Langdon Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics Essay Example

Langdon Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics Paper DO ARTIFACTS HAVE? POLITICS? [from Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 19-39. ] No idea is more provocative in controversies about technology and society than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions to efficiency and productivity and their positive and negative environmental side effects, but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority. Since ideas of this kind are a persistent and troubling presence in discussions about the meaning of technology, they deserve explicit attention. Writing in the early 1960s, Lewis Mumford gave classic statement to one version of the theme, arguing that â€Å"from late neolithic times in the Near East, right down to our own day, two technologies have recurrently existed side by side: one authoritarian, the other democratic, the first system-centered, immensely powerful, but inherently unstable, the other man- centered, relatively weak, but resourceful and durable. ‘ This thesis stands at the heart of Mumford’s studies of the city, architecture, and history of technics, and mirrors concerns voiced earlier in the works of Peter Kropotkin, William Morris, and other nineteenth-century critics of industrialism. During the 1970s, antinuclear and pro-solar energy movements in Europe and the United States adopted a similar notion as the centerpiece of their arguments. According to environmentalist Denis Hayes, â€Å"The increased deployment of nuclear power facilities must lead society toward authoritarianism. We will write a custom essay sample on Langdon Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Langdon Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Langdon Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Indeed, safe reliance upon nuclear power as the principal source of energy may be possible only in a totalitarian state. † Echoing the views of many proponents of appropriate technology and the soft energy path, Hayes contends that â€Å"dispersed solar sources are more compatible than centralized technologies with social equity, freedom and cultural pluralism. † 2 An eagerness to interpret technical artifacts in political language is by no means the exclusive property of critics of large- scale, high-technology systems. A long lineage of boosters has insisted that the biggest and best that science and industry made available were the best guarantees of democracy, freedom, and social justice. The factory system, automobile, telephone, radio, television, space program, and of course nuclear power have all at one time or another been described as democratizing, liberating forces. David Lillienthal’s TVA: Democracy on the March, for example, found this promise in the phosphate fertilizers and electricity that technical progress was bringing to rural Americans during the 1940s. Three decades later Daniel Boorstin’s The Republic of Technology extolled television for â€Å"its power to disband armies, to cashier presidents, to create a whole new democratic world. 4 Scarcely a new invention comes along that someone doesn’t proclaim it as the salvation of a free society. It is no surprise to learn that technical systems of various kinds are deeply interwoven in the conditions of modern politics. The physical arrangements of industrial production, warfare, communications, and the like have fundamentally changed the exercise of power and the experience of citizenship. But to go beyond this obvious fact and to argue that certain technologies in themselves have political properties seems, at first glance, completely mistaken. We all know that people have politics; things do not. To discover either virtues or evils in aggregates of steel, plastic, transistors, integrated circuits, chemicals, and the like seems just plain wrong, a way of mystifying human artifice and of avoiding the true sources, the human sources of freedom and oppression, justice and injustice. Blaming the hardware appears even more foolish than blaming the victims when it comes to judging conditions of public life. Hence, the stern advice commonly given those who flirt with the notion that technical artifacts have political qualities: What matters is not technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded. This maxim, which in a number of variations is the central premise of a theory that can be called the social determination of technology, has an obvious wisdom. It serves as a needed corrective to those who focus uncritically upon such things as â€Å"the computer and its social impacts† but who fail to look behind technical devices to see the social circumstances of their development, deployment, and use. This view provides an antidote to naive technological determinism–the idea Do Artifacts have Politics? that technology develops as the sole result of an internal dynamic and then, unmediated by any other influence, molds society to fit its patterns. Those who have not recognized the ways in which technologies are shaped by social and economic forces have not gotten very far. But the corrective has its own shortcomings; taken literally, it suggests that technical things do not matter at all. Once one has done the detective work necessary to reveal the social origins– power holders behind a particular instance of technological change–one will have explained everything of importance. This conclusion offers comfort to social scientists. It validates what they had always suspected, namely, that there is nothing distinctive about the study of technology in the first place. Hence, they can return to their standard models of social power– those of interest-group politics, bureaucratic politics, Marxist models of class struggle, and the like–and have everything they need. The social determination of technology is, in this view, essentially no different from the social determination of, say, welfare policy or taxation. There are, however, good reasons to believe that technology is politically significant in its own right, good reasons why the standard models of social science only go so far in accounting for what is most interesting and troublesome about the subject. Much of modern social and political thought contains recurring statements of what can be called a theory of technological politics, an odd mongrel of notions often crossbred with orthodox liberal, conservative, and socialist philosophies. The theory of technological politics draws attention to the momentum of large-scale sociotechnical systems, to the response of modern societies to certain technological imperatives, and to the ways human ends are powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means. This perspective offers a novel framework of interpretation and explanation for s ome of the more puzzling patterns that have taken shape in and around the growth of modern material culture. Its starting point is a decision to take technical artifacts seriously. Rather than insist that we immediately reduce everything to the interplay of social forces, the theory of technological politics suggests that we pay attention to the characteristics of technical objects and the meaning of those characteristics. A necessary complement to, rather than a replacement for, theories of the social determination of technology, this approach identifies certain technologies as political phenomena in their own right. It points us back, to Langdon Winner : Page 2 borrow Edmund Husserl’s philosophical injunction, to the things themselves. In what follows I will outline and illustrate two ways in which artifacts can contain political properties. First are instances in which the invention, design, or arrangement of a specific technical device or system becomes a way of settling an issue in the affairs of a particular community. Seen in the proper light, examples of this kind are fairly straightforward and easily under stood. Second are cases of what can be called â€Å"inherently political technologies,† man-made systems that appear to require or to be strongly compatible with particular kinds of political relationships. Arguments about cases of this kind are much more troublesome and closer to the heart of the matter. By the term â€Å"politics† I mean arrangements of power and authority in human associations as well as the activities that take place within those arrangements. For my purposes here, the term â€Å"technology† is understood to mean all of modern practical artifice, but to avoid confusion I prefer to speak of â€Å"technologies† plural, smaller or larger pieces or systems of hardware of a specific kind. 6 My intention is not to settle any of the issues here once and for all, but to indicate their general dimensions and significance. Technical Arrangements and Social Order ANYONE WHO has traveled the highways of America and has gotten used to the normal height of overpasses may well find something a little odd about some of the bridges over the park ways on Long Island, New York. Many of the overpasses are extraordinarily low, having as little as nine feet of clearance at the curb. Even those who happened to notice this structural peculiarity would not be inclined to attach any special meaning to it. In our accustomed way of looking at things such as roads and bridges, we see the details of form as innocuous and seldom give them a second thought. It turns out, however, that some two hundred or so lowhanging overpasses on Long Island are there for a reason. They were deliberately designed and built that way by someone who wanted to achieve a particular social effect. Robert Moses, the master builder of roads, parks, bridges, and other public works of the 1920s to the 1970s in New York, built his overpasses ac cording to specifications that would discourage the presence of buses on his parkways. According to evidence provided by Moses’ biographer, Robert A. Caro, the reasons reflect Moses social class bias Do Artifacts have Politics? and racial prejudice. Automobile-owning whites of â€Å"upper† and â€Å"comfortable middle† classes, as he called them, would be free to use the parkways for recreation and commuting. Poor people and blacks, who normally used public transit, were kept off the roads because the twelve-foot tall buses could not handle the overpasses. One consequence was to limit access of racial minorities and low-income groups to Jones Beach, Moses’ widely acclaimed public park. Moses made doubly sure of this result by vetoing a proposed extension of the Long Island Railroad to Jones Beach. Robert Moses’ life is a fascinating story in recent U. S. olitical history. His dealings with mayors, governors, and presidents; his careful manipulation of legislatures, banks, labor unions, the press, and public opinion could be studied by political scientists for years. But the most important and enduring results of his work are his technologies, the vast engineering projects that give New York much of it s present form. For generations after Moses’ death and the alliances he forged have fallen apart, his public works, especially the highways and bridges he built to favor the use of the automobile over the development of mass transit, will continue to shape that city. Many of his monumental structures of concrete and steel embody a systematic social inequality, a way of engineering relationships among people that, after a time, became just another part of the landscape. As New York planner Lee Koppleman told Caro about the low bridges on Wantagh Parkway, â€Å"The old son of a gun had made sure that buses would never be able to use his goddamned parkways. â€Å"7 Histories of architecture, city planning, and public works contain many examples of physical arrangements with explicit or implicit political purposes. One can point to Baron Haussmann’s broad Parisian thoroughfares, engineered at Louis Napoleon’s direction to prevent any recurrence of street fighting of the kind that took place during the revolution of 1848. Or one can visit any number of grotesque concrete buildings and huge plazas constructed on university campuses in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s to defuse student demonstrations. Studies of industrial machines and instruments also turn up interesting political stories, including some that violate our normal expectations about why technological innovations are made in the first place. If we suppose that new technologies are introduced to achieve increased efficiency, the history of technology shows that we will sometimes be Langdon Winner : Page 3 disappointed. Technological change expresses a panoply of human motives, not the least of which is the desire of some to have dominion over others even though it may require an occasional sacrifice of cost savings and some violation of the normal standard of trying to get more from less. One poignant illustration can be found in the history of nineteenth-century industrial mechanization. At Cyrus McCormick’s reaper manufacturing plant in Chicago in the middle 1880s, pneumatic molding machines, a new and largely untested innovation, were added to the foundry at an estimated cost of $500,000. The standard economic interpretation would lead us to expect that this step was taken to modernize the plant and achieve the kind of efficiencies that mechanization brings. But historian Robert Ozanne has put the development in a broader context. At the time, Cyrus McCormick II was engaged in a battle with the National Union of Iron Molders. He saw the addition of the new machines as a way to ‘weed out the bad element among the men,† namely, the skilled workers who had organized the union local in Chicago. 