Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Tribes in Minnesota are paying the steepest price for the steel industry’s mercury pollution

News Feed
Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Demand for steel is on the rise globally, driven by population growth and the expanding economies in developing nations. The material will also be important to the green energy transition, forming the backbone of infrastructure like wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric dams. Every part of the steel supply chain is heavily polluting, and the places in the U.S. where the steel industry is concentrated are disproportionately low-income and non-white, highlighting yet another instance in which the promises of development and climate solutions come at a steeper cost for some communities. What’s more, the country’s steel production is dominated by just two companies: U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs.  For both companies, much of their production begins with taconite, a low-grade iron ore mined in the northeast Minnesota’s Mesabi Iron Range, which is processed into pellets that get shipped to the steel mills of Gary, Indiana. The extraction of the ore from taconite rock releases a slew of toxic pollutants into the air, including mercury, lead, and dioxins. In this region, the most concerning of these emissions is mercury.  Studies have connected mercury to a litany of negative health effects. It’s a neurotoxin that can interfere with brain development in unborn children and an endocrine disruptor that can weaken the immune system. Scientists have yet to determine a quantity of mercury that is safe for human consumption. One recent study found that there is “no evidence” for a threshold “below which neuro-developmental effects do not occur.” And while the taconite industry releases less than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere every year, the metal is toxic in extremely small quantities: a fraction of a teaspoon can contaminate a twenty-acre lake.  The nation’s six taconite plants, all in this region of Minnesota, are owned by U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs. In May 2023, the EPA proposed a regulation that would require the companies to cut their mercury emissions by around 30 percent. In order to meet that standard, the companies would have to install equipment that would inject carbon atoms into their industrial chimneys so that the carbon would attach itself to the mercury atoms, making the pollution particles bigger and allowing them to get trapped in a filter before they would be released into the atmosphere. The agency estimates that its regulation would cost the industry $106 million in capital costs and $68 million per year thereafter.  Last month, when the standards were finalized, both companies sued. They argue that the regulation would pose “irreparable harm” to the industry because of the steep costs of implementation. They also argue that the EPA’s proposed method for reducing mercury pollution would actually be worse for public health, causing a 13 percent increase in the amount of the toxic metal deposited in the local environment.  “EPA is not only requiring industry to restructure its operations and build new pollution control facilities at unprecedented costs, it is requiring facilities to commit to associated disruption of their current operations, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and risk their productive capacity and indeed ability to operate completely, to design, permit, and install a technology with no demonstrated ability to actually work,” the companies wrote. Jim Pew, a lawyer at Earthjustice who has litigated multiple lawsuits against the EPA for its failure to curb pollution from the taconite industry, pointed out that the costs of implementing the required equipment would be a tiny fraction of the companies’ annual sales, which totaled $40 billion in 2023. Pew noted that U.S. Steel recently initiated a $500 million stock buyback program, the mark of a healthy income revenue stream. As for the companies’ claim that the technology would increase mercury pollution, Pew called it “meritless.” The companies are “relying on a premise they know to be false” — that taconite plants would add the carbon technology without also improving their filtration system.  “I find this reprehensible and shameful,” Pew said. “While it’s claiming that it can’t spend money to clean up historic pollution, U.S. Steel is just handing out money to its shareholders.”  