JSW Steel limited

Client

Recertification audit
Audit Date
Target Date to submit

NC Statement
NC1 The internal audit process is not fully effective
with respect to planning

NC2 The process change process is not fully effective

NC3 The PDQC process is not effective with respect to

the planning and review.

NC4 PDQC- Customer complaints hadnling process is

not fully effective with respect to the using of
internal system of SFDC /Procedure by the
CAMs.

NC5 Review of Production process is partially effective

NC6 Review of the PFMEA process is partially effective

JSW Steel limited////Recertification audit

27-02-2024 to 01-03-2024
4/30/2024
Department
Objective Evidence
The internal system audit plan is not cover the processes as MR
specifed in the process interaction map in Quality manual JSW-
CRM-QM dated rev
2 dated 27-02-2023. The Process names specifed in the Process
map and plan are not same. example - Error proofng,

At CRM 1 , annealing the annealing cycle ( Temperature ) is CRM1 MFG

changed, however the Control plan -CRM-PDQC-WI-03 rev dated
25-12-2017 is not
updated. The trial/validation records dated 27-03-2023 were
presented during the audit.

The design Verifcation and Validation plan and review for the PDQC proces
product DP590 is not adequate. The Hole Expansion test is
specifed in the plan ,
however, the acceptance criteria and test sample quantity are
not specifed in the plan. The test result review is not carried out.

As per the CRM-BP-19 Customer complaint Procedure the PDQC- Customer

complaints needs to be logged into the SFDC system. This is not complaints
followed for the
feedback ( unjustifable complaints ) . For unjustifable complaints
the communicaiton from the CAM is tracked at the plant by
Google form ,
this is not a part of the Procedure

At PLTCM Standard Operating procedure was not displayed, CRM2 MFG

Refer CRM-OR-2QR-53 there is no evidence records of checking
of Ledges .

Refer the Expose processing failures such as Hold down ring CRM2 MFG
damage , periodic replacement of hold down ring the same is
not refected in the
control plan
Also, the trimmer cutter Rough edge and Edge damage is not
refected in the control plan and FMEA
JSW Steel limited////Recertification audit

NC Closure NC1
Days Left to Submit Closure w.r.t. Target Date
0
Statement of nonconformity The internal audit process is not fully effective with respect to planning
Objective evidence The internal system audit plan is not cover the processes as specifed in the process
interaction map in Quality manual JSW-CRM-QM dated rev
2 dated 27-02-2023. The Process names specifed in the Process map and plan are not
same. example - Error proofng,

Correction (Containment) action, including timing Process Interaction map updated with respect to all the existing processes
and responsible person:

Evidence of implementation Process Interaction Map ((Quality Manual)(JSW-CRM-QM)

Root cause analysis Why1- Internal audit plan does not cover the processes as specifed in the
process interaction map.
Why2- Process interaction map was not considered while making Audit plan.
Why3- Audit plan was prepared bsaed on documented procedure.
Why4- In-effective review of internal audit planning and scheduling

Does the root cause impact other similar NO

processes or products?
Please describe how the root cause impacts NO
other process?
Root cause result In-effective review of internal audit planning and scheduling

Systemic corrective actions, including timing and 1) All the required inputs will be considered while preparing the planning.
responsible person 2) internal Audit Business (CRM-BP-14)procedure updated with respect to input
trigger for audit planning.

Evidence of implementation 1) )Internal Audit Business (CRM-BP-14)

Action taken to verify effective implementation Special audit to check the effectiveness implementation of corrective action.
of corrective actions
JSW Steel limited////Recertification audit

NC Closure NC2
Days Left to Submit Closure w.r.t. Target Date
0
Statement of nonconformity The process change process is not fully effective
Objective evidence At CRM 1 , annealing the annealing cycle ( Temperature ) is changed, however the Control
plan -CRM-PDQC-WI-03 rev dated 25-12-2017 is not
updated. The trial/validation records dated 27-03-2023 were presented during the audit.

Correction (Containment) action, including timing Product Control Plan, Document is revised with Modified Gas Temperature.
and responsible person: Mr. Durgesh Deshkar, 11/03/2024

Evidence of implementation Product Control Plan(PDQC -CRM-WI-003)

Root cause analysis 1. Why: Annealing cycle ( Temperature ) is changed, however the Control plan is
not updated.
2. Why: Change Control not initiated.
3. Why: Lack of review for the modified temperature in product control plan by
Process owner & PDQC.
4.Why:Review Mechanism of change control procedure is not effective.

