By Christopher Hawley

Note: Emergency Film Group has produced "Detecting Weapons of Mass Destruction." to help organizations tackle this complex topic. This article by Christopher Hawley, who served as a technical advisor on the program, is the Introduction to the product guide which accompanies the program.

In today's society, having the ability to detect potential terrorism agents is crucial to safe and effective emergency response. Terrorists or persons intending to wreak havoc have many potential weapons in their arsenals. Fortunately, as the war against terrorism has heated up there have been a number of advances in the field of terrorist agent detection. Increasingly sophisticated and effective equipment is becoming available. As part of their training, emergency responders need to learn how to select and operate a variety of these detection devices.

Without detection devices, emergency responders may have to assume that a terrorist agent is in fact present, and at levels high enough to cause harm. With the advent of detection devices, this is no longer necessary, as technology can be used determine what is really happening. Using the proper detection devices, combined with accurate risk assessment, emergency responders no longer need to be making guesses, and can make informed decisions about personal protective equipment, rescue operations, decontamination, and incident severity.

The art of field detection is rapidly changing. Rapid identification can now be accomplished in the field using equipment that was originally found only in labs. However, it is a difficult task to use lab-based equipment in the street and emergency responders now must move beyond the basic skills and receive advanced training in agent collection. Knowing how the devices work and the technology behind them is crucial to an accurate assessment of the results. As complicated and scientific as these devices are, they are not able to interpret the results. It is still up to a human to make decisions.

This booklet accompanies the Emergency Film Group video entitled "Detecting Weapons of Mass Destruction," which is designed to introduce WMD sampling and monitoring technologies to special operations units such as hazmat teams, bomb squads, tactical units, National Guard troops, and others who may be called upon to carry out monitoring and sampling activities at a suspected WMD incident. The program takes the viewer through a quick overview of the various technologies and some of the common devices available for agent detection.

The field of terrorist agent detection can be divided into four major categories, with each having significant detection issues. The four categories are (1) chemical, (2) biological, (3) explosive and (4) radiological. Each of these categories of devices has issues that the user must understand. Fortunately, technologies are improving and the future looks quite bright in the detection device field.

Rapid identification of terrorist agents is important to the successful outcome of a response. One of the first issues at a potential terrorist event is always the credibility of the threat. To avoid the ramifications of false positives, responders should use at least two and preferably three detection devices. If two or more detection technologies show positive, there is an increased likelihood that an agent is present. Rapid identification in the field is especially critical for agents that require immediate countermeasures in the treatment of victims.

Responders must protect themselves against all of the potential hazards by using general detection devices initially, followed up by more specific devices. If the threat may involve radiation, then radiation monitors are the front line detection devices. By using the other general devices, responders can be protected by more common hazards that may exist with little or no warning. It is always advisable to use a flammable gas sensor or LEL sensor - sometimes called a combustible gas indicator - to determine if any flammable gases are present in the area.

It is important to remember that many detection devices are not intrinsically safe. A detection device that is not intrinsically safe in the presence of flammable gases could create a spark that could cause an explosion. It is also important to always monitor the oxygen level, both to avoid oxygen deficient atmospheres and because an adequate oxygen level is also needed to assure meter accuracy.

In establishing detection priorities, radiation is always the first concern. One threat about which we hear a lot is the use of radiological dispersion devices or RDDs, a threat that causes fear among responders and the public. The use of detection devices can help make the response to a radiological incident efficient and effectively handled. Without the use of detection devices responders may not make informed decisions about public safety, which could result in more panic.

If a terrorist has made a threat to use a RDD, and emergency responders find themselves at an explosion, quick monitoring can determine if the device contained a radioactive source. If the readings are negative, the stress of dealing with a potential RDD is reduced.

Explosives are the second priority for detection. Explosives are the weapon of choice in most terrorist incidents. Despite the proliferation of explosives detection technology, the bomb dog remains one of the most reliable methods of detecting the presence of explosives. Bomb dogs are standard with most bomb squads. The dogs are trained and directed by a bomb technician. There are other explosive detection technologies now on the market that are described in the program.

