|
|
|
|
Appeal Hearing Date Set for Intel Pollution Permit |
|
|
|
Written by Jeff Radford
|
|
|
A new, but still tentative, date has been set for an appeal hearing on a new air pollution permit for Intel.
The appeal before the N.M. Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) had
been scheduled for June 14-16. That has been tentatively changed to
July 5-7.
An EIB official in Santa Fe would not confirm those dates, but said she
expected the appeal would come in the second week of July.
A confirmation of the date will be posted soon on the N.M. Environment
Department’s general website, which is nmenv.state.nm.us.
The appeal will be held in Rio Rancho, not in Albuquerque, as earlier announced.
While the appeal hearing will be open to the public, there will be few, if any, opportunities for public participation.
The appeal is a legal process run in a judicial fashion. Parties to the
appeal are the Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP) which represents
several Corrales residents, the Santa Fe- based N.M. Environmental Law
Center which represents SWOP and the Environment Department’s Air
Quality Bureau.
SWOP, the Environmental Law Center and Corrales Residents for Clean Air
and Water (CRCAW, which is not formally a party in the appeal)
had objected to the bureau’s approval of a new air quality permit for
Intel on several grounds.
•-Intel’s operations do not qualify for more permissive regulations
that allow for yearly averaging of emissions levels to determine
compliance;
• -monitors should be installed in the emissions stacks to continuously record levels of chemicals being released to the air;
• - monitors should be installed in neighborhoods downwind of Intel to
measure and record industrial chemicals in the air being breathed;
• - pollutant dispersion patterns should be analyzed by computer models
using actual terrain conditions along the ridges and arroyos below
Intel; and
•- medical data should be collected and correlated for residents and
workers who believe their health is affected by Intel’s fumes.
The earlier permit, which included provisions negotiated with Intel by
CRCAW, set hourly and daily limits on certain emissions, but the new
permit approved earlier this year eliminates most of those and allows
Intel to say it complies with emission caps based on a yearly average.
The Environment Department’s deputy director, Paul Ritzma, decided in
Intel’s favor and approved the permit shortly after the January 10,
2000 hearing.
Confronting statements of support for Intel’s request to be regulated
as a minor air polluter, several Corrales residents testified January
10 their health may have been damaged by breathing Intel emissions.
Joy Tschawuschian said she had medical records that link her husband’s severe health problems to Intel emissions.
Other residents of Corrales and Rio Rancho testified they believe
Intel’s pollution caused or contributed to medical problems ranging
from cancer and severe rashes to blindness and respiratory
ailments.
SWOP urged that Intel be required to pay for a network of at least
three air quality monitors in residential areas near the factories.
Among the current or former Corrales residents who spoke at the January
10 hearing to express concerns or ask for tighter controls were
Tschawuschian, Barbara Rockwell, Amy Rice, Carol Merrill, Alan Beattie,
Peter Parnegg, Alana McGrattan, Fred Marsh, Bill Buss, Robert Bruce,
Ray Alderete and Carol Akright.
The current coordinator for CRCAW, Amy Rice, testified at the hearing
questioning the adequacy of emissions controls in the proposed permit.
She was particularly opposed to allowing Intel to average out its
emissions over 12 months, which would allow acute exposures of
hazardous chemicals.
Said Rice: “It is a known fact that without the recuperative thermal
oxidizers [required by the agreement Intel signed with CRCAW in
1994] Intel will not meet requirements for a minor source permit.
“Right now I believe they’re averaging 220 tons per year of [volatile
organic compounds] before abatement, over twice the amount allowed in
the new permit. It should also be known that in the past Intel has been
asked to stop production when the pollution equipment is not working. I
believe this is a standard industry practice, but one which Intel has
refused to do.”
Rice continued: “The permit is proposing Intel use a rolling annual
average to determine compliance with minor source limits. This is the
process where the previous 12 months of emission data will be added up
to determine an annual ton per year figure.
“I believe this method would be in violation of EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency] policy whereas EPA states that the use of rolling
averages is only appropriate in cases whee there are significant season
changes in the plant’s operations. Intel is not such a source.
According to the EPA, the time period [for determining
compliance] should be as short as possible not to exceed one month.
“Instead of 96.5 tons per year, it would be expressed as pounds per
hour or, at most, per month. In the existing permit with Intel, there
were such limits as hourly emissions ratings. Those limits are now
gone.”
Rice said giving Intel permission to just stay within yearly limits
leaves nearby residents vulnerable to relatively high concentrations of
industrial chemicals for short periods.
“These spikes could not be captured with the annual totals. These spikes are part of what worries the community of Corrales.”
Rice said the previous draft permit would have addressed that concern.
“In the last draft permit, NMED asked for continuous monitoring at the
stacks. I must admit I was impressed by the State’s effort t have a
real window on what was coming from the stacks, but Intel objected, and
the permit was withdrawn at their request. Now we are here about 18
months later and in this draft, the State gave up the request for
continuous emissions monitoring. Why?”
A founding member of CRCAW, Rice pointed out that “Living by a factory
that releases cancer-causing chemicals increases your risk for cancer
along with non-cancer effects such as respiratory irritation, nervous
system problems and reproductive disorders. The semiconductor field is
fairly new enough that they are just not drafting specific requirements
to regulate it.
“There have been no extensive studies of health effects relating to
this field as of yet.” She noted that Intel has referred to its own
health risk analysis, but stated that it was “based on modeling and
assumptions which could be called questionable in some areas.”
Rice reminded that “Intel has been asked many times over the last
few years to install independent air monitoring in the community of
Corrales. This monitoring would go very far in the trust relationship
between Intel and the community. Intel claims the technology is not
adequate, but others disagree.… Seems to me that if Intel insists they
are not putting anything in the air to increase health risks, this
would be an inexpensive way to prove that.”
Meanwhile CRCAW is exploring prospects for taking Intel to court for
breach of contract related to the corporation’s abandonment of
provisions written into the earlier air pollution permit.
Members of the grass-roots organization are studying a reply from the
EPA Regional Office in Dallas regarding the settlement agreement
between Intel and CRCAW in 1994.
A memo from the EPA’s Khanna Johnston to CRCAW co-founder Barbara
Rockwell in late April reads, in part, “After reading the settlement
agreement [EPA attorney Larry Andrews] said the current agreement was
not binding to just the life of the previous permit… and he also went
on to say that the agreement should still be binding and in effect.”
Among other things, that suggests that the hourly and daily limits that
Intel agreed to in the out-of-court settlement with CRCAW back in 1994
are not superceded by the new permit that allows Intel to averages its
emissions over a year’s time.
But the EPA official also made it clear that the federal agency
was not a party to that settlement agreement, and therefore could have
no role in enforcing it.
Back in 1994, Intel spokesman Richard Draper hailed that settlement
agreement. “This is the first time a community group, the state and an
industry have worked jointly to craft an air permit,” Draper said
August 12, 1994. “These measures go beyond the existing regulations for
air quality. We didn’t have to go this far, but we felt it was the
right thing to do.”
|
|
|
|
|
