Lead cleanup plan in Omaha criticized
Dublin Core
Title
Lead cleanup plan in Omaha criticized
Subject
Union Pacific objects to EPA's lead cleanup plan
Description
This 2009 Omaha World Herald article narrates the conflict surrounding the EPA’s initial plan for cleanup of the Omaha Lead Site.
Union Pacific, one of the companies deemed liable for excessive contamination, effectively objected from charges by claiming that “the $400 million effort is a misuse of tax dollars and will leave children at continued risk of lead poisoning”. A principle concern motivating this objection was that Omaha’s lead risks were caused more by 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. This alternative cleanup plan was written to reflect findings by scientists hired by Union Pacific.
[maybe insert something here about the likelihood of misinformation, cite other studies about hired “scientists” that perpetuate false information as a delay/distract tactic. Is this getting too far into things?]
In response to Union Pacific’s objection, the EPA held that industrial operations are 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. While the source of lead contamination is somewhat contestable, the liability of guilty parties in any capacity should remain concrete – this objection by Union Pacific and complementarily shrunken cleanup plan seemed to be an attempt to avoid or escape relevant liabilities.
Regardless, this artifact is further evidence for the obstacles the EPA faced in their feat to name and charge guilty parties for lead contamination and, further, to secure adequate funds for remediation as the effects of the contamination outweighed any retribution effort in priority. This article states that “The EPA ha[d] made the Omaha cleanup one of its top priorities nationally because the city’s children are at immediate risk”. 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.
Union Pacific, one of the companies deemed liable for excessive contamination, effectively objected from charges by claiming that “the $400 million effort is a misuse of tax dollars and will leave children at continued risk of lead poisoning”. A principle concern motivating this objection was that Omaha’s lead risks were caused more by 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. This alternative cleanup plan was written to reflect findings by scientists hired by Union Pacific.
[maybe insert something here about the likelihood of misinformation, cite other studies about hired “scientists” that perpetuate false information as a delay/distract tactic. Is this getting too far into things?]
In response to Union Pacific’s objection, the EPA held that industrial operations are 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. While the source of lead contamination is somewhat contestable, the liability of guilty parties in any capacity should remain concrete – this objection by Union Pacific and complementarily shrunken cleanup plan seemed to be an attempt to avoid or escape relevant liabilities.
Regardless, this artifact is further evidence for the obstacles the EPA faced in their feat to name and charge guilty parties for lead contamination and, further, to secure adequate funds for remediation as the effects of the contamination outweighed any retribution effort in priority. This article states that “The EPA ha[d] made the Omaha cleanup one of its top priorities nationally because the city’s children are at immediate risk”. 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.
Creator
Nancy Gaarder
Publisher
Omaha World Herald
Date
January 16, 2009
Rights
Copyright ©2009 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved.
Format
.pdf
Language
English
Type
Newspaper Article
Identifier
Lead Cleanup plan in Omaha criticized.pdf
Collection
Citation
Nancy Gaarder, “Lead cleanup plan in Omaha criticized,” History of Environmental Inequalities, accessed April 30, 2024, https://steppingintothemap.com/inequalities/items/show/50.
Document Viewer
Embed
Copy the code below into your web page