Three major CHIPS Act funded projects — the Micron plant in Boise, Idaho, and the Intel and TSMC fabs in Arizona — have received draft environmental assessments from the Department of Commerce (DOC). All three drafts say that the environmental effects of these plants would be minor or that they wouldn’t have any significant impacts as long as they implement “best management practices.” However, these reports do not satisfy CHIPS Communities United, a group that aims to hold semiconductor companies accountable to their workers and communities, reports The Verge.
“These are huge projects, and they will have an environmental impact. The draft environmental assessments make assumptions about what is going to be done to mitigate those impacts, but there’s no guarantee that those mitigations will be carried out,” says Lenny Siegel, executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO) and a member of the CHIPS Communities United. The CPEO exec also added, “We aren’t objecting to the existence of these plants. We know that they’re going to have to use hazardous substances. Obviously, we’re pushing for substitutes when they can, but one of our biggest problems is the lack of transparency.”
Organizations that accept federal funds, such as those released under the CHIPS Act, are subject to federal environmental regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This law requires federal agencies to execute environmental reviews and share findings with the public. And while the DOC has already released draft environmental impact statements for the three major sites, CHIPS Communities United deems them inadequate.
The group submitted its comments to the Department of Commerce demanding a more detailed environmental impact statement for all projects. They also want to know what those “best management practices” are, and how the government will monitor and enforce those standards.
Siegel understands the steps that the U.S. needs to take to remain ahead of the semiconductor industry and to achieve independence from other sources. However, they are also concerned about the toxic chemicals that semiconductor manufacturing requires and how these could impact the immediate surroundings of the fab.
Before chip manufacturing started to be outsourced in factories abroad, many fabs were in Santa Clara County. Today, this county has more sites than any other county in the U.S., with arsenic, chloroform, lead, and many other toxic chemicals having leached into the groundwater and still requiring cleanup today.
As chip fabs are now returning Stateside, the same concerns remain in the minds of the CHIPS Communities United members. Furthermore, as semiconductor technologies advance at a breakneck speed, the chemicals required to produce them are continuously evolving. Since companies typically keep the components of these chemicals as trade secrets, the people handling them and the community surrounding the fab have often no idea what they’re dealing with.
“We also want to see workers empowered in the facilities, not just to know what they’re working with, but to have a voice in the health and safety protocols, to have the right to stop production if things are dangerous,” said CHIPS Communities United coalition director Judith Barish. “And we want to know that workers won’t be retaliated against if they speak out.”
The issues raised by the group are real and valid concerns that the federal government must address before giving the green light for these companies to operate. It’s true that the U.S. must take steps to advance local semiconductor production, but it must not rush it to the point that it will put the lives of the people in and around these plants at risk.
