ASTM E1739-95(2015)
(Guide)Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites (Withdrawn 2024)
Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites (Withdrawn 2024)
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
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, and
4.2.7 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 ...
SCOPE
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).2
1.2 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 ...
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
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.
Designation: E1739 − 95 (Reapproved 2015)
Standard Guide for
Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release
Sites
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1739; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision.Anumber in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 1.2.5 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted,
if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted or if
1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action (RBCA),
RBSLs may be applied as remediation target levels;
which is a consistent decision-making process for the assess-
1.2.6 Collection of additional site-specific information as
ment and response to a petroleum release, based on the
necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;
protection of human health and the environment. Sites with
1.2.7 Developmentofsite-specifictargetlevels(SSTLs)and
petroleumreleasevarygreatlyintermsofcomplexity,physical
point(s) of compliance (Tier 2 evaluation);
andchemicalcharacteristics,andintheriskthattheymaypose
1.2.8 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of
to human health and the environment. The RBCA process
concern at the site with the Tier 2 evaluation SSTL at the
recognizes this diversity, and uses a tiered approach where
determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s);
corrective action activities are tailored to site-specific condi-
1.2.9 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted,
tions and risks. While the RBCA process is not limited to a
ifimplementationofinterimremedialactioniswarranted,orif
particular class of compounds, this guide emphasizes the
Tier 2 SSTLs may be applied as remediation target levels;
applicationofRBCAtopetroleumproductreleasesthroughthe
1.2.10 Collection of additional site-specific information as
use of the examples. Ecological risk assessment, as discussed
necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;
in this guide, is a qualitative evaluation of the actual or
1.2.11 Development of SSTL and point(s) of compliance
potential impacts to environmental (nonhuman) receptors.
(Tier 3 evaluation);
There may be circumstances under which a more detailed
1.2.12 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of
ecological risk assessment is necessary (see Ref (1).
concern at the site at the determined point(s) of compliance or
1.2 The decision process described in this guide integrates
source area(s) with the Tier 3 evaluation SSTL; and
risk and exposure assessment practices, as suggested by the
1.2.13 Developmentofaremedialactionplantoachievethe
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
SSTL, as applicable.
with site assessment activities and remedial measure selection
1.3 The guide is organized as follows:
to ensure that the chosen action is protective of human health
1.3.1 Section 2 lists referenced documents,
andtheenvironment.Thefollowinggeneralsequenceofevents
1.3.2 Section 3 defines terminology used in this guide,
is prescribed in RBCA, once the process is triggered by the
1.3.3 Section 4 describes the significance and use of this
suspicion or confirmation of petroleum release:
guide,
1.2.1 Performance of a site assessment;
1.3.4 Section 5 is a summary of the tiered approach,
1.2.2 Classification of the site by the urgency of initial
1.3.5 Section 6 presents the RBCAprocedures in a step-by-
response;
step process,
1.2.3 Implementation of an initial response action appropri-
1.3.6 Appendix X1 details physical/chemical and toxico-
ate for the selected site classification;
logical characteristics of petroleum products,
1.2.4 Comparison of concentrations of chemical(s) of con-
1.3.7 Appendix X2 discusses the derivation of a Tier 1
cern at the site with Tier 1 Risk Based Screening Levels
RBSL Look-Up Table and provides an example,
(RBSLs) given in a look-up table;
1.3.8 Appendix X3 describes the uses of predictive model-
ing relative to the RBCA process,
ThisguideisunderthejurisdictionofASTMCommitteeE50onEnvironmental
1.3.9 AppendixX4discussesconsiderationsforinstitutional
Assessment, Risk Management and CorrectiveAction and is the direct responsibil-
controls, and
ity of Subcommittee E50.04 on Corrective Action.
1.3.10 Appendix X5 provides examples of RBCA applica-
Current edition approved April 1, 2015. Published May 2015. Originally
published as ES38–94. Last previous edition approved in 2010 as E1739–95 tions.
