George Evans

George Evans

The Law Office of

Richard A. Allen

Suite D-120

901 Rio Grande Blvd., NW

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104

-

-

Phone:  505/242-8088                                                                email:  rick@allenlaw.net

Fax:  208/474-4337                                                                  website:www.allenlaw.net

-

-

March 18, 2003

-

-

Todd W. Rallison

-

-

Re:  Albuquerque Intel employee George Evans

-

Dear Mr. Rallison:

This office represents George Evans, who is currently employed by Intel as a Professional Industrial Hygienist.

In the course of his duties Mr. Evans has become concerned about certain emissions originating from Intel’s Cub scrubber and cooling towers, which apparently have been present for several years. As you are probably aware, those release points are on a ridge directly adjacent to and above the village of Corrales. Based on his interviews with several engineers, Mr. Evans has become concerned that the scrubbers and cooling towers may be emitting hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, ammonium fluoride, ammonia salts, free ammonia and chloramines in unknown quantities.

These chemical are respiratory irritants even at very low levels for those with prior medical conditions. But Intel seems to have deliberately chosen not to look into the conditions of the cub scrubber, or do sampling to evaluate its impact on the health of Corrales residents. It is they who would be on the receiving of the plume from the cub scrubber stack and cooling towers on days when winds were pulled in their direction and when inversions occurred—events which are fairly common during early morning and at night.

Furthermore, the scrubber has undeniably been in need of repair or replacement for some time, as the throw velocity and design of the exhaust is sub standard. The technicians working on the unit avoid the scrubber because they know that the emissions are harmful. Apparently these problems with the scrubber have been on the table for at least five years. An odor probably attributable to the scrubber can be detected walking at Intel's border and in the Corrales neighborhood nearby.

Despite these concerns raised by Mr. Evans, Intel has not addressed the condition of the scrubber or perform sampling. Mr. Evans could locate only one report from an EHS intern that investigated the scrubber plume without the new factories (fab11x) load using pull tubes, despite continuing Corrales neighborhood complaints (including complaints of respiratory illness). One would have thought that Intel should have funded a rigorous evaluation and action plan at that time, with a full disclosure to those possibly impacted.

Mr. Evan’s concerns started particularly with the organic community sampling he was instructed to complete. It became apparent to Mr. Evans that he was being directed to use methods of sampling intended not so much to detect any problem, but to provide legal cover with sampling that could be expected to miss or minimize the quantity of emissions. His original draft proposal, reviewed by the IH team, and subsequent drafts of a sampling strategy, included using plume modeling, the modeling provided in the risk assessment and the data maps used for permitting. Intel’s rejection of this more accurate method of testing was a matter of great concern to Mr. Evans, and he continued with the sampling knowing that any sampling done at Intel's boundary would only represents ambient conditions and would not take into account the full impact of Intel emissions—missing, due to the elevation of the stacks, those emissions which would disperse and land off site. Mr. Evans raised this concern with his immediate supervisor and the department manager on several occasions. Mr. Evans and a coworker submitted a peer ( positive feedback) and management ( no feed back) reviewed technical report on the organic sampling with recommendations that sampling continue using plume modeling. Mr. Evans was told by his immediate supervisor that the report was rejected by management because of the noted recommendation.

It was especially in connection with the work with the EPA and Corrales that Mr. Evans felt that the work Intel was setting him to was an exercise in intentional misdirection. Those outside parties had been led to think that Intel’s investigations (Organic Sampling) were aimed at finding the source of their complaints; in fact, they were neither aware of these issues nor made aware of them.

Evans’ own investigation of inorganic emissions was motivated by his desire to understand the real impact from the scrubbers and cooling towers. After engaging in a detailed review of the cub scrubber's history and the cooling towers, he became convinced that Cub and cooling towers were prime candidates for the odor source. Though he discussed this in the team meetings on two occasions, he was again dissuaded from continuing the investigation, even though Fab 11x and future tools would be using much more ammonia, and the problem could only be expected to worsen. Intel’s response to this was to again direct him to stay out of it and focus on the perimeter sampling.

Indeed, when Evans attempted to do sampling on two "no to low wind" days, thinking that the data set would be more indicative of the actual plume (given that the plume for part of the day would coming straight down), the department manager became extremely angry and ordered a complete stop of the sampling for a period of a week.

