Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion Next Generation

Interview with Janet Garber

Interview with Brig. Gen. Thomas Spoehr

Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion

Next Generation Decontamination

� Jul - Sep �008

Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly

A U.S. Sailor gives the takeoff signal to a CH-46E Sea Knight pilot assigned to the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit during training aboard the USS Iwo Jima, July 21, 2008. The exercise is part of the certification process the MEU must complete while aboard the USS Iwo Jima for the final exercise of its predeployment training period. Photo by Gunnery Sgt. Christopher A. Matt, U.S. Marine Corps.

Front Cover: After completing a General Quarters (GQ) drill, the USS Mount Whitney lights off its onboard Counter Measure Wash Down System (CMWDS). The CMWDS is used to help the ship combat a Chemical, Biological or Radiological (CBR) weapons attack. The USS Mount Whitney and her embarked Marines are deployed to the Horn of Africa region to participate in Operation Enduring Freedom and the continuing war on terrorism. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate �nd Class George Kusner.

Back Cover: Subject Matter Experts and other members of the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense speak with attendees while the distinctive JPEO-CBD booth towers in the background during the �008 Joint CBRN Conference at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

�

CONTENTS 4 Guest Columnist: Rudy Olszyk, Joint Project Manager,

Decontamination

5 Spoehr Leads CBRN School Through Expansion

9 Next Generation Decontamination the Decontamination Family of Systems (DFoS)

12 Chemistry Challenges of Solution-Based Chemical/Biological Decontamination

15 Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion 101

16 Interview with Ms. Janet Garber, Director, Test and Evaluation Office

22 The Need for Change in Modeling and Simulation

26 XML Data Model Implementation: Everything You Wanted to Know About the CBRN XML Schemas... and Some You Didn’t...

28 IPv6: What Does the Future Network Mean to You?

30 ‘The Reason for Our Success is Our People’

page 5

page 12

page 16

page 22

page 26

Col. Kyle BurkeUSA

Col. Mark MalatestaUSA

Mr. Will HartzellUSMC

Mr. Scott WhiteUSN

Col. David WilliamsUSA

Mr. Rudolf OlszykUSMC

Mr. Stan EnatskyUSN

Col. Daniel BerryUSAF

� Jul - Sep �008


Decontamination is the process of removing, reducing or neutralizing hazardous levels of contamination.

The inherent challenge for JPM-Decontamination is to find solutions that will not cause harm to the Warfighter applying the decontaminant, nor cause degradation to the material to which it is applied. Chemical warfare was not introduced on a large scale until World War I, but ever since, battlefield decontamination has been a high priority for military services worldwide. Having the capability to rapidly reconstitute forces after a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) attack has always been considered a critical deterrent for those who would attempt a CBRN attack. Whether conducting a conventional warfighting mission or mitigating the aftermath of a terrorist attack, JPM-Decontamination needs to be ready for a

wide range of threats. A close working relationship with our Inter-agency partners is also critical to ensure a coordinated response to homeland attacks. Today’s science and technology provides us with effective and varied options for personnel, equipment and wide-area decontamination following a CBRN attack. From self-decontaminating coatings to highly reactive aerosols, state-of-the-art of decontamination continues to keep pace with the rogue development of new, more lethal chemical and biological agents. The JPM-Decontamination develops, fields, and supports solutions to the Warfighter to enhance force protection and provide the ability for forces to efficiently, quickly and safely reconstitute themselves after a CBRN attack. Our organization provides US forces the capability to sustain operations in a contaminated environment with the least necessary burden and minimum degradation to mission accomplishment. We fully recognize the importance of what we do and look forward to the challenge of fielding products that perform and meet the urgent needs of our Warfighters. In this issue of Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly Magazine, there are articles discussing several phases of JPM Decontamination’s undertakings including a new portfolio initiative that seeks to build a family of decontamination systems. In the Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion (RSDL) article, you will find this recently fielded product has qualities that make it superior to the older M291 Skin Decontamination Kit. RSDL gives the Warfighter an immediate decontamination capability that neutralizes vice removes contamination. We also present an article about the chemistry challenges of solution-based chemical/biological decontamination. Since the discovery of Chlorinating Compounds in the 1930s, our decontamination solutions have had to meet the requirements of superior efficacy, long shelf life and material compatibility. Today, safety and environmental concerns are as important in a decontaminant as its ability to neutralize or remove the threat. As you read the article, you will see that new concepts and approaches to solution-based decontamination are constantly being reviewed for the best balance of Warfighter needs. The next article concerns a new initiative, the Decontamination Family of Systems (DFoS), which is focused on providing a number of benefits to the Warfighter, including the ability to tailor the response to a specific threat scenario and contamination level while decreasing the time-lapse between threat detection and mitigation. The article further details how JPM Decontamination is targeting technology enablers that support desired outcomes. I hope you enjoy this issue of the Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly Magazine and gain further knowledge and understanding of JPM Decontamination’s mission and goals in support of our Warfighters.

Maj. Gen. Stephen V. Reeves

Joint Program Executive Officer

Mr. Douglas Bryce Deputy Joint Program Executive Officer

Mr. Scott Paris Chief of Staff

Col. Jonathan Newmark Assistant JPEO-CBD for Medical Affairs

Ms. Brenda Besore Director, Knowledge Management

Mr. Charlie Cutshall Director, Resource Management

Ms. Susan Hubbard Director, Management Support

Mr. Gary Olejniczak Director, Current Acquisition

Mr. Rich Floyd Acting Director, Future Acquisition

Mr. Darrell McCarthy Director, Human Resources

Mr. Larry Wakefield Special Assistant for External Affairs

Ms. Patricia Estep Webmaster

[email protected]

Editor, Chem-Bio Defense Magazine

Mr. Julius L. Evans [email protected]

Contractor Support Provided by Kalman & Co., Inc. and Camber Corporation

Mr. Stephen Gude Assistant Editor

[email protected]

Mr. Steven Lusher Senior Graphic Designer

[email protected]

Ms. Tonya Maust Graphic Designer

[email protected]

Ms. Ashlee Burns Graphic Designer

[email protected]

Ms. Jacqueline Grosser Distribution

[email protected]

Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly magazine is published quarterly by the Joint Program Executive

Office for Chemical and Biological Defense. Articles reflect the views of the authors and do

not necessarily represent the views of Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly, the Department of the Army or

the Department of Defense.

To contact the editorial office:

Call: (703) 681-0701 DSN: 588-9600

Fax: (703) 681-3439 Email: [email protected]

Articles should be submitted to:

Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly 5203 Leesburg Pike

Skyline 2, Suite 1609 Falls Church, VA 22041

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

Guest Columnist: Mr. Rudy Olszyk Joint Program Executive Office

Mr. Rudy OlszykJoint Project Manager

Decontamination

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

�

B rig. Gen. Thomas Spoehr assumed duties

as the 24th Chief of Chemical and the Commandant of the U.S. Army Chemical School June 29, 2006. In this capacity he was responsible for the training and support for the more than 21,000 members of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps, engaged worldwide in protecting the nation from Chemical, Biologi-cal, Radiological and Nuclear hazards and threats. Prior to this assignment he was the Director of Materiel, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, Headquarters Department of the Army and Chief, Full Dimensional Protection Division, Deputy Chief of Staff G8, Headquar-ters Department of the Army. From 2001 to 2003, Brig. Gen. Spoehr commanded the 3rd Chemical Brigade and concurrently served as the Director of Training, U.S. Army Chemical School, Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Other assignments have included Commander, 84th Chemical Bat-talion, Fort McClellan, Alabama; Exercise Planner, U.S. Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, CO; Assistant Division Chemical Officer, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC; and MACOM Chemical Officer Secretary of the General Staff, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, NC. He served as the Division Support Command Chemical Officer, 1st Armored Division; Joint Assignments Manager, U.S. Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA, and as an Intern on the Joint Staff, J-5. His military education includes the Army War College class of 2000, Joint Professional Military Education Phase II, Army Command and General Staff College, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and Basic and Advanced Chemical Officer Courses. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, in 1980 and a Master of Arts in Public Administration from Webster College, St. Louis, MO. Awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit (one Oak Leaf Cluster), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (six Oak Leaf Clusters), Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Parachutist’s Badge and the Army and Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badges.

Spoehr Leads CBRN School Through ExpansionBy Stephen Gude, Assistant Editor, Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly

Brig. Gen. Thomas Spoehr leaves the US Army CBRN School for the Army G-8 at the Pentagon.

6 Jul - Sep �008


You’ve been stationed here before your time as commandant, and you have quite a stake in the

history of the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear School. What is it going to be like to leave?

It’s going to be really hard. I’ve grown to really like this area, the hills and the rivers here and the people. I tell people that are coming to Fort Leonard Wood it is sometimes like the four-stage grieving process you have when you lose some-body. Denial, anger, adjustment and then you accept. Most people grow to love it, I really like it here, and I’m going to miss Fort Leonard Wood and the people around here.

What about the family? Your son won a state championship in high school football.

Yeah, they had a great football year. He’s been accepted to college out in Virginia, and my daughter lives in Herndon, VA, so it’s going the be very good for the family because we’re going to reunite in Virginia.

Since the name of the school has changed recently, does it indicate an acknowledgement of the breadth of the threat and an expansion of the CBRN school’s mission?

Yes, we started with chemicals and we added responsibilies for nuclear and bio-logical weapons right after or during the time of World War II. We’ve always had those responsibilities, but we never modi-fied the name of our school to acknowl-edge the spectrum of our role. Within the Chemical Corps, most of us knew we had responsibility for nuclear, biological and radiological, but people outside the community were not necessarily receiving that message and were confused on where to go for expertise on those subjects. It was difficult – there’s been a Chemical School almost as long as there has been a Chemical Corps – since 1918. Some of the Chemical Corps’ Old Guard, whose opinions I respect, were a little skeptical about this whole thing, but now that we have done it, I’m glad we did it and I think it has worked out well.

We have seen in previous interviews with other Chemical Corps officers that in the 1970s, the importance of the Chemical Corps was at the lowest point in its history. How do you feel about

that? How has the Chemical Corps turned it around?