In an email, a spokesperson from U.S. Steel told Grist that the company’s lawsuit was meant to ensure that the EPA’s new regulations are “in line with sound science and regulatory procedures.” The spokesperson went on to say that the company had tested the available emissions-reduction technology at one of their plants in Minnesota and determined that it would not be in compliance with the mercury limits established by the agency. “We remain committed to environmental excellence, as do the nearly 2,000 hardworking men and women of our Minnesota Ore Operations.” Cleveland Cliffs did not respond to multiple requests for comment.  Pew sees the lawsuit as part of a multi-pronged attack by the steel industry against federal regulation. Over the past several years, the EPA has also proposed standards for the other types of facilities involved in steel production. These two companies have threatened litigation at every turn, recently petitioning a bipartisan group of lawmakers to send a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, asking him to loosen the new standards for steel mills. Taconite is dumped from railroad cars in Minnesota, 1965. Minnesota Historical Society via Getty Images By the terms of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency was supposed to propose standards to control toxic releases from taconite plants in 2003. When they failed to do so, environmental advocates from the Save Lake Superior Association and other groups  sued the following year. In a federal circuit court, the EPA acknowledged that it had fallen short of its duties, and promised to move with “all due process and speed” to fill the gaps in its regulations.  Years passed without a federal rule, and in 2007, Minnesota initiated an effort of its own, setting a standard for mercury pollution in water and, two years later, becoming the first state to develop a plan to achieve it. The standard required industries across the state to slash their emissions by a cumulative 93 percent, and over the following decade, power plants, crematoria, and other mercury emitters achieved major reductions. Emissions from the taconite industry, however, remained exceptionally high. Its share of the state’s total mercury releases jumped from 21 to 46 percent between 2005 and 2017. Mercury contamination is particularly worrisome for tribal nations like the Fond du Lac Band, which fish and grow wild rice throughout the state’s vast network of rivers, lakes, and streams.“We find that across a lot of ceded territory, there’s a lot of good regulation but there’s been a lot of flexibility in enforcement,” said John Coleman, an environmental scientist at the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Tribes repeatedly petitioned the EPA to make good on its 2003 promise. They had good reason to be concerned: One study had found that 10 percent of babies born on the Northshore of Lake Superior have elevated mercury levels in their blood.  It took the agency until last May to finally propose its regulation, which, of course, is under challenge. Still, for the tribes of northeast Minnesota, the EPA’s rule was a resounding disappointment. Even if U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs reduce their mercury emissions by 30 percent, the companies’ operations would still allow hundreds of pounds of mercury to enter the state’s waterways each year.  “It is of our view that these proposed standards do not go far enough toward restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the environment and our community,” wrote Paige Huhta, the Fond du Lac’s air program coordinator in a letter to the EPA last July. She pointed out that the EPA itself had found that exposure among specific subpopulations, including some tribes, may be more than twice as great as that experienced by the average American. But when the agency finalized the rule this past May, it did not budge from its original reduction requirements. “Water is an important part of the landscape up here,” said Nancy Shuldt, the Fond du Lac Band’s Water Projects Coordinator. “We have a water rich landscape and water resources form the foundation of tribal lifeways.”  And because it is a metal, mercury does not break down into less toxic substances like other industrial pollutants. It stays in the environment for hundreds of years. In northeastern Minnesota, and to a specific group of people, much of the damage has already been done. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Tribes in Minnesota are paying the steepest price for the steel industry’s mercury pollution on Jul 17, 2024.

