‘Getting to grips with demolition’ – Richard Vann considers what makes an effective demolition waste management strategy, Secondary Commodity Markets, October 2012.
Secondary Commodity Markets
Blog
RVA operations director takes to stage at leading industry event
RVA Group operations director Ian Wharton delivered an educative presentation entitled ‘Process Plant Sector Decommissioning & Dismantling’ at the Institute of Demolition Engineers’ (IDE) autumn seminar in London, late last month.
Speaking to a 150-strong audience of IDE members, Ian’s thought-provoking delivery encouraged delegates to reflect on what it is like to work in the complex decommissioning and demolition environment, what skills and competencies are required, and what procedures and challenges may be encountered. The overriding themes were EHS excellence, client satisfaction, reputational management and continual improvement.
With over 30 years engineering experience, Ian has developed extensive knowledge within this specialist field. Speaking about the invitation to present he said: “RVA has been approached to deliver a presentation for the IDE for many years, and we are committed to working with the Institute to help continually raise the professionalism of our industry.
“The RVA team worked hard to design an insightful, wide ranging presentation in which best practice could be shared. We hope delegates left the seminar thinking about what they could do to heighten standards within their own organisations, and those of their clients.”
RVA managing director Richard Vann added: “Demolition is an exciting and multifaceted branch of engineering just like civils, mechanical or chemical. But the institutions within these fields have existed for centuries, whereas demolition is very much in its infancy. This means there is so much potential for the discipline to continually learn, improve and flourish, and it is important that we work together to protect project personnel, stakeholders and the environment.”
For further information, or to ask RVA to speak at one of your educational events, please call 01473 256890 or complete our short enquiry form.
RVA writes for specialist chemical journal
Varied factors, challenges and opportunities must be considered before plant owners and engineers can tackle the decommissioning of a chemical site. But with no guiding principles to refer to, dealing with redundant or outdated assets is often unchartered and difficult territory for these chemical professionals.
At a time when many chemical installations are being mothballed, rationalised or permanently closed down, decommissioning is evidently an area that the chemical industry needs to understand more clearly. This is perhaps one of the main reasons why leading journal The Chemical Engineer (TCE) sought an in-depth knowledge-based comment from RVA Group, for inclusion within their September magazine.
Regular industry speakers and commentators the RVA team penned a three page educative resource with case studies, which you can read in full below. For further information about the preparation, undertaking or project management of a chemical decommissioning project large or small, please contact RVA Group on 01473 256890.
Chemical Plant Decommissioning
A step into the unknown?
When it comes to commissioning a chemical plant, there is no shortage of advice and best-practice case studies to draw on. But when faced with decommissioning, it is a very different story. With no guiding principles to refer to, dealing with redundant or outdated assets is often unchartered territory for plant owners and chemical engineers.
Decommissioning is evidently an area that the chemical industry needs to understand more clearly. This is particularly true now at a time when many chemical installations are being mothballed, rationalised or permanently closed down. Although plants often cease to operate as a result of the economic downturn, it is not always doom and gloom. For many chemical producers, full or partial site closures simply represent a consolidation of activities, an opportunity to upgrade equipment, and/or a desire to work more efficiently.
Whatever the driver, the challenge for the chemical industry is how to manage the decommissioning of plants safely, cost-effectively, and with minimum environmental impact.
What makes the decommissioning discipline different?
Firstly, it must be acknowledged that this can be a complex process. Looking at the undertaking with the same mindset as a construction or routine activity will rarely deliver the safest or lowest-cost outcome. Decommissioning cannot be viewed as merely the opposite of commissioning or a subset of maintenance.
In the normal course of production, scheduled turnaround exercises require a great deal of plant-specific knowledge to efficiently shut down, upgrade, repair and service equipment. Typically managed like military operations to minimise the loss of revenue and mitigate inherent hazards associated with this process, these activities will be planned well in advance to ensure the safe completion of works, on programme.
Understandably plant engineers and managers operate with a production mindset, as they are used to preparing their facilities for them to be put back into service. But faced with decommissioning, there are numerous opportunities and task appropriate techniques available that site personnel will not have even thought about.
This is not to say their knowledge is not integral to the process. But rather than for example, a site operative having to enter a confined space to clean a vessel, demolition methodology could allow the item to be mechanically opened for scrap with hazardous materials being remotely removed as a simultaneous activity – a safer, faster and more cost-effective option. Similarly a high level structure or pipebridge can be brought down to ground level quickly using sophisticated long-reach technology, rather than personnel working at height to carefully disassemble the equipment in-situ.
Know your options
But what strategy and methodology should be adopted?
Perhaps the reason why there is no ‘teach yourself guide to decommissioning’ is because every situation is different – there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. Time must therefore be invested to build up an effective redundant asset management plan, bespoke to the chemical site concerned, because there will be a number of critical factors to consider. The expertise of experienced isolation, decontamination, demolition and dismantling specialists will add great value at this stage in order that the plant is safely prepared and unnecessary spend avoided.
Difficulties lie in making well-founded decisions about the future, especially at a time when pressures are mounting or there are gaps in knowledge. Indeed operators often assume that there are limited options available to them when closing a facility. They may therefore simply ask a demolition contractor for a price to clear the asset, before deciding whether to proceed with the exercise or not.
Naturally owners want to minimise cost, yet delaying projects that are deemed unaffordable is not always the most appropriate solution. They will inevitably have to be tackled at a later date and in most cases the financial burden will have further increased due to continuing overheads and liabilities such as hazardous material containment, infrastructure deterioration, loss of utilities, security provisions, regulatory compliance fees, care and maintenance costs and local authority building rates.
Specialist tools such as feasibility studies therefore play a crucial role in the development of safe yet commercially sound redundant asset management plans. This investigative exercise generates reliable and unbiased site and plant-specific data, from which a number of options can be explored and an optimum strategy identified for the project.
Engineering experience, sector knowledge and commercial awareness is needed to determine a clear and realistic view of the chemical plant’s true liability or opportunity, from which site owners can make informed decisions. Achievable costs, potential hazards and risks, the status of the supply chain, the commodity value of scrap, technological trends and requirements in emerging markets, waste management obligations, required resources, relevant legislation and programming and scheduling constraints, will have all been impartially assessed.
Whilst certainly a complex exercise, the conduction of a feasibility study is not an onerous or cost prohibitive process. On the contrary the preparation of this management instrument can unveil new value-adding opportunities and identify potential revenue streams that might not previously have been considered.
One option may be to dismantle equipment for re-sale, re-erection and operation elsewhere. This was the strategy for a 4,500-tonne ammonia plant, carefully removed from GrowHow UK Limited’s former fertiliser production site in Severnside, near Bristol.
Alternatively, plant demolition may be deemed most appropriate, particularly where there is the possibility to generate an income stream to offset cost as a consequence of scrap value. Not only does this mitigate ongoing levels of liability, but in some cases the project can be self-funding or even cash-positive. For example when INEOS ChlorVinyls, Europe’s largest polyvinyl chloride manufacturer, ceased manufacturing in Barry, it planned to decommission and clean the site before handing it back to the landlord with the plant intact. However a feasibility study exposed the full financial implications of this proposed site exit strategy and as a result of the options recommended by specialist consultants, the company handed the site back as flat slab having secured an income from the sale of the process equipment.
In some situations, the best course of action is to clear the site completely. One company that made this decision was world-leading crop protection organisation Nufarm. The company undertook a major project to decommission and clear its 12-acre site in Belvedere, Kent following the relocation of its UK operation to West Yorkshire. Nufarm assessed its options to determine the most commercially-viable route and considered either selling the site with redundant equipment in-situ or expanding its marketability by clearing it. A full decommissioning and demolition exercise was determined as the best-value option. Of course these organisations could mothball their sites until market conditions become more favourable and the plant can be sold or restarted. However whilst this may appear to be a straightforward option, full consideration must be given to ongoing safety risks, the need to re-test equipment, the availability of experienced personnel, continued site security and advances in technology that quite often firmly close the door on outdated production methods.
The beauty of a feasibility study though is that by assessing every risk and exploring every opportunity, an element of the unknown is removed and the overall best-value strategy can be selected. It may be that this comprises a number of isolation, demolition, dismantling and resale approaches. It sounds complex but it is certainly achievable if meticulous planning, sequencing and programming exercises have been carried out. It will also clearly identify which types of contractors will be most appropriate to bid for and undertake the actual works.
