Ballpark Soil Issue Reviewed
Ballpark Soil Issue Reviewed Save Email Print
EPA supportive of proposal
Posted: 1:10 PM Mar 4, 2008
Last Updated: 3:22 PM Mar 4, 2008

A | A | A

An attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency says the EPA is supportive of Omaha's plans to build a downtown ballpark as long as precautions are taken.

Lead contamination has been found in the soil where the ballpark would sit.

A restrictive covenant between the Union Pacific Railroad and the city says no athletic field can be built on the site unless one foot of soil is replaced with clean fill dirt. The UP was previous owner.

The downtown site once was an industrial area contaminated by materials used in the old railroad maintenance shops and by the old Asarco lead refinery.

Debbie Kring is the EPA's regional community involvement coordinator. She says the mandate requiring 1 foot of clean soil is not arbitrary. She said lead contamination has not been found beneath that depth at the proposed ballpark site.

Former Omaha mayor Hal Daub is urging more studies be done on the site of the proposed downtown ballpark to make sure lead is the only contaminant in the soil.

Daub is a member of the Metropolitan Entertainment and Convention Authority, which would manage the ballpark.

He says he's concerned because he's witnessed oily gunk rising to the surface when landscaped areas of Qwest Center parking lots are watered in the summer. The proposed ballpark would sit in Lots C and E.

The Environmental Protection Agency says lead is the only known contaminant in the soil where the ballpark would sit. The city says it will take EPA-mandated steps to clean up the site before construction begins.

More Stories
Family Mourns Omaha's Latest Murder Victim

Hit-And-Run Crash Kills Man

Midtown Sparkles Sunday Night

Gun Violation Found On MySpace

Conference Examines Impact Of Disasters

Park East Store Burglarized

Protection Order Violations

Two Dead After SUV Plows Into Crowd

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Did You Know?? on Mar 7, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Superfund decisions require public input in the way it will be done, this is federal law..Is this why he hid this from us and not detail it in the plan. And that 1.7 million will leave contaminated soil under the grandstand section for the cheaper seated people to sit on, it will be used to save money on dirt needed for grading. HOW TOTALLY IRREPREHENSIBLE TO DO TO THOSE HOW DO NOT UNDERSTAND all to attain his downtown Fahey planned community that we will only be allowed to sit attop hazardous soil....It is time to pay attention to who all the players were in this plan because it was admitted to me that they all always knew there was a problem, thus only parking lots are allowed without much more than is planned.. The EPA is BOLD FACE LYING ABOUT NO GROUND WATER ISSUES THERE AND THE CONTENT in the SOIL and WATER. We must stop him and do this right for the sake of our health and the financial stability of what FAHEY & COHORTS do not understand WE CARE EVEN IF THEY DO NOT CARE about US.

Posted by: Omaha citizen on Mar 6, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Hey why not just build a parking garage or two for rosenblatt. that would be a whole lot cheaper wouldn't it. I dont' see anything wrong with rosenblatt other than the horrible parking. And with gas prices as they are right now, it sure in the hell isn't the time to build anything. Fire Mahey today. I think he sucks at his job. Prime example of a politician, oops I mean crook, as I feel all politicians are.

Posted by: Laura on Mar 6, 2008 at 02:22 PM
For starters, not a single City Council member has a vote in any of the say of the stadium. Two council members told the Keystone Neighborhood Association exactly that on Monday night 3-3-08. So "Progressive", speaking about the council, you're wrong. Second, although Fahey said some time ago he would NOT run for another term, he has since said he's not sure IF he will run or not. I just hope he gets recalled instead; that would look good on his resume.

Posted by: FLASH! on Mar 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM
As stated previously, OTHER public advocacy groups have been contacted, one is even mentioned on this page. These folks are SPECIFICALLY setup to take up the fight for the CITIZENS against questionable commercial and public officials who are pushing to circumvent the TAXPAYERS voice in this endeavor. Use your VOICE (since the Mayor has taken extreme measures to MUTE you) and contact these folks immediately. Give them YOUR opinion and express your concern that your CITY is making YOU pay for EPA cleanup due to mis-managed SUPERSITE funds. Time to let the Mayor know that he might be able to GAG you here locally but there are OTHERS with more clout outside of this state who are willing to listen and ARE so SPEAK UP. OH, and "J" from location "Get A Clue", spouting off again I see with absolutely NOTHING to say. One thing I should inform you is that the SQUEAKY wheel always gets the oil so keep whining guys. This ISN'T over yet...

