Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how can it be better defined?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

But where do the most significant safety hurdles typically lie?

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

1. Common services

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

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

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

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

2. Partial demolition of a multifaceted site

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

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

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

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

3. The unknown

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

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

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

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

 

As part of his regular column for Demolition and Recycling International, RVA’s managing director, Richard Vann, penned his thoughts on stakeholder engagements and whether this should be a job for PR or a core project element for the demolition team.

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

It might be a bold claim, but in no way is it an exaggeration – one of the most important elements of a modern demolition project now, has nothing to do with the actual demolition works themselves.

I’m talking about stakeholder engagement – the practice of communicating with any individual or group who may be affected, to any degree, by a demolition assignment.

There was a time of course where there was something of a disregard for the need to engage with anyone other than the client. Contractors boldly turned up on site driven by the mindset that they were simply there to do a job. Most were unaware of the need to do anything any different.

But even if projects were executed exactly in line with the brief, on time and with no reportable accidents or injuries, this did not mean the works would unfold with no bad feeling. Neighbours would complain about site traffic, environmental groups would worry about the disruption to wildlife, and the controlled use of explosives..? Well, let’s just say in the absence of knowledge, pre-blast information and updates, many residents didn’t take too kindly to ‘buildings being blown up in the village’.

Now, any demolition professional worth their salt will adopt a far more collaborative stance to working with stakeholders.

Yes, legislation has driven this change. Gone are the days when a foreman could stand in the street with his stop sign to enforce a road closure, for example. And environmental regulations now better protect local habitats ranging from bats and birds to neighbours’ fish ponds.

But truly consulting with stakeholders – asking them questions and understanding their concerns to shape a project, rather than simply telling them what is going to happen – is also inherently the right thing to do. The duty of care element is undeniable.

Now, as part of the long-term planning of a demolition programme, consultants and/or contractors will enter into dialogue with a number of interested parties, ranging from the Environment Agency to pressure groups, and local authorities to schools and community groups.

Ecology surveys are now routinely carried out for instance, so that project schedules can be adjusted and/or methodologies fine-tuned to avoid disturbing nesting birds. Contractors visit schools to speak to make health and safety fun, while educating children about the dangers of trespassing on demolition sites. Vehicular movements are carefully coordinated so that heavy plant does not move materials off site during peak hours when the roads are busy with school traffic. Even communication with a client’s workforce – who are commonly facing redundancy as a result of demolition works – has to be thoughtfully managed.

These little details can make or break a project. After all, demolition engineers are often the first visible team on a site, before a much larger scheme such as a regeneration development begins. Poor stakeholder management in the earliest phase will set the tone for the entire duration of works, long after the demolition works are complete. The legacy issues could be vast. It’s no wonder considerate contractor schemes are now widely recognised and have even created a sense of healthy competition between firms.

Stakeholder engagement is all about creating harmonious relationships for both the immediate and long term. It is every bit as important as planning a hazardous materials survey or commencing the piecemeal dismantling of a valuable asset. It cannot be simply the responsibility of one or two site managers – it must be a mindset shared by all personnel. Efforts will be undone, for example, if colleagues staying over in a local area go out at night and behave irresponsibly – irrespective of the safe and considerate nature of works on-site.

And all of this before we consider the financial impact – poor stakeholder relations often result in reputational damage, which impacts share prices, bottom line and future prospects.

So, aside from a contractor’s duty of care and legislative obligations, poor stakeholder relations also act as a significant distraction. For the standing of the entire supply chain, not to mention the safe execution of the project, this engagement exercise therefore needs to be front and centre from day one.

 

By Richard Vann, managing director, and Mark Taylor, engineering consultancy director, of decommissioning specialist RVA Group.

It would perhaps be deemed by some as one of the least ‘hands on’ elements of a decommissioning project, but the execution of a costings study is in fact one of the most crucial and sophisticated uses of engineering acumen there is, when it comes to securing a safe, commercially- and environmentally-sound project outcome.

Tank farms, oil and gas terminals vary in terms of size, complexity, historic maintenance and level of contamination, to name just a few criteria – in truth the list of site-specific variables goes on. Some sites are fully operational at the time of a decommissioning project being considered, it is safe and easy to gain access, rigorous procedures are being followed by all, and current and historic operational data is readily available. Other sites have long been redundant, there is little in the way of drawings and information, and it is consequently far harder to determine the condition of the assets concerned.

