FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT For SYSCO. #SYS-B-194 FreshPoint Charlotte 2121A Distribution Center Drive Charlotte, NC 28269

Transcription

1 FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT For SYSCO #SYS-B-194 FreshPoint Charlotte 2121A Distribution Center Drive Charlotte, NC TYPE OF AUDIT INSPECTION DATE October 21, 2010 AIB International Inc Bakers Way PO Box 3999 Manhattan, KS ( ) ( ) Fax ( )

2 RATING A Food Safety inspection was conducted at this facility on October 21, The writer was accompanied throughout the inspection by Greg Troyan, Safety/Inventory Control Manager; Kevin Naze, General Manager; and Taylor Martin, Operations Manager. At the conclusion of the inspection, a meeting was held to discuss the observations, recommendations, and rating. Based on the observations made, the information obtained, and the criteria set forth in the AIB International Inc. Consolidated Standards for Inspection: Food Distribution Centers, the overall food safety level of this facility was considered to be: SUPERIOR (935) AIB International Inc. states that this report as dated and provided herein is to be construed as its findings and recommendations, category scores, total score, and rating. A passing score of 700 and above is not a certification of the facility, products or programs. AIB International Inc. does not accept or assume responsibility for the Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs in effect with (customer). AIB International Inc. is only reporting the food safety conditions of (customer) as of the date of this report and assumes no responsibility or liability as to whether (customer) does or does not carry out the recommendations as contained in this report. #SYS-B-194-p.1

3 RATING ANALYSIS DATE OF INSPECTION: October 21, 2010 TYPE OF INSPECTION: Unannounced OVERALL RATING: SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL METHODS AND PERSONNEL PRACTICES 195 MAINTENANCE FOR FOOD SAFETY 200 CLEANING PRACTICES 175 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 175 ADEQUACY OF FOOD SAFETY PROGRAMS 190 TOTAL: 935 #SYS-B-194-p.2

4 Discrepancy Totals Serious Items Total: 0 Improvement Needed Items Total: 2 Unsatisfactory Items Total: 0 FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OP = Operational Methods and Personnel Practices IPM = Integrated Pest Management MS = Maintenance for Food Safety AP = Adequacy of Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs CP = Cleaning Practices IMPROVEMENT NEEDED CP IPM Food approval documentation was provided for the cleaning chemicals and sanitizer (Zep FS Amine 2) used to clean the produce scale. Records indicated that these chemicals were used in accordance with the product labels and concentrations were documented. In cases where chemical and sanitizer concentrations did not meet requirements, Corrective Actions were taken and retesting records indicated that chemical usage complied with established requirements. An automatic chemical dispensing system was in use at this facility and calibrated regularly. Chemicals were found properly labeled and secured. However, the sanitizer chemical concentrations had not been documented since June 17, It was recommended that sanitizer concentrations be tested regularly to make sure they are consistent with the product label. (IMPROVEMENT NEEDED) An annual assessment that addressed all areas inside and outside of the facility had not been completed or scheduled for this year. It was recommended documentation of this inspection be maintained at the facility to ensure the IPM Program is effective. (IMPROVEMENT NEEDED) MINOR ISSUE NOTED OP Trash was stored in properly identified and covered containers. Trash disposal met regulatory requirements and was disposed of by a licensed contractor. However, some minor trash and debris were noted around the waste compactor during the inspection. It was suggested this area be cleaned on a more frequent basis to prevent pest harborage. #SYS-B-194-p.3