The Chemical Corps has gone through valleys and mountains regarding its per-ceived importance of its mission within the Army. You can tie that to just before Operation Desert Shield/Storm when it was at an unprecedented high; it was at the same high during World War I; during World War II, there was always worry that Germany would use chemical weapons because after all they were the first ones to use them (in the 20th century) and prob-ably the most capable. It goes through high and low points – the 1970s was a low point. Post-Vietnam, the Chemical Corps almost went away but then when we saw how prepared the Soviet Union was, we reversed that decision. Right now, it is in a transition period – our national lead-ers all believe it is important to combat weapons of mass destruction, but that is also balanced by the huge demands placed on our Armed Forces by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now, the perceived threat is low, and hence, combat commanders could make the mistake of thinking there’s not a threat and deempha-size it. So right now, we’re in a transititon period, I’m not exactly sure how we’ll come out of it.

Almost seven years from 9/11 and a bit away from Kosovo and from the chlorine attacks in Iraq, which seem to have disappeared from the media’s purview, do you think there is a danger of the national leaders deemphasizing the threat?

I see words by the Chief of Staff of the Army saying that the gravest threat facing our nation is weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the hands of terrorists, and the president repeatedly talks about these kinds of threats, so I don’t think we’re in huge danger of our national leadership forgetting about this issue. I do worry and its my job to make sure our tactical commanders, the ones out there where the rubber meets the road, also don’t overlook this issue when they’re getting their forces ready.

What have been the advantages of having all the services train in one location? Is there a doctrinal synergy occurring because of it?

We learn a lot from each other. You think the Army Chemical Corps, as big as it is with 21,000 people, would be the be-all, end-all, but you learn so much from the other services. There are some things the

Brig. Gen. Thomas Spoehr (second, right) visits the JPEO-CBD booth at the 2008 Joint CBRN Conference at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. The new Chief of Chemical and Com-mandant, CBRN School, COL(P) Leslie Smith, stands to Brig. Gen. Spoehr’s right.

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

�

other services do better than we do and we’re just happy to learn from them and piggyback on their experiences.

What real-world events regarding CBRN posture have changed the way things are taught at the school? Have there been any paradigm shifts in the cur-riculum?

We mentioned the chlorine attacks of 2007 reopened our eyes to the dangers of toxic industrial chemicals and the fact that we do need specialized equipment other than the equipment we have that detects nerve and blister agents. We need the capability to identify things that are unknown, and advise commanders on how to protect against them. The apparent possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea, Iran’s apparent efforts to enrich uranium – all those remind us that the threat from rogue states with nuclear weap-ons has not gone away. There was a period where we said “Okay, the Soviet Union is

not going to use nuclear weapons on us,” so we kind of deemphasized that training here at the school, but we have since reenergized that training.

These states are also testing missiles…… that have the payload capacity to get there.

Do you have any curriculum regarding that?

No we don’t deal with missiles that much here.

Has the addition of the Lt. Terry Facility allowed the school to expand its experi-mentation and exercise capabilities?

That facility – it’s hard to overestimate the effect the opening of the Terry Facility has had on our school. It has been transforma-tional in nature. We only cut the ribbon on it a year ago, and already we’re exceeding

capacity on getting students through that place. We’re trying to maximize that facil-ity and it has really become a world-class location for training in consequence man-agement and weapons of mass destruction exploitation and elimination.

Does it show the facility’s emphasis on Civil Support Team (CST) training?

Civil Support Teams are the primary customer of the Terry Facility. They were getting good training before it opened, and now, in my judgement, they’re getting great training. It isn’t just limited to CSTs either – we’ve brought folks going through the CBRN School to the facility, we’ve brought folks from the Air Force through there to go through courses and other customers, including entire units from our operational force. We’ve brought units from the 48th Chemical Brigade there, part of the 31st Chemical Brigade, Ala-bama National Guard have been through

Brig. Gen. Thomas Spoehr provided opening remarks during the unveiling of the Stryker NBCRV. Attendees gathered in the Hall of Heroes at the Pentagon before moving to the courtyard to view one of the vehicles.

8 Jul - Sep �008


the facility.

Talk about live agent/decontamination training at the school. Has it expanded or changed from what has been done previously?

All of the work we do with live agents is at the Chemical Defense Training Facility, which is a world-class facility designed to keep all that toxic agent inside. Of course, we have never had an incident in the more than 20 years of operating the facility. We’re expanding that training in that we’re using a lot more commercial off-the-shelf equipment in the CDTF. We’re also starting to train with the use of Level A suits there. Heretofore, we’ve always used JSLIST suits, and now we’re trying out capability with Level A suits. So we’re doing some changes in that area as well.

How will the CBRN School implement the Future Combat System?

We’re working very closely with that. If we do our work right – if we’re able to achieve the technological breakthroughs that we want – we’ll be a little less reliant on specialized chemical forces. You’ll see more of the basic FCS platforms equipped with CBRN sensors, so they perhaps won’t need as many specialized chemical forces; they’ll be able to do some analysis and detection on their own. We’re looking for more robotics, so if we can put robotic obscuration on one of the common FCS platforms, or robotic reconnaissance, either in an unmanned aerial or ground vehicle, those are some of the concepts we’re seeing regarding the use of FCS in addition to increases in information technology.

How close are we to unmanned ground and aerial robotics for CBRN defense use?

I think the ground robotics are the easier of the two, and I’ve already seen some work with the small robots Explosives Ordinance Disposal uses with CBRN sen-sors used on them. That seems to work well and people want those. That’s almost today, the rest is further out. There are all kinds of ideas.

Is there an increased focus on conse-quence management at the school?

Yes, definitely. It isn’t to the exclusion of our traditional warfighting curriculum, but we are paying attention to the fact that many of our units and Soldiers are going to be called upon to work, practice their craft in the United States. If you’re going to work consequence management in the US, we have to always recognize that we probably will not be in the lead. We’ll be supporting local, county, state responders. And before you can support the Fairfax County fire department or the Waynesville fire department, that fire chief is going to want to be certain that you’re quali-fied to be on his site, otherwise you’re going to cause more trouble than solve things. We’re getting out people national-level certification in hazardous materials response, so they can be value-added to local government.

We have seen quite often in the news that fire departments and first respond-ers are training more and more in consequence management and CBRN response. They have their own civil support teams. Are they training at the Terry Facility?

Generally, those folks are trained by the Department of Homeland Security, at the old McClellan Facility or there are a number of civilian firms that will come out and train you if you pay. Then there’s the FEMA school is in Emmittsburg, MD. There are a number of opportunities for them to get trained. We’re about at capac-ity just training the military here.

Any plans for expansion of the Terry Facility?

Not into training local or state guys. Before there was a DHS – I still remember those days – we did dabble in helping to train fire departments, but it is clear to us that the DHS ought to be training fire departments. We do have an approved construction project for fiscal year 2010 which will expand the actual facility in order to accommodate the planned move of the Technical Escort course from Red-stone Arsenal to Fort Leonard Wood.

Are there any differences in the training from military to civilian first respond-ers? Anything significant enough to cause problems from an operational or procedural standpoint?

No, we train to be seamless with the

civilian first responders. We also train to perform our mission while being shot at, which is something they don’t have to worry about. When we train for con-sequence management, it is for a very narrow focus, such as ‘here is how you plug in to the fire chief at an incident.’

As you depart the CBRN School, what do you feel is your legacy?

Well, I like to think everyone in our Corps feels they are part of the organization. We have been very inclusive. Every time we have made an initiative, my question was ‘Well, what does the National Guard think of this? How about the Army Reserve?’ I’ll ask the sergeant major, ‘How does this look from the enlisted and non-commis-sioned officer perspective?’ We may have been guilty in the past of having blinders on and paying too much attention to the needs and preferences of our Active Duty force. I’d like to believe everybody feels they are part of the organization and they have a vote in its destiny, and they feel the pride and esprit de corps that comes with being part of a great organization that values them.

What are you most proud of?

The thing that gives me the most pride is the people know who their commandant is and they feel their school is here to help them. They’re willing to trust us with some of their issues and some of their problems in the belief that we will actually work on them. The fact that we now have a group of customers – our students – who believe that means the most to me.

Are there any developments you’re leaving behind for the next comman-dant?

I’d like to think I’ve cleaned up every-thing and cleared my inbox, but that’s not the case. There are things we’ve done and things we’re doing that are not quite to fruition, so he will not be lacking for things to do.

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

�

A s performed today, decontamination operations entail an undesirable time, labor and logistics burden on the Warfighter, interfere with operational tempo and lack an

holistic approach. Essential decontamination interconnectivity, from incident to redeployment, must include new areas of decon-tamination such as decon assurance, remediation and preventive/protective measures, most of which are still in their infancy. The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD) has provided our Warfighter new decontaminant systems for personal and equipment decon but has recognized the need for an integrated systems approach to the entire hazard mitigation challenge. For the JPEO-CBD, it is the responsibility of the Joint Program Manager, Decontamination (JPM-Decon-tamination) to provide US Forces the capability to sustain opera-tions in a contaminated environment with the least burden and

minimum degradation to mission accomplishment. The JPM-Decontamination has taken on the challenge to develop systems and specific decontaminants that will provide effective decontamination capabilities, enhancements to current capabilities and new capabilities that fill associated decontamina-tion gaps. JPM-Decontamination, in concert with the Defense Threat and Reduction Agency’s Joint Science and Technology Office (JSTO), is working on next generation decontaminants, applicators and associated technologies specifically adapted to work as a coordinated unit. The next generation decontaminants will be an integrated “family” of decontaminant systems that function in a mutually supportive way; this approach is referred to as the “Decontamination Family of Systems” (DFoS) (see Figure 1). This Family of Systems will provide the right decon-taminant for a specific contaminated surface in a given environ-

Figure 1. Decontamination Family of Systems (DFoS) Approach

By C. Daniel Rowe, Ph.D., Joint Research and Chief Executive Officer, Development, Inc.

