NC 2009 SSc3: Brownfield Redevelopment

William,

USGBC has been pretty consistent in addressing sites that contain environmentally hazardous contamination. Documentation is required to be provided that determined the site is contaminated to a level that must be remediated prior to development. In my opinion, you would have a difficult time arguing the development has been complicated by the presence, or potential presence, of contamination.

There are many reasons for redeveloping brownfield sites, but I’m hard pressed to see many, if any, reasons for "wanting" to encumber your property as a brownfield. It could come back to haunt you in the future and end up being a terrible price to pay for a single credit point if you are certain that no remediation is, or likely will be, required.

Eirini,

Asbestos is classified as a hazardous substance and does qualify the project for Brownfield consideration.

If I understand the second question, yes the project, which includes the site (above and below the surface) and/or structures, must must have documented contamination in order to qualify for the project. However, the SOURCE of the contamination does not necessarily have to originate on site. For instance, it can migrate, underground, from a source upstream. This frequently occurs with abandoned underground storage tanks, which is why an ESA will research historical records to uncover any previously documented contamination within certain distances from the project site.

Thanks Larry.
In our case, the buildings have asbestos roofing and no soil contamination found. However, i understand from your response, that we qualify for the credit - Correct?

Correct.

Tanja, if the soils were tested by an environmental professional and a (simple) remediation plan prepared, your project can achieve the credit when you document and submit the project's remediation efforts.

Thank you so much for quick answer Larry!

Amanda,

Landfills are one of the largest sources of pollution in communities throughout the U.S., so I’m certain as much leeway as possible would be afforded to any project attempting to rehabilitate a landfill site. However, there are certain protocol that should be adhered to. A landfill site meets the definition of a brownfield if environmental contamination has been identified, or presumed to exist by virtue of the type of materials deposited, such as a municipal solid waste landfill that receives household waste. Absent a site being designated a brownfield by a recognized government agency, the documentation you are required to submit is an acceptable environmental site assessment and remediation plan. I can’t determine if your comprehensive “Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan” meets the threshold. If you have any doubt, have an environmental firm review your report. If it doesn't, I would recommend contracting an environmental firm to have one done.

Also, in case your project happens to be a medical-related facility I think I remember reading that the health care supplement explicitly excludes building on a prior landfill. See SSPr 2. (Again only for healthcare).

Ryan, you are correct.

LEED 2009 for Healthcare

SSp2 Environmental Site Assessment

"Sites that are contaminated due to the past existence of a landfill on the site are prohibited..."

Keith, I can't speak to whether this practice has worked for other projects, but LEED seems clear that the remediation standards are up to the relevant jurisdiction.

Also, how do I document this on LEED Online since it's neither options 1 nor 2? Is this alternative compliance approach?

I have had success with submitting only remediation verification plans/reports in a couple of past projects. Unfortunately they were both v2.2, but I would think that the alternative compliance path is the best way to go for v.3.

Xavi B,

The SSc3 Brownfield Redevelopment credit would be available via Option 1 - a brownfield is documented as contaminated by means of an ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services E1903-97 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. LEED has also accepted site assessments and remediation plans performed by geotechnical engineering consultants, providing they are comparable to ASTM E1903-97. Additionally, if only part of the project site is a brownfield, it can qualify for this credit.

Although SSc3 is an optional credit, once site contamination is discovered, it is likely someone could be held liable for remediation. And this can become complicated, regardless of the fact that there are no existing governing regulations. I can’t see any wording in either of the two MPR documents that specifically requires a project to remediate environmental issues beyond local regulations. This is more likely a question of “should you” as opposed to “must you”. IMO, the fact the project is seeking LEED certification indicates interest in protecting the environment and human health.

Josh,

LEED considers the identification, remediation and reuse of contaminated sites as environmentally and socially beneficial and permits any generally accepted standard for remediation, such as RCRAThe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses active and future facilities and was enacted in 1976 to give EPA authority to control hazardous wastes from cradle to grave, including generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. Some nonhazardous wastes are also covered under RCRA. and NESHAPS.

