CHEMICAL PROCESSING
JUNE 2013
CONFIRMED MINUTES
CONFIRMED MINUTES
JUNE, 3-6, 2013
MARRIOTT RIVE GAUCHE HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER
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, 03-JUN-13 to THURSDAY, 06-JUN-13
1.0 OPENING COMMENTS – CLOSED
The Chemical Processing (CP) Task Group was called to order at 9:00 a.m.,03-Jun-13.
Code of Ethics/Antitrust and Meeting Conduct presentations were reviewed.
It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed portion of the meeting. Neil Cowan, an Auditor, was also in attendance through invitation of the Chairperson
A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:
Alan Gilbert of Cessna Aircraft Company gave his proxy to Aleck Featherston of Bell Helicopter Textron.
Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)
NAME / COMPANY NAME* / Hal / Abel / Raytheon Co
Daniel / Amara / Israel Aerospace Industries
Latchezar / Anguelov / SANFRAN Group
Alexandra / AYMARD / Latecoere
Mark / Binfield / Goodrich (UTAS)
* / Malik / Boutoba / Eurocopter
Yannick / Cadoret / Thales
* / Bob / Cashman / Parker Aerospace Group
Sylvain / Cassagne / Latecoere
Alessio / Colombara / AgustaWestland S.p.A.
* / Terry / Curtland / Ball Aerospace & Technologies
* / Karyn / Deming / Goodrich (UTAS) / Vice Chairperson
* / Peter / Droste / Airbus
* / Robert / Faticanti / Textron Systems
* / Aleck / Featherston / Bell Helicopter Textron
Susanne / Gebhard / Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH
* / Gerald / Harvey / Triumph Aerostructures - VAD
Daniel / Hoeft / Premium AEROTEC Gmbh
* / John / Koenig / The Boeing Company
Martin / Kolinko / Eaton Aerospace
* / Robert / Koukol / Honeywell Aerospace
* / Serge / Labbe / Heroux Devtek Inc.
Eric / Le Fort / Sonaca
* / Marc-Andre / Lefebvre / Heroux Devtek Inc.
Eric / LeFort / SONACA
* / Susan / Lewis / Lockheed Martin Corporation
Chantal / Lewis / GKN Aerospace Western Approach
* / Mihaela / Lupu / SAFRAN Group
* / Nick / Magnapera / BAE Systems - E & I
* / Veronique / Marcel / SAFRAN Group
* / Angelina / Mendoza / Goodrich-UTAS
* / Jerker / Nordh / GKN Aerospace Sweden AB
Luis Gustavo / Pacheco / Embraer
* / Fabrizio / Quadrini / AgustaWestland
* / Muralikishnan / Ramalingam / GE Aviation
Rainer / Ricken / Premium AEROTEC Gmbh
Carl / Roche / Goodrich (UTAS)
* / Josefa / Rodriguez Baena / EADS CASA
* / Jerry / Satchwell / Rolls-Royce PLC / Chairperson
Mariusz / Stanczyk / Lockheed Martin
* / Steve / Starr / Honeywell Aerospace
* / Mike / Stolze / Northrop Grumman Corporation
* / Zia / Usmani / BAE Systems Air & Information (MAI)
* / Shawn / Vierthaler / Spirit AeroSystems Inc.
* / Debbie / Vogel / Triumph Aerostructures - VAD
* / Miao / Wang / COMAC
* / Sergey / Yesilevich / Hamilton Sundstrand
Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)
NAME / COMPANY NAME* / Mark / Airey / Robert Stuart Ltd.
Mathew / Akin / True Logic Company, LLC.
Tomohiko / Ashikaga / Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.
* / Lee / Bruce / Robert Stuart Ltd.
* / Stephane / Chaumeil / Galion
Neil / Cowan / Nadcap - Auditor
Nathalie / Crozat Vigier / SKF Aerospace France
David / Curry / Tewkesbury (Diamond Chrome) Plating Co. Ltd.
Thomas / Desbois / SKF Aerospace France
Daniel / French / Aerofin Laboratories Ltd.
* / Paul / French / Aerofin Laboratories Ltd.
Philippe / Germa / Gillis
Dave / Gray / Mitchell Laboratories Inc.
Hirohiko / Hattori / Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.
* / Bill / Heeter / Skills Inc.
* / Eric / Jacklin / F.M. Callahan & Son Inc.
Heinrich / Kuchlbauer / Aerotech Peissenberg GmbH & Co KG
* / Rosa / Martin / Superior Plating Co.
Salete / Marques / P. Niklaus S A
Ian / McDonald / Robert Stuart LTD.
Cory / McGraw / PM Testing Laboratory Inc.
* / David / Michaud / Fountain Plating Inc.
Thomas / Newton / Aircraft X-Ray Laboratories Inc.