Steel companies that process taconite release a slew of pollutants — and they're suing the EPA over new regulations.

Demand for steel is on the rise globally, driven by population growth and the expanding economies in developing nations. The material will also be important to the green energy transition, forming the backbone of infrastructure like wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric dams. Every part of the steel supply chain is heavily polluting, and the places in the U.S. where the steel industry is concentrated are disproportionately low-income and non-white, highlighting yet another instance in which the promises of development and climate solutions come at a steeper cost for some communities. What’s more, the country’s steel production is dominated by just two companies: U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs. 

For both companies, much of their production begins with taconite, a low-grade iron ore mined in the northeast Minnesota’s Mesabi Iron Range, which is processed into pellets that get shipped to the steel mills of Gary, Indiana. The extraction of the ore from taconite rock releases a slew of toxic pollutants into the air, including mercury, lead, and dioxins. In this region, the most concerning of these emissions is mercury. 

Studies have connected mercury to a litany of negative health effects. It’s a neurotoxin that can interfere with brain development in unborn children and an endocrine disruptor that can weaken the immune system. Scientists have yet to determine a quantity of mercury that is safe for human consumption. One recent study found that there is “no evidence” for a threshold “below which neuro-developmental effects do not occur.” And while the taconite industry releases less than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere every year, the metal is toxic in extremely small quantities: a fraction of a teaspoon can contaminate a twenty-acre lake. 

The nation’s six taconite plants, all in this region of Minnesota, are owned by U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs. In May 2023, the EPA proposed a regulation that would require the companies to cut their mercury emissions by around 30 percent. In order to meet that standard, the companies would have to install equipment that would inject carbon atoms into their industrial chimneys so that the carbon would attach itself to the mercury atoms, making the pollution particles bigger and allowing them to get trapped in a filter before they would be released into the atmosphere. The agency estimates that its regulation would cost the industry $106 million in capital costs and $68 million per year thereafter. 

Last month, when the standards were finalized, both companies sued. They argue that the regulation would pose “irreparable harm” to the industry because of the steep costs of implementation. They also argue that the EPA’s proposed method for reducing mercury pollution would actually be worse for public health, causing a 13 percent increase in the amount of the toxic metal deposited in the local environment. 

“EPA is not only requiring industry to restructure its operations and build new pollution control facilities at unprecedented costs, it is requiring facilities to commit to associated disruption of their current operations, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and risk their productive capacity and indeed ability to operate completely, to design, permit, and install a technology with no demonstrated ability to actually work,” the companies wrote.

Jim Pew, a lawyer at Earthjustice who has litigated multiple lawsuits against the EPA for its failure to curb pollution from the taconite industry, pointed out that the costs of implementing the required equipment would be a tiny fraction of the companies’ annual sales, which totaled $40 billion in 2023. Pew noted that U.S. Steel recently initiated a $500 million stock buyback program, the mark of a healthy income revenue stream. As for the companies’ claim that the technology would increase mercury pollution, Pew called it “meritless.” The companies are “relying on a premise they know to be false” — that taconite plants would add the carbon technology without also improving their filtration system. 

“I find this reprehensible and shameful,” Pew said. “While it’s claiming that it can’t spend money to clean up historic pollution, U.S. Steel is just handing out money to its shareholders.” 

In an email, a spokesperson from U.S. Steel told Grist that the company’s lawsuit was meant to ensure that the EPA’s new regulations are “in line with sound science and regulatory procedures.” The spokesperson went on to say that the company had tested the available emissions-reduction technology at one of their plants in Minnesota and determined that it would not be in compliance with the mercury limits established by the agency. “We remain committed to environmental excellence, as do the nearly 2,000 hardworking men and women of our Minnesota Ore Operations.” Cleveland Cliffs did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

Pew sees the lawsuit as part of a multi-pronged attack by the steel industry against federal regulation. Over the past several years, the EPA has also proposed standards for the other types of facilities involved in steel production. These two companies have threatened litigation at every turn, recently petitioning a bipartisan group of lawmakers to send a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, asking him to loosen the new standards for steel mills.

Taconite dumped from railroad cars
Taconite is dumped from railroad cars in Minnesota, 1965. Minnesota Historical Society via Getty Images

By the terms of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency was supposed to propose standards to control toxic releases from taconite plants in 2003. When they failed to do so, environmental advocates from the Save Lake Superior Association and other groups  sued the following year. In a federal circuit court, the EPA acknowledged that it had fallen short of its duties, and promised to move with “all due process and speed” to fill the gaps in its regulations. 

Years passed without a federal rule, and in 2007, Minnesota initiated an effort of its own, setting a standard for mercury pollution in water and, two years later, becoming the first state to develop a plan to achieve it. The standard required industries across the state to slash their emissions by a cumulative 93 percent, and over the following decade, power plants, crematoria, and other mercury emitters achieved major reductions. Emissions from the taconite industry, however, remained exceptionally high. Its share of the state’s total mercury releases jumped from 21 to 46 percent between 2005 and 2017.