Posted by: Informed on Mar 6, 2008 at 08:51 AM
http://www.besafenet.com/superfundnews.htm Contact ASAP!!! The Information contradicts this article and the EPA is due to come in on 3/10 to address cleanup issues at Offutt Air Base. Also the public meetings held for placing this covenant no one was aware of so therefore no one showed up. I have been told by this link that our problem is much greater and is directly connected to lung cancer and asthma deaths. The vapor intrusion is a very very serious event and can never be cleaned up to a point of safely putting people on it legally. The EPA told me yesterday when I asked hard questions that the only chemicals were lead and arsenic natural to the soil. Nicolle in Kansas City told me that she had tested the soil repeatedly and found no problems. That the Superfund is being expanded giving this city 17 million this year to expand the cleaned yards west to 72nd. I questioned her on north omaha and she said that children who test positive immediately have the yards cleaned ASAP??

Posted by: Steven on Mar 5, 2008 at 07:20 PM
Can a person assume that UPPR was conscientious years ago when repairing the locomotives and other equipment on the property when such equipment used and spilled PCB,s & petroleum products and was cleaned with now banned solvents which are now banned by EPA standards! I tend to believe what my grandfather used to tell me about lakes of used oil and OTHER waste products located around the yards. Now the proposed building of a stadium ,if slipped under the EPA radar would give UP the necessary statute of limitations time to wash their hands! Growing up by HP Smith in So Omaha in the 60's they had a similar LAKE just 15ft from one of their repair shops where the oil and battery acid was dumped! Us kids would wonder why the animals acted strange when exposed to the to the strange looking lake!! Yea, I do get upset at the hazardous crap that our relatives were exposed to in the 50's & 60's in the name of progress. It has cost the lives of good people not knowing what was at stake!

Posted by: Whiner on Mar 5, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Progressive: to move forward or onward; advancing. Example: The beleaguered city experienced an unprecedented era of progressive financial reform when its newly elected leaders implemented a public policy based on truth and unselfish representation.

Posted by: Folks--- on Mar 5, 2008 at 03:02 PM
The Mayor has already stated he is not running. Sorry to burst your bubbles.....Do most of you on here really know Webster's Dictionary definition of "progressive"? QUIT WHINING.....

Posted by: Kati on Mar 5, 2008 at 10:30 AM
The cleanup under the lots can occur - but at a tremendous cost. The two hotels recently built across Cumming had to remove close to 20 feet of soil in order put up their relatively small structures. I'm not sure Mr. Stinson's contingency is large enough to cover it. Also, where was HDR's investigation into this obvious, for them, issue? There are other locations in the downtown area that need to be looked at that were not initially included in order to be "thrown out" because of obvious deficiencies - a basic "negotiating" tactic. Unfortunately, the UP property may be in similar shape, environmentally, to the Lot C/E location. Get creative Committee - what other downtown property does the City control that can be used that make sense financially, or rethink Rosenblatt's renovation design that HOK didn't put much creative thought into. Lots of money spent so far to be not too far along - thank goodness it was private funds - so far.

Posted by: Jake on Mar 5, 2008 at 08:07 AM
Even if www.recall-fahey.com doesnt launch a recall of this terrible mayor (I hope it does), I CANT wait for the Spring 09 mayor election. There's a STORM coming Fahey...... There's a STORM coming!

Posted by: No_MECA on Mar 4, 2008 at 08:33 PM
Fahey, Hal Daub and Meca are losers. Get them out of town and let Omaha vote on the stadium.

Posted by: Bill on Mar 4, 2008 at 05:58 PM
What else are you hiding from the citizens of Omaha, Mr. Mayor?

Posted by: clem on Mar 4, 2008 at 05:25 PM
It could be an old nucleolar waste site and I'm sure that wouldn't stop them from building. It's clear that our voice or safety is not an issue here. Thanks again Mayor Fahey for a job that is not wanted.

Posted by: CG on Mar 4, 2008 at 05:03 PM
There should be nothing but full disclosure concerning this lead issue. Soil test results should be released publicly, as well as clean up costs. If soil for miles around this area tested high enough in lead to qualify for soil replacement, I can't imagine how high the lead levels must be so close to the source of it. I'm pretty sure EPA steps will require contaminated soil to be removed and replaced with clean soil, rather than just covering up the contaminated soil with 1 ft. of clean soil. However, the removal process on this large of scale might stir up large quantities of lead-laden dust? It seems this site should be left alone. People in the area don't deserve this, and more studies and the removal/replacement of the soil will be too expensive to justify for a project that doesn't seem to have a lot of public support.

Posted by: Censureship on Mar 4, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Mayor's bunch have been busy today. They called the AP and EPA and told them that whoever complained about this issue was A)only from South Omaha B) mad because they were going to lose $$ for all of the cars that weren't going to be parked on their lots. They have tried muting any local input (that is why there is NO VOTE or offical mechanism for BROADBASED PUBLIC CONSENSUS) and now they are trying for total national censureship as well. Interesting tactic, but the information they used is totally false and there ARE a lot of other venues to communicate our frustration. Time to get on our bicycles, folks and let EVERYONE know, your mayor doesn't want your VOICE heard! Censureship? Here in Nebraska? Are you going to let that happen?

