Need help with non-conformance relating to stop belt metal detection
Hi,
We have a non-conformance in relation to our metal detection whereby the product is rejected by a stop belt mechanism and is removed from the process and sent to QC for inspection. However, we do not have a lockable container for rejected product ( 15 kg cartons). Has anyone else had this issue and how did you solve it without multiple handling of the product....
Hi, yes I've come across this with one of our sites. We have stop belts in place for large outer cases and have had to purchase a lockable container to fit the largest outer cases that are processed down the line. Its a just a rather large trunk to be honest! Procedures were in place to stop the line and await a member of the Technical team to safely retrieve the item for inspection prior to line start up but that does not comply with the derogation for stop belt systems. Has to be a lockable unit unfortunately.
Hi,
We have a non-conformance in relation to our metal detection whereby the product is rejected by a stop belt mechanism and is removed from the process and sent to QC for inspection. However, we do not have a lockable container for rejected product ( 15 kg cartons). Has anyone else had this issue and how did you solve it without multiple handling of the product....
Hi Trubertq,
I believe BRC has already addressed this issue:
BRC Food Issue 6 Clause 4.10.3.3
'The metal detector shall incorporate the following:
a belt stop system with an alarm where the product cannot be automatically rejected, e.g. for very large packs'
BRC Food Guidance for Clause 4.10.3.3
'Following consultation it has been accepted that stop-belt-style metal rejection systems will continue to be acceptable ....where additional controls are in place to ensure the effective removal and isolation of products'
'The following additional controls should be considered:
removal of affected product should be restricted to trained authorised staff. This may be supported by restricting access.....e.g. by using locked line cover.....e.t.c.'
Regards,
Tony
Are you operating to a standard that requires a lockable container? I'm curious why training the employees to remove the rejected package and set it aside for QA analysis wouldn't be acceptable in your facility. It's not as neat and pretty, may not give an auditor the warm and fuzzies, but if the training is effective and line operators can accurately describe the policy to anyone who asks I can't see where it would be a problem...