ASTM E1739-95(2002)
(Guide)Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites
Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites
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).
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 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; and
1.2.13 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, and
1.3.10 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 regulatio...
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
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 2002)
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
AssessmentandisthedirectresponsibilityofSubcommitteeE50.04onPerformance
controls, and
Standards Related to Environmental Regulatory Programs.
1.3.10 Appendix X5 provides examples of RBCA applica-
Current edition approved Sept. 10, 1995. Published November 1995. Originally
published as ES38–94. Last previous edition ES38–94. DOI: 10.1520/E1739-
tions.
95R02.
Theboldfacenumbersinparenthesesrefertothelistofreferencesattheendof
this guide.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E1739 – 95 (2002)
1.4 This guide describes an approach for RBCA. It is 3.1.10 exposure pathway—the course a chemical(s) of con-
intended to compliment but not supersede federal, state, and cern takes from the source area(s) to an exposed organism.An
local regulations. Federal, state, or local agency approval may exposure pathway describes a unique mechanism by which an
be required to implement the processes outlined in this guide. individualorpopulationisexposedtoachemical(s)ofconcern
1.5 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to originating from a site. Each exposure pathway includes a
be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses source or release from a source, a point of exposure, and an
are for information only. exposure route. If the exposure point differs from the source, a
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the transport/exposure medium (for example, air) or media also is
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the included.
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- 3.1.11 exposure route—the manner in which a chemical(s)
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
of concern comes in contact with an organism (for example,
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact).
3.1.12 facility—the property containing the source of the
2. Referenced Documents
chemical(s) of concern where a release has occurred.
2.1 ASTM Standards: 3.1.13 hazard index—the sum of two or more hazard
E1599 GuideforCorrectiveActionforPetroleumReleases quotients for multiple chemical(s) of concern or multiple
2.2 NFPA Standard: exposure pathways, or both.
NFPA 329 Handling Underground Releases of Flammable 3.1.14 hazard quotients—the ratio of the level of exposure
and Combustible Liquids
of a chemical(s) of concern over a specified time period to a
reference dose for that chemical(s) of concern derived for a
3. Terminology
similar exposure period.
3.1.15 incremental carcinogenic risk levels—the potential
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
for incremental carcinogenic human health effects due to
3.1.1 active remediation—actions taken to reduce the con-
exposure to the chemical(s) of concern.
centrations of chemical(s) of concern. Active remediation
could be implemented when the no-further-action and passive 3.1.16 indirect exposure pathways—an exposure pathway
withatleastoneintermediatereleasetoanymediabetweenthe
remediation courses of action are not appropriate.
3.1.2 attenuation—the reduction in concentrations of source and the point(s) of exposure (for example, chemicals of
concern from soil through ground water to the point(s) of
chemical(s) of concern in the environment with distance and
timeduetoprocessessuchasdiffusion,dispersion,absorption, exposure).
chemical degradation, biodegradation, and so forth. 3.1.17 institutional controls—the restriction on use or ac-
3.1.3 chemical(s) of concern—specific constituents that are
cess (for example, fences, deed restrictions, restrictive zoning)
identified for evaluation in the risk assessment process. to a site or facility to eliminate or minimize potential exposure
3.1.4 corrective action—the sequence of actions that in- to a chemical(s) of concern.
cludesiteassessment,interimremedialaction,remedialaction,
3.1.18 interim remedial action—the course of action to
operation and maintenance of equipment, monitoring of
mitigate fire and safety hazards and to prevent further migra-
progress, and termination of the remedial action.
tion of hydrocarbons in their vapor, dissolved, or liquid phase.
3.1.5 direct exposure pathways—an exposure pathway
3.1.19 maximum contaminant level (MCL)—a standard for
where the point of exposure is at the source, without a release
drinking water established by USEPAunder the Safe Drinking
to any other medium.
WaterAct, which is the maximum permissible level of chemi-
3.1.6 ecological assessment—a qualitative appraisal of the
cal(s) of concern in water that is delivered to any user of a
actual or potential effects of chemical(s) of concern on plants
public water supply.
and animals other than people and domestic species.
3.1.20 MonteCarlosimulation—aproceduretoestimatethe
3.1.7 engineering controls—modifications to a site or facil-
value and uncertainty of the result of a calculation when the
ity (for example, slurry walls, capping, and point of use water
result depends on a number of factors, each of which is also
treatment) to reduce or eliminate the potential for exposure to
uncertain.
a chemical(s) of concern.
