<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:37443.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-978
THE ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AS THEY RELATE TO
KATRINA AND THE ONGOING RECOVERY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 6, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-443 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 6, 2005
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 9
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 7
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware,
prepared statement............................................. 45
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island, prepared statement..................................... 17
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 4
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 12
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
prepared statement............................................. 46
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota.... 18
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 13
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 16
WITNESSES
Capka, J. Richard, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 80
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 81
Senator Obama............................................ 79
Senator Thune............................................ 78
Peacock, Hon. Marcus, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 54
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 59
Senator Obama............................................ 53
Senator Thune............................................ 51
Senator Voinovich........................................ 52
Strock, Lieutenant General Carl, Chief of Engineers, Commander,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 74
Senator Jeffords......................................... 70
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 73
Senator Obama............................................ 69
Senator Thune............................................ 68
Senator Voinovich........................................ 68
Woodley, Jr., Hon. Paul, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works.................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 65
Senator Jeffords......................................... 64
Senator Obama............................................ 63
Senator Thune............................................ 62
Senator Voinovich........................................ 62
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Hurricane Katrina Response:
Environmental Protection Agency..............................94-145
Homeland Security............................................ 83-93
THE ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AS THEY RELATE TO
KATRINA AND THE ONGOING RECOVERY
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Bond, Voinovich, Chafee,
Murkowski, Thune, DeMint, Isakson, Vitter, Jeffords, Boxer,
Carper, Lautenberg, Obama.
Senator Inhofe. Our meeting will come to order. I know
Senator Jeffords will be walking in momentarily.
What we are going to do, right now we have five members, as
soon as we have 10 members as a quorum, we will recess this
hearing and go into a business meeting for the purpose of
confirming five nominees. I think all of our members have the
names of these nominees.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
We welcome our witnesses to this hearing. The EPW Committee
has been very busy and very active since Katrina. We have held
over 10 briefings, we have had closed hearings. We have had
them with the Corps of Engineers, Highway, EPA and others. This
committee just happens to have more jurisdiction over those
entities that are keeping busy down in the New Orleans,
Mississippi, Alabama area than any other committee of course.
What we are going to talk about today is the EPA, the Corps
and the Federal Highway Administration are all playing key
roles in the cleanup, recovery and rebuilding effort in the
Gulf States. The Corps continues to de-water the city of New
Orleans, pumping the water into Lake Pontchartrain. I was
pleased to learn that the level of contamination in
Pontchartrain may not be as bad as we once feared it was, when
we were down there.
The Corps is also in charge of debris removal. Senator
Vitter and I have written to both the Corps and the EPA, asking
that they ensure this waste is managed properly and that
existing permitted landfill capacity is utilized before even
considering opening up old, less desirable landfills.
I know the States are very involved in this issue, but as
long as we are spending Federal dollars, we should be certain
that the money is spent both wisely and in a manner that does
not create future problems. In fact, I intend to watch very
closely all dollars spent on Katrina to make sure that they are
spent wisely in the cleanup, recovery and reconstruction. We
simply can't afford to waste money or spend money on projects
with little or no oversight.
We also are here to discuss the future of the vital
infrastructure in the Gulf States. Katrina did unprecedented
damage to highways and highway bridges in the Gulf States. I
look forward to hearing from the Federal Highway Administration
about what they are doing to respond to this disaster. The most
recent estimate I have heard about the cost of repairs to
highways and highway bridges damaged by Katrina has been
lowered from $2.4 billion to $1.6 billion. That is good news. I
understand that these are initial estimates, but I am
interested in when these estimates will be more stable.
There was also substantial damage done in the Gulf States
through water and the treatment work systems. While EPA is
still assessing how bad the damage is, we look forward to
working with them to ensure drinking water supplies.
Without doubt, the largest infrastructure project is going
to be the flood control system in New Orleans. The levee system
in place did not work. We still don't know if it failed or was
breached. But it did not protect the city.
We need to understand why it didn't work and what we can do
to avoid the problems and delays that were faced in the past.
We all know that in 1977, lawsuits by environmental groups not
only delayed the flood control solution for New Orleans, but
forced the Corps to abandon its preferred solution. Those facts
are simply not in dispute.
Many experts who were involved the process nearly 30 years
ago are convinced that the project the Corps abandoned because
of the environmental lawsuits in all likelihood would have
saved New Orleans. Let me quote from three former well
respected career Corps employees who were there 30 years ago,
back at the time that they were enjoined by this lawsuit.
Rob Vining, a former chief of the Civil Works Program
Management Division, Army Corps of Engineers said, ``There is
no question that environmental activists, through their
aggressively pursued litigation, forced the Corps and local
sponsors to compromise the level of protection that otherwise
would have been available to the residents of New Orleans.''
Joseph Towers, former chief counsel for the Army Corps of
Engineers, said, ``If we had built the barriers, New Orleans
would not have flooded. I told my staff at the time that this
judge had condemned the city. Some people said I was being a
little dramatic.''
Fred Caver, former deputy director of Civil Works, Army
Corps of Engineers said, ``The essential outcome of the 1977
lawsuit was that it caused the Army Corps to revert away from
the hurricane protection barriers to a secondary plan that the
Corps knew was inferior to the protection of New Orleans. The
levees that broke during Hurricane Katrina were in place
because the Corps was prevented from building the hurricane
protection barriers as a result of the lawsuit and the Corps
had to revert to a secondary, inferior plan.''
Those outside the Corps came to the same conclusions. Greg
Stone, who is professor and director of the Coastal Studies for
LSU said, ``The abandoned plan would have likely reduced storm
surge from coming from the Gulf to Lake Pontchartrain. These
floodgates would have alleviated the flooding of New Orleans
caused by Hurricane Katrina.''
We can sit here and talk about what should have happened
and what didn't happen. This was projected. We knew that there
were consequences out there. There are consequences every time
someone is enjoined from doing something that logic demands
that they do. In this case, we knew.
At that time, in 1977, Senator Vitter, as you well know, we
didn't use the category system to measure hurricanes. We know
how in retrospect that what they were planning to do in 1977
would have at least taken care of the disaster that took place
a month ago. So there are consequences to these things, and
things we have to be aware of.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Good morning and welcome to this committee's oversight hearing on
activities in response to Hurricane Katrina. The EPW Committee has been
actively engaged since the hurricane struck land over 1 month ago.
Since Katrina hit, we have held nearly 10 briefings for members and
staff, including 2 closed door briefings. In fact, this is the third
time in the past month that both EPA and the Corps have come before us
for either a briefing or hearing on Katrina it is the second time for
the Federal Highway Administration. I want to thank all of you for your
cooperation with this committee.
We have much to talk about today as the EPA, the Corps and Federal
Highway Administration are all playing key roles in the cleanup,
recovery and rebuilding effort in the Gulf States. The Corps continues
to dewater the city of New Orleans, pumping the water into Lake
Ponchartrain. I was pleased to learn that the level of contamination in
Ponchartrain may not be as bad as was once feared. The Corps is also in
charge of debris removal. Senator Vitter and I have written to both the
Corps and EPA asking that they ensure this waste is managed properly
and that existing permitted landfill capacity is utilized before we
even consider opening up old, less desirable landfills. I know the
State is very involved in this issue, but as long as we are spending
Federal dollars, we should be certain that the money is spent both
wisely and in a manner that does not create future problems. In fact, I
intend to watch very closely ALL dollars spent on Katrina to make sure
they are spent wisely--in the cleanup, recovery and reconstruction. We
simply can't afford to waste money or to spend money on projects with
little or no oversight.
We also are here to discuss the future of the vital infrastructure
in the Gulf States. Katrina did unprecedented damage to highways and
highway bridges in the Gulf States. I look forward to hearing from the
Federal Highway Administration about what they are doing to respond to
this disaster. The most recent estimate I've heard about the cost of
repairs to highways and highway bridges damaged by Katrina has been
lowered from $2.4 billion to $1.6 billion. This is good news. I
understand these are initial estimates, but I'm interested in when
these estimates will be more stable. There was also substantial damage
done to Gulf States' water treatment and works systems. While EPA is
still assessing how bad the damage is, we look forward to working with
them to ensure drinking water supplies.
Without doubt the largest infrastructure project is going to be the
flood control system in New Orleans. The levee system in place did not
work--we still don't know if it failed or was breached--but it did not
protect the city. We need to understand why it didn't work and what we
can do to avoid the problems and delays that were faced in the past. We
all know that in 1977, lawsuits by environmental groups not only
delayed the flood control solution for New Orleans, but forced the
Corps to abandon its preferred solution. Those facts are simply not in
dispute. Many experts who were involved in that process nearly 30 years
ago are convinced that the project the Corps abandoned because of the
environmentalist lawsuit, in all likelihood, would have saved New
Orleans. Let me quote three former, well respected, career Corps
employees who were there 30 years ago:
Rob Vining, Former Chief of Civil Works Program Management
Division, Army Corps of Engineers: ``There is no question that
environmental activists, through their aggressively pursued litigation,
forced the Corps and the local sponsors to compromise the level of
protection that otherwise would have been available to residents of New
Orleans.''
Joseph Towers, Former Chief Counsel of the Army Corps of Engineers:
``If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not have flooded. I
told my staff at the time that this judge had condemned the city. Some
people said I was being a little dramatic.''
Fred Caver, Former Deputy Director of Civil Works, Army Corps of
Engineers: ``The essential outcome of the 1977 lawsuit was that it
caused the Army Corps to revert away from the Hurricane Protection
Barriers to a secondary plan . . . that the Corps knew was inferior for
the protection of New Orleans. The levees that broke during Hurricane
Katrina were in place because the Corps was prevented from building the
Hurricane Protection Barrier as a result of the lawsuit, and the Corps
had to revert to the secondary, inferior plan . . . .''
Those outside the Corps came to similar conclusions:
Gregory Stone, Professor and Director of the Coastal Studies
Institute of Louisiana State University:
The abandoned plan ``would have likely reduced storm surge coming
from the Gulf and into Lake Ponchartrain. These floodgates would have
alleviated the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.''
While there is nothing we can do about the past, we can learn from
our mistakes. We need to make sure that these extremist environmental
groups do not delay or prevent the most effective flood protection
system from being built. It is my intention to work with Senator Vitter
and members of this committee and with the Corps to authorize a flood
control system that will protect the city of New Orleans.
Let me again thank you all for coming today and I look forward to
your testimony.
Senator Inhofe. Do we have our 10 people yet?
All right, I announced to Senator Jeffords before you came
in that as soon as we get 10 people here we will go ahead and
recess this and go in for a confirmation at that time.
Senator Jeffords is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding today's hearing.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have had a devastating impact
on the Gulf Coast of this Nation. It is critical that we do
everything that we can to improve the lives of our fellow
Americans whose lives have been uprooted.
Hurricane Katrina hit Florida as a category 1 hurricane,
moved across the Gulf of Mexico and hit the Gulf Coast of the
Nation as a strong category 4 hurricane. It passed within 10 to
15 miles of New Orleans, the winds, rains and storm surge
caused a levee breach that flooded 80 percent of the city. Over
1,000 people lost their lives and thousands more lost their
homes. There are 90,000 square miles of declared disaster area.
Some people have characterized the environmental damage in New
Orleans as catastrophic.
The agencies within this committee's jurisdiction have a
major role in both the response and the recovery operations of
Hurricane Katrina. Today is the first in a series of hearings
on Hurricane Katrina where we will review the roles of agencies
in our jurisdiction and hear from State and local governments
and others on the response to and recovery from Hurricane
Katrina.
Mr. Chairman, before we begin to evaluate the disaster
response we witnessed after Hurricane Katrina, and determine
what needs to be changed, I think it is worthwhile to remember
where we have been. Over the past 200 years, we have moved from
an ad hoc approach to disaster response to a coordinated,
orderly approach under the Stafford Act. On September 11, the
Nation was struck by a terrorist attack. The effectiveness of
the Stafford Act and FEMA helped reduce the impact of those
events.
After September 11, the Department of Homeland Security was
formed in what I believe was an act of extremely poor judgment
that failed to take into account the unique mission of FEMA in
responding to natural disasters. FEMA was moved into that
department.
In 2002, I opposed the formation of the Department of
Homeland Security in large part because of FEMA's inclusion. At
that time, ``I do not understand why we would jeopardize the
Federal Government's effective response to natural disasters by
dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security
Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to
adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, earthquakes.
The question is, who will?''
With Katrina, I believe that we sadly learned the answer to
that question: No one. Unfortunately, we learned the hard way
that we cannot, we must not neglect our natural disaster
response capability. As Congress determines what the next steps
are, we must ask ourselves, are we witnessing a performance
failure by the Federal agencies to execute their authorities,
or are we missing needed authority? I believe we have witnessed
a performance failure, not a problem with existing authorities.
In the wake of this performance failure, Congress is
stepping in. There have been about 50 Katrina-related bills
introduced. Some of them duplicate the authority that exists in
the Stafford Act or elsewhere. Some of them go so far as to
delegate the authority to the President to waive any Federal
statute.
So far, we have spent about $70 billion provided for
hurricane relief. I am concerned that we are returning to the
ad hoc response to a disaster the Stafford Act was designed to
prevent.
We need to return some order to our disaster response
capability. Several weeks ago, I joined my colleague, Senator
Clinton, as a sponsor of two bills which she introduced. The
first establishes an independent commission to evaluate what
happened after Hurricane Katrina and what steps needed to be
taken. The second removes FEMA from the Department of Homeland
Security and reestablishes it as a stand alone agency. These
are two critical steps for long term.
In the short term, we need to be sure that Katrina recovery
proceeds in a sensible manner, given what has occurred to date.
Today I will be joining my colleagues on the minority side of
the EPW Committee in introducing legislation to respond to
Hurricane Katrina. It is imperative that there is a process in
place for rebuilding Katrina-impacted areas. Our bill focuses
on the items in our jurisdiction, mainly, infrastructure
redevelopment.
Our legislation will provide direction to those agencies in
our jurisdiction to ensure that Katrina recovery happens
quickly, uses Federal funds wisely, and protects public health
and the environment. I hope that we will move quickly to pass
this legislation in this committee.
My questions in today's hearing will focus on two main
themes. First, in the apparent chaos of the response to
Hurricane Katrina, what have your agencies accomplished, what
do you need to accomplish your missions? What are your plans
for future recovery of the area, and do those plans make sense
for the people of the Gulf Coast and the Nation?
Second, as we evaluate the Federal response mechanism, what
lessons have you learned from Katrina, and what do you need for
your agencies to be more effective in the future?
I look forward to hearing from each of you today, and I
look forward to our second hearing in a few weeks, where we
will hear from parties outside the Federal Government on these
same issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have had a devastating impact on the
Gulf Coast of this Nation. It is critical that we do everything that we
can to improve the lives of our fellow Americans whose lives have been
uprooted.
Hurricane Katrina hit Florida as a Category One hurricane, moved
across the Gulf of Mexico, and hit the Gulf Coast of the Nation as a
strong Category Four hurricane. It passed within 10 to 15 miles of New
Orleans. The winds, rain, and storm surge caused a levee breach that
flooded 80 percent of the city. Over 1,000 people lost their lives and
thousands more lost their homes. There are 90,000 square miles of
declared disaster areas. Some people have characterized the
environmental damage in New Orleans as catastrophic.
The agencies within this Committee's jurisdiction have a major role
in both the response and the recovery operations for Hurricane Katrina.
Today is the first in a series of hearings on Hurricane Katrina where
we will review the roles of agencies in our jurisdiction and hear from
State and local governments and others on the response to and recovery
from Hurricane Katrina.
Mr. Chairman, before we begin to evaluate the disaster response we
witnessed after Hurricane Katrina and determine what needs to be
changed, I think it is worthwhile to remember where we have been. Over
the last 200 years, we have moved from an ad hoc approach to disaster
response to a coordinated, orderly approach under the Stafford Act. On
September 11th, the Nation was struck by a terrorist attack. The
effectiveness of the Stafford Act and FEMA helped reduce the impact of
those events.
After September 11th, the Department of Homeland Security was
formed. In what I believe is an example of extremely poor judgment that
failed to take into account the unique mission of FEMA in responding to
natural disasters, FEMA was moved into the Department.
In 2002, I opposed the formation of the Department of Homeland
Security, in large part because of FEMA's inclusion. At the time, I
said: ``I cannot understand why we would jeopardize the Federal
Government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA
into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA
will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires,
floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? '' With
Katrina, I believe that we sadly learned the answer to that question:
No one.
Unfortunately, we learned the hard way that we cannot, we must not,
neglect our natural disaster response capability. As Congress
determines what the next steps are, we must ask ourselves: Are we
witnessing a performance failure by the Federal agencies to execute
their authorities, or are we missing needed authority? I believe we
have witnessed a performance failure, not a problem with existing
authorities. In the wake of this performance failure, Congress is
stepping in.
There have been about 50 Katrina-related bills introduced. Some of
them duplicate authority that exists in the Stafford Act or elsewhere.
Some of them even go so far as to delegate the authority to the
President to waive any Federal statute. So far, we have spent about $70
billion provided for hurricane relief. I am concerned that we are
returning to the ``ad hoc'' response to disaster that the Stafford Act
was designed to prevent. We need to return some order to our disaster
response capabilities.
Several weeks ago, I joined my colleague, Senator Clinton, as a
sponsor of two bills she introduced. The first establishes an
independent commission to evaluate what happened after Hurricane
Katrina and what steps need to be taken. The second removes FEMA from
the Department of Homeland Security and re-establishes it as a stand-
alone agency. These are two critical steps for the long-term.
In the short term, we need to be sure that Katrina recovery
proceeds in a sensible manner, given what has occurred to date. Today,
I will be joining my colleagues on the minority side of the EPW
Committee in introducing legislation to respond to Hurricane Katrina.
It is imperative that there is a process in place for rebuilding
Katrina-impacted areas. Our bill focuses on the items in our
jurisdiction mainly, infrastructure redevelopment. Our legislation will
provide direction to those agencies in our jurisdiction to ensure that
Katrina recovery happens quickly, uses Federal funds wisely, and
protects public health and the environment. I hope that we will move
quickly to pass this legislation in this Committee.
My questions in today's hearing will focus on two main themes:
First, in the apparent chaos of the response to Hurricane Katrina, what
have your agencies accomplished, what do you need to accomplish your
missions? What are your plans for the future recovery of the area, and
do those plans make sense for the people of the Gulf Coast and the
nation? Second, as we evaluate the Federal response mechanism, what
lessons have you learned from Katrina, and what do you need for your
Agencies to be more effective in the future?
I look forward to hearing from each of you today, and I also look
forward to our second hearing in a few weeks where we will hear from
parties outside the Federal Government on these same issues.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
We will now recess this hearing and convene a business
meeting for the purpose of reporting out five nominees. We have
11 here.
[Recess.]
Senator Inhofe. We are back into our meeting. All right,
early bird rule. I would like to ask, to try to stay within our
5-minute limit on opening statements. Senator Boxer. I'm sorry,
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. In the interest of getting to the hearing,
because I am going to have to leave. I would like to waive mine
and submit it for the record.
Senator Inhofe. All right, that would be fine.
Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just have to respond
to your comments about how the environmentalists essentially
were to blame for the flooding. I would like to put into the
record a GAO study that was just completed September 2005. Here
is the comment from the GAO. They don't have any axe to grind.
``None of the changes made to the project are believed to
have had any role in the levee breaches recently experienced as
the alternative design selected was expected to provide the
same level of protection. In fact, Corps officials believe that
flooding would have been worse if the original proposed design
had been built.''
Mr. Chairman, this is the GAO. I think it is really sad
that we attack a group of people who essentially didn't support
a project which wouldn't have done one bit of good and the
community opposed. So I put that in the record, with your
permission.
Mr. Chairman, our committee must help assure that the Gulf
region is rebuilt in a safe and healthy manner. To find the
right solutions, we have to have all the information we need to
understand the scope of the problem. The EPA and the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality have provided a first look
at the unimaginable environmental devastation that must be
remedied in the area.
Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality estimates
that as much as 70 million tons of hazardous waste must be
disposed of as a result of the hurricane. EPA now says that 24
Superfund sites are located in the affected region, and at
least one in New Orleans, the Agriculture Street landfill, was
completely underwater. Katrina flooded New Orleans with up to
25 feet of water, creating a toxic soup filled with
contamination.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), reported that six people have died, from
contamination-related infections. As this polluted soup
recedes, it leaves a thick layer of muck. Louisiana officials
estimate they are dealing with an area of roughly 20 miles by
10 miles coated in a 1-foot-thick layer of sediment or sludge.
As this sludge dries, each moving vehicle and each gust of wind
can create a potentially toxic cloud that people returning to
New Orleans as well as first responders will breathe into their
lungs.
Some are returning with their children, and we must make it
safe for them. We must act decisively to safeguard our fellow
citizens. I believe we should craft a health and safety
Marshall plan as we reconstruct this ravaged area. We must arm
people with information, accurate information, not information
based on any of our ideologies or thoughts or guesses, but
scientific information, I know you are very strong on that
point, Mr. Chairman, so that they know if it's safe to bring
their children home.
Now, I am concerned, and I am going to ask EPA about this,
because my understanding is EPA may not be providing people
with the clear information they need to safely participate in
the recovery process. EPA characterizes air quality on its web
site by saying, ``the screening results indicated that chemical
concentrations in most areas are below ATSDR health standards
of concern.'' However, EPA is frequently referring to acute
health standards. Acute means that exposure is safe over the
course of 1 day. The acute standard for benzene, a cancer-
causing chemical, is 50 parts per billion.
However, Katrina hit this area more than 5 weeks ago. First
responders have been down there for longer than 1 day. People
who return to New Orleans will stay longer than 1 day. I
believe EPA should use a longer term standard to assess the
safety of exposures. For benzene, a 2-week safety exposure
standard is 4 parts per billion, not 50.
Fifteen air samples taken in New Orleans showed levels of
benzene that exceeded the 4 parts per billion safety standard.
EPA should be clear about the actual risks that may be faced
when people return to the affected areas for more than 1 day.
EPA should continue to use our Nation's environmental laws to
protect people. That's what they're designed for. We must not
take away the safeguards the people in New Orleans need. If we
do that, we are victimizing them twice.
Now, I'm very happy to see Lieutenant General Carl Strock
here. He and I had a great conversation about the need and the
value of healthy wetlands for protecting life and property from
storms and flooding. Wetlands are buffers against storm surges
and soak excess water from the storms. Healthy wetlands result
in hurricanes reaching land sooner and thus cutting the
hurricane off from the warm waters of the ocean's surface that
feed the storm's strength.
We don't need to debate global warming, whether we believe
in it or not. We know the warm temperatures of the water,
whatever the cause, caused that hurricane to gain tremendous
strength and ferocity. So I hope our committee will further
explore this issue and the ways we can protect and conserve our
Nation's wetlands.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would put into the record, with
your permission, a quote from Dr. Beverly Wright, Director of
the Deep South Center on Environmental Justice at Dillard
University, a university that happens to be underwater at this
time in the wake of Katrina. She said, ``the public has a right
to clean air and clean water, and those must be protected.''
So Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work to do. We talked
early on about blame game and this and that. I think it's
better if we just work together to make sure that the people
are safe when they come back and we do everything we can to
rebuild this area. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I have to depart to open up
the Armed Services Committee hearing. May I ask unanimous
consent to insert into today's record questions to be responded
to by the witnesses?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, certainly, and if there is any
statement you would like to make?
Senator Warner. No, thank you. This is a very important
hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection, that will be the case.
Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. We welcome the witnesses.
We have heard a lot after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita about
what needs to be done. Little has been said about how the
Federal Government is going to pay for these efforts. As
chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, I worked with my colleagues for 2 years and 7
months to get SAFETEA passed.
Now, some seem to be suggesting in time of broken roads and
high fuel prices that the Government hijacked the fuel taxes
our citizens pay at the pump to fix their roads to spend it on
other Government programs. I have worked too long and too hard
as members of this committee have to put the trust back into
the Highway Trust Fund to support this.
SAFETEA provides $100 million in emergency relief funding
aid out of the Highway Trust Fund. All excess funds are to come
out of the general fund. Sine we could all estimate that
transportation costs from hurricanes will substantially exceed
$100 million, I trust that the Administration will not choose
to raid the Highway Trust fund as a primary source of revenue
for the emergency spending. I am supportive of waiving the cap
on emergency relief funding, but I oppose raiding the Highway
Trust Fund, paid by user fees, to keep people from being killed
on the highways, to offset these costs.
We look forward to the testimony of the Acting
Administrator of FHWA and working with the Administration to
rebuild and reconstruct the infrastructure network.
I also look forward to the testimony of Mr. Woodley and
General Strock. If we had debated flood protection for New
Orleans before Katrina, I am sure when we reached the floor it
would have been decried as pork barrel boondoggles that needed
to be studied and reviewed and reviewed and studied and sued by
EPA and Interior for years and decades, which would then be
litigated by environmental groups, as the Chairman has
indicated.
With respect to the comments on the GAO study, this is a
paper study, not done with any of the officials, the experts in
the region. The Chairman has already quoted some comments from
the former deputy directors and the chief of civil works of the
Corps of Engineers, as well as a professor at the Louisiana
State University who said that the plan abandoned as a result
of the lawsuit would have likely reduced storm surge coming
from the Gulf and into Lake Pontchartrain.
After Katrina, we know that adequate flood control would
have been a bargain, saving lives and money. I hope we learned
a lesson, that Congress should lead the effort to prevent
crises rather than rushing to respond to crises. We must follow
the regular order in authorizing work that needs to be done. We
must hear from the experts and not dump a bunch of money
without knowing where it's going.
The WRDA bill that we passed out of this committee can and
will be amended to take into account the considered opinions of
our experts on this rebuilding in the Gulf region. I will
insist that we follow the regular order before putting money
into this tremendous tragedy.
Finally, I commend the work of the Corps of Engineers in
their highly heroic involvement in the global war on terror.
Right now, there are over 500 civilian and military personnel
serving in Iraq and 120 in Afghanistan, while others are
holding the fort short-handed here at home. It's a critical
mission and obviously dangerous, but it must be satisfying to
the Corps to know that they are over there, rather than simply
studying and wrestling with red tape, as we often require here,
that we're getting things done.
In the Middle East, they build bases, hospitals, training
facilities, barracks, powerplants, water and wastewater
treatment. More than 2,700 projects are underway in Iraq. Faced
with a highly neglected power system under Saddam, which
allocated power to cronies, the Corps has helped add to the
grid enough capacity to serve more than 5 million additional
Iraqi homes. Some of the Corps' work is in the majority of
provinces where there is little violence. They are also
operating in very dangerous areas and for that, we express our
thanks.
When one wonders why America is the world's economic,
military and democratic leader, fundamentally that question is
answered regularly by the enduring quality known as the
American spirit, as witnessed both by our private citizens and
these fine public servants. General Strock, I congratulate you
and the members of the Corps, and we thank you for your good
work.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senator from the
State of Missouri
Welcome to this morning's hearings to receive testimony on the
actions of EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the FHWA as they relate
to Katrina. I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony
today.
Following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, much has been said about
what needs to be done with regard to relief efforts, but little has
been said about how the Federal Government is going to pay for these
efforts. As the Subcommittee Chairman of Transportation and
Infrastructure, I had the pleasure of working for over 2 years on the
newly signed law SAFETEA-LU. Some seem to be suggesting, in a time of
broken roads and high fuel prices, that the government hijacked the
fuel taxes our citizens pay at the pump to fix their roads so they can
spend it on other government programs. I have worked too long to keep
the ``trust'' in the trust fund to support this.
SAFETEA-LU provides for $100 million in emergency relief funding
per State out of the Highway Trust Fund, and all excess funds are to
come out of the General Fund. Since we can all estimate that the
transportation costs from the hurricanes will substantially exceed $100
million, I am hopeful that the Administration will not choose to raid
the Highway Trust Fund as the primary source of revenue for the
emergency spending in the Gulf Region. While I am supportive of waiving
the cap on emergency relief funding, I am very opposed to the raiding
the Trust Fund to offset costs.
I look forward to the testimony of the Acting Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administrator Richard Capka, and working with the
Administration to rebuild and reconstruct the infrastructure networks
of the Gulf Coast.
I also look forward to the testimony of Mr. Woodley and General
Strock. If we had debated adequate flood protection for New Orleans
before Katrina, it would have been decried as a pork-barreled
boondoggle that needed to be studied and reviewed by EPA and Interior
for years and decades, which it would then be litigated. After Katrina,
we know that adequate flood control would have been a bargain saving
lives and money. I hope the lesson we learn is that Congress should
lead the effort to prevent crisis rather than rushing to respond to
crisis. That's why we must follow regular order and pass a robust WRDA
that takes care of reasonable needs in the Gulf Coast Region.
Finally, I note the valuable missions the Corps of Engineers
perform for this Nation, another mission of the Corps I like to touch
upon is the Corps' highly and heroically involvement with the Global
War on Terror.
Over 500 civilian and military personnel from the Corps are
currently serving in Iraq and 120 in Afghanistan while others are
holding up the fort short-handed here at home. While it is a critical
mission and obviously dangerous, it must be satisfying that the Corps
can spend more time building infrastructure over there than simply
studying and wrestling with red tape compliance as we often require
here. In the Middle East, they are building bases, hospitals, training
facilities, barracks, powerplants, water, and wastewater treatment
plants. Currently, more than 2,700 projects are underway in Iraq. Faced
with a highly neglected power system under Saddam which allocated power
to his cronies, the Corps has helped add to the grid enough capacity to
service more than 5 million additional Iraqi homes.
