Blog

Four complex structures have been successfully brought to the ground via the controlled use of explosives, on the site of a power station’s redundant units in Sardinia.

The two old oil units of EP Produzione’s thermoelectric plant in Fiume Santo – each with a nominal power of 160 MW – were permanently shut down in December 2013, after having supplied energy to the Italian island since the 1980s. A phased decommissioning programme has been underway since the closure, but specialist consulting engineers from UK-headquartered RVA Group were appointed last Autumn, to interrogate and oversee the use of explosives on the site.

A 100m weather tower, a 150m reinforced concrete chimney and two 50m high steel boilers weighing 2000 tonnes, were demolished in only five seconds each. The blowdowns took place as three individual mid-week operations, with 50Kg of explosives used throughout, but this meticulous assignment took more than 12 months to prepare for.

Commenting on the project, RVA’s explosives expert Charles Moran said: “Explosives engineering was the preferred technique for these assets because of the height of the structures. It was considered safer to demolish them remotely, than expose employees to thousands of unnecessary hours working at height.

“Given the complexity of the project and the several counterparties involved, a constant dialogue was needed with local and national institutional bodies responsible for environmental authorisations and the import of the explosives. Our technical knowledge and experience was certainly placed under scrutiny”.

Using a shaped-charge technique specified for the boiler demolition, RVA worked with explosives contractor Tecnomine and author of the blasting projects Mr. Mikula, to develop the methodology. Test blasts were also attended in Spain to refine the explosives design before the blowdowns took place.

Of the approximately 8000 tonnes of resulting material, all has been recycled, with the concrete processed through a local crushing plant and the steel being sent for scrap. Main contractor AVE – based in the Czech Republic – is now dismantling the remains of the boiler and clearing up the wider site.

It is regarded by some as a ‘necessary evil’, but inherently hazardous decommissioning projects require meticulous management and an extremely defined skill-set, if they’re to be executed safely. RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann was recently featured in Safety Management, sharing his insight into some of the biggest safety challenges in oil and gas decommissioning and, most importantly, how to mitigate them.

If you missed the article, you can read it in full below…

It has not been an easy time for the oil and gas sector in recent years. Difficult trading conditions – as well as a shift in demand for ‘cleaner’ energy – have gradually made it uneconomically viable for many firms to remain operational. Several facilities are also reaching the end of their natural design life, which is another factor necessitating plant closure. Over the past decade, the number of hydrocarbon processing sites, petrochemical plants, refineries, storage and terminal depots that have closed, in Europe alone, has consequently increased phenomenally.

The UK has seen the closure of the Coryton refinery in Essex, the Murco refinery in Milford Haven and Petroplus’ plant in Teesside, for example, to name just a few. There have been offshore announcements too, with Shell’s recent divestment of multiple North Sea assets.

In the face of such challenges, operators soon face a difficult decision – what to do with their redundant assets. Mothballed, rationalised or permanently closed sites all require frequent inspections and maintenance, not least to ensure legislative compliance. But EHS (environmental, health and safety) concerns also naturally mount as these plants deteriorate in condition.

Decommissioning – a specialist skill

Mindful of their corporate social responsibilities, many operators naturally seek to decommission their facilities. Often this is the precursor to clearing the entire site for regeneration, some elements may remain operational, and it is even possible, on occasions, to carefully dismantle assets for resale and re-erection elsewhere.

But irrespective of the project schedule, decommissioning is not a straightforward exercise. It is a scientific discipline that requires a defined and experienced skill-set, if projects are to be executed safely, cost-effectively and with maximum respect for the environment. It should not be viewed merely as an extension of normal operations or the reverse of commissioning and construction, nor should it be rushed to achieve an accelerated exit. The client’s perception of risk is therefore one of the first safety challenges to navigate.

Recognising that decommissioning represents a great step into the unknown for most organisations, specialist external guidance is usually required. Of course, this expertise encounters a cost and when money is tight some companies are tempted to take shortcuts. But economic pressures do not mean that risks are any less onerous or that legislation can be flouted. Armed with an experienced, independent skill-set, on the other hand, oil and gas operators can instead make safe, environmentally sound and commercially robust decisions about their site – secure in the knowledge that personnel, the surrounding community and even the company’s reputation, will not be exposed to undue risk.

