Take a deep breath. Smell something acrid or chemical? How about the odor of rotten eggs? Then report it! While the  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection  (more commonly referred to as DEP) regulates air quality in the Keystone State, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties do things a little differently. Instead of being regulated by DEP, air-quality issues are instead handled by local regulatory agencies. Here in Allegheny County, air quality is regulated by the Allegheny County Health Department (sometimes called ACHD for short). This means that if you live INSIDE Allegheny County and you smell a foul odor, you may report it by contacting the ACHD. To report a foul odor you can call 412-687-ACHD, or you can file a  complaint online . Folks in Allegheny County may also utilize an app developed by the  CREATE Lab  at Carnegie Mellon University known as  Smell PGH to report a foul odor to the health department. When you utilize the app—which crowd sources smell reports so they can track how air pollution travels across the city—it sends your air quality complaint directly to the ACHD. Please note: If you smell natural gas or otherwise have an air quality emergency, it’s always best to contact the health department directly . The app also allows users to see a map containing the locations of all other air quality complaints lodged that day. Live outside of Allegheny County? Foul odors outside the county need to be reported to DEP. You can do this by calling 412-442-4184, or you may file a  complaint online. Pro tip: When making an air quality complaint with either the Allegheny County Health Department or DEP, remember: The devil is in the details! Please be as specific as possible. Remember to include key information such as: The time you noticed the odor Your location (both neighborhood and zip code, please!) A brief description of the odor or smoke Please know that while making air quality complaints to environmental regulators is a great first step, there are other things you can do to make your voice heard on air quality issues. The second and third calls after your initial air quality complaint should be to your representatives in the state House and Senate. Not sure who represents you? No worries. Visit the  Pennsylvania General Assembly website , type in your address, and it will give you the contact information on your state representative and senator. Still want to do more to fight for clean air? You can  attend events ,  make a donation , sign up to be a  Smoke Reader , or  become a member of GASP ! #DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection #airpollution #SmellPGH #CREATELab #AlleghenyCountyHealthDepartment #DEP #ACHD #airquality

Last July, we blogged  about a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the United States endangered the public health and welfare by contributing to the global warming crisis.   Known as the 2009 Endangerment Finding, it was the predicate for EPA’s increasingly stringent regulation of new motor vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions, by which EPA intended to force the electrification of America’s new motor vehicle fleet by the 2030s.                                        As we blogged  more recently, in early February 2026 EPA formally announced its revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The final, published version of the revocation is available here .    As part of its revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA will remove all requirements related to greenhouse gas  emission standards for new motor vehicles from the Code of Federal Regulations.    Originally, EPA claimed that it had the authority to make the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.    Section 202(a)(1) deals with motor vehicle emissions only, and reads (in pertinent part):   The  Administrator  shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any  air pollutant  from any class or classes of  new motor vehicles  or  new motor vehicle engines , which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  The 2009 Endangerment Finding followed a 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court called Massachusetts v. EPA .   In Massachusetts v. EPA , the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases were air pollutants within the meaning of section 202(a)(1) but did not determine that EPA was required to find that motor vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to air pollution “which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”   EPA made that determination on its own in the 2009 Endangerment Finding.   Thus, EPA’s revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding is a reminder that what EPA can do on its own under one president, it can undo on its own under another .   In its revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding EPA provides three final, “separate and independent” rationales for its action. The fact that EPA calls the rationales “separate and independent” means that EPA believes that each rationale stands on its own as a reason sufficient to revoke the 2009 Endangerment Finding.    In order to defeat the revocation, a court would need to reject all three rationales.   