A F T DEPARTNENT OF THE ARMY CiiEHXCAL CORPS ADVISORY COUNCIL Army Chemica Center, Md. CMLAC 31- l962 SUBJECT8 R€prt8 and Recowndations

To: Medmra, ,Chemical Coxpa Advisory Counoil Associate Msmbers, Advlaory Co&il

1, Ths inclosed reports and recommendations, nrde by the Conmittees of the Chemical Corps Adaory Counoil during the period 1 January 1962 to 31 May 1962, will be considered by the Council at its 18-19 Jam 1962 .nmting,

2, In the rewrt to be given on the oombined meeting of the Agqtnta and Engineering and Production Committees, the Agent8 Committee will report on Observations 70, 9- and 10162, and Recomnendation8 3- and 84. T?rs Engineering and Produation Codttee will report on Observations 8- and 11.62, and Recomnendations I-, So, 6- and 7-62. 3. Council members are advised that tb time alloted for preparing the observations and reconrmendations for preesntstion to the chief Chem%aal Officer is limited to tm, hours, Therefore, meadPers should brin&$L draft copy, with any changes or suggestfons noted thereon, to thecounc meeting. 4, Thb copies furnished to Asaoahte Hembers are for informtion and should be brought to the meeting for referenee purpose^^^

1 Inel AC-62-c-6

Info eytor Pers, OCCmlO Log Dir, OCCmlO Dr, Glassman

G91 C z r w- I. , NCLRSSlFl ED 4

REPORTS AND RZCOMMEIIIDATIONS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEES OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS ADVISORY COUNCIL

Schools and Wainha Committee 23-24 February 1962 9 Agents and Engineering & Production Comndt tees 8-9 March 1962 6 Protective Committee 3-3 April 1962 12 Dissemination & Testing Committee May Field 17-18 1962 16 I Medical Committee 24-25 May 1962 20

This document consists of . 23 pages.

copy -34 of copies 1 Incl

'

UNCLASSIFIED - i f J 1

.c UNCLASSIFIED

SCEOOLS & TRAINING COMMITTEE

Aberdeen Proving Ground and Army Chemical Center, Maryland

23-24 February 1962

Committee Members:

Dr. Thomas H. Whitehead, Chairman Dr. Frederick Bellinger Dr. Walter E. Miller Dr. James W. Duckett Dr. Joseph R. Wilkinson Dr. James E. Greene, Sr. Dr. Peter A. S. Smith Col. Donald E. Yanka

(U) The Schools and Training Committee of the U. S. Amy Chemical Corps Advisory Council met at and Amy Chemical Center, Maryland on 23-24 February 1962. All members were present except Dr. Peter A. S. Smith. Dr, Frederick Bellinger was in attendance 24 February

only. I

(U) At Aberdeen Proving Ground on 23 February the Committee was welcomed by Brig. Gen. R. E. Peters, Commanding General of the Otdnance Training Command. He briefed the Cornnittee on the Training Command's mission, organization, facilities, and programs. Following this introductory remarks were made by Brig. Gen. Adam U. Meetze and Dr. Thomas H. Whitehead. Gen. Meetze expressed his appreciation for having the opportunity to meet with the Ordnance Training Comand and stated that the Chemical Corps and Ordnance Corps have been co-partners in the overall mission of the Department of Defense for quite a number of years. He outlined the mission and structure of the Chemical Corps Advisory Council and specifically the Schools and Training Committee.

Lt. Col. Raymond Hansotte (Ordnance Guided Missile School, Redstone (U) ' Arsenal, Alabama) made a presentation on the Guided Missile School Training Program and Development of Doctrine.

. (U) The Committee then:heard presentations on Maintenance and Control of Doctrine in Courses and Functional Approach to Families of Courses by Mr. C. 0. Gray (Educational Advisor, Ordnance School) and Capt. J. W. Kirby (Ordnance Guided Mis s i 1e School) respectively .

(U) The Committee viewed an exhibit of audio-visual aids and programmed learning facilities at the Ordnance Training Command after which, at the request of Dr. Duckett, Mr. Gray reviewed a study on morale problems in the recruitment of Ordnance School staff and faculty personnel, This was followed by an open discussion.

(U) The Committee was briefed by Dr. Thomas E. Shaughnessy (Educational ' Advisor, Ordnance Training Command) on the "Workshop in Effective Writing" being initiated by the Ordnance School.

UNCLASSIFIED

2 UNCLASSIFIED

(U) At Army Chemical Center on 24 February Brig. Gen. Meetze reported on Observations 16, 17, 18 and 19-61 and Recommendation 13-61 after which a status report on CCR 15-9 was given by Dr. C. B. Marquand. This was followed

by a status report on the Chemical Corps School and Training Command by I Col. L. A. Parks.

