responsible care - Chemistry Industry Association of Canada

Transcription

RESPONSIBLE CARE®
Verification Report
METHANEX CORPORATION
December 12 - 14, 2011
Disclaimer
This report has been produced by a team, convened by the Chemistry Industry Association of
Canada (CIAC), to provide advice to the member-company and assist it in meeting its
Responsible Care® commitments. The material in this report reflects the team's best judgment in
light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. It is the responsibility of the
CIAC member-company that is the subject of this report to interpret and act on the report’s
findings and recommendations as it sees fit. Any use which a third party makes of this document,
or any reliance on the document or decisions made based upon it, are the responsibility of such
third parties. Although CIAC members are expected to share the results of this guidance
document with interested parties, the Association, its member-companies, their employees,
consultants and other participants involved in preparing the document accept no responsibility
whatsoever for damages, if any, suffered by a third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this report.
Responsible Care® is a registered trademark of the Chemistry Industry Association of
Canada.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Responsible Care Verification of Methanex Corporation was carried out between August 29th and
December 15th, 2011, beginning with a planning meeting team visit to their Corporate Headquarters in
Vancouver, British Columbia, on August 28th and 29th. Verification visits subsequently took place as follows:
• Corporate Headquarters on September 26th and 27th
• Medicine Hat, Alberta plant site on September 28th and 29th
• New Plymouth, New Zealand plant site from October 10th to 12th
• Punta Arenas, Chile plant site on November 2nd and 3rd
• Santiago, Chile Regional and Marketing & Logistics office on November 4th
• Point Lisas, Trinidad plant site from December 12th to 14th
The verification team also conducted interviews with other company personnel in Kitimat, B.C. This was the
fifth Responsible Care verification completed for Methanex. The previous verification was completed on
September 22, 2008.
Documented in the body of this report by the independent verification team tasked with conducting the
verification of Methanex Corporation, are observations and conclusions applicable globally to Methanex.
Specifics for each of the locations visited not addressed in the main report are attached as appendices as
follows:
Appendix A – Medicine Hat
Appendix B – New Zealand
Appendix C – Punta Arenas
Appendix D - Trinidad
While considering all aspects of the Responsible Care Commitments during this verification the team placed an
emphasis on conducting an in-depth examination of company aspects related to:
• Responsible Care Management System
• Marketing & Logistics
• Waterfront Shipping
• Process Safety Management
As a result of the examination conducted, the verification team is of the opinion that the Responsible Care
Ethic and Principles for Sustainability are guiding company decisions and actions, and that a self-healing
management system is in place to drive continual improvement. The team believes that the company is
capable of responding to the range of Findings Requiring Action identified during the verification - summarized
below and discussed in detail in the report. The verification is complete and no further involvement is required
by the verification team.
Signed: __
_
Date: _April 12, 2012____
Alec Robertson
Verification Team Leader
For more information on this or a previous Responsible Care Verification Report, please contact your local
company site or the company’s overall Responsible Care coordinator:
Kevin Kerik
Manager, Responsible Care,
Telephone - (604)661 2635
E-mail - [email protected]
Responsible Care Verification Report - Methanex Corporation
Page 2
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION TEAM OBSERVATIONS
Findings Requiring Action - The company is expected to attend to these issues in as timely a
manner as possible. They will be reviewed as a first order of business in the next (2014)
verification.
1. Methanex needs to develop a comprehensive transportation safety and emergency response management
plan. The plan should describe the means for selecting carriers, assessing route risks, dealing with hazards,
spill containment and clean up, provision of emergency response resources and technical support etc. It
should also include expectations for regular exercises including carriers (all modes) as well as local and
regional emergency response service providers throughout their hazardous material supply and product
distribution networks. Ref OP’s 12-14, 41-47.
2. Methanex needs to develop a comprehensive process safety management program which clearly defines
minimum corporate expectations in all areas. A priority is to complete the site quantitative (QRA)
operational process risk assessments, including a reassessment of the worst case incident scenario, at each
of the Medicine Hat, Punta Arenas and Point Lisas locations. With the risk assessment process also being
applicable to transportation and distribution operations, product distribution and vessel loading terminals
such as the New Plymouth terminal that is remote from the plant and in a different part of the community,
truck and rail loading areas of plants etc. need also be included. Worst case scenarios, in all cases, need
also be maintained current and regularly communicated to those potentially impacted. It is also suggested
that improvements can be made to the criteria and tools used to guide the choice of which process hazard
assessment methodologies to use, commensurate with specific location circumstances, for periodic
quantitative/qualitative operational risk assessments.
3. Modify the existing Loss Prevention audit protocol and develop a Process Safety audit protocol using the
elements of the above noted expectations as audit criteria.
4. Globally, establish formal resource conservation and emission reduction programs and expectations with
respect to ensuring continual improvement in reducing the environmental foot-print of all operations (Ref
Operations Code sections 5 & 6) and complete the development of an emissions monitoring program for
use by facilities in preparing site specific reduction initiatives where practical, planned for 2012. This should
include leak detection and reporting processes for fugitive emissions from valve packings, equipment seals,
etc. at all operating sites. Ref OP’s 58- 60.
5. Establish and document a formalized process for the selection and on-going Responsible Care performance
reviews of those organizations with which the company engages in product swaps to facilitate customer
supply; (Note: Some of this is being done on an ad hoc basis.) Ref ST’s 115-124.
6. Upgrade the check element of the corporate management system as follows:
o Establish a formal policy for variance to corporate expectations.
o Check the scope of the level 1 and 2 corporate audit protocols to ensure that they address all codes
and applicable organizational groups and that there is a system in place to check that audit results are
acted upon.
o Update the Operations Readiness Audit protocol and Facility Prestart Related Activities Checklists to
address team comments in section 2 of this report and the Medicine Hat specifics in attachment “A” as
well as other applicable CIAC Responsible Care code elements. Maintain them as formal documents.
Page 3
Works in Progress – The company is encouraged to complete the work currently underway in the
following areas:
1. Methanex are encouraged to maintain their focus on improving contractor safety using learnings from the
2011 lost workday injury in Punta Arenas and the sub-contractor fatality in Trinidad to strengthen
programs currently in place.
2. Expedite current corporate plans to update their identification of broad based stakeholder groups (i.e.,
those beyond local communities etc.) with a view to engagement of same in outreach dialogue. This
process should include a review of the new Accountability Code with the management system being
updated to support continual improvement and ensure that all related commitments are addressed on an
ongoing basis.
3. Expedite completion and implementation of the Global Responsible Care Management System draft
document that clearly defines the plan-do-check-act continual performance improvement process for the
company together with a series of codes providing guidance for its implementation, planned for 2012.
4. Complete the documented cross reference and gap analysis between the CIAC Responsible Care Codes of
Practice and the company’s Responsible Care management systems for all regions and all business units.
Based on the cross reference and gap analysis, for the new and existing codes the company should develop
a documented plan to:
o Establish new and update existing global expectations to ensure that they define minimum
expectations in all business areas for the various CIAC Responsible Care code elements.
o Update site level policies, procedures and standards to meet global expectations defined from the
above while also continuing to meet local requirements and needs.
5. Finalize and implement the Global Audit Strategy Whitepaper while ensuring that it addresses gaps in the
current process identified in this report and site specific items in report Attachments A through D.
Improvement Opportunities – the company is encouraged to review these recommendations
and consider their potential benefits.
1. Reinforce or revise current design and construction processes by o Updating/formalizing the corporate Project Management System to reflect the company’s experience
in restarting mothballed facilities, starting new facilities and the updated Responsible Care code
expectations. This system should include periodic reviews during project implementation to ensure
progress as planned in all areas. Ref OP 1-6
o Reviewing the company’s management of change process for modified processes, equipment, and
technologies to ensure that the relevant research and development expectations of Stewardship code
are met. Ref. ST 85-92.
2. Reinforce current operations processes by establishing a periodic review process to ensure that natural gas
supply pipeline operators have appropriate emergency preparedness and response plans in place with the
necessary equipment and resources available to adequately respond to emergency situations. Ref OP 3147, ST 115-120.
3. Benchmark corporate process safety area processes vs. those of other CIAC members through direct
contact and/or via the CIAC Process Safety Management Committee, particularly with regard to risk
assessment screening tools, planning processes and management systems to facilitate completion of QRA’s
at prescribed intervals.
Page 4
4. In the corporate Emergency Response Policy, identify minimum expectations for site emergency response
plans and exercises to address potential response scenarios (e.g. fire, rescue, medical, hazmat security,
vapour cloud, man down) under various weather conditions (e.g. cold winter night, extreme heat) and
times of day/week for all shift groups. It is also suggested that expectations include joint exercises with
community responders for response scenarios where they could potentially be involved.
5. Critical Infrastructure/ Business continuity processes at all locations have the potential to be improved
through the comparison of systems in place with items detailed in codes OP 49-55.
6. The team identified improvement opportunities regarding their management system for other parties byo Establishing a follow up process to help ensure that other parties distribute safe methanol handling
information to all their value chain members. Ref ST 110, AC 144.
o Reviewing Methanex’s commitment to Responsible Care with pipeline operators supplying natural gas
to each site, advising them of the company’s expectations in that regard, adding Responsible Care
clauses to contracts related to the supply of natural gas or other feed stocks and establishing a process
to periodically monitor their Responsible Care related performance. ST’s 115, 118- 120.
o Requiring customers to provide an explanation when they answer “no” to a customer audit question.
Ref ST’s 118-120.
o Being proactive in ensuring that proper labeling of methanol occurs in all locations/countries where
they do business laws by advocating that the Global Harmonizing System be used. Ref ST 106.
7. Globally, review the community engagement process at all plant locations based on the outcome of the
Punta Arenas experience. Include the expectations in CIAC’s new Accountability Code and the related
Appendix A on Corporate Social Responsibility in the review/upgrading process. It is suggested that nongovernment organizations be included in this initiative.
8. It is suggested that by strengthening the linkages between the Global Manufacturing Team, the Risk
Management Team and the Global Responsible Care Team, the upgrading of the Methanex Responsible
Care management system and their implementation in various areas detailed in this report could be
facilitated.
Successful Practices – the company and CIAC are expected to share these and support their
implementation in peer member companies:
1. The comprehensive equipment integrity, condition monitoring and general maintenance management
programs in place at all visited sites.
2. Proactive and leading edge occupational health and safety initiatives. Noteworthy examples includeo Employee wellness- The recently completed corporate wide “pedometer challenge” to promote
exercising on an ongoing basis and the fitness center at the Trinidad site.
o The Waterfront Shipping’s tanker compartment wall washing and sampling process which negates the
