Configuration Management and Performance Verification of Explosives-Detection Systems

Panel on Technical Regulation of Explosives-Detection Systems

National Materials Advisory Board

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

National Research Council

Publication NMAB-482-3

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1998



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
--> Configuration Management and Performance Verification of Explosives-Detection Systems Panel on Technical Regulation of Explosives-Detection Systems National Materials Advisory Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council Publication NMAB-482-3 NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1998

OCR for page R1
--> NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is President of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The study by the National Materials Advisory Board was conducted under Contract No. DTFA03-94-C-00068 with the Federal Aviation Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Available in limited supply from: National Materials Advisory Board 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. HA-262 Washington, DC 20418 202-334-3505 nmab@nas.edu Additional copies available for sale from: National Academy Press Box 285 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) http://www.nap.edu International Standard Book Number: ISBN-0-309-0-6196-2 Copyright 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
--> PANEL ON TECHNICAL REGULATION OF EXPLOSIVES-DETECTION SYSTEMS HARRY MARTZ (chair), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California KATE ALVARADO, DNV Certification, Inc., Long Beach, California JOHN BAER, International Management & Engineering Consultants, Annandale, Virginia SUSAN DART, Dart Technology Strategies, Newport Beach, California ROBERT GAGNE, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland DONALD LEBELL, Consultant, New York, New York ARMIN PFOH, General Electric Research & Development, Niskayuna, New York ANTHONY SHUMSKAS, BDM Engineering Services, Mclean, Virginia MICHAEL STORY, Thermo Instrument Systems, Inc., San Jose, California Technical Consultant JOSEPH A. NAVARRO, JAN Associates, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland National Materials Advisory Board Liaison JAMES WAGNER, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio National Materials Advisory Board Staff SANDRA HYLAND, senior program manager CHARLES T. HACH, staff officer BONNIE SCARBOROUGH, staff officer JANICE M. PRISCO, project assistant ROBERT E. SCHAFRIK, director (until November 1997) RICHARD CHAIT, director (after February 1998) Government Liaisons PAUL JANKOWSKI, Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey ALAN K. NOVAKOFF, Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey ARMEN A. SAHAGIAN, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
--> NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD ROBERT A. LAUDISE (chair), Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey G.J. ABBASCHIAN, University of Florida, Gainesville MICHAEL I. BASKES, Sandia/Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California JESSE (JACK) BEAUCHAMP, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena FRANCIS DiSALVO, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York EARL DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina EDWARD C. DOWLING, Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Englewood, Colorado THOMAS EAGER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ANTHONY G. EVANS, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts JOHN A. GREEN, The Aluminum Association, Washington, D.C. SIEGFRIED S. HECKER, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico JOHN H. HOPPS, JR., Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia MICHAEL JAFFE, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Summit, New Jersey SYLVIA M. JOHNSON, SRI International, Menlo Park, California LISA KLEIN, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick HARRY LIPSITT, Wright State University, Yellow Springs, Ohio ALAN MILLER, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington RICHARD S. MULLER, University of California, Berkeley ROBERT PFAHL, Motorola, Schaumberg, Illinois ELSA REICHMANIS, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey KENNETH L. REIFSNIDER, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg JAMES WAGNER, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland BILL G.W. YEE, Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Florida

