Background: From 2006 to 2011, the City of Houston received nearly 200 community complaints about air pollution coming from some metal recycling facilities. The investigation by the Houston Health Department (HHD) found that while operating within legal limits, emissions from facilities that use torch cutting, a technique generating metal aerosols, may increase health risks for neighboring residents. Choosing to use collaborative problem solving over legislative rulemaking, HHD reached out to The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) to further evaluate and develop plans to mitigate, if necessary, health risks associated with metal emissions from these facilities. Methods: Utilizing a community-based participatory research approach, we constituted a research team from academia, HHD and an air quality advocacy group and a Community Advisory Board (CAB) to draw diverse stakeholders (i.e., frustrated and concerned residents and wary facility managers acting within their legal rights) into an equitable, trusting and respectful space to work together. Next, we investigated metal air pollution and inhalation health risks of adults living near metal recyclers and ascertained community views about environmental health using key informant interviews, focus groups and surveys. Finally, working collaboratively with the CAB, we developed neighborhood-specific public health action plans to address research findings.

The metal recycling industry provides jobs, generates revenue in local communities and conserves energy and resources. Nonetheless, possible negative impacts of metal recyclers (MRs) include the potential for emissions of metal aerosols and other dusts, noise, traffic and fire during operations. In Houston, Texas, there were more than 180 resident complaints about air quality related to MRs from 2006 to 2011 that were reported to the city's 311 call system. As a part of a communitybased participatory research study, Metal Air Pollution Partnership Solutions (MAPPS), we evaluated the impact of metal emissions from MRs on air quality over two years in four environmental justice communities. We simultaneously collected samples of inhalable particles (aerodynamic particle size less than 10 µm, PM 10) using a sampling strategy to capture emissions from the MRs while they were in operation at four locations within each community: an upwind location, the fence line of MR and two downwind locations and analyzed the samples for 10 metals. The highest values of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), arsenic (As) and chromium (Cr) were detected at the fence lines of MRs. The normalized ratios of these metals at near and far neighborhood locations were 0.01 to 0.64 and 0.01 to 0.34, respectively, as compared with the metals at the fence line. The concentrations of metals rapidly decreased by 57-70% within 100 meters and reached similar levels at upwind (background) locations at approximately 600 meters. After adjusting the measured data for wind direction, rain and operating hours, we calculated non-carcinogenic hazard index values and carcinogenic risks for adult residents from breathing metals emitted from the facilities. Estimated inhalation cancer risks ranged from 0.12 case to 24 cases in 1 million people and the hazard index values ranged from 0.04 to 11. Implications: In Houston, Texas, residents complained about air quality related to metal recyclers from 2006 to 2011. Using a community-based participatory research method, metal emissions were characterized at four environmental justice communities. The results indicate that metal concentrations were the highest at the fence line and decreased by 57-70% within 100 meters and reached similar levels of background at 600 meters. After adjusting the measured data for meteorological parameters and operating hours, estimated inhalation cancer risks ranged from 0.12 cases to 24 cases in 1 million people and hazard index values ranged from 0.04 to 11.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide insights learned from disaster research response (DR2) efforts following Hurricane Harvey in 2017 to launch DR2 activities following the Intercontinental Terminals Company (ITC) fire in Deer Park, Texas, in 2019. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of academic, community, and government partners launched a myriad of DR2 activities. Results: The DR2 response to Hurricane Harvey focused on enhancing environmental health literacy around clean-up efforts, measuring environmental contaminants in soil and water in impacted neighborhoods, and launching studies to evaluate the health impact of the disaster. The lessons learned after Harvey enabled rapid DR2 activities following the ITC fire, including air monitoring and administering surveys and in-depth interviews with affected residents. Conclusions: Embedding DR2 activities at academic institutions can enable rapid deployment of lessons learned from one disaster to enhance the response to subsequent disasters, even when those disasters are different. Our experience demonstrates the importance of academic institutions working with governmental and community partners to support timely disaster response efforts. Efforts enabled by such experience include providing health and safety training and consistent and reliable messaging, collecting time-sensitive and critical data in the wake of the event, and launching research to understand health impacts and improve resiliency.

This report was prepared as an account of Government sporvored work. h4either the United States, nor the Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission: A. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or B. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. As used in the above, "person acting on behalf of the Commission" includes any employee or contractor of the Commission fo the extent that such employee or contractor prepares, handles or distributes, or provides access to, any information pursuant to his employment or contract with the Commission.

No abstract