“ A factory inside a forest” M.Pasupathy (Maintenance) S.Iliyas (Energy Cell) U.Prakash (Process maintenance)
“ A factory inside a forest”
M.Pasupathy (Maintenance) S.Iliyas (Energy Cell)U.Prakash (Process maintenance)
Ashok Leyland is an Indian automobile company headquartered in Chennai, India.
Founded in 1948, it is the 2ndlargest commercial vehiclemanufacturer in India.
4th largest manufacturer ofbuses and 12th largestmanufacturer of trucksglobally.
Operating nine plants, AshokLeyland also makes spareparts and engines forindustrial and marineapplications
Company Profile
Spread area – 234 Acres
40 % greenery
Employees – 7000
Wind Energy – 30%
Roof top Solar – 6%
Unique plant to produce vehicles of
all segments
Sanctioned demand – 4950 KVA
Catering 37% of total AL volume
“ A factory inside a forest”
Unit Profile
Operation Team
Operation Team
Unit CFTCFTTop
Management
Head-Operations
Plant Head-Hosur Units
Unit-1-Head
Energy Manager
Unit-2-Head
Energy Manager
Process Owners
Process owners
Process owners
Process owners
Process owners
Unit-3-Head
Energy manager
Energy Conservation – AL Way
Role of Energy Manager: Identify opportunities to save energy Promote new technologies to reduce energy Lead awareness program and monitor consumption trend Analyse critically to identify gaps with respect to aggregate wise norms and execute with actions Support Sustainable growth for the organisation
2,709
2,020
1,719
1,3791,306
1,2011,0681,1771,205 1,245
1,1471,239
642610
646 647638
562
25002500
2000
1429
12901100 1100 1050
10501100 1080
1108
745704 610 610 610
581
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
ENER
GY
/ H
ECU
(kW
h)
ENERGY PER HECU -TREND
Actual kWh/HECU Target (kWh / HECU)
647638
562
610 610581
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
ENER
GY
/ H
ECU
(kW
h)
ELECTRICAL ENERGY TREND
Actual kWh/HECU Target (kWh / HECU)
13% of reduction YoY
1.561.48 1.44
1.66 1.541.40
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
GJ
/ H
ECU
(kW
h)
THERMAL ENERGY TREND
Actual GJ/HECU
11% of reduction YoY
74% of reduction YoY
1. Specific Energy Consumption (3 years)
* HECU denotes Hybrid Equivalent Chassis Unit
Benchmark of same unit which won
“1st Place in National Energy
Conservation Competition-2014” in
the Automobile Sector conducted by
BEE
Best among all AL units in SEC
2. Information on Competitors, National & Global benchmark
1289
1153
1301
647 638562
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Energy / Vehicle
PantNagar Unit Hosur unit-1
Ennore Unit Hosur Unit-2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
4.86 4.95 5.22
6.005.63 5.25
GJ
/ V
EHIC
LE
Energy / Vehicle
TML AL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
30.628.8
25.224.48
28.8
6.00 5.63 5.25
GJ
/ V
EHIC
LE
Energy / Vehicle
Scania Daimler AL
Internal National International
Process differs from plant to plant &
local conditions
Difference in outsourcing level
Product of different specifications
Various levels of system buying
Sl.
NoProject description
Pictorial
representation
Annual Electrical
savings
Annual Thermal
savingsInvestment
in Rs.
MillionKwh
Cost
Savings
in Rs.
Million
Qty
Cost
Savings in
Rs. Million
1 Reduction of energy in cabin production process 1382400 10.71 NA NA 0
2 Waste heat recovery in compressor 950400 6.57101703
lts6.44 0.7
3Conversion of shop floor lighting with Energy
Efficient LED lighting264618 4.05 NA NA 55
4 Enhancing the compressor efficiency 186200 1.44 NA NA 0.2
5
Replacement of conventional reciprocating
compressor with Energy Efficient screw
compressor
64152 0.497 NA NA 6
6Productivity improvement in cabin paint by various
initiatives53850 3.5 6000lts 0.3 0.04
FY-18 total energy saving – 28 Lakh kWh in Electrical and 108 kL Diesel
3a. Major ENCON projects implemented in FY’18
Sl.
