Post Hurricane Harvey Texas and EPA refused NASA pollution hunting mission

In the weeks following Hurricane Harvey, NASA had a scheduled flight with their DC-8 aircraft that would take them over Oklahoma on a test. The decision was made to reroute the flight over the Houston area, where they would fly as low as 500 feet, up to their maximum of 40,000 feet taking air samples and monitoring for chemical releases. Unlike the EPA aircraft, the DC-8 can test for 450 different chemicals in a single sampling. This flight would give officials a much better idea of the number, and size of chemical releases that occurred during the storm.

In a shocking move, both the EPA and Texas officials said that the ground monitoring stations and aircraft with IR cameras were proving to be acceptable, and any airborne maps would have overlapping data, and could cause confusion. Both of their maps only showed a few small areas of concern. The Texas director of toxicology at the time was Michael Honeycut, who at one point suggested that air pollution could be beneficial to a person's health. Both the EPA and Texas said that air quality was safe, but other reports showed a cloud of benzene over the city, as well as over 100 toxic releases, many of which were either not reported or understated. These included a hydrochloric acid, and gasoline. When NASA scientists pointed out that they don't need EPA approval, the director of the Earth Sciences division at NASA replied that the agency had “received emails from both TCEQ and EPA stating unambiguously that they do not want NASA to use the DC-8 for any data acquisition,” and cancelled the mission.

In the weeks after Hurricane Harvey’s catastrophic sweep through the Houston area — which resulted in chemical spills, fires, flooded storage tanks and damaged industrial plants — rescue crews and residents complained of burning throats, nausea and dizziness.

Fifteen hundred miles west in the high desert city of Palmdale, NASA scientists were preparing to fly a DC-8, equipped with the world’s most sophisticated air samplers over the hurricane zone to monitor pollution levels.

The mission never got off the ground. Both the state of Texas and the EPA told the scientists to stay away.

According to emails obtained by The Times via a public records request and interviews with dozens of scientists and officials familiar with the situation, EPA and state officials argued that NASA’s data would cause “confusion” and might “overlap” with their own analysis — which was showing only a few, isolated spots of concern.

www.latimes.com...

Sounds like real information in this thread. Texas does do a lot of cloud seeding with some iffy chemicals, especially Dallas. Texas has a lot of oil and gas industry and I am sure that lots of stuff is given off by their processes. Right now, we do still need their products, we have to get them from somewhere, the USA does have better environmental policies than most other countries they would move these plants and refineries to. This is a worldwide problem, not just the USA.

So I believe they do not want NASA snooping and firing everyone up on something we do not have a solution for at the time. We need to fix these problems, but we have to do it moderately or we will chase out all of our jobs in this country, leaving no work for anyone, everyone will be in poverty.

NASA should fly that over NASA, I am sure it would flunk worst than Houston would. They should fly it over any area where they have support businesses, they will find they flunk too.

a reply to: rickymouse

Isn't NASA in Houston?
Houston, we have a problem?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Arkema says workers still on site at foundering chemical plant in Crosby - (Plant has been evacuated

The above thread showcased one such release in the area. Being from here and knowing where the flooding took place, I am not surprised at all the learn that there may have been many more such occurrences which did not make the news. There are all kinds of refineries in the Gulf Coast region surrounding the Houston metropolitan area.

a reply to: rickymouse

The people who live there surely have a right to know though.

Just because an industry is needed doesn't mean that the government should look the other way.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: rickymouse

Isn't NASA in Houston?
Houston, we have a problem?

Yeah, they have some of it in Houston I think. The Florida launch site used to have the highest polution rate though, I do not know if they still do. California has some pretty polluting ones too.

Read the last paragraph of this, environmental impact. First few sentences is enough. en.wikipedia.org...

They have

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: rickymouse

The people who live there surely have a right to know though.

Just because an industry is needed doesn't mean that the government should look the other way.

I 100% agree with you. People should be let know what is poisoning them. Houston is probably nothing compared to some cities in California though, the sheer numbers of people and businesses in California cities probably make it worse than Houston. I bet Chicago is bad, same with New York. They can fly that thing over the UP and it will show that many Finns are peeing on the ski trails.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: rickymouse

The people who live there surely have a right to know though.

Just because an industry is needed doesn't mean that the government should look the other way.

There's actually a law for it. Look up EPCRA. Part of it is also the Toxic Release Inventory.

