About Risks
Hazardous Material Facilities at CPI
Extremely Hazardous Materials at CPI
Risk to Residents from Hazardous Materials at CPI
Consequences of a Release of Toxic Fumes from CPI
Report on the Nitric Acid Fume Release at CPI on February 2nd, 2006
Settlement of the City of Palo Alto Enforcement Action Directed Against CPI
Does CPI have an alternative to Cyanide?
Why won't CPI eliminate using Cyanide at their Palo Alto site?
What has CPI said about its future plans for Extremely Hazardous Materials?
Palo Alto Fire Department Policies on the Location of CPI's Hazardous Material Facilities
2007 City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Update on Hazardous Materials
Should you worry if you smell an unpleasant odor?
Do the off site consequences in the RMP apply to all accidents?
Can different ways of computing off site consequences in the RMP give different answers?
ABOUT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Certain materials are classified as hazardous because mishandling them can cause injury or environmental damage.
Hazardous materials are categorized according to their physical form and rated according to the
type and the severity of the consequences of misusing them. 
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) diamond is commonly displayed where hazardous materials are used or stored. It identifies the health (BLUE), flammability (RED), instability (YELLOW), and related hazards most likely to occur as a result of fire, spill, or similar emergency. The severity of the hazards are rated numerically, from 0 to 4
Many levels of government regulate the use of hazardous materials. Palo Alto requires companies to register with the Fire Department if they use hazardous materials. Almost 500 businesses are registered in Palo Alto. If they use or store more than a certain amount of hazardous materials, they must file a Hazardous Material Business Plan listing all of their hazardous materials. CPI has registered hundreds of hazardous materials with the Palo Alto Fire Department.
Extremely Hazardous Materials
The Federal Government and the State of California regulate the most dangerous of the hazardous materials, which they call "acutely or extremely hazardous materials or substances." Among these are Nitric Acid and Potassium Cyanide, both having the NFPA rating: 3,0,0 . Nitric Acid is also a strong oxidizing agent.Large Quantities of Extremely Hazardous Materials
When large amounts of extremely hazardous materials are used, additional issues arise. An accidental release could have consequences outside the site, affecting residents and workers nearby. As a result, every facility in California that uses large amounts of extremely hazardous substances is subject to CalARP - Title 19, which is an abbreviation for the California Accidental Release Program (CalARP), part of the Title 19 of the California Health and Safety Code. This document has the extremely hazardous materials and their thresholds levels in Calfornia.Only two facilities in Palo Alto are subject to the Title 19 regulations. One is the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (wastewater treatment), which is far from any residences. The second is CPI, where large amounts of extremely hazardous materials are used and stored within 90 feet of residences.
CPI generates a significant amount of hazardous waste - both liquids and sludge, some treated onsite and some shipped off site. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health oversees CPI's waste treatment activities and also its adherence to the CalARP-Title 19 program.
(Back to Top)ABOUT RISKS
Risk is the combination of (1)the liklihood or chance that an injury, damage or loss will occur and (2) the severity of the consequences.
Our doctors tell us there are serious risk factors to our health. In some cases we can reduce our risk, for example by taking action to control our weight or lower our cholesterol. But there are some risks we can’t control, like age.
We also cannot control the risks of something happening at CPI that might affect us. CPI created the risk to our health and safety by their decision to use and store large amounts of extremely hazardous materials so close to our homes. Only CPI can reduce those risks.
To reduce the risk of harm to residents:
- CPI could move their hazardous material use and storage locations away from residences.
- CPI could reduce their inventory of hazardous materials.
- CPI could outsource their most hazardous operations.
The greatest risk to residents is exposure to toxic fumes or gases created at CPI and released into the atmosphere. This could happen if any one of a number of possible things were to happen:
- Breakdowns in one of CPI's hazardous material systems because of a malfunction, incorrect or inappropriate operation, overuse or end of life.
- Human error at CPI, leading to the spilling or mixing of incorrect and incompatible hazardous materials, or a subcontractor supplying wrong materials or spilling hazardous materials during transfer or delivery.
- Deliberate human action releasing hazardous materials because of employee sabotage or an act of terrorism.
- Natural disasters such as an earthquake, and its aftermath.
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FACILITIES AT CPI
CPI has located all of their Hazardous material facilities at the very rear of their site, extremely close to the residential area.
CPI has a plating shop in the second floor of Building #2. Plating involves many noxious and toxic chemical solutions kept in open tanks, some heated to high temperature. One set of tanks contain strong acids or alkaline solutions and another set of tanks in the same room contain the chemical plating solutions. CPI does not have toxic gas monitors in their plating shop. All the tanks continuously generate toxic fumes. The fumes are exhausted through a scrubber system and released into the atmosphere. CPI does not have monitors to check whether there are toxic vapors in the gases they release.
To supply the plating shop, CPI has storage areas for chemicals in the basement of Building #2. CPI does not have toxic gas monitors in the basement storage area.
CPI has a separate chemical storage building against the rear wall that separates the CPI site from the residential area. CPI stores cyanide plating chemicals and acids, and containers of cyanide containing plating solutions and other hazardous waste awaiting shipment off site. CPI does not have monitors or alarms in this building.
CPI has an on-site hazardous waste treatment facility inside Building #2. Highly concentrated hazardous waste solutions are drummed and shipped for disposal elsewhere, but the less concentrated solutions are chemically treated on site to reduce their toxicity, diluted to reduce their concentration and disposed of into the sewer system. CPI does not have toxic gas monitors in their hazardous waste storage or treatment areas.
