Yuyun Lusiyani
In the last 10 months, residents across various Omaha, Nebraska neighborhoods have found themselves in a confusing and often frustrating limbo, as independent testing by the Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica revealed lead contamination in their yards at levels warranting removal and replacement under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines. Despite these findings, the official responses from city and federal authorities have been markedly inconsistent, leaving many homeowners uncertain about the safety of their properties and the future of cleanup efforts in a city long grappling with its toxic legacy. While some residents have received promises of new testing and remediation, others have been denied further action or report a complete lack of response, highlighting significant disparities in how new data is being addressed.
A Legacy of Contamination and Decades of Remediation Efforts
The current predicament is rooted in a century of industrial pollution that blanketed east Omaha with lead dust. From 1870 until its closure in 1997, the ASARCO (American Smelting and Refining Company) smelter, alongside other industrial facilities in downtown Omaha, was a significant source of airborne lead emissions. These operations dispersed vast quantities of toxic heavy metals across residential areas, gradually accumulating in the soil of thousands of homes. The health implications of this widespread contamination became tragically evident in the late 20th century, with concerns mounting over elevated blood lead levels in children residing in these affected neighborhoods.
The severity of the issue prompted federal intervention. In March 1999, the EPA officially designated a 27-square-mile area of east Omaha as a federal Superfund site, a program established to clean up the nation’s most contaminated land. This designation initiated one of the largest residential lead cleanup operations in U.S. history. The primary goal was to mitigate the exposure risk to residents, particularly children, who are most vulnerable to lead’s neurotoxic effects. The EPA set a cleanup standard, adopting the benchmark of 400 parts per million (ppm) of lead in soil – roughly equivalent to a marble’s weight dispersed in a 10-gallon bucket of soil – as the threshold requiring remediation.
For over a decade, contractors under EPA oversight meticulously dug up and replaced contaminated soil in thousands of yards. By December 2015, the EPA announced the completion of its primary cleanup phase, having remediated more than 13,000 residential properties. At this juncture, the responsibility for ongoing maintenance, monitoring, and any remaining or new cleanup work within the Superfund site boundaries was formally transitioned to the City of Omaha. The city established its Lead Information Office, funded by settlement money from ASARCO and other polluters, to manage these continuing efforts.
The Current Crisis: New Data, Old Problems
The recent investigations by the Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica have cast a renewed spotlight on the persistent nature of lead contamination and the challenges of a seemingly "completed" cleanup. Their independent tests, conducted over the past year, revealed lead levels exceeding the 400 ppm EPA standard in numerous residential yards, even in properties previously remediated or those located just outside the official Superfund boundaries. These findings directly contradict the assurances many residents had received, sparking fresh alarm and a wave of inquiries to both city and federal agencies.
The responses, however, have been anything but uniform. Peter Olson, whose yard had been among the thousands cleaned by the federal government since 1999, was dismayed when a recent news organization soil test in September showed dangerously high lead levels. His wife contacted the EPA, hoping for a comprehensive retest and cleanup. Instead, the agency offered only to examine a small section of their backyard where a deck had once stood, stating without further explanation that the rest of the yard, including areas identified as high in lead by the independent tests, was ineligible for further action. Olson and his wife reluctantly agreed to the limited testing, but remain deeply concerned about the potential contamination elsewhere on their property.
In stark contrast, Mary Royers received a more favorable outcome. After the news organizations’ findings, she was informed by the city that her soil could be retested due to recent construction activity – specifically, the demolition of a shed and the building of a garage – which could have disturbed or exposed previously buried contaminated soil. Unlike Olson’s case, the city analyzed her entire yard and agreed to clean up several areas around her house. This discrepancy in responses, seemingly based on superficial changes to a property rather than the undeniable presence of lead, has fueled residents’ frustrations.
Amy Haney’s situation illustrates another dimension of the problem. Living approximately half a mile outside the Superfund site’s western edge – a boundary drawn by the EPA based on estimates of where lead levels would likely be low – her home was never officially tested. The independent investigation, however, found lead levels nearly 1.5 times the cleanup threshold. Haney described the result as a "kick in the gut." While the city initially indicated that the EPA would retest her home, EPA spokesperson Kellen Ashford later clarified that any sampling beyond the site’s bounds is currently for "investigative purposes only," and homeowners in such areas may not be eligible for remediation. This policy creates a geographical paradox: homes outside the arbitrary line, despite verifiable contamination, may be left to contend with the lead on their own.
