GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

August 25, 2008 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

The Honorable John L. Mica 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Hurricane Katrina: Continuing Debris Removal and Disposal Issues 

In 2005, as a result of Hurricane Katrina, more than 1,600 people lost their lives and 

more than a million were driven from their homes on the Gulf Coast. Tens of 

thousands of homes in New Orleans were flooded, many requiring either demolition 

or gutting before reconstruction. Nearly 3 years later, the New Orleans area still 

faces significant debris management issues and challenges. For example, the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) stated that while the 

Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) estimated in July 2008 that it had funded about 16,900 home demolitions, an 

estimated 6,100 homes remained to be demolished around the New Orleans area. 

Further, it is estimated that when the demolition and renovation of damaged property 

in the New Orleans area resulting from Hurricane Katrina are completed, more than 

100 million cubic yards of disaster debris will have been generated.1

 This is more 

than twice the amount of disaster-related debris generated in 1992 by Hurricane 

Andrew—the event that prior to Hurricane Katrina had resulted in the greatest 

recorded amount of disaster-related debris in U.S. history. 

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) 

establishes programs and processes for the federal government to provide major 

disaster and emergency assistance to states, local governments, tribal nations, and 

 

1

Congressional Research Service, Disaster Debris Removal After Hurricane Katrina: Status and 

Associated Issues, RL33477 (Apr. 2, 2008). 
others. FEMA has the responsibility for administering the provisions of the Stafford 

Act, including approving and funding the assistance provided under it. This 

assistance has been provided to the Gulf Coast under the Department of Homeland 

Security’s National Response Framework (formerly called the National Response 

Plan). The National Response Framework is the basis for how federal agencies have 

worked with state and local entities in managing the coordinated federal response to 

Hurricane Katrina. In New Orleans, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of 

Engineers) was the primary federal agency responsible for providing debris removal 

and disposal until it concluded its response activities in September 2007. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the coordinator of federal emergency 

support for oil and hazardous materials releases, also assisted the Corps of Engineers 

and LDEQ with debris removal and disposal and continues to undertake Katrina 

response activities, such as monitoring landfill operations. FEMA has agreed to 

continue funding EPA’s activities through August 29, 2008, at which point EPA 

expects that it will conclude its Katrina response activities. 

The federal law addressing the management of hazardous and other solid wastes—

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—addresses nonhazardous solid wastes 

under subtitle D. According to subtitle D, states have primary responsibility for 

permitting, monitoring, and carrying out enforcement actions at solid waste disposal 

facilities (generally referred to as landfills), as well as developing waste management 

plans in accordance with minimum federal requirements.2

 EPA regulations establish 

criteria for classifying different types of landfills and practices that may result in 

adverse effects on health or the environment, among other things. The act prohibits 

“open dumping”—the disposal of solid waste in landfills failing to meet the relevant 

criteria—and requires state plans to prohibit the establishment of open dumps.3

 

RCRA provides EPA with limited authority to address environmental problems at 

solid waste landfills. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 directed GAO to address certain 

activities related to debris management in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We briefed 

relevant committee staff on the results of our work on March 6, 2008, and held 

subsequent discussions with them in March and April 2008. We are following up with 

this report, which provides more detail on the topics covered in the briefing. This 

report describes (1) key plans and practices federal and state agencies are currently 

using to oversee debris removal and disposal in response to Hurricane Katrina in New 

Orleans, (2) enforcement actions state and federal agencies have taken related to 

Katrina debris removal and disposal, and (3) actions by LDEQ and EPA in response to 

potential environmental issues at the Gentilly Landfill in New Orleans. The report 

also provides information on the status of the Chef Menteur Landfill in New Orleans; 

 2

While EPA may review approved state subtitle D permit programs and withdraw approval of state 

programs it determines do not meet the national minimum requirements, EPA officials told us the 

agency has never withdrawn approval of a state subtitle D permit program. 3

The Stafford Act authorizes FEMA and other federal agencies to clear debris and wreckage resulting 

from a major disaster from publicly and privately owned lands and waters, as well as authorizes grants 

to any state or local government for the purpose of removing debris. 42 U.S.C. § 5173(a). Action taken 

or assistance provided under this provision does not constitute a major federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. § 5159. 

Page 2 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

an EPA disaster debris reduction pilot project in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana; and a 

debris provision in the Water Resources Development Act. 

Our review focused on EPA’s and LDEQ’s 2007 and 2008 debris-related Hurricane 

Katrina response activities in the New Orleans area, where the vast majority of the 

debris was generated.4

 In conducting this work, we reviewed EPA, LDEQ, and Corps 

of Engineers documents on debris removal and disposal practices in use in New 

Orleans in response to Katrina, including federal and state regulatory requirements 

and other agency practices. We also reviewed EPA and LDEQ plans for overseeing 

debris removal and disposal in New Orleans, and we followed up on relevant prior 

GAO recommendations to EPA from our June 2007 report, Hurricane Katrina: 

EPA’s Current and Future Environmental Protection Efforts Could Be Enhanced by 

Addressing Issues and Challenges Faced on the Gulf Coast (GAO-07-651). In 

addition, we reviewed EPA and LDEQ documents on the number and types of debris 

management enforcement actions related to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and 

interviewed officials regarding the nature and results of these actions. Finally, as 

agreed, we reviewed a draft February 2006 report prepared for FEMA by a consulting 

firm, the National Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants, on the 

potential environmental impacts from hurricane debris disposal at the Gentilly

Landfill. We discussed the draft report with EPA and LDEQ officials and obtained 

information on actions LDEQ took to settle a lawsuit filed by an environmental 

organization that also responded to some issues raised in the draft report. We did not 

evaluate the technical merits of the draft report or the effectiveness of LDEQ’s 

responses. We conducted our work from December 2007 to August 2008 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Overview 

Key plans and practices state and federal agencies are using to oversee and 

implement debris removal and disposal in response to Hurricane Katrina in New 

Orleans include (1) a state emergency order covering debris removal and disposal at 

landfills, currently extended until August 29, 2008; (2) EPA “no action assurance” 

letters to LDEQ concerning asbestos emissions requirements related to building 

demolitions; and (3) EPA’s asbestos emissions monitoring plan. In addition, both 

LDEQ and EPA have issued guidance related to disaster cleanup and debris 

management. The state emergency order broadens the state of Louisiana’s definition 

of construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Initially promulgated in August 2005, a 

November 2005 amendment to the emergency order allows some potentially 

hazardous materials—including furniture, carpeting, painted or stained lumber 

contained in demolished buildings, and the incidental mixture of “construction and 

4

See GAO, Hurricane Katrina: EPA’s Current and Future Environmental Protection Efforts Could 

Be Enhanced by Addressing Issues and Challenges Faced on the Gulf Coast, GAO-07-651

(Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2007), which covers EPA’s Katrina response activities from August 2005

through June 2007 and included EPA’s actions as the coordinator of emergency support for the oil and 

hazardous materials response. 

Page 3 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
demolition debris with asbestos-contaminated waste” that cannot be extracted from 

C&D debris—to be disposed of in C&D landfills rather than in landfills with liners 

approved for such waste.5

 The broadened C&D debris definition was initially 

approved for landfills in 25 Louisiana parishes but has been scaled back in emergency 

order amendments to cover fewer parishes and specific landfills; it is currently 

applicable to four named landfills in 3 parishes until August 29, 2008. In July 2008, 

LDEQ officials said the agency would likely continue to reauthorize the expanded 

C&D definition for some landfills beyond that date under an amended state 

emergency order. We note that LDEQ amended and completely replaced its solid 

waste regulations in June 2007; at that time, LDEQ revised its regulatory definition of 

C&D debris, which is now more similar to the emergency order. According to LDEQ 

officials, special authority under the emergency order would be needed only to 

dispose of furniture and carpeting in C&D landfills. 

Regarding asbestos practices, since 2006—under EPA no action assurance letters—

EPA has not been enforcing certain Clean Air Act regulations for asbestos for homes 

demolished under government orders. EPA has narrowed the areas covered by the no 

action assurance letters over time, initially covering all homes in Louisiana that were 

damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and met specified criteria. As of February 

2008, residences in five parishes meeting specified criteria are effectively not subject 

to otherwise applicable requirements for inspection and removal of asbestos prior to 

demolition until August 29, 2008, provided certain emission control practices are 

followed. In terms of oversight of debris removal and disposal activities, key 

practices that LDEQ and EPA are using include surveillance at landfills and other 

debris sites—daily observations at landfills receiving large quantities of Katrina 

debris; observations at demolitions sites; and monitoring of asbestos emissions at 

demolition sites. Specifically, EPA and LDEQ said that they have conducted 3,364 

landfill observations at 13 landfill and debris storage or staging sites since October 

2005, and the agencies have observed demolition activities at 8,706 residences since 

March 2006. EPA has also monitored for asbestos emissions at 300 demolitions in the 

New Orleans area since August 2007. The pace of home demolitions, which are now 

managed by the individual parishes, continues to be slow.

6

 For example, as stated in 

our June 2007 report, LDEQ indicated that 12,000 residence demolitions funded by 

FEMA had been completed by February 2007. However, 17 months later and nearing 

the 3-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, LDEQ provided FEMA estimates 

showing that, as of July 2008, only another 5,000 of these home demolitions had been 

completed—with an estimated 6,100 more remaining in the New Orleans area. 

Enclosure I provides more information regarding key plans and practices currently 

guiding state and federal agencies’ debris removal and disposal in response to 

Katrina. 

