ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FINDINGS FROM FIRST SET OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES
TAKEN FROM NEW ORLEANS AREA
AND THEIR HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
PRESS CONFERENCE
September 16, 2005
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
-------
Participants:
Marcus Peacock, Deputy Administrator, EPA.
Dr. William Farland, EPA
Secretary Mike McDaniel, Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (via telephone)
Members of the Press (via telephone)
-------
PROCEEDINGS
MODERATOR: I'd like to start off with a quick roll call
of who's on the line. Maybe one by one in somewhat orderly
fashion, if we could get a sense of who's out there, that would be
very helpful.
PARTICIPANT: This is Matt Wald with the New York Times.
do that.
Press.
MODERATOR: And please remember you'll have to unmute to
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
PARTICIPANT:
Mark Schleifstein, Times-Picayne.
Fred Robey, Inside EPA.
Matt Wald, New York Times.
Amanda Spake, U.S. News & World Report.
Betsy McKay, Wall Street Journal.
Steve Gibb, Inside EPA.
Bruce Sky (inaudible) Waste News.
Ceci Connolly, Washington Post.
Richard Ingham (phonetic), Agency France
PARTICIPANT: Myra Cohen (phonetic), LA Times.
PARTICIPANT: Eric Prine (phonetic), KPFA.
PARTICIPANT: Jeff Young with NPR program Living on
-------
Earth.
PARTICIPANT: Toni Johnson, (inaudible) Greenpeace
(phonetic).
MODERATOR: I'm sorry. Who's that?
PARTICIPANT: Toni Johnson, (inaudible) for Greenpeace.
PARTICIPANT: Tasha Eichenseher with Greenwire.
PARTICIPANT: Toni Carmine (phonetic), (inaudible) Base
Tech Incorporated (phonetic).
PARTICIPANT: Dean Scott, BNA's Daily Environment
Report.
MODERATOR: Okay. Anyone else out there?
PARTICIPANT: Ben Raines (phonetic), Mobile Register.
PARTICIPANT: Joe Davis, SEJ (phonetic) Tip Sheet.
PARTICIPANT: Molly Peterson, NPR.
PARTICIPANT: Keshia (phonetic) (inaudible), Syracuse
University.
MODERATOR: Has Secretary McDaniel joined us?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: Yes, I'm here.
MODERATOR: All right, thank you, Secretary. Is that
everyone then? We'll start the program. If everyone could please
mute, we'll start the program, okay? Well, I'd like to introduce
-------
our first speaker. It's Marcus Peacock, Deputy Administrator here
at EPA. I also have with me Dr. Bill Farland from EPA and
Secretary Mike McDaniel from the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality.
We're going to be discussing first findings from the
first set of sediment samples that were found in the New Orleans
area and discuss some of the health implications and health risks
that they may pose.
I'll turn it over to Marcus now and take it from there.
MR. PEACOCK: Thanks very much, Bob. This is, as Bob
noted, the first results from samples taken of sediments by EPA and
the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. And first of
all, let me just say how closely EPA and the states have worked,
not just on sediment sampling but on water sampling and other
aspects of the environment in the area.
And thus far, it's just been a seamless operation, and a
lot of that goes to the credit of Secretary McDaniel, and I
appreciate his support. And we will of course try to continue to
support him in any way we can.
We took 18 sediment samples on September 10th, and I
wanted to note that these are initial sediment results and really
-------
just represent the beginning of an extensive sampling effort which
has gone on since then, so they may not characterize the condition
of all sediments throughout the area. That's why they are
preliminary results. They were analyzed for bacteria and
chemicals, and just so everyone understands what sediment is, at
least for the purposes of this hurricane response effort, sediments
are residuals. It's the mud and muck and other things that were
deposited by the receding flood waters. They may include sediment
from other nearby water bodies that was there historically and has
been picked up and redeposited. It could be soil from yards, road
and construction debris, any other material that was picked up by
the flood waters and then deposited on the ground.
These preliminary results indicate that some of the
sediment may be contaminated with bacteria and fuel oil. And,
therefore, human risks may exist from contact with sediment
deposited from this receding flood water. And in particular, and
it's not a surprise since we found it in the flood water, we have
found high levels of e-coli in the sediment.
Therefore, direct, frequent contact with sediments
containing these petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel oils and e-coli at
the levels detected in the samples may cause adverse health
-------
7
effects. Levels of other chemical contaminants, which we looked
for and were detected in the sediment, at least at the levels we
found in these preliminary results, are not expected to result in
adverse health effects. The real concern here in particular is the
e-coli, the bacteria and the fuel oil.
EPA recommends avoiding all contact with the sediment
deposited by the flood water wherever possible because of these
risks.
Bob?
MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you, Marcus. I'd like to turn
it over to Dr. William Farland, who will provide some additional
analysis on the results.
DR. FARLAND: Thanks, Bob. I just wanted to expand a
bit on what you heard from Marcus. As he said, it was not
unexpected that we would find e-coli in the sediment. These are
sediments that are contaminated with fecal material based on this
e-coli finding.
For that reason, we do have concerns about individuals
coming into contact with these materials and suggest, along with
our colleagues, CDCs, that we would avoid contact with these, but
if contact should be made that use soap and water to clean the
-------
exposed areas and removal of contaminated clothing would be the
order of the day.
As Marcus mentioned, we also sampled quite a large
number of chemicals, over 100, analyzed from a variety of chemical
classes, including volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile
organic compounds, metals, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons and
others. For the most part, the only concern here has to do with
the semi-volatile, particularly diesel and fuel oils. These were
detected at elevated levels, and we know that these will persist in
the sediments. And so, therefore, we want to be very careful in
terms of exposures to these sediments. Certainly skin contact with
fuel oils short period may cause some minor effects, itchiness and
irritation. But we're also concerned about breathing fumes and
longer-term exposure of the bare skin to these materials. So,
again, if contact with fuel oil should occur, NIOSH (phonetic) has
worked with us and recommends washing with soap and water, flushing
of the eyes, removal of contaminated clothing and so on.
If ingestion of fuel takes place, then we clearly want
to make sure that people would seek some medical assistance.
The levels of other compounds were not at the levels
that would be of concern, although some of them were detected, and
-------
in our statement you'll see some additional comments about the
classes of compounds that were found. Again, these findings were
not unexpected.
So we're really suggesting that we would avoid direct
frequent contact with these sediments that contain petroleum
hydrocarbons, fuel oils and the e-coli, and that if there would be
contact that appropriate steps would be taken to remove those
materials and clean up.
I think at this point I'll stop, and Secretary McDaniel
would like to make a comment.
MODERATOR: Secretary McDaniel?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: Thank you. I would like to start
by indicating we've been working very closely with EPA throughout
this process; sampling, analysis and assessment of the data, and
it's been working very well. We all I think have been anxiously
awaiting results. These initial results are going to be very
important to us. They have health implications for our workers and
our field crews. And they're ultimately going to be very important
in planning and assessment, determining how to dispose of the
sediments at some point and the clean-up strategies that will be
employed.
-------
10
Initial results are pretty much what we expected. As
has been mentioned, we've got swamp wastewater systems, a lot of
human waste. It's been there for some time now.
As far as hydrocarbons or petroleum products we have --
again, that's not unexpected -- we have about 350,000 vehicles that
are flooded, probably about 50,000 boats, and of course a lot of
underground storage tanks as well as above-ground tanks throughout
the area. So there was a lot of fuel to begin with. And then of
course in one area we've got the Murphy oil spill, and that is
being worked as we speak. That was about 19,000 barrels spilled
near Chalmette. And that's going to create I think some special
problems on cleanup there, and I think we saw some of the problems
with the actual analysis, some samples taken in those areas.
I might add on closing that these are initial results.
