The Allegheny County Board of Health on Wednesday approved a transfer of $490,605 from the Clean Air Fund  to go toward the Air Quality Program’s operating budget - one that ended 2024 with a nearly $550,000 shortfall. Here’s the slide presented at the meeting: Officials were clear: They didn’t want to ask for the 5 percent of the fund that county air quality rules say they are authorized to take each year. But they needed to.  Why?  Because the current permit fees imposed on industry are not sufficient to cover the costs of administering the program. ( More on that here . ) And, more importantly, because Allegheny County Council has failed to vote on an updated fee schedule that would fully fund the Air Quality Program. (And more on that here .) So, what now?  Now we go en masse to the next Allegheny County Council meeting and let them know that thanks in part to their inaction, Clean Air Fund dollars that could have gone to community environmental projects instead will be used to help pay for the program. As a reminder, the vote on these updated permit fees (slated months ago) should have been a true no-brainer. The proposal was robustly supported by the Air Pollution Advisory Committee, the Allegheny County Board of Health and by scores of public commenters (GASP included). It was even affirmatively recommended by Allegheny County Council’s own Health and Human Services Committee, where it was inexplicably kicked back for further consideration. Meanwhile, amazingly we, the general public - still have no real idea what the opposition is. When we ask, we get fed lines like, “Welp, we just don’t have enough information.” Or, “Welp, that one fee looks kinda high to me.” And to that, friends, we call bullshit.  This issue has been in the spotlight for MONTHS. Council has heard from countless air quality groups, residents, public officials, and even the experts they count on to advise them on these technical matters. All have basically said, “Greenlight this bad boy already.” At this point, we can only assume that it’s either arrogance or ignorance (or a dangerous mix of the two) leading a contingent of council members to be potential “no” votes.  Listen, we know this isn’t the first time (or even the second time!) that we’ve asked yinz to come raise a little hell over these permit fees - but will you join us at the next Allegheny County Council meeting?  Full council is slated to meet this upcoming Tuesday, March 25 and we’re trying to pack the room and send the message: They need to approve the fee schedule changes to fully fund our air quality program ASAP. If you want to join us at the meeting and address council, click here to register to comment. If you’d like to send council a written message letting them know you support the fee schedule changes and encourage them to vote YES on the proposal,  click here. Editor’s Note: Have questions, need more info, or help crafting comments? We’re here to help! Hit up our communications manager Amanda Gillooly at amanda@gasp-pgh.org .

The air quality watch dogs here at GASP want to express our sincere gratitude to Allegheny County Health Department Director Dr. lulia Vann for swiftly fulfilling her promise to increase accessibility to Board of Health meetings. During the Wednesday board meeting, Dr. Vann announced two significant changes: Virtual Public Comment:  She told the board that moving forward, residents will be able to participate in meetings and present public comments virtually. When you click on the online form to address the Board of Health now, you may choose whether you want to do so in person or via Zoom. This is a crucial step toward ensuring all voices are heard, regardless of location or personal circumstances.  Exploring New Meeting Locations and Times:  Recognizing the challenges of attending meetings downtown during weekdays, Dr. Vann announced that ACHD is actively exploring alternative locations and meeting times for 2025. This proactive approach demonstrates a commitment to making participation more convenient and inclusive for all residents. These changes are exactly the type of common-sense actions GASP has been advocating for years. Increased accessibility and transparency are essential for a truly effective and accountable public health department.  “We applaud Dr. Vann's leadership and her continued commitment to engaging with the community,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “We truly look forward to continued collaboration with ACHD to improve public health outcomes for Allegheny County and ensure that all residents have a seat at the decision-making table.”

Last month we   blogged  about how the waiver that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA” issued to allow California to impose its own emission standards on cars and light-duty trucks had been referred to Congress for (presumably) disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.   Congress’s disapproval of the waiver would have precluded California from imposing standards different than EPA’s own nationwide standards and also precluded a waiver from being issued for any substantially similar California standards in the future. We say “would have” because it appears that Congress failed to take a vote on the waiver before the March 7 deadline prescribed by the Congressional Review Act.  That means that it appears that the California standards (which Pennsylvania has adopted in part) will stand, if only for the time being – EPA just   announced  that it intends to revisit, and presumably gut, its own emission standards for model year 2027 cars and light-duty trucks.   We’ll continue to follow this as it develops and keep you posted.

