Blog

Recently, RVA’s MD Richard Vann spoke to Demolition & Recycling International about the sectors that will shape the future of the demolition industry. If you missed the article, catch it in full, here…

The demolition industry – as a collective – has a rich and varied ‘CV’, as, of course, many different buildings and structures have had to be cleared over the years. From MDUs (multi dwelling units) condemned as building standards and lifestyle expectations have evolved, to sites left redundant when operators have been squeezed by mounting economic pressures, the nature of demolition works – and the catalysts for these projects – has been complex and wide-ranging.

It’s unlikely that this will change. Although the sectors we find ourselves invited to work in looks set to further develop.

Over the last 30 years, RVA’s work as an independent consultant has focused primarily on the decommissioning, decontamination, dismantling and demolition of large-scale processing facilities in heavy industries. Operators in the inherently hazardous worlds of petrochemical, pharmaceutical and energy, for example, have had many reasons to engage the demolition profession.

As plants have reached the end of their useful life – whether due to legislative, efficiency, innovatory or economic factors – they have had to be cleared safely, cost-effectively and with minimal environmental impact. Some operators have drawn their entire business to a close inline, some have invested in and erected more modern plant on the same footprint, and in certain instances, processors have sold assets for re-erection overseas.

It’s been an interesting three decades, with project specifics differing from one assignment to the next. This variety will continue, for certain – with factors such as the age of plant, historic maintenance regimes, supply chain influences, operator resource and so much more, influencing how multifaceted projects will take shape. However, the same fundamental trends – innovation, obsoletion, economics, legislation and societal pressures – will continue to shape future demand for demolition engineering, albeit perhaps in more unfamiliar sectors.

The decarbonisation agenda

There is now an unparalleled level of conversation surrounding sustainability and climate change, not least as a result of COP26 in Glasgow, last November. Globally, there is a markedly greater push towards ‘net zero’ – a step-change to ensure the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere is no more than the amount taken out. And, while there is still a long way to go – not least become some environmentalists argue this alone won’t address the climate emergency – there can be no denying the fact that the decarbonisation agenda is rising.

Consequently, oil refineries and coal-fired power stations, for example, are just some of the facilities that will be increasingly phased out in favour of cleaner, renewable technologies – and understandably so.

But with the acceleration of change rising, even newer, ‘greener’ facilities – such as windfarms, Energy from Waste plants, hydrogen-powered sites, battery storage units and so on – will also reach their end of life, as innovators engineer even more efficient designs that bring about greater environmental progress. And it is the operators in these industries who will find themselves collaborating with the demolition profession, over the coming years.

When the time comes, the operational history of such sites will be different to that of the sites we work on now, of course. However, the manner with which we approach any resulting decommissioning, decontamination, dismantling or demolition projects, will remain a constant – engage with stakeholders, understand and manage the risks, plan the works with utmost respect for safety, environmental protection and budget, assemble the best-fit project team, and proceed with the execution with compliance as the very minimum benchmark standard.

The future of demolition, now

It’s a subject I’ve spoken about before, but I also predict a notable rise in the number of investment companies, land development firms, architects, designers, and construction specialists, who will seek to engage the services of the demolition industry. This may sound perplexing, given our visible role in a plant or structure’s lifecycle is usually when it has reached the end of its useful life – not when its erection is being considered.

But just like product designers are consulting recycling specialists, to increase the ease and efficiency with which materials can be recovered, reused and remanufactured when an item is disposed of, we see the same trend emerging in the built environment.

It will be far easier and safer to decommission an asset if the appropriate considerations have been made, by people with a demolition engineering skill set, at the earliest stage. Financial provisioning can be undertaken too, which mitigates the fiscal risks involved as an asset ages. I’d go so far as to say the environmental impact of the project could be better managed too.

The future of demolition is therefore dependent on the rich expertise that the industry has amassed over the decades. But the deployment of that expertise will continue to vary. Things are ever-changing, after all.

