Ohio Iron and Steel Industry March 2020 TABLE of CONTENTS Page

Advanced Manufacturing: The Ohio Iron and Steel Industry March 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary 1

Description of Ohio’s Iron and Steel Industry ------3

Notable Iron and Steel Industry Manufacturers 5

Globalization and Foreign Investment in Ohio ------8

Recent Expansion and Attraction Announcements 11

Iron and Steel Industry Concentration in Ohio ------13

The Composition of Ohio’s Iron and Steel Industry: Employment 15

Industry Pay------17

The Distribution of Industry Establishments in Ohio 19

The Distribution of Industry Employment in Ohio ------21

Trends 23

Raw Steel Production ------25

Production as Measured by Value-Added 29

Capital Expenditures------31

Establishments 33

Employment------35

i Exports from Ohio 37

Notes on U.S. Imports and Exports ------39

Overview and Outlooks 41

An Overview of the Industry ------42

The Near- and Long-Term Outlooks 47

Appendices------50

Detailed Tables 51

Table A1: Notable Iron and Steel Manufacturing Companies in Ohio, 2019 52 Table A2: Expansion and Attraction Announcements in Ohio’s Iron and Steel Industry, 2015-2018 54 Table A3: Iron and Steel Industry Concentration in Ohio 55 Table A4: Establishments and Employment in the Iron and Steel Industry, Ohio and U.S., 2017 56 Table A5: Employment and Pay in the Iron and Steel Industry, Ohio and U.S., 2017 57 Table A6: Establishments and Employment in Ohio’s Iron and Steel Industry, by County, 2016 58 Table A7: Raw Steel Production in Ohio and the U.S., 1973-2019 59 Table A8: Trends in Value-Added for Ohio and the U.S., 2007-2016 60 Table A9: Trends in Capital Expenditures for Ohio and the U.S., 2007-2016 61 Table A10: Detailed Iron and Steel Industry Establishment Trends in Ohio and the U.S., 2007-2017 62 Table A11: Detailed Iron and Steel Industry Employment Trends in Ohio and the U.S., 2007-2017 63 Table A12: Trends in Exports from Ohio, 2008-2018 64 Table A13: U.S. Imports and Exports of Steel Mill Products and Derived Statistics, 1998-2019 65 Table A14: Projections for Iron and Steel Industry Employment, Ohio and the U.S., 2016-2026 66

Industry Definition and Examples of Products 67

Glossary ------69

A Primer on Iron and Steel Production Processes 72

ii Notes------73

Sources and References Cited 78

iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Ohio ranked second in the nation in raw steel production every year of the last decade, annually pouring anywhere from 8.9 to 13.7 million tons, or 10 to 14 percent of total U.S. output.

• Ohio ranked third in the encompassing iron, steel and ferroalloy products group (NAICS 3311, which includes products made at the mills), second in manufacturing products made from purchased steel (3312), and third in the combination of the two groups – as judged by dollar value-add in the latest Annual Survey of Manufactures by the Census Bureau.

• Nine companies on Fortune magazine’s U.S.-1,000 or Global- 500 lists have iron and steel industry establishments in Ohio; two of them – AK Steel and Worthington Industries – maintain their world headquarters here, and ArcelorMittal [sic], the world’s largest steel company, has a regional headquarters here.

• ArcelorMittal can pour at least 3.8 million tons of raw steel per year in Ohio. It is followed by AK Steel with a minimum of 2.85 million, Republic Steel at nearly 2.4 million, North Star BlueScope [sic] at close to 2.2 million and TimkenSteel [sic] at over 1.5 million. Total capacity in Ohio is at least 14.1 million tons per year.

• 181 industry establishments employed 23,100 people in Ohio according to the latest state-wide County Business Pat- terns data; the latest complete county data showed 54 had at least one iron and steel industry establishment, with the majority in 11 counties: Butler, Columbiana, Cuyahoga, Franklin, Mahoning, Montgomery, Richland, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, and Washington; two-thirds of the jobs were found in an overlapping list of nine counties: Butler, Cuyahoga, Defiance, Franklin, Lake Lorain, Richland, Stark and Trumbull.

• AK is the largest industry employer in Ohio with close to 3,000, followed by ArcelorMittal and TimkinSteel with 2,700- plus each; McWane and Osco are the largest foundry companies with more than 400 each.

• 14 companies announced 16 major iron and steel industry investments in Ohio from 2015 through 2018. Planned expenditures were more than $1.14 billion with about 730 new jobs anticipated when the projects are completed.

• International investment is very important, with 15 companies from 11 foreign nations employing 5,700-plus in Ohio making iron, steel, ferroalloy and foundry products; three of them are on Fortune’s Global-500 list. ArcelorMittal, In- dustrias CH SAB de CV (which owns Republic Steel) and BlueScope are the largest employers.

1 • People working in Ohio’s iron and steel industry averaged $70,700-plus in annual pay – about $1,800 more than the corresponding national average – according to the latest state-wide County Business Patterns data from the Census Bureau.

DESCRIPTION OF OHIO’S IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY

3 !"g$

Lake Ashtabula !"f$!"g$ Fulton Lucas ! Ottawa Cuyahoga Williams North Star Geauga ! Bluescope ! ArcelorMittal Delta Erie Ohio Steel Industry Defiance Wood Cleveland Sandusky !"f$!"g$ Lorain Trumbull Henry Notable Establishments* !"c$ Charter Steel !"f$ Cuyahoga Hts Summit Portage Paulding Seneca Huron Medina Putnam Hancock Mahoning Richland Ashland !"e$ Van Wert Crawford ! Wayne Stark Wyandot ArcelorMittal TimkenSteel ! Columbiana Allen ! Shelby !"a$ Complex Industrias/ Hardin Canton Republic Steel Auglaize Marion Canton Mercer Morrow Holmes Carroll Jefferson Logan Knox Tuscarawas Key Shelby Coshocton Union Harrison Delaware ! ! Notable Establishment* McWane Darke Champaign Coshocton Interstate Highway Guernsey Miami Licking Franklin Muskingum Ohio County Belmont Clark !"`$ !"`$ Madison Montgomery Noble *Major melt facility or establishment Preble Fairfield Perry Monroe Greene !"e$ believed to employ 400 or more AK Steel** Pickaway Morgan Middletown !"a$ Fayette **Cleveland Cliffs is buying AK Steel ! Warren Hocking Washington Butler !"c$ Clinton Ross Athens Vinton Highland Meigs Hamilton Clermont Pike Jackson Brown Sources: Gallia Hoover's Inc., news reports, Adams Scioto company web sites, and U.S. Census Bureau

Lawrence Prepared by: Office of Research Ohio Development Services Agency 4 February 2020

R021420A NOTABLE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS

Nine companies on Fortune’s U.S.-1,000 or Global-500 lists have iron and steel industry establishments in Ohio with two maintaining their world headquarters here – AK Steel and Worthington Industries. (The mining company Cleveland-Cliffs announced in November 2019 it is buying AK Steel (Coolidge, 2019).) AK Steel is the largest industry employer in Ohio with an estimated 2,980 people, followed by ArcelorMittal [sic] and TimkenSteel [sic] – each with 2,700-plus. (Figures include any headquarters employment; TimkenSteel split from Timken-the-fabricated-metal-products-company in 2013.)1 Five more companies – regardless of their Fortune status – employ between 400 and 900 here.

The map above shows establishments employing at least 400 or the location of major furnaces. TimkenSteel’s Faircrest, Gambrinus and Harrison form an integrated complex. The list below includes companies employing 400 or more people in Ohio and (generally) having at least 25 people at a site as well as Fortune company sites regardless of size. Establish- ments are grouped by NAICS code and note the city where the site is located. See Appendix Table A1 for the complete list organized by company.

Industry Group: Notable Co.^/Subsidiary or Division NAICS City Jobs at Site1

AK Steel Holding Corp.*/AK Steel Corp.3 3311 Middletown 2,100 AK Steel Holding Corp.*/AK Steel Corp.4 3311 Mansfield 300 ArcelorMittal SA*7/ArcelorMittal Cleveland 3311 Cleveland 1,877 BlueScope Steel Ltd. /North Star BlueScope Steel LLC14 3311 Delta 400 Charter Mfg. Co., Inc./Charter Steel9 3311 Cleveland 410 Industrias CH, SAB de CV/Republic Steel (pig iron)10 3311 Lorain 10 Industrias CH, SAB de CV/Republic Steel Canton Bloom Casting8 3311 Canton 600 Nucor Corp.*/Nucor Steel Marion, Inc.11 3311 Marion 263 TimkenSteel Corp. (HQ, Harrison, Gambrinus & Faircrest plants)12 3311 Canton 2,659

TimkenSteel Corp. (St. Clair) 33121 Eaton 67 ArcelorMittal SA*/ArcelorMittal Marion7 33121 Marion 102 ArcelorMittal SA*/ArcelorMittal Shelby7 33121 Shelby 687 United States Steel Corp.*/US Steel Tubular Products13 33121 Lorain 167 Vallourec SA/Vallourec Star LP8 33121 Youngstown 260 Vallourec SA/VAM USA LLC8 33121 Youngstown 50

AK Steel Holding Corp.*/AK Steel Corp.5 331221 Coshocton 150 AK Steel Holding Corp.*/AK Steel Corp.6 331221 Zanesville 130 Allegheny Technologies, Inc.*/ATI Louisville Operations 331221 Louisville 26

5 Industry Group: Notable Co.^/Subsidiary or Division NAICS City Jobs at Site1

Industrias CH, SAB de CV/Republic Steel Cold-finished Plant8 331221 Massillon 200 Mitsui & Co., Ltd.*/Steel Technologies LLC8 331221 Ottawa 110 Worthington Industries, Inc.*/Worthington Steel Co. 331221 Cleveland 175

Carpenter Technology Corp.*/Latrobe Specialty Metals Co., LLC 331222 Wauseon 76

McWane, Inc./McWane Ductile5 33151 Coshocton 450 Osco Industries, Inc.7 33151 Portsmouth 200 Osco Industries, Inc.7 33151 Jackson 140 Osco Industries, Inc.7 33151 New Boston 70 Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp.* (aka Wabtec)/SanCasT, Inc.2 33151 Coshocton 38 Worthington Industries, Inc.*/Worthington Steel Co. 33151 Monroe 165 Worthington Industries, Inc.*/Worthington Steelpac Systems LLC 33151 Columbus 250

AK Steel Holding Corp.*/AK Steel Corp. (HQ and related support staff)2 551114 West Chester 300 ArcelorMittal SA*7/ArcelorMittal Richfield (regional HQ) 551114 Richfield 50 Industrias CH, SAB de CV/Republic Steel Hot-rolled Plant (regional HQ)8 551114 Canton 55 Worthington Industries, Inc.* (HQ) 551114 Worthington 250

Notes and sources: ^ – "notable" means either (a) a company employing at least 400 people in Ohio, (b) a Fortune U.S.-1,000 or Global-500 company with at least 25 people here or (c ) a major melt facility; * - a Fortune-listed company; 1 – jobs figures are from Hoover's (2019) unless otherwise noted; all jobs figures are the best available estimates, but their currency and accuracy cannot be guaranteed; 2 – jobs figure from Lexis-Nexis (2019); 3 – jobs figure based on Butler Co. Auditor (2019); 4 – jobs figure from Martz (2017); 5 – jobs figure from Reporter (2018); 6 – jobs figure from Schwartzberg (2018); 7 – jobs figures from company website; 8 – jobs figure from Office of Research (2018a); 9 – jobs figure based on Miller (2017); 10 – a recent article states more than 60 people have been hired and trained in anticipation of a mill restart this year (Perkins, 2019); 11 – jobs figure from Wikipedia (2019); 12 – jobs figure from Stark Co. Auditor (2019); 13 – a jobs figure based on Nix (2017); 14 – Fulton County Expositor (2019).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614-466-2116 (DL, 11/19).

The companies with major iron and raw steel production furnaces are listed on the following page along with their types, locations and estimated annual melt capacities.2 Total annual raw iron and steel production capacity in Ohio probably is in the 13.9-to-14.4-million tons range, with 14.1 million tons the best estimate. (Companies are not always specific with such figures.) ArcelorMittal and AK Steel are the only companies with basic oxygen process (BOP) furnaces, and therefore are the only ones engaged in primary steel production; Republic converted its Lorain facility to pig iron production several years ago. (See the Appendix “Primer” for details about the different terms.)

_ Capacities (Tons per Yr.) _ Type of Company/Subsidiary or Division Site Furnace1 Totals At-Site

AK Steel ~2,850,000 AK Steel Middletown BOP ~2,250,0002 AK Steel Mansfield EA >600,0003

ArcelorMittal Cleveland (East & West combined) 2 BOPs ~3,800,0003 n.a.

BlueScope Steel/North Star BlueScope Steel Delta EA 2,183,0004

Charter Manufacturing/Charter Steel Cleveland EA 248,0004

Industrias CH SAB de CV 2,394,000 Republic Steel Canton EA 1,394,0004 Republic Steel Lorain Blast 1,000,0005

Nucor Marion EA >400,0003

TimkenSteel 1,554,000 Faircrest Canton EA 925,0006 Harrison Canton EA 630,0003

Vallourec/Vallourec Star Youngstown EA 694,0004

Ohio Total: ~14,123,000 _

Notes: ~ – approximately; n.a. – not available; 1 – BOP – basic oxygen process, EA – electric arc; a company may have more than one furnace at a location; AK Steel and ArcelorMittal also have blast furnaces as parts of their Middletown and Cleveland establishments; AK Steel also has an EA furnace in or near Middletown; 2 – a mid-range estimate from Coyne (2018); 3 – source is company website; 4 – source is AIM Market Re- search (2013); however, recent reports state annual capacity at Delta could expand by 600,000 to 900,000 tons (Chavez, 2018; Fulton Co. Ex- positor, 2019); 5 – source is Payerchin (2017); however, the furnace may or may not be active at this writing (Perkins, 2019); 6 – based on McCaf- ferty (2013).

Based solely on the last comprehensive national data, Ohio ranked second in total raw steel production capacity and third in primary steel production capacity (AIM Market Research, 2013). New facilities – most notably Cleveland-Cliffs’ hot briquette iron plant in Toledo, with a capacity to supply EA furnaces up to 1.9-million tons annually beginning in 2021 (Cha- vez, 2019) – are absent from these calculations, as are facilities active then but idled or closed now.

7 GLOBALIZATION AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN OHIO

Foreign investment in Ohio is part of the globalization about which industry analysts write, and has become increasingly important for companies (Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019). Fifteen foreign-based companies have 20 subsidiary iron and steel industry manufacturing establishments here; three are on Fortune’s Global-500 list. All companies are listed below, along with the countries where the home office is located, their Ohio subsidiaries, NAICS code(s) and the estimated number of employees here. ArcelorMittal is the largest with 2,666 people in manufacturing at three sites, followed by Industrias CH, SAB de CV with 825 at four. Eramet is the only ferroalloy producer (specifically manganese). Altogether, the 15 companies employ 5,714 in their mills, plants and foundries in Ohio. (Some companies also have facilities for related coke and fabricated metals production, research and development, administrative offices and/or distribution centers; such employment is not included here.)

Parent NAICS Total Ultimate Foreign Parent Country Ohio Subsidiary (no. manufacturing sites) Code(s) Jobs

ArcelorMittal SA *^ Luxembourg ArcelorMittal (3) 331: 1, 21, 51 2,666 BlueScope Steel Ltd. Australia North Star BlueScope Steel LLC (1) 3311 4001 Caparo International. Corp. United Kingdom Bull Moose Tube Co. (1) 33121 40 Egon Evertz KG Germany Evertz Technology Services USA, Inc. (1) 33151 30 Eramet SA France Eramet Marietta, Inc. (1) 3311 200 Industrias CH, SAB de CV Mexico Republic Steel (4) 331: 1, 2 825 Melsrose Industries plc United Kingdom GKN Sinter Metals, Inc. (1) 331221 100 Miba AG Austria Miba Sinter USA LLC (1) 3311 175 Mitsui & Co., Ltd.* Japan Steel Technologies LLC (1) 331221 110 NV Bekaert SA Belgium Bekaert Corp. (1) 331222 200 OAO TMK Russia TMK Ipsco (1) 33121 75 Shinagawa Refractories Co., Ltd. Japan Shinagawa Advanced Materials Americas, Inc. (1) 33151 28 Tata Sons Ltd.*/Tata Steel Ltd. India Thomas Steel Strip Corp. (1) 331221 285 Vallourec SA France Vallourec Star LP (1) 33121 260 Welser Profile GmbH Austria Superior Roll Forming Co., Inc. 33121 320

Notes: * - a Fortune Global-500 company; ^ - jobs figures from company website; 1 – jobs from Fulton Co. Expositor (2019). Sources: company websites (2019), Fortune (2019), Fulton Co. Expositor (2019), Lexis-Nexis (2019), Office of Research (2018a).

The foreign parent companies are headquartered in 11 nations. Austria, France and Japan are home to two each. Aus- tralia, Belgium, Germany, India, Luxembourg, Mexico, Russia and the United Kingdom are home to one each. Arcelor- Mittal and Industrias are the only companies with establishments in more than one specific industry.

A second way to understand the role of foreign investors in Ohio’s industry is to note their iron and raw steel production

8 capacity. At last count, ArcelorMittal, BlueScope Steel, Industrias and Vallourec owned six of the 12 major melt sites in Ohio. Their combined annual melt capacity is estimated at 9.0 to 9.9 million tons, which is most of Ohio’s total capacity. Furthermore, ArcelorMittal owns two of the three basic oxygen process (BOP) sites – in turn, most of Ohio’s primary steel production capacity. The significant role of foreign investment in Ohio’s iron and steel industry in this regard is not atypi- cal; foreign-based steel companies owned an estimated 43.4 percent of all major melt capacity in America and an estimated 50.0 percent of U.S. primary steel production capacity in 2013 (drawn from AIM Market Research, 2013).

Foreign ownership or investment in the U.S. iron and steel industry is only one aspect of globalization. The converse aspect has been the establishment of foreign operations by American companies. U.S.-based companies have set-up or acquired over-seas operation for various reasons: less regulation, lower labor costs, and/or a desire to expand world market share along with more rapid growth prospects in emerging economies. This is particularly true of iron and steel producers (Holcomb, 2020), but much less so of foundry companies and producers using purchased steel (Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019). Setting up operations outside of home countries – whether it is foreign companies here or U.S.-based companies elsewhere – circumvents trade barriers.

