Translate PDF. Although we specified the thickness on our PO and the vendor certified the thickness on his shipping papers, because he was not on our Approved Vendor List as a critical vendor and audited as having a quality system compliant to ISO, this was considered a finding in the audit. My question is, "Is this consistent with the committee's intention? Instead, based on a panel of experts in supply management our resources are best focused on the critical few suppliers that impact our quality such as raw material vendors, test houses, outsourcing heat treat, etc.
Response: No. API Spec Q1 does not specify that an auditor makes the determination of product criticality. Clause 5. Therefore, servicing may be applicable as mandated by company procedure, contract or a third party, as well.
Spec Q1 does not address monogram requirements. As these are mandated legal requirements for the product s , is this acceptable evidence to fulfill the requirements of 5. Response: Yes. But per the definition of legal requirements 3. During verification of validation of processes, as per 5. Documented procedure for validating the current NDT procedures was requested. The Organization demonstrated by showing the current NDT procedures. But there is no evidence to demonstrate these current procedures comply with 5.
Is it the intention of Q1 satisfied by demonstrating the current NDT procedures as an evidence for 5. Response: Yes, but only when the applicable [product] specification does not explicitly identify the NDT process as one that requires validation. The requirements of one specification 5L cannot be applied to another specification 2B , unless the latter specifies the requirements normatively 2B does not reference 5L for performance of NDT.
Based on the information provided, this is a purchase issue and therefore all that is required is verification of that the product meets the contract requirements on receipt 5. Outsourcing 5.
Therefore, by extension, validation of those processes such as forging does not apply. Final acceptance inspection Spec Q1, Section 3. However, it does not meet the intent of performing the actual final acceptance inspection by someone not directly involved in the manufacture of the product. Response: Yes only to the first part of the question.
In this case, product preservation per API Q1, 5. It does include not the equipment used in making the equipment. Such equipment would be covered under API Q1, 5. A qualified individual other than the one who assembled and tested the product or directly supervised the assembly and testing of the product performs the final acceptance inspection based on monitoring and review of the testing documentation. Includes Errata 1 , Errata 2 , Errata 3 , and Errata 4 Our policy towards the use of cookies Techstreet uses cookies to improve your online experience.
They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser. Request Free Trial. Language: English Russian Chinese. Full Description Please note: Redline format does not incorporate changes from any addenda.
0コメント