As of May 15, 2008, LDEQ had issued 120 enforcement actions for Hurricane Katrinarelated violations. Fifty-three of these actions involved solid waste, hazardous waste, 

 5

State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Second Amended Declaration of Emergency 

and Administrative Order, Hurricane Katrina and its Aftermath, Appendix D, page 24 (Nov. 2, 2005). 6

The Corps of Engineers managed FEMA-funded demolitions in a number of parishes prior to ending 

its Katrina response activities in September 2007. The majority of home demolitions have occurred in 

Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. Notably, St. Bernard Parish has managed building demolitions 

throughout the entire Hurricane Katrina response without the assistance of the Corps of Engineers. 

Page 4 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

or water program actions taken against businesses or individuals who, among other 

things, improperly disposed of C&D debris at unauthorized sites. LDEQ’s 120

enforcement actions also included actions taken against five C&D landfills that

received Katrina C&D debris: Empire Pit, Gentilly, Industrial Pipe, Slidell, and 

Stranco. Though the violations at these five C&D landfills varied, those at Industrial 

Pipe and Slidell included disposing of unauthorized waste such as tires, medical 

waste, and creosote telephone poles; as a result, LDEQ’s enforcement actions at 

these two landfills also included potential penalties against the landfills’ operators. 

Other violations at landfills included failing to cover waste with 12 inches of soil 

every 14 days, failing to meet effluent limitations, and inadequate supervision and 

security of the site. LDEQ issued seven air-related violations, all of which related to 

the handling of asbestos-containing materials, such as failing to adequately wet the 

asbestos—a critical step in controlling the release of asbestos fibers into the air—and 

failing to dispose of the material after removal as soon as practical. 

In other enforcement actions, LDEQ worked with EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and 

the Louisiana National Guard in a joint effort to combat illegal dumping activities 

after the hurricane in an area east of New Orleans called the Almonaster Corridor. 

Although illegal dumping had been a problem in this area for many years prior to 

Hurricane Katrina, the amount of debris from the hurricane greatly exacerbated 

illegal dumping in the area. Together, in March and April 2007, the agencies 

inspected 178 sites and referred 147 to LDEQ’s enforcement division. Violations from 

this effort included the unauthorized disposal of solid waste, transporting solid waste 

to an unauthorized location, and open burning of debris. LDEQ expects to complete 

an overall summary of this effort by the end of the summer of 2008. Enclosure II 

provides more information regarding enforcement actions taken in response to 

Katrina. 

We reported in June 2007 that LDEQ made decisions about landfills and the disposal 

of debris that some studies suggest could have long-term, negative environmental 

impacts. One of the landfills highlighted in our report, the Gentilly Landfill, is 

constructed on top of a former municipal waste landfill that operated from the early 

1960s until the mid-1980s. In authorizing the use of this landfill for hurricane debris 

disposal, LDEQ stated that it had considered alternative sites and determined that the 

Gentilly Landfill met state solid waste requirements.7

 Further, LDEQ considered the 

proximity of the Gentilly Landfill—one of four landfills currently authorized by 

emergency order to receive C&D debris under a broadened definition that includes 

some potentially hazardous materials—to the hurricane-generated C&D debris. 

However, the use of this landfill has been controversial. For example, FEMA has 

questioned whether federal agencies could become liable to pay cleanup costs if the 

landfill were to become a Superfund site. In response to a request from FEMA, EPA 

provided a technical analysis and recommendation for the use of the Gentilly Landfill. 

EPA concluded that while there is no way “to protect against future Superfund 

liability absolutely”—particularly for a landfill—the use of the landfill appeared to be 

consistent with the types and volumes of wastes for which it was designed and 

permitted by the state. To further assess concerns about the Gentilly Landfill, FEMA 

7

LDEQ issued a permit in December 2004 authorizing the Gentilly Landfill to receive and dispose of 

C&D debris and wood wastes. The landfill started accepting C&D waste after Hurricane Katrina. 

Page 5 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
contracted with a firm to study the landfill to help it make debris management 

decisions. The subsequent February 2006 draft report included a number of 

recommendations to address concerns related to possible environmental impacts at 

the site. At the same time, LDEQ was facing a lawsuit from an environmental group. 

LDEQ officials told us that although they had concerns about the quality of the draft 

report and they disagreed with some of the recommendations, the agency took steps 

that addressed a number of the recommendations in the draft report. The actions 

taken were aimed at settling the lawsuit, but there were a number of similarities in 

the draft report’s recommendations and the charges in the lawsuit. The actions 

LDEQ would take were agreed upon at a February 2006 meeting with officials from 

LDEQ, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the consulting firm that developed 

the draft report for FEMA. EPA concurred with LDEQ’s actions at the landfill, which 

included installing ground and surface water monitoring systems and limiting the 

volume of debris accepted at the landfill. Enclosure III provides more information 

regarding debris disposal issues and the actions taken by LDEQ and EPA at the 

Gentilly Landfill to address them.

Finally, we are providing information on (1) the status of the Chef Menteur Landfill in 

New Orleans, (2) a disaster debris reduction pilot project in St. Bernard Parish that 

was scaled back prior to its implementation in June 2008, and (3) the effect of a 

debris provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. First, the Chef 

Menteur Landfill, which was controversial because of its proximity to a national 

wildlife refuge and a residential neighborhood, was opened under emergency 

authority in April 2006 and closed in August 2006. However, final closure activities 

have not yet been performed. Further, the landfill underwent comprehensive testing 

in November 2007 after citizen complaints regarding odor. None of the air samples 

exceeded state or federal regulations. The landfill is currently waiting on, among 

other things, a Corps of Engineers permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

after which final closure activity can commence.8

 Second, EPA conducted a disaster 

debris reduction pilot in St. Bernard Parish in June 2008. According to EPA, this pilot 

was originally planned to test methods for disposing of regulated asbestos-containing 

material. The two planned methods to be evaluated involved (1) grinding asbestoscontaining waste material from homes and (2) burning asbestos-containing waste 

material from homes using a thermal treatment process called an “air curtain burner.” 

However, the asbestos pilot project became controversial, in part because of 

community concerns. EPA has acknowledged that an error in its risk estimate of the 

potential health effects of exposure to asbestos related to the pilot was a factor in the 

decision to exclude regulated asbestos-containing material from the revised pilot. 

According to EPA, the new pilot was limited to the burning of vegetative and C&D 

debris and was redesigned to specifically exclude regulated asbestos-containing 

material. Third, a provision of the Water Resources Development Act prohibits 

federal funds from being used to reimburse any state or local entity in Louisiana for 

the disposal of C&D debris in a C&D landfill in Louisiana unless that waste meets the 

federal definition of that debris. However, federal regulations do not specifically 

define C&D debris, instead stating that a C&D landfill “typically receives any one or 

more of the following types of solid wastes: roadwork material, excavated material, 

demolition waste, construction/renovation waste, and site clearance waste.” While 

 8

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act generally prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into

waters of the United States without first obtaining a permit from the Corps of Engineers.

Page 6 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

Louisiana regulations are more stringent than federal guidelines, under the 

emergency order still in effect in five parishes, the debris that C&D landfills can 

receive includes some potentially hazardous materials that normally would not be 

allowed to be disposed of in unlined C&D landfills under Louisiana’s regulations. 

However, in August 2006, EPA Region 6 reviewed LDEQ’s C&D debris definition

under the emergency order and determined that the types of waste “seem consistent 

with what EPA identifies as material typically sent to a C&D landfill.” While LDEQ 

officials acknowledged that the provision has therefore not impacted debris disposal 

operations, EPA and LDEQ officials emphasized that C&D disposal practices in 

Louisiana have complied with the provisions of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2007. Enclosure IV provides more information regarding the Chef Menteur 

Landfill, the EPA disaster debris reduction pilot project, and the Water Resources 

Development Act debris provision.

While we are not making recommendations based on the work we conducted for this 

review, we made six recommendations in our 2007 Hurricane Katrina report 

addressing several environmental issues as well as Katrina-related communications 

to the public about environmental health risks.9

 During our current review, we found 

that EPA has taken actions in response to two of the recommendations: (1) 

developing and implementing an expanded asbestos monitoring plan in the New 

Orleans area to provide monitoring at demolition sites and (2) providing more 

detailed guidance to state and local entities on managing debris disposal following 

disasters. We have requested but not yet received information from EPA on its 

responses to the other four recommendations in our 2007 report. As we are currently 

in another hurricane season, we encourage EPA to expeditiously complete its 

responses to all of the recommendations in our prior report, which are aimed at 

minimizing environmental risks from future disasters and providing environmental 

health risk information to the public that is timely, complete, clear, and consistent. 

Looking ahead, we also encourage EPA to carefully consider the continued need to 

waive certain aspects of the Clean Air Act’s asbestos requirements for building 

demolitions and to work with LDEQ as it considers whether it is necessary to

continue to allow carpeting and furniture into some C&D landfills. While much work 

continues, important factors that should be carefully weighed in considering 

extensions beyond the 3-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2008, 

are the continued slow pace of activities—independent of the relaxation of these 

environmental standards—and the possible culmination of FEMA-funded EPA 

support in conducting oversight of landfill operations and demolitions in the New 

Orleans area. 

Agency Comments and our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report to EPA and LDEQ for review and comment. EPA 

generally agreed with the information in the report and provided some recommended 

changes, and LDEQ provided technical comments for consideration. We 

incorporated comments from both agencies, as appropriate. EPA’s letter and our 

response to it appear in enclosure V, while LDEQ’s letter and our response are 

provided in enclosure VI. 

9

GAO-07-651. 

Page 7 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
_______________________________________________________________________ 

We are providing copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. We will also make copies available 

to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available on the GAO Web site 

at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. Key contributors to this report were Christine Fishkin, Assistant Director; 

Richard Johnson; Kirk Menard; Joanna Owusu. Ben Shouse, Michael Derr, and Phylis 

Cline also made important contributions to this report. 

