12
e 20 31
RN ce to
CB gen 25
er es
nv ag
Co e p
se
CBRNe
August 2012
WORLD
Night Terrors
Five Alive
Bomb Factory
Russian, Syrian & Iranian CW
ROK, DND, ADF, UK & Polish CBRN
Escondido & Suitcase Nukes
Only
be satisfied
Reliable
with
the best.
detectors
The Mass Spectrometer
for the Knowing
MM2:
Mobile Mass Spectrometer
E 2 M:
Environmental Mass Spectrometer
Bruker Detection is the world leader for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
detectors. Our company has been the expert in the development, engineering and manufacture
of user friendly, robust and reliable detection equipment for 30 years. We make no compromise
on quality. So when only the best will do, there can be only one choice – Bruker Detection.
Contact us for more details and a system demonstration! www.bruker.com/cbrne
Innovation with Integrity
DEFENCE CBRNE
Leader
Pass the chemical parcel
We commented in the last leader that you have to be
blind to avoid the various bags of excrement currently
being flung by one nation or another regarding Syria and
their non-conventional stockpiles. Well the level of
flinging has grown so prevalent that you will now have to
lose both your sight and sense of smell to miss it.
Fundamentally, we are in the same place that we were
two months ago. Syria has chemical and (potentially)
biological weapons and there is a chance that they will
use them once a red line has been crossed. Defectors have
suggested that this might be the loss of Aleppo, or other
factors such as foreign intervention, but effectively we
don’t know when or if they will be used. There are other
red lines being drawn: Israel has stated that the
movement of components, or use of CWA, would also
constitute a red line. The US, Turkey and Jordan also
have red lines of their own and so, presumably, do Russia
and Iran. In fact, with this many red lines it is beginning
to look like Sykes and Picot dropped their spaghetti all
over the map.
Meanwhile, Russian-funded media and other dissenting
voices (I struggle not to use the term Assadsympathisers), are asking whether the CWA are really
threatening enough to risk generating another failed
state in the region. It is not just those who are proregime asking the questions – unusually enough, the
same is true of Israel. There is far more of a smorgasbord
of rhetoric coming from Tel Aviv than there is from
Washington, with all aspects of the spectrum being
voiced. At one end of the spectrum is Minister of Defense
Ehud Barak, quoted by both AP and BioPrepWatch, as
saying that he will hand back his respirator because he is
so confident that there will be no threat to Israel. While
there are a lot of voices downplaying the threat, I would
suggest that Barak’s confidence is due to his greater
grasp of the intelligence and appreciation of the ability of
the Israeli Air Force to action such intelligence before it
becomes a threat – the confidence of the big stick. In the
middle of the spectrum is a surfeit of opinion on the
likelihood of Syria, or Syrian proxies such as Hezbollah,
using WMD against civilians and a need to be duly
prepared. At the other end of the spectrum are voices
such as those of Dr Dany Shoham, from the Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies, and Amos Gilboa, in Maariv,
who employ a more measured tone that sees the use of
CWA and BWA as problematic and dangerous and less
likely (in Gilboa’s opinion) than the proliferation of antiair or anti-shipping missiles.
With so many red lines, so much speculation and a
constantly changing tactical situation, let us descend into
the swamp of fantasy. Let us imagine that the stream of
defections further weakens Assad’s perception of his grip
on power, that the Gotterdammerung mentality increases
and rumours of foreign fighters (either SF or supporters)
in Aleppo gets to such an extent that the use of chemical
weapons becomes justified to him. Say he manages to
accumulate some CWA from a store that even Mossad
doesn’t know about and shells the bejeezus out of Aleppo
with Sarin and VX. Things now move very fast:
international pressure, including no fly zones, crack the
regime into splinters and internecine conflict. Special
forces now rush to secure the munitions… But which
special forces? As Vil Mirzayanov in this issues Crystal
Ball, and Dr Dany Shoham point out it is unlikely that
Syria has created all these devices on their own. At some
point they were likely to have been received from other
nations (allegations include Iran, North Korea and
Russia) assistance or components; with or without state
sanction or oversight.
Even if the shells don’t have Persian or Cyrillic writing
on them, let us suppose that there are some documents
in Syrian desks, which suggest that controlled precursors
or components do not originate locally. Suddenly the
need to find them and avoid the global slur of being (at
best) a state that allowed proliferation to happen on your
watch becomes paramount. Much like Operation
Paperclip in WW2, there is a sudden scramble on all sides
for scientists and paperwork that will shed light on what
has been happening. Syrian sympathisers would be keen
to pick up on every shred of information that suggests
that listed chemicals came in via Europe, Northern
America or Scandinavia, while Israel and the US will
swoop on anything that suggests North Korea, Iran or
Russia were involved. With a figure of roughly 70,000
troops needed to secure the CBW facilities, all the focus
will be on shells and agents rather than on paperwork
and hard drives. There will be intel pickings for those
with time and inclination.
Suddenly there is very real need, in both overt and covert
political pressure, to ensure that this release doesn’t
happen. Much like Iraq and Libya, there will be a number
of companies and government departments throughout
the world with vested interests in ensuring that various
pieces of paper, with signatures that shouldn’t be on them,
never see the light of day. It is perhaps not the greatest
brake on Syrian use, after all similar documents did not
stop international action in either Iraq or Libya, but it is
something and if there is a use..? Well, then we will see a
‘Gumball Rally’ with special forces (of all denominations)
racing to secure everything incriminating.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
1
Contents
1-7
Leader
Contents
News
Letter
ROK, Canadian, British &
Australian CBRN Defence
36-40
CWA Legacy: Russian Demil
& Iranian Casualties
State School: NY State
Open for Responders
8-23 41-44
CBRNe Convergence:
Final Programme
24-31
Shake, Rattle & Roll:
University of San Diego’s
Blast Simulator
45-48
Euro CBRN: Polish CBRN
Defence at Euro 2012
Nicole? PAPR?
PAPR and Hybrid BA
32-33 49-51
Now with added polonium:
Internal Rad Decon
34-35
Published by Falcon Communications Limited
Editor
Gwyn Winfield
Deputy Editor
Steve Johnson
Business
Development
Director
David Levitt
Sub Editor
Jesse Garrick
Art Director
Tony Denton
Correspondents
Laura Cochrane
Dan Kaszeta
Brian O’Shea
European Outreach
Manager
Andrew Johnston
Business
Development
Executives
Sophie Pym
Andrea Schinzel
Mitigating circumstances:
DSTL HME Contract
52-54
Contact Details:
For Sales: +1 443 821 3997
david.levitt@cbrneworld.com
barbara.myers@cbrneworld.com
For Editorial:
+44 (0)1962 832 532
gwyn.winfield@cbrneworld.com
Web: www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNe World
Suite 26, Basepoint,
1 Winnall Valley Road,
Winchester, Hampshire
SO23 0LD, UK
Falcon Communications US LLC
205 East Main Street,
Westminster, Maryland,
21157, USA
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
2
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
55-64
Labs and Small Things!
Escondido & Suitcase Nukes
Advertiser Index
Airboss Defense
53
All Hazard Response
24
Bruker Detection
IFC
CBRNe Convergence
Passage to India:
India’s CBRN problems
65-68
Standard Life:
ANSI & Their Standards Work
69-71
CBRNe World Directory
39
CBRNe World Website
47
Cristanini
59
Draeger
51
First Line Technology
53
Flir
72-76
Book Review, Crystal Ball &
Prairie Dog
77-80
9
FT Technologies
19
Global Security Asia
56
Idaho now BioFire Diagnostics
67
Milipol
43
NBC Sys
39
OWR
47
Paul Boye
7
Proengin
11
QinetiQ
48
RSDecon
Capability Reviews
25-31
Scott Safety
Thermo Scientific
OBC
63
IBC
Utilis Iberia
48
WL Gore
23
CBRNe WORLD (ISSN No: 2040-2724) is published bimonthly – in February, April, June, August, October and
December – by Falcon Communications Ltd, and is
distributed in the USA by DSW, 75 Aberdeen Road,
Emigsville PA 17318. Periodicals postage paid at Emigsville,
PA. POSTMASTER: send address changes to CBRNe
WORLD, c/o PO Box 437, Emigsville, PA 17318-0437.
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 2012.
Front cover ©2nd Infantry Division
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
3
CBRNews
GLOBAL CBRN THREATS AND ACTIVITY
Our new threat overview picture (above), in collaboration with CBRN monitoring sources, shows a selection of incidents in the last
two months that have been added to our online news feed: www.cbrneworld.com/news.
This month our threat and product watch sections are slightly shorter to allow for a letter to the editor.
THREAT WATCH
You put your CW in… your CW out…
Pretty much anyone with two cents has
thrown them in to the debate over Syria and
its attendant, potential CBRN threat. This
month has seen lots of redlines from the US
about the movement of CW, while almost
contrary demands from the UN and others
insist that Syria keeps them secure. Should
Syria wish to please everyone, they’d
struggle, given the unavoidable truth that as
the state loses power it must either pull
weapons back into its sphere of influence or
lose control. Meanwhile, much has been
made over a video of CBRN defence
equipment, which we highlighted on our
blog. Whilst it really had no proof of
anything Syrian, it did have hallmarks of a
possible deception plan by the SFA in
Aleppo to increase international pressure.
Leaky old round
Proving to be a weapon of choice for some,
a New York man was indicted this month
for allegedly using elemental mercury as a
chemical weapon against an Albany
hospital, apparently as a result of a billing
dispute with administrators. The man
spread at least six pounds of liquid
mercury in various locations in the Albany
Medical Centre.
Always check under the sofa first
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission,
responsible for disciplining companies for
breaches of radiological safety, admitted an
embarrassing faux pas when they mislaid
some training CS137 sources in a lesson on
hiding and finding sources. While the
sources were not that significant, it didn’t
demonstrate the level of inventory
management the CNSC expects of others.
White house issues US bio-threat detection plan
Addressing years of criticism by the GAO,
the White House has released a US
biological threat detection plan. An
accompanying statement by President
Obama describes the document as one
component of his National Security
Strategy, and notes the latest plan's aim to
"provide the critical information and ongoing
situational awareness that enables better
decision-making at all levels." The US
Commission on the Prevention of Weapons
of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation
and Terrorism continues to state an attack
is likely by the end of 2013, which has
increased urgency to grip a threat which has
had billions of US dollars spent on it.
Spain arrests three al-Qaeda suspects with poison
and explosives
Spanish police have arrested three
suspected members of al-Qaeda in the
southern province of Cadiz, a judicial source
told AFP on the 2nd of August, 2012. The
source could not provide further details, but
Spanish radio station Cadena Ser, citing
police, said the suspects were two Chechens
and a Turk, who were in possession of
explosives and poison at the time of arrest.
JOB WATCH
The Summer is traditionally the time for
changes of command. Colonel (Promotable)
Peggy Combs took over from long time
CBRNe World stalwart Col. Vance (Phil)
Visser as Commandant of the US CBRN
School and Commander of the Chemical
Corps. Equally exciting Brigadier Jess
Scarbrough will be handing over the reins of
Command to a new individual that we have
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
4
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
some difficulty naming – one of your first
chances to meet the new individual will be
at CBRNe Convergence!
PRODUCT WATCH
Wave of surprise (not) over EU decision to further
delay end to liquids ban
Once again the European Union has
abandoned plans to force airports to install
liquid screening equipment in favour of
continuing the liquids restrictions. The
restriction had been due to be lifted in
April 2013, and previously it had been due
to be lifted in 2011. Now squarely kicked
into the long grass, the EU has cited
technological limitations in screening as
the primary reason. If this is true then
their assessment of technological maturity
has been woefully poor, causing two delays
that call into question the competence of
their assessments. Some airports had
bought systems in preparation for the
lifting of regulations, wasting millions on
systems not currently required, and
contrary to the EU excuse. Some sources
have suggested that the reason may be
more political, and due to the way in which
the restrictions have been discussed as a
three-way between manufacturers,
airports/lines and the EU. Many larger
airports have not wanted to disrupt their
organisation by making further changes to
screening procedures.
Argon bonanza
Argon Electronics, manufacturer of CBRN
simulation instruments and software, has
delivered an advanced CBRN simulation
system to the Irish Defence Forces. The new
order included Argon’s PlumeSIM system,
the RDS100-SIM Beta/Gamma and Alpha
simulation probes, plus the RDS200 survey
simulator, GPM11-SIM simulator probes
and EPD-Mk2-SIM. The order also included
a number of Argon’s new LCD3.3-SIM
chemical warfare detector simulators. A
spokesman for the Irish Defence Forces
explained: “We purchased the systems from
Argon because they will enable the Irish
Defence forces to implement live agent
training without the need to use live agents
or radiological sources”. This adds to a
bumper month in which Argon also
completed sales to the UK MoD. In July,
Argon also was accredited to Environmental
Management System Standard ISO
14001:2004.
The HazMatID Elite released by Smiths Detection
Smith’s Detection has launched HazMatID
Elite, an explosives, chemical warfare
agents, toxic industrials and narcotics
identifier certified to the strictest military
standard for use in the most extreme
climates. The Elite is the next generation of
Smith’s Detection’s HazMatID, the widely
used field-portable Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) solid and
liquid identifier. Ten times smaller and four
times lighter than the original, it uses
innovative sampling techniques for reliable
determination of suspicious powders plus
direct surface contaminant analysis and
robotics integration.
Spanish CBRN contract
Utilis Iberica has recently supplied a
contract of CBRN Individual Protection
Material to the Spanish Armed Forces,
through NAMSA (now the NSPA). The
Spanish program includes Army, Air Force,
Navy and UME. The equipment gathers all
items for chemical detection, individual
chemical and radiological decontamination,
mask tester and first-aid material for
chemical injuries into one integrated
solution. It has been evaluated by the
Spanish CBRN School in accordance with
STANAGs 2352, 2871 and 4653 and tested
during different field exercises, including
the last international joint SIBCRA course in
Italy. The equipment is designed to
drastically reduce the logistics burden, as
well as improve the management and
replacement of accessories. The equipment
has a complete military field manual
adaptable to any language. This equipment
is available for all Nato countries within a
five-year framework agreement through the
NLSE (ecat1), with NSN number 4230-33208-9750.
Bertin success in selection for Foreign Comparative
Testing
Second Sight MS, the standoff, gas
detection, infrared camera designed by
Bertin Technologies, was selected for the
Foreign Comparative Testing 2011–2012.
This US government program aims at
evaluating the different technologies
available from foreign countries, prior to
acquisition, under the requirements of US
Defence. Responsible for testing Second
Sight MS on behalf of special forces
(Special Operations COMmand: SOCOM),
Applied Physics Laboratory from the John
Hopkins University has just ordered a
camera through Bertin Technologies’ US
subsidiary. Once delivered, the system will
undergo tests in the laboratory and then
on-site evaluation.
Cobham keeps watch
Cobham has been awarded an eight-year
contract from Oil Spill Response (OSRL) to
provide oil pollution detection and
surveillance around the coast of the UK. As
part of the deal, Cobham will operate a
dedicated, specially-modified maritime
surveillance Dornier 228 aircraft from
Bournemouth International Airport. The
contract incorporates an existing interim
contract which has been in operation since
January, 2012.
Smiths and Mirion partner
Smiths Detection today announced a
partnership with Mirion Technologies, that
will soon see it offering a full radiation
detection and identification product line to
US customers. Its technology suite will now
meet all the needs of multiple security
markets, including military/defense,
homeland security, ports and borders,
aviation and emergency response. Lance
Roncalli, Smiths Detection’s VP of US
Sales, said: “This exciting partnership will
ensure our customers can access the full
range of radiation technologies available in
the marketplace today. Such developments
support all our customers as they develop a
comprehensive and layered security
approach to protect critical infrastructure
and secure the free flow of trade.” Smiths
Detection, which already markets the
RadSeeker, a handheld radiation detector
and identifier, will be able to offer a wide
range of Mirion products including a
dosimeter (DMC-3000), a detector (RDS31) and a search and radionuclide identifier
(PDS 100 G/GN ID).
Thermo tackle synthetic drugs
Thermo Fisher Scientific has announced the
release of TruNarc, a new, handheld
narcotics analyser. The core technology
behind TruNarc – Raman spectroscopy –
effectively puts a laboratory analyser in the
hands of local law enforcement, providing
more accurate and reliable field testing that
expedites prosecution. Users will also be
able to identify new threats, such as the
synthetic cathinones found in bath salts, as
the reference library in their analyser can
be updated to include new substances.
New style hybrid system from Dräger
Dräger has announced the release of the
DHS 7000 hybrid system, beginning June
11th, 2012. The Dräger DHS 7000 system
can be used in three modes of operation
with the air purifying respirator (APR),
powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) or
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
The mask works either in positive pressure
mode as a SCBA or in negative pressure
mode as an APR or PAPR. Modifications
have also been made to remove distracting
or non-tactical lights from the system.
Contract award for Elusys
Elusys Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical
company, announced this week that it has
received additional funding ($50.2 Million)
from the US government for the
development of an investigational agent for
treating anthrax.
Rapiscan ECAC success
Rapiscan Systems has announced that its
620DV (Dual View) advanced baggage
scanner has passed the European Civil
Aviation Conference’s (ECAC) common
evaluation process (CEP) Standard 2 threat
detection test for Liquid Explosive Detection
Systems (LEDS). The 620DV has also been
approved for use by the US Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), ECAC and
various other regulatory bodies.
Optimetrics acquired
Optimetrics, the well-known CBRNE
software company has been acquired by
DCS Corp, a high-technology, engineering
company whose CBRN portfolio is heavily
increased by the addition.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
5
CBRNeWORLD
Letter to the Editor
Dear Sir,
We are writing in response to a recent
article by Jose-Luis Sagripanti et al
entitled “South Central” (CBRNe World
April, 2012).
The article proposes a metrics-based
approach to assess national
technological capabilities, in order to
“allow a relative ranking among Latin
American nations to assist on
investment strategies.” In other words,
a tool to enable evidenced-based policy
decisions. Moreover, the goal of the
assessment “was to develop an
approach to assess national, technical
capabilities that would be metric-driven
and hence as objective as the
supportive available data.” It is our
opinion that, whilst its aim is
commendable, the execution of this
article is unfortunately lamentable.
We think that there are several
problems with the analysis and, as a
consequence, the conclusions it
reaches. It is our contention that the
approach outlined in the paper is not
only far from objective – as claimed in
the paper – but that it is inadequate
and potentially misleading.
To the authors’ merit they do
provide a number of assumptions,
though these are sweeping and
problematic in most cases. These
assumptions allow some scrutiny of the
method used, a feature often missing
from similar assessments. But two
assumptions are especially problematic:
first, that “advanced scientific and
technical capabilities should always be
associated somehow with published or
publishable research and invention
patents.” This assumption overlooks
research and activity, especially in the
commercial sector, where there is little
publication to be found in peerreviewed journals and areas where
patenting is either costly or
undesirable. In these areas, patenting is
often forgone in favour of commercial
secrecy. The second problematic
assumption is that “Review and
evaluation of these publications and
inventions should guide further
analysis of entities and identification of
true SMEs based on world class
productivity instead of on individuals
highlighted through local political
support and promotion.” This assumes
that the peer-review process is
somehow free of politics, and this is of
course not the case.
Within the bibliometric data there
are some factors that need to be
controlled and the raw data obtained,
keyword searches needs to be cleaned
for meaningful results, these include:
controlling quality of the papers (e.g.,
citations); type of publication (e.g.,
review, history, original finding, etc.);
disciplinary differences in publication
culture (e.g., engineers publish
differently to biochemists); relevance of
the paper (e.g., a paper on Bacillus
anthracis, which mentions that anthrax
has relevance as a ‘warfare agent’ in the
abstract, but is otherwise not
concerned with CB defense); the local
and regional context (e.g., 11 out of the
14 selected infectious disease agents
listed in the paper are common diseases
in the region); suitability (e.g., a paper
that states that it is not concerned with
aspects of chemical warfare would still
be picked up in a search for chemical
warfare); origin of the paper – this is
difficult but a real flaw in the approach
used. If research is ostensibly carried
out in the UK for example, and some
technical detail of the work is
outsourced, e.g., the microscopy is
done in Brazil, then the ISI Web of
Science will include that research in a
search for Brazil, although the research
was carried out in the UK. If these
factors are not controlled, wildly
skewed and distorted results are likely
to emerge. An additional factor that
needs to be taken into account is the
language bias in both the database and
in the search terms used.
The stakes are high when a tool
such as this is used to shape the level
and direction of future investments,
and it is not a question of absolute
accuracy but of identifying useful and
appropriate targets for investment.
Reducing the complex picture of
national technical capabilities for
regional comparison to a single
definitive interpretation, based on the
metrics used in the paper, risks
neglecting areas that are not captured
by these indicators. Absence of
evidence is not necessarily evidence of
absence of technological capability or
research activity in the given
countries. Conversely, high publication
counts do not necessarily correlate
with capability (see above point about
origin of publications).
An astute observation is contained
in the background section: “current
approaches on assessments of
technological capabilities can be vague
or misleading.” These deficiencies in
the assessment of national capabilities
are not remedied by application of the
proposed model however. The
vagueness or misleading character is
compounded by a veneer of supposed
objectivity and methodological rigour.
The objectivity is based on the
subjective and arbitrary choice of
search terms and criteria, assumptions
and parameters. This choice of criteria
allows for manipulation of the data and
the generation of an answer. Rather
than ‘evidence-based’ policy this is
‘policy-based’ evidence. In other words,
the ‘evidence’ can easily be made to
justify any course of action. This is a
general problem and not necessarily or
exclusively specific to the paper
discussed here.
It would, of course, be wrong to
assert that these metrics are useless,
but their limitations need to be
acknowledged.
To assess capabilities, one needs a
range of tools, methods and approaches
– quantitative as well as qualitative. A
quick fix will not permit an assessment
of something as complicated as the
technological capabilities of several
nations. The approach offered by the
authors may be a piece of the whole,
i.e., a step in the right direction, but it
is sadly a long way from achieving the
goal of assessing technical capabilities.
Maria J. Espona,
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Kai Ilchmann,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Correspondence address:
mariaespona@yahoo.com
k.ilchmann@sussex.ac.uk
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
6
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Brigadier General Chan Sup Kim, on the capability of the
Republic of Korea Army’s CBRN Defence Command
Can’t Stop
the ROK!
The series of terrorist attacks in 2001,
which included 9/11 and Amerithrax,
were of a notably different type to
former attacks that relied mostly on
monolithically-direct, conventional
force. As the host of 2002 FIFA World
Cup, the Republic of Korea had to
consequently check its own nationwide
readiness against those unexpected
types of offensive actions.
Chemical, biological and radiological
protection were matters of particular
concern, and there was a great need for
a professional agency that
could co-ordinate the
protection-readiness
for all forces in an
emergency, as well
as manage a CBR
consequence
management system
effectively. As a
result, the Armed
Forces CBR Defense
Command was
activated in
February, 2002.
Since then it has
been carrying out its
mission of counterCBR terrorism
operations, joint
Army, Navy and Air Force CBR
operations and consequence
management - all by integrating
available assets from civil, government
and military sources.
Maintaining Readiness Against CBR
Terrorism
The Command possesses a professional
counter-CBR terrorism unit that can be
committed to any location and at any
time. The unit undergoes frequent,
high-intensity training such as airlift
and helicopter rappel to ensure their
operations run flawlessly, especially in
downtown areas. Any CBR weapons used
in an attack are collected immediately
to be sent to a number of civil research
institutes, including the Command’s
lab, thereby improving the credibility of
verification and analysis activities. The
results of the research are used as the
basis on which to form a consensus on
mitigating potential attacks. The
Command is also currently maintaining
a ‘combined readiness’ posture against
©DoD
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
8
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
BECAUSE IT’S NOT JUST YOUR JOB, IT’S YOUR LIFE.
The difference between life and death is in your hands. FLIR CBRNE threat detection
products provide lab-caliber analysis where you need it most – in the field.
When lives are at stake you need fast, accurate results you can trust.
www.FLIR.com/gs
© 2012 FLIR Systems. Inc.
CBRNeWORLD
Can’t Stop the ROK!
Samples are taken to a range of labs including the Commands ©CBRNDC
CBR terrorism in co-ordination with
other agencies, whilst putting its
utmost efforts into responding to
possible terrorist attacks by actively
participating in protection training on
key national facilities, such as the
subway and nuclear power plants.
Support for CBR Consequence
Management
North Korea is consistently building up
its unconventional warfare capability by
amassing thousands of tons of chemical
munitions and large quantities of
biological weapons. As such, the
Command is making sure that CBR
protection operations against those
unconventional threats will be available
for execution at the right time.
To achieve our goal, the Command has
been improving the CBR consequence
management system by ensuring
efficiency of the execution plan through
various exercises and training, based on
possible actualities. The Command has
also co-hosted tactical discussions and
workshops with related units and
organisations, which in turn would be
consistently improved upon.
Verification and Analysis of CBR
Weapons / R&D of Equipment and
Stockpiles
The Command is fulfilling its mission of
verifying and analysing the weapons
used in CBR terrorism along with R&D
for protection equipment and stockpiles.
With regard to verification and analysis
capability, the Command has not only
been improving its in-depth analysis
capability by acquiring professionals
who have Masters and Ph.D degrees in
relevant areas, but also actively
engaging with outstanding
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
10
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Can’t Stop the ROK!
organisations, both domestic and
international, through thesis
presentation and education. Crossexamination training with related
institutes has increased the level of
reliability of the Command’s research.
The lab has applied for its proficiency
test to be nominated as the OPCWapproved official lab since 2011, and is
expecting a favorable result by the end
of this year. Several areas, including
toxic material and soil analysis, have
already been approved by OPCW and
the Command has maintained its
attention on the related capability,
thereby increasing the reliability of the
test result.
Along with improving the researchers’
capability, the Command has searched
for drawbacks and areas for further
improvement in the forefront line of
counter-CBR attacks. We manage the
development project on the selected
subjects through a systemic approach.
The Command cooperates with related
agencies and companies on the course
of development from the initial phase of
research and development. During the
process, it provides support for various
research and tests. In addition,
performance tests on CBR equipment,
stockpiles and facilities have been
carried out on a regular basis,
increasing the level of reliability. Also,
the Command supports soil
contamination analysis on military
installations to prevent pollution, as
well as research on purification
processes for contaminated soil.
Supports for Educational Training for
all Services and Civilians
The Command has predominantly
focussed on educational training and
CBR education for civilians, in an
effort to improve the CBR protection
readiness for civil, government and
military entities, as well as all
services including the ROK Army,
Navy and Air Force.
Based on the realistic assumption that
there would be unimaginable
consequences in the case of a CBR
terrorism attack or accident in heavily
populated areas or industrial facilities,
the Command has carried out
combined workshops with both the
Ministry of Environment and the
Center for Disease Control to establish
a civil, government and military
integrated response system.
Government officials, firemen,
policemen and civil defense officials
have been provided CBR education and
training that recognises the importance
of CBR protection and improves the
early-response capability. In addition,
the Command provides the Army, Navy
and Air Force with joint-CBR, doctrinal
research, which enables protection
operations to be tailored for each
service, whilst also paying attention to
joint-operability through joint training.
Flagship Role in Developing CBRrelated Policy and Combat Capability
The Command actively utilises its
ample experience and the results of its
research from the initial phases of the
policy-making process, thereby
contributing to the improvement of
nationwide, CBR response readiness.
To better achieve this goal, the
Command provides its skills to each
service and related agency through
data collection, research and analysis,
seminars and symposiums.
To reinforce its own combat capability,
the Command has set in place and
executed the Integrated Development
Plan, whilst actively presenting its own
point of view in the initial requirement
submission phase – with the purpose of
developing combat capability for all
services. In addition, the Command has
put its efforts into recognising and
accounting for the shortfalls in the
current capability through joint CBR
weaponry seminars to better prepare for
future warfare.
Collection, Analysis and Production of
CBR- Related Technical Information
The Command collects CBR-related
technical information around the world
by co-ordinating with a number of
intelligence institutes, agencies and
mass media. Based on the collected
information, the Command carries out
in-depth analysis and information
exchange which in turn is distributed to
related units and organisations for
improving their counter-CBR planning
and combat capability. The Command is
also increasing the level of national CBR
protection by actively responding to
requests for information from each
institute through research, verification
and training.
Contributing to Improving the
Chemical Protection Capability of the
International Community
Since 2005, the Command has provided
yearly chemical protection education for
Asian member states of the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). In the
program, the Command provides
various scientific and technical
information, including protection
measures and stockpiles in accordance
with the Convention on the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons. The fact that
South Korea has carried out education
that has been hosted mainly by
European countries for the first time
among a number of Asian countries,
shows that OPCW has approved the
superiority of the nation’s CBR
protection techniques.
Roughly 20 countries have been
participating in the education process,
and they were able to improve CBR
response capability by doing so. Also,
the process has presented a good
opportunity for CWC member-states to
facilitate exchange and co-operation,
thereby contributing to the
advancement of the international
community’s CBR protection
capability overall.
Closing Remarks
Despite its relatively short history of 10
years, ROK CBRDC has successfully
integrated the elite CBR agents from
the Army, Navy and Air Force to
become the finest and most specialised
CBR unit in the nation. Although the
Command is in charge of the most
dangerous mission in the most
dangerous place, the Armed Forces
CBRDC will continue to step forward
with a strong sense of responsibility
and mission with regard to realising
perfect CBR protection readiness.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
12
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Lt. Col. Ian MacVicar, Head of the Canadian Department of National
Defence CBRN Directorate, talks to Gwyn Winfield about developing
their CBRNE capability
Church
and State
GW: What is the status of the current
Omnibus program? The 2008 CRS
audit suggested that other projects
should be brought inside Omnibus.
Has that happened, or is there still an
attraction to having the twin-stream
approach?