10 Jul - Sep �008


ment. The DFoS approach is intended to support the Warfighter by providing a system of decontaminants and applicators expressly tailored to decontaminate current and emerging threats while easing the time, labor and logistics burden on operating forces. Most recently, developmental efforts focused on using a single decontaminant with multiple application methods (the choice of applicator was dictated primarily by the magnitude of the area being decontaminated). The DFoS approach represents a fundamental change in JPM-Decontamination developmental focus. JPM-Decontamination will continue to leverage near-term technologies but rather than being constrained to decontami-nants alone, JPM-Decontamination will use DFoS to pursue less mature technologies within the overall framework of reducing the contamination hazard. DFoS will emphasize decontaminants, applicator systems, agent identification, active/passive coatings, and selected countermeasure technologies and will pursue those technologies necessary to provide desired outcomes (see Figure 2). DFoS outcomes are focused on providing the following ben-efits to the warfighter:• Decrease the labor/manpower requirements and logistics

footprint • Increase throughput in the decontamination process

• Reduce the weight and cube transported to theater for decontamination• Reduce water requirement for decontamination process and rinse operations• Improve decontamination efficacy to satisfy a broader threat spectrum• Provide the warfighter the ability to tailor response to threat scenario and actual contamination level• Provide scaleable and modular systems• Decrease the time lapse between threat detection and mitigation The JPM-Decontamination is targeting technol-ogy enablers that support desired DFoS outcomes; these are itemized in Figure 2. Specific DFoS tech-nology enablers include: Gas-phase decontaminants – The proliferation of sensitive equipment on and near the battlefield dictate the requirement for sensitive equipment decontamination. This includes items such as computers, night vision goggles, electronic record-ing devices, video monitors, aircraft interiors and other electronic devices. Given that aqueous phase decontaminants tend to harm electronic devices, gaseous decontaminants such as vaporized hydro-gen peroxide (VHP) and chlorine dioxide (ClO2) are being pursued as technology enablers. Dry decontaminants/Solid Oxidants – The weight/cube of decontaminants and equipment to be transported to theater must be minimized. For this purpose, dry decontaminants are being pursued that can be mixed on-site, hence reducing the water-weight and cube of materials required to be moved forward. Other options to reduce or elimi-nate rinse water requirements in post-decontamina-tion processes will be investigated. Auto Decon – Vehicle decontamination is a

labor-intensive, materials-intensive, time-consuming process. Methods will be sought to reduce labor, logistics and to increase throughput by automating the process where prudent. Colorimetric technology – Colorimetric technology, used as a spray or coating, employs dyes or enzymes that undergo a color change when agent is present. The color change provides a vis-ible indication of contamination. Agent disclosure spray visually indicates contaminated areas requiring treatment; thiswill minimize the time, labor and material required since only the indicated contaminated area will require decontamination. Col-orimetrics would also be employed for decon assurance in order to visibly indicate when the decontamination process is complete. Coatings – As mentioned previously, a key obejective of JPM-Decontamination is to reduce the burden placed on the Warfighter by decontamination procedures. Ideally, decontamination would not require any effort by the Warfighter. This would be the case if surfaces and materials decontaminated themselves. Coat-ings that self-decontaminate or absorb and bind warfare agents so they can be stripped off at a later time would help reduce the time, labor and stress involved in Immediate and Operational decontamination. In addition, DFoS will examine novel ways of protecting difficult to decontaminate surfaces such as rubber and other porous materials with specialized coatings.

C apability Technology E nabler

O utcom e

D econtam inants R S D L/D F200 E xpanded app lica tions

Increase e fficacy over b road th rea t spec trum

G aseous decontam inan ts (V H P /C lO 2)

S ens itive equ ipm ent capab ility

C loud in te rcept decon technology

C on tam inan t c loud counte rm easure

D ry D econ tam inan ts / S o lid O xidan ts/

N o R inse

Im prove log is tics/ R educe wate r/ R educe labor

E nhanced S urfac tan ts /S o lvents


D ia l-a -D econ / A dd itives /

Form ula tion va riab les


Ta ilo red response to threat scenario

Ap plicators A U TO veh ic le decon tam ina tion

Im prove e fficacy fo r Increase th roughpu t

R educe log istics Jo int S ervices Transportab le D econ S ystem – S m all Scale P ortab ility /H igh p ressu re

Jo int M ate ria l D econ S ystem S ens itive equ ipm ent/ P la tfo rm in te rio r

Jo int S ervices Personnel D econ S ystem

Im prove e fficacy sk in decon tam ina tion

D econ W ipes M u ltip le uses - Sk in /

S ens itive equ ipm ent/ H um an rem ains

Ag ent Identifica tion

A gent D isclosure sp ray o r coa ting

Im prove e fficacy/ R educe log istics /

R educe labor

D econ tam ina tion Assurance sp ray o r coa ting

Im prove e fficacy/ R educe log istics /

R educe labor C oatings S e lf D econtam ina ting

coa tings R educe warfigh te r bu rden /

Im prove op tem po

S trippab le coatings R educe wa rfigh te r bu rden / Im prove op tem po

P ro tec tive coa tings R educe warfigh te r bu rden / Im prove op tem po

Figure 2. DFoS Capability Technology Enablers

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

11

Decon Wipes – Decontaminant wipes (dry or solvent containing) are being investigated to help reduce initial contamination levels to more manageable levels. These techniques may have dual-use applications as sensitive equipment pre-wipes, skin decontaminat-ing wipes, and/or human remains decontaminating wipes. Dial-a-decon – “Dial-a-decon” is the moniker used for a decontamination system that can be adjusted on-the-fly to match the threat scenario encountered. A biological agent on a sensitive equipment item will require a dramatically different decontami-nant response than a blister agent on a vehicle. The Dial-a-decon system concept is the rapid and effective response to a broad spectrum of threats including traditional, emerging and selected Toxic Industrial Chemicals/Toxic Industrial Materials. The broad spectrum response will derive from the ability to modify the decontaminant formulation on site as needed. The Dial-a-decon system will be scaleable to deliver, on-demand, only that amount of decontaminant necessary. Second generation dial-a-decon concepts may directly integrate the flexible decontamination technology with scaleable applicator technology. Initial Dial-a-decon candidate technologies may include on-site additive options for traditional formulations or scaleable versions of brine electrolysis. Cloud Countermeasures – Methods are being sought to pro-vide tactical countermeasures to cloud-borne chemical warfare agents. This capability will provide defense against agent cloud release targeting mobile troops on the battlefield as well as fixed sites. It will improve protection for troops, equipment and main-tain operational tempo.

PAST2000

PRESENT2008

FUTURE2010 and Beyond

Decon Family of Systems

Enablers

Outcomes

DecontaminantsApplicatorsCoatingsAgent Identification

Low Logistics BurdenRapid ActingEasy to UseEnvironmentally Friendly

TIC/TIMs, Broad Spectrum Wounds

Human Remains

Sensitive Equipment, Aircraft

Upgrades to Existing Capabilities

VehiclesEquipmentTerrainFixed SitePersonnel

Evolutionary Acquisition UsingIncremental and Spiral Development

Full and Open Competition

Leverage Commercial-Off-The-Shelf/Non-Developmental Products

Total Life Cycle Systems Management Approach

DFoS Acquisition Strategy

Strippables?Agent Disclosure/DecAssurance?“Smart” Decons?

The JPM-Decontamination will leverage through DFoS near-term technologies while pursuing less mature and future technol-ogies. Emphasis will be placed on optimizing decontaminant and applicator interoperability with the goal of a holistic approach to hazard mitigation and eventual remediation. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed DFoS acquisition strategy with the past and pres-ent states feeding into a future that encompasses new methods and technologies providing an ever expanding decontamination capabilities base. From the military perspective, decontamination is the removal and/or neutralization of hazardous levels of chemical and biologi-cal contaminants from personnel, materials, equipment, buildings and the environment (cf. Fig 2). As JPM-Decontamination refines the construct of DFoS and the next generation decontaminants both evolutionary (incremental improvements) and revolutionary (“leap-frogging”) technologies will be embraced. New capabilities will be specifically adapted to fill ever decreasing decontamination gaps, i.e. becoming more narrowly focused to the job being accomplished theoreti-cally leading to more product differentiation rather than less. To maintain synergy, JPEO-CBD and JPM-Decontamination will closely engage JSTO, Combatant Commanders, Major Defense Acquisition Programs and relevant agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency to converge the added capabilities into the family of systems concept now being defined. The more synergistic these new capabilities are with one another, the more the family of systems can and will be realized.

Figure 3. DFoS Acquisition Strategy

1� Jul - Sep �008


By Glenn Lawson, Ph.D. and C. Daniel Rowe, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, Joint Research and Development, Inc.

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

1�

Early approaches to decontamination included methods that employed physical removal as well as neutralization. Today, both removal and neutralization are still considered valid approaches, however both methods

present problems. One of the more effective removal methods for decontaminating personnel, vehicles and equipment is hot soapy water, which is a simple, low-tech method that is both cost effective and requires little training. Hot soapy water relies on the ability of the soap (surfactant) to increase the solubility of the contaminant and thus mobilize it for removal. The soap does not chemically react with the contaminant; it simply helps make the contaminant more water-soluble. Although hot soapy water has been shown to remove most of the chemical/biological (CB) threat agent, it is known that a residual amount of agent still remains on the decontaminated item. Even small amounts of residual contamination will reduce the warfighter safety and ability to accomplish the mission. Consequently, not only does hot soapy water not neutralize the contaminant, it is also unable to completely remove the contaminant to eliminate the hazard altogether. Aqueous (water-based) decontaminants can be formulated to incorporate active chemicals that will chemically react with contaminants, thus neutralizing and rendering them harmless. The military decontaminant DF200, for example,

contains the reactive chemical compound hydrogen peroxide, an active oxidizer that neutralizes contaminants. Aqueous solutions have the disadvantage in that they are not generally compatible with sensitive equipment such as computers, night vision goggles, airplane interiors etc. often rendering it useless. Other approaches to decontaminant solutions incorporate the use of organic solvents. Organic solvents, generally referred to simply as “solvents,” are non-aqueous carbon containing liquids. There are many different organic solvents, including such examples of which are gasoline,

carbon tetrachloride (dry cleaning fluid), acetone (nail polish remover), turpentine and hexane. Solvents tend to be non-reactive toward agents and, like hot soapy water, are employed for their ability to dissolve and physically remove organic contaminants rather than neutralize them. Solvents tend to be much less harmful than water to sensitive equipment; however solvents can present serious hazards to some plastics, rubbers and other new materials. Some solvents can be made reactive to neutralize threat agents when strong chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide, are added. This is the approach used to make the military Decontaminating Solution 2 (DS2). Solvents present a different set of hazards from aqueous solutions. Solvent concerns include user safety (carcinogenic, mutagenic), material incompatibility (corrosive) and environmental safety (in addition to any inherent flammability). In order to gain the advantage of active neutralization (via oxidation and/or hydrolysis) and enhanced dissolution power, some sophisticated CB decontamination formulations will combine an organic “co-solvent” in an aqueous decontaminant formulation. Advantages and disadvantages of various

decontaminant formulations are discussed below; however, it is noteworthy that all decontaminating solutions have the same basic requirements. These include:

1) Efficacy – the method of action that makes the decontaminant effective, how fast the decontaminant requires to function effectively and any conditions that render the decontaminant ineffective must be understood.2) Shelf-life & storage requirements – whether in the ready-to-use state or whether it requires mixing prior to use, military decontaminants must have reasonable shelf-life and storage requirements that do not burden the logistics system.3) Pot life – when ready to use, decontaminants must remain active long enough to allow warfighters to complete the decontamination process. The effects of chemical stability, reactivity, temperature, pH and altitude must be understood regarding impact on how long the ready-to-use decontaminant remains effective. 4) Material compatibility/corrosivity – the impact the decontaminant will have on the surface, function and appearance of the item being decontaminated must be understood.5) Safety – user safety/environmental safety – the Warfighter will likely be wearing protective equipment to protect him from the contaminant itself, but if the decontaminant requires special equipment, materials and/or handling procedures this represents additional burden.

