When the decision is made to embark on a decommissioning project, it is often because the asset has reached the end of its useful life. In this article, Richard Vann, RVA Group, explores the role of decommissioning in design
Planning, design, execution and remediation works typically then ensue, with the number of intricacies typically rising in line with the scale of the site and the hazards associated with its operational life. These are not projects for the faint-hearted.
Regarding the right team for a decommissioning project, nobody knows an asset or site better than the operator who has run and maintained it for several years. So it would be foolish to overlook the depth of the process and plant-specific knowledge that such individuals could bring to the table.
There’s also the argument that – in the case of asset rationalisations or complete site closures – involvement in the decommissioning works that follow could mean extended employment terms for personnel, which perhaps supports the organisation’s duty of care if forced to consider redundancies. If finances are tight, handling this phase of the project using internal resources could appear to make sense from a commercial perspective too.
However, we must remember that the decommissioning discipline and the decontamination, demolition and dismantling skill sets typically required for such projects represent a distinct engineering area. Bringing an asset to the ground is not simply the reverse of a construction process. Nor does it merely involve a fleet of wrecking balls knocking down everything on site.
Decommissioning engineers should therefore be involved in such schemes as early as is practically possible if the consequent sequence of events is to unfold with the highest possible safety and environmental standards – not to mention cost-effectiveness.
Decommissioning is different
Decommissioning is often considered, by the client, as an extension of site maintenance. This outlook is understandable if the plant is periodically shut down for such works. But draining tanks and temporarily isolating services ahead of a restart is very different to actually cutting cables and decommissioning an asset entirely because it has reached its end of life.
This is not to say actions will purposefully be missed by internal personnel – most will undoubtedly approach their role with maximum care and attention. But rarely do operators have a decommissioning mindset. In fact, they could go to opposite extremes and undertake some exercises they don’t actually need to, as they could be handled more efficiently – and ultimately, safely – at the dismantling phase.
Seeking the input of decommissioning specialists when work is already underway is, therefore, arguably too late. It is not unknown for a client to have initiated a decommissioning project strategy that has resulted not only in abortive effort and cost but also the need for additional measures to be taken to rectify issues and get the project back on track.
Look to CDM regulations for decommissioning
If we look to global industry standards and guidance, such as the CDM Regulations, it is best practice – and the law in the UK – for decommissioning to fall within these parameters. The project needs a principal designer to ensure the works are rigorously planned from start to finish so that the right people do the right job at the right time, armed with the right information, to effectively manage and mitigate risks.
Whilst the regulations do not preclude the asset owner or operator from taking on this statutory duty, it is often questionable whether such a strategy will meet the strict requirements relating to relevant experience and expertise.
This is not to say that the client cannot take on the role of principal contractor for the decommissioning. However, an experienced team with a decommissioning mindset can and should be charged with supporting or writing the plan, documenting the detailed processes to follow, and auditing works throughout. That way, seamless documentation – and standards – exist from start to finish, essentially as a project road map.
A proactive approach to an asset’s operational life is beneficial
Some forward-thinking organisations seek front-end engineering much sooner. Savvy asset management (or asset retirement) plans – produced way before a decommissioning project – have a significant role to play here. And, if the client takes a proactive approach to ongoing maintenance and provisioning throughout an asset’s operational life, they will be empowered with a far greater degree of data and knowledge when they eventually embark on the decommissioning project exercise itself.
But what if decommissioning engineers could become involved much earlier in the lifecycle of an asset – perhaps before it has even been constructed? When a structure or site is at its earliest conceptual stages, the decommissioning profession can and should have the opportunity to exhibit their own design acumen, planning rigour and project management prowess as a construction consultancy or architect.
An economic shift to a closed-loop society
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.
What has this got to do with the decommissioning industry?
RVA Group is often asked to deliver pre-build asset management and retirement provisioning services for high-hazard plants, for example. This process 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 – even if that is several decades later.
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 retrofitting, 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 decommissioning 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 design phase of a plant.
Long-term costs associated with decommissioning could have a significant impact on the profitability of an asset
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, suppose the decontamination, dismantling and demolition of an asset are considered before it has even been constructed. In that case, 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 2023 and beyond will change that. Because we can close the loop in the construction and decommissioning industry too.