IM: The Omnibus Project is being used
as a management mechanism as
opposed to a traditional omnibus
project that manages all funds internal
to the project. It is worth noting that as
the Omnibus Project closes on its goal
to deliver CBRN defence capability, i.e.,
when most projects are either in
implementation phases or close to
them, the Directorate will continue to
find ways to improve the performance of
current fielded equipment, refine and
create related doctrine and begin
replacement efforts for equipment
scheduled to end its in-service lifespan
within the next ten years.
GW: Previously there was a raft of
programs that fitted into what the
previous Head of the CBRN
Directorate, LCol Rick Barker, called
‘Holy Grail’ projects, such as broadspectrum respiratory filters and
universal decontamination. What is the
status of these following the defence
cuts? Is there still a place for them in
financially restricted times?
IM: The low Technology Readiness Level
(TRL) projects have been cancelled or
delayed to allow the support of more
mature TRL projects in the CBRN
Defence Program and of other nonCBRN defence projects in the
Investment Plan.
“I’ll soon get you out of those nasty wet clothes!”
©DND
GW: One of the projects that the US
Quadrennial Defense Review isolated
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
13
CBRNeWORLD
Church and State
was a need for radiological stand-off – a
project that DRDC was working on that
seemed to get ‘stalled’. Has this moved
up the priority list, or is it the case that
there are still too many laws of physics
that are expensive to circumvent?
IM: The priority that we place on standoff radiation detection has not changed
but, as you point out, the technology
involved is very complex. We have a
radiation detection, identification, and
monitoring (DIM) project in the very
early stages of its development. It is
anticipated that this project, which is
not limited to stand-off DIM, will deliver
a suite of local, area and stand-off
capabilities that will both replace aging
radiation DIM equipment delivered ten
years ago under Project 2199, as well as
introduce new capabilities.
GW: There is a shortage of active
military forces using any form of
stand-off detection, to the extent that
Canada (along with the US) might be
seen as a pathfinder for doctrine and
concepts of operations (CONOPS) for
the systems. Do you think that this is
going to have a major impact on the
way that you fulfill CBRN missions?
What are the current procurement
plans for stand-off detectors?
IM: The five Enabling Components of
CBRN Defence work together in a
system-of-systems approach to provide
CBRN force protection. Stand-off can be
achieved through either active or
passive interrogation of a threat area by
remote sensing or by using point
sensors on robotic platforms. Either
way, it will facilitate the ability of our
troops to detect, identify and monitor
CBRN threats and hazards without
putting them in direct contact with the
threat agents or toxic materials.
Chemical stand-off detection is a
considerably more advanced technology
than its biological or radiological
counterpart. Our stand-off chemical
project recently moved into the
implementation phase, during which
detailed specifications will be prepared
and contract bids solicited. Our
biological and radiation DIM projects
are in a nascent state and product
delivery is not anticipated for several
years. Nevertheless, we continue to
support ongoing research at DRDC,
where promising stand-off technologies
and concepts are being investigated.
Should proof-of-concept efforts yield an
operationally suitable technology, it
may form part of the radiation and
biological DIM projects.
With regard to chemical stand-off, I
anticipate that stand-off detectors could
have a major impact on CBRN DIM and
reconnaissance. The difference between
a point sensor and a stand-off detector
is analogous to an anti-personnel mine
and a machine gun. The point sensor
does not detect until the hazard covers
the sensor, just as the anti-personnel
mine does not explode until it is
stepped on. While Canada does not
employ anti-personnel mines, the
contrast is useful because the stand-off
sensor is a line-of-sight detector with a
long range, which can be used to
provide more early warning or to cover
larger frontages just like a machine
gun. The principles for siting stand-off
sensors are similar to siting machine
guns: both should preferably be sited in
pairs with overlapping and interlocking
arcs, with provision made for
surveillance of ‘dead ground’.
It would not be prudent to allow
stand-off sensors to be covered by the
hazard as it compromises their value in
providing early warning and effectively
disables the ‘detect to warn’ function.
Whenever the tactical and security
situation permits, they should be moved
out and used in a recce/surveillance
monitoring role. This dual function
raises the question of what level of
support stand-off should be allocated
such as integral support or close
support? This decision will determine
the number needed to be procured.
The range and flexibility of stand-off
detectors opens up a number of
possibilities, especially in mobile
operations. In built-up areas, they can
be safely sited on top of buildings to
scan the entire lengths of streets. A few
concealed stand-off detectors can
achieve a lot more coverage a lot more
rapidly than a much larger number of
ordinary point sensors. The
employment of stand-off detectors must
be fully explored to make optimal use of
this promising technology.
GW: What is the status of the planned
CBRN recce vehicle? What do you see
as the CONOPS of the recce?
Specifically, how much of the role do
you see as mounted or dismounted?
IM: The CBRN Recce Project is based on
a robotic platform rather than a vehicle.
It will permit the use of point sensors to
interrogate confined threat areas without
exposing troops to direct contact with
threat agents and toxic materials. This
will enhance force protection.
GW: Similarly, has there been an
increase in the development of CBRN
forensics - either at the scene or for
attribution?
IM: In 2009, the Canadian Forces took
delivery of a Sampling and
Identification of Biological, Chemical
and Radiological Agents (SIBCRA)
system for collecting toxic substances in
the field and transporting them to
laboratories for detailed analysis.
Canada, and our NATO allies, continues
to display an interest in enhancing
SIBCRA capabilities, particularly with
the emphasis shifting from passive
protection to active prevention of CBRN
incidents. Therefore, I anticipate that
SIBCRA – always an important element
of force protection – will become more
important due to the need for
attribution at a strategic level.
GW: What are you seeing as the
priorities in terms of Canadian
procurement? There is a wealth of
systems on the cusp of development,
and the CBRN Research and Technology
Initiative (CRTI) [Now CSSP, Canadian
Safety and Security Program Ed.]
shows the breadth of Canada's
commitment to CBRN. Are there any
priorities that you see as fundamental to
the maintenance of the CBRN
capability? Does the quadripartite
agreement with the US, UK and
Australia still satisfy Canadian strategic
research and training objectives?
IM: The active projects that will ensure
complete personal, local and area
protection include chemical agent
sensors, collective protection,
decontamination, reconnaissance and a
new joint general service respirator
(JGSR). Decontamination and the
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
14
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
JGSR are fundamental to the
maintenance of Canadian capability.
The quadripartite CBRN Memorandum
of Understanding has been, and
continues to be, of great benefit to
sharing research & development and
test & evaluation opportunities.
GW: Canada has historically adopted a
'hands-off' approach to the NATO
Multi-National CBRN Defence
Battalion, mainly due to the logistics
cost. Do you think this will continue?
Are you interested in supplying niche
capabilities to the Battalion?
IM: Canada has contributed to the
NATO Response Force CBRN Task Force
through provision of the superb liveagent training venue located in the
Counter Terrorism Technology Centre
at DRDC, Suffield. NATO Exercise
Precise Response has been a three-week
commitment since 2004. This year’s
exercise took place at Suffield from July
9th to 27th.
GW: What do you see as the major
challenges in the medium, i.e., five to
ten year, period? The UK and Germany
for example, have seen the numbers
and capability of their forces fall
sharply. What sort of capability do you
think Canada will have in five years?
Will there only be certain missions that
you will undertake, similar to the
Norwegian model, or will you try to
keep a broad spectrum?
IM: We must focus on completing the
current equipment program, which
envisages fielding a capability that
encompasses the five Enabling
Components of CBRN Defence by 2015.
This capability will be world-class and
will be among the very first that
incorporates networked sensors that
provide near real-time CBRN situational
awareness to commanders. Beyond that,
we must continue to monitor
technological developments so that we
are able to maintain appropriate
defensive capabilities into the future,
particularly against emerging, nontraditional agents and toxic industrial
materials used as weapons.
Our goal in the Directorate of CBRN
Defence, and across the CBRN Defence
Program, is to provide operational
commanders with the CBRN force
protection capabilities they need to
operate in any environment. As a
former Chief of the Defence Staff once
stated: “Force protection is second only
to mission success.”
Decon and IPE are Canadian procurement priorities ©DND
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
15
CBRNeWORLD
Jim Murphy MP, UK Shadow Defence Secretary,
stresses that CBRN should remain a priority both in the UK and abroad
Capability
Holidays
Intro
As a wave of change sweeps across the
security landscape, domestic and
international security policy is
irrevocably transforming. There are
many interconnected and diverse trends
affecting security policy-making, a
crucial one of which is the increasing
availability of technology to state and
non-state actors. This trend enables new
weaponry to be developed and, unless
action is co-ordinated, to be deployed.
CBRN is one such set of weaponry
that poses an enormous threat
worldwide. Advances in knowledge in
this area have been matched by an
increased ease of knowledge-sharing and
diffusion. This means that it will be more
difficult in the future to keep important
nuclear, biological and other information
out of the hands of those who have no
respect for international law and may put
CBRN to malign use.
The complexity of chemical and
biological threat is deeply challenging
and not yet universally understood.
These agents can be used by states and
sub-state groups in a variety of ways,
from assassination to developing
weapons of mass destruction. The UK’s
response must be one that prioritises a
readiness and ability to deal with hostile
misuse and that develops strong and
sustainable, as well as national and
international, preventative systems. We
need to develop what has been called
‘multi-purpose solutions to multidimensional problems’.
CBRN globally
Let’s be clear, the vast majority of nations
adhere to international non-proliferation
obligations. Contrary to John F
Kennedy’s warning 50 years ago, the
number of nuclear-armed states isn’t
over 20 but still in single digits. Others
are, of course, trying to join that club,
but the number of those with nuclear
capability is less than was historically
anticipated. Equally, the number of
known or suspected holders of chemical
weapons continues to drop as declared
stocks are eliminated. It is fair to say that
global governance against CBRN
weapons has strengthened. International
agreements such as the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and United National
Security Council Resolution 1540 are
vital to this success.
It is important to note that the CBRN
threat is simply not proportionate to the
number of equipped nation states, it is
better measured by malign intent and
the presence of unregulated material that
may be subject to proliferation. The
threat remains real. The 2010 Report of
the OPCW stated that, “While noting that
significant progress has been made [...]
over 37.17% of chemical weapons
stockpiles remained to be destroyed as of
31 October, 2010.” The Centre for
Transatlantic Relations has said:
“Biosecurity is one of the great global
security challenges of the 21st century.”
The horrific unrest in Syria has led to
the Assad regime threatening to deploy
its chemical weapons stockpile,
something Barack Obama has rightly
said would be a “tragic mistake”.
CBRN in the UK
Labour agrees with the UK Government’s
National Security Strategy’s (NSS)
recognition of “International terrorism
affecting the UK or its interests,
including a chemical, biological,
radiological or nuclear attack by
terrorists” as the top, Tier One threat.
This is reiterated in the Strategic
Defence and Security Review (SDSR), as
well as NSS, which states that, “Al Qaeda
and other groups have stated an
aspiration to develop unconventional
(chemical, biological, radiological or
nuclear – CBRN) capabilities.”
This continues the approach of the
previous government, whose 2008 NSS
outlined an integrated approach to
tackling the CBRN threat based around
dissuading states from acquisition,
detecting acquisition attempts, denying
access and defending our borders.
While the current government has
recognised the specific threat of CBRN,
they have not introduced a new strategy
nor committed new resources to its
prevention. Indeed, changes to force
structure have raised concerns about
potential limits on the expansion of skills
required to better integrate tackling
CBRN into our armed forces.
The government deleted the 1st Royal
Tank Regiment’s role in the highly
specialised Joint CBRN Regiment and
moved all its capabilities over to the 27
Squadron RAF Regiment. This move
comes at the expense of 319 Army posts
and saves £129m over ten years, and
means that the RAF will rely on the
Yeomanry to support CBRN. Our brilliant
but part-time Reservists represent a
change in capability, and indeed a policy
trend in government to use the
Reservists to plug capability gaps left by a
drive for immediate tactical level savings.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
16
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
©Defence CBRN Centre
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
17
CBRNeWORLD
Capability Holidays
It is important that, in expanding the role
and numbers of Reservists, the
government makes better use of niche,
civilian skills and expertise in a military
setting. As technology develops, so too
must our own response, and central to
that should be the talents of those on the
frontline of science. Reservists who
specialise in cyber technology, for
example, have been discussed. I think it is
right that we also explore a designated
track for those with expertise and insight
into CBRN technology to become
members of the Reserves, and examine
how their deployment could support
existing structures to ensure our
capability strength is maximised.
It appears incongruous to both recognise
CBRN as a top Tier One threat and
downgrade the military capability tasked
with tackling it. It is unclear what the
Army’s role is in counter-CBRN
operations, following their leading role in
Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, as
responsibility for CBRN appears to rest
solely with the RAF. Indeed, the recent
MoD brochure on the future Army 2020
structure, ‘Transforming the British
Army’, does not mention CBRN.
The Joint CBRN Regiment had become
recognised as a world leader in
reconnaissance, detection and surveying
CBRN WMD, which are technically and
physically challenging tasks. Now it’s not
yet clear how the RAF Regiment will
support the three Services. The Joint
CBRN Regiment was established in 1998
when the previous government’s Strategic
Defence Review highlighted the need for a
specialist force to counter the evergrowing CBRN threat. So while the
previous review recognised a threat and
responded, the last review recognised the
same threat, dismantled the past response
and has failed to provide a sufficiently
upgraded alternative.
Other areas of importance for the UK
There are other areas of concern in
relation to CBRN operations. Reductions
in the number of frigates, for example,
have reportedly already led to the UK
scaling back anti-piracy operations. There
is a worry that this stretching of our Naval
Forces could impinge on our ability to
meet international obligations, such as
the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
While the US continued to promote the
PSI through the 2010 White House
Nuclear Security Strategy, there was no
specific mention of this in either the
SDSR or the NSS of the same year. While
anti-proliferation is increasingly seen as a
vital military objective, we will need
greater reassurances from the
government that the capability matches
intent and rhetoric.
There are other areas where we have not
heard enough from the international
community. Ease of access to chemical
and bio material is a critical concern,
since terrorists may obtain them through
various means such as research
laboratories (legitimately or otherwise),
the black market or sympathetic states.
The Institute for Public Policy Research
has found that insufficiently secure
government laboratories around the
world remain a worry and recommends
improved international data and
knowledge sharing, as well as
harmonisation of national standards,
regulatory practices and best laboratory
practices. Stockpiling of vaccines and
detection of chemical or biological
materials at the scene of an attack are
also issues which deserve attention, as is
encouraging education amongst the
medical and scientific communities about
the potential for abuse in areas of dualuse concern.
This is not an area that rests with any
single department and requires a crossgovernment, co-operative methodology,
which is why we support the work of the
National Security Council in taking this
forward. It is important to build on the
UK 2010 Strategy for Countering CBRN
Terrorism, led by Lord West of Spithead.
It is a concern that the government has
not updated this or published a separate
strategy in light of the SDSR, NSS and
Comprehensive Spending Review, in
particular one that considers decisions
such as the halting of funding to the
development of Scene Assessment
Systems.
NATO
CBRN is a threat that must be tackled
internationally because, as the SDSR
says, it “transcends national
boundaries”. Today, risks are
increasingly shared and interconnected,
therefore the solutions must be too. This
demands a new multilateralism in
defence and requires that we form new
defence partnerships, as well as
maximise our strength by integrating
resources.
The principles of ‘Smart Defence’ should
be our guide. Nato members are making
significant cuts to defence capability in
isolation of one another, the aggregate
consequence of which may be significant
capability shortfalls across the Alliance
on CBRN. The US is confronting difficult
choices as it decides how to make $487
billion of defence cuts, and perhaps a
further $500bn in the case of
‘sequestration’. Across Europe, defence
spending has declined substantially as a
result of the financial crisis: between
2008 and 2010, real defence spending in
Nato European states fell by an average
of 7.4% per country. I believe that we
now need a conversation on how
reductions in transnational defence
spending and resultant changes to force
structures can be better co-ordinated.
The practice of fighting conflicts
together but preparing for them
individually must come to an end.
There are many areas ‘Smart Defence’
must focus on, including greater
interoperability of platforms, coordinating R&D expenditure,
collaboration over specialist training and
joint procurement, and collectively
tackling growing threats such as CBRN.
Without such co-operation, sets of
capabilities or expertise could be
eliminated through national decisions,
in what has become known as
'specialisation by default' rather than
'specialisation by design'. The Nato
Combined Joint CBRN Defence Task
Force is important, and many will seek
reassurances from the UK government
that cuts to capabilities such as
maritime surveillance will not impact on
our capacity to be in the lead of the Nato
CBRN Battalion in 2013, but it is
important that collaboration in this field
goes further.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
18
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Strengthening international regulation
The global, non-proliferation system
has significantly improved over the
past decade and two key pieces of
international legislation are the
Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention (BTWC) and the
Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC). It is vital that both are
strengthened where possible.
There has been a long-standing debate
about whether a verification mechanism
for the BTWC can be put in place. This
would be hard to achieve due to the
complexity over dual-use facilities, the
speed of scientific developments and the
need to protect confidential business
information. But it is vital that efforts
continue to increase confidence in
compliance, most importantly through
greater transparency.
While destruction of chemical
capabilities is the current CWC priority,
the focus of the Convention is set to shift
from verifying destruction to ensuring
rearmament does not occur. This will
mean monitoring the production of
potentially dangerous agents in a rapidly
changing chemical industry. These
agreements should also be coupled with
more routine domestic and multilateral
government outreach programmes to
industry, ensuring compliance with
export regulations and information
exchange on proliferation activity.
with malign intent and who operate
beyond international law.
Vitally, international partners should
work closely together on counter
proliferation towards and within failing
states. Often when an ‘arc of instability’
is debated this is coupled with a
discussion on ‘ungoverned spaces’. The
absence of formal government, however,
does not equate to an absence of
informal power, whether fear of a
warlord or deference to a dominant
family, and it is vital that we engage
now in preventing proliferation to those
The UK’s response to the CBRN threat
should have at its core good
intelligence, co-ordinated export
controls, strong international
agreements deeply implemented in
national policies, robust defences and
well-organised response capabilities.
Conclusion
The ease with which new technologies
can be attained and developed into
sophisticated weapons to counter or even
make superfluous, high-end armour will
increase the need for equipment
programmes to adapt and modernise.
This is now a priority issue for all
developed nations.
While new technologies promise
enormous benefits for humanity, they
must be an inescapable part of the debates
on national and international security.
CBRNeWORLD
Mr Eric Stevenson, CBRN Capability Adviser to the Australian
Army Headquarters, talks to Gwyn Winfield about shaping the
Australian Defence Force (ADF) CBRN capability
Keeping it simple…
GW. Following the closure of the
Chemical, Biological, Radiological and
Nuclear Directorate in the Joint
Capability Co-ordination Division in
2011, what has been the vehicle for
CBRN direction within the ADF?
ES. The Directorate successfully
fulfilled its purpose of developing Joint
CBRN defence policy, founded on
endorsed strategic guidance and a
rigorous appraisal of the likely threats.
The focus then changed from
developing concepts within Defence to
delivering CBRN capability. The Army
then took over from the Directorate as
the lead capability manager for CBRN,
with specialist staff in the engineer cell
considering a number of force
protection issues – one of which was
CBRN. They work very closely with
other members of the small Defence
CBRN community to ensure a unified
approach to delivering capability and
addressing related policy, training and
equipment issues.
GW. Much of the Australian
Department of Defence’s doctrine is
predicated on various 2009 documents,
such as the White Paper. With another
one due in the near future do you think
you will see an increase or decrease in
attention toward CBRN?
ES. The ADF keeps a close eye on what
is happing around the world and I
believe we will always have an interest
in CBRN defence. Based on a variety of
2009 documents, Australia’s CBRN
defence capability continues to be
characterised by:
• A much greater emphasis on force
protection activities, prior to a CBRN
event.
• A closely integrated, whole-ofgovernment approach to counterCBRNE and CBRNE consequence
management.
• The threat in asymmetric warfare is
likely to involve low volumes of agent,
with highly localised effects.
• A separation of special forces
(counter-CBRNE) and conventional
force (detection, identification and
monitoring, or CBRNE defence) roles
and responsibilities.
• A capability to simultaneously detect
toxic industrial chemicals, such as
ammonia or sulphuric acid, and
traditional warfare agents, such as nerve
or mustard.
We have yet to see what the next
iteration of documents will direct, but I
am confident that the small number of
dedicated CBRN staff in Defence are agile
enough to meet whatever challenges the
strategic guidance sets us.
GW. Previously it seemed as if
CBRN forces would be part of the
Modular Engineer Force, and it was
also predicted to have a dedicated
CBRNE squadron in it. Is that still
the case? Also, what role does CBRN
have in Plan Beersheba and the
Multi-Combat Brigades?
ES. The real challenge with CBRN
attacks is that it is difficult to predict
where and when they will occur. When
designing CBRN defensive responses
and organisations, we find that the
simplest solutions normally work best.
The ADF is therefore pursuing large
numbers of highly compact CBR
defensive equipments to be dispersed
widely throughout its forces. If an event
did occur, we could then call on
specialist CBRN engineer troops within
each of the Combat Engineer
Regiments in the Multi-Role Combat
Brigades, to undertake more detailed
sampling, identification, analysis and
monitoring. This has replaced the
original CBRN concept for a Modular
Engineer Force. It provides a more
realistic and agile response team to
address CBRN issues. The raise, train
and sustain function to be able to
deliver the CBRN defence capability
across the force has been developed
under Plan Beersheba, based on a
Ready, Readying and Reset Brigade.
GW. What is the status of CBRN Joint
Project Phases 1A and 1B (conventional
forces), as well as Joint Project 3025
(special forces). Have budgets for the
programmes remained stable?
ES. Planning on the ADF’s two primary
CBRN defence Joint Projects
commenced in 2005. It would seem that
CBRN technology doubles its capability
(smaller size, greater detection, dualuse instruments) while the buying
power of the dollar halves every seven
years or so. The budgets for the projects
have remained untouched, consistent
with the ADF’s overall force protection
requirements, although the final
introduction into service times have
been adjusted to align with other
broader funding priorities. We have a
very clear understanding of what CBRN
equipment we need to meet government
guidance and the ADF’s needs. The
budget to achieve our objectives
remains tight but manageable. The
force has been helped to some extent by
advances in technology that allow us to
consider introducing more capable,
multi-purpose equipment. For example,
some detectors can now detect
traditional chemical warfare agents and
toxic industrial chemicals. This may
mean purchasing one instead of two
different types of instruments.
Updating ageing detection equipment
under Phase 1A is complete. This will
allow us to maintain our CBRN detection
and monitoring capability until more
advanced equipment is introduced in the
coming years under Phase 1B.
Furthermore, under Phase 1B, each
soldier, sailor and airman in an area of
operations can wear an individual
chemical and a radiological detector. This
dramatically increases our detection
capability, shortens the warning times
and allows the more specialised engineer
troops to concentrate on identifying
unknown agents.
GW. With the capability documents
now delivered, what are the plans for
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
20
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
JP 2110 Phase 1B and what
implications will these have? Have
events overtaken it in terms of
security risks and budgets?
ES. Joint Project 2110 has retained
its utility as a means for updating
conventional forces CBRN defensive
equipment in the next few years. The
next focus for the project team will
be to develop a business case to
examine possible new types of
equipment that will address emerging
threats over the next 20 years.
Refreshing existing equipment may
not suffice The adaptability and
forward-looking nature of the
original JP 2110 documentation has
helped ensure the project has not
been overtaken by events.
GW. The previous White Paper looked
to build Combating Weapons of Mass
Destruction capability up until 2030,
is that still the case? How is the
capability analysis process going?
ES. Preparing for a variety of CBRN
events up until 2030 is a sound
timeframe. It allows the ADF
equipment procurement and
sustainment process to take a systems
approach, rather than simply focussing
on individual items of equipment.
Personnel involved in the CBRN
equipment process decisions are also
aware that our adversaries are smart,
do not have a lengthy procurement
process and are unlikely to attack
when, where and how we expect them
to. Defence is fortunate that it has
clear strategic CBRN guidance in a
relatively discrete area, with a small
CBRN community that all know each
other. The capability analysis process
is proceeding well, as it can be
pursued logically from first,
defendable principles to delivery and
though-life support.
GW. Through organisations such as
DSTO, Australia has been an active
member of ABCA/AUSCANUKUS. Do
you still see this being the case, and
can you see yourself shifting to net
consumer rather than provider?
ES. The CBR Memorandum of
Understanding provides the means for
Australia, the United Kingdom, United
States and Canada to define and
establish the general principles that will
apply to the initiation, conduct and
management of information exchange
harmonisation and alignment efforts, as
well as CBR projects. It provides the
means for the participants to acquaint
each other with any CBR issues in order
to avoid unnecessary duplication of
national CBR defence programmes and
to promote a concerted action to
identify and close important gaps in
their CBR defence capabilities. It may
be used, at the discretion of the
participants, as a mechanism for the
acquisition of equipment. Where it is
The IRR is a fundamental building block of ADF CBRN capability ©Defence CBRN Centre
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
21
CBRNeWORLD
Keeping it simple…
determined to use this memorandum of
understanding, such acquisition of
equipment will be documented in a
specific CBR project arrangement.
Although it is grounded in the scientific
community, it has representation from
the policy, intelligence, medical and
capability delivery areas. The focus of
the American, British, Canadian,
Australian and New Zealand Armies'
Program is on interoperability, defined
as: the ability of alliance forces and,
when appropriate, forces of partner and
other nations to train, exercise and
operate effectively together in the
execution of assigned missions and
tasks. Both organisations are excellent
venues for formally sharing CBRN
information and are likely to continue
to meet in the future. Australia is likely
to remain an active participant of these
organisations, rather than a consumer
or provider.
GW. Much of the northern
hemisphere has been fixated on the
events of the Arab Spring in places
such as Egypt, Libya and Syria.
What have been the Australian centres
of gravity?
ES. The Australian Defence Force’s
centre of gravity remains to:
• Deter and defeat armed attacks on
Australia.
• Contribute to stability and security in
the South Pacific and East Timor.
• Contribute to military contingencies
in the Asia-Pacific region.
• Contribute to military contingencies
in the rest of the world.
Defence will maintain a realistic
capacity and capability to undertake
timely CBRN defensive operations
ranging from dealing with toxic
industrial materials, though to CBR
events and nuclear war – both in
Australia and overseas. As with a variety
of force protection issues, the
government may require the ADF to
undertake operations in a CBRN threat
environment either as a single nation,
leading a coalition or in concert with
our allies and coalition partners.
GW. CBRN forces in Europe and
North America are being rolled into
other activities in the face of changes
to budgets, such as the Bundeswehr
and their military fire service. Can you
see a similar process happening
within the ADF, and what shape do
you think they might take on in the
next five years?
ES. Since 2000, first responders in
Australia have had an increasing
capability to deal with CBR incidents on
the continent. Unlike some overseas
countries, the first responder budget to
support equipment procurement and
training is not linked to the defence
budget. Defence has continued to
develop its procedures to allow it to
participate as part of a multi-agency
approach to incidents involving police,
fire and ambulance services however.
Which agencies would be involved in an
incident depends on the nature of the
incident, its location and the response
forces available. The ability of the ADF
to communicate effectively across all
agencies has been a high priority.
ADF is set on a multi-agency approach to civil incidents ©ADF
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
22
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
WHEN MINUTES MATTER MOST
Respond faster and remain focused on the mission
Certified to NFPA 1994, Class 2, durable multi-threat suits made with GORE®
CHEMPAK® ultra barrier fabric help you respond quicker with enhanced
operational capabilities and reduced heat stress in HOT ZONE environments.
Learn more about products featuring Gore’s innovative ChemBio fabrics at
www.GoreChempak.com in applications for Technical Rescue, HazMat,
Reconnaissance, and Rapid Intervention Teams.
www.GoreChempak.com/multithreat
W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Technical Fabrics
800.431.GORE (4673)
CHEMPAK, GORE and designs are trademarks of W. L. Gore & Associates © 2012 W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Warning: No products, including garments, footwear
or handwear, offer absolute protection, even when new, and their protective performance will decline with wear, tear, abrasion, and other damage associated with use.
16 – 17 April 2013, CityWest Hotel, Dublin
www.cbrneworld.com/events
Taking specialist skills into disasters: developing, training and
qualifying response. International participants from such fields as
CBRNE, Hazmat, disaster medicine and emergency management,
will gather for a two day conference and exhibition to understand
how they can broaden their skills and knowledge into other fields.
With four one hour long training vignettes, ‘All Hazard Response’
will provide a hands on, learning experience.
ALL HAZARD RESPONSE
16 – 17 April 2013
CityWest Hotel, Dublin, Ireland
www.cbrneworld.com/events
l e!
na m
Fi ram
og
Pr
REGISTER TODAY
CBRNe
CONVERGENCE
5th Annual CBRNe World Conference and Exhibition
30 October - 2 November 2012,
Norfolk Waterside Marriott,VA, USA
Smarter CBRN Defence: Growing closer, staying distinct –
merging civilian and military response to CBRN and IED threats
Supporting Partner Organisations
CBR Defense
Command (Korea)
Newport News FD
Norfolk EOD
ASPR
Interpol
SCDF (Singapore)
Virginia Beach FD
Norfolk FBI
Virginia OEM
Norfolk Police Norfolk Fire Rescue Chesapeake Fire
Speakers to date include:
Commissioner
Eric Yap
SCDF, Singapore
Brigadier General
Chan-Sup Kim
Barbara Walls
Commander of ROK
Section Chief,WMD
CBRDC
Countermeasures and
Operations Section, FBI Colonel Alfred
Abramson
Maj. Gen. Bayer
PM Contamination
DCoS, Strategic Plans
Avoidance, JPEO CBD
& Policy, ACT NATO
Commisioner
Maj. Gen. Jeff Mathis Felipe Seixas
Joint Task Force Civil
Coordinator Major
Support
Event Security, Federal
Police, Brazil
Jerry Hauer
Commissioner,
Anthony Thomas
Division of Homeland CBRNE Program
Security and
Manager, Interpol
Emergency Services
Peter Bechtel
State of New York
Director USANCA
Col. Fabio Aversa
Jim Murphy MP
7th NBC Defence
Shadow Defence
Regiment, Italy
Secretary, UK
Mr. Edward Gabriel
Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary
(PD-ASPR)
FBI WMD
Directorate
CBRNe Convergence:
Unique Benefits
Programme planned by Gwyn Winfield,
Editor of CBRNe World magazine.