9 Major Projects in Ohio's Iron & Steel Industry, 2015-2018

$900.0 600

$844.5

$750.0 480 500

$600.0 400

$450.0 300

(in millions)(in

Anticipated Jobs Anticipated Announced Investments Announced $300.0 182 200

$276.9

$150.0 100

38 31

$8.5 $15.2 $0.0 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 Announced Investments Anticipated New Jobs Source: Office of Research, ODSA

10 RECENT EXPANSION AND ATTRACTION ANNOUNCEMENTS

Fourteen companies announced 16 major investments in Ohio’s iron and steel industry from 2015 through 2018. Plan- ned expenditures for the four years aggregated to more than $1.14 billion, with 731 new jobs anticipated when the projects are completed. The chart above shows 73.7 percent of intended investments were announced in 2017, while 65.7 percent of new jobs was anticipated beginning in 2018.

$1.12 billion were intended for iron and steel mills and ferroalloy production (NAICS 3311), followed by $17.5 million for foundry work (33151) and $6.1 million for manufacturing steel products from purchased steel (3312). Those figures are 97.9, 1.5 and 0.5 percent of the total. 708 of the new jobs – 96.9 percent – were anticipated in the iron and steel mills and ferroalloys group, with 23 – 3.1 percent – for the products from purchased steel group.

Cleveland Cliff’s $567 million investment announced in 2017 for a new iron briquette mill in Toledo is 49.5 percent of the planned four-year total of all 14 companies, and the 130 new jobs are 17.8 percent of the corresponding total. That same year, Charter Manufacturing announced a $150 million investment for steel bar in Cuyahoga Heights with 25 new jobs, followed by Nucor with $85 million and 15 new jobs in Marion. However, JWS Steel’s 2018 plan to invest $270 million and hire 280 at a new facility in Mingo Junction was the second largest investment and the largest job addition for the four- year period. Republic Steel also planned to add 125 jobs at its Lorain plant beginning that year.

The counts and summary figures are drawn from a list of major investments compiled by the Office of Research (2016b- 2019b). Companies on the list met at least one of the following criteria: at least $1 million committed for land, building(s) or equipment; at least 20,000 square feet of new space added to a facility; or a minimum of 20 new jobs. Many major investments are phased-in over two or three years, with employee counts often following upon project completion. Dollar figures are not comparable with the Census Bureau’s capital expenditures data.

See Table A2

11 The Concentration of the Iron & Steel Industry in Ohio, 2016

12.0%

10.0% 10.3%

9.7% 9.6%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0% Ohio as a Percentage of the U.S. TotalsthePercentageU.S. of a Ohio as

3.3%

2.0%

0.0% Ohio GDP as Percent of U.S. Combined VA (3311-2) Iron/Steel/Alloys VA (3311) Steel Products VA (3312)

Gross Domestic Product Value-Added Sources: U.S. Bureaus of the Census and Economic Analysis 12 IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY CONCENTRATION IN OHIO

The chart above illustrates the concentration of iron and steel industry groups in Ohio. During 2016, 9.6 percent of the value-added by U.S. iron, steel and ferroalloy producers (NAICS 3311) came from plants in Ohio, while 10.3 percent of steel-products-from-purchased-steel (3312) value-added originated here. The two groups combined were 9.7 percent of national output (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2018a).3 More industry-specific data from the 2012 Census of Manufactures in Appendix Table A3 show 9.9 percent of ferrous metal foundry (33151) value-added came from Ohio. When combined with iron, steel, ferroalloy and steel-products-purchased-steel output that year, 11.0 percent of total iron and steel industry value-added came from Ohio. By comparison, 3.3 percent of the value of all U.S. goods and services in 2016 originated in Ohio according to the latest gross domestic product (GDP) figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2019).4 The greater portions of the former compared with the last indicate the concentration of the industry here.

The following table shows that the summary concentration of the iron and steel industry is broadly based on all specific industries and not reflective of an extraordinary concentration in just one. Percent of Apparent Value-added Rank in Industry Code and Description in the U.S. the U.S.*

3311: Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloys 12.7% 3rd 33121: Iron & Steel Pipes & Tubes from Purchased Steel 16.4% 1st 331221: Rolled Steel Shapes from Purchased Steel 10.2% 1st 331222: Steel Wire Drawing from Purchased Steel 8.1% 2nd 331511: Iron Foundries 7.9% 5th 331512: Steel Investment Foundries 13.7% 2nd 331513: Steel Foundries (except Investment) 10.7% 2nd

Note: * - Not every state with at least one industry establishment can be ranked based on value-added due to confidentiality restraints. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2015c).

Three factors help explain the industry’s historical and continuing concentration in Ohio: (1) the raw materials – principally iron ore and coal – are in the region; (2) bulk transportation, whether by water or rail, of both raw materials and products is convenient; and (3) secondary manufacturers using purchased iron and steel (3312 and 33151) prefer to locate near their suppliers (3311), keeping their transportation costs low (drawn from Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; and Zheng, 2019).

See Table A3

13 Employment in Ohio's Iron and Steel Industry by Specific Industry, 2017

331513: Other Steel Foundries, 751, 3% Total: 23,105 331512: Steel Investment 33151: Ferrous Foundries, Foundries, 5,856, 25% 1,689, 7%

331511: Iron Foundries, 3,416, 15%

3311: Iron & Steel Mills, 10,931, 47%

331222: Steel Wire Drawing, 1,084, 5%

331221: Rolled Steel Shapes, 1,099, 5%

33121: Pipe & Tube Mfg., 4,135, 18%

3312: Products from Purchased Steel, 6,318, 27% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

14 THE COMPOSITION OF OHIO’S IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY: EMPLOYMENT

181 establishments employed about 23,100 in Ohio’s iron and steel industry according to the latest state-level data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2019b). 10,900-plus, or 47.3 percent, worked in the iron-steel-ferroalloys industry (NAICS 3311, blue) creating various steel mill products from raw steel – plus a few ferroalloys. (Data gathered prior to implement- ing the 2012 NAICS showed only a tiny fraction of the industry was producing ferroalloys.)

The remaining industry employees were divided between the products-from-purchased-steel group (3312, yellow to gold) with 6,300-plus and 27.3 percent, and the ferrous metal foundries subgroup (33151, grays) with well over 5,800 and 25.3 percent of the industry. The pipe-and-tube industry was the second largest specific industry with 4,100-plus at the time, partially due to the rise of fracking in the mining industry. The remaining specific industries employed between 750 and 3,500.

Overall, 9.6 percent of the iron and steel industry establishments and 11.7 percent of the U.S. industry’s jobs were located in Ohio – concentrated when compared with Ohio’s portions of all private non-farm non-railroad establishments and employment – 3.2 and 3.7 percent, respectively. As with value-added in the preceding section, the concentration of industry employment was broadly based, not the result of extreme concentration in one specific industry. Specific industry portions in Ohio ranged from 6.5 to 17.6 percent of the corresponding U.S. totals (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2019b).

See Table A4

15 Annual Pay in Ohio's Iron and Steel Industry by Groups and Individual Industries, 2017 $120,000 120.0%

115.1% 113.4% 113.2% 113.8% 110.4%

$100,000 105.6% 100.0% 102.6% 102.9% 98.4% 94.3%

89.2% $80,676 $80,000 84.7% 80.0%

$70,754 $66,403 $66,686 $66,141 $64,108 $59,761 $59,403 $60,000 60.0% $54,607 $52,740

$46,642 $47,907

Annual Annual Ohio in Pay As Percentage ofU.S. $40,000 40.0%

$20,000 20.0%

$0 0.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 16 INDUSTRY PAY

The chart above shows that private sector pay for employees in Ohio averaged more than $46,600 per year (excluding farm and railroad workers). People employed in the state’s iron and steel industry averaged $70,700-plus, but there is much variation within. Pay was greatest in the iron-steel-ferroalloys industry (NAICS 3311, $80,600-plus), followed by the products-from-purchased-steel group (3312, $64,100) and ferrous metal foundries (33151, $59,400).

The chart also illustrates the variation within the latter two groups. The high pay in pipes and tubes (33121, $66,400) and rolled steel shapes (331221, almost $66,700) contrasts with the lower pay in wire drawing (331222, $52,700-plus). Simi- larly, the relatively high pay in iron foundries (331511, nearly $66,100-plus) contrast with the lower pay in steel foundries (331512 and 3, $47,900 and $64,600). Nevertheless, pay in all specific industries was greater than the near-all-Ohio average of $46,600.

Mean iron and steel industry pay in Ohio was 102.6 percent of the corresponding U.S. average. Again, there is notable variation from one specific industry to the next:

• 331512 and 3: steel foundries – 84.7 and 94.3 percent; • 3311: iron and steel mill production – 98.4 percent; • 331222: wire drawing from purchased steel – 105.6 percent; • 33121: pipes and tubes from purchased steel – 110.4 percent; • 33151: iron foundries – 113.8 percent; and • 331221: rolling steel shapes from purchased steel – 115.1 percent.

See Table A5

17 ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ashtabula ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Lak! e! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Luc! as! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fulton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Clevelan! !d! -! E! ! !l!y! !r! i! a! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Williams ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Toledo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ge! auga! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! C! u! !y! a! h! o! !g! a! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ohio Steel Industry Wood ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! 9! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !T!r!u! m! ! b! u! !ll! ! ! ! Defiance Erie ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Henry ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sandusky ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lorain ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !1!1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Establishments by County ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A!! kro! n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Portage ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summit ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Statewide: 189 Paulding Huron ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Seneca ! ! ! ! M! ed! ina! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! 7! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Putnam ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hancock Mahoning ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Steel Industry ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !As! hland ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Van Wert ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wyandot ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Crawford! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wayne ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S! ! t!a!r!k! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C! ol! um! b! ia! n!a ! Establishments 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Allen ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! !5! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! R!ic!hla! n! d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! in County ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H! ard! in ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 - 19 Marion ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A! ug! laiz! e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !Hol! me! s ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mercer 2 Carroll ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 - 10 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Morrow ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jef! fers! on! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 - 5 Logan Knox Tuscarawas 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S! hel! by ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U! nio! n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Co!sho! cto! n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! Harrison ! ! ! ! ! 2! ! ! D! ela! wa! re ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! None ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Darke ! ! ! ! ! ! Champaig! n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Miami ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Licking ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Guernsey ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! F! ra! nk! li!n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Belmont ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mu! ski!ngu! m ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! 7! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Clark ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mo! ntg! om! er!y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ma! dison!! ! ! ! ! C! o! lu! m! bus ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Noble ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Preble ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Pe! rry! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fairfield Monroe Dayton- Greene ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Large Metro* ! ! !K! e!tt! e!ri! n! g ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mo! rg! an! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Pickaway ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fayette ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Canton-Massillon, OH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W! a! s!hi!ng! to! n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hoc! king ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! B! u! tle! r ! ! ! Warren ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 Youngstown-Warren- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Clinton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !6 ! ! ! ! ! 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Boardman, OH-PA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ross Athens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Vinton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *Only those portions of the 8 Metropolitan Hamilton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 Highland ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Statistical Areas (Metros) that contain 2 or ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! more counties in Ohio are shown. Meigs ! ! ! ! ! ! Pike ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C! lermont ! ! Jac! ks!on ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2! ! ! ! C!inc! in! n! at!i, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Brown ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

OH-KY-IN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Adams ! ! S! cio! to ! ! ! ! ! ! Gallia Source: ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! 2016 County Business Patterns ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U.S. Census Bureau ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! L! awrence Prepared by:

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Office of Research Ohio Development Services Agency 18 March 2020

R021420A THE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY ESTABLISHMENTS IN OHIO

The map above illustrates the distribution of the 189 iron and steel industry establishments across Ohio according to the 2016 County Business Patterns dataset. Fifty-four counties had at least one industry establishment. However, just over one-half of the establishments were found in 10 counties: Cuyahoga had 19; Stark, 15; Trumbull, 11, Mahoning and Mont- gomery, eight each; Columbiana, Franklin and Summit, seven each; and Butler, Richland and Washington, six each. The remaining 43 counties with establishments each had from one to five.

One way to look at the map is to note the clustering of establishments in northeastern metropolitan areas (MAs) long- noted for iron and steel operations. Canton-Massillon, Cleveland-Elyria, Mansfield and Youngstown-Warren, a total of 10 counties, have 71 establishments, or 37.6 percent of the industry total. This concentration is associated with the presence of nine major melt facilities in five counties in these MAs: Cuyahoga (ArcelorMittal’s two, and Charter), Lorain (Republic), Mahoning (Vallourec), Richland (AK Steel and ArcelorMittal) and Stark (Republic and TimkenSteel). The five counties and these companies combine for roughly 64 percent of the state’s major melt capacity, including two of the three basic oxygen process sites. (The remaining major melt sites in the area use electric arc furnaces.)

Yet five-eighths of industry establishments are outside of northeastern Ohio regardless of metropolitan status. In particular, 13 counties in the Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton and Toledo MAs combined for 49 establishments, or 25.9 percent of Ohio’s total, including two major melt facilities in Butler and Fulton Counties (AK Steel and North Star BlueScope, respectively). Marion and Defiance Counties were the non-metropolitan exceptions with major establishments: Nucor and Gen- eral Motors (the latter was Ohio’s largest ferrous foundry operator at the time; it is now an aluminum foundry).5

See Table A6

19 ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ashtabula ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !La! ke! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 Lucas ! ! ! 1! ,0! 28! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fulton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 243! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Clevelan! d! ! -! E! ! l! y! ! r! !i!a! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Williams ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 266 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 43 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Toledo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Geauga ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cuyahoga ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W! oo! d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ohio Steel Industry Defiance Erie ! ! ! ! ! ! 3! ,!0! 0! 6! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Henry ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Tr !um! b! ul! l ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 158 Sandusky ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 143 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! ,1! 83! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lo! ra! in! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1,054 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! ,1!71! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Employment by County* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A! kro! n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Portage Statewide: 23,996 Paulding ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Huron ! ! ! ! ! ! M! e! dina Summit ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Seneca ! ! ! ! 28 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 27! 7 ! Putnam ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M! a!ho! ni! ng! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hancock ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 143 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !65! 4 ! ! ! 506 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Steel Industry ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ashland ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Van Wert ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W! ! ya!ndo! t ! ! R! ic!hl!an! d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W! a!yn! e! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Crawford ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Stark ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Employment ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1!,12! 5! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 143 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Columbiana Allen ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 64! 6! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4,475 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! 88 ! ! ! 66 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! in County* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hardin ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 57! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Marion ! ! ! ! ! ! 2,000 - 4,475 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A! ug! laiz! e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4! 28! ! ! ! ! Ho! lmes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Carroll Mercer ! ! ! ! 171 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 500 - 1,999 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Morrow ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jefferson ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! 100 - 499 Logan Tuscarawas 33 ! ! Knox ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S! hel! by ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 186! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 - 99 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Union ! ! ! ! ! ! Coshocto! n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Harr! ison ! ! ! ! 22 ! D! ela! wa! re ! ! ! ! ! !73! 3 ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 148 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! None ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Darke ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Champaign ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! M! ia! mi ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Licking ! ! ! ! ! ! ! G! ue! rns! ey! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 300 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 143 *County employment figures shown on this ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! F!ra! nk! lin! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Belmont ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mu! ski!ngu! m ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! map should be considered estimates. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1,064 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Clark ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 285 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mo! ntg! om! er!y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ma! dison! ! ! 19!5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C! o! l!u!mbus ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Noble Preble ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fairfield ! ! Pe!rry ! ! ! ! ! Monroe ! !Da! yt! on! - Greene ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 143 ! Ke! tt! er! in! g 28 ! ! ! ! ! Large Metro** ! ! ! ! ! Pickaway ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Morgan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Fayette ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Canton-Massillon, OH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Washington ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hocking ! ! ! ! ! ! B! u! !t!le! r! ! ! ! ! ! 434 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 Youngstown-Warren- Warren ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Clinton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2! ,!0! 6! 4! ! ! ! ! ! ! 15 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Boardman, OH-PA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 15 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ross Athens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Vinton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hamilton **Only those portions of the 8 Metropolitan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 31! 4 ! ! ! Highland ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Statistical Areas (Metros) that contain 2 or ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! more counties in Ohio are shown. Meigs ! ! ! ! ! ! Pike ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C! lermont ! ! Jac! ks!on ! C! in! ci! nn! a! ti,! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 14! 5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

OH-KY-IN Brown ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Adams ! ! !Sci!oto! ! ! ! ! ! Gallia Source: ! ! ! 2! 09! ! ! ! ! ! 2016 County Business Patterns ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U.S. Census Bureau ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L!awrence Prepared by: ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Office of Research Ohio Development Services Agency 20 March 2020

R021420A THE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT IN OHIO

Employment was even more concentrated than the distribution of establishments; six counties accounted for 54.3 percent of the industry jobs in Ohio. Stark topped the list with close to 4,500, followed by Cuyahoga with 3,000-plus and Butler with 2,000-plus. Defiance, Lorain and Richland each had between 1,100 and 1,200, and Franklin, Lake and Trumbull each had between 1,000 and 1,100. Four counties had between 500 to 1,000 industry jobs: Coshocton, Hancock, Ma- honing and Wayne; 22 had 100 to 499, and 19 had 1 to 99 jobs.6

Counties with at least 500 employees often are associated with the facilities of notable industry companies: Butler is home to AK Steel; Coshocton has AK Steel and McWane; Cuyahoga has ArcelorMittal and Charter Steel; Defiance had a Gen- eral Motors iron foundry; Franklin is home to Worthington Industries; Lorain has Republic Steel and U.S. Steel; Mahoning has Vallourec Star; Richland has AK Steel and ArcelorMittal; Stark is home to TimkenSteel and has Republic Steel, including the latter’s regional headquarters; Trumbull has the Worthington Industries subsidiary Dietrich Industries. Lake and Wayne appeared to have been exceptions in this regard. (The converse exception is Marion, which had less than 500 employees, but has ArcelorMittal and Nucor establishments.)7

See Table A6

This page intentionally blank

TRENDS

23 Estimated Raw Steel Production in Ohio, 1989-2019 in Millions of Net Tons, Except Percentages 20.0 20.0%

18.0 18.0% 17.0% 16.9% 16.7% 16.5%16.6% 16.2% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16.0 16.0% 15% 15%

14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14.0 14.0% 13% 13%

12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12.0 12.0% 11%

10% 10% 10.0 10.0%

18.0 17.4 17.2 17.3 Percent ofU.S. 16.5 16.8 16.7 16.8 16.8 16.7 Millionsof Net Tons 8.0 16.1 15.9 16.2 8.0% 15.5 15.2 15.5 15.4 14.2 14.1 14.2 13.7 12.6 6.0 6.0% 11.4 11.5 11.3 11.5 11.5 10.8 9.5 8.9 4.0 4.0%

6.5

2.0 2.0%

0.0 0.0% `89 `90 `91 `92 `93 `94 `95 `96 `97 `98 `99 `00 `01 `02 `03 `04 `05 `06 `07 `08 `09 `10 `11 `12 `13 `14 `15 `16 `17 `18 `19*

Raw Steel Production Percent of U.S.

