The Avonworth School District and one of its contractors are facing a $5,850 fine for asbestos abatement-related violations stemming from a 2025 roof replacement project at the high school.   According to a March 9, 2026, enforcement order issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) and obtained by GASP through a public records request, the district and Triangle Roofing Corp. failed to provide the required asbestos survey prior to renovations at Avonworth High School.   “As of the date of this order, a thorough pre-renovation asbestos survey of the building materials disturbed by the renovation project has not been provided to ACHD by Avonworth School District or Triangle Roofing,” the order states.   You can read the entire enforcement order here.   Little bit of background about asbestos and why it’s a concern: When asbestos is left undisturbed it does not pose a health risk. However, during renovation or demolition, it’s common for old, brittle asbestos products to release tiny fibers. These tasteless, odorless fibers can remain suspended in the air and enter your lungs when you inhale. And once inhaled, asbestos stays there forever. Exposure to airborne asbestos fibers can cause serious health issues including asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and pleural disease. And there is no safe minimum level of exposure to asbestos. An estimated 10,000 cases of asbestos-related disease occur each year in the U.S. as a result of past exposures.   In Allegheny County, the health department regulates asbestos.  ACHD’s rules require an asbestos survey for all renovation and demolition projects and depending on the quantity of asbestos identified, proper notification, specific work practices, and proper disposal of asbestos-containing material (ACM) are required.   These rules apply to all structures with more than four dwelling units, along with schools, public buildings, and a wide range of other structures defined as facilities under the regulations. Editor’s Note: The Allegheny County Health Department periodically updates its website to include documents related to air quality enforcement actions. As part of our watchdog work, GASP monitors this webpage and reports on the air quality violations posted there. However, the docket has not been updated since December 2025. GASP is filing Right to Know requests for enforcement documents each month. “Timely transparency is needed,” GASP Communications Manager Amanda Gillooly said. “It would be ideal if the county updated the Air Quality Program enforcement docket each month, so residents know what our local regulator is doing to protect the air we all breathe from bad actors. As it stands, the docket has not been updated yet this year.”

Ethylene oxide is a cancer-causing hazardous air pollutant that is used to sterilize medical products, among other things – we’ve blogged about ethylene oxide pollution several times .    Because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved the sticks on regulating ethylene oxide pollution yet again , it’s time for another update.   EPA on March 17 published a proposed rule and reconsideration of its April 5, 2024 Final Rule that revised the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for facilities that use ethylene oxide to sterilize medical and other products.    The 2026 proposed rule would undo some, but not all, of the stricter emission standards imposed by the 2024 rule, mostly having to do with facilities that use 10 or more tons per year of ethylene oxide.    There are no such facilities in our region, although one facility in Erie uses smaller quantities of ethylene oxide. It appears that the emission limitations that apply to that facility will not change as a result of EPA’s latest proposed revisions to the NESHAPS.   What makes the latest proposed rule interesting is the basis that EPA asserts for promulgating it: specifically, that EPA lacked the authority to perform the residual risk review on which it based the revisions it made in 2024 and proposes to rescind now, because that was the second residual risk review it performed for the NESHAPs for ethylene oxide.    In other words, EPA is now claiming that some of the revisions that it made in 2024 to the NESHAPs for ethylene oxide broke the law. Did they?  Maybe. Some background on what the Clean Air Act says (and does not say) about revising NESHAPs will be helpful to understanding why (or why not):   The Act requires that within eight years after promulgating a NESHAPs, EPA must revisit it to determine whether it is sufficiently stringent. First, EPA must perform a technology review to determine whether the standard incorporates what’s known as developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, and revise the standard to incorporate such developments if it does not.    The Act further requires that EPA perform an additional technology review every eight years thereafter.   The Act also requires that within eight years of promulgating a NESHAPs, EPA must perform a residual risk review to determine whether the NESHAPs should be revised to address any health risks that remain despite the NESHAPs.    The Act does not  expressly require that EPA perform further residual risk reviews every eight years as it does for technology reviews. In fact, it does not say anything about additional residual risk reviews.   EPA first promulgated a NESHAPs for sterilization facilities that use ethylene oxide in 1994 and finalized technology and residual risk reviews for it in 2006. When EPA proposed the 2024 revisions to the standards, it took the position that it was permitted to do a second residual risk review because the Clean Air Act did not expressly prohibit such a review (which was a novel position for it to take).    EPA now claims that it can only exercise authority that is provided by the statute (rather than authority that is not prohibited by the statute), and that the Clean Air Act does not provide it with the authority to do additional residual risk reviews for a NESHAPs.   “This is another question that will be determined by the federal courts,” said GASP Senior Attorney John Baillie. “It is unlikely that Congress will clarify what authority it intends for EPA to have, although it should. EPA does itself no favors by flip-flopping every several years.”   EPA has scheduled a virtual public hearing for its proposed revisions to the ethylene oxide NESHAPs for April 1, 2026, with details to be announced at this address:  https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/ ethylene-oxide-emissions-standards- sterilization-facilities .    Further, EPA is accepting comments on the proposed revisions through May 1.  You may submit your comments at https://www.regulations.gov/ , under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0178.