need for confined space entries and their proactive involvement with ship owners in developing and
implementing better occupational health and safety programs for ship crews, including methanol
handling. Methanex have also established ship crew quarter quality expectations well beyond shipping
industry norms.
3.
The industrial wind park in Chile and environmental upgrades included in the Medicine Hat restart project.
Page 5
4.
The naming and use of Responsible Care as the umbrella under which all related programs and initiatives
are developed and implemented.
5. Methanex’s comprehensive product risk communications program. Noteworthy aspects includeo The proactive training program on methanol handling and Responsible Care to logistic providers,
carriers, local communities, industry associations, governments, distributors, customers and to the
customers of both distributors and customers.
o Regular site visits to customer locations, some of whom are located at difficult to reach locations in
various regions of the world.
6. Methanex’s overall stakeholder engagement and social responsibility processes with direction starting at
the Board of Directors.
7. The thorough and targeted corporate leadership skills training program.
Page 6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
About Responsible Care Verification
As a member of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (CIAC), the most senior executive responsible for
Methanex operations in Canada attests annually to CIAC and its peers that the company’s operations conform
to the expectations contained in the Responsible Care Commitments and are guided by Responsible Care Ethic
and Principles for Sustainability.
The Responsible Care® Ethic and Principles for Sustainability
We are committed to do the right thing, and be seen to do the right thing.
We dedicate ourselves, our technology and our business practices to sustainability - the betterment of
society, the environment and the economy. The principles of Responsible Care® are key to our business
success, and compel us to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
work for the improvement of people's lives and the environment, while striving to do no harm;
be accountable and responsive to the public, especially our local communities, who have the
right to understand the risks and benefits of what we do;
take preventative action to protect health and the environment;
innovate for safer products and processes that conserve resources and provide enhanced value;
engage with our business partners to ensure the stewardship and security of our products,
services and raw materials throughout their life-cycles;
understand and meet expectations for social responsibility;
work with all stakeholders for public policy and standards that enhance sustainability, act to
advance legal requirements and meet or exceed their letter and spirit;
promote awareness of Responsible Care, and inspire others to commit to these principles.
As an element of this commitment to Responsible Care, Methanex must, every three years, participate in an
external verification intended to:
1. Provide the Executive Contact with an external perspective when assessing if the company is indeed
meeting the intent of the Responsible Care Commitments, along with advice on areas that may require
attention;
2. Identify opportunities for assisting the company when benchmarking its own practices and
performance against those of its peers, thus supporting continual improvement;
3. Contribute to the credibility of Responsible Care amongst company personnel and stakeholders, as well
as the stakeholders of the broader industry;
4. Identify successful company practices that can be promoted to peers in the CIAC membership; and
5. Support the identification of areas of common weakness so that collective tools and guidance can be
developed to improve performance in those areas across the CIAC membership.
Verification is conducted according to a common protocol, developed by the association’s members and
others, including several critics of the chemical industry. The verification is conducted by a team consisting of:
•
Knowledgeable industry experts with experience in Responsible Care;
•
A representative of the public at large (usually with a public interest background and with experience in
Responsible Care gained from serving on the CIAC’s National Advisory Panel) and
•
One or more representatives of the local communities where the company’s facilities are located.
Page 7
Methanex, being Corporately Headquartered in Canada with operations in other countries as well, expects that
all of its operations conform to applicable Canadian Responsible Care commitments and codes. They have thus
requested that this Verification include visits to selected locations outside Canada with the overall as well as
Canadian specific results being included in this report.
Once completed, the Canadian Verification Report is made publicly available through the CIAC website
(www.canadianchemistry.ca). Methanex is also is expected to share reports with interested persons in its
communities and other stakeholders as part of its ongoing dialogue processes.
Additional information on Responsible Care and / or the verification process can be found at the CIAC website
www.canadianchemistry.ca, or by CIAC at [email protected] or (613) 237-6215 extension 233.
1.2
About Methanex
Methanex Corporation is a Canadian company with its corporate headquarters in Vancouver, BC. The core
business is the manufacture and marketing of methanol and they are currently the largest producer and
marketer of methanol in the world. The company has approximately 1,000 employees worldwide.
Methanex has methanol manufacturing sites currently operating in or near:
• Medicine Hat, Alberta. Two of the three previously operating plants were demolished in 2005. The
third, and newest, plant was shut down and mothballed in 2001. With natural gas availability and
pricing having improved, the third plant was re-commissioned and re-started in Q2, 2011.
• New Plymouth, New Zealand (1 operating plant, 2 idled plants)
• Punta Arenas, Chile (1 operating plant, 3 idled plants)
• Trinidad and Tobago (2 operating plants, Atlas and Titan). The Trinidad Atlas plant is a joint venture
with BP as the minor partner.
• Construction on a new methanol plant in Damietta, Egypt was completed and the facility placed in
operation in Q1, 2011. This Methanex operated facility is a 60% Methanex owned joint venture with
the Egyptian Government.
The marketing and logistics (M&L) of product methanol is managed through regional M&L offices. The Director
of M&L for each office reports directly to the Sr. VP. Global Marketing & Logistics based in Vancouver. The
M&L offices are located in key marketing hubs, and include: Hong Kong (Asia Pacific); Santiago, Chile (Latin
America, including Mexico); Dallas, Texas (North America); and Brussels, Belgium (Europe). In the Middle East,
Methanex has a Business Development office in Dubai, UAE. In Europe, there is a satellite office in Billingham,
UK which is managed directly from Brussels. In Asia Pacific, in-region satellite offices have been set up in SeouI,
South Korea; Tokyo, Japan; Beijing and Shanghai, China; all offices report directly to Hong Kong. In addition, a
wholly-owned subsidiary, Waterfront Shipping Company provides ocean-going logistics services exclusively to
Methanex; Waterfront is based in Vancouver and shares office space with Methanex Corporation.
Additional support functions based in Vancouver include Finance, Corporate Development, Legal, Investor
Relations and Corporate Resources (which includes Human Resources, Information Technology, Government
and Public Affairs, and Responsible Care).
1.3
About This Verification
The verification of Methanex Corporation was conducted on between August 29th and December 14th, 2011
and included team visits to the following locations:
- Corporate Headquarters, Vancouver, British Columbia
- Latin America Regional Office, Santiago, Chile
Page 8
-
Production facilities in;
 Medicine Hat, Alberta
 New Plymouth, New Zealand
 Punta Arenas, Chile
 Point Lisas, Trinidad
The verification team conducted interviews, and interacted with, a wide range of company personnel at all
visited locations as well as external stakeholders at visited production locations.
This is the fifth verification exercise completed for Methanex. The last verification was completed in November,
2008. The verification team was comprised of the following individuals.
Name
Alec Robertson
Dave Mack
Affiliation
Consultant
Consultant
Phil Byer
University of Toronto
Jack Lemire
Medicine Hat Police Services
Dave Allerton
Ivan Nikovic
Ivan Torres
Roger Wallace
Local Resident
Local Resident & Forestry Engineer
Centran Trinidad Steel Limited
Representing
Team Leader (participated in all visits)
Industry verifier (participated in Canadian,
New Zealand & Trinidad visits)
Public-At-Large Verifier(participated in
Canadian and Chile visits)
Medicine Hat local Community (participated in
Vancouver and Medicine Hat visits)
New Plymouth, NZ local Community
Punta Arenas, Chile local Community
Local Interpreter (Punta Arenas)
Point Lisas, Trinidad local Community
Representatives from the local chemistry associations, New Zealand Chemical Industry Council In New Zealand
and Asiquim in Chile, joined the team to conduct joint assessments of the company's manufacturing facilities in
New Plymouth and Punta Arenas as well as Latin American Marketing & Logistics offices in Santiago, as follows:
Name
Bill Birch
Sergio Barrientos
Jovino Avaria
Ximena Abogabir Scott
Affiliation
Responsible Care New Zealand
Asiquim Verifier
Asiquim Verifier
Asiquim
Representing
Industry verifier
Industry verifier(Chile)
Industry verifier(Chile)
Public-At-Large Verifier(Chile)
Attachment 2 contains a list of those individuals interviewed at sites visited and their affiliations.
Page 9
2. TEAM OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBLE CARE COMMITMENTS (CODES
AND BENCHMARK AND COLLECTIVE EXPECTATIONS)
During the verification of Methanex, the verification team looked for evidence that the company was
addressing the expectations documented in the Responsible Care Commitments (152 code elements plus 28
benchmark and collective expectations). While considering all aspects of the Responsible Care Commitments,
the team placed an emphasis on conducting a more in-depth examination of certain company aspects
identified by the company or the team related to:
 Overall Responsible Care Management System
 Process Safety Management
 Marketing & Logistics
 Waterfront Shipping
In communicating its observations, the verification team will make repeated reference to the following
categories of observations:
1. Findings Requiring Action; document instances where the verification team observes specific company
actions (or the absence of company actions) which are inconsistent with the detailed codes and benchmark
and collective expectations contained in the Responsible Care Commitments. Where possible, the team
will communicate, based on their experience and judgment, why it is inconsistent and how the observation
relates back to a possible gap in the expected management system and / or the ethic and principles
underpinning company actions. The team may also provide advice on how the situation might be
responded to.
2. Works in Progress; document instances where the team has observed the company self-initiating actions
in response to identified gaps and deficiency arising from other internal or external audit and review
activities, or where the company has self-initiated important improvement opportunities.
3. Successful Practices; document instances where the team believes the company has taken actions that
strongly support sustained excellence in performance, and which should be communicated throughout the
CIAC membership.
Improvement opportunities; identify instances where the team has observed company actions and
decision making as being largely consistent with the expectations detailed in the Responsible Care
Commitments, but for which the team is of the opinion that the company could support further
improvement by considering alternate or additional benchmarks when undertaking its planning and
decision making.
4.
The verification team’s observations of how the company has addressed the Responsible Care Commitments
are as follows:
2.1
Team Observations Concerning Operations Code
2.1.1 Design and Construction of Facilities and Equipment
The design and construction of significant capital projects is outsourced to major engineering design and
construction contractors via a selection process that includes a successful track record in performing such
work. Methanex assigns company personnel with considerable experience in project management, plant
Page 10
operations and engineering to oversee the contractor’s work and ensure that Methanex project standards and
expectations are appropriately included in the design. Modifications to existing facilities are managed through
a rigorous management of change process with appropriate documentation. All changes are reviewed to
ensure that new unacceptable risks are not being introduced into the process. The project to restart the idled
methanol plant in Medicine Hat was internally managed, primarily by experienced former employees with
extensive related project design, construction management, facility start up and operations management
experience who had left when the facility was mothballed 10 years earlier. Despite the challenges presented by
the worst area weather conditions in many years, the facility was restarted safely in Q2, 2011 and at the time
of the Re-verification visit was operating as planned.
Code expectations in this area are generally being met with some improvement opportunities being identified
as documented below.
Improvement Opportunity:

Reinforce or revise current design and construction processes by o Updating/formalizing the corporate Project Management System to reflect the company’s experience
in restarting mothballed facilities, starting new facilities and the updated Responsible Care code
expectations. This system should include periodic reviews during project implementation to ensure
progress as planned in all areas. Ref OP 1-6
o Reviewing the company’s management of change process for modified processes, equipment, and
technologies to ensure that the relevant research and development expectations of Stewardship code
are met. Ref. ST 85-92.
2.1.2 Operations Activities
All Methanex sites are continuous operation facilities with process operators becoming qualified to
independently operate assigned segments of the plant through well-defined training programs with hands on
as well as written tests being involved for the various stages in their training program. Safe operating
envelopes are defined for all processes through risk assessment processes and process control systems are in
place to maintain operating conditions within the designed safe operating ranges. Documented operating
instructions are in place for each operating area and are reviewed on a scheduled basis and updated to
incorporate revisions required through operating experience or new projects. The integrity and reliability of
critical process equipment and control systems are addressed through formalized preventive maintenance and
equipment integrity management programs.
Transportation and Physical Distribution:
As the largest marketer of methanol in the world, product transportation from producing locations to global
distributor and customer sites represents a significant part of Methanex’s overall business. All manufacturing
sites except Medicine Hat are located adjacent to major waterways, with the vast majority of methanol
produced being delivered by large tanker ships to product holding/transfer terminals strategically located
across their worldwide market area. Product from the Medicine Hat site is delivered primarily by rail to North
American customer sites. Deliveries by tank truck are made from most facilities to sites not accessible by rail or
water. Movements by barge occur in the United States, Europe and China. Bulk ship movements are directed
by Methanex’s subsidiary company, Waterfront Shipping, primarily using ships under long term lease,
augmented by company owned vessels. The selection and management of other carriers is managed by
regional Marketing & Logistics offices located in Belgium, Chile, China, Egypt, Korea, Japan, and the United
States.
There is a formal screening process used for the selection of new terminal locations with those chosen being
formally assessed using an in depth Chemical Distributors Institute – Terminal (CDI-T) audit or other agreed
screening protocols augmented to include Responsible Care expectations. Similarly, all ocean-going ships are
required to complete an annual inspection based on the CDI-M (marine) protocol and Methanex’s internal
Page 11
safety audit program also regularly spot checks selected ships. All contracted barge companies are required to
pass a selection or audit process to assess their Responsible Care performance in transporting methanol
products along inland rivers. In Chile, Methanex works with customers, the local chemical association ASIQUIM
and a surveyor company to spot check carriers’ truck drivers. This program was extended to Columbia in 2010.
Methanex’s transportation emergency response for methanol in the United States and Canada has traditionally
been effectively managed through active participation in the chemical industry’s TransCAER initiatives in these
jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, through industry associations in other jurisdictions. While the team found
that the company has a sound understanding of the essentials of transportation emergency management in
relation to its core product, Methanol, it is concerned that the absence of an overarching transportation
emergency response management system has led to inconsistencies and gaps at its various sites.
Finding Requiring Action:

Methanex needs to develop a comprehensive transportation safety and emergency response management
plan. The plan should describe the means for selecting carriers, assessing route risks, dealing with hazards,
spill containment and clean up, provision of emergency response resources and technical support etc. It
should also include expectations for regular exercises including carriers (all modes) as well as local and
regional emergency response service providers throughout their hazardous material supply and product
distribution networks. Ref OP’s 12-14, 41-47.
Successful Practices
The comprehensive equipment integrity, condition monitoring and general maintenance management
programs in place at all visited sites.
Improvement Opportunities:

Reinforce current operations processes by establishing a periodic review process to ensure that natural gas
supply pipeline operators have appropriate emergency preparedness and response plans in place with the
necessary equipment and resources available to adequately respond to emergency situations. Ref OP 3147, ST 115-120.
Code expectations in this area are considered to be appropriately addressed with the above noted exceptions.
2.1.3 Safety and Security
Occupational Health and Safety:
Well defined occupational health and safety programs were found to be in place at all visited locations as well
as overall employee wellness receiving considerable emphasis. Incident reporting, investigation and follow up
processes are well defined and learnings from incidents are effectively communicated between all company
sites. While recordable injury rates for company employees have improved significantly over the past 10 years
and there were no employee recordable injuries across the whole company in 2010, similar improvements
have not been achieved for contractors on an ongoing basis. In Q1, 2010 during construction of the Egypt
project, two construction worker fatalities occurred. These workers were employed by a sub-contractor of the
Engineering, Procurement, Construction (EPC) Company contracted to deliver a “turn-key” plant to Methanex.
After experiencing a peak in recordable injury rates for company employed contractors in 2009, It was
recognized that the existing contractor management strategy was not as effective as it needed to be and a
contractor management improvement initiative was undertaken starting in 2010, which focused on the
development of a global standard and the review and revision of regional programs. Contractor recordable
injury rates subsequently improved significantly. However, in 2011, a contractor lost workday injury occurred
at the Punta Arenas site as well as a sub contractor employee fatality in Trinidad. These happenings are
discussed in more detail in sections 2.1.3, appendixes C & D of this report.
Page 12
A traditional high risk task in Waterfront Shipping’s operations and consistent across the shipping industry was
the physical entry by surveying company personnel to wall wipe tanker compartments before loading to certify
their cleanliness. Waterfront Shipping, concerned with the risks presented by these confined space entries,
developed improved compartment wall washing and remote sampling processes that enabled the cleanliness
to be validated without physical entry being required. This practice has been shared with others and is
becoming a widely accepted industry practice. Waterfront Shipping have also become proactively involved with
ship owners in developing and implementing better occupational health and safety programs for ship crews,
including methanol handling. Methanex have also established ship crew quarter quality expectations well
beyond shipping industry norms.
Works In Progress:

Methanex are encouraged to maintain their focus on improving contractor safety using learnings from the
2011 lost workday injury in Punta Arenas and the sub-contractor fatality in Trinidad to strengthen
programs currently in place.
Successful Practice:

Proactive and leading edge occupational health and safety initiatives. Noteworthy examples includeo Employee wellness- The recently completed corporate wide “pedometer challenge” to promote
exercising on an ongoing basis and the fitness center at the Trinidad site.
o The Waterfront Shipping’s tanker compartment wall washing and sampling process which negates the
need for confined space entries and their proactive involvement with ship owners in developing and
implementing better occupational health and safety programs for ship crews, including methanol
handling. Methanex have also established ship crew quarter quality expectations well beyond shipping
industry norms.
Process Safety Management:
This was identified by Methanex as an area of focus for this re-verification. While good practices were found in
several aspects such as management of change at all sites visited and in specific aspects at individual sites, the
team observed a lack of clarity regarding the company’s overall process safety management system. With
some topics being addressed in the corporate level documents, others in location documents only,
inconsistencies in approach and application were noted. It was also found that while there is a written
corporate requirement to perform QRA’s (formal risk analyses) at operating sites every five years, consistent
with the industry norm, the most recent QRA’s for the Punta Arenas and Trinidad sites were completed in 2004
and a QRA for the Medicine Hat was not completed before the facility restart (it is scheduled for 2012). It was
noted that all facilities are to complete a process safety gap analysis assessment with respect to the company’s
Global Process Safety Management Policy CM2GM018 in 2012 and that a review of the company’s Hazard
Reviews Standard MPS 901 is underway to ensure that it adequately addresses ongoing operations
requirements as well as project assessments. The team’s conclusions below should be considered during these
reviews.
Findings Requiring Action:

Methanex needs to develop a comprehensive process safety management program which clearly defines
minimum corporate expectations in all areas. A priority is to complete the site quantitative (QRA)
operational process risk assessments, including a reassessment of the worst case incident scenario, at each
of the Medicine Hat, Punta Arenas and Point Lisas locations. With the risk assessment process also being
applicable to transportation and distribution operations, worst case scenarios need also be current and
regularly communicated to those potentially impacted at loading terminals as well as plant sites. It is also
suggested that improvements can be made to the criteria and tools used to guide the choice of which
Page 13
process hazard assessment methodologies to use, commensurate with specific location circumstances, for
periodic quantitative/qualitative operational risk assessments.

Modify the existing Loss Prevention audit protocol and develop a Process Safety audit protocol using the
elements of the above noted expectations as audit criteria.

Benchmark corporate process safety area processes vs. those of other CIAC members through direct
contact and/or via the CIAC Process Safety Management Committee, particularly with regard to risk
assessment screening tools, planning processes and management systems to facilitate completion of QRA’s
at prescribed intervals.
Emergency Response and Security:
Emergency management processes were generally found to meet expectations at all sites visited except in
Medicine Hat following their successful plant restart as documented in Appendix A of this report. However, the
team concluded that the lack of defined corporate expectations to guide activities in specific business
geographies has resulted in inconsistencies in application.
Security systems at visited sites were also found to meet expectations, again with the exception of Medicine
Hat. Cyber security management is corporately driven and appeared to be effective.

In the corporate Emergency Response Policy, identify minimum expectations for site emergency response
plans and exercises to address potential response scenarios (e.g. fire, rescue, medical, hazmat security,
vapour cloud, man down) under various weather conditions (e.g. cold winter night, extreme heat) and
times of day/week for all shift groups. It is also suggested that expectations include joint exercises with
community responders for response scenarios where they could potentially be involved.
Critical Infrastructure/ Business Continuity:
While this subject was not reviewed in detail at all locations, it was found the considerations at the Trinidad
site were limited to responding to a pandemic scenario, and the Medicine Hat and Punta Arenas sites had not
considered or planned for possible interruptions in either natural gas supplies or plant operators.

Critical Infrastructure/ Business continuity processes at all locations have the potential to be improved
through the comparison of systems in place with items detailed in codes OP 49-55.
A number of improvement opportunities were identified in this code area as documented above.
2.1.4 Environmental Protection & 2.1.5 Resource Conservation
Methanex had not experienced any significant environmental incidents in the 4+ years prior to this Reverification and the CO2 emission intensity of their plants has been reduced by 33% between 1994 and 2010
through asset turnover, improved plant reliability and other initiatives. CO2 emission intensity from their
marine operations was also reduced by 17% over the same time period. All new investments are evaluated in
terms of carbon utilization and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy improvement opportunities are
sought on an ongoing basis. Environmental upgrades beyond regulatory requirements were also made as part
of the Medicine Hat re-construction. Improvements included a new vapor recovery system which reduced
methanol vapour losses during product transfers by more than 95% and the installation of impermeable liners
beneath all plant storage tanks as well as the rail car unloading area to contain potential spills. While the
impact of the new Egypt plant on the reduction results is not yet included in the reduction numbers above, it
was expected to be one of the most energy efficient methanol plants in the world. Methanex also built a 2.55
Page 14
megawatt industrial wind energy park close by its Punta Arenas plant which was placed in operation in 2010.
This facility produces approximately 7% of the site’s energy requirements. While these reductions are
noteworthy, formal corporate continual improvement environmental protection and resource conservation
goals and action plans were not evident.
Code expectations in this area are considered to be appropriately addressed with the exception noted below.

Globally, establish formal resource conservation and emission reduction programs and expectations with
respect to ensuring continual improvement in reducing the environmental foot-print of all operations (Ref
Operations Code sections 5 & 6) and complete the development of an emissions monitoring program for
use by facilities in preparing site specific reduction initiatives where practical, planned for 2012. This should
include leak detection and reporting processes for fugitive emissions from valve packings, equipment seals,
etc. at all operating sites. Ref OP’s 58- 60.
Successful Practices:
 The industrial wind park in Chile and environmental upgrades included in the Medicine Hat restart project.
2.1.6 Promotion of Responsible Care by Name
Methanex challenges people to ask about RC by having it on their company logo; “Methanex – A Responsible
Care Company” and take every opportunity to promote Responsible Care by name. RC awareness training is
provided to all new employees as well as contractors. Their Marketing & Logistics annual outreach plan
includes both methanol safe handling seminars and RC awareness sessions. In the Middle-East, although they
have no facilities there, a Methanex employee is one of the founding members of the Gulf Petrochemicals and
Chemicals Association RC Committee. They provide RC seminars as part of their annual outreach program to
upstream and downstream business partners. RC is well integrated into their organization and how they do
business so it is frequently referred to in the course of their interactions with suppliers.
The naming and use of Responsible Care as the umbrella under which all related programs and initiatives are
developed and implemented.
2.2 Team Observations Concerning Stewardship Code
2.2.1 Expectations of Companies and 2.2.2 Expectations with Respect to Other Parties
Research and Development:
Being a producer and marketer of one product, methanol, a basic building block petrochemical, Methanex’s
Research & Development work is limited to that involved in promoting or pursuing new product applications.
Methanex is a member of the Methanol Institute (www.methanol.org), an industry trade association having as
part of its mandate ensuring that the best available science is made available to regulatory bodies etc.
regarding the risks of methanol. Methanol has traditionally been used in the production of hundreds of
industrial and consumer items, being sold to chemical manufacturers who then turn it into other industrial
chemicals such as formaldehyde and acetic acid. In recent years, methanol has emerged as a viable alternative
energy and fuel source with approximately one-third of global methanol production now going into energyrelated applications.
Methanol is usually made (100% for Methanex) using natural gas and steam as inputs to the production
process. The final product is a clear, colorless, water soluble and readily biodegradable toxic liquid that has
significant potential for misuse by criminal elements. Due to its toxic properties, methanol has occasionally
Page 15
resulted in serious illnesses and deaths through its consumption, primarily from misuse by being included as an
ingredient in alcoholic beverages. Based on these risks, Methanex has developed comprehensive product risk
and handling information. Material data sheets and product handling information have been translated into
many languages and is communicated to product transporters, terminal locations, distributors and customers
and, through the last two, to end users. Safe methanol handling seminars are conducted for distributors and
customers as well as customers of both of these by Methanex regional marketing and logistics personnel at
regular intervals in all areas. With methanol being increasingly used as a clean energy fuel, both directly and
through blending with gasoline and biodiesel to reduce emissions, Methanex has also been proactive in
educating customers in these areas regarding methanol safety and Responsible Care. Methanex has taken a
proactive approach and is committed to working with organizations which have a lower RC culture than
Methanex, to help foster the principles of Responsible Care. On occasion Methanex refuses to conduct
business with companies that do not meet their values and RC expectations.
Methanex’s corporate Marketing & Logistics Responsible Care standard defines the objectives, guiding
principles, elements and responsibilities regarding the promotion of Responsible Care, communications
through the value chain and expectations with respect to other parties in the Stewardship code. A gap analysis
vs. new code requirements was being finalized at the time of the Re-verification visits and will serve as the
basis for updating standards currently in place.
Code expectations in this area are generally being met with the exceptions below.

Establish and document a formalized process for the selection and on-going Responsible Care performance
reviews of those organizations with which the company engages in product swaps to facilitate customer
supply; (Note: Some of this is being done on an ad hoc basis.) Ref ST’s 115-124

Methanex’s comprehensive product risk communications program. Noteworthy aspects includeo The proactive training program on methanol handling and Responsible Care to logistic providers,
carriers, local communities, industry associations, governments, distributors, customers and to the
customers of both distributors and customers.
o Regular site visits to customer locations, some of whom are located at difficult to reach locations in
various regions of the world.

The team identified improvement opportunities regarding their management system for other parties byo Establishing a follow up process to help ensure that other parties distribute safe methanol handling
information to all their value chain members. Ref ST 110, AC 144.
o Reviewing Methanex’s commitment to Responsible Care with pipeline operators supplying natural gas
to each site, advising them of the company’s expectations in that regard, adding Responsible Care
clauses to contracts related to the supply of natural gas or other feed stocks and establishing a process
to periodically monitor their Responsible Care related performance. ST’s 115, 118- 120.
o Requiring customers to provide an explanation when they answer “no” to a customer audit question.
Ref ST’s 118-120.
o Being proactive in ensuring that proper labeling of methanol occurs in all locations/countries where
they do business laws by advocating that the Global Harmonizing System be used. Ref ST 106.
Page 16
2.3 Team Observations Concerning Accountability Code
2.3.1 Operating Site Communities and 2.3.2 Other Stakeholders
Methanex engaged in ongoing dialogue processes with their community and regulators as required by Alberta
legislation in order to obtain their “licence to operate” prior to the re-commissioning and re-start of their
mothballed Medicine Hat facility. This process included open houses where company representatives met with
government officials, neighbours and other interested parties to provide information and answer questions
about the project. At the time of our visit, the site was in the process of establishing a Community Advisory
Panel (CAP) with the local community representative on the Re-verification team having volunteered to be a
CAP member.
Corporately, Methanex has an extensive public engagement process. The company’s Board of Director’s Public
Policy Sub Committee establishes overall direction for Methanex’s practices in this area. The Senior VP of
Corporate Resources (also the CIAC Executive Contact) has overall responsibility for policies and programs
which are directed and managed by the Director of Government & Public Affairs who leads the Global Public
Policy team. The company has a thorough process for identifying and engaging stakeholders at all levels which
was being reviewed and updated during the period the Re-verification visits took place. Methanex also issues
an excellent annual Responsible Care and Social Responsibility report, accessible through the company website
www.methanex.com.
The company’s primary dialogue process at operating sites is through their Community Advisory Panels (CAP’s).
These groups consist of representatives from local site communities.
Considerable controversy existed in Punta Arenas when, in January, 2011, natural gas supplies to the area
became limited and the federal government announced an increase to domestic natural gas which initiated a
protest by the public due to the potential of the increase in the natural gas price. The price of natural gas was
consequently never increased, as the government adjusted its strategy. Methanex, being a large consumer of
natural gas, was widely viewed as being a major cause of the problem. This experience led the site to conclude
that their community engagement process, including stakeholder representation on their CAP, needed to be
re-examined as several community stakeholders who, with a better understanding of Methanex and
Responsible Care, potentially would have not become so adversarial during this time. As part of a robust
contingency plan developed to effectively manage the impact of the community protests on their employees
and operations, Methanex developed and delivered timely and effective external and internal communications
materials, focusing on the longstanding and positive impact of Methanex’s presence in Chile on the region and
the country.
Code expectations in this area are considered to be appropriately addressed.
Works in Progress:

Expedite current corporate plans to update their identification of broad based stakeholder groups (i.e.,
those beyond local communities etc.) with a view to engagement of same in outreach dialogue. This
process should include a review of the new Accountability Code with the management system being
updated to support continual improvement and ensure that all related commitments are addressed on an
ongoing basis.
 Methanex’s overall stakeholder engagement and social responsibility processes with direction starting at
the Board of Directors.
Page 17

Globally, review the community engagement process at all plant locations based on the outcome of the
Punta Arenas experience. Include the expectations in CIAC’s new Accountability Code and the related
Appendix A on Corporate Social Responsibility in the review/upgrading process. It is suggested that nongovernment organizations be included in this initiative.
Page 18
3. TEAM OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPANY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
It is a requirement of Responsible Care that companies have a documented, self-healing management system
or systems capable of identifying and responding to deficiencies and otherwise supporting continual
improvement across all company business units, functions, and sites and as a framework for implementing the
Responsible Care Commitments.
The verification team studied Methanex’s management system and compared and contrasted the attributes of
that system to those of a self-healing overall management system as discussed in the CIAC Management
System Guide. The verification team’s related observations to the company management system(s) are as
follows:
3.1
Observations on the PLAN Step
During the PLAN Step of the management system, the company decides what the goals of the company are and
how they will be met. In determining those goals, it is expected the company will look inward, across its
operations, but will also look outward, considering the expectations of: stakeholders; regulatory requirements;
relevant CIAC Responsible Care Commitments and supporting tools; and other industry benchmarks. In
considering the PLAN Step of Methanex’s management system, the verification team observed the following:
Based on the input from the Global Responsible Care Team and other corporate teams regarding the current
status of programs in place as well as new and changing expectations in Responsible Care, regulatory
requirements etc., detailed annual Responsible Care tactical plans and actions are developed which are in
alignment with the company’s business strategy. Actions are then assigned to individuals who are responsible
for their successful completion. Ongoing performance versus best industry practices is measured and tracked
on an ongoing basis using CIAC and other metrics. Internal benchmarking is also performed through results
comparisons between sites and specific site historical performance trends.
While the plan step is being well executed in most areas, the team found several instances of inconsistent
application between sites as a result of expectations being unclear as well as others where aspects of relevant
Responsible Care Commitments had been overlooked. These are detailed in section 2 of this report.
Work In Progress:
 Expedite completion and implementation of the Global Responsible Care Management System Draft
document that clearly defines the plan-do-check-act continual performance improvement process for the
company together with a series of codes providing guidance for its implementation, planned for 2012.
It is suggested that by strengthening the linkages between the Global Manufacturing Team, the Risk
Management Team and the Global Responsible Care Team, the upgrading of the Methanex Responsible
Care management system and their implementation in various areas detailed in this report could be
facilitated.

