12 comments

  • yungbeto2 hours ago
    Worth mentioning that in February the EPA proposed to severely deregulate chemical facilities like the one in Garden Grove, gutting third-party audits, hazard reporting, and public transparency requirements. They titled it the ‘Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention.’ The public comment window closed just eleven days before this disaster…<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.govinfo.gov&#x2F;content&#x2F;pkg&#x2F;FR-2026-02-24&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2026-03633.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.govinfo.gov&#x2F;content&#x2F;pkg&#x2F;FR-2026-02-24&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2026-0...</a>
    • anon2912 minutes ago
      It&#x27;s not like chemical spills didn&#x27;t happen before these changes though. Let&#x27;s not sensationalize. Can you directly link the change in policy t this leak?
    • drivingmenuts1 hour ago
      Yeah, what this administration calls common sense is more like dumbass sense than anything else. On almost every level.
      • thephyber19 minutes ago
        To zoom out, there’s a HUGE percentage of the US who uses “common sense” as a catch-all excuse to end all discussion.<p>In the debates I watch, they typically don’t have the mental capacity to steel man the opposition’s position so they can’t comprehend that someone else has a different intuition &#x2F; “common sense” than them.<p>Beyond that, “common sense” has become a dog whistle to both virtual signal &#x2F; vice signal to like-minded in groups and to deride outgroups. In a way, using that phrase is a way to dehumanize the person they are talking to.
      • dboreham54 minutes ago
        It&#x27;s common sense if you&#x27;re trying to make more money and are a psychopath.
  • jakzurr6 minutes ago
    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Garden_Grove_chemical_leak" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Garden_Grove_chemical_leak</a>
  • fc417fc8022 hours ago
    I&#x27;d be curious how it came to pass that 40k people were living within the blast radius of a plant processing toxic chemicals. Isn&#x27;t this sort of thing the primary justification for the existence of zoning laws?
    • Legend24401 hour ago
      The plant has been around since at least the 1970s. At the time it likely was on the edge of town, but through 50 years of urban sprawl, the town grew around it.<p>It may be even older than that. My source for the age of the site is this 1970 NASA ALSEP supplier list (from the moon program!), which lists the address as an approved manufacturer on page 38: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lpi.usra.edu&#x2F;lunar&#x2F;ALSEP&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;31111000671279.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lpi.usra.edu&#x2F;lunar&#x2F;ALSEP&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;31111000671279.pdf</a>
      • crote1 hour ago
        Surely they&#x27;ve had to get new permits over time as their operations changed? And why didn&#x27;t the presence of the plant prevent the town from growing around it?<p>There&#x27;s a home <i>430 feet</i> away from it. At that point you didn&#x27;t even <i>try</i> to create a buffer zone.
        • Legend24401 hour ago
          Their operations have not changed very much. They have always made acrylic windshields for airplanes.<p>This area is zoned as an industrial park, which doesn&#x27;t require buffer zones. Probably city planners at the time just thought of them as a windshield manufacturer and didn&#x27;t realize the potential risks.
    • Aloha2 hours ago
      The actual site of the tank is 33.78356416377991, -117.99993897629278 [1] - its in an industrial park, and its not a large scale chemical manufacturing facility.<p>Its &#x27;light manufacturing&#x27; for a company that makes custom formed acrylics for aerospace.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;33°47&#x27;00.8%22N+117°59&#x27;59.8%22W&#x2F;@33.7835642,-118.0005827,204m&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;33°47&#x27;00.8%22N+117°59&#x27;59.8...</a>
      • crote1 hour ago
        Perhaps &quot;light manufacturing&quot; is the wrong classification for this kind of business, then. Most of their neighbors are distribution warehouses, or companies doing machining or sheet metal pressing - if you ask me those are more in line with the definition of &quot;light manufacturing&quot; than the 7,000 gallon runaway exothermic reaction we&#x27;re seeing here.
      • fc417fc8022 hours ago
        I get that, but the reality is that 40k people were evacuated. Shouldn&#x27;t zoning be set up so as to prevent that? Light manufacturing in general is fine but it seems like these particular storage tanks might have been a bit too large for that location.
