Fellow breathers, your help is needed today at the intersection of art and air pollution. A local artist reached out to GASP to help get the word out about an upcoming art exhibition in Ohio. Here’s what our friend Erin Mallea sent us: I’m looking for folks to lend their expertise related to industrial and pollution smells in the region. I’m gathering information to help create perfumes that mimic regional pollution scents as part of an exhibition at the Cleveland Sculpture Center. I also hope to use the perfumes to support clean-air education and advocacy.If you are interested in lending your expertise, please fill out this form. After gathering your smell descriptions (in addition to data compiled by SmellPGH), I will be working with a perfumer to create a few samples (it can take a few months). At that point, I will need your help to smell samples and provide feedback so they can be more accurate. Perfume samples will be carcinogen free, sulfate free, paraben free, vegan and meet international health and safety standards (more specific information can be provided).Thanks and I’m looking forward to connecting with you! Please feel free to reach out.

By now, the news has been widely reported: County and federal air quality regulators have entered into a proposed consent decree with U.S. Steel to settle years of air quality violations at its Edgar Thomson Plant. The proposed decree – signed and sealed by the Mon Valley’s most egregious air polluter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) – calls for U.S. Steel to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty and make numerous improvements to the North Braddock facility. But the devil, as they say, is in the details, and there are a lot of details. The proposed consent decree is the end result of a joint enforcement action (EPA and ACHD cooperating) against the company that began in 2017 and is a whopping 157 pages long. It includes complex and technical information that details everything from recent maintenance and operations improvements made at Edgar Thomson and required future compliance initiatives to how the public can weigh in on the proposed decree. Yes, our continued use of the proposed prefix is very purposeful. While most news media reports largely framed the consent decree as a done deal, end story, move on, we’re here to tell you that just ain’t so. Here’s what the draft decree has to say about public participation: This Consent Decree shall be lodged with the Court for a period of not less than 30 Days for public notice and comment . . . The United States reserves the right to withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding the Consent Decree disclose facts or considerations indicating that the Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. In our humble opinion, the proposed settlement is in some ways inappropriate, improper, and inadequate. We hope you’ll help us seize the opportunity to demand better. Step one? Understanding the elements of the proposed deal. We hope to provide just that in the next thousand or so words. The GASP team has poured over the consent decree and boiled down 157 pages of information into this handy-dandy guide. Ready to get your learn on? Good. Here’s what you need to know… The Edgar Thomson facility produces molten iron (or “pig iron”) in its blast furnaces and then turns iron into steel by way of the basic oxygen process (BOP) in a part of the mill aptly named the “BOP Shop.” The process of collecting pig iron for transfer to the BOP Shop occurs in the blast furnace “casthouse.” These locations will come up again later, a lot. Way back in November 2017, ACHD and EPA issued a joint notice of violation against U.S. Steel for myriad violations of county and federal rules covering blast furnace and BOP Shop operations – among other things – at Edgar Thomson from 2016 through July 2017. An ACHD press release regarding the NOV explained, “The nature of the violations includes excessive visible emissions, failure to maintain equipment and failure to certify compliance with the plant’s Title V operating permit.” Via open records requests, GASP determined that 2015 and 2017 site inspections showed several blast furnace equipment deficiencies. You can view six examples here. As for EPA’s role, ACHD explained: “To enhance the Health Department’s enforcement efforts, ACHD has actively engaged the EPA over the course of the last nine months. The EPA brings an expanded level of federal expertise, as well as additional enforcement capacity that will support stronger action by utilizing the Department of Justice and EPA’s capacity to enact more stringent penalties.” You might wonder: With all that added expertise and capacity, what took so long? We honestly don’t know. Officials stayed mum about their progress until just two weeks ago and in the interim, officials repeatedly told the public they could not comment on pending legal matters. Given the lack of updates, the announcement of the proposed consent decree came as a shock to advocates and residents who have been waiting more than four years for information on when – and how – U.S. Steel would be forced to get into compliance with applicable air pollution rules. The consent decree finally provided some answers. The proposed consent decree lists pre-settlement remedial measures U.S. Steel undertook at the Edgar Thomson Plant since the 2017 notice of violation was initially lodged. Those measures include upgrades to its pollution control systems in the blast furnace casthouse and BOP Shop as well as additional tweaking of its operating procedure for certain pieces of equipment. U.S. Steel also retrained employees, crafted a new operations and maintenance plan, and hired new third-party contractors. It’s all well and good to know U.S. Steel was doing something to address the issues at Edgar Thomson over the past four years but it’s not clear if these measures had an effect or why measures that didn’t fix the problem were even mentioned. The proposed decree mandates that U.S. Steel hire third-party contractors to conduct studies of key pieces of emissions-control equipment in order to “ensure continued compliance with ACHD Rules and Regulations.” The proposed consent decree includes extensive details related to the selection and hiring of those third-party contractors (ex: they were subject to EPA approval). It also sets a schedule of deadlines associated with those studies: The studies must be completed within 120 days of the agreement’s effective date. U.S. Steel must submit copies of the completed studies within 90 days of their completion. Along with the studies, U.S. Steel is required to submit for EPA approval a report that details improvements recommended by the third-party contractor and reasons why they should or should not be considered, cost estimates for proposed projects, and a schedule to complete the projects. After the EPA reviews and approves the plan, U.S. Steel “shall implement the proposed actions” laid out in the schedule. U.S. Steel must then submit to EPA and ACHD a notice of completion certifying that the actions were implemented in accordance with the approved plans. Specifically, the three studies will cover: The casthouse baghouse system BOP Shop roof ventilation The BOP Shop scrubber system Missing, though, from the proposed consent decree is language that would guarantee that the approved projects will result in meaningful emissions reductions at the Edgar Thomson facility. Even worse, U.S. Steel might not have to do much of anything under these terms in the decree. As far as we can tell, if the studies show few or no good options, U.S. Steel would meet the terms of the proposed consent decree by simply implementing those few – if any – recommendations. Yes, the studies are aimed at identifying changes leading to compliance, and, yes, U.S. Steel must implement the studies’ recommendations, but after four and a half years the fact that they still need to study the issues at all is troubling. The proposed decree requires that U.S. Steel install and maintain a video camera system at the Edgar Thomson plant aimed at the problematic sources of visible emissions including its blast furnace stove stacks, casthouse roof monitors and baghouse, BOP Shop roof monitor and scrubber stacks, and two staging areas for torpedo cars, (which are specialized rail cars that transport molten iron to the BOP Shop). The cameras will be a tool to help address problems but – unfortunately – not a way for regulators to determine compliance with clean air laws. Here’s how it’s worded in the agreement: U.S. Steel shall use the video camera system as a tool to minimize emissions by ensuring that processes are optimized and allowing its operators to monitor the applicable areas so as to recognize and react to potentially non-compliant Visible Emissions by taking corrective actions to minimize or eliminate any such emissions as expeditiously as possible. Here are some specifics of what the EPA is requiring of the camera monitoring system: It must consist of at least seven permanently installed and “strategically placed” cameras that run during daylight hours. The recordings must be time-stamped and in a digital format of no less than one frame per second. The recordings must be in a labeled, chronologically ordered system for a period of at least 30 rolling days and be made available to ACHD during site visits. U. S. Steel must train its operators to use the video camera system within 120 Days of its installation and maintain it per the manufacturer’s recommendations. In addition to the camera system, within 30 days of the effective date of the proposed consent decree, U.S. Steel must ensure a third-party observer – trained and certified in accordance with EPA Method 9 – conducts visible emissions readings covering the Casthouse Roof Monitors, BOP Shop Roof Monitor, and BOP Shop Scrubber Stacks. The agreement requires U.S. Steel to provide information weekly on when and where the visible emissions readings will be taken, to allow ACHD staff members or contractors the opportunity to be present during the readings “and, as necessary, perform ACHD’s own observations to verify compliance.” The Method 9 reading requirements come with some additional reporting mandates, as well: U.S. Steel must submit to EPA and ACHD quarterly reports of its compiled Method 9 Visible Emissions observation identifying any deviation(s) from the applicable opacity standards, the likely cause, corrective measure(s) taken to address the deviation(s), and the effectiveness of those corrective measures “as can be determined at the time of the report.” Finally, the proposed consent decree has additional monitoring requirements for our old nemeses: H2S and SO2. U.S. Steel personnel must inspect the blast furnace slag pit spray systems every shift and document the condition of the slag prior to load-out. U.S. Steel must also install, operate, and maintain a continuous SO2 monitor for emissions from the Plant’s Riley Boilers (these boilers burn blast furnace gas, coke oven gas, and natural gas to generate steam, heat, and electricity for the plant). There are also additional reporting, record-keeping, and data-sharing requirements for both monitoring schemes. Aside from the sulfurous compound monitoring, these efforts are largely related to assisting or assessing the studies discussed above. Any additional monitoring is a good start but without knowing the details of the studies, it is difficult to gauge the sufficiency of the monitoring scheme. One unexpected bright spot is a requirement that within 60 days of the effective date of the consent decree, U.S. Steel must begin “feeding an oxidizing chemical additive or additives such as, but not limited to, potassium permanganate or hydrogen peroxide into the Slag Pit quench water spray system, to enhance suppression of H2S emissions.” The company is also required to submit to the EPA and ACHD for approval of written procedures for the slag pit that detail actions being taken to “minimize or prevent the evolution of H2S.” While the Clairton Coke Works has – rightfully – received the most attention for H2S emissions, we’ve all known for a while now that something stinks at Edgar Thomson. Of course, we’re happy to see ACHD finally acknowledge Edgar Thomson as a source of vile H2S odors but it’s long overdue and some additional assurances of the effectiveness of this step would help. The terms of the proposed decree call for U.S. Steel to hire a third-party contractor to conduct a maintenance practices audit – an action item that has already been completed. The document reads: U.S. Steel shall bear all costs associated with the Maintenance Practices Auditor, cooperate fully with the Maintenance Practices Auditor, and provide the Maintenance Practices Auditor with access to all records, employees, contractors, and areas of the Facility that the Maintenance Practices Auditor deems reasonably necessary. The scope of the third-party audit is also detailed: U.S. Steel shall direct the Maintenance Practices Auditor to perform an audit to analyze operation and maintenance practices for emissions controls, including the adequacy of the effective (Operations and Maintenance) Plan and U. S. Steel’s