Snapshot of Peoria's toxic releases: Industrial ‘neighbors’ say pollutants are controlled

January Community Word

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new Toxic Release Inventory shows companies’ data on industrial waste last year, and of all of Peoria’s zip codes, four have businesses that say they released between 12.6 tons to 6 pounds. (See box.)

Metro Peoria has 33 “TRI facilities,” says the EPA, which administers the annual reports of data provided by the companies themselves under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, passed in 1986.

The sites are in mostly low-income neighborhoods, and there’s been little public outcry about harmful substances in their midst. Objections to the proximity of some business or government plans – protests dubbed NIMBY, for “Not In My Back Yard” – have ranged from disapproval of a port at Chillicothe’s riverfront to opposition to changes in parks or proposals for subsidized housing.

Thousands of people live near these TRI sites, but there’s no indication of “environmental justice” concerns.

Tonyisha Harris of the Illinois Environmental Council says sometimes complaints emerge from marginalized neighborhoods.

“Environmental justice sets out to remove qualifiers such as race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status from being a predictor of pollution and toxic development,” she told the Community Word. “Oftentimes, these communities contribute the least to pollution but bear the burden of its effects.

“Racist policies like redlining and lax environmental enforcement or regulation allow for polluting industries to be concentrated in low-income communities,” she added.

The lack of concern may be due to residents moving to such neighborhoods after the factories were there, possibly contributing to lower property values, making homes more affordable for the less fortunate. Other reasons for a begrudging acceptance are little local organizing of residents who may be worried or economic concerns prioritized over public health.

“It depends on the community and the type of polluter,” Harris said. “Some coal communities may not fight back against a coal-fired power plant because it’s the primary source of income or jobs and contributes significantly to property-tax revenue. In these cases, the plant is the economic stimulator for the community and its removal would be far-reaching.”

Also, acquiescence might be because most such sites have existed for decades with no apparent problems, which can lead to tolerating risk.

Still, risk remains.

Local releases of toxic material have been controlled through regulated emissions or waste disposal.

Regardless, potential health effects of uncontrolled releases could be substantial. For example, the main substances released by these four sites are n-Hexane, ethylene glycol, zinc compounds, and manganese compounds. The EPA summarizes their dangers thusly: n-Hexane – neurological; ethylene glycol - developmental, renal, respiratory; zinc compounds – hematological, reproductive; and manganese compounds – neurological.

Details:

* n-Hexane is an irritant to eyes and skin, a cause of Central Nervous System depression, and can lead to dizziness, headaches, nausea and respiratory irritation, according to the National Library of Medicine, which also addresses

* ethylene glycol, a substance that also can cause “CNS depression (coma, hypotonia, eventually cerebral edema),” and renal failure;

* “large amounts of zinc can be harmful,” reports the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, causing stomach cramps, anemia and changes in cholesterol levels; and

* “exposure to manganese … can damage the lungs, liver and kidneys,” warns the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Manganese fumes an lead to a neurological condition, manganism, with symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease.

 

Elsewhere, “communities do fight back against polluters,” Harris said. “Chicago has seen wins in this arena, such as the ban against petcoke [petroleum coke] or the delay of the General Irons permit [for its scrap-metal shredding operation]. Communities are either not given the opportunity to weigh in on developments in their community and learn about the polluting industry once it’s approved, or the public-comment period is often symbolic and community concerns aren't seriously considered in the permit approval process.”

 

Vantage Corn Processors, #1 Edmund St., 61602

The EPA’s analysis of Census data says its tract has more than 900 residents, about 95% of whom are low-income, 90% people of color and 90% children younger than 5.

Waste managed: 251,079 lbs.

Released: 25,209 lbs.

Main substance(s): n-Hexane

This facility ranks 546 out of 2,967 TRI facilities in the Chemicals Industry sector (with 1 being the highest risk, according to the EPA’s RSEI*)

Komatsu America, 2300 NE Adams St. 61603

Its tract has more than 1,300 residents, about 85% of whom are low-income, and 65% people of color.

Waste managed: 74,729 lbs.

Released: 7,020 lbs.

Main substance(s) ethylene glycol

This facility ranks 292 out of 879 TRI facilities in the Machinery Industry sector (1 = highest)

AZZ Galvanizing Services, 6718 W. Plank Rd., 61604

The Census shows its tract has more than 2,000 residents, about 55% of whom are low-income, and 75% seniors.

Waste managed: 243,665 lbs.

Released: 5,866 lbs.

Main substance(s): zinc compounds**

TMS International LLC, 7001 SW Adams St, 61607

Its tract has about 800 residents, about 90% of whom are low-income, and 65% people of color.

