Materials Testing Laboratories

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIES

JUNE 2013

CONFIRMED MINUTES

CONFIRMED MINUTES

JUNE 3 – 6, 2013

MARRIOTT RIVE GAUCHE HOTEL

PARIS, FRANCE

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

MONDAY, JUNE 3 to THURSDAY, JUNE 6

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS – CLOSED

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Materials Testing Laboratories (MTL) Task Group was called to order at 9:00 a.m., 03-Jun-13.

It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed portion of the meeting.

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME / COMPANY NAME
Bruno / Addivinola / Alenia Aermacchi S.p.A.
Mike / Baumann / The Boeing Company
Philippe / Brailly / SAFRAN Group
* / Georges / Coste / SAFRAN Group
* / Doug / Deaton / GE Aviation
* / George / Doviak / Goodrich (UTAS)
* / Kevin / Elston / Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.
Stuart / Hunt / Airbus
* / Frank / Lennert / The Boeing Company
Adrien / Maffre / Airbus
* / Muriel / Malhomme / Airbus
* / Olivier / Molinas / Eurocopter
* / Tim / Myers / Honeywell Aerospace
* / Amanda / Rickman / Raytheon Co.
* / Christian / Schwaminger / MTU Aero Engines GmbH
* / Gary / Winters / Northrop Grumman Corp.
* / Verl / Wisehart / Rolls-Royce

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME / COMPANY NAME
Olga / Antonenko / Kamensk-Uralsky Metallurgical Works KUMZ
Vanesa / Aragon / TITANIA, Ensayos y Proyectos Industriales S.L.
Pedro / Astola / TITANIA, Ensayos y Proyectos Industriales S.L.
Francois / Barbaza / ECCI
* / Corwyn / Berger / Exova Inc., Chicago Laboratory
Elena / Bolotova / Kamensk-Uralsky Metallurgical Works KUMZ
* / Philip / Bretz / Metcut Research Associates Inc.
Elena / Bulgakova / Kamensk-Uralsky Metallurgical Works KUMZ
* / Matthew / Chamberlain-Webber / Timet UK Limited ( Witton )
Eric / Chabault / Bureau Veritas Laboratoires
Jean-Francois / Chevalier / Lisi Aerospace
Zdzislaw / Chowaniec / ATI ZKM Forging Sp. Z o.o.
Christopher / Cowap / Exova s.r.o.
Julien / Corato / Exova
Niall / Dodds / Exova (UK) Limited
Romeo / Evangelista / Metals Technology, Inc.
* / Kay / Fisher / Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG
David / Fluck / Haynes International
Thomas / Fox / SGS Institut Fresenius GmbH
Markus / Fuchsmann / Otto Fuchs KG
Rick / Gasset / Lisi Aerospace Torrance
* / Stephan / Greimers / Outokumpu VDM GmbH
Mirko / Grotto / RTM BREDA S.r.l.
* / Bryan / Hall / NSL Analytical Services, Inc.
Uwe / Hallmann / Aerotech Peissenberg GmbH & Co KG
Irina / Inkova / Kamensk-Uralsky Metallurgical Works KUMZ
Sylvie / Lefebvre Addison / Lisi Aerospace
Bao / Lei / National Analysis Center - Iron & Steel
Phillippe / Luce / Metcut Recherches SAS
* / Annette / O’Connell / Haynes International, Inc.
Owen / O’Grady / Exova (UK) Limited
* / Bob / Olevson / Element Huntington Beach / Proxy for Luoni
Thierry / Ouisse / Metcut Recherches SAS
Martin / Pojer / LETOV LETECKA VYROBA s.r.o.
Vincent / Ravel / CASIMIR
* / Pierre-Emmanuel / Richy / Aubert & Duval
* / James / Rossi / Westmoreland Mechanical Testing*
JJ / Sagot / Critt-Materiaux MPC
Peter / Schmidt / SGS Institut Fresenius GmbH
Wolfgang / Schuetzenhoefer / Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG
Peter / Scrimshire / IncoTest
* / Dave / Serbousek / Olympic Scientific, Inc.
Tsunao / Tezuka / IHI Corporation
* / Simon / Tournebize / Aubert & Duval
Nicolas / Vetel / Critt-Materiaux MPC
Liu / Zhemg / National Analysis Center - Iron & Steel

PRI Staff Present

Robert / Hoeth
Kevin / Wetzel

1.2 Introductions

1.3 Code of Ethics/Antitrust and Meeting Conduct

Viewed PRI video

1.4 Review Agenda

Review the closed meeting agenda

Please refer to eAuditNet for more information / Resources → Public Documents → Materials Testing Laboratories → Nadcap Meeting Presentations → June 2013. This presentation contains the information reviewed in the meeting and follows the order of the rest of the minutes presented here.