        • bonsai_spool2 hours ago
          &gt; I get that, but the reality is that 40k people were evacuated. Shouldn&#x27;t zoning be set up so as to prevent that?<p>It&#x27;s funny that you would suggest this about California, where it is notoriously hard to build things.<p>Accidents happen, it&#x27;s not obvious that this was a forseeable outcome (happy for corrections from folks who have expertise in this area).
          • bombcar1 hour ago
            California isn&#x27;t notoriously hard to build in - that&#x27;s a result of it being <i>incredibly conservative</i> - not politically, but &quot;anything that&#x27;s built can remain forever, nothing new can be built&quot; conservative.
            • thephyber2 minutes ago
              You’re trying to make a distinction without a difference.<p>It’s notoriously difficult to build here BECAUSE of NIMBYs, house values preservation, “preservation of character”, CEQA (a state law that gives LOTS of different people who shouldn’t have this power an effective veto for any new construction).
          • nine_k31 minutes ago
            Since the plant was around long before the homes, the homes were built around it. Zoning laws, if they existed then, should have prevented the homes from building, not the plant.
            • thephyber5 minutes ago
              I have seen this claim (the plant was there first), but I can’t find a source.<p>The nearest houses were built in 1958 according to Zillow.
        • thephyber9 minutes ago
          If you are worried about this incident, just wait until you hear about crude-by-rail! Crude is transported through LOTS of residential neighborhoods and zoning doesn’t matter. Additionally, railroads are governed by federal law so states &#x2F; local munis can’t put additional restrictions on where, when, or speed limits.
      • CharlesW2 hours ago
        That being said: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ocregister.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;05&#x2F;22&#x2F;disneyland-and-knotts-berry-farm-monitoring-garden-grove-hazmat-crisis&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ocregister.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;05&#x2F;22&#x2F;disneyland-and-knotts-...</a>
    • abtinf2 hours ago
      That area has dozens of aerospace manufacturers, building up since before WW2. People wanted to live close to work. There are lots of homes and commercial areas and industrial parks are tightly mixed together.<p>Source: I’ve worked in aerospace in Orange County.
    • anon2911 minute ago
      As someone whose childhood home is in the evac zone ... It&#x27;s a bit crazy I was living in this neighborhood my entire childhood just waiting for this to go boom<p>That being said California is very industry friendly and all the stuff about overregulation is from people who don&#x27;t get California.
    • kristjansson1 hour ago
      Because greater Los Angeles is the USA&#x27;s (post-)WWII aerospace hub disguised as a megacity and cultural production center? All sorts of folks spent the 40s-00s (scientifically) blowing stuff up in the hills, and manufacturing the resulting products down in the basin and points south. Those businesses needed labor, which needed nearby housing, and here we are.
      • ajross1 hour ago
        That&#x27;s... not really a reasonable characterization of LA&#x27;s urban growth patterns. To begin with, Hollywood quite clearly predates the aerospace buildout in the 40&#x27;s and 50&#x27;s. It was an oil production and refining hub before that, and an agricultural shipping center even before the dust bowl.<p>This particular neighborhood in Orange County certainly looks aerospacey, but I bet the Disney-centered service workers in Anaheim made up just as much of the population as the industrial folks.<p>Big cities are big for a bunch of reasons, basically. There are no simple answers at this scale.
        • anon2910 minutes ago
          This part of the OC is very defense heavy.
    • kylehotchkiss8 minutes ago
      It should have been in the disclosures for all the home purchases at least, but renters don’t get those (maybe they should?)
    • gedy1 hour ago
      Doesn&#x27;t that mean they can bike to work there?
    • jyounker2 hours ago
      Imagine how often this situation lie this would be happening without institutions like OSHA or the EPA.<p>Stuff like this happens in Texas on a fairly regular basis, but it rarely ever makes national news.
      • rectang1 hour ago
        From what I hear[1], we should be relying on the fact that environmental disasters are bad for business in a true Scotsman &quot;free market&quot;.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48238025#48240301">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=48238025#48240301</a>
  • keepamovin5 minutes ago
    Why can’t they drill it and pipe it off into some drainage pipe for cooling or collecting in trucks?<p>Divide and conquer
  • mkw50531 hour ago
    Where are all of the humanoid robots? Get them in there with whatever the oil and gas industry uses for tapping pipes&#x2F;containers under pressure. I&#x27;m only half kidding.