John B. Stephenson 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Enclosures

Page 8 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
Enclosure I: Key Federal and State Plans and Practices to Oversee Debris 

Removal and Disposal 

Following are the key plans and practices the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) are currently 

using to oversee debris removal and disposal in response to Hurricane Katrina in New 

Orleans. 

Key Debris Removal Plans and Practices 

LDEQ emergency order. Debris removal in the New Orleans area is conducted 

under the terms of LDEQ’s February 29, 2008, Declaration of Emergency and 

Administrative Order, which is in effect until August 29, 2008. Initially promulgated 

on August 30, 2005, and applicable to 25 of the state’s 64 parishes, the emergency 

order has been amended and extended numerous times. The second amended 

emergency order issued on November 2, 2005, included provisions broadening the 

state’s definition of construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Specifically, under 

the November 2005 amended emergency order 

• the types of debris that C&D landfills can receive was broadened to include 

some potentially hazardous materials, including furniture, carpeting, and 

painted or stained lumber contained in demolished buildings; and “the 

incidental admixture of construction and demolition debris with asbestoscontaminated waste10 (i.e., incidental asbestos-contaminated debris that 

cannot be extracted from the demolition debris).” 

In June 2007, LDEQ amended and completely replaced its solid waste regulations; at 

that time, LDEQ revised its regulatory definition of C&D debris, which LDEQ officials 

stated is now more similar to the emergency order.11 As a result, according to these 

officials, the only materials cited in the emergency order that are not allowed in C&D 

landfills under LDEQ’s current regulations are furniture and carpeting. 

Beginning with the eighth amended emergency order issued on January 19, 2007, 

LDEQ reduced the number of parishes in the emergency area covered by the order to 

eight, noting the progress of hurricane recovery efforts.12 The ninth amended 

emergency order issued on March 19, 2007, further reduced the number of covered 

parishes to six.13 Importantly, this order also limited the sites authorized to dispose 

 10The current state emergency order includes the following footnote: “This provision is, and in prior 

Declarations of Emergency and Administrative Orders has been, intended to provide an authorized 

deviation from the definition of “Construction/Demolition Debris” provided in LAC 33:VII.115. Any

Asbestos Containing Waste Material subject to regulation under the Air Quality Regulations (Louisiana 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [LESHAP – LAC 33:III.5151] or the National Emission 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP 40 CFR 61.140 et. seq] shall be managed and disposed 

of in accordance with the standards established therein as provided in the protocols established in 

Appendix D.”

11LAC 33:VII.115. 12The eight parishes are Iberville, Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. 

Tammany, and Washington. Iberville parish is located southwest of Baton Rouge. The remaining

parishes are in the New Orleans and surrounding areas. 13The six parishes are Iberville, Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany. 

Page 9 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
of hurricane-generated C&D debris under the broadened debris definition to those 

specifically named in the emergency order: Gentilly, Highway 90, River Birch, 

Stranco, and Tidewater Sanitary landfills. The order states that the progress of 

recovery efforts in the emergency area reduced the need for disposal facilities for 

C&D debris and that after consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps 

of Engineers) and local government authorities, certain facilities were selected based 

upon consideration of available permitted landfill capacity, quantities and types of 

debris remaining, the distance between landfills and remaining debris, and other 

factors. 

The February 2008 emergency order currently in effect is the Third Extension of the 

Twelfth Amended Declaration of Emergency and Administrative Order and covers 

five parishes: Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany. Under 

the order, four landfills located in three of the five parishes can receive C&D debris 

as defined above: Gentilly (Orleans Parish), Highway 90 (Jefferson Parish), River 

Birch (Jefferson Parish), and Tidewater Sanitary (Plaquemines Parish). LDEQ’s 

extension of the current emergency order through August 29, 2008, notes that the 

need for an additional extension to the emergency order will be evaluated by the 

order’s expiration date. The emergency order extension further notes that should the 

order be extended beyond August 29, 2008, the regulatory flexibility afforded by the 

expanded definition of C&D debris will no longer be necessary to respond to the 

Hurricane Katrina emergency in Jefferson, Plaquemines, and St. Tammany Parishes 

once the parishes have a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the change. 

According to the extension, LDEQ may decide to continue to authorize the expanded 

C&D debris definition in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes after August 29, 2008, if 

many houses remain to be demolished in these parishes at that time. In July 2008, 

LDEQ officials said the agency would likely continue to reauthorize the expanded 

C&D definition for some landfills beyond that date under an amended state 

emergency order. 

EPA asbestos “no action assurance.” Since 2006, to facilitate the removal of the 

extraordinary amounts of debris after Hurricane Katrina, EPA has not been enforcing 

certain Clean Air Act regulations (called work practice standards) for asbestos in the 

case of government-ordered demolitions of homes, using “no action assurance” 

letters to LDEQ.14 Specifically, under the current “no action assurance” letter issued 

in February 2008, residences in five New Orleans area parishes that are subject to a 

government-issued demolition order based on the residence being (1) structurally 

unsound but not necessarily in danger of imminent collapse, (2) moved off of its 

foundation, or (3) uninhabitable for other environmental reasons, such as flooding, 

are effectively not subject to otherwise applicable requirements for inspection and 

removal of asbestos prior to demolition through August 29, 2008, provided certain 

emission control practices are followed. These emission control practices include the 

wetting of materials from before demolition through disposal. According to LDEQ 

officials, the no action assurance has significantly helped the recovery effort by

allowing demolition without the prior removal of regulated asbestos-containing 

materials, thereby reducing by 2 or 3 days the time required to demolish homes. 

 14EPA first issued no action assurance letters for these asbestos requirements in February 2006. 

Additional no action assurance letters were issued in February 2007, September 2007, and December 

2007. 

Page 10 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

Under the no action assurance provisions, EPA and LDEQ are to conduct additional 

oversight activities, including continuing to observe demolitions to verify compliance 

with asbestos requirements and meeting regularly to discuss oversight activities and 

to identify and address any other concerns. 

EPA asbestos monitoring plan. In September 2007, EPA issued an additional 

asbestos monitoring plan to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of the demolition practices 

being employed in the New Orleans area, (2) assure the safety of existing and 

potential residents, (3) inform the public of the asbestos concentrations observed, 

and (4) explain the significance of the findings of the monitoring. This plan responds 

to our June 2007 recommendation that EPA develop and implement an expanded 

asbestos monitoring plan in the New Orleans area that addresses the potential health 

effects of the nonenforcement, under no action assurance letters, of certain asbestos 

requirements covering government-ordered demolitions of residences. The asbestos 

monitoring plan calls for monitoring a minimum of 10 percent of the FEMA-funded 

demolitions of houses known to have, or assumed to have, regulated asbestoscontaining material.15

LDEQ guidance. LDEQ issued a Comprehensive Plan for Disaster Clean-Up and 

Debris Management in July 2006, building on its September 2005 Hurricane Katrina 

Debris Management Plan. This plan addresses the determination of appropriate sites 

for staging, transferring, and disposing of debris and the management of different 

types of debris, among other topics. 

EPA guidance. As we had recommended in June 2007, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response updated and significantly expanded its 1995 disaster debris 

guidance in March 2008. The new guidance, Planning for Natural Disaster Debris, 

discusses debris management from natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, 

tornadoes, and floods and is intended for use in developing or revising disaster debris 

management plans. The guide addresses issues such as identifying the types of 

debris and forecasting the amounts of debris that could occur from a natural disaster; 

creating an inventory of current capacity for managing the debris; preselecting 

temporary debris management sites that can be used for storing, sorting, and 

processing debris; and creating a debris removal strategy that recognizes that disaster 

debris that may pose an immediate threat to human health and the environment 

should be a first collection priority. The guide states that environmental assessment 

monitoring may be needed before, during, and after a disaster if disaster debris is 

placed in previously closed debris management facilities or if new facilities are 

opened. It further notes that attempting to conduct an assessment after a disaster 

can limit the assessment, delay debris management, and increase citizen anxiety. The 

15EPA, Assessing Asbestos Emissions at Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM) 

Demolition Sites in Katrina/Rita Response–Quality Assurance Project Plan (Sept. 13, 2007). The 

plan directs that sampling locations will be on public right-of-ways that do not exceed 100 feet upwind 

and downwind from the demolition and states that, on average, one demolition per day will be 

sampled. EPA developed a risk-based screening level for asbestos concentrations observed during the 

response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, using EPA’s cancer risk methodology and assuming a 1-year 

continuous inhalation exposure. The data collected are intended to supplement and complement 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration data obtained by the Corps of Engineers and 

contractors.

Page 11 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
new guidance responds to our June 2007 recommendation to EPA to provide more 

detailed guidance to state and local entities on managing debris disposal following 

disasters to better ensure protection of public health and the environment and 

prevent the creation of future Superfund sites.16

Oversight Practices

Observations at landfills. Following the hurricane, LDEQ, with EPA assistance, 

has increased its surveillance of debris disposal at landfills and other debris sites in 

the New Orleans area.17 Observations at landfills receiving large quantities of

hurricane debris increased from weekly from late October 2005 through midFebruary 2006, to twice weekly from mid-February 2006 to mid-May 2006, to daily in 

May 2006. EPA contractors began conducting daily landfill observations for LDEQ in 

October 2006. 

• According to LDEQ, LDEQ or EPA contractor staff generally conducted daily 

observations at Gentilly, Highway 90, Slidell, and Tidewater Sanitary C&D 

landfills since May 2006. EPA contractors conducted observations at the Paris 

Road site, a temporary debris staging and reduction area, twice a week since 

July 2007. EPA or LDEQ staff observe debris entering the landfills in trucks 

and debris being deposited at the landfill to ensure that inappropriate debris is 

not disposed at the site. 