First , EPA determined that by its own terms, section 202(a)(1) does not apply to vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions.    According to EPA, section 202(a)(1): applies only to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare through local or regional (not global) exposure by its own terms and all precedent before Massachusetts v. EPA .  Yes, this inserts language into section 202(a)(1) that isn’t there, but (as EPA notes) it is consistent with the way the Clean Air Act was interpreted from the time of its enactment in 1970 up and until the 2009 Endangerment Finding.  Obviously, EPA’s GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles were aimed at the consequences of global warming, not a strictly local or regional problem;   requires that an endangerment finding be issued with the emission standards meant to limit the air pollution causing the endangerment.  This rationale is strained.  Section 202(a)(1) provides EPA with the authority to “prescribe … standards,” not to make endangerment findings.  EPA’s first greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles were issued in 2010, separately and about six months after it published the 2009 Endangerment Finding (which did not incorporate any emission standards); and requires that any emission standards issued under its authority make a material impact on the dangers from “air pollution” to which they were meant to respond.  In other words, a regulation promulgated under section 202(a)(1) must be designed to reduce emissions to improve public health or welfare, rather than to make emission reductions that have no discernible impact on public health or welfare. In the revocation, EPA relied on its determination that even if all greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles were eliminated, there would be only minimal reductions to the dangers posed by global warming.   Second , EPA determined that section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act did not clearly authorize EPA to regulate vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions, as it must according to the “Major Questions Doctrine” developed by a string of Supreme Court decisions issued since 2009 (most specifically the Utility Air Regulatory Group  case from 2014 and West Virginia v. EPA  from 2022; we blogged about West Virginia v. EPA  and the regulatory history that surrounded it here ).    Based on these cases, EPA now claims that it cannot rely on the Clean Air Act’s vagueness with respect to greenhouse gas emissions to seize the authority to regulate them, and that such authority has not been delegated to it clearly by Congress.   Third , as noted above, EPA determined that section 202(a)(1) requires that any emission standards promulgated under its authority make more than a minimal contribution toward reducing or eliminating the danger to public health or welfare to which the standards were addressed    In other words, any greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles that EPA promulgates under the authority of section 202(a)(1) must make some real difference toward reducing the dangers from global warming.    EPA now claims that its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles fail this requirement because “[e]ven a complete elimination of all greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles would not address the risks attributed to elevated global concentrations of GHGs.”                 “The revocation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the Supreme Court decisions that deny EPA the power to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act are the death knell for the idea that the Act may be used to respond to the challenge of global warming,” GASP Senior Attorney John Baillie said. “It is now up to Congress to craft a response to the global warming crisis.”

The Aug. 11, 2025 explosion at the Clairton Coke Works killed two, injured a dozen more, and rocked an entire community. In its wake was special air quality monitoring , a Chemical Safety Board investigation , and, most recently, a $118,000 fine from OSHA.   Then came the biggest news yet: A pair of wrongful death suits had been filed against U.S. Steel and two other companies.   While GASP is not affiliated with the cases and has no special knowledge of them, staff reviewed the suits and wanted to provide both a summary and the source documents so residents can read for themselves the allegations lodged against the Mon Valley steelmaker. You can read the lawsuit filed by Danielle Menefee - wife of the late Steven Menefee -   here . You can read the lawsuit filed by Trisha Lynn Quinn - sister of the late Timothy Quinn -   here .   The Human Cost   The first of the two lawsuits was filed on behalf of Trisha Lynn Quinn - the sister of Timothy Quinn - and Timothy Quinn’s three minor children. The second was filed on behalf of Danielle Menefee - wife of Steven Menefee - and their two minor children.   Both lawsuits were filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court and seek compensatory damages such as loss of future earnings, as well as for pain and suffering.   