No
Project description Pictorial
representation
Annual Electrical
savings
Annual Thermal
savings
Investment
in
Rs.Million
Kwh Cost
Savings in
Rs.Million
Qty Cost
Savings in
Rs.Million
1 Exclusive compressor of lower capacity for paint
process 197000 1.52 - - 0.75
2 Energy conservation in vehicle Test Shop painting
booth 112700 0.87 - - 0.77
3 Introduce Heat pumps in place of ceramic electric
heater for washing machines112185 0.813 - - 1
4 Conservation of 150HPSV lightings into 85 Watts
CFL lamps in the exiting luminaire47001 0.329 - - 0.035
5 Selection of main pump in 5000T press with
respect to the FSM length 37719 0.293 - - NIL
3b. Major ENCON projects implemented in FY’17
FY-17 total energy saving – 5 Lakh kWh in Electrical
Sl.
NoProject description
Pictorial
representation
Annual Electrical
savings
Annual Thermal
savingsInvestmen
t in
Rs.MillionKwh
Cost
Savings in
Rs.Million
Qty
Cost
Savings in
Rs.Million
1Optimisation of power transformer from 1000kva
to 500Kva221818 0.68 - - NIL
2Hydraulic & Blower motor interlocking with job
presence in hood preparation fixture60606 0.4 - - NIL
3Energy conservation in weld shop cooling tower
circulation pumps49091 0.324 - - 0.23
4Waste Heat Recovery from Flue Gas in Paint
shop ED-Oven dryer zone.40000 0.264
15984
lts0.762 0.9
5Fresh water makeup to hot water generator
reduction by reconnecting the vent drain line- -
4800
lts0.23 NIL
3c. Major ENCON projects implemented in FY’16
FY-16 total energy saving – 3.7 Lakh kWh in Electrical and 21 kL Diesel
610 638
0
200
400
600
800
Target Actual
Kw
h /
HECU
Energy consumption-FY17
Energy consumption =
Total energy consumed in KWh. /Hybrid Equivalent Chassis Unit(HECU)
22576 49 7
0
25
50
75
100
0
250
500
750
1000
Cabin
Assy &
Testi…
FSM
Axle
Cum
ula
tive %
kW
h/H
ECU
Aggregates
Variable Energy
113 74 5327 14
0
25
50
75
100
0
150
300
450
Ventillation
Com
prs
r
Lig
hting
Pt.
agitation
Utilities
Cum
ula
tive %
kW
h /
HECU
Aggregates
Fixed Energy
281357
Energy consumption-contribution
Fixed energy
VariableEnergy
Project linkage with Organizational Objectives: SustainabilityKey Performance Indicator : kWh/HECU
Cabin manufacturing is the highest
4. Innovative Projects implemented
“Energy Guzzlers in Cabin manufacturing”
Cabin manufacturing - 115 kWh/Cab in FY17 – Most loads in Paint are semi-variable
Cabin Weld24%
Cabin Trim8%
Cabin Paint68%
Energy Distribution – Cabin manufacturing
Baking Ovens18%
PTED22%
Primer16%
Top Coating process
14%
Air Handling Units20%
Waxing5%
Sanding5%
Energy Distribution in Cabin Painting
4.1. Energy Conservation in Cabin Painting
Process flow
LCV LINE
MCV LINE
HCV LINE
PTED LINE
ROBOT PAINT LINE
MANUAL PAINT LINE
LCV LINE
M&HCVLINE
CHASSIS LINE 1
CHASSIS LINE 2
CHASSIS LINE 3
CABIN WELD CABIN PAINT CABIN TRIM ASSY CHASSIS ASSEMBLY
Hosur – 2 Cabin Process flow
Paint Process flow
Pretreated Cab getting dipped in ED Bath
Pretreated cab moving towards ED Bath
ED Bath - paint filled condition (63000 Lit)
ED coated cab moving to next stage
Cab dipped inside for ED processing
ED coated cab coming out from ED bath
Process flow – Electro deposition (ED)
3.6
2.6
3.03.2
3.8
3.0
4.3
3.43.2
3.7
3.0 3.0 3.1
4.3
3.8
3.03.2
3.7
2.6
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Cyc
le t
ime
(Min
)
Stage
Takt time: 3.85 mins (231 sec) (for 90k demand)
Bottlenecks
Stage wise Cycle time Vs Takt time (PTED line)
Inference: ED Bath & ED Oven are the bottlenecks of PTED line.
