|
|
|
|
U.S. Toxics Agency Releases Report on Intel Emissions |
|
|
|
Written by Jeff Radford
|
|
Wednesday, 28 January 2009 |
Release of a report on health effects of Intel’s air emissions is now scheduled to come by the end of this month.
Peter Kowalski, project manager for the federal Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), said December 22 that his
agency
plans to release the Intel-New Mexico facility health consultation for public comment by the end of January 2009.”
He said ATSDR plans to hold public meetings on the report during the second week of February.
Kowalski’s plans were reported by e-mail to the Rio Rancho realtor,
Marcy Brandenburg, who initiated the study with a petition to the
agency in 2004. Corrales Comment obtained a relayed copy of that
message.
The Atlanta-based ATSDR is a sister agency to the Centers for Disease Control.
Release of the report has been delayed again and again since it
was first anticipated in 2005. This fall, a spokesperson for
ATSDR said the first of two parts of its conclusions on Corrales’ air
quality as affected by Intel pollutants would be released by the end of
October.
That was to have been the community health consultation based on its
analysis of tons of air monitoring data and testimony from dozens of
Corrales and Rio Rancho residents. A second part, recommendations on
the adequacy of the air pollution permit issued by the N.M. Environment
Department’s bureau, was to have followed some time later, ATSDR
officials explained.
But a decision was made subsequently to release both parts simultaneously, resulting in delay for the health consultation.
Brandenburg said she was told November 26 that the two reports would be
released together to make them each more easily understood.
Brandenburg said the November e-mail from Kowalski explained that
“the ATSDR site team decided to combine the two documents into one to
improve clarity and to avoid confusion of having to refer between the
documents.”
Kowalski said then the combined reports had yet to be submitted to the
U.S. Environment Department’s Region 6 office in Dallas and to the N.M.
Air Quality Bureau for fact-checking. In his December 22 e-mail,
Kowalski said the report would be submitted to the EPA and to the
N.M. Environment Department’s Air Quality Bureau within 10 days.
A separate component of the ATSDR study which evaluates cancer rates
here has been submitted to the N.M. Tumor Regisgtry and to the N.M.
Department of Health for review and comment. That component will
apparently be released later, after receipt of comments sent back,
Kowalski noted.
Shortly after they received Brandenburg’s petition in mid-2004, ATSDR
officials indicated they would probably have a report ready within six
months. The initial delay seems to have occurred after ATSDR realized
how much data existed on Intel’s discharges into the air above
Corrales. Brandenburg’s petition came in the aftermath of a
federally-funded Corrales Air Toxics study directed by the State Air
Quality Bureau.
ATSDR officials came to Corrales November 7, 2007 to say their work was
not done, even though they earlier said they expected to complete their
review by fall 2005.
A spokeswoman said July 14, 2006 the report which had been expected in
spring 2006, and then that summer, would be delayed until the end of
2006.
At that time, ATSDR information officer Rachel Powell said the agency
was continuing to evaluate new data, primarily from Intel to support
its assertion that emissions of toxic chemicals are so low they would
not cause adverse health effects.
In spring 2007, ATSDR said it was delaying release of the report
because its personnel had been put on stand-by for the 2007 hurricane
season. A spokesperson said the report would be ready that fall.
Agency representatives held listening sessions in Corrales and Rio
Rancho August 9-10, 2005 to hear from residents who said they have been
sickened by Intel’s fumes.
That input, plus voluminous records, periodic testing at emissions
stacks, and consultants’ reports for the 2002-04 Corrales Air Toxics
Study, has been evaluated by ATSDR’s specialists.
The process was initiated by Brandenburg as a member of Corrales
Residents for Clean Air and Water (CRCAW). Providing substantial
background information, Brandenburg petitioned the ATSDR for an
investigation into Intel’s role in illnesses she and other residents in
Rio Rancho and Corrales experienced when they were exposed to strong
industrial odors coming from Intel.
Complaints about health problems related to Intel’s emissions have come
continually since at least the mid-1990s, when the microchip maker
began a series of major expansions on the bluff overlooking Corrales.
Those complaints have continued, most recently at an Intel meeting in
the Corrales Community Center in fall 2007 regardng a proposed change
to the microchip maker’s air pollution permit.
Back in the 1990s, residents reported passing out in their living
rooms when they were overcome by toxic fumes; others said they had been
rushed to emergency rooms or urgent care clinics; at least one rented
an apartment across town to get away when the fumes were unbearable;
two villagers who lived near Intel died from lung fibrosis which they
blamed on Intel’s toxins.
Scores of others have reported chronic respiratory problems, rashes and other reactions when the wind blows in from Intel.
Repeatedly, Intel officials have produced calculations that show their
emissions should not be causing such problems. They point to periodic
testing at the stacks which they say corroborates their assertion that
only harmless amounts of hazardous chemicals leave the factories.
State air quality regulators consistently confirm that Intel’s
emissions do not exceed the ceiling levels established in Intel’s
air pollution permit.
But critics have blamed a lax permit for allowing Intel to emit higher
concentrations of toxins over a short period while staying under the
yearly limits. What’s needed, they say, are hourly and daily emissions
limits on the most hazardous chemicals, not just yearly averages, as
the permit is set up now.
At their field visit to Corrales in November 2007, ATSDR officials
acknowledged the prospect of political interference with their findings
in the Intel matter. (See Corrales Comment Vol.XXVI, No. 20, December
8, 2007 “Federal Toxics Agency Provides Update.”)
They promised to do what they could to assure that an un-censored version of their report would be available.
At the heart of the controversy is the N.M. Air Quality Bureau’s
internally-disputed decision to grant Intel a permit to operate as if
it were a minor source of pollution. Referred to as a “synthetic minor”
source in the regulatory terminology of the early 1990s, Intel was able
to avoid regulations imposed to control major sources by installing air
pollution control equipment, specifically incinerators to burn off
hundreds of tons of volatile organic compounds previously dumped into
the air.
But the Air Quality Bureau’s beleaguered permit writer back in the
mid-1990s, Jim Shively, insisted that the key question was Intel’s
“potential to emit” toxic chemicals, rather that what it claimed
—unsubstantiated— to release with pollution controls in place.
Shively was eventually shoved aside, and the task of giving Intel the
permit it wanted was assigned to a more compliant bureaucrat. Shively
had no hesitation in declaring it a “sham permit,” citing the EPA’s own
guidance on how to prevent them.
(See Corrales Comment Vol. XXII, No.24 February 7, 2004 “2 More
Pollution Regulators Blast Intel ‘Sham’ Air Permit” and Vol.XXIII, No.
1, February 21, 2005 “Kanin Asks NMED to Re-Open Intel Air Pollution
Permit”)
But villagers, organized as Corrales Residents for Clean Air and Water
(CRCAW), refused to accept the Intel permit as valid. Periodically for
the past decade, residents of Corrales and Rio Rancho have called for a
re-opening of the Intel permit to correct its deficiencies.
Meanwhile, downwind residents living closest to Intel have steadfastly demanded protection by State air quality regulators.
Earlier this year, Joy Tschawuschian, who lives near the top of
Windover Lane, wrote to Air Quality Bureau compliance officer Robert
Samaniego complaining of “weird dreams. I was awakened by noxious
chemicals in my bedroom. I stuck my nose out of the door and the same
acidic, burned coffee odor I reported last time pervaded the entire
atmosphere.
“My eyes continue to burn and blur while writing this. I have no idea
the damage that’s being done to my health and others in the surrounding
area. But I care, otherwise I wouldn’t take the time and energy (which
I barely have after an exposure) to write these reports,” she e-mailed
August 15, 2008.
“Don’t we deserve some respect and some substantial help after 20-plus
years of having our lives compromised by this company’s arrogance and
negligence? Once again, whether there is an ‘incident’ or not, the
location of the plant, weather conditions, terrain, the night time
uplift of warmer air from the valley and our world-famous “Albuquerque
Box” [air currents] concentrate emissions on the area below the plant
and on my property.
“You know it, I know it, Intel knows it, and scientists who
participated in the study several years ago know it. Was anything done
about it? I don’t think so..…
“We have a right to know what we’re being exposed to.… Do not take this
lightly. Please send this letter to the very top of the bureau. I
request an answer from them now.
“As a taxpayer, I deserve it, and they are responsible to do the job
they were assigned to do to protect the environment and the citizens of
New Mexico.”
Tschawuschian has submitted dozens, if not hundreds, of such reports to
the Air Quality Bureau since the mid-1990s. ATSDR officials have met
with her in her home, where they received a detailed, statistical
presentation by CRCAW’s Steve Martinez, a data analyst, on how current
air quality regulations are inadequate to protect her and other
affected residents.
|
|
|
|
|
