MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

UNCONFIRMED MINUTESJUNE 20 – 24, 2011

GRAND CONNAUGHT ROOMSLONDON, ENGLAND

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 20, 2011 to THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS/INTRODUCTIONS – OPEN

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Materials Testing Laboratories Task Group (MTL) was called to order at 9:00 a.m., 20-Jun-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 AirbusDavid Barnes Honeywell AerospaceJeb Barnes The Boeing Company

* Thomas Brendel MTU Aero Engines GmbH* Doug Deaton GE Aviation* George Doviak Goodrich Corporation* Kevin Elston Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.

Harold Finch Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.* Jose Gilson SAFRAN Group* Keith Kastner Cessna Aircraft Company* Frank Lennert The Boeing Company

Heather Meyer Cessna Aircraft Company* Tim Myers Honeywell Aerospace Vice-Chairperson* Olivier Molinas Eurocopter

Norberto Roiz-Lafuente Eurocopter* Amanda Thomas Raytheon Company* Neil Tinsley Pratt & Whitney Canada

Kevin Ward Goodrich Corporation* Verl Wisehart Rolls-Royce Corporation Chairperson

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Corwyn Berger Exova, Inc., Chicago Laboratory

Andrew Cantrell Metaltest, Inc.Eric Chabault Bureau Veritas Laboratories

* Matthew Chamberlain- Timet UK Limited ( Witton )

1

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

WebberMark Cook Haynes International, Inc.Alan Cooper Westmoreland Mechanical

TestingJulien Corato Exova, Inc.

* Prabir Deb PECO Aerospace Fasteners* Rich Drinker SPS Technologies

Kay Fisher Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG

Paul French Aerofin Laboratories Ltd.Richard Gasset Lisi Aerospace TorranceLuis Guelbenzu LGAI Technological Center

S.A.Robert Haldane AlcoaDuncan Hardie CAV Aerospace LimitedMichelle Jones TimetAnil Joshi Praxair Surface TechnologiesAlexander Klyuch Blades Technology LtdJean-Philippe Michel Alcoa Fixations Simmonds

* Annette O’Connell Haynes International, Inc.Owen O’Grady Exova, Inc.Bob Olevson Stork Materials Testing &

InspectionProxy for David Luoni

Karl Prattes Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG

Mark Pritty Firth Rixson Forgings Ltd.* Pierre-

EmmanuelRichy Aubert & Duval

Jolanta Romanowska R&D Laboratory for Aerospace Materials

* James Rossi Westmoreland Mechanical Testing

Dave Serbousek Olympic Scientific, Inc.Pietro Villa RTM Breda srlChris Wiebe Product Manufacturing CoMark Willis Alcoa

PRI Staff Present

Jim BorczykJim LewisJoe PintoGlenn ShultzKevin Wetzel

1.2 Agenda Review

2.0 Nadcap TUTORIAL – OPEN

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

2

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

3.0 NEW VOTING MEMBERS – OPEN

Olivier Molinas of Eurocopter was proposed as a Subscriber Voting Member. Motion made by Keith Kastner and seconded by Doug Deaton to accept Olivier Molinas as a Subscriber Voting Member. Motion Passed.

Richard Drinker of SPS Technologies was proposed as a Supplier Voting Member. Motion made by Keith Kastner and seconded by Frank Lennert to accept Richard Drinker as a Supplier Voting Member. Motion Passed.

4.0 APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 2011 MINUTES – OPEN

Motion made by Keith Kastner and seconded by Frank Lennert to approve the minutes from the February 2011 Nadcap meeting. Motion Passed

The minutes from February 2011 were approved as written.

5.0 REVIEW ROLLING ACTION ITEM LIST (RAIL) – OPEN

The RAIL captures action items and tracks the close out of these items. The majority of action items are from the meetings, with some coming from teleconferences and emails. The MTLTG reviewed all open action items on the RAIL.

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

6.0 MTL PROGRAM STATUS – NMC METRICS – OPEN

Kevin Wetzel presented a summary of the recent audit activity. The MTLTG had zero lapsed accreditations for the months of April and May. For April all metrics were GREEN except for Initial audit Supplier Cycle time; it was YELLOW due to including only one audit at 32 days versus a goal of 30 days. For May, a YELLOW metric was identified for Supplier Reaccreditation cycle time, 31 days on a goal of 30 days. RED was identified for Staff Initial and Reaccreditation cycle time 20 days on a goal of 14 days. Review the following attachments for more details.

