CS-2009 SSc3: Brownfield Redevelopment 1 point

We are requesting approval of alternate documentation in support of SS Credit 3. Our project, multi-family housing in Bellingham WA, was built on a site containing petroleum-contaminated soil. The geotechnical engineering consultant for the project detected lubricating oil concentrations above Ecology Model Toxics Control Act Method A cleanup levels during their geotechnical engineering study. This study included soil borings in 6 locations, with contamination encountered in 2 of these samples. Based on this analysis and further evaluation during excavation, 860 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed from the site and brought to an Environmental Services facility in Everett, WA for soil remediation. Clean fill was then imported to the site. A specific Phase II environmental assessment was not conducted based on the recommendation of the environmental consultant. In lieu of conducting the additional soil borings that would be part of the Phase II analysis, it was decided to proceed with excavation and clean-up procedures. During excavation and clean-up, additional soil sampling was conducted to ensure that all contaminated soil had been removed. Below is the recommendation of the environmental services firm, which had been contacted to perform a level II ESA, explaining why the level II assessment would not be necessary in this particular situation: "I have to apprise you that the information generated by a level II ESA should essentially duplicate the sub-surface analysis already performed by Geoengineers. Our Level II approach would be to sink 8 borings to a depth of 18 feet, field screening during the boring and extracting 1 soil sample (WTPHD-ex) from each boring for laboratory analysis. This would generate additional data points to increase the confidence level for plume identification. I would suggest you consider a secondary strategy, which may be more economically viable, to begin the actual excavation of identified PCS with a regimen of soil sampling to verify satisfactory cleanup - this is the likely recommendation of a level II ESA." (Nowicki Environmental, e-mail communication June 27, 2005) We did pursue the alternative documentation method recommended in the CIR ruling of 5/7/2002. We contacted the Region 10 Brownfields Coordinator to request documentation that the site meets the EPA criteria for a brownfield. According to the Coordinator, there is no available EPA documentation of a brownfield. Instead, the EPA provides assessment only in relation to the granting of remediation funding. The Coordinator indicated that the EPA considers it acceptable to self-certify a brownfield, if it meets the national definition. As noted in the LEED reference guide, the EPA definition of a brownfield is as follows: "The term \'brownfield site\' means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollution, or contaminant." (www.epa.gov/brownfields/html-doc/hr2869.htm) Based on this definition, our project site clearly meets the definition of a brownfield. Our submittal to the USGBC in support of this credit would include the following documentation: 1. Geotechnical environmental site assessment report. 2. Geotechnical recommendations for meeting Level II ESA requirements. 3. Geotechnical remedial excavation monitoring and soil sampling report. This documentation shows both that the site was contaminated, that investigations at the level of a Phase II EAS were conducted, and that appropriate remediation measures were conducted to clean up the contamination.

We are requesting an interpretation for qualification of a project that is being constructed on a federally designated brownfield site. The LEED project boundary (Project) is situated near the southeast corner of a larger 101-acre parcel (Site). The entire Site has been designated as a brownfield by the federal government. Specifically, HUD has already awarded a $2 Million grant for remedial and redevelopment activities at the Site pursuant to HUD\'s Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) program. A condition to receiving funds pursuant to HUD\'s BEDI program (which is a very competitive national funding program) is that the Site at which the funds will be utilized qualifies as a brownfield site pursuant to federal law. As defined by EPA (which definition HUD relies upon), "brownfield site" means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant. As stated above, the entire Site, including the Project was designated as a brownfield by an appropriate agency of the federal government. Many of the Site\'s characteristics qualify it as a brownfield. Further, although contamination has not yet been identified on the Project\'s portion of the Site, the "potential presence of a hazardous substance..." on the Project parcel has clearly complicated the redevelopment of the parcel, thus qualifying the Project land as a brownfield Site as well. As part of the legacy of historic on-site and adjacent activities, environmental contamination was identified at the Site, as confirmed in multiple Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), as well as a Phase II ESA. Specifically, several landfills were identified at the Site, consisting of coal ash and construction debris waste. Further, the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), including friable ACMs, were identified in the Site\'s former on-site structures. Other areas of environmental concern were also identified at the Site, including an underground storage tank (UST). The Site owner has already abated all ACMs previously present on the Site; closed the on-site landfills through capping; and will remove the UST as part of future Site redevelopment activities. At the time of acquisition, the Site also lacked proper ingress and egress and limited access from the remaining bordering streets. Traffic studies in connection with the redevelopment of the Site demonstrated a need for road widening of two streets that border the Site and the creation of new ramps from the Site to adjacent roads. The Site also lacked adequate infrastructure to support a successful redevelopment. Sewer, public water, stormwater management controls, electric power, telephone fiber optics, and high speed internet capacity, which are essential infrastructure features for the proposed redevelopment, were either inadequate or did not exist at all at the time of acquisition. In summary, the physical attributes, environmental contamination, and underutilization of the Site qualify it as a brownfield. While the conditions identified above are representative of the overall Site; the Project encompasses a small portion of the larger brownfield Site. Particular to the Project, the Phase II investigation did not specifically identify contamination within the Project. Also, no physical remediation of historic contamination was performed within the Project as part of overall remediation at the Site. However, as described above, the Project still qualifies as a Brownfield because the "potential presence" of hazardous substances at the Project location did directly complicate the parcel\'s redevelopment by complicating the Site owner\'s ability to secure financing for the project. Accordingly, we are requesting clarification that the Project, which along with the overall Site designation as a Brownfield, qualifies for the Brownfield Redevelopment Credit.

Can LEED NC 2009 projects earn SSc3 for asbestos remediation?

Our site is an industrial/office park and already has documented petroleum contamination dating back to 1992. Contamination came from a leaking UST. The UST and impacted soil were removed in the 1990s, but a contaminated groundwater plume was also discovered. The plume was contained on site. Since then, monitoring wells and air sparging equipment have been installed to continue the clean-up process. The site is listed as contaminated with the Washington State Department of Ecology, who is tracking the well data, and they have a facility site ID for the project. Our proposed development will involve decommissioning of the existing monitoring wells and air sparging equipment. Approximately six new wells will be constructed on-site, and continued clean-up measures will involve treatments of Chemox (chemical oxidation) and/or enhanced bioremediation measures. The Washington State DOE will continue to monitor data from the new wells on a quarterly basis. Any petroleum-impacted soil encountered during construction will be removed and treated accordingly. We wanted to verify that we qualify for the Brownfield Redevelopment credit for our efforts even though previous remediation measures have occurred on-site, as the site is still considered contaminated by the Washington State DOE, with contaminant levels above Washington State Model Toxics Control Act levels.