----- Original Message -----
From: William Freese
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Q & A session
Last night we had our public hearing on Lafarge's Permit to Install on byrning plastic in their 5 kilns.I had to delete the Alpena News articles on the hearing because it put this post over the size limit. You can go online to The Alpena news and they made front page yesterday and today. As usual there were a number of Lafarge employees in attendance. Only 4 or 5 of them spoke and their concern was the same. Don't jeopardize jobs as Lafarge is a wonderful company to work for. We are not anti jobs but the economy, especially building products and cement production, is down. We have heard that the St. Mary's cement plant in Charlevoix has laid off a number of its workers for that reason. Tax abatements that Lafarge received requires them to maintain number of employees at 286. All sub-contractors work for Lafarge is now being done by their own employees. Even secretaries in the offices work Fridays out in the yard. No unions at Lafarge so employees know they have to get up and speak for Lafarge or they could be gone.
The so called trial burn continued on at a full burn without a permit and as the MDEQ has said at their own risk. The trial burn stack test was only for particulate matter and a couple of metals but there were no tests for mercury emissions which was supposed to be the reason they switched to plastic and wood chips. It was supposed to replace 30% of the coal and coke used in the process. The plastic being burnt since October of 2007 was supposed to be non-halogenated chlorine free plastic stripped from recycled milk and juice cartons. There was about 150,000 tons or about a six month supply.
Lafarge found another source from recycling Concepts and it is supposed to be new but damaged car parts. If those parts were injection molded then they could be contaminated with the release materials. Over 70% of molded plastic auto parts are made in China with some from India and Pakistan. the quality and content are suspect because of where they are made. We feel that it leaves an opening for auto fluff which has already been denied because of its high dioxin content. We do not want to be backdoored like we were with the Canadian fly ash.
Thanks especially to Alex Sagady for a great presentation and to Kay Cumbow of CACC and others who sent letters supporting HEAL's position to the MDEQ.
Bill Freese, Director