Again, while the Corps is operating in the majority of provinces
where there is very little violence, they are also operating in
dangerous locations.
When one wonders why America is the world's economic, military, and
democratic leader, fundamentally, that question is answered regularly
by this enduring quality known as the American spirit as witnessed by
both our private citizens and these fine public servants.
I thank you and congratulate you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Bond.
Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks again for calling this hearing and giving us an
opportunity to talk about Katrina recovery efforts by the EPA,
the Corps and Federal Highway Administration.
The first head of EPA in this Administration was a former
Governor from my State of New Jersey. She tried to do some good
things to protect the environment, which is supposed to be the
mission of the Environmental Protection Agency. She was
undermined and undercut by the Administration. I believe that
she finally realized that protecting the environment was not a
high priority and that she became the first cabinet officer to
resign from the present Administration. I hope that we are not
seeing history repeat itself.
Two weeks ago on September 22, in a closed-door briefing
for this committee, Administrator Steve Johnson was asked
whether EPA needed any additional legal authority to perform
its cleanup role in the Gulf States. He said that EPA already
had sufficient legal authority and no new powers were needed.
The very next day, EPA reversed its position and announced
support for a sweeping proposal that would allow it to waive
virtually any environmental law anywhere in the country. Almost
since that moment that this storm struck the Gulf Coast, some
have been planning to use the tragedy as an excuse to dismantle
decades of environmental protection. In fact, waiving
environmental protection was on a list of a Republican post-
Katrina agenda as reported in the Wall Street Journal September
15. It was a week before Administrator Johnson briefed this
committee.
So I want to be clear. Everybody supports the goal of
expediting the emergency needs of Katrina's victims. They need
the basic elements: food, clothing, shelter, and they need it
without delay.
It is also critical that EPA fulfills its mission to
protect the environment, not add insult to injury, not ask
people to go back and have their families drinking polluted
water, raising the possibility that air quality is going to be
substantially deteriorated. Gutting environmental standards
won't help the victims of Katrina or any other American family.
The people of New Orleans want to return home and get on
with their lives. They don't want to do it without it being
safe. So as Administrator Johnson told us, we can balance the
needs in the Gulf with the environmental protection currently
on the books.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good moment, and a very
distinguished panel of witnesses. I look forward to hearing
from them and an opportunity to ask them some questions. Thank
you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
Thank you, Ranking Member Jeffords, and I would like to thank
the witnesses as well.
Certainly the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway
Administration and EPA are playing a critical role in response
and cleanup efforts as we begin to rebuild the greater New
Orleans area. I want to thank them for this work.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to stress that this hearing and
these issues are extremely important as national issues and
priorities. Because Hurricane Katrina is an unprecedented
disaster. As such, it is not some parochial Louisiana or
Mississippi issue, but it is a national issue which involves
national concerns and national priorities. Never before has a
major, modern American metropolitan area been fully evacuated
and a whole region of the country effectively economically shut
down.
I think that is important to understand, particularly as we
under the impact this has on our national economy. I think
folks are beginning to understand that. Anyone who fills up
their gas tank, pays their utility bill, purchases products or
services with an energy surcharge, purchases food products,
will feel the impact of this disaster.
So it's important that we rebuild this area even better
than it was before, more secure than it was before, not just
for Louisiana reasons or Mississippi reasons, which of course I
care about, but for national reasons and because of national
priorities.
Again, what am I talking about? Energy, 20 percent of our
Nation's energy needs come from or through Louisiana. A storm
like this, which can happen again unless the area is better
protected, will cause this significant disruption to our energy
supply again in the future.
What about trade and commerce? Up to 70 percent of the
crops from our midwestern farmers are dependent on south
Louisiana ports to get those to market. So that is a very
important national priority, which again we need to focus on.
Finally, seafood. Our area is the second largest producer
of domestic seafood. Between the two recent hurricanes, it has
been estimated that up to one-third of our domestic fishing
fleet is damaged or destroyed.
So there are plenty of national reasons we need to have
this focus that you have been a leader on. Certainly as I said,
these three agencies before us have played a critical role in
the weeks since Katrina and are continuing to play a critical
role.
First, the Army Corps of Engineers, clearly the lead Agency
in terms of our hurricane and flood protection. We need to move
forward, rebuild our area, but rebuild it in a way to make sure
we are safe and the country and the national economy are safe
from future hurricanes. We need to rebuild protection to
category 3, which is what we were supposed to have before the
storm, and then we immediately need to understand and
immediately need to have a blueprint about how we move up to
category 5 hurricane protection.
I can't stress enough how the people of Louisiana need to
feel safe, need to feel like there is a plan before they are
going to be able to move back home and before our economy is
going to be able to get up and running. I have already talked
to Mr. Woodley and others about this. It seems to me the first
order of business as we walk down this path is to fully
understand what happened with our present hurricane and flood
protection system.
So Mr. Chairman, for that reason today, right now but also
through a formal letter to you, I am going to ask for a
specific follow-up hearing, focused exclusively on the key
threshold question which needs to be answered before we take
any other action. That key threshold question is, whether the
present levee system, the present hurricane and flood
protection system in greater New Orleans lived up to its design
standards, which were category 3, or in fact failed in several
important respects to those design standards. I think that's
the first question we need to answer honestly before we
understand what we need to do next week, next month and in the
years ahead as we buildup to category 5 protection.
Transportation, of course Federal Highway Administration is
crucial in that. Vital transportation infrastructure is heavily
relied on all through the region and has been greatly damaged.
Maybe the best example of that is part of I-10, the twin span
bridges between New Orleans and Slidell, which were completely
damaged and put out of operation by Hurricane Katrina. To
rebuild the twin span bridges, the Louisiana Department of
Transportation needs Federal emergency transportation relief
assistance.
That is why I join with you, Mr. Chairman, and other
committee members in introducing S. 1714, to provide $2.9
billion in emergency transportation relief to Alabama,
Mississippi and Louisiana. I thank you for your leadership on
that.
Finally, EPA, a very important agency in terms of
monitoring environmental issues so that we can move forward
effectively and safely. I thank them for that work. It is very
important work, but I also want to make a comment in direct
response to some of Senator Boxer's comments. It is important
that we do this work and it is important that we do it right
and do it based on science and communicate that fully to the
American people.
I can't count the number of times, including this morning,
I have heard the expression ``toxic soup.'' That is a
completely unscientific, undefined term that doesn't represent
in any meaningful way what's going on in the greater New
Orleans area. Are there environmental issues that we need to
monitor and be concerned about? Absolutely. Is there toxicity
there, widespread and anything that would be adequately
described by that term? Absolutely not.
The problem is, when we use undefined, unscientific terms
like that, it is an enormous impediment to residents, tourists,
commerce coming back to the metropolitan area. So I welcome EPA
being at the table and I welcome them bringing some focus and
precision to the reality on the ground, which involves
environmental issues but doesn't involve some 2-foot thick
sludge of toxic soup throughout the entire metropolitan area.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I very much look
forward to the continuing work of this committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]
Statement of Hon. David Vitter, U.S. Senator from the State of
Louisiana
Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords, thank you for having
this hearing today on Hurricane Katrina. I appreciate the witnesses for
being here too. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration play a critical role
in not only the response and clean-up efforts but also in rebuilding
New Orleans and the surrounding affected parishes after Hurricane
Katrina.
Hurricane Katrina is an unprecedented disaster. Never before has a
major, modern American city been fully evacuated and a major region of
the country shut down--including all sources of revenue.
Some Americans view Katrina as a parochial disaster--a problem for
Louisiana. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has
filled their gas tank, paid their utility bill or purchased products or
services with an ``energy surcharge'' knows that this is not just a
natural disaster, but a national disaster.
Rebuilding Louisiana even better than it was before will truly
benefit our entire U.S. economy. Louisiana is home to the largest port
system in the world. Thirty-six States rely upon our ports for maritime
commerce. Up to 70 percent of the crops from our mid-western farmers
are dependent upon our ports to get their products to market. Louisiana
is the second largest producer of domestic seafood. Between Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, it has been estimated that up to one-third of our
domestic fishing fleet is damaged or destroyed. Energy prices have
spiked; our domestic fishermen have been devastated and our farmers
have no way to get their crops to foreign markets.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and
Federal Highway Administration play key roles in ensuring the
environment of New Orleans and Southeastern Louisiana are safe to
return to, a secure level of hurricane protection is in place, and
roads and infrastructure are in place to move people safely in and out
of the area. It is important that the agencies work this process
quickly and efficiently so that we do not risk this devastation
happening again during future hurricanes.
We need to rebuild Louisiana so people are safe from future
hurricanes. We need hurricane protection and levees that will sustain a
category five hurricane. I cannot stress enough how the people of
Louisiana need to feel safe before they move back home--drastically
improved hurricane protection and flood prevention is mandatory. We are
at a crucial point and the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps
of Engineers, and Federal Highway Administration need to continue to
take action to ensure New Orleans and the surrounding parishes are safe
for people to move back.
Lake Pontchartrain is one of America's significant bodies of water.
As a freshman in Congress, one of the first pieces of legislation I
introduced and passed was the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act
of 1999 to establish this program within the Environmental Protection
Agency. The purpose was to give Lake Pontchartrain the same status as
other nationally significant restoration efforts. Over the past 4
years, I have secured nearly $18 million for work in the basin. I am
very concerned about the possible effects the returned discharged water
will have on Lake Pontchartrain. I look forward to hearing from the
Deputy Administrator about the precautions taken by the EPA to ensure
the pollution level is kept at a minimum.
Vital transportation infrastructure which is heavily relied upon by
the residents of the North and South shore of Lake Pontchartrain--the
I-10 ``Twin-Span'' Bridges--were damaged by the full force of Hurricane
Katrina. To rebuild the Twin-Span Bridges the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development needs Federal emergency transportation
relief assistance.
That is why I, along with Chairman Inhofe, and other Environment
and Public Works Committee members introduced S. 1714. This piece of
legislation will provide $2.9 billion in emergency transportation
relief to Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. It is critical that our
States receive this funding to rebuild our transportation
infrastructure. I look forward to hearing from Acting Administrator
Richard Capka on the response taken by the Federal Highway
Administration after Hurricane Katrina.
We all need to work together and I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses today about where the agencies are with the response and
where they are going from here to continue their progress in an
expedited fashion to rebuild Louisiana.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud your
initiative and leadership in considering the next stage of this
recovery effort. I thank the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Highway
Administration for being here today.
I know there have been some concerns about how the Federal
Government responded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, so it is
vital to hear from these agencies what we did right and more
importantly, what must be done to respond to the aftermath of
Katrina and future natural terrorist disasters in the United
States of America. I hope that the emphasis of this hearing is
not on what happened, but more on what we need to do to deal
with the aftermath and what we need to do to make sure that we
don't have the same kind of situation in the future.
The Congress of the United States, in my opinion, spends
too much time looking at the past instead of looking at the
present and what we need to do in terms of the future
challenges that we have. The hurricane has shown that we have
serious needs for the repair and improvement of our Nation's
aging infrastructure and waterway systems. The desperate
conditions these systems currently endure are impacting our
economy, the environment and the welfare of the American
people.
Currently, the backlog of unfunded Army Corps of Engineers
operation and maintenance projects authorized by Congress is
$1.2 billion. This is up from $250 million when I arrived in
the Senate in 1999. In 2001, there was a $38 billion backlog in
active water resource projects. Today it is at $41 billion.
Annual appropriations for the Corps' construction account
fell from $4 billion average in the mid-1960's, this is the
1960's, $4 billion to $1.37 billion average for 1995 to 2004. I
am deeply concerned that the level of appropriations for the
Corps of Engineers civil works program is not sufficient to
provide for the efficient development of worthy and needed
projects this committee authorizes.
National investment in water resources has not kept pace
with our level of economic expansion. If this steep decline in
Federal investment persists, our continued economic expansion
and environmental improvements will be threatened. Mr. Peacock,
you have the same problem in the Environmental Protection
Agency. You have never come by this committee. Maybe you could
stop by OMB to deal with the sewer and water problems that we
have in this country today. They are enormous.
The economic benefits of infrastructure projects speak for
themselves. The Corps' current efforts for Katrina will cost
taxpayers at least $3 billion. While I am a fiscal
conservative, it is clear there are certain areas the Federal
Government has an appropriate role, and there are two specific
areas, navigation and flood control, where the Federal
Government must have a role.
If Congress and the Administration had been willing to
provide adequate funding for these infrastructure projects for
the Gulf Coast, perhaps the Army Corps of Engineers would not
be here today requesting additional money. We had better
respond to Senator Vitter's complaints constantly that, what is
it, a football field a day you are losing in terms of your
coast line?
Senator Vitter. Unfortunately, it is a football field every
38 minutes. Of course, that doesn't count what Katrina did in
one fell swoop, which accelerates that significantly.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
In August 2002, the Corps completed a reconnaissance study
of whether to strengthen coastal Louisiana's hurricane damage
reduction projects to protect against category 4 and 5 storms.
In September 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers stated the
feasibility study would cost $8 million. The study only
received $100,000 in fiscal year 2005 appropriations. It was
not included in the President's fiscal year 2006 request, even
though the Corps stated that $500,000 was needed for fiscal
year 2006 to initiate work on the feasibility study.
Today, the Corps estimates that the cost of the study is
$12 million and will need to be fully funded by the Federal
Government, expedited. I know there are some members of this
committee that say, we are not going to do anything about the
levees in New Orleans until we get the WRDA bill passed.
Well, I think we ought to go to the leader and find out
what chance we have to get the WRDA bill up, and if we can't
get the WRDA bill on the floor, we ought to move forward and
decide whether we are going forward to bring this levee to a
level 5, how much it will cost, allocate the money, let the
people know how long it's going to take so they can make plans
to determine how they are going to develop New Orleans.
That is the first question. Is it going to be level 5, and
then how long is it going to take? Because that will have a
dramatic impact, Mr. Chairman, on what is going to happen in
New Orleans.
Finally, it has been 5 years since we passed the Water
Resources. The last two Resource bills were when I was chairman
of the Infrastructure Transportation Committee, when I came in
here as freshman, 5 years ago. I just can't believe it.
We know there were mistakes made before and after Hurricane
Katrina, but I believe the Senate, and particularly this
committee, is committed to improving the Federal Government's
role during a disaster. Today is just the first step we are
going to take and I am confident that we can make certain that
Federal agencies involved in responding to the aftermath of
Katrina are going to have the resources they need, but just as
important, have the resources we need to contend with future
natural disasters.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Chairman, can I submit my statement for
the record?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Chafee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
Statement of Hon. Lincoln Chafee, U.S. Senator from the
State of Rhode Island
I am troubled by the tragic events and loss of life that occurred
as a result of Hurricane Katrina. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the
victims and the families affected by this disaster. In this time of
crisis, we must come together as a Nation to assist those whose lives
have been devastated.
Today, we will be receiving testimony from three Federal agencies
under the jurisdiction of this Committee that are responsible for
implementing specific aspects of the National Response System.
Protecting and responding to hazardous substance releases, the
restoration of public wastewater and drinking water systems, and
conducting environmental assessments of natural and manmade disasters
are a few of the emergency responsibilities under the charge of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I understand EPA has worked
closely with FEMA and other Federal agencies, the States, and local
governments to ensure public health and the environment are protected
and restored after this devastating crisis.
EPA is charged with another important role for dealing with the
aftermath of a disasters such as Katrina--Congress has provided the
agency with various authorities to issue temporary emergency waivers of
the nation's environmental laws in order to address critical needs. As
each waiver has been issued in the Katrina situation, this Committee
has closely reviewed the purpose and background for providing relief in
relation to such laws as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
I understand the importance of waivers of this nature for
addressing immediate needs and alleviating problems directly associated
with Hurricane Katrina. The request to move contaminated flood waters
out of the city of New Orleans and back into Lake Pontchartrain
required a Clean Water Act waiver. This was well documented and
understood--the flood waters were contaminated and had to be quickly
moved out of the low-lying areas of the city. Similarly, EPA has issued
a number of waivers under the Clean Air Act in relation to the storm to
ensure a constant fuel supply across the Nation. I have supported these
efforts, but take serious pause at the request to provide blanket
waivers of the nation's environmental laws in response to this type of
catastrophe. In order to agree to something of this nature, I would
need to review documented examples of ways in which each of our Federal
and State environmental laws do not adequately provide the authorities
necessary for EPA to issue emergency waivers in response to a disaster.
The Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Highway Administration have
also been heavily involved in the Katrina response, and I look forward
to learning more about their efforts. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Excuse me, Senator Thune. I understand
that, Senator Vitter, you may have someone you want to
introduce.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize
these folks were in the audience when I gave my opening
statement. I do want to recognize Junior Rodriguez. He is the
Parish President of St. Bernard Parish and he is accompanied by
his special assistant, Charlie Rappell.
Mr. Chairman, St. Bernard Parish was one of the absolutely
most decimated areas hit by Hurricane Katrina. Eighty percent
of the homes have been destroyed or will be condemned. There is
one functioning home in the parish right now, and of course,
because of all of that, it has virtually no incoming revenue to
address payroll and other government needs. So these leaders
are working valiantly through that situation and I want to
recognize them.
Senator Inhofe. We appreciate that very much. I had an
opportunity to meet them when I was with you in New Orleans
right after Katrina.
Excuse us, Senator Thune, you are recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords,
and I want to thank the panel for being here as well. Thank you
for organizing today's important hearing regarding the Federal
Government's response to Hurricane Katrina.
I do want to say on sort of an unrelated note, express my
appreciation to the Corps, Mr. Woodley and General Strock for
your good work in helping us address a situation up in upper
reaches of the Missouri River with the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe water supply issue that was a very serious matter earlier
this year, could have created enormous water supply issues for
literally thousands of people who live on the reservation and
surrounding area. You were extremely responsive on that, and I
appreciate your assistance.
We have obviously a massive Federal response underway in
the Gulf region, and I appreciate the good work that each of
the agencies that is represented here today is doing, and look
forward to hearing more about the scope of the damage as well
as what each of the agencies have done this far pursuant to the
National Response Plan.
I won't be able to stay for the entire hearing due to a
conflict with the Armed Services Committee, but I am interested
in hearing the witnesses' response to a piece of legislation I
introduced last month along with a handful of my colleagues on
this committee, Senate bill 1761, the Gulf Coast Recovery Act.
Senator Vitter and others who hail from that region know all
too well that Hurricane Katrina caused untold devastation that
will take years to recover from.
The bill that I introduced, along with Senator Vitter,
seeks to expedite the cleanup and recovery process by ensuring
that Federal contractors who are involved in State and Federal
cleanup efforts there are shielded from burdensome and unjust
litigation as they assist the Government in carrying out the
cleanup in the Gulf Coast region.
I do want to point out to my fellow colleagues that Senate
bill 1761 is modeled after the Safety Act that Congress passed
following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and is something I hope we
can pass in the near future. While I am not obviously asking
our witnesses today to endorse the legislation, I would
appreciate hearing from each of you about how your respective
agencies, as well as your private sector partners, are impacted
by the threat of post-disaster cleanup efforts.
So as I said, Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to stay for
the entire hearing today, but I do have some questions as well
with respect to a couple of other issues that pertain to
Katrina and river management issues that I would like to submit
to the record for our witnesses to respond to in writing.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection, that will be included.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thune follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senator from the
State of South Dakota
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for organizing today's important
hearing regarding the Federal Government's response to Hurricane
Katrina. While a massive Federal response is underway in the Gulf Coast
Region, I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today to
get a fuller understanding of the scope of the damage as well as the
work the Army Corps, EPA and DOT have done thus far pursuant to the
National Response Plan.
Even though I won't be able to stay for today's entire hearing due
to a conflicting hearing on the Armed Services Committee, I am
interested in hearing from each of our witnesses concerning a bill I
introduced last month along with a handful of my colleagues on this
committee S. 1761, the ``Gulf Coast Recovery Act.''
As Senator Vitter and others who hail from the Gulf Coast Region
know all too well, Hurricane Katrina caused untold devastation that
will take years to recover from. The bill I introduced, along with
Senator Vitter seeks to expedite the clean-up and recovery process by
ensuring that Federal contractors who are involved in state and Federal
clean-up efforts are shielded from burdensome and unjust litigation as
they assist the government in carrying out the clean-up of the Gulf
Coast Region.
I want to point to my fellow colleagues that S. 1761 is modeled
after the SAFETY Act that Congress passed following the 9/11 Terrorist
attacks and is something that I hope we can pass in the near future.
While I am not asking today's witnesses to endorse this common
sense legislation, I would appreciate hearing from each of you about
how your respective agencies (as well as your private sector partners)
are impacted by the threat of litigation in post-disaster clean-up
efforts.
Mr. Chairman, because I will not be able to stay for today's entire
hearing, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to submit the
following questions for the record.
Senator Inhofe. We thank you very much.
Let me say before we start with our witnesses, we had
occasion to be down there with Senator Vitter right after this
happened. I know there have been a lot of hits that have been
taken by EPA, Corps of Engineers, FHWA, FEMA. It was our
experience in talking to the people on the ground, they were
actually there 1 and 2 days before landfall. I want to make
that observation, because I think Senator Boxer is correct when
she says, there's always a blame game going on. You folks, I
think the performance was much better than was reported.
Why don't we start with opening statements. We will go
ahead and start with you, Mr. Peacock, and we will just try to
keep them somewhere around 5 minutes, 6 minutes, then we will
open up for a round of questioning.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCUS PEACOCK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Peacock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords,
members of the committee. My name is Marcus Peacock, I serve as
the Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you today with
an update of EPA's response in relationship to Hurricane
Katrina.
I request that my written statement be submitted for the
record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Mr. Peacock. Our hearts go out to the people of the Gulf
region. Our continuing response will require a sustained, long
term coordination across all Federal agencies, as well as with
the affected State and local governments. My testimony today on
Hurricane Katrina will update you on a number of areas of
interest.
First, I would like to briefly touch on EPA's early
response to Hurricane Katrina, which the Chairman was just
alluding to. EPA readied or pre-deployed personnel to the
National Response Coordination Center and sent on-scene
coordinators to Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi
before Hurricane Katrina made landfall. Then after Hurricane
Katrina made landfall, EPA joined other organizations in urgent
rescue needs. In fact, we used 60 watercraft, and these are
watercraft that are typically used for environmental
monitoring, as search and rescue vessels.
As soon as possible, EPA then turned its attention to its
primary responsibilities under the National Response Plan.
These responsibilities include providing guidance for debris
issues, assisting with the restoration of drinking water and
wastewater facilities and addressing hazardous releases and oil
spills.
I'd like to now mention some of the issues of greatest
concern that we have had and are continuing to deal with. These
include debris management, the status of the drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure, and sediment, air and flood water
monitoring results.
First, let me discuss debris. Working very closely with the
Corps of Engineers, we have provided guidance on the safe
disposal of debris that may contain PCBs and asbestos and
continue to provide site specific technical assistance in the
disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste.
Regarding drinking water and wastewater facilities, and I
have charts here which should be helpful. Senator Vitter, I
hope you can see that. These pie charts for each State show the
population that was affected in terms of receiving drinking
water. As of October 4, the States report that approximately 84
percent of drinking water systems in the affected region were
operational. That's the blue areas. Those populations have
drinking water now available to them.
Senator Inhofe. Pardon me for interrupting. What is the
date of what we are seeing right now?
Mr. Peacock. This is through October 4. So this represents
the water, the population that was being served by water
systems affected by Hurricane Katrina. So 84 percent of the
systems, a majority of the people, now have operating water
systems. They are getting potable water. In the non-blue
sections, over a million people are currently being served by
facilities that we know are not operating or we don't have
complete information on the status of them.
Wastewater facilities were also affected. This information
I am showing now is also through October 4. This shows the
number of facilities in the affected region for the three
States. As of October 4, 96 percent of these facilities were
operational. As you can see, there are some facilities,
particularly in the red, 4 percent of the systems, 16 of them,
serving a population of over half a million people, are not
operating right now. That includes, for instance, one of the
facilities in New Orleans. Getting 100 percent of these
drinking water and wastewater facilities up and running is a
very high priority for us.
Let me talk about oil spills and hazard releases very
briefly. EPA and the Coast Guard are working together to
conduct more than 130 emergency response actions as a result of
over 600 reported incidents during this period. I know
Superfund sites are of great interest to the committee. There
is a map here of the Superfund sites in the affected area for
Katrina. As Senator Boxer mentioned, there are 24 of them.
These are National Priority List sites.
We were able to conduct initial assessments, both the
States and EPA, as soon as these sites were accessible to us.
Of course, these tended to be ``first looks'' and recognizing
that, we are continuing assessments and, where necessary,
conducting water or soil samples at the sites of greatest
concern.
Regarding floodwaters, here is a map of New Orleans showing
the sites where we have done tests with the State. We have
tested for over 100 chemical priority pollutants. The yellow
dots show the sites that were tested before Hurricane Rita,
because there was, of course, re-flooding. The orange dots
indicate where we have tested post-Hurricane Rita.
The results to date indicate that the flood water does have
high levels of bacterial contamination, including e. coli, and
some locations do have some elevated levels of chemical
contaminants including lead and arsenic levels which exceed EPA
drinking water levels.
Let's discuss sediment briefly. These are similar maps
showing yellow dots for where we tested prior to Rita and
orange for post-Rita testing. These were again collected by EPA
and the State. As you would suspect, the sediments contain what
we found in the water, elevated levels of bacteria. They also
contain levels of fuel oils. Levels of metals detected thus far
have been below levels that would be expected to produce
immediate adverse health effects, but just the contamination
and the bacteria alone suggest people should not be handling
this material without some protection.
Let's discuss air monitoring. This is becoming of
increasing concern. There are a number of tools we have for air
monitoring, everything from the ASPECT aircraft and the TAGA
bus, which is shown here, which stands for Trace Atmospheric
Gas Analyzer. They take snapshots, screening data, to help us
identify where problems may exist. Then we have other methods,
such as the DataRam 400 monitors, and stationary monitors that
we have set up and are setting up that can provide more data
over a longer period of time.
In conclusion, and looking ahead, much remains to be done
to address public health and the environmental impacts of
Hurricane Katrina, as well as Hurricane Rita. Some of you know
I have not been at the agency very long. The way I have seen
the EPA employees respond with determination and a sense of
mission in this crisis, just in the past few weeks, makes me
very proud to be counted among them. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Peacock.
I would ask Secretary Woodley and General Strock, you might
divide the time between the two of you as you wish.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I have a very brief summary, and I would like leave
to add written comments to the record.
I am John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works. Lieutenant General Carl Strock, Chief of
Engineers and I, are here to discuss the Army Corps of
Engineers relief effort in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as
well as the role the Corps of Engineers will play in the
reconstruction efforts that lie ahead.
I visited the Hurricane Katrina disaster area September 16
and 17, and the devastation was immense. I saw the recovery
process already underway and after my visit, I am assured that
the Corps is successfully postured to continue its support to
FEMA and the Department of Defense and their response to the
disaster, as well as to continue our ongoing civil works
mission throughout the Nation.
While the Corps is focused on disaster relief, recovery and
de-watering New Orleans and surrounding areas, we stand ready
to work with local and State officials as they plan for the
rebuilding of New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast. The
Corps has completed a reconnaissance study assessing the
general engineering feasibility, economic justification and
potential environmental implications of providing a higher
level of hurricane protection to New Orleans. More analysis
will be required to determine the most efficient way to
strengthen the protection level for the city.
We are especially mindful that the coastal wetlands
ecosystem is the literal, figurative and conceptual foundation
upon which all of these protection and restoration projects
will be constructed. The Administration is working with
Congress and the State of Louisiana to improve the
implementation process for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem
Protection and Restoration Program to include additional
authorities for greater programmatic funding and increased
opportunities for application of adaptive management
decisionmaking.
These same kinds of authorities need to be provided to the
Corps and the Secretary of the Army for effective integration
of wetlands ecosystem projects with other kinds of protection
and restoration efforts, all consistent with the
Administration's longstanding commitment to watershed based
approaches, to sustainable water resource development.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to
present today.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, sir. General Strock.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CARL STROCK, CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS, COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Strock. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords and members
of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to
testify before you.
I am Lieutenant General Carl Strock. I am the Chief of
Engineers and the Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responding to
the terrible aftermath of Katrina and Rita in the States of
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas in three
ways. First, in support of FEMA and the National Response Plan;
second, under the support to Federal military response; and
third, within our own authorities and responsibility.
Our support to FEMA consists of execution of Emergency
Support Function 3, which deals with the provision of ice and
water, temporary power, temporary roofing, technical assistance
and debris removal. We normally do temporary housing under this
Emergency Support Function, but given the magnitude of the
effort in this event, that was taken over by FEMA through a
special task force.
Through standing planning and response teams, supported by
pre-competed contractors, we actually deployed before landfall.
Then following landfall, we expanded our presence as mission
assignments came in from FEMA. To date, we have over 3,000
people deployed from across the Corps of Engineers, and we are
carrying out mission assignments in excess of $3.2 billion.
Given the magnitude of this disaster, we are assisted by
other Federal agencies, notably the Department of Interior
through the Bureau of Reclamation. In terms of our support to
Federal response, we provided JTF, Joint Task Force Katrina and
Rita, Generals Honore and Clark, an experienced staff of
military and civil engineers to help them in the coordination
and planning of the military effort. They coordinate the
activities of Air Force, Marine, Navy and Army units in their
response and support of the recovery.
Within our own authorities, we are operating under P.L. 84-
99, and within our navigation missions, we are conducting
project condition surveys, we are conducting emergency repairs
of flood and hurricane protection systems, we are restoring
shallow and deep draft navigation in cooperation with NOAA and
the U.S. Coast Guard. This is a critical function that will
restore the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Mississippi
River and its tributaries.
We are also planning the restoration of projects to pre-
Katrina condition. This will include an assessment of the
performance of the system during the hurricanes.
To date, we have transferred $64 million of our own funding
to the effort and we have allocated $200 million of
supplemental funding to both our O&M account and to our Flood
Control and Coastal Emergency account. This has been a
remarkable effort. Three of our divisions, South Atlantic
Division under Brigadier General Mike Walsh, Mississippi Valley
Division under Brigadier General Bob Crear, and our
Southwestern Division under Brigadier General Jeff Dorko have
led the effort. They have been supported by four other general
officers from the Corps of Engineers in the response and
recovery. Forty of our forty-five worldwide districts have been
engaged. Three of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan and were not
able to contribute, but all the rest have.
In a situation like this, the New Orleans District was felt
to be a victim district. Pre-landfall, we had a plan in which
the Memphis district would come in and assume the emergency
support functions to the New Orleans area. They have done that
very effectively.
We also brought in the Rock Island district to handle the
de-watering of New Orleans. This was a pre-planned effort that
we knew someday we might have to accomplish. The St. Louis
District has Task Force Guardian, which is restoring the
levees. So the entire Mississippi Valley Division is engaged in
the effort. As always, we rely on our industry partners and the
private sector to provide support to us as we carry out our
missions.
In summary, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers understands
the urgency of this effort, and we are committed to doing
everything within our authority to assist our fellow citizens
put their lives back together and to set the conditions for
recovery of this critical area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General.
Mr. Capka, you and I were talking, it seems as if FHWA is
always a quick responder. Remembering very well when Mary
Peters was the Secretary after the interstate disaster we had
in Oklahoma, she beat me to the scene. So you are keeping up
that tradition. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF J. RICHARD CAPKA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Capka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and
members of the committee, for the opportunity to discuss the
Federal Highway response to Hurricane Katrina.
I am Richard Capka, the Acting Administrator for Federal
Highways. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my full statement be made
part of the record of the hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Mr. Capka. First, we in Federal Highways want to express
our sympathies to all those affected by the recent hurricanes
and assure all that we are committed to expediting recovery in
the devastated areas. We worked closely with other Federal,
State, and local officials before and during the hurricane, and
we continue to do so.
In discussing our response, it is important to note that
through our day-to-day mission activities, our permanent
Federal Highway Division Office staffs have developed both
excellent first-hand knowledge of their respective States, and
strong professional and personal relationships with State and
local highway officials. These factors have provided an
excellent foundation for an effective, coordinated, and rapid
highway disaster response.
As soon as we could re-enter the affected areas, Federal
Highway sent in personnel, including staff from outside the
affected region, to work alongside other Federal, State, and
local officials to help assess the damage, and to facilitate
response and recovery efforts. I personally visited the
affected areas with Louisiana's Secretary of Transportation and
Development, Johnny Bradbury; Mississippi Department of
Transportation's Executive Director, Butch Brown; and the
Mississippi Highway Commission Chairman, Wayne Brown. While TV
coverage, aerial surveys of the bridge and road damage along
Interstate 10 and U.S. Highway 90 and other roads certainly
tell a compelling story, they really couldn't convey the full
impact of the devastation that I witnessed.
I must express my admiration for the State and local
highway department and road crews. Despite the fact that many
of them suffered great personal loss alongside their community
neighbors, those dedicated and undeterred crews began clearing
debris, including downed trees and power lines, from highways
and bridges as soon as it was safe to do so. Consequently, in
less than a day, except in flooded areas and areas of damaged
structures, the States had debris removed from the Federal-aid
highways to enable ready access for the first responders.
Federal Highway employees worked shoulder to shoulder with
the State highway officials to rapidly assess the damage and to
shape strategies that would provide the most efficient
response. We facilitated in getting Mississippi and Louisiana
officials together with those officials from Florida who had
experienced Hurricane Ivan's impacts last year to shape the
strategies to address the bridge damages along Interstate 10
and U.S. 90 in Mississippi.
We also worked with the States to expedite procedures to
get contractors underway with repairs. Incentives have been
effectively employed to ensure quick restoration of lost
essential services. For example, Mississippi awarded a $5.2
million contract to repair the I-10 bridge over the Pascagoula
River that had become a traffic choke point on one of the
highest priority corridors across the south. The contract
included not only an incentive if work was completed in less
than 31 days, but also a corresponding penalty for finishing
late.
I am very pleased to report this bridge opened early, on
October 1, very similar to the experience on Interstate 40 in
Oklahoma, almost 10 days ahead of the contract completion date.
Senator Vitter, Louisiana is using very similar techniques to
restore the bridge at Slidell going into New Orleans.
We strongly support these incentivized contracts, and we
are out in the field working closely with States to exercise
all appropriate options and tools available during the
rebuilding effort. We are working with the Corps and other
agencies to ensure that our infrastructure work is coordinated,
and requirements are met in ways that will not impede rapid
recovery. We are coordinating with the CEQ, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Corps, and other Federal agencies to
help streamline the environmental analysis process that must
precede long term recovery projects, that will prepare the
transportation foundation for long-term rebuilding effort. We
will continue to work with the State and local governments to
help restore the Gulf Coast as quickly as possible.
Finally, I would like to note that the Federal Highway
Administration administers the Emergency Relief Program, which
provides reimbursement for States for expenses related to
highway infrastructure damage associated with natural disasters
and other emergency situations. To date, Federal Highways has
provided $10 million in quick release Emergency Relief funds to
Louisiana and Mississippi.
Mr. Chairman, we agree with your interest in financial
controls. While quick response is important, we also are very
mindful that financial accountability is important, too.
Federal Highways has taken specific steps to effectively manage
expenditures related to Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. We
will ensure that these funds are spent wisely and that
emergency relief projects comply with the Federal requirements.
Mr. Chairman, members, thank you again for this opportunity
to be with you here today. I will be pleased to answer any
questions that you might have.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Capka.
We will proceed now to two rounds of questioning. I would
ask our members not to exceed 5 minutes. I will comply with
that myself, so that others will have an opportunity to be
heard and to ask their questions.
First I would say, Secretary Woodley and/or General Strock,
I know we have a difference of opinion up here at this table in
terms of what might have happened in 1977. I just can't let it
go by the wayside when we know in advance that something is
going to happen and we don't take the proper action. I would
like to ask you if either one of you, it would probably be you,
Secretary Woodley, know Fred Caver, Rob Vining, and Joseph
Towers, all former career Corps employees.
I understand that today's Corps has not gone back to see,
to look at the project that was abandoned in 1977 to see if it
could have been better. When a former Deputy of Civil Works and
Former Chief of Civil Works Program Management Division makes
these assertions, do you believe we should put a significant
amount of weight behind their opinion?
Secretary Woodley?
Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, certainly I personally know the
first two gentlemen you mentioned. The third I know by
reputation.
Senator Inhofe. That would be Fred Caver and Rob Vining.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Woodley. I can tell you they are exceptionally
distinguished public servants whose service to the Corps over
almost a generation would lead me to certainly take any of
their views very seriously.
Senator Inhofe. As you look forward, can you think of
something that can be done to avoid a situation like this
occurring again, any thoughts like that? I think maybe that's
more our job than your job, but to see what thoughts you had.
Mr. Woodley. I would say, I think it would be very
important for us as a Nation to review the process that led to
the level of protection that was decided upon and the design
that was done and to learn whatever lessons we can from that
inquiry. I think it would be very instructive.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Peacock, I am always concerned about people going back
to the scene. We know from experience that after 9/11, now in
retrospect, many people did return before it was safe to make
that return. The Mayor of New Orleans has begun allowing people
back into the city. Do you think he has adequately informed the
residents and those who will be coming back of the threat that
might be there or the dangers that might be there?
Mr. Peacock. Yes, for instance, he has put out, among other
things, a two-page list of concerns including environmental
concerns. In fact, the second page deals almost exclusively
with environmental concerns, providing advice and cautions to
people who may be returning.
Of course, he has also limited who may return to particular
areas, whether it's daylight hours or healthy adult
individuals, for instance. That information is really put
together by not only the Mayor, but with the advice of State
officials, including environmental officials, as well as EPA
and HHS and other Federal officials.
Senator Inhofe. It bothers me a little bit when you say
that the Mayor has a report out. How many people will see the
report? What other means of communication are being used? I
think a lot of people go back, it's an emotional thing, and
they are not going to pay an awful lot of attention to a
report.
Mr. Peacock. That's right. In fact what I'm referring to is
a two-page handout of which thousands and thousands of copies
were made and handed out at various places.
You need a panoply of actions to take place. We have used
AM and FM radio, television, newspapers, people have gone door
to door. The pamphlets have been handed out not only at the
relief centers but also, for instance, EPA officials yesterday
took brochures regarding mold to the Small Business
Administration centers where people can apply for assistance
from the Small Business Administration, to make sure it gets in
their hands. We are always open to any suggestions for how to
get this information out.
Senator Inhofe. The media has been cooperative in conveying
these messages?
Mr. Peacock. Yes, that's correct. Once again, I think there
is room for improvement here, and any suggestions people have,
we're all ears.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Capka, the amount of money we are looking at now in
rebuilding infrastructure and roads is unprecedented. As you
look at FHWA, do you think we have the resources, do you have
the resources to give adequate oversight? There is a lot of
discussion about oversight. You heard it in opening statements
up here and that reflects my opinion also. What do you think,
in terms of resources, what are your capabilities?
Mr. Capka. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, there is an
unprecedented amount of resources that will be invested through
the highway recovery. We have anticipated the requirement, the
oversight requirement, and we have controls in place to ensure
that the expenditures of these resources are wise.
Senator Inhofe. You will keep us informed as this might
change.
Mr. Capka. I certainly will, yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Peacock, on September 17, EPA and CDC
issued an environmental health needs and habitability
assessment. Most of the recommendations in that report were for
actions that should be taken.
How many of these recommendations have been implemented?
For example, what is the status of developing short term and
long term criteria for return? Do you feel that the EPA
recommendations are being followed as re-entry plans are being
put into place?
Mr. Peacock. That's right, on September 17, there was a
task force report which was put together by CDC and EPA. It was
not an operational plan, it was a framework for not only the
Federal Government but also the State Government and the local
government to work within in re-inhabiting New Orleans. That's
made clear, I think, in the first paragraph of the report.
Most of those, if not all those recommendations, have been
followed. Some of them have been overcome by events. One issue,
in particular, is providing information regarding site-specific
assessments of the environmental conditions of various parts of
the city.
The Mayor decided that portioning the city into zip codes
was a logical way of doing that, so EPA and CDC, along with the
State, have provided information through the principal Federal
officer, Thad Allen, to the mayor based on zip codes. That's
been updated a number of times, I think the last time that was
done was late in the day on September 28. If you would like a
copy of that assessment, that can certainly be provided to you.
Senator Jeffords. I appreciate that, thank you.
General Strock, what process did the Corps have in place
prior to Katrina for providing notice and warning to Federal,
State and local officials about the status of the levees before
the storm arrived and after the levees failed? Did you provide
notice of levee failure when it occurred? Was your notice
process used effectively, and have you made any changes in the
process as a result of Katrina?
General Strock. Sir, pre-disaster, we have an agreement
with the local levee and drainage boards that actually operate
and maintain the system. It's their responsibility to maintain
its design configuration. We inspect those works annually and
work with the locals to bring those up to standard where we
find challenges.
So we do understand what the condition was prior to
landfall. The local authorities also understood that condition.
I think it was very clear to everyone from the beginning that
we could not guarantee anything beyond a category 3 level of
protection.
After the event, sir, we have conducted extensive project
condition surveys. In fact, that is one of the criteria that
Mayor Nagin is using to determine when to go back in. There are
two hazards that really remain right now. One is the pumping
system of New Orleans, it is severely degraded, especially in
the Orleans East Parish where about 40 percent of the pumping
capacity is available. So they are vulnerable to heavy rain
events that could put as much as 6-feet of water back into the
city. The other is vulnerability to any kind of storm activity.
Even a tropical storm could present a problem.
As we saw in Hurricane Rita, we expected a 3- or 4-foot
storm surge and we got about an 8-foot storm surge. We have now
put 10-foot protection into all the repairs in the vicinity of
New Orleans. So we are working very closely with the local
authorities so they do understand the risks. In terms of
reporting the breach in the levee, like everyone else in New
Orleans, we conducted a mandatory evacuation. We had a very
small staff in our district office. They made attempts to get
out and follow up on a reported levee breach at 17th Street
Canal, but were unable to get to it by land, and eventually
once the weather cleared, were able to assess the situation
from the air. By that time, it was very difficult, probably
impossible to reverse that particular breach.
I don't know for sure, sir, I could find out for the record
exactly when and who we notified of that breach condition. We
later learned there were breaches, of course, in other parts of
the levee system that we had followed up on and worked with the
locals to assess and repair.
Senator Jeffords. I would appreciate that, if you would
follow up on that.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Peacock, how is EPA documenting the
air quality effects of the fuel waivers granted?
Mr. Peacock. As you are aware, a number of fuel waivers
have been granted. Most of them, I believe, have sunsetted,
although a low sulfur diesel waiver was extended, I think, to
October 25 for some States in PADD III.
We are continuing to look at what the air quality effects
may be. As I think has been mentioned before, as long as these
are short term in nature, there should be minimal effect on air
quality. The one concern with the diesel waiver would be over a
period of time you might start having mechanical problems with
the engines but as long as these are kept short term in nature,
that should not be an issue.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask Secretary Woodley and General Strock some
questions about the levee system, which is an obvious focus.
What is the current state of your understanding about the
actual strength of Hurricane Katrina when it reached those
areas where we had problems and breaches?
Mr. Woodley. Sir, it is my understanding the National
Weather Service characterized Katrina as a category 4 when it
hit landfall at Head of Passes, the lower part of the basin,
category 3 when it hit Mississippi. So between a category 3 and
4. The question, is what sort of storm surge you had in Lake
Pontchartrain. Because that storm surge builds as the hurricane
approaches. So the real question is, what was the storm surge
in Lake Pontchartrain. We lost a lot of gauges in this process,
and I don't know that we know the full answer to that. That
will be an important element in our forensics on assessing the
performance of the system.
Senator Vitter. In terms of the overall strength, category
4 at Head of Passes, why don't you explain for the committee
where that is. That is basically the outer tip of the outer
mouth of the Mississippi, right?
General Strock. Yes, sir, it is the mouth of the
Mississippi River where it enters the Gulf of Mexico. It is 116
miles by river from New Orleans. That is one of the challenges.
New Orleans is 116 miles on the riverside from the sea. It is
on the sea, essentially, on Lake Pontchartrain.
So here is Head of Passes, down here, sir. Category 4
there, category 3 here. It is the storm surge in Lake Borgne
and Lake Pontchartrain that really put the stresses on the
levee system.
Senator Vitter. That storm surge was created closer to the
time you are describing it hitting Mississippi than closer to
the time it hit Head of Passes, isn't that correct?
General Strock. Sir, I would have to defer to the weather
folks to answer that properly. Yes, the surge builds as the
hurricane approaches. Hurricane Rita passed 200 miles, over 200
miles from New Orleans, but we have an 8-foot surge in Lake
Pontchartrain just from Hurricane Rita--I'm sorry, in the Inner
Harbor Canal, sir.
Senator Vitter. The design standard for the overall system
is category 3, right?
General Strock. That's correct, sir. I might add, it's
understood that the categorization of hurricanes occurred in
1975 with the Safer-Simpson scale. These projects were actually
designed for what is called a standard probable hurricane, a
set of wind, barometric pressure and storm surge that describes
the kind of storm we might expect in this area, provided to us
by the National Weather Service some 40 years ago.
Senator Vitter. Has it been updated in 40 years in terms of
the sort of storm surge in particular you might expect?
General Strock. To my knowledge, sir, I don't know that the
expectation of frequency has been updated. The standards to
which we designed against have not been changed since the early
part.
Senator Vitter. Is there a specific storm surge standard to
which this was designed to?
General Strock. Sir, I believe this was designed for an
11\1/2\-foot storm surge. Hence, we had levee walls in some
places that were as high as 17 feet to account for a factor of
safety and wave action.
Senator Vitter. What's the best information you have as of
now about whether any levee was in fact overtopped or not?
General Strock. Clearly, sir, we had significant
overtopping of the St. Bernard's levee up along the Mississippi
River, Gulf Outlet. That was clearly overtopped. We have some
debris fields that would indicate levees along Lake
Pontchartrain were overtopped.
I don't know the answer to the question about the levees on
the 17th Street, London Avenue. I believe the Inner Harbor
Canal, I think we're fairly certain that that levee was
overtopped as well. That will be a part of our study, sir, by
looking at debris fields and high water mark and so forth, when
we get into this.
Senator Vitter. For that study, with regard to exactly what
happened, was it overtopped? If so, where? Did it just fail in
some places? What's your time line for that study?
General Strock. Sir, we hope to get that done in a
relatively short period of months to get that kind of initial
forensics done. It is an urgent question, because as we try to
restore to pre-Katrina conditions, we want to ensure that we
are not putting in any kind of a flawed design. So we are very
interested to see whether the system performed as designed or
whether there was some problem with our design that caused
these breaches to occur.
Senator Vitter. Do you have a number of months in mind, in
terms of a schedule? Do you have a number of months in mind?
General Strock. For the study, sir?
Senator Vitter. Correct.
General Strock. No, sir, there are so many variables
involved, I think we will take it sort of one step at a time.
We are mobilizing the very best and brightest to do this. Our
Engineering Research and Development Center from Vicksburg, MS
is involved. We have hydraulic engineers, structural engineers
and those sorts of folks. We have the American Society of Civil
Engineers helping us with peer review and oversight. The
National Science Foundation has been engaged and we are working
with various academics around the country to enhance our
efforts, sir.
Senator Vitter. I'm a little concerned that there is no set
schedule that this is going to be pushed and pushed. The
announced schedule to even get back to pre-Katrina protection
is next June, which is the beginning of the next hurricane
season.
General Strock. That's correct.
Senator Vitter. So that means if it slips at all, it goes
into the next hurricane season.
General Strock. That is correct, sir.
Senator Vitter. That is a huge concern of mine.
General Strock. Yes, sir, and that's one of the reasons we
are really trying to limit the scope of this study not to
evaluate alternatives and that sort of thing, but look at the
performance of the actual system in place with the known
stresses we had, limit that, so that we can make sure that we
are doing things right as they are put back in place.
The urgency is such that we must know that before we can
begin letting contracts for the final repairs. That is in the
next couple of months, we have to get these contracts moving to
make a June 2006 deadline.
Senator Vitter. When you say by June get it up to pre-
Katrina protection, what does that mean exactly? I hope it
means correct any design deficiencies.
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. I hope it means take account of a more
significant storm surge, if in fact a category 3, which is, I
believe, what it was when it hit these levees, completely
overwhelmed the system.
General Strock. Sir, I think we certainly need to
understand if there is more likely frequency of that kind of a
storm surge. The reality is, though, I think we will be working
very hard just to put the system back in the way it was prior
to Katrina. The business of even constructing levees is a
difficult one because of the foundation soils and their
sensitivity and our ability to, it is weather-dependent and all
that sort of thing. I think that at best, we will be able to
put it back to pre-Katrina conditions, subject to any design
corrections we need to make. We will certainly make those.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General Strock.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of the health issues, I wanted to talk to Mr.
Peacock about this. When I look at the CDC report, they list
the top 10 conditions that exist in the people who are exposed
to some of these materials and it looks to me, and I will read
what they are, 6 of the 10 appear to be symptoms from a
possible toxic exposure whether it's obstructed pulmonary
disease, rash, flu-like illness like pneumonia and so on,
diarrhea, other things that are listed here.
Therefore, to me, what's really important is this, that we
be honest about it, because people are, in America, they expect
that from us, and that we fix it. That's what I'm about, fixing
it.
I want to know how we fix these problems. Instead of
arguing whether what's it called, is it a toxin, is it an
infectious element, it doesn't matter to me. Call it anything
you want. People have these exposures, six people died. We want
to make sure people are safe, kids are safe, everyone. We all
agree with that. We might disagree with what's causing it. That
should be based on science.
As the Ranking Member of the Superfund Subcommittee here, I
have great concern about these Superfund sites. It's my
responsibility to the people in the affected areas, as well as
to my own people who care a lot about this. California was the
biggest private donation State in the Union, I am proud to say
to my colleague, how much the people care. So I am stepping up
to the plate.
Here's the thing. When I spoke to Mr. Johnson about this
matter, and it's documented, he said, ``all the Superfund sites
would be tested.'' When pressed, he said, ``he could not give
me a date''. I'm a little alarmed at your testimony, because
you said they will be tested as needed. What does that mean?
Why aren't we testing these Superfund sites yesterday, so we
can clean them up and make sure that the people are safe?
Mr. Peacock. First of all, because Rita also came through
and affected some of these sites, let me put Katrina and Rita
together.
Senator Boxer. Well, I just want you to answer my question.
I don't need to go back.
Mr. Peacock. There are 54 sites in the Katrina-Rita area.
Senator Boxer. Will you be testing all of them?
Mr. Peacock. No, we won't. There have been initial
assessments at all but two of these sites. One is still
flooded, so we haven't been able to get access to it. The
other, which I believe is in Texas, we have not been able to
get access to.
Senator Boxer. So two sites you haven't got access to, and
you do not plan to test the Superfund sites, all of them?
Mr. Peacock. There are 15 sites we have done the initial
assessment of, which is a visual inspection, including, for
instance, opening up groundwater piping. We will not be doing
soil samples at 15 sites in Texas. The experts, the engineers
and the scientists, both the State and EPA who go out to these
sites, and particularly the State people know these sites well,
may make an initial determination that soil samples are not
necessary on those 15 sites. In Texas they have already made
such a determination. It's simply because they are in an area
that was not hit as hard by the storm as expected. They may be
in a county that was declared a disaster, but their expert
opinion is the site does not require----
Senator Boxer. How many Superfund sites will you be testing
thoroughly in the region?
Mr. Peacock. Of the 54, we will not be testing 15, but we
will be testing all of the remaining sites.
Senator Boxer. I'm confused. Are you testing the Superfund
sites that were impacted by the hurricanes and when will that
testing be completed?
Mr. Peacock. There are 54 sites that were in the area of
Katrina and Rita. All----
Senator Boxer. You have said that now three times.
Mr. Peacock. Yes. All have been--I am trying to organize
this so there is no misunderstanding.
Senator Boxer. I get it. I understand that.
Mr. Peacock. So you have the 54. All of the sites have been
visited for an initial assessment.
Senator Boxer. I didn't ask about initial assessment. How
many Superfund sites----
Mr. Peacock. Thirty-nine of the----
Senator Boxer. Excuse me, let me ask it again. How many
Superfund sites in the area that was affected by Hurricane
Katrina and/or Rita will be thoroughly tested by the EPA and
when?
Mr. Peacock. Thirty-nine of the fifty-four sites will have
soil samples taken.
Senator Boxer. OK, and when will that be?
Mr. Peacock. Twenty-one of those sites have already had
soil samples taken. Eighteen, that's the remaining eighteen of
the sites, will have soil samples taken and I will have to get
back to you with the----
Senator Boxer. OK, of the sites that you've already tested,
I believe you said 39?
Mr. Peacock. Thirty-nine of the sites will have soil
samples taken.
Senator Boxer. Will have. When will that be?
Mr. Peacock. Twenty-one of the thirty-nine have already had
soil samples taken. In some cases that includes water samples,
like at the Agriculture Street site.
I believe of the remaining 18, we are continuing to take
soil samples. I will look to see when we will have soil samples
of all of those. But again--I will check.
Senator Boxer. On the 21 sites that you have completed
testing on, what do they show?
Mr. Peacock. So far, we have shown no rupture of liners or
caps.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Peacock. We have been to the Ag Street site at least
four times now, I think it's more than that. We're not sure,
but we haven't seen any rupture thus far or any release.
Senator Boxer. You're not sure of----
Mr. Peacock. As we go back to these sites, we are going to
continue to monitor whether or not there has been a release.
Because you can go back and you can do a soil sample, but as
the groundwater goes down, you're not sure what may happen to
what's inside the contents of the site. So we're going to stay
on top of it.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I'm concluded.
Senator Inhofe. We're going to have another round.
Senator Boxer. Well, I'm concluded. I just want to finish
my thoughts, so I understand.
So just so I understand, the 21 sites you've concluded, but
you're continuing to monitor and the 18 sites you don't know
when they'll be done.
Mr. Peacock. That's correct. I'll get back to you with a
date on that.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. If you would rather take another 5
minutes----
Senator Boxer. That would be wonderful, can you spare
another five?
Senator Lautenberg. It's a little problem for me.
Senator Boxer. I'll wait.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peacock, I wanted to ask you a question. The handout
that you gave, you talked about the status of municipal
wastewater systems. The number of those that are operating is
quite high. I have to ask you, now, are they operating with
full secondary treatment?
Mr. Peacock. No. If it shows as operating on there, it
means that you are getting----
Senator Lautenberg. That the power is on and the----
Mr. Peacock. That's correct, and you're getting some
treatment, but it may not be all the way through secondary
treatment.
Senator Lautenberg. So do we know what the consequence of
that is as a result of an evaluation of the quality of the
drinking water? Because that's the kind of water that feeds
into the river and into the other sources.
Mr. Peacock. Right. The other thing I want to point out,
Senator, is even if it's operating and looks great, it may have
bandages and rubber bands and baling wire holding it together
right now. So we, the Corps, EPA, the State, and, I believe,
others, have assessment teams that are going through each of
those plants to determine what specific problems they may have.
Senator Lautenberg. So there is not an assurance that we
can take from that that people who have drinking water being
supplied from the system are getting water that's not
contaminated?
Mr. Peacock. Yes, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking
about wastewater. The drinking water plants----
Senator Lautenberg. OK, but then that wastewater treatment
then furnishes supplies the water through which further----
Mr. Peacock. I see what you're saying. Yes, the drinking
water plants, in this case, the data we show, if it's
operating, it is meeting all the drinking water standards.
What's going into the plant, I don't know, but certainly what's
coming out of the plant is potable and can be consumed without,
for instance, being boiled.
Senator Lautenberg. But the red area is that which is
operating with boiled water?
Mr. Peacock. Water advisory, that's correct.
Senator Lautenberg. So that advisory is there because the
water there is still of some concern?
Mr. Peacock. That's correct. That's reason for concern.
Senator Lautenberg. It's over 700,000 people?
Mr. Peacock. That's correct. That includes a large portion
of New Orleans.
Senator Lautenberg. General Strock, the way we get
information here sometimes has to go outside of conventional
channels. We hold hearings and we try to stay on top of
oversight responsibilities. But every now and then, we have
someone who has the courage to come out and talk about problems
as they see them, and you know where I'm going with this,
General, and that has to do with Ms. Greenhouse.
I think that it was your instruction that she be demoted,
but there was an order by the Acting Secretary of the Army that
asked for suspension of any action on her until the Inspector
General had finished his inspection. Is that the case?
General Strock. That is the case, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. OK, then why did you move ahead with
the demotion?
General Strock. Sir, the Secretary of the Army evaluated
the case and rescinded that order and gave me the authority and
instructed me to proceed with that process.
Senator Lautenberg. You're familiar with her history of
service?
General Strock. Yes, sir, I am.
Senator Lautenberg. That she'd been promoted a number of
times for excellent service?
General Strock. Yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. Did she suddenly turn less efficient,
less qualified, when the inquiry came about with our
expenditures in Iraq and so forth?
General Strock. Sir, I have to be very careful not to get
into personnel matters on this thing. There was, and my
association with the period of time you're talking about, from
approximately 2003 when we went in to support the global war on
terror, sir, I think the, I know that the action taken was
unrelated to any allegations of wrongdoing or any concerns that
have been expressed by our Principal Assistant for Contracting.
It was unrelated to any allegations made in those confines.
Senator Lautenberg. So would you say she was performing
satisfactorily in those areas?
General Strock. Sir, again, I have to be very careful about
where I get in terms of personal information on an employee of
the Government. She is still an employee of the Government. I
would rather not answer that question unless I have to.
Senator Lautenberg. I would imagine, I would think so,
because it's hard, if you look at the profile, the history, to
see that suddenly this loyal and trusted staff person suddenly
turned out to be someone that we had to punish. I mean, because
there is a punishment, obviously.
General Strock. Sir, if I could just respond in a more
direct way here, I think I owe this to you. I won't talk about
the individual, but I can talk about the process. The process
is that if a member of the Senior Executive Service gets a less
than satisfactory performance evaluation in any 2 of a 3-year
period by statute that individual must be removed from the
position. That is the condition, that's the process and how it
works.
