Site Brief
The AI system begins by ingesting the site investigation data and risk assessment findings to build a structured understanding of the contamination scenario.
Identified Contaminant Linkages
| Linkage | Source | Pathway | Receptor | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL1 | TPH / BTEX in soil | Direct contact, ingestion, inhalation of vapours | Future residents | Moderate/High |
| CL2 | TPH / BTEX in soil | Direct contact, inhalation | Construction workers | Moderate |
| CL3 | Dissolved BTEX in groundwater | Lateral migration via perched groundwater | Controlled waters (stream) | Moderate |
| CL4 | Hydrocarbon vapours | Migration into enclosed spaces | Future residents (vapour intrusion) | Moderate |
A consultant reviews the site investigation report, risk assessment, and regulatory context, then manually compiles the site brief and conceptual site model. With AI, the system ingests the source documents and produces a structured brief ready for senior review.
Technology Screening
The AI screens available remediation technologies against the site-specific contamination profile, geology, and constraints — following the GOV.UK Remediation Option Applicability Matrix methodology.
- Parsing contaminant profile and concentrations
- Matching against GOV.UK applicability matrix
- Evaluating site constraints (geology, access, area)
- Screening technologies for feasibility
- Compiling shortlist with rationale
8 Technologies Assessed — 4 Shortlisted
| Technology | Type | Applicability | Status | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ex-situ excavation & disposal | Excavation | Soil (TPH, BTEX) | Shortlisted | Proven for hydrocarbon-impacted soils. Rapid. Suitable for site area and depth. Regulatory acceptance high. |
| Ex-situ bioremediation (biopile) | Biological | Soil (TPH) | Shortlisted | Effective for diesel-range hydrocarbons. Lower cost than disposal. Requires on-site treatment area. 3-6 month treatment window. |
| In-situ enhanced bioremediation | Biological | Soil & groundwater (TPH, BTEX) | Shortlisted | Treats both media. Nutrient/oxygen injection enhances natural degradation. Lower disruption. Longer timescale (6-18 months). |
| Groundwater pump & treat | Physical | Groundwater (dissolved BTEX) | Shortlisted | Effective for dissolved-phase BTEX in groundwater. Can be combined with soil treatment. Proven technology for controlled waters protection. |
| Soil vapour extraction (SVE) | Physical | Soil (volatile hydrocarbons) | Excluded | Most effective in unsaturated, permeable soils. Perched water table limits effectiveness. BTEX concentrations below threshold for standalone SVE. |
| In-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) | Chemical | Soil & groundwater | Excluded | Effective for BTEX but high organic matter in made ground would consume oxidant. Cost-prohibitive for the contaminant mass present. |
| Thermal desorption | Thermal | Soil (TPH, BTEX) | Excluded | Highly effective but disproportionate to contamination level. Significant energy cost and carbon footprint. More suited to heavy or recalcitrant contamination. |
| Monitored natural attenuation | Passive | Groundwater | Excluded | Insufficient as standalone option given proximity to controlled waters. Timescale incompatible with development programme. May be suitable as polishing step. |
A senior consultant reviews the site data, mentally maps technologies against the GOV.UK applicability matrix, considers site constraints, and writes up the screening assessment. With AI, the consultant reviews and validates rather than builds from scratch.
Options Appraisal Matrix
Each shortlisted technology is evaluated against the 11 LCRM evaluation criteria. The AI applies consistent scoring based on published guidance, technical literature, and site-specific factors.
- Scoring against LCRM evaluation criteria
- Assessing practicability for site conditions
- Estimating costs from benchmark data
- Evaluating effectiveness and durability
- Calculating weighted totals
Scoring: 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) | Weighting applied per LCRM guidance
| Criterion | Wt. | Excavation & Disposal | Biopile Treatment | In-situ Bioremediation | Pump & Treat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Practicability | 1.0 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Effectiveness | 1.0 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Durability | 1.0 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Cost | 0.8 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Timescale | 0.8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Sustainability | 0.8 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Regulatory Acceptance | 0.7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Environmental Impact | 0.7 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Track Record | 0.6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Availability | 0.6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Health & Safety | 0.7 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Weighted Total | 35.2 | 34.0 | 31.4 | 31.9 |
Key Findings
Excavation and disposal scores highest overall (35.2), driven by top marks on practicability, effectiveness, durability, and speed. However, it is significantly penalised on cost, sustainability, and environmental impact.