• Observations are recorded in a standardized form that is reviewed by LDEQ, 

according to LDEQ officials. LDEQ staff also conduct regulatory inspections 

that entail a more thorough review of permit requirements and landfill records. 

• LDEQ officials told us that problems identified by LDEQ and EPA are 

frequently addressed immediately. For example, inappropriate debris 

identified in trucks is turned away at the landfill entrance, and inappropriate 

debris spotted being deposited at the landfill is immediately pulled out and 

segregated. LDEQ officials said that in one case, problems identified by EPA 

involving the improper handling of asbestos debris prompted a formal LDEQ 

inspection that resulted in an enforcement action. 

According to EPA and LDEQ, they have conducted 3,364 landfill observations at 13 

landfill and debris storage or staging sites since October 2005.18 Table 1 provides an 

overview of EPA and LDEQ observations by landfill or debris site since October 2005. 

 16GAO-07-651. 17EPA also provided other debris-related assistance to Louisiana which we discussed in our prior 

report on EPA’s Katrina actions (GAO-07-651). 18Through May 15, 2008.

Page 12 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
Table 1: Number of EPA and LDEQ Observations at Landfill or Debris Sites 

from October 2005 through May 2008

New Orleans area landfills and temporary debris storage or 

staging sites EPA and LDEQ observations

Chef Menteur C&D landfilla89 

Empire Pit C&D landfill

b

140 

Gentilly C&D landfill 699 

Highway 90 C&D landfill 755 

Industrial Pipe C&D landfillc125 

Jefferson Parish Type I-II landfilld38 

Killona C&D landfille28 

River Birch Type I-II landfill 136 

St. Bernard temporary debris storage and reduction site #1 

(Paris Road Landfill) 

232 

St. Bernard temporary debris storage and reduction site #2 

(Old Asphalt Plant)f

54 

Slidell C&D landfill 616 

Stranco C&D landfill

g

143 

Tidewater Sanitary / Coast Guard Road C&D landfill 309 

Total 3,364 

Sources: EPA and LDEQ. a

Landfill ceased accepting debris on August 14, 2006. b

Landfill closed on October 15, 2007. c

Landfill ceased accepting hurricane debris in December 2006. d

Landfill was a white goods staging site; hurricane debris not disposed of at this landfill. e

Landfill ceased accepting hurricane debris in December 2006. f

Site closed on December 18, 2006. g

Landfill closed on January 7, 2008. 

Observations at demolition sites. EPA has also assisted LDEQ in observing home 

demolitions conducted under the scope of EPA’s no action assurance letters by the 

Corps of Engineers or parishes for compliance with asbestos requirements. 

According to LDEQ, FEMA estimates that as of July 25, 2008, approximately 16,900 

residences in Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany 

Parishes that are not subject to otherwise applicable requirements for inspection and 

removal of asbestos have been demolished with FEMA funding since February 2006.19

 

The pace of home demolitions, which are now managed by the individual parishes, 

continues to be slow. For example, as stated in our June 2007 report, LDEQ 

indicated that 12,000 residence demolitions funded by FEMA had been completed by 

February 2007. However, by July 2008, 17 months later, FEMA estimated that about 

another 5,000 of these home demolitions had been completed. According to LDEQ, 

FEMA also estimates that nearly 3 years after Hurricane Katrina, an estimated 6,100 

homes remain to be demolished in the New Orleans area. 

• LDEQ and EPA have observed demolition activities at 8,706 residences since 

March 2006. LDEQ conducted 1,109 observations at such demolition sites 

from March 27, 2006, through October 20, 2006. EPA began assisting with this 

effort on October 21, 2006, conducting 7,597 demolition observations through 

 19EPA first issued no action assurance letters for these asbestos requirements in February 2006. An 

additional no action assurance letter was issued on February 29, 2008, stating that EPA will not 

enforce these asbestos requirements in five New Orleans area parishes through August 29, 2008. 

Page 13 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
July 2008.20 EPA visits demolition sites and completes an LDEQ checklist on 

demolition activities that is forwarded to LDEQ for review. If concerns are 

identified, EPA representatives contact LDEQ, which sends a representative to 

the site to evaluate the concern and may request that EPA document the 

observations in an LDEQ form that could initiate the state enforcement action 

process. LDEQ officials also told us that EPA typically brings any potential 

problems to the attention of contractors as soon as the problem is observed. 

In addition to these demolition observations, EPA is also observing the 

removal of regulated asbestos-containing material in the form of floor tiles that 

were originally left on slabs during demolitions. EPA has conducted 828 floor 

tile demolition observations through July 2008. 

• According to EPA officials, the primary concerns identified when monitoring 

demolitions are contractors (1) not adequately wetting regulated asbestoscontaining material, (2) using nonaccredited asbestos personnel, and (3) not 

adequately containing regulated asbestos material in secured or sealed 

wrapping. 

Monitoring asbestos emissions at demolition sites. In response to our June 

2007 recommendation regarding developing and implementing an expanded asbestos 

monitoring plan in the New Orleans area that would provide monitoring at demolition 

sites, EPA has monitored for asbestos emissions at 300 of the 1,253 demolitions 

conducted under EPA’s no action assurance letters. These demolitions took place in 

the New Orleans area between August 6, 2007, and May 15, 2008, consistent with its 

September 2007 plan. EPA officials told us that 1 out of 1,170 samples taken from 

over 300 demolition sites exceeded EPA’s health-screening level for asbestos 

concentrations. However, LDEQ officials informed us this instance was caused by a 

misinterpretation of the sampling analysis results and none of the samples exceeded 

EPA’s health-screening levels. EPA confirmed that the one sample result in question 

was deemed inconclusive due to excessive particulate on the sample filter and stated 

that the sampling procedures have been adjusted to prevent the filter from becoming 

overloaded to obtain a more accurate sample of monitored demolition activity. EPA 

also stated that asbestos below the screening level has been detected in some 

samples. Although the asbestos monitoring plan states that monitoring can be 

discontinued after data from 100 demolitions have been evaluated if problems are not 

identified, EPA plans to continue sampling at demolition sites as part of its FEMAfunded response activities through August 29, 2008.

 20According to LDEQ, a demolition site can have more than one observation visit. For example, if a 

demolition of a property lasts 3 days, three observations are generally conducted to document the

demolition. 

Page 14 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

Enclosure II: Enforcement Actions Taken by State and Federal Agencies 

Following are the enforcement actions state and federal agencies have taken related 

to Hurricane Katrina debris removal and disposal. 

LDEQ enforcement actions. According to LDEQ, as of May 15, 2008, the agency 

had issued 120 enforcement actions for Hurricane Katrina related violations.21

• Fifty-one were actions involving issues that cut across LDEQ’s air, water, solid

waste, or hazardous waste programs. For example, several of these actions 

involved automotive related sites such as auto salvage yards that LDEQ cited 

for improperly disposing of solid waste and failing to submit a notice of intent 

for storm water discharges. 

• Fifty-three were actions involving only solid waste, hazardous waste, or water. 

For example, several of these solid waste actions involved businesses and 

individuals who improperly disposed of C&D debris at unauthorized sites. 

• Nine were actions under the state’s expedited penalties process. For example, 

four of these involved violations related to the disposal of car tires.

• Seven were air-related actions that addressed regulated asbestos-containing 

material violations and included issues such as failing to adequately wet the 

asbestos and to dispose of the material as soon as practical after removal. 

Landfill enforcement actions. LDEQ’s enforcement actions cited above also 

included actions against the following five landfills that received Katrina C&D debris. 

• Empire Pit Landfill: LDEQ issued a compliance order enforcement action on 

November 8, 2006, against this landfill, which was granted temporary 

authorization to receive Katrina C&D debris in a state emergency order. The 

violations noted in the action included failing to (1) keep records documenting 

the removal and disposal of unauthorized waste, (2) cover wastes with 12 

inches of soil every 14 days, and (3) provide containers for segregating 

unauthorized waste. LDEQ’s March 2007 emergency order no longer 

authorized disposal of C&D debris at this landfill, and the site was closed on 

October 15, 2007. Prior to its closure, LDEQ conducted inspections at the 

temporary landfill on May 30, 2007, and July 19, 2007, to ensure that the site 

was being closed in accordance with the state’s debris management plan. 

Based on LDEQ’s evaluation during these visits and a review of the 

engineering certification documentation, the state determined necessary 

closure requirements had been met. 

• Gentilly Landfill: LDEQ issued a compliance order enforcement action 

against this landfill on January 31, 2007, for several violations at the site. 

These violations included failing to (1) deposit and compact waste and cover 

the waste, (2) install surface run-off devices at entrance and exit ramps of the 

21According to LDEQ, the first Katrina-related enforcement actions were issued in March 2006.

Page 15 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
disposal area, and (3) meet effluent limitations. After the enforcement action, 

monitoring and compliance at the landfill were determined in several ways, 

such as (1) daily landfill assessments conducted by EPA (which did not result 

in any subsequent enforcement referrals), (2) monthly submissions to LDEQ of 

the landfill’s required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Discharge Monitoring Report (some of which indicated exeedances that are 

being addressed by LDEQ’s enforcement division), and (3) compliance 

information provided by the landfill as required under the action. An 

inspection conducted by LDEQ on December 17, 2007, found that all solid 

waste issues identified in the enforcement action had been resolved. 