Senator Inhofe. Time has expired, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Carper.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, just a second more for
clarification, please.
Senator Inhofe. I'm not going to let you do that. I think
it's inappropriate to talk about personnel issues in an opening
hearing like this, and I don't think it's appropriate.
Senator Lautenberg. Chairman, it's a source of information.
The fact is that if we approve recrimination to be visited upon
someone who wants to tell us what they know, I think that
closes down sources and intimidates people, which is exactly
what took place.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Good morning, gentlemen. Good to see you.
Secretary Woodley, especially good to see you. I will always
remember the time you came to Delaware, stood with us on those
beaches.
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. More pleasant times than what we've been
through of late.
I apologize for just arriving. We just wrapped up a hearing
with David Paulson, who is the acting FEMA Administrator, who
was in to testify before our Committee on Homeland Security. So
I've missed your statements.
I think what I'd really like to ask each of you, just to
help me the most, is, and I'll just start with you, Mr.
Peacock, takeaway, give me a good takeaway from this hearing
that you would really want me to take to heart and to remember.
Then I'll come back and ask some more specific questions.
Mr. Peacock. I will make it specific to EPA. I don't know
how much you know about track, but there are sprints and there
is long distance. This is a case for----
Senator Carper. I'm a long distance runner. Never that good
in a sprint.
Mr. Peacock. Well, I was a 440 yard runner, but now 400
meters, I guess. We've been through a sprint and now we're
starting a marathon. We had an initial response where we have
collected information on flood waters and sediment,
particularly in New Orleans and looking at, for instance,
Superfund sites in a broader context. But now we're getting
down to the point where, particularly in the city of New
Orleans, we are going to have to do some careful environmental
monitoring. In Lake Pontchartrain, Mississippi River and the
Gulf, we are going to have to do some environmental monitoring
to make sure the long term effects of what has happened are
known and can be responded to as necessary.
We are now in this conversion, I think, from sprint to
marathon.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
Secretary Woodley.
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I would like you to remember that the
work of protecting this community and any other community in
America against the scourge of flood is ongoing work. A never-
ending task, a monumental task. That's the task that we were
engaged in at Rehoboth, protecting that community against a
very similar threat, in many ways. We protected it in a
different way because of the difference in the hydrology, the
difference in the threat. We protect St. Louis, MO in a
different way, Kansas City, MO in a different way, Grand Forks,
ND, in a different way.
But it is something that the Nation has to recommit itself
to at this time and in response to this crisis, to this
tragedy.
Senator Carper. Thank you. General Stock, how are you?
General Strock. Fine, sir.
Senator Carper. A good takeaway for us, please.
General Strock. Sir, I believe that the National Response
Plan that has evolved from the Federal Response Plan is a good,
solid plan. It's proven itself as late as the hurricanes of
last year in Florida. I have full confidence that we can, not
only did we respond in an adequate way to this, but that we
will in the future.
Senator Carper. OK. Please, sir.
Mr. Capka. Yes, Senator. Two points. In terms of the
recovery from a Federal Highway perspective, the first is the
pre-existing knowledge that our in-State staff had of the State
and the infrastructure, plus the relationships that had been
established over time, were essential to the quick response
that we had. Second, being able to apply the lessons learned
that we had captured in previous hurricane seasons, most
notably Hurricane Ivan in Florida, but also the recovery of the
I-40 bridge in Oklahoma, were key in assisting Mississippi and
Louisiana to shape their strategies for recovery.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
Mr. Woodley, when we were together at Rehoboth Beach, and
in our State, we worry probably as much about nor'easters as we
do about hurricanes. They come in and they tend to have winds
almost as strong as hurricanes. They destroy our beaches,
destroy the dunes, waters roll into the communities, destroy
homes, businesses and that sort of thing.
We've worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to replenish
the beach, to pour in a lot of sand off the coast, and
replenished the beaches to create dunes, and to grow grass on
those dunes in an effort to try to make sure that when the next
storm hits we will be ready to fight it. We have a much
different approach down in Louisiana, in New Orleans.
Here's my question. I've earlier thought of the levees that
are around New Orleans, in that part of their State, that the
levees were the key to protecting New Orleans. I think of them
as the first line of defense. The more I learn about it and I
learn about the wetlands that have been eroded and gone away
and how they might be restored, I'm not so sure that the levees
are the first line of defense.
Are they the first line or really maybe the second or third
line? This could be for you or others as well.
Mr. Woodley. Protection of New Orleans from storm surge due
to hurricanes is very complex. This event itself, one of the
things I learned when I was there is it was itself a very
complex event. Some of the generalizations that have been heard
and been reported are true only as to a portion of the area.
A hurricane like Katrina in which the path of the hurricane
came up through Plaquemines Parish and then made a second
landfall in southern Mississippi presents an entirely different
challenge that one that would come up through either Morgan
City or Houma, across the wetlands that we are losing. So there
is no single answer, and both have to be addressed.
The question of the surge that comes across from the Gulf
through Lake Borgne into Lake Pontchartrain and strikes the
city from the north is obviously dangerous, and that's what
happened. The surge that might come across these wetlands, if
they are sufficiently degraded, that they no longer protect
against that kind of surge, from the south and west, must also
be addressed.
Senator Inhofe. Let me interrupt just a minute. Why don't
you just go ahead and take your second round at the same time,
so you won't lose your train of thought? Would you like to do
that?
Senator Carper. That would be great, thanks very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Let me be more specific in my question. I'm trying to
understand the role of the levees around New Orleans. Were they
a primary defense or a secondary defense as it turns out?
Mr. Woodley. With respect to the surge, I should defer to
the engineers.
Senator Carper. Feel free. Jump in.
Mr. Woodley. My understanding is they were the primary
defense with respect to the surge that was experienced, they
were the primary defense.
Senator Carper. OK. Others, General Strock?
General Strock. That's correct, the Secretary got it right.
That's correct for the levees on the Lake Pontchartrain
hurricane protection side. They are the first line of defense.
Senator Carper. Talk about the other lines of defense, if
you will.
General Strock. Well, sir, there's the natural line, as the
Secretary indicated, for a storm that tracks west of New
Orleans, you have a different dynamic on that storm. The loss,
the coastal erosion that we're experiencing down there, look at
it graphically there, this storm tracked up through here, sir.
I don't believe that the loss of the wetlands down here would
have influenced the performance of the levee system or the
storm in this case.
But a storm that tracks this way, because the hurricane
winds go in a counter-clockwise way, causes the storm surge out
of the Gulf straight into those wetlands, and they act as a
buffer to dissipate the energy of the storm. They would serve
as a portion of the protection of New Orleans from that side.
But you still need a series of levees in here to protect New
Orleans and the lower parishes there.
Senator Carper. Do I understand that some of the levees
held, some didn't, the earthen levees did a better job of
holding than maybe the concrete levees? Just take a moment and
share that with us.
General Strock. Sir, that's hard to really talk about. Each
situation is a little bit different based on the nature of the
stresses these levees underwent.
As you can see here, the large levee on the north side of
Lake Ponchartrain had significant overtopping. So that's how
the water got into that particular cell there. In the Inner
Harbor here, we had failures of flood walls. I should say
breaches of flood walls. I draw that distinction because a
failure is when something doesn't perform as designed and we
don't know that yet. We know we had breaches. We don't know the
mechanisms of those breaches there. Then in the canals, we also
had, which are different situations, we had some breaches.
So each one is a little different situation we will have to
analyze. Clearly there was overtopping. There was especially
overtopping down in Plaquemines Parish where we got a
significant storm surge out of Breton Sound here, that
overtopped these levees down in Plaquemines.
Senator Carper. Many of the Corps' calculations, as I
understand it, regarding how to build levees to protect New
Orleans from a category 3 hurricane were done, I think in the
1960's, is that correct?
General Strock. Sir, the initial plans were developed in
the 1960's. These actual projects were designed and built in
the 1970's onward and are still under construction.
Senator Carper. Since then, a fair amount of additional
wetlands have been lost?
General Strock. Yes, sir, certainly since the 1960's, there
has been a loss of wetlands, as was stated before, about a
football field every 38 minutes. But again, that's the south
and west of the city.
Senator Carper. I think there was a report done, I want to
say by the Times Picayune a couple of years ago, and their
report called Washington Away, which I think you may have just
alluded, showed that the risk might now be twice as large as
the Corps estimated several decades ago. Let me just ask what
you might have done, if anything, to update your assumptions in
that regard. Has there been some attempt to review or update
similar assumptions regarding the design of other flood control
systems around the country?
General Strock. Sir, I don't know whether we can draw any
conclusions from this relative to other flood control systems
around the country. Specifically, where southern Louisiana is
concerned, there is the Louisiana Coastal Area project, which
includes not only environmental restoration but also additional
flood protection. There are a number of flood protection
projects that are proposed and underway, New Orleans to Venice,
Morganza to the Gulf and some others down in that area, that
are informed on the loss of coastal wetlands.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Boxer, in your absence, when you had to step out,
Senator Carper elected to take his two consecutive times, so we
will start our second round of questioning now. Let me ask you,
Mr. Capka, when we passed SAFTEA, we had a provision in there
for emergency relief and reconstruction, it was a limit of $100
million. Obviously that's not going to do it. The bill
specifically states that anything over $100 million will not be
taken from the Highway Trust Fund, but will come out of the
general fund.
Do you have anything you want to share with us as to how
the Administration is preparing to pay for your part of this in
Highways?
Mr. Capka. Well, sir, the source of funding for the
emergency response requirement that we're going to have has
really not been determined. I do know that I can say that the
Administration looks forward to working with Congress in
sorting that out.
Senator Inhofe. I bring that up, I think Senator Bond made
it very clear that there is an issue here when we're dealing
with the Highway Trust Fund. I even call it sometimes a moral
issue, we talked about that. So it's going to be a problem.
Senator Thune had to leave, and in his opening statement,
all of you might recall, he was talking about S. 1761, the Gulf
Coast Recovery Act. I am a co-sponsor, Senator Vitter is, and
some of the others are. I would like to ask if you have any
comments to make regarding that legislation, any one of you.
Mr. Peacock. As you know, Senator, it deals with contractor
liability, particularly with the cleanup of debris. This is an
issue the EPA has run into in the past in Superfund and RCRA
context. As we have and continue to look at whether or not
there is any legislative authority that may help us and remove
barriers in responding to this tragedy, it is one of the bills
we're looking at. We will certainly let you know if it's
something that we think should be pursued.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, we would like to know that. We would
like to have input from all of those dealing with any part of
this disaster concerning the plethora of legislation that's
been introduced. You are on the ground and we need to have your
opinion on it. I will forego the remainder of my time, since we
are running close, and recognize Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Peacock, I'd like to talk about
waivers. I would like to submit for the record a 13-page list
from FEMA's web site of Government waivers and discretions that
have been authorized post-Katrina. Can you describe why you
believe that the EPA may need additional authority to waive
environmental statutes to recover from this disaster, when you
have not needed additional authority to recover from any of the
other over 100,000 disasters that have occurred since the
Stafford Act passed in 1974, including Hurricane Andrew,
September 11 and the trio of hurricanes that hit Florida last
year?
Mr. Peacock. Thank you, Senator, that actually helps clear
up what may be a misunderstanding that Senator Lautenberg
mentioned before. The Administration has not proposed any
additional authority, legislative authority or otherwise, up to
this point, regarding waivers of environmental statutes. Once
again, it is something we have been considering since the
beginning of this, both Hurricane Katrina and then Hurricane
Rita.
We have not proposed anything to the Congress regarding
waivers or discretion regarding environmental statutes. That
doesn't mean we won't continue to look at whether or not there
are any barriers that need to be overcome. But we have not
proposed anything along those lines.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Capka, a question on evacuation
routes. Mr. Capka, after Hurricane Ivan in 2004, and more
recently Hurricane Katrina, it is clear that much more work
remains to improve the evacuation procedures in the Gulf
region. What, if anything, is the Federal Highway
Administration doing to aid in the facilitation and
coordination of interstate evacuation plans?
Mr. Capka. Thank you, Senator. There has been a lot of work
done, particularly since Hurricane Floyd a number of years ago,
with respect to evacuations. Federal Highways, in particular,
is a leading member of the Evacuation Liaison Team that
operates within the FEMA structure.
This team has been put together primarily as an information
facilitating group that not only passes on information
regarding weather and impacts that might stimulate an
evacuation, but also communicates between States so that
evacuations, as an example, the contra-flow in Louisiana was
coordinated with Mississippi, to ensure that from a regional
perspective those evacuations would work.
There is certainly a lot more that needs to be done in
terms of evacuation, and certainly we, as well as a number of
other agencies, have learned from the two events, Rita and
Katrina. I would also say that the decisions to evacuate are
local decisions. Each State is a little bit different, whether
it's the Governor or whether it's at a more local level that
evacuations are called.
So it is an interagency effort, a number of different
levels of government and decisionmaking would need to be pulled
into that process.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Peacock, people returning to the New
Orleans area will be facing health risks within their own homes
and mold and materials that were left there when the flood
water receded. What is EPA doing to determine whether it is
safe for people to re-occupy their houses?
Mr. Peacock. That's a good question, it goes to Senator
Boxer's point before regarding some fact that we have some
people that may be showing some response to environmental
conditions or other conditions. Once again, EPA's role, along
with CDC, and other Federal entities is to provide assessments
and information regarding conditions in the city. We have been
doing this by zip code area to the principal Federal officer,
Thad Allen, as well as the Governor and State officials, and
then also the city.
It is always important to keep in mind these are not just
conditions regarding environment as well as health, but, for
instance, the conditions of the levees in the city, the
conditions of hospitals in the city, because if people start
having accidents, such as traffic accidents, they will need to
be taken care of. So there are a number of conditions which the
Federal Government broadly has been advising the city on.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to thank Senator Carper for raising that issue
of the wetlands, and again, Lieutenant General Strock for his
comments. As we look for efficient ways to prevent these
hurricanes, we know that wetlands, just God's way of helping us
out. Unfortunately, we didn't pay much attention to that in
this country, we've lost so much of our wetlands in my home
State and across the country. So I think that's something this
committee needs to focus on.
Mr. Peacock, thank you for being patient with my questions.
I'm just a bit confused still on the Superfund testing and I
want to make sure I understand it. In your testimony, indeed,
you said, sampling has been conducted at 9 sites in Louisiana
and 12 sites in Texas, and the data is currently being
evaluated. Is that on those sites the data is currently being
evaluated? Or has the data already been evaluated?
Mr. Peacock. Well, the data, for instance, I know that for
the data on the soil samples on the Ag Street site, we have
preliminary results back. So to some extent, particularly the
soil samples on the Ag Street site, we do have results back. I
believe the other soil samples are still being looked at.
Senator Boxer. OK. So we are not yet done in terms of
evaluating these 21 sites, plus we have another 18 sites.
Mr. Peacock. That's exactly right.
Senator Boxer. OK. Would you be willing to send to this
committee the results of your work on a timely basis?
Mr. Peacock. From day one, our policy is to----
Senator Boxer. Yes is good enough.
Mr. Peacock. Yes. Quality assured data should be released
to the public, of course, as well as to you.
Senator Boxer. Yes is good enough. Because we need to know
this information.
Mr. Peacock. Yes.
Senator Boxer. I want to talk to you about something I
raised in my opening remarks that deal with the information to
the public. It is a little disturbing to me again, you would
agree that benzene is a known carcinogen, would you not?
Mr. Peacock. I know benzene is not something you
necessarily want to be around at high doses for any period of
time.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, just so you know, the Agency for
Toxic Substances says it can cause leukemia, that's cancer, and
anemia, drowsiness, dizziness, unconsciousness, bone marrow
effects, very dangerous. What you're doing on your site is,
you're showing what the dangerous amount of exposure is for a
24-hour period. Yet people are going back there for longer. The
only people who are there for 24 hours are members of the
Senate, except from the Senators from Louisiana, Mississippi
and the others, the President, the Vice President and the VIPs.
But your workers who are there, your workers who are there,
Lieutenant General Strock's and the Honorable John Paul
Woodley's folks are there, and probably your folks are there.
They are there for more than 24 hours.
So my concern is that the numbers you're showing are in
violation, or shall we say, of the standard, because they're at
seven and the 2-week exposure is four for benzene. So I'm
concerned and I am going to ask you, would you revise this or
do another table to say, on the 2-week exposure level, this is
what is safe, and show what the exposure level is? Because it
is exceeding on benzene the 2 week exposure.
Mr. Peacock. Right. Eric Olson brought this to my attention
a few days ago. As you pointed out, we have 1,200 EPA
contractors and EPA personnel in the field. It doesn't make
sense if you have a level from an air monitoring bus that says
you're over the 2-week level, isn't that of concern? So we went
back to the scientists at CDC and EPA. They are the folks that
determine the appropriate standard.
The answer is, there are two things going on----
Senator Boxer. There's already a standard. It's not a
question of what is the appropriate standard.
Mr. Peacock. There are two standards----
Senator Boxer. The question is, why aren't you listing the
2-week exposure level that is safe, rather than the 24-hour
exposure, which only protects us when we go down there for a
photo op or a press conference? We think we're experts too.
Mr. Peacock. There are two reasons for that. One is, the
data is from the TAGA bus, that's the bus you saw earlier,
which takes snapshots, it is not a continuous monitor.
The second is, the levels of benzene are transient. What
happens is the TAGA bus goes back when it sees an elevated
level, takes another snapshot, and what you essentially get are
blips. There is not a consistent level of benzene in the air.
Senator Boxer. Are you telling me that you cannot get for
us the 2-week exposure? Because my understanding from your
people that I've talked to is that it is possible.
Mr. Peacock. No. What I'm telling you is, when this was
brought to my attention, I went back to the scientists and
said, ``Why did you choose the 24-hour level to use as the
measure of risk, acceptable risk, or as the measure of risk
against the 2-week standard?'' They believe the 24-hour
standard is more appropriate. That's on a scientific basis.
Senator Boxer. Well, you haven't sampled for the 2 weeks.
I'm asking you, will you sample for the 2 weeks?
Mr. Peacock. Yes, I understand what you're asking now.
Senator Boxer. Will you change it on the Web site, so
people know if they are there for 2 weeks, perhaps there is too
much benzene?
Mr. Peacock. Yes, we are going to put continuous monitors
up throughout the city.
Senator Boxer. So you will make the change on your Web site
when you have the information, or you will add that to your Web
site?
Mr. Peacock. We already have some continuous monitors up.
That data will be put on the Web site, and the additional
monitoring data will also be put on the Web site.
Senator Boxer. For the 2-week level. I would appreciate it
if you would let this committee know when you are about to do
that. Because I think, look, I want to see this area rebuild,
and I am ready to do whatever it takes to do it, support my
colleagues from the region. We have to make sure people are
safe.
So we need to solve the problem, which leads me to my last
question, and that deals with this sludge that's left behind. I
guess you would agree there's sludge left behind, is that
correct?
Mr. Peacock. It's sediments, there's actually a----
Senator Boxer. Well, sediments, that's fine, we can call it
sediments. I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record
a statement by the Director of the Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice at this point.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
[The referenced document not available at time of print.]
Senator Boxer. She points out what's in all this call it
sediments instead of sludge, I don't care what you call it.
Mr. Peacock. It's a term of art.
Senator Boxer. It's a term of art, I'll say sediments.
Massive amounts of toxics were used and stored along the Gulf
Coast before the storm. Literally thousands of sites in the
storm's path used or stored hazardous chemical, from the local
dry cleaner and auto repair shops to Superfund sites and oil
refineries. She goes on and lists ultra-hazardous hydrochloric
acid and all of the issues that are there.
Now, my concern is, as these sediments, the sludge that
contains the sediment, dries out, there are reports that there
are street cleaners in the street, and these substances are
going into the air. My question to you is, how can we clean
this up? What do you need to clean this up quickly, so that we
don't have these substances flying into the air and people
ingesting them and getting sick?
Mr. Peacock. That's a great question. First of all, this is
one of the reasons for getting those monitors in place as
quickly as possible, is to see what is actually happening in
the air.
We are working with the Corps of Engineers and the city and
the State to try and limit how much, for instance, that debris
gets moved and gets airborne. That may mean trying to dispose
of it in a nearby area or using particular kinds of trucks to
move it.
Senator Inhofe. OK, we are going to have to----
Senator Boxer. Could I ask the General just to answer that
question?
Senator Inhofe. Short answer, General.
Senator Boxer. Short answer, can you solve this problem, do
you need more resources from us to solve this problem?
General Strock. We really defer to the EPA for the
specifics of how, the technologies associated with that. We are
very concerned about this for our workers' own exposure. In
fact, in New Orleans, and dealing with these sediments we
require our workers to wear N95 respirators, to wear
waterproof, water-resistant gloves, disposal suits and that
sort of thing when they are working around these areas where
they have a level of hazard.
Senator Boxer. Well, Mr. Chairman, they're protecting
themselves. We have to worry about these little kids coming
back in and we need to get rid of this sludge. So can we work
together on that, Mr. Peacock?
Mr. Peacock. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. Since the Corps says they're waiting for
direction from you.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Let me thank our witnesses for
the time that they spent today. I would observe along the lines
of that last question, Mr. Peacock, that the early reports, as
I recall, indicated that the sediment was not as contaminated
as they had thought before.
Mr. Peacock. There were two primary problems found,
bacteria in the sediment, which as it dries, of course, the
bacteria issue will diminish. The second is in particular areas
high levels of fuel oil. There were elevated levels of some
metals found, but they were below levels of concern for acute
exposure.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you very much, and we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator from the
State of Delaware
I am pleased that the Committee has called this hearing. The Corps
of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway
Administration are at the heart of the recovery effort along the Gulf
Coast. Guidance from these agencies will be essential to us in Congress
as to how best to rebuild.
Of particular interest to me is the New Orleans levee system.
Clearly, it was not strong enough to handle a major hurricane. Many of
us want to know why.
Was it caused by the way the Corps prioritizes projects or conducts
their cost-benefit analysis? Was it the way the Administration or
Congress funded the Corps over the past couple of decades? And in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina, how can we protect this valuable port,
energy producer and cultural asset from increasingly busy and fierce
hurricane seasons?
There are further concerns that the levees did not even perform as
they were designed to. If that is the case, we are going to need to
figure out how that occurred. But even more, we will need to review
flood control projects across the Nation to ensure we have the
protection we expect.
As we consider ways to improve the flood control system in New
Orleans, we need to make sure that any such project will work with
efforts to restore Louisiana's wetlands. The Corps has historically
considered such projects as environmental restoration projects, not
flood control. But wetlands are essential to reducing storm surge and
soaking up floodwater, reducing the vulnerability of communities in
places like southern Louisiana.
Separating wetlands restoration and levee projects could result in
billions being spent on a new levee system that would merely subside
and stand increasingly vulnerable to storm surges from the Gulf, due to
continued coastal erosion. Thankfully, the Corps has been open to
making changes in the way priorities are set and needs identified, and
I look forward to working with you all as the recovery effort moves
forward.
It is also good that we have someone here from the Environmental
Protection Agency, as there continues to be confusion as to whether the
EPA has the waiver authority it needs to help the Gulf Coast recover.
We have heard from Administrator Johnson that the EPA has all the
authority it needs. Further, the EPA's role in the recovery effort is
to ensure that the affected areas are cleaned up and safe for people to
come back to their homes. That being the case, it is worrisome that
some are talking about waiving more environmental standards. Yet,
efforts continue in the Senate to do just this. I certainly hope the
EPA can clear up this issue today.
Finally, the Department of Transportation generally has a huge task
ahead of it, certainly in terms of fixing damaged transportation
infrastructure. But also in providing displaced workers with access to
their jobs.
Some businesses in New Orleans and the surrounding area are
reopening, while their employees are still unable to return to their
homes (200,000 in Baton Rouge alone). Further, some businesses have
temporarily located in Baton Rouge, but many of their employees have
returned to their homes in Algiers and Uptown.
Ensuring that people have access to their jobs is essential in
speeding the recovery in this area. Further, providing this mobility in
spite of an estimated 200,000 lost personal automobiles will require
creativity. But recent news of the consideration of intercity buses and
commuter rail shows that such creativity is being employed, and I look
forward to hearing more about this.
__________
Statement of Hon. Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. Many
members of this Committee have personally surveyed the destruction
caused by Hurricane Katrina. Obviously, no one is more aware of this
than Senator Vitter, and I commend him for the leadership he has shown
over the past month.
A week after the hurricane hit, I traveled to Houston with former
Presidents Bush and Clinton to meet with some of the evacuees. Despite
the terrible tragedy that had befallen these brave men, women, and
children, many were committed to returning to the Gulf Coast. The U.S.
Government should ensure that these people are able to do that.
The communities affected by Katrina will need to recreate the very
fabric of their communities. While the emotional wounds may always be
near the surface, stitch by stitch citizens will repair and rebuild
their homes, their places of worship, their schools, and their places
of business. They will, however, have to rely on their government to
oversee the re-creation of the critical infrastructures needed to
underpin their rebuilding efforts.
Without roads and bridges, there is no commerce. Without clean
drinking water and sewage treatment, public health is compromised. And
without the Army Corps' efforts, there are no protections against
future storm surges.
I am interested in hearing how the three agencies testifying before
the Committee plan to aid in the recovery efforts. I am also interested
in what steps they will take to ensure that the reconstruction of the
Gulf Coast is accomplished with transparency and accountability.
Senator Coburn and I have introduced a bill to create a chief
financial officer to oversee the reconstruction efforts. I am heartened
that the bill has passed the Homeland Security Committee and is
awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. But time is of the essence. Each
day, Federal agencies are making multi-million dollar contracting and
procurement decisions with relatively little oversight. If we truly
want to help the people of the Gulf Coast, we need to ensure that
Federal dollars are being well spent and are being used to help people
and communities most in need.
The CFO bill is needed. So too are the Water Resources Development
Act and the Water Infrastructure Financing Act. These two bills are
needed to rebuild these communities and to enable other communities to
secure their infrastructure against future disasters.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Hon. Marcus Peacock, Deputy Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is
Marcus Peacock and I serve as the Deputy Administrator at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On September 6th, the
Administrator formally appointed me to lead the coordination of the
Agency's response activities for Hurricane Katrina and I appreciate the
opportunity to provide you today with an update on EPA's response.
Our hearts go out to the people of the Gulf region, and we share
with you an urgent sense of duty to help restore the communities
affected by Hurricane Katrina and most recently by Hurricane Rita. Over
the past month, natural disasters have left their mark on the Gulf
region; the loss of life and destruction is staggering. The magnitude
of Hurricane Katrina will require sustained, long-term coordination
across all Federal agencies and with the affected State and local
governments. My testimony today will provide you with an overview of
EPA's role and activities in the affected Gulf region, our impressive
coordination with Federal, State and local partners and a snapshot of
our primary environmental concerns.
early response for hurricane katrina
First, I want to briefly touch on EPA's early response to Hurricane
Katrina. Beginning on August 25th, EPA pre-deployed personnel to the
FEMA National Response Coordination Center and sent On-Scene
Coordinators to the Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi
Emergency Operations Centers before Hurricane Katrina made landfall.
The On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) is the Federal official responsible for
monitoring or directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous
substance releases reported to the Federal Government. We sent
additional personnel to the affected areas as soon as travel into the
region was possible. In anticipation of Hurricane Rita, EPA also
deployed response experts to the multi-agency Regional Response
Coordination Center in Austin, TX on September 20th. The number of EPA
staff and contractors currently assisting with recovery efforts is more
than 1,100 in the affected Gulf region.
When EPA personnel arrived in New Orleans, it was clear that saving
lives was the first priority, and EPA joined other Federal, State, and
local responders in urgent rescue needs, putting over sixty EPA
watercraft otherwise used for environmental monitoring to work as
search and rescue vessels. Our field staff and contractors--mostly
environmental experts equipped to address oil and hazardous substances
releases--joined the fire fighters, police, and other first responders
and rescued nearly 800 people in Louisiana.
epa role in federal response
After helping with urgent rescue needs, EPA turned its attention to
its primary responsibilities under FEMA's National Response Plan. EPA
is the lead Federal agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10,
which addresses oil and hazardous materials, and works with other
agencies to provide support for a number of other Emergency Support
Functions, including ESF #3, which addresses Public Works and
Engineering. Specifically, our responsibilities include preventing,
minimizing, or mitigating threats to public health, welfare, or the
environment caused by the actual or potential releases of hazardous
materials; testing the quality of flood waters, sediments, and air; and
assisting with the restoration of the drinking and waste water
infrastructure. Also under ESF #3, the Agency anticipates a growing
role working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to address
final disposition of the large volumes of debris from homes, buildings
and other structures damaged by Hurricane Katrina. EPA, in coordination
with the States, is providing information to both workers and the
public about test results, as well as assisting communities with debris
disposal and hazardous waste issues.
Debris Management and Disposal
The volume of debris left behind by Hurricane Katrina is huge. EPA
is working closely with other Federal agencies (particularly the US
Army Corps of Engineers), State agencies, and local governments to
facilitate the collection, segregation, and management of household
hazardous waste, containers, and the larger debris.
