ceia ncs4 pmd2 report final

University Of Southern Mississippi – National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security

of 21 ©Copyright 2013 University of Southern Mississippi. This report is the property of the University of Southern Mississippi and the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security. Distribution upon request will be made to authorized federal, state,

and local government agencies; commercial entities; collegiate associations, and professional sports associations for administrative or operational use.

National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security

(NCS4) Laboratory Assessment Report

CEIA PMD2 Plus Walk Through Metal Detector

Foreword The National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security (NCS4) at the University of Southern Mississippi has established the National Sports Security Laboratory (NSSL) dedicated to sports safety and security to assist spectator sports venue operators in


©Copyright 2013 University of Southern Mississippi. This report is the property of the University of Southern Mississippi and the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security. Distribution upon request will be made to authorized federal, state,


of 21

assessing and validating systems and technologies for safety and security use. The principles of the verification and validation approach employed are outlined in the Technology and Process Evaluation Execution (TPEE) Guidebook1. The NSSL provides a mechanism to aggregate specific safety and security requirements for the spectator sports domain as developed by security and venue operator practitioners through participation in a National Advisory Board. This Advisory Board includes participation from all professional sports leagues and the collegiate institutions. The NSSL, using industry requirements and operational needs, develops:

• Impartial, vendor agnostic, and operationally relevant assessments and validations of safety and security solutions (systems) based on the community of interest (COI) requirements

• Evaluation reports that enable venue operators and security personnel to select and procure suitable solutions; and to deploy and maintain solutions effectively. In some cases process evaluations will be performed to provide newly devised procedures.

The evaluation program follows principles currently espoused by standing DHS validation programs (such as SAVER2) that are meant to assist end operators with objective and quantitative reviews of available commercial systems and solutions. Information obtained in the course of the assessments (including this report) will be made available to subscribers of NCS4 publications and to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for their use.

1 The TPEE Guidebook is available at the NCS4 website; www.sporteventsecurity.com 2 System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) was established by DHS to assist emergency responders in making procurement decisions through the publication of objective assessments and validations of commercial equipment. This process was used as a reference guide for the evolution of NCS4 Lab process.




of 21

Points of Contact The University of Southern Mississippi National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security Trent Lott Center for Excellence in Economic Development and Entrepreneurship Hattiesburg, MS 39406 Dr. Steve Miller Ph. 601.266.6186 Email: [email protected] Dr. Lou Marciani Ph. 601.266.5675 Email: [email protected]




of 21

Evaluators and Assessment Support Evaluators Facilitators Erick Barnes Steve Miller Professor Assoc Dir, Training & Bus Dev University of Detroit at Mercy NCS4

[email protected] [email protected] Mike Bruggeman Senior Vice President, Security Rock Ventures, LLC [email protected] Richard Fenton Observers Vice President, Corporate Security Illitch Holdings Emad (Al) Shenouda [email protected] Protective Security Advisor U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security Joe Piersante [email protected] Chief of Police University of Michigan [email protected] Vendor Support Guy Leininger Director of Testing and Measurement CEIA USA [email protected] Nick Skelin Key Account Manager CEIA USA [email protected] Marilyn Thaxton NA Marketing Manager CEIA USA [email protected]




of 21

CEIA Assessment Report

PMD2 Plus Walk Through Metal Detector

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 6 2.0 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 8 3.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 9

3.1 General Approach .................................................................................... 9 3.2 Analysis of the Issues .............................................................................. 9 3.3 Evaluators ............................................................................................... 10 3.4 Collecting Results .................................................................................. 10

4.0 SETUP, DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION ........................................... 11 5.0 SCORING AND RESULTS .............................................................................. 12

5.1 Scoring System ...................................................................................... 12 5.2 Results ..................................................................................................... 16

6.0 EVALUATOR COMMENTS ............................................................................. 18 7.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 19




of 21

1.0 Introduction The NCS4 National Advisory Board has identified person screening as a major safety/security priority. Through the years, screening devices such as security walk through metal detectors (WTMD) were primarily seen in airports and correctional facilities. Today, WTMD’s are used in many types of applications including public and private buildings, police stations, schools, and other places/events where elevated threat levels could be present. In the years since 9/11, there has been a rise in the use of metal detectors at sport and entertainment venues. Many sporting events are considered to be “soft targets” for natural or man-made disasters. This is often due to their locations, large numbers of people and/or being regarded as symbols of significance. Many sporting events, especially at the professional level, have initiated the use of metal detectors as part of their person screening activities. There are primarily two types of metal detectors in use at sporting events. These include hand held metal detectors and WTMD’s. This report presents a summary of the evaluation and demonstration of the CEIA PMD2 Plus WTMD. This WTMD was evaluated for its performance and overall capabilities at a recent Major League Baseball (MLB) game. Overview of CEIA and the PMD2 Plus CEIA is a DHS Safety Act Certified manufacturer of metal detectors and electromagnetic inspection devices. CEIA specializes in the design, engineering, and production of such devices and is ISO 9001 certified. The firm has over 45 years of experience designing and manufacturing metal detectors and touts the development of products with superior sensitivity and throughput. The CEIA PMD2 Plus walk through metal detector (WTMD) is an enhanced multi-zone walk-through metal detector that is capable of detecting a large range of threat objects composed of magnetic, non-magnetic and mixed alloys. Optional IP65 weather-resistant protection is available.

The CEIA PMD2 Plus/EZHD is designed for outdoor events or checkpoint locations that move frequently and features tool-free installation, weather-resistant protection (IP 65) and ease of system use for screening personnel. The PMD2 Plus is claimed, by CEIA, to offer cutting edge discrimination technology that allows personal effects to be ignored. This also allows for high flow-rate capability. This unit is equipped with 60 high resolution pinpointing zones to add precision to the detection locations. CEIA also claims the unit is capable of fast, tool-free installation and no periodic re-calibration or preventive maintenance requirement.




of 21




of 21

2.0 Objectives This report serves the following purposes:

Provides the description of the methodology employed during the evaluation, the scoring system, and the role of evaluators in the evaluation process.

Outlines the full set of solution requirements identified as functional capabilities claimed by CEIA regarding the PMD2 Plus WTMD.

Publishes the evaluation scoring results as well as the comments and additional information provided by the evaluators and CEIA.

Note that this evaluation will only verify CEIA claimed functionally for its PMD2 Plus WTMD. The goal of this assessment report is to verify CEIA’s advertised features and functions. The intent is not for comparison purposes with other similar vendor products.




of 21

3.0 Methodology

3.1 General Approach The methodology described below was developed to be repeatable so that it could be used in an evaluation of a variety of technologies and processes. By employing this methodology the results become verifiable and quantifiable and can be used subsequently for an entity’s individual analysis and/or procurement decisions. The methodology for this evaluation began with a discussion between CEIA and NCS4 to define the capabilities and functional requirements of the PMD2 Plus WTMD that CEIA desired to demonstrate through participation in the evaluation process. Once CEIA decided upon the capability and functionality to demonstrate, NCS4 worked with them to create a list of executable requirements for the evaluation process. Evaluators assessed the PMD2 Plus WTMD only against the firm’s chosen requirements as described above. No evaluation criteria were considered outside of CEIA’s own operational requirements. The evaluation criteria were composed of functional requirements that were grouped into the four main categories below:

1. Physical Aspects and Appearance 2. Ease of Installation 3. Performance 4. Options

3.2 Analysis of the Issues There are currently a significant number of large-scale professional and collegiate stadiums and racetracks that perform volume screening functions at entry portals during game-day and race-day events. Large-scale facilities are venues of 20,000+ spectators. There are also a significant number of smaller venues such as arenas, theaters, and concert halls that perform screening functions for sport and entertainment events. Each spectator sports venue presents a different set of security logistics requirements based on size, configuration, and adjacency issues related to the surrounding geography. The primary focus points are at portal entryways of venues. The observed ticketholder flow through entry portals prior to game/event time can often be in bursts. These bursts can create an atmosphere of anxiety and stress for security personnel and also test the quality and accuracy of screening procedures and associated equipment.




of 21

Also, many sport venues host various types of events in addition to sports. These can include concerts, conventions, commencements, and other events. These differing events can often call for varying levels of person screening. Most venues have strict policies regarding prohibited items such as weapons, contraband and other items such as food and drinks. However, the procedures and instruments used for detection and disposition of such items can vary greatly from league to league and event to event. Three of the most common screening methodologies include pat-downs, hand held metal detector wanding, and use of walk through metal detectors (WTMD). Each of these methods is associated with varying degrees of accuracy, cost, time, and numbers of personnel. Choosing the best method of screening for a given event, when considering factors such as threat level, latest intelligence and available resources, is an ongoing challenge for security and operations management.

