Army Chemical Review presents professional information about Chemical Corps functions related to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, smoke, flame, and civil support operations.
Issue link: https://chemical.epubxp.com/i/759309
21 Winter 2016 The experiment was unique in that the liaison officers from two Army laboratories and a Navy laboratory were in- strumental in the design and execution of the experiment. Scientists, engineers, and laboratory technicians were used as data collectors under the supervision of the MSCoE Ma- neuver Support Battle Laboratory. An excursion under controlled conditions (MUA I location) was conducted to ex- amine a prototype training capability that was identified as a need during MUA I. The field experiment included par- ticipants from the MCoE (infantry) and the MSCoE (engi- neers, military police, and CBRN personnel). The train-up included a revised training package and concept of opera- tion/concept of employment that was developed to leverage the earlier joint urgent operational needs effort and lessons learned from MUA I. The results of the surveys, MUA I, and MUA II were used to compile a list of desirable attributes for an endur- ing solution. Subject matter experts were then surveyed to rank order the Soldier-selected attributes. This data was used to conduct the cost-benefit analysis and to craft the re- quirements document. The cost-benefit analysis considered four alternative courses of action (COAs). MSCoE looked at several COTS alternatives, including the one that was purchased for the field. The COTS item fielded to support infantry screening was selected as COA 1. COA 2 was a full- scale engineering development of a prototype based upon the principles of the M256A1 Chemical Detection Kit. The M256A1 had a 30-year history, and its operation was a Skill Level 2 common task. The Soldier surveys revealed that low training burden was extremely important to any enduring solution. COA 3 was an electronic solution that used two of the detection components of the dismounted reconnais- sance sets, kits, and outfits. This was driven by a Joint Improvised–Threat Defeat Organization recommendation. The dismounted reconnaissance sets, kits, and outfits was undergoing development as a program of record, and much was known about it. COA 4 was a tailored variant of COA 2. Each of the four COAs was then assessed based on the weighted attributes from experimentation, Soldier surveys, market research, and input from project managers. Sensi- tivity analysis was performed to determine the extent that the COAs were sensitive to training, adaptability (ease of addressing a new threat), burden, ease of use, and cost. This unique collaborative approach facilitated the rapid devel- opment of a draft requirements document and cost-benefit analysis while addressing many programmatic issues to re- duce risk and offer programmatic options for what is now a program of record. Mr. Cress is assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, as the technical representative Center. He is a graduate of the Air War College, the General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He holds a bachelor of science degree in Mr. Lake is the chief of the Engineering Support Division, Biological Center. He holds a bachelor's degree in electronic interest groups, and higher-headquarters personnel. Script- ed narratives are injected at specific times throughout the exercises. Simulation cell members record responses and the required follow-up actions that are needed to help the evalu- ators determine the effectiveness of the response teams. "Working in the simulation cell was a very eye-opening and rewarding experience for me," said Ms. Susan K. Kin- mon, administrative assistant for the BGCA project man- agement office. "I had several roles to fill as a [simulation cell] member. I role-played as higher-headquarters leader- ship, elected officials, media, and Family members of miss- ing and injured personnel. It was great to be able to help the CSEPP community get a taste of possible real-world responses under the pressure of a crisis situation." Once the exercise starts, the BGCA emergency operations center is activated. Military and civilian leaders assess the situation and have their subject matter experts recommend community protective actions based on computer modeling of possible chemical agent dispersion. Personnel report to the emergency operations center and begin crisis response procedures for their respective areas (public affairs, ac- countability, environmental, medical, legal, field chemical operations, security, safety, logistics, and hazard analysis). The exercise typically includes shelter-in-place actions for the school system; over-pressure system tests for key com- munity buildings (schools, hospitals); ambulance response; decontamination procedures; simulated medical treatment of chemical injuries; media interviews; and a joint press con- ference with Army, FEMA, and local community leaders. The teams responding to the exercise scenario are evalu- ated from the time the simulated accident or incident occurs until the end of the exercise. Nearly 200 trained evaluators report to central Kentucky to assess the skills and abili- ties of Army and CSEPP community personnel. All evalu- ators have experience in their respective areas and have been trained in exercise evaluation procedures to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the responders. Evaluators include personnel from FEMA, Army organizations, and Argonne National Laboratory; contract personnel; and Pueblo Chemical Depot CSEPP community members. The final step in the CSEPP exercise is to gather all of the documents and comments from the evaluators for a final report. The final report outlines successes and identifies ar- eas that need to be fine-tuned. Senior evaluation team per- sonnel gather with BGCA and CSEPP community leaders to discuss the report and lessons learned. The BGCA and CSEPP communities receive this feedback and use it to re- inforce high-performance areas, establish new training, and improve processes as needed. Ms. Hurst is the public affairs officer for BGCA. She is responsi- ble for with stakeholders, elected officials, and the She holds degree in operational arts and science and Staff