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 customerauthoritythird 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 The validation exercise – Quovadis WPII An holistic approach towards quality management classification and classification 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 Assessment of various aspects associated with this implementation Differences with already existing QMS (if any) Problems for compliance with (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 sites Input wasteSRF production (t/y) & customers Existing QMS Other aspects A Commercial & industrial Incineration plant (thermal energy for district heating) ISO 9001Specifications 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 Strict specifications for SRF Frequent and constant control Control of semifinished product: input waste after shredding and homogenising (feedback to supplier) C MSW60,000 t/y Incineration plant (power plant) IMS = 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 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 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 of 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. QMS implementation QMS maintenance

Quovadis Workshop – Rome – 24 October 2007 Quovadis WPII – The validation – Cost figures Implementation SitePersonnel (€/t) Equipment (€/t) Compliance (€/t) Others (€/t) Total (€/t) A B C , D Maintenance SitePersonnel (€/t) Equipment (€/t) Compliance (€/t) Others (€/t) Total (€/t) A ,94 B C D ,203.35

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 control c) The process is constantly under control from the acceptance of raw materials till SRF delivery d) Reduction of extraordinary maintenance e) 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 f) Improved international comparability of SRF-qualities g) Increased market transparency h) Improved acceptance/reputation of SRF