Feb 13, 2008 6:31pm

Toxic Gas Purchase Raises Cloud of Doubt

New York City cops were able to purchase toxic chlorine gas with such ease and no proof of identity that it raises grave concerns over how well-protected the public is from the potential terrorist use of chlorine in a chemical attack, officials said Wednesday.

To obtain liquefied chlorine, the New York City police set up a fake business and purchased the chemical online — and accepted delivery in a highly developed area — all without proof of identity.

A video of the security exercise, "Operation Green Cloud," was shown Wednesday to private sector executives and members of the media to demonstrate the ease with which the chemicals were acquired.

And New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said that a copy of the video had been sent to the Department of Homeland Security two weeks ago.

DHS is drafting regulations for security at chlorine manufacturing plants, and Kelly said he would hope that the new rules included "strict know-your-customer" protocols.

The video’s narrator explained why, "Our objective is to defend the City in the most comprehensive, effective and innovative manner possible. Over the past year, the NYPD Counterterrorism Bureau has intensified its investigation of potential terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear. What follows is a report on one recent NYPD investigation into the terrorist risk posed by one particular type of chemical weapon. The chemical we looked at was chlorine, a common industrial chemical that also presents grave toxic inhalation hazards. The investigation was called Operation Green Cloud. The primary objective was to assess the ease or difficulty with which a terrorist inside the United States could acquire large quantities of chlorine without being detected by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Our principal finding was that, at the present time, few, if any, barriers stand in his way."

In his remarks, Kelly noted that al Qaeda in Iraq has made several attempts to use chlorine outdoors in an effort to increase casualties caused by their bombs.

To date the use of chlorine gas has not added to IED fatalities, however, when it is well properly used on a battlefield or in a confined space, the effects of chlorine can be lethal.

In the video, Elana DeLozier, an intelligence research specialist at the NYPD Counterterrorism Bureau notes, "In World War I, the German Army released 168 tons of chlorine on French troops. Chlorine was used several more times in World War I, causing thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of casualties."

More recently, in the first half of 2007, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq used chlorine in conjunction with truck bombs on at least a dozen occasions, afflicting hundreds of people with chlorine-induced symptoms. To date, these chlorine attacks have only occurred in Iraq and have not produced mass fatalities.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

User Comments

Get your facts straight please:
1) Chlorine is not toxic, it just displaces air or oxygen due to its weight, which may cause suffocation if you breathe it in
2) Chlorine is heavier than air, if you were to dump it in any area, it would fall to the ground and spread as long as it does not encounter a confining barrier, creating a thin layer on thr ground, not a “cloud” as your article suggests.
This being said, it is necessary that sales of any chemical that can be used to create explosives or harmful by-products such as hydrochloridric acid, be restrained to well-known, legitimate buyers.

Posted by: treblig56 | February 14, 2008, 6:18 am 6:18 am

In response to what treblig56 wrote
” Get your facts straight please:
1)Chlorine is not toxic, it just displaces air or oxygen due to its weight, which may cause suffocation if you breathe it in. . .”
Well, if what you say is true, why does every country in the free and not so free world consider Chlorine a TIH/PIH (Toxic Inhalation Hazard/Poison Inhalation Hazard.
Are you disputing the absolute fact that chlorine, in the presence of moisture, mixes with that moisture to form Hypochlorus and Hydrochloric Acids?
Are you disputing the fact that prolonged exposure to that environment can cause sever lung injury, pulmonary edema and even death?
Are you seriously trying to convince readers that the moisture in ones eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and lungs exposed to chlorine greater than a short period of time, now formed into acid would only displace oxygen?
Not toxic?
How do you define toxic?
How about “capable of causing injury or death especially by chemical means”- Dictionary.com
What is the basis for your criticism of this article.
For your reading pleasure I attached a link to OSHA’s website referencing chlorine.
Good luck!
Next time try and be a little more informed before you are so critical.

Posted by: Rich | February 15, 2008, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm

treblig56,
I’ve worked in emergency response to chemical incidents since 1980. I’d be interested to know where you got your information, because your statements are TOTALLY FALSE.

Posted by: John C | March 10, 2008, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.