Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR ARMY HOMELAND SECURITY REPORT 1 Committee on Army Science and Technology for Homeland Defense Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DAAD19-02-C-0049, TO 2, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organization that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-08701-5 Cover: The Pentagon burning after being struck by a commercial airliner, September 11, 2001. Courtesy of Reza Marvashti, The Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R5
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 COMMITTEE ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE JOHN W. LYONS, NAE, Chair, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Mount Airy, Maryland GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, NAE, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York TIMOTHY COFFEY, University of Maryland, College Park, with joint appointment at National Defense University, Washington, D.C. STEPHEN W. DREW, NAE, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey MITRA DUTTA, University of Illinois, Chicago FREDERICK L. FROSTIC, Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia C. WILLIAM GEAR, NAE, NEC Research Institute, Princeton, New Jersey ARTHUR H. HEUER, NAE, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio HOWARD S. LEVINE, Weidlinger Associates, Inc., Los Altos, California JOSEPH P. MACKIN, E-OIR Measurements, Inc., Spotsylvania, Virginia JACK N. MERRITT, U.S. Army (retired) and Association of the U.S. Army(retired), Arlington, Virginia THOMAS E. MITCHELL, Gray Hawk Systems, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia K. DAVID NOKES, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico DENNIS J. REIMER, U.S. Army (retired) and Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, Oklahoma City EUGENE SEVIN, NAE, Consultant, Lyndhurst, Ohio ANNETTE L. SOBEL, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico MICHAEL F. SPIGELMIRE, U.S. Army (retired), Consultant, Destin, Florida Liaison, Board on Army Science and Technology DONALD R. KEITH, U.S. Army (retired) and Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia National Research Council Staff MARGARET N. NOVACK, Study Director JAMES C. MYSKA, Research Associate TOMEKA N. GILBERT, Senior Project Assistant
OCR for page R6
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY JOHN E. MILLER, Chair, Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Vice Chair, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas RICHARD A. CONWAY, NAE, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia GILBERT F. DECKER, Walt Disney Imagineering (retired), Glendale, California ROBERT R. EVERETT, NAE, MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts PATRICK F. FLYNN, NAE, Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana HENRY J. HATCH, NAE, Army Chief of Engineers (retired), Oakton, Virginia EDWARD J. HAUG, University of Iowa, Iowa City GERALD J. IAFRATE, North Carolina State University, Raleigh MIRIAM E. JOHN, California Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore DONALD R. KEITH, U.S. Army (retired), Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia CLARENCE W. KITCHENS, IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia SHIRLEY A. LIEBMAN, CECON Group (retired), Holtwood, Pennsylvania KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emerita), Roswell STEPHEN C. LUBARD, S-L Technology, Woodland Hills, California JOHN W. LYONS, NAE, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Mount Airy, Maryland JOHN H. MOXLEY, IOM, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California STEWART D. PERSONICK, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (until December 31, 2002) MILLARD F. ROSE, Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama JOSEPH J. VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Officer CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
OCR for page R7
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 Preface This study is being conducted by the Committee on Army Science and Technology for Homeland Defense of the Board on Army Science and Technology, in the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences of the National Academies. Sponsored by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, the committee will produce a series of reports encompassing possible science and technology in support of the Army’s role in homeland security (HLS). The statement of task for this first report is as follows: The National Research Council will: Review relevant literature and activities, such as the National Academies’ emerging Science and Technology Program plan and Research Strategy for Combating Terrorism and their work with the interagency Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), reports from the Gilmore Commission and Hart-Rudman Commission, the DoD Counter-Terrorism Technology Task Force (DCT3F) plan, DOD Information Assurance policies and existing military operation and contingency plans to develop an Army context for the enhanced campaign against terrorism. Determine areas of emphasis for Army S&T in support of counterterrorism (CT) and anti-terrorism (AT). Operational areas the NRC should examine include indications and warning, denial and survivability, recovery and consequence management, and attribution and retaliation. In the first year, produce a report within nine months from contract award containing findings and recommendations that provide insights for high-payoff technologies.
OCR for page R8
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have forced the nation to consider how to prepare for the defense of the homeland. Terrorism is no longer an item on the evening news, taking place in some distant locale. Terrorism has become a domestic issue. As part of this recognition, the Army requested that the Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) create a committee to meet over a 3-year period to consider how science and technology might better enable the Army to accomplish its mission in the homeland. It is anticipated that the committee will produce several reports during this period. COMMITTEE PROCESS This first report is a broad survey of relevant technologies, written in a relatively short period of time. Because of the scope of the review, the lack of a well-defined operational framework,1 and the time-sensitive nature of the Army’s interest, the committee has determined not to study specific products but rather to consider areas of technologies one level above individual products, processes, or services. In any case it should be noted that it is not the intent of this study to recommend budget actions; the technology assessments are intended to assist the Army in formulating its future technology plans. The committee began its work by reviewing the literature listed below but found that very little has been said about the Army’s role in HLS and the technology needs in support thereof. The National Strategy for Homeland Security, The Federal Response Plan, The National Academies’ report Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism, The interagency Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) outputs, Reports from the Gilmore Commission and the Hart-Rudman Commission, The Department of Defense (DoD) Counter-Terrorism Technology Task Force (DCT3F) plan, DoD information assurance policies, and Existing military operation and contingency plans. There are other reports, such as the annual report of the Department of Energy’s Chemical/Biological National Security Program (CBNP), that the committee did not review for lack of time but that might provide additional information to the reader. 1 Operational framework refers to a plan that the Army would use to conduct whatever operation may be necessary in response to a terrorist attack.