3.3 Evaluators The evaluation team, as noted in the Evaluators and Assessment Support section, included subject matter experts (SMEs) from the sports security management and law enforcement domains. The collective group of SME’s had a base of experience that spanned collegiate and professional sport security and operations across the sports of baseball, basketball, hockey and football.

3.4 Collecting Results Each SME/evaluator was given the CEIA PMD2 Plus requirements matrix and the scoring definitions. A briefing was held with the facilitators and SME’s prior to the evaluation to ensure a thorough understanding of the evaluation process and the expectations of each participant. At the end of each requirement demonstration, evaluators were given time to enter a score into the matrix. Also, at the end of each section’s evaluation, evaluators were asked to document qualitative comments to supplement the quantitative scoring. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, all quantitative scoring data were taken by the facilitator and used to tabulate the results in the Scoring and Results section. Evaluators were given the option of submitting the qualitative comments at the evaluation or submitting them later electronically after the event.




of 21

4.0 Setup, Demonstration and Evaluation The evaluation took place at Comerica Park prior to the start of a Detroit Tigers MLB game. The evaluation took place at Gate A. This area is composed of seven gates with two entry lanes at each gate for a total of 14 entry lanes. For the evaluation, two entry lanes at Gate A were each equipped with a PMD2 Plus configured side-by-side. Specifically, the evaluation was broken up into two parts. The first round of demonstration and evaluation was held several hours prior to the pre-game entry window. During this time there were no crowd management considerations and limited security issues. The second round of demonstration and evaluation took place as the gates opened for entry on game day (90 minutes prior to game start) in order to observe and document the unit’s performance in a live environment. During the first round of demonstration, with the exception of requirements 3.1 and 3.2, the CEIA engineers demonstrated all of the functions and features listed in the evaluation criteria matrix shown in Table 5.2 in Section 5. Evaluators were given considerable time to interact with the PMD2 Plus WTMD, observe its functionality up close, and put the unit through the paces of testing and evaluating the functions and vendor claimed features. Refer to Table 5.2 for a complete listing of functional requirements and scores. The second round of demonstration and evaluation allowed for observation of the WTMD in a live environment with venue guests coming into the entry portals. Of the 14 entry lanes at Gate A, the evaluation took place at the two entry lanes at the far right side of the gate as one enters the park. At the 90 minutes mark pre-game, requirements 3.1 and 3.2 were the remaining functions in the scoring matrix to be specifically addressed during this phase of the evaluation. With respect to these two requirements, SME’s observed the performance of the PMD2 Plus for the 1.5 hours leading up to the start of the game as described below. Requirement 3.1 demonstrates the nuisance alarm rate (NAR) percentage to which the PMD2 Plus will operate at or below for a given standard. In this case, the standard chosen for the evaluation was the National Institute of Justice’s “NILECJ-STD-0601.00: Security level #2”. This standard requires transiting people to only divest personal bags and all large metallic items being hand carried such as binoculars, cameras cell phones, etc. Items such as coats, shoes, small key sets, coins, wallets, belts, watches, and jewelry can remain on the person. For evaluation purposes under these divestiture conditions, CEIA chose a NAR of less than 5 percent for operating parameters of the PMD2 Plus. The actual observed NAR was determined to be .5% for the documented flow of patrons prior to the game. This is an excellent score and could correlate to a much higher throughput than was observed during the 1.5 hour demonstration period. Requirement 3.2 demonstrates an example of the flow rate of people that the PMD2 Plus can accommodate. A previous evaluation of another CEIA WTMD, in a higher traffic venue, revealed a demonstrated throughput of more than 600 people per hour. However,




of 21

the venue in this evaluation did not have an environment conducive to similar flow patterns. Thus, the observed throughput was not as great as previous demonstrations. This is not necessarily a reflection of the PMD2 Plus’s capability. From the evaluators’ observations, the reduced flow rate (compared to the previous demonstration) was caused by a lower overall flow of patrons through the two designated WTMD gates. For this reason, a minimum flow rate of 400 people per hour was observed and confirmed by the evaluators in Section 3.2. Section 5 describes the scoring system and results of the evaluation/demonstration process. Evaluator comments, pros and cons will be discussed in Section 6.

5.0 Scoring and Results

5.1 Scoring System As outlined in Section 3.1, the evaluators scored the performance of the PMD2 Plus WTMD based on the specific requirements within four functional areas (see Table 5-2) as defined by CEIA. Evaluators scored each functional area in three ways: 1) through observation/documentation of the PMD2 Plus, 2) interaction with the system functions, and 3) CEIA engineers’ demonstration of system functions. All evaluators were instructed to compare the PMD2 Plus against the requirements and not against each other evaluator’s result (technical leveling). Table 5-1 below depicts the scoring definition.

Definition Score Equivalent % Does not meet the requirement 0 0% Partially meets the requirement 1 50% Meets the requirement 2 100% Exceeds the requirement 3 >100%

Table 5-1 Scoring Definitions

Each requirement was of equal weight. Previous assessments, when considering other types of technologies, have separate categories and weightings for Capability and Usability. However, these were considered together for this application, and therefore, no dual scoring was performed with respect to Capability and Usability for each requirement. Each requirement’s score, therefore, represents a combined score of capability and usability.




of 21

Functional Areas

1. Physical Aspects and Appearance

Req. # Feature/

Function to score

Specification Score

1.1 Dimensions

The WTMD shall have a passage that accommodates the large majority of people. The passage shall have a height of no less than 72 inches, passage width of no less than 28 inches, and passage depth of no greater than 17 inches.

2.0

1.2 Shape

The WTMD shall have a shape that minimizes obstruction of the view for screening officers. The shape of the antennas must not completely block the line of sight between the secure and nonsecure sides of the checkpoint for screeners standing at any angle 5 feet away from the center of the WTMD passage.

2.25

1.3 Sturdiness

The detector needs to be capable of withstanding impacts from bumps and kicks by transiting persons without permanently affecting its operation. The WTMD shall be constructed of smooth, robust and washable surfaces. There shall be lower side protection against damage near the floor level.

2.0

1.4 Compactness and Simplicity

The WTMD shall have the capability of being a fully portable system that breaks down into multiple components so that it may be easily stored and moved in a portable container. To minimize the possibility of losing parts, those components shall not consist of more than 9 pieces (options and accessories not included); with each piece weighing no more than 44 pounds to maintain ease of transportation.

2.0

1.5 Heavy Duty Transport Solution

The entire WTMD shall have the option available to be transported with the assistance of a wheeled container having these minimal features:

a) Easily maneuverable. b) Wheels capable of supporting at least the maximum

weight of the filled container

2.25




of 21

c) Handles on all sides of the container suitable for lifting the maximum weight.

d) Quick latching system capable of being secured with a lock.

e) Stackable.

1.6 Stability While

Maintaining Portability

The WTMD shall accommodate it being safely anchored to the floor when its use is intended as a portable unit. The WTMD shall possess the means to maintain its portability and be suitable for temporary installations without the need of being permanently secured to the ground. For safety reasons, it shall withstand forces coming from all directions caused by accidental bumps. Testing to verify this shall comply with UL61010-1-point 7.3 "Stability".

1.75

1.7 Weather Protection

The WTMD shall be protected from water and capable of use in inclement weather without the use of an external shelter. The detector should conform to an IPx5 level as described in the IEC 60529 standard.

2.0

1.8 Durability: External Parts

The external power supply must be designed so that it is protected from water as well as capable of functioning after absorbing the blow from being dropped from a short distance. The power supply shall be rated to at least an IPx5 level as described in the IEC 60529 standard.

2.0

Physical Aspects and Appearance Average Score 2.03 2. Ease of Installation

2.1 Time Required for Setup

The time required for completing setup of the WTMD must be minimal to reduce man-hours and lead time for preparing a checkpoint. The WTMD shall be able to be completely unpacked and assembled, or disassembled and repacked, in no greater than 5 minutes. For safety reasons, installation is recommended to be performed by 2 or more individuals.

2.75

2.2 Tool-Free Assembly

The WTMD assembly should be simple to avoid the possibility of lost parts and to expedite the process. The WTMD shall be capable of assembly and disassembly without the assistance of support equipment or tools.

2.0

2.3 Programming Ease

Changes to volume control, security level, and other important functions shall be easy to perform so that they can be executed by a person without having prior knowledge of programming for the WTMD. Programming changes should be simple to carry out and capable of being completed in no more than 30 seconds. Use of chip cards, memory cards, or similar solutions may be mandatory if the operation requires scrolling through numerous functions and values.

