RVA spotlight – meet Philip Whiting

Philip Whiting, RVA Group

Name and role:

Philip Whiting, demolition and decommissioning consultant. 

How long have you been with RVA Group?

Since January 2020.

Describe your career journey before that?

I have worked for five demolition companies – part owning two of them – in Canada and Australia, so I have a vast amount of discipline-specific knowledge.

I’m also a chartered project management surveyor and a chartered construction manager, so have adopted many different roles on a variety of global projects, before joining RVA – mainly focusing on the commercial side of demolition and construction.

What did you want to be, when you were younger?

A racing car driver.

And what do you think is the key skill you need to be a successful demolition and decommissioning consultant?

It’s multi-faceted, so strategic communication and time management skills are critical to successfully managing the technical requirements of the role.

What’s your biggest RVA achievement to date?

Delivering an asset retirement obligation report for a major piece of infrastructure that is critical to the UK’s energy security.

And the most memorable thing you’ve learnt during your career?

That trust is more important than knowledge and contacts.

Describe your dream project

De-orbiting the International Space Station, maximising material salvage and minimising debris.

RVA Group is celebrating 30 years in business, with a truly global reputation for decommissioning excellence. Why do you think the company has earned such a stand-out position in industry?

Because the CDM regulations created a significant market for the Principal Designer role, and our engineering skill-set – not to mention supply chain independence – filled that gap, entirely. Also, client organisations generally don’t have the specific skill-sets required to manage demolition and decommissioning projects, so we are a much relied upon resource.

Of all the sectors RVA operates in, which is the most exciting right now?

It’s a tie between oil refineries and coal fired power stations, because of the significance of the decarbonisation agenda.

What’s the biggest piece of advice you could give to an organisation preparing for a decommissioning project?

Strategically, keep your objectives fixed – involve all internal and external stakeholders from the outset, define their expectations, manage them and then keep decision making within the project team. Tactically, be open to opportunities to enhance the project outcome, and flexible enough to incorporate them.

What makes you tick outside of work?

Nature, remote places, water.

If you could be given a plane ticket for anywhere, where would you choose?

Acapulco, as I would love to see the La Quebrada cliff divers. On December 12 – the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe – freestyle cliff divers perform the “Ocean of Fire” when the sea is lit with gasoline, making a circle of flames which the diver aims for, from a height of 40 metres.

Which one word would you hope colleagues would use to describe you?

Esteemed.

Share

Which sectors will shape the future of demolition?

RVA Group

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.

Share

RVA Group’s 30th anniversary celebrations begin

RVA Group celebrates 30 years

As RVA Group nears its milestone 30th year in business, several members of the team recently gathered for a weekend of reflection, laughter, and a dash of competitive spirit.

To kick off the celebrations, 25 colleagues and their partners headed to North Yorkshire – the birthplace of RVA back in 1992. First up, was a test of skill at Hazel Bank Shooting Ground, with Mark Costin – the husband of our business administrator Anita – taking home the trophy for the most clays shot.

Next, it was on to The White Hart Hotel in the centre of Harrogate, to enjoy some outstanding food, drinks, and great company.

“Pre-pandemic, our colleagues would often find themselves working on complex decommissioning projects, sometimes all over the world,” commented RVA Group’s founder and managing director Richard Vann. “So, as a company, we’ve always made the time to come together to keep the team spirit alive.

“We’ve definitely missed that in recent times, so as we near our 30th anniversary – which we’ll mark officially in November – it seemed the perfect opportunity to celebrate how far we’ve all come, together.”

It was important that partners were invited too, believes Richard.

“We spend so much of our time at work, and the pressures of the day job mean we really do need the support of our loved ones at home,” he said. “They too have been on the RVA journey with us, so I’m delighted so many could join in the fun. There was one very important person missing for me – my wife, who stayed at home to support our son who was in the thick of his GCSEs. She has been an integral part of our progress, over the years.”

RVA Group has now successfully completed more than 850 inherently high-hazard decommissioning projects – and counting – for global brands. From the provision of front-end engineering services years before any practical decommissioning activity begins, through to the supervision of entire demolition schemes which result in full site clearances, the brand has grown to become a market leader in this niche field, on a truly worldwide basis.