Rigorous documentation and a competent supply chain

Regardless of the selected project model, all methodologies and risks must be rigorously documented, with detailed specifications of work created for the preparatory decommissioning exercise, as well as any hazardous material surveys, demolition contractor tenders and so on. A suitably skilled project team should also be assembled and a time-specific programme of works drawn up. This is a very different process to preparing a plant for an overhaul.

The assembly of the project team is, in itself, becoming increasingly difficult. The number of decommissioning projects coming to the fore is unmistakeable, and for one of the first times in the history of the profession, there is the risk of demand outstripping supply. This issue is being experienced on a global scale, especially when it comes to more specialist areas of demolition such as explosives engineering. The number of such competent professionals, worldwide, is very small – certainly in comparison to the thousands of projects to be carried out.

Savvy decommissioning firms are of course willing to travel, but the challenge for the client is knowing how to locate them in the first place.

Bringing assets to a known state

On many redundant sites, the assets that need to be decommissioned were mothballed many years ago. This poses a number of difficulties – some structures will have only been partially cleaned, drawings may be non-existent, and it is almost inevitable that the knowledge of site personnel will have long been lost. This means that it is extremely difficult to establish the ‘known state’ of such plants and understand the potential pitfalls that lie ahead.

When first arriving on site, the level of residual product, any loss of containment and the structural integrity of the assets that remain, should therefore be rigorously assessed. Technology such as drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can, in many cases, provide a helpful aide before people have to enter any vessels or work at height themselves. In fact, they can collect vast amounts of data during the surveying stage of a project, with virtually no risk to personnel whatsoever.

If drones are flown over and/or within an even partially-operational site, added precautions will undoubtedly be required. Potentially explosive atmospheres must be clearly zoned, as it is likely that flights will only be permitted within predefined distances. Limitations may also be placed on whether the drone can fly inside a structure, if it could represent a possible source of ignition.

Geographical safety variances

It could be argued that safety concerns are even greater when undertaking works in a location with differing standards or cultural acceptances of what is ‘safe enough’. However, there should be no sliding scale – it is either safe, or not. RVA has previously declined to take on a project, when a somewhat dismissive attitude to on-site actions could have put people in danger. And during a project in Southeast Asia, the team had to regularly demonstrate not only why harnesses should be worn, but also why they must be tethered to something immovable when working at height.

But, unfortunately, geography isn’t the only factor influencing operators’ mindsets.

Admittedly, cultural differences, language barriers and the availability of local fit-for-purpose equipment can add to the challenge. However, all of these challenges are navigable with the right attitude and adequate preparation time.

Almost ten years ago, RVA was called out to the desert of Turkmenbashi, for instance, to provide specialist assistance on a demolition assignment that would enable the commissioning of a new Delayed Coker Unit (DCU).

First there was a 10-hectare refinery to clear. EPC contractor Lotus Enerji had committed to a three-month schedule during which time a number of structures had to be taken down, including three distillation columns up to 50m tall, three reinforced concrete storage silos weighing 2,000 tonnes, a 1,300-tonne reaction structure with four coke drums sitting on a 1,000-tonne reinforced concrete bed, and a 62m tall flue stack.

The complexity of these structures plus the absence of modern demolition machinery meant that the project posed too large a challenge for Lotus to manage single-handedly. RVA therefore rectified the programme’s sequencing issues, delivered a much-needed insight into state-of-the-art demolition techniques and practices, imparted health and safety guidance, and project managed the scheme of works thereafter. This was certainly a very different undertaking, in an environment with highly contrasting standards, but the programme came to a safe, efficient and timely conclusion due to the input of specialist demolition expertise.

In truth, the safety challenges associated with decommissioning assignments are vast and varied. But as could be said for virtually every profession – if competent people are appointed for the job, and given the respect to do their job with appropriate resource, the highest standards of excellence can be ensured irrespective of the inherent hazards.

Richard Vann is past president of the Institute of Demolition Engineers and Institute of Explosives Engineers and, in 2017, he was the keynote speaker at the World Demolition Summit. He founded RVA Group in 1992 and remains at the helm of the company which, to date, has completed more than 750 decommissioning projects worldwide.

RVA’s managing director Richard Vann has been announced as one of the session chairs for this year’s World Demolition Summit in Dublin, Ireland.

