定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元

定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元

1.1 The requirements in this document are for part manufacturers using additive manufacturing techniques and are independent of the used material and manufacturing method.1.2 This document specifies criteria for AM relevant processes as well as quality-relevant characteristics and factors along the additive system operations and defines activities and sequences within an additive manufacturing production site.1.3 This document is applicable to the additive manufacturing technologies defined in ISO/ASTM 52900 and defines quality assurance measures along the manufacturing process.1.4 Environment, health and safety aspects are not covered comprehensively in this document. The corresponding content is addressed in the equipment manufacturer guidelines and ISO/ASTM 52931, ISO 27548,2 ISO/ASTM 52933, and ISO/ASTM 52938-1.31.5 This document provides requirements that are additional to those provided by a quality management system (such as, ISO 9001, ISO/TS 22163, ISO 19443, EN 9100, ISO 13485, IATF 16949). Additionally, this document can be used to establish quality management system relevant content that is specific to AM-technology.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 1011元 / 折扣价： 860 元 加购物车

4.1 Different electroplating systems can be corroded under the same conditions for the same length of time. Differences in the average values of the radius or half-width or of penetration into an underlying metal layer are significant measures of the relative corrosion resistance of the systems. Thus, if the pit radii are substantially higher on samples with a given electroplating system, when compared to other systems, a tendency for earlier failure of the former by formation of visible pits is indicated. If penetration into the semi-bright nickel layer is substantially higher, a tendency for earlier failure by corrosion of basis metal is evident.1.1 This test method provides a means for measuring the average dimensions and number of corrosion sites in an electroplated decorative nickel plus chromium or copper plus nickel plus chromium coating on steel after the coating has been subjected to corrosion tests. This test method is useful for comparing the relative corrosion resistances of different electroplating systems and for comparing the relative corrosivities of different corrosive environments. The numbers and sizes of corrosion sites are related to deterioration of appearance. Penetration of the electroplated coatings leads to appearance of basis metal corrosion products.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

5.1 This test method is useful in quality and cost control during manufacture. Both appearance and performance of pile yarn floor coverings can be affected by the number of binding sites per length and width.5.2 This test method is considered satisfactory for acceptance testing of commercial shipments because current estimates of between-laboratory precision are acceptable and the method is used extensively in the trade for acceptance testing.5.2.1 If there are differences of practical significance between reported test results for two laboratories (or more), comparative tests should be performed to determine if there is statistical bias between them using competent statistical assistance. As a minimum, use test samples for such comparative tests that are as homogeneous as possible, drawn form the same lot of material as the samples that resulted in the disparate results during initial testing, and that are randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory for testing. The test results from the laboratories should be compared using a statistical test for unpaired data at a probability level chosen prior to the testing series. If a bias is found either its cause must be found and corrected, or future test results for that material must be adjusted in consideration of the know bias.1.1 This test method describes the measurement of the number of binding sites per unit length or width of machine-made, woven, knitted, and tufted pile yarn floor covering both before and after adhesive backing application.1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 The SDN determined by this method represents an average over the interval from the beginning of brake application to the rest position. It may be a reasonable estimate of the SDN during one or more portions of the specified traffic incident if the test conditions and the incident conditions are sufficiently similar. Since this standard determines an average SDN from the initial speed to rest, care should be exercised in any application of the test results to a portion of the incident that does not end with the specified traffic incident vehicle at rest.4.2 The uncertainty of the SDN determined by this method can be evaluated by procedures shown in this method. The relationship between the SDN of this test method and the SDN of a specified traffic incident is beyond the scope of this method. The similarity between test and specified traffic incident SDNs depends on the similarity of vehicles, vehicle ballast conditions, vehicle weight transfer during braking, vehicle tires, pavement surface, pavement surface contamination, and vehicle speed during a particular phase of the incident sequence.4.3 The SDN determined by this method does not necessarily agree or correlate directly with other methods of skid resistance measurements, such as Test Method E274/E274M. This test method is suitable for those situations where adequate similarity can be shown.4.4 When it is known that a particular wheel brake was not functional during the incident, the method provides for only the desired wheels to be braked on the test vehicle to duplicate the specified traffic incident vehicle.1.1 This test method covers determination of an average stopping distance number (SDN) under the conditions that this method was executed. The experimental conditions are generally intended to be similar to those of a specified traffic incident. The data from this method is not comparable to measured distances of a specified traffic incident vehicle that cannot be shown to have continuous, full application of its braking system.1.2 This test method determines the SDN from the measured stopping distance and initial speed when the wheels on specified axles are braked in the same manner as the specified traffic incident vehicle. The evaluation vehicle’s braking system is required to duplicate the specified incident vehicle for both type (conventional, partial ABS, or full ABS) and functionality (all brakes functional or not).1.3 The method documents the test conditions as a basis for evaluating their similarity to conditions of a specified traffic incident.1.4 The values stated in either inch-pound units or SI units are to be regarded separately as standard. Within the test, the SI units are shown in brackets. The values stated in each system are not exact equivalents; therefore, each system must be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the specification.