3.1.21 natural biodegradation—the reduction in concentra-
3.1.8 exposure—contactofanorganismwithchemical(s)of
tion of chemical(s) of concern through naturally occurring
concern at the exchange boundaries (for example, skin, lungs,
microbial activity.
and liver) and available for absorption.
3.1.22 petroleum—including crude oil or any fraction
3.1.9 exposure assessment—thedeterminationorestimation
thereof that is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and
(qualitative or quantitative) of the magnitude, frequency, du- 2
pressure (60°F and 14.7 lb/in. absolute; (15.5°C and 10335.6
ration, and route of exposure. 2
kg/m )). The term includes petroleum-based substances com-
prised of a complex blend of hydrocarbons derived from crude
oilthroughprocessesofseparation,conversion,upgrading,and
Withdrawn.
finishing, such as motor fuels, jet oils, lubricants, petroleum
Withdrawn. The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced
solvents, and used oils.
on www.astm.org.
3.1.23 point(s) of compliance—a location(s) selected be-
AvailablefromNationalFireProtectionAssociation,1BatterymarchPark,P.O.
Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269. tween the source area(s) and the potential point(s) of exposure
E1739 – 95 (2002)
where concentrations of chemical(s) of concern must be at or 3.1.37 site classification—a qualitative evaluation of a site
below the determined target levels in media (for example, basedonknownorreadilyavailableinformationtoidentifythe
need for interim remedial actions and further information
ground water, soil, or air).
gathering. Site classification is intended to specifically priori-
3.1.24 point(s) of exposure—the point(s) at which an indi-
tize sites.
vidualorpopulationmaycomeincontactwithachemical(s)of
3.1.38 site-specifictargetlevel(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, and data
tors based on known or readily available information.
unique 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
criteria that are protective of human health, safety, and the
3.1.27 reasonable potential exposure scenario— a situation
environment.
with a credible chance of occurence where a receptor may
3.1.42 Tier 1 evaluation—a risk-based analysis to develop
become directly or indirectly exposed to the chemical(s) of
non-site-specific values for direct and indirect exposure path-
concern without considering extreme or essentially impossible
ways utilizing conservative exposure factors and fate and
circumstances.
transport for potential pathways and various property use
3.1.28 reasonably anticipated future use—future use of a
categories(forexample,residential,commercial,andindustrial
site or facility that can be predicted with a high degree of
uses).ValuesestablishedunderTier1willapplytoallsitesthat
certainty given current use, local government planning, and
fall into a particular category.
zoning.
3.1.43 Tier 2 evaluation—arisk-basedanalysisapplyingthe
3.1.29 receptors—persons, structures, utilities, surface wa- direct exposure values established under a Tier 1 evaluation at
ters, and water supply wells that are or may be adversely the point(s) of exposure developed for a specific site and
developmentofvaluesforpotentialindirectexposurepathways
affected by a release.
at the point(s) of exposure based on site-specific conditions.
3.1.30 reference dose—a preferred toxicity value for evalu-
3.1.44 Tier 3 evaluation—a risk-based analysis to develop
ating potential noncarcinogenic effects in humans resulting
values for potential direct and indirect exposure pathways at
from exposure to a chemical(s) of concern.
the point(s) of exposure based on site-specific conditions.
3.1.31 remediation/remedialaction—activitiesconductedto
3.1.45 user—an individual or group involved in the RBCA
protect human health, safety, and the environment. These
process including owners, operators, regulators, underground
activities include evaluating risk, making no-further-action
storage tank (UST) fund managers, attorneys, consultants,
determinations, monitoring institutional controls, engineering
legislators, and so forth.
controls, and designing and operating cleanup equipment.
3.1.32 risk assessment—an analysis of the potential for 4. Significance and Use
adversehealtheffectscausedbyachemical(s)ofconcernfrom
4.1 The allocation of limited resources (for example, time,
a site to determine the need for remedial action or the
money, regulatory oversight, qualified professionals) to any
developmentoftargetlevelswhereremedialactionisrequired.
one petroleum release site necessarily influences corrective
3.1.33 risk reduction—the lowering or elimination of the action decisions at other sites. This has spurred the sear
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.