4.1 The allocation of limited resources (for example, time, money, regulatory oversight, qualified professionals) to any one petroleum release site necessarily influences corrective action decisions at other sites. This has spurred the search for innovative approaches to corrective action decision making, which still ensures that human health and the environment are protected.4.2 The RBCA process presented in this guide is a consistent, streamlined decision process for selecting corrective actions at petroleum release sites. Advantages of the RBCA approach are as follows:4.2.1 Decisions are based on reducing the risk of adverse human or environmental impacts,4.2.2 Site assessment activities are focussed on collecting only that information that is necessary to making risk-based corrective action decisions,4.2.3 Limited resources are focussed on those sites that pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment at any time,4.2.4 The remedial action achieves an acceptable degree of exposure and risk reduction,4.2.5 Compliance can be evaluated relative to site-specific standards applied at site-specific point(s) of compliance,4.2.6 Higher quality, and in some cases faster, cleanups than are currently realized, and4.2.7 A documentation and demonstration that the remedial action is protective of human health, safety, and the environment.4.3 Risk assessment is a developing science. The scientific approach used to develop the RBSL and SSTL may vary by state and user due to regulatory requirements and the use of alternative scientifically based methods.4.4 Activities described in this guide should be conducted by a person familiar with current risk and exposure assessment methodologies.4.5 In order to properly apply the RBCA process, the user should avoid the following:4.5.1 Use of Tier 1 RBSLs as mandated remediation standards rather than screening levels,4.5.2 Restriction of the RBCA process to Tier 1 evaluation only and not allowing Tier 2 or Tier 3 analyses,4.5.3 Placing arbitrary time constraints on the corrective action process; for example, requiring that Tiers 1, 2, and 3 be completed within 30-day time periods that do not reflect the actual urgency of and risks posed by the site,4.5.4 Use of the RBCA process only when active remediation is not technically feasible, rather than a process that is applicable during all phases of corrective action,4.5.5 Requiring the user to achieve technology-based remedial limits (for example, asymptotic levels) prior to requesting the approval for the RBSL or SSTL,4.5.6 The use of predictive modelling that is not supported by available data or knowledge of site conditions,4.5.7 Dictating that corrective action goals can only be achieved through source removal and treatment actions, thereby restricting the use of exposure reduction options, such as engineering and institutional controls,4.5.8 The use of unjustified or inappropriate exposure factors,4.5.9 The use of unjustified or inappropriate toxicity parameters,4.5.10 Neglecting aesthetic and other criteria when determining RBSLs or SSTLs,4.5.11 Not considering the effects of additivity when screening multiple chemicals,4.5.12 Not evaluating options for engineering or institutional controls, exposure point(s), compliance point(s), and carcinogenic risk levels before submitting remedial action plans,4.5.13 Not maintaining engineering or institutional controls, and4.5.14 Requiring continuing monitoring or remedial action at sites that have achieved the RBSL or SSTL.1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action (RBCA), which is a consistent decision-making process for the assessment and response to a petroleum release, based on the protection of human health and the environment. Sites with petroleum release vary greatly in terms of complexity, physical and chemical characteristics, and in the risk that they may pose to human health and the environment. The RBCA process recognizes this diversity, and uses a tiered approach where corrective action activities are tailored to site-specific conditions and risks. While the RBCA process is not limited to a particular class of compounds, this guide emphasizes the application of RBCA to petroleum product releases through the use of the examples. Ecological risk assessment, as discussed in this guide, is a qualitative evaluation of the actual or potential impacts to environmental (nonhuman) receptors. There may be circumstances under which a more detailed ecological risk assessment is necessary (see Ref (1).21.2 The decision process described in this guide integrates risk and exposure assessment practices, as suggested by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), with site assessment activities and remedial measure selection to ensure that the chosen action is protective of human health and the environment. The following general sequence of events is prescribed in RBCA, once the process is triggered by the suspicion or confirmation of petroleum release:1.2.1 Performance of a site assessment;1.2.2 Classification of the site by the urgency of initial response;1.2.3 Implementation of an initial response action appropriate for the selected site classification;1.2.4 Comparison of concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site with Tier 1 Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) given in a look-up table;1.2.5 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted, if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted or if RBSLs may be applied as remediation target levels;1.2.6 Collection of additional site-specific information as necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;1.2.7 Development of site-specific target levels (SSTLs) and point(s) of compliance (Tier 2 evaluation);1.2.8 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site with the Tier 2 evaluation SSTL at the determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s);1.2.9 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted, if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted, or if Tier 2 SSTLs may be applied as remediation target levels;1.2.10 Collection of additional site-specific information as necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;1.2.11 Development of SSTL and point(s) of compliance (Tier 3 evaluation);1.2.12 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site at the determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s) with the Tier 3 evaluation SSTL; and1.2.13 Development of a remedial action plan to achieve the SSTL, as applicable.1.3 The guide is organized as follows:1.3.1 Section 2 lists referenced documents,1.3.2 Section 3 defines terminology used in this guide,1.3.3 Section 4 describes the significance and use of this guide,1.3.4 Section 5 is a summary of the tiered approach,1.3.5 Section 6 presents the RBCA procedures in a step-by-step process,1.3.6 Appendix X1 details physical/chemical and toxicological characteristics of petroleum products,1.3.7 Appendix X2 discusses the derivation of a Tier 1 RBSL Look-Up Table and provides an example,1.3.8 Appendix X3 describes the uses of predictive modeling relative to the RBCA process,1.3.9 Appendix X4 discusses considerations for institutional controls, and1.3.10 Appendix X5 provides examples of RBCA applications.1.4 This guide describes an approach for RBCA. It is intended to compliment but not supersede federal, state, and local regulations. Federal, state, or local agency approval may be required to implement the processes outlined in this guide.