AssWrWb,
Terima kasih atas informasinya, mohon dilanjutkan terus karena pasti akan
bermanfaat.
Mohon disampaikan juga untuk Chandra P.
WassWrWb,
N. Im@msjah R, StMR.
> ----------
> From: Magyartoto Tersiawan[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:47 AM
> To: PB List Member
> Subject: [PB] CP Demo Project at CSR Wood Panels {01}
>
>
> Cleaner Production Demonstration Project at CSR Wood Panels
>
>
> 1.0 REVIEW OF CSR WEATHERTEX OPERATIONS
>
>
> The Weathertex plant at Raymond Terrace is a division of CSR Timber
> Products. It produces manufactured timber board designed for external use.
> The major uses are for house cladding and signboards. The site also
> formerly produced "masonite" products, but following a major company
> re-organisation midway through 1995, the plant now produces "Weathertex"
> only.
>
> In former years, the plant provided the main employment for the township
> of Raymond Terrace, north of Newcastle. The size of the workforce has
> reduced from 250 people down to 80 people due to changes in technology and
> product mix, but the plant still plays an important role in generating
> income for the town.
>
> The process is based on the Mason gun, a technology which uses high
> pressure steam to reduce wood chips to their constituent parts before
> being reformed into the appropriate shaped board.
>
> Operations at CSR Weathertex include:
>
> Chipping:
>
> A variety of hardwood species are chipped
>
> Mason Guns:
>
> The chips are subjected to high pressure steam, which is suddenly
> released, causing the wood to break into its constituent parts.
>
> Stock Preparation
> Board Making:
>
> Mixing wood fibre into a slurry ready for forming. The wood slurry is then
> poured onto a forming mat and rolled to produce "wet lap".
>
> Pressing:
>
> The wet lap is cut to length and subjected to high pressure and
> temperature. This removes all remaining water and cures the natural resins
> to bind the wood fibres together.
>
> Finishing:
>
> The boards pass through a number of operations involving:
>
>
> * planing to thickness;
> * humidifying;
> * cutting to size;
> * painting; and
> * packaging and warehouse storage.
>
> Wastes generated at the site include wastewater, waste oil, solvents,
> liquid paints, turpentine, empty drums, solid paint, wood fibre, broken
> boards and offcuts, wood sludge, sawdust, logyard mulch and general
> garbage.
>
>
> 2.0 PLANNING AND ORGANISATION OF CLEANER PRODUCTION PROJECT
>
> 2.1 CLEANER PRODUCTION APPROACH USED AT CSR
>
> A structured approach was used to identify opportunities and implement
> Cleaner Production at CSR. The approach included:
>
> 1
>
> An initial "review" of the site, conducted by Dames & Moore and Energetics
> in close discussion with CSR personnel. The purpose of this audit was to
> provide preliminary information on the operation of the site, and identify
> general cleaner production opportunities.
>
> 2
>
> Follow up site visits and meetings between Energetics, Dames & Moore and
> CSR, with the objective of reviewing site processes in more detail, and
> identifying specific cleaner production opportunities with potential to
> become cleaner production projects.
>
> 3
>
> Evaluating the pros and cons associated with each of the potential cleaner
> production opportunities.
>
> 4
>
> Selection of the opportunities to be implemented at the site (to be
> decided by Moore Business personnel in discussion with management).
>
> 5
>
> Implementing the selected opportunities and conducting any monitoring
> required to demonstrate the benefits of the opportunities.
>
> From the outset, and throughout the course of the project, it was
> envisaged that CSR were to be responsible for the day-to-day running of
> the project. Dames & Moore and Energetics acted as catalysts for ideas and
> were responsible for providing technical back-up as required and
> documenting the results of the project.
>
> The incentive for implementing cleaner production at CSR Weathertex has
> altered radically since the beginning of the project and this has changed
> the focus for identifying suitable cleaner production projects.
