Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS Web

Order Code RL31861

High-Threat Chemical Agents: Characteristics, Effects, and

Policy Implications

Updated September 9, 2003

Dana A. SheaAnalyst in Science and Technology PolicyResources, Science, and Industry Division

High-Threat Chemical Agents: Characteristics, Effects,and Policy Implications

Summary

Terrorist use of chemical agents has been a noted concern, highlighted after theTokyo Sarin gas attacks of 1995. The events of September 11, 2001, increasedCongressional attention towards reducing the vulnerability of the United States tosuch attacks. High-threat chemical agents, which include chemical weapons andsome toxic industrial chemicals, are normally organized by military planners intofour groups: nerve agents, blister agents, choking agents, and blood agents. Whilethe relative military threat posed by the various chemical types has varied over time,use of these chemicals against civilian targets is viewed as a low probability, highconsequence event.

High-threat chemical agents, depending on the type of agent used, cause avariety of symptoms in their victims. Some cause death by interfering with thenervous system. Some inhibit breathing and lead to asphyxiation. Others havecaustic effects on contact. As a result, chemical attack treatment may be complicatedby the need to identify at least the type of chemical used. Differences in treatmentprotocols for the various high-threat agents may also strain the resources of the publichealth system, especially in the case of mass casualties. Additionally, chemicalagents trapped on the body or clothes of victims may place first responders andmedical professionals at risk.

Protection from and detection of chemical agents is an area of much concern.The range of protection and detection equipment available to first responders has ledto questions regarding equipment standardization and state and local preparedness.

Whether terrorist groups are capable of using chemical agents as weapons ofmass destruction is unclear. Some have asserted that the volumes of chemicalsrequired to cause mass casualties would make that scenario unlikely. They claim thatchemical terrorism is more likely to be small in scale. Others have suggested thatthere has been an increase in terrorist interest regarding chemical agents, and that thisinterest could lead to their use in terrorist attacks.

Current policies seek to reduce the proliferation of chemicals that could betransformed into chemical weapons, prevent unrestricted access to large amounts oftoxic chemicals, provide federal assistance to locations that are affected by chemicalterrorism, and support research and development activities. It is expected that theDepartment of Homeland Security will take a major role in federal policy efforts.

Additional measures suggested for addressing potential chemical terrorismvulnerabilities include further restricting domestic access to precursor chemicals andtechnologies required to manufacture high-threat chemical agents; directingcontinued research and development into selective, sensitive chemical agentdetectors; implementing air monitoring equipment to detect chemical releases in, forexample, public transportation or urban spaces; and overseeing further research intoprotective equipment, prophylaxis, and treatment against high-threat chemicals. Thisreport will be updated as circumstances warrant.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What Are High-Threat Chemical Agents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Types of Chemical Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Nerve Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Blister Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Choking Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Blood Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Protection Against Chemical Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Physical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Medical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Decontamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Detection of Chemical Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Public Health Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chemical Agents as Weapons of Terror Rather Than as Weapons of Mass Destruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Current Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Export Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Industry Self-regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Biomedical Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Increasing Detector Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Better Understanding of Chemical Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Federal Response Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Chemical Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Chemical Detector Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Environmental Detection of Chemical Weapon Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21First Responder Equipment and Diagnostic Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Treatments and Prophylaxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Federal Emergency Response Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1 The determination of what chemical compounds pose the highest threat is open tointerpretation. The discussion in this report is a synthesis of military and public healthpriorities and is not intended to represent a complete list of all potential threats.

High-Threat Chemical Agents:Characteristics, Effects, and Policy

Implications

Introduction

Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, policymakers have beenattempting to decrease the vulnerability of the United States to the terrorist use ofweapons of mass destruction. This report describes the different types of high-threatchemical agents. It also discusses their availability, treatment, and detection, andpossible policy approaches to reducing the threat posed by them.

Terrorist use of chemical agents is widely believed to be an event that has lowprobability, but potentially high consequences. While there is still debate overwhether terrorist groups have an increased interest in chemical acquisition and use,the domestic vulnerability of the United States to chemical attack remains high.Policy approaches to reducing chemical vulnerability have generally treated chemicalagents as a group, rather than addressing specific agents. Additionally, military andcivilian chemical agent detection have developed with little coordination, so thatcivilian toxic industrial chemical kits and military chemical weapons detectorshaving varying sensitivities and detection capabilities. Treatments for chemicalexposure vary as well, depending on the type of chemical, and so must be addressedon a chemical by chemical basis. Because comparatively few individuals have beenexposed to modern chemical weapons, practical experience in treatment of chemicalcasualties is limited, especially among civilian health care providers. While nationalefforts to reduce vulnerability to terrorist chemical agent use continue, it is not clearwhether specific agents that pose the greatest danger are being adequately addressedas general vulnerabilities are being reduced.

What Are High-Threat Chemical Agents?

High-threat chemical agents are, for the purpose of this report, chemicals posingexceptional lethality and danger to humans.1 Some may have been developed andused for commercial purposes. Others may have been used or developed bymilitaries as chemical weapons.

CRS-2

2 Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries,FM-8285, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and Commandant, MarineCorps, 1995.3 Nancy B. Munro, Kathleen R. Ambrose, and Annetta P. Watson, “Toxicity of theOrganophosphate Chemical Warfare Agents GA, GB, and VX: Implications for PublicProtection,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 102, 1994, p. 38. 4 U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, “Tabun - GA Nerve Agent(Dimethylphosphoramido-cyanidate),” Chemical Agent Fact Sheet, 2001.5 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons ofMass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC-115, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,December 1993).

Different chemical weapons cause different symptoms in and injuries to theirvictims. Because of this range of potential symptoms, it can be difficult to knowwhat treatment will be most effective for a victim until the chemical or chemical typehas been identified. Also, chemical weapons may produce their effects by differentexposure routes, for example, by skin contact or by inhalation. As a consequence,depending on what chemical is encountered, different protective equipment must beemployed; for example, a gas mask alone is not sufficient protection againstchemicals which can damage through skin contact.

Types of Chemical Agents

Military planners categorize such agents into four classes: nerve, blister,choking, and blood agents.2 This categorization groups chemicals by the effects theycause to those exposed to them. While the nerve and blister agents are predominantlyonly manufactured and used by militaries as weapons, both choking agents and bloodagents include chemicals widely used in industrial processes.

Nerve Agents

Chemical weapons affecting the nervous system are called nerve agents. Nerveagents do not occur naturally. Rather, they are manmade compounds that requiremanufacture and isolation for high toxicity and purity. Most nerve agents belong toa group of chemicals called organophosphates. Organophosphates have a wide rangeof toxicity, and some are commercially employed as insecticides, though these aresignificantly less toxic than those developed as chemical weapons.3 Nerve agents aremainly liquids.

Production. The first nerve agent developed for military use, called Tabun orGA, was made in Germany in the 1930s.4 Following this discovery, a series of nerveagents similar to Tabun were developed. This series, known as the G-series, includethe weapons Sarin (GB) and Soman (GD). In the late 1940s, another series of nerveagents, the V-series, was invented in England. Both the British and the United Stateschemical weapons programs investigated these compounds. The United Statesmanufactured and stockpiled VX.5 A related compound, V-gas, was manufacturedand stockpiled by the Soviet Union. Military use of nerve agents has been rare.

CRS-3

6 Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, Presentation to the U.N. Security Council, February5, 2003.7 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons ofMass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC-115, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,December 1993).8 NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive Operations, AmedP-6(B),Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February, 1996.9 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Field Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook,Second Edition, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, July, 2000.

