September 03, 2026

New Source Nonsense: EPA Stifles Public Air Oversight

Proposed rule would let some industrial facilities expand air pollution without any public notice or participation.

By Jessica O’Donnell, Senior Attorney

For more than 50 years, the Clean Air Act has required communities to be notified before a new or expanding industrial facility receives a “minor source” air pollution permit. This “new source review” process gives people a chance to see what is being proposed and at least 30 days to share their feedback. Now the EPA wants to eliminate these public participation requirements, leaving communities in the dark about air pollution headed their way. ELPC is fighting back and submitted technical comments alongside nationwide environmental and public health groups last week. Here’s what this means for the Midwest.

Read Full Coalition Comments

Hardly “Minor”

The word “minor” understates what is being permitted under this program today. Many of the largest and most consequential industrial projects, like data centers and metal shredders, are being permitted as “minor” sources of air pollution. And if the permit terms are inaccurate or not enforceable, the resulting pollution could be “major.”

Meaningful public engagement is one of the only remaining ways residents can learn what is coming, raise concerns, and fight for the correct oversight or modifications before permits get approved.

Public Comment Makes a Difference

In Northwest Indiana, where residents already live among a plethora of industrial sources of air pollution, ELPC has used this federal permitting process to identify gaps in numerous draft “minor” source permits. Sometimes state regulators ignore public concerns and move ahead anyway, but it remains one of the most valuable opportunities to protect our air.

Here are four examples where public comments from local residents, ELPC, and our partners led state regulators at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to adjust permit requirements.

• Holcim (Contractor of Cleveland Cliffs), East Chicago – At this slag granulating and pelletizing operation, IDEM added numerical limits on slag processing units, clarified diesel generator regulations, provided more stringent control measures on fugitive dust, and required a continuous compliance plan.
• Lavender Holdings, Michigan City – For this data center, IDEM require more detailed operational records and clearer descriptions of where pollution was coming from and thus created enforceable permit limits.
• U.S. Steel, Gary – At this massive steel mill, IDEM revised the compliance equation to include actual numeric factors (not variable) based on stack tests at the facility and incorporated fugitive controlled emissions.
• Unilever, Hammond – At this soap manufacturing facility, IDEM revised the permit to increase the stack testing needed for certain emission units and added a recordkeeping provision for the semiannual inspections.

After the public spoke up, the new source review processes resulted in stronger oversight and greater accountability for pollution impacts in several Indiana communities. Read more examples from across the country here.

Heading in the Wrong Direction

In recent years, clean air advocates and EPA’s own Office of Inspector General have urged the agency to strengthen oversight of minor new source review programs and ensure that states comply with the existing federal public participation requirements. Unfortunately, EPA now proposes to move in the opposite direction, authorizing state and local air agencies to issue preconstruction air pollution permits in secret without any public notice or opportunity for comment.

Communities shouldn’t learn about new air pollution after construction has already begun. The EPA should withdraw the proposed rule and instead require states to adopt and implement the public participation requirements in the existing federal rules.