Should our Armed Forces have better protection?
The Efficacy of the Decontaminant Foam Developed by SANDIA National Laboratories of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Questioned.
by Richard Price

Background
          At the 2nd Singapore International Symposium on Protection Against Toxic Substances (SISPAT) in Singapore, the SANDIA National Laboratory representative presented a paper on 4 December 2000 "Foam for Mitigation and Decontamination of Chemical and Biological Weapons Agents" in which the following claims were made:
a. "Sandia has developed a non-toxic, non-corrosive foam … for the rapid mitigation and decontamination of chemical (CW) and biological (BW) warfare agents."
b. "This decontamination technology is attractive for civilian and military applications for several reasons including: a single decon solution can be used for both CW and BW agents"
c. "The foam also kills anthrax spores. In biological tests, 7-log kill of the spores has been achieved after a one-hour exposure to the foam." and "The majority of our work has focused on anthrax where we have achieved 7-log kill (99.99999%) of anthrax spores after a one-hour exposure to our foam."
          At the mentioned SISPAT conference and with over 120 participants, including ASA, present, the Sandia representative was unable to answer some questions on the foam, the topic of the paper he had just presented. And at the Decon 2002 Conference in San Diego, a participant at one of the work shops, asked the Sandia representative how the Sandia foam compared to the Canadian CASCAD foam which had been briefed at an earlier Decon conference. The reply was rather simple: "ours works and theirs does not". Sandia later in Decon 2002, and in front of the full conference, issued an apology for the uncalled for and totally erroneous remarks of their Sandia representative.
          We believe the Sandia statements of efficacy were based primarily on their own self-tests in their own labs with simulant and not with live agent. In examining the relatively limited outside testing of the Sandia foam, we will compare this to the comprehensive testing to which the CASCAD foam has been subjected.

Effectiveness Against BW Agents
          Simulants are often used in testing materials. Both Bacillus globigii and Bacillus subtilis spores are used as simulants for Bacillus anthracis spores. The effectiveness of a material to kill anthrax spores is a goal of all military decontaminants. The effectiveness as a sporicide is often measured as a reduction in viable spores to less than the infectious dose. In practice this often means that if a weaponized anthrax contains 1x10⁹ spores/ml, reducing that to less than 10³ spores/ml, requires a killing efficiency of 99.99999% or a 7 log reduction (10² spores/ml). Sandia claimed a 7 log kill (or 99.99999 reduction in viable spores) for anthrax. What are the tests?
          On 07 February and 01 March 2002 - some 15 months after the Sandia SISPAT presentation, one of the largest non-military government organizations tested Sandia's foam for anthrax decontamination, specifically for decontamination for anthrax spores in Washington area post offices. Using Bacillus subtilus as a simulant for anthrax, the organization found that the foam was not effective after 60 minute contact with B. subtilus on two different surfaces. There were some differences in formulation and ph (9.3 vs. 8.34), but neither was effective in killing the B. subtillus spores.
          Sandia's own testing showed that both formulations killed 99.99999 and 99.9 % of Bacillus globigii (BG) spores after 60 minutes contact. IIT tested another 'enhanced' formulation of the foam against two strains of B. anthracis and achieved a 7 log reduction after 60 minutes. Another formulation of Sandia's foam only achieved a 3 log reduction after 60 minutes - inadequate for protection.
          In contrast, the CASCAD foam has been shown to be effective against BW and CW agents in a variety of testing. The CASCAD foam has been subjected to and has passed very rigorous and comprehensive international testing for effectiveness against both BW and CW agents. This includes testing by the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), and the US Army Research Laboratory, amongst others in the US. In addition CASCAD has been tested in designated national laboratories in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Furthermore, NATO Panel 7 (NBC Working Group) has approved CASCAD for use within NATO.
          All of these countries purchased the CASCAD foam, based on their national laboratory testing. In addition the following countries have purchased CASCAD based on the results of their analysis and acceptance of testing done by recognized international laboratories: Croatia and Denmark, as well as the Counter Terrorist Working Group (US/UK/Canada) and the OPCW. The UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia have acquired CASCAD for testing.
          As an example, tests at Dugway Proving Ground showed that the CASCAD foam (surfactant and co-solvent) demonstrated superior spore killing ability. It achieved 6 to 7 log reduction in BG spores in only five minutes. None of these tests directly compare CASCAD and Sandia foam, but it appears that at least under some conditions the Sandia foam does not achieve a 7 log reduction of viable spores.