Posted by: CG on Mar 4, 2008 at 04:20 PM
I'm not an environmental engineer but I would guess you would need to replace 10 feet. That being said, I support the downtown stadium other development because that will be a better use of the land versus surface parking lots.

Posted by: Dave on Mar 4, 2008 at 04:06 PM
Hopefully the lead level does not cause one off the ball teams to go "whacko" and comit a carjacking. But in all reality Cathy is right. The city is asking for a lawsuit...and who will pay??? THE TAXPAYERS!

Posted by: To Cathy on Mar 4, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Exactly! It's called vapor intrusion! And there are issues with ground water (slurry) runoff as well! The more GUNK you see on the ground surface, the more slurry runoff! How is the city going to address that? This needs to be FIRMLY watched...

Posted by: PROGRESSIVE on Mar 4, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Cathy, lol, your not familiar with the procedure of dealing with contaminated soils. First they REMOVE AND HAUL OFF the top 1'. They take it to kansas or somewhere, then they replace it with uncontaminated cohesive soil. Prior to all this starting the EPA, or a geotechnical firm takes soil samples at varying depths and confirms how much soil needs to be removed. The contractor simply follows the citys, and the EPA's requirments. This is a perfect example of all the people that chime in about things they have absolutely no knowledge of. To every one who didnt want the new stadium, too bad. Nothing stands in the way of progress. Think your taxes are too high, MOVE. Dont like the mayor or the city coucil, MOVE. Dont want the rusty old Rosenblatt torn down, too bad, MOVE. Way to go Mr. Fahey, MECA, NCAA, and everyone else who helped make this happen!!! The balls in your court City Council, do the right thing. Mr. Gernandt if you dont like it, dont vote, call in sick that day!

Posted by: Greg on Mar 4, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Now we know the REAL reason for all the behind closed door secrecy! It was to keep certain details away from the NCAA (and public), just like Fahey said, but this?? Is an ommision of fact the same as a lie? I feel like this as been a tactical decision made by Fahey to keep the taxpayers (and NCAA) in the dark. He should be ashamed.

Posted by: Cathy on Mar 4, 2008 at 03:20 PM
People better think again - even if 1 ft of dirt is put on top of the contaminated dirt, you really don't think the contamination will continue to rise?

Posted by: Wary on Mar 4, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Is it legal to use public funds for EPA cleanups without a community vote? If so, why is this situation different than the one in Sacaramento (2006, Arco Arena) where the mayor was almost indicted by the grnad jury for using public finds without taxpayer input for the very same thing? The only reason he wasn't indicted was that cost overruns required TAXPAYER input and they killed the project during a public vote. Because the TAXPAYERS got to vote, no crime was committed and no indictment was issued. What is different here?

Posted by: Taxpayer on Mar 4, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Wasn't ALL of this supposed to have been handled when the Qwest went in? What happened?

Posted by: Worried on Mar 4, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Oily gunk?!! Vapor intrusion into the foot of soil they propose to cover this mess with? What about slurry runoff (which I suspect is that gunk referred to in the story), how are they going to handle that? If this requires another study and the current remedy is not found satisfactory and the costs soar on this project (especially in a recession), will the voters finally get a voice? I don't want the new stadium referred to as the 'land of Nebraska tea'. We should be proud NOT concerned about this venture.

Posted by: Lori on Mar 4, 2008 at 02:44 PM
After all of the secrecy and closed door meetings regarding the new ballpark, now we are supposed to just take someone's word for it that lead is the "only" contaminant? [and they shrug off the LEAD like it's harmless, from this story's viewpoint]. I say better safe than sorry. A COMPLETELY independent and THOROUGH examination of the soil to a depth at least TWICE what is quoted here is necessary. Would you REALLY want to expose your kids to "contaminants unknown"?

Posted by: Dave on Mar 4, 2008 at 02:29 PM
At what cost and whos cost?

Posted by: harry s. on Mar 4, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Why would you risk the lead issue? It is sealed with concrete now. Keep it at the BLATT. It's possible to add more seats. What is wrong with adding seats and designing it like the proposed ball park?

Posted by: Mike on Mar 4, 2008 at 01:56 PM
Build the field on the lead dirt. Then in 25 years when we have the field paid off we can start paying on the lawsuits that will follow.

Posted by: D on Mar 4, 2008 at 01:37 PM
Was the cost of lead clean up included in the cost of our new stadium or is this another cost that will be passed on to tax payers? This just gets worse and worse.

Posted by: Adrian on Mar 4, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Seriously... Do we need a new stadium? I think not! Put money towards OPS not a stadium. I think furthering a childs education makes more sense then building a new stadium.

Special Sections