Rating System

LEED BD+C: Schools

Rating System Version

v2 - Schools 2007

Inquiry

Our project is an elementary school in Atlanta, GA. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed by an environmental professional. The report states that the site has been occupied by the Atlanta Public School system since the 1950\'s and before that the site was residential. Nothing has ever been located on the site that would cause suspicion of contamination and a reconnaissance at the property found no evidence of hazardous substance activity. Adjoining properties are residential with the exception of the Atlanta Police Athletic League and a City of Atlanta park. The Phase 1 ESA also found several past land uses at some distance up gradient which might produce contamination. Four of these sites had enough data to determine the potential for contamination was low. Other historical gas and service stations and clothing cleaner facilities had little or no data except that they once existed and they were located, not adjacent, but up gradient of our site. Based on this, the environmental professional\'s report indicates low to moderate potential for contamination. Under the Requirements section of the LEED for Schools reference guide, it states that if contamination is suspected, a Phase II Assessment must be conducted. However, under the Approach & Implementation section, it states that if the Phase I Assessment indicates the potential for contamination, then a Phase II Assessment must be performed. This is significantly different verbiage and is confusing. The environmental professional\'s ESA report does not state that any contamination is suspected, but does state that there is low potential at the sites with data and low to moderate potential at the sites with limited data. There is nothing to indicate that if further investigation was performed that there is a significant likelihood that contamination would be found. The ESA report does not recommend going to a Phase II ESA. It is our contention that every site has some potential of contamination, as this site has. However, the intent of this rule is not to perform a Phase II on every site, but only those where it is suspected that if further investigation was performed, there would be a significant and above average probability that contamination would be found. We contend that the Phase 1 ESA for the project meets the prerequisite intent and recommend modifications to the reference guide language such that only when there is an above average probability of contamination or when recommended by the environmental professional in the Phase 1 ESA report is a Phase II required.