Blog

Engineering firm RVA Group launches new decommissioning service

Specialist decommissioning engineering consultancy RVA Group has launched a new service as the number of industrial and process site closures globally, continues to rise.

Having successfully delivered more than 850 decommissioning, decontamination, demolition and dismantling (DDDD) projects all over the world, the London-headquartered firm has identified a gap in the market when it comes to one of the earliest phases of preparing a site to be mothballed or removed.

Asset owners commonly use internal resources to handle initial decommissioning works – often due to the fact they don’t consider alternative approaches. However, global industry standards such as the CDM Regulations, state that it is best practice – and the law in the UK – for decommissioning to fall within this remit. A principal designer should therefore be involved from the earliest phase, to ensure the works are rigorously planned from the outset.

So, while the asset owner can assume the role of principal contractor, an experienced team with a decommissioning mindset should be charged with supporting or writing the decommissioning plan itself, as well as documenting the detailed processes to follow, and auditing works throughout. This is the most secure way of ensuring the project unfolds with the highest possible safety and environmental standards, believes RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann.

“Nobody knows an asset or site better than the operator who has run it for several years,” he explains. “So, when the owner calls time on its operational life it would be unwise to overlook the depth and value of process and plant-specific knowledge that such individuals could bring to the table, during a decommissioning project.

“However, despite decommissioning often being considered an extension of site maintenance, it represents a specific engineering discipline which requires a distinct mindset. There’s a difference between measures for maintenance or routine turnaround purposes for instance and decommissioning the asset entirely because it has reached its end of life and will never be restarted. Ironically, DDDD presents a number of opportunities that will not only make the process cost effective but also, in many instances, remove hazards and enable increased EHS standards to be implemented.

“Professionals in our industry are often engaged when decommissioning work is already underway, but by that point, avoidable risks may already have been taken and additional measures may be required to rectify decommissioning issues that should have been undertaken by the right people, armed with the right information, at the right time.”

There’s also a financial argument for earlier involvement from decommissioning specialists, adds Richard.

“Sometimes operators go to such extremes that they undertake processes they don’t actually need to, as they could be handled more efficiently, and ultimately safely, during the dismantling phase,” he highlights. “Such an approach therefore results in abortive effort and cost. Costs will also rise if extra resource is required to get a project back on track – and the monetary consequences of an event, such as loss of containment doesn’t even bear thinking about.”

Having supported clients within the global chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, power, energy, oil, gas and heavy manufacturing industries, RVA’s client roster includes names such as INEOS, SABIC, BASF, Total and GSK – to name just a few.

Established in 1992 and now a part of EPH following a strategic acquisition in 2017, the team brings more than 200 years combined decommissioning experience to the market.

Share

RVA’s Richard Vann appointed as Demolition Industry Awards judge

Richard Vann, RVA Group

Entries are open for the 2021 British Demolition Awards, and RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann has been appointed to sit on the judging panel.

A celebration of talent, collaboration and innovation throughout the profession, the event is now in its third year. With 13 categories covering demolition contractor and project excellence, safety innovation, asbestos removal, up-and-coming talent, environmental advancements, and more, it is hoped that this will be a strong showcase of what is great about the demolition industry.

Richard will join fellow judges Paul Argent, editor of Demolition Hub; Holly Price, former NFDC president and Keltbray’s skills and communities director; and Simon Barlow, NFDC LSC chairman and managing director of Rye Demolition.

“It is important that we champion the dedication, hard work and pioneering attitudes that exist within the demolition industry, and I look forward to reviewing the submissions that come in,” said Richard. “Having been a part of the profession for over 30 years, on a truly global basis, I continue to be proud of our work – especially here in the UK.”

The deadline to enter the British Demolition Awards, is 31 July, before judging will commence. The industry will gather at the Amex stadium in Brighton, on 3 September, to learn which of the finalists have been successful.

Best of luck to all.

Share

Decommissioning spotlight – understanding asset retirement obligations

It may sound like something of a ‘dark art’ but planning for the safe, cost-effective and compliant retirement of assets in the oil and gas sector doesn’t just make good business sense – it is a legal requirement too. In a recent article for Tanks & Terminals, Richard Vann – founder and CEO of RVA Group – explores what the process of asset retirement planning involves, the benefits, and why operators should start thinking about the end of a tank’s life, far sooner that they may first realise.

