iTeh StandardsiTeh Standards
EURUSD
Your shopping cart is empty.
ASTM

ASTM E2205-02

(Guide)

Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources

Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources

SCOPE
1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action for the protection of ecological resources and supplements the RBCA process (Guide E 2081). The primary objective of the Eco-RBCA process is to provide a flexible framework for a tiered approach to ERA and risk management decision making at chemical release sites. To this end, available guidance documents from various federal and state agencies were reviewed and their common attributes incorporated into this guide, where possible. The Eco-RBCA process complements existing technical and regulatory ecological risk guidance (see 4.2). In particular, it is intended to be compatible with the USEPA programmatic guidelines for ERA  (1), guidance for the Superfund program (2), and other USEPA (3) risk assessment and corrective-action programs. Eco-RBCA might also be used in conjunction with corrective action strategies that include human health issues (for example, Guide E 2081).
1.2 Chemical release sites vary greatly in terms of complexity, physical and chemical characteristics, and the risk that they might pose to ecological resources. The Eco-RBCA process, as described in Guide E 2081, recognizes this variability and incorporates a tiered approach that integrates site assessment, response actions, and remedial actions with ERA. The process begins with relatively simple analyses in Tier 1 and, if necessary, proceeds to more detailed evaluations in Tier 2 or Tier 3. The process of gathering and evaluating data is conducted in such a manner that only those data that are necessary for a given tier's decision making are collected at each tier. Hence, this can facilitate effective use of resources and reduce initial data requirements.
1.3 Eco-RBCA is intended to provide a framework for sites not covered under regulatory programs and for sites under regulatory programs that lack specific guidance. Eco-RBCA may also provide a useful framework to help merge several possible approaches into a single approach when multiple regulatory programs apply. The user should be aware of the federal, state, and local corrective action programs and policies that are applicable for the site and, regardless of the program, that agency approvals might be required to implement the process for completing ERAs.
1.4 Various TPDs will need to be made regarding the aspects of Eco-RBCA. These TPDs may cover both the philosophical and methodological aspects, from what values to protect to exactly how the Eco-RBCA process will be performed. TPDs may affect every stage of the process, from the initial site assessment to development and monitoring of the remedy. It is the responsibility of the user to identify the appropriate TPDs. Section 7, Appendix X2, and Guide E 2081 provide more detail regarding TPDs in the Eco-RBCA process.
1.5 The general performance standard for this document requires that:
1.5.1 Applicable TPDs be identified, beginning at the initiation of the Eco-RBCA process, and as appropriate, at later stages;
1.5.2 Data used in the Eco-RBCA process be of sufficient quantity and quality to answer the questions and support the decisions made at the tier of investigation;
1.5.3 Site assessments be distinguished into tiers of appropriate levels of evaluation;
1.5.4 Actions taken should integrate the Eco-RBCA process for the protection of relevant ecological receptors and habitats and RBCA for the protection of human health (see Guide E 2081), as appropriate;
1.5.5 Applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations be followed; and
1.5.6 Potential adverse effects on relevant ecological receptors and habitats be considered when selecting remedial action alternatives. The remedial action alternatives should be consistent with the TPDs and the RBCA process (see Guide E 2081).
1.6 Ecological resources are the focus of this guide; risks to human health are addressed for petroleum releases and chemical releases in other ASTM RBCA standards (Guides E 1739 and E 2081). There are ...

General Information

Status
Historical
Publication Date
09-May-2002
ICS
13.020.40 - Pollution, pollution control and conservation
Technical Committee
E50 - Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action
Drafting Committee
E50.04 - Corrective Action
Current Stage
Ref Project

