PRI & Nadcap Overview

1 Updated 15-May 2014

© 2013 Performance Review Institute
For ASTM E-01
 2

Material Testing Laboratories Task Group

Kevin Wetzel – Performance Review Institute

Senior Staff Engineer – Lead Materials Testing Laboratories
[email protected], +1 724 772 8652 (US)

Verl Wisehart – Secretary MTL TG

Senior Chemist
MTL TG Subscriber Voting Member
(Past MTL TG Chair)
[email protected] , +1 317-230-5407
 3
About PRI

PRI is a global provider of customer focused solutions designed

to improve process and product quality by adding value,
reducing total cost and promoting collaboration among
stakeholders in industries where safety and quality are shared
goals.

PRI is a not-for-profit affiliate of SAE International and is led by a

Board of Directors with responsibility for strategic direction and
financial stability.

© 2013 Performance Review Institute

 Established PRI Programs 4

Accreditation Product Professional Management

(Qualification) Qualification Development Systems

Improves the quality of ANAB approved

Special Process, System Qualified Products List is Provides personnel Registrar committed to
similar to Nadcap. personnel, products and
and Product Qualification qualification, developed improving the quality of:
processes through public
Focuses on Products and managed by Personnel, Products &
and onsite training
rather than processes. industry. Processes
classes and
memberships. AS9100, ISO9000,
ISO14001
Industry Managed

Complementary

© 2013 Performance Review Institute

 5
PRI Historical Highlights
1985 Government/Industry Equal Partner Conference identifies the need to minimize redundant process audits

1990 SAE launches PRI as a separately incorporated 501(c)6. Nadcap launched. 5 NDT audits conducted

1992 GEAE and Allied Signal mandate Nadcap to NDT supply chain. 70 NDT Audits conducted

1994 Heat Treat, Welding, Chemical Processing, Coatings, Material Test Labs added

1995 PRI Registrar created to provide QMS/ EMS in support of existing qualification programs

2000 Nadcap Europe established with U.K. office

2002 Nadcap business support software launched - eAuditNet

2003 Nadcap Asia launched

2008 PRI launches Professional Development programs

Board approved exploration of new industry models: Transportation & Power Generation, Nuclear and
2011
Medical Devices.

Approximately 5000 audits for all special processes across all industry-managed programs
2012
Transportation and Power Generation (TPG) Program initiated
2014 MedAccred Program initiated

© 2013 Performance Review Institute

 Nadcap Definition 6

The leading, worldwide industry-managed

cooperative program of major companies designed
to manage a cost effective consensus approach to
special processes/products and provide continual
improvement within the aerospace industry.

Compliance – Control – Cost Savings – Risk Reduction

© 2013 Performance Review Institute

 7
PRI & Nadcap Organizational Structure
Executive Leaders
• Legal entity
Policy Board of Directors •
•
Fiduciary responsibility
Set policy
• Provide the vision

Senior quality leaders & managers

• Oversee operation of Nadcap
Nadcap Management
Tactical Council (NMC)
• Establish/implement policy & procedure
• Task group coordination & development
• Identify/develop/deploy improvement

Task Groups Supplier Support

Technical Special Processes
Nondestructive Testing,
Committee (SSC)
Materials Testing,
Heat Treating, Coatings,
Chemical Processing, Technical Experts
Welding, NMSE, Non Metallic Materials Testing • Determine requirements
& Conventional Machining • Develop documents
Measurement & Inspection • Accept corrective action
• Final decision on accreditation
Systems & Products
Electronics,
Sealants, Elastomer Seals,
AQS (AC7004),
Fluid Distribution Systems &
Composites
© 2013 Performance Review Institute
Nadcap OEMs
 Nadcap Accreditation Today 9

Special Processes Systems & Products

Non-Destructive Aerospace Quality

Coatings Systems
Electronics
Testing

Non-Conventional Fluid Distribution

Welding Machining
Composites Systems

Chemical Conventional
Machining as a Elastomer Seals Sealants
Processing Special Process

Surface
Heat Treating
Enhancement Future Processes
Materials Testing Non Metallic Castings &
Raw Materials
Laboratories Materials Testing Forgings