(U) Gen. Meetze and Lt. Col. B. M. Whitesides briefed the Committee on the Army Reorganization as it affects the Chemical Corps.

(U) The Committee then met in executive session and reported their findings and conclusions to Chemical Corps personnel.

(U) As a result of this meeting the Committee made the following observations and recomendations:

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 1-62: The Committee appreciated the opportunity to meet

with the Ordnance Training Command. It found that many problems were common

both to the Chemical Corps and to the Ordnance Corps. It hopes that additional I

meetings can be arranged with other organizations which have problems similar / to those of the Chemical Corps Training Command and School.

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 2-62: The Committee appreciated the briefings given by Gen. Meetze, Col. Parks, and Lt. Col. Whitesides on the current Department of

the Army reorganization and how it might affect the mission of the Training

Command and the work of this Conunittee.

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 3-62: The Committee notes with approval the progress

made in information retrieval at CRDL and at the Chemical Corps School. In

view of the Army reorganization, ihformation retrieval systems will take on

even greater importance.

. (U) OBSERVATION NO. 4-62: The Committee observes with pleasure the expansion !

of the radiological facilities (1000 remotely controlled, 15 curie sources) at

the Chemical Corps School.

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 5-62: The Committee is pleased to note that the new

wing at the CmlC School has the highest priority with some assurance that'it

might exist in 1964. UNCLASSIFIED

3 UNCLASSIFIED

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 6-62: The Committee observes with regret the loss of 44 out of 104 officers at the Chemical Corps School, without replacements as yet.

Also,the loss of 5 combat officers will be a serious blow if they are not r ep laced.

(U) It is recommended that: (U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 1-62: Recommendations 5-6w and 13-61w be r'eemphasized.

(U) *RECOMMENDATION NO. 5-60: Chemical Corps Technical Committee action at the time of establishment of an end-item project include provisions for the furnishing of selected end-items to the Chemical Corps School and the CBR Orientation Course.

EXPLANATION: The training and orientation schools of the Chemical Corps (specifically the School at Fort McClelian and the CBR Weapons Ori en tation Course at Dugwayj have an urgent need for certain new items of Chemical Corps equipment which are under development by the U. S. Army Chemical Corps Research and Development Conmand. These items are needed for instruction and the timely presentation of current trends. They are also needed so that preparation of material to be used in future manuals and instructioaal material may reflect up-to-date technical advancements. The early supply of selected new end-items will offset the present disadvantage of the relatively long interim between standardization and actual issue of items.

These items should be included in the procurement for Engineering and User Tests. The need for each item should be considered on an individual basis, and those items selected for the School and the Course will be prin- cipally those destined for general issue to troops or for special issue to Chemical Corps troops.

(U) MRECOMMENDATION NO'. 13-61: Funds be immediately provided to implement previous Recommendation No. 5-60 which was accepted by the Chief Chemical Officer. EXPLANATION: It was learned that although a workable scheme had been provided for obtaining these items, no money is currently available for them and they are not being received.

UNCLASSIFIED

4 UNCLASSIFIED

EXPLANATION: On several previous occasions, such as when

Recommendation No. 13-61 was reported on at the meeting on 24 February 1961,

the Committee was assured that a suitable mechanism had been established whereby prototype items would be obtained for teaching purposes at the Chemical

Corps School. However subsequent conversations with personnel on the staff of the Director for Military Operations give the impression that this, in fact,

is not the case. Apparently, prototype items for the School can be purchased with Rm&E funds, since this is done at the Ordnance School. Such procedures

should also be available to the Chemical Corps School.

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 2-62: The Chemical Corps School avail itself of the opportunity to obtain the script and the film used in the Ordnance School / "'Workshop in Effective Writing".

EXPLANATION: The Committee has, on many occasions, been concerned with the techniques employed at the Chemical Corps School to further effective writing and speaking. It was most favorably impressed by the 'Workshop in

Effective Writing" developed by Dr. T. E. Shaughnessy of the Ordnance Training

Command. Though the initial cost of the film used in the Workshop is high, prints will shortly be available at moderate cost. Such segments which are applicable should be incorporated into courses at the Chemical Corps School.

UNCLASSIFIED

5

i 1 .I

.b UNCLASSIFIED

JOINT MEETING OF ENGINEERIN & PRODUCTION AND AGENTS COMMITTEES:

Army Chemical Center and , Maryland

8-9 March 1962

Agents Cornittee Engineering & Product ion Comi t tee Dr . Thomas P. Carney, Chairman Mr. Robert A. Shurter, Jr., Chairman Dr. Howard Adler Dr. Weldon G. BroWn Dr. Halvor 0. Balvorson Mr. Thomas S. Carswell Mr. Thomas W. Kethley Dr. Ralph I. Claassen Dr . Randolph T. Major Dr. Edward W. Comings Dr. Paul R. Burkholder Dr. Herald R. Cox Dr . Walter H. C. Rueggeberg Dr. Alan S. Foust Dr. Asger F. Langlykke Dr. Stephen Lawroski ( u) The Engineering and Production and Agents Committees of the U. S. Army Chemical Corpr Advisory Council held a joint meeting at Army Chemical Center and Fort Detrlck, Maryland on 8-9 March respectively. Members absent were Drs. Randolph T. Major and Paul R. Burkholder of the Agents Committee and Drs. Ralph I. Claassen, Aeger F. Langlykke and Stephen Lawroski of the Engineering and Production Committee. Dr. Herald R. Cox and Dr. Halvor 0. Halvorson were in attendance 9 March only.