Relations

Replaced By
ASTM E2205/E2205M-02(2009)e1 - Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources
Effective Date
01-Mar-2009
Referred By
ASTM E2616-09(2020) - Standard Guide for Remedy Selection Integrating Risk-Based Corrective Action and Non-Risk Considerations
Effective Date
10-May-2002
Referred By
ASTM E2790-20 - Standard Guide for Identifying and Complying With Continuing Obligations
Effective Date
10-May-2002
Referred By
ASTM E2091-22 - Standard Guide for Use of Activity and Use Limitations, Including Institutional and Engineering Controls
Effective Date
10-May-2002
Referred By
ASTM E2531-06(2020) - Standard Guide for Development of Conceptual Site Models and Remediation Strategies for Light Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids Released to the Subsurface
Effective Date
10-May-2002
Referred By
ASTM E2348-17 - Standard Guide for Framework for a Consensus-based Environmental Decision-making Process
Effective Date
10-May-2002
Referred By
ASTM E2137-22 - Standard Guide for Estimating Monetary Costs and Liabilities for Environmental Matters
Effective Date
10-May-2002
Referred By
ASTM E3358-23a - Standard Guide for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Site Screening and Initial Characterization
Effective Date
10-May-2002
Referred By
ASTM E3155-19 - Standard Guide for Assessing Mammal Health at Chemically Contaminated Terrestrial Sites Using Rodent Sperm Analysis
Effective Date
10-May-2002

Buy Standard

ASTM E2205-02 - Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological ResourcesASTM E2205-02 - Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources
PreviousNext
Guide
ASTM E2205-02 - Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources
English language
61 pages
sale 15% off
Preview
sale 15% off
Preview

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: E 2205 – 02
Standard Guide for
Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological
1
Resources
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2205; 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 (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
This guide for risk-based corrective action for the protection of ecological resources (Eco-RBCA)
provides a flexible framework for a tiered approach to ecological risk assessment (ERA) and risk
management decision-making at chemical release sites. The framework of the Eco-RBCA guide
parallels the framework in Guide E 2081 with respect to the tiered approach for data gathering,
evaluationanddecision-making,andshould,whenpossible,beconductedconcurrentwiththebroader
RBCAprocess activities.The Eco-RBCAguide directs the user to Guide E 2081 for development and
implementation of a corrective action program. This guide supplements Guide E 2081 and was
developed after careful consideration of the peer-reviewed published literature and existing federal,
regional, and state ecological risk–assessment guidance. The user of this guide, as defined in 3.1.44,
needs to be familiar with Guide E 2081 and the overall RBCA process. The RBCA process provides
a flexible, technically defensible framework for corrective action that has applicability to a wide range
of sites and chemicals of concern.
ASTM guides are not federal or state regulations; rather, they are consensus standards that can be
followed voluntarily. It is not within the scope of this standard to provide the details of specific
regulatory requirements. Collectively, the Eco-RBCA and RBCA guides provide an integrated
framework to corrective action. Eco-RBCA is intended to complement rather than replace the
decision-making structures of regulatory programs. In addition, Eco-RBCA is intended to provide a
framework for sites not covered under regulatory programs, for sites under regulatory programs that
lackguidance,orforsitesunderprogramswithguidancethatlackdetail.Eco-RBCAmayalsoprovide
a useful framework to help merge an approach when multiple regulatory programs apply. Even when
a site is not currently governed by a regulatory program, consultation with the appropriate regulatory
agency(ies) will ensure regulatory compliance and provide technical guidance.
TheEco-RBCAprocessisintendedtoaccommodateadiversityofsitesandconditionsbyproviding
a framework that can address site-specific needs. The appendixes provide useful technical details and
case study examples, although the application of this guide does not require their use. Eco-RBCA is
a process for evaluating ecological risk and decision making. To facilitate the implementation of
Eco-RBCA, the framework is organized into ten steps and three risk assessment tiers that begin with
relatively simple analyses and progress to more complex assessments as site conditions warrant (see
Fig. 1).Although organized into steps and tiers, the user should recognize that Eco-RBCAprogresses
conceptually in a linear manner, but may not be implemented in a linear manner.The objective should
be to conduct the evaluation in the manner that most appropriately meets the needs and goals of the
assessment. Each tier includes five types of activities that increase in complexity and level of effort
as the evaluation progresses through the RBCAprocess.These activities are (1) planning and scoping,
(2) data and information acquisition, (3) analysis and evaluation, (4) decision making, and (5)
remedial actions. The details of the activities and how they are implemented can vary, depending on
the nature and complexity of the site and the tier level. Early in the Eco-RBCAprocess, assumptions
are biased toward being overly protective (that is, “conservative”) because of uncertainties inherent in
non–site-specificdata.Typically,asthesiteprogressesthroughthetieredevaluation,moresite-specific
information is collected and uncertainty decreases; therefore, less-conservative assumptions can be
used in the evaluation.As understanding of site conditions improves, confidence often increases. The
progression of the evaluation through the tiered process is accompanied by an increasing degree of
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
1

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
E2205–02
FIG. 1 Eco-RBCA Process Flowchart—Adapted from the RBCA Flowchart (Guide E 2081)
formalization that could include the documentation of a screening-level assessment or the use of
formal ecological risk assessment (ERA) methods. As additional site-speci
...