OCR for page R9
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 In addition to the literature search, the committee requested a series of briefings from the Army to better understand the Army’s view of the homeland mission. It also heard from representatives of the National Guard Bureau to understand the role of the Army National Guard. A thorough legal briefing on the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act facilitated this understanding. Lastly, the committee heard from scientists with expertise in a wide range of technologies in an effort to preview emerging types of equipment. Even as this report was being prepared, doctrine and policy were being developed. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense’s Northern Command, which are to have the major responsibilities and authorities for homeland security at the national level, are still in the early stages of formation and organization. The actual role that will be played by the Army in homeland security must certainly depend in large measure on the operational assignments Army units will be given in the framework of, or in support of, these overarching organizations. This remains in a state of flux. While, as is indicated in the report, it is anticipated that much of the doctrine will be drawn from existing protocols, the lack of specific doctrine made the study of specific equipment requirements difficult. Therefore the committee assumes certain functional requirements, which are described in Chapter 1. REPORT ORGANIZATION The DOD’s Defense Counter-Terrorism Technology Task Force (DCT3F), in calling for and reviewing technical proposals in the wake of September 11, used the following taxonomy: Indications and warning, Denial and survivability, Recovery and consequence management, and Attribution and retaliation. The study sponsor chose to make this taxonomy the basis for the committee’s tasking document,2 so the report is organized around these operational areas. 2 In other documents, the Pentagon has used a different taxonomy but to the same end. For example, the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan uses the following groupings of operational capabilities and subcapabilities: Prevention Protection Response Denial Infrastructure Attribution Indications and warnings Personnel Consequence management Deterrence Facilities Crisis management Preemptive strike Retaliation
OCR for page R10
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 These four areas describe events in a time continuum beginning when intelligence indicates an event may take place and ending when blame can be attributed and appropriate retaliation executed. In Chapters 2 through 5 the committee has divided the four operational areas first into functional capabilities and then into technologies. Because the same technologies may be necessary in more than one of the operational areas, conclusions and recommendations concerning these technologies may appear in more than one chapter. Chapter 6 captures the overarching observations of the committee and Chapter 7 lists the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. COMMITTEE COMPOSITION The membership of this committee was intended to contain a broad representation of scientific and technological skill sets that have application to the Army’s role in homeland security. These skill sets range from information technologies such as communications, computer sciences, and sensor technologies to materials and civil engineering, with special emphasis on structural hardening and resistance to nuclear and conventional explosive forces. Biosecurity expertise was considered important, as was a thorough understanding of the Army’s capabilities. A security clearance was considered essential, as many of the topics that would be of interest to the committee are classified. The committee worked very hard at its task and is grateful to all those who contributed to the report. Although the report limits itself to a fairly high-indenture level of exploration, the committee is satisfied that it will provide significant assistance to the Army as it moves on to future missions. John W. Lyons, Chair Committee on Army Science and Technology for Homeland Defense
OCR for page R11
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Thomas N. Burnette, Jr., LTG U.S. Army (retired), Ashton B. Carter, Harvard University, Anthony Dirienzo, Colsa Corporation, Ronald O. Harrison, MG, Army National Guard (retired), J. Jerome Holton, Defense Group Inc., Michael R. Ladisch, NAE, Purdue University, Lewis E. Link, LTG, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired), John E. Miller, Oracle Corporation, M. Allan Northrop, Microfluidic Systems, Inc., George W. Parshall, NAS, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Harvey W. Schadler, NAE, GE Corporate Research and Development, and Andrew Sessler, NAS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Center. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom-
OCR for page R12
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 mendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alexander H. Flax, NAE. Appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R13
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 U.S. ARMY ROLE IN HOMELAND SECURITY 23 Introduction, 23 Organization of the Army, 24 Organization, 24 Posse Comitatus Act, 25 Homeland Security, 26 Army Homeland Security Operational Framework, 26 The Army’s Role, 29 Link to the Objective Force, 31 Research and Development for the Army, 35 Scenarios, 36 Functional Capabilities and Associated Technologies, 38 Summary, 40 References, 40 2 INDICATIONS AND WARNING TECHNOLOGIES 41 Introduction, 41 Sensor Technologies, 42 Traditional Imaging Sensors, 42 Chemical Agents, 46 Biological Agents, 49 Nuclear Materials, 54 Conventional Explosives, 55
OCR for page R14
