The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in January recommended strengthening the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), having determined “the current primary PM2.5 standards are not adequate to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.” The EPA is considering a range of options but if the annual PM2.5 standard is lowered to 10.0 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) – a level at the weaker end of the proposed changes – one EPA projection shows Allegheny County might be one of just 24 counties across the nation still failing to meet the revised standard a decade from now. The EPA’s final decision on revising the PM2.5 NAAQS will impact air quality locally, and how strict the final standard will be is still an open question that you can help decide. The EPA is accepting public comments on its proposed revision to the NAAQS as well as an “array of issues” associated with it such as environmental justice concerns and advancements in air pollution monitoring. That means you can make your voice heard on several aspects of the new standard. Even better, you have choices for how to make your voice heard. There are petitions and sign-on letters circulating that you can add your name to. There are thousands of pages of EPA and scientific analysis you can review before submitting your own detailed insights. Somewhere in the middle, GASP has identified a few topics we think EPA should hear about from concerned individuals. It’s not a short read, but if you want to tell EPA what you think about the new PM2.5 standard, we’ve laid out a few options below. But quickly, before moving on, two notes: 1. The EPA called this the “soot” standard in some of its outreach. We’re calling it the PM2.5 NAAQS because that’s what the regulations call it. Same difference really. 2. We use the abbreviation NAAQS a lot in the rest of the article. If you read it as “nacks” in your head, that might help you read through it more seamlessly. PM NAAQS Background: 52 Years in a Just a Few Lines The EPA first set a NAAQS for particulate matter in 1971. EPA acknowledged at the time that “scientific knowledge of the health and welfare hazards” associated with particulate matter was “imperfect,” but pledged to “increase and improve” that knowledge. By 1997, public health research, as well as techniques for measuring air quality, had “increased and improved” to the point regulators could establish with certainty that particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less – hence the 2.5 in PM2.5 – had an especially adverse impact on human health. The EPA determined that both a daily standard and an annual average standard would guard against the impacts of short-term and long-term exposure. In the past 25 years, the EPA strengthened the standards as studies continued to show increased levels of PM2.5 associated with premature mortality as well as harm to not only the respiratory system (lungs, nasal passage, etc.) – as air pollutants tend to cause – but also the heart, brain, and other systems. Earlier this year - and based on the best and most reliable scientific knowledge currently available - the EPA proposed lowering the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 12.0 ug/m3 to within the range of 9.0 to 10.0 ug/m3 and keeping the current 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 ug/m3. Importantly, the EPA didn’t stop there. The “array of issues” we mentioned above that the EPA is considering include an annual PM2.5 NAAQS as low as 8.0 ug/m3 or as high as 11.0 ug/m3, a 24-hour NAAQS of 25 or 30 ug/m3, requiring increased air quality monitoring for populations at increased risk of adverse health effects, and the relevance and limitations of international studies (to name a few). Citizen Power, Engage! With so many topics to choose from, of course, now you can’t wait to get cracking on that gem of a comment, right? Not so sure? We understand. It’s a lot to unpack, learn, read, and decipher. We want to help. To support many approaches for many concerned readers, we came up with a sort of “choose your own adventure” approach to civic engagement. On one path, you can back GASP colleagues, allies, and partners who have already created petitions, letters, and the like, ready-made for you to support. One great example: Our friends in the Climate Action Coalition put together a quick and easy way to advocate for stronger standards. For those who’d like to submit a quick comment, here’s the form. The second path isn’t as straightforward but it provides the opportunity to tell the EPA your story and/or offer input on an aspect of the proposed NAAQS you feel strongly about. Obviously, we can’t address every detail of the EPA’s proposed NAAQS revision here. If you’re interested in learning more, EPA’s official announcement of the proposed PM2.5 NAAQS changes fully explains the actions EPA is taking and the input it is seeking. In addition, EPA’s PM2.5 NAAQS webpage as well as a separate EPA webpage addressing the NAAQS revision contain additional resources. If you’re not interested in completely going it alone, GASP identified a few topics that we believe are important locally. Please consider adding these issues or some version and/or combination of them to any comment you submit. 1. As part of the EPA’s reason for not lowering the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the agency determined that areas meeting the annual NAAQS usually don’t exceed the 24-hour NAAQS. Even rarer in such areas –according to the EPA – are instances of very high short-term peaks lasting just a few hours (called “sub-daily” concentrations). Specifically, for areas with good air quality, two-hour PM2.5 concentrations rarely exceed 30 ug/m3 and in problematic areas, they rarely exceed 80 ug/m3. You can read more about EPA’s reasoning here. Unfortunately, we suffer through these “rare” circumstances too often: In 2022, there were seven days in Allegheny County with a two-hour PM2.5 concentration over 100 ug/m3. While there were no such days in 2020, there were five of those days in both 2021 and 2019. Rare or not, it is critical we tell EPA the new PM2.5 NAAQS cannot ignore the problems we face locally. 2. Calling all citizen scientists: The EPA is seeking input on approaches and/or products related to the use of data from non-regulatory, low-cost air sensors (e.g., Purple Air). The EPA listed possible uses such as science education, supplementing regulatory air quality measurements, and conducting research, but did not propose any specific plan of action. You can read more about the input EPA is asking for here (the link is to the first of six relevant paragraphs). 3. The burden of PM2.5 pollution is not felt equally around the country. The EPA is well aware that “sub-populations at potentially greater risk from PM2.5 exposures include children, lower socioeconomic status populations, minority populations (particularly Black populations), and people with certain pre-existing diseases (particularly cardiovascular disease and asthma).” One way the EPA wants to address this issue is to modify its PM2.5 monitoring network requirements to include an environmental justice factor. You can read more about EPA’s proposed changes here (the link is to the first of several paragraphs that address this topic in detail). 4. Although the EPA is not requesting comments specifically on how environmental justice considerations will affect the implementation of the revised NAAQS, “information on this topic may be submitted for informational purposes.” You can read more about what the EPA is interested in hearing about here. If you aren’t sure what to write, remember that the only way the EPA will know how you’ll be impacted by the agency’s action is if you tell them. Begin with your own personal experiences and go from there. Finally, if you took this path, remember that the last step is to submit your comment. To do that, all you need to do is go to EPA’s official announcement of the proposed PM2.5 NAAQS changes. In the upper right-hand corner of this webpage, click on a green box labeled Submit a Formal Comment. A fill-in-the-blanks form will open, follow the instructions, and you’re done. If you prefer to submit a comment via email, snail mail, or hand delivery, instructions for these options are part of the official announcement link above. Comments must be received on or before March 28. No matter what path you choose, we hope you’ll join GASP and many others who are demanding cleaner air. Did you find this blog helpful? We hope so. Truth be told: We think about you all the time. Seriously. Our staffers get up early when we know air quality is expected to be abysmal so we can review the data, crunch the numbers, and let you know what to expect when you start your day. We attend subcommittee meetings, hearings, and webinars because we pride ourselves on being your eyes and ears on all things air quality. Help us continue to show up for all our fellow breathers by making a $5 donation today.

Editor's Note: GASP on Monday issued the following as a press release: The Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP) on Monday formally petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to object to a Title V Operating Permit for U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works. The permit was issued on Nov. 21 by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). Under Title V of the Clean Air Act, each major source of air pollution must apply for an operating permit that incorporates all of the emission limits and operating restrictions to which it is subject, as well as testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are sufficient to assure compliance. A Title V Operating Permit for a source that is not in compliance with its Clean Air Act requirements must include a schedule of measures that the source must implement in order to achieve compliance. “Although the Clairton Coke Works is not in compliance with all of its operating and emission limits, its newly issued Title V Permit does not include a schedule capable of getting it into compliance,” GASP’s Senior Attorney John Baillie said. “The closest thing to such a schedule in the permit is a reference to a Settlement Agreement from 2019.” He continued: “However, U.S. Steel has already implemented the measures required by that settlement and has still failed to achieve compliance. We hope that EPA will agree with GASP that U.S. Steel must come up with new measures capable of getting the Clairton Coke Works into compliance because the last set of measures has not worked.” Read the petition here.