ε1
(2010) . DOI: 10.1520/E1739-95R15.
1.4 This guide describes an approach for RBCA. It is
Theboldfacenumbersinparenthesesrefertothelistofreferencesattheendof
this guide. intended to compliment but not supersede federal, state, and
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E1739 − 95 (2015)
local regulations. Federal, state, or local agency approval may 3.1.9 exposure assessment—the determination or estimation
be required to implement the processes outlined in this guide. (qualitative or quantitative) of the magnitude, frequency,
duration, and route of exposure.
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as
3.1.10 exposure pathway—the course a chemical(s) of con-
standard. No other units of measurement are included in this
standard. cern takes from the source area(s) to an exposed organism.An
exposure pathway describes a unique mechanism by which an
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
individualorpopulationisexposedtoachemical(s)ofconcern
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
originating from a site. Each exposure pathway includes a
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
source or release from a source, a point of exposure, and an
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
exposure route. If the exposure point differs from the source, a
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
transport/exposure medium (for example, air) or media also is
included.
2. Referenced Documents
3.1.11 exposure route—the manner in which a chemical(s)
2.1 ASTM Standards:
of concern comes in contact with an organism (for example,
E1599Guide for Corrective Action for Petroleum Releases
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact).
(Withdrawn 2002)
2.2 NFPA Standard:
3.1.12 facility—the property containing the source of the
NFPA 329Handling Underground Releases of Flammable
chemical(s) of concern where a release has occurred.
and Combustible Liquids
3.1.13 hazard index—the sum of two or more hazard quo-
tients for multiple chemical(s) of concern or multiple exposure
3. Terminology
pathways, or both.
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.14 hazard quotients—the ratio of the level of exposure
3.1.1 active remediation—actions taken to reduce the con-
of a chemical(s) of concern over a specified time period to a
centrations of chemical(s) of concern. Active remediation
reference dose for that chemical(s) of concern derived for a
could be implemented when the no-further-action and passive
similar exposure period.
remediation courses of action are not appropriate.
3.1.15 incremental carcinogenic risk levels—the potential
3.1.2 attenuation—the reduction in concentrations of
for incremental carcinogenic human health effects due to
chemical(s) of concern in the environment with distance and
exposure to the chemical(s) of concern.
timeduetoprocessessuchasdiffusion,dispersion,absorption,
3.1.16 indirect exposure pathways—an exposure pathway
chemical degradation, biodegradation, and so forth.
withatleastoneintermediatereleasetoanymediabetweenthe
3.1.3 chemical(s) of concern—specific constituents that are
source and the point(s) of exposure (for example, chemicals of
identified for evaluation in the risk assessment process.
concern from soil through ground water to the point(s) of
3.1.4 correctiveaction—thesequenceofactionsthatinclude
exposure).
site assessment, interim remedial action, remedial action,
3.1.17 institutional controls—the restriction on use or ac-
operation and maintenance of equipment, monitoring of
cess (for example, fences, deed restrictions, restrictive zoning)
progress, and termination of the remedial action.
to a site or facility to eliminate or minimize potential exposure
3.1.5 direct exposure pathways—an exposure pathway
to a chemical(s) of concern.
where the point of exposure is at the source, without a release
3.1.18 interim remedial action—the course of action to
to any other medium.
mitigate fire and safety hazards and to prevent further migra-
3.1.6 ecological assessment—a qualitative appraisal of the
tion of hydrocarbons in their vapor, dissolved, or liquid phase.
actual or potential effects of chemical(s) of concern on plants
3.1.19 maximum contaminant level (MCL)—a standard for
and animals other than people and domestic species.
drinking water established by USEPAunder the Safe Drinking
3.1.7 engineering controls—modifications to a site or facil-
WaterAct, which is the maximum permissible level of chemi-
ity (for example, slurry walls, capping, and point of use water
cal(s) of concern in water that is delivered to any user of a
treatment) to reduce or eliminate the potential for exposure to
public water supply.
a chemical(s) of concern.