>
> At the beginning of 1995 (and the commencement of site work for the
> Cleaner Production program), the site was operating 7 days per week with a
> workforce of over 250 people. At full production rate, disposal of
> effluent from the process was looming as a significant issue and one
> which, if not addressed, would have the potential to close the plant down.
> Actions were already being taken to address this, however, it was
> perceived the Cleaner Production process would provide much needed
> assistance.
>
> Midway through 1995, a deteriorating market place forced CSR to
> re-organise its Timber Products division. For the Raymond Terrace plant,
> this meant operating hours were reduced to 3 to 4 days per week, the
> workforce was reduced to 80 people and the number of different types of
> boards produced was also reduced. The threat of total closure was imminent
> if financial performance did not quickly and substantially improve.
>
> The effect of this on the Project was two-fold. Firstly, the effluent
> problem was largely solved due to the reduced operating hours of the
> plant. Secondly, the plant had to identify ways to cut costs with little
> or no capital expenditure.
>
> As a result the cleaner production opportunities were developed as part of
> the overall plant improvement. All employees were encouraged to identify
> opportunities, especially the quality teams on the site. The evaluation
> and implementation of the projects was undertaken by CSR personnel with
> significant commitment from senior site management.
>
>
> 2.2 CLEANER PRODUCTION OPPORTUNITIES AT CSR WOOD PANELS
>
> The main cleaner production initiatives identified by CSR personnel and
> the consultants involved:
>
> * reduced board defects;
> * improved paint application;
> * improved control of board thickness;
> * sale of wood waste;
> * sale of brick strips;
> * reduced effluent;
> * review of product sizing;
> * irrigation of forest plantation; and
> * implementing operating procedures.
>
> These are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
>
> 2.2.1 Reduced Board Defects
>
> Prior to the implementation of Cleaner Production methodology to the site,
> the average net reject rate (after reworking) was 13.5% (6,750
> tonnes/year). The cost of reject product for this site was estimated to be
> $100,000 per 1%, so the total cost of reject product was over $1.35
> million per year. Reducing the reject rate was therefore central to
> re-establishing financial control of the site.
>
> The high reject rate was due to a number of reasons. The most important of
> these was the lack of control over the process and insufficient
> understanding of the process variables. As there was opportunity to reduce
> solid wastes and decrease overall costs, the initiative to reduce board
> rejects was investigated as part of this project.
>
> 2.2.2 Improved Paint Application
>
> After pressing and planing, the board is cut into planks prior to
> painting. Paint is applied using two spray guns. The site consumed around
> 300,000 litres of paint and solvent each year, at a cost of approximately
> $1.4M (based on the new, reduced production requirements).
>
> This operation was very inefficient and resulted in a great deal of paint
> overspray. Waste paint built up rapidly inside the spray booth, quickly
> blocking the filters exhausting air from the booth and creating a
> significant housekeeping problem. Some of the oversprayed paint was
> captured and recycled, but the recycling process itself resulted in some
> waste also. Therefore, improved paint spraying techniques would reduce air
> emissions and the amount of waste paint and decrease operating costs. More
> efficient spray systems were investigated as part of this project.
>
> 2.2.3 Board Thickness
>
> The thickness of the boards after pressing were not consistent. Boards
> over 10.5 mm thick were rejected, whilst boards less than 10.5 mm were
> accepted, but were planed to the correct thickness of
>
> 9.5 mm. Lost wood accounted for around 5% of total wood consumption, or
> 1,800 tonnes per year.
>
> This process resulted in waste of wood product and the generation of dust
> which must be collected, stored and disposed of. By improving control over
> board thickness, less wood would be wasted. This opportunity was further
> investigated as part of this project.
>
> 2.2.4 Sale of Wood Waste
>
> Waste wood products are generated at various stages throughout the
> process, they include:
>
> * Woodyard waste-bark, scrap wood not processed by the chipper;
> * Planer dust;
> * Effluent sediment; and
> * Offcuts from the sawing process.
>
> Approximately 6,000 tonnes of wood waste are generated per year. These
> were formerly disposed of to landfill, at a cost of around $80,000 per
> year. There was an opportunity to identify a market for the wastes and
> sell them, which was investigated during this project.
