In 2008, the World Shipping Council and the International Chamber of Shipping issued guidelines about the safe transport of containers by sea including a chapter on the weight of the container and the goods it carries. Since the report was published, various [major] shipping accidents have happened whereby the weight of some of the containers on-board might have been the cause. But these guidelines state that terminal operators should verify the weight of the containers before they are loaded on to the vessel. So, without any enforcement of these ‘guidelines’ are the terminal operators really weighing the containers or are they ‘happy’ with the information on the shipping documents? Bearing in mind that since these guidelines were published no actual steps have been taken to enforce these recommendations although few would deny that the weighing of all containers before they are loaded on-board a vessel would represent a major advantage in improving vessel safety.  Even the European Shipping Council (ESC) supported the guidelines and takes the view that eradication of over-loaded containers would create greater efficiency and productivity in the supply chain by providing more efficient container throughput, improved vessel loading and more efficient container terminal operations. For terminal operators the main question is how to integrate technology that can detect overweight or wrongly stuffed containers without affecting the efficiency of the terminal and at what cost? Not many manufacturers of container handling equipment paid a lot of attention to this issue until French-based Lasstec came up with a detection method using the twistlocks on the spreader  to identify both overweight  containers and containers that have unevenly distributed weight. Beat Zwygart, Director at Lasstec explained that the company was the first to develop and patent load weighing using the spreader twistlock as a load cell. The system features the use of fibre optics which are the most compact, reliable and accurate technology available. “Development began in 2007 and since that date continuous testing and refinement has been accomplished,” says  Zwygart. “Today, Lasstec’s Smart Twistlock Load Sensing System is fully tested and market ready.” A specially designed sensor is inserted into the centre line of the twistlock which measures the elongation of the twistlock shaft when under load. The load data is sent into the crane PLC and it is displayed on the monitor in the crane cabin. The system also registers the life cycles of the twistlocks so that they can be replaced when they reach ‘end of life’ based on usage and not when the date to replace them has arrived, making optimum use of the twistlocks. The load history data stays with the twistlock and can be retrieved at any time for evidence tracking.  The system can be installed into new and existing spreaders and does not require any twistlock or spreader modifications.  Using the spreader twistlock to measure container weights has been tried before with conventional strain gauge technologies or with hydraulic load cells. However, excessive torsional and bending forces as well as dynamic and shock loads have never produced satisfactory long term results, or accuracies were not acceptable. The only area on the twistlock where no torsional nor bending forces are present is in the neutral centre line.  Fibre optic sensor technology presents itself to measure elongation of the twistlock and therefore measure container weight. The advantage of fibre optic over conventional strain gauges is that fibre optic requires very little space; it is inert to EMI and does not corrode. The Lasstec sensor has a diameter of only 3mm and the hole in the twistlock has therefore no measureable effect on strength of the twistlock. The sensor is of solid design and is totally shock proof [a patent was granted for this invention]. The sensor is bonded into the twistlock with conventional adhesive and cannot be recuperated when the twistlock is replaced. The sensor is therefore conceived as a replaceable item, again a feature possible only with fibre optic technology. The accuracy and load reading repeatability is within +/-100kg per twistlock. Temperature fluctuations of the twistlock are compensated by the sensor, which is a technology developed by Lasstec.  There are three major advantages of making the sensor an integral part of the twistlock:

– Life cycles are traceable to the particular twistlock in case of an accident [the sensor always stays with the same twistlock].

– Life cycles are stored with the twistlock and twistlocks replaced when the life cycles are consumed and not when the replacement date has arrived. Its life cycle history can be reconstructed.

– Any type and brand of standard twistlock can be used.