3.1.20 Monte Carlo simulation—aproceduretoestimatethe
3.1.8 exposure—contact of an organism with chemical(s) of
value and uncertainty of the result of a calculation when the
concern at the exchange boundaries (for example, skin, lungs,
result depends on a number of factors, each of which is also
and liver) and available for absorption.
uncertain.
3.1.21 natural biodegradation—the reduction in concentra-
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
tion of chemical(s) of concern through naturally occurring
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
microbial activity.
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
3.1.22 petroleum—including crude oil or any fraction
The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
thereof that is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and
www.astm.org.
pressure (15.5°C and 10335.6 kg/m ). The term includes
Available from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, http://www.nfpa.org. petroleum-based substances comprised of a complex blend of
E1739 − 95 (2015)
hydrocarbons derived from crude oil through processes of and the extent of the migration of the chemical(s) of concern.
separation,conversion,upgrading,andfinishing,suchasmotor The site assessment collects data on ground water quality and
fuels, jet oils, lubricants, petroleum solvents, and used oils. potential receptors and generates information to support reme-
dial action decisions.
3.1.23 point(s) of compliance—a location(s) selected be-
tween the source area(s) and the potential point(s) of exposure
3.1.37 site classification—a qualitative evaluation of a site
where concentrations of chemical(s) of concern must be at or
basedonknownorreadilyavailableinformationtoidentifythe
below the determined target levels in media (for example,
need for interim remedial actions and further information
ground water, soil, or air).
gathering. Site classification is intended to specifically priori-
tize sites.
3.1.24 point(s) of exposure—the point(s) at which an indi-
vidualorpopulationmaycomeincontactwithachemical(s)of
3.1.38 site-specific target level (SSTL)—risk-basedremedial
concern originating from a site.
action target level for chemical(s) of concern developed for a
3.1.25 qualitative risk analysis—a nonnumeric evaluation particular site under the Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations.
of a site to determine potential exposure pathways and recep-
3.1.39 site-specific—activities,information,anddataunique
tors based on known or readily available information.
to a particular site.
3.1.26 reasonable maximum exposure (RME)—the highest
3.1.40 source area(s)—either the location of liquid hydro-
exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site. RMEs
carbons or the location of highest soil and ground water
are estimated for individual pathways or a combination of
concentrations of the chemical(s) of concern.
exposure pathways.
3.1.41 target levels—numeric values or other performance
3.1.27 reasonable potential exposure scenario— a situation
criteria that are protective of human health, safety, and the
with a credible chance of occurence where a receptor may
environment.
become directly or indirectly exposed to the chemical(s) of
concern without considering extreme or essentially impossible
3.1.42 Tier 1 evaluation—a risk-based analysis to develop
circumstances.
non-site-specific values for direct and indirect exposure path-
ways utilizing conservative exposure factors and fate and
3.1.28 reasonably anticipated future use—future use of a
transport for potential pathways and various property use
site or facility that can be predicted with a high degree of
categories(forexample,residential,commercial,andindustrial
certainty given current use, local government planning, and
uses).ValuesestablishedunderTier1willapplytoallsitesthat
zoning.
fall into a particular category.
3.1.29 receptors—persons, structures, utilities, surface
waters, and water supply wells that are or may be adversely 3.1.43 Tier 2 evaluation—arisk-basedanalysisapplyingthe
direct exposure values established under a Tier 1 evaluation at
affected by a release.
the point(s) of exposure developed for a specific site and
3.1.30 reference dose—a preferred toxicity value for evalu-
developmentofvaluesforpotentialindirectexposurepathways
ating potential noncarcinogenic effects in humans resulting
at the point(s) of exposure based on site-specific conditions.
from exposure to a chemical(s) of concern.
