Project Summary
In early 2020, ESA was retained by a lending institution as part of a refinancing deal to conduct an environmental transaction screen on a commercial property that has operated as a pharmacy/convenience store for the past 30 years. As part of the environmental screen, ESA reviewed a 2012 Phase 1 report prepared by others for due diligence purposes on behalf of the current property owner, which concluded that Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) were not identified at the property, nor were there any prior use concerns. The current owner purchased the property based on the 2012 Phase 1 conclusions and lack of identified recognized environmental concerns (RECs).
Challenges
During ESA’s review of the property history and prior uses, it was determined that a car dealership and service station formerly operated at the property prior to 1997. Through detailed review of historic Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, ESA identified two (2) suspected underground storage tanks (USTs) of unknown status associated with the former car dealership and service station operations. Additionally, an NJDEP Program Interest Number linked to the property was also identified through ESA’s transaction screen. The 2012 Phase I did not identify any of these potential environmental concerns and the property owner was not aware of former UST areas or NJDEP Program Interest Number linked to the property. Based on these findings, the refinancing was postponed and the lending institution required further due diligence to be completed by the property owner.
To better understand the environmental liabilities at the property, ESA was retained by the owner to conduct an NJDEP file review and limited phase II investigation of the suspected former UST areas identified at the property. Tank sweep and ground penetrating radar (GPR) equipment was utilized to scan the suspected locations to determine if USTs were still present in the subsurface; however, none were identified. Through the NJDEP file review, it was determined the USTs formerly contained diesel fuel and waste oil and were registered with the State and decommissioned prior to 1986, but no other information was available.
Solution
To determine if the former USTs had leaked, and to identify potential impacts to environmental media above remediation standards, ESA developed and implemented a soil and groundwater investigation strategy at the suspected tank locations.
During the field investigation and sampling activities, ESA field staff identified signs of release and petroleum impacts to soil and groundwater at both UST areas of concern (AOCs). Laboratory analytical results confirmed soil and groundwater impacts present above NJDEP’s remediation standards and default free product limits for fuel oil and waste oil related compounds. The findings were reported to the NJDEP, an Incident number was generated, and ESA’s Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) retained on the case. The worst contamination identified was located immediately adjacent to and potentially beneath the on-site building, creating concerns for indoor air quality within the convenience store. Additional delineation activities were warranted to define the horizontal and vertical extent of the impacts, and to develop the least disruptive and most cost effective remediation strategy.
Outcome
The soil and groundwater delineation findings demonstrated the UST impacts warranting remediation were localized onsite and did not impact offsite receptors. Additionally, ESA investigated the soil-gas pathway and potential vapor impacts within the convenience store, determining that vapor intrusion was not occurring; therefore, further evaluation was not warranted. Based on ESA’s investigative findings and remedial strategy development, the property refinancing was able to proceed, thus allowing for extension of the tenant lease and continued operation as a convenience store. Through this investigative process that started as simple due diligence environmental transaction screen, ESA identified significant environmental liabilities the property owner was not aware of and addressed the situation in a timely manner to allow for the refinancing deal to be completed, thus maintaining a critical income generating asset for the property owner. This experience reinforces why prior due diligence should not be solely relied upon for property transactions and demonstrates the importance of retaining environmental consultants with a proven expertise.