Nerve agents were not used during World War I or World War II. During the 1980— 1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq reportedly used nerve agents against Iranian troops andlater against members of its Kurdish population in northern Iraq.6

National chemical weapons programs have produced nerve agents for decades.The technological barriers for a terrorist group to synthesize these agents might beovercome by using commercially available equipment, though there would beappreciable danger to the manufacturer due to the extreme toxicity of thesecompounds. Nerve agent production requires the use of toxic chemicals duringsynthesis and specialized equipment to contain the nerve agent produced. Of thenerve agents, VX has been identified as the most difficult to manufacture.7

Effects. Nerve agents are extremely dangerous and can enter the body throughthe lungs or by skin contact, though for the G-series nerve agents, the inhalationtoxicity is significantly greater than the dermal toxicity. Of the nerve agents, VX isthe most deadly and Tabun is the least deadly, though all are exceedingly toxic.

Nerve agents interfere with the nervous system, causing overstimulation ofmuscles. Victims may suffer nausea and weakness and possibly convulsions andspasms. At high concentration, loss of muscle control, nervous system irregularities,and death may occur. The action of nerve agents can be irreversible if victims are notquickly treated.

Treatment. Two drugs, atropine and pralidoxime chloride, are used asantidotes for nerve agents.8 Atropine prevents muscle spasm and allows the bodytime to clear the nerve agent. Pralidoxime chloride limits the effects of nerve agentexposure by reversing the agent’s action. Both of these drugs were issued to U.S.troops during the Persian Gulf War in the form of an antidote kit called the Mark I.Diazepam (Valium) may be used to reduce convulsions and seizures brought on byexposure to nerve agents.9

The treatment window for nerve agent exposure is agent-dependent. Someagents quickly and irreversibly react to enzymes within the body, while others requirea much longer time to permanently bind to these enzymes. The most effectivetreatment occurs before such permanent binding has taken place. Soman, forexample, is permanently bound within minutes, while Tabun is not and can be treatedup to several hours after exposure. Prophylactic use of some compounds, such as

CRS-4

10 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Medical Management of Chemical CasualtiesHandbook, Third Edition, United States Army Medical Research Institute of ChemicalDefense, August, 1999.11 Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries,FM-8285, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and Commandant, MarineCorps, 1995.12 D. Hank Ellison, Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents, (Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press) 2000.13 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Medical Management of Chemical CasualtiesHandbook, Third Edition,United States Army Medical Research Institute of ChemicalDefense, August, 1999.14 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons ofMass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC-115, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,December 1993).15 For example, Jonathan B. Tucker, Director, Chemical & Biological NonproliferationProgram, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies,

(continued...)

pyridostigmine bromide, may create a larger window for effective treatments forsome nerve agents.10

Blister Agents

Blister agents, also known as vesicants, are chemicals that cause painfulblistering of the skin. While such blistering is not generally lethal, the excruciatingpain caused by blister agents requires full body protection against these chemicals.Militarily, blister agents produce casualties and reduce the combat effectiveness ofopposing troops by requiring them to wear bulky protective equipment.11 The mostcommon blister agent is mustard agents, which includes nitrogen- and sulfur-basedcompounds. Mustard agents are oily liquids which range in color from very paleyellow to dark brown, depending on the type and purity, and have a faint odor ofmustard, onion or garlic.12 These liquids evaporate quickly, and their vapors are alsoinjurious.

Blister agents are not naturally occurring compounds. Mustard agents, forexample, were first developed in the late 1800s. During World War I, both sides inthe conflict used these weapons against their enemies, and the mustard-type blisteragent produced the greatest number of chemical casualties during World War I,though fewer than 5% of these casualties died. Many countries have stockpiledblister agents in their chemical weapon inventories. Mustard agent was alsoreportedly used in the Iran-Iraq war.13 The United States is currently destroying itsstockpile of blister agents.

Production. Production of blister agents is considered less complicated thanthat of nerve agents.14 Like nerve agents, it requires the use of some toxic chemicalsand specialized equipment to contain the agent produced. The most common blisteragents have many different methods for their production published in the openliterature.15

CRS-5

15 (...continued)testified that there are at least nine published methods to manufacture sulfur mustard agent.Testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee onInternational Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, November 7, 2001.16 Draft Toxicological Profile for Mustard Gas, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,September, 2001.17 Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries,FM-8285, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and Commandant, MarineCorps, 1995.18 Daniel J. Dire, “CBRNE - Vesicants, Mustard: HD, HN1-3, H,” eMedicine KnowledgeBase, January 13, 2003 found online at [http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic901.htm].19 During World War I, mild conjunctivitis accounted for 75% of eye injuries, with recoveryin one to two weeks. Moderate conjunctivitis with complications accounted for 15% of thecases, with recovery in four to six weeks. Severe corneal damage accounted for 10% of thecases. Those with permanent corneal damage accounted for less than 1% of cases. About0.1% of these severe casualties would meet the criteria for legal blindness today. Daniel J.Dire, “CBRNE - Vesicants, Mustard: HD, HN1-3, H,” eMedicine Knowledge Base, January13, 2003, found online at [http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic901.htm].20 Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries,FM-8285, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and Commandant, MarineCorps, 1995.

Effects. Blister agents can enter the body through the lungs or by contact withthe skin or eyes. Some can penetrate through normal clothing material, causing burnsin areas that were covered by cloth. While blister agents react quickly upon skincontact, their symptoms may be delayed. In the case of mustard agent, damageoccurs within 1-2 minutes of exposure, but symptoms do not manifest for severalhours.16 As even low concentration of vaporized blister agent quickly causesdamage, it is unlikely that agents will be removed from the skin prior to injury.

The initial symptoms of blister agent exposure are a reddening of the skin,resembling sunburn, combined with pain in the effected area. Swelling, blisters, andlesions may then develop depending on the degree of exposure. Systemic symptomssuch as malaise, vomiting, and fever may also develop in extreme cases.17 Exposureto large amounts of liquid mustard agent may prove fatal.18

The eyes are also very sensitive to blister agents. At high vapor exposures, greatpain, corneal damage, and scarring between the iris and lens may occur. The mostsevere eye damage is often caused by liquid agent, either from contact with airbornedroplets or by self-contamination of the eyes from contaminated clothing or bodyparts.19

Victims inhaling blister agents may suffer damage to their lungs. While asingle, low-level exposure will likely produce only temporary impairment, highconcentrations or repeated exposures may cause permanent damage. Inhalationvictims may have symptoms ranging from mild bronchitis to blistering of the lungs.20

CRS-6

21 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Field Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook,Second Edition, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, July, 2000.22 For examples of small toxic gas leaks, see Charles Shumaker and Ken Ward Jr, “ChlorineLeak Closes South Charleston,” The Charleston Gazette, January 29, 2002 and “AmmoniaLeak Forces Evacuation,” The Clarion-Ledger, February 24, 2003.23 A. Boserup, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare — Volume I — The Riseof CB Weapons, (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiskell), 1973.24 Scott R. Burnell, “Be Prepared: Act Fast in a Chem Attack,” The Washington Times,February 12, 2003.25 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Medical Management of Chemical CasualtiesHandbook, Third Edition, United States Army Medical Research Institute of ChemicalDefense, August, 1999.