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

3.1 This guide covers only the most obvious areas of overdraw safety.3.2 This guide is not intended as a comprehensive analysis of the subject.1.1 This guide covers the function of archery overdraws and suggests a limited number of geometric configurations that could decrease the potential risk of injury to the archer.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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 Safety factors must be addressed and incorporated into the work to protect the workers and the public, and construction activities may need to be altered accordingly. Engineering and construction costs are a part of the analysis.4.2 Access rights to the work should be considered in the design of the project.4.3 A construction professional, who has field experience in construction activities similar to the scope of work anticipated, should review the plans for constructability prior to starting the project.4.4 Proper insurance and surety bonding to protect the interests of all parties to the agreement or contract should be considered.4.5 Risk management assessment will identify the parties that are in the best position to control and be responsible for the different risks.1.1 This guide addresses only primary safety concerns, easements, constructability, liability of the various parties, and risk management related to constructing, installing, maintaining, or changing an optical fiber network in an existing sewer.1.2 The text of this standard references notes and footnotes which provide explanatory material. These notes and footnotes (excluding those in tables and figures) shall not be considered as requirements of the standard.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 requirements prior to use. See 4.1 and 5.1 – 5.1.7 for specific safety information.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

5.1 The objective of this guide is to describe procedures and data sources for conducting risk characterization of acute inhalation exposure to chemicals emitted from bedding sets. Risk characterization can be used to identify chemical(s) that pose potentially significant human health risks for the scenario(s) and population(s) selected for exposure assessment. Such identification of chemicals can help in identifying the components or materials used in the manufacture of bedding sets that should be further examined. Risk characterization also includes an assessment of potential odors associated with individual chemicals emitted by the bedding set.1.1 This guide describes procedures for conducting risk characterization of exposure to volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) emitted from bedding sets or an ensemble of a mattress and supporting box spring.1.2 This guide is for risk characterization of short-term exposures to a new bedding set brought into a residential indoor environment. The risk characterization considerations presented in this guide are applicable to both the general population and sensitive subgroups, such as convalescing adults.1.3 The risk characterization addressed in this guide is limited to acute health and irritation effects resulting from short-term exposure to VOCs in indoor air. Although certain procedures described in this guide may be applicable to assessing long-term exposure, the guide is not intended to address cancer and other chronic health effects.1.4 VOC emissions from bedding sets, as in the case of other household furnishings, usually are highest when the products are new. A used bedding set may also emit VOCs, either from the original materials or as a result of its use. The procedures presented in this guide also are applicable to used bedding sets.1.5 Risk characterization procedures described in this guide should be carried out under the supervision of a qualified toxicologist or risk assessment specialist, or both.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.7 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.1.8 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

This specification covers the pre-treatment procedures of iron or steel for reducing the susceptibility or degree thereof to hydrogen embrittlement or degradation that may arise in electroplating, autocatalytic plating, porcelain enameling, chemical conversion coating, and phosphating.1.1 This specification covers procedures for reducing the susceptibility or degree of susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement or degradation that may arise in electroplating, autocatalytic plating, porcelain enameling, chemical conversion coating, and phosphating and the associated pretreatment processes. This specification is applicable to those steels whose properties are not affected adversely by baking at 190 °C to 230 °C or higher (see 6.1.1).1.2 The heat treatment procedures established herein have been shown to be effective for reducing the susceptibility of steel parts of tensile strength 1000 MPa or greater that have been machined, ground, cold-formed, or cold-straightened subsequent to heat treatment. This heat-treatment procedure is used prior to any operation capable of hydrogen charging the parts, such as the cleaning procedures prior to electroplating, autocatalytic plating, porcelain enameling, and other chemical coating operations.NOTE 1: 1 MPa = 145.1 psi.1.3 This specification has been coordinated with ISO/DIS 9587 and is technically equivalent.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as 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.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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

