Phase II

You need a narrative thoroughly explaining the type of contamination and the plans for remediation. It does not need to be completed. That's the way it was interpreted under NC v2.2 and I don't see anything in the 2009 RG or LOL form to indicate a change.

Elizabeth,

Although 2009 LEED for Schools prefers SSp2 be addressed at the “Design Review” phase, it doesn’t have to. The Design Review language specifically states “…enables project teams to assess the likelihood of achievement for some or all design-phase credits and/or prerequisites, prior to substantial project completion”. Also, the rating system permits a “Combined Review”, which means all documentation is submitted AFTER construction. If you haven’t yet submitted, just upload documentation from your environmental consultant describing the contamination, the remedial action planned and a schedule for the cleanup. If you have already submitted the “Design Review”, just cover it in the “Construction Review” phase. On occasion the location of the contamination identified is remote from the construction area and remediation is done simultaneously with the construction. In the end, LEED wants to know that the intent and requirement of credits/prerequisites have been met.

SPP2 says that If a site is contaminated, it must be remediated to meet local, state, or federal EPA region residential (unrestricted) standards, whichever is most stringent.

Do they really mean remediated or are engineering controls (such as barriers to dermal contact with soil) acceptable, if the local enforcing agency (state DEQ/DEP) finds them acceptable? This is an important distinction as the cost difference can be very significant (dig and haul to a landfill vs. encapsulation and O&M). The engineered barrier is in the final analysis the best solution, especially when in situ remediation is not practical.
Much thanks ...

Donald,

Engineering controls, such as encapsulating asbestos of laying asphalt over contaminated soils is acceptable. The intent in these instances is to remove the source from direct human contact.

Thanks for your quick response, Larry. I thought that had to be the case as the alternative seemed unreasonble.