To date, we have provided guidance on: identifying electrical
equipment that may contain PCBs; marking and storage of electrical
equipment that may contain PCBs; disposal of electrical equipment that
may contain PCBs; and handling and disposal of debris containing
asbestos. EPA has also provided the affected States with guidance on
burning debris. EPA personnel continue to provide site-specific
technical assistance in the disposal of hazardous waste and a wide
array of waste management debris left behind by the storm.
drinking water and waste water infrastructure
Many drinking water and wastewater systems in the three States were
adversely affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It is a high
priority of the States and EPA to re-establish operations at these
facilities.
Information received by EPA from State drinking water programs as
of October 4th, indicated that 84 percent of the 3,200 water utilities
in affected areas of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi are operating.
Another 8 percent, were operational, but under a boil water advisory.
Four percent of the utilities, or 131 systems, were not operating and
we estimate that those systems served about 122,000 people prior to the
hurricane. Louisiana is still trying to assess the status of an
additional 153 systems which have been unreachable and are probably not
operating.
The States also indicated that as of October 4th, about 96 percent
of the 730 wastewater facilities in the affected areas of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama were operational. Of the remaining 4 percent of
systems, 16 systems normally serving approximately 530,000 people were
not operating and we are awaiting further information on the status of
11 more systems.
In addition to these public systems, there are many people living
in areas served by private wells and septic/decentralized systems. The
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals has begun to distribute
water testing kits in affected parishes in Louisiana. EPA's mobile
laboratories and regional labs in Mississippi and Louisiana are also
available to provide on-going water testing capabilities. To date,
EPA's mobile lab located in Biloxi, MS has supported over 300 private
drinking water well samples for local residences.
oil spills and hazardous releases
There are hundreds of chemical and petrochemical facilities as well
as other sites of potential concern that are being inventoried and
assessed. EPA and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) are working
together to address oil and hazardous material releases reported to the
National Response Center or otherwise observed by our emergency
responders. As of October 3d, EPA and the USCG have conducted more than
130 emergency response actions as a request of reported incidents. Of
these, there were five major oil spills in the New Orleans area
resulting in releases of over 8 million gallons.
superfund sites
There are 24 Superfund sites located in the region affected by
Hurricane Katrina. As indicated on the map of the impacted areas, there
are 15 National Priority List (NPL) sites in Louisiana, three in
Mississippi, and six in Alabama that were potentially affected. Also,
Hurricane Rita potentially affected an additional two sites in
Louisiana and 28 sites in Texas for a total of 54 NPL sites.
Working together with State health and environmental agencies, EPA
has conducted initial assessments of each of these sites. In many
cases, these sites were not flooded and did not sustain significant
damage. However, we are continuing our assessments and, where
necessary, are conducting environmental sampling to determine any
impacts. To date, sampling has been conducted at 9 sites in Louisiana
and 12 sites in Texas and is ongoing at other sites. The data is
currently being evaluated.
sediment in new orleans
As flood waters in New Orleans again recede, we are analyzing the
sediment left behind. We are conducting biological and chemical
testing, specifically for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile
organic compounds, metals, PCBs, pesticides, and total petroleum
hydrocarbons. Sediment samples collected by EPA indicate that most
sediments are contaminated with bacteria and fuel oils. Human health
risks may therefore exist from unprotected contact with sediment
deposited from receding flood waters and exposure to sediment should
therefore be avoided if possible. E. coli was detected in sediment
samples, which implies the presence of fecal contamination. Some of the
semi-volatile organic compounds, common to diesel and fuel oils, were
also detected at very elevated levels. The levels of metals detected
thus far have been below levels that would be expected to produce
immediate adverse health effects. Sediment sampling occurred in the
flooded areas of New Orleans and is near completion.
flood water
In the immediate aftermath of Katrina, the potential exposure or
contact by residents and emergency response personnel to contaminated
flood waters was among our leading concerns. EPA's initial plans to
collect water samples in the New Orleans flood zone were set aside to
assist in rescue operations, and were further delayed by limited access
due to security concerns. Nonetheless, EPA, in close coordination with
the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, began water sampling
on September 3d, and while we continue to conduct biological and
chemical testing of the flood waters, sampling is near completion.
The flood waters continue to be analyzed for over 100 chemical
priority pollutants as well as for bacteria. Results to date indicate
that the flood water has high levels of E. coli, and that some
locations tested had lead levels exceeding the EPA drinking water
action levels. Arsenic, Barium, Thalium, Chromium, Benzene, Selenium,
and Cadmium were detected in some samples at levels that exceeded EPA
drinking water maximum contaminant levels. Although other contaminants
were detected, none have been at levels that would pose an immediate
risk to human health. Throughout this process, EPA has taken great
steps to ensure scientific accuracy. EPA solicited the assistance the
Science Advisory Board to review the flood water sampling plan, and EPA
and CDC have routinely conducted a thorough data review, and
interpreted the data for potential human health affects.
water quality
EPA is working closely with its Federal and State partners to
mitigate environmental impacts to Lake Pontchartrain caused by the
flood waters. As of October 3d, the Corps continues un-watering
operations and skimming booms are deployed to remove oil and debris
from water prior to pumping. After pumping, additional booms are being
deployed in the canals leading to the Lake to further reduce oil,
debris, and solids. Aerators are also being used in the canals to raise
the dissolved oxygen levels in the water prior to outfall to Lake
Pontchartrain.
Contaminated flood waters and sediment may adversely impact coastal
aquatic resources. As such, EPA and USACE are actively evaluating
options for directing the floodwaters. In addition, EPA is coordinating
water quality monitoring efforts with USGS, NOAA and our State partners
in the Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of Mexico. The poster behind me
reflects the coordinated post-Hurricane plans to monitor water quality
in the Gulf of Mexico.
air monitoring
Air monitoring networks normally in place for monitoring
particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and
carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act were mostly destroyed in New
Orleans and damaged and disrupted in coastal Mississippi. EPA is
working to restore monitoring systems in those regions, as well as to
deploy new monitors designed specifically to address potential air
quality impacts during the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. For
instance, as sediments from the floodwaters dry, EPA has conducted air
screening sampling with special monitors to assess potential inhalation
risks from particulates.
Specific to New Orleans, EPA, in coordination with our government
partners in Louisiana, makes daily tactical decisions regarding air
monitoring needs and works with an agency-wide team of air monitoring
professionals to address both emerging and source or location specific
issues as well as longer term regional air quality issues.
EPA has a number of tools to measure air quality. These include
DataRam 400, personal air monitoring devices, as well as use of a
remote sensing aircraft known as ASPECT to locate chemical spills that
needed emergency response to protect both water and air quality. EPA's
environmental surveillance aircraft was in operation during the early
days of the emergency, and again after Hurricane Rita passed through
the region.
EPA's real-time mobile laboratory--the Trace Atmospheric Gas
Analyzer (TAGA)--is sampling air quality in the New Orleans area.
Initial screening results from the TAGA represent the beginning of
extensive sampling efforts. As this is a dynamic situation, general
conclusions should not be made regarding air safety based on results
from snapshots of data.
EPA and the affected States will continue to monitor for potential
inhalation risks and have plans to enhance their temporary monitoring
networks in the coming weeks to monitor and evaluate the air impacts of
recovery activities including the burning of debris.
reoccupation of new orleans
EPA and CDC formed a joint task force to advise local and State
officials of the potential health and environmental risks associated
with returning to the city of New Orleans. Their report, titled
Environmental Health Needs and Habitability Assessment, was issued on
September 17th and identifies a number of challenges and critical
issues for consideration prior to the reoccupation of New Orleans. The
task force is now incorporated into the Federal New Orleans
Reoccupation Zip Code Assessment Group (Zip Code Assessment Group),
which will provide information on a broad range of issues, ranging from
infrastructure to health issues. Their recommendations will assist
State and Local officials in their decisions regarding when to allow
residents to reoccupy the city. As part of this larger group, EPA will
continue to work to identify potential health and environmental risks
associated with returning to the city based on the Agency's ongoing
efforts to assess the quality of the air, water and sediment.
fuel waivers
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of Energy, responded
quickly to address disruptions to the fuel supply that have occurred
due to the damage to refinery and pipeline infrastructure in the Gulf
Region. To increase the supply of fuel and minimize potential supply
disruptions, the Agency has issued emergency waivers of certain Federal
and State fuel standards. On August 30th, EPA granted waivers applying
to low sulfur diesel fuel requirements, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
standards that control the volatility of gasoline during the summer
months, State gasoline sulfur limits, or reformulated gas (RFG)
requirements. On September 21st, EPA expanded this effort in order to
minimize potential fuel supply disruptions caused by Hurricane Rita. To
address each fuel supply situation, waivers have been granted for
various periods of time and have been applicable at the national, State
or local level, to the extent necessary to alleviate the fuel supply
disruption.
In taking these actions, EPA used a Clean Air Act waiver provision
recently signed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
signed into law this year. This provision authorizes the Administrator
of EPA to temporarily waive fuel standards due to ``extreme and
unusual'' circumstances ``that are the result of a natural disaster, an
Act of God, pipeline or refinery equipment failure, or another event
that could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented and not the
lack of prudent planning'' on the part of fuel suppliers.
informing the public
We view communication to the public, workers, and other agencies to
be a critical component of our response effort. The Occupational Health
and Safety Administration (OSHA) was on-scene early in the response
effort, distributing over 3,500 fact sheets by hand in the first 2
weeks and conducting interventions that removed more than 850 workers
from serious or life threatening hazards. OSHA continues these
activities and on a daily basis, EPA response personnel and contractors
receive health and safety instructions regarding field conditions and
safe work practices. EPA's preliminary sampling results are also
provided to On-Scene Coordinators to facilitate field decisions and
ensure health and safety of workers.
EPA posts advisories on our website and also distributes them
through the Incident Command Post in Baton Rouge. We also have been
alerting communities through AM and FM radio broadcasts, particularly
on aerial mosquito spraying and how to avoid vector borne illnesses
such as the West Nile Virus.
future challenges
Looking ahead, much remains to be done to help address the public
health and environmental impacts of Hurricane Katrina. The safe
management of debris remains a high immediate priority, and the Agency
will assist our Federal, State and local partners as they move forward
on debris removal. For its part, the Agency will strive to provide
sound and practical advice, participate in hazardous waste removal
where appropriate, and monitor air quality where open burning is
occurring. EPA will also continue to work with the USACE and others to
support the States and local governments in their efforts to repair and
restore public facilities including drinking water, waste water, and
waste treatment facilities. We will also continue to monitor air,
water, and sediment quality in the region and make sure that this
information is readily available to Federal, State and local officials,
other responders, and the public.
conclusion
The Nation faces an enormous task in restoring and rebuilding the
affected areas. Simply meeting many basic needs of people in the region
including shelter, safe drinking water, sanitation, and protection from
disease and hazards will require a broad partnership across government
agencies, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations (NGO's).
We expect that citizens and government agencies will look to EPA and
our Federal partners for technical expertise, scientifically sound
data, and practical advice on environmental and public health
conditions in the region for some time to come. We are focused on
meeting that challenge.
Finally, as local communities undertake the task of reviving their
economies and helping businesses restart their operations, EPA, in
partnership with other Federal, State, and local agencies, will provide
technical expertise and guidance to assist in the recovery. Some of you
may know that I'm quite new to the EPA, but what I've seen in the past
month makes me proud to be counted among them.
At this time I welcome any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Marcus Peacock to Additional Questions from Senator Thune
Question 1. Please provide me with more information regarding the
site assessments that have been conducted to date at the NPL sites in
Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Response. EPA performed initial visual assessments at the 24
National Priority List (NPL) sites in the areas of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama that were in the path of Hurricane Katrina.
Initial assessments were conducted to determine if these sites had
sustained damage that warranted immediate action. EPA then completed a
second round of site visits and conducted confirmatory sampling at
these sites. When the results of the sampling have been analyzed,
validated and interpreted, the information will be posted on the EPA
website. A status report on EPA assessment of these NPL sites can be
found on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/katrina/superfund.html
Question 2. What is the current status of Underground Storage Tanks
in the Gulf Coast region? In particular, has there been any reported
leaks, ruptures or spills?
Response. EPA is currently working with the States to assess the
condition of underground storage tank (UST) facilities in the Gulf
Coast Region. Approximately 1700 UST facilities are estimated to have
been in the hurricane impact areas. The affected States identified
approximately 800 facilities that may have had hurricane related damage
and are in need of preliminary site assessments. Through FEMA's mission
assignments, EPA and State inspectors have conducted preliminary
inspections to determine facility operability at these facilities. A
relatively small number of facilities have had site assessments to test
for subsurface contamination, though EPA does not have a specific
accounting of the number of sites. In addition to the actively
operating facilities, approximately 350 facilities in the impacted area
were undergoing remediation at the time of the hurricanes. EPA does not
have an accounting of the number of these facilities that have been
identified for damage to corrective action equipment, nor of the number
of facilities that have undergone additional assessment to determine
the affect of the storm on the existing contamination. Louisiana's
``Plan for Evaluating Underground Storage Tank Sites Impacted by
Hurricane Katrina'' requires all impacted UST systems to be evaluated
to determine if they are suitable for returning to operation, and to
have tightness tests within 6 months of returning a system to
operation.
Question 3. What is the current status of Chemical facilities in
the Gulf Coast Region?
Response. Relying upon the lists of regulated facilities that
manage hazardous chemicals maintained by the States and EPA, EPA began
gathering information on chemical facilities in the potentially
affected areas immediately after the hurricane made landfall. Low level
helicopter flyovers, known as Rapid Needs Assessments (RNAs), were
conducted to do initial assessments of the status of facilities and
determine any major environmental releases. The RNAs revealed no major
environmental chemical releases from any facility. Concurrently,
detailed facility information such as geographic location, chemicals
stored or manufactured onsite, and facility contact information from
EPA's regulatory reporting data bases (TRI, RMP, FRP, RCRA) was
provided to field response teams to both ensure safety and prioritize
facilities for ground reconnaissance actions. EPA is coordinating with
Federal partners and States in conducting these more detailed facility
evaluations and has used many methods to determine status such as
aerial flyovers, field team evaluations, and telephone communications
with facility personnel. The detailed facility evaluations are
continuing, and are confirming the RNA conclusions.
Question 4. As the author of S. 1761, the ``Gulf Coast Recovery
Act'' I would appreciate knowing more about how the Environmental
Protection Agency (as well as your private sector partners) are
impacted by the threat of litigation in post-disaster clean-up efforts.
Response. EPA is not currently impacted by the threat of litigation
in its post-disaster clean-up efforts. The Agency's approach has been
and will be to act within its statutory authorities when responding to
the disaster. EPA is not in a position to speak on behalf of its
private sector contractors regarding how the threat of litigation may
affect their actions.
______
Responses by Marcus Peacock to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. Many of the complaints after Hurricane Katrina have
focused on the lack of coordination among Federal, State, and local
agencies. In what ways can we improve this level of coordination and
cooperation to ensure future disasters are handled in an efficient
manner?
Response. EPA has not encountered coordination problems to date. We
continue to work with Federal, State and local officials as directed by
the National Response Plan. In most cases, EPA is assisting State
cleanup efforts based on requests from the States. These State
assistance requests are conveyed to FEMA and subsequently issued as
mission assignments to EPA. EPA is also in frequent contact with local
officials (Parish, County and Municipal officials) to coordinate and
tailor EPA actions to the needs of individual municipalities. At the
Federal level, EPA is participating at the Joint Field Offices
established by FEMA and is in frequent contact with other Federal
partners, including the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department
of Health and Human Services.
In the future, EPA believes that the full implementation of the
National Incident Management System, through the Department of Homeland
Security, will provide continuous coordination improvement at all
levels during a major incident. Once implemented, this system will
ensure a consistent management structure under the National Response
Plan for State, local and Federal response personnel and will provide a
common operating framework for all involved.
Question 2. In your testimony, you mentioned that the recovery
efforts enlisted the help of more than 1,100 EPA staff and contractors.
Do you believe the EPA has the resources to handle multiple disasters
that could possibly confront the United States?
Response. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, EPA
developed a plan to strengthen its emergency response capability to
address the possibility of multiple, large-scale incidents. This plan,
called EPA's National Approach to Response, further improved
consistency across EPA Regional response programs and advanced the
Agency's ability to draw on its national assets to respond to multiple
incidents. While it is not be possible to predict every potential
disaster, EPA has specifically developed and practiced its ability to
deal with multiple disaster scenarios. For this hurricane response, EPA
has been able to adequately handle resource needs.
Question 3. Was there a written plan at EPA for responding to a
major natural disaster?
Response. EPA has substantial experience responding to natural
disasters, including hurricanes. The National Response Plan (NRP) is
the primary guiding document for the Federal Government's response to
natural disasters and other Incidents of National Significance. The NRP
lists EPA as the primary agency for Emergency Support Function #10,
which addresses the Federal response to releases or potential releases
of oil and hazardous materials. The NRP also assigns EPA support roles
to numerous other Emergency Support Functions lead by other agencies.
EPA's National Contingency Plan serves as guiding document for our
responses under the NRP.
Question 4. What lessons did EPA learn as a result of 9/11?
Response. Following the events of 9/11, EPA implemented a new
Agency-wide National Approach to Response for Incidents of National
Significance (INS). To implement the national approach, EPA identified
priority action plans that resulted in:
<bullet> the preparation of a comprehensive roster of EPA employees
(beyond the emergency response staff) who can be called upon to assist
during an INS;
<bullet> enhanced attention to health and safety protocols for
responders;
<bullet> an Incident Command System (ICS) training and exercise
program for emergency response personnel and others;
<bullet> purchase of appropriate field and telecommunication
equipment and improvements for consistent contracting capacity and
capability; and
<bullet> policies and procedures to assure consistent use of
information technology systems in the field for formatting, review and
storage of laboratory data.
These activities contributed significantly to the Agency's overall
ability to respond in an efficient and effective manner and have
contributed greatly to our success in handling Hurricane Katrina. I
would also like to note that our lessons learned reports from the
events of 9/11 were quickly sent to EPA senior management after Katrina
made landfall.
Question 5. I understand that in a recently released report, the
CDC and EPA have identified 13 environmental health issues, including
drinking water, wastewater, solid waste and debris, and sediments and
soil contamination from toxic chemicals. Could you speak to the
findings in the report, as they pertain to public safety and health
concerns for our recovery workers? How important is it that we monitor
the health concerns of both first responders and those exposed to these
``substances of concern?''
Response. EPA and CDC jointly released a report entitled
``Environmental Health Needs and Habitability Assessment'' on September
17, 2005. This report lists 13 key areas affecting the rehabitation of
New Orleans. A complex array of environmental health problems exist in
New Orleans. The report specifically identified worker health and
safety as an essential condition of rebuilding New Orleans. EPA has
been working with OSHA to provide information on environmental health
hazards so that responders can take the proper precautions to protect
themselves. In addition, EPA has conducted a wide variety of
environmental sampling activities to provide data on potential hazards.
The results of this data analysis have been used to identify hazards
and provide advice and guidance to both workers and the public in New
Orleans. EPA has also widely disseminated materials that provide
information on environmental health hazards in the hurricane affected
areas to Federal, State and local officials, as well as directly to
returning residents. With regard to monitoring of health concerns, all
EPA response personnel must have appropriate health and safety training
and participate in a medical monitoring program before being deployed
for field work.
______
Responses by Marcus Peacock to Additional Questions from Senator Obama
Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to
appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the
President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is
meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end before money
is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door.
Already, we've seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money.
A few weeks ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million
contract that FEMA signed with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees
and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a
week per person housed on the ship--four times the cost of a 7-day
Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment.
Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction
funds are being well spent.
Response. EPA's work under Emergency Support Function (ESF) #10 of
the National Response Plan is funded through Mission Assignments from
FEMA using the authority of the Stafford Act. Shortly after the
Hurricane Katrina emergency, EPA developed the Katrina Stewardship. The
purpose of this plan is to ensure the prudent stewardship of taxpayer
funds for current and future cleanup and recovery activities resulting
from Hurricane Katrina and other recent hurricanes. EPA periodically
reviews and monitors established controls governing utilization of
agency resources and transaction activity supporting hurricane relief
efforts. The majority of EPA expenditures have used competitive
contracts with pre-negotiated rates that are used in support of the
Agency's removal actions.
Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved
in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who
coordinates oversight over these financial decisions?
Response. There may be times when multiple agencies would
collaborate on contracting and procurement decisions. Generally, one of
the agencies' procurement offices would be designated as the lead, and
would be responsible for executing the required procurement steps using
its own oversight functions. The lead agency coordinates the effort
from requirement definition to final award.
Question 3. In your testimony, you mention that 84 percent of the
drinking water systems in the Gulf Coast are fully operational and an
additional 8 percent of the systems are producing water that must be
boiled.
How long will it take before all the people of the Gulf Coast have
safe drinking water? Will it be weeks or months?
Response. Over 4,000 public water systems serving over 15 million
people in the Gulf Coast were affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Significant progress has been made since the hurricanes struck to bring
systems back on line. As of early January, 2006, all but 71 of these
systems have returned to safe operations. These remaining 71 systems
are located in Louisiana (41) and Mississippi (30).
In Mississippi, all municipally owned community water systems are
back in operation. The 30 remaining systems are either community water
systems that are not municipally owned (9) or are not considered
community water systems (21). These systems are either not operating
(12), operating under a boil water notice (13), or completely destroyed
(4).
In Louisiana, the 41 systems that are not fully operational have
either been inactivated and are no longer operating (35), tied into
another water system (4), or are under boil water advisory for some
portion of the distribution system (2). The vast majority of the
inactivated systems were non-community water systems serving such
places as schools, factories, office buildings, and campgrounds, many
of which may not be open for business.
For these non-community water systems and non-municipal community
water systems, the decision to come back into service as a water supply
is a decision made by the business owner. It is therefore difficult to
determine a timeframe for when they might be back in service.
Question 4. What can we proactively do to ensure that other natural
disasters do not cause the same damage to our drinking water systems?
Response. Over the past several years, EPA has developed several
tools for utilities to prepare for emergencies. The Agency works
closely with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators,
the American Water Works Association, the Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies, and the National Rural Water Association to develop and
disseminate materials on protecting critical water infrastructure. With
respect to hurricanes, EPA has posted 43 activities on its website that
drinking water and wastewater systems can take to protect their
facilities from damage in anticipation of a hurricane. We are still in
the mode of collecting and analyzing information on the effects of the
hurricanes on water systems in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. EPA
expects that evaluations by EPA, State staff and industry experts will
identify ``lessons learned'' that we will be able to use to develop new
information and guidance for utilities.
______
Responses by Marcus Peacock to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. In July 2004, emergency officials conducted a planning
scenario in Louisiana to address a Category 3 hurricane. The debris
team for this exercise estimated that the storm would result in 30
million cubic yards of debris and 237,000 cubic yards of household
hazardous waste. How are EPA and the Corps working together to manage
this large quantity of debris, including hazardous materials and the
potential air quality impacts of any open burning?
Response. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been tasked
by FEMA under ESF-3 with debris removal. EPA's role addresses recovery
and disposal of hazardous materials, including industrial containers
and household hazardous waste. EPA is also overseeing segregation of
hazardous materials from general debris and distributing information to
the public. Each of the affected States has developed an overall Debris
Management Plan. EPA and USACE are working closely together in
coordination with State and local authorities to provide assistance on
the management of Hurricane debris and hazardous waste. EPA and USACE
activities may vary among counties, parishes and municipalities to
accommodate their needs.
EPA is also consulting with State, local and Federal officials on a
number of debris disposal option. In some cases, EPA will conduct air
monitoring during test burns or at burn sites.
Question 2. Mr. Peacock, one of the lessons learned from September
11th was that first responders must be provided with good information
about health precautions they should take while they are participating
in rescue operations. What steps is the Agency taking to ensure that
first responders and the public are aware of the magnitude of the
hazards facing those who choose to return to New Orleans?
Response. EPA has been disseminating information and
recommendations on potential hazards to first responders and the public
through a variety of venues. EPA has posted data and health
recommendations from samples of floodwater, floodwater sediment and air
on the Agency website and has issued several health advisories. EPA
officials have been actively providing information to the print press
and broadcast media, both in the Hurricane affected areas and with
national organizations, including Public Service Announcements for
radio. On the ground, EPA has distributed more than 1,000,000 flyers in
Louisiana on health hazards, debris management and hazards associated
with building reentry. As part of our incident command structure,
health and safety officers provide guidance to EPA field responders on
a daily basis on the hazards they may encounter and what protection is
required.
Question 3. Mr. Peacock, after the Galveston Hurricane struck that
city in 1900, drinking water services were restored a week after the
hurricane hit. According to your October 4th update, there are 95
drinking water systems out of operations in Louisiana, 36 in
Mississippi, and 124 in Texas. What needs to be done to get these
systems up to speed faster? Specifically, are people, money, or
authority limiting factors for the EPA?
Response. Over 4,000 public water systems serving over 15 million
people in the Gulf Coast were affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Significant progress has been made since the hurricanes struck to bring
systems back on line. As of early January, 2006, all but 71 of these
systems have returned to safe operations. These remaining 71 systems
are located in Louisiana (41) and Mississippi (30).
In Mississippi, all municipally owned community water systems are
back in operation. The 30 remaining systems are either community water
systems that are not municipally owned (9) or are not considered
community water systems (21). These systems are either not operating
(12), operating under a boil water notice (13), or completely destroyed
(4).
In Louisiana, the 41 systems that are not fully operational have
either been inactivated and are no longer operating (35), tied into
another water system (4), or are under boil water advisory for some
portion of the distribution system (2). The vast majority of the
inactivated systems were non-community water systems serving such
places as schools, factories, office buildings, and campgrounds, many
of which may not be open for business.
For these non-community water systems and non-municipal community
water systems, the decision to come back into service as a water supply
is a decision made by the business owner. It is therefore difficult to
determine a timeframe for when they might be back in service.
We cannot yet accurately estimate the time it will take to bring
all systems back up to full operation because the recovery is dependent
on the speed with which their surrounding areas are being restored.
This is more a matter of time than people or money and will involve the
Public Assistance Program led by FEMA. To date, EPA's efforts have not
been hampered by limited authority.
Question 4. Mr. Peacock, people returning to the New Orleans area
will be facing health risks within their own homes from mold and
materials that were left when the floodwaters receded. What is EPA
doing to determine whether it is safe for people to reoccupy their
homes?
Response. Local officials have the authority and are in the best
position to make decisions regarding the safety of home re-occupancy.
EPA has been working closely with CDC and the States to ensure that the
latest public health information regarding mold and environmental
contaminants is available to the citizens in the Gulf region. For
example, as early as September 14, EPA, in conjunction with HHS, OSHA,
and FEMA, issued a press statement and advisory titled ``Potential
Environmental Health Hazards When Returning to Homes and Businesses''.
Since that time EPA has been sharing its sampling data and advisories
with Federal, State and local authorities so that they are well aware
of and can take appropriate action to mitigate the threats people may
face.
Question 5. Do you anticipate any long-term delays in getting
drinking water and wastewater plants back on line, what financial role
do you anticipate EPA will play in that process, and do you expect that
any plants will have to suspend operations due to lack of customers and
lack of a rate base?
Response. Several drinking water and wastewater plants were heavily
damaged. The communities and the State are still evaluating the extent
of the damage and have yet to determine how long it will take to
rebuild. The most heavily damaged plants are in areas that have
currently lost many of their customers and therefore their rate base.
Considerations about rebuilding the treatment facilities must go hand
in hand with considerations about rebuilding housing and other aspects
of the communities. The State Revolving Funds are EPA's primary funding
source; however, we expect that insurance and FEMA public assistance
funds will cover most of the costs. The States implement the SRF fund
but EPA will work with the States if there are any barriers to making
low interest loans available for rebuilding.
Question 6. How are you tracking health impacts due to exposure to
flood waters, contaminated sediments, and other health hazards?
Response. The State and local health authorities have the lead in
tracking health impacts. The Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) has the Federal lead for assisting these local authorities track
these health impacts. EPA is assisting in this effort by providing data
analysis and interpretation of environmental media samples.
Question 7. In recent press reports, Louisiana and EPA officials
were quoted as saying that based on the approach being taken to debris
handling, it is unlikely that dust or contaminants resulting from
debris removal and structure demolition will wind up in rainwater. Can
you articulate exactly what steps EPA and the Corps is taking and what
assurances you have made, if any, to the State of Louisiana that there
will not be a concern with stormwater runoff in the future?
Response. Hurricane Katrina created an enormous amount of
vegetative, building and demolition debris. How communities have
managed debris generated from Hurricane Katrina depends on the debris
generated and the management options available. The fate and transport
of pollutants from debris removal and structure demolition depends on
the nature of the waste and the management option used.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's (LDEQ) general
approach to debris management is outlined in the ``Hurricane Katrina
Debris Management Plan'' (Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality, Revised October 14, 2005). The LDEQ Debris Management Plan
gives guidance to local governments. In addition, the US Army Corp of
Engineers (USACE), Debris Teams operate in compliance with the Plan.
LDEQ's plan provides specific guidance to prevent stormwater runoff
contamination by dust or other contaminants resulting from debris
removal. The plan requires debris to be staged at temporary sites and
transported to permitted Type III facilities or to emergency disposal
sites. Under the Plan, the LDEQ must inspect and approve any emergency
site proposed for debris management, subject to restrictions and
operating conditions, such as best management practices.
