Each screening method is discussed with its positive notes according to the responses of the respondents:
X-ray machines
The overall feedback in respect of the X-ray machines was conflicting at times. While it is probably the most commonly used screening method, it had the most concerns about its use, effectiveness, and implementation. Forty two percent of respondents noted reliability as a positive attribute with a further 42 percent of respondents noting speed as a positive attribute of the X-ray machine and 16 percent of respondents noted effectiveness as a positive note.
Since an X-ray is a mechanical solution, it is highly reliable; the machine can operate almost around the clock. By design the X-ray solution is fast as it gives the operator an immediate picture of what the parcel contains, allowing the operator to make a determination whether there is a threat or not.
Combining the above three positive attributes the X-ray is a reliable, fast and effective method when used correctly.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Fast Cost Effective Effective Reliable
K9/Canine (AKA - K9 as referred to the use of sniffer dogs)
A smaller percentage of respondents RA (Regulated Agent) are using the K9 solution. It seemed that these respondents also thought that this was the best option. The K9 route was described as highly reliable and effective by 48 percent of respondents, as well as fast by 34 percent of respondents and cost effective by further 17 percent of respondents.
Almost half of the companies using K9s felt it is a reliable and effective solution. The Canine nose is so sensitive and effective that when trained correctly it is seldom mistaken. The conventional free running dogs’ solution as described below is very fast: the dog will sniff a parcel and will immediately indicate if there is any threat by sitting next to the parcel. If no threat is identified the dog and his handler will continue to screen other cargo. The cost of such a service is usually based on weight or time spent and in most cases the service is sub-contracted to external companies, minimising capital expenditure and running costs.
It was noted by the respondents that there are several K9 services companies, offering various services at varying levels. Two of these companies are also accredited by the SACAA as accreditation centres for other K9 companies. This was part of the updated Part 108, where technical standards were set for the K9 services, which till then had been wide open, leading to some companies not supplying the expected service levels. This has now been regulated by the SACAA.
The respondents confirmed that there are two different services offered by the two major players. The first being ‘free running’ dogs, where the K9 arrives at the client and sniffs the cargo on site. This will give an immediate indication if it is positive or negative, therefore, safe or suspicious. Since the technical standards came into effect, there is a size limit on what a ‘free running’ K9 can and should screen and clear, being 1.3M x 1.3 M. Anything bigger than that must be cleared by another method.
The second service or method is defined as RASCO, REST or MEDDS (as explained earlier in Chapter 5). This means that an air sample is drawn from a closed volume, usually a large container or box, it is even designed to screen 40-foot
sea containers. The air is passed through a filter, which absorbs all scents within the closed volume. That filter is then presented to the K9, which makes a determination by giving an indication if it is positive or negative, being safe or suspicions. There are only two companies offering this service, Mechem, a division of Denel and Bidvest Magnum, the security division of Bidvest.
Hand search
It was found that 48 percent of respondents deemed this method as a secondary method rather than a primary one. Issues such as identification of threats were mentioned amongst others. To properly identify an IED (Improvised Explosive Device), one must open all boxes and examine each item or object within that box, which is a mammoth task.
The respondents however, mentioned some positive aspects, even though they did not use that method as a primary method. Several respondents felt that if done properly and by trained professional personnel, this method has merit in certain situations, mostly as a secondary method, or verification method. Therefore, the only confirmed response noted was negative, since all positive input had caveats.
Explosive Trace Detection (ETD)
Very few companies seem to use the ETD and those that do, felt it is a reliable method, fast and effective, yet costly. Most respondents felt though that the ETD is too ‘finicky’ and is too problematic to use as a primary method. Fast, effective and reliable was the response of 23 percent of the respondents, yet with a caveat, the balance of 77 percent of respondents had concerns and felt that only professionals must use it and the machine must be maintained to the highest level.
Combination of methods
From the various answers it appeared that the best solution is to use a combination of various measures or methods. Seventy five percent of the respondents felt that the best way is a combination of several methods. It may be costly, but it is probably the best route, both from the higher detection rates, flexibility and the ability to screen various types of cargo using different methods, as well as from the deterrence factor (unpredictability), since the ‘other side’ does not know what
screening method the company uses. They therefore cannot plan sufficiently to counter a specific method.
The most popular combinations may be the X-ray machine and K9 or ETD, where one plays a lead or a primary role and the other is a verification role. Hand search can always be used as a secondary screening.
Question 32: Please list the approved screening methods your company uses to screen cargo and highlight the negative attributes of each method