Comment – End of recession won’t end hard times…

The demolition industry will feel the effects of recession long after it’s officially over.

Mark Anthony
Mark Anthony

In the past few weeks, the dark veil of recession has shown signs of lifting. France, Germany and, more recently, China have seen their economies enjoy a sufficiently sustained period of growth, albeit negligible, that has lasted long enough for economists to declare them officially “out of recession”.

Closer to home, mortgage lending is on the rise again at long last and even house builders, among the worst hit by first blows of the credit crunch onslaught, are reporting a slight upturn. Together with some more positive news about consumer spending, these statistics have brought a slight flush to the cheeks of the lifeless corpse that is the world economy.

But we’re not out of the woods yet. In fact, I am concerned that even when we do crawl out of the recessionary chasm that swallowed us some 12 months ago, the struggle is far from over for the demolition industry.

The first hurdle the industry is likely to encounter is a hangover of thinner margins. Main contractors and developers have “enjoyed” a period of intense competition among demolition contractors which has led to some near-suicidal pricing practices. Having grown familiar with that level of cost, these developers and contractors are not suddenly going to accept a post-recession price hike. Indeed, I would personally be amazed if the “value engineering” built into virtually every contract these days does not continue long after we’ve shaken the recessionary monkey off our collective backs.

The second and, perhaps, bigger challenge is in planning. With the notable exception of certain Government-funded departments, new build and its associated planning has all but dried up in recent months. Even when the supposedly wise heads in Government sound the “alert over” sirens and the world returns to some semblance of normality, demolition contractors will find their workload wedged behind a logjam of planning applications held over from the dark days.

Both of these problems are beyond our control and, as usual, we will just have to make the best of a bad job. We’ll have to do the same with equipment fleet renewals, expansions and maintenance programmes that have been undermined by the current recession.

Governments around the world have climbed aboard the stimulus package bandwagon, injecting trillions of tax dollars into comatose economies; but that has failed to change the attitude of most banks and finance houses that would still rather see those dollars on their own bottom lines than on ours. As a result, even those demolition companies that have managed to maintain a good workload through the recession have found themselves blocked at every turn when they set out to buy new or replacement equipment.

And can we all, hand on heart, say that we’ve invested as much on machine maintenance during the recession as we might have during a boom period?

The one area where demolition contractors do control their own destiny however, and the area that may yet prove to be the hardest to fix, is in the field of training and recruitment.

Sadly, and despite the fact that many of us have experienced a recession or two in the past, the industry has largely followed its usual path of knee-jerk cost-cutting. First to go is the marketing budget, followed by the investment in training and then, when all else fails, companies have slashed labour levels. And, as in previous years, these job cuts may have started by slicing thin slivers of fat to help make contractors leaner, but they have continued to slice through the meat and to the very bone of some company’s corporate structures.

In my opinion, this is where our biggest problem will lie.

For one thing, training agencies have also responded to the recession by slashing grant-funding for training, a move that has been particularly keenly felt in the UK. In addition, with the majority of industry training reliant upon either on-the-job tuition or employer-funding, anyone that has found themselves unemployed during the recession will also have found themselves falling behind in their training, unable to keep up-to-date with the latest legislative changes and unable to renew existing qualifications because of the prohibitive cost.

This, I fear, is going to come back to bite us two-fold.

First, many of our most experienced and knowledgeable staff may have been forced to move on into other industry sectors, simply to keep a roof above their heads. As a result, there are now contracts managers and site supervisors stacking shelves at the local Wal-Mart of Tesco, or flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Never mind all this talk of secondary aggregates recycling and materials efficiency. This is a waste of HUMAN resources and one for which the economies of the world should be ashamed and held to account.

The second and equally savage bite will manifest itself in a long and drawn out inability to train newly-recruited staff quickly enough to track the upturn when it does finally arrive.

Many training bodies haven’t just turned off the spending tap; they’ve dismantled the pipe work and sold the water tank for scrap. That’s a problem that will not be fixed instantly and that could easily run for years as the industry stabilises. And even if a contractor refuses to allow a lack of grant funding to stop him training his new staff, will the industry still have the qualified trainers available to do the work? Or will they be salting fries alongside the site supervisor at McD’s?

Before you dismiss this as scaremongering or the cynicism of a bitter old hack, ask yourself this question:

If your workload returned to 2006/07 levels tomorrow, could you cope?

I look forward to hearing your feedback.

Mark Anthony

Survey reveals CDM implementation defficiencies…

CDM implementation still “some way off” according to new impact survey.

It is more than two years since the introduction of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM2007), in April 2007. Their purpose was to bear down yet further on unacceptable levels of avoidable accidents, injuries and deaths. According to the first CDM2007 Impact Survey, effective implementation of the regulations still looks to be some way off for a significant minority of organisations operating in the UK’s property, building and construction and related sectors.

The survey was carried out online during July by CDM2007.org, the award winning CDM2007 digital training organisation. It reveals that over half (54 per cent) of the 228 CDM2007 duty-holder participants in the survey are not confident that their management colleagues across all levels inside their organisations understand their CDM2007 responsibilities. Almost as many (47 per cent) doubt whether those colleagues are competent to carry out their CDM2007 duties.