2.5

2.4 Installation Ease

The procedure for completing installation of the WTMD shall be easy to perform so that they can be executed by a person with minimal training/knowledge of the WTMD. The WTMD shall provide a fully automated function to verify that the equipment is fully operative with a personalization of operating parameters and environmental adaptations after

2.0




of 21

assembly. The automated function shall be able to guide the installer through a complete and thorough procedure to ensure all steps are performed for the detector to operate properly.

2.5 Electrical

Interference Compensation

On occasion, sources of electrical interference may be present in the environment that can affect performance of WTMD's. The WTMD shall have the functionality of performing an automated evaluation and compensation of environmental interferences. The detector shall have the capability to automatically adjust settings, if necessary, to minimize the effect.

2.0

2.6 Wind Compensation

When operated in an environment subjected to moderate/strong winds, WTMD's can experience large amounts of false alarms. The WTMD shall have an automated function to compensate for the presence of wind and minimize the effect on the metal detector signal without compromising detection capability.

2.0

Ease of Installation Average Score 2.17 3. Performance

3.1 Discrimination and Nuisance Alarm Rate

Different WTMD's can play a significant role on the resulting Nuisance (false) Alarm Rate (NAR). However, divesting procedures as well as the security level chosen also impact this statistic. The WTMD shall provide a preset detection security level capable of being used in an indoor/outdoor environment meeting detection requirements defined in the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Standard- "NILECJ-STD-0601.00: Security Level #2". In the case of this security standard, the divesting procedure shall request the transiting people to only divest personal bags and all large metallic items being hand carried (i.e. binoculars, cameras, large cell phones, etc.). Large winter coats, shoes, small key sets, coins, wallets, belts, watches, and jewelry will remain on the person. A reasonable expected NAR under these conditions of divestiture should be less than 5%.

2.0

3.2 WTMD Lane Throughput

The low nuisance alarm rate (NAR) provided by high performance metal detectors allows for individuals to pass freely through a checkpoint without an intrusive search. With a properly planned checkpoint layout and procedure, the WTMD can complement the security lane with a high flow rate. A reasonable expected throughput should allow for a minimum flow rate of 400 people per hour.

2.0

Performance Average Score 2.0 4. Incident Management




of 21

4.1 Transportable

External Power Source

When using WTMD's for event security, it may be possible that an A/C power source is not available. The WTMD shall have an option to provide power to the electronics with an external battery source. The external battery source shall be capable of being transported separately to be recharged for later use for multiple day events.

2.0

4.2 Service Time The WTMD shall have an external battery source option capable of supplying continuous power for no less than 8 hours of operation.

2.0

4.3 Recharging Time

The WTMD shall have an external battery source option capable of being completely recharged in no more than 6 hours in order to provide a minimal downtime.

2.0

4.4

Alternate Portal

Dimensions: Extended

Width

The WTMD shall have an option to provide a wider passage width to comply with ADA requirements (greater than 32 inches)

2.0

4.5 Network Connectivity

The WTMD shall have an option available to be monitored as part of a network via WI-FI or LAN connectivity. The functions of the network interface should be as follows: Live monitoring of transits and WTMD status; Archived transit statistics; Access to parameter adjustments; This system should have simple access as well as a password protection for security.

2.25

4.6 Durability: Connections

The WTMD shall have the ability for all connections between system components to be made with durable connectors capable of being connected/disconnected frequently and maintaining proper contact.

2.5

Options Average Score 2.13

Table 5-2

Composite Score 2.08

5.2 Results Table 5-2 above displays four functional areas and associated requirements that were demonstrated and scored. Each of the four functional areas has an average score at the bottom of each section. A composite score, representing the average of all four functional area scores, is found at the bottom of Table 5-2. The average scores for each of the four functional areas, Physical Aspects and Appearance, Ease of Installation, Performance, and Options, were 2.03, 2.17, 2.0, and 2.13 respectively.