Electrical energy Cost driver Thermal energy Cost driver
ED Bath
Cab down time : 50 secondsCoating Time : 120 secondsCab up time :50 seconds
50 Sec.
Voltage application once cabin has come to Tank bottom
BEFORE
ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-1: Reduction of NVA (Cab movement)
Voltage
50 Sec.
ED Bath
Voltage
AFTER
Cab down time : 42 secondsCoating Time : 120 secondsCab up time : 42 seconds
Voltage application once cabin Roof is dipped in ED paint
# ActivityBefore (Sec)
After (Sec)
1 Previous station to ED bath 19 19
2Cab from Top to ED Bath in roof dipped condition 50
42
3 Cab Roof dipped to Tank bottom 8
4 Energizing Rectifier 120 104
5Cab from Tank bottom to Roof dipped condition
508
6Cab from Roof dipped to Top position
42
7 To next station 19 19
Total 258 242
Improvement-1: Cab movement & ED Process time made parallel activities.
Effect: ED Bath cycle time reduced to 4.03 minutes (242 sec) against set target of 3.85 minutes (231 sec)
# 3, # 5 made parallel with #4
Is it possible to reduce movement time further: No (Safety issue)
Is it possible to reduce Coating time: No (Less paint thickness (<20µ) will lead to salt spray failure)
Can we do process improvement to achieve lesser paint thickness while also meeting required salt spray hours?
ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-1: Reduction of NVA (Cab movement)
During our search for latest technologies in Paint processes, team learnt about a new product "New Gen Electrodeposition paint - LB 200" which has advantage of higher throwing power and lower Dry Film Thickness (DFT) requirement”.
Evaluation for introduction of New Gen ED paint in the system
One-time changeover(Replacement of old ED paint with New paint)
• Discard of 63000 lit of ED paint from ED bath
• Generation of ~ 13000 kg of paint sludge as hazardous waste
• Involves an overall cost of over Rs. 1.0 Crore
• Need to shut down operations for a minimum period of 1 week
Gradual changeover (New ED paint replenishment based on consumption)
• Change over requiring over 6 months of operation
• Co-existence of LB40LF & LB200LF paint in the system during change over period
• Uncertainty of process compatibility
• Unknown consequences
ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE
Conclusion: To do risk analysis before considering Gradual changeover of ED Paint
Risk Analysis (Change Management actions)
Compatibilitytest
Memorandum of Understanding
MOU signed before changeover
Compatibility test before changeover
Risk analysis done and status found ok
ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE
The minimum DFT required with new paint is only 17µ (DFT requirement for existing paint: 20µ minimum).
Less DFT requirement gives us advantage of lesser paint consumption. DOE has been used to find the optimum settings for new paint. Fractional factorial (Resolution V) is chosen to reduce the no. of runs from 256 to 68.
DFT
Temperature
Voltage
Non Volatile %
Time
Ash Content
Total Solvent
MEQ
Anolyte Conductivity
8 factors affects
DFT
ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE
Response Factors UOM Low Level High Level
DFT
Temperature °C 30 35
Voltage V 200 350
NV% % 18 22
Time sec 90 120
Ash Content % 20 24
Total Solvent % 1 2
MEQ - 23 31
Anolyte Conductivity Micro siemens 500 700
Factors: 8 Base Design: 8, 64 Resolution: V
Runs: 68 Replicates: 1 Fraction: 1/4
Blocks: 1 Center pts (total): 4
Screening DOEFractional Factorial design (Resolution: V) has been used for Screening.
Level values are chosen from the existing process specification.
ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE
HAD
CDHBG
BCFBC
AFGACH
ACCEHCDE
BFDG
GCEFADEBDH
AFCGFG
BGHEFAGFH
EC
BDADB
35302520151050
Te
rm
Standardized Effect
3.18
A Temperature
B Voltage
C NV%
D Time
E Ash Content
F Total Solvent
G MEQ
H Anolyte Conductivity
Factor Name
Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is DFT, Alpha = 0.05, only 30 largest effects shown)
C
BD
A
D
B
6050403020100
Te
rm
Standardized Effect
2.00
A Temperature
B Voltage
C NV%
D Time
Factor Name
Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects(response is DFT, Alpha = 0.05)
R.Sq : 98.77%R.Sq(pred): 98.51%R.Sq(adj) : 98.65%
Reduced Model
Inference: - Voltage, Time, Temperature,
NV% & interaction between Voltage & Time are significant on DFT.- R-sq (adj) of 98.65% indicating that the model is significant.
BD
A
D
B
35302520151050
Te
rm
Standardized Effect
2.05
A Temperature
B Voltage
D Time
Factor Name
Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is DFT, Alpha = 0.05)
R.Sq : 98.73%R.Sq(pred) : 98.21%R.Sq(adj) : 98.54%
Full Factorial DOE for Robust design
Since the following 4 factors are found to be significant on DFT, a full factorial design is carried out.Centre point is not considered as it was proved to be insignificantin Screening DOE.
