Community Environmental Working Group

DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
Community Environmental Working Group
“Striving for Continuous Environmental Improvements at Intel”
Date: June 20, 2007
Time: 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Location: Your Place Or Mine
Members Attending
John Bartlit, Acting Chair
Hugh Church, American Lung Association
Edward Pineda, Rio Rancho Resident
Teresa Fleming, Intel Corporate Affairs
Technical Support Staff
Sarah Chavez, Environmental Engineer, Intel
Heath Foott
Public
Roberta King, Corrales resident
Jay Stimmel, Citizen (and NMED)
Mike Williams, NM Citizens for Clean Air &
Water
Frank Gallegos, EHS Manager, Intel
Lynne Kinnis, Corrales resident
Roger McClellan, Independent consultant
Facilitator
Stephen Littlejohn, Domenici Littlejohn, Inc. Glenna Bergeron, recorder
HANDOUTS
• Draft Agenda
• Draft April 18, 2007 Meeting Summary
• Action Item Progress Report
• This month’s newspaper ad
• May-June EHS Activity Report
• Cooling Tower/Thermal Oxidizer
Update
• January 18, 2005 CEWG Meeting
Summary “Emergency Response Panel”
• Community Scale Toxics Monitoring
Project Report
• Email traffic on “Instant Alert Plus
technology can make 100,000 30second
phone calls…”
• Eastman Kodak Major Source Permit
report
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS:
John Bartlit started with the mission – to reduce emissions and improve community dialog then
had the attendees introduce themselves.
Mr. Bartlit asked for comments on the agenda and the meeting summary. Edward Pineda asked
whether there were other topics that needed to be discussed. Mr. Bartlit asked for changes or
revisions to the April meeting summary. There were none and the group proceeded with the
agenda.

COMMUNITY SCALE TOXIC MONITORING PROJECT
Hugh Church provided an introduction to the project as well as a handout. The project was
presented at the Air and Waste Management Association, Albuquerque Chapter meeting in April
of this year by Therese Martinez-Loner from the City of Albuquerque’s Air Quality Division.
The project is being funded by EPA Headquarters to monitor and assess Bernalillo County
hydrocarbon emissions. One monitoring site is only two miles from here and may capture Intel
emissions that are of concern by the group.
• Mr. Bartlit asked how much funding the EPA provided. No one who attended the
luncheon could remember the exact amount. But Mr. Bartlit believed it was on the order
of $20 to $30 thousand. Mr. Church concurred.
• Mr. Bartlit stated that the project is not directly related to what the CEWG is doing, but
with a monitoring site in such close proximity, it could provide useful data.
• Mr. Pineda asked how the project could help the CEWG. He suggested that we get the
“recipe” for getting the grant money. What are the key points to make in a grant
application? Would the EPA accept the use of the CEWG’s Citizen Protocol testing
methods?
• Mr. Church pointed out that there were many of these type projects going on around the
country. Mr. Bartlit added that it was municipality air quality bureaus that were getting
the funding, not citizen’s groups.
CITIZEN PROTOCOL
Stephen Littlejohn discussed actions taken in the past two months on the Citizen Protocol,
including an on-line deliberative process to determine next steps. There was consensus that the
group needed to get legal advice to evaluate the protocol from a legal perspective. The best way
to proceed in the development and implementation of the protocol was to develop a pilot project
based on previous discussions and community concerns. The CEWG should decide on the pilot
project and use it as a basis to get both legal advice and funding.
Funding appears to be the most significant issue associated with the protocol. There has been
progress made in that regard. The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution may be
able to help. Their website is www.ecr.gov. The agency is located in Tucson AZ.
Once the CEWG puts together a proposal for the pilot project, the group could submit it to the
Institute for potential funding.
1. Mr. Bartlit added that the group had potential for both funding and providing technical
expertise.
2. Mr. Pineda asked whether the Institute was a government agency (given the fact that they
have a .gov URL). Could someone from the group approach them to see if they would be
willing to review the Citizen Protocol? Mr. Littlejohn said that he intended to do that and
talk to the Institute about funding as well as the possibility of a legal review. Mr. Bartlit
agreed that asking for a legal review was a good idea.