implementation of the plan.” The emissions controls to be covered by the Maintenance Practices Audit will include: the Casthouse Baghouse the BOP Shop Fugitive Baghouse the BOP Shop Mixer Baghouse the BOP Shop Ladle Metallurgy Furnace Baghouse the BOP Shop Primary Emissions System/BOP Shop Scrubber and Slag Pits Then, within 180 days of the settlement agreement’s effective date, U.S. Steel must direct the auditor to submit a report that includes: a summary of the audit process, including any obstacles encountered detailed audit findings, including the basis for each finding and each area of concern related to the adequacy of Edgar Thomson’s operations and maintenance plan for ensuring current and continued future functioning of emissions controls and compliance with applicable emission limitations Information about whether requirements, targets, objectives, or other benchmarks are being achieved; whether there are examples of noncompliance with the operations and maintenance plan; and “recommendations for resolving areas of concern or otherwise achieving compliance with the operations and maintenance A certification by the third-party contractor and U. S. Steel that the audit was performed in accordance with the proposed consent decree. After that, U.S. Steel has 60 days to submit a report to the EPA and ACHD that includes a copy of that report as well as a plan for approval which includes a proposal for implementing any recommendations in the report. The agreement reads: U.S. Steel shall thereafter implement the proposed actions in accordance with the schedule in the approved plan, and shall ensure that its employees are properly trained to implement the proposed actions. In addition to the third-party audit, U.S. Steel will be required to undergo self-audits every 12-months and submit plans to EPA and ACHD for approval detailing everything from obstacles encountered to the adequacy of the operations and maintenance plan to whether required objectives and benchmarks are being met. After that? “U. S. Steel shall thereafter implement the proposed actions in accordance with the schedule in the approved report,” according to the proposed decree. While GASP is glad to see U.S. Steel is being tasked with studying the feasibility of future improvements and sets an aggressive timeline for completion of both the studies and associated projects, we have transparency concerns. Specifically, there is nothing in the document to require EPA and/or ACHD to provide the public with updates related to those projects, audits, and deadlines. We strongly believe that it is the responsibility of those agencies to create a public clearinghouse so residents can review everything from documents to deadlines. “It would be a nightmare for residents and the agencies alike if ACHD and EPA required members of the public who want to keep tabs on this process by submitting formal state Right to Know or Federal Freedom of Information Requests,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “Residents went more than four years without an update from their air quality regulators on what was being done to protect them from illegal emissions. We believe EPA and ACHD should develop an accessible webpage containing all the necessary documents for the residents to stay well informed.” While the consent decree gives no details about how much money U.S. Steel has spent on improvements to date and provides zero estimates of how much cash the company is likely to dole out for future projects identified in various studies and audits, it is very specific on stipulated penalties and that $1.5 million fine. First a quick note: Stipulated penalties are fines assessed for violations of the terms of the consent decree. A violation includes U.S. Steel’s failure to perform any required obligations including any approved work plan or schedule according to all applicable requirements and within the specified time schedules established. While the decree goes into great specificity regarding the stipulated penalties, here’s the long and the short of it: The decree details daily fines for various infractions that range from $500 to $4,500 per violation per day. The terms of the decree call for U.S. Steel to remit payment for any stipulated penalties within 30 days of a written demand. All stipulated penalties will be split evenly between the EPA and ACHD – with the county’s portion payable to the Clean Air Fund. We want to note this line, though, which raised our eyebrows: Either Plaintiff may in the unreviewable exercise of its discretion, reduce or waive stipulated penalties otherwise due it under this Consent Decree. Then there’s the $1.5 million fine and what the consent decree has to say about how that money will be utilized. It, too, will be split evenly between ACHD and EPA – but it’s how the county wants to spend its share that concerns us most: U.S. Steel shall provide $750,000 in funding to the Allegheny County Department of Economic Development in support of the creation of a multimodal connection that links the Great Allegheny Passage in Rankin Borough to the Westmoreland Heritage Trail in Trafford Borough through the Turtle Creek Valley. The purpose of the project will be to provide funding for a multimodal connection to communities near U. S. Steel Edgar Thomson Plant (namely Rankin, Braddock, North Braddock, East Pittsburgh, Turtle Creek, Wilmerding, Monroeville, Pitcairn, and Trafford, North Versailles, East McKeesport, and Wall) and that the funding would go toward providing a link from the GAP in Rankin Borough to the WHT in Trafford Borough through the Turtle Creek Valley. Initiatives like this are known as Supplemental Environmental Projects or SEPs. The ACHD Air Quality Program Civil Penalty Policy defines a SEP as “a project or activity that improves, protects, or reduces the risk to public health or the environment, and that is not otherwise required by law.” Per EPA guidance, “(t)he primary purpose of the SEP Policy is to encourage and obtain environmental and public health protection and benefits that may not otherwise have occurred in the settlement of an enforcement action.” Generally, GASP supports both SEPs and multi-modal trail access that helps improve a community’s access to alternative forms of transportation like walking and biking. HOWEVER, the SEP contained in this consent decree is concerning for several reasons. First, we’re not aware of ACHD, EPA, or U.S. Steel reaching out to local community groups to gauge their interest in this or any SEP – not once in four and a half years. That is plainly insulting to people who’ve suffered FOR YEARS from emissions