Sources: American Iron and Steel Institute; U.S. Geological Survey (after 1994) * - Preliminary 24 RAW STEEL PRODUCTION

Raw steel production is the core of the iron and steel industry, the immediate or proximate starting point for all goods wholly or partially made of steel. The chart above illustrates the cyclical nature of the raw steel production in Ohio, with the relatively low output volumes during 1991, 2002 and 2009 closely corresponding with the depths of national reces- sions, and the relatively high output volumes during 1990, 2000 and 2007 matching the peaks or ends of national economic expansions. However, writers following the industry believe the state’s 2015 and 2016 drops in raw steel production – even as overall economic expansion continued in Ohio and the nation – was at least partially due to the reduced demand for pipes used in extracting natural gas and oil from the Utica and Marcellus shale formations, and ultimately to lower prices for the latter (see Masters, 2020, and McCafferty, 2016).8

The highly cyclical character of raw steel production reflects the use of relatively large amounts of steel in products with high sale prices: transportation equipment (mostly motor vehicles and their parts), big appliances and machinery, some fabricated metal products, and non-residential construction projects. These steel-using industries tend to be highly cyclical in response to changing consumer demand. When business is good and jobs are plentiful, consumers – individuals, families and organizations – feel confident in purchasing expensive goods. Conversely, consumers cut back or delay expenditures for the same goods during economic lean times, preferring to repair instead of replace (drawn from Levy, 2014, and Corridore, 2014; also see Holcomb, 2020).9 The earlier part of economic recoveries and expansions generally are led by increasing demand for consumer durables: light vehicles, large appliances and other domestic equipment. By contrast, the demand for capital goods such as those used in non-residential construction, machinery and commercial equipment typically increases after the recovery is well under way and the demand for consumer durables plateaus (Lar- kin, 2013: O6). Overall, then, steel industry shipments continue rising throughout an economic expansion.

The chart above also records how the percentage of U.S. raw steel production coming from Ohio seems to have trended lower during the last three decades, although year-to-year variations may be pronounced. Including data from Appendix Table A7, Ohio averaged 16.8 percent of U.S. raw steel production during the 1970s, 16.5 percent during the 1980s, 16.1 percent during the 1990s, but 14.8 percent during the 2000s, and 12.1 percent from 2010 through 2019. This may be due to the spread of minimills (which principally recycle steel) across the country as well as their increasing share of raw steel production. Despite the yearly variations and the slightly lower percentages, Ohio ranked second in raw steel production for every year shown above; 1981 was the last year it ranked third.

Raw steel production methods have shifted over the years with technological advances. The chart on the following page illustrates (1) the demise of open-hearth furnaces in favor of more efficient basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs) for primary steel production and (2) the growing role of electric arc furnaces (EAFs) for recycling in raw steel production.

25 U.S. Raw Steel Production, 1989-2019 Percentages by Furnace Type and Cast 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.6 98.6 98.8 98.5 99.0 98.2 99.0 97.3 97.4 98.0 96.4 97.2 97.2 97.1 96.8 96.7 96.7 96.4 97.0 94.7 95.5 95.6 90.0 93.2 90.0 91.1 89.5

35.9 85.7 37.3 38.4 38.0 80.0 39.4 39.3 40.4 80.0 42.6 43.8 45.1 79.3 46.2 47.0 47.4 50.4 51.0 52.1 75.8 55.0 57.1 58.2 57.4 70.0 60.3 59.1 60.6 70.0 61.8 61.3 62.6 63.0 67.0 68.4 68.0 67.4 70.0 64.8 60.0 60.0

50.0 50.0

40.0 40.0

Percent Continuously Cast Continuously Percent Percentages by Type Furnace by Percentages

60.0 62.0 59.6 59.1 30.0 60.6 60.7 59.6 30.0 57.4 56.2 54.9 53.8 53.0 52.6 49.6 49.0 47.9 45.0 42.9 41.8 42.6 20.0 39.7 40.9 39.4 20.0 38.2 38.7 37.4 37.0 33.0 32.0 31.6 30.0

10.0 10.0

4.5 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 `89 `90 `91 `92 `93 `94 `95 `96 `97 `98 `99 `00 `01 `02 `03 `04 `05 `06 `07 `08 `09 `10 `11 `12 `13 `14 `15 `16 `17 `18 `19* Open Hearth Basic Oxygen Process Electric Arc Continously Cast

Sources: American Iron and Steel Institute; U.S. Geological Survey * - Preliminary 26 Iron and steel production was a vertically integrated process dominated by large companies for much of the 20th century. The companies owned the materials and equipment used at each step of the primary production process. These usually included the mines of iron ores, coal and fluxes, the coke ovens, the furnaces, the breakdown mills, and the service and distribution centers (i.e., wholesalers) for steel slitting and sales to end users (Larkin, 2013: O1). 91.6 percent of the raw steel produced in the U.S. during 1960 was made by this integrated primary production process (further described in the Appendices); only 8.4 percent came from mills focused exclusively on recycling scrap (cited by Larkin, 2013: O2 & O3).

In contrast to primary producers, minimills make steel principally by recycling ferrous scrap in EAFs, although some can substitute directly reduced iron when scrap prices are high. Doing so means that they avoid the costs associated with the two-step process of blast- and BOP furnaces, coke ovens and equipment to handle raw materials. (Raw materials and the greater energy required for primary steel making are about two-thirds of the costs of primary producers.) Consequent- ly, capital costs for minimills are much lower than for primary producers. Lower capital costs, a leaner management structure, and more flexible, less costly labor arrangements allowed minimills to undercut the prices primary producers would charge for the same products (Larkin, 2013: O1, O3; also see Holcomb, 2020). (Primary steelmakers also incorporate scrap. That reduces their costs somewhat but cannot compensate for their greater capital requirements and expenses.)

Minimills initially were limited to lower-quality commodity products but have increased their collective market share as quality improved. One key to their expansion was the development of thin slab and strip casters. These bypassed the need for reducing stands, permitting the direct production of thin slabs and strips from molten raw steel. (North Star Blue- Scope Steel is an Ohio minimill using such technology.) While primary producers also adopted them, they benefitted minimills more by the reduction of capital needed to compete in markets for higher quality goods such as pipes, plates, strips and sheets. Such items had been the domain of primary producers, but they were forced to abandon markets for specific products as minimill quality improved. Ultimately, then, it has been interrelated technological advances and reduced costs that enabled minimills to increase their share of domestic raw steel production at the expense of primary producers. Nevertheless, primary producers have remained the source for the highest-grade goods (Larkin, 1994, 1995, 2005, 2013).10

See Table A7

27 Value-Added in Ohio's Iron and Steel Products Groups, 2007-2016 (NAICS 3311-2, Standardized on 2012)

$8,000 16.0%

$6,685 $6,549 $7,000 13.4% 13.5% 14.0%

12.2% 11.9% 11.6% $6,000 11.3% 12.0% $1,582 11.2% $1,540 $5,544 10.7% $5,301

$4,912 $812 $4,833 9.7% $5,000 10.0% $4,697 $4,742 $1,095 $763 $4,330 $1,098 $851 $1,196 $4,000 8.0% $826

(Millions) 6.6%

$3,000 6.0% Total as Percent of of Percent U.S. asTotalTotal $5,102 $5,009 $4,732 $4,206 $2,000 $4,149 4.0% $3,735 $3,891 $1,466 $3,501 $3,504

$1,000 $805 2.0%

$661 $0 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

3311: Iron & Steel Mill Products 3312: Steel Products from Purchased Steel 3311-2: Percent of U.S. Total

Sources: U.S. Bureaus of the Census and Labor Statistics * - Initial; earlier years may be revised 28 PRODUCTION AS MEASURED BY VALUE-ADDED

Value-added (VA) data for the iron-steel-ferroalloys and steel-products-from-purchased-steel groups (NAICS 3311 and 3312, blue and gold) provide a broader picture of industry output in Ohio than raw steel production alone. Figures seen in the chart above have been adjusted with the associated producer price indexes to remove the effects of inflation and deflation to give a better sense of how production volumes may have changed. (Unadjusted figures for both groups as well as summary figures combining the two also are shown in Appendix Table A8 along with the producer price index values. Data for the iron and steel foundries sub-group are available only from the quinquennial Census of Manufactures.) Both the combined and component volumes appear highest in 2007 and remained high even as overall economic output was contracting in 2008. Combined production fell 77.6 percent from 2008 to less than $1.5 billion at the depths of the recession in 2009 but rebounded in 2010 to $4.9 billion. Component and combined production fluctuated below the pre-recession peaks for several years thereafter but fell in the latest years available. (2017 data will be released in 2020.)

The chart above shows that an average of 78.9 percent of combined output came from the iron-steel-ferroalloys group (3311, blue portion; the VA data include the value of raw steel produced as well as the value of intermediate and end-use goods made where the raw steel is produced). Group output was above $5.0 billion before 2009, was just $661 million in 2009, and varied between $3.5 and $4.8 billion post-recession. (This pattern is quite similar to that of Ohio’s raw steel production, which was greater than 14.1 million tons during 2007-2008, fell to less than 6.6 million tons in 2009, and fluctuated between 11.2 and 13.7 million tons during 2011-2014 before contracting to 9.5 million tons in 2016. Raw steel production here grew in 2017 and 2018, which may predict increased VA for the group when those figures are published.)

Output from the products-from-purchased-steel group (3312) averaged 21.1 percent of the combined total. 2009 was the only year when the output exceeded that of the iron-steel-ferroalloys group. Output exceeded $1.5 billion during 2007- 2008, was less than $0.9 billion for the following three years, and above $1.0 billion for 2012-2014 before falling to less than $0.9 billion in the latest two years.

The chart above also shows Ohio’s combined VA as a percentage of corresponding U.S. VA (green dots) was above 13.0 percent in 2007 and 2008, fell to 6.6 percent in 2009, and ranged from 10.7 to 12.2 percent before declining to 9.7 percent in 2016. Additional data in Appendix Table A8 show that VA percentages of iron-steel-ferroalloys from Ohio was greater than 12.0 percent in 2007-2011 – except for 2009 – and less than 12.0 percent thereafter. This contrasts with the percentages of steel-products-from-purchased-steel: 16.9 to 22.3 during 2007-2009 vs. less than 14.0 percent thereafter. Consequently, it appears Ohio’s slightly lower portion of combined output is due to lower portions from both groups.

See Tables A7 & A8

29 Capital Expenditures in Ohio's Iron and Steel Products Groups, 2007-2016 (NAICS 3311-2, in Current Dollars) $700 14.0%

12.9% 12.7%

$604 $600 11.7% 12.0% $351

10.3%

$500 10.0% $468 $461 8.9% $59 $177 8.4% $419

$400 $48 8.0% $409 7.1% $322 $371

(Millions) 6.4% $300 $57 6.0% 5.1% $267 4.8% $284 $245 $265 $140 Total U.S. of Percent as Total $253 $213 $75 $191 $200 $62 4.0% $166 $18

$54 $173 $170 $150 $126 $100 $113 2.0%

$0 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

3311: Iron & Steel Mill Products 3312: Steel Products from Purchased Steel 3311-2: Percent of U.S. Total

Source: U.S. Census Bureau * - Initial; earlier years may be revised 30 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

Capital expenditures (CE) are funds spent for land, buildings and equipment used in manufacturing. The chart above shows CE in Ohio for both groups varied widely over the decade: from $113- to $409-million for iron-steel-ferroalloys mills (NAICS 3311, blue) and from $18- to $351-million for products-from-purchased-steel plants (3312, gold). Combined CE ranged from $166- to $604-million. (No adjustment has been made for inflation.) Combined CE in Ohio also varied as percentages of corresponding national totals (green dots) from 4.8 to 12.9 percent, and data in Appendix Table A9 show the iron-steel-ferroalloys group ranging from 3.7 to 12.7 percent of national totals and products-from-purchased-steel ranging from 3.9 to 21.8 percent of national totals. All of the percentages vary widely for at least two reasons:

(1) National CE vary over the business cycles: lowest in recession as purchases are postponed, rising as recovery and revenues are sustained, and trailing off in the later part of the expansion; and (2) Major CE within any one state are episodic and therefore may be very large in one year and small in another; costs for primary steelmakers can reach $2,000 per ton of capacity, while those for minimills are about $500 per ton (Larkin, 2013: O1); this could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars for new plants or substantial upgrades of current ones.

Seen in this context, long-term averages provide a better understanding of state-level CE. On average, CE for iron-steel- ferroalloy production in Ohio were 7.8 percent of the national total, and products-from-purchased-steel CE were 13.2 percent of the national total. Together, they were 8.9 percent of the combined U.S. total. (Again, data for the iron and steel foundries sub-group are available only from the quinquennial Census of Manufactures.)

Comparing the national portions of CE and value-added (VA) in Ohio yields further insights into the industry here. Draw- ing from Appendix Tables A8 and A9, 11.5 percent of U.S. VA in the iron-steel-ferroalloys group came from Ohio during 2007-2016, while such mills here received 8.9 percent of CE – a ratio of 1.43 to 1. The corresponding VA::CE ratio for the steel-products-from-purchased-steel group was 1.02 to 1. The combined VA::CE ratio was 1.30 to 1. (Dollar figures were not adjusted for inflation.) It appears companies in Ohio – particularly those making iron and steel mill products – have emphasized production during this time. Any number of factors may help explain this broad conclusion: less money may have been available for CE, given the concentration of primary steel production here their larger financial liabilities when compared with minimills, (Larkin, 2013: I4); or it may reflect minimills’ growing share of raw steel production; or it may reflect the CE for minimills in more rapidly growing parts of the U.S.; or a greater focus on production automation, invent- tory and order management, and less on new products, etc. (Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Zheng, 2019). On the other hand, the 1.02::1.00 ratio in the products-from-purchased-steel group is consistent with the idea those companies have maintained their commitment to manufacture in Ohio.

See Tables A8 & A9

31 Establishment Trends in Ohio's Iron and Steel Industry by Group, 2007-2017

300 10.0%

9.6% 9.6% 9.4% 9.4% 9.2% 9.1% 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% 8.7% 8.5% 240 8.0%

208 195 191 189 187 187 188 183 180 181 175 180 6.0% 75 69 70 70 72 69 75 70 69

66 70 Ohio Employment Ohio 120 4.0% U.S. of Percent as Total

69 64 55 60 57 52 61 51 54 54 64

60 2.0%

64 62 62 63 60 55 61 58 59 56 48

0 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 3311: Iron & Steel Mill Products 3312: Steel Products from Purchased Steel 33151: Ferrous Foundries Total as Percent of U.S.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 32 ESTABLISHMENTS

The chart above shows the number of iron and steel industry establishments in Ohio decreasing 13.0 percent from 208 in 2007 to 181 in 2017; however, the longer-term net decrease was interrupted by increases for a few years according to the latest Census Bureau data. Decreasing numbers characterized the three principal industry sectors:

• 25.0 percent in iron-steel-ferroalloys (NAICS 3311, blue), • 7.2 percent in steel products from purchased steel (3312, gold) and • 8.0 percent in ferrous metal foundries (33151, gray).

Specific industry figures in Appendix Table A10 show more variation. On one hand, the numbers of non-investment steel foundries (331513) fluctuated but showed a net increase while steel investment foundries and rolling-and-drawing plants using purchased steel (331512 and 33122) fluctuated with marginal net changes. On the other hand, the number of iron foundries (331511) fell 22.9 percent.11

What happened in Ohio frequently was part of changes seen in across America:

• U.S. iron-steel-ferroalloy plants fell 42.1 percent and ferrous foundries fell 30.2 percent; • the numbers of pipe-and-tube plants using purchased steel here and across the U.S. decreased by similar propor- tions; • the numbers of wire-drawing plants here and across the nation were almost unchanged.

Overall, the total number of U.S. iron and steel industry establishments fell 22.8 percent. Thus, despite the declining numbers here, the percentage of industry establishments in Ohio increased from 8.5 to 9.6 percent over the decade.

Analysts have cited a number of factors to explain the declining establishment numbers: market in-roads from imports and by producers of alternative materials; reduced demand for remaining uses; companies leaving the business; the closure of more labor intensive plants in favor of more modern, more automated facilities; consolidation as companies merge to at- tain the advantages of greater size (such as administrative efficiency, economies of scale, less burdensome capital expenditures, product diversity to stabilize income, greater market share, greater bargaining power in markets – both for purchasing inputs and selling outputs), etc. (Holcomb, 2020; Larkin, 2013: O2; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019). These factors also affected long-term employment trends. It should also be noted some of the declining iron foundry numbers reflect the shift to aluminum by motor vehicle companies; this is was the case for GM’s Defiance foundry.

See Table A10

33 Employment Trends in Ohio's Iron and Steel Industry by Group, 2007-2017

42,000 14.0%

12.9%

11.9% 12.0% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.7% 36,000 11.5% 12.0% 11.4% 11.4% 11.1%

30,715 30,000 29,121 10.0%

25,630 25,821 9,004 25,183 24,763 24,277 24,542 23,996 8,942 23,295 24,000 23,105 8.0% 6,626 7,267 7,433 7,033 6,397 7,039 6,469 5,856 4,364 6,668

18,000 6.0% Ohio Employment Ohio 5,993 U.S. of Percent as Total 5,462 4,163 4,333 5,441 3,870 5,616 5,818 4,943 6,318

12,000 4.0%

17,347 14,186 13,587 12,757 13,547 13,542 13,113 6,000 11,887 11,912 12,584 2.0% 10,931

0 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 3311: Iron & Steel Mill Products 3312: Steel Products from Purchased Steel 33151: Ferrous Foundries Total as Percent of U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 34 EMPLOYMENT

Total employment in Ohio’s iron and steel industry peaked at 30,715 in 2008 and fell to 23,105 in 2017 – but not without a few years of increases. The net 2007-2017 decline was 20.7 percent according to the latest Census Bureau data. De- creasing numbers characterized two of the principal segments: iron-and-steel mills (3311, blue) and ferrous metal foundries (33151, gray); net employment at plants using purchased steel (3312, gold) fluctuated but increased by 5.4 percent.

