Our issue thirty years ago was strangely prescient, concentrating very much – as does today’s number – on developments in North America. It was illustrated on the front cover with a picture of an ISO tank fresh off the boat, being picked up by a Chemical Leaman rig.
We asked in that issue how long it would be until the US really took to the new concept, quoting Marc Kostolich, then of Union Pacific Railroad’s BulkTanker Service (and now president/CEO of Food by Rail Logistics), who predicted that “American markets for tank containers will take about seven to ten years to mature.” The emerging market was having to struggle against the entrenched interests of the domestic tank truck industry and the ban on intermodal double-stack trains.
Our discussion had been informed by the Tank Container USA conference that had taken place in March in New Orleans, where one of the important topics was discussion of the upcoming HM-181 rulemaking from the US Department of Transportation. Among other things, this was due to phase out the IM 101 and IM 102 domestic tank designations in favour of the IMO 1 and IMO 2 specifications.
In fact, things were not going to be that simple. As Lt Cdr Phil Olenik of the US Coast Guard explained, the proposals in HM-181 had been rattling around for so long that they themselves now needed to be updated to take account of the two new editions of the UN Model Regulations that had appeared since the proposals were first put forward. At the moment we are approaching a similar situation with the HM-215O harmonisation rulemaking, which is already more than a year overdue and is causing problems, in particular for shippers exporting to the US.
To provide some assistance for those exporters in 1990, Ron Bohn, hazmat administrator at the National Cargo Bureau’s New York office, offered an article discussing what would these days be termed ‘FAQs’. In particular, he said he was often asked if there was one particular violation that stood out – and that the answer was violations of the dangerous cargo manifest (DCM) requirements.
Ron gave a thorough explanation of the US DCM requirements, as well as the different stowage and segregation requirements for hazardous materials under US regulations and the IMDG Code, although in the latter case the situation had become clearer following a tardy update of 49 CFR.
Staying with the maritime theme, HCB also reported on the impending entry-into-force of Amendment 25-89 to the IMDG Code; following an extensive list of changes, a new consolidated version of the Code – then presented in four ring-bound volumes plus a supplement, allowing users to update their existing copy with revised pages rather than replacing the whole thing – had been issued. This 1990 edition was expected to last for ten years, including updates. The IMO Maritime Safety Committee had agreed that each completely revised edition should last that long and was also urging that substantial amendments should normally be adopted at intervals of four years, with only urgent updates issued according to the UN’s biennial cycle.
This has long been a desire of regulators across the modes, who blame industry and its incessant process of development for generating the need for more frequent amendments.[post_title] => 30 Years Ago: April 1990 [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => 30-years-ago-april-1990 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2020-02-27 18:46:28 [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-02-27 18:46:28 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://hcblive.com/?p=17280 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )