Post on 19-Jun-2015
CONFIDENTIAL
Site Strategic Plan (EXAMPLE)JIS LandfillSouth Brunswick, New Jersey
Contact:
John RosengardJohn Rosengard(415) 982-3100
www.erci.com
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc.
Project Scope
“I S ” I d Al i “O f S ” I d Al i“In Scope” Issues and Alternativeso End state vision / risk and land ownershipo Properties covered by this documento Pace to closureo Revenue and cost recovery opportunities
“Out of Scope” Issues and Alternativeso Asset operation strategyo Statewide policy issueso Litigation strategyo Staffing, contractor selectiono Revenue and cost recovery opportunities
o NRDAo Effect on nearby operationso Unit costso Remedy selection / endpoints
o Staffing, contractor selectiono Accounting treatment of remedial costs
(reserves, CapEx, etc.)
Key Assumptions
1 Property zoning remains Industrial
2 CERCLA site; no duplicative RCRA closure process
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 2
Current Regulatory / Counterparty Status
Lead Agency New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
RFI complete (per DEQ expectations)
Current Regulatory Status
RFI complete (per DEQ expectations) Final Remedy Selected – 09/2009 Construction complete – 09/2009 Risk assessments, CMS, and CMI to be done as conditions
of AOC (1988) and in accordance with VRP guidance
Principal Regulatory Risk Drivers
DEQ: Non-degradation of river / waters of the state Potential Region 2 RCRA re-opener and/or additional
requirements
Land Ownership Site wholly owned by Jones Industrial Services (JIS)
C t t St t
High risk property owner (bankruptcy filing possible in 2 years)
Insurer are Travelers and Liberty MutualCounterparty Status Insurer are Travelers and Liberty Mutual PRP Group allocation is in place; currently 5th by volume at
8%; largest is privately-held metals processor, 3rd largest is oil refiner owned by hedge fund
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 3
Stakeholder Analysis
StakeholderLevel of
Influence (0 – 5)
Level of Support (0 – 5)
Key Drivers Management Strategy
NJDEP 4 4Protection of wild and scenic river, protection of d i ki if
Free product recovery system Assessment of historic
l ibl d drinking water aquifer releases, possible data gaps
EPA 3 0Protection of human health and the environment Comply with EPA requirements
Resolve all outstanding property management issues
Adjacent Landowners 1 0
Potential impact on development potential
property management issues and position ourselves to leverage property transfers to reduce remedial requirements / costs
Maximize the sale and alternate use of other surplus property
Town Residents 1 0Potential sheen on river, trespass risk GW system
NGO N/A N/A N id tifi dNGOs N/A N/A None identified
NRDA Team 3 4NRDA impacts and credibility
Leverage settlement through property sale to state
Jones Industrial Services 5 5 -- --
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 4
PRP Group 5 5 Allocation Routine monitoring and prepayment into escrow account
Physical Setting – Site Location
JIS Landfill
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 5
JIS Landfill
Site Specifics – Ownership Information
S
Wakefern Food Corporation Cannon
Vulture City Furniture
Sunoco
Cary Compounds
JIS L dfill
Residential
JIS Landfill
Plume AreaResidential
Drive Medical
Monroe Collision Center
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 6
New Jersey Turnpike I-95
General Site Information
JIS LandfillEPA REGION 2
901-999 Cranbury South River RoadMiddlesex, South Brunswick, New Jersey
EPA ID#: NJD097400998
Located in South Brunswick Township, near the border of Monroe Township
Approximately 24 acres, includes a 7.8 acre landfill and a waste transfer operation
Approximately 50 000 cubic yards of waste were disposed Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of waste were disposed of annually until landfilling operations ceased in 1980
Ground water is contaminated with metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, acetone, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, benzene and Aldrin, a
JIS Landfill
pesticide
Concentrations of contaminants are above Federal and State drinking water standards
Contaminants have been detected in the groundwater from the site to Manalapan Brook, 1.5 miles downgradient
Plume Area
from the site to Manalapan Brook, 1.5 miles downgradient of the site; contamination is present from the water table to the base of the aquifer, a thickness of roughly 60 feet
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 7
Historical Images
1995 20021995 2002
2006 20072006 2007
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 8
Operating & Remediation TimelineOperating History
1959: •Landfilling Operations began within a former borrow pit
1960-1970sThe landfill accepted chemical, municipal, and industrial wastes including broken battery casings, paint sludges, solvents, and pesticides
1983JIS placed a cap over the northern half of the landfill
borrow pit•Excavated material from the borrow pit provided fill needed for the construction of the New Jersey Turnpike
