User:SKCalBears/sandbox

Risk factors for environmental injustices
Issues of environmental justice are pertinent to the largely minority population Kettleman City community as studies show that blacks and respondents at lower educational levels, and to a lesser degree, lower income levels were significantly more likely to live within a mile of a polluting facility. Environmental justice is principally concerned with people’s and communities’ entitlement to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and regulations. There are three separate perspectives on why environmental injustices exist: economic, sociopolitical, and racial. However, Mohai, et al (2009) argue that the three categories are not mutually exclusive, considering that, for example, economic motives may coincide with sociopolitical factors.

Economic explanations argue that the industry is not intentionally discriminating against racial, ethnic, or poor minority groups. The industry is only trying to maximize profits and siting a new facility in areas where the land is cheap serves to maximize profits. Industrial labor pools and manufacturing materials tend to be cheaper in this aspect as well. The racial and socioeconomic composition of a community may subsequently change with the addition of a waste facility. The ensuing negative health and environmental impacts result in a flight of affluent residents to more desirable neighborhoods, subsequently driving land values even lower. Thus, the depression of property values results in an influx of poor and people of color as housing becomes more affordable.

Sociopolitical explanations argue that industry and government seek the path of least resistance when siting new hazardous waste facilities. In an effort to avoid controversy, sites are located in areas where communities are least capable of mounting an opposition. More plainly, facilities are located in areas where communities are not capable to politicize and oppose the new factory. Further, communities without a high degree of pre-existing social capital as well as low levels of voting behavior, home ownership, wealth, and disposable income are more vulnerable to high concentrations of polluting facilities than other communities.

Racial discrimination explanations illustrate that although present-day siting decisions may be based on a rational desire to place new facilities in areas that have been zoned industrial, these wind up disproportionately in communities composed primarily of people of color because of past discriminatory decisions about where to line industrial zones. Current decisions that may seem facially neutral may have discriminatory outcomes because of past discriminatory actions

Environmental impacts
In 2008 Waste Management applied to expand their landfill for the purpose of storing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an investigation of a variety of invertebrates, fish, reptiles, mammals, and plants were in order to determine an environmental impact, if any. The EPA’s July 2009 report followed that two species may be affected by the expansion: the San Joaquin kit fox and the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Furthermore, in 1984, Waste Management discovered groundwater contamination underneath two formerly unlined ponds. Pond P-09 was lined in 1985 and cleanup began in 1988. Pond P-12 stopped receiving waste in 1985 and was closed in 1997. Groundwater cleanup began in 1985. Waste Management has 48 monitoring wells in the surrounding and impacted areas as of December 2012. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) ordered the facility to clean up spills of PCBs around the storage building, and as of February 2012, DTSC reported that the soil cleanup and removal was the final step in protecting human health and the environment as there was no longer a threat.

Under the direction of the Kings County Planning Agency, in March 2008 CH2M Hill, an independent engineering and consulting firm, prepared an impact report aimed to identify and evaluate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Kettleman Hills Facility.
 * Aesthetics
 * The areas of the Kettleman Hills Facility that would be affected by the expansion project will not be visible from Kettleman City, therefore there are no significant aesthetic impacts.
 * Air Quality
 * It will not exceed federal and state standards for nitrogen oxides, reactive organic gases, sulfide dioxides, carbon dioxide or atmospheric particulate matter (PM) with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less at the facility’s boundary
 * The project will exceed the federal and state standard for PM10 at the facility’s boundary. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is a designated non-attainment area, that is that the air quality in that region is worse than NAAQS standards, for the federal and state ozone 1 and 8-hour standards, and for both the federal and state PM10 and PM2.5 standard, the project is found to have both project-specific and cumulative significant impacts on air quality.
 * Biological Resources
 * 103 acres of land are located outside of the existing facility’s area
 * Four protected and sensitive wildlife species have the potential to occur within the proposed project’s area
 * Due to the project’s construction in undisturbed areas, the project is found to not have a significant impact to protected or sensitive wildlife species
 * Culture and Paleontology
 * The project area does not contain potentially significant archaeological resources
 * Paleontological studies report that the probability of fossil occurrence in the proposed area appears to be moderate to high
 * The probability of impact on paleontological resources is also moderate to high
 * Additional Impacts
 * There will be a continuation of the same waste transport and disposal activities
 * No additional impact to Kettleman City Elementary School, the nearest school located about 3.5 miles from the current facility
 * Groundwater
 * Project found to be designed to meet state and federal requirements to assure that impacts will not occur to groundwater or surface water
 * No significant impact to groundwater or surface water resources
 * Ambient Noise
 * The maximum onside noise levels for the proposed project would remain below the Kings County noise standard of 70 decibels (dB) for agricultural lands
 * Climate Impact
 * Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the expansion project are not new emissions
 * The proposed projects will continue the maximum average of vehicle trips to and from the facility, so the emissions are not new emissions, but a continuation of the facility’s already scheduled transportation trips
 * Transportation emissions would not result in a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions
 * Any substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions are considered significant in relation to their impact on climate change
 * The total incremental estimated carbon dioxide emissions by the expansion facility contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and is considered a significant contribution to the cumulative assessment of global climate change

Potential health effects
In 2007, the surrounding community in Kettleman City voiced their concerns regarding potential health effects in response to Chemical Waste Management’s application for a federal permit renewal in the same year. The permit was to allow the facility to continue storing and disposing PCB waste at the facility. The EPA responded by ordering the facility to conduct a PCB Congener study. The facility collected soil, vegetation, and air samples at the perimeter of the CWM Facility to be tested in a State-certified laboratory. The findings concluded that concentrations of PCB congeners measured in soil samples are 2,000 times below the EPA’s risk-based levels residential clean-up levels. The risk of health impacts from soil, vegetation, and air were within an acceptable range as with other rural areas without any known PCB activity. Concentrations of PCB congeners measured in soils, vegetation and air do not adversely affect ecological species, and there is no evidence that PCB congeners would migrate off-site at concentrations that would adversely affect the neighboring environment and communities.

The reported defects were also evident in areas around California and elsewhere. The findings concluded that, coupled with the lack of any shared unusual exposures, the birth defects were not caused by a common factor.

A California Department of Public Health (CDPH) update for 2009-2011 concluded that the rates of birth defects in Kettleman City in 2010 and 2011 appear to be returning to the lower rates seen prior to 2008. CDPH reviewed the Birth Defects Registry data from Kettleman City and still did not find a common cause for the birth defects.