The first of three prongs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Trucks Rule, which will impose significantly stricter limits on emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from heavy-duty trucks and buses - an issue we told you about last month in our blog. Now, the EPA has published the proposed second prong that, if finalized, will affect medium- and light-duty vehicles (including passenger cars), and place new limits on their emissions of NOx, non-methane organic gases, particulate matter (PM), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and greenhouse gases on a fleet-wide basis. In contrast to the first prong of the Clean Trucks Rule (which focused mainly on making the diesel engines that power trucks and buses much more efficient and less polluting), the second prong will work by setting fleet-wide emissions limits so low that a majority of new medium- and light-duty vehicles sold by the year 2032 should be electric. EPA projects that the rule will reduce the fleet average emissions of greenhouse gases from new light-duty vehicles by 56% by the model year 2032, as compared to the model year 2026. Similarly, EPA estimates that the fleet average emissions of NOx and non-methane organic gases from light-duty vehicles for the model year 2032 will be 60% less than the model year 2025s. Fleet average emissions for medium-duty trucks will drop by similar percentages by the model year 2032: 44% fewer greenhouse gases, and between 66% and 76% (depending on the exact class of medium-duty vehicle) NOx and non-methane organic gases. EPA also predicts that the new standards will reduce fleet average emission of PM from both medium- and light-duty vehicles by a whopping 95%. By 2055, the agency estimates the proposed rule will reduce emissions from oil refineries and medium- and light-duty vehicles of carbon dioxide by 420 million tons per year, fine particulate matter by 15,000 tons per year, NOx by 66,000 tons per year, volatile organic compounds by 220,000 tons per year, sulfur dioxide by 12,000 tons per year, and carbon monoxide by 1.8 million tons per year, net of increases in emissions from the electric generation resulting from increased demand for electricity to power the vehicles. EPA claims that the present value of the health and climate change benefits that will flow from the rule by 2055 is between $350 and $590 billion and that the rule will also yield $450 to $890 billion of fuel savings. Such benefits purportedly will be offset by estimated additional vehicle technology costs of between $180 and $280 billion, representing the increased cost of new vehicles that incorporate the technology needed to comply with the rule. “Although EPA discussed the feasibility of upgrading the nation’s electrical grid and installing charging stations that will be needed for an increasingly electrified vehicle fleet to function in its proposed rulemaking, it does not appear that it estimated the costs for doing so or incorporated such costs into its cost-benefit analysis for the proposed new rule,” GASP senior attorney John Baillie explained. The second prong of the Clean Trucks Rule represents a sweeping change for the automotive, transportation, refining, and electric generation industries, and it is expected to face legal challenges after it is finalized. Stay tuned. We will keep you posted on new developments with the rule as they occur.

The Allegheny County Health Department - the local agency charged with enforcing and monitoring air quality standards - is projecting a budget deficit for 2023 in excess of $750,000. To address that big ole’ budget hole, ACHD proposed two changes to how it funds its Air Quality Program. One of the changes would permit ACHD to recover costs associated with regulatory enforcement actions directly instead of including those amounts in fines paid to the Clean Air Fund - something that GASP supports. As we’ve said: It just makes good fiscal sense. We're not too sure about the second change. It would allow the Air Quality Program to pay for some operational expenses through a larger contribution from the account that holds fines and penalties resulting from air quality violations – known as the Clean Air Fund – from 2023 through 2026. To put it another way, ACHD is seeking more Clean Air Fund money to shore up its bottom line. Why are we raising a bit of a stink? Because County officials appear to have taken the position that cash from the Clean Air Fund is the *only* path to a well-funded Air Quality Program. We disagree. Tapping the Clean Air Fund might be a convenient option, but it’s not the only option, and we don’t see the need to keep that tap open through 2026. From our perspective, one reason we have an underfunded Air Quality Program is that county leaders have not done their part to prioritize clean air – a public health issue that impacts some of our most vulnerable neighbors and one of the most significant quality of life issues for many in our area. If you’re asking yourself what you can do to make air quality enforcement, monitoring, and outreach a priority, please submit a public comment to tell ACHD that you support a well-funded Air Quality Program, but that draining more money from the Clean Air Fund just isn’t the way to do it. Not sure how to do that? No worries - GASP has an explainer and easy form that will route your comments straight to ACHD.

By Amanda Gillooly GASP communications manager A book published today by Pittsburgh-based journalist Kristina Marusic, “The New War On Cancer: The Unlikely Heroes Revolutionizing Prevention,” is one that will move you to act. It talks about the crazy number of chemicals invented since the early 20th Century - about 300,000 - and how they’ve fed our global cancer crisis. It talks about how rates of chemical exposure are so much higher for Black and Brown Americans, another sad example of environmental injustice. It talks about burgeoning rates of childhood cancer and the increasing amounts of forever chemicals seeping into our everyday lives via home and personal products and packaging that might not be on folks’ health radar. And it also talks about just how ineffective The War on Cancer has been - interspersing terrifying statistics about carcinogenic chemicals and how things got *this* bad with personal vignettes about the folks working to shift the paradigm of prevention. As Marusic explains: “Our choices as individual consumers do matter when it comes to our health, but we can’t solve these problems by changing those behaviors alone. We have to change our regulations to protect everyone from harmful chemicals, minimize the influence of large corporations over policymakers, and force corporations to pay for the true cost of their operations instead of continuing to externalize them at the expense of our planet and our health.” Throughout the books, she documents the ways in which ordinary Americans are doing extraordinary cancer-prevention work through science, politics, advocacy, and more. One of the chapters renders a portrait of Mon Valley resident (and GASP smoke-reading volunteer) Melanie Meade and the industrial air pollution that she says has sickened generations of her family and neighbors. It talks about Pittsburgh’s industrial past, the Mon Valley’s enduring air quality problems, and the ways in which she’s working to protect her community. While (as an admitted hypochondriac) the book truly scared the hell out of me, it also opened my eyes to a whole world of chemical exposure that I had certainly heard about but hadn’t spent much time exploring. Reading that everything from the mascara I swipe on to the household cleaning products I use to banish dust could put me at greater risk for certain cancers inspired me - and I hope others - to take more seriously the question, “Now that I know better, how do I do better?” On this point, Marusic delivers: Her powerful epilogue not only explores what she calls “the myth of personal responsibility” but also provides readers with a practical list of ways they can take action to demand change - from donating time and money to advocacy organizations to supporting campaign finance reform. I recommend this book to my friends in air quality advocacy, those whose lives have been touched by a cancer diagnosis, and everyone in between. Because paradigm shifts are hard. And it’s gonna take sustained efforts from all of us to make it happen. “A New War on Cancer: The Unlikely Heroes Revolutionizing Prevention” is available on Amazon, at Barnes & Noble, and bookshop.org.

We want to extend a huge THANK YOU to everyone who attended our Making the Connection: Mental Health in the Time of the Climate Crisis on May 10. A special thank you also goes to Dr. Graham Standish of Samaritan Counseling of Western PA, who led our discussion. For everyone else, the recording is now available. Check it out to explore tools and strategies to build resiliency, prevent burnout, and keep away despair:

Today we want to tell you how grateful we are for our friends at Sullivan Super Service, which selected GASP as the April recipient of its Sully Cares program. Our Executive Director Patrick Campbell was honored to accept the $1,000 donation on GASP’s behalf. “We’re so thankful for Sullivan Service and its generous support of our work to improve local air quality,” he said. “Donations like these ensure GASP can continue the crucial education, advocacy, and watchdog work folks have come to expect from us.” Learn more about Sullivan Super Service and its Sully Cares program on its website.

In response to a projected budget shortfall in 2023, the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) has proposed changes to the way it funds its Air Quality Program – the county agency charged with enforcing and monitoring air quality standards. Specifically, the changes would allow the Air Quality Program to: pay for some operational expenses with a larger contribution from the account that holds fines and penalties resulting from air quality violations – known as the Clean Air Fund – from 2023 through 2026, and recover costs associated with regulatory enforcement actions directly instead of including those amounts in fines paid to the Clean Air Fund. ACHD is accepting public comments on the proposed changes through May 15 and we want the public to weigh in, but what might seem like a simple proposal is a bit messy, as we’ll explain. Fully and reliably funding the government agency charged with improving and protecting our air quality is essential to public health – that is not open for debate. The messy part of the issue is the practical, political, nitty-gritty budgetary reality of paying that agency’s bills. First, let’s narrow the issue somewhat: ACHD’s proposal to recoup enforcement costs is perfectly reasonable, fiscally responsible, and probably overdue. That part of the proposal isn’t why we’re writing. The belle of the ball in this drama is the $10 million pot of cash earmarked for positive impacts on air quality: the Clean Air Fund. And it is a drama. This most recent proposal is just one installment in a long history – one GASP examined in depth – of the fund’s absent, irregular, curious, and/or inconsistent uses and management. Of course, using the fines polluters pay to cover the costs of improving air quality feels like one logical option, but county and ACHD officials have pushed it as the only option, which isn’t true. We put together this explainer to get you up to speed on the history of the Clean Air Fund and the current debate so you can have a voice in shaping how the Clean Air Fund can best make an impact locally. Budgeting for Clean Air ACHD’s Air Quality Program enforces local, state, and federal laws and standards. It has control over – and some discretion in – procedural details regarding permits it writes, rules it enforces, and how the agency interacts with the public. But where higher levels of government (like the U.S. Environmental Agency) make a clear demand concerning a particular detail, there is no question: Those requirements must be followed to the letter. And that’s the case when it comes to funding the Air Quality Program’s work on larger air pollution sources in the county, so-called major sources like U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works. For these facilities, federal law requires that permitting and oversight be paid for entirely and exclusively by fees on these sources. As for the rest of the Air Quality Program’s work, like permitting for smaller minor sources, air quality monitoring, regulatory enforcement, and outreach, the funding requirements are less clear. Facilities classified as minor sources pay fees for permits and other services, but they are much lower than those assessed to major sources. The Air Quality Program receives grants from the EPA to cover some monitoring activities, but the funds don’t cover all the projects that might be useful, important, or relevant locally. Other limited funding sources come up periodically, but in general, few consistent sources of income exist to cover the sorts of educational and outreach work that is important – even critical at times – to impacted communities. One of those few sources is the county itself. State law requires Allegheny County to “make such annual or supplemental appropriations as may be necessary for the operation of the county department of health,” but that is the extent of what the law says on the matter. The source of those “appropriations” and exactly what operations are “necessary” are not clearly defined, can be open to interpretation, and move the discussion along perfectly. Enter the Clean Air Fund The county’s Air Pollution Control Regulations (also called Article 21) established the Clean Air Fund as a repository for fines and penalties assessed against polluters. This account is separate from the normal accounts holding operating funds, and must be used “to support activities related to the improvement of air quality within Allegheny County and to support activities which will increase or improve knowledge concerning air pollution, its causes, its effects, and the control thereof.” While the Clean Air Fund is a separate account, it is not a stretch to think paying for Air Quality Program operations might be considered an activity “related to the improvement of air quality within Allegheny County.” In fact, Article 21 was amended in 2009 to allow the Air Quality Program to use “[a]n amount, no greater than 5 percent of the balance of the Clean Air Fund on December 31st of the previous calendar year,” to cover “normal operating costs.” This means for the past 14 years if the Air Quality Program’s expenses exceeded its income, it could request a contribution from the Clean Air Fund up to 5% of the prior year’s balance. As a rough example, if the Clean Air Fund balance ended a year at $10 million, the Air Quality Program could request up to $500,000 the following year to balance its books. Under the current proposal, ACHD would raise the current 5% cap to 25% but impose an absolute maximum in any given year of $1.25 