The Quinn lawsuit reads:   “Quinn’s death was not instantaneous but resulted from traumatic injuries sustained when the explosion destroyed the building he was working in - injuries including blunt force trauma from structural collapse, penetrating trauma from flying debris, and other catastrophic injuries consistent with being present at close range to an industrial vapor cloud explosion.”   The Menefee lawsuit reads:   “Steve Menefee was consumed by the force of this explosion at close range, suffering inter alia fatal smoke inhalation and burn injuries.” A Known "Blast Zone" Risk The lawsuits claim there was a dangerous configuration at the plant. According to the complaints, workers were stationed in Reversing Rooms and a break room located just 10 to 20 feet directly above high-pressure coke oven gas supply piping. Despite the inherent volatility of coke oven gas—a mixture that is both toxic and highly flammable—these buildings “were ordinary, industrial structures providing weather protection and work space - not blast-resistant structures designed to withstand explosions.” Decades of Ignored Safety Recommendations Perhaps the most staggering allegation in the lawsuits is that there is a paper trail of warnings that were reportedly ignored. Between 1998 and 2018, U.S. Steel conducted five Process Hazard Analyses (PHAs). In 2003, according to the Complaints,   a safety team explicitly recommended a "facility siting study" to see if occupied buildings were too close to explosion hazards. Management rejected this recommendation, claiming their system was exempt from certain OSHA regulations. The Complaints further allege that even after OSHA clarified in 2013 that these safety standards did  apply to coke oven gas, U.S. Steel only performed "qualitative" or "checkbox" reviews without making meaningful changes to the physical layout of the "blast zone.” “Workers continued to be stationed in the reversing rooms and breakroom located 10-20 feet directly above the high-pressure coke oven gas piping, completely unaware they were positioned atop a catastrophic explosion hazard that their employers had been repeatedly warned about and consistently refused to address,” the Quinn suit reads. New Ownership, Old Hazards In June 2025, just two months before the explosion, Nippon Steel finalized its acquisition of U.S. Steel. The lawsuits name Nippon Steel North America as a defendant, alleging that during their due diligence process, the company reviewed (or should have reviewed) U.S. Steel’s safety records. The plaintiffs allege that Nippon Steel took operational control of the facility and essentially ratified the existing hazardous conditions rather than addressing the long-standing warnings. “Nippon Steel made a conscious decision not to exercise its authority to implement safety corrections,” the Quinn suit reads. “(The company’s) decision to continue operations was motivated by prioritization of revenue over worker safety.” Allegations Against MPW Industries & Valves, Inc. U.S. Steel wasn’t the only defendant named in the suits: The complaints allege that MPW Industrial Services and Valves, Inc. caused or contributed to Quinn and Menefee’s death through negligent and unsafe conduct. According to the suits, MPW used pressurized liquid water instead of low‑pressure steam, which allegedly was the only method allowed by the written procedure and then used a positive‑displacement pump with no pressure‑relief valve, creating the ability to over‑pressurize the valve to catastrophic levels. The suits allege that MPW failed to understand or evaluate the hazards of working on a valve containing live, pressurized, flammable coke oven gas, and failed to conduct proper pre‑job hazard analysis. They also allege MPW proceeded with the operation without attending the July 28, 2025, hazard‑planning meeting, without reviewing procedures, and without ensuring proper lockout/tagout or confined‑space safety requirements. Valves, Inc., on the other hand, is alleged by the Complaints to have refurbished the Battery 13 gas isolation valve in 2013. The Complaints allege the company was negligent because the valve was 60-year-old cast iron at the time of refurbishment—material known to be brittle, aging poorly, and inherently dangerous for high‑pressure, high‑temperature, explosion‑risk environments. The suits allege that Valves, Inc. should have advised that the valve was unsafe for continued service, even if the internal components could be repaired. By refurbishing and returning the valve to service without warnings or replacement recommendations, the suits claim that Valves, Inc. contributed to the decision to keep the unsafe valve in operation until its catastrophic failure. The Complaint asserts that this earlier negligence helped place the faulty valve into long‑term service, setting the stage for its eventual rupture during MPW’s operation and causing the fatal explosion. What’s Next? As these cases move forward, GASP will continue to monitor the proceedings and provide updates. In the meantime, we have a centralized resource page with a timeline of events related to the explosion, as well as links to blogs, news reports and key documents. Until then, you can read the lawsuit filed by Danielle Menefee - wife of the late Steven Menefee -   here . You can read the lawsuit filed by Trisha Lynn Quinn - sister of the late Timothy Quinn -   here .