2.0 AUDIT REPORT REVIEWER DELEGATION OVERSIGHT – CLOSED

2.1 Present the Status of MTL Audit Report Reviewers - Dashboard

Metrics tab on eAuditNet Dashboard and t-frm-07 was reviewed. All current delegated reviewers (Kevin Wetzel, Jim Lewis, Rob Hoeth, Bob Lizewski and Jim Stokes) continue to meet the requirements defined in NOP-003. No change was made to the delegation status.

3.0 AUDITOR EVALUATIONS – CLOSED

3.1 Present Auditor Evaluations

Presented Auditor Evaluations along with Dashboard on eAuditNet, no action required.

3.1.1 Supplier Feedback

Present Supplier Feedback, no Supplier feedback reviewed.

3.1.2 Subscriber Audit Observation Report

Audit Report Observation Reports were reviewed and discussed. NOP-007 was reviewed as this procedure describes the process for scheduling and participation for an audit observation. All observations met Task Group expectations.

4.0 IMPROMPTU TOPICS – CLOSED

4.1 Review of NOP/NIP Docs Where Subscribers Have Responsibilities

The Task Group Chairperson presented a letter submitted from NMC to show support to the MTL Task Group in the direction of compliance to NOP-002 section 3.3 vision compliance. NOP-002 direction for MTL compliance was discussed to determine Subscriber support. All Subscribers present supported the NMC position.

ACTION ITEM: Task Group Chairperson to email signed letter of NMC support for checklist vision to subscribers. (Due Date: 31-July-13)

4.2 Establish Protocol for Review of Subscriber Responsibilities Including Participation

Topic was postponed due to lack of time.

4.3 Determine What Criteria/Guidance to Use for Non-Standard Accreditation Lengths

Topic was postponed due to lack of time.

4.4 Provide Audit Report Reviewers with Guidance When a Supplier Essentially Claims “We didn’t think it needed to be in a procedure because it’s covered by training or is so obvious documenting it is unnecessary.”

Topic was postponed due to lack of time.

5.0 OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN

5.1 Call to Order/Quorum Check

5.2 Introductions

5.3 Code of Ethics/Antitrust Video

Viewed PRI video

5.4 Review Agenda

5.5 Review and Accept Minutes from February 2013

Tim Myers asked for approval of the minutes from the February 2013 Nadcap meeting. No disagreement. Minutes accepted.

The minutes from February 2013 were approved as written.

5.6 Meeting Conduct/Rules

Reviewed established meeting rules of conduct with meeting attendees.

6.0 VOTING IN MEETINGS – OPEN

Review of voting process as defined by AS7003, NOPs, and NTGOP.

Is the requirement to allow one person per facility to vote? NOP-001: One vote per clearly defined facility and product line. It was agreed that it is acceptable for the Task Group Chairperson to break tie votes for motions made by the Task Group Chairperson.

Reevaluated Motion passed in Dallas:

All motions made within the scope of the meeting require 2/3 majority of all in attendance that choose to vote to accept unless vote is restricted by the Task Group Chairperson. The Task Group decided to proceed with this allowance unless a justification to revisit this item is provided.

7.0 MEMBER PARTICIPATION PRESENTATION – OPEN

Three (3) Subscribers have missed two (2) consecutive ballots; four (4) Suppliers have missed two (2) consecutive ballots.

7.1 Disposition Those Members Who Don’t Meet Membership Requirements.

It was agreed to maintain all current Voting Members and for the Task Group Chairperson to contact Voting Members that are not meeting requirements and determine the intent and only remove their status if they desire. Participation is to be reevaluated during the October meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Task Group Chairperson to communicate with Voting Members that have not met the requirements to maintain voting status to determine the intent. All that wish to be maintained will be for further consideration during the October meeting. (Due Date: 31-July-13)

8.0 NEW VOTING MEMBERS – OPEN

8.1 Review and Approve Any New Requests for Voting Member Status

Gary Winters of Northrop Grumman was proposed as a Subscriber Voting Member. Motion made by Frank Lennert and seconded to accept Gary Winters as a Subscriber Voting Member. Subscriber meets the background requirements of NTGOP-001 App MTL. Motion passed.

Simon Tournebize of Aubert & Duval was proposed as an Alternate Supplier Voting Member. No objections. Simon Tournebize is accepted as an Alternate Supplier Voting Member.

Jason Wright of Atlas Testing Laboratories was proposed as a Supplier Voting Member. No objections. Jason Wright is accepted as a Supplier Voting Member. (*Note: Jason switched companies to Atlas Testing)

Dave Serbousek of Olympic Scientific Inc was proposed as an Supplier Voting Member. No objections. Dave Serbousek is accepted as a Supplier Voting Member.

Bob Olevson of Element was proposed as an Alternate Supplier Voting Member. No objections. Bob Olevson is accepted as an Alternate Supplier Voting Member.

9.0 PRESENT PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK PROVIDED TO MTL LEADERSHIP – OPEN

Dallas meeting feedback comments

•  Comments from suppliers indicate a concern that the NOP-002 3.3 alignment is taking away value-added aspects of the Nadcap MTL program.