3. Mr. Pineda suggested that the CEWG ask the community what it would like to see as the
pilot project. Mr. Littlejohn agreed and suggested that a list of topics be sent to everyone
on the distribution list to gather input from the community on proposed pilot project
topics. The objective would be for the CEWG to select a pilot project topic at the July
meeting.
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 2

4. Mr. Bartlit asked whether Mary Uhl, Chief of the Air Quality Bureau, had ever provided
a review of the Protocol? Mr. Littlejohn responded that she had given the request to both
the Air Quality Bureau and the Water Quality Bureau. The Water Quality Bureau had
provided a response, the Air Quality Bureau had not.
5. Mr. Littlejohn said that he had sent a couple of friendly reminders to the Air Quality
Bureau, but had not received a response. He said since some time had passed, he would
send them another reminder.
6. Mr. Littlejohn summarized the progress on the Citizen Protocol. The Protocol
subcommittee has completed its tasks very well and it is time to proceed with an actual
project. Mr. Pineda raised a concern about liability associated with the protocol and Mr.
Bartlit asked about enforcement or monitoring of the protocol procedures.
7. Roger McClellan pointed out that at some point the CEWG is going to have to address
the issue of what legal entity is going to be responsible for actions taken under the Citizen
Protocol? Who will receive the grant monies, expend the grant monies, etc.?
Government agencies are not going to fund any activity without there being a
corporation, or some kind of legal entity that can be held accountable. Mr. Bartlit
responded that the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution dealt with issues
between “government type things and public type things” and must have some way of
dealing with the issue.
8. Mr. Pineda agreed with Mr. McClellan that some kind of legal standing was necessary.
ACTION ITEMS FROM THE DISCUSSION:
1. Jay Stimmel will carry the message back to the Air Quality Bureau asking for a
response.
2. Stephen Littlejohn will initiate a community email discussion to identify possible
topics for a CP pilot project.
3. Once a CP pilot project is identified, Stephen Littlejohn will approach the
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution about a possible legal review
and possible funding for the pilot.
PUBLIC COMMENT
• Lynne Kinnis raised a concern about the newspaper ad. She requested that a list of
subjects to be discussed during the announced meeting be added to the advertisement, so
that people could decide whether they wanted to attend based on the topics to be
discussed.
• Ms Kinnis also raised a concern about new processes at Intel that include the use of “a
secret sauce”. She requested the CEWG ask NMED for an evaluation of the toxicity of
any chemicals or materials that would be a part of the “secret sauce”.
• Mr. Pineda stated that the permit requires that any new chemicals used in the process be
reported to NMED, as well as the quantities used, where will they be used in the process,
and the likely emissions.
• Frank Gallegos agreed that all the information is provided to NMED, but that the process
is proprietary and will necessarily be protected. The Intel emissions should be reduced as
a result of changing to the new process.
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 3

• Mr. Pineda requested that Intel provide a presentation at the next meeting on new
processes and new chemicals being used.
• Teresa Fleming pointed out that the process has not been finalized.
• Ms Kinnis asked whether NMED had ever evaluated VOC emissions during downtimes
or during plant upsets as opposed to normal plant operations. She also asked why the
downtimes and upsets continue to happen. She said she didn’t expect an answer tonight,
but she was curious.
• Mr. Pineda asked how frequently Intel measures the removal efficiency of the RTOs and
scrubbers. Frank Gallegos responded that Intel’s third party consultants routinely do
emissions test where they do input and output sampling that provides removal efficiency.
They also do effluent sampling of the stacks that would point out any discrepancies. The
consultants are out in the plant for most of the year. Mr. Pineda suggested that every
scrubber and RTO be tested every year.
ACTION ITEM FROM THE DISCUSSION: Mr. Gallegos agreed to put together a
presentation as soon as possible to discuss the new process and its impact on emissions.
