A Global Provider of Specialist Technical Consultation and Engineering Services to Firms - Research Paper Example

In both developed and developing countries, governments and communities are realizing the need to apportion public funds and resources towards environmental protection and recovery. These conservation efforts differ within each country and region which requires appropriate allocation of substantive resources in both a systematic technical and financed programs. This is particularly reflected in the redevelopment of brownfields and preservation of greenfields. Brownfields revitalisation has been credited with the re-development of contaminated sites into productive properties. The redevelopment revives devastated urban neighbourhoods, encourages local economies, and ensures ecological development. However a brownfield revival can be a daunting task and a complex project that calls for a comprehensive and systematic approach to be realised. The authorities nevertheless offer several incentives to potential developers which encompass national, state, municipal and regional funding programs. This promises building for a sustainable development which is meeting the needs of today without compromising the requirements of tomorrow. Ericson outlines four steps towards site revitalisation: site inventory, site cleanup, marketing the property, and funding strategies (Ericson, 2). Brownfields are termed as tracts of land which have formerly been developed for non-agricultural use and are discernible by having permanent and semi-permanent structures imbued on them. The U.S. environmental protection agency (EPA) defines brownfields as “Abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.” (Essoka, 21). They mostly comprise of former industrial sites, military structures, and mineral excavation and waste disposal sites. In the United States, the number of confirmed brownfield sites range from over 25,000 to 650,000 depending on the available literature. The average size ranges from a quarter of an acre to single sites covering 1,300 acres. In the U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 126 cities from an estimated total pool of 18,000 cities reported 16,531 brownfield sites, while 122 cities had a staggering 47,384 acres of municipal land covered by the brownfields structures (Essoka, 9). ABC Engineering Inc.(a global provider of specialist technical consultation and engineering services to firms, municipal authorities and other developers by designing strategic plans and support in implementation of remedial measures to contaminated sites internationally) has been contracted as the principal technical consultant advisor and quality assurance developer by Cotts Properties, a high quality residential accommodation developer who has acquired a brownfield site for the purposes of developing a small estate of luxury houses. This site is however suspected of being contaminated by evidence of gas tank and pipe work. Other volatile substances like building-related asbestos are alleged to have adversely contaminated the site. As a starting point, ABC Engineering has proposes a site inventory and prioritisation scheme to ascertain the true nature of the land. This will enable the developer Cotts Properties to comply with the local authorities statues and guidelines e.g. in Britain, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and in the United States, environmental protection agency (EPA) and local state guidelines. According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts an inventory should include the following: site locality; any past environmental evaluation; site photographs (aerial pictures are preferred); site records (this include prior usage; land size; prior tenures (either public or private); existing zoning ward(s); recent report of site condition: condition of structure(s) or vacant land; and status of rates payment on the property (Ericson, 4). The USEPA in its July 2005 Guidance Report gives four basic steps: hazard identification or determining the sources of contamination; hazard assessment or determining the extent of any unacceptable risks; risk estimation or evaluating extent or scope of potential hazards and possible resultant fallout; and risk evaluation or determining whether a risk is intolerable (EPA, 5). The brownfield inventory is also evaluated from a perspective of its adjacent vicinity using a location map preferably from a Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The engagement of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) from the initial stages is paramount in the project inventory. This will facilitate the provision of the site history. Local educational libraries, history museums, and the public records office have the potential to store data regarding business directories, historical maps, and photographs. From the chattels/deeds, important information regarding the trading activities of the previous proprietors will emerge. The site maps will reveal the actual location and extent of the gas/fuel tanks, pipelines, pits, and storage areas within the site (Nyerges, Robkin, and Moore, 128). Modern initiatives by local authorities on environmental due diligence require proper appreciation of the nature and extent of the contamination which inevitably ensures smoother transactions, remediation of the property, and the general redevelopment licensing