of 21

The Composite Score, an average of each of the functional area averages, came in at 2.08. The consistently high scores at or above 2.0 indicate that the CEIA PMD2 Plus WTMD met its advertised capability/usability. In many of the categories, the performance exceeded expectations as shown by the number of scored requirements above the 2.0 mark. Requirements 3.1 and 3.2 were of particular interest for this evaluation. The first of these requirements evaluated the unit’s nuisance alarm rate (NAR) for a given standard. In this case, the standard used was NILECJ-STD-0601.00: Security level #2. One and one-half hours of pre-game observation of the PMD2 Plus in use resulted in a NAR of 0.5%. This result was well within the 5% target level in the evaluation requirement. In fact, this level of performance may be indicative of the capacity of the PMD2 Plus to handle a much greater throughput than was observed during the demonstration period. Concerning the second requirement, 3.2, the confirmed observed flow rate was 400 persons in one hour. SME’s observed and documented that the PMD2 Plus maintained a pace that easily kept up with the ticket scanners downstream of the WTMD screening points. It is also important to note that one of the test units operated on a battery throughout the demonstration and performed without any problems. Each unit was also observed to perform without any malfunctions with several patrons bumping into the units and constantly coming into contact with them. For a complete list of SME observations and comments, refer to Section 6 below.




of 21

6.0 Evaluator Comments Evaluator comments have been divided into the three categories of pros, cons, and additional comments. These comments were documented over the two days of the evaluation/demonstration process. Each SME was given time to make notes and record details of each demonstrated requirement. Pros

• Easy to assemble • Sturdy construction • 8 hour battery (min) service time and 6 hour (max) recharge time • Configurable settings on the fly, via software, to adjust for varying levels of

sensitivity • Proper functioning when very close to each other • Ability to easily set security levels with a smart card • U. S. Department of Homeland Security Safety Act certified • Transport container with excellent design and portability • Add-on cover (to shield from the elements) • Optional base plates (enhance stability) • Interference compensation • IPx5 rated for weather protection and durability

Cons

• Programming seemed a bit cumbersome for inexperienced users • Optional base plates could pose a potential trip hazard

Additional Comments and Observations

• The battery source for power is an excellent feature. Eliminating the need for running power cords to metal detector locations is a big plus.

• The unit’s ability to operate on multiple frequencies is critical to sports venues.




of 21

• The unit’s diagnostic capability is a great feature for sport venue professionals who may not be well-versed on the operating details of such devices.

• The use of smart cards to program the detectors and change security/sensitivity settings is a very beneficial development.

• The unit has a number of pre-programmed smart cards. The user simply inserts the card into a reader and the unit will program itself to the card. These cards are pre-programmed to meet various NIJ sensitivity standards. This is an outstanding feature in terms of ease of use and ability to quickly set up.

• The unit came in a box that was easy to pack, unload and store. For venue environments that require detectors to be moved from one place to another, the storage box is a great feature.

• The design of the unit’s connections and fasteners is excellent. Assembly required no tools and a complete unit was taken from the box and assembled in less than two minutes.

• The wind compensation function is excellent for outdoor games/events.

7.0 Summary The CEIA PMD2 Plus, manufactured by CEIA USA, is an enhanced multi-zone walk-through metal detector (WTMD) that is capable of detecting a large range of threat objects composed of magnetic, non-magnetic and mixed alloys. Advanced discrimination technology allows personal effects to be ignored, creating rapid transit flow for a variety of customer applications. Optional IP65 weather-resistant protection is available. The CEIA PMD2 Plus/EZHD appears to be ideal for outdoor events or checkpoint locations that move frequently and features tool-free installation, weather-resistant protection (IP 65) and ease of system use for screening personnel. Specific functions and features of this product were observed and evaluated by a team of sport security professionals assembled together at a major professional sporting event. NSC4 staff facilitated the product evaluation and compiled the evaluation results listed in this report. NSC4 staff did not have any input into the scoring of the evaluation criteria or evaluator comments. The evaluation requirements centered around the four functional areas of Physical Aspects and Appearance, Ease of Installation, Performance, and Options. As shown in section 5, overall, this product performed at or above the levels considered by the evaluators to fully meet each requirement. Additional evaluator comments and suggestions are captured in section 6. It is also important to note that if the observed NAR (Table 5-2, Requirement 3.1) obtained in this evaluation were extrapolated to an event with a continuous flow of patrons, a reasonable assumption could be made that the flow capacity would easily




of 21

exceed 600 people per hour under these same environmental conditions. Similar evaluations with similar CEIA equipment provided a much higher flow of patrons, and thus provide the basis for such assumptions. The CEIA PMD2 Plus WTMD is Safety Act Certified from the United States Department of Homeland Security qualifying it as an Anti-Terrorism Level Technology. NSC4 would like to thank the SME’s and CEIA personnel for their participation in the evaluation and demonstration process. This report is available on the NSC4 website at www.lab.nsc4.com.




of 21

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

ceia ncs4 pmd2 report final

Documents