If you missed the feature, catch it in full here…

It perhaps sounds like scenario planning to the Nth degree, but being prepared for the retirement of an asset is a fundamentally crucial and strategic way to approach the operational lifecycle of a tank farm, or even an entire terminal. In many parts of the world, it is also a legal requirement – to comply with international financial provisioning standards such as FAS143 in the US, and IAS 37 in Europe.

The roots of such standards date back to the days of events such as the Enron scandal, when the American energy giant was declared bankrupt. The company was building and running power facilities throughout the USA and overseas – seemingly successfully. However, despite sizable annual revenues, no financial provisions were being made to fund the eventual decommissioning of Enron assets, when the time came to take them offline. The liquidation of this company – and the fact that the Government had to pay for the retirement of their plants – certainly acted as a lesson learnt, and accounting rules were changed as a result.

Now, in the simplest of terms, a proportionate amount of money must be set aside, every year, for the decommissioning of high value capital assets with an expected life in excess of 15 years. If nothing else, this acts as a safety net in the event of abandonment.

Comprehensive financial provisioning

While the numbers associated with asset retirement were once estimated, they must now be evidenced and substantiated.

In other words, accounting law now states that asset retirement provisioning should be carried out in a proven manner, which naturally requires someone with decommissioning-specific expertise to be involved in the exercise.

RVA is known for saying that nobody knows an asset better than the operator who runs it, but that doesn’t mean said operator knows exactly how to retire the asset with maximum respect for safety, the environment and their bottom line. The many components of a decommissioning project – including decontamination, dismantling and demolition – require a defined engineering skill-set, if the assignment is to be managed and executed successfully.

The ‘numbers’ must therefore include estimates of the resources that will be required – in terms of people and technology – over a given period of time, as well as considered third party cost estimates relating to everything from the surrender of licences and permits, through to community engagement, wider stakeholder liaison and the disposal of hazardous materials, to name just a few.

The data is then typically compiled in a transparent report with annotations to explain any assumptions and exclusions. Once audited, the figures are declared in operators’ annual results.

More than financial data

Of course, such accounting requirements do not exist in all parts of the world, but parentage of an asset naturally dictates the standards adopted, irrespective of where the asset actually resides. Consequently, this process forms part of common practice for a significant proportion of the industry and the data is produced without question, much like a tax return. In larger firms, the numbers also tend to aid compliance with organisations’ own financial regimes too.

But delve deeper, beyond the headline summaries, and what do the figures actually say?

This asset retirement exercise is one of many strategic studies that an operator can undertake to highlight, understand and better manage a site’s long-term liability. In fact, used properly alongside a redundant asset management plan (RAMP), and the operator has an extremely powerful resource at their fingertips.

RVA began working with one European firm back in 2011, for example, because with >€100m of redundant assets it had reached the point where it almost didn’t know what it had got. They therefore sought a true and complete picture of their decommissioning responsibilities – a value-adding business instrument – not just an indicative cost.

It is also important to note at this point, that the aforementioned accounting standards require operators to evaluate all of their assets. However, in truth, fuel storage/distribution facilities and terminals may sometimes be considered with less rigour on certain sites, in favour of concentrating on elements of a plant that are considered more complex or hazardous in nature. This should not be the case.

Thorough analysis of all the client’s assets means that a decommissioning ‘hierarchy’ can be drawn up according to the level of safety risk associated with each. The deterioration of insulation or the general corrosion of a tank heightens the likelihood of a containment loss, for instance. Structural collapse is also a significant risk, as well as leakage, which may consequently affect the need to accelerate the retirement of the asset concerned.

Monitor, measure and adapt

Once complete, the frequency with which an asset retirement study should be reviewed, must be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is recommended that the information is rigorously re-assessed at least every five years. This allows any changes to the assets or tightening of regulations to be accommodated, and the true liability of a site to be fully understood at a given point in time.

A solid baseline of data will ensure this ongoing review process can be carried out in both an efficient and effective manner. At the heart of the costings exercise should therefore be a fluid and reconfigurable database which allows for the adjustment of resource costs, waste and scrap rates, as well as annual inflation figures. This adaptability is essential, if the study is to maintain relevance over a possibly extended period.