CPI has two large tanks of liquid hydrogen. Tanker trucks refill these tanks several times per week. These tanks are located in the same general area where there is a tank of liquid oxygen and storage areas of flammable liquids (acetone and alcohol).
CPI distributes hydrogen gas throughout Building #2. The hydrogen is piped into furnaces that operate at very high temperature, ~ 800oC.
(Back to Top)EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT CPI
CPI uses and stores Nitric Acid and Potassium Cyanide, both acutely or extremely hazardous materials or substances, in amounts well in excess of the CalARP - Title 19 threshold levels.
After the 2005 reconstruction of their plating shop, CPI increased their inventory of these materials. As shown on the following chart, CPI's inventory of these extremely hazardous substances is many times the CalARP - Title 19 thresholds:
- 4161 lbs of Nitric Acid (equivalent to 500 gallons) - threshold level is 1000 lbs
- 632 lbs of Potassium Cyanide - threshold level is 100 lbs
Hazardous materials in the second floor Plating Shop: Dozens of open tanks of concentrated acids and cyanide plating solutions. Some of the tanks are very large:
- A 275 gallon silver plating tank, with 177 lbs of Potassium Cyanide in solution
- Three 125 gallon tanks containing mixtures of concentrated nitric, sulfuric and hydrochloric acids
CPI has dikes on the floor around the acid and the cyanide solution tanks as a method of preventing spilled liquids from reaching each other.
In spite of CPI’s precautions in keeping the materials separate, if any acid and were to mix with potassium cyanide powder or any cyanide solutions, a chemical reaction would take place. This produces toxic fumes of Hydrogen Cyanide gas.
CPI has hundreds of other hazardous chemicals on their site.
Hazardous materials in the Basement of Building #2: Three large acid storage tanks
- 275 gallon tank of concentrated Nitric Acid
- 310 gallon tank of concentrated Sulfuric Acid
- 310 gallon tank of concentrated Hydrochloric Acid
CPI pumps concentrated acids from the basement to the tanks in the second floor plating shop.
Tanker trucks that deliver concentrated acids to CPI's acid storage tanks must navigate this narrow passageway between CPI building #2 and the wall separating CPI from residences.
Hazardous materials also in the Basement of Building #2: Tanks holding hazardous waste solutions discharged from the second floor plating shop:
- 1000 gallon concentrated acid waste storage tank. This tank collects acids and alkaline solutions from the plating shop, and sends them to an acid hazardous waste treatment facility in the basement. The fumes that spread into Barron Park after the accident at CPI in February 2006 escaped from this tank.
- 550 gallon tank receiving some plating liquids from the plating shop, and sends them to a cyanide hazardous waste treatment facility in the basement.
Hazardous materials in the Chemical Storage and Hazardous Waste Building: CPI stores a container with over 100 lbs of potassium cyanide powder, supplies of hydrofluoric and other acids and alkaline materials, and storage containers of spent cyanide plating solutions and other hazardous waste materials awaiting shipment off site. CPI is in the category of large generators of hazardous waste. These are sites that routinely generate more than 12 tons of hazardous waste or 12 kilograms of extremely hazardous waste each year.
(Back to Top)RISKS TO RESIDENTS FROM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT CPI
What are the RISKS to residents from misuse or mishandling of hazardous materials at CPI ?
Release of Toxic Fumes
Toxic fumes can be released when
- some chemicals spill and their vapors escape into the atmosphere.
- when incompatible chemicals come into contact with each other and a chemical reaction occurs.
The toxic fumes from a serious accident could spread towards the residences and very quickly imperil the health and safety of those in the area. Residents would not have time to prepare: by the time they smelled an unpleasant odor (and some toxic gases do not have an unpleasant odor), children playing outside or anyone working in their garden or passerbys strolling on the street could be quickly overcome. Fumes could also enter into homes through open windows.
The consequences of an actual toxic fumes release are difficult to predict. The fumes may be pushed quickly by the wind towards (or away) from the residences, or they may hover over the site. The time period when fumes are produced may be short, or it can last for some time.
The effects of exposure to the fumes from an actual accident will depend upon these factors:
- the amount of toxic fumes produced and the amount released to the atmosphere(some may be captured inside the building);
- the inherent toxicity of the chemical vapor - some chemical vapors are more poisonous at lower concentrations than others;
- the wind and wind direction and other atmospheric factors;
- the density of the fumes (whether they are heavier or lighter than air);
- the distance someone is from the source(s) of the fumes;
- the length of time someone is exposed;
- whether the individual was able to take any protective measures;
- the individual's health status and age: children and the elderly are the most susceptible.
Fire or explosion
An explosion might occur if the hydrogen cryogenic storage tank or its pressure control system were to fail, or if an accident were to occur during delivery of hydrogen and a motor or other source of ignition were nearby. Hydrogen can explode over a wide range of mixtures of air and hydrogen.
A fire or explosion might occur inside Building #2 if air were to leak into one of the high temperature furnaces that operate with an atmosphere of hydrogen, or the hydrogen delivery pipe network were to leak near a source of ignition
Contamination of subsurface water.
Leaks in CPI's hazardous material waste treatment facility could contaminte the waters in the subsurface. In the 1980's, several underground hazardous waste tanks at CPI(then Varian)leaked. After 10 years of cleanup, contamination above EPA levels remains in the water in several places. Maps of the contamination at tens of feet below the ground show that one contamination plume, the source of the plume, is centered at one spot behind CPI Building #1, close to residences, and has since spread. Varian, under State supervision, will be conducting a remedial operation that involves drilling more wells and injecting a chemical to neutralize the contaminate.