million. In other words, if the year-end balance was $10 million, the Air Quality Program could only request $1.25 million; the full 25% would only come into play if a year-end balance was below $5 million. If you’re not sure you love or hate the idea, we get it. We won’t fault anyone for thinking parts of the proposal make some sense. As we thought more about it, we realized we needed more information about how the Clean Air Fund has been used over the years. So we did the research and it added some needed perspective. History Matters To better understand how the Clean Fund has been used over the years, GASP reviewed the minutes from Allegheny County Board of Health meetings from January 2003 through March 2023. We generated a report showing all approved Clean Air Fund expenditures and PDFs of all Board of Health minutes that aren’t already available online. Honestly, it’s a lot to unpack. We came up with two insights for now: First, it is important to understand that both before and after the 5% allocation became part of Article 21, the Air Quality Program applied for and received Clean Air Fund money for projects that fell under the general purpose uses of the Clean Air Fund. From 2004 to 2009, the Board of Health approved $1 million for the Air Quality Program to employ an outside contractor to assist in issuing permits, plus another $840,000 to help generate an EPA-required plan to reach federal air quality standards (known as a SIP). From our perspective, these projects were essential, important “operations” of the Air Quality Program that the 5% allocation was meant to address. However, from 2017 through 2020 the Board approved over $1.8 million from the Clean Air Fund for enforcement, staffing, monitoring, and software needs on top of more than $2.2 million in those yearly 5% allocations. That means the Clean Air Fund was providing $1 million per year over four years for Air Quality Program operations. This matters because the proposed change has been presented as necessary to address a sudden budget phenomenon that requires immediate action. It appears to us there has been a need to address budget matters for quite a while. Second, the board has approved millions in Clean Air Fund money for community-oriented projects aimed at outreach, education, and direct emissions reductions in some of the most impacted neighborhoods, but other projects have had minimal or no impacts, and the approach to picking these projects overall appears to have been – at best – hit or miss. Past projects that GASP wildly support include: studying asthma in high-pollution areas projects to reduce gas-powered lawnmowers and wood-burning fireplaces studying the impacts of hazardous air pollutants, and retrofitting diesel engines for school buses and other heavy vehicles in impacted communities On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine how repairs and upgrades to the building housing the Air Quality Program improved air quality or educated the public. And even assuming the Board has the discretion to consider a (very) wide range of projects, the types, timing, and amounts of approved projects lack any order. “We defy anyone to look at the history of Clean Air Fund projects and find a pattern. Good projects have been funded in the past, but the lack of a consistent approach is glaringly obvious,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. How - and Why - to Weigh In GASP supports a well-funded Air Quality Program; our local air quality is far too abysmal far too often for anything less. We reject the suggestion that raiding the Clean Air Fund is the only way to achieve that goal. As Allegheny County officials develop a 2024 budget, GASP is urging decision-makers, council members, and the many other important, unsung staff who influence county finances to do everything in their power to ensure the Air Quality Program gets the funding support it needs to properly safeguard our air and our health. We hope they will also ask the hard questions necessary to get to the bottom of how it came to pass that the Air Quality Program – the only local agency empowered to and depended upon to protect air quality – can’t pay its bills. In the meantime, it’s important that we take this opportunity to send a message to county and health department leaders that the Clean Air Fund must benefit the community. Residents have two ways to weigh in: By submitting written comments or by testifying at a public hearing slated for 5:30 p.m. May 9 at the Clack Health Center. Those who wish to present testimony at the hearing must register using ACHD’s Public Hearing Participation Form or by calling 412-578-8103. Please note: You must register no less than 24 hours in advance of the hearing and testimony is limited to three minutes. Those who wish to provide written comments have until 4 p.m. on May 15 to submit them. To simplify that task, GASP created this easy form that will route your comments straight to ACHD. Need a little help getting started? We have you covered. In your comments we suggest you: state your support for changes allowing the Air Quality Program to recoup direct costs associated with enforcement activities - it just makes good fiscal sense. suggest that additional funding for the air quality program could - and should - come from county coffers moving forward, not the Clean Air Fund. tell ACHD that Clean Air Fund money should be used for projects that help protect our health and environment, not as a resource to balance its budget. Head over to our form now to comment.