In truth, the frequency with which an operator chooses to update their asset retirement data often depends on their individual approach to good governance. A tank explosion in Western Asia in 2016 for example, had devastating consequences that a different care and maintenance regime could perhaps have helped to prevent.

The wider value of asset retirement data

As has hopefully already been evidenced, this accounting practice can add value far beyond that of a compliance box-ticking exercise. As the age-old saying goes, knowledge is power, so hopefully it is viewed as much more than merely a ‘necessary evil’.

So, if an operator is devising a business case for the installation of a new plant, considering a site exit, or evaluating the affordability of a decommissioning project over a defined period of time for cashflow purposes, strong intelligence already exists.

With the tendency currently for assets to change ownership perhaps more often than in the past, variations of this asset retirement study can also be used by prospective purchasers and vendors, as a due diligence tool. For example, the information gathered gives clarity on the legacies that will remain with the site and costs that are likely to crystallise in the future.

Thinking about decommissioning before day one

The role of asset retirement provisioning is only going to grow – as is the importance of decommissioning in the oil and gas value chain.

That’s because the circular economy has gone from being a term usually referenced only by those in the environmental sector, to a philosophy now influencing so many supply chains in various industrial settings.

When it comes to the futureproofing of assets in this sector – in fact, in so many areas of construction – the decommissioning of tanks, terminals and other buildings and structures is therefore increasingly being considered before they have been built. Actually, while they are still being designed.

Reuse and recycling matters more than ever, so if the financially and environmentally savvy retirement of an asset can be ensured before it even exists, this takes an operator’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) status to a whole different level – and rightly so.

Conversation surrounding this topic, is going to get even louder.

Share

What does a ‘return to work’ mean for the demolition industry?

Richard Vann recently penned some thoughts – in his regular column with Demolition and Recycling International – on what the easing of Covid-19 restrictions could mean for an industry that fought to adapt during the UK’s lockdowns.

If you missed it, you can catch up on the full article below:

Richard Vann, RVA Group’s managing director and D&RI columnist, explores what the easing of Covid-19 restrictions means for an industry that fought to adapt during the UK’s multiple lockdowns…

On the whole, the demolition industry – like many construction-related disciplines – reacted quickly and well, to the ever-changing challenges thrown up by Covid-19.

Teams nationwide replanned site schedules, revised working practices, redesigned access and egress protocols, reconfigured facilities to accommodate only limited personnel, further improved hygiene regimes, restricted movements on site to minimise social interaction and, naturally, ensured all task related and COVID-19 specific PPE was readily available.

Colleagues – from the boardroom to the boots on the ground – were trained, and rapidly, to ensure this albeit colossal health and safety challenge could be navigated compliantly, efficiently and with maximum respect for the protection of everyone. Just like any other EHS hurdle demolition engineers ordinarily have to mitigate, I suppose.

Because that’s what this industry does. We accept and accommodate change. We adapt and adjust. We manage the challenges thrown our way, move forward with positivity, and get on with it.

All those decades of being the underdog – the runt of the litter almost, certainly in the eyes of others – has taught us this. It’s taught us how to fight for survival.

I can only speak from personal experience of course, but most people I have talked to, had reopened the majority of their sites – safely and compliantly – within a few weeks of the initial lockdown.

The speed with which the world of demolition got to work again, means that the symptoms associated with extended periods away from work, have on the whole hopefully been avoided – certainly when compared with many industries whose colleagues have been on long-term furlough.

But even for organisations that haven’t really experienced any loss of momentum, now is not the time for assumptions. Some colleagues may still be feeling anxious at the thought of site restrictions easing. Some may even be concerned about a return of social interaction that they’ve lived without for so long, and that feeling of unease may spill over into the workplace. If in doubt, talk to people.

I spoke many months ago about the need for communication, and that theme has remained prevalent as the pandemic has unfolded. From corporate team sessions through to more relaxed and bite-sized dialogue, keeping colleagues informed and connected has been crucial. It shouldn’t only be considered as part of an employer’s duty of care, but as a crucial component to upholding high spirits too.