• Industrial Pipe Inc. Landfill: LDEQ issued a compliance order and notice of 

potential penalty enforcement action against this landfill on July 24, 2007, for 

several violations. The violations included (1) depositing waste in the landfill 

without checking for unacceptable waste items, (2) allowing the disposal of 

unacceptable waste (tires, bags of municipal solid waste, medical waste, 

vehicle windshields, and hydraulic hoses), and (3) failing to place appropriate 

cover over waste. After the enforcement action, monitoring and compliance at 

the landfill were determined in several ways, such as (1) periodic landfill 

assessments conducted by LDEQ (which did not result in other enforcement 

actions), (2) monthly submissions to LDEQ of the landfill’s required National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Monitoring Report (which 

indicated no discharges), and (3) compliance information provided by the 

landfill as required under the action. LDEQ inspected the landfill on February 

13, 2008, and noted no areas of concern.22 LDEQ has not issued a penalty to 

date regarding the violations from the July 2007 inspection. 

• Slidell Landfill: LDEQ issued a consolidated compliance order and notice of 

potential penalty enforcement action against this landfill on February 28, 2007, 

for several violations. The violations included (1) accepting unauthorized 

waste such as residential waste and unopened black garbage bags (that were 

not inspected prior to being deposited in the landfill), (2) failing to minimize 

blowing paper and litter with cover material, (3) allowing the disposal of 

unacceptable wastes such as liquid paint, creosote telephone poles, railroad 

ties, and garage doors, (4) causing or allowing the unauthorized discharge of 

potentially contaminated stormwater at a location not specified in the landfill’s 

permit, and (5) effluent excursions in violation of the permit. After the action, 

monitoring and compliance at the landfill were determined in several ways, 

such as (1) daily landfill assessments conducted by EPA (which did not result 

in any subsequent enforcement referrals), (2) monthly submissions to LDEQ of 

the landfill’s required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Discharge Monitoring Report (which showed exceedances in March and April 

2007 but not in the following months), and (3) compliance information such as 

weekly preventative maintenance forms provided by the landfill as required 

under the action. An LDEQ compliance evaluation inspection was conducted 

on October 26, 2007, and no violations were identified. LDEQ is currently in 

 22The primary purpose of the inspection, referred to by LDEQ as a “start-up inspection,” was to renew

the facility’s permit. 

Page 16 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

settlement negotiations with the landfill regarding the February 2007 

violations, and no penalty has been issued to date. 

• Stranco Landfill: LDEQ issued a compliance order enforcement action on 

December 14, 2006, against the landfill, which was granted temporary 

authorization to receive Katrina C&D debris in a state emergency order. The 

violations noted in the action included failing to (1) provide adequate 

supervision and security of the site to control the disposal of materials, (2) 

completely extinguish fires from debris burned at the landfill (smoke was 

observed smoldering from the waste at the site), (3) document the source of 

waste received at the site, and (4) cover waste with 12 inches of soil every 14 

days. Subsequent LDEQ inspections found continued violations. 23

 

Specifically, the violations were failing to cover wastes with 12 inches of soil 

every 14 days and not removing unauthorized waste from the site every 7 days, 

as required. Because of these continuing issues, on April 9, 2007, LDEQ issued 

a consolidated compliance order and notice of potential penalty enforcement 

action against the landfill. The landfill operator’s April 2007 response to LDEQ 

explained why the deficiencies had occurred and how they would be 

corrected. In October 2007, LDEQ conducted an inspection to ensure that the 

landfill, which had been undergoing closure activities, was being properly 

closed. This landfill was closed in January 2008. 

Interagency enforcement efforts. Other enforcement actions have been taken in 

conjunction with an interagency state and federal enforcement operation. 

• LDEQ worked with EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Louisiana National 

Guard in March and April 2007 in a joint effort called Operation Cleansweep to 

combat the illegal dumping activities and the presence of unpermitted 

facilities operating along an area in eastern New Orleans referred to as the 

Almonaster Corridor.24 According to LDEQ, illegal dumping along the corridor 

had been a problem for many years prior to Katrina, but the amount of debris 

from the hurricane exacerbated the problem greatly. With FEMA funding, 

EPA acquired and loaned LDEQ surveillance cameras, which were installed at 

various illegal dumping hot spots along the Almonaster Corridor. These 

investigations revealed that the illegal dumping rate was increasing and the 

material being dumped was consistent with hurricane-related debris, such as 

building components, furnishings, white goods, electronics, and vegetative 

waste. As a result, these agencies joined with the Corps of Engineers and the 

Louisiana National Guard to perform door-to-door inspections of all properties 

and facilities along this roughly 5-mile by 1-mile area. Overall, the agencies 

inspected 178 sites and referred 147 to LDEQ’s enforcement division. The 

violations identified from these efforts included, but were not limited to, the 

unauthorized disposal of solid waste, transporting solid waste to an

23The April 2007 LDEQ enforcement action also reported that state inspections in November 2006, 

December 2006, January 2007, and February 2007 also found these violations. 24The Almonaster Corridor is located in eastern New Orleans and is bounded by the Innerharbor

Navigation Canal on the west, the Intracostal Waterway on the south, Interstate 510 on the east, and 

Chef Highway on the north. The area is about 5 miles long and about 1 mile wide.

Page 17 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
unauthorized location, and open burning of debris. LDEQ expects to complete 

an overall summary of these efforts by the end of the summer of 2008. 

• As part of Operation Cleansweep, Corps of Engineers and EPA staff inspected 

20 potential wetland sites in the Almonaster Corridor to determine if Katrinarelated disaster debris had been dumped there illegally and to identify any 

wetlands violations. Specifically, section 404 of the Clean Water Act generally 

prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States 

without first obtaining a permit from the Corps of Engineers. According to 

EPA, the Corps of Engineers issued cease and desist orders to owners of five 

sites that were in violation of section 404. According to EPA, the Corps of 

Engineers reported that the illegal dumping was no longer occurring at the five 

sites and one owner had begun site cleanup. EPA officials also said that the 

Corps of Engineers is the lead agency in wetlands violation cases as long as 

the property owner is cooperative, which was the situation in these five cases. 

Page 18 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

Enclosure III: Actions by LDEQ and EPA in Response to Potential 

Environmental Issues at the Gentilly Landfill 

The Gentilly C&D Landfill was constructed on top of a former municipal waste 

landfill that operated from the early 1960s until the mid-1980s.25 LDEQ’s authorization 

of the use of this C&D landfill located near hurricane-devastated areas in New 

Orleans has been controversial because of the potential for long-term, negative 

environmental impacts.26 For example, in October 2005, the Louisiana Environmental 

Action Network filed suit against LDEQ, challenging the decision to authorize the use 

of the Gentilly Landfill for hurricane-related debris disposal.27 Also, as we reported in 

2007, studies conducted by an environmental engineering firm and Louisiana State 

University raised concerns about debris disposal at the Gentilly Landfill. These 

studies suggest that debris disposal in landfills without appropriate safeguards could 

result in the migration of contaminants, potentially causing pollution and affecting 

public health and the environment.28 The studies identified concerns about the 

potential discharge of leachate (water that has come into contact with waste) into 

groundwater and surface water from the Gentilly Landfill.29 In addition, a February 

2006 draft report contracted by FEMA raised these and other environmental issues. 

The Gentilly Landfill is also one of four landfills currently authorized by a Louisiana 

emergency order to receive C&D debris under a broadened definition that includes 

some potentially hazardous materials, including furniture, carpeting, painted or 

stained lumber from demolished buildings, and “incidental asbestos-contaminated 

waste that cannot be extracted from the demolition debris.” As discussed in our prior 

report on Hurricane Katrina, a draft 1995 report prepared for EPA (and cited by the 

agency in its review of LDEQ’s expanded C&D definition) identifies a number of the 

debris components being allowed at C&D landfills under the emergency order—

including furniture and wood paints and stains—as “problematic,” even though these 

materials are not necessarily classified as hazardous wastes under RCRA.30

 

Moreover, studies by a Louisiana State University research institute and an 

environmental engineering firm state that these categories of waste can introduce 

hazardous materials into landfills, increasing the likelihood of pollution. For 

example, wood treated with chromated copper arsenate as a preservative can leach 

arsenic, which can cause problems with circulatory systems and may increase cancer 

risk if ingested. Chromated copper arsenate is often used to prevent termite 

25The practice of placing one landfill on top of another has been used throughout the country and 

utilizes the existing cover system over the closed landfill as a liner system for the landfill on top. 

26LDEQ, the entity in Louisiana with primary responsibility for solid waste disposal under RCRA 

subtitle D, issued a permit in December 2004 authorizing the Gentilly Landfill to receive and dispose of 

C&D debris and wood wastes. 

27Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 

No. 537, 649, Section 8 (La. 19th Judicial Dist.). 

28G.F. Lee, Summary of Findings on the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed C&D Landfill on

Top of the Closed Gentilly Landfill (February 2006); and John H. Pardue, Director, Louisiana Water 

Resources Research Institute, Louisiana State University, Anticipating environmental problems

facing hurricane debris landfills in New Orleans East (undated). 

29One of the studies also raised concerns about debris disposal at another landfill (Chef Menteur), 

which we discuss in enclosure IV. 30ICF, Inc., Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills (draft document prepared for the EPA 

Office of Solid Waste, 1995). 

Page 19 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
infestation in areas where termites are prevalent, such as New Orleans. Lumber with 

lead paint also poses health hazards. Lead poisoning in children can cause learning 

disabilities, impaired hearing, and behavioral problems, and in pregnant women, it 

can result in adverse developmental effects in fetuses. Even before Hurricane 

Katrina struck, concentrations of lead as much as 10 times EPA’s screening level 

were detected in soil samples taken in New Orleans. In addition, some household 

furniture is treated with fire retardants containing polybrominated diphenyl ethers, 

carcinogens that have been found as environmental pollutants accumulating in 

human breast milk and wildlife. 