Missed crital part of OP. Leaving the first part there because you can go search the TRI for releases in your area.

a reply to: rickymouse

I 100% agree with you. People should be let know what is poisoning them. Houston is probably nothing compared to some cities in California though, the sheer numbers of people and businesses in California cities probably make it worse than Houston.

That's a fair statement, there are surely cities that are worse off.

But I think there is something to be said about concerns after the widespread flooding possibly mixing things up.

They can fly that thing over the UP and it will show that many Finns are peeing on the ski trails.

Haha, I've been up there a few times, gorgeous place. I go to Traverse quite regularly and sometimes we take a little trip up to the UP.... Only been during winter once though.

My guess would be that you are gonna get it, because Texas is a Republican state... already the first response had whataboutism included...

BUT... in my eyes you are probably one of the most if not the most trusted and respected posters/commenter/moderator on this site.... so most of the usual pro republican/anti-dem daily commentators will probably steer clear...

I think it shameful they would not want the NASA data. Just recently in Michigans lame duck session a bill was signed into law that forbid the state from using the latest technology and EPA numbers to determine PFAS contamination. PFAS is i chemical fire retardent and has been found in many municipalities drinking water recently here.

The bill was sponsored by the Senator from Midland MI....home of Dow chemical....

Why would Texas or Michigan not want to know?

a reply to: tinner07

Trust me, I thought carefully about posting it.

Houston is a heavily industrialized area. If they got hard numbers that didn't add up to what they estimated, or had that as a baseline and later flights showed similar or ongoing contamination they'd have to officially notice it. A NASA report will eventually go public.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Considering the damage done by Harvey, even if it wasn't going to hang around long, it would be good to know how much leaked, what kind of things leaked, and where it was.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Considering the damage done by Harvey, even if it wasn't going to hang around long, it would be good to know how much leaked, what kind of things leaked, and where it was.

I just went back and looked. I missed the "in the weeks after". I thought this was a recent thing. I blame my increasingly poor vision for all my mistakes, but it may have been my phone screen too

I concur that in the weeks after it would have been valuable. Right now they should be focusing on water.

Texas' epa site harvey info
www.tceq.texas.gov...
Harvey response
www.tceq.texas.gov...

Specific arkema info
www.tceq.texas.gov...

a reply to: Ksihkehe

We'll go with the phone screen.

I'd hate to see a test of the water in that area honestly. The air would have been bad enough but the water, I fully expect to see new life evolving in.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Water analysis info
www.tceq.texas.gov...

a reply to: shooterbrody

Some of those were fun. I enjoyed the page with all the volatiles that were highlighted. They all appear to still be in the safe limits range, but still.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: shooterbrody

Some of those were fun. I enjoyed the page with all the volatiles that were highlighted. They all appear to still be in the safe limits range, but still.

I didn't complete the tests or set the protocol, merely provided a link to the report. I looked for more recent reports, if they are available it would be on the TCEQ site.
Were I in the Houston area I would be purchasing bottled water.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: rickymouse

I 100% agree with you. People should be let know what is poisoning them. Houston is probably nothing compared to some cities in California though, the sheer numbers of people and businesses in California cities probably make it worse than Houston.

That's a fair statement, there are surely cities that are worse off.

But I think there is something to be said about concerns after the widespread flooding possibly mixing things up.

They can fly that thing over the UP and it will show that many Finns are peeing on the ski trails.

Haha, I've been up there a few times, gorgeous place. I go to Traverse quite regularly and sometimes we take a little trip up to the UP.... Only been during winter once though.

We got global warming happening bad up here, it was twenty one below this morning and the snowbanks are eight feet tall all over the place. It is hard to pull out into the road, you can't see very well around the snowbanks this year. It is like Calumet here in Negaunee this year. I grew up in the copper country and moved here to get out of the snowbelt but I guess I built my house in the snowiest part of Marquette county.

I have another theory on this.

Maybe it isn't some big conspiracy to hide the truth but something more mundane but no less important.

Maybe they don't want (or even need) another agency "muddying the waters" (no pun intended) aka sticking their noses into it just because they want to.

Another agency could be duplicating services (thus costing more money than needed) at taxpayer expense , using valuable services that could be needed elsewhere, and/or with their own agenda.

The later to the agency benefit/cause/plans vs the benefit of the citizens of texas.

In short if they need them they will call.
If a further investigation is called for by appropriate authorities they could be called out.

In short buzz out unless we need you.

Like we tell people wanting to "help" in our lives that we dont need.

Just an idea for discussion

Scrounger