For organisations that haven’t maintained these lines of regular communication throughout, all is not lost. But in these instances, it may be wise to treat employees almost as new starters. This is not to patronise them, and it doesn’t mean their skill-sets have been depleted. However, they will undoubtedly benefit from some refresher training – we held reboot sessions for our colleagues and most had been away for less than three weeks!

Elsewhere, we should be wary that teams may have lost their community feel. Individuals may be feeling demotivated, disengaged and restless – humans are creatures of habit after all. Managers need to remember just how much they owe to their people. If anyone is feeling close to the edge, it is our duty to help bring them back and provide a ‘safety net’ in times of difficulty.

Industry leaders who continue to look forward, will set a new baseline. Because as is usually the case in a crisis, good can be borne out of it.

Some of the imposed changes to working practices will be beneficial, longer term, for example. People will travel less, if their roles are suited to some remote working, which could bring about environmental savings while making us more efficient, and maybe even more fulfilled.

People will hopefully be more respectful of individuals’ personal circumstances and the work-life balance that so many struggle to juggle. But on the other hand, we’ll appreciate the opportunity to go into work and be around our colleagues, far more than we did before new protocols were enforced upon us.

It won’t be plain sailing moving forward of course. Many demolition teams will struggle to compete on international projects, for instance, certainly if they can’t guarantee when on-site resources will be available. But the industry innovates, remember. Watch this space…

Share

Is this the decade that demolition gains deserved respect in the value chain?

As part of his regular column with Demolition and Recycling International, our MD Richard Vann looked at demolition’s place in the value chain and asks whether this decade will be the time when the contractor will get the appreciation they deserve.

Ask anyone outside of the demolition industry what our engineering profession does, and they’d no doubt describe scenes full of dozers and excavators (even cranes and balls), pulling down tired buildings, plant and other assets, in order to make way for something more exciting.

Perhaps with a little latitude, they wouldn’t, strictly speaking, be wrong, of course. But would they understand the lengths to which we go to ensure hazards are mitigated? Methodologies are designed and validated? Communities are engaged? The environment is protected?

No – and why would they?

Compare that to the perceptions that exist surrounding the role of a construction consultancy or architect. Admittedly, a layperson perhaps still wouldn’t describe the technicality of these professions in deserved depth either. However, I bet they’d be more likely to acknowledge the design acumen, planning rigour and project management prowess of such teams.

This is not to take anything away from such a summary. These are highly skilled individuals bringing innovative new buildings, facilities, structures and processes to market. But what if they weren’t the only people to kickstart the lifecycle of such an asset?

The ongoing economic shift to a more closed loop society means that we are increasingly trying to preserve the world’s resources and prolong the part they play in the value chain.

That’s why in product design, for instance, savvy brands are now pioneering goods that don’t just look and perform great during their useful life – they’re engineered for ease of safe, cost-effective reuse or recyclability too. Naturally, experts from the waste industry are consulted as part of this process, which means the supply chain becomes less linear, and more circular.

So, what has this got to do with the demolition industry?

As a demolition consultancy, yes, we are often hired to deliver works execution services and, in the UK, we act as CDM Principal Designer for the vast majority of our clients – a role that we see as integral to the project management structure. However, as with most undertakings, the quality of inputs at the earliest possible stages of an assignment will influence the level of success that can be achieved.

Some forward-thinking organisations may therefore seek front-end engineering support much earlier in the lifecycle of a project – and I’m not just talking about feasibility and options studies. We are often asked to deliver pre-build asset management and retirement provisioning services for high hazard plants, for example – a process which provides the foundations for a robust financial management tool that owners can utilise to confidently accrue adequate funds for the asset’s eventual end of life decommissioning.

This has the potential to be far more than a budgeting exercise. It can help when periodically assessing the plant’s ongoing viability against future liabilities, evaluating the business case for retro-fitting and maintaining cost awareness for the acquisition or divestment of assets, to name just a few benefits.

But the value of this type of service – and indeed the demolition profession on the whole – would be amplified if the data to support the planning and programming of the asset’s retirement, was considered during the pre-construction phase of a plant.

Firstly, the longer-term costs associated with the eventual decommissioning of the installation could have a significant impact on the asset’s profitability across the entirety of its lifecycle – costs which could be better controlled with more of the closed loop collaboration described above.