Share

The evolving role of the Principal Designer

Richard Vann, RVA Group

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.

Share

Overcoming the stigma surrounding safety

Stigma surrounding safety, RVA Group

In his most recent Demolition & Recycling International column, RVA’s MD Richard Vann looks at overcoming the stigma surrounding safety. If you missed the article, catch it in full below…

It can be difficult to talk about the ‘S’ word.

There are some people who think ‘the world has gone mad’ when it comes to risk assessments, site inductions, and training regimes to keep safety front of mind. Yet at the other end of the spectrum, safety standards and the weight of responsibility on some individuals’ shoulders, will literally keep them awake at night.

But whatever the attitude, and however tricky the conversations might be, we must keep talking about the topic. This is particularly important when thinking about safety incidents – some of which can be fatal. Because yes, this can be an emotive and distressing subject. However, we cannot be dismissive of the data, as the numbers aren’t merely statistics – they are lives lost and families broken.

The HSE’s report – Workplace fatal injuries in Great Britain, 2021 – for example, makes for a tough read. There were 142 employees killed in work-related accidents in 2020, with an additional 60 work-related deaths among members of the public. The report introduction states that: “Fatal injuries are thankfully rare events”. But numbers of any scale act as a prompt to remind us that a safety-first mindset is crucial, however hazardous – or not – a ‘workplace’ may first seem.

Safety is absolute after all – there is no sliding scale. Something is either safe, or it isn’t, as you don’t know the tipping point between having a near-miss  and someone being killed.

There are physical safety measures that can be taken of course, such as the wearing of PPE, the erection of handrails, and perhaps less obvious rescue measures such as how we’d get someone down if they had a heart attack when working at height.

However, the first stage in any process should be taking steps to remove or mitigate risk to the minimum practicable level. Appraising a situation and understanding the consequences of inappropriate behaviour such as ‘corner cutting’, is essential. These approaches symbolise proactive safety strategies, in which everyone has a role to play.

We should all work with the attitude that: “I want to go home tonight with ten fingers and ten toes”. Because, what if a series of workplace behaviours saw a number of seemingly minor oversights coalesce, just once – when person A did X, person B didn’t do Y, and person C presumed someone else would take care of Z – and with devastating consequences? Most major incidents are the cumulative result of a number of factors.

For similar reasons, we should cross even familiar roads and always look, regardless of whether nine times out of ten, there’s never been a passing car before. Because what if on the tenth occasion there is?

These may seem like both trivial and extreme examples to give, in the same breath. But they’re important to discuss – irrespective of the possible eye rolls – because safety is so critical.

So, mindset matters. So too, does an ongoing culture of communication and the re-evaluation of risk, by everyone involved. We’re human, after all, and when a scenario becomes habitual or comfortable, we’re scientifically proven to fall out of a certain behaviour. Familiarity breeds contempt. We therefore need to keep talking, from the ‘bottom up’, with no gaps.

Nobody would openly say: “I deliberately take risks at work”, or: “We don’t do things particularly safely on our site.” However, a continued assessment of that safety should take place, ideally steered by someone with safety management expertise, but definitely embraced by all.

And as operations become more complex – from reverse parking a car to decommissioning a petrochemical site – we should simply risk assess, mitigate, and manage the situation accordingly, relevant to the scale, type, and number of hazards at play.

In saying all of this we must remain sensible. We all have jobs to do, and in some cases the ‘health and safety gone mad’ statement is probably justified.

For example, site inductions should be relevant to the visitor, the nature of their work, and the areas they will be accessing. Asking someone visiting only the administrative area of a power station, to watch the same multi-hour safety video, or complete the same training process as someone maintaining the electricity generation equipment, is ludicrous. Yet it happens. And, in such a scenario, the plant owner’s genuine commitment to safety could actually lead to a negative outcome. It would be understandable for the visitor to glaze over, for instance, and miss the section of the induction they personally need to digest, to remain safe on site.

