Blog

RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann recently took to the stage at the inaugural Russian Demolition Forum in Moscow, as industry professionals from around the world gathered to share ideas, expertise and visions for the future of the sector.

Following an in-depth two-day agenda, here are Richard’s 3 key takeaways from the event:

1. Firstly, this was an ambitious event programme to deliver, given the number of guests who were invited to attend from a wide range of truly global locations. But the bold plan did pay off. This wasn’t just a testament to the event organisers – it also reminded everyone involved just how many talented, experienced and forward-thinking people there are in what remains a very niche area of engineering.

I have played a part in delivering almost 800 RVA projects around the world and believe our network is very strong, but I still made some very interesting and valuable contacts when I was in Moscow.

2. The importance of cross-cultural knowledge transfer cannot be underestimated. Approaches naturally differ from one country to the next, as do attitudes to environmental protection, health and safety standards, best practice on-site techniques, and more. But the triangulation of expertise – via events such as this – plays a crucial part in raising standards on a truly global level.

Over the years we’ve seen so many examples of locally ‘acceptable’ standards, often driven by the legislative benchmark in the country concerned. But in parts of the world where the demolition profession has advanced significantly – such as Western Europe – minimum standards stretch far beyond legislative compliance alone.

The more we – as an industry – can share project scenarios, learnings and ideas, the greater our EHS awareness as a collective.

3. It was great to see the appetite to form a new demolition federation in Russia, off the back of this first successful forum. If such a strong will can be stimulated following a single event, it will be very exciting to see how this association takes shape with continued dialogue, meetings and future events.

It is a privilege to have been involved from the outset and we look forward to seeing what happens next…

Following 12 weeks of collaborating with decommissioning consultancy RVA Group, the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) has embarked upon the international tender and selection process for a contractor to execute a Cypriot power station dismantling project.

It was announced late last autumn that RVA had been appointed to oversee the complex 26-month assignment at Moni Power Station – a 1960s construction approximately 14km east of Limassol – and the development of a detailed tender package was one of the first crucial elements of the initial planning and preparation phase.

A number of local partners – specialising in safety management, structural engineering and geotechnical science – are already working with RVA’s team of engineers. Now all eyes are on the identification of a dismantling contractor who can help fulfil the complex brief.

The project will see the sequential clearance of a number of assets on the 16 hectare site, including six 30MW steam and oil-fired turbines, boiler generating units and ancillary equipment; six chimneys; the fuel oil pump house; and switchyard. All have been out of operational use since 2013.

Commenting on the project, RVA’s managing director Richard Vann said: “The careful formation of a best-fit team acts as a crucial foundation for any dismantling or demolition assignment.

“On paper, the appointment of professionals from varied cultures and backgrounds sounds like it has the potential to present additional challenges, when it comes to things such as regulatory knowledge and language barriers. However, engineering-specific experience and a shared, non-negotiable commitment to the safe, environmentally sound and cost-effective execution of works, are actually the most important criteria when selecting who to bring on board.

“We have now worked on almost 800 projects across the globe and our international experience – including the management of diverse teams working on energy sector schemes – is one of the reasons why we were appointed to oversee this two-year brief.”

RVA will have a permanent on-site project management presence until the programme is complete. RVA’s key role during this time is to provide a range of engineering, site project management, technical compliance and financial reporting services – to name just a few. An RVA asbestos analyst will also travel out to the Mediterranean island to survey and monitor the hazardous insulation material removal processes, as the dismantling unfolds.

 

As part of his regular column with Demolition and Recycling International, RVA’s MD Richard Vann penned his thoughts on managing cultural differences on global demolition sites.

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

No two projects are ever totally the same. But the variances – and for some people the challenges – increase further still, when works take place in distinctly different locations, with teams made up of personnel from a number of cultural backgrounds.

There are language barriers to navigate, for example, and perhaps unanticipated norms surrounding working hours, break times or the pace of progress. Even the climate can influence on-site behaviour.

Legislation also varies significantly, which can set the tone regarding project expectations, unless carefully managed from the outset. But there should be one common law irrespective of culture, geography or the scope of works – respect. Respect for the client, colleagues, the environment, wider stakeholders and of course the engineering discipline itself, can help set the project barometer.

