AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

VK Transport fined for Kingston oil spill

7th October 2010, Page 22
7th October 2010
Page 22
Page 22, 7th October 2010 — VK Transport fined for Kingston oil spill
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Haulier was made to pay £6,867 after an oil spill caused by the firm damaged local wildlife

HAULAGE FIRM VK Transport has been ordered to pay £6,867 after an oil spill at its vehicle maintenance yard caused "significant damage to local wildlife".

In a prosecution brought by the Environment Agency (EA) at Kingstonupon-Thames Magistrates' Court, the West Ewell, Surrey-based haulier pleaded guilty to a charge that between 13 July 2008 and 15 July 2008 it caused polluting matter to enter the River Thames at Kingston (pictured). contrary to section 85(1) and section 85(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991.

The company was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,852 costs, plus a £15 victim surcharge.

On 14 July 2008, members of the public informed EA officers that a large amount of oil could be seen on the Thames. It was discovered that the oil was entering the river from a surface water sewer at Westfield Landing in Kingston. However, the source of the pollution was traced to a vehicle maintenance facility in Lower Marsh Lane, Kingston, leased by VK Transport.

Peter Ehmann, EA officer, found that an oil interceptor at the yard, designed to stop small spillages from leaving the premises, was so full of oil that it could not function properly. This had caused thick black waste engine oil to run into the surface water sewer system, which was in turn linked directly to the outfall at Westfield Landing.

VK Transport admitted in court that it had failed to empty the interceptor correctly, which meant the device had failed to operate properly.

About 40 swans were affected by oil and some had to be rescued by the Swan Sanctuary in Shepperton, Surrey.

Ehmann says the incident resulted in "significant damage to local wildlife and the general area".

He adds: "Although a number of swans had to be rescued and cared for by the local swan sanctuary it was fortunate that the pollution didn't result in any fish mortality."


comments powered by Disqus