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-Conference 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
Final day capability exercise.
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 100
companies. Equip your organisation with
some of the leading technology available
Poster reception and charity auction of
the CBRNe South America Masks
Register online NOW at
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNe
Conference Programme
CONVERGENCE
Updates to the programme can be viewed at
www.cbrneworld.com/events
DAY ONE October 31
08.00
Registration and Coffee
08.20
Chairs Welcome, BG (Ret) Stan Lillie
10.00 – Catastrophic incidents. Emergency Medical Response –
similarities between major earthquakes and terrorist use of an IND
08.30
Maj. Gen. Bayer, DCoS, Strategic Plans & Policy, ACT NATO
Plenary: Jerry Hauer, Commissioner, Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Services State of New York
09.00 – Countering the CBRN Threat: Prevention to Response
Analyzing the CBRN Threat
Responding to CBRN Incidents
Background
Improvised Nuclear Device effects
Natural disaster effects
Similarity in effects and required response
Preventing Acquisition of CBRN Material
Advancing International Partnerships
Plenary: Barbara Walls, Section Chief, FBI
10.30 – New Strategic Guidance and CBRN Capabilities for the U.S. Joint
Force in the 21st Century
09.30 – The Whole of Government / Community Approach to
Preparedness, Response and Recovery
The policy foundation for a whole-of-government/community approach
Practical applications of this approach - HHS programs and initiatives
Crowd-sourcing for emergency ops - health surveillance and consequence management
International best practice: International collaborations & partnerships
Plenary: Mr. Edward Gabriel, PD-ASPR
New strategic guidance articulates priorities for 21st century defense
Joint Force’s Enduring Task: Succeed against ubiquitous CBRN threats
Joint Force defends the homeland and support civil authorities
CBRN threats require new capabilities for Joint Force’s success
U.S. will broaden building partnership capacity opportunities in CBRN
Peter Bechtel, Director, USANCA
11.00 Coffee
Stream A
Lessons Learned ‘Home’
Stream B
Lessons Learned ‘Away’
11.30 – The Italian 7th Regiment Tasks and Capabilities
11.30 – Creation of Federal/Municipal integrated CBRNe Unit
Rational for creation of the integrated unit
Capabilities: what capabilities this unit now brings Ottawa and rest of Canada
Challenges: bringing this team into realization
Lessons Learnt: how the implementation of the team could have been done differently
Sgt. Milton Capaday, Coordinator Ottawa Police Explosives Unit
12.15 – UK CBRNE Operational Capability at the London 2012 Olympics
and Beyond...
CBRNE Protective security measures at LONDON 2012 Games venues
CBRNE Response capability planning for the LONDON 2012 Olympics
LONDON 2012 legacy for CBRNE security and response capability
Future UK CBRNE capability and challenges
Abroad operations
Homeland operations, trainings and civil cooperations
Further operations,
Joint CBR Education and training
Col. Fabio Aversa, 7th NBC Defence Regiment, Italy
12.15 – ROK CBRDC’s Capabilities
Supports counter-CBR terrorism
CBR Recon/Decon Ops for all services, WMD-E Ops, verification of CBR weapons
Test for CBR stockpiles, R&D of CBR Prot techniques,
Joint CBR Education and training
BG Chan Sup Kim, CBRN Defence Command, Republic of Korea
John Jones, Home Office, UK
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
Stream C
Decontamination
Stream D
Major Sporting Events
14.00 – Brazilian Major Events – CBRNE Strategy
14.00 – Decontamination for CBRNe
Decontamination Defined Why Decon is necessary What kind of Decon to use
EPA levels of protection Decon solutions and methods
Overview
Counter terrorism strategy
CBRNE strategy
Donald R. Linville, CIH, Industrial Hygienist for DuPont. USA
Commisioner Felipe Seixas, Coordinator Major Event Security,
Federal Police, Brazil
14.45 – Managing Radioactive Liquid Waste after a CBRN Event
14.45 – CBRN Recce in a Nutshell – A Future Challenge?
Identifying potential technologies for treatment
Review of newly developed decon technogies
Waste generation minimised
Introducing Impacting Factors: Doctrine:Threats, Capabilities
The bottom-up approach to reach for customer related solutions
Alexander Müller, Senior Business Development Manager, Bruker
Wenxing Kuang, Environment Canada
15.30 Coffee
Stream E
Detection
Stream F
Maritime CBRN
16.00 – Event Screening
16.00 – Large Scale Response:The Deepwater Horizon Perspective
Radiation early warning and search systems
Confirming the alert measurements
Essential monitoring and threat analysis
Choosing a lead agency during a potential WMD incident of this scale
Evidence collection and preservation 40 miles offshore
How will agencies integrate into the ICS structure for response
Funding mechanisms for an intentional incident like Deepwater Horizon
Logistics support needs for this as a potential WMD
Mirion Technologies (MGPI) Inc. USA
16.45 – Reconnaissance and Platform Integration
Capt. David Haynes, Commander, National Strike Force. USCG
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical detection equipment
Specialized military reconnaissance systems
Military obscuration systems
16.45 – Energy Efficient Regenerable Filtration for Colpro
Colonel Alfred Abramson, PM Contamination Avoidance, JPEO CBD
Integrated with an ECU to utilise waste energy from the condenser cool and
dehumidify feed air
Unique bed design that allows rapid heating and cooling using the ECU refrigerant
Filters the full range of CWA’s and Toxic Industrial Chemicals (TICs)
No filter change out required
Large Ct protection capacities
Dr. David K. Friday. Director of Applied Research. HDT Global. USA
17.30 Poster Reception & Charity Auction
For more information on the auction see www.cbrneworld.com/events
Kindly sponsored by Dupont
CBRNe
Conference Programme
CONVERGENCE
Updates to the programme can be viewed at
www.cbrneworld.com/events
DAY TWO November 1
08.30
Plenary: Jim Murphy MP, Shadow Defence Secretary. UK
10.00 – JTF-CS provides rapid response and dedicated support
09.00
Plenary: Doug Bryce, Deputy JPEO CBD – Your chance to meet
the new JPEO
09.30 – CBRE Preparedness: Developing Capabilities Beyond Responders
Exclusive insight into SCDF’s CBRE capabilities
Beyond first responders, developing CBRE capabilities/awareness in different
segments of the community
Investment in infrastructural design, operational processes and technology
Commissioner Eric Yap, Singapore Civil Defence Force
A standing, dedicated force that provides enduring support when called to duty
Responding and supporting the primary civilian agency during directed incident
response
Establish vital training programs and effective TTPs for the most effective, life
sustaining support
Deliberate actions are the key to working at the tactical level on the TTPs and
processes
From a standing start to a response within hours that integrates the most effective
life saving and sustaining activities
MG Jeff W. Mathis III, Joint Task Force Civil Support Commander, US
10.30 Coffee
Stream G
Forensics
Stream H
Counter IED
11.00 – 21st Century Challenges for the Detection of CBRNE Threats
11.00 – Countering Multi-Dimensional Threats in the Era of
Asymmetric Warfare
Standoff sensing of CBRNE threats is challenging and no technology is most advantageous
Raman, especially UV Raman, is making significant advances for standoff detection
Orthogonal imaging necessary to guide molecular spectroscopy for identification
Raman Chemical Imaging – an exciting advance in technology
Dr Augustus Fountain, Senior Research Scientist, ECBC
11.45 – RSDL Mechanism of Action and Efficacy
Decontaminates and removes chemical warfare agents on the skin
A medical device with an excellent safety profile
Solution-based experiments show that the lotion neutralizes organo-phosphate pesticides
Dr Kit Streusand Goldman, Senior Director Product Development, RSDecon. USA.
Convergence – more than just an integration of CBRNE technologies
Securing critical infrastructure with adaptive technologies
Advancing technology to improve airport security
Making CBRNE technologies accessible
Leading the world in threat detection and counter terror activities
David W. Cullin, Ph.D.Chief Technology Officer, Flir. USA
11.45 – CBRNe IDD from where to where?!
Progression in capabiliy deveopment from 2001 to present
Address Lessons Learnt/Identified Future Planning
All Hazard Response, Ireland 16-17 April 2013
Lt. Col. Ray Lane, Ordnance Corps, Irish Defence Force
12.30 – 13.30 Lunch
Stream I
Protection
Stream J
Mass Casualty Events
13.30 – Law Enforcement and Standardisation of CBRNE Response Protocols
13.30 – Effective Bio-surveillance using Environmental and
Clinical Lab Data
INTERPOL CBRNE Terrorism Prevention Programme
Law Enforcement responsibility for CBRNE is full spectrum
Cross-Community communication required for effective CBRNE response
Standardisation of response protocols for CBRNE incidents
Anthony Thomas, CBRNE Program Manager, Interpol
14.15 – Selective Permeable Membrane vs.Active Carbon
Active carbon suits: heavy, bulky, sweaty, with limited absorption capability
Selective permeable or semi-permeable membranes: advantages
Chemical warfare agent permeation tests:Top 8-2-501 method
CBRN protection with selective permeable membrane vs. active carbon
Dr. Samuel Wu,Perfect Defense Technology Co. Ltd.Taiwan
Protecting high-value assets from disease requires multiple data from sample types
Effective bio-surveillance data 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
Matt Scullion. Business Development Director, Idaho Technology. USA
14.15 – Examination and Treatment Center (ETC): The unique Israeli
solution for mild casualties in a chemical warfare scenario
Introduction
ETC missions
Summary
Lt. Col. Aviv Ohana, Director of Community Preparedness, HFC, Israel
15.00 Coffee & Posters
Stream K
Call For Papers 1
15.50
Diversity of CBRN Management Systems across Europe
Dzenan Sahovic & Jan Engberg
16.10
Nuclear Terrorism and Security: Bridging the disconnect
Otso Iho, King’s College London
16.40
Extreme Biological Events in the Military: Effects and Response
Berger, Zurel, Kassirer, Kreiss, Aran, Israel Defense Force
Stream L
Call For Papers 2
15.50
Developing Subway Chemical Detect-to-Warn Capabilities
Ignacio1, Helinski2, Jackson2, Dame3, 1DHS, 2US Army, 3ECBC
16.10
Fulfilling the capability requirement for detection of CWA & TICs
Busker1,Wuijckhuijse1, Foppen2, 1TNO, 2Dutch Army
16.40
Potential terrorist threat posed by CW to potable water,
Dr Weber, Central Institute of the Bundeswehr Medical Service
17.00 LFO police multi-agency forensic CBRNe investigations in the Netherlands
Role of LFO police in forensic CBRNe-investigation in the Netherlands From place of incident to hazmat crimescene
Multi-agency aproach on CBRNe crime-scene Implementation of LFO into future Dutch police forensic CBRNe-team
Plenary: Marchel Zomer, Senior Expert, KLPD, Netherlands
THIRD DAY EXERCISE – November 2
08.30 – 12.00
Join us on the Friday for a dynamic capability exercise showcasing the skills of a multi-agency force: including Virginia State Police, Norfolk Fire / Police,
Chesapeake Fire,Virginia OEM, Norfolk FBI and many others.A short distance from the hotel, this is your opportunity to see Convergence in action.
CBRNe
Sponsors and
Exhibitors
CONVERGENCE
Gold Sponsor
DuPont (NYSE: DD) has been bringing world-class science and engineering to the global marketplace in the form of innovative products, materials, and services since 1802.The
company believes that by collaborating with customers, governments, NGOs, and thought leaders we can help find solutions to such global challenges as providing enough
healthy food for people everywhere, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels, and protecting life and the environment.
For additional information about DuPont and its commitment to inclusive innovation, please visit www.dupont.com.
DuPont Protection Technologies is a global innovation leader in scientifically engineered products & systems
that protect lives, the environment and critical processes. DuPont Protection Technologies is built on leading
brands such as Tyvek®,Tychem®, Kevlar® and Nomex® with a heritage of proven performance and
protection across multiple markets.
Silver Sponsors
A provider of highlyengineered mobile military and
emergency response solutions,
HDT Global is widely
recognized for its industryleading production of state-ofthe-art, fully integrated deployable solutions. With advanced systems currently
being used by the U.S. and allied military units stationed worldwide, HDT’s
products include shelter systems, environmental control systems, generators,
heaters, air filtration devices, parachutes, aerial delivery systems, and robotics.
Bruker Detection Corporation is a worldwide
leader in supplying detection instruments,
products and systems for substance detection
and pathogen identification in security,
defense, and law enforcement applications.
Our broad technology base includes ion
mobility spectrometry, mass spectrometry,
Fourier Transform IR spectrometry and
semi conductor based radiation detection.
www.bruker-detection.com
Bronze Sponsors
BioFire Diagnostics Inc (formerly Idaho Technology)
produces BioSurveillance products that span the range
of operations from the lab to the field and clinical
diagnostics to environmental surveillance. The handcarry RAZOR EX is ruggedized for field use to provide
militaries, civil defense, first responders, and security
personnel the capability to identify biothreats in
suspicious powders and substances. The lab-based FilmArray System provides incomparable
ease-of-use by integrating advanced sample prep with sensitive real-time PCR detection to
simultaneously identify dozens of threats with high confidence and identifies pathogens in
clinical or environmental samples.
Calgon Carbon Corporation (NYSE:CCC) is
a global leader in innovative solutions, quality
products and reliable services designed to
protect our health and environment from
harmful contaminants in water and air.
Specialized products for the defense industry
include activated carbon for respirators,
collective protection filters for buildings,
ships and tanks, and activated carbon cloth for bandages, protective clothing and solvent
recovery. Call +1(800) 422-7266 or
e-mail info@calgoncarbon-us.com for more information.
FLIR Systems is a world leader in the design and
manufacture of sensor systems that enhance
perception and awareness. FLIR offers advanced
capabilities to detect threats in all of the critical
CBRNE segments – chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and explosive. These compact,
portable, laboratory-caliber systems are in use
across a broad spectrum of applications. As both a systems provider and technology
supplier, FLIR leverages unparalleled technical expertise to address the emerging
challenges of our time. www.flir.com/gs
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
Perfect Defense
Life Savior™ :The only CBRN protective
laminated fabric, by patented selective
permeable membrane technology, with lowest
heat stress, lightest weight, most comfortable
to wear with breathability, flexible, and most durable CBRN protection, liquid-proof, and
wind-proof for all weather conditions. i-Life ™:The only strongest nano-porous PTFE
membrane / fabric laminate, most breathable with best comfort, durable contamination
resistance to maintain superior waterproof and wind-proof for all weather conditions.
www.perfectdef.com
RSDecon is a brand of products
manufactured by the Healthcare Protective
Products Division (HPPD) of Bracco
Diagnostics Inc., the exclusive global
manufacturer and marketer of RSDL. RSDL
is a patented, broad spectrum skin
decontamination product intended to neutralize or remove chemical warfare agents or T-2
toxin from the skin. It is packaged in an easy to open tear-open pouch and provides
emergency service personnel and military organizations with real defense from the dangers
of exposure to chemical weapons.
Exhibitors – to exhibit please contact david.levitt@cbrneworld.com
Agilent manufactures and distributes a
complete line of instrumentation serving the
clinical, analytical, biotech, environmental,
pharmaceutical, forensic science, food and
flavor, academia, and all other laboratory
markets that have needs for the best in
quality, performance, and serviceability in the
instruments they purchase.
Agilent Technologies, 2850 Centerville
Road,Wilmington, DE 19808
800.227.9770 www.agilent.com/chem
AirBoss Defense has created innovative
user-oriented designs and promoted the
utmost advanced technical materials.
With superior ergonomics and comfort,
surpassing NATO requirements,AirBoss
Defense’s gas masks, hand wear and
footwear are especially designed to
perfectly integrate with CBRN suits. Not
only does AirBoss Defense’s PPE offer the
ultimate protection against CBRN threats, it
has also been proven
to be effective against
a wide range of TIC’s.
When it comes to
user safety,AirBoss
Defense delivers The
Ultimate Protection.
Alluvium: HazMasterG3 has reinvented the
CBRNE/HME/EOD decision support system
with a vast database, comprehensive SOPs,
and advanced analytics . With full
capabilities on mil-spec handhelds,
smartphones, laptops or web browser,
HazMasterG3 is the only commercially
available system that is both US Army Joint
Battle Command Platform-Handheld (JBCPH) compatible and is certified as a DHS
approved product
for homeland
security for
CBRNE/HME/IED
decision support.
Ansell Protective Solutions, (formerly
Trelleborg Protective Products) designs,
manufacturer & distribe Chemical Protective
Ensembles (including four certified to NFPA
1991-2005), Protective Shelters, Hoods and
Dry Suits.Ansell Protective Solutions full line
of products sold under the brand names of
“Trellchem”,“Viking” & “TrellTent” have been
re-defining PPE & Hazmat Diving for over 25
years. www.ansell.com, www.trellchem.com
or www.vikingdiving.com.
Exhibitors – to exhibit please contact david.levitt@cbrneworld.com
Visit Argon at booth 57 to see why
numerous training facilities, bases,
emergency responders and Government
agencies worldwide use our extremely
realistic CBRN / HazMat simulation
systems. Ranging from individual stand
alone simulators to PlumeSIM, our
instrumented CBRN training system you
will find a cost effective solution to
transform your exercises.
Avon Protection Systems is the recognized
global market leader in respiratory
protection system technology.An unrivalled
80 year pedigree in military mask design
and manufacture has placed Avon
Protection at the heart of numerous
national defense and tactical Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) deployment
strategies.
BBI Detection is a world leader in the
development and manufacture of rapid handheld 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 are providers of
biological and chemical threat detection
systems. Early detection or identification of
biological and chemical aerosolized weapon
attacks are essential components of
biodefence.To help to get an adapted
response, Bertin has developed the
Coriolis© air samplers, the KIM analyser
and the gas cloud detector Second Sight©.
www.bertin.fr
Founded in 1989, CamelBak invented the
hands-free hydration category and is the
globalleader in personal hydration gear.
With a mission to continuously reinvent
and forever change the way people hydrate
and perform, CamelBak offers a complete
line of technical hydration packs, reusable
BPA-free water bottles and performance
hydration accessories for outdoor sports,
military, travel and a healthy lifestyle.
CBI POLYMERS: DeconGel™ is a proven,
tough, professional, military-grade, safe,
water soluble, and environmentally friendly
product for extreme, hard-to-clean
contamination remediation challenges for
any industry. It is exceptionally effective
against radioactive isotopes and chemicals
but has the strength to pull off any job. Go
to www.decongel.com for more
information.
CBRN Hungary represents the Hungarian
CBRN defense equipment manufacturers
on foreign markets, the two biggest ones of
them are RESPIRÁTOR ZRT
(www.respirator.hu) and GAMMA Technical
Corporation (www.gammatech.hu).The
corporation also represents some other
foreign companies, and offers the CBRN
products that are missing from domestic
production.
Chemring Detection Systems, Inc. offers an
advanced line of point and standoff
chemical and biological agent detectors and
standoff explosives detection systems. Our
chemical detection products include the
hand-held JUNO® vapor detector and a
Standoff Chemical Detector (I-SCAD®).
Biological detection systems include the
ATHINA Biological Security System (ABSS).
CoBRA software is easy to use Decision
Support Tool for full spectrum CBRNE
incident management. CoBRA is available in
client and WEB application format. CoBRA
puts access to chemical databases,
explosive calculators, radiological
conversion, checklists, forms and
collaboration capabilities in the responder’s
hand. CoBRA, the First Responders First
Choice. www.cobrafirstresponder.com
Dräger is an international leader in the
fields of medical and safety technology.The
safety division offers customers
consultancy, products and services for an
integrated hazard management, especially
for personal and facility protection.The
current portfolio comprises stationary and
mobile gas detection systems, respiratory
protection equipment, fire training systems,
professional diving equipment as well as
alcohol and drug detection units.
Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) is the world’s premier destination for chemical and
biological defense testing and training. DPG is the lead tester for US and allied chemical
and biological defense equipment and CBRN contamination survivability of defense
materiel. DPG’s one-of-a-kind test facilities and encroachment-free field test ranges are
ideal for testing
protection, detection
and decontamination
technologies.
Training-specific
facilities and 800,000
acres of available
terrain place DPG’s
training programs
for first responders
and defense
personnel among
the best, globally.
The Edgewood Chemical Biological Center's
(ECBC) science and technology expertise
has protected the United States from the
threat of chemical weapons since 1917. Since
that time, the Center has expanded its
mission to include biological materials and
emerges today as the nation's premier
authority on chemical and biological defense.
Energy Dense Power Systems
manufactures the latest technology, man
portable, self sustaining, lithium ion power
systems. Specifically designed to power
fielded electronic and electromechanical
devices. Lightweight, high output, clean,
renewable power, that is field chargeable
from virtually any power source including
solar, wind, fuel cell, vehicle, generator, etc.
Environics makes gas & vapor detection
products & turn-key CBRN detection
networks for civilian & military defense.We
primarily focus on portable & fixed
Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) and Toxic
Industrial Chemical (TIC) detection, but we
can also provide decontamination solutions,
vehicle protection, mobile CBRN labs, bomb
and chemical-proof shelters.
First Line Technology, LLC is an ISO
9001:2008-certified manufacturer and
supplier of Out of the Box Solutions for first
responders and the military that has
established itself as a leader in product
development and deployment with
innovative, simple solutions like heatactivated PhaseCore Cooling Vests and the
AmbuBus, Bus-Stretcher Conversion Kit.
Force1Decon™ (F1D) designs and
manufactures products specifically for the
Tactical Decontamination CBRNE
response environment. Products are
developed by ‘Operators for Operators’
and provide a rapid, effective and versatile
‘Tactical
Decontamination’
capability to all
types operational
forces globally DOD; OGA;
state & local
authority; LE and
private sector.
FT specialises in the design and
manufacturer of high performance
Acoustic Resonance air flow sensors,
delivering reliable speed and direction data,
whilst operating in the toughest
conditions. Designed into various CBRNe
systems since 2005, our FT702LM range is
engineered for OEM integration, providing
ultra-compact, rugged, and accurate air
flow measurement.
For the past two decades, Federal Resources Supply Co. has supported the CBRNe
efforts of the United States Military, Department of Homeland Security, State and
Local first responders in the emerging technologies and operations of Chem Bio
defense. Our experienced staff can assist you with all facets of equipment life cycle,
whether it is procurement, asset tracking, training, technical refreshment, or
decommissioning. Federal Resources offers a full life cycle approach to our customers.
It is with great honor and privilege that we are able to offer our humble service to the
defenders of our country the United States of America.
Exhibitors – to exhibit please contact david.levitt@cbrneworld.com
Germfree Laboratories has been engineering and building biological and chemical
containment equipment for the military, research, and healthcare fields since 1962.
Germfree designs, engineers and integrates mobile laboratories into a variety of vehicular
platforms, including ISO containers, military and civilian vehicles and trailers. 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 Standard. Our systems have been purchased by more than 6,000 institutions and
companies in over 60 countries worldwide.
www.germfree.com
i-bodi is an innovative leader in project
research, development and manufacture.We
are specialists in developing bespoke
products from customer defined
specifications, with particular experience in
computer controlled test platforms for
CBRN protective clothing and respirator
evaluation. i-bodi provides intelligent
solutions for military, government
organisations, first responders and industry.
Joint Task Force Civil Support anticipates,
plans, and integrates U.S. Northern
Command chemical, biological, radiological
and nuclear response operations. JTF-CS
commands and controls designated DOD
forces to assist local, state, federal and tribal
partners in saving lives, preventing further
injury, and providing critical support to
enable community recovery.
Immediate Response Technologies, Inc. is an ISO Registered, GSA Contract Holder,
manufacturer of the most technically advanced, highest quality patented Articulating Framed
Shelters, Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPRs), Negative Pressure Individual Isolation
Systems (ISO-PODS),Air Filters/Cartridges and thermal targets anywhere.All active military
duty services, the Coast Guard, National Guard and homeland defense organizations like
FEMA, FBI, CIA, DHS, DOJ and DOS employ our products.We are a prime provider to the
National Guard CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERF-P’s), Homeland
Response Force (HRF’s),
medical units, Marine
Corps CBIRF Teams and
civilian first responders
across the country and
worldwide.
Contact us at:
1-800-598-9711 or
www.imresponse.com
Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO CBD):
KD Analytical helps CBRNE responders
reduce service costs without compromising
readiness. KD Maintenance Management
provides one-call, 24x7x365 support and
repair service for all CBRNE instruments
regardless of manufacturer. ReadiTrakTM, our
cloud-based, instrument management tool,
enables your team to resolve issues quickly,
reducing downtime and costly repairs.When
combined with our rigorous equipment and
tactical training, both your team and your
instruments will be ready to carry out realworld operations with increased confidence.
Landauer, is the world’s largest radiation
dosimetry service provider utilizing the
proprietary OSL technology found in
Luxel+, InLight and most recently, RadWatch
for emergency response. Both RadWatch
and InLight are a turnkey onsite analysis
system that meets personnel monitoring
and emergency response requirements.
Dosimeters have dose of record capabilities
with NVLAP and DOELAP.
LION is a world-renown manufacturer of
personal protective equipment for fire
fighters and other first responders.
Offering a full line of CBRN protective
ensembles, LION is able to meet the
mission-specific needs of fire, law
enforcement and military organizations
who require peace-of-mind protection
against some of the world’s most
dangerous threats.
Morphix Technologies is an innovator in
color change technology. Morphix developed
the Chameleon® with a grant from the US
Navy managed by MarCorSysCom. Morphix
has revolutionized colorimetric technology
to be rugged, resilient and water resistant.
Additionally, Morphix offers HME detectors
and Time/Temperature indicators for military
and commercial applications.
MRIGlobal, a not-for-profit research and
development organization, delivers global
solutions in energy and environment,
national security and defense, life and
animal sciences, agriculture and food safety,
and transportation. The organization
performs scientific research, advanced
engineering and program integration and
management for clients in government,
industry and academia.
The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)
operates as the Navy's full-spectrum
corporate laboratory, conducting a broadly
based multidisciplinary program of scientific
research and advanced technological
development directed toward maritime
applications of new and improved materials,
techniques, equipment, systems and ocean,
atmospheric, space sciences and related
technologies.The Laboratory, with a total
complement of nearly 2,500 personnel, is
located in southwest
Washington, DC, with
other major sites at
the Stennis Space
Center, MS; and
Monterey, CA.
NBC Sys: Our range of products cover
detection (chemical and biological),
individual and collective protection (gas
masks, filtering canisters, air conditioning
and filtration onboard vehicles or in ships)
as well as decontamination (aircraft,
vehicles, sensitive equipment and persons).
With 80% of its workforce comprising of
technicians and
engineers, NBC
Sys can rely on a
range of expertise.
The OHD Quantifit® Complete fit test in
2-3 minutes!! The Quantifit’s Controlled
Negative Pressure technology (CNP)
directly measures leakage at the face-toface piece seal.The stand-alone option
includes on-board storage of up to 500 fit
tests, a keyboard, USB printer connection,
USB memory stick port, and a simpler
user interface.
Over the past 50 years, ORTEC has
successfully developed, tested, and deployed
products that are designed for critical
applications requiring detection and
identification of radiation and nuclear threats.
In that time advances have revolutionized the
security applications where HPGe
technology can be deployed. From
Radiological Emergencies to Security
Monitoring, ORTEC keeps you covered.
Pathsensors: Incorporating the CANARY
Technology, the BioFlash-E® Biological
Agent Collector and Identifier provides
rapid, sensitive and specific identification of
biological threat agents.The portable and
compact BioFlash-E® Biological collector
and identifier offers breakthrough
capabilities in sampling performance,
reliability and operational cost.
Paul Boye is a worldwide leader in research
and development and mass production of
CBRN/F protective suits and offers complete
range products to meet the requirements of
armed forces and civil defence (soldiers,
decontamination experts, aircraft pilots,
special forces, police, military police, medical
personnel, fire fighters). Used in 38 countries
and by international organisations such as
UNO, OPCW, IAEA, and NATO.
Pine Bluff Arsenal is a world leader in the
design, manufacture, renovation and
demilitarization of smoke, riot control, and
incendiary munitions, as well as chemical and
biological defensive items. PBA is the only
facility in North America with the capability
of filling white phosphorus munitions, and is
a government-owned and operated
installation under the
command of the U.S.
Army Joint Munitions
Command.The
Arsenal is one of the
largest industrial
employers in
Jefferson County,
Arkansas.
Mission: Provide Research, Development,
Acquisition Fielding and Life-Cycle Support of
Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
Defense Equipment, Medical Countermeasures
and Installation and Force Protection Integrated
Capabilities Supporting the National Strategies.
Vision:An Agile, Results-Oriented, and
Transformational Acquisition Enterprise
Delivering Net-Centric, Modular;Tailorable and
Multi-Purpose Capabilities to the Nation.
www.jpeocbd.osd.mil
Exhibitors – to exhibit please contact david.levitt@cbrneworld.com
Polimaster is a recognized world-leader in
the development and manufacturing of
professional instruments for monitoring,
detecting, locating and identifying nuclear
and radioactive materials.We provide a
complete line of solutions for radiation
control equipment including: world-class
radiation portal monitors, electronic
dosimeters, personal radiation detectors,
hand-held radiation monitors and
radionuclide identifiers.
Proengin has developed biological and
chemical warfare agents field detectors
using flame spectrometry: AP4C-handheld
chemical detector for CWA,TICS and
other (Novichok), AP4C-V aboard wheeled
and tracked reconnaissance vehicles,
AP4C-F-on critical buildings and ships,
MAB-for biological alarm, AP4C-FB-for full
CBRN detection.
