9.3. APPENDIX III: Within-case analyses

(1)

9.3. APPENDIX III: Within-case analyses Within-case analysis Port1:

• Transport:

o Pipeline networks:

Multiple networks with different substances. Different lengths, pressures and temperatures. o Substances:

Multiple substances, steam, nitrogen, compressed air, wastewater, boiler water, industrial water, drinking water. There are plans for syngas and hydrogen in the future.

o Different risks

All these pipelines and substances have different risks, but Port1 only makes sure it is

available, and they do not look at the different risks a lot. Risks for the environment, risks for the users are examples.

o BEVB

The current pipelines are not covered by the BEVB, so Port1 only looks at the BEVB for a little bit, they try to manage it according to the BEVB, but it is not necessary at the moment. So they do not do it a lot at this moment.

• Technical integrity: o TRM or ERM

Port1 does not work on the complete plan-do-check-act cycle of asset management. o Risk management at the moment

They do not have a risk management system at the moment and they do not have a plan-do-check-act cycle present at their organization. They are not able to give direction to the risks and the way these risks need to be handled. They for instance do not know if they spend too much, or too less money on maintenance, so that they can reduce it or that they need to improve it because there are a lot of risks that are not covered at the moment.

o Qualitative risk management

They have a framework, called KOMPAS. That framework is a sort of process guide for projects. First, everything was unorganized, so everything went from one person to another without any guidance. Therefore Port1 created the KOMPAS framework. But this framework is only for projects and only for the begin phase. At the end of the KOMPAS framework there is a transfer to maintenance and at that point KOMPAS stops. So it is really for the realization phase. So the risks that occur in the activity phase are not distinguished. So no operational risks in KOMPAS.

o Quantitative risk management

Port1 does not look at quantitative risk management at the moment for the pipelines. This is because they do not have an asset management system or risk management system. They want to create a system like this, but this requires a lot of support from for instance the top

(2)

o Continuous improvement

They want to start with an asset management system, but they do not have one right now. They outsourced the maintenance, so they are not able to control this and they would want to be able to control this a bit more.

• Environment:

o Standards in general

Port1 is not certified with for instance the ISO9000 and 14000, but they want to follow the rules and legislation. The KOMPAS structure is pretty much their ISO9000, so they do look at the quality. And organization wide, probably all department have their own procedures regarding these standards and qualities.

o Asset management standards

They use the NEN3650 if a new pipeline has to be designed. But they do not use the standard ourselves, they tell the contractor that the pipelines need to be designed according to these standards. And then they check if this is done properly. And sometimes a notified body (third party) checks these designs, like Ind2 for example.

o Advantages standards

Organizations can gain a lot of benefits from these standards. If Port1 would use for instance the PAS55, they know that a lot of organizations already have accepted these standards, so in that way the different systems are connected and you speak the same language. If they try to develop their own standard, they might be not accepted right away.

o Disadvantages standards

You need the commitment of the board and you need the financial resources, and Port1 noticed that the internal organization was not ready for an asset management system like the PAS55 describes. If you want to work on asset management as the PAS55 describes, you need to look at the costs, the environment, the people and the resources that are available. And if you want to implement something like that, you need to do it organization wide. And Port1 is searching for a way to do this.

o Reputation

Due to an availability problem with the compressed air pipeline, their reputation regarding that specific pipeline has been damaged. This is because other organizations think this might happen again and are afraid that they can lose money because of this. This is still Port1’s pipeline and the organizations look at them, despite of the fact that the contractor is responsible for the maintenance. So contracting new customers for this compressed air pipeline is hard.

o Accidents

At Port1 no real accidents occurred with the pipelines, but it occurred that some pipeline were not available for some time. This had big consequences and cost them a lot of money. The contractor eventually fixed it, be they were not able to tell their clients what the real problem was, because they were not able to guide the situation.

o Stakeholders

(3)

help their stakeholders with risk management at the moment and vice versa. They do not want to copy a system of a stakeholder, because they also have their own assets interests.

o Communication

Organizations more and more want to know how our asset management system is equipped. And at this point Port1 tells them that it is done with the help of contracts, but eventually they probably want it in more detail.

• Organization:

o Documentation

At the moment they do not document their analyses (if there are analyses) at all. They have a system, but there is not much information available because they do not document it. They want to do it, but they do not know how exactly.

o Protocol

And the only protocol Port1 has is the KOMPAS framework and this is for the realization phase of a project, but nothing else. The different departments work in their own way.

o Roles and responsibilities

Only one person that works on risk management analyses etc. o Experience

They work on maintenance, but they do not know exactly why they are doing it like this. Because it is necessary? Because they have the money? Or because it is done like this for such a long time?