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

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

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

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. Air Quality Violations Lead to $46K Fine for Synthomer Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) issued a more than $46,000 civil penalty against West Elizabeth-based Synthomer - a Title V facility that produces synthetic hydrocarbon resins - for exceeding emissions limits. According to an Oct. 20, 2025, enforcement order just recently uploaded to the ACHD docket, a 2023 compliance test of a C-5 Thermal Oxidizer stack revealed Synthomer blew past emissions limits in violation of the facility’s installation permit. ACHD said Synthomer continued to operate under similar conditions for three months, making it out of compliance with its permit. A $46,400 fine - payable to the Allegheny County Clean Air Fund - was assessed. Here’s the enforcement order  for folks who’d like to take a deeper dive. ACHD Revokes Green Development’s Asbestos License, Takes Enforcement Action Against Wilkinsburg Borough for Abatement Issues The Allegheny County Health Department revoked the asbestos abatement license of Green Development after inspections revealed the company violated various Article 21 provisions.  According to the Enforcement Order, Wilkinsburg Borough contracted with Green Development to demolish several abandoned houses in the borough. In the enforcement order filed against the company and Wilkinsburg Borough on Dec. 5, 2025, but only recently uploaded to ACHD’s docket, both were ordered to stop all demolition work on several properties in the municipality. This wasn’t the first time that Green Development had enforcement action taken against it: Its permit was first suspended in May 2025  for similar infractions. “Green Development has not shown a willingness or ability to comply with Article 21 asbestos abatement requirements,” the enforcement document noted. You can read the  entire enforcement order here. ACHD Takes Enforcement Action Against TNT Excavating, Wilkinsburg Borough for Myriad Asbestos Abatement Violations ACHD took enforcement action against TNT Excavating and Wilkinsburg Borough for myriad asbestos-abatement related violations in 2025. According to the enforcement actions,  Wilkinsburg Borough contracted with TNT to conduct asbestos abatement in December 2025, despite TNT not having a proper license. According to the enforcement actions, TNT and Wilkinsburg demolished several structures without a permit and without first notifying the department. You can read the Dec. 5, 2025, enforcement action here . You can read the July 23, 2025  enforcement order here. ACHD Takes Enforcement Action Against Wheaton & Sons for Permit, Dust Issues ACHD in March 2025 took enforcement action against Braddock-based Wheaton & Sons for failing to apply for a permit to operate regulated equipment. According to the enforcement order: Wheaton and Sons Inc. is an establishment primarily engaged in fabricated structural metal manufacturing operations. ACHD observed machining processes, including two plasma cutters, one laser cutter multiple press brakes, bandsaws, curving rolls and punching centers. The plasma cutter operates on a water table, but ACHD saw no other dust control measures. The company was ordered to stop all work and provide proper documentation to the department. You can read the entire enforcement order here . LHT Coraopolis Terminals Fined Nearly $6K For Abrasive Blasting Violation ACHD issued a $5,890 for performing abrasive blasting without a permit in August 2024. In Allegheny County, abrasive blasting projects totaling more than 10,000 square feet require a permit application with fee and a 30-day notification to be submitted prior to the commencement of abrasive blasting activities.  Coraopolis Terminals (and contractor Hannahoe Painting) performed abrasive blasting of 18,056 square feet of or abrasive blasting without an ACHD issued abrasive blasting permit.  You can read the entire enforcement order here. LHT Neville Island Terminal Filed $840 For Late Annual Compliance Certification ACHD on Oct. 25, 2025, fined LHT Neville Island Terminal $840 for failing to submit its 2023 annual certification of compliance as required under the terms of its Title V Operating Permit.  The enforcement order noted the company filed the certification 59 days late. You can  read the entire enforcement order here. Sailor Excavating and Paving Fined $1,100 for Failing to Control Dust ACHD on Sept. 9, 2025, fined Sailor Excavating and Paving $1,100 following an investigation spurred by dust complaints. Here’s an excerpt from the enforcement order: ACHD observed loaded dump trucks driving up and down a steep dirt roadway. The dump trucks were carrying and dumping material across the worksite to grade the lot. Fugitive emissions were created by the trucks driving on the dirt roadway that was not wetted. The ACHD Representative witnessed fugitive dust from the roadway crossing the property line and entering into public space. For the uninitiated: Article 21 - our local air quality regulations - prohibit operation of sources that allow the release of air contaminants into the open air or to cause air pollution. You can read the entire enforcement order here. P&W Motors Fined $1,800 Over Operating Without a Permit ACHD issued an $1,800 fine against P&W Motors on Sept. 12, 2025, for operating without a proper permit.  Here’s what happened:  The building now owned by P&W Motors at 720 Gross Street in Pittsburgh was formerly occupied by West Penn Hospital Foundation Research Building, which operated two boilers and an emergency generator - equipment that requires a permit. On May 10, 2024, ACHD inquired about unpaid annual maintenance fees only to find out the building had been sold and P&W Motors intended to tear the building down. On Feb. 14, 2025, ACHD emailed P&W to inform them that they would need to transfer the permit to the new owners or render the equipment inoperable and terminate the permit.  On April 25, 2025, ACHD again emailed company representatives to inform them that the permit must be transferred and renewed or that the equipment be rendered inoperable and the permit terminated.  While ACHD set deadlines for P&W to make that decision, the enforcement order notes that as of the date of the enforcement order, “P&W BMW of Pittsburgh failed to transfer ownership and renew the operating permit for the regulated equipment at 720 Gross Street.” You can read the entire enforcement order here.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has fined U.S. Steel $118,000 for safety violations stemming from the deadly August explosion at the Clairton Coke Works. OSHA documents show that the company was cited 10 times - nine of those were related to subpar safety procedures and employee training, and one was for failing to provide the agency with required reports as required. The fines were first reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review . Additionally, one of U.S. Steel’s contractors - MPW Industrial Services - was also cited nine times and fined $68,000. GASP staff is currently reviewing the citations. You can read the U.S. Steel citations here . You can read the MPW citations here . We continue to follow this issue closely. For more information on the explosion, visit GASP’s resource page here.

