Documenting Quality Inspections - Material Released prior to Lot Acceptance

R

rgunn1

#1
Hi all. I've been lurking the forum for a while, and my company has charged me with the task of overseeing the development and implementation of our new QA program. I have developed a form to be used for inspecting incoming material as it is received from our vendors. The form that I have developed can currently account for accepted, rejected, and pending materials. I am having trouble trying to logically and concisely account for accepting material originally classified as pending, when a portion of the order had already been accepted.

I don't know that this situation can occur given the policies we have in place, but I am trying to consider all possible scenarios as we are developing our policies and procedures.

We are currently trying to implement systems in accordance with ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Subsection NCA 3800 as well as MIL-I-45208A (each at different locations).

Any insight or advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
R
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#2
Re: Documenting Quality Inspections

I'm trying to remember what it's called, but essentially you can release material for production from a lot when lot acceptance isn't complete as long as you have forward traceability for what was released and used in production so that you can effect positive recall should the lot be rejected. Obviously, there is a risk and $ factor involved.

Note: I am not knowledgeable in ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code so I have no idea if there is anything in it to preclude the above.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
Re: Documenting Quality Inspections

I'm trying to remember what it's called, but essentially you can release material for production from a lot when lot acceptance isn't complete as long as you have forward traceability for what was released and used in production so that you can effect positive recall should the lot be rejected. Obviously, there is a risk and $ factor involved.

Note: I am not knowledgeable in ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code so I have no idea if there is anything in it to preclude the above.
Marc,

It was called the "Positive recall procedure."

It was a requirement in a previous ISO 9001 (1994) standard.

4.10.2.3 Where the incoming product is released for urgent production purposes prior to verification, it shall be positively idenified and recorded (see 4.16) in order to permit immediate recall and replacement in he event of nonconformity to specified requirements.
Man, do I miss these days....:D

Stijloor.
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#4
Re: Documenting Quality Inspections

You can still do positive recall to the door without a problem. You *can* do it to customers, I suppose, but each occurrance would be so different it would amount to what I used to know years ago as a material review board. That is, there would have to be a judgement made on a case by case basis as to whether to stop at the door or let the product proceed to the customer. Someone would ultimately have to take responsibility for the release of the product at each stage.

That said, I'm sure this would be prohibited in some industries such as pharma. But again, it would depend upon the specific situation. Let's say it's pharma and the material released was simply the bottles the drug goes in as opposed to the drug. It comes back to why the material is on HOLD or has not been processed through receiving and the potential ramifications/risks.
 
R

rgunn1

#5
It seems to me the best way to approach this situation will be to not allow partial lot acceptance in the first place.
 

hogheavenfarm

Quite Involved in Discussions
#6
That is the simplest way, but rarely do simple solutions work out well in the real world. There seems to always be an *urgent*, *critical* , ****RUSH*** to get product out the door, (so someones KPI can look good), rather than have the luxury of holding it.
 
P

Pogi_

#7
I think this is what you call a "RISK" release. And it does exist. I can discuss it more but I reserved the right not to...personal and profesional reasons. ;)

"Pending materials" by its term is pending. By QA unwritten rule all pending materials are as good as "HOLD" and may go either accept or reject depending on your material review board disposition process or your dept OCAP or engineering dispo, whichever is appropriate. Bottom line you should NOT be moving any materials in this status unless someone puts his name and credibility on it (like the company owner... :notme:).

Another way to go around this (..looks are product and process engineers...) is by building it through engineering build process. Gives more eyes and papers into it, but you'll be sure that the product that was built using pending materials is handled with TLC....just a thought :cool:. QA loves this - but operation / production will hate you for it - it will kill their CT.
 
N

Norm Moreau

#8
The approach I have seen at nuclear power plants where such a product might be used is that the item(s) is considered nonconforming and not allowed to go into production until QC release. Most manufacturers have a QC check prior to release of a product to confirm that all nonconformances against the product have been closed. Obviously such an approach assumes that the NCR process is solid. NCA 3800 doesn't have the details for such a condition, in fact NQA-1 (which is more detailed doesn't specifically address this either).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rick Hart

#9
Generally, the best method is a risk release program. The RR form will detail the nature of the RR and a manditory hold point that will prevent the material from shipping until all product acceptance is complete.
 