7.0 REVIEW MTL TOP FINDINGS PER CHECKLIST – OPEN

A presentation was given concerning top findings per checklist paragraph reference. This information will be presented at each Nadcap meeting and be posted under public documents on eAuditNet.

8.0 AC7101/1 PTP/RR ACTIVITY – OPEN

A discussion was held concerning Proficiency Testing (PT) providers. To date the MTL Task Group has not received any requests for additions to the approved list of providers.

3

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

Further discussion was held concerning Internal Round Robins (IRR). Two topics were discussed 1) Long time test, and 2) Multiple pieces of equipment/machines. The test method codes being discussed were C-Stress Rupture, XA-Creep, O-HCF, Y-LCF, and XE-Crack Propagation. The discussion focused on what are other methods which would prove equivalency in equipment/machines. What are the KEY test parameters controlled to ensure consistency in results? (Controlled written procedures, Current calibration, and Technical oversight)

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to send e-mail to the MTL roster requesting input. E-mail to address- In an effort to address the issue of IRR – What are the key test parameters that are controlled to ensure consistency in result? What steps are taken to ensure all equipment is producing equivalent results? The MTL TG recognizes this may apply to various codes but will focus on Test methods codes C-Stress Rupture and XA-Creep to start. (DUE DATE: July 22, 2011)

ACTION ITEM: AC7101/11 sub-team to define RR/PTP requirements and details. (DUE DATE: October 21, 2011)

9.0 INDUSTRY STANDARD/SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION REPORT OUT – OPEN

Tim Myers shared remarks concerning ASTM committee E28 revision to ASTM E1012 from Jim Hartman concerning verification of test frame and specimen alignment.

John Thomas – TIMET Inc. has been named Nadcap liaison for the ASTM committee E01 Analytical chemistry for metals, ores, and related materials. Any questions or concerns with respect to these standards and MTL AC criteria can be forwarded to John for discussion with ASTM or Nadcap MTL TG as appropriate. The goal is to foster dialog and participation between Nadcap and ASTM committees. Kevin Wetzel presented the attached topic list; this was developed at the May 2011 ASTM meeting.

10.0 NMC CHECKLIST VISION DISCUSSION – NOP-002 – OPEN

Heather Meyer, Cessna Aircraft Company and Kevin Ward, Goodrich Corporation – NMC representatives accompanied by Jim Lewis, PRI - came to review the NMC vision and answer questions from the Task Group.

How will the MTLTG show “TG is working to meet requirement”? MTL TG formed a sub-team to review all checklists and determine the path forward. The sub-team is to review all MTL AC checklists and identify the questions that are in potential conflict with NOP-002

Charter/mission: Identify issues in the checklists which may not be in compliance with NOP-002 3.3.

Output: list of potential conflicts delivered to the MTL TG

Deliverable: review progress at next meeting. Estimated 6 mo project. Conclusion should be reached in San Diego Feb 2012.Leader: Neil Tinsley, Pratt & Whitney Canada

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to arrange Sub-team conference calls one hour long, meeting every two weeks starting end July. (DUE DATE: July 19, 2011)

Current list of sub-team participants

4

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

Neil Tinsley, Andrew Cantrell, George Doviak, Kay Fisher, Owen O’Grady, Mathew Chamberlain-Weber, Prabir Deb, Robert Haldane, Richard Drinker, Frank Lennert, Corwyn Berger, Doug Deaton, Brian Griffin, Muriel Auzanne, Olivier Molinas

MTL TG briefly reviewed the recent Chemical Processing checklist vision status

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to send CPTG presentation to the Sub-team for review. (DUE DATE: July 22, 2011)

11.0 REVIEW NTGOP-001 AND UPDATE NTGOP-001 APPENDIX II – OPEN

MTL TG reviewed NTGOP-001, Appendix II MTL along with NTGOP-001. The suggestions from PRI Biennial review were evaluated and proposed changes were agreed. It was also agreed to remove section15 concerning Proficiency testing as the requirements are established in AC7101/1 (RAIL item 8July2008)

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to update NTGOP-001 Appendix II MTL and submit to MTL TG for ballot per NIP 4-01. (DUE DATE: July 22, 2011)

12.0 OPENING COMMENTS/INTRODUCTIONS – CLOSED

It was verified only subscriber members were in attendance

13.0 AUDIT REPORT REVIEWER DELEGATION OVERSIGHT – CLOSED

Kevin Wetzel presented the Delegation Summary data for all Audit Report Reviewers. All three reviewers, (Kevin Wetzel, Jim Lewis, and Jim Stokes; Joe Chivinsky will have limited reviews in the future) are currently delegated and continue to meet the requirements defined in NOP-003.