The EPA press releases were issued like thunderclaps Wednesday afternoon - boom, boom, boom: EPA Announces Action to Implement POTUS’s Termination of Biden-Harris Electric Vehicle Mandate Trump EPA Announces Reconsideration of Burdensome Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Administrator Zeldin Takes Action to Decrease Risk of Future Catastrophic Wildfires (“Exceptional Events”) EPA Announces Action to Address Costly Obama, Biden “Climate” Measurements (Social Cost of Carbon) Trump EPA to Reconsider Biden-Harris MATS Regulation That Targeted Coal-Fired Power Plants to be Shut Down Trump EPA Announces Reconsideration of Air Rules Regulating American Energy, Manufacturing, Chemical Sectors (NESHAPs) Administrator Zeldin Takes Action to Prioritize Cooperative Federalism, Improve Air Quality Faster Administrator Zeldin Directs Enforcement Resources to Align with Executive Orders and EPA’s Core Mission EPA Terminates Biden’s Environmental Justice, DEI Arms of Agency Trump EPA Announces Path Forward on National Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (PM2.5) to Aid Manufacturing, Small Businesses EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History Trump EPA Announces Plan to Work with States on SIPs to Improve Air Quality and Reconsider “Good Neighbor Plan” Yes, yinz can file this all under "I" for insane. The flurry of “news” gave a certain…vibe. And as your friendly neighborhood air quality watch dogs since 1969, we want to take a skinny minute to implore you to take a deep breath (for real, we’re not being flippant), lower your shoulders, and exhale. We know it’s A LOT. But here’s the thing: All that “news” was big on shock value but short on details. Are we concerned? Absolutely. But do we think the chaos is intentional? You betcha. Here’s how PublicSource put it: The EPA didn't provide details about what it wants to do with the regulations — whether it will try to weaken them or eliminate them entirely. In most cases, the agency said it is reconsidering rules that apply to things like climate pollution from vehicles and power plants, wastewater from coal plants and air pollution from the energy and manufacturing sectors. The EPA is referring to yesterday’s action as “the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history” adding that “today the green new scam ends, as the EPA does its part to usher in a golden age of American success.” But here’s the thing: In the United States we have this thing called “procedure.” And the flurry of EPA releases didn’t address any of that. Here’s how the New York Times put it: The announcements do not carry the force of law. In almost every case, the E.P.A. would have to undergo a lengthy process of public comment and develop environmental and economic justifications for the change What’s the takeaway here? Please don’t panic. That’s exactly what the new administration wants us to do - to be desperate, to be afraid. It wants us to flail and froth at the mouth.  What they aren’t counting on is an educated public armed with the knowledge and resources they need to fight back against their onslaught of propaganda and scare tactics.  Listen, we’re not channeling our inner Pollyanna here. We just wanted to remind you that we still live in a country with checks and balances, despite what the keyboard bullies behind those politically charged press releases want you to believe. We also wanted to gently remind folks that GASP has been the air quality nonprofit of record in our region since 1969 for a reason: We not only understand the big picture, we specialize in the nuance that environmental foes try to exploit. Do we have a panic button? Absolutely. Is it time to push it? Not yet.  Please know that GASP is following these national issues closely, and will report back to you on how they will - or may - play out on the local level. That’s all for now. Take care and keep your chin up. In Solidarity, The Gang at GASP

Editor’s Note: GASP has received questions from members who received letters in the mail regarding this class action settlement. If you have questions about your rights under the settlement, we recommend that you get in touch with those lawyers, who represent the class in question.  U.S. Steel is poised to pay $6.1 million to settle a class-action lawsuit regarding dust and other noxious emissions from its Edgar Thomson facility in North Braddock. The complaint filed in 2022 stated: “(U.S. Steel) owes and continues to owe a duty to the public to prevent and abate the interference with and the invasion of, the free use and enjoyment of public air and spaces by emitting fugitive dust and noxious odors into the ambient air.” According to the settlement agreement, here’s how that money will be spent: $1.5 million  will be paid out to those who are opt-ins, which includes a $5,000 payment to lead plaintiff Alyssa Finley.  $2.25 million  will be used to build two wheel wash stations to clean vehicles exiting the facility $1.6 million will be used to pave the onsite street informally known as Burma Road $740,000  will be used to purchase to street sweepers for use at - and in the vicinity of - the Edgar Thomson facility Here’s what else you need to know about the settlement: Notice has been sent to residents eligible to opt-in or out of the settlement and an informational  website has been published. Opt-ins and objections must be postmarked by March 17. Claim forms must be postmarked by March 31 to be eligible to compensation through the settlement Class members are defined as those who owned, occupied, or leased residential property within a 1-mile radius of the Edgar Thomson facility.  A final settlement fairness hearing is slated for 9:30 a.m. April 15.  Editor’s Note: The upgrades required by this agreement are in addition to the emissions mitigation measures mandated by a settlement reached between U.S. Steel and federal and local regulators. You can read more about all that here.

