Order Code RL33115
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Cleanup after Hurricane Katrina:
Environmental Considerations
October 13, 2005
Robert Esworthy, Linda Jo Schierow,
Claudia Copeland, and Linda Luther
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Cleanup after Hurricane Katrina:
Environmental Considerations
Summary
Local, state, and federal responders face numerous cleanup challenges
associated with Hurricane Katrina. In Mississippi and Alabama, the focus is on
restoring infrastructure and managing debris and waste. In New Orleans, where most
damage was due to floodwaters, the immediate tasks have been “unwatering,”
monitoring, and evaluation of potential risks from contaminated water, sediment, and
air. As floodwaters receded, and debris management and infrastructure repair began,
monitoring and analysis has continued to inform decisions about whether
neighborhoods would be safe for returning residents. Finally, local authorities
worked to determine how and where disaster-related wastes would be gathered,
separated, and disposed. This report provides an overview of the immediate and
intermediate cleanup tasks and the federal role supporting these tasks.
State, county, and local municipalities have jurisdiction with regard to cleanup
after any natural catastrophe. However, because, at the governors’ requests, the
President issued a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in response to Hurricane Katrina, federal
agencies have been broadly authorized to provide assistance. Federal cleanup
assistance efforts are being coordinated by the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps),
the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Corps
is coordinating non-hazardous debris removal, assessment and repair of water and
wastewater systems, and unwatering of New Orleans, in conjunction with other
emergency response activities, such as filling levee breaches. EPA and the U.S.
Coast Guard have primary responsibility for assessing and managing releases of oil
and other hazardous substances. Many other federal agencies are also contributing
various expertise and assistance to the cleanup effort.
In New Orleans, Katrina-generated waste was expected to be highly
contaminated, making the potential for toxic chemical exposure of returning residents
highly uncertain. Unwatering New Orleans was the critical first step in the public
health response, because tests of the floodwaters showed high concentrations of fecal
bacteria. Sampling results of residue sediments and air, whenever the floodwaters
receded, have indicated some sediment contamination with bacteria and fuel oils, and
possible health risks from contact with deposited sediment or with contaminants in
dust as the sediments dry. Mold is also an issue of concern.
Throughout the Katrina-affected region, drinking water and sewage treatment
plants were damaged and must be restored. Many are operating again now that
electric power has been restored, but some drinking water facilities have issued
notices advising that water be boiled prior to use. The status of many facilities is
unclear (especially small systems). Disposal of debris and waste continues to be a
major concern. The affected states have stated that they would prefer diverting
disaster debris from the waste stream, but there also will be a need for landfilling
and contained burning. The unique issues associated with the volume and diversity
of debris and waste may lead to innovative/creative approaches for disposing of these
materials. This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Federal Disaster Cleanup Response Authorities and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Disaster Management Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Disaster Cleanup Response and Waste Management Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Debris Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Disposition and Diversion of Debris and Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Previously Contaminated Sites (Superfund) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Contaminated Floodwaters in New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Assessing Floodwaters and Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Contaminated Sediment and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Water Discharged from New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contamination of Drinking Water Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Water Infrastructure Facilities in the Affected Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Potential Challenges and Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund National
Priority List (NPL) Sites in Areas Affected by Hurricane Katrina:
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Tables
Table 1. Federal Department/Agency Cleanup Functions and
Responsibilities as Indicated in the Emergency Support Functions
of the National Response Plan (NRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

---

Cleanup after Hurricane Katrina:
Environmental Considerations
Introduction
Local, state, and federal responders face numerous cleanup challenges
associated with the effects of Hurricane Katrina, many of them unique due to the
magnitude of events and specific features of communities affected. The immediate
need has been to clear debris and control releases of hazardous substances that may
pose a health and safety threat or may hamper emergency response activities.
Subsequently, authorities initiated efforts to determine how and where the huge
quantities of Hurricane Katrina-related waste and debris (hazardous and non-
hazardous), will ultimately be gathered, separated, and disposed.
Congress is working to address the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina
in the Gulf States, which is on a scale larger than any experienced by the United
States in a single natural disaster incident. A number of legislative proposals for
supplemental funding, waivers from normal procedures and legal requirements, and
other forms of assistance in response to Hurricane Katrina are being debated and
considered. This report aims to provide an overview of the immediate and
intermediate cleanup tasks across the diverse communities in the affected region, and
federal legal authorities and plans for tackling them. The report also discusses
coordinated roles and activities among local, state, and federal agencies and officials.
Finally, the report serves to reference other, more detailed CRS reports and other
sources on particular Katrina cleanup activities. Public health and environmental
concerns associated with Hurricane Katrina span a wide variety of issues, including
air and water quality, and hazardous chemical releases. Katrina’s impacts also have
environmental implications for other major issue areas such as energy, transportation
and defense. While this report addresses selected cleanup concerns receiving post-
Katrina attention, it is not intended to provide comprehensive coverage of all public
health and environmental issues associated with Hurricane Katrina, nor is it within
the scope of this report to analyze ongoing legislative considerations related to the
hurricane disaster response efforts.
There are many elements and phases of cleanup in response to natural disasters.
Elements of cleanup often undertaken during the initial and intermediate phases
following a disaster include the following:
! activation of state, local, and federal disaster response plans and
delegation of authorities;
! debris (non-hazardous and hazardous) assessment and management,
including initial removal, volume reduction, designating staging
areas for separation, temporary storage, and transport;

---

CRS-2
! oil (and oil by-products) and hazardous materials assessment,
containment, and management, as well as mitigation of public health
effects;
! assessment and containment of existing Superfund sites;
! un-watering of non-receding floodwaters (primarily in New Orleans)
and managing potentially contaminated soil and sediment;
! cleanup and repair of water and other infrastructure systems;
! reduction (e.g., shredding, chipping), diversion (e.g., salvaging,
recycling, reusing), and disposal (e.g., landfilling, incinerating) of
debris and hazardous materials;
! monitoring, sampling, and analysis to identify and reduce potential
public health and environmental risks.
These tasks and the federal government’s role are the primary focus of this report.
In response to the impacts of Hurricane Katrina, a joint task force of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) issued an initial assessment of the environmental health and
supporting infrastructure challenges facing one part of the affected region, New
Orleans. The EPA/CDC report sets a tone for the broader scope of response actions
required in that city and throughout the region affected by Hurricane Katrina by
observing, “The most striking feature of the disaster is the array of key environmental
health and infrastructure factors affected all at once.”1
1 The joint task force identified several specific environmental health issues and supporting
infrastructure concerns to address, categorizing them according time (short-term and
long-term) and complexity. Joint Taskforce Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Health Needs and Habitability
Assessment.” Sept. 17, 2005. Online at [http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/hurricanes/katrina/
envassessment.asp]

