compliant with the regulations of the time and was seen as being well run; the incident merely highlighted the shortcomings of those regulations. In response, the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) drew up new guidelines for the warehousing of dangerous chemicals.

One outcome of that, as HCB reported in September 1990, was that manufacturers began to concentrate their inventory at strategic locations, where standards could be monitored and activities more tightly controlled. In turn, that led to the development of specialised third-party warehousing services, adept at meeting the strict expectations of regulators and of their chemical industry clients alike.

One example of that was the new ‘Jan Spaas’ warehouse developed by Pakhoed (which later merged with Van Ommeren to form Vopak) in the port of Antwerp. As HCB said at the time: “Pakhoed’s entry into the specialty chemicals sector testifies to the ‘service buying’ power of its major customers, who effectively impose changes in long-established distribution practices to ensure that their own particular needs are met.”

The September 1990 issue also continued with the theme of insurance, following on from the August issue (see opposite), with Nicholas Colton, liaison officer for the International Union of Marine Insurance (IUMI) to IMO, taking a look at the proposed HNS Convention, intended to provide a liability and compensation scheme for the transport of dangerous goods by sea (and which remains to enter into force). John Hawkes of the London P&I Club discussed some of the difficulties facing ‘protection and indemnity’ insurers, which are normally arranged as mutual clubs, not least the fact that many claims may take years to come to court. He reported, for example, that the Amoco Cadiz case was still on the club’s books, though it had taken place 12 years before.

Elsewhere, we reported on an emergency drill that took place in New Jersey; firefighters were asked to deal with a ‘fire’ involving a tank truck with allyl alcohol. In their haste to put the fire out, they got too close. In the simulation, the tank exploded and would have killed them all. Reviewing a video afterwards, the men described the exercise as “a mixed success”.