The Official Stance: Protocols and Limitations
When pressed on the inconsistent responses, officials from both the EPA and the City of Omaha emphasized the complexity of the situation and the adherence to established protocols. Kellen Ashford, an EPA spokesperson, stated that "each property is unique, and new sampling depends heavily on whether site conditions have changed because of construction or demolition that might have disturbed or exposed the soil." He added that "EPA strives to be fair and equitable in its decision-making process while adjusting to changes in agency policies, funding, and cleanup approaches."
Steve Zivny, who heads Omaha’s Lead Information Office, echoed the sentiment that decisions are made on a "case-by-case basis." He clarified that while the city can test and clean up within the established Superfund site boundaries, any work outside these limits requires explicit approval from the EPA. Zivny revealed a recent instance where the city sent cleanup necessity letters to residents outside the boundaries, only to reverse course after the EPA deemed those homes ineligible. This illustrates a critical constraint: the city’s hands are often tied by federal regulations and the defined scope of the Superfund site.
A significant hurdle articulated by city officials is the inability to solely rely on testing conducted by non-governmental entities, such as news organizations, to drive official cleanup decisions. This policy, they argue, is rooted in EPA rules that require specific, verifiable sampling methodologies and chain of custody for results to be actionable. While understandable from a regulatory standpoint, it creates a frustrating Catch-22 for residents whose properties are flagged by independent tests but then dismissed by official channels unless a specific trigger event (like construction) or an official re-evaluation occurs.
The Most Vulnerable: Children and Continuing Exposure
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the ongoing lead crisis in Omaha is its direct impact on children, who are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning. Even when children test positive for elevated blood lead levels, a clear indicator of exposure, the path to yard remediation is not always straightforward.
Sabrina, a north Omaha resident who requested her last name be withheld to protect her children’s identities, has three children who have tested positive for lead exposure. In 2020, following her daughter’s blood-lead test, the city and a local nonprofit replaced lead-based paint windows in her home – a common source of indoor lead exposure. However, despite the known health risk to her children, her yard was not tested at that time. Sabrina reported receiving only 2003 EPA test results that indicated her yard did not qualify for cleanup. "I felt like that was kind of a lazy response," she stated. Despite the window remediation, subsequent blood tests revealed lead in her other children, indicating an ongoing source of exposure.
When the Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica tested Sabrina’s soil in May, they found lead levels significantly above the cleanup threshold – and, critically, twice as high as the EPA’s 2003 records had shown. Sabrina requested a new official test, but the city denied it, citing the lack of recent property disturbance and the inability to act on non-official test results. Zivny confirmed that the city has, however, asked the EPA to revisit Sabrina’s case in light of her children’s blood test results, acknowledging the severity of the situation. This highlights a disconnect between public health outcomes and cleanup protocols, where the presence of lead in a child’s blood doesn’t automatically trigger a re-evaluation of all potential environmental sources.
The Broader Implications and a Shifting Landscape
The inconsistent responses and procedural complexities in Omaha underscore broader challenges in managing long-term environmental remediation projects, especially when new data emerges. The 2015 guidance issued by the Trump administration, which effectively tripled the amount of lead required in soil to warrant potential cleanup, further complicates matters. Before this shift, the EPA had been discussing potentially expanding the Omaha cleanup to include nearly 27,000 properties. The revised guidance, therefore, represents a significant policy hurdle for any future expansion or even re-evaluation of existing "cleaned" sites. This policy change creates a higher bar for intervention, potentially leaving more contaminated properties unaddressed.
The ongoing situation in Omaha raises critical questions about public trust, environmental justice, and the efficacy of current cleanup standards and boundaries. Residents, many of whom have lived with the legacy of lead for generations, are left to navigate a labyrinthine bureaucracy, often feeling unheard and unprotected. The fact that independent journalistic efforts are revealing significant contamination that official channels are slow or unwilling to act upon erodes confidence in the public health protection system.
For the City of Omaha and the EPA, the implications are profound. They must balance regulatory adherence, finite funding, and the paramount responsibility of protecting public health. The existing case-by-case approach, while seemingly tailored, often results in arbitrary decisions that foster inequity and leave legitimate concerns unaddressed. The revelations from the Flatwater Free Press and ProPublica serve as a powerful reminder that environmental cleanup is not a static event but an ongoing process requiring vigilance, adaptability, and a commitment to prioritizing the health of communities above all else. As Omaha continues to grapple with its lead legacy, the demand for consistent, transparent, and responsive action from its governing bodies will only grow.
Joko Widodo
admin
Nila Kartika Wati
Pevita Pearce
Nana Wu