Biopile treatment (34.0) scores a close second with strong, consistent performance across all criteria. Its significantly lower cost and better sustainability profile make it the recommended primary soil treatment option despite the marginally lower total score.
Pump and treat (31.9) is recommended as a complementary groundwater treatment, particularly for the dissolved BTEX plume migrating toward controlled waters. It provides active hydraulic containment during the remediation period.
In-situ bioremediation (31.4) scores well on sustainability and environmental impact but is constrained by longer timescales and lower certainty of achieving remediation targets within the development programme.
Recommended combination: Ex-situ biopile treatment for impacted soils + pump and treat for groundwater, with verification monitoring. This combination addresses all four contaminant linkages while optimising cost and sustainability — a more balanced strategy than excavation alone despite the latter's higher raw score.
Building the scoring matrix is the most labour-intensive step. A senior consultant scores each technology against each criterion, applies weightings, calculates totals, creates comparison charts, and writes the narrative. With AI, the complete matrix with weighted scores, visual comparison, and narrative commentary is generated with full rationale — fully auditable and transparent.
Sustainability Assessment
Each shortlisted option is assessed against the SuRF-UK framework — 15 headline categories across environmental, social, and economic dimensions — to determine the most sustainable remediation approach.
- Evaluating environmental indicators (5 categories)
- Evaluating social indicators (5 categories)
- Evaluating economic indicators (5 categories)
- Calculating net sustainability benefit
- Generating comparison matrix
Assessment: Positive (+), Neutral (0), Negative (-) impact relative to baseline (no remediation)
| Category | Excavation & Disposal | Biopile Treatment | In-situ Bioremediation | Pump & Treat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental | ||||
| Emissions to air | - | 0 | + | 0 |
| Soil & ground conditions | + | + | + | 0 |
| Groundwater & surface water | + | 0 | + | + |
| Ecology | - | 0 | + | 0 |
| Natural resources & waste | - | + | + | 0 |
| Social | ||||
| Human health & safety | 0 | + | + | + |
| Ethics & equity | - | 0 | + | 0 |
| Neighbourhoods & locality | - | 0 | + | 0 |
| Communities & involvement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uncertainty & evidence | + | + | 0 | + |
| Economic | ||||
| Direct costs & benefits | - | + | + | 0 |
| Indirect costs & benefits | - | 0 | + | 0 |
| Employment & capital | + | + | 0 | 0 |
| Induced costs & benefits | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Project lifespan & flexibility | + | + | 0 | 0 |
| Net Score | -2 | +7 | +9 | +3 |
In-situ bioremediation delivers the highest net sustainability benefit (+9), with positive scores across all three pillars. However, its longer timescale may be incompatible with the development programme.
Biopile treatment scores strongly (+7), offering the best balance of sustainability and practicality. Combined with pump and treat (+3) for groundwater, the recommended combination achieves a strong overall sustainability position.
Excavation and disposal produces a net negative sustainability score (-2), driven by significant environmental impacts (vehicle emissions, landfill waste, resource consumption) that outweigh its speed and certainty advantages.
The sustainability assessment is run in a separate spreadsheet with its own scoring criteria. Data is transferred manually from the options appraisal. With AI, the sustainability assessment is generated simultaneously — no separate spreadsheet, no manual data transfer, no duplication of effort.
Draft Report
The AI compiles all analysis into a structured options appraisal report following LCRM reporting requirements. The output is a professional draft ready for senior review and sign-off.
- Structuring report to LCRM requirements
- Compiling site context and risk summary
- Integrating screening and evaluation results
- Embedding sustainability assessment
- Drafting recommendations and remediation strategy
Remediation Options Appraisal
1. Introduction & Objectives
This report presents the Remediation Options Appraisal for the former Millbrook Depot site, Loughborough, East Midlands. The assessment has been conducted in accordance with the Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM) guidance (GOV.UK, October 2020), Stage 2: Options Appraisal.
The site is a former fuel storage facility of approximately 0.85 hectares, proposed for residential redevelopment. Underground storage tanks have been removed but residual hydrocarbon contamination has been identified in made ground and shallow perched groundwater.
Management Objectives
- Render the site suitable for residential end use with gardens
- Protect controlled waters (stream 120m south) from contaminant migration
- Ensure safety of construction workers during redevelopment
- Achieve regulatory sign-off from the Local Authority and Environment Agency
2. Feasible Options Identification
Eight remediation technologies were screened against the site-specific contamination profile, geological conditions, and development constraints. Technologies were assessed using the GOV.UK Remediation Option Applicability Matrix and professional judgement.
