| |
A decade ago this month, a Texas environmental agency notified the Houston Chronicle that it had discovered severe groundwater contamination in a two-block area surrounding its downtown offices. And after a decade of investigation, cleanup and remediation, Chronicle officials are still awaiting final word from the state to close the books on the decade-long headache -- which they contend was never their fault.
"We were involved with the state on an almost daily basis at times," Julia Kovach, the Chronicle's manger of environmental and risk administration, told SuperConference health and safety segment attendees.
The unusual case underscores the dangers inherent in operating underground storage tanks, according to Kovach, who put the costs of merely investigating and responding to the Texas Natural Resource Conversation Commission's initial notice at over $500,000.
Kovach says the Chronicle was fingered as the culprit because it still had an operating tank system beneath its parking garage, though testing would cast that contention in doubt. Due to the uncertainty of the contamination source, the paper succeeded in making the state lead subsequent monitoring projects, but in 1996 staff changes and funding cuts from the state legislature led the TNRCC to stop funding underground storage tank cleanups. Instead, the agency decided to toss responsibility back to any "original property owner" associated with such sites. So in 1997, the Chronicle received notice that it was the responsible party and was given 45 days to designate correction specialists and develop a cleanup plan.
"My management was not happy," Kovach said. "They had fought long and hard...and we were back at ground zero."
Instead of "spending more money on attorneys," the Chronicle hired another consultant to develop a compromise. The paper's first meeting with state representatives was hardly pleasant--"they had fire in their eyes," Kovach says. But the Chronicle persuaded "surprised" officials that they would take on the project--but only as a third party, and with stipulations that all records would show that none of the data collected by state or Chronicle contractors indicated the paper was the contamination source.
The site began improving, and that spring the Chronicle asked for permission to close the site and remove its remaining underground storage tanks. "We didn't have to, but we didn't want the state coming back at us again," Kovach says.
But the story doesn't end there. After hearing nothing for six months, the paper learned the rules had changed and new sampling for a different contaminant was required. After a long volley of requests and approvals, the paper removed its tanks -- proving they weren't the contamination source in the process -- and finished all the paperwork last November.
It's still awaiting final approval.
The Chronicle opted to switch drivers to a credit-card fueling system, and Kovach cautions others to stay abreast of new regulations governing underground-storage tanks. "If there is any contamination associated with the site, you will always be a target -- even if you have substantial evidence to the contrary."
--by Mark Toner