SMELTER IN A PARK?

Alcoa Inc is the world’s largest aluminium company. It has 120,000
employees worldwide and in 2003 its income was US$ 21.5 billion.
Randy Overbey is Alcoa’s President of Primary Metals Development and
the man leading the Trinidad smelter team in Chatham and Cap de Ville.
MARK MEREDITH met him in their offices on Stanmore Avenue, Port of
Spain.


MM (Mark Meredith)
In Chatham and Cap de Ville the residents are quite clear that they do
not want your aluminium smelter in their area and handed in a petition
of 3,000 signatures to that effect to the Prime Minister. Will Alcoa
take note of that and act upon their wishes?

RO (Randy Overbay)
Alcoa is taking full note of that. We want to reach out to the
community and answer their questions as fully as we can. I believe that
the broader issues of industrial development, taking care of the
environment and needs of people who may be affected by such a project
can coexist. That’s the outcome we would like in Chatham.

Alcoa has a high Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ranking. Doesn’t
this obligate Alcoa to seriously take residents’ no smelter views
into consideration?

As I said, we are taking their concerns into account. I believe they
have been given information that is inaccurate, misleading, and has
added to their concerns unnecessarily.

What sort of information?

There was a flier that was handed out to several hundred residents.
When we looked it we felt, quite clearly, that the flier was full of
inaccuracies, misleading and inflammatory information which has helped
drive our neighbours in a direction which is unnecessary and
inappropriate. So we brought in a physician who is truly an expert on
health effects of an aluminium smelter to answer residents’ questions.
It’s a process we want to continue, of being honest. To find answers
that allow industrial development, the environment and people to
coexist.

How do you think you will find those answers in Trinidad? You are
coming into a country that has no physical plan for its rapid
industrial development, and that has no environmental effluent
standards legislation in place either. Some might argue our lack of
standards is an attraction for Alcoa.

We are committed to abiding by the EMA process, without fail. Beyond
that, we have our own standards and vision for a smelter plant like
this, and we want to build it to world class standards even if those
don’t exist here. We wouldn’t look at standards here and say those are
the minimum so we’ll spend the least capital possible. That’s not our
approach at all.
I’m proud of our alignment with the government, and NGC/NEC on the

vision we bring of a facility that is as fully integrated as possible
into the ecosystem existing there. I’ll be candid. We can’t build a
facility and keep every tree that’s there today. However, there is a
way that looks at the facility and existing ecosystem of the region in
a holistic way, keeping as much green space as possible so it looks as
attractive as possible. Are there species living there we can even
enhance, to additional wetlands, types of plants or crops?

But your facility is only part of a much larger industrial estate,
which might not exist, It could be argued, if your facility wasn’t
going to Cap de Ville/Chatham. Your smelter is the flame drawing the
moths.

I suggest you talk to the government. I won’t try to speak for them.

I’d like to make a comparison with Iceland and here, where the very
controversial Karahnjukar project was pushed through regardless by the
Icelandic government, driven by Alcoa’s plans. Won’t you just piggy
back on our Government’s unconstitutional plans to develop forest and
agricultural lands in rural Chatham to accommodate your smelter?

Again, I can’t speak for the Government, but the suggestion we have
made, and one I see NEC endorsing, is a land use strategy for this
region where our smelter will be. We endorse that because we want our
smelter to fit into the ecosystem. We are having conversations with the
government and it’s my understanding that they themselves are pursuing
this.

We do have a land use plan already, you know, the 1984 National
Physical Development Plan.

I’m talking about something specific for that region. That’s what we
endorse.

In any EIA Alcoa will have to do, there will be "An Analysis of
Alternatives", meaning you have to look for alternative sites. Are you
doing that?

We’ve done quite a bit of work on possible sites. As you know we
already considered La Brea (Union Estate) but that was too small. And
I’ve stressed before that Union Estate was designed and approved to be
an industrial estate with or without the smelter, before we even
considered coming to Trinidad. We looked inland in the Pt Lisas area
but Pt Lisas is fairly full. We’ve looked at potential sites on the
east coast and the south coast. But it appears to us that that Cap de
Ville is the best site.

Why is it the best site?

It’s adjacent to the coast which is important to us as we’ll bring a
great deal of raw material in, which we desire to do by ship. A port
setting is critical, as is adequate size. We want green space around
us, not be right up against other industrial developments. We very much
want it to appear as a smelter in a park.

But you’ve driven through Union Estate. A wasteland. Do you think it
will be any different in Cap de Ville/Chatham?

Yes. Our aim of integrating the smelter into the ecosystem, and
sponsoring the ecosystem to the fullest degree possible, that’s our
view coming into the region. To compare Union Estate to mine or Alcoa’s
vision is not correct.

But NEC are the ones developing the estate. How will Chatham people be
persuaded that their experience will be any different to those of Union
or Vessigny villages.

We have to earn their trust and do what we say we will do. If I were a
resident at Union Estate, I would be upset at what I see there. It’s
far from the vision that we have for Chatham/Cap de Ville. And I can
assure you NGC and NEC share that vision.

Let’s talk about the people of Chatham and Cap de Ville. They have a
particular way of life and have done for generations. It will change
and never be the same again. The whole of Cedros will change, and the
gas will eventually run out. So I ask about sustainability. Would not
investment in education, health, infrastructure and ecotourism be more
sustainable in this case?