A ‘one size fits all’ approach to decommissioning would therefore not only be naïve, but potentially extremely dangerous, particularly when the condition of the asset is unknown. This is why it is important to gather and interpret as much data as possible, surrounding the type and level of hazardous material contaminations, cleanliness, and structural integrity of the tanks and terminals involved. Armed with this insight – and more – the project team can make informed decisions about the next-step route path of works. Best-fit methodologies can be strategised, assets can be safely dealt with by competent contractors, personnel will be protected by appropriate PPE and risks have a far greater likelihood of being minimised.

The role of the costings study

The costings study is a crucial management tool that helps uncover and outline crucial information to bring a site to a known state, remove as many uncertainties as possible and highlight areas that potentially will impact on cost and/or programme later down the line.

Costings studies themselves can be categorised into one of four key types – the use of each depends very much on the project scenario and the owner’s objectives. Sometimes the client will stipulate specifically which type of study they require for their site, whereas others will not be aware that these different tools exist. In such instances – while it naturally relies on the operator to initially seek external expertise – the onus to identify, investigate and interrogate the data should almost always lie with specialist engineers experienced in the decommissioning discipline.

Estimates

As straightforward as the definition implies, this is a relatively simple exercise usually undertaken when the operator is familiar with the world of decommissioning, the scope of works is already clearly defined (or certainly an active work in progress), and the programme merely requires a summary of projected financial outlay.

The result of an estimation exercise is a short report which typically includes an executive summary, introduction, confirmed scope of works, terms of reference, costs and basis, duration/schedule, and site plan.

Feasibility and options study

This deliverable is ordinarily used for more complex scopes, such as dismantling in a live operational area, phased dismantling of a particularly high hazard site, or works in an area where there is a restriction on the methodologies that can be deployed.

That said – given this study provides more of a detailed background into the recommended methods and management of a project – it can also be used on comparatively simple schemes where the client is new to demolition, and therefore may not have a defined regime as to what needs to happen next.

Again, the contents of the resulting report will depend very much on the status of the tank farm / terminal, and/or any extraneous factors likely to be imposed on the decommissioning team. Generally, however, it will consist of the same detail as the estimate, plus a wealth of additional detail including:

• divestment options such as the sale of assets in-situ or upon relocation, site demolition or mothballing;
• the development of expressions of interest – useful should the divestment options be further explored;
• demolition options including phasing and methodologies;
• details on hazardous insulation materials, waste management planning and resources required;
• necessary remediation works;
• project management;
• EHS (environment, health and safety) priorities and constraints;
• notifications, permits, licenses and EPR surrender;
• a defined description of the processes involved;
• detail on major plant items.

In summary, there are far more project variables at play regarding what may happen next. It would therefore be impossible to conduct any accurate, meaningful costings until such criteria has been explored.

The client will then typically use the ‘scenario planning’ findings to make informed decisions as to the future route map for their site.

Long term liability study

Much the same as a feasibility and options study, this management tool adds particular value to projects when the oil and gas operator is less familiar with the potential scope of works that could ensue – and may not have even considered demolition as an option. Such studies therefore usually take longer to execute, as more time is required to understand the client’s business drivers.

In addition, the information generated in this type of study is often required so that the asset owner complies with international financial provisioning standards such as FAS143 in the US and IAS 37 in Europe. These standards are to ensure that when the time to decommission the site arrives, there are adequate funds set aside for this process.  UK sites such as Easington, Dimilington, Bacton and many others throughout the EU have all had this information produced, so that it is clear what liabilities will have to be met, possibly in many years’ time.

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

At the heart of this type of costings exercise is a fluid and reconfigurable spreadsheet which allows for the adjustment of resource, waste and scrap rates, as well as annual inflation figures. This adaptability is required if the study is to maintain relevance over a possibly extended period of time. In fact, it is recommended that the detailed information is rigorously reviewed every five years so that any changes to the assets or tightening of regulations can be accommodated and the true liability of a site is fully understood.

Asset management plan

Tanks and terminals operators would request these to either encompass multiple plants on a single site, or several assets remote to each other. Again, the resulting report is similar in content to a feasibility and options study. However, as the study considers several plants at once, the purpose of the detail is to centre upon business requirements as opposed to demolition specifics.

Generally, the plan will elaborate on a long-term phased programme of demolition works, and this needs to be adaptable due to the external factors that could influence project success over an extended period of time.

Depending on the size of the scope, this study may also contain several detailed spreadsheets as well as a headline summary that can be used to estimate annual decommissioning costs.

