Laden Petrol Tankers Barred In Road Tunnel

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30289, 15 November 1963, Page 27

Laden Petrol Tankers Barred In Road Tunnel

Petrol tankers will not be allowed through the Christchurch-Lyttelton road tunnel carrying class I dangerous goods. By four votes to three the Road Tunnel Authority decided this at a special meeting yesterday.

He had no doubt that the authority should exclude the chemicals which were defined in class I of the Dangerous Goods Act, said Mr J. B. Collett, opening the debate. On bulk petroleum products, he tnought the tunnel was providing a service to the public and the authority should take a calculated risk and allow tankers through. Perhaps the authority could consider some restricted hours. “We have installed a continuous 24-hour service in the tunnel, with a very complex system and specialised system to give reliability,” said Mr F. W Freeman. “The main factor is safety with a capital S.

"Our modern toll registration and tunnel control system must not be risked. We cannot have a hazard to our £3 million undertaking." English and American tunnel practice was against allowing tankers through, Mr Freeman said. In a discussion on the number of tankers likely to use the tunnel, the general manager (Mr L. H. Wilson) said it had been estimated that there could be 120 a day. which would give a tanker going through every four minutes of an eight-hour day. “Apprehension" In the Mersey tunnel there was growing apprehension about what would happen with tankers, Mr Wilson said. “They are still apprehensive, but they are going through, with the authority taking a calculated risk, although it doesn’t like it," said Mr L. G. Amos, who visited the tunnel recently. “Our first duty is undoubtedly safety," said Mr J. J. B. Connor. The probability of an accident was no greater in the tunnel than anywhere else, but if an accident did happen then the possible damage would be much greater than on an open road. “We are dealing with the risk of a major disaster, not just a mere accident,” he said. “If we permit unrestricted use of the tunnel by tankers we are ignoring the expert opinion from the chief inspector of explosives, and ignoring the general practice overseas as reported by the general manager." How could the authority possibly justify a decision to allow dangerous goods through if there was an inquest into a major disaster? The oil industry already had an alternative road and a pipeline over the hills, Mr Connor said. The fact that the pipeline was not fully acceptable to some of the companies was not something to be considered by the authority. The companies were unlikely to put the bulk of their traffic through the

tunnel at the standard toll rates. Any question of concessions based on restricted hours would have to be available to any user, and not just to oil companies, Mr Connor continued. The only reasonable precaution to take would be to arrange that no other traffic be in the tunnel while class I dangerous goods were in transit, he said and that was not desirable. This would require some additional control at the Lyttelton end, and there would have to be more manpower. This would all add to the cost of administration and would be out of proportion to the vouune of traffic. Additional fire - fighting equipment would be needed, as the equipment installed was not designed to meet such a major emergency as could occur with a tanker, Mr Cinno- concluded. He was supported by Mr V. G. Spiller, who said the authority should not go against the advice of the chief inspector of explosives. “We have to consider the background, and the oil industry has the lowest accident rate in New Zealand,” said Mir Amos. “We have a fire-fighting force at our disposal. “We should take a calculated risk. We have done everything possible to see that the safety of the tunnel is locked after.” With the oil companies encouraged to keep off peak traffic times, he could see no need to exclude the traffic, he said. After all, there was a risk in walking across Colombo street. If a tanker had an accident on an open road the road could be cleared in half an hour: in the tunnel there could be a long delay holding up the working of the port, Mr W. P. Glue said. “I am sympathetic, but weighing up everything I think it is too big a risk.” One of the reasons for building the tunnel was to offset the long drag over the hill road, said the chairman (Mir R. A. Witbrock). “We have a duty to make the tunnel available, if it is at all possible, to everyone. “I think we are against the unrestricted use of the tunnel for dangerous goods, but I would like you to consider restricted use.” “I don’t think much of restricted use” said Mr Spiller. "There is still the possibility of vehicles going through at the same time as tankers and the risk is just as great—perhaps greater at night.” Low Accident Kate The petroleum industry had the lowest accident rate in the country, Mr Collett

said. Mr Wilson’s report did not cover all the tunnels in Europe and the oil industry said the majority of European tunnels allowed tankers through. The chief inspector of explosives had given only a tentative recommendation. Actually he could veto the authority’s decision, and a final decision could be left to him. The authority then voted on a motion by Mr Connor that the unrestricted passage of class I goods in bulk, down to 44-galion drums, be prohibited. Flavouring the motion were Messrs Spiller, Freeman, Glue and Connor; with Messrs Witbrock, Amos and Collett against When Mr Witbrock said that left open the question of restricted use of the tunnel, Mr Amos said: “Leave it at that. I don’t think the oil companies will use it under restrictions, but if they want to, let them make anew approach to us.” The authority agreed that empty tankers should be allowed through, with the by-laws to define “empty.”