Overcoming challenges
Regardless of the strategic route pursued, every project has the potential to present difficulties, whether they are related to the age and make-up of a structure, the process nature of the plant during its operational life, or the location of other activities adjacent to a site. However where possible challenges are anticipated and planned for, it naturally follows that they can be addressed more efficiently and mitigation measures taken.
Chemical plants may contain corrosive, toxic or flammable materials for example, but that doesn’t mean that equipment cannot be safely brought to a known state and subsequently removed. GrowHow for instance were faced with the need to clear a range of facilities – including nitric acid, ammonia, carbon dioxide and ammonium nitrate production plants, utilities equipment, laboratories and office buildings – from nine separate locations within their site. However precise project management and teamwork ensured the successful completion of this mammoth task.
Elsewhere, during the aforementioned Nufarm project, utmost coordination and teamwork was required to not only ensure the safe execution of works on-site, but to also minimise the disruption caused to the numerous commercial properties bordering the installations. But intense planning and stringent management protected Nufarm’s commercial neighbours.
Unlocking potential
Whilst the closure of a chemical site is often a processing firm’s last resort, taking the decision to decommission and clear a plant can often give a much-needed boost to the local community. This was the case when a former chemical production facility in Knottingley was removed to give the site a new lease of life.
For 70 years the plant was used for the production of final and intermediate products for the chemical market. Its list of previous owners includes Midland-Yorkshire Tar, Croda, Shell, Inspec and Degussa.
But following the cessation of production, the site was acquired by a property developer who wished to transform it into a mixed-use location comprising offices, light industrial units, housing and associated amenities. Such regeneration projects can of course create a range of jobs therefore bringing significant benefits to the local area.
RVA operations director to present at leading demolition event
RVA Group operations director Ian Wharton has been invited to deliver an educative presentation at the Institute of Demolition Engineers’ (IDE) autumn seminar in Westminster, London.
Echoing RVA Group’s mission statement, Ian’s ‘Process Plant Sector Decommissioning & Dismantling’ presentation is designed to:
• Help deliver totally safe, environmentally secure and legislatively compliant projects
• Nurture a learning event culture aligned with a zero tolerance approach to all incidents and injuries
• Encourage engineering excellence, innovation and best value for clients.
Speaking exclusively to members of the Institute on 29 September, Ian will then encourage questions from the floor, providing delegates with additional knowledge transfer opportunities.
Ian has worked with some of the world’s largest and most prestigious blue-chip organisations, in sectors including oil and gas, pharmaceutical, chemical and petrochemical, power and energy, manufacturing, local authority and housing. He is therefore an incredibly experienced and competent engineer who is well placed to offer best-practice advice for demolition professionals seeking to further develop their expertise.
Further professional accreditation for RVA Group
RVA Group has gained further recognition for the level of skill and expertise within its team of consultants, this time in the form of professional registration with the Engineering Council.
Managing director Richard Vann has secured EngTech accreditation, as a result of his knowledge and experience within the highly complex discipline of explosives engineering.
He adds this to the long list of other professional bodies that RVA’s consultants are associated with, including the ICE, IMechE, IChemE, IStructE, IDE, IExpE, IOSH and APS.
Commenting about the accreditation, Richard said: “To work with an organisation of this stature cements your commitment to raising standards of engineering excellence within your field.
“With EngTech registration, RVA Group now has the added advantage of being able to demonstrate to potential clients and enforcing bodies, that the team is made up of knowledgeable professionals that are appropriately trained, skilled and equipped to provide value-adding engineering expertise.”
RVA supports sulphuric acid plant decommissioning
Over the coming months, specialist engineering consultancy RVA Group is supporting a major oil and gas operator with decommissioning preparations, risk assessments and procedures to ensure the safe dismantling and decommissioning of a sulphuric acid plant at their site in Barrow-in-Furness. With a full-time presence at the site since January following the completion of feasibility and option studies for the plant last year, RVA’s team of consultants will act in a project management and CDM co-ordinator role until the plant has been fully cleared.
