1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this guide is to describe a scientific methodology for conducting environmental health site assessments (EHSAs) for military deployments. EHSAs are prepared to evaluate potential environmental exposures that may impact the health of deployed personnel as directed by Presidential Review Directive 5; Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum MCM-0006-02; and Department of Defense Instruction 6490.3. This guide is intended to assist the user in developing conceptual site models (CSMs) for deployment sites. CSMs are used to define the exposure pathways. The exposure pathways assist in the evaluation of potential health impacts. The goal of this guide is to identify complete and potentially complete exposure pathways that may affect the health of deployed personnel.1.2 This guide provides a series of steps designed to obtain sufficient information to evaluate potential environmental exposures that may affect the health of deployed personnel. It is most applicable when only a limited amount of information about the deployment area is available. If it becomes apparent to the environmental health professional in predeployment planning activities that sufficient information exists to evaluate the health significance of potential environmental exposures, it will not be necessary to complete the data collection activities described in this process. In this event, the environmental health professional will document their justification for not completing the data collection activities. An obvious example would be deployment to a major city in a developed county.1.3 Information generated by this process will be used for environmental health risk assessments. Environmental health risk assessments are beyond the scope of this guide.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

1.1 This guide covers a laboratory method for evaluating the wear properties of materials or devices, or both, that are being considered for use as the bearing surfaces of human knee joint replacement prostheses. The knee prostheses are evaluated in a device intended to simulate the tribological conditions encountered in the human knee joint.1.2 The methods described in this guide are intended to apply to a number of fundamentally different types of knee wear simulators. These include apparatuses which are designed to apply some combination of axial load, flexion/extension angular motion, AP displacement or shear force, and tibial rotational displacement or torque to femoral and tibial wear test specimens.1.3 Since the knee simulator method permits the use of actual implant designs, materials, and physiological load/motion combinations, it can represent a more physiological simulation than basic wear-screening tests, such as "pin-on-disc" (Test Method F732) or "ring-on-disc" (ISO-6474).1.4 It is the intent of this guide to rank the combination of implant designs and materials with regard to material wear-rates, under simulated physiological conditions. It must be recognized, however, since there are many possible variations in the in vivo conditions, a single laboratory simulation with a fixed set of parameters may not be universally representative (1,2)1.5 The reference materials for the comparative evaluation of candidate materials, designs, and processes shall be the wear rate of extruded or compression-molded ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene (Specification F648) bearing against standard counter faces [cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy (Specification F75); thermomechanically processed cobalt chrome (Specification F799 or F1537)], having typical prosthetic-quality surface finish and geometry similar to those with established clinical history. These reference materials will have been tested under the same wear conditions as the candidate materials.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 General—Conventional ultrasonics should be considered first for the detection of overt flaws such as delaminations in composites. Thereafter, AU should be considered for composites that are proved to be free of major flaws or discontinuities. The AU method is intended almost exclusively for assessing the collective effects of dispersed defects and subcritical flaw populations. These are material aberrations that influence AU measurements and also underlie mechanical property variations, dynamic load response, and impact and fracture resistance.5.2 Specific Advantages—The AU method can be used to evaluate composite laminate and bond quality using access to only one surface as, for example, the exterior surface of pressure vessels. It is unnecessary to utilize angle beam fixtures because the method can always be applied with probes at normal incidence. The method can be applied using dry coupling with elastomer pads attached to the probes, and there is no need to immerse the examination object in water.5.3 General Applications—The AU method was devised to assess diffuse discontinuity populations and any associated changes of the mechanical properties of composites and composite-like materials. The AU method has been used to evaluate fiber-reinforced composites (6), composite laminates (7), filament-wound pressure vessels (8), adhesive bonds (9), paper and wood products (10), and cable and rope (11). The method has been shown to be particularly practical for assessing the strength of adhesively bonded joints. It has also been shown to be useful for assessing microporosity (12), micro-cracking (13), hydrothermal aging (14), and damage produced by impacts (15) and fatigue (16).1.1 This guide explains the rationale and basic technology for the acousto-ultrasonic (AU) method. Guidelines are given for nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of flaws and physical characteristics that influence the mechanical properties and relative strength of composite structures (for example, filament-wound pressure vessels), adhesive bonds (for example, joints between metal plates), and interlaminar and fiber/matrix bonds in man-made composites and natural composites (for example, wood products).1.2 This guide covers technical details and rules that must be observed to ensure reliable and reproducible quantitative AU assessments of laminates, composites, and bonded structures. The underlying principles, prototype apparatus, instrumentation, standardization, examination methods, and data analysis for such assessments are covered. Limitations of the AU method and guidelines for taking advantage of its capabilities are cited.1.3 The objective of AU is to assess subtle flaws and associated strength variations in composite structures and bonded joints. Discontinuities such as large voids, disbonds, or extended lack of contact at interfaces can be assessed by other NDE methods such as conventional ultrasonics.1.4 Additional information may be found in the publications cited in the list of references at the end of this guide. The referenced works provide background on research, applications, and various aspects of signal acquisition, processing, and interpretation.1.5 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standards.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 This test method is for the rapid assessment of the static segregation resistance of self-consolidating concrete.5.2 The method is useful for rapid assessment of the static segregation resistance of self-consolidating concrete during mixture development in the laboratory as well as prior to placement of the mixture in the field. Test Method C1610/C1610M for static segregation of SCC is not sufficiently rapid, and the non-mandatory Visual Stability Index as determined through the procedure described in Appendix X1 of Test Method C1611/C1611M is highly subjective and qualitative.5.3 Appendix X1 provides non-mandatory criteria that may be used to indicate the degree of static segregation resistance of self-consolidating concrete mixtures.1.1 This test method covers the rapid assessment of static segregation resistance of normal-weight self-consolidating concrete (SCC). The test does not measure static segregation resistance directly, but provides an assessment of whether static segregation is likely to occur.1.2 The test apparatus and protocol were developed based on tests with SCC mixtures containing saturated surface dry (SSD) coarse aggregates ranging in relative density from 2.67 to 2.79 and in nominal maximum size from 9.5 mm to 25 mm. For SCC mixtures outside these ranges, testing is recommended to establish a correlation between penetration depth and static segregation measured in accordance with Test Method C1610/C1610M. This test method shall not be used to assess the static segregation resistance of self-consolidating concrete containing lightweight aggregates or heavyweight aggregates without prior testing to establish a correlation.