UNCONFIRMED MINUTES · Web viewE. Dirats commented on Open versus Closed meetings. The supplier...

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESOCTOBER 2011

CONFIRMED MINUTESCONFIRMED MINUTES

OCTOBER 17 – 21, 2011SHERATON STATION SQUAREPITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

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.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011 to THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2011

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS/INTRODUCTIONS – CLOSED

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Materials Testing Laboratories Task Group (MTL) was called to order at 8:00 a.m., 18-Oct-11.

The MTLTG reviewed the Personal Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest.

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members /Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Muriel Auzanne Airbus Vice-ChairpersonFran Azzarto GE Aviation

* Eric Billings 309th Maintenance Wing-Hill AFB

* Pietro Bonarrigo Bombardier, Inc.Linda Cook Rolls-Royce Corp.

* Georges Coste SAFRAN Group* Doug Deaton GE Aviation

Laurent Després SAFRAN Group* George Doviak Goodrich Corp.* Kevin Elston Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.* Colin Fletcher Bell Helicopter Textron* Jim Hartman Honeywell Aerospace

Bryce Jolley 309th Maintenance Wing-Hill AFB

* Keith Kastner Cessna Aircraft Company* John Knie The Boeing Company* Frank Lennert The Boeing Company* Olivier Molinas Eurocopter* Tim Myers Honeywell Aerospace Chairperson* Lindsay Schurle Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. Secretary* Christian Schwaminger MTU Aero Engines GmbH* Amanda Thomas Raytheon Company* Verl Wisehart Rolls-Royce Corp.

1


CONFIRMED MINUTESOther Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

Imtiyaz Ahmed Dickson Testing Co., Inc.Siobhan Alekna SPS Technologies

* Frank Anderson The M&P Lab, Inc.Caesar Bansil WESCO Aircraft, Inc.Francois Barbaza ECCIPierre Barbaza ECCIPaula Bartlett Sulzer Metco (Canada), Inc.

* Corwyn Berger Exova, Inc., Chicago Laboratory

* Mary Lee Bogensperger PCC Airfoils LLC* Wayne Brege Cannon Muskegon Corp.

Philip Bretz Metcut Research Associates, Inc.

Kenneth Broenner Metcut Research Associates, Inc.

Andrew Cantell Jorgensen Forge Corp.* John Chir Latrobe Specialty Steel Co.

Julien Corato Exova, Inc.Bill DeLaurier IMR Test LabsGlenn Derstine Laboratory Testing, Inc.Lee Dilks Laboratory Testing, Inc.

* Eric Dirats Dirats LaboratoriesBruce Dixon NF&M InternationalHocine Djellab Verdun Anodizing, Inc.

* Bryan Engel ESCO Turbine Technologies-Syracuse

* Kay Fisher Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

* Deborah Frick Sherry Laboratories of Indiana LLC

* Brian Griffin Howmet Research Corp.Bill Grieszmer Metcut Research Associates,

Inc.Mirko Grotto RTM BREDA S.r.l.Bryan Hall NSL Analytical Services, Inc.Jim Harlukowicz STORK Herron TestRaymond Hozempa Yankee Casting Co., Inc.

* Anil Joshi Praxair Surface TechnologiesSteve Keck Carpenter Technology Corp.Dennis Kidd Cincinnati Testing Labs, Inc.Andrew Konzel Westinghouse Electron Co.Natalie Koon Haynes InternationalKyle Lindsey Danville Metal StampingGregory Lobosky Stork Materials Testing &

Inspection* John Low Universal Stainless & Alloy

Products* David Luoni STORK-MMA Testing

Laboratories, Inc.James Maloney Timken AerospaceTerry Marth Perryman Co.Giuseppe Marzano Haley Industries Ltd.Lori Meacham Haynes InternationalRaymond Merkle Mar-Test, Inc.

2


CONFIRMED MINUTESAngelo Monzo Barnes AerospaceAngela Murphy RTI International Metals, Inc.Christopher Napoli Allegheny LudlumRoger Ng Sulzer Metco (Canada), Inc.Bridget North Haynes InternationalBob Olevson Stork Materials Testing &

Inspection* Jacob Padrul Constellium France* Frank Peszka Laboratory Testing, Inc.

Robert Plecki Joliet Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc.

Karl Prattes Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co KG

* Len Radys Atlas Testing LaboratoriesJames Rauckhorst Tensile Testing Metallurgical

Lab.* James Rossi Westmoreland Mechanical

TestingBill Rubush Haynes InternationalJames Scannell Dickson Testing Co., Inc.Jan Schiltz AADFW

* Ray Schiltz AADFWDavid Serbousek Olympic Scientific, Inc.Murray Shumaker NF&M InternationalDerek Sicotte Dirats Laboratories

* Byron Skillings ATI Ladish ForgingBrian Smith Assured Testing ServicesJeffry Smith Stork Herron Testing

LaboratoriesHoward Spader InstronJohn Steinmetz Allegheny LudlumJohn Thomas Titanium Metals Corp.

