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