Response
Factors UOMLow Level
High Level
ReplicatesTotal Runs
DFT
Temperature °C 30 35
2 32Voltage V 300 350
NV% % 18 22
Time sec 90 120
ED Bath de-bottleneckingImprovement-2: Further reduction through DOE
Inference: Voltage, Time, Temperature, interaction between Voltage & Time are significant on DFT.
CurHigh
Low1.0000D
Optimal
d = 1.0000
Targ: 19.0
DFT
y = 19.0
d = 1.0000
Minimum
SD-DFT
y = 0.2827
1.0000
Desirability
Composite
90.0
120.0
18.0
22.0
300.0
350.0
30.0
35.0Voltage NV% TimeTemperat
[31.4182] [343.0955] [18.0] [108.2395]
CurHigh
Low1.0000D
Optimal
d = 1.0000
Targ: 19.0
DFT
y = 19.0
d = 1.0000
Minimum
SD-DFT
y = 0.2827
1.0000
Desirability
Composite
90.0
120.0
18.0
22.0
300.0
350.0
30.0
35.0Voltage NV% TimeTemperat
[31.4182] [343.0955] [18.0] [108.2395]
- Considering random variation of process, Mean DFT is targeted at 19µ.- Analysis of Mean & Variability of DFT are considered while finding optimum settings.
Process time can be reduced by 12 seconds [120 sec to 108 sec.]
Process capability found 2.17. Mean DFT observed is 19.0µ (Specification >17µ)
ED Bath cycle time further reduced from 4.03 min (242 sec) to 3.83 min (230 sec).
3.6
2.6
3.03.2
3.8
3.0
3.8
3.43.2
3.7
3.0 3.0 3.1
4.3
3.8
3.03.2
3.7
2.6
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Cyc
le t
ime
(Min
)
Stage
Bottleneck
Takt time: 3.85 mins (231 sec) (for 90k demand)
Stage wise Cycle time Vs Takt time (PTED line)
Inference: Now the bottleneck is ED Oven. Demand (90k) cannot be met until ED Oven cycle time is reduced to 3.85 mins..
Conveyor
23 Mtrs (23000mm)
Exit DoorEntry Door ED Oven
ED Oven time - Before
3 Meter3 Meter
3000mm
3000mm
3000mm
3000mm
3000mm
500mm
500mm
3000mm
3000mm
1000mm
Total Baking Time, minutes 30.1
No. of Cabs in Oven 7
Throughput Time, minutes 4.3
ED Oven de-bottleneckingBefore Improvement
0.3 Meter
2.7meter2.7meter
ED Oven de-bottleneckingIdea generation
After Trolley Modification
We got 0.3 M Space for
each cabin
Stopper moved
forward 1.8
Meter
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Total Baking Time, minutes 30.1
No. of Cabs in Oven 8
Throughput Time, minutes 3.8
After
Before
Air Suction Area
Modified Air flow ducts
Oven Duct Layout Improved for balancing Suction & Delivery
Risk mitigation plan: ED Oven air flow is rebalanced due to additional load (Skid & Cabin) by modifying Air flow ducts to achieve Effective Metal Temperature (EMT) (160⁰C @ 10min).
ED Oven de-bottleneckingRisk mitigation
Result: Effective Metal Temperature uniformly found to be desirable.
