Our plant operates alarm and belt stop metal detectors on our lines. These detectors do not have rejection bins or mechanisms.
Our procedure defines the process of where stock triggering metal detectors is effectively quarantined to prevent release. This includes the wrapping and clear labeling of product to communicate to staff that the product is nonconforming and not to be moved, processed or disturbed.
The Internal Auditor is adamant that the BRCGS interpretation guide for the clause (attached) is stating that a lockable container must be used in the the absence of automatic rejection system.
It is my position that the use 'typically' in the interpretation (In the absence of the either must or shall) means that a lockable container is not compulsory. I believe that the existing controls in place are sufficient in compliance with the requirements of the clause and interpretation.
I could capitulate and just buy a box. But I am reluctant to introduce a new piece of production furniture and rewrite/retrain our established procedure for no real improvement/gain in control unless it is necessary.
.
What are peoples thoughts?