In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
The BEBL module is the first mobile structure in the CBRN field to include a high safety laboratory for the rapid diagnosis of pathogenic agents, including class A by the C.D.C.’s classification.
Benefits :
The 20 foot Expandable container offers, once unfolded, a surface of more than 30 m ² thus increasing working area. Its implementation is rapid (less than 20 minutes), even under a CBRN threat. The Negative pressure and the air renewal systems use H14 types & HEPA filters to ensure the neutralization of the various types of effluents and toxins. They allow for a high level of containment to insure maximum protection for the operatives or, research personnel and for the environment. The deployment of this equipment allows the collection and the identification in less than 2 hours of indexed and classified pathogenic A, B, C germs and in 72 hours for unknown germs. An autonomous auxiliary logistics module provides the energy, the water, the filtered air and the air conditioning…
Composition :
The module is composed of three independent structures, two of which are dedicated to the laboratory. It includes equipment for the rapid identification of CBR threats (chemical, biological, radiological). It can be used either in the diagnosis of agents responsible for natural diseases (e.g.: V. cholera, N. meningitidis) or for the diagnosis of agents used in biological warfare.
Principal equipment and functions of the module:
Air treatment system with H14 & HEPA filters;
Double door entrance/exit door and Double entry airlock for samples entrance;
An ADF (Flame-proof) robot can transport the contaminated samples., for identification or disposal.
Gloves box or half diving-suit and Microbiological “type II” security post
GC/MS & Infra-red mass spectrometer;
Hood of extraction and filters;
Automatic DNA/RNA Extractor. Real time PCR and RT-PCR Equipments (“Polymerase Chain Reaction”, technique allowing to select and multiply a gene or a precise fraction of DNA);
Sterigerms® DASRI Certified, for waste neutralization;
System of thermal and chemical reprocessing of the effluents;
Access controlled by personalized magnetic badge, outside & inside video surveillance;
Workstation (Satellite transmission resources, Weather forecast station, Robotics control console)
The logistics module is composed as follows:
Positive & Negative pressurization device and the air renewal system for the various compartments of the LBBD
Power supply, air conditioning and water storage system
The BEDM is dedicated to safe mass decontamination of mobile (80 to 120hour) or incapacitated contaminated individuals (9 to 21/hour), depending the confiuration chosen and when in optimum use.
Benefits :
Its solid structure (20 ft air transportable expandable container) can be entirely decontaminated & easily installed in remote and inhospitable areas. They are built to withstand stress, severe weather conditions and are hermetic to isolates people from outside contaminants.
The BEDM is the only unit in the world to have positive and negative pressure rooms to avoid the risk of the spread of infections.
They can be deployed in a contaminated area without endangering the health of the personnel and the resident populations.
The BEDM combined with a logistics unit can be self sustaining with integrated power unit, water and air treatment and waste management, to guarantee the safety of the operatives and environmental protection.
The BEDM can be perfectly integrated in “Civil Protection” safety plans, like French POI (Internal Plans of Operation) and PPI (Particular Plans of Intervention) of classified and indexed sites. The structure is deployed in less than 15 minutes by 2 operators.
Composition :
Contains three to six treatment zones (for mobile or incapacitated victims) with multipoint automatic showers and allows for continuous running of the decontamination process.
The BEDM can be coupled to an independent structure containing an autoclave allowing sterilization and an incinerator for the destruction of contaminated clothing and consumables. The BEDM can also be made in an armoured version for the armed forces.
Main equipment and functions of the module:
Clothes cutting up zone / Positive pressure;
Decontamination area / Positive pressure incapacitated & mobile individuals
The Expandable Countryside Hospital (ECH) shares the modular design framework and flexibility all the BiolabH2O solutions. It is transportable by air and can provide for any medical needs in the field. It is not only suitable for emergency situations such as conflict zones or natural disasters but as a part of a preventative framework for planned events e.g.: international sports events, political summits, concerts, festivals, conferences.
Benefits :
The Expandable Countryside Hospital (ECH) makes it possible to have effective medical support anywhere. The nature of the event can be within a civil or military framework. It can also be used as a short or medium term hospital infrastructure.
