GASP program manager and resident smoke reader Sue Seppi on Friday led a group of local residents on a tour of Clairton to observe emissions from U.S. Steel’s Coke Works facility - helping them understand how to evaluate smoke opacity and make more effective air quality complaints. “We hear from folks all the time who want to get more involved in improving air quality conditions in their neighborhoods,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “That’s why we’re so excited to get out into local communities long impacted by industrial polluters like U.S. Steel to equip residents in these neighborhoods with the skills they need to be more effective air quality watchdogs.” Never heard of smoke readers? It’s a general term applied to people who are trained and certified to recognize and understand visible emissions from sources such as smokestacks, as well as what violations look like, and how to make reports. “Smoke reading is an excellent way for residents to take action in their own communities by observing the facilities that are of concern to them,” Seppi said. “Readings by our volunteers increase regulatory scrutiny on polluters, as government inspectors can’t be at every facility at all times.” Stay tuned: GASP’s smoke reading tour may be coming to a neighborhood near you. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook - we’ll keep you posted.

A cornerstone of GASP’s clean air advocacy is watchdog work. We keep tabs on more than just air quality data and emissions spewing from industrial polluters - GASP also works to keep our air quality regulators accountable. Here in Allegheny County, that means evaluating how efficiently our air local quality regulator - the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) - is managing the issuance of new air quality permits and renewals. For the uninitiated: GASP’s legal team first sounded the alarm about a backlog of applications for new or renewed Title V Operating Permits for major sources of air pollution in Allegheny County back in 2016. We’ve provided periodic updates about ACHD’s efforts to whittle down that backlog and even expanded our watchdog work to include analyzing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) permit backlog. “Our investigation found that while improvements were initially made by ACHD and DEP to reduce their Title V permit backlogs, progress appears to be stalled in some regions,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “There are still too many major sources of air pollution operating under old permits and, unbelievably, some that are operating without any operating permit at all." Here’s what our research uncovered and why we continue to sound the alarm over this backlog: Title V Operating Permits: What They Are, Who Needs Them & How They’re Issued The first thing you need to know is that operating permits for major sources of air pollution are required by Title V of the Clean Air Act, and thus are commonly called Title V Operating Permits. A Title V Operating Permit for a particular facility must contain all of the operating requirements that the air pollution laws impose on the facility. This helps facilitate compliance with those requirements - regulators and the public can use a facility’s Title V Operating Permit to determine the applicable requirements and help determine whether or not it is complying with them. A major source must apply for a Title V Operating Permit once it begins normal operations. These permits are good for five years and sources must apply to renew them prior to their old ones expiring. The Clean Air Act, Pennsylvania’s air pollution control rules, and Allegheny County’s air pollution control regulations all require that the agency responsible for issuing Title V Operating Permits complete its review of any complete permit application within 18 months. These laws also authorize citizens to bring actions in state court to compel agencies to issue permits for which complete applications have been pending for more than 18 months. It should be noted that the Clean Air Act allows a source that has submitted a complete application for a Title V Operating Permit to continue operating pending the issuing agency’s final approval of the application - even if agency approval takes years. The Clean Air Act also requires that the operations of the state and local programs that administer Title V Operating Permits be funded entirely from the emissions and permit fees paid by the sources subject to the requirements of Title V. It’s also worth noting that the fees DEP charges for permit applications increased in early 2021 because the old fee structure was purportedly insufficient to fund the operations of its Air Quality Bureau. ACHD also revised its fee schedule to track DEP’s in 2021. Good news for that permit backlog, right? Not so much, says GASP senior attorney John Baillie. “The 2021 fee increases seem to have had little or no positive impact on DEP’s backlogs,” he explained, “In fact, the backlogs in four of DEP’s regional offices actually got worse from 2022 to 2023.” Now on to Allegheny County, where there are 23 major sources operating, two of which have applied for but have never been issued Title V Operating Permits - ATI Flat-Rolled Products (which was formerly known as Allegheny Ludlum Brackenridge Works) and Synthomer (which was formerly known as Eastman Chemicals & Resins). Although ACHD published a draft Title V Operating Permit for Allegheny Ludlum’s Brackenridge Works in 2016, it revealed problems with the way proposed emission limits for the facility were determined - issues that have yet to be resolved, further