CBRNe Convergence 2015 see pages 45 to 52

Transcription

15
e 20 52
RN ce to
CB gen 45
er es
nv ag
Co ee p
s
CBRNe
August 2015
WORLD
$15
Negative vibe
Looks like a nail
Crowd Sauce
Hazmat and LiON batteries
The Hammer decon ATD
Psychology of mass decon
For more than 25 years, government agencies and industries
alike have trusted Battelle to solve their most complex chemical
and biological defense challenges.
With expertise spanning decades and dozens of inter-related scientific disciplines, unmatched
chemical and biological test facilities, advanced product design and manufacturing, and objectivity
as the world’s largest independent R&D organization, Battelle provides comprehensive chemical
and biological defense solutions for intelligence, defense, medical, security, and industrial clients.
t 5ISFBU"TTFTTNFOU
t )JHI)B[BSET3%5&
t .FEJDBM4VSWFJMMBODF%JBHOPTUJDTBOE*OUFSWFOUJPO
t .JTTJPO4VQQPSU4FSWJDFT
t "QQMJFE(FOPNJDT
t 1SPEVDUTBOE-JGFDZDMF.BOBHFNFOU
t $IFNJDBM%FNJMJUBSJ[BUJPO
5PTPMWFZPVSNPTUQSFTTJOHDIBMMFOHFTThink Battelle first.
800.201.2011 »[email protected] »www.battelle.org
Leader
B
y the time you read this the latest security bids for the
European commission’s Horizon 2020 (H2020) will
have gone in. It has not been a large harvest of projects for
CBRN organisations wishing to further the commission’s
understanding, instead other areas (such as law
enforcement and forensics) are receiving the lion’s share.
The old framework programme 7 (FP7) was a boom time
for CBRN research: a short perusal of the list of CBRN
European commission projects in the December 2014
CBRNe World will give you an idea of the depth of research
that has been delivered.
Even though it has not been described as such, it is easy
to see this change from feast to famine as meeting the need
for a strategic pause to work out what has been achieved.
Indeed Philippe Quevauvillier, the policy officer within
Directorate General Home (DG Home) has been engaging
his community of users (CoU) largely to try and work out
what has been the legacy of the millions of Euros that have
been spent. (CBRNe World December 2014 again). It is
likely to be a difficult task.
Even though every project must have a partner(s)
whose role is to disseminate the research findings (full
disclosure: Falcon has been involved in the dissemination
of two commission projects) the funding for this stops
when the project achieves fruition. DG Home will be hard
pressed to find any data as it has never been measured. It is
the equivalent of hoofing a football down the pitch and
then walking away – you have no idea whether it will be
caught or not.
CBRN in itself is a difficult subject, there is no allencompassing trade association, and neither are there neat
silos that can be targeted. That said some consortiums have
professional dissemination partners to do that job
efficiently. Many are not subject matter experts in whatever
the project is about, they could be doing cyber security as
much as CBRNE, but they understand how to get the
message out and are good at it. Others are quite the
opposite and are there for the ride.
There is a desire among academic and industrial
partners to obtain funds for dissemination, as it has an
outside appeal – give a couple of presentations, write a
press release… job done. Actual engagement with the users
seems much too difficult and they are not set up to do the
job. This does themselves and the commission a massive
disservice, as anything good that is done in the programme
largely remains with the team and its advisory board, rather
than European first responders or the target audience.
Effectively they mark their own papers.
As an example we contacted the Spiced consortium to
talk about its project. It seems an interesting project, aimed
at understanding the potential for adulteration of spices –
something that goes into pretty much every foodstuff in
Europe and beyond. We only learned about the Spiced
project thanks to the document that DG Home put out in
November 2014 and promptly contacted them asking for
more information and an article/interview.
There was a certain amount of suspicion within the
project team as to why a magazine called CBRNe World
would be interested in the adulteration of food with CBRN
substances, but that was dealt with. We then got involved in
a six month process of trying to organise something for the
magazine. This culminated in sending a series of questions
over to the Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung. Having
done work as a press officer/dissemination partner this is
known as a ‘sitter’ and something to exploit – an easy
opportunity to raise awareness of how European taxpayers’
money is being spent for the benefit of the whole
community. Sadly we received a curt note stating that they
are ‘not interested in giving an interview on the subject’.
This is the crux of the problem: some consortiums are
happy to take the money, but they would rather not be
burdened with the need to tell anyone about their
projects. I am aghast that the Bundesinstitut für
Risikobewertung, having taken money to do the job, is
unable to answer even the most basic questions. If they
can’t be bothered talking to media that is interested in
what they are doing and reaches some of their key
demographic, what hope does DG Home have of finding
out what impact their projects have had?
Possibly due to the attitude of organisations like the
Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung the commission has
tightened up its rules on dissemination for H2020 and
included an exploitation element – what happens to the
research after the end date. While this is inherently difficult
(commercial organisations are likely to take a dim view of
any commission work package once the funding has
stopped) it will hopefully stop the worst dissemination
failings, as outlined above.
Philippe Quevauvillier’s CoU work is ongoing and
linked to two of the largest European commission/FP7
demonstrators, the Driver and Eden projects. Driver is a
crisis management project and as such is fairly amorphous,
but Eden is a dedicated CBRN project and worth €24m – a
significant chunk of change. DG Home’s plan is to use
some of this money to fund CBRN mission-space
dissemination, to alert the research and responder
communities of the entirety of what is offered, rather than
just one small element. In fairness it has to be asked
whether Eden is the right project for this, since it has no
hook to hang any interest on, but it is heading the right
way. It will also be interesting to see what happens with
the proposed bilateral between the commission and DHS
S&T happens, as lazy European attitudes towards
disseminating quality research are exposed.
8th Annual CBRNe Convergence, Rosen Plaza Hotel, Orlando, Florida, 27-30 October 2015, www.cbrneworld.com/convergence2015
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2015 CBRNe WORLD
1
Contents
1-9
Leader
Contents
News
Infinity in a grain of sand:
Dr Jason Bannan and
the FBI Lab
38-41
Crowd surfing:
Controlling CBRN crowds
Made the list:
Dr Aaron Firoved
and the BTRA
10-14 42-44
Up arrow:
Improvements in the UK
MoD’s training
15-19
CBRNe Convergence 2015
45-52
Assault on battery:
FDNY and the threat
of lithium ion
Shape of things to come:
Changes in the CBRN
landscape
20-33 53-56
I had a Hammer:
Shawn Funk and the
Hammer ATD
34-37
Published by Falcon Communications Limited
Editor
Gwyn Winfield
Business
Development
Director
David Levitt
Art Director
Tony Denton
Business
Development
Manager
James Ross
Business
Development
Executives
Anna Dziaczkowska
Andrea Schinzel
Detector Cornucopia:
Cranfield University on
attitudes towards detectors
57-61
Sub Editor
Jenny Walton
Contact Details:
For Sales:
+1 443 605 2583
[email protected]
+44 (0)1962 832 534
[email protected]
CBRNe World
Suite 26, Basepoint,
1 Winnall Valley Road,
Winchester, Hampshire
SO23 0LD, UK
Correspondents
Jeffrey Bigongiari
Brian O’Shea
For Editorial:
+44 (0)1962 832 532
[email protected]
Web: www.cbrneworld.com
Twitter: @cbrneworld
LinkedIn: cbrneworld
European Outreach
Manager
Andrew Johnston
2
CBRNe WORLD August 2015
www.cbrneworld.com
Advertiser Index
62-67
Rad dudes!
Radiological detection
and reporting
68-73
Training Focus:
South Wales Police
Book review &
guide to bomb suits
80
Argon Electronic
76
Avon
29
IFC
Bertin
65
Biofire
OBC
CBRNe Convergence Asia
33
Cristanini
43
CBRNe Directory
25
Emergent Biosolutions
41
Environics
17
FLIR
59
Immediate Response Tech
55
iRobot
37
Kärcher
31
Lockheed Martin
74-76
Prairie Dog
13
Battelle
Capability Profiles
77-79
Airboss
4-5
Med Eng
79
NBC SYS
61
Paperpak
31
Paul Boye
9
Proengin
23
Scott Health & Safety
74
Thermo Scientific
IBC
CBRNe World (ISSN No: 2040 - 2724, USPS No: 000 138) is published bi-monthly in February, April, June,
August, October & December by Falcon Communications
Ltd and distributed in the US by Asendia USA, 17B S
Middlesex Ave, Monroe NJ 08831. Periodicals postage
paid at New Brunswick, NJ and additional mailing offices.
Postmaster: send address changes to: Falcon
Communications US LLC, 2404 Fairway Oaks Court, Suite
100, Hampstead, Maryland, 21074.
Legal Niceties: Reproduction in whole, or part, of any content of CBRNe World, without prior permission, is strictly
prohibited. Any correspondence should be addressed to The Editor, CBRNe World. We acknowledge the assistance
and hard work of many individuals, associations and organisations who have contributed to this magazine. The
information published in this magazine has been published in good faith and the opinions contained in the article are
those of the author and not Falcon Communication Ltd. Photos are credited individually, non attributed articles are
from the CBRNe World archive. ©Falcon Communication Ltd 2015.
Front Cover photography ©CBRNe World
www.cbrneworld.com
3
CBRN:
CHEMICAL - BIOLOGICAL - RADIOLOGICAL - NUCLEAR
We’re Engineering a Better Tomorrow
>ŽĐŬŚĞĞĚDĂƌƚŝŶŝƐĂƉƌŽǀĞŶ͕ĞŶĚͲƚŽͲĞŶĚŚĞŵŝĐĂů͕ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů͕ZĂĚŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů͕EƵĐůĞĂƌ
;ZEͿƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĞĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĚĞǀĞůŽƉ
ƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͕ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚZEƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͘
&ƌŽŵƌŝƐŬĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐĂŶĚŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶƚŽƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚůŝĨĞĐǇĐůĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ŽƵƌZE
ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐŚĞůƉƉƌŽƚĞĐƚůŝǀĞƐĂŶĚŐŝǀĞďĂƩůĞĮĞůĚĐŽŵŵĂŶĚĞƌƐƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƚŚĞǇŶĞĞĚƚŽŵĂŬĞ
ĐƌŝƟĐĂůĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĚĞĨĞŶƐŝǀĞĂĐƟŽŶƐ͘
CBRN End-to-End Capabilities:
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐWƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶ
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇWƌĞƉĂƌĞĚŶĞƐƐ͕/ŶĐŝĚĞŶƚ/ŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚ
ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĐƋƵŝƐŝƟŽŶ
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
/dĂŶĚ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
DĂƚĞƌŝĂů^ŽƵƌĐŝŶŐ͕WƌŽĐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚƐƐĞŵďůǇ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
DĞĚŝĐĂůĂŶĚ&ŝĞůĚ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
EĂƟŽŶĂů^ĞĐƵƌŝƚǇ^ƉĞĐŝĂůǀĞŶƚ;E^^Ϳ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
KƉĞƌĂƟŽŶĂůĂŶĚDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŽĨŚĞŵŝĐĂů͕
ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů͕ĂŶĚZĂĚŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů;ZͿƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
WĞƌƐŽŶĂůWƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚΘůŽƚŚŝŶŐ^ĞůĞĐƟŽŶ
YƵŝĐŬͲZĞĂĐƚWƌŽĐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚͬ&ĂďƌŝĐĂƟŽŶ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
^ƉĞĐŝĂůWƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶĞǀŝĐĞdĞƐƟŶŐĂŶĚDŽĚŝĮĐĂƟŽŶ
^ǇƐƚĞŵ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƟŽŶ
DƵůƚŝƉůĞZEƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĂŶĂŐĞƌƐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕ǁŝƚŚƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶĨƌŽŵŽƵƌZE
ƐƵďũĞĐƚŵĂƩĞƌĞǆƉĞƌƚƐĂŶĚKƌŝŐŝŶĂůƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚDĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌ;KDͿĐĞƌƟĮĞĚƚĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶƐ͘KƵƌ
ŬĞǇƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůƐŽƵƌĐĞĂǀĂƌŝĞƚǇŽĨŽīͲƚŚĞͲƐŚĞůĨƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐŝĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĞůƉƐŝŶƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐŽǀĞƌĂůůZE
ŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶĐŽƐƚ͘
^ŝŶĐĞϮϬϬϭ͕>ŽĐŬŚĞĞĚDĂƌƟŶŚĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚZEŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚĚĞƉůŽǇŵĞŶƚĨŽƌĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐ
ƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
&ĞĚĞƌĂůŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŐĞŶĐǇ
:ŽŝŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵǆĞĐƵƟǀĞKĸĐĞĨŽƌŚĞŵŝĐĂůĂŶĚŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞ
WĞŶƚĂŐŽŶ&ŽƌĐĞWƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶŐĞŶĐǇ
hŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨĞĨĞŶƐĞ
hŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ,ŽŵĞůĂŶĚ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚǇ
>ŽĐŬŚĞĞĚDĂƌƚŝŶ
Paul:͘ Lilly
(703)340-5547
[email protected]
ŽƉǇƌŝŐŚƚΞϮϬϭϰ>ŽĐŬŚĞĞĚDĂƌƟŶŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶ͘ůůZŝŐŚƚƐZĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘
ϮϬϭϰͲϬϴͲϬϬϮϯZE
W/Z͗/sϮϬϭϰϬϴϬϬϯ
CBRNews
GLOBAL CBRN THREATS AND ACTIVITY
Our threat overview picture (above), shows a selection of incidents in the last two months that have been
added to our online news feed: www.cbrneworld.com/news. Twitter - @cbrneworld and @chembiotroll
THREAT WATCH
Now that’s good meth!
It has been suggested previously
that standards are boring [only
about once a day. Ed.] and
perhaps in an attempt to shrug
off this image there was an
explosion in the National
Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) labs. A
Montgomery county police
spokesman said that the lab also
had chemicals used in the
manufacture of
methamphetamine. A police
officer was injured in the
explosion and a suspect is
helping police with their
enquiries. One thing we can
state with certainty is that if it
was meth it would have been
made to the highest
Heisenberg standards!
So it begins…
Following on from a deluge of
CDC safety issues and Dugway’s
anthrax whoopsie, the Centers
for Disease Control and
Prevention launched a
comprehensive review of how it
regulates safety and security at
bioterror labs. USA Today has
been leading the charge in
getting papers and reports that
showed the CDC had ‘allowed
labs to keep experimenting with
bioterror pathogens despite
failing to meet key requirements
on inspection after inspection,
sometimes for years’. The
review was announced shortly
before a hearing in the House
and is expected to have lasting
ramifications for biosafety
and security.
Brave new world?
The P5+1 finally managed to
come to agreement with Iran
over its desire for nuclear
power/weapons. The deal
should limit Iran's nuclear
capability and eliminate any
chance of a nuclear weapon, in
exchange for lifting punishing
economic sanctions. Suffice to
say this has not gone down well
with a raft of military and
Republican figures who will
attempt to block the bill
through Congress. Obama has
threatened to veto any attempt
to reject the accord. Meanwhile
Iran, on the eve of Eid al Fitr,
said that it hoped ‘the historic
accord could pave the way for
more cooperation in the Middle
East and internationally’.
6
www.cbrneworld.com
Colonel Mustard, in Makhmour, with the
mortar round
Islamic State stole all the
headlines again with the report
that it has managed to launch a
mustard round against Kurdish
positions. People on the ground
were quick to announce it and a
‘US official’ verified this to the
US media. Despite mustard
giving clear physiological clues
to its release there has been a
paucity of images, and the ones
we have seen are borderline.
Regardless of what the agent is,
there seems to be an increase in
usage against the Kurds, and
investigators have stated that
attacks have utilised a variety of
toxic industrial chemicals (TICs).
A major question has to be
whether this is a shell liberated
from ‘official’ Assad stocks or
something created organically.
Going underground
A report by Weill Cornell medical
college earlier in the year (see
CBRNe World February 2015)
caused minor outrage by
suggesting that the New York
metro was a happy home to a
variety of pathogens including
E.coli and Y. pestis. At the time
this was rejected by the NYC
department of health, and in the
intervening months it has teamed
up with the CDC to state that the
findings were inaccurate. They
stated that the study was
‘speculative, sensationalist, and
headline-grabbing’ and have
subsequently got Weill Cornell to
admit, via the Wall Street Journal,
that ‘there is no strong evidence
to suggest these organisms are in
fact present, and no evidence of
pathogenicity…There is definitively
not a single shred of genetic
evidence that these organisms
would actually get you sick.’
Yet it remained an exciting time
to ride the NYC metro as the
NYPD and Brookhaven national
lab released perfluorocarbons to
mimic the release of a CBR
device. The team placed air
samples in five boroughs to
model what would happen, and
we hope to be able to get a
paper on this soon.
And your running dog too!
North Korea released a
propaganda video of dear leader
Kim Jong Un visiting the
Pyongyang bio-technical
institute, doing the usual thing;
smiling, shaking hands and
adding names to the death list.
Unfortunately the good people at
38 Degrees, the US-Korea
institute at Johns Hopkins school
of advanced international
studies, watched the video far
closer than the youngest driver
ever (at age 3) would have liked.
38 Degrees reached the
conclusion that as well as
making pesticides, the facility
could also produce military sized
batches of B. anthracis.
Pesticide companies have a rich
history of doubling as bioweapons facilities (Iraq and
Russia) and with the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea’s
reputation, this would seem to
be a fair assessment. But
statements like that just mark
me out as a capitalist running
dog. A North Korean spokesman
was outraged at the suggestion
that the facility was anything of
the sort, and invited the entire
US government to visit the
facility and perhaps bring the
family too. “A thousand pairs of
ears cannot match a pair of
eyes. Come here right now, with
all the 535 members of the
House of Representatives and
the Senate as well as the
imbecile secretaries and deputy
secretaries of the government
who have made their voices
hoarse screaming for new
sanctions. Then they can
behold the awe-inspiring sight
of the Pyongyang bio-technical
institute.” So that cleared
that up.
PRODUCT WATCH
CDC’s anthrax assay
CDC announced that it would be
awarding BBI Solutions a sole
source contract for an optimised
anthrax lateral flow assay. BBI
will optimise the product to
maximise sensitivity, identify a
quality control panel for
evaluation of devices, establish
final cartridge design, establish
data collection and interpretation
methods, and obtain
performance data on assay.
Artkis lands Swiss contract
Spiez laboratory has ordered a
customised version of the Arktis
Modes_SNM nuclear detection
vehicle. Arktis claims that its
mobile detection system has the
highest sensitivity for nuclear
material available on the market.
Spiez will deploy the vehicle in
close cooperation with other
government agencies, such as
customs, military, law
enforcement and intelligence.
One of the capabilities the
system offers is the secure
transfer of measurement data
from front line officers operating
the vehicle to subject matter
experts at the Spiez laboratory.
Are you observa-ing me?
Tracerco announced the launch
of its Observa area radiation
monitoring system. Observa will
measure radiation dose rates by
combining several unique
technological features, including
a wall-mounted alarm unit. Plug
and play probes allow for simple
installation, while the large, clear
interface and sub menus make
the device easy to set up and
use. Observa gives live radiation
dose rate readings from multiple
detectors simultaneously, making
it ideal for larger sites.
The new guy in town
Emergent BioSolutions Inc
announced the launch of
Emergard; a ruggedised, military
grade auto-injector device for
www.cbrneworld.com
7
intramuscular self-injection of
antidotes and other emergency
response medical treatments
based on PC-2M by Pharma
Consult. There are very few autoinjectors in the market at present,
and some have been dogged with
technical issues, so this is a
serious opportunity for Emergent.
It is not all good news though, as
the device is not approved by the
US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), which
means that it cannot currently
be marketed in the US, though
the company intends to pursue
approval. Emergent has received
preliminary interest for Emergard
from countries outside the US
and anticipates making its first
deliveries in limited quantities in
Q4 2015.
Emergent acquired rights to PC2M, through an exclusive
worldwide licence agreement
with Pharma Consult GesmbH of
Austria, which has been selling
the auto-injector in limited
quantities to select allied
nations. The company has also
executed a global manufacturing
and supply agreement for
Emergard with Nemera
Development SA. Emergent plans
to supply current good
manufacturing practice (cGMP)compliant product through
current global sales channels for
its other biodefence products.
Another plume
Argon Electronics will be
releasing another iteration of its
PlumeSIM product at the UK
defence show, DSEi, in
September. PlumeSIM is a wide
area field exercise and table top
training system using Argon
CBRN/hazmat simulators. It
allows remote instructor
management of its chemical and
radiological simulator
instruments under a fully
configurable virtual plume, in
real time, over user-selected
mapping. PlumeSIM has been a
popular tool and is in service
with a range of Nato nations
including the UK and US.
Package deal
Avon launched its CRS15, a
bundle of CBRN equipment based
on the NH15 escape hood,
protective suit and
decontamination equipment. All
are CE certified, have a five year
shelf life and come sealed within
a small rucksack. The NH15
escape hood is available in three
sizes – small, medium and large.
Avon stated that this allows the
user to respond rapidly to an
incident or event, providing an all
inclusive solution for CBRN
situations at major events, during
riots or political visits, at
embassies, or during VIP travel.
Avon has made it available on a
hire/lease basis with fast
deployment to many countries.
Master chief!
Thermo Scientific has launched
its RadHalo rapid deployment
probe (RDP) and fixed monitor
(FM) products, the first in a new
line of radiation identification
area monitors. The company
stated that this is the first handsfree technology capable of
monitoring dose rates and
identifying radiation on location
or from miles away via five
different reachback options. The
RadHalo RDP and the RadHalo
FM promise to deliver high
sensitivity and accuracy across a
wide range of low to extremely
high radiation dose rate levels.
The instruments feature a rugged
design for uninterrupted usage in
various environments, including
certain extreme weather
conditions, for real time data
collection at checkpoints,
entrances and large public
gatherings. Multiple RadHalo
instruments can be networked
wirelessly to expand reach across
a large venue or an entire city.
TB gets zapped
Bad news for tuberculosis as the
university of Alabama at
Birmingham has described the
first known toxin for TB.
Tuberculosis necrotising toxin,
(TNT) is the founding member of
a novel class of previously
unrecognised toxins present in
more than 600 bacterial and
fungal species, reported
Phys.org, as determined by
protein sequence similarity.
Before the Niederweis discovery,
those toxins were identified only
as the domain of unknown
function 4237. Bacteria with
those newly recognised toxins
include Yersinia pestis, and
Listeria monocytogenes, one of
the most virulent and deadly
food-borne infections.
China launches own-brand CWA detector
Instead of making ‘homages’ to
western CWA detectors, China is
now branching out and building
one of its own. The Chinese
Academy of Sciences' institute of
solid state physics in Hefei
announced that in conjunction
with the People’s Liberation Army
it is developing a ‘chip-like’
detector to detect sarin when it is
heated to various temperatures.
The team believes that this will be
a low cost detector, ‘massproduced like smartphone chips
with fabrication technology
developed by the team’. Best of
luck with heating volatile agents
like sarin outside of the lab
chaps, can’t wait to see the real
life application.
Zap!
We have previously mentioned the
problem of defeating small
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
but it seems our concern was in
vain. The good people at Blighter
have teamed up with Chess
Dynamics and Enterprise Control
Systems to create an anti-UAV
defence system (AUDS). This will
disrupt and neutralise UAVs,
remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) or
unmanned aerial systems (UAS)
by combining electronic-scanning
radar target detection, electrooptical (EO)
tracking/classification and
directional RF inhibition
capabilities Once the UAV has
been detected and tracked the
device utilises Enterprise Control
Systems’ kill switch which will
selectively interfere with the C2
channels on the UAV, disrupting
its mission.
8
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Dr Jason Bannan, senior scientist at the FBI Laboratory
tells Gwyn Winfield about developing CBRN forensic science
Common approach
T
here is a suggestion that CBRN
events are about as common as
unicorn poop. Many individuals
think that a CBRN incident has to cause
fatalities in several orders of magnitude,
but this only focuses on one end of the
scale. At the opposite end are many
incidents ranging from attempts to
create CBR devices, to people making
substances but unable to use them,
through to individuals selling or using
viable substances. To focus on the upper
end of the scale is to miss all the work
that forensic technicians are doing on
CBR crime scenes every month.
Admittedly much of this is not at
the super toxic chemical warfare (CW)
or category A biological warfare (BW)
stage, but it provides a considerable
amount of casework and a growing
understanding and professionalism in
CBRN forensics. It has to be
remembered that CBRN forensics is
arguably the most recent of all the
forensic fields. Only born in the
aftermath of the Amerithrax letters in
October 2001 (and both David
Willman’s Mirageman and Dr Majidi’s
Spore on the Grassy Knoll are worth
reading), it had a lot of work to do in a
short time. An analogy might be trying
to find John Wilkes Booth (or John
Bellingham for those with more of a UK
focus) purely on gun/proof marks.
In retrospect, it is hard to find a
better case for CBR forensics to have
begun with. A high profile series of
attacks/murders done with an esoteric
weapon, a mistaken/framed individual,
an investigation lasting years and
finally a suspect that committed suicide
– it’s a murder mystery dream. If, as
with the current crop of CBR attacks (cf
Everett Dutchske) the person behind it
had been a chancer or lunatic, there
would never have been enough oxygen
to have created the science. Simpler
investigative analysis or good police
work would have closed the case. Had it
been a more mundane weapon, an
arsenical or cyanide for instance, it
would never have caught the
imagination. Dr Bruce Ivins’ motive
was always claimed to be his desire to
see more research into anthrax and
CBR agents, and ironically his very
desire might have been his prosecution.
Dr Jason Bannan, senior scientist in
the Forensic Response Section at the
FBI Laboratory in Quantico, stated that
it didn’t feel like a great opportunity to
the people on the ground at the time,
but the complexities of the case started
the ball rolling. “It was a complicated
case. The crime scene extended from
Connecticut to Florida and over the
years we needed to work out how to
exploit a lot of evidentiary material in
support of the investigation. Much of
that turned out to be trying to exploit
conventional evidence, but early in the
case it was decided that some of the
most valuable evidence needed to be
decontaminated, or rendered safe, with
radiation. That reduced our ability to
bring to bear some of the other
disciplines like DNA analysis and prints
as the material changes when exposed
to that level of radiation. Through its
successes and mistakes that case helped
shape where we are today.”
The good news for the forensics
team was that while some of the
technology needed work, some of the
tactics, techniques and procedures
already existed. Although it was never
designed to be challenged in court, the
military had been practising sampling
identification of biological, chemical
and radiological agents (SIBCRA) for
years. This ensured that there were
procedures for the successful collection
of agents, meaning that a viable sample
could be taken to a laboratory at no risk
to the individuals around it.
Dr Bannan suggested that it was not
just at the start of the Amerithrax case
that the military had played a vital role,
but throughout the development of
CBRN forensics, and on into the future
too. “We have worked closely with
military components here and abroad.
We have liaised with the SIBCRA
programme in the UK as well as the US
Army’s 20th CBRNE command and
exchanged information over the years
through AUSCANUKUS [the
quadripartite agreement involving
Australia, Canada, the UK and US. Ed].
We also worked with other
organizations such as ASTM to develop
standards for collection.
“We exercise every two years with
all four countries on a CBR scenario
[Northern Lights capex was in the last
issue Ed.] where we can observe each
other, including a science day where
we share scientific advances, or tools
that we employ or have developed.
Much of the technology, the suits,
powered air-purifying respirators
(PAPRs) and other advances have been
in partnership with our defence
colleagues here in the US through the
combatting terrorism technical support
office (CTTSO). It does a lot of work for
the military and plenty of the testing
and evaluation that supports the
FBI. The great thing about
the international
CBRN
10
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
path
community is its willingness to share
and that has benefitted us a lot.”
It is just as well that the FBI had
the start it did plus assistance from
partners, as the case load built rapidly.
The FBI has responsibility for all forms
of CBRN terrorism, ranging from
threats through to ‘white powder’
letters and finally to viable devices. As
such, it had to manage the enormous
case load that followed Amerithrax
when the world and its wife thought
that it would send suspicious powder to
its former spouse/bank manager/high
school PE teacher/gynaecologist…
Among all the talc, soap powder,
plaster, starch and powdered potato
there was occasionally something more
lethal, and this kept the capability on its
toes. Dr Bannan explained: “In the years
before Amerithrax the science involved
was mostly first responder based. The
FBI was geared up to deal with
environmental crimes like dumping
hazardous waste, so we had to respond
and provide assistance to other federal
agencies. Once Amerithrax opened up
we realised we needed traditional
forensic investigative support to put
behind those kinds of cases and it
was eye opening. At the time we
were working the anthrax investigation,
however, we were also getting ricin cases
like the Fallen Angel letters. So while we
built the new programmes we had no
shortage of cases to follow up.
Thankfully, the science has expanded in
the last decade in our law enforcement
capability to exploit evidence in dealing
with CBRN crimes.”
The science has had to expand in at
least two directions. The first is the
ability to forensically interrogate
samples. Current identification
techniques will quite likely tell you what
the agent is, but they might not be able
to indicate the strain, or the
concentration of the various
elements. Forensic interrogation
needs to go further than this. It
will want to know what
medium the agent has been
grown in or exactly what
the precursors were. All of
this provides
information based on
the methods and
ingredients used to
create the
payload, and
gives the
investigator useful evidence on the
suspect’s level of skill and the possible
sources of the necessary elements
and equipment.
