During the interview the Master also told Mr Kinley that the tank washings contained Lauryl alcohol and the stripping quantity as per a manual entitled " Procedures and Arrangements Manual " ("the P & A manual") was 171 litres per tank. The P & A manual comprised Annex II of the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto ("MARPOL 73/78"). The Master also stated that the pollution category for Lauryl alcohol in Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 was category B but that prior to the discharge of the tank washings on 4 August 1998 he had though Lauryl alcohol was in pollution category C.
15 Heath Lester, Distribution and Operations Supervisor of Terminals Pty Ltd deposed that on 4 August 1998 he was employed as a Ship's Surveyor. He undertook a survey of the vessel on that day prior to the discharge of its cargo at Port Botany. He observed that the cargo of Lauryl alcohol was at a temperature of 20oC when the vessel arrived and that the cargo had solidified. As a result the cargo could not be pumped ashore until it had been heated. He looked into number 8 port and starboard tanks of the vessel and saw tide marks of solidified Lauryl alcohol on the inside of the tanks which he considered resulted from the cooling of the Lauryl alcohol against the sides of the tanks as they were being emptied or from the non heating of the Lauryl alcohol. Mr Lester noted that the quantity of Lauryl alcohol in the port and starboard tanks on arrival was 405.462 tonnes and that the quantity discharged was 400.645 tonnes. The difference is 4.817 tonnes.
16 Mr Lester prepared a survey report, which incorporated two Notices of Protest which were dated 4 August 1998 and 6 August 1998 and a "dry certificate" dated 4 August 1998. Such certificate certifies that the vessel's tanks were "free of pumpable cargo". The notices record the fact that temperature of the cargo was such that it required heating to 30oC in order to be discharged and also that there was a discrepancy between the quantity of cargo in the vessel on arrival and quantity pumped from the vessel.
17 Dr Brian King, consultant marine engineer undertook an examination of the location of the slick. He concluded that the discharge of the slick must have commenced prior to 3.30pm on 4 August 1998. He calculated the possible size of the slick, as described by Mr Black as being between 1,715 litres and 3,430 litres and considered the latter quantity to be the most probable. Dr King was of the opinion that the probable volume of the slick was between 3,430 litres and 5,800 litres, the latter being the quantity calculated from the evidence of Mr Zarb which is considered hereunder.
18 Raymond Arthur Charles Lipscombe, Manager, Environmental Protection Response, Emergency Response Business Unit of AMSA has had extensive experience with oil spills. Mr Lipscombe assumed Lauryl alcohol behaved in a similar manner to oil when spilled on water and calculated the volume of Lauryl alcohol contained in the slick described by the aircraft pilots as being between 3,465 litres and 4,150 litres.
19 William S Rooney is an expert in aquatic ecology and water quality and provided evidence regarding the nature of Lauryl alcohol and its effects on aquatic and marine life. Mr Rooney was of the opinion that Lauryl alcohol would completely biodegrade in seawater within weeks to months, but that it has the potential to accumulate in organisms over time if it "were at all persistent in the environment". Mr Rooney deposed that Lauryl alcohol is considered toxic because it is a primary irritant and its potential to harm intertidal organisms, crustaceans, marine zooplankton and seabirds through contact or ingestion is high. He considered that the ecological consequences of the discharge would have been moderate if the slick did not reach the shoreline, but if it did reach the shoreline the environmental risks would have increased exponentially, particularly because of its effect on intertidal organisms. Mr Rooney concluded that Lauryl alcohol would present a potential toxicity or at least irritation risk to animals which came into contact with the surface slick.
20 John Francis Leeder an analytical chemist provided a report on the characteristics of Lauryl alcohol. He deposed that a slick of Lauryl alcohol (or n-dodecanol) would have produced an area of high toxicity to fish and other marine organisms, it being very toxic to aquatic organisms. In his opinion the discharge of Lauryl alcohol into the marine environment would have caused a negative impact to the marine ecology and any aquaculture in its vicinity. Attached to his report is a publication entitled "Material Safety Data Sheet" published by Proctor and Gamble Chemicals ("the material safety data sheet").
