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

EPA urged to classify abortion drugs as pollutants

It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the drug.

(NewsNation) — Anti-abortion group Students for Life of America is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to add abortion drug mifepristone to its list of water contaminants. It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the abortion drug. “The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the [Food and Drug Administration],” Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA, said in a release. “Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she added. In 2025, lawmakers from seven states introduced bills, none of which passed, to either order environmental studies on the effects of mifepristone in water or to enact environmental regulations for the drug. EPA’s Office of Water leaders met with Politico in November, with its press secretary Brigit Hirsch telling the outlet it “takes the issue of pharmaceuticals in our water systems seriously and employs a rigorous, science-based approach to protect human health and the environment.” “As always, EPA encourages all stakeholders invested in clean and safe drinking water to review the proposals and submit comments,” Hirsch added. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump’s EPA' in 2025: A Fossil Fuel-Friendly Approach to Deregulation

The Trump administration has reshaped the Environmental Protection Agency, reversing pollution limits and promoting fossil fuels

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has transformed the Environmental Protection Agency in its first year, cutting federal limits on air and water pollution and promoting fossil fuels, a metamorphosis that clashes with the agency’s historic mission to protect human health and the environment.The administration says its actions will “unleash” the American economy, but environmentalists say the agency’s abrupt change in focus threatens to unravel years of progress on climate-friendly initiatives that could be hard or impossible to reverse.“It just constantly wants to pat the fossil fuel business on the back and turn back the clock to a pre-Richard Nixon era” when the agency didn’t exist, said historian Douglas Brinkley.Zeldin has argued the EPA can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. He announced “five pillars” to guide EPA’s work; four were economic goals, including energy dominance — Trump’s shorthand for more fossil fuels — and boosting the auto industry.Zeldin, a former New York congressman who had a record as a moderate Republican on some environmental issues, said his views on climate change have evolved. Many federal and state climate goals are unattainable in the near future — and come at huge cost, he said.“We should not be causing … extreme economic pain for an individual or a family” because of policies aimed at “saving the planet,” he told reporters at EPA headquarters in early December.But scientists and experts say the EPA's new direction comes at a cost to public health, and would lead to far more pollutants in the environment, including mercury, lead and especially tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs. They also note higher emissions of greenhouse gases will worsen atmospheric warming that is driving more frequent, costly and deadly extreme weather.Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who led the EPA for several years under President George W. Bush, said watching Zeldin attack laws protecting air and water has been “just depressing.” “It’s tragic for our country. I worry about my grandchildren, of which I have seven. I worry about what their future is going to be if they don’t have clean air, if they don’t have clean water to drink,” she said.The EPA was launched under Nixon in 1970 with pollution disrupting American life, some cities suffocating in smog and some rivers turned into wastelands by industrial chemicals. Congress passed laws then that remain foundational for protecting water, air and endangered species.The agency's aggressiveness has always seesawed depending on who occupies the White House. Former President Joe Biden's administration boosted renewable energy and electric vehicles, tightened motor-vehicle emissions and proposed greenhouse gas limits on coal-fired power plants and oil and gas wells. Industry groups called rules overly burdensome and said the power plant rule would force many aging plants to shut down. In response, many businesses shifted resources to meet the more stringent rules that are now being undone.“While the Biden EPA repeatedly attempted to usurp the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to impose its ‘Green New Scam,’ the Trump EPA is laser-focused on achieving results for the American people while operating within the limits of the laws passed by Congress,” EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said. Zeldin's list of targets is long Much of EPA’s new direction aligns with Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation road map that argued the agency should gut staffing, cut regulations and end what it called a war on coal on other fossil fuels.“A lot of the regulations that were put on during the Biden administration were more harmful and restrictive than in any other period. So that’s why deregulating them looks like EPA is making major changes,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Heritage's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment.But Chris Frey, an EPA official under Biden, said the regulations Zeldin has targeted “offered benefits of avoided premature deaths, of avoided chronic illness … bad things that would not happen because of these rules.”Matthew Tejada, a former EPA official under both Trump and Biden who now works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the revamped EPA: “I think it would be hard for them to make it any clearer to polluters in this country that they can go on about their business and not worry about EPA getting in their way.”Zeldin also has shrunk EPA staffing by about 20% to levels last seen in the mid-1980s. Justin Chen, president of the EPA’s largest union, called staff cuts “devastating.” He cited the dismantling of research and development offices at labs across the country and the firing of employees who signed a letter of dissent opposing EPA cuts. Relaxed enforcement and cutting staff Many of Zeldin's changes aren't in effect yet. It takes time to propose new rules, get public input and finalize rollbacks. It's much faster to cut grants and ease up on enforcement, and Trump's EPA is doing both. The number of new civil environmental actions is roughly one-fifth what it was in the first eight months of the Biden administration, according to the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. “You can effectively do a lot of deregulation if you just don’t do enforcement,” said Leif Fredrickson, visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Montana.Hirsch said the number of legal filings isn't the best way to judge enforcement because they require work outside of the EPA and can bog staff down with burdensome legal agreements. She said the EPA is “focused on efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible” and not making demands beyond what the law requires.EPA's cuts have been especially hard on climate change programs and environmental justice, the effort to address chronic pollution that typically is worse in minority and poor communities. Both were Biden priorities. Zeldin dismissed staff and canceled billions in grants for projects that fell under the “diversity, equity and inclusion” umbrella, a Trump administration target.He also spiked a $20 billion “green bank” set up under Biden’s landmark climate law to fund qualifying clean energy projects. Zeldin argued the fund was a scheme to funnel money to Democrat-aligned organizations with little oversight — allegations a federal judge rejected. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said the EPA's shift under Trump left him with little optimism for what he called “the two most awful crises in the 21st century” — biodiversity loss and climate disruption.“I don’t see any hope for either one,” he said. “I really don’t. And I’ll be long gone, but I think the world is in just for absolute catastrophe.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

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.