3.1.44 Tier 3 evaluation—a risk-based analysis to develop
3.1.31 remediation/remedial action—activitiesconductedto
values for potential direct and indirect exposure pathways at
protect human health, safety, and the environment. These
the point(s) of exposure based on site-specific conditions.
activities include evaluating risk, making no-further-action
determinations, monitoring institutional controls, engineering
3.1.45 user—an individual or group involved in the RBCA
controls, and designing and operating cleanup equipment.
process including owners, operators, regulators, underground
storage tank
...
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E1739 − 95 (Reapproved 2015)
Standard Guide for
Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release
Sites
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1739; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 1.2.5 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted,
if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted or if
1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action (RBCA),
RBSLs may be applied as remediation target levels;
which is a consistent decision-making process for the assess-
1.2.6 Collection of additional site-specific information as
ment and response to a petroleum release, based on the
necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;
protection of human health and the environment. Sites with
1.2.7 Development of site-specific target levels (SSTLs) and
petroleum release vary greatly in terms of complexity, physical
point(s) of compliance (Tier 2 evaluation);
and chemical characteristics, and in the risk that they may pose
1.2.8 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of
to human health and the environment. The RBCA process
concern at the site with the Tier 2 evaluation SSTL at the
recognizes this diversity, and uses a tiered approach where
determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s);
corrective action activities are tailored to site-specific condi-
1.2.9 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted,
tions and risks. While the RBCA process is not limited to a
if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted, or if
particular class of compounds, this guide emphasizes the
Tier 2 SSTLs may be applied as remediation target levels;
application of RBCA to petroleum product releases through the
1.2.10 Collection of additional site-specific information as
use of the examples. Ecological risk assessment, as discussed
necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;
in this guide, is a qualitative evaluation of the actual or
1.2.11 Development of SSTL and point(s) of compliance
potential impacts to environmental (nonhuman) receptors.
(Tier 3 evaluation);
There may be circumstances under which a more detailed
1.2.12 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of
ecological risk assessment is necessary (see Ref (1).
concern at the site at the determined point(s) of compliance or
1.2 The decision process described in this guide integrates
source area(s) with the Tier 3 evaluation SSTL; and
risk and exposure assessment practices, as suggested by the
1.2.13 Development of a remedial action plan to achieve the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
SSTL, as applicable.
with site assessment activities and remedial measure selection
1.3 The guide is organized as follows:
to ensure that the chosen action is protective of human health
1.3.1 Section 2 lists referenced documents,
and the environment. The following general sequence of events
1.3.2 Section 3 defines terminology used in this guide,
is prescribed in RBCA, once the process is triggered by the
1.3.3 Section 4 describes the significance and use of this
suspicion or confirmation of petroleum release:
guide,
1.2.1 Performance of a site assessment;
1.3.4 Section 5 is a summary of the tiered approach,
1.2.2 Classification of the site by the urgency of initial
1.3.5 Section 6 presents the RBCA procedures in a step-by-
response;
step process,
1.2.3 Implementation of an initial response action appropri-
1.3.6 Appendix X1 details physical/chemical and toxico-
ate for the selected site classification;
logical characteristics of petroleum products,
1.2.4 Comparison of concentrations of chemical(s) of con-
1.3.7 Appendix X2 discusses the derivation of a Tier 1
cern at the site with Tier 1 Risk Based Screening Levels
RBSL Look-Up Table and provides an example,
(RBSLs) given in a look-up table;
1.3.8 Appendix X3 describes the uses of predictive model-
ing relative to the RBCA process,
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental
1.3.9 Appendix X4 discusses considerations for institutional
Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action and is the direct responsibil-
controls, and
ity of Subcommittee E50.04 on Corrective Action.
1.3.10 Appendix X5 provides examples of RBCA applica-
Current edition approved April 1, 2015. Published May 2015. Originally
tions.
published as ES 38 – 94. Last previous edition approved in 2010 as E1739 – 95
ε1
(2010) . DOI: 10.1520/E1739-95R15.