21 James Zarb, Operations Logistics Resource Manager of Terminals Pty Ltd ("Terminals") was previously Operations Manger and National Quality Manger for Terminals. He has been employed by that company for almost 12 years. Mr Zarb has no formal qualifications but has worked in the chemical industry for 21 years.
22 Mr Zarb provided a "Discharge/Loading Plan" of the vessel dated 2 August 1998 which shows that the vessel intended to unload 405.700 metric tonnes of Lauryl alcohol from its number eight port and starboard tanks. A copy of the shipping details for the vessel shows that 405.462 metric tonnes of Lauryl alcohol was being carried by the vessel. The "Out-Turn Statement" for the Terminals tanks number 219 dated 5 August 1998 shows that the tank contained 27.585 metric tonnes of Lauryl alcohol and after receipt of the cargo it contained 428.230 metric tonnes, a difference of 400.645 metric tonnes.
23 Mr Zarb has been handling Lauryl alcohol since 1996 and has received it about three times a year. Additionally similar product is received for storage, and usually vessels discharge such cargo about three times per year. Terminals received the product through a dock line into a storage tank. After the product is stored customs clearance and customer quality testing is performed on the cargo.
24 In cross-examination Mr Zarb said he could not remember whether the surveyor was present on the vessel, but he could remember seeing the surveyor Mr Lester undertaking the test on tank 219 at Terminals when the vessel arrived. Prior to the arrival of the vessel, Mr Zarb could not remember when any tests were performed on the previous cargo remaining in tank 219. In his task of assessment, Mr Zarb relied upon the reports of the surveyor. He believed the tank would have been tested two to three months before the arrival of the vessel. He concluded that the sample taken on that occasion must have being liquid.
25 Testing for volume of the product in the tanks was within Mr Zarb's expertise and he described how the volume of the storage tank is calibrated by computer system. The dip is performed by a surveyor using an electronic tape and the results are recorded in a computer. The temperature is also taken of the product in the tank and the computer then calculates the volume of liquid present in the tank from the remaining available volume. Such method is the ullage method.
26 Mr Zarb explained that this testing is done by volume, not by mass or weight. There is no facility for weighting the product. The volume in litres and the temperature is recorded and converted into mass. Mr Zarb agreed that volume would change with temperature, but mass or weight does not alter with temperature. Terminals do not keep records of mass, when unloading. Mass is recorded when the product is leaving the terminal by tanker.
27 Mr Zarb disagreed with Dr Crisp's conclusion as considered hereunder that no accurate estimate of the quantity of Lauryl alcohol discharged from the vessel could be obtained from Terminals' procedures. Tank 219 had been operative since 1976 and there have been no problems arising out of any inaccuracy of the calibration. Mr Zarb said a check is made by using a weighbridge. Whenever loads leave Terminal's premises, tankers are weighed and the weight is recorded in a computer. Accordingly the crosscheck ensures an accurate weight and volume in the tank. If there is a discrepancy between the book stock record and the weighbridge record, verification dips can be made. Some discrepancies have occurred between the two methods, but they have been resolved.
28 Peter Edwin Burge, consultant marine engineer inspected the vessel in March 2002 and provided a report. He concluded that the vessel did not have the pumping capacity or technical capability to allow it to treat remnant Lauryl alcohol in such manner that discharge overboard of a diluted mixture would comply with the Act. Mr Burge deposed that a "dry certificate" meant that no more pumpable cargo could be removed from the vessel. He deposed that in his opinion the cargo would only have been partially liquefied at Port Botany and that the cargo furthest away from the heating coil pipes in the vessel would have remained in a partially solidified state.
29 In cross-examination Mr Burge rejected the opinion of Dr Crisp regarding the solidified liquid tidemarks observed by Mr Lester. Mr Burge considered that the tidemarks could have resulted in a clingage of about one centimetre around the tank. Mr Burge believed that there may be different methods adopted in different ports around the world in the measurement of the loading and of unloading of cargo. Mr. Burge considered that it was unlikely that the whole cargo within the vessel's tanks could have been heated to 30oC after two hours and 35 minutes following its arrival at Terminals.