OCR for page R1
--> Preface The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation was established in 1958 to promote and ensure the safety of air travel. One objective of the FAA is to reduce the vulnerability of the civil air transport system to terrorist threats by employing procedural and technical means to detect and counter threats. The development of systems and devices to meet this objective was first authorized in the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-366). The role of the FAA in aviation security was increased by the 1985 International Security and Development Cooperation Act (Public Law 99-83) that allowed for the expansion of the FAA' s research and development program. The destruction of Pan American Airlines Flight 103 on December 21, 1988, over Lockerbie, Scotland, resulted in the creation of the President's Commission on Airline Security and Terrorism in 1989 and the incorporation of some of the recommendations of that commission into the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-604). This act directs the FAA to develop technologies to detect explosives in checked baggage and, when these technologies are shown to meet FAA certification criteria, mandate the deployment of explosives-detection systems (EDSs)1 in U.S. airports. In response to this directive, the FAA developed a set of certification criteria for automated bulk explosives-detection equipment, that is, systems that, without intervention by a human operator, detect explosives concealed in checked baggage. In 1994, the InVision CTX-5000 demonstrated in laboratory testing at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center (FAA Technical Center) that it was capable of performing at the specified level and was certified by the FAA as an EDS. The FAA desires a mechanism to ensure that subsequent copies of FAA certified EDSs meet certification criteria as they are produced and deployed and that they continue to meet these criteria over their lifetime in an operational environment. The FAA requested that the National Research Council prepare a report assessing the configuration-management and performance-verification options for the development and regulation of commercially available EDSs and other systems designed for detection of explosives. The Panel on Technical Regulation of Explosives-Detection Systems was established by the National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council to (1) assess the advantages and disadvantages of methods used for configuration management and performance verification relative to the FAA' s needs for explosives-detection equipment regulation, (2) outline a "quality management program" that the FAA can follow that includes configuration management and performance verification and that will encourage commercial development and improvement of explosives-detection equipment while ensuring that such systems are manufactured to meet FAA certification requirements, and (3) outline a performance-verification strategy that the FAA can follow to ensure that EDSs continue to perform at certification specifications in the airport environment. The Panel on Technical Regulation of Explosives-Detection Systems developed this report based on (1) panel meetings and technical literature provided to the panel by individual panel members, the FAA, and the National Research Council staff; and (2) presentations made by the FAA, manufacturers, and other experts who briefed the panel on existing FAA regulatory policies regarding security, bag-gage-screening technologies, quality systems and standards, and testing of explosives-detection equipment. Two members of the panel are also members of the National Research Council's Committee on Commercial Aviation Security, which oversaw this study, and provided the panel with committee findings that were relevant to the panel's task. In addition, the Chair of the Committee on Commercial Aviation 1    The following terminology is used throughout this report. An explosives-detection system is a self-contained unit composed of one or more integrated devices that has passed the FAA's certification test. Explosives-detection equipment (also referred to as advanced technology) is any equipment, certified or otherwise, that can be used to detect explosives.

OCR for page R1
--> Security briefed the panel on committee findings and participated in one panel meeting. The panel conducted five meetings between March 1996 and March 1997 to gather information used in developing this report. The panel also dedicated substantial time and effort to deliberating over their findings to develop, refine, and gain consensus on the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Early in the study process, the panel recognized that the airport environment, like the social and political environment that surrounds it, is unlikely to remain static. Accordingly, the pace and magnitude of explosives-detection equipment deployments and the consequent priority of, and options for, regulating EDSs is scenario dependent. Thus, ideally, con-figuration-management and performance-verification strategies adopted by the FAA should be sufficiently robust and flexible to accommodate a range of scenarios as these scenarios shift over time. HARRY MARTZ, CHAIR PANEL ON TECHNICAL REGULATION OF EXPLOSIVES-DETECTION SYSTEMS

OCR for page R1
--> Acknowledgments The Panel on Technical Regulation of Explosives-Detection Systems would like to acknowledge the contributions of the individuals who contributed to this study, including the following speakers: Richard Beebe, Hewlett Packard; Admiral Cathal Flynn, Federal Aviation Administration; Keith Goll, Federal Aviation Administration; Matthew Hampton, General Accounting Office; Lok Koo, Federal Aviation Administration; Sarah Mowitt, Food and Drug Administration; Paul Polski, Federal Aviation Administration; Harvey Rudolph, Food and Drug Administration; Armen Sahagian, Federal Aviation Administration; Benno Stebler, Consultant; and James H. Williams, Federal Aviation Administration. The panel is also grateful for the contributions of the two contracting office technical representatives, Paul Jankowski and Alan K. Novakoff. In addition, the panel benefitted greatly from the technical insights of Lyle Malotky, Federal Aviation Administration, and Joseph A. Navarro, JAN Associates. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: H. John Denman, AlliedSignal Aerospace; Robert E. Green, Johns Hopkins University; A. Nadeem Ishaque, General Electric Company; Frank H. Laukien, Bruker Analytical Systems; Steven W. Percy, Vivid Technologies; Maxine L. Savitz, AlliedSignal; Howard Strait, Loral Federal Systems; Benno Stebler, consultant; and Steven Wolff, InVision Technologies. While the individuals listed above have provided constructive comments and suggestions, it must be emphasized that responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC. For organizing panel meetings and directing this report to completion, the panel would like to thank Charles Hach, Sandra Hyland, Janice Prisco, and Bonnie Scarborough, staff members of the National Materials Advisory Board.

