Working on a project that had some old diesel and fuel tanks and lines on the site identified as APECs during Phase 1, so phase 2 was conducted by found no significant levels of contamination during bore-hole drilling and testing. The project is now in excavation, but has found significant soil contamination in areas previously unidentified which they are remediating.

In my opinion this qualifies it for Option 3, but my questions are:

Do you agree that this site qualifies for Option 3?

Does the environmental firm need to redo their Phase 2, or will the reports from the remediation be sufficient? The authority in charge is a bit murky because the owner of the site is also the municipal authority, but typically the provincial authority oversees contaminated sites.

Post a reply

Tristan Roberts

Representative

Vermont House of Representatives

LEEDuser Expert

7780 thumbs up

Mon, 01/07/2019 - 14:24

It does sound like it qualifies for Option 3. Redoing the Phase 2 would help with credit documentation, especially if you are murky on the regulatory issues. On the other hand, if you firm up the regulatory status, both in terms of the brownfield being identified, and also cleaned up, I think you would be in okay shape to proceed without the Phase 2.

Jason Burtwistle

Associate, Sustainability Consultant

Stantec

LEEDuser Premium Member

5 thumbs up

Mon, 01/07/2019 - 18:20

Thanks very much Tristan. We're waiting for confirmation from the environmental engineer on what type of documentation they will be required to complete now that contamination has been found, but wanted to get some input before they start to ensure that we have everything we need.

Add new comment

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

You are currently logged in under an enterprise account

FAQs about LTc3 :

Phase 1 and 2 Assessment Clear, Then Contamination Found

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

Add new comment