Secondly, if the decontamination, dismantling and demolition of an asset are considered before it has even been constructed, there may be ways to ease some of the practical, safety and environmental concerns that may otherwise arise further down the line.

It must be noted that such collaborations are already taking place in industry, but not to the degree that they should be. I hope that ongoing supply chain dialogue during 2021 and beyond, will change that. We can close the loop in our world too.

Share

Closing the door on a chaotic year

“Without falling into cliché mode, reflecting on 2020 and predicting what’s to come in 2021 can be difficult as no one knows what the future has in hold” is the message from RVA’s very own Richard Vann.

If you’ve not had chance to read the recent edition of Demolition and Recycling International, you can catch up here…

It’s always hard to write a reflection on the year without tripping into cliché territory. The same can be said when it comes to predicting what the next 12 months might hold in store, because nobody can ever say with true certainty what lies ahead.

All of this is undoubtedly compounded further still, when you consider what 2020 has thrown up. Most of us are tired of reading about ‘unprecedented times’ and, in truth, for many people – on both a personal and professional level – any words will simply feel trite. But it has been a year of great distress and reflect we must – it’s an important exercise at the best of times, not least now.

In the early parts of 2020, many projects slowed or were suspended entirely – at least temporarily while consultants, contractors and clients alike, paused to take stock. For most, some agile schedule adjustments and roll outs of new site protocols, meant ‘normality’ could resume fairly quickly. For others, especially those working in international waters, the ongoing travel restrictions have presented the need to reconsider entirely how assignments can be tackled.

However, as with the majority of unexpected events, the initial periods are the most challenging. So of course, the ongoing uncertainty posed by Covid-19 isn’t pleasant, and anxieties remain high for a number of colleagues, which requires considerate support from business leaders. But I’ve seen many industry professionals – particularly company owners – move on from that initial period of chaos and now default to problem solving mode.

Because yes, Covid-19 has been a massive – and tragic – event. But the only way we can deal with it – certainly at management level – is to treat it as another set of circumstances to navigate as best we can, just as we would any other business challenge.

We may well pass through the bulk of 2021 before we see any glimmers of life reverting to ‘normal’. But demolition projects will continue, and in truth, more work may arise if economic conditions accelerate asset rationalisation exercises.

So, what will we make of next year?

Organisations are now relying on technology more than ever before, accelerated of course by the need to work from home when isolating. The firms who digitally transformed their businesses some time ago – and migrated from paper-based systems to cloud communications – adapted to lockdown relatively effortlessly. Others have found it tough – as much for cultural reasons as opposed to anything tech related.

But some employers have been almost forced to trust that their teams can be productive when they are away from the traditional working environment. And a good thing to come from the pandemic, is that this is now widely regarded as the norm.

It’s difficult not to lose a sense of camaraderie when working disparately, so managers have had to don their ‘employee engagement officer’ hats to keep colleagues psychologically connected, not just practically in touch with each other. This represents a step into the unknown for many business leaders, but I don’t think this is a bad thing. ‘The way things have always been done’ is perhaps no longer acceptable.

I think a number of us in the demolition industry have consequently re-assessed our working practices. Of course, there are instances where physical boots on the ground are needed. But a 500-mile round-trip to meet a client for two hours, perhaps isn’t one. When the cost of time, travel and accommodation has been calculated – as well as the carbon impact of otherwise avoidable journeys – the rationale for some site visits no longer stacks up. The same can be said for internal meetings with colleagues located throughout the country – in short, Covid-19 doesn’t have to jeopardise communication.

Away from Covid-19, and I’ve seen some great examples of teamwork, collaboration and innovation throughout 2020. At a conference in Europe at the turn of the year, for instance, I heard how one demolition firm encapsulated an entire cooling tower with a moveable sheeted framework to minimise dust. It will have probably cost millions, but protecting the environment – and the company’s reputation – was the priority. This meant that the use of explosives was not chosen for this particular structure, as would perhaps have ordinarily been expected.

That’s not to say the explosives industry is becoming staid. Many of us will have recently read an article which explored the use of military-grade “kick and cut” charges, to bring down structures at a quarry. By removing the need for pre-weakening techniques, this approach presented a number of potential safety advantages for site personnel, although it will – as with all other specialist approaches – have limitations. This technique arguably may not be suitable on a site located in the heart of a community, for example. However, it is important to recognise the innovation, and – where the structure, application and surroundings permit – it is a great example of developing a solution to fit a specific set of circumstances.

