Fourth and final in a series

Since the politically messy blow-up of the Corrales Air Toxics Study in early summer 2004, Intel has:

• replaced the troublesome incinera- tors that are supposed to burn off tons of industrial solvents;

• installed back-up units to capture and burn those volatile organic com- pounds (VOCs) when incinerators fail or shut down for maintenance;

• raised the height of the “smoke” stacks substantially to better disperse pollution plumes and decrease the like- lihood that wind patterns will send fumes roiling into nearby neighbor- hoods;

• improved the efficiency of the water-spray scrubbers that remove acid gases before production line fumes are released to the air;

• substituted a better, tightly-con- trolled method for adding bacteria- killing chemicals to the massive cooling towers so that larger amounts of haz- ardous bromoform don’t cause airway breathing spasms in nearby homeown- ers or passersby;

• eliminated cyanide compounds used in the manufacturing process and dis- mantled the cyanide destruction unit suspected by an Intel whistleblower of causing illnesses;

• reduced the use of the “hazardous air pollutant” (HAP) hexafluoroethane, suspected as a leading culprit for sick- nesses reported by nearby residents;

• eliminated the chemical hexam- ethyldisilazane (HMDS) which, when incinerated, produces a fine silica dust suspected of causing lung fibrosis; and

• agreed to fund an independent, citi- zen-controlled testing of silica dust re- leased to the air when HMDS is burned in the incinerators to find out whether the fine particles are the dangerous sharp-edged crystalline kind or the more innocuous amorphous silica.

Those changes to Intel’s operations here were not demanded by regulators in the N.M. Air Quality Bureau —in fact, the agency cannot impose such re- quirements on Intel.

And the U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (EPA) which delegates reg- ulatory authority to the state bureau, may have relatively little leverage with which to force Intel to better control its chemical emissions.

While EPA initiated an enforcement action against Intel a year ago and staged a thorough inspection of the Intel facilities here last December, a serious crack-down on operations at the mi- crochip factory next door may not hap- pen.

That’s because essentially no health- based air quality standards have been set for most of the toxic chemicals Intel and other industries use, even though many are lethal in small doses.

Regulations on release of these chem- icals to the air citizens breathe cannot be enforced because, for the most part, there are no regulations.

The writing of regulations for HAPs that would implement the 1963 federal Clean Air Act and amendments in 1970, ’77 and ’90 has mostly not been accomplished for technical, and largely political, reasons.

Ambient air quality standards exist for just six air pollutants for which cri- teria have been set: carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, lead, ground-level ozone and particulate mat- ter.

As Air Quality Bureau Chief Mary Uhl explained, “We do have the author- ity to say ‘This facility is exceeding na- tional health-base standards for one of the criteria air pollutants,’ but the toxics are not included in that.

“There are no criteria for those toxic chemicals.”

If there are no federal or state limits on how much toxic chemicals Intel or any other factory can dump into the air we breathe, is there no way to limit ex- posures downwind residents must en- dure?

Yes, there is, if Intel voluntarily dis- covers and adopts those ways.

And those anti-pollution measures may even be written into Intel’s State- issued permit —but only if Intel agrees.

Policies set at the Intel corporate level call for ongoing reductions in usage of

toxic chemicals, and that does happen to some extent.

However, when a non-toxic mi- crochip making process was invented by a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratories in the late 1990s, Corrales Residents for Clean Air and Water (CRCAW) urged Intel to switch to that new process using super-critical carbon dioxide and far less water.

Intel showed little interest in the new process; the massive re-tooling of the facilities here in 2008-09 did not incor- porate that innovation.

In the course of implementing the corporation’s chosen new manufactur- ing technology, Intel added three new HAPs for which it must track usage and eliminated five others. Its State air pol- lution permit includes more than 40 HAPs, including cyanide and other highly poisonous substances such as hy- drogen fluoride. 

