Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure you're savvy enough to do your own web search. You can easily find information about Intel's Superfund sites in CA. And as both MuddyT and I alluded to in our posts (coming from different angles,) there's plenty of information out there regarding the ongoing controversy about Intel's impact in NM. It's not, as you say, scaremongering. Scaremongering implies there's no evidence base--just not the case here. There's actually an accumulation of data over years--not enough to get to the bottom of this complex issue, but enough to create a foundation for further scientific inquiry. I suppose if you really want to know more about it, rather than just dismissing other people's comments as "over the top" in a world-weary way, you can instead do a bit of your own research and draw your own conclusions, or at least generate some new questions.
No-I'm not doing your research project for free. I've already done quite a bit of reading for myself and will continue to follow the debate. If you really still don't believe that Intel is involved in Superfund cleanup at 3 sites in CA, though, it might be interesting for you to google it someday.
But let's make peace. We can agree to disagree. I don't think I was called out (though I like that word bupkis)--in fact, MuddyT's suggestion to look hard at more data has, if anything, opened up new questions for me about their operations. Let's just say I would not be in a hurry to move my family too close to their facility at this point. (But that would be true for almost any large, pollution-producing plant I can think of.)
It's ok if you, who feel you are very familiar with Intel, have decided to accept their party line. Plenty of people have. But others haven't, and for now I think I'm still in that camp, barring new information.
Naport, you peaked my interest in taking you up on your suggestion to do a web search on Intel's Superfund sites in CA. As a longtime environmental/air quality professional I have a general knowledge of Superfund regs and related EPA practices. So while I only took a few hours to do the search and thus it isn't what I would call intensive, I think it does reflect what a trained professional would find when they look into this issue. What I found is:
1. Out of the three California sites, two are considered very minor. For example, see http://www.ehib.org/projects/MicroSt...gneticsPHA.pdf, a 1992 California Department of Health report that concludes "The available evidence does not indicate that humans are or have been exposed to contaminants related to the Micro Storage/Intel Magnetics site at levels of public health concern. Therefore, ATSDR and CDHS conclude that the Micro Storage/Intel Magnetics site represents no apparent public health hazard."
2. Regarding the second minor site, Intel Corp (Santa Clara 3), the EPA Region 9 superfund website (Site Overview|Intel Corp. (Santa Clara 3)|US EPA |Region 9|Superfund) says "EPA has completed a fourth Five Year Review for the site and determined that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. There are currently no follow-up issues that need to be addressed."
3. Based on the 2010 progress report (http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9s...es_figures.pdf) for the third (Mountain View) California superfund site, it appears that groundwater remediation efforts at this site are achieving expected (successful) results. EPA is continuing to investigate vapor intrustion pathways at the site, but none of the information on the EPA web site (Site Overview|Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant)|US EPA |Region 9|Superfund) suggest a significant problem has been found in this regard or that Intel is not working with the other potentially responsible parties to address possible concerns (in fact the website mentions the voluntary remediation measures the parties have undertaken).
Ever since Love Canal, superfund sites have raised significant fears with some people. I believe your original post used the word "terrifying". In some cases these concerns have been legitimate, but in other instances they have been way over-blown. What I found in the record for Intel in California seems to me, in my professional opinion, to be much more toward the over-blown side if someone is attempting to claim that those three sites provide proof of the company being a bad actor environmental-wise.
Does that mean Intel has been perfect and has had no issues with toxic emissions, either in the ground water or air? No, not by any means. But after reading some of the blogosphere postings you mentioned, I'm unconvinced that Intel is as bad an actor as they suggest.
Face it, if they were as bad as it is suggested, in this age of environmental litigation more than one law firm would have already taken them on.
There's clearly a wide gap in opinions on this issue. The Corrales Air Toxics Study (http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/OOTS/PR/Corrales%20Final%20Report%20PR.pdf and http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/pro...ect-Report.pdf) performed in 2004 states, “Based upon available data, this health risk assessment did not find evidence that any of the modeled or measured chemicals are associated with increased acute or chronic health risks. It must be noted, however, that uncertainties associated with the limited nature of available monitoring and modeling data do exist.” Some would say this study supports a finding that pollution from the Intel plant is not a problem, others would say the study was flawed.
I don't live that near Intel, I'm several miles north in Bernalillo. And I've only been here two years so cannot comment intelligently on any possible problems in the past. But after looking through all the info I found, I do not view the current plant as terrifying or anything near that adjective.
Is there some uncertainty about the health impacts of the plant on neighboring residents? Yes. But uncertainty doesn't mean certainty. I found lots of conjecture but no concrete evidence that the plant is causing surrounding health issues. And I'll return to my earlier point - I believe if such evidence existed, someone would have successfully litigated this issue by now.
