Agitators decry methods employed by the EPA, which caused delays in implementing air toxins regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has come under fire for its decision to unilaterally award regulatory compliance breaks to a handful of steelmakers and coke manufacturers in northwest Indiana. This move, made using an interim final rule (IFR), has raised concerns about transparency and public participation.

The EPA's use of an IFR for the regulatory compliance breaks was not made publicly known beforehand. This procedural tactic, which bypasses the statutory requirement to first notify the public and allow comment on a draft rule, has been criticised for undermining the democratic process.

Valerie Denney, a member of a Gary, Indiana community group, had no chance to weigh in before the EPA's decision. Denney criticised the EPA this week for giving high-polluting industries more time to meet strengthened air toxics rules, stating that the tactic of delaying the implementation of these rules benefits industries, not people.

The affected integrated steel and coke plants granted time until 2027 by the EPA's interim final rule are major U.S. facilities subject to stringent air toxics standards. The regulation was issued to provide these plants additional time to comply with enhanced air toxics requirements due to technical and economic challenges in meeting the new standards promptly.

However, the EPA's decision to delay the implementation of the strengthened standards has been criticised for benefiting industries at the expense of people. The EPA's use of an IFR for the regulatory compliance breaks has also been questioned for its impact on public trust and accountability.

Two public hearings were belatedly called by the EPA after it granted regulatory compliance breaks to the steelmakers and coke companies. The strengthened air toxics rules are intended to reduce pollution from these industries, and the EPA's decision to potentially delay the reduction of pollution from these industries has been criticised.

The EPA's decision has been criticised by community and environmental representatives. The use of an IFR for the regulatory compliance breaks is a controversial method that has raised concerns about transparency and public participation. The EPA's use of this strategy may have been done to expedite the process and avoid public scrutiny.

In conclusion, the EPA's decision to grant regulatory compliance breaks to steelmakers and coke manufacturers in northwest Indiana using an IFR has been met with widespread criticism. The lack of public involvement in the decision-making process and the potential for delaying the reduction of pollution from these industries have raised concerns about transparency, public trust, and accountability.

Agitators decry methods employed by the EPA, which caused delays in implementing air toxins regulations