One Northwest Indiana activist is encouraged by a recent Washington, D.C. circuit court ruling but said U.S. Steel still has a long way to go.
The court on Thursday denied a request for the steel company to hit pause on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule setting emission standards for integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities.
U.S. Steel’s decision was consolidated with cases from Cleveland-Cliffs and the Clean Air Council, according to online court records. The court urges the groups to submit a joint proposal going forward.
“The new rule would make a dent in emission levels,” said Carolyn McCrady, member of Gary Advocates for Responsible Development. “It certainly would not be as significant as we would like to see, but it would make a dent.”
The EPA rule sets the final limitations for hazardous air pollutants from new and existing sinter plants, blast furnaces and basic oxygen process furnace shops, according to the agency’s website.
All sources are required to meet hazardous air pollutant standards set by maximum achievable control technology standards.
U.S. Steel was disappointed by the D.C. court’s ruling, a spokesperson for the company said in a statement. The steel company believes the iron and steel industry will be irreparably harmed by EPA’s action.
“The Clean Air Act requires EPA to consider, among other things, costs, operational and process variability, non-air quality impacts and achievability when setting standards,” the statement said. “The EPA did not do so in this case. To preserve American jobs, industries like ours must be able to rely on and play by rules that are well-grounded in science and law.”
D.C. Circuit Court Judge Justin Walker dissented from the opinion. Judges Cornelia Pillard, a Barack Obama pick, and Florence Pan, a Joe Biden appointee, had the majority opinion.
Walker, who was appointed in 2020 by then-President Donald Trump, believes the EPA’s final rule likely violates the Clean Air Act and will cause irreparable harm, he wrote in his dissenting opinion.
“Absent a stay, the Final Rule will likely cause irreparable harm by forcing applicants to develop novel technology,” he wrote. “To develop that technology, the applicants must start spending money now to get in compliance within one to three years (as the Final Rule requires). That is money they will not get back, even if they ultimately win.”
Walker also argued that the EPA found a few years ago that emissions from U.S. Steel and other applicant companies posed “no risk to public health beyond an ample margin of safety.”
Adrienne Lee, senior attorney for Earthjustice, said she believes it’s good news that the court denied this motion. Earthjustice is a San Francisco-based nonprofit public interest environmental law organization, according to its website.
While the court is resolving this case, the EPA’s rule will stay in place and continue as it has, Lee said.
“If they had gotten a stay, that would have delayed these already delayed protections for communities with steel mills and harmed people living nearby,” she added.
Going forward, the D.C. court will look at claims about whether the rule is lawful. Lee added that the case is a ruling on the merits of the EPA’s rule.
“We feel like there’s a strong basis for arguing that the rule should be stronger,” Lee said.
It’s important for people living near steel mills to be aware that this case is ongoing, she added.
The EPA’s ruling is “incredibly important,” McCrady said, because emissions from steel mills have made people sick in Northwest Indiana and other areas of the country.
“Any rule that would decrease the level of those emissions is good for us,” she said. “We would just like it to go even further.”
GARD joined with EarthJustice to tell courts that they want the rule to continue, McCrady added, and she encourages people to voice their concerns about U.S. Steel at any public meeting regarding air quality.
“This is like a chess game, and we want to win this game,” she said. “We have to win it for the people.”