IATF 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming product disposition

For product not meeting requirements, the organization shall verify that the product to be scrapped is rendered unusable prior to disposal.
How do you deal with this topic in case of parts which are not completely finished (e.g. raw parts) to meet the new requirement?

 

You need to define how the organization decide when a material is unusable for a product and then how to dispose it.

For example,
I use to work for a company that works with steel plates, considered as a Raw material for the stamping process.
We defined that when a material didn't meet the requirements for the planed product, was necessary to redirect this material for a different product. In this case the material changed its status from Non conforming product to Material raw in process (under the strict identification process), then we can process this material in a new product.

In some cases when the material was under a special spec, and was impossible to use it for a different product, this material was considered unusable and prepared for be disposed.

 

Raw parts will be further processed, e.g. machined and further processed parts, e.g. wheel hubs. If we evaluate parts as scrap we will mark and scrap these parts but we don't destroy the parts before scrapping. And we wonder if the new IATF request this: to destroy these parts that it is unpossible to use these parts.

 

I had some thoughts about this requierement. We are a rivert manufacter and produce very small parts.
If we scrap something we put it in a container and send it metal recyckling.
Do we have to destroy them before sending them to recyckling?

 

Will your organization be put at risk if the recycling company release your scrap to buyers in its unrecycled form?

 

For component part manufacturers is a problematic requirement. Like anders said most of us put bad parts in a scrap bin and send them to a recycler. For the most part, people wouldn't even know or care what the parts are for. Once in the scrap bin the risk of them being reused is nill. Having to do anything more is just a waste.

 

I'm new to the board (and late to this thread), but I wanted to add a thought. At a company I previously worked at, an employee was fishing things out of reject bins and selling them on eBay. Eventually caught, fired and criminally charged.

The point being that making them unusable is not always just about removing them from the legitimate production flow, but also preventing illegitimate escape. If I manufactured some automotive part, I'd want to ensure a nonconforming part never had a chance to make it into a vehicle.

 

Product to be scrapped is logged on the department scrap report and rendered unusable prior to disposal is performed. Example: For example: Contractors pick up off-spec materials for disposal or recycling.

 

How does the standard intent apply to electronic components? We make capacitors. The non-conforming products are placed in waste bins with a one way lid but the capacitor can be theoretically used after removal from waste bin. Since we can't physically destroy or otherwise mark or deface the part, is a secure container enough?

 

Good day IrisQualiy;
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 determined how that determination will be made, then determining a method appropriate to your organization regarding "...rendered unusable..." may become easier.
Hope this helps.

 

Ours did have a problem with it yesterday...must be physically unusable. More on this later as we are about to begin day 2!

 

Sounds to me that they are taking this too far. Sure we have all heard the stories of people selling remanufactured parts as new. And they want to avoid those shenanigans. But there is a big difference between a completed alternator, brake assembly, etc. and a bracket or washer.

 

I am reminded of the government selling "de-milled" parts for surplus. The weapons were cut apart in several critical places to render them unusable. It was common practice to re-weld or even remake the critical parts to make them operational again. There is no way to guarantee that you have made a part "unusable", only "unusable" as is.

 

We pointed that out also, and they are in a red bucket labeled scrap. Perhaps this will be addressed during sanctioned interpretations.