In authorizing the use of the Gentilly Landfill under the Hurricane Katrina emergency 

order, LDEQ stated that it had considered alternative sites and determined that the 

Gentilly site met state solid waste requirements and was located near the bulk of the 

hurricane-generated C&D debris. LDEQ further noted that diverting debris disposal 

to the alternate landfills would increase waste-hauling time and expense and 

exacerbate traffic problems, thereby hindering New Orleans’s recovery. Although 

EPA did not have a formal role in LDEQ’s decision to authorize the Gentilly Landfill, 

the agency has conducted oversight activities at this and other landfills and provided 

technical support to LDEQ and FEMA. For example, FEMA requested EPA to 

provide a technical analysis and recommendation for the concurrent and continued 

use of the Gentilly Landfill because of potential Superfund liability of the federal 

agencies engaged in hurricane response for future cleanup of the landfill. In 

response, EPA’s review of the Gentilly site following its authorization to receive 

Hurricane Katrina debris concluded that current use of the landfill appeared to be 

consistent with the types and volumes of wastes for which it was designed and 

permitted by the state but noted that there is no way “to protect against future 

Superfund liability absolutely, particularly for a landfill, whether historic or modern, 

municipal or private.”31

To further assess concerns about disposing of hurricane-generated C&D debris at the 

Gentilly Landfill, FEMA contracted with a consulting firm, the National Infrastructure 

Support Technical Assistance Consultants, to perform a study. According to a 

February 15, 2006, letter from FEMA to EPA, the purpose of the study was to assist 

FEMA in making decisions regarding the management of the debris stream generated 

by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A February 2006 draft report from this study listed 

concerns related to the landfill’s subsurface soils and groundwater and possible 

impacts on the environment from placing new wastes over the old landfill.32

 31EPA, Potential Federal CERCLA Liability for use of the Gentilly Landfill for debris operations 

from Hurricane Katrina, FEMA-1603-DR-LA, ESF#10 Task Order (New Orleans, L.A., Nov. 11, 2005). 

32The February 14, 2006, draft National Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants’ study, 

Potential Impact by the Old Gentilly Landfill on the Environment Due to the Placement of the New 

Type III C&D Landfill–Document Review (FEMA-1603-DR-LA, ESF#10 Task Order), was not finalized. 

In April 2006, FEMA reported to EPA that it suspended further activities on the study because of an

expected LDEQ decision document on Gentilly that was subsequently issued in August 2006. 

Page 20 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

Specifically, the draft report recommended the following:

 33

• additional geotechnical and hydrogeologic analysis; 

• the installation of a groundwater monitoring system, a groundwater sampling 

and analysis plan, and a detection monitoring program; 

• an evaluation of the leachate generation potential from both the old and new 

landfill; 

• an evaluation of the new C&D landfill’s waste disposal plan, including a 

revised analysis of the “worst-case” impacts of the settling of the C&D landfill 

to evaluate the integrity of the clay cap covering the old landfill; 

• running slope stability analyses for the C&D landfill; 

• running preliminary calculations to estimate the quantity of “waters of 

consolidation” produced and released under the old landfill’s cap during C&D 

debris disposal operations; 

• installing and monitoring a landfill gas monitoring system, running landfill gas 

generation calculations, and collecting and analyzing landfill gas samples for 

volatile gas compounds; and 

• conducting a levee evaluation to estimate whether the adjacent Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway Levee is protective of the facility against a 100-year 

flood. 

Although LDEQ and EPA officials told us they had a some concerns about the quality 

of the draft report and they disagreed with some of the recommendations, LDEQ said 

that steps it took to settle the lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network also addressed many of the draft report’s recommendations. Specifically, 

on February 24, 2006, officials from FEMA, LDEQ, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and 

National Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants met to discuss the 

concerns that had been raised regarding the Gentilly Landfill. At this meeting, the 

officials agreed on a course of action to address these concerns that focused on four 

operating parameters at the landfill: (1) maximum daily debris load, (2) the 

placement and sequencing of waste, (3) geotechnical monitoring, and (4) 

groundwater monitoring. 

After completing additional analyses and plans, on August 28, 2006, LDEQ issued an 

administrative order to the city of New Orleans (the owner of the landfill) and a 

related “Decision for Utilization of Gentilly Landfill ‘Type III’ for the Disposal of 

Hurricane Generated Debris” (or decision document) supporting the use of Gentilly 

for receiving hurricane debris. The administrative order and decision document 

33The draft report made 13 recommendations that we have aggregated into 8 on the basis of the topics 

addressed.

Page 21 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
called for the installation of 10 inclinometers,34 11 groundwater monitoring wells, and 

3 surface water sampling ports, according to specifications outlined in a geotechnical 

investigation and slope stability analyses, groundwater monitoring plan, and surface 

water monitoring plan provided as attachments to the decision document. LDEQ 

officials told us that although the administrative order and decision document 

resulted from an agreement with the Louisiana Environmental Action Network to 

settle its lawsuit regarding the Gentilly Landfill,35 the steps outlined in the order 

generally responded to the recommendations in the draft report by the National 

Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants. 

The first operating parameter agreed upon by LDEQ, EPA, and others addressed 

maximum daily debris load. The August 2006 administrative order specified that 

daily intake shall not exceed 50,000 cubic yards and called for limiting the weekly 

intake of uncompacted C&D waste to 210,000 cubic yards initially and gradually 

increasing the weekly intake to 280,000 cubic yards, provided inclinometer and visual 

readings confirm the landfill stability. LDEQ relied on slope stability analyses to 

arrive at this landfill parameter. According to LDEQ, an initial slope stability analysis 

was conducted for Gentilly as part of the landfill permitting process and is a regular 

component of the permitting application. An additional slope stability investigation, 

included as an attachment to the administrative order, was undertaken for LDEQ in 

July 2006 by a third party firm and entailed additional soil borings and laboratory 

analysis to determine the engineering and physical properties of the subsurface soils. 

LDEQ officials told us that daily debris intake was limited because LDEQ determined 

that 50,000 cubic yards per day is the maximum amount of debris that a C&D landfill 

can safely manage and because analysis showed that accepting this amount of debris 

each day would allow the underlying soil to get stronger, or gain “shear strength,” and 

support the weight of the landfill without failing or becoming unstable. LDEQ 

officials told us the Gentilly Landfill is currently receiving about 6,000 to 7,000 cubic 

yards of debris each day. The officials said that although the additional slope stability 

analysis was conducted as part of the previously discussed lawsuit settlement, it also 

addressed the draft National Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance 

Consultants’ recommendation that a slope stability analyses be performed for the 

landfill. 

The second operating parameter addressed the placement and sequencing of waste. 

Under the August 2006 administrative order, debris is dumped in a given disposal 

area until it reaches an elevation of no more than 25 feet; then the next debris 

disposal area is opened. This process is repeated from one end of the landfill to the 

other, then back again. LDEQ officials explained that this sequencing of waste is done 

at landfills to make sure the soft soil under the waste does not fail and create a 

 34According to LDEQ officials, inclinometers are instruments used to measure the horizontal

movement of the landfill, an indicator of the stability of the landfill’s slope. 

35In February 2006, LDEQ and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network reached a settlement 

providing that LDEQ would, among other things, (1) limit the daily waste intake at Gentilly to 19,000 

cubic yards per day until LDEQ issued a formal decision document authorizing Gentilly to accept 

hurricane-related debris, (2) include in the decision document an analysis of the effects of waste

disposal at Gentilly on nearby levees, (3) develop groundwater and surface water monitoring plans for 

the landfill, and (4) require spotters to be present on the face of the landfill during operation of the

facility.

Page 22 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

problem with landfill stability. Slope stability analysis conducted as part of the 

landfill permitting process and additional analyses conducted in July 2006 also 

informed LDEQ’s decision on the elevation of waste placed in the landfill. According 

to LDEQ officials, the process of disposing of waste is managed by landfill engineers, 

who monitor elevations and determine when to move on to a new area. The officials 

said if any stability concerns were identified by the inclinometers installed at the site, 

LDEQ would take remedial action to relieve the pressure by removing waste. So far, 

LDEQ has not had to take remedial action, and the officials told us such action was 

unlikely given the rate of debris disposal at the site. LDEQ officials told us the 

actions taken under this operating parameter address the draft National 

Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants’ recommendation to 

evaluate the landfill’s waste disposal plan. 

The third operating parameter addressed monitoring the integrity of the landfill 

(geotechnical monitoring). In this regard, the administrative order called for the 

installation of inclinometers along the southern slope of the landfill based on the 

inclinometer installation and monitoring plan that was developed for Gentilly and 

included as part of the order. According to LDEQ officials, all 10 of the inclinometers 

that the plan required were installed along the southern boundary of the landfill, in 

accordance with plan specifications. The officials also informed us that, based on 

quarterly landfill inclinometer reports, there has been no significant movement in 

Gentilly’s slope, though the inclinometers were sensitive enough to pick up 

movement from construction of an access road near the landfill. Officials said that 

Gentilly is the only landfill out of about 50 in Louisiana that has inclinometers and 

that this requirement—which goes beyond state and federal regulations—was 

implemented in an effort to help settle the previously mentioned lawsuit. 

Additionally, LDEQ officials said that the inclinometers also addressed the draft 

National Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants’ recommendation 

that additional geotechnical analysis was needed for the landfill. 