EPA and the Corp of Engineers continue to work with Louisiana as it
implements its debris management plan. Where appropriate, EPA will
recommend best management practices and other measures to address the
quality of stormwater runoff and other wastewater from these debris
management activities.
Question 8. EPA has advised us that the flooding has affected
significant numbers of drinking water and wastewater facilities,
petrochemical, and other industrial facilities in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. Is the Agency evaluating the storage and
handling of potentially hazardous chemicals, such as chlorine, at these
facilities? What steps is the Agency taking to ensure the security and
safe handling of chemicals at these facilities?
Response. As required under the Bioterrorism Act, a drinking water
utility serving more than 3,300 persons must conduct a vulnerability
assessment and certify to EPA that the assessment has been completed.
Vulnerability assessments help water utilities to evaluate their
susceptibility to potential threats and identify corrective actions to
reduce or mitigate the risk. The systems must also show that they have
updated or completed an emergency response plan outlining response
measures if an incident occurs.
EPA has helped water utilities and others facilities that manage
hazardous chemicals take action to protect their infrastructure and
potentially hazardous chemicals by providing tools, trainings, and
technical assistance. These tools help utility managers, operators, and
local officials improve security and plan for emergency situations such
as experienced during Hurricane Katrina. Many smaller facilities do not
use hazardous chemicals. Facilities that use chemicals at certain
threshold levels are required to comply with Risk Management Program
requirements under the Clean Air Act. These requirements address
process safety management and accident prevention.
Question 9. EPA testing found bacteria concentrations up to 19
times the EPA limits for recreational contact and lead levels 56 times
the EPA limits for drinking water. This water is being pumped directly
into the Lake, a recreational resource for the area, with the only
protection being surface booms and aerators. EPA has said that sampling
data shows little pollution in the Lake. Can you describe why you
believe that the sampling plan you have in place is adequate to
determine the level of pollution throughout the Lake?
Response. EPA has designed a statistically robust sampling plan
that will produce scientifically credible results about possible risks
to human health or the environment in Lake Pontchartrain. We have
confidence that our combination of probability-based and targeted
sampling and our broad array of potential contaminants being tested
shall provide us credible evidence of pollution levels throughout the
Lake. Probability-based sampling is a widely accepted statistical
technique for using samples to represent conditions throughout an
entire area, such as all of the Lake, at a desired level of certainty.
Targeted sampling is a second technique that involves monitoring
specific areas that are, for example, of higher human exposure or of
higher risk for pollution. Further, it should be noted that the
bacteria and lead detections cited above were in floodwaters, at
concentrations that were diluted significantly by the large volume of
the Lake as the pumping occurred over a period of many days.
Floodwaters were analyzed using drinking water standards, while waters
in the lake are being analyzed using ambient water quality criteria and
fish tissue concentrations. EPA and its State and Federal partners will
continue to analyze water, sediment and fish tissue samples and
resample as needed until the magnitude of risks to human health and the
environment in the Lake are understood and verified with confidence.
Question 10. I understand that the EPA is developing a 5-year
sampling plan for Lake Pontchartrain in coordination with the State.
What is your timeframe for completion of that plan, how do you intend
to pay for its implementation, and what will you be sampling for?
Response. EPA is unaware of an effort to develop a 5-year sampling
plan for Lake Pontchartrain in coordination with the State of
Louisiana. Sampling to date has been part of a broader interagency
monitoring plan that involved EPA, USGS, USFWS, LDEQ, and FDA. Initial
testing has been completed and subsequent sampling efforts may be
needed to monitor longer term impacts, but that determination has not
yet been made.
Question 11. One of the items in the September 17 EPA-CDC strategy
is to engage and communicate with the displaced population. How is this
being accomplished, and what steps are the agencies taking to ensure
that average citizens watching the news are aware of the magnitude of
the potential health threats facing those who return to the city?
Response. In our efforts to help the New Orleans area recover, EPA
is using a variety of existing networks to reach individuals. Working
closely with State and local officials, EPA's approach relies heavily
on local networks such as the news media, Parish government
institutions, local retailers, and faith-based and environmental-based
organizations to reach evacuees.
<bullet> EPA will continue to issue news advisories/press releases,
post Web site information, and hold media briefings to disseminate
information about the potential environmental and health risks
returning residents may face. EPA's first such release was issued on
September 4, 2005 and was entitled ``EPA Urges Caution When Re-entering
Hurricane Damaged Homes and Buildings.''
<bullet> EPA has provided FEMA pre-recorded interviews with senior
EPA managers about reentry hazards for broadcast over XM radio and TV
to evacuee shelters. In addition, EPA personnel fluent in Vietnamese
have conducted outreach on Vietnamese radio stations in Dallas and
Houston where there are many displaced Vietnamese residents.
<bullet> EPA has produced public service announcements (PSAs) and
informational handouts about a host of cleanup activities that can pose
potential environmental and health hazards for returning residents. The
PSAs and handouts are available in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. EPA
and FEMA are working to cross promote PSAs, and EPA is aggressively
sending the PSAs to radio stations and has distributed more than one
million handouts to date.
<bullet> Also, in outreach activities, EPA provides a daily 5
minute report on the major Louisiana AM radio station, WWL, about the
agency's local activities and EPA personnel provide weekly updates on
Eyewitness Morning News on WWL-TV.
<bullet> Finally, as the population is returning, EPA is using
Community Involvement Coordinators to re-engage the citizens and to
participate in Welcome Home events in Parishes by providing information
on environmental issues.
Question 12. The breadth and magnitude of Hurricane Katrina is
larger than most EPA disaster response work. The recovery from this
storm will be long-term, and it is likely to be complicated by
environmental hazards in the area. Is the EPA's existing management
structure, personnel, and resources equipped to handle a recovery of
this magnitude?
Response. EPA has the personnel and resources from the Agency
Headquarters, all of its 10 Regional Offices, and from our specialized
response teams to assist in one or more large-scale responses. EPA
believes that we are well prepared to assist in the recovery from
Hurricane Katrina.
Question 13. You have described EPA's role in the days preceding
and the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Knowing what you know
today, would you have done anything differently?
Response. To date, EPA's response efforts have shown themselves to
be effective. This is due in large part to actions that the Agency took
following the events of September 11, 2001. These actions included the
implementation of a new Agency wide National Approach to Response and
priority action plans that resulted in improvements to health and
safety protocols for emergency response personnel, ICS training,
purchase of appropriate field and telecommunications equipment,
improvements for consistent contracting capability and policies and
procedures to improve consistent use of information technology systems
in the field for formatting, review and storage of laboratory data. EPA
has established a process for collecting lessons learned from the
recent hurricane response and will pursue improvements as needs are
identified.
Question 14. Did EPA plan and/or take any steps planned to secure
or remove hazardous substances in the area in the event of a
catastrophic flood, which was a known risk for the area? If not, do you
intend to re-evaluate the Agency's role in this type of disaster
preparedness to determine if changes are appropriate?
Response. EPA has a number of regulations in place that require
industry to address the handling and storage of hazardous substances as
well as emergency planning and preparedness. We will, however, be
evaluating lessons learned from this event and will consider any needed
changes in our regulations as a result of this process.
Question 15. Does the EPA have adequate lab capacity to handle the
large number of water quality samples that are being taken?
Response. EPA has found adequate lab capacity for analysis of the
water quality samples that are being taken.
Question 16. Has the EPA used, or do you have plans to use, the
Drinking Water Emergency Assistance authority in the Safe Drinking
Water Act?
Response. EPA can use its Safe Drinking Water Act (``SDWA'')
Section 1431 authority to authorize use of water which does not meet
Federal drinking water standards where such use of water is necessary
to avoid imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, such
as the lack of an operational public water system. On September 14,
2005, EPA Region 4 issued a letter under Section 1431 authorizing the
General Electric Company to temporarily use nonpotable water for
personal hygiene under certain restrictions for its contractors working
on projects in Mississippi in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.
SDWA Section 1442(b) covers emergency grant-making authority. It
allows the Administrator to provide technical assistance and to make
grants to States or publicly owned water systems to assist in
responding to and alleviating any emergency situation affecting public
water systems. EPA has not used this grant authority.
Question 17. Has the Agency considered establishing an advisory
group to assist the Administration and the State in dealing with
environmental issues during the recovery process?
Response. EPA currently has two Federal Advisory Committees in
place that assist in this effort. During the Hurricane Katrina
response, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) was asked by the Agency to
review environmental sampling plans to ensure that they were
scientifically sound and appropriate for this situation. The National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is an
existing Advisory Committee that can be used by the Agency to provide
advice and council on any number of environmental issues. This
Committee has been recently briefed on the Agency's Hurricane Katrina
response and is available for consultation as needed.
Question 18. How is EPA participating in Emergency Support Function
14, administered by FEMA, Long Term Community Recovery operations?
Response. To date, EPA has participated in several conference
calls/meetings led by FEMA in both Washington, DC and in New Orleans to
discuss ESF-14 activities. These meetings have focused on the
identification of existing Federal programs that can contribute to the
recovery effort.
Question 19. Do you have a comprehensive plan to test soil, water,
and air in affected communities prior to reoccupancy, and will you
include testing of private drinking water wells in that plan?
Response. Since early in September, EPA has been conducting
environmental sampling of flood water, residual sediment, and air
quality to determine impacts to the city and to advise workers and the
public on appropriate precautions to take. A comprehensive sampling
plan was developed for each of these media and reviewed by EPA's
Science Advisory Board. These sampling efforts will continue as
necessary to assist State and local authorities in making decisions on
re-occupancy. EPA has also been working with State drinking water
programs to help support testing of private wells to ensure that
homeowners have safe drinking water. The Agency's mobile labs in
Louisiana and Mississippi have tested hundreds of samples from
homeowner wells. EPA also provided assistance to the States by making
available copies of pamphlets that inform homeowners how to manage a
flooded well. At the request of States, EPA translated the documents
into Spanish and Vietnamese.
Question 20. Will the Agency require or encourage the use of clean
diesel fuel for the recovery and reconstruction operations?
Response. Yes, EPA has a national program to encourage the use of
cleaner fuels, including biodiesel, as well as the use of advanced
after-treatment ``retrofit'' technologies on non-road equipment. The
application of retrofit technologies can significantly reduce the
pollution emitted from this equipment. Non-road construction and
demolition equipment has been critical to the recovery and
reconstruction effort. In addition, the trucks that are involved in
these operations cannot only utilize the cleaner fuel but also
participate in EPA's national reduced idling program as they wait to be
loaded with debris or off-loaded with construction materials.
Question 21. It has been reported that some involved in the water
quality testing in Lake Pontchartrain have said that contaminants found
in Lake Pontchartrain would either evaporate within days or settle into
lake bottom sediment. This assessment seems to dismiss the
environmental and health impacts of contaminated sediments, and give an
overly optimistic review of the water quality in the Lake. Does EPA
share the view that contaminated sediments in the Lake do not pose a
water quality or health threat? Can you describe the Agency's plan to
determine the degree of contamination in lake sediments?
Response. Our sediment samples are undergoing laboratory analysis
at this time, and the tests conducted during this analysis follow
strict quality assurance and validation requirements to ensure that our
findings are correct. EPA will not predict what the results may show
while we await this analysis. The multi-agency plan for testing Lake
sediments involved gathering both probability-based and targeted
samples, and testing the sediment for metals, PAHs, PBDEs, PCBs,
pesticides, and other contaminants that might have been released by the
storm's impacts on nearby communities. EPA has included substantial
sediment sampling and testing in our monitoring design throughout the
affected region. Although it is routine and helpful for scientists to
offer professional opinions as to where and why contaminants may move
and eventually settle, such opinions are not conclusive until they are
paired with and plausibly explain actual monitoring results.
______
Responses by Marcus Peacock to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. A story in the October 2 New York Times headlined
``Blanket of Mold Threatens Health and Homes'' reported that trillions
of mold spores are reproducing inside tens of thousands of buildings.
The mold ``could sicken the 20 percent of the population that has
allergy problems, experts say, and could also be dangerous for older
residents, children and people with weakened immune systems.'' The
story had conflicting views on whether mold could also cause birth
defects and cancer.
The story went on to say that ``Officials at the state Department
of Health, and Hospitals, the agency primarily responsible for mold
mitigation, said the department was so overwhelmed with other flood-
related work that it could not inspect homes or analyze the potential
health risks of mold, beyond disseminating information on its Web
site.''
What is the administration (EPA or otherwise) doing specifically to
assess the mold problem in New Orleans (and elsewhere), address
whatever risks it poses, and communicate those risks to citizens?
Response. EPA has coordinated with CDC, OSHA, FEMA and other
Federal, State, and local agencies to provide information and guidance
to the public on mold-related issues. EPA has been aggressive in
distributing mold information and developing additional information
that will allow homeowners to take appropriate action to address mold
contamination.
Question 2. Is the threat posed by mold great enough that it should
be influencing people's decisions to return to New Orleans, (or
elsewhere in the Gulf)?
Response. Household mold can be a health hazard if not properly
addressed. Since mold conditions and cleanup challenges in homes and
buildings in New Orleans will vary depending on exposure to floodwaters
and construction materials, residents should consult with local
officials to inquire about conditions in their neighborhood.
CDC, with input from EPA and OSHA, has issued ``Mold, Prevention
Strategies and Possible Health Effects in the Aftermath of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita''. The report says that people should limit their
exposure to mold and that some people may be affected to a greater
extent than most healthy adults by exposure to mold--they include
infants and children, elderly people, pregnant women, people with
respiratory conditions, and people with weakened immune systems.
Question 3. Katrina has resulted in widespread spills of oil,
industrial chemicals, household hazardous waste, and other toxins.
Contaminants in the floodwaters such as chemicals, bacteria, and
viruses, once they have dried, could become airborne dust that may pose
a serious health risk to citizens.
EPA has generally deferred to the State and local authorities as
far as communicating potential health risks to the public, and for
deciding whether or not it is safe for citizens to return to a
particular area, given the risks of exposure to these and other
contaminants.
What specifically is EPA doing to assess the risks posed by the
various dried contaminants?
Response. EPA is conducting air monitoring for Particulate Matter,
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, metals, asbestos, and volatile
organic compounds in Orleans, St. Charles, St. Tammany, and Jefferson
Parishes.
Question 4. What steps is EPA taking to ensure that the public has
a full understanding of the health risks they may face in returning to
their neighborhoods, such as land contaminated with oil and chemicals
or airborne dust comprised of dried bacteria, viruses, metals or
chemicals?
Response. EPA disseminates information and recommendations on
potential hazards to first responders and the public through a variety
of venues. EPA has posted data and health recommendations from samples
of floodwater, floodwater sediment and air on the Agency website and
has issued several health advisories. EPA officials provide information
to the print press and broadcast media, both in the Hurricane affected
areas and with national organizations, including Public Service
Announcements for radio. On the ground, EPA has distributed more than
1,000,000 flyers in Louisiana on health hazards, debris management and
hazards associated with building reentry. As part of our incident
command structure, health and safety officers provide guidance to EPA
field responders on a daily basis on the hazards they may encounter and
what protection is required.
__________
Statement of Hon. John Paul Woodley, Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works, Department of Army
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
introduction
I am John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works. Lieutenant General Carl Strock, Chief of Engineers and I
are here to discuss the Corps of Engineers relief and recovery efforts
in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
background
The Corps of Engineers responds to natural disasters under the
direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is engaged in
disaster response as part of its own flood and storm damage reduction
and commercial navigation mission responsibilities, and acts in support
of military missions as part of the Department of Defense. The Corps
plays a major role in rescue efforts, provides water and shelter, and
is setting the stage for recovery through its mission for debris
removal and restoration of critical infrastructure and navigation. This
work is done largely by civilians. There are 34,000 people in the Corps
of Engineers including both the civil works and military programs, but
only about 600 of them soldiers like Lieutenant General Strock. When we
talk about the Corps of Engineers on the ground in the disaster area,
it is the Corps' civilian public servants that come from all over the
country to respond. I am proud of the more than 2,900 employees that
the Corps currently has deployed in the areas affected by Hurricane
Katrina and those who are responding to Hurricane Rita. These good
people are responsible for determining requirements and for engaging
and supervising private contractors to carry out the work. The Corps'
working relationship with local authorities, private citizens and
contractors, as well as with other Federal agencies is a very
significant part of its mission.
the corps on the ground today
I visited the Hurricane Katrina disaster area on September 16 and
17, prior to Hurricane Rita. I am proud to report the fine work being
accomplished by Corps of Engineer personnel and other dedicated
professionals throughout the region. The Coast Guard's Vice Admiral
Thad Allen, the Principle Federal Official, confirmed that Task Force
Hope, the Corps of Engineers group, is an important part of the Federal
response team.
I also conferred with Chuck Brown, Assistant Secretary of
Louisiana's Office of Environmental Service about their success working
with the Corps.
When I flew over both the city of New Orleans and the Gulf coast to
Biloxi on September 17, the devastation was immense. But, I saw a
recovery process already well on its way: temporary roads built to
enable access to critical work sites, the breaches in the 17th Street
Canal and the London Street Canal closed and the majority of the city
un-watered.
In Gulfport, Mississippi, I met with the State Adjutant--General
Major General Harold Cross who reported the seamless integration of the
Corps of Engineers into the disaster response support to Mississippi.
The New Orleans District is in the process of reconstituting its
organization. These brave men and women are temporarily working at
various locations between their headquarters building in New Orleans
and the Engineer District headquarters in Vicksburg as they support the
relief effort even after many of them have suffered the loss of homes
and valued possessions.
After my visit I am assured that the Corps is successfully postured
to continue its support to both FEMA and the Department of Defense in
their response to the disaster as well as continue with our ongoing
civil works mission throughout the Nation.
corps disaster relief and recovery efforts
The Corps' current efforts from FEMA (for Katrina) will cost about
$3.2 billion. The Corps has transferred $64 million from other Corps
accounts to the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies program since
Hurricane Katrina and has also received $200 million in supplemental
appropriations for this program. There is also an additional $200
million in supplemental appropriations for the operation and
maintenance program, which will fund repairs to water resources
projects owned and operated by the Corps that were damaged by Hurricane
Katrina, both flood and storm damage reduction projects and Federal
commercial navigation harbors and channels.
Lieutenant General Strock will provide more specifics on the
results of their efforts.
the corps' future role in the disaster area
While the Corps is focused on disaster relief and recovery,
including un-watering New Orleans and surrounding areas, the
Administration stands ready to work with local and State officials as
they plan for the future of New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.
As we know, New Orleans has a particular challenge because much of the
city lies below sea level. The Corps of Engineers will work with the
State, city, and parish officials to design and build a flood and storm
damage reduction system that is better than before the storm; and these
local officials will have a large part in the engineering decisions to
come.
The Corps has completed a reconnaissance study that assesses the
general engineering feasibility, the economic justification, and the
potential environmental implications of providing additional flood and
storm protection to New Orleans and the surrounding area. More analysis
is required to evaluate a range of options and determine the best way
to reduce the risk of future flood and storm damages, and I am looking
to the Corps, local officials, and all interested persons to advance
these investigations as expeditiously and cost-effectively as possible.
We are especially mindful that the coastal wetlands ecosystem can
provide a buffer against the impacts of some storms and thus serves as
the foundation upon which projects to reduce the risk of storm damage
to the urban areas of the Louisiana coast are constructed. The
Administration is working with Congress and the State of Louisiana to
develop an appropriate, generic authorization for the Louisiana Coastal
Area Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Program that will expedite
the approval process for projects and their implementation while
providing greater flexibility in setting future priorities and
increased opportunities for application of adaptive management
decisionmaking.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward to
working with you on matters of mutual interest and concern. Following
Lieutenant General Strock's statement, I would be pleased to answer any
questions you or the other Subcommittee members may have.
______
Responses by Hon. John Paul Woodley, Jr., to Additional Questions
from Senator Thune
Question 1. Could you please update me regarding the Army Corps'
position regarding water levels on the Missouri River? In particular,
is the Corps in any way considering deviating from the Master Control
Manual?
Response. The Corps' intent is to operate the Missouri River
Mainstem Reservoir System strictly in accordance with the Master
Control Manual. At the present time, the Corps is carefully monitoring
conditions on both the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and we do not
believe that an emergency situation exists at this time.
Question 2. As a result of Hurricane Katrina, is there anything
that will slow or impede the Corps work regarding the Cheyenne River
Sioux emergency water intake that is underway pursuant to P.L. 84-99?
Response. The Cheyenne River Sioux emergency water intake work is
not currently being impacted by Hurricane Katrina efforts. Potential
funding impacts could arise if future Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Laws limit the funding to projects impacted by
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ophelia. In that event, the Corps would
need to identify an alternate source of funds for the project by
January 2006 to allow the project to continue on schedule.
Question 3. As the author of S. 1761, the ``Gulf Coast Recovery
Act'' I would appreciate knowing more about how the Army Corps of
Engineers (as well as your private sector partners) are impacted by the
threat of litigation in post-disaster clean-up efforts.
Response. The Corps of Engineers conducts its emergency recovery
efforts in accordance with Federal law and Corps regulations and the
threat of litigation does not influence the execution of our missions.
______
Responses by Hon. John Paul Woodley, Jr., to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. If the funding was available for all of the Army Corps
of Engineers projects in the area affected by Hurricane Katrina--at the
Corps' capability level--would this have mitigated many of the problems
faced in the disaster area?
Response. The impacts of the funding levels are not known at this
time. There is no single answer to the question as to why there were
failures in the hurricane protection system, as there were multiple
breaches of levees and floodwalls at a number of locations and the
exact failure mechanism of each is likely to be different. The answer
to this will follow from a thorough analysis of the data that the Corps
of Engineers is now collecting. What we have to date is evidence of
what happened; we can see the final result of the structural behavior,
but we cannot yet determine why. That will require more understanding
of the design intent of each structure, its condition prior to the
storm, the forces to which it was subjected, and the ability to at
least simulate how the structure would respond to those forces. This is
the objective of the Corps' current interagency analysis efforts.
Question 2. The Corps completed the reconnaissance study on whether
to strengthen coastal Louisiana's hurricane damage reduction projects
to protect against Category 4 and 5 storms in August 2002. Funding for
the feasibility study was included in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus
Appropriations bill and the Senate Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill, at the request of the Louisiana congressional
delegation. The Administration's budget request has never included
funding for this project. Has the Corps ever recommended funding to be
included in the Administration's budget for the feasibility study? If
the Corps has not requested funding for the feasibility study, why not?
Response. The reconnaissance report for the Hurricane Protection,
LA project was completed in August 2002. After the reconnaissance study
was started with a congressional add in fiscal year 2001, the
Administration requested funds for this project in each of its budget
submittals for fiscal years 2002--2004 ($100,000, $125,000, and
$100,000, respectively). The actual allocations received for the
project for fiscal years 2001--2004 were $75,000, $215,000, $85,100,
and $124,000, respectively. To date, a feasibility study cost sharing
agreement has not been executed between the Government and a non-
Federal sponsor. For fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the Administration did
not request funding for this project. The Congress appropriated
$100,000 for fiscal year 2005 ($79,000 was allocated) and $8 million
for fiscal year 2006.
Question 3. What are your plans for expediting the Category 5
feasibility study?
Response. The Conference Report to the fiscal year 2006 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act directs me to submit a preliminary
technical report for comprehensive Category 5 protection within 6
months of enactment of the Act and a final technical report for
Category 5 protection within 24 months of enactment of this Act. In
doing so, I am to consider providing protection for a storm surge
equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane within the project area and may
submit reports on component areas of the larger protection program for
authorization as soon as practicable.
______
Responses by Hon. John Paul Woodley, Jr., to Additional Questions
from Senator Obama
Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to
appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the
President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is
meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end before money
is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door.
Already, we've seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money.
A few weeks ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million
contract that FEMA signed with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees
and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a
week per person housed on the ship--four times the cost of a 7-day
Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment.
Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction
funds are being well spent.
Response. We are using our established procurement methods and
existing emergency response procedures and procurement oversight
procedures. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers routinely manages
emergency response operations. As a part of our planning process, based
on the lessons learned from previous events, we establish procedures to
cover all phases of our efforts to support FEMA. The Corps has teams
that are trained and ready to move into impacted areas at FEMA's
request, to provide necessary support like ice, water, temporary power,
roofing, and debris removal, or temporary housing. In cooperation with
FEMA, we established pre-placed contracts to enable quick reaction to
emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. This gives us time to transition to
a more long-term solution when that is necessitated by an event the
magnitude of Katrina. We are using our established oversight
procedures, with some augmentation. First--using our planned response
techniques, we rely on existing contracting offices and technical staff
for much of the work. We will also be using our normal approval chain
for acquisition plans and Justifications & Approvals for exemptions to
full and open competition. This would include Department of the Army
approval for higher dollar value acquisitions. One of the greatest
needs in a response of this magnitude is for Quality Assurance and
Technical staff to oversee the work. We are working with many agencies
that are supplying qualified staff members for tasks such as quality
assurance operations. We are grateful to Federal Agencies such as the
Bureau of Recreation, the Army Materiel Command, the Department of
Agriculture, the Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood and even retired
USACE employees who are providing staff to augment our operations. Our
Internal Review staff also teams with the Defense Contract Audit Agency
and Army Criminal Investigative Division to oversee many Corps
practices, to include contracting.
Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved
in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who
coordinates oversight over these financial decisions?
Response. The standard practice for the recovery missions assigned
to the Corps of Engineers is for the Corps to lead its contracting and
procurement actions with funding provided by FEMA. If the Corps
requires expertise from other agencies, funding is provided as
necessary and those agencies would oversee any contracting and
procurement actions that they deem necessary.
Question 3. In your testimony, you indicate that the Corps has
completed a study on the economic justification for providing
additional flood and storm protection to New Orleans and the
surrounding area.
What did that study conclude? Should additional protection be given
to New Orleans and the surrounding area?
Response. The reconnaissance study concluded Federal interest to
proceed to a feasibility study based on the analyses conducted for
category 4 protection for the East Jefferson Subasin.
Question 4. How much will this cost?
Response. A comprehensive analysis for the entire study area was
not addressed.
Question 5. I've heard concerns that the amount of flood protection
that the Corps provides is related to the amount of the potential
property damage.
Is this true? If so, does this mean that working folks get less
flood protection because their houses are worth less than the houses of
millionaires?
Response. Flood damage analyses include an assessment of physical
damages, income loss, and emergency costs, and therefore the value of
the structures being protected is only one of the benefit categories
that are evaluated. It would be premature to venture an assessment as
to the economic justification or level of protection for any of the
alternatives for increased hurricane protection for the area.
Question 6. How are agricultural lands valued? Do you calculate the
loss of future crops or just the value of the real estate?
Response. The Corps policy in design of flood damage reduction
projects is to provide an optimum degree of protection consistent with
safety of life and property. The Corps seeks an economically efficient
degree of protection and land use in agricultural areas, and acceptable
reduction of risks and preservation of environmental values in
protecting other rural and urban areas. Benefits are categorized
according to their effect as inundation reduction benefits,
intensification benefits, or location benefits. Inundation reduction
benefit is the value of reducing or modifying the flood losses to the
economic activity using the flood plain without any plan. Inundation
reduction benefits are usually measured as the reduction in the amount
of flood damages or related costs (those which would be voluntarily
undertaken by economically rational individuals to reduce damages).
Intensification benefit is the value of more intensive use of the land
(e.g., a shift from lower to higher value crops or higher crop yields).
Location benefit is the value of making flood plain land available for
a new economic use (e.g., where a shift from agricultural to industrial
use occurs). The evaluation of the future condition will depend on the
project alternatives and their impacts on the value and use of the
property.
______
Response by Hon. John Paul Woodley, Jr., to an Additional Question
from Senator Jeffords
Question. The breadth and magnitude of Hurricane Katrina is larger
than most Corps disaster response work. The recovery from this storm
will be long-term. The Corps' mission is broader than usual given the
Agency's responsibilities for the flood protection measures in the
region. Does the Corps have the money, people, and authority it needs
to handle a recovery of this magnitude?
Response. The Corps is the world's largest public engineering,
design, and construction management agency. Military and civilian
engineers, scientists, and a range of other specialists work hand-in-
hand--in division and district offices located throughout the world and
at four major laboratories and research centers--to provide leadership
in engineering and environmental matters. They are prepared to meet the
demands of changing times and requirements, including emergencies.
In addition, the private sector is an essential element of the
engineer team. The Corps employs private architectural, engineering,
and construction firms for a high percentage of its design and all of
its construction work. The partnership between the Corps and the
private sector represents an immediate force multiplier of several
hundred thousand architects, engineers, and builders and is readily
convertible to support the Nation in times of national emergency.
______
Responses by Hon. John Paul Woodley, Jr., to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. What is the status of efforts to repair the levee
system to its pre-Katrina level? Is the Corps moving forward with the
intent of simply replacing what was there? Or are you looking at other
design options?
Response. With our contractors, we are working around the clock on
the levees and floodwalls to provide an interim level of protection to
see the city through this hurricane season, which continues until the
end of November, and the rainy season that the city normally
experiences in December and January. The goal of this effort is to
restore the pre-storm level of protection before the start of the next
hurricane season, which begins in June 2006. The Corps has established
an independent performance evaluation task force to provide credible,
objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions
about the operation and performance of the hurricane protection
projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were flooded by
Hurricane Katrina. As we learn we will immediately act to incorporate
those findings into the interim and long term work in which we are
engaged.
