COMMENTS MADE BY Van Leer's Ken Hardman in the Bulletin a couple of months ago (HCB July 1999, page 63) obviously hit a raw nerve. Since that issue appeared we have had numerous informal comments as well as two formal letters (see page 15). For those who missed Ken's article, he argued that there is a lack of uniformity as regards package testing standards between countries and that the UN recommendations are not strict enough - either in their wording or observation - to ensure that the packagings that shippers use are fit for the purpose.
Ken mentioned that CEN has put together a draft standard on package testing but that the final standard will not be available until late next year. As Martin Castle points out in this issue, CEN has been joined in its efforts by ISO, so that as and when the standard does eventually see the light of day its relevance will extend further than Europe.
However, even with a CEN/ISO standard in place, does it mean that those involved in package testing will carry out their duties with the same level of care? There are UN specifications in place already and the lack of uniformity lies in their observance and, as some are at pains to highlight, the fact that certain competent authorities fail in their duties to oversee the process. There is also no evidence that it makes any difference whether packaging is tested by the manufacturer or a third party, since either can be less than assiduous in their activities. Furthermore, differences in application raise the usual xenophobic questions and fears that packaging stemming from certain countries is likely to be of a lower standard than that from more 'advanced' producing countries.
What worries drum manufacturers such as Van Leer and Skolnik Industries - as well as drum reconditioners, as is highlighted elsewhere in this issue - is that the lack of stringent and consistent testing of packagings (specifically, steel drums) is that it leaves the marketplace at the mercy of manufacturers with fewer scruples with regard to maintaining the quality of their products. In particular, the field is open for manufacturers to reduce the thickness of the steel used to make the drums and for drum users to opt for such packagings in exchange for cost savings.
Those drum manufacturers which have stuck with thicker gauge steel are at pains to point out that thinner material results in poorer performance and that there is a direct link between the thickness of the steel and the ability of the drum to maintain its integrity in the event of an incident. While there is a suspicion that there is an element of "my drums are better than your drums" about this - and the Bulletin certainly has seen no evidence that thinner gauge units perform less well - it may be true, as Howard Skolnik says, that users who switch to thinner gauge drums and are then disappointed in their performance do not go back to their former standard of drum, they turn to another form of packaging altogether. It is, though, hard to blame the users. Despite the development of alternative forms of packaging, such as plastics drums, IBCs and a variety of tanks of one size or another, the standard steel drum remains the workhorse of much of the chemical industry's transport requirements. And not just the chemical industry; steel drums are widely employed to move lube oils and small volumes of fuel as well as many other products. Furthermore, they are not used merely as transport receptacles; their ubiquity finds them widely employed as short-term storage vessels in any number of applications.
When the industries that use drums are in recession and users find their margins under pressure, it is understandable that they should find attractive any idea that will help them reduce their costs in the short term. The long-term financial benefits of multi-trip drums present higher entrance costs which can deter buyers. Perhaps if the more conscientious drum manufacturers could find a way to beat their inbuilt competitive disadvantage - or at least become more flexible - then the problem of lighter gauge drums and the threat they present to the industry as a whole could be overcome.
More on This Topic:
Accidents Waiting to
Happen by Ken Hardman - July 1999
Thin Skinned by Peter Mackay (in response to Ken Hardman) - September 1999
Letter to the Editor
from Howard Skolnik (in response to Peter Mackay) - September 1999
Letter to the Editor
from Martin Castle (in response to Peter Mackay) - October 1999