Mercury contamination is particularly worrisome for tribal nations like the Fond du Lac Band, which fish and grow wild rice throughout the state’s vast network of rivers, lakes, and streams.“We find that across a lot of ceded territory, there’s a lot of good regulation but there’s been a lot of flexibility in enforcement,” said John Coleman, an environmental scientist at the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Tribes repeatedly petitioned the EPA to make good on its 2003 promise. They had good reason to be concerned: One study had found that 10 percent of babies born on the Northshore of Lake Superior have elevated mercury levels in their blood. 

It took the agency until last May to finally propose its regulation, which, of course, is under challenge. Still, for the tribes of northeast Minnesota, the EPA’s rule was a resounding disappointment. Even if U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs reduce their mercury emissions by 30 percent, the companies’ operations would still allow hundreds of pounds of mercury to enter the state’s waterways each year. 

“It is of our view that these proposed standards do not go far enough toward restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the environment and our community,” wrote Paige Huhta, the Fond du Lac’s air program coordinator in a letter to the EPA last July. She pointed out that the EPA itself had found that exposure among specific subpopulations, including some tribes, may be more than twice as great as that experienced by the average American. But when the agency finalized the rule this past May, it did not budge from its original reduction requirements.

“Water is an important part of the landscape up here,” said Nancy Shuldt, the Fond du Lac Band’s Water Projects Coordinator. “We have a water rich landscape and water resources form the foundation of tribal lifeways.” 

And because it is a metal, mercury does not break down into less toxic substances like other industrial pollutants. It stays in the environment for hundreds of years. In northeastern Minnesota, and to a specific group of people, much of the damage has already been done.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Tribes in Minnesota are paying the steepest price for the steel industry’s mercury pollution on Jul 17, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Advocates raise alarm over Pfas pollution from data centers amid AI boom

Tech companies’ use of Pfas gas at facilities may mean data centers’ climate impact is worse than previously thoughtData centers’ electricity demands have been accused of delaying the US’s transition to clean energy and requiring fossil fuel plants to stay online, while their high level of water consumption has also raised alarm. Now public health advocates fear another environmental problem could be linked to them – Pfas “forever chemical” pollution.Big tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon often need data centers to store servers and networking equipment that process the world’s digital traffic, and the artificial intelligence boom is driving demand for more facilities. Continue reading...

