Questions to Consider
OPTIONS:
- Should Ford be issued a permit, or should the plant be closed and/or forced to move? --or should Ford be offered a permit with fewer restrictions so that it will not move?
- Should the prospective permit require Ford to:
- install a carbon-wheel absorber?
- introduce low-solvent (high-solid) paint?
- increase its stack height?
- re-channel the exhaust from the repair booth and ovens to the main stack?
- adjust its operation schedule (according to seasons, hours, weather or prevailing winds)?
- limit production of two-tone trucks?
- Should the permit allow Ford to use the BC/CC paint?
- Should the community be required to tolerate odors (if non-hazardous) or minor eye irritations, or reschedule outdoor activities?
ISSUES & JUSTIFICATION:
- Principled Reasoning: What will be the forseeable consequences of various choices (effects on odor, on the levels of the various types of health risks, on risks for specific individuals, on truck prices for consumers, on employment, on company profit)? How does one justify a decision based on general principles?
- Exceptional Cases: Should one base assessments on (imaginary) 'worse case scenarios' or more realistic levels of ordinary exposure? Do our responsiblities extend to the "average" or typical individual or to all individuals, even the possibly exceptional or rare person?
- Scientific Uncertainty: How does one address uncertainty in the data or other unknowns--such as lack of epidemiological data on many toxics?
- Historical Constraints: Are there historically embedded responsibilities? How should one address Ford's grant of land on which the now troublesome senior citizen high-rise was built?
- Pragmatism v. Idealism: Should one use every means available to reduce any possible risk or harm, or does one try to specify some satisfactory level? Should one adopt the "best available technology" (at whatever cost) or aim to achieve a balance of some kind?
- Scientific Disagreement: Who decides what is "scientific" and complete information? In this case, who should pay for MPCA's second risk study? Indeed, who should pay for other studies related to Ford's emissions and to general health effects of various chemicals?
- Burden of Responsibility: Does the community bear responsibility for other local emissions (primarily auto and truck exhaust on Ford Parkway)? If so, how? --Should this be related to the granting of a permit or its terms?
A final decision is incomplete without answering all these questions AND articulating the reasoning in reaching each conclusion.