Question 2. What kind of interactions with other agencies, the city
or the state taking place to ensure that decisions as to when and where
people will return are coordinated with the Corps' decisions on
rebuilding the levee system?
Response. The Corps will work in close partnership with the states
of Louisiana and Mississippi, the city of New Orleans, and other Gulf
Coast cities, so they can rebuild in a thoughtful, well-considered way.
The Corps is likely to have an active role in the restoration of public
infrastructure in the disaster zone. We will be fully engaged in the
effort to further strengthen Federal support for the region affected by
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita through the Gulf Coast Recovery
and Rebuilding Council. In accordance with President Bush's executive
order of November 1, 2005, the Corps will be not only be responsive to,
but also proactive in, providing effective, integrated, and fiscally
responsible support to State, local, and tribal governments, the
private sector, and faith-based and other community humanitarian relief
organizations in the recovery and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region
affected by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.
Question 3. I believe it would be a mistake to move forward with
the various projects in the affected area independently, without taking
a comprehensive look at how these missions can be integrated. For
instance, rebuilding or expanding a levee that we'll need to breach in
a couple years as part of our wetlands restoration efforts may not make
the most sense. What is the Corps doing now or preparing to propose
doing to ensure this comprehensive integration of activities?
Response. Our assessment of rebuilding existing projects or
potential new projects for higher levels of protection includes an
awareness of the relationship of the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)
project and hurricane protection proposals. Coastal restoration
provides numerous environmental and ecosystem benefits. These measures
can also provide elements that will benefit hurricane protection in
southeast Louisiana. Significant restoration of coastal wetlands and
barrier islands could offer surge reduction benefits to hurricane
protection projects. Proposals for hurricane protection and coastal
restoration will be compatible and complementary.
Question 4. Earlier this year, this Committee passed a WRDA bill
that authorizes a program for restoring the coastal wetlands. Where are
we in assessing the affect of the hurricane on the coastline? Do we
know yet whether the projects described in the LCA report are still
feasible and advisable? If not, do we have an approximate timeframe for
having the necessary assessments and determinations completed? Do you
need anything from Congress in order to do that?
Response. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has indicated that
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted at least 100 square miles of
marshland along Louisiana's coastline. Wetlands east of the Mississippi
River suffered the most severe damage, including 39 square miles lost
from Breton Sound, 14 square miles from the mouth of the Mississippi
River, and 6 square miles from the lower Pearl River basin. In some
areas, the USGS stated that the losses exceeded projections for coastal
erosion over the next 50 years. The projects described in the LCA
report are not only still feasible, but now even more essential. The
President has recently requested that $250M of the Federal money
already provided by Congress in the Emergency Supplemental be
``reallocated'' for funding wetlands restoration projects that would
enhance flood protection for the greater New Orleans area.
__________
Statement of Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I am
Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers. I am honored to
be testifying before your Committee today, along with the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable John Paul Woodley,
Jr., on the United States Army Corps of Engineers' activities related
to Hurricane Katrina. My testimony today will provide a brief
background and update the Committee on progress made to date on relief
efforts by the Corps of Engineers in support of FEMA's response and
recovery mission, as well as an update on the status of the levees
around the greater New Orleans area and the principal commercial
navigation channels.
background
The Corps of Engineers responds in three ways to natural disasters.
First, we act as part of the Federal response under the direction of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Second, we act under our own
civil works authorities, which in the area impacted by Katrina involve
principally our flood and storm damage reduction and commercial
navigation missions. Finally, we provide engineering assistance as
needed in support of the Department of Defense military forces who are
responding to the disaster. In all cases, our priorities are to support
efforts to save lives and find people, to sustain lives through
provision of water and shelter, and to set conditions for recovery,
such as debris removal and cleanup, and restoring critical
infrastructure and navigation.
support of fema
In support of FEMA and the National Response Plan, we are
responsible for Emergency Support Function 3 (ESF-3), one of 15
Emergency Support Functions that come together prior to, and during a
disaster. Under ESF-3, we have a mission to provide ice, water,
temporary power, and debris removal. For these pre-scripted missions,
we have standing contracts and we move these capabilities forward to
major mobilizationsites prior to landfall. From there, we have
operational support areas that are throughout the disaster area, where
commodities flow when they are needed.
We also provide temporary roofing on damaged buildings. In the
past, we have been requested and had responsibility for the temporary
housing mission. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has elected to
stand up a task force, the Housing Area Command, which is under the
direction of FEMA. We will continue to support this with technical
expertise and execution, but FEMA is handling the temporary housing
mission now. We also provide other technical assistance at the request
of FEMA on an as-needed basis.
Each of these missions is performed by groups of Corps of Engineers
employees from around the globe who are trained and ready prior to the
advent of a disaster and know that when a disaster occurs, they will be
called in to respond. We have them standing by in various stages of
readiness.
corps of engineers' inherent mission responsibilities
In addition to our support of the broader response effort that FEMA
coordinates, the Corps of Engineers has its own responsibilities in
flood and storm damage reduction and commercial navigation. For
example, we conduct surveys of all the structures in the area, both
navigation and flood and storm damage reduction, and then begin to make
repairs. We are also working under our PL 84-99 authority with the
affected parishes to repair levee systems that were damaged during the
event. Under the flood and storm damage reduction authorities that
govern the civil works program, we repair Corps owned structures and
some non-Corps owned structures.
status of our ongoing efforts in the disaster area
Volunteers from several Federal agencies have joined the Corps team
in providing support to FEMA. We are working closely with the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard
and the Army Material Command. In addition, Germany and the Netherlands
have provided equipment and personnel to assist in the hurricane
recovery. Currently we have nearly 2,900 Corps employees deployed in
the affected areas. We estimate that meeting our assignments to date
for Katrina from FEMA will cost about $3.2 billion. We have transferred
$64 million from other Corps accounts to our Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies program since Hurricane Katrina and also have received $200
million in supplemental appropriations for this program. We have also
received an additional $200 million in supplemental appropriations for
our operation and maintenance program, which will fund repairs to water
resources projects owned and operated by the Corps that were damaged by
Hurricane Katrina, both flood and storm damage reduction projects and
Federal commercial navigation harbors and channels.
To date, more than 4,000 truckloads of water and 2,100 truckloads
of ice have been delivered. We have conducted pre-installation
inspections on 875 generators, have installed 267 generators, and have
de-installed 199 generators because they were no longer needed. We have
installed more than 32,000 temporary roofs and nearly 67,000 Right of
Entry forms have been submitted to the Corps by people affected by the
disaster. We estimate that roughly 105,000 roofs will need temporary
roofing installed. Finally, we have removed almost 6.9 million cubic
yards of debris to date.
The Corps of Engineers is performing a detailed assessment of the
levee system. The 17th Street and London Canal levees have been closed
and repaired. The levees in Plaquemines Parish are being repaired now.
There were a total of twenty-seven levee breaks, including the eight
deliberate levee breaks we made to assist in the un-watering of New
Orleans. It is important that leaders and residents understand that
there is risk to life and property in re-entering flooded areas until
additional emergency levee repairs have been made. Pumps that are
designed to remove water must also be returned to an operational
status. State and local leaders are advised to ensure effective warning
and evacuation plans are in place as long as protection levels are
diminished. State and local leaders will be kept informed as
assessments are complete and repairs are made.
Prior to Hurricane Rita, we were making steady progress on pumping
out floodwaters from the city of New Orleans. The arrival of Hurricane
Rita and the subsequent flooding of parts of the New Orleans area has
impacted the schedules for un-watering some areas. The un-watering is
continuing as quickly as possible. The number of pumps that are
operational at any given time is continually changing. It is expected
that the 9th Ward and New Orleans East will be un-watered October 5.
Water removal in Plaquemines is expected to be completed October 18.
St. Bernard's Parish is essentially dry.
The U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port of New Orleans has lifted
all restrictions on the Lower Mississippi River. The Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW) is also open. Industry and the Corps have worked out an
operating plan for Calcasieu Lock to balance drainage, especially
during scheduled bridge closures, and navigation safety. Shallow draft
tows and light tug traffic are allowed 24 hours on the Calcasieu River.
Deep draft vessels are restricted to 35 feet draft, and daylight only
from the Lake Charles Interstate-10 bridge to the jetties. The gates
are fixed on the Leland Bowman Lock, and the lock is open and barges
are passing through without problems. Harvey Lock is also open. The
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is operational, and the canal
is restricted to vessels 110ft wide by 18ft draft due to a sunken dry-
dock and other obstructions. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO)
is closed to deep draft vessels. The inland portion will serve as an
alternative route to the GIWW due to closure of IHNC for shallow draft
vessels deeper than 18 feet. Critical aids to navigation are in place
for this portion of the MRGO. Our preliminary surveys indicate a
controlling depth of 23 feet and the Captain of the Port of New Orleans
has declared MRGO available to draft of 23 feet. Port Fourchon
sustained significant damage, but is operating to a limited extent. The
U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port has opened the Atchafalaya River
from Mile 0 to the Gulf. Tiger Pass is shoaled to less than 6 feet.
This channel, authorized to 14 feet, provides a shorter route for
vessels traveling to the west from the Mississippi River near the mouth
and is primarily used by fishing and supply vessels. We are preparing a
contract to dredge the channel. The Port of Morgan City has experienced
some shoaling and dredging is being scheduled.
We are working closely with local, State, and Federal experts on
monitoring the water quality as the water is pumped out of the City. As
we get to the final amounts of water, we may encounter more
concentrated levels of contaminants that will require special attention
and handling. It is important to note that the un-watering effort will
remove most, but not all the water. The remaining isolated pockets of
water should not hamper recovery efforts such as debris removal,
structural assessments and restoration of critical services.
our future role in the disaster area
At this time, the Corps is focused on disaster relief and recovery,
including un-watering New Orleans and surrounding areas. We are also
currently implementing a plan to reconstitute our New Orleans District
office, which has been closed since the Hurricane. I am happy to report
that all 1,229 employees of the District have been accounted for.
This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Lieutenant General Carl Strock to Additional Questions
from Senator Thune
Question 1. Could you please update me with respect to the Army
Corps position regarding water levels on the Missouri River? In
particular, is the Corps in any way considering deviating from the
Master Control Manual?
Response. The Corps' intent is to operate the Missouri River
Mainstem Reservoir System strictly in accordance with the Master
Control Manual. At the present time, the Corps is carefully monitoring
conditions on both the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and we do not
believe that an emergency situation exists at this time.
Question 2. As a result of Hurricane Katrina, is there anything
that will slow or impede the Corps work regarding the Cheyenne River
Sioux emergency water intake that is underway pursuant to P.L. 84-99?
Response. The Cheyenne River Sioux emergency water intake work is
not currently being impacted by Hurricane Katrina efforts. Potential
funding impacts could arise if future Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Laws limit the funding to projects impacted by
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ophelia. In that event, the Corps would
need to identify an alternate source of funds for the project by
January 2006 to allow the project to continue on schedule.
Question 3. As the author of S. 1761, the ``Gulf Coast Recovery
Act'' I would appreciate knowing more about how the Army Corps of
Engineers (as well as your private sector partners) are impacted by the
threat of litigation in post-disaster clean-up efforts.
Response. The Corps of Engineers conducts its emergency recovery
efforts in accordance with Federal law and Corps regulations and the
threat of litigation does not influence the execution of our missions.
______
Responses by Lieutenant General Carl Strock to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. noticed, in the fiscal year 2006 Budget Resolution,
that the Corps and OMB prioritize construction funding for projects
with the highest net economic and environmental return. Do you consider
threat assessment as well?
Response. While the Administration supports new and continuing
construction that offers maximum returns to the Nation, it also
emphasizes essential maintenance and security activities at key Corps
facilities.
Question 2. Can you explain further how the Corps and the OMB
select projects to receive funding in the President's Budget request?
Response. Funding is targeted to completing the best existing
projects, and to a limited number of new projects whose benefits to the
Nation greatly exceed their costs. Performance-based program
development is development of only those programs, and only those parts
of those programs, that can be justified by the results produced, or to
be produced. Results may be in the form of outputs or outcomes.
Performance based program development is designed not only to ensure
prosecution of only clearly justified programs, but also, to ensure
that business program increments are added such that the first-added
increment provides the best results or returns, the second-added
increment provides the second-best results or returns, etc. The
increments are added in order of priority, both within and across
business programs, to build total programs of whatever size, depending
on available funding.
In response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA), the Corps established its business programs by program purpose,
such as navigation, environment, and flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, rather than by function (e.g., investigations, construction,
operation and maintenance, etc.). Consistently, the Corps programs by
program purpose, and, once Army finishes program development, assists
Army in cross-walking results to appropriation accounts, set up by
function, for use by OMB in developing the President's program.
Business programs include navigation, environment, flood control and
coastal storm damages, hydropower, recreation, regulatory, emergency
management, and water supply.
______
Responses by Lieutenant General Carl Strock to Additional Questions
from Senator Obama
Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to
appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the
President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is
meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end before money
is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door.
Already, we've seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money.
A few weeks ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million
contract that FEMA signed with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees
and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a
week per person housed on the ship--four times the cost of a seven-day
Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment.
Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction
funds are being well spent.
Response. We are using our established procurement methods and
existing emergency response procedures and procurement oversight
procedures. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers routinely manages
emergency response operations. As a part of our planning process, based
on the lessons learned from previous events, we establish procedures to
cover all phases of our efforts to support FEMA. The Corps has teams
that are trained and ready to move into impacted areas at FEMA's
request, to provide necessary support like ice, water, temporary power,
roofing, and debris removal, or temporary housing. In cooperation with
FEMA, we established pre-placed contracts to enable quick reaction to
emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. This gives us time to transition to
a more long-term solution when that is necessitated by an event the
magnitude of Katrina. We are using our established oversight
procedures, with some augmentation. First--using our planned response
techniques, we rely on existing contracting offices and technical staff
for much of the work. We will also be using our normal approval chain
for acquisition plans and Justifications & Approvals for exemptions to
full and open competition. This would include Department of the Army
approval for higher dollar value acquisitions. One of the greatest
needs in a response of this magnitude is for Quality Assurance and
Technical staff to oversee the work. We are working with many agencies
that are supplying qualified staff members for tasks such as quality
assurance operations. We are grateful to Federal Agencies such as the
Bureau of Recreation, the Army Materiel Command, the Department of
Agriculture, the Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood and even retired
USACE employees who are providing staff to augment our operations. Our
Internal Review staff also teams with the Defense Contract Audit Agency
and Army Criminal Investigative Division to oversee many Corps
practices, to include contracting.
Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved
in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who
coordinates oversight over these financial decisions?
Response. The standard practice for the recovery missions assigned
to the Corps of Engineers is for the Corps to lead its contracting and
procurement actions with funding provided by FEMA. If the Corps
requires expertise from other agencies, funding is provided as
necessary and those agencies would oversee any contracting and
procurement actions that they deem necessary.
Question 3. In your testimony, you explain that part of the Army
Corps' mission under the National Response Plan is to provide ice and
water. Like many Americans, I found it disgraceful that folks in the
Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center did not receive water for
days after the hurricane, while at the same time trucks full of ice
were apparently driving around the country at the taxpayer's expense.
Can you explain how this happened and what steps you're taking to
ensure that it doesn't happen in any future natural disasters?
Response. There is a ramp-up period built into the ice and water
contracts to take into account the normal process time that is
experienced by the contractor. The contract envisions an order being
made for a multiple day quantity--not daily orders that only cover the
next 24-hour period. Therefore, once a definite order is placed, the
contractor has to provide 25 percent of the total order within 24
hours; 50 percent of the total order within 48 hours; 75 percent within
72 hours; and 100 percent within 96 hours. Given a 10 day somewhat
steady state order, the first 2 days requirements would be delivered
within 24 hours, etc. When an order is made for a large amount for one
day--such as a 450 truckload order for one day, followed the next day
by another--the system doesn't work because the contractor can't see
the ramp up into the future. While a one day requirement for a
reasonable amount might be available, the second day amount may not be
normally replenished that quickly--while a multiple day order allows
the industry to begin to ramp up for increased production and delivery.
The Corps has teams that are trained and ready to move into
impacted areas at FEMA's request, to provide necessary support like
ice, water, temporary power, roofing, and debris removal, or temporary
housing. In cooperation with FEMA, we established pre-placed contracts
to enable quick reaction to emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. As the
commodities were being prepared and shipped, the situation on the
ground was very dynamic, and projections of needs changed frequently as
mass evacuations took place and many people moved out of the disaster
area. These changes led to changes, transmitted to the Corps from FEMA,
rerouting commodities to different staging areas and eventually to
storage facilities as supply began to exceed demand. As this situation
developed, some truckers were rerouted while attempting to deliver
their commodities, and some were put in holding patterns as storage
facilities were readied to accept their deliveries.
______
Responses by Lieutenant General Carl Strock to Additional Questions
from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. General Strock, who was the first Corps employee to
report the levee breach, when did that report occur, and when were
state and local officials notified?
Response. Leaders of the New Orleans District first learned that
levees and storm surge barriers had been compromised via phone calls
from local first responders (firemen) and Corps employees on the Inner
Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) navigation lock. At approximately 1:00
PM on 29 August 2005 after the strong winds had subsided, Corps
personnel, including Colonel R. Wagenaar, who stayed at the district
during the storm, attempted to drive to the 17th street canal to verify
the reports of a breach in the hurricane protection system. Flooded
roadways and darkness prevented the team from reaching the canal to
confirm the reported breach. They were able to validate the levee
breach on Tuesday, and they began implementing a plan to fix the
breach. Personnel in the Corps Emergency Operations Center heard news
reports of a possible breach on the London Avenue Canal but were not
able to confirm the reports. On 31 August 2005, New Orleans district
Corps personnel were able to confirm the breach in the vicinity of
Robert E Lee Blvd and the breach at Mirabeau Ave. after getting
assistance from a search and rescue boat crew. Employees at the Corps
IHNC navigation locks noticed a breach in the hurricane protection
system and notified their supervisory chain.
Question 2. In July 2004, emergency officials conducted a planning
scenario in Louisiana to address a Category 3 hurricane. The debris
team for this exercise estimated that the storm would result in 30
million cubic yards of debris and 237,000 cubic yards of household
hazardous waste. How are EPA and the Corps working together to manage
this large quantity of debris, including hazardous materials and the
potential air quality impacts of any open burning?
Response. Through October, over 14 million cubic yards of debris
has been removed in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. It is
estimated that nearly the Corps will remove 40 million cubic yards
during cleanup efforts. Some communities are allowing burning of
debris; others have prohibited open air burn. As not all the
communities have opted for Federal debris assistance, we can't speak
for reduction methods in those communities that have let their own
contracts. The Corps complies with both state DEQ and city or county
directives. If allowed to burn, the Corps generally conducts air-
curtain incineration where there is greater debris reduction achieved
with little to no smoke emitted. Air curtain burning is a process that
includes a pit and a machine that injects about 2000 degree Fahrenheit
heat into it and then circulates the air so that nothing leaves the
pit. It is all re-circulated back into the flame until everything,
including the smoke, is burned. The Louisiana DEQ and EPA sort out any
hazardous material before it gets into the incineration pit. The EPA
and the Coast Guard are guiding the disposal of hazardous material at
certified waste landfills that are able to handle such material.
Question 3. General Strock, you have stated in the past that there
were internal reforms that could be made to improve the performance of
the Corps, such as independent peer review of Corps projects. Given
your experiences with the Katrina relief efforts and the expected
rebuilding the Corps will be involved in, what changes do you think the
Corps needs to make to its project development and cost benefit
analysis to ensure that Federal tax dollars are going to the most
beneficial and necessary projects?
Response. The Corps' performance based program development is
designed to ensure prosecution of only clearly justified programs. The
Corps Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction program is well
established and valued. However, our ability to continue to reduce
flood risks to meet the needs of current and future generations is
dependent upon adequate investments. Such investments provide for the
necessary investigations of problems and development of projects,
timely implementation of authorized projects, proper inspections of
Corps and local projects, preventative maintenance or facility
modernization or improvement, improvements to ensure the reliability
and safety of projects, adequate data collection or improvements to
increase operational efficiencies. Accordingly, a nationwide
perspective is maintained to assure that available funding provides the
greatest public benefit for the investment. The safety and security of
our existing infrastructure must be maintained, new investigations to
address serious flood risks must be conducted and our uncompleted
projects must be brought on line quickly so that benefits may be
achieved as soon as possible. Prioritization of projects is based on
many factors, such as the number of people at risk in 100 year
floodplain, the total population in the 100 year floodplain, estimated
average annual damages (without project), the benefit to cost ratio,
and the remaining benefits remaining costs ratio. If there is a change
needed in the project development and cost benefit analysis for these
types of projects, it could include investigating whether the National
Economic Development analysis is the appropriate benchmark for project
recommendation. Several of the communications that we have received
following Hurricane Katrina<plus-minus> suggest that the Corps base its
project development on planning for a catastrophic event rather than
the project that maximizes net economic development benefits.
Question 4. General Strock, does the Corps have the expertise to
provide technical advice regarding redevelopment patterns that would
reduce hurricane and flooding impacts and maximize opportunities for
wetlands redevelopment, which is so important to the people of
Louisiana?
Response. Yes. Local and State officials will lead the future
discussions for rebuilding New Orleans, but the Corps of Engineers can
advise communities, industries, and property owners on protection
measures they can take themselves, such as zoning regulations, warning
systems and flood proofing, as well as means to maximize opportunities
for wetlands redevelopment.
Question 5. General Strock, can you describe our current system is
adequate for: establishment of levee safety standards, responsibility
for operation and maintenance of levee systems once constructed, cost
sharing for construction and for maintenance, and ongoing review of the
safety of our Nation's levees?
Is that system adequate to ensure levee safety throughout the
Nation?
Response. The Corps has an Inspection of Completed Works program to
assure sponsor compliance with existing agreements that the structures
and facilities constructed by the United States for flood protection
will be continuously maintained in such a manner and operated at such
times and for such periods as may be necessary to obtain the maximum
benefits. The Corps annually inspects projects that protect urban areas
or ones where failure would be catastrophic and result in loss of life.
Rural projects are initially scheduled for an inspection every second
year. Out-of-cycle inspections may be performed, if necessary.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that any system will ensure levee safety
throughout the Nation. The Corps stands ready, however, to work with
other Federal, state, and local agencies and the public to improve our
system and processes for evaluating levee safety.
Question 6. You have described the Corps' role in the days
preceding and the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Knowing
what you know today, would you have done anything differently?
Response. The Corps has established an independent performance
evaluation task force to provide credible, objective engineering and
scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and
performance of the hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans
metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane Katrina. An after-
action review of the response will be conducted once our recovery
operations are complete. We will learn from what went well, and
identify areas needing improvements.
Question 7. During your performance of your duties under Emergency
Support Function 3 to provide water and ice, did the Corps observe any
problems in terms of delivery to those in need?
Response. The Corps has followed its normal procedures, pre-
positioning ice and water at staging areas prior to the storm.
Following the storm, at FEMA's direction, we ordered very large
additional quantities of these commodities, about 170 million lbs of
ice, and more than 5,500 truckloads of bottled water, to meet the
anticipated need, especially in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama
coastal counties. As the commodities were being prepared and shipped,
mass evacuations took place and many people moved out of the immediate
disaster impact area. The location of need became a moving target--or
indeed multiple moving targets. This dynamic situation led FEMA to
reroute water and ice to different staging areas. Many people evacuated
to cities that did not need long-term supplies of water and ice because
they had functioning utilities. Thus, supply began to exceed the demand
estimated when Katrina's magnitude became known. Truckers were again
re-directed to storage facilities. Some truckers were rerouted while
attempting to deliver their commodities and some sat on hold while
storage facilities were made ready to accept their deliveries. The
current situation is that available supply of ice and water exceeds the
demand for Hurricane Katrina relief and emphasis is being placed on
keeping commodities ready for future needs.
Question 8. Will the Corps re-evaluate new projects pending
Congressional authorization such as the Louisiana Coastal Area
ecosystem restoration project to determine if the current project plans
remain viable after the affects of Katrina and if so, what is your
timeline?
Response. On a case-by-case basis, and subject to the availability
of funding and timing of project authorization, the Corps could re-
evaluate projects pending Congressional authorization if it is expected
that conditions have changed significantly enough to modify the
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The appropriate Congressional
sub-committees will be notified in a timely manner of any potential
authorization issues.
Question 9. Has the Corps already, or do you have plans to,
evaluate the vulnerability of all Army Corps' infrastructure in the
Gulf of Mexico region to determine its vulnerability to further intense
hurricane activity in the coming years?
Response. The Corps has established an independent performance
evaluation task force to provide credible, objective engineering and
scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and
performance of the hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans
metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane Katrina. At this time,
the Corps lacks the authority and funding to evaluate other Corps
infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico.
Question 10. What steps has the Corps taken across the Nation to
cooperate with local communities to ensure that those located
``downstream'' of flood protection features, including dams, have
adequate emergency response plans in the event of a catastrophic
failure?
Response. It is our policy that an emergency plan for each dam,
including a notification procedure, be prepared and kept accurate,
complete and current. Development of an evacuation plan is a non-
Federal responsibility and the Corps strongly encourages the
appropriate State or local officials to develop evacuation plans as
part of the overall dam safety program.
Question 11. Will the Corps conduct a comprehensive, integrated
review of Corps infrastructure and pending projects to determine if
projects should be modified to use different approaches to flood
control, including non-structural methods such as relocations? Please
describe if the lessons learned in the exercise are being applied here.
Response. At this time, the Corps does not plan to conduct a
comprehensive, integrated review of Corps infrastructure and pending
projects. The Corps has established an independent performance
evaluation task force to provide credible, objective engineering and
scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and
performance of the hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans
metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane Katrina. Through this
investigation, the Corps will be able to identify lessons learned and
ways to potentially improve the performance of the existing hurricane
protection system at the authorized level of protection. As a learning
organization, the Corps systematically learns what works and what does
not work from its experience and any increased innovation,
effectiveness, and performance could ultimately be applied to other
projects.
Question 12. Have delays in obtaining sampling results affected
your ability to manage water quality issues surrounding the de-watering
of New Orleans?
Response. No. The Corps worked closely with EPA to develop a
collaborative approach for managing potential water quality/ecosystem
impacts associated with the un-watering effort. EPA identified 5 water
quality areas of concern. As directed, the Corps worked to quickly
initiate a monitoring program to sample water and sediment. We sampled
at locations in the canals leading to the pumps as well as on the
discharge side of the pumps in the immediate outfall areas in Lake
Pontchartrain. The U.S. Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Corps,
placed and maintained fresh sorbent booms at major outfalls to Lake
Ponchartrain to adsorb oil and other floating chemicals from pumped
flood waters. Additionally, the Corps deployed artificial aerators in
the major canals to Lake Pontchartrain to enhance dissolved oxygen
concentrations and volatilize any aromatic compounds in the water.
______
Responses by Lieutenant General Carl Strock to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. For years, community leaders, scientists, and citizen
groups have argued that the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was like a
gun pointing directly at New Orleans. They argued that the outlet would
funnel storm surges directly to New Orleans. Recent newspaper reports
suggest that this is in fact what happened.
When the Corps recently decided not to close the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet, did you consider the risk of funneling storm surges?
Response. The authorized channel in a fully open condition was
modeled for nine storm scenarios using the Advanced Circulation Model
for Oceanic, Coastal, and Estuarine Waters (ADCIRC). The nine storm
scenarios were combinations of a weak, moderate, or strong intensity in
combination with either a slow, moderate, or fast forward speed. All
storm scenarios used the same track that was selected to maximize the
winds parallel to the MR-GO and yet minimize the easterly component
across Lake Borgne. This case would produce the maximum case for the
storm surge analysis. The conclusion reached from the DDCIRC modeling
analysis was that the MR-GO has minimal influence on storm surge
propagation in the study area.
Question 2. In light of Katrina, do you believe the decision not to
close the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was correct?
Response. The Corps has established an independent performance
evaluation task force to provide credible, objective engineering and
scientific answers to fundamental questions about the operation and
performance of the hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans
metropolitan area that were flooded by Hurricane Katrina. One of the
most fundamental needs for the task force is understanding the storm
surge and wave conditions that resulted from the hurricane. The surge
and wave levels were likely significantly different in different parts
of the region, especially in confined areas such as the canals and
waterways and for the areas immediately adjacent to the lakes. The
differences in the surge and waves with time and location equate to
differences in the forces experienced by the various flood control
structures which related directly to understanding their performance.
The most advanced numerical hydrodynamic models will be used to
generate this information. Understanding the true consequences of the
system's performance is critical to understanding the risk factors for
future decision making.
Question 3. Coastal wetlands provide important protections from
storm surges and all wetlands help absorb flood waters and reduce
flooding impacts. The Corps has known for years that there is a
significant problem with coastal and other wetland losses in Louisiana.
What steps is the Corps taking right now to minimize additional
wetland losses along the coast of Louisiana?