1985JIS placed a cap over the southern half of the landfill
pesticides
1980Operations ceased, approximately 50,00 cubic yards had been disposed of annually
‘59 ‘92-- ‘60 ‘-- ‘77 ‘80 ‘83 ‘86 ‘89 ‘95 ‘98 ‘01 ‘04 ‘07 ‘10
1982
•Remedial Action
2005• Five Year Review Report
l d
1994-1995Notice letters issuedRI / FS combined
2007-2009Remedial investigation of h d
d a oPlan submitted•Proposed to NPL
1989NJDEP requested that EPA conduct an assessment of
1983Final listing on NPL
1997-1998GW monitoring of three wells indicates chemicals of concern are below agency action levels
completed• Full Scale In-situ biosparge pilot study implemented
1990-1992Removal assessment
1993 - 1994NJDEP collected
the Secondary plume conducted in 2007, Completed in 2008, addendum
b itt d i
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 9
assessment of groundwater contamination
g agency action levels
Remediation History
data on drinking water wells to supplement the RI / FS
2004• RI / FS Negotiations
submitted in 2009
Site Conceptual Model (EXAMPLE)
Human Risk: LowEcological Risk: Low
o Nothing off-siteo River sediment: Suspect low probability of NRDA
claim
3rd-party Liability Risk: Lowo ACME Ranch immediately offsite in direction of
groundwater flow, but trench intercepts bulk and stream acts as natural barrier
o Aquifer unproductive for residential used lo USFWS (NRDA trustee) studied 7 site: Minimal
contamination found, some control area results higher than industrial / municipal reach of river; no T&E species on South Property
o Prelim. risk assessment indicates no eco risk drivers on South Property
Ponds: Suspect low probability of NRDA claim
o No current or pending class action or corrective action-related litigation or property claims
o No environmental justice issueso Possible legal issues with leased property and/or
SE NAPL plume
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 10
o Ponds: Suspect low probability of NRDA claimo USFWS collected plant / sediment / tissue
samples: No definitive
Current Risks (EXAMPLE)
Description Risk Actualization
Source Qualitative Volume / Magnitude Threat Potential Drivers
Likeli-hood Impact
NAPL Plumes affect majority of south
~ 3 million gallons already pumped; ~ 1
NAPL intrusion into South Brunswick
3rd-party lawsuit
Low Medium, potential property purchases majority of south
property; mostly contained on site; some has been pumped; intra-plume mobility exists in some
already pumped; 1 – 8 million gallons left; probable that large percentage is <= residual saturation and not easily removed with
South Brunswick lawsuit property purchases and/or more aggressive GW treatment
Regulatory driven work
Low High, aggressive investigation and treatment of GW or maximize CAMU to areas; conventional
technologies
maximize CAMU to remove smear zones
Ultimate regulatory clean-up is “non-degradation”
Long-term O&M
Med High, escalation of remedial cost
SWMUs & Multiple on Currently 380 million Additional cleanup Regulatory Med High, escalation of SWMUs & soils
Multiple on property; in process of removing and putting in CAMU
Currently 380 million yds3 excavated and 0-200 million yds3
planned for excavation; could range as high as 1,300,000 yds3
Additional cleanup required of North & South properties
Regulatory driven work
Med High, escalation of remedial cost
Dermal contact to workers and trespassers; vapors
Worker / trespasser exposure
Low Low, full security controls trespass, all dust actively controlled p ; p p yduring construction
Sediments River and North property ponds
Estimated volume of 200,000 yds3; USFWS found no environmental damage at ponds
Environmental damage
NRDA claim
Low Medium, dredging may be required
Regulatory Med Medium, reverse dredging or dredging
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 11
damage at pondsmay be required
Trespass (river only) 3rd-party lawsuits
Very low
Medium, damages and dredging
Other Significant Risks (EXAMPLE)
Likelihood(%)
Cost($ millions)
Expected Range($ millions)
Technical RisksTechnical Risks
Existing containment requires re-building within 10yrs 5% $5 $0.25
Passive system fails to protect off-site areas 50% $6 $3
Ri e sediment clean p eq i ements 10 50% $0 2 5 $0 $1 25River sediment clean-up requirements 10-50% $0-2.5 $0-$1.25
Non-Technical Risks
SE NAPL Plume liability 0-50% $0-6 $0-3
d $ $NRDA damages 10% $0-0.3 $0-0.03
South Brunswick, New Jersey citizen / 3rd party lawsuit 0-10% $0-10 $0-1
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 12
End State Vision (EXAMPLE)
Site in 1960s and 70sRemediation ESV
Residential – No potential for future homeowners to see or smell residual hydrocarbons during normal homeowner activities (including installing
f fswimming pools, fence posts, foundations, piping, landscaping)
Recreational / Public Open Space and common areas with administrative and engineering controls to prevent users and workers from controls to prevent users and workers from exposure above acceptable health risk-based levels during normal use, construction, and maintenance activities
End State Vision
How do We Get there?