The plant is part of a COMAH top-tier licensed operational site handling a large proportion of the UK’s gas supply. Extensive preparation is required to ensure the integrity of the site’s ongoing operations is protected whilst the decommissioning is carried out. RVA is supporting the procurement of dismantling contractor services and supervision of decommissioning to ensure the work is carried out with precision and teamwork. The priority throughout is to ensure the highest levels of safety on the project.
The plant being decommissioned comprises a reactor, concentration structure, furnace and precipitator, stack and pipe work. To avoid disruption, decommissioning will only begin when the new replacement plant has been fully installed and commissioned. This plant is currently being constructed reflecting the operator’s desire to have the safest, most efficient and reliable processing plant available.
Commenting on this project, RVA managing director Richard Vann says: ‘An increasing number of decommissioning projects are being discussed within this sector as oil and gas operators seek to develop the quality and efficiency of their installations and remove more outdated assets that may be approaching the end of their life.
‘RVA’s extensive heavy industrial experience gained from working on complex high-hazard sites means that we are well placed to ensure the safe, secure and best-value execution of even the most complicated of oil and gas decommissioning projects.’
Decommissioning advice for oil and gas
RVA has recently received a significant number of enquiries from organisations within the oil and gas industry, and with the interest showing no sign of slowing it seems this sector will represent a large proportion of RVA’s work over the next three to five years.
RVA’s specialist engineering expertise is highly sought-after in virtually every processing environment, but why the recent surge in demand from oil refineries and gas terminals?
The oil and gas sector has changed drastically over the past couple of decades. The ‘dash for gas’ led to an overcapacity in oil refining and many operators have consequently had to rationalise their assets or withdraw from the business completely. More recently gas fields within the North and Irish seas have become depleted which has led to gas terminals being rationalised also. Elsewhere other operators are upgrading their plant as they work towards improved efficiencies, which presents the need to remove older assets.
Regardless of the cause, it cannot be ignored that an increasing number of refineries and gas processing assets are being mothballed or closed across Europe.
The challenge therefore is how to manage these redundant assets in the safest and most cost-effective manner, whilst minimising any environmental impact resulting from the cessation of operations. Some organisations will try to sell their plant, either in-situ if other companies consider them viable operating sites, or for dismantling and reassembly in emerging markets elsewhere in the world. Other refining operators will accept that their plant has no future production value so will consider demolition as the only feasible route.
However many companies will wish to avoid entering into a decommissioning exercise and incurring what is deemed as a non-essential cost. This is despite the fact that the project will undoubtedly have to be tackled at a later date and in most cases at heightened financial expense, for example due to direct ongoing liabilities such as hazardous material containment, security and maintenance costs and testing.
RVA therefore develops bespoke redundant asset management plans for oil and gas operators. Drawing upon many years of experience, engineering insight and knowledge of the commercial environment, RVA undertakes investigative feasibility studies to addressing what is realistically, commercially and safely achievable for the refinery and what will extract best value from the project without compromising EHS excellence.
Commonly a number of robust solutions are then brought to light – many of which the operator may not have considered or even deemed possible – whether this be the dismantling of refining assets for resale, complete refinery demolition, or a combined approach.
Sometimes EHS requirements will have to dictate the chosen strategy. In other projects, whilst safety always has to be the priority, there may be other options. For instance it may be possible to generate a positive income stream from the value of scrap from the refinery or gas terminal.
It quickly becomes apparent just what value RVA can add to an organisation faced with redundant plant, and it is no surprise given the status of the oil and gas marketplace, why the consultancy team’s expertise is currently so highly sought after.
The value of the explosives engineering discipline
The controlled use of explosives is, on occasions, selected as the preferred demolition methodology for projects, as it can provide a safer and faster alternative to bringing large structures down mechanically over a period of several months.
Therefore, despite the seemingly ever-increasing size of long-reach excavators, explosives still have a crucial role to play in the safe and efficient execution of complex demolition projects. But do people realise the important and exciting nature of the discipline? And are enough young adults considering a career within the explosives industry?
These are topics the RVA team was asked to cover in a detailed article for Explosives Engineering, the official journal for The Institute of Explosives Engineering (IExpE). The full piece, which describes what a career in explosives engineering involves and what value explosives brings to the modern-day demolition environment, is shown here in its entirety….
