Media Contact: Amanda Gillooly Communications Manager GASP amanda@gasp-pgh.org         FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE         GASP Community Air Monitoring Project Finds High Levels of Benzene in Local Communities   The Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP) is thrilled to announce the publication of its first semi-annual report detailing findings from its Allegheny County Community Air Monitoring Project . This landmark initiative provides a new level of transparency regarding air quality in Allegheny County neighborhoods adjacent to major industrial emitters. The project has created an expanded monitoring network and air sampling system, resulting in more detailed information about air pollutants that are consistently present in air pollution plumes, as well as trends in our region. The initiative is the result of a robust partnership between GASP, Carnegie Mellon University’s CREATE Lab, Allegheny County Clean Air Now (ACCAN), Clean Water Fund (CWF), Protect Elizabeth Township (PET), and Valley Clean Air Now (VCAN). Its purpose? To seek data-driven information about air toxics and emissions from industrial facilities located near our monitor sites. This data has been gathered through the monitoring and sampling of ambient air at designated sites in and around the Mon Valley, Neville Island, Uptown and West Elizabeth Township. The monitoring program focused on five specific so-called "subject emitters": U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works in Clairton Lindy Paving Inc. in Uptown Metalico Pittsburgh Inc. on Neville Island Neville Chemical Company on Neville Island Synthomer Resins Company in West Elizabeth Township While the report is conducted under an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, it should be noted that the findings are intended to inform future studies and community awareness rather than for direct regulatory enforcement. Here are some key takeaways. “This monitoring program provides local residents with insight into what their air looks like, what it is composed of, and what impacts these components can have on their health and wellbeing,” ACCAN Executive Director Aarushi Pant said. “It puts science in the hands of community members who are directly impacted by air pollution, and gives them the tools, knowledge, and resources to bring about the changes they wish to see in their community!” Scott Taylor of Protect Elizabeth Township agreed. "Through this air monitoring project, we are finally gaining the hyper-local insights necessary to understand the true quality of the air we breathe in the Elizabeth Township area. We are particularly concerned by the short-term spikes in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) captured by these monitors - particularly benzene. While long-term averages are important, these acute 'bursts' of pollution can cause immediate respiratory irritation and headaches, and their presence near industrial sites demands further review," he said. "We hope the data gleaned from these monitors provides a roadmap for accountability, helping us identify specific pollution plumes and ensuring that our community's health is no longer overlooked by regulatory gaps." Ana Hoffman, Air Quality Program Director at CREATE Lab, said she looks forward to what’s to come with the project. “We're hopeful that this project can build on the many years of community-based air monitoring effort led by local, dedicated advocates for public health,” she said. “These early adopters of democratized air monitoring technology-built networks to expand available knowledge, and in doing so they also garnered a sense of trust and motivation for action among Allegheny County residents.” The full report details monitoring efforts from July 1, 2025, through Dec. 31, 2025, is available for download on the GASP website here.   ###   Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit in Southwestern Pennsylvania working for a healthy, sustainable environment. Founded in 1969, GASP has been a diligent watchdog, educator, litigator, and policymaker on many environmental issues, with a focus on air quality.   Allegheny County Clean Air Now (ACCAN)  is a non-profit founded in June, 2014 to give a voice to the residents living downwind from the DTE Energy's Shenango Coke Plant on Neville Island. It is the successor organization to the Neville Island Good Neighbor Committee that was formed by the communities surrounding the coke plant and Clean Water Action in the late 1980s.   Clean Water Fund   has helped people successfully campaign for cleaner air, cleaner and safer water, and protection from toxic pollution since 1974.   CREATE Lab at Carnegie Mellon University   works with partners to co-design tools to document air pollution, building on the combined power of crowd-sourced reporting, continuous sensor measurements and innovative monitoring technology, time-lapse imagery and visualizations to engage, empower, and inform the public and policy makers.   Protect Elizabeth Township  (PET)   is a grassroots community organization dedicated to advocating for environmental protection and promoting responsible development in Elizabeth Township.   Valley Clean Air Now (VCAN)  is a non-profit organization fighting for the residents of the Mon Valley who continue to suffer from severe health, economic, climate, and environmental injustice by galvanizing the community to take action through local politics, grassroots organizing, community building, education, and community health initiatives.

