Home Soil

"What a
relief." That was the way the King William Association responded in the July
edition of its monthly newsletter to the City's announcement that asbestos was
not detected on the planned Eagleland Hike-and-Bike trail along the San Antonio

relief was short-lived.

month, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that it found elevated
levels of asbestos in the soil near the site of the old Big Tex Grain Co. The
most disturbing levels of asbestos (4.251 percent, or nearly 15 times the
accepted "protective-concentration levels") were found between buildings near
Big Tex. But the most urgent concern for residents was the high level of
asbestos found along the northern part of the trail, and it renewed fears that
construction work on the trail could stir up contaminated dust.

differing results arrived at in the city and EPA studies beg the question: How
did the City fail to detect asbestos when they were specifically looking for
evidence of it along the hike-and-bike trail?

Rinehart, site-assessment manager for the EPA, refrains from criticizing the
City's efforts, and explains that the EPA was able to test more
comprehensively. "They took fewer samples than we did," Rinehart says. "I think
they did about four, and we did 20. Also, we used some different techniques,
and they tested deeper in the soil. With asbestos, because it's a light fiber,
it'll usually be close to the surface."

The EPA's
findings have only intensified the anxiety of neighbors who oppose developer
James Lifshutz's plan to transform the Big Tex site into a mixed-use
residential and retail complex. These residents have based their opposition on
the fact that the W.R. Grace Co. processed more than 100,000 tons of
asbestos-contaminated vermiculite on the site from 1963 to 1992. `See "Doing
asbestos they can," June 7, 2006, and "Big Tex lives to fight another day,"
February 15, 2006.` The City zoning commission responded to these environmental
concerns by unanimously rejecting Lifshutz's re-zone request in May 2005, but
ultimately approved his plan in January of this year.

In light
of the EPA's recent findings, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
sent Lifshutz a letter on August 9, updating him on the evidence of
contamination on his property.

"In July
2006, we discussed with you that asbestos was detected by the W.R. Grace
building and along the trail," the letter states, adding that "public access
should be restricted and signs posted" around the W.R. Grace hopper and silo to
protect the safety of the public.

Wednesday, August 23, at 7 p.m., TCEQ and EPA will host a public meeting at
Brackenridge High School to explain their future sampling plans (they'll be
conducting tests for metals and organic chemicals, as well as asbestos). The
following week, TCEQ will split samples with the City of San Antonio taken from
the hike-and-bike trail, as part of the ongoing effort to provide answers about
the severity of the contamination threat along the trail.

construction continues along the hike-and-bike, with workers soaking down the
soil to limit the release of contaminated dirt. But Rinehart would like the
City to stop work while questions remain about the public-health threat. "Our
position at the EPA is, 'Why not wait until we've finished evaluating
everything before continuing construction?'" he says.

District 5
Councilwoman Patti Radle expresses particular alarm about the astonishingly
high asbestos levels taken from samples between buildings on the Big Tex site,
even though that area is not included in either Lifshutz's or the City's
construction plans. "That gives me a lot of concern," she says. "The amount is
so significantly high, it should be cleaned up with a lot of care, and with a
lot of oversight supervision."

Newman, environmental services manager for San Antonio, says, "It's too early
to tell how `the remediation effort` will be handled," but he has indicated
that the City will only take responsibility for the contaminated area along the
hike-and-bike trail, leaving Lifshutz to sort out what will likely be the most
demanding part of the cleanup.

developer owns the property there and he has to be responsible for that,"
Rinehart says. "Mr. Lifshutz has to present the state with a work plan for
that, and we don't know where things stand with that."

did not respond to an interview request from the Current.

points out that Lifshutz bought the property without knowing the environmental
burden he was assuming, and pins much of the responsibility on the EPA.

"The EPA
should have taken care of this a long time ago," she says. "For whatever
reason, it just fell through the cracks. They had been denied access to the
site, but they just made judgments based on what little they knew at the time.
So, unlike other W.R. Grace sites, it didn't end up on the EPA's list, even
though its problems were worse than some of the places on the list.

now, my biggest concern is that the City goes through proper procedures and
does the things that the EPA asks. It's very important for the people who live

Scroll to read more San Antonio News articles


Join SA Current Newsletters

Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.