INTEL POLLUTION PERMIT WILL BE EXAMINED BY EIB

 

Corrales Comment, March 6, 2004

N.M. Environment Secretary Ron Curry has promised to present a staff analysis of Corrales residents’ findings of harmful levels of Intel toxins to the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). 

After listening to presentations by Corrales Residents for Clean Air and Water (CRCAW) February 26, Curry directed Air Quality Bureau staffers to study the group’s technical analysis which shows toxic chemical concentrations above levels that could cause adverse health effects.

CRCAW members Fred Marsh, Steve Martinez, Martha Egan and Barbara Rockwell were in Curry’s office to demand that Intel¹s air pollution permit be re-opened and tightened.

Hearing the presentation were Curry, Environmental Protection Division Director Jim Norton, Air Quality Bureau Chief Sandra Ely, Corrales Air Toxics Project Manager Mary Uhl and the man who wrote the controversial pollution permit for Intel, Richard Goodyear.

A report by Martinez based on measurements by Intel’s own consultant, TRC Environmental, demonstrated that several pollutants measured at Intel are significantly above levels of concern for public health.

Minutes taken at the meeting by Rockwell, CRCAW co-founder, note that Curry said he found the group’s technical data “very enlightening.” 

“As we look at the data you presented, we will rely heavily on what comes back from our staff. This is what we will present to the EIB.”

It was not clear what action the board might take to re-open the Intel permit or otherwise initiate regulatory changes.

CRCAW and Southwest Organizing Project had presented their case against the March 2000 Intel permit and had been rebuffed. The board appointed by then-Governor Gary Johnson refused to overturn the permit, and refused to consider expert testimony by Corrales scientists.

The February 26 meeting with Secretary Curry was also attended by attorney Rod Ventura, with the N.M. Environmental Law Center, which presented the unsuccessful case to the EIB in 2000-01.

But while NMED staffers are crunching numbers that measure Intel toxins in the air, Intel is busy crunching its consultants

Apparently surprised by concentrations of pollutants found by its consultant in stack tests and ambient air monitoring, Intel is pushing for a more favorable analysis of the data collected.

Pressures on the consultant, TRC Environmental, will result in a double-check, and triple-check, of the findings. But any revisions are likely to be too late to be incorporated in a health risk assessment being done for the N.M. Air Quality Bureau.

Intel spokesman Fred Shannon said February 26 that “TRC has brought in additional consultants to double check data from the third quarter (2003) stack tests.” Those tests, for example, revealed carbonyl fluoride, a chemical Intel’s toxicologist had said couldn’t be present.

Shannon said the reading for carbonyl fluoride “was barely above the detection level, so they’re decided to bring in a third set of eyes to analyze the data.”

Intel’s toxicologist, Don Fisher, had asked that TRC re-examine its finding of carbonyl fluoride in the fumes leaving Intel’s stacks. In a memo February 5, Fisher said he had asked Intel to “request a further analysis of the readings… to search for the true existence of this compound.”

TRC found the highly toxic chemical during stack tests as part of the chipmaker’s required quarterly emissions report last fall and during ambient air monitoring that coincided with the bureau¹s air toxics study.

The Intel toxicologist had reported to the Corrales Air Toxics Task Force last November that it is highly unlikely that carbonyl fluoride could be found in the air as a byproduct of Intel emissions because it would change to some other form immediately.

But TRC’s third quarter 2003 stack tests did find carbonyl fluoride and so did the consultant’s air monitor.

TRC’s report on its Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) readings along the Intel plant’s east boundary, adjacent to Corrales, shows that carbonyl fluoride was detected every day from August 21 to September 7, 2003.

It was detected 20 times in the air over Corrales on August 23, for example, and 23 times on August 25; 24 times on August 30; 25 times on September 3; and 29 times on September 4.

That particular chemical is of special concern to CRCAW’s Fred Marsh, a retired Los Alamos National Laboratories chemist. He has pointed out repeatedly that carbonyl fluoride is highly toxic, similar to the chemical warfare gas phosgene.

The TRC report shows that phosgene itself was detected on ten days during the same period along Intel’s east fence line.

Marsh said he is disturbed by Fisher’s attempt to get TRC to change its findings. “Dr. Don Fisher, a physician on Intel’s payroll, believes carbonyl fluoride cannot be formed or exist long enough to be measured,” Marsh pointed out.

“Yet as a scientist, I am swayed by experimental evidence to the contrary. The fact that Intel’s own FTIR detected carbonyl fluoride 622 times during measurements on Intel’s property last August is difficult for me to ignore.

“Nor can I ignore stack testing results in Intel’s third quarter report of 2003, in which carbonyl fluoride was measured on Intel’s Central Utility Building scrubber 8s.4.2ab at the very high concentration of 2,280 parts per billion!

“Carbonyl fluoride is particularly hazardous, as its structure and toxicity are so similar to that of phosgene (the chemical warfare agent) that it is known as fluoro-phosgene.

“Significantly, this same scrubber where such high levels of carbonyl fluoride were measured has been the source of many of the toxic pollutants that have plagued Corrales, according to both Intel whistleblowers,” Marsh pointed out.

He referred to former Intel senior industrial hygienist George Evans and former Intel mechanical engineer Chris Grotbeck who last summer revealed uncorrected problems with the plant’s acid gas scrubbers. (See Corrales Comment Vol.XXII, No.7, May 24, 2003, “Intel Insider Charges Cover-Up on Toxic Emissions into Corrales” and No. 10, July 5, 2003, “Second Intel Whistleblower Goes Public on Emissions Cover-Up.”)

