Science of decommissioning 08 June 2012

Difficult economic conditions are impacting process plants, leading to redundant assets and a requirement for decommissioning. Richard Vann looks at the issues

Unprecedented financial pressures have left a surplus of plant capacity in sectors ranging from chemicals to petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. It's not all doom and gloom: for some processing organisations, site closures are due to consolidation and/or a bid to operate from a smaller number of locations. That said, the number of production facilities being mothballed, rationalised or closed down remains staggering.

The challenge for plant engineers, managers and owners is how to proceed with the safe and cost-effective closure of redundant assets, whilst minimising environmental impact and cost.

Many assume that there are limited options, so simply ask a local contractor for a demolition price, before deciding whether or not to proceed. Naturally, plant owners want to avoid non-essential spend, but the fact is that delaying projects deemed unaffordable is not always the best solution either. They will inevitably have to be tackled later and, in most cases, at an increased cost, due to ongoing liabilities, such as hazardous material containment, security, regulatory compliance, care and maintenance costs – plus overheads such as local authority rates.

Other managers initially try to sell plant in-situ to achieve a relatively pain-free site exit and, where possible, protect employees' jobs. But even this may not result in the best commercial outcome – as Nufarm UK found after the closure of its agrochemicals plant in Belvedere, Kent. Having considered selling the site as is, managers found that a better option was to widen market appeal by clearing the site. Attempting to sell a complete site presents challenges insofar as, if a buyer is not found or if site personnel who understand the plant move on, the outlook can be bleak.

So it makes sense to go for a feasibility study to determine a safe, yet commercially sound redundant asset management plan. It's the only way to get an unbiased and realistic view as to the liabilities and opportunities of a decommissioning or demolition project – considering all costs, hazards, supply chain risks, scrap values, waste obligations, required resources, legislation and scheduling constraints.

Security and Safety
Cast iron technology specialist Saint-Gobain PAM UK, for example, initially thought that the cost to de-plant and demolish its former central melting plant and adjacent Hallam plant, in Ilkeston, would be prohibitive. Yet, having ceased production in 2006, this mothballed heavy industrial plant posed several security and safety issues. Feasibility studies identified several opportunities, the safest and most financially beneficial of which was, in fact, site clearance. Scrap value would not only cover the project costs but also yield cash.

It is important to remember that there is no such thing as a 'one size fits all' approach, though. Factors such as plant age, former processes, recovery cost, market forces and commercial competition, must all form part of any decision. Informed project strategies that involve the right people with the right engineering skill sets and experience, will help to ensure a safe, professional approach, not to mention legislative compliance.

Beyond that, effective decommissioning must be underpinned by thorough preparatory planning processes, whereby the plant, procedures, and decontamination and isolation details are documented on an ongoing basis, so that the plant can be brought to the required 'known state'. No-one knows this plant-specific information better than the plant engineers who were running it.

By law though, all UK demolition projects must also be carried out in accordance with CDM (Construction Design Management) regulations. Revised in 2007, the regulations are not simply about paperwork. Instead, they govern the planning, coordination and management of hazardous projects to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all involved. A competent and experienced CDM coordinator must therefore be appointed.


INEOS ChlorVinyls experience
In March 2010, Europe's largest PVC (polyvinyl chloride) manufacturer INEOS ChlorVinyls ceased production at its Barry site. Having planned to decommission and clean the site before handing it back to the landlord with the plant intact, INEOS sought specialist isolation and decommissioning guidance.

However, the financial implications of this proposed site exit strategy were raised by RVA Group, which subsequently conducted a series of feasibility and option studies to investigate more commercially attractive routes for the client.

Utilising its knowledge and experience of asset recovery, RVA recommended INEOS hand the site back as flat slab, because plant demolition and dismantling could generate an income from the sale of the process equipment. Some had potential for reuse, whereas other items could generate income from high-value metallurgy.

Richard Vann

Related Downloads
42658\12-13.pdf

Related Companies
RVA Group

This material is protected by MA Business copyright
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.