Agreeing to Disagree
Vol. XII, Art. 38

From The Washington Post (Sept. 19, 2007) ...“Experts say U.S. nuke scan rules ‘unworkable’”.

“LONDON (Reuters) – New rules that will require the scanning of all cargo containers imported to the United States, a move to stop nuclear weapons being shipped in, are expensive, unnecessary and misguided, industry and security experts said.

“The law. approved by U.S. President George W. Bush last month, requires that by 2012, all seaborne containers must be screened for radiation before they leave port for the United States to check they do not contain weapons.

“Congress backed the bill, which implements recommendations following the September 11, 2001 attacks, despite objections from the Department of Homeland Security, the European Commission, shipping organizations and many U.S. trading partners.

“‘We know that Al Qaeda’s aim is to obtain a nuclear weapon and detonate it in our country,’ U.S. Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, a leading advocate of the law, said on his Web site.

“‘Failing to screen and seal all cargo overseas doesn’t just miss the boat — it could also miss the bomb, with devastating consequences for our country.’

“While the White House has doubts over the law’s feasibility, such that the Homeland Security secretary can extend the 2012 deadline every two years if necessary, it shares the same fears.

“‘Our greatest concern with respect to a cargo-borne threat is a terrorist attempting to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into our country,’ U.S. Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate Committee last week.

“Whilst happy to improve cargo security, the industry is bitterly opposed to the plans. The U.S.-based World Shipping Council (WSC) said about $ 500 billion of annual U.S. commerce would be affected.

“It said global trade bodies objected ‘because the legislation is not only unworkable but that the Congress failed to even try to address fundamentally critical questions about how such a system would actually operate.’

“Unanswered questions range from who would pay for and maintain the necessary equipment at more than 600 ports worldwide, to who would actually carry out the scanning. Markey has said he opposed allowing shippers do the screening.

“Adhering to the measure would cost ‘billions and billions,’ necessitating massively expanded port capacity, said Simon Bennett of the International Chamber of Shipping.

“‘It’s not possible to do 100 percent scanning in the way they suggest,’ he told Reuters. ‘At least, not possible to do it without disrupting world trade as we know it.’

“In the meantime, shipping groups hoped other governments would put pressure on the United States. The European Union has already voiced its opposition, saying experts saw little security whilst legitimate EU and U.S. businesses would suffer.

“Analysts also argue the nuclear threat is unrealistic and say the risk of maritime terrorism has been overstated.

“‘A big bang, a nuclear weapon sailing into a harbor and being detonated there — that is highly unlikely, that’s very improbable,’ said Dr. Peter Lehr, an expert in maritime terrorism at Scotland’s St. Andrews University.

“Trying to detect a nuclear warhead amongst the thousands of containers being shipped to the United States everyday would be like ‘looking for a needle in a haystack,’ he told Reuters.

“On the other hand, there would be false alarms as products ranging from ceramic tiles to cat litter give off radiation.

“‘This is ridiculous. The chances of Al Qaeda getting their hands on a nuclear weapon are nil,’ another senior maritime terrorism expert, who wished to remain anonymous, told Reuters.”

[Now that you’ve digested this Reuter’s article, read what the U.S. Government Accountability Office revealed last week ...]

“GAO: DHS cooks performance results for new radiation detectors” is how the story begins.

“Congressional auditors reiterated Tuesday that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should postpone a decision on full-scale procurement of advanced radiation detection machines until further testing can determine whether the next-generation technology can be relied upon to prevent cross-border transit of nuclear weapons and materials.

“The Government Accountability Office has charged DHS with using biased test results to promote the capability of Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) monitors that can distinguish between dangerous and normal sources of radiation in ocean containers and large trucks at ports of entry.

“The Domestic Nuclear Detection office ‘conducted numerous preliminary runs of almost all of the materials, that were used in the formal tests and then allowed ASP contractors to collect test data and adjust their systems to identify these materials. It is highly unlikely that such favorable circumstances would present themselves under real world conditions,’ the GAO said in prepared testimony for the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

“DNDO has ASP development and procurement contracts for 1,200 detection machines with Raytheon Co.-Integrated Defense Systems, Thermo Electron Corp., and Canberra Industries.


“The GAO also charged that tests were too easy because DNDO did not use lead or other materials that terrorists would likely use to shield any radioactive material hidden in a conveyance. DNDO rejected recommendations from the Department of Energy and national laboratories to conduct more rigorous testing with masking agents because of concerns about meeting the original deadline for DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to certify the machines by June 26.

