The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC


NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Some Related Topic Tags (Not all threads are Tagged)
7.5.2 - validation of processes, 7.5.2.1, api (american petroleum institute), api q1 - oil industry quality management system (qms), audit nonconformances and findings, validation of machines equipment processes design etc.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 14th October 2013, 12:20 PM
HRMaribeth

 
 
Total Posts: 13
Please Help! API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

Hello Everyone:

Working on a nonconformity from our most recent API Audit. Struggling....

To get you on board, I am copying and pasting the entire conversations between us (the company) and API to try and clear this up. As many of you may know, API will not consult you to help you get the answers/evidence they really want from you (which makes it difficult), it's like playing a game between them and us and a lot of going back and forth to get to the right answer.
Enough of that. I can't figure out what we need to get from our vendors/suppliers to show conformity to this one. If anyone has had experience with this one and could help me out... I would so appreciate it! .

Here is all the info related to this NCR. It starts from the oldest and ends with the most recent response.

AAR Number 9: 7.5.2.1 -- The org shall validate those processes identified by the applicable product specification as requiring validation. If these processes are not identified, or there is no product specification involved, the processes requiring validation shall include, as a minimum, non-destructive examination, welding and heat treating, if applicable to the product.
Definition: Validation
NCR ? No record of qualification requirements for personnel performing an outsourced carburizing was found.
Correction: Retrieve qualification records from vendors we outsource our processes with.
Root Cause: Misinterpretation of the standard.
Corrective Action: Retrieved personnel required qualifications from Vendors and is now documented in vendor files.
Response from API:
1. Submit evidence of the ?carburizing? validation performed by your supplier in accordance with Spec Q1, 7.4.1.3.
2. Did you review any other suppliers providing processes that require validation? What was the result of the review?
3. Your root cause requires further clarification. Provide a ?detailed? explanation of the cause of the nonconformity. Why was the standard misinterpreted?
4. Your corrective action is not accepted. What actions have you implemented to minimize the likelihood of recurrence?
Our Responses:
1. Submit evidence ?
2. Yes. No other suppliers require validation.
3. We thought qualifications of vendors was checked during final inspection and we thought this process to be sufficient to validate the product conformance.
4. We have added API criteria to our part numbers within our business system which will trigger required validation on all API materials received back from vendor.
Response from API:
1. I couldn?t find the evidence demonstrating compliance with API Spec Q1, Clause 7.5.2 and 7.4.1.3. Please submit all the requested information. Per 7.5.2; We have the in-house capability to validate the subsequent monitoring and measurement of suppliers to validate their process. See example (carburizing in-house validation) of our validation of outsourced carburizing process.
Ivan E. Pinto (9/20/2013 10:30:41 AM):

Notice that a hardness inspection performed at your location cannot ensure the process was adequate to maintain a homogeneous grain structure and proper chemical and mechanical properties. Your supplier must validate the carburization process in accordance with API Spec Q1, 7.4.1.3. The validation should include:

- defined criteria for review and approval of the processes,
- approval of equipment and qualification of personnel,
- use of specific methods and procedures,
- requirements for records, and
- revalidation.

1. Your customers must be notified about the lack of a validated process. Submit evidence.
2. Provide detailed corrective actions to minimize the likelihood of recurrence.


Our Response:
After careful review, we understand this NCR to be related to our internal process for Supplier Qualification; QSP 7.40 (attached) This procedure has been in place since 2008 and revised 10/30/09 to comply with API requirements. This is our process for validating our outsourced processes up to and including personnel qualifications.
For your review, please find QSP 7.40, Form F-008; Supplier Evaluation, and also a vendor Certificate of Registration to ISO 9001-2008 attached.

API Respone:

Ivan E. Pinto (10/14/2013 9:49:04 AM):
Your evidence is related to ?supplier qualification?. Notice that your organization is required to ?validate processes? by API Spec Q1, 7.4.1.3 & 7.5.2.
- defined criteria for review and approval of the processes,
- approval of equipment and qualification of personnel,
- use of specific methods and procedures,
- requirements for records, and
- revalidation.

1. Your customers must be notified about the lack of a validated process. Submit evidence.
2. Provide detailed corrective actions to minimize the likelihood of recurrence.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 14th October 2013, 02:49 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna

 
 
Total Posts: 8,520
Re: API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

There is a lot to be dealt with in this nonconformity, but the major issue that you are not (apparently) grasping is the fact that you have outsourced a special process <Wikipedia reference-linkcarburizing> which is a type of heat treatment, and such process needs to be validated, which typically includes destructive testing of samples. The surface hardness tests only are NOT sufficient to determine if metallurgical and physical properties are adequate or not. Part of your correction, according to API, is to notify your customer that the part has been processed without a validated special process.

But that does not constitute corrective action, since, in itself does not prevent recurrence of the problem.
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 14th October 2013, 03:11 PM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,642
Re: API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

I understand your frustration. For what it is worth, this is the case with any of the ISO 9001 related standards although some auditors seem to be harder to communicate with than others.

From what I see, your issues are really related to sloppy responses, not to API being difficult.

You would probably find it useful to go to the ANAB website and look up their "Heads Up 137" for some good advice on responding to NCRs. Be aware that the audience is different, in that this is guidance for certification bodies (API in your case) on how to respond to NCRs that ANAB writes against them.

A basic pair of definitions from ISO 9000 is needed first.

Correction - action needed to overcome a nonconformance.

Corrective action - action needed to overcome the CAUSE of a nonconformance (emphasis added).

Correction then is what you immediately do to stop the flow of blood. It includes whatever you do to contain the problem, and sometimes the word containment is used interchangeably. An example could be that you discover you made a bad part. Correction could include making a good part to fill the order. It could also include investigating to determine the extent of the problem and apply appropriate containment.