Composition :
The modularity of this solution allows, upon request, the customisation and specialisation of this medical structure (care rooms, operating theatres, recovery rooms, x-ray, radiology rooms, scanners…) by integrating suitable materials. On request, the Expandable Countryside Hospital can be equipped with a hermetically-sealed area “autoclave” module with dry heat for sterilization and with an incinerator for the hospital biological and medical waste disposal.
These modules, WTM & WTM.lab, are dedicated to the production of drinking water in the middle of a field of operation, in remote and inhospitable areas and under difficult climatic conditions.
Benefits :
Combining various techniques, the systems ensures purification of any raw water unsuitable for consumption, e.g.: soft, brackish or saline water, with or without biological or chemical contamination, even by a bio-warfare agent.
The modules are equipped with a radiological detection system. They have an innovative system of self cleaning and membrane disinfection. Usable by all first-aid teams or armed forces, these modules provide an immediate solution for drinking water supply. The water treatment module is able to produce 200 m3 (50.000 gallons) per day of drinking water in all disasters conditions, anywhere, in any situation: day to day, emergency, refugee camps or even war. The capacity of production of one module, equipped only with ultra-filtration apparatus, can reach 1200 m3 (300.000 gallons) per hour.
Composition :
WTM is a complete self-contained unit, coming with a logistics module (10 ft container) supplying power, air conditioning & water cooling system. The WTM autonomous analysis laboratory version (WTM.Lab), allows to measure water quality according to more than 80 parameters in 3 minutes. WTM can be combined with a conditioning and refrigerating storage unit (WSCM).
Main equipment and functions of the module:
Multiple membrane filtration levels: filtration, ultra filtration (surface water treatment), reverse osmosis (sea water desalinisation) double level reverse osmosis (biological or chemical contaminated water, even by a bio-warfare agent.) ;
Self cleaning device for membrane disinfection
Laboratory (WTM.Lab), or additional power generator or water storage tank zone (WTM);
This module is intended for storage, cooling and conditioning of the drinking water produced, for its distribution and its consumption.
Benefits :
Conditioning constitutes the last link in the chain and must also meet the requirements of the rules of hygiene and regulations.
The MSCE process of conditioning was developed on European and International directives: in compliance with the rules of hygiene and safety concerning products intended for human consumption.
The conditioning units are easy to implement and require little maintenance. The containers used (sachets, bottles) are practical and recyclable.
Composition :
The “bag-filling machine” uses sachets which guarantee the integrity of the treated and stored water.
Main equipment and functions of the module:
2 m3 drinking water storage buffer tank (500 gallons) ;
The Equipment for Technological Intervention Team (E.T.I. Team)
Function :
This Equipment makes it possible a Technological Intervention Team (T.I. Team) CBRN incident. The detachment is armed with specific materials making it possible to ensure the following functions :
To delimit the zone of intervention.
To carry out surveys and to collect information on the contamination.
To treat victims of contamination and immediate populations.
To detect and locate the source of the contamination.
To evaluate the risks and to reduce them.
To limit the spread of contamination (resolution of the accident).
To anticipate the evolution of the disaster.
To make safe the transfers and recoveries of radiological elements or products.
To support the other operating teams.
To take part in the protection of field operatives.
To carry out the systematic decontamination of the operatives and the materials (conservative measures).
Reconditioning of the “T.I. Team” equipment and personal…
Benefits :
The “T.I. Team” is made up by teams of people qualified in the radiological and chemical They bring an invaluable contribution to the rescue teams involved in the resolution of chemical and radiological incidents. This is thanks to its specialized equipment and constant training of the personnel which man it. The training personnel of BiolabH2O can train teams to the standards according to CBRN reference framework.
Composition :
The specialized equipment available to the Technological Intervention Team (T.I. Team) and the make-up is broken down as follows:
Two teams of 5 people called Elements of Intervention Technological (E.L.I.T.), autonomous, complementary and general-purpose for radiological and chemical risks.
