Download pdf - Sustainability Indicators for Environmental Geotechnics

Sustainability indicators for environmental geotechnics

I. Jefferson PhD, D. V. L. Hunt PhD, C. A. Birchall MSc and C. D. F. Rogers PhD, CEng, MICE, MIHT

Environmental geotechnics (EG) has the potential to make

a substantial contribution to the field of sustainable

construction, which in turn affects sustainable

development. Indicators for measuring sustainable

performance within the construction sector are well

developed because the concepts have been around for

many years. However, within the EG sector they are not,

probably due to the combined difficulties of inherent site-

specific complexity and scale. In addressing this shortfall,

the aim of this paper is to present a new suite of

environmental geotechnics indicators (EGIs). The new EGI

system is formulated from existing construction sector

indicators, from which a set of 108 separate indicators for

assessing progress towards achieving greater sustainability

are presented. Using a point score system (1 (harmful) to 5

(significantly improved)), the set of indicators can cover the

entire timeline of a project in eight distinct stages

(feasibility to long term). The set includes 76 ‘generic

indicators’ used to assess the sustainability of any

geotechnical project and a set of 32 additional ‘technology-

specific’ indicators used to assess the sustainability of

specific techniques for treating contaminated land. This

latter indicator set can be modified, or substituted by any

appropriate technology-specific indicator set, to address

whatever geotechnical processes are proposed in a project.

The final output of the assessment is an eight-pointed rose

diagram that can be used to highlight areas of weakness

within a project. The indicators within this new model are

not split into various sustainability pillars (economic, social

and environmental), thereby reducing the risk of an end-

user focusing on the economic pillar alone. The indicators

are applied to a case study site.

1. INTRODUCTION

Sustainability is not an abstract principle but a concept to inform

society across all scales, locally and internationally.1 Various

definitions of sustainability have been formulated over more

than 30 years, the most notable being that by Brundtland in

1987,2 which is often quoted due to its overarching simplicity

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs.

Unfortunately, many would advocate that no single definition

can truly capture the essence of what sustainability is, due in part

to it being a concept that we are beginning to understand but for

which we are still looking for an adequate delivery procedure,

including methods of measurement (i.e. assessment tools). Whilst

a traditional triple bottom line approach (economic, social and

environmental) is typically used to describe sustainability,

identification of the overlapping zones, and thus dealing with the

tensions between them, is not easy. Indeed, some would argue

that currently available sustainability assessment tools do not

help in this respect.3 Sustainable assessment tools are, however,

vital for developing sustainable goals and shaping project

outcomes. They can be truly effective as long as consideration is

given to the conflicts and associated trade-offs that exist between

the three pillars within the many fields that contribute towards

sustainable development. There is also merit in adopting

Brundtland’s approach by introducing higher level views of the

problem in dealing with conflicts and trade-offs, as this paper

will attempt to demonstrate.

One of the key contributing fields to sustainable development,

almost no matter what the project, is geotechnical engineering,

which faces an extremely challenging dichotomy between

delivering project goals and maintaining sustainability.1 In an

era when we are striving for minimal adverse environmental

impact and high added value, geotechnical engineers are in an

unenviable position at the start of any construction project where

the environmental and arguably sustainability costs are largest.

Geotechnical engineering has a crucial role in shaping and

achieving the sustainability credentials of a project, therefore

better geotechnical practices would help reduce adverse impacts

at the point in a construction project when some of the greatest

gains can be made.1 However, to achieve such advances, there is

a need to develop a suitable set of assessment tools applicable to

all areas of geotechnical engineering.1 Environmental

geotechnics (EG) (which, for the purpose of this paper, is

considered to deal principally with contaminated land

remediation and waste management) covers one of these

important topic areas and, where this issue is relevant, has

significant impact on all aspects of sustainable construction and

sustainable development, not least the ability to develop on

previously contaminated land thereby improving economic,

environmental and social wellbeing for a local community

(e.g. Greenwich Millennium Village, UK). If the true extent of

the impact of such geotechnical works is to be assessed

objectively, a suitable sustainability indicator system is required.

Whilst indicators exist for measuring the sustainability of a

project as a whole (e.g. Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine

(Spear)) and the environmental impact of buildings (e.g. BRE

Ian JeffersonSenior Lecturer, University ofBirmingham, UK

Dexter V. L. HuntResearch Fellow, Universityof Birmingham, UK

Charles A. BirchallMSc student, University ofBirmingham, UK

Chris D. F. RogersProfessor, University ofBirmingham, UK

Proceedings of the Institution ofCivil EngineersEngineering Sustainability 160June 2007 Issue ES2Pages 57–78doi: 10.1680/ensu.2007.160.2.57

Paper 1100003Received 13/12/2006Accepted 05/07/2007

Keywords:environment/research &development

Engineering Sustainability 160 Issue ES2 Sustainability indicators for environmental geotechnics Jefferson et al. 57

Environmental Assessment Method (Breeam)), no system at

present addresses the issue of sustainability in the field of EG.

One of the key aims of this paper is to address this omission. It

seeks to do so by reporting on current indicators being used for

measuring or assessing sustainability within the UK. Drawing

selectively from these tools, an environmental geotechnics

indicator (EGI) system is presented, which can be used to assess

the sustainable characteristics at project level with regard to EG.

The system offers a measure of sustainability along the timeline

of a project (visioning to long-term use) and, crucially, does not

segregate indicators using a traditional ‘three pillar’ approach,

thereby reducing the risk of an end-user focusing on the

economic pillar alone. This is considered to be one of the greatest

benefits of the EGI system since it focuses attention on the issues

and how they might beneficially be addressed before the question

of cost is raised. This system therefore aims to provide innovate

insights into how to advance down the path of sustainability by

avoiding, at least initially, one of the greatest perceived barriers

to sustainable development. Finally the EGI system is tested using

a case history site to illustrate its potential for application.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICS

A large part of EG is encapsulated within the risk management

framework (RMF) for dealing with contaminated land.4 The RMF

allows proportional and targeted remedial actions to take place in

a resource-efficient way.5 These remedial actions can be

classified into four broad categories, which include engineering-

based and process-based methods6

(a) removal

(b) containment

(c) rehabilitation

(d) treatment.

These can be further broken down into more specific

techniques5–7 that may overlap (Fig. 1).7 To be considered

‘sustainable’ the technique(s) chosen must be suitable for the task

in hand and so a number of technical factors are needed to enable

appropriate choices to be made.4 Of the techniques shown in

Fig. 1, removal to landfill now faces severe restrictions through

landfill regulations.8 However, ‘dig and dump’ to landfill or land

raising is still considered a potential option as part of current and

future waste management systems, albeit as a much reduced

component and as an increasingly financially unattractive

option. This is in part because there are still many landfill sites

catering for such a process in operation in the UK. Treatment

technologies in land remediation provide an effective way to

render contaminants into less toxic forms5 and their adoption is

actively encouraged by agencies in many countries because of

perceived added values within all three pillars of sustainability.

As remediation technologies improve and sustainable principles

are adopted, it is anticipated that pre-treatment of wastes prior to

landfill, already a requirement in the UK, will become a more

sophisticated element of site treatment methodologies. Therefore

an urgent need has been identified for deriving a system for

measuring sustainability within the EG field, not least with

respect to remediation technologies.

The above arguments are not meant to imply that effective waste

management through mechanisms such as waste reduction,

material recycling/reuse and foundation reuse is not an

important aspect of ‘sustainable geotechnics’. However,

contaminated land thinking in this regard is well advanced and

so this topic has been used to build the EGI system. It is intended

that the EGI system can be adapted to assess other geotechnical

processes by modification and/or substitution of the

‘technology-specific’ elements of the system.

3. SUSTAINABLE INDICATOR SYSTEMS

3.1. Introduction to indicator systems

An indicator system should provide a measure of current

performance, a clear statement of what might be achieved in

terms of future performance targets and a yardstick for

measurement of progress along the way. However, it is important

to recognise that sustainability is a journey without an end9 and

that a system based on absolute numerical values is unlikely to

prove satisfactory. As such, indicator systems can provide a

crucial guide for decision-makers in a variety of ways. Not least,

they enable physical and social scientific knowledge to be broken

down into smaller units that can be analysed in detail to facilitate

sustainable decision-making processes from the start of a project

through to the end.

There are many sustainable indicator systems that can be used

to assess a whole range of issues related to sustainable

development at international levels (e.g. United Nations (UN)

indicators10) and national levels (e.g. the UK Government’s

headline indicators11 and the currently developing code for

sustainable homes). Sustainable construction within the built

environment is an essential element of sustainable development

and a range of well-established indicators exists within the UK.

In turn, EG has an important role to play in achieving greater

sustainability in construction and yet, as already stated, a

specific set of indicators relevant to this area has yet to be

developed. The aim of this section is to examine construction-

related sustainability indicators in order to establish the

necessary guidance for creating a robust assessment framework

for an indicator system specific to EG. Important aspects to

consider when using existing indicator systems or deriving new

ones are scale, validity and level of application (i.e. whether

they are applied at strategic, company or operational level).12

In order to make the distinction clear, a range of well-known

construction-related sustainability indicators is outlined in the

following sections; these summarise the key aspects of each

system and their potential impact when used in the context of

EG. The validity of any existing or new indicator is highly

dependent on widespread application within projects, as well as

its appreciation in a wider context,13 and the necessary

encouragement for its future adoption will involve a great

deal of stakeholder participation (a core thread of

sustainability). The adoption of the EGI system presented in this

paper will only take place once the system’s key benefits

have been demonstrated through case histories. To this end, one

case history is presented to illustrate the use of the EGI system.

It is hoped that this will stimulate other case history

assessments of EG projects in the future, thus allowing

refinement of the proposed EGI system.

3.2. Sustainability integrated guidelines for management

(Sigma)

Sigma,14 launched in 1999 with the support of the UK

Department for Trade and Industry (DTi), provides three key tools

58 Engineering Sustainability 160 Issue ES2 Sustainability indicators for environmental geotechnics Jefferson et al.

(a) guiding principles that operate at organisational level to

promote sustainability (human, social, financial,

manufactured and natural capital)

(b) a management framework that integrates sustainability

issues and practices (ISO 14001,15 ISO 900116 and Investors

in People (IiP)17) into core processes and mainstream

decision-making at a company level

(c) a toolkit for assessment.

The system is vastly different from the others considered in this

section of the paper since it focuses on developing an ethos of

sustainability within an organisation. It concentrates on the

business vision of the company and links its activities to the

vision with a total emphasis on sustainable development. The

rejection of a financial ‘bottom-line’ can be seen as an attempt to

retain an accurate and balanced focus on sustainability issues.

3.3. Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (Spear)

Spear,18 established by Arup, uses a colour-coded rose

diagram to assess the sustainability of a project under four main

pillars (economic, environmental, social and natural resources).

Using qualitative scores from –3 (worst case) to þ3 (optimum

case), problem areas can be highlighted within typically around

20 sub-themes (dealing with issues such as air quality, land use,

water, ecology, cultural heritage, design and operation, transport,

materials, energy, waste, health and welfare, user satisfaction,

form and space, access, amenity, inclusion, viability, social costs

and benefits, competitive effects, employment/skills). The

method is ideal for gauging where a project stands both pre- and

post-construction, although the lack of a weighting system can

lead to misrepresentation of risk areas for certain types of project

(e.g. a nuclear repository). In these cases it may be necessary to

add weightings according to clients’ needs during a second round

of assessment. The indicators have been used successfully in

helping to achieve sustainable outcomes within the UK and

internationally, such as Hong Kong and Australia.18 This

indicator system provides an overarching indication of the

sustainable outcome of a project, and in so doing it does not

necessarily focus on individual buildings (even though it was

originally developed, and is still used, for this purpose).