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 Cross-Cutting Technologies, 60 Summary, 66 References, 68 3 DENIAL AND SURVIVABILITY TECHNOLOGIES 70 Introduction, 70 Physical Security, 71 Survivable Structures, 73 Blast Mitigation, 73 Technology for Blast Mitigation, 77 Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Threats, 79 Technology Gaps, 80 Current Research and Development Efforts—Leveraging the Army’s Contribution, 80 Physical Security Summary, 80 Information Security and Cyber Issues, 84 Range of Threats, 85 Mitigation Technologies, 86 Survivability, 87 Summary, 91 References, 91 4 RECOVERY AND CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES 92 Introduction, 92 New Mission Challenges, 93 Postulated Tasks, 93 Required Technologies and Capabilities, 95 Interoperable Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance System, 95 Rapid Assessment of Physical Damage, Casualties, and Contamination, 99 Force Protection, 101 Treatment of Mass Casualties, 103 Containment and Decontamination of the Effects of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 107 Summary, 110 References, 111 5 ATTRIBUTION AND RETALIATION TECHNOLOGIES 112 Introduction, 112 Operational Area and the Army Role, 112
OCR for page R15
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 Technology Focus Areas, 113 Remote Operations in an Urban Environment, 113 Situational Awareness in Urban Environments, 115 Terrorist Surveillance and Tracking (Rugged Terrain), 117 General Functionality, Technology, and Priority, 118 References, 123 6 COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS 124 References, 134 7 COMPLETE LIST OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 136 APPENDIXES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 145 B Committee Meetings 152 C Criteria for Technology Readiness Levels 155 D Federal Response Plan Responsibilities 157
OCR for page R16
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R17
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLES ES-1 High-Payoff Technologies, 14 2-1 Technologies for Perimeter Defense and Warning, 44 2-2 Technologies for Chemical Agent Detection, 50 2-3 Technologies for Biological Agent Detection, 52 2-4 Technologies for the Detection of Neutrons and Gamma Rays in the Nuclear Weapons Context, 56 2-5 Technologies for Vapor-Phase Explosive Detectors, 59 2-6 Technologies for Bulk Explosive Detection, 62 2-7 Examples of Cross-Cutting Technologies, 64 3-1 Technologies for Physical Security, 74 3-2 Technologies for Blast Resistance of Building Structures for New and Retrofit Construction, 81 3-3 Technologies for Cybersecurity, 88 4-1 Technologies for Command and Control, 98 4-2 Technologies for Event Assessment, 102 4-3 Technologies for Force Protection, 104 4-4 Technologies for Medical Response, 108 4-5 Technologies for Remediation and Decontamination, 111
OCR for page R18
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 5-1 Technologies for Attribution, 119 5-2 Technologies for Retaliation, 120 6-1 High-Payoff Technologies, 127 C-1 Criteria for Technology Readiness Levels, 155 FIGURES 1-1 Army homeland security operational framework, 27 1-2 Army transformation, 32 2-1 Vapor pressure concentrations for a number of chemical agents, 47 2-2 Atmospheric exposure limits for a variety of chemical agents, 48 2-3 Comparative toxicity (amount needed to incapacitate) of biological agents, toxins, and chemical agents, 49 2-4 Vapor pressure associated with the better-known explosives, 58 BOXES 1-1 Definitions, 25 1-2 Notional Homeland Security Roadmap, 30 1-3 Some Sample Scenarios, 37 2-1 Speculation on Means of Detection Using the Existing Telecommunciations Structure, 66s 3-1 Desired Attributes for Physical Security, 72
OCR for page R19
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 Acronyms 2-D two-dimensional 3-D three-dimensional A and R attribution and retaliation AMC Army Materiel Command ARNG Army National Guard ATD Advanced Technology Demonstration BCT brigade combat team C&C computer and communications C2 command and control C4ISR command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance CBR chemical, biological, and radiological CBRN chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear CBRNE chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive CM consequence management CM and R consequence management and recovery CST civil support team D and S denial and survivability D2PC Dispersion and Diffusion Puff Calculator DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
OCR for page R20
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 DASA (R&T) Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology DHS Department of Homeland Security DoD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency EMT emergency medical team EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESF emergency support function FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FCO federal coordinating officer FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIOP Family of Integrated Operational Pictures FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan GPS Global Positioning System HHS Department of Health and Human Services HLS homeland security HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I and W indications and warning ID identification IEW intelligence and early warning IR infrared JIC Joint Information Center JOC Joint Operations Center LFA lead federal agency LVB large vehicle bomb LWIR long-range infrared NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Plan NORTHCOM Northern Command OPSEC operational security OSC on-site coordinator PCA Posse Comitatus Act PDD Presidential Decision Directive ppb parts per billion
OCR for page R21
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 ppm parts per million ppt parts per trillion R and CM recovery and consequence management R&D research and development ROC regional operation center S&T science and technology SBCCOM U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition SNR signal-to-noise ratio TRL technology readiness level TSWG Technical Support Working Group UAV unmanned air vehicle UGS unattended ground sensors USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAR U.S. Army Reserve UV ultraviolet VLSTRACK vapor, liquid, and solid tracking WMD weapon(s) of mass destruction
OCR for page R22
Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security: Report 1 This page in the original is blank.