pushing to stop a metal shredding facility from receiving a new permit.

At issue, the Sims Metal Management company in Pilsen that was cited by state and federal officials for violating environmental laws.

The company agreed to build new equipment to contain emissions from their site.

But advocates say the company should get its prevent until they put until they put in the new equipment and showing it's working to contain a missions.

Here to talk more about those issues are Brian McKeen, member of the Southwest Environmental Alliance.

And that is some of them chairwoman of the Southwest Environmental Alliance.

We also invited Sims Metal and the Chicago Department of Public Health.

But they declined to join.

However, they did send statements that will begin to shortly.

Thank you both for joining us.

That I want to start with you.

Give us a little background.

This became a concern for organization back in 2018 when they were cited by the EPA.

>> What did they discover?

>> they found was that Sims was so violating the law.

And so the attorney general decided because they were breaking the Let's take them court.

And that's what they did.

And what we decided as a community is that those things need to be addressed.

Our health of the of the children and the health of the elderly that live in that community.

It's affecting them.

So we were very much concerned about all these things until they they do what they're supposed to do.

We're going to continue.

To what we have to go and meet with the city.

Go in and talk to try to talk to the mayor.

Talk with the cdph INS, try to see what they what they come up with.

Why are you so passionate about this?

My mom and my sister.

My mom died lung disease.

I.

Sister has a lung disease.

And I have 3 a trip, a trip a set of triplets in the family and asthma.

we've just talking to people in the community in hearing about how this pollution is affecting them.

You can hear my voice.

I have a recipe for ICE and I'm pretty sure that has to do with the pollution.

And the community personal for you this in Bryan.

So we know the facility has an agreement to install new monitoring equipment.

Well, with the new equipment, do.

>> So with the equipment is supposed to do is to reduce emissions that come from the metal metal shredder.

By 81%.

That's what is required by the law.

And that's when it was previously tested.

Sims was Ed are below 50%.

>> And what other requirements is organization seeking from the company would be would you want people to So what we're asking is for the mayor.

>> To step in and pause the permitting process.

So that there can be health risk assessment done.

To look at the risk to the community considering local factors, the the nature of the people that live there.

>> As well as other sources of pollution and what the risk truly is similar to what was when general, why are we seeking seeking a permit and the southeast side?

Then Mayor Lightfoot pause the process in instructed Cdph to work with the U.S. PA us EPA to develop health impact study and then when the current was ultimately denied, they relied on that study and the bad track record of the facility and its operators in denying the permit.

And that's what we would like.

We'd like to have the whole for us known and studied.

We'd like for the track record of legal violations by to be fully considered by Cdph.

For no permit to be issued until the air filtering pollution control equipment.

You mentioned is installed and also shown to be working properly.

>> And I want talk about I want to read a statement from the Sims Metal and what they said.

In part, the says Sims Metal welcomes and ongoing engagement with the community.

And we look forward to continuing to provide this essential recycling service in pilsen in a safe and sustainable matter in line with the pa's.

So they're saying the in the EPA is 2024 findings at Sims Metal does not cause either short or long-term health effects for the community near the facility.

Theresa, have they offered your gun is a shun an opportunity to meet with them.

And how did that go?

>> Well, we've met with them, but the long and short of it is our people are the ones that are getting sick.

Our children are the ones that are sick, not theirs.

So it's not important to them.

So for us all, we want them to do is to follow their own law and the law says that they need to fix put this piece of equipment up and prove that it works.

And once they do that, I'd be more than happy to say they can have a permit.

But right now, I would say don't give them a permit because right now we're giving them a permit to.

Pollute our community.

And I don't want that not for our community.

Brian, you're currently urging the city to put a halt on this permanent right?

>> Yes, if I if I could address statement that was made respond to that.

the U.S. EPA came out with day before there was a community meeting.

Cdph emailed us EPA saying, oh, hey, what about long-term effects?

They came out with the one paragraph cursory statement and that conclusion is is not support supported by a report.

And so if EPA thinks that there, there isn't an issue with for us, they should submit a detailed report which cites particular day to use the methods employed and the analysis which leads to that conclusion.

Right now, it's just a brief para paragraph where they've come to this conclusion just by comparing 2 numbers, health benchmarks that doesn't look at risk to the community to look at risk to children and doesn't.

Consider the fact that posing as environmental justice community and Chicago has made commitments to do work to end the environmental racism work that we have done before.

there was a hug lawsuit the results of which.

The city of Chicago and the mayor as agreed to make inroads to make progress ending city practices of environmental discrimination.

right now, this is an example of not making good on those promises.

And really taking a step backward.

we'd like at least the treatment that the southeast side got when there was a pause to the permitting process and a full of examination of the risks and especially since the lawsuit and the city has tried It's supposed to be making improvements.

We haven't seen that in the actions we've seen and we haven't seen that coming from Cdph.

>> 3.

So we only have time for one last question to what plans do you have in place moving forward?

What's the message here?

Messages too.

Keep pushing to get what we need in our community.

And if they're not addressing that, we just need to keep pounding on doors and say you've got to address this issue.

>> you're not gonna stop if we're not going to stop, has to be address.

And and my worries once we end up possibly giving them a permanent, we don't know because they don't have the equipment We don't know if they're going to follow