processes. Therefore working in conjunction with the local authorities will enhance the chances of a swifter approval process by the relevant authorities. The environmental assessment site requirements of ASTM E 1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process must be observed. According to the U.K. Planning Policy Statement 23, “The overall aim of planning and pollution control policy is to ensure the sustainable and beneficial use of land…in particular encouraging reuse of previously developed land in preference to Greenfield sites.” (ODPM, 17) ABC Engineering has assembled a panel of environmental remediation professionals who include civil engineers, surveyors, and construction experts to form a wide-ranging panel that has provided invaluable advice on the most suitable action plan of redeveloping the brownfield. The task force first step in the redevelopment of the Cotts Property brownfield site land was to carry out a site assessment which was aimed at determining the level of the environmental contamination. Various authorities have established minimum standards to be observed by developers in the assessment and clean-up process. This is based on the sites previous usage vis-à-vis the projected future usage while considering prospective exposure to human health and the environment at large. Initial phases took in consideration a classification of the site from its historical information and the adjoining land. Likewise, soil and groundwater samples will also need to be analytically evaluated through rigorous chemical analysis to authenticate the contamination levels. This preliminary exploration will form the basis of determining the feasibility of erecting residential structures within the brownfield site and the magnitude of the clean-up exercise required to facilitate this. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) highlights a series of Remedial Actions or Construction project cleanup measures to be followed in their public funded projects. This processes which have been designed in conjunction with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) include but are not restricted to: installation of an on-site ground water treatment system; installation of an on-site soil treatment system; removal of contaminated soil or other contaminated materials; demolition of on-site buildings when necessary to facilitate the remedial process; installation of a cap or slurry wall at a landfill ; removal of leaking underground storage tanks; installation of a permanent cover over contaminated soil; installation of a public water line or a treatment system on a municipal supply well through a third party contract with the local water purveyor or township. In 2000 the NJDEP/USEPA initiative resulted in redevelopment or remedial action of 25 sites with a cumulative total cost of U.S. $78.5 million within the United States (NJDEP, 1). Conventional administrative regulations have tended to discourage private developers from engaging or investing in contaminated tracts or brownfields. Wernstedt at al argue that “Owners of the properties and prospective buyers, fearing liability for expensive cleanups, often opt not to develop them, yet left unattended such sites may pose threats to public health and the environment and depress the economy of local neighbourhoods.” (Wernstedt, Heberle, Alberini and Meyer, 4) In a judicious acknowledgment of the enormity of developing the projects and the potential benefits to be accrued, several local and state authorities have alleviated several statutes that may hinder the development of brownfields. The Massachusetts Brownfields Act of 1998 developed legal liability exclusions and exemptions for responsible developers engaged in these projects (Ericson, 6). The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) in collaboration with the Nationwide Financing for Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup (CERFUSA) encourage and promote the redevelopment of brownfields countrywide by providing funding and education by incorporating ‘green’ building initiatives to create ecologically friendly structures through more resource efficient models (Wagner, 1). ABC Engineering will encourage and arrange the funding from both the local and national agencies to facilitate easier realisation of cleanup and erection of the project. Since a majority of brownstone projects are viewed as positive private and public engagements that have the potential of erasing ugly disfigurements of the environment, public funding and credit facility will not be hard to procure through the various public programs specifically allocated to brownstone initiatives. Generally, ABC Engineering embarks on a site assessment by preparing Phase I Environmental Site Assessment strategy. In the United States, this is administered as per the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards in both ASTM 1527 and E-1528. The Standard E-1528 is the transaction screen process which investigates the property utilization both on the site and adjacent tracts, harmful materials, fuel reservoirs, pipeline or drainage, wells, potential environmental liabilities, any prior contamination, assessments, and historical observation concerning ecological hazards. A further step involves an economic assessment to ascertain whether the project is: viable, threshold, or nonviable. If the site will be determined as economically viable, it means that the probability of litigious liability is noticeably less pronounced. Among the sites categorised as threshold, public funding is required to facilitate the project while the nonviable sites are construed as having the likelihood of attracting copious grievances and minimal economic viability. In Phase II assessment, similar homogenized site analysis is conducted under the Standard Guide for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, ASTM E-1903. This mostly are confined to the statistical analysis of the issues raised by the initial Phase I assessment required to validate any findings as regards contamination (Essoka, 36). In Britain, ABC Engineering will embark on series of measures: if the proposed development site has a history of contamination, the equivalent of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) may demand a site exploration report, safety assessment, and proposed remedial plans and evaluation information to be provided. It is therefore the responsibility of Cotts Properties with the assistance of ABC Engineering to provide all the available data to the municipal and public authorities in the course of the application process at all stages. This will offset any prospective impediments resulting from the stringent measures that are often set by the regulatory authorise. The authorities may set planning conditions which will have to be set incognizant of the contamination criteria guidelines. This may include site analysis, hazard evaluation, remediation plan, unexpected contamination, imported equipment, gas screening equipment, and authentication reports. Whenever a contaminated brownfield is anticipated, the planning process has to be strictly observed. According to the Manchester Area Pollution Advisory Council (MAPAC), non-compliance of the laid down regulations may lead to authority to gain entry of the premises and investigate; halting of any developments; and prerequisite of a post-development remediation mechanism prior to the site utilization (MAPAC 7). The government guideline for dealing with contaminated land is encompassed in the policy document CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination technical structure. The procedures cover the identification and decision making for contaminated sites which follow the state policies and legislation. This involves a preliminary risk assessment; Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment (GQRA); and a detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA). A Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) on the whole requires the development of a theoretical model which categorizes potential noxious waste connections at the location. The theoretical model can then be set to ascertain if additional evaluation is necessary but if this initial investigation concludes that minimal contamination exists, then further assessment are halted. Potentially hazardous site investigation require like the U.S. counterparts, a British Standard (BS) 10175, Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice report which comprise four components i.e. Phase I investigation; Phase II investigation; remediation plan; and a certification reports. To enable swift processing of development authorisation, ABC Engineering has prepared a remedial strategy detailing various approaches to be used in the cleaning up of the contaminated site. This will follow standard procedures as advised by the relevant authorities in dealing with contaminated sites. It will ensure a verification report will be issued by the local and state agencies for the necessary authorisation. The analysts obtain relevant soil samples form the site that is entirely representative of the site conditions and guidelines and reference is made of the BS 10175 procedures. The historical site data as outlined in the desk study is used as a guideline to the relevant target areas of contamination hence providing suitable data. This is requirement by the authorities as outlined in the BS 10175. The data is the sent to sanctioned laboratory to embark on the analysis of the samples. The laboratory results then are detailed indicating the relevant technique to be used in the analysis plus site map depicting the position of the sampling points. To assess human health risk exposure to the contamination, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) recommends use of current government guidelines. These include the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA) and associated Soil Guideline Values (SGV's) which are particularly projected to conform to these conditions. In case the company decides to apply a non-British site contamination quantitative method e.g. Netherlands or USEPA guidelines, the British authorities will require an accompanying report rationalising the application by detailing the relevant assessment reinforcing the toxicological information therein. If the site has discernable contamination levels, a detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) must be conducted if the generic assessment has detected a latent vulnerability to toxic materials. Similarly, this DQRA test is done using the environmental agency guidelines (MAPAC, 10). After ascertaining the level of contamination and the required appropriate action to deal with the contamination in the brownfield site, various remedial measures is applied to deal with the contamination. Remediation methods are variously categorised into two broad types, ex-situ and in-situ techniques. The ex-situ method as implied require extraction of the contaminated soils for treatment form the site, while the in-situ technique involve the treatment of the contaminated soil within the ground without any extraction. The former was the method most applied in previously whereby the excavated soil was disposed in publicly approved landfill sites and cleaning the groundwater through traditional pumping methods. This was refereed as to dredging but also may require ventilating the soils if established to be contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The most common method is the engineered cover system which provides a secure permanent barricade between the projected underlying toxic matter and the surface constructions or inhabitants. These structures have no specific engineering configuration and various methods are used but a solid conservative approach is advised. This requires a minimum of 6 meters depth level whereby 1.5 meters consist of uncontaminated topsoil and 4.5 meters is uncontaminated subsoil. A coarse duct break layer (approximate measuring one meter) and an additional geotextile membrane are constructed. A desk study is required when the developer opts for a cover system. This provides details of the cover system material, soil contamination analysis reports, and justification for the method. Another remedial method used is the natural attenuation which can be applied on fuel spillage/contaminated sites. It has been established that numerous natural sequences instigate to destroy or adjust the chemical compounds of the fuel hence reducing their adverse impact on the soil. These processes consist of the adsorption on to the earth, biodegradation, weakening, and the diffusion into the groundwater. According to Jim Woolford, EPA's director of Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, "Under certain site conditions, and if properly documented, natural attenuation can be a viable option for remediating sites as a stand-alone option or in conjunction with other engineered remediation." (USEPA, 3). Another functional ‘natural’ method is the use of biological methods or bioremediation whereby plants are effectively used through phytoremediation. This method is usually applied in collectively with the pump and treat scheme. Specially bred bacteria devour contaminants from the extracted groundwater or the bio-gac technique, and then the groundwater is recycled to ensure continuous bacteria growth. The main disadvantages associated with this method are the uncontrolled bacterial growth that can hinder the permeation and pumping processes. Similarly the groundwater infiltration may reach disproportionate levels hence affecting the pH levels and exterminating the bacteria. The method is also not very efficient due to the elevated energy level required for draining the water hence affecting costs as compared to the less costly submerged pumping method. Natural attenuation however requires monitoring and has to be initially verified on its effectiveness and that the natural processes are taking place. However natural attenuation is constrained by the ‘natural’ timeframe hence not suitable for developers with immediate growth objectives. Similarly, the developer must agree to long-term monitoring and cost obligations. This also include land and groundwater use controls even as there is the likelihood of the of the spiral swell. On the other hand, the advantages of natural attenuation include reduction of remediation costs, less pollution and transfer of the toxic waste, and have less infringement and interference as compared to the engineered methods (USEPA, 7). In the surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR) method, the soil is infused with adsorption compounds or the hydrogen alleviation agents. This loosens the rigid refractory non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) or the surfactants chemicals that enhance the extraction. The advantage of the method is that it has been proven effective in dealing with sites that had been ineffective with other remediation methods. The method is also advantageous in that it can be applied in conjunction with other remedial measures as it does not require site excavation or dredging. However, strict long-term monitoring application hinders its swift implementation. Another in-situ method involves the pumping out of the contaminated groundwater for purification using a vacuum pump and then run through a series of adsorption tanks. Fuel contaminated sites chemicals such as activated carbons in powder form and flocculants, sand filters reduce the groundwater contamination and for the volatile fuel pollutants like BTEX or MTBE, air-stripping method is applied. This method is preferred if the site geological and soil composition are favourable for a swifter remedial application. However, the method is complicated hence leading to elaborate difficult authentication procedures as required by the regulators (EPA, 6). Contemporary technologies like in-situ oxidation are now highly regarded for remediation of a wide range of contaminants. This entails chemical oxidation through application of powerful oxidants, e.g. hydrogen peroxide, ozone gas, potassium permanganate. The