Does the root cause impact other similar No

processes or products?
Please describe how the root cause impacts Not related to other process
other process?
Root cause result Review Mechanism of change control is not effective.

Systemic corrective actions, including timing and 1.Change control procedure updated with respect to review of changes taken
responsible person place in the department(PDQC-PR-XX)
2. Review of Product Control Plan documents done(CRM-MR-QR-03).
3. PFMEA procedure updated with respect to review of procuct contol plan
document twice in a year(CRM-PR-10)
4.Awareness session provided to the team members for change in process(HR-
QR-22)
Mr.Durgesh Deshkar,11/03/2024
Evidence of implementation 1.Change control procedure(PDQC-PR-XX)
2. Product Control Plan review amendment sheet(CRM-MR-QR-03).
3.Procedure for PFMEA updated with respect to review of product control
plan(CRM-PR-10)
4. Awareness Training Sheet(HR-QR-22)

Action taken to verify effective implementation Special audit to check the effectiveness implementation of corrective action.
of corrective actions
JSW Steel limited////Recertification audit

NC Closure NC3
Days Left to Submit Closure w.r.t. Target Date
0
Statement of nonconformity The PDQC process is not effective with respect to the planning and review.
Objective evidence The design Verifcation and Validation plan and review for the product DP590 is not
adequate. The Hole Expansion test is specifed in the plan ,
however, the acceptance criteria and test sample quantity are not specifed in the plan.
The test result review is not carried out.

Correction (Containment) action, including timing Hole Expansion Test carried out for DP590 and reviewd. Review MOM, CRM-
and responsible person: PDQC-QR-044
Responsible Person - Anji Reddy
Evidence of implementation HER Test Results, Revised Plan (CRM-PDQC-QR-025 ) and Revised Validation
Report (CRM-PDQC-QR-044)
Root cause analysis

Why1. The acceptance criteria for HER test and test sample quantity are not
specifed in the plan. The test result review also not carried out.
Why2. Because the New DP590 grade have similarities with the existing (old)
DP590 grade, including identical chemistry and nearly identical process
parameters.
Why3. The test results review was not done as the existing DP590 results
confirmed and verified.
Why4. Review requirement were not clear.
Why5. Review requirements were not addressed in any procedure.

Does the root cause impact other similar YES

processes or products?
Please describe how the root cause impacts It will affect other products which will be developed afterwards.
other process?
Root cause result Review requirements were not addressed in any procedure.
Systemic corrective actions, including timing and
responsible person
NPD Proedure CRM-PDQC-CRM-006 is updated wrt review of NPD activities. The
same has been circulated in the email to all the intersted parties.

Responsible Person - Anji Reddy

Evidence of implementation 1. Revision of design verification and validation document ( Stage B ) NPD
Procedure(CRM-PDQC-PR-006)
2. Mail communication.
Action taken to verify effective implementation Special audit to check the effectiveness implementation of corrective action.
of corrective actions
JSW Steel limited////Recertification audit

NC Closure NC4
Days Left to Submit Closure w.r.t. Target Date
0
Statement of nonconformity PDQC- Customer complaints hadnling process is not fully effective with respect to the
using of internal system of SFDC /Procedure by the
CAMs.

Objective evidence As per the CRM-BP-19 Customer complaint Procedure the complaints needs to be logged
into the SFDC system. This is not followed for the
feedback ( unjustifable complaints ) . For unjustifable complaints the communicaiton
from the CAM is tracked at the plant by Google form ,
this is not a part of the Procedure

Correction (Containment) action, including timing Google form is included in the IATF QMS (CRM-BP-19) Complaints handling
and responsible person: Business Process. Google Sheet DCN: CRM-PDQC-QR-76 (Issue/Rev: 02/00)

Evidence of implementation 1. Complaints handling Business Process(CRM-BP-19)

2. Google form(CRM-PDQC-QR-76)
Root cause analysis Why-1. For feedback the communicaiton from the CAM is tracked at the plant by
Google form , this is not a part of the Procedure
Why-2. Feedback shared from CAM/AE over email communication
Why-3. Email communication is given directly from the field / Customer site for
immediate inputs from the Plant
Why-4. The process of recieving the Customer feedback is in effective