EASTMAN KODAK MAJOR SOURCE PERMIT
Mr. Bartlit explained that Intel’s minor source permit versus major source permit has been a
topic of discussion for some time. The Eastman Kodak plant in Rochester NY is the only chip
manufacturer in the country operating under a major source permit. Sarah Chavez provided a
presentation on the EK major source permit. (Report attached; see also EK permit site at
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/corp/HSE/KPHSE_2005.pdf.)
• The presentation explains what kind of facilities Eastman Kodak has, what their
semiconductor facility permit requirements are, and what the requirements are for the rest
of their facilities.
• The Eastman Kodak facility is over 1,100 acres with 22 miles of fence line, 125
manufacturing buildings, 30 miles of roads, two power plants, and their own sewer and
wastewater treatment facility. It is a very large facility. The local Intel site is 300 acres
by comparison.
• Air emissions are 2.9 million pounds per year. Intel’s emissions were around 28,000
pounds last year.
• Power plant emissions (SO2, CO, NOx, particulates, VOCs) were 58.9 million pounds in
2004.
• There are two permits and two permit review reports – over 1400 pages.
• There are 55 emission units listed in the permits. Intel by comparison would have one
emission unit at the local plant.
• They appear to have the entire federal HAPs list with most emission levels greater than
10 tons per year. Their criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SO2) each have a potential emission
rate of greater than 250 tons per year.
• There are 10 emission points for the semiconductor facility (equivalent to Intel’s stacks)
and three processes. They have 35,000 ft 2 of clean room space as compared to over a
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 4

million for Intel. They are not a major high volume semiconductor manufacturing
facility.
• Their facility was built in the 1970s.
• They are subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) because the entire
facility is a major source. Their emissions from their semiconductor facility is a very
small part of their total emissions.
• They have no abatement equipment on their semiconductor facility. Mr. Pineda asked
how that was possible. Mr. Gallegos said that is part of having a major source permit,
they are allowed to emit larger quantities of emissions. Mr. Pineda asked if they had
neighbors. Ms Chavez responded that there are 13,000 households, roughly 50,000
people living and working in close proximity to the plant.
• They are able to remain below the MACT thresholds of 20 ppmv for organics and 0.42
ppmv for inorganics at the stack. Mr. Bartlit asked what Intel’s stack numbers were. Ms
Chavez responded that without controls, Intel’s stacks were 30 ppmv and with controls
they were 1-2 ppmv.
• There are no testing requirements under the permit. They demonstrate compliance using
engineering assessments, other monitoring (temperatures, pressures, etc.), and emissions
calculations.
• They are subject to NY state reasonable available control technology (RACT) for cold
cleaning degreasers which limits annual VOC emissions on a rolling 12 month basis.
RACT requires specific emission calculations, semiannual reporting, and some specific
operational requirements.
• Mr. Pineda asked whether the plant really ran on prayer and a hope. There are no testing,
no monitoring, no risk assessments? Do they have many community complaints? Ms
Chavez responded that they have a very active community group that uses engineering
calculations and other forms of monitoring that does not include testing. They
demonstrate compliance by monitoring temperatures and maintenance records. That
would show the regulating agency that the plant is being operated within the regulatory
limits. These methods are routinely accepted by regulatory agencies.
• Mr. Bartlit asked whether there were any emissions limitations shorter than one year.
Ms Chavez responded no.
• Mr. Pineda asked how they dealt with spikes in emissions. Ms Chavez said she had not
asked that question. Mr. Gallegos pointed out that there was no monitoring or abatement
equipment, so there would be no way to identify or control any spikes. Ms Chavez
reiterated that the semiconductor plant was very small when compared to the rest of the
facility and that the major source permit was for the entire facility.
• Mr. Bartlit asked whether the chemicals used in the semiconductor plant were the same
as what Intel uses. Ms Chavez responded that she had not received that much detail in
the reports that she had read. The reports only had to state whether they had complied
with the operations permits. It did not provide details on how much of each chemical they
had released.
