|
A
significant amount of stationary lead-acid batteries are used in "business"
classified occupancies. Until recently not many people were aware of the presence of
sulfuric acid in significant quantities being used in non-hazardous classified facilities.
Morning Star estimates there is easily over 20,000,000 gallons of battery acid in business
use facilities in the United States.
From our vantage point a series of
events has changed the awareness of this condition. Highlights include:
Late
‘80s: A series of fires in semiconductor manufacturing facilities gave awareness of
significant hazards in buildings thought to be benign in nature. Building and fire codes
were changed, including a whole new use classification of Group H, Division 6. EPA and
OSHA also became much more proactive in the light of the presence of this type hazard in
unexpected areas.
1988: Hinsdale
Central Office Fire: A major disruption of telecommunications in the Chicago area brought
some awareness as to the substantial quantity of batteries in telecommunications. While
the cause of the fire is still unknown, it involved the battery reserve system and the
telecommunication’s craftspersons’ and fire fighters’ inability to
disconnect the battery or extinguish the battery fed fire. Damage to the building and
equipment was estimated to be between 40 and 60 million dollars and interruption of
communications for up to four weeks.
Early
‘90s: Growing number of building and fire departments are concerned over existing and
new battery plant installations.
1994: L. A.
Grand Central Office Fire: Fire involving batteries on thirteenth floor causes major
communications outage including 911 service. Severe smoke and safety issues. NFPA
concludes in part:
"The atypical nature of this fire
and the absence of universally accepted fire protection systems for telecommunications
facilities serve as a call for further research and development into methods for risk
assessment, fire protection equipment, and policy and procedures issues such as
contingency planning."
"Finally, this fire also shows
the potential risks and difficulties fire fighters can face when called to suppress a fire
in a telephone exchange."
Post L. A.
Grand: Increased concerns for health and safety in stationary lead-acid battery
installations. Uniform Fire Code (UFC) Article 80, Hazardous Materials, is being applied
since there is no other application specific guidance in the Fire Code.
1991 to 1994:
AT&T and Bellcore work with code organizations trying to exempt their facilities from
being classified as a Hazardous Occupancy Group H, Division 7 (UBC and UFC). Uniform
Building Code (UBC) defers to Uniform Fire Code for battery systems "…installed
in accordance with Uniform fire Code requirements and exempts battery system from
hazardous location classification if it complies with UFC requirements. In 1994, both
AT&T and Bellcore sponsor the adoption of UFC Article 64 which exempts battery systems
from Sections 8003 and 8004. Article 64 is perceived by most to "…afford a
reasonable level of protection to emergency personnel as well as others in harms
way." Article 64 was adopted and published in the UFC 1995 Supplement. We understand
Article 64 will be used as an Alternate Method to Article 80 until Article 64 is adopted
as law by most in 1998.
1996: Some
building departments begin to enforce Article 64 as an alternate method to Section 8003
and 8004 requirements.
EPA and OSHA
have similar requirements. Self-auditing has surfaced this awareness already. We offer the
following selected excerpts from United States Department of Energy public domain
documents regarding ISO 14000 EPA type audits:
Report 1: Lack
of an Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Program
Performance
Objective: 40 CFR 355.30 implements Section 302 and 303 of EPCRA (SARA Title III). Section
302 requires "any facility at which there is present an amount of any extremely
hazardous substance equal to or in excess of its threshold planning quantity" to
notify the state emergency response commission (SERC) that it is a facility subject to the
emergency planning requirements of 40 CFR 355.30. Section 303 requires the applicable
facility to notify the local emergency planning committee (LEPC) of the name of the
facility emergency response coordinator.
40 CFR 370
implements EPCRA Sections 311 and 312. It requires applicable facilities, such as the
[company] Complex, to submit a list of hazardous chemicals and extremely hazardous
substances at the facility in excess of minimum threshold levels and a Tier I or Tier II
form (if requested by the SERC, LEPC, or the fire department with jurisdiction over the
facility) to the SERC, LEPC, and jurisdictional fire department.
Finding: The
[company] has not implemented an EPCRA Program in accordance with 40 CFR 355.30 and 40 CFR
370.
[Auditor]
concluded that the sulfuric acid in […] batteries would be exempt from the SARA Title
III notification and hazardous chemical reporting requirements because of an exemption
stated in the definition of a hazardous chemical (SARA-2 and SARA-3). However, sulfuric
acid is also listed as an extremely hazardous substance and there are no exemptions in the
definition of an extremely hazardous substance. Therefore, the sulfuric acid in […]
batteries at the [company] Complex and other [company facilities] is not exempt from the
SARA Title III notification and hazardous chemical reporting requirements.
The [company]
Complex has an amount of sulfuric acid in excess of the threshold planning quantity of
1,000 pounds [100 gallons] for sulfuric acid (I-SARA-4). Consequently, the site is
required by 40 CFR 355.30 to notify the SERC that it is a facility subject to the
emergency planning requirements of 40 CFR 355.30 and to notify the LEPC of the name of the
facility emergency response coordinator.
In addition,
the amount of sulfuric acid on-site also exceeds the minimum threshold level of 500 pounds
[50 gallons] for sulfuric acid. Consequently, the site is required by 40 CFR 370 to either
submit the Material Safety Data Sheet for sulfuric acid or fulfill the alternative
reporting requirements stated in 40 CFR 370.21(b) and a Tier I or Tier II form (if
requested by the SERC, LEPC, or the fire department with jurisdiction over the facility)
to the SERC, LEPC, and the jurisdictional fire department.
