Thanks Charles, I suspect that there is a little more focus on food defence in the USA... Which would lead to increased focus on chemical control for this reason.Lock everything!
This focus area (chemical) we have had this week was anyway a good opportunity to go through all the cupboards and rid of us of any chemicals that weren't really necessary.
Also a good chance to have a discussion with the Factory manager about interpretation of the standard and the reasons behind the various expectations.
We have put all the non-food grade lubricants in the maintenance workshop, which although is not locked- then we will describe this as restricted to authorised staff.
Otherwise all stores are locked. The only place we have cleaning chemicals unlocked is a room next to the production where we have chemicalS we use for CIP- not locked. This is just 2-3 containers that are open during cleaning.
We have been through 2 internal audits with this system, while one auditor commented, the other bad absolutely no issue.
If I read the standard again
-access restricted to authorised personnel -
Well here I would argue that all staff are 'authorized' to access them as they are all trained in cleaning procedures.
It would be impractical to lock these, as they are used frequently and it would really just be something to please an auditor than a reality.
The whole thing as well with food defence and chemical sabotage - of course I recognize that it happens but it just seems so far fetched, to even consider this when we have such a small dedicated team.
Long term I guess the system will be automated which will remove this issue.
I guess it will always be a work in progress
Continuous improvement.
Hi AJL,
^^^ (red) IMEX this may not work. An auditor may interpret "authorised" as requiring a specific , full-time, "storekeeper" which we anyway chose to do for safety/insurance reasons. Plus there is also a question of (a) documenting inputs/outputs and (b) human errors which IMEX are not readily controllable on a random basis. (Worst mishap was confusion over similarly coloured food coloring solution and detergent mixture !)
My experience with separating lubricants is similar to yours except non-locking rapidly guaranteed unidentified "borrowing". Furthermore locking minimises the likelihood of inadvertent (or advertent !) contamination.
PS - I have one reservation over yr lubricant storage. "Food Grade" designations (eg see quote below) can be confusing and sometimes controversial (eg meaning of "incidental contact"). I suggest it is preferable to avoid comments by separating all Engineering-oriented Chemicals from Process-Related items. The former can be additionally sub-divided via, for example, H1 and non-H1 designated materials.
Food-grade or food-safe lubricant is the name given to any industrial lubricant that is considered safe for incidental contact with items that may be consumed by humans or animals, as long as it does not exceed a certain concentration
https://interflon.co...grade-lubricant
PPS - Offhand, IMEX, Chemicals are approx. stored/separated via (1) Edibility, (2) Food Grade/Food Safe (3) Engg.H1, (4) Engg.Non-H1, (5) "OTHER". "Other" can be, and IMEX often is, considerable due factors such as bulk, inflammability, toxicity, explodability, spoilability, Location of Usage.
Edited by Charles.C, 18 September 2022 - 07:39 AM.
added PS, PPS