Urgent Request for Sign-on

(Please fax back signature to (408)287-6771 or e-mail to svtc@igc.apc.org if you wish to add
your name to the list of signatories. Please include your name, organization, fax, phone and state.)

On November 19, 1996, the Clinton Administration signed a sweetheart deal for environmental de-regulation with Intel Corporation, the world's largest manufacturer of semiconductors. Hardly a "bridge to the 21st Century," the Project XL Facility Performance Agreement (FPA) between US EPA and Intel in Chandler, Arizona turns back the clock on hard-won laws that protect the environment and on the President's own Executive Order on Environmental Justice.

This deregulation proposal has been widely rejected by community, environmental justice, environmental, health and safety, and labor organizations across the country who have come to see Project XL as a fundamentally bankrupt, backward step and among the worst of all the Clinton "reinvention" efforts, since it encourages companies like Intel to seek deregulation on a case by case basis.

Instead of delivering the President's promise of environmental performance superior to existing environmental laws, along with greater accountability to the community and workers, the Intel XL agreement allows Intel to expose its employees and the communities of Chandler and Phoenix to increased toxic chemical hazards:

• The Project XL air pollution emission limits are 2 to 50 times less stringent than existing limits and the standards set do not protect against chronic health problems.
• The Project XL permit is based on what Intel can get away with rather than how clean Intel could be. Instead of setting limits based on state of the art, Project XL bases its limits on numbers designed to escape EPA's regulatory jurisdiction.
• Intel is not even required to monitor air emissions or the performance of its scrubbers; there is no way to independently verify whether Intel is meeting its commitments.
• The proposed agreement would de-regulate some pollutants currently regulated.

This imbalance of power has led to a one-sided FPA that gives Intel unprecedented autonomy (pre-permit approval to build an entire new plant which allows them to side-step the existing permit review process) and puts workers and community members at potentially greater risk than is currently allowed by law. Since Intel won approval of pre-permit authority, this autonomy without accountability now puts them at a competitive advantage that will trigger a "race to the bottom" as all other high-tech facilities will insist on similar treatment.

The defects of both the XL stakeholder process and the substance of the Intel XL proposal have been raised on numerous occasions to the Administration. Environmental and environmental justice, labor, and worker health and safety organizations across the country have documented the fundamental procedural and substantive critiques as well as suggested improvements to Vice President Al Gore, US EPA Administrator Carol Browner, Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen, Region IX Administrator Felicia Marcus, Assistant Administrator David Gardiner, and Intel Corporation's managers and lobbyists. Vice President Gore responded to early concerns with assurances that reinvention makes sense only if it assures superior environmental performance, brings measurable benefits to the community and workers, and is verifiable. He promised that environmental reinvention would deliver both "data and dollars" to communities to ensure accountability. That promise has been broken in the Intel XL project, which delivers neither.

EPA has admitted some limited weaknesses in the deal, but has not acknowledged the breadth or depth of the problems and has not recognized the underlying defects in the stakeholder process itself. When President Clinton signed the Executive Order on Environmental Justice, a National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC) was formalized to promote environmental justice in 1994. One charge of NEJAC was to identify steps for ensuring meaningful public participation and viable stakeholder processes. The Intel XL stakeholder process is clearly an affront to the recommendations of EPA's own advisory committee. Yet EPA still plans to sign off on the project.

Thus, Project XL is a very poor model for reinventing environmental regulation. Rather than "Excellence in Leadership" it is more appropriately called "EXtra Leniency".

IN SUM:

1. We call upon the Clinton Administration to reject the Intel XL FPA because of the fundamental defects in both the content and the stakeholder process. We have created a matrix comparing the Intel stakeholder process to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Commission (NEJAC), the EPA Common Sense Initiative (CSI) , the Campaign for Responsible Technology (CRT) , and current examples of negotiated Good Neighbor Agreements (GNA's). See also the attached document entitled "What's Wrong with the Content of the Intel XL Agreement".) The Good Neighbor Project has developed a chart comparing Project XL with specific good neighbor agreements.