* T. Rao Tipirneni Long Island Testing Labs. Inc.

Jennifer Tret Sherry LaboratoriesKevin Vecchiarelli Yankee Casting Co., Inc.Pietro Villa RTM BREDA S.r.l.

* Kevin VonScio Perryman Co.Jacob Wallace Stork Climax Research

Services, Inc.Thomas Watson J.D. Lincoln, Inc.Tiffany Waymer ATI Allvac

* Margaret Willis Allvac MonroeFrank Worpenberg Mar-Test, Inc.Jason Wright Metals Technology, Inc.Thomas Zimmerman SPS Technologies

PRI Staff Present

Jennifer KornrumpfJim LewisJustin McCabeKevin Wetzel

1.2 Agenda Review

The agenda for the meeting was reviewed/

3


CONFIRMED MINUTES1.3 MTL Task Group Succession Plan

Verl Wisehart, Rolls Royce Corp. stepped down as MTL Chairperson. Per the succession plan Tim Myers Honeywell was presented to the NMC as the new Chairperson. The Task Group would like to thank Verl Wisehart for his leadership over the last two years. After Task Group discussion Muriel Auzanne – Airbus was agreed as the new Vice-Chairperson.

Motion made by Verl Wisehart and seconded by Christian Schwaminger to approve Muriel Auzanne as the new Vice-Chairperson. Motion Passed.

Amanda Thomas will be taking over the duties of Secretary at the next Nadcap meeting. The Task Group would like to thank Lindsay Schurle for her efforts as the previous secretary.

2.0 MTL TASK GROUP MEMEBERSHIP PARTICIPATION STATUS REVIEW – CLOSED

A presentation concerning Nadcap MTL TG participation was reviewed. The review focused on participants that have been absent more than three consecutive meeting or missed 2 consecutive letter ballots.

ACTION ITEM: Verl Wisehart to email Tim Myers names of individuals that he had contacted and did not receive a response. Tim will follow up with these individuals and determine their intent with the MTL Task Group. (DUE DATE: 20-NOV-11)

Jim Hartman of Honeywell has been asked by Honeywell to step down from the Task Group at the end of this year. The Task Group would like to thank Jim for his tremendous effort during his tenure with the Task Group.

The Task Group asked the Subscriber to list their areas of expertise. This list will be used to address questions as they come up from suppliers/auditors.

To help facilitate communication, a monthly Task Group conference call will be scheduled Mondays at 10:00 am, Eastern Time zone. These calls will be conducted during the latter part of the month.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to schedule monthly conference calls starting November 14, 2011. Calls will be scheduled for November, December, January and February. The effectiveness will be reviewed at the February Nadcap meeting. (DUE DATE: 1-NOV-11)

3.0 AUDIT REPORT REVIEWER DELEGATION OVERSIGHT – CLOSED

Kevin Wetzel presented the Delegation Summary data for all Audit Report Reviewers. All reviewers (Kevin Wetzel, Jim Lewis, and Jim Stokes) are currently delegated and continue to meet the requirements defined in NOP-003.

Kevin Wetzel explained that Jim Stokes will be traveling less for audits and will picking up more audit reviews. Joe Chivinsky is no longer reviewing audits. Kevin is looking for another reviewer, possibly an auditor or another PRI Staff member.

Kevin Wetzel also requested that all Subscriber Voting Members make an effort to review audits and give particular attention to audits handled by other Staff Engineers/Consultant Reviewers. Due to the limited number of audit report reviews those Staff Engineers/Consultant Reviewers perform, there is a risk of their oversight slipping below 10%.

4


CONFIRMED MINUTESKevin Wetzel stated that when reviewing audit findings, Subscribers reviewing audits should key in on those NCRs listed as ‘Accepted’ or ‘Task Group Resolution’.

4.0 TASK GROUP RESOLUTIONS AND CLOSED DISCUSSION TOPICS – CLOSED

The Task Group had presentations from MTL suppliers that addressed the issue of Internal Round Robin Testing for laboratories with multiple pieces of equipment. This was primarily focused on Creep and Stress Rupture machines.

4.1 Metcut Research Associates, Inc. made a proprietary presentation regarding IRR. The Task Group agreed to approve Metcut’s proposal once a revision change controlled procedure detailing the proposal is presented.

ACTION ITEM: Tim Myers to communicate back to Metcut Research Associates, Inc. The Task Group Chairperson will draft a letter of approval of this procedure for Metcut Research Associates, Inc. to have on record (to show an auditor, etc.). (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

Metcut Research Associates, Inc. will be asked to give feedback over the next year on this process. The Task Group also requests Metcut Research Associates, Inc. come to the 2012 Nadcap Meeting in Pittsburgh to present their results and feedback on this process.