Take a deep breath. Smell something acrid or chemical? How about the odor of rotten eggs? Then report it! While the  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection  (more commonly referred to as DEP) regulates air quality in the Keystone State, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties do things a little differently. Instead of being regulated by DEP, air-quality issues are instead handled by local regulatory agencies. Here in Allegheny County, air quality is regulated by the Allegheny County Health Department (sometimes called ACHD for short). This means that if you live INSIDE Allegheny County and you smell a foul odor, you may report it by contacting the ACHD. To report a foul odor you can call 412-687-ACHD, or you can file a  complaint online . Folks in Allegheny County may also utilize an app developed by the  CREATE Lab  at Carnegie Mellon University known as  Smell PGH to report a foul odor to the health department. When you utilize the app—which crowd sources smell reports so they can track how air pollution travels across the city—it sends your air quality complaint directly to the ACHD. Please note: If you smell natural gas or otherwise have an air quality emergency, it’s always best to contact the health department directly . The app also allows users to see a map containing the locations of all other air quality complaints lodged that day. Live outside of Allegheny County? Foul odors outside the county need to be reported to DEP. You can do this by calling 412-442-4184, or you may file a  complaint online. Pro tip: When making an air quality complaint with either the Allegheny County Health Department or DEP, remember: The devil is in the details! Please be as specific as possible. Remember to include key information such as: The time you noticed the odor Your location (both neighborhood and zip code, please!) A brief description of the odor or smoke Please know that while making air quality complaints to environmental regulators is a great first step, there are other things you can do to make your voice heard on air quality issues. The second and third calls after your initial air quality complaint should be to your representatives in the state House and Senate. Not sure who represents you? No worries. Visit the  Pennsylvania General Assembly website , type in your address, and it will give you the contact information on your state representative and senator. Still want to do more to fight for clean air? You can  attend events ,  make a donation , sign up to be a  Smoke Reader , or  become a member of GASP ! #DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection #airpollution #SmellPGH #CREATELab #AlleghenyCountyHealthDepartment #DEP #ACHD #airquality

Last July, we blogged  about a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the United States endangered the public health and welfare by contributing to the global warming crisis.   Known as the 2009 Endangerment Finding, it was the predicate for EPA’s increasingly stringent regulation of new motor vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions, by which EPA intended to force the electrification of America’s new motor vehicle fleet by the 2030s.                                        As we blogged  more recently, in early February 2026 EPA formally announced its revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The final, published version of the revocation is available here .    As part of its revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA will remove all requirements related to greenhouse gas  emission standards for new motor vehicles from the Code of Federal Regulations.    Originally, EPA claimed that it had the authority to make the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.    Section 202(a)(1) deals with motor vehicle emissions only, and reads (in pertinent part):   The  Administrator  shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any  air pollutant  from any class or classes of  new motor vehicles  or  new motor vehicle engines , which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  The 2009 Endangerment Finding followed a 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court called Massachusetts v. EPA .   In Massachusetts v. EPA , the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases were air pollutants within the meaning of section 202(a)(1) but did not determine that EPA was required to find that motor vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution “which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”   EPA made that determination on its own in the 2009 Endangerment Finding.   Thus, EPA’s revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding is a reminder that what EPA can do on its own under one president, it can undo on its own under another .   In its revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding EPA provides three final, “separate and independent” rationales for its action. The fact that EPA calls the rationales “separate and independent” means that EPA believes that each rationale stands on its own as a reason sufficient to revoke the 2009 Endangerment Finding.    In order to defeat the revocation, a court would need to reject all three rationales.   First , EPA determined that by its own terms, section 202(a)(1) does not apply to vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions.    According to EPA, section 202(a)(1): applies only to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare through local or regional (not global) exposure by its own terms and all precedent before Massachusetts v. EPA .  Yes, this inserts language into section 202(a)(1) that isn’t there, but (as EPA notes) it is consistent with the way the Clean Air Act was interpreted from the time of its enactment in 1970 up and until the 2009 Endangerment Finding.  Obviously, EPA’s GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles were aimed at the consequences of global warming, not a strictly local or regional problem;   requires that an endangerment finding be issued with the emission standards meant to limit the air pollution causing the endangerment.  This rationale is strained.  Section 202(a)(1) provides EPA with the authority to “prescribe … standards,” not to make endangerment findings.  EPA’s first greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles were issued in 2010, separately and about six months after it published the 2009 Endangerment Finding (which did not incorporate any emission standards); and requires that any emission standards issued under its authority make a material impact on the dangers from “air pollution” to which they were meant to respond.  In other words, a regulation promulgated under section 202(a)(1) must be designed to reduce emissions to improve public health or welfare, rather than to make emission reductions that have no discernible impact on public health or welfare. In the revocation, EPA relied on its determination that even if all greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles were eliminated, there would be only minimal reductions to the dangers posed by global warming.   Second , EPA determined that section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act did not clearly authorize EPA to regulate vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions, as it must according to the “Major Questions Doctrine” developed by a string of Supreme Court decisions issued since 2009 (most specifically the Utility Air Regulatory Group  case from 2014 and West Virginia v. EPA  from 2022; we blogged about West Virginia v. EPA  and the regulatory history that surrounded it here ).    Based on these cases, EPA now claims that it cannot rely on the Clean Air Act’s vagueness with respect to greenhouse gas emissions to seize the authority to regulate them, and that such authority has not been delegated to it clearly by Congress.   Third , as noted above, EPA determined that section 202(a)(1) requires that any emission standards promulgated under its authority make more than a minimal contribution toward reducing or eliminating the danger to public health or welfare to which the standards were addressed    In other words, any greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles that EPA promulgates under the authority of section 202(a)(1) must make some real difference toward reducing the dangers from global warming.    EPA now claims that its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles fail this requirement because “[e]ven a complete elimination of all greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles would not address the risks attributed to elevated global concentrations of GHGs.”                 “The revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the Supreme Court decisions that deny EPA the power to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act are the death knell for the idea that the Act may be used to respond to the challenge of global warming,” GASP Senior Attorney John Baillie said. “It is now up to Congress to craft a response to the global warming crisis.”