Our goal, again, is to integrate our facility into the ecosystem. Our
goal, in cooperation with NEC would be for those residents who need to
relocate to be relocated to settings that are as similar to what
they’re used to as possible.

You’re going to build housing for them?

Well, um, I would answer it this way. The government fundamentally has
the responsibility for relocation. But we are working with them on the
possibilities of that relocation in terms of the outcomes. It’s my
understanding people can choose between relocation or financial
settlement.

Well, some people have been waiting decades for compensation in this
country. And how can anyone replace the natural setting of Chatham?
Won’t residents end up in tiny National Housing Authority plots?

All I can say is that we want people relocated into a similar setting
as they’ve enjoyed. If we and the government take a financial decision
and move forward with this project, Alcoa will begin almost immediately
on the implementation of an educating, training and workforce selection
process. We expect about 750 well trained permanent employees. Other
jobs will be created in the community like hotels, restaurants, repair
shops.
Over time it will become a cornerstone of economic growth in the
region. I believe the project will bring an improved road system. The
understanding with the government is that they will be responsible for
support systems like the utilities, roadways, the port.
.
Your facility is supposed to have a shelf life of 40-50 years, correct?

I would phrase it this way, Mark, That we expect to operate for 30-50
years.

Some people are not sure we have enough gas to last that long. Now
government is talking about a second smelter, both consuming vast
amounts of energy. We’re not Quatar, after all. What happens if it’s
used up in, say, 20 years? What happens to the area when you leave?

We’re seeking very clear assurances from the government about their
commitment to supply natural gas to support the facility before we make
the investment. We have to have those assurances and see they are
deliverable and know the reserves are adequate.

Do you think they are?

At this point I do, yes.

As long as 30-50 years?

Uh, yes, I think so.

Let ‘s turn to the broader issue of aluminium production and Alcoa’s
claim on your website that it is a very sustainable product. Is it
really when you consider what it takes to produce aluminium?
The vast energy use, clearing of tropical forests for bauxite strip

mining, the damming of ecosystems and displacement of communities, and
the health and pollution problems associated with refineries and
smelters. All of this when you could be concentrating on recycling,
which takes just 5% of the energy needed to smelt new aluminium. The
US, the largest consumer of aluminium, recycled just 44 per cent in
2003, the lowest rate in years. Instead of destructive dam projects and
more mines and smelters, shouldn’t Alcoa be concentrating far more on
recycling?

We would like to see higher recycling rates, so we don’t disagree with
you on that. We think it’s good, we endorse it, and will continue to
promote the recycling benefits of our product. In order to supply
aluminium demand we believe will exist in the future, new facilities
will need to be built, but we would like to see a higher recycling
rate. . .

Alcoa are pressing ahead with several destructive projects besides
Karanhnjukar. In Brazil the displacement of 16,000 people at the Bela
Monte dam. In Suriname the Tapanahani River Dam, with the loss of 1,200
sq km of forest and six indigenous villages, 13,500 ha of endemic
jarrah forest already cleared for the Huntley bauxite mine in
Australia, to name a few. These are all extremely harmful to the
environment and communities, are they not?

I think there’s a general point to made, Mark, and one we may simply
disagree on. I agree with you on recycling. I think there’s an issue of
the coexistence of development and protection of the environment. I
don’t see the world economy being wiling to give up on future
development of industry. . .

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that. . .

(continuing) and power to support that industry. Those who seem to
object to all sources of power probably don’t want their lights turned
off either.

But deforestation is a big issue, especially here in Trinidad where we
are losing trees hand over foot. With your various deforestation plans,
how are Alcoa helping combat climate change by destroying these carbon
sinks while burning vast amounts of energy?

Let’s talk about climate change a bit. Starting with the base of 1990,
which is what we’ve chosen for measuring our greenhouse gas emissions,
Alcoa has reduced those emissions by, do you know what percentage?

About 25 per cent.

In fact it’s about 26 and a half, a reduction of over 25 per cent since
1990.

Your greenhouse gas emissions from smelters are much more potent and
there are much more of them than most industries. You now have major
new smelting operations planned worldwide, too.

As we approach growth in Iceland, Trinidad, and other places, we will
come up with a goal that also reflects that growth. I currently chair
our Climate Change Strategy Team worldwide and am quite familiar with a
lot of these issues. As we approach growth on the primary side of our
business, it will be done also in the context of climate change and
greenhouses gases.

Finally, let’s come back to health and smelters. An Australian study
reported smelter workers have a greater chance of contracting and dying
from stomach, kidney, and prostate cancers than average Australians. In
1999, Alcoa warned workers of elevated chances of contracting lung and
bladder cancers as a result of using coal tar pitch in the smelters.
Are we going to use coal tar pitch?

Yes.

So what can you tell people here about the risks of using the same
substance?

We recognized that there was the potential of an elevated chance
because of coal tar pitch. We took immediate measures worldwide to
better protect our employees in terms of clothing they wear, the
frequency with which they shower, the exposures themselves and took
immediate steps to mitigate that risk.

So you would admit there’s a risk working in an aluminium smelter.

There is a risk working in an aluminium smelter. I agree with that.
It’s a plant, a manufacturing facility. There’s moving equipment, the
process has a molten bath.

I’m thinking of something more insidious, not falling into a vat of
molten metal.

That’s why we had Dr Taiwo come from Yale to deal with these specific
questions. Perhaps we need to send you a summary of that information.

Perhaps you should.

It’s information we’re happy to share.