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The information gained through the site investigation is used to characterize the physical, biological, and chemical systems existing at a site. The processes that determine contaminant releases, contaminant migration, and environmental receptor exposure to contaminants are described and integrated in a conceptual site model.5.2 Development of this model is critical for determining potential exposure routes (for example, ingestion and inhalation) and for suggesting possible effects of the contaminants on human health and the environment. Uncertainties associated with the conceptual site model need to be identified clearly so that efforts can be taken to reduce these uncertainties to acceptable levels. Early versions of the model, which are usually based on limited or incomplete information, will identify and emphasize the uncertainties that should be addressed.5.3 The conceptual site model is used to integrate all site information and to determine whether information including data are missing (data gaps) and whether additional information needs to be collected at the site. The model is used furthermore to facilitate the selection of remedial alternatives and to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial actions in reducing the exposure of environmental receptors to contaminants.5.4 This guide is not meant to replace regulatory requirements for conducting environmental site characterizations at contaminated (including radiologically contaminated) sites. It should supplement existing guidance and promote a uniform approach to developing conceptual site models.5.5 This guide is meant to be used by all those involved in developing conceptual site models. This should ideally include representatives from all phases of the investigative and remedial process, for example, preliminary assessment, remedial investigation, baseline human health and ecological risk assessments, and feasibility study. The conceptual site model should be used to enable experts from all disciplines to communicate effectively with one another, resolve issues concerning the site, and facilitate the decision-making process.5.6 The steps in the procedure for developing conceptual site models include elements sometimes referred to collectively as site characterization. Although not within the scope of this guide, the conceptual site model can be used during site remediation.1.1 This guide is intended to assist in the development of conceptual site models to be used for the following: (1) integration of technical information from various sources, (2) support the selection of sample locations for establishing background concentrations of substances, (3) identify data needs and guide data collection activities, and (4) evaluate the risk to human health and the environment posed by a contaminated site. This guide generally describes the major components of conceptual site models, provides an outline for developing models, and presents an example of the parts of a model. This guide does not provide a detailed description of a site-specific conceptual site model because conditions at contaminated sites can vary greatly from one site to another.1.2 The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.3 This guide is intended to apply to any contaminated site.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 The RSA method provides risk and resource managers with an enhanced understanding of the ecological health concerns at the sites they oversee because unlike conventional terrestrial ERAs, actual site mammals are the ones evaluated. Additionally, the HQs of desktop efforts report only on the contaminant exposure route of ingestion, and can only evaluate chemicals singly, whereas RSA findings reflect all three exposure routes as well as the combined effects of multiple chemicals on a highly valued endpoint. Critically, the RSA method incorporates site history considerations that necessarily influence the phenomenon of biological response. If reproductive impacts at contaminated sites were ever to be elicited, such would be apparent today because evaluated sites have, at a minimum, continuously exposed their ecological receptors to chemicals for multiple decades during which time tens and often more than one hundred generations have passed (5).5.2 Application of the subject guide familiarizes remedial decision-makers and risk managers with two concepts. First, rather than attempting to predict health effects arising in site receptors, there may be more value in documenting demonstrated health effects, should such exist in actual site-exposed mammalian receptors. Second, the possibility exists that site receptors never experienced stress or impact over the years since a site first became contaminated.5.3 Application of the subject guide can allow for substantial cost savings. Often, the outcomes of HQ-based assessments are summarily relied upon to conduct ongoing studies, monitor sites, or implement site cleanups, all of which may be unnecessary. Where RSA applications should demonstrate that maximally site-exposed mammalian receptors (as defined in section 4.1) are not experiencing compromise with regard to the sensitive endpoint of reproductive success, it can become apparent that soil remediation efforts on behalf of mammals are not needed.5.4 The described RSA method can typically be applied at that point in the ERA process where HQs for one or more mammalian species are found to be greater than 1.0, as in the process’s Step 2 (Screening-Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation; where ecological threats are evaluated in a general, as opposed to a specific fashion). Alternatively and particularly at sites that are not governed as rigidly as, for example, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; aka Superfund-type) sites, the guide can be applied once it is established that a site has a chemical contamination footprint of interest (that is, that soil concentrations are high enough to potentially be harmful to mammalian site receptors). In light of the propensity for preliminary and refined HQs to suggest mammals are ingesting unhealthful doses of site contaminants, in turn commonly leading to advancing to the field for a verification effort, the application of RSA as a first evaluative effort is intended to be a time- and cost-saving effort.5.5 The significance of this guide is the method design that reflects an understanding of certain unavoidable ERA process constraints, specifically in the areas of field mammal collection and subsequent tissue analysis. First, the RSA method recognizes that small rodents are the only mammals that can be routinely culled from the field (that is, to be removed and not returned), and further, that this reality is unlikely to ever change. Efforts to regularly harvest larger mammals (for example, fox) may be challenged by local governing agencies and animal care institutions. Additionally, acquiring a sufficiency of larger mammals is time-consuming and labor-intensive, owing to relatively miniscule animal densities. Further, many larger mammals (for example, long-tailed weasel, badger) are not found in all habitats or in all states. In contrast, small rodents occur in virtually every habitat, are relatively easy to collect, and are numerous enough to allow for defensible comparisons between or among sites. In selecting the maximally exposed small rodent to work with (that is, an animal confined to contaminated surroundings throughout its life due to a home range that is almost always of one acre or less), the RSA method features a common basis of comparison (and certainly wherever it should be applied in the United States).5.6 RSA theory understands that, generally at contaminated terrestrial sites, there is worry that receptors-of-concern might be reproductively compromised. The focus on reproduction as the dominant toxicological endpoint of concern (6, 7), recognizes that much method development for reproductive effects in rodents (in support of human health) has occurred (9, 17). That reproduction bears this status is evident in the hierarchy of preferred toxicity reference values (TRVs) that ecological risk assessors often select in support of HQ computation. Additional recognition is given to the reality that standardized means for effectively assessing other endpoints of interest in field-collected organisms, such as neurotoxicity or behavior, do not exist. Where established sperm parameter benchmark exceedances are not observed in contaminated site rodents, such can constitute a significant line of evidence in support of a determination that reproduction is proceeding adequately. The RSA method recognizes that impairments to other biological functions (for example, behavior, nerve impulse transmission) of contaminated-site rodents may be occurring despite reproduction proceeding normally (2, 3). Where such is the case, the method’s supporting theory understands that other endpoints being reached do not necessarily pose a concern for they have not impeded the ability of maximally exposed rodents to survive to the age of reproduction, find mates, and produce viable young (2, 18).5.7 This guide recognizes that an analagous reproductive assessment approach for female rodents, is not available at the present time. Importantly, an absent reproductive assessment