Does the root cause impact other similar NO

processes or products?
Please describe how the root cause impacts NA
other process?
Root cause result The process of recieving the Customer feedback is in effective
Systemic corrective actions, including timing and 1. Review frequency added in the business process for the unjustifiable customer
responsible person complaints(CRM-BP-19)
2. Amendment Sheet updated(CRM-MR-QR-03)

Evidence of implementation 1. Customer Complaints Business Process - CRM-BP-19, 11/03/2024

2. Amendment Sheet(CRM-MR-QR-03)

Action taken to verify effective implementation Special audit to check the effectiveness implementation of corrective action.
of corrective actions
JSW Steel limited////Recertification audit

NC Closure NC5
Days Left to Submit Closure w.r.t. Target Date
0
Statement of nonconformity Review of Production process is partially effective
Objective evidence At PLTCM Standard Operating procedure was not displayed, Refer CRM-OR-2QR-53 there is no
evidence records of checking of Ledges .

Correction (Containment) action, including timing 1. Entry welder ledges & fingers will be recorded in Entry welder ledges & fingers
and responsible person: measurement file CRM-OP2-QR-053.
2. All Operating procedures will be displayed at work location.

Timing:- 04/03/2024 Responsible person:- Rakesh Durshelwar

Evidence of implementation 1. Entry welder ledges & fingers records no. CRM-OP2-QR-053.
2. Operating procedure displayed over work location.

Root cause analysis 1. Refer CRM- OP2-QR-53 there is no evidence records of checking of ledges.
2. Operator have mentioned all the data in onsite field register but in some months data
not recorded back in the soft file which is a standard practice for record of documents.
3. Some operator & Shift incharges are unaware of this practice because newly joined.
4. All new operators & shift incharge training not done for folder management, record of
documents.
5. Awareness regarding production process requirement for new joinees was not effective

Does the root cause impact other similar NO

processes or products?
Please describe how the root cause impacts Other process does not have similar process
other process?
Root cause result Awareness regarding production process requirement for new joinees was not effective
Systemic corrective actions, including timing and
responsible person 1. As regular training, it is added in identifed training plan.
2. Training for all individual and regular monitoring for updation.
Rakesh Durshelwar, 07/03/2024.

Evidence of implementation 1. Training Plan

2.Training sheet HR-QR-22.

Action taken to verify effective implementation Special audit to check the effectiveness implementation of corrective action.
of corrective actions
JSW Steel limited////Recertification audit

NC Closure NC6
Days Left to Submit Closure w.r.t. Target Date
0
Statement of nonconformity Review of the PFMEA process is partially effective
Objective evidence Refer the Expose processing failures such as Hold down ring damage , periodic replacement of
hold down ring the same is not refected in the
control plan
Also, the trimmer cutter Rough edge and Edge damage is not refected in the control plan and
FMEA

Correction (Containment) action, including timing Periodic replacement of hold down ring statement changed with replace hold down ring
and responsible person: if found damaged. Timing:- 04/03/2024 Responsible person:- Rakesh Durshelwar

Evidence of implementation Instead of periodic replacement we will change Hold down rings whenever found
damaged , same has been updated in document CRM-OP2-FMEA-PLTCM,CRM-OP2-CP-
PLTCM
Root cause analysis Why 1. Periodic replacement of hold down ring the same is not reflected in the control
plan.
Why 2. Mismatch in activity as mentioned in SOP & FMEA.

Why 3. As in SOP it's mentioned that required to replce whenever found damaged &
same has been follow up & recorded.
Why 4. But In PFMEA it's mentioned differently & not checked properly.
Why 5. Reviw of PFMEA is improper & not effective

Does the root cause impact other similar NO

processes or products?
Please describe how the root cause impacts Other process does not have similar process
other process?
Root cause result It's not required any periodic replacment or not possible to fix any frequency for change ,
only to be replace whenever found physically damaged.FMEA & Control plan for
replacement of hold down ring case not defned clearly.
Systemic corrective actions, including timing and 1. SOP for hold down ring replacement revised.
responsible person 2. Current PFMEA and control plan will be reviewed with ross-functional team anlong
with MOM
3. Awareness provided for the same
Rakesh Durshelwar, 07/03/2024

Evidence of implementation 1. SOP no CRM-OP2-WI-60.1 Rev7

2. CRM-PR-10
3. Training sheet HR-QR-22 .
4. MOM for approval for PLTCM PFMEA

Action taken to verify effective implementation Special audit to check the effectiveness implementation of corrective action.
of corrective actions