Since other
[company facilities] have batteries containing sulfuric acid, these [facilities] may also
be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 355.30 if the quantity is in excess of the
threshold planning quantity (1,000 pounds) and the requirements of 40 CFR 370 if the
quantity is in excess of the minimum threshold quantity (500 pounds).
Report 2: Lack of an Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Program
Performance
Objective: Title 40 Part 355 Section 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 355.30)
implements Sections 302 and 303 of EPCRA (or SARA Title III). […] complies with the
letter and spirit of EPCRA, and is reinforced by [the corporate] statement to that effect.
Section 302 of EPCRA requires "any facility at which there is present an amount of
any extremely hazardous substance equal to or in excess of its threshold planning
quantity" to notify the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) that it is a
facility subject to the emergency planning requirements of 40 CFR 355.30. Section 303
requires the applicable facility to notify the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
of the name of the facility Emergency Response Coordinator.
40 CFR 370
implements EPCRA Sections 311 and 312. It requires applicable facilities, such as [company
facility], to submit a list of hazardous chemicals and extremely hazardous substances at
their facilities in excess of minimum threshold levels and a Tier I or Tier II form (if
requested by the SERC, LEPC, or the fire department with jurisdiction over the facility)
to the SERC, LEPC, and jurisdictional fire department.
Finding: The
[company] has not implemented an EPCRA Program in accordance with [company’s] stated
policy that all facilities comply with the letter and spirit of EPCRA requirements.
Discussion:
Based on [company’s] Headquarters guidance dated […] discussing the
applicability of EPCRA […], [company] has interpreted EPCRA requirements to be
inapplicable to their facilities. In further support of [company’s] position in a
letter dated […], to EPA-HQ stated "... [the company] remains committed to the
successful implementation of all the requirements of Title III at all of our facilities,
and ... we will work closely with EPA in pursuit of this goal."
The
[company’s] facilities use lead-acid batteries for power backup in its substations,
and the sulfuric acid used in those batteries is listed as an extremely hazardous
substance to which EPCRA requirements apply. Therefore, the sulfuric acid in the
[facilities’] batteries in the quantities observed […] is subject to the
notification and hazardous chemical reporting requirements under EPCRA.
The [XXX, YYY,
ZZZ facilities] each have quantities of lead-acid batteries that contain sulfuric acid in
amounts estimated to exceed the threshold planning quantity of 1,000 pounds at each
location. Consequently, [the company] is subject to the requirements 40 CFR 355.30 to
notify the SERC(s) that it has facilities subject to the emergency planning requirements
of 40 CFR 355.30 and to notify the LEPC(s) of the name of the facilities' Emergency
Response Coordinator.
The amounts of
sulfuric acid at the [facilities] also exceed the minimum threshold level of 500 pounds
for extremely hazardous substances, including sulfuric acid. Consequently, [the company]
is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 370 to either submit the material safety data
sheets (MSDS) for the sulfuric acid or fulfill the alternative reporting requirements
stated in 40 CFR 370.21(b) and submit a Tier I or Tier II form (if requested by the SERC,
LEPC, or the fire department with jurisdiction over the facility) to the SERC, LEPC, and
the jurisdictional fire department.
Since other
[company facilities] have batteries containing sulfuric acid, these [facilities] may also
be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 355.30 if the quantity of sulfuric acid is in
excess of the 1,000-pound threshold planning quantity, and the requirements of 40 CFR 370
if the quantity is in excess of the 500-pound minimum threshold quantity.
To reiterate
the basis of the performance objective, it is clearly [the company’s] intended
policy, as stated in the memoranda cited, to require all of its facilities […] to
comply with the "letter and spirit" of SARA Title III. […] facilities will
be expected, as a best management practice, to comply with the "letter and
spirit" of SARA Title III.
Report 3: Acid
Spill Response Equipment
Performance
Objective: Best management practice suggests that there be sufficient acid neutralization
material and spill cleanup equipment available in the vicinity of major acid storage areas
to neutralize and contain potential acid spills.
Finding: At
standby power battery [location], and [another location], the spill response equipment is inadequate
to neutralize and contain an acid spill.
Discussion:
Each of [the facilities is] equipped with a bank of batteries wired to provide reserve
electricity to the facility in the event of a power interruption. All batteries are
Exide-type lead-acid cells, is one floor drain connected to a building sump. There is a
minimal supply (less than 1 gallon) of solid neutralizer, and no device to apply the
material if there was an acid spill. At [facility], there is no spill mitigation equipment
available. At [another facility], the battery room has a floor drain and there is a
ripped, partially spilled bag of solid neutralizer on the floor with no means to apply the
material to an actual spill. At each location, there is no secondary containment to
prevent spilled acid from reaching either the local sewer or the outside environment.
Morning
Star’s position is to use the new Uniform Fire Code Article 64 as a means of not only
addressing building and fire code concerns, but also to address OSHA and EPA concerns at
the same time. Since battery acid constitutes a distinct hazard to life and property, we
urge retroactive application of Article 64 to existing battery installations as well as to
new and modernization installations. |
