One word makes all the difference

RECENT moves in the US to postpone the controversial requirement for 100% scanning of inbound boxes by as much as three years have – not surprisingly – been making the headlines.
First, Washington announced a two-year extension of the 2012 deadline because of technical problems and funding issues. Then, in July, a bipartisan Port Security Bill submitted by Democrat senator John Rockefeller and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison set out a series of proposals which include a delay to 2015.

The Bill proposes increasing small vessel security, a renewed focus on hazardous cargoes, and the development of a sustainable, risk-based effort to protect port infrastructure from terrorism.

However, according to Joe Alioto, vice president sales at VeriTainer, it might be easy to miss what he believes is the most important point in the Bill. It’s the change in wording from “and” to “or” which effectively decouples imaging and scanning. The proposal is for “extending the requirement that 100% of US-bound cargo containers be scanned using either nonintrusive imaging or radiation detection equipment to 2015” [our italics].

In the original requirements set out with the 2012 deadline, country-of-origin scanning was defined as scanning and imaging.

“But it has been realised that the technology doesn’t exist for high-throughput imaging,” says Mr Alioto. “The Rockefeller approach is an eminently reasonable one that will result in significantly improved security. And when high-throughput imaging does become a reality, this could then be implemented.”

If the Bill is passed, this would put passive scanning companies “in a good place”, he says. VeriTainer would expect to be fully subscribed on its current Crane Mounted Solution (CMS) scanning system.

The VeriSpreader uses sensors embedded in the spreader bar to scan the container during every lift – giving a 26 to 120-second exposure. “CMS is built seamlessly into the existing port infrastructure; land-based portals create a choke point,” says Mr Alioto.

While the debate continues over scanning requirements, he re-emphasises a shocking truth; 95% of the containers presently arriving on the shores of the US are not scanned in any way until they actually leave the port. The threat is obvious; many ports are surrounded by heavily populated areas, and detonating a nuclear or dirty bomb at the container terminal would be devastating.
“Scanning containers as they leave the terminal, after they’ve arrived, is simply too late,” says Mr Alioto. “And the US is not alone. Every port in the world that handles inbound containers is subject to the same terrible threat. The US lawmakers have led the way on this because, in addition to the horrifying potential human cost, they understand that without a scanning infrastructure in place the global maritime supply chain is an isolated event away from a complete and open-ended shutdown.”

In another recent twist, the US Commercial Operations Advisory Committee recommended a repeal of the demand for 100% scanning, and called for this to be replaced by risk-based assessment.

However, Mr Alioto says: “Some think scanning gives a false sense of security, but still, don’t you want a layer of hardware? How resilient is profiling? If the whole thing is based on data you collect, someone sooner or later will defeat that. We know scanners at airports aren’t perfect, but we would rather they were there.”

The US government has recently issued RFI (Request for Information) and RFP (Request for Proposal) requests for the provision of radiation scanning from traditional port container handling equipment. “This is the strongest indication yet that the US authorities are giving serious consideration to moving from a reliance on portal scanning solutions located at container terminal gates to a solution that would scan containers from traditional port handling equipment during the normal course of port operations,” says Troy Thompson, president of Cargotec Port Security.

CPS’s SafePort solutions use traditional container handling kit to analyse containers for radiation and “fill the security gaps” which would exist were ports to rely solely on perimeter-based portal monitor scanning, he says. This includes transhipment containers which would not go through a portal monitor.

Mr Thompson calls for a “layered system” for security scanning, and one that must be part of day-to-day handling: “We can’t slow down commerce, it has to keep moving. If something is going to create another queue or keep a box stuck in port for another three days, then of course there is concern for the shipper.”

He says the two-year delay to 2014 will give the US government more time to determine what equipment will be used and how scanning technology will actually be funded.
The delay should be helpful for the industry, too, he says: “Industry has the opportunity collectively to find its voice, to make sure that the scanning strategy is least disruptive to port operations.”

He adds: “If the industry doesn’t work together and voice its preferences, ports may end up with a scanning solution they don’t like – one that takes up too much space, involves too much manpower, or slows down the cargo flow. We expect 2011/12 to be key decision years for the government. Our port community should and can influence those decisions.”

In reference to the delay to 2014, Andrew Goldsmith, vice president of marketing at Rapiscan, says: “The most important thing is that we have an effective policy. If the modification means more effective long-run implementation, then we are all for it.”

He says Rapiscan has the broadest line of cargo screening systems available today, ranging from a 6 MeV energy level, where very high levels of container penetration are required, to 1MeV systems for applications demanding a smaller operational footprint. Rapiscan’s range also includes mobiles, portals, rail-mounted and trailer-mounted.

“We are advising our customers to spend a lot of time upfront thinking about their operational and process requirements and how these may change over the next five to 10 years, so they can select the technology that will best meet their requirements.”

Ports all care about cost, throughput, detection, reliability, footprint, etc., but the importance each port attaches to each requirement will vary depending on their circumstances, says Mr Goldsmith.

Rapiscan has introduced several new products in the past year, including its Eagle M10 and T10 products which incorporate a 1 MeV X-ray imaging system in mobile and trailer-mounted configurations. The company also offers radiation detection technology for checking containers and vehicles, including units that can be mounted on container handling equipment.

L-3 Security and Detection Systems is involved in two US government-sponsored programmes – the Cargo Advanced Radiography System and the Shielded Nuclear Alarm Resolution – both aimed at addressing potential threats from nuclear materials that could be hidden in trucks and containers. The company is working with regulators to support progress towards 100% scanning, says senior vice president Bill Frain.

“The implementation and deployment of cargo screening systems is sufficiently complex that customers need to proactively look into solutions well in advance of any deadline,” he says.
Maintaining high throughput is a key concern for ports, and L-3’s CX-Portal drive-through inspection systems helps in this, due to the driver being able safely to remain in the vehicle, while automated operation minimises costs and enables more efficient use of staff, he says. “The CX-Portal integrates into current operations with minimal impact and is an efficient solution for eliminating bottlenecks at ports, airports and other high-volume cargo inspection locations.”

Mr Frain says L-3’s dual energy material discrimination capability gives operators the ability quickly to distinguish among different types of materials – organic, inorganic and metal. This can streamline identification of suspicious materials by providing visual information to help operators spot materials that don’t belong.