Shipping Trade and Transport News 2nd December 2015 (update)

Post by James Oliver via Linkedin.
I agree with James’s comments below.

When the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted amendments to SOLAS weight verification requirements in November 2014, it offered shippers two ways to obtain a container transport unit's (CTU) verified gross mass:
 Method 1: weigh the packed CTU

Method 2: weigh the cargo and all securing and packing material, and add the CTU's tare weight

Many shippers immediately supported method 1, considering the simplicity of the process compared to method 2.

We think this perspective misses the big picture, and will massively disrupt logistics flow.

---

While weighing a packed container is simple enough in itself, we must consider that:

• right now, this can be achieved using equipment typically found at ports, not in warehouses
• therefore, shippers will most likely have their packed CTUs weighed at ports, and this causes another string of problems.

You can weigh a packed CTU using a weighbridge, crane, or spreader twist locks. Sounds easy, especially because port operators and/or carriers are already doing this. Here's the catch: trucks often carry more than one container, and most cranes lift in twin mode. The SOLAS amendments forbid estimation. So to get the accurate weight of a CTU using a weighbridge, extra containers must be unloaded from a truck, and deductions made for the weight of the vehicle, driver, and fuel. Repeat this process for every other container the truck is carrying

.

Similarly, you can't determine a CTU's weight if a crane or spreader is handling two containers at once, unless the equipment is upgraded with weighing sensors that can detect each container’s weight (as a few companies are looking into). Note, however, that container cranes are used late in the process of getting containers onboard a ship, violating the IMO requirement for carriers to know each CTU's verified gross mass “sufficiently in advance”.

But technology advances and engineers always find a way. It's systems and infrastructure that are more difficult to adjust, and cause delays and disruption in the process.

 Disruption of Logistics Flow

Every day, hundreds of thousands of containers pass through ports. At Singapore port, the world's busiest, 60,000 containers are loaded and unloaded each day. But let's take a relatively small port as an example – that of Melbourne, Australia. In 2012/13 Melbourne exported 863,473 full containers. This equates to 2,366 CTUs a day that must be weight-verified.

Break it down further and you get 98 containers per hour or 1.6 every minute. If it takes 10 minutes to weigh a CTU, imagine the amount of time needed to weigh 2,366 CTUs – equivalent to 16 and a half days. Even if you use 10 weighbridges, you'd need a bit more than a day and a half – not counting the time you'd need to re-pack a CTU if it is found to be overweight. New Zealand-based Napier Ports believe weighing at the port might add 12 hours to the existing required time for the container to be on the terminal before the ship arrives.

"Imagine the amount of time needed to weigh 2,366 CTUs at port – equivalent to 16 and a half days"

Why You Should Choose Method 2

Now let's say you choose to verify the CTU's gross weight using method 2. Method 2 – calculating the sum of the weight of the cargo, all packing and securing materials, and the CTU's tare weight – has been deemed impractical for bulk cargo such as grains and liquids in flexitanks, and is also seen as requiring more time and hassle because of the calculation process. Without efficient technology and systems, method 2 shippers will incur delays by manually weighing each cargo load and all packaging and securing materials, and adding this to the CTU’s tare weight.

But method 2 has advantages that shouldn't be ignored, such as allowing you to:

• stack the cargo outside the CTU
• configure the load prior to ingress
• photograph the load prior to ingress to show condition pre-shipping
• weigh the load at the place of packing (e.g., warehouse)
• make changes to the load if required without having to remove items from the CTU
• distribute the weight of the load evenly throughout the container or properly relative to COG
• avoid transporting an overweight CTU to the port 

 

"Find equipment that's already part of your packing process but has the potential capability to weigh cargo"

To make method 2 a viable weighing option and avoid disrupting logistics flow, shippers need to find equipment that's already part of their packing process but has the potential capability to weigh. Examples include forklifts and mechanical container loaders like the Tynecat. In such a case, the only additional steps to take are adding the loads to the CTU’s tare weight (unless the loading equipment can do this, too) and getting a digital confirmation or a printout of the verified gross mass. Note that the equipment's weighing system must be certified for use in SOLAS weight verification.

Apart from speed, this method has the advantage of being safer, as you are not risking the lives of drivers and terminal workers by loading a potentially overweight CTU on a truck, carrying it on public roads, and unloading it at the port. Depending on the container loading and weighing system that you use, you can also avoid having personnel enter the CTU during ingress and egress.

---

Accurate declaration of CTU weights benefits all parties involved in the transport of freight, from the originator to the receiver and everyone involved in between. The SOLAS amendments must be seen as enforcement of a responsibility that every party in the freight chain already acknowledges and must accept. While the IMO places the onus on the shipper to report a verified gross weight, each party must have checking methods in place to ensure proper weight distribution and compliance.

---

SOURCES

SOLAS Chapter VI, Part A, Regulation 2

Chris Bain, “Changes to SOLAS Chapter VI - ‘At the Sharp End’” Presentation to Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand Branch Conference 2014, at slide 6. Quoted in King, 2014. The Problem of Misdeclared Container Weight. Llm Seminar Paper, Laws 538: Maritime And Transport Law.

King, 2014. The Problem of Misdeclared 

Container Weight. Llm Seminar Paper, Laws 538: Maritime And Transport Law.