So here’s some awesome news: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of at least $400 million in grants for cleaner school buses, reducing harmful pollution and protecting children’s health. Funding from EPA’s Clean School Bus Program will improve air quality in and around schools and communities, save schools money, create good-paying clean energy jobs, and reduce greenhouse gas pollution, protecting people and the planet. The grants are made possible through the Infrastructure Law, which provides an unprecedented $5 billion to transform the nation’s fleet of school buses. This is the first round of funding available as grants and follows the nearly $1 billion awarded through the rebate competition last year to fund electric and low-emission school buses across school districts. A Little Bit of Background About the Clean School Bus Grant Competition The $400 million grant opportunity through EPA’s Clean School Bus Program will fund electric, propane, and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses that will produce either zero or low tailpipe emissions compared to their older diesel predecessors. These emission reductions will result in cleaner air for students riding the buses, bus drivers, school staff working near the bus loading areas, and the communities the buses drive through each day. Beyond the community, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from these bus replacement projects will help to address the outsized role of the transportation sector on climate change. EPA is prioritizing applications that will replace buses serving high-need local education agencies, Tribal school districts funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or those receiving basic support payments for students living on Tribal land, and rural areas. Eligible applicants for this funding opportunity are state and local governmental entities that provide bus service; public charter school districts Indian Tribes, Tribal Organizations, or Tribally-controlled Schools Nonprofit School Transportation Associations, and Eligible Contractors Applicants have two options to apply: Applicants seeking to serve a single school district can apply through the School District Sub-Program to request a minimum of 15 school buses and up to a maximum of 50 school buses. Applicants seeking to serve at least four school districts can apply through the third-party Sub-program to request between 50 school buses and up to a maximum of 100 school buses. EPA will provide a combined funding amount to cover both bus and infrastructure costs for all awardees requesting electric school buses. You can get all the details on the opportunity here. This is a competitive program where applicants will be scored based on how well their proposal meets the criteria set forth within the NOFO. The Clean School Bus Grant Program will be open for 120 days and close, Aug. 22. Questions about applying may be directed to CleanSchoolBus@epa.gov. The grant funding opportunity came on the heels of an EPA report showing that climate change-related impacts in childhood can have lifelong consequences due to effects on learning, physical health, and housing security. The new national-scale, multi-sector EPA report showcases some of the ways children are especially vulnerable to a variety of health effects from climate change due to physical, cognitive, behavioral, and social factors. This peer-reviewed report quantifies projected health effects associated with extreme heat, air quality, changing seasons, and more. Of particular concern to GASP? Climate change is expected to increase the incidence of asthma in children. Specifically, climate-driven changes in air quality are estimated to increase annual cases of asthma between 4% and 11%, respectively. “The report underscores the need for better protections against air pollution for children,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “Getting rid of dirty diesel school buses is one major way we can protect their health and we hope local districts will jump at the opportunity to apply for this funding.”

Climate anxiety is defined as a heightened emotional, mental, or somatic distress in response to dangerous changes in the climate system. Here’s what we know: Climate anxiety can lead to symptoms like panic attacks, loss of appetite, irritability, and sleeplessness. More than two-thirds of Americans experience some anxiety. A recent study shows 59% of children and young adults between the ages of 16 and 25 are extremely worried about our environmental future. Threats to our climate exist here in Pittsburgh, which is home to major air and water polluters. What’s not as clear? What we can do to protect our own - and our children's - mental health as we work to improve the environmental conditions in our corner of the universe. Please join GASP at 6:30 p.m. on May 10 for a virtual Making the Connection event where we will explore tools and strategies we can all use to build resiliency, prevent burnout, and keep away despair. Our discussion will be led by Dr. Graham Standish, executive director of Samaritan Counseling of Western PA. Register here for the free event.