(4)

Within-case analysis Port2: • Transport:

o Pipeline networks

Port2 has 450 hectares of pipeline groundstrokes. Multiple organizations are connected with the help of pipelines. They provide, as owner of the groundstrokes, that there is enough availability, so that organizations are able to settle their pipelines.

o Substances

Oil, gas, water and electricity. o Different risks

All wires and pipelines are located right next to each other, because there is not enough space. There are a lot of pipelines with dangerous substances side by side. Damage due to digging is in practice the biggest threat of managing the wires and pipelines.

o BEVB

The pipeline owners need to comply with the BEVB.

• Technical integrity: o TRM or ERM -

o Risk management at the moment

It is not possible to just dig everywhere you want. The municipality grant licenses and also checks these licenses. Furthermore also KLIC-notifications are made when people want to go digging. Then there is a kick-off talk scheduled and in this talk Port2 talks about for instance different risks with the diggers. Therefore it is not possible to dig wherever you want. But it is possible that things go wrong and then the operators are responsible. If necessary the activities can be put on hold.

o Qualitative risk management -

o Quantitative risk management -

Port2 always searches for other pipeline connections between organizations, in such a way that they can be combined and that they all profit from it. Port2 is also trying to navigate the heath that is available in the area, to organizations that can use this. That is a development they are working on and in which they are also cooperating with other organizations.

Sustainability is the main goal of this. Furthermore, Port2 has multiple steampipelines in their area and these are meant to use the steam more efficient. This all needs pipelines and wires.

Port2 is not ISO9000 or ISO14000 certified, but projectmanagement is very important to them, and in shipping they also need to comply with other certificates.

(5)

the infrastructure and docks. Furthermore they have implemented PAS55 for the total asset management system in their organization.

o Advantages standards -

Money is the biggest problem for organizations. o Reputation

Port2 also gets looked at when something goed wrong with a pipeline, but when that happens it needs to be figured out who is responsible and who has to fix the problem. So than they might arrange something, but not the entire case. That is the responsibility of the operator.

o Accidents

Concerning pipelines there are hardly any accidents at Port2. But when something happens, the consequence can be big. They think it is also a risk when you implement the safety rules to much.

o Stakeholders

Port2 has a lot of contact with the operators of the pipelines. When a new pipeline is constructed they look at everything that is needed. At that phase also the licenses etc. are granted and other requirements are established. So there is also contact with for instance the municipality.

They do not monitor or benchmark themselves with other organizations. o Communication

There is a mutual interest to communicate a lot with for instance the different stakeholders. There is for instance a joined organization in which all the organizations that are present in the harbor area are part of. And there are also workgroups with these parties. They gather multiple times a year. Furthermore there is also communication when a problem occurs. Port2 also communicates with other port organizations in for instance the Netherlands and Belgium. They feel they are a leader and that they need to show the other port organizations how they operate. An example of this sharing is Portlinks, that is a tool that Port2 created and will be unrolled to other port organizations.

o Documentation

The organizations that manage the pipelines need to document their analyses etc. themselves, but Port2 does not check this documentation. If something goes wrong, Port2 wants to know how this is possible, but besides that the organizations are responsible for their reporting to for instance the government and that they meet the requirements of for instance the BEVB.

o Protocol -

(6)

o Experience

Port2 has multiple units that are engaged in the management of groundstrokes and the asset management.

(7)

Within-case analysis Port3: • Transport:

Port3 manage only a few pipeline networks, but they are owners of the groundstrokes associated with the pipeline networks.

o Substances Electricity and water.

o Different risks -

o BEVB

For buildings for instance they do what is necessary according to the law. For the pipelines/groundstrokes and roads Port3 has set up KPI’s and they manage these.

A good way of reporting and registration still misses at Port3. They need to report their status every year, but this does not happen every time. This probably is due to the necessity from inside the organization.

Port3 uses a risk matrix that is assessed with grades from 1 till 10 with the colors red,

yellow/orange and green. The red ones are taken care of right away. This is done according to the CROW-method for roads and infrastructure and is their traffic light method. They also use balanced scorecards. One person performs the checks and composes the risk matrix.

Port3 uses the risk matrix to calculate the budgets. o Continuous improvement

Port3 tries to be pro-active with their maintenance, but the periods are determined according to for instance the CROW instructions and to experience from past years.

You need to implement standards step for step, because it is not possible to implement it all at once.

(8)

GAP analysis with the help of a third party. And after that they will team up in the implantation stage of these standards.