* / Michael / Noettl / Magnetic Inspection Laboratory Inc.
* / Dave / Serbousek / Olympic Scientific Inc.
Simone / Sinclair / Darchem Engineering Ltd.
Mark / Singer / Kessington Machine Products
Bernd / Spelsberg / Otto Fuchs KG
* / Vittorio / Stana / Avcorp Industries Inc.
Gary / Thompson / Darchem Engineering Ltd.
Gerald / Wahlin / AAA Plating & Inspection Inc.
Stephen / Wright / Brazonics Inc.
Staff Present
Nigel / CookMichael / Graham
William / Calvert
Robert / Nixon
2.0 DELEGATION OVERSIGHT – CLOSED
NOP-003 was reviewed to identify the new delegation oversight requirements.
The delegation trackers of Nigel Cook, Mike Graham, Will Calvert, and Bob Lizewski were reviewed by the Task Group. All continued to meet requirements for maintaining delegation.
The delegation tracker of Bill Dumas was reviewed by Jerry Satchwell, Karyn Deming and John Koenig. He also continued to meet the delegation requirements.
Motion made by Hal Abel and seconded by Susan Lewis to grant Robert Nixon early delegation. Motion Passed.
3.0 NUCAP – CLOSED
Scope exception 85 was reviewed. The scope exception was waiting on release of AC7108/2 Rev C. The checklist has now been released and the scope exception closed.
There was no other NUCAP business
4.0 PROFICIENCY EXAMS – CLOSED
The proficiency exams for conversion coating, painting and plating were reviewed and accepted.
5.0 AUDITOR OVERSIGHT – CLOSED
Nigel Cook reviewed the latest NOP-012 Draft. Concerns were expressed regarding the overall workload for Subscribers, the costs incurred to observe the audits, and the time frame and potential changes in audit scheduling that make planning difficult.
Susan Lewis, Serge Labbe, Steve Starr, Shawn Vierthaler, Aleck Featherston volunteered to be part of the team to investigate and address these concerns of the time frame, costs and changes in the draft.
ACTION ITEM: Auditor Oversight Sub team to report out on recommendation to resolve concerns of the time frame, costs, and changes in the NOP-012 draft at the October meeting. (Due Date: 21-Oct-13)
6.0 RESOLUTION BY TASK GROUP ISSUES – CLOSED
TG Review and Notification Checkbox: Only check this if you have made a comment you need others to see. The Staff Engineer is getting many emails from people who have just “accepted” an audit and this tends to overfill the inbox.
Audit 151722 NCR #3: AC7108/3 para 5.3.7.b. requires the anodize tank to be fitted with continuous amperage/voltage recording equipment. The anodize tank was fitted with a continuous recorder but it was not being used for this Chromic Acid Anodize job. The process specification did not require continuous recording of the voltage/amperage. The next revision of the AC7108/3 checklist, due to become effective this month, only requires the equipment to be fitted when required by specification. It is not clear when recording is required.
Motion made by John Koeing and seconded by Hal Abel to propose putting clarification of this issue in the Auditor Handbook. Motion Passed.
ACTION ITEM: Nigel Cook to amend the Audit Handbook to clarify the expectation for AC7108/3 para 5.3.7.b. Continuous recording should only be enforced when required by specification. (Due Date: 21-Oct-13)
Audit 130209 NCR#7 item b: (This item should have been raised in 2009 but there is no record of it in the meeting minutes.)
The NCR: The job was to process to MIL-A-8625 with Hot Water Seal. Per the specification’s paragraph 3.8.1.1, the hot water seal is to be in boiling water. The tank label stated 190-212⁰ F and the actual temperature was 205⁰ F. There was no evidence of boiling.
Supplier requested the NCR be voided based on the following:
Paragraph 4.3.1, from specification MIL-A-8625, Ty 2, Rev. F., states that, at a minimum, there must be ranges for immersion time and temperature for each step in the process.
· MIL-A-8625 para 3.8.1.1. actually states “.. sealing shall be accomplished in a sealing solution such as…”, the list of sealing solutions are examples. Corrosion test panels have passed the monthly tests and records show these were processed at temperatures between 200-207⁰ F
· The temperature needed for liquid to boil varies according to altitude.
The audit report reviewer closed the NCR with the proviso that it would be reviewed at the next Task Group meeting.
The consensus of the Task Group was that the supplier met specification requirements and the NCR is void. Since the audit is already closed and certified no other action is required.
ITAR/EAR Compliance: Questions and concerns about recording ITAR/EAR were discussed. In Summary:
· For Job Tracker Content, is it acceptable to record the part number, specification number, and specification title / description, in the job tracker for an ITAR part?
· In the Job Audit Data field, what data fields must be completed and which ones can be removed?
