quality management systems for srf production quovadis workshop – rome – 24 october 2007
Post on 27-Dec-2015
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Quality Management Quality Management Systems for SRF Systems for SRF
productionproduction
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
CEN/TS 15358: GOAL
To provide SRF producers with a base for developing a sector specific QMS that help producing SRF that meet customer and regulatory requirements
satisfaction & confidence
customer authority third parties
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
CEN/TS 15358: Generalities
The emphasis of this TS is on:
1. giving wider confidence to the production and trading of SRF;
2. defining the documentation to be used for internal procedures and communicating to all parties the specifications needed to ensure the achievement of the quality objectives;
3. verifying the origin and demonstrating the properties of the input materials (i.e. non hazardous wastes)
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
CEN/TS 15358: Structure
The QMS accords with EN ISO 9001 to cover the whole process from the point of waste reception to the point of delivery of SRF to the customer.
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
CEN/TS 15358: Layout
ISO 9001(boxed)
sector specific
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
CEN/TS 15358 - The validation exercise – Quovadis WPII
An holistic approach towards quality managementquality management
and classificationclassification
Validation of CEN/TC 343:
• TS on SRF specifications and classes• TS on Quality Management Systems for SRF
Goal
Do these TS fit for purpose ?
Do we need to change them ?
Can we upgrade them to EN ?
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – Partners & Host Sites
Veolia
Ideagranda
Remondis
Ecodeco
PARTNERS
Italian Thermotechnical Committee (IT)
Veolia – Creed (FR)
Remondis (GE)
Green Land Reclamation (UK)
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Main steps
1. Implementation at the host sites of CEN/TS 15358
2. Assessment of various aspects associated with this implementation
• Differences with already existing QMS (if any)
• Problems for compliance with 15358 (and indirectly with other TS)
• Costs and benefits
3. Suggestions for the revision of 15358
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – A short picture of the host sitesInput waste SRF production
(t/y) & customersExisting QMS
Other aspects
A
Commercial & industrial
Incineration plant
(thermal energy for district heating)
ISO 9001 Specifications agreed with customer include: particle-size, ash content, calorific value, moisture content
Customer = input waste supplier
Visual inspection and selection of waste
B
MSW dry fraction, non chlorine plastic, rubber
30,000 t/y
Cement kiln
New 15358
Strict specifications for SRF
Frequent and constant control
Control of semifinished product: input waste after shredding and homogenising (feedback to supplier)
C
MSW 60,000 t/y
Incineration plant (power plant)
IMS =
9001+
14001+
EMAS
Regulatory specifications
Customer= waste supplier
Control of input waste: visual inspection and documents
D
MSW
Monostream waste
60,0000 t/y
Cement kilns
Power plants
ISO 9001 + others
Strict specification for different SRF
Customer = final user
Frequent and constant control
Control of semifinished product (High calorific fraction)
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Some remarks
1. The Customer is: both waste supplier and SRF final user
2. Control of input waste: difficult to comply with 15358 unless you consider the semifinished product as the real raw material for SRF production (e.g. High Calorific Fraction)
The last term in the list provided by claause 7.4.3.1.1. of 15358 is: “(h) chemical analysis (if possible, depending upon the homogeneity of the
waste and if necessary, depending on the production criteria”. These words have the potential for raising confusion, whereas “fundamental
requirements” should be surely expressed beyond doubt and any need for discretionary interpretation. The feasibility of chemical analysis per se does not depend on “… the homogeneity of the waste”…; it can be imagined, however, that the authors of that text had in mind the difficult of obtaining a representative sample of input materials. This has been confirmed by the experience gained at Host-sites
3. Confusion on “lot” definition in the context of conformity with classification and specification
15359: one-tenth of a year’s production; no mention of mass is made there. But, at its Clause 5.3, TS15442 states that the lot-size shall not exceed 1,500 Mg (= tonnes). This disparity needs attention by TC343 because, in some cases, it can have substantial consequences.
4. Sampling and testing for the purpose of quality-control: need for rapid methods
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Cost assesment
• Personnel-related costs.Recruitment costs.Training costs.Salary-related costs (non-managerial staff).Managerial salary-related costs.
• Equipment costs• Costs relating to compliance.
On-site laboratory.On-site testing.External testing.
QMSimplementation
QMSmaintenance
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Cost figures
Implementation
Site Personnel
(€/t)
Equipment
(€/t)
Compliance (€/t)
Others
(€/t)
Total
(€/t)
A 0.60 0.09 1.42 2.11
B 1.06 0.50 2.04 0.25 3.85
C 0.71 0.12 0,08 0.91
D 2.37 0.22 1.38 0.19 4.15
Maintenance
Site Personnel
(€/t)
Equipment
(€/t)
Compliance (€/t)
Others
(€/t)
Total
(€/t)
A 2.69 0.25 2,94
B 0.79 0.50 2.04 0.25 3.58
C 0.49 0.05 0.08 0.59
D 1.89 0.18 1.09 0,20 3.35
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Costs
Main cost differences are related to:
• process and product control : min where only regulatory specification; max where customer impose strict specifications . To meet precise requirements an expensive process and product quality control is needed: quality has to be paid.
• input waste: the use of different wastes requires more sampling and testing (at least on semi-finished product)
• SRF utilization: dedicated plant can accept quality fluctuations better than other plants
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Benefits
In order to assess the benefits of implementation of a CEN compliant QMS, questionnaires were sent out to interested parties i.e. SRF producers, end-users and
third parties.
The general view from the producers of SRF was that such a QMS would result in improvements to the acceptability and image of SRF, and would provide benefits resulting from an integrated approach to all aspects of the production of SRF. It was also thought that this CEN QMS would improve trading of the material across Europe.
End-users of the SRF believed that they would benefit from reduced responsibility for the quality of SRF they burn, with a reduction in analysis costs and due to increased homogeneity and compliance of the material to the end-user specification, end-user process reliability would also be improved.
Third party respondents to the questionnaire cited increased confidence and better perception of the production and use of SRF as a sustainable waste management option among the benefits they saw of a TS compliant QMS.
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Benefits
The benefits of implementing a QMS emerging from the analysis on the host sites are the following:
End users
(a) The controls over the product by the user are reduced as he can better control the quality with the information received by
the producer (b) remarkable improvement of the product supply homogeneity is
expected
(c) A general approval by the control bodies that rely on the company that invests ( a company upgrading its system implementing the QMS is investing money and efforts, and as a result the control bodies at national level are in favour to such
an approach)(d) assurance of a controlled raw material (SRF)
(e) environmental benefits in terms of reduction of NOx and SOx emissions
(f) reduction of the costs for environmental analysis and for maintenance
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Benefits
The benefits of implementing a QMS emerging from the analysis on the host sites are the following:
Producers
a) Favours the relationship with the user
b) Favours the quality and product controlc) The process is constantly under control from the
acceptance of raw materials till SRF deliveryd) Reduction of extraordinary maintenancee) Input raw material controlled and consequently reduction of
the risk of undesired materials in SRFa) Better acceptance of the plant in the environmental and
social contestb) Reduced error rate of SRF-quality
f) Improved international comparability of SRF-qualitiesg) Increased market transparencyh) Improved acceptance/reputation of SRF
top related