Metal Detection Procedure Critique
HI guys
i am auditing a supplier and i need some input on whether i should i accept their methodology or not...
basically we deal with product that we can sell as-is or we can process and if processed it can go thru our stringent system and if not ; then the supplier program takes precedence. Here is my findings on their metal detection process
1 . metal detection check is done 30 minutes post-startup and about an hr or so before they finish ( ther is no pattern ) as they check every 3 hrs. ie they do not check if it is working at the end of the shift.
2. they check each test wand 3 times ie they have 9 checks all in all ( 3x FE; 3xN-FE and 3x SS)
3. if a single (or more) check fails they re-do the whole 9 checks and if it passes , they let go and go their merry way... but if not then they put product on hold since last good check..
can you help me critique this process...
What is the product?
Is the process likely to introduce metal contamination?
Lacking that info, I can only give a personal opinion:
Their procedure is far too lax.
Marshall
yes.. the process has lots of moving parts....
hopper.... conveyor... shakers.. automatic scaleheads.. etc..
What is the product?
Is the process likely to introduce metal contamination?
Lacking that info, I can only give a personal opinion:
Their procedure is far too lax.
Marshall
Agree with Marshall.
What metal is most likely to be found? Is this food or packaging?
If this is food or ingredients:
Why run for 30 minutes and then test?
They should test first, running each wand 3 times prior to start up
Test on a schedule, with corrective actions in case times are missed.Their plan on what to do in case of failures is OK, do they have documents of how/when that's been done?
Test at end of day 3 times, just like start up
If they are supplying you, you can request changes, even if just on your product. I would not feel comfortable with this procedure.
Hi Dr Vu,
A few more comments in addition to Marshall’s.
I assume this process is operated within Canadian Regulatory requirements.
Afaik, in Canada, metallic contaminants of “size” > 2mm are considered significant hazards. If so, I wonder how the haccp procedure you refer validates the use of 3mm critical limits ?
IMO it is atypical (and illogical) not to check the correct functioning of the MD prior to starting a run. It is unacceptable IMO not to check at end of shift(s). For obvious reasons.
As far as wand/MD checking is involved, afaik, model Canadian haccp Procedures do exist which include a MD stage. For example see my post in this parallel thread –
http://www.ifsqn.com...ccp/#entry92674
If the above can be regarded as a minimum requirement, the wand procedure described in yr post appears adequate.
PS - note that the practical significance of the MD procedure /results you present may also depend on which option of the 2 possibilities you mention with respect to onward handling is actually effected.
-
thanks guys.. i gave them a major on that one and that suspended their priviledges until they come up with plausible correction or justification
We cant control how the product we get gets used in our facility so the risk is still great.. it can go either way... and i am nervous on the product we just distribute.
They said this is their CCP and i dont believe a recheck on failure is justified..If its real metal in the product; it wont get a second chance... And because they have so many moving parts. and on their internal findings they do catch metal pieces ranging from Nuts, all the way to shavings in some magnets.. ....... i dont mind them checking each wand 3 x though..