Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Shatter Proofing new lights in warehouse? Needed or Not?


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

HoosierClosure

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 06 November 2013 - 05:41 PM

I'm not sure if this is the correct place but here GOES ( First time posting, new member)

We recently updated our lighting from old HID lighting to new T5s in our warehouse.  The old lighting had Lenses and the new T5s do not.  I am struggling to find if it is a requirement to have the high bay lights in our warehouse guarded.  Our product is in sacks, in taped up boxes and stretch-wrapped on skids.  I work with another Food grade facility in our area and they have the same T5s also not guarded.  Can anyone help point me to the right place for the guidelines and or regulations surrounding these lights in a separate warehouse facility?

 

Much Thanks!



bornyesterday

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 44 posts
  • 7 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 06 November 2013 - 07:14 PM

guidelines and or regulations ...
against which standard are you wishing to reference?  I would think it would be part of your glass and brittle plastics policy and tracking program ,..


“Quality means doing it right when no one is looking."  - Henry Ford

 


Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,795 posts
  • 5236 thanks
1,215
Excellent

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

Posted 06 November 2013 - 10:25 PM

guidelines and or regulations ...
against which standard are you wishing to reference?  I would think it would be part of your glass and brittle plastics policy and tracking program ,..

Dear HoosierClosure,

 

I guess this is the same query as was posted in SQF forum in this thread -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...icy/#entry63091

 

It's preferable to avoid double-posting because it can lead to confusion, as you can see. :smile:

 

Perhaps you can clarify the actual standard (if any).

 

Probably easier to continue discussion in this  thread which can be moved  (if necessary) to an  appropriate forum.

 

I hv deleted the duplicate post.

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Snookie

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,625 posts
  • 267 thanks
171
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:31 PM

I'm not sure if this is the correct place but here GOES ( First time posting, new member)
We recently updated our lighting from old HID lighting to new T5s in our warehouse.  The old lighting had Lenses and the new T5s do not.  I am struggling to find if it is a requirement to have the high bay lights in our warehouse guarded.  Our product is in sacks, in taped up boxes and stretch-wrapped on skids.  I work with another Food grade facility in our area and they have the same T5s also not guarded.  Can anyone help point me to the right place for the guidelines and or regulations surrounding these lights in a separate warehouse facility?
 
Much Thanks!


I was at a facility in Fort Worth Texas and our packaging warehouse sounds very similar to yours. During an FDA audit, the packaging was in sacks which were in taped boxes which were stretch wrapped. Our lights were extremely high up. FDA inspector wanted us to prove lights were shatterproof or to shield them. We wiped out the Fort Worth area of these style of shatterproof bulbs which got us close enough that the few lights we could not replace we left open. I personally thought it was overkill on the part of the FDA.....but we felt the best resolution was just to replace them though it was not cheap.

Posted Image
Live Long & Prosper

Snookie

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,625 posts
  • 267 thanks
171
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:33 PM

Dear HoosierClosure,
 
I guess this is the same query as was posted in SQF forum in this thread -
 
http://www.ifsqn.com...icy/#entry63091
 
It's preferable to avoid double-posting because it can lead to confusion, as you can see. :smile:
 
Perhaps you can clarify the actual standard (if any).
 
Probably easier to continue discussion in this  thread which can be moved  (if necessary) to an  appropriate forum.
 
I hv deleted the duplicate post.
 
Rgds / Charles.C



On this previous post I agreed with Sarah, but have had other auditors not so reasonable. I have gotten dinged for cracked gauge covers which were no where near product or even the production area. So I tend to cover most everything (not the bathroom signs) to be sure.....and it is a pain in the lower posterior region.

Edited by Snookie, 06 November 2013 - 11:34 PM.

Posted Image
Live Long & Prosper

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,795 posts
  • 5236 thanks
1,215
Excellent

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

Posted 07 November 2013 - 02:52 AM

On this previous post I agreed with Sarah, but have had other auditors not so reasonable. I have gotten dinged for cracked gauge covers which were no where near product or even the production area. So I tend to cover most everything (not the bathroom signs) to be sure.....and it is a pain in the lower posterior region.

Dear Snookie,

 

Indeed.

 

I also admired the conceptual effort in the risk-based part of SpurGirls's attachment but had a suspicion that most auditor's would opt  for a zero-tolerance rule as far as location is concerned. 

 

In practice, cross-contamination has proven to be a surprisingly pervasive force.

 

As often the case, it relates to one's viewpoint of a "significant hazard" or, more likely,  the definition of a Prerequisite. I doubt that any GHP / GMP resources will offer much flexibility regarding food risk status.? But perhaps SpursGirl found one for Validation purposes ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users