Scratched tubing to be treated as nonconforming product?

[gandhisa]

We make tubing and it is not uncommon that we inspect finish material and a few of the tubes may have to buffed to remove scratches. We do not follow the non conforming material procedure for this. These few tubes would have the traveller attached to the product, get buffed and then once inspected to confirm the scratches have been removed, get shipped with the entire product.
Our auditor is arguing that this is still non conforming. If we were to treat these as non conformance- add a R for rework etc, we would constantly be documenting non conforming since a few pieces that may have issues are inherent of our process.
We typically follow non conformance process for situation when the entire lot doesnt meet specs.
Any guidance on how to address this.

 

[Randy]

Any guidance on how to address this.

Yep, it's yours to define what is or is not conforming so just make sure you have it well defined.

And tell the auditor he's full of krap.

 

[John Broomfield]

We make tubing and it is not uncommon that we inspect finish material and a few of the tubes may have to buffed to remove scratches. We do not follow the non conforming material procedure for this. These few tubes would have the traveller attached to the product, get buffed and then once inspected to confirm the scratches have been removed, get shipped with the entire product.
Our auditor is arguing that this is still non conforming. If we were to treat these as non conformance- add a R for rework etc, we would constantly be documenting non conforming since a few pieces that may have issues are inherent of our process.
We typically follow non conformance process for situation when the entire lot doesnt meet specs.
Any guidance on how to address this.

Your auditor is wrong in declaring the scratched bent pipe as nonconforming because your process includes buffing to remove any scratches.

It’s a bit like tumbling items to remove any burrs.

Your colleagues may, however, have implied that buffing is a remedial measure during the audit.

 

[Cari Spears]

We perform welding in-house and have an AWS certified weld inspector on staff. He routinely marks up weldments for minor repairs that are allowable per our weld procedure specifications. We do not control this as nonconforming product. The CWI marks up the weldment, the welder repairs the spots, and the CWI reinspects.

Now if the CWI found, for example, that the weldment is missing a piece, or the stitch pattern is wrong, or if repairs are extensive and need to be cut apart and re-prepped and re-welded, then we document and control per our nonconforming product process.

Your auditor is wrong.

 

[John Broomfield]

Cari,

Repairs?

Finishing is less of a red flag.

John

 

[Cari Spears]

The terminology in AWS specifications is "repair". Allowable in-process repairs are described in AWS specifications and our weld procedure specifications. "Finishing" means a whole other thing in our organization.

I'm not concerned about what is a red flag for an ISO/AS auditor. Once I've shown our rationale, and the fact that our weld process is audited a couple times a year by our major customers, there is no problem, and I would contest the nonconformance if an auditor insisted on writing one.

 

[ScottK]

Either your auditor has incorrect preconceptions or it was presented to them poorly.
Sounds like removing any scratches that may occur is a part of the process and should pointed out as such.
is there a work instruction that the auditor is citing that doesn't have this step and that is the real issue?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Any guidance on how to address this.

This cosmetic addressing of the tubes is no different than doing a paint touch up job just prior to shipping product. Common sense is so rare these days it has become a super power.

 

[malasuerte]

While I in principle, the NC is silly and the auditor is probably wrong; here is the problem: I think you probably explained the process poorly OR have it defined/documented poorly.

As explained in your OP, You have defined that you have an inspection step in between to determine if the tubing needs to be buffed. The auditor, as I am based on the post, is assuming that the conforming criteria for your tubing after leaving step 1 is No Scratches. You inspect an item, and determine it has scratches, so you send it to a special operation to buff out scratches. If explained and interpreted in that respect, then you are saying that your tubing was non-conforming and needs to be buffed. As John stated, a "remedial measure".

We make tubing >>>> we inspect the finish material >>> a few of the tubes may have to be buffed to remove scratches.


You need to be clear, and coach everyone, that the process is a collective of 3 steps - one big step. And, the inspection is there to identify, what doesn't need to be buffed to improve efficiency.

We have a tool that does similar, it has an onboard camera and a laser to determine when to stop the 'buffing'. It just does it as one full step.

Anyways - you need to review how it was presented and make sure it is presented correctly.

 

[PaulJSmith]

I work for a tube fabrication company, so I completely understand the scratched tubes thing. We occasionally get tooling marks and scratches that require some cleanup. For us, this generally falls into the "Deburring" part of the process.

If it's a regular part of your process, and it's documented as such, then it's a non-issue. If it's delineated on your traveler, just point that out to the auditor.

If, however, it's not properly documented, then you might want to thank your auditor for identifying an opportunity to improve your documentation of that process.