Data in Appendix Table A11 show further variations within the latter two segments:

• Jobs at steel wire drawing (331222) and pipe-and-tube plants (33121) and steel investment foundries (331512) increased 119.9, 46.9 and 14.7 percent respectively; • These were offset by losses in rolled shape plants (331221) and at iron and non-investment steel foundries (331511 and 331512).

The changes here often were part of changes seen across the nation:

• Total industry employment was down 19.4 percent; • Jobs losses were concentrated in iron-and-steel mills and ferrous metal foundries with modest net gains seen at purchased steel plants; • Specific industry job gains were seen in steel wire drawing and pipe-and-tube plants – but not steel investment foundries; and • Gains in those industries were offset by losses in rolled shape plants and at iron and non-investment steel foundries.

Because employment trends here often parallel national trends, Ohio’s portion of total industry employment usually fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.0 percent of the U.S. industry.

More-current data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (U.S. BLS QCEW) show a 1.2 percent decrease in industry employment from 2017 to 2018 in Ohio. Small gains in the mills were not enough to offset losses in the other groups.12 Across the nation all three groups experienced slight gains, combining for a 3.4 percent increase (U.S. BLS, 2019).

See Table A11

35 Iron and Steel Mill Products Exported from Ohio, 2008-2018 in Millions, Standardized on 2012 $2,000

$1,812 $1,800 $1,714 $82 $1,747 $1,646 $61 $77 $1,614 $1,600 $76 $1,524 $56 $1,488 $1,488 $65 $1,453 $76 $71 $1,400 $66 $1,316 $1,239 $47 $1,200 $51

$1,000

$1,730 $1,686 $1,637 $800 $1,570 $1,558 $1,460 $1,387 $1,412 $1,417 $1,269 $600 $1,188

$400

$200

$0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3311: Iron & Steel Mills 3312: Steel Products from Purchased Steel Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. International Trade Administration 36 EXPORTS FROM OHIO

The chart above illustrates changing export levels from Ohio’s iron and steel products groups (NAICS 3311 and 3312) from 2008 to 2018 after adjusting for inflation and deflation. (Data for foundries are not available.) The summary value of exports grew 46.2 percent from about $1.24 billion in 2009 to $1.81 billion in 2015, and then declined 27.4 percent to just under $1.32 billion in 2018. The summary changes are overwhelmingly due to changing export volumes of iron-steel- ferroalloy products (3311, blue), which averaged 95.7 percent of the two-group total; they rose 45.6 percent from $1.19- to $1.73-billion before falling 26.6 percent to just under $1.27 billion. Exports volumes of products made from purchased steel (3312, gold) almost always expanded and contracted in tandem with iron-steel-ferroalloy exports.13

On average 68.2 and 17.0 percent of combined group exports from Ohio went to NAFTA/USMCA partners Canada and Mexico, respectively. The remaining 19.3 percent were shipped to at least 150 other countries (U.S. International Trade Administration, 2019).

See Table A12

37 U.S. Imports, Exports and the Value of the Dollar

160.0 16.0%

140.0 14.0%

120.0 12.0% $

100.0 10.0%

80.0 8.0%

the Index Value of the Dollar the of Value Index the (in Millions of Metric Tons) Metric of Millions (in

60.0 6.0% of a Percentage as Exports

and

Total Steel Mill Product Shipments Product Mill Steel Total Steel Mill Product Shipments and Imports and Shipments Product Mill Steel

40.0 4.0%

20.0 2.0%

0.0 0.0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Steel Mill Prdct Shpmnts 92.9 96.3 99.0 89.7 90.7 96.1 101.0 95.2 99.3 96.5 89.4 56.4 75.7 83.3 87.0 86.6 89.1 78.5 78.5 82.5 86.4 87.0 Imports: Steel Mill Prdcts 37.7 32.4 34.4 27.3 29.6 21.0 32.5 29.1 41.1 30.2 29.0 14.7 21.7 25.9 30.4 29.2 40.2 35.2 30.0 34.6 30.6 27.0 Index Value of Dollar 116.4 116.8 119.4 125.9 126.6 119.1 113.6 110.7 108.5 103.4 99.90 105.6 101.8 97.15 99.81 101.0 104.1 117.0 122.3 122.0 122.9 128.6 Exports: % of Shpmnts 5.4% 5.1% 6.0% 6.2% 6.0% 2.6% 7.1% 8.9% 8.9% 10.5% 13.6% 14.9% 14.5% 14.6% 14.4% 13.3% 12.2% 11.5% 10.7% 11.6% 9.3% 7.7%

Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Reserve Board 2019 figures are preliminary; more recent years may be revised 38 NOTES ON U.S. IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

The chart above illustrates two relationships. The green lines show an inverse relationship between the indexed value of the dollar and exports of steel mill products as a percentage of all steel mill product shipments. Most notably, decreasing values of the dollar from 2002 to 2008 are accompanied by a rise in exports as a percentage of shipments, the relatively steady value of the dollar and percentage of shipments exported are seen during 2008 to 2011 or 2012; thereafter the increasing value of the dollar corresponded with a decline in the percentage of shipments exported. This is because lower values of the dollar make it easier for foreign companies in many nations to buy American-made products.

The blue columns show a different relationship: the amounts of imported and American-made steel mill products generally tend to rise and fall together – notably from 1999 to 2002 and 2004 to 2017. Sometimes imports fall when the value of the dollar is high (e.g., 1998 to 2003) and rise when the value of the dollar is falling (e.g., 2004 to 2006 and 2011 to 2014). Total imports appear to have less to do with the value of the dollar when compared with overall demand or apparent consumption. (See Appendix Table A13 for more detail.)14 A complicating factor in the relationships is imports of semi-finished products – a subset of all steel mill product imports – can become part of domestically made finished products (Lar- kin, 2007). Nevertheless, some industry analysts maintain a high dollar value helped imports gain and keep a significant portion of the U.S. market (see Holcomb, 2020, and Masters, 2020, in particular). Other advantages facilitating imports at one time or another were lower costs (whether for labor or due to less regulation), more modern equipment, foreign government subsidies and low or even no U.S. import barriers (Larkin, 2013).15 Furthermore, domestic consumers will buy from anyone who can supply inexpensive steel because it helps them to compete at home and abroad (Miller, 2012). In- deed, imports often are necessary as apparent steel consumption in America often exceeds domestic steel production (see U.S. Geological Survey, 2002-2020), and Appendix Table A13 shows a tendency for greater reliance on net imports as a percentage of apparent consumption when the value of the dollar is high.

Industry analysts also note: • exports are relatively more important for iron-steel-ferroalloy and pipe-and-tube makers (NAICS 3311 and 33121) than they are for those manufacturing rolled, drawn and foundry products (33122 and 33151) (Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019); • except for foundries for a few years, imports exceeded exports in each subgroup for all the years for which data are readily available (Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019) and • net import reliance often is notably less than gross import figures suggest (U.S. Geological Survey, 1998-2020).16

See Table A13

This page intentionally blank

OVERVIEW AND OUTLOOKS

41 AN OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY

The iron and steel industry consists of organizations using raw materials and ferrous scrap to create semi-finished and finished products for organizations in many other industries. The major markets for iron and steel mill products (NAICS 3311) are establishments: • purchasing iron and steel to make pipes, tubes, rolled, drawn and foundry goods (3312 and 33151, the secondary manufacturers) (Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019); • fabricating metal products and assembling machinery (332 and 333); • manufacturing transportation equipment (336), largely motor vehicles, campers, trailers and parts (3361-3); • firms constructing non-residential buildings (2362 and 23812) and infrastructure – utilities plants (2371), highways and bridges (2373); • wholesalers (42351), who custom-cut goods and sell to a variety of smaller-order clients; and • exports (Holcomb, 2020).

Secondary producers exist because they have the expertise with state-of-the-art technologies to meet customers’ exact- ing specifications more rapidly and efficiently than iron and steel makers (3311) can. Their principal markets are: • for pipe and tube makers: establishments moving fluids – i.e., goods for extracting, refining and transporting oil, natural gas and derived products (211, 324 and 486), producing dairy and beverage goods (3115 and 3121), manufacturing pulp, paper, appliances (3221, 3352) and transportation equipment or components, distributing natural gas (2212), handling water and sewage (2213), as well as associated construction firms and wholesale suppliers; exports also are significant (Masters, 2020); • for manufacturers of rolled and drawn goods: establishments fabricating metal products, particularly containers, wires and springs (3324 and 3326), making appliances (3352), transportation equipment and components, generating, trans- mitting and locally distributing electric power (2211), extracting, refining and transporting oil and gas, as well as associated construction firms and wholesale suppliers (Zheng, 2019); • for foundries: molds and stocks used by iron, steel and fabricated metal products manufacturers (3311-2, 332), as well as other goods used in machinery, transportation equipment and construction (Spitzer, 2019).

Given the highly cyclical nature of many of its key markets – goods used in extracting, processing or transporting fluids, non-residential construction, fabricated metals, machinery, transportation equipment, etc. – most of the iron and steel industry is in turn highly cyclical. These individual market cycles may not be highly correlated with one another, but they ultimately and largely are driven by household and business consumption of durable goods, which often are expensive. Businesses and households are more likely to buy durable goods when they are confident they can afford them. Con- versely, they reduce or delay such expenditures when business is not so good.17

42 As organizations providing products to overlapping markets, domestic iron and steel industry organizations compete not only with one another, but with imports from foreign iron and steelmakers. They also compete with other organizations producing similar products from alternative materials. Finally, they must deal with organizations supplying their inputs and equipment as well as governmental regulations affecting their operations. Changes in these inter-organizational relationships, technologies and markets affect industry firms to varying degrees.

Perhaps the most significant long-term change has been the reduced demand for iron and steel products, evidenced by the long-term downward trend in raw steel production (see Appendix Table A7) in contrast to U.S. population and real economic growth over the decades. Several interrelated factors are thought to largely explain the change: those reducing the demand for steel, those affecting the rise of minimills, technological advances and the growth of imports.

Changes in the motor vehicle industry exemplify the reduced demand for iron and steel products. Direct shipments to the industry fell 37.1 percent from 23.2 million tons in 1973 to 14.6 million tons in 2012 (Larkin, 2013: O2). Two factors help explain its reduced demand: (1) the long-term increase in imported motor vehicles displaced sales of U.S.-brand vehicles, with the consequence that imported vehicles do not use domestically made iron and steel; and (2) companies’ efforts to improve fuel efficiency. The easiest way to improve fuel efficiency has been to reduce vehicle weight. To that end, assemblers made vehicles smaller – that choice alone uses less iron and steel – and replaced some iron and steel components with ones made from lighter weight aluminum, plastics and other materials.18

Steelmakers – among them AK Steel and ArcelorMittal here in Ohio – responded to demands for reduced weight by developing tougher alloys that weigh less (see Holcomb, 2020, and Schoenberger, 2013),19 and near net shape casting reduced the need for machining parts. Consequently, iron and steel makers regained some of the business lost to manufacturers of alternative materials. (Nevertheless, most research and development (R&D) activities – and any subsequent capital expenditures – have focused less on new products and more on improving current product quality and production processes – the latter through automation and computerization for increased efficiency and productivity, and the associated cost reductions and better inventory management. Meeting environmental regulations also has been an R&D goal (Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019).) Steelmakers also have tried to expand into markets such as residential construction (Holcomb, 2020).

At the same time demand for iron and steel was declining, raw steel production was shifting to minimills as electric arc furnace use expanded and technological advances reduced costs. Foreign producers also gained market share at the expense of domestic producers. Primary steelmakers initially sought to stay competitive by reducing fixed costs, variously selling coal and iron ore assets, selling or shutting coke ovens, and/or spinning-off service and distribution centers.20 In effect, they vertically de-integrated (Larkin, 2007; 2013: O2, O4 & O7). A few even left primary steelmaking, becoming

43 secondary producers by purchasing semi-finished products for further processing or by focusing on specialty steels. However, this strategy left companies to the vicissitudes of the markets. Subsequent price increases for raw materials prompted the remaining companies to vertically re-integrate – to a degree – as part of their efforts to control costs and as- sure steady supplies.21 The actions of two companies in Ohio were part of this movement: ArcelorMittal bought-out other owners of Canada’s Wabush Mines (Wire Report, 2007), and AK Steel acquired Solar Fuel for its reserves of low-volatile metallurgical coal, and formed a joint venture with Magnetation in iron ore production (Larkin, 2013: O3). The consolida- tions and cost reductions also made domestic steelmakers more competitive with their foreign-based rivals. In addition, foreign-based companies were affected by higher costs for raw materials and transportation (Larkin, 2013: I4). Still, foreign companies remain highly competitive given their advantages and the pressure of global overcapacity (see Holcomb, 2020, and Masters, 2020, in particular).

Similarly, high scrap prices compelled some minimills to internal sourcing, either by purchasing scrap suppliers or by producing directly reduced iron themselves. This vertical integration raised their fixed costs, reducing an advantage vis-à-vis primary producers, whom they now more closely resemble (Larkin, 2013: I2-I3, O3-O4). (High scrap prices alone reduce minimills’ cost advantage; primary producers are less affected by such high prices because they typically use a 3::1 ratio of pig iron to scrap for steel production (Larkin, 2007: 10).)

Despite cost reduction efforts, the combination of reduced customer demand and the market share gains by minimills and foreign producers forced a substantial contraction of primary steel (and associated pig iron) production. Inefficient plants were closed, and the number of primary steel companies was reduced via bankruptcies and mergers (Larkin, 2013: O2; also see U.S. Geological Survey, 2002-2020). Some saw opportunities in the bankruptcies. One example involving facilities in Ohio illustrates. W.L. Ross formed the International Steel Group (ISG) by purchasing the only the assets of LTV, Bethlehem and Weirton. This became feasible and attractive when the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. assumed the pension plans and health care benefits of the liquidating companies.22 Successor companies also controlled costs by reducing the size of their work forces, including fewer levels of management, and changing work rules and classifications to permit greater flexibility in what people do. Indeed, ISG’s management structure resembled that of a minimill, and it operated so efficiently (probably using more modern equipment, too) that it produced 90 percent of what LTV did with only one-fourth of the production workers. ISG subsequently merged with Ispat International NV to form Mittal NV. In turn, the merger of Arcelor and Mittal created the world’s largest steel company (Larkin, 2005, 2007).23

Such selective asset purchases were part of the international consolidation of the industry. While globalization has been blamed for the relentless pressure on U.S.-based manufacturers, it also afforded American plants that are part of multi- national companies the opportunity to improve efficiency by learning from co-workers overseas. For example, ArcelorMit- tal’s Burns Harbor, Indiana, plant improved productivity by adopting the best practices of a similar ArcelorMittal plant in

44 Belgium. This included modern equipment and the related automation – particularly computerization – of much of the process (which lead to the improvement of workers’ skills), greater flexibility in performing tasks, and a kaizen-like attention to the details of process improvement. The steel industry is part of the encompassing trend in American manufacturing: fewer-but-more-highly-skilled workers in more automated factories (Miller, 2012).

Another consequence of consolidation is that steel mill and pipe-and-tube production in America (NAICS 3311 and 33121) are now close to oligopolistic. The five largest steel companies – AK, ArcelorMittal, Nucor, Steel Dynamics and U.S. Steel – and the four largest pipe-and-tube companies – OAO TMK, Tenaris, U.S. Steel and Vallourec – accounted for 57.7 and 59.9 percent of their respective industry revenue (Holcomb, 2020; Master, 2020). (AK, ArcelorMittal, Nucor and Vallourec have the more notable operations in Ohio; Tenaris will have a presence after it completes its purchase of Ipsco from OAO; and U.S. Steel still has a small operation in Lorain.) Oligopolistic is less applicable to other industry segments: the two largest rolling and drawing companies are Worthington Industries (which has extensive operations here) and Leggett and Platt with 12.3 percent and 2.3 percent of industry revenue (Zheng, 2019), while the two largest foundry companies combine for 20.0 percent (Spitzer, 2019).

Despite trends towards oligopoly, the iron and steel industry generally remains highly competitive due to its organizational environment. Iron and steel makers compete with manufacturers using alternative materials (mostly aluminum and plastics) for contracts to supply goods to major buyers (who are important revenue sources and may have significant bargaining power). Even when steel is chosen, domestic producers compete with imports, which are a significant portion of domestic consumption (Holcomb, 2020; U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). Similarly, pipe and tube manufacturers compete with others using cement, pre-stressed concrete, cast iron (from foundries) or fiberglass-reinforced plastics; again, when steel is chosen, domestic producers compete with imports, which have an even larger portion of the U.S. market (Masters, 2020). Manufacturers of rolled and drawn products compete with others using aluminum, composites, concrete or wood to supply many of the same markets (Zheng, 2019). Competition is less intense among foundries, due in part to smaller production volumes, closer collaboration with buyers in customizing products, and the much small role of imports (Spitzer, 2019).

Like many business establishments, the iron and steel industry is subject to governmental regulations concerning zoning, pollution, working conditions, and health and safety. Most of the industry differs little from many other manufacturers in these regards (Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019); the exception is rolling and drawing purchased steel is comparatively lightly regulated (Zheng, 2019). Conversely, governmental assistance is provided to industry organizations in various forms. While industry production is not subsidized, loans have been provided in times of financial crises and quotas have been negotiated on occasion. In addition, federally funded transportation and infrastructure projects require purchases of U.S-made foundry products (Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019). The big change

45 in the last couple of years has been the impositions of high tariffs, which heretofore usually were low or non-existent. (It was antidumping and countervailing duties that were high, but they targeted specific countries and are subject to review by the World Trade Organization.)24 The tariffs intended to help the industry by making imports more expensive than domestically made iron and steel, and initially they had the desired effect: prices and profits rose for awhile, giving companies opportunities for repairs or improving plant efficiency, regaining competitiveness and even expansions; some announced the reopening of idled mills and/or hiring workers – Republic’s Lorain mill is one example of the last.25

However, the boost from tariffs appears short-lived; steel prices have declined, reducing or eliminating profits for some, and unintended consequences appeared. While the tariffs helped primary producers, minimills – whose costs are in- herently less than primary producers’ – also took advantage of the tariffs and made major investments in new production capacity, potentially leading to a glut and more pressure on prices and profits. The initial higher prices for steel lead customers to make any number of changes to offset their increased costs: delaying investments or hiring or turning to alternative materials. It also is questionable whether tariffs created jobs; U.S. industry employment increased 0.4 percent from February 2018 (the month before tariffs went into effect) through November 2019 (the latest available at this writing), while total non-farm employment increased 4.5 percent during the same time (drawn from Perkins, 2019; Sapra and Wiserman, 2019; Simon, 2019; Tita and Maher, 2019; U.S. BLS, 2020). Recognizing existing tariffs have not been as effective as hoped, the administration has expanded them to cover additional steel mill products (Staff and Wire Report, 2020). Final- ly, it has long been known that import restrictions are a motive for foreign-based companies to set up operations here, either by themselves, or in joint ventures with domestic companies (Matthews, 2007b).

