Extract from FleetWatch 1993 – the scenario in the introduction to this article is hypothetical but it has happened as reported in a FleetWatch 1993 edition when a tanker explosion occurred at a filling station in Outshoorn.

The present legislation governing vehicles used for transporting dangerous goods is chaotic and it is quite clear that Government has not shown the least bit of interest in regularising the present chaotic legislative situation writes Hentie van Jaarsveldt, FleetWatch's correspondent on Dangerous Goods. As it stands, many tankers built are not constructed in accordance with the latest standards incorporated in law and the consequences of this could be dire 
Picture the scene: A road tanker, carrying automotive gasoline, is busy doing what it does every day - making a delivery of petrol to a service station at a small shopping centre in a quiet suburb. It is a Saturday morning and the shopping centre is quite busy with people doing their usual Saturday-morning shopping.

As the vehicle approaches the entrance to the service station, a motorist skips a red traffic light, causing the tanker driver to instinctively take evasive action. The truck mounts the curb and falls on its side. A manhole cover pops open and a weld seam on the tank splits. About 1 500 litres of highly volatile petrol flows over the paved entrance to the shopping centre, close to where a vendor with a gas braai is preparing and selling boerewors rolls for a local charity. The petrol fumes ignite ...

Who is going to take the blame for the resultant disaster? Only the person who skipped the red traffic light or the transport operator from whose vehicle the product spilt? Or is there a major third player who remains hidden behind the scenes and who will escape blameless, void of any responsibility.

The rules and regulations
The transportation of Dangerous Goods is governed by a number of laws and regulations. These are contained in various Acts of Parliament and STANSA (the old SABS) National Standards. A national standard only becomes law when it is referred to in an Act of Parliament. In the case of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods by Road, the Act that plays the biggest part is the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996.

The national standards are normally created by STANSA technical committees or working groups. These committees consist of interested parties from across the applicable industry and will include producers of the products transported, transport organisations, industry bodies, equipment and vehicle manufacturers, the associated government departments and authorities and selected experts. The development and maintenance of the resultant documents is administrated by STANSA (although SABS has changed its name to STANSA, we will still refer to SABS for ease of reference). It all sounds quite simple and in fact, it should be. However, read on.....
 

TANKER STANDARD  SA became the proud owner of a road tanker design standard that was law in 2001

Incorporation of standards into the RTA
Chapters VIII of the National Road Traffic Act (RTA) and the Regulations to the Act govern the transportation of Dangerous Goods by road. The most relevant sections are contained in the Regulations, being Chapter VIII, regulations 273 to 283.

Apart from any specific requirements stated in the RTA, the tanker design and operating standards are governed by Regulation 273A, for it is this part that incorporates the relevant SABS. The standards incorporated are:

• SABS 1398: "Road tank vehicles for petroleum-based flammable liquids"

• SABS 1518: "Transportation of dangerous goods - design requirements for road tankers"

• SABS 0228: "The identification and classification of dangerous substances and goods"

• SABS 0229: "Packaging of dangerous goods for road and rail transportation in South Africa"

• SABS 0230: "Transportation of dangerous goods - Inspection requirements for road vehicles"

• SABS 0231: "Transportation of dangerous goods - Operational requirements for road vehicles"

• SABS 0232-1: "Transportation of dangerous goods -Emergency information systems" Part 1: "Emergency information system for road transportation"

• SABS 0232-3: "Transportation of dangerous goods - Emergency information systems", Part 3: "Emergency action codes"

• SABS 0233: "Intermediate bulk containers for dangerous substances"

What is also important to note, is section 76 of the RTA titled "Incorporation of standards by reference", and I quote:

• (4) If any standard is at any time after the incorporation thereof in the regulations amended or replaced, the notice incorporating that standard in the regulations shall, unless otherwise stated therein, be deemed to refer to that standard as so amended or replaced, as the case may be."

Say for instance SABS 1398-1983 was, in effect, revised and then became SABS 1398-1994. This section means that SABS 1398-1994 would become law within 30 days of publication. Furthermore, say SANS 1518-2004 replaces SABS 1398-1994 a year later, then SANS 1518-2004 is law within 30 days of publication, regardless of whether it is actually incorporated in the RTA by title. (At this stage, it also needs to be noted that from early 2004, SABS standards changed the prefix from "SABS" to "SANS". All documents published prior to that retained the "SABS" prefix, but new documents were given an "SANS" prefix). And this is where the problem started...
 

Industry has shown huge commitment in trying to operate in accordance with the latest international standards. And for the past three years, government has not played the required role in this regard.

Background to tanker design standards
South Africa became the proud owner of a road tanker design standard that was law in 2001. This was the first time that the RTA incorporated any form of such a standard. Prior to that, the industry voluntarily applied SABS 1398-XXXX - "Road tank vehicles for flammable liquids". The SABS 1398-1994 revision was re-titled to read "Road tank vehicles for petroleum-based flammable liquids". The incorporation of this standard took place in August 2001. It was a locally developed standard drawing from UK, Australian and local experience and was in existence from at least 1983.

At the same time, another standard was also incorporated in the RTA. This was called "SABS 1518-1996 - "Transportation of dangerous goods - design requirements for road tankers". This document was originally developed using the applicable US-DOT standards and was intended to be a new standard governing all dangerous goods tankers.

Due to a few technical difficulties, it was decided by the relevant technical committee to re-title SABS 1398 to cover tankers for petroleum-based product only and for SABS 1518-1996 to govern road tankers for all other dangerous goods. This when SABS 1398 was titled "Road tank vehicles for petroleum-based flammable liquids". The main reason for this was to at least have a standard in place for the majority of road tankers operating on our roads. "Petroleum-based flammable products" were defined in the pre-amble to the standard as including petrol and diesel and predominantly for transportation to service stations. Indeed a very loose definition.

