ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS & SITE ASSESSMENTS
DURING COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS
Today’s
real estate market is largely influenced by environmental concerns. Existing federal and state environmental laws
have placed substantial potential liability on buyers and sellers of properties
contaminated by hazardous or toxic substances.
The extensive environmental liabilities resulting from leaking
underground storage tanks, buried industrial waste, poor quality fill material,
improper handling of hazardous and non-hazardous materials, historic PCB usage/disposal,
and onsite discharges or spills have significantly changed the way business is
conducted with regard to the ownership, management, and transfer of real
property. Anyone having a financial
interest in real estate needs to know if potential environmental problems may
involve them in expensive cleanup and lengthy litigation.
It
should be noted though that in addition to the contamination concerns there are
several emerging areas, such as risks
related to climate change, water shortages associated with droughts,
environmental, social, and governance issues and vapor intrusion.
CERCLA (SUPERFUND)
The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
commonly known as Superfund, imposes liability on responsible parties,
including but not limited to: present owners and/or operators of the facility,
and prior owners and/or operators who owned or operated the facility at the
time of disposal of any hazardous substance. There are only three defenses available to
CERCLA liability, with the most common being the “third party defense.”
INNOCENT LANDOWNER
DEFENSE & APPROPRIATE INQUIRY
In
1986, Congress increased the scope of this defense, creating a special class of
the third party defense sometimes called the “innocent landowner defense.” Innocent landowners can escape CERCLA
liability if they acquired the property after the disposal of hazardous
substance (among other qualifications), and at the time of the property
acquisition, the defendant must have undertaken all appropriate inquiry into
the previous ownership and uses of the property. This is where the Phase I environmental site
assessments (Phase I ESA) come in.
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Lending
institutions (or other entities with a potential interest in secured or
unsecured properties that may foreclose on or otherwise assume operational
control of contaminated properties) could be made financially liable for
clean-up of the properties, whether or not they contributed to the
contamination. The burden is on lenders
and potential owners of real estate to make a duly diligent effort to research
the environmental hazards on the property they acquire title to, foreclose on,
maintain a security in, or assist in managing. Prior to the calculation of property or estate
taxes, trustees and managers of estates also have a vested interest in
obtaining an accurate assessment of an estate potentially contaminated with
hazardous or toxic substances. The Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment evaluates potential and existing hazards and is
an essential element in establishing “innocent landowner” status in property
transactions. It is the first step in
evaluating a property’s environmental status and can help limit ultimate
liability should the property be found to pose an environmental risk.
The ESA, at a minimum, accomplishes three goals:
(1) identify sources of contamination; (2) locates pathways of contamination;
and (3) identify receptors of contamination.
DUE DILIGENCE, ASTM
STANDARD & PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
The
advent of the routine Phase I audit was the result of this heightened awareness
and the evolution of legal liability theory under the Superfund statute. Although there are currently no federally
enforceable requirements for conducting a Phase I to establish due diligence,
state requirements and industry established guidelines, such as the ASTM
Standard E1527-05 and the newly issued ASTM 1527-13 “Standard Practice for
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment”, have been developed. For instance, under the New Jersey Spill
Compensation and Control Act, a person must perform a Preliminary Assessment,
as well as a Site Investigation if potential contaminants or concern are
discovered, to demonstrate “appropriate inquiry” in order to qualify as an “innocent
purchaser.”
SITE INVESTIGATION
& INNOCENT PURCHASER
METROPOLITAN’S
personnel have performed hundreds of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments,
Preliminary Assessments, and Site Investigations since 1990. Our credentials far exceed the requirements of
all major financial institutions and have been refined over the years to
accommodate changes in legal guidance, client objectives, and state
regulations.
METROPOLITAN’S SITE
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Properties are
typically evaluated in phases, beginning with an ASTM Transaction Screening
Investigation (TSI) for visual or agency listed evidence of potential
contamination on the property. A TSI offers a
standardized approach to environmental due diligence that provides a generally
acceptable degree of confidence about the environmental conditions of a
property.