You are aware, I am sure, of the consequences of Mr. Evans’ raising these questions. Though he has, over the course of his nine years at Intel, been an exemplary employee, he has suddenly been put on probation for poor performance. His concerns about the accuracy and completeness of environmental testing are now characterized as poor customer relations, inadequate speed in completing reports, or confrontational work habits.

Trivial items such as parking in the wrong parking space (after hours, when the whole lot was empty), or happening to sleep through a routine pager call ,after hours at night, are elevated to allegedly serious employee infractions requiring a corrective action plan. These attempts to penalize his conscientious attention to real potential problems at Intel would be ludicrous were it not for the serious consequences that Intel purports to attach to them:

Failure to successfully complete the CAP will result in termination of your employment. Moreover, you must maintain successful performance levels for all other areas of your job while working on the CAP. In addition, you may be terminated at any time during the period of the CAP if sufficient progress is not being made, or if other performance or behavioral problems appear. If either the performance or behavioral issues reoccur after the completion of the CAP you may be terminated immediately at this discretion of Intel.

This language essentially instructs Mr. Evans that his continuing to be “confrontational” about these emissions problems—i.e., by continuing to register concern about them—will result in his termination. This is behavior that violates an employer’s duty not to take adverse employment action against employees whose work responsibilities implicate the employer’s public statutory environmental duties. It also appears to me to violate the employee protection provisions of the Clean Air Act. I should note, incidentally, that Mr. Evans came to see me about his concerns prior to receiving the CAP. It didn’t cause him to seek legal help; it merely confirmed that he was right to do so.

Though I have discussed initiation of a citizen’s civil action with Mr. Evans (since there do seem to be some possible permit violations in connection with the operation of the cub scrubber and other point-of-use abatement devices), at this point there seems yet time to hope that Intel can be persuaded to do the right thing short of such an action.

Mr. Evans is operating under no illusions that he has a future with Intel. He knows of others who, upon raising comparable concerns, found themselves pariahs in the company under the current management and, if not fired, had life made unpleasant enough for them that they had no reasonable choice but to leave. He is realistic enough to recognize that his days are numbered, and what he desires, at this point, is a realistic separation package that will address the undoubted damages he is going to suffer in losing this position.

At the same time, Mr. Evans’ settlement demand should not be construed as a solicitation for “hush money.” He insists that Intel provide him with a plan assuring him that his concerns will be investigated, and that the honest results of that investigation be shared with the Corrales community.

Mr. Evans is willing, at this point, to allow Intel to keep control of this process, so long as it is done with integrity, and with a reasonable time-line for disclosure of the results.

Mr. Evans is looking at some difficult times following his departure from Intel. The unavailability of comparable employment anywhere nearby will require his re-locating. He may find himself compelled to accept a position away from his children, who currently reside here in Albuquerque in their mother’s legal custody. If he stays in Albuquerque, he can work as a nurse, but at an expected salary of something less than half of what he currently earns. If he takes a comparable job elsewhere—and no comparable jobs would appear open anywhere in New Mexico, he loses day to day contact with his children, a considerable, if intangible damage.

There will also be the continuing stigma of having left Intel under circumstances that may give any future employer pause. You know, and I know, the true reason that Mr. Evans is in Intel’s bad graces. But, however truthfully Mr. Evans relates the details of this controversy, and whatever recommendation Intel agrees to give Mr. Evans with future employers, there will always be a cloud over his leaving. No meaningful job he will ever apply for will not require giving his employment history and filling in that “reason for leaving” box. His explanation of this episode will never suffice to entirely remove from any future employer’s mind the nagging doubt that something more was involved than his honest belief that Intel was engaged in deliberately overlooking potentially hazardous emissions.

Mr. Evans’ salary at Intel is currently $73000.00 per annum including bonus, apart from benefits.    He currently possesses certain Intel stock options whose long-term value is undeniably greater than the value he would have to take for them in leaving now, when they are at a historically low level. At this time he has authorized me to make the following demand: If Intel will provide him with a separation package, with severance pay of three hundred and sixty five thousand dollars, the opportunity to hold on to his Intel stock options, continuance of COBRA benefits, and Intel’s commitment to address these environmental problems in a way that is subject to monitoring and disclosure to the community, he won’t have recourse to his right to raise these issues directly, in court, or with the community.

Mr. Evans really does want a solution to this impasse that will protect the community, allow Intel to address its problems in a non-coercive fashion, and allow him to get on with his life with sufficient compensation to outweigh the harm which his efforts have apparently earned him. Please consider this offer seriously, and get back to me as soon as practical.

                                        Sincerely, etc.