advantage is that these oxidants are faster and more effective in the immediate term as opposed to the other conventional methods. The advantages of the methods are the inability of reduced natural attenuation as the micro-organisms found in the soil prefer a more natural environment. Likewise, the oxidation processes may induce a swifter spiral effect of the toxic matter to the uncontaminated areas. A further modern method engaged is the soil vapour extraction (SVE) technology used in combination with the multi phase extraction (MPE) method whereby both the soil and groundwater are remediated simultaneously. Although utilising different equipment, the two techniques disseminate the toxic gas organic compounds (VOCs) which result from the vacuumed air and vapours to effectively neutralise the harmful material (Dorsey, 4). According to renowned architect Norman Foster, “The need to address man's impact on the environment has never been more urgent.” (Norman, 1) In developed countries, buildings devour half of the world’s energy production while adversely contributing to the environmental degradation, e.g. emitting half the carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. This therefore calls for urgent implementation of sustainable development strategies. Brownfields redevelopment is a significant step in the right direction towards attaining sustainable development by reviving the abandoned contaminated sites that are usually located at ideal urban settings. The advantages are numerous as they spawn employment opportunities for the local populace while curbing felonies that inhabit this eyesore structures. The deceleration in the urban spiral effect into the greenfields has now been statistically established. Cotts Properties acquisition of a brownfield to construct luxurious apartments is a feasible plan that will get the backing of the regulators with the professional assistance of ABC Engineering Inc. By following the laid down guidelines by the USEPA the Standard Guide for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, ASTM E 1527-05 or the U.K. EPA ASTM E-1903 as outlined in the PPS3, the firm will be able to do a proper site assessment, conduct the site remediation and hence obtain the go ahead to redevelop the brownfield. The conversion of the blighted landscape into a highly valuable property with elegant apartments is a veritable sustainable development project that will get the full backing of the community. To really ensure an environmentally sustainable rehabilitation program, there should be full utilisation of sustainable timber and other materials which are free of toxic materials like PVC while integrating solar energy for heating purposes as advocated by the Greenpeace organisation that are echo-smart or have energy efficient components. Works Cited Dorsey, J. W. "Brownfields and Greenfields: The Intersection of Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship." 19 August 2005. National Association for Environmental Professionals. Cambridge University Press. 26 February 2009 . EPA. Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports. Land Contamination Reports Verson 1- July 2005. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. Ericson, Ben. "Brownfields: Sustainable Development Principles." 2002. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 26 February 2009 . Essoka, Jonathan Dumbe. "Brownfields Revitalization Projects:Displacement of the Dispossessed." Houston: Drexel University, SESEP, August 2003. Foster, Norman. "Building a sustainable future." 4 July 2005. CNN. 28 February 2009 . Kris Wernstedt, Lauren Heberle, Anna Alberini, and Peter Meyer. The Brownfields Phenomenon: Much Ado about Something or the Timing of the Shrewd? Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 2004. MAPAC, Manchester Area Pollution Advisory Council (MAPAC) planning guidance sub- group. "Development of Potentially Contaminated Land – Guidance Note for Developers, Agents and Consultants." Development of Potentially Contaminated Land. Bath and North East Somerset Council , 2004. Miertus, Stanislav. International Forum on Strategies and Priorities. Proposal for the establishment of a Forum on Remediation of Contaminated Sites in Central and Eastern European Countries. Bratislava: ICS-UNIDO, 2002. Nyerges, T., M. Robkin, and T. J. Moore. "Geographic Information Systems for Risk Evaluation: Perspectives on Applications to Environmental Health." Cartogr Geograph Inf Syst 24, no. 3 (1997): 123-44. NJDEP. "Remedial Action/Construction projects completed in 2000." 2000. State of New Jersey. 27 February 2009 . ODPM, (Office of teh Deputy Prime Minister). "Planning Policy Statement 23:Planning and Pollution Control." Creating Sustainable Communities. London: TSO (The Stationery Office), 2004. 1-20. Paull, Evans. Energy Benefits Of Urban Infill, Brownfields, And Sustainable Urban Redevelopment. Brownfields Research and Training Grant [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. Washington DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute, 2008. USEPA. "Commonly Asked Questions Regarding the use of Natural Attenuation for Petroleum Contaminated Sites at Federal Facilities." 23 March 2007. EPA - Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse. 28 February 2009 . Wagner, Danielle Miller."Building Green on Brownfields." Brownfields Bulletin (2006): 1-2 Read More