8 The new machines, manned by unskilled laborers, actually produced inferior castings at a higher cost than the earlier process. After three years of use the machines were, in fact, abandoned, but by that time they had served their purpose–the destruction of the union. Thus, the story of these technical developments at the McCormick factory cannot be adequately understood outside the record of workers’ attempts to organize, police repression of the labor movement in Chicago during that period, and the events surrounding the bombing at Haymarket Square. Technological history and U. S. political history were at that moment deeply intertwined. In the examples of Moses’ low bridges and McCormick’s molding machines, one sees the importance of technical arrangements that precede the use of the things in question. It is obvious that technologies can be used in ways that enhance the power, authority, and privilege of some over others, for ex ample, the use of television to sell a candidate. In our accustomed way of thinking technologies are seen as neutral tools that can be used well or poorly, for good, evil, or something in between. But we usually do not stop to inquire whether a given device might have been designed and built in such a way that it produces a set of consequences logically and temporally prior to any of its professed uses. Robert Moses’ bridges, after all, were used to carry automobiles Do Artifacts have Politics? rom one point to another; McCormick’s machines were used to make metal castings; both technologies, however, encompassed purposes far beyond their immediate use. If our moral and political language for evaluating technology includes only categories having to do with tools and uses, if it does not include attention to the meaning of the de signs and arra ngements of our artifacts, then we will be blinded to much that is intellectually and practically crucial. Because the point is most easily understood in the light of particular intentions embodied in physical form, I have so far offered illustrations that seem almost conspiratorial. But to recognize the political dimensions in the shapes of technology does not require that we look for conscious conspiracies or malicious intentions. The organized movement of handicapped people in the United States during the 1970s pointed out the countless ways in which machines, instruments, and structures of common use–buses, buildings, sidewalks, plumbing fixtures, and so forth–made it impossible for many handicapped persons to move freely about, a condition that systematically excluded them from public life. It is safe to say that designs unsuited for the handicapped arose more from long-standing neglect than from anyone’s active intention. But once the issue was brought to public attention, it became evident that justice required a remedy. A whole range of artifacts have been redesigned and rebuilt to accommodate this minority. Indeed, many of the most important examples of technologies that have political consequences are those that transcend the simple categories â€Å"intended† and â€Å"unintended† altogether. These are instances in which the very process of technical development is so thoroughly biased in a particular direction that it regularly produces results heralded as wonderful breakthroughs by some social interests and crushing setbacks by others. In such cases it is neither correct nor insightful to say, â€Å"Someone intended to do somebody else harm. † Rather one must say that the technological deck has been stacked in advance to favor certain social interests and that some people were bound to receive a better hand than others. The mechanical tomato harvester, a remarkable device perfected by researchers at the University of California from the late 1940s to the present offers an illustrative tale. The machine is able to harvest tomatoes in a single pass through a row, cutting the plants from the ground, Langdon Winner : Page 4 shaking the fruit loose, and (in the newest models) sorting the tomatoes electronically into large plastic gondolas that hold up to twenty-five tons of produce headed for canning factories. To accommodate the rough motion of these harvesters in the field, agricultural researchers have bred new varieties of tomatoes that are hardier, sturdier, and less tasty than those previously grown. The harvesters replace the system of handpicking in which crews of farm workers would pass through the fields three or four times, putting ripe tomatoes in lug boxes and saving immature fruit for later harvest. 9 Studies in California indicate that the use of the machine reduces costs by approximately five to seven dollars per ton as compared to hand harvesting. 0 But the benefits are by no means equally divided in the agricultural economy. In fact, the machine in the garden has in this instance been the occasion for a thorough re shaping of social relationships involved in tomato production in rural California. By virtue of their very size and cost of more than $50,000 each, the machines are compatible only with a highly concentrated form of tomato growing. With the introduction of this new method of harvesting, the number of tomato growers declined from approximately 4,000 in the early 1960s to about 600 in 1973, and yet there was a substantial increase in tons of tomatoes produced. By the late 1970s an estimated 32,000 jobs in the tomato industry had been eliminated as a direct consequence of mechanization. 11 Thus, a jump in productivity to the benefit of very large growers has occurred at the sacrifice of other rural agricultural communities. The University of California’s research on and development of agricultural machines such as the tomato harvester eventually became the subject of a lawsuit filed by attorneys for California Rural Legal Assistance, an organization representing a group of farm workers and other interested parties. The suit charged that university officials are spending tax monies on projects that benefit a handful of private interests to the detriment of farm workers, small farmers, consumers, and rural California generally and asks for a court injunction to stop the practice. The university denied these charges, arguing that to accept them â€Å"would require elimination of all research with any potential practical application. † 12 As far as I know, no one argued that the development of the tomato harvester was the result of a plot. Two Do Artifacts have Politics? students of the controversy, William Friedland and Amy Barton, specifically exonerate the original developers of the machine and the hard tomato from any desire to facilitate economic concentration in that industry. 13 What we see here instead is an ongoing social process in which scientific knowledge, technological invention, and corporate profit reinforce each other in deeply entrenched patterns, patterns that bear the unmistakable stamp of political and economic power. Over many decades agricultural research and development in U. S. land-grant colleges and universities has tended to favor the interests of large agribusiness concerns. 14 It is in the face of such subtly ingrained patterns that opponents of innovations such as the tomato harvester are made to seem â€Å"antitechnology† or â€Å"antiprogress. † For the harvester is not merely the symbol of a social order that rewards some while punishing others; it is in a true sense an embodiment of that order. Within a given category of technological change there are, roughly speaking, two kinds of choices that can affect the relative distribution of power, authority, and privilege in a community. Often the crucial decision is a simple â€Å"yes or no† choice–are we going to develop and adopt the thing or not? In recent years many local, national, and international disputes about technology have centered on â€Å"yes or no† judgments about such things as food additives, pesticides, the building of highways, nuclear reactors, dam projects, and proposed high-tech weapons. The fundamental choice about an antiballistic missile or supersonic transport is whether or not the thing is going to join society as a piece of its operating equipment. Reasons given for and against are frequently as important as those concerning the adoption of an important new law. A second range of choices, equally critical in many instances, has to do with specific features in the design or arrangement of a technical system after the decision to go ahead with it has already been made. Even after a utility company wins permission to build a large electric power line, important controversies can remain with respect to the placement of its route and the design of its towers; even after an organization has decided to institute a system of computers, controversies can still arise with regard to the kinds of components, programs, modes of access, and other specific features the system will include. Once the mechanical tomato harvester had been developed in its basic form, a design alteration of critical social significance–the addition of electronic sorters, for Langdon Winner : Page 5 xample–changed the character of the machine’s effects upon the balance of wealth and power in California agriculture. Some of the most interesting research on technology and politics at present focuses upon the attempt to demonstrate in a detailed, concrete fashion how seemingly innocuous design features in mass transit systems, water projects, industrial machinery, a nd other technologies actually mask social choices of profound significance. Historian David Noble has studied two kinds of automated machine tool systems that have different implications for the relative power of management and labor in the industries that might employ them. He has shown that although the basic electronic and mechanical components of the record/playback and numerical control systems are similar, the choice of one design over another has crucial consequences for social struggles on the shop floor. To see the matter solely in terms of cost cutting, efficiency, or the modernization of equipment is to miss a decisive element in the story. 