Measurement & Non Metallic

Materials
Inspection Manufacturing

© 2013 Performance Review Institute

 Nadcap Process Flow 10

• OEMs reach consensus on core audit criteria

• OEMs mandate Nadcap to supply chain as part of the supplier approval
process
• Suppliers schedule and pay for the audit
• PRI contracts OEM approved Auditors who conduct on-site process audits to
industry managed checklist
• Audit data is entered into eAuditNet (PRI’s in-house web based audit
management system)
• PRI Staff Engineers review the audit report packages and work with Suppliers
to close non-conformances
• Task Groups review audit packages, identify issues and vote to grant
accreditation or request additional actions
• OEMs work with PRI to measure program effectiveness and
continually assess and improve Nadcap for all
participants

© 2013 Performance Review Institute

 11
Benefits to OEMs
• Conduct more in-depth, technically superior special process audits
• Increases number of consistent audits of the supply chain
• Establish stringent industry consensus standards that satisfy the requirements of all participants
• Identify and reduce risk of exposure to lower-quality suppliers
• Provides industry-wide early warning advisories for potential product impact and escapes
(defective products)
• Provides complete visibility of supplier behaviors and transparency of audit results in a secure
and retrievable format
• Program reduces costs of supply chain oversight and control
• Utilizes technically superior auditors to assure process familiarity
• Effectiveness of OEM’s Quality team increased – able to look beyond baseline requirements and
focus on problem areas and suppliers
• Improves flow down of industry and customer requirements to sub-tier suppliers
• eAuditNet supports procurement to identify accredited suppliers
(Qualified Manufacturers List)
• Global Supply Chain managed through single real-time system
(eAuditNet)
© 2013 Performance Review Institute
 Benefits to Suppliers 12

• Provides routine special process audits accepted by industry

• *85% report supplier quality improvements after accreditation, including

more than one-third reducing scrap rates, reworks and escapes (defective
products)

• Promotes lean and continuous improvement practices, leading to higher

quality and lower overall cost

• Industry accepted and consistent technical requirements leading to uniform

process controls and greater operational efficiency

• Develops a structured approach to special process and product

manufacturing

• Can use accreditation to increase client-base

• Opportunity to participate in development of audit

criteria and program operations

© 2013 Performance Review Institute *Aerospace data

 13

Nadcap Meetings
• Nadcap has 3 meetings per year.
– February
– June/July
– October – Auditor training is typically aligned with this meeting.
• Next Nadcap Meeting
– June 23-27, 2014 Dublin, Ireland
– October 20-24, 2014 Pittsburgh, PA USA
– March 2-6, 2015 Berlin, Germany
 14

Pittsburgh – London – Beijing – Nagoya – Singapore

International Headquarters

Performance Review Institute

161 Thorn Hill Road
Warrendale, PA 15086
USA

© 2013 Performance Review Institute

 15

Material Testing Laboratories Task Group

• Implementation Date – 1993

– First appeared in a Nadcap meeting Attendee’s Guide
• APRIL 1992

– Years in existence – 22
 16

MTL Vision
Materials Testing Laboratories Task Group Vision

The MTL Task Group will use technically competent, fully prepared
auditors to conduct consistent, streamlined audits of subscriber
requirements using audit criteria which emphasize observation of
technical testing and reliance on ISO/IEC17025/AS/EN/JISQ 9100
accreditation to provide thorough oversight of technical aspects of
aerospace materials testing. The TG strives to use best practices
within MTL and among other commodities to reduce subscriber audits,
improve inter-and intra-laboratory comparisons, enhance supplier and
auditor preparation, and conduct TG business with clear goals and
strong participation from all members in a well organized and
documented manner.
• “Streamlined" means avoid redundancy, eliminate waste of the process, clear
objectives and expectations, efficient use of time
• "fully prepared" includes proper training, pre-audit prep, personal experience
• "strong participation" means TAG ( Technical Advisory Groups) quorum and support
for resolution, providing TG direction with clear goals, vocal/voting participation in
the meetings, effective communication with NMC
 17

MTL Key Contacts

• Task Group Leadership
– Chairperson – Tim Myers, Honeywell Aerospace,
• [email protected] +1 602 231 1300
– Vice Chair – Amanda Rickman, Raytheon
• [email protected] , +1 972-670-2396
– Secretary – Verl Wisehart, Rolls-Royce
• [email protected] , +1 317-230-5407

• MTL Staff Engineer

– Kevin Wetzel, [email protected], +1 724 772 8652 (US)
– Robert Hoeth, [email protected] , +1 724 772 8657 (US)
– Jim Lewis, [email protected] , +1 724 772 8688 (US)
– Robert Lizewski, [email protected] , +1 724 772 8681 (US)