For the first time in 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is imposing new, more stringent standards on certain heavy-duty on-road diesel-powered vehicle emissions - specifically nitrogen oxides. This rule is the first part of the EPA’s Clean Trucks Plan designed to reduce emissions from heavy-duty on-road vehicles beginning with model year 2027. The two other parts of the Clean Trucks Plan will be published later this year and will be aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from heavy-duty on-road vehicles and emissions of greenhouse gases, NOx, and particulate matter from medium- and light-duty vehicles. Emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines are notoriously bad for human health and the environment. They increase concentrations of ozone, particulate matter, NOx, carbon monoxide, and air toxics in the ambient air - especially close to traffic corridors that tend to be located where people live and work. These pollutants increase the risk of respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and even premature death in those who breathe them. Although the new NOx emission standards for heavy-duty trucks focus on reducing levels of NOx and ozone in the ambient air, they will also - as a collateral benefit - reduce trucks’ emissions of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and air toxics. Besides reducing emissions, the rule for heavy-duty trucks that EPA published last December also will apply the new emission standards to a broader range of operating conditions (including idling). The rule will also at least double the number of miles that manufacturers must warrant engines will meet the new emission standards applicable to them. EPA estimates that by 2045 (when the rule’s full impact will finally be felt – heavy-duty engines have long lifespans and dirty engines in service now may not be replaced for many years) the new standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks will prevent hundreds of premature deaths and thousands of illnesses annually. EPA said that by 2045 the value of the health benefits from the rule will be between $10- $30 billion dollars annually and estimates that the cost of complying with the rule will be less than $5 billion dollars annually. And *that* raises the question: Between now and 2045, what rules are in place to limit harmful emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks? At least here in Pennsylvania, the answer unfortunately is “not many.” Here’s what the Keystone State does regulate: First, the Clean Air Act makes it illegal to tamper with or disable diesel (or any other) vehicles’ emission controls; there is a temptation for truck owners to do this because the controls reduce both the power and efficiency of trucks’ diesel engines. Second, Pennsylvania restricts idling by larger diesel vehicles in many situations. “There is, however, no third,” Baillie said. “Pennsylvania does not require diesel vehicles’ emissions or emission controls to be inspected.” That means dirty, heavy-duty diesel engines are subject to less regulatory oversight than are less-polluting gasoline-powered cars, which must have their emission control systems inspected annually in many parts of the state. Further, other than limitations on idling, there are no other restrictions on emissions from the operation of diesel trucks in Pennsylvania. In contrast, a few other states – Maine, Rhode Island, and Utah – do impose an emission inspection requirement on heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Also, in a few states, high-opacity emissions from diesel vehicles operating on the highways can be against the law: Colorado prohibits diesel vehicle emissions that “create an unreasonable nuisance or danger to the public health, safety, and welfare,” and have opacity of at least 20%. The prohibition does not apply to emissions during the start-up of a cold engine. Georgia prohibits diesel emissions of more than 30% opacity. The prohibition does not apply “during periods of acceleration and deceleration not to exceed 10 continuous seconds or 1,000 feet.” Maine has a prohibition against rolling coal that makes it illegal to operate a diesel vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating under 18,000 pounds that emits smoke because of an alteration to the vehicle’s pollution control system. Virginia prohibits diesel vehicle emissions of 20% opacity or more that last for longer than five seconds “after the engine has been brought up to operating temperature.” The prohibition only applies in a few counties and cities in northern Virginia. Each of these states makes smoke reader training available to police officers and any other government employees who are empowered to enforce the prohibitions. Annual emission inspections and prohibitions on extended, high-opacity emissions give truck drivers incentives to operate their vehicles properly and keep their engines well-maintained with pollution controls in good working order, which helps reduce the vehicles’ emissions. “These are measures that every state - including Pennsylvania - can and should take to limit emissions from dirty diesel engines until the Clean Trucks Rule takes effect over the coming decades,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week announced it is proposing new health protections to reduce exposure to Ethylene Oxide (EtO), including more stringent air emissions standards and additional protections for workers who are exposed to the gas. By way of background, Ethylene Oxide is a colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor used to make other chemicals used to produce a range of products, including antifreeze, textiles, plastics, detergents, and adhesives. EtO also is used to sterilize medical equipment and plastic devices that cannot be sterilized by steam. If finalized, EPA’s proposals are estimated to cut EtO emissions from commercial sterilization facilities by 80% each year “and apply more protective standards to control those emissions under the law.” For more background on why the EPA decided to issue the proposals, check out this explainer from our senior staff attorney John Baillie for a plain-language explanation. But back to that EPA press release: EPA officials said the proposals will provide a comprehensive approach