Checking Information in Section

Checking information in Section 3 (Composition) with Section 16 (Other Information) of the SDS (Step 5)... 

If your answer to Question 4 is clearly YES, or if you are unsure of the answer to this question, then start at Section 3.3 of this chapter. (The answer to Question 4 will be YES for most manufacturing facilities and many industrial storage and warehousing facilities.) If your answer is a definite NO, then you are not likely to have any chemical reactivity hazards at your facility, and a system to manage chemical reactivity hazards is not warranted. The information in Section 3.3 can be reviewed as a further check to verify this conclusion. 

Check guide value violations immediately by means of re-measurements under utilization conditions and take into consideration the information in Section 9.4. 

The reservoir model will usually be a computer based simulation model, such as the 3D model described in Section 8. As production continues, the monitoring programme generates a data base containing information on the performance of the field. The reservoir model is used to check whether the initial assumptions and description of the reservoir were correct. Where inconsistencies between the predicted and observed behaviour occur, the model is reviewed and adjusted until a new match (a so-called history match ) is achieved. The updated model is then used to predict future performance of the field, and as such is a very useful tool for generating production forecasts. In addition, the model is used to predict the outcome of alternative future development plans. The criterion used for selection is typically profitability (or any other stated objective of the operating company). 

A covered facility must report all releases of a listed chemical if it meets a reporting threshold for that chemical. However, if the facility is composed of several distinct establishments, EPA allows these establishments to submit separate reports for the chemical as long as all releases of the chemical from the entire facility are accounted for. Indicate in Section 3.2 whether your report is for the entire covered facility as a whole or for part of a covered facility. Check box a. if the chemical information applies to the entire covered facility. Check box b. if the chemical information applies only to part of a covered facility. 

In Section 5, you must account forthe total aggregate releases of the toxic chemical to the environment from your facility for the calendar year. Releases to the environment include emissions to the air, discharges to surface waters, and on-site releases to land and underground injection wells. If you have no releases to a particular media (e.g., stack air), enter not applicable, NA do not leave any part of Section 5 blank. Check the box on the last line of this section if you use Part IV, the supplemental information sheet. 

Data have been analyzed from a multivariate point of view. In this way the cooperative effects of the different materials is studied and the characteristics of each sensor are easily compared with those of the other sensors. PLS was used as a regression method for calculating the capability of the set of sensors to discriminate between the volatile compounds. Volatile compounds were checked at different concentrations in order to evaluate the response of sensors in a wide concentration range. Nevertheless, the concentration variation tends to shadow the reaction of sensors with analytes, since the sensor response contains both qualitative (sensor analyte interaction) and quantitative (analyte concentration) information. In order to remove the quantitative information, data have been normalized using the linear normalization discussed in section 3. 

After a cursory review, the NDA/ANDA submission should be fully received, checking for contradicting information in the various sections of the submission. The FDA correspondence file should be reviewed and assessed as to whether all FDA questions have been adequately addressed. The summary section should be examined for inclusion of all batches used in developmental scale-up and stability studies. 

The progress monitoring system, outlined in Section 15.9, is an excellent basis for schedule forecasting. It provides information that, when used in conjunction with daily field force reports and spot activity checks, will allow the Project Manager to make accurate schedule forecasts. The procedure for forecasting final subcontract costs in Appendix I is also a good tool for predicting the final projects cost. 

For the quantitative determination, the results of the metoclopramide determination should be checked before dipping the plate, and the measurement repeated if necessary. The plate is then dipped for 3 s also and dried for 15 min in a cold current of air. It is then covered with a clean glass plate and kept in a desiccator overnight. Further information on the measurement of this plate can be found in Section 7.2 Evaluation using a TLC Scanner . 

The quality control (QC) tests discussed in Sections 10.5 and 11.2.9 are integral parts of QA designed to check results. Some QC measures are prompt indicators that warn of problem occurrence at the time of analysis others are delayed indicators that require backtracking to And when a problem first arose. Control charts for radiation detector operation are an example of a prompt indicator of reliability. Records of deviations from the norm in an analysis or a measurement may also be prompt indicators if immediately considered. Periodic blank, blind, and replicate analyses, especially interlaboratory comparisons, are delayed indicators for which results may not be available for days or weeks after a problem has arisen. Review and assessment of compiled data are delayed indicators of information quality. 

In our experience, suppliers provide suitable instructions for utilization and checking of the counting facility as a whole. It is therefore urgently recommended that attention be paid to these suppliers instructions for the measuring instruments, if tests are to be performed by an inexperienced water analyst. Reference is also to be made to the information on low-level measurements in Section 3.7.5 (Maushart). 

---