Thank you, Rwjoyak. Raising questions is good, OP. They need to be raised often so that we all remain vigilant.
But as a longtime raiser of questions I can tell you that nothing undermines a cause quicker than mis- or disinformation. Credibility is critical in a successful opposition. And in this day of Internets there is no excuse for innuendo. There is a mass of information with provenance readily available to all. Except possibly my mother, who can send a computer gibbering into lunacy in three minutes flat.
Local author V.B. Price has a new book out, called The Orphaned Land: New Mexico's Environment since the Manhattan Project. He devotes a few pages to the Intel situation. I recommend you check it out. A recurring theme in the book is "Who do you trust"? With just about any environmental issue there are so many sides to the story.
As for the effects of Intel on Corrales, there have been some 600 residents who have reported unusual symptoms who believe they were caused by emissions from the Intel smokestacks looming over the village. They did not experience these symptoms before the plant commenced its manufacturing activities in 1993. Symptoms include full body rashes, adult onset asthma, reproductive disorders, chronic headaches, memory loss, blindness, and periodic unconsciousness.
It is difficult to connect these problems directly to Intel's activities, and of course it would be terribly inconvenient for Intel to acknowledge that it is causing health problems among its neighbors in Corrales. This is the largest, most powerful semiconductor firm in the world. Sandoval County issued $8 billion in industrial revenue bonds for Intel in 1995 which made national news as the largest bond of its kind in the history of the United States. Intel enjoys a very cozy relationship with the state legislature. The company has expanded its emissions several times over the years and is always given new permits by the state to emit more toxic gases.
Intel claimed that its emissions were equivalent to 2 1/2 gas stations, but Fred Marsh, a former LANL scientist and resident of Corrales, claims that it's more like 300 gas stations in terms of relative toxicity from chromium trioxide alone. Intel refuses to reveal which chemicals are being sent up their smokestacks citing that it's "proprietary information." They make it difficult if not impossible to find out what they're doing and when. The air monitors in the area show that they are within their permits.
But there are many more people than air monitors. When people by the hundreds report noxious odors and get sick, I have to seriously doubt that the air monitors are effective measures of the toxicity of their emissions and their effect on public health. Intel is Goliath, and the technique used by polluters like Intel is always to portray people as crackpots if they claim pollution is making them sick.
rwjoyak, I appreciate your taking the time to sift through some of the materials and for your opinion on this. I’ve read many of the same things you cite, and I do not find things to be as underwhelming, or maybe unconcerning is a better word (though I may have just invented that word as my spell check does not recognize it,) as you do. As I’m sure you know, one of the first rules of research is “Garbage in, garbage out,†which means if a study has significant flaws, the conclusions from that study will as well. The firm that was commissioned to conduct the Corrales Toxics Study was criticized for its methodology on several important points, and the fact that these points are not laid bare in Bill Richardson press release you cite does not surprise me.
A fundamental issue I have with environmental health in this country is the way the burden of proof of harm tends to lie upon the subjects potentially being harmed, rather than there being a burden of proof of safety upon the potentially harmful entity. Though I'm no expert on environmental law, this makes relying on environmental litigation as a corrective/supervisory measure a pretty risky leap of faith, in my opinion.
Regarding the MEW site, which as you note, is currently thought to be the most “major†Intel Superfund site in CA, I’ve come across some interesting reading from the Center for Public Environmental Oversight in CA.
They make some troubling points—current pump-and-treat remedies are costly, generate greenhouse gas emissions, and waste groundwater. They also project that the time to reach the TCE cleanup level at the site may stretch out for decades, or indefinitely. They do mention that Intel and Raytheon have come up with some innovative technologies for remediation that are more effective and less wasteful, but that such remedies may not be feasible over a large area. Whether and how this situation may or may not relate to Intel Rio Rancho can be debated ad nauseum.
Regarding the word terrifying--maybe part of the problem is defining “terrifying.†It doesn’t necessarily have to be out of a horror movie. I frankly think it’s pretty terrifying to contemplate water waste in the face of NM’s ongoing drought. I think the idea of a factory emitting chemicals, that are not well-studied individually in humans, let alone in combination, that could make my child or my neighbor ill is also terrifying. You sound like a reasonable person, so I'd like to ask you what you think about the absence of short-term emissions monitoring for a place like Intel, from an air quality point of view. (And does anyone know if they now have to keep track of short-term levels?)
Little Rook—I agree that misinformation or disinformation compromises credibility. I don’t think, however, I’ve spread any misinformation or disinformation thus far, other than to ask whether Intel was associated with Superfund sites in other states, plural. I haven’t done an exhaustive search, but I’ve only seen that they are associated with sites in CA and said as much. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by innuendo here. I don’t view posting on a message board as having the same standards of formal referencing as, say, an academic research presentation. It's more like a conversation. I do think a lot of people have the perception that “it’s all out there†on the Internet, when in fact, there is not nearly the degree of transparency or certainty we might like. This is a topic that is rife with uncertainty, as others have noted.