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%.

The lack of ballot participation by some Subscriber Voting Members was discussed. Everyone was encouraged to vote on audit packages regularly.

14.0 REVIEW AUDITOR EVALUATIONS AND SUPPLIER FEEDBACK – CLOSED

The MTLTG reviewed data supplied concerning auditor evaluation (completed by the audit report reviewer) and the supplier feedback (completed by the supplier). There were no issues.

15.0 TASK GROUP RESOLUTIONS AND CLOSED DISCUSSION TOPICS – CLOSED

15.1 Audit Report Reviewer Finding Classification as “Accept”.

For Findings classified as “accepted” (rather than “closed”) by audit report reviewer, the audit report reviewer is looking for Task Group agreement in the supplier response. There should be a ballot response to indicate concurrence or additional action required. Balloters are to use “accept with comment” to document agreement with closure of the finding. A Task Group comment can also be attached to the NCR in question. The comment is to document why the TG member wants to accept the audit.

5

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

ACTION ITEM: MTL Staff Engineer to discuss topic at “SE SWAT to see if other TG follow same approach. (DUE DATE: August 12, 2011)

15.2 Audit #134671

A situation where a piece of equipment was down during the audit and could not be observed in operation was reviewed. Therefore Observation of Test could not be performed. The auditor wrote a finding for not being able to observe the test.

Task Group discussion followed

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.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to discuss with Composites TG methodology for accurately tracking observation of testing and send to Task Group for review (DUE DATE: August 19, 2011)

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel/Tim Myers to include review of observation of test requirements as part of auditor conference 2011. (DUE DATE: October 17, 2011)

15.3 AC7101/11 Discussion

A question was raised as what subscribers mandate Nadcap accreditation for Fastener Testing. During the meeting not all subscribers were sure of their companies’ positions.

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to review mandates of fastener testing; what subscribers require Nadcap MTL fastener accreditation? (DUE DATE: July 29, 2011)

15.4 Audit #134787

This audit met the failure criteria of NOP-011 appendix A for total number of NCRs. The Task Group was asked to review audit. Audit will be submitted for failure.

15.5 Audit #134747

NCR#25 concerning automated polishing equipment was reviewed. Subscribers will review their internal requirements, equipment, and post comments in eAuditNet.

15.6 Subscriber Audit Observation Reports

The MTLTG reviewed and discussed observation reports. NOP-007 was reviewed as this procedure describes the process for scheduling and participation for an audit observation. The goal will be to observe all auditors at least once every two years. Good progress has been made only one MTL auditor has not been observed (the auditor not observed also conducts Nadcap audits for CP, CT, and NM).

6

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

16.0 MTL SUPPLIERS DISCUSSION/TRAINING TOPICS – OPEN

16.1 Calibration

Corwyn Berger Exova will request input from Ned Gravel Exova for a presentation concerning the applicability of “zero” in measurements and calibrations. This would be for both auditors and suppliers. The training needs to specifically address the requirement and validity of the “zero point”. The staff engineer has received initial correspondence from Exova

16.2 Supplier Letter

MTL Supplier Eric Dirats – Dirats Laboratories recently sent an e-mail to a few MTL Task Group representatives. With consent from Mr. Dirats the e-mail was presented for review and comment. Limited comments were received. Verl Wisehart, Chair, noted that open meeting time has increased to allow greater supplier participation and the limited closed meetings are used to discuss personnel, audit reviews, consensus items, etc.

ACTION ITEM: Verl Wisehart MTL TG Chair to issue a response to Eric Dirats with input from Jim Borczyk. (DUE DATE: July 22, 2011)

16.3 NOP-002

The CP presentation of checklist resolution to satisfy NOP002 3.3 was reviewed. A Sub-team is to review it and use it as guidance.

16.4 Coatings Checklist Redundancy Reduction

Tim Myers presented to the Coatings Task Group a concept to revise AC7109/5 such that certain sections of the Coatings checklist could be N/A if an applicable MTL accreditation already exists.

This affects Microhardness and Rockwell at this time. The CTTG accepted the proposal.

ACTION ITEM: Tim to present a side by side comparison of CT and MTL checklists to CTTG. (DUE DATE: October 19, 2011)

16.5 Effects of Mass Release of Checklist Revision in MTL Due to accreditation length (Surveillance Audits)

For awareness: The release of the revised MTL AC checklist has created an issue with eAuditNet and the QML. Due to the nature of accreditation length and surveillance audits defined by the MTLTG, previous revisions of the MTL checklist will need to be maintained until all accredited suppliers have received an audit to the new revision. This could take up to three and a half years to work through the cycle. A supplier will not be accredited to the new revision until an on-site audit is conducted to the new revision. There is no impact on the supplier or subscriber. Assigning checklists will be done manually by PRI Scheduling until eAuditNet is modified.

