IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unusable

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Sebastian, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of auditors that I have come into contact with don't have your black and white view of the standards, and tend to adopt a real world approach when reviewing their application during audit.

The conclusion of my risk analysis was that whatever system we implemented to try and make the unusable components more unusable, would significantly increase risk to our customer and our employees. It did not conclude that the requirement was “Stupid”.

Standards are not finite, their application is open to interpretation and not every circumstance for their application can be considered by the committee that writes them.

True. 4 out of 5 are reasonable. But then there is always "that guy."

 

[normzone]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Perhaps a little out of the box thinking could be applied.

I had a vhs tape with some rather ... personal footage on it

To dispose of it I opened the cassette, spooled out the tape, put it in a bag with some spoiled spaghetti sauce and put it in the dumpster. Perhaps a similar liquid approach could be taken with your scrap material. Maybe you could strike a deal with somebody who wants to dispose of old paint. When it's dry it's legal to put in the trash.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

I wouldn't suggest others arguing with auditor, when my system does not meet requirement because I found it stupid. I am too responsible for that.

Rigid requirements that don't add value are in fact stupid. But who cares it's only the company's money.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Perhaps a little out of the box thinking could be applied.

I had a vhs tape with some rather ... personal footage on it

To dispose of it I opened the cassette, spooled out the tape, put it in a bag with some spoiled spaghetti sauce and put it in the dumpster. Perhaps a similar liquid approach could be taken with your scrap material. Maybe you could strike a deal with somebody who wants to dispose of old paint. When it's dry it's legal to put in the trash.

Problem is that wouldn't render them "unusable." Just clean off the paint, which likely won't stick anyway because of the oil, and you're ready to use again.

 

[Scanton]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Unfortunately Normzone the components are made from stainless steel.

We segregate our waste even down to the specific grade of stainless steel so we get the best price for our waste (components, bar ends and swarf), and it makes it easy for our waste contractor to melt it down (making any components irreversibly unusable) to be used again as a small % of recycled material in a new batch of raw material.

 

[John C. Abnet]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Good afternoon @joekirk/all;
This has certainly been a contentious an frustrating requirement. Hopefully what I am providing below will be of assistance to all.
Specific to your original question, please note the initial qualifying statement in 8.7.1.7 "...for disposition of non-conforming product not subject to rework or repair." One can infer from this that the product being spoken about may indeed be dispositioned as scrap. Please also note, however, that the standard (as is common) leaves some room...i.e., provides a "blank canvas" for your organization to comply with the standard while still "painting" the specific needs of your organization.
Obviously it is important/required to ensure that "... that outputs that do not conform to their requirements are...controlled to prevent their unintended use or delivery." (8.7.1). This statement, however, does not preclude the verbiage used "...the product to be scrapped...". Taken verbatim/legalistically, the standard is leaving some room between "...product not meeting requirements..." and "...the product to be scrapped...".
The standard is recognizing that not all "...product not meeting the requirement..." will be scrapped. Indeed the standard is speaking specifically to "...THE product to be scrapped...". This allows your organization to determine "...THE product to be scrapped...". Once you have identified how that determination will be made, then determining a method appropriate to your organization regarding "...rendered unusable..." may become easier.
Hope this helps.

 

[Marc]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Also see: IATF 16949 Cl. 8.7.1.7 - Scrapped nonconforming product

 

[Woody]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

This was one of the findings identified in our IATF 16949 transition audit. We stamp body panels and assemble closures. The auditor identified that we were effectively controlling the handling of product to be scrapped internally to prevent use of that part "that is just good enough" to make a shipment.

The problem was that our outsourced method of rendering scrap unusable was not effectively verified. The process identified was to compare weight tickets of scrap bins leaving our facility to those received at the recycler some thirty miles distant. By incorporating an audit at contract renewal, we were able to show more oversight. The process applies to the PPAPed part - any intermediary part need not be addressed.

A note about auditors being able to distinguish shades of gray: many CB's and some of their individual auditors were called to task regarding soft auditing, and differences between audit findings with and without a witness auditor present. We should all be aware that the auditor is more likely to issue the nonconformance and we must then dispute the finding in order to get common sense applied to our specific situation. This allows the auditor to show that he did his part even if the CB's review board overturns the finding.

 

[John C. Abnet]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Good day @woody;
Please help me understand...
Are you indicating that your organization is/was (at the time of the 3rd party audit)...
1-
"...compar(ing) weight tickets of scrap bins leaving our facility to those received at the recycler some thirty miles distant." ?

Are you further indicating that ...
2- ...the 3rd party auditor applied a non-conformance "finding" of clause 8.7.1.7 against your organization considering the method described in "1-" ?

Is my stated understand correct in regards to what transpired ?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Woody]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Yes, the weight ticket comparison was taking place; the painting of product before going into scrap bins was being done. Contracts state the purpose of collecting the scrap is for recycling.

Honestly, I thought should have been sufficient to show that this subcontracted service was adequately verified. However, I neither have my card or a certifying body to back up my opinion.