The project site was a commercial salt pan, with parts of the site also serving as fishery and shrimp pool. The site hence has a high salt content and water table. The process of remediation was through the removal of part of the contaminated soil and addition of new soil for stabilization for upto 3.5m with soil dredged from nearby rivers. Would this qualify for compliance with the credit.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.Go premium for $12.95 »
161 thumbs up
July 26, 2010 - 1:50 pm
SCENARIO ONE: Assumptions: 1) the site was determined to be contaminated as defined by SSc3 Brownfield Redevelopment, via Option 1 or Option 2; 2) the contamination was remediated appropriately; 3) the site ownership, when the remediation was conducted, is the same as when the project was registered. If these three assumptions are correct, then the project should qualify for the credit. "Dredge and Fill" operations in instances such as this is permitted.
SCENARIO TWO: If the site was determined to be contaminated, your comment regarding the “removal of part of the contaminated soil” would be cause for concern and I don’t see how you are protecting the environment or human health by leaving some parts of the site contaminated. Given the fact that contaminated sites are determined by the presence of a contamination and not by the quantity of contamination, the project could not earn the credit. Although only part of a site needs to be contaminated to earn the credit, you must remediate all of the contamination.