“The world of demolition is becoming increasingly varied. Assets across the globe are reaching their end of life and there is an unprecedented need to demolish these safely, cost-effectively, in an environmentally sound manner, and often within strict programme constraints. But as the nature of demolition projects continues to evolve, so too do the possible methodologies used to carry these projects out.
Whilst there has been limited radical advance in demolition technology over the last few years, plant manufacturers are managing to build larger machines capable of dealing with taller structures. In 2009 for example RVA Group oversaw the mechanical demolition of a 50m chimney stack that was brought down using an excavator with a 60m telescopic boom and even this machine is dwarfed by more recent models.
However, it isn’t all about size and in certain instances the controlled use of explosives is still selected as the preferred demolition method. Often this is because it provides a safer and faster alternative to demolishing structures of all types, whether they be high-rise residential dwellings or steel framed industrial building or process plants. A structure may be too tall or complex for conventional machinery for instance, but the alterative of manually dismantling it piece by piece would necessitate operatives working at height for extended periods of time. Not only may this have implications for the project programme, but the risks posed to the operatives is also unnecessarily heightened.
There are also many other potential influencers. The structure may have become unstable due to working life stresses, concrete decay or even poor build quality, so mechanical demolition could simply be too dangerous; the structure might be positioned in close proximity to assets that require absolute protection; environmental and/or community disruption may need to be kept to an absolute minimum; and cost can even play a deciding factor too.
Ultimately though increasingly sophisticated explosives systems tend to ensure greater predictability of the outcome. Last year for instance, RVA Group project managed and coordinated the safe demolition of a 17-storey tower block in Greenock, Scotland. Meticulous planning and robust scientific methodology was needed to protect a nearby Network Rail infrastructure, the boundary of which sat just 3m from the building. Disruption to the electric rail commuter services also had to be kept to an absolute minimum.
The controlled use of explosives posed the most suitable methodology by far for bringing down the tower – not only would the alternatives of mechanical demolition or floor-by-floor dismantling have increased the possibility of debris falling onto the railway line, but a longer demolition period would have heightened the potential risk for project workers and the community. Furthermore, this demolition plan meant that only one railway line possession was needed and as the blowdown took place at night, commuter service disruption was minimal. At the time of the project the client – social landlord River Clyde Homes – praised the fact that site operations were carried out safely, the integrity of Network Rail’s assets was not compromised and ultimately the demolition programme was a great success.
Having assessed a structure and considered the suitability of explosives methodology, the explosives engineer then has a series of justifications to make with regard to a suite of factors including project safety, cost and programming.
Before proceeding with any demolition exercise, the engineer must therefore be able to conclude that the level of risk presented by the controlled use of explosives is manageable and acceptable. Of course every single job presents specific challenges, so extensive preparatory work is always crucial. Numerous precautionary measures can be employed:
- Construction materials and even process residue samples can be taken to assess the degree of contamination – if any – within a given structure. Decontamination strategies can then be devised and executed accordingly;
- Test blasts can be carried out prior to the blowdown to validate the design of the charge weight, drilling pattern and primary protection;
- Vibration specialists can determine that the demolition will not cause disruption or damage to the surrounding environment.
- Before a blast is carried out the project team should also liaise closely with all relevant external stakeholders, including the community, local authority and emergency services. Because the explosives engineer takes ownership of the project when the explosives phase is underway, responsibility for risk assessments, exclusion zones and contingency and misfire arrangements must also be assumed. Once a structure has been demolished, the rubble should be inspected to ensure inherent stability and to certify that no undetonated explosives remain. Debris and dust should also be cleared from the surrounding area – not only does this protect the environment but it allows any site neighbours to return to normality as soon as possible.
Demolition is only one very small sector within the explosives industry, but there is still great scope for the discipline to excel within this engineering arena. The number of large-scale production facilities being closed worldwide remains staggering, and there is a need to clear these sites safely, cost-efficiently and with minimum environmental impact. Even regeneration projects that have been temporarily shelved as a result of economic difficulties will need to be addressed in the near future.
There is no reason why the role of explosives engineering within demolition cannot therefore have longevity. Yet unfortunately there are very few experts within this compelling field and the evidence of new blood wanting to make a career in this sector is also sparse.