Questions, Comments and Discussion

Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.

This May Also Interest You

ASTM
ASTM E2205/E2205M-22(Guide)
Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of Ecological Resources

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The Eco-RBCA process presented in this guide is a streamlined decision-making process for implementing corrective action protective of ecological resources at chemical release sites in a consistent manner. Eco-RBCA provides a framework for sites not covered under regulatory programs, for sites under regulatory programs that lack guidance, or for sites under programs with guidance that lack detail. Eco-RBCA may also provide a useful framework to help merge an approach when multiple regulatory programs apply.  
4.2 Ecological risk assessment is a science-based process that can be used to provide insight for risk management decision-making. Numerous federal and state programs have guidance for conducting ERA. Available regulatory approaches to ERA were reviewed in preparation for the development of this Eco-RBCA guide. Eco-RBCA was designed to be adaptable to the use of a variety of methods for considering risks to relevant ecological receptors and habitats. Some attributes of the standard are:  
4.2.1 Use of a tiered approach, including process flow charts to identify critical steps and facilitate the development of an overview of the entire process;  
4.2.2 Identification, development, and use of TPDs from Step 1 and throughout the entire Eco-RBCA process;  
4.2.3 Indications of the value and timing of stakeholder involvement, recognizing that some regulations require coordination with federal, state, tribal, and natural-resource trustees, and other stakeholders;  
4.2.4 Identification of situations under which an ERA may or may not be necessary; and  
4.2.5 Identification of decision points where ERA results are used for risk management decision making.  
4.3 Activities described in this guide should involve persons with the appropriate skills and expertise. The user may rely on individuals expert in remediation science and technology, ecology/biology, ecotoxicology, ERA practices, and site characterization techniques.  
4.4 This guide and supporting app...
SCOPE
1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action for the protection of ecological resources and supplements the RBCA process (Guide E2081). The primary objective of the Eco-RBCA process is to provide a flexible framework for a tiered approach to ERA and risk management decision making at chemical release sites. To this end, available guidance documents from various federal and state agencies were reviewed and their common attributes incorporated into this guide, where possible. The Eco-RBCA process complements existing technical and regulatory ecological risk guidance (see 4.2). In particular, it is intended to be compatible with the USEPA programmatic guidelines for ERA  (1)2, guidance for the Superfund program (2), and other USEPA (3) risk assessment and corrective-action programs. Eco-RBCA might also be used in conjunction with corrective action strategies that include human health issues (for example, Guide E2081).  
1.2 Chemical release sites vary greatly in terms of complexity, physical and chemical characteristics, and the risk that they might pose to ecological resources. The Eco-RBCA process, as described in Guide E2081, recognizes this variability and incorporates a tiered approach that integrates site assessment, response actions, and remedial actions with ERA. The process begins with relatively simple analyses in Tier 1 and, if necessary, proceeds to more detailed evaluations in Tier 2 or Tier 3. The process of gathering and evaluating data is conducted in such a manner that only those data that are necessary for a given tier's decision making are collected at each tier. Hence, this can facilitate effective use of resources and reduce initial data requirements.  
1.3 Eco-RBCA is intended to provide a framework for sites not covered under regulatory programs and for sites under regulatory programs that lack specific guidance. Eco-RBCA may also provide a useful framework to help merge several possible appr...

  • Guide
    64 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Guide
    64 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM D6008-22(Practice)
Standard Practice for Determining the Environmental Condition of Federal Property