---

CRS-3
Federal Disaster Cleanup Response
Authorities and Activities
States, counties, and local municipalities have primary jurisdiction with regard
to natural catastrophe cleanup. To the extent they are capable, these entities initiate
cleanup activities operating under their own statutes2 and their various emergency
operation and/or incident response plans, often in coordination with various federal
agencies, as needed.3 However, in the event that state and local governments are
overwhelmed by a natural hazard, the President may issue a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (the Stafford Act) and invoke federal authorities,4 as occurred in response to
Hurricane Katrina. A major disaster declaration usually is in response to a governor’s
request and generally specifies, among other things, the type of incident covered, the
time periods covered for specific activities,5 the types of disaster assistance available,
and the counties affected by the declaration. The Stafford Act broadly authorizes the
President to direct federal agencies to provide “essential assistance” as needed,
including cleanup and disposal of waste and debris.6 Although this declaration
heightens the federal response coordination and support activities, state and local
governments maintain primary jurisdiction, particularly with regard to cleanup.
The following section briefly describes the Stafford Act, the December 2004
National Response Plan,7 and presidential directives that provide general authority
2 For an overview of emergency management and homeland security statutes in the 50 states
and the District of Columbia see CRS Report RL32287, Emergency Management and
Homeland Security Statutory Authorities in the States, District of Columbia, and Insular
Areas: A Summary. That summary report is supported by companion reports on each state,
the District of Columbia, and the insular areas. See profiles for Louisiana (CRS Report
RL32678); Mississippi (CRS Report RL32316); and Alabama (CRS Report RS21777).
3 For example see “State of Louisiana, Office of Homeland Security and Emergency
Preparedness Emergency Operation Plan,” April 2005, at [http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/
plans/eopindex.htm].
4 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. See CRS Report RL33090, Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act: Legal Requirements for Federal and State Roles in Declarations
of an Emergency or a Major Disaster, and CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act
Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding.
5 FEMA, 2005 Federal Disaster Declarations, [http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema].
6 Section 403 (a) of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §5170(b)(a)) authorizes “assistance essential
to meeting immediate threats to life and property resulting from a major disaster.” This is
defined to include “any work or services essential to saving lives and protecting and
preserving property or public health and safety,” including debris removal; search and
rescue, emergency medical care; emergency shelter and transport; provision of food, water,
medicine, and other essential needs; clearance of roads and construction of temporary
bridges; provision of temporary facilities for schools; demolition of unsafe structures;
warning of further risks and hazards; dissemination of public information; provision of
technical advice to state and local governments; and reduction of immediate threats.
7 Section 502(6) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized the Secretary of
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
and direction to federal agencies responding to incidents of national significance. For
a complete listing of statutory, Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs),
and other authorities for agency actions in response to an incident of national
significance, see Appendix 3 of the National Response Plan.
General Disaster Management Authorities
The Stafford Act authorizes the President “to establish a program of disaster
preparedness that utilizes services of all appropriate agencies,”... “direct any Federal
agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources
granted to it under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities,
and managerial, technical, and advisory services) in support of State and local
assistance efforts;” coordinate provision of “technical and advisory assistance” to
states and communities; and assist in distributing supplies and emergency assistance.8
Congress appropriates money to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to ensure that such
federal assistance is available to help individuals and communities stricken by severe
disasters.9 Through executive orders, the President has delegated responsibility for
administering the major provisions of the Stafford Act to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).10
The Homeland Security Act created the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and incorporated FEMA within the new department. Section 502(6) of the
Homeland Security Act authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to consolidate
federal emergency response plans into “a single, coordinated national response plan.”
FEMA coordinates disaster assistance provided by 27 federal agencies by
implementing the National Response Plan (NRP). The NRP establishes a
comprehensive all-hazards approach to federal interventions, and a framework to
coordinate activities of the federal government with those of state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. The plan establishes the coordinating structures,
processes, and protocols required to integrate the specific statutory and policy
authorities of various federal departments and agencies. While the NRP is the core
plan for managing domestic incidents and coordinating federal actions, other
supplemental agency and interagency plans provide details on authorities, response
protocols, and technical guidance for responding to and managing specific
contingency situations (such as hazardous materials spills, wild fires, etc.).11
7 (...continued)
Homeland Security to consolidate federal government emergency response plans into a
single, coordinated National Response Plan (NRP). The current NRP was finalized in Dec.
2004, and may be viewed or downloaded from [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/
NRP_FullText.pdf], visited Sept. 13, 2005.
8 42 U.S.C. §§ 5131, 5170(a)
9 Funds appropriated to the DRF remain available until expended. Supplemental
appropriations acts generally are required to meet the urgent needs of particularly
catastrophic disasters.
10 Primarily Executive Order 12148, “Federal Emergency Management,” as amended.
11 NRP, 2004, p. 16, [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf].

---

CRS-5
The NRP is organized functionally by 15 Emergency Support Functions (ESFs).
Under these ESFs, federal departments and agencies (and the American Red Cross)
are grouped according to their capabilities and assigned various tasks. Each ESF has
a designated coordinator, primary agency(ies), and a number of support agencies,
which together are responsible for planning, supporting, providing resources,
implementing programs, and providing emergency services related to their respective
tasks to state, local, and tribal governments. When the President declares a major
disaster or emergency, DHS/FEMA “activates” and assigns missions to relevant
ESFs as deemed necessary.
The ESFs primarily addressing cleanup activities are ESF #3-Public Works and
Engineering, and ESF #10-Oil and Hazardous Materials Response.12 The primary
focus of ESF #3 is infrastructure protection and emergency repair, infrastructure
restoration, engineering services, construction management, and critical infrastructure
liaison. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is designated the coordinator
of ESF #3 missions and shares with FEMA the responsibilities of being a primary
agency. The primary focus of ESF #10 is oil and hazardous materials (chemical,
biological, radiological, etc.) response, and environmental safety, and short- and
long-term cleanup. EPA is the designated coordinator, as well as a designated
primary agency for ESF #10. The U.S. Coast Guard (the Coast Guard) is the other
primary agency responsible for ESF #10 missions. ESF #8- Public Health and
Medical Services Annex, also includes certain activities related to cleanup in
coordination with ESF #3 and ESF #10.13 ESF #8 is coordinated by the Secretary of
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) principally through the
Assistant Secretary for Public Health and Emergency Preparedness (ASPHEP).
Multi-agency task forces of environmental response experts, including
representatives from virtually all federal agencies, have been deployed throughout the
Gulf region. In addition to those agencies with primary or coordination
responsibilities, such as the Corps, the Coast Guard, and EPA, key agencies
represented include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Department of the Interior), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) (Department of Health and human Services), and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce). These and other federal
agencies are working in cooperation with Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and
Florida municipalities and state agencies, to address countless cleanup issues. Table
1 in Appendix A briefly outlines roles and activities that federal agencies often
undertake related to disaster cleanup under the NRP.
12 See the Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes to the National Response Plan at
[http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf], visited Sept. 13, 2005.
13 “HHS, in coordination with ESF #3 and ESF #10 as appropriate, may task its components,
and request assistance from other ESF #8 organizations as appropriate, to assist in assessing
potable water, wastewater, solid waste disposal issues, and other environmental health
issues; conducting field investigations, including collection and laboratory analysis of
relevant samples; providing water purification and wastewater/solid waste disposal
equipment and supplies; and providing technical assistance and consultation on potable
water and wastewater/solid waste disposal issues,” December 2004 NRP, Annex, p. ESF #8-
6. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf]

---

CRS-6
Several Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) also shape the
federal cleanup after natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina, including
HSPD-5 (Management of Domestic Incidents) and HSPD-8 (National
Preparedness).14 Generally, these directives have been issued to clarify
responsibilities of various governmental agencies when a catastrophe occurs.
Executive orders and presidential directives do not alter statutory authority.
Activities undertaken by federal agencies, and state and local governments or
contractors under their jurisdiction, must generally comply with federal laws,
including environmental laws, as well as state and local statutes and ordinances that
implement federal laws. Individual statutes offer varying flexibility by authorizing
enforcement discretion. Temporary or emergency exemptions or waivers under
certain statutes allow limited relief from certain requirements. For a more detailed
discussion see CRS Report RL33107, Emergency Waiver of EPA Regulations:
Authorities and Legislative Proposals in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and
CRS Report RL33104, NEPA and Hurricane Response, Recovery, and Rebuilding
Efforts.
The remainder of this report provides an overview of some of the elements of
immediate and intermediate disaster cleanup, including roles of primary federal
agencies and references to relevant statutes and other authorities.
Disaster Cleanup Response and
Waste Management Tasks
Debris Management
As noted in a FEMA planning document, disaster debris is a “highly visible
reminder” of the scope of a disaster, and accounts for as much as 40% of all
disaster-related costs.15 States generally plan ahead for debris management in
response to natural disasters, and EPA assists states in this task.16 However, the level
of destruction to homes, businesses, industries (e.g., oil refining and chemical
manufacturing), public utilities and structures, and vegetation after Hurricane Katrina
is unprecedented in the United States. Proper management of this disaster debris is
an important initial step in protecting public health and safety and the environment,
as well as recovery and rebuilding efforts in these affected areas.
14 The Department of Homeland Security has these directives on its website at
[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4331] and [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/12/text/20031217-6.html].
15 “Disaster Debris Planning,” materials presented by FEMA at EPA’s August 2003 “RCRA
National Meeting,” see [http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/meeting/pdf02/ward.pdf].
16 See, for example, Planning for Disaster Debris, a 1995 EPA publication, available online
at [http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disaster/disaster.txt], visited Sept. 29,
2005.