5 CP AP AP AP Daily housekeeping activities were assigned to the appropriate department to maintain work and support areas. Water used for housekeeping activities was restricted to prevent product contamination. Daily housekeeping cleaning activities were carried out in a way that prevents contamination with a few exceptions. Some potatoes were found spilled on the warehouse floor beside the wall, and various types of debris were noted under the produce table. It was suggested that daily cleaning tasks become more detailed to ensure that storage areas remain clean during working hours. A multidisciplinary Food Safety Committee was established to conduct monthly inspections of the entire facility using a checklist type format. Documentation of these inspections included identified observations, specific assignments, Corrective Actions and actual accomplishments. Timelines for Corrective Actions were set and Corrective Actions verified to ensure satisfactory completion. However, many of the deficiencies noted during this audit could have been identified and corrected through these monthly inspections. It was suggested that future self inspections place additional emphasis in finding and correcting similar deficiencies observed during this survey. A written Chemical Control Program that addresses all chemicals used in the facility was established. The program included procedures for controlled and segregated storage, handling, labeling, training, MSDS, and contractor chemicals. The procedures appeared to be appropriate to the chemicals in use and handled at the facility. However, the sanitizer chemical concentrations had not been documented since June 17, It was suggested that the training procedure be reviewed and updated to reflect this potential concern noted during the survey. A formal documented Cleaning Program that included a Master Cleaning Schedule (MCS) for periodic cleaning assignments as well as a daily housekeeping schedule was developed and implemented in this facility. The MCS specified frequency, responsibility, post-cleaning evaluation techniques and Corrective Actions. Written cleaning procedures were developed for all equipment, structures, and grounds that impacted handling and storage of food products and packaging materials. Cleaning procedures were current and the conditions observed in the facility supported the documentation with a couple of exceptions. Some potatoes were found spilled on the warehouse floor beside the wall, and various types of debris were noted under the produce table. It was suggested this cleaning along with the post-cleaning follow-up and documentation reviews should become more detailed in order to ensure the thoroughness of each cleaning task, thus eliminating these issues. #SYS-B-194-p.4

6 COMMENT OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP All transports and materials were inspected upon receipt for cleanliness, pest activity, structural defects and other issues that could jeopardize product integrity. Inspection documentation, including rejected shipments, was current and complete. Documentation of received material temperatures indicated compliance to requirements. Food products were stored and removed from storage to prevent product contamination. Materials were stored off the floor and 18 inches (45 cm) away from the wall to facilitate cleaning, inspection, and pest control activities. Receiving dates were being utilized to facilitate stock rotation. Storage areas were clean, well-ventilated and dry. Materials in storage were adequately protected against contamination. Packaging materials, toxic chemicals and non-product materials were segregated. An 18 inch (50 cm) painted inspection line was provided along floor wall junctions around the interior perimeter of the facility. Finished products, packaging supplies, and other materials were rotated on a "First-In, First-Out" basis to ensure stock rotation. Inventories appeared to be reasonable to prevent aged stock, deterioration or pest harborage. Pallets were clean, dry, and in good repair. No pallets for product use were stored outside. There were no double stacked pallets requiring the use of slip sheets. The facility does not rework or salvage any products at this location. All expiring products were discarded on a daily basis. Release procedures were not a defined requirement for materials stored at this facility. Sampling of incoming raw materials for testing was not conducted at this facility. Single-service containers were not used at this facility. Finished products capable of supporting the rapid growth of pathogenic microorganisms were properly stored. All temperature sensitive materials were stored at or below 40 F. The Perishable Cooler temperature was found at 35 F during this inspection. Continuous recording thermometers were used in all product storage areas. Thermometers were calibrated and maintained on a weekly basis. Coolers were provided with vinyl strip doors to help maintain temperatures. Incompatible materials such as milk and egg allergens were stored under conditions that prevented cross contamination. Measures were in place to prevent material contamination that could cause consumer complaints. Protective measures were provided in areas where iced down product was stored over like or dissimilar items. Catch pans were installed and monitored on a monthly basis. #SYS-B-194-p.5

7 OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP MS MS MS MS Containers and utensils were not used for product handling at this facility. There were no processing rooms at this facility. All shipping vehicles were inspected prior to loading for cleanliness and structural defects that could jeopardize product integrity. Inspection documentation was maintained and included lot code designation, amounts, and the point of distribution to ensure traceability and recall. Padlocks were provided and documented for all outbound materials. Adequate hand washing stations were located at appropriate locations and were stocked with single-use towels and pre-mixed sanitizers. "Wash hands" signs were displayed by sinks and entries into storage areas. Lockers were inspected on a monthly basis, and no open food or drink was allowed. Washrooms and locker areas were maintained in an acceptable sanitary condition. "Wash hands" signs were displayed in all restrooms, lunchrooms, and smoking areas. Trained supervisors were in place to periodically monitor compliance with personnel practices on a monthly basis. Personnel were observed washing hands appropriately, and good personal hygiene practices were observed. Personnel were not observed eating, drinking, or smoking in unauthorized areas. Personal property was stored in appropriate locations defined by company policy. No personal food or belongings were observed in any work or storage area during the audit. Effective procedures were in place to ensure that personnel with boils, sores, infected wounds, infections or other communicable diseases were not permitted to come in contact with food as required by law. No issues with this policy were observed during the audit. All non-facility personnel, including visitors and contractors, followed the facility personnel practices requirements. Appropriate GMP training was provided in the reception area prior to entry into the facility. Facility boundaries were defined and controlled. Measures were in place to prevent contamination from local activities or neighboring properties that could impact the facility. The facility was located in an industrial area and bordered by other commercial properties. Outside grounds were maintained in a way that prevents product contamination. Measures included, but were not limited to, managing drainage, litter, weeds, and dust and maintaining waste and equipment graveyards to eliminate pest attraction to the facility. Some measures were taken to maintain facility security. Security strategies included locked doors, limited access to sensitive areas, surveillance cameras, truck locks, employee screening, awareness, and training programs. Adequate space was observed between equipment and structures to facilitate access for cleaning and maintenance activities. #SYS-B-194-p.6