3.4. Building Research Establishment Environmental

Assessment Method (Breeam)

Breeam falls under the environmental indicator pillar and in

different forms can be used to assess the environmental

sustainability of specific buildings (e.g. offices, homes, schools,

industrial and retail units, laboratories and leisure centres), both

new and existing. The main issues of assessment under this

system are management, energy use, health and wellbeing,

pollution, transport, land use, ecology, materials and water.

Within the EcoHomes19 rating (essentially Breeam for homes)

energy use is broken down into carbon dioxide emissions,

building envelope performance, drying space, eco-labelled white

goods and external lighting. Using both qualitative and

quantitative pre-weighted point scores within themes, a final

rating can be given. In the EcoHomes system, a percentage score

will relate to a certain category, that is pass (40%), good (50%),

very good (60%) and excellent (70%). For the Breeam office

system, the score is converted to an environmental performance

index (EPI) that ranges from 1 (poorest) to 10 (best). Both of these

provide a good eco-label for buildings and are becoming widely

used and accepted within the UK. This system does not, however,

concentrate on the social or economic pillars.

3.5. Ecopoints

The Ecopoints20 system is a single-score environmental

assessment tool that can be used to assess the impact of a building

Fig. 1. Remedial actions for contaminated land showing areas of topic overlap (after Evans et al. 7)


or process on the environment using a scale from 1 (lowest

impact) to 100 (highest impact). It takes into account impacts of

climate change, fossil fuel depletion, ozone depletion, freight

transport, human toxicity to air and water, waste disposal, water

extraction, acid deposition, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, summer

smog and minerals extraction. Ecopoints are used within the

Green Guide to Specification 21 (fourth edition published January

2007), life cycle assessment tools, Breeam and the web-based

software tool Envest2.22

3.6. Ceequal

Ceequal is a civil engineering equivalent to Breeam promoted by

the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), the Building Research

Establishment (BRE), the Construction Industry Research and

Information Association (Ciria) and, to a limited extent, industry.

It falls under the environmental pillar and encourages excellence

in environmental performance within areas of water, energy,

land, ecology, landscape, nuisance to neighbours, archaeology,

waste minimisation/management and community amenity

during specification, design and construction. A percentage score

and rating, not dissimilar to that found in Breeam, is given,

although 25% relates to a pass and 75% relates to excellent. The

method has been, and continues to be, used successfully on many

engineering projects throughout the UK. Again, social and

economic pillars do not feature strongly in this assessment

method, perhaps as a result of the essential nature of civil

engineering projects, that is they must address the economic

pillar in providing best value for money and they ultimately

address society’s needs.

3.7. Key performance indicators

Key performance indicators (KPIs)23 fall under the social pillar

and are used currently by civil engineering companies in the UK

for assessing performance. Using a percentage score under two

themes (client satisfaction for the product and client satisfaction

for the service) and using equal weightings within eight sub-

themes (four under each heading), a radar plot is presented to

show how good a company is in comparison to a sample group.

The findings of workshops into the measurement of KPIs have

repeatedly stated that measurement alone adds no value unless it

is relevant and encourages a positive step towards improvement.

3.8. Discussion

The preceding sections have shown that there are numerous

available indicators that allow the measurement of sustainability

at many scales (i.e. project level down to specific building

materials). Closer inspection of these indicators has highlighted

the following important features.

(a) Economic and environmental sector indicators are well

developed, whereas those for social sectors are much less so.

This is in broad agreement with previous research.12

(b) Well-established scoring systems can be subjective, leading

to a variance in final output.

Chronological project stages Considerations made within project stage Typical actions within project stages Points (1–5)

A Feasibility (Table 2) Impacts/benefits considered † Desk study 4.3Local sustainable priorities assessed † Site investigation

† Chemical analysis

B Design (Tables 3(a), (b)) Detailed design solutions developed † Quantified risk assessment 3.9Design solutions rejected or accepted † CDM regulations

† Regulatory approvals† Design options

C Award (Table 4) Assessment of sustainability credentials † Procurement process 3.7Alternatives proposed † Pre-qualification

† Contractor credentials

D Mobilisation (Table 5) Use resources from the most efficient locationsto the project

† Geographical location 3.4† Amount of equipment† Access† Logistics† Materials

E Construction (Tables6(a), (b))

Incorporate sustainable methods into theconstruction programme

† Materials 3.5† Plant† Energy† Labour† Water usage

F Demobilisation (Table 7) Feedback into sustainability accounting system † Removal of equipment 3.8† Ongoing to next site

G Monitoring (Tables 8(a), (b)) Ensure that the system is achieving itssustainability goals

† Choice of instrumentation 2.5† Monitoring categories† Length of time† Invasiveness

H Long Term (Tables 9(a), (b)) Adapt as necessary to maintain sustainability † Immediate vicinity 4.1† Regional effect† Life cycle

Table 1. Project stage outputs for the EGI system (points relate to the case study described in Section 5)


(c) Sustainability indicators need to be related to sustainability

and not simply be a measure per se.13

(d) Wider adoption and application of existing systems is

needed so they may be refined. In August 2003 it was

reported that Ecohomes had been applied to only 3400 units

in 100 developments in the UK24 and in August 2006

Ceequal had been applied to just 14 projects in the UK.25 In

June 2005, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(Leed)26 had been applied to 200 projects in the USA and

Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method

(HK-Beam)27 applied to 100 projects in Hong Kong. The

problem is global.

(e) Research is needed to develop complementary indicator

suites that look at impacts of specific civil engineering sub-

sectors and are complementary to generic sustainable

construction indicators.

(f) One area requiring urgent development is that of EG, in

particular contaminated land,28 hence the development of

the EGI system now described.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICS INDICATOR

SYSTEM

4.1. Formation of the EGI system

The EGI system was devised for use solely within the ground

engineering sub-sector of EG. Throughout the development of

the EGI system, UK standard practice has been taken into

account. The EGI system was derived from reformulated

sustainable construction indicators used within the UK (i.e. those

summarised in Section 3), supplemented with additional ideas

taken from environmental indicators used in other countries,

for example, Leed26 (USA) and HK-Beam27 (Hong Kong). The EGI

system was designed for use in the UK. Although most of the

ideas are directly transferable elsewhere, it should be noted that

its application in other countries may require reformulation of

certain existing indicators or the addition of new indicators for

country-specific factors to be taken into account.

In all, 108 separate indicators (76 generic indicators and 32

technology-specific indicators) were adopted, based on lessons

learnt from existing indicator systems (Section 3) and experience

gained from several projects. The indicators were chosen to

ensure full integration with current and possible future

management frameworks for EG, such as model procedures for

management of land contamination.4 The EGI system

incorporates all of the key sustainability issues covered within a

number of existing indicator systems, but has tailored these to EG

projects through the use of technology-specific indicators. Built

into these are other elements of scale that directly impinge on EG

projects, including, for example, factors ranging from company

policies through to site-specific assessments (such as spacing of

chemical tests used in pre-treatment assessments). Using a dual-

phased approach, both generic and EG technology-specific

assessments can be undertaken for various project stages along a

project timeline.

The various stages (A–H) of the EGI assessment are shown in

Table 1. The stages of the assessment method (referred to as

project stages) are presented in chronological order along the

project timeline, that is from feasibility (A) through to the long

term (H). Each stage is designed to measure key aspects of the

Feas

ibility

indic

ator

Effe

cton

sust

aina

bility

Poin

ts(1

–5)

Har

mfu

lR

educ

tion

Neu

tral

Impro

ved

Sign

ifica

ntly

impro

ved

(i)

Does

the

clie

ntha

vea

sust

aina

bility

polic

y?A

ctiv

ely

avoid

ssu

stai

nability

Pas

sive

lyav

oid

ssu

stai

nability

No

polic

yin

pla

cePas

sive

lypro

mote

ssu

stai

nability

Act

ivel

ypro

mote

ssu

stai

nability

3

(ii)

Isth

ere

aco

mm

unity

cons

ulta

tion

pla

n?A

ctiv

ely

avoid

sco

nsul

tatio

nN

one

Bas

icD

etai

led

usin

gsing

lem

ediu

mD

etai

led

usin

gm

ultip

lem

edia

5

(iii)

Does

the

site

have

redev

elopm

ent

pote

ntia

l?N

one

Ver

ylo

wLo

wH

igh

Ver

yhi

gh5

(iv)

Isth

esite

suita

ble

for

itsfu

ture

use?

Det

rim

enta

lQ

uest

ions

rem

ain

unan

swer

edN

oef

fect

Yes

Ver

ysu

itable

5

(v)

Perc

enta

geofsite

inve

stig

atio

nco

stag

ains

tpro

pose

dto

talc

ost

,0. 5

%0. 5

–1. 0

%1. 0

–3. 0

%3. 0

–4. 0

%.

5. 0

%4

(vi)

Che

mic

alsa

mple

spac

ing

15

mþ

,15

m,

5m

,3

m,

1m

3(v

ii)Ty

pes

ofte

sts

No

anal

ysis

Sim

ple

on-

site

field

test

sonl

yLa

bora

tory

test

sonl

yFi

eld

tria

lsonl

yLa

bora

tory

and

field

tria

ls5

Ave

rage

EGIsc

ore

for

the

feas

ibility

pha

se(i–vi

i)ofth

eca

sest

udy

4. 3

Table

2.GenericstageAfeasibility

indicators

(points

relate

tothecase

studydescribed

inSection5)


Des

ign

indic

ator

Effe

cton

sust

aina

bility

Poin

ts(1

–5)

Har

mfu

lR

educ

tion

Neu

tral

Impro

ved

Sign

ifica

ntly

impro

ved

(i)

Land

inte

nded

for

use

that

was

pre

vious

lyun

usab

le

Land

loss

incr

ease

dN

och

ange

Par

tialr

euse

ofsite

100%

but

with

nore

crea

tiona

lfac

ilitie

s100%

ofth

esite

with

som

ere

crea

tiona

lfac

ilitie

s4

(ii)

Land

inte

nded

for

use

by

bus

ines

ses

and

or

infr

astr

uctu

re(h

ealth/

educ

atio

n/tr

ansp

ort

)th

atco

ntribut

esto

the

loca

leco

nom

y

No

influ

xofne

wbus

ines

s/in

fras

truc

ture

,20%

ofsite

allo

cate

dto

new

bus

ines

ses/

infr

astr

uctu

re

20–50%

ofsite

allo

cate

dto

new

bus

ines

ses/

infr

astr

uctu

re

Maj

ority

ofsite

allo

cate

dto

new

bus

ines

ses/

infr

astr

uctu

re

Who

lesite

allo

cate

dto

new

bus

ines

ses/

infr

astr

uctu

re5

(iii)

Qua

ntifi

edrisk

asse

ssm

ent

(QR

A)

No

atte

mpt

atpro

duc

ing

aQ

RA

Par

tialQ

RA

that

does

not

cove

ral

lasp

ects

ofth

esite

Full

QR

A,o

ffice

bas

edw

ithout

ability

topro

cure

furt

her

test

ing

Full

QR

A,o

ffice

bas

edw

ithab

ility

topro

cure

furt

her

test

ing

Full

QR

Alin

ked

with

field

tria

lpro

gram

me

5

(iv)

Has

the

des

ign

follo

wed

adefi

ned

risk

man

agem

ent

pla

n?

