Report: Ports, ships not in 'full compliance'
From Mike M. Ahlers
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A week after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced that U.S. seaports and ocean-going vessels were in "full compliance" with new anti-terrorism security standards, a Congressional report is casting doubts on that claim.
The General Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of Congress -- said Tuesday that about 7 percent of all U.S. ports and more than half of U.S.-flagged ships have not been reviewed.
Those ports and ships will not be reviewed before a July 1 deadline because they chose an option that allows trade and industry groups to certify compliance with a broad security plan template rather than requiring the Coast Guard to review individual security plans.
"If you haven't seen the individual plans, how do you know if those plans are in compliance?" asked Margaret T. Wrightson, the GAO's director of homeland security and justice issues.
Ridge's announcement praising U.S. compliance, and the GAO's report questioning U.S. readiness, both come as shipping companies and ports around the world race to meet the July 1 deadline.
By that date, ports and ships must show that they have assessed security vulnerabilities and taken steps to address them. And they must develop plans to address on-going vulnerabilities.
The task has been huge.
In the United States alone, 3,147 port facilities and 9,194 ships drew up security plans, according to the GAO report.
In an effort to deal with the enormous task, the U.S. Coast Guard gave the maritime industry two options.
One option allowed individual owners and operators to develop security plans and submit them for Coast Guard review.
The second option allowed owners and operators to develop plans by using Coast Guard-approved security programs established by their industry group or association. In essence, the individual firms would follow a certified template.
Both options involve Coast Guard review, but "there was considerable difference in what was being reviewed," the GAO report says.
The review for the first option was more thorough because the Coast Guard reviewed individual plans drafted by each firm.
In the second option, the Coast Guard only reviewed the template created by the industry groups and associations. Individual firms were allowed to self-certify to the Coast Guard that they were using appropriate standards.
"Every single plan the Coast Guard reviewed had deficiencies, some of which were significant," said Wrightson.
She said it is safe to assume that many of the plans developed from the industry group templates, which have not yet been reviewed, will have similar deficiencies.
Of the nation's 3,147 port facilities, 234 (about 7 percent) chose to follow the route with a less-strict form of review. Of the 9,194 ships, 5,689 (about 62 percent) chose the less-stringent process.
Wrightson said some owners and operators who chose the less stringent option may not even be aware they need to develop security plans, erroneously believing that membership in an industry or trade organization satisfies their obligation.
During visits to some sites, some port facilities told GAO investigators they were using the second option as a means to avoid preparing a security plan while remaining in compliance with Coast Guard requirements, the report says.
CNN provided the Department of Homeland Security with a copy of the report Tuesday, but the DHS did not immediately respond.
In the GAO report, the Coast Guard defended the second option, which they refer to as "alternative security programs" or ASPs.
The Coast Guard explained that the templates were developed after hundreds of hours of work.
"In fact, more hours were dedicated to each ASP than any individual plan, and as a result, the ASP templates produced a repeatable security plan precluding the need to have each completed template individually reviewed by 1 July," the Coast Guard said in the report.