The second direction is the
ability to extract information
from conventional trace
(DNA, soil, cosmetics,
paint etc)
'Yes, I can draw you like one of
those French girls...'
CBRN crime scenes require a
variety of specialist skills
©CBRNe World
www.cbrneworld.com
11
CBRNeWORLD
Common approach path
evidence either in a CBRN environment
or from a substance that is in itself
contaminated. An example of this might
be a fingermark taken from an
irradiated phone screen, or a sample of
paint that has absorbed chemical
agents. Both items are of interest but
pose collection challenges or latent
threats. As Dr Bannan looks at these
two fields which does he think the most
challenging and rewarding?
“When we talk about attribution of
chemical weapons (CW) material we can
look at the R&D that is going on in both
those areas. In Amerithrax we looked at
the components within the spore
powders to try to work out how it was
grown, and which region of the country
it came from, based on any chemical
signatures. Those were challenges in
that case and they remain challenges.
We don’t have great libraries of all
biological and chemical precursors , so
the signatures we would like are not
always available for comparison.”
“These types of challenges mean we
have to rely heavily on our investigators
as you can’t replace good old investigative
methods, putting the shoe to the
pavement, asking questions and utilising
traditional forensic evidence that can
support them and provide leads. The view
over years of CBRN investigations
was:’How much can we exploit the agent
itself?’ Now we have learned that you
can’t discount good investigative strategy
and scientific support to provide leads in
the investigation. That has been a lot of
our focus.”
Another element of focus has been
the development of analytical capabilities
within the American laboratory response
network. Except in the rarest cases the
FBI is unlikely to be first at the scene.
Instead, local first responders are likely
to have discovered the situation and,
should their own teams not have the
requisite skills, the CBRN evidence will
be recovered by local teams mainly
composed of the civil support team, local
FBI WMD coordinator and local hazmat
(for more information see CBRNe World
April 2015). These would then take a
sample, bag it according to chain of
custody and move it up the chain to the
appropriate lab.
Dr Bannan explained the procedure:
“If it has been decontaminated before
we get there as someone has taken the
initiative to decon it, then the FBI lab
can receive it as long as it has been
tested and shown to be non-hazardous.
In a real incident, however, we prefer
that samples are not decontaminated.
Biological samples go to the national
bioforensic analysis centre, chemical
samples go to our partner lab at
Edgewood chemical biological centre
(ECBC) and if it is radiological we have
our radiological evidence examination
facility at Savannah river national lab in
South Carolina. We have full forensic
capability at all three locations.”
Yet it is not just the facilities that
have been upgraded, but also the people
working in them. The FBI has invested
in building up both its hazardous
evidence analysis team (Heat) and its
hazardous evidence response team unit
(Hertu [pronounced hurt you! Ed.]) and
it is also developing further teams that
can assist.
Dr Bannan explained how the teams
mesh together: “In terms of the crime
scene response the forensic response
section contains our traditional
evidence response team, which trains
and equips all the evidence response
teams at our 56 field offices. We have a
cadre of agents called Hertu who do a
job similar to that of the hazardous
evidence response team unit, including
training and equipping of our hazardous
evidence response technicians at our
field offices to respond to hazardous
crime scenes. We also have the science
response unit (SRU) comprising subject
matter experts in CBRN, real scientists
who are deployed to the crime scene to
provide scientific support. Then we have
our technical hazard response unit
(THRU), who come from the first
response community and are very
experienced firefighters, technical
experts and paramedics that can support
our work at a hazardous crime scene
and provide medical support and safety
officer support.
“Finally we have our WMD
coordinators and our agents in the field
office where the crime scene is. In an
incident our deployable assets from the
FBI Laboratory at Quantico, supervisory
special agents from Hertu who can
deploy to the crime scene along with
scientists from SRU and technal
specialists from THRU, form a team who
will give us a technical intelligence base
and informative capability. Unlike other
agencies we don’t immediately suit up
in Level A and do a recce and come out.
Typically, there is a lot of up front work
gathering information that guides our
risk based response plan. In the 20 years
that the programmes have existed we
have only required a level A response at
two crime scenes.”
In addition to the hazardous crime
scene response capabilities, the FBI
Laboratory has developed the
Hazardous Evidence Response Team
(HEAT). HEAT is composed of forensic
scientists from the traditional forensic
disciplines within the FBI Laboratory.
The Heat members receive additional
training in various safety elements of
CBRN. For example Heat members will
be sent to the FBI Radiological
Evidence Examination Facility (REEF),
at Savannah River National Laboratory,
for the radworker II course that
employees need before they are allowed
to work in a Department of Energy
(DOE) facility and similar courses for
bio and chem are also done other at
partner laboratories. They are then
given mock evidence to work on in the
labs to enable them to link together
their subject expertise with evidential
and safety awareness (this is in addition
to the case work that they will already
be getting). They get to mitigate the
challenges of applying their forensic
discipline to the examination of
evidence potentially contaminated with
CBR materials. It is not a small
undertaking either, there are
approximately 60 forensic technicians
trained up and Dr Bannan stated that
there were experts queuing up join.
“It is a voluntary collateral duty to
be on the Heat but they are eager to do
it. We have more people asking to join
the Heat than asking to leave. It is
exciting, it gets them into these other
labs where they get some additional
biological, chemical and radiological
training and then they feel good when
12
www.cbrneworld.com
The Ultimate Protection
THE AIRBOSS DEFENSE
LOW BURDEN GAS MASK (LBM)
A PERFECT BALANCE BETWEEN DESIGN, PERFORMANCE
AND COMFORT IN THE MOST CRITICAL SITUATIONS.
Low breathing
resistance
Full visor with
cutting edge optics
and integrated
ballistic & UV
protection
Lightweight &
low profile design
allowing easy
integration and
ease of movements
Designed with human factors in mind.
www.airbossdefense.com
Comfortable,
easy to adjust
head harness (no
pressure points)
Front speech
transmitter
offering
crisp, clear
communications
CBRNeWORLD
Common approach path
they can support a challenging case.”
So what does the future hold for the
FBI and CBRN forensics? In terms of
manpower and doctrine it is a shift closer
to the crime scene. Due to deployment
times, and the potentially volatile nature
of the threat, the FBI previously worked
in a support role, but Dr Bannan
suggested that this might evolve to
include triage of evidence.
As with any other triage, this
facilitates the selection of what needs to
be dealt with first. It calls for an
impressive understanding of both
forensics and CBRN: which evidence is
the most important, now, in 10
minutes, or an hour from now? The
blood and hair under the victim’s
fingernails or attempting to take a
viable sample of sarin? “Forward field
forensics is a concept that we are now
exploring, which allows more triage and
forensic science at the CBRN scene. It
helps us to better determine what
evidence may be contaminated and
require transport to a specialty lab and
if we are actually facing a real hazard
that requires that specialty lab.”
What equipment, then, is going to
make the difference in the lab or the
The FBI has a variety of CBRN forensic teams from those that enter
the crime scene to those that stay in the lab ©CBRNe World
field? Is it better to have forensic
technicians with field deployable mass
spectrometry, or is it more valuable to
have better libraries for the devices they
have? Does stand off
detection/identification hold more
attraction for CBRN forensic techs?
What about the ability to interrogate a
hazardous crime scene safely and not
disturb vital evidence? Dr Bannan
suggested that it was hard, but the
future was not lots of bespoke CBRN
forensic equipment. “Every year it
changes and becomes a little different.
There is a plethora of kits out there in
the commercial sector and we don’t use
a lot of bespoke items. Every once in a
while we request a bespoke item, such
as a telescoping collection tool where
we can retrieve a very hot rad source
while maintaining safe distance, but it is
rare, it is mainly commercial off the
shelf (COTS).”
Regarding the future of CBRN
forensics, Dr Bannan stated that it was
likely to continue in a similar vein to
where it started, with healthy
cooperation across a range of
international partners. As an example he
pointed to the work the FBI has done
with RCMP and their decontamination
work and the ongoing relationship with
AUSCANUKUS. “We are never
complacent, we are always looking to
hone skills further and do a better job.
That is why the participation with the
international community is important as
we are always learning.
“Crime scene response is constantly
evolving, not just for CBRN but also
normal crime scenes, with new tools and
technology coming out every year. We
need to keep abreast of them, which is a
challenge. Exploiting CBRN material
remains another challenge: ‘what can we
learn from it that will support the
investigation?’ Our goal is to provide as
much information to our investigators as
possible and that is one of the things that
we will struggle with, not just in the FBI
but throughout the law enforcement
community. How can we exploit these
materials not just for traditional forensic
evidence but also the CBRN material? It is
one of the areas in law enforcement and
defence which needs the most sharing.”
14
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Gwyn Winfield meets the team at the Defence CBRN Centre at
Winterbourne Gunner and finds out how it has grown and expanded
Up Arrow
C
BRNe World’s offices are located
in Winchester, Hampshire. This
southern part of the UK has a
massive confluence of CBRN expertise
including DSTL Porton Down, the
atomic weapons establishment (AWE) in
Aldermaston, Public Health England
and also the Defence CBRN Centre
(DCBRNC) in Winterbourne Gunner.
Despite the proximity to the office,
about 20 miles, it is a good six to seven
years since I have been on the base in
an official interviewing capacity.
Proximity can breed familiarity and
while contempt never followed perhaps
ennui did.
This was a mistake. While it would
be fair to say that the DCBRNC went
through some quiet times those stopped
about three years ago, and the centre
has changed a lot since then. While the
names of the courses have largely stayed
the same the content and quality has
not, the composition of the base has
also changed, training has been
centralised and a strong bond has been
forged with other elements of the CBRN
family. I should have come back sooner.
Wing Commander Scott Magee,
Commandant at the DCBRNC agreed
that much had changed, and that this
was true of the whole UK defence
establishment. “It is a reflection of how
we see CBRN and UK defence. The
numbers of specialists in CBRN have
stayed the same as 10 years ago, we just
re-brigaded and the generalist skills are
what you would recognise from prior to
Afghanistan and Iraq. During those
major conflicts we had to focus time
and money on areas like counter IED as
men were being killed, so we decided
that we would have to regain the CBRN
area at some point.
That regain started 18 months ago
and has now happened. We are
currently in a pretty comfortable
situation and we have people trained on
the generalist and specialist skill set.
That includes a considerable financial
investment for the UK, and not just in
time and effort. The traditional threat is
ongoing, but we also have emerging
threats, so that we have to be on the
ball even more. Analysis shows that we
must have a full spectrum of capability
to deal with this, it is not just a
specialist activity it is everybody’s
business, hence the up arrow in activity
across
As well as traditional customers the
Centre is now developing the Royal
Marine capability ©DCBRNC
the
www.cbrneworld.com
15
CBRNeWORLD
Up Arrow
board. Some of our investment is in
training but a lot of it is in equipment,
as what we had had either become out
of date or didn’t quite match the new
and emerging threat, which needed to
be addressed. So a regain on our
equipment and training has enabled us
to be better prepared.”
Indeed when I get there it
resembles a Brobdingnagian campsite
with all hands to the pump putting up
the new Colpro facility the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) has bought (with the
bucolic soubriquet of BOPSY!). The
improvement in training is not just a
matter of lifting the generalist and
specialist training to a level at which it
can deal with the new threat but also
creating a new knowledge level, the
enhanced generalist. Not only is the
level new, but so are some of the units
doing it. Historically the Royal Marines
(RM) had nothing to do with CBRN.
The concept of operations in a
contaminated littoral rightly filled
people with horror, and while there had
to be a generalist level of competence
that was never built on. Now, however,
things have changed and the RM is an
enthusiastic participant in CBRN
exercises and building its capability up
to enhanced generalist.
CBRN instructor Christian ‘Dicky’
Bird explained how it came about.
“Three years ago it was decided that
CBRN would come back as a big thing,
and 40 Commando was planned to be
the frontline commando unit. They
thought ahead and overloaded on
courses compared to what they would
normally do. Because the instructors
bought into it the lads also bought into
it, so all of a sudden instead of one or
two individuals we had an entire unit
wanting to play together. We developed
a bespoke exercise for them called Toxic
Dagger, they came here and it was a big
success. The brigade commander of 3
Commando came here and saw the RM
doing CBRN for the first time in 20
years, he recognised the benefits and
bought into it! This meant that the
whole of the RM had to buy into it.
The following year the next lead
‘Yes 118, I am an enhanced generalist.’ The UK is putting in place a third skill level ©MoD
16
www.cbrneworld.com
"
#
" !!!
!!
!
"""!
CBRNeWORLD
Up Arrow
squadron started preparing for a CBRN
role before it needed to. It got the 40
Cdo lessons identified and that meant
that its training burden was halved and
it got a better product at the same time.
So the second Toxic Dagger was not
only a better product but we were also
able to increase the capability. For the
first time we had signals units using
combat full electronic messages for the
warning and reporting as well as voice;
which was actually a lesson identified as
we found out that signals don’t use
those documents any more, so that
went into the training regime.
The larger lessons identified are now
going into the next front line
commando so by the end of this year all
three commando units will have an
enhanced CBRN company. This is not at
specialist level but it is far above
generalist. What the next Toxic Dagger
exercise will bring in will be the CBRN
Wing [RAF Regiment's 27 and 26
squadrons that replaced the CBRN
defence regiment, and is still based in
Honington] and Falcon Squadron [the
Royal Tank Regiment’s CBRN area
surveillance and reconnaissance
squadron, operating the ageing Fuchs
Ed.], which will be an additional piece
for the RM. The advantage will be that
because they have already worked
together in an exercise the commandos
will know what they need to provide and
what facilities are available if they are
ever called forward. This means that
they can prepare appropriately, which
eases the burden on the specialists and
allows a quicker turn around.”
One swallow does not make a
summer, however, and one brigade does
not make a CBRN renaissance. So does
the Wing Commander feel that this is a
quirk of personality, or is it a trend and
3 Commando Brigade an early adopter?
“I do [think it is an early adopter as]
other units are following suit. This
enhanced generalist, or force protection
group, is an interesting component.”
Wing Cdr Magee continued: “We will
focus on their training in order for
them to identify threats on the ground
and deal with them so those around
them are cordoned or Casevac-ed
appropriately and to make sure the
hazard isn’t spread beyond the existing
threat hazard. They are well rehearsed; I
use their format of exercise delivery as
an example to other units. They come
here for the main training exercises and
my staff make sure that they run
through basic and enhanced drills in an
appropriate manner and they have
seized on that, much to their credit.”
Yet what is the threat? We have
spoken previously to other senior
leaders about the aim point (most
recently to BG Burton of 20th CBRNE
command in the June 2015 issue) and
they have all stated how difficult it is to
focus on the threat right now because,
more than ever before, it resides evenly
along the entire spectrum. At some
point you have to carry risk, but where,
and how do you justify it? Wing
Commander Magee agreed that you
could not defend against everything and
that the important thing is to be at
peace with this, and not worry about the
missing elements.
“It is a huge spectrum of threat and
the bottom line is we do our best to
cover most of it. It would be unrealistic
and unachievable to do it all, so we have
to invest our time, effort and equipment
where we think the most likely threats
© DCBRNC
18
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
are going to come from. If you look at
the threat spectrum you can terrify
yourself into inactivity. The reality is
that a lot of this defence, the counter
CBRN defence that we do, is relatively
easy to achieve. I am not belittling the
threat but we shouldn’t fear it. In this
specialisation I see the bespoke threats,
the terrorist threat and the lone wolf
threat as the realistic ones. There is still
state on state activity, the old cold war
threat agents, and there are countries
out there that see CBRN as a viable
weapon system, Syria being a good
example, but there are others that feel
the same way.”
As stated before it is not just the
training and some of the students that
are new, but also the ambit of the
training. Previously the Commandant of
the Centre was only responsible for the
generalist and specialist medical
training, the CBRN specialist training
was done at Honington largely without
the oversight, and tools, of the
DCBRNC. Now, however, that has
changed. The Wing and Squadron still
decide on their training but they do so
in conjunction with, and assistance
from, the DCBRNC. From outside this
might not look like a massive change,
but as anyone who has dealt with this
kind of institutional situation can tell
you, it is far more difficult that you
would ever imagine.
Dicky Bird explained: “In the past 18
months the training regime for the
separate units has started to come
under the command of the
Commandant here, if it is anything to
do with land he is the training
authority. If you are training at
Honington you are teaching on behalf
of the Commandant, the fact that you
wear a different badge and live
somewhere else is irrelevant. We have
commonality and one boss, and this
opens communications. Open
communications is how we get smart;
before there were silos of DSTL, the
Wing and DCBRNC, now we are all part
of the same family.”
Wing Commander Magee agreed. “I
am the training delivery authority for
all land training. From a CBRN
perspective that includes the DCBRN
Wg and Falcon, so as Falcon runs up to
its initial operational capability and
later its full operational capability I will
work with them to make sure that they
meet the targets that we expect. For the
DCBRN Wg the plan is that I will take
on the specialist training and over the
next few years we will develop the
training with the Winterbourne brand,
to add value to what is already a great
quality product. We just need to add a
bit of defence systems to training and
the resources that we have here in
repro, videos, graphics and online
learning, such as moodle websites,
defence learning portals etc. In essence,
it is the maturing of where we needed
to be many years ago, these discussions
have been ongoing for many years, and
are now delivering.”
Another element that DCBRNC has
bolstered has been the CBRN medical
course. In recent years this has been led
by Commander Stephen Bland, a
driving force in Nato on CBRN
medicine, and he has improved the
standard of the courses held in the
centre by an order of magnitude [more
on this in a future issue. Ed.]. Yet not
only has the quality of the tools
involved in the training improved, but
also the variety of individuals that are
now doing it.
“The bottom line is that if you don’t
have a swept up CBRN medical
capability then you don’t have a
Counter CBRN capability at all,” said
Wing Commander Magee. “You can
have all the kit and training in the
world but if you can’t cope with a
casualty you are in a pretty poor state.
It is a through life medical education
piece, the medical faculty trains
surgeons and also team medics, as the
team medic is crucial to the triage
response. We spend as much time with
the medics as we do with the surgeons
and the hospitals and the surgical teams
we have been training have had the
opportunity, particularly in the Ebola
crisis, to work closer together. Through
a number of Nato exercises we now have
a genuine capability that we can offer
people. It takes a long time to grow and
Steve Bland has been a driving force in
this and pushed it forward and is seen
within Nato as the UK’s SME for
medical CBRN.”
Dicky Bird explained that with the
addition of the junior medical assistants
(MAs) from the navy coming through
there was a greater throughput than
before. “We always had the doctors
through here as the last part of their
medical training, the clinical course,
and underneath that there is the
medical course for the field medics with
a greater understanding of CBRN field
trauma. What he has instigated is that
the junior MAs come here, straight out
of basic training. We don’t expect them
to be experts in CBRN, but it gives them
a foundation to know some of the words
and as they progress through their
careers they have something to build
on. He is now building a CBRN medical
foundation whereas previously they only
touched it at a senior level.”
The school has a busy time of it. As
well as its various training courses it
also has Nato accreditation to look
forward to (see CBRNe World April
2014), ensuring that its training is
compliant for Nato operations and to
allow Nato members to come to
Winterbourne for training. Looking
past that the Wing Commander stated
that he was hoping to see
Winterbourne become a true hub for
CBRN training for all sectors, military
and civil. In the old days Winterbourne
was a site for both civilian and military
services, but in 2006 the police national
CBRN centre moved to Ryton [near
Coventry Ed.] leaving the national
ambulance resilience unit, the training
element of the hazardous area response
teams (HART) and the military. While
positive links between all three
elements remain there is no substitute
for geographic proximity.
“If I had a crystal ball and unlimited
funds, I would like to see Winterbourne
Gunner become the national resilience
centre, with fire, police, ambulance and
military; everyone under one roof.
Other nations have it, we don’t and we
should have. I would like to see
DCBRNC delivering the same standard
of training as it does today using the
same professionalism as today. This
will include enhancements in learning
tool and more simulation as we
integrate existing technology to the
benefit of UK defence.”
www.cbrneworld.com
19
CBRNeWORLD
1
John Hart of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
on the twists and turns leading to an expanded CWC
The winding road
T
he 1993 Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) has yet to
achieve universal membership2 (it
is currently 191). Since the CWC came
in to force in 1997, most of the
resources of The Hague-based
Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have been
directed towards verifying the
destruction of chemical weapons
stockpiles and this is now more than
90% completed.
Every OPCW director general (DG)
has overseen efforts to achieve universal
membership, including via track ii
diplomacy. In March 2014 the current
DG wrote to the ministers of foreign
affairs of all states not party to the CWC
seeking (in most cases) further dialogue
with a view to joining the treaty. The
OPCW and other interested parties have
also continued to invite officials from
non-member states to various
conferences in order to facilitate this
outreach process.
The DG reported to the conference
of the states parties in December 2014
that OPCW contacts with Angola had
been intensified in connection with that
country’s accession to the UN security
council for a two year term, which
started in January 2015. Engagement
with Egypt and Israel to explore the
modalities for CWC accession has
continued. In July 2015 the DG
reported to the executive council that
the national assembly of Angola had
passed a resolution approving the
country’s accession to the CWC in April
2015. In the same month, he also
reported that the foreign minister of
South Sudan had signed a letter of
accession to the CWC. On 8 July 2015
Myanmar deposited its instrument for
ratification to the CWC with the UN in
New York. North Korea, however, has
followed the practice of not
acknowledging outreach efforts.
Variation can be expected in respect
of the political, legal and operational
factors associated with accession to the
CWC for the remaining non-members.
The broader geopolitical circumstances
in the Middle East and the Korean
peninsula are especially complicated
and differ substantially. Israel told the
conference of the states parties in 2014
that it had participated in five rounds
of consultations at a senior,
authoritative level under the auspices
of Finnish undersecretary Jaakko
Laajava in order to discuss regional
security and the conditions necessary
for establishing a Middle East free from
weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Israel stated that such discussions
must be held directly with regional
partners and be based on consensus.
Over the years, other states in the
region have refrained from engaging in
direct arms control and disarmament
discussions mainly on the grounds that
Israel is an illegitimate state and/or
that Israel should first join the 1968
treaty on the non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
In addition, a number of states will
continue to recover and destroy old
and/or abandoned chemical weapons
(OACW) into the foreseeable future.
Albania’s 2003 declaration of an
unknown sulphur mustard stockpile
leftover from the previous Communist
government, and Libya’s 2011
declaration to the OPCW regarding the
Gaddafi government’s previously
undeclared holdings were anomalies
which could nonetheless be repeated
elsewhere. Finally, some investigations
into the location and condition of
dumped chemical munitions - together
with some possible associated
destruction operations - will also
continue. Examples include the
recovery and destruction of dumped
chemical weapons (CW) at Kanda port
in Japan, recent evaluation activities of
Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions
Assessment (HUMMA) and continued
evaluations of dumped chemical
munitions in the Baltic sea being
conducted under the auspices of the
Helsinki commission (HELCOM).
States and international bodies,
including the OPCW, the World Health
Organisation (WHO) and the UN office
for project services (UNOPS), have
cooperated to monitor and verify the
destruction of CW and associated
infrastructure in the major conflict
areas of Iraq, Libya and Syria. These
initiatives have faced various difficulties
that provide context for the policy
considerations and operational issues
associated with arms control, where
state and non-state actors from within
and outside a region are interacting in
contested or ungoverned spaces.
Analysis of some of the key monitoring
and verification actions, with particular
focus on the largely consensus-based
approach adopted by the OPCW in Syria,
indicates what can be achieved.
Iraq has continued to consult with
the OPCW on verification and possible
destruction activity on the basis of a
2013 destruction plan. However,
violence in the country has hindered
OPCW monitoring and verification
efforts. In 2010 Iraq declared that it
possessed CW in two bunkers at al
Muthanna chemical weapons complex,
dating back to the Saddam Hussein
regime. A CW production facility - one
of four in Iraq scheduled to be destroyed
under OPCW verification - is also
located at the al Muthanna complex. In
June 2014 the complex was captured by
Islamic State fighters (it was recaptured
by Iraqi government forces later that
year). In July 2014 Iraq reported to the
OPCW executive council that, although
it would review the final version of the
destruction plan for the bunkers at al
Muthanna, destruction operations that
were scheduled to begin by late 2014
were impossible because of the
following development:
“Brutal groups are sweeping
through Iraq… Sadly the al Muthana
[sic] project facility shared the same
fate. On Wednesday night, 11 June
2014, armed terrorist groups entered
20
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
to universality
the aforementioned project site. The
project management spotted at dawn on
Thursday 12 June 2014, through the
camera surveillance system, the looting
of some of the project equipment and
applications, before the terrorists
disabled the surveillance system... We
hope to resume the destruction
operations as soon as the territory of the
facility is back under control and
secured by the armed forces... I hope
that the member states will understand
the inability of Iraq to fulfil its
obligations at [the] present time, which
does not originate from a lack of
willingness, in the destruction of its
chemical programme remnants.”
Libya’s ability to exercise
jurisdiction and control in connection
with its international legal obligations is
also under strain. As of late 2014 Libya
had completed the destruction of its
category 1 CW (totalling 26.23 tonnes),
555.71 tonnes (39.6%) of its category 2
CW and all its category 3 CW. In May
2014 Libya completed the destruction of
polymerised sulphur mustard “heels” (ie
residues left in plastic storage
containers) and its chemical munition
bodies. Libya’s remaining category 2
chemical weapons are scheduled to be
destroyed by December 2016. However,
the difficult and deteriorating situation
in the country could delay the
destruction schedule.
The most extensive cooperative
arrangement has been the OPCW/UN
joint mission on the elimination of
Syrian CW. The mandate for this mission
included the removal by sea of sulphur
mustard agent and CW precursors.
Removal operations via the port city of
Latakia started on 7 January 2014 and
were completed on 23 June 2014. The
OPCW signed an agreement with
UNOPS to provide safety, security and
logistical support to OPCW activities in
Syria. The EU and over 30 states made
financial and other contributions to this
effort. The US provided a ship (the MV
Cape Ray) equipped with a hydrolysis
system for the destruction of chemical
agents, while other countries accepted
chemical agents and hydrolysates for
final disposition. Commercial facilities in
Finland, Germany, the UK and the US
were contracted to dispose of Syria’s
chemical stocks and their hydrolysates.
Destruction on board the MV Cape Ray,
which occurred in international waters
in the Mediterranean, was completed on
18 August. The joint mission’s mandate
ended on 30 September, when the
OPCW took over responsibility for
verifying the destruction of Syria’s CW
programme and holdings.
The international community combined to put a portion of Syria’s chemical
weapons out of reach ©DoD
www.cbrneworld.com
21
CBRNeWORLD
The winding road to universality
In April 2014 the OPCW’s DG
established a declaration assessment
team (DAT) to consult with the Syrian
government on the declaration of its
CW programme. In 2014 Syria modified
its initial declaration by declaring an
additional CW production facility
(bringing the total to 12) and three
further research and development
facilities. The OPCW and Syria have also
consulted and agreed on the modalities
for the verified destruction of the CW
production facilities, and the OPCW
oversaw the conclusion of contracts
with commercial bodies to undertake
the destruction of these facilities. As
part of its response to the declaration,
the US noted in late 2014 that it was
“profoundly sceptical” that Syria
possesses no records that corroborate
its declaration. The EU’s statement at
the July 2015 executive council meeting
echoed this and similar concerns.
On 29 April 2014 the OPCW’s
executive council also authorised the
establishment of a fact finding mission
(FFM) to Syria to investigate alleged
use of CW. Its mandate was to establish
the facts surrounding allegations of use
of toxic chemicals (including chlorine).
In 2014 the FFM collected 37
testimonies from medical professionals
and others. It concluded that the
information gathered, in its totality,
amounted to compelling confirmation
that a toxic chemical was used as a
weapon, systematically and repeatedly
in Al Tamanah, Kafr Zita and Talmanes.
The FFM submitted a summary report
to the OPCW for the period 3 - 31 May
2014 on 16 June and released its key
findings on 10 September. The
summary report stated that available
information lends credence to the view
that toxic chemicals, most likely
pulmonary irritating agents such as
chlorine, have been used systematically
in a number of attacks.
Not all members of the OPCW’s
executive council share the philosophy
underlying a consensus-based approach
in the case of Syria. Some member
states have argued for a longer term
strategy of inclusiveness, whereby
consultations are carried out in the
spirit of equal obligations and
responsibilities inherent to multilateral
arms control and disarmament regimes
more generally.
In practice, this has been difficult to
achieve for Syria. Some states parties
have questioned the efficacy of a wholly
consensus-based approach. For example,
the US noted in its statement to the
conference of the states parties in
December 2014 that: “Syria is not just
like other states parties... Its decision to
accede to the convention was not an
enlightened renunciation of CW, but
born solely out of expediency. Just
weeks before it submitted its letter of
accession, the Assad regime, on 21
August 2013, used CW against an
opposition-controlled suburb of
Damascus, in attacks killing over 1,400
people. Now there is compelling
evidence that Syria continues to use CW
systematically and repeatedly.”