---

CRS-7
Flooding, wind, and storm surge across vast areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and
portions of Alabama have resulted in the generation of two broad, overlapping
categories of waste: “disaster debris” and wastes consisting largely of, or heavily
contaminated by, oil or other hazardous substances. The waste that ultimately will
be generated in New Orleans as a result of Katrina is unusual not only for its volume,
but also because of the degree to which the waste may potentially be hazardous to
health and the environment: structures submerged in flood waters soaked in raw
sewage, oil, and an assortment of hazardous chemicals, sometimes for weeks.
Disaster debris from hurricanes and floods includes, but is not limited to,
construction materials, damaged or destroyed buildings, sediments, “green” wastes
(e.g., trees, limbs, leaves, and shrubs), “white goods” (appliances such as
refrigerators), personal property, and vehicles. The geographic area over which
Hurricane Katrina caused destruction along the Gulf Coast has generated a volume
of disaster debris that, although not accurately known as of this writing, has been
estimated to be much greater than any previous natural or man-made disaster in the
United States. The Louisiana DEQ debris estimate for New Orleans alone as of
October 3, 2005, was 55 million cubic yards,17 while debris in Mississippi has been
estimated to be more than 20 million cubic yards18 (compared to 43 million cubic
yards of disaster debris in Florida’s Metro-Dade County from Hurricane Andrew in
1992 19). The Corps has estimated that it will take eight months to consolidate the
material in Mississippi, and a year and a half to dispose of it.20 The total amount of
debris and time for removal and disposal will not be known for some time, and will
depend largely on the extent of demolition in areas with flood damage.
State and local governments are primarily responsible for waste management,
and the states affected by Katrina have significant experience in managing hurricane-
related debris. The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) has
provided state and local waste managers with access to various resources on best
debris management practices, including one recent publication that was prepared at
the request of the state of Louisiana addressing Hurricane Katrina specifically.21
17 Louisiana DEQ. Estimated amounts of debris in cubic yards parish/community, and
summary of household hazardous waste collections for St. Tammany, Jefferson and
Lafourche Parishes, as of Oct. 3, 2005. Available online at [http://www.deq.state.la.us/
news/pdf/DEBRISMISSIONOct3.pdf], visited Oct. 4 26, 2005].
18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hurricane Katrina. News Bits. Sept. 20, 2005.
[http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/hurricane/mvk/news/rita_not_stopping_recovery.pdf],
visited Sept. 23, 2005.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste. Planning for disaster
debris. [http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/disaster/disaster.htm], visited Sept.
22, 2005.
20 USACE, Sept. 20, 2005.
21 SWANA Applied Research Foundation. 2005. Hurricane Katrina Disaster Debris
Management: Lessons Learned from State and Local Governments, Briefing Report.
SWANA. [http://swana.org/pdf/swana_pdf_358.pdf], visited Sept. 28, 2005.

---

CRS-8
The Stafford Act authorizes debris removal by federal agencies from publicly
and privately owned lands and water when state and local governments are
overwhelmed and request assistance, as was the case following Katrina. Debris
management falls under ESF #3, Public Works and Engineering, which is
coordinated under the NRP by the Corps. The Corps is tasked with managing,
monitoring, and providing technical assistance in the clearance, removal, and
disposal of debris and the clearing of ground and water routes into the affected areas.
The physical work generally is done by contractors, to the extent that it cannot be
accomplished by local government sanitation workers. FEMA plans to reimburse
local governments for debris removal on public and private property in counties that
are eligible for assistance.22
Debris management entails collection, followed by separation of the various
types of materials, including nonhazardous from hazardous debris. Hazardous debris
often includes household containers of pesticides, drain cleaners, cleaning supplies,
and paint; asbestos-coated pipes; and surfaces coated with lead-based paint.
Separation of hazardous from nonhazardous materials is necessary to prevent
improper disposal, which can release hazardous substances to the environment.
However, hazardous and nonhazardous materials often are commingled, making
separation difficult or impossible. For example, many building materials contain
asbestos and lead-based paint. For this reason, the Corps manages contaminated
debris in coordination with EPA.23 EPA has advised states to make efforts to
segregate asbestos, as well as certain other types of waste.24 The states, including
those in the Hurricane Katrina-affected region, have primary authority for their
asbestos programs and disposal of asbestos-containing debris. EPA has reviewed the
Hurricane Katrina debris management plans developed by Mississippi25 and
Louisiana26, where most debris has been found, and is working closely with state and
local agencies providing, debris management guidance. EPA is also assisting with
asbestos sampling as necessary.
There are many physical risks for workers in the recovery and rebuilding efforts
in disaster areas, particularly in flood conditions. These include electrocution;
exposure to toxic materials, infectious agents, and mold; structural instability; falls;
and the dangers of using equipment in unfamiliar situations or with inadequate
22 FEMA. FEMA streamlines debris removal process for private property. Sept. 19, 2005.
Release number HQ-05-274.
23 For additional information about debris management, see [http://www.usace.army.mil/
inet/ functions/cw/cecwo/readness.htm], visited Sept. 23, 2005.
24 U.S. EPA. Hurricane Katrina Response, Frequent questions, “Asbestos.” Available
online at [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/faqs.htm], visited Sept. 29, 2005.
25 State of Mississippi DEQ, Katrina Debris Management Response, on the their website at
[http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/Main_Home?OpenDocument].
26 State of Louisiana, “Hurricane Katrina Debris Management Plan,” Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality, September 28, 2005 (Revised September 30, 2005); online at
[http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/pdf/AttachmentstoDebrisPlanupdatedSept29.pdf], visited
Oct. 4, 2005.

---

CRS-9
training, including heavy equipment, chain saws and generators.27 EPA, CDC and
OSHA are advising state and local governments and cleanup workers on proper
health and safety measures when entering structures and handling commingled
debris.
Disposition and Diversion of Debris and Waste. Diversion and disposal
of debris and waste has been a major concern following many natural disasters.
However, as outlined earlier, the magnitude of destruction from Hurricane Katrina
is unprecedented in the United States. The type and volume of debris and waste
materials generated, and the existing management options available generally
determine the endpoint of disaster debris and waste. To the extent possible many
communities prefer diverting disaster debris — salvage, reuse, and recycle — rather
than disposal. If they are not contaminated or extensively commingled with
hazardous wastes, vegetation, soil, certain metals, bricks, wood, and some other
building materials can be recycled or reused. Examples listed by EPA on its
website28 include the following:
! Green waste can be composted or chipped into mulch.
! Concrete and asphalt can be crushed and used as sub-base in road
building.
! Metal can be recycled as scrap metal.
! Brick can be reused or ground for use in landscaping applications.
! Uncontaminated dirt and sediment can be used for landfill cover or
as soil amendments.
The waste and debris that cannot be diverted is generally disposed of in compliance
with environmental statutory requirements, in sanitary landfills or in combustors
equipped with devices to control pollutants.
The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) specifies the
criteria for managing municipal and industrial solid and hazardous waste.29 Solid
waste is defined broadly under the law as “any garbage, refuse ... and other discarded
material.” Hazardous waste, a subset of solid waste, is defined as a solid waste that
is either specifically listed in the regulations or meets specific criteria that make it
toxic, ignitable (i.e., burns readily), corrosive, or reactive (e.g., explosive). Solid
wastes that are not reused or recycled are generally sent to municipal landfills;
hazardous wastes are required to be sent to specially constructed hazardous waste
landfills. Under RCRA, EPA can authorize states to implement their own RCRA
programs. Each state affected by Katrina is authorized and has implemented its own
waste management program under RCRA. Initially, the localities have been relying
27 Detailed information on these hazards and protective measures are posted on several
government websites: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at
[http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/hurricaneRecovery/.html]; National Institute on Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) at [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/flood]; and Centers for
Disease Control at [http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/hurricanes/index.asp]
28 EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Disaster Debris
[http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/debris.htm], visited Sept. 29, 2005.
29 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6991k