4.2 Stork Materials Testing & Inspection

Stork Materials Testing & Inspection also presented information regarding IRR for stress rupture and creep rupture.

ACTION ITEM: Stork Materials Testing & Inspection to formalize their process and submit the information to the Task Group for review. (DUE DATE: 15-FEB-12)

5.0 OPENING COMMENTS & AGENDA REVIEW – OPEN

5.1 Agenda review

The MTLTG reviewed the Personal Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest.

5.2 Reviewed with the Task Group summary of what was accomplished during the morning closed session.

E. Dirats commented on Open versus Closed meetings. The supplier would like to see the Task Group keep the closed meeting agenda to an absolute minimum as this is critical to maintaining the antitrust, code of ethics and conflict of interest issues. Kevin Weztel responded that the MTLTG does limit the closed agenda. Closed meetings are usually scheduled for the very beginning and the end of the agenda, plus generally do not run the entire scheduled course.

6.0 Nadcap TUTORIAL – OPEN

The MTLTG reviewed a presentation given by Kevin Wetzel regarding the Nadcap Policies and Procedures.

5


CONFIRMED MINUTES7.0 NEW VOTING MEMBERS – OPEN

Colin Fletcher of Bell Helicopter Textron was proposed as a Subscriber Voting Member. Motion made by Verl Wisehart and seconded by Doug Deaton to accept Colin Fletcher as a Subscriber Voting Member. Motion passed.

Kay Fisher of Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG was proposed as a Supplier Voting Member. Motion made by Eric Dirats and seconded Christian Schwaminger by to accept Kay Fisher as a Supplier Voting Member. Motion passed.

John Low of Universal Stainless and Alloy Products was proposed as a Supplier Voting Member. John has recently changed companies and has been a Supplier Voting Member for many years. Motion made by Jeff Smith and seconded by Debbie Frick to accept John Low as a Supplier Voting Member. Motion passed.

Kevin Wetzel introduced the MTL CSR, Jennifer Kornrumpf, to the Task Group. She made some important comments on the new eAuditNet application, Task Group Documents:

Participants must be registered in eAuditNet system to be notified of ballots. All voting is electronic now; no more paper ballots. Participants e-mail addresses must be up-to-date for notifications. Just contact Jennifer

and she can walk you through the registration process if you need eAuditNet access. If you have Firewall issues, make sure to add [email protected] as a safe e-

mail address to your spam filter. Suppliers who want to comment on ballots but are not Voting Members should request

to be added to the MTLTG as Non-Voting Members. For added security, Ballot Manager has been programmed in a way that voters must

be logged onto www.eAuditNet.com and cast their votes. Jennifer does not have access to anyone’s profile to vote for people.

8.0 APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 2011 MINUTES – OPEN

Motion made by Keith Kastner and seconded Corwyn Berger by to approve the minutes from the June 2011 Nadcap meeting. Motion Passed.

The minutes from June 2011 were approved as written.

9.0 REVIEW ROLLING ACTION ITEM LIST (RAIL) – OPEN

The MTLTG reviewed all Open Action Items.

For specific details, please see the current Materials Testing Laboratories Rolling Action Item List posted at www.eAuditNet.com, under Public Documents.

9.1 Discussion of Voided/Invalid NCRs

A supplier raised the question, what is the process for a supplier that feels an NCR is invalid. The answer, send an email to the commodity Staff Engineer stating you have an issue with the specific NCR. The Staff Engineer is looking for an explanation of why you feel the NCR is invalid with objective evidence attached. The email should be sent to Staff Engineer soon after the audit is submitted into eAuditNet so not to waste cycle time.

6

http://www.eAuditNet.com/


mailto:[email protected]


CONFIRMED MINUTESFrom an NCR count perspective, it is better for a NCR to be voided instead of Closed without any corrective action taken. Both NIP 7-02 paragraph 5.9 and NTGOP-001 paragraph 3.4 addresses voiding of non-conformances.

When an NCR is voided, how does this information get back to the auditors? The answer is this is addressed in the auditor evaluation. One of the recommendations is the need for a clarification database. Kevin Wetzel is consulting with the NDT Task Group for how they manage their database. The Task Group agrees that voided NCRs should be part of auditor conference.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to schedule a WebEx/conference call to discuss implementing the clarification database. The following team established in London meeting. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

Champions:PRI: Kevin WetzelSupplier: Kay FisherSubscriber: Frank Lennert Subscriber: Keith Kastner

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to add Voided/Invalid NCRs to the 2012 auditor conference agenda. (DUE DATE: 5-OCT-12)

It is believed that approximately five NCRs are voided per year. These voided NCRs are used as points during auditor conference. A definite number will be presented in February 2012, as data can be pulled to report voided NCRs. It was noted that the voided NCRs show up for each paragraph referenced in the NCR. For instance, one NCR could show up four times if four paragraphs were referenced in the original NCR.

Muriel Auzanne – Airbus commented that Auditor Advisories are used as a method to inform auditors of clarifications and feedback from the suppliers and the Task Group. It was suggested to create a list of problematic subjects.

Audits must comply with the written words of the audit criteria, not interpretation of the written words.

10.0 SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE REPORT – OPEN

Corwyn Berger presented an overview of the SSC and items of interest from the SSC meeting. For complete details, see the SSC Minutes posted on www.pri-nework.org.

Corwyn re-emphasized the importance of voting and balloting for the Task Group’s Supplier Voting Members. Supplier voting for the MTLTG has dropped below the Nadcap program average in 2010.

The Expiration Date is back on the certifications.The question was raised, before the next scheduled audit can a supplier get a copy of their current certification with the expiration date printed on the cert. This can be done by contacting Jennifer Kornrumpf.

A supplier commented that Subscribers need to work with their purchasing departments to flow down the identification of the prime to 1st, 2nd, etc. tier suppliers.

7

http://www.pri-nework.org/


CONFIRMED MINUTESDuring review of the of the SSC presentation Doug Deaton asked, can any specific MTLTG data be gotten from the slide ‘Has your company seen a measured improvement in quality as a result of your Nadcap accreditation‘ (83% of the supplier answered YES.)

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel will research what individual commodity data is available from the Supplier Survey team. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

11.0 REVIEW OUTPUT OF PLANNING AND OPS MEETING – OPEN

Tim Myers presented an overview of the Planning & Ops Meeting. For complete details, see the Planning and Ops meeting minutes posted on www.pri-network.org. The presentation covered the following topics:

Electronic balloting. A supplier commented that it is not apparent where to sign up for access for electronic balloting.

Auditor consistency Smart checklists NOP-002 Sec 3.3 Vision about requirements coming from industry specifications. The

MTLTG needs to submit a timeline for compliance to this vision. Prime identification/Prime flow down IT security issues. The issue was raised of auditors not being able to use their laptops

at supplier facilities, ones specifically with cameras. Some MTLTG suppliers have restrictions on USB drives or Firewalls so the auditors cannot have their computers connected to the company’s network. No MTL supplier present reported having an issue with cameras built into computers that auditors might bring to their facilities.

Re-visit Anti-trust policy. Good communication was encouraged between open and closed meetings.

PRI must be present at any intentional meetings of subscribers/suppliers. PRI acts as the 3rd party to avoid conflicts of interest and anti-trust issues.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to facilitate a demonstration/tutorial for eAuditNet electronic balloting during the February 2012 Nadcap meeting. (DUE DATE: 1-FEB-12)

12.0 MTL PROGRAM STATUS – NMC METRICS – OPEN

Kevin Wetzel presented a summary of the recent audit activity. The MTLTG had zero lapsed accreditations for August and September. For August, all metrics were green except for Staff Cycle Time on Initial audits. RED was identified for Staff Initial Cycle Time which was at 22 days for a goal of 14 days. For September, all metrics were green except for Supplier Cycle Time and Staff Cycle Time on Initial audits. RED was identified for Staff Initial Cycle Time was at 24 days for a goal of 14 days. RED was identified for Supplier Initial Cycle Time was at 48 days for a goal of 30 days.

The question was raised about what is the meaning of the Subscribers Balloting Chart. The answer is the difference between balloting rates between subscribers is due to several factors. Some Subscribers ballot on most audits regardless if the audited laboratory is a supplier for their company. Other Subscribers focus only on their own suppliers. Month-to-month variations exist because of holidays and summer vacation schedules. This metric does not impact the suppliers. It is more of a check on the participation rate of the Subscribers.

13.0 CHECKLIST VISION SUB-TEAM REPORT OUT – OPEN

Kevin Wetzel showed NOP-002 Section 3.3. The sub-teams for the checklists should now go through each checklist for compliance to this vision, and make note of changes that will need to be

8

http://www.pri-network.org/


CONFIRMED MINUTESaddressed in the next revisions of the checklists. The current checklists were accepted by the NMC and the Task Group does not have to change the checklists at this point due to this vision requirement.

The Task Group then reviewed the requirements of NOP-002 and addressed each paragraph

NOP-002 paragraph 3.3.1The MTL audit criteria are based on industry or Subscriber standards/specifications. The Task Group can further resolve ambiguity or define restrictions within the bounds of the standards/specification. Ambiguity within ASTM/ISO standards arises because standards cover multiple industries and test situations.

NOP-002 paragraph 3.3.2This is not an issue at this time. The Task Group will address if needed in the future.

NOP-002 paragraph 3.3.3The Task Group creates audit criteria to ensure compliance to requirements.

NOP-002 paragraph 3.3.4The Task Group requires job audits to meet intent.

NOP-002 paragraph 3.3.5This is part of the Task Group vision.