Some abysmal news to share: As of this week, the Mon Valley has experienced 34 hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) exceedances so far in 2026.  To put that into perspective, during this same period last year, we were looking at just 14.  For the uninitiated: Hydrogen sulfide is an air pollutant with an unmistakable rotten egg odor that all-too-often blankets the Mon Valley.  While the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) tracks it, the health and quality-of-life impacts are more than just a nuisance.  A quick look at CREATE Lab’s Smell Pittsburgh app shows residents are reporting: • Respiratory issues : Especially for those with asthma. • Neurological symptoms: Headaches, nausea, and "brain fog." • Quality of life issues: Sleep interruption and the inability to let your kids play outside. If you are now asking yourself, “But where does the stuff come from?” know that ACHD’s own study attributed H2S exceedances almost entirely to emissions from U.S. Steel’s Clairton Plant.  Yet here we are in 2026, still waking up to air that violates Pennsylvania state standards. ACHD has the data. They have the dashboard. But monitoring and understanding the pollutant’s origin are just the first steps - now we need action. That’s why we are hoping you’ll join us at the upcoming Board of Health meeting to demand we move beyond monitoring and start mandating real change. The only way to ensure our leaders feel that urgency is to show up - in person if possible - and tell our stories.  We need to look the members in the eye and describe what it's like to live in the stench zone and ask them to do what they can to identify strategies to stem this issue. GASP will be speaking out, and we hope you’ll join us. • Date : This Wednesday, March 18, 2026 • Time : 12:30 p.m. • Place : Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank (1 N. Linden Street, Duquesne, PA 15110) Please, if you have experienced headaches, sore throat, or had to keep your windows shut on a beautiful day, the board needs to hear it.  Note: Residents who wish to address the board must register 24-hours in advance by clicking here . Please be aware that you can choose to comment in-person or via Zoom.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) published notice of its intent to issue a Plan Approval to Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC for modifications to the company’s ethane cracker in Monaca, Beaver County - with plans for a public hearing April 7. Specifically, the Plan Approval would: authorize Shell to modify flares that it uses to control air pollution at the Facility, as required by new federal regulations authorize Shell to install new equipment in the Facility’s Waste Water Treatment Plant (this equipment will reduce the Facility’s water pollution but will increase its air pollution); and modify other Plan Approvals that DEP has already issued for the Facility. DEP has made the Plan Approval and materials related to it available to the public on its website (click the link for Proposed Plan Approval PA-04-00740D on   this webpage ). Here are some save-the-dates:   March 19  -  Shell Plan Approval Q+A Public Meeting  6 PM * Penn State Beaver Auditorium, 100 University Drive in Monaca from 6 to 8 p.m.   March 31  –  We Speak, They Listen: Shaping the Public Record , 6:30 PM (Zoom) April 7  –  Shell Plan Approval Permit Public Hearing  6 PM (Monaca)** DEP’s notice states: Anyone wishing to present testimony should contact Emily Green, Southwest Environmental Justice Coordinator, emgreen@pa.gov or 412-442-4042, no less than 24 hours in advance of the public hearing to reserve a time to present testimony. Individuals who do not register may also present testimony on the day of the hearing. Oral testimony will be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes per individual, and two (2) written copies of the oral testimony are requested. Further , DEP will accept written comments on the Plan Approval through April 17.   You may submit written comments about the Plan Approval: via e-mail to asandy@pa.gov or in writing to Department of Environmental Protection, Attn: Alexander Sandy, Air Quality Engineering Specialist, Air Quality Program, 400 Waterfront Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.  Each written comment must contain the name, address and telephone number of the person submitting the comments, identification of the proposed Air Quality Plan Approval (PA-04-00740D) and a concise statement regarding the relevancy of the information or objections to issuance of the plan approval. Editor’s Note: GASP is reviewing the Plan Approval and will update this blog with anything notable that we find. Stay tuned!

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.”

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 .