---

CRS-10
on existing landfills but are working with state and federal experts considering
options for locating additional capacity, including possibly siting new landfills.
In the past, debris from major disasters was most often buried or burned in the
community (much of the Katrina-generated debris that was handled in the immediate
aftermath of the hurricane was burned). However, considering the volume and
potential toxicity of the disaster debris and waste materials that will be generated as
a result of Hurricane Katrina, it may not be feasible to bury or burn significant
amounts of the waste.
Burning is a limited option, since only “clean” (i.e., uncontaminated) debris can
be burned. Also, citizens do not want to inhale the smoke from open burning.
Further, even if the smoke from burning operations is controlled, it is not an option
for waste containing hazardous constituents (e.g., contaminated structures and their
contents in New Orleans or asbestos-containing wastes). Most states, including
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, prohibit open burning as a means of waste
disposal. However, that prohibition does not apply to disposal of debris from
emergency clean-up operations.
To respond to the huge volumes of debris and waste generated in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina, both Mississippi and Louisiana have issued disaster debris
management plans.30 Among other criteria, those plans delineate the types of disaster
debris that will be handled under the specified emergency conditions. The plans also
specify requirements regarding the selection of debris storage and staging sites and
waste handling methods (e.g., chipping/grinding, burning, or landfilling) for certain
types of waste. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has not
posted a disaster debris management plan, but does have existing guidance regarding
open burning of natural disaster debris.31 Diversion from the waste stream appears
to be the preference within the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, when possible.
As a first step, local municipalities have been reducing the volume of debris and
waste through chipping/shredding and grinding, prior to final diversion or disposal.
The unique issues associated with the volume and diversity of debris and waste
may lead to innovative/creative approaches for disposing of these materials. State
agencies are facilitating communication among private parties’ offerings to assist
with the disposition of the materials. There are also various federally administered
programs that provide a forum for introducing and evaluating potential cleanup and
remediation technologies. Examples of federal programs for evaluating technologies
include EPA’s Technology Innovation Program (TIP), and Superfund Innovative
30 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Emergency Order 5062 05, see
sections regarding Solid Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Management, and Asbestos,
September 13, 2005, available online at [http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/
Main_Home?OpenDocument] and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality,
Hurricane Katrina Debris Management Plan, revised September 30, 2005, available online
at [http://www.deq.state.la.us/].
31 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, “Guidelines for Open Burning of
Natural Disaster Debris,” issued September 28, 2004, available online at
[http://www.adem.state.al.us/].

---

CRS-11
Technology Evaluation (SITE) and Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
programs.32 Through these programs, the federal government and its partners
generally provide and exchange information which may give assurance that those
technologies which were evaluated will, in fact, clean and remediate under specific
conditions. The extent to which these federally administered programs may provide
assistance to the ongoing Katrina cleanup efforts is not fully known.
Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances
Like the volume of waste generated, the level of contamination of
Katrina-generated waste was anticipated to be unprecedented, particularly in and
around New Orleans. While some contamination, such as that caused by contact with
sewage, may be managed through burning or sanitary landfills, other contamination
has come from releases of oil and hazardous substances, which require special
handling to reduce risks to public health and the environment.
Federal responsibilities under the National Response Plan (NRP) for
coordinating cleanup of environmental releases of hazardous substances and oil build
on long-term experience in monitoring and cleanup efforts of contaminated areas.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended (“Superfund”; CERCLA),33, and Section 311(f)(5) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (Clean Water Act),34 provide EPA and the
Coast Guard broad statutory authority to support state and local response to releases
of hazardous materials, contaminants, or pollutants, regardless of cause, as long as
the release “constitutes a public health or environmental emergency, and no other
person with the authority and capability to respond to the emergency will do so in a
timely manner.”
Generally, EPA leads response to spills on land and in inland waters, while the
Coast Guard leads response to spills into coastal waters of the United States.
CERCLA also authorizes EPA’s long-term, remedial work at contaminated sites
where release into the environment of a pollutant or contaminant may present an
imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA mandated
the establishment of a National Response Team (NRT), chaired by EPA, made up of
16 federal agencies, and includes state and local government representatives.
CERCLA further required development of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) to
coordinate responses to environmental releases of hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants.
32 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Information about EPA’s TIP can be
found at the EPA website [http://www.epa.gov/tio/about.htm]; information about EPA’s
SITE program can be found at [http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE]; information about EPA’s
ETV program can be found at [http://www.epa.gov/etv].
33 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.
34 Section 311(f)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (Clean Water
Act), 33 U.S.C. §1321.

---

CRS-12
The NCP continues to operate, although it is subsumed within the broader NRP
structure when the President declares a major disaster or emergency and FEMA
activates ESF #10 under the NRP. Under the NCP, the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)
is the pre-designated federal official who is the exclusive manager of releases of oil
and hazardous substances, and has the responsibility for ensuring an immediate and
effective response to a discharge or release. The OSC makes early (and subsequent)
judgments about the extent of the incident and what resources will be required, and
which scientific advisory teams will be needed. A major duty of the OSC is to
coordinate with state and local organizations at the site, who may have been the first
responders. In response to Hurricane Katrina, approximately 50 of EPA’s 250 OSCs
nationwide were sent to the affected region.
As of October 9, 2005, the Coast Guard reported that it had responded to 9
major and medium oil spills in southern Louisiana alone, where a total of 8.0 million
gallons of oil were released from above-ground storage tank facilities. Most of this
oil has been contained, recovered, or naturally dispersed.35 This total does not take
into account gasoline from gas stations and the more than 300,000 flooded cars in the
New Orleans area, which may add another 1 million to 2 million gallons of oil. A
joint CDC/EPA taskforce report issued September 17, 2005, on issues associated
with the repopulation of New Orleans, noted that underground storage tanks of
gasoline pose a potential threat of unknown proportions, pending “unwatering.”36
Other contamination has resulted from numerous releases, both large and small,
of hazardous substances. EPA Region IV reported that emergency response
personnel had conducted more than 2,600 incident responses as of October 12, 2005,
in Mississippi and Alabama (Louisiana is located EPA Region VI).37 An incident
response can involve investigation of reports from the National Response Center
(NRC),38 contacting facilities, and reporting hazardous material debris while
conducting land or water assessment in the affected areas. All oil and hazardous
substance releases throughout the Hurricane Katrina area have not been determined
or assessed. The CDC/EPA joint taskforce report stated that the potential for toxic
chemical exposure of returning residents is highly uncertain.39 For instance, the
35 U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security. Press release. “Update —
Southeast Louisiana Post-Hurricane Pollution Recovery Continues.” Oct 9, 2005. Updates
available at [http://www.uscgstormwatch.com/go/site/1008/], visited Oct. 12, 2005.
36 EPA/CDC Joint Taskforce. p. 7 and 24 of the assessment, which can be downloaded at
[http://www.epa.gov/katrina/reports/envneeds_hab_assessment.pdf], visited Sept. 26, 2005.
37 U.S. EPA, Region IV. Hurricane Katrina Response. Oct. 12, 2005. Available online at
[http://www.epa.gov/region4/Katrina/response_20050922.htm], visited Oct. 12, 2005. EPA
Region IV Cleanup activities are updated often on this website.
38 The NRC is the federal communications center staffed by the Coast Guard, which receives
all reports of releases involving hazardous substances and oil that trigger the federal
notification requirements under several laws. Reports to the NRC activate the National
Contingency Plan and the federal government’s response capabilities, available online at
[http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrcback.html], visited Sept. 30, 2005.
39 Joint Taskforce. p. 38. Available from the EPA website at [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
amounts of household hazardous substances in homes and businesses that have been
seriously damaged or destroyed in the Gulf Coast region, are unknown. In the New
Orleans area, there is the added element that household hazardous materials have
been soaking in contaminated waters. EPA has collected more than 65,000
household hazardous waste or “orphan” containers throughout the affected region.40
Numerous containers and drums, and 718,216 gallons of fuel have been collected by
EPA Region IV in Mississippi and Alabama.41 Many of these containers were empty,
and others contained hazardous substances that otherwise might have been
commingled with nonhazardous wastes.
In addition, a large concentration of industrial operations — bulk oil storage and
refinery operations, chemical plants (both processing and storage facilities), and
shipbuilding operations — in the Gulf Coast region hardest hit by Katrina may pose
a release threat. So that EPA Regions and states might more quickly assess the
impact of the Hurricane Katrina at those facilities, EPA provided information about
the location of registered businesses that generate hazardous wastes, as well as
facilities that treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous wastes.42 There are 774
registered treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for hazardous wastes in the
Katrina-affected area: 397 in Louisiana, 235 in Alabama, and 142 in Mississippi,
according to EPA. Each of the three states has its own programs for managing
hazardous wastes.
Previously Contaminated Sites (Superfund)
In addition to releases from households and businesses, another threat of
releases exists at sites that were heavily contaminated by earlier known releases of
hazardous substances. Existing contaminated sites include those on the Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL), EPA’s list of the most contaminated sites in the
United States. There are 15 NPL sites in the Katrina-affected area of Louisiana
(including 5 in New Orleans), 6 in Alabama, and 3 in Mississippi.43
39 (...continued)
reports/envneeds_hab_assessment.html], visited Sept. 27, 2005.
40 U.S. EPA. Hurricane Katrina Response. Current activities EPA response activity - posted
October 4. [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/activities.html], visited Oct. 11, 2005. Activities
are updated often on this website.
41 U.S. EPA, Region 4. Hurricane Katrina Response. Sept. 26, 2005. Available online at
[http://www.epa.gov/region4/Katrina/response_20050922.htm], visited Sept 27, 2005.
42 U.S. EPA. Hurricane Katrina Response, Frequent questions. Available online from EPA
at [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/faqs.htm], visited Sept. 23, 2005.
43 U.S. EPA. Hurricane Response: Katrina/Rita, “Superfund Issues.” Available online from
EPA at [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/superfund.html], visited Oct. 12, 2005.