2 1.4 This guide describes an approach for RBCA. It is
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of
this guide. intended to compliment but not supersede federal, state, and
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E1739 − 95 (2015)
local regulations. Federal, state, or local agency approval may 3.1.9 exposure assessment—the determination or estimation
be required to implement the processes outlined in this guide. (qualitative or quantitative) of the magnitude, frequency,
duration, and route of exposure.
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as
standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 3.1.10 exposure pathway—the course a chemical(s) of con-
cern takes from the source area(s) to an exposed organism. An
standard.
exposure pathway describes a unique mechanism by which an
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
individual or population is exposed to a chemical(s) of concern
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
originating from a site. Each exposure pathway includes a
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
source or release from a source, a point of exposure, and an
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
exposure route. If the exposure point differs from the source, a
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
transport/exposure medium (for example, air) or media also is
included.
2. Referenced Documents
3.1.11 exposure route—the manner in which a chemical(s)
2.1 ASTM Standards:
of concern comes in contact with an organism (for example,
E1599 Guide for Corrective Action for Petroleum Releases
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact).
(Withdrawn 2002)
2.2 NFPA Standard:
3.1.12 facility—the property containing the source of the
NFPA 329 Handling Underground Releases of Flammable
chemical(s) of concern where a release has occurred.
and Combustible Liquids
3.1.13 hazard index—the sum of two or more hazard quo-
tients for multiple chemical(s) of concern or multiple exposure
3. Terminology
pathways, or both.
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.14 hazard quotients—the ratio of the level of exposure
3.1.1 active remediation—actions taken to reduce the con-
of a chemical(s) of concern over a specified time period to a
centrations of chemical(s) of concern. Active remediation
reference dose for that chemical(s) of concern derived for a
could be implemented when the no-further-action and passive
similar exposure period.
remediation courses of action are not appropriate.
3.1.15 incremental carcinogenic risk levels—the potential
3.1.2 attenuation—the reduction in concentrations of
for incremental carcinogenic human health effects due to
chemical(s) of concern in the environment with distance and
exposure to the chemical(s) of concern.
time due to processes such as diffusion, dispersion, absorption,
3.1.16 indirect exposure pathways—an exposure pathway
chemical degradation, biodegradation, and so forth.
with at least one intermediate release to any media between the
3.1.3 chemical(s) of concern—specific constituents that are
source and the point(s) of exposure (for example, chemicals of
identified for evaluation in the risk assessment process.
concern from soil through ground water to the point(s) of
3.1.4 corrective action—the sequence of actions that include
exposure).
site assessment, interim remedial action, remedial action,
3.1.17 institutional controls—the restriction on use or ac-
operation and maintenance of equipment, monitoring of
cess (for example, fences, deed restrictions, restrictive zoning)
progress, and termination of the remedial action.
to a site or facility to eliminate or minimize potential exposure
3.1.5 direct exposure pathways—an exposure pathway
to a chemical(s) of concern.
where the point of exposure is at the source, without a release
3.1.18 interim remedial action—the course of action to
to any other medium.
mitigate fire and safety hazards and to prevent further migra-
3.1.6 ecological assessment—a qualitative appraisal of the
tion of hydrocarbons in their vapor, dissolved, or liquid phase.
actual or potential effects of chemical(s) of concern on plants
3.1.19 maximum contaminant level (MCL)—a standard for
and animals other than people and domestic species.
drinking water established by USEPA under the Safe Drinking
3.1.7 engineering controls—modifications to a site or facil-
Water Act, which is the maximum permissible level of chemi-
ity (for example, slurry walls, capping, and point of use water
cal(s) of concern in water that is delivered to any user of a
treatment) to reduce or eliminate the potential for exposure to
public water supply.
a chemical(s) of concern.
3.1.20 Monte Carlo simulation—a procedure to estimate the
3.1.8 exposure—contact of an organism with chemical(s) of
value and uncertainty of the result of a calculation when the
concern at the exchange boundaries (for example, skin, lungs,
result depends on a number of factors, each of which is also
and liver) and available for absorption.
uncertain.
