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.

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: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/ALSEP/pdf/31111000671279.pdf

▲

crote a day ago | parent [-]

Surely they've had to get new permits over time as their operations changed? And why didn't the presence of the plant prevent the town from growing around it?

There's a home 430 feet away from it. At that point you didn't even try to create a buffer zone.

▲

Legend2440 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Their operations have not changed very much. They have always made acrylic windshields for airplanes.

This area is zoned as an industrial park, which doesn't require buffer zones. Probably city planners at the time just thought of them as a windshield manufacturer and didn't realize the potential risks.

▲

ssl-3 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't link to it directly because Historic Aerials[1] hates direct links, but for those following along at home: The address of the leak seems to be 12122 Western Ave, Garden Grove, CA.

The leak itself seems to be centered around a round tank near a curve on a railroad, betwixt Lampson and Chapman avenues[2].

That plant and its tank, or a tank very similar similar to it, seems to have been built between between 1963 and 1972.

The houses near the tank were built prior to 1963. At that time when the houses were built nearby, the area where the plant is now located was undeveloped agricultural land.

Therefore, in this particular instance: It sure seems like they built the plant next to the neighborhood, instead of the people building houses next to the plant.

I'm reluctant to blame the homeowners, here -- at all. They were here first.

[1]: https://www.historicaerials.com/ -- awesome site, just not very compatible with WWW norms and never really has been

[2]: Google Maps direct link with current-ish aerials -- useful, at least, for orientation on Historic Aerials: https://www.google.com/maps/place/12122+Western+Ave,+Garden+...

---

BIG FAT EDIT: I figured out how to get something close to useful, direct links to Historic Aerials.

Here's 1963. Note the presence of houses, and the absence of a manufacturing plant: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/33.7836372593042/-1...

Here's the same spot in 1972. Note that the houses are still there, and a manufacturing plant (with a tank!) has popped up to the West: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/33.7836372593042/-1...

▲

bpodgursky 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This attitude is why all our manufacturing moved to China.

Why is the factory's fault that people built houses right up to the edge of of the industrial site? Are you seriously suggesting they should have been shut down because people decided to build houses near an established industrial plant?

▲

collinmcnulty 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the parent comment is suggesting that residential units should not be allowed to be built around it, rather than that once someone builds a house around it the plant has to shut down.

▲

ssl-3 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think that's what they're suggesting, as well.

However: In this instance, the residential units were present before the plant was. I covered the apparent timeline some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291

▲

bpodgursky 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Surely they've had to get new permits over time as their operations changed"

I think your reading is very generous — this clearly implies that the factory should have had their operations at best frozen once the surrounding area was built out.

▲

fc417fc802 18 hours ago | parent [-]

"As their operations changed" implying that perhaps the tanks weren't there when the houses were built.

Alternatively the tanks predate the houses in which case allowing housing so close to them seems highly questionable.

However given the long history of acrylic it's entirely possible that both the tanks and the housing predate modern safety practices in which case there's really not much to complain about. That possibility hadn't occurred to me when I first posted because I hadn't been aware of the history of the area.

Edit: And in the time it took me to write that someone else posted historic evidence that the houses were there before the plant. However it was the 1960s so safe bet that safety standards weren't what they are now.

▲

ssl-3 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The houses were there before the tank-in-question showed up.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254291

▲

fc417fc802 17 hours ago | parent [-]

It is your comment that my edit was referring to after all.

	▲	ssl-3 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I replied to you before I saw your edit. Time is funny that way sometimes. Cheers. :)