Recently, RVA’s MD Richard Vann spoke to Demolition & Recycling International about the evolving role of the Principal Designer (PD). If you missed the article, catch it in full, below…

While the role of the PD is familiar territory for many demolition professionals – and the clients who appoint us – for others it represents something unknown. Industrial operators who are approaching a decommissioning assignment for the first time, for example, may never have even seen these words before. So, although the position will always need to be filled – not least because it is a legal obligation – that doesn’t mean the right skill sets are recruited, every time.

Consequently, my biggest fear is that on such projects, the process to appoint a PD risks therefore becoming little more than a ‘tick box exercise’ – when in actual fact, it is critical to project success.

In the most basic of terms, the engagement of a Principal Designer is a fundamental requirement, by law, for UK decommissioning and demolition undertakings. This duty holder role is set out under the Construction Design Management (CDM) regulations, which exist to help manage health and safety on these potentially high-hazard assignments. Comparable roles exist in other regions too, including (but not limited to) ‘SiGeKo – Planning prescribed by Baustell V’ in Germany, or the requirements set out by OSHA in North America.

However, the effective fulfilment of PD – or equivalent – responsibilities, in truth extends far beyond these regulatory frameworks. In fact, the role of Principal Designer is integral to the deployment and maintenance of good practice and a secure project management structure, throughout the lifecycle of the works. The PD is therefore both an essential and key ‘recruit’ within the structure of any decommissioning team and should never be considered as something akin to a lip service appointment.

That’s because the role of a PD is to analyse what potential risks exist on a given site. Such risks may relate to the demolition discipline itself, but will also extend to include the process-specific hazards relevant to the industrial background and current operational status of the plant concerned. The PD may therefore need to enhance their own process knowledge with that of personnel from the sector, whether that be from energy, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and so on.

The Principal Designer must then understand where these multiple hazards reside and how they interact with each other. Thought must also be given to when, and in what order, the risks should be approached, who should tackle them, and how and why the process should be executed in a certain way – taking into account proven techniques, innovative new methodologies, and ever-evolving legislation. In short, this element of the PD’s role is to provide direction to help mitigate the dangers posed to personnel, surrounding stakeholders, the environment, and the overall integrity of the project. This is by no means straightforward.

In establishing a safety-first mindset and a commitment to shared EHS responsibilities throughout the entire team, the PD should also work to ensure cooperation between designers, the client, and contractor(s). An audit and validation of the capabilities of all parties should also be undertaken, relevant to the works involved, to ensure adequate provision is made for the management of safety.

In recent times, I have seen an uplift in the number of PD roles being awarded to demolition professionals – including Principal Contractors – with wider existing project responsibilities. Client perceptions surrounding a stretched supply chain may account for this – at least in part – as may an operator’s internal pressures to assemble a project team at pace, if the decommissioning schedule is delayed for any reason.

However, such pressures perhaps underpin exactly why the PD needs to have a clear and uncompromisingly independent position in the project.

This is not to say the decision to designate PD responsibilities to a contractor, for example, is unlawful, providing the appointed party can successfully fulfil every mandatory element of the duty holder role.

They may be able to effectively coordinate the level of dialogue required to maintain open levels of communication and cooperation between all designers, the Principal Contractor and other woks contractors, for example. But what happens if a contractor – who also holds the PD role – designs a lifting study? Who evaluates and checks this? When commercial pressures risk influencing decision making, who ensures best practice is maintained without cutting corners – even if unintentionally?

Nobody would ever say they wouldn’t knowingly follow best practice, of course. And the cornerstone of any successful project is a safety-first mindset, whereby the management of EHS is considered the highest priority. But the ability to maintain a fully objective view is not always easy when project stakeholders – possibly from within the same organisation – may have conflicting responsibilities and drivers.

Without a neutral PD providing project management governance, the client also has little to fall back on should issues with specifications of works arise further down the line.