Formulations

In general, optimizing solution-based decontaminant formulations is a formidable task. Solutions must provide broad spectrum performance as well as activity over a wide range of environmental and operational conditions. Solutions must support the Decontamination Family of Systems (DFoS) concept and satisfy joint program requirements. Formulations may contain powerful oxidants that are mainly useful in either acidic or alkaline applications. Use of organic co-solvents can result in material compatibility issues with metal surfaces, plastics, rubber and other of today’s new materials. A common approach to formulation has been to employ “Green Chemistry” as part of formulation design; this avoids the toxicity introduced by organic solvents. The basic categories of formulation components are:

• Surfactants – to help dissolve contaminants and other formulation ingredients

• Oxidizers – to react with CB agents• Buffers – to maintain the optimum pH for greatest

reactivity• Catalysts – to promote reactivity toward CB agents• Stabilizers – to prevent the active ingredients from

breaking down (decomposing) too quickly (resulting in a short pot and/or shelf life)

1� Jul - Sep �008


Changing any one component often impacts the effect of agents and not produce vessicants (a positive characteristic), however, highly reactive compounds often have short pot lives and may require a stabilizer, which in turn could potentially cause the oxidizer to be less reactive. Furthermore, it is reasonable to say that although organic solvents can be removed, retaining the efficiency of agent solubilization either in solution or on materials has yet to be accomplished.

Oxidizers

Oxidizers in general-purpose decontaminants have been in employed since the sixth century B.C. One early battlefield oxidizer was lime (calcium oxide), employed in the 1400s to decontaminate rotting corpses. Today, oxidants are still being utilized in solution-based decontaminants for defense against CB agents. Although complexity of oxidizing formulations has increased, they demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages in solution-based decontamination. Examples follow from published articles. Super chlorinated bleaches such as High-Test Hypochlorite (HTH) and Super Tropical Bleach (STB) have been in use since World War II as general-purpose decontaminants. Disadvantages of using bleach as a decontaminant have been described by Yang et.al. as: (a) the active chlorine content will continually decrease over time in storage (i.e. short shelf-life), (b) a large amount of bleach is required for the oxidation of the agents, and (c) bleach is incompatible with most military relevant materials. Peroxides are desirable reactants for decontamination due to fact that they are nontoxic, noncorrosive to materials and environmentally friendly. Peroxides are normally liquids and present shipping and handling issues, and storage is best below 32 degrees F, however, it is possible to store peroxides in vented containers over a broad temperature range for limited time periods. Transportation regulations limit peroxide concentrations to less than eight percent. Unfortunately, at eight percent, peroxide alone affords unacceptably slow oxidation blister agent. Additional disadvantages are that peroxides and peroxide based decontaminants have shown poor efficacy against biological threat agents. Peracids are a viable option that can be dosed into solution-based formulations either directly as the free peracid (immediately available to react) or peracids can be generated “on site” by perhydrolysis (discussed below). Free peracids are desirable decontaminants because they are nontoxic, noncorrosive, environmentally friendly and relatively fast-acting. Peracid-based decontaminants have also shown high efficacy against biological agents. Liquid peracids have limited shelf life and present shipping and handling issues, and storage is best below 32 degrees F. One major advantage over peroxides is that peracids can be tailored for solid-state storage and applications. It has been shown that peracids in the solid state afford long shelf life with limited oxygen loss at increased temperatures. Transportation regulations also exist for organic peroxides.

Peroxide Activators and Catalysts

Simple formulations of hydrogen peroxide; peroxide activators and organic co-solvents can provide rapid, broad-spectrum decontamination of CB agents. Studies have shown this chemistry works even at low temperatures (-30 degrees C). An additional way to produce peracids is to generate “on site” via perhydrolysis using commercially available activators. Activators can introduce issues with water solubility, temperature dependency activation, conversion rate, biodegradability, stability and cost.

Emulsions and Microemulsions

There are two main paths to formulating aqueous-based or so-called solution-based CB decontaminants. The first is emulsions, which is a mixture of two liquids that will not dissolve in one another (i.e. unblendable). The second is micro-emulsions, which are clear, stable, liquid mixtures of oil, water and surfactant, frequently in combination with a co-surfactant. The aqueous phase may contain salt(s) and/or other ingredients, and the “oil” may actually be a complex mixture of different hydrocarbons and olefins. In contrast to ordinary emulsions, micro-emulsions form when components are simply mixed and do not require high shear conditions necessary to form ordinary emulsions. The two basic types of microemulsions are direct (oil dispersed in water, o/w) and reversed (water dispersed in oil, w/o).

Solid Formulations

Another path currently being explored is the concept of generating a solid oxidizer or hydrolyzing source in conjunction with additional solid ingredients for a CB decontaminant. The objective is to arrive at a dry, concentrate formulation that can utilize any water source for reconstitution. The challenge here is to formulate a superior decontaminant in terms of efficacy, pot-life, material compatibility, transportability, shelf-life and cost.

Summary

Solution-based decontamination continues to face tough challenges and problem areas continue to be worked on. New concepts and approaches to solution-based decontamination are constantly being reviewed with the goal of bringing the best balance between efficacy and suitability for the mission-specific conditions (e.g. environment, agent, material substrate, time available). Solution-based decontamination approaches will continue to be aligned with Decontamination Family of Systems (DFoS) to provide the Warfighter greater mission focus, and reduce the time, labor and logistics of the decontamination process.

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

1�

The Joint Project Manager for Decontamination (JPM Decon) is expanding the skin decontamination portfolio. Since 1989, the only system available to the warfighter for skin

decontamination has been the M291 Skin Decontaminating Kit (SDK). JPM Decon began fielding Reactive Skin Decontamina-tion Lotion (RSDL), selected as the Joint Service Personnel/Skin Decontamination System (JSPDS) Increment I, in 2008. Mr. Carlton Revell, responsible for conducting RSDL new equipment training for Warfighters sums up the difference: “RSDL represents a modern, cutting edge approach to skin decontamination in that it not only removes a warfare agent from the skin; it destroys it, but the greatest advantage is that when chemical agents absorb into a Warfighter’s skin, RSDL is capable of following it and neutralizing the agent down into the tissue. RSDL was designed with increased capabilities over the M291 SDK, and this type of forward thinking is common in today’s fight to address the threat of chemical biologi-cal radiological nuclear warfare.”

This lotion’s advantage is its ability to neutralize hazards in addition to physical removal while the M291 SDK relies on physi-cal removal for the majority of its decon effectiveness. RSDL decontaminates HD, GD, VX and T-2 mycotoxin from the skin by a combination of detoxification and physical removal. RSDL neu-tralizes agents by nucleophilic substitution reaction which renders the original toxic substance non-toxic. No toxic material remain to off-gas under Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Additionally, a classified study conducted separately from the JSPDS program demonstrated RSDL’s efficaciousness against Non Traditional Agents and Toxic Industrial Chemicals. Originally developed for the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND), RSDL is currently fielded in Canada, the Neth-erlands, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia. RSDL was initially evaluated through the Department of Defense Foreign Comparative Test Program using M291 SDK as the base-line. As referenced on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website, RSDL is a FDA-cleared medical device. “If used in time, this lotion can help prevent the serious burns and deaths that results from exposure to chemical warfare agents,” said FDA Commis-

Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion (Green Packet) and Train-ing Lotion (Blue Packet)

sioner Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D. “FDA worked with the U.S. Army to expedite review of this product to make it available to our men and women in uniform as quickly as possible.” The JSPDS program performed additional developmental testing to ensure safety and efficacy of RSDL when used in the operational environment in accordance with military tactics, techniques and pro-cedures. In addition, further clinical safety studies were performed to ensure that the absorbtion of the free oxime in the active ingredi-ent does not cause adverse effects on personnel. Operational Testing was performed in 2006 and RSDL was evaluated as operationally effective and suitable. A system consists of three packets contained in one pouch. Each packet contains a sponge pad impregnated with RSDL. Each packet will decontaminate an area of 1,300 square centimeters. RSDL’s operating temperature range is 34-130 degrees Fahrenheit. RSDL has a five-year shelf life in controlled storage (590-860 F). Once issued, RSDL has an operational life of 16 months when tempera-tures do not exceed 1,200 F. Above 1,200 F, RSDL rapidly loses potency and should either be used or destroyed five months after issue. Once issued to an individual, under no circumstances should RSDL be transferred to another individual or reissued for any pur-pose. For training purposes, personnel will use a training version of RSDL that does not contain any active ingredients. The training packets and pouches are blue to assure that they are easily discern-able from the active RSDL packages. The lotion is now in use by Homeland Defense, First Responders, the Marine Corps Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force, and Special Operations Command. Eventually, RSDL users will include all Service branches. The US Army Office of the Surgeon General will begin issuing RSDL to deploying soldiers August 1, 2008 as part of Medical Chemical Defense Materiel program. In summary, RSDL provides the Warfighter superior capability for immediate decontamination of skin to provide the capability to sustain operations in a contaminated environment with the least necessary burden and minimum degradation to mission accomplishment.

Post-application comparison of M291 SDK (left) vs. RSDL (right)

By Don Cline, Personal Decontamination Project Manager, JPM Decontamination

16 Jul - Sep �008


By Julius L. Evans, Editor, Chem-Bio Defense Quarterly magazine

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

1�

Test and Evaluation has undergone recent changes in its organizational structure. Test and Evaluation Manage-ment Agency (TEMA) is now the Test and Evaluation Office (TEO). You are the first Director of the Test and Evaluation Office. Was that a long-awaited change?

I think you are probably aware that Mr. Hollis retired almost two years ago. We are the result of the reorganization. We had two different offices set up at Army headquarters for Test and Evaluation. There was the Test and Evaluation Executive’s Office and my old office, Test and Evaluation Management Agency (TEMA), and we had two different reporting chains. The T&E Executive reported to the Secretary through the Deputy Under-secretary and TEMA reported to the Chief of Staff of the Army through the Director of the Army Staff. This new organization unifies us into one location, both organizationally and physically, so there is one organization for T&E at the headquarters level. I think it is going to be incredibly more efficient and effective with the single organization structure we have now.