Treatment. Damage from blister agent exposure, lesions and other skinirritations, is symptomatically treated. Hospitalization may be required forrespiratory tract injuries. Victims who suffer severe lung damage may requiremechanical ventilation. An additional complication after exposure to large amountsof mustard agent is a general weakening of the whole immune system. Because ofthese systemic effects, special precautions must be taken against opportunisticinfections in the case of exposure to high concentration of mustard agent.21

Choking Agents

Chemicals that act on the lungs, causing difficulty in breathing and, potentially,permanent lung damage are known as choking agents. Examples of choking agentsinclude chlorine, ammonia, and phosgene. Choking agents have historically beenused during wartime, and are sometimes encountered during industrial accidents.22

Choking agents are generally gases that have marked odors and may color thesurrounding air.

Production. Many choking agents are dual-use chemicals with both a civilianand a military purpose. Chlorine and ammonia are both used in large quantities forcommercial applications, while phosgene is used within the chemical industry.Methods for producing choking agents are well known, but may be technicallychallenging. Choking agents require specialized equipment to produce, compress,and contain them. Choking agents were also manufactured for wartime use, and wereextensively used during World War I. The first major, successful, chemical attackof the war used chlorine gas at Ypres in 1915.23 Chlorine gas was later supplementedby phosgene use, which caused greater casualties.24

Effects. Choking agents injure their victims through inhalation, with acomparatively mild effect on the skin. Exposure to low chemical concentrationscauses chest discomfort or shortness of breath, irritation of nose and throat, andtearing eyes. High agent concentrations may quickly cause swelling of the lungs,respiratory failure, and possibly death. Symptoms of lung damage can occur up to48 hours after inhalation of moderate concentrations, and often do not manifestthemselves until the lungs are aggravated by physical effort.25

CRS-7

26 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Field Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook,Second Edition, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, July, 2000.27 NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive Operations, AmedP-6(B),Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February, 1996.28 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Medical Management of Chemical CasualtiesHandbook, Third Edition, United States Army Medical Research Institute of ChemicalDefense, August, 1999.29 J. H. Barrington, Ed., The Zyklon B Trial: Trial of Bruno Tesch and Two Others, (London)1948.30 Stephanie Nolen, “Kurds Dread Another Yellow Sky of Death,” The Globe and Mail,February 15, 2003

Treatment. Victims of choking agents are generally treated symptomatically.Because lung damage may be exacerbated by exercise, victims are kept at rest untilthe danger of fluid in the lungs is past. Symptoms such as tightness of the chest andcoughing are treated with immediate rest and comfort. Shallow breathing andinsufficient oxygen may require supplemental oxygen.26

Swelling and accumulation of fluids in the lungs are likely after exposure to ahigh dose of choking agent. Administration of corticosteroids has beenrecommended in cases of fluid accumulation, but their beneficial effects have notbeen proven.27 Rest, warmth, sedation, and oxygen are still the primary treatments,even in the case of marked edema.

Blood Agents

Blood agents are chemicals that interfere with oxygen utilization at the cellularlevel. Hydrogen cyanide and cyanide salts are agents in this group. Hydrogencyanide is a very volatile gas, smelling of almonds, while cyanide salts are odorlesssolids.

Hydrogen cyanide was considered for use as a chemical warfare agent, but wasrarely used in military situations because its effectiveness was limited by its quickdispersion. The French manufactured hydrogen cyanide as a military agent duringWorld War I.28 Hydrogen cyanide was used in other situations though; the principleagent used to kill individuals in German World War II concentration camps, ZyklonB, used hydrogen cyanide as its active agent.29 Hydrogen cyanide use has beenattributed to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war.30

Production. Hydrogen cyanide and cyanide salts are now used as industrialchemicals, having application in the chemical, electroplating, and mining industries.As with choking agents, methods for producing blood agents are relatively well-known. However, the gaseous nature of hydrogen cyanide complicates productionand storage.

CRS-8

31 Draft Toxicological Profile for Cyanide, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September,1997.32 Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries,FM-8285, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and Commandant, MarineCorps, 1995.33 Chemical Casualty Care Division, Medical Management of Chemical CasualtiesHandbook, Third Edition, United States Army Medical Research Institute of ChemicalDefense, August, 1999.

Effects. Blood agents act through inhalation or ingestion and impair cellularoxygen use.31 The central nervous system is especially susceptible to this effect, andblood agents usually cause death through oxygen starvation of brain cells. Thesymptoms of blood agent exposure depend upon the agent concentration and theduration of exposure. In mild cases, there may be headache, dizziness, and nauseafor several hours, followed by complete spontaneous recovery. Higher concentrationor longer exposure may additionally cause convulsions and coma. Very highconcentrations may lead to powerful gasping for breath, violent convulsions, andcardiac failure within a few minutes.32

Treatment. The effects of blood agents are reversed through treatment withspecific antidotes: either amyl or sodium nitrite combined with sodium thiosulfate.The combination of these two chemicals removes cyanide, the active compound inblood agents, from the body. When symptoms such as convulsion or depressedbreathing are present, ventilation with oxygen and administration of anticonvulsantsare used. Cyanide is metabolized more readily than most chemical weapons; withprompt treatment, victims may recover from otherwise-fatal doses.33

Protection Against Chemical Agents

Protection against chemical agents is predominantly achieved through physical,rather than medicinal, means. Physical protections limit exposure by protecting theeyes, lungs, and/or skin from chemical contact.

Physical

Physical protection against chemical agents includes gas masks and specialprotective clothing. Gas mask filters equipped with chemical filters are effectiveagainst inhaled chemical agents, but may not provide sufficient protection againstchemical agents active on skin contact, such as VX or mustard agents, or highconcentrations of other nerve agents.

Gas mask filters are normally constructed from layers of activated charcoal andfine porous material to remove particles and chemicals from the airstream. Theactivated charcoal binds chemicals, preventing them from being inhaled. Each gas

CRS-9

34 “Chemical Defense Equipment” by Michael R. O’Hern, Thomas R. Dashiell, and MaryFrances Tracy, Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, Chapter 16, pp.361-396.35 Information Paper: Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) and ChemicalProtection, Department of Defense, October 30, 1997.36 The Food and Drug Administration has approved this compound for military treatment ofSoman exposure. Pyridostigmine bromide has limited treatment effectiveness against othernerve agents. FDA News, “FDA Approves Pyridostigmine Bromide as Pretreatment AgainstNerve Gas,” US Department of Health and Human Services, February 5, 2003.37 For more information regarding SERPACWA, see Cindy Kronman, “Army GrantsCommercial License for Topical Skin Protectant Technology,” Chemical and BiologicalDefense Information Analysts Center Newsletter, Spring, 2003.

mask filter has a finite capacity, proportional to the amount of unbound activatedcharcoal remaining, and so has a limited lifetime once put into operation.34

For those chemical weapons that cause effect upon skin contact, a protectivegarment is required. These garments range in complexity and protective ability.Hazardous materials suits are typically suits made of layered rubber with activatedcharcoal. In comparison, military battle dress overgarments designed to protectagainst chemical weapons in the battlefield are generally cloth, sometimes treated toresist absorbing liquids, containing a layer of charcoal-impregnated foam.35 Therubber in protective equipment is impermeable to most chemical agents, while theactivated charcoal acts in a manner similar to a gas mask filter. The combination ofmask and suit provides full protection against most chemical exposures.