>
> 2.2.5 Sale of Brick Strips
>
> The site has a large backlog of reject product. This is potentially
> expensive to dispose of and is a demoralising reminder of previous quality
> control problems. Converting this reject pile into saleable product
> (�brick strips�) will:
>
> * make use of otherwise waste material;
> * remove the reject pile from the site; and
> * return a profit instead of incurring a cost.
>
> This opportunity was investigated as part of this project.
>
> 2.2.6 Reduced Effluent
>
> The board making process requires large volumes of water and results in
> high effluent flow rate. Whilst it is possible to install filtration
> equipment to recycle the effluent back to the process, this would be
> expensive and could not be justified on this site at the present time.
>
> Two low cost opportunities were identified to reduce water waste, however,
> as follows:
>
> Broke Tank Overflows
>
> The 'Broke Tank' is a central holding point for water flow in the board
> making process. It is a relatively small tank (approximately 10,000 L) but
> has a very high flowrate through it.
>
> This tank was found to overflow from time to time resulting in a large
> loss of water. It was estimated that water lost through overflow was in
> the region of 4.5 megalitres (ML) per annum. The reasons for the overflow
> were investigated.
>
> Boiler Feedwater Pump Cooling
>
> Steam is used extensively on the site and this is supplied by coal-fired
> boilers. The boilers are supplied with feedwater by two feedwater pumps.
> Cooling water is supplied to the pumps to prevent them overheating and
> this was largely being discharged to the effluent plant. Approximately 5
> ML per year of water is used for pump cooling. There was an opportunity to
> collect and recycle this cooling water, which was investigated during this
> project.
>
> 2.2.7 Increased Pack Sizes
>
> Most of the finished product is transported from site in 1 tonne 'packs'.
> A 'pack' consists of a hardwood pallet and metal strapping. There is a an
> opportunity to increase the standard pack size to 2 tonnes, thereby
> reducing the amount of packaging required per tonne of product.
>
> This opportunity was investigated during the project.
>
> 2.2.8 Irrigation of Forest Plantation
>
> The Weathertex plant produces around 1 ML of waste water each production
> day. This is treated at an on-site effluent plant to remove solids and
> neutralise the pH. It is then disposed of by spray irrigation on
> surrounding land owned by CSR.
>
> Some 6 ha of the 25 ha of irrigated land was purchased by the NSW Roads
> and Traffic Authority for an upgrading of the nearby Pacific Highway. If
> all the effluent had been irrigated on the remaining 19 ha, this would
> have imposed an unacceptably high biological oxygen demand (BOD) load on
> the soil and the company would have been in breach of it's EPA licence
> conditions. An alternative disposal point was therefore needed to secure
> the viability of the plant and prevent environmental damage. This
> opportunity was investigated further.
>
> 2.2.9 Operating Procedures
>
> Many of the operational difficulties being encountered were due to
> inadequate or incorrect procedures being followed. Whilst written
> procedures were in place, these were often ignored.
>
> A review of all procedures was required to assess them for correctness and
> relevance to current operation. Adoption of a standard set of procedures
> would then aid achieving uniformity in the process.
>
> Progress was made toward preparing a standard set of procedures, but these
> were not finalised during the course of the project.
>
> 3.0 CLEANER PRODUCTION INITIATIVES
>
> A summary of the costs and benefits of the cleaner production projects
> implemented is shown below.
>
> 3.1 REDUCTION IN BOARD REJECTS
>
> 3.1.1 Detailed Evaluation of Opportunity
>
> The objective of this project was the reduction in the reject rate of
> product through improved knowledge and control of all stages of the
> process.
>
> In keeping with the team driven approach, factors affecting product
> quality and hence reject rate, were identified by teams representing all
> stages of the process.
>
> It was quickly realised that there was insufficient knowledge on site of
> the important process variables to be controlled, but that significant
> economic advantages could be achieved by better understanding the process.