(Back to Top)CONSEQUENCES OF A RELEASE OF TOXIC FUMES FROM CPI
The release of toxic fumes from CPI will affect individuals closest to the accident site most seriously, but within some distance, the endpoint distance everyone is at risk.
If you were closer to the accident site than the endpoint distance the concentration of the toxic fumes would be above the level where exposure for an hour could cause you irreversible or serious health effects or symptoms which could impair your ab ility to take protective action.
The concentration of toxic fumes above which these health effects would occur is called the toxic threshold. Each toxic gaseous material has its specific toxic threshold. The endpoint distance depends upon the toxicity of the fumes, the amount released, the atmospheric conditions, and other factors.
This is what is needed to determine the endpoint distance.The first step is to come up with a possible accident scenario. The Risk Management Plan requires CPI to identify two scenarios:
- A “worst case scenario "; this is an accident that CPI believes would spread the toxic fumes the furthest and impact the largest number of people.
- An “alternative case scenario”; this is also a very serious accident, but allows for active cleanup and control of the accident consequences by CPI staff.
Example: The worst case scenario would happen following a very serious earthquake on a weekend or evening, where power is lost and trained supervisory personnel are not able to reach the site of the spill. In the alternative case, the release of toxic vapors would be reduced by pumps sending spilled liquids into sumps, some toxic vapors removed by fume scrubbers and by other active means.
CPI developed worst case and alternative case accident scenarios for the two hazardous chemicals they have in amounts above the CalARP-Title 19 threshold levels:
- Nitric Acid
- - rupture or spill of tanks of nitric acid and the liquid produces fumes.
- Potassium Cyanide
- - in powder form alone, any risk offsite from dispersal directly in the air is small even though potassium cyanide is highly poisonous (inhalation, ingestion, and on the skin).
- - the main risk is if some potassium cyanide - either as a powder or in a liquid plating solution - reacts with acid and produces hydrogen cyanide gas. CPI must include these accidental scenarios in their RMP if the potassium cyanide powder or cyanide plating solutions are used or stored in such a manner that a single event, including an earthquake or a fire, could cause them to combine.
The second step is to determine the off-site consequences following the release of the toxic fumes. This must follow CalARP - Title 19 rules. These include specific choices for:
- the temperature, humidity, wind and other atmospheric conditions.
- the release rate (10 minutes for fumes from a pool of liquid)
- the method for computing the dispersion of the toxic fumes - using EPA Tables or an accepted computer model.
The results from CPI's 2006 Risk Management Plan
- Nitric Acid: CPI's worst case scenario would result in a release of 0.20 pounds of nitric acid vapor. The endpoint distance is 0.2 miles.
- This is overly conservative. CPI used EPA tables where the lowest value for a release rate is 1 pound per minute while the calculated release rate for this scenario is actually 0.02 pounds per minute.
Potassium Cyanide: CPI's worst case release scenario results from the potassium cyanide coming in contact with nearby acids and generating hydrogen cyanide gas. The scenario would release 13 pounds of hydrogen cyanide to the atmosphere. The endpoint distance is 0.2 miles.
Under a worst case accident scenario at CPI, toxic gases could spread for a distance of 1000 feet in all directions from the source. People within that circle could suffer serious injury from even short term exposure. Beyond that, the danger dissipates. The exact exposure distance is not precise and would vary depending on wind and local conditions.
CPI's alternative release scenario for nitric acid is a spill of 125 gallons of a plating tank solution called "copper bright dip" due to a seismic event. The amount of nitric acid vapor released is 0.4 pounds and the endpoint distance is <0.1 miles.
CPI's alternative release scenario for potassium cyanide is a release of 5.5 pounds of hydrogen cyanide created whem the drum of potassium cyanide powder spills and some amount mixes with acid. The endpoint distance is 0.1 miles.
(Back to Top)REPORT ON THE NITRIC ACID FUME RELEASE AT CPI ON FEBRUARY 2ND, 2006
In the accident of Feb 2nd 2006, toxic fumes escaped from CPI through open doors on the second floor and roof vents and were carried by the winds westward along Chimalus.
The Fire Department and outside consultants conducted investigations of the accident. They concluded the fume release was the result of a sequence of human errors at CPI.
The following comments from the inspection reports reconstruct the series of events:
- Some CPI workers first mixed an incorrect solution of acids in a 95 gallon tank in the plating shop.
- Following accepted CPI procedures, the workers discharged the acids from the tank into the Concentrated Acid Waste (CAW) tank in the basement, not checking whether the concentrated acids might react with water in the tank, causing the solution to heat up and produce toxic fumes that might be released.
- The temperature of the acid and water solution in the CAW did increase, and fumes escaped through openings that had been left open on the top of the CAW tank and into the building. From there the fumes quickly escaped through open doors on the 2nd floor of Building #2 and through the air conditioning vents.
Nitric Acid fumes drifted westward along Chimalus in a concentrated plume. The individual who reported the most serious effects - dizziness, loss of balance, serious discomfort in breathing - was a worker installing solar panels on a roof at 728 Chimalus. Based upon his symptoms, he experienced concentrations of toxic fumes of several ppm, as high as readings taken by CPI on its site - although CPI did not take any readings until 15 minutes after the start of the fume release.