“In August, the chairmen of the Senate and House Homeland Security committees called on DHS to postpone the $ 1.2 billion acquisition of large-scale nuclear radiation monitors for ports and other facilities until questions about their reliability, performance and effectiveness have been resolved. They asked DHS to involve the GAO in evaluating the program. But DNDO Director Vayl Oxford stood by the organization’s ‘very rigorous test campaign’ at the hearing and it will work to better explain the test approach and results.

“The GAO has criticized DHS in the past year for moving ahead with the acquisition even though testing has shown that the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals frequently fail to identify the type of radioactive isotopes detected, making them no better than current technology at sorting containers with products emitting natural radiation and those that might contain a radioactive weapon or fissile material. The watchdog agency also has criticized DNDO’s cost-benefit analysis for relying on assumptions about performance levels rather than actual tests.

“Earlier this year, Congress requested the GAO audit the reliability of the radiation portal monitors in operational settings. DHS is conducting field tests with the next-generation machines at the New York Container Terminal; Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach; Laredo, Texas; and Detroit. The goal is to reduce the number of nuisance alarms and trucks that have to undergo secondary inspections.

“Oxford said he anticipates nuisance radiation alarms to drop from about 500 at the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach to roughly 25 per day that inspectors would have to double-check with the new devices.

“Chertoff has said he will consult independent technical experts about the ASP test results before moving ahead with certifying that the systems are superior and worth procuring.

“Paul Schneider, undersecretary for management at DHS, told the subcommittee that field validations have been extended two months to obtain more data and that certification will not take place until the end of October.

“The GAO threw water on DHS’s plan to engage outside scientists. ‘Because of concerns raised that DNDO did not sufficiently test the limitations of ASPs, DNDO is attempting to compensate for weakness in the original test plan by conducting additional studies — essentially computer simulations. While DNDO, Customs and Border Protection and DOE have now reached an agreement to wait and see whether the results of these studies will provide useful data regarding the ASPs’ capabilities, in our view and those of other experts, computer simulations are not as good as actual testing with nuclear masking agents,’ the watchdog agency said.


“‘We believe that DNDO’s test methods – specifically, conducting dry runs and dress rehearsals with contractors prior to formal testing – enhanced the performance of the ASPs beyond what they are likely to achieve in actual use. Furthermore, the tests were not a rigorous evaluation of the ASP’s capabilities, but rather a developmental demonstration of ASP performance under controlled conditions which did not test the limitations of the ASP systems,’ the report said ...”

“Meanwhile, another group of federal investigators reported that cost overruns and mismanagement by the DOE have delayed completion of a facility sought by DHS to test sensors for detecting radiation at the nation’s ports of entry.

“ASPs that can detect and differentiate radiation in large shipping containers and trucks are among the types of technology that DHS planned to evaluate and train personnel at the facility ... but the project was halted two-thirds of the way through in August 2006 because contractor Bechtel had burned through $ 30 million of the $ 33 million available funds ... Auditors also faulted the agency for unquestioningly accepting Bechtel’ assurances that the project was on schedule and within budget ... DHS is now considering contracting the remaining work to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...”

“‘Even if an effective fix is implemented, completion of the project will have been significantly delayed and the cost will have substantially exceeded original estimates. More importantly, the delay may impact the nation’s testing capability to detect nuclear and radioactive materials in a variety of circumstances,’ the inspector general said.”

[Remember what George Mascolo wrote in DER SPIEGEL last year? It’s worth repeating:

• “The business of fear in the United States of America has been booming ever since September 11, 2001, and the price tag for the protective cordon of high-tech gadgetry intended to keep the U.S. safe from more terrorist attacks is enormous ... The total 2005 Homeland Security budget weighs in at a whopping $ 50 billion — roughly equivalent to the gross national product of New Zealand ...
• “‘The market is growing at an incredible rate,’ gushes the Security Industry Association at its ‘networking lunch’ with members of Congress and administration officials ...
• “The American news magazine US News & World Report calls the booming business ‘Washington’s version of a Turkish Bazaar’ ...
• “To this day, the harbor nuclear detectors are incapable of distinguishing between bombs and kitty litter or bananas, leading frustrated customs officials to simply shut them down. The new $ 1.2 billion explosives detectors for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a part of Homeland Security, are equally unreliable ...

“According to a government study, thus far only four of the Department of Homeland Security’s 33 homeland protection systems are considered effective, leading the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, to promise Congress that he’ll be taking a closer look at how the department spends its million. But despite Chertoff;’s promises, the booming industry’s prospects remain as rosy as ever. Indeed, the Secretary recently told a gathering of 400 industry executives that the government still depends on their help. ‘We need to make America a safer place,’ he said — to roaring applause.” [In the Congressional Record, remember, Senator Byrd called this a “hoax”.]