This is not the first time Richard has drawn on his decades of experience to support the event. In November 2017, he took to the stage as keynote speaker, to address the hundreds of delegates who had gathered in London. He spoke about the challenges that had faced the industry that year and urged demolition professionals to adjust their thinking to leverage the global opportunities that would surface in 2018 and beyond.

He also urged contractors, consultants, trainers and other thought-leaders alike, to consider the worrying dearth of young talent coming into the demolition world and take action to address a potential generational gap of skills.

This year, his role will see him chair the Summit’s afternoon session, with further details due to be confirmed imminently. He will also reveal the winner of the Industrial Demolition category – one of 14 categories at the event’s awards ceremony, set to be hosted by BBC personality John Inverdale – on Thursday 8 November.

For further information about the event, including how to book, please visit https://www.demolitionsummit.com/conference.html.

The decommissioning of an energy generation site is admittedly complex, time consuming and inherently hazardous. But as power stations worldwide reach their end of life – and economic and environmental pressures force others to close – such decommissioning projects are not only inevitable, but essential.

Richard Vann, managing director of RVA Group – and past president of both the Institute of Demolition Engineers and Institute of Explosives Engineers – recently explored the biggest challenges within this specialist arena with Energy Engineering. Read his thoughts from the article below…

1. Decommissioning is not simply the reverse of construction

The first obstacle should actually be one of the easiest to address and it comes down to mindset. The safe, cost-effective and environmentally efficient decommissioning of an energy asset is not simply the reverse of its construction. Demolition is an engineering-driven discipline and, whilst some will view it as a ‘unwelcome evil’, it is a part of the asset lifecycle and requires a very specific skill-set.

Many energy operators fail to dedicate the level of time, skills and resources truly required, but cutting corners will probably put lives, the environment and the commercial integrity of the project, at risk.

2. Bringing assets to a ‘known state’

Rarely are two structures the same in any industrial sector, and energy generation is no exception. Power stations throughout the country have been built at varying times, with different configurations and using multiple construction techniques. Some boilers are suspended, for instance, whilst others have been erected from the ground up. This site diversity is challenging in itself, but in the absence of detailed plans, the nature of that challenge escalates significantly.

It’s in the DNA of a demolition professional to problem solve but gathering information about the presence, location and type of hazardous insulation materials (HIM); attracting secure bids from the tendering demolition companies; and bringing assets to a ‘known state’ is far from straightforward, especially if drawings are non-existent, some structures have only been partially cleaned and the knowledge of site personnel has been lost.

Aside from appointing a competent team, the key advice here is to allow sufficient time and other resources at the outset of a project, to assess the level of residual product, any loss of containment and the structural integrity of the assets that remain.

3. Awareness of all options

Energy firms are experts at running power stations, but they’re not decommissioning specialists, and nor should they be expected to be. They cannot therefore know all possible routes that the project could go down.

The preparation of a costed feasibility and options study addresses this knowledge barrier and empowers operators to make informed decisions. Often commencing with a series of management workshops, it is an exploratory process which helps to uncover the key issues associated with a plant, project and site, before providing a clear view as to the true opportunity or liability of the works. The resulting report then usually highlights a number of technical, costed conclusions and recommendations as to the most appropriate route map for the assignment.

Elements of some smaller stations may be carefully dismantled for sale and re-erection elsewhere, particularly with rotating equipment for instance. Whilst there are cases where enhanced monetisation of an asset has been achieved, as the numbers of closed stations increases, it is rare in the energy sector to complete such deals. The sale for reuse avenue should always be a ‘plan B’, and rarely can be relied upon as the ultimate end of life route.

4. The presence of on-site services

Mothballed or partially closed sites will inevitably have power distribution grid infrastructures on site, which must often remain in-situ and undisturbed. Their location is likely to determine what else has to stay, which decommissioning methodologies can be used and the sequential roll out of works throughout the project.

The rerouting of utilities is sometimes essential, which is an achievable yet complex and arduous task. The time required to successfully execute this diversion exercise should not be underestimated.

5. Respect the role of technology

Demolition equipment has continued to advance over the years which means long reach excavators can reach newfound heights and drones can often provide a helpful inspection aide before people have to enter any vessels or work at height themselves.

The challenge surrounds knowing what to use and when, as limitations may be placed on whether a drone can fly in proximity to high voltage power lines or other sensitive equipment, for instance.