None

dev

ised

Par

tialp

lan

dev

ised

cove

ring

aspec

tsof

the

pro

ject

Initi

alrisk

man

agem

entpla

ndev

ised

Inte

gral

asse

ssm

entdev

ised

cove

ring

most

aspec

tsof

the

pro

ject

Full

inte

gral

asse

ssm

ent

dev

ised

cove

ring

all

aspec

tsofth

epro

ject

5

(v)

Isth

ere

ahe

alth

&sa

fety

(H&

S)pla

nag

reed

?

Com

pan

yha

sno

H&

Spolic

yC

om

pan

yha

sH

&S

polic

y,but

nopla

nin

stig

ated

Com

pan

yha

sH

&S

polic

ybut

pla

nonl

yco

vers

the

most

dan

gero

usas

pec

ts

Com

pan

yha

sH

&S

polic

yan

dpla

ndra

wn

upby

ano

n-ded

icat

edH

&S

emplo

yee

cove

ring

all

aspec

ts

Full

pla

ndev

ised

by

ded

icat

edH

&S

emplo

yee

cove

ring

all

aspec

ts

5

(vi)

Will

the

pla

nm

eet

natio

nalr

egul

atory

(EA

)gu

idel

ines

?

No

Yes

with

maj

or

alte

ratio

nYe

sw

ithm

odifi

catio

nYe

sw

ithm

inor

alte

ratio

nYe

s5

(vii)

Are

targ

etco

ntam

inan

tco

ncen

trat

ions

des

igne

dto

mee

tle

gislat

ion?

Min

imum

need

edfo

rsh

ort

-ter

mus

eofsite

Min

imum

requi

red

by

legi

slat

ion

Exce

edta

rget

sre

qui

red

by

legi

slat

ion

Exce

edm

inim

umne

eded

for

even

the

most

sens

itive

pote

ntia

lfut

ure

site

use

Com

ple

tere

mova

lof

pollu

tant

3

(viii)

Has

alif

ecy

cle

asse

ssm

ent

bee

ndone

?

None

No

cate

gory

Par

tial

No

cate

gory

Yes

3

(ix)

Has

asu

stai

nability

optio

nap

pra

isal

bee

ndone

?

No

awar

enes

sof

sust

aina

bility

optio

nap

pra

isal

tech

nique

s

No

form

alap

pra

isal

but

awar

eof

sust

aina

bility

Yes,

cove

ring

the

min

ority

ofas

pec

tsYe

s,co

vering

the

maj

ority

ofas

pec

tsYe

s,co

vering

alla

spec

tsoft

hepro

ject

2

(x)

Bio

div

ersity/h

abita

tcr

eatio

nas

sess

men

tw

ithap

pro

priat

em

itiga

tion

Har

mfu

lto

bio

div

ersity

No

asse

ssm

ent

bee

nca

rrie

dout

Ass

esse

das

noef

fect

May

aid

impro

vem

ent

Cont

ribut

esto

impro

ving

bio

div

ersity

5

(xi)

Esta

blis

hmen

tofth

edes

ign

team

atan

early

stag

e

No

nece

ssar

ypar

tyin

volv

edea

rly

One

nece

ssar

ypar

tyin

volv

edea

rly

Two

nece

ssar

ypar

ties

invo

lved

early

More

than

two

nece

ssar

ypar

ties

invo

lved

early

All

nece

ssar

ypar

ties

invo

lved

early

—

(xii)

Has

the

des

ign

team

bee

ntr

aine

din

‘just

suffi

cien

t’des

ign

met

hods?

None

oft

hete

amha

sbee

nM

inority

ofth

ete

amha

sbee

nEq

uals

plit

Maj

ority

ofth

ete

amha

sbee

nA

llofth

ete

amha

sbee

n4


geotechnical engineering process that affect sustainability and

occur along an EG project timeline. The timeline scale provides a

clear, concise overview of a project’s phases (A–H) and allows for

ease of reference from key stakeholders who may not be experts

in the field of EG. From here it is possible to show potential

interactions between each project phase along a project timeline.

Each stage of the assessment is given a final score out of 5, which

can be calculated from the ‘generic indicators’ shown in

Tables 2–9 (detailing stages A–H respectively). These can be

applied at an operational level within any geotechnical project

being undertaken. In addition to, and allied with, these indicators

is a set of ‘technique-specific indicators’ relating to remediation

methods (i.e. removal, containment, ex situ, in situ and passive)

and these should be applied where appropriate (see Tables 3(b),

6(b), 8(b) and 9(b)). For example, when assessing a site that is

using removal techniques, additional indicators will be required

in the design stage (Table 3(b)) only, whereas containment

techniques will require additions in the design (Table 3(b)),

construction (Table 6(b)) and long-term stages (Table 9(b)). Each

generic indicator gives a measure of the ‘effect on sustainability

by use of points’: 1 (harmful) to 5 (significantly improved). The

rating system allows for ease of allocation of points against

individual indicators. These are measured using a full range of

options that adopt quantitative rather than qualitative measures

where appropriate, thereby eliminating variance in the output of

an assessment, this being arguably one of the primary failings of

the current systems described in Section 3.

The scores (including additions) from each stage are totalled,

averaged and plotted as shown in Fig. 2. From here it is possible

to identify the project stage with the weakest ‘sustainability

credentials’. The process of applying the indicators is iterative

and improvements can be incorporated into the assessment

system as the project stages progress (Fig. 3). Each of the project

stages is now discussed briefly.

. Stage A. Feasibility covers the initial idea phase of a project and

will usually include a desk study to highlight areas where

further investigation is necessary, a site investigation to look for

‘hot spots’ of contamination and chemical analyses.29 The seven

generic indicators (i–vii) within this stage are shown in Table 2.

. Stage B. Design options have an extremely significant effect on

a project and it is here where risks to the project and health and

safety can be highlighted (corporate design management

(CDM) and quantified risk assessment respectively) and where

costs (life cycle assessment and whole life) can be assessed.1

Legislation (e.g. refs 30–34) in conjunction with option

appraisal35 is of vital importance in reducing the risk of

contamination and this should be considered at the earliest

stages in design. In addition, the design stage is where the

majority of sustainability criteria (e.g. habitat creation,

sustainable materials) can and should be incorporated; hence

appropriate indicators are assigned here also. ‘Just sufficient

design’ acknowledges the practice of providing oversized

systems to ‘worst case’ design principles36 and the principle is

acknowledged in the EGI as it can reduce sustainability costs.

The establishment of a design team with the right people

(i.e. geotechnical engineers, engineering geologists, geo-

environmental engineers) at the earliest stage in the project

timeline is vitally important—a full team will enable the right

site investigation and site appraisal to be carried out and,

importantly, will facilitate a more sustainable outcome by their

Table

3(a).

Continued

Des

ign

indic

ator

Effe

cton

sust

aina

bility

Poin

ts(1

–5)

Har

mfu

lR

educ

tion

Neu

tral

Impro

ved

Sign

ifica

ntly

impro

ved

(xiii)

Perc

enta

geofsu

pplie

ssp

ecifi

edfr

om

sust

aina

ble

sour

ces

or

recy

cled

mat

eria

l

,20%

20–30%

30–40%

40–50%

.50%

1

(xiv

)D

oes

the

des

ign

asse

ssw

hole

life

cost

s?

No

Cost

sac

coun

ted

for

until

the

end

ofth

eco

ntra

ctors

’w

arra

nty

Inte

rnal

asse

ssm

ent

by

untr

aine

ddes

igne

rIn

tern

alas

sess

men

tby

trai

ned

des

igne

rYe

s,us

ing

are

cogn

ised

sust

aina

bility

tool(

BR

E)4

Ave

rage

EGIsc

ore

for

the

awar

dpha

se(i–xi

v)3. 9

Table

3(a).

GenericstageBdesignindicators

(points

relate

tothecase

studydescribed

inSection5)


Des

ign

indic

ator

Effe

cton

sust

aina

bility

Poin

ts(1

–5)

Har

mfu

lR

educ

tion

Neu

tral

Impro

ved

Sign

ifica

ntly

impro

ved

(xv)

Cont

amin

ant

conc

entr

atio

nobje

ctiv

e(s

olid

ifica

tion)

Sign

ifica

ntly

low

erth

angu

idel

ines

usin

gpro

ven

bin

der

s

Low

erth

angu

idel

ines

usin

gpro

ven

bin

der

sM

inim

umto

achi

eve

legi

slat

ion

with

pro

ven

bin

der

s

Min

imum

toac

hiev

ele

gislat

ion

with

non-

pro

ven

bin

der

s

Hig

her

than

guid

elin

es—

(xvi

)D

oes

the

rem

edia

tion

choic

ele

ave

any

issu

esfo

rong

oin

gco

nstr

uctio

n?(a

llco

ntai

nmen

tty

pes

)

Cont

amin

ant

cont

aine

dbut

futu

repiling

will

be

inva

sive

Cont

amin

ant

cont

aine

dbut

futu

repiling

may

be

inva

sive

No

piling

pla

nned

Cont

amin

ant

cont

aine

dout

side

ofpiling

loca

tion

Cont

amin

ant

rem

ove

d—

nore

strict

ions

on

piling

5

(xvi

i)C

hang

esto

groun

dw

ater

(all

cont

ainm

ent

types

)

Bui

ldup

ofw

ater

notpla

nned

for

Bui

ldup

ofw

ater

pla

nned

toonl

ybe

apro

ble

min

extr

eme

circ

umst

ance

s

No

chan

geC

om

ple

tein

tegr

ated

dra

inag

esy

stem

inco

rpora

ted

into

and

aroun

dth

etr

eate

dar

ea

Pre

fere

ntia

lflow

pat

hsdes

igne

dto

allo

wbet

ter

natu

rald

rain

age

aroun

dth

esite

2

(xvi

ii)G

roun

dim

pro

vem

ent

(GI)

pla

nned

inth

efu

ture

(cap

pin

g)

GIm

ayno

tre

duc

eth

ebui

ldle

vele

noug

hto

pro

vide

adeq

uate

cove

r

GIlo

wer

sth

ebui

ldle

vel

requi

ring

more

clea

nso

ilto

pro

vide

cove

r

No

GIpla

nned

GIin

troduc

escl

ean

soil

dee

per

than

the

cove

rC

ove

rpro

vides

aw

ork

ing

pla

tform

for

ong

oin

gG

Ioper

atio

ns

—

(xix

)Ex

cava

tion

pla

n(e

xsitu

trea

tmen

ts)

Soil

rem

ove

dco

mple

tely

requi

ring

tem

pora

rysu

pport

then

bac

kfille

daf

ter

trea

tmen

t

Soil

rem

ove

din

cells

requi

ring

tem

pora

rysu

pport

then

bac

kfille

daf

ter

trea

tmen

t

Soil

rem

ove

din

cells

requi

ring

atm

ost

grad

edslopes

Exca

vatio

npar

tofth

est

ruct

ure,i

.e.b

asem

ents

,us

ing

per

man

ent

mat

eria

ls(c

onc

rete

,etc

.)

Exca

vatio

npar

tofth

est

ruct

ure,i

.e.b

asem

ents

,us

ing

tem

pora

rym

ater

ials

(reu

sed

shee

tpile

s,et

c.)

5

(xx)

Sam

plin

gra

te(e

xsitu

trea

tmen

ts)

Het

eroge

neous

soil

with

sam

ple

freq

uenc

yno

tlin

ked

torisk

asse

ssm

ent

Hom

oge

neous

soil

with

sam

ple

freq

uenc

yno

tlin

ked

torisk

asse

ssm

ent

Sam

plin

gca

rrie

dout

usin

ghi

storica

l/em

piric

alfr

eque

ncy

pla

n

Het

eroge

neous

soil

with

min

imum

sam

ple

slin

ked

torisk

asse

ssm

ent

Hom

oge

neous

soil

with

min

imum

sam

ple

slin

ked

torisk

asse

ssm

ent

4

Table

3(b).