We expect that we will run into some hot spots, perhaps in the
industrialized area, or even in some of the commercial areas that
might be storing some hazardous wastes, and that's why it's very
important to characterize these wastes so we can figure out how
best to handle them.
As a final note, flying over the other day was an
observation that the worst of the sediment seemed to be collecting
-------
11
in the area Chalmette, and other areas of the cities, it didn't
seem that we had as much of the sediment. You could actually see
the striping on highways down through several feet of water.
So we're hoping it's going to be somewhat limited in
what we're going to have to deal with, but, obviously, we still
have a ways to go in complete characterization and lot of work to
do on assessment strategies on how we're going to clean up not only
this but 160,000 homes and everything else that we're dealing with.
MODERATOR: Secretary, are you all set?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: Yes.
MODERATOR: Okay. Very good. We'd like to, you know,
go to a quick Q&A and probably start with the folks probably most
interested in this. Mark, do you have any questions at this time?
MR. SCHLEIFSTEIN: Yes sir. Obviously, the biggest
question will be for the city of New Orleans and also for
Chalmette, when people can actually go in and try to get stuff out
of their homes.
MODERATOR: Secretary McDaniel?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: This is Mark Schleifstein?
MR. SCHLEIFSTEIN: Yeah.
SECRETARY McDANIEL: How you doing?
-------
12
MR. SCHLEIFSTEIN: Oh, pretty good.
SECRETARY McDANIEL: There is some concern not so much
in the sediments, Mark. There are some sediments, and you've heard
previously now the concern for the bacterial contamination, and to
a lesser extent, the petroleum hydrocarbons. I think the greater
concerns that we're looking at right now, and I understand there
was some release of a possible reentry into St. Bernard starting
tomorrow, which causes I think a great deal of concern.
Homes have been flooded. We don't know if they're
structurally sound, leaking gas lines, toxics that have come out of
dissolved packaging, mosquitoes. We've got people going in that
aren't immunized. We have to immunize all the workers going in
there because of the bacterial contamination. And I'm hopeful that
there's going to be some form of thoughtful process on making sure
people are safe when they return, or we're going to end up with
some more additional health problems related to reentry at this
point.
MODERATOR: Okay. The reporter from the Mobile
Register, any questions? I just want to be sensitive to the folks
who are --
MR. RAINES: Have you all done any assessments of our
-------
13
near shore areas and flooded communities?
MODERATOR: Secretary McDaniel?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: We haven't (inaudible) on the near
shore areas. I can tell you that NOAA has sent out the ship Nancy
Foster, and they're collecting bacteria samples.
MR. RAINES: Yeah. I was on it yesterday. They said
that the near shore areas were going to be left up to the state.
So I was wondering if EPA had put any thought into heading, you
know, to Mississippi and Alabama.
DR. FARLAND: This is Bill Farland. I know that we are
talking with the folks in the state, with NOAA. Our laboratories
are working with them, and we will be looking at sampling plans for
some of those near coastal areas.
MR. RAINES: Okay. But those haven't started yet?
DR. FARLAND: No.
MR. RAINES: Okay. That's all I got.
MODERATOR: Any other questions?
MS. CONNOLLY: Yes, hi. This is Ceci Connolly. I had
two follow-up questions. The first, the Secretary referenced in
his comments 160,000 homes. I wanted to try to be clear on exactly
what you were saying about those 160,000 homes, and if you could
-------
14
also elaborate a little bit on the potential challenges for
residents returning.
As you know, in the city of New Orleans, they're
starting to let people back in over this weekend and Monday.
SECRETARY McDANIEL: The 160,000 homes is the latest
estimate from those that are working on recovery. That comes from
the Corps of Engineers. Well, it's mainly Orleans Parish, to put I
guess a boundary on it. These are homes that are flooded, that
they feel will have to be ultimately demolished and just then
removed for disposal.
