IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition Compliance

[Big Jim]

The new standard states that the "organization shall verify that the product to be scrapped is rendered unusable prior to disposal". Does anyone have an interpretation to this requirement and/or an approach they can share?

In the aerospace application what is frequently done is to damage a significant feature in a manner that would make it impossible to use. Most common is a saw kerf through that significant feature. In some cases, a nibbler may be enough. Sometimes a hammer will do the job, as will a drill.

The intent is obvious. Their are unscrupulous scrap dealers that go through scrap to try and find something they can resell for more than scrap. The harm that could be done for parts that should be flight worthy is scary.

This concept of making a part unusable may fall into the category of a good practice even when it isn't required. Besides, it can be kind of fun to destroy a part.

 

[Scanton]

Just to let you all know that we successfully argued that what we produce are components and not products, and as the components we produce are not in readily usable condition, they could not find their way into the end products from our scrap bins.

Everything we make is either a small parts of a much larger welded (and sometimes brazed) assembly or a component deep inside a consumer unit assembly that is replaced as a consumer unit.

As with all of our automotive components we are the sole supplier, so items recovered from our scrap bins by an outsider would not be accepted by our customers they would not be an approved supplier, so there is a zero chance of our scrap components making it into a vehicle via that route.

You can argue the strict interpretation of this requirement, however in this instance it was deemed unnecessary and we received no nonconformity for not rendering our nonconforming parts unusable, as we argued that they already are unusable.

 

[Golfman25]

Just to let you all know that we successfully argued that what we produce are components and not products, and as the components we produce are not in readily usable condition, they could not find their way into the end products from our scrap bins.

Everything we make is either a small parts of a much larger welded (and sometimes brazed) assembly or a component deep inside a consumer unit assembly that is replaced as a consumer unit.

As with all of our automotive components we are the sole supplier, so items recovered from our scrap bins by an outsider would not be accepted by our customers they would not be an approved supplier, so there is a zero chance of our scrap components making it into a vehicle via that route.

You can argue the strict interpretation of this requirement, however in this instance it was deemed unnecessary and we received no nonconformity for not rendering our nonconforming parts unusable, as we argued that they already are unusable.

Awesome. That will be helpful to many of us. Thanks.

 

[Big Jim]

Just to let you all know that we successfully argued that what we produce are components and not products, and as the components we produce are not in readily usable condition, they could not find their way into the end products from our scrap bins.

Everything we make is either a small parts of a much larger welded (and sometimes brazed) assembly or a component deep inside a consumer unit assembly that is replaced as a consumer unit.

As with all of our automotive components we are the sole supplier, so items recovered from our scrap bins by an outsider would not be accepted by our customers they would not be an approved supplier, so there is a zero chance of our scrap components making it into a vehicle via that route.

You can argue the strict interpretation of this requirement, however in this instance it was deemed unnecessary and we received no nonconformity for not rendering our nonconforming parts unusable, as we argued that they already are unusable.

I think your argument is flawed.

The parts (components are parts too) could still end up in cars through the aftermarket.

In aerospace the issue is more with the aftermarket than it is with parts that go into new aircraft and it would be the same for cars.

It really isn't a big deal to destroy a part. What's the point of trying to skirt around an important safety requirement.

 

[Golfman25]

I think your argument is flawed.

The parts (components are parts too) could still end up in cars through the aftermarket.

In aerospace the issue is more with the aftermarket than it is with parts that go into new aircraft and it would be the same for cars.

It really isn't a big deal to destroy a part. What's the point of trying to skirt around an important safety requirement.

Really would depend on what the part is. Most of us make non-descript parts nobody would know what they are for. There is no point to destroying a part that has no commonly known use. I could show you a part and the closest you would get to describing it would be "some sort of bracket." You would have no idea what it's for or where it goes.

 

[Big Jim]

Really would depend on what the part is. Most of us make non-descript parts nobody would know what they are for. There is no point to destroying a part that has no commonly known use. I could show you a part and the closest you would get to describing it would be "some sort of bracket." You would have no idea what it's for or where it goes.

You greatly under estimate the creativity of a devious mind. Make the world safer for all of us and just destroy it.

I don't understand your stubborn resistance. You just need to deface it in such a manner that it isn't usable. Damage a significant feature before throwing it in the scrap bin. A grinder, a saw cut, a hammer, a drill, a notcher. Do the simplest thing possible that makes it unusable.

Would you want one of your defective parts to end up on a car your mom drives?

 

[Scanton]

You all make interesting points however a little bit of context may help you understand my reluctance to go along with this requirement.