Technique-specificstageBdesignindicators

(points

relate

tothecase

studydescribed

inSection5)


Award indicator

Effect on sustainability

Points (1–5)Harmful Reduction Neutral ImprovedSignificantlyimproved

(i) What type ofprocurement?

Lowest cost-competitivetender

Negotiatedcontract

Pre-qualificationlist

Contractor/sub-contractorpartnership

Public–privatepartnership

4

(ii) At what stagedoes thespecialistremediationcontractorbecomeinvolved in thedesign?

No input fromspecialist sub-contractor

Tender stage withmore than 1month beforesubmission

Concurrently withthe maincontractor

Pre-detaileddesign inconsultationwith the client’sengineer

Pre-detaileddesign inpartnershipwith theengineer

5

(iii) Does thecontractor haveISO 14001 (or aformal EMS)?

No Undergoingaccreditation

A minority ofbusiness unitsare accredited

The majority ofbusiness unitsare accredited

All business unitsare accredited

5

(iv) Percentage ofsub-contractsupply by valuefrom ISO 14001accreditedsuppliers

,10% 10–20% 20–35% 35–50% .50% 2

(v) Does thecontractor haveInvestors InPeople (IiP)accreditation?





3

(vi) Percentage ofsub-contractsupply by valuefrom IiPaccreditedsuppliers

,10% 10–20% 20–35% 35–50% .50% 3

(vii) Has thecontractor hadany formalnuisance noticesserved?

More than 1 in theprevious threeyears

1 in the previousthree years

1 in the previous 5years

1 prior to ISO14001certification

Never 3

(viii) Safety record byreportableincidents

50% higher thanthe sectoraverage

25% higher thanthe sectoraverage

Within 5% of thesector average

25% lower thanthe sectoraverage

50% lower thanthe sectoraverage

3

(ix) Does thecontractor carryout internalevaluation usingKPIs?

NeverimplementedKPIs

Developing a KPIsystem

A minority ofbusiness unitsuse KPIs

The majority ofbusiness unitsuse KPIs

All business unitsuse KPIs

4

(x) Does thecontractorproduce formalreports forstakeholders?

No Irregularenvironmentalor socialperformancereports

Irregularenvironmentaland socialperformancereports

Annualenvironmentalor socialperformancereports

Annualenvironmentaland socialperformancereports

2

(xi) Whatpercentage ofemployeesundergoawarenesstraining?

,10% 10–50% 50–75% 75–100% 100% 5

(xii) Does thecontractor havea qualitymanagementsystem, e.g.ISO 9001?





5

Average EGI score for the award phase (i–xii) of the case study 3.7

Table 4. Generic stage C award indicators (points relate to the case study described in Section 5)


Mobilisa

tion

indic

ator

Effe

cton

sust

aina

bility

Poin

ts(1

–5)

Har

mfu

lR

educ

tion

Neu

tral

Impro

ved

Sign

ifica

ntly

impro

ved

(i)

How

muc

hpla

ntis

need

ed?

Pla

ntm

obilise

dth

atis

not

for

cont

inge

ncy

and

neve

rus

edPla

nthe

ldin

cont

inge

ncy

but

neve

rus

edM

inim

umpla

nthe

ldin

cont

inge

ncy

but

even

tual

lyus

ed

All

pla

ntus

edat

som

est

age

on

site

All

pla

ntut

ilise

d100%

ofth

etim

eon

site

4

(ii)

Hav

eal

ldel

iver

ies

(pla

ntan

dm

ater

ials)

bee

nch

ose

nto

min

imise

acce

ssdisru

ptio

n?

Mul

tiple

acce

ssro

utes

that

do

not

avoid

residen

tiala

reas

Sing

leac

cess

rout

ecr

eate

dth

atdoes

not

avoid

residen

tiala

reas

All

del

iver

ies

use

sing

leex

istin

gac

cess

rout

ebut

do

not

avoid

residen

tiala

reas

Sing

lene

wac

cess

rout

ecr

eate

dth

atav

oid

sre

siden

tiala

reas

All

del

iver

ies

use

sing

leex

istin

gac

cess

rout

ean

dav

oid

residen

tiala

reas

3

(iii)

Ingr

ess

and

egre

ssR

oad

closu

res

nece

ssar

yto

cran

epla

ntont

oth

esite

No

traf

ficm

anag

emen

tsy

stem

Traf

ficm

anag

emen

tsy

stem

inpla

cew

ithno

ticea

ble

cont

rolle

ddisru

ptio

n

Traf

ficm

anag

emen

tsy

stem

inpla

cew

ithm

inor

cont

rolle

ddisru

ptio

n

Traf

ficm

anag

emen

tsy

stem

inpla

cew

ithno

disru

ptio

nan

dro

adcl

eani

ngsc

hem

ein

effe

ct

4

(iv)

Tran

sport

atio

nPla

ntm

obilise

dfr

om

stora

ge(.

40

mile

s)Pla

ntm

obilise

dfr

om

stora

ge(,

40

mile

s)Pla

ntbro

ught

direc

tfr

om

oth

erpro

ject

natio

nally

(.40

mile

s)

Pla

ntbro

ught

direc

tfr

om

oth

erpro

ject

loca

lly(,

40

mile

s)

Pla

nthi

red

from

loca

lfirm

1

(v)

Labour

No

loca

llab

our

emplo

yed

,10%

ofw

ork

forc

eis

loca

l(w

ithin

20

mile

s)10–25%

ofw

ork

forc

eis

loca

l(w

ithin

20

mile

s)25–50%

ofw

ork

forc

eis

loca

l(w

ithin

20

mile

s).

50%

ofw

ork

forc

eis

loca

l(w

ithin

20

mile

s)5

(vi)

Perc

enta

geofm

ater

ials

(by

volu

me)

del

iver

edfr

om

sust

aina

ble

sour

ces

or

recy

cled

mat

eria

l

,20%

20–30%

30–40%

40–50%

.50%

2

(vii)

Mat

eria

lsso

urce

dlo

cally

,20%

20–30%

30–40%

40–50%

.50%

5A

vera

geEG

Isc

ore

for

the

mobilisa

tion

pha

se(i–vi

i)ofth

eca

sest

udy

3. 4

Table

5.GenericstageD

mobilisationindicators

(points

relate

tothecase

studydescribed

inSection5)


Cons

truc

tion

indic

ator

Effe

cton

sust

aina

bility

Poin

ts(1

–5)

Har

mfu

lR

educ

tion

Neu

tral

Impro

ved

Sign

ifica

ntly

impro

ved

(i)

Wha

tper

cent

age

ofm

ater

ials

are

dispose

dofin

rela

tion

tom

ater

ials

supplie

d?

.30%

30–15%

15–10%

10–5%

,5%

4

(ii)

Hav

ere

new

able

ener

gysy

stem

sbee

nus

edon

site

?N

one

Cons

ider

edbut

igno

red

Cons

ider

edbut

not

pra

ctic

alM

inor

usag

eSi

gnifi

cant

usag

e3

(iii)

Isus

eofm

ains

wat

erre

duc

ed?

No

rest

rict

ions

on

mai

nsw

ater

Mai

nsw

ater

with

usag

eco

ntro

lG

rey

wat

erus

ed—

nore

use

ofpro

cess

wat

erPro

cess

wat

erre

used

inco

mbin

atio

nw

ithm

ains

wat

er

Pro

cess

wat

erre

used

inco

mbin

atio

nw

ithgr

eyw

ater

2

(iv)

Isth

ere

adus

tsu

ppre

ssio

npla

n?N

oPla

nto

reduc

edus

tcr

eatio

nW

ater

spra

ydam

pen

ers

usin

gm

ains

wat

erW

ater

spra

ydam

pen

ers

usin

ggr

eyw

ater

Inte

grat

eddus

tpre

vent

ion

pla

nim

ple

men

ted

2

(v)

Foss

ilfu

elus

age

No

rest

rict

ions

on

use

of

foss

ilfu

els

Foss

ilfu

elus

age

limite

dby

awar

enes

str

aini

ngFo

ssil

fuel

use

min

imised

by

actio

npla

nSo

me

foss

ilfu

elus

ere

pla

ced

by

alte

rnat

ives

All

foss

ilfu

elus

ech

ange

dto

alte

rnat

ive

pow

erso

urce

s2

(vi)

Cal

cula

tion

ofC

O2

emissions

and

embodie

den

ergy

(EE)

Not

cons

ider

edC

ons

ider

edbut

not

under

take

nPar

tiala

naly

sis

for

eith

erC

O2

or

EEPar

tiala

naly

sis

for

CO

2an

dEE

Full

anal

ysis

for

CO

2an

dEE

—

(vii)

Air

qua

lity:

sulp

hur

dio

xide

and

NO

x

Onl

yco

al/o

ilus

edon

site

Maj

or

coal/o

ilra

tioto

gas

Equa

lcoal/o

ilra

tioto

gas

Min

or

coal/o

ilra

tioto

gas

Cle

ante

chno

logy

used

(sola

r,et

c.)

4

(viii)

Air

qua

lity:

ozo

neV

OC

san

dN

Ox

allo

wed

toco

mbin

eN

oac

tion

No

cate

gory

Pre

vent

ion

pla

nto

min

imise

and

separ

ate

NO

xan

dV

OC

s

No

VO

Cs

allo

wed

into

the

atm

osp

here

on

site

4

(ix)

Air

qua

lity:

par

ticul

ate

No

pla

ntfit

ted

with

par

ticul

ate

filte

rM

inority

ofpla

ntfit

ted

with

par

ticul

ate

filte

rEv

ensp

litM

ost

pla

ntfit

ted

with

par

ticul

ate

filte

rA

llpla

ntto

be

fitte

dw

ithpar

ticul

ate

filte

r5

(x)

Obst

ruct

ion

ofl

ight

by

smoke

.10%

ofon-

site

time

10–5%

ofon-

site

time

5–1%

ofon-

site

time

,1%

ofon-

site

time

No

visible

smoke

pro

duc

ed5

(xi)

Isth

ere

ano

ise

pre

vent

ion

pla

n?N

oise

issu

esig

nore

dA

war

enes

sofno

ise

issu

esSi

tecu

rfew

sin

forc

eA

llpla

nttr

eate

dw

ithno

ise

cont

rolm

easu

res

Inte

grat

edno

ise

pre

vent

ion

pla

nim

ple

men

ted

3

(xii)

Are

alli

tem

sof‘w

et’p

lant

(e.g

.fue

lbow

sers

)pro

per

lypro

tect

edag

ains

tsp

ills?

No

bun

ds

on

site

Som

epro

tect

ion

inpla

ce.

Stat

icpla

ntpro

tect

edM

ajority

ofpla

ntpro

tect

edfr

om

leak

sA

ll‘w

et’p

lant

pro

tect

edfr

om

leak

s5

(xiii)

Has

the

site

super

viso

rac

tivel

yw

ork

edto

reduc

em

ove

men

ts?