The facility here can release to the air up to nine tons a year of any of those toxic chemicals and a total of 29 tons a year for all HAPs combined. The per- mit allows Intel to release many other State-listed “toxic air pollutants” (TAPs) and up to 96.5 tons a year of volatile organic compounds.

Citizens affected by Intel’s air pollu- tion have argued for more than a decade that short-term limits should be set for how much of those chemicals can be re- leased. Critics have pointed out that Intel could release so much of a toxic chemical within five minutes that it killed everyone in a half-mile radius and still not have exceeded the annual limit set in the permit.

Now there’s hope change may be coming.

Air Quality Bureau Chief Uhl said EPA officials investigating Intel’s com- pliance with the Clean Air Act are fo- cused on the adequacy of that permit and whether short-term limits should be set.

“The over-arching issue —and I think Intel would agree with this— is whether this is a ‘major source’ or a ‘minor source’” of air pollution, Uhl recalled. “That was readily apparent,” from her

discussions with EPA. If EPA determines that the bureau’s

permit for Intel should be withdrawn and re-issued with regulations suitable for a major polluter, the new permit may, or may not, set hourly, daily or monthly emissions limits, Uhl cau- tioned.

EPA’s report on its December inves- tigation at Intel-Rio Rancho is to be re- leased this summer. A separate “community health consultation” initi- ated in 2004 by a citizen’s petition to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is also expected this summer.

Whatever regulatory changes may lie ahead, it seems clear that, absent com- prehensive federal standards for most of Intel’s industrial chemicals, improve- ments to air quality for Intel down- winders will depend on the chipmaker’s voluntary corrections and improve- ments.

A citizen involvement process to nudge that along has been functioning since August 2004 when Intel set up a Community Environmental Working Group (CEWG) in the aftermath of the inconclusive, disappointing 2002-04 Corrales Air Toxics Study.

The Intel-funded committee includes long-time members of New Mexicans for Clean Air and Water and is chaired by that group’s John Bartlit.

CRCAW’s Roberta King and Lynne Kinis have regularly attended CEWG monthly meetings as “members of the public” rather than committee members to avoid lending legitimacy to what they regard as an Intel public relations effort.

Bartlit insists CEWG has produced solid improvements, including most of those listed at the beginning of this arti- cle.

Some, perhaps much, of that im- provement might be credited to the decades of demands by CRCAW mem- bers as well as to Uhl’s leadership on the Corrales Air Toxics Study, and even more to the charges made by Intel whistleblowers George Evans and Chris Grosbeck. (See Corrales Comment Vol.XXII, No.10, July 5, 2003 “Second

Intel Whistleblower Goes Public”) “Government agencies can do only what they have legal authority to do,” Bartlit pointed out. “They have to fol- low established procedures for adopting and enforcing rules, which involve pre- scribed scientific methods and legal steps. The end result is a sizeable and unavoidable time-lag in acquiring ade- quate data on the effects of pollutants on urban populations, using the meth-

ods of science. “There is a further sizeable and un-

avoidable time-lag in formulating these data into specific regulations and re- strictions on any given industry.”

Decades can pass before collected data and analysis turn into regulations, he explained. And in the fast-paced semiconductor industry, technologies and chemical compounds applied will likely always be years ahead of regula- tions.

“Therefore, the CEWG applies its ex- perience to reduce emissions more swiftly by other means,” Bartlit contin- ued. “The CEWG works by probing Intel operations with Intel engineers and finding opportunities for more rapid im- provements. The community-involved process has produced specific reduc- tions in chemical emissions at Intel. The approach is the same one used to make better computers or better anything — continuous improvement.”

Bartlit listed seven specific improve- ments at Intel he feels were achieved by CEWG’s collaboration.