3.2
Observations on the DO Step
During the Do Step in the management system, the company converts the decisions of the PLAN Step into
action and ensures awareness and understanding by all involved. It is expected that the company will
implement an organizational structure, assign responsibilities to appropriate personnel, supply sufficient
training and resources to execute planned actions and develop and document standards, procedures and
programs, as applicable.
Page 19
In considering the DO Step of Methanex’s management system, the verification team observed the following:
Methanex’s corporate management structure is strongly aligned with Responsible Care with- The company’s Board of Directors and Senior Management Team establishing the direction for Methanex’s
Responsible Care, Social Responsibility and Sustainability practices.
- The Board’s Responsible Care Committee overseeing Responsible Care performance and issues at the policy
level.
- The Senior Management Team, chaired by the President and CEO, having Responsible Care formally
represented by the Senior Vice President, Corporate Resources who is the signing executive to CIAC for
Responsible Care.
- The Senior Vice President of Corporate Resources having overall responsibility for Methanex’s Responsible
Care policies and programs, ensuring that they align with the Board’s requirements and the company’s
business strategy.
- A Corporate Responsible Care organization reporting to the Senior Vice President of Corporate Resources
- A Global Manufacturing Team (GMT) to drive Responsible Care throughout its organization and bring
together senior manufacturing leaders from all facilities. Each manufacturing location has a senior
Responsible Care position, with a seat on the site management team with senior leadership from Human
Resources, and Public Affairs participating periodically.
- A Global Marketing & Logistics Responsible Care Team developing and managing the annual Responsible
Care plan for Marketing & Logistics.
- A Global Responsible Care Team including senior representatives from the corporate Responsible Care
group, Manufacturing locations, Marketing & Logistics and Government and Public Affairs act as a collective
resource to the company on Responsible Care principles, practices and strategy.
Works in Progress:

Complete the documented cross reference and gap analysis between the CIAC Responsible Care Codes of
Practice and the company’s Responsible Care management systems for all regions and all business units.
Based on the cross reference and gap analysis, for the new and existing codes the company should develop
a documented plan to:
o Establish new and update existing global expectations to ensure that they define minimum
expectations in all business areas for the various CIAC Responsible Care code elements.
o Update site level policies, procedures and standards to meet global expectations defined from the
above while also continuing to meet local requirements and needs.
The thorough and targeted corporate leadership skills training program.