15 From such examples I would offer some general conclusions. These correspond to the interpretation of technologies as â€Å"forms of life† presented in the previous chapter, filling in the explicitly political dimensions of that point of view. The things we call â€Å"technologies† are ways of building order in our world. Many technical devices and systems important in everyday life contain possibilities for many different ways of ordering human activity. Consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or inadvertently, societies choose structures for technologies that influence how people are going to work, communicate, travel, consume, and so forth over a very long time. In the processes by which structuring decisions are made, different people are situated differently and possess unequal degrees of power as well s unequal levels of awareness. By far the greatest latitude of choice exists the very first time a particular instrument, system, or technique is introduced. Because choices tend to become strongly fixed in material equipment, economic investment, and social habit, the original flexibility vanishes for all practical purposes once the initial commitments are made. In that sense technological innovations are sim ilar to legislative acts or political foundings that establish a framework for public order that will endure over many generations. For that reason the same careful attention one would give to the rules, roles, and relationships of politics must also be given to such things as the building of highways, the creation of television networks, and the tailoring of Do Artifacts have Politics? seemingly insignificant features on new machines. The issues that divide or unite people in society are settled not only in the institutions and practices of politics proper, but also, and less obviously, in tangible arrangements of steel and concrete, wires and semiconductors, nuts and bolts. Inherently Political Technologies NONE OF the arguments and examples considered thus far addresses a stronger, more troubling claim often made in writings about technology and society–the belief that some technologies are by their very nature political in a specific way. According to this view, the adoption of a given technical system unavoidably brings with it conditions for human relationships that have a distinctive political cast–for example, centralized or de-centralized, egalitarian or inegalitarian, repressive or liberating. This is ultimately what is at stake in assertions such as those of Lewis Mumford that two traditions of technology, one authoritarian, the other democratic, exist side-by-side in Western history. In all the cases cited above the technologies are relatively flexible in design and arrangement and variable in their effects. Although one can recognize a particular result produced in a particular setting, one can also easily imagine how a roughly similar device or system might have been built or situated with very much different political consequences. The idea we must now examine and evaluate is that certain kinds of technology do not allow such flexibility, and that to choose them is to choose unalterably a particular form of political life. A remarkably forceful statement of one version of this argument appears in Friedrich Engels’ little essay â€Å"On Authority† written in 1872. Answering anarchists who believed that authority is an evil that ought to be abolished altogether, Engels launches into a panegyric for authoritarianism, maintaining, among other things, that strong authority is a necessary condition in modern industry. To advance his case in the strongest possible way, he asks his readers to imagine that the revolution has already occurred. â€Å"Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the antiauthoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared or will it have only changed its form? †16 Langdon Winner : Page 6 His answer draws upon lessons from three sociotechnical systems of his day, cotton-spinning mills, railways, and ships at sea. He observes that on its way to becoming finished thread, cotton moves through a number of different operations at different locations in the factory. The workers perform a wide variety of tasks, from running the steam engine to carrying the products from one room to another. Because these tasks must be coordinated and because the timing of the work is â€Å"fixed by the authority of the steam,† laborers must learn to accept a rigid discipline. They must, according to Engels, work at regular hours and agree to subordinate their individual wills to the persons in charge of factory operations. If they fail to do so, they risk the horrifying possibility that production will come to a grinding halt. Engels pulls no punches. â€Å"The automatic machinery of a big factory,† he writes, â€Å"is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. †17 Similar lessons are adduced in Engels’s analysis of the necessary operating conditions for railways and ships at sea. Both re quire the subordination of workers to an â€Å"imperious authority† that sees to it that things run according to plan. Engels finds that far from being an idiosyncrasy of capitalist social organization, relationships of authority and subordination arise â€Å"independently of all social organization, and are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate. † Again, he intends this to be stern advice to the anarchists who, according to Engels, thought it possible simply to eradicate subordination and superordination at a single stroke. All such schemes are nonsense. The roots of unavoidable authoritarianism are, he argues, deeply implanted in the human involvement with science and technology. â€Å"If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, insofar as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organization. 18 Attempts to justify strong authority on the basis of supposedly necessary conditions of technical practice have an ancient history. A pivotal theme in the Republic is Plato’s quest to borrow the authority of technology and employ it by analogy to but tress his argument in favor of authority in the state. Among the illustrations he chooses, like Engels, is that of a ship on the high seas. Because large sailing vessels by their very nature need to be steered with a firm hand, sailors must yield to their captain’s commands; no reasonable person believes that Do Artifacts have Politics? ships can be run democratically. Plato goes on to suggest that governing a state is rather like being captain of a ship or like practicing medicine as a physician. Much the same conditions that require central rule and decisive action in organized technical activity also create this need in government. In Engels’s argument, and arguments like it, the justification for authority is no longer made by Plato’s classic analogy, but rather directly with reference to technology itself. If the basic case is as compelling as Engels believed it to be, one would expect that as a society adopted increasingly complicated technical systems as its material basis, the prospects for authoritarian ways of life would be greatly enhanced. Central control by knowledgeable people acting at the top of a rigid social hierarchy would seem increasingly prudent. In this respect his stand in â€Å"On Authority† appears to be at variance with Karl Marx’s position in Volume I of Capital. Marx tries to show that increasing mechanization will render obsolete the hierarchical division of labor and the relationships of subordination that, in his view, were necessary during the early stages of modern manufacturing. â€Å"Modern Industry,† he writes, â€Å"sweeps away by technical means the manufacturing division of labor, under which each man is bound hand and foot for life to a single detail operation. At the same time, the capitalistic form of that industry reproduces this same division of labour in a still more monstrous shape; in the factory proper, by converting the workman into a living appendage of the machine. †19 In Marx’s view the conditions that will eventually dissolve the capitalist division of labor and facilitate proletarian revolution are conditions latent in industrial technology itself The differences between Marx’s position in Capital and Engels’s in his essay raise an important question for socialism: What, after all, does modern technology make possible or necessary in political life? The theoretical tension we see here mirrors many troubles in the practice of freedom and authority that had muddied the tracks of socialist revolution. Arguments to the effect that technologies are in some sense inherently political have been advanced in a wide variety of con texts, far too many to summarize here. My reading of such notions, however, reveals there are two basic ways of stating the case. One version claims that the adoption of a given technical system actually requires the creation and maintenance of a particular set of social conditions as the operating environment of that system. Langdon Winner : Page 7 Engels’s position is of this kind. A similar view is offered by a contemporary writer who holds that â€Å"if you accept nuclear power plants, you also accept a techno-scientific industrial-military elite. Without these people in charge, you could not have nuclear power. 20 In this conception some kinds of technology require their social environments to be structured in a particular way in much the same sense that an automobile requires wheels in order to move. The thing could not exist as an effective operating entity unless certain social as well as material conditions were met. The meaning of â€Å"required† here is that of practical (rather than logical) necessity~ Thus, Plato thought it a practical necessity that a ship at sea have one captain an d an unquestionably obedient crew. A second, somewhat weaker, version of the argument holds that a given kind of technology is strongly compatible with, but does not strictly require, social and political relationships of a particular stripe. Many advocates of solar energy have argued that technologies of that variety are more compatible with a democratic, egalitarian society than energy systems based on coal, oil, and nuclear power; at the same time they do not maintain that anything about solar energy requires democracy. Their case is, briefly, that solar energy is decentralizing in both a technical and political sense: technically speaking, it is vastly more reasonable to build solar systems in a disaggregated, widely distributed manner than in large-scale centralized plants; politically speaking, solar energy accommodates the attempts of individuals and local communities to manage their affairs effectively be cause they are dealing with systems that are more accessible, comprehensible, and controllable than huge centralized sources. In this view solar energy is desirable not only for its economic and environmental benefits, but also for the salutary institutions it is likely to permit in other areas of public life. 21 Within both versions of the argument there is a further distinction to be made between conditions that are internal to the workings of a given technical system and those that are external to it. Engels’s thesis concerns internal social relations said to be required within cotton factories and railways, for example; what such relationships mean for the condition of society at large is, for him, a separate question. In contrast, the solar advocate’s belief that solar technologies are compatible with democracy pertains to the way they complement aspects of society removed from the organization of those technologies as such. Do Artifacts have Politics? There are, then, several different directions that arguments of this kind can follow. Are the social conditions predicated said to be required by, or strongly compatible with, the workings of a given technical system? Are those conditions internal to that system or external to it (or both)? Although writings that address such questions are often unclear about what is being asserted, arguments in this general category are an important part of modern political discourse. They enter into many attempts to explain how changes in social life take place in the wake of technological innovation. More important, they are often used to buttress attempts to justify or criticize proposed courses of action involving new technology. By offering istinctly political reasons for or against the adoption of a particular technology, arguments of this kind stand apart from more commonly employed, more easily quantifiable claims about economic costs and benefits, environmental impacts, and possible risks to public health and safety that technical systems may involve. The issue here does not concern how many jobs will be created, how much income generated, how many pollutants added, or how many cancers produced. Rather, the issue has to do with ways in which choices about technology have important consequences for the form and quality of human associations. If we examine social patterns that characterize the environments of technical systems, we find certain devices and systems almost invariably linked to specific ways of organizing power and authority. The important question is: Does this state of affairs derive from an unavoidable social response to intractable properties in the things themselves, or is it instead a pattern imposed independently by a governing body, ruling class, or some other social or cultural institution to further its own purposes? Taking the most obvious example, the atom bomb is an inherently political artifact. As long as it exists at all, its lethal properties demand that it be controlled by a centralized, rigidly hierarchical chain of command closed to all influences that might make its workings unpredictable. The internal social system of the bomb must be authoritarian; there is no other way. The state of affairs stands as a practical necessity independent of any larger political system in which the bomb is embedded, independent of the type of regime or character of its rulers. Indeed, democratic states must try to find ways to ensure that the social structures and mentality that Langdon Winner : Page 8 characterize the management of nuclear weapons do not â€Å"spin off† or â€Å"spill over† into the polity as a whole. The bomb is, of course, a special case. The reasons very rigid relationships of authority are necessary in its immediate presence should be clear to anyone. If, however, we look for other instances in which particular varieties of technology are widely perceived to need the maintenance of a special pattern of power and authority, modern technical history contains a wealth of examples. Alfred D. Chandler in The Visible Hand, a monumental study of modern business enterprise, presents impressive documentation to defend the hypothesis that the construction and day-to day operation of many systems of production, transportation, and communication in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries require the development of particular social form–a large-scale centralized, hierarchical organization administered by highly skilled managers. Typical of Chandler’s reasoning is his analysis of the growth of the railroads. 