to addressing EtO pollution concerns - including cancer risk - that will increase safety in communities and for workers while providing a path to maintain a robust supply chain for sterilized medical equipment. Why should we care about Eto? Long-term exposure to the gas over the course of a 35-year career or 70-year lifetime can increase the risk of certain types of cancer. People who go to school near places where EtO is used are also potentially at an elevated risk of cancer due to EtO levels in the ambient air. Actual risks will vary based on a facility’s control measures for workers and community members and the distance and amount of time people live, work, or go to school near it. The new proposals include controls that many facilities are already using, and that EPA would apply nationwide. EPA said it will continue to provide the public - especially in impacted communities and workplaces - with access to the information they need to make informed, independent judgments about risk and to encourage public involvement in the regulatory process. What’s Being Proposed The EPA is issuing a proposed rule outlining new requirements for 86 commercial sterilizers across the country, among them two in Pennsylvania. If finalized, the proposal would reduce EtO emissions from these facilities by 80%, bringing emission levels down so that risk falls below the EPA’s Clean Air Act benchmark for elevated cancer risk. While many of these facilities have already taken steps to reduce emissions, the proposal will require all 86 facilities and any new facilities to comply with these stricter pollution controls, which have already proven to be effective and achievable. All commercial sterilizers will also be required to use advanced source monitoring methods to confirm that these pollution controls are operating effectively. Facilities would be required to report results to EPA twice per year. Under the proposal, facilities would be required to comply with these new requirements within 18 months. This represents an expedited timeline under EPA authority. EPA required all commercial sterilizers to submit detailed information about EtO emissions and control technologies as part of a 2021 Information Collection Request.EPA used this data to estimate risk to people who live near these facilities. EPA also conducted extensive pre-proposal outreach in 2022, including community meetings and webinars, which supported state and local efforts to protect communities and generated information that informed and strengthened this proposal. New Safeguards to Protect Workers, Communities, and Reduce Exposure In addition to new emissions standards, EPA is proposing a comprehensive set of new mitigation measures that will decrease the risk for workers who use EtO to sterilize products and for other people in communities near sterilization facilities. EPA is now proposing to increase control measures on the use of EtO such as: Prohibiting certain uses of EtO where alternatives exist including use in museums, archival settings, beekeeping, some cosmetics, and musical instruments; Reducing the amount of EtO that may be applied for medical device sterilization while meeting applicable standards for sterility assurance; Requiring engineering controls that reduce worker exposures to EtO, such as automation or emissions capture technology; and Mandating Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in sterilization facilities when EtO is detected using state-of-the-art monitoring technology. EPA is also proposing real-time monitoring of EtO using technology that can measure EtO within sterilization facilities down to 10 parts per billion (ppb). If levels surpass 10 ppb, workers would be required to wear personal protective equipment. EPA is also instructing industry to develop technologies and methods to identify lower concentrations of EtO, below 10 parts per billion (ppb), inside contract sterilization facilities. EPA’s proposal also includes new data collection and reporting requirements that would help identify and improve protective monitoring technologies and assess the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. Based on this data, EPA intends to initiate the next round of registration review for EtO earlier than the mandated timeframe, including assessing these measures and incorporating additional protections based on advances in technology that occur. Why EPA Initiated the Changes EPA is moving to advance these new protections based on the Agency’s latest assessment of cancer risks from EtO exposure in occupational settings, which are more significant than previously understood. EPA noted, though, that it has not found that routine exposure to EtO from these facilities causes short-term or acute health risks. These risks can be reduced through measures that have already been taken or can be taken immediately by increasing access to personal protective equipment, adequate ventilation, and safety protocols to avoid direct contact with EtO. As stated above, many facilities have already successfully implemented these measures, reducing risks. Last year, EPA released the latest available information on air emissions of EtO from these facilities and undertook extensive engagement with communities where EPA identified the potential for elevated lifetime cancer risks due to long-term exposure to EtO. The Clean Air Act standards EPA is proposing today would, if finalized, reduce lifetime cancer risks for people who live near all commercial sterilizers. What Now? EPA is encouraging stakeholders, including community, industry, and public health leaders to participate in the public comment process. You can do that by visiting EPA’s website. Both dockets will be open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA will also host a public webinar at 8 p.m. May 1 to discuss proposals and risk assessment. Information for the public to register for the webinar will be available on EPA’s Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide (EtO) webpage. For those who are unable to attend, EPA will post a recording of the webinar on the Agency’s website. Additionally, EPA announced a separate action last week to reduce risk from EtO to people who live near facilities that make and use EtO in manufacturing. For more information on EtO, please visit EPA’s website.