delaying the issuance of the Title V Operating Permit. Synthomer is subject to a 2011 federal and state Consent Decree that has a direct impact on its air quality permits and that effectively precluded the issuance of a Title V Operating Permit until it has been satisfied (which has yet to occur). Synthomer/Eastman Chemical did, however, finally submit its application for a Title V Operating Permit in February 2022. Further, ACHD has failed to act on renewal applications for another three of those 23 major sources within 18 months as its regulations require: For purposes of air quality permitting, DEP’s Southwest Regional Office includes sources in Beaver, Cambria, Greene, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties. FYI: Responsibility for administering the Title V permitting program for sources in Armstrong and Indiana Counties was transferred to DEP’s Northwest Regional Office in early 2019. We currently count 52 major sources under the Southwest Regional Office’s jurisdiction. One of them, the Brunner Landfill in Beaver County, has applied for, but never been issued, a Title V Operating Permit. Three other major sources in the Southwest Region – CPV Fairview Energy Center in Cambria County, Hill Top Energy Center in Greene County, and Tenaska Westmoreland Generating Station in Westmoreland County – have been constructed and are temporarily operating under the authority of their plan approvals (or preconstruction permits), but have not yet applied for their Title V Operating Permits (yes, air pollution regulations allow this during the start-up process for a facility). Another nine sources in the region have renewal applications for operating permits that have been pending for more than 18 months: The Northwest Regional Office includes Armstrong and Indiana Counties for Title V permitting purposes, as well as Butler, Clarion, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Forest, Jefferson, Lawrence, McKean, Mercer, and Venango Counties. We count 64 active major sources of air pollution in this region. Three of those 64 facilities have had renewal applications for their Title V Operating Permit pending for more than 18 months: DEP’s Northcentral Region includes Bradford, Cameron, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Lycoming, Montour, Northumberland, Potter, Snyder, Sullivan, Tioga, and Union Counties. We counted 49 major sources of air pollution in this region. None of them have a renewal application that has been pending for more than 18 months. Only one site in the Northcentral Region has had an application to renew its Title V Operating Permit pending for more than 18 months: DEP’s Southcentral Region includes Adams, Bedford, Berks, Blair, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Huntington, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Mifflin, Perry, and York Counties. We counted 118 active major sources of air pollution in the region, none of which have had a renewal application for a Title V Operating Permit pending for more than 18 months. All major sources in DEP’s Southcentral Region either have a current Title V Operating Permit or submitted a renewal application within the last 18 months. DEP’s Northeast Region includes Carbon, Lackawanna, Lehigh, Luzerne, Monroe, Northampton, Pike, Schuykill, Susquehanna, Wayne, and Wyoming Counties. We counted 59 active major sources of air pollution in those counties, four of which have had applications for their Title V Operating Permits pending for at least 18 months: Worth noting: DEP’s eFACTS website (which tracks the status of facility permits) does not show that Aptim/Keystone Recovery Throop, EPP Glendon, or Wheelabrator Frackville have applications to renew or replace their operating permits pending as of May 25, 2023. As a reminder, the regs stipulate that a facility violates the air pollution laws if it continues to operate without submitting a timely application to renew or replace its operating permit. DEP’s Southeast Region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties for purposes of permitting sources of air pollution (Philadelphia’s Air Management Services administers the Title V permitting program for facilities located in Philadelphia). We counted 80 active major sources of air pollution in the Southeast Region, three of which have had renewal applications for Title V Operating Permits pending for more than 18 months: Worth noting and repeating: DEP’s eFACTS website does not show that the Darby Creek Tank Farm had an application to renew or replace its operating permit pending as of May 25, 2023. Again: The regulations are clear on this point - a source violates air pollution laws if it continues to operate without submitting a timely application to renew or replace its operating permit. Here’s a summary of what the permit backlogs at ACHD and DEP’s regional offices have looked like since 2018: Each Title V Operating Permit renewal application presents (at least potentially) a unique situation, so it is difficult to generalize about causes and solutions for the backlogs that continue to exist in Allegheny County and some DEP regions. However, with backlogs remaining - and even increasing - two years after DEP and Allegheny County introduced increased permitting fees, it seems increasingly unlikely that insufficient fee revenue caused the backlogs and that increased fee revenue will resolve them. “We hope that the regulatory agencies take a hard look at how they are allocating personnel and resources and find a way to do a better job of processing permit applications in a timely manner as the Clean Air Act requires,” Baillie said.