Last June, we blogged about EPA’s proposal to repeal revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs).    Those revisions were made in May 2024.   Here’s an update, which should not come as a surprise: on Feb. 24, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that did in fact repeal the May 2024 NESHAPs for coal-fired EGUs , on the same bases that were proposed when we last blogged about this, specifically:   EPA repealed the 2024 standard’s emission limit for filterable particulate matter (which was 0.10 pounds per million British thermal units or lbs/MMBtu) and will revert to a 0.30 lbs/MMBtu limit that was set in 2012.  EPA based this repeal on a finding that the cost-effectiveness value for the 2024 limit was not in line with its prior practice and that the emissions of non-mercury metals that follow the repeal pose little risk. EPA repealed the requirement that all coal-fired EGUs demonstrate compliance with their limits on emissions of particulate matter (PM) by using continuous emission monitors, and will instead allow compliance to be demonstrated with quarterly stack testing and continuous parametric monitoring in addition to continuous emission monitors; and EPA revised the 2024 standard’s limit on emissions of mercury from lignite-burning coal-fired EGUs, raising it from 1.2 pounds per trillion Btus to 4 pounds per trillion Btus, based on a finding that there is not sufficient data that all lignite burning units can achieve the lower limit. Note: There are no lignite-burning EGUs in or near Pennsylvania.   The repeal of the 2024 standard was made pursuant to several of Trump’s Executive Orders, including Executive Order 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”), and an April 8, 2025, Proclamation titled “Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Energy.”   The higher emission limits that will result from the repeal of the 2024 standard are predicted to lead to increase power plants’ emissions of mercury by about 999 pounds per year and fine PM by about 770 tons per year in 2028  in the aggregate, compared to what they would have been allowed to emit under the 2024 standards.    The repeal will also allow power plants to increase emissions of all particulate matter by about 2,070 tons per year, sulfur dioxide by about 290 tons per year, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 283 tons per year, also in the aggregate and compared to what they would have been permitted to emit under the 2024 standards.

If you live, work, or play in or around the Mon Valley, we probably don’t need to tell you just how bad air quality has been over the past week or so. The Smell Pittsburgh app lit up with reports from or neighbors detailing everything from the way their community stunk (some described it as rotten eggs, while others deemed it industrial or chemical in nature) to the physical symptoms they experienced (sore throat, breathing difficulties, insomnia). That distinct, nauseating odor is hydrogen sulfide (also known as H2S) and lately, it has reached levels that are impossible to ignore - levels that handily exceeded Pennsylvania’s 24-hour average standard. Over and over again. In fact, there have been H2S exceedances every day for the past six days. Here’s a look at February so far (spoiler: more than 60 percent of the month so far has been in exceedance territory): While the rotten egg smell is often the first thing we notice, the reality is way more than a nuisance. For residents in communities like Clairton, Liberty, Glassport, and Braddock, it’s a threat to peoples’ health and a persistent reminder of the air quality crisis in our backyard. The Recent Spikes: What’s Happening? In late January and early February 2026, air quality monitors in the Mon Valley recorded significant exceedances of Pennsylvania’s H2S standard. A combination of industrial emissions and weather inversions—where warm air traps pollutants close to the ground—created a perfect storm of toxic air. GASP has been tracking H2S exceedances for YEARS, and despite Allegheny County Health Department enforcement actions and consent decrees, things have not gotten better. So far this year, there have been 22 H2S exceedances. During the same time period last year, there were just six. For those asking, “But where does the H2S come from?” here’s what you need to know: According to a 31-page study  conducted by the Allegheny County Health Department, several years’ worth of H2S exceedances in the Mon Valley “can be attributed entirely to emissions from U.S. Steel’s Clairton coking facility.”     Despite U.S. Steel scapegoating landfill facilities, we want to point out that the study also stated: “ACHD did not identify evidence of any other source contributing to the exceedances.” What Now? Save the Date & Stand With Us We are taking our concern directly to the decision-makers: The Allegheny County Board of Health. We want to let them know just how bad H2S has gotten so far this year, how it impacts residents, and how we can collectively work to stem these bad-air episodes once and for all. And we hope you join us. Because YOUR story - your experience - matters. So, save the date for the next Allegheny County Board of Health meeting: Date: Wednesday, March 18 Time: 12:30 p.m. Place: Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, 1 N. Linden Street, Duquesne, PA 15110 How you can help:' 1. Attend in person: Your presence is a powerful statement. 2. Sign up to speak: You must register at least 24 hours in advance to give public comment. Share your story of how the recent stench impacted your family. 3. Submit written comments: If you can't attend, ensure your voice is in the official record by submitting comments via the ACHD website. Editor’s Note: Stay tuned, we will have more details closer to the Board of Health meeting date!