ISO 9001:2000 Clause 7.6 - Chemical company? Controls are Visual Observations

[pilchard]

Chemical Certs

Does your chemical supplier provide certifications of contents and are their sampling or measurements set to a national standard or industry standard and they can prove compliance.

If they do, use the suppliers assurance and just make sure that their monitoring & measuring process is compliant.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Hey Pilchard. Welcome to the Cove.

/Claes

 

[D.Scott]

Welcome Pilchard. You make a good point on certification of the base materials, but as Graeme points out, I can't see how they can mix the materials and create a new product without some sort of measurement. Whatever is used to determine the measurement must surely require calibration. Any thoughts on that portion?
Once again, it's nice to have you on board.
Dave

 

[howste]

My initial thought was the same as what several here have said. But then I thought of some examples where products come pre-measured from the supplier so I don't have to. I have epoxy with part A and B that I can just empty the two containers, mix, and viola! The other day I had one of those La Choy dinners where the meat sauce and vegetables come in separate cans. It was so simple that my teenage daughter mixed them in the right proportions without blinking an eye.

In addition to the above, there are other things that do require some measuring, but exact measurements are not critical. I have a patio in my back yard that I put in by mixing bags of concrete with approximate volumes of water. My measuring devices were a 5-gallon bucket and my eyeball/shovel used to check consistency.

At the same time, there are other applications where measurement would be critical. I think the key to 7.6 is the phrase "where necessary to ensure valid results..." If any relatively small error in ratios might cause a problem, then calibrated equipment is necessary. If the specification is so broad that measurement errors don't matter, then it's not.

 

[Cari Spears]

My initial thought was the same as what several here have said. But then I thought of some examples where products come pre-measured from the supplier so I don't have to. I have epoxy with part A and B that I can just empty the two containers, mix, and viola! The other day I had one of those La Choy dinners where the meat sauce and vegetables come in separate cans. It was so simple that my teenage daughter mixed them in the right proportions without blinking an eye.

In addition to the above, there are other things that do require some measuring, but exact measurements are not critical. I have a patio in my back yard that I put in by mixing bags of concrete with approximate volumes of water. My measuring devices were a 5-gallon bucket and my eyeball/shovel used to check consistency.

At the same time, there are other applications where measurement would be critical. I think the key to 7.6 is the phrase "where necessary to ensure valid results..." If any relatively small error in ratios might cause a problem, then calibrated equipment is necessary. If the specification is so broad that measurement errors don't matter, then it's not.

Yeah, this is why I was asking what the "visual control" is. If they just take a premade mix and fill with water or another chemical to a "fill line", what monitoring and measuring devices would there be that needed control?

 

[Trolle]

"I think the key to 7.6 is the phrase "where necessary to ensure valid results..." If any relatively small error in ratios might cause a problem, then calibrated equipment is necessary. If the specification is so broad that measurement errors don't matter, then it's not".(Howste)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, this is why I was asking what the "visual control" is. If they just take a premade mix and fill with water or another chemical to a "fill line", what monitoring and measuring devices would there be that needed control"?(Carrie Spears)

This I belive to be bullseye!

Everyone thank you for your coments, I'm sure there is more to follow.

Cheers!

 

[bpritts]

To play with this a little further, it sounds like there may be some
container/vessel with a "fill to here" line.

I would think about verifying that vessel once when I put it into service,
and perhaps making sure that the same vessel remained in use with no
damage -- e.g. hadn't been replaced with a used 55 gallon drum. I have
seen stranger things. If in QS9000 I have to include the measurement
device in my system if it's on a control plan. However, the calibration/
confirmation method I use is up to me, and can take the needed precision
into account. A visual inspection for damage once a year would do the job.

Brad

 

[Trolle]

Excellent thinking Brad! Your reasoning is well aligned with the paramount QMS principle of “KISS” and I’m sure everyone else contributing to this site would come to the same obvious solution - but me. I will build from your advice!

Cheers!

 

[Trolle]

of 8.4a).

Please believe me that my aim here is NOT to ridicule, but to illustrate some of the perceptions that your ISO assessors may come away with.

Yes ddhartma, this is what I hoped my rather casual wording would trigger, nevertheless I'm sure the statements I've made is very real for many of us. In this context Your kind (?) coments will help me focus my arguments! Thanks