A team of 2 people called element “analyzes” reinforcing the 2 E.L.I.T.
A chief of the E.T.I. Team
The E.T.I. Team represents a weight of approximately 4tons and a volume of 22 m3 The equipment provided varies according to the size of the “E.T.I. Team.”
02/18/2011 – As Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake note, there has been little Western commentary about how events in Tunisia and Egypt are affecting developments in Iraq. Yet, there have already been some protests in Iraq calling for an Egyptian-style revolution, while Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared his intent not to run for reelection, seeking to downplay fears that he aims to become another Arab dictator. In a pair of recent congressional hearings on Iraq, several Senators echoed the call of Laird and Timperlake to “build from the moral authority of the Iraq engagement which is a force for good in demonstrating a fundamental re-shaping the Arab world and the Western involvement in that world.” But most of the debate focused on the practical issues involved in transitioning from a mission led by the well-resourced Defense Department to one under the supervision of the less abundant State Department.
John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, began its February 1 hearing on Iraq by observing that, “Now before we get started this morning I just want to say one thing about the events that are now taking place in the Middle East. We are witnessing an historic moment in the Middle East, and it is impossible to predict exactly what lies ahead. But clearly, whatever transpires, it is going to have a profound impact, a huge influence on the region and on American foreign policy in that region for years to come.” Kerry promised to hold hearings dedicated to assessing this topic — something SLD will watch closely.
A focus of the February 1 hearing and that of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which occurred on February 3, chaired by Senator Carl Levin was whether American combat troops should remain in Iraq after the end of this year to maintain order if the new Iraqi government made such a request. The Senators generally agreed with Kerry about the need to balance any U.S. civilian and military commitment with the resources approved by the Congress and the support offered by the Iraqi government — but they were divided on where that balance should fall. On the one hand, some Senators implied that it was likely that the United States would need to keep some military forces in Iraq after this year. They pressed the two star witnesses — James F. Jeffrey, Ambassador To Iraq, and General Lloyd James Austin, Commanding General, United States Forces-Iraq — to agree with this assessment.
But these senior U.S. civilian and military heads in Iraq, noting that the United States has signed a legally binding agreement to withdrawal all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year and that, except perhaps in Iraqi Kurdistan, less than one out of ten of the 27 million Iraqis would favor a permanent U.S. military presence in their country — declined to do so. Instead, Ambassador Jeffrey and General Austin said only that they would support a continued mission if their Iraqi and U.S. superiors decided on that course of action. On the other hand, many Senators felt comfortable with the timetable developed during the George W. Bush administration and subsequently confirmed during the current Barack Obama administration that would see the focus shift from a military effort led by the Defense Department to a civilian-led engagement under the leadership of the State Department and the Baghdad Embassy.
Under the new arrangements, the United States Forces-Iraq (USFI), currently a force subordinate to Central Command, will confine its role primarily to that of advising, training, assisting, and equipping Iraqi military forces for the next few months. The U.S military would then conduct any further efforts along these lines as a security advisory and training assistance program under Title 22 authorities subordinate to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The USFI Training and Advisory Mission is focusing more on “train- the-trainer” programs so that the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior can lead the overall training effort. One concern regarding this transition was that the resulting diplomatic mission, in Kerry’s words, “will be of unprecedented size and complexity.” The Department of State will assume responsibility for a number of Department of Defense (DoD) missions that it has never done before. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, will have under its authority some 17,000 people at about 15 different sites. These locations, which are all located inside Iraqi military bases, include three air hubs, three police training centers, two consulates, two embassy branch offices, and five Office of Security Cooperation sites.