(U) At Army Chemical Center the Committees were welcomed by Col. Donald E. Yanka.. Col. Yanka introduced Col. James A. Hebbeler, who is soon to assume comand of CRDL. Introductory remarks by Col. Yanka, Col. Hebbeler and Mr. Robert A. Shurter were followed by a briefing on by Col. M. R. DeCarlo.

(U) Reports were then heard on Observations l5-, 26- and 27-61 and Recommendations 12-, 23L, 24- and 25-61. This was followed by a briefing on the Chemical Corps ' Technical Information and Evaluation System (TIES) by Mr. Glenn Bryce and I&. P. N. Vlannes.

(U) Dr. B. W. Witten reviewed the studies made in the search for new agents after which Modernization of Site A was discussed by Mr. Mer1 Ringenberg.

(U) Mr. James Richards presented the results of a Bio Agent Production Study conducted by ORG. This was followed by a status report on the EA 3000 program by Dr. B. J. Jandorf.

(U) A three part presentation on TK concluded the first day's session. Major F. D. Gravois provided the concept of Plan B, Mr. Saul Hormats spoke on the support CRDL will provide in the implementation of this plan, and Mt. Mer1 Ringenberg described the planned procurement of TK and hardware and the filling . and assembly operations.

UNCLASSIFIED

6 I .i UNCLASSIFIED ,

(U) Following this presentation the Committees met in Executive Session after which they reported their findings and conclusions to Chemical Corps personnel.

(U) At Fort Detrick on 9 March introductory remarks by Dr. Thomas P, Carney were followed by a brief mention of the status of current Chemical Corps priority programs by Brig. Gen. Fred J. Delmore.

(U) Dr. F. A. Leonard and Dr. Dorothy G. Smith di-scussed the progress made on research. Dr. J. L. Roberts presented a status report on the uee of System Evaluation Studies at Fort Detrick.

(U) Mr. J. R. E. Smith briefed the Committees on the work currently being conducted in the viral and rickettsial process research facility. Following this briefing the Committees had the opportunity to view the new equipment in this facility and witnessed the actual operation of each step of the process plant.

(U) Mr. R. W. Lebherz discussed the progress made in the drying of agents, followed by a presentation on the X-Series Pilot Plant by Mr. E. R. Higgins.

/ (U) Mr. C. E. Cottrell discussed modifications of DBO for filling special items.

(U) The Committees then met in Executive Session and formulated observations and recormendations after which they reported their findings and conclusions to Chemical Corps personnel.

(U) As a result of their deliberations the Committees made the following observations and recomnendations:

(U) OSSERVATION NO. 7-62: The Committees observe with regret the time schedule for completion of an operational suzrtoxic laboratory.

In the reoort given on Recomendation 1'0. 24-61++it was letrrnnd that the completion +ate for an omrational sumrtoxic laboratory has sliyned

anothv six months. The Committees f >e7 that this delay will have a detriqental

effect on many qhases of current and -1anned research programs. 1, ' R- * R- NO0 2lr -61: Every Dossible administrative avenue be explored to reduce the time needed for ths completion of an operational supertoxiu laboratory.

EXPLANATION: , Although the Council feels pleased that authorization for the supertoxic laboratory ha8 been attained, the estimated time for completion (January 1964) item3 unduly long. Many phases of the work on such aupertaxics as X and other candidates will be hampered until the facility UNCLASSIFIED

7 I 1 . U N C 1ASS IF I E D

(U) OBSERVATION NO, 8-628 The Committees were pleased to learn that the test run at the Newport Chemical Plant has been comleted and the material produced is satiafactory. (U) OBERVATION NO, 9-62: The Committees note with apnroval the Drogress made by the Biological Laboratories, particularly on biological agent research, (C) OBSERVATION NO. 10.62: In view of the requirement placed on the Chemical Corps to provide an -munition'system within a short time fYame, the Committees agree that the risk involved In the expedited development of a BZ-munition is justified. hlthough the Chemical Corps will be conducting development concurrently with research, data accumulated to date indicate that this system is the-best currently

