Brownfield Facility Upgrades: Best Practices for Upgrading a Live Production Site

Key takeaways: Brownfield upgrades in food and beverage manufacturing succeed or stall based on how well existing conditions are understood before design starts. A thorough condition assessment, a phased delivery approach, and early attention to regulatory requirements reduce the risk of surprises once work is underway. Brownfield projects carry different risks to greenfield builds, mainly around live production, structural and utility constraints, and undocumented site conditions, so experienced delivery partners plan around these rather than discovering them mid-project.

Most food and beverage manufacturing sites in New Zealand and Australia are brownfield sites: existing facilities with live production, established infrastructure, and years of operational history. When it’s time to upgrade equipment, processes, or plant capacity, the challenge isn’t just delivering the project, it’s delivering it without stopping the line.

TEG Projects has delivered brownfield capital projects for clients including Fonterra, PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, Lion, and Goodman Fielder for over two decades. Below, we look at what a well-run brownfield upgrade involves, how a condition assessment sets a project up to succeed, where brownfield projects differ from greenfield builds, and the regulatory considerations that apply in New Zealand.

Best practices for managing a brownfield facility upgrade without disrupting production

A brownfield upgrade is being layered onto a facility that’s still running. The best-managed projects treat live operations as a fixed constraint from day one, not an obstacle to work around later. In practice, that means:

• Phasing the work. Breaking an upgrade into stages lets production continue between shutdown windows, rather than requiring one long outage.
• Planning shutdowns around the production calendar. Tie major tie-ins and cutovers to planned maintenance periods or low-volume windows already scheduled by the site.
• Verifying field conditions early. Legacy drawings and as-builts are rarely fully accurate. Confirming structural loads, electrical capacity, and utility routing on site, before design is locked in, avoids costly rework.
• Reviewing the whole system, not just the new equipment. A process upgrade affects utilities, structures, controls, and maintenance access. Each of these needs to be assessed alongside the primary scope.
• Testing off-line wherever possible. Factory acceptance testing and pre-commissioning work done away from the live line reduces the amount of testing that has to happen during a shutdown.
• Bringing in experienced delivery partners. Teams who have run brownfield projects before recognise the early warning signs of scope and schedule risk, and know which decisions need to be made early rather than deferred.

How to conduct a condition assessment before starting a brownfield industrial upgrade 

A condition assessment is the foundation of a brownfield project. It confirms what’s actually on site, rather than what the drawings say is on site, and it’s the single biggest factor in whether a project’s budget and schedule hold up. A thorough assessment typically covers:

• Structural capacity: floor loading, column spacing, ceiling heights, and roof structure relative to the new equipment or process.
• Electrical and utility capacity: existing power supply, water, steam, refrigeration, and compressed air capacity against the demands of the upgrade.
• Hazardous materials: many pre-1990 industrial buildings contain asbestos in roofing, cladding, insulation, or pipe lagging. Disturbing these during a refurbishment triggers obligations under the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations and needs to be identified before works begin.
• Contaminated land status: sites with a history of industrial activity may be listed under the Ministry for the Environment’s Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL). Under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health, HAIL land generally needs to be assessed before development.
• Existing equipment and asset condition: the state of plant that will interface with, or be replaced by, the new scope.

Because undocumented conditions are common on older sites, it’s standard practice to carry a contingency, often in the order of 15–25%, for issues an assessment doesn’t fully anticipate. Engaging early with the relevant utility and asset owners about the proposed works is also part of a proper assessment, not a step that follows it.

Brownfield vs greenfield: the biggest challenges of upgrading an existing facility

Greenfield projects start with a clean site and a blank design. Brownfield projects don’t have that luxury, and that difference shapes almost every decision. The main challenges specific to brownfield upgrades are operating around live production, where changes have to happen while the site keeps running, adding staging, sequencing, and coordination that a greenfield build doesn’t need; structural and space constraints, where existing floor-to-floor heights, column layouts, and building envelopes often limit what can be installed without structural work; utility capacity limits, since older sites weren’t necessarily built for the power, water, or data demands of modern equipment, and upgrading site-wide infrastructure can become its own project; hidden conditions and costs, where aging infrastructure and incomplete records mean risks aren’t always visible until investigation or construction is underway; and integration risk, where it’s common to focus on the new equipment and underestimate the flow-on changes needed to utilities, sanitation, material flow, and operator training. Greenfield projects trade these constraints for a different set of challenges, mainly a longer runway of land-use, environmental, and construction consents before work can start. Brownfield projects tend to have a shorter path to construction but a higher requirement for accurate, current site information.

Regulatory compliance considerations for brownfield facility upgrades 

Brownfield upgrades sit across several areas of regulation, and which ones apply depends on the scope of work:

• Building Act  and Building Code: alterations to an existing building must meet Section 112 of the Building Act, which requires the building to continue to comply with relevant Building Code clauses after the work, not just the new part of the building.
• Building consents: most structural, plumbing, and services work requires a building consent from the local council’s building consent authority before work starts.
• Health and safety: the Health and Safety at Work Act and associated regulations, including the Asbestos Regulations, apply to any work that could expose workers to hazards, which is a live consideration on older industrial sites.
• Contaminated land: HAIL-listed sites are subject to the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil, which may require a preliminary site investigation before consent is granted.
• Trade waste and resource consents: process changes that affect discharge to trade waste, water take, or emissions may need consent from the local council or regional council under the Resource Management Act.
• Food safety registration: sites manufacturing, processing, or handling food generally need to be registered under the Food Act, and changes to process or plant may need to be notified to the local council or Ministry.

Getting compliance requirements mapped out early, alongside the condition assessment, keeps them from becoming late-stage surprises that hold up commissioning.

Get support with your next brownfield project

TEG Projects’ Capital Project Management and Industrial Plant Services (IPS) teams work alongside client-side project teams on brownfield upgrades across the food and beverage, manufacturing, and industrial sectors, from feasibility and condition assessment through to construction and commissioning. If you’re planning an upgrade to an existing facility and want to talk through scope, constraints, and delivery risk, get in touch with the TEG Projects team.

FAQ

What are the best practices for managing a brownfield facility upgrade without disrupting ongoing production?

Phase the work around planned shutdown windows, verify existing structural, electrical, and utility conditions on site before finalising design, review the whole system (not just the new equipment), test off-line where possible, and work with a delivery partner experienced in live-production environments.

How do you conduct a condition assessment before starting a brownfield industrial upgrade in New Zealand?

Assess structural capacity, electrical and utility capacity, hazardous materials (particularly asbestos in pre-1990 buildings), contaminated land status for HAIL-listed sites, and existing equipment condition. Build in contingency for undocumented conditions and engage early with relevant utility and asset owners.

What are the biggest challenges of upgrading an existing food or industrial facility compared to a greenfield build?

Brownfield upgrades have to work around live production, existing structural and space constraints, limited utility capacity, hidden conditions from aging or undocumented infrastructure, and integration risk across utilities, sanitation, and material flow. Greenfield builds avoid these constraints but generally face a longer consenting process before construction starts.

What regulatory compliance considerations apply to brownfield facility upgrades in New Zealand?

Key considerations include Building Act 2004 Section 112 and Building Code compliance, building consents, health and safety obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and Asbestos Regulations 2016, contaminated land assessment for HAIL-listed sites, trade waste and resource consents under the Resource Management Act, and food safety registration under the Food Act 2014 where applicable.