A couple of weeks ago we blogged  about the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency’s revision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for natural gas-fired combustion turbines. In that blog, we noted EPA’s decision not to quantify human health benefits  that might accrue from reductions in such turbines’ emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and fine particulate matter PM2.5”) under the new standards as part of the cost-benefit analysis that it performed for the standards.    EPA’s decision drew protests from environmentalists (one headline, from the New York Times:  “ Trump’s E.P.A. Has Put a Value on Human Life: Zero Dollars ”) and, for the revision of an NSPS, a very unusual amount of media coverage.   We committed to examining the EPA's decision to determine its validity and provide an update. Here ’s what we found.   As we blogged earlier, NSPS are promulgated pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air Act.  Section 111, as amended in 1977, does not  require that expected human health benefits from a revision of an NSPS be quantified and worked into a cost-benefit analysis. Rather, the Act only requires EPA to take into account the cost of implementation and the “ nonair  quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements” when it revises or promulgates an NSPS.     Thus, you could argue that if EPA’s recent change of course places the value of human life at zero, the 95 th  Congress beat them to it when they revised section 111 in 1977. Indeed, it appears that before 1993 (more on that date below) EPA did not quantify and consider quantified human health benefits that would follow its proposed revisions to the NSPS; nor did the courts that reviewed EPA’s new or revised NSPS .      You could even argue that when EPA quantified health impacts from NSPS and worked them into its cost-benefit analyses in the past, it effectively rewrote section 111.   Which got us wondering: If EPA’s practice of performing cost-benefit analyses for new or revised NSPS does not come from the Clean Air Act, where does it come from?   The answer is Executive Order 12866, which President Bill Clinton issued in 1993.    Executive Order 12866 generally requires that when a federal agency (including EPA) promulgates or revises a regulation, the agency must assess the anticipated costs and benefits of the regulation and may adopt them only when the anticipated benefits from the regulation exceed the anticipated costs.    Executive Order 12866 also requires that for any “significant regulatory action” (meaning, one that will have an impact on the economy of at least $100 million), the agency proposing the regulation must submit a written cost-benefit analysis to the Office of Management and the Budget.   Executive Order 12866 does not require that all, or even any, expected benefits from a regulatory action be quantified and even acknowledges that some expected benefits from a regulatory action might not be able to be quantified.   That means that, strictly speaking, the Clean Air Act does not require that EPA do a cost-benefit analysis at all when it promulgates or revises an NSPS. But the Act does not prohibit it either. If EPA does such an analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it can quantify the human health benefits from the new or revised NSPS or not, as it sees fit, in its analysis.    All of this gives EPA a lot of leeway.    How has EPA used that leeway, you wonder?  Naturally, it depends on who’s in charge.    We went back through several years’ worth of NSPS revisions (all the way back to the second half of the Obama Administration) and found that EPA has been inconsistent, not only about what quantified health benefits it includes in its cost-benefit analyses for new or revised NSPS, but also about whether or not it conducts such analyses at all.    The first thing we learned was that when EPA has proposed new or revised NSPS that are not “significant regulatory actions” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 it has not  included quantified human health benefits in the cost-benefit analyses that it performed for those NSPS, regardless of who the President was.    Was EPA placing the value of human life at zero when it promulgated those new or revised NSPS?    Not really.    It was only performing the assessments that were required of it by the Clean Air Act, and to a lesser extent, Executive Order 12866. The dollar value of the human health benefits that would be created, if any, were beside the point.   Second, we learned that even in the context of cost-benefit analyses done for NSPS that qualify as “significant regulatory actions,” EPA’s consideration of quantified human health benefits (as well as “climate benefits”) has been inconsistent.    