Chip makers not doing enough to protect fab workers, toxicologist charges

Chip makers not doing enough to protect fab workers, toxicologist charges
SANTA CLARA, Calif. — The semiconductor industry is dragging its feet in chemical research and going backward in providing medical monitoring to ensure fab workers are safe from exposure to toxic chemicals, said a leading medical toxicologist.

Daniel Teitelbaum spoke in an interview here after concluding testimony as an expert witness for plaintiffs in a case alleging IBM Corp. deliberately withheld information from two former disk drive workers about their illnesses related to chemical exposure in the 1970's and '80s. The plaintiffs were later diagnosed with cancer.

Chip makers "have banded together to obstruct research, but they ought to band together to discover and research the toxicity of the materials [they use].... They need to do chemical research before the chemicals come into the workplace," said Teitelbaum, a practicing toxicologist and occupational medicine specialist for 35 years.

Specifically, he characterized efforts of the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA, San Jose, Calif.) to date as "in limbo" on the issue.

The SIA has taken several steps to deal with the possible threat of cancer from exposure to chemicals in wafer fabs, said the group's public relations director, Molly Tuttle in an interview earlier in November. The SIA commissioned a feasibility report on conducting an epidemiological study. The feasibility report should be back in early 2004, Tuttle said.

The SIA has also hired a consultant investigating issues realted to medical monitoring for fab workers and has engaged others in studying how to better manage and qualify chemicals used in manufacturing. Those actions are following up recommendations from an October 2001 report by seven-person panel of scientific advisors commissioned by the SIA.

SIA has nevertheless taken heat surrounding charges of links to cancer brought up in 1996 have yet to be studied. Indeed, the area still suffers primarily from a lack of scientific studies, something the SIA says will take time to do properly.

"We're moving in that direction, it just takes longer than people would like. We want to do it right so as not to generate false alarms," said Tuttle.

"Cancer is a pretty big issue and it takes time to get your arms around it. Another part of the problem is people don't want to divulge chemicals they are using because its part of their secret recipe," she added.

Indeed, Teitelbaum, who has given depositions at the request of plaintiffs in as many as 500 cases, said chipmakers are often unwilling to share information they believe is competitive about the chemicals they use, particularly in photoresist processes. What's worse, chipmakers are scaling back internal medical departments in favor of using consultants, he said.

Both electronics companies and engineering schools need to integrate into all their processes specialists who can provide perspective on health implications of chemicals, said Teitelbaum who has acted as a consultant on chemical poisoning for the Occupational Health and Services Administration and the Food and Drug Administration.

"The divide between what biologists know and what engineers know is great, and unless they work together you will have more issues like you have [in the IBM case] here," he said.

Mum on cancer

In testimony Tuesday (Nov. 25), Teitelbaum said former IBM employees Alida Hernandez and James Moore suffered from systemic poisoning due to chemical exposure while working at IBM's Cottle Road plant in San Jose. In addition, Teitelbaum said IBM aggravated their conditions by returning them to the workplace after they developed symptoms, but he stopped short of making any connections to their cancers.

Under cross-examination, an attorney for IBM raised doubts about several aspects of Teitelbaum's testimony. Attorneys for both sides agreed Teitelbaum would not testify about links to cancer, though other expert witnesses are expected to make that connection in future testimony.

In his testimony, Teitelbaum said Moore and Hernandez both suffered systemic poisoning while at IBM that could have increased their risk of contracting "other illnesses."

Specifically, Moore suffered systemic poisoning starting in March 1967 and had exposure to toxic chemicals including freon, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, epoxy resins and isopropyl alcohol during his tenure at IBM from 1966 to 1993, according to Richard Alexander, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Hernandez was exposed to acetone, xylene and toluene — all of which contain the carcinogen benzene — as well as formaldehyde, freon and isopropyl alcohol, Alexander added.

Teitelbaum said he put solvents such as acetone "at the top of the list" as "the most likely cause" of a series of 12 tests conducted by IBM over a period from 1980 to 1990 that showed high liver enzymes in Hernandez.

Under cross-examination, Teitelbaum admitted Hernandez had many other potential causes for the high liver enzyme readings including being overweight, diabetes, use of hormones and other drugs, regular consumption of about an ounce a day of alcohol and a family history of liver disease.

IBM's attorney also showed written records indicating doctors in and outside IBM were aware of Hernandez's exposure to chemicals and had discussed with her chemical risks in the workplace.

The trial, which resumes Monday (Dec. 1), is expected to last four to six months.