Foundries stand apart from the rest of the iron and steel industry in some ways. Some foundries mass produce one or a few items and require large investments to realize economies of scale and stay competitive, and the speed of conveyance is important for efficient production at such establishments. Such foundries typically are divisions of industrial machinery makers or motor vehicle assemblers. Others make one item at a time with little or no movement of the product. Some fall in between the two extremes, making small production runs; here, production setups remain flexible and speed is deter- mined by the rate at which molds can be made. Because so much of foundry production is either proprietary for a parent or customized for myriad uses (producers and consumers collaborate on product design in both circumstances), barriers to entry are lower than for the rest of the industry, and the industry remains fragmented despite recent mergers and ac- quisitions. These factors also help explain why foundries have been relatively unaffected by globalization, competition within the industry is about average when compared with all others, imports are a small part of the domestic market and exports are an even smaller market for domestic foundries (Goddard, 2015; Spitzer, 2019).

46 THE NEAR- AND LONG-TERM OUTLOOKS HERE

Many of the industry characteristics and their impacts producing the changes described in preceding sections are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Although complete results for 2019 are not in at this writing, it has been shap- ing-up as a down year for the industry. However, bearing in mind the varied and sometimes countervailing factors affecting the industry, analysts have made these national forecasts for 2020 to 2025:

• Real demand after adjusting for inflation is expected to grow at annual rates between 0.9 and 2.0 percent; • Real GDP growth (i.e., production) is expected at annual rates between 1.7 and 2.2 percent – on par with or slightly slower than overall economic growth; • However, jobs are expected to be added at lower annual rates ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 percent with real wages virtually unchanged; • Export revenue as a percent of total revenue is expected to remain nearly constant at 9.7 to 9.8 percent, and imports’ share of domestic demand may fluctuate between 27.6 to 27.8 percent; consequently, the trade deficit’s impact on the industry is expected to be unchanged even as it may grow (with the economy) in absolute terms; • The numbers of industry companies and establishments may increase at annual rates above 2.3 percent in 2020, but taper off to rates less than 1.7 percent by 2025; while increasing numbers indicate new entrants into the industry, the slightly greater rates for establishments compared to companies may reflect the varied impacts of mergers, acquisi- tions and or diversification; • Despite growth, levels of demand, output, imports, exports, establishments, companies and jobs are forecast to remain below pre-recession peaks (drawn from Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019).

These predictions largely reflect predictions for the iron-steel-ferroalloy group (NAICS 3311) because the latter comprises about two-thirds of industry production. Variations are more likely to be seen in the other three subgroups:

• Growth in demand and output is expected to faster in pipes-and-tubes (33121) and slower in rolling-and-drawing and foundries (33122 and 33151); • Job growth is expected to be faster in pipes-and-tubes and slower in rolling-and-drawing and foundries; • Exports and imports will continue to play the largest roles in the pipes-and-tubes industry, followed by the iron-steel- ferroalloys group, rolling-and-drawing, with foundries the least affected; balance of trade deficits will remain in all four; • The numbers of pipes-and-tubes companies and establishments are expected to grow at the fastest rates, followed by iron-steel-ferroalloys, then rolling-and-drawing, with foundry numbers in near steady states (compare Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019).

47 The forecasts for industry output and job growth, and even higher company and establishment counts, during the next few years may be based on expectations of growing demand from the key markets of construction, transportation equipment, other durable goods industries or the handling and transporting fluids – and ultimately by a continuation of the current over-all expansion; no one is forecasting a recession (a difficult thing to do). Export and import growth may be parts of this arc. Also underlying these predictions are various assumptions: there will be no unforeseen major disruptions from outside the system such as global health crises, there will be little or no change in the value of the dollar, trade patterns and supply chains will not be disrupted, input costs will be stable, and there will be no major strikes or dramatic changes in competition from alternative materials.

Over the longer term – i.e. regardless of cyclical or other short-term changes – the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2018) expects national output from the combined iron-steel-ferroalloy and steel-products-from-purchased-steel groups (NAICS 3311 and 3312) to grow at average annual rate of 2.3 percent from 2016 through 2026, with the former’s growth rate greater than the latter’s – 2.6 vs. 1.5 percent. By comparison, the economy’s overall rate is expected to average 2.1 percent.

Despite the prospects for real, inflation-adjust growth, both the Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services’ Labor Market Infor- mation division (ODJFS-LMI, 2018) and the U.S. BLS project net declines in industry employment here and for the nation as a whole. Job losses – both in absolute and relative terms – for Ohio and the U.S. are forecast to be greater in the iron- steel-ferroalloys group than in the steel-products-from-purchased-steel group.26

See Table A14

This page intentionally blank

APPENDICES

50 DETAILED TABLES

51 Table A1: Notable^ Iron and Steel Manufacturing Companies in Ohio, 2019

Jobs1 Parent/Co./Div. - Trade Style NAICS City Total at Site AK Steel Holding Corp.* (being bought by Cleveland-Cliffs*) 2,980 AK Steel Corp. (HQ and related support staff)2 551114 West Chester 300 AK Steel Corp.3 3311 Middletown 2,100 AK Steel Corp.4 3311 Mansfield 300 AK Steel Corp.5 331221 Coshocton 150 AK Steel Corp.6 331221 Zanesville 130 Allegheny Technologies, Inc.*/ATI Louisville Operations 331221 Louisville 26 ArcelorMittal SA*7 2,716 ArcelorMittal Richfield (regional HQ) 551114 Richfield 50 ArcelorMittal Cleveland 3311 Cleveland 1,877 ArcelorMittal Marion 33121 Marion 102 ArcelorMittal Shelby 33121 Shelby 687 BlueScope Steel Ltd. /North Star BlueScope Steel LLC14 3311 Delta 400 Carpenter Technology Corp.*/Latrobe Specialty Metals Co., LLC 331222 Wauseon 76 Charter Mfg. Co., Inc./Charter Steel9 3311 Cleveland 410 Industrias CH, SAB de CV8 865 Republic Steel Hot-rolled Plant (regional HQ) 551114 Canton 55 Republic Steel Canton Bloom Casting 3311 Canton 600 Republic Steel (pig iron)10 3311 Lorain 10 Republic Steel Cold-finished Plant 331221 Massillon 200 McWane, Inc./McWane Ductile5 33151 Coshocton 450 Mitsui & Co., Ltd.*/Steel Technologies LLC8 331221 Ottawa 110 Nucor Corp.*/Nucor Steel Marion, Inc.11 3311 Marion 263 Osco Industries, Inc.7 410 Osco Industries, Inc. 33151 Jackson 140 Osco Industries, Inc. 33151 Portsmouth 200 Osco Industries, Inc. 33151 New Boston 70

52 Table A1: Notable^ Iron and Steel Manufacturing Companies in Ohio, 2019

Jobs1 Parent/Co./Div. - Trade Style NAICS City Total at Site TimkenSteel Corp. 2,726 TimkenSteel Corp. (HQ, Harrison, Gambrinus & Faircrest plants)12 551114 Canton 2,659 & 3311 TimkenSteel Corp. (St. Clair) 33121 Eaton 67 United States Steel Corp.*/US Steel Tubular Products13 33121 Lorain 167 Vallourec SA8 310 VAM USA LLC 33121 Youngstown 50 Vallourec Star LP 33121 Youngstown 260 Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies (WABTec) Corp.*/SanCasT, Inc.2 33151 Coshocton 38 Worthington Industries, Inc.* 840 Worthington Industries, Inc. HQ 551114 Worthington 250 Worthington Steel Co. 331513 Monroe 165 Worthington Steel Co. 331221 Cleveland 175 Worthington Steelpac Systems LLC 33151 Columbus 250 Notes and sources: ^ - "notable" means either (a) a company employing at least 400 people in Ohio, (b) a Fortune U.S.- 1,000 or Global-500 company with at least 25 people here or (c ) a major melt facility; * - a Fortune company; 1 - jobs figures are from Hoover's (2019) unless otherwise noted; all jobs figures are the best available estimates, but their currency and accuracy cannot be guaranteed; 2 - jobs figure from Lexis-Nexis (2019); 3 - jobs figure based on Butler Co. Auditor (2019); 4 - jobs figure from Martz (2017); 5 - jobs figure from Reporter (2018); 6 - jobs figure from Schwartz- berg (2018); 7 - jobs figures from company website; 8 - jobs figure from Office of Research (2018a); 9 - jobs figure based on Miller (2017); 10 - a recent article states more than 60 people have been hired and trained in anticipation of a mill restart this year (Perkins, 2019); 11 - jobs figure from Wikipedia (2019); 12 - jobs figure from Stark Co. Auditor (2019); 13 - jobs figure based on Nix (2017); 14 - jobs figure from Fulton County Expositor (2019).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614-466-2116 (DL, 11/19).

53 Table A2: Expansion and Attraction Announcements in Ohio's Iron and Steel Industry, 2015-2018

NAICS Announced Anticipated Year Company Area Code Product Investment New Jobs

2015 Charter Manufacturing Co. Cuyahoga Heights 3311 Steel $6,000,000 20 2015 Major Metals Co. Washington Twp. 3312 Metal tubing $1,500,000 18 2015 Precision Strip, Inc. Kenton 3312 Steel $1,000,000 2015 Totals $8,500,000 38

2016 Hi Tech Wire, Inc. St. Henry 3312 Wire products $2,300,000 5 2016 Jackson Tube Service, Inc. Piqua 3312 Metal tubing $1,300,000 2016 Worthington Industries, Inc. York Twp. 3311 Galvanized steel $11,600,000 26 2016 Totals $15,200,000 31

2017 AMG Vanadium LLC Byesville 3311 Vanadium ore processing $6,000,000 2017 Charter Manufacturing Co. Cuyahoga Heights 3311 Steel bar $150,000,000 25 2017 Cleveland-Cliffs Toledo 3311 Iron briquettes $567,000,000 130 2017 McWane, Inc. Coshocton 33151 Cast iron pipe $17,500,000 2017 North Star Bluescope Steel LLC Delta 3311 Steel coils $10,000,000 2017 Nucor, Inc. Marion 3311 Steel $85,000,000 15 2017 TimkenSteel Corp. Eaton 3311 Steel products $9,000,000 12 2017 Totals $844,500,000 182

2018 JSW Steel USA Ohio, Inc. Mingo Junction 3311 Steel $270,000,000 280 2018 Republic Steel, Inc. Canton 3311 Steel $6,000,000 75 2018 Republic Steel, Inc. Lorain 3311 Steel $900,000 125 2018 Totals $276,900,000 480

Grand Totals $1,145,100,000 731

Source: Office of Research, ODSA (2016b-2019b).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/19).

54 Table A3: Iron and Steel Industry Concentration in Ohio

From Ohio Ohio as Year, Subject & Amount Distribution U.S. Totals a Percent NAICS Codes Industry Title (millions) in Ohio (millions) of the U.S.

2016 GDP*: Total $621,363 $18,707,189 3.3% 331 Primary Metals $5,917 $56,878 10.4% 2016 Value-Added: 331* Primary Metals $8,904 100.0% $79,866 11.1% 3311-2 Iron & Steel Industry (Exc. Foundries) $3,485 39.1% $35,916 9.7% 3311 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloys $2,779 31.2% $29,077 9.6% 3312 Steel Products from Purchased Steel $707 7.9% $6,839 10.3% 2012 Value-Added: Primary Metals $7,998 $85,371 9.4% 3311-2, 33151 Iron & Steel Industry $5,716 100.0% $51,732 11.0% 3311 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloys $3,501 61.2% $32,409 12.7% 3312 Steel Products from Purchased Steel $1,196 20.9% $9,038 13.2% 33121 Iron & Steel Pipes & Tubes $833 14.6% $5,088 16.4% 33122 Rolling & Drawing Purchased Steel $363 6.4% $3,950 9.2% 331221 Rolled Steel Shapes $217 3.8% $2,135 10.2% 331222 Steel Wire Drawing $146 2.6% $1,815 8.1% 33151 Ferrous Metal Foundries $1,019 17.8% $10,286 9.9% 331511 Iron Foundries $438 7.7% $5,552 7.9% 331512 Steel Investment Foundries $330 5.8% $2,400 13.7% 331513 Steel Foundries (Exc. Investment) $251 4.4% $2,334 10.7% Notes: * - Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures are subject revision; due to minor technical differences, state GDP figures are analogous to, but not identical with, national GDP; GDP figures for primary metals are less than value- added (VA) figures because GDP subtracts additional costs included in VA; exc. - except.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2018a, 2015c); U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2019).

55 Table A4: Establishments and Employment in the Iron and Steel Industry, Ohio and U.S., 2017

Ohio U.S. Ohio as a Per- cent of the U.S. Mean per Mean per NAICS Estab- Employ- Estab- Estab- Employ- Estab- Estab- Employ- Codes Short Title lishments ment lishment lishments ment lishment lishments ment

Total Covered Employment 253,001 4,815,946 19.0 7,860,674 128,591,812 16.4 3.2% 3.7%

3311-2, 51 Iron & Steel Industry 181 23,105 127.7 1,880 197,063 104.8 9.6% 11.7%

3311 Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 48 10,931 227.7 522 93,552 179.2 9.2% 11.7%

3312 Steel product mfg. from purchased steel 64 6,318 98.7 697 46,206 66.3 9.2% 13.7% 33121 Iron, steel pipe & tube mfg. from purchased steel 24 4,135 172.3 241 23,495 97.5 10.0% 17.6% 33122 Rolling & drawing of purchased steel 40 2,183 54.6 456 22,711 49.8 8.8% 9.6% 331221 Rolled steel shapes 21 1,099 52.3 204 8,126 39.8 10.3% 13.5% 331222 Steel wire drawing 19 1,084 57.1 252 14,585 57.9 7.5% 7.4%

33151 Ferrous metal foundries 69 5,856 84.9 661 57,305 86.7 10.4% 10.2% 331511 Iron foundries 37 3,416 92.3 346 32,738 94.6 10.7% 10.4% 331512 Steel investment foundries 14 1,689 120.6 114 12,986 113.9 12.3% 13.0% 331513 Steel foundries (exc. investment) 18 751 41.7 201 11,581 57.6 9.0% 6.5%

Abbreviations used: exc. - excluding; mfg. - manufacturing.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2019b).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 800/848-1300, or 614/466-2116 (DL, 12/19).

56 Table A5: Employment and Pay in the Iron and Steel Industry, Ohio and U.S., 2017

Ohio U.S.

Mean Mean Ohio Means as NAICS Employ- Annual Pay per Employ- Annual Pay per Percentages Codes Short Title ment Pay (000) Worker ment Pay (000) Worker of U.S. Means

Total Covered Employment 4,815,946 $224,627,600 $46,642 128,591,812 $6,725,346,754 $52,300 89.2%

3311-2, 51 Iron & Steel Industry 23,105 $1,634,768 $70,754 197,063 $13,587,288 $68,949 102.6%

3311 Iron & steel mills 10,931 $881,871 $80,676 93,552 $7,667,091 $81,955 98.4%

3312 Steel product mfg. from purchased steel 6,318 $405,033 $64,108 46,206 $2,612,231 $56,534 113.4% 33121 Iron & steel pipes & tubes 4,135 $274,575 $66,403 23,495 $1,413,320 $60,154 110.4% 33122 Rolling & drawing 2,183 $130,458 $59,761 22,711 $1,198,911 $52,790 113.2% 331221 Rolled steel shapes 1,099 $73,288 $66,686 8,126 $470,635 $57,917 115.1% 331222 Steel wire drawing 1,084 $57,170 $52,740 14,585 $728,276 $49,933 105.6%

33151 Ferrous metal foundries 5,856 $347,864 $59,403 57,305 $3,307,966 $57,726 102.9% 331511 Iron foundries 3,416 $225,939 $66,141 32,738 $1,903,507 $58,144 113.8% 331512 Steel investment foundries 1,689 $80,915 $47,907 12,986 $734,152 $56,534 84.7% 331513 Steel foundries (exc. investment) 751 $41,010 $54,607 11,581 $670,307 $57,880 94.3%

Abbreviations used: exc. - excluding; mfg. - manufacturing.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2019b).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 800/848-1300, or 614/466-2116 (DL, 12/19).

57 Table A6: Establishments and Employment in Ohio's Iron and Steel Industry, by County, 2016

Estab- Employ- Estab- Employ- Estab- Employ- Area Name lishments ment* Area Name lishments ment* Area Name lishments ment*

Ohio 189 23,996 Greene 1 28 Morrow 0 0 Guernsey 1 143 Muskingum 2 285 Adams 0 0 Hamilton 5 314 Noble 0 0 Allen 1 66 Hancock 4 506 Ottawa 0 0 Ashland 0 0 Hardin 2 57 Paulding 1 28 Ashtabula 1 28 Harrison 0 0 Perry 1 143 Athens 0 0 Henry 1 28 Pickaway 0 0 Auglaize 2 171 Highland 0 0 Pike 0 0 Belmont 0 0 Hocking 0 0 Portage 0 0 Brown 0 0 Holmes 2 10 Preble 0 0 Butler 6 2,064 Huron 0 0 Putnam 1 143 Carroll 0 0 Jackson 2 145 Richland 6 1,125 Champaign 1 7 Jefferson 3 33 Ross 0 0 Clark 1 28 Knox 0 0 Sandusky 0 0 Clermont 0 0 Lake 5 1,028 Scioto 2 209 Clinton 1 15 Lawrence 0 0 Seneca 0 0 Columbiana 7 188 Licking 0 0 Shelby 1 28 Coshocton 3 733 Logan 1 28 Stark 15 4,475 Crawford 0 0 Lorain 4 1,171 Summit 7 277 Cuyahoga 19 3,006 Lucas 5 243 Trumbull 11 1,054 Darke 1 7 Madison 1 28 Tuscarawas 3 186 Defiance 1 1,183 Mahoning 8 654 Union 2 22 Delaware 3 148 Marion 3 428 Van Wert 0 0 Erie 1 143 Medina 2 95 Vinton 0 0 Fairfield 0 0 Meigs 0 0 Warren 1 15 Fayette 0 0 Mercer 0 0 Washington 6 434 Franklin 7 1,064 Miami 3 300 Wayne 4 646 Fulton 4 266 Monroe 0 0 Williams 2 43 Gallia 0 0 Montgomery 8 195 Wood 2 158 Geauga 1 3 Morgan 0 0 Wyandot 1 143

Note: * - All county employment figures should be considered estimates. The fact that the sum of the county figures - 23,970 - is 99.9 percent of the state total seen above means that the county estimates tend to be very slightly low, but estimates for specific counties could be notably off the mark.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2018b) and various company websites (2019).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614-466-2116 (DL, 12/19).