6. Demand is outstripping supply

For one of the first times in the history of the decommissioning profession, there is the risk of demand outstripping supply – an issue now being felt on a global scale. The number of projects coming to the fore is unmistakeable, due to mounting commercial pressures, ageing assets, geographical market shifts, stricter environmental and legislative compliance requirements, technical innovation and many other less tangible influences. Admittedly this is not just a trend being witnessed in the energy sector, but the matter of who is available to undertake the work is unquestionably one of the largest challenges currently faced by power station owners.

Great care and attention should therefore be taken to assemble a competent supply chain of decommissioning consultant, contractor, and specialists, where relevant.

7. Cost

The number of site owners that now favour a cost- rather than quality-led approach to decommissioning, is thankfully dwindling. The supply chain selection criteria is far more multifaceted than simply the bottom line impact of the chosen project team and methodological route map.

But still some clients – perhaps understandably – try to squeeze the financial parameters of the assignment. If these fiscal pressures risk compromising EHS standards, the outcome can be catastrophic.

8. H and S

Health and safety challenges are certainly not new, but they remain a constant priority when executing decommissioning projects large and small, particularly as assignments grow in complexity. Power station and even nuclear decommissioning projects are coming to the fore at a rate never before seen in the industry, so, quite simply, a robust EHS mindset needs to take precedence, irrespective of the wider pressures highlighted within this feature.

9. Environmental pressures

The adoption of proactive measures to protect the environment is becoming a global priority. When it comes to decommissioning works, there should therefore be no impact on the surrounding community and the project should now achieve a >97% recycling rate as standard.

10. CSR reputation

When a power station closes, the industry, media and general public will watch what happens next with a great degree of interest – if not scrutiny. So, linked to the previous point, energy firms must respect their duty of care to the surrounding neighbourhood, employees past and present, and the wider community. The ‘cost’ of liability – whether that is trespassing on a poorly maintained redundant site, a loss of containment, or worse – is immeasurable.

Not only is it ethically crucial that energy firms demonstrate a strong CSR stance – failure to uphold such an approach would have a vast impact on brand reputation too.

If you’re interested in speaking to someone at RVA Group about the contents of this article, or you’d like some decommissioning advice for your own project, get in touch via our website or call 020 8387 1323.

With decommissioning now a seemingly common practice in the oil and gas sector, it is imperative that site owners and operators acknowledge the complexities involved with projects of this nature. Where do the key decontamination challenges lie, what role does technology play and what insight can be gleaned from the analysis of both historic and current sector assignments? RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann recently shared his thoughts on the topic with industry journal Tanks & Terminals – if you missed the issue, you can read the article in full below…

There can be no denying the hiatus in oil production that swept across many parts of the globe with force, around three years ago. Multiple refineries and storage facilities closed or downsized – either as part of planned strategic decisions or because there was no other commercially viable solution to maintain operations.

The shutdowns, whilst numerous, were managed differently, on a case by case basis. Some assets were mothballed in order to safely postpone any further decision making, at least for the short term. For other terminal owners, the priority was to move towards a safe but swift decommissioning project at the earliest possible opportunity.

Of the dismantling and demolition works that commenced, some schemes of course reached completion. Others however were limited in extent due to mounting commercial pressures, with tanks and terminals having now deteriorated to varying degrees as a result.

In the past 6-12 months, decommissioning specialists have been engaged to re-start a number of these paused projects, particularly in central Europe. So, the peak level of site closures may have long passed, but the volume of decommissioning work either recently or currently underway, is now significant.

The decommissioning drivers

The aforementioned hiatus arose, of course, because of basic economics. Oil prices fell – due to both political, as well as supply and demand influences. The uncertainty of what the future would bring consequently made it difficult for many oil, gas and petrochemical facilities – already working on tight margins – to sustain production.

Plant inefficiency is, of course, another catalyst for decommissioning activity. Terminals naturally start to reach the end of their design life and, as regulatory frameworks begin to dictate more frequent inspections and maintenance regimes at this point in their chronology, the scenario can soon become financially unmanageable. EHS (environment, health and safety) considerations also rise as plant conditions worsen, which represents a corporate and social responsibility burden that many operators are – understandably – unwilling to bear.