Effectiveness Against CW Agents
          Both CASCAD and the Sandia foam have been tested for their effectiveness against CW agents. The Sandia formulations are effective against HD, GD and VX and reduce the CW agent to less than 98.5% in 15 minutes and 99.84% in 60 minutes. CASCAD, in US Army testing, performed better than bleach solutions for THD, TGD and VX. In other international testing CASCAD has consistently demonstrated superior decontamination performance. It has been tested against live agents GA, GB, HD, GD, VX and was proven completely effective against all listed agents in less than 10 minutes.
          So why did Sandia claim their foam worked and CASCAD did not? The answer may be in an ECBC report "The Effectiveness of Eight Decontamination Formulations in the Destruction of HD, VX and GD in Stirred Reactors", hereinafter known as the Report. This Report's testing of CASCAD appeared to have been compromised from the start. Information available to ASA, and which is being used in this part of this report and which has previously been known to ECBC, shows that the major difficulties in the ECBC studies appeared to be the source of the material the ECBC tester claimed to be CASCAD. A review of the records at the DRES (Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Canada) and at Irvin Aerospace (now known as NBC Team, Canada) show no request for, nor any shipment of, chemicals to ECBC to undertake any laboratory evaluations, a normal protocol for professionals.
          A review of ECBC's description of their testing results suggests that the source of this CASCAD was, in fact, from a demonstration provided by Irvin Aerospace to the Tech Escort Unit (TEU) co-located at ECBC in 1997 - at the request of the TEU. The ECBC testing representative attended this training session and observed a demonstration. This demonstration was a large scale deployment of foam decontaminant to demonstrate the hardware and the process of applying CASCAD - not the efficacy of a decontaminant solution. In fact a "demonstration" foam was used, not the decontamination foam. Since the surfactant now used in CASCAD was still in development, an earlier commercial surfactant called SILVEX® (containing no anti-corrosive) was used to generate the foam to demonstrate how the equipment would work. As this demo was large scale, the instructions were to fill a blivet with a given quantity of water and then to add a specific quantity of filled plastic pails containing white powder. These pails contained two separate active ingredients and three buffering ingredients added in layers in the containers. Since the entire contents were to be used, no mention or consideration was given to mixing the powders within the pails. After the demo several pails of solids and SILVEX® were left. Rather than bringing the pails back to Canada, the pails were left with the TEU with the stated intent to practice with the remaining chemicals. The ECBC representative (tester) asked if he could examine the surfactant and the other materials, but he made no mention of a laboratory test of the combined ingredients as a decontaminant.
          According to senior scientists reviewing the ECBC report, the tester may have subdivided the contents of the powder containers into a number of containers and either used them in his own experiments or provided them to others. Other testing agencies so state that their source of CASCAD was from the ECBC tester. The results of this unauthorized testing of this material do not make for good reading and should be discarded by all. ASA does have the results and the response. The Report mentions that Silvex® was a component of CASCAD when, in fact, the only time Silvex® has ever been associated with CASCAD was for this one TEU demonstration. This clearly indicates where the unauthorized chemicals came from.

Sandia Press Release
          On 1 October 2002, according to a Press Release from SANDIA National Laboratories of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the US Army Central Command placed an order with EnviroFoam™ Technologies for several thousand gallons of the company's EasyDECON™ solution. Sandia had licensed the formulation for EasyDECON™ with EnviroFoam in August 2000.
          SANDIA National Laboratories states their decon formulation neutralizes both chemical and biological agents and has low-toxicity and low-corrosivity properties and is environmentally friendly. SANDIA says that EnviroFoam was one of two US companies granted nonexclusive licenses for the decontamination formulation, which has been under development at SANDIA, a US Department of Energy National Laboratory, since 1997.
          According to EnviroFoam, this order signals a decision to replace DS2, CENTCOM's previous decontamination formula, for use "where the real potential exists for biological and chemical warfare...". EnviroFoam further states that the SANDIA formulation, on which EasyDECON is based, has proven effective against both biological and chemical agents, can be applied with current military hardware, has shown no collateral damage, and creates an effluent capable of being washed down the drain. And lastly from the October 2002 press release, EnviroFoam states that "It is rewarding to realize that American soldiers will finally have the protection afforded by this novel technology."
          According to a caveat that the second company licensed, Modec, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, places on the test results promulgated by SANDIA "The ... referenced information represents testing performed by Sandia National laboratories and others. Modec, Inc. makes no label claims, either direct or implied, that its product are antimicrobial as defined by the EPA and FIFRA regulations." That caveat may be well warranted.

Explanation Needed
          It would seem that Sandia's earlier comments on the CASCAD may have been based on the Report. Did Sandia issue a full apology because they knew the Report's testing may have been flawed?
          The CASCAD foam has been successful in many laboratories' tests around the world. It would be premature for the US Army to purchase the Sandia National laboratory foam based on the limited testing Sandia's foam has undergone. Why should the US Army select for US Forces a product that has not been tested thoroughly and one that has failed some of those limited tests?
          It is time our US Forces and our US taxpayers were provided a good solid explanation on why and how and on whose recommendation did the US Army Central Command make their decisions on the SANDIA National laboratory foam purchase. Was it the Report?
          We have anecdotal information that Central Command is testing or has tested SANDIA foam and the foam may have failed for multiple reasons. Additionally some testing personnel may have sought medical assistance and some equipment may have been damaged during testing.