5 replies to this topic

[Chris @ Safefood 360°]

When audited against Version 5, the auditor found bathrooms located at our shipping dock. They were not vented and the doors opened directly to the "storage" area and we were given a non-conformance. Our corrective action - which was approved - was to install ventilation system in those restrooms. Is this still an acceptable practice under version 6, or is BRC now requiring these restrooms to be separated but another door? The clause specifically states "doors shall not open directly into production, packing, and storage areas". I do not want to get hit with a non-conformance for the same issue again, but I am having difficulty trying to convince the powers that be to construct a hallway that encloses the rooms because "BRC accepted the ventilation as a corrective action".

[dgt39]

We are a food contact packaging manufacturer and recently had the same issue. Our auditor would not accept ventillation and we had to build 'second doors' onto all our toilet facilities. Don't think you can get around this one!

[GMO]

I suspect that it is a requirement but best to check with BRC direct IMO:

BRCGlobal.Standards@brc.org.uk

They take a while to reply but they do reply. One option if you have alternative facilities is to rip out the loos? Use the space as additional storage.

[mccainqac]

Our food processing plant also took a hit on this one two years ago. They accepted plans within the 28 days that we had planned to construct a vestibule in the bathrooms. The work couldn't be done for a number of months, so for a while the bathrooms had to be locked and the employees had to walk a bit farther to use some off the lunch room area. In your case, I'm surprised they accepted the partial compliance. I wouldn't feel comfortable that they would do that again.

[Chris @ Safefood 360°]

Thank you both for you input.

[Chris @ Safefood 360°]

*all (not both)