This guide covers the standard procedure of performing post-coating heat treatment of some steels for reducing susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement or degradation that may arise in the finishing processes. This heat treatment procedure shall be used after plating operations but prior to any secondary conversion coating operation. Except for surface-hardened and shot-peened parts, the choice of embrittlement-relief heat treatment and the corresponding treatment conditions shall be selected on the basis of actual tensile strength of the steel.1.1 This guide covers procedures for reducing the susceptibility in some steels to hydrogen embrittlement or degradation that may arise in the finishing processes.1.2 The heat treatment procedures established herein may be effective for reducing susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement. This heat-treatment procedure shall be used after plating operations but prior to any secondary conversion coating operation.1.3 This guide has been coordinated with ISO/DIS 9588 and is technically equivalent.NOTE 1: The heat treatment does not guarantee complete freedom from the adverse effects of hydrogen degradation.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 This guide is significant in that it addresses the data and information options of each component of the ecological risk assessment process, for both a screening and complex ERA. It outlines the data and information options while recognizing that an ecological risk assessment may be focused to achieve a particular stated goal. This guide is not intended to represent the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), or any other regulatory agency, on data collection for ecological risk assessment.5.2 This guide is to be used by managers, scientists, and technical staff of contractors, industry, government agencies, and universities responsible for conducting ecological risk assessments at contaminated sites. It is to be used to guide data collection phases of the ecological risk assessment. It will assist in the development of the conceptual site model (see Guide E1689) and the identification of potential assessment and measurement endpoints (see Guide E1848 and US EPA’s Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints, 2016 (5)). While it was written to assist in planning an ERA, the list also may be used in the review of a completed ERA.1.1 An ecological-risk assessment (ERA) is a process for organizing and analyzing data, information, assumptions, and uncertainties to evaluate the likelihood that adverse ecological effects might occur or are occurring as a result of a stressor. This guide is intended to assist remedial project teams, specifically ecological risk assessors, in identifying data and information options that may be used to perform a screening or complex ecological risk assessment (ERA) at a contaminated site.NOTE 1: While the intent of ERA is to evaluate risk (that is, the probability of adverse effects occurring in ecological receptors), there are no measures, statistics, or metrics that calculate or express risk explicitly. However, various metrics or indices, a common example being the hazard quotient, are used to inform risk assessments.1.2 The identification of data and information options for human health risk assessment is outside the scope of this guide.1.3 This guide is intended to provide a list for identifying data and information options and does not recommend a specific course of action for ERA activities.1.4 This guide addresses data and information options for the ecological risk assessment, not verification or long-term monitoring studies.1.5 This guide lists many of the common data and information options for ERA, but there may be others relevant for any particular site.1.6 This guide considers one component of an ERA, that is, identification of data and information options. Other ASTM guides have been developed, for example, Guides E1689 and E1848, and are being developed to cover other components of the risk assessment process.1.7 This guide does not provide information on how to perform any of the analytical procedures used to perform a risk assessment once data collection options are defined.1.8 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 Demonstration plans developed in accordance with this practice will include all necessary content and key considerations to support an effective flight demonstration program aimed at approval or certification of UAS by the FAA through D&R demonstration.4.2 This practice does not address planning requirements for UAS development testing. It is assumed that a manufacturer has completed all UAS design and development and is preparing demonstration programs to support compliance demonstration on a stable and controlled system configuration. Manufacturers who wish to prepare a detailed design and development program should review Specification F3298 for programmatic examples.4.3 This practice is intended to be used on low-risk UAS that meet the following design criteria and operating limitations.4.3.1 The UAS has a command and control link that enables the pilot-in-command to take contingency action.4.3.2 The unmanned aircraft (UA) has a kinetic energy of ≤25 000 ft-lb calculated in accordance with methods specified within the MOC.4.3.3 The UA is operated ≤400 ft above ground level (AGL).4.3.4 No operations over open-air assemblies (operations over people are acceptable).4.3.5 No flight into known icing.4.3.6 Maximum of 20:1 aircraft to pilot ratio.4.3.7 The UA is electrically powered (excludes internal combustion engines and fuel cells).1.1 This standard practice is intended for low-risk UAS seeking type certification by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR Part 21.17(b) in accordance with the FAA durability and reliability (D&R) means of compliance (MOC). The definition of “low-risk UAS” does not necessarily align with other definitions found within corresponding ASTM standards (F3442/F3442M) or other UAS-related standards. For the purposes of this practice, “low-risk” is defined as a UAS operated in accordance with the concept of operations (CONOPs), eligibility criteria, and kinetic energy threshold specified in the G-1 Issue Paper (which will be provided to the applicant by the FAA). See 4.3 for design criteria and operating limitations for low-risk UAS.1.2 This standard practice establishes a common methodology and key considerations for the development of minimum flight plans for low-risk UAS that demonstrate aircraft reliability as part of a D&R MOC.1.3 The scope of this standard practice encompasses D&R planning, data collection, and reporting.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. This is not intended to limit the systems of units used for design, development testing, or demonstration testing. However, the units of measurement used on pilot-facing placards and markings and manuals must be the same as those used on the corresponding equipment with recognition that international aviation utilizes feet for altitude and knots for airspeed as operational parameters.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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 Intended Users: 4.1.1 This guide may be used by various parties involved in sediment corrective action programs, including regulatory agencies, project sponsors, environmental consultants, toxicologists, risk assessors, site remediation professionals, environmental contractors, and other stakeholders.4.2 Reference Material: 4.2.1 This guide should be used in conjunction with other ASTM guides listed in 2.1 (especially Guides E3163, E3240, E3242, E3344 and E3382), as well as the material in the References section.4.3 Flexible Site-Specific Implementation: 4.3.1 This guide provides a systematic but flexible framework to accommodate variations in approaches by regulatory agencies and by the user based on project objectives, site complexity, unique site features, regulatory requirements, newly developed guidance, newly published scientific research, changes in regulatory criteria, advances in scientific knowledge and technical capability, and unforeseen circumstances.4.3.1.1 This guide provides a monitoring plan development, execution and analysis framework based on over-arching features and elements that should be customized by the user based on site-specific conditions, regulatory context, and sediment corrective action objectives.4.3.1.2 Implementation of the guide is site-specific. The user may choose to customize the implementation of the guide for a particular site, especially smaller, less complex sites.4.3.1.3 This guide should not be used alone as a prescriptive checklist.4.3.2 The users of this guide are encouraged to update and refine (when needed) the conceptual site model, Project Work Plans and Project Reports used to describe the physical properties, chemical composition and occurrence, biologic features, and environmental conditions of the sediment corrective action project.4.4 Regulatory Frameworks: 4.4.1 This guide is intended to be applicable to a broad range of local, state, tribal, federal, or international jurisdictions, each with its own unique regulatory framework. As such, this guide does not provide a detailed discussion of the requirements or guidance associated with any of these regulatory frameworks, nor is it intended to supersede applicable regulations and guidance. The user of this guide will need to be aware of (and comply with) the regulatory requirements and guidance in the jurisdiction where the work is being performed.4.5 Systematic Project Planning and Scoping Process: 4.5.1 When applying this guide, the user should undertake a systematic project planning and scoping process to collect information to assist in making site-specific, user-defined decisions for a particular project, including assembling an experienced team of project professionals. These practitioners should have the appropriate expertise to scope, plan, and execute a sediment monitoring program. This team may include, but is not limited to, project sponsors, environmental consultants, toxicologists, site remediation professionals, analytical chemists, geochemists, and statisticians.4.6 Stakeholder Engagement: 4.6.1 The users of this guide are encouraged to engage key stakeholders early and often in the project planning and scoping process, especially regulators, project sponsors, and service providers. A concerted ongoing effort should be made by the user to continuously engage stakeholders as the project progresses in order to gain insight, technical support and input for resolving technical issues and challenges that may arise during project implementation.4.7 Other Considerations: 4.7.1 The over-arching process for risk-based corrective action a sediment sites is not covered in detail in this guide. Guide E3240 contains extensive information concerning that process.4.7.2 Sediment sampling and laboratory analyses is not covered in detail. Guide E3163 contain extensive information concerning sediment sampling and laboratory analysis methodologies.4.7.3 Developing representative background concentrations for the sediment site is not covered in detail in this guide. Guides E3242, E3344 and E3382 contain extensive information concerning that topic.4.7.4 In this guide, “sediment” (3.1.15) is defined as a matrix being found at the bottom of a water body. Upland soils of sedimentary origin are excluded from consideration as sediment in this guide.4.7.5 In this guide, only COC concentrations are considered. Residual background radioactivity is out of scope.4.8 Structure and Components of This Guide: 4.8.1 The user of this guide should review the overall structure and components of this guide before proceeding with use, including:Section 1 Section 2 Referenced DocumentsSection 3 TerminologySection 4 Section 5 Components of a Generic Monitoring ProgramSection 6 Generic Considerations for Sediment Site Monitoring ProgramsSection 7 Types of Sediment Remedial Action Monitoring ProgramsSection 8 Baseline Monitoring Programs: General ConsiderationsSection 9 Remedy Implementation Monitoring Programs: General ConsiderationsSection 10 Post-Remedy Monitoring Programs: General Considerations and Program Planning ExamplesSection 11 KeywordsAppendix X1 Discussion of Monitoring Program Development, Data Quality Objective Development and Statistical Analysis of Data ProcessesAppendix X2 Case Study: Monitoring of Sediment Remediation ActivitiesReferences  1.1 This guide pertains to corrective action monitoring before (baseline monitoring), during (remedy implementation monitoring) and after (post-remedy monitoring) sediment remedial activities. It does not address monitoring performed during remedial investigations, pre-remedial risk assessments, and pre-design investigations.1.2 Sediment monitoring programs (baseline, remedy implementation and post-remedy) are typically used in contaminated sediment corrective actions performed under various regulatory