If the Transaction
Screening Investigation identifies an issue of concern, or if sufficient
information is not available to eliminate a potential issue of concern, then a
Preliminary (Phase I) Property Site Assessment for visual or historic
indications of potential contamination would be conducted.
If a Phase I Property
Site Assessment does not identify existing or historic evidence of
contamination, the site assessment is usually concluded without further
investigation.
However, if evidence
of potential contamination exists, then additional investigation may be
recommended, including second-phase sampling and analysis programs or more
rigorous historic and agency record investigations (Phase II Property Site
Assessments).
If Phase II
investigations confirm the presence of hazardous substance contamination, then
further assessment and site remediation (Phase III) are typically recommended
either to be completed prior to closing the property transfer transaction or to
be adequately provided for in the valuation of the property.
METROPOLITAN also provides
environmental consulting services to facilitate timely and cost-effective
assessment of properties. Among these
services are technical review of third-party consultant reports (Environmental
Record Reviews) and comprehensive reviews of client facilities and operations
for compliance with environmental regulations and permits (Environmental
Audits).
We recognize the
importance of adapting our services to meet the unique requirements of our
clients.
Environmental
Auditing
Environmental
auditing has emerged as an important and integral part of environmental
management systems.
Audits serve as a
management tool to help measure a facility’s or company’s environmental
performance against environmental regulations, as well as internal company
policies and operational procedures.
In addition,
environmental audits can provide a level of assurance to senior management that
the activities at their facility or organization do not pose an unreasonable
risk to the company or the environment.
The process can
assist a corporation and its officers in limiting liability by identifying
potential problems and recommending corrective actions.
The auditing process
is designed to
1. verify compliance
with corporate environmental requirements;
2. evaluate the
effectiveness of existing environmental management systems; and
3. assess risks from
regulated and unregulated materials and practices.
Environmental audits
are also typically performed prior to acquisition of an operating business.
As part of an
environmental audit, METROPOLITAN
can
evaluate a facility’s regulatory compliance status and advise corrective
actions. The regulatory compliance aspect of the environmental audit includes:
·
A
detailed walk-through inspection of the facility;
·
Review
of all environmental records made available from the client;
·
Review
of applicable management practices, federal, state and local laws, rules and
regulations, and standards; and
·
Interviews
with persons responsible for implementing the environmental programs on site.
Specific components
of a typical METROPOLITAN
Environmental
Audit, which are based upon these elements, include:
·
Summaries
of the items reviewed;
·
Discussion
of environmental issues and audit results including historic and potential
problems and noncompliance areas; and
·
Recommendations
for actions which would bring the facility into regulatory compliance and
resolution of environmental problems.
After the initial
environmental audit, METROPOLITAN
can
perform periodic audit updates to assist in keeping the facility in regulatory
compliance, or undertake supplemental activities necessary to bring the
facility into regulatory compliance
Environmental
Record Review (ERR)
Third-party
environmental documents are frequently submitted to our clients. These documents may present complex findings,
incomplete documentation, or conclusions for further investigation or site
remediation.
METROPOLITAN can interpret the
technical findings and evaluate adequacy of the documents with respect to the
concerns or interests of our clients.
One frequently
requested peer review service provided by METROPOLITAN is an Environmental
Record Review (ERR). An ERR includes a review and written summary of
third-party environmental reports to provide our clients with an independent
opinion of technical adequacy and findings of the reports.
We give particular
attention to evaluating evidence of hazardous or toxic substance contamination.
The ERR typically
includes a chronology of significant findings, a summary of identified issues
or potential problems, recommendations for further investigation or causes of
action, and a statement defining the limitations and assumptions of the
analysis.
Transaction
Screening Investigation
A Transaction
Screening Investigation is usually undertaken to provide a scoping level of
environmental assessment for virtually all property transfer transactions.
A Transaction
Screening Investigation may also be initiated when a client has made a preliminary
determination that the value of the property or other circumstances
contraindicate initiating a full Phase I Property Site Assessment unless
sufficient cause for further investigation can be demonstrated.