---

CRS-14
Figure 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund
National Priority List (NPL) Sites in Areas Affected by Hurricane
Katrina: Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi
EPA reported that all NPL sites have had initial assessments, and more detailed
assessments and monitoring are continuing. The Agriculture Street Landfill
Superfund site in New Orleans, which was submerged in three feet of water and is
located in an area that was extensively damaged, has been of particular concern to
authorities. An initial visit by EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality to that site and a second inspection September 20 determined that the cap
was not compromised. The soil was sampled on September 25, 2005, and again on
October 2 and 3, 2005.44
Contaminated Floodwaters in New Orleans
Outside of Louisiana, large highly urbanized or industrialized areas did not
remain flooded for an extended period after Hurricane Katrina passed. In Mississippi
and Alabama, the primary damage from that Katrina resulted from the storm surge,
high winds, and rainfall accompanying the hurricane.
In New Orleans, however, floodwaters breached the city’s existing system of
levees and floodwalls that is designed to provide a certain level of protection from
storms and intense precipitation. Because flooded portions of the city are below sea
level and have little natural drainage, the first task there has been to remove the
trapped water, estimated by the Corps to have been 114 billion gallons at the
maximum,45 through intentional levee breaks and the existing complementary system
of pumps and canals. (For additional information, see CRS Report RS22238, New
44 Ibid.
45 Stacey Brown, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication, Sept. 14, 2005.

---

CRS-15
Orleans Levees and Floodwalls: Hurricane Damage Protection, by Nicole Carter.)
While the surge of storm water from Hurricane Katrina that engulfed the city was not
contaminated initially, it became so when the trapped water mixed with human and
animal sewage, decaying bodies, oil and gas from ruptured tanks and pipes, and
myriad chemicals that leached from damaged properties and vehicles. Managing the
floodwaters raised several issues — how to control immediate public health and
environmental impacts due to direct exposure to the water, how to identify and
manage releases of toxic chemicals into the water and deposition into the muck and
sediment that remain after the water recedes, and how to assess and manage the
impacts of discharging the floodwaters into Lake Pontchartrain.
As mentioned above, the National Contingency Plan, prescribed under both the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387) and CERCLA (Superfund; 42 U.S.C.
§§9601-9675), gives EPA specific responsibility to respond directly to releases or
threats of releases of hazardous substances and pollutants or contaminants that may
present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare and to
discharges of oil, all of which have been contaminating waters that flooded New
Orleans. In addition, under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §§5121-5206) and the
National Response Plan, EPA generally has the lead federal role in addressing
hazardous materials and oil, and in ensuring environmental safety and short- and
long-term cleanup. The Coast Guard often acts as co-lead, with responsibility for
coastal incidents.
Assessing Floodwaters and Sediment. “Unwatering” New Orleans has
been critical to the public health response to the Hurricane Katrina in order to remove
water that poses a direct risk to public health and the environment, and also may
provide a breeding area for vectors of illnesses such as West Nile Virus. Biological
and chemical tests of the floodwaters conducted by EPA and the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality beginning immediately after the Hurricane
Katrina showed concentrations of fecal bacteria at least 10 times in excess of EPA’s
recommended levels for human contact. The initial sampling in flooded
neighborhoods identified total coliforms and E. coli (bacteria found in high numbers
in the feces of humans and other warm-blooded animals) that are indicators of the
potential presence of disease-causing microbes. Because of the risk of intestinal and
other illness from exposure to the contaminated water, EPA and CDC issued an
advisory on September 6, 2005, cautioning the public and all responders about the
possible hazards of contact with flood waters.46 Further testing continued to show
greatly elevated E. coli levels higher than EPA’s recommended levels for contact,
even several weeks after Hurricane Katrina. The level of contamination is not
unusual in urban runoff, however.47
46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hurricane Response: Katrina/Rita, “Test Results:
Water.” [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/testresults/water/index.html], visited Oct 12, 2005.
47 J.H. Pardue et al, “Chemical and Microbiological Parameters in New Orleans Floodwater
Following Hurricane Katrina,” Environmental Science & Technology Online News. Oct
11, 2005. Available online at [http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/oct/
science/pt_neworleans.html]

---

CRS-16
In addition, EPA has analyzed floodwaters for over 100 priority pollutants,
including a number of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals, pesticides, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In preliminary results, lead, hexavalent chromium,
and arsenic were detected at levels that would exceed health levels established by
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, an agency
of the Department of Health and Human Services)48 to protect people who are
exposed to those levels over a period of time longer than flood waters will persist in
New Orleans. That initial testing detected another 20 chemicals, either at levels that
did not exceed EPA standards (for example, copper, mercury, and toluene) or
chemicals for which no health standards exist (e.g, zinc, calcium, and iron).
Concentrations of toxic substances found in the floodwaters were not high
enough to produce overt, immediate illness, unless a great deal of floodwater were
swallowed. According to EPA’s website, “These compounds would pose a risk to
children only if a child were to drink a liter of flood water a day. Long-term
exposure (a year or longer) to arsenic would be required before health effects would
be expected to occur.”49 Nevertheless, EPA and CDC advised the public and
emergency responders to avoid contact with the water, when possible.
Overall, EPA and most other officials appear to believe that the floodwaters
were less hazardous than some had originally feared — at least in terms of toxic
chemicals whose risks are more long-term than immediate — but that high levels of
bacteria did pose a significant short-term risk to public health. However, they
acknowledged that the levels of contamination found are typical of urban
floodwaters.
Contaminated Sediment and Structures. As of October 11, 2005, the
Corps50 reported that the unwatering of the New Orleans metropolitan area was
completed, although some areas require additional pumping of flood water.51 The
unwatering effort for Hurricane Katrina was temporarily delayed by additional
floodwaters from Hurricane Rita and reoccurrences of breaches to sections of the
canal levees. As the floodwaters receded, some pollutants settled in a layer of
sediment, complicating the cleanup. On September 10, 2005, EPA began sampling
residue sediments from locations in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, testing for
about 140 priority pollutants. According to EPA, “sediment, for the purposes of the
hurricane response sampling effort, is being defined as residuals deposited by
48 ATSDR was created by Congress in 1980 to implement the health-related sections of laws
that protect the public from hazardous wastes and environmental spills of hazardous
substances. [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/congress.html]
49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Response Activity — September 14.”
[http://www.epa.gov/katrina/activities.html]
50 The Corps of Engineers’ authority to unwater New Orleans derives from the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5170b) and P.L. 84-99,
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies, Section 216 (33 U.S.C. §701n).
51 U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Public Affairs Office, Press Release,
Oct. 11, 2005. [http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/hurricane/news/news_release_1011.pdf]