2 Technology made possible fast, all-weather transportation; but safe, regular, reliable movement of goods and passengers, as well as the continuing maintenance and repair of locomotives, rolling stock, and track, roadbed, stations, roundhouses, and other equipment, required the creation of a sizable administrative organization. It meant the employment of a set of managers to supervise these functional activities over an extensive geographical area; and the appointment of an administrative command of middle and top executives to monitor, evaluate, and coordinate the work of managers responsible for the day-to-day operations. Throughout his book Chandler points to ways in which technologies used in the production and distribution of electricity, chemicals, and a wide range of industrial goods â€Å"demanded† or â€Å"required† this form of human association. â€Å"Hence, the operational requirements of railroads demanded the creation of the first administrative hierarchies in American business. †23 Were there other conceivable ways of organizing these aggregates of people and apparatus? Chandler shows that a previously dominant social form, the small traditional family firm, simply could not handle the task in most cases. Although he does not speculate further, it is clear that he believes there is, to be realistic, very little latitude in the forms of power and authority appropriate within modern sociotechnical systems. The properties of many modern technologies. 24 But the weight of argument and Do Artifacts have Politics? empirical evidence in The Visible Hand suggests that any significant departure from the basic pattern would be, at best, highly unlikely. It may be that other conceivable arrangements of power and authority, for example, those of decentralized, democratic worker self-management, could prove capable of administering factories, refineries, communications systems, and railroads as well as or better than the organizations Chandler describes. Evidence from automobile assembly teams in Sweden and worker- managed plants in Yugoslavia and other countries is often presented to salvage these possibilities. Unable to settle controversies over this matter here, I merely point to what I consider to be their bone of contention. The available evidence tends to show that many large, sophisticated technological systems are in fact highly compatible with centralized, hierarchical managerial control. The interesting question, however, has to do with whether or not this pattern is in any sense a requirement of such systems, a question that is not solely empirical. The matter ultimately rests on our judgments about what steps, if any, are practically necessary in the workings of particular kinds of technology and what, if anything, such measures require of the structure of human associations. Was Plato right in saying that a ship at sea needs steering by a decisive hand and that this could only be accomplished by a single captain and an obedient crew? Is Chandler correct in saying that the properties of large-scale systems require centralized, hierarchical managerial control? To answer such questions, we would have to examine in some detail the moral claims of practical necessity (including those advocated in the doctrines of economics) and weigh them against moral claims of other sorts, for example, the notion that it is good for sailors to participate in the command of a ship or that workers have a right to be involved in making and administering decisions in a factory. It is characteristic of societies based on large, complex technological systems, however, that moral reasons other than those of practical necessity appear increasingly obsolete, â€Å"idealistic,† and irrelevant. Whatever claims one may wish to make on behalf of liberty, justice, or equality can be immediately neutralized when confronted with arguments to the effect, â€Å"Fine, but that’s no way to run a railroad† (or steel mill, or airline, or communication system, and so on). Here we en counter an important quality in modern political discourse and in the way people commonly think about what measures are Langdon Winner : Page 9 justified in response to the possibilities technologies make avail able. In many instances, to say that some technologies are inherently political is to say that certain widely accepted reasons of practical necessity–especially he need to maintain crucial technological systems as smoothly working entities–have tended to eclipse other sorts of moral and political reasoning. One attempt to salvage the autonomy of politics from the bind of practical necessity involves the notion that conditions of human association found in the internal work ings of technological systems can easily be kept separate from the polity as a whole. Americans have long rested content in the belief that arrangements of power and authority inside industrial corporations, public utilities, and the like have little bearing on public institutions, practices, and ideas at large. That â€Å"democracy stops at the factory gates† was taken as a fact of life that had nothing to do with the practice of political freedom. But can the internal politics of technology and the politics of the whole community be so easily separated? A recent study of business leaders in the United States, contemporary exemplars of Chandler’s â€Å"visible hand of management,† found them remark ably impatient with such democratic scruples as â€Å"one man one vote. If democracy doesn’t work for the firm, the most critical institution in all of society, American executives ask, how well can it be expected to work for the government of a nation–particularly when that government attempts to interfere with the achievements of the firm? The authors of the report observe that patterns of authority that work effectively in the corporation be come for businessmen â€Å"the desirable model against which to compare political and economic relationships in the rest of society. 25 While such findings are far from conclusive, they do reflect a sentiment increasingly common in the land: what dilemmas such as the energy crisis require is not a redistribution of wealth or broader public participation but, rather, stronger, centralized public and private management. An especially vivid case in which the operational requirements of a technical system might influence the quality of public life is the debates about the risks of nuclear power. As the supply of uranium for nuclear reactors runs out, a proposed alternative fuel is the plutonium generated as a byproduct in reactor cores. Well-known objections to plutonium recycling focus on its unacceptable economic costs, its risks of environmental contamination, and its dangers in regard Do Artifacts have Politics? to the international proliferation of nuclear weapons. Beyond these concerns, however stands another less widely appreciated set of hazards–those that involve the sacrifice of civil liberties. The widespread use of plutonium as a fuel increases the chance that this toxic substance might be stolen by terrorists, organized crime, or other per sons. This raises the prospect, and not a trivial one, that extraordinary measures would have to be taken to safeguard plutonium from theft and to recover it should the substance be stolen. Workers in the nuclear industry as well as ordinary citizens outside could well become subject to background security checks, covert surveillance, wiretapping, informers, and even emergency measures under martial law–all justified by the need to safeguard plutonium. Russell W. Ayres’s study of the legal ramifications of plutonium recycling concludes: â€Å"With the passage of time and the increase in the quantity of plutonium in existence will come pressure to eliminate the traditional checks the courts and legislatures place on the activities of the executive and to develop a powerful central authority better able to enforce strict safeguards. † He avers that â€Å"once a quantity of plutonium had been stolen, the case for literally turning the country upside down to get it back would be overwhelming. Ayres anticipates and worries about the kinds of thinking that, I have argued, characterize inherently political technologies. It is still true that in a world in which human beings make and maintain artificial systems nothing is â€Å"required† in an absolute sense. Nevertheless, once a course of action is under way, once artifacts such as nuclear power plants have been built and put in operation, the kinds of reasoning that justify the adaptation of social life to technical requirements pop up as spontaneously as flowers in the spring. In Ayres’s words, â€Å"Once recycling begins and the risks of plutonium theft become real rather than hypothetical, the case for governmental infringement of protected rights will seem compelling. †26 After a certain point, those who cannot accept the hard requirements and imperatives will be dismissed as dreamers and fools. *** The two varieties of interpretation I have outlined indicate how artifacts can have political qualities. In the first instance we noticed ways in which specific features in the design or arrangement of a device or system could provide a convenient means of establishing patterns of Langdon Winner : Page 10 power and authority in a given setting. Technologies of this kind have a range of flexibility in the dimensions of their material form. It is precisely because they are flexible that their consequences for society must be understood with reference to the social actors able to influence which de signs and arrangements are chosen. In the second instance we examined ways in which the intractable properties of certain kinds of technology are strongly, perhaps unavoidably, linked to particular institutionalized patterns of power and authority. Here the initial choice about whether or not to adopt something is decisive in regard to its consequences. There are no alternative physical designs or arrangements that would make a significant difference; there are, furthermore, no genuine possibilities for creative intervention by different social systems–capitalist or socialist–that could change the intractability of the entity or significantly alter the quality of its political effects. To know which variety of interpretation is applicable in a given case is often what is at stake in disputes, some of them passionate ones, about the meaning of technology for how we live. I have argued a â€Å"both/and† position here, for it seems to me that both kinds of understanding are applicable in different circumstances. Indeed, it can happen that within a particular complex of technology–a system of communication or transportation, for example–some aspects may be flexible in their possibilities for society, while