The Task Group membership felt that they did not have the familiarity to know what does or does not meet ITAR/EAR requirements and hence it should be handled by NMC Standardization Team.
ACTION ITEM: Mike Graham to raise the issue on what data can be recorded in the job audit, and therefore job tracker, for an EC/LR job to NMC Standardization Team. (Due Date: 21-Oct-13)
The list of Process Experts was updated:
Process / ExpertsElectroplating / Serge Labbe, Hal Abel
Anodize / John Koenig, Shawn Vierthaler, Bob Cashman
Conversion Coating / Hal Abel, Aleck Featherston
Etch / Jerry Satchwell, Mihaela Lupu
Cleanliness Verification / Debbie Vogel, Jim O’Shea
Chemical Milling / Karen Deming, Zia Usmani
Paint/Dry Film / Veronique Marcel, Mike Stolze
Electroless Plating / Jim Chan, Hal Abel
Titanium / Ramalingam Muralikrishnan, Mihaela Lupu
Brush Plating / Serge Labbe, Hal Abel
Surface Prep For Metal Bond / Mike Stolze, Aleck Featherston
Electropolish / Jim Chan, Veronique Marcel
Passivation / Hal Abel, Shawn Vierthaler
ACTION ITEM: Nigel Cook to update the “Process Expert List for use by Audit Reviewers” on eAuditNet > Chemical Processing > Subscriber Tools. (Due Date: 30-Jun-13)
Audit 151126: Identified Nonconformance: AC7108 Rev E Section 4.1.3 is periodic and lot acceptance testing reviewed in the audit in compliance with customer and/or specification requirements, including Nadcap Table 1, see Appendix G?
Finding: There is no evidence that the supplier runs monthly periodic test coupons with the hardware they represent as required by specifications.
Some examples, but not limited to, are:
· The supplier is not conforming to AMS 2485 Section 4.3.2. There is no evidence that the supplier runs monthly IGA/EGP periodic tests with the actual hardware they represent as required by AMS 2485 Section 4.3.2.
· The supplier is not conforming to AMS-C-26074 Section 4.3.2. There is no evidence that the supplier runs monthly periodic tests for embrittlement testing and corrosion testing with the actual hardware they represent as required by AMS 2485 Section 4.3.2. AMS 2485 Section 4.3.2: states "Separate specimens: When the coated parts are of such form as to be not readily adaptable to a test specified herein ... the test may be made by the use of separate specimens coated concurrently with the parts represented."
The Supplier believes the auditor may not be interpreting the specs correctly as paragraph (4.3.2 in both specs) applies to lot testing and not periodic tests.
The Supplier provided the following position statement regarding this issue.
This finding does not appear to be a violation of the spec requirements. It is our opinion, that par. 4.3.2 of AMS2485 K applies to lot testing samples not periodic testing. That paragraph would seem to be guidance for the selection and processing of samples to represent a specific “lot”. It states that the separate specimens will be of the same class of alloy and heat treat condition “as the parts represented”. That would go to lot testing. AMS-C-26074 par. 4.3.2 would appear to be the same. The preceding paragraph 4.3.1 defines an inspection “lot”. Logically following, par. 4.3.2 goes to guidance for separate specimens for lot testing. It states: “The separate specimens shall be of a basis material equivalent of that “of the parts represented”.
Motion made by Jerry Satchwell and seconded by Hal Abel to have Supplier take this back to the Customer for interpretation. Motion Passed.
The Task Group agreed that the supplier be requested to obtain clarification from their Customer(s).
ACTION ITEM: Nigel Cook to update the Audit Handbook and Audit Reviewer Guidelines to state that the supplier shall obtain customer clarification on specification interpretation issues and that these clarifications be collated and brought to the next meeting for review. (Due Date: 21-Oct-13).
Audit 152277, NCR 2: AS5528, Rev. A, 3.2.8 (invoked by AS5272, Rev. E, 3.6 for manufactured parts) requires that cure for type 1 be performed at 302 +/- 27 deg F for at least 1 hour.
During job audit #4, dry film lube per AS5272, Rev. E, type I, WO#M019290-001, P/N F54622A3-5XN (Boeing P/N BACN11P3A1), was processed with a cure temperature of dry film lube at 340 +/- 25 deg F per their internal procedure, PS 301, Rev. 28.
Actual cure temperature, 340 deg F, was 11 deg F higher than the upper range of the requirement per AS5528/AS5272.
NOTE: Supplier showed PCD approval for another P/N F54622-4-5XN which was approved by Boeing for dry film lube to PS 323, using same AS 5272, type I dry film lube and processed at same cure temperature of 340 +/- 25 deg F, but of a thinner consistency and two coats to be applied. The job in question, P/N F54622A3-5XN did not have a PCD associated with the part number, nor were there any approved deviations for cure temperature.