8 MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS Floors, walls, and ceilings throughout the facility were well constructed and maintained. Floor drainage was designed and maintained to allow access for cleaning and to prevent product contamination. There was no evidence of roof leakage. Fixtures, ducts, and pipes were properly installed and maintained to prevent contamination from leaks, condensation, or loose material. There was no evidence of any loose materials, such as insulation, flaking rust, or paint in the overheads or other areas. Fluorescent light tubes, light bulbs, essential glass, brittle plastics, and ceramics in the facility were of the safety type or otherwise protected from accidental breakage over exposed product storage areas. Those that could not be protected were accounted for in the Glass, Brittle Plastics, and Ceramics Program. Lighting levels appeared to be adequate for the facility. Adequate ventilation was provided in the facility. Fans were maintained on the Preventive Maintenance schedule. They were accessible for cleaning and operated in a way to avoid product contamination. Ventilation systems adequately minimized odors, fumes, and dust. Adequate barriers were in place to prevent rodents, insects and birds from entering the facility. Cracks, crevices and other pest harborages were eliminated and doors were pest proofed to less than 1/4" (6 mm) to prevent pest entry. There were no processing rooms with equipment that required the use and control of food-grade lubricants at this facility. Operations were separated to prevent product contamination. The process flow was arranged from receiving to shipping to prevent product contamination. Toilet rooms did not open directly into any material storage areas. The facility did not have any exposed recoup or processing areas that required a written temporary repair procedure for repair of these surfaces to be defined. A produce scale was the only food contact surface at this facility. It was found smooth, corrosion-free, constructed of non-toxic material, with no evidence of spot or tack welds. A temperature measuring device was installed in the Cooler area. It was continuously monitored and attached to a mechanical failure alarm that activated when the temperature exceeded set limits. A weekly calibration program traceable to a national standard was in place and maintained through the facility's HACCP Program. Forklift and pallet jacks were maintained to prevent contamination of products being transported. This equipment was listed on the Preventive Maintenance Schedule for cleaning and follow-up. No sanitation issues were observed with any of the powered equipment during this survey. #SYS-B-194-p.7

9 MS MS MS CP CP CP CP CP IPM IPM Parts were stored off the floor in a clean environment. There were no dirty parts or equipment noted in the storage area. A program was in place to monitor water quality from the City of Charlotte and current records were provided from August 23, The Program included ice used for food contact purposes. Back siphonage devices were installed and current inspection records were maintained on file from November 16, No issues were observed with sewage disposal during the audit. Hand washing facilities provided hot and cold running water. Hand washing facilities were labeled, and included mix valves so that water temperatures could be adjusted. Cleaning was done in a way that prevents contamination of raw materials, products, and equipment. Adequate cleaning equipment and tools were available and stored away from work areas. Cleaning tools were labeled and segregated based on their intended use to prevent cross contamination. Separate and distinct utensils were used to clean scales, structures, restrooms, and floor drains. Cleaning utensils were cleaned and properly stored after use. Deep cleaning of equipment and structures was conducted according to the Master Cleaning Schedule to prevent the development of microorganisms, insects, and foreign material. Equipment, structures, and other areas were found clean during the audit. Dock levelers, racks and storage shelves were cleaned frequently enough to prevent excessive accumulation of debris, and product spillage. Periodic cleaning tasks complied with written procedures. Maintenance cleaning was completed in a way that prevented product contamination. Company personnel followed the Personnel Practices Program when working on equipment. The work area was inspected after use to identify any potential contaminates. Debris, tools, lubrication and other items generated during maintenance activities were removed from the work area. The produce scale was cleaned and sanitized on a predetermined schedule to remove contaminants. A formal Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program with written procedures that included requirements of the facility's Prerequisite Programs was in place. The IPM Program was implemented by licensed contractors and in-house personnel. The facility did not manage their IPM Program under an alternative guideline. #SYS-B-194-p.8