Data centers’ electricity demands have been accused of delaying the US’s transition to clean energy and requiring fossil fuel plants to stay online, while their high level of water consumption has also raised alarm. Now public health advocates fear another environmental problem could be linked to them – Pfas “forever chemical” pollution.Big tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon often need data centers to store servers and networking equipment that process the world’s digital traffic, and the artificial intelligence boom is driving demand for more facilities.Advocates are particularly concerned over the facilities’ use of Pfas gas, or f-gas, which can be potent greenhouse gases, and may mean data centers’ climate impact is worse than previously thought. Other f-gases turn into a type of dangerous compound that is rapidly accumulating across the globe.No testing for Pfas air or water pollution has yet been done, and companies are not required to report the volume of chemicals they use or discharge. But some environmental groups are starting to push for state legislation that would require more reporting.Advocates’ concern increased in mid-September when the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would fast-track review of new Pfas and other chemicals used by data centers. The data center industry has said the Pfas it uses causes minimal pollution, but advocates disagree.“We know there are Pfas in these centers and all of that has to go somewhere,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an attorney with the Earthjustice non-profit, which is monitoring Pfas use in data centers. “This issue has been dangerously understudied as we have been building out data centers, and there’s not adequate information on what the long term impacts will be.”Pfas are a class of about 16,000 chemicals most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. The compounds have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.Environmental advocates say the data centers increase Pfas pollution directly and indirectly. The chemicals are needed in the centers’ operations – such as its cooling equipment – which almost certainly leads to some on-site pollution. Meanwhile, Pfas used in the equipment housed in the centers must be disposed of, which is difficult because the chemicals cannot be fully destroyed. Meanwhile, a large quantity of Pfas are used to produce the semiconductors housed in data centers, which will increase pollution around supporting manufacturing plants.The revelations come as the US seeks an edge over China as the industry leader in AI, and there has been little political interest in reining in the centers’ pollution.“The US and China are racing to see who can destroy the environment most quickly,” said Lenny Siegel, a member of Chips Communities United, a group working with industry and administration officials to try to implement environmental safeguards. “If we had a sensible approach to these things then someone would have to present some answers before they develop and use these systems.”Two kinds of cooling systems are used to prevent the semiconductors and other electronic equipment stored in data centers from overheating. Water cooling systems require huge volumes of water, and chemicals like nitrates, disinfectants, azoles and other compounds are potentially added and discharged in the environment.Many centers are now switching to a “two phase” system that uses f-gas as a refrigerant coolant that is run through copper tubing. In this scenario, f-gas is not intentionally released during use, though there may be leaks, and it must be disposed of at the end of its life.The data center industry has claimed that f-gas that escapes is not a threat because, once in the air, it turns into a compound called Tfa. Tfa is considered a Pfas in most of the world, but not the US. Recent research has found it is more toxic than previously thought, and may impact reproductive systems similar to other Pfas.Researchers in recent years have been alarmed by the ever-growing level of Tfa in the air, water, human blood and elsewhere in the environment. Meanwhile, some f-gases are potent greenhouse gases that can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. But f-gasses are lucrative for industry: about 60% of all Pfas manufactured from 2019 to 2022 were f-gas.Different Pfas are also applied to data centers’ cables, piping and electronic equipment. The chemicals are volatile, meaning they can simply move into the air from the equipment.Meanwhile, any of that equipment or Pfas waste that is intentionally removed from data centers either ends up in landfills, where it can pollute local waters, or is incinerated, according to industry documents. But incineration does not fully destroy Pfas compounds – it breaks them into smaller pieces that are still Pfas, or other byproducts with unknown health risks.Data centers are a “huge generator of electronic waste, with frequent upgrades to new equipment”, said Mike Belliveau, the founder of the Bend the Curve non-profit who has lobbied on toxic chemical legislation.“The processing and disposal of electronic waste is a major source of global harm,” he added.F-gas producer Chemours is using the boom in AI and data centers as justification for increasing production at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, and Fayetteville, North Carolina, plants.Both plants have been accused of polluting their regions’ water, soil and air, and poisoning drinking water. Residents in both regions say they’ve been sickened by Chemours’s pollution. Chemours’s expansion plans have been met with opposition over fears that its pollution will also increase.A new coalition of Minnesota environmental groups is working with state lawmakers to develop legislation that would require companies to report on their use of Pfas and other chemicals in the cooling process.Legislators in state hearings have asked tech companies which chemicals are used in data centers and how they are disposed of, but “the answers are not satisfactory”, said Avonna Starck, Minnesota state director for Clean Water Action, which is spearheading the effort.“There’s so much you just don’t know and we’re at the whim of these big corporations and what they’re willing to tell us,” Starck said. “We think the community has a right to know these things.”

