47-WCN-Feb09:Layout 1 21/2/09 10:05 Page 1
CONTAINER SECURITY
WorldCargo
news
Africa, Canada and Japan, have all sounded to over twice the outlay being made to- addition to either delaying or scrapping American Science and Engineering US$70M worth of equipment and back-
their reservations. day, with the final bill expected to ex- the legislation outright, including the ini- (AS&E) is typical in that it has just re- up servicing/support was supplied to the
ceed US$1B by 2012. By comparison, tial setting of a lower scan threshold to ceived another order, worth US$2M, for Middle East. The biggest customer was
Many challenges ports/Customs are spending around cover up to 30% of all US-bound con- a further two of its Z-Backscatter Vans the Abu Dhabi Customs Administration,
Indeed, even in the US, doubts are being US$400M per year on their current more tainers instead of 100%. (ZBVs) from a US government agency. which purchased OmniView, Z-Portal
raised about the practicality of 100% scan- selective screening of containers. The ZBVs are to be used to scan vehicles and ZBV hardware from AS&E at cost of
ning. The DHS itself appears to be hav- Following its completion in mid-2008, Lost momentum for explosives before entering a security US$55M. The OmniView Gantry is a
ing a rethink (see page 47), while the Gov- the WCO has since released the full re- Ironically, the introduction of scanning high-threat facility, and the order follows new product from AS&E, having been
ernment Accountability Office (GAO) port to Customs representatives, port op- technology at ports around the world has on from a far larger contract, worth successfully trialled in container termi-
has highlighted the many challenges that erators, manufacturers of scanning lost momentum in recent months. The US$67M, placed in January 2009 for the nals at Charleston during 2007.
implementation is likely to pose. technology and services providers in or- absence of any real consensus on HR1, company’s newly developed ZBV Trailer. Further ZBV orders (exceeding
These, according to the GAO, will en- der to generate comment and feedback. combined with the economic crisis and AS&E has long been producing its US$5M) were placed by other Middle
compass the need for a proper workforce This is enabling WCO members, together consequent downturn in world trade, has own brand of non-intrusive surveillance East government agencies in 2008, plus
planning procedure, understanding of host with other Customs’ and trade stake-hold- had an inevitable impact on the uptake technology, based largely on the use of follow-up contracts covering servicing,
government cargo examination techniques, ers/participants, to explore alternative of scanning equipment in ports and re- an X-ray source rated to 0.45MeV, which training and spares part provision valued
determination of the logistical feasibility options and so offer the new US admin- sulted in some fall in sales. This has left generates a unique “Z-Back-scatter” im- at US$12.5M. More than 20 ZBVs were
of using scanning equipment on a large istration positive counter-proposals to sat- some major suppliers more dependent on age and is particularly suited to mobile supplied to Customs authorities in South
scale and measurement of its performance/ isfy its needs, but, at the same time, prompt core customer business, which in the US applications. America throughout 2008, while an or-
effectiveness. The issues surrounding re- a change of the existing law. invariably involves government or mili- The company concluded substantial der, worth US$6.2M was also placed by
sponsibility for technology/infrastructure Various ideas have been postulated, in tary contracts. overseas business in 2008, when a record the NATO C3 Agency for Z-Portal
investment and its associated running cost,
and ownership of scanned data, will also
have to be addressed.
In consequence, the GAO considers
the current HR1 legislation to be
“flawed” as it has the potential to increase
port charges, as well as disrupt traffic flows,
but can still never guarantee 100% secu-
rity for US import cargoes.
Moreover, in addition to citing the
technical and operational challenges fac-
ing overseas ports and US-CBP’s own
ability to handle huge volumes of trans-
mitted imaged data, the GAO is another
to view “reciprocity” from foreign gov-
ernments as a real possibility. It is aware
that some countries are keen to see US
ports adopt a 100% scanning programme
for containers destined for their ports.
However, the GAO has conceded that
the DHS-based Secure Freight Initiative
(SFI) has been one positive outcome of
HR1. This was launched in late 2007 as a
pilot scheme involving seven foreign ports
and involves testing the feasibility of
round-the-clock inspection.
Three of the ports involved, Port Qasim
in Pakistan, Puerto Cortez in Honduras and
Southampton in the UK have utilised trial
equipment to scan every US-bound con-
tainer passing through their gates. A fur-
ther four, comprising Busan (South Ko-
rea), Salalah (Oman), Singapore and Hong
Kong, have been operating scanners in a
more limited capacity, The overall aim of
the project is to gain some insight into the
practical problems faced by foreign ports
once the HR1 legislation takes effect. In-
deed, the GAO’s recent evaluation of the
challenges confronting the world’s port in-
dustry largely stemmed from the findings
of this ongoing SFI programme and its
progress to date.
Pivotal changes
Meanwhile, the WCO has carried out its
own study in conjunction with the Uni-
versity of Le Havre, which again indicates
that global trading/shipping and port/cus-
toms administrations would have to un-
dergo “pivotal and costly changes” in or-
der to accommodate the new US law.
The WCO study focused on two
main areas: The technical and organisa-
tional problems associated with bring-
ing a 100% scanning programme for US- Securing commerce. Without slowing it down.
bound traffic into operation by 2012; and
how containerised traffic leaving the US
would be similarly processed in the event
of reciprocal action by US trading part-
The compact VACIS® IP6500 system integrates high-volume
ner nations.
X-ray imaging with advanced radiation monitoring
While conceding that scanning tech-
nology will be up to the challenge by
the year 2012, the WCO study suggests
that the legislation could still be hindered
Inspecting every cargo container without slowing the flow of commerce is a challenge facing
by other more complex factors. These
ports and terminals around the globe. Our VACIS IP6500 integrated imaging system scans high
centre on uncertainties over equipment/
infrastructure costs and suitable budget-
volumes of containers, providing detailed images of container contents with simultaneous
ing and the approach taken by different
radiation detection and nuclide identification. The system helps intercept weapons, special
ports to managing risk. The hiring/train-
ing of technicians is another crucial ele-
nuclear material, and other contraband with minimal impact on traffic flow. The VACIS IP6500
ment, as is their collective ability to
system — a smart solution to the challenge of securing commerce.
monitor, interpret and assess each of the
many images in a timely manner.
For detailed information, visit us at www.saic.com/products/security
The report concludes that although
some newer, larger ports, such as those
For career opportunities at SAIC, visit www.saic.com/career
located in China and the Middle East,
would probably be able to install and op-
erate sufficient scanning capability and
employ the necessary staff to meet HR1
requirements, smaller/older terminals
Energy | Environment | National Security | Health | Critical Infrastructure
A
would be penalised. Moreover, the total
cost of a 100% screening programme is
© 2008 Science Applications International Corp. All rights reserved. VACIS, SAIC, the SAIC Logo and “From Science to Solutions” are
calculated at US$100 per container, to
registered trademarks and/or trademarks of Science Applications International Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
cover all the extra handling etc, which
would ultimately have to be paid for by
consumers. It would, moreover, amount
February 2009 47
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52