programs, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Although many of the references cited in this guide are CERCLA-oriented, the guide is applicable to corrective actions performed under local, state, tribal, federal, and international corrective action programs. However, this guide does not provide a detailed description of the monitoring program requirements or existing guidance for each jurisdiction. This guide is intended to inform, complement, and support but not supersede the guidelines established by local, state, tribal, federal, or international agencies.1.3 This guide provides a framework, which includes widely accepted considerations and best practices for monitoring sediment remedy efficacy.1.4 This guide is related to several other guides. Guide E3240 provides an overview of the sediment risk-based corrective action (RBCA) process, including the role of risk assessment and representative background. Guide E3163 discusses appropriate laboratory methodologies to use for the chemical analysis of potential contaminants of concern (PCOCs) in various media (such as, sediment, porewater, surface water and biota tissue) taken during sediment monitoring programs; it also discusses biological testing and community assessment. Guide E3382 describes the overall framework to determine representative background concentrations (including Conceptual Site Model [CSM] considerations) for a contaminated sediment site; Guides E3344 (methodologies for selecting representative background reference areas) and E3242 (statistical and chemical methodologies used in developing representative background concentrations for a sediment site) complement Guide E3382.1.5 Units—The values stated in SI or CGS units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.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： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 Uses—This Guide is intended for use on a voluntary basis by parties such as lenders, loan servicers, insurers and equity investors in real estate (Users) who wish to estimate possible earthquake losses to buildings. This guide outlines procedures for conducting a seismic risk assessment for a specific User considering the User's requirements for due diligence. The specific purpose of this guide is to provide Users with seismic risk assessment during the anticipated term for holding either the mortgage or the deed. A seismic risk assessment prepared in accordance with this guide should reference or state that the guidance in this document was used as a basis for the report and should also identify any deviations from the guidelines. This guide is intended to reflect a commercially prudent and reasonable investigation for performance of seismic risk assessments.4.1.1 Users—This Guide is designed to assist the User in developing information about the earthquake-related damage potential of a building, or groups of buildings.4.1.1.1 Use of this guide may permit a User to satisfy, in part, their requirements for due diligence in assessing a building’s potential for losses associated with earthquakes for real estate transactions.4.1.2 Types of Investigations—This guide provides suggested approaches for the performance of five different types of assessments. Each is intended to serve different financial and management needs of the User. Several of these types of assessment specifically depend on characterization of the earthquake ground motion as given in Section 7.4.1.2.1 Building Stability (BS)—Assessment of whether the building will maintain vertical load-carrying capacity in whole or in part during considered earthquake ground motions (see Section 8).4.1.2.2 Site Stability (SS)—Assessment of the likelihood that the site will remain stable in earthquakes and is not subject to failure through faulting, soil liquefaction, landslide, or other site response that may threaten the building's stability or cause significant damage (see Section 9).4.1.2.3 Building Damageability (BD)—Assessment of the damageability of the building(s) during earthquake ground motions and the degree of damage expected over time. The assessment includes performing and completing the building damageability assessment as either a probable loss (PL) or a scenario loss (SL) assessment, or both (see Section 10).4.1.2.4 Contents Damageability (CD)—Assessment of the damageability of the contents to earthquake ground motions. This guide suggests that the contents damageability assessment be performed using the SL assessment approach (see Section 11).4.1.2.5 Business Interruption (BI)—Assessment of the implications for continued use or partial use of the building for its intended purpose due to earthquake damage, whether to the building systems, or contents, or both. This guide suggests that the business interruption assessment be performed using the SL assessment approach (see Section 12).4.1.3 Application and Temporal Relevance of Report—The User should only rely on a seismic risk assessment report for the specific purpose that it was intended, and upon confirmation, that the building is in the condition it was at the time of assessment and that the understanding of seismic hazards and performance of the specific building type have not changed.4.1.4 Availability of Information—This guide recognizes that a Provider’s opinions and observations may be affected or contingent on information (or the lack thereof) that is readily available to the Provider during the conduct of an investigation. For instance, a Provider’s observations may be affected by the number of people using the building or the availability of property management to provide information, such as the construction documents.4.1.5 Site-Specific—Seismic risk assessments are site-specific in that they relate to estimation of earthquake loss to building(s) located at a specific site.4.2 Principles—The following principles are an integral part of this guide and should be referred to in resolving any ambiguity or exercising such discretion as is accorded the User or the Provider in estimating loss to buildings from earthquakes. The principles should also be used in judging whether a User or Provider has conducted an appropriate assessment and estimation of earthquake loss to a building.4.2.1 Uncertainty Not Eliminated—No estimate can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding damage resulting from actual earthquakes. The successive levels of investigation described in this Guide are intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the estimation of damage. This Guide acknowledges