Finally, reactive safety strategies are also important – the investigation of an incident, root cause analysis, reporting, the evaluation of learnings, and the implementation of improvements. The world is constantly changing, and sadly it isn’t possible to predict every eventuality.

But this responsive exercise – however imperative – means an incident has already happened. So, let’s explore what more we could do to prevent them in the first place. If we don’t do what is reasonable and practicable to prevent 100,000 trapped fingers, what’s to say we won’t have 10,000 cut fingers, 1,000 broken fingers, ten amputated arms, and one fatality? Let’s keep talking.

Share

What’s in store for demolition in 2022?

Richard Vann, RVA Group

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.

Share

Dismantling contractor search underway for Cypriot power station

The Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) has recommenced its international search for a contractor to undertake the turnkey demolition and dismantling works required to clear Moni Power Station.

The tender – which will close on 10 January 2022 – includes the clearance of six 30 MW steam and heavy oil-fired turbines and boiler generating units, all ancillary equipment including pipework, six chimney stacks, the turbine hall and annex, the administration building and switchyard.

RVA Group was appointed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to develop this tender package in collaboration with the EAC team, and will continue to oversee this extensive assignment when works commence.

The project to date has seen RVA’s senior project manager Ellis Hutchinson lead on dialogue with local partners, specialising in the disciplines of safety management, structural engineering and geotechnical science. The goal, as always, is to assemble an experienced team capable of navigating this vast project safely, cost-effectively and with maximum respect for the environment, while also effectively overcoming any language and regulatory challenges.

It is anticipated that the project – 20km east of Limassol – will take approximately two years to complete. Further information can be found on the EAC website.

Share

When to say no to a demolition assignment

In his most recent column for Demolition & Recycling International, RVA’s MD Richard Vann looks at when it’s right to say no to a demolition assignment. If you missed the article, read it in full here…

If you look at management resources such as Harvard Business Review, there is endless advice to help those of us throughout the world of commerce learn how to say one of the shortest words in the English language – no. Yet these two letters are often the toughest to utter, especially when it comes to the projects you commit to, for customers.

In some walks of business life, a simple set of guiding principles helps the decision-making process. I know an organisation in the communications sector, for example, who will only take on a piece of work for love (passion), fame (reputation), or money.

Such a clean-cut barometer makes sense on the face of it. But – and perhaps it’s because demolition assignments are largely inherently hazardous – I’d argue there should be even more deciding factors at play when it comes to the calls we make in our industry. Safety standards, resource constraints and other known or probable risks, are just some of the considerations.

For example:

  • The health and safety of the people you are responsible for – including those on site and in the surrounding area – should come before anything else. If decommissioning, decontamination, dismantling or demolition methodology is proposed which even hints at potential corner cutting, it’s not worth it. The reputational damage of an avoidable incident – not to mention the breach of duty of care, the risk of litigation and worse still risk to life – could be catastrophic. Likewise, repeated breaches and/or poor management of on-site EHS protocol should raise the same alarm bells. Knowingly putting the environmental integrity at risk is equally non-negotiable for many demolition professionals.
  • There’s a fine line between pushing your team to excel, innovate and tread beyond its comfort zone, and knowingly embarking on work that requires a defined skill-set to execute. Be clear on the expertise required to truly meet the demands of a project, and don’t be afraid to ask for help at the outset, or even when the assignment is underway – just don’t leave it too late.
  • Just as a client would undertake thorough due diligence before appointing a project team, demolition professionals throughout the supply chain should also be vigilant when committing to work – particularly if their contract is with an organisation that has rationalised their operations due to financial difficulties. This is not to suggest an asset owner would ever purposefully breach payment terms, but confidence in the client’s liquidity and ability to fund ‘best practice’ is naturally important.
  • While politics in business is dangerous territory, it is for this very reason that projects sometimes do not align with the values or morals of the demolition firm – and that’s OK. Undertaking work in locations known for political unrest could also put personnel in unnecessary danger.
  • Sometimes, the reasons for saying no – or at least renegotiating the parameters of work – exist for more practical reasons. If an overseas client was to have insisted on a regular on-site presence, over the past 18 months, for example, most firms would have struggled to commit to this. Likewise, if it isn’t possible to commit resource or arrange the supply of heavy plant to site, meaning a pre-defined, immovable project schedule will inevitably slip as a result, it would be unfair to knowingly jeopardise this.