Medical

There are few examples of medical prophylaxis against chemical weapons.Unlike some biological pathogens, there are no vaccines to provide immunity fromthe effects of these weapons. However, some protection against the nerve agentSoman can be achieved by the pre-exposure use of pyridostigmine bromide.Pyridostigmine bromide acts to supplement post-exposure administration of the nerveagent antidotes atropine and pralidoxime chloride. Use of pyridostigmine bromideprevents permanent binding of nerve agents within the nervous system.Pyridostigmine bromide use is recommended only when there is a high imminentthreat of chemical weapon use, as it has noticeable side effects.36

As an added protection against chemical weapons which cause their effectsthrough skin contact, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defensehas developed a chemical resistant topical skin cream. The Skin Exposure ReductionPaste Against Chemical Warfare Agents, also known as SERPACWA, is designedto complement chemical protective equipment provided to soldiers in the field.37

Decontamination

Decontamination, where chemicals are removed from the victims, usuallythrough washing the eyes and skin with water and (against some chemical agents) a

CRS-10

38 Liudvikas Jagminas and Dennis P. Erdman, “CBRNE-Chemical Decontamination,”eMedicine Knowledge Base, October 15, 2001.39 Following the 1995 Sarin attack in the Tokyo subway, it was determined that 10% of theemergency medical technicians who transported victims to the hospital and 23% of thehospital staff workers who treated those victims developed symptoms of Sarin exposure.Jonathan B. Tucker, “Chemical Terrorism: Assessing Threats and Responses,” in High-Impact Terrorism: Proceedings of a Russian American Workshop, (Washington, DC:National Academy Press) 2002.

dilute bleach solution, is an essential protection against secondary chemicalexposure.38 In addition to stopping the victim’s exposure to the chemical agent, thisprocedure prevents those treating the victim from becoming victims themselves, andavoids contamination of treatment facilities.39 Decontamination is especiallyimportant in those cases where victims have encountered liquid chemical agents, andmay have significant amounts of chemical agent trapped in their garments. In eventswith gaseous agents, decontamination may be less critical. After decontaminationis completed, treatment of the victims occurs, in some cases with agent-specificantidotes while in others, symptomatic treatment is performed.

Detection of Chemical Agents

Chemical weapons detection has been predominantly an area of concern formilitary planners, although the manufacture of some of these agents for commercialuse requires detection capabilities at manufacturing plants and by hazardous-materials first responders. While some military units have equipment designated forchemical weapon detection, civilian first responders use a variety of commercialequipment to detect and identify a wide range of chemicals.

Because of the wide spectrum of chemical agents, the development of aportable, integrated instrument which quickly detects all chemical agents remains anarea of research and development. The Department of Defense currently employs aseries of technologies to detect and identify chemical agents, including personalsensors, automated atmospheric sampling, and field-adapted laboratory methods forbattlefield use.

Detection of chemical agents can serve many purposes. One is to providewarning of a chemical attack, allowing additional time to react to a terror event.Another is to identify the chemical agent used in an attack. This might provide forbetter treatment and more effective response. Finally, determining when an area isclear of chemical agents after a terror attack requires sensitive post-event detection.

There are techniques for detecting chemical agents that are based on samplingthe local environment. Detection paper, tickets, and tubes are examples of suchtechniques. Detection paper is absorbent paper impregnated with special dyes.When a drop of chemical agent is absorbed by the paper, it dissolves one of thepigments, causing the paper to change color. Detection tickets are used in a mannersimilar to detection paper. The ticket is waved in the air or used with a hand pumpto determine if chemical agents are present. Detection tubes use a similar

CRS-11

40 Griffin Davis and Gabor Kelen, “CBRNE - Chemical Detection Equipment,” eMedicineKnowledge Base, October 15, 2001, found online at [http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic924.htm].41 Institute of Medicine, Chemical and Biological Terrorism: Research and Developmentto Improve Civilian Medical Response, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press) 1999.42 Daniel M. Nowak, Chemical Detection on Mobile and Armored Vehicles, US ArmyGround Vehicle Survivability Symposium , 1999.43 For more on this topic see CRS Report RL31680 Homeland Security: Standards for Stateand Local Preparedness by Ben Canada.44 Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief (FY2004), found online at[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/FY_2004_BUDGET_IN_BRIEF.pdf]45 National Institute of Justice, Guide for the Selection of Chemical Agent and ToxicIndustrial Material Detection Equipment for Emergency First Responders, US Departmentof Justice, June, 2000.46 This program was moved to the Department of Homeland Security. For more informationregarding the Metropolitan Medical Response System, see online at [http://www.mmrs.hhs.gov].47 The Department of Health and Human Services has set as a goal the inclusion of 200

(continued...)

technology, but rely on a hand pump to draw air samples through the tube, whichdiscolors in the presence of an agent. A disadvantage to these techniques is that othersubstances can also dissolve these pigments, causing false positives.40 The pigmentsinvolved can be specific to a type of agent, so an array of papers, tickets, or tubesmay be required to identify the exact agent encountered.

Handheld detectors, such as the Chemical Agent Monitor (CAM), are able todetect some chemical agents, namely mustard agents and nerve agents, at levels thatare below the lethal threshold, but above the acceptable daily exposure limit forcivilians.41 Automatic sampling devices, such as the Automatic Chemical AgentDetector/Alarm (ACADA), are also employed to provide automated, constantatmospheric sampling.42 These devices sometimes use a technique called ionmobility spectroscopy to detect the presence of chemical agents.

Much of the above equipment is commercially available, and could be used byhazardous material response teams to assess potential terrorist activity. Typically,hazardous material response teams are equipped with detection paper, tickets, ortubes, but these teams have differing requirements regarding equipmentstandardization.43 The President has requested FY2004 funding for the Departmentof Homeland Security for research on standards for first responder detectionequipment.44 To aid first responders in choosing the best or most appropriate systemfor their use, the National Institute of Justice has provided guidelines to assessvarious types of detectors.45 Supplementing first responders is the MetropolitanMedical Response System, a federal program to enhance local capabilities in theevent of a terrorist incident.46 Ninety-seven metropolitan areas are involved in thissystem and maintain additional chemical detection, treatment, and decontaminationequipment.47

CRS-12

47 (...continued)metropolitan areas in the MMRS by FY 2006. US Department of Health and HumanServices Fact Sheet, Medical Response in Emergencies: HHS Role, January 25, 2001.48 For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have established theNational Electronic Disease Surveillance System to more quickly identify and respond topublic health threats. For more information on the National Electronic Disease SurveillanceSystem, see [http://www.cdc.gov/nedss/].49 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Summary on the Laboratory ResponseNetwork, April 17, 2002.50 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons ofMass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC-115, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,December 1993).51 For an overview of the Aum Shinrikyo use of sarin in the Tokyo subway system, seeDavid E. Kaplan, “Aum Shinrikyo (1995)” in Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use ofChemical and Biological Weapons, Jonathan B. Tucker, Ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

(continued...)

Public Health Monitoring

Another way of detecting a chemical terrorism event would be through thepublic health system. The sudden arrival of chemical casualties in local hospitalswill quickly alert health care professionals. Since September 11, 2001 increases inpublic health networking has improved information sharing between localities.48

This may increase the likelihood of identifying, for example, a covert release ofblister agent through identification of symptoms. Public health monitoring also mayaid in forensic investigations following a covert event, especially if symptoms aredelayed. Such public health monitoring may also provide opportunities to identifyterrorists who may have self-inflicted chemical weapon injuries. Additionally, theLaboratory Response Network has been established, which links together diagnosticlaboratories for the identification of chemical agents, as well as disease outbreaks.49

Chemical Agents as Weapons of Terror Rather Thanas Weapons of Mass Destruction

Many experts believe that it would be difficult for terrorist groups to usechemical agents as weapons of mass destruction. Even VX, the most lethal of nerveagents, would require tons, spread uniformly and efficiently, to kill 50% of the peoplein a 100 km2 area.50 On the other hand, chemical agents might be effectively used asweapons of terror in situations where limited or enclosed space might decrease therequired amounts of chemical. That is, the use of the weapon itself, even if casualtiesare few, could cause fear that would magnify the attack’s effect beyond what wouldbe expected based solely on the number of casualties.

