API AND ISO STANDARDS CAN BE COMBINED

R.T. Weightman
Qualified Specialists Inc.
Houston

Mark F. Warnack
Baroid Drilling Fluids Inc.
Houston

Oil field equipment and product manufacturers can maintain a competitive advantage and minimize costs by integrating American Petroleum Institute (API) licensing programs with International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001 standards under one quality system.

A combined quality system approach can position a company for quality system certification under ISO 9001 while maintaining API specifications. Furthermore, only one quality system manual is needed for API licensing and ISO certification, avoiding duplication of effort.

The benefits of a documented quality program include the following:

Job descriptions and personnel qualification requirements are documented.
The improved documentation allows direct tracing of specific production activities.
Laboratory test methods and calibration of test equipment follow accepted standards for more reliable and reproducible test data.
Quality control becomes proactive, not reactive, through internal process controls previously not implemented.
Employee attitudes improve through appreciation for the overall goals of the company.
Ambiguous quality issues, such as documenting special customer requirements, are easily resolved.
The company image improves with customers, particularly for those that require API Specification Q1 or ISO 9001 compliance or those having their own quality performance standards. On-site customer audits contribute to customer confidence.

However, a documented quality system has several disadvantages. A quality system causes a certain degree of regimentation when changes occur (e.g., formal revision of applicable documents and retraining of personnel). The time and effort required to revise the necessary quality system documents can cause resistance to change within an organization. Developing and implementing the quality system takes additional time from personnel. The cost of quality system development is perceived as high in a depressed market environment.

QUALITY SYSTEMS

Baroid Drilling Fluids Inc. needed a documented quality system to comply with the June 1991 APT licensing requirements for drilling fluids. At that time, ISO quality system standards were also becoming widely recognized internationally.

The company needed one quality manual that combined both APT Specification Q1 and ISO 9001. Baroid wanted to maintain a product license under APT Specification 13A following APT Q1 quality program requirements yet also follow the requirements of ISO for registration later.

One major international oil company has specified that oil field products, such as barite, must come from facilities that conform to either APT or ISO quality standards or that are on a reasonable timetable to adopt quality systems.

Both API Specification Q1 and ISO 9001 standards are similar; however, ISO 9001 includes additional requirements in the areas of contract review, purchaser supplied product, servicing, and statistical techniques. ISO 9001 also provides more detail in quality policy, design control; process control; inspection, measurement, and test equipment; and corrective action.

APT Specification Q1 provides greater detail than ISO 9001 in qualification of personnel, independence of inspection and test personnel, and field nonconformances. APT Q1 also mandates specific frequencies for the performance of management reviews and internal audits.

Table 1 lists an overview of some of the differences between APT and ISO quality systems.

Once the program goals were established, a liaison between the corporate headquarters and plant locations ensured that the requirements of the proposed quality system would be met. An outside consulting service provided necessary technical input for the development of a single, company wide, integrated quality system.

Baroid determined a number of critical factors for the selection of a quality system consultant. The factors include the following in descending importance:

Experience in the oil services industry
Familiarity with both APT Q1 and 150 9000 series quality system standards
Industry affiliations, such as involvement with the APT committees and licensing process
Good references from other companies
Ability to license all facilities under the same quality systems manual as a package contract
Familiarity with total quality management.

PLANNING

The program began with a 1-day assessment of Baroid's Lake Charles facility to give an overview of production operations. The New Orleans facility was not visited at this time because its processes are similar to the Lake Charles operations. Specific plant differences are addressed in separate procedures in the documents.

The initial meetings to determine the scope of the program involved the plant manager, operations supervisor, warehouse supervisor, laboratory manager, and corporate quality manager.

After the production information was gathered, half day meetings were held with individual corporate managers to determine their involvement.

QUALITY MANUAL

A draft quality system manual, based on the requirements of APT Q1 and ISO 9001 and feedback from planning meetings, was written in 1 month.

The quality systems manual broadly defines how each quality system element is met and is organized in the general layout of the ISO 9001 document.

ISO 9001 was selected instead of ISO 9002 or 9003 because ISO 9001 details requirements for design control, as does APT Q1. ISO 9002 and 9003 do not discuss design.