3.3
Observations on the CHECK Step
During the CHECK Step in the management system, actions carried out in the DO Step are assessed to
determine if they are actually being carried out according to plan, and whether they are achieving the desired
outcomes and delivering continual improvement. Here, the overall management system and components will
be reviewed along with employee competences for assigned responsibilities, internal and external audits will
be undertaken, incidents will be assessed to identify root causes, and performance measurement will be
conducted and reviewed.
In considering the Check Step of Methanex’s management system, the verification team observed that:
-
Improved clarity regarding corporate expectations for CIAC Responsible Care codes as detailed in the “Do”
section of the management system above will facilitate ongoing implementation of the corporate audit
program. It was noted that the Operations Readiness Audit protocol and Facility Prestart Related Activities
Page 20
Checklists utilized for the Medicine Hat plant restart are very comprehensive in scope for operating
activities as evidenced by the facility being restarted safely. However, these processes did not effectively
address other areas of Responsible Care as evidenced by team comments in section 2 of this report. It was
also noted that the Level 1 and Level 2 audits cover Product Stewardship and Transportation and
Distribution elements - further analysis is required to confirm that all of the CIAC Accountability Code
requirements are met.
The Corporate Audit Standard states that each of the elements in the location level 2 audit (12) needs to be
conducted over 3 years. In Punta Arenas, to date in 2011, no level 2 audits had been completed, one (office
Health & Safety) had just begun and there was no evidence provided regarding level 2 audits being conducted
at the required frequencies. Approved, documented variances were not in place for this non conformance with
corporate expectations nor for QRA’s not being performed at specified intervals as detailed under the Process
Safety heading in section 2.1.3 of this report.
•
Upgrade the check element of the corporate management system as follows:
o Establish a formal policy for variance to corporate expectations.
o Check the scope of the level 1 and 2 corporate audit protocols to ensure that they address all codes
and applicable organizational groups and that there is a system in place to check that audit results are
acted upon.
o Update the Operations Readiness Audit protocol and Facility Prestart Related Activities Checklists to
address team comments in section 2 of this report and the Medicine Hat specifics in attachment A as
well as other applicable CIAC Responsible Care code elements. Include them as formal documents in
the appropriate Process Safety section of the corporate manual.
Work In Progress:
•
Finalize and implement the Global Audit Strategy Whitepaper while ensuring that it addresses gaps in the
current process identified in this report and site specific items in report Attachments A through D.
3.4
Observations on the ACT Step
During the ACT Step in the management system, the company translates the results of the CHECK Step into
corrective actions for improvement. This includes revisiting the PLAN Step to decide whether changes are need
to the company’s stated goals or action plans, policies and procedures for achieving those goals.
Considerations when examining the ACT Step include whether and how: audit and review findings are
responded to; performance is communicated internally and externally; employee and contractor performance
is rewarded or corrected, etc.
In considering the Act Step of Methanex’s management system, the verification team concluded that the “ACT”
step was being effectively implemented with the exception of the certain issues such as site quantitative
operational process risk assessments (QRA’s) documented in section 2.1.3 of this report.
Page 21
4. TEAM OBSERVATIONS ON THE RESPONSIBLE CARE ETHIC AND PRINCIPLES FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
Each CIAC member company is formally committed to the ethic of “Doing the right thing, and being seen to do
the right thing.” This ethic, along with the principles for sustainability is expected to guide the company’s
decision making and practices. In conducting the verification, the team is looking to understand how well the
ethic is understood and adopted within the company, and the degree to which the principles inform the
manner in which the company does its business.
The verification team carefully observed Methanex’s decision making processes and actions and compared and
contrasted the attributes of those with the attributes of a company guided by the Responsible Care Ethic and
Principles for Sustainability as discussed in the Responsible Care Commitments (Appendix E). The verification
team’s related observations on the company’s application of the Responsible Care Ethic and Principles for
Sustainability are as follows:
Responsible Care Ethic:
Responsible Care is the global umbrella under which Methanex intends that all of its related programs and
initiatives are developed and implemented. It is promoted extensively throughout the value chain and with the
public at large through various corporate publications and presentations and is deeply ingrained in the
Methanex corporate culture from the Board of Directors to grass roots employees who have an industry
leading understanding of what Responsible Care is about.
Principles for Sustainability:
Work for the improvement of people’s lives and the environment, while striving to do no harm:
Examples of various initiatives in this regard are documented in this report such as the excellent corporate
employee wellness and talent development programs, the provision of higher quality crew quarters in the fleet
of vessels moving their product around the world etc. Other noteworthy results include a 17% reduction in CO2
emissions per tonne of product moved by their shipping fleet between 2002 and 2010, the company’s
emphasis on having local people operate their facilities which are located in various world geographies and
their decision to maintain staffing levels at the Punta Arenas site well above current requirements with only
one of four site plants being in operation.
Be accountable and responsive to the public especially our local communities, who have the right to know the
risks and benefits of what we do:
Methanex’s prime linkage with neighbors bordering their plant sites is through their Community Advisory
Panels (CAP’s). It was also found that in Trinidad and New Zealand in particular, site leadership have good
ongoing dialogue processes with local authorities etc. However, as noted elsewhere in this report,
improvement opportunities were recently identified in the community engagement process at their Punta
Arenas site which can also be used to reinforce programs in place at other locations. Also detailed elsewhere in
this report was the need to update risk information for various sites which needs to be shared with their
communities.
A positive example of their community engagement process was in Trinidad where the company supported
their CAP in having the river flooding issue addressed by local authorities. Methanex has also been very
supportive of local communities in other aspects such as providing funding and technical support to a high
school in Punta Arenas for the building of a new laboratory which opened in September 2010.
Page 22
Take preventive action to protect health and the environment:
Methanex have demonstrated a strong commitment to reduce their environmental footprint globally as
documented in section 2.1.4 of this report, but would benefit from establishing reduction targets.
Innovate for safer products and processes that conserve resources and provide enhanced value:
Methanex continues to search out new markets and grow the existing ones and so the population potentially
coming in contact with methanol continually grows. Two areas where Methanex are spending particular effort
are in Bio-diesel and Energy applications. Both of these are significant growth markets for methanol with
education and training programs for these being included in the annual planning process. As an example of
this outreach, dimethyl ether (DME) is one of the new energy applications for methanol. Methanex has joined
the International DME Association in order to instill RC principles, methanol safe handling and DME
stewardship in this new industry. While the handling risks for methanol must be thoroughly communicated for
these new product end uses, the use of methanol in these applications has significant environmental benefit as
methanol not only has a lesser impact on the environment than gasoline since it is biodegradable and water
soluble but also emits considerably fewer toxic emissions. Engines designed to run on methanol can lower
greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30% compared to gasoline engines and the emissions are also less reactive,
reducing the release of oxides of nitrogen and other atmospheric pollutants that cause the formation of urban
ozone which contribute to smog. Additional details in this topic area are included in section 2.2.1 of this report.
Understand and meet expectations for social responsibility:
Methanex is strongly committed as a company to social responsibility. Their annual Responsible Care and
Social Responsibility reports detail some of their SR program highlights from the past three years. The SR
program is managed by their Global Public Policy Team and its performance is reported to the Board of
Directors Public Policy sub-committee.
In all locations where they have a significant presence, active social responsibility programs have been
established that are designed to meet the needs of the people in the particular location. An individual at each
location has been identified with responsibility for the establishment and growth of the program and high rates
of employee involvement in the programs including fund raising and volunteerism are being realized. With
scholarships being a focus area, employees work directly with local schools in helping them provide the basics
needed to run a healthy learning environment. Other examples include the sponsoring of a two year
scholarship for a foreign student to the Lester B. Pearson United World College and the Chilean earthquake
relief fund through a large donation plus tripling all funds raised by employees, partnering with Akzo Nobel to
paint the interior of the Les Coccinelles school in Brussels, sponsoring of the annual Eco-Heroes Walkathon
where employees and primary school students raise funds that are directed to enhancing children’s education
while making sustainable improvements to the environment in Trinidad. They also have employee run Social
Investment committees at all of locations who are mandated to disperse company funds in supporting
community initiatives related to community health, safety or environmental initiatives, regional educational
development and supporting employee fund raising through matching grants.
Work with all stakeholders for public policy and standards that enhance sustainability, act to advance legal
requirement and meet or exceed their letter and spirit:
Methanex are strongly committed as a company to sustainability. They have a Public Policy Committee of their
corporate Board of Directors to which their Global Public Policy Team (GPPT) reports through the Senior VP of
Corporate Resources. GPPT members are drawn from senior regional Public Affairs leadership as well as from
Government & Public Affairs, Responsible Care, Investor Relations and Marketing & Logistics. The GPPT directs
the evolution of Methanex’s global Social Responsibility and Public Affairs programs. It was concluded that
Methanex strives to do what is right and be seen doing it, consider legal requirements to be the minimum
standard and continuously strive to exceed the letter and spirit of the law.
Page 23
Promote awareness of Responsible Care, and inspire others to commit to these principles:
Responsible Care is the global umbrella under which all Methanex related programs and initiatives are
developed and implemented and promoted extensively throughout the value chain and with the public at large
through various corporate publication and presentations.
Engage with our business partners to ensure the stewardship and security of our products, services and raw
materials throughout their life cycles:
Methanex is a single product company, producing Methanol only. Their goal is to, through using multiple
approaches, decrease the risk to logistics providers, employees and end users. Methanol safe handling
materials including videos and training materials exist for a wide range of stakeholders. In order to extend this
outreach throughout the industry, Methanex has engaged the Methanol Institute in further evolving these
materials and making them available to the global methanol industry. The company also has an internal
document called the Standard for RC Governance of Joint Ventures that directs them in the application of RC in
various partnership arrangements. A current example of this being applied is in their joint venture
arrangement with an upstream gas company in southern Chile where, through application of RC principles,
they have improved the environmental performance of their drilling operations significantly over the past two
years.
The Re-verification team concluded that Methanex core values support the eight focus areas of the C.I.A.C.
Responsible Care® Ethic and Principles for Sustainability.
Page 24
5.
VERIFICATION TEAM CONCLUSION
As a result of the examination conducted, and in consideration of the observations communicated within this
report, the verification team is of the opinion that the Responsible Care Ethic and Principles for Sustainability
are guiding company decisions and actions, and that a self-healing management system is in place to drive
continual improvement. The team believes that the company is capable of responding to the range of Findings
Requiring Action identified during the verification, as summarized in the Executive Summary and discussed in
detail in the report. The verification is complete and no further involvement is required by the verification
team.
Page 25
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPANY RESPONSE TO VERIFICATION TEAM REPORT
On behalf of Methanex Corporation I endorse this verification report.
I would like to thank the CIAC Responsible Care Verification team for the review of our management systems
and implementation of the Responsible Care Codes. This report reflects an accurate and objective assessment
of our management systems, and our continued commitment to the Responsible Care ethic and codes of
practice.
We believe that the recent changes to the CIAC codes and verification methodology have put additional
emphasis on identifying value adding opportunities, and will assist us in the continual improvement of our
management systems.
We are pleased to see that the team was able to identify seven “successful practices” within our global
organization, and we look forward to sharing them with other CIAC members to help them meet and further
their Responsible Care commitments.
Methanex values the independent perspectives provided by each member of the CIAC verification team, and
the experience provided to identify value adding opportunities for improvement. We will give consideration to
the Improvement Opportunities identified by the verification team. Plans will be developed and implemented
to respond to the Findings Requiring Action identified by the verification team. Our progress in implementing
those plans will be discussed in the near future and provided at the next verification meeting.
John Gordon
Senior Vice President, Corporate Resources
Methanex Corporation
April 12, 2012
ATTACHMENT 2
INTERVIEW LISTS
A:
Company Personnel
Name
John Gordon
Location
Vancouver
Bruce Aitken
Position
Senior V.P. Corporate Resources, CIAC
Executive Contact
President & CEO
John Floren
Michael Macdonald
Jone Hognestad
Edgard Jimenez
Paul Hexter
Deanna Li
Senior V.P. Global Marketing & Logistics
Senior V.P. Global Manufacturing
President, Waterfront Shipping
Operations Manager, Waterfront Shipping
Commercial Manager, Waterfront Shipping
Responsible Care & ISO Manager, Asia Pacific
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Hong Kong (interviewed in
Vancouver)
Darcy Carriveau
Responsible Care Coordinator-Vancouver
Headquarters
Vancouver
Kevin Henderson
VP Global Manufacturing
Tim Williams
Roland Laurin
Kyle Aiken
Marc DuPont
Terry Rowat
Wendy Bach
Laura Medina
Suzanne Clemente
Jason Galbavy
Roland Bachmann
Brian Ropitini
George Lamb
Gerry Parker
Cliff Janzer
Fred Schmidt
Dennis Addison
Jayne Francis
Christine Cameron
Gary Rielly
VP Upstream & Feedstock Acquisition
Director, Risk Management
Manager, Loss Prevention
Director, Government Affairs
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Director, Human Resources
Manager, Enterprise IT Operations
Terminal Manager
Terminal E H & S Coordinator
Terminal Supervisor
Plant Manager
Technical Manager
Operations Manager
Project Coordinator & Maintenance Manager
Responsible Care Manager
VP Manufacturing New Zealand
Director, New Zealand Corporate Resources
Manager, Responsible Care
Responsible Care, Quality & Environment
Team Leader
Manager, Public Affairs
Purchasing Manager
Safety Advisor
Manager, Technical
Principal Engineer, Process
Senior Process Engineer
Senior Operations Co-ordinator
Medicine Hat AB (via
teleconference)
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Vancouver
Kitimat, BC (via teleconference)
Kitimat, BC (via teleconference)
Kitimat , BC(via teleconference)
Medicine Hat, AB
Medicine Hat, AB
Medicine Hat, AB
Medicine Hat, AB
Medicine Hat, AB
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
Zaneta Ewashko
Ian Jamieson
Murray Fisher
Paul Klenner
Nick Stonier
Greg Player
Terry Richardson
Vancouver
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
Page 27
Greg Dollimore
Helen Belcher
Malcolm Kelsen
Christine Scott
Christopher Shimmin
Colin Scott
Dorval Renaud
Roger Neumann
Pamela Miranda
Rodrigo Mora
Reinaldo Arismendi
Jorge Bustos
Wolfgang Bevensee
Amparo Cornejo
Victor Escobar
Boris Vukasovic
Sergio Pena
Oscar Bastidas
Ximena Retamal
Pedro Martin
Ulises Fernandez
Héctor Espina
Sergio Vergara
Néstor Fuentes
Roberto MacDonald
Carlos Severino
Thomas Boyd
Daniel Cabrera
Paul Schiodtz
Fernando Reinecke
Gustavo Parra
Loretta Urrutia
Debbie Maxwell
Charles Percy
Lester Boodhoo
Renata Tam
David Martin
Parmanan Adriann
Maharaj
Deborah Samaru
Neela Ramnanan
Ryan Bertrand
Michael Wei
Rafi Mohammed
Manager, Maintenance
Laboratory Chemist
Asset Integrity Supervisor
Occupational Health Advisor
Health & Safety Technician
Information Technology Team Leader
Quality Assurance Advisor
VP Manufacturing , Latin America
Responsible Care Manager
Loss Prevention Engineer
Loss Prevention Engineer
Coal Gasification Project Rep.
Manager, Special Projects
Manager, Public Affairs & Government
Relations
Security & Emergency Services Coordinator
Manager, Production
Superintendent, Planning & Contractor
Management
Bufete Industrial Mgr, Contractor
Chief, Environmental Affairs
Service & Contractor Supervisor
Laboratory Supervisor
Responsible Care Supervisor
Civil Work Supervisor
Chief Process Engineer
Safety Equipment & Workshop Supervisor
Logistics & Shipping Supervisor
Procurement Supervisor
Supervisor, Human Resources
Senior VP, Latin America
Logistics Manager
Vice President Manufacturing, Excellence &
Projects
Finance Administrative Assistant
Commercial Administrative Assistant
Managing Director & CEO
Manager, Responsible Care
Senior Advisor Environment, Responsible Care
& Quality
Materials Manager
Project Team Leader
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
New Plymouth, NZ
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas & Santiago, Chile
Public Affairs Manager
Operations Manager
Senior Quality Assurance Technician
Maintenance Manager
Senior Advisor, Emergency Response, Loss
Point Lisas, Trinidad
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Punta Arenas, Chile
Santiago, Chile
Santiago, Chile
Santiago, Chile
Santiago, Chile
Santiago, Chile
Page 28
Ulric Noel
Camille Roopnarine
B:
Prevention & Incident Management
Responsible Care Advisor, Environment &
Security
Environmental Coordinator
External Stakeholders
Name
Brian Webster
Company / Organization
Medicine Hat Fire Dept.
Position
Chief Training Officer
Location
Medicine Hat, Alberta
Barry Honeyfield
Local resident, farmer
MX NZ CAP Chair
Motunui, New Zealand
Wayne Parker
Petrochemical worker
MX NZ CAP member
Allison Pettit
Travel Centre Tour Guide
MX NZ CAP member
Shorty Clement
MX NZ CAP member
Belle Tupe
Waitara Valley plant
neighbour
Motunui plant neighbour
Waitara Valley, New
Zealand
New Plymouth, New
Zealand
Waitara Valley, New
Zealand
Lane Glentworth
Dynea
Charles Walters Hutchieson
Elma Honeyfield
Waitara High School
Student
Industry rep on MX NZ
CAP
MX NZ CAP member
Kathleen Weston
Anna Moratti
MX NZ CAP member
MX NZ CAP member
New Plymouth, New
Zealand
Waitara Valley, New
Zealand
MX NZ CAP member
MX NZ CAP member
Waitara Valley, New
Zealand
Waitara Valley, New
Zealand
Ashim Hosein
Waitara High School
Student
Former High School
Teacher & First Response
Unit Volunteer
Local resident
Shelia Dottin
Local resident
Nicholas McMillian
Local resident
Delon Ramsundar
Local resident
Peter Wilson
MX NZ CAP member
Waitara Valley plant
neighbour
MX Trinidad CAP
member
MX Trinidad CAP
member
MX Trinidad CAP
member
MX Trinidad CAP
member
Page 29
APPENDIX A- MEDICINE HAT SITE SPECIFIC ITEMS
INTRODUCTION:
This appendix documents Medicine Site specific items not included in the global Responsible Care Reverification report. As a result, both the main report and this appendix must be reviewed to identify all items
applicable to Medicine Hat.
GENERAL:
The team was impressed that the site was successful in safely commissioning and re-starting the facility,
especially with the area weather conditions having been so adverse during the construction and commissioning
phases. It was found that a pre job safety analysis process along with well defined incident reporting and
investigation processes were in place and that one-third of company employees had been trained as incident
investigation leaders. A comprehensive maintenance management/ equipment reliability program was in also
in place, with a sophisticated list of indicators to monitor ongoing performance. The site Social Responsibility
Committee also appeared to be off to a good start. A good Responsible Care culture was also evident.
However, various aspects of Responsible Care, such as transportation safety, had not been, but should have
been, addressed prior to start-up and requires attention as identified in this report.
2.1
The Team’s comments for this code area are documented in the global section of the report.