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
--> Contents     Executive Summary   1 1   Introduction   13     FAA Aviation Security Program   14     Certified Explosives-Detection Systems   15     Performance Verification of Aviation Security Equipment   16     Report Organization   17 2   Stakeholder needs and Requirements   18     FAA' s Needs   19     Manufacturers' Needs   19     Airport and Air Carrier Operators' Needs   19     Alignment and Conflicts between Stakeholders' Needs   19     Stakeholders' Needs in a Crisis Situation   20 3   Anatomy of Explosives-Detection Equipment   21     Explosives-Detection Technologies   21     Architecture of Explosives-Detection Equipment   21     Role of Infrastructure on Explosives-Detection Equipment   23 4   Tools for Ensuring Operational Performance   24     Configuration Management   24     Performance Verification   27     Quality Systems and Standards   29 5   Life-Cycle Management Plan   33     Explosives-Detection Equipment Life Cycle   33     Management Plan   33     Configuration Management Plan   38     Performance Verification   42     Quality Systems and Standards   47     Precertification Requirements   49     References   51     Appendices         A Explosives-Detection Technologies   55     B Configuration Management Tools   59     C Threat-Decision Paradigm   60     D Alternative Quality Standards   61     E Sample ISO 9000 Effort for a 50-Person Company   63     F Test Protocol for Bulk Explosives-Detection Equipment   64     G Biographical Sketches of Panel Members   67     Glossary   69

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
--> Tables, Figures, and Boxes Tables ES-1   Seven Proposed Testing Levels during the Life Cycle of an EDS   7 ES-2   Types and Purposes of Test Objects   8 2-1   Current Role of the FAA for EDSs and for Noncertified Explosives-Detection Equipment   19 4-1   Seven Proposed Testing Levels during the Life Cycle of an EDS   27 5-1   Types and Purposes of Test Objects   43 5-2   Criteria for Classifying Problems with Explosives-Detection Equipment   49 A-1   Mass Density and Composition of Common Explosive Materials and Selected Nonthreat Items   56 A-2   Tabular Description of Each Operational Subsystem of a Conceptual EDS Based on Visible Light Transmission   58 A-3   Tabular Description of Each Critical Module of an EDS Based on X-Ray CT   58 B-1   Examples of Client-Server Configuration Management Tools   59 Figures ES-1   Six phases in the life cycle of an EDS   4 ES-2   Configuration change process for an EDS during manufacture or operation   6 ES-3   Monitoring and verification testing for certification maintenance   9 ES-4   Responsibilities of stakeholders for moving from the engineering phase to certification   10 ES-5   Responsibilities of stakeholders for moving from certification to the manufacture of an EDS   11 ES-6   Responsibilities of stakeholders for moving from the manufacturing phase to the operational phase   11 3-1   Schematic block diagram of the operational subsystems comprising an explosives-detection system   22 4-1   Major divisions of configuration management   25 4-2   Graphical depiction of configuration control   26 4-3   Classes of configuration management tools   26 4-4   Factors contributing to the spread of the measured physical parameter(s)   29 4-5   ISO 9000 standards and guidelines   31 5-1   Five phases in the life cycle of an EDS   34 5-2   Activities over the life cycle of explosives-detection equipment   35 5-3   Responsibilities of stakeholders for moving from the engineering phase to certification   36

OCR for page R1
--> 5-4   Responsibilities of stakeholders for moving from certification to the manufacture of an EDS   36 5-5   Responsibilities of stakeholders for moving from the manufacturing phase to the operational phase   37 5-6   Configuration change process for an EDS during manufacture or operation   40 5-7   Monitoring and verification testing for certification maintenance   45 5-8   Schematic representation of the relationship between various levels of performance verification test objects and the ''real threat'' and the relative practicality and degree of uncertainty associated with them   46 A-1   Hydrogen and nitrogen content of various explosive and nonexplosive materials   57 A-2   View of a conceptual EDS based on visible light transmission   57 A-3   Front view of an EDS based on x-ray CT   58 A-4   Side view of an EDS based on x-ray CT   58 C-1   Schematic drawing of the statistical decision theory paradigm   60 F-1   Example standard test article for daily performance verification of bulk explosives-detection equipment   65 Boxes ES-1   Terminology for Explosives-Detection Equipment   2 ES-2   Certified Versus Noncertified Explosives-Detection Equipment   2 4-1   Attributes of an Effective Quality System   30 5-1   Best Manufacturing Practices Program of the Office of Naval Research   38

OCR for page R1
--> Acronyms AAPM American Association of Physicists in Medicine CI configuration item CSCI computer software configuration item CT computed tomography EDS explosives-detection system FAA Federal Aviation Administration FDA Food and Drag Administration GMP good manufacturing practices ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization ISO International Organization for Standardization NRC National Research Council PD probability of detection PFA probability of false alarm SMPTE Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers TWA Trans World Airlines

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.