---

CRS-17
receding flood waters which may include historical sediment from nearby water
bodies, soil from yards, road and construction debris, and other material.”52
Preliminary results indicated that some sediment may be contaminated with
bacteria and fuel oils, and human health risks may exist from contact with deposited
sediment, EPA said. However, because no standards exist for determining human
health risks from bacteria in soils or sediment, EPA officials can only generally
recommend that contact or exposure to sediment be limited if possible. In the
preliminary tests, a number of chemicals and metals were detected (including arsenic
and lead), but were reported to be below levels that would be expected to produce
adverse health effects. Samples taken October 1, 2005, indicated the continued
presence of petroleum, as well as volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds,
pesticides, and heavy metals. All of these were reported to be at levels not expected
to cause adverse effects to cleanup workers and other responders, who wear
appropriate protective gear.53
At EPA’s request, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the Agency’s
sediment sampling testing protocol and strategy, which initially focused on a one-
square-mile area of the city. The SAB was asked to examine the scope of the
sampling area and substances to be scrutinized to ensure that results, when available,
will be scientifically adequate to support any conclusions about risks and exposure.
The SAB convened a workgroup on October 5, 2005, to provided consultative advice
to EPA. EPA is considering the SAB comments which are summarized on the EPA’s
website.54 EPA and the state will continue sampling on a daily basis, and appropriate
sediment removal options will be determined once the sampling results have been
reviewed.
Related Air Quality and Vector Concerns. EPA scientists are concerned
that air pollution may result not only from chemical spills and releases at industrial
plants, but also may emanate from contaminated sediments. As contaminated
sediments dry, they may release pollutants that can be re-suspended as dust. In
addition, some scientists are concerned that, as flooded areas dry out, some of the
pathogens in the contaminated water will become airborne.
EPA has begun an extensive air quality sampling effort throughout New
Orleans, using an EPA helicopter, buses, and an Air Force plane with air monitoring
technology, examining many possible sources, including sediments. Early screening
results indicated that chemical concentrations are below ATSDR health standards and
that long term exposure (a year or more) at the levels detected would be required for
health effects to be of concern. The sampling identified particle pollution at levels
considered moderate (meaning that unusually sensitive people should consider
avoiding vigorous exercise). However, samples were not collected with standard
52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hurricane Response: Katrina/Rita, “Test Results:
Sediment.” [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/testresults/sediments/index.html], visited Oct. 11,
2005.
53 Ibid.
54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SAB Public Meeting October 5, 2005, Draft
Minutes. [http://www.epa.gov/sab/hurricane]

---

CRS-18
monitors, meaning that the mix of particles in the screening samples cannot easily be
compared to EPA standards. EPA cautions that initial sampling does not represent
air quality conditions throughout the region, and should not be used to make general
characterizations. Air sampling continues in the Katrina-affected area and EPA posts
updated test results regularly on its website.55
A significant concern associated with the cleanup is the potential for health
hazards due to the presence of molds, mildew, and fungi in soggy, damaged
structures. The excess moisture and standing water resulting from Katrina
contributed to the growth of molds in homes and other buildings, particularly in the
New Orleans area. All persons are being cautioned about the effects of mold,
especially those with weakened immune systems and those with respiratory
illnesses/allergies.56 Although guidance is available to private parties for cleaning
up mold indoors, for larger surface areas affected (generally ten square feet or more)
EPA recommends cleanup be conducted by professionals experienced with
addressing mold.
A related issue is an increase of rodents and insects that might carry diseases
such as West Nile Virus. Hurricane Katrina compounded Louisiana’s insect problem
on several levels, including forcing the evacuation of standard vector control
personnel, the destruction of vector disease control equipment, and a dramatic
increase in the number of stagnant bodies of water throughout New Orleans and
surrounding parishes, which serve as ideal breeding grounds for insects like
mosquitoes. Medical personnel from the U.S. Navy are working with the CDC and
Louisiana Department of Public Health to eliminate vector-borne disease and other
insect-related problems associated with mosquitoes. However, because spraying for
mosquito control can affect workers in the region, spraying is being used
conservatively, according to the Navy. EPA has been working with state agencies,
FEMA, and others to expedite any requests that may be needed for pesticide use and
also is working with pesticide manufacturers to make sure that adequate supplies are
available.
Water Discharged from New Orleans. While necessary to the overall
cleanup from the Hurricane Katrina, the water removal from New Orleans has raised
a number of concerns. Removal involves pumping the floodwater into Lake
Pontchartrain, an option that is necessarily expedient, but not necessarily ideal,
because contamination in the lake may harm aquatic plants and animals. As noted
above, because of geography, the city lacks sufficient natural drainage for the water
to remove itself. Pumping it into the Mississippi River was not a viable option, as
55 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hurricane Response: Katrina/Rita, “Air Quality
Data.” [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/testresults/air/index.html]
56 For more information about molds and mildew related to Katrina see, “Update on Health
Issues Related to Mold, Mildew and Mud in Hurricane and Flood Affected Areas,”
September 28, 2005, at the DHHS/CDC website: [http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/
transcripts/t050928.htm]. For general information regarding mold and mold cleanup
guidance, see the EPA website [http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/moldresources.html] and the
DHHS/CDC website at [http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/mold/protect.asp]. All site visited
Sept. 30, 2005.

---

CRS-19
the floodwater could contaminate river water which is the source of the city’s
drinking water supply. Treatment of the contaminated floodwaters prior to discharge
was not possible because of the need to unwater the city rapidly, and the
unavailability of full treatment technology. Nor was it possible to hold the pumped
water somewhere to filter out pollution. The Corps has taken some steps to remove
wastes prior to discharge into the lake, such as putting booms and skimmers in place
at outfalls to trap floating material and debris, and installing aeration units in canals.
The contaminated floodwaters are low in dissolved oxygen, because of the presence
of oxygen-consuming matter in sewage and decaying plant material, and these
aeration units are intended to restore oxygen levels before the water enters the lake.
Otherwise, the oxygen-deprived floodwaters would likely harm fish and other
organisms in the lake which need oxygen to survive.
The lake is a 630-square mile waterbody that already is impaired by a number
of known sources of water pollution, including stormwater runoff (the largest
contributor to pollution of the lake), agricultural discharges from animal operations
and chemical use, discharges from wastewater treatment plants and individual septic
systems, oil and gas production, and saltwater intrusion from the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet (a navigation channel that links the Gulf of Mexico to the Port of New
Orleans as an aid to shipping).57 The lake is partly rimmed by cypress and tupelo
swamps, which could be damaged by saltwater that the Hurricane Katrina introduced.
But restoration activities have been underway for some time, and there is aquatic life
in the lake — manatees, an endangered species, have been observed in recent
months; sportfishing occurs in the lake; and certain species of clams are harvested
from the lake.
The Corps’s prevention efforts (e.g., booms, skimmers, aerators) likely had little
effect on limiting any toxic chemicals, metals, or pesticides in the discharged water.
Consequently, the lake has received the equivalent of several years of urban runoff
in only a few weeks. Sudden loads of toxic chemicals and low dissolved oxygen
levels might cause considerable harm to sensitive species of aquatic life over the
short term, but long-term effects are more difficult to predict. Whether toxic
chemicals will be diluted, degraded by bacteria, and flushed out of the lake by tides,
as some scientists believe, or will remain in the lake and accumulate in its sediments,
as others believe, will not be known for some time, perhaps years. Early reports
indicate only that levels of zinc and copper are high enough to adversely affect some
fish.58
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (Louisiana DEQ) has
begun implementing a plan to test Lake Pontchartrain to assess short-term and long-
term effects of discharging pumped water into the lake, as well as outlets into and out
of the lake. Federal partners, including the U.S. Geological Survey, are assisting the
57 U.S. Geological Survey. “Environmental Atlas of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Water
Quality.” [http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-206/env-overview/water-quality.html];
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. “Wetlands.” Online at [http://www.saveourlake.org/
wetlands.htm].
58 J.H. Pardue et al. [http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/oct/science/pt_
neworleans.html]

