Encuesta a Personal de COCIHC

This section briefly discusses the results of the case study, explaining both the results of both the qualitative and quantitative indicators for each shipyard.

Yard A

The outcome of the qualitative performance measurements shows that the overall energy performance is better than the performance of pollution reduction. A policy statement and strategy regarding energy use is formulated, improvement plans are defined and measure- ments are taken. A highly advanced monitoring system is in place, and the facility depart- ment is pro-actively reducing the energy use on the yard. Short-term improvements are currently implemented, involving the recommendation made during the external audit per- formed by Optivolt. However, the Facility Manager (Interviewee 2, personal communication, Sept. 15, 2016) explains that long-term investments are not feasible due to the low energy price of approximately 0,005 C/kWh. Furthermore, the link between the policy statement

D.3. CASE STUDY RESULTS 95

sonal communication, Sept. 14, 2016) explains that the main objective is to comply with regulations and other departments may implement environmental improvements based on their personal motives/interests. The pollution performance has a lower priority, as the envi- ronmental statement misses the whole topic of pollution reduction. The facility department focuses mainly on costs reduction of waste processing, and thereby improving the trans- parency of the whole process. Reducing the environmental impact of the pollution produced is not part of the objective.

The quantitative performance indicators show that the yard has a good overall energy performance per square meter (kWh/M2_{). The efficiency of the energy used is low, indicat-}

ing that a huge part of the energy is used for the building facilities, however, this can be explained by the fact that Yard A dedicated a large area of the yard to office space. The environmental impact of the energy resources used is relative low, as most of the energy consists of green electricity. The environmental load for steel and aluminium could unfortu- nately not be measured, as this data was not available. The impact of the waste produced per ship is relatively high, which may be caused by the fact a significant part of the waste produced is related to office work. The waste processing factor shows a high score indicat- ing most of the waste is reused and recycled, and thereby having a positive effect on the environment.

Yard C)

The qualitative performance measurements indicate that the overall energy performance is almost similar as the pollution performance. The HSE Manager (Interviewee 3, personal communication, Oct. 7, 2016) clearly indicated that the main focus is to comply with regula- tions. An energy audit is recently performed and a waste management system is in place, both being certified according to ISO-14001 and OHSAS-18001. Energy reducing objectives are formulated in specific plans, whereby short term improvements are implemented. The Team Leader Maintenance (Interviewee 4, personal communication, Oct. 6, 2016) stated that buying green energy is a waste of money, whereby a clear preference for using that money to invest in improving the equipment and tools is present. The HSE Manager (Inter- viewee 3, personal communication, Oct. 7, 2016) clarifies that environmental solutions are currently examined but not yet in place, for instance an inventory is taking place about the feasibility for the use of Photovoltaic (PV) systems. Waste reduction is achieved and segre- gation is applied where possible. The yard puts effort into persuading the client to choose alternative processes (i.e. alternative for hydro blasting) in order to reduce the impact of materials used.

The quantitative measurements show a better performance for the use of energy than the pollution produced. Both the energy used per square meter for the office and production area scores above average. The energy efficiency is average, indicating a relative huge part of the energy is used for building utilities. The impact of the energy sources also scores average, indicating that a combination of high and low impact sources are used on the yard. The environmental load factor could not be established as specific data is missing, thereby important to acknowledge that this EPI is less relevant for a repair & conversion yard. The

96 APPENDIXD. CASE STUDY produced waste per repair is limited. The waste processing factors score around average, meaning that a high portion of the waste is reused and recycled.

Yard C

The outcome of the qualitative environmental indicators show that both energy use and the production of pollution scores below average. The maintenance and repair department is responsible for the monitoring of changes in energy laws and regulations, and thereby up- date the changes made. The Engineer HSEQ (Interviewee 5, personal communication, Oct. 14, 2016) mentioned that they recently hired an external party to perform an energy audit, which is done to comply with regulations as an audit needs to be performed once in the four years. The Head of Facility (Interviewee 6, personal communication, Oct. 14, 2016) ex- plains that a digital monitoring system is in place, and both short-term and long-term energy performance improvements are implemented. The environmental performance of waste is significantly lower than the energy performance. A policy statement about the produced waste is missing, only water targets are specified. The performance of water is monitored quarterly by quality indicators. Only the quantity of waste produced and sent for recycling or processing is monitored. The Head of Facility (Interviewee 6, personal communication, Oct. 14, 2016) explains that employees are trained in properly handling waste, however improvement in the use of more environmental friendly materials is technically complicated and especially economically not possible due to the current financial situation.

The qualitative indicators show that the energy used per square meter scores low, whereby only data for the office area and production area was available. Most of the energy used on the yard relates to the production processes, resulting in a high score for energy efficiency. As no green energy is used or produced, the energy fraction scores low. The environmental load factor scores average, whereby 22.5% steel waste indicates a lower score compared with the 17.4% aluminium waste. The impact of the waste produced per ship scores low, as a huge amount of waste is produced compared with the amount of ships produced. As this indicator does not incorporate the size or weight of the ships, score can be low when the largest vessel of the Damen portfolio are produced in that period. Finally, waste processing scores average, where a high portion of the waste is recycled, especially for steel.