What does that change mean to the Chem-Bio community and how is that going to play a part?

The biggest thing is the mission itself stays the same. I think the way we approach the mission will be different. Being a single organization will increase efficiency and effectiveness, not just for the staff of this organization, but for the people we work with. For the Chem-Bio community, they will find that we can work better in this new organization structure. From our point of view, we want to take a more strategic view of the Chem-Bio Defense mission -- get a more futuristic and long-range view of where we are going with Chem-Bio Defense.

There are many organizations involved including the Joint Requirements Office and the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense. Do you see a change in integration and involving these and other stakeholders with your initiatives?

The best way to describe it, really, is I have a different manage-ment style, which I believe will influence the way we deal with people. There are two things that are key to my management style -- one is transparency. I want everybody to have visibility of what we are doing because I think we can add value to it that way. I think it also sets the stage for greater collaboration and working together within the Chem-Bio community.

Along that same line, I also want to develop us as a greater player in the acquisition community (AC). Testing has always been a part of acquisition. Because of the requirement for independent Test and Evaluation, we are somewhat outside of the AC. I want to build a better relationship with the AC, such that T&E can be regarded as a valued member of that AC and we are embraced as part of that community, such that they are coming to us early and often for testing in the development of the programs. All of that relates back to communication. Coordinating and working with not only with members of the Chem-Bio community, but with all of the members of the AC, not just at our own level, but at the Department of Defense (DoD) level with Director, Operational Test & Evaluation and Director, Test Resource Management Cen-

Ms. Janet Garber became the first Direc-tor, Test and Evaluation Office (TEO) when the office stood up March 11, 2008. She was the Director, Test and

Evaluation Management Agency (TEMA) since 2005 and led the transition and reorganization of TEMA, the Army Test and Evaluation Executive, and the Chemical and Biologi-cal (CB) Test and Evaluation Executive into one organiza-tion, TEO. She is responsible for developing the Army T&E budget, a nearly $1 billion annual program for investments and operations of the Army’s T&E ranges and facilities, as well as the CBDP T&E Infrastructure budget at over $100 million a year. She is the focal point for all Army T&E re-source programming and coordination within Headquarters, Department of the Army. She develops and monitors T&E policy, and coordinates all Army T&E policy actions. She also interfaces with the other Military Departments, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and Congress on all Army T&E resource and policy issues. Ms. Garber is a 1974 graduate of Michigan State University, with a BS in Multidisciplinary Social Science and an MSBA from Boston University in 1986.

M

18 Jul - Sep �008


ter to develop those relationships to work more collaboratively.

The T&E part has always been very important. In looking back, do you feel that T&E has been left out? I ask because you said that you want the acquisition community to em-brace you.

Well, T&E is a required element of the acquisition process in terms of directing the operational testing. However, we want to play a greater part throughout the development of the system; we want to be involved early on and help in establishing the requirements. We want to be there to make sure that system re-quirements are testable and measurable. Therefore, working with the community in this regard is important. At the same time, we must maintain the independence that is required of us. We want to work with the acquisition community early and often, while maintaining and preserving the independent evaluation.

That’s almost like saying, “I want to have a relationship with you, but I do not want to get close.” Like a no-fraternization policy.

Yes. We will want to fraternize; we just do not want them to tell us what to do. We are ultimately the ones that define what those test requirements are and we must ensure that they are robust and realistic enough to give us the information that we need to do an independent evaluation.

As the Director of the Test and Evaluation Office (TEO), what do you want to accomplish most?

I think the biggest thing is working with the acquisition commu-nity and developing that greater relationship as a valued part of

the acquisition process.

Has that really been a problem?

I would not say it has been a problem, per se, but I think we can do our jobs better and we can serve the acquisition community better when we are more involved. When they understand the value that we add, we are included earlier-on in the process. I think the entire acquisition process works better with the value we can add to it. I also want to promote greater collaboration throughout the Chem-Bio community. I would like to work on improving the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) develop-ment and staffing process to ensure that we have robust, realistic plans in those TEMPs. We do have a resource mission here as well – I would like to continue to add rigor to our portion of the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process, which is for the T&E infrastructure.

Test has been involved in the acquisition process for a long time. Have you seen a great deal of maturity since the programs have evolved and are we truly getting the mission accomplished?

I can address two things here. First off, the Chem-Bio program, with the Army being the T&E Executive is relatively new. We have been the T&E Executive for five years now. In the big scheme of things, that is really very, very young and I think we have made some great progress in terms of testing and evalua-tion. One thing I can point to specifically, is that we have issued the new Test and Evaluation Infrastructure Investment Strategy. This will be the second time this has been done, but quite hon-estly, this version of it is leap years ahead of where we were with the initial investment strategy. It has a lot of discipline in it, it has

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

1�

some very forward-looking ideas; this is where we want to take the Test and Evaluation Infrastructure in the future. I think that is a great improvement. There are other areas that we have done some strategic planning, both on our own, and we have contrib-uted to strategic planning through the special assistant for the Chem-Bio programs; which I think is definitely an improvement.

Where are we taking this as opposed to just dealing with the daily crisis? I think that is a big change. The second point is, that we are at War. One thing we deal with constantly when at war – more so than in peacetime – is that balance between speed and caution. You want to get the best possible equipment out to the Warfighter as soon as possible so that they are best equipped. At the same time, we have a responsibility to ensure that the equip-ment is effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for Warfight-ers when it gets there. So it has forced us, I think, to pay more attention to that timing aspect – being at War. In fact, TRMC conducted Test Week in June in Huntsville. I was not able to go, but we had several people from this office there. One of the main overarching themes was that we, as the testers and evaluators, need to be more responsive to the community. So the War has forced us to focus on the timing and the rapid-equipping initia-tives. It has provided an opportunity for us to look at ways of doing things faster while still maintaining the integrity of the Test and Evaluation process. We still have that responsibility to make sure we are effective, suitable, and survivable. Nevertheless, we have a greater focus now on the timing aspect than I think we did before. Those are the two major areas where we’ve seen the improvement.

And that’s not to say that previously, we were cutting corners in testing?

No. It is just a matter of I am not one of those people that would say if it is not broke, do not fix it. I think anything can be im-proved. The War has provided an additional incentive for us to look for those improvements. We have really taken a strategic look in the last few years and it has helped focus us so we can improve at a more efficient pace than in the past.

There have been a great number of lessons learned that we can call upon. You mentioned some of those here in coordi-nating the TEMP. Please address that.

Yes. In terms of the lessons learned on our process, I can discuss a few things. Anytime you work in a multi-service environment, which is what Chem-Bio is all about, more players are involved. You have to plan ahead because it is going to take more time to bring the community together and, again, that falls into that whole strategic look we discussed previously. If we have the communications going and we all know the path we are follow-ing, it makes it easier to plan ahead and set the stage for that coordination.

With regard to the transparency that I mentioned – the more we know about what each other is doing, the easier it is to coordinate in that multi-service environment. Nevertheless, we cannot forget the ‘service unique’ requirements, as we are moving forward.

Earlier, I mentioned the POM. It has been a great integrating

factor in terms of forcing us to have the science and technology people work with the acquisition community, the material devel-opers, and the testing community. We need to make sure there is synergy among all three and that we are synchronized, in terms of what is coming down the pipe from S&T and acquisition. That way, we will be ready to test that equipment in a timely fashion, as we move forward.

One of the things that I am very proud of is the early involvement initiatives, which are really just coming into their own in the last year or so. We have a core of people we attempt to keep involved from very early in the process - pre-Milestone A and during the S&T stage - and then throughout planning. We recognize from an information sharing position, that what is coming down the road makes it critical to enable Operational Test Agencies to be involved early. A key benefit of early involvement is to have the operational evaluators understand the developmental test side in order to have integrated testing, which we think will be more efficient for Test and Evaluation for all of the systems. Those are some of the things we have learned and I think we are getting better at it every day.

Have there been many challenges with different test require-ments from the different services?

One of the challenges we are dealing with right now is terminol-ogy. You know, we do not all use the same words to describe the same thing and, coincidentally later this morning we have a meeting to talk about what can we do about defining common language within the Chem-Bio world so when the one service says something, we all have the same common understanding of what is being discussed.

One would imagine that will come into play, as well as the workforce changes. There is a great deal of discussion about baby boomers about to retire and concerns with people mov-ing – will that be an issue? How will that be addressed?

You know, I am glad you asked about that because that is one of my favorite subjects. I think what we are doing in the Chem-Bio world is really, very exciting and we are right on the cutting edge of discovery and technology. A lot of the work that is done in Chem-Bio can only be done in government facilities. So we offer opportunities to these young scientists and engineers to do things that they could not do any place else. I have been out to Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, several times. Not that it is the only place that Chem-Bio testing is done, but it is certainly the center of gravity for Chem-Bio testing. Every time I talk with the workers, their passion and enthusiasm for their jobs is absolutely infec-tious. They are excited about what they do and they are proud of the contributions they make. To those of us who live inside the beltway, it seems like Dugway is in the middle of nowhere. But these folks are immersed in their jobs and do not mind being there to do this kind of work. So I don’t worry about that Tsunami of retirements in Dugway as much as I do in other places.

Additionally, Dugway in particular has done a very good job of recruiting student employees under work-study type programs. I have met people at Dugway that started as part-timers when they were students and are now full-time government employees. One

�0 Jul - Sep �008


about the time it takes to create the TEMP, both the develop-ment times and the approval times. There are many signatures involved and my office has started a Lean Six Sigma project to look at what we can do in terms of the TEMP process, but we are not the only office involved. There are other people who are also looking at improving the TEMP process. In fact, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has a team looking at the TEMP process. I believe ATEC is also looking at the same thing, but I am definitely concerned about it. That has been one of my focuses from the time I received this responsibility.

When you look at the current acquisition process there seems to be a significant amount of testing for systems under devel-opment, but it seems that we cannot get a handle on identify-ing risks and reducing it, for example, Reliability, Availability, Maintainability (RAM) Performance. What can be done to overcome some of these problems and is testing the answer?