In truth, the factors are multiple and, arguably, subjective, therefore decisions should always be made, carefully, by the team closest to the brief.

It is perhaps easier to contemplate confidently walking away from a project during ‘boom times’ when a company is established, financially resilient, and the forward order book is strong. Such a bold call is perhaps tougher to make, on the other hand, when there are mouths to feed – especially during the earlier days of a company’s journey. Then, work is often – understandably – simply seen as work, not to mention an opportunity to build a portfolio and reputation.

Ultimately, an individual’s conscience – or gut feel – has a large part to play when saying no. Sometimes, I think you just know when a project is or isn’t right. Learning to listen to that conscience, is key.

Success can be determined by the job you don’t get, rather then the ones you do.

Share

When should a demolition engineer get involved?

In his regular column with Demolition and Recycling Today, Richard Vann recently provided his thoughts on at what stage of a decommissioning project a demolition engineer should get involved.

If you missed it, catch up below:

I’ve said, probably thousands of times, that nobody knows an asset or site better than the operator who has run and maintained it for several years. So, when the owner calls time on its operational life, it would be foolish to overlook the depth of process and plant-specific knowledge that such individuals could bring to the table, when embarking on a decommissioning project.

There’s also the argument that – in the case of asset rationalisations or complete site closures – an involvement in the decommissioning works that follow, could mean extended employment terms for personnel, which perhaps supports the organisation’s duty of care if forced to consider redundancies. If finances are tight, handling this phase of the project using internal resources could appear to make sense from a commercial perspective too.

However, we must remember that the decommissioning discipline, and the decontamination, demolition and dismantling skill-sets typically required for such projects, represent a distinct area of engineering. I’ve said this many times too.

I am therefore increasingly questioning the need for experts in our profession to become involved in decommissioning schemes, far earlier than they currently are asked to, if the ensuing sequence of events is to unfold with the highest possible safety and environmental standards – not to mention cost-effectiveness.

Decommissioning is different

Decommissioning is often considered, by the client, as an extension of site maintenance. This outlook is understandable if the plant has periodically been shut down for such works. But draining tanks and temporarily isolating services ahead of a restart is very different to actually cutting cables and decommissioning the asset entirely because it has reached its end of life.

This is not to say actions will purposefully be missed by internal personnel – most will no doubt approach their role with maximum care and attention. But rarely do operators have a decommissioning mindset. In fact, they could go to opposite extremes and undertake some exercises they don’t actually need to, as they could be handled more efficiently – and ultimately, safely – at the dismantling phase.

I suppose the overall point I am trying to make is that typically clients reach out to our industry when this element of work has already been planned or is even underway. I think it’s time for change.

Look to CDM regulations

If we look to global industry standards and guidance, such as the CDM Regulations, it is best practice – and the law in the UK – for decommissioning to fall within these parameters. The project needs a principal designer who will ensure the works are rigorously planned from start to finish, so that the right people do the right job at the right time, armed with the right information so that they can effectively manage and mitigate risks. Whilst the regulations do not preclude the asset owner or operator taking on this statutory duty, in many cases, whether such a strategy will meet the strict requirements relating to relevant experience and expertise, is questionable.

This is not to say that the client cannot take on the role of principal contractor for the decommissioning. However, an experienced team with a decommissioning mindset can and should be charged with supporting or writing the plan, documenting the detailed processes to follow, and auditing works throughout. That way, seamless documentation – and standards – exist for the entire project, essentially as a project road map.

It is not unknown for a client to have initiated a decommissioning strategy that has resulted not only in abortive effort and cost, but also the need for additional measures to be taken to rectify issues and get the project back on track.