The cost of the sensor is largely compensated with the optimised usage of the twistlock. An analysis of 4000 container moves in a RTG application has shown that 25% of all moves are below 2 tonnes per twistlock (empty containers) and 45% are below 3 tonnes. Empty containers are not considered as real load cycles.  Spreader manufacturers propose to replace twistlocks after a certain number of container moves, whether these have been loaded or empty containers. On the other hand, a twistlock which has been stretched due to an accident can be spotted right away and replaced.  A significant advantage of using the twistlocks for weighing containers is that in a twin-lift or even tandem mode, all container weights can be taken simultaneously. In addition to weighing containers, the system also provides a whole range of accident prevention features. These include

– Snag load detection in ship to shore applications. Measuring a snag load at the twistlock is faster than detecting it on top of the hoist trolley. It also allows detection of snags by individual twistlock in case only one corner of a container remains attached to the stack on the vessel.  This minimises potentially serious problems especially in twin-lift or tandem applications.

– Prevention of lifting of the road trailer if it is accidentally still attached to the container or prevent lifting of railway wagons in case the interlocking twistlock of the wagon is jammed or not released. 

– Adjustment of the spreader on a mobile harbour crane for load eccentricity when picking up containers in the ship cell. This avoids tipping of  the spreader and container when exiting the ship cell. This is especially crucial in twin-lift modes.

Yet another unique feature of the system is the ability to detect if a spreader is landing on the ground or on the bottom of the vessel hull, thus avoiding the unreeling of the hoist wires. In such a situation, the landed pins of the spreader are not activated and don’t signal to stop the hoist system. This feature also allows identification of interlocking twistlocks that have been accidentally left on top of a container and prevent the spreader twistlock from entering the corner casting to pick the container up from the vessel.  The Lasstec system is delivered as a “plug and play” system and can be added to the spreader by the terminal or by a Lasstec agent . Furthermore, it can be integrated into the spreader by the manufacturer during the construction of the spreader.  Output signals are available in CAN-, Mod- or Profibus. Conversions into mA are optional. “The system has been on the market since early last year and the concept is now widely accepted by equipment makers and terminals worldwide,” says Zwygart.

Competition
Leading spreader manufacturer Bromma recently announced that it will launch a system based on existing load measuring technology implemented into a new format to fit with new and existing twistlock pins. This system is based on strain gauge technology implemented in a load sensor body mounted on the twistlock pin assembly. “Data from the twistlock load sensors will be collected and computed in the control system available on the spreader or on a stand-alone control unit,” said Lars Meurling, Vice-Pre
sident, Business Products Manager at Bromma. The new load sensing system for the spreader twistlocks – similar to that of Lasstec – will identify container overloads, understatement of container weight, and out-of-balance eccentric loads – all of which pose a well-known safety risk at terminals.  According to Meurling the new load sensing system joins a full and expanding portfolio of other safety solutions available from Bromma including the twin-twenty detection system enabling crane operators to detect a gap between two 20′ foot containers in a 40′ cell [a real risk and a potentially dangerous lifting situation] by using a 7 photo-electric sensor. Bromma  also offer their fully automatic over-height frame that is handled by the crane, which keeps ground service staff out of harm’s way and their spreaders include failsafe logic and interlocks to prevent accidental container unlocking.

One company exploiting this opportunity is Modern Port Technologies in Canada. Through their senior container terminal operations and planning specialist, Alex Goussiatiner, the company is ‘testing the water’ for an underground container storage facility.Over the years operators have been faced by container storage issues, albeit a lack of [expansion] land or simply a lack of funds to invest. In Hong Kong, operators have had to contend with the problem of container storage capacity shortage. With a lack of land there seemed no where to go but up, so the obvious solution was to stack the containers higher. But high density stacking comes with some associated risks including the threat of strong winds (typhoons in Hong Kong and neighbouring countries) but despite the risks it was a solution that became globally accepted by terminal operators who were facing a similar situation. Now it seems there could be another solution to the space shortage problem – instead of ‘up’, why not go ‘down’? Welcome to the UCS – the underground container storage system. Out of the box thinking or simply a brilliant idea – the concept of storing containers underground that is being floated here might seem very simple but is it? According to Alex Goussiatiner, planning specialist at Modern Port Technologies in Canada, the disadvantage of high density stacking of containers leads to extensive unproductive reshuffling moves. This might be true to a certain degree but with a good yard planning system the containers should be allocated in the right way to avoiding reshuffling moves. In addition, Goussiatiner claims that high density stacking of loaded containers increases the static load on the surface and often requires additional investment into the surface structure. Although this might be a valid point, for container terminals with for example RTGs/RMGs operations the surface structure would have been taken in to account at the design phase, so his argument might only be applicable for terminals that change their use – for example from break-bulk to containers. Therefore this point could also be neglected.