available and the probability of meeting the stated requiremnts is good,

(C) 0BSERVP.TION NO. 11-62: The Committees discussed the directed action

which is related to the attainment of an operational capability for ~p1 incapaoitating agent by target date of June 1964, The data available at

this time are not sufficiht to allow the Committees to advise a8 to whether the target date is realistic, Without knawinlc the requirements forecast or the agent involved or whether the agent involved could or should be manufactured in industry, a realistic estimate cannot be made at this the of the eng5neering lead time needed for site selection, design, contractual 5 -L'$ procedures, construction or start-up. The Committees were told that

requiremnts probably would be set as 8 result of an inter-service meeting

is available. It wo9b e unfortunate, the Council feels, to defer su& important investigations for such a long period of time, UNCLASSlFl ED to be held in August 1962. The cdmmittees were told also that in the opinion of dRDL the laboratories are not ready at this moment to recommend a new agent. While at this meeting the Committees examined only 2 of the 16 Phase If directed actions; presumably other committees will be examining

otbr actions. It is hoped that the Council can discuss the overall impact

of these 16 directed actions at the mid-year meeting. It is recommended that:

(U) REXOMNENDATION NO. 3-62: Further consideration be given to expanding in-house facilities and personnel levels to achieve planned research objectives. EXPLANATION: The Committees view with sone regret the continued , expansion of new agent research through increased contractual effort. It is the Committees' distinct opinion that the primary responsibility and basic competences in the search for new agents rests within the laboratories of the Chemical Corps. There is no obdection to procuring readily available end-items from industry. However sesearch programs directed towards obtaining candidate agenta can be handled moat efficiently only by the Corps . (U) RECOMMENDATION NO. b62r Dissemination techniques currently under developmnt be examined from the point of view of increasing the effectiveness of mustard. EXPLCLNATIONI It was learned during the course of the meeting that the mustard now on hand will be retained in the Chemical Corps' family of agents. It is recognized that mustard has chsracteriatica which may not be available in some candidate agents. Disaemtnatian techniques which can best utilise the unique vauor aa well as liquid effects of this agent should be exsmined. ____._

9 ,. UNCLASSIFl ED t I T U NCLASSI FI ED

(C) RECOMMENDATION NO, 5-62: F'ull consideration of Ilternate drying processes be incorporated in all process development programs for new and currently contemplated biological agents. Initial investigation of these

proceslses should be conducted at Fort netrick, EPLANATION: The Committee was informed of the specific production

rRte Boon to be achieved at DBO in freeze dSping, that the Coma has the un-installed equipment capability on hand to increase this rate by a factor of four, and that the Corps has no immediate plans for providing a drying capability other than this. In light of this situation, the drying of all candidate or potential biological agents should bepexsmined -first by the freeze drying mthod, The method of drying beat suited to a particular < organism, however, is very likely to be a function of the particular organism itself, For this reason the Advisory Council has long advocated examination of several methods of drying for each agent under study. F'reeze drying is -not likelyto be the best method for -all agents when one considers that the requirements for a useful dry agent relate not only to minimum moisture but to such factors as particle size, stability, and oirulence. The Committees feel, therefore, that at an early stage, after freeze drying has been investi- gated, alternate methods be checked. Considering the csrxlbflity and magnitude

of a freeze drying operation related to production of dry agent on a very large scale (such as might be required for a LAC program) information on alternative methods and their relation to costs and timing is desirable, The Committee feels that the process development operati& ahould'not bnly include examination -of drying by alternate methods or combination8 of method8 I now possible at Fort Detrick, but should include studies of new techniques and requests for equipment tu utilize new techniques which may become available.

10 U NCLASSI F I ED u'41i?L \" \I 7- IiLJ i ~~IFIEC)

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 6-62: Each of the 16 directed actions be subjected to a critical analysis (similar- to that used in the program) prior to the BZ inltlation of any actual work, to assure that the target dates established are realistic. These dates should be reevaluated at appropriate intervals. EXPLANATION: The Committees believe that a critical analysis may result in changing many of the target dates as presently conceived. Lack of such analyses my result in unrealfstic target dates. The first suggested reevaluation point is the inter-service meeting to be held in August 1962. (U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 7-62: Immediate research and development activity using readily available materials to support the design of filling operations , for BZ be conducted. EXPLANATION; The dangers inherent in handling and in filling a munition with this material are recognized. The Comanittees feel there are potentially better techniques for handling this filling problem. (C) RECOf.MENDATIO?? NO. 8-62; Studies on the dissemination of solids be canthued . EXPWATION; The Cononittee is concerned with the very low weight and volumetric t2ficiency of currently conceived munitions. This becomes particularly bad in the light of current low values for the effectivsness i of dissemination of proper particle s&es. 4 Tha need for efficient dissemination methods for BZ again emphasues the importance of the development of sound techniques for the dissemination of solids. As repeatedly pointed out previously, mny of the new lethal and non- lethal agents are likely to be solids. It is imperative that 8 capability be developed in the dissemination of a variety of type8 of SOlLds in order to