other aspects may be (for better or worse) completely intractable. The two varieties of interpretation I have examined here can overlap and intersect at many points. These are, of course, issues on which people can disagree. Thus, some proponents of energy from renewable resources now believe they have at last discovered a set of intrinsically democratic, egalitarian, communitarian technologies. In my best estimation, however, the social consequences of building renewable energy systems will surely depend on the specific configurations of both hardware and the social institutions created to bring that energy to us. It may be that we will find ways to turn this silk purse into a sow’s ear. By comparison, advocates of the further development of nuclear power seem to believe that they are working on a rather flexible technology whose adverse social effects can be fixed by changing the design parameters of reactors and nuclear waste disposal systems. For reasons indicated above, I believe them to be dead wrong in that faith. Yes, we may be able to Do Artifacts have Politics? manage some of the â€Å"risks† to public health and safety that nuclear power brings. But as society adapts to the more dangerous and apparently indelible features of nuclear power, what will be the long-range toll in human freedom? My belief that we ought to attend more closely to technical objects themselves is not to say that we can ignore the contexts in which those objects are situated. A ship at sea may well re quire, as Plato and Engels insisted, a single captain and obedient crew. But a ship out of Notes. Langdon Winner : Page 11 service, parked at the dock, needs only a caretaker. To understand which technologies and which con texts are important to us, and why, is an enterprise that must involve both the study of specific technical systems and their history as well as a thorough grasp of the concepts and controversies of political theory. In our times people are often willing to make drastic changes in the way they live to accommodate technological innovation while at the same time resisting similar kinds of changes justified on political grounds. If for no other reason than that, it is important for us to achieve a clearer view of these matters than has been our habit so far. 1. Lewis Mumford, â€Å"Auhoritarian and Democratic Technics,† Technology and Culture 5:1-8, 1964. 2. Denis Hayes, Rays of Hope: The Transition to a Post-Petroleum World (New York: W. W. Norton, 1977), 71, 159. 3. David Lillienthal, T. V. A. : Democracy on the March (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944), 72-83. 4. Daniel J. Boorstin, The Republic of Technology (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 7. 5. Langdon Winner, Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977). 6. The meaning of â€Å"technology† I employ in this essay does not encompass some of the broader definitions of that concept found in contemporary literature, for example, the notion of â€Å"technique† in the writings of Jacques Ellul. My purposes here are more limited. For a discussion of the difficulties that arise in attempts to define â€Å"technology,† see Autonomous Technology, 8-12. 7. Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (New York: Random House, 1974), 318, 481, 514, 546, 951-958, 952. 8. Robert Ozanne, A Century of Labor-Management Relations at McCormick and International Harvester (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), 20. 9. The early history of the tomato harvester is told in Wayne D. Rasmussen, â€Å"Advances in American Agriculture: The Mechanical Tomato Harvester as a Case Study,† Technology and Culture 9:531-543, 1968. 10. Andrew Schmitz and David Seckler, â€Å"Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester,† American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52:569-577, 1970. 11. William H. Friedland and Amy Barton, â€Å"Tomato Technology,† Society13:6, September/October 1976. See also William H. Friedland, Social Sleepwalkers: Scientific and Technological Research in California Agriculture, University of California, Davis, Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences, Research Monograph No. 13, 1974. 12. University of California Clip Sheet 54:36, May 1, 1979. Do Artifacts have Politics? 13. â€Å"Tomato Technology. Langdon Winner : Page 12 14. A history and critical analysis of agricultural research in the land-grant colleges is given in James Hightower, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times (Cambridge: Schenkman, 1978). 15. David F. Noble, Forces of Production: A Social History of Machine Tool Automation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984). 16. Friedrich Engels, â€Å"On Author ity,† in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. 2, Robert Tucker (ed. ) (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), 731. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. , 732, 731. 19. Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, ed. 3, translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (New York: Modern Library, 1906), 530. 0. Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (New York: William Morrow, 1978), 44. 21. See, for example, Robert Argue, Barbara Emanuel, and Stephen Graham, The Sun Builders: A People’s Guide to Solar, Wind and Wood Energy in Canada (Toronto: Renewable Energy in Canada, 1978). â€Å"We think decentralization is an implicit component of renewable energy; this implies the de centralization of energy systems, communities and of power. Renewable energy doesn’t require mammoth generation sources of disruptive transmission corridors. Our cities and towns, which have been dependent on centralized energy supplies, may be able to achieve some degree of autonomy, thereby controlling and administering their own energy needs. † (16) 22. Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. , The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge: Belknap, 1977), 244. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. , 500. 25. Leonard Silk and David Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976), 191. 26. Russell W. Ayres, â€Å"Policing Plutonium: The Civil Liberties Fallout,† Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review 10 (1975): 443, 413-414, 374.

Arg Container Terminal Essays

Arg Container Terminal Essays Arg Container Terminal Essay Arg Container Terminal Essay CARIBBEAN MARITIME INSTITUTE Marine Terminal Operations ARJ Container Terminal Prepared by: Revalino Bennett, Andrew Gibson, Jenoir Dick, Oshane Polson, Tandra Morris, Jodian Braham For: Mr. Reyon McIntyre Due Date: November 15th, 2012 Table of Contents Section Page Section A- General Introduction IV A-2 ARG Air layout 1-2 A-3 Abbreviations A-4 Working Hrs A-5 Entry Passes A-6 General Customs Formalities Section B- Landside Operations B-1 Gate Operations B-2 Terminal Access B-3 Exit Validation B-4 Checking Activity at Gate B-5 Inter Terminal Transport B-6 Customs Inspection Section C- Vessel Operation C-1 Marine Requirements C-101 Working Hrs C-102 Vessel Arrival Notice C-103 Documents Required C-104 Establishing Communication C-105 Pilotage C- 2 Berth and Labour Planning C-201 Pro-forma Vessel Schedules C-202 Advance Schedules C-203 Initial Vessel Call Information C-204 Detailed Vessel Call Information C-205 Communication on the â€Å"Port of Salalah Game Plan† C-206 Calls Outside Pro-forma C-207 Vessel Connections C-208 Technical Information on the Vessel C-209 Notice of Readiness Section D- Load and Discharge Operation D-1 General D-101 Gantry Crane Capacity D-102 Lashing D-103 Hatch Cover Moves and Restows D-104 Use of Special Equipment D-105 Bay Planning and Stability Calculations D-106 Definition of Loading/Discharging of Containers D-107 Reporting D-108 Storage D-109 Data Amendment D-2 Discharge Operation D-201 Vessel Profile Information D-202 Discharge List Information D-203 Checking Activity During Discharge (Tally) D-204 Reporting D-205 Short-landed Container D-206 Over-Landed Container D-3 Load Operation D-301 Pre-Plan D-302 Load List Information D-303 Re-Nomination of Cargo D-304 Pro-Forma Cargo Deadline D-305 Checking Activity during Load (Tally) D-306 Reporting D-307 Short-Shipped Container D-308 Over-Shipped Container D-4 Yard Inventory D-5 Vessel Bunkering, Repair, and Supply of Provision Section E- Break Bulk and Over Dimensional Cargo E-1 Requirements E-2 Restrictions F- Direct Deliveries G- Dangerous Cargo H- Leakage/Spillage of Cargo I- Container Freight Station Activities J- Weighbridge K- Miscellaneous Services L- Damage and Claims L-01 Damage to Line’s Equipment (Without Prejudice) L-02 Damage to Line’s Vessel (Without Prejudice) L-03 Damage Caused by Third Parties L-04 Damage to Port Facilities/Equipment/Personnel M Longstanding Cargo N- Reefer Containers Section O- Port Safety and Security O01 Rules Regulations O02 International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) O02. ISPS Measures by Port of Salalah O02. 2 ISPS Requirements for the Line O03 X-Ray Inspection of Containers Introduction The competition among container ports continues to increase because of di? erentiating factors such as services, location and performance. These factors make up some of the major key selection criterias international shipping companies consider when selecting a transs hipment port. With that in mind we the owners and managers at ARJ Container Terminal will be trying to attract carriers with our automating handling equipment, the speeding up various services, and providing the most current information on the ? w of containers. At the same time, however, we will reduce costs by utilizing our resources e? ciently, including human resources, berths, container, yards, quay cranes, and various yard equipment. Our key and optimum advantage will be our location. This location in Little Bay, Little London Westmorland Jamaica West Indies will have the sufficient harbor water depth and dock space that will make it possible to facilitate docking of up to a Super-Panamax vessel. Dredging will not be required to accommodate these large draft vessels, hence no disturbance or depletion of any marine wildlife sanctuaries on the harbour floor or natural habitat will be caused. We and our management team are greatly pleased by this because outside of us wanting to create an optimal high efficiency container terminal, we also want to know that it is done with little or no impact on the surrounding environment and wildlife. ARJ Container Terminal location will be 25 minutes from the capital city of Savanna La Mar and 5 minutes from the A2 South Coast Highway. This will aid greatly in our multimodal transportation planning for both our clients and ourselves and also compliment positively on the domestic distribution side of our company. We are a limited liability company that specialises in container and general cargo handling for transshipment and domestic purposes. The company is owned by Shiek Revalino Bennet, Shiek Andre Gibson and Shiek Jenoir Dick and is manage by our seniors directors Oshane Polson, Tandra Morris and Jodian Braham The objective of ARJ is to provide integrated cargo service solutions for shipping companies worldwide. Due to our highly competent managers, the company will be able to substantially increase its cargo turnover and ensure regular cargo flow, and to compliment our effectiveness we will be the only terminal on the island of Jamaica with Sea-Rail transshipment operations. This will enhance our domestic function and in turn bringing first class service to the developing nation of Jamaica. Our developed terminal infrastructure, cargo handling technologies and modern equipment will definitely ensure ARJ’s competitiveness and peak position in the transit market. We will offer value-added services including customs operations, freight forwarding and logistics solutions so this can basically be a one stop shop for our customers/clients. ARJ will employ 111 qualified specialists in different fields to ensure the company’s operational efficiency and productivity level is on par with the major terminals around the world and even exceed if possible. We are predicting from global feedback that our total container flow for 2013 will be approximately 750,000 TEU. ARJ Air Layout Infrastructure: Berth: Length – 290 m Draught – 15 m Warehouse area: 16,310 m2 Open-air storage area: 120,800 m2 Technical equipment: Quay cranes at the vessel: – STS crane – Conventional quay crane – Mobile harbor crane For container transfer (horizontal transport): – SC (max. stacking capability: 1-over-3-high) – Reachstacker – Terminal tractor with trailer (so-called Tractor-Trailer Unit (TTU)) – Multi-trailer (terminal tractors with several trailers) – Empty/loaded container handler – Shuttle Carrier (ShC stacking capability: 1-over-1-high) – Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV) – Automated SC (max. stacking capability: 1-over-2-high) For container transport and stacking within the yard: SC – Rubber-Tyred Gantry crane (RTG crane) – Rail-Mounted Gantry crane (RMG crane) – Container handler (like reachstacker or top lifter) – OverHead Bridge crane (OHB crane) For the landside operation: – SC – RTG crane – RMG crane – Reachstacker â⠂¬â€œ TTU At the inland navigation vessel: – STS crane – Conventional quay crane – Mobile harbor crane The STS crane drops down containers on TTU that will transport the containers to the stacking area where the boxes are stacked by reach stackers (see Figure 1. 