Toxic Warfare:  First Responders Must Prepare, Report Says

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

Emergency health care workers, police and other first responders must do more to prepare for the impact of toxic warfare — the use of industrial chemicals or toxic waste as a weapon — and the U.S. military should help, according to a report released last month by RAND.  Attacks on U.S. facilities holding toxic chemicals and other pollutants should not be overlooked in a rush to address a wide range of other terrorist threats, according to the report’s author, Theodore Karasik (see GSN, May 30).

If a terrorist successfully attacks or releases toxic materials first responders will bear the brunt of an attack, and Karasik questioned whether they are fully aware of the threat.

First responders are thinking about the threat of toxic warfare, “but they are not thinking about it hard enough,” he told Global Security Newswire.

Authorities must detect an attack, prevent panic and deal with the medical and psychological impact of a chemical cloud or waste spill, all of which could prove difficult.  Inadequate Internet communications at hospitals, a lack of funds to adequately train personnel and unbalanced burden-sharing of casualties are a few weaknesses that might plague first responders, the report says.

“What if it happens in four places at the same time in the same urban area?” Karasik asked this week.  “Are they going to get stretched?”

Toxic weapons are particularly alarming, the report says, because toxic materials are widespread and attacks can take many forms, including a strike on a chemical plant or a railroad car carrying chlorine, contamination of a water supply or the release of chemicals or petroleum into a populated area.  This form of warfare, or terrorism, is alarming because materials that can be used as toxic weapons are inexpensive and fairly accessible, according to the report.

“One of the most important features of toxic weapons is the ready availability of the substances used to create them,” the report says.

Indeed, material for a toxic attack is distributed throughout an industrialized nation, from airports to medical facilities to landscaping businesses, according to the report.  The threat became even more clear in February 2001 when Greenpeace activists scaled the fence of a Dow Chemical plant in Louisiana and gained access to the control panel that could have released toxic discharges into the Mississippi River.

The report specifically cites the “potential vulnerability of chemical and industrial facilities within the United States.”

Karasik credits industry with taking firm steps to increase security since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but he warned that the threat is not completely understood.

The government recently dropped a bid to impose new security regulations on chemical plants, the Washington Post reported today.  The Environmental Protection Agency was seeking regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act but faced tough opposition from chemical industry lobbyists, who claim security can be increased without federal regulations.  Legislation drafted by Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), the Chemical Security Act, has made it out of committee, although chemical companies oppose it because it also gives the EPA regulatory power over plants (see GSN, July 26).

Karasik said that any move toward chemical security is a good sign.  If security is not able to prevent an attack, however, he said it was important to be prepared for the aftermath.

Military Assistance Encouraged

The U.S. military should help civilian first responders prepare for the impact of a toxic attack, the report says.

Tuesday, a House of Representatives subcommittee was told that U.S. forces are unprepared and not equipped for chemical and biological warfare attacks (see GSN, Oct. 2).  The Defense Department, however, has faced threats in the field from chemical and biological agents and has developed expertise that could be useful, according to Karasik’s report. 

The military must still fine-tune its toxic warfare strategy and should expand emergency response training exercises to include more units, the report says, but the Pentagon is aware of the threat and has prepared for dealing with contamination.

“Many components of the U.S. military are actively working on this,” Karasik said.

Pentagon expertise could also be useful to civil response teams.   

“The U.S. military possesses chemical weapons prevention and cleanup expertise that is applicable to homeland security,” the report says.  “Civilian organizations and first responders can benefit from working closely with the military in preparing to respond to toxic threats.  The military can for its part expand its efforts to coordinate with civilian organizations in the event of a toxic attack.”

Toxic Warfare On the Rise

While the effectiveness of toxic weapons varies greatly from case to case, recent years have shown an increased global interest in easy and inexpensive warfare and a clear willingness to attack with unconventional means.

“The notion of opportunism is central to this discussion,” the report says.  “These substances need not even be shaped into anything resembling a traditional weapon in order to be effective.”

The report cites accounts of Israeli settlers spraying dangerous chemicals on Palestinian land and U.S.-designated terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas planning to contaminate water supplies.  Other accounts report Muslim and Serbian forces in the former Yugoslavia engaged in toxic warfare on numerous occasions by shelling petroleum plants and chemical plants, releasing harmful gasses and firing artillery shells filled with chlorine.  U.S. military analysis supported the veracity of many such reports, Karasik said.

The Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Kurdish Workers Party have also used or attempted to use toxic warfare, according to the report. 

The United States should take note of the increased tendency of states and nonstate aggressors to resort to toxic warfare, the report says.  It is important to acknowledge the threat, understand it better and know how a response must be shaped, Karasik said.

“Those who use toxic weapons seek to create uncertainty by exploiting whatever opportunities are available to bend the definition of chemical warfare and conventional weapons,” the report says.

Back to top

Uranium Enrichment:  Europe Fights U.S. Tariffs on Low-Enriched Uranium

The European Commission plans to fight U.S. tariffs imposed on European low-enriched uranium exports, BBC Online reported today (see GSN, Jan. 23).

In January, the U.S. International Trade Commission imposed tariffs on two European producers of enriched uranium — the French-owned company Eurodif and the British-Dutch-German consortium Urenco — following a unfair pricing lawsuit filed by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), the sole U.S. producer of enriched uranium.

The European Commission has criticized the U.S. tariffs, calling them “illegal,” according to BBC.  After months of negotiations with the United States, the commission has failed to reach an “amicable” solution and now plans to refer the case to the World Trade Organization, according to a European Union spokeswoman.

“We are not going to sit and wait,” EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy’s spokeswoman said.  “We will send our final consultation documentation to our member states in the next couple of weeks and do not expect any obstacles.”

In its decision to impose the tariffs, the ITC found that state subsidies for the two European companies hurt the domestic U.S. uranium enrichment industry, BBC reported.  As a result of the tariffs, Eurodif has had to pay an extra 34 percent duty and Urenco an extra 2.23 percent duty on LEU exports to the United States.

“It has an impact on us of several million dollars a year, but it’s not crippling,” Mark Elliot, Urenco’s general manager of marketing, said (BBC Online, Oct. 3).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP