4 replies to this topic

[fstRicky]

I found this interesting

BRC Issue 5: 4.8.4 - Glass, Brittle and HardPlastic, Ceramics and Similar Materials

BRC Issue 6: 4.9.3 Glass, brittleplastic, ceramics and similar materials

Issue 6 has dropped the word Hard plastic, is there a reason for this?! I recon the list including hard plastic would be endless. Just like NsStanley said.


This is so unlike BRC cause they tend to add more questions than remove.


With out hard plastic the list is more manageable and practical - i am going to shorten my list for sure.

R

Edited by refst, 25 July 2012 - 04:11 AM.

[Charles.C]

I found this interesting

BRC Issue 5: 4.8.4 - Glass, Brittle and HardPlastic, Ceramics and Similar Materials

BRC Issue 6: 4.9.3 Glass, brittleplastic, ceramics and similar materials

Issue 6 has dropped the word Hard plastic, is there a reason for this?! I recon the list including hard plastic would be endless. Just like NsStanley said.


This is so unlike BRC cause they tend to add more questions than remove.


With out hard plastic the list is more manageable and practical - i am going to shorten my list for sure.

R

Dear refst,

Sounds like you can prepare for an auditorial argument over "Brittle".

Rgds / Charles.C

[john.kukoly]

We always have to remember that the key is about protecting the product integrity through the use of effective programs, and not the programs themselves. Some operations have started to focus on the list, rather than the risk. The basic question each site should be thinking when assessing 4.9.3 is:
Q1: "where is my product at risk from glass-like materials?"
Q2: "how can I get rid of the materials?"
Q3: "how do I protect my product from those that escaped Q2?"
This now leaves the "list". The ONLY things on the list should be those glass-like materials that pose a risk to the product (it should not include the plastic light switch in the supervisors office!). The site should now be checking the list at a certain frequency (you know the term... based on risk); if unacceptable conditions are found during the check, the product obviously needs to be assessed for contamination, but the equally important step is to return to Q2 and Q3 above. Finding damaged or broken glass-like materials in an area where product is at risk should not result in replacement of the same material - the check already proves Q2 or Q3 have failed, and need to be re-visited.

The debate should not be around "is this brittle enough to be on the list?", rather "does this constitute a risk to my product that I need to control?".

[fstRicky]

We always have to remember that the key is about protecting the product integrity through the use of effective programs, and not the programs themselves. Some operations have started to focus on the list, rather than the risk. The basic question each site should be thinking when assessing 4.9.3 is:
Q1: "where is my product at risk from glass-like materials?"
Q2: "how can I get rid of the materials?"
Q3: "how do I protect my product from those that escaped Q2?"
This now leaves the "list". The ONLY things on the list should be those glass-like materials that pose a risk to the product (it should not include the plastic light switch in the supervisors office!). The site should now be checking the list at a certain frequency (you know the term... based on risk); if unacceptable conditions are found during the check, the product obviously needs to be assessed for contamination, but the equally important step is to return to Q2 and Q3 above. Finding damaged or broken glass-like materials in an area where product is at risk should not result in replacement of the same material - the check already proves Q2 or Q3 have failed, and need to be re-visited.

The debate should not be around "is this brittle enough to be on the list?", rather "does this constitute a risk to my product that I need to control?".

Good Point John. Good to have someone from BRC on the forum - at times the prescriptive requirements take us away from the fundamentals - safety and integrity of the product.

R

[Simao Monteiro]

Very good point!

The focus is the safety.