Back in May 2024, we blogged about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finalization of a proposed rule that would have imposed a fee on waste methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.  We blogged about that rule again in November, when EPA finally approved the fee itself. According to the Associated Press, EPA predicted that the rule would have reduced the industry’s emissions of methane by 1.2 million metric tons by 2035 .   We say “would have” because the rule is no more.    On Feb. 27, both houses of Congress voted to disapprove  the regulation under the Congressional Review Act (more on that in a different context here ).    Under the Congressional Review Act, not only is the old rule imposing a waste methane emission fee invalidated, but EPA is prohibited from adopting a new, substantially similar rule in the future.    “What this means for compliance with the requirements of the Inflation Reduction Act that fee be imposed on the oil and gas industry’s waste methane emissions going forward is, at least for now, unclear,” GASP senior attorney John Baillie said.   We’ll keep you posted should the rule resurface in the future.

Editor's Note: GASP on Feb. 27 submitted formal comments on the new RACT requirements for the Butler Works. You can read them here. The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) this month published a notice of proposed revisions to the Title V Operating Permit for Cleveland Cliffs Steel Corporation’s Butler Works.   These proposed permit revisions would implement Reasonably Available Control Technology requirements (or RACT for short). We decided to take a look at the proposed revisions and report on them.  But First Some Background… The RACT requirement is imposed by the Clean Air Act and instructs each state to determine whether facilities that are major sources  of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) within its borders are using all reasonably available control technology to limit emissions of NOx and VOCs.   A facility is a major source of NOx if it has the potential to emit 100 tons or more per year of NOx and is a major source of VOCs if it has the potential to emit 50 tons or more per year of VOCs.  If such facilities are not implementing RACT, the states must require them to do so, even if they were properly permitted when they began operating and have continued to operate within all applicable limits. Need to Know Info About RACT New RACT determinations are required every time the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revises a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone or NOx (fun fact: NOx and VOCs are the two principal precursors to the formation of ground-level ozone pollution).   The first round of RACT determinations followed the imposition of the RACT requirement by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act and were implemented in the late 1990s and early 2000s.   The second round of RACT determinations (RACT II), which were completed just last year, followed the revision of the NAAQS for ozone in 2008 (yes, there really was a 14-year lag!).    The recently-proposed revisions to the Butler Works’ operating permit follow the latest revision of the ozone standard, which occurred in 2015, and are referred to as RACT III determinations. Generally, the Clean Air Act requires RACT determinations only for major sources in areas that do not attain the NAAQS for ozone. The Butler Works is a “major source” of both NOx and VOCs, but Butler County attains the NAAQS for ozone.   So why is the plant subject to the RACT requirement?   Because the Clean Air Act requires that all areas of Pennsylvania be treated as nonattainment for ozone, regardless of their actual attainment status. As a result, all “major sources” of NOx and VOCs in Pennsylvania, including the Butler Works, are required to comply with RACT III emission limits. How RACT Determinations Work RACT determinations are made in either of two ways: Each individual source of NOx and VOC pollution within a facility that is a major source of NOx and/or VOCs. For some source categories, RACT is defined by regulation; a source in the category must comply with the regulation. The determinations for such sources are known as presumptive RACT determinations.  For other sources, RACT is determined on a case-by-case basis, and such determinations are referred to as alternative or - no surprise here - “case-by-case” RACT determinations.   For case-by-case determinations, the goal is to make sure the source is using control methods that are both technologically feasible and cost effective, with cost effectiveness being evaluated on a “dollars per ton of pollutant eliminated” basis.   A RACT III control measure is deemed to be cost effective at $7,500/ton of NOx emissions reduced or $12,000/ton of VOC emissions reduced. What You Need to Know About Butler Works’ RACT The Butler Works contains a mix of many sources, some of which are subject to presumptive RACT III requirements and some of which needed case-by-case RACT III determinations.   The presumptive RACT III requirements did not impose new emissions limits on any sources within the Butler Works; rather, such sources will generally be subject to annual tune-up, maintenance, and testing requirements to ensure that they are burning fuel efficiently.  There is nothing unusual about that. But Here’s the Weird Thing About It Is… In contrast, the RACT III determinations that DEP made for several sources within the Butler Works that were made on a case-by-case basis are unusual, because those determinations will allow for increases in the sources’ emissions limits for NOx:  SOURCE RACT II NOx LIMITS (Tons per Year) RACT III NOx LIMITS (Tons per Year) INCREASE FROM RACT II to RACT III (Tons per Year) Slab Heating Furnace 6 (Source 112) 36.60 41.08 4.48 Slab Heating Furnace 8 (Source 137) 62.10 62.52 0.42 Anneal Furnace 4 (Source 156) 22.96 24.50 1.54 Anneal Furnace 7 (Source 157) 17.20 20.74 3.54 Anneal Furnace 12 (Source 158) 63.65 81.87 18.22   Why GASP Has Questions & Next Steps “DEP’s Review Memo for its RACT III determinations does not explain how authorized NOx emissions for these sources could increase – if the lower emission limits were the result of controls that were ‘reasonably available’ just a few years ago, why aren’t those controls available now,”  asked GASP Senior Attorney John Baillie. “We are left to wonder.” DEP is accepting written comments on the RACT III determinations for the Butler Works through Feb. 28. Written comments may be mailed to:  Lori McNabb, Regional Air Quality Program Manager, DEP’s Northwest Region’s, 230 Chestnut Street, Meadville, PA 16335. Editor’s Note: GASP continues to follow this issue closely and will keep you posted.