Motion made by Tim Myers and seconded by Doug Deaton to approve this package of responses to NMC regarding NOP-002. Motion Passed.

ACTION ITEM: Tim Myers to draft letter to NMC to define the MTLTG interpretation and to define the plan for the MTLTG treatment of this requirement. This includes the responses listed above to NOP-002 Section 3.3. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

The AC7101/1 sub-team showed progress of their meetings. An excel sheet detailing where checklist requirements have come from (which standard or unknown.) Prime requirements can be included as a source along with ASTM, ISO, etc. standards.

14.0 AC CHECKLIST CHAMPION REPORT OUT – OPEN

The question was raised, what is the process and who oversees it. The answer is the Staff Engineer accumulates proposed changes from two sources, the Checklist champions for changes needed due to standards changes and anyone proposing a content change. All change requests should be submitted to the Staff Engineer with the proposed new wording to be reviewed and balloted by the Task Group.

ACTION ITEM: The Task Group Sub-team is to define a process to review changes to checklists due to ASTM changes or any other need for a change to the checklist. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

Checklist Champions:AC7101/1: Muriel AuzanneAC7101/2: Verl WisehartAC7101/3: Jim Rossi (ASTM) and Owen O’Grady (ISO)AC7101/4: Tim Myers (ASTM) and Owen O’Grady (ISO)AC7101/5: Tim Myers (ASTM)AC7101/6: Dave SerbousekAC7101/7: Doug Deaton (ASTM A370)AC7101/9: Frank LennertAC7101/11: Greg Lobosky

9


CONFIRMED MINUTES15.0 INDUSTRY STANDARD/SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION

REPORT OUT – OPEN

ASTM E1012:Jim Hartman presented a report out on the pending ASTM E1012 revision.

The ballot was initiated on 13-Oct-2011and the anticipated date of publication of ASTM E1012-12 is 15-Jan-2012. Changes include Tier 1 & Tier 2 alignment, zero point load test which is not intended to be a ’zero load reading‘. This was meant to be the point at which both grips are engaged and you are reading the effect of the grips on the specimen with no additional load applied. Auditors need to be notified on this topic to avoid ‘zero load’ NCRs. Alignment test will be performed over a load range of interest to the machine and the test in question. Notes include common load schemes and the load scheme needs to include all loads of interest that apply to a supplier’s type of testing.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel is to send out information to the MTL Task Group on how to get involved in ASTM, ISO standard development organizations. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

John Thomas presented a report on the ASTM Committee E01 Nadcap Liaison Discussion.

The goal is to get back to a ’Performance Based Test Method‘ instead of prescriptive; getting away from the one size fits all standard methodology and to modernize the analytical techniques. Not all Quality concerns are addressed by ASTM (technical) standards. This idea needs to be addressed in the vision discussion.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to add ASTM & ISO updates as a standing agenda item for future meetings. Identify representatives from each ASTM/ISO committee to report to the Task Group. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

It was recommended the MTL Task Group generate internal definitions of the words “should” and “shall”.

Kay Fisher gave a presentation on European Standards.

Types of standards include National Standards (DIN, NF, BS, OE Norm), European (EN) and International (ISO). These standards can combine. (For instance, DIN EN ISO 6892-2.) An ISO can be adopted by EN but does not have to be. An EN standard must become a national standard for the European member countries. A list of EN committees and which documents they are working on can be found at www.cen.eu. PR EN standard is a draft standard. EN documents adopted as national standards should be the same between countries. Look for an “IDT” marking on the standard. Muriel Auzanne says Airbus only requires EN ISO XXX and does not define which national designation is before the EN.

10

http://www.cen.eu/


CONFIRMED MINUTES

16.0 REVIEW MTL AUDITOR CONFERENCE CONDUCTED 2011 – OPEN

Kevin Wetzel showed the agenda from the 2011 MTL auditor’s conference.

An observation was made. The auditors in PRI/Nadcap are different from other auditing organizations. PRI/Nadcap auditors need to adopt a friendlier/more helpful approach with their ’customers‘. Recommendation is for PRI/Nadcap to provide information in dealing with customers & communications instead of just how to write NCRs. The relationship between laboratories and auditors is too antagonistic. These topics are currently covered in the general information for all Nadcap auditors.

It was suggested that the auditors be allowed to make suggestions on other ways to comply to help the laboratory instead of digging deeper and deeper to uncover a finding. Over the years, an audit at the same laboratory becomes a “game”. The Staff Engineer commented that the Nadcap auditors are not consultants. Prepared laboratories are penalized because auditors feel forced to write NCRs and therefore have to dig deeper where there is no “low hanging fruit”. It was suggested that suppliers be involved in the auditor conference. Kevin Wetzel responded that PRI’s policy is to not have suppliers at auditor conference. Suppliers are however encouraged to suggest and present any training material during the auditor conference.

