'Oil spill caused by faulty valve’

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34103, 16 March 1976, Page 15

'Oil spill caused by faulty valve’

The hearing of a charge against an oil company for a spillage of petrol into Lyttelton Harbour on October 9 concluded in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Mr P. L. Molineaux, S.M., reserved his decision. The company has pleaded not; guilty to a charge of being the] [occupier of a place on land from! which oil escaped into New Zealand waters. The prosecution! [was brought by the Lyttelton I I Harbour Board. Mr T. M. Abbott appeared for’ ■the plaintiff and Mr P. G. S. i ■Penlington for the company. The) name of the company has been} [suppressed in the interim. i ! Evidence was given earlier! (that petrol had been overflowing from a 1500-gallon tank | sunk in the ground on the oil I wharf. In his submissions Mr Pen-j lington said the Magistrate must not apply hindsight to the facts! of the case. It must be judged} on the knowledge, procedures, and circumstances as they existed at the time. There had been no previous! mishaps, counsel said. The prac-l tice followed had been ap-1 [proved and known. Instruments and equipment used had been planned by reputable and competent consulting engineers. The defendant company was entitled to rely on these people. i The maintainance of the plant |was the responsibility of another oil company. This included the drain valve and audible alarm. The defendant company was entitled to rely on this company to maintain the plant, said counsel. The audible alarm worked only for water and not oil products. There would have been no spillage if it had gone off at the intended level, he said. Evidence established that the filling of the tank and the escape of petrol must have been caused by a valve, counsel said. The degree of leak through the valve was not something reasonably detected in the sight glass. When the valve had been checked by an employee of the! ; defendant company it had been [dosed and it was obvious a de-

feet had not been discovered by him.

The incoming organising oil company was entitled to rely on the outgoing company to empty the slops tank. If it had been emptied and the fault notfl detected there would have been; no accident. Mr Penlington said it eras ob-1 Iviotis that the cap on the sue-' Ition pipe was off and submitted that it was part and parcel of I ithe other oil company’s duties Ito leave it in a proper and Isecure manner.

The spillage had clearly resulted from the faulty valve, i failure of the alarm, and non- ;| (emptying of the tank by an- ( (other oil company. If the alarm (had gone off the defendant (company staff would have found [what had happened, said Mr:’ (Penlington. Mr Abbott submitted that the || 'oil company had been dealing: [with petroleum products, products which by their own nature J (were dangerous. The greater [the risk, the greater the standard of care required, he said.

The oil company had no reason to rely on the assumption J that another oil company had emptied the tank. There was ( no reference in evidence that on taking up duties as organ-! ising company did the defendant company check the tank to see if it had been emptied. At no time before the petrol escape was noticed was any ( check made of the tank and a; witness who passed it had noticed nothing amiss. If a dip, stick had been put in the tank, while a tanker was in port then, presumably it would have re-‘ vealed a product in the tank. 1 The defendant company had relied on an alarm and evi-i dence had been given that this, was defective.

Quite clearly manpower was! available to check the tank.

Mr Abbott submitted the company had been negligent as it j had not proved that It was not I negligent, ft had not taken all the reasonable steps to ensure, no discharge was coming from the tank. j

Mr Abbott submitted that if a: company chose to engage an, independent third party for some i part of its duties it could not I escape liability on that count. I