Savvy asset management (or asset retirement) planning in advance of a decommissioning project of course has a role to play here, and if the client has taken a proactive approach to ongoing maintenance and provisioning, they will be empowered with a far greater degree of data and knowledge as they embark on the decommissioning exercise itself.

But this doesn’t get away from the fact that, just because the operator knows everything about the live site, doesn’t mean they know exactly how to retire assets with maximum respect for safety, the environment and their bottom line.

Share

10-stage explosives assignment calls time on Rugeley Power Station

In 2016, the iconic coal-fired Rugeley Power Station ceased production of electricity, in a landmark decision that marked the site’s regeneration. In a recent article for IExpE, decommissioning consultants Richard Vann, managing director, and Matthew Waller, operations director (both from RVA Group), explored the role that explosives engineering has played. If you missed it, catch it in full below…

Like many coal-fired power stations across the UK, Rugeley has long dominated the skyline in Staffordshire. The 139-hectare site – with its iconic chimney and cooling towers – has been an energy generation hub at the heart of the community, since the 1960s.

Key to the economic and social lifeblood of the town, it ceased production of electricity in 2016, and in early 2020, the local authority granted permission for a scheme that would transform the disused space into a sustainable and innovative mixed-use neighbourhood.

With a widely-voiced commitment to embracing a greener and more efficient world, site owner ENGIE has a clear passion for innovation. It is perhaps therefore unsurprising that when it came to the clearance of the former 1GW site, the demolition scheme was equally as forward-thinking. And explosives engineering has laid at its heart.

A collaborative mindset

The decommissioning project was one built on the cornerstone of collaboration, with ENGIE’s own personnel managing the two and a half-year assignment. RVA was engaged in 2016 as principal designer, tasked with providing specialist technical expertise and advice as works unfolded. This included writing the full specification of works and CDM EHS plan, and consultancy support during the demolition contractor appointment – with RVA assisting with tender analysis and selection from a technical perspective. Based on a balanced appraisal of the proposed techniques, extensive experience including in-house explosives engineering expertise, and the commercial robustness of the bid, the contract was awarded to Brown and Mason – a firm with a track record of demolishing over 50 power stations.

Engaging the community

The project team was involved in stakeholder dialogue from an early stage, to ensure the local community felt informed and involved. Communications extended to domestic residents and multiple adjacent blue-chip businesses.

Details of the demolition programme were openly shared – both at the outset and during pivotal phases throughout – with consultation meetings held to give confidence in the team’s approach to health, safety, quality and environmental protection.

A website dedicated to the site redevelopment was also launched so that residents always remained in the loop, in advance and following each project milestone. Local crowd management was also planned for.

The sequence of events

Once mobilised on site, initial works focused on the removal of ancillary equipment and building interiors before the structural demolition activity could commence. Asbestos materials also had to be cleared and the structures certified as clean, to pave the way for explosives engineering activity.

10 explosively-initiated controlled collapses were planned for the project – more than may typically be associated with a power station demolition. However, the carefully selected team conducted a thorough engineering investigation and design, which allowed the buildings to be safely pre-weakened to maintain stability, while significantly reducing the quantity of explosives required. This proposed methodology also negated the need to utilise specialist machinery throughout.

All method statements were technically appraised by RVA and a collaborative process was deployed to develop these.

As the programme unfolded for each blowdown event, wider site preparations included deplanting works to clear all plant and equipment below the 40ft level of the main buildings – such as turbine sets, heavily reinforced concrete supports and the base sections of top-hung boilers.

The site was also home to two underground stormwater drains, numerous underground oil-filled cables and a live National Grid 400kV sub-station. The collective team worked carefully to protect these critical services, by considering historic vibration data from previous similar explosives projects, carrying out predictive ground and air-over pressure calculations, and monitoring vibration data at the time of each event.

RVA maintained an ongoing presence throughout the entirety of the project, visiting the site on a weekly basis to audit compliance with method statements, ensure EHS standards were being upheld, and act in an advisory capacity for the client. Given the scale, complexity and inherent risks associated with a project of this nature, this technical consultancy role cannot be underestimated.