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 5

• Mr. McClellan discussed that the primary function of the plant was to produce
photographic materials, film, etc., and that production used a very wide range of
chemicals. The major source permit was centered around that production. He was
familiar with the facility. It is a huge a complex.
• Mr. Pineda asked whether there was a specific part of the permit that dealt with the
semiconductor plant. Ms Chavez said no, the permit covered the facility as a whole and
it had a huge list of chemicals that they were permitted to emit. Mr. Pineda then asked
whether members of our community would like to operate under such a permit. Ms
Kinnis stated that we needed to understand how their plant operated – that the
semiconductor plant was very small when compared to the Intel facility here.
• Ms Chavez then discussed the requirements for the rest of the plant. Control equipment
is required in other parts of the plant – RTO, scrubbers, absorbers, carbon adsorption
systems, etc. These systems were put in place to meet best available control technology
(BACT) and RACT requirements.
• Generally, there are no concentration limits at the stack and no short-term limits. There
are regulatory limits on concentrations and the company is allowed to show via modeling
that they are below the regulatory limits. If the modeling shows levels above the toxicity
limits, then additional requirements may be levied, but in general there are no short term
limits in the permit.
• The only continuous emissions monitoring were for opacity on the power plant and
hazardous waste incinerator stacks and to demonstrate removal efficiency for VOCs in
the acetate film manufacturing area.
• They have a semiannual compliance report that summarizes compliance with all
conditions in permit. They also have to accomplish an annual emissions survey that is
very similar to the annual survey required under the Intel permit.
• The only testing requirement found in the Kodak major source permit was for
intermittent testing. For example, they might have to monitor mercury for their chemical
waste incinerator or to measure particulates from their polyester film-based
manufacturing, but only at the request of the department. Operations and maintenance
actions were also listed under the intermittent testing requirements.
• There was no quarterly or annual testing required under the major source permit.
• Mr. Pineda asked about wastewater testing requirements. Ms Chavez said she only
inquired about the air permit. Mr. McClellan said Kodak had its own wastewater
treatment plant.
• Mr. Bartlit observed that the Kodak major source permit did not appear to provide any
additional protections over the existing Intel minor source permit.
• Roberta King said the previous Intel major source permit provided more protections than
the minor source permit.
• Mr. Pineda asked Mr. Stimmel whether NMED had issued any major source permits in
New Mexico. If so, could he provide the number of permits and who they were issued to.
Mr. Stimmel agreed to provide those for the next meeting.
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 6

• Ms King observed that a local woodworking shop required a major source permit because
of the particulate emissions. No one has brought up particulates with respect to Intel.
ACTION ITEM FROM THE DISCUSSION: Mr. Stimmel agreed to provide the
number of major source permits in New Mexico.
THERMAL OXIDIZER AND COOLING TOWER MAINTENANCE
Mr. Gallegos provided a brief overview of the thermal oxidizer and cooling tower maintenance.
(Report attached). Last year, he provided a detailed list of what the emissions were from the
oxidizers and the cooling towers. He did not do that for this meeting, but if desired, he could
have it for a future meeting.
As a result of discussions with the community, Intel put together a task force to walk the site to
identify where odors might be coming from. One of the areas identified where the cooling
towers.
• The cooling towers were being bulk fed biocide to kill bacteria growing in the cooling
water. The towers were being fed four times per day at 7 am/pm and 1 am/pm.
• Intel installed an automated system on the North cooling towers that added biocides
based on the quantity of bacteria in the water. Although there were some initial
problems, the system is now working and it has reduced the required biocide by 70 to 80
percent.
• Mr. Pineda pointed out that the north cooling towers are not the ones closest to Corrales.
Mr. Gallegos said they planned to add the same system to the CUBs cooling towers. Mr.
Pineda asked when the system would be installed. Mr. Gallegos believed it would be
sometime this year.
• Mr. Gallegos explained the chart showing biocide treatment before and after the
installation of the 3D TRASAR system.
• Ms Kinnis asked about the spikes in the graph. Mr. Gallegos explained that the spikes
were the amount of time the biocide valve was open.
