Gathering Public Opinion on Potential Remedial Actions

October and November 2008

In October 2008, the final remediation and feasibility study on how to handle the Superfund site in Omaha was released by the Environmental Protection Agency. This study was a follow-up from the 2004 Omaha Lead Site Interim Record of Decision. The study looked at three separate plans to deal with lead contaminated soil.

The first method had no action take place in remediating the soil. The second method was to excavate and replace the contaminated soil with non-contaminated soil. This method had already been widely used since the interim decision was made in 2004 (EPA, 2). The final method was to treat the contaminated soil with phosphate. However, this method was only effective with soil that was under 500 ppm (parts per million) and had an estimated cost of 359 million dollars. Interestingly, both methods two and three offered exterior lead-based paint stabilization. Of these plausible solutions “the EPA Proposed Plan identifies the second cleanup alternative, soil excavation and replacement, as the preferred final remedy for the Omaha Lead Site” (EPA, 2). With the estimated cost at the time of the report being 255 million dollars for soil excavation and replacement of an estimated 10,000 properties (EPA, 2).

With such differing solutions, including the high price tags that accompanied the second and third methods, public input was necessary to make sure they would be effective and supported by the community. The second and third solutions only worked if landowners actively reached out to the EPA to get their soil tested and consented to the remedy. If the Omaha community did not want or support these methods then the funds allocated to the superfund site would stay stagnant and have the problem of lead contaminated soil persist. So, the EPA sent out this document and a 30 day period for the public to comment on the proposed solution and after going over them extensively would they finally make a decision on where to spend the funds they had to solve the lead problem in Omaha’s soil.

The CAG made it a point of emphasis that they wanted an extension on the comment period. They thought it was important to guarantee the public got the chance to contribute to the decision that the EPA would make. They unanimously voted 9-0 on requesting the EPA extend the comment period by thirty days (EPA, 3). Next, the CAG asked Bob Feild, from the EPA, about how they were answering the comments received by the public. They would group similar comments together and then give one answer. CAG members also asked if the questions vary from the 2004 Interim Decision questions the committee asked four years ago. Because of their similar conclusions, Jennifer Rawley, from Conestoga-Rovers & Associates answered that they were mostly the same as the current comments. The continued questions posed by CAG showed that they were making sure the public were able to get their input in and have a say on the important decision of how to remediate the lead contaminated soil.