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Uses—This practice is intended for use by federal agencies, and environmental professionals in order to facilitate ECP efforts. It is also intended for use by preparers and reviewers of environmental condition of property maps and ECP reports used to support CERFA uncontaminated property identifications and property suitable for transfer by lease or by deed. GSA regulations addressing the disposal of federal property (41 CFR §105-72), require the landholding agency to assert either that (a) there is no evidence of hazardous substance activity, or (b) there is evidence of hazardous substance activity that occurred on the property. If there is evidence that hazardous substance activity occurred on the property, the landholding agency has a “due diligence” obligation to provide detailed, accurate information on all “reportable quantities” of hazardous substances stored, released, or disposed of on property that it reports to GSA for disposal. The specific substances that must be reported under CERCLA and their reporting limits are described in 40 CFR §302.4 and 40 CFR §373. If the landholding agency discloses that hazardous substance activity took place on the property, then the landholding agency must assert whether or not all required remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken with respect to those hazardous substances.  
4.1.1 The ECP reports prepared in accordance with this practice may be used to achieve compliance with the federal Management Regulations, Real Property Disposal rules codified in 41 CFR §102-75.  
4.2 Clarifications on Use:  
4.2.1 Use Not Limited to CERCLA—This practice is designed to assist the user in developing information about the environmental condition of a property and as such has utility for a wide range of persons, including those who may have no actual or potential CERCLA liability (see 40 CFR §373, 41 CFR §102-75 and Section 208 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Public Law ...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this practice is to define good commercial and customary practice in the United States for assessing the environmental condition of property (ECP) of federal real property. This practice applies to property under consideration for lease, excess and surplus property at closing and realigning military installations, claims reverting to federal ownership such as abandoned mines, and other federally-owned property. The steps in this practice are conducted to fulfill certain requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) section 120(h), as amended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 (CERFA) and the federal real property disposal regulations codified in 41 CFR Subpart C (41 CFR 102-75). As such, this practice is intended to help a user to gather and analyze data and information in order to classify property into the applicable environmental condition of property area types (in accordance with the ASTM D5746, Standard Classification of Environmental Condition of Property Area Types, (see Appendix X1). Once documented, the ECP report is used to support Findings of Suitability to Transfer (FOSTs), Findings of Suitability to Lease (FOSLs), or uncontaminated property determinations, or a combination thereof, pursuant to the requirements of CERFA and CERCLA § 120(h). Users of this practice should note that it does not address (except where explicitly noted) requirements for appropriate and timely regulatory consultation or concurrence, or both, during the conduct of the ECP or during the identification and use of the standard environmental condition of property area types.  
1.1.1 Environmental Condition of Property—In accordance with the federal landholding agency policies and General Services Administration’s (GSA) federal real property management regulations, an ECP will be prepared or evaluated for its usefulness (...

  • Standard
    58 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    58 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2020-22(Guide)
Standard Guide for Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
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.
SCOPE
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.

  • Guide
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Guide
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E1563-21a(Guide)
Standard Guide for Conducting Short-Term Chronic Toxicity Tests with Echinoid Embryos

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 An acute toxicity test is conducted to assess effects of a short-term exposure of organisms to a test material under specific experimental conditions. An acute toxicity test does not provide information concerning whether delayed effects will occur and typically evaluates effects on survival. A chronic test is typically longer in duration and includes a sublethal endpoint to assess effects on a population that might occur beyond the exposure period. Because the echinoderm embryo development test includes a sublethal endpoint, but is also short in duration, these tests are considered to be short-term chronic tests, consistent with EPA guidance.  
5.2 Because embryos and larvae are usually assumed to be the most sensitive life stages of these echinoid species, and because some of these species are commercially and recreationally important, the results of these tests are often considered to be a good indication of the acceptability of pollutant concentrations to saltwater species in general. The results of these toxicity tests are often assumed to be an important consideration when assessing the hazard of materials to other saltwater organisms (see Guides E724 and E1023) or when deriving water quality criteria for saltwater organisms  (7).  
5.3 The results of short-term chronic toxicity tests might be used to predict effects likely to occur to aquatic organisms in field situations as a result of exposure under comparable conditions, except that toxicity to benthic species might depend on sorption or settling of the test material onto the substrate.  
5.4 The results of short-term chronic tests might be used to compare the sensitivities of different species and the acute toxicities of different test materials, and to determine the effects of various environmental factors on the results of such tests.  
5.5 The results of short-term chronic toxicity tests might be useful for studying the biological availability of, and structure-activity relationships between, t...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers procedures for obtaining laboratory data concerning the short-term chronic effects of a test material on echinoderm embryos and the resulting larvae (sea urchins and sand dollars) during static 48- to 96-h exposures. These procedures have generally been used with U.S. East Coast (Arbacia punctulata and  Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis ) (1)3 and West Coast species (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, S. droebachiensis, and Dendraster excentricus) (2). The basic procedures described in this guide first originated in Japan and Scandanavia  (3), and parallel procedures have been used with foreign species, especially in Japan and the Mediterranean  (4). These procedures will probably be useful for conducting static toxicity tests with embryos of other echinoid species, although modifications might be necessary.  
1.2 Other modifications of these procedures might be justified by special needs or circumstances. Although using procedures appropriate to a particular species or special needs and circumstances is more important than following prescribed procedures, the results of tests conducted by using unusual procedures are not likely to be comparable with those of many other tests. The comparison of results obtained by using modified and unmodified versions of these procedures might provide useful information concerning new concepts and procedures for conducting tests starting with embryos of echinoids.  
1.3 These procedures are applicable to most chemicals, either individually or in formulations, commercial products, or known mixtures. With appropriate modifications, these procedures can be used to conduct tests on temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH and on such materials as aqueous effluents (see also Guide E1192), leachates, oils, particulate matter, surface waters, effluents, and sediments (Annex A1). Renewal tests might be preferable to static tests for materials that have a high oxygen demand, are...

  • Guide
    23 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Guide
    23 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E724-21(Guide)
Standard Guide for Conducting Static Short-Term Chronic Toxicity Tests Starting with Embryos of Four Species of Saltwater Bivalve Molluscs

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 An acute toxicity test is conducted to assess the effects of a short term exposure of organisms to a test material under specific experimental conditions. An acute toxicity test does not provide information concerning whether delayed effects will occur and typically evaluates effects on survival. A chronic test is typically longer in duration and includes a sublethal endpoint to assess effects on a population that might occur beyond the exposure period. Because the bivalve embryo development test includes a sublethal endpoint, but is also short in duration, these tests are considered to be short-term chronic tests.  
5.2 Because embryos and larvae are usually assumed to be the most sensitive life stages of these bivalve mollusc species and because these species are commercially and recreationally important, results of these acute tests are often considered to be a good indication of the acceptability of pollutant concentrations to saltwater molluscan species in general. Results of these acute toxicity tests are often assumed to be an important consideration when assessing the hazard of materials to other saltwater organisms (see Guide E1023) or when deriving water quality criteria for saltwater organisms (3) .  
5.3 Results of short-term chronic toxicity tests might be used to predict effects likely to occur to aquatic organisms in field situations as a result of exposure under comparable conditions, except that toxicity to benthic species might depend on sorption or settling of the test material onto the substrate.  
5.4 Results of short-term chronic tests might be used to compare the sensitivities of different species to different test materials, and to determine the effects of various environmental factors on results of such tests.  
5.5 Results of short-term chronic toxicity tests might be useful for studying biological availability of, and structure activity relationships between, test materials.  
5.6 Results of any toxicity test will depend on temper...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes procedures for obtaining laboratory data concerning the acute effects of a test material on embryos and the resulting larvae of four species of saltwater bivalve molluscs (Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas Thunberg; eastern oyster,  Crassostrea virginica Gmelin; quahog or hard clam,  Mercenaria mercenaria Linnaeus; and the mussel species complex (Mytilus spp.) including the blue mussel,  Mytilus edulis Linnaeus; the Mediterranean mussel, Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamark; and the Northern Bay Mussel, Mytilus trossulus Gould) during static 48-h exposures. These procedures will probably be useful for conducting static short-term chronic toxicity tests starting with embryos of other bivalve species (1)2 although modifications might be necessary.  
1.2 Other modifications of these procedures might be justified by special needs or circumstances. Although using procedures appropriate to a particular species or special needs and circumstances is more important than following prescribed procedures, results of tests conducted by using unusual procedures are not likely to be comparable to results of many other tests. Comparison of results obtained by using modified and unmodified versions of these procedures might provide useful information concerning new concepts and procedures for conducting 48-h acute tests starting with embryos of bivalve molluscs.  
1.3 These procedures are applicable to most chemicals, either individually or in formulations, commercial products, or known mixtures. With appropriate modifications these procedures can be used to conduct acute tests on temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH and on such materials as aqueous effluents (see also Guide E1192), leachates, oils, particulate matter, sediments, and surface waters. Renewal tests might be preferable to static tests for materials that have a high oxygen demand, are highly volatile, are rapidly biologically or chemically transformed...