The concept
Before we go any further it might be worth looking at the design features of the UCS concept. The idea is simple; loaded and empty containers are stowed below deck up to 10-high on a container vessel and therefore theoretically it seems logical that the same arrangement could be duplicated on dry land. This concept could create a high density stack below the surface of the blocks serviced by RTGs/RMGs or ASCs. According to Goussiatiner this underground solution would avoid the high stacking of containers that are subject to high winds and could also reduce the number of moves for export and trans-shipment stacks as this requires much less selectivity and theoretically can be designed for high density. So, where in the past the stacking was for example 5-high above ground you can now double the container capacity if you stack 5-high underground with the underground storage system (total 10-high). This might influence the gantry cranes working above the UCS and Goussiatiner points out that some slight modifications need to be made including extending the load wires and increasing the size of the hoist drums and housing. But these ‘minor’ modifications will not compare to the capital expenditure for the construction of the system. The main civil engineering (and financial) challenges might include the construction of the retaining walls, storm water drainage systems, upgrading of adjacent crane foundations (if applicable) and construction of the barriers for mobile container handling equipment (avoiding them to ‘drive’ into the UCS).

Concerns
There are numerous issues that have to be addressed before such a concept can become reality. It is therefore no surprise that many consultants, operators and consultants have raised several questions regarding the proposed concept. First, the issue of storm water drainage seems to cause everybody a major headache and many responses included considerations that have to be given to maintenance and energy costs of running the storm water engineering system. In countries with winter snow conditions the need for additional equipment and operating expenses related to snow removal have to be considered. But what happens when the drainage system fails completely? “A state of the art drainage system that cannot fail must be in place as well as the design of a system that mitigates and avoids unproductive container moves,” said Jan Scheele, Division Manager Marine and Consultancy, at PT Carsurin Surveyors and Consultants in Indonesia. “The cost of construction of an underground container yard could prove to be un-economical as it definitely will increase the cost of storage and handling,” he added. Costs seem to be another major hurdle to overcome when we look at the design of the system. “Very good retaining wall arrangements would be needed as the gantry is running along one edge. This suggests such an arrangement might be very expensive to build,” observes John Hunter, Director at Armor Business Solutions. “There would need to be some form of cast-iron safety guarantee to convince gantry drivers that it was absolutely impossible to drive over the edge! It may sound excessive, but think of the driver who is looking down into a deep hole. This suggests RMGs rather than RTGs.”

Hunter also sees a potential difficulty of stacking 10-high (see diagram )pointing out that if these are exports as suggested is possible, this could mean stack weights of a possible 30 tonnes per container. “On ground that is often of poor quality, that could be a problem, and any instability of the ground will be very difficult to rectify in what is, in effect a deep pit,” he concluded. Avnash Iyer, Head of Operations at Chennai Container Terminal, India added his concerns about the working height and the liability posed to the terminal if there is a failure in the storm water drainage system [flooding] and the hazards the RTG driver would be exposed to given the “well” stacking and very low tolerances for driver errors (even if using dgps). Mohamed Habib, Equipment Training Supervisor at Suez Canal Container Terminal in Egypt also expressed his concerns for the safety of the RTG driver. “The RTG and truck lanes need to be wider to be safer during gantry movement and driving. Also consideration should be given to re-enforce the side wall between the blocks especially if you design the yard back to back.”