>
> Therefore initiative resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of
> rejects which resulted in significantly lower unit production costs.
>
> 3.1.2 Project Implementation
>
> A methodical team approach was used to go through the board production
> process to identify factors affecting product quality. Where there was
> considered insufficient information, project team and process operators
> investigated the impact on product quality and identify the actions
> required to improve product quality.
>
> One example of this, is the mix of tree species used to create the wood
> pulp. Until reviewed by the team, the site had no detailed understanding
> of the species that would enhance the performance of the board making
> process and those that would detract from it. Experimentation was
> conducted using a pilot plant on site and this quickly identified the best
> species to use. An "Approved Species" list has now been developed.
> Suppliers have been trained to provide appropriate species, and logs are
> now branded by a suitably trained contractor prior to collection.
>
> Other process variables such as �gun pressure�, �wet lap� thickness, and
> �pressed board� thickness are now monitored continually, using chart
> recorders, manual measurements and manual recorders.
>
> An important and surprising result of the process was to reduce the speed
> of the board machine from 32 ft/min to 28 ft/min; a reduction of 12.5%.
> Process consistency and quality was improved and output actually rose by
> some 17% as a result of this action.
>
> Rejects are now monitored on a shift by shift basis by production
> personnel from each area of the process. This allows rapid identification
> of problem areas and allows response to the causes of rejects as they
> occur, which is a major reason for the large reduction in reject rate
> observed. Both gross and net rejects are monitored to assess the quality
> of the production process and the ability to recover from faults. Both
> measures provide an important pointer to the performance of the plant.
>
> 3.1.3 Results
>
> Prior to targeting board reject rate as a high priority area for
> improvement, net rejects were assessed on the basis of a monthly
> stocktake. This method gave no indication of the gross reject rate (ie:
> boards initially rejected and subsequently reworked) and monthly reporting
> did not allow rapid response to developing problems.
>
> Gross reject rate from each stage of the process is now recorded on a
> shift by shift basis by production personnel. They respond to the causes
> of rejects as they occur and this is a major reason for the very large
> reduction in reject rate observed.
>
> A monthly summary of board rejects is still compiled, but this details
> gross and net rejects from each production stage. This allows much better
> analysis of any long-term trends in reject rate.
>
> Net rejects cost the plant approximately $100,000 per 1% of production. As
> a result on the initiative, rejects have been reduced from an average
> 13.5% (Jun 94 to May 95) to an average 6% (Nov �95 to Apr �96)
> representing an annual saving of some $750,000. The primary cost to
> achieve this was in retraining the work force to operate as self-directed
> work teams and establishing the management systems to support this. The
> total cost of this was difficult to quantify and the effect is spread over
> all operations of the plant. A reasonable estimate of this cost is
> $100,000. Capital cost for equipment was nil.
>
> COSTS:
>
> $100,000
>
> SAVINGS:
>
> $750,000 per year
>
> PAYBACK PERIOD:
>
> less than 2 months
>
> ]3.2 REDUCED PAINT OVERSPRAY
>
> 3.2.1 Detailed Evaluation of Opportunity
>
> Once the boards have been cut to the correct width, they are sprayed with
> primer paint. This operation was very inefficient with a great deal of
> paint overspray resulting in waste and a poor working environment.
>
> The objectives of this project were:
>
> * the introduction of a new paint spray system to reduce overspray;
> and
> * to achieve savings on paint and housekeeping.
>
> A team was assembled from production workers in this area to address the
> problem. They contacted several suppliers of alternative equipment and
> conducted trials of the existing system against potential new systems. The
> key to reducing the overspray was the use of appropriate spray nozzles.
>
> 3.2.2 Project Implementation
>
> A controlled experiment was conducted to determine the reduction in paint
> overspray possible by improved equipment and set up methods.
>
> A record was kept of paint consumption and board production rate for a set
> period of time using the existing paint gun system. A similar record was
> then kept using a new spray gun system. This process allowed paint
> consumption and cost per square metre of board to be identified for each
> system.