Another threat that is possible is from chemical weapons, either military or industrial chemicals. Although the more likely scenario involves industrial chemicals, emergency responders still need some capability to detect military chemical agents. Many of the available devices are dual use devices, and are able to detect military as well as industrial chemicals. There are a variety of technologies available to the responders for chemical detection that are able to detect at very low levels, most to the parts per billion or even lower amounts. One part per billion can be compared to a single drop of water in 14,000 gallons of water.

Interpretation of the results takes experience and common sense. With some exceptions, military weapons that can cause quick fatal effects provide visible signs and symptoms in victims in rapid fashion. When confronted with signs and symptoms that compare to nerve agent poisoning, and the detection device indicates a nerve agent is present, the device is probably accurate. Confronted with a situation in which there are no victims with symptoms, if the detection device is indicating the presence of a nerve agent, the reading is most likely a false positive. Understanding the limitations of these devices is a key to success.

One of the exciting developments in the detection world is a device that detects military chemical weapons, explosives, and common street drugs. These new devices are extremely sensitive, and are very useful in the detection of bombs, bomb making supplies and conventional explosives. They are able to detect the common street drugs, and as a bonus will determine the presence of chemical weapons. When dealing with a potential terrorist event or a HazMat crime, these detection devices cover a lot of base.

Biological agents are the most difficult to detect, and currently there is no technology available for rapid on scene detection of a biological agent. In a crisis situation, rapid detection should be measured in seconds, not 20 minutes as currently exists. There are two basic types of street level detection devices, hand held assays, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) devices. There are a number of issues with biological agent detection, and responders need to make sure they understand the limitations of currently available devices. Many of the detection systems were designed for laboratory use, and have been adapted or modified for street use. Responders must follow lab-like procedures and processes to ensure accurate results. One of the major issues with these devices is the failure of the responder to follow the instructions. Regardless of the results, street results must always be followed up with laboratory testing.

Following the anthrax attacks of October 2001 when emergency responders were being called to thousands of suspicious powder incidents, some response teams were lucky to have the latest technology to assist them. Those who had the technology were able to make a quick determination of the risk to responders, incident severity, and credibility of the event. Those without detection devices had to do some extensive on-scene testing (or guessing) or wait for the lab results.

Response teams with an effective risk-based approach to monitoring can carry out a safe response to a potential terrorism scenario. Monitoring equipment can provide a high level of protection, and should be used on a regular basis. Just as firefighters always use hose lines for protection in a burning building, or police officers use bullet-proof vests and guns to protect against an armed suspect, a responder to a potential terrorist event should always use detection devices. The options presented in this training program range from low cost high cost options. Some work better than others, but most importantly responders must understand the capabilities and limitations of these instruments and know how to interpret the results. Trust the science, and establish the credibility of the event. Quick use of detection devices can rule out a potential terrorism scenario in rapid fashion, reducing fear and maintaining the calm.

Without detection devices there is the potential to use higher levels of protective clothing than necessary, extensive evacuation/isolation, and extensive decontamination, all of which may create panic and terror. By determining the credibility of the event in the first few minutes the terrorist is defeated, as they are not able to create the desired level of fear or hysteria. It is our job to keep the peace and to protect our citizens, and effective use of terrorism agent detection devices allows us to perform to the best of our abilities.

Christopher Hawley is a retired Fire Specialist with the Baltimore County Fire Department. His previous assignment with the Department was the Special Operations Coordinator, a position which he held for nine years. Currently he is the owner of FBN Training & Consulting, a company that provides emergency response training worldwide. He is an adjunct instructor to the National Fire Academy and the author of several texts on emergency response issues including Hazardous Materials Incidents and Air Monitoring & Detection Devices. He is also the co-author of Special Operations: Response to Terrorism and HazMat Crimes, along with Greg Noll and Mike Hildebrand. Chris served as a technical committee member for "Detecting Weapons of Mass Destruction."