The timing of this question is exceptional. There is a Defense Sci-ence Board report that just came out in May 2008, and if you’ll indulge me – there are a couple of quotes I’d like to read you from the chairman of Defense Science Board’s cover letter that accompanied the report. He says many things, but the two I want to read are, “No amount of testing will compensate for deficien-cies in RAM program formulation.” And the other thing he says is, “RAM shortfalls are frequently identified during DT (Devel-opmental Testing), but program restraints, schedule and funding often preclude incorporating fixes and delaying Initial Operational Test and Evaluation.” So is testing the answer? In and of itself, no. Can testing help in this? Absolutely. The Office of the Secretary of Defense established a reliability improvement working group and we are a member of one of the subgroups of specifically looking at integrated testing. The integrated testing might be part of the answer. What can we do in getting more realism into the develop-mental testing? Where can we do combined DT/OT? Where can we utilize data so that we minimize the amount of testing that has to be done? I have high expectations this working group is going to come out with some suggestions, which are also going to help address these problems.

However, another thing that I mentioned before – the early involvement, is also key. We talked about system requirements and that we do not define those requirements; that is not in the Test and Evaluation community lane. However, if we are involved early on as those requirements are being defined, we can help to ensure that those requirements are testable and measurable – that is very important. We need to be a part of those decisions early on and the requirements need to be mission-realistic as well.

Because of the War and a push to get items to the Warfighter quicker, do you see the T&E process changing to reduce the amount of testing done?

No. I do see pressure to find ways to do testing more efficiently and more effectively, which hopefully will result in less time and expense on testing. But like you said, we are not about to give up our responsibility for ensuring that the equipment is effective, suitable and survivable. We have that responsibility to Warfight-ers, our ultimate customers, and we are not going to drop that responsibility. In terms of the TEMP – we must ensure that we

other point is because of the nature of the work and its remote location, Dugway depends heavily on contractors. More than half of the workforce is contractors, which actually serves as a great resource. There are many instances of contract employees con-verting to full-time government positions. The nature of the work is the real key to getting good employees at Dugway and they are doing a great job of it.

If that is not an overarching issue – what do you view as the critical challenges of Chem-Bio Defense community?

There are a few of them. The first one, I believe, is realism; hav-ing operationally realistic T&E. Just the nature of working with biological and chemical warfare agents – as you know, we cannot go out in the field and release those agents to do operational test-ing, so we have to depend on simulants and we have to do some chamber work. Maintaining that operational realism with those kinds of constraints is difficult, but it is absolutely critical.

The other thing is the unknown. I mentioned that not only is the Chem-Bio mission as new with respect to Army being T&E Executive , but I think the whole emphasis on the chemical and biological defense program is relatively new and there is a lot that we don’t know yet. There are emerging threats we are looking at that change all the time – for instance, toxic industrial chemicals and materials. Some of the things I mentioned are on the cutting edge and who knows what tomorrow will bring. The unknown is one of our greatest challenges. The third challenge, again, is the delicate balance between speed and caution. We need to move quickly to get the best possible equipment to the Warfighters, but we need to ensure we are conducting robust testing to check on the effectiveness and survivability of that equipment before it goes to the Warfighter.

There was a time when Warfighters called for equipment, in some instances it was being sent, and in other instances of the equipment being sent it experienced some difficulties. So the value and importance of that statement is obvious. We certainly want to get it to them and be responsive to them. But it has to work when they receive it.

Absolutely! One area in which Army Test and Evaluation Com-mand (ATEC) has done an exceptional job in terms of getting equipment to the Soldiers early is in the Urgent Operational Needs Statement process for urgent material requests, which is what you are talking about when the Soldier in the field is asking for something. In 2003, ATEC established what they call FOAs – For-ward Operational Assessment Teams – and they have actually put testers and evaluators in theater so they can work alongside Warfighters while collecting data and doing some independent evaluation, as well.

The Test and Evaluation Master Plan is big, cumbersome and has a lots of information. Are there plans to adjust it?

You mentioned the size – information overload is counterproduc-tive. The important thing is that we need to focus on the critical elements in the TEMP, and that includes both format and sub-stance, making sure that critical information is easily accessible and very visible where the format can help. I am concerned

JPEO-CBD

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil �1

have robust, realistic testing planned ahead of time so we are well prepared for the testing when the time comes. Focusing the testing on mission success is what really matters. That, I think, will help us perform more efficient testing. It all falls back to that planning -- that ‘strategic look’ that I discussed earlier. If we are deliberate in working with the community to ensure that we have got the correct requirements to test against and the appropriate testing to collect the information that we need to determine if equipment is effective, suitable and survivable, I think that is where we cut the corners -- using your terminology -- without cutting corners on the evaluation of the equipment.

I believe that in the past there have been challenges with requirements. And you mentioned if T&E or TEO could be in the requirements process earlier that it could actually help to create a baseline that could be met going forward.

Well, not just TEO; it is really the Operational Test Agencies becoming involved because it is all the same community. Like I said, we are not going to define the system requirements, but I think having Operational Test Agencies’ input to ensure that we have something that is testable and measurable is important.

Is there anything else that you would like to say to the T&E community and the people who will be reading this interview?

I want to emphasize a point I made previously about the early involvement – both on our part and the other Operational Test Agencies – is really a key to success. This is going to help us evolve to integrated testing. We need to understand what the technology is in order to test it. We need to have early identification, budgeting, and acquisi-tion of new test capability needs so that we are ready when the program is ready to test. Also, I want to reiterate the idea of operationally realistic testing. We need realistic, robust, early and often testing. We need to evaluate for mission success. I think those are the two big things and I am really excited about it. I am excited about the organizational changes we have made because I think it better posi-tions us to support the community. I am excited about the programs in which we are working. Chem-Bio is really just coming into its own right now and I’m look-ing forward to the challenge and opportunity to support the Warfighter.

Mr. Alan Thomson, Ms. Janet Garber and Ms. Terri Kocher return to the Test and Evaluation Office while discussing a new initiative.

�� Jul - Sep �008


The JPEO-CBD Software Support Activity (SSA) recently published an award-winning paper entitled,

“A Proposed Open System Architecture for Modeling and Simulation (OSAMS).” This paper was presented at the Fall 2007 Simu-lation Interoperability Workshop (SIW), where it received a prestigious SIWzie award from the Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO). Due to its broad appeal, the SSA was invited to present this paper at the Spring 2008 SIW plenary session. The title of the talk was, “The Need for Change…”

Change

Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Defense heavily relies on Model-ing and Simulation (M&S) due to prohibi-tive cost and safety concerns involved with live testing. JPEO-CBD is in the process of drafting a long-range M&S strategic plan that will bring about important change that is long overdue and much needed by the broad community. One of the strategic goals identified in the draft plan is to collaborate with industry, academia, and other government agencies to collectively establish an open source standards-based M&S framework that will facilitate the development and operation of highly interoperable plug-and-play model components and embrace the net-centric and multicore-computing world

of the 21st century while maintaining Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) interoper-ability standards. The OSAMS paper was a first step in unveiling a unified approach to the broader community.

Revolutionary Change

Over the past 10 years, many M&S tools have been developed for the Depart-ment of Defense (DoD) that are not in use today, primarily because they do not easily interoperate with other tools, run too slow, and/or are too expensive to maintain. The DoD M&S community must address these serious problems.

The problem is not that we need to do things better…

We need to do things differently!

The kind of change we need is revolu-tionary, not evolutionary.

Several technologies are now converg-ing, encouraging the need for change.

Reason-1: Net-centricity

The net-centric military transforma-tion is reshaping software systems into accessible services distributed across the Global Information Grid (GIG). Web technologies break up monolithic appli-cations into collections of services that

can be globally discovered and accessed. CBRND programs now have net-centric, Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) requirements identified in their contract language.

Reason-2: The Multicore Revolution

Single processor technology has hit the performance wall due to clock-speed power constraints, memory access bottlenecks, and limited opportunities for further logic optimizations. Affordable computers today come configured with multicore processors. Experts predict that every 18 to 24 months, the number of pro-cessing cores per chip will double. Future M&S capabilities must embrace parallel computing to perform well on emerging computer architectures. The impact of this is serious (see Figure 1).

Reason-3: LVC Interoperability

M&S capabilities must interoperate in multiple execution environments:

1. Live: Interoperability with live test-range systems during Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E). The principal live testing interoperability standard is the Test Enabling Architecture (TENA).2. Virtual: Interoperability with simu-

By Dr. Jeffrey S. Steinman, Jennifer Park, Nathan Delane, and Wally Walter, JPEO-CBD Software Support Activity (SSA)

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

��

lated entities that are controlled by humans during virtual training. The most commonly used training interoperability standard is Distributed Interactive Simu-lation (DIS).3. Constructive: Interoperability with simulated systems. The primary construc-tive simulation interoperability standard is the High Level Architecture (HLA). Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear M&S systems today rarely support interoperability across all LVC modes, especially when combined in mixed environments. Significant software upgrades and data model unification efforts are required to achieve this goal.

Reason-4: Significant Capa-bility Gaps

Significant capability gaps exist within the current collection of CBRND M&S tools. Mainstream combat tools rarely provide meaningful CBRN behaviors. Simply decreasing the effectiveness, performance, or health of simulated warfighters during a CBRN attack is not adequate. Behaviors must change too. Furthermore, some tools only execute in real time, making it challenging, if not impossible, to conduct robust analysis of CBRND scenarios.

Reason-5: New Technology Paradigms

Recent M&S technology breakthroughs will change the future landscape of M&S. An example is HyperWarpSpeed that allows simulations to spawn multiple behavior timelines at key decision points during execution. Thousands or more permutations of the future can be rapidly explored within a single simulation run. This capability is critical in live tactical environments where warfighters must rap-idly explore consequences of battlefield decisions made in dynamically changing, data-rich, net-centric environments.

Figure 1: The Cell processor, which powers Sony’s PlayStation 3 game console, is a multicore chip that has the potential to run 10 times faster than current PC chips. The Cell processor generates its increased speeds by using multiple computing engines (or cores) on a single chip.

�� Jul - Sep �008


Reason-6: The Cost of M&S

The most important motivation for change is that the DoD is not getting a good return on the investments it makes in M&S.

The DoD spends too much money…

1. Developing simulations2. Maintaining them3. Making them run faster4. Testing and debugging them5. Verifying, Validating, and Accrediting (VV&A) them6. Integrating them with other simulations7. Constructing scenarios8. Providing documentation9. Training developers and users10. Performing analysis

The problem is that while there are stan-dards for allowing simulations to inter-operate, there are no standards for how to build plug-and-play highly reusable model components within a common framework.

Back to Basics

What are simulations?

Simulations are simply software pro-grams that evolve represented systems over time. Simulations are composed of models.

What are models?