When we looked at the analyses for recent NSPS, we found:   Under President Biden, EPA quantified human health benefits from reduced emissions that would follow revised NSPS and included them in the cost-benefit analyses it performed for NSPS that qualified as “significant regulatory actions.” During President Trump’s first term, EPA did not promulgate or revise any NSPS so did not trigger Executive Order 12866’s cost-benefit analysis requirement. Under President Obama, when EPA promulgated new rules for municipal solid waste landfills in 2016 to require the collection of methane they produce, it quantified and considered the “global social benefits” of reductions in direct methane emissions; it did not quantify or consider the costs or harms that would come from burning that methane. When EPA promulgated new rules for residential wood heaters, hydronic heaters, and forced air furnaces in 2015, it considered quantified human health benefits of reduced PM emissions, but not the quantified benefits of reduced NOx emissions or climate benefits that would flow from the rules. When EPA promulgated new rules for oil and natural gas wells in 2012, it determined that the benefits that would flow from reduced emissions of PM, NOx, hazardous air pollutants, and methane under the rules could not be quantified in a “defensible way.”  Nevertheless, it finalized the rule.   “One conclusion that may be drawn here is that EPA’s regulatory agenda drives its cost-benefit analyses; the analyses do not drive the regulatory agenda,” said GASP Senior Attorney John Baillie.  “A pro-industry administration will find a way to promulgate less restrictive Clean Air Act regulations, and a pro-environment administration will find a way to regulate more aggressively.  Until Congress or the Supreme Court clarifies exactly what factors must be considered in a cost-benefit analysis for a Clean Air Act regulation, this will continue to be the case.”

There’s been yet another equipment breakdown at U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works facility, the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) announced in a press release Thursday. Here’s what the release said: According to the release, ACHD received a call from U.S. Steel regarding a breakdown of pollution control equipment at Clairton Coke Works. A breakdown happens when equipment isn't working properly and releases more pollution than normal. This can happen when equipment fails, during power outages, or other unexpected problems happen. Our initial understanding is that Control Room 2 went offline due to a breakdown beginning on January 27 at approximately 8:05 pm. As a result, Control Rooms 2 and 5 were not processing coke oven gas and the partially processed coke oven gas was combusted at the facility. The outage lasted until January 28 at approximately 8:20 pm. At this time, equipment is back online. ACHD monitors recorded elevated readings of H2S, SO2, and PM2.5 at the Liberty monitor site on the morning of January 28. The highest readings were between 6 and 9 am when there were light winds from the southwest and a weak temperature inversion which can trap pollutants to the surface. The elevated readings were not high enough to cause a 1-hour or 24-hour exceedance of any air quality standard. During this event, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) levels elevated at ACHD monitors in the surrounding areas. H2S is a colorless gas with a strong "rotten egg" odor. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), short-term exposure at high concentration levels (over 2 ppm) can cause symptoms such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, eye or throat irritation, and respiratory discomfort, particularly for individuals with asthma or other underlying lung conditions. The highest hourly concentration recorded was 0.019 ppm. Currently, ACHD has limited information regarding the cause of the breakdown but has requested more information and has inspectors onsite inspecting coking operations. U.S. Steel is required to submit a breakdown report within seven days. There is also an additional 30-day reporting requirement. Currently there is no indication of a long-term health emergency; however, ACHD will continue to closely monitor air quality in and around Liberty, Clairton, and North Braddock. Residents in the affected area who experience prolonged and intense symptoms are encouraged to seek medical care. The public is also encouraged to use the Air Quality Dashboard  and the Hydrogen Sulfide Dashboard  for hourly updates. ACHD indicated that it will continue to investigate the breakdown and provide information to the public as it becomes available. GASP thanks ACHD for the public disclosure. We will keep you posted as more information becomes available.