>
> 3.2.3 Results
>
> Two important results came out of this work. Firstly, it was found that
> the existing estimates of paint consumption were inaccurate, and secondly,
> it was found that the new system was much more economical to use. Figure 1
> demonstrates the results of these experiments. Average paint use expressed
> as Litres/Plank has decreased by approximately 25% as a result of the
> implementation of the new paint spray system. The economic savings
> associated with the initiative are shown below.
>
> COSTS
>
> Approximately $20,000 for new guns and tips and $30,000 to upgrade the
> paint filtration system
>
>
> SAVINGS (Paint)
>
> 170 mm board
>
> 3 cents/plank
>
> 213,000 planks per year
>
> $6,390 per year
>
>
> 200 mm board
>
> 23 cents/plank
>
> 888,000 planks per year
>
> $204,240 per year
>
>
> 300 mm board
>
> 27 cents/plank
>
> 360,000 planks per year
>
> $97,200 per year
>
> TOTAL
>
> $307,830 per year
>
>
> SAVINGS (Housekeeping)
>
> Savings will also result through reduced clean-up time and reduced use of
> air and paint filters. These savings have not yet been quantified.
>
> PAYBACK
>
> Less than 2 months.
>
> Whilst this project requires capital expenditure of some $50,000, the
> savings made will provide a payback period of less than 2 months.
>
> The project resulted in improved paint coverage, reduced waste, and a
> vastly cleaner spray booth.
>
>
> 3.3 BOARD THICKNESS CONTROL
>
> 3.3.1 Project Evaluation and Implementation
>
> The objective of this project was to improve the consistency of board
> thickness, thus reducing wood waste.
>
> The reduction in the variation in board thickness was achieved through
> improved selection of wood species, and some minor fine-tuning of the
> process.
>
> 3.3.2 Results
>
> The improvement in board quality control has seen the variation in
> thickness reduced by half, resulting in less raw material being used, less
> planing required, and better housekeeping. Thickness variations of up to 1
> mm has now been reduced to a maximum of 0.5 mm, improving the yield from
> the timber input.
>
> Average variation in board thickness was reduced from 0.5 mm (5%) to 0.25
> mm (2.5%), thereby saving 2.5% on raw material and producing less dust
> from planing. The savings associated with this opportunity are outlined
> below.
>
> COSTS
>
> Nil
>
> SAVINGS
>
> 2.5% x 36,000 tonnes of wood (annual consumption)
>
> 900 tonnes of wood per year
>
> $35,000 per year
>
> PAYBACK
>
> Immediate
>
> 3.4 SALE OF SOLID WOOD WASTE
>
> 3.4.1 Project Evaluation and Implementation
>
> Waste wood products are generated at various points in the process from
> the wood yard through to the finishing plant. While some this waste was
> sold on an adhoc basis to surrounding nurseries, most of the wood waste
> was sent to landfill.
>
> The objective of this project was to reduce costs associated with wood
> waste disposal.
>
> The wood waste products are now sold for potting mix rather than being
> sent to land fill.
>
> This is a particularly impressive project as it emanated from a former CSR
> employee made redundant by the downsizing in mid 1995. The employee was
> keen to remain working at the Weathertex site and identified the potential
> for selling the wood wastes. He now operates this activity as a business.
>
> 3.4.2 Results
>
> The project has led to a decrease in the quantity of solid waste sent to
> landfill and identified an effective use of what was once considered a
> waste from the site. The economic benefits of the initiative are outlined
> below.
>
> COST:
>
> No capital cost
>
> $100,000 per year contracting and administration cost
>
> SAVINGS:
>
> Avoided land fill costs of $80,000 per year
>
> Generating revenue of $200,000 per year
>
> Providing employment (under contract) for 1 person
>
> Net improvement of $180,000 per year
>
> PAYBACK:
>
> Immediate
>
>
>
> 3.5 SALE OF BRICK STRIPS
>
> 3.5.1 Project Evaluation and Implementation
>
> To dispose of reject boards the past practice was to cut the boards into
> chips for boiler fuel or into packing strips for the brick industry, or
> "brick strips". Both options are relatively labour-intensive and detracted
> from the main production process - hence the accumulated stockpile.