10 IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM A signed agreement was in place with the Ecolab Company to provide IPM services. A copy of the service agreement included materials, the facility name, facility contact person, frequency of services, description of services, term of contract, a current list of approved chemicals, emergency call procedures, service records to be maintained, and notification requirements for changes in materials or services. Current copies of certification and registration documents were on file for all persons providing IPM services for the facility. Ecolab's Structural Pest Control License expires on June 30, The Certified Applicator's certificate was valid through June 30, Their Certificate of Liability Insurance was current through December 31, Documented GMP training had been conducted and was on file as of May 1, Current copies of the pesticide specimen labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) were on file for all pesticides listed as being applied at the facility. The following pesticides were used within the last year and verified during the audit without issue: Suspend SC (EPA Reg. # ), Weatherblok XT (EPA Reg. # ), Elector Fly Bait (EPA Reg. # ), Larva-Lur (EPA Reg. # ), Delta Dust (EPA Reg. # ), Maxforce Granular Insect Bait (EPA Reg. # ), Tempo SC Ultra (EPA Reg. # ), Termidor SC (EPA Reg. # ), Maxforce Flybait (EPA Reg. # ), and Demand CS (EPA Reg. # ). Documentation of all pesticides, including rodenticides, applied on the premises included materials applied, registration number, target pest, amount applied, specific area where pesticide was applied, method of application, rate of application or dosage, date and time treated, and applicator's signature. Documentation indicated that the applications were made according to label directions. The certification number for the PCO and lot numbers for all pesticides applied at the facility were provided on the service document. Pesticides and application equipment were not stored at the facility. The outside IPM service provider left a service report after each visit. These records provided documentation of the checks and findings for pest monitoring devices, descriptions of the current levels of pest activity and recommendations for actions needed to correct conditions allowing a potential for pest activity. A pest sighting log was in use at this facility, but no recent activity had been noted. A detailed facility survey was documented and used to determine placement of all pest monitoring devices. A site map that lists the locations of interior and exterior pest control devices was on file and current as of July 16, The schematic included the placement of the exterior bait stations, interior mousetraps, and insect light traps. #SYS-B-194-p.9

11 IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM AP AP AP Thirteen (13) bait stations were provided for exterior rodent control. They were installed around the exterior receiving corridor of the facility at appropriate intervals, tamper resistant, properly positioned, anchored in place, secured and properly labeled in compliance with regulatory requirements. Fresh bait had been supplied in the stations that were randomly examined. Pest monitoring devices were serviced monthly and this frequency appeared adequate for the facility. Thirty (30) mechanical traps were installed to monitor rodent activity inside the facility and were properly positioned. The randomly examined traps appeared to be properly maintained. The traps were inspected on a weekly frequency. Two (2) insect light traps (ILTs) were used in the facility to aid in monitoring insect activity. These traps were more than 10 feet (3 meters) from exposed products. The traps were scheduled for weekly cleaning in the summer and monthly cleaning in the winter, or as dictated by climate. A record of the service, cleaning and activity levels of each ILT was maintained. The light tubes were shatter resistant and replaced annually. The last replacement occurred on April 15, Pheromone monitoring devices were not used to monitor insect activity in this facility. Bird activity was not noted in or around the facility. Wildlife, including domestic animals, was not observed at the time of the survey. Pest habitats and pest activity were identified and eliminated. No evidence of rodent or insect activity was noted in or around the facility. The facility had a documented policy statement signed by the Vice President on March 15, 2010 outlining its commitment to store and distribute safe and legal products. The policy was communicated to all staff on a yearly basis. Training records were on file and current. A current organizational chart was maintained and current as of March 15, Responsibility and authority for ensuring food safety and defense and compliance with federal, state, local, and any other appropriate regulatory laws or guidelines were clearly assigned to the General Manager. This person remained current on regulatory issues, food safety issues, industry codes of practice and scientific or technical developments. The facility held a current license from Mecklenburg County through June 30, Based on a review of the facility and related documentation, an appropriate budget and adequate labor support appeared to be in place to maintain the timely acquisition of tools, equipment, monitoring devices, chemicals, and other required resources. #SYS-B-194-p.10