No

rest

rict

ions

Pla

nin

pla

cebut

not

fully

imple

men

ted

On-

site

move

men

tsm

inim

ised

Del

iver

ies

tosite

min

imised

All

traf

ficm

ove

men

tsas

sess

edan

dm

inim

ised

4

(xiv

)Lo

calc

om

mun

ityse

rvic

esdisru

ptio

nM

ajor

utility

lost

on

more

than

one

occ

asio

ndue

tosite

activ

ity

Maj

or

utility

lost

on

one

occ

asio

ndue

tosite

activ

ity

No

serv

ices

disru

pte

dby

def

ault

Maj

or

utility

unab

leto

be

mai

ntai

ned,b

utco

mm

unity

info

rmed

ofdisru

ptio

nan

dco

mpen

sate

d

Pla

nned

actio

nta

ken

tono

tdisru

pt

any

serv

ices

5

(xv)

Isan

ytim

elo

stth

roug

hre

gula

tory

rest

rict

ions

bei

ngim

pose

d?

Site

close

dte

mpora

rily

and

afin

eis

issu

edSi

tecl

ose

dte

mpora

rily

with

nofin

esissu

edW

arni

ngpro

vided

and

acte

don

imm

edia

tely

No

rest

rict

ions

No

rest

rict

ions

and

deb

rief

pro

vides

feed

bac

kat

end

ofpro

ject

4

(xvi

)Pla

ntw

ashi

ngfa

cilit

ies

No

pla

ntw

ashi

ngPla

ntw

ashi

ngus

ing

mai

nsw

ater

and

non-

bio

deg

radab

ledet

erge

nts

Pla

ntw

ashi

ngus

ing

mai

nsw

ater

and

bio

deg

radab

ledet

erge

nts

Pla

ntw

ashi

ngw

ithgr

eyw

ater

syst

eman

dbio

deg

radab

ledet

erge

nts

Pla

ntw

ashi

ngw

ithgr

eyw

ater

recy

clin

gsy

stem

and

nodet

erge

nts

3

Ave

rage

EGIsc

ore

for

the

cons

truc

tion

pha

se(i–xv

i)ofth

eca

sest

udy

3. 7

Table

6(a).

GenericstageEconstructionindicators

(points

relate

tothecase

studydescribed

inSection5)


Construction indicator



(xvii) Groundobstructions (allcontainmenttypes)

Site investigationoverlookedtheobstructionrisk; time loston site;treatmentincomplete

Obstructions notpredicted andtime lost buttreatmentcompleted

Obstructionspredicted andcontingencyplan allowedfull completionof treatment

Obstructionspredicted butnoneencountered

No obstructionsencounteredin accordancewith siteinvestigation

3

(xviii) Sheet pileconstruction(verticalbarriers)

Normal impacthammer usedless than 50 mfrom nearestresidential area

Normal impacthammer usedmore than 50 mfrom nearestresidential area

Silent hammerused less than50 m fromnearestresidential area

Silent hammerused more than50 m fromnearestresidential area

Hydraulic pressinstallationsystem used

—

(xix) Slurry wall(verticalbarriers)

Bentonite fluidused onceprior todisposal

Bentonite fluidreused prior todisposal

Bentonite fluidreused thendewateredprior todisposal

Bentonite fluidused once thendewatered priorto disposal; greywater reused

Bentonite fluidreused thendewateredprior todisposal; greywater reused

3

(xx) Slurry wallbatching plant(verticalbarriers)

High silos locatednear to siteboundary.De-sandingunit usingfossil fuels

Visual impact ofsilos notaddressed.De-sanding unitusing fossil fuels

Silos located toreduceexternalimpact.De-sandingunit using fossilfuels

High silos locatednear to siteboundary.De-sanding unitusing alternativefuels

Silos located toreduceexternalimpact.De-sandingunit usingalternativepower

3

(xxi) Surface waterrun-off (capping,solidification)

Soakaway wherewater mayre-enter thecontaminatedarea

Drains runningthrough thecontaminatedarea; risk of pipeburst

No action Drains linked tomains sewer

Soakawaysplanned

outside oftreatmentareas

—

(xxii) Pre-screening(all ex situtreatments)

Pre-screeningdoes notreduce amounttreated; VOCemissions notcollected

Pre-screeningreduces amounttreated; VOCemissions notcollected

No pre-screeningcarried outsince it wouldbe ineffective

Pre-screeningreduces amounttreated; VOCemissionscontrolled thendisposed

Pre-screeningreducesamounttreated; VOCemissionscollected andreused

4

(xxiii) End use of offgas(all ex situtreatments)

Burnt offwith noenergycollection

Collected andtransported offsite for electricitygeneration, butrequiringextensivetreatment

No offgasgenerated

Collected andtransported offsite for electricitygeneration; notreatmentrequired

Used on site forelectricitygenerationwith notreatmentrequired

3

(xxiv) What is the enduse of removedspoil? (all ex situtreatments)

Untreated andcompletelyremoved tolandfill(includingwastebyproducts)

Treated andpartially used offsite, someremoval tolandfill(excluding wastebyproducts)

Treated andpartially usedon site, someremoval tolandfill(excludingwastebyproducts)

Treated andcompletely usedas fill off site(excluding wastebyproducts)

Treated andcompletelyused as fill onsite (excludingwastebyproducts)

4

(xxv) Chemicaladditives (allex situtreatments)

Additives requirefurthertreatment andare notcompletelyremoved

Additives requirefurthertreatment andare completelyremoved

No additivesneeded

All additivesbiodegradable inthe long term

All additivesbiodegradablein the shortterm

3

(xxvi) Treatmentlocation (allex situtreatments)

Transportedto off-sitetreatment inopencontainers

Transported tooff-sitetreatment inclosedcontainersthen disposed of

Transported tooff-sitetreatment inclosedcontainersthen reused

Treated on site andtransported tobe reused off site

Treated on siteand reusedon site

3

(Table continued )


Table 6(b). Continued




(xxvii) Control ofparticulateemissions (TD)

Particulategenerationignored onexcavation andunfiltered ontreatment

Particulategenerationcontrolled onexcavation(dust), butunfiltered ontreatment

Particulategenerationfiltered ontreatment(smoke), butuncontrolledon excavation

Controlled onexcavation(dust) andfiltered ontreatment(smoke)

Monitored andcontrolled onexcavation(dust) andfiltered ontreatment(smoke)

—

(xxviii) Addition ofcatalysts/reagents totreat pH (exsitu bio)

Production oforganic acidsnot controlleddue toinsufficientaddition ofcatalyst

Production oforganic acids notcontrolled

No organic acidsproduced

Production oforganic acidscontrolled byaddition ofcatalyst (e.g.lime)

Production oforganic acidscontrolled byselection ofbiologicalagent

—

(xxix) Plant, materialand workingspace (ex situbio)

None of (a)to (c) shownon right, plusmaterialimported forlinerconstruction

None of (a) to (c)shown on right

One of (a) to (c)shown on right

Two of (a) to (c)shown on right

(a) Existingsurface usedfor treatmentarea. (b) Noimportation ofmaterial forhaul road.(c) All ancillaryplant (i.e.blower pipes)reusable.

—

(xxx) Determinationof temperatureregime (ex situbio)

Thermophilicrequiringheatingelements; noincrease inrange treated;no timeconstraints

Thermophilicrequiring heatingelements;increased rangetreated; no timeconstraints

Thermophilicrequiringheatingelements;increasedtreatmenteffect due totimeconstraints

Meso/thermophilicusing naturalheating withinproject timescale

Mesophilic withcompletetreatment of allcontaminantswithin projecttimescale

—

(xxxi) Addition ofbulking agents(ex situ bio)

Bulking agentsaddedcausing adeteriorationin geotechnicalpropertiespreventingreuse

Bulking agentsadded byguesswork, nochange ingeotechnicalproperties butnot reused

Bulking agentsessential toprovidethoroughremediation,minimised butnot reused

Bulking agentsminimised (bylab. tests) anddesigned toassist reuse oftreated spoil offsite

Bulking agentsminimised (bylab. tests) anddesigned toassist reuse oftreated spoilon site

—

(xxxii) Projectflexibility andoptimisation(all in situ)

System fixedthroughoutproject

Small changespossible throughvariation ofpumps but withno monitoringfeedback

Small changespossiblethroughvariation ofpumps andwithmonitoringfeedback

Capacity toimplementmajor changeslinked tofeedback frommonitoring

Monitoring linkedto system withall elementshavingalternativeplans

—

(xxxiii) Hazardprotectionmeasures (all insitu)

No specificexplosioncontrols inplace

Some explosioncontrol but notmeeting H&Sfully

Minimum tomeet H&Srequirements

(a) Spark arrestersfitted. (b)Discharge unittemperaturecontrol. (c) Fireprotectionequipmentprovided

All of (a) to (c)plus low-lyinggas collectionareascontrolled (i.e.excavations)

—

(xxxiv) Groundwaterfluid flow (all insitu exceptSVE)

Actions creatediversion offlow outsideoriginal zonenot noticeduntil afterdemobilisation

Actions createsmall diversionof flow outsideoriginal zone,but this isnoticed andtreated

Actions have nodetrimentalnor beneficialeffect on flow

Actions show smallbeneficial effectupon flow

Actions create apositive effecton flowincreasing theremediationrate

—

(Table continued )


early interaction. Therefore points are awarded accordingly.

There are 14 generic indicators (i–xiv) and 6 technology-

specific indicators (xv–xx) within this stage, as shown in

Tables 3(a) and 3(b) respectively. Indicator (xi) was added after

application of the EGI system to the case history to allow the

impact of the inclusion of the right balance of skills at the

design stage to be assessed.

. Stage C. Award. The award stage (i.e. the procurement process)

has a variety of options and directions. In major projects many

benefits can derive from partnering agreements, not least

because a specialist geotechnics contractor can be involved at

the feasibility and design stage. This is unlikely to occur if the

client opts for the lowest competitive tender, hence credit is

given here. The ‘sustainability credentials’ of a sub-contractor

are important to the overall assessment and these can be

measured by looking at the sub-contractor’s previous history

(e.g. safety and nuisance records) and current methods of self-

evaluation (e.g. KPIs, international environmental standards

such as ISO 14001,15 quality control standards covered by the

ISO 9000 series, IiP17 (awards that measure the social

credentials of a contractor)). The 12 generic indicators (i–xii)

within this stage are detailed in Table 4.

. Stages D–F. Mobilisation, construction and demobilisation

refer to the commissioning stage of the project (these

indicators are applied simultaneously). The EGI system

assesses the sustainability of the methods of construction on

site rather than what is actually being built. Minimal

movement of people and equipment and use of transport are

encouraged, as are improvements to air quality and reduction

in noise. Points are awarded for using local suppliers, local

workforces and reclaimed materials (e.g. ground granulated

blast-furnace slag to replace cement37 or pulverised fuel-ash to

provide resistance against ammonia attack), all of which

comply with important sustainability principles. Disposal of

materials and use of fossil fuels is discouraged, while

alternative energy supply technologies are encouraged (e.g.

solar, wind) as is reduction in mains water use (e.g. through

water-saving devices or grey water usage, rainwater

harvesting or process water recovery and reuse). All of these

can help reduce the effects of climate change, not least by

reducing CO2 emissions. The calculation of all CO2 emissions

and embodied energy (EE) is deemed an important benchmark

for construction, such that innovative methods of

construction, materials or energy sources can be expressed

quantifiably in terms of increased sustainability within the

construction sector and therefore points are awarded for this

also. In the EGI system, the introduction of any chemicals into

the ground as solvents, reagents or surfactants is discouraged

and these are reflected in the scoring system. The mobilisation

stage consists of 7 generic indicators (i–vii), as shown in

Table 5. The construction stage consists of 16 generic

indicators (i–xvi) and 21 technology-specific indicators (xvii–

xxxvii), as shown in Tables 6(a) and 6(b) respectively. Table 7

details the 4 generic indicators (i–iv) of the demobilisation

stage. Indicator (vi) was added to the construction stage

(Table 6(a)) after application of the EGI system to the case

history to allow CO2 emission and EE assessments to be

encouraged, thus allowing the important impact that these

have on sustainability to be embedded in any assessment.