During 2015 the Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights (SOHR) and the
Syrian American medical society
(SAMS) have been among those making
continued widespread allegations of CW
use in the Syrian conflict. SAMS
supports a network of medical
treatment facilities in Syria and Turkey
and its members have documented
instances (suspected or otherwise) of
toxic chemical exposure that implicate
Syrian government forces. The
Commission for International Justice
and Accountability (CIJA), reportedly
possesses approximately 500,000 pages
of orders and reports within and by the
Syrian government’s central crisis
management cell (CCMC). This
commission comprises legal experts and
investigators with prior experience of
working for the war crimes tribunals in
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and also
for the International Criminal Court
(ICC). The CIJA has also reportedly
collected more than 470,000 videos and
testimonies. Such collection efforts may
be used eventually to support criminal
prosecutions within frameworks that do
not typically interact with multilateral
arms control regime actors.
Attribution of responsibility within
the OPCW lies with the member states
whose views are expressed mainly within
the context of executive council meetings
and the annual conference of the states
parties. In addition, the technical
verification findings of the OPCW must
be impartial, and be seen as such by
outsiders. A similar dynamic has been
evident within the UN security council
which passed Resolution 2209 (2015)
deploring the continued use of CW in
Syria without attributing responsibility.
The OPCW has nonetheless strongly
implied that the Syrian government is at
least partly responsible for some attacks
by virtue of the fact helicopters have
been associated with several incidents.
On 7 August the UN security council
unanimously adopted resolution 2235
(2015) which establishes for one year a
The team behind the MV Cape Ray pulled off a job that many thought impossible
©DoD
22
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
The winding road to universality
joint UN-OPCW investigative mechanism
which is mandated to seek to identify
those responsible for perpetrating,
organizing, or sponsoring or who are
otherwise involved in the use of
chemicals as weapons in Syria. The UN
secretary general, in consultation with
the OPCW DG, is requested to submit to
the UN security council within 20 days
recommendations for the establishment
this body which will also cooperate with
the FFM.
In looking forward to universal CWC
membership, it is perhaps worth
recalling the various legal and
procedural requirements associated
with CWC accession. An acceding state
should, for example, consider and
collect: information on drafting
implementing legislation, the OPCW
declaration handbook, the OPCW
confidentiality policy, and the OPCW
inspection manual including associated
standard operating procedures (SOP)
and work instructions (WI).
That state should also identify
declarable activities and facilities, pass
national implementing legislation,
establish or designate a national
authority (NA) and make institutional
and logistical arrangements for hosting
inspections. The latter includes
concluding a diplomatic privileges and
immunities agreement with the OPCW
and providing standing diplomatic
clearance for unscheduled flights and
multi-year, multiple entry/exit visas for
OPCW personnel. The state should also
compile information for its initial
declaration, which is due 30 days after
its CWC accession comes into force.
Specific activities the state should
undertake following accession to the
CWC include declaring:
– CW locations.
– CW production facilities that have
operated at any time since 1 January
1946.
– CW dumped at sea after 1 January
1985.
– Other facilities or establishments
under its ownership or possession or
located in any place under its
jurisdiction or control that have been
designed, constructed or used since 1
January 1946 primarily for development
of CW.
– Riot control agents (and possibly
chemicals that act on the central
nervous system, such as anaesthetics,
analgesics and sedatives for law
enforcement purposes).
Chemical industry declarations must
include information on schedule 1
chemicals and facilities, schedule 2
chemicals and plant sites, schedule 3
chemicals and plant sites, and certain
discrete organic chemicals that may
contain the elements phosphorus,
sulphur or fluorine (DOC/PSF). Such
sites can include petrochemicals,
pharmaceuticals and pesticides, only
some of which are declarable under the
OPCW’s routine verification system.
The OPCW has much experience in
helping governments to establish the
necessary legal framework and
institutional support mechanisms to
implement the CWC, including by
organising conferences that bring
together the various treaty regime
stakeholders. In March 2015 the OPCW
hosted a workshop to review the lessons
learned from the international maritime
operation to remove chemical materials
from Syria. It divided these lessons into
four groups; political/conceptual, legal,
operational strategic and operational
tactical. The workshop emphasised the
importance of sustained political will and
unity of purpose, and noted inter alia:
– The indispensability of an appropriate
legal architecture.
– That packaging of materials was done
according to the international maritime
dangerous goods code (IMDG)
standards.
– A legal framework was crucial to the
provision and sustainment of
contributions.
– Articles 25 and 103 of the UN charter
were important (specifically that UN
member states have an obligation under
article 25 to accept, carry out and to
facilitate activities in furtherance of UN
security council Resolution 2118
(2013)).
CW related scenarios could include
previously unknown CW stocks, and
incomplete declarations and verification
processes in armed conflict areas. It is
also worth considering whether CW
production facilities are stand alone, or
integrated into larger industrial
chemical facilities, and what, if any, role
have other states (including parties to
the CWC) played in the development and
production of CW in a new member
state. One should also expect differences
in views over whether a programme or
activity is offensive (ie prohibited by the
CWC) or defensive (ie CWC permitted).
Another typical lack of common
understanding stems from the
dichotomy between providing
declarations that contain relevant and
available information versus information
that is complete and correct.
North Korean accession scenarios could
be as varied as:
– Onsite destruction/inactivation with
the current regime in charge.
– Onsite destruction/inactivation with a
substantially different regime in charge.
– Out of country removal of CW stocks
and material for destruction/
inactivation in South Korea; in South
Korea and China; via a sea based option;
or with Japan in an assistance role.
Further reviews of the operational and
policy lessons from CW related
declarations and compliance concerns
should continue. The OPCW should also
engage further in contingency planning
as additional states accede to CWC or
unexpected CW related developments
transpire in future. The continued
relevance of the convention in
supporting international peace and
security can thereby be ensured.
Footnotes:
The views presented are the author’s
and do not necessarily reflect those of
SIPRI.
2
Currently five states are not party to
the CWC. Israel has signed but not
ratified the treaty, while Angola, Egypt,
North Korea and South Sudan have not
signed the treaty. A total of eight states
have declared chemical weapon
stockpiles, namely Albania, India, Iraq,
Libya, South Korea, Syria, Russia and
the US. At least 14 states have declared
97 CW production facilities, of which at
least 79 have been destroyed or
converted to CWC permitted purposes.
1
24
www.cbrneworld.com
ES !
IC EN
PR OZ
FR
The Most Comprehensive
CBRNE Directory in the Market
CBRNe 3rd Edition
WORLD
Directory
Distinct Benefits of the 3rd Edition CBRNe World
Directory compared to the 2014/2015 version:
– 2 completely new categories (Narcotics
detection & Met Stations) with more to
follow
– Over 180 new products and over 700 updates
added since the 2014/2015 version
– New chapters, with a 2015 assessment of
each section.
– Detailed information on more than 1,700
different products – 155 different CWA/TIC
detectors, 125 UGVs, 66 Dosimeters, etc.
– Information from nearly 600 different CBRN
companies
– Nearly 800 colour pages incorporating
traditional CBRNe World Roundups and
additional product information
– Search, compare and contrast multiple
products with the online version
– All CBRN and EOD capabilities covered (i.e.
detection, protection, disruption, decon, etc.)
– Online version is updated bi-monthly with
new companies, products and information
– A new and unique panel of subject matter
experts drawn from academia, government,
military and civil sectors
Subscription to online version comes with
training and standards resources, printable
roundups and additional tools and resources
to download at no additional cost.
For questions, to purchase
or to schedule an online
demonstration, please contact:
Andrea Schinzel at
[email protected]
or +1 443 974 6897
Print version only: Two books, DIM and
Mitigation and Protection – £350
Print and online: Two books, DIM and Mitigation
and Protection, 12 months subscription to
updated, searchable web site – £990
Multi user license: £3,500 (10 online
subscriptions and twin print volumes)
Enterprise Licenses: Price on application.
Over 1,700 products, 600 companies, a panel of experts –
CBRN excellence distilled
CBRNeWORLD
Dr Ahmed S. Hashim,Associate Professor at the International Centre for
Political Violence and Terrorism Research at the Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (Singapore), on understanding a febrile situation
CBRN in the
Middle East:
state of play
Background
Since the early 1950s, following
independence from colonial powers, the
countries of the Middle East have
experienced numerous conflicts with
one another and outside powers. Not
surprisingly, the region has ranked
among the most consistently unstable
areas of the world.
First, deep-seated enmities and
enduring rivalries between neighbours
have ensured that efforts to establish a
functioning regional security system to
mitigate and resolve differences have
come to naught. Nations have put their
trust in the acquisition of large
quantities of conventional and not so
conventional weaponry. Second, in the
absence of a functioning regional
security system, Middle Eastern nations
have often responded to conflict by
amassing weaponry - including both
conventional and nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons.
Third, the defeat of Iraq in two hitech conventional wars by the US and
its allies, in 1991 and 2003, has merely
highlighted the unassailable superiority
of American conventional power. Much
has been written about this, with
considerable concern both by allies who
fear falling further and further behind
and thereby unable to contribute much
to coalition warfare with the US, and by
potential or actual enemies fearful of
being at the receiving end of such
conventional superiority. This situation
has contributed to the acquisition of
a wide variety of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) – chemical,
biological and nuclear – by regional
countries in order to deter more
powerful countries. These weapons
cannot be lumped together. Nuclear
weapons remain the gold standard, and
not surprisingly preventing proliferation
beyond the one country that has them,
Israel, has elicited considerable effort on
the part of the international
community.
Fourth, the rise of highly empowered
non-state actors in the Middle East with
rigid and stark religious ideologies has
been a source of worry because these
groups, specifically Al-Qa’ida and Islamic
State (IS) have, by their statements and
actions, indicated intent to acquire
WMD. The capabilities of such non-state
actors are primitive to non-existent,
however, which is why a number of
analysts have suggested that while the
world should pay close attention to their
activities, we should not overly
exaggerate the threat they pose.
Chemical weapons
Of all the so-called WMD, chemical
weapons (CW) have been present
longest in the region and are the only
ones that have been used. The British
toyed with the idea of using them
against Ottoman Turkish forces in
Gallipoli in 1915 in order to break the
dreadful deadlock on that front. After
much debate they decided that the costs
were not worth the benefits. The
consensus is that Egypt pioneered the
development of a CW arsenal in the
region. Egypt used CW against Yemeni
tribesmen during the Yemeni civil war
of the early 1960s, which pitted
Royalists supported by Saudi Arabia and
the west against Republicans supported
by Egypt and the Soviet bloc. Egypt is
also suspected of pioneering the
proliferation of CW to Syria in the early
1979s, thus setting the stage for Syria’s
development of the largest chemical
arsenal in the Middle East by the 1980s.
The most extensive use of CW in the
region came with the bloody Iran/Iraq
war of 1980-1988. Hard-pressed Iraqi
forces used a variety of CW to turn back
massed infantry assaults by highly
motivated Iranian troops and
volunteers. Though the casualties
caused by the CW were a fraction of the
vast losses that Iran suffered in terms of
dead and wounded, they blunted Iranian
offensives, caused mass panic on the
battlefield among the poorly equipped
and trained volunteers, and considerable
psychological distress on the home
front. Iraq also used CW on Kurdish
civilians in Halabja in 1988 ostensibly to
teach them a lesson for betraying Iraq
during the war with Iran. Iraq was
subjected to international opprobrium
but not much was done about its WMD
arsenal until the onset of the Gulf crisis
of 1990-1991, when Saddam Hussein
invaded Kuwait.
CW faded from attention following
the destruction of Iraq’s arsenal.
Regional states and the international
community refocused on nuclear
proliferation, particularly the growing
rift between the international
community and the Islamic Republic of
Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons
programme (see below). Following the
American invasion of Iraq, an
insurgency broke out there. It was
feared that the insurgents might access
Iraq’s deteriorating residual chemical
munitions and try to use them in
attacks against civilians and US and
coalition forces. Indeed, some insurgent
forces managed to detonate massive
bombs filled with ‘unknown’ chemical
substances on a number of occasions.
It was not until the Syrian civil war
that broke out in 2011, and is still
ongoing, that CW received renewed
attention. In 2013, a chemical attack in
the outskirts of Damascus nearly
brought about US intervention in the
26
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Having destroyed the forces allied nations then needed to build them up again ©DoD
Syrian civil war and ultimately led to
Syria's accession to the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). Calls
emerged for the establishment of a CW
free zone. While response to the efforts
to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal was
muted among regional states because of
Syria’s alleged use of CW against civilians
and the powerful array of powers ranged
against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, many
in the region viewed western outrage as
hypocritical. Rather, it was seen as an
effort to rid Syria of a leg of its deterrent
against its rival Israel.
Moreover, as far as the Arab
countries, and particularly Egypt, are
concerned the important thing is to rid
the region of all WMD - nuclear,
chemical, and biological. Arab
governments believe that the security of
the region will not be served by
establishing a CW-free zone as long as
Israel retains nuclear weapons. Now
that Damascus has acceded to the CWC,
Israel and Egypt are the only states in
the region not to have done so.
However, the Syrian government’s unit
450, which is in charge of the CW
arsenal, has allegedly spent a lot of its
time hiding much of the country’s
residual chemical munitions. Egypt
would happily ratify the CWC - if that
meant ridding the region of all WMD.
But Egyptians see little gain in
establishing a zone that is free of
chemical weapons but not free of
nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons constitute the
ultimate deterrent, and Israel is the only
country in the region to have them. Its
strident efforts to prevent Arab
countries and Iran from going nuclear,
has nothing to do with the oftarticulated fear that so-called irrational
rulers might use such weapons against
Israel. Rather, it is because the Israeli
monopoly would be breached and
Israel’s strategic freedom of action in
the region would be severely
circumscribed. Similarly, the US, which
has considerable strategic interests in
the Middle East, has been adamant in its
efforts to stymie the proliferation of
nuclear weapons in the region.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) is an arms control treaty
rather than a disarmament convention.
The conventions on chemical and
biological weapons require nations to
destroy their stockpiles shortly after
they become parties to the agreements,
but the NPT makes no such demands of
nuclear weapon states. This has been a
bone of contention between the
established nuclear powers and the nonnuclear powers. In the Middle East,
specifically, the major problem with the
treaty regime is that Israel - a nuclear
weapons state - is not party to the NPT.
It acquired its capability without having
accessed the treaty and thus cannot be
said to be violating it. Israel’s possession
of nuclear weapons has chagrined and
alarmed its neighbours who are not
comforted by its monopoly over nuclear
arms in the region. Israel has argued
that as long as its legitimacy is in
question and most countries in the
region do not accept its existence, it is
www.cbrneworld.com
27
CBRNeWORLD
CBRN in the Middle East: state of play
unwilling to discuss the nuclear file.
Because the treaty regime has failed
so far to rid the Middle East of nuclear
weapons, interested parties have
applied significant effort to another
disarmament approach - establishing
a nuclear weapon free zone. Since
1974, Iran and Egypt have regularly
sponsored UN resolutions calling for
just that. More significantly, the 1995
NPT review conference, which
extended the treaty indefinitely, called
for a zone to be established.
That call was reiterated at the 2010
NPT review conference, and practical
steps toward establishing a zone were
identified. But UN sponsored efforts to
convene a conference on this subject in
late 2012 were aborted, when the US
declared that the conference could not
be convened. The reason was the
unstable conditions in the region presumably referring to the ongoing
turmoil in Arab countries - and because
states had not reached agreement on
acceptable conditions, which was
presumably a reference to the regional
focus on Israel’s possession of nuclear
weapons. This was something that
neither the US nor Israel wished to be
the centre of attention at a putative
conference on establishing a nuclear
weapon free zone in the region.
However, following the internationally
sanctioned destruction of Iraq’s WMD
infrastructure, including its huge but
somewhat inefficient nuclear weapons
programme, which would have
ultimately made Iraq the region’s
second nuclear power, attention turned
to Iran. From the mid 1990s until the
attainment of a nuclear deal with
Tehran in July 2015, both the
international community and the
regional powers worried that the leaders
of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)
were determined to get the bomb. This
was despite pious statements that
nuclear weapons were immoral and that
acquiring them was not part of Iranian
defence doctrine. These powers had
reason to worry, though.
First, Iran had been subjected to
WMD use. While chemical weapons are
not on a par with nuclear, the outside
world remembered the Iranian leaders’
post Iran/Iraq war statements that the
IRI must arm itself with WMD, and not
later attempts to assure the world that
Iran only wanted a nuclear
infrastructure for civilian use. Second,
Iran is a regional powerhouse in
competition with Israel whose
legitimacy it spurns, and with the Arab
countries and Turkey. Since its Islamic
revolutionary ideology might not be
enough to promote it as the most
important Muslim power, the addition
of a nuclear arsenal would make the
region pay attention.
Faraway nuclear Pakistan was too
poor, indeed a potentially failing state,
and too engrossed in its conflict with
India to be a key player in Middle
Eastern politics. A nuclear Iran would
also be able to set the parameters of the
Arab/Israeli conflict to the alarm of
Israel and the chagrin of the
increasingly impotent Arabs. Finally,
Iran armed with nuclear weapons would
be able to deter the most powerful
threat to its national security and the
existence of the Islamic republic itself,
namely the US. Might not the massive
conventional gap between the two sides
in favour of the US be closed by the
ultimate deterrent in Iranian hands.?
Over the years revelations about
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure came in
parallel with the emergence of a
powerful pro-nuclear constituency
among its hardline conservatives, a
growing nationalist national security
establishment, and top personnel of the
Islamic revolutionary guards corps.
Iran’s rapid and impressive creation of a
large and relatively indigenous science
and technology infrastructure also
caught the world’s attention. Not
surprisingly, the regional powers and
international community sat up and
took notice. Israel, for its part, regularly
threatened to launch an air strike
against the various installations. Most
observers doubted whether Israel alone
could do the job; Iran had multiple
installations, which were well defended.
This would not be a strike against a
single installation like when the Israelis
destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at
Osirak in 1981. Also, Iran was better
placed than Iraq to retaliate since it has
a large ballistic missile arsenal and
widespread links with pro-Iranian or
anti-Israeli groups in the region that
could target Israel.
The consensus was that only the US
would be capable of destroying the
Iranian nuclear infrastructure; but this
would come at great political,
geopolitical and economic cost.
Moreover, the US was preoccupied with
its seemingly endless wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan; by 2010 it had reached a
state of fatigue with its quagmires in the
region. This did not stop the US
Congress from taking an increasingly
hawkish position towards Iran, to
mirror that of the Israeli prime minister
Benyamin Netanyahu. In the US itself,
the administration and the military
establishment advised caution as
regards a military solution to the
Iranian nuclear issue, while in Israel the
military and intelligence elite were not
on the same page as the prime minister.
The Arab world was getting as seriously
discomfited as Israel with the prospect
of an Iranian nuclear break out. This
was tied to the rise of Arab/Iranian
rivalry that seemed to have
overshadowed the Arab/Israeli, and
specifically the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict. Iran’s role in Iraq, its growing
support for Arab Shia in Bahrain,
Yemen and the eastern province of
Saudi Arabia has caused alarm.
Similarly, its support for President
Assad in Syria has infuriated the Arab
world. Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt
made it known that while they would
prefer a non-nuclear Middle East, they
would take measures to protect
themselves if Iran were to obtain
nuclear weapons. This was code for
developing nuclear weapons. It was
questionable, though, whether Egypt,
which was going through massive
turmoil and racked by economic
problems would have the wherewithal
to develop a more sophisticated nuclear
infrastructure than it has at present.
The question mark was Saudi
Arabia. Terrified of Iran and its power,
despite its own massive investment in
conventional weaponry over the past
decade, Riyadh’s political elite made it
clear that Iranian acquisition of nuclear
weapons would elicit a forceful Saudi
response. If this meant that Saudi
Arabia would have moved to acquire
28
www.cbrneworld.com
THE BEST
JUST GOT
BETTER
THE NEXT GENERATION OF MASK
TO BE LAUNCHED AT DSEI 2015
STAND N9-260
Europe, Middle East, Asia, Africa & Australasia
t: +44 (0) 01225 896 705
e: [email protected]
The Americas
t: +1 888 286 6440
e: [email protected]
www.avon-protection.com/CBRNe-Aug15
CBRNeWORLD
nuclear weapons at the expense of
harming its relationship with its patron,
the US, is an unclear policy question.
The other issue was technical: how
would Saudi Arabia acquire nuclear
weapons? There has been a tendency to
disparage the kingdom as being
technologically incapable of going down
the path of indigenous nuclearisation.
In the words of the American political
commentator Farid Zakaria, in a
famously disparaging piece, Saudi
Arabia is a country that is incapable of
building automobiles.
Zakaria’s piece was ripped apart by
another commentator who wrote that
building cars is not a prerequisite for
building nuclear weapons. North Korea
cannot build much, never mind
automobiles, yet it is a nuclear power.
In any case, Saudi Arabia is entering the
car-building business. Many observers
have painted a scenario of outright
acquisition of nuclear devices from
Pakistan, a country with which Saudi
Arabia has had close relations for years.
It is clear that nations have helped each
other down the path of nuclearisation in
the past: the US helped Britain and
France (despite Paris’ insistence that
the French bomb was totally
independent). The Soviet Union helped
China, France helped Israel, and Israel
helped South Africa. Pakistan allegedly
helped North Korea and Iran through
an infamous network. No country has
made an outright transfer of a segment
of its arsenal to another country,
however: it cannot be one device, as that
does not make a deterrent. Of course,
this does not mean that a nuclear state
might not try this; but most observers
discount Pakistan from doing so
because of the potentially negative
political fall-out.
Regional and international concern
over Iranian nuclearisation also
prompted active European and UN
involvement. This was particularly
evident after the revelations of
enrichment activities at Natanz. A series
of seemingly fruitless negotiations
between Iran and the so-called P5+1 (the
five permanent members of the UN
security council plus Germany) began in
order to reach an accord on what Iran
could and could not do with its
burgeoning nuclear infrastructure. The
gap between the two sides was wide; it
was accentuated by differences within the
P5 between more hawkish members and
those willing to be more accommodating
of Iran. As for Iran itself, the nuclear file
became an important part of the debate
between conservatives/hardliners on the
one hand and reformists/moderates on
the other.
The election of the unkempt
populist hardliner Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad to the presidency in Iran
aggravated the situation enormously.
Famous for his strange belligerent and
offensive statements and actions,
Ahmadinejad declared that the Iranian
nuclear programme was unstoppable.
Iran’s antics and the consolidation of
the hardliners in power contributed to
the imposition of sanctions by the UN
and the west. These were to prove
extremely painful and began to bite into
people’s livelihoods. While the vast
majority of the Iranians were adamant
about resisting humiliation, people
began to wonder whether the ‘right to
enrich’ was worth the economic costs.
The regime began to worry about
domestic stability while the people
The US has gone to great lengths to try and build up CBRN defence capability in the region ©DoD
30
www.cbrneworld.com
BODY GUARD HAZREM
INTRODUCING APLS BODY GUARD HAZREM,
THE ULTIMATE CHEM-BIO BODY BAG
APLS Body Guard HazRem is ready for the unthinkable, including processing hazardous remains. The body bag’s innovative design
– thermal seals, finished edges, fluid-proof zipper and treated nylon backing – creates a leak-proof inner chamber that minimizes the
risk of service provider exposure to bacteria-laden body fluids and chemical and biological agents. Plus, APLS Body Guard HazRem
features a surface-active agent for odor control while the rugged design lessens the chance of environmental contamination.
To schedule a briefing, please contact Tom Nyhan, APLS Director of Sales, at (909) 973-9983 or at [email protected]
Paper Pak Industries • 1941 White Avenue La Verne, CA 91750 USA Telephone (909) 392-1750 Fax (909) 392-1760 www.paperpakapls.com © 2015 Paper Pak Industries
#$%#$
%'" $
$*' ).+$)
&)#'
-- ) %$$)'
%$%$$ ) $%#
" &!
!!$!
%' $%(
,,,!''*)*')%#
(%*"'%$)# $) %$.()#
CBRNeWORLD
began to talk about the instability of a
theocratic regime ruling an increasingly
anti-religious society. Businesses and
citizens painfully aware of the economic
damage done by sanctions brought
about the election of President Hassan
Rohani. Iranians were interested in reintegration into the global economy and
in revitalising their nation’s economy
and their own economic status.
To the surprise of many an
agreement was finally reached between
Iran and the P5+1 in July 2015. The
document is highly detailed and
intricate and constitutes the most
intrusive nuclear inspection
arrangements ever attained. It is
suspected that the US was responsible
for this. The agreement allows
international inspectors to visit any site
in Iran that they view as suspicious.
Every stage of the Iranian fuel cycle will
be tightly monitored as will its nuclear
supply chain. The agreement reduces
the country’s capacity to enrich
uranium by two thirds; from nearly
20,000 centrifuges, of which only half
were in operation, to between 6,000 and
6,500. Iran has to cut its stockpile of
low and medium-enriched uranium. It
will either have to dilute the rest or sell
it abroad. Some key installations like
Fordow, an enrichment facility built
under a mountain, will be converted
into physics research laboratories open
to international inspection. At Arak the
core of the heavy-water reactor will be
removed so that it cannot produce
weapons grade plutonium.
Furthermore, Iran will not be
‘allowed’ to build a heavy water reactor
for the next 15 years and will have to
account fully for the nuclear weapons
dimensions of its nuclear programme, a
stipulation the US insisted on.
Particularly galling for many Iranians,
whether moderates or conservatives is
the gratuitous requirement that the
longstanding embargo on the sale of
conventional weapons will remain in
force for five more years and a ban on
technologies associated with ballistic
missile capabilities remain in force for
eight more years.
Iranians believe that these are
intended to keep the country weak and
vulnerable while many of their
neighbours gallop ahead with
conventional purchases – and they are
right. The agreement stipulates that if
Iran violates its obligations sanctions
would be re-imposed. If inspectors
suspect that Iran is cheating, or make
allegations along these lines, a joint
commission would work to resolve the
matter. If this fails, the issue would be
referred to the UN security council,
which will vote whether to continue
maintaining sanctions relief. However, a
veto by a permanent member would
mean the re-imposition of sanctions.
Clearly, this agreement is an attempt
by the western powers to box Iran in as
much as possible. Nonetheless, there are
parties and states that have expressed
dissatisfaction and have argued that the
agreement will make Iran a nuclear
power in a few years. Israel has started
preparing to host US lawmakers on visits
to Israel during which, presumably, the
Netanyahu government will bombard
them with ‘facts’ about how bad the
agreement is for Israel’s national security.
Many Republican lawmakers will prove to
be stumbling blocks since they have
made up their minds that nothing short
of Iran’s abject surrender and
disarmament is acceptable. Israel’s
national security establishment outside of
the Netanyahu government and the US
Congress are more rational and realistic.
The Arab countries’ reaction has
not been positive, and this has a lot to
do with their internal problems –
dealing with IS and its nihilistic
violence – and the growing sectarian
schism roiling the region between
Sunnis and Shias. The Gulf countries,
in particular, are worried that the
agreement, which frees billions of
dollars of Iranian assets enables Iran to
revitalise its economy and commercial
links with many countries that they are
also courting. Iran will ‘come in from
the cold’ so to speak, and in future it
will be able to revitalise its nuclear
infrastructure. For the Arabs it is a win
for Iran. However, an Arab ability to go
nuclear either individually or
collectively is unlikely for
technological, financial, and political
reasons. If they think that neither
Israel nor the west will give such Arab
endeavour as much attention as they
did the Iranians, the Arabs will be in
for a shock.
The Middle East certainly remains a
volatile and unstable region. Its
trajectory towards further
nuclearisation beyond Israel is not likely
for the next few years. The region is
home to numerous non-state actors
that have indicated a desire to acquire
WMD. Intent, of course, does not equal
capability. Al Qa’ida and its
associates/affiliates such as Egyptian
Islamic Jihad, Jemaah Islamiyyah in
south-east Asia, and Lashkar-e-Tayyibah
in south Asia have been at the forefront
in expressing intent and conducting
experiments and programmatic efforts
in the direction of CBRN.
More recently, IS has also expressed
interest in acquiring some form of nonconventional weaponry. In June 2014, it
took control of the Saddam era al
Muthanna chemical complex in
northern Iraq. According to Baghdad,
the complex contained 2,500 chemical
rockets filled with the nerve agent sarin.
However, the sarin was old and
degraded and useless as a chemical
weapon. Mustard gas munitions at the
complex were also degraded despite this
substance having a longer life. In the
wake of IS’s remarkable military
victories in 2014, there was some
reaction over the group’s alleged seizure
of 40 kilograms of uranium compound
from Mosul university in July 2014.
The fact of the matter is that the
uranium in question was low grade, so
IS would have needed to enrich it and
then to weaponise and deliver it. All
these steps require facilities and
technical know-how that IS simply did
not have and would take years to
acquire. Similarly, fears that non-state
actors may make a move towards the
development of biological weapons are
also exaggerated. An entity like IS, if it
manages to consolidate territorial
control and legitimacy over
populations, that is sustain and
maintain its de facto state might
eventually be able to attract people with
the necessary technical capabilities and
knowledge. For the moment, though,
while no capabilities exist, the activities
of non-state actors, particularly of IS
and its rival bear close observation.
