Dear mapry,
Technically, it can be argued that no CCP implies no haccp plan. Some experts may differ. I assume you are going to call it a haccp plan regardless. ![:smile:](https://www.ifsqn.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
I anticipate that the best you can do is finish with 2 haccp plans due to CCP differences. Possible to have >1 haccp plan in one haccp manual of course. ![:smile:](https://www.ifsqn.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
Combination of 5 x Canola processes then looks very similar to the thread I cross-linked in previous post.
The tricky part is that each input / output will presumably have a (slightly) different product specification. ( perhaps one given oil into more than one container size ?).
Optimally, for identical manipulation processes / single container size per oil, you could code these, eg X1,X2,…X5 (or X1Y1, X1Y2,..X5Y2 if 5x[2 container sizes]) and simply refer to X(XY) in the “one” haccp plan. Then attach a composite set of the individual specification options within the haccp manual.
(Or use a matrix approach if you like such elegance but maybe overkill unless you have numerous container sizes per oil.)
(haccp is uninterested in different container sizes so easiest option, if possible, is to include size variations on same specification > total only 5 specs > X1, X2 etc)
But the above obviously assumes same process ?. if not same then may become complicated.
Also this combined format may not be suitable for yr customer’s onward usage ? (similar problem previous linked thread).
Rgds / Charles.C