  • Guide
    23 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Guide
    23 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E1676-12(2021)(Guide)
Standard Guide for Conducting Laboratory Soil Toxicity or Bioaccumulation Tests with the Lumbricid Earthworm Eisenia Fetida and the Enchytraeid Potworm Enchytraeus albidus

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Soil toxicity tests provide information concerning the toxicity and bioavailability of chemicals associated with soils to terrestrial organisms. As important members of the soil fauna, lumbricid earthworms and enchytraeid potworms have a number of characteristics that make them appropriate organisms for use in the assessment of potentially hazardous soils. Earthworms may ingest large quantities of soil, have a close relationship with other soil biomasses (for example, invertebrates, roots, humus, litter, and microorganisms), constitute up to 92 % of the invertebrate biomass of soil, and are important in recycling nutrients (1, 2).4 Enchytraeids contribute up to 5.2 % of soil respiration, constitute the second-highest biomass in many soils (the highest in acid soils in which earthworms are lacking) and effect considerably nutrient cycling and community metabolism (3-5). Earthworms and potworms accumulate and are affected by a variety of organic and inorganic compounds (2-10, 11-14). In addition, earthworms and potworms are important in terrestrial food webs, constituting a food source for a very wide variety of organisms, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, nematodes, and centipedes  (15, 16, 3). A major change in the abundance of soil invertebrates such as lumbricids or enchytraeids, either as a food source or as organisms functioning properly in trophic energy transfer and nutrient cycling, could have serious adverse ecological effects on the entire terrestrial system.  
5.2 A number of species of lumbricids and enchytraeid worms have been used in field and laboratory investigations in the United States and Europe. Although the sensitivity of various lumbricid species to specific chemicals may vary, from their study of four species of earthworms (including E. fetida) exposed to ten organic compounds representing six classes of chemicals, Neuhauser, et al  (7)  suggest that the selection of earthworm test species does not affect the a...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers procedures for obtaining laboratory data to evaluate the adverse effects of contaminants (for example, chemicals or biomolecules) associated with soil to earthworms (Family Lumbricidae) and potworms (Family Enchytraeidae) from soil toxicity or bioaccumulation tests. The methods are designed to assess lethal or sublethal toxic effects on earthworms or bioaccumulation of contaminants in short-term tests (7 to 28 days) or on potworms in short to long-term tests (14 to 42 days) in terrestrial systems. Soils to be tested may be (1) reference soils or potentially toxic site soils; (2) artificial, reference, or site soils spiked with compounds; (3) site soils diluted with reference soils; or (4) site or reference soils diluted with artificial soil. Test procedures are described for the species Eisenia fetida (see Annex A1) and for the species Enchytraeus albidus (see Annex A4). Methods described in this guide may also be useful for conducting soil toxicity tests with other lumbricid and enchytraeid terrestrial species, although modifications may be necessary.  
1.2 Modification of these procedures might be justified by special needs. The results of tests conducted using atypical procedures may not be comparable to results using this guide. Comparison of results obtained using modified and unmodified versions of these procedures might provide useful information concerning new concepts and procedures for conducting soil toxicity and bioaccumulation tests with terrestrial worms.  
1.3 The results from field-collected soils used in toxicity tests to determine a spatial or temporal distribution of soil toxicity may be reported in terms of the biological effects on survival or sublethal endpoints (see Section 14). These procedures can be used with appropriate modifications to conduct soil toxicity tests when factors such as temperature, pH, and soil characteristics (for example, particle size, organic matter c...

  • Guide
    27 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2616-09(2020)(Guide)
Standard Guide for Remedy Selection Integrating Risk-Based Corrective Action and Non-Risk Considerations

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
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).
SCOPE
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 Process  
1.2 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 Flowchart  
FIG. 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...