QuickSilver Analytics, Inc. is an ISO 90012008 registered Service Disabled Veteran
Owned Small Business. Our core business
is the design, development, manufacture
and distribution of forensic quality CBRE
Sampling Kits. QS produces chemical,
biological, radiological, explosive, food, Bird
Flu; kits used in the space program and kits
used for VIP mail screening.
RAE Systems innovates, designs and
manufactures gas sensors and radiation
detectors and offers a full line of fixed
transportable and portable gas/radiation
detectors for real-time safety and threat
detection. RAE Systems products are used
in more than 120 countries by many of the
world’s leading corporations and
government agencies.
Visit www.raesystems.com
Remploy Frontline’s core business is the
design, development, manufacture and
supply of CBRN PPE to Civil and Military
markets around the world.We work
closely with a range of World Class
suppliers and Testing Houses within the
Industry to provide customers with a
bespoke solution to complex CBRN PPE
standards.Visit www.remployfrontline.com
for more information.
Rigaku Raman Technologies, a division of
Rigaku Corporation, located in San Jose,
California.We are global leaders in the
development, manufacturing and sales of
handheld instrumentation. Designed to be
taken into the factory, warehouse or out in
the filed for real-time, fast sample
measurements. FirstGuard models are 21
CFR Part 11 compliant and available in
three different excitation wavelengths 532
nm, 785 nm, and 1064 nm depending on
your application.
Saint Gobain CBRN protective equipment.
ONESuit® product line certified to NFPA
and EN943-1/2 standards — comfort,
affordability and flash fire protection. NFPA
certified ONEGlove® Hazmat one-piece
gloves offer unsurpassed dexterity and
protection. New Coretech® barrier
technology - the most advanced chemical
protective fabric - providing affordable
solutions for CBRN shelters, containment,
and PPE.
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.
www.scottsafety.com
Smiths Detection leads the global military
and emergency response marketplace with
specialized chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) detection
and protection solutions. Our advanced,
accurate and trusted solutions enable armed
forces and responders to mitigate incidents
with confidence as they seek to reduce risks
and minimize potential losses associated with
growing CBRNE threats.
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. SRC helps to protect our
nation and its warfighters from chem-bio
attacks with innovative defense systems
and knowledge products.
STERIS provides complete technology
solutions for decontamination of chemical
and biological weapon agents and infectious
organisms. STERIS offers liquid and gaseous
chem-bio decontaminants and delivery
systems developed in collaboration with
the U.S. Department of Defense for
sensitive equipment, land vehicles, buildings,
interiors and exteriors of aircraft, and
miscellaneous exterior surfaces.
Tex-Shield is the exclusive U.S. licensee of
the unique SARATOGA® chemical
protective technology. 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.
Thermo Scientific handheld chemical
identification tools are field-ready
instruments that deliver precise and
actionable intelligence to military, law
enforcement and other first responders
around the world. Products include
FirstDefender® RM, FirstDefender RMX,
TruDefender® FT and TruDefender FTi for
solid and liquid chemical identification and
TruNarc™ for narcotics identification.
Thermo Scientific radiation measurement
and security instruments are field-ready
tools that deliver precise and actionable
intelligence to military, law enforcement
and other first responders around the
world. Products include the RadEye® line
of hand held detectors, RadSPEC, Packeye
and the new RIIDEye® line of instruments
for radiation isotope identification.
www.thermoscientific.com/rmp
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.
Trojan Defense is the designer and developer
FlipzChipz™, a solid-state neutron sensor
for global detection and attribution of
plutonium-239, and related wireless
communication and GPS tracking solutions.
Since 1961,TSI has provided
instrumentation to industry, government,
and researchers.TSI specializes in creating
instrumentation for the safety, comfort and
health of people and is a leading supplier
of Respiratory Fit Testing, Industrial
Hygiene/Exposure Monitoring, IAQ and
Ventilation Testing and Balance direct
reading, portable instruments.
U.S.Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA)
CMA is the executive agent for assessment
and disposal of recovered chemical warfare
materiel, developing and deploying
assessment and treatment technologies.
CMA securely stores the U.S. chemical
weapon stockpiles, while its Chemical
Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program
works with
federal, state and
local emergency
management
officials to
protect the
surrounding
communities.
Veteran Corps of America delivers
training and sustainment of safety, security
and technology equipment, services and
supplies. Core competencies include
CBRNe threat detection and protective
equipment, tactical communications,
training and IT technical support. Key
customers include :US Army, US Air Force,
National Guard Bureau, Department of
Veterans Affairs and Department of
Homeland Security.
W. L. Gore & Associates, inventor of
GORE-TEX® Products, has a long tradition
of providing high-performance fabrics that
offer the ultimate protection in demanding
applications while increasing the user’s
functional capability. Gore has now
focused its broad expertise towards
GORE™ CHEMPAK™ Products, offering
functional effectiveness in chemical and
biological environments.
FlipzChipz™ is the core of a distributed
neutron sensor network that enables
attribution of WMD while substantially
decreasing false
alarms via The
Global Neutron
Grid™
CBRNeWORLD
Col. Leszek Slomka, Chief of the CBRN Defense Training Centre of the Polish
Armed Forces, gives CBRNe World a summary of CBRN protection at EURO 2012
All kicking off!
T
he opening match at the
National Stadium in Warsaw was
the official start of the UEFA
European Football Championship,
EURO 2012. It was the most
important test for all the responsible
support and security services during
the competition. At the beginning of
the football tournament, the Polish
Armed Forces played an important
part securing this project. The main
purpose of selected military units
(capabilities) was to support the
civilian services in situations where
the use of existing capabilities, such as
first responders, and other resources
wouldn’t be sufficient. According to
previous assumptions, the tournament
operated with the support of four
military components, which were
deployed in the main hosting cities:
Warsaw, Wroclaw, Gdansk and Poznan.
Each was composed of unique
capabilities, including a liaison group,
chemical and radiological
reconnaissance and decontamination
teams, sampling teams,
epidemiological response teams,
biological reconnaissance teams,
medical evacuation teams,
microbiological and epidemiological
laboratories, EOD patrols, as well as
the staff responsible for logistical
support and transportation. Military
components included nearly 600
specialists and 200 pieces of various
specialised equipment in total. In
addition, the military staff were
authorised to monitor the situation
and assess potential threats including
CBRN. Another important task was to
support local governments, which
involved nearly 30 liaison officers and
other experts from medical and
counter-epidemic teams, biological
reconnaissance, as well as sanitary
and veterinary teams – all located in
other cities such Krakow, Rzeszów
and Lublin.
The Chief of General Staff within the
Crisis Management Centre was
responsible for the involvement of all the
Polish Armed forces involved in securing
the tournament, the Crisis Management
Center also took the the role of MoD
Operational Centre. It became the main
body responsible for co-ordinating the
activities of the Ministry of National
Defence. The duty staff within the Centre
were available on a 24/7 basis and served
from the beginning of 2011. They were
responsible for the exchange of
information and co-operation with
entities outside the Polish Armed Forces.
In addition, during the tournament,
the Air Force and Navy unit were
responsible for security of the airspace
and maritime border. An additional
1,200 soldiers and 200 pieces of
equipment were placed on standby and
were intended to strengthen the air
defence system. Apart from the
additional duty pairs, F-16 in the host
cities were coordinated with the
antimissile system ‘Fire Team’s’ missile
squadrons.
As you can see from the presented
summary, a great deal of importance
was attached to the security of CBRN
and the provision of security in the
stadiums and fan zones. Also, great
attention was paid to the protection of
the local population.
One of the interesting solutions
used during the EURO 2012
tournament to strengthen the CBRN
Defence system was stand–off detection
systems, such as Lidar, to detect
biological agents as well as pollutants
and hazardous substances in the air.
The Lidar was mounted on the 27th
floor of the highest building in Warsaw,
namely the Palace of Culture and
Science. The system allowed us to make
immediate diagnoses of aerosols/vapour
in the air and to determine possible
areas of contamination and their
direction of movement. It was operated
by experts from the Institute of
Optoelectronics (Military University of
Technology). In fact, they used both a
short-range (up to 0.7 km) and longrange (up to 5 km) systems to monitor,
in real-time, areas of the national
stadium and fan zone. The measures
taken to prevent biological risks also
involved ground biological
reconnaissance teams as a part of a
component (set). Moreover, specialised
units of Fire Service were equipped with
mobile laboratories and remote
detectors to conduct chemical detection
of identified threats in key areas. The
first responders (firemen) were
supported by military specialists from
4th CHEM Regiment. They were
equipped with automatic devices to
©Bertin
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
32
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
detect chemical warfare agents.
Radiological detection system required
many parties to be organised and
establish proper methods of conduct.
Before each match, and during the
event, radiometric control at the
National Stadium was conducted. The
radiation level was constantly
monitored in the fan zones. All actions
related to radiological threats involving
specialised units from the Police, Border
Guard and the Department of
Radioactive Waste. All of the issues were
coordinated by the National Atomic
Energy Agency, with the help of the
CEZAR Centre. The Centre was
responsible for continuously monitoring
of the level of radioactive contamination
on Polish territory.
There were a number of false
alarms, for example hydrogen sulphide
was detected in one of the fan zones,
fortunately its source derived from the
emptying (cleaning) of portable toilets.
In another instance, during a match at
the National Stadium, the radiation
system detected elevated radiation
background and identified the source
as one of the fans. It turned out that
he was currently having a course of
radiotherapy, so the detector flagged a
person, who two days before the
match, came into intimate contact
with a radiation contrast fluid for
medical purposes.
In initial assessing the performance
of our OPBMR [Defense Against
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Polish,
Ed.] system, which was developed to
support the EURO 2012 competition it
can be concluded that the specialised
components such as Land, Air and Navy,
worked well. It is crucial to note that, in
order to successfully complete our
mission, we were required to properly
task our efforts and maintain a civilmilitary co-ordination in all matters
related to the CBRN threat.
A range of stand off detectors were used, including Second Sight ©Bertin
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
33
CBRNeWORLD
Jesse Garrick takes a look at the current state of
internal radiation countermeasures
The Enemy Within
I
n the period between the Cold War and the arguably ‘stillnot-warm’ present, research on internal radiation
countermeasures (following a nuclear attack or industrial
accident for example) was slow to develop. The contemporary
laxity evident in this area of disaster response can be attributed
to many things: the research momentum of ex-Soviet countries
waned after dissolution; the threat of the terrorist ‘dirty’ bomb
remained negligible; international legislation was drawn up in
an attempt to preclude nuclear war; and the cost/benefit ratio
of developing these drugs was, and still is, unattractive to
industry. A lot of faith was put into the development of
Prussian Blue, but arguably at the expense of new alternatives.
Fortunately, new research efforts are beginning to emerge: the
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority
(Barda) made a broad agency accouncement in 2011 for five
new radiological countermeasures. Other organisations have
also increased their efforts: the Nato Research and Technology
Organisation (RTO) currently presides over a task group (HFM222) that conducts research on ‘Ionizing Radiation Bioeffects
and Countermeasures’; other notable developments include
research on new drugs such as 5-androstenediol (5-AED,
Neumune), genistein (BIO300), Ex-Rad and CBLB502.
The fact remains however, that few people have died
directly as a result of exposure to radiation, relative to chemical
or biological hazards and outbreaks, which makes drumming
up interest in mitigating radiological incorporation very
difficult. As Stuart Arm points out in Nuclear Energy: A Vital
Component of Our Energy Future, “Apart from Chernobyl, no
nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a
result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear
reactor incident.” There have been thousands of secondary,
post-fallout deaths related to non-industrial radiation exposure,
particularly in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and there
have been a small number of reported deaths in the case of
accidental, non-industrial radiation exposure such as those
related to the Goiânia incident in Brazil, 1987. But, whilst all
these historical precedents no doubt weigh heavily on the
minds of government health departments, they have not
amounted to enough of a bow wave to prompt large-scale and
international research efforts to mitigate heavy, radioactive
fallout from either industrial or military incidents.
Notwithstanding the fact that Barda and other
organisations were actively pursuing radiological research at
the time (see CBRNe World April, 2012), the 2011 nuclear
accidents in Fukushima, Japan, undeniably prompted a
renewed focus on the importance ofinternal radiation
countermeasures around the world, but particularly in the US
where most of the funding resides.. Prevailing research efforts
continue to focus on the development of oral, pill-form
therapeutics that trap radionuclides and decorporate them by
way of natural excretion. The leading exponent of this research
has been Prussian Blue, which Heyltex has been supplying
under the Radiogardase brand. Dr Johann Ruprecht, Head of
their Scientific Department told me, “Radiogardase is indicated
for decorporation, or avoidance of the resorption, of radiactive
cesium (e.g., 134Cs and 137Cs).” The Bioactinide Group at the
Glenn T. Seaborg Center are also at the pre-clinical stages of
developing an oral drug that, according to Dr Rebecca Abergel,
Head of the Group, “targets actinides such as plutonium,
uranium, americium, but not cesium.” There have also been
notable developments outside of the US and Nato. There has
even been talk of the Indian DRDO developing a herbal antiradiation prophylaxis from the Himalayan plants Podophyllium
hexandrum and Hippophae rhamnoides. These developments
have some way to go before their respective clinical trials and
approvals, but what is clear is that these treatments, along with
5-androstenediol (5-AED, Neumune), genistein (BIO300), ExRad and CBLB502, represent part of the puzzle of internal
radiation decontamination.
There are a number of governmental and commercial
research agencies working on different approaches and
targeting different radioactive isotopes. Where they converge
and diverge remind us that collaborative research is more
important than ever. As Dr Ruprecht put it: “There is no
universal antidote which is effective at internal contamination
with all radionuclides. The suitable antidote must be selected
for each individual case and the therapy given depending on
the incorporated radionuclide.”
Until now, the standard therapeutic for plutonium,
americium or curium contamination has been an intravenous
injection of Ca-DTPA, also known as Pentetate Calcium
Trisodium [Doctors need better acronym monkeys! Ed.]. It still
exists but is ineffective inasmuch as it only partially removes
radionuclides from a contaminated body. For depleted uranium
exposure, which is more than likely in the case of nuclear war,
WHO has historically recommended, “a slow intravenous
transfusion of isotonic 1.4% sodium bicarbonate to increase
excretion.” Both of these solutions lack applicability to masscasualty scenarios, because injections are simply too
complicated and expensive to distribute to large numbers of
people. They must also be administered by a medical
professional, whereas pills can be taken without assistance.
Worryingly, new drugs are still being optimised for intravenous
injection. According to Onconova, the manufacturer of Ex-Rad,
“Ex-RAD is formulated for injection, and an oral formulation
for broader use is currently being developed.” In addition to the
problems attendant on the administration of these drugs,
which must be taken into account during their production, the
cost of developing them – as for chemical and biological agents
– is extraordinarily high.
“The most obvious difficulties in the research of
countermeasures such as Radiogardase are the costs of
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
34
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
development,” said Dr Ruprecht. “Antidotes are drugs and
therefore subject to numerous legal requirements. There are
few patients which can be included in a study [...] therefore
the efficacy of an antidote can only be demonstrated in animal
experiments and in case reports. [Also] due to their
inclination, antidotes are usually needed in small quantities.
This makes it difficult to earn the costs for the development
and approval, but also the ongoing costs which have to be paid
to maintain approval.”
The only way to feasibly develop and distribute these drugs
effectively is if the threat of radiation exposure is significant
enough to divert attention from other threats such as
biological and chemical agents and consequently drum up
public support. In this instance funding streams quickly open
up and pharma leads are easier to acquire. When asked how the
Bioactinide Group at the Berkleley Lab intended to extend their
research and conduct clinical trials without a pharma lead, Dr
Abergel replied: “Right now we are moving forward with US
government funding and it’s significant but not at the same
level as you would find with a pharmaceutical company. So we
are moving forward but at a slower level than we could. We
have seen some interest from different, small pharmas,
especially in California and the rest of the US. What is clear
though is that there is a lot of money needed to the get to
those clinical trials, because we are dealing with such
hazardous materials and we have to do so many studies to
reach approval from the FDA.”
In the US, the approval of new medical drugs falls within
the remit of the Food and Drugs Agency (FDA), whilst the
European Medicines Agency (EMA) is responsible for the
approval of drugs in all EU and European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) states (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).
A Nato-based approval process for medical countermeasures
might bridge this gap for the military and act as a catalyst on
civilian authorities to adopt similar measures. There are
already Nato-led research projects on radiation
decontamination such as HFM-222, but strengthening their
ability to bridge the initial research to clinical trials gap, even if
they are required to co-operate with international approval
bodies, may well lessen the financial burden on small
pharmaceuticals, where economies of scale for these drugs are
virtually non-existent. The standardisation of medical approval
processes for radiation countermeasures will likely be
prohibited by the protectionist tendencies of some states,
which may restrict approval on the basis of national,
commercial interests. This, among other barriers, makes
streamlining the approval process far more complex than it
might otherwise be. Nonetheless, if the economic advantages of
shared research outweigh the economic benefits of restricting
them for the research nations themselves, particularly the US,
they this argument may soon become an attractive one.
In addition toreducing the cost of maintaining approval
once it is given, an international strategy must be developed to
increase public awareness of radiological threats. “In the US”
said Dr Abergel, “people tend to think that industrial workers
are safe and that we won’t need a therapeutic [...] there’s
definitely market potential if you consider all the countries that
could be targeted by a terrorism threat or those that are
increasing their nuclear power consumption, but it’s still new
in peoples’ minds.” Fukushima will have gone some way to
reminding people of the fragility of nuclear power
consumption, indeed there was a surge in demand for iodine in
San Francisco in the immediate aftermath of the incident, but
seeing images of nuclear fallout thousands of miles away
clearly has a limited effect on the hearts and minds of most
people, despite the fact that they may live within miles of a
nuclear reactor (there are 16 in the UK and 104 in the US).
Along with public awareness, governments may do well to fully
comprehend the academic and economic benefits of intergovernmental research funding (as per Nato) and the
standardisation of what is a lengthy and partisan approval
process. There are platforms for co-operative funding for antiradiation therapeutics everywhere, and in light of the fact that
few existing treatments compete with one another, i.e., they are
complimentary treatments that target different radioactive
isotopes, there is equal scope for collaborative research and
standardisation too.
“Just give it 30 minutes, I don’t know what I ate” ©DoD
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
35
CBRNeWORLD
Gwyn Winfield* looks at the recent ‘VX’ spill in Bryansk and
wonders what we have learned from it
Watching the
I
t’s difficult to know where to start
with this story. Often the best place
to begin anything is with a fact,
though it’s fair to say that there are very
few unimpeachable facts to be found
here. So, instead of starting with a fact,
let’s simply start at the beginning.
On the 27th (or maybe 26th…) of
July, 2012, at the Pochel 2 military
demilitarisation facility in Pochep,
Bryansk, Russia, there was a spill of
‘VX’ – an oddity in this story is that all
the media Novaya Gazeta, Moscow
News etc, claim that the substance was
VX (a Nato nomenclature), rather than
the expected Substance 33 (or R-33).
The spill was not made public until the
31st July. If there is a little haziness
about whether any of the above is fact,
the next bit is where the divergence
between truth and conjecture really
gathers pace.
Life News and News.RU led with
the fact that there had been six tons of
agent released, though sometimes in
the same story, depending on who they
were speaking to, this became 40-50
kilogrammes or pounds (lbs). Early
versions of the story (and thanks to
the wonders of the internet the factual
iridescence of this story continues to
shift) suggested that the facility had
soon become overwhelmed, “Here we
need scientists, but they do not work
for me at the factory,” they quoted Lt.
Col. Kosarev, and that the clean up
crews had been overwhelmed by the
scale of the spill. Despite statements
saying that none, or one, or even two,
had been hurt (or hospitalised), it
appeared that the clean up crews were
sent in without suits and with negative
pressure respirators (as opposed to
SCBA/PAPR) and required filter
cartridge changes every twenty
minutes. This general picture then
changed to standard respirators, L-1
lightweight suits and a revolving
workforce of (maybe) military
personnel. A worker was quoted as
saying: “There was a technical safety
breach. Maybe this accident did not
threaten the local population, but
when we were cleaning up the
aftermath, they continued to use
normal people. That has a negative
effect on their health.”
Anyone with an ounce of CWA
knowledge will start to wonder about
this story. A significant amount of VX
will have an emotional impact on the
surrounding countryside. The garrison
village is only five kilometres from the
site, and the weather on the 27th (and
26th) was a hot 30oC with a light NNW
breeze, which (using both Wiser and
Aloha) would have spread a significant
health hazard to the surrounding area.
Anyone opting not to use dermal
protection would have had a very bad
day and even the L-1 suits might have
proved inadequate at the leak site.
Notwithstanding the fine detail, this
story can be boiled down to three
possibilities: first, it wasn’t VX, the
decon procedure had already started
and it had been pushed into
something less toxic; second, it was
VX, but it wasn’t as large a spill as
suggested; and third, it was VX, it was
a large spill, and there are far more
people killed and wounded than we
currently know of.
To put you out of your misery, and
to insert what appears to be the closest
thing to a fact, it is the second
possibility, i.e., there was a spill of VX,
but it was not as large as suggested.
The reason we ‘know’ this? Five OPCW
inspectors were based there. The
LifeNews article first suggested this
possibility, with a quote from Kosarev
saying the inspectors turned up two
days after the spill and couldn’t find a
trace of the release. Mike Luhan,
OPCW Spokesman and Head of Media
and Public Affairs, confirmed this:
“Our inspectors were on-site at the
time and submitted a detailed report
on the incident. Without going into
details of the report, we can describe it
as a minor incident that was quickly
contained and caused no health and
safety concerns for our inspection
team. The leakage/spill occurred
within the toxic area and was handled
in a very professional and efficient
manner by site personnel.”
Denial always sets off the
journalistic bells, especially when
related to the country that delights in
the kind of “CBRN? Nothing to See
Here!” stance of Chernobyl and
Sverdlovsk. It appeared that Russian
officials would like us to believe that
this is yet another incident in which
there is nothing to see. Digging
around in Russia during the summer
is a fruitless task, with people either in
their dacha or pretending to be in
their dacha and not answering
questions. Yet the good people at
Green Cross, specifically Dr Paul F.
Walker, Director, Environmental
Security and Sustainability were
around. Dr Walker was able to provide
corroboration on the spill, and
confirmed OPCW statements that it
involved a small spill that was quickly
dealt with. “The accident occurred at
Pochep in the Bryansk Oblast.” he
said. “This stockpile holds 7,500
metric tons (officially 7,498.158 MTs)
of nerve agents in large aerial bombs
and spray tanks. Russia has reported
that, as of March 12th, 2012, it had
destroyed 10,144 munitions (15.1%) of
67,079 munitions declared at Pochep;
it has destroyed 2,263 metric tons of
agent (30.2%) of 7,498 MTs declared at
Pochep. These figures include 6,587
spray tanks destroyed (of 6,587
declared), 3,557 500kg aerial bombs
(of 13,168 declared) and no 150kg
bombs. The Pochep facility started
destruction operations in November,
2010, although its original opening
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
36
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Watchmen!
date was projected for early 2008,
almost three years earlier. News
reports indicate that a number of
facility workers may have been injured
by the spill, though informed sources
tell me that the accident was a ‘minor
spill’. There is no public information
on the status of the Russian workers,
nor any accurate information on how
much agent and/or neutralised agent
was actually spilled.”
Coincidentally, GB vapour was
detected at the Blue Grass facility in
Kentucky, US, on August 6th. This
story made the US papers in all the
required detail. None were hurt,
largely because the detection was done
during the weekly headwall
monitoring and the cause was the
perennially leaking M55 rockets.
Compare this with the Russian event,
where there was a confused, changing
picture and the best source is the
OPCW, which has made a report of the
leak but this is confidential and only
released with the approval of the state
party, which is unlikely to be given.
This all begs the questions: how often
does this happen in Russia, is this only
a story because it happened in the
quiet summer months, and does it
pose larger questions? There were five
days between the spill and the
announcement of it, so on-site
inspectors clearly felt no need to make
an announcement, to encourage
Russian officials to do the same, or to
reassure the population. The question
has to be if a CBRN vessel leaks, and
there is ‘no-one’ around to see it, does
it actually leak?
There is a certain amount of
inevitable reticence involved when
criticising Russia, which has been
equally critical of the funding drying
up from the international community,
and that as long the process continues
in the right direction then there is
nothing to complain about. Currently
there have been no (attributable)
deaths due to a release in either the US
or Russian programs, which is clearly a
safety record to be proud of. Also, the
OPCW has been quiet on accountability
in Russia and much of this is down to a
need to keep the State Party calm (and
similar quietude was seen in the case
of South Korea and India). This
encourages a belief that everything is
broadly ok. It is analogous to the
owner of a car that is petrified of it
breaking down and thinks: as long as
the vehicle is going in the right
direction then the speed and the weird
sounds it makes are less important.
This recent spill can be seen as
one of the weird rattles emitted by
the demil vehicle – the true causes of
which may not always be obvious to
the driver, but everything still seems
to be fine. Recently there has been a
disastrous decline in international
interest in chemical demil and this
has been accelerated by the economic
downturn. Germany continues to
fund programs; indeed, Pochep is one
of their projects, but the US, Canada
and the UK are scaling back funding,
especially in Russian CW destruction
(the UK, for example, has withdrawn
funding for the annual demil
conference). Green Cross had been an
additional brake on poor safety and
security, and provided greater
international visibility, yet their
dozen or so local and regional offices,
in places such as Pochep, have been
shut down after Global Partnership
funding was withdrawn. It is not just
a shortage of funding that has been
the problem: Green Cross offices, in
places such as Shchuch'ye, Kurgan
and Chelyabinsk were closed down by
Russian pressure, which the US
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program acquiesced with. I don’t
have an axe to grind with Green
Cross, after all agencies can fall in
and out of favour/funding for good
reason as much as bad. But it is
disappointing that CTR chose not to
improve the situation with a similar,
international agency.
This recent news story has been
sensationalist, of that there is little
doubt, do I feel, however, that this is
not symptomatic of what would be
seen if there had been a significant
spill – a dry run (if you’ll pardon the
pun)? All the elements are coalescing:
Russian obscurantism seems to be
increasing at a rate directly
proportional to the drying up of
international funding and the age of
their munitions; the OPCW’s job is
not to criticise but get the job done;
and international organisations, such
as Green Cross (that could provide
independent verification or criticism)
are being shut down. When we
compare the level of information and
concern over the Kentucky spill with
that of Bryansk, the two seem very
disparate. The US response filled the
international community with
confidence that should the same, or
larger, incident happen again it would
not be a threat to locals and regional
neighbours. My concern is that as the
international community loses
interest – which has been a Russian
complaint for years and is now more
justified than ever – then Russia’s
safety record will fall hostage to their
continuing elimination program (‘Just
get rid of them!’). With the facility in
Kizner still to be operational, Russia
meeting their deadline of 31/12/15
looks optimistic, and many are
expecting the schedule to be extended
by two to three years. Here’s hoping
that none of those ‘rattles’ result in
something serious while we are
looking the other way…
*Additional Reporting from Howard
Gethin in Moscow
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
37
CBRNeWORLD
Dr Ali Karami,Associate Professor of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
at the Baqyiatallah University of Medical Science, talks to Dr Shahriar Khateri,
Co-founder of the Society for Iranian Chemical Weapons Victims Support
Long Legacy
AK: Could you please introduce
yourself for our readers?
SK: I am a physician and currently work
for Janbazan Medical and Engineering
Research Center (JMERC) as the head of
a research group for CW victims.
JMERC is under the organisation for
veterans and war victims. Concurrently,
I am volunteering for the Society for
Chemical Weapons Victims Support
(SCWVS), which is a Tehran-based NGO.
AK: Can you tell us about the history
of chemical attacks against Iran, i.e., to
what origin can that history be traced
to and what type of chemical weapons
did Iraqi forces first use against
Iranians?
SK: During the eight-year war between
Iran and Iraq (1980-1988), Iraqi forces
employed chemical weapons extensively
against Iranian targets, including both
military personnel and civilians in
border towns and villages. The agents
used by the Iraqis fell into two major
categories based on chemical
composition and casualty-producing
effects. The most frequently used
compounds were organophosphate
neurotoxins, known as nerve agent
Tabun and Sarin; mustard gas was also
used extensively.
Iraqi troops are reported to have
used vomiting agents during their
initial, smaller attacks in 1981. They
then employed chemical weapons in
August, 1983, on the Piranshahr and
Haj-Omaran battlefields, and later in
November, 1983, on the Panjvien
battlefield.
The first extensive chemical attack
by Iraqi troops was carried out in
March, 1984, when they used tonnes of
sulfur mustard and nerve agents against
Iranian soldiers on the Majnoon Islands
battlefields (along the southern border).
Afterward, extensive employment of
chemical weapons by Iraqi troops in
March, 1985, led to huge Iranian
casualties – both soldiers and volunteer
combatants. The chemical attacks
continued until the last days of the war
in August, 1988. It is estimated that
more than 350 large-scale gas attacks
took place along the Iran-Iraq border
between 1980 to 1988.
AK: Did you have any capability at that
time to manage the casualties, such as
NBC support teams, doctors and other
specialists?
SK: At the beginning of the gas attacks
there was insufficient knowledge and
capability to cope with the problem, but
the Iranian army rapidly developed
special units for detection,
decontamination and medical
management of chemical casualties.
They also provided protection
equipment for soldiers. Because of the
sanctions that were in place at the time,
it was not easy to import individual
protective equipment (IPE) of good
quality. Later they managed to produce
Iranian gas masks and other protection
equipment of superior quality.
AK: What about chemical attacks on
civilians?
SK: The Iraqi regime not only used
chemical weapons against military
targets, but frequently targeted civilian
residential areas, especially in the
border towns and villages. According to
official reports, there were more than 30
chemical attacks against Iranian, and
some Iraqi Kurdish, non-military
targets. The main attacks were:
• Sardasht (28 June, 1987).
• Villages around the city of Marivan
(March, 1988)
• Halabja, with the massacre of more
than 5,000 civilians (16th of March,
1988).