>
> The objective of this project was to use old stockpiles of reject product
> to produce saleable product.
>
> Two former employees now work as full-time contractors to convert the
> reject boards into brick strips.
>
> 3.5.2 Results
>
> This arrangement has ensured:
>
> * two former employees have on-going work;
> * a "waste" product is put to good use;
> * CSR makes a profit on the operation;
> * the reject stockpile is being steadily removed; and
> * the operation is now isolated from the production process.
>
> The economic benefits of the initiative are outlined below.
>
> COST:
>
> No capital cost
>
> $100,000 per year contracting cost
>
> SAVINGS:
>
> Generating revenue of $150,000 per year
>
> Providing employment (under contract) for 2 persons
>
> Net improvement of $50,000 per year, until the stockpiles are all
> sold
>
> PAYBACK:
>
> Immediate
>
>
> 3.6 REDUCED WASTE WATER
>
> 3.6.1 Detailed Evaluation of Opportunity
>
> As discussed in Section 2, the early cleaner production work on the site
> was directed toward reducing the impact of effluent from the site. Part of
> this work included a water audit to identify areas to reduce wastewater.
>
> Following the change in emphasis for the cleaner production work, much of
> this information was put aside. However, two areas had been identified as
> wasting water and it was decided to proceed with rectifying these.
>
> 3.6.2 Project Implementation
>
> Broke Tank Overflows
>
> The first area, "broke tank" overflows was not only responsible for
> wasting water but also halting production whilst the reason for the
> overflow was identified and corrected.
>
> A number of reasons for the overflows were identified and these included:
>
> * incorrect pipe work introducing air into the pumps;
> * foreign material dislodging into the tank and blocking the pump; and
>
> * excessive solid material ("wet lap") introduced to the tank due to
> the inconsistent board making process.
>
> These problems were solved by:
>
> * relocating a return pipe, which had been directing an air stream
> into the pump, causing it to cavitite; and
> * adopting procedures and conducting training to ensure that operators
> avoid manually dumping large amounts of "wet lap" back to the Broke Tank.
>
> Savings of some 4.5 megalitres per year will result.
>
> Boiler Feedwater Pump Cooling
>
> Water used for cooling the boiler feedwater pumps is presently discharged
> to a drain and disposed of through the effluent system. This water will be
> redirected to a holding tank supplying fresh water to the process, saving
> approximately 5 ML of water per year.
>
> 3.6.3 Results
>
> Measures to reduce wastewater, by preventing overflows and directing
> cooling water back to the board making process, resulted in a water saving
> of approximately 9.5 ML/yr. The economic benefits of the initiative are
> outlined below.
>
> COST:
>
> $5,000
>
> SAVING:
>
> 9.5 ML per year
>
> Note:
>
> Water is taken from on site bores and disposed of on site so cost of water
> is minimal.
>
> Indicative savings for this project in a metropolitan location at $1.50/kL
> = $14,250 per year
>
> 3.7 INCREASED PACK SIZES
>
> 3.7.1 Detailed Evaluation of Opportunity
>
> The objective of this initiative was to reduce the amount of packaging
> required per tonne of product. The finished boards are loaded onto pallets
> in packs of 1 tonne and shipped to distribution centres. An opportunity
> was identified to increase the size of the pack to 2 tonnes and thereby
> reduce the amount of packaging material, and hence the cost. Converting
> 70% of 1 tonne packs to 2 tonne packs saves $20 per 2 tonne pack.
>
> 3.7.2 Project Implementation
>
> This project was not implemented.
>
> 3.7.3 Results
>
> Negotiations are still proceeding on this project, but it is expected a 2
> tonne pack will soon be introduced for around 70% of the product
> dispatched.
>
> The expected economic benefits of the initiative are outlined below.