When the above two standards were incorporated in the RTA, industry realised that the substantial conflict between the two could lead to severe operational difficulties, misunderstandings and unsafe situations. The SABS was approached to convene the technical committee so that a new single standard could be developed, covering all road tankers for all dangerous goods. It was decided by the technical committee (and thus industry), to follow the ruling European standards. This standard is commonly referred to as ADR (an abbreviation for a French term meaning The European Agreement for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods by Road). At that stage, the ruling revision of ADR was the 1999 version.

The new local standard was eventually completed, based on ADR 1999, at the end of 2003 and was published as SANS 1518-2004 - "Transport of Dangerous Goods - Design requirements for road vehicles and portable tanks". It was realised too late that the specification should have had a new number to avoid confusion. The SABS was approached to amend this but it was too late.

The intention of the new document was quite clear in replacing both SABS 1398 and SABS1518 as SABS withdrew SABS 1398 from publication upon the publication of SANS 1518-2004 late in March 2004. So, from approximately early April 2004, SANS 1518-2004 replaced SABS 1518-1996 and was intended to also replace SABS 1398, as it was withdrawn from publication.

SANS 1518-2004 is a much more onerous standard regarding material thickness, non-destructive testing and third-party inspections when compared with SABS 1398, for instance. The main focus of the ADR standards is to prevent loss of product when a tanker is involved in a roll-over or collision. Primary areas considered are those mentioned in the example at the beginning of the article; the strength of the tank wall, the integrity of the welds and the product retention capability of the tank closures and valves.
 

New DG tankers must be built to meet market demands, despite the shambles of DG legislation governing tanker specifications and standards.

And since then?
It was realised by industry that the RTA incorporation of SABS 1398 could not remain on the statute books. Nowhere was it clearly stated that SANS 1518-2004 replaced 1398 and there were many areas of serious conflict. A number of representations were made to the NDOT to amend the RTA. To date these have had no success. Every time, the response has been that section 76 of the RTA covered this in that SANS 1518-2004 replaced the standards directly referred to in the RTA. But nowhere does any document state that SANS 1518-2004 replaces SABS 1398. This is only implied by the withdrawal of SABS 1398 from publication by the SABS.

In the meantime, tanker builders and operators were left in a void as to what standard to build tankers to. One could not physically construct a tanker to comply with both SANS 1518-2004 and SABS1398 and would a tanker constructed only to SABS 1398 be deemed illegal?

Apart from these aforesaid, a major practical issue confronted the industry; no phasing-in period was allowed for. The application of the new ADR standard required major design- and construction re-alignment and also the acquisition of new materials, which were not readily available in South Africa. All appeals fell on deaf ears.

The result was that most entities involved chose to basically ignore the requirements of the new standard and continued to apply SABS 1398, even to tankers not intended to carry "petroleum-based flammable products".

Then, in November 2005, SABS published SANS 1518-2005. This document took the majority involved in the industry by complete surprise as the responsible technical committee was not involved in the decision. To this day it is very difficult to establish exactly what course the publication of this document took.

SANS 1518-2005 stated quite simply that the applicable sections (being that related to road tanker design) of the latest version of ADR will be applied in South Africa. At that stage, ADR 2005 was in use in Europe (ADR is published every two years in uneven years. It is published on 1 January of a year and then becomes effective on 1 June of that year). That means that, within 30 days from the publication of SANS 1518-2005, it was law and all South African road tankers being constructed from that day onward had to comply. From 1999 to 2005, ADR had progressed significantly which again had major constructional implications. New aluminium of higher specifications was required, to name one requirement. Again, no local phasing-in period was allowed for.

In January 2006 industry held a meeting attended by all major role players, including NDOT. The problem was clearly detailed and NDOT was requested to address the issue. ADR 2007 was due for publication January 2007. Industry requested that the SANS 1518 be postponed for introduction one month after ADR 2007 and SABS 1398 be taken out of the RTA. This request again resulted in no action.

After further numerous approaches to NDOT, a gazette was issued in November 2006, recalling SANS 1518-2005. Legal opinion, however, indicated that this could not be done. The notice declaring the recall was, however, never withdrawn or cancelled.

A draft transitional arrangement was issued by NDOT in February 2007 NDOT allowing the continued use of SABS 1398 and SANS 1518-2004 and that 1518-2005 would become law on 1 January 2008. However, this draft arrangement has not been gazetted either, so it cannot be regarded as law yet.

In the meantime, industry, together with the SABS, has taken the initiative and is busy incorporating ADR 2007 into a revised edition of SANS 1518-2005. 1 January 2008 is approaching fast and the affected parties need to be given sufficient time to prepare themselves.

So, who carries the can?
Surely it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the required laws are in place and that these laws are applied and policed effectively.

It is also quite clear from the above that Government has not shown the least bit of interest in regularising the present chaotic legislative situation governing the vehicles used for transporting dangerous goods. Even well-meaning, corrective action has ground to a halt. Industry has shown huge commitment in trying to operate in accordance with the latest international standards. The application of these standards comes associated with a substantial increase in costs yet industry has not only accepted these but has also taken the initiative towards their implementation. And for the past three years, government has not played the required role in this regard.

Right now, many tankers built, are not constructed in accordance with the latest standards incorporated in law, being SANS 1518-2005. Even if one wants to comply, it is quite difficult due to the absence of phase-in periods and the conflict that exists between the various standards.

Who will be held liable in the case such as outlined at the beginning of this article? The operator and the tank builder? Probably. They are the ones who operated and constructed a tanker not complying with the law. Or should it be government for allowing the chaotic situation to exist and reneging on their responsibility to look after the interests of society?