Assessment Methodology. This compliance assessment involved activities before, during, and following the onsite visit by the monitoring team and the Parties. The team consists of Xx. Xxxxxxx X. Ray, X.Xx., Monitor; Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, MD, Psychiatrist; and, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, MD, Correctional Medicine. Pre-visit activities ensured involvement and input from officials and legal counsel representing the Territory (defendant) and the United States (plaintiff) in the planning of the site visit. Pre- visit activities included conference calls and exchange of relevant documents intended to maximize clarity and mutual understanding for baseline assessment visit purposes and scheduling, and monitoring expectations in general. Pursuant to Section X.D.1 of the 2013 Settlement Agreement, the Monitor provided the following information to the Territory and Department of Justice officials for review and comment. This information intended to provide to the Parties: 1) the description of how compliance with the Agreement will be assessed; 2) how information necessary for on and off site assessment work will be gathered; and, 3) what information the Monitor will require the defendants to routinely report and with what frequency.
Assessment Methodology. Prior to undertaking the initial inspection you are required to complete the Manufacturer’s section of the Check list for the initial inspection or monitoring of the factory production control according to the applicable standard and submit supporting evidence. TÜV UK will undertake an Initial Inspection of the Factory and Factory Production Control System and undertake Continuous surveillance of the FPC system in accordance with the requirements of the applicable standard.
Assessment Methodology. 12.2.1 This heritage impact assessment follows the criteria and guidelines stipulated in Annexes 10 and 19 of the TM on EIA Process together with the other guidelines and requirements discussed above. This assessment focuses on the potential impact on the cultural and historical heritage of proposed development in the vicinity of SEKD.
Assessment Methodology. The SPA methodology herein is based on the standard CMS methodology and is described in the Framework for Independent Assessment of Security and Privacy Controls. The Auditor must prepare and Web-broker must submit a Security Privacy Controls Assessment Test Plan (SAP) that describes the Auditor’s scope and methodology of the assessment. Web-broker must submit the Auditor-prepared SAP at least thirty (30) Days prior to commencing the assessment. The assessment methods may include examination of documentation, logs, and configurations; interviews of personnel; and/or testing of technical controls. The SPA must provide an accurate depiction of the security and privacy controls in place, as well as potential security and privacy risks, by identifying the following:
Assessment Methodology. 5.1 – Global Performance - Objective: Eligible (Green) Indicator – Demonstrates in Eligible (Green), With Restrictions (Yellow) and Ineligible (Red) the results of the analysis of the topics listed in the table. As of August 14, each one of Xxxx’x Production Buildings will assess the Supplier, and therefore, if the Supplier supplies to more than one Building, the Supplier will receive information on the global performance of each one of Xxxx’x Production Buildings. The Production Buildings are divided into the following Purchase Organizations registered in our ERP: • 1001 AM - kits /third parties • 1002 CPM • 1005 MOGI-MIRIM Global Performance is calculated based on the following detailed criteria:
Assessment Methodology. 7.5.1 The Project is tentatively scheduled to be commenced in early 2008 and to be completed in late 2009. The Project area is indicated in Drawing 7.1. The construction activities of the Project include: Decommissioning Works • demolition of an existing fuel hydrant system buried in south apron area; • demolition of underground fuel tanks near the ex-GFS building and fuel supply system (including refuelling pits and underground fuel pipelines) in the ex-GFS apron area; and • demolition of the fuel dolphin structure down to 1m below the existing seabed level. The abandoned fuel pipelines will be left in place and, if necessary, grouting it with concrete. Decontamination Works • decontamination works, including excavation, biopiling and solidification/stabilization for the contaminated soil identified in the south apron, the narrow strip of the north apron near the Kai Tak Tunnel and the ex-GFS apron area.
Assessment Methodology. 13.3.1.1 The contaminated land assessment methodology comprised the following key survey tasks in order to identify and evaluate the potential of land contamination within the study area:
Assessment Methodology. 3.3.1 As shown in Drawing 3.1, the Project area for land contamination impact assessment has been divided into sub-areas for assessment and covered by the following studies: • South Apron Area – Agreement No. KDO 02/2005 Assessment of Possible Land Contamination Associated with Decommissioned Fuel Pipeline and Hydrant System at South Apron of Former Kai Tak Airport conducted by Maunsell Environmental Management Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter called Agreement No. KDO 02/2005). As shown in Drawing 3.1, the assessment area of this study included a narrow strip of area on the southern side which is beyond the Project area of this EIA. • Runway Area and Narrow Strip of North Apron – Agreement No. KDO 01/2006 Site Investigation and Contamination Assessment at Remaining Area of Former Kai Tak Airport and Proposed Cruise Terminal conducted by Meinhardt Infrastructure and Environmental Ltd. (hereinafter called Agreement No. KDO 01/2006). • Ex-Government Flying Service (ex-GFS) Apron Area – Supplementary investigation was carried out in accordance with the ProPECC PN3/94 and the Guidance Notes issued by EPD. Site Appraisal was carried out by reviewing the historical aerial photographs, site inspection, consultation with relevant Government departments and interview with the existing land users. All collected information and inspection findings were analysed thoroughly to evaluate the potential impact of land contamination within the ex-GFS apron area.
Assessment Methodology. 4.6.2.1 The likely types and sequences of construction activities that may give rise to potential dust impacts are identified based on the construction programmes and the work area locations. The Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) is used to predict the likely impacts from the dust generating activities upon the identified ASRs.
Assessment Methodology. 5.4.2.1 The computer model “siteNoise”, which is based on the calculation method for equivalent continuous sound level in British Standard 5228, “Noise Control on Construction and Open Site”, is used in this Study. The sound power levels of the PMEs have been adopted from Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Works other than Percussive Piling (XX-XX). The location of PMEs have been assumed to be at the positions where they are most likely to be during the construction periods.