approach for females does not constitute a shortcoming of the subject guide. Relevant U.S. EPA guidance, for example, supports evaluating one sex of a species where drug and chemical regulation is concerned, and drawing conclusions based on such information (19). In this context several noteworthy points follow. First, over 98 % of all mammalian toxicity studies considered in crafting the U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Levels (SSLs) for ERA (for some 17 inorganic and 4 organic chemical species) are of the single-sex type, with 35 % of the studies being male-only (20). Additionally, for 37 % of the universe of chemicals with SSLs, the number of male-only toxicity studies exceeds the number of female-only toxicity studies. Finally, a significant percentage of the most commonly applied toxicological benchmarks for wildlife (21) derive from single-sex studies. Critically, with its focus on directly assessing reproduction in male rodents, RSA is notably far less destructive than would be a method involving the culling of female rodents from the field, given that the latter are the ones that bear the young.5.8 This guide recognizes the value in employing the wild rodent in field-based mammalian receptor assessment. Aside from the reality that rodents may constitute the only mammals that can regularly be culled from sites (discussed above), there are key advantages that accrue to working with these animals. Small rodents occur in nearly all terrestrial habitats, allowing the guide to be broadly applicable in a geographical sense. A second advantage is that the small rodent with perhaps no exception, will likely be the maximally-exposed mammal in terrestrial settings, this again, in terms of having direct contact with contaminated soils. This follows from rodents being non-migratory in nature, having extremely limited home ranges that effectively contain them at contaminated sites, and their spending nearly all of their time directly contacting the ground (that is, contaminated soils; 2, 4, 18).5.9 In providing a useful line of evidence in support of ERAs for mammals, this guide employs a straightforward extrapolation approach (2, 18), one that is isomorphic to that applied in conventional HQ-based assessments. If site rodents, that have more constant and intimate contact with affected site soils than that of any other site mammal, are not found to have compromised reproduction, larger and wider-ranging mammals, with their considerably lesser degrees of site (that is, contaminated soil) contact, should also be free of reproductive compromise. An appreciation for this extrapolation scheme derives from a review of the principal extrapolation scheme of conventionally-applied desktop-based ERAs. There, a laboratory-based mouse or rat study is routinely used to determine if another mammal (for example, deer, fox, rabbit) is ingesting an unhealthful quantity of a given chemical. With the conventional ERA scheme, there are numerous differences to acknowledge, and even at the level of the rodent. Thus the test animal and the wild form inhabiting the site of interest that is to be assessed, do not match in terms of species, rearing, environment/habitat, or feeding design, and these differences weaken conclusions that can be drawn. In contrast, the subject standard in its initial extrapolation, compares sperm measures, each a proven barometer of reproductive success (22-25), in populations of conspecifics living less than a kilometer apart, with one population inhabiting a soil-contaminated area, and the other a contaminant-free one. The RSA method recognizes that small rodents of contaminated sites are integrators of potentially imposing environmental stressors that extend beyond chemicals that may be present in soil and diet items, to include such things as physical habitat disturbances (for example, noise or land vibration). RSA understands that conventional ecological assessments necessarily strive to know of small rodent reproductive capability, as this grouping is held to be a keystone ecosystem element. Where reproductive compromise is not observed in an RSA outcome, there is demonstration that a site’s exhaustive list of site stressors, in the actual arrays in which they occur, are not impinging on what is generally held to be the most important toxicological endpoint.5.10 One limitation of this guide is that the biologically-significant thresholds-for- (reproductive)-effect that are applied, are laboratory-derived. A second limitation of this guide is that shrews generally cannot submit to the RSA method, owing to their exceedingly high metabolism that interferes with their being live-trapped in the field. In the rare case where the only rodents present at a contaminated site of concern should be shrews, the RSA method can probably not be successfully applied. If for any reason a given contaminated site does not offer a small rodent population altogether, or if there is not at least one common small rodent species occurring at both the site of interest and a suitable habitat-matched reference location, or an appropriate reference location cannot be found (see 8.1), the method is not applicable. RSA is intended only to identify if site mammals are reproductively compromised. The method does not concern itself with identifying the chemical(s) or physical site stressors responsible for observed sperm parameter threshold-for-effect exceedances, or the determination of cleanup levels, and such are not method limitations. The situation is analogous to standardized whole effluent toxicity tests conducted with various aquatic test species (for example, Fundulus sp.). There, the objective is only to ascertain if the degree of wastewater treatment is adequate to support the aquatic life inhabiting a receiving waterbody’s mixing zone. (Standard whole effluent toxicity testing is not designed in the main, to identify the constituent or constituents in effluent that may be responsible for unacceptable test outcomes.)5.11 This guide is consistent with ERA guidance and guidelines (26, 27), where advancing to the field for an environmentally relevant assessment of the health of site receptors (so-called ‘field verification’) is a recognized formal step. In understanding that sufficient time has elapsed at contaminated sites for reproductive compromise to be evident (if that endpoint was ever to be triggered), this guide is designed to document such demonstrated compromise. Critically, RSA is not a risk assessment method that aims to forecast or predict health effects arising in mammals with ongoing contaminant exposures. The guide then is related to, but distinctly different from other ASTM standards that bear on the toxicological effects prediction aspect of ERA (Guides E1527-13, E1689, E1848-96, E2081, E2205-02, E2616, and E2790). The guide is also consistent with guidelines for reproductive toxicity risk assessment as per the U.S. EPA (19). Specifically, assessing the reproductive health of only one sex of a species is deemed adequate for an overall species assessment (17). In one key area however, this guide is quite unlike conventional ERAs that are largely restricted to the level of desktop analysis. Whereas conventional assessments rely on either statistically-significant differences in outcome, or on a commonly negotiated difference in biological response (for example, 20 %) when drawing conclusions, this guide primarily avails itself to the utility of a series of established biologically-significant thresholds alluded to previously (22-25). Further, a statistical comparison need only be applied for one of two possible RSA outcomes (see 9.3.1 and 9.4).1.1 This guide describes the procedures for obtaining and interpreting data associated with a direct health status assessment for mammalian receptors at chemically contaminated terrestrial sites where ERA work is either scheduled or ongoing, and irrespective of the number and type of chemicals that may be present. Through reviewing sperm features, the RSA method reports on the reproductive health of male rodents in their natural environmental settings, with these animals serving as surrogates for other (and larger) site mammals (4).1.2 These procedures are applicable at any terrestrial