Conclusion
Despite the concerns raised here there are also some positive responses to the UCS concept although most of these responses include ‘one shared concern’ and that is about the investment that has to be made. “This looks like a really good idea, but there are a number of engineering, operational and commercial challenges to overcome, as with all innovations,” said Richard Willis, App Consultant, Logistics, Jade Software Corp, Australia. “The considerable cost and efforts of a scheme like this may make using floating storage an attractive option too – barges or even old cellular tonnage could be used to a similar effect. This too has many challenges of cost and flexibility, but it would be interesting to weigh up the benefits of either approach.” And although Goussiatiner is confident that the estimated capital cost will be comparable with the investment of the construction of a new surface stack, he confirms that the UCS is viable for certain types of container terminals.  But when asked – as a general measurement – what the annual container throughput has to be to make such a project viable, Goussiatiner prefers to keep his cards close to his chest.

It is an equally pressing, and arguably more challenging, concern within the maritime industry, with port and terminal operators requiring technology to detect a wide range of problems and satisfy regulatory policies. Indeed, while the market has not been immune to the effects of the global recession of recent times, such policies have proved beneficial for manufacturers. “The global economic downturn has affected the business in terms of delayed projects due to budget cuts,” explains Charlotte Breitwieser, public relations manager for London-based, global security company Smiths Detection. “Customers apparently do only install or invest in what is absolutely necessary or mandatory at the moment based on national and international regulations. Yet, we cannot complain that there are many projects cancelled.  Rather, there are still many projects we are working on and several tenders for new projects are published or are in preparation.” Smiths identify high-energy material discrimination as being one of the most important technological innovations its company has made in X-ray technology over the last five years. “High-energy material discrimination ensures the detection and exact location of suspicious items such as smuggled goods, explosives and drugs, as the individual base material of items is displayed in colour codes giving an easy-to-interpret overview of container, truck and train load contents, which can be quickly compared to load declarations and other cargo documents,” says Breitwieser. “Smiths Detection was a pioneer in that respect and registered a related patent for that approach with Cambridge University. Installing a first high-energy scanner with that functionality in Algeria in 2004 was a milestone for our high-energy branch of the business. In the meantime more and more customers have specifically requested high-energy material discrimination; however, many customers are still widely unaware of that particular technological approach, and therefore Smiths Detection is developing an educational programme to train and inform them about the capabilities and the great benefits of that specific area of X-ray technology.” She adds: “The second, extremely important technological innovation is automatic radioactive material detection in combination with X-ray detection. Smiths Detection also took a leading role in this approach and developed the so-called ARD (automatic radioactive material detection) functionality. Partnering with a worldwide renowned key player in radioactivity detection, the technology is regularly adapted to evolving and new threats. A combi­ned X-ray, gamma-ray and neutron-based detection capability as offered by Smiths Detection decreases the number of manual searches on innocent alarm. The gamma and neutron detectors can be positioned on both sides of the inspected container. As soon as a radioactivity rate is signifi­cantly superior to natural background radiation, or an overall critical radioactive rate is detected, operators automati­cally receive a visual warning on their displays. Once the scan is done, the system delivers a unique X-ray image with radioactive detection diagnosis. Thus, the customs or port operator is presented with an X-ray and a radioactive nuclear detection graphic simultaneously on the screen. Due to a colour scale an interpretation can be facilitated quickly and reliably, resulting in corresponding safety measures to prevent accidents and injuries. “Concluding from the findings at the Nuclear Security Summit earlier this month [April], this technological innovation will be driven forward even more in the following years, as it was and is extremely important to the community of 47 nations gathered at the event in Washington DC to prevent the illegal trade traffic of radioactive material and unregistered sources perhaps intended for abuse, for example ‘dirty bombs’.”

