Heinrich K.-Interim Quality Executive | Quality with Vision

Site Closure Following Insolvency

Situation:

Following the COVID pandemic and the start of the war in Ukraine, Dr. M. Kampschulte GmbH & Co.KG ran into financial difficulties. In autumn 2022, the situation worsened so dramatically that filing for insolvency became unavoidable in December 2022, despite a full order book. The insolvency administrator opened the main proceedings on 01.02.2023, leading to the closure of the site. I was appointed on-site coordinator by the insolvency administrator.

Goal:

An orderly closure of the production site and handover of the property to the landlord

Approach:

• Data gathering: Compiled all relevant information for the inventory and potential sale of the business.
• Managing remaining production: Coordinated the remaining production and dispatch of outstanding orders.
• Scheduling: Organized and attended site visits.
• Damage management: Filed a claim with the landlord for significant water damage caused by heavy rainfall.
• Sale oversight: Supervised the handover of items sold by the insolvency administrator (e.g. laboratory equipment, forklifts).
• Waste management: Identified and monitored disposal activities, including laboratory chemicals, stock, steel and electronic waste.
• Document management: Compiled and sorted files for storage, coordinated the disposal of sensitive documents and carried out hard drive cleaning.
• Fire alarm system shutdown: Prepared for the shutdown, which had to be carried out by the landlord.

Result:

• The site was handed over to the landlord at the end of May 2023, free of sensitive documents and chemicals.
• The main disposal activities were completed successfully; only minor work remained on office furniture and steel scrap.
• The landlord was satisfied with the process and the agreed timeline.

Situation:

Under the BImSchVO, Dr. M. Kampschulte GmbH & Co.KG was classified as a facility requiring a permit. Further legislation set out how much of each substance, based on its properties, could be stored at each location and how this had to be documented. The approved quantities could not exceed the permitted limits, either as absolute amounts or as calculated ratios.

A revision of the regulation (Seveso III) would have further increased the requirements.

Following a notice establishing a domino effect with a nearby facility within a certain distance, action was required.

Goal:

Amend the operating permit to fall outside the Seveso III Directive and avoid additional administrative work.

Approach:

• Commissioned an engineering consultancy specializing in the BImSchVO to assess the notice, as it contradicted a site visit by the City of Düsseldorf with TÜV (difference in the required safety distance).
• Re-analyzed the previously approved quantities of hazardous substances. Checked which substances went into which products and the minimum stock levels that were essential.
• Used a table provided by the engineering consultancy to iteratively determine new maximum quantities and the required ratios to fall outside the Directive.
• Compared the resulting theoretical quantities with the limit quantities.
• Kept the engineering consultancy and the responsible district government closely informed and aligned on the quantity review and voluntary reduction.
• Together with the other shareholders, decided to reduce the approved quantities to the newly determined limit quantities.

Result:

• The previously approved quantities of chromic acid and potassium cyanide were well above daily requirements.
• By significantly reducing the quantities of these two substances alone, we achieved a new ratio that meant the company no longer fell under the Seveso III Directive.
• All parties involved (e.g. the district government) were satisfied with the cooperation and communication throughout the process.

Situation:

In 1999, a QM handbook was prepared based on the then-current version of DIN EN ISO 9001. To confirm that work was being carried out according to a QM handbook, an in-house certificate was created and presented in response to customer inquiries. Although this approach had been accepted for a long time and complied with the standard, it led to the loss of a customer. During a supplier audit, this in-house certificate was not accepted.

Goal:

Protect the customer base by obtaining an accredited certificate.

Approach:

• First, online research was carried out to find a service provider who could update the existing handbook to meet DIN EN ISO 9001:2008.
• A suitable service provider recommended by the selected certification body was commissioned.
• The handbook was revised in the second half of 2011, including rewriting the quality policy, updating the process descriptions and work instructions, and creating new documents such as the management review for the first time.
• Employees were involved by describing their workplaces and work processes.

Results:

• Employees gained a better understanding of processes and transferred their knowledge, developing a new understanding of their daily work.
• The initial certification in early 2012 was passed without any nonconformities.
• Customer feedback was positive, although the customer at the root of the issue could not be won back.