property that supports small mammals (for example, mice, voles, rats, squirrels) and has contaminated soil. Importantly, chemicals of concern in site soils need not be spermatoxins. Additionally, the RSA method considers that any combination of chemicals or other site stressors might collectively act to compromise reproduction, held to be a sensitive toxicological endpoint for mammals. The anticipated primary application of the method will be at historically contaminated sites (such as Superfund sites). The procedures describe tasks conducted in the field and in a laboratory. For the latter, tasks may be conducted either in an on-site mobile laboratory, or in a more conventional laboratory setting. For certain tasks, a make-shift work space may be suitable as well (see 7.3).1.3 Initial determinations of compromised or non-compromised reproduction in resident male small rodents are made through a cautious comparative review of sperm parameters. Briefly, for the rodents of a given species collected at both a contaminated site and a habitat-matched (non-contaminated) reference location, arithmetic means are first computed for each of the three sperm parameters of count, motility, and morphology. If one or more of the parameter means of the contaminated site rodents reflect an unfavorable shift (that is, count or motility is less than that of reference location animals; the percentage of abnormally-shaped sperm is greater relative to reference location animals), the percent decrease or increase in each mean is compared to the relevant established sperm parameter benchmark, each in the form of that degree of shift in an unfavorable direction that signifies lesser reproductive success (2) (see 9.3).1.4 Advanced determinations of compromised or non-compromised reproduction in larger site-contacting mammals, the true focus of the RSA method and this guide, are made through an applied spatial movements-based extrapolation scheme. Where established sperm parameter benchmark exceedances are not observed in contaminated-site rodents, other mammals contacting a site are also assumed to have non-compromised reproduction. This follows from the latter all having notably lesser degrees of site exposure due to home ranges that are vastly larger than those of rodents. By way of example, with respective home ranges of 400+ and 640 acres for the red fox and white-tailed deer (10-14), these species would spend minimal amounts of their time (for example, 5 %) at prototypical contaminated sites that cover areas of 25 acres or less (15, 16). Where one or more sperm parameter benchmarks are exceeded in contaminated-site rodents (certainly indicating that the rodents are reproductively compromised), other site mammals may also be reproductively compromised. The greater the disparity between the home ranges of the target species (that is, the site rodent) and any of the other mammals known to contact the contaminated site in question, the less likely it will be that the latter are reproductively compromised. The RSA method employs the same toxicological extrapolation principles as that used for mammals in conventional desktop-based ERAs. In those ERAs, stressor-mediated responses of rodents (of a laboratory-based study) assist with the interpretation of health effects for an expanded list of mammals that cannot conveniently be evaluated directly for health status (for example, fox, skunk, raccoon, deer, coyote, etc.).1.5 This guide is arranged as follows:  Section 1Referenced Documents 2Terminology 3Summary of Guide 4 5Safety Precautions 6Apparatus 7Procedure 8Reporting 9Keywords 101.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 This guide is significant in that it addresses the data and information options of each component of the ecological risk assessment process, for both a screening and complex ERA. It outlines the data and information options while recognizing that an ecological risk assessment may be focused to achieve a particular stated goal. This guide is not intended to represent the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), or any other regulatory agency, on data collection for ecological risk assessment.5.2 This guide is to be used by managers, scientists, and technical staff of contractors, industry, government agencies, and universities responsible for conducting ecological risk assessments at contaminated sites. It is to be used to guide data collection phases of the ecological risk assessment. It will assist in the development of the conceptual site model (see Guide E1689) and the identification of potential assessment and measurement endpoints (see Guide E1848 and US EPA’s Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints, 2016 (5)). While it was written to assist in planning an ERA, the list also may be used in the review of a completed ERA.1.1 An ecological-risk assessment (ERA) is a process for organizing and analyzing data, information, assumptions, and uncertainties to evaluate the likelihood that adverse ecological effects might occur or are occurring as a result of a stressor. This guide is intended to assist remedial project teams, specifically ecological risk assessors, in identifying data and information options that may be used to perform a screening or complex ecological risk assessment (ERA) at a contaminated site.NOTE 1: While the intent of ERA is to evaluate risk (that is, the probability of adverse effects occurring in ecological receptors), there are no measures, statistics, or metrics that calculate or express risk explicitly. However, various metrics or indices, a common example being the hazard quotient, are used to inform risk assessments.1.2 The identification of data and information options for human health risk assessment is outside the scope of this guide.1.3 This guide is intended to provide a list for identifying data and information options and does not recommend a specific course of action for ERA activities.1.4 This guide addresses data and information options for the ecological risk assessment, not verification or long-term monitoring studies.1.5 This guide lists many of the common data and information options for ERA, but there may be others relevant for any particular site.1.6 This guide considers one component of an ERA, that is, identification of data and information options. Other ASTM guides have been developed, for example, Guides E1689 and E1848, and are being developed to cover other components of the risk assessment process.1.7 This guide does not provide information on how to perform any of the analytical procedures used to perform a risk assessment once data collection options are defined.1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 The allocation of limited resources (for example, time, money, regulatory oversight, qualified professionals) to any one petroleum release site necessarily influences corrective action decisions at other sites. This has spurred the search for innovative approaches to corrective action decision making, which still ensures that human health and the environment are protected.4.2 The RBCA process presented in this guide is a consistent, streamlined decision process for selecting corrective actions at petroleum release sites. Advantages of the RBCA approach are as follows:4.2.1 Decisions are based on reducing the risk of adverse human or environmental impacts,4.2.2 Site assessment activities are focussed on collecting only that information that is necessary to making risk-based corrective action decisions,4.2.3 Limited resources are focussed on those sites that pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment at any time,4.2.4 The remedial action achieves an acceptable degree of exposure and risk reduction,4.2.5 Compliance can be evaluated relative to site-specific standards applied at site-specific point(s) of compliance,4.2.6 Higher quality, and in some cases faster, cleanups than are currently realized, and4.2.7 A documentation and demonstration that the remedial action is protective of human health, safety, and the environment.4.3 Risk assessment is a developing science. The scientific approach used to develop the RBSL and SSTL may vary by state and user due to regulatory requirements and the use of alternative scientifically based