There have been few examples of successful chemical terror attacks. In 1995,Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese apocalyptic cult, used Sarin on the Tokyo subway. Theattack killed 12 people and sent more than 5,000 to the hospital with some degree ofinjury.51 This same cult reportedly carried out an attack in Matsumoto as well, where

CRS-13

51 (...continued)2000.52 A fact sheet regarding the Matsumoto incident can be found at the Chemical andBiological Arms Control Institute, online at [http://www.cbaci.org/matsumot.htm].53 The first use of chlorine, at Ypres in 1915, was a release of 168 tons of chlorine gas. Itis estimated to have killed 5,000 unprotected Allied troops. 54 For example, the deliberate explosion on a rail-car of liquified chlorine is used as anexample in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Regional EmergencyCoordination Plan, found online at [http://www.mwcog.org/homeland_plan/RESF_download.htm].55 For a representative example, see Fred Reed, “Modern Realities Do Favor Terrorists,” TheWashington Times, February 13, 2003.56 Cyanide salts have been used to poison over-the-counter medications. A number ofpeople, seven in 1982, one in 1987, and two in 1993, have died from cyanide poisoningfollowing the use of over-the-counter medications which had been tampered with. See

(continued...)

7 people were killed and over 200 injured.52 Both of these attacks used G-seriesnerve agents, which are more toxic through inhalation than by contact. V-seriesagents employed in a similar manner might have caused greater fatalities.

In comparison, blister agents would likely be less lethal, but more injurious, ifused in a similar manner. Blister agents are dermally active, so inhalation of theagent would not be necessary to cause injury. Additionally, since mustard agentvapor penetrates most fabrics, victims near the point of release might suffergrievously. Blister agents, while not likely to cause mass destruction, might causemass terror and injury.

Choking agents are no longer considered to be useful military weapons, aschemical suits and masks provide high protection. As a weapon of mass destructionused against civilians, the comparatively low lethality of choking agents complicatestheir use as a weapon of mass destruction, since very large volumes would beneeded.53 On the other hand, the industrial availability of some choking agentsprovides opportunities for acquisition and subsequent use of potentially very largevolumes of such agents. For example, the United States produces approximately 1billion pounds of chlorine a year for use in water treatment facilities. The potentialvulnerability of chlorine-filled rail tank cars, by which chlorine is primarilytransported, has been noted.54 Terrorist attack on industrial stores at chemical orwater treatment facilities or during shipment has been raised as another potentialsource of concern.55

Blood agents may be difficult to employ as weapons of mass destruction formany of the same reasons as choking agents. The quick dispersal of blood agents,combined with the large amounts necessary to cause mass casualties, make suchagents difficult to use on a mass scale. Even those blood agents which areindustrially manufactured are often used on-site without being shipped. However,terrorist groups seem to be increasingly interested in these agents, perhaps becauseof criminal use of them.56

CRS-14

56 (...continued)“Sudafed Tamperer Gets Life With No Parole,” United Press International, June 8, 1993.57 For an overview of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, see John V. Parachini, “TheWorld Trade Center Bombers (1993),” in Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use ofChemical and Biological Weapons, Jonathan B. Tucker, Ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)2000.58 “Key Cultist Sentenced to Die for Role in Two Sarin Attacks: Court Rejects Defendant’sClaim He Feared Asahara,” The Japan Times, June 30, 2000.59 An overview of this event is provided in Eric Croddy, Matthew Osborne, and KimberlyMcCloud, “Chemical Terrorist Plot in Rome?” Research Story of the Week, Center forNonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, March 11, 2002.60 “NZ Newspaper Receives Second Cyanide Threat Letter,” Reuters, March 4, 2003.61 “Bin Laden Claims to Have Nuclear Weapons in Interview with Pakistani Newspaper,”Associated Press, November 10, 2001.62 Sharon Theimer, “Chemical Weapons Training Revealed,” Associated Press, September25, 2001.63 Stephen Grey, Dipesh Gadher and Joe Lauria, “What Bin Laden Taught Ressam: fromGruesome Experiments with Poison Gas to the Art of Bomb-Making,” The Ottawa Citizen,October 7, 2001.

Ramzi Yousef, convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, stated hehad intended to include sodium cyanide in that bomb, in order to create a cloud ofcyanide gas.57 While a small amount of cyanide was found in the supplies of thebombers, there was no evidence that this had been done. In 1995, following the Sarinattack, members of Aum Shinrikyo attempted an attack in Tokyo by setting fire to aplastic bag of sodium cyanide positioned next to a bag of an acid. A similarcombination of chemicals was discovered the following month in another station.Both devices were successfully disarmed.58 In 2002, Italian police arrested fourMoroccan men possessing potassium ferrocyanide. It was reported that the menarrested planned to poison the water supply using the potassium ferrocyanide. It isquestionable how effective this would have been, considering the volume of thewater supply and the amount of potassium ferrocyanide found in their possession.59

A group calling itself September 11 threatened the use of cyanide to disrupt theAmerica’s Cup boat race in New Zealand.60

It is believed that the al Qaeda terrorist group has produced and developed plansfor the employment of chemical weapons, including hydrogen cyanide. Osama binLaden has stated that al Qaeda has a chemical capability.61 Ahmed Ressam,convicted in a plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport, testified he had received trainingin the use of hydrogen cyanide in Afghanistan at an al Qaeda training camp.62 Thetraining described included the production of hydrogen cyanide using cyanide saltsand acids, demonstrations of the effectiveness of the agent by exposing dogs to it,and introducing the agent into building ventilation systems by placing a source nearthe air intakes.63 CNN also located and retrieved videotapes from Afghanistan whichportray the results of testing of unknown chemical agents on dogs. It has been

CRS-15

64 Nic Robertson, “Disturbing Scenes of Death Show Capability with Chemical Gas,” CNN,August 19, 2002.65 The Chemical Weapons Convention is the short title of Convention on the Prohibition ofthe Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on TheirDestruction. 66 Information on the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Australia Group and the ChemicalWeapons Convention is found online at [http://www.wassenaar.org/],[http://www.opcw.org/], and [http://www.australiagroup.net]. The United States agreed tothe Wassenaar Arrangement in 1996, ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997,and is a charter member of the Australia Group.67 For more information on the Chemical Weapons Convention, see CRS Issue BriefIB94029 Chemical Weapons Convention: Issues for Congress by Steven R. Bowman. 68 Export Administration Regulations can be found at 15 CFR Parts 730-774. InternationalTraffic in Arms Regulations can be found at 22 CFR Parts 120-130.69 This program, renamed Project Shield America, was transferred to the Department of

(continued...)

suggested that the chemical agent used in those videotapes was a blood agent, mostlikely hydrogen cyanide.64