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 The text of this standard references notes and footnotes that provide explanatory material. These notes and footnotes shall not be considered as requirements of the standard.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. (Warning—Fresh hydraulic cementitious mixtures are caustic and may cause chemical burns to skin and tissue upon prolonged exposure.2)1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 LCAs can help to identify some of the potential environmental impacts of products or services throughout the entire life cycle. In a life cycle inventory analysis, emissions into the air; discharges into the water and soil; and product, material, and energy flows at all stages of a product’s life cycle are compiled and quantified. The resulting life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) converts the quantified parameters into environmental impact categories.4.2 Options for managing products at their end of life (EOL) can include, but are not limited to, re-using, recycling, recovering, remanufacturing, converting to energy, incinerating, composting, combustion, digestion/respiration, or discarding as waste. Materials enter subsequent life cycle(s), either in the same or in other applications, reducing the input of primary raw material and impacting the amount of waste. LCA will be required to determine if environmental impact reductions are expected to be realized and to what extent for each specific application. The end-of-life management can impact the overall life cycle assessment.4.3 The application of an allocation method for recycling in life cycle assessments is useful in assessing potential environmental impacts, which may be either beneficial or adverse.4.4 As part of good LCA practice, practitioners should consider recycling in the sensitivity analysis.4.5 LCA practitioners are expected to ensure consistency and conformance with the relevant provisions of ISO standards.4.6 Allocation for recycling can split the flows and impacts between two different product systems.1.1 This guide illustrates alternative allocation approaches that provide options for modeling secondary material flows and related recycling scenarios within a life cycle assessment (LCA) study. It helps practitioners characterize and understand materials recycling across industries; provides the available methodologies for consideration of the environmental impacts that are attributed to material and product flows in LCA; aids in assessment of the overall life cycle of systems and understanding of materials; and supports life cycle management.1.2 The guide is not intended to contradict or circumvent the LCA provisions of ISO 14025, ISO 14040, ISO 14044, ISO 14067, ISO/TR 14049, or ISO 21930. When conflicts arise related to LCA, the guidance of those ISO standards takes precedence.1.3 The following seven material-specific appendixes are included:Title AppendixRecycling of Copper Appendix X1Recycling of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum Appendix X2Recycling of Glass Appendix X3Recycling of Plastics Appendix X4Recycling of Post-consumer (PC) Gypsum Appendix X5Recycling of Stainless Steel Appendix X6Recycling of Supplementary Cementitious Materials Appendix X71.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 This test method is designed to quantify the static and dynamic characteristics of different designs of single level spinal constructs. Wear may also be assessed for implants that allow motion using testing medium (see 6.1) for simulating the physiologic environment at 37 °C. Wear is assessed using a weight loss method in addition to dimensional analyses. Weight loss is determined after subjecting the implants to dynamic profiles specified in this test method. This information will allow the manufacturer or end user of the product to understand how the specific device in question performs under the test conditions prescribed in this test method.4.2 This test method is intended to be applicable for single level extra-discal spinal constructs. Three different types of fixtures are specified for testing single level extra-discal spinal constructs See Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5. See also Table 1.4.3 Implants may be designed using a variety of materials (for example, ceramics, metals, polymers, or combinations thereof), and it is the goal of this test method to enable a comparison of the static, dynamic, and wear properties generated by these devices, regardless of material and type of device.AbstractThis test method deals with static, dynamic, and wear testing of extra-discal motion preserving implants. These implants are intended to augment spinal stability without significant tissue removal while allowing motion of the functional spinal unit(s). Wear is assessed using a weight loss method and a dimensional analysis for determining wear of components used in extra-discal spinal motion preserving procedures, using testing medium as defined in this test method. This test method is not intended to address facet arthroplasty devices and any potential failure mode as it relates to the fixation of the device to its bony interfaces; and does not prescribe methods for assessing the mechanical characteristics of the device in translation. The static test includes the static flexion test, static extension test, static torsion test, static lateral bending test, and fatigue tests. Wear test includes flexion/extension wear assessment, rotational wear assessment, and bending wear assessment. The apparatus which shall be used includes implant components and spinal testing apparatus. The calculation and interpretation of wear results are also elaborated.1.1 This test method describes methods to assess the static and dynamic properties of single level spinal constructs.1.2 An option for assessing wear using a weight loss method and a dimensional analysis is given. This method, described herein, is used for the analysis of devices intended for motion preservation, using testing medium as defined in this standard (6.1).1.3 This test method is not intended to address any potential failure mode as it relates to the fixation of the device to its bony interfaces.1.4 It is the intent of this test method to enable single level extra-discal spinal constructs with regard to kinematic, functional, and wear characteristics when tested under the specified conditions.1.5 This test method is not intended to address facet arthroplasty devices.1.6 In order that the data be reproducible and comparable within and between laboratories, it is essential that uniform procedures be established. This test method is intended to facilitate uniform testing methods and data reporting.1.7 The motion profiles specified by this test method do not necessarily accurately reproduce those occurring in vivo. Rather this method provides useful boundary/endpoint conditions for evaluating implant designs in a functional manner.1.8 This test method is not intended to be a performance standard. It is the responsibility of the user of this test method to characterize the safety and effectiveness of the device under evaluation.1.9 Multiple test methods are included in this standard. However, it must be noted that the user is not obligated to test using all of the described methods. Instead, the user should only select test methods that are appropriate for a particular device design. In most instances, only a subset of the herein described test methods will be required.1.10 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard with the exception of angular measurements, which may be reported in either degrees or radians. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.11 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.12 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

