|
The government and maritime
industry seek a way to pay for mandates enacted two years ago.
NORFOLK -- Not
long after terrorists hijacked jetliners and killed thousands of people in
the terror attacks of 2001, the United States was hit with a sobering realization
- that an even worse cataclysm might yet come.
Take, for instance, a "dirty" nuclear bomb: Such a crude device
could be made with radioactive material and traditional explosives, and it
could enter the country via a truck-sized container on a merchant ship. It
could detonate in a big city and kill tens of thousands, far more than the
number of dead that September morning three years ago.
Nevertheless, an important element in preventing such a scenario - shoring
up security at public and private terminals nationwide - has a long way to
go. The Maritime Transportation Security Act - passed by Congress in 2002
to make terminal sites more secure - suffers from a fundamental flaw: It has
no financing mechanism, and nobody wants to pick up the tab for improvements
the act requires.
The Coast Guard has estimated that upgrading the nation's maritime sites and
vessels to meet the law will cost about $7.3 billion between 2003 and 2012.
But the $491 million in grants Congress has issued to ports and vessels to
improve security in the past three years - about $163 million a year on average
- won't come close to meeting the 10-year cost estimates if the spending patterns
continue. For many sites, the new costs include adding security personnel,
new access-control methods, fencing and high-tech surveillance systems, and
periodic reviews.
The port industry - the terminals, vessels and factories that ship goods out
of the ports - contend it's the federal government's responsibility to make
up the difference. But the Bush administration says the industry should foot
most of the bill. Congress has yet to find a way to pay for the requirements
that it put in place two years ago.
The result: Three years after Sept. 11, 2001, there's still no telling when
the anti-terrorism initiatives to shore up security at ports will be paid
for. At the current spending levels, it would take 44 more years to meet what
the act requires by 2012. "In other words, at this rate, the United States
will put a man on Mars before it achieves effective port security," Joseph
F. Bouchard said. He's the retired commander of Norfolk Naval Station and
now works for ZelTech, a Hampton company helping to integrate the Virginia
Port Authority's security program.
Other possible scenarios of terrorist attacks include taking control of a
large ship and crashing it into a bridge; sneaking into the country by merchant
ship; blowing up a vessel carrying volatile fuel vapors to cause environmental
disaster; seizing control of a passenger ferry; and crashing into a Navy vessel.
To resist such events, the country has sought a three-pronged approach in
the past few years: More patrols of harbors and vessels by the Coast Guard;
better cargo inspecting and monitoring of incoming crews by customs and immigration
officials; and better security at the terminals, factories and vessels themselves.
The Coast Guard - the lead agency in port security and now part of the Department
of Homeland Security - has received billions more from the federal government
since Sept. 11, 2001, and is spending thousands more hours a year on the security.
It's increased security patrols in harbors and has been boarding high-risk
vessels to check for security before they enter ports. Every ship approaching
the coast, such as the 200 that come into Hampton Roads every month, has to
submit a notice of arrival - complete with cargo and crew information - 96
hours before arrival. That allows the Coast Guard time to decide whether it
needs to board the ship to inspect it or even ride along with it into the
harbor.
The Customs Service - now incorporated into Homeland Security in the Customs
and Border Protection division - also has been revamped substantially. A computer
program once used mostly to track containers carrying narcotics has been altered
to fight terrorism. The system comes up with risk factors for each container
- based on things like country of origin, exporter and carrier - and helps
decide which container to inspect.
Terminal and vessel security, the third leg of the three-legged stool, is
a tall order. By their nature, port sites offer easy access from the water.
They're typically near large population centers. And thousands of people from
all walks of life work there. Congress wants to make sure the sites and vessels
have enough security personnel, gates, fencing, lighting, surveillance and
video systems for security. And they also need to upgrade in the next few
years to accommodate new transportation worker cards that use fingerprinting
or other biometrics.
Each was to submit a security plan to the Coast Guard by last Dec. 31 and,
after Coast Guard approval, began abiding by the plan, starting July 1. About
3,147 sites nationwide - including about 70 in Hampton Roads - have to abide
by the new rules, as do about 9,000 ships and vessels.
Some federal money has come. Since 2002, Congress has given out about $491
million in grants. The Virginia Port Authority oversees Norfolk International
Terminals, Portsmouth Marine Terminal and Newport News Marine Terminal. It's
received about $9 million in three grants, covering part of the more than
$25 million it says it needs for security in the next few years. The VPA has
used the money for, among other things, radiation portals, surveillance cameras,
an access-control system and a new command and control center. But more demand
for grants is on the way - and soon. Many small port sites didn't even realized
until late last year that they had to abide by the security regulations. They're
just now applying for grants. The Coast Guard can issue fines of up to $25,000
for sites that aren't following their plans, and initial compliance inspections
are under way now. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has argued that the
maritime industry needs to pay for making its sites more secure. The president's
budget proposal submitted to Congress earlier this year gave another indication
of where the administration stands: The proposal, for fiscal 2005 that begins
in October, contained $46 million for the port-security grant program - only
about 12 percent of what the industry says it needs each year to pay the costs
- and didn't offer any other financing. The Senate has since upped that to
$150 million and the House to $125 million, with the difference between the
chambers to be ironed out in conference committee. Those who say the industry
needs to step up to pay the security costs say the new measures can be good
for traditional business reasons, like preventing theft and tracking products.
And with the federal budget deficit growing, they say, the government can
pay only so much."It would be nice to think the federal government would
pick up the entire tab, but realism has to kick in," said Coast Guard
Rear Adm. Sally Brice-O'Hara, commander of District 5, which includes Hampton
Roads."It has to be a shared solution."But the American Association
of Port Authorities - an industry lobbying group - argues that because fighting
terrorism is a national effort, the whole country should chip in, providing
grants out of federal coffers."If you look at the finances at most of
states with ports - like Virginia, California and New York - none of these
states can afford this unfunded mandate," said Bouchard of ZelTech."This
is saying, 'You, citizens of Virginia, will pay for the security of the citizens
of the Midwest.'"And we have a fundamental complaint about that."Some
port sites and carriers have decided to go it alone, unilaterally collecting
a security fee to begin paying for port security and meet the federal requirements.
Maersk Sealand - the world's largest container carrier that does strong business
at Portsmouth - said that beginning Oct. 2, it would charge shippers a $6-a-container
security fee. But many ports say they won't add such a fee on their own. If
Hampton Roads sites institute such a fee without a national rate, the theory
goes, the local port could lose cargo shipments to Savannah, Ga.; New York-New
Jersey; Baltimore; or other East Coast ports that still don't have such fees.
Peter Dujardin can be reached at 247-4749 or by e-mail at pdujardin@dailypress.com
Copyright (c) 2004, Daily Press
For more information about Zel Technologies,
please contact us as follows:
Zel Technologies LLC (ZelTech)
Attention: Corporate Affairs
54 Old Hampton Lane
Hampton, VA 23669
Telephone: (757) 722-5565
Fax: (757) 722-8516
Return to Top
News Archives:
|