Almost all these 17,000 personnel will be contractors, including some who will provide perimeter and movement security for American diplomats. U.S. and Iraqi authorities have studied the problems that have arisen in Afghanistan with contract personnel and are determined to avoid them. The American security personnel are required to register with the Iraqi authorities and follow their regulations and laws. The personal security contractors also come under the direct supervision of the small number of U.S diplomatic security personnel, who are full-time U.S. government employees. Civilian police trainers belonging to the State Department will replace the current DoD trainers at the Iraqi police academy, now called FOB Shield. The current Provisional Reconstruction Teams at Basra and Erbil will become American consulates
As a result of this transition, aggregate U.S. expenditures on Iraq will decline by billions of dollars due to the end of the expensive U.S. combat operations in that country. The Iraqis are spending some $8 billion of their own funds annually to pay for the training and equipping of their security forces. They will also cover the costs of almost all the country’s reconstruction and capital investment as well as the expenses incurred in providing security at the Iraqi oil fields and facilities. The State Department budget will increase somewhat, due to its expanded mission, but not as much as the decline in DoD spending. The United States will need to spend several billion dollars per year to sustain its non-military mission in Iraq.
Several Senators noted that the Congress often under-resources non-DoD missions, which either results in their flawed implementation or requires the Defense Department to fill the gap. James Jeffrey, Ambassador To Iraq, warned that, “We face a critical moment now in Iraq where we will either step up to the plate, finish the job and build on the sacrifices made, or we will risk core U.S. national security interests, be penny wise and pound foolish, and cede the field to al-Qaida and other dangerous regional influences.” To avert what Jeffrey’s referred to as a “Charlie Wilson’s War” moment in Iraq, in which Washington would mistake its mistake in Afghanistan and abandon Iraq as well, Kerry said he was exploring the possibility of seeking a multi-year authorization package that would avert this danger by covering U.S. operational costs of the Iraqi security and economic assistance programs.
There are several reasons why the Iraqi government would want to sustain good relations with the United States even after the U.S. military withdrawal. Perhaps most obviously, Iraqis would want to receive Washington’s help to maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity, mediating between various Iraqi groups, as well as military training and technical assistance in diverse areas. Meanwhile, the United States would want to preserve a stable and prosperous Iraq that remains independent of outside control and is able to contribute to its own people’s peace and prosperity. In the words of Ambassador Jeffrey, the Obama administration seeks an Iraq “that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant, with a government that is just, representative and accountable, that denies support and safe haven to terrorists, is able to assume its rightful place in the community of nations, and contributes to the peace and security of the region.”
According to Ambassador Jeffrey and General Austin, the Iraqi security situation has held up surprisingly well during the protracted period of government formation from March to December 2010. Not only was there no persistent upsurge in terrorist attacks during those nine months, but the Iraqi security forces remained above politics as Iraqi politicians have maneuvered to form a coalition government that has turned out to be the most inclusive in their country’s history, supported by almost all the parties represented in the national parliament.
Ambassador Jeffrey and General Austin believe that the Iraqi security forces should be able to counter internal threats from the Sunni and Shiite extremists even if American diplomatic personnel might be at greater personal risks due to the transition from military protection to that provided by private contractors and Iraqi government personnel. They assessed it would take many more years for the Iraqi armed forces to be able to defend their country from external attack. They cited capability gaps in logistics, sustainment, and intelligence as well as the need for more combined arms and joint forces training.
The new collective training initiative allows entire Iraqi battalions to undergo an intensive training cycle, but Iraqi army units still need intensive comprehensive combined arms training and additional joint training to develop an external defense capability. The Iraqi Air Force will not even receive its first new warplane until 2013. Still, neither man saw an imminent external threat to Iraq’s security. And the new Office of Security Cooperation, a defense assistance organization of some 1,000 DoD personnel operating under Embassy chief-of-mission authority, will assume responsibility for overseeing all U.S. security cooperation in Iraq, including the $13 billion worth of foreign military sales programs already in the pipeline with the Iraqis. The items on order include main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, and self-propelled and towed howitzers, and eventually airplanes and related aviation platforms.
In their assessments, Ambassador Jeffrey and General Austin downplayed the latest report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which concludes that the Iraqi security forces still suffer from corruption, shortfalls in logistics capacity, and poor planning for maintaining their infrastructure and equipment. Under questioning from the Senators, Jeffrey did acknowledge that several remaining political issues require further resolution. The powers of certain new institutions, including the National Council on Higher Priorities to be headed by former Prime Minister Allawi, whose party received the largest number of votes in the March 2010 national elections, need to be clarified and their composition established. Prime Minister Maliki has yet to nominate people to important positions such as the ministers of defense, interior, and national security.