methods.4.4 Activities described in this guide should be conducted by a person familiar with current risk and exposure assessment methodologies.4.5 In order to properly apply the RBCA process, the user should avoid the following:4.5.1 Use of Tier 1 RBSLs as mandated remediation standards rather than screening levels,4.5.2 Restriction of the RBCA process to Tier 1 evaluation only and not allowing Tier 2 or Tier 3 analyses,4.5.3 Placing arbitrary time constraints on the corrective action process; for example, requiring that Tiers 1, 2, and 3 be completed within 30-day time periods that do not reflect the actual urgency of and risks posed by the site,4.5.4 Use of the RBCA process only when active remediation is not technically feasible, rather than a process that is applicable during all phases of corrective action,4.5.5 Requiring the user to achieve technology-based remedial limits (for example, asymptotic levels) prior to requesting the approval for the RBSL or SSTL,4.5.6 The use of predictive modelling that is not supported by available data or knowledge of site conditions,4.5.7 Dictating that corrective action goals can only be achieved through source removal and treatment actions, thereby restricting the use of exposure reduction options, such as engineering and institutional controls,4.5.8 The use of unjustified or inappropriate exposure factors,4.5.9 The use of unjustified or inappropriate toxicity parameters,4.5.10 Neglecting aesthetic and other criteria when determining RBSLs or SSTLs,4.5.11 Not considering the effects of additivity when screening multiple chemicals,4.5.12 Not evaluating options for engineering or institutional controls, exposure point(s), compliance point(s), and carcinogenic risk levels before submitting remedial action plans,4.5.13 Not maintaining engineering or institutional controls, and4.5.14 Requiring continuing monitoring or remedial action at sites that have achieved the RBSL or SSTL.1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action (RBCA), which is a consistent decision-making process for the assessment and response to a petroleum release, based on the protection of human health and the environment. Sites with petroleum release vary greatly in terms of complexity, physical and chemical characteristics, and in the risk that they may pose to human health and the environment. The RBCA process recognizes this diversity, and uses a tiered approach where corrective action activities are tailored to site-specific conditions and risks. While the RBCA process is not limited to a particular class of compounds, this guide emphasizes the application of RBCA to petroleum product releases through the use of the examples. Ecological risk assessment, as discussed in this guide, is a qualitative evaluation of the actual or potential impacts to environmental (nonhuman) receptors. There may be circumstances under which a more detailed ecological risk assessment is necessary (see Ref (1).21.2 The decision process described in this guide integrates risk and exposure assessment practices, as suggested by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), with site assessment activities and remedial measure selection to ensure that the chosen action is protective of human health and the environment. The following general sequence of events is prescribed in RBCA, once the process is triggered by the suspicion or confirmation of petroleum release:1.2.1 Performance of a site assessment;1.2.2 Classification of the site by the urgency of initial response;1.2.3 Implementation of an initial response action appropriate for the selected site classification;1.2.4 Comparison of concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site with Tier 1 Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) given in a look-up table;1.2.5 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted, if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted or if RBSLs may be applied as remediation target levels;1.2.6 Collection of additional site-specific information as necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;1.2.7 Development of site-specific target levels (SSTLs) and point(s) of compliance (Tier 2 evaluation);1.2.8 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site with the Tier 2 evaluation SSTL at the determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s);1.2.9 Deciding whether further tier evaluation is warranted, if implementation of interim remedial action is warranted, or if Tier 2 SSTLs may be applied as remediation target levels;1.2.10 Collection of additional site-specific information as necessary, if further tier evaluation is warranted;1.2.11 Development of SSTL and point(s) of compliance (Tier 3 evaluation);1.2.12 Comparison of the concentrations of chemical(s) of concern at the site at the determined point(s) of compliance or source area(s) with the Tier 3 evaluation SSTL; and1.2.13 Development of a remedial action plan to achieve the SSTL, as applicable.1.3 The guide is organized as follows:1.3.1 Section 2 lists referenced documents,1.3.2 Section 3 defines terminology used in this guide,1.3.3 Section 4 describes the significance and use of this guide,1.3.4 Section 5 is a summary of the tiered approach,1.3.5 Section 6 presents the RBCA procedures in a step-by-step process,1.3.6 Appendix X1 details physical/chemical and toxicological characteristics of petroleum products,1.3.7 Appendix X2 discusses the derivation of a Tier 1 RBSL Look-Up Table and provides an example,1.3.8 Appendix X3 describes the uses of predictive modeling relative to the RBCA process,1.3.9 Appendix X4 discusses considerations for institutional controls, and1.3.10 Appendix X5 provides examples of RBCA applications.1.4 This guide describes an approach for RBCA. It is intended to compliment but not supersede federal, state, and local regulations. Federal, state, or local agency approval may be required to implement the processes outlined in this guide.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 The ESC Process—This practice describes a process for characterizing hazardous waste contaminated sites8, that provides cost-effective, timely, high-quality information derived primarily from judgement-based sampling and measurements by an integrated, multidisciplinary project team during a limited number of field mobilizations. (See Appendix X1 for additional background on the ESC process, its distinction from traditional site characterization, and its relationship to other approaches to site characterization and Appendix X5 and X6 for illustrative examples of the ESC process.)4.2 Determining Appropriateness of ESC—The ESC process should be initiated when an ESC client, regulatory authority, and stakeholders determine that contaminants at a site present a potential threat to human health or the environment and the ESC process will identify vadose zone, groundwater, and other contaminant migration pathways in a timely and cost-effective manner, especially when decisions concerning remedial or other action must be made as rapidly as possible. Situations where the process may be applicable are as follows:4.2.1 ESA—Sites where environmental site assessments (ESAs) conducted by using Practice E1527, Practice E1528, and Guide E1903 identify levels of contamination requiring further, more intensive characterization of the geologic and hydrologic system of contaminant migration pathways. Section X1.5.3 discusses the relationship between ESAs and the ESC process.4.2.2 Petroleum Release Sites—Large petroleum release sites, such as refineries. The user should review both this practice and Guide E1912 to evaluate whether the ESC or ASC process is more appropriate for such sites.4.2.3 Subsurface Radioactivity—Sites or facilities with subsurface contamination by radioactivity.4.2.4 Other Subsurface Contamination—Other sites or facilities where contaminant migration in the vadose zone and groundwater is a matter of concern and heterogeneity of the vadose zone and groundwater system or potential complex behavior of contaminants requires use of the ESC process.4.3 Defining Objectives and Data Quality Requirements—The ESC process requires project objectives and data quality requirements that will provide the ESC client, regulatory