• Villages around the cities of Sarpol-e
Zahab, Gilan-e-gharb and Oshnavieh
(May–Jun, 1988).
Even some medical centers and field
hospitals were targeted by chemical
munitions, which resulted in high
casualties among medical personnel.
AK: What types of chemical agents
were used during these eight years?
SK: The most recent and accurate
description of the chemical weapons
used by Iraqi forces during the conflict
is the 2003 United Nations Monitoring
Verification & Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) report. This document
estimates that 1,800 metric tonnes of
mustard gas, 140 tonnes of Tabun and
over 600 tonnes of Sarin were used
against Iran, using munitions that
included approximately 19,500 aerial
bombs, 54,000 artillery shells and
27,000 short-range rockets. An
estimated 1,000,000 Iranians, both
military and civilian, were exposed to
chemical warfare agents. More than
100,000 Iranians were documented to
have received emergency medical care
for chemical injuries. Half of those
injuries were moderate to severe.
During the war, at least 7,500 Iranians
died directly and immediately from
chemical injuries (roughly 4,500 from
nerve or blood agents and 3,000 from
mustard agent). Since the end of the
war in 1988, several hundred have died
of chronic complications due to
mustard intoxication.
In 2012, more than 22 years after
the end of war, approximately 70,000
Iranians are registered as receiving care
for chronic effects from chemical
weapons injuries. Of these around
10,000 are civilians (including 4,000
women). An additional 25,000 civilians
(including 6,000 women) are estimated
to be currently affected by chemical
weapons injuries but not included in
the national registry.
AK: What type of medical problems did
you have during the war and after it?
SK: At the beginning of the gas attacks
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
38
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNe
2013
WORLD
Directory
November will see the launch of the CBRNe World
Directory: the only directory providing information on all
aspects of detection, identification and monitoring (DIM),
protection, decontamination, reconnaissance and medical
countermeasures. Edited by Gwyn Winfield and Stephen
Johnson, it has been designed by a stable of experts in
their field.
The CBRNe World Directory is available in two forms: an
online version and a two-volume print version. The print
version has over thirty roundups on all aspects of EOD,
CBRN and narcotics detection.
Unique Selling Points of the CBRNe World Directory
– Unique panel of subject matter experts drawn from
academia, government, military and civil sectors.
– All CBRN & EOD capabilities covered. e.g. detection,
protection, disruption, decon etc.
– The online version will be regularly updated
– Largest CBRNE directory on the market.
Subscription to online version comes with training and
standards resources, including additional tools and
resources to download at no additional cost.
directory@cbrneworld.com
www.cbrneworld.com/directory
CBRNeWORLD
Long Legacy
there was no trained medical system to
handle the chemical casualties,
particularly for mass casualties
managements, antidote therapy and
nursing for CW agents injuries. It took
time and hard work to train such
medical personnel and develop medical
facilities to cope with a problem that
had not been faced since WWI. Even
now, it is still a serious challenge for the
Iranian medical community to deal with
thousands of patients with exposure
related illnesses. Many of the late health
effects of exposure to sulfur mustard
have no cure and their natures are not
clearly known, thus no effective medical
treatment exists.
AK: There is an international
convention banning the production and
use of chemical weapons and IRI is
member of this convention. So what
international measures did you take to
prevent Iraq from using these banned
weapons?
SK: Iran asked the UN to take an
action to stop Iraq from using CW
agents, but there was no strong
reaction from the UN or other
international organisations. Following
requests by the Iranian Government,
UN specialist teams were sent to Iran
in March, 1984; April, 1985; February
to March, 1986; April, 1987; as well as
March, July and Aug, 1988. The
conclusions, based on field
inspections, clinical examinations of
casualties and laboratory analysis of
samples, were released as official UN
documents (S/16433, S/17127,
S/17911, S/18852, S/19823, S/20060 ,
S/20134). Based on the UN fact-finding
team's investigations, they confirmed
the use of mustard gas as well as nerve
agents against Iranians. The reports
were subsequently submitted to the
Security Council and two statements
were released on 13th March, 1984,
and 21st March, 1986, which
condemned the use of chemical
weapons. But neither of these
statements, nor Resolution 612 (May,
1988) or Resolution 620 (August,
1988), secured the cessation of
chemical weapons attacks by the Iraqi
regime that continued to violate
international law with impunity.
AK: What is the current situation of
CW injured patients in Iran?
SK: More than 70,000 CW victims are
registered by the government and
receive medical care. Many thousands
are not registered and need medical
care, and many had low-dose exposure
and may develop long-term health
effects in the future. Several of them
have died in recent years because of
respiratory failure, lung infection and
other diseases. The government has
provided full medical insurance and
medical support for all registered CW
victims. Sadly, there is almost no
contribution by international medical
communities and international
organisations to help the Iranian
medical community treat this huge
number of patients. One reason might
be that this humanitarian issue has
been over-shadowed by political issues.
AK: What is the situation regarding
Iran's current capability against
another possible chemical attacks,
from personal protection,
decontamination, prevention, treatment
and consequence managements?
SK: Iran has a unique level of
knowledge and experience when it
comes to dealing with CW attacks,
although I am now unaware of the
precise level of capability because the
military is in charge of the defense
system.
AK: What is the SCWVS doing in terms
of raising international awareness of
CW weapons?
SK: The SCWVS is a Tehran-based, nongovernmental organisation (NGO), that
was founded in 2003. It operates on a
national basis and many of its members
and their families are survivors of
chemical attacks. It has also many
volunteers with different backgrounds.
Recent activities and projects within the
SCWVS include the following:
• Conducting awareness programs in
order to increase public awareness on
the consequences of war and the use of
chemical weapons (and other weapons
of mass destruction).
• Providing advisory services to the
veterans and war victims organisation
and the government in fields related to
the CW victims
• Organising national and international
conferences addressing the medical,
environmental and social consequences
of the use of chemical weapons.
• Conducting oral history projects based
on eye witness accounts of the survivors
of CW attacks
• Increasing awareness in Iran and
internationally of the continuing health
effects of chemical warfare on both
civilians and veterans by preparing
educational materials on the topic in
Farsi, English and Japanese.
• Educating the Iranian and broader
international community on important
happenings within the framework of the
Chemical Weapons Convention.
• Organising and establishing the
Tehran Peace Museum (2005) as part of
an international network of peace
museums. Its mission is to raise
awareness of the consequences of war,
to promote citizen diplomacy and to
educate the public (especially
schoolchildren) on peaceful ways to
resolve conflict.
• Sending delegations of physicians and
CW victims to Hiroshima, Japan, each
August (from 2004) for the Peace
Memorial Ceremony, which
commemorates the 1945 atomic
bombing.
• Hosting annual (since June, 2004)
delegations from Hiroshima to Iran for
Iran’s National Day for Campaigning
Against Chemical Weapons. In 2007,
Japanese visitors toured sites of CW
attacks in Iran and attended the
opening ceremony of the Tehran Peace
Museum and the unveiling of the Peace
Memorial in Tehran City Park.
• Organising exhibitions on the
consequences of war and gas attacks,
such as the annual Chemical Weapons
Convention conferences at The Hague
(since 2003) and the the 90th
anniversary (2005) of the first attack at
Ypres, Belgium
AK: What is your future plan to fight
against use of these deadly weapons?
SK: We are dedicated to continue our
awareness program, expand our
international campaign against
weapons of mass destruction and to
support the CWC.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
40
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Gwyn Winfield looks behind the classroom doors of the
New York State Preparedness Training Center
State School
T
here is no doubt that training is
going to become more of a driver
for response forces throughout
the world. The global downturn in
grants and equipment will mean that
people are going to have to ‘do more
with less’. This much-abused phrase is
often glibly thrown around by
politicians and mandarins, who fail to
realise that doing more with less first
involves learning how to do so. There
isn’t a ‘Doing more with less’ manual
that has been lost under the sofa all
these years! This is why, to develop
multi-skilled individuals effectively,
courses need to be available where they
can learn the art.
The new New York State
Preparedness Training Center (SPTC) is
trying to develop multi-skilled
responders by bringing together teams
of individuals from different disciplines
– from New York State and beyond – to
run exercises and training that are
based on the concept of specialist
synergy. The center was previously a
local Airport (Oriskany for those that
need to know), until the process of
renovation to make it fit for the
education of first responders was
started. The initial phase of renovations
was finished in July, 2011. The SPTC
now covers over 720 acres, has
approximately six miles of runways/road
and the old terminal building, now
known as the Education and
Adminstration Building has an area of
15,000 square feet and is able to service
300+ students.
Compared to the Centre for
Domestic Preparedness (see CBRNe
World June, 2012), as well as other
facilities that are largely focussed on
CBRN or C-IED, the SPTC is more
generic. In other words, while the SPTC
will run CBRN missions, those missions
only represent part of the mix. In fact,
the final capability is still being
developed: some elements, such as the
airport terminal complex, the USAR
venue, the emergency vehicle operations
course (EVOC) and front entrance
improvements are finished, but the
simulation exercise complex (cityscape,
estates and camp grounds), the disaster
response village, the weapons training
complex, the field operations building
and the special operations response
team (SORT) facility are all in various
stages of completion.
James Clark, Deputy Counsel for the
Division and who oversees the
development of the SPTC, went into
further detail on the current state of the
site: “The initial focus was on
converting the airport terminal and
improving the front entrance, which are
both now complete. Then we turned our
attention to the EVOC course and
simulation exercise complex. The first
phase of that complex will be the
cityscape in building No. 5. The
simulation exercise complex will also
simulate a mobile home park for
various training purposes. The New
York State SORT team will be based out
there and we have a dedicated helipad
area for them. In terms of our progress,
we have completed improvements to
make to the EVOC; we have the field
operations building under construction;
we resurfaced runways; we also have
the disaster training area known as the
‘village’ under construction, which is
akin to something you would see if a
tornado occurred in a housing complex
of mobile homes; the USAR venue is
complete; and, finally, we have the
weapons training complex scheduled to
be built.”
©CBRNe World
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
41
CBRNeWORLD
State School
The field operations building will
be a 10,000 square foot facility with
offices, classrooms, driving simulators
and parking for the EVOC course. The
weapons training complex will be
composed of a mix of ranges and
interactive live-fire facilities. It will
provide a similar experience to live
gaming and, since it is all indoors,
permits training 24 hours a day for
365 days a year. The USAR facility was
built for the recent HRF certification
exercise (See CBRNe World, June,
2012) and is now complete. Also, the
team are looking to soon be able to
offer their simulation complex to both
traditional and non-traditional
responders. “The cityscape” said James
Clark, “will provide realistic base
training. Almost like a movie
backdrop, it will resemble a multidiscipline training venue which will
allow responders to learn in a realistic
and safe environment. The SPTC is a
large site. We will take it and turn it
into a realistic one, with store fronts
and lighting effects for example.
Students will have access to exterior
and interior spaces so we can train
irrespective of weather conditions.
The site also has all the necessary
special effects: cameras, video
playback, injection of sound, smoke
and lighting – all controlled from a
central location. There will be a
post-blast room for going in and
assessing whether a bomb has been
detonated, and we are planning to
detonate items of furniture in
another location and bring them
back and configure them in the
facility, so it will have the necessary
attributes that you would expect to
see in a real-life environment. We
will have a simulated high school
and there will also be a suburban
mall. Newest planned items are the
camp grounds for exterior, openspace training, the mobile home park
and the disaster village.”
While the team is keen to promote
this as a conventional/unconventional
first responder training facility,
personally it is difficult to escape the
feeling that it is a police training site.
The number and quality of firing
ranges seems geared to the tactical
The rubble pile is now operational ©CBRNe World
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
42
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
State School
officer, and while there are elements
for other responders they tend to be
the things, like rubble piles, that can
be found anywhere. So who does the
Center envisage as the expected
users? Rick Mathews, Director of the
National Center for Security &
Preparedness (NCSP) at the
University at Albany, State University
of New York, said that it was not just
aimed at police: “The actual users will
be the entire first response
community, i.e., police, emergency
medical, fire rescue and other
agencies. Although you see a lot of
law enforcement, they can be used for
rescue and ER and so forth. The only
thing designed for cops is the live-fire
shooting complex. Everything else is
very much about all the responders:
medical services, fire and law.
Everybody has pieces of it; no-one has
all of it. The Center focuses on
integrating the different types of
responder community into the
training – e.g., large/small
communities, fire, cops, medics – and
that is what happens in a real
environment. In most training
centres they are all segregated – fire
training with fire, medics there, cops
there and so on – but no one focusses
on the integrated, scenario-driven
training. That is the neat part.”
The trouble with challenging and
integrated training is that often the
challenge is only aimed at one
element, i.e., while Fire might be
dealing with a complex hazmat
scenario, for the police it is just
manning the cordon as usual.
Delivering exercises that challenge all
aspects equally eventually breaks
down into absurdity (‘...and then the
terrorists, with the hazmat truck full
of killer bees, crashes into the school
bus full of allergic children…’), but if
you are only challenging one element
of the force then it becomes difficult
to justify sending a large body of
people to stand around watching. Mr
Mathews felt that it was the range of
expert scenarios, especially at the
high end, that would bring people in:
“There are a few places where people
can go to validate their own training.
We have people from Washington DC,
State of Washington, Virginia, etc.,
that want to bring their units here to
train as there is nothing like this
anywhere in the country. They will
come here for training and to validate
their skills and competencies. We will
use high-end subject matter experts
and provide not only basic and
intermediate level but also high-end
level training. A lot of people do
basics, which we can do, and some do
intermediate, but few places bring the
integrated, cross-function teams in
and do high-end, consequence-driven
training with national SMEs.”
Integrated training is always
interesting. As noted, it needs to
tread a fine line between absurdity
and mundanity, but it also requires a
high degree of competence and
understanding from the team that is
undergoing it. For the NYC/NY State
individuals, there is little doubt that
the teaching staff will have this
knowledge, but for other states a lot
of preparation work is needed if it is
to truly test them in an integrated
way. “You are right,” said Rick
Mathews, “which is why the scenarios
that we have are done by experts or
expert organisations, and there needs
to be the science in WMD, whether C,
B, high-yield explosive or multiple
shooters. We have experts around the
country that are affiliated to us and
will provide that level of instruction.
We also do research into best practice
that has occurred. If something
happens in Mumbai in two weeks
then we will have some lessons
learned and we will integrate that
into our training.”
It is a difficult ask to try and offer
any form of CBRN training when
there is a federally-funded alternative
in the shape of CDP, whose whole
raison d’etre is CBRN. Even the
higher-end skills, such as sensitivesite exploitation, can be done there.
They also have the size and facilities
to accommodate multiple agencies.
So how will SPTC offer a training
course and facility that is able to
provide something different, or better,
than CDP? “CDP have guys that work
with chemicals and make you aware
of what they are and take you into a
live chemical [or biological]
environment, and that is great,” said
Mr Mathews. “My Center,” he
continued “has people who have seen
labs around the world run by
terrorists or state actors, and they
have dealt with them, exploited and
rendered them safe in real life and
they teach a specialised federal
audience. We will do a one pot meth
lab, home cooking explosives, all the
way up to the most sophisticated CB
lab that there is, in the setting that
they would each replicate. That is
more than what you see at the other
places. That is not to say that they do
not have the expertise to do that,
though that is the case in some
instances, but it is the setting or
mission which is different.”
The SPTC will pick up lodging and
meals for New York State responders,
though without federal funding they
are limited in what they can do for
other visitors. This lack of federal
funding is perhaps the crux of the
matter. It is difficult to compete with
a facility that can create something
like the 500 series, which will predate
the SPTC cityscape facility by a year
or two, and will provide the funding
for people to attend. Equally, it is a
difficult proposition to put too many
eggs in the interoperability/ integrated
team basket. Much of the competence
in this comes from constantly turning
up at the same scene, gaining a
respect for your opposite numbers
and, on that basis, slowly building up
a team. That said, Anniston is a long
way away, and they do not have the
monopoly on good ideas (or staff), and
the amount of CBRN missions that
any team will run will, hopefully, be
low. So grafting CBRN onto an
integrated team is, in these
economically parched times, more
likely than turning a pure CBRN team
onto other things. Equally, there is
going to be a requirement for more
local training than less, and it may
well be that in the same way that CDP
has become the haven for specialist
CBRN teams, SPTC might become a
haven for specialist teams that
occasionally need to operate in a
CBRN environment.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
44
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Karen Arnett, Lauren K. Stewart and Gilbert Hegemier from
University of California San Diego on their blast simulator program
Blasted Heath
The University of California San Diego
(UC San Diego) blast simulator is
characterising the response of civilian and
military structural components and
systems to terrorist attacks and highimpact scenarios. Moreover, it is
identifying and validating threat
mitigation and hardening optimisation
strategies using both retrofit and new
construction methods and materials,
including advanced composites. Tests on
full-scale components and systems are
performed at UC San Diego’s Englekirk
Structural Engineering Center of the
Charles Lee Powell Laboratories using a
hydraulic/high-pressure, nitrogen-based
blast simulator, which simulates full-scale
explosive loads up to 12,000 psi-msec
without live explosives and without a
fireball. Energy deposition takes place in
time intervals of two to four ms, the same
as in a live explosive event. Other impact
scenarios with longer durations can also
be simulated. In the absence of a fireball,
the actual response of the structure to
impact load can be seen and recorded with
high-speed (5000-10,000 frames per
second) Phantom cameras. These cameras
have tracking software that permits the
collection of displacement and velocity
data. These data are used to calibrate and
validate analytical blast physics tools.
Strain gauges and accelerometers are also
routinely used to collect test data. Blast
simulator impacts are highly reproducible
because the impacts are mechanically
generated, unlike chemical explosives
whose blast waves can differ significantly,
even when the charges are the same size
and weight. Finally, blast simulator test
results for all types of test structures have
been validated against full-scale, live
explosive field tests. Blast simulator tests
and field tests with the same pressure/time
history curves conducted on the same test
articles show the same types of structural
response and failure modes.
Technical specifications for the blast
simulator can be found in Table 1. The
blast simulator was designed and
optimised by the UC San Diego and MTS
Corporation team, led by Professor Gilbert
Hegemier at UC San Diego. The blast
generators (BG), hydraulic power supply
and control system were provided by MTS
Corporation. The BGs can be arranged in
multiple configurations, depending on the
test article geometry, and can deliver the
impulse load to the target. In the
designation “BG-xx”, the number refers to
the approximate maximum velocity of the
blast generator, i.e., a BG50 has an
approximate maximum impact velocity of
50 m/s. In fact, the maximum impact
velocity is substantially higher, up to 66
m/s, as can be seen in Table 1. Each BG
has a polyurethane plate on its front,
called a programmer, which is textured
with pyramidal shapes to reduce highimpact frequencies and to tailor the shape
of the pulse. The blast simulator facility is
configured to be able to perform tests in
two directions, increasing the throughput
of the test facility by allowing testing to be
done in one direction while another test
setup occurs simultaneously in another
direction. The blast simulator and test
articles are positioned on a slab that
isolates motions from the rest of the
facility. A detailed, operational description
of the blast simulator can be found in ‘The
UCSD Blast Simulator’, Proceedings of the
77th Shock and Vibration Symposium
(Hegemier, G., et al., SAVIAC, 2007).
The blast simulator was
commissioned in 2004 and is the first of
its kind in the world. Although other
countries now have blast generators, the
UC San Diego blast facility remains
unique due to the capability of the blast
simulator with six blast generators, the
wide range of simulated blast load
parameters, the large number of test setup configurations and the experience of
the scientists and engineers who have
worked in this field for over thirty years.
The blast simulator program is also
educating the next generation of blast and
impact-loading structural engineers.
The blast simulator generates highfidelity data on the response and failure
mechanisms of critical infrastructure
components and systems, subject to
explosives and other types of impact
loading. These data are used to evolve
effective blast hardening/protective
methodologies for existing and new
structures and systems. Blast tests have
been performed on as-built and retrofit,
full-scale concrete reinforced columns;
structural, non structural and blast
mitigation walls; as well as steel columns
and cellular steel structural components,
using both conventional and advanced
fiber reinforced polymer materials for the
retrofits. More recent tests performed for
government and commercial agencies are
characterising blast panels for use in
forward, force-protection structures. Blast
simulator test data enable the development
and validation of robust computational
shock physics analysis tools and
vulnerability assessment codes for use by
military and civilian engineers to develop
effective mitigation strategies for a wide
range of threat scenarios. Standardised test
protocols for product validation have been
and are being developed.
The blast simulator is now in its
eighth year of operation for a variety of
programs. Funds for the design,
construction and commissioning were
provided by the Technical Support
Working Group (TSWG). Test programs
for TSWG focussed on blast mitigation for
critical infrastructure components and
systems that were subject to explosive
loads. Results were used for the increased
protection of US troops and other
personnel, at home and overseas. One
important area of blast mitigation and
hardening optimisation is that of
progressive collapse. In many bomb
attacks, far more people are injured or
killed in the collapse of the building than
in the actual explosion. Finding ways to
keep the building structurally intact, at
least in the short-term until rescue
operations can be completed, is critical to
reducing casualties. The system was used
to test a carbon fiber overwrap able to
withstand its vertical design load, after a
blast. Beneath the carbon wrap, the
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
45
CBRNeWORLD
Blasted Heath
concrete column itself remains in one
piece. The confinement from the wrap
prevents the concrete column from
disintegrating and spalling. The carbon
wrap effectively mitigates progressive
collapse, and can either be added during
construction for new buildings or as a
retrofit to existing structures. It is also
fairly inexpensive and easy to apply.
Carbon wrap technology for blast
mitigation has now been fielded in several
US government buildings in the US and
overseas. Adding composite material
layers or polyurea coatings to the far sides
of nonstructural walls (i.e., the side not
facing the blast), such as those in office
buildings or the interior of power plants,
has also been proven to effectively contain
the debris field created from the wall by
an explosion. This containment prevents
the debris from reaching the occupants
and is critical for their safety.
Department of Defense agencies have
had or currently have ongoing blast
simulator programs. The Office of Naval
Research currently has a blast simulator
program to evaluate the response of the
fiber-reinforced, polymer (FRP)-composite
ship structures to simulated blast loads.
Novel methods of distributing blast loads
over non-orthogonal surfaces were
developed for this program. Another
program for the Navy involves the
investigation of load panel test specimens
for use in vehicle armor applications.
Various modes of damage as a function of
impulse magnitude are being investigated.
The Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL) has also funded programs at UC
San Diego to perform evaluations of its
systems during and after impact.
UC San Diego has teamed with several
companies on many of the governmentfunded blast simulator programs.
Subcontractors include Science
Applications International Corporation
(SAIC) who provides high-end
computational analysis to define test
parameters and predict system response;
Karagozian and Case (K&C) who also
provide analytical support for test setup
configurations and response prediction,
Applied Research Associates (ARA) who
perform smaller-scale field tests for proofof-concept studies and analytical support,
and the Energetic Materials Research and
Testing Center (EMRTC) of New Mexico
Tech, which performs full-scale
verification and validation field tests on
several types of test components.
In addition to US government
agencies, over the last five years several
commercial businesses, some in
collaboration with US defense agencies,
have used the blast simulator to validate
the blast mitigation effectiveness of their
products, including wall panels and wall
coatings, which use a variety of novel
materials and construction methods.
Standardised test procedures have been
developed so that testing is done
reproducibly and comparably. Two of the
companies that have performed several
series of tests are Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger, Inc. (SGH) and Protective
Technologies Group, Inc. (PTG), and these
efforts are ongoing.
Powell Laboratories at UC San Diego
The blast simulator is located in the
Englekirk Structural Engineering
Center, the newest of the twelve
laboratories that make up the Charles
Lee Powell Structural Engineering
Laboratories, Department of Structural
Engineering, Jacobs School of
Engineering at UC San Diego. The
Englekirk Center is a unique, large and
full-scale multi hazard test site with
multiple independent yet complementary
test facilities. In addition to the blast
simulator, Englekirk is home to the
world’s only outdoor shake table, with
the second largest footprint (25ft by 40ft)
and highest payload capacity (2000 tons)
of any shake table in the world. Shake
table construction and operation are
funded by the National Science
Foundation’s George E. Brown, Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES/NSF) program.
Because the shake table is outdoors,
there is no roof overhead and so there
are no height or crane capacity
restrictions. Tall cranes and heavy lifting
equipment can easily be used to
construct full-scale buildings and other
full-scale structures on the shake table.
The ability to test full-size structures
makes it possible to physically validate
many large test systems that, previously,
could only be analysed with computer
models. Scaling issues are also
precluded. Data obtained from full-scale
testing is used to validate or improve
analytical models and to confirm
building codes. Tests have been
performed on a reinforced concrete
seven story building, a half-scale parking
garage, a full-scale wind turbine, largescale bridge columns and a five story
fully outfitted office/hospital building, to
name a few examples. The Englekirk
Center is an unparalleled joint-research
facility. The site is an International
Accreditation Services, Inc. (IAS)
accredited test facility. More information
on the outdoor shake table and its
projects can be found at
http://nees.ucsd.edu/ or email
karnett@ucsd.edu.
Table 1. Blast Simulator Specifications and Configurations
Blast Simulator Configuration
4 BG25 and 2 BG50 blast generators in multiple arrangements
Impact Velocity Range
1 to 30 m/s (3.2 to 98.4 ft/s) (BG25)
Up to 66 m/s (216.5 ft/s) (BG50)
Test Impulse Range
Widely variable, 0.7 to 24.1 MPa-msec (100 to 3500 psi-msec) (BG25)
Up to 82.7 MPa-msec (12,000 psi-msec) (BG50)
Test Specimens (As-built and retrofit)
Walls: CMU, URM, curtain, blast
Blast panels
Columns: RC, steel
Transportation structures: piers, decks
Windows
Military systems and components
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
46
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
#
1
WORLD
CBRNe Security Systems & Technologies
CBRNe
www.cbrneworld.com
Now the top web site
for CBRN news!
Our new online editorial team have bought you
24/7 news monitoring – a single portal for all
your information needs.
Constantly updated, fact checked and easy
to access from anywhere in the world.
With over 10,500 unique visitors in six months and
ranked number one on Google for the terms nbc,
cbrn news, cbrne, cbrne threats, CBRNE conference,
and 37 other key CBRNe search phrases!
Alexa, the web ranking agency, place us higher than
any other CBRN news medium.
Agile Solutions.by OWR
Fast and reliable decontamination
saves lives and by reducing incident
reaction times, drastically minimises
the impact on mankind and the
environment.
OWR decontamination systems are
designed for all levels and types of
decontamination and disinfection.
Their systems are based on robust
and easy to operate applications,
guaranteeing effective mission
achievement.
By using water-free and non-corrosive
decontamination solutions, OWR
systems can be fully utilised while
assuring compliance with the demands of the protection of the environment and technology.
welcome@owrgroup.com . www.owrgroup.com
Subscribe now to our
RSS feed at
www.cbrneworld.com/feed
or get updated via
www.twitter.com/cbrneworld
Linkedin Group: CBRNe World
www.facebook.com/cbrneworld
www.cbrneworld.com
.
,""%01#(%&9enzer
Str. 9 . 74834 Elztal-Rittersbach . Germany
phone: +49 (0)6293 73 1 . fax: +49 (0)6293 72 219
d/D/^Z/d/>ͳ
REMOTELY SEND IN YOUR SENSORS FIRST!
^ĂǀĞǀĂůƵĂďůĞƟŵĞĂŶĚĚƌĂŵĂƟĐĂůůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůƐĂĨĞƚLJďLJƐĞŶĚŝŶŐĂZEd>KE
ƌŽďŽƚĚŽǁŶƌĂŶŐĞĮƌƐƚƚŽĂƐƐĞƐƐĂŶŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚďĞĨŽƌĞƉƵƫ
ŶŐLJŽƵƌƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůĂƚƌŝƐŬŽƌŝŶƚŚĞ
ǁƌŽŶŐƉƌŽƚĞĐƟǀĞŐĞĂƌ͘
ZEd>KEŝƐĂĚƵƌĂďůĞ͕ǀĞƌƐĂƟůĞ͕ŵŽĚƵůĂƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƌŽďŽƚĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽŬĞĞƉĐŝǀŝůŝĂŶƐ͕ĮƌƐƚ
ƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞƌƐĂŶĚĂƐƐĞƚƐŽƵƚŽĨŚĂƌŵ͛ƐǁĂLJ͘dŚĞZEd>KEŝƐĞƋƵŝƉƉĞĚǁŝƚŚĂǁŝĚĞǀĂƌŝĞƚLJŽĨƐĞŶƐŽƌƐ͕
ƐƚƌŽŶŐŵĂŶŝƉƵůĂƚŽƌĂƌŵ͕ůŽŶŐƌĂŶŐĞƌĂĚŝŽƐĂŶĚĂƌƵŐŐĞĚĐŚĂƐƐŝƐĂŶĚŚĂƐƉƌŽǀĞŶŝƚƐĞůĨǁŽƌůĚǁŝĚĞĂƐƚŚĞƌŽďŽƚ
ŽĨĐŚŽŝĐĞ͘DĂŬĞZEd>KEĂŵĞŵďĞƌŽĨLJŽƵƌƚĞĂŵ͘
^ĞĞǁŚĞƌĞŝŶŶŽǀĂƟŽŶůŝǀĞƐĂƚǁǁǁ͘YŝŶĞƟYͲE͘ĐŽŵ
CBRNeWORLD
Steve Johnson on whether powered air purifying respirators are cool,
or just suck
‘PAPR’ing over the cracks
H
ave you ever worn a powered air
purifying respirator (PAPR)?
Perhaps you tried one of the early
systems and were left feeling a bit
disappointed about the noise and weight.
You may have felt that PAPR wasn’t
really appropriate for CBRN because
somewhere in the back of your mind you
were sure someone had said you
shouldn’t use them. You may not have
felt it was appropriate for your job type
or, even more likely, it may just have
fallen into the category of personal
protective equipment (PPE) overload and
you just couldn’t cope with looking at
any more variations of equipment to use.