Air pollution has long been an environmental and public health concern in the Mon Valley, and a spate of recent research studies have shed new light on how emissions from industrial polluters impact everything from asthma rates to mental health conditions. That’s why GASP is partnering with our local air quality regulator, the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD), to help educate residents about a new regulation known as The Mon Valley Episode Rule and why – and how – to get signed up for important public health alerts when unhealthy air quality is expected. The new rule is an addition to the local Air Pollution Control Regulations signed into law last year. Its purpose was to develop and implement a system to respond to weather-related inversions in the Mon Valley, which can result in episodes of high levels of particulate matter pollution. Here’s how it works: Under the new regs, ACHD monitors pollution forecasts for conditions that could lead to an “episode” – when meteorological conditions are likely to contribute to unacceptable air pollution levels in the Mon Valley. When this happens, sources of emissions within a defined Mon Valley area subject to the rule are required to follow approved mitigation plans to reduce emissions of fine and coarse particulate matter. During these conditions, ACHD may issue a Mon Valley Air Pollution Watch or Warning through the Allegheny Alerts system. Through this public alert system, residents can opt to receive Mon Valley Alert messages via email, text, or automated phone call. GASP’s making it simple to sign up. Just fill out this form and we’ll take care of the rest:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently completed a risk assessment for commercial sterilizing facilities (they sterilize medical equipment and devices and more) that use the hazardous air pollutant ethylene oxide. The determination was startling: It found emissions of ethylene oxide from these facilities increase the lifetime cancer risk for the people who live near them. For the uninitiated: Ethylene oxide is a flammable gas with a somewhat sweet odor and in addition to increased cancer risk, exposure may cause myriad ailments, from headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea to breathing difficulty, drowsiness, weakness, exhaustion, eye and skin burns, frostbite, and even reproductive effects. Now, like with so many other air quality issues, we now need to back up and explain a little bit of the process: The assessment was conducted because EPA is charged under the Clean Air Act with the duty of periodically re-assessing the health risks posed by emissions of hazardous air pollutants. As a result of this risk assessment, EPA will propose more stringent regulations governing ethylene oxide emissions from commercial sterilizing facilities later this year. Two commercial sterilizing facilities in western Pennsylvania are among those EPA found to contribute to an increased lifetime cancer risk to their neighbors: American Contract Systems, Inc., in Zelienople, Butler County, and Cosmed Group LLC/Erie in the City of Erie. EPA purportedly is working with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to review the emission controls already in place at these facilities and to determine whether new or improved emission controls are needed at the facilities. A GASP review of the operating permit for Cosmed Group shows it is already required to operate control equipment that removes ethylene oxide with at least 99 percent efficiency. “American Contract Systems, however, is apparently not subject to any air pollution control permits at this time – DEP’s eFACTS website shows the company just applied for its first plan approval on July 19, 2022, and that DEP is currently reviewing the company’s application for that plan approval,” GASP senior staff attorney John Baillie explained. He continued: “Why American Contract Systems does not appear in DEP’s database of air pollution control permits is a good question. It appears that the facility has been in operation since at least 2018, when the FDA found the facility was not complying with regulations governing the production of medical devices.” EPA will hold a national public webinar to provide more information to communities at risk from ethylene oxide emissions at 8 p.m. Aug. 10, 2022. GASP continues to follow this issue and will keep you posted as the regulatory process unfolds.

