Revised Norsok standards 1

[bruv]

Has anybody else out there been caught out by this? On 14th November Norsok released details of several standards which are to be revised, including M-630 and M-650. Comments were invited until 1st December only. I only found this information today, as the Norsok website is not a place I visit on a regular basis. The impending change has not, I believe, been widely advertised.

Has anybody got any comments on the way this has been done, or more importantly, on any of the proposed changes.

Follow the link to

http://www.standard.no/imaker.exe?id=244

or

http://www.nts.no/norsok

for more details

Bruv

 

[jimsan]

We were involved in a meeting with a Norsok representative during December 03 and the revision of the new standards were briefly discussed. This was the 1st time we were aware of any changes even though we are "Norsok Approved" for supply of material.
The changes we are aware of are not particularly mind-boggling - however we did point out that many customers of ours ask for dual certification of parts to a Norsok specification and a national specification e.g MDS-C21 & ASTM A350LF2 and in some cases the Norsok specification is less detailed than the standard spec. Most Norsok specs say chemical composition as per the standard with the "following exceptions". This we thought was not good enough and said so.
Also there was discussion about "reprentative" testing. For examples heat treating a number of different hubs of different sizes of the same cast of material in one heat treatment batch may result in only one test to represent them all. We did not support this view at all. The Norsok specifications seem to imply that this would be acceptable.

We have asked Norsok to issue "Approved Suppliers Lists" which do not currently exist. How do we prove that we are an approved supplier if no certification is issued or no approved list exists.

Jimsan

 

[grandprix]

In response to Jimsan: The specification reads that the purchaser of the material is the one to certify that the material supplied is produced per the specification. I am sure this would make it very difficult for Norsok to come up with an approved supplier list. This takes the responsibility off of Norsok to travel the world certifying mills but places a lot of responsibility on the company purchasing the materials.
It would therefore be up to your customer to determine whether or not you are supplying certified material or not.

 

[bruv]

Jimsan
1) "Also there was discussion about "reprentative" testing. For examples heat treating a number of different hubs of different sizes of the same cast of material in one heat treatment batch may result in only one test to represent them all. We did not support this view at all. The Norsok specifications seem to imply that this would be acceptable."

The same is true for the casting specs e.g. MDS-D46, R16 etc. I think that the implication is that if material from the thickest section passes the necessary tests, then anything from a smaller section should do the same.

2) "We have asked Norsok to issue "Approved Suppliers Lists" which do not currently exist. How do we prove that we are an approved supplier if no certification is issued or no approved list exists"

We had the same problem after qualifying to Rev 1 of the standards. In fact, nobody even told us whether we had passed or not! We had a discussion with the customer representative when we requalified for Rev 2, and he promised, and has supplied, documentation to show that we are qualified. Section 4 of the new M-650 states that confirmation of acceptance will be issued to suppliers, and that a listing will be posted on the internet. All I can say is irritate your approval agent until he supplies you with documentation.

Best of luck

Bruv

 

[grandprix]

thanks BRUV: I had no idea that my customer should have supplied us with confirmation of acceptance. The only confirmation we received was in the form of purchase orders for the duplex stainless we were supplying and that would not help in obtaining orders from other customers. The mills we were dealing with did get written confirmation and the MDS specs. were included on their test reports.

 

[bruv]

FYI - our approval was supplied by the end user (from Norway), not our immediate customer.