Editor’s Note: The following press release was issued Tuesday afternoon by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). GASP thanks the department for addressing the H2S and SO2 exceedances publicly - we appreciate the transparency! The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) received three sulfur dioxide (SO2) exceedance alerts from the North Braddock monitoring station in the early morning hours Tuesday. As part of our ongoing monitoring program, these alerts help inform the ACHD Air Quality team of potential issues in the area so they can further investigate what may be happening. The alerts went off at 1 am, 2 am and 4 am. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon monoxide (CO) were also elevated from their typical levels during this time period. The one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2 is 0.075 parts per million (ppm). Preliminary numbers show that at from 12 am to 1am SO2 was at 0.083 ppm, from 1am to 2 am SO2 was at 0.116 ppm, and from 3 am to 4 am SO2 was at 0.077 ppm.    H2S levels exceeded the 24-hour state standard of 0.005 ppm and the highest concentration happened from 1 am to 2am at 0.073 ppm. However, the one-hour state standard of 0.100 ppm was not exceeded over that same time period. While CO did not exceed the federal standard of 35,000 parts per billion (ppb), the highest hourly concentration of CO from 11 pm on February 24 to 6 am on February 25 was 10,978 ppb. The North Braddock monitoring station normally records CO at about 200-400 ppb. As of 9 am, CO, SO2, and H2S have been measured in low concentrations at the North Braddock monitoring station. ACHD has been in contact with pollution sources in the area to determine whether any local operations could have caused the exceedances. ACHD is currently  investigating the issue and will provide additional information as it becomes available. Residents can view hourly monitored data  on the ACHD daily summary  (North Braddock is available on p. 76) to see CO, SO2, and H2S concentrations. Hourly readings of H2S  levels are also available using the air quality dashboard. More about SO2: According to the EPA , the largest source of SO2 in the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels by power plants and other industrial facilities. Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore; natural sources such as volcanoes; and locomotives, ships and other vehicles and heavy equipment that burn fuel with a high sulfur content. SO2 can affect both health and the environment. What are the health effects of SO2? Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier. SO2 emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2 in the air generally also lead to the formation of other sulfur oxides (SOx). SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles contribute to particulate matter (PM) pollution. Small particles may penetrate deeply into the lungs and in sufficient quantity can contribute to health problems. Learn more about particulate matter What are the environmental effects of SO2 and other sulfur oxides? At high concentrations, gaseous SOx can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth.   SO2 and other sulfur oxides can contribute to acid rain which can harm sensitive ecosystems.  Learn more about acid rain What is hydrogen sulfide? Hydrogen sulfide is a flammable, colorless gas that smells like rotten eggs. People usually can smell hydrogen sulfide at low concentrations in air ranging from 0.0005 to 0.3 parts per million (ppm). How can hydrogen sulfide affect my health? Studies in humans suggest that the respiratory tract and nervous system are the most sensitive targets of hydrogen sulfide toxicity. Respiratory distress or arrest has been observed in people exposed to very high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may cause irritation to the eyes, nose, or throat or headaches, poor memory, tiredness, and balance problems. It may also cause difficulty in breathing for some asthmatics. Respiratory distress or arrest has been observed in people exposed to very high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Brief exposures to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can cause loss of consciousness. In most cases, the person appears to regain consciousness without any other effects. However, in some individuals, there may be permanent or long-term effects such as headaches, poor attention span, poor memory, and poor motor function. What is carbon monoxide? Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, practically odorless, and tasteless gas or liquid. It results from incomplete oxidation of carbon in combustion. Health Effects Associated with Carbon Monoxide At low concentrations: Fatigue in healthy people. Chest pain in people with heart disease. At higher concentrations: Impaired vision and coordination. Headaches. Dizziness. Confusion. Nausea. Can cause flu-like symptoms that clear up after leaving home. Fatal at very high concentrations.  Acute effects are due to the formation of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood, which inhibits oxygen intake.  At moderate concentrations, angina, impaired vision, and reduced brain function may result.  At higher concentrations, CO exposure can be fatal. Residents should test Carbon Monoxide detectors to ensure they are working properly and immediately leave if the alarm goes off. After moving to a safer location, call 9-1-1 and report the issue.