Current Policy

Export Control

Treaties and multinational agreements are used to control internationalproliferation of chemical weapons. These multinational programs inhibitproliferation by increasing the technical barriers to weapon production and thedifficulties of obtaining required precursor chemicals. Examples of such multilateralcontrols include the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Chemical Weapons Convention,65

and the Australia Group.66 The Chemical Weapons Convention provides lists ofchemicals which are to be controlled through national export regulation. Thesechemicals include chemical weapons themselves and select precursor chemicalswhich might be used to develop chemical weapons. In conjunction with these listsfor export controls are criteria and a mechanism for inspection visits of facilitiessuspected of being used to develop chemical weapons.67 U.S. export controls aimedat creating proliferation barriers include Export Administration Regulations andInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations.68

Industry Self-regulation

Other mechanisms, including voluntary governmental programs, increasedcontacts between suppliers and purchasers, and industrial best practices, are currentlyused to monitor sale of dual-use chemicals. The Department of Treasury developeda program called “Operation Shield America,” where Customs agents visit U.S. firmsmanufacturing or distributing technologies and materials which may interest terroristgroups.69 These agents provide firms with information about U.S. export controls

CRS-16

69 (...continued)Homeland Security and is now operated by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protectionwithin the Border and Transportation Directorate.70 For more information on Project Shield America, see [http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/enforcement/ice/investigative_priorities/ecee/]. 71 Members of the American Chemistry Council have adopted a Responsible Care SecurityCode to limit the effects of terrorist attacks or infiltration at their facilities. See Protectinga Nation: Homeland Defense and the Business of Chemistry, American Chemistry Council,2002. Other industry groups have developed similar plans. See Biosafety and Biosecurity— Industry Best Practices to Prevent Misuse of Biohazardous Material, Interpharma, May,2002.72 For more information on chemical plant security, see CRS Report RL31530 ChemicalPlant Security by Linda-Jo Schierow.73 U.S. General Accounting Office, Security of Chemical Facilities, GAO-03-439, March,2003.

and request that vendors notify the Customs Service if they are approached bycustomers looking to acquire and export their products illegally.70 Some industries,such as parts of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, are developing bestpractices programs to limit potential misuse of dual-use equipment, equipment withboth a civilian and military use. These practices include higher physical security oflaboratory and production facilities.71

Members of some industries have also developed security plans and self-regulatory mechanisms. For example, the American Chemistry Council, a chemicalindustrial group, requires its members to adhere to its Responsible Care SecurityCode. This code has multiple phases including: prioritizing facilities; assessing thephysical security procedures at each facility; developing and implementing anyidentified flaws or risks; and conducting external and internal audits of facilitysecurity programs.72 The General Accounting Office has stated that the extent ofsecurity preparedness at chemical facilities is unknown and that such voluntaryefforts only reach a fraction of the total number of chemical facilities.73

Research and Development

Federal agencies currently involved in research and development related tochemical weapons countermeasures include the Department of Health and HumanServices, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and theDepartment of Defense. Research being performed in areas related to chemicalweapons includes: biomedical research; increasing detector sensitivity; and obtainingbetter scientific understanding of the behavior of chemical releases.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directoratewill fund research and development activities against chemical terrorism. TheFY2004 budget request contains $65 million for Chemical/High ExplosivesCountermeasures, which includes developing better technologies for chemicaldetection in air and water, chemical weapons forensics, and civilian chemical defense

CRS-17

74 Department of Homeland Security, Budget in Brief (FY2004), found online at[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/assetlibrary/FY_2004_BUDGET_IN_BRIEF.pdf].75 For more information on the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Chem-Bio Defense, see[http://www.dtra.mil/cb/cb_index.html].76 For more information on the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense,see [http://chemdef.apgea.army.mil/]. For more information on the U.S. Army Soldier andBiological Chemical Command, see [http://www.sbccom.army.mil/].77 BAE Systems is developing the Joint Chemical Agent Detector. For more information onthe Joint Chemical Agent Detector, see [http://www.jcad.baesystems.com/jcad_1.htm].78 The µChemLab system is under development at Sandia National Laboratories. For moreinformation on the µChemLab system, see[http://www.ca.sandia.gov/microchem/McCmLab.pdf].79 For an example of such research, see “Containing the Effects of Chemical and Biological

(continued...)

systems; and $25 million for a Standards Program, part of which will develop testand evaluation criteria for first responder detection equipment.74

Biomedical Research. The United States government continues defensiveresearch into chemical weapons. This research includes enhancing and improvingmedical treatments for victims of chemical weapon exposure and increasingunderstanding of the fundamental mechanisms of chemical weapon action. Some ofthis research is carried out by the Department of Defense, coordinated by the DefenseThreat Reduction Agency.75 The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of ChemicalDefense and U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command perform researchand development activities, while other research aspects are performed throughoutside contracts.76

Increasing Detector Sensitivity. There are a range of programs engagedin developing new or improved detectors for chemical weapons. Improvements aresought in sensitivity, speed, applicability, and other factors. These programs arelocated in the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and theEnvironmental Protection Agency.

The Department of Defense is developing the next generation of chemical agentdetectors. It has funded the development and testing of the Joint Chemical AgentDetector, a sensitive, multi-agent detection system intended for individual use ornetworked as perimeter detection.77 Other research, performed at Department ofEnergy laboratories, has resulted in the µChemLab system, a portable, hand-helddevice incorporating “lab on a chip” analysis systems.78 These devices are in thedevelopment and production stages.

Better Understanding of Chemical Releases. Chemical releases maybe modeled using powerful computer programs. This ability may aid in determiningthe potential extent of contamination, areas of likely effect, and the need forevacuation. Additionally, the science of particle/droplet formation, diffusion anddispersal, and technologies for cloud-monitoring and identification are areas whereresearch continues to be funded.79

CRS-18

79 (...continued)Agents in Buildings,” EETD Newsletter, Spring, 2002. For more information on modelingairborne toxic releases, see the Urban Security Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory,found online at [http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/d/d4/aquality/urban.html].80 More information on the Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force can be foundonline at [http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/4thmeb/cbirf.htm].81 Steve Vogel, “Specialized Marine Unit Readies To Respond to the Unthinkable: ForceTrains for Chemical, Biological or Radiological Attacks,” The Washington Post, February17, 2003. 82 FBI Laboratory 2001 Report, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001.83 More information can be found online at [http://teu.sbccom.army.mil/].84 For more information see CRS Report RL31791, Emergency Management Funding forthe Department of Homeland Security: Information and Issues for FY2004 by Keith Bea,Coordinator, Rob Buschmann, Ben Canada, Wayne Morrissey, C. Stephen Redhead, andShawn Reese.

Federal Response Teams

There are numerous federal response teams which could be deployed in theevent of chemical terrorism. In general, these teams would support local respondersin detection, decontamination, or treatment roles. A selection of these teams will bedescribed below.

One response team is the DOD’s Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force(CBIRF).80 CBIRF can be deployed to aid in consequence management after achemical or biological terror attack. It possesses both decontamination and treatmentfacilities and can be deployed domestically or internationally at short notice. Thisrapid response force was deployed at the Atlanta Olympics and is equipped with stateof the art equipment for chemical and biological threats. It is located at Indian Head,Maryland, and could be deployed in the case of chemical terrorism.81

The Federal Bureau of Investigation maintains a Hazardous Materials ResponseUnit which, in response to crimes involving chemical weapons, would be availableto analyze and identify chemicals and threats present. This unit provided site-safetyassessments during the September 11, 2001 attacks.82

The U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit conducts chemical detection,decontamination, and remediation of chemical devices or hazards worldwide. Whiletypically deployed to handle and secure discovered chemical munitions, they alsohave been used to provide support to other large national events.83

As part of the National Disaster Medical System, Disaster Mortuary OperationalResponse Teams, Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, and four National MedicalResponse Teams are available to be deployed to the scene of a national emergency.This program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security and is nowlocated within the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.84

CRS-19

85 Theft of some high-threat agents has been reported. For example, ten tons of sodiumcyanide were stolen by hijacking a cargo truck in Mexico. Laurence Iliff, “Stolen Truckwith Cyanide Cargo Found in Mexico,” The Dallas Morning News, May 17, 2002. Therehave also been reports of anhydrous ammonia stolen from user facilities. “1,500 EvacuatedAfter Theft Causes Ammonia Leak in Washington State,” Associated Press, May 13, 2002.86 See, for example, Steve Dunham, “Securing Rail Freight,” Journal of Homeland Security,February, 2003.87 For example, the city of Baltimore is currently developing an ordinance designed to lower

(continued...)