11 U NCLASSI FI ED UNCLASSIFIED

PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE

Fort Detrick and Army Chemical Center, Maryland

2-3 April 1962

Committee Members: Dr. John A. Zapp, Jr., Chairman Mr. Theodore F. Bradley Dr. Sylvan M. Edmonds Dr. Merril Eisenbud Dr. W. C0nwa.y Pierce Dr. James N. Pitts, Jr. Dr. James L. Whittenberger Dr. Randolph T. Major (Agents committee) Dr. Paul R. Burkholder (Agents Committee)

(U) The Protective Committee of the Chemical Corps Advisory Council met at Fort Detrick and Army Chemical Center, Maryland, on 2-3 April 1962 respectively. *All members were present except Dr. Merril Eisenbud and Dr. James N. Pitts, Jr. Also in attendance were Drs. Paul R. Burkholder and Randolph T. Major from the Agents Committee. Dr. Major was in attendance for the Fort Detrick session only.

(U) At Fort Detrick the Committee was welcomed by CoJ. C. S. Casto. Follow- ing introductory remarks by Col. Casto and Dr. J. A. Zapp, Jr., the Committee heard a status report of the Biological Rapid Warning System (Douglas Contract) by Mr. A. J. Rawson. Mr. Rawson also discussed the Combfned CB Warning System for Fixed Installations after which Dr. Benjamin Warshowsky reviewed the Back- ground Studies in BW Detection and Warning and New Approaches to BW Detection.

(U) Dr. J. C. Spendlove briefed the Committee on the background and scope of the NORAD requirement. This was followed by a report on Physical Protection Studies by Mr. H. M. Decker.

(U) Dr. Solomon Love reviewed the Highlights'of the Tripartite Discussion Meeting on Protection.

(U) Following these discussions and briefings the Committee met in executive session and reported their findings and conclusions to Chemical Corps personnel.

(U) At Army CbemicaZ Center the committee was welcomed by Col. J. A. Hebbeler. Following introductory remarks the Committee heard reports on previous recommenda- tions 14- through 18-61.

(U) Col. J. J. Hayes briefed the' Committee on Chemical Corps Responsibilities in Protection Under New Army Reorganizat5on and the reorganization in general.

(U) Col. Douglas Lindsey and Dr. H. P. Averill discussed medical protection against chemical agents. This was followed by a presentation on the current program in civil defense shelters by Dr. D. M. Eny.

(U) The status of the Civilian Mask Program was summarized by Mr. A. A. Cooke.

- UNCLASSIFIED

12 i I I

.* UNCLASSIFIED (U) A report of Project SAMPLES was made by Lt. Col'. D. C. Smith.

(U) A two part presentation on Respiratory Protection was provided by Mr. Frank Shanty (discussing the MSA Contract and the Ml7 mask fogging problem) and Mr. L. A. Jonas (discussing the Aeronutronics Contract on Catalytic Method for Air Purification).

(U). Lt. Col. John Marrero discussed the Combat Development Project being conducted by the Chemical Corps Board to investigate the problems of operating within BW contaminated areas.

(U) Dr. Solomon Love reported on the January demonstration conducted by Melpar at CRDL. Dr. S. M. Edmonds of the Protective Committee briefly evaluated the items and the new approaches under investigation.

(U) The status of the E41 alarm was presented by Mr. R. G. Schwartz. This was followed by a discussion of the LOPAIR development program by Mr. Harvey Tannenbaum.

(U) The Committee then met in executive session after which they reported their findings and conclusions to Chemical Corps personnel. I (U) As a result of their deliberations, the Comittee made the following observations and recommendations: (U) OBSERVATION NO. 12-62: The Comittee notes that Recommendations 14- . through 18-61 have been, in effect, rejected. However, the reasons given for this action were not convincing. to the Comittee. (U) OBSERVATION NO. 13-62: The Committee notes with interest the currently

large potential demand for CB warning devices for fixed installations, but is

not clear as to how the existing biological warning devices can satisfy the

needs of such installations, because:

1. The signal to noise ratio of the existing instruments is

unsatisfactorily low.

2. It is not clear that a dinimal signal of tactical significance

can be detected by existing instruments even with low "noise".

3. It is not clear that criteria for agent detection have been

sufficiently defined.

UNCLASSIFIED

13 UNCLASSIFIED

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 14-62: The Committee is in full agreement with the CRDL recommendation that the CK surveillance requirement for MI1 canisters be dis- continued since the M11 canister provides a high degree of protection against all probable chemical agents, even after the 80-80 CK life has dropped to a very low value. The GB protection of the old Ml1 canisters is higher than that of new' M17 masks.

(U) It is recommended that:

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 9-62: Fort Detrick consider the merit of negotiating contracts in the field of biological agent detection similar in scope to the

Melpar Contract in chemical agent detection. / EXPLANATION: The Committee has been impressed with the contribu- tion of the Melpar Contract to chemical agent detection and feels that such contracts with vigorous organizations might be productive of new ideas and approaches in biological agent detection.

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 10-62: Impregnation of Whetlerite with silver be discontinued.

EXPLANATION: Impregnation with silver was introduced in World

War 11 to augment protection against arsine, which would be an effective agent if the charcoal was highly humidified. Subsequent work indicates that arsine is of no value as a military agent due to its relatively low toxicity and its instability. Consequently, silver provides arsine protection over and above thgt already furnished by the type A Whetlerite and the continued use of silver is regarded as wasteful.

UNCLASSIFIED

14 UNCLASSIFIED

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 11-62: A study be made of the need for chromium impregnation, with a view to dropping the requirement.

EXPLANATION: The use of chromium was introduced in 1942 to augment CK protection of humidified canisters. The type A Whetlerite previously used provided adequate protection but it was improved by the addition of chromium. It now appears that CK is no longer a hazard because of its low toxicity and because of the logistic burden imposed if it is used in the field. It has not been shown that the addition of chromium improves protection against other chemical agents beyond that provided by impregnation with copper oxide.

I Deletion of this requirement would make other sources of charcoal available and would conserve appreciable quantities of a strategic metal.

UNCLASSIFIED

15 UNCLASSIFIED

DISSEMINATION & FIELD TESTING COMMITTEE

Army Chemical Center and Fort Detrick, Maryland

17-18 my 1962

Committee Members : Dr. Jake T. Nolen, Chairman Mr. Wiley W. Carr Dr. William A. Perkins Dr. A. R. T. Denues Dr. Howard Skipper Dr. Knut A. Krieger Dr. Joe B. Wilson Dr. J. William Zabor

Invitees: Dr. Ralph I. Claassen (Engineering & Production Committee) Dr. Stephen Lavroski (Engineering & Production Committee) '

(U) The Dissemination and Field Testing Committee of the Chemical Corps Advisory Council met at Army Chemical Center and Fort Detrick, Maryland, on 17-18 May 1962. Members not attending were: Dr. W. A. Perkins, Dr. Howard Skipper, Dr. J. B. Wilson and Dr. J. W. Zabor. Dr. R. I. Claassen and Dr. Stephen Lawroski of the Engineering and Production Committee, attended both days of the meeting.

(U) At Amy Chemical Center the group was welcomed by Col. J. A. Hebbeler. Following introductory remarks by Col. Hebbeler and Dr. J. T. Nolen, the Committee heard reports on previous Observations 21- and 22-61 by Mr. V. E. Bohan .

(U) Mr. Abraham Kobiin discussed CW sampling techniques currently employed in CRDL'S Test Division, and explained the various sampling devices being used in the field and thoie under development.

(U) Mr. S. D. Thayer reviewed the effort devoted to test technology, using VX sampling problems as an example.

(U) Mr. A. C. Pierne outlined the role that the test chamber plays in the overall dissemination program.

(U) A report on that portion of Project SAMPLES which deals with the measure- ment of inhalation and the masking behaviour of human subjects following surprise was given by Dr. F. N. Craig.

Dr. G. H. Milly discussed another aspect to the problem of sampling, considerations with respect to test planning and evaluation.

Mr. W. J. Weber gave a status report on the BZ program.

UNCLASSIFIED

16 UNCLASSIFIED

(U) Dr. B. L. Harris briefed the Committee on the conclusions and recommenda- tions made as a result of the Tripartite Meeting of CW Applications Committee held in the U. K. He also reviewed recent munition developments citing three programs: traversal, vapor/aerosol, and flashing.

(U) Dr. B. J. Jandorf described the status of the.EA 3000 program.

(U) The Committee then met in Executive Session.

* (U) At Fort Detrick on 18 May the Committee was welcomed by Col. C. S. Casto. Following introductory remarks, reports were heard on previous Recommendations 19- and 20-61.

(U) The background and status of Project 112 was given by Col. M. R. DeCarlo.

(U) Dr. Victor Cabelli discussed BW test technology at . (U) The Program including organization and mission objectives was outlined by Mr. A. M. Tressell.

(U) Some problems associated with testing biological &gents in the field were reviewed by Dr. I. W. Gibby.

(U) A reeume of the Dugway Proving Ground meteorological program was made by Mr. Paul Carlson.

(U) The Committee then met in Executive Session. (U) As a result of their deliberations the following observations and recommendations are made:

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 15-62: The Committee notes with approval the acceleration

of progress in connection with agent EA 3000. Although important problems remain

I I to be solved, much progress has been made. I . (U) OBSERVATION NO. 16-62: The Committee was informed of the recent recommenda-

tion for dissolution of the Meteorological Committee. This may represent a

crucial failure in 8 function most important to the Chemical Corps. It js

believed that a review of the history of this group and of the basis for the .

recommended dissolution should be made with the intent of correcting the deficiencies found.