MS. CONNOLLY: Okay. And with respect to people
starting to return to New Orleans over this weekend and Monday,
would there not be some of those same health risks that you were
discussing with respect to St. Bernard?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: The ones that are returning under
the mayor's recent announcement will be going into areas that have
not been flooded. They're higher ground. Although there are still
some concerns because of limited sewage service, and I think right
now people are working around the clock trying to come up with some
interim solutions to make sure that we have sanitary conditions for
those coming in.
-------
15
We hope that it is controlled and limited to in and out,
particularly in the business district for people to recover
records, for example. But we're all very nervous about an
overwhelming influx of people coming in and the potential health
threats that are -- that that represents.
PARTICIPANT: I've got a question. Hello?
MODERATOR: Hello. Can you state your name and
organization, please?
MR. INGHAM: Absolutely, yes. The name is Richard
Ingham. I'm a journalist with the French News Agency, Agents
(phonetic) France Press.
MODERATOR: Okay.
MR. INGHAM: Could I ask a question about the samples
that you took. Presumably, they were taken while the city was
still flooded, so it's from damp sediment. Have you made an
evaluation as to what's going happen when sediment dries out?
Could the bacteria become airborne? In other words, when people
clean out their homes, there's a risk that they could breathe this
stuff in?
DR. FARLAND: This is Dr. Farland.
MR. INGHAM: Thank you.
-------
16
DR. FARLAND: Thank you. We are concerned about the
issues with these materials as they dry, and EPA will be performing
air samplings that monitor potential inhalation risks, and we'll be
looking at the question of the longer-term safety issues that may
come as these materials are dried and moved and so on. But we will
be looking at that with our air monitoring.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
MR. WALD: A question, please. This is Matt Wald with
the New York Times. Presumably, the bacteria sitting out in the
sun long enough will die. The heavy metals will persist. I
realize most of the areas you're sampling are urban. But do the
heavy metals have any implication for agriculture? Can people grow
vegetables in their back yard? Can farmers grow produce, or will
with this stuff be plucked up by the heavy -- (inaudible) pluck up
the heavy metals and get (inaudible)?
MODERATOR: It's really difficult to hear you. You keep
on cutting in and out.
MR. WALD: I'm sorry. Is that better?
MODERATOR: Yes.
MR. WALD: I wonder if I could ask about the heavy
metals. Presumably, the bacteria will die off at some point, but
-------
17
the heavy metals -- I know the areas you've been sampling, and
they're probably mostly urban. But does this have any implication
for agriculture? For either people growing things in their back
yards, or farmers, that this stuff will be taken up into the food
chain?
DR. FARLAND: That's something that we will be looking
into, although the --
MR. WALD: Who is speaking, please?
DR. FARLAND: This is Bill Farland.
MR. WALD: Thank you.
DR. FARLAND: The levels of the metals that we're seeing
in the sediment are relatively low, and so compared to an urban
background, we're not seeing these as being particularly high. It
is something that we want to continue obviously as we begin to
characterize the entire area, so this is a concern in the past
around areas of very heavy metal deposition, but we're not seeing
those kinds of levels in the sediment.
MR. WALD: Thank you.
MS. CAPIELLO (phonetic): Yeah, a question. This is
Dina Capiello calling from the Houston Chronicle. You said that
these petroleum products are likely to persist. How long do you
-------
18
think they will persist in the sediment? And can you elaborate on
something the (inaudible) said on Wednesday about the difficulty in
analyzing the sediments? Can you elaborate on what difficulties do
exist?
DR. FARLAND: Yes. This is Bill Farland again. These
heavy fuel oils tend to persist in soil for a matter of years
typically. I don't know at this point what kind of conditions
we're going to have, given the mix of bugs, given the types of
issues, microbes that are in this, what kind of persistence we'll
see, but we're going to have to follow that carefully. But that is
something that we'll need to look at.
MR. GIBB: Hi. Steve Gibb here with Inside EPA. I was
wondering if you could speak to the health standards that were used
to determine that petroleum hydrocarbons may be a concern. Are you
looking at OSHA standards for workers for that, or environmental
standards that EPA has used?
