Blog

Decommissioning consultancy RVA Group has strengthened its management board with two employee promotions and the appointment of four additional members of staff.

Long-standing colleague Matthew Waller has taken on the role of operations director, following 10 years with the company. Having joined as project manager but more recently responsible for group EHS (environmental, health and safety) excellence – as well as the delivery of engineering projects worldwide – he will now oversee the entire front end of the business.

Also appointed to the board is Mark Taylor as engineering consultancy director – an extensively qualified civil engineer responsible for the management and quality control of RVA’s global consultancy projects. He joined RVA as a project manager back in 2006.

With their continuing roles on the senior leadership team, Matthew and Mark will also contribute to the strategic direction of the company, as RVA prepares for its next phase of growth.

Commenting on the organisational restructure, founder and managing director Richard Vann explained: “In November 2017, RVA was acquired by Energetický a průmyslový holding (EPH), via its wholly owned subsidiary EP UK Investments Ltd. The news came in the month that we celebrated 25 years in business, and it marked the latest chapter in preparing a company fit for the future.

“This next generation of leadership has injected an added level of dynamism into the organisation. Matthew and Mark are experienced, technically astute and likeable team members, who are extremely embracing of change – all are important qualities as we head into our next quarter of a century.”

The promotions coincide with the appointment of three other highly-qualified engineering professionals.

Adam O’Neill is a commercially aware project manager who has spent his career working in the power generation, nuclear, construction and building services. He is joined by fellow project managers Carl Fawkes, with a background in subsea engineering and decommissioning; and Chris Donnelly who has eight years’ demolition project management experience.

With further roles potentially on the horizon, Richard elaborated “We invest continuously in the development of our people, because such ongoing learning is crucial in our inherently high-hazard world. But the welcoming of ‘new blood’ – to complement our existing talent – is also important.

“It means we’re now well equipped to tackle even more UK and international projects in 2019 and beyond.”

Headquartered in London – and with experience working in the global chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, power, energy, oil, gas and heavy manufacturing industries – RVA’s multi-disciplined engineering team has completed more than 770 large-scale and complex projects worldwide. Other members of the management board include Ian Wharton who takes on the responsibility of strategic development director, and business manager Lilia Russell.

 

 

The economic climate has proven volatile over the past 12 months, certainly in the UK, which has undoubtedly had some bearing on the demolition profession. But what other factors have influenced demolition in 2018 and where might opportunities have been missed? Here are some thoughts from the RVA team…

1. Skills stagnation?

It would be wrong to claim the industry doesn’t care about continued professional development – on the contrary we see some fantastic examples of learning in practice, via official bodies such as the National Demolition Training Group and the CITB, as well as via firms’ own in-house training programmes. But there appears to be an apparent reluctance to invest in specialist areas such as explosives engineering practitioners.

In the UK, there is a definite generational gap, with many talented engineers fast approaching retirement age. The issue of new blood coming into the discipline is something that has been worrying witnessed for some time, but I fear 2018 is another year of potential progress lost, in this respect.

2. Heavy industry

There is limited enthusiasm for companies to set up to tackle the ‘big target’ area of heavy industrial demolition. Admittedly power station demolition is complex, but so too are most other sector opportunities, in the absence of the right skill-set or approach. Does it just come down to mindset? There are enough skilled practitioners in the industry, to form collaborative, expertise-rich teams that can tackle these types of large, high-hazard jobs safely and effectively. A few contractors are experiencing success by entering this sector but there is still room for more to compete in what promises to be a rich pool of potential, longer-term.

3. EU borders

The EU remains the logical place for forward-looking UK contractors to focus their sights. Whilst home-spun opportunities are still arising, working in Europe should be high on the agenda for those who are forecasting 10+ years ahead, even if considering only factors such as the size of the market and the variety of industry-wide assets reaching their end of life.

Naturally there could perhaps be an argument for sitting on the fence until Barnier and May finally reach a Brexit agreement but is this just an excuse? Opportunities in the industrial heartlands of the EU have been open for many years and yet the signs of an influx of interest from UK firms have never been apparent. The work exists and it will be done by someone.

4. A reluctance to share?

The exchange of information – whether it be the sharing of best practice or learnings from a non-conforming/failed event – still seems to be a mechanism that the demolition world shies away from. There may be those who don’t view this practice as important, and of course there will be scenarios where confidentiality or commercial sensitivity would preclude release of the fine details of an uncontrolled collapse or a loss of containment, for instance. But it is only by exchange of experiences, that the industry can learn and improve. Most civil engineering disciplines share both good and bad – demolition’s fear of disclosure needs to be overcome.

5. A reluctance to champion

Ours is an industry that never appears to champion its own, and I don’t think this is due to a sense of bashfulness. Rather than applauding peers for their innovative methodology, the completion of a successful contract or even the winning of tender, many are quick to claim that it must have been ‘lucky / unfair / they can’t make money at that price’. Perhaps a more supportive and mature culture could be something to work towards over the next 12 months?

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.