5 replies to this topic

[anfrias1]

Hello all,

 

We have a new equipment in production and as you may be aware one of the SQF requirements is to have a check by QA/maintenance to assure functionality and food safety. is there any format (or form) or specific requirements you could share for those of you who have dealt with this SQF requirement?

 

thank you in advance!!

[Tony-C]

Hi anfrias1

 

You will need to ensure that the SQF Food Safety Code Edition 9 requirements in section 11.1.7 Equipment and Utensils are covered. Here is a summary but you should refer to the whole section yourself:

 

1 Specifications for equipment and utensils and procedures for purchasing equipment

2 Equipment designed, constructed, installed, operated, and maintained to meet any applicable regulatory requirements and to not pose a contamination threat to products

3 Food contact equipment segregated from non-food contact equipment. Equipment storage rooms allow for the hygienic storage of equipment

4 Product contact surfaces constructed of materials that will not contribute to a food safety risk

5 Hygienically designed and located for appropriate cleaning. Equipment surfaces shall be smooth, impervious, and free from cracks or crevices

6 Equipment and utensils cleaned after use or at a set and validated frequency. Hygienic equipment storage

 

These are the main areas I would be looking to address:

 

Purchasing

Approval by all relevant Management

New equipment is purchased with a certificate of conformity or specification confirming that the equipment (including food contact surfaces) complies with any relevant legislation, meets legal requirements and the supplier understands and has agreed the purpose and the intended use of the equipment and the type of materials/products that the equipment will be handling

 

Food Safety

Inspection prior to use to ensure that chemical. microbiological and foreign body hazards including metal, glass & plastic are controlled

Included the HACCP plan

Validation and Verification of Equipment Cleaning

Location facilitates good hygienic practices and maintained in a hygienic condition

 

Development

Specification for Equipment/Product Capabilities

Design approval

Production Trials

Shelf Life

Validation of Equipment

 

Production

Manufacturer’s Instructions

Training provided

Procedures/Records

Cleaning Procedures/Records

Storage of spare parts

 

Maintenance

Equipment made from suitable material

Lubricants food grade when there is a risk

Manufacturer’s Instructions

Procedures/Records

Preventative maintenance schedule

Training provided

 

Health & Safety

Inspection on installation and regular checks

Approved by Health & Safety Manager

Training provided

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

 

[Hoosiersmoker]

It also depends if it is duplicate machinery or not. We added 2 new machines in the last year but they were the same models as other machines we already had. My internal audit report on that section just stated that a risk assessment had already been performed for that machinery and found it to be appropriate for production of our items. Our auditor this year noticed the new installations and asked about them. When I showed him my reports he agreed. If they are different, you can use manufacturers usage information as well as the risk assessment you have done on past machinery.

[kingstudruler1]

like this?

 

 

Attached Files

•  AMI Equipment Design Task Force Checklist (6-22-2004).pdf   25.45KB   180 downloads
•  dairyequipmentdesignchecklist20110730.xls   72KB   159 downloads

[Charles.C]

like this?

Hi ksr,

 

Thks for the detailed attachments.

 

I admire the evaluation's comprehensiveness but the Scoring System looks unworkable to me on a routine basis. However I daresay SQF will love it since the former's  own Standard  utilises an analogous concept.

[kingstudruler1]

Hi ksr,

 

Thks for the detailed attachments.

 

I admire the evaluation's comprehensiveness but the Scoring System looks unworkable to me on a routine basis. However I daresay SQF will love it since the former's  own Standard  utilises an analogous concept.

lol.   ya i agree.    I usually just create a "guidleine" checklist based off these and an opportunity to risk assess certain criteria that might not be 100% applicable.