• Committee Service Representative

– Jennifer Kornrumpf, [email protected] , +1 724 772 8680 (US)
 18

Current Activities MTL

• Re-organization of Nadcap MTL Documents
– Review/Revise All MTL AC checklists for NOP-002 Compliance.
– Development/Maintenance of MTL TG Audit Handbook
• Implementation of the TAG ( Technical Advisory Groups) process
• IPT/PTP/RR Requirements
– The MTL Task Group is working to more thoroughly define the
requirements for
• Internal and External Proficiency Testing (requirement/frequency)
• Acceptance of Proficiency Testing Providers
• Auditor Consistency
– Address NMC standardization activities
 19

Current Activities MTL

Last Meeting Activity
•Review Subscriber responsibilities and expectations:
• Completed the review
• Subscribers requested access to the slides
• Will conduct periodic review of responsibilities in the meetings.
• Review major activity and feedback from previous meeting:
• TG indicated this was a desirable activity to continue for future meetings.
• Paris feedback indicated desire for more technical discussions and group
sessions.
• TG adopted proposal to present technical topics each full day of the
meeting.
• Group sessions planned for London meeting on MTL Vision, Checklist
Vision, and getting suppliers more engaged in auditor training.
 20

Current Activities MTL

Last Meeting Activity
• Continue definition of MTL checklist revision process:
• Process was reviewed
• Oversight Committee met
• Process evolution to continue in next meeting.
• Continue checklist revision for NOP compliance:
• Reviewed balloted AC7101/1 and prepared it for next ballot.
• Reviewed AC7101/2 in preparations for NOP compliance and alignment
with MTL Vision.
• AC7101/1, /3, /4 planned for balloting Dec 2013.
• AC7101/5, /6, /7, /11 planned for group work in London Feb 2014.
• TG adopted proposal to create Handbook Supplements for each checklist
which will link the new criteria to the old criteria along with applicable
source requirements (satisfying NOP-002), auditor guidance, and reasons
for change. Ad-hoc team was created to generate Excel files.
 21

Current Activities MTL

Last Meeting Activity
• TAG activity summary:
• TAGs reported with activity in /1, /5, /9.
• TAG process reviewed.
• Report on new standard creation activity:
• Considerable discussion about why this is needed and it might be valuable to the
industry. Kick-off for activity planned for January 2014.
• Fastener test discussion:
• A group led by Bryan Hall was established with an action plan to move forward.
• Action plan to reach the MTL Vision:
• Group activity on segments of the Vision helped identify areas of focus toward
action plans.
• Re-test, etc discussion:
• Kay Fisher provided the basis for three discussions on retests, replacement tests,
invalid tests, etc. resulting in Handbook definition revisions and proposed changes
to the audit criteria.
 22

Current Activities MTL

Last Meeting Activity
• New audit checklist:
• Sieve analysis was accepted for new audit criteria.
• TG opted to place the criteria in a new checklist entitled something similar
to “audit criteria for physical properties evaluation”.
• A team was established and Verl Wisehart volunteered to be the lead.
• Heat Treat TG MOU proposals:
• The HT TG proposed an MOU to allow MTL auditors to audit the AMS2750
related criteria when applicable to lab furnaces not using load
thermocouples.
• MOU prepared for adoption in London Feb 2014.
• NTGOP-001 APP MTL ballot resolution:
• Process for PT/IRR issues refined and TG authorized PT TAG to handle all
PT/IRR matters.
 23

Current Checklist Revision Status

• AC7101/1F - Completed Task Group and NMC
ballot. Projected for audit after September 1,
2014
• AC7101/2D - Initial 45 day letter ballot to
complete June 22, 2014. Then ballot comment
resolution
• AC7101/3D – Completed 45 day letter ballot.
Addressing ballot comments. The 14 day Task
Group affirmation ballot then NMC ballot.
 24

Current Checklist Revision Status

• AC7101/4E – 14 day affirmation ballot to
conclude May 20, 2014
• AC7101/5D – 45 day letter ballot to conclude
June 5, 2014
• AC7101/12 – Physical Analysis - Proposed new
checklist. 45 day letter ballot to conclude May
17, 2014
 25

MTL Applicable Checklists

• AC 7101/2 Chemical Analysis
– Document contains specific requirements for:
– Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
• DCP, ICP, Spark/Arc (OES), and Glow Discharge. High Temperature
Hollow Cathode
– Elemental (Combustion/Fusion)
• Carbon, Sulfur, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen
– X-Ray Fluorescence
– Mass Spectroscopy
• Glow Discharge, ICP
– Atomic Absorption
• Graphite Furnace, Flame
 26

