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.

The saga of Pennsylvania’s quest to enter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – or RGGI – has yet another chapter: Last week, a Commonwealth Court ruling essentially put the implementation of the program on pause for now here in the Keystone State. First, some quick background before we get into the nitty-gritty: RGGI is a multistate cap-and-trade program for certain power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. Under RGGI, those power plants must purchase emissions credits in order to emit carbon dioxide and the proceeds from those purchases would (in Pennsylvania, anyway) be used to fund renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. Got it? OK – now here are some need-to-know details about how we got to this latest ruling. Here’s what’s going on: The regulations that would implement RGGI in Pennsylvania were subjected to legal challenge by industry groups and Republican legislators. On July 8 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania sided with those groups and entered a preliminary injunction that prevents Pennsylvania from implementing, administering, or enforcing the RGGI regulations. “The court determined that the requirement that the power plants purchase emission credits is a tax rather than a regulatory fee, and was, therefore, a violation of Pennsylvania’s Constitution, which reserves the power to levy taxes to the General Assembly,” GASP senior staff attorney John Baillie explained. “The court also determined that by funneling the proceeds from the sale of emission credits to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs RGGI violates Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act, which allows DEP to impose fees only to cover the costs of operating its air pollution control program.” DEP has announced that it will appeal the Commonwealth Court’s decision. In the meantime, the groups that petitioned for the preliminary injunction must post a bond in the amount of $100 million (and nope, that is not a typo) to ensure the Commonwealth is compensated for any damages it might suffer if the injunction is eventually lifted. Stay tuned, we’re continuing to follow the issue and will keep you posted.

The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) has published a proposed revision to its air quality regulations that will impose a new set of “Reasonably Available Control Technology” (RACT) requirements on major sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Allegheny County. Why? Good question: New RACT rules are required under the Clean Air Act every time the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone is revised. NOx and VOCs are regulated under the Clean Air Act because they contribute significantly to the formation of ground-level ozone. Because this is the third time new RACT rules have been required, they are referred to as “RACT III.” Most if not all major sources of air pollution in Allegheny County will be subject to the new rules. This includes: Pittsburgh Allegheny County Thermal; Bellefield Boiler; Sunoco Pittsburgh Terminal; Brunot Island Generating Station; Imperial Landfill; Buckeye Pipeline Coraopolis Terminal; Monroeville Landfill; Kelly Run Landfill; Pittsburgh Terminals Coraopolis; Universal Stainless and Alloy; Energy Center North Shore; LHT Terminals; Springdale Energy; US Steel Clairton; US Steel Edgar Thomson; US Steel Irvin; Neville Chemical Co.; University of Pittsburgh; Liberty Polyglas Pultrusions; ATI Flat Rolled Products; and Eastman Chemicals & Resins. Here’s how we got here: The first round of RACT determinations followed the creation of the RACT requirement by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act and were implemented in the late 1990s and early 2000s. RACT II determinations, which have only just been completed, followed the revision of the NAAQS for ozone in 2008. That brings us to RACT III, which follows the latest revision of the ozone standard, which occurred in 2015. We have blogged about the RACT requirement before, but to review: The RACT requirement instructs states to determine whether major sources of NOx and VOCs in areas that do not attain the NAAQS for ozone are using all “reasonably available control technology” to limit their emissions of NOx and VOCs. These rules are important because NOx and VOCs are the two principal precursors to the formation of ground-level ozone pollution. If such sources are not implementing RACT, the states must require them to do so, even if they were properly permitted when they began operating and have continued to operate within all applicable limits. “Although the Pittsburgh region has attained the NAAQS for ozone, all areas of Pennsylvania are deemed to be nonattainment for the purpose of implementing RACT, because the Keystone State is included in the ‘Ozone Transport Region’ established by the Clean Air Act,” GASP senior staff attorney John Baillie explained. “As a result, all major sources of NOx and VOCs in Pennsylvania will be required to comply with RACT III emission limits.” ACHD proposes to implement RACT III by including the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) RACT III regulations fully by reference into Allegheny County’s Air Pollution Control regulations. “Accordingly, RACT III will generally be implemented by imposing new emission limits for NOx and/or VOCs called ‘presumptive limits’ on certain categories of sources by regulation,” Baillie said. “A source may petition to opt out of such regulatory limits, but the reviewing agency would still have to determine RACT for the source on a case-by-case basis.” A case-by-case RACT determination for a facility generally requires the facility to identify all “technically feasible” controls for its NOx or VOC emissions, and then determine whether such controls are “reasonably available” using a cost-benefit analysis that looks specifically at the cost per ton of NOx or VOC emissions that each control would remove. For RACT III, it is believed that sources in Pennsylvania that opt out of presumptive RACT III limits will be required to implement NOx-limiting controls with a cost-effectiveness of $7,500/ton, and VOC-limiting controls with a cost-effectiveness of $12,000/ton. The presumptive limits in the RACT III regulations will cover several categories of sources that were not covered by RACT II’s presumptive limits, including certain (with “certain” meaning “depending on their capacities or ratings”): natural gas compression and transmission facilities rich burn stationary internal combustion engines solid fuel (but not coal) combustion units certain direct-fired heaters, furnaces, ovens, glass melting furnaces, and lime kilns. It should be noted that for the remaining coal-fired electric generating units in Pennsylvania, RACT III limits will be determined on a case-by-case basis. RACT III will also lower some of RACT II’s presumptive limits, including those for: certain combustion turbines, certain lean burn stationary internal combustion engines, and Portland cement kilns. DEP estimates that implementing RACT III could reduce NOx emissions on a state-wide basis by as many as 9,000 tons per year and yield a corresponding state-wide health benefit valued at between $337 and $732 million. ACHD’s proposed RACT III regulations are available by a link on ACHD’s website. As mentioned above, the proposed RACT III regulations will impose new limits on rates of emissions from certain source categories and are thus technical in nature, but ACHD is accepting comments on them through Aug. 18 by email at aqcomments@alleghenycounty.us.