Findings of the
Transaction Screening Investigation report may dictate that a Phase I Property
Site Assessment is required or may provide sufficient information that a lender
may decide to discontinue further environmental assessment activities.
In some
circumstances, Transaction Screening Investigation reports may be appropriate
for updating earlier Phase I Property Site Assessments to confirm that
conditions have not substantively changed on a given property.
The scope of services
for a typical Transaction Screening Investigation includes a site inspection;
review of historical information from site records; and preparation of a
written technical report with findings of the investigation, as well as
conclusions and recommendations for further investigation, if necessary.
Although requirements
for individual site studies vary, and supplemental assessment activities may be
prescribed by individual clients, minimum standards have been established by
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard practices for a
Transaction Screening Investigation (E 1528-96, Transaction Screen Process).
The Transaction
Screening Investigation specifically would not include
·
review
of historic property ownership records;
·
review
of historical aerial photographs and city directories;
·
communications
with agencies for available records of past spills, discharges or disposal of
hazardous materials;
·
communication
with utility companies; or
·
review
of hydrogeologic data or other supplemental activities typically conducted
during a full Phase I Property Site Assessment.
If the Transaction
Screening Investigation were to reveal evidence of contamination or potential
contamination or conclude that insufficient information was acquired during the
Transaction Screening Investigation to adequately address an environmental
issue of potential concern, recommendations for a Phase I Property Site
Assessment would be provided in the Transaction Screening Investigation report.
Preliminary
(Phase I) Property Site Assessment
A Preliminary (Phase
I) Property Site Assessment is an investigation undertaken to evaluate
properties for the existence, reasonable potential existence, or future
potential for hazardous or toxic substance contamination.
The scope of services
for a typical Phase I Property Site Assessment includes
·
A specific on-site investigation consisting of a
pedestrian survey be performed.
Representative photographs of the subject property and adjacent
properties will be taken to document conditions at the time of the on-site
investigation.
·
review
of historical information from site records and regulatory agencies;
·
preparation
of a written technical report with findings of the investigation; and
·
conclusions
and recommendations for further investigation, if necessary.
Although requirements
for specific sites vary and individual clients may require supplemental
assessment activities, minimum requirements have been established by practicing
professionals and have been institutionalized in pending legislation.
Minimum standards
have also been established by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) standard practices for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (E
1527-97, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process).
Phase I Property Site
Assessments do not typically include soil or ground water sampling or analysis
activities unless specifically requested prior to the investigation, or
mutually agreed upon during the course of the investigation.
If the Phase I
Property Site Assessment were to reveal evidence of potential hazardous
substance contamination, recommendations for further investigation (Phase II
Property Site Assessment), mitigation, and/or remedial actions would be
recommended in the Phase I report.
Phase
II Property Site Assessment
Previous
investigations or activities, including Phase I Property Site Assessments or
accidental discovery of suspected contamination, may require a sampling and
analysis program (Phase II Property Site Assessment) to confirm or characterize
the suspected areas of contamination.
Phase II programs
usually include subsurface investigations for the purpose of collecting soil
and/or ground water samples to be analyzed for suspected contaminants; however,
Phase II investigations may also include sampling of surface waters, interior
or exterior emission sources, soil gases, or multiple other focused assessment
activities.
METROPOLITAN’ Phase
II field investigations are designed and directed by geologists and
professional staff with expertise in environmental site characterizations of
all kinds, both above and beneath the ground water table.
Our professional
staff adheres to rigid quality assurance and control guidelines set by
industry, regulatory, and METROPOLITAN standards.
Field investigations
are conducted in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, including
notification of appropriate regulatory agencies, acquisition of all necessary
permits, and preparation of a field safety program.
Representative soil
and ground water samples are obtained following strict sampling protocol. The
samples are transferred by standard chain-of-custody to certified laboratories
for analyses.
Coordination with the
client is maintained throughout the entire investigation to assure that any
difficulties or unsuspected findings are resolved as soon as possible.