And finally, the administrative order addressed the fourth operating parameter—

groundwater monitoring—by requiring the landfill to implement the groundwater 

monitoring plan that was included with the order. Among other things, the plan 

called for the installation of 11 groundwater wells around the landfill’s perimeter and 

the installation of 3 shallow surface water sampling ports. According to LDEQ 

officials, all of the groundwater wells and surface water ports were installed and met 

the plan specifications. LDEQ is testing groundwater for 62 chemicals, including 

arsenic, benzene, and lead; and surface water for 9 chemicals. The officials said the 

quarterly landfill sampling results obtained to date have been within normal ranges, 

with the exception of seven metals in groundwater samples and one metal in surface 

water samples.36 According to LDEQ, additional testing showed that metals were not 

present or detected at lower levels when soil sediment was filtered out of the water. 

As such, LDEQ officials attribute the metal levels to the surrounding soil sediment, 

which naturally contains metals such as lead at levels of around 15 to 20 parts per 

million, and stated they would continue to analyze all of the landfill’s groundwater 

and surface water sampling results to develop baseline data for future use. The 

36According to LDEQ, barium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc were detected in

groundwater samples and zinc was detected in surface water samples. 

Page 23 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
officials said that although the groundwater and surface water monitoring conducted 

at the landfill was done to satisfy the lawsuit settlement, it also addressed the draft 

National Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Consultants’ recommendations 

regarding the installation of a groundwater monitoring system, a groundwater 

sampling and analysis plan, and a detection monitoring program. 

LDEQ officials told us that several of the February 2006 draft report 

recommendations had been previously addressed during the Gentilly Landfill’s 

permitting application process and also said they disagreed with several of the 

recommendations. For example, LDEQ officials said the agency disagreed with, and 

has not taken action to respond to, the draft report’s recommendations regarding 

landfill gas monitoring. LDEQ officials cited three reasons for disagreeing with the 

draft report’s recommendations on landfill gas monitoring: (1) LDEQ generally does 

not require landfill gas monitoring at C&D landfills; (2) gas is a product of 

decomposition, and LDEQ’s evaluations showed that the underlying municipal waste 

was already decomposed; and (3) gas monitors are typically installed if gas could be a 

health hazard or explosion hazard, or if there is a concern about lateral gas 

movement underground affecting neighboring populations. However, there are no 

residential communities near the Gentilly Landfill. Further, LDEQ officials said that 

the gas monitoring equipment worn by landfill workers, as required by the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, detected no emissions above 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits. 

According to EPA, agency staff participated in meetings with LDEQ to discuss the 

groundwater monitoring locations, screening depths, intervals, constituents, and data 

analysis; funded some of the geotechnical testing used in the slope stability analyses; 

and discussed the analyses with LDEQ in relation to the maximum daily debris load 

and debris sequencing parameters. In September 2006, EPA reported to FEMA that it 

had reviewed LDEQ’s administrative order, decision document, and attached plans 

and concurred with the findings and the approach taken on each of the four operating 

parameters for the landfill. EPA officials said the agency has not had a direct role in 

overseeing the implementation of the state administrative order. However, the 

officials noted that EPA contractors continue to conduct landfill observations at 

Gentilly and other landfills receiving the greatest concentrations of hurricane debris. 

Our June 2007 report underscored that EPA’s guidance to states and localities on 

planning for disposal of disaster debris is important in helping ensure that hazardous 

materials are disposed of in landfills with appropriate safeguards when disposal 

options that would not otherwise be acceptable are used for disaster debris, thereby 

preventing contaminants from migrating and causing air, water, and soil 

contamination.37 Such guidance could help states and localities consider the potential 

environmental impacts of debris management accommodations that may be made in 

emergency situations if affected areas are to be cleared of debris without causing 

adverse public health effects in the future. 

One potential example of a prior problem with hurricane debris is the Agriculture 

Street Superfund site in New Orleans, which was a municipal landfill from about 1909 

until the late 1950s. During this period, oil was used to burn the refuse at the dump, 

 37GAO-07-651. 

Page 24 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

and during the 1940s and 1950s the area was routinely sprayed with DDT.38 The 

landfill was reopened after Hurricane Betsy in 1965 to receive debris from destroyed 

buildings and ash from municipal incinerators. In the 1970s and continuing into the 

late 1980s, portions of the site were developed with private and public housing units, 

an elementary school, and a community center. Following health concerns among 

residents in the area, EPA initiated investigations at the site in 1986, ultimately 

identifying elevated levels of lead, arsenic, and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons—the primary contaminants of concern identified in sediment tests 

following Hurricane Katrina. Analyses of the health effects of these contaminants 

found at the Agriculture Street Landfill led EPA to place the site on the Superfund 

National Priorities List in 1994. Cleanup of the site, which primarily entailed soil 

excavation, placement of clean cover and soil, and resodding, was completed in 2001. 

As part of litigation involving EPA efforts to recover its cleanup costs at the site, 

some private parties have argued that the debris disposed of at the Agriculture Street 

Landfill in the wake of Hurricane Betsy contained hazardous substances that 

contributed to the contamination at the site.39 EPA officials told us that after years of 

case development research and discovery the agency has no evidence that hazardous 

substances were disposed of at the Agriculture Street Landfill during the Hurricane 

Betsy response. The parties recently settled the case in August 2008. Under the 

terms of the consent decree, which recognized the city’s difficult financial 

circumstances, the city will pay no money but will perform certain in-kind services, 

provide site access to EPA, and assist in the placement of institutional controls. 

We recommended in June 2007 that EPA provide more detailed guidance to state and 

local entities on managing debris disposal following disasters to better ensure 

protection of public health and the environment and prevent the creation of future 

Superfund sites. We noted that such guidance might have helped Louisiana avoid 

some of the controversies and lawsuits it faced as a result of its emergency debris 

management decisions in New Orleans. As discussed in enclosure I, EPA did update 

its 1995 guidance on managing disaster debris disposal in March 2008. 

38These activities occurred before the enactment of federal regulations governing landfills. 

39United States v. City of New Orleans, et al, Civil Action No. 02-3618, Section E, Magistrate 3 

(E.D. La.). 

Page 25 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
Enclosure IV: Other Hurricane Katrina Debris-Related Areas of Interest

Following is a discussion of the status of the Chef Menteur Landfill in New Orleans, 

an EPA disaster debris-reduction pilot project in St. Bernard Parish, and a debris 

provision in the Water Resources Development Act. 

Status of the Chef Menteur Landfill. Another landfill that generated controversy 

when LDEQ approved its use as a C&D landfill under emergency authority in April 

2006 is the Chef Menteur Landfill, located near a minority residential community and 

a national wildlife refuge. An environmental study identified concerns about the 

potential discharge of leachate (water that has come into contact with waste) into the 

wetlands surrounding the Chef Menteur Landfill. Although the landfill was closed in 

August 2006, LDEQ subsequently received numerous citizen complaints regarding 

odors from the site. According to LDEQ, because of the concerns raised, the agency 

undertook a comprehensive sampling of air, water, and soil cover at the landfill in 

November 2007. Air samples were collected both at the landfill and a nearby 

community center, and the results indicated no exceedances of either state or federal 

regulations. Water samples collected from an open excavation next to the landfill 

that contained runoff from the site did not detect any volatile organic compounds or 

metal samples. However, the results did show some constituents that exceeded the 

site’s discharge limits.40 According to LDEQ, no water has been discharged from the 

landfill, including the open excavation site. However, they said that the owners of 

Chef Menteur would be required to provide some type of treatment for these 

constituents if they were discharged into the surrounding area. Final closure activity 

cannot commence at Chef Menteur until, among other things, the Corps of Engineers 

issues a permit required under the Clean Water Act. According to LDEQ, as of the 

end of May 2008, the Corps of Engineers had not provided a time frame for the 

issuance of the permit. There are several pending lawsuits that could affect the 

nature and timing of the landfill closure. 

Disaster debris reduction pilot in St. Bernard Parish. EPA conducted a disaster 

debris pilot project in St. Bernard Parish in June 2008 to evaluate methods for 

reducing large volumes of debris from Hurricane Katrina. The pilot studied the use of 

a thermal treatment process, known as an air curtain burner, as an option to expedite 

debris removal in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. Vegetative and 

C&D debris that does not contain regulated asbestos-containing material was used 

during the project, which was conducted at the Paris Road debris staging site in St. 

Bernard Parish. According to an EPA official, the site used for the pilot is a closed 

landfill in a remote part of the parish. 

This pilot was originally planned to test methods for disposing of regulated asbestoscontaining material. The two planned methods to be evaluated involved (1) grinding 

asbestos-containing waste material from homes and (2) burning asbestos-containing 

waste material from homes in the air curtain burner. However, the asbestos pilot 

projects became controversial in part because of community concerns. EPA has 

acknowledged that an error in its risk estimate of the potential health effects of 

exposure to asbestos related to the pilot was a factor in the decision to exclude 

 40Biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids water sample results from the open 

excavation next to Chef Menteur were the constituents that exceeded the landfill’s discharge limits. 

Page 26 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
 

asbestos-containing material for the revised pilot. The new pilot was limited to the 

burning of vegetative and C&D debris and was redesigned to specifically exclude 

regulated asbestos-containing material. 

Water Resources Development Act debris provision. A provision of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007 prohibits federal funding of the disposal of waste 

that does not meet federal C&D debris guidelines in Louisiana C&D landfills.41 

However, federal regulations do not specifically define C&D debris, instead stating 

that a C&D landfill “typically receives any one or more of the following types of solid 

wastes: roadwork material, excavated material, demolition waste, 

construction/renovation waste, and site clearance waste.”