In the past, laboratories offered other organization’s auditors training on laboratory techniques they are not familiar with. The Staff Engineer suggested that this can be investigated in the future. Suppliers feel there is a need to identify specific areas to focus on for the auditor conference. Tim Myers made the suggestion that agenda time can be included during the San Diego meeting for suppliers to meet and present auditor conference topics. The MTL TG will create a sub-team that includes Suppliers, Auditors, and Subscribers to meet by conference call between this meeting and San Diego to at least get all the issues identified. Dave Luoni will organize and moderate these calls.

ACTION ITEM: MTL TG subscribers/suppliers/auditors to develop a training program for MTL auditor dealing with auditing skills. (DUE DATE: 15-OCT-12)

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to schedule a conference call Wed Dec 6th at 10:00am-12:00pm Eastern Time for the sub-team that Dave Luoni will moderate. (DUE DATE: 14-NOV-11)

ACTION ITEM: The sub-team is to email Dave Luoni any items to be included on the conference call agenda at [email protected]. (This address is subject to change). Add this request for information to the meeting appointment notice. (DUE DATE: 18-NOV-11)

It was suggested by a supplier that the difference between a major and a minor NCR should be better distinguished. A Supplier has a hard time explaining to his quality manager why a finding is a major when no customer impact is projected. An Auditor should stay involved in the process from the audit until the close of the audit and possibly participate in the close out of findings. The Staff Engineer commented that the auditor is part of the audit closure process when needed.

Suppliers believe that Auditors are spending the first few hours of the audit doing non-audit preparation work on-site.

Tim Myers presented the agenda and notes from the MTLTG auditor conference.

The Task Group discussed Appendix E frequency of calibrations. Items like Muffle furnaces with digital controllers need to be specifically addressed in the checklist. An Auditor Advisory will go out to document Auditor guidance concerning AC7101/1 E Appendix E until the checklists can be revised.

11

mailto:[email protected]


CONFIRMED MINUTESThere was further discussion on when a piece of equipment is not operational at the time of the audit. Auditors prefer to write an NCR if the test cannot be performed. This seems to be the easiest way for Auditors to deal with this situation.

Previously laboratories have been written up for a Major NCR due to equipment down. The current practice is for the Auditor to write up the equipment in the cover letter and then Staff Engineer writes this up in the Closing Notes so the next Auditor knows to observe this test method during next audit.

This topic was discussed in London. Task Group reviewed minutes for London:

If observation of test is not possible at the time of the scheduled audit (whether surveillance or full scope), all other audit questions pertaining to the test method are to be asked. Process will be audited to the extent possible minus actual observation of test.

The requirement for observation of test is for this to occur in the course of two audits per NTGOP-001 Appendix II and 7.1 and 3.4 of AC7101/1E. The MTLTG still maintains consensus on this.

No NCRs are to be issued simply because the observation of test could not be completed. An NCR will be created if the observation of test for each test code is not completed within two audits (any kind of audit).

There is a need to ensure proper traceability of which test observation have been completed. Methods used by Composites Task Group will be reviewed. Incorporating a column “Observation of Test completed” within the Table 1A of AC7101/1 to be completed and reviewed at every audit to ensure through observation of testing was proposed.

Tim Myers showed a version of the proposed table from AC7101/1 where additional information is added about Observation of a test, job audits, checklist, etc. This is similar to the Composites Task Group matrix.

There was some Supplier disagreement with the comment/statement that a finding would be generated if the Supplier failed to supply all figures at the start of the audit. “This figure shall be provided to the auditor using Microsoft Word file format at the start of the audit. If not available, a NCR will result.” This would be an NCR not having anything to do with compliance.

Labels are needed on columns to identify which columns are filled out by the Auditor and which ones are filled out by Suppliers. Tim Myers edited the column headers.

Many suppliers feel that the Auditor feedback form is not confidential. These comments are critical to the continued improvement of the Nadcap Auditors. In preparation for audits the Suppliers are given consequences for not preparing (NCRs). Auditors have no consequences for not preparing for audits, etc. Suppliers fear being honest on the Supplier feedback form because it is not confidential plus the Auditors talk to each other. Kevin Wetzel commented that the suppliers need to be honest in their evaluation in order for the process to be effective.

The figures on eAuditNet are from the old AC revisions. New AC revisions allow any format for the matrix that contains the required material. The old figures can be used as guidance.

Some Suppliers feel Auditors are requesting information different from what is on the checklist. This can be addressed during Auditor conference 2012

17.0 WORKING SESSION AC7101/11 FASTENER TESTING – OPEN

This topic was not discussed during this meeting.

18.0 PROFICIENCY TESTING AND INTERNAL ROUND ROBIN ACTIVITY – OPEN

12


CONFIRMED MINUTES

Julien Corato of Exova gave a presentation on the 2012 AGS PT program. If suppliers need a test not listed in the presentation they can, send Julien an email at [email protected]. He will determine if there is enough interest from other suppliers to add the test.