belched out by the Edgar Thomson plant. Second, the SEP contribution amount is $750,000, which offsets 100 percent of the $750,000 fine, but that percentage could be less. ACHD’s SEP policy states, “(g)enerally, for settlements that include a SEP, the Department will require the violator to pay a monetary penalty amount as part of the settlement.” Ironically, and sadly, one of the six factors ACHD must consider when setting the percentage offset is the degree to which “(t)he SEP was developed with active solicitation and consideration of community input.” The SEP policy goes on to state, “the Department has the discretion to allow a 100 percent mitigation of the penalty amount if the SEP will provide an exceptional public health or environmental benefit.” Even considering all six criteria, we cannot possibly define this SEP as exceptional. Finally, we strongly question the wisdom and adequacy of contributing what amounts to peanuts to a project that a January 2022 study of the Turtle Creek Connector noted would be “lengthy, difficult, and expensive” to implement. Specifically, that study lists three different alternate routes with estimated costs of $9.3 million, $27.8 million, and $25.6 million, which “assume a 20-year design life and do not include expenses associated with maintenance, utility relocation, right-of-way acquisition, erosion and sedimentation control, traffic control, traffic signals, lighting, signage, and pavement marking, and parking lots.” We accept that $750,000 won’t change the world but dropping it into a fund for a project that could take years to complete strikes us as a deeply flawed approach. Using the cash for a project that will have a more immediate and meaningful impact on community health (i.e.: upgrading HVAC systems to help improve indoor air quality in public spaces or starting a Clean School Bus Pilot Project). Looking desperately for silver linings, at least there’s verbiage in the consent decree that will make it difficult for U.S. Steel to use the SEP as a public relations tool or a tax write-off. The decree states: U.S. Steel has not received and will not receive credit for the ACHD-Only SEP in any other enforcement action. U. S. Steel will not receive reimbursement for any portion of the ACHD-Only SEP from another person or entity. Any public statement, oral or written in print, film, or other media, made by U. S. Steel making reference to the ACHD-Only SEP under this Consent Decree from the date of its execution shall include the following language: “This project was undertaken in connection with the settlement of an enforcement action, United States et al. v. U. S. Steel, taken on behalf of ACHD to enforce federal and state laws.” As we said earlier, we’re glad to see that EPA is seeking input from community members about the proposed consent decree and we want to be sure you know the clock is ticking: A 30-day public comment period opened May 24. You can find everything you need to know about commenting by email or snail mail here. Not sure what exactly to say? No worries – GASP has your back. We have sample language outlining concerns with the agreement and opportunities to make it stronger, as well as a simple form that automatically routes your comments to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division for review. Stay tuned! GASP continues to follow this issue closely and will keep you updated as the process continues.

What if we told you there was a way for local municipal officials to receive FREE training to conduct inventories of local greenhouse gas emissions and develop plans to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change risk in their communities? Because that opportunity currently exists and the deadline for communities to express their interest is coming up FAST. We’re talking, of course, about the DEP Local Climate Action Program. Initiated in 2019, it has provided training to 53 entities, representing approximately 380 municipalities across Pennsylvania. Here’s how it works: The DEP Local Climate Action Program pairs municipalities with ICLEI, a national nonprofit that fosters sustainable development, and with college students to perform inventories of greenhouse gas emissions from local buildings, transportation, waste management, and other sectors. The teams also identify the particular climate-related vulnerabilities in their communities, such as flooding from extreme rainfall and public health impacts from extreme heat, and disproportionate impacts on residents who live in environmental justice areas. After reviewing recommendations in the Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan, teams use a template to draft local climate action plans to lower emissions and increase resilience to climate change impacts. Once they complete their plans, municipalities are eligible for free services from an energy management consultant, coordinated by DEP, to determine the most effective first steps to reduce emissions. The unfortunate news is that just three local communities took advantage of the training program this past year – Carnegie and Swissvale boroughs and O’Hara Township, all in Allegheny County. The great news is that local officials have until June 30 to let the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection know their communities are interested in participating in this year’s program, which begins later this summer. If you need a little inspiration, here’s what Swissvale Borough Councilman Shawn Alfonso had to say about the training: “Swissvale knows that the future gets made now. Planning and preparing for the future with sustainability and environmental health in mind will make our borough and families stronger. With cleaner air and more sustainability, we not only improve our own environment, but also have an impact on areas around us, and pretty soon these small changes add up to make a big difference.” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell agreed. “This program is a great example of small steps our local elected leaders can take to put sustainability on the forefront and ensure their communities are doing all they can to tackle the Climate Crisis in their corner of the universe,” he said. “GASP strongly encourages communities in and around Allegheny County to consider applying for the training – especially frontline communities already dealing with major air pollution issues in their neighborhoods.” Already all in? DEP invites applications for year four of the Local Climate Action Program, which begins later this summer. Please contact Christopher Nafe at chnafe@pa.gov or 717-783-9722 to sign up.

Emissions from U.S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson Works in North Braddock have fouled Mon Valley skies for decades and for years the facility has been the subject of an enforcement action by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Allegheny County Health Department because of ongoing air quality violations. But now, residents have just days left before the June 23 deadline to speak out on the end result: A proposed consent decree that would impose a $1.5 million penalty and details everything from recent maintenance and operations improvements made at Edgar Thomson to required future compliance initiatives. GASP staff examined the 157-page document and crafted a lengthy, comprehensive FAQ document exploring and explaining the various elements of the proposed decree. You can read that blog, which includes sample public comment language as well as a simple online comment submission form, right here. But we understand life is busy, so we’re offering up a kind of Cliffs Notes version that lays out five simple reasons you should take a minute (yep, that’s all it takes!) to tell the court how YOU feel about the proposed settlement. Reason #1: Public Input Matters (& Has Been Specifically Requested) We – GASP, residents, and fellow environmental advocates – have waited more than four years for details about how regulators would force U.S. Steel to comply with air pollution rules. Now we have details AND an invite to weigh in so it’s paramount regulators hear from the residents who were directly and indirectly impacted by Edgar Thomson emissions and who will be directly and indirectly impacted by the terms of the proposed deal. The consent decree states: The United States reserves the right to withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding the Consent Decree disclose facts or considerations indicating that the Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. And in many ways, the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, and inadequate. We hope you’ll help us seize the opportunity to demand better. Reason #2: The Proposed Consent Decree is Promises-Heavy & Guarantee-Light The consent decree mandates that U.S. Steel hire third-party contractors to conduct studies of key pieces of emissions-control equipment in order to “ensure continued compliance with ACHD Rules and Regulations.” Missing, though, from the proposed consent decree is language that would guarantee that the approved projects will result in meaningful emissions reductions at the Edgar Thomson facility. Reason #3: There Are *Major* Transparency Issues GASP is glad to see U.S. Steel is being tasked with studying the feasibility of future improvements and sets an aggressive timeline for the completion of studies and associated projects but we have transparency and accountability concerns. That’s because there’s nothing in the document to require the EPA and/or ACHD to provide the public with updates related to all those projects, audits, and deadlines. We vehemently believe the decree should mandate the agencies create a public clearinghouse so residents can review everything from documents to deadlines. “Residents went more than four years without an update from their air quality regulators on what was being done to protect them from illegal emissions,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “We believe EPA and ACHD need to do better moving forward to ensure residents who have a right to know remain in the know.” Reason #4: Allegheny County’s Proposed Use for its Share of the Fine Money is Concerning Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, U.S. Steel must pay a $1.5 million fine to be split evenly between the EPA and ACHD – and we have concerns about how Allegheny County intends to use its portion: It’s $750,000 share will go toward the creation of a multimodal connection that links the Great Allegheny Passage in Rankin Borough to the Westmoreland Heritage Trail in Trafford Borough through the Turtle Creek Valley. Initiatives like this are known as Supplemental Environmental Projects or SEPs, which are projects or activities that improve, protect, or reduce the risk to public health or the environment, and that are not otherwise required by law. Generally, GASP supports both SEPs and multi-modal trail projects. HOWEVER, the SEP proposed in this consent decree is concerning for several reasons. We’re not aware of ACHD, EPA, or U.S. Steel reaching out to local community groups to gauge interest in this or any SEP, which we think is plainly insulting to people who’ve suffered FOR YEARS from Edgar Thomson emissions. Ironically, one of the factors ACHD must consider with a SEPs is whether it was “developed with active solicitation and consideration of community input.” Its SEP policy also says “the Department has the discretion to allow a 100 percent mitigation of the penalty amount if the SEP will provide an exceptional public health or environmental benefit.” We’re here to tell you this SEP can in no way be considered “exceptional.” Reason #5: The Clock is Ticking The deadline to submit a public comment – June 23 – is quickly approaching. Ready to weigh in? Use our simple form below that automatically routes your comments to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division for review. Not quite sure what exactly to say? No problem: We put together some sample comment language you can use and supplement: Editor's Note: The public comment period is now closed. THANK YOU to all who submitted comments!

Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board this week folded in the face of a legal challenge from the gas drilling industry and its supporters in the General Assembly and shelved proposed regulations that would have limited emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds from conventional gas wells and associated equipment. Regulations aimed at reducing such emissions from unconventional gas wells (re: fracked wells) will move forward. Note this, however: As much as 80 percent of the gas industry’s methane emissions, and 76 percent of its VOC emissions come from conventional wells. Accordingly, rules to regulate the vast majority of the industry’s methane and VOC emissions will be delayed, and those emissions will remain unregulated, at least for the time being. The industry’s challenge to the regulations is based on a 2016 Pennsylvania statute that requires all rulemakings “concerning conventional oil and gas wells that the Environmental Quality Board undertakes after [June 23, 2016 to] be undertaken separately and independently of unconventional wells or other subjects and shall include a regulatory analysis form submitted to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission that is restricted to the subject of conventional oil and gas wells.” The partially-shelved regulations lumped both conventional and unconventional wells together. Why the EQB thought it could disregard the statute is, for now, an open question. The bad news here extends beyond Pennsylvania’s continued failure to regulate these emissions. The regulations were intended to satisfy a “Control Techniques Guideline” for the oil and gas industry that EPA issued back in October 2016. Procedurally, here’s what went down: Pennsylvania failed to meet the original Aug. 3, 2020 deadline to submit regulations to EPA to meet the “Control Techniques Guideline” requirements and was “put on the clock” by EPA effective Jan. 18, 2022, by a “Finding of Failure to Submit” published in the Federal Register on Dec. 21, 2021. According to the “Finding of Failure to Submit,” the “offset sanction” will apply if Pennsylvania does not submit the required regulations within 18 months of the Finding’s effective date (which would be July 18, 2023). The “offset sanction” would increase the ratio at which certain new sources of VOC emissions in Pennsylvania would have to offset those emissions with purchased emission credits. The Finding further states that if Pennsylvania still has not submitted the regulations six months after that (or, by Jan. 18, 2024), it faces the loss of federal highway funding. Despite what EPA’s “Finding of Failure to Submit” states, the Post-Gazette reported that an EPA representative said Pennsylvania stands to lose federal highway dollars beginning Dec. 16 if the regulations are not submitted by then as required. “There seems to be a lot of confusion on every level as to what is required with these regulations,” said GASP Senior Attorney John Baillie. “Let’s hope DEP and EPA get things straight so that the required emission limits are in place and no sanctions are ever applied.”