Establishing this respect takes effort of course, but this is usually easier to attain with strong levels of communication, consultation and clarity. The corporate minimum standards for the project – however large or small – should be outlined and agreed from day one. Globally-respected British standards are often the starting point, but where higher levels of quality are known, they should always provide the benchmark.

I have previously stopped work on site because agreed safety protocol is not being followed. It represents a huge mindset shift for personnel to wear harnesses in some parts of the world, for instance. But when they did start to wear them and that hurdle was overcome, the next obstacle to tackle was appreciation for the fact that they needed to be clipped on to a fixed stable point, to be of any value!

I’ve also been to sites that didn’t have a rescue plan in place if someone was to fall and become suspended – basic for those in the know but new thinking for many. Approaches to risk management differ from country to country but risks don’t become any less onerous simply because you’re working in different territories. A fall from height in the UK and a fall from height in India – the result is inevitably the same.

Some culturally-driven safety challenges are seemingly less extreme – refusing to wear sunscreen in blistering temperatures, working without a shirt on or turning up to a heavy industrial demolition site in trainers. It may be the norm for some, but if this practice puts safety levels in jeopardy, we cannot forget what we’ve been taught and know is right, and leave our morals waiting at home for us.

It’s about being respectful, of course, but also robust.

When a demolition assignment is taking place in a developing part of the world, it does not mean that incidents can be allowed to happen. This is why internationally experienced demolition teams are now finding their expertise being exported worldwide, so that they can help protect the integrity of jobs and the levels of EHS excellence witnessed on site – particularly as projects grow in scale and complexity.

New engineering investigations and calculations are underway at Ironbridge Power Station in Shropshire, as decommissioning consultancy RVA Group prepares to oversee the next phase of demolition using the controlled use of explosives on behalf of site owner Harworth Group plc.

The site’s four iconic hyperbolic cooling towers – constructed from 45,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete – were brought to the ground in less than 10 seconds in early December 2019, following more than 5 months of behind-the-scenes preparatory works. The same scientific and robust demolition methodology will now be deployed in phases to clear the power station’s bunker bay, turbine hall and de-aerator bay, over the remainder of the project.

Elsewhere, decontamination work is continuing on the safe removal of all hazardous materials within the 180ft boiler house and turbine hall, and minor structures are currently being demolished using mechanical techniques. Close collaboration with environmental and community groups also remains ongoing to ensure maximum respect for the site’s ecological habitats and surrounding neighbours.

Progress of the programme – which it is estimated will have expended 250,000 man hours by the time of its completion – takes the 350-acre site several steps closer to becoming a residential-led mixed use development. Once home to one of the largest power stations in the UK, this vast expanse was acquired by land and property regeneration specialist Harworth Group in June 2018. Harworth submitted an outline planning application for the site’s redevelopment to both Shropshire and Telford Councils in December 2019 and should planning be granted, the site’s redevelopment is expected to take a further decade to complete.

With more than 25 years’ industry experience and having completed almost 800 complex demolition assignments worldwide, consultancy RVA Group was appointed as principal designer for the project in April 2019. The specialist team continues to support the activity of contractor Demolition Services Ltd.

Commenting on the ongoing works, RVA’s managing director Richard Vann said:

“Harworth Group came to us because they were looking for a collaborative strategy involving the client, contractor and consultant, making the best use of all available technical skill-sets – crucial on a project of this scale.

“Their priority is the safe execution of works, so we rigorously audited the proposed methodologies to ensure best practice techniques would be adopted throughout the demolition and associated processes. From the outset the project approach has been and will continue to be open dialogue with all stakeholders, enforcement agencies and interested parties. The demolition project is just one of many stages of the overall development programme lasting over several years, and we have to ensure that the needs of all are considered from start to finish.”

RVA’s managing director Richard Vann has been specially invited to address delegates at a new decommissioning event in Moscow.

The inaugural Russian Demolition Forum 2020 will take place at the capital’s Korston Club Hotel from 4-5 February, in association with HAACT, the EDA and PDi.

Having been in talks with the organisers since the earliest conceptual phases, Richard has shared his industry experience to help shape the focus of the event. And now a detailed programme exists for the Russian conference, with RVA Group featuring on the rundown.

Drawing on more than a quarter century of consulting in the decommissioning industry, Richard will take to the stage for a late morning session – ‘Demolition in the UK from the 1980s to 2019’ (11:40-12:05). Other topics set to be covered by sector professionals, include demolition trends, training, safety, plant reuse and project-specific spotlights.

