We have a project that is not required to do site contamination testing, and does not believe there is any reason for the site to have contamination (they have always owned the site), so they did not plan on any investigation. We are exploring the cost to do the necessary investigation for this credit. We know that they must provide the test results, and the documentation showing remediation was completed for any identified contamination. If there is no contamination found, though, do they end up losing the potential credit in addition to having spent otherwise unnecessary money? We reviewed the language of the credit, and found that it was vague enough to warrant a question here.
Thoughts?
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
February 13, 2018 - 3:24 pm
The way I read it, the site actually has to be a brownfield in order to achieve the credit. So I think they would lose both the credit and the money if it turns out not to be.
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
454 thumbs up
February 13, 2018 - 4:10 pm
Yeah, that's what we're afraid of, too. Thanks, Paula.
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
454 thumbs up
July 6, 2018 - 2:21 pm
Additional question...our client is asking how to determine what the soils should be tested for. Let's assume there's no known history of the site in terms of potential obvious contamination sources like a dry cleaner, gas station, or commercial agriculture. The site is previously developed with typical office buildings, parking lots areas, and some landscaping. How should they go about the testing with such open ended guidance?
cavin cunningham
October 25, 2018 - 8:22 am
Also, remember that just because they 'always owned it' doesn't mean there isn't contamination. See: ....rolls downhill.and 'path of least resistance'.
Susan Di Giulio
Senior Project ManagerZinner Consultants
152 thumbs up
March 11, 2020 - 9:16 pm
I would say that if there is no reason to anticipate soil contamination, then the money would be better spent on something else.
Larry Sims
PrincipalStudio4, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
161 thumbs up
March 12, 2020 - 2:17 am
Rule #1: Buyer’s Remorse.
Rule #2: See Rule #1. Hire an Environmental Engineer, for both undeveloped and developed sites. I’ve been in the design/build/development/owner business for over 50 years, long before LEED. As early as the 1970s, specific property purchasers in the United States undertook studies resembling current Phase I ESAs, to assess risks of ownership of commercial properties which had a high degree of risk from prior toxic chemical use or disposal. Many times these studies were preparatory to understanding the nature of cleanup costs if the property was being considered for redevelopment or change of land use. Because a property has never been developed is no assurance that contaminates aren’t lying below the surface from nearby toxic sites. One example, abandoned gas stations with leaking underground storage tanks.
Rule #3: If no issues exist, consider the cost invested an insurance policy. No LEED credit is earned if the site and/or building has NOT been rehabilitated, i.e. restored to health.