For its part in terms of technological innovation, American Science & Engineering (AS&E) introduced two new systems to the market in 2009. First came the Sentry Portal System last August. A high throughput, high-penetration cargo inspection system designed to quickly and safely scan trucks, AS&E describes Sentry as being safe for drivers and operators, offering the “unique” combination of high-penetration capability and “unsurpassed” image quality. The company states that the system is an ideal solution for high-volume seaports, border crossings, and security checkpoints. The Sentry Portal System can also be deployed along with AS&E’s multi-view Z Portal screening system for three-sided imaging of the entire vehicle (including the cab) and the detection of organic materials such as drugs, explosives, or stowaways.

The second aforementioned addition to the AS&E product range came in September last year, when the company introduced the MobileSearch High-Energy cargo and vehicle inspection system. Equipped with high-energy transmission and the company’s patented Z Backscatter X-ray imaging, the system is designed to detect threats and contraband including weapons, explosives, drugs, and currency. The MobileSearch High-Energy cargo and vehicle inspection system offers multiple scan modes for high-speed scanning of passenger vehicles or oversized or odd-shaped cargo, allowing the operational flexibility of the Z Backscatter Van in either ‘drive-by’ mode to scan stationary objects, or ‘portal’ mode to scan vehicles as they drive past the system. The system also features an integrated cab design that offers ergonomic benefits to drivers and operators, providing a spacious environment for enhanced communications and comfort. AS&E states that MobileSearch HE is ideal for homeland security and drug interception missions at seaports, border crossings, and other high threat checkpoints. The company adds that the system offers “the largest tunnel size in the industry, allowing for the inspection of oversize cargo and vehicles”. The mobile system can travel on roads at highway speeds. AS&E adds that MobileSearch HE offers two complementary imaging technologies integrated in one system. Its 4.5 MeV high-energy transmission X-ray generates high-penetration and high-resolution images for the inspection of densely loaded cargo, with typical penetration of more than 12 inches (300 mm) of steel. AS&E states that its patented Z Backscatter technology offers the additional benefits of photo-like images and improved image analysis time and, unlike transmission X-rays, provides a wide field of view with no tyre or ground cutoff, allowing for the effective scanning of passenger vehicles and tyres. MobileSearch HE offers multiple scan modes for added flexibility. During normal operations, the system scans over stationary vehicles and cargo with both transmission and Z Backscatter imaging with the boom deployed. Additionally, MobileSearch HE can operate in Z Backscatter-only mode, with the boom stowed for high speed scanning of passenger vehicles or oversized or odd-shaped cargo. In Z Backscatter-only mode, the system is safe to scan drivers and passengers while they remain in their vehicles.

Recent contracts
Swiss-based company Cotecna announced in March that it had launched scanner operations for imported containers at the Port of Pointe Noire as part of its goods inspection contract with the Government of the Republic of Congo. Following on from an original pre-shipment contract signed in March 2006, an addendum was signed on June 29 last year for the supply and installation of a 3.8MeV container system at the Congolese port along with a computerised risk management system (CRMS). This addendum extended the contract for a further four years starting from the first container scan. The programme assists the Government of the Republic of Congo in their Customs capacity building and revenue protection programmes and in improving security. CRMS is a system designed to assist customs officials in determining the appropriate level of intervention of each trade transaction, depending on the type of goods to be inspected. Cotecna is responsible for training local staff and customs agent
s to ensure the maximum efficiency of the new tools. Cotecna has more than 70 staff in the Congo between their head and operating office in Pointe-Noire and its liaison office in the nation’s capital, Brazzaville. A further deal for Cotecna came in April when its Mexican subsidiary signed an extension to its customs inspection contract with Servicio de Administración Tributaria (Services of Tax Administration) in the North American nation. The four-year contract, which was originally signed in February 2006, has been extended until December this year. Cotecna states that the service, known as ‘Segundo Reconocimiento’, or second inspection, is the only service of its kind in the world. The service is mandatory by law and is carried out by almost 120 Cotecna employees in the Customs Primary Zones at 16 border ports of entry. The system provides physical and documentary revision of imported goods, the verification of goods of foreign origin that are in transit to ensure they are en route for their final destination such as a factory, warehouse or store, and verification of the existence or physical location of the supplier, producer or buyer as declared in the invoice or other customs documents. The objective is to protect national production and manufacturing.  In February, Smiths Detection announced that it had sealed contracts for 13 advanced X-ray cargo-screening systems to be deployed across Saudi Arabia to inspect inbound and outbound containers and trucks. These contracts are for seven stationary HCVG (Heimann Cargo Vision Gantry) scanners and six mobile HCVM systems, built to use high-energy X-ray scanning at ports, airports and border crossings to inspect trucks, containers and other vehicles for contraband, weapons, explosives and narcotics.