The Allegheny County Health Department this week quietly released an inaugural air quality report detailing work undertaken by the Air Quality Program over the past year, its goals moving forward, and how residents can stay informed and involved. Titled, 2021 Air Quality Annual Review: The Process of Progress the 32-page report begins with a personal message from Director Debra Bogen that notes some of the highlights from the past year including: The completion of a study that determined that U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works was “entirely” responsible for years of hydrogen sulfide (H2S exceedances in the Mon Valley). The addition of the Mon Valley Air Pollution Episode Rule (you can learn all about *that* here). Increased enforcement and compliance efforts regarding asbestos abatement. “This work does not happen on its own,” Bogen wrote in her intro. “The ACHD relies on community engagement to improve the region’s air quality. We hope that you will join us in our efforts to improve the health of our current and future residents.” We encourage folks to check out the report, which can be viewed in its entirety here. In it, you will find details about ACHD’s air quality monitoring system and staff, as well as helpful information related to everything from how to make an air quality complaint and sign up to receive Allegheny Alerts to department funding sources and recent grants.

The U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced last week that a Zelienople commercial sterilization facility was on a list of facilities that utilize a hazardous air pollutant known as ethylene oxide – a compound linked to an increased risk of cancer for the people who live nearby. You can read our blog detailing the announcement here. That blog noted that the company, American Contract Systems, was not subject to any sort of air quality permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and had just applied for its first air quality plan approval on July 19. We are pleased to report that in response to our blog post, a DEP representative reached out to us with additional information to explain why American Contract Systems was able to operate without such a permit. Because the facility uses less than 1 ton of ethylene oxide per year, it is exempt from the permitting requirements that exist under both the Pennsylvania air pollution regulations and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for commercial sterilization facilities that use ethylene oxide. And this is good news in light of EPA’s announcement and anticipated stricter regulations, American Contract Systems will voluntarily install pollution control equipment that is expected to reduce its existing emissions of ethylene oxide by at least 99 percent. As a reminder: The application for a plan approval that American Contract Systems submitted to DEP on July 19 was to authorize the installation of these new pollution controls. We expect and hope that the emission reductions will mean that American Contract Systems’ neighbors will no longer face an increased risk of cancer from its emissions of ethylene oxide. GASP thanks DEP for both the new details and its transparency.

Documents obtained through a public records request GASP submitted to the Allegheny County Health Department last month have provided new details about power outages at U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works over the Fourth of July weekend – but also raise new questions about the condition of the facility’s electrical system. Yes, we said outages. Plural. As in there was more than one. As a reminder, ACHD on July 4 issued the following message through its Allegheny Alerts system: Today, July 4, at 5:30 a.m., the United States Steel Clairton Coke Works plant experienced a power outage that affected plant operations. Power was recently restored, and the facility is working to return to normal operations. The outage has required the flaring of coke oven gasses from the stacks and batteries. The Allegheny Health Department’s Air Quality Program has been monitoring its air quality monitors around the plant since the outage occurred. Area monitors have not indicated any adverse conditions since the event and it is believed that the power outage will either not affect or only minimally affect plant emissions. The Health Department will remain in contact with the plant throughout the day. GASP’s records request yielded seven documents and three voicemails related to two outages reported to ACHD by U.S. Steel – one on July 2 and the other on July 4. Here’s what happened… Breakdown Report #1: What We Know About a July 2 Outage at U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works Facility U.S. Steel is required by its Title V Operating Permit and ACHD’s air pollution control regulations to notify ACHD immediately of any breakdown of pollution control equipment likely to result in the release of pollutants in violation of their permit or the other emission of toxic pollutants into the air and to follow up with a written report within seven days. A breakdown report submitted to ACHD by U.S. Steel dated 9 a.m. July 5 reveals that U.S. Steel experienced the first outage from 4 a.m. to 7 a.m. July 2 because of “electrical issues.” The report was brief: It noted the breakdown resulted in elevated sulfur in the coke oven gas and that the company was “working as quickly as possible