. Stage G. Monitoring is required to ensure that contaminant

levels are reduced and maintained at guideline values. There

are 4 generic indicators (i–iv) and 2 technology-specific

indicators (v–vi), as shown in Tables 8(a) and 8(b) respectively.

. Stage H. Long-term factors include a range of societal effects,

such as the use of the land after remediation (e.g. new

employment opportunities, residential areas, infrastructure

and leisure facilities, reduced risk of pollution incidents). The

EGI system encourages low maintenance and minimal

Table 6(b). Continued




(xxxv) Disposal ofspoil fromtrenchexcavations(PRB & verticalbarrier)

Untreated andcompletelyremoved tolandfill

Treated andpartially used offsite, someremoval tolandfill

Treated andpartially usedon site, someremoval tolandfill

Treated andcompletely usedas fill off site

Treated andcompletelyused as fillon site

—

(xxxvi) Addition ofhydrogenperoxide(EISB)

.150 ppb,extensiveinhibition ofmicro-organismactivity

150–100 ppb,some inhibitionof micro-organism activity

100–50 ppb, noinhibition ofmicro-organismactivity

50–25 ppb, noinhibition ofmicro-organismactivity

,25 ppb, noinhibition ofmicro-organismactivity

—

(xxxvii) Amount ofwaterextracted(dual-phasevacuum)

Lower thanexpectedcontaminantconcentration;very largewatervolumesextracted

Medium to lowcontaminantconcentration;above averagewater volumesextracted

Mediumcontaminantconcentrationsallow averagewater volumesto beextracted

Medium to highcontaminantconcentrationsallow smallwater volumesto beextracted

High contaminantconcentrationsallow verysmall watervolumes to beextracted

—

Table 6(b). Technique-specific stage E construction indicators (points relate to the case study described in Section 5) (SVE, soil vapourextraction; PRB, permeable reactive barrier; EISB, enhanced in situ bioremediation)


disruption so as to keep sustainability costs as low as possible.

Information dissemination to locals is encouraged. Companies

may benefit from reduced contamination (e.g. better insurance

rates) and improved relations with the community, and hence

points are awarded for these categories also. There are 12

generic indicators (i–xii) and 3 technology specific indicators

(xiii–xiv), as shown in Tables 9(a) and 9(b) respectively.

4.2. Implementation of the EGI system

The EGI system developed from a need to take a higher level view

of the very many issues that must be faced and decisions that need

to be taken that have the potential to impact on the ‘sustainability

credentials’ of a project. It is often stated that sustainability is so

ill-defined that it is difficult to judge whether any one action is

better or worse; in turn, this argument is used to justify the lack of

change in approach. The adoption of a series of indicators that

address each issue or decision in a tangible manner is important if

the system is to be practically applicable.38 Stating each of the

issues in their own right, rather than in the context of the

economic, social and environmental pillars, facilitates better

decision-making. Firstly it informs the decision-maker of the issue

and what might be done; it then allows alternative solutions to

suggest themselves; and finally it allows (economic) costing

decisions to be taken on an informed basis (i.e. knowing what

should be done and consciously choosing to compromise where

necessary, although it should be noted that very often

sustainability does not mean an increase in financial cost).

The EGI system was developed by analysing in great detail the

practices associated with the built environment, applying

considerable engineering experience and deriving relevant

indicators. All of this is encapsulated in the tables. The essential

structure is based on the timeline ideas being developed in the

Birmingham Eastside project39 and reflects the fact that decisions

taken at one stage have the potential to impact on every

subsequent stage. Thus, once a first attempt to model a sequence of

decisions and actions associated with a particular site development

has been taken, the effect of changing any one decision can be

reassessed at each stage of the timeline or more graphically by

rotation around the rose diagram to explore whether the line

depicting the averaged score moves inwards or outwards. This is

important in the context of EG for two reasons. The first is related

to the criticism, often repeated in industry,38 that the remediation

process adopted for a particular site is found to cause other

unwanted environmental, social or economic consequences that

are as serious as the original problem. While such statements

might prove to be exaggerations of the true situation, it is precisely

because of the lack of a measurement system to place the

consequences into a proper context that such comments go

unchallenged. The EGI system provides the means to do this by

accounting for all future consequences of such an action.

Secondly, what happens in or to the ground at the start of a project

is widely considered3, 6, 38 to be the most important in contributing

or otherwise to the sustainability of a development, that is,

impacts throughout the life cycle of a development are strongly

affected by the decisions taken on geotechnical processes. In short,

these processes appear early in the timeline and their effects are

generally very difficult to change after the processes have been

carried out; they therefore have a greater opportunity to make an

impact than later, more ‘easily reversible’ decisions.

Of equal importance is the flexibility of the system to adapt to

changes in the context of the site or understanding of the issues.

The EGI system is formulated on a set of generic and a set of site-

specific processes (or technology-specific) indicators. These are

drawn up on the basis of experience and best available

knowledge at any one time. A process, termed the redevelopment

assessment framework,38 has been proposed for the development

of suitable site-specific indicators associated with brownfield

development, and this represents an excellent way to formulate

robust indicators that have consensual relevance. Both generic

and technology-specific indicators can, and should, be reviewed

in the future in response to developing technologies and

environmental legislation. The indicators and/or their target

values can be amended as appropriate and new averages

calculated. As a result of this process, ideas will be refined and

indicators can be added or removed, and their importance can be

reflected by so doing. This process will further inform the

Demobilisationindicator



(i) How muchplant is reused?

Majority unusable Majority withmaintenance

All reused butwith everythingneedingmaintenance

All reused withsome needingmaintenance

All reused;maintenancefree

4

(ii) Where willequipmentgo ondemobilisation?

All equipmentreturned tocentral storage

Majority ofequipmentreturned tocentral storage

50/50 splitbetween nextjob andreturned tostorage

Majority ofequipment toanother sitedirectly

All equipment toanother sitedirectly

4

(iii) Did theproject overrunon time?

Completed late(.5% ofspecifiedproject time)

Completed late Completed ontime

Completed early Completed early(.5% ofspecifiedproject time)

4

(iv) Did theproject overrunon cost?

.10% costoverrun

5–10% costoverrun

On target (within5% of cost)

5–10% cost saving .10% cost saving 3

Average EGI score for the demobilisation phase (i–iv) of the case study 3.7

Table 7. Generic stage F demobilisation indicators (points relate to the case study described in Section 5)


decision-makers and assist in the development of ‘sustainable

thinking’. The rose diagram will change accordingly and will

reflect the situation as currently perceived. Finally, the system

can be used to determine the impact of ‘what if?’ scenarios. For

example, if energy costs were to triple, what would be the impact

on the rose diagram? The EGI system therefore satisfies the

demand for a dynamic and flexible system.38

During the development of the EGI system, the focus for project

use was primarily on the ground, specifically looking at

contaminated land remediation. Less emphasis was given to those

elements that are more ‘construction process’ oriented, such as

reuse of foundations, recycling of materials on site (although

considered briefly in terms of using recycled materials in Stage D

(vi)) and other specialist geotechnical processes for brownfield

sites. The EGI system is sufficiently flexible to readily allow

inclusion of additional criteria (e.g. integrated resource

modelling or carbon footprinting) to address some of these

omissions, although it should be recognised that competent tools

such as Ceequal already exist. Moreover, it should be recognised

that the EGI system was not developed to replace indicator

systems like Ceequal; rather, it is envisaged that it will be used in

parallel as part of a full sustainability project appraisal. The

advantage of the EGI system is that it includes parameters for

measuring the social quality of a project (rather than just

environmental), but more specifically it includes a development

timeline to show where these indicators should be applied for best

effect—this is something not considered in existing systems. As

such, the EGI system offers a timeline framework within which

other indicators can be applied.

4.3. Criticism of the EGI system

No weighting system has been incorporated into the EGI system.

This is both a potential strength and a potential weakness—the

approach can lead to a skewing of the outcome. By including no

weighting procedure, it means that, by default, some indicators in

stages with few indicators (stages A, D and F, for example) appear

to be given a higher value than those withmany indicators, such as

stage E. This judgement of value is graphically provided by the

rose diagram, in which a better colour can be gained by a relatively

small number of improvements in those stages with fewer

indicators to influence. However, attempting to manipulate the

overall look of a diagram in this way is to adopt a superficial

approach to sustainability. This argument can be extended to the

relative weighting within stages. In defence of the EGI system,

weightings can be readily included and achieving an overall

balance via such means must be at the joint discretion of the

engineers and other professionals engaged on the project.

Similarly, no justification has been given to the quantified values

contained within the tables; these were arrived at on the basis of

engineering judgement and experience. It is appreciated that

amongst the grouping of engineers and other professionals

engaged on such projects, collective professional judgement and

experience should be taken into account when setting or adjusting

values. Only with greater use and experience of the system will

consensus values be reached. However, it must be acknowledged

that initial proposals for values are necessary in the first instance.

It is appreciated that many of the indicators rely upon policies

being in place and/or trained people being in post, rather than

implementation of the ideas as a project progresses. The obvious

criticism of this approach is that it is easy to have a policy or

strategy, but harder to implement them against set targets. It is

also appreciated that the terms used in the development of the

indicators might be interpreted differently by people from

different backgrounds. For example, Table 2 refers to the

suitability of the site for its future use and this could be

interpreted in terms of its ease of development, the cost or the

social need, amongst other viewpoints. This potential

discrepancy is removed when a consensus agreement is derived

from an appropriately balanced group of professionals working

on a project. A more serious shortcoming from the geotechnical

engineering perspective is in the adoption in stage A indicator (v)

Monitoringindicator



(i) How aremonitoringstationspowered?

Mannedinterventionregularlyrequired

Mannedinterventionoccasionallyrequired

Mannedinterventionrarely required

Remote datacollection fromconventionalenergy source(e.g. battery)

Remote datacollection fromsustainableenergy source(e.g. solarpower)

2

(ii) Contingencyplanning

Monitoring datanot used

Data collected butno plan in place

Plan in place butnot linked todata

Plan coverstreatment linkedto data

Plan covers allaspects

4

(iii) How long ismonitoringnecessary?

.12 months afterend of siteworks

6–12 months afterend of siteworks



Completed by endof site works

1

(iv) Do monitoringsystemsinterfere withtheirenvironment?

Equipment causeslocalstakeholdercomplaints

Equipmentrequiresfrequent visits togather data

Equipment placedoutside projectboundary withlocalstakeholderconsultation

Equipment placedoutside projectboundary butoperatesremotely

None outsideprojectboundary

3

Average EGI score for the monitoring phase (i–iv) of the case study 2.5

Table 8(a). Generic stage G monitoring indicators (points relate to the case study described in Section 5)


of a percentage cost of the site investigation against the total

project cost. Appropriate levels of site investigation depending

on the complexity of the geotechnical problems (and thus based

on technical need rather than percentage cost) would be an

appropriate measure. The argument against a percentage cost is

that it fails to reflect sustainable design if it encourages waste;

nevertheless this would require a complex set of judgements, and

a simple indicator value was adopted in recognition of the fact

that all projects dealing with contaminated land will require

considerable attention to detail in the site investigation.