1) or forklift trucks fitted with appropriate spreader frames for container top or side lifting. Due to their versatility in operation, reach stackers are the best choice for our multi-purpose terminal as they are easy to handle, can be used for stacking in the yard, loading and unloading of TTUs, road trucks and rail cars on first rail. Including our landside operation, an estimate of 3–4 reachstackers and 4–5 TTUs are required per STS crane. The specific number of TTUs in particular will depend on the distance between the berth and the stacking area of the respective operation. The TTUs are used for the transport of the containers between the vessel and the container yard. Figure 1. 1- Reachstackers and TTU operation A storage capacity of approx. 350 TEU per hectare for 3-high stacking and 500 TEU per hectare for 4-high stacking are common figures for our type of yard equipment. The maximum stacking height is 5, container blocks can be kept 4-deep due to second row access. In case of relocation of capacities reachstackers are easily transported to another terminal or used for other cargo handling and because of their easy transportation between terminals reachstackers can be used to cover temporary requirements. Straddle Carrier System: The STS crane will place containers onto the apron from where the SCs transport them to the stacking yard (see Figure 1. 2 and Figure 1. 3) and stack the containers. The SCs are independent from any other equipment and are able to perform all the different handling operations: transport, stacking and the loading/unloading of trucks and rail cars (see Figure 1. 3). SC systems are the optimal system for large size terminals when high flexibility in the yard and accessibility of the boxes are required and thay make it easy to alter the layout of the terminal. A storage capacity of approx. 500 TEU per hectare stacking 2-high (3-high SC) and 750 TEU per hectare stacking 3-high (4-high SC) can be achieved. The maximum stacking height is 4-high. Including landside operation, an estimate of 4–5 SCs are required per STS crane – without considering specific conditions. The system will be supported by container handlers stacking MT boxes and/or RMGs for container handling in the rail yard. Figure 1. 2 Pure SC system Figure 1. 3 SC operations: Container transport and stacking and Loading / unloading of rail cars System advantages SC’s are able to cover all kinds of horizontal and vertical transports being necessary to perform container moves from the landside terminal interfaces (including truck handling and rail operation) via the container yard to handover positions below the STS cranes at quayside (and vice versa). the containers can be dropped on the ground so that no (or only short) waiting times for handling equipment o ccur. This kind of container handover enables STS cranes to operate with a high productivity while using a comparatively low number of SCs per crane. high number of concurrent container movements the breakdown of one SC has a comparatively low impact on the total handling process compared to the systems with TTUs the labor costs are lower due to the smaller number of vehicles no disturbance of the operation by trucks because these are loaded/unloaded outside the stacking yard the system is flexible to changes based on operational requirements and terminal layouts can be simply altered as SCs can be easily moved within the terminal since no pre-set routes or tracks are needed Rubber-Tyred Gantry Crane System with Tractor-Trailer Units The STS gantry crane places the container on a TTU unit that transports the container to the storage area where the RTG crane stacks the containers in long blocks (see Figure 1. 4). The RTG can be used for TTUs and road trucks as well. The size and structure of the RTG crane is determined according to the requirements of the terminal operator. The system has a very high stacking density because of the high stacking capability and the block stacking. Long traveling distances on the terminal are less problematic as TTUs transport the containers. RTG cranes will also be effectively used for the handling of containers on road trucks or rail cars. According to manufacturers, up to four tracks can be covered and containers can be stored at the side of the rail tracks. They can be allocated from the yard to the landside operation and vice versa, if necessary. Including landside operation 2–3 RTGs and 4–5 TTUss (depending on the distance between berth and stacking area) are required per STS crane. They stack the container in blocks 1-over-4- to -7-high and 5 to 8 container rows plus 1 lane for container handover lane Figure 1. 4 RTG cranes and TTUs in the stacking yard, rail yard operation by RMGs System advantages low space requirement in the stacking area because of the high storage capacity in a small area (high stacking density). The containers can be stacked up to 8- high (i. e. 1-over-7-high)1 without spacing for traveling lanes between the rows. relatively high flexibility as the RTGs can be transported to other storage blocks Rail-Mounted Gantry Crane System These cranes are mounted on fixed rail tracks with a cantilever outside the portal of cranes (see Figure 1. ). Figure 1. 5 RMG cranes with TTUs System advantages RMGs generally stack higher and span wider, with up to 1-over-7-high and 12 containers wide Stacking density of the yard is higher with RMG cranes and can exceed 1,000 TEU per hectare (stacking 4-high) Automated Guided Vehicles The horizontal transport of the containers will be performed with AGVs. (See Figure 1. 6). The handover positions for trucks are located at the top -end of the stacking blocks. The stacking of the containers is usually carried out by automated RMGs. The ShC is designed primarily to convey containers between the ships’s side and container stacks served by RMG cranes. As it is able to stack containers two high it will also be used for loading and unloading road trucks and rail cars. The shuttle carrier is an alternative aim at more efficiency to handle the container transport between the stacks and the quay cranes, and still maintain high density stacking by RTG or RMG yard cranes. Figure 1. 6 RMG cranes with AGVs System advantages very low labor costs because of automation high system availability very high productivity of horizontal transport The layout and choice of our equipment and their interface will depend on, amongst others, the number of containers to be handled, available area type of hinterland transport. The combination of our terminal equipment to be used will depend on if they are at the vessel, for transport tasks between quay and stacking yard ( or reverse) for container stacking, for transport fro m stacking yard to and from the landside operation area for landside operation itself Operational areas: 1. The area between quay wall and container yard 2. container yard 3. terminal area of landside operations example the gate, parking, office buildings, customs facilities etc The container yard will be an intermediate storage facility meaning the containers will remain from a couple of hours to some weeks. There are different possibilities for the layout of our intermediate storage area. We may have stacking area which is compact, low ground area consuming stack without spacing known as block stack (see Figure 2. 1). In cases like these, yard gantry cranes will be used for the stacking of containers being delivered by terminal equipment of horizontal transport. An alternative is the linear stack (see Figure 2. 2) where the containers are stacked by Straddle Carriers (SC). This type of stacking will have spacing between the container rows and relatively wide terminal roads. Export and import containers will be segregated within the yard area and piled up to 4 containers high and pre-sorted for the various hinterland transport modes. Figure 2. 1 block stacking Figure 2. 2 linear stacking Operational procedures applicable for the handling of containers and container vessels calling at the ARJ Container Terminal Section A General A-1 Abbreviations COD Change of Destination EDI Electronic Data Interchange EIR Equipment Interchange Report ETC Expected Time of Completion OOG Out of Gauge POD Port of Discharge SSDR Stevedore Ship Damage Report TOS Terminal Operating System A-2 Working Hrs The terminal operates round the clock on the following schedule: Terminal Operations 24 hrs except declared public holidays Office Administration 07:00 hrs to 15:30 hrs Monday to Friday except declared public holidays Gate Operations 08:00 hrs to 16:00 hrs Friday except declared public holidays Overtime rates as per Tariff will apply for all activities carried out on declared public holidays. Containers can be received at or released from the gate outside the working hrs shown above at no additional charge (except on public holidays), but prior notice should be given to the Port to ensure the Gate is staffed appropriately. A-3 Entry Passes Permanent entry passes are issued at the discretion of the Sr. Manager. Application forms are available at the main reception of the Container Terminal Administration Building. Permanent entry passes are valid for one year. Monthly Daily entry passes are issued subject to proof of legitimate business in the terminal. Vehicle entry permits are selectively issued on providing vehicle registration and registration papers. A-4 General Customs Formalities The shipping line bears full responsibility for all Customs clearance formalities concerning their cargo. Section B – Landside Operations B-1 Terminal Access ARJ Container Terminal controls access of truckers to the terminal. A trucker is only allowed on the terminal after full identification of the trucker and registration of the terminal visit. Containers are only allowed onto the terminal on instruction of the shipping line that has to provide an acceptance notification to ARJ Gate Department before the container arrives at the gate. Information required will be as follows: Container ID and Booking No. Equipment Size/Type Outbound Vessel / Voyage and POD IMO / Reefer / OOG When delivering the container the trucker has to provide Container No. nd Booking No. to gate staff. All full containers will be gated in subject to clearance of Customs formalities by the shipping line. B-2 Exit Validation ARJ performs exit validation. Containers are only allowed to leave the terminal upon release instructions received from the shipping line, provided the customs department does not restrict the container from leaving the terminal. The shipping line must provide ARJ Gate Department with a hard copy of the release instruction. Information required will be as follows: Container ID Receiving Party Identification or Reference Number Date Restrictions if any Full containers will be allowed to depart the terminal only subject to completion of all customs formalities by the shipping line and full payment of port charges. B-3 Checking Activity at Gate For any containers entering or leaving the gate, the Port will perform a visual check and any deviations from provided data or anomalies are documented and reported to the shipping line. The check includes the following: Container ID Equipment size/type Visual damage (external) Visual damage (internal empty containers only) Presence of Seal If any damage to a container is noticed at the gate, then a reference to this will be made on the gate ticket issued. Any further checking required e. g. Seal number, or further action like placing of seal or placard is chargeable as per Tariff. B-5 Customs Inspection In case ROP orders customs inspection of a container, shipping line should advise the port who will move the container to the customs inspection area and unstuff the cargo as per ROP requirement and subsequently restuff the cargo in the container, such operation to be charged as per Tariff. Section C – Vessel Operation Information on vessels calling ARJ to discharge or load containers is to be provided to ARJ planning department by the shipping line or its designated representatives. The Line shall nominate a focal point that can be reached 24 hrs a day by ARJ Planning and Operations Departments in case any issues concerning Vessel Planning / Operation need to be verified. C-1 Vessel Arrival Notice The owner, ship’s agents or the master of the ship shall send the arrival notice to the Harbour Master 48 hrs before arrival to the Port. He should also inform the Harbour Master with the details of the Ship, its cargo, any hazardous cargo, cases of illness and any defects which affects the vessel manoeuvrability. C-1. 