32
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNe
CONVERGENCE
Asia
Save the date
Japanese Ground Self
Defence Force
24 to 25 February 2016
Tokyo Marriott Hotel, Shinagawa,Tokyo
More details on www.cbrneworld.com/cbrneconvergenceasia
Tokyo Metropolitan
Police Dept.
CBRNeWORLD
Shawn Funk, Chief,Advanced Technology Demonstration Branch
at the US army’s Edgewood Chemical Biological Center,
on hazard mitigation and decontamination
Taking a HaMMER
to decon
T
he hazard mitigation, material
and equipment restoration
(HaMMER) advanced technology
demonstration (ATD) was the first to
demonstrate a family of systems
designed for hazard mitigation and
decontamination.
HaMMER was unique in that it
integrated several different
technologies, namely strippable
coatings, multiple decontaminants and
agent indicator products. These
technologies were deliberately
identified in a technology transition
agreement (TTA) between the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency’s joint science
and technology office for chemical
biological defense (DTRA-JSTO) and
joint project manager protection (JPM
P) to support new programme concepts
in JPM P’s decontamination family of
systems (DFoS).
In order to effectively demonstrate
these technology categories, a systems
engineering approach was used to
identify specific technology candidates,
design supporting applicators and
develop tactics, techniques and
procedures (TTPs). Ultimately,
successful military utility for the
HaMMER ATD products was dependent
on the convergence of three elements:
technology, applicators and
operational process.
The US army’s Edgewood Chemical
Biological Center (ECBC) provided
technical management for the ATD,
partnering Battelle Memorial Institute
to complete technology selection,
laboratory testing, applicator design,
and applicator testing. The US Army
Pacific (USARPAC) provided operational
management, vehicles, warfighters and
warfighter feedback throughout the
process, culminating in the joint
military utility assessment (JMUA). The
manoeuvre support centre of excellence
(MSCoE) at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, provided expertise to develop
a new concept of operations (ConOps)
and TTPs to leverage HaMMER
capabilities and ensured that HaMMER
findings were fed back into the
requirements development process.
JPM P actively participated in
transition management of the ATD to
ensure data, test plans/procedures,
designs, TTPs, and warfighter feedback
could support its DFoS efforts. Finally,
the army test and evaluation command
helped ensure the integrity of the
technical and operational
test/demonstration process, and
provided an independent operational
assessment. The HaMMER ATD was a
collaborative effort within the CBRN
community, initiated and funded by
DTRA-JSTO.
Overview
The HaMMER equipment can be
categorised into four suites. These are:
preparatory, mobile on the move
(MOM), mobile support and stationary.
The preparatory suite enabled
application of strippable coatings to
vehicles. Painting may be done by depot
or contractor logistics support
personnel, and is done prior to mission.
The strippable coating used for
HaMMER was the Akzo Nobel Intergard
10220. Although the coating itself
cannot be decontaminated, it can be
stripped in part or in whole, supporting
both spot and large area
decontamination with minimal to no
liquid runoff.
The MoM suite was the smallest
scale packaging of HaMMER
technologies, designed to provide
vehicle operators with a small kit to
identify and mitigate contaminated
areas on vehicles. The kit included
chemical agent dection (CAD) pens to
detect nerve or blister, M8 paper,
sorbent wipes, a dual chamber/dual
purpose applicator to dispense
nerve/blister/training indicator spray or
Dahlgren Decon. The kit also included
markers and a stripping tool to leverage
the pre-applied strippable coatings from
the preparatory suite. The inclusion of
agent indicator spray makes spot
decontamination possible, so a smaller
kit suitable for spot decon (rather than
an entire vehicle) becomes feasible.
The mobile support suite was scaled
to support battalion level operations as
a deployable system that can support a
small number of contaminated vehicles.
It included CAD pens and M8 paper to
aid in agent identification, as well as a
full dial-a-decon system that enabled
on-the-fly switching between rinse
water, soap or decontaminant from
either of the two hose reels and onboard tanks. A high pressure washer
supports removal of strippable coating
remnants and final rinse. Three Viper
backpack sprayers were included to
enable application of indicator spray.
Finally, the stationary suite was
scaled to support dedicated decon
platoon operations. Like the other
suites, it included CAD pens and M8
paper to aid in agent identification. It
included sorbent wipes for small area
decon, but the on-board decon system
was much larger overall. It had six hose
reels, each of which had an on-the-fly
dial-a-decon capability to switch
between rinse water, soapy water, decon
tank 1 or decon tank 2. Two decon tanks
allowed for tailored decon capability.
Dalhgren Decon can be applied from
34
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
the primary tank to support general
decon operations, while a more
materials friendly decon like Genencor
VX/G could be applied from the
secondary on-board tank. To support
agent disclosure and assurance
operations, two different indicator spray
applicators were provided. These were
the same backpack based Viper system
used in the mobile support suite, and a
cart based system called the Merlin to
support high output/high throughput
use expected in a decontamination
assurance step conducted to verify that
decontamination is complete.
Timeline
The HaMMER ATD started unofficially
in 2009. This early risk reduction phase
established that viable technologies
were available for demonstration in the
required categories of coatings,
decontaminants and agent indicators.
The ATD then officially started
execution in 2010 with optimisation.
Selection of final technology candidates
enabled the ATD to move into
integration in the fiscal year of 20102011 (FY11) where technologies were
married to applicators at three different
scales and tested in the laboratory and
at Dugway proving ground, Utah. The
operational demonstration was executed
in late FY12 at Schofield barracks,
Hawaii, using army and marine
warfighters. The US army test and
evaluation command (ATEC) wrote the
operational assessment, and USARPAC
wrote the JMUA. At this point, the main
portion of the ATD was complete, and
spanned just over three years.
But this is really only half the story...
The figure above shows that ATD
execution can be divided into four areas.
The first three, risk reduction, ATD
execution, and extended user evaluation
(EUE), occur sequentially. The fourth
area covers the way the ATD ties into
the acquisition community, and
happens throughout the life of the ATD.
As was the case with HaMMER, the ATD
execution phase is often publicised,
mainly because it showcases new
technologies and great potential.
Unfortunately, the fruit borne of ATDs is
not fully understood without examining
the EUE phase and the overarching
theme including the ATD support
acquisition efforts.
Extended user evaluation
The EUE phase consisted of providing
warfighters with the equipment for two
years, for continued familiarisation,
training and feedback. The goal was to
integrate the equipment into regular
training and to further explore areas not
initially covered in the operational
demonstration. The HaMMER EUE
phase had three discrete events with
targeted focus areas.
www.cbrneworld.com
35
CBRNeWORLD
Taking a HaMMER to decon
EUE1 was conducted in Hawaii in September 2013, and
focused on using the largest stationary suite in dedicated
equipment decon operations. This exercise used all the
HaMMER technologies, including strippable coatings, indicator
spray with Merlins and Viper applicators, and the MoM bags that
would support a vehicle crew, and included a mini applicator
that could dispense both decontaminants and indicator spray.
This EUE had special focus on refining TTPs, field expedient
methods to discern indicator colour change on dark surfaces
and muddy vehicles, as well as vehicle coverage data and power
supply preferences for indicator spray applicators.
EUE2 was conducted in Korea in October 2013, and
focused on battalion level operations (operational decon but
with thorough decon capability) using the high mobility
multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) based mobile
support suite. The strippable coatings were not available in
Korea, but they used the MoM bags (which had the HaMMER
mini applicator for decon and indicator spray) and the Viper
applicators for indicator spray.
Initial results from EUE2 showed that warfighters desired a
larger scale applicator for the indicator spray, especially for
decon assurance which requires application over the entire
vehicle. The current Viper system is capable of covering about
1.5 HMMWVs with indicator spray before it runs out.
Preparation of the indicator spray is somewhat complex, so
warfighters would benefit from a larger capacity system that
requires fewer refills. In addition to operational decon exercises,
EUE2 also enabled two excursions to look at the ability to see
the indicator colour change under various lighting conditions
in a dark environment, and application of the indicator spray to
support checking level A suits for contamination.
EUE3 was conducted in Korea in February 2014. The key
factor in this EUE was the introduction of the larger Merlin
applicators for the indicator spray, based on feedback from
EUE2. This EUE enabled warfighters to employ HaMMER
technologies and legacy systems as part of a decon rodeo
associated with the key resolve exercise.
The EUE results were briefed to the SUSTAIN integrated
concept team (ICT) and countering weapons of mass
destruction (CWMD) working group to inform the
development of future expectations, requirements and
acquisition strategies. It helped them consider the
technological and operational factors associated with new
technologies like strippable coatings and agent indicator
sprays, as well as the overall employment as a family of
systems that could potentially provide higher levels of hazard
mitigation at vehicle operator and battalion level operations.
Acquisition support
JPM P was an active stakeholder in the execution of the
HaMMER ATD. An active transition partner is critical for
ensuring an ATD does not become a dead end science
experiment. HaMMER activities were expressly tailored to
support JPM P’s DFoS concept and associated programmes of
record. Additionally, the joint requirements office for
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defence
monitored HaMMER’s progress, and with the assistance of US
army combat developers from MSCoE and feedback from
other service representatives. They used HaMMER data to
shape expectations and draft new requirements.
Some of the benefits HaMMER provided to acquisition
activities:
• Risk reduction and technology screening/assessments for
DFoS.
• Optimisation test data used in technical data packages/info
papers.
• Info papers used in support of milestone (MS) A decisions
for joint sensitive equipment wipe (JSEW), general purpose
decontaminant (GPD) and for contamination indicator
decontamination assurance system (CIDAS) programmes of
record.
• Saved two years by providing mature data negating the
need to conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoAs) for JSEW,
GPD, CIDAS and other testing.
• HaMMER data supported DFoS JSEW, GPD and CIDAS
technology development phases and technology readiness
assessment.
• HaMMER warfighter comments provided the basis for a
new CIDAS applicator design concept.
• HaMMER data supported phase 1 and 2 of contamination
mitigation initial capabilities document (ICD) AoA for CBRN
coatings and dial-a-decon.
• Optimised concept of employment of new technologies.
• Life cycle value of new concepts and ConOps/TTPs.
• Data and user input on emerging techniques/technology.
User feedback found the mixing complex,
so requested larger batches ©CBRNe World
36
www.cbrneworld.com
Legacy
The HaMMER ATD provided the first operational look at
how new technologies will benefit immediate,
operational and thorough decontamination processes.
USARPAC and the US army’s MSCoE developed new
TTPs that leveraged technology strengths to enable new
methods for hazard mitigation. The contamination
indicator spray was a game changer, enabling
warfighters to quickly triage vehicles in a
decontamination line, and also provided the option to
conduct spot decontamination. The ATD also changed
the expectation that thorough decontamination can
only be achieved by a dedicated decontamination
platoon. The family of systems approach using indicator
spray to highlight contaminated areas, strippable
coatings to remove contamination, and decon
application for any agent breakthrough or non-coated
areas proved very effective.
Feedback from HaMMER activities helped shape
requirements and technology concepts for the
programmes of record. By addressing different scales of
employment, HaMMER also provided insights regarding
applicator sizing, vehicle coverage, and preferred power
supplies. Overall, the benefits of the HaMMER ATD are
best expressed by those that will carry these technologies
forward to the field.
Dave Ito, senior capabilities developer, requirements
determination division, MSCoE: "HaMMER brings
thorough-level CB mitigation capabilities to the
operational level, providing the joint services with tools
that any unit can use to rapidly triage, decontaminate,
and confirm cleanliness with a minimum of time and
personnel. HAMMER successfully demonstrated a
potential capability to reduce time, manpower, logistics
and decontamination requirements associated with
current warfighter processes for conducting
immediate/operational and thorough decontamination
operations using currently fielded equipment.
“HAMMER reduces warfighter burden by significantly
improving vehicle throughput and reducing physical
labour identified in the operational demonstration and
three follow on EUEs. HAMMER provided assurance of
decontamination process success. Of the five technologies
evaluated in the HAMMER ATD, three transitioned into
programmes of record”
Victor Murphy, JPM P, director external/strategic
operations: “The HaMMER ATD provided valuable test
data, technology assessments and field observations for a
multitude of emerging hazard mitigation technologies
and applicators within the JPM P portfolio. This wealth of
information helped to streamline the technology
development process, ensuring expedited insertion of
mature technologies into programmes of record
addressing capability gaps to meet our warfighter needs.
Examples of these include technologies for the CIDAS
and general purpose decon for hardened military
equipment (GPD-HME).”
www.cbrneworld.com/convergence2015
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Jeffrey Bigongiari on the need for understanding
crowd dynamics in mass decontamination incidents
Panic at the disco
Man, it’s like people didn’t come here to
listen to music. I think they just
wanted to throw stuff and break shit.
- Punk from Boston
A riot broke out at a September 1994
Green Day concert in Boston. Depending
on which music scene writer you believe
and their level of mosh pit nostalgia,
between 50 and 100 people were injured
and 30 to 50 more were arrested.
According to one scribe, it was the sixth
greatest concert in Boston’s history.
Fortuitously, I had bought my ticket to
see Green Day perform in Wichita,
Kansas, before my local news station
broadcast footage of the Boston melee.
Since my mother would willingly
spend several hours in terror rather
than let a perfectly good ticket go to
waste, I knew I would be there.
However, as a safety-conscious teen, aka
dork, large numbers tended to put me
on edge, so I stood in the venue's
elevated rear section. The throng was
both violent and senseless. Then
suddenly the crowd formed a widening
circle around a few large guys and a
panic-stricken girl, all eagerly scanning
the floor. A spotlight quickly turned on
the space and more and more people
stopped hurling themselves at each
other and started looking down.
Eventually, the band stopped playing
and explained that the girl had the lens
from her glasses knocked out while
crowd surfing. Soon, a hand went up
holding the lens, the crowd roared, the
music started, and the evening went on
without incident. It has consistently
been ranked among the top 100 most
courteous concerts in Wichita’s history.
“It’s very... especially in my early days
it was very much a focus on getting up
the structures, getting it ready, and
ignoring the casualties.”
- Anonymous firefighter
Managing significant numbers of people
in the best of circumstances requires
extensive planning, patience, and the
capacity to adapt quickly to unforeseen
developments and unaccounted for
variables. During an emergency such as
a natural disaster or terrorist attack, the
difficulties facing first responders can
increase exponentially because of the
additional potential for life-threatening
danger and the higher level of
uncertainty concerning its scope or
duration. CBRN incidents pose a unique
challenge as regards crowd
management because the critical
intervention needed to mitigate risk
from CBRN agents is highly stressful
and could be more traumatic for the
victims than the actual event.
The need for the exposed to comply
with decontamination instructions is
critical since disorder can slow the
process and spread contamination.
Conventional wisdom that crowds are
inherently irrational and prone to
panicky, uncontrollable behaviour is
understandable given the example of the
violent Green Day riot in Boston, but
does not adequately explain why the
Wichita revellers paused their
bacchanalia to help a teenage girl.
Modern experience and experiment
challenge some of the long standing
perceptions of crowd behaviour in
ways that can be utilised to facilitate
the decontamination of large numbers
of people. The relative infrequency of
CBRN attacks has inhibited the desire
for direct research on mass decon, and
it is difficult to conduct realistic
psychological experiments without
actually scaring the holy hell out of
participants. The perception that the
available evidence is too theoretical or
anecdotal to revise existing mass panic
approaches to decon remains a
concern to emergency planners and
policy makers.
It may seem counterintuitive to
expect groups of contaminated,
frightened people to willingly undergo a
process that will undoubtedly be
unpleasant and to keep potential
refusniks from splintering off. This
should not prevent the adoption of
practices that include fostering
cooperation and building trust with
victims, because cooperation has been
proven to significantly increase the
speed and efficiency of the decon
process. Furthermore, and most
importantly, efforts that rely on
coercion and exerting control over
victims have proved counterproductive
in that they push victims towards
noncompliant disruptive behaviour.
Coercive methods have also shown a
frightening potential to turn an already
anxious situation into an outright
nightmare for crowds and responders.
This might see the disaster replicated
on a larger scale.
“If something like this happened in
Berkeley or Sacramento, legislators
would be tripping over themselves to
get something done about it.”
- Dr Marian Moses
On the evening of 13 November 1999, a
wind shift brought a gaseous plume of
methyl isothiocyanate into Earlimart,
California. The plume had formed
during the application of metam
sodium, a fumigant, to nearby fields
and went on to blanket three streets in
the town. Residents first complained to
the authorities about the
overwhelming odour around 5.00pm,
but reports of symptoms included
burning eyes, vomiting and upper
respiratory irritation, and this
prompted further action.
Several hundred residents received
an evacuation order and a
decontamination centre was set up at a
local school. An investigation conducted
after the incident determined that at
least 150 people were exposed to some
degree. Thirty sick and in need of
treatment made their own way to the
school where they were met by around
100 emergency responders, TV crews,
and random spectators. What happened
38
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Panic is the default setting at exercises, but is it the right one? ©CBRNe World
next has become one of the more
frequently cited examples of how not to
conduct a decon operation.
Despite the falling temperature, the
group waited on the school's football
field between two tarps while officials
discussed what to do next. They were
not allowed to enter the school
building or to be taken to hospitals, but
were not told why, beyond that they
could be contaminated. It was close to
10.00pm and cold when the mostly
women and children were told to
undress. One woman said she did not
want to undress because her children
had never seen her without her clothes
on, but told it was necessary, she
disrobed but left her underwear on.
When it was her turn in line her
underwear was yanked off and she was
sprayed with a fire hose. She was
concerned that her hair was left dry, but
must have been thankful since there
were no ambulances to transport her to
the hospital afterwards, and she joined
the others sitting on the football field
under their towels. Another woman
asked about her rights and was told she
had just lost them. The victims were
taken to three different hospitals. Some
of the children were separated from
their mothers and had only their phone
numbers written on their stomachs as
identification. When they finally arrived
at hospitals, some were reportedly told
to not expose themselves again, then
given back their original, uncleaned
clothing to wear home.
Several of the women who went
through the process likened their
experiences that evening to rape. The
comparison drew attention to the
incident, but in the years since, the
details and context have generally been
omitted. The affected residents were
predominantly seasonal farm workers
and their families who were employed
in the fields, vineyards, and orchards of
San Joaquin valley. They trusted the
government, and anger in Earlimart
started off as disbelief that the state of
California would even allow residents to
work and live near fields blanketed with
potentially toxic chemicals.
After the incident, the local fire
captain told the media: "It's life or death
sometimes. Prior to being washed, we
didn't know what the chemical was. It
was just standard operating procedure."
California agriculture officials had
already determined the source of the
plume and the chemical responsible
well before decon began, so someone at
the scene should have been told. Even if
it was a complete mystery, blaming
standard operation procedure for the
resulting Orwellian nightmare was
irresponsible. Though at least the job
was finished according to guidelines:
everyone got hosed.
“Gaining control of victims is a
difficult task, but rapidly gaining
control is critical to getting victims to
quickly perform the critical first step
in mass decontamination.”
- 2009 US army guidelines for mass
casualty decontamination
www.cbrneworld.com
39
CBRNeWORLD
Panic at the disco
Even today, almost 14 years after
9/11, mass decon guidance documents
remain focused on technical aspects of
the process and lack focus on how to
deal with those going through.
Planning relies on the assumption of
mass panic as the basic crowd
behaviour. Research conducted over the
past decade, however, continues to
contradict mass panic as the default
behavioural setting during emergencies.
In addition, the speed with which new
procedures for mass decon are being
adopted is also increasing. There is,
however, little chance of a single
dramatic shift in the near future unless
a response to a real major mass decon
situation delivers better methods, or
existing methods fail to an Earlimart
degree. It is worth noting that many of
the procedural changes instituted in
California in the wake of Earlimart
resulted from public outcry over that
and other pesticide incidents, or from
practices adopted nationwide after 9/11.
The assumption of mass panic as the
default has a long history, and the
thought of emergency responders being
overwhelmed by a panic-stricken mob is
a nightmare too well entrenched to
ignore. Media portrayals of public
behaviour either tend to highlight
maladaptive crowd behaviour, which is
then viewed as pervasive, or portray
cooperative behaviour as an aberration
or result of a special characteristic
unique to an individual or region.
Early attempts to understand crowds
originated from the perception that
when people gather together, their
sense of self is lost in favour of a
collective mentality that is susceptible
to the more primitive and violent
aspects of human nature. Rational
people can become irrational and good
people can do bad things because a few
give in to their baser instincts and pass
that behaviour on to the masses.
During an emergency, this would
mean a crowd is likely to panic
relatively quickly if even a small
number of those present are overcome
with fear, regardless of whether or not
their reaction is based on a rational
interpretation of the threat they face. It
is hard to think of any random event
that did not include a few people most
would consider troublemakers, idiots,
or weirdos. It therefore stands to reason
that there will always be enough of
them in any given situation that adding
the potential for bodily harm will be like
flicking a match into a powder keg.
What is missing from the previous
explanation of crowd behaviour is the
concept of a shared identity within
crowds. John Drury, a social
psychologist from the university of
Sussex (see CBRNe World Spring 2009
and April 2014), has conducted a
number of studies suggesting that a
sense of having a common fate drives
cooperation among individuals and has
the potential to be utilised in an
emergency. "Mass panic mystifies more
than it explains. Crowd behaviour in
most emergencies, and CBRN in
particular, is typically orderly, sociallystructured, and cooperative," he said.
When a disaster catches people in
public, for instance during a rush hour
commute, strangers quickly begin to
unify. This togetherness reduces stress
and anxiety and minimises further risk.
In the case of mass decon, the risks from
an invisible agent may not be readily
apparent, so communication and trust
between responders and the crowd is
necessary. If trust exists and the
legitimacy of the need to go through the
process is reinforced, the public has an
incentive to correct the behaviour of wary
individuals as a means to maintaining its
cohesiveness and hence its survival.
Barriers to trust between authorities
and the public are, however, numerous
and difficult to avoid, like frightening
but necessary personal protection
equipment. In the context of terrorism
especially, responders themselves are
subject to injury, death, or
contamination, and possess their own
shared identity with other responders
independent of the public. While this
identity is critical and necessary for the
responders to do their jobs effectively
during crises, if it separates them too
far from the public it can alienate a
potentially powerful resource.
Conversely people ‘panic’ in exercises when leaving the scene
but never when being deconned. © CBRNe World
40
www.cbrneworld.com
Dedicated to providing
Medical Countermeasures
Our unique products treat or prevent adverse outcomes related to
unconventional Chemical and Biologic threats, including:
!
Ł !$ Ł
!
"!
!
Ł !" Ł
!
!
!
To Protect and Enhance Life
Learn more at:
### ###!$### PROTECTED BY EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS™, RSDL®, BioThrax® and any and all Emergent
BioSolutions Inc. brand, product, service and feature names, logos and slogans are trademarks
or registered trademarks of Emergent BioSolutions Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States
or other countries. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Emergent BioSolutions Inc.
All rights reserved.
RD14041 3/15
CBRNeWORLD
Dr Aaron Firoved, senior biodefence advisor within the office of
health affairs in the Department of Homeland Security,
tells CBRNe World about keeping up with the bio-Joneses
To have and to hold
The one truism within CBRN is that you
can never know it all. Once you declare
yourself a CBRN expert you are in effect
‘done’, your expertise is declared finite
and defined by the exact time you uttered
the words. Not only do the technology
and actors change, but so does the threat.
We have known about the Ebola and filo
viruses for nearly 50 years, they had their
places in the threat canon and we
categorised them as nearly a threat. Then
this summer Ebola breaks out in an
atypical location and suddenly, magically,
Ebola is wafted on wings of the news
media to the top of threat Olympus.
Bacillus anthracis, the previous
enfant terrible, hardens its shell to the
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
and bides its time, knowing that the
wheel of fortune always turns.
Meanwhile, at the base, are ranged other
pathogens of interest, mighty panflu,
mercurial MERS and Plutonian Nipah,
all awaiting their big chance. Anyone
who feels that they can see and predict
what is going to come next is most
probably in for a surprise.
Yet, there has to be some attempt at
categorising what might come next. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
does this through its bioterrorism risk
assessment (BTRA). The BTRA is, to
quote Dr Sarah Klucking, a flexible risk
assessment tool that can be used to
inform decision makers. (An analysis of
the first (2006) BTRA can be found here
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12206/depart
ment-of-homeland-securitybioterrorism-risk-assessment-a-call-for.)
The BTRA results in millions of possible
permutations of 42 agents, all of which
need to be ranked, and then re-ranked
according to what is happening in the
world today. Even taking out the
difficulty of accurately predicting the
ineffable there is the fact that no change
in the BTRA can take effect immediately.
Once an agent is categorised as high risk,
medical countermeasures need to be
prepared and stockpiled, identification
assays need to be developed and tested,
and first responders need to be trained –
this process that can take decades.
Sadly the people that have to provide
all this often don’t have decades,
especially when politicians are involved.
It is hard to retain a sense of purpose
when headlines and senators are all
screaming in unison. Carefully laid plans,
funding lines and strategies are
overturned and replaced, potentially,
with ad hoc-ery, while chasing the latest
agent du jour. How, then, do you deliver
a select list of agents which is solid
enough to allow decades of funding, yet
flexible enough not to be hijacked by
emerging infectious disease (EID) fads?
Dr Firoved stated that it begins and
ends with the BTRA. “We have a
methodical process and criteria with a lot
of review. The BTRA ranks all the
bioterrorism threats against each other.
The BTRA has to go through thousands of permutations of various
agents and ranks them according to current events
©CBRNe World
42
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
To have and to hold
It is used in operational decisions, and
helps inform what BioWatch will look
for, what Health and Human Services
(HHS) will put into the strategic national
stockpile (SNS), and through the
Biomedical Advanced Research and
Development Authority (BARDA) it
influences what new research into
therapeutics and vaccines is funded. We
have a methodical way of ranking these
things dependent on what is buzzing
right now and we also do another
ranking, tied to some specific processes,
for formalised planning. We start by
looking at how a bioterrorism threat
compares to other terrorism or to a
hurricane or pandemic flu. Those
analyses guide our planning and
preparedness processes and also tell us
which agents to focus on.
“We methodically rank the ones we
want to focus on, as they rise to the top,
but the list is longer than that, and we
can only focus on so much. There is a
whole list of agents that we have defined
as material threats through the material
threat determination process, and then
you have to consider gain of function
(GOF) or new EIDs. [GOF is the
manipulation of genetic features to allow
new abilities. Ed.]. Resources are limited
and that is why HHS has done a lot of
funding in therapeutics, or platform
technologies, so while the department
funds it for a particular agent, it has to
be able to swap out that threat for
another one. With our detection
technology DHS is focussed on particular
agents, but we would like a broader
technology platform and are working
with DHS science and technology (S&T)
on what comes next: technologies that
are agent agnostic. While that is not the
state of the tech today it is not too far in
the future either.”
GOF is to biological weapons what
novichoks [A series of deadly nerve
agents developed by the USSR Ed] are to
chemical ones – the threat certainly
exists, but it would be difficult to find
two people to agree to exactly where it
is. GOF is certainly the bogeyman of
bio. The media had a field day in 2014
when Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the
university of Wisconsin-Madison
published a paper stating that he had
created a version of panflu that could
evade the human immune system (more
on the potential of EID for pandemic
outbreaks here http://mbio.asm.org/
content/5/4/e01730-14.full).
Equally there is the potential for GOF
to allow greater pathogenicity or
morbidity, or also potentially, to prevent
accurate identification. This perhaps is
the greatest threat, the supposed ability
to turn the bio-Jekyll into super-Hyde,
the world turned upside down and
anthrax losing its place at the top of the
tree forever. Yet this threat is not new,
and despite suggestions by the excitable
that soon we will all be making this in
our kitchens, it fails to arrive. So where
in the BTRA are GOF agents?
Dr Firoved suggested that they were
there in the list, but it was difficult to
put a timescale on them. “It is
appropriate to consider GOF now. It is
difficult to put any time scale on it,
whether it is 10 or 20 years as the
capabilities change drastically every year.
I am struck by the fact that in high
schools you can now do molecular
biology classes and you can use
techniques that I, as a microbiologist,
had to do in a university laboratory.
There are high school competitions on
genetic engineering, where they have
blocks that they swap in and out and
create new and exciting applications for
these things.
“The threshold for participation in
biotechnology is decreasing all the time:
you don’t need to be a college educated
microbiologist to do this any more. That
allows for rapid vaccine development, but
more people, more time and fewer
barriers means that it can also be used in
an unfavourable manner. We need to pay
attention to it now. I don’t know how
you would weigh today’s threat against it,
but it will only increase and you can see
the trajectory that shows that this will be
a growing concern in years to come.”
So with these concerns about GOF
and EID where does good old bacillus
anthracis sit? Are we in effect, like the
military adage, preparing to fight the last
war. Diagnostics and medical
countermeasures have improved
exponentially since 2001 and, Dugwaybased incidents aside, we know more
about anthrax after studying it furiously
for the same period than any other
biological weapon agent. Is it time, much
like variola major, to downgrade it to a
demi-god? Or, if it is still a threat, should
we stop drawing attention to an agent
that is frequently available in rural
communities, survives well in the open
air and is very hard to kill?
