See all forum discussions about NC-2009 SSc3
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 SSc3 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 SSc3
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 SSc3»
FAQs about SSc3 :

Is earning one point for this credit an appropriate reward, given the work involved?

Do we have to get testing done even if contamination is obviously present?

If the remediation work is not part of the LEED project scope, can I still achieve this credit?

Are there minimum contamination thresholds that need to be met in order for a site to be classified as a brownfield?

Am I eligible to earn the credit if there is ongoing remediation on my project site and remediation is not yet complete?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 SSc3:Brownfield Redevelopment

Hexavalent Chromium on groundwater

Hi all, Our project is international and is under construction. We are keeping this credit on a stand-by, as during the design submission there was not any evidence of contamination. However, during the drilling of the boreholes that would serve partly for the irrigation of the landscaped areas, the groundwater analysis resulted in hexavalent chromium content. If the project team decides to remediate the water drawn from the boreholes and used only for the project’s needs, can the project earn this credit? Thank you!!!!

0
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user tristanroberts
Tristan Roberts
Representative
Vermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
7780 thumbs up

Mon, 02/03/2014 - 19:07

Eirini, you would first have to have the site classified as a brownfield by a relevant jurisdiction.Secondly, I am skeptical that your approach meets the credit intent, which is "To rehabilitate damaged sites where development is complicated by environmental contamination and to reduce pressure on undeveloped land."To the extent that using a damaged site reduces pressure on greenfield sites, it's a good fit, but it doesn't sound like you are rehabilitating the site, as much as you are mitigating the site's direct impacts on your project. A solution that got more at the source of the problem and mitigated it more comprehensively, if possible, would seem more appropriate.

Tue, 02/04/2014 - 18:41

Many thanks Tristan for your prompt reply. yes i think you are right, it's more mitigation rather than rehabilitating the site. thank you very much!!!!

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.