When suppliers receive new equipment, a quick method of comparing will be to use residual Exova material as a quick comparison. Due to homogeneity between specimens, a different statistical method will need to be determined for Fastener Testing.

The suppliers had a conference call and came up with 4 reasons to change the RR requirements for Stress Rupture and Creep.

Since Nadcap was established, no value has been seen in RR for creep and stress rupture. The equipment involved is simple with few moving parts. Operator techniques are not as important as the techniques for chemical analysis.

The intent of an IRR program is to compare technicians and processes on equipment, not each and every piece of equipment.

Interpretation of requirement. Not practical for all technicians, all equipment on creep and stress rupture. This concept was originally understood by the Task Group, but the understanding has changed as checklists evolved and people added to the Task Group.

Cost analysis. Cost of material and testing hours is huge for creep/stress.

The Task Group is to consider a moratorium on writing NCRs on ‘all equipment, all technicians’ as it relates to stress rupture and creep equipment IRR until a fix can be detailed.

Motion made for a subscriber only vote to approve: “Effective 8/28/2011, a moratorium exists to writing NCRs on creep and stress rupture IRR for equipment only until the conclusion of the October 2012 Nadcap meeting” by Tim Myers and seconded by Doug Deaton. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: The MTL Task Group is to send an Auditor Advisory clarifying the intention of IRR for operators and machines plus the moratorium. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

ACTION ITEM: The MTL Task Group is to send a Supplier Alert to all MTL Suppliers clarifying the intention of IRR for operators and machines plus the moratorium. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

Suppliers feel this applies to more than just creep and stress rupture. There is still an issue with LCF and other test methods. Suppliers stressed that the common understanding needs to be addressed in the Auditor Advisory. Some Auditors understand the process to be “all technicians on one machine plus one technician on all machines while other Auditors understand the process to be “all technicians on all machines”.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel is to re-send the email from the June 2011 meeting to the MTL Task Group roster. (DUE DATE 1-DEC-11)

Suppliers feel that the note under AC7101/1 Section 15.2.4 may be causing the confusion. The note gives the example of one operator with multiple equipments, then one equipment with multiple operators. There is no example for multiple operators with multiple equipments.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel is to organize a conference call with all participants with this Test Code from the email plus any other interested parties. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

13


CONFIRMED MINUTES

The question was raised, which Subscribers are driving the requirement for stress rupture and creep equipment IRR. The answer is it is a global requirement.

19.0 REIVEW OF MTL TOP FINDINGS PER CHECKLIST – OPEN

This topic was not discussed during this meeting. The Top 5 Findings will be posted to eAuditNet.

20.0 GENERAL MTL TASK GROUP DISCUSSIONS – OPEN

Jim Hartman from Honeywell will be stepping down from the Task Group. The Task Group would like to thank Jim for his tremendous effort during his tenure with the MTL Task Group. Task Group members can still get in touch with Jim by contacting Tim Myers.

Jim Lewis explained that PRI/Nadcap no longer offers accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 and there are no plans to change this in the future.

Suppliers feel the Task Group should pursue more eAuditNet support. All the Word documents should be electronic forms within eAuditNet.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to see if eAuditNet has a ‘Save Prior to Post’ feature. Can suppliers save responses or attachments in eAuditNet and still be able to edit without sending it to Staff Engineer Review. (DUE DATE: 16-DEC-11)

21.0 NEW BUSINESS / REVIEW NEW ACTION ITEM LIST (RAIL) / OTHER AGENDA ITEMS – OPEN

The MTLTG reviewed all Open Action Items. For specific details, please see the current Materials Testing Laboratories Rolling Action Item List posted at www.eAuditNet.com, under Public Documents.

22.0 FINALIZE FEBRUARY 2012 MEETING AGENDA – OPEN

The agenda for the February 2012 Nadcap meeting will be using the new format.

Monday, February 20, 2012 will be closed in the morning (8am-12pm). There was discussion of the MTL suppliers meeting during the Subscriber Closed session Monday morning. A PRI Staff Member is needed if this is to take place. The open session will begin at 1:00pm and run to 5:00pm

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 will be Open all day and start at 9:00am. The SSC meeting will be 5-7pm.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012 will be Open in the morning (8am-12 pm).The Task Group Chairperson and Staff Engineer Roundtable will be held from 12-1:30pm. The Closed session will begin at 2:00pm and run to 5:00pm. The Planning and Ops meeting for the Task Group Chairperson and Staff Engineer will run from 5-7pm.

Thursday, February 23, 2012 the NMC meeting will be held from 8:30-10:00am.

Muriel Auzanne suggested that the Task Group can be more efficient with advance planning of discussion points if sub-teams meet by conference call before the next Nadcap meeting so discussions can be more focused.