authority, and stakeholders with the necessary information to analyze risk or apply regulatory standards-based cleanup in order to choose a course of action. Once these have been defined, the ESC process relies on the expert judgement of the core technical team, operating within the framework of an approved dynamic work plan, as the primary means for selecting the type and location of measurements and samples throughout the ESC process. An ESC project focuses on collecting only the information required to meet the project objectives and ceases characterization as soon as the objectives are met.NOTE 4: This practice uses the term “data quality requirements” to refer to the level of data accuracy and precision needed to meet the intended use for the data. The U.S. EPA Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process is one way to accomplish this. The ESC process applies the concept of quality control and data quality requirements to geologic and hydrologic data as well as chemical data, but within a general framework of judgement-based rather than statistical sampling methods. Section X1.4.4 discusses the DQO process in more detail along with the role of judgement-based and statistically based sampling methods in the ESC process. Practice D5792 provides guidance on development of DQOs for generation of environmental data related to waste management.4.4 Use of ESC Process for Risk Analysis and Remedial Action: 4.4.1 Characterizing Contaminant Migration Pathways—Normally an ESC project will characterize the contaminant migration pathways (and sources if not already known) before any detailed risk analysis involving exposure to environmental receptors is performed, because environmental receptors are not known until the migration pathways are known. Risk analysis expertise will normally be required as an input into defining project objectives and data quality requirements (see 4.3); such expertise is involved as appropriate during field data collection phases of an ESC project. Identification of contaminant sources and environmental receptors for risk analysis is straightforward at most sites and does not, per se, require the ESC process. The ESC process focuses on characterizing vadose zone and groundwater contaminant migration pathways and determining the distribution, concentration, and fate of contaminants along these migration pathways, because these factors are more difficult to identify than sources and environmental receptors.4.4.2 Considering Remedial Action and Alternatives—The ESC process is designed to avoid a presumption that remedial action is required (that is, an engineered solution rather than no further action or ongoing monitoring). In any ESC project, remediation engineering expertise is incorporated into the process at the earliest point at which a need for remedial action is identified. (See 13.3.) Guide D5745 provides guidance for developing and implementing short-term measures or early actions for site remediation.4.5 Flexibility Within ESC—Modification of procedures described in this practice may be appropriate if required to satisfy project objectives or regulatory requirements, or for other reasons. The ESC process is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of different technical approaches to obtaining environmental data. However, for an investigation to qualify as an ESC project, as formalized by ASTM, modifications should not eliminate any of the essential features of the ESC process listed in Table 1. Alternative site characterization approaches that use some, but not all, of the essential elements described in Table 1 may be appropriate for a site, but these approaches would not qualify as an ESC project as defined in this practice.NOTE 5: Users may prefer to use or develop alternative terminology for different aspects of the ESC process, depending on the regulatory context in which it is applied. However, precise or approximate equivalencies to steps or functions in the ESC process should be clearly identified.4.6 Use of ESC in Conjunction with Other Methods—This practice can be used in conjunction with Guide D5730 for identification of potentially applicable ASTM standards and major non-ASTM guidance. In karst and fractured rock hydrogeologic settings, this practice can be used in conjunction with Guide D5717.1.1 Applicability of the ESC Process—This practice covers a process for expedited site characterization (ESC) of hazardous waste contaminated sites2 to identify vadose zone, groundwater and other relevant contaminant migration pathways and determine the distribution, concentration, and fate of contaminants for the purpose of providing an ESC client, regulatory authority, and stakeholders with the necessary information to choose a course of action.3 Generally, the process is applicable to larger-scale projects or contaminated sites where the ESC process can be reasonably expected to reduce the time and cost of site characterization compared to alternative approaches. The ESC process has been applied successfully at a variety of sites (see Table X1.1). It typically achieves significant cost and schedule savings compared to traditional site characterization (see X1.2 and X1.3),4 although it should be recognized that in-depth site characterization of hazardous waste contaminated sites may require a more elaborate process than ESC.1.2 Features of the ESC Process—The ESC process operates within the framework of existing regulatory programs. It focuses on collecting only the information required to meet characterization objectives and on ensuring that characterization ceases as soon as the objectives are met. Central to the ESC process is the use of judgement-based sampling and measurement to characterize vadose zone and groundwater contamination in a limited number of field mobilizations by an integrated multidisciplinary team, led by a technical leader and operating within the framework of a dynamic work plan that gives him or her the flexibility of responsibility to select the type and location of measurements needed to optimize data collection activities. Table 1 identifies other essential features of the ESC process, and Fig. 1 presents a flow diagram for the entire ESC process.FIG. 1 Overview of the Expedited Site Characterization Process1.3 Investigation Methods—The process described in this practice is based on good scientific practice but is not tied to any particular regulatory program, site investigation method or technique, chemical analysis method, statistical analysis method, risk analysis method, or computer modeling code. Appropriate investigation techniques in an ESC project are highly site specific and are selected and modified based upon the professional judgement of the core technical team (in particular the technical team leader). Whenever feasible, noninvasive and minimally invasive methods are used, as discussed in Appendix X2. Appropriate chemical analysis methods are equally site specific. Analyses may be conducted in the field or laboratory, depending on data quality requirements, required turnaround time, and costs.1.4 Sites Generally Not Appropriate for the ESC Process—Generally, the ESC process is not applicable to: small petroleum release sites, real estate property transactions that require no more than a Phase I ESA, sites where contamination is limited to the near surface or there is no basis for suspecting that contaminant movement through the vadose zone and groundwater is a matter of concern, sites where the cost of remedial action is likely to be less than the cost of site characterization, or sites where existing statutes or regulations prohibit the use of essential features of the ESC process.51.5 Other Potentially Applicable ASTM Standards for Site Characterization—Guide E1912 addresses accelerated site characterization (ASC) for petroleum release sites, and Guide E1739 addresses use of the risk-based corrective action (RBCA) process at petroleum release sites. Section X1.5.1 describes the ASC process, and X1.5.2 discusses the relationship between ESC and the RBCA process. Practices E1527 and E1528 and Guide E1903 address real estate property transactions, and X1.5.3 discusses the relationship between the ESC process and investigations for real estate property transactions. Classification D5746 addresses environmental conditions of property area types for Department of Defense installations, and Practice D6008 provides guidance on conducting environmental baseline surveys to determine certain elements of the environmental condition of federal real property.1.6 The values stated in both inch-pound and SI units are to be regarded separately as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.1.7 All references in this standard to the “engineer” must be understood as referring to a qualified professional (such as an engineer, soil scientist or geologist) who has the appropriate experience and, if required by local regulations, certification.1.8 This practice offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 918元 / 折扣价： 781 元 加购物车