• Mr. McClelland pointed out that bacterial growth could also cause odors and asked
whether the new system was as effective at killing off the bacteria. Mr. Gallegos
responded that the water was tested daily to check bacterial growth and it appears the
system is just as effective as the bulk feeding.
• Mr. Bartlit asked if Mr. Gallegos could describe the smell of the biocide. He said it
smelled kind of musty, like mildew or like a swimming pool.
• Mr. Pineda asked whether the task force was still walking plant looking for odors. Mr.
Gallegos responded that they were. Mr. Pineda asked whether the community had
noticed a change in the odors. Ms King responded that a friend of hers had been walking
and smelled bromide. Mr. Gallegos said bromide was used as one of the biocides.
• Next Mr. Gallegos gave an update on the thermal oxidizers. He explained how they used
to perform routine maintenance on the oxidizers. They would shut the oxidizers down at
midnight, the maintenance crew would come in at 7 am and work until 8 pm, then they
would leave and finish the job the next day. Based on recommendations from the
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 7

CEWG, the maintenance crew can now complete the routine maintenance in 17-20 hours
versus the 40+ hours it used to take.
• For 2006, there were 467 downtime hours (scheduled and unscheduled) versus 500 hours
for 2005. Downtime was reduced despite the gas and power disturbances.
• The reduced PM schedule is still in effect. Current PMs take an average of 17 hours
versus 40 hours.
• The minimum possible downtime per year with no projects or failures is approximately
136 -170 hours (four units requiring maintenance every six months).
• Mr. Pineda pointed out that Intel should have parts on hand for equipment that fails. Mr.
Gallegos responded that their permit required that they have two spares for critical
equipment.
• Mr. Pineda asked how long it took to cool down the oxidizers before work could be
started. Mr. Gallegos responded that it took four hours, which was why the schedule
showed them being shut down at 4 am.
• Ms Fleming pointed out that all downtime is logged and records are kept and reviewed as
part of the maintenance crew’s training. That helps to further reduce the downtime by
using lessons learned from previous experiences.
• Mr. Bartlit asked how we could evaluate the benefit of the changes to the community.
The evaluation tells us something about how much it is worth to cut it further, either by
efforts, ideas, or new equipment. How does it help? It reduces emissions, but is there a
way to evaluate the benefit to the community. Ms Kinnis responded that the community
is mainly concerned about the emissions, so reduction of raw pollution, or installation of
new equipment so emissions are lower is something that the community would use as a
rule of thumb.
• Ms Kinnis thanked Intel for working on the streamlined maintenance procedures and the
improved biocide system, but why does it take so long to make changes that have proven
successful. Why don’t they install the biocide system on the other cooling towers now?
Mr. Gallegos explained that it had taken time to fine tune the system and verify that it
works the way it should. Then the system has to be engineered for the CUB.
• Mr. Pineda asked whether there were any plans to put redundant RTOs in the system.
Mr. Gallegos responded that there were no plans at this time to install redundant RTOs.
There are redundant scrubbers, but not in the RTOs. An Intel engineer pointed out that
redundant RTOs don’t necessarily make sense. For it to work, the backup RTO would
have to be heated to operational temperatures around the clock, which would increase
NOx and CO emissions. Mr. Pineda took exception to the point. If redundant equipment
were in place, it would keep untreated emissions from the lungs of the community. If a
cost benefit analysis was done, Intel would be a winner if they installed redundant RTOs.
Mr. Pineda asked for redundant RTOs four years ago and Intel has not listened to the
community! Mr. Littlejohn added redundancy to the list of future topics.
• Ms Kinnis agreed with Mr. Pineda and suggested that Intel should take it upon
themselves to add redundancy and improve processes instead of having to have the
community apply constant pressure. Intel needs to be more proactive.
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 8

EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Emergency response has been a priority topic for the past year. The purpose of the discussion
here is to help frame the topic for future discussions. Minutes from the January 2005 meeting
were provided to start the discussion.