An addenda was issued on 11/03/2010 that relates to Option 2:

Requirements: Projects where asbestos is found and remediated may also earn this credit. Testing should be done in accordance with EPA Reg 40CFR part 763, when applicable.

Documentation Guidance: For projects where asbestos is found, prepare executive summary level content from the investigation’s report explaining the extent of the contamination and required action as well as documentation indicating an acceptable level of remediation was achieved based on an acceptable standard, such as RCRA or NESHAPs.

Shannon,

As long as the project site has been deemed a Brownfield, your project is eligible to earn the credit.

And my follow-up question is that if we claim this portion of our site as brownfield, can we tackle SS c5.1 by applying Case 1:greenfield to the portion of the site that is undeveloped and apply Case 2: previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." to the portion of the site that was deemed a brownfield and remediated?

Yes to Case 1 and Case 2 - if the project can comply with those site conditions specific criteria. (2009 reference guide, pg. 79)

case study:
http://www.northtexasgreencouncil.org/education/case-studies/171-case-st...

Unfortunately the credit language is pretty gray and does not clearly define if the remediation has to be done within the project scope or not. However, the LEED Online form for the credit gives us some insight into the intent of the credit, when it asks for a description of the site contamination and remediation efforts undertaken by the project team, which suggests that the remediation must actually be part of the project scope. While your project is certainly meeting the portion of the credit intent for reducing pressure on undeveloped land, it probably does not meet the part of the intent for rehabilitating damaged sites because the site was no longer damaged when you acquired it. I think your chances of achieving the credit are low, but if it were me, I'd go ahead and submit documentation for the credit and see if GBCI approves it!

Thank you! Are the credit templates for v.3.0 available to view prior to registering the building?

Not yet- right now the only way to see them is to have a registered project. Hopefully they will make the v.3 templates available soon, though, as they have done with earlier templates. It sounds like you have already checked out the earlier templates, but if not, you can find them here: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1447

Allison is correct. According to most regulatory agencies, including regional EPA and local Voluntary Action Groups, a contaminated site can be remediated and given a clean bill of health. If this occurred prior to being purchased, you are no longer developing a contaminated site. SSc3 addresses sites that are subject to corrective action, not the past history of the site.

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 CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide 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 ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services 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 RCRAThe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses active and future facilities and was enacted in 1976 to give EPA authority to control hazardous wastes from cradle to grave, including generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. Some nonhazardous wastes are also covered under 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 CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide 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.

I don't think the threshold for lead paint matters as much as the building being documented as contaminated by a Phase II ESA, voluntary cleanup program, or defined as a browfield. So, as long as it falls into one of those categories the actual amount may not matter.

Shannon

Thank You Shannon,
As of this morning the paper trail got much better. There is an OSHA Chief Officer's letter describing the extent of the ACBM's in the building, which were extensive, as well as graphs depecting quantities and locations, lab tech reports detailing the % and types of contamination, removal specs, and the job reports of the abatement contractor, who completed the work. Does this sound like enough to you?

Hi Richard,

Yes, that sounds like it should be good enough. We are going through a similar path with another project and suspect that the paperwork will be good enough but, these days you never know how the GBCI is going review things. Also, you will want to verify that the remediation was in accordance with accepted federal or local standards.

Another thought on your project: did the current owner do the remediation? This can generally be a sticking point and the GBCI won’t give you credit unless the remediation was either done by the current owner or if remediation was per the terms of the sale.

Shannon

Same owner, though I didnt point that out, I will now. Thank You for the clarification.

No, you could not. You get credit for reducing pressure on undeveloped land through SSc1, SSc2, and to some extent, SSc4.

To earn SSc3, you have to do more homework—document that the site was contaminated, and remediate it.

In your case, it's fairly likely that the site was or is contaminated, so you could conduct a Phase II ESA. If the Phase II ESA shows contamination, you would have to remediate it, but then you would have the documentation you would need to earn this credit.