When you are able to show that you for instance manage the roads according to the CROW method, you have assurance and especially when accidents happen. Then you will be able to show that you acted in the right way and that it is not your fault. A big advantage is that it is one particular way of working and that everyone speaks about the same things. When this is the case, the communication also is a lot easier. In this way asset management can serve as a framework and can help an organization with for instance reporting.

Port3 does not think all these systems and standards are sanctified. This is because the

downside of these standards is that you need to document everything and that this could cause that it becomes too much. In that case you document things because you have to, but not because it benefits you. Port3 tries to structure their system according to other organizations, but sometimes this just does not work. Furthermore, they do not have a lot of available time and resources. Compared to for instance other organizations, they are relatively small. And as an organization you need to have the right discipline and manpower in order to keep the asset management system together. At this moment that is difficult for them.

o Reputation

Port3 noticed that these tools helped a lot with structuring their work. Earlier the work was not structured at all and everyone worked according to their own structures.

o Accidents

Sometimes something happens, but Port3 makes sure that in that case, they can prove that it is not their fault. So they try to cover themselves as good as possible.

o Stakeholders

For the railways the maintenance is outsources, but they do it the same way as Port3 does it. Furthermore there is a lot of communication between the stakeholders and Port3.

o Communication

There is communication present with other port organizations in the Netherlands and also in Belgium, and Port3 tries to implement things other port organizations have also implemented. They noticed that they are relatively small and that they could learn a lot from bigger port organizations.

Furthermore they use benchmarks with for instance other port organizations twice a year. They also try to develop new applications together.

o Documentation

(9)

o Protocol

They use for instance a tool that is developed by another port organization. This is a system that connects different parties and allows quick communication.

Four operators are working on asset management at Port3, and all at different disciplines. They think it is hard to level the different systems. These four operators do communicate with each other and work together, but they use their own ways of working.

o Experience

Port3 does not have a lot of experience with asset- and risk management and therefore a third party will help them with structuring this. They have tried it once themselves, but because there was not enough knowledge available, this did not work out. Furthermore, it has to be scheduled according to their pace, because they do not have a lot of time and people available to implement it.

(10)

Within-case analysis Proc1: • Transport:

o Pipeline networks:

Proc1 does not manage the pipelines themselves, but they manage the groundstrokes. The pipeline owners want to put their pipelines in Proc1’s ground, and they pay them for that. Different pipelines are present. From high pressure gasses, toxic substances, but also wastewater, industry water, drinking water and also data transport.

o Substances

A lot of different substances are transported. From gas, fluid gas, benzene, propene, propylene, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen.

o Different risks

Proc1 has their own risks for the groundstrokes, but they also need to consider the risks of the pipeline owners. They look at all of them. Most frequently happening risk is damage that occurs according to digging. There is a chance and an effect. If a pipeline is hit and leaks fluids, this can have big consequences for the environment and for people.

o BEVB

Proc1 also looks at the BEVB, because they are also responsible for the consequences if something goes wrong with the pipelines. They use it for for instance a quantitative risk analyses. These points of the BEVB look at the soloistic pipelines, and not as a corridor of pipelines. This can cause a domino-effect. And they try to do more, and try to look at all the different pipelines and not only per pipeline.

Proc1 have arranged their asset management by cutting up the groundstrokes and divided them. Thereby they also look at the possible risks. They use RAMS, that is reliability, availability, maintenance and safety. Proc1 appointed a value to each of these categories and try to manage these.

They use for instance bow-tie analysis, according to the NTA8000. Furthermore they use the RISMAN-method for risk management.

At the moment Proc1 uses for instance PLOF-experiments. This is a mathematical method to calculate what the distance needs to be between the different pipelines. This could be

developed further, because the cumulating and domino-effect can be huge. Most of the time the separate pipelines are managed, but not the collective.

(11)

Proc1 is ISO9000 and ISO14000 certified, so this is incorporated in the entire organization. o Asset management standards

They are not certified for the asset management standards, although they really would like it. Maybe Proc1 is a little bit too small. They also look at risk management according to the NTA8000. If the pipeline owners need to conform to these standards, then Proc1 also wants to pay attention to this.

At the moment Proc1 does look at them and tries to learn from them. Because in the world these standards are well known. They have encountered a lot of advantages from these standards.

There are a lot of things you need to conform, in order to get a certificate. It could be a

disadvantage that you need to need to perform additional audits and that people will be asking questions about how you work. You and your work will be checked, and it is possible that people do not like this.

