Respond with 250 words: The enactment of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) and the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act (SAFE Port Act) changed the United States maritime industry. Port facilities and shipping companies were tasked to conduct security assessments and develop comprehensive security plans. Protecting American ports are a priority as they provide economic stability and growth to not only the United States, but the world. The safe movement of cargo is made possible through port facilities and operations, connecting the land with the sea.            There are hundreds of ports across the country serving all modes of maritime shipping, whether it’s containers, passengers, petroleum products, or dried goods. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, “most ports are characterized by a mixed ownership between private terminal operations and public port authorities” (2016, p. 63). Although there may be a variety of companies operating at a port, they are leasing the property or terminal, in which the port maintains ownership. Therefore, the port is responsible for creating and implementing a security plan, approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. This plan will identify access control, security, and response measures to a variety of threats, which could include chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons.                    If a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) were to be used at a port, the results would be devastating; thousands of lives would be lost and damage and trade losses would cost billions. According to Nincic, “maritime attacks have tended to be fairly small in nature, consisting largely of bombings near port facilities” (2012, para. 2). Despite the fact that attacks have been “small”, it is quite important to note that they have occurred at port facilities, not on ships. With an increase in terrorist activities over the years, and the desire to cause physical and economic harm to the United States, a WMD attack must be taken seriously.            Emergency management plans, including the prevention, preparation, and response to a WMD attack must be detailed. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) recognizes “the opening of a domestic port or waterway after a natural or human caused disaster is a complex challenge with a wide range of variables and coordination needs” (2015, para. 1). Due to the power and nature of a WMD attack, it is most likely that areas outside port facilities will be affected, but this discussion will focus on the port area. The U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port would be responsible for implementing the Area Maritime Security Plan as required by the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act, which would aid in the recovery of the maritime transportation system.            Such safety and emergency management plans would include information on the type of traffic the port typically handles, whether it’s commercial, pleas ...

1. Respond with 250 words:
The enactment of the Maritime Transportation Security Act
(MTSA) and the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act
(SAFE Port Act) changed the United States maritime industry.
Port facilities and shipping companies were tasked to conduct
security assessments and develop comprehensive security plans.
Protecting American ports are a priority as they provide
economic stability and growth to not only the United States, but
the world. The safe movement of cargo is made possible
through port facilities and operations, connecting the land with
the sea.
There are hundreds of ports across the country serving
all modes of maritime shipping, whether it’s containers,
passengers, petroleum products, or dried goods. According to
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
“most ports are characterized by a mixed ownership between
private terminal operations and public port authorities” (2016,
p. 63). Although there may be a variety of companies operating
at a port, they are leasing the property or terminal, in which the
port maintains ownership. Therefore, the port is responsible for
creating and implementing a security plan, approved by the U.S.
Coast Guard. This plan will identify access control, security,
and response measures to a variety of threats, which could
include chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons.
If a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) were to be used
at a port, the results would be devastating; thousands of lives
would be lost and damage and trade losses would cost billions.
According to Nincic, “maritime attacks have tended to be fairly
small in nature, consisting largely of bombings near port
facilities” (2012, para. 2). Despite the fact that attacks have
been “small”, it is quite important to note that they have

2. occurred at port facilities, not on ships. With an increase in
terrorist activities over the years, and the desire to cause
physical and economic harm to the United States, a WMD attack
must be taken seriously.
Emergency management plans, including the prevention,
preparation, and response to a WMD attack must be detailed.
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
recognizes “the opening of a domestic port or waterway after a
natural or human caused disaster is a complex challenge with a
wide range of variables and coordination needs” (2015, para. 1).
Due to the power and nature of a WMD attack, it is most likely
that areas outside port facilities will be affected, but this
discussion will focus on the port area. The U.S. Coast Guard
Captain of the Port would be responsible for implementing the
Area Maritime Security Plan as required by the Security and
Accountability For Every Port Act, which would aid in the
recovery of the maritime transportation system.
Such safety and emergency management plans would
include information on the type of traffic the port typically
handles, whether it’s commercial, pleasure, fishing, tug,
salvage, etc. There should be adequate pollution control, and
waste management facilities and vessels capable of responding
to and deploying resources. Hydrographic and survey vessels
would be needed to check areas alongside the pier and
navigation channels for obstructions, hazards, and water
quality. Engineering teams would have to evaluate pier
infrastructure and mooring bollard strength to ensure the port
would be able to accommodate a ship after damage to port
infrastructure. Evacuation routes need to be properly labeled
and clear for nonessential personnel to leave and first
responders to enter. Adequate personal protective equipment
and decontamination areas must be readily available. Port
personnel should be certified in safety and security training and
participate in drills and industry related meetings.

3. However, with all of the appropriate resources in place,
training, drills, inspections, and audits, the current legislative
security policies are not enough. The detection methods and
technology needed to identify WMD have not been successfully
developed yet. While testifying before a governmental
committee, Flynn (2006) describes a likely scenario where a
container is manipulated and sabotaged with a dirty bomb, and
as it transits through various ports, it is eventually loaded on a
container ship at a major port, where the company is part of the
Customs-Trade Partnerships Against Terror program. “Because
the dirty bomb is shielded in lead, the radiation portals
currently deployed along the U.S-Canadian border do not detect
it” (Flynn, 2006, para. 6). Detection and prevention are the first
step, but if a WMD cannot even be detected or prevented from
entering the country, then what purpose does the current system
serve in terms of WMDs?
The United States Customs and Border Protection and
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (implemented under
SAFE Port Act), were working on a program to develop and test
a type of next-generation radiation portal monitor” (USGAO,
2014, p. 14). However, the United States Government
Accountability Office found that the “initial testing…was not
rigorous enough…and the portals did not perform well enough
to warrant deployment” (2014, p. 15). In addition, continued
problems with the Secure Freight Initiative are preventing 100%
screening of all containers for WMDs. The Secretary of
Homeland Security advised that the “negative effects on trade
capacity and the flow of cargo and characteristics of foreign
ports prevent the installation of scanning systems – continue to
prevail and preclude full-scale implementation” (USGAO, 2014,
p. 17). With the above mentioned issues, there are still great
concerns over a potential WMD attack.