R

rgunn1

#10
Wow. Back from the dead. Our whole nuclear program pretty much got put on "hold" (ironically), but will be coming back to the forefront of our objectives very soon. Thanks for all of the replies. I appreciate the insight.

R
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Documenting Design Verification Test Results (ISO 9001) Design and Development of Products and Processes 1
adir88 Documenting Risk Control Option Analysis ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 8
M Defining and Documenting Record Retention CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 4
J Documenting a Calibration Interval Extension Calibration Frequency (Interval) 7
B Documenting hardware on Form 2 of AS9102 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 5
bryan willemot Documenting past problem history for fasteners for AS9100 Rev D AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
Q Documenting Customer Complaints (Records) Customer Complaints 6
R Documenting Expiration Date Extension for a specific lot ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 12
J ISO 13485:2016 Section 6.2 - Documenting the process for establishing competence ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
S Does IEC 62304 require documenting unresolved anomalies for all safety classes? IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 4
C Documenting Cleaning Production Lines in Medical Device Pkg facility ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
C Documenting Cleaning Production Lines in Medical Device Pkg facility 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
C Documenting Cleaning Production Lines in Medical Device Pkg facility 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
L Problems while documenting the SOUPs used for the software we are developing IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 4
R Documenting Self-Training and Effectiveness - ISO 13485:2016 Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
C Documenting Software Safety Classifications IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 4
B Approaches to Documenting an ISO 22000 FSMA Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 3
G Process for Product Safety - Ideas for Documenting Process for 4.4.1.2 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
dubrizo Are you documenting Internal Audit findings as NCRs? Internal Auditing 18
M What is the value of documenting in-process rework for easily-detectable issues? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 4
R What is the typical industry standard for documenting Usability Risk? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 16
C Importance of Documenting NCP's and CA/PA's ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 23
D Documenting Meetings through Meeting Minutes or a Form ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
Colin Objectives Form - Format for Documenting Information Security Objectives IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 2
O Documenting Processes requiring Customer Notification Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
M Documenting Vendor (Supplier) Issues Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
V Documenting Exceptions and use of Deviation Request Form APQP and PPAP 2
K AS9100 Clause 7.2.2 - Documenting "Special Requirements" and risks AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
K Competence, Training and Awareness - Documenting Training and Confidentiality Aspects ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
Q Documenting the Review of Adverse Effects from Rework ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
A Formal Way for Documenting Design Input Requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
A Documenting 5S Guidelines in the Sales Department (Office 5S) Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 4
C Training Planning - Using Summary Sheet for Documenting Training Activities Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 3
J Requirements for Documenting Lifetime of a Medical Device ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
A Best Practice for Documenting Design Reviews 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 13
F Documenting Historical Preventive Action at a Daycare Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 20
N Documenting Medical Device Complaints 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6
V Documenting the Root Causes for Internal Audit Non-Conformance Findings Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 5
V Approach towards defining/documenting Requirements COTS vs. New-Product Software Quality Assurance 1
Crusader New Documenting Methods for Manufacturing Process Audits? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 9
M Documenting an outsourced process - Distribution company with some manufacturing ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
P Process Map vs. User Guide - Documenting business procedures Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 3
T Documenting Effectiveness of Corrective/Preventive Action Nonconformance and Corrective Action 8
M Customer Format - Documenting Customer Software Requirement Specification and DDD Software Quality Assurance 10
D Documenting Machine Shop In-Process Checks Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 9
Crusader Continuous Improvements - How are you documenting them? Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 66
R Documenting Processes such as Receiving Inspection, and Auditing to Turtle Diagrams Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 20
Gert Sorensen Requirement for specified agendas and meeting minutes when documenting projects? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
A Submit a 510(k) to an existing device vs. Just Documenting a Change ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
D Documenting Revision History - Single ?Revision Record? Document Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom