|
|
|
|
Should Intel Be Regulated As 'Major Source' of Air Pollution? |
|
|
Written by Jeff Radford
Corrales Comment
|
|
Wednesday, 24 February 2010 |
|
Third in a series
The federal investigation into Intel’s air pollution —by the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry since 2004 and by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 2008— was triggered
by persistent citizens’ complaints.
And probably by the change in presidential administration in Washington.
When N.M. Air Quality Bureau Chief Mary Uhl was asked January 20 what
prompted EPA’s enforcement action leading to the in-depth inspection at
the Intel-Rio Rancho site December 7-11, she replied, “It may have
been, with this new administration, that staff at EPA felt that it’s
time now to go forward with it.
“You know, the feeling that ‘We’ve been waiting eight years, and now it’s time to go.’”
The timing of EPA’s probe into air pollution problems at the Intel
facility here also struck Corrales Mayor Phil Gasteyer when he read the
EPA’s January 29, 2009 letter demanding air pollution information from
Intel.
Gasteyer, who worked the halls of Congress for decades as a business
representative, chuckled as he pointed out that the enforcement letter
to Intel went out just nine days after Barack Obama was sworn in as
president.
It’s not clear what, if any, changes will emerge in the way Intel is
regulated for its around-the-clock emission of industrial chemicals.
An EPA spokesman in the Dallas regional office, David Bary, said the
summary report on the December inspection would not be released until
summer.
That is also about the time that the Atlanta-based Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has said it will release its
final report on the community health consultation regarding Intel
pollution.
Responding to a Corrales Comment request for information about the EPA
inspection, Bary said “The site visit was a response to several
concerns expressed to us over the past several months from citizens
living around the Intel facility. We decided it was prudent to conduct
this inspection.”
The Dallas-EPA official said the inspection report will be used to “determine if any action is warranted.”
In Santa Fe, Uhl said she understood from EPA officials and from
Intel managers that EPA investigators focused on whether it is
appropriate for the Intel site here to be regulated as a “minor source”
of air pollution.
Under EPA guidelines for enforcement of the federal Clean Air
Act, “major sources” require closer regulation, more frequent
monitoring and other oversight.
Intel fought long and hard to get its permit from the N.M. Air Quality
Bureau changed to that for a “minor source” in the mid-1990s, primarily
citing the need for operational flexibility to meet the fast-changing
market for microprocessors.
Also at issue is whether the air pollution permit issued by the N.M.
Air Quality Bureau should restrict the amount of toxic chemicals that
can be emitted on an hourly or daily basis.
Since the “minor source” permit was issued in March 2000, Intel is just
required to keep its emissions of regulated chemicals below a rolling
annual average ceiling.
Those limits for Intel include 96.5 tons a year of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs, mostly solvents) nine tons a year for any chemical on
the EPA’s list of “hazardous air pollutants” (HAPs) and 24 tons a year
for all HAPs combined, as well as limits for chemicals on the State of
New Mexico’s “toxic air pollutants” (TAPs) list.
Presumably none of those limits would necessarily apply if Intel were
regulated as a “major source.” It is staying under those limits that
allows Intel to be regulated as a “minor source” of air pollution.
N.M. Air Quality Bureau Chief Uhl said re-issuing Intel’s permit as a
“major source” would not necessarily bring hourly or daily limits on
emissions instead of the 12-month rolling average ceiling.
“Being a major source doesn’t necessarily mean there would be short-term limits,” she cautioned.
Uhl said she had been told by Intel managers that the EPA inspectors
were concerned about “the lack of short-term limits and mid-term limits
in the current permit.”
She asked EPA officials whether the enforcement action against Intel is
part of a nation-wide effort for all semiconductor manufacturing
facilities. “We were told this is just specific to this Intel site. It
wasn’t specific to any other semiconductor facility anywhere in the
country.”
It’s likely that EPA’s attention was drawn to the Intel-Rio Rancho
operation as a result of the ATSDR’s investigation, initiated in 2004
by a petition filed with that agency by Rio Rancho realtor Marcy
Brandenburg.
For years Brandenburg operated a small business near Intel where she suffered chronic illnesses she attributed to Intel’s fumes.
She joined Corrales Residents for Clean Air and Water (CRCAW) and
followed the proceedings and findings of the EPA-funded Corrales Air
Toxics Study which the Air Quality Bureau’s Mary Uhl directed in
2002-04.
That $600,000 study was abruptly halted in spring 2004 when Uhl
reported that a consultant’s air pollution plume modeling results
showed Intel’s pollution was traced to nearby residents’ homes at the
time they reported illnesses.
Such a finding was unacceptable politically. Cabinet level officials
within Governor Bill Richardson’s administration huddled to find a way
through the dilemma.
(See Corrales Comment Vol.XXIII, No. 5, April 24, 2004 “Late Report
Links Illnesses to Intel Emission Plume” and Vol.XXIII, No. 9, June 19,
2004 “Cabinet Secretaries Don‘t Believe Air Problem”)
When the N.M. Secretary of Health and the N.M. Secretary of the
Environment intervened at a public meeting in Rio Rancho in June 2004
to settle and close down the Corrales Air Toxic Study embroglio, there
were many red faces —some from embarrassment, some from anger.
Within weeks, Brandenburg filed a petition with ATSDR asking for an
independent investigation of what seemed to be causing chronic and
acute illnesses which sufferers attributed to Intel’s air pollution.
After years of intermittent work on the Corrales community health
consultation, including pouring over the mountains of data and
testimony from the Corrales Air Toxics Study, ATSDR issued a draft
report in January 2009. Since then the agency has been incorporating
public comment on the draft.
Release of that draft ATSDR report in early 2009 coincides
roughly with EPA-Dallas’ initiation of the enforcement action against
Intel.
Prior to release of the draft, Brandenburg had been told by members of
the ATSDR team that it would include discussion on the suitability of
the “minor source” permit issued to Intel by the N.M. Air Quality
Bureau.
Brandenburg said she was told members of the team were concerned about the adequacy of the permit.
But when the ATSDR draft report came out, it contained no mention of
the agency’s doubts about the suitability of Intel’s “minor source”
permit.
Corrales Comment interviewed the team about that discrepancy when it held public input sessions on the draft in February 2009.
ATSDR team leader Peter Kowalski said then it had discussed the Intel
permit with EPA-Dallas officials while the document was in draft form,
but that the agencies had concluded that the adequacy of the permit was
a regulatory matter. Since ATSDR is only advisory in mission, not
regulatory, it was decided that matter would be left to EPA.
As ATSDR’s Debra Gable explained in a February 10, 2009 interview, “One
of the particular requests from the petitioner was that we look at,
evaluate, the air permit. That is something that we take very
seriously, so one of the things we did as part of our process was to
talk to our Office of General Counsel.
“Our counsel felt that for us to really look into a facility’s permit
that is regulated by another agency may be somewhat outside of the
authority given to us by congressional mandate. So for that reason we
could not do a lot of evaluation of the permit. That is for the State
of New Mexico and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
Shortly thereafter, EPA’s compliance enforcement action began with its
January 29, 2009 letter to Intel invoking Section 114 of the Clean Air
Act.
Earlier this month, Corrales Comment contacted ATSDR leader Kowalski
about its role in EPA’s decision to target the Intel-Rio Rancho
facility.
On February 9, Kowalski replied, “ATSDR informed EPA Region 6 about the
ongoing community concerns about the Intel-New Mexico facility, but we
do not know the specific basis for the EPA inspection.”
Kowalski added his team will include in its final community health
consultation “any pertinent inspection report findings… if the EPA
report is released before the ATSDR’s document.”
But, he noted, he did not expect to receive an advance copy of the EPA inspection report.
In an interview January 21, Intel officials Sarah Chavez, Thom Little
and Liz Shipley were asked whether a change in regulations through a
“major source” permit would be acceptable.
“It would be a lot of work for us, but would it change the operation? I don’t know that I can fully answer that,” Chavez said.
No other Intel site in the United States operates with a “major source”
permit, she said, and the only such permit with which she is familiar
actually has less conditions than Intel’s current “minor source” permit
from the Air Quality Bureau.
Chavez and Little questioned whether residents near Intel who have
called for a “major source” permit really understood what the
implications might be.
They acknowledged such a permit might have short-term emissions limits, but it could also allow even more emissions over all.
Said Little: “Obviously the public has a perception that having a major
source permit would have a series of conditions that are beneficial.
“But I wonder if there are things that the community wouldn’t like in a
major source permit? There could be a potential down-side.”
Chavez added, “One of the things the community needs to look at is if
Intel were a major source, we don’t have to keep our emissions under
96.5 tons, right?” referring to the current annual limit for volatile
organic compounds emissions.
“We could say ‘We’re going to emit 200 tons,’ or whatever the number would be.”
Comment: And you wouldn’t have to use the incinerators to burn off the VOCs.…
Chavez: “No, that’s right.
Comment: But in reality, you probably would.
Chavez: “We may, but again, if that’s the path it takes, there
are other options we could probably take without having pollution
control equipment operating.
“I mean, Thom’s right. What are the things that you lose that we have in our permit today if we were a ‘major source?’”
Little returned to the prospect that Intel might be allowed to release
even more pollutants than it does now. From the community’s
perspective, he suggested it might be advisable to consider the
down-side of a “major source” permit: Intel might get to release much
more of some pollutants than under the “minor source” permit.
“So it might be: ‘Be careful what you ask for,’” Little cautioned.
It’s also possible that the “minor source” permit could be retained
while other restrictions are imposed. Generally, however, state
statutes do not allow more stringent regulations on air pollution than
set by federal law and regulations.
Among other implications, that means even if state regulators are aware
of dangerous substances being used at Intel, they are not allowed to
set restrictions unless those compounds are already listed by EPA as
“hazardous air pollutants” or allowed to be controlled under the N.M.
“toxic air pollutants” program.
Uhl said other states, such as Texas and California, do have
health-based standards for a wide range of chemicals not on the federal
HAPs list. “Texas has a really comprehensive list of thousands of
chemicals, but that is not in our regulations.”
Asked what process exists to import some of those additional controls
for use in New Mexico, Uhl replied, “We would have to go to our
Environmental Improvement Board and get those substances on our list.”
That is a cumbersome process, she said, adding she is not aware that any such attempt has ever been made.
But a similar process through the N.M. Environmental Improvement
Board is now under way. A petition was entered to adopt regulations to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 25 percent below their 1990
levels by the year 2020. The request drew quick and stiff opposition.
Several businesses and state legislators filed suit in January to block
any action by the board.
Still, Uhl is cautiously optimistic that tighter air quality rules may
be coming. She even hinted it might be time to take a fresh look at the
Intel air pollution data generated through the aborted 2004 Corrales
Air Toxics Study.
“The State put a lot of resources into that Corrales Air Toxics Study
and so did EPA. Of course, the outcome was not the best for the
community or the best for the Environment Department.
“But sometimes there has to be a little time that passes between these things, and then you can come back with a fresh view.”
Uhl was asked whether she thinks that is what’s happening now.
“I think so,” she replied. “I think it is with the new Obama
administration. Sometimes it takes a leader to say ‘It’s okay to do
these things,’ for people [regulators] to step outside the box.
“That’s what EPA has right now.”
Given her agency’s decades of inspections and tracking of pollution
from Intel, Uhl was asked whether the Air Quality Bureau is any closer
to determining what may be causing nearby residents to blame Intel for
their illnesses?
That’s not really something the bureau does, she explained. “But the question is: who does do that?” she added.
“Around the nation, people are getting sick and I know that the Centers
for Disease Control has worked with EPA on such studies. It’s
really hard to make that connection, because you’ve got so many other
factors such as lifestyles that it’s very difficult to pin-point air as
the sole reason why people are getting sick.
“But we are not really charged with making a determination like that.
We don’t have the authority to say that something is making people sick.
“We do have the authority to say, ‘This facility is exceeding national
health-based standards for one of the criteria air pollutants,’ but the
toxics are not included in that.
“There are no criteria for those toxic chemicals.”
National ambient air quality standards have been set for just six
“criteria air pollutants:” carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen
oxides, lead, ground-level ozone and particulate matter.
Even so, she said, her bureau was headed down the path of finding the
source of health problems through the Corrales Air Toxic Study and the
risk assessment that was supposed to conclude it.
And when ATSDR was called in, they too “made a stab at it just as we
did with the Corrales Air Toxics Study. But they are not a regulatory
agency, so even if they were to say ‘Intel’s making people sick,’ they
don’t have any way to do anything about it.” |
|
|
|
|