4.1 This practice gives suggested procedures for characterization of atmospheric test sites. It can be useful to researchers, manufacturers, engineering firms, architects, and construction contractors to provide corrosion and environmental data, materials selection information, and a materials storage practice.4.2 This practice does not give specific parameters for classifying the type of test site.1.1 This practice covers procedures for the characterization of atmospheric test sites. Continuous characterization can provide corrosion data, environmental data, or both which will signal changes in corrosivity of the atmospheric environment. This practice can also provide guidance for classification of future test sites.1.2 Two methods are defined in this practice for the characterization of atmospheric test sites. The methods are identified as characterization Methods A and B. The preferred characterization technique would require using both Method A and B for concurrent data collection.1.2.1 Method A is to be used when atmospheric corrosion is monitored on a continuing basis at a test site using specified materials and exposure configurations.1.2.2 Method B is specified when atmospheric factors are monitored on a continuing basis.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Determining the potentiometric surface of an area is essential for the preliminary planning of any type of construction, land use, environmental investigations, or remediation projects that may influence an aquifer.5.1.1 The potentiometric surface in the proposed impacted aquifer must be known to properly plan for the construction of a water withdrawal or recharge facility, for example, a well. The method of construction of structures, such as buildings, can be controlled by the depth of the groundwater near the project. Other projects built below land surface, such as mines and tunnels, are influenced by the hydraulic head.5.2 Monitoring the trend of the groundwater table in an aquifer over a period of time, whether for days or decades, is essential for any permanently constructed facility that directly influences the aquifer, for example, a waste disposal site or a production well.5.2.1 Long-term monitoring helps interpret the direction and rate of movement of water and other fluids from recharge wells and pits or waste disposal sites. Monitoring also assists in determining the effects of withdrawals on the stored quantity of water in the aquifer, the trend of the water table throughout the aquifer, and the amount of natural recharge to the aquifer.5.3 This guide describes the basic tabular and graphic methods of presenting groundwater levels for a single groundwater site and several sites over the area of a project. These methods were developed by hydrologists to assist in the interpretation of hydraulic-head data.5.3.1 The tabular methods help in the comparison of raw data and modified numbers.5.3.2 The graphical methods visually display seasonal trends controlled by precipitation, trends related to artificial withdrawals from or recharge to the aquifer, interrelationship of withdrawal and recharge sites, rate and direction of water movement in the aquifer, and other events influencing the aquifer.5.4 Presentation techniques resulting from extensive computational methods, specifically the mathematical models and the determination of aquifer characteristics, are contained in the ASTM standards listed in Section 2.1.1 This guide covers and summarizes methods for the presentation of water-level data from groundwater sites.1.2 The study of the water table in aquifers helps in the interpretation of the amount of water available for withdrawal, aquifer tests, movement of water through the aquifers, and the effects of natural and human-induced forces on the aquifers.1.3 A single water level measured at a groundwater site gives the height of water at one vertical position in a well or borehole at a finite instant in time. This is information that can be used for preliminary planning in the construction of a well or other facilities, such as disposal pits. Hydraulic head can also be measured within a short time from a series of points, depths, or elevation at a common (single) horizontal location, for example, a specially constructed multi-level test well, indicates whether the vertical hydraulic gradient may be upward or downward within or between the aquifer.NOTE 1: The phrases “short time period” and “finite instant in time” are used throughout this guide to describe the interval for measuring several project-related groundwater levels. Often the water levels of groundwater sites in an area of study do not change significantly in a short time, for example, a day or even a week. Unless continuous recorders are used to document water levels at every groundwater site of the project, the measurement at each site, for example, use of a steel tape, will be at a slightly different time (unless a large staff is available for a coordinated measurement). The judgment of what is a critical time period must be made by a project investigator who is familiar with the hydrology of the area.1.4 Where hydraulic heads are measured in a short period of time, for example, a day, from each of several horizontal locations within a specified depth range, or hydrogeologic unit, or identified aquifer, a potentiometric surface can be drawn for that depth range, or unit, or aquifer. Water levels from different vertical sites at a single horizontal location may be averaged to a single value for the potentiometric surface when the vertical gradients are small compared to the horizontal gradients. The potentiometric surface assists in interpreting the gradient and horizontal direction of movement of water through the aquifer. Phenomena such as depressions or sinks caused by withdrawal of water from production areas and mounds caused by natural or artificial recharge are illustrated by these potentiometric maps.1.5 Essentially all water levels, whether in confined or unconfined aquifers, fluctuate over time in response to natural- and human-induced forces. The fluctuation of the water table at a groundwater site is caused by several phenomena. An example is recharge to the aquifer from precipitation. Changes in barometric pressure cause the water table to fluctuate because of the variation of air pressure on the groundwater surface, open bore hole, or confining sediment. Withdrawal of water from or artificial recharge to the aquifer should cause the water table to fluctuate in response. Events such as rising or falling levels of surface water bodies (nearby streams and lakes), evapotranspiration induced by phreatophytic consumption, ocean tides, moon tides, earthquakes, and explosions cause fluctuation. Heavy physical objects that compress the surrounding sediments, for example, a passing train or car or even the sudden load effect of the starting of a nearby pump, can cause a fluctuation of the water table (1).21.6 This guide covers several techniques developed to assist in interpreting the water table within aquifers. Tables and graphs are included.1.7 This guide includes methods to represent the water table at a single groundwater site for a finite or short period of time, a single site over an extended period, multiple sites for a finite or short period in time, and multiple sites over an extended period.1.8 This guide does not include methods of calculating or estimating water levels by using mathematical