UNCLASSIFIED

17 .. UNCLASSIFIED

(U) OBSERVATION NO. 17-62: The Committee notes with approval that significant

progress is being made in the systematic evaluation of actual exposure of human

subjects to inhalation agents under simulated combat conditions. The results of

t Project SAMPLES will help to fill a long-recognized gap in essential information.

(U) It is recommended that:

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 12-62: The proportion of effort and funds devoted

to the planning and analysis aspects of test programs be increased sub-

s tantially.

EXPLANATION: The effort being given to test planning and data

analysis appears insufficient in relation to the much greater effort and costs

expended on other aspects of development and test progrqs. Proper test planning

to insure productive test programs and adequate data analysis to obtain maximum

information from these programs are important and can have economic value by reducing requirements for. test operations. Further, data analysis is the principal means whereby requirements for testing methods are defined.

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. -13-62: The appointment of a Scientific Director for the Deseret Test Center be expedited.

EXPLANATION: .The Committee noted with interest the progress in

planning for and staffing of the Deseret Test Center. It appears desirable to

appoint the Scientific Director at an early date in order for him to participate

in the selection and planning of programs. One specific and crucial immediate

concern is a determination of the adequacy of test methods to be employed in the

test programs.

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 14-62: Plans be. formulated to insure the survival

in the new organization of the type of activity represented by R&D Guidance

Seminars. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

EXPLANATION: The Committee was informed that plans for the

forthcoming Army-Air Force Seminar include modifications of the procedures

used in SCORPION and WASP which bring it closer to the kind of war games that

would be employed by the using services. The Committee is concerned, however,

with the possibility of losing sight of activities of this type in the pending

Army reorganization.

(U) RECOMMENDATION NO: 15-62: Support on a continuing basis be given to efforts to improve field test technology with two objectives in mind:

(a) development of field test equipment and technology capable of giving

results accurate enough for operational evaluations, and (b) when the required

data can'be obtained only by field testing, development of technology giving

results accurate enough for the development of predictive models or evaluation

of relative weapon performance.

EXPLANATION: The Committee notes that field test technology has

shown only minor progress over the past several years, and feels that this is

inapart due to the fact that planned effort in this area has frequently been

displaced by more immediate but less basis tasks. The Committee notes further

that it is unable to arrive at any.very clear picture of the degrees of accuracy

that are appropriate to these different objectives and feels that clarification

on this point will be necessary for the intelligent appraisal of the progress and needs of field test technology.

UNCLASSIFIED

19 UNCLASSIFIED

MEDICAL COMMITTEZ

Army Chemical Center and Fort Detrick, Maryland

2h-25 May 1962

Committee Menbers: Ih.. Charles L. Yisseman, Jr., Chairman Dr. Harry D. Eiruner Dr. H. E, Longenecker Dr. William A. Feirer Dr. John H. Venable Dr. A. McGehee Harvey Dr. Isaac Starr Dr. Harold S. Ginsbergs Dr. Harry M. Roses Dr. James L. Whittenberger * APPt Pending (Protective Committee) (U) The Medical Committee of the Chemical Corps Advisory Council met at Am Chemical Center and Fort Detrick, Maryland, on 24-25 May 1962. All members were present except Dr. H. E. Longenecker, Dr. H. D. Bruner and, Dr. A. M. Harvey. Dr, J. L. Whittenberger of the Protective Committee was present bath days. Dr, H. S. Ginsberg and Dr, H. M. Rose also attended both days of the meeting as invitees.

I (U) At Army Chemical Center the group was welcomed by Cole J. A. Hebbeler. Following introductory remarks, Dr. C, B. Marquand and Col. Hebbeler briefed the Committee on the present organisation of the Chemical Corps, and on the changes corrtemplsted as a result of the Army reorganization, (U) lst Lt. M. S. Brisker reported on the action taken to implement Recommendations 21- and 22-61 and Observation 24-61 . (U) The Medical Research Contract Program was disdussed by Dr. V. M. Sim, (a) Dr. H. J, Wills briefed the Committee on Therapy and Prophylaxis for Chemical Poisoning and the Pharmacological Approach to the Search for New Agents was discussed by Dr. D. J. Cavanaugh. (U) Status reports on the Volunteer Proeram at Arqv Chemical Center by Major Claude McClure, Jr. and on EA 3000 by Dr. B. J. Jandorf followed, (U) Dr. B. P. McNamara discussed Automation of Toxicological Data as utilhed in the Toxicology Division and then outlined the Skin Penetration Research Program.