The National Guard supports several Weapons of Mass Destruction CivilSupport Teams. They were established to support local resources in determining thenature and extent of an attack or incident. These teams are able to deploy within fourhours of a given alert.

Policy Implications

There are several areas where policymakers may wish to further address thedanger posed by terrorist acquisition and use of high-threat chemical agents: theavailability of such chemical agents; the availability of chemical detectors, theirsensitivity, and their use; the ability of first responders and diagnostic laboratories todetect, respond to, and resolve a chemical attack; the development of new treatmentsand prophylaxis; and determining whether an appropriate amount of funds andfederal attention is being given to this topic.

Chemical Availability

Chemical agent availability varies greatly. Some chemicals, notably those withcommercial or industrial use, are available for over-the-counter purchase fromchemical suppliers. Because these chemicals have a legitimate civilian use, there islittle oversight of such sales. Consequently, these chemicals may be available forpurchase or theft in large quantities.85

Regulatory mechanisms designed to increase the barriers to illicit acquisition ofdual-use chemical agents, such as mandatory identity or use verification for domesticpurchases, might reduce the relative threat. Such a proposal might add a significantburden to chemical manufacturers and distributers, as well as end-users of thesechemicals, since verification paperwork and procedures could increase manufacturingand overhead costs. Additionally, increasing acquisition barriers via purchase ofsuch agents would not address the threat posed by theft of these agents.

Dual-use chemical agents are transported, and occasionally stored, in largequantities, and it is possible that they might be stolen, or even intentionally damagedwhile in transit, as part of a terror attack. Some have advocated that the transport andstorage of these chemicals be regulated with greater strictness, with their transportlimited to less populated areas and the amounts transported or stored limited,86 andthat such facilities be made more secure.87 Others have pointed to efforts taken by

CRS-20

87 (...continued)the risk of terrorism at industrial plants. Marina Sarris, “Baltimore Security OrdinanceBeing Put Into Place,” Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, February 3, 2003.88 Carol D. Leonnig and Spencer S. Hsu, “Fearing Attack, Blue Plains Ceases ToxicChemical Use,” The Washington Post, November 10, 2001.89 For information about 108th Congress legislation regarding chemical plant security, seeCRS Report RL31530, Chemical Plant Security, by Linda-Jo Schierow..90 An intruder spotted at the Deseret Chemical Depot caused a quick mobilization of securityforces. “Intruder Spotted at Army Chemical Depot,” CNN, September 5, 2002.91 Chemical demilitarization facilities dispose of chemical weapons on their sites. DeseretChemical Depot is currently engaged in incineration of chemical weapons, and seven otherfacilities are to be constructed. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chemical DemilitarizationFact Sheet, September, 2001.92 Representative Engel introduced H.R. 726, the Chemical Attack Prevention Act, onFebruary 26, 2003. It would require licenses for the domestic sale, purchase, anddistribution of certain chemicals that are precursors to chemical weapons. It has beenreferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Tradeand Consumer Protection, where no further action has been taken as of this writing.

water officials to reduce on-site stockpiles of chemicals and to use alternatepurification methods as a model for reducing vulnerability.88

Such proposals raise the question of what an acceptable threshold for stored ortransported chemical agents might be. Railcars may contain up to ninety tons ofchemical, while other storage facilities may contain comparable amounts. Anhydrousammonia used for refrigerant purposes is sometimes stored in fifty to one hundredton amounts. Proposals involving increasing security or limiting the size of allowedtransfer or storage of chemicals might have significant economic costs. Additionalsecurity at manufacturing and transport facilities may increase the cost of thesechemicals, while requiring end-user security improvement may prove impractical.Assessing the success of such plans may also be complicated. Legislation has beenintroduced in the 108th Congress to address some of these issues.89

The availability of actual chemical weapons is severely limited. Facilities wherethey are kept have high security, and access to chemical weapons is strictlycontrolled.90 Chemical weapons in the United States are controlled in militaryfacilities.91 On the other hand, some chemical weapon precursors, such asthiodiglycol, can be domestically purchased from chemical companies in limitedquantities. Some companies have instituted a greater degree of identity and useverification for these purchases. There are many potential manufacturing methodsfor chemical weapons, and so it is possible to make them from simpler, unregulatedcompounds. However, this process would increase the manufacturing complexityand time required for production. Legislation has been introduced in the 108th

Congress to address some of these issues.92

CRS-21

93 Eugene L. Berger, “Sensitivities of Selected Chemical Detectors,” MITRE TechnicalReport, February, 2000.94 False positives are of concern for military units as well. As a partial remedy to excessivefalse positives in current military equipment, troops in the Persian Gulf were issuedchickens, which are considered especially sensitive to chemical agents, as chemical weapondetectors. Ron Claiborne, “Chicken Warnings Aren’t for the Birds: U.S. Army Units SayChickens Are Reliable Gas Attack Detectors,” ABC News, February 25, 2003.95 “Subway Defense Effort Picks Up Steam,” CBS News, September 27, 2001.

Chemical Detector Research

Policymakers may wish to direct or increase research efforts in developingreliable, sensitive chemical agent detectors. Detection of chemical agents at lowlevels is a challenging task which has not yet been uniformly achieved. The currentgeneration of Chemical Agent Monitors is not capable of detecting chemical weaponsat the acceptable exposure threshold limit.93 This greatly complicates the efforts ofhazardous materials first responders in assessing safety.

One of the trade-offs in developing sensitive chemical detectors is the risk ofdetecting a chemical similar to a chemical agent and incorrectly registering it as anagent. In a civilian system, such false positives may lead to great disruption anduncertainty.94 In contrast, false negatives, where the detector signals the absence ofa chemical agent when one is actually present, might endanger civilians.

Environmental Detection of Chemical Weapon Release

How chemical weapon detectors are to be employed in civilian society is opento question. Currently detectors are used on a case-by-case basis, generally inresponse to an emergency. Chemical weapon detectors are used to determine theextent of a hazardous release and the degree of contamination of the air andsurrounding materials. (The atmosphere is not generally monitored for chemicalweapons.) This prevailing approach is being assessed to determine if it is the mostappropriate use of such equipment.