the reasonable limits of time and cost related to a selected level of assessment.4.2.2 Not Exhaustive—There is a point at which the cost to gather information outweighs the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be detrimental to the orderly completion of transactions within the resources available to support the investigation. This Guide identifies and suggests that a balance be sought between the competing goals of limiting the costs and time demands versus limiting the resulting uncertainty regarding unknown conditions or information by acquiring as much information as possible.NOTE 2: Appropriate due diligence according to this Guide is not to be construed as technically exhaustive. There is a point at which the cost of information obtained or the time required to conduct the seismic risk assessment may outweigh the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be a material detriment to the orderly and timely completion of a commercial real estate transaction. It is the intent of this Guide to attempt to identify a balance between limiting the costs and time demands inherent in performing a seismic risk assessment and reducing the uncertainty about unknown physical deficiencies resulting from completing additional inquiry.4.2.3 Level of Investigation—Not every property warrants the same level of investigation. Consistent with good commercial or customary practice, choosing the appropriate level of investigation is guided by the type and age of buildings subject to assessment, the resources and time available, the anticipated severity of shaking, the expertise and risk tolerance of the User, and the information developed during the course of the investigation.4.3 Subsequent Use of Seismic Risk Assessments—This guide recognizes that assessments of buildings prepared for specified levels of investigation and performed on the basis of the approaches discussed herein may include information that subsequent Users will want to use to avoid undertaking duplicative investigations. Consequently, this guide describes procedures to assist subsequent Users in determining how appropriate it would be to use these results. Usage of prior reports is based on the following principles that should be adhered to in addition to the specific procedures set forth in this guide.4.3.1 Comparability—An estimate of loss to buildings from earthquakes is not to deemed as inappropriate merely because it did not identify all potentially vulnerable areas in connection with a building or a group of buildings. Seismic risk assessments must be evaluated based on the reasonableness of judgments made at the time and under the circumstances in which they were made. The result of any subsequent seismic risk assessments performed to similar parameters should not be considered as valid standards to judge the appropriateness of any prior seismic risk assessment based on hindsight, new information, use of developing technology or analytical techniques, or other factors.4.3.2 Use of Prior Information—Users and Providers may use information in prior reports that meet or exceed the requirements of this guide for specified levels of investigation and then only provided that the specific procedures set forth in the guide were met, including the qualification of the Provider.4.3.3 Prior Assessment Meets or Exceeds—A prior seismic risk assessment report prepared for specified levels of investigation may be used in its entirety, without regard to specific procedures set forth in this guide, if in the judgment of the Provider, the prior report was prepared for specified levels of investigation meeting or exceeding the requirements of this Guide and the conditions of the building(s) and the seismic hazards affecting the site are not likely to have changed materially since the prior report was prepared. In making this judgment, the Provider should consider the types of building construction assessed in the report, any new information related to the behavior of that specific building construction type in recent earthquakes, as well as current understanding of the site conditions.4.3.4 Current Investigation—Prior seismic risk assessments should not be used without current investigation of conditions likely to affect the current seismic risk assessment. Likely conditions include the current level of knowledge on and experience with building constructions of particular types in recent earthquakes, as well as, current understanding of the site conditions that differ from those in existence when the prior report was prepared.4.3.5 Actual Knowledge Exception—If the User or Provider has actual knowledge that the information being used from a prior seismic risk assessment report is not accurate or is suspected of being inaccurate, then such information from a prior report should not be used.4.4 When a new seismic risk assessment is performed for the same User that is consistent with this guide and has a higher level of investigation than a prior investigation, then the new investigation should supersede the former one.AbstractThis guide provides guidance on conducting seismic risk assessments for buildings. As such, this guide assists a User to assess a property’s potential for losses from earthquake occurrences. Hazards addressed in this guide include earthquake ground shaking, earthquake-caused site instability, including fault rupture, landslides and soil liquefaction, lateral spreading and settlement, and earthquake-caused off-site response impacting the property, including flooding from dam or dike failure, tsunamis and seiches. This guide is intended to reflect a commercially prudent and reasonable investigation for performance of seismic risk assessments. Seismic risk assessments may be performed for an individual building or a group of buildings. This guide provides suggested approaches for the performance of five different types of seismic risk assessments. Building stability, site stability, building damageability, contents damageability, business interruption, and application and temporal relevance of report. Each is intended to serve different financial and management needs of the User. An earthquake ground motion assessment should be conducted in conjuction with probable loss evaluations for building damageability and may have applications in some scenario loss studies, as well as building stability or site stability assessments. Seismic risk assessments may consider varying degrees of assessment of a building or buildings from Level 0 to Level 3.1.1 This guide provides guidance on conducting seismic risk assessments for buildings. As such, this guide assists a User to assess a property's potential for losses from earthquake occurrences.1.1.1 Hazards addressed in this guide include:1.1.1.1 Earthquake ground shaking,1.1.1.2 Earthquake-caused site instability, including fault rupture, landslides, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading and settlement, and1.1.1.3 Earthquake-caused off-site response impacting the property, including flooding from dam or dike failure, tsunamis and seiches.1.1.2 This guide does not address the following:1.1.2.1 Earthquake-caused fires and toxic materials releases.1.1.2.2 Federal, state, or local laws and regulations of building construction or maintenance. Users are cautioned that current federal, state, and local laws and regulations may differ from those in effect at the time of the original construction of the building(s).1.1.2.3 Preservation of life safety.1.1.2.4 Prevention of building damage.1.1.2.5 Contractual and legal obligations between prior and subsequent Users of seismic risk assessment reports or between Providers who prepared the report and those who would like to use such prior reports.1.1.2.6 Contractual and legal obligations between a Provider and a User, and other parties, if any.1.1.3 It is the responsibility of the User of this guide to establish appropriate life safety and damage prevention practices and determine the applicability of current regulatory limitations prior to use.1.2 The objectives of this guide are:1.2.1 To synthesize and document guidelines for seismic risk assessment of buildings;1.2.2 To encourage standardized seismic risk assessments;1.2.3 To establish guidelines for field observations of the site and physical conditions, and the document review and research considered appropriate, practical, sufficient, and reasonable for seismic risk assessment;1.2.4 To establish guidelines on what reasonably can be expected of and delivered by a Provider in conducting the seismic risk assessment of buildings; and1.2.5 To establish guidelines by which a Provider can communicate to the User observations, opinions, and conclusions in a manner that is meaningful and not misleading either by content or by omission.1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 Use—This practice is intended for use by parties who desire access to the national, or international, airspace as regulated by their respective CAA(s) either for a vehicle design (airworthiness) or a vehicle’s use (operational approval). In this practice, it is recognized the varying levels of complexity, need for risk assessment(s), and due diligence that should be determined in an ongoing dialogue between the CAA and the applicant. Users should consider their requirements, the purpose that the ORA is to serve, and their risk acceptance level before undertaking the ORA. Use of this practice does not preclude other initiatives or processes to identify hazardous conditions or assess and mitigate associated risks.5.2 Risk Reduced, not Eliminated—No ORA can eliminate all risk or uncertainty with regard to operations. Preparation of an ORA in accordance with this practice is intended to reduce, but may not necessarily completely eliminate, the risk of an operation in which system complexity is minimal, the operation is conducted in a lower risk environment, and the likelihood for harm to people or property, though present, is reduced to an acceptable level. As mission complexity increases, the operational environment may become less risk tolerant. For example, as the kinetic energy associated with the aircraft increases, more complex assessment/analysis tools and greater time may be required to conduct the ORA.1.1 This practice focuses on preparing operational risk assessments (ORAs) to be used for supporting small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) (aircraft under 55 lb (25 kg)) design, airworthiness, and subsequent operational applications to the civil aviation authority (CAA).1.2 It is expected that manufacturers and developers of larger/higher energy sUAS designs, intended to operate in controlled airspace over populated areas, will adopt many of the existing manned aircraft standards in use. These include standards such as SAE ARP4754A and ARP4761, which prescribe a “design for safety” top-down design approach to ensure the sUAS designs can reasonably meet more stringent qualitative and quantitative safety requirements. The ORA, however, remains the same for all risk profiles and will be a part of any sUAS operation.1.3 In mitigating and preventing incidents and accidents, it is understood that people generally do not seek to cause damage or injure others, and therefore, malicious acts are beyond the scope of this practice.1.4 As part of the ORA, the applicant should clearly understand and be able to articulate their intended mission for purposes of assessing safety and providing information to regulators. This documentation of a sUAS operation (mission, or set of missions) is what many refer to as a concept of operations (CONOPS).1.5 This practice is intended primarily for sUAS applicants seeking approval or certification for airworthiness or operations from their respective CAA, though sUAS manufacturers may consider this practice, along with other system safety design standards, as appropriate to identify sUAS design and operational requirements needed to mitigate hazards.1.6 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.1.7 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.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

4.1 This guide is intended for use by those undertaking the development of fire-risk-assessment standards. Such standards are expected to be useful to manufacturers, architects, specification writers, and authorities having jurisdiction.4.2 As a guide, this document provides information on an approach to the development of a fire-risk-assessment standard; fixed procedures are not established. Limitations of data, available tests and models, and scientific knowledge can constitute significant constraints on the fire-risk-assessment procedure and associated standard.4.3 While the focus of this guide is on developing fire-risk-assessment standards for products, the general concepts presented also can be applied to processes, activities, occupancies, and buildings.1.1 This guide covers the development of fire-risk-assessment standards.1.2 This guide is directed toward development of standards that will provide procedures for assessing fire risks harmful to people, property, or the environment.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 standard is used to establish a means of combining the potential for harm in fire scenarios with the probabilities of occurrence of those scenarios. Assessment of fire risk using this standard depends upon many factors, including the manner in which the user selects scenarios and uses them to represent all scenarios relevant to the application. This standard cannot be used to assess fire risk if any specifications are different from those contained in the standard.1.5 This fire standard cannot be used to provide quantitative measures.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 This guide is intended for use within a RBCA process or other risk-based framework for protection of human health and the environment that is based on an evaluation of sources, exposure pathways, and receptors.4.2 This guide is intended to identify the factors that should be considered in the selection and implementation of an appropriate remedial action to address COCs present in environmental media at the site at concentrations above the remedial action levels. The specific process used to select the remedial action will vary widely from site to site. However, in all cases, the selected remedial action should be both a protective remedial action (that is, achieves the risk-based remedial action objectives) and an acceptable remedial action (that is, satisfies the non-risk remedial action objectives).1.1 This guide covers the selection of appropriate remedial actions at sites where a release of chemicals (for example, vapor-phase, dissolved-phase, or non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL)) into the environment has occurred. This overall remedy selection process is illustrated in Fig. 1. The guide is intended to be applied within a risk-based corrective action (RBCA) framework.FIG. 1 Remedy Selection Process1.2 The purpose of this guide is to facilitate the selection of acceptable remedial actions and to minimize bad decisions leading to the selection of remedial actions that do not satisfy both the risk-based remedial action objectives and the non-risk remedial action objectives.1.3 This guide is intended to be applied at sites that require a remedial action to address unacceptable human heath or ecological risks, other regulatory requirements, and/or other unacceptable site conditions. Prior to use of this guide, a site assessment should be completed resulting in: (1) the establishment of remedial action objectives, (2) a determination that a remedial action is required to achieve the remedial action objectives, (3) an identification of site areas requiring a remedial action, and (4) a conceptual site model that reflects the results of the site assessment. The risk-based remedial action objectives are assumed to have been established using RBCA or another risk-based assessment method that results in the identification of appropriate remedial action objectives based on an evaluation of sources, exposure pathways, and potential receptors. Remedial action objectives may be established using Guide E1739, Guide E2081, and/or Guide E2205. In addition, applicable federal, state, and local regulations, statutes, and policies should be followed and should form the basis for determining risk-based and non-risk remedial action objectives. The remedial action objectives may include resource protection standards and the prevention of aesthetic or nuisance impacts in addition to protection of human health and the environment.1.4 Each risk-based remedial action objective for an exposure pathway will typically include numeric remedial action levels for each chemical of concern (COC). Remedial action levels may also be developed for non-risk remedial action objectives such as resource protection standards. The non-risk remedial action levels may include thickness or mobility criteria for NAPL. The selected remedy must be effective and timely for each remedial action objective based on the consideration of the associated exposure pathway or resource protection standard.1.5 To facilitate the selection of acceptable remedial actions, this guide establishes a process for remedy selection (Fig. 2) that involves:FIG. 2 Remedy Selection FlowchartFIG. 2 Remedy Selection Flowchart (continued)1.5.1 Development of risk-based remedial action objectives that includes identification of complete exposure pathways and numeric remedial action levels (Section 5).1.5.2 Development of non-risk remedial action objectives based on resource protection and other non-risk considerations. Resource protection objectives typically include numeric remedial action levels while other non-risk criteria are typically non-numeric and may include: remediation timeframe, implementability, cost effectiveness, regulatory compliance, property use requirements, liability control, and community concern (Section 5).1.5.3 Evaluation of protectiveness to identify protective remedial actions that will be effective and timely for each risk-based remedial action objective for the site (Section 6).1.5.4 Evaluation of the retained remedies using the non-risk remedial action objectives to identify acceptable remedial actions that satisfy the minimum level for each non-risk criterion (Section 7).1.5.5 Remedial action selection to select the acceptable remedial action to be implemented at the site (Section 8).1.5.6 Remedy design and implementation to ensure that the selected remedy is effectively implemented at the site and satisfies the remedial action objectives (Section 9).1.6 This guide is intended for use in the selection of final remedial actions. This guide may also be used in the selection of interim measures provided that risk-based remedial action objectives and non-risk remedial action objectives are available for the evaluation of these interim measures.1.7 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.8 This guide is not intended to specifically address contractor health and safety issues. It is the responsibility of the user of this guide to ensure that Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory requirements are met, and appropriate industry practices are consulted for guidance.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

定价： 1274元 / 折扣价： 1083 元

1. Scope 1.1 CSA Guideline CAN/CSA-Q850 is intended to assist decision- makers in effectively managing all types of risk issues, including injury or damage to health, property, the environment, or something else of value. 1.2 This Guideline describ

定价： 364元 / 折扣价： 310 元