Air Pollution Worsens Sleep Apnea

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Oct. 1, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution could be making matters worse for people with sleep apnea, according to a new study.Sleep apnea patients have more episodes of reduced or stopped breathing during their slumber in areas with heavier air pollution, researchers reported Tuesday at an European Respiratory Society meeting in Amsterdam.Further, these sleep apnea episodes increased as air became more polluted, researchers found.“We confirmed a statistically significant positive association between average long-term exposure to air pollution, specifically fine particles known as PM10, and the severity of obstructive sleep apnea,” researcher Martino Pengo, an associate professor from the University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy, said in a news release.PM10 particles are less than 10 micrometers in diameter, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, a human hair is 50 to 70 micrometers wide.People with sleep apnea snore loudly and their breathing starts and stops during the night, disturbing their sleep. The condition is known to increase risk of high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, according to the Mayo Clinic.For the study, researchers tracked more than 19,000 patients with sleep apnea from 25 cities in 14 countries. The team compared the patients’ apnea data from sleep studies with records of particle pollution in the air where they live.Results showed that the number of respiratory events — breathing slowing or stopping — per hour of sleep increased by 0.41 for every one-unit increase in PM10 particle pollution.“This effect may seem small for an individual, but across entire populations it can shift many people into higher-severity categories, making it meaningful from a public health perspective,” Pengo said.Researchers also found the link between particle pollution and sleep apnea varied in strength between cities. People in Lisbon, Paris and Athens were more affected by air pollution.“In some cities, the impact was stronger; in others, it was weaker or even absent,” Pengo said. “These regional differences might be due to things like local climate, the type of pollution or even how health care systems detect obstructive sleep apnea.”Sophia Schiza, head of the European Respiratory Society’s expert group on sleep disordered breathing, said that “for people with obstructive sleep apnea, especially those living in cities with high levels of air pollution, this study is important as it suggests pollution could be making their condition worse.”The study strengthens the connection between environmental health and sleep medicine, added Schiza, a professor of pulmonology at the University of Crete in Greece who was not involved in the research. “It reminds us that tackling air pollution isn't just good for the planet, it's also vital for our lungs and our sleep quality too,” she said in a news release.Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: European Respiratory Society, news release, Sept. 30, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

EPA, EES Coke Battery Are $135 Million Apart on Clean Air Act Penalties as Pollution Trial Ends

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is asking a judge to order a Michigan plant to pay a $140 million civil penalty over emissions and begin operating with full desulfurization technology within three years