The Allegheny County Health Department today issued a press release announcing that there was a breakdown at U.S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson facility in North Braddock over the weekend. Here’s what ACHD sent out: Over the weekend there was an issue at the Edgar Thomson Works in Braddock, according to a breakdown report submitted to ACHD by US Steel. The report also mentions that the incident on February 23rd occurred at 7 am and resulted in damage to the building. US Steel has tarped the hole until a permanent repair can be made and slowed down production. For more information regarding issues within the Edgar Thomson facility reach out to U.S. Steel. The required pollution monitors were not damaged by this issue. The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) will continue to investigate the breakdown. GASP has reached out to ACHD to see if the breakdown at Edgar Thomson over the weekend could also be related to sky-high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide at the North Braddock monitor today - levels that exceeded Pennsylvania’s 24-hour-average standard. ACHD responded immediately, stating: The cause of the H2S values are under investigation and we cannot provide any further comments at this time. We thank ACHD for the transparency. Stay tuned, we are following this issue closely and will keep you posted as more details emerge.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA), about 28 percent of our national gas emissions come from transportation sources  - more than half of that is attributable to cars and other light-duty vehicles .   We recently blogged about how the new administration in Washington is attempting to scrap an EPA regulation that effectively mandates that roughly two-thirds of all vehicles sold in the United States be electric by model year 2032.    And that’s unfortunate because the amount of air pollution reduction such a regulation seems likely to bring about would be remarkable.             But that’s not all: This month we’ve also witnessed another course change by EPA regarding vehicle emission standards.  On Feb. 14, EPA announced that it is sending the Biden Administration’s issuance of a waiver for California’s light-duty vehicle emission standards to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act.    This set of California emission standards is referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars II rules and they do two noteworthy things:   They would ban the sale of new cars powered with internal combustion engines in California by 2035. They would impose limits on the tailpipe emissions of new cars sold in California from model year 2026 through model year 2035.   The Clean Air Act generally prohibits the states from imposing their own rules regarding limitations on emissions from new motor vehicles – the Act contemplates that such limitations generally may be imposed only by EPA.    We say generally, however, because the Act includes a carve-out for California’s vehicle emission standards – EPA can waive the Act’s prohibition of state vehicle emission standards for those issued by California (although none of the other states).    Further, the Act allows other states to adopt California’s standards after EPA issued a waiver for them.     Indeed, back in 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) promulgated a regulation called the Clean Vehicles Program that requires new cars sold in Pennsylvania to adhere to vehicle emission limits set by California (but not  California’s fleet efficiency standards, though).    “That means that California’s rules determine how much pollution can come out of a new car’s tailpipe in Pennsylvania, but do not determine what percentage - if any -  of new cars in Pennsylvania must be electric,” GASP senior attorney John Baillie explained.   California submitted a request for a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for the Advanced Clean Cars II rules to EPA in 2023.  EPA approved that waiver request on December 17, 2024, and published notice of its approval in the Federal Register on January 6, 2025.    However, as we noted above, on Feb. 14, EPA sent the approved waiver to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act.   What does this mean?   The Congressional Review Act, which has been on the books since the 1990s, requires federal agencies to submit new major federal regulations to Congress for its review, and gives Congress the power to disapprove any such regulation for up to 60 days after the regulation becomes effective.    Congressional disapproval is by a simple majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate .  Important to note: Once a regulation has been disapproved under the Congressional Review Act, it may not be reissued in substantially the same form.   EPA’s approval of California’s waiver request was published on Jan. 6 and became effective on that date. Accordingly, Congress has until March 7 to disapprove the waiver under the Congressional Review Act.  If it does so, EPA may not grant a request for a substantially similar waiver in the future.   “Where this is going is anybody’s guess.” Baillie said. “Maybe Congress will fail to act by March 7, but if it does act the rules governing tailpipe emissions for cars in the upcoming model years in California and other large states could be out the window, replaced with