Dr Firoved firmly believes that
anthrax is there for a reason, and that
everything that we have learned about it
justifies its place. “Our emphasis on
anthrax is not excessive. It isn’t an
infectious agent but it is extremely
stable, it can be used in an aerosol attack
and is highly lethal. The amount of
material used in the October 2001
attacks, had it been delivered in anything
other than a sealed envelope, could have
been drastically more severe in its effects.
We make our investment at DHS and
HHS through the BTRA, so it is based on
a real carefully examined concern. So no,
I don’t think that we are keeping
something going just because it is what
we saw last: we saw it because of its
potential for this purpose.
“There is a lot of public alarm and
awareness that comes through on one
agent or another but as you
understand more about them you
decrease your concern. As we
understand their transmission and
how they work in the body, we
decrease our concern through
knowledgeable familiarity. That
doesn’t happen with anthrax. The
more we study it the less our concern
dips, it has unique attributes that we
are concerned with. We track EID
through the national biosurveillance
centre within the office of health
affairs. What concerns us about MERS
is that we don’t understand the
transmission, we don’t understand the
host and because we don’t have that
understanding we are unable to take
the medication measures that we
could. Once that understanding is
attained then public concern can
decrease; you start understanding
what the reservoirs are, why the
transmission occurs and how can you
intervene and break that pattern.”
[This is based on an interview with Dr
Firoved for the CBRNe World Directory
biodetection chapter.]
44
www.cbrneworld.com
REGISTER TODAY
CBRNe
CONVERGENCE
8th Annual CBRNe World
Congress and Exhibition
CBRNe Convergence:
Unique Benefits
27 to 30 October 2015
Rosen Plaza Hotel,
Orlando, Florida
Growing closer, staying distinct: merging civilian and
military response to CBRN and IED threats
Partner Agencies
Speakers Include
FBI WMD
Directorate
EPA
CBRN
FBI
Orlando
Orange County Fire Seminole County Fire
More information including exhibition
floorplan, speakers and more!
www.cbrneworld.com/
convergence2015
Carmen Spencer, JPEO CBD
Paul Lilly, Lockheed Martin
Major General William Roy, CG Joint Task Force
Civil Support
Janet Blatny, Director Protection & Societal Security,
FFI, Norway
Lt. Col. Ray Lane, Commandant Irish
Ordnance School
Dick Onderwater, CBRN-E Team Leader,
Hague Police, Netherlands
Gareth Roberts, CBRN Team, South Wales Police, UK
Col Jaroslaw Stocki, Deputy Chief of Countering
WMD, Polish Armed Forces
Matthew Shaw, Manager CBRNE Defense, Battelle
Paul Kudarauskas, Chief, Field Operations Branch,
CMAD, EPA
Matt Scullion, Government Program Director,
BioFire Defense
Rob Dudgeon, Deputy Director at San Francisco DEM
David Cullin, Chief Technology Officer, Flir
Programme planned by Gwyn Winfield,
Editor of CBRNe World magazine.
Final day exercise with state & local assets
Expert speakers chosen from Europe,
North America, South America, SE Asia
and the Middle East, chosen for their
insight and challenge: allowing you
shortcuts to best practice.
Pre-Congress Workshop
CBRNe World’s global brand, bringing
delegates from over 30 countries
together annually.
Hear from the best civil and military
organisations about how their recent
attacks, exercises and research is
improving their CBRN defence capability.
Streamed sessions allow you to chose the
presentations that fit the needs of your
organisation.
Poster presentations, so that you can
appreciate some of the developments in
science and technology
Understand how you can bring civil and
military forces together in such fields as
CBRN, EOD and hazmat, to better
prepare for the challenge.
CBRNE exhibition of over 60 companies.
Equip your organisation with some of the
leading technology available
Icebreaker and reception to allow you to
maximize your networking potential.
Register online NOW at
www.cbrneworld.com/events
CBRNe
Conference Programme
CONVERGENCE
Updates to the programme can be viewed at
DAY ONE October 28
8.00
Registration and Coffee
8.45
Chairs Welcome, Brigadier General (Ret.) Stan Lillie
9.00
Plenary: Joint Task Force-Civil Support
10.00
Plenary: Integrating with the FBI to neutralize the evolving
WMD Threat
JTF-CS mission and capabilities Anticipating, planing, and preparing for CBRN
Defense Support of Civil Authority (CBRN-DSCA) response operations
24 hour notice for C2 and critical support to enable community recovery
Interagency partnerships are successfully disrupting WMD Lone Actors
Technology is changing law enforcement's ability to combat the WMD threat
Current FBI strategy for addressing emerging WMD threats
How the FBI can support state and local WMD responses and investigations
Charles P. Spencer,
Section Chief FBI WMDD Investigations Operations Section
Major General William Roy,
Commanding General Joint Task Force Civil Support
10.30
Plenary: Carmen Spencer, JPEO CBD
9.30
Plenary: Nuclear Complex at the Confluence of Safety,
Security, and Reliability
US nuclear deterrence relies on a collaborative working relationship
Each member of the coalition is responsible for high safety and security standards
Key elements essential for this program
Vahid Majidi, DASD for Nuclear Matters, DoD
11.00 Coffee
Stream A Military
11.30 – TBC
TBC
12.00 –
Chief Master Sergeant Anthony Hatcher, Emergency Management Field
Manager, USAF
12.30 – USMC Expeditionary CBRN/CWMD capabilities
Supporting a Joint Task Force with CBRN/CWMD capabilities
CWMD requirements across the spectrum of operations
Provide the preferred method to respond to CBRN crisis, domestically and overseas
Stream B First Responder
11.30 – Evaluation of Commercial CWA Detection Equipment
Yasuo Seto, National Research Institue of Police Science, Japan
12.00 – Successful Integration for Real-Time Standoff
Paul Kudarauskas, Chief, Field Operations Branch, CMAD, EPA
12.30 – Group Discussion Interagency Cooperation to a WMD Response
WMD case study from Southwest Florida
Selling Abrin over the internet for domestic and Internation profit
Integration of FBI HERT, FBI WMD and CST
Brad Geeslin, FBI Tampa Division WMD Coordinator & HERT, 48th CST
CWO5 Michael Impastato, Marine Forces Command CBRN/
CWMD Officer
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
Stream C Detection
14.00 – Effective Bio-surveillance using Environmental and Clinical Lab Data
Protecting HVA from disease requires multiple data from sample types
Effective bio-surveillance from environmental and clinical samples
Identification data for temporal and location specific information
Multiple sample types to manage tactical situations effectively
Understanding tests for improved health of military assets and the population
Managing risks and addressing threat communication
EMS Operations Implications for the future
14.45 – Biomedical Countermeasures to Category A Biologic Agents
14.45 – Science and politics: the aftermaths of the 2011 attacks in Norway
Emory’s Ebola response
Managing relationships
Samuel Shartar, Senior Administrator, Office of Critical Events,
Emory University
Matt Scullion, Director Government Programs, BioFire Defense
Stream D Decontamination
14.00 – Lessons Learned From Our Ebola Response and Implications For
The Future
Anders Breivik and his attacks
Lessons learned from the explosive event
Incorporating this into research (current and future)
Janet Blatny, Director Protection & Societal Security, FFI, Norway
Understand the relative risk potential for Category A agents
Define pre- and post-exposure, and therapeutic opportunities for intervention
Review the available biomedical countermeasures for these threats
Understand how preparedness planning integrates multiple potential scenarios
Dr.Timothy Babinchak-Consultant Physician, Princeton Infectious
Diseases Associates
15.30 Coffee
Stream E Narcotics
16.00 – Innovation and the Future of CBRN-E
Stream F EOD
16.00 – CBRNe Improvised device render safe (IDRS) capability
How innovative technologies drives CBRN detection and mitigation into the future
Faster response and better protection for the responder, soldier, and public
How to modernize an aging CBRN-E defensive capability
Operational interoperability and training between agencies and responders
Paul Lilly, Lockheed Martin
16.45 – Dual Use Chemicals – Drug Lab, Explosives Factory or both?
Basic awareness stops attacks
Knowing the subtle differences may save lives
Links between narcotics and terrorism
Lt. Col. Ray Lane, Commandant Irish Ordnance School
16.45 – CBRNE Detection
Jeffrey Muller, Assistant Director Interpol CBRNE Sub Directorate
Example of the comprehensive approach in action
IDRS team structures and Lessons learnt
HME courses ran in Ordnance School 2014
Course nature and lessons learned
Mobile Detection Systems
Unmanned Platforms for CBRNe Detection
Integrated solutions for CBRNE Detection
Alexander Mueller, Head of Defence & Mobile Solutions, Bruker Detection
17.30 Drinks Reception
CBRNe
CONVERGENCE
DAY TWO October 29
8.00
Coffee
8.45
Chairs Welcome, Brigadier General (Ret.) Stan Lillie
9.00
Plenary: Scientific Advisory in CBRNe Planning for HVE
10.00
Plenary: Between the Yellow Tape & Normal:The Role of
Emergency Management
Brazilian Army CBRN Defense System (SisDQBRNEx)
The role of CTEx as the SAB and the S&T Branch of SisDQBRNEx
Lessons Learned from Confederations Cup 2013 and FIFA World Cup 2014
Planning and Preparation for the Olympic Games
Legacy from the HVE’s for CBRNe Defense in Brazil
Col. Paulo Alexandre de M. Cabral, Head of CTEx, Brazilian Army
Plenary:TOKYO Partnership
9.30
Makoto Ishikawa ,Senior Administrator for Crisis Management Security
Bureau,Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department
Who manages the downstream ramifications of actions initiated by the IC?
Managing the incident, and the larger event, are equally critical
The EOC and the multi-discipline adds more value than most realize
“You manage emergencies? How the hell do you do that?”
Sharing some big lessons
Rob Dudgeon, Deputy Director at San Francisco DEM
Plenary: DOE NNSA Support for Counterterrorism and
10.30
Emergency Response
Interagency Coordination of Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Response
Special Event Support; DOE/NNSA Emergency Response Capabilities
Fukushima Response; Southern Exposure
Dr David Bowman, Director for the Department of Energy/
National Nuclear Security Administration’s (DOE/NNSA) Office of
Emergency Response
11.00 Coffee
Stream G High Visibility Events
11.30 – Biodetection Systems—Solving for the Complex Challenges
The future of biodetection technologies in a fiscally-constrained environment
How they have evolved and must adapt to meet a changing threat
Needs of effective point-of-care
Impacts of regulatory hurdles on their fielding
Stream H Multi Agency Operations
11.30 – Handling CBRN-E measures in The Netherlands
CBRN-E organisation in The Netherlands
Centrex center for intelligence and support
National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism
First response and pre-emptive operations
Matthew Shaw, Manager CBRNE Defense-Battelle
Dick Onderwater, CBRN-E Team Leader, Hague Police, Netherlands
12.00 – CBRNE Covert Assessment
12.00 – CBRN Decon:“Respiratory Protections Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”
NATO CBRNE Covert response development
Early response, early intervention, early resolution
Scene exploitation versus Community impact
Reputational risk and Cost avoidance
Detection capability and support mechanisms (High Spec, low vis)
Gareth Roberts, CBRN Team, South Wales Police, UK
CBRN decon and challenges with Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE)
Environmental Challenges for decon and correct RPE choice (e.g maritime, tropical)
Hybrid Respiratory Protection Systems (e.g. holistic APR/PAPR/SCBA)
Future considerations for CBRN decon RPE development
Reputational risk and Cost avoidance
Detection capability and support mechanisms (High Spec, low vis)
Dr David Crouch, Global Product Manager, Scott Safety
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
Stream I Future Threats I
13.30 – Addressing the looming challenges of distributed rad
sensor networks
Stream J Future Threats II
13.30 – The scope of CBRN defence development in the Polish
Armed Forces
Improving response despite strained data and communication demands
Surfacing quality information quickly amidst a flood of data
Ensuring data outputs provide actionable information
Unlocking networked sensor benefits in a cost-effective way
Jeffrey Perkins, Product Manager, Radiation, Flir
14.15 – Exercise Northern Lights CAPEX 2015
Sgt Rob Wilson, National CBRNE Response Team Coordinator,
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Our current perception of CBRN threat
Military requirements expected in CBRN defence
Organization and main capabilities of our CBRN defence
Direction of prospective CBRN defence development
Summary
Col Jaroslaw Stocki, Deputy Chief of Countering WMD,
Polish Armed Forces
14.15 – Chemical and Biological Alarm systems for mobile platforms
Definition of technology
Chemical detection using flame spectrophotometry
Biological detection using flame spectrophotometry
AP4C-VB test results from S/K Challenge, Dugway Proving Ground
Eric Damiens, Marketing Director, Proengin-France
15.00 Coffee, Poster Presentation
Stream
16.00
16.20
16.40
K Call For Papers 1
Call for Papers
Call for Papers
Call for Papers
Stream
16.00
16.20
16.40
17.00 Conference End
L Call For Papers 2
Call for Papers
Call for Papers
Call for Papers
CBRNe
CONVERGENCE
October 27. Pre-Conference Workshop:
Emergency Management of Radiation Accident Victims (REAC/TS)
October 27. Pre-Conference Workshop:
CBRN Forensics
Who is the course for: Medical first responders, physicians, nurses, physician’s
assistants, emergency department personnel, and radiation protection technologists, who
may be called upon to provide emergency medical service for a radiation emergency.
For many CBRN responders forensics begins and
ends with sampling, identification, biological,
chemical and radiological agents (Sibcra) mission,
but true forensics is much larger than that. How
do we ensure that we are able to not only
manage the sample, but also contaminated
traditional traces: hair, DNA and blood etc.What
skills do we need from a variety of first
responders, from traditional first responders
through to hazmat and EMT, in a contaminated
environment? What equipment do they need, and
does it need to be designed, or is there
equipment already in service that can be used in a
different way?
Course Description: A one-day training on the medical management of radiation
emergencies. Topics covered will include basic radiation protection, basic radiobiology,
diagnosis and treatment of local and whole body irradiation, treatment for internal
contamination, and adapting emergency response to manage radioactively
contaminated patients. The course will be taught by faculty from the Radiation
Emergency Assistance Center / Training Site (REAC/TS) of the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education (ORISE).
ORISE is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to
provide continuing medical education for physicians.This eight hour live activity has been
designated for AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should only claim the credit
commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Course Organisers: The Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site or
REAC/TS, is a United States Department of Energy (US DOE) emergency medical
preparedness and response asset. It is operated as part of the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science & Energy (ORISE), by Oak Ridge Associate Universities (ORAU).
REAC/TS was established to provide rapid medical attention to individuals exposed to
radioactive material through direct or consultative help with medical and health physics
problems for local, national, and international incidents.
Course Leaders: (Full details online)
Dr. Nicholas Dainiak is the Medical and Technical Director of the Radiation
Emergency Assistance Center and Training Site (REAC/TS), Oak Ridge,TN. Following
the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Dr. Dainiak was asked to
serve on the State of Connecticut Public Health Advisory Committee to the
Commissioner of Health. He developed a statewide radiation response plan, a first of its
kind which served as a model for other states. Dr. Dainiak has advised numerous USG
and foreign government agencies and programs and professional societies on the
molecular biology and medical management of radiation injury.
Dr. Carol Iddins has 20 + years of experience in civilian and military medicine. Early in her
career, she surgically managed late radiation local effects and medically managed patients
who presented with complications from chemotherapy and radiotherapy, including critically
ill patients. In her more recent years, she has consulted on radiation injuries secondary to
radiotherapy overdose errors on an International Atomic Energy (IAEA) / Pan American
Health Organization (PAHO) Radiation Assistance Network (RANET) deployment;
routinely consults on calls regarding potential and real radiation exposures; evaluates and
participates in exercises; and consults on cases involving local radiation injuries.
Dr. Mark Jenkins has served for eight years as a Health Physicist within the Radiation
Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) at the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education and in April, 2012 took on the role as REAC/TS Business
Operations Manager. In addition to his supervisory responsibilities, Dr. Jenkins is part of
the deployable REAC/TS’ emergency response teams and lectures in the field of health
physics as part of the REAC/TS continuing education courses.
Wayne Baxter has 31 years of experience in Emergency Medical Services and 12
years as a registered Nurse. He started as an Explorer for the local rescue squad, and
then moved up through the ranks until he became the Director of Fort Sanders
Loudon EMS.While at REAC/TS,Wayne has supported the Department of Energy
(DOE) Federal Radiological Management and Assessment Center (FRMAC) as well as
the Washington State Department of Health. Wayne has been an invited speaker at the
Tennessee Emergency Medical Services Education Association and the Tennessee
Association of Rescue Squads.
This one day workshop will bring together
experts that have dealt with real CBRN crime
scenes and those that are developing capability to
plot a way forward in this complicated
environment. Experts from the Europe and the US
will offer practical examples of previous cases and
provide a clearer understanding of what each
force needs to develop.
Your workshop leaders:
Dr Jason Bannan – Senior Scientist for the FBI
Laboratory’s Forensic Response Section
In 2003, Dr. Bannan joined the FBI as a forensic
examiner in the CBRN Sciences Unit of the FBI
Laboratory. He worked with the Amerithrax task
force as one of the FBI scientists leading the
development and validation of scientific
procedures in support of the investigation. Dr.
Bannan was a member of the FBI Scientific
Working Group on Microbial Genetics and
Forensics (SWGMGF) and later the SWG for
Chemical Biological and Radiological Nuclear
Terrorism (SWGCBRN), working closely with the
FBI WMD Directorate and US Government
Interagency Policy Committees. and CBRN
working groups.
Ed van Zalen – Programme Manager CBRN,
Netherlands Forensic Institute
Graduated at the University of Utrecht in
analytical chemistry, specialized on environmental
methods. He joined the Netherlands Forensic
Institute in May 1991 and since 2008 as
Programme Manager CBRN.The CBRN
programme is focused on both the development
of CBRN forensic methods as well as
international cooperation.
Recently Van Zalen has led the development of
“Forensics in Nuclear Security” for the Dutch-led
gift basket for the Nuclear Security Summit 2014
in The Hague.
More information is available on
CBRNe
CONVERGENCE
Exhibition Floor Plan
Gold Sponsor
Lockheed Martin
As a world-class leader providing CBRN
systems integration to government agencies
around the globe; Lockheed Martin develops
innovative solutions in the Defense and Civil
areas of CBRN detection, critical
infrastructure protection, global deployment,
logistics, operations and maintenance to solve
complex issues and the unique challenges of
our world today.
Silver Sponsors
Solving the World’s Most Complex Chemical and Biological Defense Challenges
For more than 25 years, government agencies and industries alike have trusted Battelle to solve their most
complex chem-bio defense challenges.With expertise spanning decades and dozens of inter-related scientific
disciplines, Battelle is the world’s largest independent R&D organization.We provide comprehensive chem-bio
defense solutions for intelligence, defense, medical, security, and industrial clients – objective solutions that
include ready access to:
• State-of-the-art, live-agent test facilities
• Advanced design and manufacturing services
• Laboratory management and services at your location
• Environmental management and compliance
Find out how we can help you at www.battelle.org, [email protected], 001.800.201.2011
Silver Sponsors
BioFire Defense Safeguarding Humanity
At BioFire Defense we deliver a fully integrated suite of biological agent identification products, including
the FilmArray system, and life science systems to the biodefense and first responder community. Our
contribution to society includes products and ideas that speed up medical results, help people stay healthy
and make communities more secure. Simply put, we make the world a safer and healthier place.
FLIR Detection
FLIR Detection is a leading supplier of field-ready products that accurately detect, classify, and identify
critical CBRNE threats. Our multi-purpose products easily transition into new roles as the mission changes
allowing our customers to extract the most value for their dollar.We integrate mission-based user
interfaces to expedite decision making for both field operators and advanced technicians. Not only do our
advanced detection technologies provide lab-quality confidence, the results are field-proven in third party
tests and in real life missions.We offer smart, simple, and selective products – no matter where the mission
takes you.
Passport Systems Inc.
Passport Systems Inc. produces the first truly out-of-the box, belt-clipped sized, networked radiation
detection system, called Smart Shield, that identifies and geolocates radiological sources. Smart Shield
provides real time updates of all events on Google Maps to a central location.The system automatically
calculates and displays background radiation.The system can also track a mobile source and thus serve as
an ad hoc portal monitoring system. Users can automatically map “hot spots” in a post event scenario.To
find out how this DHS sponsored technology works, please visit us at Booth #304 for a demo.
Veteran Corps of America
Veteran Corps of America (VCA) is an SBA-certified 8(a) SDVOSB and an industry leader in fielding
CBRNE protective systems and services.We bring solid past performance to a broad range of Federal
contracting opportunities including VETS, STARS II, SeaPort-e, GWAC, and GSA Multiple Award Schedules.
Bronze Sponsors
Bruker Detection is the leading global specialist developing Chemical, Biological,
Radiation, Nuclear, Explosive detection equipment and solutions. Our latest novel
innovations have expanded our portfolio to include trace drugs and explosives
detection.The new Road Runner Handheld Explosives Detector introduces a new
groundbreaking IMS technology. Bruker Detection – Innovation with Integrity!
Emergent BioSolutions™ is a global specialty pharmaceutical company which
offers specialized products to address unconventional health threats.They are
dedicated to protecting and enhancing life.Their exclusive product portfolio
includes medical countermeasures for Chemical and Biological threats including
Anthrax, CWA, many Pesticide-Related Chemicals, Botulism and Complications
from Vaccinia Vaccine.
Proengin develops and manufactures biological and chemical warfare agents field
detectors using flame spectrometry: AP4C-handheld chemical detector for CWA,
TICS and NTAs, AP4C-V aboard wheeled, tracked, Unmanned Ground Vehicles
(UGV) and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) reconnaissance vehicles, AP4C-F for
critical buildings and ships, MAB-for biological alarm, AP4C-VB and AP4C-FB for
simultaneous Chemical and Biological detection. Please visit us at
www.proenginusa.com or www.proengin.com.
Scott Safety are world leaders in the design and manufacture of respiratory
protection. Scott’s technologies demonstrate configurable and integrated solutions
for high protection factor – low user burden facemasks and filters, powered air
purifying respirators and positive pressure breathing apparatus especially for
CBRNe and damage control operations. Scott’s customer base includes military
and civil defense customers on all 6 continents.
Exhibitors – to exhibit please contact [email protected] or [email protected]
908 Devices Inc. is bringing the powerful
capabilities of Mass Spectrometry out of
the confines of centralized facilities and
mobile laboratories.We make batteryoperated, handheld, chemical detection
tools, rugged enough to exceed military
standards and trusted enough for immediate
action in the field.To learn more about the
advance technology brought to you by the
team at 908 Devices, stop by our booth or
visit our website.
AirBoss Defense, a world leader in CBRN
personal protective equipment (PPE), is an
innovative, integrated company that
leverages long-standing expertise and
advanced technologies to develop, design
and produce ergonomic products that
achieve the highest quality standards.
When it comes to safety and security,
AirBoss Defense offers The Ultimate
Protection.
Argon Electronics is a world leader in
CBRN/NBC and HazMat simulation and
training aids.We provide realistic, safe and
cost effective chemical and radiological
simulators to enable military and civil
organizations to deliver enhanced levels of
training. Argon works closely with many of
the world’s leading detector manufacturers
to ensure that we can offer our customers
the highest levels of fidelity in our
simulators, and a wide selection of
integrated systems to meet multiinstrument training requirements.
Avon Protection is the recognized global
market leader in respiratory protection
system technology specializing primarily in
Military, Law Enforcement, Firefighting, and
Industrial.With an unrivalled pedigree in
mask design dating back to the 1920’s,
Avon Protection’s advanced products are
the first choice for Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) users worldwide.
BBI Detection is a world leader in the
development and manufacture of rapid
hand-held tests to detect explosives and
biothreat agents. Our knowledge and
expertise, plus access to high-performance
antibodies and the innovative IMASS
sampling system produce tests which are
fast, sensitive, accurate and easy to use,
even in PPE.
Bertin Technologies offers a broad range of
multi-disciplinary capabilities for the
Defense and Security sectors, including the
development of new technologies and
equipment for biological, chemical and
radiation detection. CBRN systems include
the Second Sight (standoff gas detector)
and Coriolis Recon biological air sampler,
and Mini TRACE Radiation detector range.
The TacticID (B&W Tek) is a handheld
instrument designed for non-contact
analysis by law enforcement, bomb squads,
and hazmat teams. It utilizes lab-proven
Raman spectroscopy, giving users real-time
identification of unknown chemicals,
explosives, and narcotics while reducing
operational uncertainty and response time
without compromising the integrity of
samples or chain of evidence.
Chemring Sensors & Electronic Systems is
the leading supplier of Vehicle Mounted
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Detection
Systems, Chemical and Biological Detection
Systems, and Counter-IED Electronic
Countermeasures.Two divisions fall under
the Chemring Sensors & Electronic Systems
umbrella: Niitek®, the world leader in the
design, development and production of
advanced ground penetrating radar (GPR)
systems and Chemring Detection Systems
(CDS), the U.S. leader in chemical and
biological threat detection.
Dräger is a leading international company
in the fields of medical and safety
technology. Dräger products protect,
support and save lives. Founded in 1889
and located in Lübeck, Germany, the
company generated revenues of around
EUR 2.18 billion in 2010. Dräger is
present in 190 countries with 11,000
employees worldwide.
Federal Resources provide mission critical
solutions for protection, detection and
safety products for the, DoD, Federal, State
and local agencies. Providing full life-cycle
solutions from procurement to high level
training on new equipment, scenario based
operations and offering customers the
capability to manage and sustain their high
value CBRNE and hazmat equipment..
First Line Technology designs,
manufactures, and supplies disaster
preparedness and response equipment like
our medical ambulance bus (the
AmbuBus®), our PhaseCore® Cooling
Vests, and our line of decontamination
equipment. Our decon equipment includes
FiberTect® activated carbon dry decon, a
three-layer nonwoven composite substrate
for CBRN Decontamination.We work
with first responders and the military to
develop innovative products that make
their jobs easer and their lives safer.
The Gasmet DX4040TM - advanced, easyto-use, truly portable FTIR Gas Analyzer is
one of the most powerful instruments
available for multi-gas analysis. Gasmet
provides IH/HAZMAT TEAMS a rapid and
accurate solution to identify and quantify
thousands of gases and vapors including
TICs, CWAs,VOCs and acid gases at
incident sites.
Germfree Laboratories designs, engineers
and integrates laboratories into mobile and
modular configurations to meet the
challenges of a constantly evolving
biocontainment landscape. Germfree is
also a leading innovator in the
development of ruggedized primary
containment equipment (gloveboxes,
filtration systems, fume hoods, etc.) that
meet or exceed U.S. military standards.
GlaxoSmithKline is a leading researchbased pharmaceutical company with a
powerful combination of skills to discover
and deliver innovative medicines. We offer
a number of program resources to
support effective health management
strategies and improve patient care. Please
visit our exhibit to learn more about our
products and resources.
HDT is a global leader in highly-engineered
mobile military and emergency response
solutions. HDT manufactures a full range
of CBRN Filters/Filtration Systems, CBRN
compatible Air Conditioners (ECU’s) &
Heaters, Airlocks, Decontamination
Shelters (CCA’s) and turnkey CBRN
COLPRO positive pressure solutions for
fixed sites, transportable shelters, vehiclebased and shipboard protection.
i-bodi has developed computer controlled
test platforms for CBRN protective
clothing incorporating heated and
sweating, anthropometrically correct
mannequins that can bend, walk and run.
Head-forms with soft polymer skins that
fully articulate and breathe, they can be
heated and sweat, and have internal
cameras for fogging evaluation and can
mimic speech.
Immediate Response Technologies is now
part of AirBoss Defense. This positions
AirBoss Defense even further in the supply
of CBRN individual protective equipment;
manufacturing a full suite of CBRN
protective handwear, footwear, respirators,
filters, blowers, ISOPODS and
shelters/shelter systems for
decontamination and/or sustainment, for
the defense and first response markets.
INFICON products detect and identify
trace levels of chemical warfare agents,
volatile organic compounds, and toxic
industrial chemicals in air, water and soil.
The only person-portable GC/MS available,
INFICON HAPSITE ER Chemical
Identification Systems provide fast,
accurate lab-quality results on-site to help
you make critical decisions affecting life,
health and safety.
Real Challenges.
Real Solutions.
Real Reasons to choose iRobot.
iRobot’s battle-tested robots provide
needed assistance, investigation and
predictive intelligence for those in harm’s
way. Our growing array of modular and
mission configurable robotic systems enter
the unknown and deliver valuable real-time
intelligence and offer fully integrated
CBRN, EOD, and recon solutions.
LAURUS Systems specializes in the sales,
service, and calibration of radiation,
chemical, explosives and bio-detection
instruments.We provide CBRN equipment
to hazardous materials professionals,
emergency responders, the nuclear industry,
military and homeland security. LAURUS is a
100% woman-owned small business that
offers products and services world-wide and
through the GSA Advantage and the HIRE
Multi-State Purchasing Contract.
Luminex Corporation develops and
manufactures flexible and comprehensive
biosurveillance solutions for a full
spectrum of disease and threat agents. Our
unique technology utilizes advanced
diagnostic and environmental detection
capabilities, and is widely used across
clinical and research markets to
simultaneously detect proteins and nucleic
acids quickly, accurately, and cost-effectively.
