City officials promised that they are conducting a "rigorous and comprehensive" study on the pollution impact of the proposed metal shredder in the southeast, although a public health expert described the process as "random" and "troublesome."
Serap Erdal, associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in an interview: "They wrote the whole process."
This meeting is part of the city’s “health impact assessment” in response to community opposition to the proposed car and scrap metal shredding business Southside Recycling, which is awaiting approval on the final permit required to operate on East 116th Street Decided to follow the Kalumet River. The decision is expected to be made by the Chicago Department of Public Health in January.
Health officials said in a statement after the Thursday meeting: "Once completed, this will be the most rigorous and comprehensive study ever conducted on a proposed industrial facility in Chicago."
The Southeast was previously home to Chicago’s long-closed steel manufacturers and has developed industries. Some community members expressed their hope that the city would stop sending pollution sources to areas with poor air quality. Southside Recycling is a relocation, name change and reconstruction business, formerly known as General Iron in Lincoln Park. The city’s role in driving business is the subject of a federal civil rights investigation.
Donald Davis, a history teacher at George Washington High School, said in a breakout session of the conference: "It is a big burden to expect us to deal with more pollution."
The City Hall is advertised as an opportunity for residents to provide opinions in small groups, which are limited to those with the postal code of the Southeastern District. Even reporters were initially told that they would not be allowed to participate in breakout sessions. However, some company representatives who do not live in the area are allowed to participate in breakout meetings that engage in heated debates with residents.
Participants in the group were first asked what potential benefits the company would bring to the community. Next, they were asked about the potential "burden." Another question asked residents to share life experiences that might provide information for the permitting process, and the last question asked for suggestions on possible city policy changes.
"People are asked to express their concerns, and the first question is about the benefits," Erdal said. "They didn't really get free and real input in this process."
Before the meeting, Erdal, on behalf of environmental and community organizations, co-authored a 36-page commentary on health impact assessment.
Erdal's paper stated that the city's analysis so far has "severe deficiencies in the process and substance of meeting the most basic requirements."
Specifically, Erdal stated that the city still has an overly narrow view of the impact of adding another polluter in areas that have already experienced a "cumulative burden" of health and environmental hazards. She also disputed the specific air quality data evaluated by New York City with the help of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saying that its scope is limited. After senior EPA officials requested the city to conduct a health assessment, a health assessment is being conducted.
Erdal’s analysis found that the assessment method “intensified” “unfairness in the process of urban land use and environmental permits”.
This meeting is the second of the three planned meetings. It is expected that another meeting will be held next month.
Brett Chase's report on the environment and public health was funded by the Chicago Community Trust Fund.
US National News: Latest News Headlines US National News||US News||Science||Education||Sports||World