APT Q1 defines a design as a detailed plan for a product. The detailed plan for barite is the product formulation (requirements specified by APT 13A and Baroid) and the process by which it is produced. Thus, the manual had to adopt some quality elements not specified by APT Q1: contract review, purchaser supplied product servicing, and statistical techniques. Additionally, the quality systems manual contained descriptions of each ISO 9001 element as supplemented by APT Q1 requirements.

PROCEDURES

Quality system procedures were developed immediately after the manual was written. The procedures define the "how to" requirements for day-to-day operations and include specific requirements for individual responsibilities and documentation of activities.

The 25 quality systems procedures give specific details on company policy for each quality system element as applied to all locations.

Any plant-specific differences were detailed in plant level procedures (e.g., production process flow). These procedures were developed in 2 months from information gathered during visits to both production facilities over several days.

The quality system procedures are numbered corresponding to the quality systems manual. For example, Section 13.0 of the manual, Inspection and Testing, corresponds to Section 13.0 of the procedures manual which includes seven individual procedures for performing specific inspections and tests.

Individual procedures are included as supplements to the quality system manual in one large binder. This eliminates the use of separate manuals for each procedure, which could become lost or misplaced.

The quality manual uses white tabs for each quality system element, and the procedures manual uses red tabs for the corresponding elements. The color-coded organization allows the user to reference the requirements quickly according to the desired level.

IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation and debugging of the program took several months and coincided with the drafting of the quality system procedures (Fig. 1). A few modifications were necessary after day-to-day operations indicated that certain specified requirements were inappropriate. Examples of areas requiring modification include:

Production sampling of continuous barite ore grinding defining a discrete sample is difficult and vague because the process is not an assembly line where individual parts are manufactured.
Receipt inspection of crude ore-shipments of up to 40,000 tons are received over periods of a week or more requiring continuous sampling during delivery.

After the debugging of the proposed quality system, the management formally approved a final manual and procedures. Controlled copies were issued to the job functions at the applicable corporate and production levels.

The initial training included all personnel directly involved in the quality system during the debugging phase. Training was then expanded to the support personnel in the Gulf Coast area through presentations at the various field offices.

A controlled copy of the quality system manual was sent to the API under the monogram program licensing requirements prior to the deadline for implementation.

The drilling technical services and total quality management groups from a few large oil companies have audited the quality program.

INTERNAL AUDIT

The quality system requires internal audits of corporate and production facility operations at least annually. A second consultant not previously involved with the development of the quality system performed the first audit. The use of a different auditor is beneficial because he can provide an unbiased audit (i.e., he may uncover deficiencies overlooked by those too close to the process).

This audit covered all of the quality system elements instead of a series of mini audits of selected elements at various times throughout the year. This process took 2 days at each production facility and 1 day at the corporate headquarters. The auditing consultant was accompanied by the corporate quality manager who used the experience as a supplemental training exercise for future audits.

The internal audit identified several minor deficiencies, mainly related to record keeping. After the problems were documented, evaluated, and corrected, the corrections were verified.

Qualified company personnel will perform future internal audits. The lessons learned during the internal audit were invaluable in correcting the quality system prior to the required API licensing survey.

A management review approximately 6 months after the internal audit evaluated the suitability and effectiveness of the overall quality system. The management review included nonconformance reports, the results of the internal audit, revisions to API Q1 and 13A, customer audit results, and staffing and resources.

The results of this review were approved and retained for future reference as required by the quality system.

The quality manual was designed to meet both API and ISO requirements, but the initial procedures were written specifically to comply with API licensing program requirements. The first API licensing surveys were conducted at the Lake Charles and New Orleans facilities on May 10-15, 1992, and both facilities received API licenses. Fig. 1 shows the timetable for implementing the quality system.

Considerations for ISO quality system certification in the future include the following:

Further specification of training requirements
Development or expansion of procedures related to ISO 9001 specific requirements
Identification of the scope of quality system certification
Selection of quality system registrar (OGJ, Apr. 13, pp. 47-52).