1 Documents Required Insurance cover for third party liabilities, wreck removal and oil pollution Ship’s registration certificate Port clearance certificate from last port of call ISPS Certificate Class Certificate C-1. 2 Establishing Communication The master of the ship shall establish communication with The Port Authority and request permission to enter the port limits, at least four hrs prior to the estimated time of arrival. The Port Authority will arrange the services of Pilotage, Tugs and Mooring Gang(s), and coordinate with ARJ Terminal Operations to have the gantry cranes and labour gangs ready. Normally cargo operations start upon lowering of the gangway from the vessel. C-1. 3 Pilotage Pilotage services are available round the clock. Activation time for marine services is 30 minutes. C- 2 Berth and Labour Planning Pro-forma vessel schedules and move counts declared by the l shipping lines form the basis for berth and stevedore / labour planning in the Quay Wall Schedule. Daily berth planning will also include: Initial vessel call information Detailed vessel call information for initial and pro-forma calls Availability of quay-wall space Vessel connections Based on this information ARJ Planning Department will prepare the day plan C-2. 1 Pro-forma Vessel Schedules Vessel string pro-forma berth windows are negotiated between the shipping line and ARJ. Berth windows are related to an estimated number of container lifts and the required day and time of the week for the vessel operation. Unless otherwise agreed, vessels will be planned for arrival and departure at pro-forma berth window. Vessels arriving within pro-forma always have priority over vessels out of pro-forma or incidental vessel calls. If it concerns vessels of the same shipping line only, this shipping line may set its own priorities, provided that it does not impact the berth windows of other Shipping lines. C-2. 2 Advance Schedules The shipping line will provide to ARJ Planning Department future projected schedules every week, from current date to 30 days in advance. Information required will be as follows: Vessel Name Inbound / Outbound Voyage ETA / ETD Service C-2. 3 Initial Vessel Call Information The shipping line is responsible for providing initial vessel call information at least 7 work-days prior to the estimated vessel arrival date to ARJ Planning Department. Information required will be as follows: Vessel Name Call Sign Inbound / Outbound Voyage ETA / ETD LOA Previous Port of Call Next Port of Call Estimated Move Count Vessel Service Vessel Operator C-2. 4 Detailed Vessel Call Information Detailed information is to be provided to ARJ Planning Department for line haul vessels at least 48 hrs and for all other vessels at least 24 hrs prior arrival at the terminal. Information required will be as follows: Vessel Name ETA Required ETD Expected Move Count, split as: Total number of discharge / load moves OOG discharge / load moves Live reefer discharge / load moves Empty container discharge / load moves IMO class 1 7 discharge / load moves Detailed information of any Break Bulk Cargo Upon receipt of this information, ARJ will undertake the final berth and labour planning. In case of required changes in the requested ETA / ETD, ARG Planning Department will contact the shipping line to create the best workable solution. The Port has a minimum billing per vessel call for loading/discharging of containers as per Tariff. Vessels are expected to use the Ports shore gantry cranes. Any movement or use of the vessels gear while alongside is strictly subject to prior approval from the Port. C-2. 5 Communication on the ARJ Day Plan The Line will submit daily ETA update for their vessels latest at 10:00 hrs every day. ARJ will in turn revert with a Day Plan latest at 15:00 hrs. In order to provide flexibility to our customers, the Day Plan is always considered subject to change. Any agreements that are verbal in nature or those made after office hrs need to be confirmed in writing immediately on opening of the next working day. C-2. 7 Vessel Connections Connections other than those agreed to in the pro-forma schedule, have to form part of the Day Plan negotiations and these have to be announced to ARJ Planning Department preferably 48 hrs, but at least 24 hrs before ETA to ensure proper priority setting for the quay-wall. C-2. 8 Technical Information on the Vessel For vessels calling ARJ Container Terminal for the first time or in case of changes to the previously supplied vessel information the shipping line needs to supply ARJ Planning Department with technical information on the vessel at least 72 hrs before arrival. Technical information on the vessel consists of: Vessel Name Call Sign LOA Container Layout Lashing Plan Type of Twist Locks Type of Hatch Covers Mooring Restrictions (port / starboard side) Vessel Capacity in TEU Vessel Profile / NSD file (if available) Other peculiarities relevant to the Vessel Stowage Further details subject to planning or operational needs have to be provided upon request. C-2. 9 Notice of Readiness The Port Authority will issue the vessel with a Notice of Readiness at least 2 hrs prior to the estimated completion of cargo operations, and provided vessel confirms readiness to sail upon cargo completion The Port Authority will arrange to book Pilot, Tugs and unmooring gang(s). Section D – Load and Discharge Operation D-1 General D-1. 1 Gantry Crane Capacity Port provides shore-side gantry cranes with minimum capacity of 40 tons under the spreader and there are cranes with up to 65 tons capacity. D-1. 2 Lashing The Port Tariff for loading and discharging of containers includes the cost of lashing and unlashing of containers on board the vessel. Lashing equipment is to be provided by the shipping line. The Port will maintain safe housekeeping of lashing material at all times and handle all lashing gear in a controlled manner and in accordance with accepted safety standards. The Port will also handle discharging and loading of lashing material if required at no additional charge. D-1. 3 Hatch Cover Moves and Restows Hatch Cover moves and restows are chargeable as per tariff. D-1. 4 Use of Special Equipment Use of special equipment for loading/unloading eg slings, frames etc is chargeable as per tariff on per lift basis. D-1. 5 Bay Planning and Stability Calculations The Port will carry out Bay Planning and unloading / sequence of containers in accordance with the information provided by the shipping line as part of its normal service. Container stow plans prepared by the Port are subject to the final confirmation by the Master of the vessel. The Port is responsible for providing information to the shipping line required for stability and lashing calculations, but the Port is not responsible for making these calculations. D-1. 6 Definition of Loading/Discharging of Containers Loading / discharging of containers is the handling by the Port of the containers between the stowage position onboard the vessel and the position in the container yard of the Port. No additional shiftings made based on any change in the information or additional information provided by the shipping line are included, and such additional shiftings made are chargeable as per tariff. Import / export containers pay truck loading / unloading charge as per tariff. D-1. 7 Reporting The Port makes reports as per shipping lines required format and frequency to the operator of the vessel for all containers loaded/discharged and in case of vessels loading containers belonging to more than one shipping line, to each shipping line for their containers. D-1. 8 Storage Containers are stored in the Container Yard of the Port subject to the applicable Freetime and Container Storage rates as per Tariff. D-1. 9 Data Amendment Data Amendment charges as per Tariff apply in case the discharge and / or load lists are not provided in time to the Port, or in case there is any change to the information provided. Any Data Amendment that involves containers being shifted from one stack to another will incur shifting charges in addition as per Tariff. D-2 Discharge Operation D-2. 1 Vessel Profile Information The shipping line is responsible for communicating the discharge, re-stow and remain-on-board instructions at least 24 hrs prior to the arrival of the vessel to ARJ Planning Department. For vessels with less than 24 hrs steaming time from the previous port, these details are to be provided as soon as information becomes available. The Bay-plan of the arriving vessel is to be sent via EDI message. D-2. 2 Discharge List Information The discharge list is to be provided to ARG Planning Department 24 hrs prior arrival for mother vessels and 18 hrs prior arrival for feeder vessels. Exceptions will be made on a case to case basis for vessels with lesser time as compared to these deadlines in which case load instructions have to be made available as soon as possible. D-2. 3 Checking Activity During Discharge (Tally) During the discharge process, ARJ will perform a visual check and any deviations from provided data or anomalies are documented and reported to the Line. This check also covers any restows. The check includes the following: Container ID Equipment Size / Type Visual Damage Presence of seal (On request) Any further checking required eg Seal number, CSC plate validity etc or further action like placing of seal or placard is chargeable as per Tariff. D-2. 5 Short-landed Container When a container is reported short-landed, ARJ Planning Department will contact the Line. Information will be provided as follows: Container ID Vessel / Voyage Stowage position stated for the container Reasons for Short-Landing Container Terminal Operational Guidelines Issued 1 D-2. 6 Over-Landed Container When a container(s) is reported as over-landed, ARJ Planning Department will contact the vessel operator. Information will be provided as follows: Container ID Seal Number Status (full / empty) Equipment Type / Size Stowage Position the container was found in IMO / Reefer information as far as possible Reasons for Over-landing The shipping line will investigate ownership / operator of the container and decide whether the container must be re-stowed or remain discharged. The shipping line will supply full container details to ARJ Planning Department and advise further action before vessel departure. D-3. 3 Re-Nomination of Cargo In the event of rollover of cargo for whatever reason, the Line is expected, within 12 hrs of vessel departure, to communicate to ARJ Planning Department, the name of the new vessel which will load the cargo. Every such renomination incurs a charge as per Tariff. D-3. 4 Pro-Forma Cargo Deadline In principle, all containers must be in the yard upon arrival of the vessel in order to maintain vessel schedule integrity and ensure efficient stevedore operations. The following will be taken into account: Vessel schedule reliability / integrity should not be affected Berth / Crane productivity should not be unduly impacted Line, Port and Customs requirements The shipping line is responsible for ensuring that all cargo is available for loading prior vessel arrival. Same applies to cargo on hold or any other cargo released by the shipping line but not ready for loading due to any particular reason. D-3. 