I don't necessarily agree with parts of this article, but the security issues concerning chemical manufacturing and storage must be discussed:

"War profiteers" are those who use military conflict to make a quick buck or push an agenda that would fail in peacetime. That describes various extremist environmental groups and their champion, Sen. Jon Corzine, New Jersey Democrat.
For more than a decade, these groups have tried to banish vital industrial chemicals, especially chlorine, with false and malicious claims about potential harm. Their effort failed. So now they have switched tacks and are trying to piggyback their agenda on the terrorist threat with Mr. Corzine's legislation and its alleged purpose of protecting "the public against the threat of chemical attacks."
For example, rather than giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sole charge of establishing and enforcing new chemical industry rules, Mr. Corzine would force the department to work in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency..
Yet the purpose of establishing the DHS was to pull agencies under a single authority for better coordination. Further, whom would you trust more to keep the bad guys out of a chemical plant, the FBI, CIA and the Coast Guard — or those "special ops" bureaucrats at the EPA? Parts of the Corzine bill look innocent enough unless you understand the parlance of anti-chemical legislation.
Thus, it calls for "high-priority categories" to be designated "based on the severity of the threat." The first term means "spending a bunch more bucks to reduce potential risks," which might not be bad except that "severity of the threat" is entirely theoretical. It's based on documents that environmentalists had earlier convinced Congress to force industry to prepare, called "Worst Case Scenarios."

Many of the presumptions for these scenarios are bizarre, such as the wind blowing in all directions at the same time. Neat trick, huh? Other presumptions include no obstructions such as buildings or hills, the perfect temperature for spread, and so on.
Yet the "reality scenario" is that in the past 80 years a billion tons of chlorine have been made in this country with no deaths outside any facility.
The bill also demands that, when feasible, facilities switch to "inherently safer technology." This is shorthand for drastically cutting the use of chlorine, about which Greenpeace's Joe Thornton told Science magazine in 1993, "There are no known uses... which we regard as safe."

First, the EPA has some excellent agents who know how to prevent incidents from occurring. This statement is a bit diengenuous. Second, The "Worst Case Scenarios" are exactly that; worst case. To prepare for any event you must look at it from every angle and attempt to plan a response.

After the first WTC bombing, the City of New York looked at worst case scenarios regarding another terrorist attack. They never even got close to imagining what "worst case" truly was. The existing laws were enacted to ensure that we never had a Bhopal-type disaster in our country.

The use of chlorine is essential until another less-hazardous chemical can be developed, I agree that in the mean time, chlorine is a must use product. Here is a chlorine industry website. Here is a report on deaths from chlorine use in disinfection.