to repair issue.” Under the section asking about measures taken during the shutdown, U.S. Steel provided a one-word answer: None. You can read that breakdown report here. Breakdown Report #2: What We Know About the July 4 Outage at U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works Facility About 20 minutes after U.S. Steel submitted the breakdown report detailing what happened on July 2, ACHD received a second breakdown report stating that the company “lost all power” to the Clairton Coke Works around 5:30 a.m. July 4. Again, the report was brief, with U.S. Steel stating that it was “troubleshooting” and had “all hands on deck” to get the facility back online and that it was flaring coke oven gas at all of its batteries.” U.S. Steel went into further detail in two follow-up breakdown reports submitted on July 11 and July 12, telling ACHD that a power outage had affected operations in Control Rooms #1, #2, and #5. “The Clairton plan suddenly and unexpectedly lost power to the plant,” the report stated. In addition to flaring, U.S. Steel noted that it had also extended coking times. The report stated that no pushing or charging occurred during the outage. According to U.S. Steel, approximately 11.6 tons of sulfur dioxide were released during the 41-hour outage. If at this point you’re saying to yourself, “Wait, I thought the Allegheny Alert released by the health department the morning of July 4 said that power had been restored to the plant? I’m confused?” then you are not alone. An internal ACHD email, as well as correspondence between the department and U.S. Steel, show the health department was, too. In an email to Air Quality Program staff, one ACHD staffer wrote, “Are we pointing fingers that it is 10:08 a.m. on July 5 and I do not have anything saying it was back online? Did someone else receive this information and not tell me?” Then in a separate July 8 email exchange with U.S. Steel, ACHD asked the company to double-check and correct the date on the July 2 breakdown report. U.S. Steel then confirmed via email that the date was correct and that there had actually been two outages. All told, the power outage lasted for 41 hours – from 5:30 a.m. on July 4 through 10:30 p.m. on July 5. U.S. Steel provided three voicemail updates to ACHD as the outage continued. You can listen to the first voicemail here, the second voicemail here, and the third voicemail here. Why the Documents Raise More Questions Than They Answer It’s clear from recent history that “electrical issues” and general maintenance deficiencies continue to plague U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works facility. Remember the Christmas Eve 2018 fire at the Clairton Coke Works that knocked key emissions reduction equipment offline for three months? Let’s not forget the cause of that fire, which was exposed in an award-winning, in-depth investigative report from Allegheny Front’s Reid Frazier: Eroded equipment and sub-par facility maintenance. If you don’t it's worth a read. We also want to point out that U.S. Steel is no stranger to electrical issues: Less than six months after that catastrophic fire, Clairton Coke Works’ pollution-control systems were again knocked offline thanks to an electrical fire that caused the closure of the same control rooms damaged on Dec. 24, 2018. They are also the same control rooms impacted by the July 4 outage – #1, #2, and #5. U.S. Steel’s maintenance and electrical issues haven’t just been the stuff of headlines, they have also been the subject of litigation. For the uninitiated: GASP staff took a deep dive into a federal class-action lawsuit filed in April 2019 against U.S. Steel on behalf of its investors. The complaint includes testimony from current and former U.S. Steel employees who were deposed as—and referred to in court documents—as confidential witnesses. Those confidential witnesses, one of whom worked at the Clairton Coke Works for 40 years, described systemic maintenance and operational failures at the plant. GASP staff then looked at U.S. Steel’s air emissions compliance by analyzing Allegheny County Health Department’s 2018 enforcement order related to the Christmas Eve fire, as well as court transcripts from the hearing related to U.S. Steel’s appeal of that order. That analysis showed that the company was struggling to comply with air emissions standards during the same period of time when the plaintiffs alleged U.S. Steel asked employees to “jury rig” machines and generally operated with a “don’t buy, get by” mentality. There is also an ongoing legal case against the company filed by PennEnvironment and Clean Air Council alleging that systemic maintenance failures led to the Christmas Eve 2018 fire at the Clairton Coke Works and that U.S. Steel should be charged with 12,000 violations of clean air laws. With all that said, here’s the bottom line: While both U.S. Steel and ACHD downplayed the July 4 outage, stating that impacts on ambient air quality were minimal and that there were no exceedances noted, they have failed to address what is being done to get at the root of the problem. So we are asking publicly to both ACHD and U.S. Steel these questions: Does the Mon Valley Works have a bigger electrical issue than officials have let on? What steps are being taken to prevent power outages like the ones that knocked pollution-control equipment offline from happening again? Were the July 2 and July 4 