14



CONFIRMED MINUTESACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel is to schedule a “Call for Topics” one month prior to the next Nadcap Meeting. (DUE DATE: 13-JAN-12)

It was suggested to move the “Every meeting” agenda items to the last open session which will be held Wednesday morning.

Motion made to adjourn the Open portion of the meeting at 12:15pm by Verl Wisehart and seconded by Christian Schwaminger. Motion Passed.

23.0 REVIEW CURRENT MOUs – CLOSED

This topic was not discussed during this meeting.

24.0 REVIEW AUDITOR EVALUATIONS AND SUPPLIER FEEDBACK – CLOSED

The MTLTG reviewed data supplied concerning Auditor Evaluations that are completed by the Audit Report Reviewer and the Supplier Feedback that are completed by the Supplier. There were no issues.

25.0 TASK GROUP RESOLUTIONS AND CLOSED DISCUSSION TOPICS – CLOSED

ACTION ITEM: The MTLTG will raise Auditor Advisories that addresses, the “Human Relations” aspect of the audit and compliance to the audit criteria while avoiding interpretation or digging too deep into correlating industry specifications. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

Muriel Auzanne commented that the Task Group should include typical finding examples for ambiguous areas during Auditor Conference and present the situations or findings to the Auditors to see if they concur. Frank Lennert commented that calibration requirements need to be further addressed.

ACTION ITEM: The MTLTG will raise an Auditor Advisory. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

In AC7101/1 Appendix E, the Calibration Frequency should say ‘Maximum Interval’ instead of ‘Minimum’. Standard reference for 6 month calibration of micrometers & calipers in AC7101/3 Table 2: ASTM E139 Section 7.2, micrometers/calipers shall be calibrated every 6 months.

Audit #135109Supplier removed AC7101/3 Test Code A from the Scope of Accreditation because of machine alignment concerns. The Supplier had the machine re-aligned and submitted data for the Task Group to review. Motion made to re-instate RTT into Scope of Accreditation for Audit #135109 by Keith Kastner and seconded by Doug Deaton after being reviewed by the Task Group. Motion Passed.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel, per the Task Group vote, is to add AC7101/3 test code A back into the Supplier’s Scope of Accreditation. (DUE DATE: 21-OCT-11)

ACTION ITEM: Jim Hartman is to create a summary of the interpretation of Zero Alignment from AC7101/3 and send the summary to Kevin Wetzel to distribute to the Auditors. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

#137867, NCR#4Supplier submitted a plan for machine alignment. After Task Group discussion, Kevin Wetzel will accept the finding in question. The proposed plan was review by the Task Group in the Pittsburgh meeting October 20, 2011. The plan was agreed upon, to be followed up and confirmed at the next audit. This audit will go to Task Group Review for comment and ballot.

All mechanical alignment ASTMs say “should” not “shall”.

#136811, NCR#1

15


CONFIRMED MINUTESBalance issue: Impact of the scale on this particular test was negligible. In this case, the NCR will be downgraded from a Major to a Minor with no impact to the Auditor. The Auditor classified this as a Major due to Potential Product Impact. This was the correct decision at the time of the audit.

Audit #137182Extension requested. Expiration date is October 31, 2011. Audit is scheduled for November 29-December 2. The audit was rescheduled due to logistics as the auditor got stuck due to weather and this audit could not be rescheduled before the end of November. Motion made to extend the extension by 3 months by Keith Kastner and seconded by Doug Deaton. Motion Passed.

Audit #146202, NCR #1Preventative Maintenance: The Staff Engineer accepted this NCR. Motion made to void NCR #1 by Amanda Thomas and seconded by George Doviak based on Task Group discussion. Motion Passed. Because the evidence was present during the audit, this will affect the Auditor’s score.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel is to issue an Auditor Advisory on preventive maintenance and routine maintenance. Auditors should verify the existence of content, and execution of the PM plan. Auditors should not judge the adequacy. (DUE DATE: 1-DEC-11)

ACTION ITEM: All Subscriber Voting Members are to declare the Task Group position on equipment additions within an accredited laboratory. Put on the RAIL to document in NTGOP-001 Appendix 2. (DUE DATE: 20-JAN-12)

There was a question from supplier regarding AC7101/2 Rev C Paragraph 6.2 “Documented analytical data, generated by the laboratory, is on file to support the matrix, with regard to calibration range, and precision.” The Task Group is looking for data (not a curve) to support Figure 1 matrix.

ADJOURNMENT – 20-Oct-11 – Closed Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Amanda Thomas, [email protected]

***** For PRI Staff use only: ******

Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting? (select one)

YES* NO

*If yes, the following information is required:

Documents requiring revision:

Who is responsible: Due date:

16

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES · Web viewE. Dirats commented on Open versus Closed meetings. The supplier...

Documents

Transcript of UNCONFIRMED MINUTES · Web viewE. Dirats commented on Open versus Closed meetings. The supplier...