Steelers football fans know that Pittsburgh’s own Heinz Field is considered one of the toughest places to play an away game in the entire AFC. The stands are packed with rabid, rowdy fans and the outdoor venue offers precious little protection from the elements. When you walk into the stadium, you immediately know whose “house” it is, and whose territory you’ve just stepped into. There’s a sea of back and gold as far as the eye can see, a contingent of vocal fans there to loudly support their home team. Their role is to be the so-called “12th Man on the Field” and part of that job is to drown out the other team. While the regulation of air quality is certainly no game, there have been compelling parallels over the past few months. Recent hearings and committee meetings have shown us here at GASP that when it comes to standing up for your right to clean air, Clairton and Braddock can be tough places to play. Take, for example, the recent hearing in Clairton regarding the Title V operating permit for U.S. Steel’s Coke Works facility there. It WAS PACKED with U.S. Steel management, union members, contractors, political cheerleaders, and others with close industry ties – speakers who shared seemingly coordinated talking points. Those of us who attended the hearing in person remarked how crass it was to have industry supporters jeering residents – in some cases their neighbors – who were there to demand stronger regulations and speak out in favor of robust enforcement of air quality rules. At this and other similar hearings, our fellow Allegheny County residents provided extremely personal stories about their struggles to breathe during bad air quality days, about family members who have died from cancers they believe were caused in part by sustained exposure to air pollution, and about considering relocating to an area where the skies aren’t so regularly fouled by industry emissions. We have every reason to believe that a hearing slated for 6 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, June 29 in Braddock regarding the Title V operating permit for U.S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson Works will be made to be a tough place for residents to speak out. And we need your help to make sure those crucial residential voices aren’t drowned out by industry interests. So here’s our ask: Can you be there? Even if you can’t or don’t wish to share your personal experiences with air pollution from the plant, we hope GASP members will consider attending the hearing tomorrow in a show of solidarity, so residents know there are people there who have their backs. But if you DO want to testify at the hearing, please know that you must sign up to do so by 6 p.m. TODAY, Tuesday June 28 by filling out ACHD’s Public Hearing Participation Form or by calling 412-578-8103. Here’s info on the hearing: WHO: The hearing is open to ALL MEMBERS of the public. WHEN: 6 p.m. Wednesday, June 29 WHERE: The Rivers Edge Volunteer Fire Department Social Hall, 845 Talbot Ave., Braddock, PA 15104 (click here for directions). Off-street parking is available. Last-minute questions? We’re here for you: Email us at amanda@gasp-pgh.org.

GASP joined residents and fellow air quality advocates Wednesday to speak out about a draft Title V operating permit for U.S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson Works, imploring Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) to do all it can to protect public health. “We thank everyone who turned out to the rally and hearing and otherwise spoke out against unlawful pollution from U.S. Steel’s Edgar Thomson Works,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. Patrick was among those who attended a rally with residents and was the first to present public comment at the hearing. Here’s what he told ACHD: Good evening. My name is Patrick Campbell, the executive director of the Group Against Smog & Pollution, an environmental watchdog working to improve regional air quality since 1969. Thank you for the opportunity to present public testimony to you today. Generally, Title V operating permits for facilities are incredibly complex. They are especially complex for facilities like U.S Steel’s Edgar Thomson facility due to its long history of egregious air quality violations. GASP’s legal team has paid particular attention to the documents and will be submitting formal written comments that address deficiencies and omissions from the permit. GASP attorneys will elaborate further on those technical points because we want to name the opportunity the county has to do right by community members who’ve deeply suffered for decades from air pollution originating from Edgar Thomson Works. This is your opportunity to ensure this permit actually reduces air pollution helping to ensure a safe, thriving community. Residents have been showing up, speaking out, and demanding more robust regulatory action from ACHD. We expect you to keep their voices, stories, and lived experiences in mind and hold U.S. Steel accountable for implementing equipment upgrades and necessary operational changes to bring the facility back into compliance with air quality rules. Anything less would fail the men, women, and childing living in Braddock and Allegheny County who depend upon ACHD to fulfill its mission to “protect, promote, and preserve the health and wellbeing of all Allegheny County residents, particularly the most vulnerable.” I hope you’re listening to the voices of those who have to breathe this pollution every day, the voices of those begging you to protect them too. Because it’s time for regulators and policymakers to stop making excuses for why U.S. Steel can’t rise to the basic regulatory occasion and time to start making positive change for the residents they promised to protect. Lives depend upon it. Thank you. You can check out media coverage of the hearing here: Proposed U.S. Steel permit at the forefront of air quality public hearing in Braddock Braddock residents, environmental activists push back on pollution from Edgar Thomson Works

An unplanned early morning power outage at U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works facility on Monday, the Fourth of July, resulted in heavy smoke and flames emanating from the facility – and the incident prompted the Allegheny County Health Department to issue a public alert. That message was just a few paragraphs long and told residents the outage required the flaring of coke oven gases from the Clairton Coke Works’ stacks and batteries, that ACHD was monitoring air quality monitors surrounding the plant, and that those 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.” In closing, the Alert stated: “The Health Department will remain in contact with the plant throughout the day.” To our surprise (and dismay) that was the only information shared with the public regarding the July 4 incident. There was no follow-up. While GASP appreciates that the department vowed to remain in contact with U.S. Steel throughout the day, our public health officials – again – failed to provide updated information to the residents whose public health they are charged with protecting. We understand Monday was a holiday. But it’s been more than two days. The public deserves details about what exactly happened at the plant to cause the outage, detailed information about the incident’s impact on air quality, and what is being done to ensure something similar doesn’t happen again. “The Allegheny Alert stated that the effect on air quality was expected to be minimal, but it altogether ignored its impact on the community,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “Residents told us about feeling like they were choking that day, and the SmellPgh app shows numerous complaints on July 4 that reference a strong sulfur odor and resulting physical symptoms like headache, difficulty breathing, and irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.” GASP is calling on ACHD to provide a substantive update to residents. Specifically, we’re asking the department to make public the breakdown report U.S. Steel is required to provide to ACHD – a document the company has until Monday to submit. “More than anything, the public needs to know steps are being taken to prevent these kinds of outages in the future,” Campbell said. That’s why we’re also calling on U.S. Steel to provide a public update to the residents – their neighbors – who they impacted Monday. “U.S. Steel never fails to take the opportunity to profess what a good neighbor it is to the people of the Mon Valley and how much it cares for the communities in which it operates,” Campbell said. “The company’s silence over the past two days has been extremely telling. When it comes to being a good neighbor, U.S. Steel is all lip service.”