Models are representations of systems or subsystems. Models can be composed of other models. The art of modeling involves coordinating, in an efficient manner, how models evolve over time and how they interact with other models. Models require a simulation engine that provides services to coordinate their activities over time. There should be a complete wall of separation (see Figure 2) between the common services simulation engines provide and the models that are hosted by the simulation engine. A good simulation engine minimizes the effort required to develop highly interoperable complex models.

Fundamental Premise of OSAMS

The fundamental premise of OSAMS is that we need to stop building simulations and start building plug-and-play interop-erable models. This is really no different from the SOA concept, where the goal is to stop building monolithic systems and start building collections of interoperable services. To accomplish this requires two things:

1. Define standards for supporting paral-lel and distributed simulation technology. This step is critical due to the multicore revolution that has already begun.2. Define standards for developing highly interoperable and reconfigurable model components. Flexible composability is essential in lowering the cost of M&S.

The JPEO-CBD SSA has proposed the standardization of two highly synergistic M&S architectures.

Figure 2: “Wall of Separation” between highly interoperable plug-and-play model components and the simulation engine hosting the models.

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

��

OpenMSA/OSAMS and the OSI-PDMS

The Open Modeling and Simulation Architecture (OpenMSA) is a layered architecture, where each layer defines a critical technology required to support scalable parallel and distributed M&S. Technologies include high performance communications, LVC interoperability, web-based SOA, advanced event sched-uling, publish and subscribe services, and a unified modeling framework with software utilities to simplify model development. The Open System Architecture for Modeling and Simulation (OSAMS) defines services that are necessary to develop highly interoperable plug-and-play model components. The JPEO-CBD SSA recently formed the Open Source Initiative for Parallel and Distributed Modeling and Simula-tion (OSI-PDMS) study group within SISO to investigate both the OpenMSA and OSAMS architectures. An impor-tant goal is to field a community-wide, freely available, open-source, and open-development implementation of the OpenMSA and OSAMS architec-tures using existing reference imple-mentations.

Enterprise Services(HLA, DIS, TENA)

Enterprises(Federations)

Applications(Simulations)

DistributedEntities

ModelComponents

Methods andFunctions

Computers Nodes Threads

NetworkProtocols

SharedMemory

LockingMechanisms

AbstractInterfaces

10 m s 1 m s 100 µs 10 µs 1 µs 100 ns 10 ns 1 ns

Interaction Time ScalesFigure 3: Time scales for various interoperability mechanisms.

Spanning Interoperability Mechanisms

The M&S research community is largely focused on interoperability between enterprises and federations. Yet, software developers fundamentally build models. The difference in interaction overheads between enterprise technologies and direct model-component interactions is six or seven orders of magnitude (see Figure 3). CBRND must have flexibility to com-pose models into composite entities for tight model-to-model interactions. These composite entities are distributed across processors to achieve parallel speedup. CBRND must also have the ability to compose distributed simulations, federa-tions, and enterprises in the most flexible manner possible. The fundamental plug-and-play building block is the model component. OSAMS facilitates plug-and-play composability. Models interact through abstract interfaces that are specified inde-pendent of any particular implementation, and publish/subscribe services that distrib-ute state information. These concepts are similar to the fundamental HLA interop-erability mechanisms, but implemented at the software component level where modeling really occurs.

The Time for Change

In 1983, Steve Jobs recruited John Scul-ley, the president of Pepsi, to become the next president and eventual CEO of Apple. John Sculley was famous for creat-ing the “Pepsi challenge” that took market share from their rival, Coke. John Sculley was initially reluctant to join Apple. But, Jobs is reported to have said…

“If you stay at Pepsi, five years from now all you’ll have accomplished is selling a

lot more sugar water to kids… If you come to Apple, you can change the world.”

[Gelman and Rogers, 1985, p. 46, Conant and Marbach, 1984, p. 56]

The JPEO-CBD SSA is committed to accomplishing the 21st century vision for cost-effective M&S. The key is to collaborate with industry, academia, and other government agencies in collectively establishing an open source standards-based M&S framework that embraces all of the challenges facing us. We truly have a unique opportunity right now, as we draft the long-range M&S strategic plan for CBRND, to change the world!

�6 Jul - Sep �008


The Chemical Biological Radiolog-ical Nuclear (CBRN) Data Model is a key enabler for net-centric

operations. It provides a conceptual model of CBRN battlespace relationships, common semantics (meaning of a term in a language) and common syntax (rules govern-ing construction of a language). By stan-dardizing the meaning and structure of CBRN data the relationships between the data, and data about the data (metadata) across the CBRN commu-nity, we can facilitate interoperability and the exchange of informa-tion at the data level. This common understanding of data is critical to interoper-ability and to Net-Centric operations, which call for the wide sharing and exchange of data and information throughout the Depart-ment of Defense. Without this common understanding of data, JPEO-CBD would risk critical failures, just as National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion did when it lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used Eng-lish units for a key spacecraft operation (reference: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/). In order to promote community-wide adoption of the CBRN Data Model common semantics

and syntax, the SSA Data Management Team is working closely with the CBRN community to formally establish a CBRN Community of Interest (COI) that will provide a permanent formal working-level

meeting place which centralizes issues related to data sharing and Net-centricity. To support implementation of the CBRN Data Model, the SSA Data Man-agement Team provides an Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema Defini-tion (XSD) that reflects the information contained in the CBRN Data Model. A

snippet of the CBRN XSD is shown in the figure below. As can be seen rather clearly, the XSD specifies the name of the data, its definition (including the applicable unit of measure), and its valid

enumerations or range of values. Each of these has been given a different color in the figure below, in order to clearly identify them. The most recent version of the CBRN XSD, Release 1.7, pilots the inclusion of the unit of measure in a machine-readable format. An XSD can be used to support the generation of XML documents which function as data files that contain the data to be exchanged as well as information that describes the data. In turn, the same XSD can be used to auto-matically check XML documents for correct-ness (validate them) so that they are under-stood by computer systems. Sample XSD and XML segments show that they contain data

as well as information that describes the data. In the same manner, the CBRN XSDs can be used to exchange data with other parties that are also using the CBRN XSDs. XML has become the fundamental de-facto standard for exchanging data, much like HTML has become the world-

By Sheila A. Vachher, Software Support Activity (SSA) Data Management Lead and Thomas H. Johnson, CBRN Data Director

X S D S n ip p e t<x s :s im p leT ype n a m e="CB RN Eve ntC ate go ryC ode "><x s :a n n otatio n><xs :do cum enta tio n>The s p e cific v a lu e th a t

re p re s e n ts th e c la s s o f C B R N -E V E N T.</x s :d o c um enta tion ></x s:a nno tatio n>

<x s :re s tric tio n b a s e ="c ode -6"><x s:e num era tion v a lu e="RA D "><x s :a n n otatio n><xs :do cum enta tio n>A C B R N -E V EN T in v o lv ing a

re le a s e o f ra d io a c tiv e m a te rie l(s ) b ut n o t in v o lv in g a s ta n d a rd n u c le a r w e a p on o r n u c le ar w e a p o n a tta c k .</x s :d o c um enta tion ></x s:a nno tatio n>

</x s :e n u me ratio n></xs :res trictio n></x s :s im p le Typ e><x s :s im p leT ype n a m e="CB RN Eve ntR ele as eHe igh tDim en sio n"><x s :a n n otatio n><xs :do cum enta tio n>The o n e -dim e nsio nal lin e a r

d is ta n c e re p re s e ntin g th e h e ig h t a b o v e g ro u n d le v e l a t w h ic h th e m a te ria l is re le a s e d o r th e h e ig h t a b o v e g ro u n d le ve l a t w h ic h a n u c le a r w e a p o n is d e to n a te d. A ls o c a lle d th e b u rs t h e ig h t. A s u b s u rfa c e b u rs t g iv e s a n e g a tiv e v a lu e fo r th is a ttrib u te . U n it o f M e a s u re = M e tre s .< /x s :do cum enta tio n></xs:a nn otatio n>

<x s :re s tric tio n b a s e ="d ime nsio n-re al-1 2-3 -op tion al"/>< /x s :s im p le Typ e>

X M L S n ip p e t<C B R N E ve nt><C B R N E ve ntC ate goryC o de >R AD </CB RN Eve ntC ate go ryC ode ><C B R N E ve ntR ele ase He ightD im en sion >253 .3</C B R N E ve ntR ele as eHe igh tDim en sio n></C B R N E ve nt>

D e fin itio n s N a m e s E n u m e ra tion s Va lid Va lu e s

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

��

wide standard for exchanging web pages. The Java programming language provides numerous tools that can read XSD files and automatically generate software code. This saves software developers time and reduces coding errors. The CBRN XSDs are registered and available in the DoD Metadata Registry (https://metadata.dod.mil) as shown in the screenshot below. Uploading the CBRN XSDs to the metadata registry makes them available to all metadata registry users who can then use them to support interop-erability and net-centric operations. The CBRN XSDs provide powerful capabili-ties to the CBRN community. The CBRN Release 1.7 XML Schema Definition (XSD) is available in the DoD Metadata Registry The XSD files have the invaluable ability to refer to each other. So for example, if the CBRN community would like to leverage the XSDs developed by the weather community, then the CBRN XSDs can easily incorporate the weather XSD information. This reduces duplication of effort and places the responsibility for data standards in the community where they best belong. The CBRN XSD is moving in this direction of referring to external Communities of Interest (COIs) for data that is not CBRN specific. Because the data is described in XSDs, translations between different message formats and displays becomes much easier. To demonstrate some of these XSD capabilities, a sample web form is pro-

vided at http://webservicedemo.alion-science.com/demo. This web form allows a user to input data and create an XML file. The user-generated XML file is then checked against an XSD and the user is notified whether or not they entered valid data. The system also allows the user to employ XML technologies to automati-cally translate their XML document into other formats or displays. Because the CBRN Data Model and XSDs support the diverse and detailed data needs of the CBRN community, they can sometimes become quite large. This can make them difficult for Programs of Record (PORs) to work with. To address this difficulty, the SSA Data Manage-ment Team has recently partnered with the Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) to create a schema subset of the CBRN XSD that directly uses the “type” definitions in the CBRN XSD, but con-tains only those data items that JWARN needs to exchange. This results in a much more compact JWARN XSD. This JWARN XSD has built-in compliance with the CBRN XSD, by virtue of directly using the CBRN XSD “types.” The SSA Data Management Team is also partnering with the Joint Operational Effects Federation (JOEF) to produce a data exchange XSD for the Rudimentary Vulnerability Analysis data that JOEF needs to receive from JWARN. This data includes such information as the type and time of attack, agent name, agent source, number of attacks, time between attacks, and time to exposure. With a

relatively small number of data elements to be exchanged, a subset of the CBRN XSD is particularly appropriate for the JOEF-JWARN data exchange. As with the JWARN XSD, the JOEF-JWARN data exchange XSD directly uses the CBRN XSD “types” resulting in built-in compli-ance with the CBRN XSDs. In summary, the CBRN Data Model is a key enabler of data interoperability and net-centricity. It provides strong support to interoperability by standardizing the relationships, syntax, and semantics of CBRN data and making this information widely available through its registered XSDs. These XSDs, in turn, provide powerful capabilities such as automatic XML document generation and validation, automatic computer reading and under-standing of the data, and simpler transla-tion between different message formats. Finally, the ability of XSD documents to refer to each other allows different com-munities to integrate their expertise across community boundaries. The recent XSD subset efforts with the JWARN and JOEF PORs have made data model implementa-tion a concrete reality. Additional information and CBRN XSD products are also available at the SSA Data Management portal (pictured above), which can be found on Army Knowledge Online (AKO) at the follow-ing link: https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/510067. You must have an AKO account to access this portal.

