Glass, Hard plastic and Sharp Metal Risk Assessment
So we can assess in a more fast and methodically the risk of a material on the production, i decided to try and develop a method of assessment. The results will be diplayed on the Risk Assessment document.
Please see in the document attached and i would be very thankfull for your inputs on this matter, such as if you agree with it or not, what would you do to improve, etc...
Just to clear som info, the assessment is for Glass, hard plastics and sharp metals.
The matrix was adapted from an FDA document.
The decision tree was based on the annex II of the BRC6.
I hope to have your feedback!
Paulo
Attached Files
I've used similar looking models in the past to meet the requirements of BRC. I would make the following comments:
- How have you decided that medium risk items will be inspected every 15 days? What happens if you notice a breakage after 2 weeks. Previously I have used the daily, weekly, monthly inspection model. I think as long as you can justify the length of inspection periods then there should be no problem.
-Have you had any previous incidents of glass/brittle plastic or metal contaminating the product?
- Do you filtrate/metal detect?
All the best,
Cranberry
Hi Paulo,
I've used similar looking models in the past to meet the requirements of BRC. I would make the following comments:
- How have you decided that medium risk items will be inspected every 15 days? What happens if you notice a breakage after 2 weeks. Previously I have used the daily, weekly, monthly inspection model. I think as long as you can justify the length of inspection periods then there should be no problem.
-Have you had any previous incidents of glass/brittle plastic or metal contaminating the product?
- Do you filtrate/metal detect?
All the best,
Cranberry
Hello Cranberry!
The decision of the 15days was based on the historic of the plant and on the type of material of the items.
There are a few incidents only with metal
Yes we have metal detection to all packaged products.
Being so, what do you sugest to be the best method? What are your thoughts on the methodology on the document? How would you improve it?
Best regards
Paulo
I assume you are referring to "contamination" as a safety risk to the consumer.
I would hv thought that the periodic inspection of this category(s) is primarily a prerequisite (ie low risk by design) unless the specific source has a known significant (consumer) risk. The latter should then already be automatically evaluated within the risk matrix used in the course of the hazard analysis, eg vulnerable plastic conveyor belts.
In other words an arbitrary interval,eg bi-weekly / monthly, could be used for low risk prerequisites and a much shorter period, eg daily, for other evaluated significant locations (hopefully very few) if necessary. Frequently a metal detector controls metal fragments and glass should be either absent or properly screened. Plastic is more of a random event IMEX.
Rgds / Charles.C
First of all, thank you very much for your inputs!
Please check this version and please share your thoughts and if you agree to be more adequate than the last one.
I've added 2 examples to see how it would work. I do belive that with this one, we'll be covered on the Risk assessment issue on our plant.
regards,
Paulo
Hi all!
First of all, thank you very much for your inputs!
Please check this version and please share your thoughts and if you agree to be more adequate than the last one.
I've added 2 examples to see how it would work. I do belive that with this one, we'll be covered on the Risk assessment issue on our plant.
regards,
Paulo
Attached Files
I daresay you (and maybe other people) will not agree but in the case of glass, i think you have missed the point with respect to food safety.
You have not mentioned yr product/process so i assume it is not glass-based.
IMO, all glass is basically unacceptable on a process line or within a process area. 100%.
It sometimes (rarely) is unavoidable, eg external windows but in such cases the item must be adequately protected. IMO this is a prerequisite action or within a SSOP system, no detailed risk assessment is normally required.
A routine (prerequisite) daily hygiene audit should automatically include such items (i assume they are few, otherwise an additional specific "glass/hard plastic audit can be done, eg weekly. If a large number of such items, i suggest that a re-look at the system design may be necessary).
If accidents do occur, it implies that the prerequisite function has failed and corrective action within a haccp plan is required.
IMHO, yr risk matrix should be redundant. But if you hv a specific case in mind which may rebut my opinion, pls do not hesitate to propose for discussion.
Rgds / Charles.C
I have another doubt here, How do you determine the radius of isolation when a breakage occurs? I've read 2 and 10 meters in a couple of examples but got no explanation on how to determine this radius?
Some ideas?
Regards
I have another doubt here, How do you determine the radius of isolation when a breakage occurs? I've read 2 and 10 meters in a couple of examples but got no explanation on how to determine this radius?
Yes, I have the same question! There are difference if material is 2m right above line or 2m at 45 degree angle away. Maybe we use distance multiplied by sin/cos of angle?
By training I received, there was no info about distance at all, just subjective opinion about high/medium/low risks and high/medium/low chances to happen. Not sure where are those borders.
https://images.app.g...e1KLPiLTAxLCcn8
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi all, I found this one by a google search and it worked well. I just did slight modification.
https://images.app.g...e1KLPiLTAxLCcn8
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi QA,
7-year old thread but still interesting. Thks.
(1) The OP example is vaguely biased to "likelihood of occurrence".(breakage)
(2) The Post 12 example is vaguely biased to "consequence".(location)
haccp tends to incline to (1).
I wonder how the choice of 1metre and 5metre was determined.. "Historical" seems an improbable database.
One also wonders as to the difference between "likely to occur" and "good chance it could occur". Then again, "subjective" is just that.
One identical conclusion from both is to strongly avoid placing easily broken items near to a readily contactable food Amazing!.
I anticipate that a conventional 3x3 matrix could have been equally as effective with, for the routine Prerequisite Program -
High/Medium = Examine very carefully
Low = Examine carefully
Hi QA,
7-year old thread but still interesting. Thks.
(1) The OP example is vaguely biased to "likelihood of occurrence".(breakage)
(2) The Post 12 example is vaguely biased to "consequence".(location)
haccp tends to incline to (1).
I wonder how the choice of 1metre and 5metre was determined.. "Historical" seems an improbable database.
One also wonders as to the difference between "likely to occur" and "good chance it could occur". Then again, "subjective" is just that.
One identical conclusion from both is to strongly avoid placing easily broken items near to a readily contactable food Amazing!.
I anticipate that a conventional 3x3 matrix could have been equally as effective with, for the routine Prerequisite Program -
High/Medium = Examine very carefully
Low = Examine carefully
Thanks for your advise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk