• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The journal of hazmat transportation >The Journal of HazMat Transportations™ Exclusive Comments on U.S. DOT Letters of Interpretation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
【24h】

The Journal of HazMat Transportations™ Exclusive Comments on U.S. DOT Letters of Interpretation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations

机译：Hazmat Thansportations™杂志上的U.S. Dot解释危险材料法规的刊评杂志。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The test-based classification system of the HMR and IMDG Code sets out a generalized approach to capturing those substances that pose a toxicity risk in transportation. It is a simple pragmatic approach and for that reason it may not capture all substances that warrant being regulated. A cursory review of the hazards of TDI suggests that there is a basis for regulating this material as toxic even though it might not neatly be captured by the test methods included in the regulations so that classification on the basis of human experience appears to have been justifiable. There does not appear to be HMR/IMDG Code regulatory support for PHMSA interpretation that the human experience classification only applies in the case of the pure substance. While the PHMSA interpretation may provide "compliance cover" within the US, it may not do so outside the US. It seems understandable that an "international source" mentioned by the questioner might challenge the questioner's company decision to regard even a 5% concentration of TDI as nondangerous. While the questioner provided PHMSA some data supporting its decision to not regulate the 5% concentration, the analysis provided is based on the test and criteria for Division 6.1. It did not show that the hazards likely used as the basis for a human experience classification of the pure substance (i.e., those reflected by ASTR) were no longer present in the 5% concentration mixture. This is what the regulations expect in order to discount the human experience classification. There is no clearly defined path for getting out from under a "human experience classification" in the case of a mixture; but to do it correctly it appears the basis for discounting that classification should be based on showing the mixture does not pose the hazards of the pure substance. It would be best if the analysis were well documented by corporate toxicologists or alternatively, even though not expressly required, it may be prudent to establish a cutoff concentration by way of a PHMSA approval.
机译：HMR和IMDG守则的基于测试的分类系统规定了一种捕获在运输中造成毒性风险的那些物质的广义方法。这是一种简单的务实方法，因此，可能无法捕获受管制的所有物质。对TDI危害的练习述审查表明，即使在法规中包含的测试方法可能没有整齐地捕获，毒性审查是毒性的基础，以便在人类经验的基础上进行分类似乎是合理的。 HMR / IMDG代码对PHMSA解释的监管支持，人类经验分类仅适用于纯物质的情况。虽然PHMSA解释可以在美国内部提供“合规性覆盖”，但它可能无法在美国以外。提问者提到的“国际来源”似乎可能会挑战提问者公司决定，甚至甚至为4％集中的TDI挑战。虽然提问者提供了PHMSA，但一些数据支持其决定不调节5％浓度，所提供的分析是基于第6.1分部的测试和标准。它没有表明，可能用作纯物质的人体经验分类的基础（即，由astr）的纯物质分类的基础不再存在于5％浓度混合物中。这是法规预期的，以便折扣人类经验分类。在混合物的情况下，没有明确定义的路径以在“人类经验分类”下出来;但要正确做到这一点看起来折扣的基础应该是基于显示的混合物不会造成纯物质的危害。如果分析通过企业毒理学家良好记录，或者，即使没有明确要求，也可能是通过PHMSA批准建立截止浓度的谨慎措施。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号