---

CRS-20
state. Results will be used to determine if pollutants exceed expected levels (as
compared to historical site data) and if water quality standards are being exceeded.
Louisiana DEQ test results reported October 4, 2005, showed that all fish and 10 of
12 invertebrate test animals were able to survive in 100 percent pump-down
floodwaters.59
In addition, an EPA water testing vessel is surveying waters of the Mississippi
Sound, each major bay system feeding the Sound, and the Gulf of Mexico for water-
quality effects from the hurricanes. The main objective is to provide a snapshot of
current water quality and flow data and compare the results to historic conditions.
The survey is expected to take until mid-October to complete, and Mississippi hopes
to design more targeted studies based on preliminary results.
Contamination of Drinking Water Sources
Another area of interest is possible effects of Hurricane Katrina on waters that
are sources of drinking water supplies throughout the area. Outside of New Orleans,
public and private drinking water supplies are drawn from groundwater sources.
During the week of September 19, 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey and the State
of Louisiana began a small groundwater reconnaissance effort to look for impacts
from the storm surge, such as saltwater mixing or elevated bacteria levels. Also,
EPA is distributing drinking water test kits in the New Orleans area so that private
well owners can test for possible contamination by floodwaters and overflowing
sewers. Privately owned wells that provide drinking water are regulated by states,
not EPA, and the number of such wells in the affected Gulf Coast area is unknown.
In most states, owners of private wells are responsible for testing for contamination.
The source of public drinking water supply for New Orleans is the Mississippi
River. Assessments by the state and federal partners are underway to determine
possible impacts to the river such as saltwater and sediment dumped during the
Katrina’s storm surge and chemical and bacteria contamination released from
damaged facilities, structures, and sewers. The state is working to re-establish its
Early Warning Organic Chemicals Detection System (EWOCDS) to help evaluate
the quality of the River as the city’s drinking water supply. This system consists of
sampling sites at six locations at various points on the river, primarily at chemical
facilities and the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board.60
59 Louisiana DEQ. “Tests show animals survive in New Orleans floodwaters,” Oct. 4, 2005.
[http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/pdf/aquatictoxicitytesting.pdf], visited Oct. 11, 2005.
60 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. “Plan for Monitoring Surface Water
Quality Conditions in Waters Impacted by Hurricane Katrina.” Sept. 10, 2005.

---

CRS-21
Water Infrastructure Facilities in the Affected Region61
Throughout the Katrina-affected region, high winds and water damaged a wide
range of public service facilities, including drinking water supply and treatment and
sewage treatment plants, and restoring those facilities is part of the overall cleanup
and restoration process. Damages caused by the storm at many facilities included
loss of electric power to pump, process, and treat raw water supply and wastewater.
Under authority of the National Response Plan, especially Emergency Support
Function #10, EPA and Corps of Engineers staff are conducting assessments,
providing assistance to state and local government personnel to evaluate damages.
As electric power continued to be restored, many of the affected systems were
able to restore needed services, although some drinking water facilities are still
operating under boil-water notices pending test results to ensure that the water has
been restored to standards safe for public consumption. The number of sites that are
off-line changes daily.62 By October 10, 2005, EPA reported that more than 85% of
drinking water and 95% of wastewater treatment facilities in the affected region were
operational.63 However, EPA estimated that facilities not operating or with unknown
status normally served about 200,000 drinking water customers and more than half
a million wastewater customers. Efforts to assess facilities continue throughout the
region to determine their operating status, including needs to repair or rebuild. Staff
of EPA’s Water Program are assessing all drinking water and wastewater plants in
the region.
EPA cautions that evaluations are on-going, and the status of many facilities is
unclear (especially small systems). Facilities determined to be operational may still
require repair or reconstruction. Facility restorations, full or partial, may take many
months, and costs of needed repairs are unknown. On September 23, the American
Water Works Association issued a very preliminary estimate that $2.25 billion will
be needed to repair or replace drinking water infrastructure at perhaps 1,000 systems
that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina.64
Impacts on New Orleans’s water systems were particularly severe. In the central
portion of the city, in addition to electric power impairments, extensive damage
occurred from flooding of treatment plants, drinking water distribution lines, and
collector and interceptor sewers, and the water system’s power plant. The largest of
the city’s two drinking water plants, located where the worst flooding took place, was
completely underwater for nearly two weeks. It was repaired sufficiently to provide
flow (i.e., for fire fighting), but may not be providing potable water for weeks. Steps
61 For additional information, see CRS Report RS22285, Hurricane-Damaged Drinking
Water and Wastewater Facilities: Impacts, Needs, and Response.
62 Detailed information, updated often, is available online from EPA’s website at
[http://www.epa.gov/katrina/activities.html].
63 Detailed information on drinking water and wastewater facilities, updated often, is
available on EPA’s website at [http://www.epa.gov/katrina/activities.html].
64 American Water Works Association. “Restoring Public Water Supply Systems in the
Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A Preliminary Cost Estimate.” Sept. 23, 2005.

---

CRS-22
involved in restoring service include drying out and cleaning engines; testing and
repairing waterlogged electrical systems; testing for toxic chemicals that may have
infiltrated pipes and plants; restoring pressure (drinking water distribution lines);
activating disinfection units; restoring bacteria needed to treat wastes (wastewater
plants); and cleaning, repairing, and flushing distribution and sewer lines.
For flooded areas, sewage treatment tends to be the last thing back on line,
because plants are at the lowest point of the city and thus under the deepest water.
New Orleans’s two wastewater treatment plants were damaged by flooding and
extensive wind damage. The city’s public works officials reportedly believe that
much of the sewer system has probably been damaged, and cracks will need to be
fixed by tearing up roads (although road repairs already may be required, as part of
the overall cleanup effort).
Potential Challenges and Next Steps
The enormity of the tasks associated with cleaning up from a natural disaster on
the scale of Hurricane Katrina is probably unprecedented, and likely to exceed others
in this country’s history in terms of scope, duration, and cost. The range of tasks
described in this report will occur over varying periods of time, from the immediate
responses of reducing threats to public health and safety; to assessing the Hurricane
Katrina’s impacts; to removing, repairing, and rebuilding; and to long-term
monitoring of the impacts of actions that are taken to mitigate the storm’s damages.
Each of these phases of cleanup — which reflect more a continuum than discrete
steps — presents challenges and issues. Some of these issues are listed below.
! The scale of the cleanup (e.g, geographic, in terms of volume)
represents a huge management challenge for all levels of
government and the private sector. Potential concerns include
adequacy of landfill capacity; health and safety of cleanup workers;
capability of, or resistance to, applying “best practices” for waste
management.
! Potential ecological risks, if any, that may result from the short- and
mid-term recovery measures, such as discharging contaminated
floodwaters from New Orleans into Lake Pontchartrain.
Environmental officials will have to plan for and implement
monitoring programs to assess any longer term impacts, after
cleanup and removal are done.
! The volume of storm-related waste containing hazardous materials,
and whether the capacity exists in the region to handle and dispose
of it.
! Public involvement in cleanup decisions. The public — especially
residents of the affected region — has a strong interest in the
cleanup, since they will experience impacts of those actions.

---

CRS-23
Keeping the public well informed may be critical, but also may be
difficult, especially in the early aftermath of the storm events.
! The need to balance public health protection with allowing access to
homes and businesses.
! Availability and applicability of new remediation technologies or
processes to aid in the recovery, to handle solid debris materials
(hazardous and non-hazardous), or to clean contaminated materials,
surfaces, or structures. In the necessary haste to begin cleaning up,
will there be opportunities to identify and utilize better technologies?
! Whether existing federal cleanup authorities are adequate to address
the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
! Assessing the effectiveness of current federal roles.