�8 Jul - Sep �008


The Department of Defense (DoD) has mandated that all Govern-ment networks shall be capable

of deploying IPv6 by 2008 and has spent significant funds to acquire a block of 281 trillion IPv6 network addresses to start the deployment. There has been a cloud of mystery within the DoD acquisition com-munity surrounding IPv6 and its impact on government programs. This article will provide a layman’s perspective on IPv6 and will clear the fog surrounding its impact within the CBRN community.

What Is IPv6? IPv6 stands for Internet Protocol Ver-sion 6. It has been designated by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to become the replacement for Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4), the current and widely used internet addressing standard. Most of the existing Internet operates on IPv4, which was established nearly twenty years ago and which is begin-ning to have significant issues. Several mechanisms have been put in place throughout the years to prevent IPv4 issues from impacting the global Internet, but we are rapidly reaching a time when a completely new protocol is required. One of the most significant issues with IPv4 is its limited address space. IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses, which limits the avail-able unique addresses to 232 or just over 4.2 billion addresses. This may seem like quite a large number, but the increasing prevalence of networked mobile handheld devices, always on home appliances like routers and cable-modems, and the rapidly growing number of internet users in devel-oped and third world countries indicates that an address shortage is imminent. We must take into account that the current world population is estimated to be roughly

6.7 billion. Certainly this includes a large number of non-internet users in undevel-oped nations, but we also must consider that an average citizen of most major developed societies most likely owns at least 2 peripherals which may utilize public IP addresses. Estimates as to when avail-able IPv4 addresses will run out vary and should be taken for what they are; educated guesses. However, in November of 2007, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the organization responsible for assigning all globally-unique names and numbers that are used in Internet protocols, reported that, provided assigned but unused addresses could be reclaimed, the current IPv4 address space would run out in 2017. In contrast, IPv6 utilizes 128-bit addresses. That allows for 2128 or about 340 undecillion (3.4*1038) addresses. That number is over 50 octillion addresses per person alive today. In another perspective, IPv6 can provide 252 addresses for every star in the known universe, a million times as many addresses per star than IPv4 sup-ports just for Earth. In addition to the issue of address space, IPv6 also considers several other Internet issues which have been identified as the Internet has grown over the years. One of these is network configuration. IPv6 supports a new Statelesss Address Auto-Configuration system, which allows networks to dynamically provision themselves without user setup. When usage of such protocols is not practical IPv6 versions of legacy protocols, such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) are also available.

What Is The Impact Of IPv6? IPv6 is a network addressing protocol. From the perspective of the Chem-Bio Defense community, the impact of the DoD

transition to IPv6 will be relatively small. The largest impact will be seen in the networks themselves which our community must connect to. Routers will need to be upgraded or replaced. Network reconfigu-ration will need to be managed. Our IT staff will be required to learn new method-ologies to manage the network. Implementations of IPv6 are required in network infrastructure, such as network routers and switches, and in Information Technology (IT) Operating Systems (OS). Most widely used OS today already support experimental implementations of IPv6 and as the global transition from IPv4 to IPv6 begins to occur, manufacturers have com-mitted to supplying software updates which will keep pace with that transition. From a network device or application perspective, the changes to support IPv6 are relatively minimal.

Operating System Support Apple Macintosh has supported IPv6 since OS X 10.2 Jaguar. Nearly every ver-sion of Unix and Linux have IPv6 support built-in with their current stable releases. Microsoft has included “Development” releases of IPv6 support in Windows 2000 and Windows XP, while a full implementa-tion has been released with Windows Vista. While most commercial routers available today also support IPv6, the global Internet is still projected to be in transition for several years and complete network support for IPv6 is not expected for many years yet. Thus, while IPv6 must be supported within applications and network devices, IPv4 must also remain available for the foreseeable future. As long as programs choose their requirements with care for this requirement, no impact should be incurred. However, legacy programs running on specialized Operating Systems should

By Joshua Pressnell, JPEO-CBD Software Support Activity (SSA) Technical Director

www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

��

begin working with their vendors now to ensure IPv6 support is included in currently scheduled Operating System updates.

Development Constraints Depending on the particular program-ming languages used, there may be little or no changes required to operate within IPv6 environments. Microsoft has released a guide intended to aide developers in transitioning their Windows code to IPv6 compatibility and a code-scan tool to point out where updates are required within the code (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms738649.aspx). Within C and C++ applications, there are four central issues:1) Changing Data Structures – The stan-dard Internet Address data structure pre-viously used does not support the larger IPv6 address. Code must be updated to support the larger address’ physical size. This can usually be done by simply updating the utilized data type to the new generic version.2) Function Calls – New C++ function calls have been added in the Windows networking libraries to support IPv6. Some code may need to be updated to accommodate the new interfaces.3) User Interface Issues – The IPv6 address uses a new and much longer format which is significantly harder for humans to remember. It is recommended that all machines transition to using Uni-form Resource Locator (URL) references or network names for system endpoints, rather than IP addresses. If IP addresses must be used, User Interface components must be updated to accommodate the new longer format.4) Dual-Stack Sockets – Several OS do not support IPv4 and IPv6 within a single code path. Thus, two separate connec-

tions must be maintained, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6. This increases complexity of code in the connection management layers. For those applications developed in Java the IPv6 transition is somewhat simpler. Java has supported IPv6 in Solaris, Linux, and Windows since Java 1.5. The issues of User Interface discussed above still apply, but provided that legacy applica-tions use network names or URL, rather than IP addresses, there are no code changes required for Java applications to transition to IPv6. The Java Runtime handles the details within the network stack automatically.

Summary There has been a lot of excitement and process put around the pending DoD transition to IPv6. While this transition is important, for applications and network devices aware of the change there will be relatively minimal impact. The Chem-Bio community needs to be aware of the technical status of their programs in regards to IPv6, but provided that care is taken ahead of time, IPv6 should be just another requirements box to check off.

Between 2000 and 2007, the total number of internet users grew by roughly 265 percent. Africa and the Middle East had the largest increases, but still only show 4.7 percent and 17.4 percent total population penetration. Thus, as the world continues to develop, we can only speculate that greater world growth averages will be seen in the coming years.

�0 Jul - Sep �008


‘The Reason for Our Successis Our People.’


Twenty-five inductees into the Order of the Dragon pose for a group photo at the 2008 Green Dragon Ball, held at Andrews Air Force Base.

Mr. Joe Novick (left), program analyst, Joint Project Manager Collective Protection, looks over display equipment at the JPEO-CBD booth during the Joint CBRN Conference at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

Mr. Valentin Novikov, Dr. Kent Redwine and Dr. Michael Weibel discuss issues at the JPEO-CBD booth during the Joint CBRN Conference.

Mr. James Johnson, Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Aurelio Burton (left-to-right), Subject Matter Experts from Joint Project Manager Contamination Avoidance, at the JPEO-CBD booth during the Joint CBRN Conference.

Ms. Melissa Barrett (left), a logistics analyst at JPEO-CBD, demonstrates a program to Maj. Gen. Stephen Reeves, the Joint Program Executive Officer, and his wife Katy during the Joint CBRN Conference.


www.jpeocbd.osd.mil

JPEO-CBD

�1


L illian Cooke, a budget analyst with Joint Project Manager Guardian, was elected District Governor of Toastmasters International District 27.

Cooke, who has 31 years of federal service, will also be presented the Excellence in Education Award at the Toastmasters International Convention in Calgary, Ontario, Canada. She began her federal career as a clerk-typist at Maxwell Air Force Base-Gunter Air Force Station, Montgomery, AL. She has also worked at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Fairborn, OH, and for the Secretary of the Air Force Financial Management at the Pentagon. Cooke has been with the JPEO for more than four years. One of 92 districts worldwide, District 27 has 200 clubs with approximately 4,000 members and stretches from Chesapeake Bay to

Front Royal, VA, east-to-west, and from the Anacostia River south to Fredricksburg, VA. As district governor, Cooke will be responsible for directing 61 elected and appointed personnel who interface with the membership. Most Toastmasters meetings range from one to two hours, and during that time, participants practice and learn communications and leadership skills.

Ms. Camille Schumacher joined the Joint Program Execu-tive Office for Chemical and

Biological Defense as the Director of Future Acquisition June 16, 2008. She is responsible for leading the JPEO-CBD’s future technology strategy and coordinating that strategy with the other members of the Chemical and Biologi-cal Defense Program. Most recently, she was a Deputy Program Area Manager with the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL), where she was responsible for the management and oversight of all Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives Force Protection programs in support of the JPEO-CBD, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Prior to her duties as a Program Man-ager, she was the Counterproliferation Deputy Program Development Director at JHU/APL. Following Sept. 11, 2001, she was involved in formulating the overarching concept for an urban environment sur-veillance system to detect a bioterrorist attack. Ms. Schumacher has success-fully formed multi-organizational teams comprising government, academia, and industry in support of Department of Defense acquisition programs. She has led numerous efforts to help define operational concepts and technical requirements for chem-bio sensor sys-tems and other equipment, and she has co-chaired government integrated prod-uct team working groups for a number of defense acquisition programs. Ms. Schumacher has a bachelor’s of science in Information Systems Technology from the University of Maryland. She and her husband Dave Restione reside in Howard County, MD.

�� Jul - Sep �008


Documents

Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion Next Generation