In early March, a small group of Rust Belt Democratic senators sent an urgent letter to President Joe Biden. They began by extolling the benefits of the Biden administration's two biggest achievements, the bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the Anti-Inflation Act, calling them „historic investments in our nation's infrastructure“ that will lead to a bright future for American manufacturing. I called it. But they warned that there are things that could impede this progress. This is a regulation for integrated iron and steel factories planned by the Environmental Protection Agency. He proposed in July last year. And the deadline for the court order is approaching.
“We are concerned that EPA's proposed Consolidated Steel Rule would do what foreign competitors have never been able to do: improve our nation's steel industry. This would deter and reduce continued investment in the Five senators wrote, including West Virginia's Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania's John Fetterman. They argued that the regulation would cost companies billions of dollars and force widespread layoffs. EPA estimates The cost to U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs, the two companies that own all 10 of the country's steel mills, is $7.1 million.
Shortly after the senators sent out their letter, the EPA released its first final rule attempting to reduce emissions from steel mill leaks and equipment failures. EPA expects: new regulations Reduce particle pollution by 473 tons each year. However, the final rule is weaker than the one proposed in 2023. The agency originally planned to cut steel mills' toxic emissions by 79 tonnes a year, an overall reduction of 15%, but the final version is expected to reduce emissions by 64 tonnes. Every year. The EPA also withdrew proposed limits on the thickness of smoke coming from factory doors and roof vents.
Jim Pugh, Earthjustice's senior attorney who has filed multiple lawsuits against Earthjustice for failing to control pollution at its steel mills, said the regulation is a shadow of the nation's most polluting steel mills. He told Grist that it would bring „real benefits“ to the people living there. , but he lamented the safety features that have been lifted.
„This is a small step in the right direction,“ he said, noting that the EPA has set standards in the final rule regulating the types of incinerators used in some highly polluting plants. „I think the steel companies actually waged a disinformation campaign about the cost of this rule, which pressured EPA to remove some of the provisions that would have been beneficial.“
![Sen. John Fetterman holds brief exchange with Sen. Joe Manchin in June 2023](https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fetterman_manchin.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
![Sen. John Fetterman holds brief exchange with Sen. Joe Manchin in June 2023](https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fetterman_manchin.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
The new rules give the nation's steel companies two years to update their facilities with the necessary emission reduction equipment and workplace standards. An EPA spokesperson said in an email that the agency „carefully considered stakeholder feedback and made data-based modifications to the final rule that provide necessary flexibility and support for surrounding communities.“ It also provided health protection.“
The senators' letter represents a rare opportunity for Congress to engage in the EPA's rulemaking process, a multi-year endeavor that requires extensive data collection and engineering expertise. Although the agency's air pollution regulations are backed by science and riddled with industry jargon, they have a significant impact on the communities that serve the nation's industrial infrastructure, limiting the amount of toxic chemicals that businesses can emit and that residents can inhale. determining the amount of certain toxic chemicals.
Steel production is a highly polluting operation that involves heating coal to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to produce a product known as coke, which is then mixed with iron ore in blast furnaces and melted to create molten steel. The heat of grilling releases large amounts of toxic heavy metals such as lead and arsenic, as well as particulate matter that can accumulate in the lungs with prolonged exposure. Many the study It has been pointed out that there is a link between pollution from steel plants and heart and lung dysfunction.
90% of steel industry emissions Born from 4 factories They dot the rim of Lake Michigan near the Illinois-Indiana border. Towns like Gary, Indiana, were once thriving manufacturing hubs, but fell into decline as manufacturing jobs moved overseas in the late 20th century. Today, the steel mills spewing black smoke into the air over the region's overwhelmingly low-income and black communities are remnants of this era, and politicians on both sides of the aisle seem eager to protect them. It is a symbol of a prosperous past.
The first effort by lawmakers to convince the EPA to change course took place last December. A group of eight senators, including Democrat Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Republicans Mike Braun and Todd Young of Indiana, letter He told EPA Administrator Michael Regan that the agency's proposed regulations would make the nation's steel industry, „the world's leading producer of the cleanest steel,“ uncompetitive and undermine national security.
“We support reducing harmful air pollution,” they wrote. “We also support lasting, practical rules.” The federal government also “protects good-paying jobs and protects public health while supporting industries essential to national and economic security.” This is based on the idea that improvements should be made. These rules do not meet that criteria. ” The senators did not specify which provisions of the proposed rule would have this effect. A March letter from Manchin and other Democrats provided an even stronger warning. “If these rules are promulgated as proposed, Cleveland-Cliffs and U.S. Steel could be forced to prematurely close their plants, resulting in job losses and restitution to local communities. „There is the potential for irresistible damage,“ the senators argued.
![A length of red-hot steel in a factory.](https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/steel_rods.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
![A length of red-hot steel in a factory.](https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/steel_rods.jpg?quality=75&strip=all)
In the final rule, EPA estimated that the total cost to the steel industry would total $7.1 million, including the installation of air monitors to measure chromium contamination around facilities and the installation of air monitors in workplaces to reduce leaks. This includes the introduction of new practices. from previously unregulated sources. But a press release supporting the senator's claim that the cost would be in the billions of dollars said: Lourenco Goncalves, CEO of the Cleveland Cliffs, said: It said the rule „would jeopardize high-wage, middle-class union jobs in the steel industry.“ In 2023, U.S. Steel and the Cleveland Cliffs will $18 billion and 21 billion dollarsEach.
Earthjustice attorney Pugh said fears that the new rules would wreak havoc across the industry are unfounded. „The cost claims were very shocking to us because EPA routinely overstates the costs of its rules,“ Pugh said. 2020 survey From the National Association of Purification Organizations. „They're saying that EPA not only underestimated the costs of these rules, but underestimated them by orders of magnitude.“
After noting the senator's efforts to water down steel mill regulations, Bruce Buckheit, former director of the EPA's Air Enforcement Division, decided to send Regan. Letter on behalf of Earthjustice During February. He dissected the new rules, arguing that their impact is „simple and straightforward“ and that they meet the minimum pollution reductions required by the federal Clean Air Act. “I have seen nothing in the rulemaking record regarding these proposals to support the cost claims in the senators’ letters,” he wrote. He concluded that total capital expenditures would be small compared to U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs' revenues.
“I believe it is important to push back against these exaggerated industry claims to prevent them from swaying public opinion and agency policy,” Buckheit wrote.
Editor's note: Earthjustice is a Grist advertiser. Advertisers have no role in her Grist editorial decisions.