posted 12 July 2001 05:49 PM               

Read it to refer to the safety of the product as it will affect internal personnel and customers.

Usually during APQP/PPAP (or earlier in the design process) any safety considerations need to be reviewed.

- Does the part have sharp edges that could lead to lacerations?

- Is the part so heavy for an operator to safely handle therefore needing some type of automation or two operators?

- Is the part oily and easy to drop on someones foot?

- Is the part treated in some type of chemical rust prehibitor that could affect one of the customers personnel?

Just some thoughts to promote discussion.

posted 12 July 2001 09:12 PM               

Thank you for your fast (!really!!) response, which confirms the idea I have handleed a long time.
Just to comment: Last saturday I gave a QS 9000 seminar and one of the attendees (sefety responsible) told me that he went time ago to a similar seminar and the speaker told him that the criteria was to "protect the material, product or part" instead of people or facilities/equipment of customer/supplier.
To me, it is enough the care given to the
product/parts mentioned in 4.15

Thanks again

Qualiman

posted 25 July 2001 11:20 AM               

In our procedures for engineers writing a procedure that is a process, we stipulate that:
...if any condition is adverse to product quality...including operator safety, warnings and references to or directions to prevent damage to the product or operator are REQUIRED.

As an example, we use aerosol conformal coating. Good ventilation, a mask, and grounding are required due to the explosive hazard. These safety requirements MUST be mentioned in the procedure, or be referenced to an external procedure (e.g. "Please see MSDS...") that indicates the safety requirements.

To summarize, if the operator fails to utilize the proper safety equipment, would the material be damaged? Yes! It would - so therefore it is a reasonable requirement.

Keep being inventive!

Trakman.