Wider documentation

Of course the studies do not end there – as was stressed at the outset, the documentation required to support the safe, commercially and environmentally sound execution of a project depends on the specifics of the oil and gas site concerned.

Some clients seek external guidance when compiling a decommissioning plan, for instance – a legal report associated with the permitting of activities on an industrial site. Typical content will vary from country to country but could be expected to include soil and groundwater sampling data, details of a monitoring programme, ground remediation methodologies, environmental risk assessment and a site waste management plan. As the latter comprises valuable data surrounding the projected extent of waste arisings, material stream categories and obligated disposal routes, this detail is sometimes requested in a standalone report.

Degree of accuracy

In approximately 90% of cases, an operator that is due to begin works immediately, will require the decommissioning programme to be executed in the most cost-effective manner possible – without there being any detrimental impact on EHS, of course.

A greater degree of accuracy is therefore required surrounding the financial metrics contained within the aforementioned studies, as any next-step decision making is imminent. Longer visits will consequently be required in order to conduct more defined surveys and assessments, and produce sanction-grade costings.

With financial provisioning on the other hand, there is typically a greater degree of tolerance surrounding the numbers and sometimes historic knowledge of the industry as well as current market awareness may be enough to formulate longer-term plans.

Again, much depends on the specifics of the client’s scenario. That said, regardless of the project driver, timescale and tolerance level, fundamental ‘goal posts’ have to be established from the outset so that everyone has some clarity at least, as to how the situation may evolve with time.

The impact of COMAH regulations

‘Goal posts’ are particularly prevalent on tank storage sites when the potential for residual hazardous substances is vast and operations will almost always fall under the highest level of COMAH regulations. The priority in such circumstances should be to try to take the site to the lowest possible COMAH rating before any dismantling works begin.

However, this is virtually impossible if any elements of the farm are still operational. Here, all chosen methodologies and controls will have to comply, which is likely to limit project flexibility and will therefore need to be taken into account when any costings are produced. 

The role of external engineers

While a topic all of its own, it is important to note that the involvement of experienced decommissioning engineers – external to the operator’s business – is usually a value-adding move. They will almost always call upon the knowledge of the client’s own resource to aid the formation of detailed studies, but they will view the exercise with a degree of impartiality and insight that is imperative if the data is to be used as the basis of any next step decisions.

Sometimes, the operator will choose to retain the insight of this engineering team. At Milford Haven (UK), for instance, Murco had the skill required to plan and execute complex construction projects but the team recognised early on in the process that their understanding of the consequences of embarking on a demolition project was limited. They therefore engaged RVA to provide the detailed knowledge and experience of high hazard demolition projects required for the development of the EHS, technical and commercial documentation that when combined, formed the demolition tender package.

On this particular job, RVA remained engaged to manage the client’s entire interaction with the contractor supply chain and the tender process. On some projects, the involvement extends to that of the project management and CDM coordinator role, but of course this is not obligatory – especially because the studies empower operators to arrive at decisions they are unlikely to have been able to make otherwise.

RVA Group’s managing director Richard Vann has been invited to chair the 3^rd Annual Global Decommissioning and Demolition of Fossil Fuel Power Plants Conference, when it takes place in Prague next March.

Bringing together experienced engineers, project managers, asset owners and more, the high-profile event seeks to share knowledge on an array of decommissioning topics including programme options for end of life plants, the controlled use of explosives, the demolition project lifecycle and site redevelopment – to name just a few subjects.

RVA is no stranger to this event. At the 2018 conference, RVA’s operations director Matthew Waller delivered a 45-minute session on how to maximise decommissioning preparedness following a power station closure, and strategic development director Ian Wharton spoke to delegates about how to establish and maintain EHS excellence.

For the upcoming energy-sector conference, managing director Richard will chair all sessions over the two days.

“As an increasing number of fossil fuel power plants reach their end of life worldwide, asset owners and operators are left with a plethora of complex questions to answer,” he said. “Events such as this provide an important platform to share knowledge, insight and experiences, and play a significant role in ensuring the safe, cost-effective and environmentally sound execution of decommissioning projects.”

As past president of both the Institute of Demolition Engineers and the Institute of Explosives Engineers, Richard was also part of a peer-group of contributors who produced the current version of BS5607: Code of Practice for Safe Use of Explosives in the Construction Industry. He has worked within the decommissioning sector for over 35 years.