Significantly, among specialist Health and Safety professionals surveyed, that opinion is even more strongly held, with 53 per cent of them lacking confidence in fellow managers, at all levels, having CDM 2007 competence.

Those taking part in the survey included a large contingent of Health and Safety professionals (41 per cent) plus strong representation from those with Site (17 per cent) and Design (22 per cent) responsibilities. Other participants came from Planning (5 per cent), Architecture (3 per cent), Training (2 per cent) and other (10 per cent) disciplines.

“Our sample is sufficiently large to offer useful indications of the current state of CDM2007 implementation. All of those who have contributed regard CDM2007 as critical to improving health and safety in the building and construction industries. They understand their responsibilities for turning CDM2007 into reality inside their own organisations, enterprises and practices. As an informed and committed group of people at the frontline, their voices are particularly worth hearing”, said Steve Dalby, Business Director of CDM2007.org

“Most of the survey participants are reporting good progress, however a substantial minority seem to be telling us that there is still plenty of room for improvement on the part of their employers” said Dalby

Almost six in ten (59 per cent) respondents see positive recognition and priority being given to CDM2007 by their boards and chief executives. However a sizeable number of participants either say this is not the case (19 per cent) or don’t know (22 per cent). In less than four in ten organisations represented (36 per cent of respondents) chief executives are viewed as actively sponsoring CDM2007.

While leadership and communication appear to be significant areas needing attention for some organisations, many more (75 per cent) are reported as having set out clear policies for CDM2007 implementation. And a similar number (74 per cent) have clear chains of responsibility in place at all appropriate levels of competence. Perhaps not surprisingly, more than seven in ten respondents (72 per cent) also see a positive CDM2007 culture of awareness and informed activity inside their organisations.

Conversely, one in four respondents (25 per cent) say that their organisations do not have clear CDM2007 policies. A similar number (26 per cent) are not aware of any clear chain of responsibility. Approaching one in three (28 per cent) of those surveyed report that there is no CDM2007 culture.

Over six in ten (62 per cent) of respondents are getting the support and resources they need to carry out their own CDM2007 duties. Those who are being given appropriate support also tend (67 per cent of them) to have greater confidence in the competence of their duty-holder colleagues elsewhere in the organisation. On the other hand, 38 per cent of all respondents are adequately supported only sometimes or not at all.

Amongst those reporting that their employers had established a clear chain of CDM2007 responsibility, almost nine in ten of them (88 per cent) also pointed to there being a clear policy for implementation. In addition, almost the same proportion of them (87 per cent) viewed their organisations as having positive CDM2007 cultures. And even more of this group (93 per cent) said that CDM2007 was reflected in their organisations’ workforce related programmes, such as training, performance and professional development

“It appears that those employers who have implemented clear chains of responsibility and implementation policies, positive cultures and appropriate support and resources to duty-holders are broadly the same organisations. That may leave a significant gap between them and others. As many as one in four employers could well be doing a significant amount in these recessionary times, but not enough and not well enough.

“As to the majority of organisations represented, the survey suggests they may be doing better than the minority in embedding CDM2007 good practice, but at least some of them cannot yet be too confident they are taking enough effective measures, nor that these are in place throughout their operations” said Dalby.

HSE focus on bad vibrations…

The Health & Safety Executive rebrands vibration website to provide more information.

Earthmoving News reports that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has rebranded its vibration website with a new design and featuring advice and guidance on the risks of vibration.

The website, which can be accessed here, features information associated with hand arm and whole-body vibration (WBV).

The new-look website features links to expert information, details of regulations associated with vibration, and advice on how to prevent whole body vibration.

NDA calls for federal recycling regs…

National Demolition Association says US regulation is needed to encourage recycling.

Mike Taylor
Mike Taylor
Michael Taylor, executive director of the National Demolition Association in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, outside Philadelphia, said there are about 14 different materials from a demolished structure that could be recycled. The association represents more than 900 demolition companies across North America.

Taylor said the marketability of C&D material is highly dependent upon location, other competitive materials, and demand. Therefore, there are currently only three materials that are regularly recycled.
Most of the metal from a demolished structure currently goes to the scrap metal industry. “That’s pretty much all of the metal from the smallest venetian blind up to the biggest I-beam,” Taylor said. “We’re the largest source of feedstock for scrap metal.”

The other two marketable C&D components are wood and concrete. Taylor said both are very region sensitive. “If you have an area where there are wood burning power plants that’s another potential market for your product,” Taylor said. “The same is true for concrete. In areas of high-aggregate demand, like Los Angeles or San Francisco, the demand for concrete coming out of demolished structures is incredibly high.”

In big stone states, like Pennsylvania or Kansas, concrete is often less competitive in price than virgin material. “With this material, if you have to transport it, with the price of fuel, more than 20 to 25 miles it tends to lose its value pretty quickly,” Taylor said.

Another element impacting the viability of C&D recycling is landfill costs, Taylor said. If the debris is removed from New York, for example, it might cost over $125 a ton to dispose of the material. But Taylor said there are places in central Michigan where it only costs $8 a ton. “That is one of the pressures that exist that has an impact in certain regions of the country on whether material is successfully recycled or not,” Taylor said.

Taylor said some states have established regulations to promote C&D recycling, while others have implemented rules that hinder the industry. He cited California where most of the counties are required to get to a 50 percent recycling rate. But it is often expensive to get a permit for a recycling facility. “That inhibits the possibility of a lot of people entering the market when they look at the overall profit margin,” Taylor said.

Another problem is in Texas. Taylor said the state ruled that recyclers could not operate a C&D facility within a mile of another occupied building. “That’s not a problem if you are demolishing a silo way out in west Texas,” Taylor said. “But unfortunately most of our work is in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin. If you want to process the material onsite we’re going to be feet from another building, not a mile.”

Taylor said that to successfully implement a viable C&D recycling system across the country the federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, should develop a national C&D recycling policy. He said this would make the process more economically attractive and help develop markets for the recycled commodities.

Taylor cited a mandate by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s that required the federal government to buy recycled paper. The government is one of the largest buyers of paper in the world. “Recycling plants sprung up all over the country,” Taylor said.

Taylor said the federal government should recommend that the state department of transportations and state facility managers allow recycled material to be used. “If the federal government could promote recycling then a decent portion of the material would be used in projects and not sent to a landfill. Recycling would grow,” Taylor said.

New contender for demolition video of the year…

Utterly beautiful new video showing a wrecking ball in action in Baltimore.

This is absolutely stunning. Great footage, majestic soundtrack, and a wrecking ball used with accuracy and care. This could become a Demolition News classic!

 

Let us know what you think or suggest your alternatives for video of the year in the Comments area below.

Another Rusch monster…continued

More photos have just become available of the new Rusch Triple 34-25 in Norway.

We would never suggest that you, our loyal readers, are predictable. But there are two things guaranteed to be popular here on Demolition News: video of demolition gone bad; and video and photos of big machines.

Thankfully, unless our news sources have betrayed us, there’s currently no new footage of demolition gone awry so instead here’s some more details on the Rusch Triple 34-25 that is currently undergoing assembly and testing in Norway before it starts work eating decommissioned oil rigs for breakfast. This is quite a unique opportunity to see this extraordinary piece of machinery in use. Not even all the money from your savings accounts could afford one of these, so it is nice to be able to see one being used. You can think about what you’d like to see get demolished by it.

In addition, Rusch’ Ruud Schreijer has very kindly provided us with a diagram showing the working range of the latest beast to roll out of his company’s gates.

Genesis\' Dan Jacobson checks over the modified attachment
Genesis' Dan Jacobson checks over the modified attachment
Getting ready to eat oil rigs
Getting ready to eat oil rigs

Working Range Diagram

Another Rusch monster…

New photo showing the 34-25 high reach excavator from Dutch modifier Rusch.

When your best-known machine has a working height of 90 metres, anything else is going to look pretty small by comparison. But don’t be fooled. The machine in the photo (left) might only reach a lowly 34 metres, but it can wield a 25 tonne too at that height (and no, there isn’t a decimal point missing there. It really DOES say 25 tonnes!)

New Italian compact crushers…

The compact crusher bandwagon rolls on with two new Italian contenders.

Picture the scene. You are the marketing manager of an Italian equipment manufacturer that is just a few months away from launching a pair of new but as yet unnamed compact crushers. It is your job to think of an appropriate name that will convey power, durability, productivity, environmental benefits and green credentials.

Tough, isn’t it?

Which is probably why Guidetti chose instead to emphasise the “Italianness” of its new offering in the increasingly crowded track-mounted compact crusher market by calling them the Caesar 1 and Caesar 2. (Sorry, but since my name is Mark Anthony, I do feel honour-bound to give them just a slight stabbing).

Full specification details are available on the Guidetti website, but we can tell you that the Caesar 1 weighs in at 3.2 tonnes and offers a crusher throughput of 20 tonnes/hour while the larger 6.7 tonne Caesar 2 is said to produce 50 tonnes/hour.

You can see both new machines in action below:

Genesis unveils new attachment…

The new GDR-200 is the latest attachment to join the swelling Genesis product range.

Genesis has unveiled the GDR-200, a new processing attachment designed for excavators in the 20 tonne operating weight class.

The GDR-200 delivers 104 tonnes of crushing force at the tip, an 813 mm jaw depth, a jaw opening of 890 mm, and a quick seven second cycle time. Genesis says this is the largest jaw they’ve ever offered on a tool for a 20-tonne class machine.

What’s in a name…?

We are searching for the greatest name for a demolition company, real or imagined.

Trawling through the vast, unmapped hinterlands of the Internet, we recently came across a New Orleans-based demolition company that goes by the marvelous name of Nutter Buster Demolition (apparently, the company is family-owned and the founder’s surname is Nutter).

We doubt that this can be beaten but we’d love to hear if you think you know, have heard of (or have just created) a better name for a demolition company.