Magpie Enterprises, Inc., a Service
Disabled Veteran and Native American
Owned Small Business, provides expertise,
training and detailed curriculum
development in Emergency Management,
technical services and support in CBRNED, CBRNE, HAZMAT Operations, Nuclear
Weapon Response, EM Equipment
Operations/Maintenance, Homeland
Defense and Security, Force Protection and
Defense Support to Civil Authorities.
Meso Scale Defense (MSD®) multiplex
assays quantitatively detect multiple agents
(toxins, viruses, and bacteria)
simultaneously in a single sample, using
exceptionally sensitive and robust
electrochemiluminescence (ECL)
technology.With a product line reaching
from the central lab to the field, MSD
provides biodefense solutions that are
rapid, accurate, and scalable. For more
information, visit www.mesoscale.com
Mirion Technologies Health Physics Division
provides a full range of radiological
instrumentation and engineering services for
nuclear facilities, homeland security and
defense applications. Our world class
electronic dosimetry and detection
/identification product lines provide
unparalleled performance for first responder
and military personnel worldwide. Mirion
Technologies is recognized for its continuing
commitment of outstanding customer
service and product support.
AIRGARD® FTIR-based air monitor by
MKS can simultaneously detect, analyze
and alarm on 50+ chemical warfare agents
and toxic industrial chemicals in various
environments. MKS Instruments, Inc. is a
leading, global provider of technologies to
power, control and measure advanced
processes. Our served markets include
homeland security, environmental
monitoring, and others.
Morpho Detection, part of Morpho,
Safran’s (PAR: SAF) security business, is a
leading supplier of advanced explosives and
narcotics and chemical, radiological, and
nuclear detection solutions deployed by
first responder, critical infrastructure,
government, air and ground transportation,
military and other high-risk organizations
to help protect people and property the
world over.
The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
provides primary in-house research for the
physical, engineering, space and
environmental sciences; broadly based
applied research and advanced technology
development programs in response to
identified and anticipated Navy and Marine
Corps needs; broad multidisciplinary
support to the Naval Warfare Centers; and
space and space
systems
technology
development
and support.
ORTEC is a leading manufacturer of
instrumentation and solutions focused on
detecting and identifying Nuclear,
Chemical, and Explosive threats. ORTEC’s
strong commitment to hardware design
for critical applications has earned their
products to be recognized as the “Gold
Standard” for providing accurate
identification solutions to the difficult
challenges CBRNe missions face globally.
APLS emergency readiness products are
engineered to improve patient transfer,
care and comfort. APLS Body Guard
HazRem Chem-Bio body bag features a
leak-proof inner chamber that minimizes
the risk of service provider exposure to
bacteria-laden body fluids and chemical
and biological agents.Visit
paperpakapls.com or contact Tom Nyhan
at +1 909 973 9983 or
[email protected].
Paul Boyé Inc. is a high-end textile
solutions provider that is garnering
widespread recognition for its worldrenown Paul Boyé branded CBRN
products that feature full-protection,
optimized comfort and operational
excellence. Military and civil-defense
personnel in more than 60 countries rely
upon PB products to achieve performance
optimization and personal safety.
PHDS Co is an innovative manufacturer of
custom and commercial gamma-ray imaging
germanium-detector systems.Their newest
product, a stand-off radiation detector, the
GeGI (Germanium Gamma-ray Imager) has
the unprecedented ability to locate, identify
and quantify sources of radioactivity
remotely. By allowing remote detection and
visualization of gamma-ray sources, the
GeGI redefines the tools available for
detection and assessment of potential
threats.Applications: Safeguards, Nuclear
Security, Nuclear Materials Management,
Decommissioning and Decontamination.
QuickSilver Analytics is a service disabled
veteran owned small business.We have
been in business for nearly twenty years
and have been manufacturing chemical
biological radiological and explosive
sampling kits since 2000. QS manufactures
forensic quality kits which have been
cleaned, tested and verified to not
interfere with the common chemical
warfare agents, their degredation products
or precursors. QS has been registered
under ISO 9001 for over 13 years. QS’s
kits are used
worldwide and are
recognized as some
of the best sampling
kits available.
THE NEW GENERATION IN
HANDHELD CHEMICAL DETECTION
Preemptive tactical threat response helps
ensure the safety and protection of both
the public and response teams. Rigaku
Raman’s Progeny™ ResQ™ handheld
Raman analyzer provides emergency
response teams with the power to
immediately identify suspicious materials
and quickly determine threat severity.
RESPOND WITH CONFIDENCE!
Individuals wearing CBRN protective gear
while operating in high temperatures can
quickly become overheated, dehydrated,
disoriented or suffer a heat stroke. RINI
Technologies’ Personal Cooling System
(PCS) can mitigate these risks; providing
thermal protection to the user by circulating
chilled water through a Cooling Vest worn
by the user.
Saab Defense and Security USA, LLC.
(SDAS) delivers advanced
technology/system solutions to US armed
forces/government agencies.
Headquartered in Sterling,Virginia, SDAS
has business units and local employees in
four states, operates under a special
security agreement with the U.S. DOD,
and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Saab Group.
SciAps, Inc. is a Boston-based portable
analytical instrumentation company.We
are dedicated to inventing, engineering,
providing and servicing field-hardened,
portable Raman, UV-VIS-NIR, and LIBS
instruments to measure any compound,
any mineral, any element – anyplace on
the planet.
Selig Group is a high-performance
laminates specialist that has developed
custom laminations for applications that
require barriers to hazardous
environments.We manufacture extremely
high barrier materials that protect human
and instrument assets in CBRN
environments.Typical applications include
gas masks, and ‘barrier skins’ that allow
operations in CBRN environments.
SRD Corp’s next-generation SMART
Sensor Technology, on a single chip,
detects and analyzes a wide and
comprehensive range of chemical warfare
agents and toxic industrial chemicals, with
expansion for explosives, with accuracy
and no false alarms. The SMART Sensor
has been supported by DHS, DoD, DOE,
and Industry Leaders into wearable,
handheld, and fixed-point chemical threat
detection products.
SRC is a not-for-profit research and
development company and SRCTec is its
high-tech manufacturing and lifecycle
support subsidiary.Together, they are
redefining possible® with unique, nextgeneration solutions of national
significance in defense, environment and
intelligence.
STERIS Corporation provides Chemical and
Biological decontamination products:
CeBeR™ Multi-Purpose Wipes - for use by
troops in the field; FlexD® Low Logistic
Decontamination - a dry powder mixed with
water at point of use, for decontamination of
equipment, vehicles and terrain; and gaseous
decontamination (VHP®/mVHP®/HAD/
BTD) systems that provide gaseous
decontamination for sensitive equipment,
vehicles, aircraft and building interiors.
Tex-Shield is the exclusive U.S. licensee of
the SARATOGA® chemical protective
technology, “The most trusted name in
chemical protective clothing.”
SARATOGA® garments are air permeable,
adsorptive systems designed to provide
optimal protection against chemical agents.
Tex-Shield’s products include the JSLIST
overgarment, HAMMER Suit®, and the
JPACE flight coveralls.
Thermo Scientific handheld chemical
identification and radiation detection and
measurement tools are field-ready
instruments that deliver precise, actionable
intelligence to CBRNe responders .Our
FirstDefender and TruDefender analyzers –
including TruDefender FTX—are deployed
to identify explosives, toxic chemicals and
precursors in the field. Radiation detection
and identification instruments include
RADspec, PackEye and the new RIIDEye
X radiation isotope identifier.
Tracerco offers a range of Intrinsically Safe
Radiation/Contamination Monitors (Class
1 Division 1) that are ATEX & FM
compliant to protect the workforce from
exposure and environmental contaminants.
Tracerco’s latest technology featured is
our Personal Electronic Dosemeter (PED)
that can be used in potentially explosive
environments such as Class 1, Div 1.
UTS Systems, LLC provides integrated
system solutions for CBRN Collective
Protection (ColPro), Base Camps, Medical
Facilities, and Command & Control. In
addition, UTS Systems manufactures a
complete line of shelters including Utilis
and the innovative UTS “Single Skin”
ColPro with chemical/biological barrier
infused into the outer fabric.
CBRNeWORLD
Lieutenant Paul Rogers Hazmat SME at the
Fire Department of New York (FDNY) tells Gwyn Winfield about
the various hazmat threats from lithium ion batteries
The Li-ion sleeps tonight
I
t takes minimal google stalking to
find a lithium ion (Li-ion) fire.
Usually they occur in laptops and
involve an intense fire gobbing lumps of
flaming matter everywhere. If you can
imagine that fire scaled up a few orders
of magnitude you will get an idea of the
sort of hazard that serious lithium ion
fires can present, the sort that could
arise as these batteries are used to
power the next generation of electric
cars. Scale that up again, and you start
to see what a Li-ion battery fire might
be like when the battery is used to
power a building. That is the challenge
facing New York City (NYC) and soon it
will probably face a city near you.
Li-ion is one of the best chemical
mixes available for batteries, packing far
more power than the old lead acid
batteries in a much more compact
frame. They are hugely popular too, all
kinds of consumer electronics have
them and they work every day without a
problem… until it happens. For
example, a fire in the lithium ion
batteries of a new Boeing Dreamliner
787’s auxiliary power unit grounded the
whole fleet (http://www.scientific
american.com/article/how-lithium-ionbatteries-grounded-the-dreamliner/).
Another example of the destructive
power of lithium ion can be found in
the destruction, and subsequent
shelving of the US navy Seal miniature
sub programme (http://archive.
navytimes.com/article/20081209/NEWS/
812090313/Explosion-may-endanger-
SEAL-mini-sub-program or https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_SEAL_
Delivery_System). Those without access
to the internet will be pleased to know
that the miniature sub, or Seal delivery
system, had a large Li-ion battery which
caught fire, and the fire was so intense
it burnt through the hull and effectively
destroyed the sub and the programme.
Despite these safety concerns the
world is in love with lithium ion. We
want our devices to run for longer and
be small enough to fit into our pockets
or overhead luggage compartments:
lithium ion is not going away. What is
worrying is that there is a shortage of
information on its safety. The National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
commissioned a study in 2011
Banks of LiON batteries could pose a massive threat to firefighters and residents
www.cbrneworld.com
53
CBRNeWORLD
(http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/resea
rch/research-foundation/researchfoundation-reports/hazardousmaterials/rflithiumionbatterieshazard.pd
f?la=en) and Department of Transport
(DOT) and the pipeline and hazardous
materials safety administration
(PHMSA) also have guidelines
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201001-11/pdf/2010-281.pdf) but much of
the work recommended in the 2011
report is still outstanding.
Now it has to be noted that lithium
ion is a blanket term. These batteries
may well contain a variety of chemicals,
all of which will give them greater
attributes in one direction or another.
So just because introducing water into a
ruptured battery in one case increases
the release of gas and potential for an
explosion it does not mean that this
happens with all of them.
All that said, it may well be that the
problems of lithium ion would have
continued to be a vaguely interesting
footnote [the first interesting battery
footnote ever! Ed.] if it hadn’t been for
some other problems that NYC was
having. Lt Rogers explained: “The local
utilities company in NYC is having a
problem with peak demand and is
warning that it might not have enough
power to supply everyone so there is the
potential of rolling blackouts. It is
exacerbated as New York is growing at
such a pace, with a lot of
neighbourhoods being rehabbed, and
everyone using more electronics and
power. The company knew it couldn’t
build another plant as this would take
too long and costs a huge amount of
money that would go over to the
customer, so it came up with a
programme whereby large scale
batteries would be put into buildings.
“How it would work is that during
non-peak hours large one megawatt
batteries would charge, and during the
peak hours they would release that
power and that would shift the load so
the buildings would be self-sustaining
during peak hours. That can be an
Achilles heel for the fire service in the
US, as you have to deal with stored
energy and different types of battery
chemistry. [Trying to gather
information] I phoned a major
telephone company that has
tremendous amounts of batteries all
over the world, and was told that it has
no procedures: its procedure is to call
911 if there is a problem.
“With each different type of
chemistry come different types of
dangers. One of the biggest that we are
concerned about is lithium ion, it is a
great battery because of its energy to
density ratio and unlike other chemistry
it doesn’t take up a large footprint
inside a building. You would need a
footprint of about 1.5 times the size if
you went from Li-ion to lead acid type
batteries. Real estate is important in
NYC. You can’t stick batteries outside so
they will be in the buildings and will be
used during peak hours every day.”
Lt Rogers went on to say that
demand for these batteries is
outstripping the research, and while
some of the work is done on everyday
issues, such as transportation, there is
far less on what happens in the event of
a critical failure. “DOT only covers them
in transportation and since these will be
inside buildings you have to deal with
building codes instead. A major
aeronautics company had problems with
Li-ion batteries. I spoke to an engineer
and asked him how did they cope with
an aircraft being grounded by DOT
because of Li-ion batteries?
“He said they stuck 6,000 engineers
on the problem. What they came up
with was encapsulating the whole
battery in a ceramic shroud, keeping it
at bay so if there was a problem in flight
the heat would be contained, because it
burns very hot, and this would keep the
fire at bay for four hours. I asked how
did you come up with four hours? He
said we looked at the map and found the
most remote place a plane could be and
worked out how long it would take to
get to a landing strip and that number
was four hours.”
The more you talk about these
batteries the more you realise what a
hot potato they are for the emergency
services. All the users are keen on the
product, and if something goes wrong
they just call the hazmat team, who
have few if any standards to base their
response on. Even the manufacturers
have not been much help: “[The
manufacturers] come in and try and
convince us that they don’t have many
issues. Being honest there are tonnes of
batteries out there, and not that many
incidents. When I did my research I
found the problems but I couldn’t find
many: it is a low frequency, high risk
event [where have we heard that before?
Ed.]. So when it does happen it happens
in a bad way, and we don’t have the
capability or tactics to handle it.”
Yet it is not just the tactics, but the
equipment too. NFPA 1991 suits are
tested against various threats, but if the
concentrations and chemicals released
in a lithium fire are not known
accurately then there is little that can
be done. Indeed if the large batteries are
going to spit flaming lithium it would
be hard to find any protective suit that
could cope.
“The fires are a big problem as we
don’t have enough data and we are
concerned about things like whether
the firefighter gear can deal with the off
gassing, what decomposing acid gases
might be involved, as well as the high
heat of 2,000+ degrees. Lithium fires
are highly reactive, including with
water, which is sometimes
recommended as a suppressant. Some of
these batteries are contained within
rooms, and fire codes state that they can
be contained in cabinets inside large
rooms. That becomes a problem as in
order to use a suppressant of clean
agent to put these things out the entire
surface area has to be covered, and that
means a lot of agent.
“Li-ion creates its own oxygen and
has a re-ignition problem. You can put
it out and visually you can say it looks
fine, but a study showed that it could
re-ignite many hours after the fire test
was done – that was a NFPA study on
electric vehicles. Tesla has Li-ion in its
battery cars and this is also a major
focus for us in the fire service. The fact
that these can go into thermal
runaway as a result of an insult is also
a problem, or there is a problem
inside the battery it could go into
thermal runaway.”
Thermal runaway is a constant
refrain in any conversation about Li-ion
batteries, and the fact that potentially it
can happen so easily is a major problem.
54
www.cbrneworld.com
IRT is now a part of AirBoss Defense. This positions AirBoss Defense even further in the supply of CBRN
Individual Protective Equipment; manufacturing a full suite of CBRN protective hand-wear, filters, footwear,
respirators and blowers for the defense and first response markets. Immediate Response Technologies’ rapidly
deployable shelters, mass casualty decontamination systems and sustainment camps, military and healthcare
respirators (PAPRs), Individual Patient Isolation and Transportation Systems (ISOPODs), furthermore broaden
our product line we can provide to the military, healthcare and medical markets. We are a “one stop shop” for
the most technically advanced, highest quality line of PPE and shelter systems anywhere in the world!
www.airbossdefense.com
1-888-285-4025
www.imresponse.com
1-800-598-9711
CBRNeWORLD
Lt Rogers said: “A Li-ion battery is made
up of individual cells, small cells, they
hold a certain amount of current and
are all connected in the series. So in a
one megawatt Li-ion system you will
have anything from 70-100,000 cells in
the battery system, though it is
chemistry dependent. If one of these
things fails, it will heat up and when it
does it propagates to the individual cells
and they heat up and propagate and so
on, and that is thermal runaway,”.
Yet it is not just the heat and fumes
that the batteries produce that can be a
threat but also the stored power. Lt
Rogers explained: “Until we get data we
have more questions than answers. Once
we have enough data we will put
something together tactically to help the
responder handle these things safely, as
the batteries also contain stranded
energy. If you shut these batteries down
that energy is still stored inside, and if
you come too close with a hose line that
energy can come back along the line and
electrocute the firefighter if they are not
a safe distance away.”
So having isolated the many
problems inherent in these batteries
what is happening? The short answer is
not much. Due to the rarity of these
serious fires, and the fact that standards
tend to be reactive rather than
predictive, there is very little going on
in the public domain. Lt Rogers believes
that the military, who have also
embraced this power option, have a
body of data that they could share.
Indeed he is keen to get whatever data
he can from any organisation and is
happy to be contacted.
“Whatever information I get I will
share with NFPA. There are a lot of
different factions working
simultaneously to try and get this
information as best we can and share it.
This is coming in a tidal wave: green
energy is something that New York
State and others want, so there is that
pressure. The Department of Energy
(DoE) has incentives for it, so there is
also a financial aspect for building
owners to use these things. In addition,
for the past two years there has been
talk of closing down a nuclear power
plant 25 miles north of NYC that
supplies the local power company with a
good percentage of its electricity.”
As NFPA starts to work up a
standard, and organisations seek
funding for research and testing Lt
Rogers has a cautionary tale for anyone
hoping to cut corners, or rush things
through. “I speak to building owners
and battery manufacturers and tell
them a story of what happened in NYC
in the 1970s. There was an explosion in
a liquid natural gas (LNG) site and
afterwards there was a reaction from NY
state to stop any further LNG coming
in. An exception was made for people
that already had storage, they could
stay, but they couldn’t build any new
plants. That was in the 70s and the
moratorium is still in place in NYC
today: we have just given someone a
variant. The lesson learned is that if you
try and push something that we don’t
understand too quickly we will shut you
down for a very long time, and that is
what we trying to prevent.”
Tesla and Boeing have historically needed to fix LiON problems ©Boeing
56
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Raymond Ee and Dr Matt Healy, from Cranfield University,
on CBR inter-comparison
We don’t compare
apples and oranges…
but we will eat fruit salad
E
ffective detection has always
played a vital part in CBR defence
architecture across all phases of
operations. The art of equipment
procurement lies in finding the balance
between proven and emerging
technologies, integration with other
systems and alignment with concepts of
operations and cost. The task is
complicated by the different
requirements for chemical, biological
and radiological detection capabilities.
The problem with solutions
Open source market surveys that
compare the specifications of different
detection systems can be very useful
when selecting equipment. Some
organisations even have the resources
to subject the specifications to
independent verification and field
trials. Most, if not all studies are
confined to the separate C, B and R
domains, however, and are geared
towards comparing systems designed
to fulfil similar functions within that C
or B or R domain.
Such studies do little to compare
the benefits of investing in equipment
for different phases of an operation, and
nothing to compare the benefits from
investing in C versus B versus R
detection capability. Predicting how to
best distribute resources across the
phases of a scenario requires a much
deeper understanding of threat and
response than like for like instrument
comparison, and often draws on
extensive expert elicitation. Further, it
is even harder to address C, B and R
domains collectively, as this involves
experts in specific fields who are often
distributed across different units and
agencies with distinct budgets. Thus
the balance between C, B and R
resources may be predetermined more
at the strategic threat level than
through a holistic analysis at the
operational level of what benefits
detection brings.
Perhaps the current allocation is
fine, but how to prove it? If it is not
fine, how do we determine which
capability in which domain is most
lacking, and then which improvement
yields the highest utility? How should
we allocate finite financial resource to
best effect, and do this in an
accountable, transparent manner?
A more unified approach
Detector market surveys are only a
small first step in answering these
questions, and expert elicitation alone
can be stovepiped, highly subjective and
does not go far in answering the
questions above. These questions
require a fresh perception that looks
across the spectrum of C, B and R
detection capability. It is unusual to
perform an inter-comparison across C,
B and R because it seldom occurs to
anyone that we should or could. We
often train for a prescribed C, B or R
incident, with separate C, B or R
detection equipment and scientific
advice from separate C, B or R experts.
We do this to the extent that we
come to believe that these agents are
measured and act in such
fundamentally different ways that we
need not and could not make
comparisons across domains. Should a
CBR detection inter-comparison be
achievable, however, it leads to a deeper
understanding of current limitations
and supports transparent effective
www.cbrneworld.com
57
CBRNeWORLD
We don’t compare apples and oranges…
resource allocation. Also, the very
attempt at comparing the incomparable
is an uncomfortable lens through which
to shake preconceptions and see CBR
afresh and deeply. It provides a healthy
challenge to us all, especially domain
specific experts, that helps us appreciate
the multidimensional challenges faced
by the general CBR responder.
Apples and oranges: shape, colour,
juice, pie
The strategy for inter-comparison is to
break the problem into comparable and
meaningful pieces, while limiting the
number of pieces to what is feasible for
data capture and mathematical
manipulation. There are two sets of
pieces. One comprises the key
performance characteristics (KPCs) of
detection systems that we use to look
across C, B and R detection (such as
sensitivity, response time, etc). The
other is frames and represents
functional phases through the timeline
of a general CBR scenario (early
warning, initial response etc).
Frames do not include the same sets
of KPCs, rather they include only the
KPCs that most significantly contribute
to operational success. How such KPCs
as sensitivity can be compared
quantifiably across C, B and R will be
discussed later. But given that this can
be achieved, the efficacy of detection in
different C, B and R domains for each
frame forms a matrix revealing where
capability shortfalls exist and where
improvements can be best made in
different phases of the scenario.
Translating, measuring and averaging
tools
The process of comparison used in this
study goes beyond engaging subject
matter experts and stakeholders in
opinionated discussion for subjective
rankings. Of course judgement panels
and workshops are excellent tools for
brain storming but operational analysis
protocols and multi criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) modelling tools will be
used to bring objectivity and
quantification into the findings.
On asking a group of stakeholders
and SMEs to comment on the relative
state and efficacy of CBR detection
(with no specific scenario or agents
within each C, B and R domain
identified) a predictable range of
opinions and factors emerged. The first
and strongest factors to arise were
lethality and likelihood. To those SMEs
focussing on lethality (presumably
widespread), biological seemed the
greatest priority for detector
investment, while those minded to
think of availability in large quantities
had, chemical detection as the priority
for investment.
When asked open questions people
tend to imagine one or two scenarios
anchored in their own experiences or
beliefs, and although their appraisal
within these scenarios is likely to be
Should we try and harmonise detector technology and concepts? ©CBRNe World
58
www.cbrneworld.com
"&#"#"&#$""&!
!'!" $#&!&##&$"
%%%!"&##!"
CBRNeWORLD
We don’t compare apples and oranges…
Key performance characteristics by role
quite good, the diversity of factors that
arise means that the output from a
diverse group may not be helpful. This
is perhaps another reason why people
resist the idea of overarching CBR
comparison – they can’t arrive at a
common conclusion! But this is
probably because they are imagining
slightly different scenarios based on
slightly different experiences and
beliefs and the consequences diverge
rapidly. Some sort of structured
formula must be introduced to gather
the thoughts and conclusions together
into something more agreeable or at
least acceptable.
And so, for this research, we turn to
operational analysis to provide us with
accountability and structure. In a
nutshell, what this means is that we are
trying to systematically
compartmentalise the SMEs subjective
feelings, repackaging them into pockets
of quantifiable components for
objective analysis.
Objectifying the subjective
The first step in objectivity was to
constrain the scenario and make it
explicit so a scenario was devised that
represented a wide range of challenges
over the full timeline. It took some
months to devise a scenario that fairly
represented the challenges regardless of
whether the agent had been C, B or R.
Scenarios are subjective and always
undermine the objectivity of findings
that may be extrapolated beyond them.
Even when the problem is broken
into logical components, it will still be
subjective as long as humans provide
data, even if bounded into smaller
components. However techniques
exist that help measure consistency
within an individual’s responses, and
between individuals, which helps
(with care and caveats) to identify
high quality information.
The MCDA model chosen for this
study was the simple multi attribute
rating technique with swing (SMARTS)
method, but the reasons for doing so
are beyond the scope of this article. In
SMARTS the first step is to break down
the problem into a hierarchy. The
overall goal of appraising CBR detection
was therefore broken into four function
based phases known as frames, and
then the key performance
characteristics for each frame were
compared across C, B and R.
Comparison of the KPCs across C, B
and R is certainly thought provoking.
How can you compare a typical
sensitivity of a chemical detector to that
of a biological detector and that of a
radiological detector? That is, how
might a sensitivity of 0.01 mg/m3 of
sarin compare to 3,000 spores of Bacillus
anthracis to to 0.01 mSv/hr of radiation?
The concept used in this study is not
to compare the KPCs directly, but
instead to analyse the desire to improve
from current capability to target (ideal)
capability within each KPC. This is a
powerful concept that avoids trying to
compare quantities that fundamentally
mean different things, yet features ‘what
is needed’ as context for current
capability along with the operational
benefit of improving detection in that
domain and frame. For this pioneering
CBR inter-comparison, the current state
of play in detection was just accessed
from market survey data while target
values for the KPCs were deduced based
on threat and consequence for three
representative C, B and R agents in the
defined scenario.
Expert elicitation features in two key
areas. The first is subjective appraisal of
how significantly each KPC (sensitivity,
response time etc) contributes to the
success of the operation in that
particular frame in a C, B or R scenario.
The second is, how significantly a
detector improvement from current to
ideal in that KPC would transfer to
operational benefit.
Is it still good salad however we cut the
fruit?
In such a complex and dynamic
problem, it is rare for people to be
confident in their answers and even if
they are, they may not be consistent. To
help capture and mitigate these issues,
the same fundamental problem is
expressed in different ways to see how
consistent and robust the answers are
when people see different facets of the
problem. When they see how their
opinions propagate through to a
conclusion, and how this conclusion is
different when the same problem is
viewed from different perspectives it
encourages people to revisit their initial
rationalisation and alter their answers to
give a more consistent and robust
conclusion. Essentially, this process is
effected by a reordering of the hierarchy
in the framework, and the results from
each version of the framework are
iterated and reconciled. A simplified
model of the process is shown in the
figure below.
The proof of the pudding is in the
eating
The framework was tested with a pilot
run, and the outputs resonate with the
60
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
literature. For example, the extreme
lethality of biological agents, the
relative ease of acquisition, and the
apparent lack of current capability
means that overall the biological
domain is where improvement in
detection capability is most wanted.
This finding is neither surprising nor
the point of the project, but it is useful
as it gives confidence that this model is
on the right track.
The main benefit of the project is to
analyse the entire detection chain with
enough detail to find the weak links in
C, B or R, in KPCs such as sensitivity or
selectivity, and in tasks such as
screening or response. For example, in
one specific outdoor dispersion
scenario, the sensitivity of a biological
point detection system in the initial
response frame is distinctly identified as
the specific KPC that must be improved,
when compared to all other KPCs across
all domains in the entire scenario. A
figure showing which KPCs are most
concern in C, B and R detection across
the scenario appears on previous page.
With this kind of breakdown and intercomparison, it becomes possible to
visualise, quantify and justify which
capability is worth investing in. It also
points to the specific area which should
yield the highest benefit for an
investment. We do not forget that
capability could be enhanced through
techniques, tactics and procedures not
just technology.
Experts and practitioners debate over
which detection capability warrants
development, and subjective qualitative
views emerge. No-one has demonstrated
a systematic way to compare CBR
detection incorporating threat and
response, and broken down the problem
with the resolution required for resource
distribution, however. This work is our
attempt to start on this path.
The need for comparison of C, B and
R detection capabilities is compelling,
and to enable this effective MCDA
models are required. The formulation of
the problem would be enhanced by
bringing in a greater depth and range of
knowledge than is owned by the handful
of researchers currently involved in this
work. Nonetheless, this pilot model
presents the CBR community with a
concept upon which to build a route to
quantifying detection capabilities across
CBR. It could be extended to better
evaluate other CBR capabilities such as
protection, in pursuit of a better
defence architecture. If you are
interested in what we are doing, please
let us know.
Raymond Ee is currently working
towards his MSc at Cranfield university.
His research focuses on developing a
robust methodology to compare current
C, B and R detection capabilities; and
he works in the defence industry as a
solution provider for CBRN forces in his
country. Dr Matthew Healy is a lecturer
at Cranfield university, Shrivenham,
working broadly across defence and
security, including radiological and
nuclear threats and response.
CBRNeWORLD
Jeffrey Bigongiari on the future of drones in aerial radiation detection
The demon that
A
erial monitoring of radiation
levels immediately following a
radiological release is critical in
accurately determining the extent of the
threat posed to the public and those
tasked with responding on the ground.