Compounding the errors of the accident were CPI's actions following the accident. CPI did not contact the Palo Alto Emergency officials.
The Municipal Code states "The chief shall be notified immediately when a release or unauthorized discharge escapes secondary containment, or is contained but presents a threat to the health or property, or becomes reportable under state, federal or local regulations."
CPI’s report of the incident says “the CPI Emergency Plan and Contingency Plan indicate notification will occur when a release could threaten human health, the environment, or property. As none of these conditions were satisfied, notice was not required.” As no criteria nor any verifiable data for this assertion existed, the Palo Alto attorney filed a legal action against CPI. Some nearby residents felt CPI tried to cover up the accident by not reporting it to the Emergency Authorities.
The 2006 accident was not the first toxic fume release from CPI plating facilities.- On the Sunday before Thanksgiving in 1985, an electrical malfunction caused a tank to overheat and created a fire in a plating facility. Smoke and toxic hydrochloric acid vapors escaped into the air. The vapors drifted north along El Camino, requiring several businesses and a motel to evacuate their premises.
SETTLEMENT OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ENFORCEMENT ACTION DIRECTED AGAINST CPI
The Palo Alto City Attorney undertook a legal proceding against CPI because of their failure to notify the Palo Alto emergency officials following the toxic fume release in February 2nd, 2006
On January 16, 2007 the City of Palo Alto reached a Settlement with CPI.
The Settlement states CPI is required to make changes “to its internal waste-handling and emergency notification procedures and physical changes to its equipment” and to pay $20,000 to the City. Through our examination of the investigation reports, we have found that the changes include:
- Installing an automatic closure mechanism on the flaps over the Concentrated Acid Waste (CAW) tank. This would prevent fumes from escaping through these openings on this tank unless the flaps were held open.
- Allowing only spent acid solutions to be discharged from the plating shop into the CAW tank, and requiring all solutions be cooled before this discharge. Existing procedures allowed CPI workers to discharge heated acidic and alkaline solutions through pipes into the CAW tanks even if they were at temperatures above the temperature rating of the plastic piping connecting the plating shop and the CAW tank. Fire Department inspectors identified a sag in the plastic pipe that CPI had not reported leading to the CPI tank caused by an over-heated solution having passed through.
The reasons for the past accident have been identified and measures taken to prevent the very same accident from happening again. But its a puzzle why the City did not use its influence to require CPI to take additional measures, such as adding toxic release monitoring systems, and a method to warn residents and automatically notify the Fire Deparment when the next release of toxic vapors occur.
Residents are left with uncertainty and some anxiety for their own health and safety, and of their family and friends. When the next release occurs:
- How serious would such a release have to be before CPI would notify the emergency authorities? What criteria will CPI use?
- What happens if the accident were to happen on a weekend or holiday when only a security guard is at the CPI facility?
- Who will notify the residents, and how long would it take?
WHY DOES CPI USE CYANIDE?
CPI uses Cyanide for Electroplating silver and copper. Cyanide improves the efficiency of the plating process and the properties of the coating.
Electroplating is a method of putting a coating of one metal on an object of a different metal to improve some property, such as electrical conductivity or corrosion resistance. The coating is achieved by passing an electric current through a solution containing dissolved metal ions and Cyanide compounds. The object to be plated, which must be electrically conductive, serves as the cathode in an electrochemical cell, attracting the metal ions from the solution.
To electroplate silver, CPI fills a tank with liquids and chemicals, including potassium silver cyanide. Then they add potassium cyanide to create free cyanide ions in the solution. Silver-cyanide plating solutions are the most highly concentrated cyanide solutions used in the plating industry. CPI has 177 lbs of potassium cyanide in a single 275 gallon silver plating tank
The electroplating solutions with cyanide are very alkaline(high ph). This retards the production of undesirable and unstable cyanide compounds and the release of hydrogen cyanide gas.
CPI also uses compounds of potassium cyanide with oxidizers to remove gold and other electroplated metals from surfaces where the coating was not desired.
All the cyanide in the plating solutions ends up as hazardous waste. The cyanide containing solutions become less effective over time and must be replaced by fresh solutions. The spent solutions are put into drums and CPI ships them off site for disposal.
(Back to Top)DOES CPI HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO USING CYANIDE AT THEIR PALO ALTO FACILITY?
The short answer is Yes, though it requires the willingness to investigate new methods and invest in new technology.
Many metal plating companies, both large and small, are seeking alternatives to traditional Cyanide plating processes. Concerns over occupational health and safety, waste treatment costs, regulatory compliance requirements, and potential liability are driving companies to switch to cyanide free plating technologies.
Many companies have already reduced - and some have even eliminated - their use of Cyanide in metal plating.
Ten years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the metal finishing industry created the National Strategic Goals Program (SGP). This program encourages companies to go beyond environmental compliance. SGP member companies are offered incentives, resources and a means for removing regulatory and policy barriers as they work to achieve specific environmental goals. CPI is NOT participating in this program - but they should!
Ten years ago Lawrence Livermore Laboratory recognized the serious hazards in using Cyanide. In collaboration with several plating chemical supply companies, Livermore's Electrochemical Process Facility developed and evaluated a complete suite of cyanide – free plating chemicals. Their motivation: "Because of the hazardous nature of cyanide, extensive safety precautions must be incorporated when manufacturing the electroplating chemicals, transporting them to user sites, using the electroplating process, and disposing of wastes. For example, if cyanide-based solutions become too acidic, large amounts of poisonous cyanide gas are liberated. The electroplating industry as a whole has suffered many accidents and a few deaths from cyanide use."
