Also, as mentioned earlier, Senate Report 105-251 (July 1998) on the Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 directs the Commissioner of Customs to enter into negotiations with the private sector to conduct a field test of PFNA technology at no cost to the federal government. Status of Plans for a PFNA Field Test

Customs, DOD, and FAA are making plans to comply with their respective congressional guidance on PFNA. Specifically, Ancore proposed that a 4-month Customs/DOD field test be conducted at a U.S. sea or land port of entry, at an estimated cost ranging from $5 million to $5.5 million, including the cost of a site facility. In this regard, recognizing the no- federal-cost language of Senate Report 105-251, in February 1999, Customs officials told us that they were working closely with applicable congressional committees and subcommittees. Further, the FAA official said that, if a three-agency field test is conducted, most of FAA’s funds would be used for engineering modifications to PFNA components to allow the system to detect small amounts of target materials. These sites are two seaports in California (Long Beach and Oakland) and two land ports in El Paso, Texas. Differing Views on the Operational Viability of a PFNA System

There is general agreement that PFNA’s technical feasibility has been proven in the laboratory. However, citing cost, size, and other operational concerns, the three prospective users—Customs, DOD, and FAA—do not foresee using a PFNA system in their missions or operations and, therefore, question the value of further testing. Similarly, the estimated $1 million annual cost per system for operations and maintenance is excessive. ONDCP officials noted that the technology has successfully passed laboratory tests, which proved the physics of neutron interrogation. Any field implementation of the current PFNA system should be in an operational test bed environment.”
ONDCP recommended that a test bed at a port of entry be procured to facilitate gathering data and making a more informed, analytical decision. According to the Director, PFNA warrants field testing to provide a sound basis for decisionmaking. The prospective users—Customs, DOD, and FAA—seriously question whether a PFNA system has operational merit and, thus, also question the need for field testing. Also, Ancore believes a field test of PFNA will demonstrate its operational effectiveness. We received either written or oral comments during the period March 9-15, 1999, from the Director, Applied Technology Division, Office of Information and Technology, the Customs Service; the Assistant for Science and Technology, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflicts, the Department of Defense; the Scientific Advisor, Office of Civil Aviation Security, the Federal Aviation Administration; the Director, Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, the Office of National Drug Control Policy; and the President/Chief Executive Officer of the Ancore Corporation. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to provide information about (1) the status of plans for field testing a pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) inspection system for counterterrorism and/or counterdrug purposes and (2) federal agency and vendor views on the mission viability of such a system.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on the operational viability of pulsed fast neutron analysis technology (PFNA), which is designed to directly and automatically detect and measure the presence of specific materials by exposing their constituent chemical elements to short bursts of subatomic particles called neutrons, focusing on: (1) the status of plans for field testing a PFNA inspection system for counterterrorism and counterdrug purposes; and (2) federal agency and vendor views on the operational viability of such a system.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Customs Service, the Department of Defense (DOD), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Ancore Corporation recently began planning to field test PFNA; (2) because they are in the early stage of planning, they do not expect the actual field test to begin until mid to late 1999 at the earliest; (3) generally, agency and vendor officials estimate that a field test covering Customs' and DOD's requirements will cost at least $5 million and that the cost could reach $8 million if FAA's requirements are included in the joint test; (4) Customs officials told GAO they are working closely with applicable congressional committees and subcommittees to decide whether Customs can help fund the field test, given that Senate Report 105-251 directs the Commissioner of Customs to enter into negotiations with the private sector to conduct a field test of PFNA technology at no cost to the federal government; (5) generally, a complete field test would include: (a) preparing a test site and constructing an appropriate facility; (b) making any needed modifications to the only existing PFNA system and its components; (c) disassembling, shipping and reassembling the system at the test site; and (d) conducting an operational test for about 4 months; (6) according to agency and Ancore officials, test site candidates are two seaports in California (Long Beach and Oakland) and two land ports in El Paso, Texas; (7) federal agency and vendor views on the operational viability of PFNA vary; (8) while Customs, DOD, and FAA officials acknowledge that laboratory testing has proven the technical feasibility of PFNA, they told GAO that the current Ancore inspection system would not meet their operational requirements; (9) among other concerns, Customs, DOD, and FAA officials said that a PFNA system not only is too expensive (about $10 million to acquire per system) but also is too large for operational use in most ports of entry or other sites; (10) accordingly, these agencies question the value of further testing; (11) Ancore disputes these arguments, believes it can produce an operationally cost-effective system, and is proposing that a PFNA system be tested at a port of entry; and (12) the Office of National Drug Control Policy has characterized neutron interrogation as an emerging or future technology that has shown promise in laboratory testing, and, thus, warrants field testing to provide a more informed basis for deciding if PFNA has operational merit.