American Science and Engineering Inc informed World Port Development of several deals it has struck over the past year. One of these, sealed in November 2009, was to supply its OmniView Gantry cargo and X-ray inspection system to the Venice Port Authority in Italy, in conjunction with Nethun SpA. The system is designed to inspect cargo for threats and contraband, combining 6.0 MeV high-energy transmission X-ray with AS&E’s three-sided Z Backscatter X-ray imaging for “the most reliable means of detecting contraband and threatening materials, such as weapons and explosives hidden in cargo containers, tankers, and vehicles.” AS&E states that the OmniView Gantry System is “the only multi-view, relocatable system available today that combines high-energy transmission inspection plus multiple Z Backscatter X-ray views.” Using its patented Shaped Energy technology, the OmniView Gantry system provides high levels of penetration into complex cargo and dense objects, up to 14 inches (350 mm) of steel, without an exterior building or heavy shielding. On home soil, AS&E announced in October last year the receipt of an order from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for multiple MobileSearch HE cargo and vehicle inspection systems equipped with both high-energy transmission and Z Backscatter X-ray imaging for detecting threats and contraband including weapons, explosives, drugs, and currency. The MobileSearch HE system is designed to offer two complementary imaging technologies integrated in one system. Its 4.5 MeV high-energy transmission X-ray generates high-penetration and high-resolution images for the inspection of densely loaded cargo, with typical penetration over 12 inches (300 mm) of steel, the company states. The system also utilises Z Backscatter X-ray imaging to assist in the identification of organics for improved detection of explosive threats and other organic contraband.

For years Italy has been a battle ground for port and terminal operators and the government. Lacking investment from the government in simple infrastructure enhancement such as dredging, the operators have been vying for attention without any luck. In fact, the operators are now turning on each other with three trans-shipment hubs – Gioia Tauro, Taranto and Cagliari – forming a new association – Imeta – breaking away from the national port association Assoporti. With increasing fees and charges imposed by the Government, the hubs have seen business dwindle and most of the shipping lines have moved across the water to North Africa hubs which offer more favourable charges. Earlier this year, Contship Italia, the operator of Medcenter Container Terminal in Gioia Tauro, saw container throughput decline to 2.9 million TEU in 2009 – a drop of 17% compared to 2008. The operator, who invested in five new super post-panamax container cranes, is not only blaming the economic crisis but mainly new port facilities in North Africa. Forced by this decline of container throughput Contship has reached agreement with Union representative to proceed with making redundancies. The operators argue the case that if the government wasn’t charging them so much they would not only be able to come up with competitive pricing to attract [more] shipping lines but would also be able to invest in their facilities. And although it could be argued that with the establishment of Imeta the three hubs are effectively breaking the ‘port unity’ in Italy (for which it was famous), it might also break the mould in a port system that has been grid-locked for years. The first steps are already visible with Cagliari Port Authority cutting its anchorage fees by around 90% to defend its trans-shipment position in the Mediterranean. So, the question is will Taranto and Gioia Tauro follow? Both of are operated by private companies – Taranto is operated by Evergreen and Hutchison while Gioia Tauro and Cagliari by Contship Italia – and neither can afford any major cuts in an already tight market. But there might be a glimmer of hope on the horizon with the Italian government finally moving forward with its long-promised law for the reform of the port system. In a recent statement issued by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Minister Altero Matteoli said the council of ministers had now approved a draft law “which aims to modernise the activities, the role and the efficiency of the ports.” Although the shipping industry has fought a long and concerted battle to overhaul the 16-year old port law, some significant shipping companies seem to be unimpressed with this announcement, which would be an essential initial impetus towards the liberalisation and modernisation of the system. The new port reform would be based on five essential points, including the redefinition of the role of the port authorities and how they are governed. The relationship between the port and its hinterland, between the port and its access routes, and problems between maritime and land transport also need to be addressed. The reforms would also see simplification and rationalisation of the process of approval for port development plans and the granting of terminal concessions. Furthermore, to ease the path for dredging projects the government would also create a fund for infrastructure to stimulate investment in the ports.