Staying with explosives engineering, the ever-depleting level of talent within this niche discipline causes me mounting worry – to the extent where I wonder if we’ve gone past the point of no return. I’m not suggesting we won’t see explosives being used on sites over the next three to five years – of course we will, and there are some world-renowned specialists based right here in the UK who will play a part in such projects. It’s also not to say that there aren’t any examples of formal learning and development programmes in progress, worldwide – there are, certainly at company level. But I fear the number of people entering the profession, simply isn’t sufficient to keep a critical mass and avoid this demolition technique largely disappearing in the medium-term future.

Therefore 2021 will be a crucial year for lots of reasons, but while Covid-19 poses the severity of risk that it currently does, the health and safety of us all must remain the priority. For demolition firms, this mindset goes without saying anyway. I therefore look forward to seeing how the industry’s professionals collaborate, share knowledge, progress and develop, together, as the months unfold.

Share

RVA achieves hat-trick of ISO accreditations

RVA Group is delighted to announce that the team has once again achieved re-accredited status for our ISO 9001 quality and ISO 14001 environmental standards, following our annual audit.

However, this year, we have also gained ISO 45001 recognition for our commitment to health and safety management. This third certification – which supersedes BS OHSAS 18001 – evidences the rigour that RVA applies to the auditing and management of risks in the workplace, on sites and throughout the supply chain.

“We have a continuous improvement mindset throughout RVA Group, and in truth, industry standards set only the minimal benchmark we strive to achieve when it comes to the management of our health and safety, environmental and quality obligations,” explains RVA’s managing director Richard Vann.

“But these internationally recognised accreditations provide independent evidence of our commitment to our people, our customers and the world we live in.”

RVA’s engineering consultancy director Mark Taylor – who has spearheaded the latest recertification process – added: “To gain a tripartite accreditation for our detailed management systems and procedures, is a real milestone for RVA. This will enable us to further streamline our processes and the way we deliver our services, which will translate into benefits for both our own organisation and our clients’, as we continue to grow.”

Share

Tenders invited for dismantling contractor in Cyprus

The international search has begun for a contractor, to execute a Cypriot power station dismantling process for the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC).

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

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

The major items for dismantling/demolishing include six 30MW steam and oil-fired turbines, boiler generating units and all ancillary equipment, six chimneys and switchyard. All have been out of operational use since 2013.

The turnkey contract will also require the removal, collection, transportation and management of all asbestos containing materials; the careful salvaging of specific assets for use as display exhibits in a local museum; as well as clearance of the site to ground level and environmentally responsible backfilling.

Full details of the tender process can be found on the EAC website.

Share

How to reinvigorate a team post-lockdown

The message from Richard Vann in the latest copy of Demolition and Recycling International is that you can reinvigorate a team post-lockdown, but it must be done with three key factors in mind – respect, care and caution.

If you’ve not had chance to read the recent edition, you can catch up here…

The potential psychological impact of COVID-19 has been widely documented. With many people struggling with the effects of social isolation, fears over job security, anxieties surrounding the potential ill health of themselves or loved ones, not to mention the significant general disruption to everyday life, mental health is in severe jeopardy.

Encouraging colleagues back to work, post-lockdown, must therefore be done with respect, care and caution.

As is often the case, attitudes, coping mechanisms and resilience levels will vary from one individual to the next. Some people are extremely keen to return to ‘normal’, others are extremely wary of the very thought, and there will be those occupying the ‘middle ground’ – they may be comfortable with the idea of coming back, providing they are confident that necessary safety precautions have been rigorously considered and implemented. And rightly so.

Likewise, there will be those keen to rebuild a sense of routine back into their working life, others who may have slightly reshaped their idea of a work-life balance, and some who have picked up very bad habits since the onset of the pandemic.

Some people will have been ‘absent’ from the demolition landscape for only a matter of days. If a project was considered business critical, for example, schedules may have encountered minor pauses at most – simply to facilitate a readjustment to on-site practices that accommodated the Government’s social distancing guidelines. At the other end of the spectrum, it’s possible that others haven’t been near a live site – or workplace of any sort – since the beginning of spring.