There are two main elements to the explosives engineering discipline. Of course there is the need to truly understand pure explosives technology – how to handle them safely, the different types, how they should be stored, how they work and how they can best be used.
But engineers are simply utilising the explosive product as a tool to effectively achieve an objective. To be of value, pure explosives knowledge must therefore be aligned with a practical understanding of the defined profession, whether this is demolition, mining, tunnelling, quarrying or special effects for example.
So in demolition the engineer should also have an understanding of structures and a comprehension – perhaps with the input of other specialists such as structural engineers – of what the project needs to achieve in terms of collapse. The engineer must analyse and design where to place the detonator, how much charge to use, where to place the charge, what delay sequence to employ, what detonation methods to implement in order to reduce the quantities of explosives required, and what the suitable exclusion zone should be.
The considerations are numerous, and the competencies of a skilled explosives engineer multi-layered. An appreciation of the product science should be complemented with a level of articulacy and comprehension with the discipline to follow creative yet meticulous procedures and methodology. A respect for the power of explosives, within any field, is also essential.
But knowledge grows with experience, and the importance of continuous professional development cannot be underestimated. Where possible engineers should attend educational seminars and events not only to learn more about advances in explosives, but to remain abreast with safety systems and standards, environmental issues and ever-changing legislative control measures too. A true explosives engineer will have empathy for all related project factors.
Professional bodies such as the IExpE ensure that explosives engineers, scientists, logisticians, academics and legislators alike are recognised in terms of occupational competence, as membership to the Institute is earned by achievement not subscription. All industry specialists should equally acknowledge their duty to help shape industry developments and nurture the explosives engineering talent of the future.
To what extent people beyond the industry understand the exact science and extensive preparation involved in an activity which appears to last less than 10 seconds, is difficult to say. However the truth is that a career in explosives engineering – whilst hard work – will always offer new, exciting and challenging opportunities that are perhaps not comparable to those in many other professions.”
RVA knowledge in high demand
The specialist engineering expertise and experience of RVA Group has once again been sought after by the industry’s leading technical journals.
Last month RVA provided a detailed insight into the ways with which the company’s impartial consultancy service can breathe life into shelved demolition projects. This ‘demolition turnaround’ contribution – included in the very first of The Construction Index’s new in-depth features – can be read in full below:
“Some people would argue that the future looks tough for demolition, whereas others would suggest that now is the time for the discipline to shine. Here the specialist engineering consultancy team from RVA Group examines the current marketplace and shares their views as to a very important tool that is changing the future of demolition projects across the globe…
It is widely acknowledged that demolition – like many areas of the construction industry – has experienced an extended period of difficulty as a result of recent economic turbulence. Some well-established contractors have entered into administration because of absent work and increasingly pressurised margins, and whilst some companies report continued robustness, market confidence still seems questionable.
However the apparent lack of active demolition projects doesn’t accurately reflect the number of sites, plants and assets that are lying redundant throughout the UK, and beyond. The number of production facilities being mothballed, rationalised or permanently closed down across the globe remains staggering, so in theory the work should exist. Yet many decommissioning and demolition projects have been shelved due to the anticipated cost of undertaking what is often perceived as an unnecessary exercise, or certainly one that can be delayed until a fiscal improvement is seen.
Naturally organisations wish to avoid non-essential spend, but postponing projects that are deemed unaffordable is not always the most appropriate solution. They will inevitably have to be tackled at a later date and in most cases at an overall increased cost due to continuing liabilities such as hazardous material containment, security provisions, regulatory compliance fees, care and maintenance costs , together with the burden of inextricable overheads such as local authority building rates.
Some companies initially try to sell their plant in-situ in an attempt to pursue a relatively ‘pain-free’ site exit and where possible protect employees’ jobs. But if a buyer is not found they can then struggle to know what to do next.
Difficulties lie in making informed decisions about the future, especially at a time when pressures are mounting or there are gaps in knowledge. Independent tools like feasibility studies will therefore play an ever-increasingly crucial role in the development of organisations’ redundant asset management plans and consequently the possible level of demolition work within the industry.