Waste managed: 6 lbs.

Released: 6 lbs.

Main substance: manganese compounds**

* RSEI is Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators, the EPA’s modeling tool based on air and water data about potential health-related impacts from toxic industrial releases.

** The EPA noted AZZ Galvanizing is one of 3,728 TRI facilities in the nation’s Fabricated Metals, Food Industry sector, and TMS International is one of 695 TRI facilities in the Hazardous Waste, Other industry sector(s), but does not rank risk for either company.

Future of campaign finance reform in Illinois as dark as money involved

Community Word column January 2022

In the spring of 1996 Kent Redfield was a 47-year-old political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield where he wrote a report for the Illinois Campaign Finance Project (ICPR) outlining dozens of ways to change how candidates raise and spend money.

Considering the 25 years since – months after the state Supreme Court decided Auditor General Frank Mautino broke the state’s Act to Regulate Campaign Financing law – Redfield reminisces on wins and losses, and he’s not optimistic about improvements.

“Knowledge about the impact of money on politics is the foundation for allowing citizens to ask informed questions and forcing those giving and those taking money to be publicly accountable,” Redfield says. “Sunshine can influence votes in elections and influence behavior by public officials in making policy decisions. Making citizen knowledge and action a force in changing the culture is the key.”

His report, “The Pros and Cons: 38 Possible Options for Changing How Illinois Candidates Raise and Spend Money,” had a range of choices, from no changes to restrictions, public funding to strengthening enforcement. It came out in the middle of an evolution of campaign financing, from powerful political parties, to national and local scandals to the U.S. Supreme Court upending possibilities.

Illinois’ party organizations weakened in the ’60s, and self-recruited politicians and candidate-centered groups filled the fund-raising role. After Watergate, money in politics became an issue, and reformers helped Illinois enact modest reporting/disclosure mandates.

But by the early 1990s, money flooded into Illinois politics in ever-greater amounts with little regulation, oversight or transparency, says Redfield, adding, “Illinois was the wild West when it came to financing political campaigns.”

Regulations had no controls on raising and spending money in political campaigns, so reformers’ strategy became requesting changes when there was a scandal and then compromising.

“This strategy fit with Illinois’s political culture: pragmatic and power-oriented,” Redfield says. “When momentum built for change, the default position of those in power, regardless of party, was never ‘How can we to the right thing?’ but ‘What will it take to make this go away?’

“While the contribution-limits bill is really half a system (limits on private money coming in, no limits on parties and candidates moving it around after it comes in), the feeling was that the reform movement had taken the first big step. It turned out that it was the last step.”

There’d been little action in the early 1990s, and reformers increased researching and lobbying. Organizations like ICPR had some success between the mid-’90s and 2010, when the Supreme Court in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” essentially decided that money was speech and corporations were people.

“Citizens United” doomed options for contribution limits and public financing of campaigns, enabling the rise of “dark money” so outside groups could spend money in secret. Also, increasing wealth at the top of society and the super-rich’s participation in politics changed campaign finance in unexpected ways.

ICPR and Redfield’s report didn’t foresee such developments, especially “dark money groups using non-profit status to avoid disclosure and the inability of the FEC and IRS to deal with this fraud, and the impact of billionaire contributors and self-funding billionaire candidates,” he says. “I also didn’t anticipate how effective the designation of leader-controlled caucus committees would be in opening up the movement of money once it was given to a candidate. Once money gets into the system, legislative leaders can shift it anywhere in any amount.”

All that caused foundations funding reform efforts to turn to issues like redistricting, reformers refocused, and Illinois’ anti-reform political culture proved resilient, Redfield says.

“One weakness of campaign finance as a policy issue is that it doesn’t have a strong constituency within the legislature,” he says.

As to Mautino’s situation, “I continue to be surprised that the legislature is not willing to place limits on spending campaign contributions for non-election purposes,” he continues. “That raises ethical questions and confirms citizens’ opinions that all politicians are on the take. The fact the legislature amended the election code to add language that basically green-lighted the practices he was under investigation for tell you all you need to know about the dim prospects for ethics reform in Illinois.”

Trying to improve campaign financing in the 21^st century is daunting, Redfield says.

“To rebuild what was in place in 2010 would require the creation of reform organizations with stable funding,” he says. “It would also require a different constitutional structure in terms of free speech and contributing money. Finally, it would require changing or at least getting a stalemate with the political culture of Illinois.

“What needs to happen is complete disclosure of who is contributing and what they are contributing so that we can document how money is flowing into the system and how it is impacting who get elected and what policies are considered,” he adds. “A lack of political will and a lack of leadership and courage are the primary factors keeping this from happening.

“I am not very hopeful, short term.”