3.1 This practice uses a weight-loss method of wear determination for the polymeric components or materials used in human joint prostheses, using serum or demonstrated equivalent fluid for lubrication, and running under a load profile representative of the appropriate human joint application (1,2) .4 The basis for this weight-loss method for wear measurement was originally developed (3) for pin-on-disk wear studies (Practice F732) and has been extended to total hip replacements (4, 5, ISO 14242–2, and Guide F1714), and to femoro-tibial knee prostheses (6 and ISO 14243–2), and to femoro-patellar knee prostheses (6,7).3.2 While wear results in a change in the physical dimensions of the specimen, it is distinct from dimensional changes due to creep or plastic deformation, in that wear results in the removal of material in the form of polymeric debris particles, causing a loss in weight of the specimen.3.3 This practice for measuring wear of the polymeric component is suitable for various simulator devices. These techniques can be used with metal, ceramic, carbon, polymeric, and composite counter faces bearing against a polymeric material (for example, polyethylene, polyacetal, and so forth). Thus, this weight-loss method has universal application for wear studies of human joint replacements which feature polymeric bearings. This weight-loss method has not been validated for non-polymeric material bearing systems, such as metal-metal, carbon-carbon, or ceramic-ceramic. Progressive wear of such rigid bearing combinations has generally been monitored using linear, variable-displacement transducers, or by other profilometric techniques.1.1 This practice describes a laboratory method using a weight-loss (that is, mass-loss; see X1.4) technique for evaluating the wear properties of polymeric materials or devices which are being considered for use as bearing surfaces of human joint replacement prostheses. The test specimens are evaluated in a device intended to simulate the tribological conditions encountered in the human joint; for example, use of a fluid such as bovine serum, or equivalent pseudosynovial fluid shown to simulate similar wear mechanisms and debris generation found in vivo.1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Traditional methods for expressing geological uncertainty consist of preparing reliability categories based simply on the distance between drill hole data points, such as the one described by Wood et al. (5) that uses only the drill holes within the coal bed. A major drawback of distance methods is their weak to null association with estimation errors. This practice provides a methodology for effectively assessing the uncertainty in coal resource estimates utilizing stochastic simulation. In determining uncertainty for any coal assessment, stochastic simulation enables consideration of other important factors and information beyond the geometry of drill hole locations, both in and out of the coal bed, including: non-depositional channels, depth of weathering, complexity of seam boundaries, coal seam subcrop projections, and varying coal bed geology for different seams due to fluctuating peat depositional environments. Olea et al. (6) explains in detail the methodology behind this practice and illustrates it with an example.5.2 For multi-seam deposits, uncertainty can be expressed on an individual seam basis as well as an aggregated uncertainty for an entire coal deposit.5.3 The uncertainty is expressed directly in tons of coal. Additionally, this practice allows the statistical analysis to be presented according to widely-accepted conventions, such as percentiles and confidence intervals. For example, there is a 90 % probability that the actual tonnage in place is 314 million metric tons ± 28.8 million metric tons (346 million tons ± 31.7 million tons) of coal.5.4 The results of an uncertainty determination can provide important input into an overall risk analysis assessing the commercial feasibility of a coal deposit.5.5 A company may rank coal resources per block (cell) based on the degree of uncertainty.1.1 This practice covers a procedure for quantitatively determining in-place tonnage uncertainty in a coal resource assessment. The practice uses a database on coal occurrence and applies geostatistical methods to model the uncertainty associated with a tonnage estimated for one or more coal seams. The practice includes instruction for the preparation of results in graphical form.1.2 This document does not include a detailed presentation of the basic theory behind the formulation of the standard, which can be found in numerous publications, with a selection being given in the references (1-3).21.3 This practice should be used in conjunction with professional judgment of the many unique aspects of a coal deposit.1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.NOTE 1: All values given in parentheses after SI units are stated in inch-pound units.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 The intent of this guide is to provide a foundation for the minimum effective internal assessment of a contractor’s government asset management system. A contractor may incorporate all or part of this guide in accordance with its established procedures and operating environment. Self-assessment should be used to identify deficiencies, related increases to risk, and to serve as a method for obtaining correction to those deficiencies, independent of, and often in advance of, a government audit, review or assessment. It should also be used to assist in determining the effective assignment of asset management resources; and to serve as a method for promoting continuous improvement in asset management practices. Self-assessments, in and of themselves may not be sufficiently independent to address external or government review, assessment, or audit requirements.4.2 To the extent possible, a Contractor Self-Assessment (CSA) program should provide a level of objectivity like that of an asset management system analysis performed by a government or other external auditor. Individuals who perform assessments should not be the same individuals who perform the functions being tested when enough resources are available. The contractor’s official written procedures should identify functional positions responsible for performing the self-assessment and address management controls used to maintain independence and prevent conflicts of interest whenever individuals who perform property functions also participate in CSA activities.4.3 The results of the CSA alone do not determine adequacy or inadequacy of the contractor’s government asset management system but should identify the level of risk presented by the contractor’s business practices. The results of the CSA should be made available to external auditors or reviewers for potential inclusion in their audits or reports in accordance with contractual requirements and the contractor’s procedures.1.1 This guide is intended to be used by entities engaged in contracts with the Government of the United States of America.1.2 This guide applies to the current version of the FAR Government Property clause 52.245-1 dated January 2017. Entities with earlier or subsequently dated requirements/contracts should address any contractual difference when applying this guide.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Injuries to the knee meniscus are one of the most common orthopaedic problems. Meniscus injures include acute tears (such as occur in sports injuries), chronic degenerative tears, extrusion/subluxation, and/or degenerative dysfunction that occurs as part of the knee aging process or as a result of multiple meniscus surgeries. Knee arthroscopy for partial excision of the knee meniscus (partial meniscectomy) is the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedure.5.2 Complete or near complete excision of the meniscus in a young individual is associated with an early increased risk of knee osteoarthritis due to the loss of the meniscus chondroprotective effects. Lateral meniscal injuries tend to be more severe than medial injuries. Meniscus repair, augmentation, transplantation, and/or reconstruction is recommended in individuals to restore the chondroprotective effect of the meniscus, relieve pain, and prevent degenerative knee osteoarthritis. The potential of TEMPs to enhance the outcome of the surgical meniscus repair and/or reconstruction has been recognized.5.3 The knee joint and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) are examples of joints with meniscal structures.5.4 TEMPS may be used with the intent of enhancing the surgical outcome by improving the biological repair at the site of implantation, by providing mechanical function at a defect site, or by a combination of these mechanisms.5.5 Improving surgical outcome may include improving function relative to the pre-operative condition, shortening the recovery time after surgery, relieving pain, enabling return to normal daily activities, encouraging tissue growth into the defect site, restoring the mechanical function of the meniscus, delaying the progression of osteoarthritis, or any combination thereof.1.1 This guide is intended as a resource for individuals and organizations involved in the production, delivery, and regulation of tissue engineered medical products (TEMPs) and other tissues intended for use in the surgical repair, replacement, and/or reconstruction of the knee meniscus.1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Uses—This guide is intended for use on a voluntary basis by parties who wish to conduct a BEPIE. The process defined in this guide involves: (1) the collection of building and equipment information, including whole building energy consumption, much of which is typically