3 ms·

In California, this is absolutely not the case. Regulations are strict, chemical emissions are heavily restricted and proper disposal of chemicals via specializ

In California, this is absolutely not the case. Regulations are strict, chemical emissions are heavily restricted and proper disposal of chemicals via specialized companies at great expense. Chemical companies have no need of formulating new versions because everything causes cancer under prop 65. They absolutely have numerous permits for chemicals, your claim that they don't denies reality. This case probably fell through the cracks, was grandfathered in due to military importance, or is a symptom of the utter lack of industrial knowhow plaguing modern US manufacturing because much US manufacturing is legacy work from decades ago with little ability to modernize, at a plant that likely existing long before the nearby housing.

daheza 4mo ago
That's the deep dive that I want to see. A breakdown of the policy failures that lead to this situation. Why is a tank this large of a chemical that can have runaway thermal reaction allowed in an area 500ft from residential areas? Why is this chemical allowed in an area that is considered light manufacturing?
- mschuster91 4mo ago
  > Why is a tank this large of a chemical that can have runaway thermal reaction allowed in an area 500ft from residential areas? Because the tank was there first and morons came later on and said they wanted to build housing, the land was cheap and no zoning was in place to prevent someone from building housing there. Zoning saves lives.
  - MereInterest 4mo ago
    Based on this comment’s [0] comparison of historical aerial photographs, the houses were there first. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291
fc417fc802 4mo ago
The plant was built after the houses but likely well before we had anything resembling modern safety regulations regarding such things. It was presumably grandfathered in for no reason other than that arbitrarily putting someone out of business after the fact is generally frowned upon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291 That company (GKN Aerospace) was recently fined $900k by California for various violations dating to 2020 (including instances of incomplete records and missing permits). To be clear my intent isn't to single them out. I cynically assume at least some amount of that behavior to be par for the course with US chemical companies.
- lambdaone 4mo ago
  The answer to grandfathering things in is not to give them an indefinite examption from the rules; instead, give them, say, a 10 year period of exemption, giving the owner enough time to fix the defect and to spread the expense of doing so over time. It's not perfect, but eventually everything ends up being fixed.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    It depends a lot on context. That's certainly a reasonable approach in some situations. However in this instance it's not clear to me that there's any possible way to comply with modern regulations. My impression is that in general it isn't permitted to keep massive tanks of hazardous industrial chemicals 500 feet from residential housing units in the middle of the city. I think this is an example where it might have been reasonable for the taxpayers to foot a bill to facilitate their relocation 20 or 30 years ago.
    - galangalalgol 4mo ago
      Take this into context with the outsourcing of all such work to China though. Environmental regulations are assessed to be one of the largest impacts US GDP. We take that hit to protect human life, and then by all the stuff from China that they make without those regulations. We minimize any risk of harm to our citizens at the cost of their jobs, while putting the citizens of China at risk instead. My only point is that there is no right answer. It is a judgement call about how much risk we think is acceptable in trade for what modern conveniences. If paying to move the plant would cost more than what it produces provides us, we should decide whether we do without, or just accept that sometimes industrial accidents kill a few hundred people.

daheza 4mo ago

That's the deep dive that I want to see. A breakdown of the policy failures that lead to this situation. Why is a tank this large of a chemical that can have runaway thermal reaction allowed in an area 500ft from residential areas? Why is this chemical allowed in an area that is considered light manufacturing?

mschuster91 4mo ago
> Why is a tank this large of a chemical that can have runaway thermal reaction allowed in an area 500ft from residential areas? Because the tank was there first and morons came later on and said they wanted to build housing, the land was cheap and no zoning was in place to prevent someone from building housing there. Zoning saves lives.
- MereInterest 4mo ago
  Based on this comment’s [0] comparison of historical aerial photographs, the houses were there first. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291

fc417fc802 4mo ago

The plant was built after the houses but likely well before we had anything resembling modern safety regulations regarding such things. It was presumably grandfathered in for no reason other than that arbitrarily putting someone out of business after the fact is generally frowned upon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291 That company (GKN Aerospace) was recently fined $900k by California for various violations dating to 2020 (including instances of incomplete records and missing permits). To be clear my intent isn't to single them out. I cynically assume at least some amount of that behavior to be par for the course with US chemical companies.

lambdaone 4mo ago
The answer to grandfathering things in is not to give them an indefinite examption from the rules; instead, give them, say, a 10 year period of exemption, giving the owner enough time to fix the defect and to spread the expense of doing so over time. It's not perfect, but eventually everything ends up being fixed.
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  It depends a lot on context. That's certainly a reasonable approach in some situations. However in this instance it's not clear to me that there's any possible way to comply with modern regulations. My impression is that in general it isn't permitted to keep massive tanks of hazardous industrial chemicals 500 feet from residential housing units in the middle of the city. I think this is an example where it might have been reasonable for the taxpayers to foot a bill to facilitate their relocation 20 or 30 years ago.
  - galangalalgol 4mo ago
    Take this into context with the outsourcing of all such work to China though. Environmental regulations are assessed to be one of the largest impacts US GDP. We take that hit to protect human life, and then by all the stuff from China that they make without those regulations. We minimize any risk of harm to our citizens at the cost of their jobs, while putting the citizens of China at risk instead. My only point is that there is no right answer. It is a judgement call about how much risk we think is acceptable in trade for what modern conveniences. If paying to move the plant would cost more than what it produces provides us, we should decide whether we do without, or just accept that sometimes industrial accidents kill a few hundred people.