PAPR is certainly a useful tool, but it
continues to be one that many users
know very little about.
The classic PAPR unit consists of a
powered blower and filter unit with an
air hose to connect to a face piece or
respirator. In an ideal world, it supplies a
constant flow of filtered air with a host of
benefits which will be discussed later in
the article. One can source reasons for
PAPR being developed in various
directions. One of its most common
applications, however, is for dealing with
beards or faces which defy all fitting of
standard air purifying respirators (APR),
often called N95-type respirators in the
US. The PAPR, fitted into a hood or loose
mask, is a solution for these poor souls
by creating positive pressure and
reducing or preventing inhalation of
contamination.
Different Users
The health sector, in addition to other
industries, now have a plethora of hoods,
face pieces and blower units that fall in
to the PAPR category. Where the working
environment has general, particulate
hazards, infection control issues or
hazards below the Immediate Danger to
Life and Health (IDLH) level, it can be an
appropriate and beneficial respiratory
protection solution. In its early days it
simply wasn’t considered an appropriate
solution for law enforcement, the
military or for CBRN events in general.
Then, as people started to deconstruct
response to incidents it started
appearing. In the UK it was particularly
embraced by the Hazardous Area
Response Teams, which are medical
response units trained for CBRN
response, and by other health
responders. This was a classic evolution
of the early role of PAPR, because the
system was generally fitted to an
encapsulating suit, which reduced the fit
and burden on the medical professional
who may not have been in the best of
shape, had a beard or was used to
wearing supplied air systems such as a
self-contained breathing
apparatus(SCBA) or un-powered, fullface respirators.
For the law and military user there
was still scepticism. Many units had a
two-tier PPE approach, with simple APR
as the standard. These units used a fitted,
full-face respirator and some specialist
units had the ability to draw on SCBA
systems. Their route of development
went toward hybrid PPE that allowed the
switch between positive pressure SCBA
and APR but not many units opted to use
PAPR as part of that hybrid system.
Arguably, while it is more available to
them, the uptake is not all it could be.
Some of this can be attributed to
institutional bias against a system that
doesn’t appear very ‘kinetic’. Yet one of
the most common applications of PAPR
that bypassed many in the field was its
use in the military for Air Force pilots.
Nicknamed the ‘buzzing handbag’ in the
UK, a PAPR unit provided a pilot with
filtered air as part of his CBRN ensemble.
Hybrid systems are chasing the PAPR market ©Avon
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
49
CBRNeWORLD
‘PAPR’ing over the cracks
Favourable winds
There are certainly lots of advantages to
the use of PAPR. It has a better
duration of operation than SCBA
systems, and is limited only by the filter
and battery. In some cases, the system
can switch to manual if the batteries
fail, although this may decrease the
protection factor (PF). Under OSHA
guidelines, PAPR can be assigned a PF
from 50 for a half mask, to 1000 for a
full mask, compared to from 10-50 for
APR. It can also be a useful workaround
for those for whom fitted APR are
unsuitable. Its powered air flow can
help minimise any fogging, reduce
pulmonary stress and claustrophobic
feeling (especially when full visor hoods
are used rather than masks) and
thereby increase comfort.
Ill winds
Clearly there must be some issues that
weigh against PAPR, or else we would
see wholesale use by anyone who uses
APR. Indeed, there are issues around
PAPR that should be carefully assessed,
similar to any other form of PPE. The
top concern for most providers is
probably cost. When PAPR is compared
for applications in which a disposable
face mask or a fitted APR(N95) can be
used, the relatively high cost of PAPR
tends to make it lose out to its cheaper
cousins. Then there are maintenance
issues. An APR has very few parts to
maintain: valve inspection, cleanliness
and wear and tear being the main
issues. PAPR has connecting hoses and
motor units, sometimes display panels
and meters for flow rate, and batteries!
Batteries make logisticians wake up in
cold sweats. If you want the military to
buy a system with a non-standard (for
them) battery configuration, or one
with a rechargeable system that can’t
be removed, well you better have your
arguments together because they will
begin by saying, ‘No. No way. Never: not
on my watch!’
Slightly unfairly for PAPR, there are
also human factors and training issues.
There is an inherent danger to simple
systems that convey too great a
confidence in the user, and PAPR can
fall prey to this. They don’t provide air,
they only filter what the canister can
manage. Also they aren’t appropriate
for above IDLH (by most countries
assessments) contamination. In other
words, they don’t make you superman.
Yet you can wear and do see responders
wearing the systems, particularly those
fitted to suits, as shields of steel. Flow
rate dropping or varying can, in some
designs, also compromise safety. So
users need to monitor their PAPR’s
performance. Much of this can be
summed up as ‘Don’t think you are in a
level A system when you are in PAPR –
at best you are in level C’.
Some other whinges over the years
have emerged as a result of people
fitting their blower units badly so that
they get easily blocked by leaning
against tent sides for example. This is
wildly terrifying for the user as the
motors whine and the air stops. More
thoughtful questions are also directed
at the issues around the filter and the
effect of the continuous, high-pressure
draw of air through them. Undeniably,
if you are working in a contaminated
environment, the filter of a PAPR will
have to deal with greater contamination
than an APR because the air flow is
higher. This has implications for the life
of the filters due to contamination, and
potentially due to water saturation in
inclement weather conditions. For
special forces, and some police
functions, there has been concern over
the noise and whine of the blowers.
These are manageable issues so long
as PAPR is treated responsibly and not
as a ‘simple’ solution. The noise has got
far better and in certain kinetic
situations it’s not really a contributing
factor. It is also unfair to beat PAPR up
too much about some of these
shortcomings, because other respiratory
protective ensembles can also fall prey
to many of the same shortcomings if
not treated with respect.
Availability and standards
PAPR are available from pretty much all
major respiratory protection
manufacturers now, either with their
own blower system or compatibility
with one. Drager, MSA, SE, Scott, Avon
and Survivair all have systems that
range from utility in general hazardous
environments up to full CBRN hazards.
Avon’s C420 PAPR blower system, for
example, is compatible with its own
respirators, as well as other
manufacturers, such as Drager’s DHS
7000. In the last respirator round up of
CBRNe World almost every mask
manufacturer had at least one mask that
could be adapted for SCBA use such as
NBC Sys (ARFA and Mehara), Airboss
(C4), Aerosekur (M90) and Gumarny, in
addition to the manufacturers already
mentioned above.
As for standards, the issue is a little
clouded. Generally PAPRs for a CBRN
environment should pass the APR
standards of performance in CBRN
environments. As basic respiratory
protection equipment, they should also
pass (in the USA) 42 CFR part 84 as
appropriate. NIOSH’s CBRN PAPR
standard is intended to be an additional
series of testing to meet the shortfall
between part 84 and the needs of PAPR
in a CBRN environment. Progressively,
NIOSH have tried to ensure that the
certification for use against industrial
gases for CBRN PAPR is also valid for
use in non-terrorist and military
environments. The standard is too
detailed to go in to here, but can be
found at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
npptl/standardsdev/cbrn/papr/concepts/
paprcon-08212006.html
The final wind
PAPR may not seem for everyone, and
probably isn’t, but it’s indelibly a part of
the range of respiratory protective
equipment available today and should
be duly considered when you select
your PPE. It’s likely to continue to have
its largest market within general
industry and health applications,
because they face greater and more
constant challenges. Notably, in 2003
and the SARS outbreak, 1700 of 8400
cases of SARS worldwide occurred in
healthcare personnel, which highlights
the importance of infection control and
respiratory protection for health
workers. The market for CBRN, military
and law enforcement use of PAPR is
likely to increase though, focused
particularly on applications that can
manage its characteristics and are
prepared to trade protection for weight
and air supply for noise.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
50
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
Confidence to
accomplish
any mission
One system for every tactical CBRNe environment.
For ultimate confidence, you need a system that lets you be at your best. The Draeger DHS
7000 Hybrid incorporates APR, PAPR, and SCBA into a single integrated system. It‘s the
one system that provides piece-of-mind and confidence to accomplish the mission, no
matter the environment.
FOR MORE, VISIT WWW.DRAEGER.COM/HYBRID
CBRNeWORLD
Gwyn Winfield is pleased to see some life in UK CBRN and hopes
that it is part of a prolonged recovery
Life in the old dog yet…
T
he CBRNe World editorial office is
based in the UK, and as such we
tend to do more health checks on
the state of CBRN there than in other
nations; and it does become a matter of
some depression when the patient’s
condition is described as ‘Expectant.’ In
terms of CBRN capability, as much as in
triage, there is a period of time when
being described as ‘expectant’ has seeds of
hope in it, i.e., if a thing hasn’t died yet
then perhaps it won’t! Much like the
wounded hero beloved of Hollywood, the
heart of UK CBRN briefly flatlined but has
been resuscitated following the
announcement over the summer of both a
relaunched aircrew protective equipment
and detection (APED) solicitation and a
Centre for Defence Enterprise (CDE) call
for proposals on generation-after-next
CBR hazard mitigation.
APED (for more information see
CBRNe World Spring, 2011) is perhaps
the easiest to round out. In Autumn,
2011 – around the time of DSEi in the
UK – it became apparent that APED
wasn’t so much being pushed to the
right, but being pushed right off it, i.e.,
being cast into the maelstrom of other
projects that were going to be reevaluated. Clearly the project had some
“value” oxygen inside it, because
despite being cast down into the depths
it managed to pop back up to the
surface – admittedly in a slightly
changed form. The original contract
was for an integrated, lightweight
aircrew helmet and in-flight respirator,
a two-tier clothing system, an aircrewworn miosis level detector and an onplatform hazard containment system.
From this, the contract has become a
Category F1c – £870,000 to £4.5
million – for the provision of a belowthe-neck system, including gloves and
footwear, for approximately 300
aircrew. The aircrew, below-neck
garment will have to mesh with inservice respirators and BA, and no
mention has been made of the helmet,
respirator, detector and containment
system. It could well be that these are
CDE are looking for HME technology, like colormetric change ©CBRNe World
part of future plans, but currently
there has been no response from the
Defence Equipment and Support
(DE&S) press office, and the clarity of
CBRN procurement appears to be still
lacking. What is known is that a great
deal of the ensemble manufacturers
poured a great deal of bid money into
APED and I cannot imagine that they
will be too keen to completely re-write
bids for a smaller contract. Enthusiasm
for APED will further dip when
contractors realise that the project will
be bid for via reverse auction – a
system usually guaranteed to irritate
and lower capability.
Moving from Abbeywood (home of
DE&S for those lucky enough not to
have gone) to Porton Down, the CDE
recently announced a call for hazard
mitigation equipment (HME).
Effectively, this is what could be termed
in the US SBIR (Small Business
Innovative Research) call, except that it
is not only for small businesses as
specialist modules of large companies
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
52
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
Spot the eight (8) differences in the picture below
Answers available on our website
With superior ergonomics and comfort, and surpassing NATO
requirements, AirBoss-Defense’s gas masks, hand wear and
footwear are especially designed to perfectly integrate with CBRN
suits and components. Not only does AirBoss-Defense’s PPE
offer the ultimate protection against CBRN threats, it has also
been proven to be effective against a wide range
of Toxic Industrial Chemicals (TIC’s).
www.
.com
When it comes to protection, AirBoss-Defense delivers!
THE
ULTIMATE
PROTECTION
www.airbossdefense.com
CBRNeWORLD
Life in the old dog yet…
are welcome to apply. The first thing to
mention – before you dear readers get
too excited – is that you have most
likely missed the deadline. CDE calls are
about short, sharp, proof-of-concept
research projects. Each contract is
worth around £30-50k and lasts three to
nine months in duration. The HME bids
had to be in by the 6th September,
2012, so unless you got your hands on
the online version of this magazine, the
chances are that you were unable to
submit bids in time and are now forced
to be a spectator.
CDE has two routes to funding:
open calls, which are open 365 days a
year, on any topic and are for rapid
funding of creative thinking that has
not usually been considered (for which
CDE has a budget of £3 million) and
themed calls (which includes HME). At
the time of writing there are three
themed calls that have closed:
‘innovation for unmanned maritime
systems’, ‘energy efficiency in defence’
and ‘HME’. There are also three that are
about to start: ‘cyber situational
awareness’, ‘simulation and training’
and ‘future digital systems’. The calls,
either open or themed, are not just
related to defence but also security. The
unmanned systems and energy
efficiency received approximately 3000
proposals and over £30 million was
awarded. The best news was that in all
the calls the IP (intellectual property)
remains with the company. In terms of
CBRNE, the HME call fell under DSTL’s
protective measures portfolio, managed
by Dr Phil Packer, and is worth
£250,000 (one of the smaller calls, but
any money is welcome!). This will fund
a range of projects worth between
£10,000 – £100,000 for a period of three
months to one year. Those involved in
decon projects in the US, such as ‘Dial A
Decon’, will realise that this is, in terms
of decon capability, chicken feed. But
the funding is not for a capability, nor
even for components, rather it is aimed
at the sub-component level, i.e., a piece
of technology that might enable greater
capability out of either existing pieces of
technology or even in nascent ones.
The UK has traditionally had a pretty
dismal decon capability, relying on
other Nato partners during the Cold
War and ‘partner nations’ in other
conflicts after that. Even when it was
providing support to its own forces it
often found that its recce assets outran
its decon support. The current CDE
call’s emphasis is on pre-event and, in
fairness, this is more suited to the UK
approach. As a result of its shortage of
existing assets, the UK MoD has
focussed on self decontamination, or
more specifically, contamination
avoidance, i.e., if the agent cannot stick
to the platform then it reduces the need
for decon. The best example of this is
the peelable coating work of Dr Stephen
Mitchell (see CBRNe World Autumn,
2008). Now the CDE team will be
looking to stimulate innovative thinking
on HME to better understand the limits
of active and passive measures, identify
and accelerate solutions, and develop a
system-of-systems capability. The latter
is to be attempted via three broad areas:
reactive formulations, tuneable devices,
and absorbents and coatings. Within
these three broad areas there are further
subdivisions and some cross-cutting
capabilities such as test methods and
targeting and triggering.
In terms of the formulations the
team is interested in emerging
technology in some of the nextgeneration decontaminants such as
micro-emulsions, reactive gases,
enzymes and peroxide catalysts. They
are also interested in molecular
amplification for verification of bio
decon. Tuneable devices will be
immediately recognisable to those
involved in the US Dial A Decon:
dispensing the most appropriate
solution for the hazard facing the
operator. This is currently possible but
has issues, such as mixing powders into
liquids, that the team is looking to
overcome. Within the field of tuneable
decon also lies process optimisations,
and the team is interested in fostering
an ability to deliver existing solutions in
optimal ways. This might involve
something as simple as an innovative
nozzle on existing high-pressure
systems for example. This sector is
concerned with more than just physical
bits of equipment, predictive models
and maths or computer models that will
better develop approaches to understand
what is going on in the contaminated
room or platform are also of interest.
The team is also interested in
chemical species that selectively trigger
molecular events, in the same way as
commercial detergents target certain
stains (grass, red wine etc), and these
can be tuned appropriately. Coatings
and absorbents are perhaps some of the
most exciting elements, building as they
do on the existing coatings work that
DSTL has done. For example, one of the
areas of research that they are
interested in exploring is on tie down
sprays, so that once a vehicle has been
contaminated it can be coated with a
film that will prevent off-gassing/cross
contamination and can subsequently be
stripped off. The team has also been
playing with the power of wet/absorbent
wipes (and any parents out there will
swear to the power of these) and also in
agent fate, which is my personal
favourite under-funded area. The final
area that the team is looking at within
coatings are the disclosure systems:
coatings that effect a colormetric
change when they interact with CWA.
FLIR currently have their Chemical
Agent Disclosure spray which works on
the same principal.
To one extent it is hard to get
excited about this. While the thinking is
supposed to be innovative, it is so low
down the food chain that it will require
a significant body of funded calls to
appear in future lines of development
before any improvement is seen on the
front lines. There is also the likelihood
that some of the funded elements will
never see the light of day, because some
elements of the capability might
progress whilst others might not,
meaning that the whole process will
stop. Ultimately, it is nice to see any
funding appearing for CBRN and I hope
that this prompts the submission of
some strong bids that can genuinely
improve capability, if only at the subcomponent level. Those that manage to
read this article in good time can find
more information on the Call at
www.science.mod.uk under Calls and
Events, or more generally at
www.science.mod.uk/enterprise. The
CDE team are also happy to take any
queries via cde@dstl.gov.uk
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
54
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Nick Vent, Supervisor of the San Diego County
Hazardous Incident Response Team talks to Steve Johnson about the
surprises that illicit lab search can bring!
The house that
Jack(ubec) built
I
t’s not unreasonable to want to
ascertain the hazards attendant on
a particular crime scene or illicit
lab before entering it. But whilst it is
not unreasonable, it is sometimes
nigh on impossible. In November,
2010, one particular situation that
faced responders in the City of
Escondido was as close to impossible
as you can imagine when entering a
crime scene. It all started with a
gardener who, to his surprise, was
blown up when he stepped on some
gravel in the back of a property he
had been hired to maintain. The
property was sat on a section of
unincorporated San Diego County,
surrounded by the city of Escondido,
so from the outset the response was
going to involve cross-jurisdictional
co-operation. Oh, and it was in a
residential area with an outdoor
shopping mall 600 yards away... And
it was also a few hundred feet from
Interstate 15... And the house
contained the single largest cache of
HMTD explosive in US history (not to
mention a cornucopia of material that
couldn’t be catalogued).
The initial response involved the
The Escondido bomb factory epitomises multi-agency approaches ©CBRNe World
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
55
Escondido Fire department and the
San Diego County Sherriff’s
Department. Due to the significant
amount of suspicious and potentially
dangerous chemical substances
discovered during the initial
assessment phase, the San Diego
County Sherriff’s Bomb Arson unit
and San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health (DEH) Hazmat
team were dispatched to the
worsening incident. During early
assessment, there was a second
explosion near the original
detonation, under the foot of a trained
explosives expert. This secondary
detonation occurred despite the use of
extreme caution, highlighting how
dangerous the yard was. It was
surmised from residues obtained from
the property that the tenant had
poured partially manufactured
homemade explosives, that were
considered to be bad batches, directly
into the drainage areas and yard
around the house – and it was these
that were detonating as the pressure
from feet generated a reaction.
So the yard became a minefield,
with the terrifying prospect that far
from having degraded in UV, as it
should, the explosive residues had
been protected by the gravel,
crystallised and were contactsensitive. The sheriff’s officers took
the house resident, George Djura
Jakubec, then 54, into custody for
questioning, thinking it ought to be
possible to get him to explain the
hazards and threats on the property.
This quickly proved not to be the
case. Despite the fact that with all
this obvious evidence his situation
could hardly get worse, evidence of
multiple armoured car robberies
quickly came to light in the property
(he had kept the deactivated trackers
as souvenirs) and he was stubbornly
resistant to help the authorities.
A very careful search of the
property turned up six quart-sized
jars filled with a white substance,
gallons of concentrated acids as well
as chloroform, hexamine, acetone and
hydrogen peroxide. Officials searching
records on the property, learned that
he had purchased castor plants: ricin
being isolated from castor bean oil.
Imagine knowing all this before reentering the property! Explosives and
CBRN were already both on the
menu, and with Jakubec not
cooperating almost nothing could be
left out.
The San Diego County Hazardous
Incident Response Team became
intrinsic to the investigation at this
point. Nick Vent, Supervisor, and his
colleagues took air samples for
biological agents and combustible
compounds, then sent in radiation
detectors with the bomb technicians
who searched the property; while
outfitted in both explosion and
hazmat gear. The level of danger
meant that using Raman-based
detection units with delay timers
allowed provisional investigation
without risking personnel or opening
up unknown jars. It took a few tries to
figure out how to get sufficient
spectra through the thick glass of the
jars, but investigators eventually
identified the jar contents as
hexamethylene triperoxide diamine
(HMTD), an explosive compound that
is sensitive to heat, shock and friction.
The making safe of the yard was
no easy matter. On Friday, November
19th, officials shut down Interstate 15
so that a robot could pick up the jars
one at a time, move them to a
relatively safe location and detonate
them. Then technicians used a 5%
sodium hydroxide solution to try to
neutralise any remaining explosive
residue in the gravel.
Investigators at last entered the
house three days after the start of the
incident. “We assumed that most of
the bad stuff was in the backyard and
the house was going to be a piece of
cake,” Nick Vent recalled, chuckling
at how wrong they were. “On the plus
side there were no radioactive items
or biological warfare agents” he
continued, “but, wow, pretty much
everything else you could think of
was there.” Inside were thousands of
rounds of ammunition, a hand
grenade mould, homemade grenades,
human face moulds and masks,
Escondido Police Department shirts,
more concentrated acids and
CBRNeWORLD
The house that Jack(ubec) built
hydrogen peroxide, jars of thermite,
erythritol tetranitrate, pentaerythritol
tetranitrate (PETN) and more HMTD,
as well as a layer of white powder all
over the hardwood floor that was too
thin to identify.
Adding to the chaos, much of this
had been produced by ‘garage’
chemistry. Jakubec had bought the
acids and hydrogen peroxide at low
concentrations and distilled them to
yield concentrated solutions. Yet he
showed no signs of organisation,
safety or control. The chemicals,
ammunition and grenades co-existed
with other household items in a
crowded mess. Not only was it an
orgy of evidence, it was impossible to
even begin to consider how to search
and deal with the house.
“At that point the techs were
coming out of the house saying, ‘This
is nuts!’” Vent said. The house showed
evidence of previous explosions: walls
were damaged and Jakubec’s
distillation apparatus was in ruins.
Neighbours attributed the noise to
vehicles backfiring on the Interstate,
“One thing was becoming clear
though, we needed to think outside the
box to deal with this scene,”said Vent.
To help them figure out what to
do, officials reached out to other
agencies that deal with explosives,
including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms &
Explosives, as well as explosive
ordnance disposal specialists at
nearby Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton and Air Station Miramar
[who suggested a swift application of
airdropped munitions! Ed.]. The
dramatic conclusion was that
authorities had to burn down the
house. Picking it apart piece by piece
was far too risky for both responders
and the local community. Planning
and controlling a burn was the best
solution to ensure the safety of
emergency personnel and the
surrounding community. As much
evidence as possible was collected by
bomb technicians and then the most
incredible plan to deal with an illicit
lab ever was hatched.
The controlled burn would itself
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
57
CBRNeWORLD
The house that Jack(ubec) built
pose a lot of difficult issues. It needed
to happen in a way that dealt
definitively with all the hazards, or
the ruins would be an even greater
death trap. There were considerations
about downwind hazards and the
safety of the public in the residential
area, mall and on the highway. All the
agencies and authorities needed to coordinate as well because, legally and
technically, this had never happened
before. You can imagine the
neighbours were the most nervous!
At its heart this was an
environmental issue and Nick Vent
and colleagues talked to anyone and
everyone they could think of, from
federal agencies to academic
scientists, to get some insight into
how to do the burn, ensuring that
there would be no surprises and to
minimise effects around the property.
The approach they settled on involved
keeping most of the house shut to
ensure that the temperature was high
enough to destroy whatever was
inside and contain any explosions.
The goal was to have everything burn
inside then have the walls come
down. Holes would be made in the
roof, thereby providing ventilation to
help achieve the temperatures needed
and keep the burn going.
The neighbouring houses, terraced
so that one was slightly above
Jakubec’s and one was below, faced
uncertain futures. At first it was
thought that the house above would
likely not survive the burn. Then an
inspired idea was put forward: a fire
wall would be built, similar to those
often found separating a garage from
a house in a typical residence but
with double the drywall and a layer of
fire-retardant gel commonly used to
coat homes in wild land fires. This
would protect the neighbouring
house… hopefully.
Modelling of the house started at
the incident’s outset, in case the
house caught fire or exploded during
the course of the general
investigation. When planning the
burn, similar atmospheric modelling
was used to identify the correct
weather conditions that would send
the smoke and emissions straight up
into the atmosphere to dissipate,
rather than blow over the community.
Modelling was also used to define
evacuation and shelter-in-place areas.
This was easier said than done,
because common modelling programs
didn’t have the necessary capabilities.
Software developed by the
Environmental Protection Agency and
the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, such as ALOHA for
example, can only envisage a static
release of one chemical at a time.
Officials needed something that could
handle multiple compounds at once
and account for reactions between the
compounds and their degradation
products. Eventually, access was
granted to a classified program from
the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
that catered for the unique situation
the responders were facing.
A sceptical community were
presented with the plan at a town hall
meeting on Tuesday, November 30th,
only 12 days from the start of the
incident. This was the tip of a wider
information campaign that put
information on the county website.
Sheriff’s officers also went door-todoor and made calls to homeowners.
“There was no doubt in my mind that
we were going to do this and do it
successfully” the local fire chief said.
“Our job at this point was to calm the
nerves of so many people who
thought this was going to be the end
of the world as they knew it in their
neighbourhood.” Most people,
however, seemed to leave the meeting
convinced that officials knew what
they were doing. Also on November
30th, the county and state declared
states of emergency, which gave
officials the legal authority they
needed to burn the house.
On Thursday, December 9th, the
day of the burn, everything went
perfectly. A command post kept 300
people from 60 agencies informed as
the weather co-operated. Officials
evacuated residents, applied the gel to
the fire wall, shut down the freeway
again, placed igniters to start the fire
and set the house alight. The house
burned exactly as anticipated. As the
smoke rose 2,600 feet in a vertical
plume, air monitors networked
around the site showed that emissions
never exceeded exposure limits. The
fire wall held and the only item that
appeared to escape the confines of the
house was a single bullet found 10
feet away. Temperature-sensitive
strips placed in the yard showed that
temperatures there exceeded 250 ºF,
ensuring that any remaining HMTD
or other residue had decomposed.
This had been an important quality
assurance part of the plan. After the
burn, contractors removed ash, debris
and soil from the property and tested
what was left over to ensure that no
chemical or heavy-metal residue
remained. On December 28th,
authorities released the property back
to the owner. From start to finish, the
response cost $1.5 million, Vent said.
Despite its complexity, it had been
handled in 41 days. As for Jakubec, he
pleaded guilty to repeated armed bank
robbery and is now serving a 30-year
prison sentence. He declined to say in
court why he made the explosives and
investigators could find no links to
terrorist or drug organisations.
The incident provided a lot of
useful lessons learnt. The volume and
complexity of materials was far
greater than would normally be
exercised or usually encountered.
This reinforced the need to be aware
of the difficulties of mixed hazards.
Multi-agency collaboration was
intrinsic to the success, which also
meant early consultation.
Understanding the limits and
capabilities of equipment and
resources was key too. Selecting the
wrong technology could not only have
misidentified the materials but could
have been a hazard to life. Continuing
the attention to detail through to the
finish with constant air monitoring,
soil sampling, weather data and area
monitoring for downwind release was
vital to a safely controlled incident.
You aren’t always going to have all
this kit on one team so interoperability training has to include an
understanding of the resources of
possible (and less likely) partner
agencies and city, county, state and
federal levels.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
58
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase nukes
Carry on or
checked bags?
E
very few years, Hollywood drums
up the menace of the ‘suitcase
nuke’ – a nuclear device small
enough and light enough to be carried
in normal luggage. And just when we’d
had enough of George Clooney saving
the world (or at least New York), the
occasional disgruntled Russian makes
dire statements about ‘suitcase nukes’
and gets US Congressmen and
Senators worked up into a lather. I
have seen such worries often conflated
with fears of a terrorist improvised
nuclear device (IND). I have also seen
such spectacles as aides to US Senators
(not well established as a repository for
nuclear weapon expertise) mocking up
‘authentic models’ of suitcase devices
for display to committee hearings.
Where does the truth lay in this whole
landscape? Much of the hype seems to
originate from an interview (CBS Sixty
Minutes, 7 September 1997) and
subsequent congressional testimony of
one Lt Gen Alexander Lebed, former
national security advisor to Boris
Yeltsin. Lebed claimed that a large
number of such devices had gone
missing. Later, a GRU defector,
Stanislav Lunev, made further and
more sensational claims, alleging that
many ‘suitcase weapons’ had been
secreted in the US. I remember this
stuff making more than a few waves in
Washington at the time. Such claims
will always find fertile ground in the
minds of the imaginative. But what’s
the real truth behind them? For the
record, everything here is based on
unclassified sources that I have
unearthed in my research, as a wealth
of historic material is now available.
First, has there really ever been
such a thing as a suitcase nuke?
Nuclear weapons, particularly the first
few generations of them, are not exactly
small. Little Boy (Hiroshima) and Fat
Man (Nagasaki) both weighed over four
tons. Bombs tended to get smaller from
that point, although a few were even
bigger. History tells us that it is indeed
possible to make a functioning nuclear
weapon that is small enough to fit into
luggage, at least from the perspective of
volume, if not weight. A nuclear
weapon that can be made small enough
to fire out of a cannon barrel can fit
into a suitcase. The US and USSR had a
number of compact nuclear weapons
designed for use as nuclear artillery
shells. The US military had warheads
that were used as artillery shells in
155mm and 8 inch (203mm) artillery
pieces. A nuclear artillery round can’t
really be much bigger (and obviously
not any wider) or much heavier than its
conventional brethren. But weight is a
factor, and artillery rounds aren’t light.
One man can handle a normal
conventional 155mm round (I did so,
when I spent a few very hot and loud
days in my distant Army past with a
155mm artillery battery) but you
certainly get your exercise. They are
40+kg each. The US nuclear round for
the 155mm howitzer was something
called a W48, and it reportedly weighed
in at around 55 kg. A 155mm round is
about 60 cm long and, well, 155mm in
diameter (sorry if I’ve insulted anyone’s
intelligence on that one…) It could fit
in a suitcase, but it would be one hell of
a schlep to move it with one person.
Time for a wheely suitcase? I suspect
the Soviet 152mm round would be
roughly the same volume and weight.