collected as part of an E2018 PCA; (2) weather-normalizing the whole building energy consumption to obtain an EUI; (3) benchmarking the EUI to compare against the EUI of peer buildings; and (4) determining if the building’s EUI is under-performing compared to the EUI of peer buildings. If the building’s EUI is under-performing, the guide (1) evaluates the extent to which the building is under-performing; (2) provides guidance on what energy efficiency improvements might be made to bring the building to the performance level of its peers; and (3) provides guidance to obtain a probable cost for these energy efficiency improvements. The guide is intended principally as an approach to conducting a standardized building energy performance inquiry in connection with commercial real estate involved in a commercial real estate transaction with the intent to identify a condition of EUI under-performance compared to peer buildings. The guide provides for two approaches: a Screening Assessment (SA) that may be conducted, for example, as an adjunct to an E2018 PCA during due diligence prior to an acquisition, and a More Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) that would include more rigorous investigation as may, for example, be conducted by a building owner seeking to make an investment in EEMs. This guide is intended to reflect a commercially practical and reasonable inquiry.4.2 Clarifications on Use: 4.2.1 Use in Conjunction with an E2018 PCA—This guide, when added as a supplemental scope of work to an E2018 PCA, is designed to assist the user and Consultant in developing information about energy consumption and energy efficiency improvements that may be undertaken to reduce energy consumption in a building involved in a commercial real estate transaction. The guide also has utility to a wide range of situations, including those that may not involve a commercial real estate transaction. The guide is not intended to replace an E2018 PCA, but rather to supplement it.4.2.2 Independent Use—This guide may also be used independently of any other building or property condition assessment.4.2.3 Site-Specific—This guide is site and property-specific in that it relates to an existing building’s or property’s energy performance.4.3 Who May Conduct—A BEPIE should be performed by a qualified Consultant or individual (hereafter referred to as the “Consultant”) with the education, training and experience necessary to perform the requirements of this guide (refer to 8.6). No practical approach can be designed to eliminate the role of professional judgment and the value and need for experience in the individual performing the inquiry. The professional experience of the Consultant is, consequently, important to the performance of a BEPIE.4.4 Additional Services—Additional services not included within the scope of this guide may be contracted for between the user and the Consultant (refer to 13.1 – 13.2). For example, the user or Consultant may also wish to apply for LEED® or ENERGY STAR® certification.4.5 Principles—The following principles are an integral part of this guide and are intended to be referred to in resolving any ambiguity or exercising such discretion as is accorded the user or Consultant in performing a BEPIE.4.5.1 Uncertainty is not eliminated—No BEPIE standard can wholly eliminate uncertainty in determining the myriad of variables that can impact the energy consumption of a building on a property and the energy savings that might be realized by making energy efficiency improvements. The BEPIE is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the impact of such variables.4.5.2 Assessment is not exhaustive—This guide is not meant to be an exhaustive assessment. There is a point at which the cost of the information obtained or the time required to gather it outweighs the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be a material detriment to the orderly completion of a commercial real estate transaction. One of the purposes of this guide is to identify a balance between the competing goals of limiting the costs and time demands inherent in performing a BEPIE and the reduction of uncertainty about unknown conditions resulting from collecting additional information.4.5.3 Level of inquiry is variable—Not every building will warrant the same level of assessment. The appropriate level of assessment should be guided by the type and complexity of the property being evaluated, the needs of the user, and the information already available or developed in the course of the inquiry.4.6 Rules of Engagement—The contractual and legal obligations between a Consultant and a user (and other parties, if any) are outside the scope of this guide. No specific legal relationship between the Consultant and user was considered during the preparation of this guide.1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this guide is to define a commercially useful standard in the United States of America for incorporating building energy performance into an assessment of existing property condition, and specifically into a property condition assessment (PCA) on a building involved in a commercial real estate transaction. The guide is intended to provide a methodology for the user to identify building energy under-performance compared to peer buildings. If the building is under-performing compared to its peers, a methodology is provided to identify potential energy performance improvements and provide a probable cost for such improvements. The guide may be used independently or as a voluntary supplement to ASTM Guide E2018 PCA. Utilization of this guide and incorporating it into a PCA is voluntary. If the property owner is unwilling or unable to provide building energy consumption information and it is not possible to develop a reasonable estimate of building energy consumption, the methodology defined by this guide cannot be performed.1.2 Building Energy Performance and Improvement Evaluation (BEPIE)—the process as described in this guide by which a person collects, analyzes and reports on a building’s energy consumption, compares it to peer buildings and determines if the building is under-performing. If the building is under-performing, potential major improvements (energy efficiency measures, EEMs) that may reduce building energy consumption to achieve parity with peer buildings are identified and a probable cost is provided. Building energy performance as defined by this guide involves the collection of annual whole building energy consumption for heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, and other related energy-consuming end-uses. Building energy consumption, for example, includes total electricity used at the building; purchased or delivered steam, hot water, or chilled water to the building; natural gas, fuel oil, propane, biomass, or any other matter consumed as fuel at the building. Annual whole building energy consumption in kBTU/yr is weather-normalized and converted to energy use intensity (EUI, kBTU/SF-yr), and then benchmarked against weather-normalized energy consumption in peer buildings. If the building consumes more energy than peer buildings, it is assumed to be under-performing. For under-performing buildings, the methodology provided in this guide identifies potential energy improvements and associated costs that may be able to bring the building to parity with peers. If electricity is generated on site from renewable/alternative energy systems (for example, solar photovoltaic systems, wind energy generator technology, fuel cells, or microturbines), the electricity produced is considered energy savings and is netted against building energy requirements with the purpose of reducing building EUI. The assessment conducted for the BEPIE may be a Screening Assessment (SA) that might be conducted in due diligence prior to building acquisition, or a More Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) that might be conducted by the owner of a building who may have had an SA conducted prior to acquiring the building. A BEPIE as performed according to this guide is building- and site-specific. For multifamily type property, the BEPIE is property-specific where a property may include multiple buildings. For such cases, data from the multiple buildings are aggregated prior to analysis.1.3 Objectives—Objectives in the development of this guide are to: (1) define a commercially useful guide for incorporating building energy performance into the assessment of existing property condition as part of due diligence associated with real estate transactions conducted pre-acquisition, post-acquisition or independent of an acquisition; (2) identify buildings that consume more energy than their peers, that is, are under-performing relative to peers; (3) identify how under-performing buildings might be improved and