AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Hauliers involved in carrying hazardous goods cannot cut corners—this work

25th January 2001, Page 132
25th January 2001
Page 132
Page 133
Page 132, 25th January 2001 — Hauliers involved in carrying hazardous goods cannot cut corners—this work
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

calls for strict attention to detail, ranging from keeping abreast of a glut of legislation to ensuring that trailer recognition plates are in order. Life in this sector is certainly complicated but, as Adam

Hill reports, money can be

made by operators willing to take on the burden of transporting these loads...

The term "hazardous goods" covers a bewildering variety of substances3,500 at the last count—in seven categories from Class i (explosive) to Class 7 (radioactive). However, this does not mean that the haulier keen to move into this sector will find an equal array of opportunities to make money. For example, the transport of bulk chemicals such as fuel products might be a major part of the industry, but it is the domain of a smallish group of larger hauliers.

The movement of packaged hazgoods—in canisters and bottles—is more of a free for all, but margins are equally competitive. And speciality substances such as paint, agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals may not be commodity-driven, but the required service levels are high. And all that's before you even begin to think about the cost of training. For a kick-off all drivers have to be ADR-trained, which will set you back at least a few hundred pounds apiece. The genesis of ADR is complex, but essentially it is the legislative framework for the carriage of dangerous goods by road, publishedby the European Commission in 1994. Every country in the European Union is required to follow it.

Safety adviser

In the late 19905 the EC went a step further. Since i January 2000 not only have all drivers been required to take ADR training, but every company involved in dangerous goods transport has been required to appoint a dangerous goods safety adviser (DGSA) who must pass a special examination. The DG SA is held responsible for all safety issues.

"More than anything it's a coordinating role," explains Judith Critchley of the Health and Safety Executive's dangerous goods policy section. "It means ensuring that the company is complying with all aspects of carriage."

The body chosen to administer the DG SA exam is the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

According to its figures, by September 2000 a total of 4,199 candidates had taken the exam; of these, 3,178 had passed. As pass rates go, it is not earth-shattering, but some see this as a good sign.

A Depai [went of Transport source says: "One of the things that's happened is that it's become recognised as a good qualification—it's not dished out with cigarette coupons."

But even allowing for the fact that a number of companies, particularly owner-drivers and smaller hauliers, will hire a consultant DG SA rather than having one on their own books, the numbers still look a bit on the low side. Before the law was introduced, the HSE estimated that between 7,000 and 9,000 would probably be required. Other pundits put the figure at 13,000 or even 20,000. So nine months after every hazgoods haulier in the UK was meant to have employed a DGSA, those 3,578 qualified advisers must be stretched pretty thin. And the number of registered DGSAs is not the only point worth looking at.

The HSE actually admits it is unlikely to prosecute a company simply for not having a DGSA. There are maximum penalties of a £20,000 fine and six months in prison for failing to implement a service improvement notice or observe a prohibition; and £20,000 for an infringement of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

But in practice penalties are generally much lighter. Unless failure to nominate and train a DG SA could be shown to have contributed to systematic failures or safety abuses, the /3,000 maximum penalty for not having a DG SA would be equally unlikely.

Much of this seemingly lenient approach stems from the government's original opposition to the introduction of an EC-enforced requirement for DGSAs.

When it comes to enforcement the HSE understandably puts safety at the top of its list. You could hardly blame a busy HSE official for failing to get too excited about the exact size or conspicuity of an orange marker plate, despite what the AD R rules might say. For these routine matters, where there is no danger to the public or employees, the proverbial "word in your ear" is probably more productive than a formal prosecution.

Lenient view

The idea of prosecuting a haulier who has exemplary safety procedures simply because he has failed to take on a person with the right certificate is viewed as faintly ridiculous. "Because of the newness of it all, we took a lenient view for the first few months," says Critchley. More than a year after the regulations were introduced, no-one has been prosecuted.

Hiring a consultant is never D


comments powered by Disqus