When faced with testimony that Zug Island’s EES Coke Battery is one of Michigan’s worst sulfur dioxide polluters, an attorney for the facility said Monday: “So what?” The DTE Energy-owned facility was “permitted to do so,” said Michael Hindelang, attorney for the utility and its subsidiaries that are defendants in the EPA’s Clean Air Act lawsuit over the emissions.Hindelang and a U.S. attorney representing the EPA made their closing arguments Monday in a federal bench trial. U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain said each party has until Oct. 9 to submit its findings of fact in the case.The EPA requested that EES Coke Battery pay a $140 million civil penalty and begin operating with full desulfurization technology within three years.Hindelang said a $5 million penalty should be assessed against EES Coke Battery, and the facility should continue reasonable environmental reporting requirements until otherwise directed by the state. The court should decide whether it’s a civil fine or environmental mitigation funding, and the facility is willing to install pollution controls that would reduce at least 33% of sulfur dioxide emissions, he said.The EPA is asking Drain to order the installation of full desulfurization, including the best available control technology with the lowest achievable emissions rate. EES Coke Battery produces coke, a raw material in the steelmaking process. The facility has contracts of one to five years in length to sell its product to Cleveland-Cliffs and ArcelorMittal, a DTE Vantage executive testified last week. Drain ruled Aug. 25 that EES Coke Battery violated the Clean Air Act by making a major modification to its operations, instead of a minor modification as its 2014 permit allowed. EPA lawyer on Zug Island pollution: ‘They buried their heads in the sand’ The U.S. government seeks to bring EES Coke Battery back into compliance and secure a penalty, Benson said Monday.To follow the law, EES Coke Battery needs to obtain New Source Review permits from the state within 90 days, pay $140 million, and begin operating full desulfurization within three years, he said. New Source Review is a Clean Air Act permitting program that requires facilities to install modern pollution controls when they build new plants or make major modifications.“This is not a shutdown order. Defendants can afford to comply with the law and keep running the battery,” Benson said. Hindelang said the government’s proposal amounts to a shutdown order — “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” he said. The government is asking for an order EES Coke Battery cannot afford or physically accommodate, and it’s on an unfeasible timeline, Hindelang said. “Benson is saying the quiet part loud: ‘clean up or shut down,’” he said.EES Coke Battery can either clean up, by installing pollution controls that would cut at least 33% of sulfur dioxide emissions, or shut down, Hindelang said. The desulfurization technology the EPA proposes is “massively expensive” and would not fit on Zug Island, he said. EES Coke Battery can afford a Claus reactor, a type of desulfurization technology, that could prevent future violations on the island, Hindelang said. The Claus reactor is “good,” Hindelang said, but the government wants “great,” and “great is a shutdown order,” he said. Benson said a 33% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions is “not a solution at all.” Referring to New Source Review permitting, the U.S. attorney said: “You can’t uncrack an egg.“Once a major modification is done, the law steps in,” Benson said. “The Clean Air Act has spoken, and they have to install the best available control technology and lowest achievable emissions rate.” Hindelang said EES Coke Battery made good faith efforts to comply with its permits, while Benson said the state never approved emissions increases that it did not know were occurring. “Closing your eyes is a choice that brought us here today,” he said. Clean Air Act penalties factor in the duration of a violation, which is seven years in this case, Benson said; prior payments, of which he said there are none; and the seriousness of the violation based on health impacts.“They buried their heads in the sand and hoped the court wouldn’t notice. They already harmed thousands of people downwind,” Benson said.“The community didn’t choose to roll the dice, but they lost nonetheless. Some had heart attacks, some died earlier than they should have.” Hindelang said installing desulfurization technology takes six years, not the three the government is requesting, “if everything goes smoothly.”Permitting would take two years, installation of desulfurization technology would take three, and engineering design would take more than a year, he said. The waterfall effect of a shutdown order would include a loss of $450 million in economic output from EES Coke Battery, a $900 million overall loss to Michigan, and 2,700 job losses across the state, Hindelang said. A shutdown order would eliminate the coke that supports the production of 2.5 million tons of steel a year, he said. EPA, DTE on Zug Island facility’s public health impact Twenty-six premature deaths, 3.8 nonfatal heart attacks, 8,000 acute respiratory symptom days, 14.5 new asthma cases, and additional Alzheimer’s cases are modeled to have occurred in 2019 due to sulfur dioxide and particulate matter pollution from the coke battery, an epidemiologist testified in federal court earlier in the trial.Joel Schwartz, professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said the social cost of pollution from EES Coke Battery from 2019-2022 totals $1 billion. An air quality expert with 40 years of experience testified Sept. 17 that EES Coke Battery’s excess particulate matter emissions are “one of the largest sources I’ve ever seen.”Pollution from the coke battery reached Maine, Missouri, and North Carolina’s coast, according to Lyle Chinkin, an air quality expert and CEO and chief scientist of Sonoma Technology.Hindelang said Monday there’s no proof that public health impacts can be traced to EES Coke Battery emissions. “We understand the concerns of the Sierra Club witnesses,” Hindelang said. Some of the witnesses called to testify were lifelong residents of 48217, the highly polluted zip code near Zug Island. Their stories of red-orange skies are from long before the coke battery opened, Hindelang said. The Sierra Club intervened in the lawsuit, which was filed by the EPA in 2022.The biggest harm to public health occurs at EES Coke Battery’s fenceline and is from fugitive sources like door leaks — when a worker opens the oven door to shovel coal in — and there’s no technology to fix that, Hindelang said.This story was originally published by Planet Detroit and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Trump administration eyes looser environmental restrictions to boost coal

The Trump administration is eyeing looser restrictions on pollution and public lands as part of its effort to bolster the U.S. coal industry. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay by five years Biden-era standards that restrict power plants’ ability to release pollution into waterways. It also indicated that it could take further steps to...