2. Any new efforts to reinvent environmental regulations should only proceed with the full and sustainable participation of community, environmental, environmental justice, labor and occupational safety and health leaders with a full seat at the table with equal bargaining leverage to that of government and industry. These efforts must employ the most effective worker and community participation principles and guidelines available (e.g. NEJAC, CSI, CRT, GNA) to ensure that reinvention does not result in race-to-the- bottom deregulation. The Administration must ensure that the extensive substantive critiques developed by national, regional, and local groups already received by US EPA -- such as independent technical assistance, monitoring, verifiability, transparency, real pollution prevention -- are addressed in all new reinvention efforts.

Signed by: (organizations for identifcation purposes only)
Rick Abraham, Texans United, TX
Richard Adams
Bradley Angel, Greenpeace, CA
Carl Anthony, Urban Habitat Program, CA
Paz Artaza-Rigon, United Method Bd Church & Society, DC
Lina Avidan, Marin Institute, CA
Charles Baiano, Am Public Health Assn. NY
Nicki Bas, Corporate Watch, CA
Mike Belliveau, Communites for a Better Env. CA
Jim Benn, FIRR, IL
Domenick Bertelli, Work and Tech Inst, DC
Reggie & Edward Boorstein, Am Public Health Assn, NY
Bill Brill, IBEW Local 1245, CA
Grace Bukowski, RAMA, NV
Leslie Byster, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, CA
Jacqueline Cabasso, Western States Legal Fndn, CA
Buck Cameron, UBC, WA
Sally Carroll, Am Public Health Assn, VA
Zelenne Cardenas, Cal Council on Alcohol Policy, CA
Doreen Carey, Grand Cal Task Force, IN
Peter Cervantes-Gautschi, Workers Organizing Committee, OR
Jill Chaifetz, New York
Ellen Chapnick, Columbia Law School, NY
Tom Christian, IBEW Local 2000, FL
Dr. Henry Cole, Henry S. Cole and Assoc, DC
Gary Cohen, Learning Alliance, MA
Luke Cole, Center on Race, Poverty & Environm, CA
George Coling, Campaign for Responsbile Tech, VA
Prof. Robert Collin, University of Oregon Law School, OR
Barry Commoner, Center for Biology of Natural Systems, NY
Ellen & Paul Connett, Waste Not, NY
Lee Conrad, IBM Workers United, NY
Diana Conti, Marin Institute, CA
Ben Corson, Citizens Trust, CA
Charlie H. Crocker, CA
Alicia Culver, Govt Purchasing Project, DC
Carol Dansereau, Washington Toxics Coalition, WA
Margaret Davis, Am Public Health Assn, GA
Linda Degutis, Yale University, CT
Vince Donofrio, OH
Danie Dorette-Belfield, WI
Lisa Doerr, Citizens for a Better Env., MN
Jack Doyle ,Corporate Sources, PA
D.F. Duncan, Brown University, RI
Mary Lee Dunn,APHA, MA
Denny Durbin, RTP, NC
Mike Eisenscher, U-Mass, Boston, MA
Kimberly Rae Eisentrager, Montana People's Action, MT
Judith Enck, NY PIRG, NY
Rick Engler, N.J. Work Environ Council, NJ
Dr. Samuel Epstein, Cancer Prevention Coalition, IL
Brad Erickson, Political Ecology Group, CA
Cody Favilla, Fort Lewis College Student, Durango, CO
Jennifer Ferrara, Food and Water, VT
Roslyn Fishman, JPHP, CT
Willie Fontenot, LA Env. Action Network, LA
Ruth Fox, Council Living Standards, NY
Mark Friedman, Cal Network for a New Economy. CA
Eric Frumin, UNITE, NY
Mike Garcia, SEIU Local 1877, CA
Peter Gillespie, MALAD, GA
Angela Goldberg, Cal Council on Alcohol Policy, CA
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Envir. Network, MN