Remember the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in the northeastern United States? For those who need a refresher: Pennsylvania has attempted to join RGGI, a subject that we blogged about several times, most recently here. The Associate Press reports that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is hearing oral arguments on the rule implementing RGGI in Pennsylvania today. We’ll follow any new developments and keep you posted.

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. There are new developments in the dispute between U.S. Steel and the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) over the air quality regulator’s attempt to impose stipulated penalties for violations of emission limitations at the company’s Clairton Coke Works facility. Such stipulated penalties are spelled out in a 2019 settlement agreement between ACHD and the Mon Valley steelmaker. Here’s what’s happening: First, U.S. Steel on Monday filed a lengthy petition to resolve the dispute, to which ACHD has yet to respond formally. Second, ACHD is asserting that U.S. Steel is not permitted to take discovery related to the dispute under the terms of that settlement agreement. GASP is currently reviewing the documents and continues to follow this issue closely. Stay tuned. We have an explainer in the works. In the meantime, we think it’s also worth noting that this is just the latest in a series of air quality-related appeals filed by the steelmaking giant. U.S. Steel in December appealed the Nov. 21 Title V Operating Permit issued by ACHD, alleging it imposes numerous unlawful enforceable conditions and that regulators exceeded their authority when creating myriad emissions limits at the plant. You can read more about that here. That’s not all: U.S. Steel in 2022 also appealed two ACHD enforcement orders and associated multi-million penalties. One dealt with illegal hydrogen sulfide emissions from the Clairton Coke Works. The other dealt with hundreds of uncontrolled pushing violations at the facility.

Did you know that many air quality regulations are based on plume opacity? In fact, Allegheny County Air Quality Program staff often attend what’s known as Smoke School to learn how to evaluate those plumes. Good news: Now, you can become familiar with those skills, too, and make more meaningful air quality reports as a resident smoke reader. Join GASP at 2 p.m. June 2 in Clairton to view and discuss emission plumes and become familiar with opacity and smoke reading. To get folks prepared for the afternoon, we will also be holding a Zoom meeting at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 31, where GASP’s in-house Smoke Reader will provide some general background info, and share plume photos and need-to-know information for the upcoming tour. We hope you can attend both events but one does not depend on the other. Some logistical details: We will visit two locations but the meet-up will start in Clairton at the end of Shaw Avenue as it becomes Ridge Avenue. Caldwell Street intersects at this point as well. This area offers an elevated view of the Clairton Coke facility. Please bring a clipboard, pen, and watch with a second hand if possible (or your phone could work, too). Save your spot and register here. Questions? Email sue@gasp-pgh.org. PS: The links for the Zoom session and more info on the event will be provided after registration.

An Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge last week issued an order certifying a class of more than 123,000 local residents in a lawsuit against the steelmaking giant filed in 2019 claiming the company was grossly negligent/reckless in the way it handled a Dec. 24, 2018 fire at its Clairton plant and its aftermath. In the order that you can read here, the judge wrote: There are possible difficulties Plaintiffs’ counsel will encounter when managing the approximate 123,000 member-class. Several of the potential difficulties that the Court anticipates are class notification as well as distribution of potential monetary damages. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel has argued that they are more than capable of handling the task ahead of them. The Named Plaintiffs have only alleged negligence and private nuisance as opposed to multiple claims that would require separate actions. The Court sees no reason not to certify the class based on the approximate size of the class; Pennsylvania courts have certified classes of larger sizes. The Court does not foresee any manageability issues that counsel could not handle. Not familiar with the underlying lawsuit? Here’s what happened: The suit that you can read here specifically alleges that U.S. Steel: Failed to develop and/or maintain adequate policies and procedures as necessary to prevent the Dec. 24, 2018, Clairton Plant fire; Failed to develop and implement an adequate mechanical integrity program necessary to prevent any such fires; Failed to develop, design, construct, inspect, maintain, operate, control, and/or engineer proper gas processing center compressors, piping, and/or pressure letdown devices as necessary to counter the risk of explosion or fire in its gas processing Failed to develop and employ a backup release management plan to control the release of noxious gas and other harmful emissions in the event of a fire; Failed to notify Plaintiff and the Class of the Dec. 24, 2018, Clairton Plant Fire and the hazardous emission levels until Jan. 9, 2019; Failed to sufficiently reduce production and thereby emissions at the Clairton Plant following the Dec. 24, 2018 fire and until the emission reduction system was repaired and functioning Otherwise failed to develop, design, construct, inspect, maintain, operate, control, and/or engineer its Clairton Plant to prevent catastrophic fires and uncontrolled releases of noxious gas and other harmful emissions. In the suit, attorneys for Linda Hernandez, 38, write that the fire “triggered repeated high health alerts from the Allegheny County Health Department, causing widespread nuisance discomfort (offensive odor, burning eyes, nose, and throat, difficulty breathing, sleep loss, headaches, anxiety) and impeding area residents’ use and enjoyment of their homes.” The suit seeks “lost use and enjoyment damages to vindicate private property rights – not enforcement of environmental statutes, regulations, or regulatory permits; monetary damages, not injuctive relief.” Punitive damages are also being sought. Editor’s Note: GASP followed the Clairton Coke Works fire and its aftermath closely and will continue to follow this story. We’ll keep you posted as the case proceeds.