We are a small subcontract manufacturer that needs to carefully manage the resource we have in order to remain competitive. The overwhelming majority of the components we produce are physically small, have cycle times of less than 10 seconds, and so are produced in large quantities, so throwing additional resource at doing something so unnecessary just because it is good practice in other areas of manufacturing does not seem justifiable to me.

I would understand the “you wouldn’t like one of these scrap components in your mums car” type comments if the situation were different, however if her mechanic found a faulty spark plug he would replace it with a new one and not scour e-bay for a single component in order to rebuild it. The cost of the component (including p&p), the lead time to get the component, the equipment need to remove and replace the component, and the man hour costs involved make in economically unviable, and the real life chance of someone actually doing this is zero. Similarly if we made the metal cage that holds the filter in place in an oil filter, is someone going to deconstruct and rebuild it or just replace it as a consumer unit? This is the type of situation we find ourselves in and can find no justification for throwing additional resource damaging something that is already unusable.

I know we are probably in an unusual position when compared to other manufacturer of automotive components, however that is the decision we took and our auditor agreed it was the correct decision for us.

 

[Golfman25]

You all make interesting points however a little bit of context may help you understand my reluctance to go along with this requirement.

We are a small subcontract manufacturer that needs to carefully manage the resource we have in order to remain competitive. The overwhelming majority of the components we produce are physically small, have cycle times of less than 10 seconds, and so are produced in large quantities, so throwing additional resource at doing something so unnecessary just because it is good practice in other areas of manufacturing does not seem justifiable to me.

I would understand the “you wouldn’t like one of these scrap components in your mums car” type comments if the situation were different, however if her mechanic found a faulty spark plug he would replace it with a new one and not scour e-bay for a single component in order to rebuild it. The cost of the component (including p&p), the lead time to get the component, the equipment need to remove and replace the component, and the man hour costs involved make in economically unviable, and the real life chance of someone actually doing this is zero. Similarly if we made the metal cage that holds the filter in place in an oil filter, is someone going to deconstruct and rebuild it or just replace it as a consumer unit? This is the type of situation we find ourselves in and can find no justification for throwing additional resource damaging something that is already unusable.

I know we are probably in an unusual position when compared to other manufacturer of automotive components, however that is the decision we took and our auditor agreed it was the correct decision for us.

Actually the supply chain is pretty long so it is applicable to many suppliers. I agree, nobody is dumpster diving to reuse my $0.20 part that they have no clue what to do with.

 

[Golfman25]

You greatly under estimate the creativity of a devious mind. Make the world safer for all of us and just destroy it.

I don't understand your stubborn resistance. You just need to deface it in such a manner that it isn't usable. Damage a significant feature before throwing it in the scrap bin. A grinder, a saw cut, a hammer, a drill, a notcher. Do the simplest thing possible that makes it unusable.

Would you want one of your defective parts to end up on a car your mom drives?

Most "defective" are defective in that they won't assemble properly or otherwise won't work. So they aren't ending up anywhere but the scrap bin.

 

[Big Jim]

You all make interesting points however a little bit of context may help you understand my reluctance to go along with this requirement.

We are a small subcontract manufacturer that needs to carefully manage the resource we have in order to remain competitive. The overwhelming majority of the components we produce are physically small, have cycle times of less than 10 seconds, and so are produced in large quantities, so throwing additional resource at doing something so unnecessary just because it is good practice in other areas of manufacturing does not seem justifiable to me.

I would understand the “you wouldn’t like one of these scrap components in your mums car” type comments if the situation were different, however if her mechanic found a faulty spark plug he would replace it with a new one and not scour e-bay for a single component in order to rebuild it. The cost of the component (including p&p), the lead time to get the component, the equipment need to remove and replace the component, and the man hour costs involved make in economically unviable, and the real life chance of someone actually doing this is zero. Similarly if we made the metal cage that holds the filter in place in an oil filter, is someone going to deconstruct and rebuild it or just replace it as a consumer unit? This is the type of situation we find ourselves in and can find no justification for throwing additional resource damaging something that is already unusable.

I know we are probably in an unusual position when compared to other manufacturer of automotive components, however that is the decision we took and our auditor agreed it was the correct decision for us.

It has become obvious that we must agree to disagree.

I agree it is not likely that a mechanic would search for a spark plug on ebay unless it was a very unusual application. What would be of greater concern is the vendor that calls on the mechanic with an exceptional buy of what appears to be a legit spark plug but was actually something retrieved from the Champion Spark Plug factory's scrap bin.

Even worse the unscrupulous vendor takes the defective spark plugs, buys a good set, tells that vendor that he didn't need them after all, and substitutes the defective ones and returns them, allowing deeper penetration into the supply chain.

And that sort of thing does happen all to often.