>
> COSTS:
>
> Nil
>
> SAVINGS:
>
> $28,000 per year
>
> PAYBACK:
>
> Immediate
>
> 3.8 IRRIGATION OF FOREST PLANTATION
>
> 3.8.1 Project Evaluation and Implementation
>
> As discussed in Section 2, the irrigation system was considered to be the
> major area in need of improvement, due to increasingly stringent licence
> requirements.
>
> Accordingly capital works were undertaken to upgrade the effluent
> treatment plant (principally clarification and neutralisation) and to
> develop an irrigation network for neighbouring pine and hardwood
> plantation forests.
>
> The irrigation system resulted in:
>
> * an additional 28 hectares of irrigated land (14 hectares existing
> pine forest, 14 hectares of new hardwood forest);
> * a reduction in cleared land irrigation of 6 hectares; and
> * irrigation rate of 1 mm/day on the forests compared with 4 mm/day on
> the cleared land.
>
> 3.8.2 Results
>
> The proposed initiative has led to more sustainable irrigation practices
> and a more sustainable use of the forest resources. Savings will accrue
> from improved forest yield but cannot be assessed as yet. The costs and
> benefits of the initiative are summarised below.
>
> COST
>
> $2 Million (including upgrade of water treatment plant)
>
> BENEFITS
>
>
> * Compliance with EPA regulations;
> * Reduced water load on land;
> * Improved growth in commercial hardwood and softwood plantations; and
>
> * Future supply of hardwood to the manufacturing process.
>
>
> 4.0 REVIEW OF PROJECT
>
>
> Following the re-organisation, there was a rapid change in priorities. The
> effluent issue receded due to reduced operating hours of the plant (7
> days/week down to 3-4 days/week). The amount of effluent to be discharged
> reduced proportionately. Reducing operating costs became the prime
> objective and the plant was still under threat of closure if a
> satisfactory financial performance could not be achieved.
>
> The radical re-organisation of the operation at CSR Weathertex required a
> step change in the way management and the workforce approached their
> responsibilities. The opportunity was taken to implement a "team based"
> approach to manufacturing, with management and technical resources
> available for support.
>
> This re-organisation resulted in a fundamental change of attitude amongst
> the workforce and is the basis for the rapid improvements demonstrated.
>
> The focus of the Cleaner Production activities for this site has shifted
> over time. During the initial site visits in early 1995, the plant was
> operating seven days per week and the market appeared buoyant. Reject
> rates were a concern, but a team was already addressing this issue and the
> prospect of action from the state EPA due to effluent discharge was
> considered a greater priority. Accordingly, water minimisation and
> effluent re-use strategies were considered.
>
> Within six months however, the building market had declined and the
> financial performance of the plant was considered unacceptable. For
> several months, Cleaner Production activities were halted whilst the
> future shape of the site's operations were determined and the workforce
> was reduced by two-thirds.
>
> Teams have been formed for each process area and have been given the tools
> to monitor the consistency and quality of the output from their process.
> In most instances monitoring is through simple manual graphing of
> important process variables.
>
> The teams have participated in brainstorming sessions and followed the
> methodology of CSR's 'BIQ' or Building in Quality Program. This places a
> strong emphasis on identifying an area for improvement, stating a vision,
> measuring performance and systematically identifying the key areas to
> address.
>
> The teams have had strong and clear leadership from their "team leader",
> Bill Gissane, who is also the site manager. The site has shown a very high
> level of autonomy in pursuing their identified goals and managing the
> various changes required to improve performance.
>
> To say there have been no problems during the Cleaner Production Project
> would be to trivialise the extensive and somewhat traumatic changes
> wrought on the company, brought about by a stagnant market and
> unsustainable financial performance. The response however, has been an
> outstanding demonstration of what can be achieved by a motivated
> workforce.
>
> A summary of the costs and benefits of cleaner production initiatives is
> shown below :
>
>
> Project
>
> Capital Cost ($)
>
> Saving ($/year)
>
> Saving (resource)
>
> Financial Payback
>
> Reduced Reject Rate
>
> 100,000 refer to discussion.