Proc1 needed to spend a lot of money in order to let the standards work properly. And it takes a lot of time. And it is never finished. You need to know all your assets and have a clear view of it.

o Reputation

It will contribute to your reputation if you are certified according to these norms, because you are able to show that your organization is structured in a good way and that you have a strong process and procedures. The standards do not need to be leading, but it has to be an aid.

o Accidents

If the risks are high, Proc1 wants to be present at for instance digging activities, but if the risks are lower, this is not necessary. They communicate with the pipeline owners if something goes wrong, but it differs in attitude and behavior how they cope with it. Proc1 tries to evaluate these accidents and tries to learn from them. And they also look at the accidents from other organizations with the help of VELIN. Transparency could be very helpful in this case.

o Stakeholders

Proc1 reports every year, two times, to the government and the pipeline section. The pipeline is from the pipeline owner itself, so they decide what they do about that. But Proc1 talks about the greatest risks with them and tries to solve them. Proc1 asks the stakeholders what they do about asset- and risk management and they noticed that this differs. Some pipeline owners do it a lot and some not. Proc1 tries to prevent that if for instance pipeline owner A makes a disorder, this does not influence pipeline owner B.

o Communication

(12)

the biggest problems with this is miscommunication. It happens a lot that the things that are agreed, are not carried out in the right way.

o Documentation

Proc1 does document their risk analysis etc., but this does not happen all the time. This could be an improvement point for the future for Proc1. And why this is, is because this is not yet incorporated in their culture. They like to discuss things and then they go on to the next thing. And the more you want to structure this, the more resistance this will entail.

o Protocol

Proc1 structures their risk analysis etc. according to the RISMAN-method. o Roles and responsibilities

The interviewee works on asset- and risk management with 2 others. But the whole

organization is involved in working according to these standards. But it is not yet organized that everyone works according to them, this is still a goal for the future.

Sometimes it is unclear who is responsible for an asset. For instance with an overpass. Who is responsible for this overpass and therefore for the risk management?

o Experience

The experience of the employees is pretty good, but not the experience in documenting the analyses. This could be better and it could be helpful if these people got training for this.

(13)

A lot of pipelines (15.000 km) and multiple traces. o Substances

Namely natural gas, also nitrogen and syngas. o Different risks

Most people think of explosions with natural gas, but that is not the fact. A fire could be a risk, and suffocation in theory, but this never happens. Proc2 prefers pipelines underground, because of the limited consequences if something happens.

Security risks, reputational risks, financial risks. o BEVB

Proc2 complies with the law and makes sure they do what is mentioned in the BEVB. They helped form this BEVB, so they support this law.

Proc2 also outsources risk analysis, and these parties report to them. Then they save these analysis, because you do not only need to know what the risks are, you also need to know what you already did to prevent these risks. Proc2 does not use the entire portfolio

management enough to the interviewees opinion. So that you have insight in what you did to regulate the risks and how much it helped and how much it cost.

They make use of all these analysis, but these were all different pieces and are not connected in the right way. So not yet according to the plan-do-check-act cycle.

Proc2 identifies the risks and at this moment they have a database with more than 100 risks that are grouped and categorized. They make use of a risk matrix with the colors red, orange, yellow and green. If the risks are in the red area, they work on them instantly. Orange has half a year, before it needs to be fixed. If it takes more time, they let the management sign for this and then they accept the risks for the moment. This also counts for the yellow area. And risks in the green area are accepted.

They make use of bow-tie analysis, probability computations, HAZOP, fault-tree analysis, event-tree analysis, SWIFT-analysis (Structured what if). They also do a cause-analyses and a environmental analysis. There is also a risk expert platform, so they tackle the risks top-down but also bottom-up.

Proc2 also uses quantitative risk management as much as possible. o Continuous improvement

(14)

these probably also can be improved and they also involve these systems. They do this also with risks, they look at accidents and try to analyze them and add them to the database.

Proc2 demands from their suppliers that they are ISO9000 certified, but they themselves are not. They follow several other quality systems, so they chose not to be certified for the ISO9000. They do have our their handbooks with quality systems. And each unit has their own. So they try to standardize their work as much as possible.

They started with the PAS55, so they try to structure their system in such a way that it could be certified. Furthermore they also started with the NTA8120 and they helped developing that. Also the NEN3650 is very important for them for building new pipelines. This one has a plan-do-check-act cycle, so they also look at this.

Proc2 really believes in the benefits of standards and standardization, because the spin-off is huge. And it could be really simple, like: it does not matter how you do it, but you will have to make arrangements on how to do it.

