Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) - Laschools.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SECTION 8 LABORATORY DATA REVIEW, REDUCTION, AND REPORTING The following sections describe the project minimum requirements for laboratory data review, reduction, and reporting. The laboratory through its QAP and SOPs shall specify the personnel performing each function. Level IV documentation is to be provided for all data (see Section 14). If multiple dilutions are performed, the results of each dilution are to be reported. 8.1 REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR DEFINITIVE DATA The laboratory review of definitive data shall be a four-step process involving an evaluation by the analyst, a peer review, an administrative review, and a QA review. A checklist to document each of the review processes will be required and must be included as part of the final data deliverable. All steps are described below. The analyst shall review 100 percent of all definitive data prior to reporting. The establishment of method detection and control limits shall be verified. Any control limit outside the acceptable ranges specified in the analytical methods shall be identified. Any trends or problems with the data shall be evaluated. The absence of records supporting the establishment of control criteria or detection limits shall be noted and explained. Analytical batch QC, calibration check samples, initial and continuing calibrations, corrective action reports, the results of reanalysis, sample holding times, and sample preservations shall be evaluated. Samples associated with out-of-control QC data shall be identified in the data package case narrative, and an assessment of the utility of such analytical results shall be made. The check of laboratory data completeness must be documented and will ensure that: • All samples and analyses specified in the chain-of-custody have been processed; • Complete records exist for each analysis and the associated QC samples; and • Procedures specified in this QAPP have been implemented. An analyst other than the original data processor shall be responsible for performing a peer review of all steps of the data processing. One hundred percent of all data shall be reviewed. All input parameters, calibrations, and transcriptions will be checked. All manually input, computer-processed data will be checked. Each page of checked data shall be signed and dated by the verifier. 8-1 K:\Depts\Dept48\LAUSD\MSA WORK\QAPP\Draft Final QAPP to DTSC\QAPP for OU 1 RAP.DOC 317
Continuing calibrations shall be compared to the initial calibration curve to determine that the analytical system is performing within acceptable range. QC sample results (LCSs , laboratory duplicates, and MS/MSD) shall be compared against stated acceptance criteria for accuracy and precision. QC data must meet acceptance levels prior to processing the analytical data. If QC standards are not met, the cause shall be determined. If the cause can be corrected without affecting the integrity of the analytical data, processing of the data shall proceed. If the resolution jeopardizes the integrity of the data, reanalysis shall be performed, if still within holding time. If the holding time will be exceeded, the decision regarding reanalysis will be made upon conferring with the Parsons PM or his designee. An administrative review will be performed by the laboratory project manager on each data deliverable package. The review will ensure that all requirements of the laboratory and the data deliverables have been met and are complete. A review of at least 10 percent of all data deliverable packages by a laboratory QA officer must take place prior to the administrative review and final release of the data deliverable. The data packages will be randomly selected for review. 8.2 LABORATORY DATA REPORTING FLAGS The following qualifiers must be used by the laboratory when reporting sample results. Qualifier Description J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation, and/or the analyte was positively identified but the associated numerical value is greater than the SQL but less than the PQL. U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the MDL. B The analyte was found in an associated blank, as well as in the sample. 8.3 ASSESSMENT OF DATA USABILITY The Project Chemist will assess data usability and apply data qualifiers to the analytical results based on adherence to method protocols and laboratory-specific QA/QC limits. 8.3.1 Data Usability Assessment The laboratory deliverable will include the following information: • Case narratives; • Chain-of-custody forms; • Summary of results by sample; • Holding times; • Sample temperatures during shipping and storage; • Summary of QC results (method blanks, equipment blanks, laboratory duplicates, LCS, MS/MSD, etc.); 8-2 K:\Depts\Dept48\LAUSD\MSA WORK\QAPP\Draft Final QAPP to DTSC\QAPP for OU 1 RAP.DOC 318