Some of the weight is the casing itself,
so a non-ruggedized device with the
same working parts, but not hardened
to withstand the g forces of a cannon
barrel would be a bit lighter. The 8 inch
round is probably out of the question
for use in luggage, being bigger and
heavier still.
The closest that the US came, at least
in operating principle, to a suitcase
bomb was the ‘Atomic Demolition
Munition’ – the ADM. An ADM was just
as it sounded: a nuclear device designed
for demolition purposes. In practice,
these were designed to substitute
conventional explosives for large
demolition projects, such as those
manufactured for dams, tunnels and
bridges, where it might take days or
weeks to lay many tons of conventional
explosive material, with complex firing
chains that were prone to error or
malfunction. And with the 8th Guards
Tank Army charging across the Fulda
Gap, the US Army felt that it might not
have the time to put hundreds of combat
engineers to work, laying explosives to
waylay the Soviet advance. But how big
were these? The US had two basic forms
of ADM: the MADM (Medium ADM) and
the SADM (Special ADM). Despite the
alleged man-portable nature of these
devices, the MADM and SADM were not
exactly petite briefcase devices. The
MADM was 180 kg or so. The SADM did
indeed fit into a rucksack, but it was a
rucksack for the stout and strong, as the
SADM weighed roughly 70 kg. By manportable, the US Army meant schlepping
it onto and off of the tailgate of a truck,
not carryon baggage. A bit of the weight
could probably be shaved off but not a
lot. This is still out of the ‘suitcase’
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
60
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Now all I need to do is find a case big enough... ©DoD
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
61
CBRNeWORLD
Carry on or checked bags?
category. I do not know the extent to
which the Soviet Union, or China, or any
other nuclear power has fielded ADMs,
but it is this grey area of uncertainty
that provoked the whole suitcase nuke
discussion in the first place.
Rather a lot of technical effort went
into these systems to make them small
and the bang was small too. They were
not city-busting strategic weapon
systems. While weapon yields are
classified, many loose estimates have
leaked out over the years and plenty of
information is now available in the
public domain. We know that the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in
the 13 to 21 kiloton (KT – thousand tons
of TNT explosive equivalent). But when
we start looking at the notional yields of
the small tactical devices, they are
MUCH smaller. The W48 warhead used
in the 155mm howitzer allegedly had a
yield of about 70 tons of TNT, 0.07 KT,
the barest 200th fraction of Fat Man or
Little Boy. There have been many
conventional situations that have
released similar energy. The SADM is
cloaked in a bit more mystery, but it
used something called a W54 warhead as
the business bit. Various configurations
were used but the yield seems to be in
the hundreds of tons of TNT equivalent,
i.e., fractions of a kiloton.
As an important historical note, the
smallest device tested in the US nuclear
testing program (a test shot called
Redwing Yuma in the Pacific, May,
1956) was like an artillery shell in size
and shape and weighed about 55 kg. It
had a yield of 190 tons of TNT (i.e., 0.19
KT – very small for a nuclear weapon). I
found copious declassified information
about Operation Redwing on the
internet. While it did make a bang it
wasn’t exactly very impressive: nor was
the measured fallout.
It is very important to remember,
however, that small nuclear devices for
use in artillery shells and similar
battlefield weapons are actually very
advanced. A small warhead and a small
bang are not the point of entry into the
nuclear weapon business. Such systems
are the result of decades of very
expensive technical development after
the Manhattan Project. In other words,
they are fourth or fifth generation
Is that a nuke in your pocket? ©DoD
descendents of Fat Man and Little Boy,
and were developed with the aid of
sophisticated live nuclear testing
regimes to work out the flaws in the
design. Without getting into any
classified detail on the subject, making
a small device with a small yield is
actually quite hard. The weapons
scientists on both sides of the Iron
Curtain found that, once the frontiers
of fission and fusion were breached,
making bigger weapons wasn’t that
hard. But making them small was.
Getting enough fissile material to make
a first generation nuclear device (a la
Hiroshima or Nagasaki) gives you a
basic yield somewhere in the 10-20 KT
range. Going higher or lower than 1020 KT requires lots of very precise
technology and engineering. A small
lightweight device has to use every
trick in the book (and there a lot of
them that I can’t get into) to get a
nuclear yield out of small amounts of
fissile material.
The artillery and ADM systems use a
great deal of technical prowess to use
the barest amount of fissile material
possible, to cut down on weight and
volume. If you wanted to make a bigger
bang with something this small, that
will add even more complexity to an
already difficult technical problem. Is it
possible? Yes, but only with access to
really big science, like the vast weight
of US or Soviet R&D programs.
So, where does this leave us in
terms of suitcase nukes as a viable
threat? Based on the artillery rounds,
they are technically feasible – if we
allow for the suitcase to be rather
heavy. The technology to make one
however, is not the same as a first or
second generation nuclear weapon. The
complexity and precision required to
shrink the working bits down to
suitcase size, while having them
function reliably, was a decade into the
US and USSR’s giant nuclear R&D
program and relied on some trial and
error nuclear testing. Is it within the
grasp of established possessors, such as
the Indians or Chinese? Possibly, but
probably not without some detectable
testing. It is beyond the grasp a
terrorist group, I think. If someone
were to make an IND properly, a big IF,
it would be something resembling a
first generation system, needing a large
truck to move it, not a suitcase.
The remaining possibility is that a
terrorist could use an existing small
weapon, presumably one of Soviet
origin, as all of the American ones have
been accounted for. Mr. Lebed’s alleged
stockpile of suitcase devices was
supposed to have been manufactured in
the 1970s. Much of the nuclear artillery
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
62
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Carry on or checked bags?
stockpile was probably similar to the US
arsenal and may have been even older.
Would such devices be useable by a
terrorist? Would it still function?
Nuclear weapons require maintenance.
The multi-billion dollar budget line
items for nuclear stockpile stewardship
in the US are testament to the fact that
it takes effort to ensure old weapons are
still in working order. The US Army,
when it had tactical nuclear weapons in
its inventory, devoted significant
manpower and infrastructure to
periodic maintenance of this special
ammunition. Many critical components
of nuclear weapons degrade over time.
As a general rule, the more specialised
a nuclear weapon is (e.g., high or lowyield; special size) the more fiddly and
sophisticated its components are. I
don’t think the US Army would have
fielded legions of technicians to fiddle
with nuclear artillery rounds on a
frequent basis if it wasn’t needed.
Based on my own military
experience, if the Army could have got
away with a ‘lock it in the bunker and
don’t touch it for decades’ policy, it
would have. Additionally, it is alleged
that radiation gradually degrades the
electronic components over time. After
all, special nuclear material such as
plutonium and uranium, are neutron
emitters. Some components rely on
materials with shelf life. Tritium, for
example, is used in many nuclear
weapon designs and has a twelve year
half-life. Polonium, used in neutron
initiators in some earlier types of
weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents state that every
nuclear weapon has ‘limited life
components’ that require periodic
replacement (do an internet search for
nuclear limited life components and
you can read for weeks).
After reading through a lot of things
about limited life components, I’m
stuck with the likely conclusion that
any leftover device from the end of the
Soviet Union is not going to work. Even
at the time of the Lebed/Lunev
controversy, many US and Russian
commentators were of the view that
hidden nuclear suitcase devices would
need to be exchanged frequently due to
deterioration of components.
Where does this leave us? Yes, a
suitcase nuclear device is technically
plausible. The US and USSR had devices
close in concept, if not in exact form.
Throw enough science and money at
the problem and you can make a
suitcase bomb. I do not think that a
terrorist group has one or the capability
to make one. I personally don’t think
that the extreme extra effort to shrink
from a large steamer trunk to a suitcase
is really going to suit anyone’s CONOPS
– terrorist or otherwise. So, my opinion
is that the suitcase nuke, whilst
plausible, isn’t likely.
There better not be any liquids in there or TSA will be very cross! ©DoD
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
64
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
By Jennifer Cole, Research Fellow at RUSI, on their recently completed
study on the state of CBR materials security in India
An Explosion
of Demand
O
ver the last twelve months, the
UK-based defence and security
think tank RUSI (the Royal
United Services Institute) has been
working with the Observer Research
Foundation, a comparable organisation
based in New Delhi, India, to
investigate the current state of CBR
material security on the Indian
subcontinent, particularly in regions
with a high number of industrial sites
where CBR vulnerabilities are
concentrated. Such regions include
Andhra Pradesh, which is a centre for
Indian pharmaceutical and biotech
industries; Gujarat, which has the
largest number of chemical industries
of any Indian state and is responsible
for more than 50 per cent of all major
chemicals and hazardous waste
produced in the country; Maharashtra,
the second largest centre of the Indian
chemical industry; Tamil Nadu, a
centre of small and medium-scale
industries that feed the oil refining,
textiles, explosives and fireworks
industries; and the Indian capital
Delhi. In addition to their industrial
and economic importance, these five
regions also have a history of terrorist
attacks by separatist rebels as well as
Islamist groups.
India has been battling serious
national and international terrorism for
close to three decades. Armed Naxal
rebels are active in many parts of
central and east India. They control
mineral-rich, tribal-dominated areas
and are responsible for hundreds of
civilian deaths each year. Kashmir-based
militant groups such as Hizb-ul-
Mujahideen and insurgent groups such
as the United Liberation Force of Assam
(ULFA) are operating in the north-east.
There is also a significant threat from
external terrorist groups such as
Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-eMohammad (JeM) and Harkat-ul-Jihade-Islami (HuJI). These latter groups
appear to pose the gravest danger to
India. They have been known to carry
out mass transit bombings and suicide
bombing missions, as well as target
security forces and key installations.
They have planned and carried out mass
killings, including an attack on the
Indian Parliament in December, 2001,
and they pose a serious CBRN threat,
which recently became apparent when
David Coleman Headley, an American
working for LeT, revealed that he had
conducted hostile surveillance on
nuclear installations in India.
The possibility of chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear
(CBRN) materials being used by
fundamentalist groups, terrorists or
disgruntled elements within Indian
society has therefore become a serious
concern. Government of India (GoI)
attention has increased accordingly, as
can be seen by the development of the
National Disaster Management
Authority's Management of Chemical
(Terrorism) Disasters Guidelines and
other government efforts.
As a result of the globally binding
United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1540 (UNSCR1540), which
is aimed at encouraging international
collaboration and domestic legislation
in preventing such technologies falling
into the hands of terrorist
organisations, many countries
including India are trying to come up
with new and innovative ways of
protecting themselves against the
dangers posed by potentially
weaponisable materials.
So far, deliberate CBR attacks on
Indian soil have been rare and
relatively small-scale. In November,
2010, Naxal elements were suspected of
poisoning a pond providing drinking
water for Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF) personnel and villagers in
Jharkhand. With nearby neighbours on
the brink of becoming failed states and
the continuing threat from both
domestic and international terrorism,
India faces an increasing threat that its
security will be compromised by
multiple non-state groups.
India features a dangerous mix of
factors that make an attack more likely:
widespread militant religious ideology
and fundamentalism (the country
scored poorly on the recent Nuclear
Threat Initiative Nuclear Materials
Security Index for societal factors) and
poor governance structures,
particularly on the subject of strategic
weapons and the knowledge involved in
their manufacture.
Additionally, India’s development
and rapid expansion of biotechnology,
pharmaceutical and chemical
production industries, increase in
higher education, advancement of
nuclear infrastructure (for power,
medicine and research), and increase
of public access to technology have
heightened the prospect of CBR
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
65
CBRNeWORLD
An Explosion of Demand
materials within India being
misappropriated or misused. Terror
organisations and state machineries in
India’s immediate vicinity, including
scientists in Pakistan, have been found
with direct links to al-Qaeda, and they
may not hesitate to use CBR weapons
in the future. Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is
suspected of being responsible for an
incident in which unidentified
assailants abducted a woman suspected
of working as a police informant and
took her to a nearby field where they
injected her with cyanide. In 1999,
police in the Anantnag district of
Kashmir recovered 3kg of cyanide from
a cache possessed by a known terrorist
organisation. Safeguarding potentially
weaponisable materials from falling
into the hands of such groups should
therefore be a priority for both the GoI
and the private sector.
Oil refineries and pipelines also
present a credible threat. In November,
2006, ULFA attacked and set ablaze an
oil pipeline in Assam. Also, ammonium
nitrate is known to be smuggled and
traded widely by non-state actors and
groups with criminal intent. While
these groups are largely thought to be
motivated by black market trade, in the
recent past several individuals with
close links to terrorist organisations
have been arrested for possessing or
supplying the chemical, and it has
been used in numerous bomb attacks
in India, such as the July, 2011, attacks
in Mumbai. Criminal actors respond to
demand, and are known to intersect
with violent, non-state actor groups.
Stolen hazardous material ending up
in the hands of terrorists may,
therefore, be limited only by the
terrorist’s desire to use it.
CBR Incidents in India
Notwithstanding security threats, India's
safety record in the management of
hazardous materials is far from
unblemished. Major accidents such as
the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy attracted
international attention and there have
also been a number of chemical and
radiological incidents in the last decade.
This is despite the 1987 amendment of
the Factories Act (1948) to make factory
owners more accountable, and the
introduction of stricter rules on the
handling of chemicals, such as The
Manufacture, Storage and Import of
Hazardous Chemical Rules (1989). In the
last two decades a chlorine leak case in
2008 in Karnataka affected 230 people
and a chlorine gas leak in 2010 from the
Mumbai port trust led to the
hospitalisation of 118. In 2009, in
appropriate recycling of biomedical waste
in Gurjarat led to a sudden hepatitis
outbreak and in April, 2010, the sale of
radioactive Cobalt-60 as scrap by Delhi
University’s chemistry department led to
a radiation leak that killed one person
and injured seven others. The material
had been lying unused within the
university for 25 years.
Economic theft of material for
resale on the black market is also
widespread: examples include recovery
of weapons grade Uranium 235 from
criminals in Tamil Nadu in 1998; the
theft of more than 8kg of natural
uranium from the Indira Gandhi
Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) in
Chennai (later seized by the Central
Bureau of Investigation in 1999); the
recovery of 26 Kg of uranium from
illicit traffickers in Hyderabad in 2000;
a gamma radiography camera
containing Iridium 192 with an activity
of 729 GBq stolen during
transportation in Assam in July 2002;
an industrial ionising radiation-gauging
device (IRGD/nucleonic density gauge)
containing about 9.25 GBq Cs-137
source, used in a coal washery in
November, 2006, and 15 disused Cobalt60 isotopes stolen from Steel Authority
of India Limited (SAIL), Durgapur plant
in January, 2011. Such incidents show
that while elaborate security structures
as well as State and central legislations
exist for the proper maintenance of
hazardous materials, they are often
poorly implemented.
How to address this is difficult. As
central government and local state
legislation does not always have much
traction with industry, the situation is
unlikely to be improved by either the
introduction of new policies,
legislation or increased awareness of
the current structures. Awareness is
not the issue, compliance is,
particularly within the small and
medium-sized industries in which CBR
materials are handled and stored.
While such companies and sites often
pay little notice to government
legislation, international trade
standards and guidance appears to have
more traction, particularly where there
is an economic carrot in the form of
investment from international
companies. One chemical company in
Delhi with lax safety compliance
brought it up to date almost overnight
because a contract with a
multinational was due for renewal and
the multinational was sending
international consultants for audit.
Role of Industry in Setting Standards
The research suggests that there is a
strong role for private industry and
trade associations in setting standards
and encouraging compliance across
CBR industries in India, particularly as
privatisation of previously state-owned
industries increases. Safety and security
frameworks may need to be
strengthened in the nuclear and
pharmaceutical industries in particular.
Industries and trade bodies with
international business interests can be
drivers for adopting best practice
guidelines and international standards.
For example, some of the larger
petrochemical industries maintain their
own internal standards based on
international practices that often go
beyond what is mandated by the
government. A perfect example of this is
the way with which the Indian
Pharmaceutical Association (IPA) is
aligned with the Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (GHS). US industry standards
in particular have gained traction in
India and pushing these out more widely
should be encouraged.
Trade associations and industrial
councils within India such as CAPEXIL
(Council and Allied Export Promotion
Council of India), the Indian Chemical
Manufacturers Association (ICMA), the
Organisation of Pharmaceutical
Producers of India (OPPI), the Indian
Radiological and Imaging Association
(IRIA) and the All India Biotech
Association (AIBA) have a major role to
play in strengthening safety and security.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
66
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
An Explosion of Demand
CBRN attacks in India are low level, but still occuring ©Getty Images
These organisations can and should
come together to address these issues,
backed up by centralised information,
support and ultimately stricter
government legislation and enforcement.
Best Practice from Global Forums
Additionally, India has shown a
willingness to engage with
international organisations that
produce international guidance and
standards, help to promote and enforce
this guidance, regulate practice and aid
capacity building in countries where
safety and security may otherwise fall
below accepted international standards.
Tangible benefits can be seen from
India’s engagement with such global
forums. India has played an active role
in the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) since its inception ,
sitting on the board of governors and
holding executive positions including
President of the General Conference and
Chairman of the Board of Governors.
India is also a participant in the IAEA’s
Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB). An
example of co-operation between the
IAEA and the Government of India is
the signing of an agreement on the
Application of Safeguards to Civilian
Nuclear Facilities in 2009, following
nearly two years of consultations. This
ensures that Indian nuclear facilities
meet IAEA’s international standards.
Similarly, signing up as a member
organisation to the International
Federation of Biosafety Associations
(IFBA) in November, 2011, has
provided the Society for Biosafety India
(IBS) with direct access to
international resources such as expert
scholars from the US National Science
Foundation Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship
(NSF-IGERT) programme. India’s
membership of and participation in
such organisations, as well as links and
partnerships between Indian and
international industries, should be
encouraged and the benefits promoted.
It is by strengthening these
partnerships that RUSI's efforts will be
focused in the coming months. Working
with UK and Indian trade associations,
RUSI will look to encourage and
support strong links between the two
countries to drive forward international
standards, best practical and
partnerships for the future.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
68
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Standard Power
Michelle Maas Deane, Director of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) within the
Homeland Security Standards Panel, speaks
about homeland security as well as the role of
standards, codes and conformity assessment in
assuring public safety.
In the decade following the 9/11
terrorist attacks, the homeland security
and emergency preparedness
communities made enormous strides in
improving the safety of citizens and
critical infrastructures at home and
abroad. A continual review of the
standards, codes and conformity
assessment activities that contribute to
a safer world is paramount to ensuring
the security of people and the built
environment.
Following last year’s release of the
National Strategy for CBRNE Standards,
now is the time for an open discussion
on how this strategy is being
implemented within the private sector.
The American National Standards
Institute’s Homeland Security
Standards Panel will host a workshop
on CBRNE Standards on Tuesday,
September 11, 2012, in Arlington,
Virginia. All are welcome to attend and
can register by visiting
www.ansi.org.hssp
What Does ANSI Do?
The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI - www.ansi.org) is a
private, non-profit organisation that
administers and coordinates the US
voluntary standards and conformity
assessment system. In this role, the
Institute works in close collaboration
with stakeholders from both industry
and government to identify
standards-based solutions to national
and global priorities.
Since its formation, ANSI has held
the unique responsibility of
coordinating the standardisation efforts
of diverse interests and standards
developing organisations (SDOs). In its
role as a neutral forum, the Institute
has helped to forge and facilitate our
nation’s robust public-private
partnership. This neutrality is key
where significant cross-sector
collaboration is required. The
infrastructure provided by the Institute
provides the facilitation and mediation
required to bring stakeholders together
on issues such as homeland security,
smart grid, healthcare and cyber
security. The composition of ANSI’s
board of directors reflects this
commitment to openness and crosssector communication, with
representation from US government
agencies, businesses, professional
societies, trade associations, SDOs,
conformity assessment bodies, as well
as consumer and labour organisations.
ANSI does not develop standards
but, rather, oversees the creation,
promulgation and use of thousands of
standards, guidelines and conformity
assessment activities directly impacting
businesses and consumers in nearly
every industry and product line. In
addition to the Institute’s role in the
domestic standardisation
infrastructure, ANSI promotes the use
of US standards internationally,
advocates US policy and technical
positions in international and regional
standards organisations. It also
encourages the adoption of
international standards as national
standards where they meet user needs.
The American National Standard
Process
ANSI fosters the US standardisation
system by accrediting the procedures of
SDOs and approving documents as
American National Standards (ANS).
Accreditation as a standards developer
represents compliance with an open and
equitable consensus development
process that protects the rights and
interests of every participant through a
set of cardinal principles:
• Openness – Any materially-affected
and interested party shall have the
ability to participate.
• Balance – Participants should
represent diverse interests and
categories, and no single group or
individual should have dominance in
standards development.
• Due process – All objections shall
have an attempt made toward their
resolution. Interested parties who
believe they have been treated unfairly
have a right to appeal.
• Consensus – Agreements are
reached when more than a simple
majority of the participants concur on
a proposed solution.
ANSI’s impartial, third-party audits
oversee the integrity of this process,
regularly assuring adherence to the
Institute’s procedures and safeguarding
the value of the ANS designation.
HSSP and the Homeland Security
Standardisation Landscape
When, in 2002, the National Strategy
for Homeland Security identified the
need for standards to support homeland
security and emergency preparedness,
the standardisation community rallied
to address the needs of security
stakeholders in both the US and around
the globe. Although there is still work
to be done, much has already been
accomplished. One of the key
contributors is the ANSI Homeland
Security Standards Panel (HSSP).
ANSI established the HSSP in February,
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
69
CBRNeWORLD
Standard Power
2003, in direct response to a call from
government and industry for standards
and conformity assessment programs
that would support the nation’s
stakeholders and the burgeoning
homeland security industry.
Specifically, the panel identifies and
promotes consensus standards that are
critical to homeland security. Where
there are gaps, the ANSI-HSSP assists
the Department of Homeland Security
Science and Technology Directorate’s
Office of Standards, as well as other
stakeholders, by accelerating the
development and adoption of the
consensus standards that are needed. It
is important to understand that the
ANSI-HSSP does not itself develop
standards. Rather, the panel provides
DHS with a single forum in which
officials can interact with the broad
homeland security standards community.
One of the panel’s primary goals is to
promote a positive and co-operative
partnership between the public and
private sectors. Successful collaboration
with various security initiatives has
solidified the panel’s reputation as the
place to go for consideration of high-level,
homeland security standards matters.
The panel builds upon ANSI’s
expertise and reputation as an open and
neutral forum, conducting its work
primarily through plenary meetings and
workshops. Thousands of homeland
security experts from both government
and a broad cross-section of industrial
sectors have become actively engaged in
the plenary meetings and workshop
activities that are described in this
article. This interaction has led to many
instances in which groups have been able
to learn of complementary efforts and
make contacts that foster collaboration.
The commitment of ANSI and the
standardisation community is
documented in the United States
Standards Strategy, which highlights
the importance of standards
coordination to address national
priorities such as homeland security.
Examples of success can be found in
the alignment of resources for securityrelated conferences and initiatives and
in the growing numbers of participants
engaged in the technical activities of
standards developers. The ANSI-HSSP
secretary serves as a resource for
homeland security standards inquiries
by connecting people and groups
working on similar issues.
With support from DHS, ANSI also
developed the Homeland Security
Standards Database (HSSD) as a onestop, comprehensive resource for
homeland security standards
information. The HSSD contains
records pertaining to thousands of
standards, categorised via a DHSdeveloped taxonomy. This free database
provides guidance to state and local
first-response agencies that require
standards for an array of new security,
personal-protective and communication
products. As the information in the
HSSD continues to evolve, ANSI is
working with other online systems to
share and leverage homeland security
information. As of October 2008, 38,000
new standards have been reviewed for
inclusion in the HSSD. Of these, more
than 2,500 have been classified and
added. Over the past year, more than
8,125 unique users have visited the site.
Considering recommendations from
the S&T Directorate’s Office of
Standards, DHS has adopted a number
of these standards and guidelines to
assist local, state and federal
procurement officials and
manufacturers. Included are American
National Standards from ANSIaccredited standards developing
organisations, such as the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) and the
International Safety Equipment
Association (ISEA) on personal
protective equipment for first
responders, the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) on
radiological and nuclear detection
equipment, and the International
Committee for Information Technology
Standards (INCITS) on biometrics.
Security standardisation is a global
effort, and the ANSI-HSSP has actively
incorporated international outreach
into its program of work. The panel
engages regularly with the Strategic
Advisory Group on Security (SAG-S),
which was formed by the ISO, IEC and
the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) to oversee standardisation
activities relevant to the field of security
in each of the three parent
organisations. In addition, partnerships
have been forged between the ANSIHSSP and the European standards
organisations, including the European
Committee for Standardisation working
group on ‘Protection and Security of the
Citizen’ as well as Australia’s National
Centre for Security Standards.
Major ANSI-HSSP Accomplishments
In ten years of activity, the ANSI-HSSP
has hosted a number of workshops
resulting in reports that have helped to
examine the standardisation landscape
in various homeland security-related
focus areas. Following is a selection of
some of the most recent and
noteworthy accomplishments:
Emergency Preparedness and Business
Continuity
At the request of the 9/11 Commission,
the ANSI-HSSP organised a workshop
with the goal of identifying an existing
standard (or creating an action plan for
developing one) in the area of privatesector, emergency preparedness and
business continuity. The workshop
recommended ANSI/NFPA 1600,
‘Disaster/Emergency Management and
Business Continuity Programs’. ANSI’s
recommendation was included in the
final report published by the 9/11
Commission. ANSI/NFPA 1600 has
since been promoted by the panel,
referenced in national campaigns and
included in national legislation on the
subject of preparedness.
Following Hurricane Katrina, the
ANSI-HSSP convened a workshop to
further examine emergency
preparedness and the role of standards
and conformity assessment programs.
More than 100 experts from dozens of
public and private sector stakeholder
organisations, as well as the
professional preparedness and business
continuity community, were involved in
the ten-month effort to produce a final
workshop report. The workshop once
again recognised ANSI/NFPA 1600 as
the pre-eminent standard on emergency
preparedness and business continuity.
The Hurricane Katrina workshop report
highlighted the value of compliance
with ANSI/NFPA 1600, recommended
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
70
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
updates for NFPA to consider during the
standard’s next review cycle and
identified areas where supplemental
standards are needed.
Disaster Resilience for Buildings and
Physical Infrastructure Systems
A November, 2011, workshop entitled:
‘Standards for Disaster Resilience for
Buildings and Physical Infrastructure
Systems’ was held to examine areas
where standards and codes were needed
to further support physical
infrastructure and build resilience in
the United States.
Workshop participants provided
input for the proposed framework in the
following key areas: community
resilience, water and wastewater, electric
power, transportation and buildings. It
was noted that, as a multifaceted issue,
further insight on disaster resilience was
needed in order to develop standards
and conformance-based solutions that
can be used nationwide.
Emergency Preparedness for Persons
with Disabilities and Special Needs
For the millions of US Citizens with
special needs, emergencies and
natural disasters present a unique
challenge. Catastrophic events such as
Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita
and the 9/11 attacks revealed the
crucial need for standards, as well as
other means of guidance to enhance
emergency preparedness for persons
with special needs.
In an effort to advance
standardisation efforts in this area, the
ANSI-HSSP released a final workshop
report in November 2010 outlining
recommendations for the timely
development of standards to support
more effective emergency preparedness
for all. The report consolidates the
panel’s findings from a series of 2010
workshops, which examined various
aspects of the standards and codes
needed for reducing barriers to
accessibility in emergencies.
The aim of the report is to educate
key stakeholders on the challenges and
standardisation gaps relating to
emergency preparedness, and to serve
as a call to standards developers to take
necessary action on identified gaps.
Standards impact all aspects of CBRN ©DoD
Looking Forward: Focus on CBRNE
Reliable CBRNE countermeasure
equipment is essential for the protection
of life, health, property and commerce.
In 2011, with an eye toward this critical
aspect of national preparedness, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) collaborated with the US
Departments of Homeland Security and
Commerce to release the National
Strategy for CBRNE Standards. The
strategy outlined the federal vision and
goals for the coordination and
implementation of CBRNE equipment
standards up to 2020.
Do your bit!
Everyone should be participating in the
standards-setting process, not just large
corporations, government agencies and
major industry associations.
For a standard to be truly effective,
it needs to have been developed by all
affected stakeholders. Small and
medium-size businesses that leave
standardisation activities to larger
organisations are distancing
themselves from a process that can
have a large impact on their bottom
line. It simply makes good business
sense to be involved.
Think about what is important to
your organisation and how you can
achieve competitive advantage through
your standardisation efforts. It costs
relatively little to contribute to the
voluntary standards process and the
rewards can be enormous.
The American National Standards
Institute stands ready to assist you in
your standardisation efforts.
Participation in the ANSI-HSSP is open
to representatives of industry,
government, professional societies, trade
associations, standards developers and
consortia groups directly involved in US
Homeland Security standardisation. To
learn more, to get involved or to sign up
for our free electronic newsletter, send
an email to hssp@ansi.org
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
71
CAPABILITY PROFILES
Scott Safety
Scott Safety, formally Scott Health and Safety, are
world leaders in the design and development of
Respiratory Protection Equipment (RPE). The range
includes Self Contained Breathing Apparatus, Powered
Air Purifying Respirators, negative pressure mask,
filters, gas detection, compressors and Thermal
Imagining equipment.
Our military and civil defence customers are on all 6
continents and use our equipment in the harshest
conditions.
That is why we test in the field. And we apply what we
learn there – as well as emerging research and
technologies to every design to ensure capability,
functionality and comfort.
Irrespective of whether your requirement is for CBRN
protection, Breathing Apparatus for EOD, USAR,
damage control, fire-fighting or for specialist applications
Scott can meet your requirements – comfortably.
©UK MOD
The Scott General Service
Respirator, accepted into
service by UK MOD in 2010
We have a detailed understanding of the physiological
and physiological burden RPE can place on users.
Bruker Detection - Innovation with Integrity
Bruker Detection, a division of Bruker Daltonik, is a
leading company in the field of CBRN detection. Widely
regarded as the development, engineering and
manufacturing expert of “easy to use” and reliable
detection equipment; Bruker has a proven record of
excellence spanning over 30 years. The product line
ranges from handheld to sophisticated stand-off
detectors and complete solutions for platform integration.
