The meeting began at 6:00 pm.

For context, check out this live-tweet thread of last month's public meeting regarding the Sims facility: https://twitter.com/bonitobuilt/status/1790866292280279302

Also please note that many public commenters (particularly those who did not sign up to speak ahead of time) did not introduce themselves, so they are unnamed in this thread.

CDPH commissioner @simboige opened the meeting by acknowledging community members' requests for more information and opportunities to be heard. “Today we are going to go deep [into data] because you told me to," she said.

@simboige Ige explained that when facilities operating under existing permits violate ordinances (such as the Air Quality Ordinance), CDPH enforces the ordinances by issuing citations.

She also said that permit renewal applications, like the one Sims submitted in 2021, have fewer steps than new permit applications. For example, they don't have to go through a zoning process.

Since Sims submitted its application, the process has changed, with new requirements such as air quality monitoring, an air impact study, and real-time notifications when pollutant levels exceed the standards. Sims is being held to these new standards.

National air quality standards require that the amount of PM10 in the air be 150 µg/m or less. Ige presented a chart showing that the Sims PM10 level is conservatively (as in, it will likely actually be lower and safer) projected to be 124.7 µg/m.

The chart had too small of lettering to be able to read from a few rows back during the meeting, but the slides will be made publicly available afterwards.

Ige then showed a graph tracking emissions levels over the past two years. It was color-coded, with green indicating that the standards were met. The line was completely green throughout the chart.

This data is being shared in response to requests at the previous meeting for greater access to accurate, current information. https://twitter.com/bonitobuilt/status/1790899436392006118

Ige then displayed a paragraph by @EPA stating that no short-term or long-term health impacts were expected as a result of the Sims facility's particulate emissions.

“U.S.E.P.A. will continue to monitor," Ige said. "They’re not saying ‘yes, our work is done’… if at any time there is any departure from the standards, we [CDPH] have the responsibility to come back and enforce.”

Public questions and comments then began.

The first speaker said the emissions data was only compared to benchmarks, and therefore was not sufficiently informative on potential health risks. "We the people need to know what we’re breathing. Do we have the right to know?" she asked. Several voices responded "yes!"

The next speaker expressed doubt about CDPH's ability to enforce air quality standards, referencing the @ILAttyGeneral's lawsuit against Sims. "I feel like you’re employed by them [Sims]. you’re supposed to be defending us [Pilsen/Chicago residents]."

Ige defended the use of benchmarks to assess air pollution levels, saying they are necessary to understand the level of risk. Benchmarks make numerical data seem less arbitrary.

"Compare it to blood pressure," Ige said. "If i have a blood pressure of 160, I don’t know whether that’s good or bad. I need benchmarks to tell me whether it is good or bad." (The benchmark for good blood pressure is 120/80; 160 is very high).

People began shouting at Ige that citations are not a powerful enough form of enforcement. "I know you feel it is not strong enough," she responded. "This is why [Sustainability] Commissioner @angtovar is working very hard [to improve enforcement]."

@angtovar One speaker pointed out that the EPA paragraph shared earlier has no data or analysis attached to it. It's derived from the air monitoring data, Ige said. The same speaker said that there was no explanation of how they got from one to the other.

"That's a valid point," @angtovar said. "We asked for transparency from the EPA. There are a lot of agencies involved here. We went to them and said, ‘these are our recommendations for what information people want to see,'" which is why the EPA shared what they did.

Tovar offered to pass on their request for greater transparency into the data analysis process.

Pasquale Gianni, @Teamsters Director of Govt Affairs, got into an argument over who would get to speak next. He did not end up speaking until later into the meeting.

In response to a series of questions, Ige explained that air quality data is collected by monitors installed by a third-party contractor at the request of the EPA. Sims hired the third-party contractor from an EPA-approved list.

The next speaker said there were several deficiencies in the permit application: data for the % of types of recyclable material delivered, documents submitted to other agencies such as the epa, and copies of the most recent taxes paid.

The same speaker said that instead of approving the permit, CDPH should issue a draft permit, which would be open to public comment and then amended based on those comments. This would follow process guidelines for controversial permits.

CDPH had previously not been enforcing time limits for public commenters, and is now having trouble doing so; many people are speaking longer than permitted.

"Denying a permit requires us to be able to substantiate that there is a violation," Ige said—not just any deficiency, but one that could not be remedied. She did not believe this to be the case. “To the best of my knowledge, we have not found a deficiency yet."

“If we do not issue this permit," Ige said, "Sims will continue to operate under the permit they had before, as they have for the last four years.” This is because Sims met the application deadline and CDPH is still deliberating.

"We see this as environmental racism," Deputy Chief of Staff Teresa Reyes said. "We want sims to complete their legal obligation to install emissions reductions device to reduce emissions by 80%. And we need a detailed health risk assessment."

The next speaker expanded upon this legal obligation: "On 10/22/21, in a consent agreement, Sims agreed to reduce harmful emissions by at least 81%. This hasn’t happened yet, 3 years later. In other words, @ILAttyGeneral said Sims created a public health risk."

@ILAttyGeneral A @ChicagolandCmbr representative: “Sims’ operations have created positive results for the 100+ employees on the SW side, many of whom are unionized.” He described Sims as committed to the environment, compliant with regulation, and committed to emmissions control equipment.

"The announcement the EPA recently posted alarming because they never did that for US Iron," Rose Gomez said. "Why would they go out of their way to post that there are no short-term or long-term health impacts? They should have done it for general iron, but they didn't.”

The next speaker had a series of questions, including "Why hasn’t CDPH investigated PM2.5 in addition to PM10? Why is there a large facility 1.5 mi from 16 schools in Pilsen, mostly low-income schools?" and questioned the reliability of EPA's emissions benchmarks.

"Sims has been a good union employer for many decades," Gianni said. "[Sims employees] are people that live in the community. These are people whose voices should be heard loud and clear.” Driving Sims away from Chicago, he said, might leave only exploitative employers eg. Amazon

Meeting attendees audibly disagreed with Gianni.

Kent: trucks, which emit pollutants like PM2.5 (which is not tracked by air monitors) are in the area more because of Sims. Ige: the Environmental Working Group is developing ordinances that would take traffic impact into account, but the law does not currently allow that.

The next speaker accused CDPH of obscuring the process through difficult language. "You put it in bureaucratese."

"We know Sims is an international company with deep pockets," said Mary (last name unknown). "We know they support the campaigns of many elected officials in chicago." She suggested that conversations with these officials may be futile.

Jeffrey Ilario (unsure of spelling): Sims is "proposing to open a new facility on the Chi-IN border with no emission controls, claiming that it would be economically infeasible." He urged meeting attendees to go to a 6/27 meeting and demand that @idemnews deny that permit.

The final speaker says that no data is available on how much metal Sims is processing, suggesting they could be decreasing production temporarily to decrease emissions during the permitting process. Since data has been collected for two years, Ige finds this unlikely.

The meeting concluded at 7:30. About half of attendees lingered for at least 10-15 minutes after the meeting.

"We are trying to help you! Do you understand this?"