  • Guide
    17 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E1848-20(Guide)
Standard Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints for Contaminated Sites

ABSTRACT
This guide deals with an approach to identification, selection, and use of ecological endpoints (both assessment and measurement endpoints) that are susceptible to the direct and indirect effects of both chemical and non-chemical stressors and agents associated with wastes and contaminated media at specific sites under current and future land uses. It does not address assessment and measurement endpoints for non-site specific studies (for example, chemical specific or regional risk assessments) or measurements in abiotic media (soil, water, or air). Conditions of the site and risk assessment that should be considered in identifying and selecting assessment and measurement endpoints include stressor characteristics, ecosystem types, spatial scale, temporal scale, ecological organization, and functionality/values. The following subsections present a partial listing of representative measurement endpoints: measurement endpoints representing ecosystem assessment endpoints, measurement endpoints representing community assessment endpoints, measurement endpoints representing population assessment endpoints, and measurement endpoints representing individual organism assessment endpoints. Other general considerations, desirable characteristics of assessment and measurement endpoints, candidate site-related ecological receptors, candidate assessment endpoints, specific steps in identifying, selecting and using assessment and measurement endpoints, addressing uncertainties in the identification and selection of assessment and measurement endpoints, documenting the selection of assessment and measurement endpoints.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide assumes that a decision has been made that an ecological risk assessment is required for a contaminated site. In some cases, this decision could be made before any site data are collected. See Fig. 1.
FIG. 1 Conceptual Relationships between Assessment Endpoints, Measurement Endpoints and Lines of Evidence (Source: Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance, Government of Canada, March 2012)  
4.2 The selection of assessment endpoints (defined as ecological values to be protected) and measurement endpoints (ecological characteristics related to the assessment endpoints) is a critical step in conducting an ecological risk assessment. Endpoint selection identifies those effects which are ecologically significant and not merely those that are adverse, thus providing a more rational and defensible basis for making risk and remedial decisions.  
4.3 This guide provides an approach for identifying, selecting and using assessment and measurement endpoints in an ecological risk assessment for a contaminated site. This guide has been developed because there is no universal, simple measure of ecological health analogous to measures used in human health risk assessment. Assessment and measurement endpoints have to be identified and selected from a variety of individual circumstances on a stressor-, ecosystem- and scale-specific basis. It is important to recognize that a diverse set of ecological endpoints could be required for a specific site. EPA/100/F15/005 Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) For Ecological Risk Assessment: Second Edition With Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints Added. July 2016)  
4.4 This guide is intended to be used primarily by a biologist, ecologist, ecotoxicologist, or a team of environmental scientists during problem formulation and work plan development prior to initiating data collection activities at a contaminated site (3-8, 10).  
4.5 Ecological risk assessment is usually an...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers an approach to identification, selection, and use of ecological endpoints (both assessment and measurement endpoints) (1-8)2 that are susceptible to the direct and indirect effects of both chemical and non-chemical stressors or agents associated with wastes and contaminated media at spe...

  • Guide
    11 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Guide
    11 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2435-05(2020)(Guide)
Standard Guide for Application of Engineering Controls to Facilitate Use or Redevelopment of Chemical-Affected Properties

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Intended Application of Guide—This guide is intended for use at properties that are presently developed or proposed for development for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes but which contain chemical-affected soil, groundwater, air, or other environmental media, which may pose an unacceptable risk to human health. This guide can be used as a tool for planning and implementation of property reuse or redevelopment activities at former commercial/industrial facilities, “brownfield” properties, or properties containing naturally occurring, chemical-affected environmental media so as to effectively manage potential human exposures to COCs which might otherwise limit productive use of the property.  
4.2 Situations Where This Guide May Be Applied—An engineering control may be needed as part of the development plan when: (1) COCs are present in soil, groundwater, or other environmental media at concentrations posing unacceptable risk(s) to human health per applicable regulatory criteria or a risk-based evaluation; (2) a potentially complete exposure pathway for COCs is likely to exist in the absence of an engineering control or other response measure, and (3) installation and maintenance of the engineering control is determined to be an applicable and cost-effective response action relative to other options. A property should not be excluded from development or redevelopment solely on the basis of chemical-affected media, in general, and chemical-affected groundwater, in particular. If no affected environmental media are identified as having COC concentrations in excess of applicable regulatory standards or risk-based criteria, then engineering controls or other response measures are not required.  
4.3 Assumptions for Use of This Guide—For use of this guide, it is assumed that (1) an environmental site assessment has been completed to characterize chemical-affected environmental media, (2) exposures to COCs posing an unacceptable risk to the health of cur...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide presents general considerations for application of engineering controls to facilitate continued use or redevelopment of properties containing chemical-affected soil, groundwater, or other environmental media, due either to chemical releases or naturally-occurring conditions. This guide is not meant to be prescriptive but rather to present considerations for evaluating technologies capable of addressing potential human exposures associated with chemical-affected environmental media.  
1.2 Table 1 lists the considerations that should be taken into account when developing an engineering control in accordance with this guide.  
1.3 This guide is intended for use by real estate developers, civil/structural designers, environmental regulators, industrial parties, environmental consultants, and other persons concerned with residential, commercial, or industrial development of real properties where chemical-affected environmental media are present. The design process should involve the individuals and firms working on various aspects of the specifications for construction, operation, and maintenance. If the site is located on public property, then public participation should be considered during the design process.  
1.4 This guide is directed toward properties where chemical-affected environmental media, associated with either human-influenced activities or naturally-occurring conditions, will remain in place and where active or passive engineering controls will be used to reduce or eliminate exposures that may otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to property users.  
1.5 This guide identifies the exposure concerns associated with chemical-affected properties that may affect the property development plan, both in the construction phase and during the proposed use of the property; defines performance standards for control of applicable exposure pathways; and, for each exposure pathway, provides examples of eng...

