1 / 26

Performance Metrics Guidance Document For GPCA Member Companies

Performance Metrics Guidance Document For GPCA Member Companies. Asrar Mohammad EQUATE Petrochemical. Task Force Members. Mr. Bader Al- Adwani - PIC MR. Manoel Fernandes- Borouge Dr. Ahmed Al- Hazmi - Sabic Mr. Mortaza K. AL-Yousef- Tasnee Mr. Naveed Khan- QAPCO

cargan
Télécharger la présentation

Performance Metrics Guidance Document For GPCA Member Companies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Performance Metrics Guidance Document • For GPCA Member Companies Asrar Mohammad EQUATE Petrochemical EQUATE RESTRICTED - For internal use only

  2. Task Force Members • Mr. Bader Al-Adwani- PIC • MR. Manoel Fernandes- Borouge • Dr. Ahmed Al-Hazmi- Sabic • Mr. Mortaza K. AL-Yousef- Tasnee • Mr. Naveed Khan- QAPCO • Mr. QasimYunus- SABIC • Ms. Asrar Mohammad- EQUATE • Mr. JassimDarwish- GPIC • MR. Tariq Alauddin- Sipchem • Mr. Albert E. Biggs- Sipchem • Mr. Tahir Jamal Qadir- GPCA

  3. Vision “To measure performance, openly report, make continual progress towards our goal of eliminating accidents, injuries or harm to human health and the environment from our products and operations”

  4. Strategy • Keep it simple by building on commonly reported performance metrics • Where applicable, align with global trade associations • Phase in new “value added” metrics over time • Use data for bench marking, targeting areas for improvement and sharing of best practices

  5. Task Force Objectives • Establish a standard template including definition and formulas for metrics • Develop a guideline document for measuring and reporting performance metrics • Ensure effective communication and understanding of performance reporting. • Over time, realize value added benefits and industry performance improvements.

  6. Benefits of Performance Metrics • To improve community relations • To meet customers’ expectations • To give member companies a competitive advantage • To share best practices among member companies • To continually improve Responsible Care performance among member companies

  7. Background Data was collected from member companies on • The key Responsible Care performance measures that must be report to local regulators right now • The key Responsible Care performance indicators that is being reported within each member company to management

  8. Survey Design • Surveyed Task Force Members • Survey sent to 9 companies • Response from 7 companies / 5 Countries

  9. Survey Response Occupational Safety • 70% of Companies polled are recording & reporting Fatalities • Lost Time Injuries & Incidence Rates • OSHA Recordable Injuries & Incidence rates • For Employees and Contractors • 30 % Companies not reporting this data for contractor employees • Polled companies generally in alignment with ACC & CEFIC reporting requirements.

  10. Survey Response Process Safety • 70 % companies reporting Process Safety Incidents • 33 % companies reporting Process Safety Total Incident Rate • No company reporting Process Safety Total Incident Severity Rate • Definitions of Process Safety Incident not aligned with the CCPS definition for all reporting companies.

  11. Survey Response Waste • All Companies reporting waste generated and disposed. • 30 % companies not segregating waste into Hazardous and non hazardous. Waste Water Discharge • 70 % companies reporting TOC in waste water

  12. Survey Response Gaseous Emissions • 90 % companies reporting NOx emissions in PPM • 33 % companies reporting SO2 • 22 % Reporting CO2 emissions & CO2 Intensity • 22 % Companies reporting Total Green House Gases Emissions • 1 Company reporting total Emissions • Significant gap from ACC & CEFIC Metrics

  13. Survey Response Resource Utilization • 100 % companies reporting energy consumption • 78 % reporting specific energy consumption • 78 % reporting water consumption • Alignment with ACC & CEFIC Distribution Incidents • No Company Reporting

  14. Survey Conclusion • Most companies are reporting or have data available for ACC/CEFIC metrics in. • Occupational Safety • Process Safety • Waste Disposal • Resource Utilization • Gaseous emission data is scattered. • No data on distribution Incidents.

  15. Implementation Phases Phase I: 2010 data to be reported by September 2011

  16. 2010 Performance Metric & Reporting

  17. 2010 Performance Metric & Reporting

  18. Implementation Phases Phase II: 2011 data to be reported by March 2012

  19. 2011 Performance Metric & Reporting

  20. 2011 Performance Metric & Reporting

  21. Implementation Phases Phase III: 2012 Data to be reported by March 2013

  22. 2012 Performance Metric & Reporting

  23. Implementation Phases Phase IV: Potential Metric for 2014

  24. 2014 Performance Metric & Reporting • Reasons for the delay of this Metric: • Climate change policy is handled by government. • Governments have to report GHG emissions annually. • Setting policy for GHG reduction will lose CDM benefits. • Contradiction of data will create inconsistencies.

  25. Path Forward

  26. THANK YOU

More Related