DR. FARLAND: This is Bill Farland, Steve. We've been
working with ATSDR to actually characterize these materials with
regard to public health risks, and for the most part, this is a
concern that's raised generally both with ATSDR and NIOSH with
regard to petroleum hydrocarbons coming in contact with the skin.
-------
19
MR. GIBB: Just a quick follow-up. Is that based on
acute scenario, then, or both acute and shall we say chronic or
longer term exposure?
DR. FARLAND: No. We're really looking at this from the
standpoint of acute exposures and suggesting that people would make
sure that they remove that material as quickly as possible if they
do come in contact with the skin.
MS. SPAKE: This is Amanda Spake from U.S. News & World
Report. I wanted to follow up on this inhalation risk issue. Is
it true that the bacteria will dry off, as one of the reporters
said? And in fact, what kind of inhalation risk is there from the
fuel oil products and the petroleum products?
DR. FARLAND: The issues that we're going to be
considering are several. First of all, there is the question of
simply the coarse particulate matter that is part of the sediment
as it dries up, and the fact that there will be people driving
across the material, they'll be moving the material, and it will be
entrained in the air. So we have to be careful and cognizant of
that.
If the material has microbiological contamination, we're
looking into the survival of those materials under these kinds of
-------
20
conditions. That is something that we're going to be interested
in.
The third aspect of this has to do with the fact that
these semi-volatile or volatile chemicals will begin to become an
inhalation concern if there is drying and continued volatilization
of these materials into the air.
So those are the things that we're looking into right
now.
MS. SPAKE: Okay. But you don't really know what's
going to happen with this yet?
DR. FARLAND: We don't. This is a very complex set of
materials. That's part of the reason that they're difficult to
analyze, because of the complexity of the materials and the matrix
that they're in.
MS. SPAKE: Thank you. Who was that speaking?
DR. FARLAND: Bill Farland.
MS. SPAKE: Thanks.
MS. COHEN: This is Myra Cohen with the LA Times. Were
any of the levels of hydrocarbons high enough to be considered
hazardous waste? And if they were, do you have any ideas about
whether they can be treated on site or excavated or what it would
-------
21
take?
DR. FARLAND: Who was just speaking?
MS. COHEN: Myra Cohen with the LA Times.
DR. FARLAND: Can you repeat your question, please?
MS. COHEN: Were any of the levels of hydrocarbons high
enough to be considered hazardous waste? And if they were, do you
have any idea how they might be cleaned up? Whether they would
require excavation or treatment on site or something like that?
DR. FARLAND: This is Bill Farland. At this point with
these samples, we don't believe that the sediments would have to be
treated as hazardous waste. That's something that the agency will
look very carefully at as we further analyze some of these sediment
samples.
MS. COHEN: Thank you.
MR. SCHLEIFSTEIN: This is Mark Schleifstein again with
the Times-Picayne. On the last answer, is the reason it doesn't
have to be treated as hazardous waste, is this because it's oil
material? I mean, will it have to be treated as oil field waste?
DR. FARLAND: Mark, this is Bill Farland. I'm afraid I
don't have the answer for that. We're going to have to check into
that. And, again, we're all looking at these samples to understand
-------
22
exactly what that's going to mean for the cleanup.
MR. GIBB: I had a quick follow-up question as well.
This is Steve Gibb at Inside EPA. You mentioned that 160,000 homes
may have to be evaluated and potentially knocked down. Was there
any sampling in this initial set of screens for asbestos? And is
there a long-range plan for looking at potential asbestos waste
from buildings being knocked down in the cleanup?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: This is Mike McDaniel. That's a
good question there. We expect to see some asbestos. These are
older homes. We also expect to be dealing with lead in old lead
paint. Plans are currently being drawn up and protocol established
on the assessment of the homes and how they're going to be
demolished. It might require some encapsulation or special
treatment, for example, on the asbestos and lead side. Everyone's
cognizant of it and in the process of trying to put together a good
plan to deal with particularly airbornes during the process of
demolition and movement and disposal of the debris.
