1. New Airport Passenger Screening
Technologies
Brendan Tate, Alex Kalaiziovski and Stephen Solomon
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
Email: brendan.tate@arpansa.gov.au

2. Aviation Security Incidents
Types of Screening Technology
• Backscatter X‐ray
• Millimetre Wave
Australian Airport Trials
• Comparative Doses
International Usage
• United States
• Europe
Privacy Issues
International Policies & Guidance
Australian Processes
Summary
2
Overview

3. Key incidents since the attack on the World Trade Centre towers in New
York in 2001
2001 – “shoe‐bomber” attempt to hide explosives in heels of his shoes
2006 – attempt to blow up several aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean through
the use of liquid explosives
2009 – “underpants bomber” attempted attack midflight Amsterdam to
Detroit, where explosive material was sewn into undergarments.
“These incidents highlight the fact that aviation security is facing new types
of threats today; threats to which the traditional security technologies used
at airports can’t give an adequate and efficient response”
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Use of Security Scanners at EU Airports
European Commission, Brussels , 15.6.2010, COM(2010)311
Aviation Security Incidents
3

4. The term Body Scanner (or Whole‐Body imager) covers 4 different
measurement techniques
• Backscatter, uses low‐energy X‐rays
• Active millimetre wave, uses radio waves with less energy than those
used by mobile phones
• Passive millimetre wave, or terahertz, which lie between infrared and
microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum
And;
• Infrared (still under development)
4
Technology Types

5. How X‐rays interact with matter
• An X‐ray will do one of three things when directed at a material to be
scanned:
 Be absorbed
 Pass through (be transmitted)
 Or Scatter
5
X‐ray properties
Incident X-ray
Scattering
Incident X-ray
Incident X-ray
Transmission
Absorption

6. Why use Backscatter?
• Light (low Z) elements such as hydrogen, carbon, oxygen or nitrogen effectively
scatter low energy X‐rays
• Heavier (high Z) elements such as metals do not
• Materials made from light elements do not appear very well using traditional
transmission X‐ray techniques, but more dense materials do
• Organic material is mostly composed of low Z elements
 Lack of scatter from high Z material is also evident
• Can identify plastics, metals, ceramics etc
• Liquids – Aerosols – Gels (LAGs)
6
Backscatter X‐ray

7. Image construction
• Uses low energy X‐ray
• Moving X‐ray source passes
from top‐to‐bottom of object
• X‐rays are backscattered
to detector array
• Re‐constructed into 2‐D image
7
Backscatter X‐ray

8. mm‐Wave Properties
• Non‐Ionising Radiation
• Extremely‐High Frequency (EHF) band radiation
• 30‐300 GHz range
• Wavelength range of 1 ‐ 10 millimetres, i.e – “mm‐wave”
• clothing and other organic materials are translucent to
some mm‐wave ranges
• Ideal for security screening
• Liquids – Aerosols – Gels (LAGs)
8
Millimetre‐Wave

9. Two models of scanner – “active” and “passive”
• Active:
 millimetre wave energy is transmitted from two antennas simultaneously as
they rotate around the body.
 The wave energy reflected back from the body or other objects on the body is
used to construct a two‐dimensional image
• Passive:
 Measures and differentiates between the millimetre wave energy naturally
emitted by the human body and the energy emitted by concealed objects
 No radiation is emitted by the scanner
9
Millimetre‐Wave

10. Australian trials ‐ 2008
• Conducted over 6 weeks
 from October 15 to November 28
• All passengers given option of standard screening or new screening
• Nearly 70,000 volunteers over three Airports
• Over 12,000 passengers imaged
• Both primary and secondary passenger scanning performed
10
Australian Airport Trials
Sydney: AS&E Smartcheck Melbourne: Rapiscan Secure 1000 Adelaide: L‐3 ProVision