  • Guide
    34 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2790-20(Guide)
Standard Guide for Identifying and Complying With Continuing Obligations

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Uses—This guide is intended for use on a voluntary basis primarily by parties who desire to satisfy  continuing obligations at commercial real estate or at forestland or rural properties. As such, this guide provides information and suggested procedures that could be useful to persons who wish to establish one of the CERCLA LLPs or similar liability protections offered under state law. This guide may apply where response actions have already occurred, where response actions remain ongoing, or where response actions may be necessary in the future. As noted in 1.1.2, the use of this guide need not be necessarily limited to CERCLA LLPs.  
4.2 Clarifications on Use:  
4.2.1 Use is Property-Specific—Continuing obligations, and the process to identify and implement continuing obligations, is necessarily property-specific. Therefore, this guide includes information to consider when performing a property-specific, fact-based evaluation to determine appropriate continuing obligations.  
4.2.2 Partially Addresses Eligibility for CERCLA LLPs—Users wishing to establish CERCLA LLPs should be aware that the continuing obligations covered by this guide comprise only part of CERCLA's statutory eligibility requirements for LLPs. For example, users seeking to qualify for LLPs  must perform AAI before property acquisition. Users  seeking the BFPP or CPO LLP must also demonstrate that they are not liable or potentially liable or affiliated with any person who is liable or potentially liable for releases of  hazardous substances under CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. §9607(q)(1)(A)(ii); 42 U.S.C. §9601(40)(B)(viii). Further, users seeking the BFPP  or ILO  LLP must establish that disposal of hazardous substances occurred on the property prior to its acquisition. 42 U.S.C. §9601(40)(B)(i); 42 U.S.C. §9601(35)(A). Users seeking the CPO LLP must establish that they did not cause, contribute or consent to the release of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C. §9607(q)(A)(i). Finally, users seeking to qual...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this guide is to provide information and guidance2 related to the process of identifying and fulfilling continuing obligations3 at commercial real estate, and forestland and rural property that is contaminated by hazardous substances within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), petroleum products, or other contaminants that require cleanup under federal or state law (collectively hereafter chemicals of concern). Because of the importance of federal law, this guide largely focuses on continuing obligations applicable to the innocent landowner (ILO), the contiguous property owner (CPO), and the bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) protections from CERCLA liability (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “CERCLA Landowner Liability Protections,” or “CERCLA LLPs”) (see Legal Appendix X1 to Appendix X3 for an outline of CERCLA's liability and defense provisions). However, the continuing obligations arising from CERCLA LLPs are often very similar to the types of continuing obligations that state laws set as conditions for state liability protections. And, therefore, the purpose of this guide seeks to help users who wish to perform continuing obligations because of concerns over CERCLA liability and also extends to help users who wish to perform continuing obligations because of concerns over state law liability. Similarly, where sound risk management rather than a desire for liability protection is the goal, the procedures recommended in this guide can also prove useful  
1.1.1 Intended Scope of Standard Guide—As a standard guide, this document provides a compendium of information and options but does not recommend a specific course of action. As a guide, the purpose of this standard is to simply increase the awareness of possible techniques or procedures related to continuing obligations and to offer guida...

  • Guide
    53 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Guide
    53 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off