Carry out a complete analysis of all laboratory operations to identify potential health, safety and
environmental hazards to ensure that appropriate procedural or other controls are in place to address
those hazards. Ref. OP’s 1, 4, 5
Develop and implement a comprehensive transportation safety and emergency response management
plan. Ref. Section 2.1.2 of the global report.
Establish and document a comprehensive contractor management program which includes for all
Responsible Care aspects of same, to include as a minimum, selection, training, supervision, on-going
performance monitoring, and the maintenance of an approved contractor list. Ref OP 25

For other parties working at and on behalf of the Medicine Hat site o As a means of monitoring the Responsible Care performance of the company’s rail carrier , review the
most recent, and any future, Canadian Pacific Railway Responsible Care Verification Reports (available
on CIAC Memberlink), and follow-up with the railway on the status of the findings in the report. Ref ST
115-120.
o Review the site’s truck checklist to ensure that it covers all relevant issues e.g. tire conditions.

Determine the cause of, and take appropriate remedial actions regarding the security system breakdown
that enabled the Re-verification team to enter the Medicine Hat site uncontested and expedite the
completion of a formal site Security Vulnerability Assessment.
Establish a program of integrated emergency exercises with the local emergency services organizations
which test the planning and response to incidents on site as well as along its transportation routes. Ref OP
34-40.

2.1.4 Environmental Protection and 2.1.5 Resource Conservation
Works In Progress:
Expedite the establishment of emissions and effluent baselines for the site, with a view to developing
future reduction objectives and related programs. Ref Op 60-62.
Expedite the establishment of natural resources use baseline for the site, with a view to developing future
reduction objectives and related programs. Ref Op 76-80.


In the site’s new chemical purchasing procedure, include for an assessment as to how these materials
might impact the energy efficiency and raw material use with respect to ongoing operations and products.
Ref OP 76-80.

2.2
Team Observations Concerning Stewardship Code
2.3
Team Observations Concerning Accountability Code
2.3.1 Operating Site Communities
Establish and document a management system for a site community advisory process in accordance with
CIAC Accountability Code requirements

2.3.2 Other Stakeholders
Participate in the regional TransCAER committee and its outreach processes. Ref. AC 145.

3. TEAM OBSERVATIONS ON THE SITE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
3.1
Establish and document a site specific Responsible Care management system based upon global
requirements as well as any other local requirements that will effectively move the site from its current
post project mode into a fully functioning, high performing operating facility. (Note: A number of
appropriate management system elements are already in place or planned, but are yet consolidated into a
formalized plan-do-check-act continual performance improvement cycle.)

The Plant Manager should participate in the CIAC Regional Leadership Group to make connections with
colleagues and share Responsible Care learnings and best practices.

3.2
Works In Progress:
Page 31
Expedite the current work being done to capture the successful practices and learnings from the recent
plant restart.

Establish a critical skills personnel succession plan for positions currently filled by start-up project
personnel where turnover is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Consider proactive hiring to ensure
effective handover.

3.3
Develop and implement a formal Responsible Care audit program that meets corporate expectations.

3.4
TEAM OBSERVATIONS ON THE RESPONSIBLE CARE ETHIC AND PRINCIPLES FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
The Team’s comments for these subjects are documented in the global section of the report.
We acknowledge receipt of the Medicine Hat Site Specific Items for attention and accept the observations
and findings - Brian Ropitini (Plant Manager, ) dated April 5, 2012.
Page 32
APPENDIX B- NEW ZEALAND SPECIFIC ITEMS
INTRODUCTION:
This appendix documents New Zealand Site specific items not included in the global Responsible Care Reverification report. As a result, both the main report and this appendix must be reviewed to identify all items
applicable to the New Zealand site.
GENERAL:
The team was impressed that the site had a well documented and implemented overall Responsible Care
management system with an ISO approach being followed to ensure that documents were current, follow up
items from audits and inspections managed through closure etc. Maintenance management processes were
impressive as documented above and leading performance indicators were in place with ongoing
improvements in their measurement metrics being pursued. The location was also found to have responded
well to the challenges resulting from the natural gas feedstock supply shortages and long term availability
uncertainties that have existed for several years, resulting in facility shut downs/ restarts etc. A strong
Responsible Care culture continues to be evident at this location.
2.1
Site procedures are audited on a scheduled basis and revised when required. Comprehensive maintenance
management and equipment integrity programs are in place with specific elements including a pressure
equipment management system, a risk based inspection system, a storage tank management system and a
rotating equipment integrity program.

As an enhancement to the current process, establish a computerized system to track and ensure timely
follow-up to actions arising from process hazard assessments. This would include, as a minimum, the
identification of actions with target dates for their completion, assignment of individuals to address those
actions, an automatic means to alert assigned individuals that completion target dates are approaching
and/or overdue, and a reporting mechanism to monitor action completion status.



Establish a periodic review process to ensure that domestic customers and their carriers have appropriate
emergency preparedness and response plans in place with the necessary equipment and resources
available to adequately respond to emergency situations. Ref OP 41-47
Establish a program of integrated emergency exercises with the local emergency services organizations
which test the planning and response to incidents which might have an impact on the community around
the site and along its local transportation routes, paying particular attention to volunteer Fire Departments
where the potential exists for higher responder turnover rates. Ref OP 33-47.
Engage the organization which manages the pipeline transporting methanol to Methanex’s loading
terminal, in an ongoing dialogue process to help ensure the effectiveness of their pipeline emergency
response plans.

Examine the emergency response equipment and associated storage areas to ensure that the equipment is
fit for purpose.
Page 33
2.1.4
Environmental Protection and 2.1.5 Resource Conservation
The team examined and was satisfied that commitments are being met and expected management systems in
place with the following exception.
Assess raw materials for opportunities to reduce risk, and maximize energy efficiency and/or use (e.g.
replace chlorine with hypochlorite). Review all chemicals on site to ensure continual improvement and
conformance with New Zealand regulations. Ref ST 94.

2.2
2.2.1 Expectations of Companies
2.2.2 Expectations with Respect to Other Parties
2.3
 For improved community awareness, consider taking Responsible Care and methanol handling information
into local schools. Ref ST 199, AC 146.
 Work cooperatively with the company’s local Community Advisory Panel in addressing their ongoing
concern regarding the numbers of traffic accidents that occur at the highway entrance to the Methanex
site.
Successful Site Practice:


The visitor centre in place to provide company information to the general public and provide a conduit to
company.
A very engaged CAP who consider Methanex as a good neighbor and the fact that they look out for each
other as part of their relationship. This was recently evidenced by a local neighbor calling the Police and
responding to suspicious activity outside the Methanex gate.
The Director of Manufacturing and Manager of Public Affairs meet with the local Mayor and council
representatives annually with topics discussed including the local economy and business outlook, Methanex
business plans and concerns etc.
 Work with and through Responsible Care New Zealand to identify and engage other stakeholders in
Responsible Care. Ref AC 138-140, 147-152.
The Team was impressed with the professionally printed booklet which describes the Responsible Care
management system for use as a communication and educational tool.
Page 34
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
SUSTAINABILITY
Page 35
APPENDIX C- PUNTA ARENAS SITE SPECIFIC ITEMS
INTRODUCTION:
This appendix documents Punta Arenas Site specific items not included in the global Responsible Care Reverification report. As a result, both the main report and this appendix must be reviewed to identify all items
applicable to the Punta Arenas site.
GENERAL:
This site, like New Zealand, has faced considerable uncertainties resulting from the lack of natural gas
feedstock for the past few years. With but one of four site methanol plants currently operating, Methanex has
been proactively attempting to create new sources of natural gas through supporting regional drilling activities,
investigating coal gasification etc. In addition, well considered staffing plans are in place with staffing levels
being maintained to ensure that core competencies exist to facilitate safe operations should sufficient
feedstock become available to operate more than one of the four methanol units. Discussions with
maintenance representatives also indicated that maintenance resources are being provided to keep the plant
in good condition despite operating at considerably reduced production rates. The site has maintained a
positive Responsible Care approach during this challenging period but this also has challenges to be more
proactive in understanding and working with the local public about its concerns.
2.1
The RC Management system for Incidents management in Punta Arenas appears to have a good structure, but
needs improvement in addressing the root causes of the significant incidents that have occurred (i.e. incident –
fall while working at heights not tied off appears to be a behavior issue related to Human Factors. Why was the
worker unclipped as it is common practice in the culture and the person had been on site for many years? The
Chile legislation allows that the plant to be shutdown in the event of a more serious incident, i.e. fatality). The
site was also unaware of how transportation accidents involving its product in remote areas of Chile or in
Argentina would be known or responded to. Other team comments for this code are documented in the global
section of the report.