Ever heard of the Plastics Collaborative? Because the group recently published a robust white paper containing a series of policy recommendations for Southwestern Pennsylvania communities around the issue of single-use plastics and we wanted to be sure you saw it. After a year of research that included interviewing governmental representatives and experts around the country who had experience in implementing single-use plastic reduction policies, the Policy Working Group of the Collaborative recommends three targets for policy initiatives to curb single-use plastics in the region: plastic bags, plastic straws, and polystyrene. “We’ve developed these recommendations with a specific lens focused on the characteristics of southwestern Pennsylvania,” said Lydia Morin, Co-Chair of the Policy Working Group and Executive Director of CONNECT, one of the organizations engaged in the Collaborative. “With over 530 municipalities in our region, each community has the opportunity to explore and identify solutions that work best for their residents and businesses. These recommendations provide a starting point for policy-makers, residents, and businesses to join together on workable solutions.” Single-use plastic refers to plastic materials such as take-out containers, straws, bottles, and packaging that are meant to be used once and then become waste or litter. Once thought of as the height of convenience, the issues these materials have caused globally and in Southwestern Pennsylvania are expensive and increasingly harmful to the ecosystem, animals, and ourselves. A report from the World Economic Forum estimates that by 2050 there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish (by weight). Yep, let that sink in for a minute. But wait, there’s more: According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, nearly 36 million tons of plastic were generated in 2018 but less than 9 percent was recycled. The rest ends up as litter or gets sent to landfills or incinerators where it will release microplastics over time that can get carried by wind or rain into the environment. The following policy recommendations are intended to both create progress and serve as a stepping stone to further initiatives to reduce the use of single-use plastic in the region. Regarding Plastic Bags Consider a ban on thin plastic film bags with the following joint action: Levy a fee on available disposable bags of at least 12 cents (study recommended 10 cents adjusted for inflation). Impose guidelines on available disposable bags to address their environmental footprint. For example, require bags to be composed of a certain amount of recyclable material. Work to improve infrastructure to recycle available disposable bags. Address unintended consequences of plastic bag bans such as alternatives people will turn to for secondary use such as trash bags composed of even more plastics. Consider and create a plan to combat the higher demand for paper and other sorts of disposable bags which will also have an impact on the environment and mitigate the increased burden on vulnerable populations. Include a messaging plan to encourage the habitual use of reusable bags to meet and exceed their threshold of environmental benefit. Regarding Plastic Straws Implement a policy that bans the use of plastic straws, cutlery and utensils and makes the alternative option request only. Include equity and accessibility exemptions in plastic straw legislation and ensure that appropriate partners are brought to the table to discuss the policy through an equitable lens. Incorporate public environmental education on the importance of lowering plastic use and more specifically plastic straw use to ensure efficacy. Include other materials that can be regulated in the same manner as plastic straws such as plastic cutlery and other plastic utensils in legislation to increase impact. Regarding Polystyrene Implement a ban on expanded polystyrene (EPS) at restaurants, retailers and grocery stores that prohibits the distribution of EPS packaging and food service ware as well as single-use EPS coolers, and other single-use plastic food service utensils such as straws, cutlery and more. Include an instrument that gives businesses time and, in necessary cases, funds to acclimate to the ban, paying close attention to the needs of small businesses. Implement a strong enforcement plan to ensure the success of the policy. Why the big deal about this stuff? Unlike other waste, plastic will never truly break down. While something like a banana peel will biodegrade and return to the earth, plastic waste merely breaks into smaller and smaller pieces known as microplastics. These microscopic fragments of plastics have been found globally in our food systems and even our own bodies. In a study conducted by PennEnvironment on the presence of plastic in Pennsylvania waterways, microplastics were found at every site they tested. These sites include the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio rivers, as well as smaller bodies such as Chartiers, Turtle, and Sewickley creeks and Nine Mile Run in Allegheny County. Plastic was also found in the Youghiogheny River, Fayette County, and the Connoquenessing Creek, Beaver County. “The problem of single-use plastic pollution should not fall solely to the individual who just by going through daily life is presented with single-use plastics on a consistent basis,” said Morin. “There are better ways to reduce the harmful effects of single-use plastic pollution and we can do that through policy change.” Movement is also happening around the concept of a circular economy here in Southwestern PA. Increasingly organizations and businesses are exploring–and demonstrating–how to move from a “linear” economy, in which raw materials are extracted, made into a product, used, and discarded, to an economy in which waste and pollution are designed out of the products. A “circular” economy is built on reusing, repairing, and remanufacturing products, and returning biodegradable materials to the earth. Regeneration and less harm underpin this strategy. GASP lauded the white paper and its recommendations. “We hope local leaders will take these recommendations seriously and get to work creating policies that help stave off single-use plastic products in their communities,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said.

