EPA's Final Record of Decision
On May 13, 2009 the EPA issued their Final Record of Decision (ROD), which designated eastern Omaha a Superfund Site (Omaha Lead Site, OLS). The document also highlighted all proposed remedial actions that would take place.
In the first paragraph, the EPA noted that lead in Omaha “present[s] a current threat to public health, welfare, or the environment,” and that “The site contains lead contamination in various environmental media resulting from historic lead smelting and refining operations,” incriminating the industrial powerhouses (ASARCO, Union Pacific, Gould Electronics, etc.) responsible for pumping hundreds of tons of lead into the atmosphere in the late 1900s.
Despite multiple public comments as well as the geographical location of major polluters, such as Gould Electronics and the ASARCO lead smelting facility along the Iowa border, the EPA states that the OLS is to contain only “the eastern portion of the greater metropolitan area in Omaha, Nebraska,” completely disregarding the effects on bordering Iowa cities such as Council Bluffs.
Complaints were filed by Omaha, Nebraska in 1998, citing “the high frequency of children found with elevated blood lead levels by the DCHD,” (p. 5) and prior to the passing of the ROD in 2009, the EPA assisted in excavating soil from properties with children or those closely affiliated with children (schools, daycares, etc.).
Despite these efforts, the EPA noted their own shortcomings in addressing exposure from deteriorating lead based paint saying, “Because of the potential contribution of deteriorating lead- based paint near the foundations of structures, the soil lead level in the drip zone (areas near structure foundations) alone would not trigger soil removal and replacement.” That means even if the levels of lead in the soil immediately surrounding a home were above the EPA’s requirements for remediation, a positive mid-yard soil sample would need to be produced as well. As such, many homes would go unremediated.
The EPA also worked with “Omaha citizens, elected officials, school officials, health officials, the media, nonprofit groups, and others” to educate the community on the dangerous effects of lead on public health via “local speaking engagements, participation in citizens' groups and city council meetings, local public access television, public service announcements on local cable television, coverage on radio and television and in local and national newspapers, mass mailings of informational materials, public outreach by telephone, by conducting public meetings, and… the EPA [website],” (p. 9).
Still, comments from various public health officials, such as Alicia Whitehill, indicate that there were shortcomings to these forums. For one, the use of healthcare language and scientific jargon often discourages people from attending these meetings and can prevent those in attendance from fully grasping the concepts being presented. There are also language, cultural, and educational barriers that get in the way of public education.
Beyond the effective communication of public health information, the data contained in the ROD itself is also convoluted, containing advanced reading material and a significant amount of technical jargon. On top of that, the final ROD is 251 pages. This, along with the EPA’s attempt to end the period for public comment during the holiday season when offices are at their busiest, points to a breakdown in communication that not only prevents but actively discourages full community involvement and education. While this is an official government document not necessarily written for consumption by the general public, it was necessary for the ROD to be clear and understandable. Without this, the affected community will not ever fully grasp the scope of certain projects and their potential effects. This breakdown in communication is what causes the distrust and dysjunction between public health/government officials and the public.
Many of those that we interviewed spoke on the importance of community education, stressing its necessity. Without effective communication, there is no trust between the community and large organizations (EPA, Douglas County) or public health entities. Kara Eastman, for instance, mentioned the "AmeriCorps program" that "[have] people from South Sudan going out and talking to people [in the community]," because, as Watie White so eloquently put it, "We need advocates to sound the alarm. It’s important to put a name to this. Environmental violence. Environmental racism. Environmental justice.”
It is not that there is no effort, it is just that it is not enough. Kara Eastman told us that when these crises affect already marginalized communities, we turn a blind eye. The lack of trust that forms because of this breakdown in communication is extrmely detrimental to the goals that the EPA highlights, as participation in remediation is purely voluntary. Without trust, without willful participation, children don’t get tested and helped, remediation cannot occur, and public health remains at risk.