All of this – and more – presents business leaders with fresh challenges when it comes to the safe, compliant, ethical and effective management of their teams.

But to re-engage employees, post-lockdown, we perhaps need to stick to the basics.

Remembering our duty of care

Upholding our duty of care to colleagues – whether they’re operating on an inherently hazardous live demolition site, or in a comparatively safe office environment – is something we do as standard. So, while the risks we face now look a little different when compared to our world pre-lockdown, anticipating and taking steps to minimise these risks, is a process we should all feel familiar with.

The implementation of on-site social distancing and hygiene regimes is crucial in this respect, as colleagues won’t feel comfortable in the ‘workplace’ if their basic needs are not met. For example, only two people may be permitted to use a site cabin at any one time; PPE requirements may now stipulate that face masks are compulsory; and general personal cleanliness levels may need to be redefined.

Certain processes may require a complete overhaul, whereas others may benefit from minor adjustments. An excavator operator who works alone in their own cab, for instance, may simply need to wipe down their space at the end of the day.

Communication is key

Talking to colleagues about all of this is crucial. But again, communication is nothing new.

Some team leaders may choose to send formal written dialogue prior to colleagues’ return to work, re-induction briefings may be helpful when teams first arrive back on site, site signage will provide continued reminders as to how to stay safe, and post-lockdown protocol may even involve the completion of health questionnaires or medical reviews to assess the suitability of employees’ workplace presence.

Leaders must think carefully about which communication methods work best for their organisation – and also consider what may resonate with certain employees and not others.

Compliance is only the baseline

As I’ve said many times, regulatory compliance should set only the minimum standard. We shouldn’t just consider Government guidelines but also what is fair.

For example, a proportion of a demolition project’s schedule can be progressed remotely, from the safety of an individual’s home. So, leaders who have previously chosen not to offer home working may now encounter push backs from employees keen to maintain some of their newfound flexibility. There are commercial, environmental and safety advantages to reduced travel of course, so this should be considered where possible.

A complete shift to remote working will naturally be impossible for most demolition firms, so employees need to be prepared to be flexible too. Sometimes a client meeting is far better delivered in person, providing it is safe to do so, and likewise cultural dynamics often benefit from a team gathering in the same place, rather than relying on the limited cues that can be conveyed via video.

Many demolition specialists undertake overseas work too, which presents additional challenges for employers. And of course, employees’ individual circumstances need to be accommodated, not to mention a country’s point-in-time COVID risk status. But, providing all scientific advice and safety protocols have been heeded, businesses must keep going if they’re to ensure their long-term survival.

Top tips for demolition leaders:

  1. Agree expectations so everyone is clear of their role – with reminders of responsibilities where necessary – to help refocus the team.
  2. Make savvy use of technology to uphold face-to-face contact from a distance, and remain accessible should colleagues have questions at any time.
  3. Keep talking. Robust lines of communication are key to engagement, but ensure COVID-19 isn’t the only subject covered. Explore professional development topics, project updates, pipelines and more.
  4. Remember everyone is different. Some people may return feeling extremely alert and at the top of their game. Others will have been extremely sedentary since March with little to stimulate their minds. They may even need an EHS refresh. Treat people as individuals and proactively monitor performance, engagement and wellbeing levels.
  5. See this as the chance to improve. Clichés aside, there are learnings to be had from COVID-19, so don’t necessarily strive to get back to the ‘normal’ you’ve always known, if there’s the opportunity to be better.
Share

5 steps towards the perfect ‘plant dismantling for re-erection’ project

At a time when materials reuse and recycling is high on the general environmental agenda – across the world and in all walks of business – it’s no surprise that the dismantling of processing plants for re-erection, remains a popular consideration for operators. But how exactly do such colossal projects come to life? RVA’s managing director Richard Vann shares his thoughts…

Of course, the careful salvage of complete or partial assets is nothing new – dismantling specialists have long been able to safely and meticulously disassemble individual pieces of equipment or entire structures, for reconstruction and reinsertion into the global supply chain. So, it is only right that this process is validated or discounted as a feasible option – just because the plant may have reached the end of its useful life for one organisation, doesn’t mean it cannot have operational potential elsewhere.