“None of the changes made could be required by state or federal regulators. Worthwhile changes have achieved the following:

• eliminated most of the unabated emissions during scheduled mainte- nance of pollution controls by shorten- ing the time the controls are off for routine maintenance;

• reduced the total emissions of bio- cides from cooling towers, by installing controls that add smaller amounts of biocide to cooling water as needed;

• reduced the amount of isopropyl al- cohol that is used at the plant and emit- ted to the air;

• added certain redundant (back up) pollution controls to reduce unabated emissions while work is done on con- trols;

• raised the heights of stacks that emit pollutants (height was increased by about seven meters, roughly half the CEWG’s recommended increase) to re- duce peak concentrations of pollutants at ground level;

• removed rain caps from stacks to re- duce peak concentrations of pollutants at ground level;

• improved the operation (raised the pH, or acidity balance) of a control process to achieve better removal of 1- heptanethiol from air emissions.”

The group has given a lot of attention to establishing a “citizen protocol” for independent testing of Intel emissions due to widespread public distrust of Intel’s own test results and those pro- duced by its consultants. For a test case, the CEWG has chosen to test Intel’s sil- ica releases that are a byproduct of in- cinerating the solvent HMDS.

The temperature at which the com- pound is burned at Intel along with other VOCs is a near-match for that which would produce the more danger- ous crystalline silica. (See Corrales Comment’s six-part series on silica and other pollutants starting in Vol.XX, No.13, August 25, 2001 “Larry Vigil Blamed Intel for Fatal Lung Disease.”)

“The N.M. Air Quality Bureau is more likely to give prompt support for the test the more strongly the commu- nity says they want the silica testing done,” Bartlit noted. “Again, we see the various pressures that help produce ac- tions on issues.”

At CEWG’s next meeting, Wednes- day, March 17, 5-7 p.m. in the Corrales Senior Center, discussion will focus on recent chemical use changes and emis- sions from Intel that might have led to an increase in nearby residents’ com- plaints as Intel’s new technology went into operation.

The rash of complaints last fall and this winter, some from villagers who say Intel’s pollution is now as bad as ever, leads some observers to question

CEWG’s value. As CRCAW’s Fred Marsh wrote re-

cently, “We’re deeply indebted to three courageous Intel employees and three former N.M. Environment Department employes whose “inside Intel” infor- mation confirmed our suspicions. Most Intel changes during the past few years were encouraged by the Intel whistle- blowers, although doing so cost them their jobs.

“Yet Bartlit wants credit for what these former Intel employees initiated and what CRCAW has fought for dur- ing the past two decades.

“Nearby residents have recently re- ported that Intel’s toxic emissions are as bad as they have ever been. Is Bartlit willing to take credit for these probably higher actual releases, or only the ficti- tious calculated emissions that Intel re- ports?

“I can justify the word ‘fictitious’ be- cause no supporting evidence has ever been provided or requested for Intel emission factors.

“And I keep citing the example in Intel’s fourth quarter report of 2003 when 1.4 tons of carcinogenic carbon tetrachloride was actually measured, yet Intel reported their calculated zero re- lease.”

As might be expected, Intel officials downplay any relevance to allegations made by employee whistleblowers.

Intel Environmental Health and Safety Manager Sarah Chavez was asked in an interview January 21 whether the significant changes made in equipment and operations around the Central Utility Building (CUB) were implemented as a result of problems raised by former Intel Rio Rancho in- dustrial hygienist George Evans in 2003.

Evans charged Intel was deliberately covering up pollution problems and had ordered him to do air sampling that would be misleading. He identified the CUB and surrounding equipment, par- ticularly the acid gas scrubbers and the cyanide destruct unit, as one source of air contamination that might be causing health problems among nearby resi-

dents. Asked about changes around the

CUB, Chavez replied, “I will tell you that the cyanide destruct system is no longer in operation. That system has been shut down; that chemical is no longer used in the process.

“We had to remove cyanide from the waste water which is why we had to have that treatment system. It’s been gone for at least a couple years now.”

And other changes at the CUB which Evans recommended have been made. “A few years ago Intel allocated $6 mil- lion to look at scrubbers and make sure they had redundancy and other im- provements. The CUB scrubbers were included in that. How it related to any- thing alleged by George Evans, I wouldn’t know,” Chavez said.

