From U.S. News & World Report:

The toxic Politics of Chemicals

Securing chemical plants: legislation and obfuscation

By Angie C. Marek

Ed Massuda never would have imagined that the small manufacturing plant tucked into the corner of the industrial park where he works in Baltimore could potentially expose 139,000 people to toxic chemicals. But that's what the plant, run by Lesaffre Yeast Corp., reported to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 when forced to model what would happen in a "worst case" scenario--an event in which all the chemicals it can store on site are released into the atmosphere. "The only thing I really know about [the plant]," says Massuda, 32, who works at a pharmaceutical company nearby, "is that it makes our office stink." Massuda says he has never once been told how to evacuate.

That sort of unfamiliarity could be dangerous. More than four years after 9/11, there have been at least modest improvements in airline security, port security, and border security, but critics say there's been virtually zero progress in protecting the nation's chemical plants, some of which remain frighteningly vulnerable to terrorist attack. Now, after years of delay, new legislation is inching its way through Congress, but its fate--and ultimate impact--is still very much an open question.

Nationwide, there are some 15,000 facilities--including oil refineries, water-treatment plants, and factories--that use hazardous chemicals to manufacture paints and fertilizers. Over 100 of those plants have reported that a worst-case scenario, like a terrorist attack, could endanger more than 1 million people, according to the Congressional Research Service. "These plants are the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction prepositioned in some of the most congested parts of our country," says Stephen Flynn, a terrorism expert with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Some larger companies have dramatically stepped up security on their own, but government efforts have been a series of false starts. Former Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine introduced a bill with strict plant regulations six weeks after 9/11, but it died in committee. Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, then an adviser, and then EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman hatched an oversight plan for a handful of the riskiest facilities in 2002, but administration officials quashed it. White House documents show that industry representatives met with White House adviser Karl Rove around the same time to express their disapproval for an expanded EPA role. "These guys fight dirty," says Andy Igrejas of the National Environmental Trust. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the chemical industry and related manufacturers donated more than $27 million to campaigns over the past four election cycles, almost 80 percent of it to Republicans.

"Window dressing"? Robert Stephan, a DHS assistant secretary who oversees chemical facilities, says a small minority of plants won't let DHS officials on their premises and many more prohibit them from leaving with any written notes. The American Chemistry Council, the leading industry group, says its 2,000 chemical facilities have invested nearly $3 billion in security since 9/11 to adhere to an industry-developed set of voluntary security measures. But Sal DePasquale, a former security official with Georgia-Pacific Corp., who helped craft the code, calls it "window dressing." He says investments in cameras, fencing, and network security are "a sorry joke" compared with the highly armed teams that guard nuclear plants. DHS estimates 20 percent of the roughly 300highest-risk plants aren't even signed up for a voluntary program.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, hopes to change that. A bill she introduced last month would allow the DHS secretary to split the industry into tiers based on risk, mandate security provisions for each tier, and shutter plants that don't submit acceptable security plans. Her measure has also stirred interest in the House Committee on Homeland Security, where Rep. Peter King, the new chairman, says he'll consider legislation. A fight is expected, though, when Collins's Senate panel revises her bill and votes on it next month. Marty Durbin of the ACC says his organization hopes to eliminate a clause in the bill that allows states to be tougher on the industry than the feds; he says the ACCsimply wants uniformity nationwide. New Jersey has already enacted stringent rules. Also sure to be revisited: whether especially hazardous chemicals, like chlorine gas, should be banned or restricted in plants when safer alternatives are available. For now, Collins's bill leaves that decision up to DHS. "This bill strikes a very delicate balance between fiercely competing interests," says Richard Falkenrath, a scholar with the Brookings Institution. It remains to be seen, though, whether it's too fragile to withstand the currents of official Washington.