Generate redevelopment plan by 2015
Complete environmental compliance activities by 20172017
Market property by 2018
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 13
Evolution of Spending Forecasts –Graphed with Cumulative Actuals (EXAMPLE)
$100
$110
$120
2011
$70
$80
$90
2008
20102009
$40
$50
$60
$
($ M
M)
Cumulative
20062007
$20
$30
$40 Cumulative Spending
$0
$10
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 14
Cumulative Spend Budget Remaining 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Alternative Strategy Analysis (EXAMPLE)
Regulatory Framework Disposal Option Degree Of Source
RemovalRegulatory Re-
opener End-State Vision Recovery Of Costs
Current Consent Order Onsite
Complete (RBCA State Only Unrestricted
Use Sell Cash OutConsent Order Residual) Use, Sell
Amend Consent Order Trucks Pits & Lagoons + County for
Groundwater
Mixed or Non-Residential
Use, SellCo-Pay
Consent Decree Truck & Rail RBCA Optimal + EPARecreational Use, Sell /
Donate
Enforcement After Exiting
State Superfund
Slurry Line to Barge
Pits Removed, Stabilize the
Rest
Eminent Domain No Sale
Aggressive Remediation StrategyLow Risk Remediation StrategyEPA led Remediation StrategyPRP Committee Led Strategy
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 15
Summary of Alternatives (EXAMPLE)
NAPL Endpoint & Attenuation GW Non-Degradation Passive Contain and Monitor (1) NAPL Endpoint & Attenuation Zone (2)
GW Non Degradation Driven Clean-up (3)
Soils Excavate and remove RA identified soils; place in CAMU
Same Strategy Same Strategy
North Property Leachate collection MNA or air sparging Same Strategy Same strategyNorth Property Groundwater
Leachate collection, MNA or air sparging, and passive soil venting under CAMU (through 2021); no NAPL issues
Same Strategy Same strategy
South Property Groundwater
Extend wall if needed; switch off trench system; demonstrate immobility of NAPL plume; F&T modeling-pilot if needed
Switch off trench system; remediate to interim or TI determined endpoint using excavation and establish
Remediate complete smear zone to endpoint such that GW returned to R
em
ed
iati
on
p ; g p gattenuation zone to allow transition to passive / MNA
MCLs within 50 years using NMA
Sediments (River / Pond)
Ecological risk assessment only Same Strategy Same Strategy
Land Use Maintain current zoning (Commercial / Same Strategy Same Strategy
R
Land Use Maintain current zoning (Commercial / Industrial); explore potential uses
Same Strategy Same Strategy
Risk and Land Ownership
Sale or lease of property to 3rd party for alternate uses
Sale or lease of property to 3rd party for alternate uses
Sale or lease of property to 3rd party for alternate uses
Reg lato Obtain VRP emed decision and Same Reg lato St ateg Same Reg lato St ateg
En
d U
se
Regulatory Strategy
Obtain VRP remedy decision and agreement by 2005
Use current voluntary efforts (i.e., CAMU) to obtain favorable regulatory outcomes
Same Regulatory Strategy Same Regulatory Strategy
Community St t
Notify adjacent landowners of di ti ti iti
Same Strategy Same Strategy
Ad
vo
cacy
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 16
Strategy remediation activities
Counterparty Strategy
Monitor fellow PRPs for long term Use escrow accounts to accelerate cash call collection and avoid financial monitoring
Monitor fellow PRPs for long term
A
Summary of Financial Results: Simplified (EXAMPLE)
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
C a s e C a s e C a s e C a s e
R 1 2 3R 1 2 3Strategy Description Reserve Case
Passive Contain and Monitor
NAPL Endpoint & Attenuation Zone
GW Non-Degradation Driven
Clean-upNotes
FUTURE VALUE 5-YR (2011-2015) ($10 373 851) ($534 745) ($16 152 056) ($10 940 989)Budgeted costs, inflated,
FUTURE VALUE 5-YR (2011-2015) ($10,373,851) ($534,745) ($16,152,056) ($10,940,989) undiscounted - 5 years
FUTURE VALUE 10-YR (2011-2020) ($17,754,275) ($15,048,505) ($24,062,848) ($20,096,002)Budgeted costs, inflated, undiscounted - 10 years
FUTURE VALUE 30-YR (2011-2040) ($27,957,759) ($31,923,532) ($34,266,332) ($28,998,297)Budgeted costs, inflated, undiscounted - 30 years
PRESENT VALUE 30-YR (2011-2040) ($21,688,188) ($23,188,252) ($27,599,029) ($23,131,890)Budgeted costs, inflated, discounted - 30 years
COST RECOVERIES $6,808,649 $7,800,092 $11,740,109 $7,233,993Recoveries from all sources, inflated, undiscounted
OPERATING BUSINESS IMPACTS $0 $0 $0 $0Increases or decreases in operating company profit, inflated, undiscounted
PROJECT CASH FLOWS NPV ($16,348,461) ($17,473,509) ($18,054,616) ($17,356,012)Net total of budget, recoveries and operating company impacts; inflated, discounted
Financial Assumptions: 3.20% I n f l a t i o n
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 17
2.75% D i s c o u n t r a t e All values shown are USD
Scenario Comparison – NPV ($ millions) (EXAMPLE)
Four Campus Alternatives - (Excludes 120 Off-campus Acreage)
Alt 5c
Best
ilit
y Cu
m
Alt 5d EV = $(20.9) MM
EV = $(16.9) MM
tive P
rob
ab
mu
lativ
e F
re
Alt 5b EV = $(27.3) MM
Alt 5a EV = $(28.9) MM Follow Dashed
Lines to x-Axis for P50 Values (values shown
on Tornado
Cu
mu
lat
eq
uen
cy
diagrams)
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 18
Costs for Preferred Strategy – NPV ($ millions)(EXAMPLE)
335 U it @ $270 335 Units @ $270 / SF; 24 of 30
Acres
Residential / Residential / Commercial
335 Units @ $150 / SF
Simple P&T Design, Build; 10-
Residential / Commercial
Standards to 1’ ; CAMU
Commercial Standards to 5’; No
CAMU
Extreme P&T Design, Build;
30-yr O&Myr O&M
160% of 12 Units / Acre; Pad Ready for 335 Units; 24
of 30 Acres
60% of 12 Units / Acre; Pad
Ready for 335 Units
30 yr O&M
-$47.00 -$37.00 -$27.00 -$17.00 -$7.00 $3.00
No Risk Assessment
of 30 Acres
28.5K CY Sediment
Removal @ $200/CY; 50% Trigger Chance
Alt 5c – Value of Tax Credit, Properly Sale, Development
Alt 5c – Soils, CAMU
Alt 5c – Groundwater
Alt 5c – Infrastructure Construction
Alt 5c Upstream Sediment Wetlands and Bank
P50 = $(19.2) MM
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc.
Alt 5c – Upstream Sediment, Wetlands and Bank
Alt 5c – Land Entitlement
Alt 5c – Stakeholder management
19
SWOT Analysis of Preferred Strategy (EXAMPLE)
Strengths
o Better NPV than alternativeso Qualified buyer identified; has experience with
other contaminated properties and can qualify f RCRA it difi ti
Weaknesses
o Uncertainty of buyer acceptanceo Data is subjective, based on team’s best
estimates for RCRA permit modification
o Compatible development plan has been presented
o Ability to quantify intangible issues
o Buyer is an LLCo Includes some residential reuseo Company will be remediating property owned
by others; no longer controls the property
Opportunities Threatspp
o Dispose of an orphan site in NYo A site is redeveloped and our public image is
enhancedo Neighborhood may get a sewer line (not on
sewer now)
o Possibility town could use eminent domain to condemn or take the property
o Unable to fulfill our environmental obligations to the agencies and/or the buyer
o Buyer unable to fulfill obligations to Company ) y g p yor others
o Unable to negotiate less restrictive clean up levels with Agencies
Key Takeaways
Important that sale strategy meshes with the environmental assessment knowledge It’s very hard to align a remediation plan with a redeveloper’s schedule Demolition is important to resale value and implementation of the end state vision
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 20
Decision Sequence (EXAMPLE)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Critical Tasks Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
$50 million (driven by
stabilization
70,000 CY$40 million
90 000 CYImplementation
volume) 90,000 CY$50 million
Remediation 30% Design:Decide
whether to
N 110,000 CY$60 million
$40 million
stabilize marsh area
Y $90 million (driven by
stabilizationvolume)
110,000 CY$60 million
220,000 CY$120 million
Implementation
Ownership St t Define Explore Strategy Define
decision roles
Explore legal
aspects
Decide timing, risk transfers, etc
CostRecovery Strategy
Access impact of optimal
d Finalize cost
t tremedy on cost
recovery
recovery strategy
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 21
Preferred Pathway
Path Forward (EXAMPLE)
Reserve:
Current reserve (end of current year): $3.45 million
Recommended reserve (end of current year): $3.8 million
Watch List:
SVE/AS or similar remediation system fails alternative technology necessary: $2 0 SVE/AS or similar remediation system fails, alternative technology necessary: $2.0 million by Year 3
Further characterization offsite reveals hot spot areas above risk assessment limits: >$1.0 million by Year 2
Closure costs, not paid by the site operation, such as site security and utilities: >$1.0 million by closure announcement
Peer Review:
Within 1 year, complete technical peer review for remedy selection
Within 2 years, decide property’s end state vision and pace to closure
© 2012 Environmental Risk Communications, Inc. 22