Evans also insisted, internally and then as a whistleblower when his con- cerns were disregarded, that the ammo- nia waste stream coming to the CUB should be segregated from other chem- icals to allow the pollution control sys- tems to operate effectively.

Asked about that, Chavez replied, “There is ammonia segregation for scrubbers across the site. Whether that was directly a result of George Evan’s allegations, again, I don’t know. They’ve been doing that over time. I don’t know specifically when it was started.

“ Intel’s plan of record now is to have segregated ammonia exhaust.”

Incinerators and scrubbers are the two main air pollution control equipment at the Intel facilities. The incinerators burn off the VOCs (mostly solvents) and the acid gas scrubbers clean HAPs, TAPs and basically anything not routed to the incinerators.

But the removal efficiency of scrub- bers has been poor at best. As a result of process changes, the efficiency is now much better, as Chavez explained. “Early on the mind-set was to send all the exhaust to the scrubbers. Now they’ve tried to basically remove ex- haust that doesn’t have emissions, so you could have a more concentrated ex- haust stream.”

And that, she explained, significantly improves the removal efficiency.

But the down-side is acid gases are more concentrated coming out of the scrubbers if the equipment fails.

Intel’s community environmental manager, Thom Little, reported at the February 17 CEWG meeting that neigh- borhood complaint calls had increased recently “when the pH control was lost on the scrubbers” due to a water line break.

A Washington Post news article Janu- ary 4 reported that Congress is expected to write new regulations for chemicals this year to update the 1976 Toxic Sub- stances Control Act.

According to the article by Lyndsey Layton, an estimated 700 new chemical compounds are brought onto the market each year. Roughly 17,000 compounds on the market today are labeled “se- cret;” that is, their molecular structure is proprietary information, and not available to the public, and often not even to regulators.

Intel’s latest permit revision includes several secret chemicals that are identi- fied only by brand name.

CRCAW’s Fred Marsh, a retired Los Alamos labs chemist, has repeatedly raised concerns about Intel’s use of chemicals for which public health stan- dards do not exist. “For more than two decades Intel has been allowed to re- lease multi-ton quantities of chemical compounds whose safe limits have never been determined,” he said March 1. “Even worse is that Intel releases these as mixtures whose toxicities can be increased by orders of magnitude by synergistic effects.

“In a very real sense, Intel’s neighbors have served as guinea pigs during their long exposures to these untested chem- ical compounds and mixtures.”

While Bartlit and others commend Intel for taking steps to address com- munity complaints, that process may leave affected neighbors and Intel staffers alike feeling as though they’re under constant attack.

Community tensions produced by on- going complaint-based improvements

erupted at an October 27, 2005 meeting. Intel’s director of corporate responsi- bility, Dave Stangis, remarked, “What you need to do is push us, so we can continue to push this envelope” of in-

corporating cleaner, safer technology. The comment was resented by at least one member of the audience, Corrales’ Joy Tschawuschian. She has com- plained of health problems from Intel

for nearly two decades. She replied: “I don’t like the sound of

having to ‘push’ Intel. I’m tired of push- ing Intel. I’ve been pushing Intel since 1989. Now how much longer do I have to push Intel?

“I’m tired of pushing my windows closed on a hot summer night. I’m tired of pushing Intel.”

Intel’s Mindy Koch got the point but added, “I want to acknowledge that be- cause of the pushing on Intel, I think it makes us better. It pushes us to do things that are better than our other sites are doing, putting in other improve- ments.”

Intel officials were provided a cour- tesy copy of this article for review and comment. Communications Manager Elizabeth Shipley responded as follows. “The CEWG was established in 2004 and is committed to making continuous environmental improvements. The CEWG membership includes represen- tatives from the N.M. Citizens for Clean Air and Water, Intel’s Environmental Health and Safety Group and concerned citizens.

“We are pleased that this unique col- laboration has produced significant im- provements including voluntary upgrades to our emissions equipment. We encourage members of our commu- nity to participate in the discussion.”