It is therefore a role that requires protection in some respects. It’s not the position that is the most visible to an outsider looking in, for instance – but it’s a crucial one, and this is not going to change for some time. The legal duty holder role of PD is also different to what most clients really need, which is a proficient project manager. The former naturally fits into the latter, if performed properly, whereas it is important to acknowledge that it doesn’t necessarily work in reverse.

In his most recent Demolition & Recycling International column, RVA’s MD Richard Vann looks at what’s in store for demolition in 2022. If you missed the article, catch it in full below…

It’s difficult to pen any reflective words at the end of the year without them sounding clichéd – and this is particularly tricky on the back of a global pandemic. But, as 2021 draws to a close, I’d hope most people would agree with me in saying that this is the year when the world started to wake up again.

Q1 was still fraught with uncertainty, and at that point there was, generally, more talk of recovery than any recordable change. However, it takes time to rebuild momentum after such seismic disruption, and in the months that followed, confidence, activity and optimism was gradually restored – especially in the demolition industry.

So much so, that as we bring 2021 to a close, the competent supply chain is extremely active and, in many cases, visibly stretched. And this isn’t just because of Covid-19.

With environmental targets intensifying – not least as countries advance their commitments to ‘greener’ technologies – industries such as petrochemical, oil and gas, are changing at pace. Demand for traditional fuels is falling, and the pressures to upgrade to more sustainable plants – if not completely overhaul sites – are vast. Projects in these sectors – to name just a few – are therefore plentiful.

Mindful that reputable contractors are busy, many of the operators we’re currently working alongside are going out to tender as quickly as they can, in a bid to secure the skilled project teams they need. But this early engagement still needs to be accompanied by clear and honest dialogue regarding the ability to deliver projects, to schedule, without any reduction of standards. We don’t want to see clients lower their selection criteria, to keep a programme on track. And there is never a scenario when it is acceptable for a decommissioning, decontamination, demolition or dismantling contractor to be faced with having to compromise on EHS excellence.

So, if there was ever a time to ensure the demolition industry is not squeezed on price, it is now. Many organisations have a clearer picture of the numbers, and have planned in advance to ensure that even the most complex of projects are executed safely and with maximum respect for the environment. The cost of reputational damage is unmeasurable and unlimited, after all.

I foresee this level of demand continuing throughout 2022 and into 2023 too, as the economy continues to right itself. Hopefully some contractors will acknowledge and act on this opportunity to invest in more people and, in some instances, raise their game to be able to take on the more complex of assignments. The outlook for the profession is definitely a positive one.

This is not to say we’ve had it easy. Like most industries, demolition has had to adapt to newfound pandemic-related challenges, and the crisis is far from over. it would be naïve to say that, as a population, we have defeated Covid-19. However, on the whole, we must adapt so we can manage to live with it, and – certainly in our field – it feels as though it is just one more hazard to risk assess and deal with. That’s perhaps why established players in this industry have fared ok.

At RVA, international projects are picking up again, with clients exploring the role we can play on a full time, visiting, and even virtual basis. I’ve said many times that some of the new habits Covid-19 has brought about are welcomed, and the use of technology to facilitate data sharing, communication and relationship building – where relevant – is definitely one of those.

We’ve also recently been interviewed on our thoughts surrounding the demolition industry’s attitudes to waste management, and of course we all know how engrained the reuse and recycle mentality is within our profession. I think this is deserved acknowledgement that – decades before the likes of COP26 – we have prioritised sustainable on-site practices and the segregated recovery of even the trickiest of materials. It’s always a pleasure to report on how trailblazing the industry really is, whether this is widely acknowledged or not.

It’s perhaps wishful thinking, but I’d love to see the media buoyed with more optimistic headlines, such as this, in 2022. Doom and gloom may sell papers and drive clicks, but – away from the more professional of technical journals – it makes for bleak reading. Plus, the impact on mood and confidence is unmistakable. So, let’s celebrate everything the demolition industry has achieved, and stood for, during difficult times, and look forward to the potential that lies ahead, for those who want to rise to the challenge.