---

CRS-24
Appendix 1
Table 1. Federal Department/Agency Cleanup Functions and
Responsibilities as Indicated in the Emergency Support
Functions of the National Response Plan (NRP)
National Response Plan (NRP) Responsibilities and Functions
(text italicized to emphasize cleanup elements; page # indicates
Agency
where function is located in the NRP)
Department of
Provides engineering and contracting/procurement personnel and equipment to assist in
Agriculture
emergency removal of debris, demolition, repair of roads and bridges, temporary repair of
essential public facilities, and water supply. (p. ESF3 - 5)
Provides support for public health matters for radiological incidents as a member of the
Advisory Team for Environment, Food, and Health. (p. ESF8 - 8)
Support coordination of animal issues such as disposal of animal carcasses. (p. ESF8 - 8)
Food Safety Inspection Service: includes proper disposal of contaminated products in
order to protect public health and the environment in affected area. (p. ESF11 - 8)
Provides for the inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and
destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources
of dangerous infection to human beings and takes such other measures as necessary. (p.
ESF11 - 6)
Assists with the prevention, control, and eradication of any highly contagious/zoonotic
disease involving wildlife; and carcass disposal facilities, as appropriate. (p. ESF11 - 11)
Department of
The Coast Guard is designated the primary agency with EPA for interagency incident
Homeland
management under ESF#10 supporting assessment, mitigation, cleanup, containment, and
Security / U.S.
disposal of oil and hazardous materials; the Coast Guard is the primary agency for coastal
Coast Guard
incidents; EPA is primary agency for inland areas and incidents affecting both. (pp. ESF10
- 1-3)
Coordinates the marking and removal of obstructions declared to be hazards to navigation.
(p. ESF3 - 6)
Assists in debris and contaminated debris management activities when debris or runoff
impacts navigable waters. This includes coordinating and/or providing resources,
assessments, data, expertise, technical assistance, monitoring, and other appropriate
support. (p. ESF3 - 6)
Department of
Provides expertise on natural resources and coastal habitat, the environmental effects of oil
Commerce/
and hazardous materials, and appropriate cleanup and restoration activities. (p. ESF10 -
National
10)
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Conducts emergency hydrographic surveys, search and recovery, and obstruction location
Administration
to assist safe vessel movement. (p. ESF10 - 10)

---

CRS-25
National Response Plan (NRP) Responsibilities and Functions
(text italicized to emphasize cleanup elements; page # indicates
Agency
where function is located in the NRP)
Department of
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps)is designated as the coordinator for ESF#3
Defense /U.S.
dealing with infrastructure protection and emergency repair, infrastructure restoration,
Army Corps of
engineering services, construction management, and critical infrastructure liaison. (p.
Engineers
ESF3 - 5)
Provides contracting services through ESF#3 to urban and rural firefighting forces to
obtain heavy equipment and/or demolition services as needed to suppress incident related
fires. (p. ESF4 - 4)
Provides available military medical personnel to assist HHS in the protection of public
health (such as food, water, wastewater, solid waste disposal vectors, hygiene, and other
environmental conditions). (p. ESF8 - 9)
The Department of Defense (not the Corps) provides On-Scene-Coordinators and directs
response actions for releases of hazardous materials from its vessels, facilities, vehicles,
munitions and weapons. (p. ESF10 - 10)
Provides expertise and resources to assist in the removal and disposal of contaminated and
non-contaminated debris, to include animal carcasses and debris affecting NCH resources.
(p. ESF11 - 10)
Supports the development of national strategies and plans related to housing and
permanent housing, debris management and the restoration of public facilities and
infrastructure. (p. ESF14 - 5)
Department of
Enables radiologically contaminated debris management activities by coordinating and/or
Energy
providing resources, assessments, data, expertise, technical assistance, monitoring, and
other appropriate support. (p. ESF3 - 6)
Provides regional resources to evaluate, control and mitigate radiological hazards to
workers and the public. (p. ESF8 - 10)
Provides an On-Scene-Coordinator and directs response actions for releases of hazardous
materials from its vessels, facilities, and vehicles. (p. ESF10 - 10)
Provides advice in identifying the sources and extent of radioactive releases relevant to the
National Contingency Plan, and in removal and disposal of radioactive contamination. (p.
ESF10 - 10)
Provides technical advice in radioactive debris management. (p. ESF14 - 5)
General
Provides personnel and contractors to assist in damage assessment, structural inspections,
Services
debris clearance monitoring and restoration of facilities in general, construction inspection,
Administration and environmental and archeological assessments. (p. ESF3 - 8)

---

CRS-26
National Response Plan (NRP) Responsibilities and Functions
(text italicized to emphasize cleanup elements; page # indicates
Agency
where function is located in the NRP)
U.S.
EPA is designated as the coordinator and primary agency (with the Coast Guard) for
Environmental
interagency incident management under ESF#10 supporting assessment, mitigation,
Protection
cleanup, containment, and disposal of oil and hazardous materials. EPA is primary agency
Agency
for inland and incidents affecting both inland and coastal zones; the Coast Guard is the
primary agency for coastal incidents. (pp. ESF10 - 1-3)
Supplies sanitary engineers to assess wastewater and solid waste facilities. (p. ESF3 - 8)
Assists in locating disposal sites for debris clearance activities. (p. ESF3 - 8)
Assists contaminated debris management activities by coordinating and/or providing
resources, assessments, data, expertise, technical assistance, monitoring and other
appropriate support. (p. ESF3 - 8)
Identifies location and provides safety guidance for areas affected by hazardous materials.
Ensures the protection and cleanup of these areas. (p. ESF 3 - 8)
Provides technical assistance and environmental information for the assessment of the
health/medical aspects of situations involving hazardous materials. (p. ESF8 - 13)
Provides technical assistance, subject-matter expertise and support for biological,
chemical, and other hazardous agents on contaminated facility remediation, environmental
monitoring and contaminated agriculture (animal/crops) and food product
decontamination and disposal. (pp. ESF11 - 12)
Provides technical assistance for planning for contaminated debris management and
environmental remediation. (p. ESF14 - 5)
Department of
Enables contaminated debris management activities by coordinating and/or providing
Health and
resources, assessments, data, expertise, technical assistance, monitoring and other
Human Services appropriate support. (p. ESF3 - 6)
Supplies engineering and environmental health personnel to assist in assessing the status of
wastewater and solid waste facilities. (p. ESF3 - 6)
Provides technical assistance for shelter operations related to food, vectors, water supply
and waste disposal. (p. ESF6 - 6)
Works in cooperation with EPA and USDA to ensure the proper disposal of contaminated
food or animal feed. (p. ESF10-11)
Department of
DHS/FEMA is the primary agency for providing ESF#3 recovery resources and support;
Homeland
provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance for debris removal and disposal.
Security/FEMA
(p. ESF3 - 3)
Department of
Provides personnel to assist in damage assessment, structural inspections, debris clearance
the Interior
monitoring, and restoration of facilities in general. (p. ESF3 - 7)

---

CRS-27
National Response Plan (NRP) Responsibilities and Functions
(text italicized to emphasize cleanup elements; page # indicates
Agency
where function is located in the NRP)
Department of
Provides worker safety advice, assistance, and policy support for debris removal, building
Labor/OSHA
demolition, and other ESF#3 activities. (p. ESF3 - 7)
Nuclear
Assist radiological contaminated debris management activities by coordinating and/or
Regulatory
providing resources, assessments, data, expertise, technical assistance, monitoring, and
Commission
other appropriate support. (p. ESF3 - 8)
The NRC and EPA coordinate their responses to an emergency involving both radiological
and chemical release in accordance with joint NRC/EPA implementing procedures. (p.
ESF10 - 13)
Department of
Facilitate an integrated response between nations when a discharge or release crosses
State
international boundaries or involves foreign flag vessels. (p. ESF10 - 2)
Department of
Provides engineering personnel and support to assist in damage assessment, debris
Transportation
clearing, and restoration of the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. (p. ESF3 - 7)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data from the National Response Plan, December
2004, downloaded from [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf], visited Sept. 13, 2005.

---