16.6 Checklist Revision Process

Go-forward revision process for checklists was discussed. Input from Jennifer Kornrumpf concerning tips for best checklist design from Word to eAuditNet was presented.

AC slash sheet champions were created that will maintain awareness of changes necessary. Champion’s tasks: monitor industry standards for changes which impact the MTL checklists; present potential changes at each MTLTG meeting; drive change as required in a timely manner.

Checklist Champions:AC7101/1: Muriel AuzanneAC7101/2: Verl Wisehart

7

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

AC7101/3: ASTM: Jim Rossi and ISO: Owen O’GradyAC7101/4: ASTM: Tim Myers and ISO: Owen O’GradyAC7101/5: ASTM: Tim MyersAC7101/6: Dave SerbousekAC7101/7: Doug Deaton (A370)AC7101/9: Frank LennertAC7101/11: Prabir Deb

Additional ISO support will be provided by Muriel Auzanne; she will review at Airbus and report back

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to add a recurring agenda items for open meetings to assure revision review. (DUE DATE: August 5, 2011)

The MTLTG discussed AC7101/5, with regards to clarification for the hardness verification period. Does each person have to verify the machine if the operators change within a shift?

ACTION ITEM: Tim Myers is to review the specific requirement regarding hardness verification and report back to the Task Group. (DUE DATE: October 19, 2011

16.7 Meeting Minutes Discussion

Tim Myers asked about the use of the minutes. General response was that about half people in attendance reviewed the last meeting minutes and those that did found the detail and presentation acceptable. It was noted that the minutes are not very effective for those people who did not attend the meeting. No change to the minute taking methodology was needed.

16.8 Clarification Database – NDT

In preparation of the latest AC checklist revision and the anticipated questions, the need for a central location for Task Group clarification was discussed. NDT uses a clarification Database which is posted in eAuditNet. With Input from the NDT SE a process will be developed for submittal of inquires and clarification. Suppliers felt it was an excellent item.

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

Kevin Wetzel is to determine how NDT administers process and learn from their process.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to describe NDT process via email. Define and document process. (DUE DATE: August 5, 2011)

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to present progress of this activity to whole MTL TG Webex or email. (DUE DATE: August 12, 2011)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to create email mailbox for inquires, perhaps MTLinquires@SAE.org. (DUE DATE: August 5, 2011)

17.0 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-network.org.

8

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

18.0 REVIEW AUDITOR CONFERENCE TOPICS – OPEN

Kevin Wetzel reviewed general topics to be presented during Saturday General Nadcap Auditor Conference: eAuditNet protocols, quality systems, travel training, logistics working with PRI, auditing techniques, NCR writing.

Items were identified to be reviewed for MTL Auditor Conference topics to be conducted on Monday October 17, 2011

Calibration - applicability of “zero” in measurements and calibrations

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to call Ned Gravel Exova to facilitate request for a presentation concerning the applicability of “zero” in measurements and calibrations. This would be for both auditors and suppliers. Specifically need to address the requirement and validity of the “zero point”. (DUE DATE: July 22, 2011)

Calibration cycle extensions protocol NCSL (National Conference of Standards Laboratories) Recommended Practice 1

ACTION ITEM: Randy Kunish has been requested to prepare a presentation concerning NCSL Recommended Practice 1 This will be for Auditor, Subscribers and Suppliers (DUE DATE: October 17, 2011)

Observation of Test Guidance

o What is the Task Group’s expectation when a test method cannot be observed during the course of an audit?

ACTION ITEM: Tim Myers/Kevin Wetzel to facilitate presentation on Observation of test expectations. (DUE DATE: October 17, 2011)

Q&A Checklist Session

o Open session to address auditors question pertaining to recent revised checklist.

o Incorporating the introduction of clarification database discussions

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel: to seek auditor input about revised checklist clarification for discussion. (DUE DATE: July 29, 2011)

Coatings Task Group Training on AC7109/5

o Emphasize: What are coatings and coating thickness measurements

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel: request training to AC7109/5 from Coatings Task Group Staff Engineer. (DUE DATE: July 29, 2011)

Uncertainty of Measurement

9

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel: to inquire of whole MTL TG for an expert in this area of uncertainty of measurement who could present the subject. (DUE DATE: July 29, 2011)

Auditor Group Discussion

o Items such as - What degree of auditing is expected for RR/PTP? “Participation” only or “how’d you do and what did you do with it?” - To be discussed during auditor conference

Review top finding per checklist

o Items such as - the meaning of “detailed testing instructions”

19.0 AC7101/11 CHECKLIST SUB-TEAM WORKING SESSION – OPEN

Doug Deaton led the discussion to review applicable documents for fastener testing audit criteria. AC7113/5 was reviewed and revision started.

