Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Is Glass and Brittle Plastic policy enough?

Share this

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic
- - - - -

louintx

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 14 September 2011 - 03:27 PM

Hi Everyone!! I'm new to this network and this is my first post!! Posted Image

We recently had an audit and one of the points the auditor kept insisting on was that we had a lot of windows. I know that when we get our scores back that is gonna be a deficiency. The building is an old style produce warehouse and yes there are a lot of windows but the majority of them are around the building and not anywhere near the travel path of our product. There are some windows that are close to our production area and those have been screened. We have a glass and brittle policy and our frequency of monitoring is done daily. I thought that this would have been enough to satisfy the audit but apparently the auditor was not satisfied and suggested that ALL our windows have some sort of containment system. In my opinion I don't feel like we need to contain the other windows because they are low risk but I'm not sure. If anyone has any suggestions or comments I would really appreciate them. Thanks!!

Louie


Griffin

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 1 thanks
1
Neutral

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:42 PM

Hello Louie,
I have been through a few SQF audits and we had similar issues near our production area with doors and clocks. We laso have a glass and ceramics program. What we did was take the glass covers from the clocks and we applied tinting material to the glass on the doors. This action satisfied the auditors, due to the material being applied would prevent the glass if broken from shattering. Maybe you could have this application done to your windows for a quick and economical fix. Hope this helps.



Thanked by 1 Member:

louintx

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 14 September 2011 - 09:42 PM

Hello Louie,
I have been through a few SQF audits and we had similar issues near our production area with doors and clocks. We laso have a glass and ceramics program. What we did was take the glass covers from the clocks and we applied tinting material to the glass on the doors. This action satisfied the auditors, due to the material being applied would prevent the glass if broken from shattering. Maybe you could have this application done to your windows for a quick and economical fix. Hope this helps.


Ok, I completely understand the risk within the production areas and coolers but what about around the building or offices??


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5666 thanks
1,548
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 14 September 2011 - 10:50 PM

Dear louintx,

It's sort of simple -

Where they pose a risk to product, glass windows shall be protected
against breakage.


(BRC food ver5)

IMEX auditors typically assume a worst case scenario. Depending on yr own layout / process, how much do you estimate the minimum risk is ?? More than 50%, less than 1%, etc

Rgds / Charles.C

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

louintx

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 16 September 2011 - 07:20 PM

Yeah the majority of the windows pose a threat of about 5% and the rest are about 20%. Our production is done inside a cooler that has no windows or doors with windows.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5666 thanks
1,548
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 17 September 2011 - 07:28 AM

Yeah the majority of the windows pose a threat of about 5% and the rest are about 20%. Our production is done inside a cooler that has no windows or doors with windows.

Dear louintx,

I presume the 20% hv been screen-scheduled already. :smile:

I see there are a lot of "5%" ones. That combination might work well enough for the auditor's decision since glass is nasty. But even so, it may still depend on the exact lay-out situation.

For the cost of adding a plastic lining, the path of least resistance may be simplest.

As a counter example, I have had many surveyor arguments with engineering sections over their love of using unprotected fluorescent tubes in workshops which are semi- detached from the production area. My argument is that this represents a significant cross-contamination risk during the operatives frequent trips into the production area. But IMEX, official auditors invariably (safety) assess their lights as "no comment". (Checklist priority is typically to their chemicals storage / tool control).

Rgds / Charles.C

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

louintx

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 17 September 2011 - 02:45 PM

Dear louintx,

I presume the 20% hv been screen-scheduled already. :smile:

I see there are a lot of "5%" ones. That combination might work well enough for the auditor's decision since glass is nasty. But even so, it may still depend on the exact lay-out situation.

For the cost of adding a plastic lining, the path of least resistance may be simplest.

Rgds / Charles.C


Yeah, the 20% have been screened but the 5% are about 25-35 ft in the air and nowhere near our product. I really do appreciate all the feedback that i have received from you guys and will take all of it into consideration. I'm anxious to get our results back and see how much this really affected our score. Once again, THANK YOU!!


GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,915 posts
  • 736 thanks
271
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 17 September 2011 - 04:30 PM

Being 25-35 ft in the air doesn't make them immune to breakage and, in fact, makes them difficult to inspect. I would say any glass windows in production areas should be screened if they can be and audited.

Turn it round the other way; the risk may be small but what is the reason for not screening them?



Thanked by 1 Member:

louintx

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 19 September 2011 - 03:17 PM

Being 25-35 ft in the air doesn't make them immune to breakage and, in fact, makes them difficult to inspect. I would say any glass windows in production areas should be screened if they can be and audited.

Turn it round the other way; the risk may be small but what is the reason for not screening them?


This is a very good point!! I am definitely looking into cost effective ways to control this. We have some redesigning coming up and I will try to address this issue. Thank you all for your input on this question!!


JMiller

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 12 posts
  • 5 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2014 - 12:56 PM

Is there something other than screening the windows that can be done?  A substance to cover the glass perhaps?  It seems like screening windows that are 25-30 feet in the air would cause a bit of an issue when it came to cleaning ...

 

Thanks



Thanked by 1 Member:

fgjuadi

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • Banned
  • 898 posts
  • 203 thanks
28
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 March 2014 - 02:49 AM

Is there something other than screening the windows that can be done?  A substance to cover the glass perhaps?  It seems like screening windows that are 25-30 feet in the air would cause a bit of an issue when it came to cleaning ...

 

Thanks

When I started reading this thread, I was thinking about how nice it would be to have big windows in our dining and office areas because windows are nice, and how maybe it woudl be okay for children and the elderly to bite down on broken glass so that I could enjoy sunlight during work in the warehouses, but after that cleaning comment...

 

Oh, jeez, that would be a nightmare of a Master Sanitation Schedule.  You couldn't be more correct and insightful.


Edited by magenta_majors, 20 March 2014 - 10:16 AM.

.--. .- -. - ... / --- .--. - .. --- -. .- .-..



Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users