Response. Many of the features of the proposed Louisiana Coastal
Area Ecosystem Restoration Project would provide a benefit by
preventing on-going wetlands loss through subsidence, creating new
marsh and nourishing existing marsh. While there is adequate
justification for coastal wetlands restoration for a host of reasons,
it is also certain that these features would also provide an important
component of the storm damage reduction system by helping to maintain
the integrity of the landscape surrounding that system. According to
the United States Geological Survey, one mile of wetland reduces storm
surge by one foot. It is crucial that the storm damage reduction system
include components that complement coastal restoration and management
features. The President has recently requested that $250M of the
Federal money already provided by Congress in the Emergency
Supplemental be ``reallocated'' for funding wetlands restoration
projects that would enhance flood protection for the greater New
Orleans area.
Question 4. Once the Corps is done with the immediate task of
stabilizing the levees and floodwalls around New Orleans, will the
Corps reevaluate other Federal projects and activities that will add to
wetland losses and exacerbate flooding risks in the region?
Response. Our assessment of rebuilding existing projects or
potential new projects for higher levels of protection includes an
awareness of the relationship of the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)
project and hurricane protection proposals. Coastal restoration
provides numerous environmental and ecosystem benefits. These measures
can also provide elements that will benefit hurricane protection in
southeast Louisiana. Significant restoration of coastal wetlands and
barrier islands could offer surge reduction benefits to hurricane
protection projects. Proposals for hurricane protection and coastal
restoration will be compatible and complementary.
______
Responses by Lieutenant General Carl Strock to Additional Questions
from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. What is the status of efforts to repair the levee
system to its pre-Katrina level? Is the Corps moving forward with the
intent of simply replacing what was there? Or are you looking at other
design options?
Response. With our contractors, we are working around the clock on
the levees and floodwalls to provide an interim level of protection to
see the city through this hurricane season, which continues until the
end of November, and the rainy season that the city normally
experiences in December and January. The goal of this effort is to
restore the pre-storm level of protection before the start of the next
hurricane season, which begins in June 2006. The Corps has established
an independent performance evaluation task force to provide credible,
objective engineering and scientific answers to fundamental questions
about the operation and performance of the hurricane protection
projects in the New Orleans metropolitan area that were flooded by
Hurricane Katrina. As we learn we will immediately act to incorporate
those findings into the interim and long term work in which we are
engaged.
Question 2. What kind of interactions with other agencies, the city
or the state taking place to ensure that decisions as to when and where
people will return are coordinated with the Corps' decisions on
rebuilding the levee system?
Response. The Corps will work in close partnership with the states
of Louisiana and Mississippi, the city of New Orleans, and other Gulf
Coast cities, so they can rebuild in a thoughtful, well-considered way.
The Corps is likely to have an active role in the restoration of public
infrastructure in the disaster zone. We will be fully engaged in the
effort to further strengthen Federal support for the region affected by
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita through the Gulf Coast Recovery
and Rebuilding Council. In accordance with President Bush's executive
order of November 1, 2005, the Corps will be not only be responsive to,
but also proactive in, providing effective, integrated, and fiscally
responsible support to State, local, and tribal governments, the
private sector, and faith-based and other community humanitarian relief
organizations in the recovery and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region
affected by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.
Question 3. I believe it would be a mistake to move forward with
the various projects in the affected area independently, without taking
a comprehensive look at how these missions can be integrated. For
instance, rebuilding or expanding a levee that we'll need to breach in
a couple years as part of our wetlands restoration efforts may not make
the most sense. What is the Corps doing now or preparing to propose
doing to ensure this comprehensive integration of activities?
Response. Our assessment of rebuilding existing projects or
potential new projects for higher levels of protection includes an
awareness of the relationship of the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)
project and hurricane protection proposals. Coastal restoration
provides numerous environmental and ecosystem benefits. These measures
can also provide elements that will benefit hurricane protection in
southeast Louisiana. Significant restoration of coastal wetlands and
barrier islands could offer surge reduction benefits to hurricane
protection projects. Proposals for hurricane protection and coastal
restoration will be compatible and complementary.
Question 4. Earlier this year, this Committee passed a WRDA bill
that authorizes a program for restoring the coastal wetlands. Where are
we in assessing the affect of the hurricane on the coastline? Do we
know yet whether the projects described in the LCA report are still
feasible and advisable? If not, do we have an approximate timeframe for
having the necessary assessments and determinations completed? Do you
need anything from Congress in order to do that?
Response. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has indicated that
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted at least 100 square miles of
marshland along Louisiana's coastline. Wetlands east of the Mississippi
River suffered the most severe damage, including 39 square miles lost
from Breton Sound, 14 square miles from the mouth of the Mississippi
River, and 6 square miles from the lower Pearl River basin. In some
areas, the USGS stated that the losses exceeded projections for coastal
erosion over the next 50 years. The projects described in the LCA
report are not only still feasible, but now even more essential. The
President has recently requested that $250M of the Federal money
already provided by Congress in the Emergency Supplemental be
``reallocated'' for funding wetlands restoration projects that would
enhance flood protection for the greater New Orleans area.
__________
Statement of Richard J. Capka, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transporation
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) actions in response to Hurricane Katrina. Our
hearts go out to all those affected by the recent hurricanes, and we
look forward to continuing our efforts to help the citizens of the Gulf
Coast rebuild their transportation infrastructure and their lives.
These storms have presented enormous challenges to all those involved,
but the events also have helped to bring out the best in the public
servants at our Agency, and I am grateful for their continued service.
I visited the affected areas with Louisiana's Secretary of
Transportation, Johnny Bradberry, and Mississippi Department of
Transportation's Executive Director, Butch Brown, and the Highway
Commission Chairman, Wayne Brown, and had an opportunity to see the
devastation first hand. While TV coverage, aerial surveys, and photos
of bridge and roadway damage along I-10, US 90, and other area roads
tell the story of Katrina's force, they could not convey the full
impact of the devastation that I witnessed.
Critical sections of Federal-aid highways in New Orleans were
submerged for an extended period of time. Portions of Highway 23 in
Plaquemines Parish, which service communities and petro-chemical
facilities, remain under water. An I-10 bridge structure at Pascagoula
was damaged, forcing single lane traffic across the remaining
structure. Highway bridges along both I-10 and US 90 had huge deck
slabs, weighing many tons, shifted and lifted off their support piers
and dumped into the water. Massive casino barges along the Mississippi
coast were yanked from their moorings and deposited onto US 90 at
locations, in some cases, that were more than a mile away from their
original sites. US 90, an important artery for Gulf Coast residents,
was impassible in numerous locations due to the debris and structural
damage. This highway infrastructure damage represents only a small
fraction of the total devastation inflicted on the communities in
Mississippi and Louisiana.
The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and FHWA
remain firmly committed to helping the ravaged areas recover as quickly
as possible. There is much work to be done in both the short-term and
long-term. FHWA has been working closely with our State and Federal
partners before, during, and after the storm. Today, I would like to
share with you some of the details related to our response.
pre-hurricane activities
FHWA was well positioned to rapidly respond to the effects of
Hurricane Katrina. We have permanent Division Offices in each State,
and have developed both first hand knowledge of the States and strong
professional and personal relationships with State and local highway
officials. The mutual trust and confidence that preexisted Hurricane
Katrina provided an excellent foundation for an effective plan and team
effort to execute a timely highway response to the hurricane disaster.
Our Division Offices provided advice to State and local jurisdictions
concerning Emergency Relief program eligibility and engineering and
contracting issues, and shared lessons learned from prior emergency
situations.
response immediately after hurricanes
As soon as we could re-enter the affected areas, FHWA deployed
personnel, including employees from outside the affected States, to
work along side State highway and local officials to help assess the
damage and to help facilitate response and recovery efforts. In
response to Hurricane Katrina, FHWA deployed 104 employees from our
Headquarters and 23 field offices to Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, and Mississippi to support relief activities.
I must express my admiration for the State and local road crews,
many of whom suffered great personal losses along with their community
neighbors. Mississippi and Louisiana responded exceptionally well in
getting debris removal underway. Road crews began clearing debris--
including downed trees and power lines from highways and bridges as
soon as it was safe to do so after the storm. Consequently, with the
exception of areas that were flooded, the States opened their essential
Federal-aid highways for responders in less than a day, where re-entry
was warranted.
FHWA employees worked shoulder to shoulder with our State and local
counterparts to rapidly assess the situation and to shape strategies
that would provide the most efficient response. We provided ready
access to past lessons learned and helped Mississippi and Louisiana to
work with Florida experts in addressing the bridge damage along I-10
and Highway 90, since Florida had experienced similar challenges
following Hurricane Ivan last year. FHWA-provided information was used
to support the flow of relief goods and services into the Gulf Coast
region. This information was shared throughout all levels of government
and with industry organizations, such as the American Trucking
Associations. For example, FHWA posted State proclamations and weight
permit and waiver information on our Web site.
Just after the hurricanes, our Division Offices in the impacted
areas conducted refresher training on our Emergency Relief program for
joint FHWA and State damage assessment teams. For example, the
Louisiana Division Office met with the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development leadership and the team members and
explained the Emergency Relief Program. The same type of training was
held for the local jurisdictions of Jefferson and Orleans parishes.
This training increased the efficiency of the teams to make Emergency
Relief program qualification decisions.
The Emergency Relief program provides reimbursement to States for
expenses related to highway infrastructure damage associated with
natural disasters and other emergency situations, such as Hurricane
Katrina. Examples of the type of work eligible for Emergency Relief
program reimbursement include repairing pavements, shoulders, slopes,
embankments, guard rails, signs, traffic control devices, and bridges,
and removing debris from the highway rights-of-way. Reimbursement under
the Emergency Relief program is for the repair and restoration of
highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. However, Emergency
Relief program reimbursement is not for new construction to increase
capacity, correct non-disaster related deficiencies, or otherwise
improve highway facilities.
FHWA has made down payments to the States of Louisiana and
Mississippi for emergency relief. We provided Louisiana with $5 million
of ``quick release'' Emergency Relief funds for the I-10 Twin Span
Bridge, which connects New Orleans and Slidell with the understanding
that more funds to support the repair of the bridge and damage to other
Federal-aid highways and bridges would be forthcoming. We also provided
Mississippi with $5 million in ``quick release'' Emergency Relief to
reimburse the State for repairs to US 90, I-10, and other federally
funded roads and bridges.
In addition to the immediate infusion of funds, FHWA has expedited
environmental reviews to ensure that we can get work underway as
quickly as possible, while still being good stewards of the
environment. In Headquarters, we coordinated with the Council on
Environmental Quality and other Federal agencies to use existing
expedited procedures to streamline the environmental analysis process
for the States. For example, we worked with affected Federal and State
agencies to approve the preparation of an expedited Environmental
Assessment, with limited deviations from FHWA's standard procedures,
for the US 90 bridge replacement and associated approach roadwork in
the area of Biloxi Bay and Ocean Springs. Furthermore, our employees in
the field have used rapid-response coordination techniques to get
critical environmental information immediately by phone or electronic
mail.
recovery
FHWA also has been working actively to support long-term recovery
efforts across the region. Every day we are making more progress in
repairing the transportation systems destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Our primary goal is to help restore the stability and quality of life
to the people of the Gulf Coast as quickly as possible. Over the past
few weeks we have made remarkable strides, and we will continue to
build on that success to ensure that the region's transportation
network serves as an engine of its economic recovery.
We worked with the States to provide appropriate expedited
procedures to get contractors underway with repairs. Incentives have
been employed effectively to ensure the timeliest possible restoration
of lost essential service. For example, Mississippi awarded a $5.2
million contract to repair one of the highest priority roads in the
region the I-10 bridge at Pascagoula and included not only an incentive
if work is completed in less than 31 days, but also a corresponding
penalty for finishing late. I am pleased to report this bridge reopened
on October 1 more than a week ahead of the contract completion date.
Louisiana is using a similar technique to restore initial service
across the I-10 Bridge at Slidell. We strongly support these
``incentivized'' contracts, and we are out in the field working closely
with the States to exercise all appropriate options and tools available
during this rebuilding effort.
The long-term restoration of roadways is considered permanent
repair work under the Emergency Relief program. Generally, permanent
repair and reconstruction work, not accomplished as emergency repairs,
must be done by a competitive bid contract method unless the State
demonstrates some other method is cost effective. This work can be
expedited using innovative contracting procedures available under the
Federal-aid Program such as the design-build contracting method.
In addition to the ``quick release'' Emergency Relief funds, all
affected States may use up to $100 million per State per event for
Federal-aid highway roads and bridges damaged as a result of the
hurricanes. When an event of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina occurs,
the repair cost can far exceed available Emergency Relief funding.
However, repairs can still get underway with other Federal-aid or State
funds.
We will continue to work with State and local governments to
identify long-term highway recovery needs. We are engaged in
interagency coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers to ensure
that infrastructure recovery is coordinated and synchronized. We are
leading coordination among other agencies to ensure that up-to-date
engineering design criteria are provided and environmental requirements
are accomplished in ways that will not impede the rapid recovery of
lost or damaged infrastructure.
A number of longer-term projects have been identified in the
impacted States. The following is a brief description of such projects.
Louisiana: Hurricane Katrina severely damaged the I-10 Twin Spans
over Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans. A $31 million ``incentivized''
emergency repair contract was let to temporarily restore two-way,
single-span access to New Orleans by October 30 and access across both
spans by January 18, 2006. Louisiana is considering a replacement
bridge that would be constructed to current design standards and
criteria, and we will work with them on those efforts. In addition to
the bridge, many sections of I-10 were flooded due to the levee breaks.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway and LA 1 and LA 23 also sustained some
damage.
Mississippi: Emergency repair projects are currently underway to
restore sections of US-90 from Pass Christian to Biloxi-Ocean Springs.
A series of emergency repair projects are under contract (via force
account) to restore US-90 to 2 lanes from Pass Christian to Biloxi-
Ocean Springs by December 9th. Storm surge heavily damaged
approximately 30 miles of US 90 roadway between Bay St. Louis and
Biloxi. Additionally, two US 90 bridges--the Bay St. Louis bridge--and
Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge collapsed during Hurricane Katrina. Design-
build contracts will be utilized to replace these bridges.
Alabama: Mobile and Baldwin Counties suffered the majority of the
damage from Hurricane Katrina in Alabama. The Cochrane-Africatown
Bridge over the Mobile River at Mobile was damaged by an oil rig that
floated into the structure during the storm. Currently, the four-lane
bridge is open only to one lane in each direction. A contract will be
let in a couple of weeks to repair the bridge so that it may be opened
to unrestricted traffic.
Due to damage sustained during Hurricane Katrina, five spans of the
east bound on ramp from US-90 to I-10 eastbound must be replaced.
Currently, the ramp is closed to traffic. Alabama is preparing plans to
replace the five damaged spans.
Florida: US 98 on Okaloosa Island sustained substantial damage
during Hurricane Katrina. Many traffic signs and signals were damaged
in the Miami area. Additionally, debris removal was needed throughout
the affected parts of Florida.
future preventative actions
The Bush Administration recognizes that more will have to be done
to restore the Gulf Coast. I-10, US 90, and other important local roads
are the economic lifeline of the hurricane-damaged region and play a
central role in the economy of the entire Gulf Coast region. FHWA is
bringing all its resources to bear to ensure that this region can get
moving again. Projects that will be the foundation for a long-term
rebuilding effort will begin soon.
We have begun a review of existing bridges that might be impacted
by storm surge conditions in the future. Before we can identify
suitable retrofits for existing bridges of the types damaged during
recent hurricanes, we must improve our understanding of, and ability to
quantify, the lateral/transverse and uplift forces that result from
floods and storm surges. Accordingly, we have initiated research at the
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center to aid our understanding in
this area. With respect to the design of new bridges, FHWA has
developed a policy that defines a flood frequency approach for the
hydraulic analysis and design of coastal bridges. We also are reviewing
the problem of loose barges impacting bridges during storm conditions.
Contraflow is an emerging traffic operations area that requires
close coordination of all levels government. We recognize the
challenges of evacuation and contraflow and the need for more attention
to these areas in the future. As we did after Hurricane Ivan in 2004,
we will analyze the events of Hurricane Katrina for lessons learned
that can be applied to future situations. We also will continue to work
with other Federal agencies to determine where transportation assets
and systems can continue to contribute to evacuation planning and
execution. FHWA will assist the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security in developing
the Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plans Report to Congress as
mandated in SAFETEA-LU.
stewardship and oversight
While quick response in getting funding and support to the Gulf
Coast region is important, we are also cognizant of the importance of
financial accountability and stewardship. As the recovery work
continues, I want to assure you that I am very mindful of the
responsibility we have as stewards of these critical Federal resources.
FHWA has taken steps to track all transactions related to the Hurricane
Katrina recovery efforts. We will ensure that funds are spent wisely
and judiciously, and that projects comply with the requirements of our
Emergency Relief program. American taxpayers deserve to know that each
and every dollar dedicated to this tremendous effort is fully justified
and properly accounted for every step of the way.
conclusion
I believe that we have made significant progress thus far and are
on our way to ensuring that the Gulf Coast region has a transportation
system that will meet its long-term needs. We will continue to work
with our State and Federal partners to ensure that highway recovery
efforts are completed quickly and in a fiscally responsible manner.
Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I
will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Richard Capka to Additional Questions from Senator Thune
Question 1. Seeing that road infrastructure is critical to the Gulf
Coast's recovery, what is the Administration's position regarding the
use of Highway Trust Fund dollars above and beyond the $100 million
annually set aside in SAFETEA-LU to cover Emergency Relief costs?
Response. The Emergency Relief program has a permanent
authorization of $100 million per year from the Highway Trust Fund. The
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59)
amended Emergency Relief program to authorize an additional
appropriation from the General Fund in years where the Emergency Relief
needs exceeded $100 million. SAFETEA-LU authorized such sums as may be
necessary from the General Fund to address the ``backlog.''
On October 28, 2005, the Administration released a supplemental
appropriations request, which included a request for $2.325 billion
from the General Fund for the Emergency Relief program for expenses
related to Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. FHWA
continues to work with the affected States to refine the cost estimates
for the repair or replacement of damage to roads and bridges eligible
under the Emergency Relief program.
Under the ``quick release'' procedures for the Emergency Relief
program, FHWA has provided $5 million each to Louisiana and Mississippi
as a down payment on their Emergency Relief funding. In the absence of
other Emergency Relief funds, a State can fund projects eligible under
the Emergency Relief program in a number of ways. A State may use
unobligated Emergency Relief funds from other Emergency Relief-eligible
events in the State. A State may use other apportioned Federal-aid
funds or State funds to complete emergency or permanent repairs.
Additionally, a State may use Advance Construction. Any funds used for
work eligible under the Emergency Relief program will be reimbursed by
the Emergency Relief program funds when they become available.
Currently, States are not holding up essential project work because of
a lack of funding.
Question 2. What is FHWA's estimate concerning the time it will
take to restore all damaged roadways and bridges to pre-Hurricane
condition?
Response. It is difficult to estimate the time it will take to
restore all damaged roadways and bridges to pre-Katrina condition.
Affected Federal-aid highways currently are open to essential traffic
service. However, completing the permanent repairs of these roads will
take some time. FHWA is working to ensure that appropriate design
criteria are being used for the long-term restoration of Federal-aid
highway facilities. FHWA also is working to ensure that interagency
coordination occurs so that these long-term projects can be completed
as expeditiously as possible.
Question 3. In your testimony Administrator Capka, you touched upon
the damaged caused by massive casino barges that dislodged from their
moorings during the Hurricane. How many other bridges were damages (and
to what extent) as a result of foreign structure collisions?
Response. Foreign structure collisions damaged two bridges in
Mississippi and one in Alabama during Hurricane Katrina, and one bridge
was damaged in Louisiana during Hurricane Rita. The casino barges that
dislodged from their moorings during Hurricane Rita damaged U.S. 90 in
Mississippi, but did not damage any bridges.
Question 4. As the author of S. 1761, the ``Gulf Coast Recovery
Act'' I would appreciate knowing more about how the Department of
Transportation (as well as your private sector partners) are impacted
by the threat of litigation in post-disaster clean-up efforts.
Response. As you know, the roadways and bridges in question are
owned by the State and local governments. FHWA provides reimbursement
through the Emergency Relief program to States for work on roadways and
bridges on a Federal-aid highway that are damaged as a direct result of
a natural disaster or catastrophic failure from an external cause. The
States contract with private entities for the repair work on a
federally owned facility. Even if the FHWA did enter into contracts
with private entities for the repair work, any FHWA liability would be
governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. Similar to the Federal Tort
Claims Act (under which the Federal Government waived its sovereign
immunity, but retained some exceptions to this waiver), States
generally have some exceptions to their waivers of sovereign immunity
to limit their liability exposure. FHWA is not aware of any delays in
the restoration of transportation services in the Gulf Coast region due
to litigation threats to State or local governments or their
contractors.
______
Responses by Richard Capka to Additional Questions from Senator Obama
Question 1. Senator Coburn and I introduced a bill recently to
appoint a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the
President to oversee hurricane reconstruction efforts. The bill is
meant to ensure that there is oversight on the front end before money
is spent, instead of after the money has gone out the door.
Already, we've seen some disturbing examples of poorly spent money.
A few weeks ago, Senator Coburn and I highlighted a $200 million
contract that FEMA signed with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees
and rescue workers. Under this contract, taxpayers are paying $2,500 a
week per person housed on the ship--four times the cost of a 7-day
Caribbean cruise, which includes entertainment.
Please describe how your agency is ensuring that reconstruction
funds are being well spent.
Response. Secretary Mineta has emphasized that sound fiscal
management is a top priority. The Chief Financial Officer for the
Department has issued guidance to the Operating Administrations
detailing the procedures for the tracking of hurricane funding to
ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent waste, fraud,
and the misuse of Federal funds. FHWA is adhering to these procedures.
Under the Emergency Relief program, States must apply for
reimbursement for eligible expenses. FHWA reviews these applications to
ensure the Emergency Relief funding is spent on eligible work.
Additionally, Emergency Relief funding is not disbursed until FHWA has
received a legitimate bill.
Question 2. Are there instances when multiple agencies are involved
in contracting and procurement decisions? When that happens, who
coordinates oversight over these financial decisions?
Response. For Federal-aid highway program, the facility owner, the
State, contracts the work. The FHWA coordinates the Federal oversight.
For non Federal-aid emergency repairs, FEMA may participate in repair
costs in accordance with the provisions established in the Stafford
Act. Funding for FEMA-eligible repairs (through FEMA's Public
Assistance program) and funding for FHWA-eligible repairs (through
FHWA's Emergency Relief program) are administered separately by each
agency. There cannot be any duplication of reimbursement from both FEMA
and FHWA for damages at the same location. To avoid duplication, FHWA
and FEMA staff coordinate and communicate when there is a concern about
the status of a highway.
______
Responses by Richard Capka to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Capka, Louisiana officials estimated last month
that the cost of immediate repairs for their State's transportation
system would exceed eleven billion dollars. Still others have estimated
the damage to the region's transportation network at between two and a
half and three billion dollars. Can you give us your best estimate at
the cost of the damage to the Gulf region?
Response. FHWA estimates that the total cost of Hurricane Katrina-
related repairs to Federal-aid highways in the Gulf Coast region will
be $1.725 billion. This estimate represents a preliminary figure based
on damage assessments conducted by FHWA and state transportation agency
personnel in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. FHWA and
State personnel continue to work closely on damage assessments. Once
all damage assessments have been completed and reviewed by FHWA, a
formal request for an allocation of ER funds will be processed.
Question 2. Mr. Capka, in your testimony you mention that your
agency has started research on the effect of storm surge on bridge
infrastructure and has begun a review of existing bridges that may be
impacted by storm surge conditions in the future. When do you plan on
completing this review, and what is your agency doing to ensure that
storm-damaged bridges in the gulf region are rebuilt to avoid, to the
maximum extent possible, similar damage the next time a major storm
hits the region?
Response. The research we are doing is two-fold. First, we must
improve our understanding of, and ability to quantify, the lateral/
transverse and uplift forces that result from floods and storm surges.
With this greater understanding, we must assess potential retrofits.
On October 6, 2005, FHWA completed an internal literature search to
quantify the magnitude of wave forces, which can be very destructive
when waves slam against a structure while the buoyancy and vertical
impact forces are tending to lift a bridge deck off of the pier. Most
of the research in this area has been done by the offshore drilling
industry.
Currently, FHWA is negotiating with researchers at the University
of South Alabama ``Coastal Transportation Engineering Research Center''
to (1) expand on the FHWA internal literature search and demonstrate
how the forces might be combined to evaluate the feasibility of various
restraining devices that could be used to hold bridge decks in place;
(2) conduct preliminary wave tank tests with a model of a bridge deck
to determine if the technology borrowed from other sources can
reasonably be applied to the bridge problem; and (3) conduct
preliminary geotechnical analyses using existing numerical modeling
techniques to determine if securing the bridge decks against these
forces might be jeopardizing the stability of the foundation. We expect
this work to begin around November 15, 2005, and to be completed around
May 15, 2006.
On October 1, 2005, FHWA began a year long laboratory study at the
TFHRC Hydraulic Lab of Lift and Drag Forces on inundated bridges under
riverine conditions. The study will also analyze bridge superstructure
response to the impact (slamming) forces extracted from wave force
experiments performed by other Laboratories through use of high tech
force measurement techniques developed at the TFHRC lab.
The most effective way to avoid damages like those that occurred to
bridges along the Gulf Coast is to raise the grade of the bridges so
that the decks are above the storm surge elevation. The preliminary
consideration is to design new bridges to clear the storm surge
elevation for the storm of record. Raising the grade of existing
bridges is a very costly retrofit for all of our coastal bridges. That
is why we are attempting to quantify the forces to consider other
retrofit options.
With respect to FHWA's review of existing bridges, we completed a
query of the National Bridge Inventory database to identify structures
within 5 to 15 nautical miles of a coast and of a design that is
similar to those damaged in recent hurricanes. The results of these
queries can be considered a first approximation at identifying bridges
that are vulnerable to storm surge and wave damage. Further refinement
of the identification of vulnerable bridges will require agreement upon
reasonable assessment criteria, additional data that is available from
the bridge owning agencies, and cooperation of the bridge owners. FHWA
will work to address these issues over the next three months.
With respect to the design of new bridges, FHWA has developed a
draft policy that defines a flood frequency approach for the hydraulic
analysis and design of coastal bridges. Currently, several States are
reviewing this draft policy.
______
Responses by Richard Capka to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. With Davis-Bacon protections suspended for construction
contracts in hurricane-impacted states, how will this impact your
agency's ability to detect fraud, discrimination, and the use of
kickbacks?
Response. While the September 8, 2005 Presidential proclamation
suspended the Davis-Bacon Act in certain counties, it did not suspend
many other Federal labor policies such as the Copeland Anti-Kickback
Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) and various US Department of Labor and
FHWA Equal Employment Opportunity and non-discrimination provisions.
The FLSA provides standards for minimum wage, overtime pay,
recordkeeping, and child labor. It requires that the records include
certain identifying information about the employee and data about the
hours worked and the wages earned.
The State DOTs and FHWA will provide oversight to prevent contract
fraud by using accepted procurement procedures. All contracts for
permanent repairs will be competitively bid. Thus, the contractor's
payment will be based on the actual work performed with inspection,
oversight, measurement and payment provided by the State DOT. The
payment will be based on competitively bid unit prices.
Emergency repair work, by definition, is necessary to restore
essential traffic, to minimize the extent of damage, or to protect the
remaining facilities. By FHWA policy, emergency repairs can be done
using negotiated contract or agency force account work as determined by
the State DOT as best suited to protect the public health and safety.
Record keeping and oversight requirements still apply regardless of
whether there is a requirement to submit certified payrolls.
Normal State DOT and FHWA inspection and auditing procedures will
apply to all contracts funded by the FHWA.
Question 2. Will the Davis-Bacon suspension affect projects not
related to the disaster? How many contracts will be affected by the
proclamation?
Response. Yes, the suspension is applicable to all Federal-aid
projects executed on or after September 8, 2005, and will remain in
force until November 8, 2005. FHWA does not have information on the
number of contracts affected by the proclamation.
Question 3. What lessons has your agency learned after these recent
disasters about the shortcomings of the Interstate system when it comes
to evacuating masses of people?
Response. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), recently enacted, requires
the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
in coordination with Gulf Coast and contiguous States, to review and
assess jointly Federal and State evacuation plans for catastrophic
hurricanes affecting the Gulf Coast region. FHWA will review the
transportation component of these plans and will make recommendations
as appropriate. A report on the finding of this study is due to
Congress by October 1, 2006. The report will address a several issues
impacting evacuations occasioned by hurricanes, including roadway
infrastructure integrity and capacity, as well as operational factors.
In general, evacuation planning and execution represent extraordinarily
complex tasks and the evaluation of associated State and local plans
will require substantial review and analysis.
Question 4. During the evacuation of Houston, how many people
suffered injuries or died while evacuating or while sitting in traffic
waiting to evacuate?
Response. The number of fatal and injury-related highway crashes
that occurred during the Hurricane Rita evacuation is unknown. Crash
data is not coded to capture this type of event. Given the slower
speeds and high usage of the highway system, plus several days of
restricted or prohibited travel, one would expect the overall number of
fatal and serious injury crashes in the Houston area to decrease during
the evacuation. The most significant crash occurred on September 23,
2005, when a bus carrying nursing home residents caught fire and
exploded on I-45, killing 23 of the 37 persons on board. The National
Transportation Safety Board is investigating this crash.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
<all>