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.”

The Aug. 11, 2025 explosion at the Clairton Coke Works killed two, injured a dozen more, and rocked an entire community. In its wake was special air quality monitoring , a Chemical Safety Board investigation , and, most recently, a $118,000 fine from OSHA.   Then came the biggest news yet: A pair of wrongful death suits had been filed against U.S. Steel and two other companies.   While GASP is not affiliated with the cases and has no special knowledge of them, staff reviewed the suits and wanted to provide both a summary and the source documents so residents can read for themselves the allegations lodged against the Mon Valley steelmaker. You can read the lawsuit filed by Danielle Menefee - wife of the late Steven Menefee -   here . You can read the lawsuit filed by Trisha Lynn Quinn - sister of the late Timothy Quinn -   here .   The Human Cost   The first of the two lawsuits was filed on behalf of Trisha Lynn Quinn - the sister of Timothy Quinn - and Timothy Quinn’s three minor children. The second was filed on behalf of Danielle Menefee - wife of Steven Menefee - and their two minor children.   Both lawsuits were filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court and seek compensatory damages such as loss of future earnings, as well as for pain and suffering.   The Quinn lawsuit reads:   “Quinn’s death was not instantaneous but resulted from traumatic injuries sustained when the explosion destroyed the building he was working in - injuries including blunt force trauma from structural collapse, penetrating trauma from flying debris, and other catastrophic injuries consistent with being present at close range to an industrial vapor cloud explosion.”   The Menefee lawsuit reads:   “Steve Menefee was consumed by the force of this explosion at close range, suffering inter alia fatal smoke inhalation and burn injuries.” A Known "Blast Zone" Risk The lawsuits claim there was a dangerous configuration at the plant. According to the complaints, workers were stationed in Reversing Rooms and a break room located just 10 to 20 feet directly above high-pressure coke oven gas supply piping. Despite the inherent volatility of coke oven gas—a mixture that is both toxic and highly flammable—these buildings “were ordinary, industrial structures providing weather protection and work space - not blast-resistant structures designed to withstand explosions.” Decades of Ignored Safety Recommendations Perhaps the most staggering allegation in the lawsuits is that there is a paper trail of warnings that were reportedly ignored. Between 1998 and 2018, U.S. Steel conducted five Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs). In 2003, according to the Complaints,   a safety team explicitly recommended a "facility siting study" to see if occupied buildings were too close to explosion hazards. Management rejected this recommendation, claiming their system was exempt from certain OSHA regulations. The Complaints further allege that even after OSHA clarified in 2013 that these safety standards did  apply to coke oven gas, U.S. Steel only performed "qualitative" or "checkbox" reviews without making meaningful changes to the physical layout of the "blast zone.” “Workers continued to be stationed in the reversing rooms and breakroom located 10-20 feet directly above the high-pressure coke oven gas piping, completely unaware they were positioned atop a catastrophic explosion hazard that their employers had been repeatedly warned about and consistently refused to address,” the Quinn suit reads. New Ownership, Old Hazards In June 2025, just two months before the explosion, Nippon Steel finalized its acquisition of U.S. Steel. The lawsuits name Nippon Steel North America as a defendant, alleging that during their due diligence process, the company reviewed (or should have reviewed) U.S. Steel’s safety records. The plaintiffs allege that Nippon Steel took operational control of the facility and essentially ratified the existing hazardous conditions rather than addressing the long-standing warnings. “Nippon Steel made a conscious decision not to exercise its authority to implement safety corrections,” the Quinn suit reads. “(The company’s) decision to continue operations was motivated by prioritization of revenue over worker safety.” Allegations Against MPW Industries & Valves, Inc. U.S. Steel wasn’t the only defendant named in the suits: The complaints allege that MPW Industrial Services and Valves, Inc. caused or contributed to Quinn and Menefee’s death through negligent and unsafe conduct. According to the suits, MPW used pressurized liquid water instead of low‑pressure steam, which allegedly was the only method allowed by the written procedure and then used a positive‑displacement pump with no pressure‑relief valve, creating the ability to over‑pressurize the valve to catastrophic levels. The suits allege that MPW failed to understand or evaluate the hazards of working on a valve containing live, pressurized, flammable coke oven gas, and failed to conduct proper pre‑job hazard analysis. They also allege MPW proceeded with the operation without attending the July 28, 2025, hazard‑planning meeting, without reviewing procedures, and without ensuring proper lockout/tagout or confined‑space safety requirements. Valves, Inc., on the other hand, is alleged by the Complaints to have refurbished the Battery 13 gas isolation valve in 2013. The Complaints allege the company was negligent because the valve was 60-year-old cast iron at the time of refurbishment—material known to be brittle, aging poorly, and inherently dangerous for high‑pressure, high‑temperature, explosion‑risk environments. The suits allege that Valves, Inc. should have advised that the valve was unsafe for continued service, even if the internal components could be repaired. By refurbishing and returning the valve to service without warnings or replacement recommendations, the suits claim that Valves, Inc. contributed to the decision to keep the unsafe valve in operation until its catastrophic failure. The Complaint asserts that this earlier negligence helped place the faulty valve into long‑term service, setting the stage for its eventual rupture during MPW’s operation and causing the fatal explosion. What’s Next? As these cases move forward, GASP will continue to monitor the proceedings and provide updates. In the meantime, we have a centralized resource page with a timeline of events related to the explosion, as well as links to blogs, news reports and key documents. Until then, you can read the lawsuit filed by Danielle Menefee - wife of the late Steven Menefee -   here . You can read the lawsuit filed by Trisha Lynn Quinn - sister of the late Timothy Quinn -   here .