It is possible to reduce the stocks. Earlier there were almost no standards, so they started with developing standards. And now you see a shift, they try to pull back a little bit and to work together with other organizations to make and improve standards.

o Disadvantages standards It can cost a lot, but the spin-off is huge.

o Reputation -

o Accidents

Proc2 is also triggered by incidents, so they look at incidents and learn from them. So if something happens that was not already identified as a risk, they take them into account for the next time. They also benchmark their selves with other organizations to prevent accidents. And also with other organizations in the whole world. They try to analyze these accidents and try to learn from them.

o Stakeholders

Proc2 tries to make the people aware of the fact that the pipelines are present and they try to let them know where the pipelines are. Furthermore they want to be present if someone want to dig nearby a pipeline. Otherwise they cannot dig. And the opinion of their stakeholders about the risk management is very important for them. But most of the time it is even

compulsory for these organizations to make risk analysis for instance. Proc2 also has contact through VELIN and GEPA. And they also have contact with similar organizations abroad.

o Communication

(15)

o Documentation

Proc2 has not documented all their analysis etc. according to a standard (for instance the NTA8000), but they are working on this. But they do document the analysis and save them to their system. And the asset risk database also knows these analysis so it is easy to find them again.

o Protocol

Proc2 uses standard protocols for for instance QRA’s, that is followed every time. And they do use one system where almost everything will be present. There are also other systems, but eventually everything will be stored in the overarching system and almost everyone internally has access to it.

Sometimes Proc2 has discussions with for instance the government, but most of the time these discussions are resolved pretty easy.

o Experience

There are a lot of people that can perform risk analysis, but it is a small group that is actually very busy with it. And Proc2 also outsources a part of it. And they developed a lot of the standards, so it is hard to test this. But also the independent reviews from other parties, Proc2 checks them and they rapport to them.

(16)

Within-case analysis Proc3 and Proc4: • Transport:

o Pipeline networks Multiple networks for both.

o Substances

Proc3 only gas and Proc4 gas and electricity. o Different risks

One of the most important risks is damage due to digging. Everyone always mentions digging as a real risk, but Proc3 tries to focus more on the overarching activities. For instance the leakages of gas as a consequence of digging activities.

o BEVB -

Proc4 has a total process for risk management, from identifying to controlling the risks. Risk register, with a risk matrix, measures and evaluations.

All these risks are taken into a risk register. A lot of data is available in this register. This also applies to Proc3.

Proc4 uses a risk matrix for instance, and prioritizes the risks and looks at the environment and what kind of measures need to be taken. And their asset management is risk based, and this is according to the law.

This also applies to Proc3.

Proc3 and Proc4 use for instance bow-tie models. They use life cycle management in a qualitative manner. They have identified 9 different risks. These are composed and identified with the help of for instance risk committees and these committees gather multiple times a year. Multiple risk analysts are present in these committees and the entire life cycle is managed.

Proc4 uses quantitative risk management for how many accidents occur and other financial risks.

Proc3 uses QRA’s according to the CAROLA-method. And the Safeti-systems for quantitative risk management.

(17)

Proc3 and Proc4 are certified according to ISO9000 and ISO14000. o Asset management standards

Proc4 has structured their asset management system for instance according to the PAS55. The process is equipped according to for instance the PAS55. They also look at the NTA8000. The system is also structured according to this standard. The quality of the available data is very important for Proc4, they want to have everything very clear and organized. They are active in risk management for a long time, but working in such a structured way is approximately since 2008. Proc3 already made a big step with this in 2005. Furthermore, Proc3 had adopted the scope of the NEN3650 and are trying to implement ISO55000 at this moment.

At this moment Proc3 notices that the implementation process goes smoothly, because they are already certified for the other standards. In the past all the different units within the organization of Proc4 had their own way of working, but they noticed a lot of benefits when everything is connected with each other. For instance transparency is a huge advantage and also the transferability to other organizations.

Everything you need to record is very extensive. So for most organizations the registration and documentation is the most common problem. And also creating the procedures is hard. Furthermore, the registration is not everything. You should not exaggerate this, because you should know what you need to do and how you need to do this.

Furthermore, training and educating people takes a lot of time and this is coupled with the organizational culture. You need to make a change from a re-active culture, to a pro-active culture.

Therefore changes need to be made in the daily structure. Often you see things going wrong when people come up with a process and that the current situation is not evaluated.

Furthermore the administrative burden is a disadvantage. Another important thing is that the organizations should not lose focus on what their core business is. They focus more on side issues than on their main tasks. This is easier to do for larger organizations, because they have more (financial) recourses.

Another disadvantage is that the standards are make-regulations, but the government checks up on the organizations like they are do-regulations. So this means that they need to find out themselves how to implement these standards, but if something happens, the government approaches them and tells them that it was their fault and that they should have arranged the things better.

o Reputation

Proc4 and Proc3 noticed a lot of benefits from for instance the competence management and from the good structuring and bringing together multiple activities.

o Accidents

The regional operators coordinate their system from the number of incidents. This is not possible for Proc3, because they only have 1 or 2 incidents a year. They are more on the front side and Proc4 is more at the end. So they act more according to how many accidents

(18)

of incidents. Also ‘almost-incidents’ are registered and included in the research and improvements.

o Stakeholders

Proc3 and Proc4 are active in risk management committees. And the government tests them on that.

There are people from multiple parties present in these committees, so also from Proc3 and Proc4 themselves and from other stakeholders. They only want the best people with a lot of experience and knowledge for those jobs.

Proc4 also communicates with regional operators by means of workgroups for instance. And Proc3 also communicates a lot with other organizations with the help of the VELIN and they also try to learn from this.

o Communication

The government does not share things if they have noticed good things at organizations. So there is no benchmark from the government and this would be very helpful for multiple organizations. Every entity works on their own way and they all could benefit a lot if they would work together. Proc3 and Proc4 do work together a lot and also share a lot.

o Documentation

Proc3 and Proc4 compose multiple risk management documents and register everything, in order to be able to report everything to their stakeholders and for instance the government. Probably the biggest problem for other organizations is this registration and creating fixed protocols.

o Protocol

Proc3 and Proc4 do use a lot of protocols (also for when certain pipelines are not available), but it is not the case that the more protocols does not necessarily contribute to a higher safety. Nowadays it is often the case that you need to document certain things, but it is not inspected if these things are executed the right way, and that is the most important part.

Proc4 has about 6-7 people working on risk management for specific assets and they all work according to the same risk protocols and with the same risk register. At Proc3 everyone is engaged in risk management, and that is because of the safety culture that prevails in the entire organization.

o Experience

The people in for instance the risk committees are chosen because of their experience and knowledge. They do not want it to be possible for everyone joining these committees. These people also have different knowledge from different disciplines. The people inside the organization have a lot of knowledge, but everything actually is happening automatically. This is because for instance the documentation is a habit for them. Proc4 and Proc3 also have different courses and training for risk management for the employees.

o Training

(19)

(20)

Everything is underground, except for a few pipelines that are above ground. o Substances

Oil, gas, nitrogen, steam, water. o Different risks

One of the risks is a leak. But the biggest risk is damage caused by digging. If people want to dig nearby a pipeline they need to make a KLIC-notification. Then Proc5 picks this up and they make plans with these people about how to act.

o BEVB

Proc5 has a pipeline integrity management system that satisfies the BEVB, because this is mandatory. But furthermore they have another system that is also used to show the

government they cope with the risks and the asset management.

Proc5’s asset management system is not only for the pipelines, but also for the substances that they carry. Asset management is at their organization more than only pipeline management. Their risk management system is pretty complex, because they look at external safety, water management, environmental safety and occupational health. And all these things ask for a reliable integrity management system.

Proc5 knows 3 types of integrity, namely: - design integrity (you build a car and you make sure that it satisfy the rules. – technical integrity (that you make sure the car gets the right maintenance) – operating integrity (that you have a driver who stays within the limits and makes sure the car stays safe), and these also apply to pipelines. They also have an emergent response system. Furthermore, the inspections they do and the frequency of these inspections are risk based. And the frequency is higher if the consequences are higher. They have ensured the integrity as good as possible.

A risk has a chance and a consequence. With the consequential damages Proc5 distinguishes 4 elements. The risks for people, for the asset (so money), reputation and environment. And these are structured according to different classes. And that is bundled in their risk matrix that uses red, orange, yellow or green colors. You have the risks in the red area that are

immediately important, and you have the risks on the other side (the green side) that you might just need to accept. Pipelines always score high on the consequence-side, because it costs a lot if you need to replace it. But they do not only look at this side, they also look at the prevention of accidents. Proc5 makes use of bow-tie analysis and HAZOP studies.

(21)

Proc5 uses CAROLA as semi-quantitative calculations for QRA’s for external safety. o Continuous improvement

They also try to keep track of the QRA’s meet the requirements and what the legislation thinks is a good QRA. They also make use of KPI’s and try to use these to improve our system. And then they try to keep the plan-do-check-act cycle running. And they update the system every year in order to learn from incidents and to make sure that the asset management system stays up-to-date. Furthermore they also look at other organizations and incidents with the help of for instance VELIN. And they also have access to learning from accidents from another organization worldwide. Of course you need to learn from your mistakes and you do not want to make the same mistakes again.

The ISO9000 is very important for Proc5, and the ISO14000 also, but they are not certified for the ISO14000.

The NEN3650 is also very important for Proc5 and is the most frequently used asset

management standard in the world. Furthermore they also have design engineering practices from another organization that they look at when designing a new pipeline. And they also use their own recommended practices when for instance the NEN3650 is not sufficient. They do not look at the PAS55 or the ISO55000 at the moment.

In some cases you can ask yourself the question: is it necessary to be certified for these standards? Because if you only own the pipelines and not the product, it is a different case. You just need to meet the requirements of the laws. And you need to make good choices in which standards you would like to implement, because there is so much choice.

Of course it entails a lot of administrative tasks. And sometimes certification asks for a complete system. And you need to ask yourself the question: is this necessary? Because with smaller organizations, only a couple of person work on these things, and then they will rapport to themselves. So than it is not necessary at all.

o Reputation -

o Accidents

In recent years Proc5 did not have accidents caused by digging, but they did have ‘almost accidents’. This is caused by miscommunication in the KLIC-procedures.

o Stakeholders

(22)

o Communication

It also happens that appointments are made for KLIC-notifications, but that accidents or ‘almost accidents’ occur due to miscommunication. You need to be able to prove that the pipeline is in good state and that you have documented everything in a good way. Always.

o Documentation

Proc5 does document all analyses in their system. And yes it is important for the detectability of the integrity that you are able to show everyone that you do your job in the right way. Back in the days it was enough if the stakeholders believed you, but nowadays you need to be able to show the stakeholders what you have done.

o Protocol

And for all the analyses specific protocols are available at Proc5 and these are used when a new analysis is made. They make use of this for a long period now, actually since they have pipelines.

And they have 1 system where everything is saved and a lot of people have access to this. But because this is not always transparent, they also rapport monthly to the asset managers.

Sometimes they outsource such activities, but Proc5 is always responsible in the end and they also check these outcomes and the follow ups. There are multiple people that are busy with asset management for pipelines at their organization.

o Experience

The law does not demand competence requirements, but Proc5 does pay attention to this. This is called technical authority.

o Training

(23)

Within-case analysis Ind1: • Transport: o Pipeline networks - o Substances - o Different risks

Consequential damages are not described in for instance the contracts between Ind1 and other organizations, but Ind1 actually is responsible when things are not available. Other risks can be: changes in the environment and bankruptcies of other organizations.

o BEVB

Ind1 needs to meet the requirements from third parties and they do, but they notice that these parties more and more indicate that they need to do more than just the minimum

requirements.

The maintenance is generally speaking still pretty reactive instead of proactive. It gets better, but back in the days it happened a lot that maintenance was just carried out when something failed or needed maintenance.

Ind1 tries to think about how to improve agreed requirements. Often they notice that some requirements are recorded back in the days and that these requirements remain active because of experiences in the past, while this is probably not the best way to execute this. Therefore Ind1 tries to improve the systems and processes and renovate them.

Ind1 pays a lot of attention to prescribes standards and organizations can benefit a lot from them, because there are clear rules about for instance prices and other requirements. Everything will be structured and recorded.

o Asset management standards -

(24)

It is not possible to implement all standards for all your proceedings, you need to focus on your own way of working. And besides that, organizations need to stay active and do not need to focus only on these standards. This is because there are also external events that change and can cause problems. In some cases it is not sufficient to document everything, because it costs too much time.

o Reputation -

o Accidents

Often organizations act and discuss problems when something already happened, so this is too late.

o Stakeholders

Ind1 has a lot of contact with their stakeholders about for instance the maintenance and they also are often present at each other’s organizations. An advantage of this is that you know each other. At the construction of for instance a pipeline, a summary of additional information is used, in which the different parties can ask the client questions. Also benchmarking could be helpful.

o Communication

It still happens that things go wrong with the transfers, and this is often due to miscommunication. The client is able to give the right direction if they give clearer assignments and be more involved in the process.

o Documentation

You need to register everything in a good way and document it, but this is often a problem at organizations. Detectability is very important, especially with reporting to for instance the client or stakeholders. The documentation process at this moment is pretty old fashioned.

o Protocol

Reports and fixed protocols are very useful to help in training for instance a new employee. o Roles and responsibilities

Generally speaking it is clear who is responsible for what, but sometimes there are discussions about who is actually responsible for particular cases. There are often some confusions about maintenance and the management. Clearer appointments could improve this.

o Experience

Reports are shared through a tool called Sharepoint, but often these are also mailed to each other. Almost always this is sufficient, because the knowledge lacks at the client.

(25)

Within-case analysis Ind2: • Transport: o Pipeline networks - o Substances - o Different risks

Ind2 looks at: how does an organization have identified the risks and are the risk analysis they made logically arranged? And then they use their knowledge and experience to make a

judgment about that. o BEVB -

If you look at the technical aspects of risk analysis, it is quite simple. Because that contains studies of failure mechanisms and that is generally known. When it is about the

environmental risks and users risks, Ind2 serves as a supervisor to look at thing like: did you plot the risks in the right way and did you already do something to prevent those risks? But they do not analyze the risks for them, because they do not have the specific knowledge about all the different risks for all the different organizations.

There is a huge difference noticeable between the risk management at organizations. Some organizations are clearly the forerunners and some other organizations only consider the pipelines as a way to transport the substances from A to B. Originally those organizations are not really the pipeline owners, but more the users. And they do not give much attention to the risks etc.

At a lot of organizations in the pipeline industry, not the right people are in the top of the organization. There are people present at the top that do not care about the environmental risks for instance, they only care about the finance and the logistics. But there are a couple of organizations that really put effort in it, and some do not. But you will not be able to see that from the outside. Even some directors do not know exactly what is happening, that is the most frightening.

(26)

The organizations that are active in their asset- and risk management, also try to improve their system over time and try to learn from others and accidents for instance. But in general the pipeline branch is a pretty reactive industry. This also counts for the willingness to change and to improve, the organizations that are proactive are also willing to change and to improve. But the organizations that are reactive do not look at the asset management standards that much.

Ind2 performs checks on management systems and certify according to the ISO9000, ISO14000.

Furthermore Ind2 also certifies according to the asset management standards like the PAS55 and the ISO55000. They perform everything commissioned by the asset owner. And it is also possible that a certain supervisor asks them to perform an expert judgment, so then they look at the systems again.

They are a notified body for inspections, and that means that an owner asks them to provide evidence that they meet the requirements. More and more organizations orientate on these asset management standards, but most of these organizations engage in infrastructure etc.

Advantages are that the decisions about cost performance and risks are more thought-out. And as an organization you are more transparent and you are able to underpin why you made certain decisions and why you did not make certain decisions. You will not be able to do everything and with the help of these standards you are able to justify why you did not do these things. So these standards help to make thought-out and transparent decisions.

You also need to realize that the chemical industry does not function very well at the moment, so they do not want to invest in these systems right away. But of course it would be a good thing to invest, because every financial crisis is a chance for improvements. Disadvantages might be that it costs money and time, but also the habituation that it goes well is a reason not to invest in these standards. The organizations think that they are in control, while this might not even be the case. Because it is also possible that the last 30 years went by with a little bit of luck and that you are not in control as much as you think. My number in the lottery does not win every week also. Furthermore another disadvantage is that it leads to more

transparency. This can be exciting in a negative way, because everyone always was able to do their work undisturbed. And now other people are asking questions like: why do you do the work like this? So this can be encountered as interesting, but also as pedantic and confronting. So this requires a cultural shift in the entire organization. The old habits will be challenged and are not a given fact anymore.

(27)

o Reputation -

o Accidents -

o Stakeholders

You need to be able to give your stakeholders a clear view of why you are doing things the way you do them and to underpin the choices that are made.

o Communication -

o Documentation

Of course documentation is important, but the most important thing is that the control measures of risks from the risk analyses are actually implemented. It is nice if you have everything documented, but the crucial question is: do you actually carry out the things that you have determined in the analyses and do you monitor each other on the performance? It is important that these analysis are used properly in the further cycle, and one of the main questions with this is: how is the management of change arranged in the organization? So what is arranged if we need to change and in what way are the analyses changed and improved?

o Protocol

You need to be aware of the fact that you only need to do things if you know why you do them. Because if you do not know this, you probably need to stop doing what you are doing.

If the pipelines are core business, usually multiple people are working on the asset- and risk management. But if this is not the case, usually only a couple of people are working on it. Most of the time, Ind2 tries to advise the organizations that are interested in their services that they need to perform a GAP-analysis. Then they look at what the main pitfalls could be and then you know where you are. This does not mean that you need to do everything, but you can make a plan to start making choices. Furthermore you need to look at what recourses are available and what knowledge is available within the organization. And in what way is the culture structured? If you know these things as an organization, you will be able to make plan. This is the right way, because of course you can structure your system like these standards, but if you do not have the right people, knowledge and resources available, this will not work. And furthermore everybody needs to accept it and support it.

o Experience -