incidents connected? If so, had U.S. Steel taken action on July 2, could the second outage have been prevented? ACHD told residents the morning of July 4 that the plant was back up and running and that flaring had ceased when in fact that was not the case – the Coke Works did not come back online the evening of July 5. Why wasn’t an updated message sent to residents? “This seems like a case of ‘those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’ ACHD inexplicably waited more than two weeks to tell Mon Valley residents that the Christmas Eve 2018 fire had occurred and that air quality was being impacted. The department rightfully was raked over the proverbial coals by community members and environmental advocates,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “ACHD had the opportunity July 5 to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability and share updated information with residents to help them make more informed decisions about how to mitigate their risk and again they blew it.” He continued: “Instead, the department waited as long as legally possible to release any documents related to the incident. At this point we feel like a broken record but will say it once more a little louder: Residents deserve better from both the health department and U.S. Steel.” Editor’s Note: Stay tuned, this blog will be updated if and when we receive any further information.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to the Risk Management Program (RMP) rule to further protect vulnerable communities from chemical accidents, especially those living near facilities with high accident rates. The proposed rule, titled the “Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Rule,” would strengthen the existing program and includes new safeguards that have not been addressed in prior Risk Management Plan rules, such as enhanced employee participation and transparency for communities on safety decisions. The Risk Management Plan rule protects public health and the environment by requiring industrial facilities with high accident rates to prevent accidental air releases of dangerous chemicals that could cause deaths, injuries, property, and environmental damage, or require evacuations in surrounding communities. This rule is a critical piece of EPA’s work to advance environmental justice as these facilities are often located in communities that have historically borne a disproportionate burden from pollution. Changes made to the RMP rule in 2019 were identified as an action for review under President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” The proposed rule would: Provide greater protections for communities living near Risk Management Plan facilities, many of which are underserved and overburdened by pollution. Promote environmental justice through increased availability of information for fenceline communities in their requested language. Require safer technologies and alternatives analysis for certain facilities with high accident rates. Advance greater employee participation and opportunity for decision-making in facility accident prevention requirements. Require third-party audits for facilities with a bad track record of accidents. Enhance facility planning and preparedness efforts. And YOU have an opportunity to weigh because the EPA will engage stakeholders during a public comment period. The public may comment on the proposed rule at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174) until 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA is also holding three virtual public hearings on the proposed rule on Sept. 26, 27, and 28. For more information on the proposed rule: RMP Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Proposed Rule. For more information on the public hearings: Virtual Public Hearings on the RMP Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention Proposed Rule. How Did The RMP Rule Come About? Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act Amendments require EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities that use certain hazardous substances. These regulations and guidance are contained in the RMP rule, which requires facilities using extremely hazardous substances to develop programs to prevent and mitigate accidents that could release those chemicals into the environment. EPA published its first such regulation in 1996. Then in January 2017, the RMP Amendments Final Rule issued new requirements for prevention, response, and public disclosure of information – but key provisions were paused, and most never went into effect. Instead, in 2019, the RMP Reconsideration Final Rule rescinded or modified some of the measures in the 2017 rule. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the RMP Rule? Currently, EPA regulates about 12,000 RMP facilities throughout the country such as agricultural supply distributors, water and wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturers and distributors, food and beverage manufacturers, chemical warehouses, oil refineries, and other chemical facilities. Local Facilities Subject to the Risk Management Plan Rule Because Title V operating permits issued by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) incorporate Risk Management Plan regulations, all of those facilities would be subject to the new rule. GASP continues to follow this issue and will keep you posted as the rulemaking process proceeds.

