U.S. to alter, replace deficient security systems

WASHINGTON — After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the anti-terrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate.

Many of the monitoring tools — intended to detect guns, explosives, and nuclear and biological weapons — were bought during the blitz in security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In its effort to create a virtual shield around America, the Department of Homeland Security now plans to spend billions of dollars more. Although some changes are being made because of technology that has emerged in the past couple of years, many of them are planned because devices currently in use have done little to improve the nation's security, according to a review of agency documents and interviews with federal officials and outside experts.

"Everyone was standing in line with their silver bullets to make us more secure after Sept. 11," said Randall J. Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and former government adviser on scientific issues. "We bought a lot of stuff off the shelf that wasn't effective."

• Radiation monitors at ports and borders that cannot differentiate between radiation emitted by a nuclear bomb and naturally occurring radiation from everyday material like cat litter or ceramic tile.

• Air-monitoring equipment in major cities that is only marginally effective because not enough detectors were deployed and were sometimes not properly calibrated or installed. They also do not produce results for up to 36 hours — long after a biological attack would potentially infect thousands of people.

• Passenger-screening equipment at airports that auditors have found 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 machines that test only a small percentage of mail and look for anthrax but no other biological agents.

"After 9/11, we had to show how committed we were by spending hugely greater amounts of money than ever before, as rapidly as possible," said Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., who is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "That brought us what we might expect, which is some expensive mistakes. This has been the difficult learning curve of the new discipline known as homeland security."