WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department's next generation of radiation detectors for U.S. ports this week faced a battery of harsh criticism from government auditors and lawmakers (see GSN, June 22).
(Jun. 26) -
A truck passes through a next-generation radiation detector in a demonstration photo. Two congressional reports issued this week question the effectiveness of the sensors (Raytheon Corp. photo).
Specifically, two congressionally mandated studies of the machines found the new models offer only a marginal improvement in their ability to detect radioactive materials at the nation's ports and border crossings.
The new detectors, called Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors, are designed not only to detect radiation but to identify the nature of its source.
According to its advocates, the new technology could eliminate the need for time-consuming secondary inspections to determine whether a material is innocuous or dangerous. A number of mundane items shipped into the United States, including bananas, contain radioactive isotopes that can set off the radiation detectors.
Homeland Security officials in July 2006 said they hoped to deploy 1,400 of the new machines at a cost of roughly $1.2 billion. The department has already spent some $230 million on the effort.
The new sensors are expected to cost approximately $822,000 apiece. By contrast, the government paid $308,000 for each of the older models.
Congress raised the bar for the program in the fiscal 2008 omnibus spending bill, requiring the homeland security secretary to guarantee that the machines represent a "significant increase" in effectiveness. Lawmakers sought two "separate and distinct" DHS certifications: one showing that the technology improves performance in a first line of detection, and a second describing its benefits as a backup to current sensors.
The bill mandated that the Homeland Security Department consult with the National Academy of Sciences before making any certification (see GSN, Jan. 9, 2008). The National Academies often provide independent assessments for the U.S. government on a variety of scientific issues.
The new requirements came after a raucous year in which both government auditors and members of Congress tore into the department's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for what they said were questionable testing techniques used to vet the new detectors (see GSN, Sept. 19, 2007).
Earlier this month, Chuck Gallaway, acting director of the detection office, told a House panel that Homeland Security will make a decision on both types of certification this fall.
"October is kind of our notional date right now," he said June 9 at the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology.
House appropriators last week approved most of the Obama administration's fiscal 2010 Homeland Security spending bill of $42.6 billion, CongressDaily reported. However, the House panel agreed with a White House decision to not provide new funding for the development of Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors (see GSN, May 8).
"The committee continues bill language prohibiting full-scale procurement of ASP systems until the [department] has certified and reported [to] the committee that a significant increase in operational effectiveness merits such a decision," the appropriators said in their report. The full House passed the funding bill on Wednesday.
The Government Accountability Office on Monday released a report questioning the value of the next-generation sensors. The study -- the agency's sixth assessment of the effort -- centered on a fresh round of tests conducted by the detection office.
The tests showed the new devices perform better than existing equipment only when the radioactive material is lightly shielded. That advantage decreased when a heavier, more substantial buffer, such as lead, was used, the report said.
Government auditors also found that federal officials experienced difficulties in integrating the equipment at the nation's border crossings. In one instance, officials at U.S. Customs and Border Protection suspended field validation of the new models because it was generating more false alarms, or "false positives," than the older equipment.
Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday published an interim report. In the document, the academy's National Research Council echoed the GAO findings, saying the government should not buy any more of the advanced monitors because they offer only a marginal improvement in detecting hidden nuclear material.
The report warned that a thorough cost-benefit analysis, including and assessment of alternatives, should be performed before more of the new monitors are purchased. That study also should include a clear statement of objectives for the program, according to the research council.
A committee of industry experts, scholars and academy members contributing to the report recommended an iterative testing approach, using computer models to simulate performance of the detector systems and physical experiments to test the models, according to an academy release. That approach would show the department what modifications are needed and help it gain a better understanding of the monitor's performance.
Some of the harshest criticism of the next-generation detectors came yesterday, when the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a hearing on the two reports and questioned whether the multi-billion dollar investment required to fully fund and deploy the next-generation system could be better spent elsewhere.
"Unfortunately, despite recent progress, the [Advanced Spectroscopic Portal] program has suffered because it lacked all the preparatory steps of a well-managed program," Representative Brad Miller (D-N.C.), the subcommittee chairman, said in an opening statement. Those steps include well prepared program requirements, demanding test protocols and an independent and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, he said.
"This program is far from out of the woods," Representative Paul Broun (R-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said.
Gene Aloise, who directs the Government Accountability Office natural resources and environment team, told lawmakers the Homeland Security Department's present deployment plan for the new system would cost around $2 billion, $800 million more than the 2006 DHS estimate.
"We're spending a lot of money upgrading the locks on the front door, but the windows and the back door are wide open," Aloise told the committee yesterday, adding "the border crossing, really, is not the greatest threat."
If a terrorist acquired radioactive material, "it's unlikely they're going to stick it in a cargo container and drive it across through a portal monitor," he said. Aloise did not detail what he believes to be more likely threats.
Aloise voiced doubt that the Homeland Security Department would successfully complete the required analysis in time to make a decision on certification this fall.
"At this point it does not look that way," he said. Until those steps are concluded, "it's our belief we shouldn't spend money on this program or go forward with it," Aloise said.
Both Aloise and Micah Lowenthal, who served as study director for the National Research Council's interim report, said that there are many vulnerabilities within the "global nuclear detection architecture" that could be addressed with the money being spent on the new sensors. However, both declined lawmaker requests to name specific programs that could benefit from an infusion of dollars.
There is no rush to deploy the next-generation monitor system; however there is "urgency" within the department to reach a "decision point" on deployment, William Hagan, the DHS detection office's acting deputy director, told the House panel yesterday.
Hagan said that while the results of the latest tests were classified, in February field validation tests the new models prompted more secondary inspections. He did not comment on whether that was a positive development.
The sensors force would-be attackers to heavily shield their radioactive material, calling attention to an object and therefore making it "an easy target," according to Hagan.
For all the talk of initial acquisition and deployment costs, it is important to factor in the price of operation and maintenance, Todd Owen, acting deputy assistant commissioner of the field operations office at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told the committee.
Representative Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.) noted operation and maintenance costs for the new detectors are estimated to be five to 12 times more than those of the older models.
Owen said customs officials are concerned their department is not budgeted to run the new machines. He said the department "still needs to measure" if the new sensors would allow it to save money by cutting personnel, but he predicted "there will be savings from that."
Owen urged the detection office to include manpower savings offset by the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitors in any cost-benefit analysis.