[0:00] (INTRO MUSIC WITH MOTION TEXT): U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL - PREVENT AND DETECT FRAUD, WASTE & ABUSE - THROUGH OVERSIGHT - epa.gov/oig - @EPAoig
0:00:44.030 
The storm hit the U.S. Gulf Coast as a
category 4 hurricane on August 25, 2017, causing catastrophic flooding.


[0:26] (TEXT) The OIG conducted an audit of the U.S. EPA's air quality monitoring in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in the greater Houston area.
[0:48] (TEXT) AUG 25, 2017 CATEGORY 4

[0:49] 
(VOICE OVER with background music and supporting b-roll footage and still imagery) The storm hit the U.S. Gulf Coast as a category 4 hurricane on August 25, 2017, causing catestrophic flooding. It is the second costliest tropical 
cyclone on record, afflicting 125 billion 

dollars in damage.

 

During hurricane Harvey, there were air
 toxic releases mostly due to industrial facilities shutting down and restarting 
operations in response to the storm and

 storage tank failures. Most of the
incidents occurred within a five-day period of the storm making landfall.
 According to facility reports, Hurricane

 Harvey resulted in industrial facilities 
releasing an extra three hundred and forty tons of air toxics into the air. People who live in the Houston area near industrial facilities already 
experience chronic exposure to high levels of air pollution without hundreds 
of additional tons of air toxics suddenly

 released into their air. Many of the
Houston area's air monitors were shut down and secured prior to Harvey's
landfall to prevent damage from the

 hurricane in anticipation of heavy
rainfall and flooding.

 We looked to determine whether the federal EPA's and the state of Texas' air

 quality monitoring and related
activities: one, addressed potential high

 risk areas; two, indicated any potential
health concerns; and three, were accurately communicated to the public
with respect to monitoring results and potential health concerns.




We found that state and local, in
addition to EPA, air monitoring

 activities were not initiated in time to
assess the impact of those early releases. And we found that after
landfall the EPA and state and local agencies conducted mobile monitoring to
assess air quality conditions following the storm, but it was too late to assess
the total impact of emissions. Another problem was and continues to be that
there is no EPA guidance outlining how

 to monitor air quality following an
emergency. Even after the monitoring

 efforts were started, they did not always 
generate data considered suitable for making health terminations for those 
impacted in the area. The air monitoring 


data collected did not indicate the air
toxic levels after Hurricane Harvey 
exceeded health-related guidelines 
established by the State of Texas and

 the EPA. However, the values used to
assess public health risks and the EPA's

 emergency guidelines do not consider the 
cumulative impact of exposure to multiple pollutants at one time. Further,
the EPA's current thresholds do not

 consider prior lifetime exposures, just 
short-term exposure to a single pollutant. These thresholds may not be
sufficiently protective of residents and communities that neighbor industrial 
facilities.

 


We didn't find any instances of
 inaccurate communication to the public regarding air quality after Hurricane
Harvey, but we did find that public

 communication about air monitoring
results was limited. Air monitoring

 results and air quality risks did not
always reach residents of affected 


communities. Also we found that
communication was limited in that field

 staff indicated they were not always
able to communicate how the EPA resolved 
residents' concerns. We found some positives, as well. EPA's Region 6 office deployed

 more than 80 community liaisons to the
region impacted by Hurricane Harvey and

 
this was the first time so many staff
were deployed. These liaisons provided

 information to the public on how to best
protect themselves from environmental risks and did collect citizen concerns.
 In addition, the liaisons distributed

 

informational fliers in three prevalent 
languages for the communities: English,

 Spanish, and Vietnamese. 


We recommended in our report that the
 EPA develop general guidance that 
provides instruction for state and local
agencies on how to collect data

 acceptable for making public health
determinations. We believe that once EPA develops
 guidance for emergency air monitoring 
in heavily industrialized areas, it also
needs to develop methods to provide public access to data and establish a
plan to communicate the resolution of 
public concerns.



[5:44] (Background music fades out)


[5:44] (TEXT): VISUAL CREDITS - EPA OIG Multimedia, U.S. Department of Defense, iStock by Getty Images
[5:49] (OUTRO MOTION TEXT): PREVENT AND DETECT FRAUD, WASTE & ABUSE - THROUGH OVERSIGHT - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL | epa.gov/oig  @EPAoig