Where there’s muck there’s brass

As the clock ticks rapidly down on the development of the Olympic 2012 site in east London, many in the brownfield business are wondering if the need to decontaminate the site will speed up our use of clean-up technologies. Or is the problem to be solved by “dig and dump” solutions taxing already precious landfill resources?

The papers are full of these concerns and rightly so. This could affect not only the sustainable commitments made under the Olympic banner, but also the future of cost-effective brownfield development in Greater London. Such development, integral to the government’s plans for adequate housing in the South-east, demands that all remedial solutions are fully exploited.

We have all observed the changing skyline brought about by new housing across brownfield locations. This has taken place in a dynamic regulatory environment and demonstrated the will of two important groups: property investors who will take a chance on developing such sites, and the regulators (both local and national) who seek not only to responsibly implement existing regulation, but to interpret obligations under new EC directives that still enable sustainable re-use of such sites.

To a degree, however, this has historically been using a false economy of cheap landfill space and a housing market hot enough to support the increased costs occurring as a result of more regulations and the loss of that landfill space. Now we need to be prepared to address the remaining inventory of brownfield sites that will be faced with more regulation hoops, less opportunity for cost-effective remediation, and a potentially cooling housing market. To top it off, many of the remaining sites are the “hardcore” ones – sites that are either unattractive to the market by virtue of location, or have such perceived environmental problems as to make them appear commercially unviable.

So what is the solution to the environmental problems of brownfield development? Well, knowing that the ultimate environmental obligation is to protect human health, and that we do not want to do so by simply not developing brownfield sites, this solution will have many facets – essentially using a toolkit to create a workable future for each opportunity. Let’s look at the elements here, all of which are tailored to minimise the amount of waste (in this case soil) that needs to be dealt with in the long term.

The contaminated 2012 Olympics site

Identifying risks

Assessment of risk and addressing that risk is the entire focus of dealing with contaminated land

As all developers now appreciate, discharging planning conditions related to ground contamination requires that potential risks are identified and addressed. Adequate assessment of risk and addressing that risk is the entire focus of dealing with contaminated land. The consultant must consider such risk by applying the most robust science possible, including elements of toxicology and site geochemistry. Through such assessments, the volume of soil (and groundwater) that must be addressed is minimised as far as practicable

and the business of dealing with the balance can be addressed.

Once potential risks are known, every site must develop a remedial strategy at the outset. Too often, developers (and planning authorities E E that grant outline planning permission) do not force the consideration of this aspect of development. Without a plan to develop a strategy, even the best construction schemes can get caught up in the delays and cost impacts that force all to reconsider the investment and, in a cruel turn, blame the brownfield characteristic of the site, thereby increasing the stigma on this type of land re-use.

Developing a strategy involves having all relevant parties consider how each of their elements affects the overall final design. This includes the architects, civil and structural designers, environmental consultants, remediation contractors, and, most importantly, the developers themselves. In this manner, each will appreciate that cost-effective brownfield development is an iterative process. By setting up the process to advance a scheme in the most time-effective manner, the developer is informed up front of opportunities and challenges and can assess how to take quickest advantage of them.

This remedial strategy process enables each discipline to bring its tools to the table. For example, while an architect would seek the best positioning of structures on a site, the environmental consultant and remedial contractor should advise on whether such positioning compels contaminated soil movement that either exacerbates problems or creates remedial obligations that will affect both development schedule and cost at levels unacceptable to the investors. For the developer, this boils down to addressing “cut and fill” for site preparation in the most sustainable manner. In addition to structure placement, the design of public realm on a development can substantially increase options for using engineered controls to protect occupants from potentially unacceptable levels of contamination on site. This involves such aspects as street placement, underground services routing, and car park design.

Even the best laid out site design will involve some element of soils handling so in order to further mitigate cost and schedule impact, a soils management plan should be developed. The benefit of such plans can range from advising how companies need to assemble their health and safety plans to saving very large sums of money through adequate waste characterisation which identifies the most cost-effective long-term means of managing excess soil created from a development.

Even the best laid out site design will involve some element of soils handling; a soils management plan will mitigate cost and allow you to schedule impact

Given the recent changes in landfill regulation, dig and dump is no longer attractive from a cost standpoint

Waste characterisation has become much more complicated with the introduction of recent legislation. It requires an informed consultant working with adequate data to identify the most accurate representation of the waste that would be considered acceptable to both regulators and, where required, landfill operators who may be contracted to accept such materials. All developers are concerned with the implications of waste management, how it affects the marketability of their scheme and their obligations longer term under such management. DEFRA guidance published in April of this year shows developers how to decrease their administrative obligations in some settings. This guidance is indicative of a regulating community that appreciates the hurdles to brownfield development and how it can assist in minimising those hurdles.

Remediation – no more dig and dump

Of course, there will always be situations where engineered controls (breaking pathways between sources and receptors) and releases from administrative burden alone will not be adequate to address the potential risks identified and make a development scheme attractive enough for full investment. In these cases, some level of active soil and/or groundwater remediation is going to be required. The brownfield support industry (consultants, contractors and regulators alike) all appreciate that developers seek a high level of certainty in their investment. This has been historically reflected in the use of dig and dump as a means of removing contaminated soil issues from a site’s development equation.

Given the recent changes in landfill regulation, dig and dump is no longer attractive from a cost standpoint. But how do we get all players to readily pursue other forms of remediation? In the first instance, all must agree that risk has to be a shared burden if this is to succeed. That is, developers must allow on-site (both ex situ and in situ) remediation to enter the solution cycle without seeking to shift all responsibility for its success onto consultants and contractors. In situ soil and groundwater remediation will never be an exact science.

As a result, efforts to improve the confidence level that in situ remediation is being applied as effectively as possible are important. This goes back to the obligation that responsible parties have to implement remedial schemes that apply “best available technology not entailing excessive cost”. Proving that these criteria have been met goes a long way to supporting the developer’s certainty test that regulators will accept such remediation as adequate.

Recently, CL:AIRE (a public/private partnership comprising stakeholders from across the contaminated land field) has convened a group to review the potential benefits of developing a remedial contractor accreditation scheme. Such a scheme could, in part, increase the confidence level for both developers and regulators that qualified contractors are extracting the greatest level of remediation possible from a site-specific scheme. This should help a regulator to confirm its adequacy.

In conclusion, as the remaining brownfield inventory becomes biased towards the more difficult candidate sites, more proactive efforts are necessary to ensure that they become opportunities and not millstones around the necks of landowners and the boroughs and councils that would benefit from their development. All parties involved in the brownfield business must appreciate that a measured solution engages each of them to think both creatively and responsibly. The challenges are out there, but already there is evidence that the smart developers can see that doing the right thing does not need to compromise a strong profit model.