5 Checking Activity during Load (Tally) During the load process, ARJ will perform a visual check and any discrepancies or anomalies are documented and reported to the shipping line. This check includes restows. The check includes the following: Stowage Position Visual Damage Presence of Seal Any further checking required eg Seal number, CSC plate validity etc or further action like placing of seal or placard is chargeable as per Tariff. D-3. 6 Reporting ARJ Planning Department will update the shipping line with the ETC before and after start of vessel operation and advice the vessel and The Port Authority 2 hrs notice prior to vessel departure. Once vessel planning is completed ARJ will forward a BAPLIE to the vessel. An updated BAPLIE will be delivered minimum 1/2 hour before completion of cargo operations. ARJ is able to provide the shipping line with EDI Load Confirmation Messages (COARRI) at frequencies agreed to with the shipping line. In addition to the EDI information a recap of the final load and a confirmed load list (CLL) will be sent to the Shipping line via E-mail earliest after vessel departure. In case of EDI failure ARJ will provide the shipping line with a Bay Plan of the load condition upon request. Any urgent or critical matters relating to discrepancies in reporting are to be addressed with the ARJ Planning Department D-3. 7 Short-Shipped Container When a container is reported as short-shipped, ARJ Planning Department will contact the shipping line. Information will be provided as follows: Container ID Vessel / Voyage Port of Discharge Stowage position stated for the container Reasons for Short-Shipping D-3. 8 Over-Shipped Container When a container is reported as over-shipped, ARJ Planning Department will contact the shipping line. Information will be provided as follows: Container ID Vessel / Voyage Container Operator for the over-shipped container Status (full / empty) Category (export / transhipment) Stowage Position (if available) IMO Details Reefer Details Reasons for Over-Shipping D-4 Yard Inventory ARJ Planning Department will provide the shipping line with weekly Yard Inventory Reports for all laden and empty containers. In addition ARJ will also provide on a weekly basis a list of laden containers in the yard, which do not have a nominated on carrying vessel or POD. The shipping line will verify the missing details and revert with an update within 24 hrs of having received the input from ARJ. Any re-nomination or COD is chargeable as per Tariff. D-5 Vessel Bunkering, Repair, and Supply of Provision Vessel bunkering, repair and provisioning activities have to be communicated to ARJ Planning Department at least 48 hrs before arrival of the vessel. These activities are only allowed after approval of ARJ and are subject to safety and security procedures issued by the Port. These activities should not delay the vessel stevedoring operation and must be completed within the operational working time of the vessel unless otherwise agreed. Only in exceptional cases may the stevedoring operations be stopped or the vessel port time extended because of these activities. Section E – Break Bulk and Over Dimensional Cargo E-1 Requirements The Shipping line is expected to provide information at least 48 hrs in advance of the vessel arrival to the ARJ Planning and Operations Department on any break-bulk activity on vessels that is planned at ARJ The following Information has to be provided: Arrival / Ongoing transportation via water / via land Handling by Container Gantry Crane / External Crane Piece count Measurements Cargo Description Weight Position on Vessel Complete description including sketches, diagrams, photographs etc in jpeg / bmp format Customs Approval Confirmation For over dimensional unitised cargo, the shipping line is expected to provide a complete Out of Gauge manifest as part of the documentation submitted for a vessel call. Undeclared, wrongly declared, poorly stowed or incorrectly packaged break-bulk or over dimensional cargo is subject to a fine as per Tariff. Port has the option of measuring and/or weighing the cargo to check the measurements and/or weight. The Port will provide warehouse for storing this cargo if required at no additional charge subject to availability. Any other equipment required for yard handling will be chargeable as per Tariff. Loading or Discharging and Quay Handling will be charged as per the applicable charges of the Tariff. Free time will apply as per the tariff for over dimensional containers, and storage charges will apply as per the tariff for over dimensional containers based on the length. E-2 Restrictions Waterside handling restrictions are always subject to specific approval from ARG Planning and Operations Departments but approximately are as under: Dimensions Height Length Width Weight 10 m 18 m 6 m 65 MT Shipping lines are expected to taken to take approval from the terminal prior acceptance of bookings involving break-bulk and over dimensional cargoes. Section F – Direct Deliveries For exceptional cases there exists a possibility for accepting or delivering containers under the hook for direct loading / discharging. For safety reasons this activity will have to comply with ARJ Rules and Regulations. The Port should be advised at least 24 hrs before the arrival of the vessel at the Pilot Station of any planned direct delivery containers. The following information should be provided: Container ID Time of delivery Contents of the container Hazardous Details (IMO Class, UN No. and Manifests as required Port of Salalah will inform the Line about the expected time of loading or discharge of the container. The requested direct delivery has to be confirmed to ARJ three (3) hrs before arrival of the vessel. Section G – Dangerous Cargo The shipping line bears the full responsibility for compliance to all rules and regulations governing the handling and transportation of Dangerous Cargo. Packing, labeling, declaration, stowa ge and documentation have to comply with the IMDG Rules and Regulations for Sea Containers as well as local laws and any directions given by local and Port Authorities. The Dangerous Cargo Manifest has to be provided to ARJ Planning Department at least 24 hrs before vessel arrival. The Line is responsible for content and sufficiency of the manifest. ARG will stow dangerous cargo container on the vessel as per instructions from the Line. Dangerous cargo containers pay additional charges for loading and discharging as per Tariff. Handling dangerous goods containers belonging to IMO classes 1 and 7 require special attention and permissions from the terminal and other competent authorities. Dangerous cargoes requiring special handling will be entitled to reduced free-time as compared to normal containers and will be subject to separate storage rates as per Tariff. Section H – Leakage / Spillage of Cargo Leakage of cargo contents from a container can be reported either by the shipping line on receiving information from the vessel or by ARJ staff while they are handling it in the terminal. On being made aware of a leakage, the shipping line will immediately advise its nominated surveyor to carry out a survey of the leaking container in conjunction with ARJ Health, Safety, Security ; Environment Department. On receiving the surveyor’s report, the shipping line will be responsible for taking necessary steps to arrange for re-packing of cargo through third party contractors or alternatively for cross-stuffing of cargoes, as per the advice received from the surveyor. Onward movement of such cargo from ARJ will be strictly subject to clearance from ARJ, that the leakage has been stopped and container is cargo and sea worthy for onward transport. Spillage of cargo will be solely on account of the shipping line as will a penalty charge applied as per tariff till corrective action is taken to stop the leakage. Section I – Container Freight Station Activities ARJ has capabilities for container cargo rework, cross stuffing and CFS activities. Arrangements can be made via the CFS Co-ordinator. Section J – Weighbridge Port has a weighbridge and shipping line can issue instructions for any container to be weighed at charges as per tariff. Section K – Miscellaneous Services Port can offer various services such as sweeping containers, fitting or removing tarpaulins, knocking down ends of flatbeds, bundling flatbed containers, applying or removing placards, fixing seals etc, all of which are chargeable as per tariff. Section L – Damage and Claims The Damage ; Claims Section of ARJ is responsible for dealing with damages caused to the shipping line’s equipment, its vessels or to port facilities, equipment or its personnel. L-3 Damage Caused by Third Parties If damage is caused to containers or vessels by parties other than ARJ, then ARJ will undertake repairs only at the specific request of the shipping line at its risk and account. L-4 Damage to Port Facilities/Equipment/Personnel The shipping line will be fully responsible for all costs and consequence arising due to any damage caused by it, to port facilities, equipment or personnel. Section M – Longstanding Cargo Consignments remaining in the port in excess of the following periods will be subject to auction. Any cargo, for which the respective Port and Customs charges have not been paid will be considered frustrated and may be auctioned and sold by ARJ after the following time periods: One Month Refrigerated Containerized Cargo and other cargo considered perishable Three Months All other Containerized Cargo Section N – Reefer Containers Live reefers will be plugged and unplugged as a standard activity in the stevedoring operations subject to availability of connections, at the temperature setting advised by the Line. Reefer monitoring and maintenance is carried out by the Container Service section of the Maintenance Services Department, and is chargeable as per tariff (charge includes elec tric supply). Monitoring of reefer containers is carried out at least every 8 hrs and any faults will be immediately reported to the Line. Export reefers can be pre-cooled if required and electric supply/monitoring charges commence from the time of plug-in. The Port can arrange PTI (Pre-Trip Inspection) of reefer containers and also can retrieve temperature data from the reefer data logger, both activities chargeable as per Tariff. Section O – Port Safety and Security O-1 Rules ; Regulations ‘The Port of Salalah Rules ; Regulations’ is issued by the Port Authorities and applies to all users of the Port. The complete document is available on the Port of Salalah Website. Container Terminal Operational Guidelines Issued 1 st March 2007 30 O-2 International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) The Port of Salalah is certified as fully compliant with all requirements laid down under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS). All vessel operators are expected to fulfil requirements pertaining to their role as specified in the ISPS Code. O-2. 1 ISPS Measures by Port of Salalah Port of Salalah has designated a Port Facility Security Officer (PFSO) and a Deputy PFSO (DPFSO) as point of contact for all issues pertaining to ISPS rules and regulations for the Port of Salalah. O-2. 2 ISPS Requirements for the Line Shipping Agents must submit ISPS vessel certification, ETA of the vessel, Crew list, estimated port stay and last 10 ports of calls to the Port Control 48 hrs prior to vessel arrival. This information is to be sent to [emailprotected] com The Ships Security Officer must submit a completed Declaration of Security (DOS) of the vessel through the shipping agent to the Port Security Officer for endorsement upon berthing. Enquiries on the Port Security Level are to be directed to HSSE department. All users of port facilities must display facility passes at all times while at the facility. To apply for pass, please contact the HSSE department Port users must stop at all facility access control for Security check. Any violation will result in rejection of facility access For further information / clarification please feel free to contact the Port Facility Security Officer. Tel. 968 23219500 ext 466 / 409 / 406 O-3 X-Ray Inspection of Containers Port of Salalah has modern X-Ray screening facilities, and in case any container is required to be screened, the Line should advise the Port who will make the necessary arrangements, which is chargeable as per Tariff.