Aries63—thanks for your post. I bought the book a few weeks ago and look forward to reading it.
I would like to edit my post from last night, but it appears I can't.
I just wanted to clarify that the firm that conducted the Corrales Toxics Study has openly acknowledged certain limitations of the study (an interview with their representative may be found in the Intel series done by the Corrales Comment newspaper, as cited by rwjoyak) and that one of the big limitations that potentially hinders conclusions is the scarcity and quality of data they had to work with. The appropriateness of the thresholds they used for "toxic" levels has also been questioned (and, again, this is something for which there may not always be robust data.) Their modelling apparently may not have taken into account patterns of potential exposures, and they were also unable to incorporate more current emissions data into their modelling as was initially planned to refine the model. For such reasons, it seems prudent to interpret their results with caution.
Intel refuses to reveal which chemicals are being sent up
their smokestacks citing that it's "proprietary information."
This is ridiculous. Once they send it up, it is like setting out the garbage. They
no longer have any claim to it. The EPA should be allowed to know what each and
every molecule is. If they don't want people to know, then they should not emit it.
Unfortunately, many of the current political candidates are for eliminating the EPA.
Their solution to overreaching is elimination instead of reforming the agency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
... the technique used by polluters like Intel is always to portray
people as crackpots if they claim pollution is making them sick.
They should get two choices:
(1) reveal what is going up ( and under )
.... << or >> ...
(2) assume that everyone who complains is not a crackpot and got sick from their stuff.
There has got to be a balance between reasonable regulation and the cost of doing business.
I suspect that the China plant that Intel now operates has almost
none of the costs and none of the controls that the US plants have.
What has really been accomplished by "exporting" our pollution to China or elsewhere? Oh right:
Their little lives are not as important as ours. Keep the 5-year-olds removing components from old circuit boards ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little rook
... in this day of Internets there is no excuse for innuendo. ...
Right. Either post the facts ... or not. Trying to send others on research projects doesn't count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little rook
... Except possibly my mother, who can send a computer gibbering into lunacy in three minutes flat.
I've got one of those too! At least, she's not afraid of it.
Naport, the issue as I understand it is that folks believe Intel is emitting excessive amounts of certain chemicals that they won't identify and are relatively unique, which are causing the health problems aries63 mentioned. The total amount of these chemicals, which are various hydrocarbons (HC), is lower than allowable total HC limits. That's exactly why air toxic and hazardous air pollutant emission limits were established, to control emissions of the more exotic HC compounds that have various toxic effects (carcinogenic, etc.).
What seems extremely hard to pin down is exactly what is being emitted and at what concentrations over what periods of time. While some Corrales residents are claiming various health issues, I'm not enough of an expert on the issue to know how many are real. I'm not saying they're not, I just not am knowledgable on the subject, and I learned a long time ago not to believe everything people say and what is reported by others about environmental pollution/health issues. And are those health issues that different from the norm for a similar demographic population?
The second part of the issue is the cause and effect link - is Intel responsible for whatever health issues are occuring in the Corrales population? Again, it's unclear in my mind. If I lived in Corrales and personally knew folks that had health issues, I might have a different viewpoint. But trying to view the issue objectively, I think the best you could do on this issue is:
1. Conduct an epidemiological study to determine "the facts" as mortimer says about the health of Corrales residents.
2. Repeat and expand the earlier air toxics study with a "corrected" methodology.
But neither of these studies would be cheap. Is Intel responsible for funding them because some folks claim they are causing their health problems? Where could the state of NM find the money to do so? IMO EPA is really the agency that would need to get involved in doing this. While EPA, at its upper levels, is certainly subject to prevailing political winds, I don't believe that they would not be acting vigorously - through Republican and Democratic administrations - if the blogosphere claims about Intel's pollution were true.
You can put me in the undecided column on this issue. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that Intel is innocent of all claims but it also doesn't mean I believe they are guilty as charged. Again, I don't have enough of a background to know any details, but why haven't concerned Corrales residents gotten national environmental groups (such as the Natural Resources Defense Council) involved and filed citizen suits as allowed under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? Is it because there aren't enough facts to justify litigation? Dunno. But continuing to restate claims without hard evidence to back them up won't make me believe them.
Naport, you asked about my opinion on short-term emissions limits. I do believe continuous emissions monitoring would be a good thing to do - all other things being equal. But it would be costly and short of EPA stepping in with legal authority to requre continuous monitoring, it's very unlikely to happen. Like you, I would be interested to know if they now have to do continuous monitoring, although I would think it would be big news if this had been required.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