    • cyanydeez1 hour ago
      despite all the replace humans IT delusion, we&#x27;re pretty much still the same civilization that uses steam to generate most energy. The AI emperor has no clothese.
  • MarkusQ2 hours ago
    More fire &#x2F; explosion risk than the &quot;toxic cloud engulfs city&quot; rhetoric people have been spreading.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fishersci.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;msds?partNumber=AC127140100&amp;productDescription=METHYL+METHACRYLATE+STA+10LTM&amp;vendorId=VN00032119&amp;countryCode=US&amp;language=en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fishersci.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;msds?partNumber=AC127140100&amp;...</a>
    • nerdsniper2 hours ago
      I used to manufacture methylmethacrylate, as well as acrolein (which is often co-produced with MMA). These are among some of the more toxic chemicals currently manufactured in the USA.<p>Acrylates in general are truly awful. Our guys died with their faces boiling and breathing in their own vomit while also still vomiting. From a relatively brief exposure.<p>A bigger public risk of MMA is actually the extremely low odor threshold (in the parts per billion). The god-awful smell can make an area temporarily &quot;unlivable&quot; even below any known health thresholds. And it affects very large areas, because of the very low odor threshold.
      • pfdietz2 hours ago
        Acrolein is about 300x more toxic than methyl methacrylate in rats. Was this unfortunate victim exposed to acrolein?
        • nerdsniper2 hours ago
          Yes, I&#x27;m conflating them for dramatic effect, perhaps unfairly. If MMA is on fire, it will produce acrolein, and a lot of other chemicals as well.<p>I&#x27;ve known people who&#x27;ve died from both, separately, as well as ethyl acrylate and acrylic acid. I&#x27;ve gotten a few bursts of them in the face as well, luckily nothing too awful. I&#x27;ll repeat that acrylates in general are truly awful chemicals to be exposed to.
  • toponijo56 minutes ago
    They talk about the possibility of a spill going into the environment, but if they know it might spill, can&#x27;t they make it spill and capture it?
    • rdtsc54 minutes ago
      They are building a dam around it I read in one of the news releases maybe the one linked above
  • pfdietz2 hours ago
    The LD50 of methyl methacrylate in rates is 7-10 g&#x2F;kg. In comparison, the LD50 of table salt in rats is 3 g&#x2F;kg. So it&#x27;s not a highly toxic chemical.
    • LeifCarrotson1 hour ago
      It&#x27;s neurotoxic, a respiratory irritant, and an eye irritant.<p>No, if it&#x27;s injected in your bloodstream it won&#x27;t immediately kill you, but if you inhale a few milligrams of vapor you&#x27;ll wish you could cough up a lung.<p>Also, the vapors are heavier than air, so if you fall in a ditch near the hypothetical blown tank you would likely suffocate and die.
    • Legend24402 hours ago
      It is however highly flammable and potentially explosive when sealed in a tank, which is the main concern.
      • fc417fc8021 hour ago
        And then we need to consider the byproducts produced when it burns - both nominally as well as the sort of extremely dirty incomplete combustion an explosion would produce.
  • mmooss2 hours ago
    They say it will fail for sure, either leak or explode.<p>I wonder why they can&#x27;t drain the tank into another facility. Maybe they just lack an appropriate container.
    • scruple6 minutes ago
      I live nearby, I&#x27;m hosting some family at my home who have been evacuated. A fireman friend who has been to the site said the same. That it&#x27;ll either explode or spill and they&#x27;re banking on it spilling.
    • KZerda18 minutes ago
      The valve&#x27;s jammed, so they can&#x27;t really pump things in or out.
    • gazook892 hours ago
      I believe they are having issues with the valves, from what I’ve read.<p>But I’m just some guy.
      • btilly1 hour ago
        They are having valve problems. One of the possible reasons is that it may be turning into a solid plastic.<p>If so, that could be one of the best outcomes. As long as it does not blow up before the process completes.
        • crote1 hour ago
          Provided the plastic doesn&#x27;t need significantly more space than the source material, of course. We all know what happens when you try freezing a sealed bottle filled with water.