42 While the Louisiana 

definition is more stringent than federal guidelines, under the emergency order still in 

effect in five parishes, the debris that C&D landfills can receive includes some 

potentially hazardous materials that normally would not be allowed in unlined C&D 

landfills under Louisiana’s regulations.43 In August 2006, EPA Region 6 reviewed 

LDEQ’s C&D debris definition under the emergency order and determined that the 

types of waste “seem consistent with what EPA identifies as material typically sent to 

a C&D landfill.” While LDEQ officials acknowledged that the provision has therefore 

not impacted debris disposal operations, EPA and LDEQ officials emphasized that 

C&D disposal practices in Louisiana have complied with the provisions of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007. 

41Specifically, the provision states that “no Federal funds may be used to pay for or reimburse any state 

or local entity in Louisiana for the disposal of C&D debris generated as a result of Hurricane Katrina in

2005 in a landfill designated for C&D debris as described in section 257.2 of title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, unless that waste meets the definition of C&D debris, as specified under Federal law and 

described in that section.” Pub. L. No. 110-114, § 4101(c), 112 Stat. 1189 (2007). 4240 C.F.R. § 257.2. 43Although C&D landfills are not required to have liners, Louisiana’s environmental regulations for 

these landfills state that these facilities shall have natural stable soils of low permeability for the area

occupied by the landfill. According to the regulation, this soil requirement will provide a barrier to 

prevent surface spills from penetrating into groundwater aquifers underlying the area, or to a sand or 

other water-bearing stratum, that would provide a conduit to such aquifers (LAC 33:VII.719,D.1.). 

Page 27 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
Enclosure V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 

Note: GAO 

comments 

supplementing 

those in the 

report text appear 

at the end of this 

enclosure. 

See comment 1. 

Page 28 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
See comment 2. 

See comment 3. 

Page 29 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
See comment 3. 

Page 30 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
GAO Comments

1. We disagree with EPA’s comment that our report “guides the reader to infer” 

that Louisiana’s C&D definition is inconsistent with federal requirements. In 

fact, as EPA points out, we state in the draft report that EPA Region 6 

reviewed LDEQ’s C&D debris definition under the emergency order and 

determined that the types of waste “seem consistent with what EPA identifies 

as material typically sent to a C&D landfill.” This statement is included in 

both the Overview section and the body of the draft and final reports. We also 

disagree with EPA’s comment that the use of the term “potentially hazardous 

material” is misleading and are puzzled by its statement that the agency is not 

aware of any document that describes furniture and/or carpet as a hazardous 

material. For example, when EPA reviewed LDEQ’s C&D debris definition 

under the emergency order, the agency referred to a 1995 report prepared for 

EPA entitled “Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills,” which provided 

information about the variety of materials disposed of in C&D landfills. In this 

draft report, carpeting and furniture were listed as “problematic items,” as 

were wood paints and stains, among other items. Furthermore, the report 

stated that many C&D wastes contain “inseparable hazardous constituents” 

and as examples cited “carpeting that can leach formaldehyde and treated or 

coated wood and wood products.” Additionally, as we reported in our June 

2007 report on EPA’s Hurricane Katrina activities, studies by a Louisiana State 

University research institute and an environmental engineering firm state that 

these categories of wastes can introduce hazardous materials into landfills, 

increasing the likelihood of pollution. For example, wood treated with 

chromated copper arsenate as a preservative can leach arsenic, which can 

cause problems with circulatory systems and may increase cancer risk if 

ingested. Chromated copper arsenate is often used to prevent termite 

infestation in areas where termites are prevalent, such as New Orleans. 

Lumber with lead paint also poses health hazards. Lead poisoning in children 

can cause learning disabilities, impaired hearing, and behavioral problems, 

and in pregnant women, it can result in adverse developmental effects to 

fetuses. Even before Hurricane Katrina struck, concentrations of lead as 

much as 10 times EPA’s screening level were detected in soil samples taken in 

New Orleans. In addition, some household furniture is treated with fire 

retardants containing polybrominated diphenyl ethers, carcinogens that have 

been found as environmental pollutants accumulating in human breast milk 

and wildlife. In response to EPA’s comment, we are adding this information 

from our prior report to the body of this report.

2. As stated in our draft report, this review focuses on EPA’s and LDEQ’s 2007 

and 2008 debris-related Hurricane Katrina response activities in the New 

Orleans area. Further, in the draft and final reports, we refer readers to our 

2007 report that cover’s EPA’s Katrina response activities from August 2005 

through June 2007, including EPA’s actions as the coordinator of emergency 

support for the oil and hazardous materials response. We did not add the 

detailed text that EPA proposed about EPA’s debris-related activities because 

it includes activities from the earlier years not addressed in the draft report. 

We did, however, add a footnote in the report section cited by EPA to remind 

Page 31 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
readers that the prior report, Hurricane Katrina: EPA’s Current and Future 

Environmental Protection Efforts Could be Enhanced by Addressing Issues 

and Challenges Faced on the Gulf Coast (GAO-07-651), also discusses EPA’s 

debris-related activities. 

3. We continue to believe there are lessons that can be learned from the 

Agriculture Street Landfill, which was—like the Gentilly Landfill—reopened 

on top of a former municipal landfill after a hurricane. (The Agriculture Street 

Landfill was reopened after Hurricane Betsy hit New Orleans in 1965.) In both 

cases, the closed municipal landfills had operated prior to the enactment of 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976. In the draft report, we 

excerpted information about the Agriculture Street Landfill that we provided 

in our prior report on Hurricane Katrina (GAO-07-651). EPA stated that the 

draft report omits significant details and requested that the paragraph be 

removed from the report. Alternatively, to address EPA’s concerns, we are 

including the entire discussion of this landfill that was included in the prior 

report. This text was reviewed by EPA prior to the issuance of our 2007 

report and reflects changes we made in response to the agency’s comments 

on this section at that time. We do not agree with EPA that the information 

contains inaccuracies and “suggests inferences unwarranted by the underlying 

facts.” Finally, EPA stated that the paragraph in the draft report on the 

Agriculture Street Landfill “invites the reader to infer” that Hurricane Katrina 

generated sediment containing “potentially dangerous levels” of lead, arsenic, 

and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). We disagree. In our draft 

report, we state that these were the primary contaminants of concern 

identified in EPA’s sediment tests following Hurricane Katrina. That these 

same contaminants were identified at elevated levels based on EPA-initiated 

investigations at the Agriculture Street Landfill site in 1986 is a matter of 

record. 

Page 32 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
Enclosure VI: Comments from the Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Note: GAO 

comments 

supplementing 

those in the 

report text appear 

at the end of this 

enclosure. 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

Page 33 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

See comment 5. 

Page 34 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
See comment 6. 

See comment 7. 

See comment 8. 

Page 35 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
GAO Comments

1. LDEQ requested that we replace the term “construction and demolition debris 

with asbestos-contaminated waste” with the term “asbestos containing waste.” 

We did not make this change because, as indicated in the draft and final 

reports, we are quoting the language in LDEQ’s Hurricane Katrina Emergency 

Orders, including the current order that is in effect until August 29, 2008. 

2. We agree that there are obstacles that must be overcome before a home can be 

demolished. And while we understand there was a lull in between when the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ceased demolitions and the parishes took over 

the management of the demolitions, it is not unreasonable to believe that local 

governments should have anticipated taking over this responsibility at some 

point. We have updated our report with the revised FEMA demolition 

numbers provided by LDEQ but believe that the pace of demolitions continues 

to be slow. 

3. LDEQ commented that it is important to note that the Gentilly Landfill was 

permitted before the storms. Our draft and final reports state that LDEQ 

“issued a permit in December 2004 authorizing the Gentilly Landfill to receive 

and dispose of C&D debris and wood wastes.” 

4. Regarding our statement about the “additional groundwater monitoring” at the 

Gentilly Landfill, LDEQ commented that there are no regulatory requirements

for groundwater monitoring for C&D landfills. We used the word “additional” 

to reflect that the number of water monitors at Gentilly was increased. We do 

not believe that describing the use of such monitors at the landfill suggests 

that the monitors are required by regulation.

5. LDEQ emphasized the importance of EPA’s no action assurance letters in 

completing home demolitions. In response, we revised the report to include 

LDEQ’s statement that the no action assurance letters significantly helped the 

recovery effort by allowing demolition without the prior removal of regulated 

asbestos-containing materials, reducing by 2 or 3 days the time required to 

demolish homes. We also updated our report with the revised demolition 

numbers provided. However, we note that LDEQ’s letter also provided 

explanations for the slow place of demolitions that are independent of the 

regulatory flexibility provided by no action assurances—namely, the lengthy 

house condemnation process and the lull in demolitions that occurred after 

FEMA required the parishes, rather than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to

manage the demolitions. We continue to believe that important factors should 

be carefully weighed in considering extensions beyond the 3-year anniversary 

of Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2008—including the possible culmination 

of FEMA-funded EPA support in conducting oversight of landfill operations 

and demolitions in the New Orleans area. 

6. LDEQ provided updated information on LDEQ and EPA observations at 

demolition sites, and we have revised the report to reflect information from 

LDEQ and EPA. 

Page 36 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
7. LDEQ provided a clarification about the asbestos samples taken at 

demolitions. We have revised our report with information from LDEQ and 

EPA. 

8. We continue to believe there are lessons that can be learned from the 

Agriculture Street Landfill, which was—like the Gentilly Landfill—reopened 

on top of a former municipal landfill after a hurricane. In 1994, this landfill 

became the Agriculture Street Superfund Site. As previously discussed with 

LDEQ officials, our draft and final reports reflect the fact that the activities 

that occurred at the landfill (during the 1940s and 1950s) occurred before the 

enactment of federal regulations governing landfills. 

(360919)

Page 37 GAO-08-985R Hurricane Katrina Debris
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER