We have a project whereby hazardous material was found burried in sealed containers and per testing of the surrounding soil it does not apear any of the material has leaked into the soils. The project did have to dispose of the materials and containers in an appropriate manner and there is documentation for how it was handled and what the materials are.
Is this considered a brownfield under the requirements of this credit?
Larry Sims
PrincipalStudio4, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
161 thumbs up
October 15, 2013 - 12:37 am
Donald,
The project site would be considered a brownfield if a Phase II ESA confirmed the presence of contamination. Given the fact your description says "... it does not appear any of the materials leaked into the soils", you would need to provide documented soil testing to "confirm" no soils have been contaminated. This should supplement the documentation you already have that identifies the contamination and subsequent removal per recommended practices.
Donald Green
Sr Project Manager / Operations ManagerProgressive AE
35 thumbs up
October 15, 2013 - 1:52 pm
There wasn't a Phase II ESA, the material containers were literally discovered during excavation. We have the test results etc. for documentation, however will a narrative explaining how the material was discovered and subsequently tested be sufficient in lieu of a Phase II ESA?
Larry Sims
PrincipalStudio4, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
161 thumbs up
October 28, 2013 - 12:01 am
If the consultant(s) contracted to identify the contamination, test the soils and verify remediation were all done in accordance with accepted standards, you should be okay. GBCI has been somewhat lenient in their brownfield reviews as long as the scope of services was done by recognized professionals. A narrative or executive summary listing the type of contamination discovered, soil testing results and remediation efforts would be required.