GASP joins the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in reminding Pennsylvanians that they have opportunities all around them to curb pollution, and they can start by looking in their closets and around their homes. Recycling unwanted and/or gently used clothing and items like furniture and other home goods is an effective strategy to curb pollution that would otherwise make its way into local landfills. Which is an issue: DEP estimates that about 10 percent of municipal waste - or 500,000 tons - is made up of textiles, furniture, and other household goods. DEP also wants to get the word out about a mobile application available to residents to help them better understand how to best recycle these household items. Developed by the Pennsylvania Recycling Markets Center, the online exchange platform allows interested citizens, businesses, and public officials to post recycled items and materials for others who may be interested in acquiring them. As the holiday season approaches, the department also reminded residents that secondhand and vintage shopping is an environmentally-conscious way to make an impact. For more information on recycling programs in Pennsylvania, please visit: https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Land/Waste/Recycling/pages/default.aspx Editor’s Note: You can read more about how fast fashion impacts air quality here. You can learn more about where to shop at local vintage and second-hand shops here.

It was a busy year for us here at GASP, one spent doing what we do best: Advocating for policy changes to help improve air quality, educating folks (young and old) about the impacts of air pollution, and acting as a legal watchdog to both industrial polluters and the governmental agencies charged with regulating them. And as we head into the waning days of 2023, we wanted to stop and say THANK YOU. Helping to initiate real policy changes at the local and regional levels takes sustained tenacity and grassroots support. Truly, we couldn’t do what we do without your help. This year, GASP continued its dogged pursuit of improved air quality - with a special focus on the issues being faced by our neighbors in the Mon Valley living in the shadow of U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works. We called out the polluter for its role in the Mon Valley’s longstanding hydrogen sulfide issue, demanded improved communications and better transparency from the Allegheny County Health Department, and helped residents navigate and speak out about a high-profile settlement agreement regarding emissions from the Edgar Thomson plant. But our advocacy work extends beyond the Mon Valley. This year, our legal watchdog efforts included reviewing and commenting on myriad air pollution-related policies and permits to ensure that all the applicable rules and safeguards were, in fact, being applied. Just this fall, our attorneys informed a Beaver County landfill opportunity of our intent to sue if issues with its air quality permits weren’t resolved (more to come on that). This year we were also notified that the EPA awarded us funding to expand local citizen air quality monitoring and fill in data gaps (!!!). Despite regulatory air quality monitors and a growing network of citizen-owned low-cost sensors, it’s still difficult for residents to know exactly what pollutants they’re inhaling. GASP is teaming up with six fellow environmental groups to help solve that environmental justice issue locally thanks to a nearly $500,000 EPA grant. The project is expected to enhance ambient air quality monitoring in communities that are underserved, historically marginalized, and overburdened by pollution. We can’t wait to get started. And we’d be remiss if we didn’t tell you a little about our education programming, too. In addition to embarking on the second year of our Fresh Voices for Clean Air youth education initiative, we crafted a primer for municipal officials and staff so they can better understand - and serve you regarding - important air quality issues. Stay tuned, GASP will be hosting workshops throughout 2023. If you’re a municipal official or staff member reading this and you’d like more information, don’t hesitate to email our executive director Patrick Campbell at patrick@gasp-pgh.org). From our gang to yours: Happy New Year. We look forward to working alongside you in 2023. P.S. If you’d like to make a year-end, tax-deductible donation to help us start the new year on strong financial footing, you have until Dec. 31. Checks can be mailed to our office at 1133 S. Braddock Ave #1a, Swissvale, PA 15218. Donations may also be made on our website.