At least one real-time chemical detection system has been installed in publictransit in Washington, DC, to detect potential chemical attacks in the WashingtonMetropolitan Transit System. Information about the extent of the system and itssensitivity is not publically available, but such a prototype system might be furtherexpanded to provide greater detection coverage within the Washington MetropolitanTransit System or installed in other public transit systems to provide chemicaldetection ability.95 Expansion of such a system might prove costly, both in initialcosts and in maintenance. An assessment of how effective the current prototypesystem has been, including whether it has an appreciable number of false signals orthe degree of testing the system has undergone in identifying compounds atappropriately low concentrations, is not publicly available.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a nationwide system of air qualitydetectors which it uses to monitor certain compounds, such as ozone and common

CRS-22

96 “U.S. Launching Bioterror Detectors: Nationwide System Uses Existing Air PollutionFilters,” MSNBC, January 22, 2003.97 Greg Seigle, “‘First Responders’ to Terrorism Seek Federal Strategy, Equipment,” GlobalSecurity Newswire, March 6, 2002.98 Kevin Flynn, “New York City Officials Defend Counterterror Training,” The New YorkTimes, February 14, 2003.99 Guide for the Selection of Personal Protection Equipment for Emergency FirstResponders, NIJ Guide 102 — 00 (Volumes I, IIa, IIb, and IIc), National Institute of Justice,November, 2002.100 Greg Seigle, “‘First Responders’ to Terrorism Seek Federal Strategy, Equipment,” GlobalSecurity Newswire, March 6, 2002.

pollutants. A prototype system for detecting biological agents has been added toselected detectors, with the goal of identifying covert biological weapon release.96

Whether a similar system could be developed to detect covert chemical weaponrelease may be of interest to policymakers. Any such system would need to besensitive and provide timely data, while also providing detector coverage for anappreciable outdoor area. In the prototype biological detection system beingimplemented, samples are taken back to a laboratory and there tested for biologicalmaterial. This may be an effective method for testing for biological weapons, asthere is usually a multi-day incubation period for infection. In contrast to biologicalweapons, chemical weapons cause their effects quickly. Any detector systemdesigned to monitor ambient air would need to respond immediately, a key criterionin a “detect-to-warn” system. A chemical weapon’s effects would be detectedthrough the arrival of victims in hospitals before a laboratory test of detector samplescould be performed.

Additionally, the utility of such a detection grid might be in question if thesystem is unable to detect small, but effective, amounts or releases which occurwithin enclosed spaces. Development and maintenance of such a system may provecostly, both in initial capital and in maintenance costs. Determining the density andlocation of such monitors may also pose a difficult policy issue. The criteria used forlocating air quality monitors may not be equally appropriate for chemical agentdetection.

First Responder Equipment and Diagnostic Laboratories

First responder equipment is currently not standardized, with each jurisdictionpurchasing its own equipment. Whether all first responders should have standardizedequipment may be a topic of Congressional interest.97 Some first responder teamsfeel well-equipped and prepared for a potential chemical attack, while others do notyet have necessary equipment.98 While the National Institute of Justice has provideda manual outlining the criteria by which chemical equipment might be assessed,99

some first responders have claimed that the federal government has not providedenough oversight and direction regarding such esoteric purchases.100 Advocates ofallowing each community to choose what equipment to provide to first responderspoint out that the needs of one community may not be the same as the next, and,because of location, population, or previous expenditures, mandating specific

CRS-23

101 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL31475 First Responder Initiative:Policy Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.102 For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL31680, Homeland Security:Standards for State and Local Preparedness, by Ben Canada.103 “Study Finds Public Health Laboratories Not Ready for Chemical Terrorism,”Association of Public Health Laboratories, February 5, 2003.104 See Chemical Terrorism Project, Ready or Not..., Association of Public HealthLaboratories, July, 2003.105 For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced ProjectBioShield, which would invest $900 million for development and storage of weapon of massdestruction countermeasures. There has been extensive action in Congress on this proposal.For detailed information, see CRS Report RS21507 Project BioShield, by Frank Gottron.

equipment purchases may not meet locality needs.101 The Department of HomelandSecurity’s Standards Program will develop test and evaluation criteria and conductanalyses for first responder detection equipment to help provide more guidance.102

The adequacy of current first responder equipment and its availability, whetherproper guidance has been given by the federal government to state and localauthorities regarding this equipment, and what steps may be required, throughoversight or legislation, to properly equip first responders, are also topics of potentialinterest to policymakers.

Another area where equipment and methodologies are not standardized is thetesting of environmental samples. State public health laboratories, which might bereasonably expected to handle analysis of samples from potentially contaminatedsites or perform confirmatory tests as to the identity of a chemical used in an attack,have reported a lack of funding and planning regarding this topic.103 The ChemicalTerrorism Project of the Association of Public Health Laboratories has developed aseries of recommendations for improving the ability of public health laboratories torespond to chemical terrorism.104 Thus, there may be interest in determining whetherfederal agencies are fulfilling their role in providing validated testing methods fordiagnostic laboratories, whether appropriate support is available for testingequipment for state laboratories, and what role the federal government should playwith respect to state laboratories.

Treatments and Prophylaxis

Because of the rarity of chemical weapon exposure, there has been little civilianmarket for new treatments and prophylactics against them. Development andidentification of medications against chemical weapons is thus an area of limitedprivate sector research. Some have argued that without federal sponsorship of suchresearch, advances in this area will be very slow, and new treatments will not besufficiently developed. They assert that the federal government should commit topurchasing fixed quantities of a successful new treatment in order to boost private-sector funding of this research.105 They point out that without an assured market, theprivate sector will not be willing to spend research and development money onproducts. Others believe that committing to the purchase of unproven treatments willnot yield the best treatments and prophylaxis possible. Finally, some assert that

CRS-24

106 General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Federal Response Teams ProvideVaried Capabilities; Opportunities Remain to Improve Coordination, GAO-01-14,November 2000.107 Jonathan B. Tucker, “Chemical Terrorism: Assessing Threats and Responses,” in High-Impact Terrorism: Proceedings of a Russian American Workshop, (Washington, DC:National Academy Press) 2002. 108 Joshua Green, “Weapons of Mass Confusion,” The Washington Monthly, May 2001.

improvements should be made to the general public health system, rather thantargeting low probability events.

Federal Emergency Response Teams

The possible use of federal response teams to augment local first respondercapabilities provokes differing responses. An investigation by the GeneralAccounting Office in 2000 found that “Federal response teams do not duplicate oneanother.”106 On the other hand, the varied teams established by these agencies havebeen called redundant.107 Also, the general structure of establishing regional teamshas been questioned, since there would be a delay in response due to required traveltime for a team.108 Others have advocated that parallel civilian and military responseteams may be necessary, since military teams might not be available to civiliansduring wartime.

Related CRS Products

CRS Report RL31332, Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Terrorist Threat, by SteveBowman.

CRS Report RL31831, Terrorist Motivations for Chemical and Biological WeaponsUse: Placing the Threat in Context, by Audrey Kurth Cronin.

CRS Report RL31669, Terrorism: Background on Chemical, Biological, and ToxinWeapons and Options for Lessening Their Impact, by Dana A. Shea.

CRS Report RL31475, First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues and Options, by BenCanada.

CRS Report RL31853, Food Safety Issues in the 108th Congress, by Donna U. Vogt.

CRS Report RL31791, Emergency Management Funding for the Department ofHomeland Security: Information and Issues for FY2004, by Keith Bea,Coordinator, Rob Buschmann, Ben Canada, Wayne Morrissey, C. StephenRedhead, and Shawn Reese.

CRS Report RL31530, Chemical Plant Security, by Linda-Jo Schierow.

CRS-25

CRS Report RL30169, Export Administration Act of 1979 Reauthorization,coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson.

CRS Issue Brief IB94029, Chemical Weapons Convention: Issues for Congress, bySteven R. Bowman.

CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status, bySharon A. Squassoni, Coordinator, Steven R. Bowman, and, Carl E. Behrens.