11. NCRP commentary 16 states that
• “General‐use systems should adhere to an effective dose of 0.1 μSv or
less per scan, and can be used mostly without regard to the number of
individuals scanned or the number of scans per individual in a year.”
11
Comparative Doses
Ionising Radiation Source Radiation Dose (µSv)
Backscatter body X‐ray scan 0.1
Dental X‐ray (bitewing) 4
Flight Melbourne – Brisbane 7
Chest X‐ray (Antero‐Posterior) 20
Annual dose limit for public exposure to
ionising radiation
1000
Australian annual background
radiation dose
1500
Chest CT scan 7000
• Scan Dose is 70x less than dose received from less than 2 hours flight time

12. Implementation of Whole‐body scanners
• 2007 – Whole body imaging introduced as voluntary secondary screening of air
passengers
• 2009 – US Transport Security Administration (TSA) announced that Whole Body
Imaging would replace metal detectors at airport security check points.
 A marked departure from the earlier promises by the agency that the
technology would only be used for secondary screening of air travel
passengers.
• 2010 – ≈ 200 units in 52 American Airports
• 2011 – TSA Plan to deploy 1000 units by
end of the year.
12
United States

13. European Stance
• Until formal decision is made, member countries can make their decisions on whether
to use new technologies (European Commission)
• UK and Italy planned to introduce machines late 2009 to early 2010
• Denmark and Spain have refused
• Fully introduced in major Russian airports in March 2007
• Commence testing in Germany in 2010
 Introduced at Hamburg in October 2010 for 6‐month trial
European Union (EU) meeting January 2010
• No formal decision made
• Stated that
 Agreed “will adopt a unified position on the body scanner proposal”
 Also Need to determine whether scanners
“are effective, do not harm health, and do not violate privacy“
Can be described as being in a state of “flux”
13
Europe

14. Privacy Issues
• The major public issue with new technology is privacy
• All types of scanners implement similar measures to preserve privacy
• Security staff viewing images are not situated in the same room
as the scanner and are unable to see passengers
• Output image quality is deliberately degraded
• Faces are blurred automatically
• Same sex viewing in Aus trials
• Latest software will replace
detailed human form with
generic “cartoon figure”
14
Privacy Issues

15. • ICRP 103 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
• IAEA Safety Standard DS379 (Draft BSS)
• IAEA Safety Standard DS401 (Draft Safety Guide) Justification of Practices
• US Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards: Guidance for Security
Screening of Humans Utilising Ionizing Radiation ISCORS 2008‐1, July 2008
• American National Standard ANSI/HPS N43.17 – 2009 Radiation Safety for Personnel
Security screening Using X‐ray or Gamma Radiation
• NCRP Commentary No.16 – 2003 Presidential Report on Radiation Protection Advice:
Screening of Humans for Security Purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems
15
International Policies & Guidance

16. IAEA Safety Standard DS379 (Draft 4.0 BSS para. 3.61)
“ ...the justification process shall consider, ”
• The benefits and detriments of implementing the procedure
• The benefits and detriments of not implementing the procedure
• Any legal or ethical issues associated with the introduction of the
procedure
• The effectiveness and suitability of the proposed procedure including the
appropriateness of the radiation equipment for the proposed use
• The availability of sufficient resources to safely conduct the imaging
procedure throughout the intended period of the practice
16
International Policies & Guidance

17. Licensing Issues:
• Any airport screening using ionising radiation will need to be licensed by
appropriate radiation jurisdiction
• In line with international recommendations any application for the licensing of
screening using ionising radiation will need to include a formal justification of the
use of the particular technology
ARPANSA involvement:
• Radiation Health committee (RHC) has discussed the licensing of airport screening
technologies in order to achieve a uniform regulatory approach within Australia
• Has briefed state & territory radiation safety committees on the radiation
protection aspects of the use of airport screening technologies
• Is preparing a guidance document on the requirements for justification of
screening technologies that use ionising radiation
17
Australian Processes

18. • Certain incidents highlight new challenges to aviation security
• 2007 ‐ US introduced whole body screening at selected airports
• 2008 – X‐ray backscatter & mm‐Wave technologies trialled in Australia
• Inconsistent approach by EU membership, however EU striving for
common policy
• Significant privacy issues
• International policies & guidance available, though some are in draft
• Australian Government involvement through OTS & ARPANSA
• Australian guidance under preparation
• Ionising devices be regulated by State and Territory radiation regulators
18
Summary