Terror-proofing the nation's ports

A maritime-security plan being considered by the Bush administration could mean airportlike backups for commuters and deeper financial troubles for the state's cash-strapped ferry system, which would be required to pay for increased screening, ferry officials warned yesterday.

"It would be analogous to stopping and searching every commuter crossing the Golden Gate Bridge," Edmund "Ned" Kiley, emergency-management and security coordinator for Washington State Ferries, told a panel of security and transportation officials.

The dour predictions came during a public meeting sponsored by the Coast Guard to talk about the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

Recently passed by Congress, the act contains several provisions to harden America's seaports against the threat of terrorism.

The Bush administration expects to have an interim plan by June, with another year to fully implement it.

But finalizing it is proving daunting for Coast Guard and transportation officials, who must balance terrorism concerns with the need to keep the nation's ports and shipping lanes open to commerce.

Making the task harder is the menagerie of industries that use the seaports, such as commuter ferries, tugs and barges, cargo haulers, cruise lines and railways, said Rear Adm. Larry Hereth, the Coast Guard's director of port security.

"When you think about developing a consistent set of standards, it's not like aviation, where you have the same set of standards at airports across the country," Hereth said. "The maritime industry is far more complex and diverse."

About 500 maritime and law-enforcement officials attended yesterday's meeting at Boeing Field. It was the third of seven meetings scheduled at port cities across the country in the month ahead.

The plan centers on a three-tiered threat-level warning system similar to the five-tiered Homeland Security Advisory System. Even at the lowest level, all ship and ferry passengers would be screened, their bags

X-rayed and their vehicles searched. Each vessel would have an on-board security officer.

More than 100 countries have signed onto a similar international maritime-security plan that will go into effect in July 2004, said Hereth.

The Coast Guard estimates the U.S. version would cost $6 billion over the next decade. Unlike airport security, which is largely financed by the federal government, the new maritime act pushes the brunt of costs onto port and vessel operators.

For the state's ferry system, which already is considering cutting passenger-only service on Puget Sound to save money, that would mean about $11 million to implement the plan and $4 million annually thereafter, according to Coast Guard numbers.

"Let me state clearly that the financial and operational implications of these proposed regulations, depending on their application, are enormous," Scott Davis, state ferries' safety-system manager, told the panel.

"The maritime industry should not shoulder the entire burden of security in the same way that aviation is not required to," added Kiley.

Capt. Kevin Dale, the Coast Guard's chief of port and vessel safety, acknowledged that airport-style screening was largely impractical for commuter ferries.

"We have to come up with some way of deterring attacks on these vessels without completely stopping traffic, and that is a challenge," Dale said.

Other maritime-industry officials raised concerns over a provision that would require most large commercial vessels to have an on-board security officer.

Darrell Bryan, vice president of Clipper Navigation, which operates the Victoria Clipper, said that requirement would cause hardships for businesses who rely on seasonal labor. A fleet security officer responsible for all of a company's vessels would be more practical, he said.

Jim Serrill, security director for the Port of Seattle, asked the panel to consider giving designated port-security officials clearances needed to get more detailed threat information.

Some port officials called for more authority to customize security plans to their specific geographic and commercial needs.

But some companies that use the ports say a lack of consistent standards often leaves ship captains guessing which rules apply where.

The confusion is compounded by various ports using different agencies to provide security, said Cees Deelstra, director of national operations for Seattle-based Holland America cruise lines.

"We feel we have a good handle on who and what comes aboard our ships from the land side," Deelstra said. "But we don't know who is responsible for seaside security."

That means when a gunboat pulls alongside, Deelstra added, "our captains have to figure out whether" they're security — or terrorists.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., visited the Port of Seattle to unveil another key element of maritime security, a global tracking system for cargo containers.

The device helps port authorities know what is in a container, where it has been and whether it may have been tampered with.

The system represents one of the first concrete measures taken by U.S. ports to improve security, Murray's office said.

Ray Rivera: 206-464-2926 or rayrivera@seattletimes.com