Drawing upon specialist engineering experience, sector knowledge and commercial awareness, feasibility studies provide an unbiased, clear and realistic view as to the true liability or indeed opportunity of a decommissioning and demolition project. EHS, commercial and financial factors associated with the given site and current marketplace, are all considered. This means assessing realistic costs, potential hazards and risks, the status of the supply chain, the commodity value of scrap, technological trends and requirements in emerging market, waste management obligations, required resources, relevant legislation, and programme and scheduling constraints.
These studies generate a number of unique, robust and cost-effective options or solutions that companies may not have considered or even deemed possible. They also provide sufficient data and confidence to pursue a given route whether that be:
- The dismantling of plant for re-sale, re-erection and operation elsewhere;
- The demolition of plant, where it is often possible to generate an income stream due to the prevailing value of scrap. Not only does this mitigate ongoing and unacceptable levels of liability, but in some cases the project can be self-funding, if not even profitable;
- The mothballing of plant;
- Or, a combination of the options above.
These widely-regarded strategic management tools remove an element of the unknown and provide an insightful starting point from which innovative, value-adding and considered business decisions can be made. It can be the difference between a project getting started or not starting at all.
It is important to remember though that demolition is not always a straightforward process; it is an inherently hazardous activity. The goal should be to maximise return on assets where possible and indeed safe to do so. However factors such as plant age, former processes, recovery cost, testing, market forces and commercial competition will all form part of the decision as to what should and shouldn’t be salvaged.
Devising a cost-effective project plan certainly doesn’t mean cutting corners, because EHS excellence must remain the non-negotiable priority. Nor does it mean avoidance of legislative compliance. It just means utilising a true understanding of the engineering environment, anticipating possible challenges and resolution methods, and evaluating factors that may otherwise have remained unconsidered.
Demolition as a profession has a bright future, and there is no reason why the expertise of some of the UK’s most talented specialists will not be increasingly sought overseas too – we’ve already seen it start to happen. What is important though is the development of close-working, knowledge-based relationships with clients, so that the safest and financially optimal solutions are considered and understood.”
Scientific approach for Finnish BASF project
The world’s largest chemical company BASF has commenced the dismantling and demolition of its Kaipiainen polymer production facilities in Finland. The activity is part of a strategic consolidation which will allow the company to focus its attention on alternative worldwide manufacturing, following its acquisition of chemical company Ciba in 2009.
To project manage the complex process, BASF has appointed UK-based specialist engineering consultants RVA Group. A team from RVA has spent five months helping BASF prepare for the project and will now oversee the safe execution of the works.
With their extensive expertise of diverse decommissioning projects, RVA has already directed the full tender process, assessing submissions from contractors across Europe. Having appointed a Finnish team of experts to carry out the demolition work, RVA will now remain on site throughout the entirety of the three month project execution to ensure it runs smoothly and safely.
But this is not just a straightforward site clearance exercise. Whilst major redundant plant items are to be dismantled for recycling, some external and internal elements of the production area have been cherry-picked by a new company that will store and distribute chemicals from this site. RVA must therefore ensure the safety, protection and integrity of these valuable assets which include large storage vessels (in a tank farm only metres from the demolition area), and a two-storey building with two process areas separated by a large warehouse. Vessel removal is taking place in both process areas, but a significant number of reactors are also being retained.
As the next occupants are set to move onto the site before the project’s completion, RVA will use their sector-specific experience to ensure that appropriate safety standards and methodology are applied.
Working closely with the appointed contractor, RVA will also safeguard the activity of the three industrial companies that currently share the BASF site. Whilst there is no fenced boundary separating the operational companies from the demolition works, it is essential that minimum disruption is caused and exemplary safety standards are maintained. Central facilities such as a boilerhouse, waste water treatment plant and an essential rail freight line must be protected and whilst some services have been re-routed, it is crucial that the supply of raw materials remain uninterrupted.
A 53 tonne excavator with a 25m reach and a 2.3 tonne shear will be among the machinery utilised to carry out the works, all within a confined operating space of approximately 3,000 sq m.
Commenting on the project, Trevor Nicholson from the BASF Procurement HUB says: : “We sought RVA’s expertise for the Kaipiainen project following their work with us at Seal Sands in the North East of England in 2009, where they demonstrated their ability to meet BASF’s exacting standards when it comes to environmental health and safety. A project of this nature requires a thoughtful, coordinated and attentive approach, plus specialist industry knowledge that we know RVA can deliver.”