ACTION ITEM: Doug Deaton/Prabir Deb to provide edit version of AC7101/11 to Kevin Wetzel. (DUE DATE: July 29, 2011)

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel will compile inputs and schedule webex early August. (DUE DATE: August 12, 2011)

20.0 REVIEW OUTPUT PLANNING AND OPS MEETING – OPEN

Verl Wisehart presented an overview of the Planning & Ops Meeting. For complete details, see the Planning and Ops meeting minutes posted on www.pri-network.org.

Presentations covered failed audits, Nadcap wide auditor training, and new NMC committees and sub-teams formed.

Attendees were encouraged to review minutes from other meetings also posted on www.pri-network.org

Agenda for Pittsburgh 2011 will be modeled after Pittsburgh 2010 agenda outline.

21.0 NEW BUSINESS / 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.

21.1 Long Term IRR Testing Details

There were several questions from suppliers regarding IRR:What problem are we trying to solve by completion of IRR for machines?What methods besides traditional RR can be used to show machines are producing equivalent results? Perhaps enhance audit of the controls which influence results.

See action item under section 8

An email was drafted to be sent to suppliers requesting input on IRR for test equipment.

The current requirements in AC7101/1E require Internal Round Robin for equipment every two years for creep and stress rupture. Recognizing that labs have many equipments, which could lead to costly and time prohibitive test programs, the Task Group is striving to

10

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

establish an effective alternative. (Reference AC7101/1E App B for Mechanical Testing Note 2)

The Task Group seeks your input to address the concerns about all test equipment for a given test method producing equivalent results. For test codes C – Stress Rupture and XA - Creep, please describe what key test parameters (equipment and operator related, besides calibration) affect test results? At your lab, how can these parameters be procedurally controlled to ensure all machines will produce equivalent results?

The Task Group realizes that this applies to other test codes and wishes to assess the potential options with limited codes at this time.

ACTION ITEM: Kevin Wetzel to send an e-mail with the following information to be sent to the Task Group roster. (DUE DATE: July 22, 2011)

21.2 Other Testing Associated Task Groups

There was discussion of other testing associated Task Groups and preventing redundant audits. An MOU may be necessary with NMMT.

ACTION ITEM: Review the need with NMMT to establish a working sub-team with NMMT team and MTL to review future checklist development requirements. (DUE DATE: October 18, 2011)

22.0 FINALIZE OCTOBER 2011 MEETING AGENDA – OPEN

The agenda for the October 2011 Nadcap meeting will be the old format (with the addition of the TG chair and SE Roundtable Tuesday October 18, 2011 12:00-1:30 p.m.)

Monday October 17, 2011 the MTL TG will not be meeting. This time will be used for MTL TG Auditor Conference presentations.

Tuesday October 18, 2011 will be closed in the morning. The open session will begin at 2:00pm and run to 4:30pm

Wednesday October 19, 2011 will be open all day after NMC meeting

Thursday October 20 will be open in the morning until lunch. A closed session will begin after lunch.

Review the posted agenda on www.pri-network.org for details

23.0 COMPLETE THE Nadcap MEETING FACILITATION FEEDBACK – OPEN

The Feedback form was not completed. The requirement for its completion was discussed during the Planning and Ops meeting. The MTL TG chair requested input from the attendees concerning meeting format and topics discussed. All attendees were satisfied with the format and topics discussed and with the facilitators of the meeting.

24.0 MTL TASK GROUP MEMBERSHIP PARTICIPATION STATUS REVIEW – CLOSED

A presentation concerning Nadcap MTL TG participation was reviewed.

ACTION ITEM: Verl Wisehart MTLTG Chair will contact all people on the non-participation list to affirm their intent to participate. Conclusion by time of blue book input. (DUE DATE: July 29 2011)

NTGOP-001 was reviewed and recognized that there are no requirements to maintain alternate voting rights.

11

MATERIALS TESTING LABORATORIESJUNE 2011

ADJOURNMENT – 23-JUN-11 – Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Tim Myers, tim.myers@honeywell.com

***** 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:

NTGOP-001 Appendix II MTL

Kevin Wetzel July 22, 2011

12