(U) The Committee then met in executive session and reported its findings and conclusion8 to Chelaical Corps personnel,

(U) I At Fort Detrick on 25 May the Committee mt in executive session prior to the formal meting.

(U) Following introductory remarks by Col. C. S, Cast0 and Dr, C, L, Wisseman, Jr., the Committee heard a presentation by Dr. H. N. Glassman on the Biological Laboratories' part in the EA 3000 program,

UNCLASSIFIED -20 1 R?

.. UNCLASSIFIED

(U) Progrees in Viral and Rickettsial Agents Reeearch was reviewed by Dr. Dorothy Smith. (a) The Committee then heard a report on Observation 23-61. (U) Highlights of the Present Program in Medical Investigation Division were dlscuased by Dr. P. J. Kadull. (U) Dr. D. M. Donaldson briefed the Codttee on Antigenicity of . X-irradiated Vaccine. (U) The Johns Hopkins Contract was sumnmarieed by Dr. Leighton Cluff. He was followed by Mr. Matte0 Cardella who discuased the Effect of Enterotoxin on Susceptibility of Rabbit Skin to Epinephrine.

(U) The Lethality of Toxin In Rats was described by Mr. Francis Beall . (U) Magor W. D. Sawyer presented results of Studies on the Infectiviw of Aged Aerosols, -P tularenals Schu S-4. (a) The Comittee then met in executive session and reported their findings and conolualons to Chemical Corps personnel. (U) As a result of this meting the followlng reconmendation and obsevation is made:

(C) OBSERVATION NO; 18.62: Review of the- volunteer program at the Army Chemical Center has revealed again the care and the conservative, lnature judgment which is exercised In its conduct and the invaluable information

which it yields far the Corps' chemical agents program. The group is to be congratulated for the manner in which it has conducted this necessary program in which hundreds of subjects have been employed in tests with highly. toxic chemical agents without seriow Rishap or indurg to a single volunteer. The Medical Committee wishes to emphasize that in any study which i. employs drugs of any Mbd given to people, a certain range of biological variation will inevitably be encountered, even with the moat inocuous of compounds. In the administration of druga which profoundly alter function in any way, certain carefully calculated risks will hve to be borne, for it

U NCLASSlFl ED rlri I,

"

is unlikely that any compound exists which will have a perfect record, taking all the variations of human function end complex activities into account . The recent reaction observed with BZ in a sinale subject is of considerable Interest and merits further study under the carefully controlled conditions which obtain in the volunteer studies at the Chemical Center in order to define the frequency with which such reactions mirzht occur and their nature. The Committee endorses the conservative attitude of the Chemical

I Center personnel against the field testing of E2 on volunteers at Dugway

Proving Ground until further data are available. I The Committee wishes to emphasize that the reaction observed should not jeopardize the volunteer work on BZ at Army Chemical Center. Mor does it necessarily indicate that this agent will not serve the purpose for which it is intended in tacticel situations. It, is recommended that: (U) RECOMMENDATION NO. 16-62: Steps be taken to assure continuation, within the Chemical Corps, of a strong toxicology unit concerned with evaluating the hazards of military chemicals . EXPLANATION: The Medical Committee has been informed that major administritive changes are being considered for the Militam Chemicals Toxicology Program. The Committee, therefore, considers it timely to express ita strong feeling regarding the value of this program and equally strong feeling that the group conducting the research can function best in its present location under present, or equally strong, supervision. Dislocation of eRmmmMm U NCLASSlFl ED 22 UNCLASSIFIED this unit is to be deplored because the nature of its work is so closely related ta the study of other taxic agents at the Army Chemical Center. No other Military Service or other governmental agency has the resources and capabilities to perform as complete a laboratory study of haaardoas materials, The m8ources at the Chemical Research and Developmnt Laboratories inalude extensive physical facilities and a well-qualffied staff in addition to the large background of experience and data on thousands of compounds. The Colmnfttee sees nothing to be gained by fragmenting this laboratory or duplicating toxicolog$c research facilities in the’ agencies that have used the fechnical services of ths unit 0- the Military Services,, NASA and others. The Hilitarg Chemicals toxicology group has establiabsd a national reputation and its staff is highly regarded by all who have an interest in industrial toxicology. Toxicologic information has been supplied not only to the requesting agencies but also to other Servieerr and to the Advisory Center e of the National Resear& Council. The information also beconus available to tb Public Health Servlce, Poison Control Centers, and other intereated parties. While the breadth of scope of the Program may not, in a atrict sense, to be a part of the major objectives of the Chemical Corps, it Is nevbrthelesr an important segment of the total contribution of the Army Chemical Center. The activity of the Military Chemicals group is vitally important in our rapidly expanding use of new materiala, and every effort should be mde to rrtrengtbn and continue this activity where it has proved, by experienoe, to have served so effectively. - De B A P UNCLASSIFIED T