In addition, Iraqi officials still need to agree how to share revenue from the country’s national oil production and take other steps to reestablish a functional national economy. Part of this funding would be used to complete the integration of the Sons of Iraq, former anti-American insurgents who have defected to the government’s side in return for jobs and other support. Ambassador Jeffrey, Senator John McCain, and others downplayed the impact of events in Tunisia and Egypt on political developments in Iraq, arguing that Iraqis already proudly live in a democracy. But Laird, Timperlake, and other SLD analysts will certainly work to keep us apprised whether this prediction holds true.
The Disconnect from within the Administration on Renewable Energy
By Bill Anderson
The Honorable William C. (“Bill”) Anderson served as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics and the Air Force Senior Energy Executive under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2008. The author can be contacted at [email protected].
02/16/2011 – President George W. Bush set a national priority to wean this country off its addiction to foreign oil. President Barack Obama set aggressive goals via Executive Order that mandate dramatically increased use of renewable energy by Federal agencies, including replacing fossil-based liquid transportation fuels with bio-derived alternatives.
Yet despite clear messages from two Commanders-in-Chief, debate continues within the Pentagon as to whether the military should embrace the mandate. And, as Nero fiddles, Rome continues to burn. Our dependency on foreign sources of energy grows…our adversaries gain control of precious fossil energy resources in all corners of the globe…and alternative energy technological development overseas outpaces our own efforts here at home.
The most recent example of this foot dragging can be seen in the recent RAND Corporation report titled “Alternative Fuels for Military Applications”.
Credit: Rand Corporation
This report takes a “tactical view” of where the military should deploy its resources in the alternative fuels area, essentially concluding that it is a huge waste of time for the US military to engage in the overall effort to develop bio-fuels.
Putting aside for a moment the costs…the financial and human toll required to secure access to critical energy resources…the RAND study fails to attach value to having the Federal government’s largest energy user actively involved in promoting emerging technologies that might significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce the nation’s carbon footprint. RAND highlights the fact that neither the Congress nor the Secretary of Defense has directed the Services to pursue use of alternative fuels in tactical weapon systems. Now, is that any surprise?
We have yet to develop a comprehensive national energy strategy. And, has it been lost that in the past the military has been first in recognizing the value of emerging technologies. Could this be yet another case where the Services are, in fact, on to something here?
The study was called for in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The legislation specifically requested several identified issues be addressed. Those topics, listed below, are accompanied by comments as to how the RAND study missed the mark on addressing those important issues:
Opportunities to produce alternative fuels in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.It is common knowledge that use of renewable feedstocks to produce energy dramatically reduces net greenhouse gas emissions. RAND acknowledges that when biomass is used to produce fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions can range from zero to negative, performance not attainable from fossil feedstocks.
Yet, RAND proclaims in another section of the report that because alternative and conventional fuels release the same amount of greenhouse gases during combustion, feedstock source cannot impact lifecycle GHG emissions…a significant divergence from common understanding. The military utility of concepts for production in or close to the theater of military operations compared to domestic production.
How we produce and deliver energy to the battlespace is indeed critical…in terms of cost, logistics, security of supply and, most importantly, loss of human life. And, specific strategies to produce fuel in or as close to the battlespace as possible provide important options. RAND’s conclusion that traditional means of transporting fuel into the theater continues to be the most practical military solution raises some serious concerns.
I suppose we have totally forgotten about the tremendous loss this nation has endured…life and limb of our brightest and best young people…and the crushing commitment of national treasure to simply deliver energy to the field of battle. Also, have we forgotten that huge volumes of energy used on military installations here in the US? As valuable as producing energy in or close to the theater of military operations is, it is equally valuable to do the same for domestic military installations. Distributed energy production facilities utilizing local bio-feedstocks offer important renewable options for military facilities here in the US.