• Mr. Bartlit said he had an opportunity to talk to the new vice president for corporate
affairs, Will Swope, and the Mayor of Rio Rancho about the emergency messaging
system idea presented by Shari Martinez. The idea seems to have benefit for the entire
community as well as Intel. There were no agreements reached, but the idea was
presented. Mr. Littlejohn pointed out that an email describing the system was in the
handouts.
• Mr. Pineda asked that the system be put in place just for emergencies at Intel to start.
After it is installed applications could be expanded.
• Mr. Bartlit suggested another panel discussion. It would bring the appropriate players
together and let them hear each other and help them to understand what progress has been
made or what progress was lacking.
• Mr. Pineda suggested the group concentrate on getting an emergency notification system
in place for Intel first. Mr. McClelland pointed out that everyone needed to understand
what kind of emergencies would trigger the emergency notification system. Mr.
Littlejohn expanded the question: what conditions would trigger the system, what would
the criteria be, how could you tell the conditions were serious enough to notify the
community, etc.
• Mr. Pineda said that any condition that would seriously increase the emissions should
result in an emergency notification. Ms Fleming pointed out that during the last power
failure there were no unabated emissions, because the entire plant went down. Mr.
Pineda suggested that the CEWG establish a subgroup to identify specific criteria for
when the public should be notified. The suggestion was made that case studies be
reviewed to see if this has been done elsewhere. The group agreed that that was a good
approach.
• A discussion ensued about what kind of notification system should be used. Sirens are a
possibility, but there would have to be distinctive sirens that would convey different
kinds of threats and provide different actions from the community. The community
would need to understand and know how to respond to any signals.
• Mr. Littlejohn asked how the group felt about Mr. Pineda’s suggestion of forming a
subgroup to look at the issue. Mr. Bartlit suggested that the group use an email dialog to
discuss what should trigger an emergency notification system. The email dialog could
also be used to find community participants for a subgroup.
• Mr. Church asked whether Intel had an emergency response group. Mr. Gallegos said
they did. Intel does scenario planning using all levels of management. Ms Fleming
suggested that the Sandoval County Fire Department is responsible for emergency
response and should participate. Mr. Pineda again tried to focus the discussion on an
emergency notification system.
• Mr. Littlejohn summarized the next steps in an email dialog to identify topics of
discussion, establish a committee to take a look at a notification system, and secondary to
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 9

that, what responses might be. In addition, the group should review case studies and
benchmarks as well as consider the possibility of an Intel presentation.
• Mr. Pineda asked whether Intel would be willing to participate and finance an emergency
notification system. Mr. Gallegos said it would depend on what system was proposed.
Ms Fleming pointed out that any emergency notification system would require
memoranda of understanding between all the emergency response agencies in the
community.
• Mr. Williams asked whether Intel had people that monitor event data and dispersion in
the atmosphere. Mr. Gallegos said no.
ACTION ITEM FROM THE DISCUSSION: Stephen Littlejohn will initiate an email
discussion of emergency response, establish a committee to look at the subject in more
detail, and begin email discussions within the committee.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Mr. Gallegos reviewed the EHS report. There have been two inspections in the past two months. The US
EPA performed a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan Inspection. There are no
adverse findings expected, based on conversations with the inspectors. The Albuquerque Bernalillo
County Water Utility Authority performed a wastewater inspection on June 5 th . The agency indicated the
program and treatment systems were in good condition and Intel expects no further action.
• Mr Pineda asked Mr. Gallegos for the limits for lead. Mr. Gallegos agreed to provide the
numbers at the next meeting. Ms King asked for all metals in the wastewater permit.
• Ms King asked what chemical was used for weed control. Mr. Gallegos said that he
would provide an updated list at the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING
• July 18, 2007, 5 PM at Your Place or Mine.
Future Agenda Topics:
• Annual Progress Report
• Ongoing discussion of emergency response and possible panel
• Citizen Protocol
• Noise issues
• USATSDR report on health effects
• ISO 14,000
• RTO redundancy
• Abatement efficiency
Community Environmental Working Group Meeting Summary June 20, 2007 10