MTL Applicable Checklists

• AC 7101/1 General Requirements For Materials Testing Laboratory
Accreditation Program
• AC 7101/3 Mechanical Testing
• AC7101/4 Metallography and Microindentation Hardness
• AC 7101/5 HardnessTesting (Macro)
• AC 7101/6 Corrosion
• AC 7101/7 Mechanical Testing Specimen Preparation
• AC 7101/8 Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) For Metals Only
• AC7101/9 Specimen Heat Treating
• AC 7101/11 Fastener Testing
• AC7006 Equivalent ISO/IEC 17025 Requirements
 27

MTL Top NCRs for AC7101/2C

All Audits from January – December 2013
 28

AC7101/2 – Overall Findings

All Audits from January – December 2013
CURRENT AUDIT CRITERIA FOR REFERENCE MATERIALS—
29

AC7101/2 C

6.5 Reference materials used have adequate documentation. They are

traceable to a recognized standards agency, natural physical constants, or
they are generated or derived from standardized laboratory methods or
multiple laboratory analysis programs. (This requirement includes all
reference materials used to create analytical curves including those curves
supplied by equipment manufacturers and used to correct percentage values
sometimes called alloy type correction. Standards used only for drift
correction for intensities are not included.)
a. Analytical methods utilize reference materials which have documented
traceability of analysis.
b. Non-certified reference materials have documented multiple analyses
against certified reference materials or wet chemical analysis
c. Calibration for testing is established using certified reference materials.
d. All reference materials used for calibration are traceable to NIST, or other
nationally or internationally recognized sources.
e. For analysis methods that do not use analytical curves, calibration is
performed before each test group using Certified Reference Materials.
 30

BALLOTED AUDIT CRITERIA

AC7101/2 D
4.0 CERTIFIED REFERENCE MATERIALS AND REFERENCE MATERIALS

4.1 Certified Reference Materials have documentation showing YES NO N/A

 values for each certified element
 uncertainty values for each element certified OR have values
for the analytical standard deviation for each element
certified
 metrological traceability
4.2 Analytical calibration curves are traceable to Certified Reference YES NO N/A
Materials.
4.3 Analytical methods that do not utilize calibration curves are YES NO N/A
standardized prior to use with Reference Materials.
 31

AC7101/2 D 4.1 Guidance

4.1 Certified Reference Materials have documentation showing
– Values for each certified element
– Uncertainty values for each element certified OR have values for the
analytical standard deviation for each element certified
– Metrological traceability
• Older CRM’s do not carry uncertainty data. See ASTM E2857
paragraph 6.2.4.3-1 “Reference Materials (typically older
ones) may be provided with certificates of analysis that do not
provide uncertainty estimates for the assigned values. Some
such certificates may include the tabulated results from the
collaborating analysts. In that case, the standard deviation of
the tabulated values may be informative as an incomplete
estimate of uncertainty”.
 32

AC7101/2 D 4.2 Guidance

4.2 Analytical calibration curves are traceable to Certified
Reference Materials
• Certified reference materials are not always available for
every point and range of every calibration curve. Therefore
there are points on calibration curves that will be established
using well-characterized (known) materials. This audit criteria
is not meant to exclude the use of other materials in
establishing calibration curves. The key point is that the curve
has traceability to certified reference materials generally, and
not that each point on the curve is directly attributable to a
CRM. Objective evidence of a suitable calibration curve can
be seen in the PTP results as well.)
 33

AC7101/2 Figure 1
Laboratory Capability Matrix
2.1 Chemistry Laboratory Matrix (Figure 1) is completed for all types of chemical analysis within
the scope of accreditation.
 Chemistry Matrix information for Figure 1 is described in Appendix A.
 An example of a Chemistry Matrix is provided in Appendix A.
 Figure 1 summarizes analytical capability, precision and calibration range.
 The data listed in Figure 1 (including range and precision) is generated by the laboratory,
using applicable equipment, and is documented.
 The use of the instrument manufacturer’s data for Figure 1 is prohibited.
 Figure 1 must be completed for each element per test code for each alloy family within
the laboratory scope of accreditation.
 34

AC7101/2 D 2.1 Guidance

• This audit criteria provides objective evidence for Figure 1 and

for test method validation. The auditor need only review a
sampling of this data. It is not necessary to review data for
every element for every test code.
• For an initial audit and any add scope audits, It is
recommended that Figure 1 is reviewed thoroughly. And on
any reaccreditation audits the auditor would review a
sampling of the data and any changes.
 35

Material Testing Laboratories Task Group

Questions