58 Table A7: Raw Steel Production in Ohio and the U.S., 1973-2019 (in millions of net tons, except ranks and percentages)^

Ohio U.S. Ohio U.S. Percent Percent Percent Percent Change Change Ohio as Change Change Ohio as Raw from Raw from Percent Ohio's Raw from Raw from Percent Ohio's Steel Prior Steel Prior of U.S. Rank Steel Prior Steel Prior of U.S. Rank Year Output Year Output Year Output in U.S. Year Output Year Output Year Output in U.S.

1973 26.5 11.1% 150.8 13.2% 17.6% 2 1997 15.2 -9.8% 108.6 3.1% 14.0% 2 1974 25.3 -4.7% 145.7 -3.4% 17.3% 2 1998 17.4 14.4% 108.7 0.1% 16.0% 2 1975 19.6 -22.3% 116.6 -20.0% 16.8% 3 1999 17.2 -1.2% 107.4 -1.2% 16.0% 2 1976 22.4 14.3% 128.0 9.7% 17.5% 2 2000 18.0 4.7% 112.4 4.7% 16.0% 2 1977 21.5 -4.3% 125.3 -2.1% 17.1% 3 2001 15.9 -11.7% 99.3 -11.7% 16.0% 2 1978 21.3 -0.9% 137.0 9.3% 15.5% 3 2002 14.1 -11.0% 101.0 1.7% 14.0% 2 1979 21.1 -0.9% 136.3 -0.5% 15.5% 3 2003 15.5 9.6% 103.3 2.3% 15.0% 2 1980 16.1 -23.6% 111.8 -18.0% 14.4% 3 2004 15.4 -0.7% 109.9 6.4% 14.0% 2 1981 18.1 12.4% 120.8 8.0% 15.0% 3 2005 16.7 8.8% 104.6 -4.8% 16.0% 2 1982 12.2 -32.7% 74.6 -38.3% 16.3% 2 2006 17.3 3.5% 108.2 3.5% 16.0% 2 1983 14.6 19.7% 84.6 13.5% 17.2% 2 2007 16.2 -6.3% 108.1 -0.1% 15.0% 2 1984 15.4 5.8% 92.5 9.4% 16.7% 2 2008 14.2 -12.6% 101.3 -6.3% 14.0% 2 1985 14.1 -8.7% 88.3 -4.6% 16.0% 2 2009 6.5 -53.8% 65.5 -35.4% 10.0% 2 1986 14.5 3.0% 81.6 -7.5% 17.8% 2 2010 8.9 35.5% 88.7 35.5% 10.0% 2 1987 16.3 12.0% 89.2 9.2% 18.2% 2 2011 11.4 28.8% 95.2 7.3% 12.0% 2 1988 17.7 8.6% 99.9 12.1% 17.7% 2 2012 13.7 19.8% 97.8 2.7% 14.0% 2 1989 16.5 -6.5% 97.9 -2.0% 16.9% 2 2013 11.5 -16.0% 95.8 -2.0% 12.0% 2 1990 16.8 1.6% 98.9 1.0% 17.0% 2 2014 12.6 10.0% 97.2 1.5% 13.0% 2 1991 14.2 -13.9% 87.9 -10.3% 16.2% 2 2015 11.3 -10.7% 86.9 -10.7% 13.0% 2 1992 15.5 -7.4% 92.9 -6.0% 16.7% 2 2016 9.5 -15.7% 86.5 -0.4% 11.0% 2 1993 16.1 3.7% 97.9 5.3% 16.5% 2 2017 10.8 13.4% 89.9 3.9% 12.0% 2 1994 16.7 3.6% 100.6 2.8% 16.6% 2 2018 11.5 6.1% 95.5 6.1% 12.0% 2 1995 16.8 0.6% 104.9 4.3% 16.0% 2 2019* 11.5 0.5% 95.9 0.5% 12.0% 2 1996 16.8 0.3% 105.3 0.3% 16.0% 2

Notes: ^ - percentages are based on unrounded numbers; * - preliminary, subject to revision; data after 1994 from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Sources: American Iron and Steel Institute (1974, 1978, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1992, 1996); U.S. Geological Survey (1996-2020).

Prepared by: Office Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 2/20).

59 Table A8: Trends in Value-Added for Ohio and the U.S., 2007-2016

`07-`16 Area Name / NAICS: Title 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* Averages

In millions of current dollars: Ohio: 331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $5,958 $6,935 $1,194 $4,554 $5,779 $4,697 $4,560 $5,144 $4,040 $3,485 $4,635 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $4,680 $5,381 $520 $3,864 $4,956 $3,501 $3,513 $4,095 $3,294 $2,779 $3,658 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $1,278 $1,554 $674 $689 $822 $1,196 $1,047 $1,049 $746 $707 $976

U.S.: 331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $44,575 $51,517 $17,736 $38,183 $47,387 $41,446 $42,675 $44,355 $36,224 $35,916 $40,001 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $37,002 $43,262 $14,715 $31,862 $39,770 $32,409 $33,951 $35,852 $29,351 $29,077 $32,725 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $7,573 $8,255 $3,021 $6,321 $7,616 $9,038 $8,724 $8,503 $6,873 $6,839 $7,276

Ohio as a percentage of U.S. value-added: 331(p): Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products 13.4% 13.5% 6.7% 11.9% 12.2% 11.3% 10.7% 11.6% 11.2% 9.7% 11.6% 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 12.6% 12.4% 3.5% 12.1% 12.5% 10.8% 10.3% 11.4% 11.2% 9.6% 11.2% 3312: Steel products from purchased steel 16.9% 18.8% 22.3% 10.9% 10.8% 13.2% 12.0% 12.3% 10.9% 10.3% 13.4%

For constant dollars, standardized on 2012: Producer Price Index for 3311: 160.8 188.3 137.9 163.3 183.6 175.3 164.8 170.7 148.4 139.0 Producer Price Index for 3312: 151.1 188.7 156.6 168.9 189.3 187.0 178.3 179.2 164.0 160.0

Ohio: 331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $6,685 $6,549 $1,466 $4,912 $5,544 $4,697 $4,833 $5,301 $4,742 $4,330 $4,906 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $5,102 $5,009 $661 $4,149 $4,732 $3,501 $3,735 $4,206 $3,891 $3,504 $3,849 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $1,582 $1,540 $805 $763 $812 $1,196 $1,098 $1,095 $851 $826 $1,057

U.S.: 331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $49,716 $48,453 $22,314 $41,204 $45,494 $41,446 $45,252 $45,693 $42,507 $44,663 $42,674 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $40,340 $40,272 $18,706 $34,205 $37,971 $32,409 $36,103 $36,821 $34,667 $36,668 $34,816 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $9,376 $8,181 $3,607 $6,999 $7,523 $9,038 $9,149 $8,872 $7,840 $7,995 $7,858

Ohio as a percentage of U.S. value-added: 331(p): Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products 13.4% 13.5% 6.6% 11.9% 12.2% 11.3% 10.7% 11.6% 11.2% 9.7% 11.5% 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 12.6% 12.4% 3.5% 12.1% 12.5% 10.8% 10.3% 11.4% 11.2% 9.6% 11.1% 3312: Steel products from purchased steel 16.9% 18.8% 22.3% 10.9% 10.8% 13.2% 12.0% 12.3% 10.9% 10.3% 13.5%

Notes: * - Initial; earlier years may be revised; p - part.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2011a-2018a, 2010c, 2015c), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/19).

60 Table A9: Trends in Capital Expenditures for Ohio and the U.S., 2007-2016 (in millions of current dollars)

`07-`16 Area Name / NAICS: Title 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* Averages

Ohio: 331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $468 $322 $166 $191 $461 $604 $419 $267 $213 $245 $336 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $409 $265 $113 $173 $284 $253 $371 $126 $150 $170 $231 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $59 $57 $54 $18 $177 $351 $48 $140 $62 $75 $104

U.S.: 331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $3,672 $5,002 $3,459 $3,752 $3,948 $4,682 $4,080 $2,991 $2,530 $3,464 $3,758 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $3,220 $4,506 $3,021 $3,289 $2,634 $3,071 $3,302 $2,294 $1,656 $2,694 $2,969 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $452 $496 $438 $463 $1,314 $1,612 $778 $697 $874 $770 $790

Ohio as a percentage of U.S. capital expenditures: 331(p): Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products 12.7% 6.4% 4.8% 5.1% 11.7% 12.9% 10.3% 8.9% 8.4% 7.1% 8.9% 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 12.7% 5.9% 3.7% 5.2% 10.8% 8.2% 11.2% 5.5% 9.1% 6.3% 7.8% 3312: Steel products from purchased steel 13.0% 11.5% 12.3% 3.9% 13.5% 21.8% 6.2% 20.1% 7.1% 9.7% 13.2%

Ratio: Percentage of Valued-Added in Ohio to to Percentage of Capital Expenditures in Ohio: 331(p): Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products 1.05 2.09 1.40 2.35 1.04 0.88 1.04 1.30 1.33 1.37 1.30 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 1.00 2.11 0.95 2.31 1.16 1.31 0.92 2.07 1.24 1.51 1.43 3312: Steel products from purchased steel 1.30 1.64 1.82 2.82 0.80 0.61 1.95 0.61 1.52 1.06 1.02

Notes: * - Initial; earlier years may be revised; p - part.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2011a-2018a, 2010c, 2015c), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/19).

61 Table A10: Detailed Iron and Steel Industry Establishment Trends in Ohio and the U.S., 2007-17

Changes: 2007-2017 NAICS Code Shorter Industry Title 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Percent

Ohio: 11-92 Total* 270,299 263,761 256,551 253,491 250,476 250,842 250,117 250,535 251,668 252,201 253,001 -17,298 -6.4% 31-33 Manufacturing 16,174 15,941 15,212 14,729 14,526 14,489 14,237 14,208 14,139 14,000 13,902 -2,272 -14.0%

3311-2, 51 Iron & steel industry 208 195 187 187 188 191 175 183 180 189 181 -27 -13.0% 3311 Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 64 62 62 60 55 61 58 59 56 63 48 -16 -25.0% 3312 Steel products from purchased steel 69 64 55 52 61 60 51 54 54 57 64 -5 -7.2% 33121 Iron & steel pipes & tubes 27 23 19 17 22 25 20 19 20 22 24 -3 -11.1% 33122 Rolling & drawing 42 41 36 35 39 35 31 35 34 35 40 -2 -4.8% 331221 Rolled steel shapes 24 18 16 15 19 16 13 17 17 15 21 -3 -12.5% 331222 Steel wire drawing 18 23 20 20 20 19 18 18 17 20 19 1 5.6% 33151 Ferrous metal foundries 75 69 70 75 72 70 66 70 70 69 69 -6 -8.0% 331511 Iron foundries 48 39 40 42 41 40 38 41 39 39 37 -11 -22.9% 331512 Steel investment foundries 13 16 16 16 15 15 13 14 14 13 14 1 7.7% 331513 Steel foundries (exc. investment) 14 14 14 17 16 15 15 15 17 17 18 4 28.6%

U.S.: 11-92 Total* 7,705,018 7,601,169 7,433,465 7,396,628 7,354,043 7,431,808 7,488,353 7,563,085 7,663,938 7,757,807 7,860,674 155,656 2.0% 31-33 Manufacturing 331,355 326,216 308,934 299,982 295,643 297,221 292,094 292,543 292,825 291,543 290,936 -40,419 -12.2%

3311-2, 51 Iron & steel industry 2,435 2,230 2,026 2,052 2,044 2,028 1,915 1,954 1,979 1,961 1,880 -555 -22.8% 3311 Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 901 698 588 607 592 562 534 577 603 611 522 -379 -42.1% 3312 Steel products from purchased steel 699 724 645 660 691 723 657 663 667 673 697 -2 -0.3% 33121 Iron & steel pipes & tubes 264 242 201 230 250 262 232 241 247 257 241 -23 -8.7% 33122 Rolling & drawing 435 482 444 430 441 461 425 422 420 416 456 21 4.8% 331221 Rolled steel shapes 183 212 168 161 177 167 161 174 176 171 204 21 11.5% 331222 Steel wire drawing 252 270 276 269 264 294 264 248 244 245 252 0 0.0% 33151 Ferrous metal foundries 835 808 793 785 761 743 724 714 709 677 661 -174 -20.8% 331511 Iron foundries 496 456 443 434 426 407 398 393 387 375 346 -150 -30.2% 331512 Steel investment foundries 128 132 131 131 128 128 119 118 118 113 114 -14 -10.9% 331513 Steel foundries (exc. investment) 211 220 219 220 207 208 207 203 204 189 201 -10 -4.7%

Notes: * - excludes farm, railroad and government establishments; exc. - except.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2009b-2019b).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 12/19).

62 Table A11: Detailed Iron and Steel Industry Employment Trends in Ohio and the U.S., 2007-17

Changes: 2007-2017 NAICS Code Shorter Industry Title 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number Percent

Ohio: 11-92 Total (in thousands)* 4,782.1 4,728.4 4,460.6 4,352.5 4,432.8 4,548.1 4,587.1 4,636.8 4,720.0 4,790.2 4,815.9 33.8 0.7% 31-33 Manufacturing (in thousands) 761.2 742.8 638.5 599.1 614.0 630.5 632.7 643.0 663.9 662.4 666.9 -94.3 -12.4%

3311-2, 51 Iron & steel industry 29,121 30,715 25,183 23,295 24,277 25,630 24,542 24,763 25,821 23,996 23,105 -6,016 -20.7% 3311 Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 14,186 17,347 13,587 12,757 13,547 13,542 11,887 11,912 13,113 12,584 10,931 -3,255 -22.9% 3312 Steel products from purchased steel 5,993 4,364 4,163 3,870 4,333 5,462 5,616 5,818 5,441 4,943 6,318 325 5.4% 33121 Iron & steel pipes & tubes 2,815 2,067 2,031 1,799 2,033 3,495 3,446 3,480 3,564 3,362 4,135 1,320 46.9% 33122 Rolling & drawing 3,178 2,297 2,132 2,071 2,300 1,967 2,170 2,338 1,877 1,581 2,183 -995 -31.3% 331221 Rolled steel shapes 2,685 1,488 1,427 1,325 1,493 1,078 1,285 1,447 932 740 1,099 -1,586 -59.1% 331222 Steel wire drawing 493 809 705 746 807 889 885 891 945 841 1,084 591 119.9% 33151 Ferrous metal foundries 8,942 9,004 7,433 6,668 6,397 6,626 7,039 7,033 7,267 6,469 5,856 -3,086 -34.5% 331511 Iron foundries 6,531 5,330 4,117 3,958 3,706 3,775 3,932 3,674 3,816 3,424 3,416 -3,115 -47.7% 331512 Steel investment foundries 1,472 2,671 2,302 1,731 1,832 1,740 1,401 1,643 1,741 1,646 1,689 217 14.7% 331513 Steel foundries (exc. investment) 939 1,003 1,014 979 859 1,111 1,706 1,716 1,710 1,399 751 -188 -20.0%

U.S.: 11-92 Total (in thousands)* 120,604.3 120,903.6 114,509.6 111,970.1 113,426.0 115,938.5 118,266.3 121,079.9 124,085.9 126,752.2 128,591.8 7,987.5 6.6% 31-33 Manufacturing (in thousands) 13,320.2 13,096.2 11,633.0 10,862.8 10,984.4 11,192.0 11,276.4 11,424.3 11,605.5 11,590.4 11,721.8 -1,598.4 -12.0%

3311-2, 51 Iron & steel industry 244,443 237,244 213,003 198,021 210,486 224,690 220,349 217,787 219,322 200,379 197,063 -47,380 -19.4% 3311 Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys 109,998 109,584 102,212 95,655 100,940 105,309 102,778 101,291 103,853 93,759 93,552 -16,446 -15.0% 3312 Steel products from purchased steel 44,492 43,378 39,868 38,825 41,090 47,669 48,221 48,844 48,684 46,596 46,206 1,714 3.9% 33121 Iron & steel pipes & tubes 21,439 18,275 16,753 16,145 17,411 25,592 26,089 26,360 25,080 22,473 23,495 2,056 9.6% 33122 Rolling & drawing 23,053 25,103 23,115 22,680 23,679 22,077 22,132 22,484 23,604 24,123 22,711 -342 -1.5% 331221 Rolled steel shapes 9,632 10,458 9,200 9,971 10,457 7,836 7,559 7,783 8,501 7,818 8,126 -1,506 -15.6% 331222 Steel wire drawing 13,421 14,645 13,915 12,709 13,222 14,241 14,573 14,701 15,103 16,305 14,585 1,164 8.7% 33151 Ferrous metal foundries 89,953 84,282 70,923 63,541 68,456 71,712 69,350 67,652 66,785 60,024 57,305 -32,648 -36.3% 331511 Iron foundries 55,075 49,276 39,676 36,193 37,872 38,286 37,763 37,159 36,467 33,578 32,738 -22,337 -40.6% 331512 Steel investment foundries 16,777 17,786 15,495 13,474 14,612 15,190 14,118 13,745 14,206 13,735 12,986 -3,791 -22.6% 331513 Steel foundries (exc. investment) 18,101 17,220 15,752 13,874 15,972 18,236 17,469 16,748 16,112 12,711 11,581 -6,520 -36.0%

Notes: * - excludes farm, railroad and government employment; exc. - except.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2009b-2019b).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 12/19).

63 Table A12: Trends in Exports from Ohio, 2008-2018*

Year `08-`18 Industry 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Averages

In millions of current dollars: 331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $1,633 $977 $1,352 $1,556 $1,646 $1,400 $1,667 $1,536 $1,389 $1,445 $1,340 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $1,568 $934 $1,292 $1,479 $1,570 $1,332 $1,593 $1,465 $1,337 $1,393 $1,290 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $65 $43 $59 $77 $76 $68 $74 $72 $52 $52 $50

331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products to: Canada $1,079 $661 $936 $1,022 $1,090 $920 $1,073 $961 $906 $933 $818 68.2% Mexico $169 $108 $163 $213 $235 $229 $281 $295 $261 $321 $323 17.0% the Rest of the World $385 $208 $252 $320 $321 $251 $313 $280 $222 $192 $199 19.3%

For constant dollars, standardized on 2012: Producer Price Index for 3311: 188.3 137.9 163.3 183.6 175.3 164.8 170.7 148.4 139.0 156.8 178.2 Producer Price Index for 3312: 188.7 156.6 168.9 189.3 187.0 178.3 179.2 164.0 160.0 174.8 202.0

331(p) - Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products $1,524 $1,239 $1,453 $1,488 $1,646 $1,488 $1,714 $1,812 $1,747 $1,614 $1,316 $1,549 3311: Iron & steel mills & ferroalloys $1,460 $1,188 $1,387 $1,412 $1,570 $1,417 $1,637 $1,730 $1,686 $1,558 $1,269 $1,483 3312: Steel products from purchased steel $65 $51 $66 $76 $76 $71 $77 $82 $61 $56 $47 $66

Note: * - dollar figures in this table are not comparable with the value-added figures in table A8.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), U.S. International Trade Administration (2019).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/19).

64 Table A13: U.S. Imports and Exports of Steel Mill Products (Millions of Metric Tons) and Derived Statistics, 1998-2019

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Steel Mill Products Shipments 92.9 96.3 99.0 89.7 90.7 96.1 101.0 95.2 99.3 96.5 89.4 Exports of Steel Mill Products 5.0 4.9 5.9 5.6 5.4 2.5 7.2 8.5 8.8 10.1 12.2 Exports as a Percentage of 5.4% 5.1% 6.0% 6.2% 6.0% 2.6% 7.1% 8.9% 8.9% 10.5% 13.6% Steel Mill Product Shipments Imports of Steel Mill Products 37.7 32.4 34.4 27.3 29.6 21.0 32.5 29.1 41.1 30.2 29.0 Apparent Steel Consumption1 118.0 116.0 120.0 107.0 107.0 107.0 117.0 113.0 120.0 114.0 102.0 Gross Import Reliance as Percentage 32% 28% 29% 26% 28% 20% 28% 26% 34% 26% 28% of Apparent Consumption2 Net Import Reliance as a Percentage 22% 17% 18% 16% 15% 10% 14% 15% 17% 16% 13% of Apparent Consumption3 Index Value of the Dollar 116.5 116.9 119.5 125.9 126.7 119.1 113.6 110.7 108.5 103.4 99.9

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019* Steel Mill Products Shipments 56.4 75.7 83.3 87.0 86.6 89.1 78.5 78.5 82.5 86.4 87.0 Exports of Steel Mill Products 8.4 11.0 12.2 12.5 11.5 10.9 9.0 8.4 9.6 8.0 6.7 Exports as a Percentage of 14.9% 14.5% 14.6% 14.4% 13.3% 12.2% 11.5% 10.7% 11.6% 9.3% 7.7% Steel Mill Product Shipments Imports of Steel Mill Products 14.7 21.7 25.9 30.4 29.2 40.2 35.2 30.0 34.6 30.6 27.0 Apparent Steel Consumption1 63.0 80.0 90.0 98.0 98.0 107.0 110.0 105.0 111.0 101.0 100.0 Gross Import Reliance as Percentage 23% 27% 29% 31% 30% 38% 32% 29% 31% 30% 27% of Apparent Consumption2 Net Import Reliance as a Percentage 11% 6% 7% 11% 12% 30% 29% 25% 26% 22% 21% of Apparent Consumption3 Index Value of the Dollar 105.7 101.8 97.2 99.8 101.0 104.1 117.0 122.4 122.1 122.9 128.6

Notes : * - preliminary, more recent years are revised; 1 - Apparent Steel Consumption - given by the U.S. Geological Survey; it adds imports to Steel Mill Product Shipments, subtracts Exports, and makes adjustments for industry stock changes, imports of semi-finished products, etc.; 2 - Imports divided by Apparent Consumption; 3 - given by the U.S. Geological Survey. Sources : U.S. Geological Survey (2002-2020), Federal Reserve Board (2002-2020). Prepared by : Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 2/20).

65 Table A14: Projections for Iron and Steel Industry Group Changes in Ohio and the U.S., 2016-2026*

Jobs Forecast Annual Changes: 2016-2026 NAICS Growth in Estimated Projected Code Shorter Industry Title Output^ 2016 2026 Number Percent

Ohio Total n.a. 5,793,823 6,047,156 253,333 5.3% 31-33 Manufacturing n.a. 684,993 644,481 -40,512 -5.9% 331(p) Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products n.a. 15,146 13,721 -1,425 -9.4% 3311 Iron & steel mills & ferrroalloys n.a. 7,744 6,540 -1,204 -15.5% 3312 Steel products from purchased steel n.a. 7,402 7,181 -221 -3.0%

U.S. Total 2.1% 156,063,800 167,582,300 11,518,500 7.4% 31-33 Manufacturing 1.8% 12,348,100 11,611,700 -736,400 -6.0% 331(p) Iron, steel, ferroalloys & products 2.3% 139,600 125,300 -14,300 -10.2% 3311 Iron & steel mills & ferrroalloys 2.6% 83,600 70,600 -13,000 -15.6% 3312 Steel products from purchased steel 1.5% 56,000 54,700 -1,300 -2.3%

Notes: * - Projections have not been made for ferrous metal foundries (NAICS 33151) or the industry as a whole. ^ - Based on Gross Duplicate Output, which includes the values of intermediate goods and services as well as the final values characteristic of the Gross Domestic Product. n.a. - not available; p - part.

Sources: U.S. BLS (2018), ODJFS-LMI (2018).

Prepared by: Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/19).

66 Industry Definition and Examples of Products

The nation’s industry statistics have been collected under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) starting in 1997 (Office of Management and Budget, 1998). Establishments producing goods or services sufficiently alike are classified in the same industry and assigned a six-digit code number. Closely related industries form an industry group. The first four digits of the industry code indicate the group to which the industries belong. (A five-digit code defines a subgroup when it subsumes more than one six-digit code; otherwise, it defines an industry.) In this report the iron and steel industry is defined as the combination of two groups and a subgroup: iron and steel mill and ferroalloy manufacturing (NAICS 3311), steel product manufacturing from purchased steel (3312), and ferrous metal foundries (33151). Mostly minor changes have been made to the system with each subsequent economic census. The changes had no impact on the industry definition until 2012, when iron and steel vs. ferroalloy production – heretofore two industries – were combined into 331110. The current definitions and examples of specific industry products follow.

3311 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloys. 33111 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloys. 331110 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloys. Activities include the direct reduction of iron ore, producing pig iron, con- verting pig iron into steel and/or producing elements (ferroalloys) that may be added to molten steel to alter or improve the resulting metal’s characteristics. Common ferroalloys include chromium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, silicon, titanium, tungsten and vanadium. (See alloy steels in the glossary for further discussion.) Steel products such as bars, pipes, plates, rods, sheets, strips, tubes and wire are included in this industry if they are made where the metal is produced. Likewise, coke ovens may be included if they are integrated with the establishment; otherwise, they are classified elsewhere. Non-ferrous alloy manufacturing is classified elsewhere. 3312 Steel Products from Purchased Steel. Products in this group are not made at establishments where the raw iron or steel is produced. 33121 Iron & Steel Pipes & Tubes from Purchased Steel. Examples include welded, riveted, and seamless pipes and tubes of many sizes and for many purposes and products. 33122 Rolling & Drawing Purchased Steel. 331221 Rolled Steel Shapes. Activities include rolling and drawing shapes such as plates, sheets, strips, rods and bars from purchased steel. 331222 Steel Wire Drawing. Establishments in this industry draw wire from purchased steel. Products include non- insulated wires and ropes, fencing, nails, spikes, staples, tacks and woven steel wire cloth – galvanized or not – if made where the wire is produced; also included are powders, paste and flakes (Yucel, 2015). Similar products made from purchased wire are classified as fabricated metal products (332).

67 33151 Ferrous Metal Foundries. Establishments in this sub-group purchase and reheat iron or steel, pouring the molten metal into molds of a desired shape to make castings. The casting is removed once the metal has solidified. They may also perform further operations such as cleaning and deburring, but activities such as threading or machining that transform castings into more-finished products may lead to classification outside of the industry. Foundry operations at the same establishment where the raw iron or steel is produced are classified in 331110. Ferrous castings are used in “virtually all industrial and manufacturing applications” (Goddard, 2015: 14). There are differences between iron and steel castings beyond the defining carbon content (see the Glos- sary.) Iron products have a lower melting temperature, and shrink less while solidifying, consequently allow- ing them to be cast into more complex shapes using less energy, less expensive and less specialized equipment. On the other hand, steel castings are easier to weld, and have greater strength, ductility, and wear, heat and corrosion resistance, due in part to their incorporation of alloys (again, see the Glossary). Steel castings are used in bridge and building supports, tools and dies, valves, pumps, compressors and other mechanical components for agricultural, power generation and transportation equipment and sporting goods (Goddard, 2015: 14-15). The choice between iron and steel turns on cost and required performance characteristics. As measured by volume, iron castings are the larger part of this subgroup (Goddard, 2015: 4). 331511 Iron Foundries. Establishments in this industry melt and pour the pig iron or iron alloys they purchased into molds. Analysts still distinguish between gray and ductile iron foundries. Gray iron has a high carbon content, but relatively low tensile strength and ductility (the ability to stretch); consequently it is used in engine blocks, differential, power-transmission and pump-housings, farm machinery, fire hydrants, lamp posts, manhole covers, skillets, storm grates and drains, etc., because it can be cast into complex shapes at low cost, withstands high temperatures and pressures, and resists corrosion and wear. However, it is brittle when compared with other iron and steel products. Ductile iron can be stretched, drawn and hammered because its higher magnesium content gives it greater flexibility and tensile strength; it is used for cam- and crankshafts, pipes, tubes and associated fittings (Goddard, 2015: 13-15; Spitzer, 2019). 331512 Steel Investment Foundries. Investment foundries create seamless molds by covering a wax shape with refractory slurry. The wax is melted and drained after the slurry hardens. Highly detailed and consistent castings may be made from such molds. Investment foundry products are used in sporting goods, industrial valves, small arms, turbines and transportation equipment (Goddard, 2015: 14) – the production or assem- bly of which are classified in other industries. 331513 Steel Foundries (exc. Investment). The difference between investment and non-investment casting is the former destroys the mold used in the casting process and the latter re-uses the mold (Goddard, 2015: 14). Consequently, non-investment castings generally are less expensive than investment castings.

68 Glossary

The large-scale production of iron and steel is one hallmark of an industrial civilization. Although the industry employs fewer people today, and production and consumption are lower now than in the past, iron and steel still are about 95 percent of the metal tonnage annually produced in America and the world, and still are found in thousands of products. Iron and steel are, on average and by far, the least expensive of the world’s metals; in many applications – such as framing large buildings – they are the only suitable material (drawn from U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). However, iron, one of the most abundant elements on Earth, is not naturally found in metallic form. This section presents iron and steel industry terms in approximate order from primary production through foundry work.

Iron ore – any naturally occurring mineral with an iron (Fe) content sufficiently high to be commercially usable. Hematite (Fe2O3) is one example. Directly reduced iron (DRI) – iron ore reduced to the solid metallic state by heating it without melting it. Natural gas usually is the refining agent. 90 to 95 percent iron, it is used as a substitute for scrap when scrap prices are high. Hot briquetted iron (HBI) is DRI in the form of briquettes. Iron carbide (Fe3C) is another scrap substitute. Coke – derived by baking coal (petroleum-related material may also be used), it is primarily carbon (C); however, other matter and minerals may still be present. Coke supplies the carbon monoxide (CO) to reduce iron ore in a blast furnace and is a heat source for melting the iron. Coke burns hotter than coal. Fluxes – substances used to promote the reduction of metals by lowering their melting points, thereby saving energy. Examples include, but are not limited to, limestone (primarily calcium carbonate (CaCO3), secondarily magnesium carbonate (MgCO3)), dolomite (CaMg(CO3)), lime (an oxide of calcium) and fluorite (aka fluorspar) (CaF2). Blast furnace – a cylindrically shaped furnace lined with refractory bricks and operating at a minimum of 3,0000F for reducing iron ore to pig iron. Blasting air through the fuel increases the combustion rate for burning-off impurities. (Iron out of the ground melts at about 2,7500F. Pure iron (Fe) melts at 2,8000F.) Pig iron – a mostly-iron product with a carbon content less than 5.0 percent (by weight) but still greater than 1.7 percent that is the maximum allowed for steel. “More than 95% of pig iron [produced in America] is transported in molten form to steelmaking furnaces located at the same site” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). The remainder probably is used by gray and ductile iron foundries. Slag – a non-metallic product resulting from the interaction of fluxes and impurities in the smelting and refining of metals. Slag is separated from molten iron and solidified outside the mill. It may eventually be recycled into things such as concrete building blocks. Basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) – a pear shaped furnace lined with refractory bricks used in the primary production of steel from molten pig iron and scrap with fluxes and 99 percent pure oxygen (O2) to reduce carbon, phosphorus (P) and Sulfur (S) to specified levels without introducing nitrogen (N2) or hydrogen (H2).

69 Electric arc furnace (EAF) – a furnace melting metals by passing an electric current through them. EAFs permit the closely controlled addition of alloying elements as well as being an inexpensive way to recycle steel. Steel – an iron-based product with a carbon content of 1.7 percent or less by weight. (Steel melts at about 2,5000F.) Raw steel – molten steel before it has been shaped or rolled, including the primary production of steel from iron ore in a BOPF as well as steel produced by recycling in an EAF. Carbon steel – the world’s most common steel; its properties depend on the specific carbon content and microstructure. Steel with carbon content greater than 0.5 percent is high-carbon steel; any alloying elements are insubstantial. Alloy steels – steels with elements added to alter or improve their properties. Examples include chromium (Cr – at least 10 percent) and nickel (Ni) to produce stainless steel (which resists corrosion), and silicon (Si) to reduce energy loss in electrical steel. Other notable elements used to various degrees in alloy steels are molybdenum (Mo), niobium (Nb), tungsten (W) and vanadium (V) for luster, strength, toughness, wear and/or corrosion resistance. Given the various combinations of elements and processing technologies, there are well over 400 different grades of iron and steel products. Continuous casting – pouring molten metal from a ladle through a water-cooled mold for solidification into a specific shape. The process bypasses ingot teeming, stripping, soaking and some preliminary rolling steps thereby saving time, energy and money. Net or short ton – 2,000 pounds; a long ton is a metric ton (1,000 kg.), or about 2,204.6 pounds. Semi-finished steel – the unrolled basic shapes of billets, blooms and slabs. Billet – a square or rectangular shape. Bloom – a square or rectangular shape larger than a billet. Slab – usually 8-to-10 inches thick, and wider than a bloom. Refinements to continuous casting permitted the direct production of intermediate (4-to-6 inches thick) and thin (1.5-to-2 inches thick) slabs, bypassing the need for reducing stands and thereby saving additional time, energy and money. Rolling – reducing or changing the cross-sectional area of a workpiece by the compressive forces of rotating rolls. The process is like squeezing clothes through the wringers of an old fashion washing machine. Flat rolled – processed on rolls with smooth faces, as opposed to grooved or cut faces used for structural or shaped products. Common products include sheets, strips and plates. Hot rolled – processed after it has been reheated to at least 1,7000F, but below the steel’s melting point, then rolled into the desired shape – most often coils. Cold rolled – usually processed without first reheating the steel. However, some rolling may be done at higher temperatures so long as the steel stays below recrystallization thresholds, which range from 750 to 12900F. Cold rolling produces a smooth surface and makes the piece easier to machine as well as improving strength, hardness and ductility. Drawing – pulling steel through a series of plates or dies to produce bars and wires of various gauges.

70 Finished steel products include, but are not limited to: Structural shapes – one example is an I-beam rolled and shaped from a bloom. Sheets – flat rolled from slabs, wider than 12 inches; by volume, the single largest class of products of the industry. Strips – flat rolled from slabs, less than 12 inches wide, but with a more precise control of thickness. Plates – flat rolled from slabs, thicker and heavier than sheets; a high-volume class of products primarily used in the construction and heavy machinery industries. Bars – a high-volume class of products shaped and rolled into various forms from billets. Bars also may be cold- drawn to improve strength, then turned, ground and polished to improve surface finish and control size and shape to the requested tolerance level. Wires – the smallest, thinnest products. Pipes and tubes – welded products are made by rolling a strip into a loop and welding the edges to seal the gap; seamless products are made by forcing a heated rod or billet through piercers or dies. Seamless products better resist corrosion and pressure; welded products can be longer, cost less and have shorter production times. Foundries – jobbing foundries usually are independent establishments producing a limited number of castings from custom-made molds for their customers; captive foundries are part of vertically integrated companies making large numbers of castings from a few molds to be used in the owner’s end products (e.g., motor vehicle engine blocks). They use iron and steels purchased from suppliers. Sand casting – this most common process uses sand as the mold material. Investment casting – uses the lost wax technique described in the Industry Definition section. Centrifugal casting – molten metal is forced into the mold by spinning in a centrifuge; it also may be used to make pipes and tubes. Near net shape casting – casting metal in a thin and intricate-but-strong form that eliminates or reduces machining requirements before use or installation of the product.

Some iron and steel producers also engage in subsequent metal processing activities. These include: annealing – heating and cooling steel to improve formability and surface durability; pickling – removing oxide or mill scale (which can form during hot rolling and annealing) from the surface by immersion in an acidic or alkaline solution in preparation for further processing; and galvanizing – coating steel with a layer of zinc (Z) for corrosion resistance; and slitting steel – cutting a sheet or strip of steel with rotary knives. These activities are part of the industry only when performed at establishments where the iron and steel industry products are made (NAICS 3311, 3312 and 331151); otherwise, they are fabricated metals products (332) or – in the case of slitting – a service provided by wholesalers (42351).

71 A Primer on Iron and Steel Production Processes

There are two basic types of steel mills: primary producers and minimills. Producing pig iron is the first step of the primary steel making process. Iron ore pellets, limestone and coke are loaded into a blast furnace. The heat melts the ore and the limestone. Two key chemical reactions occur: the carbon from the coke removes the oxygen from the ore, and the limestone removes some impurities. (The result of the latter reaction is called slag, and is removed from the blast furnace.27) In the second step, molten pig iron is transferred to a basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) where contaminants such as phosphorus and sulfur are removed, and carbon, manganese and silicon are either removed or reduced to specified levels. Ferrous scrap, directly reduced iron (DRI) and fluxes may be combined with molten pig iron in this step (Gni- dovec, 2003; Larkin, 1994, 1995, 2005; Miller, 1984). About 23 million metric tons of pig iron was produced in the U.S. in 2019, more than 95 percent of which was transferred in molten form to BOPFs at the same site (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). Recent annual production capacities of almost all primary production mills ranged between two and five million net tons (AIM Market Research, 2013).

By contrast, minimills neither produce pig iron nor use it as a raw material. They typically melt ferrous scrap with fluxes in electric arc furnaces (EAFs).28 The first EAFs had small capacities – hence the minimill moniker; now capacities range from 20,000 to 4.4 million net tons per year (AIM Market Research, 2013). EAFs dominate production for the slab and flat-rolled markets, but primary steelmaking still produces the highest quality steel. Both primary producers and minimills use EAFs to create alloy steels (Parker, 1984). Historically, primary producers located mills near their raw materials to minimize transportation costs, but minimills locate near their customers because ferrous scrap is ubiquitous (Larkin, 1994, 1995, 2007; Miller, 1984).

The technology of iron and steel production has changed in additional ways over the decades. BOPFs completely replaced the less efficient open-hearths for primary steel production by 1992 (American Iron and Steel Institute, 1974-2004), yet only 30 percent of the estimated 87 million metric tons of steel produced in the U.S. came from BOPFs in 2019; the other 70 percent came from EAFs (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). Ingot teeming has almost disappeared as 99 percent of raw steel is continuously cast (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020), now yielding slabs, billets and blooms as little as 1.5 to 2.0 inches thick in a single step. Continuous casting not only created a better product but saved time, energy and money by eliminating breakdown mills and reducing stands (Larkin, 2007: 9-10).

Rolling mill machinery is used to further work such semi-finished steel into finished products: slabs are processed into plates, sheets and strips; billets into bars, rods, and tube rounds; and blooms into structural shapes and rails (Larkin, 1994, 1995, 2007; Miller, 1984). Automation and improved techniques also have been applied to the production of pipes, tubes, wires and castings (Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019).

72 NOTES:

1 Non-industry establishments of companies whose principal business is iron and steel manufacturing have been excluded. For example: • AK Steel has a research and development facility (NAICS code 54171) in West Chester, and its AK Tube subsidiary in Walbridge is a tier-2 motor vehicle parts supplier (3363); • ArcelorMittal makes tailored blanks for motor vehicles (33637) in Pioneer, coats steel (332812) in Obetz, and produces coke (324199) in Warren; • Charter Steel has a fabricated metal products and distribution center (332 and 42351) near Rising Sun; • Nucor has a fabricated metals facility (332) in Belpre and several sales offices elsewhere; • Steel Technologies has a warehouse (42351) in Willoughby; • TimkenSteel runs a scrap and salvage business based in Akron; • U.S. Steel coats steel in Leipsic (332812). This means many of the companies listed have a larger role in Ohio’s economy than is indicated solely be their iron and steel industry establishments. Conversely, Worthington Industries’ principal business is fabricated metal products (332), but it has multiple industry establishments here.

2 Capacity is not the same as production. Furthermore, raw-steel and rolling-mill production capacities are two different things.

3 The 2012 data from Appendix Table A3 show the combined output of iron-steel-ferroalloys and steel-product-from- purchased-steel amounts to 82.2 percent of the iron and steel industry total in Ohio. 2017 Economic Census data have not been released at this writing, but are due later this year.

4 VA and GDP are related measures. The BEA starts with the Census Bureau’s VA figures when estimating GDP for manufacturing subsectors such as primary metals (NAICS 331) and subtracts additional costs such as purchased services in deriving the net contribution to GDP. VA data are available for iron and steel industries and groups, but GDP data are not. Consequently, VA is the best available measure for comparing the relative economic performance of industry groups and geographic areas on an annual basis. Specific data for subgroups – like ferrous foundries – and individual industries are found in the quinquennial Census of Manufactures.

5 2016 County Business Patterns was used for county-level establishment counts and employment estimates because 2017 County Business Patterns county-level data have too much suppression – i.e., the actual exclusion of

73 both – to be of any meaningful use. The problem with the 2016 dataset is it is further out-ot-date than 2017. Pro- minent recent changes not included in either are the end of iron work at GM’s Defiance County foundry in 2017 (it is solely aluminum now), the 2016 closure of Franklin County’s Columbus Castings after the data had been collected, and the drastic employment reductions in Lorain County when demand for pipes and tubes used in fracking fell. These insurmountable problems limit the utility of the county establishment and employment distribution maps.

6 In addition to the problems described in the preceding footnote, employment figures for all counties should be re- garded as estimates because the Census Bureau does not disclose precise county-level totals if doing so would violate the confidentiality of respondents. Instead, the Bureau provides a range encompassing the jobs figure. Techniques thought to be fairly accurate on average can generate plausible estimates in these instances. Even when a specific figure is provided by the Bureau, a note is attached describing the range of error incorporated into the figure.

7 Appendix Table A1 lists a notable facility in Fulton County (North Star BlueScope in Delta), but the Census Bureau (2018b) has nothing near the employment level shown in A1. Perhaps the Bureau classifies the establishment differently than this report, or perhaps employees of a temporary service agency (NAICS 56132) work there.

8 Older data in Appendix Table A9 show raw steel production volumes in Ohio during the 1970s surpassing 20 million net tons in most years.

9 Adding to the cyclicality is the perception of price trends. Customers will buy more than they immediately need when they believe prices will go even higher, but only buy what they absolutely need when they believe prices will go lower (Spitzer, 2019).

10 Primary producers have concentrated on making higher-value, coated flat-rolled sheet rather than commodity- grade, hot-rolled sheet products. Higher-value goods are not only more profitable, they may be less price-sensi- tive, which helps cushion the impact of cyclical downturns. However, higher-value items also cost more to make, which still requires companies to control costs to make a profit (Larkin, 2013: H2).

11 Percentage changes often appear substantial if the numbers if the base year are small, which can be misleading in the larger context. Furthermore, fluctuations in plant numbers – regardless of source – may be more than establishments opening and closing. While some establishments may have gone out of business or been closed as part of a company consolidation, others may have been reclassified when production changed to make or emphasize a different product. Such production changes mean there is no way of knowing for sure exactly what has happened based on aggregate data alone. 74 12 Most of the statistics used in this report come from the Census Bureau or are derived from its data bases. The use of one source takes advantage of an underlying consistency and uniformity of definitions and coverage across a variety of subjects and geographic levels as well as providing a high degree of accuracy. However, BLS data have the advantage of timeliness even if its coverage differs in varying degrees from the Census Bureau’s. Statistics from the two Bureaus may also differ due to differences in how they classify the establishments as well as their collection methods.

13 Any ferrous metal foundry (NAICS 33151) export figures for Ohio from the U.S. International Trade Administration are not readily available.

14 The index value of the dollar is an abstraction based on the exchange rates of the dollar vis-à-vis the currencies of major U.S. trading partners. It may be a better predictor of the portion of U.S. production exported than of import volumes because most exports go to Canada and Mexico, two of our major trading partners, while a greater portion of imports come from other nations who may not be major trading partners (see Holcomb, 2020; Masters, 2020; Spitzer, 2019; Zheng, 2019) and whose specific exchange rates with the dollar may diverge from the index values.

15 It also is highly unlikely that any nation, including one as relatively open as America, will allow any foreign power to flood its markets and threaten such a basic industrial capacity (Larkin, 2013: I10).

16 Just how large a role imports play in meeting domestic demand depends on how calculations are made. For example, Holcomb’s (2020) figures suggest import revenues are about 29 percent of domestic consumption, which IBIS World defines as: = domestic revenues - export revenues + import revenues. Similarly, U.S. Geological Sur- vey (USGS, 2020) figures show 27 million tons of “imports of steel mill products” amounted to 27.0 percent of 100 million tons of “apparent steel consumption” for 2019 – a gross indicator of import reliance. Yet the USGS states “net import reliance [emphasis added] as a percentage of apparent consumption” was 21 percent for 2019. “Ap- parent steel consumption” is defined as “steel shipments + imports – exports + adjustments for industry stock changes – semi-finished steel product imports,” a more complicated definition than IBIS World’s for domestic consumption. The USGS does not show all the numbers that go into calculating the final figures it presents; readers must take them as given.

17 The demands for food, water, oil and gas products and electric power are at least seasonally steady, but demands for the equipment used to produce and provide such goods and services is not.

18 Other materials in this and other steel-consuming industries includes concrete and wood in construction, paper in

75 containers, fiberglass reinforced plastic pipes and magnesium in castings. The choice between iron-and-steel and alternative materials turns on the consideration of many factors: costs (of the material, the tooling, and the labor to make the product), weight, aerodynamic qualities, production speed, surface finish and paint-ability, ease of recycling, operating temperature, durability and corrosion resistance. Iron-and-steel goods have the advantages based on strength, durability (i.e., life expectancy), stability, versatility, ease of recycling, ability to operate in high temperature environments, surface finish and paint-ability, and sometimes cost. Market nuances can impact aggregate steel production. For example, consumers’ preferences shift to light trucks, which use more steel (Ford’s new F150 excepted) when fuel prices are low and away from light trucks when fuel prices are high. Steel can be made corrosion resistant, but it becomes more expensive in the process (Larkin, 2005).

19 ArcelorMittal’s new alloy was so tough that the company had to install new rolling and shearing equipment to handle it.

20 Larkin (2005) states that companies divesting their coke ovens did so because they were unwilling to make the financial investments to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements. Virtually all service and distribution operations have been independent since 2003 – possibly earlier (Larkin, 2013: O4).

21 The rapid emergence of China as the world’s largest steelmaking country led to a long-term trend of substantially higher prices for raw materials such as iron ores, coke, coal and ferrous scrap. These eased somewhat during the Great Recession and rose for awhile with recovery. However, any growth in demand in the world – particularly in developing nations – could lead to price increases (Larkin, 2013: I7). Business cycles and government policies also will have their impacts.

22 Companies such as LTV and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel that had previously entered bankruptcy were not acquired by other steel companies because they retained their liabilities for pension and health care benefits (Larkin, 2005). Surviving companies sought to reduce future pension costs by moving to defined-contribution plans and away from defined-benefit plans (Larkin, 2007: 12).

23 Mittal was required by the Justice Department to sell the Sparrows Point facility it had earlier acquired before final approval of its merger with Arcelor (Matthews, 2007a).

24 While industry organizations have long sought and obtained these protections as remedies for allegedly unfair trade practices, foreign producers and domestic consumers have argued their cases in response, and the U.S. government has granted exceptions to them (Larkin, 2013).

76 25 Ironically, it was the May reduction on metal tariffs imposed on Canada and Mexico, in conjunction with their measures ensuring Chinese steel does not enter the U.S. through their countries, that helped pave the way for even- tual passage of the USMCA (Lynch et.al., 2019).

26 Neither the U.S. BLS nor ODJFS-LMI make projections for any five-digit sub-groups – such as ferrous metal foundries (33151) – let alone specific six-digit industries.

27 Slag is mostly lime (CaO), silica, and alumina. While it is a byproduct of smelting and refining metals, it becomes an ingredient for other things – mostly road bases and concrete products for road surfaces. It also is spun into mineral wool for insulation, and used in sandblasting, railroad ballast, highway fill, and filters at sewage treatment plants (Gnidovec, 2003).

28 At least some EAF operators have tested DRI, iron carbide and hot briquetted iron as substitutes for expensive scrap (Yucel, 2015). Slag also is produced in BOPFs and EAFs. Again, it is a byproduct of flux use (Gnidovec, 2003).

77 SOURCES AND REFERENCES CITED

AIM Market Research, 2013 SteelPlant_N.America_AISI_ver_June252013.pdf. Pittsburgh, Pa.: the company.

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), 1974, 1978, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 Annual Statistical Report. Washington, D.C.: the Institute. Various tables.

Butler Co. Auditor, 2019 The 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report at .

Chavez, Jon, 2018 “Delta’s North Star steel plant may get $700M upgrade,” August 13. Article found at .

______, 2019 “East Toledo iron plant on track to open next summer,” October 19. Article found at .

Company Websites, 2019 Include, but are not limited to, AK Steel, Allegheny Technologies, ArcelorMittal, Charter Manufacturing, Eramet, General Motors, Leggett & Platt, McWane, North Star BlueScope, Nucor, Osco Industries, Republic Steel, TimkenSteel, United States Steel, Vallourec Star, and Worthington Industries.

Coolidge, Alexander, 2019 “Cleveland-Cliffs buying AK Steel in $1.1 billion stock deal,” Columbus Dispatch (December 3). Article found at .

Corridore, Jim, 2014 “Heavy Equipment & Trucks,” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys (July). New York, NY: the McGraw-Hill Cos.

78 Coyne, Justine, 2018 “AK Steel’s spot market availability limited by Middletown fire,” January 22. Article found at .

Federal Reserve Board, 2002-2020 Data found at .

Fortune, 2019 See for the U.S.-1,000 and Global-500>.

Fulton County Expositor, 2019 See , August 21.

Gnidovec, Dale, 2003 “Byproduct of ore-processing is valuable commodity itself,” the Columbus Dispatch, June 10, p. A7.

Goddard, Leah, 2015 “Ferrous Metal Foundry Products in the US,” IBIS World Industry Report 33151, April. Found at .

Google Earth, 2020 A software package used in conjunction with Hoover’s.

Holcomb, Griffin, 2020 IBIS World Industry Reports 33111, January. Found at .

Hoover’s, 2019 Hoover’s (a D&B Co.) on-line database [machine-readable database] / prepared by the company. Austin, Tx.: the company [producer and distributor]; used in conjunction with Google Earth.

Larkin, Leo J., 1994 “Steel and Heavy Machinery: Basic Analysis,” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys, January 6, pp. s28-s45.

79 ______, 1995 “Steel and Heavy Machinery: Basic Analysis,” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys, February 16, Sec. 4, pp. s15- s31.

______, 2005 “Metals: Industrial,” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys, January 20.

______, 2007 “Metals: Industrial,” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys, July 12.

______, 2013 “Metals: Industrial,” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys (March). New York: the McGraw-Hill Cos. PDF found at .

Levy, Efraim, 2014 “Autos & Auto Parts,” Standard & Poor’s Industry Surveys (July). New York, NY: the McGraw-Hill Cos.

Lexis-Nexis, 2019 Information found at .

Lynch, David J., Emily Rauhala and Damian Paletta, 2019 “Canada, Mexico, US to lift metal tariffs,” the Columbus Dispatch, May 20, pp. C1 & C6.

Martz, Linda, 2017 Article found at

Masters, Nick, 2020 IBIS World Industry Reports 33121, January. Found at .

Matthews, Robert G., 2007a “Mittal Sells Mill in U.S. as Part of Arcelor Deal,” the Wall Street Journal, August 3. Article found at .

80 ______, 2007b “Steel’s Latest Hot Spot: the U.S.,” the Wall Street Journal, August 14. Article found at .

McCafferty, Rachel, 2013 “So, what’s new at Timken? Try $265 million of investments in Canton,” May 16. Found at .

______, 2016 “Lorain’s steel industry is almost at a standstill,” April 24. Crain’s Cleveland Business.

Miller, Jack R., 1984 “Steel Minimills,” Scientific American 250: 5 (May), pp. 32-39.

Miller, Jay, 2017 “Charter Steel’s planned $153 million expansion in Cuyahoga Heights wins key approval,” May 10. Found at .

Miller, John W., 2012 “Indiana Steel Mill Revived With Lessons From Abroad,” the Wall Street Journal, May 21. Found at .

Nix, Katie, 2017 “Layoffs continue at U.S. Steel in Lorain; job losses estimated around 33,” December 8. Found at .

Office of Management and Budget, 1998 North American Industry Classification System. Lanham, Md.: Bernan Press.

Office of Research, Ohio Development Services Agency (ODSA), 2018a International Corporate Investments in Ohio Operations. Columbus, Oh.: ODSA.

______, 2016b-2019b Ohio Private Investment Survey. Columbus, Oh.: ODSA.

81 Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services – Labor Market Information division (ODJFS-LMI), 2018 “Ohio Job Outlook,” found at .

Parker, Sybil P. (Ed.), 1984 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (3rd ed.). New York: the company.

Payerchin, Richard, 2017 “Republic Steel’s Lorain mill to produce pig iron,” July 25. Found at .

Perkins, Olivera, 2019 “Republic Steel plans to reopen Lorain mill,” January 23. Found at .

Reporter, 2018 “Coshocton County worked through recession slowdown,” the Coshocton Tribune, April 16. Found at .

Sapra, Bani, and Paul Wiserman, 2020 “Bold plan to revive steel has backfired,” the Columbus Dispatch, November 5, pp. B9 & B12.

Schoenberger, Robert, 2013 “ArcelorMittal to upgrade portion of Flats steel plant; more high-strength steel planned,” the Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 16. Found at .

Schwartzberg, Eric, 2018 “AK Steel wants electrical steel tariff loophole fixed,” the Dayton Daily News, June 8. Found at .

Simon, Ruth, 2019 “A Tale of Two Steel Firms and Their Diverging Paths Under Trump’s Tariffs,” February 10. Found at .

82 Spitzer, Dan, 2019 IBIS World Industry Reports 33151, June. Found at .

Staff and Wire Reports, 2020 “Trump to boost US tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum,” the Columbus Dispatch, January 28, p. B10.

Stark Co. Auditor, 2019 The 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report at < https://www.starkcountyohio.gov/auditor>.

Tita, Bob, and Kris Maher, 2019 “U.S. Steel, the Company That Built America, Faces Its Age,” December 15. Found at .

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2011a-2018a 2009-2016 Annual Survey of Manufactures: Geographic Area Statistics, either in print or machine-readable format. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Also found at ; look in the subject index and/or the data download pages.

______, 2009b-2019b County Business Patterns (Ohio & U.S.) 2007-2017, either in print or machine-readable format. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Also found at ; look in the subject index and/or the data download pages.

______, 2010c 2007 Census of Manufactures: Files EC0731 A1, I2 and I3. Files found at .

______, 2015c 2012 Census of Manufactures: Files EC1231 A1, I2 and I3. Files found at .

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), 2019 See and look for gross domestic product statistics by state and industry.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2018 Data found at .

83 ______, 2019-2020 See for the current employment statistics (CES), the quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW) and the producer price indexes.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1996-2020 “Iron and Steel,” data found at .

U.S. International Trade Administration (ITA), 2019 See .

Wikipedia, 2019 Go to and search for general information on iron, steel, associated production processes and the City of Marion.

Wire report, 2007 “Steelmaker planning to buy out co-owners of mine,” the Columbus Dispatch, September 6, p. C11.

Yucel, Ibrahim, 2015 IBIS World Industry Reports 33111, 33121 & 33122, July, September & October. Found at .

Zheng, Gordon, 2019 IBIS World Industry Reports 33122, September. Found at .