Many of South Africa’s leading tanker fleets are signatories of Responsible Care, a self-regulation initiative overseen by CAIA (Chemical and Allied Industries Association), which stringently audits companies hauling hazardous chemicals.

The transportation of hazardous materials, aka ‘Dangerous Goods’, is a sector of the trucking industry fraught with issues. Plagued by severe driver shortages and complex legislation, DG transporters have a tough time doing business in ‘full compliance’. To shed light on the state of play in the DG transport arena right now, FleetWatch asked DG specialist, Keith McMurray, for an update on the pressing issues. 

According to McMurray, “the determination of an effective date by the Minister of Transport during 2008 for accredited driver training for the renewal of the Professional Driving Permit – Category D - in terms of Regulation 117(e) of the National Road Traffic Act was a major step forward in achieving one of the goals of the legislation, namely improving safety during the transportation of dangerous goods.” 

DG legislation specialist, Keith McMurray has been assisting transporters for many years by unpacking and demystifying the changing laws governing the industry. He now highlights the need to streamline the national statutes governing DG transport.

Trainers listed 

The names of 27 accredited providers have been gazetted and, although a small footprint nationally, it appears that a number of the providers have outsourced or franchised their training material thereby expanding the availability of training in other areas, adds McMurray. 

“So far so good, but it would appear that the wheels have come off the original accreditation system, as the Transport Education and Training Authority are no longer accrediting training material on behalf of the National Department of Transport. The question therefore is, if not TETA, who is accrediting training material?” states McMurray 

Regulation 280 (2) of the NRTA requires that training material is submitted for approval, and should the relevant legislation or SANS specifications influencing the training material be amended, providers have 90 days to resubmit for approval. 

“In 2006, a major amendment to SANS 10231 was published which would have required all providers to resubmit for approval. During 2008 it was established that certain accredited providers were using training material last reviewed in 2004,” adds McMurray. “Who is controlling the validity of the accredited providers' training material and ensuring that the training material is current in terms of amended legislation?” 

Consignors of contracted operators and operators are advised to check the validity of the training material used to train the drivers even if offered by an accredited provider, says McMurray. 

Correct placarding of DG vehicles remains a contentious issue and now all involved – consignors, consignees and transporters need to be on top of their game in this regard.

Questionable policing 

Effective Law Enforcement is questionable given the many noncompliant vehicles on the road, States McMurray. “Both in the Cape and Gauteng, vehicles have recently been seen with obsolete placarding which was replaced, in terms of the legislation, in 2001. During recent inspections on the N3 in both KZN and the Free State, statutory documentation covering dangerous goods declarations and tremcards were found to be invalid. Dangerous goods operator registration on some vehicles was outdated or non existent.” 

Dangerous Goods legislation requires specific placarding for loads of single substances and different options for Mixed Loads depending on the nature of the load. “Many consignors and operators use the Mixed Load or Multiload placarding irrespective of the nature of the load. The display on a vehicle must be an accurate reflection of the dangerous goods transported but warning diamonds and placarding remain displayed on vehicles when vehicles are obviously empty. The use of illegal tremcards and outdated dangerous goods declarations are evident during training roadblocks. All these issues add up to a lack of law enforcement,” McMurray says. 

The legislation makes provision for a Dangerous Goods Inspectorate, which presently is conspicuous by its absence, he continues. “It appears, although not confirmed by the National Department of Transport, that three inspectors have been appointed.” 

Permit problems “Fire permits or transport permits stipulated by certain local authorities have become a contentious issue for dangerous goods transporters. The permits are required in terms of Emergency Services By-laws which are compiled under the Fire Brigade Services Act,” he adds.  “The by-laws are often outdated and make reference to standards that have been withdrawn, such as SABS 1398. There is no consistency in the application of the requirements for Fire Permits with regard to vehicle design, specification, inspections or fees. By-laws vary from municipality to municipality  “It has been suggested that the municipal fire inspection permit protocol should be uniform and accepted by all local authorities of the standard protocol as well as the mutual acceptance of permits being issued by other municipalities. The issuing of Fire Permits should be done annually on the renewal of a vehicle's certificate of roadworthiness and the inspection should form part of the roadworthy inspection. Currently separate inspections are carried out by two different authorities which is both time consuming and costly,” McMurray says.  While progress in the DG training debacle is being made, there’s still much work to be done to streamline the compliance process. As a parting shot, McMurray states that discussions to resolve the permit issue have been initiated at a meeting chaired by NEDLAC and attended by representatives of organised business, labour and government.

Let’s hope the ‘talk-shop’ delivers real results. Good luck.