CPI claims that they have no alternative to Cyanide to produce their products, which are "vacuum electronic devices," and require extremely clean surfaces and pure coatings. But others in this field reject this argument - and reject electroplating altogether because electroplating is considered nowadays a ‘dirty’ technology.
Electroplating leaves impurities and contamination on surfaces compared with newer physical vapor deposition methods (sputtering, ion plating, evaporation)used to deposit metal onto semiconductor chips. These methods can create much higher quality coatings and do so on an industrial scale. They rely on advanced technology and do not use any hazardous materials.
(Back to Top)WHY WON'T CPI ELIMINATE USING CYANIDE AT THEIR PALO ALTO SITE?
The short answer is that CPI does not have a good answer.
CPI president Bob Fickett was asked by residents if CPI would eliminate using Cyanide. He said : “Eliminating cyanide is probably not an achievable goal.” He was then asked if CPI would outsource the use of Cyanide; he refused to give a direct answer, saying “We have been using this here forever.”
He has also stated “ the critical nature of our plate shop processes and materials to our core business…..precludes us from moving these cleaning/plating operations and the materials in question off of our Palo Alto campus or from outsourcing this work to an external vendor.” Does he actually believe that no one else can possibly perform these same operations, even if CPI were to tell them the exact procedures and plating recipes – or does he mean that CPI just won’t make the investment?
CPI follows plating recipes that have been handed down from one generation of metal platers to the next. CPI is proud that they are following the same metal plating processes since Varian began manufacturing these products, over 45 years ago.
Why not outsource? Even though they have done electroplating for many years, quite possibly CPI does know enough about the physical properties of their coatings – the hardness, purity, uniformity, etc – to enable someone else do the work. Another facility may not use the exact same processes and chemicals as CPI, but could tailor them to produce a coating with the required physical properties - if CPI could tell them what they were.
Moving away from Cyanide entirely would require CPI to invest in research and development and to test their products with promising Cyanide-free coating technologies. It would take time and effort. CPI has taken some steps; they have eliminated cyanide in their gold plating. But CPI is very reluctant to do anything, try anything or change anything.
Cyanide based plating was patented in 1840. CPI makes interesting microwave products, but their manufacturing methods are stuck in the past.
(Back to Top)WHAT HAS CPI SAID ABOUT ITS FUTURE PLANS FOR EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS?
Last updated: 10-May-2007
The good news is that CPI says they are reducing their amounts of extremely hazardous materials.
The bad news is that CPI says they will not reduce them below
CalARP - Title 19 thresholds
Prior to 2004, CPI operated two facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area : the EIMAC plant in an industrial area of San Carlos and the Microwave Power Products (MPP) plant in the Stanford Research Park. In 2004, CPI sold the EIMAC site for about $25 million, and consolidated the EIMAC product line manufacturing with the Microwave Products manufacturing in Palo Alto.
This required an enlargement and reconfiguration and reconstruction of their facilities in Palo Alto, including the Plating Shop, all of which are adjacent to the residential area.
What were the consequences on CPI's use of Extremely Hazardous Materials? The following are CPI's own graphs, dated February 2007 (we added the pink lines that show the Title 19 thresholds).
Note: a quick look at the graphs below might lead you to believe that there was a significant decrease in the quantities of hazardous materials at the CPI Palo Alto site, but this is not the case. If you look more closely and ignore the information about the San Carlos site, you'll see that at the "2006 (Post Move)" point, the quantities in Palo Alto have increased.
The solid vertical columns are the amounts at its two sites - San Carlos and Palo Alto - before the 2005 consolidation of CPI's hazardous materials activities in Palo Alto. The white columns are afterward. The bright pink horizontal lines are the Title 19 threshold levels for nitric acid and potassium cyanide.
The consolidation lowered the total amount of CPI's inventory of these two extremely hazardous materials. The amount in San Carlos is zero. But the amounts in Palo Alto, in particular cyanide, are higher, and CPI has said that the amounts in Palo Alto will remain above the Title 19 thresholds idenfinitely. This means CPI will be opposing the wishes of the City Council, which passed a resolution in 2007 "to Direct staff to work with CPI and the City of Palo Alto to reduce materials as soon as possible to sub-Title 19 thresholds." The is an ongoig responsibility of of City Staff, and we shall be expecting them to carry this out.
(Back to Top)HISTORICAL ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE CPI SITE
CPI, one of only two sites that use large amounts of extremely hazardous materials in Palo Alto, is located within 100' of residences. This situation did not happen overnight. It is a result of a series of blunders and poor land use decisions over many years by the Varian/CPI companies and Palo Alto city officials.
1. In an exercise of poor land use planning, the City of Palo Alto allowed Varian Associates in the 1960’s to construct an industrial building, Building #2, at the rear of their large site instead at the front, within 100 feet of homes in a residential area.
As seen on the left in this historical aerial photo, houses were already present all along Chimalus Drive before Varian Building #2 was built. At that time, Barron Park was unincorporated Santa Clara County and not part of the City of Palo Alto. Residents objected, hired a lawyer, but their voices were ignored. There is virtually no buffer between Building #2 and the residents.
2. Subsequently, Palo Alto officials exercised extremely poor judgment, allowing Varian to concentrate hazardous material facilities in that area. Varian was permitted to:
- build a large plating shop on the second floor of Building #2, on the side that is adjacent to, and overlooks, the residences.