12 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP Written procedures were established to define step-by-step processes to ensure product safety. The programs defined job descriptions, and listed alternates for key job positions. Multiple job descriptions and alternates for key personnel were reviewed during the audit without issue. Documentation was reviewed annually to ensure effectiveness and suitability of the procedures. Specific written procedures were on file for providing food safety training to all personnel and contractors. Records of new employee training and annual refresher training were maintained for all personnel. Written and oral tests were used as training exit criteria to ensure understanding by all attendees. The last yearly refresher training occurred on January 26, A risk-based audit of procedures was documented by the Corporate Risk Manager on an annual basis. The most recent audit occurred on March 15, 2010 and included identified observations, specific assignments, Corrective Actions and actual accomplishments. Time lines for Corrective Actions were set and verified to ensure satisfactory completion. A written Program for evaluating Customer Complaints was established. This program included a plan for quick distribution of complaint information to all departments responsible for implementing Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs. Complaint information was used to avoid recurrence and implement ongoing improvements to product safety. Actions appropriate to the seriousness and frequency of the problems identified appeared to be carried out promptly and effectively using a Customer Complaint Log. It was understood there have been no recent food safety complaints received at this location. A documented Allergen Control Program was in place to address the allergens (eggs and dairy) handled and stored at this facility. Written procedures identified facility programs for identification and segregation of allergen containing materials, prevention of cross contamination, personnel awareness and training. The allergens were segregated into identified racks. Plastic partitions were in place on the side of the racks to protect other items from spillage. The program was updated when there were changes in food products and labeling to ensure compliance. The facility had a written policy stating that no glass, brittle plastics or ceramics were to be used in the facility, except where absolutely necessary. Included in the policy was a procedure to handle any breakage in the facility. A list of all essential glass, brittle plastics and ceramics was developed. The facility was inspected monthly to ensure that any accidental breakage was found and addressed. Documentation of the last inspection completed on September 28, 2010 was on file with no issues noted. It was understood all required maintenance was outsourced to licensed and company approved contractors. Powered equipment, refrigeration, electrical and mechanical work were all contracted out. Records reviewed indicated compliance. #SYS-B-194-p.11

13 AP AP AP AP AP AP Incoming transports received into the facility were inspected by trained personnel according to established written procedures. Documented procedures for the inspection of tractor trailers defined the receiving process and included steps for evaluation of product condition, presence of pest evidence, presence of other objectionable materials and the condition of the transport. Procedures were defined for handling less than load (LTL) deliveries. Results of the inspections were documented and current. A written Regulatory Affairs and Inspections Program was on file. The Program included a list of personnel delegated to accompany all inspectors along with the company policy regarding recording devices, cameras, records and sample taking. A recent North Carolina Department of Agriculture inspection was conducted at this facility on May 10, No objectionable conditions requiring Corrective Actions were observed at the time of this survey. Evidence of registration under the FDA Bioterrorism Act was on file at the facility. The facility had conducted a Vulnerability Assessment on June 1, 2010 to identify food defense risks using an internal assessment form. A documented Food Defense Program led by a trained Coordinator (Corporate Risk Manager) was in place and evaluated on an annual basis. A documented Traceability Program that addressed identification of lot numbers of products, and repack was developed and in place. All finished products were coded and recorded. A written Recall/Withdrawal Program was on file. Distribution records were maintained to identify the initial point of distribution to facilitate segregation and recall of specific lots. The Recall Program was tested twice annually with the last one being conducted on September 20, This trace recall exercise took 30 minutes to complete and recovered 100% of the products. The Recall Program defined responsibilities for the Recall/Crisis Management Team and included contact information, location of the Traceability Program, key regulatory and emergency contact information, supplier and customer contact information, and sample recall/withdrawal letters. A written Program was in place to control nonconforming products and returned goods. Corrective Actions equal to the seriousness of the risk appeared to have been taken. Records of Corrective Actions and disposition of the products were kept on file. The disposition records accounted for the total quantity of the nonconforming materials. #SYS-B-194-p.12

14 AP A Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) Program was developed and implemented for processes and products at this facility. The HACCP plan was signed and managed by a trained HACCP team leader with assistance of HACCP trained team members. Finished Product Profiles were provided for each product produced. A current Process Flow Diagram was in place. The seven principles of HACCP were followed in the development of the HACCP Program and included a risk assessment for the processes. Documented training was current for management and non-management personnel. The HACCP Program had been validated by an outside consultant from Food Safety and Security International. #SYS-B-194-p.13