Anyone interested in attending can sign up or discover more information online.

RVA is no stranger to the international events circuit, having been invited to chair the 2nd Annual Decommissioning & Demolition of Industrial Plants 2019 event in Amsterdam, and the 3rd Annual Global Decommissioning and Demolition of Fossil Fuel Power Plants Conference in Prague, not to mention the World Demolition Summit.

Seminars have also been delivered in Barcelona, Berlin and Dublin to name just a few.

This varied geographical presence reflects RVA’s increasingly global reach. Having now completed almost 800 decommissioning, decontamination, dismantling and demolition assignments across the world, the team announced the formation of a new German operation in late 2019. Details of a large Cypriot project have also recently been unveiled with two Middle Eastern schemes also soon-to-be disclosed.

Commenting on the company’s international activity, Richard Vann said: “I have long talked about the global nature of this market, and while international projects naturally present very different cultural, legislative and operational challenges, we have hundreds of years’ combined expertise within our team. This means we’re able to confidently immerse ourselves into these complex engineering works, and our advice is increasingly being sought on the global events scene as a result.”

 

RVA Group has been appointed to oversee the dismantling of Moni Power Station in Cyprus.

Located 20km east of Limassol, the plant – constructed mainly in the 1960s – is owned by the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC), who recently appointed RVA to look after the 26-month assignment.

RVA is in the process of developing the tender package in collaboration with the client’s team. Specifically, RVA’s senior project manager Ellis Hutchinson – who has worked on a vast number of decommissioning projects including a large power station scheme in Teesside – will have a permanent on-site presence from the commencement of the dismantling contractor’s works until the programme is complete. An RVA asbestos analyst will also travel out to the Mediterranean island to survey and monitor the hazardous insulation material removal processes, as the dismantling unfolds.

A number of local partners – specialising in the disciplines of safety management, structural engineering and geotechnical science – are already working with RVA’s specialist engineers. The careful assembly of this project team will help to navigate any language and regulatory challenges, while ensuring the efficient progress of works, to schedule.

An international tender procedure for the selection of a dismantling demolition Contractor for a turnkey project, is envisaged to be issued in February 2020 and the Contract Award is expected to take place in October of the same year.

London-headquartered decommissioning consultancy, RVA Group, has announced its latest chapter of expansion with the formation of a new company in Germany.

Based near Hannover– in the heartland of Europe – RVA Group GmbH will enable the team to further penetrate the EU market.

RVA is no stranger to working in this part of the world, with the engineers having overseen a number of complex dismantling and demolition assignments throughout the country, since 1992. But mindful of the growing volume of ageing assets – and decaying plants ready for clearance – the directors have now established a more defined and permanent German presence.

A local vanguard team has already been assembled – with skill-sets covering the full spectrum of decommissioning engineering, project management, administration and business development – and members of RVA’s UK operation will also have a supporting role as assignments dictate.

The company’s first front-end engineering project is also complete, with decommissioning plans and tender documentation developed for Mehrum Power Station, and the contractor already selected ahead of the cessation of operations at some point in the future.

RVA Group GmbH has recently been awarded the contract for a similar assignment at Buschhaus Power Station in Lower Saxony, following the execution of ground investigations and wider site hazardous materials surveys.

Commenting on the expansion, managing director Richard Vann said: “We’ve worked all over the world during the past 27 years, but regardless of where client requirements have taken us, our base has always been back in the UK – until now.

“To truly make a mark in Germany, we knew we needed a local HQ, plus a team that understands the culture, can speak the language and contract under the local law. We’ve therefore spent the last twelve months making this vision of a new company, a reality.

“I’m very excited to see how 2020 pans out for us all.”

Having a base in Germany will also enable RVA to widen its reach into The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and other neighbouring countries on the continent, as opportunities arise.

“RVA Group GmbH will play a crucial part in us taking our growth to the next level,” continued Richard. “We want to replicate what we’ve been doing in the UK for the last quarter of a century, as we head into the next 25 years and beyond.”

RVA Group’s UK operation – which has completed almost 800 projects since it was established – was acquired by Energetický a průmyslový holding (EPH) in November 2017, for an undisclosed sum.