Hillel Gray, Natl Env Law Center.MA
Michael Green, Center for Environ. Health, CA
Tom Greenfield, Western Consortium for Public Health, CA
Charles Griffith, Ecology Center, MI
Richard Grossman, Program on Corporations, Law & Demo, MA
Judie Guerriero, Am Public Health Assn, CA
Pronita Grupta, Institute for Southern Studies, NC
FW Cisco Harris
Carolyn Hartmann, USPIRG, DC
Amanda Hawes, Alexander Law Office, CA
Dave Henson, Occidental Arts & Ecology Center, CA
Rick Hind, Greenpeace, DC
JoLani Hironaka SCCOSH, CA
Larry Hobbs, Am Public Health Assn, WI
Sylvia Hunter, APHA, NY
Candace Inagi,, Environmental Justice Resource Network, CA
Terri Johnson, Children for a Safe Environment, AZ
Lisa Kahn, Friends of the Earth, DC
Josh Karliner, Transnational Resource & Action Cnt, CA
Marylia Kelly, Tri-Valley Cares, CA
Helen Kim, Asian Immigrant Womens Advocates, CA
Linda King, Env Health Network ,VA
Andy Kivel, Data Center, CA
Denny Larson, Communities for a Better Environment, CA
Charles Lee, UCC Comm on Racial Justice, NY
Dr. Charles Levenstein, U Mass Lowell, MA
Sanford Lewis, Good Neighbor Project, MA
Tim Little, Rose Foundation, CA
Dana McCullough, OR
Dr. Matthew Margulies, APHA, CA
Arthur Mazer, APHA, MA
Kathleen Mazer, NADHP, MA
Anthony Mazzochi, OCAW, DC
Marian Meeselman , U-Mass-Lowell, MA
Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation, MD
Collin Moon, Pres, Univ. of IA Env. Coalition, IA
Elise Morse, APHA, MA
Jim Mosher, Marin Institute, CA
Susan Mudd, Citizen's for a Better Env. WI
Jane Nogaki, Coalition Against Toxics. NJ
Carolyn Nudleman, Am Public Health Assn.PA
Mary O'Brien, Citizen's for Public Accountability, OR
Laura Olah, Citizens for Safe Water, WI
Peter Olney, LA MAP, CA
Paul Orum, Working Grp. on RTK, DC
Barbara Parker, DaJus, TN
Joan Parker, OAG, MA
Cody Pavilla, Ft. Collins Student College, CO
Iea Correa Pinto Brazil Rainforest Preserve, BRAZIL
Carlos Plazola, Campaign for Responsible Tech, CA
Carlos Porras, Communities for a Better Env, CA
Betty Price, M.D., PA
Mark Ritchie, IATP, MN
Suzi Ruhl, LEAF, FL
Barbara Ryan, Prevention File, CA
Wm. Sanjour, EPA, DC
William Joseph Schleich, Ontario, Canada
David Schlosberg, No. AZ. University, AZ
Lawrence Serkey, CA
Robin Seydel, Action for Women's Health, NM
Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper, AK
Lenny Siegel, Pacific Studies Center, CA
Craig Slatin, U Mass Lowell, MA
Ted Smith, Campaign for Responsible Technology, CA
Kerwin So, CA
Michael Stanley-Jones, Medical GIS, CA
Tom Stephens, National Lawyers Guild, MI
Peter Strauss, CA
Susan Swann, Border Project, CA
Pam Swift, Toxic Waste Investigative Group, AZ
Anthony Thigpenn, Enivron. & Econ Justice Project, CA
Joel Tichner, Natl Assoc of Public Health Policy, MA
Paul Tifford, Action Nnw, TX
Jodie Tonita, JAM Consulting, Canada
Jim Tramel, Citizen Action, TN
Connie Tucker, Southern Organizing Comm, GA
Dominick Tuminaro, APHA, NY
Laurie Valeriano, Washington Toxics Coalition, WA
Steve Viederman, Jessie Smith Noyes Found., NY
Noreen Warnock, Allen County Citizens, OH
Marjorie Weston, Austin Greens, TX
James Wheeler, Am Public Health Assn, DC
John White ,WKU, KY
Joy Williams, Env Health Coalition, CA
Joan Wooding, Am Public Health Assn, MA
Gloria Yellowhorse, Actions for a Better Community, CO
Peter de Fur, Center for Envir Studies, VCU, VA


Yes, sign me on!