provide a probable cost to bring under-performing buildings to parity with peers; (4) define a commercially useful and reliable guide for conducting a building energy performance and improvement evaluation; (5) facilitate consistency in conducting and reporting of building energy performance and the evaluation of measures that may improve energy performance; (6) provide a process for conducting a BEPIE that is technically sound, consistent, transparent, practical and reasonable; and (7) provide criterion for identifying what constitutes a building being considered an energy under-performer compared to its peers.1.4 Documentation—The scope of this guide includes data collection, compilation, analysis and reporting. All sources, records and resources relied upon in the BEPIE assessment should to be documented.1.5 Considerations Outside the —The use of this guide is limited to the conduct of a BEPIE as defined by this guide. While this information may be used in assessing building valuation or for other reasons, any such use is solely between the user and the Consultant and beyond the scope of this guide.1.6 Organization of the Guide—BEPIE has 14 sections and 12 appendices. The appendices are included for informational purposes only and are provided for guidance in implementing this guide.Section 1 Describes the scope of the guide.Section 2 Identifies referenced documents.Section 3 Provides terminology pertinent to the guide.Section 4 Discusses the significance and use of the guide.Section 5 Discusses the relationship between this guide and ASTM E2018, ASTM E2797 and ASHRAE 211.Section 6 Describes the user’s responsibilities under this guide.Section 7 Describes the data collection needs for this guide.Section 8 Describes the building energy performance and improvement evaluation process.Section 9 Describes the benchmarking process.Section 10 Describes the process for conducting a screening assessment.Section 11 Describes the more comprehensive assessment process.Section 12 Describes reporting of findings and conclusions.Section 13 Identifies non-scope considerations.Section 14 Identifies keywords associated with the guide.Appendix X1 Driving Forces for Considering Building Energy Performance in PCAs.Appendix X2 Common Commercial Building Types.Appendix X3 EPA Portfolio Manager.Appendix X4 Commercial (CBECS) and Residential (RECS) Building Energy Consumption Surveys.Appendix X5 U.S. Climate Zones.Appendix X6 Building Performance Database.Appendix X7 EULs of Common Energy-consuming Equipment.Appendix X8 EEM Replacement Schedule Considerations.Appendix X9 Energy Savings for Common EEMs.Appendix X10 Common Energy and Water Savings Measures.Appendix X11 Building Energy Performance and Sustainability Certifications.Appendix X12 Sample BEPIE Screening Assessment Report Format1.7 This guide cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM guide is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this guide be applied without consideration of a building’s many unique aspects. The word “standard” in the title means only that the guide has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.8 Nothing in this guide is intended to create or imply the existence of a legal obligation for reporting building energy performance or other building-related information. Any consideration of whether such an obligation exists under any federal, state, local, or common law is beyond the scope of this guide.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 A common therapy to mitigate the pathological effects of blood vessel occlusion or aneurysm-related vascular wall weakening is to reroute blood flow around the diseased vascular regions. Autologous and non-autologous grafts are often used as vascular substitutes surgically to achieve this therapeutic intervention. Vascular graft TEMPs may also be used for these purposes. They may also be used to create or revise arteriovenous shunts.4.2 Coronary, carotid, renal, common iliac, external iliac, superficial femoral, and popliteal arteries are examples of vascular sites commonly requiring bypass surgery.4.3 TEMPs may be composed of biological products (for example, cells, organs, and tissues), biomaterials (for example, substrates and scaffolds composed of polymers or collagen), biomolecules (for example, recombinant proteins, native/biological proteins, amino acids, peptides, fatty acids, sugars, and other macromolecules), and various combinations thereof (see Terminology F2312). Examples of TEMPs are listed in Classification F2211.4.4 TEMPs may be used with the intent of facilitating the surgical outcome by improving the biological repair and/or reconstruction, by accommodating the mechanical loads at the repair site, or by a combination of these mechanisms.4.5 Clinical evidence of improved surgical outcomes may include patency, reduced incidence of revision surgery, reduced rate of implant infection, and improved functionality after surgery.1.1 This guide is intended as a resource for individuals and organizations involved in the development, production, delivery, and regulation of tissue engineered medical products (TEMPs) intended for use in the surgical repair, replacement, shunting, and/or bypass of blood vessels. This guide is intended for use related to the in vitro assessment of TEMP vascular grafts. In vitro cellular characterization and in vivo testing are not within scope for this standard guide.1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Uses—This practice is intended for use on a voluntary basis by parties who wish to assess the environmental condition of commercial real estate taking into account commonly known and reasonably ascertainable information. While use of this practice is intended to constitute all appropriate inquiries for purposes of the LLPs, it is not intended that its use be limited to that purpose. This practice is intended primarily as an approach to conducting an inquiry designed to identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with a subject property. No implication is intended that a person shall use this practice in order to be deemed to have conducted inquiry in a commercially prudent or reasonable manner in any particular transaction. Nevertheless, this practice is intended to reflect good commercial and customary practice (see 1.6).4.2 Clarifications on Use: 4.2.1 Use Not Limited to CERCLA—This practice is designed to assist the user in developing information about the environmental condition of a subject property and as such has utility for a wide range of persons, including those who may have no actual or potential CERCLA liability and/or may not be seeking the LLPs.4.2.2 Residential Tenants/Purchasers and Others—No implication is intended that it is currently customary practice for residential tenants of multifamily residential buildings, tenants of single-family homes or other residential real estate, or purchasers of dwellings for one’s own residential use, to conduct an environmental site assessment in connection with these transactions. Thus, these transactions are not included in the term commercial real estate transactions, and it is not intended to imply that such persons are obligated to conduct an environmental site assessment in connection with these transactions for purposes of all appropriate inquiries or for any other purpose. In addition, no implication is intended that it is currently customary practice for environmental site assessments to be conducted in other unenumerated instances (including but not limited to many commercial leasing transactions, many acquisitions of easements, and many loan transactions in which the lender has multiple remedies). On the other hand, anyone who elects to do an environmental site assessment of a subject property may, in such person’s judgment, use this practice.NOTE 1: The 2018 BUILD Act amended the CERCLA definition of bona fide prospective purchaser at § 101(40) to include certain commercial tenants or lessees who acquire a leasehold interest in a property. Therefore, in certain cases, a person acquiring a leasehold interest in a commercial property may need to conduct an environmental site assessment, for the purposes of all appropriate inquiries, into the previous ownership and uses of the leased commercial property to qualify for the bona fide prospective purchaser landowner liability protection.4.2.3 Site-Specific—This practice is site-specific in that it relates to the assessment of environmental conditions for specific commercial real estate. Consequently, this practice does not address many additional issues raised in transactions such as purchases of business entities, or interests therein, or of their assets, that may well involve environmental liabilities pertaining to properties previously owned or operated or other off-site environmental liabilities.4.3 Who May