Lab test result & box section DFT found meeting the requirement
ED panels along with cabin taken for Salt Spray Test in Laboratory
All Quality parameters met
ED Oven de-bottleneckingDurability requirement check
81
9090.9
76
80
84
88
92
Before Target Achieved
Cap
acit
y (N
os
in
00
0’s
)
PTED Capacity
4.3
3.85 3.83
3.5
4
4.5
Before Target Achieved
Min
ute
s
PTED Cycle Time in Mins
3.63
2.553.00 3.15
3.80
3.00
3.833.40 3.23
3.70
3.00 3.00 3.06
3.80 3.80
3.00 3.15
3.73
2.55
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Tran
sfer
cab
Skid
load
ing
MD
O
Cab
load
ing
toP
TED
Pre
trea
tmen
t
Pre
- D
eck
insp
ecti
on
ED B
ath
Ult
ra f
iltra
te r
inse
I (D
IP)
Ult
ra f
iltra
te r
inse
II (S
pra
y)
DM
Wat
er R
inse
(DIP
)
Fin
al In
spec
tio
n
Dra
in
Ove
n lo
adin
g
ED O
ven
Co
ole
r
ED in
spec
tio
n
ED s
and
ing
CTM
Car
rie
r tr
ansf
erto
MD
O
Cyc
le t
ime
(Min
)
Stage
Takt time: 3.85 mins (231 sec) Achieved : 3.83 mins (230 sec)
Pitch Diagram for PTED line:
Stage wise Cycle time Vs Takt time (PTED line)
Inference: Both bottlenecks eliminated
“Energy reduction in Cabin manufacturing”
Cabin Weld32%
Cabin Trim11%
Cabin Paint57%
Energy Distribution – Cabin manufacturing
Baking Ovens12%
PTED12%
Primer9%
Top Coating process
22%
Air Handling Units31%
Waxing7%
Sanding7%
Energy Distribution in Cabin Painting
4.1. Energy Conservation in Cabin Painting
Cabin Weld24%
Cabin Trim8%
Cabin Paint68%
Energy Distribution – Cabin manufacturing
Baking Ovens18%
PTED22%
Primer16%
Top Coating process
14%
Air Handling Units20%
Waxing5%
Sanding5%
Energy Distribution in Cabin Painting
Highest yearly production: 71435 cabins
193176
202223 223
191
230254
279
249232
268 262
150
200
250
300Paint shop- Cabin Production per Day
• Highest ever monthly production in PTED 7401 Rounds In Nov’17.
• Maximum Rounds produced in a day PTED- 324 in Sep 2017.
41,61547,783
56,660
71,435
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
No
’s
Cabin Production trend
Paint shop production trend – after the project
6 Major ENCON initiatives
benefitted in 13% reduction of
specific energy consumption
Cabin manufacturing - 71 kWh/Cab in FY18 – By elimination of MUDA in process
38% reduction
in Cabin
Energy
Tangible Benefits:
1. Productivity improvement by 9,900 cabs per annum
2. Power Consumption reduction by 13.8 Lakh units/annum
3. Set benchmark of 108 seconds process time in Electrodeposition
(Lowest in India among all OEMs, our PNR plant is operating at 180” ED
processing time)
4. Total direct Cost saving Rs. 1.49 crore/annum
5. Onetime cost saving of ~ Rs.150 crore for avoiding new PTED line which
would have taken 18 months to complete.
6. Possibility of Horizontal deployment to Pantnagar Plant.
Intangible Benefits:
1. Reduction of carbon footprint by 10.87 lakh kgs CO2e.
2. Increased awareness of SPC tools.
3. Confidence for benchmarking the process.
Direct benefits:
A) Recurring
Rs. 1.49 crore / annum
B) One Time
Rs. 150 crore
C) Opportunity
Savings:
Rs. 45 crore / annum
Investment:
Rs. 5.0 Lakhs
ROI: < 1 month
Savings achieved by MUDA elimination - Thinking beyond established standards
Project benefits & Horizontal deployment
“Air Saver” in spot weld guns
This unit will sense whether the gun is in operation or idle
If the spot welding gun is in idle condition for more than 3 min ,the main incoming air flow will cut
off”
No air to the system ,no leaks from the system
Air flow will restored once the gun triggered for operation
Shut-off Valve
(Timer)Control
Panel
Idea originated from traffic signal (Switch off engine knowing the time)
4.2 Innovative Projects implemented
4.2 Innovative Projects implemented
Air leak at MDV weld shop
reduced from 87 CFM to
47
Average Energy saving of
1400units/day
Reduction of Heat Load in paint shop baking ovens
After the Pre-Treatment of the BIWs are baked in ovens along with the skids
These skid structure re engineered and 340kg of weight reduced to 315kg per skid
Net Skid weight reduction 25 kg
Diesel savings per skid : 0.088L/skid/cabin
Fuel cost saving per year : 4.98 lacs
Entire skid structure 70X40mm size channels benefitted in reduction of 25kg per skid