Deciding on a decommissioning plan

A feature for Tanks in Terminals in 2017 importantly drew attention to the fact that decommissioning should not be viewed merely as an extension of normal operations, or the reverse of construction and commissioning. It is an entirely different exercise that requires a comprehensive skill-set in order to undertake these inherently hazardous exercises safely, with minimal environmental impact, and to ensure the most commercially robust solution for the business during this potentially difficult period.

External specialists who take on such projects on a daily basis, can therefore provide a value-adding resource to help support operators with the industry’s decommissioning assignments. This involvement should be sought as early as possible, as sector- and discipline-specific knowledge could shape the entire direction of ‘what next’.

A feasibility and options study is a logical starting point for all involved. Often commencing with a series of management workshops, this exploratory process helps to uncover the key issues associated with a plant, project and site, before providing a clear view as to the true opportunity or liability of the works. The findings documented in the resulting report will then usually highlight a number of technical, costed conclusions and recommendations as to the most appropriate route map for the decommissioning assignment.

Whilst in many cases opportunities are limited, it may be possible to dismantle some assets for resale, for example. This is far from a straightforward exercise, as the decontamination, laser scanning, match-marking, physical separation, preservation, precise cataloguing and packing of the plant is often required, so that it can be meticulously reassembled.

The need for decontamination

Technical decommissioning articles commonly home in on the demolition phase of a project, with a great degree of attention quite rightly focusing on the complex methodologies involved with safely bringing a refinery’s varied structures to the ground. But it is crucial to pay equal thought to a more imminent phase of works – decontamination.

Given the time that may have lapsed since a tank, for example, was first mothballed, decommissioning teams face a significant hurdle when it comes to completing the decontamination of such a partially-cleaned structure. It is almost inevitable that the knowledge of the site’s own personnel will have long been lost, which means it is difficult to establish the known state of all assets. This is often the initial priority. It is highly likely that residual product may still be present and the longer a plant has been left, the greater the risk of hazardous atmospheres or a loss of containment. The potential for both safety and environmental issues to manifest is therefore very real.

As is the case with many strands of business activity, technological advancements are fuelling innovation in this respect. Drone technology, for instance, is aiding the safe inspections of tanks and terminals, during these initial planning and surveying stages.

As a general rule, the greater the degree of structural dilapidation, the higher the level of risk associated with vessel entry. So, it is far safer to remotely assess the integrity of a terminal that has not been sufficiently maintained for years, via a piloted drone, than it is for personnel to manually inspect the asset.

Structures can quickly become overgrown with moss and other foliage, for example, and the consequences associated with concealed holes in walkways or detached staircases, could be catastrophic if these hazards remained unidentified. Drones help to circumnavigate this problem, by determining safe access points and work areas for next-step on-site operatives.

This methodology is also relatively inexpensive; quick, as there is no need to erect any scaffolding or other fixed access equipment; and convenient, as it provides a ‘birds-eye’ picture of structures, however complex, without the need for excessive manpower on the ground. Any ethical decommissioning specialist would agree that it is far better to lose a dozen drones than it is for a single person to cut their finger.

If drones are flown over and/or within an even partially operational site, added precautions should of course be taken. Potentially explosive atmospheres must be clearly zoned, as it is likely that flights will only be permitted within predefined distances. Limitations may also be placed on whether the drone can fly inside a structure, if it could represent a possible source of ignition. To the extent of RVA’s knowledge there are not currently any ATEX-rated drones in the market, but manufacturers will surely move quickly to address this gap.

This is not to say that this technique will completely negate safety challenges, of course – drone inspections represent just one aspect, of a single phase, in a potentially lengthy project. But the anticipation of these and other such challenges, is key to being able to comprehensively manage them.

Decommissioning in practice

RVA has encountered a number of very different decommissioning projects in this sector, each with their own feasibility study outcomes and therefore each with their own defined course of action thereafter.

Fifteen years ago, for example, Total engaged RVA to specify the decommissioning works for three road and rail terminal distribution depots – Leeds, Langley and Sunderland (UK). Health and safety plans were carefully drafted for all, with the latter site subsequently sold to another operator. At Leeds and Langley, the sites were shut down and dealt with promptly, with the work carried out soon after and RVA adopting visiting roles thereafter to oversee the project.