The goals and progress of research, testing and certification for use of alternative fuels in military vehicles and aircraft.The RAND study takes issue with the fact that military test and certification efforts seem to be far ahead of commercial development of fuels production capacity. Technical teams in the Services have done an admirable job in quick and cost-effective test and certification efforts. Those efforts have supported private sector initiatives…such as the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. The private sector is looking at billions of dollars of infrastructure investment to develop the alternative fuels industry. Financial commitments of that magnitude require some degree of certainty of customer demand. Testing and certification is one critical step in creating that demand.
Credit: RAND Study on Alternative Fuels for Military Applications, Rand Corporation
Prospect for commercial production of nonpetroleum military fuels.The world economic crisis, environmental concerns and fluctuating energy prices all play a role in creating uncertainty for those who would invest in the development of alternative fuels production facilities. Nonetheless, several commercial scale facilities are operational around the world, and initial planning and permitting for a small number of US-based facilities is currently underway. Prospects for producers improve with increases in demand…large customers can move the needle on demand. DoD is such a customer.
It is critically important to remember that our military has long sponsored development of technologies that, while having significant value to military operations, had even more importance in the commercial world. Federal government R&D…shared with the private sector…has created impressive competitive advantages for US companies in the past. Our global competitors understand this…they are leveraging similar opportunities. The question is…have we forgotten? One must look only as far as the jet engine, personal computing, GPS and the internet to understand the relationship between technologies developed for the military and the unbelievable commercial value that follows…which, by the way, contribute to the general welfare worldwide.
RAND notes the uncertainty as to price and environmental impact related to these emerging alternative fuels as a justification to dismiss the future potential value. So, I take that to mean the military never faced uncertainty in the past when it participated in early stage development of technologies? Well, of course, it did. The military responded by using its tremendous science, technology and business expertise to solve the tough problems…not run away from them. Shouldn’t that be exactly how the Pentagon positions itself to move the ball on renewable energy? One should never discount the effect of a major customer announcing its intention to change purchasing habits…and DoD is such a customer. It’s argued that DoD only consumes a small percentage of the total global fuel production.
Nonetheless, the US military represents one of the largest individual consumers of energy. As such, DoD can position itself to influence the market…both as a first mover itself and by influencing the purchasing habits of its commercial vendors. Large and influential organizations have long understood the ability to move the market. DoD possesses that ability to use its size and buying power to partner with the commercial world…and to facilitate the move toward energy security via renewable resources that has been promoted by the last two Administrations.The controversy generated by the RAND report will be dismissed by some as a non-issue…saying the study was only focused on current tactical requirements.
However, we should expect more from the work product of high-paid consultants…especially when it’s paid from taxpayer dollars. There will be tactical requirements tomorrow…in a world with ever-depleting fossil resources. Particularly when tensions in those regions we so desperately rely on for the raw feedstocks to manufacture our liquid fuels could (and some would argue are) continue to escalate…making access to these resources ever more questionable.
So, should the US military focus only on tactical issues of the here and now…or should our military take efforts to ensure its tactical effectiveness in the future as well? No matter where you stand on the debate on Peak Oil, one thing we know…fossil fuels are not a renewable resource. So, in the future bio-fuel availability will clearly have tactical implications to US military operations. Doesn’t a bit of prudent preparation make huge sense? The nation continues to struggle to make substantive progress on conversion to renewable energy sources and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. To quote an overused saying…“the time to act is now”. Leaders must lead…and they have to lead now. Leadership requires risks to be taken…for change to be aggressively pursued. Although the DoD is poised to say “yes we can” and become a major force behind renewable energy development in this country, that opportunity continues to run head first into a brick wall of “no we won’t”. One must ask why they won’t. Are the results of the RAND study being used as a justification to kick the can down the road thereby avoiding the clear direction set by Presidents Bush and Obama?
———–
Additional Reference:
For a comprehensive look at innovations in support of the energy needs for the deployed warfighter, see an earlier Special Report entitled “The Tip of the Spear.”
Credit: 
Credit: Rand Corporation
Credit: RAND Study on Alternative Fuels for Military Applications, Rand Corporation