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. The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) has assessed civil penalties and issued formal warnings to various companies that violated local air quality rules. Here are the newest enforcement actions posted to the department’s website – the majority of which are asbestos-related: ACHD Reaches Settlement Over Asbestos Abatement Violation The Allegheny County Health Department on June 16 entered into a settlement agreement with a local couple and their son regarding asbestos abatement during the renovation project at 5401 Penn Avenue. The agreement states that a building renovation project proceeded without a thorough asbestos survey being completed and provided to ACHD as required. The settlement included a fine of $1,100. You can read the entire settlement agreement here. ACHD Issues Civil Penalty to Company, Commercial Property Owner Over Asbestos Infractions A Monroeville construction company and local commercial property owner were assessed a civil penalty of $2,750 on June 2 over asbestos-related to a demolition permit issued in 2019. The enforcement order against Jadell Minniefield Construction and Curtis Morehead is concerning their failure to submit the required asbestos-abatement survey associated with the demolition of a commercial structure at 2214 Centre Ave. in the Hill District. The order indicates that as of the date of the enforcement action, neither Jadell Minniefield Construction nor Morehead has submitted that documentation. No further information on the action was available on the ACHD website. You can read the entire enforcement order here. ACHD Issues Notice of Violation Against Local School District Over Emissions Recordkeeping ACHD on May 26 issued a notice of violation letter to the Chartiers Valley School District for failing to submit its certification of compliance with the terms of its operating permits – including emissions limitations, standards, and work practices as well as required semi-annual reports – at its high school, middle school, intermediate school, and elementary school. “The Department requests that Chartiers Valley School District provide to the Department its required reporting in a timely manner, no later than the dates specified in the issued operating permits,” the letter stated. You can read the entire letter here. Company Put on Notice for Expired Asbestos Abatement License ACHD on May 25 issued a warning letter to Bristol Environmental and one of its employees, Robert Darras, because of a lapsed state building inspector/supervisor license, which is necessary for commercial asbestos abatement. According to the letter, ACHD discovered that Darras supervised abatement activities at a structure located at 3990 Fifth Ave. when inspectors conducted a final inspection of the property on May 19. Darras, whose license expired on May 12, supervised the abatement activities. The letter put the company and Darras on notice that failure to maintain the license in the future could result in further enforcement action that could include a $25,000-a-day civil penalty as well as summary criminal penalties. You can read the entire letter here. Civil Penalty Issued Over Asbestos Violation Over Demo of Robinson Twp. Restuarant ACHD on April 22 issued a civil penalty of $975 to Bedford Development and Itek Construction over an asbestos-related violation at 6288 Steubenville Pike in Robinson Township that occurred in March of 2021. According to the enforcement order, the companies failed to submit an asbestos survey 10-days before the demolition of the former Wendy’s restaurant there, as county air quality regulations required. The order notes the violation was later corrected, and the survey the companies ultimately submitted showed no asbestos-containing materials in the building before its demolition. No further information is available about the action on the ACHD website. You can read the entire enforcement order here. Civil Penalties Issued for Unauthorized Removal of Asbestos from Mt. Oliver Demolition Sites ACHD on May 25 issued a notice of violation to General Contracting Corp. for unauthorized removal of asbestos from the demolition of two residential structures at 165 and 167 Penn Avenue in Mt. Oliver. According to the notice, permits issued to the company required the entire structure to be treated as asbestos-containing material. During a record review, ACHD determined the permits for the building demolition expired on June 10, 2021, and that the company had not received requests for final clearance inspections for either permitted project. ACHD contacted General Contracting on Sept. 27, 2021, to confirm the demolition projects were complete and requested personal air clearance paperwork for the demolitions. On September 29, 2021, the company submitted the final air clearance results to ACHD. Then, on Oct. 15, 2021, ACHD performed final clearance inspections “and deemed both projects to be acceptable.” However, local air quality regulations require a final clearance inspection to be performed before allowing the project area to be opened to the public. At the time of the final clearance inspections, the project areas did not restrict public access. For this, ACHD assessed a $2,600 civil penalty. No further information was available on the ACHD website about the case. You can read the entire notice of violation here. ACHD Issues Civil Penalty Against Sewickley Rehab Hospital that Skipped Permits Encompass Health Sewickley Rehabilitation Hospital in Sewickley on May 25 was issued a civil penalty of $2,420 for installing and operating equipment at its 351 Camp Meeting Road facility without first obtaining an installation permit from the Allegheny County Health Department. The facility was operating an emergency generator, a 6,000-gallon above-ground fuel storage tank, and three heating boilers. Local air quality regulations require an installation permit for those pieces of equipment, which emit air pollution. You can read the entire enforcement order here. Moon Company Fined for Air Quality-Related Recordkeeping Violation ACHD on April 22 issued an enforcement order against Moon Township-based Buckeye Terminals for submitting an air quality-related certificate of compliance for May 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019, on Feb. 21, 2021 – one year late. A $1,080 civil penalty was also assessed. You can read the entire enforcement order here. ACHD Issues Stop-Work Order Over Asbestos Abatement Violations ACHD on March 25 issued a stop-work order to Carpenter Construction In. for violations that occurred at 5556 Black Street in East Liberty. According to the order, the company conducted abrasive blasting “in a manner that allowed air contaminants into the open air.” The order also indicated that Carpenter Construction conducted that abrasive blasting without first submitting to ACHD independent lab test results showing the lead content as required. ACHD ordered the company to immediately stop all work until that report is submitted. No further information on this case was available on the ACHD website. You can read the entire administrative field order here.