Search

The UI for the portal is straightforward and easy to use and also doubles as a GIS. Through the advanced search function users can use either the criteria or filter tabs to narrow their searches to specific sites. For example when you narrow down the search to RMP facilities only you can quickly pinpoint all of these facilities on a map of an area to show how burdened an area may be with these types of facilities.

The data can very quickly show you how many facilities a geographical area may have. This can allow users to see how burdened a neighborhood for example may be with specific facilities.

One of the only data visualizations this site offers is plotting down pinpoints on a map showing individual facilities. If there is more than one site in a certain geographical area then it will group the sites together and provide a circle for where the sites are contained with the number of sites listed on the circle. This makes this data resource not super flexible in ways it can display information. However this is a helpful visualization as it can quickly show you how many specific facilities a certain location may have

You can also generate simple graphs with the data that displays the amounts of certain facilities throughout the state. This is a good tool for tracking all regulated facilities which can help users address Ej on a statewide scale.

What this lacks in visualizations it makes up for drastically in easy to use UI and for creating one location for all of the state's facility data. By using its advanced search tool users can quickly find a plethora of data on extremely specific sites. This tool will show when the facilities had their most recent evaluations and whether or not there were violations, rough estimates on onsite stored chemicals, which regulatory programs they are a part of, CalEnviroScreen percentile ranges, and a contact list for facility employees.

This data resource can scale from the state level down to the census tract in terms of facility locations. For data visuals it groups sites together so you can not get a comprehensive visualization of regulated sites beyond the neighborhood and census tract level.

CalEPA Regulated Site Portal (CalEPA RSP) does not generate any of their own data but combines data from 7 state data sets and 2 federal datasets. 

State Data Sets: Cal/OSHA, CERS, CIWQS, EnviroStor, GeoTracker, SMARTS and, SWIS

Federal Data Sets: EIS and TRI

CalEPA made this resource in order to create a “...holistic view of regulated activities statewide.”(CalEPA.2022).

This data resource is called ‘CalEPA Regulated Site Portal’.

Recommended Citation: CalEPA. Regulated Site Portal. 2022. https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite/map/help.

This supplementary legal document describes recommendations for storm- and waste-water management improvements for the Formosa petrochemical plant in Calhoun County, Texas. The text is a fairly standard drainage assessment. The author describes non-trivial discharge of pollutants out of the plant’s outfalls, which drain into local waters, and the inability of the plant’s systems to prevent flooding from even small storms. For some context on this, it is pretty standard to design a stormwater system to be able to drain the 100-year storm (that is, the storm with a 1% or less chance of occurring in any given year). Formosa’s Texas plant demonstrated the inability to convey even the 2-year storm.

Emphases are mine:

“Problem areas were identified based on the results from the outfall drainage studies provided by Formosa. Thus, all the results in the OPCC rely on those studies, uncertainities associated with those studies, and the assumptions made for those studies, some of which may or may not be appropriate as I pointed out in Supplement #2 [Page 4]” (3)

“The proposed improvements assume that the conveyance capacity of the problem areas is increased 100%, which would be able to handle twice as much flow that it currently does. The results from the Drainage Study are not conclusive as to what storm event Formosa’s system currently is capable of conveying. The report does mention that the system is not capable of conveying the 2-year storm, and “sometimes” not even the 1-year storm event.” (3)

“A 45% contingency is applied to the OPCC due to the uncertainties associated with underground utilities, likelihood of existence of low road crossings and need to replace those, groundwater impacts, other unknowns, and additional costs associated with engineering, etc. 45% is reasonable and in line with industry practices in my experience, especially given the large amount of unknown information available.” (4) 

“My opinion from my July 9, 2018 report that “there have been and are still pellets and/or plastic materials discharges above trace amounts through Outfall 001” is further supported by the deposition testimony of Lisa Vitale, as representative for Freese & Nichols, Inc, that she and her colleagues have seen floating white pellets or small plastic pieces in Lavaca Bay and in the area near outfall 001 as part of her work on the receiving water monitoring program for Formosa’s TPDES permit...Ms. Vitale also testified that she told John Hyak of Formosa about these sightings as well as has sent him water samples with the pellets about five or six times, including at least one time prior to 2010. This, along with the June 2010 EPA Report I cited in my July Report, demonstrates to me that Formosa was aware of problems related to discharges of plastics from its facility since at least in 2010.” (6)