The technology and techniques used to
map the spread of radiation over large
areas has evolved through decades of
practice, along with the adoption of
more accurate detection devices, and
the development of mathematical
models capable of processing the
increasing amounts of collected
information. Sodium iodide crystals will
likely remain the sensor medium of the
present and immediate future, but UAVs
have finally been added to the combined
efforts to monitor dispersion quickly
and effectively as part of the immediate
response or in remediation efforts. The
next decade will be about maximising
their current capabilities, recognising
the roles in which they can be the most
useful, and integrating them into
current methods.
The 1966 Department of Defense
(DOD) and office of civil defense (now
defunct) handbook for aerial
radiological monitors is surprisingly
thin and, maybe more surprisingly,
relatively understandable to the layman.
In case of nuclear war, find an airplane,
get a pilot, and use your detection
equipment. The handbook explains:
"Where aircraft have been dry during
fallout, it can be expected that even
gentle breezes would dislodge most
particles from surfaces. If wet from rain
or dew, a significant amount might
adhere. The resultant dose rate in the
fuselage is not expected to be high
enough to be dangerous, but it could
interfere with radiological survey.”
The bulk of the guide is dedicated to
the art of navigation and proper record
keeping. There is a section on the
importance of understanding how to
operate a tape recorder according to the
instructions and how practice leads to
proficiency. Viewing it from almost five
decades away, the book looks practical
but potentially dangerous. Times have
changed. Aerial radiation detection and
monitoring has become an increasingly
complex process that requires more
than finding "any fixed- or rotarywinged light aircraft capable of flying at
low altitudes and slow speeds”.
Alan Remick is the Aerial Measuring
System Program Manager at NNSA's
Office of Emergency Response. I spoke
with him about the current technology
used in aerial detection and its
prospects for the future. The
DOE/NNSA team, in cooperation with
Japanese partners, flew 500 hours in
Japan after the Fukushima Accident to
create some of the most detailed and
complete maps of the ground
contamination surrounding the site.
"We focus on what's on the ground,
what's going to affect the people, then
put it in terms of protective action
values," he explained. "Pretty much
everyone in the radiological response
world uses sodium iodide crystals.
They're large crystals, they're very
sensitive, and they're very inexpensive
in comparison to some alternatives such
as lanthanum bromide, which is also
self-irradiating. There are a few other
crystals out there, but getting them the
right size can be very expensive."
According to Remick, one of the best
materials used in ground based
detection technology, high purity
germanium, has multiple drawbacks
when considering for use in aerial
detection. In addition to cost, it requires
a liquid nitrogen or mechanical cooling
system and is sensitive to vibration,
neither of which are conducive to
flying. Ultimately, sodium iodide crystal
technology has been around for a long
enough time, over fifty years, and meets
the mission requirements. In this case,
until there is a material or technology
that holds enough promise to beat
sodium iodide in potential and
adaptability, the process of maximizing
its utility for use in aerial monitoring
will continue. "I really don't see any
changes in the next 20 years. Sodium
iodide will continue to be the best
option unless there is a major
breakthrough in the development of
other alternatives."
Any look at the future of aerial
radiation detection and monitoring
would be incomplete without
considering developments in UAVs.
Despite periodic and intense outbursts
of concern, the public fascination with
UAV technology has grown significantly
over the last couple of years. The
growing affordability and availability of
UAVs for recreational use is part of it. Of
course, UAVs have been in private hands
for decades, but they used to be called
radio controlled aircraft and users were
known as enthusiasts, a term generally
reserved for those on the fringe of what
is considered an acceptable use of free
time and extra money.
Considering the UAV market is
expected, by some estimates, to double
in value to nearly $12 billion a year by
2023, there is enthusiasm (in the air of
course) for utilising them in ways that a
few years ago were still only the subject
of white papers. While most
prognostications about the use of
drones in CBRN are questionable, their
use, both fixed-wing and VTOL, within
the radiation detection toolkit has
proven effective and efficient in filling
existing capability gaps and working in
conjunction with manned aircraft to
monitor and assess areas otherwise too
difficult to reach.
The adoption of UAVs is not exactly
revolutionary in aerial radiation
monitoring, though it may signal the
start of a period of innovation and
excitement. Karen McCall from National
Securities Technologies’ (NSTec) remote
62
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
lives in the air
sensing laboratory has been working
with UAV technology and detection long
enough to put their use into context.
"Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are
just a platform that has to be used for a
purpose, and that purpose drives their
usage. Simply having an aircraft serves
no purpose. You have to want to get
from point A to point B. And UAS are
just another aircraft. They happen to be
smaller, carry a lot less and can get data
from A to B, but they are no different."
McCall noted that in the case of
Fukushima, it became clear that there
were areas needing measurement where
manned aircraft could not be safely used.
The need became evident, so the next
step was to see what was available to
address that need. A UAV can fly lower
and slower and without regard to human
exposure, so it can use smaller detectors
and achieve accurate readings over
uneven or broken ground. Once the
measurements are taken, however, the
process of data interpretation is the same
no matter where the pilot is located.
When asked to name the biggest
challenge in operating an unmanned
monitoring mission rather than a
manned mission, McCall paused, then
answered: "Wind! Manned aircraft are
far less susceptible to the environment,
but it depends on your concept of
operations, too. If I want to map out a
field, then I want my lines as straight as
possible and my altitude consistent. A
15 knot wind would land me."
Nuclear facilities currently use static
monitoring systems to detect leaks, but
such systems remain limited in terms of
their coverage area and are also
susceptible to false alarms since they
cannot trace the source of leaks. The
2011 earthquake and tsunami that
triggered the meltdown in Japan
destroyed or disabled 23 out of the 24
static monitoring points at Fukushima.
This made it necessary to use
helicopters to gather data with little or
no knowledge ahead of time, and
resulted in the crews being exposed to
radiation that would have posed less
threat to a UAV crew stationed
kilometres away.
Earlier this year, the Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
and Japan Atomic Energy Agency
(JAEA) announced their first successful
public test of a domestically built fixedwing UAV to monitor radiation in
Fukushima prefecture. The project took
three years to come to fruition and was
announced with great fanfare. "The
white airplane slowly began its takeoff
in front of cameramen and journalists
watching from nearby," according to a
JAEA press release. "The engine soon
roared and the airplane started speeding
up, its nose lifting off the ground as it
floated into the wind. The airplane,
raising altitude by turning right, soon
soared into the blue sky. On the ground,
50 staff and journalists showed grin
with reassurance."
It was clearly, and rightly, a proud
moment for JAXA and JAEA. The
Japanese aircraft has a range of 100km
and is capable of flying autonomously
Aerial survey has previously come in far larger packages ©CBRNe World
www.cbrneworld.com
63
CBRNeWORLD
The demon that lives in the air
along a preprogrammed flight path. It
can take stay aloft for up to six hours
while it transverses its target area by
contour and reports flight and
radiation data back to a mobile ground
station. It's an impressive showing at a
critical time.
In terms of smaller scale innovation
and accessibility without national
backing, there are multiple examples of
new devices from less aggressively
funded teams that have completed or
are nearing completion of unmanned
detection platforms. Although the
specifics are still something of a secret,
a team from the university of Bristol
announced the success of its advanced
airborne radiation monitoring (AARM)
system in 2014. AARM is essentially a
six-rotor VTOL UAV mounted with an
integrated GPS, LIDAR gamma
radiation detector, and camera.
The team leader, Dr James
McFarlane, said the development
process took about 18 months to
produce a viable, fully functional
commercial prototype. Unfortunately,
McFarlane has not disclosed how much
of the unit was created using off the
shelf components.
The project won an award worth nearly
$25,000 that is going towards the
formation of a new company which
hopes to market the system in the UK.
AARM cut its teeth in Romania and
Cornwall, where it mapped previously
undocumented contamination near
aged uranium mines. The system
reportedly performed well
autonomously and was inexpensive to
operate, although it could only
maintain a short flying time and was
susceptible to prevailing weather
conditions. The achievement is certainly
impressive, but it remains to be seen
where such a system will fit into the
bigger picture.
"UAS have been around for 20
years, but they have been in a
controlled environment," said McCall.
“They're getting out of that
environment, but some mechanism is
needed to ensure they don't cause
harm or mayhem and that is where the
time frame becomes critical. There are
very few industries that do not see a
benefit to using unmanned aircraft,
Aerial survey offers the chance to cover far more ground than by foot ©CBRNe World
including ours. We all know it's
coming, and that's where the
excitement is, so let's see how we can
integrate it. Our minds are on two or
three years down the road, but today
it’s about implementing it in current
operations in a way that doesn't
impede us in the future."
Whether the discussion centres on
the role of UAVs or the level of current
or future technology, it is hard to
ignore the complexity involved in
conducting aerial radiation monitoring
on the scale needed to respond
effectively to a large radiation
dispersal, particularly in an urban
environment. In CBRN sometimes it
seems that the research is the easy
part, and cooperation between the
elements the most difficult.
Remick recently took part in an
interagency exercise involving at least
nine aircraft from federal, state, and
local agencies, including EPA.
"Together, we're developing a
framework to integrate combined aerial
assets for radiological measurements.
There are always lessons learned and
things we could do better, but it went
well.” Remick said. ” We had a couple
dozen flights, we staged sources, and
everybody appreciated the opportunity
to participate in the exercise and fly
over actual radioactive sources. That
type of response and integration is our
purpose in life"
64
www.cbrneworld.com
GLOBAL CBRN THREAT
DETECTION SOLUTIONS
Second Sight® MS
Chemical threat detection
CHEMICAL
Coriolis® RECON
Portable air sampler
www.secondsight-gasdetection.com
www.coriolis-airsampler.com
N U CLE A R
BIOLOGICAL
Pedestrians
& Vehicles
Access Control
www.saphymo.com
Environmental
Monitoring Systems
RADI
OLOGICAL
www.saphymo.com
Bertin Technologies offers key support in Chemical and Biological threat detection. In 2015,
Bertin Technologies acquires Saphymo, expert in detection and monitoring of ionizing radiation
and thus, provides proprietary systems for all CBRN threats.
[email protected]
[email protected]
CBRNeWORLD
Sean Crawford, section chief within CBRNE programmes at FEMA,
tells Gwyn Winfield about maturing the RadResponder software app
Responsible adults
C
ommunity is a funny thing. A bit
like luck, the more you try to
make it happen the less likely it
becomes, yet sometimes it just turns up.
Technology, especially social media, is a
great progenitor of community, as it
provides opportunities for people to find
others like themselves. The
RadResponder app, designed by
Chainbridge Technology for the Federal
Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), is a
case in point. The
system was
designed to
provide rapid,
accurate
characterisation after a radiological
emergency and pass information to
states and local agencies. While
interoperability is at its core, as with any
initiative that shares information, it has
moved beyond being a collection of
people and become a community.
RadResponder is based on federal
radiological management and assessment
centre (FRMAC) standards for reporting,
which all US states must follow. Having
this as a base layer means there is little
that’s new for the user community to
learn, instead it is more about applying
what they already do in a new way.
When it comes to using RadResponder,
it’s not an emergency tool per se, it is
also applicable in training and
exercising and as such is used on more
of a monthly basis, rather than only
‘In case of Emergency…’ While the
FRMAC came out of the Three Mile
Island disaster, the Fukushima release
was one of the major drivers for
RadResponder. This highlighted many of
the concerns that agencies already had
about needing better coordination
between locals and federal assets, and the
need to get an early start on sharing.
The app was launched in the
autumn of 2012 and has been building
since then. As opposed to other
federally funded apps,
the most famous of
which is Wiser [if you
haven’t downloaded Wiser do it
NOW! Ed.], which are available to all
individuals Rad Responder is only for
accredited individuals/agencies
(https://www.radresponder.net/). This
clearly provides a level of security
and the comfort of knowing that
you are talking with equals, and
helps foster community.
The big way community has been
fostered, however, is via the national level
drills. Usually national level exercises are
a major pain, the circus comes to town
and the pressure is incredible for all
concerned. RadResponder exercises,
however, are more local/state exercises
with a federal overlay. They will either
encourage someone to run their own
exercise and incorporate a RadResponder
element, or get people to take part in the
national drill with their own
timing/assets.
In May, for example, the team ran a
nationwide data management drill. The
drill scenario focused on those southern
states that were part of the southern
mutual radiation assistance plan
(SMRAP) but all RadResponder
community members were invited to
join in and enter actual background
radiation measurements, field sampling
data and observations from anywhere in
the country.
Sean Crawford explained that the
take up of these national exercises had
been a pleasant surprise. “We have had
an interesting mix of user feedback, but
it has all been extremely positive. You
mentioned the national drill, we didn’t
have high expectations for this and
instead have had overwhelming support.
We were expecting a dozen and we had
26 states in our first drill and tens of
thousands of data points over an eight
hour period. It was overwhelming and it
was great to see that the system could
handle it and the community that came
out of the drill.
“Numerous states have provided a lot
of user feedback on the flexibility and
usability of the tool, the organisational
ownership of their own data, the
management, the personnel and the
equipment and training. While the old
culture of collecting things on paper,
putting information into spreadsheets
and relaying things over radios changes
gradually, the push of technology and the
acceleration of smart phones means that
RadResponder is feeding that
acceleration of technology into the
community. Any exercise that we do, we
ingest the after action reports (AARs) and
look at what they are saying and how we
can improve things. So every fiscal year
we prioritise whatever we think of as
most important to meet these needs.”
66
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Part of the attraction may be that
state and local partners can share as
much or as little as they like. They
collect (real or factiously) as much
information as they want, in the way that
they want and can then pass as much as
they choose into the FRMAC and
RadResponder. This also gives the teams
at FEMA, EPA and DOE opportunities to
understand the capability of these
partners, how they collect information,
what is valuable and what might need to
be discarded. This lack of proscription on
how RadResponder can be used has seen
it percolate into other elements of the
state beyond training and response.
Sean Crawford explained: “We are
finding that folks are no longer just
using this as a response tool.
Organisations are building this into their
environmental monitoring plans,
whether it is surrounding a power plant,
or staying away from it, they are using it
daily. Whether you have a power plant or
not you may have health or industrial
sources transiting your state, so it can be
used for identifying lost sources or spills
on the road.
“We also have fixed sensor networks
and a lot of state organisations around
power plants are feeding information
into the system not only for their own
needs but sharing it with other
organisations within RadResponder.
People also use RadResponder to build
networks in their own communities,
Facebook friending allows you to share
information with others and build
partnerships with organisations in your
area. You can share different levels of
information, allow them to assess data,
or things that allow you to play and train
together or build bigger exercises and
drills, as well as during an emergency.”
Much as the CBRN dynamic has
changed in the past three to four years,
so too has concern over cyber attacks.
Whereas everyone used to understand
the need for security, flagrant attacks on
US government systems now cause
people to consider how much
information, especially where it concerns
nuclear/radiological security, should be
available online. RadResponder being a
cloud-based app would seem to be ripe
for an attack, with the ability to post false
alerts, or alternately remove genuine
alerts. Sean Crawford stated that there
was a concern, but the nature of
RadResponder meant that it was never
going to be a danger.
“Cyber security is on everyone’s mind
and is compliant with all the federal
government requirements.
RadResponder, however, is not an alert
warning system, so we are not worried
about false readings coming into the
system and triggering anything. We are
focussed on data collection and the
management of that data. So if we see a
power plant with an event created with a
number of measurements that look out
of sorts then the surrounding state
organisations will contact that plant and
verify if there is a release. We are not
concerned about false data being entered
as each organisation within
RadResponder manages its own data and
can decide whether that data is accurate
or false. Every datapoint is tied to an
individual account in an organisation, so
there are procedures to decide whether
the data is accurate or not.”
As stated RadResponder started off
being a response tool and has now
migrated into all kinds of radiological
ground. It can help to track medical
isotopes in transit from one state to
another, for example, or help track a
spill that impacts two states or
counties. All this requires a high
degree of cooperation, however, and as
in all branches of politics, sharing is
not an easy thing to do. The person
holding the most data is king, and
while there are holistic advantages to
sharing, there are also very real
benefits in holding on to it. How then
does RadResponder cope when people
don’t want to share? Or even when they
do want to share but the circumstances
of the situation, for instance an EMP
following a nuclear blast, means they
can’t? How does the system cope when
there is a data black hole in the middle
of the map, for example?
“RadResponder was designed for
that,” said Sean Crawford. “We
understand that there may be power
outages and communication issues,
whether through EMPs or the system
being overwhelmed. The app is designed
to cache information, whether it is data
measurements that are located by GPS
or observation, samples or photos. It can
be done the old way where you radio in
datapoints, but more information will be
required, so you can cache everything
and then when you are back in a wireless
or cell area that information will be
automatically uploaded. In terms of the
modelling we have capability on the east
and west coasts that can be ingested into
the RadResponder system, so whether
you are in DC or the west coast you will
still be able to look into the portal and
see what we have, whether it is ingested
models or incoming data. In terms of the
states, we are finding that they are more
open to sharing than one would think.
They are building plenty of
RadResponder partnerships, utilising
existing emergency management
assistance compact (EMAC) partnerships,
and we help facilitate that. But if they
don’t choose to share that is fine, it is
their choice.”
RadResponder is likely to be FEMA’s
only foray into CBRN apps for the
foreseeable future. The product is a
legacy of Fukushima and FEMA’s
decision to focus first on radiological
response, in conjunction with DOE and
EPA. This is not to say that other federal
agencies can’t look at the RadResponder
architecture and adapt it for either
chemical or biological sensors.
Equally, FEMA is open to approaches
from foreign governments to see
whether they can adopt RadResponder
for their national systems. In terms of
the US product FEMA will continue to
evolve it iteratively with each batch of
feedback, but currently there is no plan
for version two. While it would be nice to
see a state or national product, where air
monitoring or chem sensors feed into a
‘Chem Responder’ and radiological ones
into RadResponder Mr Crawford said that
a federally funded solution was not on
the horizon as industry has already
produced commercial systems that can
do this. While there might not be
massive software improvements coming
along, the growing ubiquity of the
system, combined with DOE and EPA use
in national drills, should ensure a vibrant
future for it.
www.cbrneworld.com
67
CAPABILITY PROFILES
Coastal Environmental Systems – WEATHERPAK® Weather Stations for CBRNE Response
Coastal Environmental Systems – WEATHERPAK®
Weather Stations for CBRNE Response
Coastal’s portable WEATHERPAK® systems
provide on-site, real-time weather data for chemical,
biological and radiological response. For more than
30 years, WEATHERPAK® has been the number
one emergency response weather station worldwide.
The most rugged system available, it is impervious
to airborne chemicals and can be deployed by one
person wearing protective gear in less than one
minute—without tools. WEATHERPAK®
automatically updates CAMEO®/ALOHA® and most
plume modeling software.
Coastal Environmental Systems, Inc., established in
1981, is a leading global provider of weather
monitoring systems for aviation, emergency
response, military, marine/offshore, agriculture, and
industrial applications. Coastal specializes in
professional-grade weather stations and networked
solutions that are reliable in every environment.
Coastal has earned the trust of a long list of
domestic and international customers, including the
US Air Force, NAV Canada, the FAA, National
Weather Service, and military/civil aviation
authorities.
www.coastalenvironmental.com/cbrne
Bertin Technologies
Bertin Technologies, engineering company
that manufactures and sell products for
biological and chemical detection, is
strengthening its range by acquiring the
Saphymo Group, a key French provider of
instrumentation solutions dedicated to the
detection and monitoring of ionizing radiation.
civil protection operations due to its compact,
lightweight and modular design.
Together, they are your international experts
on CBRN threat detection systems:
- Radiological and Nuclear threat detection
with Saphymo’s range of products:
dosimeters, survey meters, environmental
radiation monitoring systems and access
control portals suitable for homeland security,
emergency preparedness and Defense.
- Chemical threat detection with the Second
Sight MS: a stand-off chemical gas cloud
detector that is ideally suited to Military and
- Biological threat detection with the Coriolis
Recon: a portable bio-air sampler, dedicated
to teams or first responders that is deployed
in case of bio-threat suspicion.
FLIR Systems, Inc.
FLIR Systems, Inc. is a world leader in the design, manufacture, and
marketing of sensor systems that enhance perception and awareness.
FLIR technology keeps our world safe and aware, our environment clean
and preserved, our communities healthy and entertained, and our
economies efficient and productive. We also produce the most
comprehensive line of instruments that detect and identify threats in all of
the critical CBRNE segments. These portable, lab-caliber products support
a broad range of critical missions, while also offering the flexibility to
address newly emerging threats and applications. Our threat detection
toolkit includes:
Fido® Series Products: Sampling & Presumptive Screening
identiFINDER® Series Products: Remote Detection & Identification
Griffin™ Series Products: Confirmation & Analysis
For more information on the FLIR detection solutions, visit www.flir.com
908 Devices
At 908 Devices we are building ridiculously
small, purpose-built tools based on
remarkable high-pressure mass
spectrometryTM (HPMS).
Our flagship product, M908TM, is a threat
focused handheld mass spectrometer
designed to redefine initial entry. Its
mission is simple: sniff out priority threats both seen and unseen. This handheld
confirmatory tool enables you to survey
surroundings in seconds. Unmistakable
audio and visual alerts are provided for
threats in vapor, solid, and liquid form -
from trace to bulk quantities. Weighing in
at 2.0kg (4.4lbs), hardware is easy to hold,
easy to maneuver. And console-style
controls enable effortless engagement
with an intuitive interface when in full
protective gear.
M908 expands the first responder tool kit
adding deep chemical detection capabilities
beyond traditional tools. The selectivity of
mass spectrometry allows M908 to detect
trace quantities of critical threats amongst
the myriad of interferents that plague other
less selective technologies.
68
www.cbrneworld.com
CAPABILITY PROFILES
PROENGIN Biological and Chemical Detection Systems
Proengin has developed biological and
chemical warfare agents (CWA) field
detectors using flame spectrometry.
Chemical detection
AP4C is a hand held chemical detector
able to detect all CWA and many TICs,
precursors, derivatives or unknown
(Novichok). Continuous measurement, fast
clear down after positive detection and
particular easiness of use make of this
detector the perfect one for field missions.
Range of products show also:
– AP4C-V, aboard wheeled and tracked
reconnaissance vehicles,
– AP4C-F, on critical buildings and ships.
These detectors show same detection
performances, with characteristics suitable
for vehicles, buildings and ships, in terms
of autonomy and data networking.
Biological detection
The biological detector MAB has the
unique capacity of detecting and
categorizing biological particles with a
proven extremely low false alarm rate. It is
designed to trigger sampling and analysing
devices.
www.proengin.com
CBRN/HazMat – When the danger is unknown, send the robot in first
iRobot Defense & Security robots have
integrated numerous sensors for to
enable rapid response and real-time
detection and identification of
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
Nuclear (CBRN) and HazMat materials.
With the help of our robots, CBRN or
HazMat teams rapidly identify and
determine the best course of action to
mitigate the transfer or exposure to
dangerous substances. iRobot
products seamlessly integrate
numerous third-party sensors and
report real-time measurements to
responding teams. Our modular robot
platforms, allow for mission and user
specified sensor integration.
The 510 PackBot integrated with an
expanding array of sensors and
payloads detects, measures, reports
and provides alerts to the presence of
toxic industrial materials, chemical
warfare agents, radiation, and
explosive hazards. Through rapid
deployment and real-time read-outs,
iRobot PackBot provides operators a
safe operational distance from hazards,
and keeps others out of harm’s way.
Kärcher Futuretech GmbH
Kärcher Futuretech GmbH with its headquarters near Stuttgart
(Germany) develops, manufactures, and markets modular products and
systems worldwide for rapid deployment missions in disaster areas and
complex emergencies. The company offers solutions in the product
categories: Water Supply Systems, Mobile Catering Systems, Field
Camp Systems and CBRN Protection Systems. Futuretech was spun
off in 2005 and became an independent subsidiary of Alfred Kärcher
GmbH & Co. KG. Today the company employs around 140 people.
Battelle: Solving the World’s Most Complex Chemical and Biological Defense Challenges
For more than 25 years, government agencies and
industries alike have trusted Battelle to solve their most
complex chemical and biological defense challenges.
With expertise spanning decades and dozens of interrelated scientific disciplines, unmatched chemical and
biological test facilities, advanced product design and
manufacturing, and objectivity as the world’s largest
nonprofit R&D organization, Battelle provides
comprehensive chemical and biological defense
solutions for intelligence, defense, medical, security, and
industrial clients.
Threat Assessment; High-Hazards RDT&E; Medical
Surveillance, Diagnostics and Intervention; Mission
Support Services; Products and Lifecycle
Management; Applied Genomics; Chemical
Demilitarization
Battelle is proud to introduce the Resource Effective
BioIdentification System (REBS™) – a breakthrough in
biological warfare-agent collection, identification, and
enumeration. For about a dollar per day, REBS
enhances the safety of warfighters and civilians alike,
in applications including Defense and Security, Building
Protection, and Manufacturing and Production.
To solve your most pressing challenges, Think
Battelle First.
1.800.201.2011
[email protected]
www.battelle.org
www.cbrneworld.com
69
CAPABILITY PROFILES
Avon Protection
Avon Protection is a world leader in CBRN PPE and
respiratory protection, providing complete solutions for
air, land and sea based personnel in military, law
enforcement, first responder, fire-fighting and industrial
sectors worldwide.
Avon’s portfolio of innovative, modular CBRN
respiratory protection products includes face masks,
self-contained breathing apparatus, supplied air,
powered air, particulate and air-purifying respirators,
escape hoods, filters and accessories.
Our customised services include consultancy in
specialist risk management and disaster recovery
together with a range of tailored training packages to
deliver truly end-to-end procurement solutions to a
global market.
We have supplied respirators to the UK Ministry of
Defence and other NATO allies since the 1920’s and we
are the primary supplier of CBRN personal respiratory
equipment to the United States Department of Defense.
Additionally, we are the market leader among LE and
SWAT users in the US.
AirBoss Defense – Advanced Integrated CBRN PPE Solutions
AirBoss Defense, a world leader in
CBRN individual protection, leverages
long-term expertise and advanced
technologies to develop, design and
manufacture innovative, ergonomic
products that achieve the highest
standards.
AirBoss Defense maintains a dynamic
team of professionals that has built the
broad knowledge base which contributes
to its reputation of always delivering
products that fully comply with customer
requirements.
Defense and First Responder users in more
than 40 countries rely on AirBoss Defense
for individual CBRN protection, including
CBRN protective footwear, hand wear, gas
masks and accessories. With new
products in the making, AirBoss Defense is
recognized for continuously improving its
products and bringing to the market
innovative protective clothing and
equipment that surpass North American,
European and NATO norms and standards.
When it comes to safety and security, AirBoss
Defense offers The Ultimate Protection.
Thermo Scientific
Thermo Scientific handheld chemical identification
tools are field-ready instruments that deliver precise,
actionable intelligence to military organizations, first
responders and law enforcement agencies worldwide.
Thermo Scientific™ FirstDefender™ and
TruDefender™ analyzers are widely deployed by
explosives ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel,
chemical battalions and hazmat teams for solid and
liquid chemical identification.
Thermo Fisher Scientific has redefined performance
and portability again with the new Thermo Scientific™
Gemini™ analyzer, the world’s first and only
handheld instrument that integrates Raman and FTIR
in a single device. The Gemini analyzer minimizes
time on target while delivering comprehensive and
confirmatory results – empowering operators to
execute their missions quickly, safely, and confidently.
–
–
–
–
Lightweight, compact, certified to MIL-STD-810G
Customizable profiles to set scan parameters
Industry-first FTIR scan delay
Clear, color-coded, definitive test results
Learn more about our full suite of handheld chemical
identification tools:
www.thermoscientific.com/safety-chemid
[email protected]
+1 (978) 642-1132
CRISTANINI
Cristanini offers solutions in the field of CBRN
decontamination and protection, both civil and
military, with decontamination systems and
products suitable for large-scale action and
capable of dealing with CBRN emergencies.
Our CBRN decontaminant and detoxicant agents
are effective against CBRN contamination and
suitable for preventive sanitization operations. The
main CBRN decontaminat and detoxifying products
include:
- The BX24, a product that removes the CB
contamination and neutralises it. BX24 also
decontaminates RN contamination and is also
effective against TICs;
- SX 34 for sensitive equipment decontamination
and detoxification, personnel decontamination and
materials detoxification.
Finally, Cristanini also produces an innovative
system for Chem-Bio Large Decontamination
Volume named LDV-X, which is able to detoxicate
without damaging materials and with negligible
final waste. In conclusion, we have a “System of
Systems” and “Full Spectrum” solutions that are
cost saving through innovation and proven science
and proven on operations.
www.cristanini.it
70
www.cbrneworld.com
CAPABILITY PROFILES
NBC-Sys: Innovation focusing on your Safety!
From design to production to customer support,
NBC-Sys covers numerous technologies
against nuclear, radiological biological and
chemical hazards.