After completion of
field and laboratory data analysis, a final report is prepared to summarize the
investigation and to make recommendations and conclusions based upon the
findings.
If the Phase II
investigation were to confirm the presence of significant contamination on the
property, then recommendations are typically provided for further
investigation, if necessary, to delineate the vertical and lateral extent of
contamination or to implement site remediation alternatives for cleanup of the
contamination in conformance with the requirements of responsible agencies.
Site
Remediation
If site remediation
is indicated from the Phase II investigation, METROPOLITAN can assist clients
with site characterization and management of remediation activities.
Site remediation may
include any of the standard or innovative techniques such as
·
granular
activated carbon adsorption,
·
oil-water
separation and free product recovery,
·
biodegradation,
·
solidification
and stabilization,
·
vapor
extraction,
·
incineration,
·
barrier
walls (either passive or active),
·
in-situ
chemical injection treatment,
·
waste
reduction/filtration techniques, or
·
excavation
and off site treatment and disposal.
The feasibility of
any particular site remediation technique depends upon site specific conditions
such as the nature of contaminants, regulatory requirements, and other factors
such as cost, potential future consequences, pending regulations, and community
concerns.
Key
Changes to ASTM E 1527-13
The All Appropriate
Inquiries Rule at 40 CFR Part 312 (“AAI Rule”) protects prospective purchasers
of property from liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) for certain environmental conditions
if the prospective purchaser conducts an investigation that meets the
requirements of the AAI Rule. The AAI
Rule provides that prospective purchasers who comply with specified industry
standards issued by the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) are
deemed to have complied with the AAI Rule.
On December 30, 2013, the U.S. EPA formally recognized a new standard
(ASTM Standard E1527-13) to demonstrate compliance with the All Appropriate
Inquiry (AAI) Rule when conducting Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. The ASTM E1527-13 Standard is similar to the
previous ASTM E1527-05 Standard and was issued by ASTM International in
accordance with its protocol for review of its standard practices and guides. The EPA recommends that environmental
professionals and prospective purchasers use the ASTM E1527–13 standard;
however, the old standard is not yet invalid for purposes of AAI and won’t be
until EPA formally amends the AAI Rule to remove the current reference to
it. The new Standard introduces several changes to the Phase I assessment
process.
Key Changes to the
Standard
There are three major
changes in the new Standard:
Changes to the
definitions of Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) and Historical
Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC), and the introduction of the term
Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs).
1. Clarifications
regarding vapor migration/intrusion assessment requirements.
2. Requirements
pertaining to Regulatory Agency File Reviews.
The major changes are
summarized below.
REC, HREC, CRECs
The new Standard
revised the definition of the terms regarding Recognized Environmental
Conditions. The new Standard simplifies the definition of a REC, to align
more closely with the AAI rule, as a release, a likely release, or a material
threat of a release of hazardous substances to the environment on the property.
The revised Standard also modifies the definitions of “release” and
“environment” to more closely track the definitions of those terms as set forth
in CERCLA. Although the definition of a REC has been simplified, its
application in practice should be largely unchanged.
The definition of an
HREC has been modified to apply only to historic releases, which have been
remediated to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities for unrestricted use. Thus, the new Standard limits an HREC to past
releases that do not subject the property to any use restrictions, activity and
use limitations (AULs), or other engineering or institutional controls. The new definition also requires that the
environmental professional evaluate whether releases that were addressed in the
past may be subject to revised cleanup criteria that could require further
remedial action (if residential criteria has become more restrictive the HREC
could potentially become a REC). Although some environmental professionals
routinely conducted an analysis of current regulatory cleanup standards for
HRECs, the new Standard makes this exercise mandatory to comply with the AAI
Rule for the first time.
Following the revised
definition of an HREC is the new category of releases called a CREC. This term
is newly added to describe releases that have been addressed to the
satisfaction of regulatory authorities, but from which residual contamination
has been permitted to remain in place subject to the implementation of use
restrictions, AULs or other institutional or engineering controls on the
subject property. Because a CREC is a new type of REC (whereas the new
definition of an HREC is no longer considered a REC), the new Standard requires
that the condition also be identified as a REC in the conclusions section of
the Phase I report. Under the prior standard, these types of controlled,
known conditions were often characterized as HRECs, since regulatory closure
had been achieved. These conditions are now considered RECs, and may have
a practical impact on transactions in the form of financial holdbacks or escrow
demands, insurance coverage exclusions or limitations, or requests for sale
price or lease concessions.
Vapor Migration
The new Standard
indicates the need to clarify that the potential for vapor migration must be
considered in the Phase I report. The
definition of “migrate” now expressly includes releases that migrate in the
subsurface as vapor. Consultants preparing Phase I assessments under the updated
standard will need to assess possible indoor air quality impacts from vapor
intrusion pathways if there is subsurface soil or groundwater contamination at
or near the subject site. The standard
explicitly states that ASTM E2600 is not a requirement of a Phase I ESA
(E1527). ASTM E2600 is a separate, more comprehensive assessment of vapor
migration.
Agency File Reviews
If a property, or an
adjoining property within the required search distance, appears on a federal,
state or tribal record, the standard requires, within the environmental
professional’s discretion, the review of “pertinent regulatory files and/or
records associated with the listing.” If the environmental professional chooses
not to conduct a file review, he/she must document the reason(s) for this
decision in the Phase I report.
The practical impacts
of the file review requirement are likely to be on timing and cost.
Agency file reviews can often take several weeks (or months, in some
jurisdictions), and could add additional unforeseen costs to the Phase I
assessment process. The file review requirement could dramatically
increase the probability that a Phase I assessment is not truly complete at the
time of closing.
Other Revisions
The Standard also
indicates a review of title and judicial records for environmental liens or
AULs continues to be a User (Client) requirement that is to be conducted by a
title professional. The environmental professional may conduct this work
instead of the user, but does not have an affirmative obligation to do so.
These user responsibilities are now mandatory, and the user must also consider
its own specialized knowledge, commonly known or reasonable ascertainable
information about the property, and the degree of obviousness of the presence
or likely presence of releases or threatened releases.
Conclusion
EPA believes that
ASTM E1527-13 improves upon the previous standard and reflects the evolving
best practices and level of rigor that will afford prospective property owners
necessary and essential information when making property transaction decisions
and meeting continuing obligations under the CERCLA liability protections. In
particular, the new ASTM E1527-13 standard enhances the previous standard with
regard to the delineation of historical releases or RECs at a property and
makes important revisions to the standard practice to clarify that all
appropriate inquires and Phase I Environmental Site Assessments must include,
within the scope of the investigation, an assessment of the real or potential
occurrence of vapor migration and vapor releases on, at, in or to the subject
property. While this rule does not create additional regulatory requirements,
prospective purchasers of property should be aware of the changes and potential
impacts.
PCBs
– A Question of Due Diligence
The
use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was widespread before 1977, and the
health risks associated with PCBs are well known. PCBs have been widely studied, analyzed,
regulated, and managed since the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed
in 1976. Over the nearly four decades
since 1977, PCBs have been found in a wide variety of building products,
including sidewalk caulk, window glazing, expansion joints, crack sealants,
caulks used as gaskets, surface coatings (e.g. paint), and caulks used between
masonry blocks, among other uses. Much of this material still remains in
excellent condition, and largely as it was the day that it was installed. This
remarkable durability of PCB caulks is a testament to the physical and chemical
properties of PCBs!
EPA
has studied PCBs in caulk (including surface coatings), investigated PCB caulk
in school buildings, and developed regulations and guidelines for PCBs in caulk
when discovered. However, EPA does not require commercial landowners, States,
or municipalities to test for the presence of PCBs in caulk. PCBs are only
regulated in caulk and building materials contaminated by caulk when
discovered. In some instances, municipalities, private lenders, and public
lending agencies require testing for PCBs in caulk. However, there still
remains no Federal requirement to do so.
PCBs
in caulk are a problem from both public health and landowner perspectives. From
a public health perspective, the health risks of PCBs themselves are well
known, and the presence of PCBs in caulk have been found to create significant
human and ecological exposures. However, the risk of PCBs in caulk in the built
environment has not been fully quantified. In addition, the scope of the
problem -the amount of affected caulk that is out there – is entirely unknown.
What
This Means To The CRE Industry
For
a commercial landowner or prospective purchaser…“when discovered”…presents a
problem. Should PCBs in caulk (>50 ppm PCBs) be discovered, the caulk is not
an approved use under TSCA, and the caulk has to be removed as a PCB bulk
product waste (40 CFR Part 761.62). Porous surfaces such as masonry that are
contaminated may continue to remain in use for the useful life of the
material as long as encapsulated using the methods required under 40 CFR Part
761.61. Such a task is neither simple nor inexpensive, and can require a small
army of environmental consultants, attorneys, and contractors to complete. When
purchasing an older commercial building, the purchaser has a voluntary decision
to make during due diligence: to perform a PCB Caulk Assessment or
not (health concerns aside).
Since
there is no obligation to test for PCB caulks (other than to provide a safe
environment for building occupants), the purchaser or landowner may never have
to identify, manage or dispose of PCB caulk and affected porous surfaces. As a
result, its presence could result in no financial exposure if never discovered.
On
the other hand, if PCBs are discovered after closing or during
demolition/reconstruction, PCB caulk could create a significant regulatory
requirement to remove the caulk and manage affected materials in the middle of
a demolition or renovation project. Even worse, PCBs could be discovered after
a renovation has been completed, necessitating remediation of a newly finished
space. Such scenarios have far reaching implications. Discovering caulk
“after the fact” can have dire consequences. The potential for an unexpected
cost exposure can have a big impact on budgets, schedules, and asset values.
The not insignificant cost of dealing with PCB caulk can disrupt financing, and
wreak all manner of havoc with respect to third party liability, insurance,
building occupants, and regulatory compliance.
Even
if not discovered during ownership, a new prospective purchaser may perform a
PCB Caulk Assessment during future due diligence, develop a remediation
estimate, and demand a purchase price reduction to pay for the cost of its
management and disposal. If the deal falls apart, the presence of PCB caulk is
then a known condition that needs to be disclosed to the next buyer,
potentially devaluing the asset. In addition, a known condition may not be
insurable.
The
issue of PCBs in caulk will not go away. The problem is that these caulking
materials could be anywhere in the United States, they slowly dust and off-gas
into the indoor environment, leach over time to adjacent masonry, other
surfaces, and even to soil, sediment, and storm water. PCBs from caulk have
also been found at significant concentrations in indoor air. If PCBs that have
leached from caulk are found in soil, the soil should then be regulated as a
PCB remediation waste (40 CFR Part 761.61).
At
the present time, the EPA has not adopted an approach to require testing PCBs
in caulk. Even if a requirement to test caulk for PCBs emerged, the regulators
don’t have the resources or personnel to manage the large volume of work plans,
reviews, and approvals necessary to manage the issue. Since TSCA is a Federal
regulation, states and municipalities don’t have the authority to make
decisions for the EPA. Such a regulatory log jam on the Federal level is
unthinkable.
The
decision to test or not test for PCBs in caulk belongs to the purchaser during
due diligence. The risks of not
testing include 1) buying a building with a hidden health hazard,
and 2) buying a building with a hidden financial liability…often a big
liability. The risk of testing
includes incurring a significant expense now that may never otherwise come to
fruition because PCBs may never be identified. Given that this caulk is not
painted bright red to signify its presence, it represents an invisible
potential health hazard and financial liability.
For
the EPA, the issue of PCBs in caulk is the classic hot potato: the scope of the
problem is unknown, may be vast, and there may not be a cost effective and
logistical way to deal with what may or may not be a significant public health
issue. PCBs in caulk are an emerging issue. Should you chose to avoid it, the
likelihood that PCBs will be discovered at some point by a contractor,
employee, or other party is ever increasing. So, you are on your own. Given
this framework, you can seek opinions, but the decision is yours to make.
PROJECT SUMMARIES
ASTM
Transaction Screen, Conducted on behalf of a local Commercial Lending
Institution (2014) Four-Story
Residential Apartment Building, Trenton, NJ
Historical information (Sanborn Maps) indicated that the Site has been occupied by the current four-story residential apartment building since at least 1887. Based on the outcome of the TS, METROPOLITAN concluded that additional inquiry of the property was not warranted.
Environmental Liability Review - Real Estate Investment Trust, Nationwide
For
a confidential nationwide real estate investment trust (REIT), METROPOLITAN
provides third-party review services evaluating all aspects of potential
environmental liabilities associated with the potential property acquisition. Within an aggressive timeframe to complete
environmental due diligence, METROPOLITAN reviews environmental site
assessments completed by others and evaluates a wide range of environmental
information pertaining to the property for this REIT. Environmental reviews of manufacturing,
residential, and commercial properties in New York, Miami, Jersey City, and Houston
have been completed and environmental issues including historic spill cleanup,
oil storage, mold remediation, and compliance with state regulations have been
assessed. Because of our independent
analysis of site environmental conditions, the REIT has been able to manage
potential environmental issues and successfully acquired numerous properties.
ASTM Phase I ESA, Conducted on behalf of a
local Commercial Lending Institution (2013) Commercial
Property, Newark, NJ
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommended sampling of subsurface soil and groundwater to evaluate potential contamination associated with this Country Club setting for a number of current and/or former USTs.
ASTM Phase I ESA, Conducted on behalf of a
local Commercial Lending Institution (2012)
Manufacturing Facility, New York, NY
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment concluded that further assessment of subsurface soil and groundwater was not required to evaluate potential contamination associated with a number of former USTs at the property.
ASTM Phase II LSI, Conducted on behalf of a
local Commercial Lending Institution (2011) Trucking
Facility, New Haven, CT
Upon conducting Phase II environmental sampling activities at this approximately 22-acre property occupied by a trucking company, METROPOLITAN concluded that additional inquiry was not warranted.
Property
Acquisition - Confidential Real Estate Company, NJ
When
considering the purchase of an unoccupied former mill building in Harrisburg,
PA, this confidential New Jersey-based real estate company hired METROPOLITAN
to conduct due diligence research. METROPOLITAN began with an ASTM Phase I ESA,
which included a site visit, review of historical records, research at state
and local government offices, and interviews with key individuals knowledgeable
about site use and history. Research found the mill had been used for
various textile manufacturing operations for more than 100 years.
METROPOLITAN also reviewed previous environmental assessment activities
conducted at the site, including the removal of two USTs. Our investigations
concluded that there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions at the site,
and the transaction could proceed unimpeded
Services and Solutions
- Due Diligence Support For Real Estate Transactions
- Environmental Site Assessments and Investigations
- Risk Assessments/Regulatory Closure Evaluations
- Feasibility Studies/Remedial Action Alternative Evaluations
- Site Remediation/Operation & Maintenance Services
- Emergency Response Services
- UST Removal/Closure Services
- Remedial Construction/Hazardous Waste Mgmt Services
- Landfill Compliance Services
- Specialty Services
- Environmental Health & Safety Compliance and Training
At METROPOLITAN, we're committed to help you achieve
the results you need. We welcome the
opportunity to learn more about your upcoming project. Contact Us.
Metropolitan Engineering, Consulting & Forensics (MECF)
Providing Competent,
Expert and Objective Investigative Engineering and Consulting Services
P.O. Box 520
Tenafly, NJ 07670-0520
Tel.: (973) 897-8162
Fax: (973) 810-0440
E-mail: metroforensics@gmail.com
Web pages: https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanforensics/
https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanenvironmental/
https://sites.google.com/site/metroforensics3/
We are happy to announce the launch of our twitter account. Please make
sure to follow us at @MetropForensics or @metroforensics
Metropolitan
appreciates your business.
Feel free to recommend our services to your friends and colleagues.
