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