3.1.21 natural biodegradation—the reduction in concentra-
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
tion of chemical(s) of concern through naturally occurring
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
microbial activity.
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
3.1.22 petroleum—including crude oil or any fraction
The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
thereof that is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and
www.astm.org.
5 pressure (15.5°C and 10 335.6 kg/m ). The term includes
Available from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, http://www.nfpa.org. petroleum-based substances comprised of a complex blend of
E1739 − 95 (2015)
hydrocarbons derived from crude oil through processes of and the extent of the migration of the chemical(s) of concern.
separation, conversion, upgrading, and finishing, such as motor The site assessment collects data on ground water quality and
fuels, jet oils, lubricants, petroleum solvents, and used oils. potential receptors and generates information to support reme-
dial action decisions.
3.1.23 point(s) of compliance—a location(s) selected be-
tween the source area(s) and the potential point(s) of exposure
3.1.37 site classification—a qualitative evaluation of a site
where concentrations of chemical(s) of concern must be at or
based on known or readily available information to identify the
below the determined target levels in media (for example,
need for interim remedial actions and further information
ground water, soil, or air).
gathering. Site classification is intended to specifically priori-
tize sites.
3.1.24 point(s) of exposure—the point(s) at which an indi-
vidual or population may come in contact with a chemical(s) of
3.1.38 site-specific target level (SSTL)—risk-based remedial
concern originating from a site.
action target level for chemical(s) of concern developed for a
3.1.25 qualitative risk analysis—a nonnumeric evaluation particular site under the Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations.
of a site to determine potential exposure pathways and recep-
3.1.39 site-specific—activities, information, and data unique
tors based on known or readily available information.
to a particular site.
3.1.26 reasonable maximum exposure (RME)—the highest
3.1.40 source area(s)—either the location of liquid hydro-
exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site. RMEs
carbons or the location of highest soil and ground water
are estimated for individual pathways or a combination of
concentrations of the chemical(s) of concern.
exposure pathways.
3.1.41 target levels—numeric values or other performance
3.1.27 reasonable potential exposure scenario— a situation
criteria that are protective of human health, safety, and the
with a credible chance of occurence where a receptor may
environment.
become directly or indirectly exposed to the chemical(s) of
concern without considering extreme or essentially impossible
3.1.42 Tier 1 evaluation—a risk-based analysis to develop
circumstances.
non-site-specific values for direct and indirect exposure path-
ways utilizing conservative exposure factors and fate and
3.1.28 reasonably anticipated future use—future use of a
transport for potential pathways and various property use
site or facility that can be predicted with a high degree of
categories (for example, residential, commercial, and industrial
certainty given current use, local government planning, and
uses). Values established under Tier 1 will apply to all sites that
zoning.
fall into a particular category.
3.1.29 receptors—persons, structures, utilities, surface
3.1.43 Tier 2 evaluation—a risk-based analysis applying the
waters, and water supply wells that are or may be adversely
affected by a release. direct exposure values established under a Tier 1 evaluation at
the point(s) of exposure developed for a specific site and
3.1.30 reference dose—a preferred toxicity value for evalu-
development of values for potential indirect exposure pathways
ating potential noncarcinogenic effects in humans resulting
at the point(s) of exposure based on site-specific conditions.
from exposure to a chemical(s) of concern.
3.1.44 Tier 3 evaluation—a risk-based analysis to develop
3.1.31 remediation/remedial action—activities conducted to
values for potential direct and indirect exposure pathways at
protect human health, safety, and the environment. These
the point(s) of exposure based on site-specific conditions.
activities include evaluating risk, making no-further-action
determinations, monitoring institutional controls, engineering
3.1.45 user—an individual or group involved in the RBCA
controls, and designing and operating cleanup equipment.
pro
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.