Achieving Brownfield Redevelopment credit without Phase II ESA

Is there a specific chemical threshold that has to be met in order for a site to be defined as a brownfield for SSc3? Can a site qualify as a brownfield for say a pint of pollutants in the ground, or say one wall that has asbestos, or does there need to be a certain amount of pollutant on the site? Thanks

Waylon,
The short answer to your question is no. Remediation alone does not comply with the requirements of SSc3, as the contamination needs to be properly defined and documented. Regardless of what the credit says and, more importantly, how it says it, you are required to VERIFY the facility includes asbestos-containing material (ACM) that poses a risk to occupants, as asbestos is highly regulated by OSHA and the EPA (aka a federal government agency). It is the verification/documentation process that comes into debate.

The following is a CIR ruling issued in 2004:
Ruling
The project has inquired whether the presence and remediation of asbestos during construction qualifies the project for the Brownfield credit. The finding and subsequent removal of asbestos on site does not in itself comply. According to the credit requirements and to past CIRs, projects must either be documented as contaminated by means of an ASTM E1903-97 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, or must be classified as a brownfield by a local, state or federal government agency. Supply that documentation with the rest and the credit will be awarded.

However, in 2005 this CIR request and ruling:
"...we respectfully ask the USGBC to consider an asbestos assessment performed in accordance with the EPA Reg. 40CFR Part 763 to be considered equivalent to a Phase II ESA (ASTM E1903-9)."
Ruling
EPA Reg. 40CFR Part 763 (http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/2003pt763.txt) is acceptable for proving contamination of the site for purposes of this credit. Your LEED application must include executive summary-level content from the investigation's report, explaining the extent of contamination and required action. Follow an accepted standard for remediation, such as RCRA and NESHAPS, and summarize in a narrative, as requested in the LEED-NC Letter Template.

USGBC appears to be more lenient with projects that demonstrate a concerted effort to "comply with the INTENT of the credit". With SSc3, the intent is quite simple and straightforward: Verify the existance of contaminants, prepare a plan for remediation and submit supporting documentation.

But as Shannon stated above...these days you never know how the GBCI is going review things.

A word of caution however. If there exists a small amount of contaminants, such as "asbestos" or "spilled oil", do you really want this site to be declared or viewed as a brownfield? Sometimes, it much more prudent do the required remediation and just walk gently.

Yancy,

Yes, criteria is established on a federal, state or local level for determining brownfield eligibility with regards to the levels of contamination that are deemed sufficient to be harmful.
.
States can and do overwrite federal guidelines and cities can and do overwrite state guidelines to address issues specific to their region. A few years ago the City of New York overwrote the state's eligibility requirements to include this:

"...and real property rejected from state programs on the grounds that the environmental contamination is not sufficient to warrant state involvement..."

It is a very sensitive issue and government agencies are well aware of the impact to owners when their property is designated a brownfield. This carries over to prospective buyers who then become concerned about the potential for liabilty issues and cleanup costs. This is why I added the comment at the end of my post above.

Thank you for the comments. I understand the obvious protocol required to document what a Brownfield site is. I am aware of the CIR from 2004. What I am unable to find is a "known" threshold for how much material needs to be present to be deemed a "Brownfield" site under a Pase II environemental site assessment and/or state or local jurisdiction. I am not concerend about the perception of a "brownfoeld" just interested in whether or not there is a measurable threshold (quart, gallon, 10% of the site, etc.)

In addition, what if the site can't be fully remediated due to the depth of contamination or underground water flow? Despite surface level remediation efforts does that mean SSc3 is not achievable?

Yancy,

There are no measurable thresholds, as you have defined them (area or volume), for brownfield determination.

I'll assume that "fully remediated" does not mean all contaminates be removed from the site, because few site cleanup programs require this. Most commonly sites are cleaned to reduced contaminate levels to the standards established by the community and as approved by local, state or federal agencies as being protective of human health and the environment.

The fact that a site cannot be fully remediated does not necessarily preclude it from achieving SSc3. Here is a 17 year, $4.4 billion environmental cleanup in my back yard that achieved LEED Platinum in 2008 and is still undergoing remediation. One of the largest environmental cleanup programs in U.S. history.

http://www.waterefficiency.net/may-june-2009/biotreatment-wetlands-ferna...

Thanks Larry, I appreciate it! From a credit intent standpoint doesn't it seem this credit is a bit flawed to not have any measurable threshold?

Absolutely, Yancy.

Personally, I feel the credit is flawed before it exits the "credit intent" language.

Though SSc3 is simply written and brief in content, it is one of the most complex credits to analyze.