Conduct—A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment must be performed by an environmental professional as specified in 7.5.1. No practical standard can be designed to eliminate the role of judgment and the value and need for experience in the party performing the inquiry. The professional judgment of an environmental professional is, consequently, vital to the performance of all appropriate inquiries.4.4 Additional Services—As set forth in 12.10, additional services may be contracted for between the user and the environmental professional. Such additional services may include business environmental risk (BER) issues not included within the scope of this practice, examples of which are identified in Section 13 under Non- Considerations.4.5 Principles—The following principles are an integral part of this practice and are intended to be referred to in resolving any ambiguity or exercising such discretion as is accorded the user or environmental professional in conducting an environmental site assessment or in judging whether a user or environmental professional has conducted appropriate inquiry or has otherwise conducted an adequate environmental site assessment.4.5.1 Uncertainty Not Eliminated—No environmental site assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a subject property. Performance of this practice is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a subject property, and this practice recognizes reasonable limits of time and cost.4.5.2 Not Exhaustive—All appropriate inquiries does not mean an exhaustive assessment of a property. There is a point at which the cost of information obtained or the time required to gather it outweighs the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be a material detriment to the orderly completion of transactions. One of the purposes of this practice is to identify a balance between the competing goals of limiting the costs and time demands inherent in performing an environmental site assessment and the reduction of uncertainty about unknown conditions resulting from additional information.4.5.3 Level of Inquiry is Variable—Not every property will warrant the same level of assessment. Consistent with good commercial and customary standards and practices as defined at 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(B), the appropriate level of environmental site assessment will be guided by the type of property subject to assessment, the expertise and risk tolerance of the user, future intended uses of the subject property disclosed to the environmental professional, and the information developed in the course of the inquiry.4.5.4 Comparison with Subsequent Inquiry—It should not be concluded or assumed that an inquiry was not all appropriate inquiries merely because the inquiry did not identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with a subject property. Environmental site assessments must be evaluated based on the reasonableness of judgments made at the time and under the circumstances in which they were made. Subsequent environmental site assessments should not be considered valid standards to judge the appropriateness of any prior assessment based on hindsight, new information, use of developing technology or analytical techniques, or other factors.4.5.5 Point in Time—The environmental site assessment is based upon conditions at the time of completion of the individual environmental site assessment elements (see 7.2).4.6 Continued Viability of Environmental Site Assessment: 4.6.1 Presumed Viability—Subject to 4.8 and the user’s responsibilities set forth in Section 6, an environmental site assessment meeting or exceeding this practice is presumed to be viable when it is conducted within 180 days prior to the date of acquisition9 of the subject property (or, for transactions not involving an acquisition such as a lease or refinance, the date of the intended transaction). The dates of the components presented in 4.6.2(i), (iii), (iv), and (v) for interviews, review of government records, visual inspections, and declaration by environmental professional, shall be identified in the report. Completion of searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (4.6.2(ii)) is a user responsibility; however, if the user has engaged the environmental professional to conduct these searches, then that date shall also be identified in the report.4.6.2 Updating of Certain Components—Subject to 4.8 and the user’s responsibilities set forth in Section 6, an environmental site assessment meeting or exceeding this practice and for which the information was collected or updated within one year prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property (or, for transactions not involving an acquisition such as a lease or refinance, the date of the intended transaction) may be used provided that the following components of the inquiries were updated within 180 days prior to the date of purchase or the date of the intended transaction. All of the following components must be conducted or updated within 180 days prior to the date of acquisition or prior to the date of the transaction:(i) interviews with owners, operators, and occupants;(ii) searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (a user responsibility, see Section 6);(iii) reviews of federal, tribal, state, and local government records;(iv) visual inspections of the subject property and of adjoining properties; and(v) the declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update.4.6.3 Compliance with All Appropriate Inquiries—To qualify for one of the threshold criteria for satisfying the LLPs to CERCLA liability, the all appropriate inquiries components listed in 4.6.2 must be conducted or updated within 180 days of and prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property, and all other components of all appropriate inquiries must be conducted within one year prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property. The date of the report generally does not represent the date the individual components of all appropriate inquiries were completed and should not be used when evaluating compliance with the 180-day or 1-year all appropriate inquiries requirements.4.6.4 User’s Responsibilities—If, within this period, the environmental site assessment will be used by a user different than the user for whom the environmental site assessment was originally prepared, the subsequent user must also satisfy the user’s responsibilities in Section 6.4.7 Prior Assessment Usage—This practice recognizes that environmental site assessments performed in accordance with this practice will include information that subsequent users may want to use to avoid undertaking duplicative assessment procedures. Therefore, this practice describes procedures to be followed to assist users in determining the appropriateness of using information in environmental site assessments performed more than one year prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property (or for transactions not involving an acquisition such as a lease or refinance, the date of the intended transaction). The system of prior assessment usage is based on the following principles that should be adhered to in addition to the specific procedures set forth elsewhere in this practice:4.7.1 Use of Prior Information—Subject to the requirements set forth in 4.6, users and environmental professionals may use information in prior environmental site assessments provided such information was generated as a result of procedures that meet or exceed the requirements of this practice. However, such information shall not be used without current investigation of conditions likely to affect recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. Additional tasks may be necessary to document conditions that may have changed materially since the prior environmental site assessment was conducted. Nothing in this practice is intended to convey a right to use or to rely upon resources, information, findings, or opinions provided in prior assessments.4.7.2 Contractual Issues Regarding Prior Assessment Usage—The contractual and legal obligations between prior and subsequent users of environmental site assessments or between environmental professionals who conducted prior environmental site assessments and those who would like to use such prior environmental site assessments are beyond the scope of this practice.4.8 Actual Knowledge Exception—If the user or environmental professional(s) conducting an environmental site assessment has actual knowledge that the information being used from a prior environmental site assessment is not accurate or if it is obvious, based on other information obtained by means of the environmental site assessment or known to the person conducting the environmental site assessment, that the information