Report says US will discard, upgrade some security devices

WASHINGTON -- The federal government has spent more than $4.5 billion on equipment to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail, and air, but most of it will be scrapped because it is ineffective or unreliable, according to a published report.

Much of the equipment was bought during the surge of antiterrorism spending after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, including devices to detect guns, explosives, and nuclear and biological weapons.

Now the Department of Homeland Security plans to spend billions more to replace or upgrade the equipment, The New York Times reported today.

Although some devices will be replaced because of technological improvements in the last few years, many will be scrapped because they have done little to improve the nation's security, The Times said, citing agency documents and interviews with federal officials and outside analysts.

The problems included:

Radiation monitors at ports and borders that cannot differentiate between nuclear bomb radiation and naturally occurring radiation.

Air-monitoring equipment in major cities is not completely effective because not enough detectors were deployed and some were not properly calibrated or installed. The results are often not available for up to 36 hours.

Passenger-screening machines is no more likely than before federal screeners took over to detect whether someone is trying to carry a weapon or a bomb aboard a plane.

Postal Service equipment tests only a small percentage of mail and look for anthrax but no other biological agents.

Federal officials say they bought the best available equipment. They also say the security overhaul involves a layered system that cannot be compromised by the failure of a single device.

In a separate counterterrorism development, the Associated Press reported yesterday that, despite complaints, the nation's airports are not rushing to replace federal security screeners with private workers.

Only two airports -- in Sioux Falls, S.D., and Elko, Nev. -- have applied to the government to switch back to privately employed screeners. And the management at Elko is having second thoughts.

Advocates of private screeners had predicted that dozens of airports would jump at the chance to make the switch, saying the bureaucracy inherent in a government agency -- the Transportation Security Administration -- slowed staffing decisions at the country's 450 commercial airports. Security lines moved slowly through some terminals while screeners elsewhere at an airport sat idle.

Elaine Sanchez, spokeswoman for Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, explained why most airports are sticking with the federal screeners: ''In a word, liability," she said.

Sanchez and other airport officials said they are concerned about potential lawsuits: People might sue an airport where private screeners failed to prevent terrorists from launching an attack.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the government created a fund that paid victims and their families if they agreed not to sue airlines, airports, security companies and others. The participation rate was 97 percent; only about 80 suits rose from the terrorist strikes.

A law passed in 2002 gave limited legal protection to some companies involved in antiterrorism businesses such as airport screening. Companies that receive a special designation from the Homeland Security Department can be sued, but their customers cannot.

Steve van Beek, executive vice president for the Airports Council International, said many of the airports that his organization represents are still not sure they would have enough protection, despite the law.

With the TSA under fire in Congress for its spending practices, FirstLine's president, John DeMell, said he believes more airports are sticking with the federal system because they worry that lawmakers might cut money for private screeners. Washington pays the cost of airport screening.

Material from the Associated Press was included in this report.