- install large tanks of acids and hazardous waste treatment facilities in the basement of this building.
- build a separate hazardous materials storage facility adjacent to the wall that separates CPI from the residences.
- add an additional row of support and storage buildings along the wall behind other residences.
The City officials either did not understand the complexity of the hazards or they ignored the risks to the nearby residents of an accidental release. This facility has tens of open tanks of noxious chemicals, thousands of gallons of concentrated acids in storage areas, on-site hazardous waste treatment systems, and hundreds of toxic chemicals including many cyanide compounds.
3. The City’s Planning Department and the City’s Hazardous Materials section of the Fire Department compounded these policy errors in 2005.
Palo Alto gave approval to CPI (successor to Varian in ownership of this facility) to rebuild their plating shop in the same place - even though the plating shop is close to residences and CPI uses and stores extremely hazardous materials above CalARP - Title 19 levels. The City officials also allowed CPI to increase their amounts of extremely hazardous materials and to install two large storage tanks of liquid hydrogen near the residential area. All of this was done without any notification to residents.
(Back to Top)PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICIES ON THE LOCATION OF CPI's HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FACILITIES
CPI's objective in closing their site in San Carlos in 2004 was to concentrate all their hazardous material activities at their site in the Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto. The Palo Fire Department, knowing that this would increase the amounts of hazardous materials in the backyards of residents in Palo Alto, went along with this plan. They issued CPI the hazardous material permits in 2005 - without notifying neighbors. They said the zoning of the Research Park gave them the authority to:
- allow CPI to use and store unlimited amounts of hazardous materials, including acutely hazardous substances.
- allow CPI to place their hazardous material facilities wherever they wished, even adjacent to residential property.
The only requirement they imposed was that building and fire codes were to be respected.
The Fire Department inspectors verified that CPI's reconstructed Hazardous Material facilities complied with building and fire codes. However, accidents occur - as they did at CPI on Feb 2nd, 2006 - because of human error, or a sequence of improbable events, or a change to a procedure - none of which are covered by Fire Department inspections.
More evidence that inspections of facilities alone are not enough to prevent an accident - a Fire Department Hazardous Material inspector had left CPI less than an hour before the accidental release accident on Feb 2nd, 2006.
In the event of a serious accident, toxic gas plumes spread quickly and nearby residents would have no time to evacuate or take protective action.
By going along with whatever CPI requested, the Palo Alto Fire Department ignored the consequences to residents living nearby. The Palo Alto Fire Chief could have rejected these plans. He declined to use the discretion given to him in section 17.04.020 (General Obligations: Safety and Care) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code “to require an applicant to meet additional or modified requirements, where such action would be appropriate and consistent with achieving the general obligation of this title for protecting public health, safety and welfare. ”
The Fire Chief remains insensitive to residents' concerns. In a letter to residents, he wrote: "We do have some concerns that there may be an overemphasis on the risks and that some may have unreasonable fears of exposure or expectations that risks be eliminated." The Fire Department has not insisted CPI install systems to notify authorities immediately upon a release of toxic fumes. The toxic gases released at CPI from spills of liquids, or the combination of liquids and solids, are the same ones that can be released from a leak of a cylinder of toxic gas. Yet the Fire Department has not required CPI to install the same sensors and monitors and alarms that are required when using a cylinder of toxic gas.
In conclusion, the Palo Alto Fire Department:
- used poor judgment in 2005 by issuing the hazardous material permits to CPI to rebuild their facility so close to residential property.
- has not come up with a plan to protect the safety of nearby residents in the case of another accident at CPI.
- is not requiring CPI to install toxic gas monitors and sensors in many areas of its site, and alarm systems that would notify residents and the Palo Alto emergency services automatically in case of an accidental release of toxic fumes.
2007 CITY OF PALO ALTO ZONING UPDATE ORDINANCE ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
In 2006, after the CPI Toxic Fume Release, the City of Palo Alto began to recognize the risks of the hazardous materials at that site.
The Planning Department and the Planning and Transportation Committee supported changes to the zoning regulations that were approved as a Zoning Ordinance Update by the City Council at their meeting on January 22, 2007. The new provisions are in Section 18.23.100 (B) (vi) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The new ordinance creates a buffer zone of 300 feet from a residential zone for any new or reconstructed facility using acutely or extremely hazardous materials or substances above the CalARP - Title 19 thresholds.
If CPI wishes to rebuild its plating facilities or other hazardous material facilities in the future, or build a new facility where hazardous materials would be used within 300 feet of a residential zone, it must first reduce all of its extremely hazardous materials to below the CalARP - Title 19 thresholds levels. Otherwise it must be at least 300 feet from residential zone - and CPI will need to obtain a conditional use permit from the City Council.
The City Council ordinance also placed a cap on the amounts of extremely hazardous materials that CPI will be able to have within 300 feet of residences to 10% above the levels on their site in November, 2006.
In addition, the City Council passed a resolution "to Direct staff to work with CPI and the City of Palo Alto to reduce materials as soon as possible to sub-Title 19 thresholds."
Residents applaud these steps, and encourage CPI to follow the letter and the spirit of the City Council resolution.
(Back to Top)WHAT IS CalARP - TITLE 19 AND WHAT ARE RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS ?
CalARP - Title 19, also called Title 19, is an abbreviation for the state law called: the California Accidental Release Prevention Program.