Continuous innovation and a resolute commitment to
provide “best of its class” products and services to
customers is Bruker’s driving force. Our broad
technology base includes ion mobility spectrometry,
mass spectrometry, Fourier Transform IR spectrometry
and semi-conductor based radiation detection.
Combine this with a variety of biological detection
solutions such as electrochemical biochips for toxins
and it is clear that Bruker can offer full spectrum CBRN
coverage.
First Responders using
chemical agent warning
instruments RAID-M 100
for their missions
Applications: Point Detection, Stand-Off Detection,
Platform and Full Integration Systems.
www.cbrn-bdal.de
Systems for Systems
by OWR
OWR has been setting the standards
for NBC defence and civil protection
for more than 50 years. Expansive
experience with successful customers
and competent partners has enabled
us to develop modern CBRN systems
to protect against the incidents of the
future.
Fog Booster:
Highly mobile hand held cold fogger
using compressed air and innovative
new nozzle technology
Research and Development together
with innovation has always been
important for OWR and they have
recently developed several new
products to offer the customer new
options for a demanding market:
SMGD:
Low pressure, high volume stand
alone decontamination unit for the
application of ready-made
decontamination solutions
GD-6:
Highly efficient decontamination
solution
ToxSim:
Innovative non-toxic training solution
for the simulation of Chemical
Warfare Agent contamination used to
train personnel in correct
decontamination procedures
For more details contact us:
OWR GmbH
Oberschefflenzer Str. 9
74834 Elztal-Rittersbach
Germany
www.owrgroup.com
welcome@owrgroup.com
AirBoss-Defense, the Ultimate Protection
Understanding the operational requirements of its
clients; AirBoss-Defense develops and manufactures
high-tech Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) against
CBRN threats for the defense and all hazards security
markets. Over the past 40 years, AirBoss-Defense has
created innovative user-oriented designs and promoted
the utmost advanced technical materials in millions of
products sold in over 25 nations.
Renowned internationally for its CBRN (PPE), their
range of products also includes industrial extruded and
moulded rubber engineered products.
With superior ergonomics and comfort, and surpassing
NATO requirements, AirBoss?Defense’s gas masks,
hand wear and footwear are especially designed to
perfectly integrate with CBRN suits and components.
Not only does AirBoss-Defense’s PPE offer ultimate
protection against CBRN threats, it has also been
proven to be effective against a wide range of Toxic
Industrial Chemicals (TIC’s).
When it comes to protection,
AirBoss-Defense delivers!
AirBoss-Defense
Tel: +1 (450) 546 0283, Fax: +1 (450) 546-0213
Email: info@airbossdefense.com
Web: www.airbossdefense.com
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
72
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CAPABILITY PROFILES
First Line Technology
First Line Technology, LLC is an ISO 9001:2008-certified manufacturer and supplier of
Out of the Box Solutions for first responders and the military. As a total solution
provider for emergency response equipment, First Line works directly with
manufacturers and subject matter experts to provide current solutions for emergency
response missions. First Line has established itself as a leader in new product
development and deployment with innovative and simple solutions and prides itself on
creating high-quality products that are comfortable, effective, and safe for use in an All
Hazards response. Some of First Line’s top product lines include Fibertect (the next
generation of activated carbon dry decontamination, a nonwoven composite substrate
for cold weather decon), PhaseCore
(heat-activated personal cooling
products), and the AmbuBus (bus
stretcher conversion kit for mass
casualty transport).
Milipol Qatar: 8 – 10 October 2012, Doha Exhibition Centre
Milipol Qatar: The gateway to the Middle
East security market
Since 1996, the Milipol Qatar exhibition,
organised by the Ministry of Interior, State
of Qatar, welcomes every two years the
security professionals from Middle East, the
Near East and Asia.
Milipol Qatar is the technological
showcase for:
– products and services in global security
sector.
– important international companies wishing
to develop their business around the region.
Milipol Qatar 2010 welcomed:
– 4,816 visitors, all of them buyers and
advisors from 61 countries
– 107 high level Official Delegates
– 135 international journalists
… came to meet…
– 222 overseas exhibitors, displaying
innovations and know-how.
Find out the list of
activities and the list of
products shown on
Milipol Paris
www.milipolqatar.com
Milipol Qatar 2012 will focus on:
– Fight against terrorism
– Law enforcement & crowd management
– Border control
– Protection of industrial & sensitive sites
FLIR — A world leader in CBRNE detection
FLIR Systems is the world’s largest supplier of advanced capabilities to detect threats in all of the critical
CBRNE segments – chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive. These compact, portable,
laboratory-caliber systems are in use across a broad spectrum of applications, including incident
response, force protection, field-based forensics and critical infrastructure protection. As both a systems
and technology provider to the defense industry, FLIR Systems leverages unparalleled technical
expertise to address the emerging challenges of our time.
For more information on the FLIR detection solutions, visit www.flir.com
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: export@paulboye.fr
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
73
CAPABILITY PROFILES
Thermo Scientific – Formerly sold under the Ahura Scientific brand
Thermo Scientific handheld chemical identification
tools are field-ready instruments that deliver precise
and actionable intelligence to military organizations,
first responders and national law enforcement
agencies around the world. Products include the
AhuraFD™ (flagship FirstDefender®), FirstDefender
RM, FirstDefender RMX and TruDefender™ FT for
solid and liquid chemical identification and the
TruDefender FTG for headspace gas identification.
selective optical techniques, each offering distinct
advantages in specific applications. When used
together, FTIR and Raman spectroscopy provide
confirmatory results and a broader range of unknown
substance identification – leading to better protection
for the responder and the community.
Complementary and Confirmatory:
FTIR spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy, the
underlying technologies in the AhuraFD, FirstDefender
and TruDefender products, are highly precise and
www.thermoscientific.com/ahura
sales.chemid@thermofisher.com
+1 (978) 642-1132
W. L. Gore & Associates
For more than 30 years, W. L. Gore &
Associates has pioneered high-performance
fabrics for military, firefighters, and law
enforcement. Gore engineers its barriers
based on the concept of fitness for use,
which means delivering the best product to
meet the demands of a specific application.
Whether developing a barrier for warm or hot
zone protection, Gore collaborates with users
to understand their environment, their
challenges, and the hazards they face. Gore
has combined this understanding with its
extensive knowledge of membrane
technology to engineer durable GORE®
CHEMPAK® fabrics. Certified suits designed
with these fabrics provide users with
enhanced functionality, helping them to
operate more confidently and remain
engaged longer.
The barrier solution you need depends on
your mission. Whatever you’re up against,
Gore has you covered.
For more information on product
performance and fitness-for-use limitations,
visit GoreChempak.com or
call 800-431-GORE (4673).
UTILIS IBERICA
UTILIS IBERICA supplies complete solutions for
CBRN Defence and was awarded the supply of
Division and Brigade Command Posts and
Medical Facilities ROLE 2+ type with CBRN
collective protection (COLPRO) for Spanish
Army, Air Force, Marines and Health
Department.
UTILIS IBERICA is also specialized in personnel
CBRN decontamination stations. Currently in
service in the Spanish CBRN Regiment and also
in Medical Corps units with casualties
decontamination capability.
In the field of individual protection, UTILIS
IBERICA has been selected in Spain as the
supplier of “CBRN Individual Protection Material”,
part of CBRN IPE. This equipment is now
available within the framework agreement opened
with NAMSA with NSN 4230-33-208-9750.
Our NATO constructor number is 8513B.
Quality certificates: AQAP2120, ISO9001 and
ISO14001.
Tel: +34 918 990 990
email: info@utilisiberica.com
www.utilisiberica.com
Immediate Response Technologies Inc.
Immediate Response Technologies Inc. is an
ISO Registered, GSA Contract Holder
manufacturer of the most technically
advanced, highest quality patented Articulating
Framed Shelters, Powered Air Purifying
Respirators (PAPRs), Negative Pressure
Individual Isolation Systems (ISO-PODS), Air
Filters/Cartridges and thermal targets
anywhere. Our emergency response
equipment is utilized by all active military duty
services, the Coast Guard, the National Guard
and numerous homeland defense
organizations like the FBI, CIA, DHS, DOJ,
DOS and FEMA. We are a prime provider to
the National Guard CBRNE Enhanced
Response Force Packages (CERF-P’s),
Homeland Response Force (HRF’s), medical
units and Marine Corps CBIRF Teams; as well
as to law enforcement, emergency medical
teams and hospitals in hundreds of U.S. cities
and 30 countries around worldwide.
Immediate Response Technologies is the
military and civilian standard of excellence for
CBRN Decontamination, Protection and
Emergency Response Preparedness!
Contact us at:
1-800-598-9711 or www.imresponse.com
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
74
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CAPABILITY PROFILES
Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion
Reactive Skin Decontamination
Lotion (RSDL) -www. RSDecon.com
– a patented broad spectrum skin
decontamination product intended
to remove or neutralize chemical
warfare agents or T2 toxin from the
skin, leaving a non-toxic liquid that
can be washed away with water.
Deployed in both the Gulf wars,
RSDL has been accepted by
several military services around
the world and is currently
undergoing fielding by the U.S
Department of Defense for
deployment with U.S troops.
RSDL has also equipped first
responders deployed to provide
security at significant international
events, such as the Olympic games
and G8 heads of state meetings
where it was available to protect
VIP's and the public.
RSDL® removes or neutralizes
ALL known chemical warfare
agents: GA (TABUN), GB (SARIN),
GD (SOMAN), GF (Cyclohexyl
SARIN), VX (Nerve Agent), HD
(Mustard), T-2 Toxin
www.RSDecon.com
FT Igloo – Tough, Robust and Design for Integration
FT Technologies specialises in the design and
manufacture of high performance ultrasonic
Acoustic Resonance air flow sensors for
demanding applications.
Designed into various CBRNe
detection and Ballistic
Meteorology systems since 2005,
our FT Igloo range is engineered
for OEM integration, providing ultra-compact,
rugged, and accurate airflow measurement
indoors and outdoors.
All our sensors incorporate our own patented AcuRes® technology which delivers reliable wind speed
and direction data from ultra-compact sensors that
will operate in the toughest conditions.
We pride the continual investment in product
development and are conducting
leading edge research in to
acoustics, transducers,
aerodynamics, materials, coatings
and environmental protection.
Interface: The sensor can output up to 5 readings
per second via a RS422 or RS485 interface.
Options: Integrated compass.
To set up a FREE 30-day trial, contact
Gilbert Young – Product Manager
Gilbert Young – Product Manager
Email: gilbert.young@fttech.co.uk
Email: gilbert.young@fttech.co.uk
Dräger is the partner you can trust for all your SpecOp needs
Whether military, civil defense, or law enforcement, our products deliver performance in sensitive
site exploitation & reconaissance, rescue & recovery and decontamination.
With more than 100 years of innovation and working closely with military and civil forces,
government agencies, emergency services and other special forces, we engineer products that
protect those who protect others.
We have been the primary re-breather provider to the Navy SEALS for over 30 years and our
products have been built and innovated with input from and in conjunction with branches of the
US Military.
The Dräger DHS® 7000 Hybrid System is the cornerstone of our commitment to the special
operations mission community. It combines the features of APR, PAPR, SCBA SCBA/PAPR,
and SCBA/APR into a single system.
Dräger is Technology for Life.
QinetiQ North America
QinetiQ North America provides a wide
range of defense and security products
and solutions to the defense, civilian
government and commercial markets.
We focus on high technology research
and development, and the rapid
development of concepts into proven
products and solutions that support
survivability, unmanned systems,
maritime and transportation programs.
QinetiQ North America is a world leader
in robotic technology solutions that save
lives in defense, security and first
responder environments.
QinetiQ North America develops robots
in a variety of sizes and capabilities that
help warfighters and first responders stay
out of harm’s way. Our most well known
robot is TALON®. Since TALON’s initial
deployment in 2000, the QinetiQ North
America’s family of robots has expanded
to include small, medium and large
unmanned vehicles that can be
configured for specific tasks, such as
IED defeat and CBRNE/hazmat
identification.
For more information,
visit www.qinetiq-na.com
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
75
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.
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)
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
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
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
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
Sales@nbc-sys.com
www.nbc-sys.com
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
BioFire Diagnostics BioSurveillance
BioFire Diagnostics Inc. (formerly
Idaho Technology) leads in the
deployment of reliable and sensitive
BioSurveillance instruments for
multiple operational scenarios.
RAZOR™ EX BioThreat Field
Detection System
– A hand-carry instrument designed
specifically for field use that provides
sensitive and reliable detection and
identification of biological threats
using cutting-edge PCR technology.
The battery operated instrument
weighs 11 lbs, operates with freeze-
dried reagents, and requires minimal
sample preparation which means
that it can be used anywhere by
military, civil defense, and security
personnel. Qualitative results for 10
pathogens are available in just 30
minutes.
NEW- FilmArray® Biological
Detection System
– A multi-use instrument for
screening pandemic, biothreat, and
public health pathogens of interest.
This easy-to-use system integrates
advanced sample preparation with
PCR detection and automatic data
analysis in a single, compact
instrument that provides quantitative
results in 1 hour. Samples are
tested for 18 Category A, B, and C
Bioterrorism pathogens, each with
multiple targets for high-quality
results.
www.idahotech.com/biosurveillance
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
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
76
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Book Review
Crime Scene Investigation, 2nd Edition
Fish, J. T., Miller, L. S., and Braswell, M. C., (Anderson, 2010)
T
here is now a surfeit of texts on forensic science and crime
scene investigation available, most of which are aimed
squarely at the generalist undergraduate market (read paying
punters). Fish et al’s offering makes claim to a novel approach,
with more information suited to operational detectives. It also
provides a survey of specialist crime scene disciplines, as well
as the promise (or threat) of “a chapter by chapter fictional
narrative”, which is a unique feature in this field.
There is a natural tension in any book covering this range
of material in an effort to balance chapters that introduce
generic concepts of scene approach and investigation and those
that tackle niche scene or evidence subjects. The initial
chapters, ‘The First Response’ and ‘Documenting the Crime
Scene’, are both respectable overviews with a fresh, detective’s
perspective and an unashamed concentration on US legislation.
All of this serves to carve out a niche for this book as the friend
of the forensically-trained police officer. The chapters are
arguably let down by poor supporting images (a cardinal sin in
a chapter dealing with forensic photography) and a curious
overemphasis on CBRN hazards at the crime scene. Whilst this
might suit the readers of CBRNe World, it makes for an
eccentric concentration in a general forensic context.
The book then continues with a run through of core
forensic disciplines: ‘Fingerprints and Palmprints’, ‘Trace and
Impression Evidence’ and ‘Body Fluid Evidence’. These are
better, although their presentation is perhaps better suited to
a general police audience than students requiring referenced
and robust scientific detail. These chapters are again let down
by poorly produced and printed images, including handdrawn figures and typeset documents. There is, in addition,
the odd sentence that may just make your palms sweat such
as, “Of course, don’t forget that many times people who are
not co-operating [in volunteering a DNA reference sample]
leave their DNA on a cigarette butt, chewed gum or on a can
or bottle, which can make sample collection much easier.”
There may be a cultural difference at work here, but the
prospect of convincing a UK court that DNA derived from an
item at a scene is undoubtedly the reference profile of an
uncooperative suspect gives me acid reflux from the outset.
The specialist chapters: ‘Blood Spatter Evidence’,
‘Firearms and Toolmark Evidence’, ‘Arson and Explosives’,
‘The Electronic Crime Scene’, ‘Documentary Evidence’,
‘Motor Vehicles as Crime Scenes’, ‘Death Investigation’ and
‘Forensic Anthropology, Odontology and Entomology’ are a
treat, and are clearly written, accessible pieces dealing with
some complex aspects of major investigations.
The book concludes with a useful glossary but very
limited references, which are neither comprehensively crossreferenced in the text nor divided by chapter. The references
back to US federal law and case proceedings are an exception:
they seem numerous and well-presented and again would be
of particular use to the forensically-trained detective. It has to
be said that the ‘chapter-by-chapter fictional narrative’ does
not cover this book in glory, and it concerns me that it might
support the already all-pervading aura of glamour around
forensic sciences to the inexperienced student, whilst
alienating the experienced police officer.
In a crowded market of forensic texts there is a place for
Crime Scene Investigation, but should a third edition of this
book be published in years to come it would benefit from
being more firmly in favour of the professional, American
investigator – even if this is to the detraction of the
undergraduate market. It would also benefit from polishing
the initial scene examination chapters until their chrome fins
gleam (these should be the beating heart of this text),
improving the illustrations and references, retaining the
specialist chapters and ditching the fictional narrative
(sorry!). Perhaps the latter could be replaced with a series of
frank and factual case studies, produced in a narrative style
that would communicate the personal experience of the
authors to the reader in a direct manner.
Reviewed by Dr. Karl Harrison,
Lead Forensics Archaeologist, Cranfield University
In the next issue we will be reviewing Defense: How to protect
against CBRN threats in a changing security environment by
Hans Kuhl. ISBN 389981276X
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
77
CBRNeWORLD
Crystal Ball
Vil Mirzayanov, PhD.
Former chief of the
Department of
Technical
Counterintelligence
of GosNIIOKhT,
gives his opinion on
Syria’s Russian
Chemical Threat
More bad news emerged from Syria in
July, when its Minister of Foreign Affairs
announced that the Syrian Army may use
its chemical weapons (CW) against
foreign intervention. He also stated that
these weapons wouldn’t be used against
Syrians, but are we really to believe this?
As a CW scientist, who worked for 26
years in the State Scientific Research
Institute of Organic Chemistry and
Technology (GosNIIOKhT) – the main
developer of CW in Russia – I know that
these weapons of mass destruction, first
and foremost, usually harm and kill
ordinary people who are neither protected
nor trained. Military people are supposed
to be well-trained, protected and supplied
with antidotes and medical personnel.
The dilemma is how to protect ordinary,
Syrian civilians.
In this particular case, we are not dealing
with untrained terrorists, who don’t have
delivery systems for launching CW, but
with organised and protected, military
personnel whose delivery systems were
developed and produced in Russia. It’s
important to remember that during
Soviet times the chemical officers of the
Syrian Army were trained at the Military
Chemical Academy in Moscow and in
other military chemical colleges within
the Soviet Union. As far as I know, the
Soviets delivered CW, as well as the
artillery systems for launching them, to
Syria at end of 1980s. These particular
CW are probably already obsolete and
expired, but their delivery systems should
be still capable of launching chemical
attacks. It is very disturbing that even
during Boris Yeltsin’s time in office,
Russia was co-operating with Syria in the
field of CW.
Many people have probably already
forgotten a scandal in 1994 connected to
the Lieutenant General Anatoly
Kuntsevich, assistant on CW issues to the
President of Russia, who sent to Syria up
to 700kg of dichloroanhydride of
methylphosphonic acid (DCAMPA), a
precursor for the synthesis of nerve
agents such as Sarin and VX gas. Exactly
at this time, with the help of the Russian
military chemical complex, the so-called
Syrian Center of Environmental
Protection Problems was created in Syria.
A lot of equipment, including laboratory
hoods capable of working with chemical
warfare agents (CA) and vacuum pumps,
were sent from GosNIIOKhT via the Air
Force base in Chkalovskaya, in the
suburbs of Moscow. Canisters with
DCAMPA were among the equipment sent
to Syria. It was somewhat surprising that
only 700kg of DCAMPA were sent to
Syria. Then many people understood why.
First, the money for this quantity of
precursor was supposed to be paid
directly into General Kuntsevitch’s
pocket. Secondly, it was a purer product
than an industrial precursor and it was
designed to be used in this Syrian Center
in the development and design of a new
generation of CW, binary Sarin.
Binary chemical weapons are those which
are synthesised in-flight to the target in a
rocket or shell using two more stable and
relatively unharmful chemical substances,
which react with each other and produce
the final, deadly chemical agent (CA). The
main advantage of this type of CW is its
capability to be stored for a relatively long
time without major precautions or safety
problems. To be more exact, the binary
version of Sarin was already developed
and tested in GosNIIOKhT, and it was
much more effective than the US version,
because Russians used a more poisonous
component for their binary Sarin. The
principle of chemical reaction used in this
case was given in my book: Vil. S.
Mirzayanov. State Secrets: An Insider’s
Chronicle of the Russian Chemical
Weapons Program, p. 166.
Russia was co-operating with the Syrian
Center of Environmental Protection
Problems at least until 2002, possibly as a
cover up for broader actions. General
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
78
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
CBRNeWORLD
Kuntsevich died that year in Syria, but
I’m not sure that the co-operation
between Russia and Syria in this area
ended with his death. If Syria still has
Sarin gas in its storage, as well as the
factory for its production, there is only
one possibility: the Russians built it and
shared their technology after they stopped
producing this agent in Volgograd
“Khimprom” at the end of the 1970s. The
contradictory explanation from the Syrian
Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned
above (on July 24th, 2012) about the
necessity of mixing seems absurd if
related to binary weapons. Binary
weapons are not designed for mixing their
components on the ground.
Always willing to lend a helping hand.
What evidence of Soviet support will be found in Syria? ©CBRNe World
There is another possibility, which is
connected to specifics of the Russian type
of CW. They were developed in such a way
that containers with CA were stockpiled
in remote storage areas, while shells,
mines, bombs and rockets were in other
separate storage, sufficiently far away.
Before the planned CW attacks, all
containers should be transferred to
special sites where CW specialists charge
the latter with the former. According to
recent messages from Syria, their CW
were sent somewhere to an unspecified
location. I suppose they were sent exactly
to the charging stations. After that they’ll
be able to move them to the shooting or
so-called battle positions.
All this logically brings us to a
conclusion: that Russia may still be
secretly and materialistically supporting
the CW potential of Syria. I would not be
surprised at all if, at some time in the
future, Russian weapons are found in the
CW arsenal of Syria. All of this raises
some very serious questions about direct
violations of the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC), though from the very
beginning I expressed my doubts about
the true commitment of Russia to this
international agreement. Not surprisingly,
a list of chemical agents to be controlled
by CWC doesn’t include an extremely
dangerous new class of nerve CA
developed, tested and produced in Russia.
Not surprisingly, Russia is now backing a
bloody Syrian regime. I can assume that
Russia is afraid that, with the fall of
Assad’s regime, there is real potential for
the discovery of evidence pertaining to its
direct violations of the CWC.
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
www.cbrneworld.com
August 2012 CBRNe WORLD
79
CBRNeWORLD
Governor Gabriel Cinomis, a Prairie Dog, gives his
opinion of CBRN matters from his unique perspective
Prairie Dog
Ms Chuckworthy was able to arrange a meeting for me, which
presented a rare chance to be in the glory circle of one of
government’s Very Senior Minions, The Right Honourable Member
Augustus Cadmus Cookingpot-Grill. First though, some background:
I have spoken of this revered dog in the past, though never named
him directly, as such words are usually not for a mere mortal like
myself to utter. I have spoken of this Member’s extreme diligence in
completely neutering the entire Dogtown Ministry of Defence’s
chemical and biological defence programme. I have heaped significant
abuse upon the decisions of this fellow... Wait, ‘fellow’ implies parity,
and I am certainly not his equal.
What, you might ask, prompted me to have Ms Chuckworthy attempt
to place me on this dog’s frightfully full calendar? Well, The Rt Hon
Cookingpot-Grill is often to be found visiting the Land of the Hamster
and, ironically, much of the DMoD’s chemical and biological defence
materiel ends up on the southern end of this peninsula. One would
think this would have registered with The Rt Hon Member, but I
digress... What prompted me was some recent terminology emerging
from His office. The term was ‘biosurveillance’. Until I read the
briefing and policy paper, I thought I had fully grasped what this term
meant, both inside and outside of the Dogtown Ministry of Defence.
Some might say that there is not a standard definition for
biosurveillance. One common definition is: “The systematic
observation of an area of operations for biological hazards. This
includes the use of biological detectors, intelligence and other
resources.” Another definition broadens the term, and is typically
used in public health sectors: “a systematic process that monitors
the environment for bacteria, viruses and other biological agents
that may cause disease; detects disease in people, plants or animals
caused by said agents; and detects and characterises outbreaks of
such disease.”
This Prime Minion wanted to create a unifying definition and concept
plan for biosurveillance. The entity already tasked with such things as
public health had previously issued guidance in response to this
directive and, as one would expect, their definition resembled the
latter given above, plus some language on integrating various subentity activities. Oddly, the definition from this Prime Minion differed
and implied something a bit extra. Our wily, Rt Hon Member saw this
as an opportunity.
The somewhat sloppy wording in the original missive from the
Prime Minion’s deplorably ignorant Dogtown Security Staff
included the phrase, “…that might relate to disease activity and
threats to health, whether infectious, toxic, metabolic, or
otherwise, and regardless of intentional or natural origin…”
Someone clearly enjoyed their commas. On top of an excessive use
of punctuation, The Rt Hon Cookingpot-Grill decided that this
definition (to be fair I’m only guessing at his glorious thinking
process as I am but a mote in His eye) was to include such diverse
things as chemical spills and radiological exposures. In effect,
biosurveillance now covered anything that might actually harm a
dog [Running with scissors? Ed]. That pesky word “otherwise”
matched with “threats to health”. Why, that is so all-encompassing,
one could use them to bludgeon together a needlessly massive
programme or make an already needlessly massive programme
even larger!
Interestingly, despite this broad definition and language from The Rt
Hon Member’s office, there are some apostates out there still sticking
to a purely biological definition of biosurveillance – even heretically
planning out to 2015. This may be one reason why the head of the
Defense Against Bad Stuff programme is being sent back early to his
home burrow and being replaced by The Rt Hon Member’s squash
partner.
There have been various discussions hither and yon about how this
definition came to imply all-hazards. Not only that, but instead of
DMoD being a cog in a much larger global surveillance effort, The Rt
Hon Cookingpot-Grill has decided that the DMoD is the new Head
Dog in charge of everything – forever and ever, amen. This is
something I have covered previously.
Certainly, there are some advantages to thinking with an all-hazard
approach, but does this not then become CBR surveillance? While the
phrase may be clunky, it is much more illustrative. One does not say
one is going to do some ornithological surveillance and then actually
go off look for bears, for example. The entire thing has left confusion
in its wake, resources re-routed and the first angry, urgent mewls
from a newborn programmatic monstrosity.
Imagine my delight when I was able to have some time with The Rt
Hon A.C. Cookingpot-Grill! Upon entering his palatial offices, the first
thing I noticed were furtive, pleading looks from some of his staff, as
if I was the one sent to deliver them from their Pharaonic den of
misery. One of them slipped me a note that said “Rescue me - will
work for kibble”. I was ushered past pictures showing A.C.’s glorious
days keeping our former enemy’s scientists paid and busy, all while
stabbing Dogtown in the keister. That was a good programme, if a bit
mismanaged by the Agency for Decreasing Myriad Threats.
We entered his office, The Rt Hon Member gesturing from the dais
with one manicured paw for me to rise and be seated, and then HE
himself sat at his desk. There was a short pause before he asked me
the inevitable question:
“What might I do for you today, Mayor Cinomis?”
“I have a question that has been pestering me for some time. Why is
it you wish to purloin one billion nuts from the Defense Against Bad
Stuff programme to build influenza vaccine production plants when
during the last, so-called pandemic Dogtown produced over 50%
more vaccine than was utilised? I mean, gosh, the vaccination rate
was between twenty and thirty percent! Most of the vaccine made got
thrown away.”
Later, upon reflection with Ms Chuckworthy (as she rubbed unguents
into the scourge marks), she reminded me of why I do not often get
to meet with high-minded officials such as Augustus Cadmus
Cookingpot-Grill.
‘Till next I poke my head up.
Gabriel Cinomis
CBRNe Convergence 2012, 30 Oct – 2 Nov, Norfolk Waterside Marriott, VA, USA. More information on www.icbrnevents.com
80
CBRNe WORLD August 2012
www.cbrneworld.com
9
&#/*,'0&#/!'#+1'$'!+!))/'%&10/#0#/3#"
3#/60#!,+"*11#/0
&#+1'*#+"0$#16/#!/'1'!)*')'1/6+"!'3')'+$'/01
/#0-,+"#/020#&#/*,!'#+1'$'!&+"&#)"!&#*'!)'"#+1'$'!1',+
'+01/2*#+101,/-'")6'"#+1'$6#5-),0'3#0-/#!2/0,/0+/!,1'!0
+",1&#/!&#*'!)&7/"0"'/#!1)611&#-,'+1,$+##"
'1&*,/#1&+&+"&#)"!&#*'!)'"#+1'$'!1',+'+01/2*#+10
"#-),6#"4,/)"4'"#4#2+"#/01+"4&1$'/01/#0-,+"#/0"#*+"
,$1&#'/#.2'-*#+1:+"4&6#3#/60#!,+"*11#/0&#0#'+0'%&10
4#/#(#604#"#3#),-#"'/01#$#+"#/8 +"'/01#$#+"#/
,2/+#51%#+#/1',+*+'+01/2*#+104&'!&/##3#+
$01#/+"#0'#/1,20#1&+#3#/ #$,/#
FirstDefender RMX and FirstDefender RM
,//-'"!!2/1#+)60'0,$4'"#/+%#,$-,1#+1')!&#*'!)
#51%#+#/1',+*+'+01/2*#+10#+ )#/-'"
'"#+1'$'!1',+,$2+(+,4+!&#*'!)0'+1&#$'#)"
&7/"012/+1,&#/*,!'#+1'$'!&+"&#)"'+01/2*#+10$,/*#/)6
0,)"2+"#/1&#&2/!'#+1'$'! /+"
,0!&#"2)#"#*,+01/1',+,$,2/+#4#010,)21',+03'0'1
4441&#/*,0!'#+1'$'!!,*&2/,/!))
Moving science forward
e,
at enc
us erg ia,
sit v in
Vi Con Virg 8
e lk, h
RN fo oot
CB Nor B