When Murco’s refinery in Milford Haven (UK) closed in 2014, RVA was brought in to specify all work ahead of the site’s demolition. The day before the demolition was due to begin, the plant was sold to a company in Pakistan, with RVA later re-engaged to write the alternative dismantling specification. With this project, it was agreed that RVA’s involvement would cease when the contractor was engaged, but the piecemeal decommissioning, disassembly and export of the entire refinery is currently underway, with a reported completion date of Autumn 2018.

In the case of Petroplus, RVA produced a feasibility and options study for an 8.5-acre site in Teesside (UK) – the output of which was then used to formulate a detailed specification for the refinery decommissioning and dismantling works. Petroplus was placed into administration before the project could be executed, but the groundwork has been done for future use.

Fast forward to the present day and two costing studies are currently being undertaken by RVA on terminals in Europe. These will act as strategic management tools that will enable the site owners to make informed decisions about the best course of action for their redundant sites.

Reactive support

There are some instances where decommissioning activities are not pre-planned of course. In the case of Buncefield (UK) – when a catastrophic escape of petroleum caused a mass explosion which overwhelmed 20 storage tanks in 2005 – RVA was appointed by Amec post-trauma, to develop the required specification of work.

The Government authorised the use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) to extinguish the fire on the long-burning assets, but the foam itself added to the environmental impact of the disaster.

With buildings bent double, RVA therefore wrote the specification to deal with the safe dismantling of the unstable structures, as well as the cleaning regime required to sanitise the site of the foam, without disturbing the forensic evidence required to piece together the cause of the explosion. A reactive role was maintained over the 12 months that followed, as the distressed tanks and structures were carefully brought to the ground.

A competent supply chain

It is important to note that other heavy industries – beyond the realms of oil, gas and petrochemical refining – are currently experiencing operational challenges too. So, as further site closures are announced globally – necessitating even more decommissioning projects – finding a competent supply chain will become increasingly difficult.

However, there are a refined number of highly-equipped decommissioning consultants, project managers, decontamination specialists, demolition contractors and explosives experts, willing to travel throughout the world, to ensure these works are completed to the highest possible standard. All the site owner needs to prioritise, is their involvement.

If you would like to speak to RVA Group about the contents of this article, or you’re interested in decommissioning advice for your own project, please contact us via our website or call 020 8387 1323.

RVA Group’s operations director Ian Wharton has been awarded prestigious Fellowship status with the Institute of Demolition Engineers (IDE).

The Fellowship – which is granted by invitation only and is the highest grade of membership – marks Ian’s 24^th year in demolition project management. Having been a member of the IDE since 2003, the accomplishment represents his ongoing contribution to the profession, and his particular passion for ensuring EHS excellence remains the number one priority.

Commenting on the attainment, he said: “With more than 30 years in the process/chemical sector, in excess of 20 have been spent developing specialist knowledge and methodologies that ensure the safe and cost-effective executions of projects in the field of decommissioning, decontamination, dismantling and demolition. My experience spans roles on both the client and consultant side of inherently hazardous large-scale assignments, in the UK as well as overseas, and I feel extremely proud to have been recognised by my peers.

“Because IDE Fellowship is awarded at the sole discretion of the Council of Management, the achievement feels particularly significant. I am now the third member of the RVA team to become a Fellow which evidences the rich level of specialist demolition knowledge and engineering experience within the business.”

Alongside Ian’s senior responsibilities within RVA, he will continue contributing to and supporting the IDE with seminar deliveries, in a bid to promote the profession and strengthen supply chain dialogue on a global basis.

RVA Group is delighted to announce that there is a new face within our growing team of consulting engineers.

Jack Pierce joins the company with a varied technical, planning and management background. His career to date has seen him work throughout the UK and overseas, in roles including quantity surveying, maintenance coordination at the Seal Sands ConocoPhillips oil terminal and project engineering with a civils firm servicing the petrochemical sector. He is also an experienced rope access technician meaning he is more than familiar with EHS management in inherently high-hazard industries.

Jack has practical demolition, dismantling, contract management, CDM coordination, asbestos removal and high hazard plant maintenance skills – to name just a few other CV highlights – in addition to his wealth of professional qualifications.

He has been appointed into a project management position and is currently involved with RVA’s ongoing work at SABIC.