Concession in Genoa
While the announcement for port reform was being made, the management of the Port of Genoa was busy discussing the granting of a new concession for their long-troubled multi-purpose terminal. The 25-year concession will be awarded in May and the best bid under consideration came from a joint bid between Ignazio Messina & Co and Terminal San Giorgio. A quick decision on the granting might not only bring an end to a painful road for the terminal but it will also benefit the port greatly. The two partners have outlined in their bid that they would invest a total of Euro 130 million in the facility, something that is unique as no other private investment in port infrastructure has been made before in Italy. Around Euro 50 million will go to fill in the basin between the Canepa and Libia piers and create a 60ha terminal area. Messina will pay two thirds of the cost and take a similar share of the area, which, once completed, will take its own terminal space in the port to 35ha with Terminal San Giorgio taking the remaining 25ha. To justify their investment both companies will seek to extend the concession to 50 years rather than the 25 years. Both bidders have also committed to handling a minimum of 10 million tonnes of cargo, including 800,000 TEU per year, as well as RoRo and general cargo, and to employ around 500 workers. For years, the multi-purpose terminal has been causing problems for the port authority with allegations from local prosecutors that the previous partition of the terminal among myriad small operators in 2004 was illegal and a case in which several prominent port figures are charged with bid-rigging and fraud is now being heard in the courts, with the accused proclaiming their innocence. If this court case fails, it could pave the way for efforts to return the partition of the terminal to its original status, although the port authority appears confident any such move would not succeed. Earlier this year, the Genoa Port Authority reported that it has seen a drop of 13.2% in container traffic in 2009 – handling 1.5 million TEU compared to 1.8 million TEU in 2008. The Voltri Terminal Europa, operated by Sinport (a subsidiary of Singapore-based PSA) saw a drop of 12.3%, down from 1 million TEU to 885,276 TEU. Sech Terminal saw throughput dwindle to 244,882 TEU – down 22.1% in 2009 from 314,512 TEU the year before. The Messina terminal also recorded an 8% fall over 2008, to 216,994 TEU. But 2010 might be kind to Genoa as it finally sees traffic rise by 0.9% in March to 4.1 million tonnes – up compared to the 4 million tonnes in the same period last year. This figure took total throughput for the first quarter of this year to 11.1 million tonnes, which would be still down 1.2% compared to the first quarter of 2009. In March, container throughput rose by 11.2% to almost 150,000 TEU compared to the March 2009 and for the first quarter, the improvement came to 8.2%, with more than 400,000 TEU flowing through the port.

La Spezia
Contship Italia’s La Spezia Container Terminal, the largest box facility (at the port of La Spezia) has reported a decline of container throughput of 19% in 2009 – it handled 851,000 TEU compared to 1 million TEU in 2008. Meanwhile, La Spezia Port handled a total of 1,046063 TEU in 2009 – down 16% compared to 2008 when it handled 1.25 million TEU.