Please include, your name, organization/affiliation, state, fax and phone

Support SVTC

---

What's Wrong with the Content of the Intel XL Deal

The Intel XL Facility Performance Agreement, if adopted, would offer Intel the tremendous advantage of total flexibility in permitting so that they would no longer have to apply for a new permit if they wanted to make significant changes in their production processes and would even allow them to build a whole new plant as long as they promise (unenforceable) to meet certain (but unverifiable) plant site emission levels. This is a radically new approach to pre-approved permitting and sets a very bad precedent.

Project XL allows higher exposure levels of extremely toxic chemicals than current technology-based standards would allow. The proposed limits are 2 to 50 times higher than existing standards for the most dangerous pollutants. Under the current system, Intel must use best available technology to reduce emissions and exposures, but under Project XL Intel may exceed those standards. For phosphine, the most toxic gas used by Intel, the Project XL standard is 50 times weaker than the normal technology standards would allow. VOC limits would be allowed to increase from 25 tons per year to 40 tons per year. This approach clearly does not assure superior environmental performance and does not provide for any pollution prevention, much less goals and timetables for reducing chemical use and releases.

The XL permit is based on what Intel can get away with, not on how safe Intel can be.

1. Instead of setting limits based on the state-of-the-art, Intel's Project XL bases its limits on numbers that are just low enough to keep below EPA's regulatory jurisdiction.

2. The standards are not health protective, particularly when people are being exposed to so many chemicals, many of which are untested for health effects individually, much less in combination.

3. Many standards are based on acute, rather than chronic, health effects.

4. Project XL de-regulates some toxic chemicals that are currently regulated at the facility. By eliminating 3 existing emissions limits, Intel may legally discharge unlimited quantities of caustic fumes, non-listed acid fumes, and non-listed fluorides.

There could be significant risk shifting that could expose the workers to higher levels of exotic, untested chemicals. Project XL eliminates current regulations that apply a more stringent equipment standard that also protects workers. Project XL allows Intel to increase levels of toxics in the workplace, as long as the toxics are removed before the air is released from the building. One of the biggest weaknesses in the FPA is the potential for the agreement to give Intel a motivation to substitute new substances, currently unlisted by EPA as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) -- yet potentially extremely toxic -- in order to stay within the HAP limits. In an industry that changes its chemical processes so frequently, this is a bad bargain, and the safeguards for introducing new chemicals is inadequate, unenforceable, and unaccountable.

There is no way to independently monitor compliance or to verify what Intel reports as its emissions. There is no provision for any monitoring of emissions, or the ongoing performance of the scrubbers, only modeling. It is impossible to verify the results of the models, especially since Intel has taken the position that the combination of actual chemical usage and emissions factors are confidential business information. Without this information, independent assessment simply cannot be done. This means that the whole agreement is based on a system of compliance that cannot be independently verified-- due to the "culture of secrecy" -- and is, therefore, unaccountable. The reporting does not include any data on toxics use reduction, mass balance, nor on occupational exposures or workers health.

The Agreement is unenforceable and Intel is not bound by its promise to limit emissions. EPA's Office of General Counsel has declared that the XL Agreement is unenforceable, and the permit allows Intel to ask for higher limits at any time, in spite of the fact that Intel had promised to meet the "bubble" limits in return for regulatory relief ( pre-permit approval).

The provisions for water conservation and re-use are seriously deficient, particularly since Chandler is a desert climate and is already seriously short of water supplies. Intel is already using enormous quantities of water-- up to 1 billion gallons per year -- and will be able to significantly increase that water usage under the FPA if they decide to build a new facility. There needs to be much stronger requirements for Intel to commit to re-using their waste water by recycling it back into their industrial processes.