The Star-Ledger

NEWARK, N.J. – Each day, roughly 6,000 cargo containers are unloaded at the sprawling ports of New York and New Jersey, important East Coast hubs in the global supply chain of goods.

Stacked six- and seven-stories high on mammoth ships from around the world, the colorful containers hold everything from clothing and electronics to furniture and frozen orange juice.

But in an age of terrorism, what else might they hold? Chances are, those charged with ensuring port security won’t know, because just one in every 20 containers is physically inspected or electronically screened for radiological, biological or chemical weapons.

Behind the furor raging over the sale of some operations at major East Coast ports to an Arab company is the far larger issue of day-to-day security at the nation’s seaports. The focus on securing the ports has long paled in comparison with safeguarding airports, rail lines and chemical plants after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Port security experts, government reports and members of Congress point to unsettling realities about the global shipping network: too few containers inspected and too little intelligence to pinpoint risky shipments.

“We can’t physically inspect every container,” said Rick Larrabee, director of port commerce for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. “This port would be backed up to China if we were to do that.”

Federal security officials say the nation’s ports are safe, pointing to an array of oversight initiatives and layers of security throughout the system.

But 4½ years after Sept. 11 produced a wholesale re-evaluation of homeland security measures, critics say port security remains relatively ignored.

Though federal security officials have set up a chain of checks over incoming cargo and ships, criticism abounds that far too many gaps remain for terrorists to exploit on the long routes from overseas manufacturers to foreign ports and then to U.S. docks.

The Government Accountability Office, a watchdog arm of Congress, concluded in an April 2005 report, “An effective port security environment may be many years away.”

Specifically, it cited the vulnerability of cargo containers to tampering at their points of origin overseas, where the agency found only piecemeal inspections.

One month after the GAO release, the Congressional Research Service, in a report to Congress, wrote that despite progress in port security, “many security officials still describe seaports as “wide open’ and “very vulnerable’ to terrorist attack.”

One of the chief complaints has been a lack of funding. Critics note that the federal grant money earmarked for safeguarding the nation’s ports typically totals in the hundreds of millions of dollars each year, while aviation security gets billions in grants and a far higher profile.

“The whole system needs a lot more attention and investment than we’ve made to date,” said Stephen Flynn, author of “America the Vulnerable” and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank.

David Ortiz, a researcher with the Rand Corp., which studies port security issues, contends those charged with safeguarding the ports can’t make reasoned decisions about which containers to target for close inspection because of lapses in intelligence-gathering and security along the cargo’s route.

“The key weakness in the whole system … is the stuff in the container,” Ortiz said, adding the Department of Homeland Security has “widely acknowledged” this. “There’s a lot being done on containers. But we don’t really know how effective they are. … We don’t know exactly where the gaps are.”

One improvement many would like to see is a requirement that every one of the millions of containers that flow into the country each year be fitted with an electronic monitor to continually track its location and alert authorities if the box’s seal has been breached.

But the task, given its cost and global scope, is in its infancy.

More than 20 federal agencies play a role in securing the nation’s ports. The primary responsibility falls on the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, both in the Department of Homeland Security.

Coast Guard and Customs officials are charged with coordinating security initiatives with foreign governments, overseas shippers, crews of container vessels, operators and owners of America’s ports, and a myriad of federal and local agencies.

Those agencies would continue to provide security at East Coast ports even if a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates – Dubai Ports World – ultimately took over some commercial operations.

Earlier this month, the Bush administration approved the company’s $6.8 billion purchase of a British firm that controlled some operations at seaports along the East Coast. The approval has since resulted in a fiery bipartisan backlash, with critics questioning whether a nation tangentially linked to terrorism should exert any control over U.S. ports.

Those critics have not elaborated on how the company might prove a danger to U.S. security.

Laden with roughly 5,000 neatly stacked containers, the immense cargo ship Maersk Georgia left the port of Jebel Ali in Dubai on Jan. 28, charting a four-week course from the Persian Gulf to India, Oman and the United States, according to Maersk’s Web site, which lists the company’s regular routes. The ship is scheduled to arrive at Port Newark between Friday and Sunday after first docking in Charleston, S.C., and Norfolk, Va.

Maersk Georgia’s diesel-powered voyage is relatively routine in the global 21st-century shipping trade. As it has been for centuries, the industry’s economic focus is mainly on speed, reliability and minimizing costs as each vessel plies the waters with its huge cache of goods.

Since 9/11, however, the Coast Guard has required vessels like the Maersk Georgia sailing from foreign ports to provide a 96-hour notice of arrival, up from the previously mandated 24 hours, along with a description of goods aboard and a roster of crew and passengers.

The revised rule gives U.S. authorities more time to perform a threat assessment on the ship and its contents. High-risk ships – those that have taken on cargo in nations with terrorist links, for example – might be boarded at sea and inspected. More likely, they will be examined once they have docked.

Customs agents decide which containers might pose a risk, possibly because the shipper is not widely known or because the contents raise red flags. Some Customs and Border Protection agents are stationed at overseas ports to work with their foreign counterparts on inspecting suspect shipments before the cargo is loaded onto outgoing vessels.

When the Maersk Georgia arrives at Port Newark, CBP authorities will have the option of physically inspecting or electronically screening any containers they wish.

As a final check, most terminals at Port Newark have radiation-detection monitors, which cargo-container trucks must pass through before leaving the port, to ensure a dirty bomb or other radiological device is not hidden within the goods.

Ortiz, the Rand researcher, questions whether that measure comes too late.

“What good does it do you if a nuclear device is stopped at the gates of Newark/Elizabeth Seaport?” he asked.

U.S. security officials say the criticism of port security is overblown, and a Customs spokeswoman, Leah Yoon, said all cargo is reviewed “by a sophisticated targeting center, using intelligence and databases that picks out all cargo that is a risk to our country.”

In addition, Yoon said, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has significantly expanded its budget for port security efforts, from $259 million in fiscal 2001 to $1.6 billion in fiscal 2005.

Flynn, the senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, calls the government’s efforts “a house of cards.”

“The flurry of U.S. government initiatives since 9/11 suggests substantial progress is being made in securing the global trade and transportation system,” he wrote in a recent report. “Unfortunately, all this activity should not be confused with real capability.”

Copy the Story Link