>
> 750,000
>
> 2,700 tonnes wood
> 37 tonnes wax
> 22,000 litres paint and solvent
> 200,000 kWh Electricity
> 450 tonnes coal
> 194 tonnes of greenhouse gas
>
> less than 2 months
>
> Reduced Paint overspray
>
> 50,000
>
> over $300,000
>
> 80,000 litres paint
>
> less than 2 months
>
> Improved board thickness control
>
> Nil
>
> 35,000
>
> 900 tonnes wood per year
>
> Immediate
>
> Sale of waste wood products
>
> Refer to discussion.
>
> 180,000 net
>
> 6,000 tonnes per year
> Work for 1 person
>
> Immediate
>
> Sale of Brick Strips
>
> Refer to discussion.
>
> 50,000 net
>
> 120,000 m2/year
> Work for 2 people
>
> Immediate
>
> Reduced waste water
>
> 5,000
>
> Refer to discussion.
>
> 9.5 ML per year
>
>
> Increased Pack Sizes
>
> Nil
>
> 28,000
>
> 15,000 kg packing material
>
>
> Irrigation system
>
> 2,000,000
>
> Refer to discussion.
>
> Improved forest yield
> Reduced water loading on soil
>
>
>
> 5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
>
>
> It is fair to say that Cleaner Production principles became the guiding
> light for the plant. This was not however, an initiative imposed from
> outside, but a recognition of the need to substantially reduce waste in
> order to become competitive.
>
> The greatest potential obstacles to the program - a massive reduction in
> workforce and output, and threatened closure - thus became the greatest
> impetus to achieve change.
>
> The major changes made relate to improvements in board quality and a
> reduction in paint wasted in the finishing section. These improvements
> account for over 80% of the total financial improvement.
>
> 6.0 CSR'S PERSPECTIVE
>
> "In the timber processing business, we are acutely aware of environmental
> concerns. We are privileged to have access to a great resource and it is
> fundamental that we are careful and wise with its use. There is no
> commercial or moral justification for wasting any resource, particularly
> native Australian timber. The Cleaner Production Project has been a
> magnificent opportunity for us to learn how to husband our resources more
> effectively. We have profited from the Project and if all Australian
> Industry can learn something from us we will have been happy to make a
> contribution".
>
> Bill Gissane
>
> CSR Wood Panels
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> DANA MITRA LINGKUNGAN {Friends of the Environment Fund}
> Pusat Niaga Duta Mas Fatmawati, Blok B1/12
> Jl. RS. Fatmawati 39, Jakarta 12150 - INDONESIA
> Telp. : (62-21) 724 8884, 724 8885 | Fax. : (62-21) 724 8883
> Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | URL# http://www.dml.or.id
>
> Konperensi KMB 2001 @ http://kmb2001.dml.or.id
> FORLINK @ http://forlink.dml.or.id
> Bursa Limbah @ http://w2p.dml.or.id
> Forum KMB Indonesia @ http://forumkmb.dml.or.id
> Join Milis PB, kirim email ke mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~ PRODUKSI BERSIH (PB) MAILING LIST
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Posting = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Berhenti = Kirim Email kosong ke mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Berlangganan = Kirim Email kosong ke mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Administrator = mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Arsip = http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
>
> FORLINK @ http://www.forlink.dml.or.id
> Forum KMB Indonesia @ http://www.forumkmb.dml.or.id
> Bursa Limbah Indonesia @ http://www.w2p.dml.or.id
> Free Email Service @ http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref81525
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~
>
>
--
~~~~~~ PRODUKSI BERSIH (PB) MAILING LIST ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posting = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Berhenti = Kirim Email kosong ke mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Berlangganan = Kirim Email kosong ke mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrator = mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arsip = http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
FORLINK @ http://www.forlink.dml.or.id
Forum KMB Indonesia @ http://www.forumkmb.dml.or.id
Bursa Limbah Indonesia @ http://www.w2p.dml.or.id
Free Email Service @ http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref=1281525
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