4.3 Innovative Projects implemented
620 620 620
600 600 600
590 590 590575
575 575
651 652648 646 644
640
622
606
578
569
569
562
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
Apr '17 May'17 Jun'17 Jul'17 Aug'17 Sep'17 Oct'17 Nov'17 Dec '17 Jan '18 Feb'18 Mar '18
kWh
/ H
ECU
Plant Energy Consumption Trend - FY18
Target Actual
12 ENCON projects , 24 Kaizens (Just do it)
Plant Energy trend – after the project
Sl.noReplacement of Electrical Energy with
Renewable EnergyInstalled Capacity
Annual Energy
Generated in 2015-16
(Million kWh)
% Share
Annual Energy
Generated in 2016-17
(Million kWh)
% Share
Annual Energy
Generated in 2017-18
(Million kWh)
% Share
1 Wind Energy 3.4MW 3.54 20.56% 5.34 26.34% 6.73 29.25%
2Roof top SOLAR power plant inside
the plant1MW NA NA NA NA 1.42 6.17%
Renewable Energy
Roof Top SOLAR Energy
contribution FY18 : 6.17%
Wind Mill Energy contribution :
29.25%
Targeting to increase the green energy share from the present level of 36 % to 90 % by 2023
5. Utilization of Renewable energy sources
60
.83
61
.58
81
.44
11
1.4
3
14
0.9
6
14
8.6
3
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
GREEN ENERGY vs TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION( in Lacs units)
Non - Conventional Energy Conventional Energy
Disposal Methodology :
Ashokleyland, Unit-
2,Hosur
Pre-processor
M/s.GEIPL,RanipetFuel for cement Kiln
M/s.Ultratech Cements,Karur
Total heat value for 3 years – 2652 Million Kcal
6. Utilization of waste material as fuel
284
175205.00
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
FY16 FY17 FY18
Qty
. in
MT
Year Wise paint sludge disposal as Fuel
Qty. disposed in MT
https://www.ashokleyland.com/investors/sustainabilityreport2018Aimed to be carbon neutral in FY20
7. GHG Inventorisation
Sustainability - Goal deploymentSl no Metrics UoM Plant
FY17 (actual)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
1 Electric energy consumptionkWh / HECU
AL1144 1110 1075 1041 1007 961 915
- 3% 6% 9% 12% 16% 20%
H2 638 619 600 580 561 536 510
2 Renewable source of energy %AL 26% 35% 40% 65% 75% 85% 90%
H2 30% 35% 39% 86% 91% 91% 91%
3 Water consumptionkl /
HECU
AL9.9 9.41 8.91 8.61 8.32 8.02 7.72
- 5% 10% 13% 16% 19% 22%
H2 6.30 5.99 5.67 5.48 5.29 5.10 4.91
4 Utilisation of harvested rain water %AL 0% - 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
H2 0% - 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
5 Carbon foot print - Scope 1 emissionkg /
HECU
AL182 173 164 146 127 118 109
- 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 40%
H2 292.95 278.30 263.66 234.36 205.07 190.42 175.77
6 Carbon foot print - Scope 2 emissionkg /
HECU
AL648 583 531 356 292 227 194
- 10% 18% 45% 55% 65% 70%
H2 340 306 279 187 153 119 102
7 Carbon foot print - Scope 1&2 emissionkg /
HECU
AL830 756 695 502 419 345 304
- 9% 16% 40% 50% 58% 63%
H2 633 584 542 421 358 309 278
8 Zero waste to landfill & incineratorNo of plants
AL 3/7 3/7 5/7 7/7
H2 1 1 1 1
Online Monitoring... Capturing in SAP
Daily•Aggregate-wise daily reports to GEMBA leaders
Weekly
•Power cost analysis with respective process owners
•Corrective actions planning
Monthly•Gap analysis review by Unit Head
Plant Head• Inter unit review by VP-Hosur units
9.5)Awarding Best ENCON Projects through Kaizens
MD interacting with team on energy conservation day
9. Team Work, Employee Involvement & Monitoring
Overall score achieved was 745 /1300(57%)progressively moved to 70% now
10
0
20
0
50
15
0
30
0
50
50
10
0
10
0
10
0
65
13
6
35
98
18
5
36
34
58 62
0
73
14
2
34
94
17
8
29
29
57
56
53
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Wastes &Effluents
Materials Products &Services
OccupationalHealth &
Safety
Energy Society Biodiversity &general
Compliance
Water Emissions Goal Setting &Deployment
Scores Allotted 2012 GMEA Average AL-H2 Score
AL-H2 in the Green Co way
10. Implementation of ISO 50001 / Green Co / IGBC rating
Our focus on Environment – Afforestation in Miyawaki way
Area: 2525 sq. mtr No of trees: 8900No of species: 70
Our focus on Environment – Around the boundary
Rejuvenation of Kumudepalli village lake during Mar’18 – CSR initiative