Four technologies were shortlisted as feasible for detailed evaluation: ex-situ excavation and disposal, ex-situ bioremediation (biopile), in-situ enhanced bioremediation, and groundwater pump and treat. Four technologies were excluded on grounds of disproportionate cost, limited effectiveness in site conditions, or incompatible timescales.
3. Detailed Evaluation
Shortlisted options were evaluated against the 11 LCRM evaluation criteria with weightings reflecting the relative importance of each criterion to the site-specific objectives. Practicability, effectiveness, and durability were assigned equal and highest weighting in accordance with LCRM guidance.
Excavation and disposal achieved the highest weighted score (35.2 / 43.5), driven by top marks on practicability, effectiveness, and speed. However, biopile treatment scored a close second (34.0) with significantly better cost, sustainability, and environmental impact profiles — making it the recommended primary option when the sustainability assessment is considered alongside the technical evaluation.
4. Sustainability Assessment
A qualitative sustainability assessment was conducted in accordance with the SuRF-UK framework across 15 headline categories spanning environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
In-situ bioremediation demonstrated the highest net sustainability benefit (+9), followed by biopile treatment (+7). Excavation and disposal produced a net negative sustainability outcome (-2), driven by significant emissions, waste generation, and resource consumption.
5. Recommended Remediation Strategy
Based on the combined evaluation and sustainability assessment, the recommended remediation strategy comprises:
- Primary soil treatment: Ex-situ bioremediation (biopile) for TPH-impacted soils. Excavated material to be treated in on-site biopile with nutrient amendment and aeration. Target treatment period: 3-6 months.
- Groundwater treatment: Pump and treat system for dissolved-phase BTEX, providing active hydraulic containment to protect controlled waters during remediation.
- Verification: Post-treatment validation sampling of treated soils against site-specific assessment criteria. Groundwater monitoring network to demonstrate plume contraction and compliance at the site boundary.
- Contingency: If biopile treatment does not achieve target concentrations within 6 months, a second treatment cycle or targeted excavation and disposal of residual hotspots to be implemented.
6. Estimated Costs
| Item | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Excavation and biopile construction | £85,000 - £120,000 |
| Biopile treatment and monitoring (6 months) | £25,000 - £40,000 |
| Pump and treat system (install + 12 months operation) | £45,000 - £65,000 |
| Verification sampling and reporting | £15,000 - £25,000 |
| Contingency (15%) | £25,000 - £38,000 |
| Total estimated range | £195,000 - £288,000 |
Note: Cost estimates are indicative and based on benchmark data for comparable sites. A detailed cost estimate should be prepared following acceptance of the remediation strategy.
The consultant writes the full report from scratch, manually transferring data from the screening assessment, scoring matrix spreadsheet, and sustainability assessment spreadsheet into a Word document. With AI, a structured, LCRM-compliant draft is generated automatically — the consultant's role shifts from writing to reviewing.
The Impact
What you've just seen would normally take days of senior consultant time. Here's what AI-assisted options appraisal means for your team.
| Task | Manual | AI-Assisted | Saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site brief & CSM compilation | 2-4 hours | 15 min review | ~90% |
| Technology screening | 4-6 hours | 30 min review | ~90% |
| Scoring matrix & evaluation | 6-10 hours | 1 hour review & adjust | ~85% |
| Sustainability assessment | 4-6 hours | 30 min review | ~90% |
| Report writing | 8-12 hours | 1-2 hours refine | ~85% |
| Total | 24-38 hours | 2-4 hours | ~90% |
-
Consistency — Every appraisal follows the same rigorous methodology. No variation between consultants. No steps missed.
-
Auditability — Every score includes a rationale. The assessment is fully transparent and defensible to regulators and clients.
-
Knowledge Capture — Technical knowledge is embedded in the system, not locked in individual heads. The tool gets smarter with every appraisal.
-
Reduced Error — No manual data transfer between spreadsheets. No formula errors. No version control problems.
-
Scalability — Senior consultants review and validate rather than build from scratch. More appraisals with the same team.
-
Competitive Advantage — No commercial tool exists for this today. First-mover advantage in a market where every competitor is still using Excel.
Ready to Explore This?
This proof of concept demonstrates the art of the possible. A production tool would be trained on your actual appraisals, your methodology, and your technical knowledge base.
Let's discuss →Built by Charis AI — Performance transformation through intelligent systems