Page 1 and 2:
126
Page 3 and 4:
128
Page 5 and 6:
130
Page 7 and 8:
132
Page 9 and 10:
134
Page 11 and 12:
136
Page 13 and 14:
138
Page 15 and 16:
140
Page 17 and 18:
142
Page 19 and 20:
144
Page 21 and 22:
146
Page 23 and 24:
148
Page 25 and 26:
150
Page 27 and 28:
152
Page 29 and 30:
154
Page 31 and 32:
APPENDIX G Health and Safety Plan (
Page 33 and 34:
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved
Page 35 and 36:
LAUSD Proposed South Region High Sc
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
• Fall Protection • Electrical
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
4.11.2 Substance Abuse and Alcohol
Page 55 and 56:
Hospital Name St. Francis Medical C
Page 57 and 58:
Personal Injury LAUSD Proposed Sout
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Date: Project or Location: Risk/Haz
Page 67 and 68:
6.1 SITE RISK ANALYSIS LAUSD Propos
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Project Name & Number: Location: Ex
Page 85 and 86:
6.4 SAFETY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS LAUSD P
Page 87 and 88:
6.7 SAFETY AND HEALTH ENFORCEMENT L
Page 89 and 90:
Contractor Name: Address: Attention
Page 91 and 92:
TABLE 6-1: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES OF
Page 93 and 94:
TABLE 6-1: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES OF
Page 95 and 96:
Name of Trainer: Training Subject:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
10.1.3 Level C Protection LAUSD Pro
Page 107 and 108:
Action levels for potential benzene
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
N Exhibit 12-1 SITE CONTROL ZONES P
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
14.3 SPILL REPORTING PROCEDURES LAU
Page 121 and 122:
EMERGENCY CONTACTS In the event of
Page 123 and 124:
PARSONS - LAUSD Procedures followin
Page 125 and 126:
Site-Specific Health and Safety Pla
Page 127 and 128:
ATTACHMENT 3 ACTIVITY HAZARD ANALYS
Page 129 and 130:
Parsons Activity Hazards Analysis O
Page 131 and 132:
Parsons Activity Hazards Analysis F
Page 133 and 134:
Project Name & Number: LAUSD South
Page 135 and 136:
Parsons Activity Hazards Analysis G
Page 137 and 138:
Parsons Activity Hazards Analysis G
Page 139 and 140:
Parsons Activity Hazards Analysis D
Page 141 and 142: Parsons Activity Hazards Analysis D
Page 143 and 144: Parsons Activity Hazards Analysis H
Page 155 and 156: APPENDIX H Quality Assurance Projec
Page 157 and 158: new wells and from about 70 previou
Page 159 and 160: • Los Angeles Unified School Dist
Page 161 and 162: SECTION 2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES T
Page 163 and 164: precision range from zero to the hi
Page 165 and 166: • Use of appropriate sampling pro
Page 167 and 168: Table 2-1 Requirements for Containe
Page 169 and 170: SECTION 3 FIELD DATA REDUCTION, VAL
Page 171 and 172: 3.4 FIELD DATA VALIDATION The Proje
Page 173 and 174: SECTION 5 SAMPLING PROTOCOLS Detail
Page 175 and 176: FM before sending any samples origi
Page 177 and 178: SECTION 6 FIXED-BASE LABORATORY ANA
Page 179 and 180: the reported SQLs take into account
Page 181 and 182: Table 6-2 Practical Quantitation Li
Page 189 and 190: Table 6-3 Comparison of Field and F
Page 191: SECTION 7 LABORATORY QC SAMPLES AND
Page 195 and 196: project-specific DQOs. A DQA will b
Page 197 and 198: Table 8-1 Flagging Conventions for
Page 203 and 204: SECTION 9 QA REPORTS At monthly int
Page 205 and 206: Laboratory project management and s
Page 207 and 208: SECTION 12 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE A
Page 209 and 210: SECTION 14 DATA DELIVERABLES The de
Page 211 and 212: Table 14-1 Required Laboratory Deli
Page 213 and 214: SECTION 16 SUBCONTRACT LABORATORY S
Page 215 and 216: APPENDIX A COLUMN TEST FOR DETERMIN
Page 217 and 218: specific gravity of 1 for water, th
Page 219 and 220: APPENDIX I Transportation Managemen
Page 221 and 222: Prepared by PARSONS 100 WEST WALNUT
Page 223 and 224: emoval of impacted soils. Waste tra
Page 225 and 226: Trucks entering the receiving facil
Page 227 and 228: Communication Truck drivers will ha
Page 234 and 235: Table J-1 South Region High School
Page 240 and 241: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DTSC DAT
Page 242 and 243:
(9/3/08) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM
Page 244 and 245:
(9/3/08) between 033-PC-064 and -06
Page 246 and 247:
(9/3/08) 5 Page 7-13, Section 7.5.2
Page 248 and 249:
Internal Review Draft (9/8/08) exce
Page 250 and 251:
Internal Review Draft (9/8/08) 7 A
Page 252 and 253:
OPERABLE UNIT (OU) 1 HAZARDOUS WAST
Page 254 and 255:
Sample Location Sample Date Sample
Page 257 and 258:
APPENDIX M List of Potentially Resp
show all

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) - Laschools.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?