First in a series

Intel’s operations on the mesa above Corrales may violate the federal Clean Air Act in a fundamental way. The State-issued air pollution permit under which Intel is regulated is apparently unenforceable and therefore illegal.

That conclusion is drawn, but not stated directly, from the report finally released by the Dallas regional office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) October 14 on its sur- prise inspection at the Intel facility here December 7-11, 2009.

In an October 13 cover letter to Intel Environmental Manger Frank Gallegos, EPA-Dallas Air Enforcement Chief Steve Thompson states that the inspec- tion and subsequent investigation found “There are 15 Areas of Concern and one Area of Non-compliance noted in the combined reports” by the EPA Region 6 team and inspectors from the Boulder- based National Enforcement Investiga- tions Center (NEIC).

So far no indication has been given that Intel will be fined or have its air quality permit revoked. The letter states simply that “EPA is committed to work- ing with the N.M. Environment Depart- ment and Intel toward a cooperative solution to resolve these issues.”

In response to a series of questions about the report submitted to Intel, cor- porate spokesperson Elizabeth Shipley replied: “Intel received a copy of the re- port and has met with EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department to discuss their concerns. Intel is commit- ted to working with the EPA and NMED over the next six months to find cooperative solutions to address these areas of concern including additional testing of our abatement systems.”

Shipley encouraged members of the public to attend monthly meetings of Intel’s Community Environmental Working Group at the Corrales Senior Center to follow improvements.

The voluminous EPA report vindi- cates many of the criticisms that Cor- rales residents have stressed for the past 16 years.

It notes, for example, that the emis-

sions factors upon which Intel calcu- lates its releases of toxic chemicals may be wrong or unreliable, leading to chronic under-reporting of some dan- gerous chemicals such as hydrogen flu- oride.

The NEIC report pointed out it re- viewed two emission factor calculations for Intel Hazardous Air Pollutants dur- ing the December inspection and found both to be wrong.

For one of the toxic chemicals, ethyl lactate, the NEIC investigators noted that “Intel has under-reported emissions released by the [inspected] process by 36 percent since second quarter 2008.”

For that Intel is cited with non-com- pliance.

Regarding the other chemical emis- sions factor that was checked during the inspection, methanol, it turns out Intel has reported releasing more than may have actually been emitted. “Using the correct emission factor,” the investiga- tors found, “Intel has over-reported emissions of methanol by 8 percent since second quarter 2008.”

The combined report details numer- ous instances in which Intel’s air pollu- tion reporting was inadequate or possibly misleading. It states, for exam- ple, that NEIC reviewed Intel’s account- ing for emissions that occur during downtimes for the incinerators that burn off volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and organic Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). “Intel included the downtimes in its volatile organic compound calcu- lations, but did not account for down- times in its Hazardous Air Pollutant calculations.... Intel failed to account for the downtimes in its Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions calculations in 2008 and 2009,” the report notes.

The citizens group Corrales Residents for Clean Air and Water (CRCAW) has always distrusted Intel’s use of emis- sions factors to report its toxic emis- sions, insisting that releases to the air be continuously monitored and measured rather than calculated using what they regard as phony, unverifiable multipli- ers.

Steve Martinez, a CRCAW member

and professional data analyst, made that point when he reviewed the EPA report. “During their brief investigation last December, the EPA readily found two emission factors that were in error.

“If two emission factors were easily found to be erroneous in such a short period of time, one has to wonder how many of the dozens of other emission factors are also in error?

“And what is the true impact of all of the potentially erroneous emission fac- tors on the total pollution volume emit- ted by Intel?”

Over and over, the EPA and NEIC teams slammed Intel’s data which “may not be valid for use in calculating Haz- ardous Air Pollutant emissions.”

One of those “areas of concern” cited by EPA involved the possible under-es- timation of a particularly dangerous chemical, the acid gas hydrogen fluo- ride (HF). “Intel uses an average [acid gas] scrubber removal efficiency that was calculated from stack test results that do not relate to pH of the scrubber water liquid or water addition to the scrubber at the time of testing. Intel may be under-estimating HF emissions when the pH of the scrubber liquid is low.”

Scrubbers are chambers of high inten- sity water spray through which waste acidic gases pass before being released to the air.

Another “area of concern” cited was that “Intel has changed its processes and chemical usage many times since the scrubber testing in 1995 and 1996. The facility continues to use scrubber effi- ciency testing from outdated processes for calculating current Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions, which could result in inaccuracies.”

Elsewhere EPA alleges that “Intel continues to use the results of the unap- proved and potentially inaccurate test- ing to calculate HAP emissions from scrubbers at the facility.”

The two agencies give considerable attention to the inadequacy of the air pollution permit issued by the N.M. Air Quality Bureau. Reinforcing the criti- cism voiced for years by CRCAW members and homeowners near Intel,

the NEIC team stated, “The N.M. Envi- ronment Department permit does not contain short-term (hourly, daily, monthly) emissions limits for volatile organic compounds and Hazardous Air Pollutants. Without short-term limits, Intel can have spikes in its emission profile that can lead to acute exposures of these chemicals.”

That situation is listed as one of the 15 “areas of concern” spelled out in the report.

The investigators documented the in- adequacy of the permit noting that “NMED has set emissions limits in the permit that cannot be exceeded by Intel under any circumstances.” In essence, what critics have called a “bust proof” permit.

CRCAW member Fred Marsh, a re- tired Los Alamos National Laboratories chemist, said that assessment backs up what the group has claimed for years. “This shocking finding alone confirms what we have long claimed.”

The report includes in full the 1989 EPA “Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting.” Refer- ring to that guidance, the inspectors point out that the State air pollution per- mit under which Intel operates is not federally enforceable. It states, “The permit must contain federally and prac- tically enforceable limits.”

The NEIC concludes that “The ‘po- tential to emit’ of HAPs is not practi- cally limited by Intel’s permit.”

The second article in this series will examine in more detail the agencies’ findings regarding the State air pollu- tion permit and what changes may be triggered by the EPA and NEIC investi- gations.

“This report by the EPA goes a long way toward exonerating affected resi- dents and concerned citizens that have tried in vain for years to get Intel to care as much about the air we breathe as the profits they make from one of the largest chip manufacturing plants in the world,” said CRCAW’s Martinez who several years ago relocated his family from their home near the Intel plant.

In an October 18 statement from

CRCAW, the group noted that “The re- port found multiple deficiencies in Intel’s operations relating to public health.

“The most shocking finding confirms what CRCAW has long claimed, that Intel’s minor source air permit is a sham and needs to be replaced. ‘Sham permit’ is an official EPA term for a permit that is essentially unenforceable.”

CRCAW member Marcy Branden- burg, a Rio Rancho businesswoman, re- acted to the EPA report by pointing out that “For decades residents of Corrales have complained of air pollution-related illnesses, all upon the deaf ears of Gov- ernor Richardson, NMED, the Depart- ment of Health and, yes, even EPA Region 6. Dozens, if not hundreds of appeals were made over the years to elected officials, state agencies, the En- vironmental Improvement Board, task forces, EPA, county and city commis- sioners, mayors and the local media.

“The Corrales residents and their partner in these efforts, Southwest Or- ganizing Project, never received any satisfaction from any of these agencies, and during most of their efforts, were considered to be ‘crazy’ or were ac- cused of ‘trying to get rid of Intel.’”

Brandenburg called on elected offi- cials and citizens to demand that regu- lators “do what is right: immediately begin the process of requiring Intel to operate under a major source air pollu- tion permit.”

The report offers no evaluation of the health issue of most public concern at this time: the possible link between el- evated occurrences of the relatively rare lung disease pulmonary fibrosis here and Intel’s release of silica dust night and day.

Two more Corrales residents have re- ported they are diagnosed with pul- monary fibrosis, bringing the total of known cases here to ten.

The N.M. Health Department’s epi- demiology section is now investigating. The latest cases, who also reside rel- atively near Intel’s microchip factories, reported their condition to the woman coordinating the newly formed Corrales

pulmonary fibrosis support group, Mary Daitz.

Daitz can be reached by calling 897- 0515.

Last December, when the known local cases of pulmonary fibrosis stood at five, Marsh calculated that, “For a population of only 10,000, the expected PF rates would be 0.74 for women and 1.07 for men,” based on a technical ar- ticle published in Advance magazine.

“Thus the actual rate experienced by Corrales residents is approximately five times higher that the PF rates of people who live elsewhere,” Marsh concluded.

That same ratio suggests Corrales res- idents are coming down with pul- monary fibrosis ten times more than might be expected.

In pulmonary fibrosis, the tiny air sacs in the lung become progressively scarred for some reason, so that eventu- ally the fibrous scar tissue no longer ab- sorbs oxygen. In most cases, the cause of pulmonary fibrosis is unknown; those cases are referred to as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

When silica is known to be the cause, the disease is called silicosis.

Corrales Comment has submitted a map of Corrales showing the location of residences where the relatively rare lung disease are reported to a member of the American Lung Association’s Al- buquerque chapter.

The American Lung Association’s Hugh Church serves on the Community Environmental Working Group (CEWG) focusing on improvements to air quality concerns at the Intel plants.

Inhalation of silica dust, especially sharp-edged crystalline silica, is a known cause of pulmonary fibrosis. Since Intel has released tons of silica dust into the air Corraleños breathe day and night since the mid-1990s, those emissions from Intel’s stacks have been suspect.

While it admits routinely dumping silica dust into the air, Intel has asserted those emissions are only smooth-edged amorphous silica, which is far less dan- gerous.

Ironically, the silica dust is a byprod-

uct of air pollution abatement equip- ment installed at CRCAW’s request in 1994.

Much of what came out of Intel’s stacks back then were industrial sol- vents known as volatile organic com- pounds. Typically those waste chemicals are abated by incineration; when the solvent fumes are sucked away from the microchip making sta- tions, they pass through burners before going out the stacks.

But at least one of those solvents, hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS), decom- poses to silica dust when burned.

In recent years, Intel has reduced its use of HMDS, but in past years, it has reported emitting more than 11 tons a year of silica particulate into the air.

Since shortly after it was convened by Intel in 2004, the CEWG has explored ways to test the silica released to prove conclusively whether it is crystalline or amorphous. Earlier this year, the group created a Silica Testing Task Force to set up sample-taking and lab analysis that would be trusted by concerned cit- izens.

The “citizen protocol” developed is intended to be free of Intel influence: samples were not to be taken by Intel contractors nor analyzed by laboratories that might have an incentive to keep lu- crative contracts.

Those precautions are to be imple- mented next year, but Intel intends to test silica emissions in December using some, but not all of those guidelines.

Intel is replacing the incinerators (called thermal oxidizers) it installed in the 1990s with similar units from a dif- ferent manufacturer expected to be more reliable. Company officials have said they want to test silica coming out of the old Durr incinerators to demon- strate they have not been releasing the crystalline form. The Durrs are sched- uled to be pulled out by the end of this year.

At the September 29 Silica Testing Task Force meeting, Intel’s Thom Little said the window for testing the old equipment is closing fast. He said the sampling would have to be done during

the week starting December 6. The task force, chaired by Jim Tritten of Corrales, discussed prospects that the silica samples would be analyzed by a leading authority on such testing, Rosa Key-Schwartz of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH). (See Corrales Comment Vol.XXIX,

No. 15, September 25, 2010 “Expert on Crystalline Silica Looks at Intel Emis- sions Testing”)

But samples taken as the silica dust leaves the incinerators present a prob- lem for Key-Schwartz and her NIOSH lab team. The silica-grabbing filters on which her lab usually works can’t with- stand the Intel incinerators’ high heat.

Little explained that NIOSH usually works with sampling filters attached to workers’ clothing.

CRCAW’s Fred Marsh, the retired Los Alamos chemist, is also skeptical about getting accurate sampling and analysis. “First of all, ERM [the Intel contractor that will take the silica sam- ples] has shown itself to be highly bi- ased in favor of Intel.

“Second, the glass in the fiberglass filters is amorphous silica.

“Third, Teflon [the alternative filter considered] also decomposes at ele- vated temperatures to release fluorine that can react with silica to form volatile silicon tetrafluoride, which would then evaporate, rather than remain as partic- ulates.

“Fourth, as I have already said many, many times, even unbiased information about the silica Intel is releasing now tells us nothing about what they were releasing earlier when eight nearby res- idents were contracting pulmonary fi- brosis.

“At that time Intel was using different facilities to produce different products with different processes that used (and released) different chemicals. The only purpose of new silica tests is to give Intel an opportunity to stack the deck to produce low readings they can then use to exonerate themselves from their ear- lier releases.”

The EPA report hits at a time when

Intel corporate officers are considering expanding the manufacturing plant here. In recent weeks, Intel hired the public opinion firm Research and Polling to conduct a telephone survey gathering attitudes toward Intel and the possibility it might expand here.

Intel’s Shipley explained that such a testing of public attitudes does not imply Intel has plans to expand opera- tions here. “As we have always commu- nicated, our site, like every Intel manufacturing site in the world, contin- uously positions itself for future invest- ments.

“The decision for future investments involving our site is not made at the local level but rather among our corpo- rate leadership. Intel has not announced any future plans for expansion of the New Mexico site.”