Commenting on Jack’s arrival, RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann said: “It is not always easy to find great talent in the decommissioning supply chain. Jack possesses extensive experience and a much-needed skill-set that will enable him to provide a value-adding contribution to RVA’s complex projects.

“When we were acquired by EPH in late 2017 we already had a busy portfolio of work ahead of us. We have not only maintained this momentum – we’ve built on it. So, as we prepare to support clients with upcoming assignments throughout Europe and beyond, it is crucial that there are exceptional project managers within the team. We’re delighted to have him on board.”

RVA Group’s managing director was asked to pen a feature for International Construction recently, which explored demolition trends on an international scale. If you missed the write up, you can read it in full here…

As heavy industries continue to evolve worldwide, many assets naturally become redundant. The difficulty, for the operator, is deciding exactly what to do next with these often inherently hazardous structures.

Navigating the associated safety, environmental and fiscal challenges is not easy. However, armed with the right skill-set, experienced demolition professionals can help to ensure the effective clearance of such plant, irrespective of the project complexities that arise around the globe.

When RVA worked on a project for the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR), it was the team’s dismantling expertise that was sought.

The global energy leader wanted to relocate a mothballed polypropylene manufacturing facility from Quebec, Canada, to Azerbaijan. But this demanding assignment required the decontamination, laser scanning, match-marking, physical separation, preservation, precise cataloguing and packing of the plant, so that it could be meticulously reassembled. Maintaining the operational integrity of every component was of course critical, as failure to correctly administer this process, could have resulted in this highly valuable manufacturing resource becoming nothing more than scrap metal.

Appointed by European Petroleum Consultancy (EPC), who ran the overall contract, RVA provided project management, technical engineering and EHS advice for the duration of the works.

Safety and environmental standards were paramount from the outset. Whilst most modern countries adhere to similar benchmarks in this respect, there are naturally varying international and even regional nuances to the law. Asbestos removal is regulated differently in Canada to the UK, for example. However, to ensure best practice and maximum peace of mind when undertaking such high-hazard projects, legislative parameters are only ever considered as setting the very minimum criteria. This is because the objective of any responsible demolition professional should be to exceed legislative compliance and ensure the highest achievable level of safety.

Canada was a new geographical territory for RVA and time differences added to the exacting nature of the project. With RVA engineers visiting Quebec – coordinating expertise with specialist engineers back in London – careful planning was essential to maintain efficient dialogue.

However, the effective execution of this complex six-month scheme resulted in 1,000 tonnes of equipment successfully making the 5,000-mile journey for reassembly in Baku.

On other occasions, the recovery of selected plant items, for transfer to an owner’s other site(s), is a by-product of a larger total site closure programme. This was the case for the clearance of a sucralose manufacturing plant on an 11-hectare site on Jurong Island, Singapore. Owned by Tate & Lyle, the client engaged RVA to oversee the decontamination, demolition and dismantling of the facility, prior to it being consigned to sister plants worldwide.

The project was bound by tight timescales, given a commercial driver for the client to exit the site in the most cost-effective way. The work was therefore planned sequentially with designated demolition areas handed over in a carefully phased manner. Potential sources of ignition were subject to strict controls, due to the nature of the chemicals housed nearby and the presence of some units which had to remain operational during the initial stages of the programme.

Here again, local standards were adopted as a regulatory compliance base for this project, however, global industry best practice was the non-negotiable the benchmark for the demolition contractor’s EHS regimes and technical methodologies. But delivering this approach can represent challenges – not least due to cultural differences and language barriers – so effective personnel relations, awareness training and communication were key.

Deciding on the optimum ‘next step’ for a site is far from a straightforward exercise, and a plan is usually devised following analysis of a costed feasibility study. The owners of Eggborough Power Station in Northern England first engaged RVA in 2015, for example, to help them explore the most efficient way to manage the decommissioning works of their 2000MW facility when it ceases generation in the near future.

Faced with various strategic options, the client has yet to decide the exact demolition approach for this major site. However, with eight cooling towers, one stack, significant levels of asbestos and the requirement for explosive demolition techniques as part of the overall scheme of work, the project will have to be carefully managed and executed by a competent team. With the current high level of coal fired power station decommissioning works underway or scheduled in the UK, the regulatory organisations are giving this sector a great deal of attention.

To talk to the RVA team about your own decommissioning, decontamination, dismantling and/or demolition project, please don’t hesitate to contact us.