•  MTL NOP-002 compliance-find a way for the Task Group to accept this requirement and move on.

•  We need to establish consensus that once a direction has been agreed upon we do not continually revisit the rationale behind our efforts.

•  Too many of us sit quietly while a vocal majority dominates almost all discussions.

•  I liked the approach for achieving NOP-002/checklist vision. Ability for meeting participants to provide feedback was good.

10.0 Nadcap TUTORIAL – OPEN

10.1 Present Overview of Nadcap and the MTL Commodity

An MTL Task Group Tutorial was presented. No further discussion followed.

10.2 Resolving NCRs Effectively – the MTL Preferred Approach

Tim Myers commented that Suppliers need to effectively inform the Staff Engineer and Task Group Chairperson with any issues in closing the NCR’s. Communication is important when issues arise rather than accumulating excessive delinquent days.

10.3 Task Group NCR Appeals Process

Task Group Resolution is an option for Suppliers if the direction the Staff Engineer is requesting is seen as non-value added. The Supplier needs to request Task Group Resolution in the NCR response for this action to be taken.

11.0 TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP (TAG) FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY SUMMARY – OPEN

Tim Myers reviewed the TAG and TAG process.

Verl Wisehart agreed to replace Linda Cook as TAG Chairperson of the AC7101/2 checklist.

11.1 TAG Chairpersons to Report on TAG Activity Function and Challenges, Handbook Updates

TAG Chairpersons for AC7101/1, /3, /6 reported on recent activities and Audit Handbook updates.

Limited use of the TAGs for AC7101/1, /3, /6 and limited group participation to resolve minimal requests has been observed to date. Retesting was an issue raised by the TAG for AC7101/1 which needs further discussion.

ACTION ITEM: Tim Myers to put the “retesting topic” on the October Agenda. (Due Date: 5-July-13)

ACTION ITEM: Tim Myers to send out request for more participation on TAGs, particularly Subscribers to aid in establishing quorum on each TAG. (Due Date: 31-July-13)

12.0 MOU REVIEW – OPEN

Current MTL MOUs were reviewed. No actions taken.

13.0 ISO 17025 – OPEN

13.1 What is an ISO 17025 Audit?

ISO/IEC 17025 audits are recognized quality system audits required by NOP-002 3.5

13.2 Why Mandate for Test Scope?

Task Group discussion was held concerning the NOP-002 requirement which mandates that the test scope of ISO/IEC 17025 to include all Nadcap scopes. The Task Group considered that this resulted in redundant audits.

Motion made by Jim Rossi to propose an amendment to NOP-002 3.5 to read “…in addition, Nadcap recognizes ISO/IEC 17025 and AC7006 for general quality system requirements for testing laboratories, including nondestructive testing laboratories and etch audits performed in support of nondestructive testing laboratories. The ISO/IEC must be from an approved ILAC accreditation body…” Motion seconded. Motion Passed

See Item 18 for Action Item

14.0 MTL VISION FROM DALLAS – OPEN

The direction and progress of MTL compliance to the vision requirements of NOP-002 section 3.3 was reviewed. AC7101/1, /3 and /4 had been presented for ballot since February meeting.

15.0 OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN

15.1 Call to Order/Quorum Check

15.2 Introductions

15.3 Code of Ethics/Antitrust and Meeting Conduct

15.4 Review Agenda

16.0 MTL VISION – OPEN

The meeting broke up into groups of approximately six Subscribers or six Suppliers to brainstorm the questions gathered in the Dallas meeting concerning the Membership’s vision on the direction of the Task Group. Results are as follows.

Group report outs below

Supplier Group #1

Very clear defined requirements accepted by all Subscribers and audited in a consistent manner.

To achieve that, we would share audit non-conformances and discuss resolutions.

Roadblocks:

1.  NMC vision understood, other Task Groups have handled differently

2.  Subscribers have strongest leverage with NMC

3.  Nadcap meeting is very Quality Management System (QMS)-focused. Should focus on more technical topics or have a split meeting

4.  Many of the Subscribers’ documents now have less “meat” because the AC’s have it

5.  We don’t know where we are going

Positive actions

1.  MTL TG meetings

2.  ACs are consensus documents created over 20 years

3.  Nadcap is a technical audit, not sure it is value added to re-audit ISO/IEC 17025 QMS. More job audits should be considered.

Supplier group #2

No Subscriber audits (independent of Nadcap audits) Audit checklist content being Subscriber best practices captured and used within MTL and between Task Groups.

Roadblocks:

1.  Lack of clear specific direction (from Subscriber representatives)

2.  NMC changes in direction

3.  Lack of participation in and between meetings

4.  Healthy effective responsive TAGs (more Subscriber participation and broader representation)

Positive:

1.  TAGs are important to forward progress post-compliance effort

2.  Well organized and structured meetings

3.  More concrete goals