Transcript CEN/TC 343/WG1 report

Quality Management Systems
for SRF production
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
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
third parties
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 management
and classification
Goal
Validation of CEN/TC 343:
• TS on SRF specifications and classes
• TS on Quality Management Systems for SRF
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
PARTNERS
Italian Thermotechnical Committee (IT)
Veolia – Creed (FR)
Remondis (GE)
Veolia
Green Land Reclamation (UK)
Remondis
Ideagranda
Ecodeco
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
3.
•
Differences with already existing QMS (if any)
•
Problems for compliance with 15358 (and indirectly with other TS)
•
Costs and benefits
Suggestions for the revision of 15358
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
Quovadis WPII – The validation – A short picture of the host sites
Input waste
SRF production
(t/y) & customers
Existing
QMS
Other aspects
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
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)
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
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)
A
B
C
D
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.
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
QMS
implementation
QMS
maintenance
Quovadis WPII – The validation – Cost figures
Implementation
Site
Personnel
(€/t)
Equipment
(€/t)
Compliance
(€/t)
A
0.60
0.09
1.42
B
1.06
0.50
2.04
C
0.71
0.12
0,08
D
2.37
0.22
1.38
Others
(€/t)
Total
(€/t)
2.11
0.25
3.85
0.91
0.19
4.15
Maintenance
Site
Personnel
(€/t)
Equipment
(€/t)
Compliance
(€/t)
A
2.69
B
0.79
0.50
2.04
C
0.49
0.05
0.08
D
1.89
0.18
1.09
Others
(€/t)
0.25
Total
(€/t)
2,94
0.25
3.58
0.59
0,20
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007
3.35
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)
c)
Favours the quality and product control
The process is constantly under control from the acceptance of raw
materials till SRF delivery
Reduction of extraordinary maintenance
Input raw material controlled and consequently reduction of the risk
of undesired materials in SRF
a)
Better acceptance of the plant in the environmental and social
contest
b)
Reduced error rate of SRF-quality
Improved international comparability of SRF-qualities
Increased market transparency
Improved acceptance/reputation of SRF
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007