being used is not accurate, such information from a prior environmental site assessment may not be used.4.9 Rules of Engagement—The contractual and legal obligations between an environmental professional and a user (and other parties, if any) are outside the scope of this practice. No specific legal relationship between the environmental professional and the user is necessary for the user to meet the requirements of this practice.4.10 Organization of This Practice—This practice has thirteen sections and six appendixes. Section 1 is the . Section 2 is Referenced Documents. Section 3, Terminology, has definitions of terms not unique to this practice, descriptions of terms unique to this practice, and acronyms. Section 4 is of this practice. Section 5 provides discussion regarding activity and use limitations. Section 6 describes User’s Responsibilities. Sections 7 – 12 are the main body of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, including evaluation and report preparation. Section 13 provides additional information regarding non-scope considerations (see 1.4). The appendixes are included for information and are not part of the procedures prescribed in this practice. Appendix X1 explains the liability and defense provisions of CERCLA that will assist the user in understanding the user’s responsibilities under CERCLA; it also contains other important information regarding CERCLA, the Brownfields Amendments, and this practice. Appendix X2 provides the definition of the environmental professional responsible for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, as required in the “All Appropriate Inquiries” Final Rule (40 C.F.R. Part 312). Appendix X3 provides an optional User Questionnaire to assist the user and the environmental professional in gathering information from the user that may be material to identifying recognized environmental conditions. Appendix X4 offers an additional examination of the recognized environmental condition definition. Appendix X5 provides a suggested table of contents and report format for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Appendix X6 summarizes non-scope considerations that persons may want to assess.1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this practice is to define good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment2 of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. § 9601) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the “landowner liability protections,” or “LLPs”): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial and customary standards and practices as defined at 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(B). (See Appendix X1 for an outline of CERCLA’s liability and defense provisions.) Controlled substances are not included within the scope of this practice. Persons conducting an environmental site assessment as part of an EPA Brownfields Assessment and Characterization Grant awarded under CERCLA 42 U.S.C. § 9604(k)(2)(B) must include controlled substances as defined in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802) within the scope of the assessment investigations to the extent directed in the terms and conditions of the specific grant or cooperative agreement. Additionally, an evaluation of business environmental risk (BER) associated with a parcel of commercial real estate may necessitate investigation beyond that identified in this practice (see 1.4 and Section 13).1.1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions—The goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term recognized environmental condition means (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition.1.1.2 Petroleum Products—Petroleum products are included within the scope of this practice because they are of concern with respect to commercial real estate and current custom and usage is to include an inquiry into the presence of petroleum products when doing an environmental site assessment of commercial real estate. Inclusion of petroleum products within the scope of this practice is not based upon the applicability, if any, of CERCLA to petroleum products.1.1.3 CERCLA Requirements Other Than Appropriate Inquiries—This practice does not address whether requirements in addition to all appropriate inquiries have been met in order to qualify for the LLPs (for example, the duties specified in 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(b)(3)(a) and (b) and cited in Appendix X1, including the continuing obligation not to impede the integrity and effectiveness of activity and use limitations [AULs], or the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent releases, or the duty to comply with legally required release reporting obligations).1.1.4 Other Federal, State, and Local Environmental Laws—This practice does not address requirements of any state or local laws or of any federal laws other than the all appropriate inquiries provisions of the LLPs. Users are cautioned that federal, state, and local laws may impose environmental assessment obligations that are beyond the scope of this practice. Users should also be aware that there are likely to be other legal obligations with regard to hazardous substances or petroleum products discovered in, on, or at the subject property that are not addressed in this practice and that may pose risks of civil and/or criminal sanctions for noncompliance.31.1.5 Documentation—The scope of this practice includes research and reporting requirements that support the user’s ability to qualify for the LLPs. As such, sufficient documentation of all sources, records, and resources utilized in conducting the inquiry required by this practice must be provided in the written report (refer to 8.1.9 and 12.2).1.2 Objectives—Objectives guiding the development of this practice are (1) to synthesize and put in writing good commercial and customary practice for environmental site assessments for commercial real estate; (2) to facilitate high quality, standardized environmental site assessments; (3) to provide a practical and reasonable standard practice for conducting all appropriate inquiries; and (4) to clarify an industry standard for all appropriate inquiries in an effort to guide legal interpretation of the LLPs.1.3 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.4 Considerations beyond —The use of this practice is strictly limited to the scope set forth in this section. Section 13 of this practice identifies, for informational purposes, certain environmental conditions (not an all-inclusive list) that may exist at a subject property that are beyond the scope of this practice, but may warrant consideration by parties to a commercial real estate transaction. The need to include an investigation of any such conditions in the environmental professional’s scope of services should be evaluated based upon, among other factors, the nature of the subject property and the reasons for performing the assessment (for example, a more comprehensive evaluation of business environmental risk) and should be agreed upon between the user and environmental professional as additional services beyond the scope of this practice before initiation of the environmental site assessment process.1.5 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project’s many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 918元 / 折扣价： 781 元 加购物车

3.1 Textiles are often treated with antimicrobial agents to reduce the growth of odor-causing organisms during use, in storage, or while waiting to be laundered, or both . Additionally, antimicrobial agents are used to reduce or control microbial growth on the textile that may affect the material’s visual, chemical or physical integrity, or both.3.2 Anti-fungal test methods that measure antimicrobial behavior on treated textiles or other porous or non-porous substrates do exist (Guide E3152, Test Method E2722, AATCC TM30), but they were developed for either specific types of antimicrobial agents or put under unrealistic conditions such that other agents are disadvantaged or end-use conditions exaggerated.3.3 This test practice is designed to measure relative antimicrobial activity of all common antimicrobial agents used to treat porous materials such as textiles without positive or negative bias for one type of chemistry or product over another. The practice is designed to more closely simulate conditions that might be experienced in the actual end-use of the porous treated materials (for example, low initial fungal spore exposure and limited available nutrients but with ideal conditions to grow). This practice is designed to demonstrate a significant reduction in visible surface fungal growth on a porous treated material (such as textiles) relative to an identical untreated control.1.1 This test practice determines the relative fungal growth inhibition properties of materials treated with an active biocidal agent. Samples of porous treated materials, such as textiles, are inoculated with a defined suspension of fungal conidia or spores and then incubated. The inhibition of growth or visible growth present on treated compared with identical untreated materials is used to measure relative antifungal properties of the treated identical materials.1.2 This test practice must be performed by individuals experienced and adept in microbiological procedures and in facilities suitable for the handling of the species under test.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 This guide is intended for use by those undertaking the development of fire hazard assessments for rail transportation vehicles and products contained within rail transportation vehicles.4.2 This guide provides information on an approach to develop a fire hazard assessment, but fixed procedures are not established. Any limitations in the availability of data, of appropriate test procedures, of adequate fire models, or in the advancement of scientific knowledge, will place significant constraints upon the procedure for the assessment of fire hazard.4.3 A fire hazard assessment developed following this guide must specify all steps required to determine fire hazard measures for which safety thresholds or pass/fail criteria can be meaningfully set by responsible authorities. It is preferred that such exercises have input from various sources.4.4 Outcomes: Use and Application.A fire hazard assessment developed as a result of using this guide should be able to assess a new product being considered for use in a certain rail transportation vehicle and reach one of the conclusions listed in 4.4.1 – 4.4.4.4.4.1 New Product Safer than Product Currently in Use.The new product is safer, in terms of predicted fire performance, than the one in established use. In this case, the new product is desirable, from the point of view of fire safety.4.4.2 New Product Equivalent in Safety to Product Currently in Use.There is no difference between the predicted fire safety of the new product and of the one in established use. In this case, use of the new product provides neither advantage nor disadvantage, from the point of view of fire safety.4.4.3 New Product Less Safe than Product Currently in Use.The new product is less safe, in terms of predicted fire performance, than the one in established use. In this case, a direct substitution of products would provide a lower level of safety and the new product would be undesirable, and should not be used, from the point of view of fire safety, without other compensatory changes being made.4.4.3.1 New Product Different in Safety to Product Currently in Use.A new product that is less safe, in terms of predicted fire performance, can nevertheless be made acceptable if, and only if, it is part of a complete, comprehensive, fire safety design for the rail transportation vehicle. Such redesign of the vehicle should include other features such as use of an alternative layout or increased use of automatic fire protection systems, that demonstrably produce the same or better safety for the complete design. In such cases, a more in-depth fire hazard assessment would have to be conducted to ensure that the entire design achieves the safety goals, and the new product would be acceptable only as part of the larger, approved design.4.4.4 The new product could offer some safety advantages and some safety disadvantages over the item in established use. An example of such an outcome could be increased smoke obscuration with decreased heat release. In such cases, a more in-depth fire hazard assessment would have to be conducted to ensure that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and the resulting overall level of safety is no less than that provided by the traditional approach (see Table X1.1 and Appendix X1).4.5 Following the analysis described in 4.4, a fire hazard assessment developed following this guide would reach a conclusion regarding the desirability of the new product studied. It is essential for the results of the assessment to lead to a design that is at least as safe as the one being replaced.1.1 This is a guide to developing fire hazard assessments for rail transportation vehicles. It has been written to assist professionals, including fire safety engineers, who wish to assess the fire safety of rail transportation vehicles, during or after their design (see also 1.6). This guide is not in itself a fire hazard assessment nor does it provide acceptance criteria; thus, it cannot be used for regulation.1.2 Hazard assessment is a process that results in an estimate of the potential severity of the fires that can develop under defined scenarios, once defined incidents have occurred. Hazard assessment does not address the likelihood of a fire occurring. Hazard assessment is based on the premise that an ignition has occurred, consistent with a specified scenario, and that potential outcomes of the scenario can be reliably estimated.1.3 Consistent with 1.2, this guide provides methods to evaluate whether particular rail passenger designs provide an equal or greater level of fire safety when compared to designs developed based on the traditional applicable fire-test-response characteristic approaches currently widely used in this industry. Such approaches have typically been based on prescriptive test methodologies. The following are examples of such lists of prescriptive tests: the requirements by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (Table X1.1), the former guidelines of the FRA, the requirements of NFPA 130 (Table X3.1), and the recommended practices of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Selective use of parts of the methodology in this guide and of individual fire-test-response characteristics from Table X1.1 (or any other set of tests) does not satisfy the fire safety objectives of this guide or of the table. This guide shall be used in its entirety to develop a fire hazard assessment for rail transportation vehicles or to aid in the design of such vehicles.1.4 This guide includes and applies accepted and clearly defined fire safety engineering techniques and methods consistent with both existing, traditional prescriptive codes and standards and performance based fire codes and standards under development throughout the world.1.5 This guide provides recommended methods to mitigate potential damage from fires in rail transportation vehicles, by assessing the comparative fire hazard of particular products, assemblies, systems or overall designs intended for use in rail transportation vehicles. Such methods could include changes to the materials, components, products, assemblies, or systems involved in the construction of the rail transportation vehicle or changes in the design features of the vehicle, including the number and location of automatically activated fire safety devices present (see 4.4.4 for further details).1.6 This guide is intended, among other things, to be of assistance to personnel addressing issues associated with the following areas.1.6.1 Design and specification of rail transportation vehicles.1.6.2 Fabrication of rail transportation vehicles.1.6.3 Supply of assemblies, subassemblies, and component materials, for use in rail transportation vehicles.1.6.4 Operation of rail transportation vehicles.1.6.5 Provision of a safe environment for all occupants of a rail transportation vehicle.1.7 The techniques provided in this guide are based on specific assumptions in terms of rail transportation vehicle designs, construction and fire scenarios. These techniques can be used to provide a quantitative measure of the fire hazards from a specified set of fire conditions, involving specific materials, products, or assemblies. Such an assessment cannot be relied upon to predict the hazard of actual fires, which involve conditions, or vehicle designs, other than those assumed in the analysis. In particular, the fire hazard may be affected by the anticipated use pattern of the vehicle.1.8 This guide can be used to analyze the estimated fire performance of the vehicle specified under defined specific fire scenarios. Under such scenarios, incidents will begin either inside or outside a vehicle, and ignition sources can involve vehicle equipment as well as other sources. The fire scenarios to be used are described in detail in Section 5.3.1.8.1 Fires with more severe initiating conditions than those assumed in an analysis may pose more severe fire hazard than that calculated using the techniques provided in this guide. For this reason severe fire conditions must be considered as part of an array of fire scenarios.1.9 This fire standard cannot be used to provide quantitative measures.1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车