CalARP applies to all sites where large amounts of extremely hazardous materials are used or stored. The CalARP regulations contain the list of these substances- explosive, flammable and toxic chemicals - and the threshold quantities. When any of these hazardous materials are used or stored in quantities above threshold levels, an accidental release could cause widespread and serious harm to the surrounding area. A major purpose of the CalARP law is to provide information to the general public.
CPI is subject to the CalARP - Title 19 regulations because it uses hazardous toxic chemicals in excess of their threshold levels.
The regulations require facilities like CPI to file a Risk Management Plan(RMP).
What must be included in a Risk Management Plan? The RMP must include:
- a list of the extremely hazardous substances used or stored above threshold levels;
- off site consequences of an accidental release of one of the extremely hazardous material;
- the history of previous accidents and investigation reports of these accidents;
- the emergency response program and the training of personnel;
- the coordination with local emergency responders;
- a hazard review of the processes using hazardous materials;
- maintenance and mechanical integrity of the physical plant;
Who reviews and approves the RMP? For sites in Palo Alto, this is the responsibility of the the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. Once the County approves it, the public may review and comment on the RMP, but the County is not obligaged to respond to those comments
The County also performs inspections and audits:
- an inspection evaluates a facility’s compliance with its RMP
- an audit (underway April 2007 for CPI) reviews the adequacy of the RMP itself.
The CalARP - Title 19 requirements for submitting an RMP, or updating an existing RMP, are not connected with the Palo Alto Planning Department's requirements for obtaining building permits.
CPI filed Risk Management Plans in January 2004 (before the reconstruction and expansion of the plating facility) and in June 2006 (after the work was completed).
(Back to Top)SHOULD YOU WORRY IF YOU SMELL AN UNPLEASANT ODOR?
The short answer is YES.
For most people, the odor sensitivity threshold of nitric acid is below the toxic threshold. However, our sense of smell is a very unreliable detector of the presence of hazardous gases. People vary widely in their sensitivity to odors. Illness and other impairments can make people less sensitive to odor than they would otherwise be.
A good reference is Working with Toxic and Odor Thresholds
If you smell chemical odors, you should take action: Call 911, check your family and friends, provide assistance if required and take protective action immediately.
Nitric acid has an acrid, unpleasant odor that most people would interpret as a signal of something dangerous and move away or take other protective action. But what actions could a disabled adult or an infant take when the odors and toxic gases arrive?
Some toxic gases do not have unpleasant irritating odors so you may not be safe even if you don't smell a bad odor. Smell should not be relied upon as an indicator of the presence or absence of a hazard. Prime example of this is Hydrogen Cyanide, which could be released in an accident at CPI
Hydrogen cyanide has a faint, bitter almond odor. It's odor does not give the signal that tells you instinctively to move away or take protective action. What also makes this gas so dangerous is that some people are not able to smell it at all.
The following information is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC):
People exposed to a small amount of cyanide by breathing it may have some or all of the following symptoms within minutes:
- Rapid breathing
- Restlessness
- Dizziness
- Weakness
- Headache
- Nausea and vomiting
- Rapid heart rate
Exposure to a large amount of cyanide by any route may cause these other health effects:
- Convulsions
- Low blood pressure
- Slow heart rate
- Loss of consciousness
- Lung injury
- Respiratory failure leading to death
How can you protect yourself, and what should you do if you are exposed to cyanide?
If you are near a release of cyanide gas, you should either evacuate the area and quickly move to where fresh air is available, or “shelter in place” (stay put and take cover) inside a building. Since cyanide is lighter than air, stay as low to the ground as possible.
If you have been exposed to cyanide you should seek medical attention as soon as possible. "Cyanide is a potent poison and one of the substances that could be used in a chemical attack," according to Dr. Steven Galson, Director of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The FDA has just approved a new and effective drug to treat cyanide poisoning. The Cyanokit contains the drug hydroxocobalamin, intravenous tubing and a sterile spike to reconstitute the drug with saline.
(Back to Top)DO THE OFF SITE CONSEQUENCES IN THE RMP APPLY TO ALL ACCIDENTS?
The short answer is NO.
The off site consequences provide a guideline for estimating the endpoint distance following a release of toxic fumes at a nearby site and for determining the area where evacuation of the public might be required. They do not give absolute results.
The RMP requires certain conditions that must be used to estimate the off site consequences of a release. This standardizes the procedure. However, different conditions could apply to an actual accident, and the off site consequences could be quite different.
Here are some points to keep in mind:1. The release duration of the toxic fumes from an actual accident could be quite different from the 10 minute release period specified in the worst case and alternative case scenarios.
2. Hazardous materials might be released other than those above the CalARP- Title 19 threshold levels.
Example: CPI has large tanks of sulfuric and hydrochloric acids in the basement of Building #2. These are very hazardous materials but are not listed in the CalARP- Title 19 regulations because they have low vapor pressure - compared with nitric acid. A slow leak of sulfuric or hydrochloric acid probably would not require a major public evacuation, but if the same tanks were involved in a fire, toxic fumes could be generated by these materials and an extensive evacuation may be necessary.3. Different atmospheric conditions might exist at the time of the accident. The RMP requires using ‘stable atmospheric conditions’ with the worst case scenario. Stable atmospheric conditions occur under clear or mostly clear skies, low wind conditions, and near sunset or at night. This condition is the most dangerous in case of a spill because the toxic cloud does not readily disperse and can meander far from the source almost intact. Other atmospheric conditions would cause the cloud to disperse because of turbulence and the wind. These are called ‘neutral atmospheric conditions’, which typically occur during windy conditions or cloud cover, or ‘unstable atmospheric conditions’, which occur during sunny days and low wind speeds when sun radiation heats the ground causing the air near the ground to rise creating updrafts and downdrafts.