However, there are naturally numerous criteria to thoroughly evaluate, to ensure that such a dismantling project represents a safe, cost-effective and environmentally sound route for the plant. And if the project does go ahead, what then? Here are five key pieces of advice to consider:

1) Confirm that the project is genuinely feasible

In truth, these projects only work in very specific circumstances. Of almost 800 RVA projects completed worldwide, to date, less than 1% of assets have been dismantled for re-erection.

When this route is of interest, an impartial feasibility and options study should be conducted to uncover an objective, clear and realistic view as to its true liability or opportunity.

Multiple factors must be considered. At a very basic level, the plant and/or machinery should still comply with current legislative standards.  Many assets – particularly those constructed in the 1960s/70s – have simply reached the end of their design life, certainly in the Western Hemisphere. They therefore represent too many inefficiencies – not to mention safety and reputational risks – to warrant ongoing operation, or they may have reached a ‘sell by date’ when it comes to compliance, which naturally makes dismantling a ‘no go’.

If the above compliance boxes are ticked, other data-driven findings must also be uncovered, including realistic costs, the delta in value that the sale will attract relative to the scrap alternative, timeframe and the vendor’s business drivers – to name just a few.

2) Find a plant buyer

On occasions the ‘buyer’ for a dismantled asset is a sister company in the same global group as the plant’s seller. The driver for the purchase may be to enhance production of a similar plant on the receiving company’s site, to provide a source of major spares or even because the second-hand plant will provide a useful ‘stop gap’ while a more modern facility is being constructed.

If an external buyer is sought, the completion of a mutually-attractive deal is a challenging exercise, as the costs of sequentially dismantling, refurbishing and relocating the plant – on top of the baselines decommissioning fees themselves – commonly eat into any potential profit margin. Delays which are common in the negotiation process will also contribute to excessive site security, maintenance, leasing and other holding costs, so financial awareness must stretch far beyond the price tag on the sale of the plant itself.

The numbers matter more than ever for this type of project, which is why the sale for reuse avenue should, in most cases, be seen as a ‘plan B’.

3) Don’t underestimate the complexity of the project

Dismantling for re-erection is a technically demanding and resource-intensive assignment, so the scheduling of work and the formation of a suitably-skilled project team should also form part of the business case for going ahead, or not.

If the dismantled asset will not remain in imminent future use – perhaps because it will be stored prior to shipment and/or re-erection – this will almost certainly impede the project’s viability as the likelihood of corrosion, decay and/or contamination is simply too great. Preservation to the required standards can be costly and difficult to achieve.

Maintaining the operational integrity of every component part is critical – otherwise, a highly-valuable resource could become nothing but a very expensive scrap metal jigsaw.

4) Decide on the definition of ‘clean’

Before any decontamination works begin, the asset’s condition – including the type and level of hazardous materials, cleanliness and structural integrity – must be rigorously audited. It is important to gather as much information as possible so that appropriately-skilled personnel – equipped with the necessary PPE – can then proceed with minimum risk.

In the general dismantling and demolition world, the objective should not be to over-clean an asset so that it becomes completely contaminant-free, but rather the priority is to take it to a ‘known state’. However, as relocation projects often involve taking plant across international boundaries, the  decontamination regime typically has to be set at a very high level.

In practice, it will have to be mandated for safe shipment, but remember that with the international transfer of plant, there are usually varying standards at play. Works must therefore comply with the regulation, documentation and certification rules of the plant’s origination and destination locations. However, to ensure best practice and maximum peace of mind, legislative parameters should only ever set the very minimum criteria. A responsible decommissioning professional should always strive to take EHS management to the highest achievable level.

5) Master match-marking and laser scanning

Prior to dismantling, it is often recommended that the plant is fully digitally recorded by a specialist laser scanning team.  This will ensure that on re-erection, the asset will be correctly configured and aligned. Once sufficiently cleaned, every individual component part of the plant should be match-marked with unique codes for ease and accuracy of reconstruction at the onward destination, and ideally carefully packed and shipped with accompanying drawings and maintenance records – where available – to aid the reassembly process. The specialist refurbishment and certification of some components may also be required, so it is crucial to maintain a detailed ‘log’ of everything.

Share