        • slicktux1 hour ago
          Yes, as of recent the third possibility mentioned by officials is that it will Turn into plastic and not explode.
  • foota2 hours ago
    Is it not possible for them to just... spray it with ice cold water?
    • gus_massa1 hour ago
      I guess you ask why they are using water at ambient temperature (20°C; 68°F) instead of very cold water (0°C; 32°F). Some reasons I can think now:<p>They are using a lot of water, as most as possible, from pipes at whatever temperature it is. There are no enough mobile refrigerators, not enough electricity to make them work, and it&#x27;s very hard to transport cold water or ice if you don&#x27;t use the pipes.<p>Also, the center of the tank is hot and reacting, but the external part is a nasty block if plastic that acts like a shield and isolate it from the cold water outside.<p>This is a common problems in big chemical plants when you have exothermic reactions. It&#x27;s not enough to cold it down, you need to ensure all parts are cold down.<p>For comparison, there is a nice video by NileRed <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=phNLecfyWS8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=phNLecfyWS8</a> He is making Bakelite that is a type of plastic. It&#x27;s a tiny amount, in a lab, on purpose and he may make a few attempts. Anyway it overheat and instead of a nice piece of plastic he got a nasty block of foam with burned plastic. No imagine a huge tank of a similar chemistry reaction.
      • jandrewrogers30 minutes ago
        The difference in cooling potential between cold water and water at ambient temperature is minimal. Cooling with water primarily comes from phase change or heat exchange; both can move vastly more heat than a small difference in temperature.<p>Chilling the water would massively complicate the logistics with a very marginal improvement in heat removal.
      • foota1 hour ago
        Ah, that makes sense. It&#x27;s too bad they can&#x27;t drill into it to relieve pressure without destroying the integrity of the tank (not that I&#x27;d want to be anywhere close to it either).<p>If they didn&#x27;t have to worry about it imminently exploding I wonder if they could somehow wrap it with reinforcement (e.g., wrap some high strength metal around the tank to prevent it from deforming when drilled into) and then drill into it to extract the liquid?<p>One of my other less serious ideas was to helilift a Chernobyl style containment structure around it, but I imagine they don&#x27;t have one of those just sitting around waiting to be used.
    • fc417fc8022 hours ago
      They have been doing exactly that for the past 24 hours. However the contents of the tank are polymerizing, that reaction is exothermic, and the tank is quite large.
      • koolba1 hour ago
        I wonder if they’ll try drilling or shooting a hole into the bottom. A semi controlled leak to disperse it locally. A mess for sure. But better than going up and out.
        • ceejayoz20 minutes ago
          Both of those seem likely to risk causing sparks.
    • Jtsummers2 hours ago
      Read the article. They have been doing that, but that is just slowing things down and buying them time.
      • foota1 hour ago
        They are not. I said ice cold. I read this article and several other articles about this.
        • gwbas1c33 minutes ago
          I suspect it is impractical to refrigerate a large volume of water in short order. Heck, if I take 2-3 glasses of water out of my refrigerator&#x27;s water dispenser, it&#x27;s at tap temperature.<p>To put it differently, think through what it would take to refrigerate the volume of water that they are spraying. Can someone pull that together in a matter of minutes or hours?
      • Freedom22 hours ago
        [flagged]
        • vitally36431 hour ago
          Unprompted rules-lawyering is not productive or interesting discussion either
        • fcsp2 hours ago
          Read the article in the context of the comment clearly means &quot;I have read the article - here&#x27;s my conclusion of its context relating to your post&quot;. Did you even read the thread?
    • Rekindle80902 hours ago
      [dead]
  • hoppyhoppy228 minutes ago
    I love how the current title of this post just assumes that everyone lives in California.<p>There are other &quot;Orange County&quot;s in the U.S.
    • qurren11 minutes ago
      Do you get angry when someone mentions London that they didn&#x27;t specify that it is London, England?<p>Because there are other Londons.
    • gnabgib19 minutes ago
      It used to say CA which is even worse.. given that&#x27;s a country code (not where this Orange County is), and also means various things in other countries.. the state of California for people who live in the US, for example. What are you thinking; US-CA-OC? (We&#x27;re starting to look a little ISO)