Airport Security Systems: Tragedy Spurs Demand.

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the world, and especially the US, has renewed its focus on airport security. The majority of currently installed airport security systems for screening cargo, carry-on baggage and personnel are metal detectors, x-ray machines and explosive detection systems. As the security screening systems at airports worldwide are reevaluated and upgraded, these technologies and others will play a crucial role. What was once a market marked by uneven growth and government delays, subject to politicized decisions and uneven funding, may find itself the "new" business of the early twenty-first century. On September 17, Wall Street's first day open following the terrorist attacks, share prices of security instrumentation companies InVision Technologies and L-3 Communications rose 165% and 38%, respectively. Before the events of September 11, Barringer Technologies estimated the explosive detection systems market for worldwide civil aviation security at $1 billion over the next five years.

The market for explosive detection systems (EDS) and other airport screening instrumentation has proved challenging recently. Following rapid growth in the late eighties and early nineties, the US airport security instrumentation business slowed for a number of companies in the mid-nineties. Some companies benefited from the airport security market overseas. However, many companies diversified by concentrating on other markets such as security for the military, private companies, government facilities, borders and prisons. This screening and detection technology was also increasingly used to screen mail, cargo, and people for drugs as well as bombs. In addition, a number of companies, such as Magal Security Systems, concentrated on military applications, including chemical and biological weapon detection.

Some companies, such a Science Applications International and Teledyne Electronic Technologies, left the EDS market completely. Other companies prospered through acquisitions and consolidations. In early 2001, the consolidation continued. Smiths acquired Barringer Technologies for $49 million (see IBO 3/15/01), and Control Screening LP purchased IDS Intelligent Detection Systems' Analytical and Security Division (see IBO 6/30/01). In addition, PerkinElmer has announced that it plans to sell its Security and Detection Systems business (see IBO 7/15/01).

A number of analytical techniques have been adopted and modified for airport detection and screening applications, making analytical instrumentation a fundamental part of this market. Although the technology for these applications did evolve, the market was far from technologically driven due to implementation delays, airlines' resistance to cost and the uneven growth and politicized nature of the market.

As the government, private industry and the public begin to re-evaluate airport security and screening, it is not yet known which issues will take the foreground. Personnel training, government oversight and the cost to airlines have all come under scrutiny. Issues of detection and screening technology have also been re-examined but in the context of personnel failures more than the failure of the technology itself. Nonetheless, the demand for more and better screening and detection instruments and technology is already underway. However, the questions are: Will the technologies currently favored give way to a new generation of technology? And if so, what will these instruments and technologies be?

Following the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 and mysterious crash of TWA flight 800 in 1996, government legislation and commissions stimulated growth in the airport detection and screening market (see IBO 8/15/96 and 12/15/ 96). New funding was allocated, new deployment plans adopted and research expanded. Companies such as Thermedics, InVision Technologies and Ion Track Instruments grew with the market. In 1996 alone, the FAA received $144 million for the purchase of explosive detection devices. Internationally, the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) stepped up regulatory efforts and the new technologies and companies attracted the attention of airports worldwide.

But the momentum for a consistent, organized and well-funded effort was not sustained in the US due to poor oversight from the FAA and resistance from the airlines. The development and deployment of the latest generation of x-ray machines, bulk explosive and trace explosive detection systems fell behind schedule. FAA certification hurdles and increased costs forced some companies to abandon technology development for this application altogether.

In addition, airline commitment continued to falter in the face of a lack of standardization, FAA mandates, and the demands for speed and cost efficiencies as the nation's airports grew busier. Reports from the Department of Transportation and General Accounting Office highlighted the problems, but little action was taken. Even the computer assisted passenger pre-screening system (CAPPS) that was designed to alert security personnel to individuals who should undergo secondary screening, the screening for which trace explosive detection systems and other technologies were developed, was only a voluntary program, leaving many explosive detection systems (EDS) and explosive trace detection (ETD) instruments sitting unused in airport terminals.

According to a June 2001 FAA press release, 132 US airports have installed bulk and explosive trace detection devices, and nationwide airports have installed 129 systems for screening checked baggage and 742 ETDs for carry-on and checked baggage.

Before the September 11 attack, the FAA was in the midst of the installation of a number of new instruments at US airports, specifically ETD devices and Threat Image Projection (TIP) x-ray systems, which project images of weapons onto the x-ray screen to test screening personnel. On September 25, the FAA testified in front of a Senate Committee that 778 ETDs were currently installed at 170 airports and that 678 TIP-ready x-ray systems were installed at airports. However, both installation programs remain seriously behind schedule.

The analytical instruments currently in use for airport screening and detection span a variety of techniques, with few larger sized instrument companies participating in the market. Although considered a mature technique for other areas, GC continues to be utilized for trace detection and identification of explosives using particulates and vapors because it is inexpensive, fast and can detect a wide range of explosives. In July 2000, the FAA awarded Thermo Detection (then known as Thermedics) a contract for up to 210 of its EGIS II explosive trace detection systems that utilize GC in combination with chemilumen-escence. Scintrex Trace Corp., a division of Control Screening LP, also utilizes GC but in combination with ion mobility spectroscopy (IMS). Among the company's products are the ORION/ORION Plus Explosives Detection Systems and NOVA walk-through system.

IMS is one technology has been extremely successful in its use as an ETD in airports. It is fast, easy-to-use, and highly sensitive. Ion Track Instruments claims an installed base in 75 US airports, with installations ongoing. IMS is widely used for trace explosives detection secondary screening. As Paul Eisenbraun, marketing director at Ion Track Instruments, told IBO, "Those other devices have very high false alarm rates, so you need some other tool to actually identify which bags you may want to take further action on." In June of this year, the FAA placed orders for more ITEMISERS under a three-year contract with the company. By year end, the company expects the ITEMISER to be installed in almost 100 airports. Mr. Eisenbraun adds, "they are very robust, rugged instruments that can be used by non-technical people." However, he notes, "It's a pretty mature technology for this application right now" and that the focus has become better sample collection technology, but that "the market is a long way from saturated."

Barringer Technologies is also a long-time vendor of IMS-based trace explosive detections systems. Acquired by Smiths Group for $49 million, the company recorded $28 million in revenues in 2000. Brook Miller, marketing director at Barringer Technologies, told IBO that "x-rays are only visible ... but IMS is verifiable molecular chemistry," making it a powerful technology for secondary screening. He notes that the company's systems are commonly used for the screening of carry-on baggage but not as much for checked luggage screening, which he predicts could be the next area of growth. The company's IonScan is installed in over 40 countries. In 2000, Barringer, Thermedics and Ion Track were part of a $50 million contract from the FAA in 2000 for trace detection.

As with Scintrex Trace, Ion Track and Barringer Technologies are also expanding the application of their detection technologies by utilizing them for walk-through detection portals. Both Barringer's Sentinel Contraband Detection Portal and Ion Tracks' Entry Scan use IMS for the particle and trace detection of explosives and chemical weapons. Such applications may help increase the use of ETDs in that they are more convenient and sensitive. However, for a public that is use to the speed of a metal detector, the systems are much slower For example, Barringer's Sentinel screens seven people per minute.

Part II of this article, which will appear in the October 15th issue of IBO, details airport security x-ray systems and companies, and some emerging technologies.