Two bills introduced in the state Senate recently would exempt cars registered to owners in seven Pennsylvania counties - Blair, Cambria, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, and Westmoreland- from emissions inspection requirements and exempt cars statewide from the emissions inspection requirement for five years after they are manufactured. With respect to the first piece of proposed legislation, Senate Bill 561, the thinking of its sponsors seems to be that cars registered in those counties should be exempt because all areas in those counties attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including the standard for ozone (quick background: reducing ozone pollution is the primary purpose of the vehicle inspection requirement). “Indeed, EPA authorized North Carolina to remove cars registered in 26 of its 100 counties from its emission inspection program on just this basis in 2018,” GASP senior attorney John Baillie explained. With respect to the second proposal, Bill 562, the idea seems to be that newer cars are less polluting, that they almost always pass emission inspection anyway (thus, the emission inspection very rarely catches a new car with illegal emissions), and that other states (including California, New Jersey, and Delaware) provide such exemptions for new model year cars – so why shouldn’t Pennsylvania also? Vehicle emission inspections, where they are required, are mandated by the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. If Senate Bills 561 and 562 are enacted, would they conflict with the Act and those regulations, and thus presumably be preempted? Or would they be consistent with the Act? Let’s look at this, taking the bills out of order. So, starting with Senate Bill 562: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations that establish the requirements for vehicle emission inspection programs require emission testing for “1968 and later model year vehicles.” However, the Clean Air Act itself does not specify which model years must be included by a state in its vehicle emission inspection program. Rather, the Act requires that a state’s emission inspection program meet a “performance standard” that EPA has interpreted to mean a maximum average rate of emissions of certain pollutants from all vehicles subject to the program. “As a result, EPA can exempt vehicles in a state from emission inspection requirements provided that the state demonstrates that the fleet of cars in the areas of the state subject to the inspection requirement meets the performance standard,” Baillie said. Because the performance standard was developed decades ago and cars have gotten considerably cleaner since, that demonstration (which is done by computer modeling) is relatively easy for a state to make, even when the program includes an exemption for cleaner, newer cars. “The Clean Air Act would not appear to preclude Senate Bill 562’s proposed exemption to Pennsylvania’s emission inspection program for newer cars,” he continued. Now on to SB 561: In contrast, the Clean Air Act does specify the areas that must be included in Pennsylvania’s vehicle emission inspection program. Section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act provides that “each area [in a state in the Ozone Transport Region, which includes Pennsylvania] that is a metropolitan statistical area or part thereof with a population of 100,000 or more” must comply with the Act’s vehicle emission inspection requirement. The need to have a vehicle emission inspection program is not dependent on nonattainment of the NAAQS (unlike in North Carolina, which is not in the Ozone Transport Region). This helps states downwind of Pennsylvania attain the ozone NAAQS by limiting the amount of ozone-forming compounds that can cross the state lines even when those compounds may be emitted in areas that attain the NAAQS themselves. So, is each of Blair, Cambria, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, and Westmoreland Counties included in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and does each of them have a population of at least 100,000? All seven of the counties have populations of more than 100,000 and are in an MSA. “It thus appears that Senate Bill 561’s proposed removal of vehicles registered in Blair, Cambria, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, and Westmoreland Counties from Pennsylvania’s emission inspection requirement would not be allowed under the Clean Air Act,” Baillie said. We will continue to track Senate Bills 561 and 562 and keep you posted.

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.