API SC18 Task Group 2 Report

API SC18 TASK GROUP 2

REPORT

API Q1 Review Meeting March 22, 2011

Ed Durante, Chair

API SC18 TASK GROUP 2REPORT

Ron Robertson– Aker SolutionsKatie Burkle- APIEd Durante - TIEC

Ed Baniak - APIJerry Longmire- Woodgroup Pressure Controls

Lou Deeb - TenarisAustin Freeman - HalliburtonMicah Schutz – Schlumberger

Andrew Mishaga – Forum Oilfield Technologies


Taskgroup Charge

1. Identify any needed changes to Spec Q12. Propose the path forward for the document 3. Provide recommendation to SC18 at the June Summer Standardization Conference.


History of API Spec Q1

•Currently, API Spec Q1 will be up for review in 2012 as part of its 5 year review.

•Q1 was first issued in 1984 (work began in 1982). This was before ISO-9001.

•ISO TS29001 was developed based on integrating Q1 and ISO 9001.

•TS29001 was back-adopted as Q1.


Review possibilities

1. Leave all as is. Wait until next ISO 9001 issues in 2015 and then begin the revision process. Would need to re-affirm Q1 in the interim, with no changes.

2. We revise Q1 independently of TS29001 and then decide whether to offer it to ISO for adoption.

•If no, wait for TS29001 to die a natural death•If yes, fast-track adopt revised Q1 as next TS29001

3. We revise TS29001 and adopt it as Q1 next edition •Can’t touch boxed text due to ISO “rules” [The Automotive standard ISO 16949 has requirements that negate what is in the boxed text]


Suggested Changes

1. Align to potential new areas of Q2 (ie: MOC, Risk, Contingency planning, Quality plans).

2. Remove Boxed Text to allow full editing and address redundancies.

3. Edit scope to remove “Services” and associated language within the document.

4. Remove “Notes” as much as possible and clarify text.


Suggested Changes

5. Develop specific language to better address and control outsourcing.

6. Revise Q1 independently of ISO.

7. Continue to minimally meet the requirements of ISO 9001.

8. Address typical areas of misunderstanding or mis- interpretation of current requirements.


General Discussion

• API QR says they will keep offering ISO 9001 registrations.

• Development of a new Q1 would require map of new Q1 against 9001 to facilitate audits so that one audit would cover both documents.

• Revisions to Q1 would continue to be done under ANSI-approved standards revision process.


Pros of revising Q1 directly: General Discussion

• Removal of boxed text.

• Target manufacturing activities in the oil and gas industry.

• Removal of redundancies present in supplemental requirements (e.g. customer satisfaction, effectiveness of C/A, assessment of impact of out-of-specification condition (7.6.2 note), etc.).



• Complete editorial capability to integrate new content

in proper position; including removal of NOTES that

read like requirements but are not.

• Balloting process is much simpler.

• Resources for development and maintenance of Q1 are in API SC18/TG2; not in ISO community



• Clean up of the Design section to properly distinguish between review and verification

• SC18 has more control over the document and subsequent revision processes.


Cons of revising Q1: General Discussion

• NOCs use ISO 9001 primarily due to familiarity; this won’t go away.

• Dual registration for the foreseeable future is inevitable.

• Some national standards bodies are reluctant to adopt another national body’s standard when they have a choice.


Overview of development of API “Q2”

• Merged and compressed language to remove redundancies.

• Significant interest by operators and regulators.

• Added new language: Management of Change, Risk Assessment, Service Quality Plans, Contingency Planning.


Review of Q2 for Possible Q1 Considerations

• Clause 4.1, General Requirements of Q1, brought into introduction.

• Q2 scope includes Allowable Exclusions and Limitations of Scope.

• Threading and heat treatment processing (5CT, 5L, 7-1, etc.) would need to be properly addressed as would testing agencies covered in 6A, 6AV1, and 14A.



• API Spec 20D (NDE) would likely have a different monogram annex and the monogram license application would need revisions as well to refer to Q2 instead of Q1.

• Q1 exclusions might cover some of these when applied with the product specification.



• Q2 has a clear distinction between management and top management.

• Q2 created internal and external communications sections.

• Competence and Training are separate issues.

• Identify Work environment as one section.

• Planning in 7.1 now includes more items.



• Added section on Risk Assessment.

• Added section on Contingency Planning.

• Revised Purchasing to clearly address outsourcing issues.



• Added section on Service Quality Plan (7.7.2) for providing service

• Added section on Management of Change.

• Design section was stripped down to bare minimum.

♦ Design Validation removed; Verification kept (When identified for risk mitigation, Validation of Service Related Product was added)

♦ Clarified Design Review vs. Design Verification



• Added preventative maintenance, inspection and test program section.

•Added section on Management of Change section.

•Changed “control features” to “procedures”.


The Way Forward

• Reconstitute TG2 as a full revision Task Group (ask for volunteers to participate)

• This TG recommends to API SC18 to revise the document

• TG prepares SRRR form.

• SC18 votes on SRRR form (at meeting if quorum present; ballot if not).


The Way Forward

• CSOEM reaffirms SC18 actions on Q1

• TG revises Q1, taking into consideration the above recommendations, and

• TG submits to SC18 for ballot in order to meet the revision schedule as identified in API Policies and Procedures.


QUESTIONS and COMMENTS

Documents

API SC18 Task Group 2 Report