GASP is seeking Allegheny County students in grades 9, 10, and 11 interested in becoming environmental game-changers. If that sounds like you or someone you know, we invite you to apply today for an innovative new program called Fresh Voices for Clean Air. For the second year, GASP is partnering with Greater-Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution (GASP), a non-profit organization working in the greater-Birmingham area in Alabama to advance healthy air and environmental justice through education, advocacy, and organizing. “Like us, they strive to reduce air pollution, educate the public on the health risks associated with poor air quality, and encourage community leaders to serve as role models for clean air and clean energy development,” Patrick Campbell said. “We’re excited for the opportunity to partner with our friends in Birmingham and can’t wait to see what the students come up with this time.” Interested? Here’s how Fresh Voices for Clean Air works: GASP will pair a small group of high school students in Allegheny County with a group of their peers in Birmingham, Ala. for a school year-long collaborative partnership. Throughout 2022-23, the cohorts in each city will meet virtually to participate in discussions with both each other and guest speakers. The team will learn more about air quality while building the skills necessary to become effective environmental advocates. By the end of the program year, the team will have created, developed, and executed an air quality-related project of their own choosing, with the support of adult mentors in both Pittsburgh and Birmingham. And that’s not all: Upon successful completion of the program year, participants will earn a $100 award. GASP Air Quality Educator Laura Kuster said she was impressed by last year’s participants not only for their great work but their passion for and commitment to environmental advocacy. “The students loved hearing from a wide variety of guest speakers, and those speakers valued interacting with the students even more,” GASP educator Laura Kuster said. “It’s inspiring to engage in conversations about air quality and the environment with our Fresh Voices participants, and I often think back to their perspectives and insights while doing my work.” GASP Birmingham Executive Director Michael Hansen said he looks forward to seeing what this year’s program brings. “We are so excited to work with students in the Birmingham and Pittsburgh areas through Fresh Voices. This program creates an opportunity for young people impacted by air pollution to collaborate and find common ground. Together, we’re going to learn about air pollution and environmental health, share our stories, and craft solutions to the problems facing our communities.” The program will run through the 2022-23 academic year and is open to students in grades 9, 10, and 11 who attend school in either Allegheny County or Jefferson County, Ala. Students must be willing and able to participate in Fresh Voices for Clean Air until the end of the school year in May 2023 to be considered. Participants will need access to a laptop or desktop computer, tablet, or smartphone to take part in virtual meetings, as well as written consent from a parent or guardian. The deadline to apply is Monday, Sept. 12. You can apply here. Have questions or need more information before committing to the program? Learn more and introduce yourself to program advisors starting at 4 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 1. You can register here. The Fresh Voices for Clean Air initiative was made possible by funding through the Grable Foundation.