There are omissions from the EGI system as a result of the types of

development initially considered and tested by the ‘typical’ case

history. Arguably they should have been included and perhaps

omitted from the scoring system when dealing with the case

history. Examples of omitted indicators include protection of

cultural heritage and archaeological significance, topographical

constraints and site access, improvement of logistics to reduce

traffic (e.g. delivery by rail or sea rather than road), developing

relationships with neighbours when carrying out the works in

heavily built-up urban areas and loss of local amenities during

construction. However, it is emphasised that the system of

indicators is inevitably going to be tailored to the site in question

and that some degree of site specificity is warranted. It is hoped

that such additional indicators will be included where relevant

for specific projects and, more importantly, a comprehensive set

of indicators will ultimately develop from which a relevant sub-

set can be chosen for individual projects.

5. APPLICATION OF THE EGI SYSTEM TO A CASE

STUDY

This study refers to an un-named 9 ha site that was ultimately

developed for mixed residential and commercial use between 1999

and 2001. The final assessment output, which followed a detailed

study of the site and its operations by the third author, is shown in

Fig. 4. The various stages of the assessment are now described.

5.1. Stage A: feasibility

The site was located in a river estuary and shown to be underlain

by variable-depth made ground, ranging from between 0.7 and

4.7 m below ground level in the exploratory boreholes, which

was placed on the natural soil sequence of soft alluvial and

estuarine deposits, glacial and post-glacial gravels, and cohesive

glacial tills, all of which overlay a limestone bedrock. The

relatively large thickness of made ground consisted of reclaimed

local soils, which were placed across the site to bring the ground

level above high tide level. Most of the fill had been laid in an

uncontrolled manner in the mid 1700s, was found to be

predominantly granular in nature and generally ranged from

loose to medium dense. The ground was contaminated through

byproducts of ‘town gas’ production (the site previously housed a

gasworks, long since decommissioned and demolished). Spent

oxides (ferric ferrocyanide) and coal tar contaminants (BETX, tar

acids, naphtha, anthracene and phenanthrene) were shown

through the desk study to be leaching from poorly constructed

underground bunkers. Site levels prior to excavation ranged from

1.5 to 4.0 m OD with groundwater fluctuating from20.5 to 0.5 m

OD; excavation to 21.0 m OD was required for the provision of

underground car parking. The site investigation consisted of

approximately 100 trial pits, 60 boreholes, laboratory and field

tests, and .200 chemical analyses (samples being taken at a

spacing of ,1 m across the site). The client actively promoted its

sustainability policy and consulted with the public using multiple

media at this stage. The site was deemed to have very high

redevelopment potential and was deemed very suitable for its end

use. The total averaged point score for this stage was 4.3

(individual scores can be seen in Table 2); the value to two

decimal places is 4.29, and yet the inherent degree of ‘allowable

precision’ in this procedure dictates that only one decimal place is

warranted in the case of all averages.

5.2. Stage B: design

During the design stage, a quantitative risk assessment (QRA)

established that build up of water on site would not affect

groundwater, but large volumes of material (195 000 tonnes)

required either disposal or treatment. During the design stages

several techniques were ruled out for the following reasons.

(a) Containment by a capping layer would not prevent

groundwater from transporting the contaminant into an

adjacent river.

Monitoringindicator



(v) Heterogeneitycausesincompletetreatment(EISB)

Soil tests showthat .10% ofsoil remainsuntreated duetoheterogeneity;not acceptable

Soil tests showthat 5–10% ofsoil remainsuntreated duetoheterogeneity,butunacceptable

Soil tests showthat 5–10% ofsoil remainsuntreated duetoheterogeneity,but acceptable

Soil tests showthat .95% ofsoil is treated totarget level

Soil tests confirmall soil treatedto target level

—

(vi) Monitoringcosts (MNA)

Long-termpollutionconfers highmonitoringcosts andsignificanttesting input

High monitoringcosts butnaturalremediationcompletes toacceptable level

Monitoring costsare similar to anactiveremediationsolution

Monitoring costsare slightly lessthan an activeremediationsolution

Monitoring costsare significantlylower than anactiveremediationsolution

—

Table 8(b). Technique-specific stage G monitoring indicators (points relate to the case study described in Section 5) (MNA, monitoringof natural attenuation)


(b) The scale of the site was too large for solidification; in

addition, the lack of licensed landfills would require spoil to

be shipped overseas.

(c) Multiple in situ treatments techniques would be required for

the different pollutant types.

(d) The use of passive input (monitored natural attenuation)

was not an option as the risk assessment provided a source,

a pathway and a target.

(e) Other ex situ treatments (e.g. bioremediation and thermal

desorption (TD)) could not have treated the contaminants in

a reasonable timescale, if at all.

(f) A ‘do nothing’ approach or waiting for natural attenuation

would have rendered the site permanently unusable.

Soil washing was thus chosen as the ‘best option’, enabling 100%

of previously unusable land to be used for mixed residential and

Long term indicator



(i) Land rendereduseable thatwas previouslyunusable

Land lossincreased

No change Partial reuse ofsite

100% but with norecreationalfacilities

100% of the sitewith somerecreationalfacilities

5

(ii) Land createdfor use bybusinesses thatcontribute tothe localeconomy

No influx of newbusiness

,20% of siteused by newbusinesses

20–50% of siteused by newbusinesses

Majority of siteused by newbusinesses

All site used bynew businesses

5

(iii) Land createdfor use byinfrastructure(health/education/transport) thatcontributes tothe localeconomy

No newinfrastructure

,20% of siteused by newinfrastructure

20–50% of siteused by newinfrastructure

Majority of siteused by newinfrastructure

All site used bynewinfrastructure

2

(iv) Maintenance Regularmaintenancerequired withmaterial/plantinput

Periodicalmaintenancerequired withmaterial/plantinput

Periodicalmaintenancerequiredwithoutmaterial/plantinput

Occasionalmaintenancerequiredwithoutmaterial/plantinput

No maintenancerequired

5

(v) Clientsatisfaction

,50% 50% 70% 85% 100% 4

(vi) Client feedback No debriefcarried out

Internal feedbackonly

Feedbackavailable ifasked for byclient

Full debrief toclient atproject teamlevel

Full debrief toclient atdirector level

5

(vii) Defects raised .1 defect notcorrectable

Single defect notcorrectable

.1 defectcorrected

Single defectcorrected

No defects 3

(viii) Benchmarking Companyunaware ofKPIs

Nobenchmarkingon the project,but companyhas a KPI policyin place

Minimum numberof aspectsbenchmarked

Partial aspects ofthe projectbenchmarked

All aspects of theprojectbenchmarked

4

(ix) Did the projectoverrun ontime?

Completed late(.5% ofspecifiedproject time)

Completed late Completed ontime

Completed early Completed early(.5% ofspecifiedproject time)

4

(x) Did the projectoverrun oncost?

.10% costoverrun

5–10% costoverrun

On target (within5% of cost)

5–10% costsaving

.10% cost saving 3

(xi) Informationplan with localcommunity

Actively avoidsinteraction

None Basic Detailed usingsingle medium

Plannedprogramme ofcommunity PR

5

(xii) Insurance andwarranties

Remediationchoice unableto be insured

Remediationchoiceincreasesinsurance costs

Standardinsurance costs

Remediationreducesinsurance costs

Remediationsignificantlyreducesinsurance costs

5

Average EGI score for the long term phase (i–xii) of the case study 4.2

Table 9(a). Generic stage G long term indicators (points relate to the case study described in Section 5)


commercial use (new business). Subsequently the choice of

method meant that no restriction was placed on piling and

excavated material, once washed, could be reused. The plan met

Environment Agency guidelines and exceeded targets required

by legislation. A risk management plan and a health and safety

plan were fully integrated into all aspects of the project, and the

majority of the design team was trained in ‘just sufficient’ design

methods. A partial life cycle assessment was carried out and

whole life costs were assessed by an internally trained designer.

While no formal sustainability appraisal had been carried out, the

contractor was aware of sustainability. The plan contributed to

improving biodiversity, although ,20% of supplies were from

sustainable sources. The total averaged point score for this stage

was 3.92 (individual scores can be seen in Table 3). When adding

‘technology-specific’ indicators, this increased to 3.94 (see

Table 1).

5.3. Stage C: award

The procurement consisted of a contractor/sub-contractor

partnership and the remediation contractor was involved at the

pre-detailed design stage. The contractor involved is ISO 14001

and ISO 9001 accredited in all business units (.10% of sub-

contractors accredited to ISO 14001) and has IiP accreditation in

a minority of units (,20% for suppliers). The safety record of the

contractor is within 5% of the sector average and only one

nuisance notice had been served in the last five years.

Environmental and social performance reports were produced on

an irregular basis, but all employees underwent awareness

training. The total averaged point score for this stage was 3.7

(individual scores can be seen in Table 4).

5.4. Stage D: mobilisation

All plant was mobilised from storage (.40 miles away) and used

at some stage on site. Deliveries used a single existing route that

cut through a residential area and a traffic management system

was put in place to control disruption. Between 20 and 30% of the

materials delivered were from sustainable sources and .50% of

the materials and workforce were sourced locally. The total

averaged point score for this stage was 3.4 (individual scores can

be seen in Table 5).

5.5. Stage E: construction

Important features within this treatment programme were the

provision of a 24 000 m2 perimeter cut-off wall to prevent further

cross-contamination with adjacent sites and the provision of a

structural retaining element to the excavations. (It should be

noted that use of a slurry wall with bored concrete piles as

structural support used significantly less EE than steel sheet

piles.) A temporary embedded wall was put in place and all of the

contaminated material was removed, thus providing a break in

the pathway to receptor. Plant washing facilities used mains

water (with control facilities) and biodegradable detergents.

Deliveries to site were minimised and,10% of supplied materials

needed to be disposed of. Planned action was taken to minimise

disruption to community services, site curfews restricted noise

levels and no time was lost through regulatory restrictions. Gas

was used in preference to coal and oil; renewable energy systems

were considered but found impractical. Fossil fuel usage was

minimised (through awareness training), thereby reducing CO2

emissions, although calculations of CO2 emissions and EE use

were not made. No smoke was produced and dust-suppression

plant was implemented. All plant was fitted with particulate

filters and NOx and VOCs were reduced through a prevention

plan. No ‘offgas’ was generated. No additives were introduced

into the soil, which was transported in closed containers to a

permanent washing facility40 off site, washed and subsequently

reused in earthworks on other projects. This option was still

economically beneficial (not least in terms of reduced time taken

to wash soil compared to other methods) even after accounting

Long term indicator



(xiii) Monitoring (allcontainmenttypes)

Monitoring has tobe increased fora long period(years)

Monitoring has tobe increased fora short period(months)

Monitoring regimeneeds matchthe planningestimate

Long-termcontainmentdegrades slowlyand monitoringneeds reduce tominimum

Long-termcontainmentdegradesnaturally andthe monitoringregimebecomesobsolete

3

(xiv) Provision offuture services(solidification)

Treated areaunable to beexcavated forinstallation ofservices

Treated areacreatescomplicationsfor installationof services

Treated strengthspresent noproblem tostandard futureexcavations

Clean graveltrenches built into treated areasto allowinstallation ofservices

Treated arealinked intodesign tominimisedisruption byfuture services

—

(xv) Outcome ofmonitorednaturalattenuation(MNA)

Pollutants degradeto a moremobile phaseand causeintervention

Pollutants remainimmobile butdo not degrade.Potentialremains forfuture action

Plume degrades inthe long termbut causesrestriction onpotential landuse in the shortterm

Plume degrades inthe mediumterm with norestriction onproposed landuse

Pollutant plumedegrades,reduces inmobility andshrinks in extentwithinacceptabletimeframe

—

Table 9(b). Technique-specific stage G long term indicators (points relate to the case study described in Section 5)


for the cost of shipping and the small encapsulation costs of the

waste byproducts after soil washing. The total averaged point

score for this stage was 3.7 (individual scores can be seen in

Table 6(a)). When adding technology-specific indicators

(Table 6(b)) this score reduced to 3.5 (see Table 1).

5.6. Stage F: demobilisation

All of the plant was reused, with some needing maintenance. The

project was finished early, enabling appropriate equipment to be

sent directly to another project, and with costs on target. The total



5.7. Stage G: monitoring

Monitoring stations were placed outside the project boundary

with agreement and consultation from the local stakeholders.

The stations required manned intervention occasionally and were

utilised for .12 months. A contingency plan for additional

treatment was linked directly to data collected. To halve

economic costs, the combined retaining/containment wall was

designed to be a temporary rather than permanent structure;

being an unproven technique, this required closer supervision

than would normally be expected. Whilst the length of

monitoring could have been reduced to improve the score for this

stage, this would have been to the detriment of other stages. This

raises an interesting scenario within any assessment method and

merely highlights that trade-offs may need to be made. The total



5.8. Stage H: the long term

Long-term monitoring of the project was completed early and

costs were on target. Some defects were corrected during the

project, but no maintenance was required. The client was fully

debriefed and reported 85% satisfaction. Monitoring did not

overrun and matched the planning estimate. Some aspects of the

project were benchmarked and a public relations programme was

carried out throughout the project and beyond. The whole of the

site is currently used by new businesses with ,20% used by new

infrastructure. The total averaged point score for this stage was

4.2 (individual scores can be seen in Table 9). When adding

technology-specific indicators this reduced to 4.1 (see Table 1).

6. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

This paper has presented an EGI assessment tool consisting of 108

separate indicators that can be used to assess an EG project at any

scale. The system offers complete flexibility and is made up of 76

generic and 32 technology-specific indicators derived based on

both experience gained from several projects and existing

Fig. 2. A typical rose diagram, showing various project stagesfor use with the EGI system

Fig. 3. Continual EGI review process for a single project

Fig. 4. Averaged sustainability points using EGI for a case studysite


indicator systems. During its derivation, it has been necessary to

ensure that the system ties into current and possible future

management frameworks from EG projects and this has been

achieved successfully. The EGI system, and the reasoning behind

each indicator, has been presented and applied to an actual

remediation project (although the project is anonymous). From

the case study it is clear that the indicator system can be applied

with relative ease and with no expected variance. Whilst the case

study presented here is specific to soil washing, application of the

indicator system to other remediation projects is without limits.

The EGI system has been shown to be completely versatile,

allowing a project to be broken into eight clear and logical stages

that consider the timeline of a project. The time element of a

project is rarely addressed within an indicator system and yet its

effects are not insignificant, hence its addition in this current

system. Within each stage it has been shown that the

‘sustainability performance’ within an EG-related project can be

assessed over time by a manageable set of indicators using a fully

quantitative method of analysis. As with other indicator systems

(e.g. Spear), the system can readily be used to bring about

improvements in practice and can be used as a learning and

awareness tool.

It is envisaged that the EGI system will allow a visual report to be

created within a project to provide a clear and easily

understandable overview of sustainability at all eight project

stages. By removing the pillars of sustainability, it is hoped that

segregation of the different sustainability aspects of the project

will not occur, thereby leading to a more sustainable outcome.

This approach further removes the need for weightings, which

can be subjectively biased and therefore cause skewing of an

assessment to give a desired result; however it is equally possible

to introduce weightings on the basis of experience and thereby

produce a more balanced output. This aspect is left to the

discretion of the engineers and other professionals involved.

It is appreciated that any proposed indicator system is unlikely to

be sufficiently comprehensive to cater for every perspective, and

some of the shortcomings of the EGI system have been

highlighted. In order that refinements can be made to the EGI

system, discussion is welcomed and indeed actively encouraged

from those within and outside the EG field. The successful

adoption of the EGI system as an assessment tool will ultimately

depend on its widespread acceptance and implementation, and

thus incorporation into contracts and perhaps ultimately

legislation. As such there is a need for more case histories,

education of clients and stakeholders, and the fostering of

increasing awareness in the construction industry, the built

environment sphere more generally and the field of EG. This is a

large undertaking and will require access to decision-makers at

all levels within construction projects. The decision-making

process forms a significant contributing facet of the Eastside

research project,39 where strong links to such decision-makers

have been made; it is hoped that active involvement of

sustainability researchers in such projects will facilitate such

implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council (EPSRC) for financial support during this

research under grants GRS/20482, EP/C513177 and EP/E

021603. We also acknowledge the contribution of Professor Peter

Braithwaite, who provided valuable comments during

finalisation of the paper.

REFERENCES

1. JEFFERIS S. A. Geotechnology in harmony with the global

environment: dream or deliverable? Proceedings of the 16th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical

Engineering, Osaka, 2005, 4, Paper No. UK15, 2387–2390.

2. BRUNDTLAND G. H. Our Common Future: Report of the World

Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford

University Press, London, 1987.

3. JEFFERIS S. A. Can we identify sustainable remediation

techniques for contaminated land? Proceedings of the 4th

International Congress On Environmental Geotechnics, Rio de

Janeiro (de Mello and Almeida (eds)), 2002, 2, 1039–1058.

4. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY.Model Procedures for the Management

of Land Contamination. EA, Bristol, 2004, CLR 11.

5. NATHANIAL P. C. and BARDOS P. R. Reclamation of

Contaminated Land. Wiley, Chichester, 2004.

6. SHACKELFORD C. D. and JEFFERIS S. A. Geoenvironmental

engineering for in situ remediation. Proceedings of

International Conference on Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering (GeoEng2000) (Ervin et al.

(eds)). Technomic, Lancaster, PA, 2000, Vol. 1, pp. 121–185.

7. EVANS D., JEFFERIS S. A., THOMAS A. O. and CUI S. Remedial

Processes for Contaminated Land—Principles and Practice.

CIRIA, London, 2001, Report C549.

8. The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002:

Statutory Instrument No. 1559. Her Majesty’s Stationary

Office, 2002.

9. BUNCE D. and BRAITHWAITE P. A. Reclamation of

contaminated land with specific reference to Pride Park,

Derby. Proceedings of Symposium on Problematic Soils

(JEFFERSON I. (ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, 2001, 121–126.

10. UNITED NATIONS. Indicators of Sustainable Development

Guidelines and Methodologies. See www.un.org/esa/

sustdev/publications/indisd-mg2001.pdf for further details.

Accessed 10/11/2006.

11. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE

REGIONS. Building a Better Quality of Life; A

Strategy for More Sustainable Development. DETR,

London, 2000, report 99CD1065.

12. W. S. ATKINS CONSULTANTS. Sustainable Construction:

Company Indicators. CIRIA, London, 2002, Report C563.

13. ENTEC UK LTD. Sustainability Indicators for Waste, Energy

and Travel for Scotland. Scottish Executive Central Research

Unit, Edinburgh, 2001, report 156654.

14. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Sigma Guidelines: Putting

Sustainable Development Into Practice. BSI, London, 2003.

See www.projectsigma.co.uk for further details. Accessed

8/10/2006.

15. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Environmental Management

Systems. BSI, London, 2004, ISO 14001.

16. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. ISO 9001, Quality

Management and Quality Assurance Standards, Part 2. BSI,

London, 1997, ISO 9001, ISO 9002, ISO 9003.

17. INVESTORS IN PEOPLE. Investors in People Standard, 2nd edn.

HMSO, London, 2006.

18. MCGREGOR I. M. and COLE R. Using the SPeARTM assesment

tool in sustainable msasterplanning. Proceedings of US Green


Building Conference, Greenbuild 2003, Pittsburgh, 2003,

CD-rom.

19. RAO S., YATES A., BROWNHILL D. and HOWARD N. ECOHOMES:

The Environmental Rating for Homes. Building Research

Establishment, Garston, 2003, Report 389.

20. DICKIE I. and HOWARD N. Assessing Environmental Impacts of

Construction: Industry Consensus. BREEAM and UK

Ecopoints. Building Research Establishment, Garston, 2000,

BRE Digest 446.

21. ANDERSON J., SHIERS D. E. and SINCLAIR M. Green Guide to

Specification, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, 2002.

22. ENVEST2. Environmental Impact and Whole Life

Costs Analysis for Buildings. See http://envestv2.bre.co.uk/

for further details. Accessed 15/10/2006.

23. DEPARTMENT FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY. Construction Products

Industry Key Performance Indicators, Part of the

Construction Industry KPI. DTi, London, 2005.

24. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICES. Demand Grows for

Sustainable Homes. ENDS, London, 2003, Report 343.

25. VENABLES R. K. and MILNE J. CEEQUAL Scheme for

Exemplary Environmental Performance on Civil Engineering

Projects Sails Past £1bn Milestone. Press release, 2006. See

www.ceequal.com/downloads/CQ-Press-Release-Aug06.pdf

for further details. Accessed 17/10/2006.

26. UNITED STATES GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL. LEED-NC: The

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design—New

Construction, Version 2.2. USGBC, Washington, DC, 2005.

27. HK-BEAM. Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment

Method 4/04: New Buildings. Business Environment

Council, Kowloon, 2004.

28. BUTLER B. E. Consultation with national experts: managing

contaminated land. UNEP Industry and Environment

Quarterly Review, 1996, 19, No. 2, 55–56.

29. CL:AIRE. Improving the Reliability of Contaminated Land

Assessment using Statistical Methods. Contaminated Land:

Applications in Real Environments, London, 2004, Technical

Bulletin TB7.

30. DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORT AND REGIONS.

Environmental Protection Act Part IIA. DETR, London, 2000,

Draft Circular.

31. Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Her Majesty’s

Stationary Office, 1990.

32. Pollution Prevention and Control (England & Wales)

Regulations. Statutory Instrument No. 503. Her Majesty’s

Stationary Office, London, 2000.

33. Groundwater Regulations. Statutory Instrument No. 2746.

Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, 1998.

34. Waste Management Licensing and Integrated Pollution

Control Measure. Statutory Instrument No. 937. Her

Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, 2006.

35. LERNER D. Sustainable reclamation of contaminated

brownfields. Sustainability in Ground Engineering,

Northern Geotechnical Group Seminar. Institution of

Civil Engineers, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, 2005.

36. LAWRENCE RACE G. A ‘Just Sufficient’ Approach to

Building Services Design. DTi, London, 2003, BSRIA report

70176/1. Accessed 01/10/2006.

37. ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS. Sustainable Building: A

Materials Perspective. 2005. See www.oaa.on.ca for further

details.

38. PEDIADITI K., WEHRMEYER W. and CHENOWETH J. Sustainability

evaluation for brownfield redevelopment. Proceedings of the

Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability,

2006, 159, No. 1, 3–10.

39. HUNT D. V. L., LOMBARDI R. D. JEFFERSON I. and ROGERS C. D.

F. The development timeline framework: a tool for

engendering sustainable use of underground space.

Geocongress 2008, New Orleans. To be published.

40. TAYLOR C. Soil washing: costing the earth. New Civil

Engineer, 2005, 18/08/2005, 21–22.

What do you think?To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at [email protected]

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papersshould be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for authorguidelines and further details.


http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/reference/matches?id=http://referencestore.ingenta.com/content/reference/--9E651CB1208A4EA87C278F830AEDAEFE-159-1-3--