Military and Civilian Interventions face to
Toxic Hazards:
NBC terrorism; Civil defence; Industrial
Accidents (Nuclear and Chemical); Hazmat
Transportation Accidents; Emergency response
and Disaster Management
Collective Protection :
Air conditioning & Filtration unit for vehicles,
tents and ships /Complete range of filters (NBC,
NBC+TIC's) from 12 to 300 m3/h
Individual Protection:
Gas Masks-civilians, soldiers, helicopter pilots/
Civilian: EVATOX (adult, child, baby),
BIOPROTECT / Filtering Canister (NBC NATO,
ABEK, Wide spectrum) / Blower (CASU) /
Survival kits (LABIC, ISK)
Decontamination:
MEERKAT®: Multi-purpose decontamination
equipment / Emergency: a range made with
"Fuller's earth" ingredient, powdering gloves and
decontamination kit / DSSM: Decontam-ination
System for Sensitive Material / SYMODA:
MObile SYstem for Air Decontamination /
CERPE: personal decontamination line / SDA:
thorough decontamination system of vehicles
Detection:
Chemical toxic agent detector kit (KTDC) /
Fiel Biological Detection Kit ( KDTB Gold®) /
Individual detector of neurotoxin agents
(DETINDIV)
Paper detector notebook (PDF1)
Sampling:
Sampling equipment (EPTBC – set of
biological and chemical sampling and
transportation equipment – and sampling kit)
Contact:
Tel: +33 477 191921
Fax: +33 4 77 19 1929
[email protected]
www.nbc-sys.com
We’re Engineering a Better Tomorrow
Lockheed Martin is a proven, end-to-end Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) solution provider, with the ability to
source specialized equipment, develop protocols, procedures, and
facilities associated with CBRN protection activities.
CBRN End-to-End Capabilities:
From risk analysis and infrastructure protection to training and
lifecycle management, our CBRN solutions help protect lives and
give battlefield commanders the information they need to make
critical decisions regarding defensive actions. Lockheed Martin
develops innovative solutions in the defense and civil areas of
CBRN detection, critical infrastructure protection, global
deployment, logistics, operations and maintenance to solve
complex issues and the unique challenges of our world today.
– Engineering Support
The world is facing complex challenges that call for innovative
solutions - solutions that help defend global security, push the
boundaries of scientific discovery and deliver essential services to
citizens around the globe. Join us in exploring the people and
technologies that will shape the future and turn the once
impossible, possible.
– Building Protection
– Emergency Preparedness, Incident Investigation,
and Equipment Acquisition
– IT and Information Management Support
– Material Sourcing, Procurement, and Assembly Support
– Medical and Field Support
– National Security Special Event (NSSE) Support
– Operational and Maintenance support of Chemical, Biological,
and Radiological (CBR) Equipment
– Personal Protection Equipment & Clothing Selection
– Quick-React Procurement/Fabrication Support
– Special Protection Device Testing and Modification
– System Integration
BioFire Defense - BioSurveillance Systems
We deliver a fully integrated suite of
biological agent identification
products, including:
powered unit includes Bluetooth
capabilities, bar code reader, and a
bright, easy to read color screen
RAZOR EX – Hand Portable
Detection
The RAZOR EX detects and
identifies biological agents and is
made for field use, being compact,
lightweight, and easy to use. It’s a
fast field PCR unit , with ultrareliable DNA based results and is
easily operated while working in
protective equipment under extreme
conditions. The new battery
FilmArray - Fully Automated
BioDetection
The FilmArray is able to identify,
dozens of the most lethal viruses
and bacteria, including emerging
infectious diseases. The easy-touse, syringe-loaded system
represents the next generation in
automated detection systems.
The FilmArray uses a plastic pouch
with automated capabilities,
including sample preparation,
reverse transcription for RNA
viruses, and a two-stage nested
multiplex PCR process. The results
are a revolutionary detection
system in a lightweight, smallfootprint format.
Learn more at
www.BioFireDefense.com
www.cbrneworld.com
71
CAPABILITY PROFILES
Scott Safety
Scott Safety are world leaders in the
design and development of Respiratory
Protection Equipment (RPE). We have
a detailed understanding of the
physiological and psychological burden
RPE can place on users. That is why we
test in the field. We apply what we learn
there – as well as emerging research
and technologies to every design to
ensure superior capability, functionality
and comfort. Their expertise, at the
forefront of RPE technology, is indicated
by the newly introduced BS 84681&2:2006 approved First Responder
Respirator (FRR), a “next generation”
system based on a revolutionary suite of
technologies. It offers significantly higher
protection factors against CBRN agents
while providing greatly reduced
physiological burden to the user through
low breathing resistance, optimum
visibility and high drinking rate.
Irrespective of whether your requirement
is for CBRN protection, Breathing
Apparatus for EOD, USAR, Damage
Control, Law Enforcement, Fire Fighting
or for specialist applications Scott can
meet your requirements- Comfortably.
Argon RAID-M100-SIM
The Argon RAID-M100-SIM reacts to safe electronic sources simulating the Bruker RAIDM100’s response to CWAs and TICs, with accurate replication of displays and alarms.
RAID-M100-SIM provides the ability to simulate consumable use and to conduct
comprehensive After Action Review of recorded student errors. RAID-M100-SIM can be
used in conjunction with other Argon training instruments including AP4C-SIM, LCD3.3SIM/JCAD-SIM and HAPSIM-P that simulate detectors which operate on alternate
technologies.
The RAID-M100-SIM is compatible for use with PlumeSIM, Argon’s portable wide area
collective exercise training system. PlumeSIM enables the remote training of multiple
personnel with multiple chemical and radiological simulator instruments under fully
configurable ‘virtual plumes’, in real time, over user selected mapping. Instructors can
select the parameters for the activation of simulation instruments (including specific
simulated threat release and environmental characteristics), and monitor the recorded
actions of trainees from a single location.
Paper Pak Industries
Paper Pak Industries, working with a
team of military medical and
absorbency experts, has developed
APLS, the Absorbent Patient Litter
System, Designed for use in the
battlefield, in medical facilities and in
search and rescue operations, APLS
products are engineered to improve
patient transfer, care and comfort. APLS
products are rugged and lightweight,
feature a compact design, and can be
carried anywhere, enabling first
responders to respond quicker and
more efficiently. APLS Body Guard
HazRem Chem-Bio body bag features a
leak-proof inner chamber that minimizes
the risk of service provider exposure to
bacteria-laden body fluids and chemical
and biological agents. APLS Body
Guard Bio is a disposable, highly
absorbent body bag that minimizes the
spread of bacteria and viruses while
protecting service providers and the
deceased. To learn more, visit
www.paperpakapls.com or contact Tom
Nyhan, APLS Director of Sales, at (909)
973-9983 or email Tom at
[email protected]
Tex-Shield, Inc.
Tex-Shield is the U.S. licensee of the unique SARATOGA® chemical protective technology,
the most trusted name in chemical protective textiles and garments in the world.
SARATOGA® garments are air permeable, adsorptive systems designed to provide optimal
protection against chemical agents. Comfortable, flexible, lightweight, and breathable, they
offer extended wear time and reduced heat stress. SARATOGA® protective garments are
durable and can be laundered repeatedly, reducing total lifecycle costs.
Only SARATOGA® fabrics are qualified for use in the JSLIST chemical protective
overgarment and JPACE aircrew coverall. Tex-Shield’s other products include the Hammer
Suit®, chemical protective undergarments, gloves, footwear, and filtration media.
Tex-Shield, Inc.
3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 700, Bethesda, MD 20814
Tel: +1 (301) 941-1828 E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.bluecher.com/en/brands/Saratoga
72
www.cbrneworld.com
CAPABILITY PROFILES
Environics – For Your Safety
Environics is the world leading supplier of Chemical,
Biological, Nuclear and Radiation (CBRN) detection
devices and integrated solutions for starting from
personal safety to national security. Environics provides
innovative solutions for the whole safeguarding society
from civil defense and homeland security to the military.
Behind our comprehensive range of products and solution is a highly competent team of experts having
years of experience in the implementation of demanding projects in the fields of CBRN and industry.
Environics is strongly committed to meet its customer requirements and needs as well as to continue
development of state-of-art technologies and innovative solutions for detection and analyzing constantly
evolving CBRN threats and industrial requirements.
www.environics.fi
[email protected]
+358201430430
Paul Boyé Technologies
Worldwide leader in research,
development and mass production
of CBRN/F protective suits, Paul
Boyé Technologies offers a
complete range of products to
meet the requirements of Armed
Forces and Civil Defence (soldiers,
decontamination experts, aircraft
pilots, helicopter pilots, special
forces, police forces, military
police, medical personnel, firefighters). In use within 38 countries
in the world, Paul Boyé CBRN
protective suits have gained
international recognition thanks to
their high technological level. Used
by all international organizations
(UNO, OPCW, IAEA, NATO…) for
chemical disarmament operations,
they have proven their superiority
and comfort in the hardest climate.
www.paulboye.com
Email: [email protected]
Immediate Response Technologies is now part of AirBoss Defense
This positions AirBoss Defense even further in
the supply of CBRN individual protective
equipment; manufacturing a full suite of CBRN
protective handwear, footwear, respirators,
filters, blowers, ISOPODS and shelters/shelter
systems for decontamination and/or
sustainment, for the defense and first response
markets. Immediate Response Technologies’
rapidly deployable shelters, mass casualty
decontamination systems and sustainment
camps, military and healthcare respirators
(PAPRs), Individual Patient Isolation/
Transportation Systems (ISOPODS),
furthermore broaden our product line we can
provide to the military, healthcare and medical
markets. These products are employed by all
active and reserve components in the U.S.
Department of Defense, the National Guard,
the Coast Guard and numerous homeland
defense organizations such as the FBI, CIA,
DHS, DOJ, DOS, and FEMA. AirBoss is a “one
stop shop” for the most technically advanced,
highest quality line of PPE and shelter systems
anywhere in the world!
Emergent BioSolutions
Emergent BioSolutions is a specialty biopharmaceutical company seeking to protect and enhance life. Their Biodefense Division offers a
specialized portfolio of medical countermeasures for Chemical and Biological.
The company’s flagship product, BioThrax (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed), is the only U.S. FDA licensed vaccine available for pre-exposure
protection against the Anthrax disease.
Recognizing that Anthrax isn’t the only potential bioterrorist weapon, Emergent has expanded and seeks to further its offerings to address
other CBRN threats.
In 2013, Emergent acquired RSDL, a skin decontamination device intended to neutralize or
remove chemical warfare agents, T-2 toxin and many pesticide –related chemicals, including
organophosphates, which are some of the most common and most toxic insecticides used today.
In 2014, the acquisition of Cangene allowed Emergent to further expand its biodefense portfolio to
include countermeasures that target botulinum, complications from Smallpox vaccine and Anthrax.
www.cbrneworld.com
73
' ,, ,0*/'*$ $ *+ #& , " +#!& & . $ ' ( % & ,
' +(#*,'*0 *', , #'& )- #(% & , " . , # $ - & * +,&#&! ' , " ("0+#'$'!#$ & (+0" ' $ ' ! # $ - * & &
( $ '&-+ * + ", #+ /"0 / , +, #& , " # $ ( ( $ 0 /", / $ * &
," * 1+/$$+% *!#& ! * + *" & , " & ' $ ' ! # + ,' . * 0 + # ! &
,' & +-*+ -(* #'* (#$#, 0 - & , #'& $#, 0 & ' % ' * , * * + ( ,# . ' / " , " * 0'-**)-#* % & , #+ ' * (*', , #' & *,"#&! ((*,-+
'*
%! '& , *'$ / & '* % & , # * # ! " ,# & ! ' * '*
+( # $#+, (($#,#'&+', , & % , 0'- * * )-# * % & ,+ ' % ' * , $ 0
'(0*#!",2',, ,0$$#!",++*.
CBRNeWORLD
Chief Inspector Steve Jones, Silver Commander at South Wales Police,
tells Gwyn Winfield about building on their capability
Take a look at me now
W
e first looked at South Wales
police in December 2014, when
we reviewed the CBRNE work
they did for one of the most successful
Nato summits in 10 years. They had
built a covert surveillance and risk
assessment capability from virtually
zero and used it effectively during the
summit and thereafter. This capability
has proved itself many times over in the
past nine months and looks like a model
to be followed by various forces across
the UK and beyond.
The major reason for the interest is
the fact that South Wales police has
saved nearly £300,000 in the same period
– a number that grabs attention in these
cash strapped times. This was down to
the ability to quickly and expertly assess
situations then allow matters to rapidly
return to normal when they need to,
which is 90% of the time. Should
investigation reveal a package to be a
genuine threat, then imagery and
detector information from the scene can
be sent to EOD and various support
agencies (AWE, DSTL etc) for an
informed response.
Chief inspector Jones explained:
“Since Nato we have been trying to get
the message out. We have been
increasing the awareness within our
commanders about the department’s
tools and the covert assessment vehicle
(CAV) is one. We had a white powder
incident in an MPs office during the May
general election. Without the CAV we
would have had to evacuate the building,
caused unnecessary tension in the
community, and it would have cost us
time, money and reputation. We
deployed a minimal, covert response,
assessed the package, locked it away in
an office, utilised the kit and training
and dealt with it in an hour. The
community knew nothing about it and
carried on as usual, and cost was
negligible as it was dealt with by the duty
staff. We have been nominated for
national innovation awards, which
recognise police staff that exceed their
normal role requirements, in this case
officers Gareth Roberts, Chris Roberts
and Chris Howells.”
The current protocol for
conventional and unconventional
suspect packages is to send a uniformed
officer to confirm the package is there,
not to interact with it in any way,
evacuate the premises, cordon
everything off and then call the bomb
squad. The process takes hours and
involves a significant number of officers.
Officer Gareth Roberts gave an example:
“We had an incident at Liberty stadium
when an ex-member of the armed forces
burst into the reception area, said he had
a bomb, abandoned a rucksack and
legged it out of the building: he was
playing a prank. The stewards followed
our briefings, put a basic cordon around
it, called us and we sent the team down.
We did a quick assessment, looked at
intelligence and the package and were
able to say that it was a hoax. If that had
happened without the skills, experience
Improvements in how South Wales police respond to CBRN
has saved the force £300,000 ©CBRNe World
www.cbrneworld.com
75
Take a look at me now
and technology we acquired through Nato there would
have been a full stadium evacuation, and a scare for all
premier league fixtures.”
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
provides guidance on suspect packages, and the team
combines this with checks on suspicious people or
circumstances. This generally involves forward covert
deployment of non-uniformed assets in the days and weeks
preceding an event plus close target recce of addresses and
suspects that could pose a threat. This kind of capability
doesn’t come cheap, and the force reckons to have spent
around £80k on equipment and training.
This is partly because the team has expanded following
the successes of Nato. Officer Roberts explained: “The
team’s footprint has changed since we last spoke. Chris
and I, as CBRNE advisors, have done various courses,
there’s a police search advisor and an advanced driver. The
whole team are surveillance trained to provide foot
surveillance when needed. That team makes up one unit,
the second vehicle is the explosive dogs. Two dogs are
attached to us, and we have trained four more to give us
resilience for our covert assessment vehicle.”
This change is based on risk assessment for the region,
as Chief Inspector Jones explained. “We published our
strategic threat risk and harm assessment, based on the
biggest threat and risk to our organisation. Consider that
we are still at the second highest threat level and need
mitigation to counter that. Other forces are cutting costs,
but that is a bit naïve as you need to look long term. Yes,
the pressure is on to save money, but what is the biggest
threat to Britain and South Wales? We are putting in
mitigation to counter that, which means resources, kit
and training.”
Cost cutting within the police and other government
sectors keeps coming, and regions are now cutting
mounted units or narcotics dogs to save money. One of
the attractions of the South Wales CBRNE approach is
that with a bit of investment there are year on year
savings. The team insisted that they never interfere with
the device; all render safe and intrusive investigation is for
EOD, their job is preliminary investigation, taking imagery
from scene and early engagement with support agencies.
They now have to engage with the wider UK law
enforcement community, explain the capability and see it
codified for others to use. “Over the next year we will
deliver additional training and gain some internal
resilience. We are looking at more kit, we have a new
portable x-ray with suitable software to give us an
increased capability to deal with whatever comes up.
Having convinced our own silver and gold commanders
we will look to the wider Welsh region and then get it out
to our colleagues in the rest of the UK. The key is
sustainability, especially with impending cost saving
requirements. We will be hit hard but we have to retain
this. Clearly the objective is to respond to our
community’s needs and concerns so people are reassured
that we can respond to most serious incidents.”
www.cbrneworld.com
Laser-based
Optical Detection
of Explosives
Edited by Paul M Pellegrino,
Ellen L Holthoff, Mikella E Farrell
Laser-based Optical Detection of Explosives is possibly the
most comprehensive review to date, of past, current and
emerging laser-based methods for the detection of explosives.
The book provides in-depth discussion of the various laserbased detection technologies, each chapter being a summary
of recent peer reviewed publications, with case studies for
each technology as well as data analysis and interpretation.
There is a particular focus on the use of laser technology for
stand-off detection, which is very much the new Eden for next
generation explosive detectors, and the book clearly lays out
the challenges of such ambitions, as well as reasons why laser
technologies are a solution.
These chapters alone provide worthwhile reading for anyone
involved in homeland security who wants to gain an
understanding of the basic issues of explosives detection in
the post 9/11 era. This book is certainly aimed at the more
academic market, however, taking the reader from the
founding theories that underpin each optical technology,
including the (sometimes heavy) mathematical principles,
CBRNeWORLD
Book Review
Published by CRC Press and reviewed by Andrew Johnston.
409 pages, 148 B/W illustrations. Hardback, £102.85;
eBook, £84.70; eBook rental from £54.00.
ISBN 9781482233285, CAT# K22941
right through to practical applications of current technologies
within explosives detection.
It is hard to see this volume as a cover to cover read for
anyone, and it’s likely that those interested in optical
detection will focus on their own specialist area(s). Certainly
the book is designed with this in mind, with recommended
chapter combinations. Expert authors from academia,
national laboratories and commercial research institutions,
all well known within their respective fields, have written
each chapter independently and provided comprehensive
references.
Although this book provides a look to the future of optical
detection, it is unlikely to provide any near future solutions for
enthusiastic first responders (with a good understanding of the
physics of light) looking for the next big thing to take to their
procurement offices. The book introduces any number of
novel optical technologies that are able to identify trace
amounts of explosives from multiple substrates, most notably
laser-induced fluorescence, resonance Raman spectroscopy
and cavity-enhanced absorption spectroscopy, but many of
these technologies are truly ‘emerging’ and remain well within
the confines of the controlled laboratory environment.
This book is ideally suited to post-graduate or doctoral
researchers looking to better understand their own and
related fields across laser detection, and provides a good
grounding in unfamiliar areas of research within laser
detection of explosives. In summary it comprises an extremely
useful reference tool for anyone working in the field of optical
detection, including those from government and industry, and
those tasked with educating decision makers.
Content summary
The authors consider all aspects of laser-based detection from
laser propagation safety, the exploration of explosives
detection using deep ultraviolet native fluorescence, Raman
spectroscopy, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy,
reflectometry and hyperspectral imaging. The book also
includes the detailed analysis of photodissociation followed by
laser-induced fluorescence, photothermal methods, cavityenhanced absorption spectrometry, and short-pulse laserbased techniques, as well as describing the detection and
recognition of explosives using terahertz-frequency
spectroscopic techniques.
Each chapter, written by a leading expert on the technology in
question, is structured to supply the historical perspective,
address current advantages and challenges, and discuss novel
research and applications.
www.cbrneworld.com
77
CBRNeWORLD
Procurement Guide
to Bomb Suits
W
e say this in every guide, but it
needs reiterating – decide
what you are going to use
your ‘bomb suits’ for. There’s a range of
suits offering varying levels of
protection and movement, for
applications ranging from demining and
search roles right up to full explosive
ordnance disposal (EOD). This is not to
say that you cannot use one of them for
another job, fundamentally you could
do any of these tasks naked. The
question is whether there is a better, or
safer, way to do it.
Any suit that offers blast protection
has to be a balance between protection
and movement. The suit that gives the
greatest protection is also likely to offer
Bnding and crouching is assisted by telescopic lights ©CBRNe World
the least manoeuvrability, making it
difficult to bend, kneel, twist or
otherwise engage with the device.
Equally, the suit that offers the greatest
versatility is likely to have the lowest
level of protection. It is important to
decide if the users are going to be
kneeling a great deal of the time, for
example, as in demining, in which case
the heavy helmet (approx 5kg) will be a
major burden. The different roles also
have a direct relationship to the areas of
protection, demining aprons focus on
the torso, for instance, to the exclusion
of the back, whereas full bomb suits will
offer overall protection.
The most basic question to be asked
of any suit is: what is the V50
protection? V50 is the velocity at which
a projectile will perforate a target 50%
of the time. It is based on a test in
which six projectiles are fired at a target
and is calculated from the three lowest
velocities for full penetration and three
highest velocities for partial
penetration. The higher the speed the
greater the protection. Some people
have proposed a V0 (http://www.dtic.mil/
cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA481650) and
this might become a measurement in
future. As will be noted, however, this is
only for projectiles and there is no
comparable measurement for blast
waves, which can only be slowed and
refracted by the layers of foam and
aramid, and even though the two
methods of damage are often conflated
they are not the same.
Users should also consider what
happens to the body when it
encounters the blast, which is usually
a swift, unplanned, departure from the
area. When the body lands it is
unlikely to impact on the front, and
while risk can be taken towards the
spine and back of skull if too much
risk is taken there is a good chance
78
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
that the post blast impact with the
ground could be fatal.
The ability of the plates to telescope
is also useful. All current generation
bomb suits will have ceramic plates, in
addition to the aramid liner to protect
the body from projectiles from the blast.
Unless these plates can telescope they
will make certain tasks difficult, such as
bending over or crouching down.
While many CBRN users will
complain about the thermal burden of
their MOPP gear it is nothing compared
to that of an EOD suit. Even though the
suit may not be worn for the same
protracted period, the stress of the
situation combined with the weight
(<25kg) of the suit means that cooling
systems are far more applicable to bomb
suits than conventional CBRN gear. If
you live in anything warmer than a
temperate zone then a cooling system,
or at least the ability to retrofit one, is
close to essential. It is also worth
considering the helmet as this can fog
up. Some helmet systems are powered
and can provide demisting. If there is
power to the helmet there are other
elements it can provide such as
communications, a searchlight and still
and moving footage.
It is worth considering CBRN
protection as well. If you are buying a
bomb suit so you can deal with nonconventional payloads then you need to
ensure that the helmet will take a
respirator. Like motorcycle helmets, the
bomb suit helmet is designed to protect
the brain and head when something
catastrophic happens, and as such
wants to be a snug fit. Providing space
for the option of a respirator needs to
be planned in.
Equally, some respirator canisters
can jut out from the front or sides of a
mask, and this may well stop the helmet
visor from closing. Since the visor is an
integral element of the helmet
protection it is important that this is
closed – there is not much of a ‘workaround’ here. Often you will find that
the suits that are compatible with
respirators can also be used with self
contained breathing apparatus (SCBA),
which allows individuals to go into
oxygen deficient environments. Just
because they have an SCBA, however,
Donning and doffing is not a straight forward process with any bomb suit
©CBRNe World
this is NOT a level A/NFPA991 suit and
individuals must not expect to have
dermal protection.
Standards are a massive part of
bomb suits as there are very few other
garments that will be put through
worse stresses and strains. As well as
projectiles, which can easily be seen to
have penetrated the plates, should that
happen, there is the blast wave. The
impact of the blast wave on the body is
hard to model hence non-human
primate testing is the gold standard for
testing. This is expensive for suit
manufacturers to pass, but it will
provide peace of mind that internal
organs, especially the lungs, are not
badly damaged when the worst happens.
www.cbrneworld.com
79
CBRNeWORLD
Governor Gabriel Cinomis, a Prairie Dog, gives his
opinion of CBRN matters from his unique perspective
Prairie Dog
O
f the many things I considered
addressing this go round, neither I
nor Ms Chuckworthy thought it would
be the sudden remodelling of a major
sea port in the Land of the Ginger
Hamster. Reports differ as to the
explosive yield but tens of tonnes of TNT
are oft quoted and a few video clips
show the second, more powerful (20 to
30 tonne) blast-wave brush aside most
things in its path.
Ms Chuckworthy was surprised that I
was not surprised such a thing would
happen at a sea port, nay any storage
facility, operated by the Ginger
Hamsters. Safety has never been a buzz
word for them. I am not even sure there
is a character in their script to denote
safety. I think the closest is a pair of
characters which together purport to
mean safety but translate as “safe all”
which more likely refers to a place to
keep their money.
Pictures of the aftermath are incredible
– they evoke scenes from outrageous
giant monster films – an enormous path
of black grey destruction with an
ominous too large to be true crater at
the centre. The explosion was seen from
space by a weather satellite.
While a certain missing culture of safety
led to these blasts, what was the
causative agent or agents? The Land of
the Ginger Hamster is not well known
for being forthcoming with reliable
information. The usual practice is to
progress through outright lies to lies
laced with semi-truth, denial anything
ever happened, some more truth and
then silence.
The chemical mix, stored in tuns, has
been reported to have contained
calcium carbide, potassium nitrate,
ammonium nitrate and sodium cyanide.
Others were listed in articles hours after
the explosions, including some which
are inherently unstable, and a couple of
them in combination could cause a
detonation. Certainly, adding water to
calcium carbide produces acetylene (a
flammable gas), and producing
acetylene in this fashion is on the rise
for the Ginger Hamsters. The nitrates
are fertilisers but the fact is that these
chemicals may be used in explosives,
particularly of the terrorist IED variety.
The sodium cyanide, reported by at least
one news source to be present in
quantities of up to 700 tonnes (!), can
form highly poisonous hydrogen
cyanide gas when mixed with water.
Queue talking heads providing all
manner of misinformation on sodium
cyanide and cyanide poisoning.
A quick note – just because you work
for a firm which makes gas masks you
are not necessarily an expert on the
biochemical effects of cyanide on the
body. Cyanide does not change the
body’s ability to absorb oxygen. What it
does is inhibit an enzyme, cytochrome c
oxidase, and prevent transport of
electrons from cytochrome c to
molecular oxygen. None of that has
anything to do with absorbing oxygen. I
accept that either would lead to death
(inability to absorb oxygen or
prevention of oxygen from accepting
electrons in the electron transport
chain) so the talking head wasn’t all
wrong. The real lessons here are that
the news media must learn to pick
better sources rather than create a short
advertisement for a popular national
company, and the talking head needs to
know when he is out of his depth. Also,
don’t speak to the media about a
disaster from your posh country house.
The entire port incident was made
worse as well-meaning firefighters, who
were told nothing about what was
stored at the port (see above for
information transfer scheme), began
doing what most firefighters do – they
poured hundreds of litres of water onto
a fire. While not proven, many of the
chemicals purported to be there
generate products that are flammable,
explosive, toxic or any combination
thereof, when water is added. The water
created large quantities of acetylene, the
acetylene explosion could have
detonated the nitrates. These poor
Hamsters may have sent a bad situation
straight to cataclysmic, through
ignorance deliberately imposed on them
by their “betters”. Many of these
firefighters are missing.
The water and heat may have produced
large quantities of hydrogen cyanide and
there are three major residential
warrens within a kilometre of the port.
This is in violation of a Ginger Hamster
so-called safety law. Inhalation of as
little as 270 parts per million cyanide is
enough to cause death within minutes.
Ingestion of 200mg of cyanide is likely
to result in death. But, as the above
scheme illustrates, the populace is being
told its drinking water is safe but you
may want to stay at least three
kilometres from the site (note this
means many aren’t going home anytime
soon). Meanwhile, the workers cleaning
up at the port, are not being provided
with hazardous material gear but
instead sweep away debris with brooms.
Also in the news was a dog who,
thinking he’d contacted some kind of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
black marketeer, ordered a quantity of
ricin through the so-called dark net.
Surprisingly, the Ferret Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) was on to him from
the start and sent him a toy automobile
with four phials inside filled with a
white powder. This dog’s defence was he
was merely inspired by a TV show and
wasn’t going to do anything harmful
with what looked like 10grams of ricin.
Unfortunately for him, the FBI was also
looking at his browsing history and this
fellow was trying to buy cute furry
pocket critters to then use in various
ghastly experiments. His legal counsel
claims this dog has Asperger’s syndrome
and this should get him off. I’ve thought
half the minions of bureaucratic
orthodoxy had this syndrome at one
time or another but it hasn’t led to a
defence of their ineptitude. If this
deranged dog had only read the
everyday internet, he could have
obtained some actual Bacillus anthracis
from a military laboratory – everyone
else did for the last ten to twenty years.
‘Til next I poke my head up.
Gabriel
80
www.cbrneworld.com
BioFire Defense develops
reliable and sensitive
BioDetection systems
for the US and many
other military
and hazmat teams
throughout the world.
In about an hour, you can have
lab quality results LQWKHÀHOG
for dozens of the most lethal
viruses and bacteria, including
Ebola and other emerging
infectious diseases.
Make sure your team
tests with the best.
Learn more at www.BioFireDefense.com

CBRNe Convergence 2015 see pages 45 to 52

Transcription

Similar documents

medical management of cbrne events

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF CBRNE EVENTS

C420 - ecm

- SoBran, Inc.

KFOR Chroninle_MASTER_August_2014.indd

ORLANDO DIAZ

JSGPM. PROTECTING TODAY`S WARFIGHTER WITH

how military hospitals get ready for chemical weapon victims

Center for Domestic Preparedness