The Trump administration is eyeing looser restrictions on pollution and public lands as part of its effort to bolster the U.S. coal industry. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay by five years Biden-era standards that restrict power plants’ ability to release pollution into waterways. It also indicated that it could take further steps to potentially weaken the regulation in the meantime, saying in a press release that it is requesting information on challenges related to the Biden-era rule to “inform potential future rulemaking.” The rule in question would have been expected to reduce pollution including releases of mercury and arsenic and result in fewer cancer cases as a result. Meanwhile, the Interior Department announced that it planned to open up 13.1 million acres of federal land for coal leasing.  A spokesperson for the department said specifically that it would be opening up areas blocked off in parts of North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. Additionally, the Energy Department announced that it would put $625 million toward supporting coal. This includes $350 million for recommissioning and retrofitting plants for near-term power and an additional $175 million for projects in rural areas.  It’s not entirely clear where the funds come from, and a spokesperson or the department did not immediately respond to a question from The Hill. Overall, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum described the push for more coal as part of an effort to bolster AI, whose use is expected to drive up the demand for electricity. “This is as critical as any Manhattan Project we've ever talked about,” said Burgum, who also leads the White House’s National Energy Dominance Council. “If we don't win...on that front, we are defenseless. And so the battle for electricity is something that we're pursuing.” The Trump administration has repeatedly made moves to bolster fossil fuels, including coal. It has argued that these are important for meeting increased electricity demand that is accompanying the rise of AI, but it has also made moves to hamper renewable power. Environmental advocates criticized the Trump administration's decisions, pointing to coal’s significant contributions to pollution. “The Trump administration’s reckless actions announced today will hurt the American people, all to prop up the aging and outdated coal industry,” said Sierra Club Chief Program Officer Holly Bender in a written statement.  “Rather than investing in clean, affordable energy to power our country, more coal will increase deadly air pollution, poison our water with harmful heavy metals, and drastically worsen the health of our loved ones,” Bender added 

Kids’ Eyes Getting Worse? Air Pollution May Be to Blame

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Sept. 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution is known to raise the risk of heart disease, strokes and...

THURSDAY, Sept. 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution is known to raise the risk of heart disease, strokes and breathing problems, but new research suggests it may also harm something else: kids’ vision.In a study of nearly 30,000 schoolchildren in Tianjin, China, researchers found that kids exposed to higher levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were more likely to develop myopia.Also known as nearsightedness or shortsightedness, myopia causes distant objects to appear blurry while close ones appear clear."We showed that air pollution contributes to myopia development in children," study co-author Zongbo Shi, a professor of atmospheric biogeochemistry at the University of Birmingham in the U.K., told The Washington Post."What this means," he said, "Is that if their exposure to air pollution is high, the risk to become shortsighted is higher."The findings were published Sept. 23 in the journal PNAS Nexus.The research combined genetic, lifestyle and environmental data using a machine-learning model. While genetics were the strongest factor in whether a child developed vision problems, air quality also played an important role.Children living in areas with cleaner air tended to have better vision, the study found. In fact, when researchers created “clean air” scenarios, primary schoolers saw almost double the vision improvement compared with older students.What's more, lifestyle also mattered: Lack of sleep and long hours of screen time increased the risk of poor eyesight, researchers said.“There are factors that you cannot change,” Shi explained. “But you can change habits. You can reduce air pollution so that would improve eyesight.”While some experts noted the findings raise important questions, others remained cautious.For example, past research has shown that spending more time outdoors can reduce the risk of myopia. But in this study, outdoor time appeared to be one of the least important factors.“I worry about this unconventional approach giving us an unconventional answer,” Dr. Donald Mutti, an optometry professor at Ohio State University who was not involved with the study, told The Post.Still, the results add to a growing body of evidence linking air pollution to vision problems. Other studies have also suggested pollution can worsen eye inflammation and contribute to the progression of myopia in kids.Researchers say reducing pollution exposure can help protect a child's eyesight.“Improving air quality will not only benefit or reduce disease burden, but it can also improve eye health,” Shi said. “Reducing exposure is the key.”The American Academy of Ophthalmology has more on myopia.SOURCE: The Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.