Next you determine why this happened. To get to the true root cause, you may go through some some contributing causes along the way. As long as you can still reasonably ask why, you have not drilled all the way down to the root cause. This appears to be what the auditor is complaining about. To be appropriate, it must be what failed in your system. Superficial responses are not acceptable. You cannot determine an appropriate corrective action until you have done this.

Sage advice I received from a wise quality management system practitioner is that root cause can always be reduced to either a documentation issue or a competency issue. Sometimes a combination of both. Be careful how you word it though, as anything that sounds like "human error" is not appreciated. "Human error" does not show where the system broke down.

Once you know the true root cause (often the hardest part), determining the corrective action is usually pretty easy, as it is what you do to overcome the root cause. For example, what documents are needed to be improved or what training is needed.

Good luck with resolving this.

Once you really understand the corrective action process, it should be much easier in the future. Let us know how you do.
Thank You to Big Jim for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #4  
Old 14th October 2013, 03:21 PM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,642
Re: API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna View Post

There is a lot to be dealt with in this nonconformity, but the major issue that you are not (apparently) grasping is the fact that you have outsourced a special process <Wikipedia reference-linkcarburizing> which is a type of heat treatment, and such process needs to be validated, which typically includes destructive testing of samples. The surface hardness tests only are NOT sufficient to determine if metallurgical and physical properties are adequate or not. Part of your correction, according to API, is to notify your customer that the part has been processed without a validated special process.

But that does not constitute corrective action, since, in itself does not prevent recurrence of the problem.
It appears that the OP does not grasp 7.5.2, validation of special processes.

Validation of heat treating often does not include destructive testing. I likely does include evidence of process controls to meet the spec, for which the heat treat supplier provides certifications and often include oven charts as evidence as well as rockwell hardness testing.

A special process is a process that cannot be verified by ordinary inspection. When it cannot be simply inspected, a validation scheme is needed. You heat treat supplier is probably aware of what is needed.

You cannot ignore special processes simply because they are outsourced. You still need to show that validation has taken place, hence the need for certs. You need to specify the heat treat specs and ask for certifications. The certs need to be kept as validation records. Part of this may include an audit or site visit of the heat treat supplier to ensure they have the ability to meet your specifications and that they keep adequate validation records (usually records of process controls).
Thank You to Big Jim for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #5  
Old 14th October 2013, 03:35 PM
HRMaribeth

 
 
Total Posts: 13
Re: API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

Thanks for all the information Big Jim. I also found a thread in which you were a part of, kind of related to my issue.

You are correct with your last statement re: OP, I get that part.

This has been quite the learning experience for us. Dealing with API is a far cry different that working with our ISO Registrar Auditor. (Night & Day).

I appreciate your information on responding to Auditors too. I will check it out. If you noticed, we did start out with few words but it ended up exploding into what you see there. We were given 13 NC's and managed to close all but 2, this being one of the 2.

I pretty much know what we need to do now. Someone sent me their phone number and walked me through. But again !!

Maribeth

Last edited by HRMaribeth; 14th October 2013 at 03:44 PM.
  Post Number #6  
Old 14th October 2013, 03:47 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna

 
 
Total Posts: 8,520
Re: API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

Validation of heat treating often does not include destructive testing.
My experience is quite the opposite. The validation of most heat treatment processes that I am familiar with would require destructive testing of samples to ascertain that metallurgical and physical properties of the metal are adequate.
  Post Number #7  
Old 14th October 2013, 04:05 PM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,642
Re: API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna View Post

My experience is quite the opposite. The validation of most heat treatment processes that I am familiar with would require destructive testing of samples to ascertain that metallurgical and physical properties of the metal are adequate.
In your earlier post you mentioned "typically". I would guess that the "typically" is more common for aerospace. I have not seen it in API. I have seen it occasionally in ISO 9001 or AS9100 companies.

I'm sure it is mostly a difference in the cross section of companies I work with rather than any significant difference is application.

So I'll add YMMV.
  Post Number #8  
Old 14th October 2013, 04:42 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna

 
 
Total Posts: 8,520
Re: API Spec Q1 7.5.2 & 7.5.2.1 - Audit Nonconformance Help

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

I would guess that the "typically" is more common for aerospace. I have not seen it in API.
Actually, most of my experience with heat treatment comes from my involvement in the Oil & Gas Industry. As the Oil majors continue to develop fields in deeper and deeper waters offshore, risk management is critical. From the API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 6HT document, we can read:

Quote:
Improper heat treatment of critical components is one of the primary factors that have contributed to field failures. One of the problems associated with field failures is the fact that the test coupon used to certify the properties of the components may be processed at different times than the part(s) it qualifies. This recommended practice was developed to provide optional heat treating and testing procedures exceeding those currently provided in the API Specification 6A Equipment Specifications.

A more serious problem associated with field failures is the fact that the small QTC?s allowed by API Spec 6A will not represent the actual mechanical properties of the part that has a larger ER than the QTC.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Internal Audit Scope Requirements - Audit Nonconformance REOQA ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12 4th April 2014 07:06 PM
Internal Audit Training Help - Audit Nonconformance carolk79 Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 11 2nd August 2011 10:03 PM
Major Audit Nonconformance - Definition of Major Nonconformance doublel Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations 9 21st January 2009 10:51 PM
Anyone know the GM Spec (i.e. GMP.PP.004) for the Delco Electronics Spec - M 9586-1 Frossinator Customer and Company Specific Requirements 7 5th December 2005 07:50 PM
Internal Audit - Is This A Nonconformance? Carla Internal Auditing 31 17th June 2002 03:49 AM



The time now is 03:40 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 
 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" - A Peachfarm Internet Property