Lead cleanup plan in Omaha criticized

This 2009 Omaha World Herald article narrates an emerging conflict surrounding the EPA’s initial plan for cleanup of the Omaha Lead Site.

Union Pacific, one of the companies deemed liable for lead contamination, objected to the charges and claimed that “the $400 million effort is a misuse of tax dollars and will leave children at continued risk of lead poisoning”.[1] A principle concern motivating this objection was that Omaha’s lead risks were due more to residential deteriorating lead-paint than industrial air pollution.

This article demonstrates uncertainty of an appropriate remediation strategy and apprehension of liable parties. Union Pacific proposed “a cleanup that could cost one-fourth to one-half of what the EPA [proposed]” however consideration of corporate interests surface in such a proposal.[2] This alternative cleanup plan was written to reflect findings by scientists hired by Union Pacific. Evidence of inside hiring suggests the likelihood of misinformation as a delay and distraction tactic.[3] Also notable is this article’s reveal of an important strategy that polluting industries use to absolve themselves of responsibility: deflection. Relevantly, the lead gasoline industry did this for decades, blaming lead poisoning on white lead paint.[4]

In response to Union Pacific’s objection, the EPA held that industrial operations were the largest source of lead pollution and that smelter emissions accounted for over 95% of contamination in tested yards. The EPA acknowledged the dangers of lead paint but cited limited authority to fix deteriorating paint on homes, presumably because homes are less public than land and more of a private matter.

Industrial pollution from ASARCO, UP, and other responsible parties were not the only sources of lead exposure in Omaha, but they were among the most significant single sources. This objection by Union Pacific and their proposal to limit their financial responsibility was an attempt to avoid or escape relevant liabilities.

The EPA faced numerous challenges at every stage of the cleanup process, including identifying responsibility, charging culpable parties, and securing adequate funds for remediation. For the EPA, remediating lead contamination outweighed any efforts to make responsible parties pay in priority – they went ahead with remediation efforts despite difficult dealings with these companies. In their own words, “The EPA… made the Omaha cleanup one of its top priorities nationally because the city’s children are at immediate risk”.[5] The interruption in proceeding with remediation efforts, for the sake of public health hazards, was more than an inconvenience on behalf of Union Pacific. Such complications prevented the EPA from achieving their stated goal of making responsible parties pay.

[1] Gaarder, Nancy. “Lead Cleanup Plan in Omaha Criticized.” Omaha World Herald, January 16, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hopf, Henning A., Alain A. Krief, Goverdhan A. Mehta, and Stephen A. Matlin. “Fake Science and the Knowledge Crisis: Ignorance Can Be Fatal.” Royal Society Open Science 6, no. 5 (2019).

[4] Kitman, Jamie Lincoln. “The Secret History of Lead.” The Nation, March 2, 2000. https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/.

[5] Gaarder, Nancy. Lead Cleanup Plan in Omaha Criticized. 2009.