Senior professionals from the international chemical, petrochemical and power generation sectors – plus other heavy industries – will gather in Amsterdam next week for the 2^nd Annual Decommissioning & Demolition of Industrial Plants 2019 event.

Having completed almost 800 projects in this complex environment, it is perhaps no surprise that RVA Group will be attending this peer-to-peer gathering. But truly committed to global knowledge transfer, RVA will not just take a seat in the audience.

Managing director Richard Vann has been invited to chair the entire two-day conference and will open with a speech that will hopefully set the tone from the outset.

Continuing with the theme of ‘Addressing Environmental Challenges & Regulations for Cost Effective, Safe Decommissioning Strategies’, Richard will then deliver a seminar advising on how to write detailed tender documentation.

He will also take a seat on two panel discussions – the supply chain management debate which marks the close of the first day and a stakeholder relations session which will run just before delegates’ lunch on day two.

Wider subjects set to be covered during the event, include the redevelopment of power plant sites, the use of BIM, practical techniques for the demolition of complex structures, recycling and the circular economy, contractor risk management, soil and groundwater liabilities, and asbestos removal modelling.

Commenting on his reason for attending, Richard said: “With industrial plant decommissioning projects coming to the fore at a rate never seen before, it is crucial that demolition professionals and asset owners alike, come together to share challenges, experiences, learnings and best practice.

“The more knowledge is shared at events such as this, the greater the likelihood that these inherently hazardous assignments can be executed safely, cost-effectively and with minimal environmental impact.”

The 2^nd Annual Decommissioning & Demolition of Industrial Plants 2019 is expected to attract VPs, directors, heads, managers, analysts and specialists in energy generation, asset management, construction, engineering (including civil), site operation, construction, health and safety, and more.

The event will take place in The Netherlands from 27-28 November. Pre-registration is essential but final tickets can be reserved online.

In the latest of his regular columns for Demolition and Recycling International, RVA’s Managing Director Richard Vann explored the difference between talking about EHS excellence and delivering it.

if you haven’t read the full article, you can catch up here….

I don’t think anyone involved in the demolition profession, in any part of the world, would sit back and say: “Do you know what, I think my approach to EHS is only average,” or “We’re safe but could be safer,.” I would certainly hope that they wouldn’t.

I genuinely believe that clients, contractors and consultants alike, will all profess to be at the top of the EHS excellence ladder, and most will genuinely believe that they are. This is encouraging of course – it shows that a respect for safety is acknowledged and, in most cases, prioritised.

But the problem lies in the fact that in the eyes of demolition professionals, EHS excellence is largely influenced by the mindset of the individual(s) that control an organisation. It is a cultural belief and has to be embedded in the corporate DNA. Corporate safety culture is not just a physical manifestation of safety rules. For it to be wholly effective it needs to run through the hearts and minds of anyone involved in a project.

So how can it be better defined?

A company may stipulate unswerving rules regarding the hard hats and safety goggles being worn on site, for instance. Whilst this is of course an important and often mandatory requirement, actual safety management starts long before this – getting people to think about what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how are they going to do it in the safest way possible, are all fundamental questions.

A less informed employee may always turn up in safety boots, then jump on and off the back of a wagon without a second thought and break an ankle. The safety believer will first ask – do I need to get on the wagon in the first place, is there a better alternative and if not, how do I ensure safe access and egress.

For EHS excellence to be the genuine priority, it comes down to every action, however seemingly minor. There can be no cut corners. No compromises. Not even an ounce of dismissiveness. Because if there is, that says that safety isn’t really the priority after all. It implies that sometimes, it’s OK to not be safe, which we know of course is not the case. Safety is an absolute – there is no scale of ‘safeness’!

I appreciate that some people think risk assessments can occasionally be too extreme. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people claim: “That’s health and safety gone mad,” for example. And I must admit, there has been the odd time when I’ve also stopped and been shocked by how extensive some people’s safety-driven thinking goes.

I’m sure most people will have had their own internal ‘eye roll’ moment. But really, if we’re all here to protect the welfare of ourselves and those around us, there can be no eye rolling – everything should be risk assessed.

EHS excellence is therefore about analysing any hazards, both in advance and as they present themselves, deducing how and where these hazards can be removed completely, and then resorting to exploring the next best way to take the risk(s) to a minimum. Having a safety moment in every meeting, helps to establish safety excellence as a cultural norm. It challenges perceptions, prevents tardiness and showcases best practice.