Establish a formal transportation management system including transporter selection and management,
the reporting of, and response to, transportation accidents and incidents involving the delivery of raw
materials to, and products from, the site. Ref OP 41-47, ST 115-120.



Examine the qualifications for, and processes used by, those performing incident root cause analyses.
Emergency response drills are conducted 2 times per year. It is recommended that drills be based on the
reasonably foreseeable scenarios as detailed in the global report.
Ensure that rescue teams are adequately trained and equipped for high angle rescue response. Ref OP 3140.
Page 36
The new process that limits the number of critical work activities occurring at the same time is
commendable. This was developed following the 2010 incident when a contractor employee fell while
working inside a distillation column (confined space).

2.1.4
Environmental Protection and 2.1.5 Resource Conservation
While it was found that current information for the handling, treatment and disposal of wastes is very good,
historical information in this regard for the site was lacking.
Review and upgrade where warranted the management system in place for the handling, transportation
and disposal of wastes from the site. Ref OP’s 64-75.

Benchmark the site waste facility assessment protocol against the defined CIAC protocol.

Assess raw materials use for opportunities to reduce risk and maximize energy efficiency. Ref ST 94

2.2
2.2.1 Expectations of Companies
Request and review Responsible Care audit reports from suppliers who are Responsible Care members and
follow up on reported items as appropriate. Ref ST 101-102.

2.2.2 Expectations with Respect to Other Parties
2.3
The Team’s comments for this code area are documented in the global section of the report. In particular, due
to public controversy at the site last year, Methanex has reviewed its consultation and social responsibility
activities in the area to help it understand and address concerns.
Work in Progress:

Expedite completion of the community engagement process review and implement identified program
changes. Include the expectations in CIAC’s new Accountability Code and related appendix “A” on Social
Responsibility in the upgrade.



Continue to look for opportunities to support local businesses in growing their capabilities to provide an
increasing proportion of goods and services required by Methanex.
Work with service and supplier contractors to sign up for Responsible Care and the commitment to
sustainability. Ref ST115
Seek input from the site’s newly reconstituted Community Advisory Panel on new plans for community
engagement and social responsibility (see Work in Progress above.)
Page 37
Document minutes of Punta Arenas Community Advisory Panel (CAP) meetings. Ref AC 129.
Provide communications and media training for selected plant personnel. AC129-130


The Team’s comments for this code area are documented in the global section of the report. In addition, the
team noted the lack of signage at the site identifying the company as adhering to Responsible Care.
Improve Responsible Care promotional signage at the entrance to the Punta Arenas site. Ref AC 146

3.1
The Team’s comments for this code area are documented in the global section of the report. In addition, at
Punta Arenas, the company is considering the development of a coal gasification plant, which would take coal
from other areas of Chile and turn it into gas for use as a fuel source at the Punta Arenas plant. Such plans
create challenges and were being developed without sufficient consideration of Responsible Care.
Plan all projects, including coal gasification, consistent with the relevant Responsible Care codes, such as
for the planning and design of new facilities, accountability to the site community, and Social Responsibility
expectation in Appendix “A” in the CIAC Responsible Care Commitments booklet, well in advance of design
and construction.

3.2
The Corporate Audit Standard states that each of the 12 elements in the location level 2 audit needs to be
conducted over 3 years. In Punta Arenas, to date in 2011, no level 2 audits had been completed and one (office
Health & Safety) had just begun and no evidence was provided regarding level 2 audits having been conducted
at the required frequencies.
Complete Level 2 audits at the site at frequencies meeting corporate requirements or with an approved
variance that provides justification for the non compliance, along with an action plan, monitored to bring
compliance back to requirements.

With reference to the CIAC RC Commitment Package – section C and the CIAC Management System Guide,
in each of the plan-do-check-act elements of the Responsible Care Manual, add a short description of what
the site does to address those elements and how it is done (e.g., supporting business process descriptions,
list of procedures, etc.).

3.3
3.4
SUSTAINABILITY
Page 38
APPENDIX D- TRINIDAD SITE SPECIFIC ITEMS
INTRODUCTION:
This appendix documents Trinidad Site specific items not included in the global Responsible Care Reverification report. As a result, both the main report and this appendix must be reviewed to identify all items
applicable to the Trinidad site.
GENERAL:
The team found that the site has excellent management systems in place in most Responsible Care areas. They
are well connected to local stakeholders through active participation is associations such as the local branch of
the American Chamber of Commerce, ongoing dialogue with Government officials etc. They also have been
proactive in the development of improved trade training programs in the area and in positively influencing the
region’s safety culture.
2.1
Works in Progress:

Expedite implementation of the site’s new document management process for operating and maintenance
procedures which includes for a concurrent review of all procedures, planned for 2012.
In 2011, a sub contractor employee fatality occurred at a site remote to Methanex plant site where
Methanex had contracted the services, including risk management, to a contractor and the area occupier
(PLIPDECO). Team comments relevant to contractor safety in general are documented in the global
section of the report.
Works in Progress:






Expedite completion of the site quantitative operational process risk assessment, including a reassessment
of the site’s worst case incident scenario. Planned for 2012.
Expedite completion of addressing gaps from the recently completed process safety gap analysis.
Expedite completion of the site’s Industrial Hygiene program update. (Note: Workplace exposure
monitoring is already being done.)
Complete the focused Responsible Care related training for all members of the Joint Responsible Care
Committee.
Expedite completion of behavioral based safety training for all site employees. (Note: Approximately 150
employees already trained.)
Complete the site employee Responsible Care Competency Assurance program planned for 2012.




Consolidate all the current process safety activities (e.g., project management system, management of
change, operating procedure review, equipment integrity processes, etc) into a consolidated process safety
management document.
Ensure that the current Deviation Procedure is consistently used in decisions to deviate from defined
periodic activities. (Note: Current company standard requires an operational process risk assessment to be
done every 5 years. This has been extended at the site without reference to the deviation procedure.)
Consider tracking the Quality of Incident Investigation and Incidents in Control indices on a moving annual
total basis as well as year to date, to provide trends over time.
Provide refresher media training to selected emergency management personnel.
Page 39
Consider benchmarking the site emergency response plan against the Canadian Standard Z731- Emergency
Preparedness and response.
Review off-hours emergency response capability on site and address any identified issues (e.g., high angle
rescue).


Successful Site Practices:
The site’s Quality of Incident Investigation and Incidents in Control indices which measure the quality of
investigations through sampling and analysis of incident reports and the timeliness of completing
investigations respectively. Both clear examples of leading indicators.
The Safety Stand Up process in place which periodically focuses on proactive safe work activities, as
opposed to the safety stand down approach which has more of a negative post incident connotation.
The significant results obtained in recent years (i.e., injury reduction) from the rigorous application of the
site behavior based safety program.
The site’s Aspects and Impacts process, commenced in 2007, that identifies site hazards and is updated
annually.
The 10 hour contractor training and certification program that is applied across the entire industrial estate
within which the site is located. This requires an annual reassessment and only certified contractors are
allowed to work on the site.
The employee gym and fitness program which is supported by trained staff.






2.1.4 Environmental Protection and 2.1.5 Resource Conservation

Benchmark the site waste facility assessment protocol against the defined CIAC protocol.
2.2
2.2.1 Expectations of Companies & 2.2.2 Expectations with Respect to Other Parties
The Team’s comments for these code areas are documented in the global section of the report.
2.3
Establish a process to periodically communicate the site’s worst case incident scenario to the defined site
neighboring community. Specifically to those in the adjacent community who may be impacted, including
what to do in an emergency. (Note: If worst case scenario not expected to have an off-site impact then this
should be communicated in any case.)Ref. AC 129 & OP 39.

Works in Progress:
 Expedite plans to initiate more direct two-way site communication with individuals in the defined site
neighboring community. This is currently planned for 2012.
3.1
Page 40
Works in Progress:
Expedite addressing all actions described in the current Responsible Care Vision by end of 2012.



3.2
The Responsible Care Vision for 2012 which aligns with the overall Site Vision for 2015.
Maintaining focus on site goals and current status vs these by the posting of site performance charters
in each department

With reference to the CIAC Responsible Care Commitment Package – section C and the CIAC Management
System Guide, in each of the plan-do-check-act elements of the Responsible Care Manual, add a short
description of what the site does to address those elements and how it is done (e.g., supporting business
process descriptions, list of procedures, etc.).
The Responsible Care Manual which provides an overview of the site’s Responsible Care management
system with the purpose of ensuring that all elements of the system are appropriately described and
maintained.

3.3
Observations on the CHECK Step & 3.4 Observations on the ACT Step
The Team’s comments for these code areas are documented in the global section of the report.
SUSTAINABILITY
We acknowledge receipt of the Trinidad Site Specific Items for attention and accept the observations and
findings - Renata Tam (Responsible Care Manager, Ag) dated March 4, 2012.
Page 41
CHEMISTRY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Suite 805, 350 Sparks Street
Ottawa (ON) K1R 7S8
T: 613 237-6215 F: 613 237-4061
www.canadianchemistry.ca

responsible care - Chemistry Industry Association of Canada

Transcription

Documents pareils

RESPONSIBLE CARE ® Verification Report Procor Limited

opportunites de partenariats europeens

Video Machine A Sous Avec Bonus Casino Jeux Paris Isere

responsible care - Chemistry Industry Association of Canada

Spot-welding machine GYSPOT INVERTER 125 L-C

responsible care - Chemistry Industry Association of Canada