Initial blowdowns

The first controlled collapse took place back in February 2019, when 11.14kg of rdx-based plastic explosives (shaped charges) and 17.7kg of nitro-glycerine based kicking charges, were used to bring down a 33m high ductwork system. Weighing 1,500 tonnes, the 160m long, 7.7m diameter steel structure served the former power station’s FGD (Flue Gas Desulphurisation) plant.

The exclusion zone was well within the power station boundary fence, meaning there was no impact on the local road network – in fact, the only challenge was morning fog which put the blowdown back by merely 60 minutes.

There was similarly low community impact associated with every event that followed, including:

  • The second controlled collapse of the power station’s Unit 7 Precipitators. This 49m long, 16m wide, 32m high largely steel structure was brought down using 7.15kg shaped charges and 36kg kicking charges.
  • The third blowdown event to demolish the coal sampling tower, associated conveyors, Unit 6 Precipitators and ducting, which required a total of 27.3kg of shaped charges and 11.68kg of kicking charges.

Larger explosives assignments

In preparation for collapsing the 5,000 tonne deaerator bay and 28m high turbine hall four months later, all pipework was cut to the adjoining boiler house, to ensure the separation of services entering the building. More explosives were naturally required to blow down these 112m long x 12m wide x 64m high, and 112m long x 62m wide x 28m high structures – with 14.34g of shaped charges and 201.6kg of kicking charges used. Away from the main gate and, again, barely visible offsite, there was virtually no community impact.

The same could be said for the fifth controlled collapse of the 8,600 tonne bunker bay – which, at this point in the project, represented the heaviest structure to have been blown down, and was the final explosives assignment before the national Covid-19 lockdown.

Working during Covid-19 times

The team adapted quickly to government guidance and restrictions, ensuring the health and safety of on-site personnel just as they would in the face of any inherent demolition project risk. The workforce formed a bubble and operating procedures were devised to minimise risk of infection.

This agility meant that the sixth blowdown event – a 73m high boiler house – could take place in August 2020. The largest structure on the site, the 18,000 tonne steel structure was demolished in a controlled collapse which required 12.8kg of shaped charges and 121.2kg of kicking charges. Again, the community impact was minimal and there was no public viewing area, although video footage of the successful blast was naturally of interest to local media.

The blowdown of the power station’s 183m chimney was always going to be a more notable event, given its impressive height. In the weeks that preceded the collapse, the structure’s aircraft warning lights were disconnected, and the Civil Aviation Authority was notified so that aircraft were informed of the unlit chimney.

A test blast was also carried out to establish the correct charging requirements. Knowing there would be some debris, containers and Heras fencing with netting were installed for secondary protection. 50m long steel ducting – approximately 8m in diameter and 30m from the ground – was also removed one month before the blowdown, to enable the chimneys’ safe demolition. 3.6kg of machete 40 cutting charges, and 9.6kg of kicking charges were used, with on-site dust suppression minimising the environmental impact.

The 7,600 tonne predominantly concrete chimney – with 330mm shell and two internal steel flues – was blown down in January, using 133kg of nitro-glycerine based, 28mm diameter cartridges, cut to 200mm lengths on-site.

Covid-19 restrictions meant there could be no public viewing area as was originally planned, so the event was live-streamed on ENGIE’s YouTube channel. Extensive planning with two local authorities – including a road closure given a circa 400m exclusion zone which extended beyond the site boundary – minimised potential community disruption.

The final phase

At the time of writing, the power station’s residual ducting, gas heaters and four high cooling towers, are all that remain. Works on the final metal ductwork were delayed slightly given the discovery of a nest, but guidance from an ecologist means a new date can be established once the birds have moved on in spring.

The internals of the cooling towers consist of a vast array of wooden supports, pipework and mist eliminator elements – and have been subject to a complex material removal process which, upon completion, will have taken twelve months. Test blasts have also been carried out in preparation for their collapse, and road closures have been planned to manage traffic on the day, once confirmed. These 117m high structures dwarfed all other buildings on the site in comparison, so this event will undoubtedly be the one that attracts most community attention: changing the local skyline and marking the start of a new future for the iconic power station site.

Share