(Back to Top)
CAN DIFFERENT WAYS OF COMPUTING OFF SITE CONSEQUENCES GIVE DIFFERENT ANSWERS?
The short answer is YES.
Here is an explanation of why this is the case. There is only limited data on the dispersion of toxic gases because it is not practical to run experiments under all combinations of different chemicals, different release rates, different wind speeds, different surface roughness conditions, and different atmospheric conditions.
So various methods have been developed to use the available data to provide the answers for other situations. It is possible that different methods predict a different endpoint distance even when they use the same toxic threshold concentration.
There are several reasons:
- The methods may be based on different data sets.
- The methods use different expressions and assumptions. To create a model, empirical expressions or algorithms are created from a given data set, and then the assumption is made that these relationships hold true for conditions not tested. One of the most common models is the ALOHA computer program (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) from the Environmental Protection Agency.
- Very little data exists for the Stable Atmospheric conditions that are required for the Worst Case Scenario in the RMP. The models depart significantly for this case; the ALOHA model systematically predicts smaller endpoint distances than other models.
- The EPA guidance document, EPA 550-B-99-009, April 1999 has lookup tables. The gas dispersion modeling has already been done. Lookup tables, like the data behind them, have limitations because they do not cover all the conditions for the release of all the toxic chemicals. As a result, lookup tables can sometimes predict very different endpoint distances compared with modeling the situation directly.
Information for the preceding is from an interesting article A Discussion on Gas Dispersion Models : WHY DO GAS DISPERSION MODELS SOMETIMES GIVE VERY DIFFERENT ANSWERS? by Dr. John Nordin.
(Back to Top)
GLOSSARY
Hazardous Material Business Plan – Palo Alto Fire Department requires the registration and an inventory from every site that uses or stores hazardous materials if the quantities are more than 500 pounds of solids, 55 gallons for liquids, or 200 cubic feet at Standard Temperature and Pressure for compressed gases.
Acutely or extremely hazardous materials or substances – These are the materials listed in the federal EPA's "List of Extremely Hazardous Substances." and in the State of California's Title 19 regulations. They are also sometimes called Regulated Substances. This list includes the most acutely toxic chemicals. The category also includes extremely hazardous explosive and flammable substances.
Large amounts of extremely hazardous materials - These are quantities of acutely or extremely hazardous materials or substances that are above specific threshold levels listed in the State of California CalARP - Title 19 regulations. For nitric acid, the threshold is 1000 lbs; for potassium cyanide, the threshold is 100 lbs.
CalARP - Title 19 - This is California’s implementation of the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and the Clean Air Act. This legislation and the implementing regulations apply to sites that use or store any one or more of a list of extremely hazardous materials in quantities above specific threshold amounts. The objective of the law is to have owners and operators of these sites inform the public of the risks to them from an accidental release. CPI is regulated under Program Level 2 because of its close proximity to residences and the potential for serious effects of an accidental release to offsite “receptors” (individuals, schools, hospitals).
Toxic fumes - These are airborne vapors that have constituents that could be harmful and cause health effects if their concentration is above the Toxic threshold. The harmful consitutuents released following an accident at CPI would most likely be nitric acid or hydrogen cyanide.
Toxic threshold - This is the concentration of a toxic vapor above which exposure for an hour could cause irreversible, or serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action. The Acute Exposure Guideline Level (AEGL) and the Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG) are the two most widely used sets of chemical exposure guidelines for the general public. The EPRG2 levels have been adopted as part of the CalARP - Title 19 regulations. The values are 6 ppm for nitric acid and 10 ppm for hydrogen cyanide.
Endpoint distance - This is the distance from the point of release of a toxic gas at which the airborne concentration level would fall below the Toxic threshold. This is also called a "Protective Action Distance" because within this distance, individuals need to take some protective measures to avoid irreversible or serious health effects.
Risk Management Plan (RMP) - The Risk Management Plan is a summary document containing all the required elements reporting a company's compliance with the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, including amounts of extremely hazardous substances, and off site consequences of an accidental release of an an extremely hazardous substance.
Off site consequences - a release of a large amount of hazardous materials can affect areas outside the boundary of the hazardous material facility. The CalARP- Title 19 regulations prescribe certain rules for computing the off site consequences following an accidental release once the Worst Case and Alternative Case Scenarios (see next listings) have been identified.
Worst Case Scenario - This is accident scenario in which there is a release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance, and results in the substance traveling the greatest distance(see endpoint distance) where serious effects would still occur. This scenario represents the release of the entire contents of a single tank, contained only by dikes or sumps, at nighttime or with low wind speed conditions. In determining the off site consequences, only passive mitigation efforts to contain the release are permitted.
Alternative Case Scenario This is also an accident scenario in which a large quantity of a regulated substance might occur, but off site condequences would not be determined using the worst possible conditions. For example, this could be release following the break of a tank or the detachment a hose during filling during the daytime that takes several minutes to shut off. In considering the off site consequences, typical meteorological conditions can be used and also active mitigation efforts to contain the release.
Scrubber system – A system in which toxic fumes are forced through a fluid vapor stream to absorb the toxic components, and then exhausted into the atmosphere.
(Back to Top)