Because true excellence is admittedly about more than compliance alone. So, in that respect, it perhaps will always remain subjective. Some individuals feel that prohibiting the use of hands free when driving is a step too far, for instance, as they believe they can still concentrate on the road. Other organisations would not even contemplate permitting this, emphasising instead that a driver’s priority is to remain wholly alert and focused on the road.

I suppose much of the debate comes back to Heinrich’s safety triangle – a model which has itself come under scrutiny and criticism in recent times. But the relationship between near misses, minor injuries and more severe incidents is comprehensible. And, when someone has an instinctive ability to identify hazards that other people wouldn’t ever see, that’s evidence that safety excellence has become front and centre.

 

Our Managing Director, Richard Vann, recently contributed to the latest edition of The Chemical Engineer in an article which explored where the biggest safety challenges lie in chemical decommissioning.

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

Very few people would dispute that chemical decommissioning can be an inherently hazardous exercise, but when faced with varying legislative standards, complex plant constructs and often unknown levels of contamination, operators could soon encounter even greater safety challenges than they first anticipated.

But where do the most significant safety hurdles typically lie?

Whilst this list is far from exhaustive – and every chemical decommissioning project is of course different to the next – there are three key initial safety considerations that operators need to be able to navigate when undertaking an assignment of this nature.

1. Common services

Just because a decommissioning exercise may mark the end of one asset’s useful life, this does not mean that adjacent facilities necessarily have the same destiny – in the short or longer term.

It is not uncommon for there to be several ownerships on a single site, and many plants will need to remain uninterrupted and in perfect working order, when the decommissioning programme is underway. This presents a number of decommissioning scheduling challenges, with both pedestrian and vehicular movements requiring careful coordination to protect the health and wellbeing of all stakeholders.

But the safety challenge is magnified further still, when considering that these different operators may use centrally-supplied site services – such as electricity’ water, natural gas and compressed air –delivered possibly by a single company. Decommissioning teams therefore need to be prepared to work around these live, common utilities.

The financial and operational implications of a plant being taken offline would be catastrophic, but the EHS impact could be even greater if these services were compromised.

2. Partial demolition of a multifaceted site

Linked significantly to point one, is the challenge associated with clearing only part of a chemical site. Sometimes the land may be occupied by multiple operators, as eluded to above. But it is also common for even a sole chemical manufacturer to wish to decommission and remove only selected assets from their footprint.

It must be stressed that such partial dismantling and demolition programmes can be carried out without incident. In fact, the practice is relatively common. However, the safety challenges – and therefore experience levels required – are invariably far higher in such cases.

A simple piece of equipment, of relatively straightforward construction, may need to be unpicked from a complex petrochemical site for example. This asset may not be particularly hazardous, but if there is a highly explosive atmosphere only 20m away within the same facility, this changes the parameters of the whole project – more specifically, the methodologies used to take down the structure concerned. Hot cutting techniques would be forbidden, for instance.

Once again, the nearby presence of operational chemical assets does not prevent the decommissioning from going ahead, but meticulous planning and methodology development by experienced engineering professionals, is crucial.

3. The unknown

Chemical decommissioning is already complex as no two facilities are the same. There can therefore be no ‘one size fits all’ approach. This means detailed drawings and historic operational details are always sought to help build a picture of what the team will be dealing with when works commence. Planning is extremely tough without this project-specific data.

The number of safety challenges then typically start to rise the longer a plant has lain idle. Generally speaking, the more time that has passed, the greater the degree of unknowns surrounding the integrity of the structure, the cleanliness of the interior and even the state of the residues inside.

An asset may have been partially cleaned, for instance, but if it has been dormant for a number of years and pyrophoric catalysts are present, the consequences could be devastating when the structure’s interior is exposed to air. In fact, varying residues may remain – they may have solidified, reacted or changed state, and it is difficult to say with any certainty what will happen when decommissioning begins, if thorough studies do not precede any on-site action.

This emphasises the importance of carrying out feasibility and options studies, plus detailed hazard identification regimes, before any decontamination, demolition and dismantling contractors arrive on site. The more insight the team has into the construction of the assets, specifically how they were used during their operational life, their structural stability and any cleansing regimes executed since they were mothballed, the easier it is to bring the project to a ‘known state’. Risks are far easier to manage – if not mitigate entirely – armed with this intel.