Carbonyl fluoride and phosgene are just two of many chemical pollutants recorded by TRC in stack tests and ambient air monitoring last fall. At the February 5 Air Toxics Task Force meeting at the Old Church, Martinez pulled numerous readings from the TRC air monitoring report and compared the toxic concentrations recorded to public health screening levels used by the State of Texas in its air pollution regulatory program.

Martinez, a Corrales data analyst who lives near Intel, demonstrated that several toxins measured by Intel consultant TRC were at levels greatly exceeding “effects screening levels” used by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to determine compliance with the Texas Clean Air Act.

In his detailed presentation, Martinez noted that the Texas Toxicology and Risk Assessment (TARA) he used to compare measured toxins around the Intel plant are accepted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and used by NMED for some purposes.

In tables and graphs, Martinez showed comparisons of measured toxins here and the Texas “effects screening levels” (ESLs).

One of the toxins found by TRC, bromoform which Intel is allowed to release, was 667 times higher than the ESL for short-term exposures, he pointed out.

Many other airborne chemicals measured on the periphery of Intel which were recorded for more than 15 minutes were greater than twice the short-term ESL.

Nitric acid was measured many times at more than twice the ESL, once for more than 20 hours. Another of the chemicals Intel is allowed to emit, benzene, a known cause of headaches, respiratory irritation and cancer, was measured at nearly seven times the ESL.

Martinez concluded his presentation by noting, “Hazardous levels of many compounds have been measured at the boundaries of the Intel facility which are shown to grossly exceed acceptable short-term criteria.

But, he concluded, “As bad as this appears, these emissions don’t violate the existing permit because there are no limits on short-term emissions in the permit.”

He called for modification of the Intel permit to establish short-term emissions levels and continuous emissions monitoring to track short-term ‘spikes.”

Martinez presented a refinement of the same data to Secretary Curry and his NMED staff February 26.

Intel officials at the February 5 task force meeting, hearing Martinez’s analysis for the first time, did not refute the data or conclusions, but noted that many of the chemicals analyzed seemed to be products of combustion and not indisputably emanating from Intel.

Asked for a response to Martinez’s  presentation, Intel’s Mindy Koch and toxicologist Don Fisher replied as follows on February 27. “The data used for his analysis were ambient air measurements of chemicals that are widely recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency as common vehicle emissions. We also note that the great majority of these chemicals are not emitted by Intel, and have been routinely found in other urban areas.”

The Koch-Fisher memo concluded: “The analysis is based on incorrect risk assessment assumptions and should be reviewed by NMED and their expert consultants.”

Martinez intends to defend his analysis when it is attacked by Koch and Fisher at the March 23 task force meeting, 5:30 p.m. at the Rio Rancho City Hall. He disagrees with their assertion that the chemicals he chose to compare to ESLs are mostly vehicle combustion gases. “In fact, a majority (23 of the 44 compounds analyzed) are compounds that Intel is allowed to release as indicated in their permit, and many are unlikely to be ‘common vehicle emissions.”
Besides, Martinez insisted, “If the source of the detected chemicals is vehicles as claimed, why were the highest concentrations of these chemicals found at the Intel boundary furthest from heavy car traffic?”

He agreed that some of the chemicals measured could be coming from vehicle exhaust, but added that Intel’s boilers and solvent incinerators are contributors of the same combustion compounds. And regardless of the source, he said, the heavy concentrations of those compounds at Intel produces.  “A synergistic interaction between these and other toxic Intel emissions could make the combination far more hazardous than either alone.

“An example is the detection at the Intel fence line at ground level of nitric acid for a duration of 20 hours out of 20 hours, at 2.5 times over the short-term effects screening level.  Intel reports using multi-ton quantities of nitric acid each quarter, which is most probably contributing to this specific, unhealthful level of nitric acid.”

Martinez’s comparisons of TRC’s findings to the Texas screening levels are a major factor in mounting pressures to re-open the Intel pollution permit. Another big factor at the February 26 meeting with Secretary Curry was the admission by Air Quality Bureau permit writer Richard Goodyear that neither he nor other state regulators possess any documentation that the Intel-supplied “emissions factor” calculations have been independently verified.

The controversial Intel permit does not require actual continuous emissions monitoring to determine how much of each regulated toxin is being emitted.  Instead, Intel is allowed to calculate what its annual emissions will be, based on a pre-determined multiplier, or factor,  related to how much chemical is theoretically sucked off into exhaust ducts from a particular manufacturing step and how much of it will be removed by pollution control
equipment before being released to the air.

But former Air Quality Bureau permit supervisor Jim Shively and other regulators have argued for years that the bureau has no independent verification of the accuracy of those “emissions factors.” Without such verification, Shively, Marsh and others have insisted, there is no way to tell how much of each toxin is actually being released, especially over short durations.

Marsh pressed that point at the February 26 meeting with Curry. Addressing Intel permit writer Goodyear, Marsh said. “I asked you about the 32 emission factors, and asked you what proof you had to verify these emissions factors. I asked you if you had evidence for those, and you said, ‘No.”

“Is there in the department files any record going back to when the minor source permit was considered, a record of department personnel doing a proper investigation to validate that these emissions factors were correct?  Can you produce some documentation to back it up?”

According to minutes of the meeting, Goodyear responded: “No. There is nothing in a permitting action like that.”

Shively, the recently retired bureau permit writing supervisor who calls the version finally approved a “sham,” said the process was subverted to give Intel the pollution permit it demanded.

“There are plenty of department memos to the file that question the factors and permit conditions. Why then, are there not department memos that ultimately accepted the factors and permit conditions?

“If the department can’t verify the factors, how does it know that Intel is below the 10 tons per year limit for a single Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) or the 25 ton per year limit for combined HAPs?”