MR. GIBB: Dr. Farland, was asbestos one of the
chemicals that was looked at in the initial screen?
DR. FARLAND: Steve, we will be looking at asbestos in
our air samples. And, again, it's because of the potential for
-------
23
airborne asbestos fibers in some of the materials being moved
around.
MR. GIBB: Okay. So I take that as meaning that it
wasn't one of the chemicals that was looked at in the initial
round?
DR. FARLAND: That's correct. Not in the water or
sediment.
MS. McKAY: This is Betsy McKay from the Wall Street
Journal.
MODERATOR: Can I have your attention please? If folks
have spoken, would you please mute you phones, because we're
getting some background noise.
MS. McKAY: This is Betsy McKay from the Wall Street
Journal. Just one question. Were all of the samples taken from
residential areas? And secondly, could you characterize more
specifically how high some of these levels of fuel oils were, you
know, how high above normal, as well as the bacteria?
DR. FARLAND: This is Bill Farland. The samples were
taken from a variety of areas, not just the residential areas.
They were taken in Jefferson and Orleans and mixed areas,
residential and nonresidential.
-------
24
You asked about the petroleum contamination.
MS. McKAY: Yes.
DR. FARLAND: This is (inaudible) petroleum
contamination for soils and sediments. It's hard to say exactly
how to characterize that. But if you think about it in a
percentage in the sediment, we're talking about these heavy fuels
being -- putting out a tenth of a percent of the sediment itself.
So it's a very heavy contamination.
MS. McKAY: Okay. A tenth of a percent?
DR. FARLAND: Yes.
MS. McKAY: One-tenth of a percent of the sediment
itself? Okay. Thank you.
MR. INGHAM: This is Richard again. May I have a
follow-up question? Hello?
MODERATOR: We have time for two more questions. Can
whoever has your line open please mute?
PARTICIPANT: Bob?
MODERATOR: Yes?
PARTICIPANT: The Secretary would like to say something
on that last one about the --
SECRETARY McDANIEL: I just didn't want anyone left with
-------
25
the impression we're dealing sediment of that nature throughout the
area. Those are in just spots that have been particular
contaminated with oil spills or with fuel tank spills. If you
don't see those kind of levels. They're typical of most urban
areas and other samples.
DR. FARLAND: Thank you, Secretary McDaniel. That's a
good catch there.
PARTICIPANT: Can you hear me?
MODERATOR: Hello? Yeah, go ahead.
MR. INGHAM: This is Richard Ingham again from the
French News Agency. Can you please tell me, what's going to happen
to the sediment? Do you have special facilities set up to take
care of it? How is it going to be done? If people take it out of
their house and dump it on the street, it just reenters the local
environment, doesn't it?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: We're working with EPA on that as
well as CDC. We'd be dealing not only with the chemical
parameters, but biological. We're looking at hazardous waste. I
think there's going to be an assessment of individual homes to try
to remove the household hazardous waste prior to demolition.
There is a process we that we use here in the state as
-------
26
part of I think of what we're looking at as a potential protocol
called recap, where you go in, you characterize the sediment, and
then based on the level of risk, it guides you as far as how to
deal with the ultimate disposal of the sediment. Some may be clean
enough to be used for building. Others may have to be disposed of
in a more careful manner.
PARTICIPANT: How do you plan on using that system for
the rest of the Gulf Coast?
MODERATOR: One last question.
MR. YOUNG: Can you hear me? Hi. Jeff Young with the
NPR program Living on Earth.
MODERATOR: Okay.
MR. YOUNG: I'm wondering, have any of your sampling
areas included known Superfund or other hazardous waste sites such
as the Agriculture Street landfill?
SECRETARY McDANIEL: The Agriculture Street landfill I
think is still underwater. We're waiting as the de-watering
continues to get back in there. It's my understanding, and I hope
I'm correct in my memory here, that the four or five sites,
Superfund sites, have not been disturbed by flooding.
MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
-------
27
(End of conference.
------- |