ArcelorMittal puts global terminals under one operating model

ArcelorMittal has appointed Lloyd’s Register to create a common operating model for dry-bulk terminals across the steelmaker’s international port portfolio.

The programme will establish a group-wide operating baseline for facilities working across different regulatory systems, technical environments, asset ages, and levels of operational maturity. Rather than replacing local requirements, the framework will give each terminal a consistent structure for controlling safety, reliability, environmental performance, and day-to-day execution.

Lloyd’s Register will develop a controlled operations manual, a structured library of standard operating procedures, frontline checklists, self-audit tools, and a wider assurance framework. Common performance indicators and reporting definitions will allow ArcelorMittal to compare facilities whose existing measures and management practices may differ substantially.

Environmental controls will cover emissions, resource efficiency, waste, runoff, biodiversity, and community interfaces, while digital governance will support more consistent records, escalation routes, and portfolio-level visibility. Evidence requirements will be built into the operating documents rather than treated as a separate reporting exercise.

ArcelorMittal’s terminals handle the iron ore, coal, minerals, alloys, and other commodities required by its steelmaking operations. Every movement between vessel, stockyard, conveyor, rail wagon, truck, and production plant creates exposure to equipment failure, contamination, dust, spillage, delay, and safety incidents.

Deepak Sachdeva, head of global ports at ArcelorMittal, said: “Our terminals operate across very different geographies, regulatory environments and maturity levels, which makes consistency, comparability and disciplined execution essential.”

Common controls, different operating conditions

A global standard cannot make each terminal physically identical, since berth depth, vessel size, climate, commodity mix, storage configuration, labour arrangements, rail access, and environmental permits will continue to vary. Its value lies in creating a shared control language while allowing local procedures to reflect the equipment and constraints at each site.

Standard incident classifications, for example, should make safety performance easier to compare without differences in local reporting obscuring recurring hazards. Equipment failures can be grouped across ship unloaders, conveyors, stacker-reclaimers, loaders, silos, dust systems, and rail interfaces, giving engineering teams a broader evidence base for maintenance and replacement decisions.

Throughput measures will also require greater precision than tonnes handled per hour. A terminal working larger vessels or longer conveyor routes may appear less productive even when it is operating effectively, while another may report strong headline output despite repeated rehandling, queueing, contamination events, or unplanned stoppages.

Shared definitions covering planned availability, breakdowns, vessel waiting, stockyard congestion, rehandling, maintenance, and loading delays will allow managers to understand why output differs. Once the data is comparable, investment can be directed towards the constraint rather than the most visible symptom.

The scale of throughput being placed on bulk infrastructure is already evident at Indian gateways, where Kandla passed 50 million tonnes earlier in its financial year than previously recorded. Similar growth increases the consequences of weak controls: a failed conveyor or ship unloader can interrupt vessel schedules, generate demurrage, and reduce raw-material availability at downstream plants.

Assurance moves closer to shift operations

Checklist-based controls and self-audits should bring assurance into routine terminal management rather than concentrating it around occasional corporate inspections. Supervisors will be able to confirm whether safety-critical equipment has been checked, environmental systems remain operational, emergency arrangements are usable, and corrective actions have been closed.

Digital implementation will determine whether those records become useful management information or another layer of administration. A global terminal network produces substantial volumes of maintenance, incident, throughput, inspection, environmental, and workforce data, but common definitions and clear ownership are needed before comparisons can guide decisions.

Information must also reach the appropriate operating level. Shift supervisors need immediate visibility of equipment condition and restrictions, engineering teams need failure histories and parts exposure, while group management needs comparable performance without losing the local context behind each result.

Environmental control is becoming increasingly integrated with production reliability, since dust suppression, water treatment, runoff management, energy consumption, and stockpile condition can determine whether a terminal is permitted to continue handling cargo. A failed environmental system can halt throughput as decisively as a mechanical breakdown.

The operating model should also improve capital planning by distinguishing between inconsistent execution and structural constraints. Repeated evidence may show that one facility needs better maintenance discipline, while another requires replacement equipment, redesigned stockyards, additional rail capacity, or a different handling method.

ArcelorMittal will gain little from a comprehensive manual that remains remote from operational work. The measure of the programme will be whether common controls shape shift handovers, maintenance priorities, incident investigations, investment approvals, and the handling decisions made at berth, yard, control room, and plant interface.