models or determining the aquifer characteristics from data collected during controlled aquifer tests. These methods are discussed in Guides D4043, D5447, and D5490, Test Methods D4044, D4050, D4104, D4105, D4106, D4630, D4631, D5269, D5270, D5472, and D5473.1.9 Many of the diagrams illustrated in this guide include notations to help the reader in understanding how these diagrams were constructed. These notations would not be required on a diagram designed for inclusion in a project document.1.10 This guide covers a series of options, but does not specify a course of action. It should not be used as the sole criterion or basis of comparison, and does not replace or relieve professional judgment.1.11 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.1.12 This guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 This practice addresses AML PAs, PUs, Keyword Features, and Project Sites. This practice is significant as it provides for uniformity of geospatial data pertaining to the geographic location and description of AML sites located throughout the United States.4.2 This geospatial data standard will help ensure uniformity of data contributed by each RA and assist organizations in efforts to create, utilize, and share geospatial data. Use of this standard will result in organized and accessible data to support programmatic decisions and work plan development, increased awareness of AML problems, and better communication between RA, the public, industry, and other interested parties.4.3 The geospatial data may be served as a layer in a national dataset and map service.1.1 This practice covers the minimum elements for the accurate location and description of geospatial data for defining Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Problem Areas, Planning Units, Keyword Features, and Project Sites as originally defined by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), through its Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Manual (Directive AML-1) under the jurisdiction of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. These standards remain applicable to mining organizations that geospatially locate and identify AML sites, however these standards can be used for entities that are in beginning phases of mapping and identifying AML sites using protocol that is consistent with existing nomenclature.1.1.1 Abandoned mine lands consist of those lands and waters which were mined for coal or other minerals, or both, and abandoned or left in an inadequate condition of reclamation and for which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility for mitigation of adverse impacts to human health and safety or environmental resources.1.1.2 As used in this practice, an AML Problem Area (PA) represents a closed polygon boundary for a uniquely defined geographic area contained within an AML Planning Unit (PU). An AML PA is a subdivision of an AML PU that contains one or more AML keyword features together with impacted land or water resources or both. An AML PA should not cross PU boundaries.1.1.3 As used in this practice, an AML PU represents a closed polygon boundary of a uniquely defined geographic area identified by unique numbers and names. An entire WCU may be delineated as a single PU or subdivided into multiple PUs.1.1.4 As used in this practice, an AML Keyword Feature is a point, line, or polygon defining the location of a specific on-the-ground feature contained within an AML Problem Area (PA) as described in the AML Inventory Manual.1.1.5 As used in this practice, an AML Project Site is a closed polygon boundary for a uniquely defined geographic area that includes the area disturbed to achieve the reclamation. An AML Project Site may contain one or more AML keyword features together with impacted land or water resources or both.1.2 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.4 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project’s many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 702元 / 折扣价： 597 元 加购物车

5.1 An appropriately developed, executed and documented equipment decontamination practice is an integral and essential part of waste site investigations. The benefits of its use include:5.1.1 Minimizing the spread of contaminants within a study area and from site to site,5.1.2 Reducing the potential for worker exposure by means of contact with contaminated sampling equipment or hazardous materials,5.1.3 Improved data quality and reliability.5.1.4 Minimizing the amount of decontamination fluids or wastes generated.5.1.5 Reducing personnel exposures to chemicals used in, or released by decontamination.5.1.6 Minimizing or eliminating the use of hazardous materials in the decontamination process, and5.1.7 Selecting equipment based on total life-cycle costs including labor, waste containment, disposal, treatment and additional analytical costs, such as using dedicated or disposable equipment rather than decontaminating between uses.5.2 This practice is not a substitute for a well-documented Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program. Because the ultimate test of a decontamination process is its ability to minimize erroneous data, a reasonable QA/QC program must be implemented.5.3 This practice may not be applicable to all waste sites. When a sampling effort is completed to determine only the general range of chemical concentrations of interest, then less rigorous decontamination processes can be adequate. Less rigorous decontamination procedures may also be used when cleaning non-porous surfaces, such as metal surfaces as well. Investigators should have the flexibility to modify the decontamination process with due consideration for the sampling objective or if QA/QC documentation supports alternative decontamination methods.5.4 At sites where the reactivity of sampling equipment to decontamination washes creates concern for the generation of undesirable chemical by-products, or will potentially damage the equipment surfaces, for example, the use of an acid rinse on metal equipment, then use of dedicated sampling equipment should be considered.5.5 This practice, where applicable, should be used before, between, and after the completion of sampling events.5.6 This practice is appropriate for use at sites where chemical (organic and inorganic) contamination is known or expected. The application of this practice to other types of sites radiological, mixed (radiological and chemical), or biohazard contaminated sites is not applicable. The application of this practice to these types of sites should be undertaken with care and consideration, along with QA/QC documentation that supports the effectiveness of these decontamination techniques.1.1 This practice covers the decontamination of field equipment used in the sampling of soils, soil gas, sludges, surface water, and groundwater at waste sites which are to undergo both physical and chemical analyses.1.2 This practice is applicable only at sites where chemical (organic and inorganic) wastes are a concern. It is not intended for use at radiological, mixed (chemical and radiological), or biohazard sites. This practice does not address regulatory requirements for the handling, labeling, shipping, or storing of wastes or samples.1.3 Practices are included for the decontamination of equipment which comes into contact with the sample matrix (sample contacting equipment) and for ancillary equipment that has not contacted the portion of sample to be analyzed (non-sample contacting equipment), but which must be cleaned to avoid spreading of contamination.1.4 This practice is intended for use when field equipment used for sampling will be decontaminated in the field or returned from the field. Information on the construction of field decontamination facilities and non-sample contacting equipment decontamination is also provided.1.5 This practice is based on commonly recognized methods by which equipment may be decontaminated. The practices described for sample contacting equipment are commonly prescribed. Background studies are included in the References at the end of this standard (1-5). The user is reminded of the importance of proper decontamination planning to minimize the amount of decontamination wastes generated and to reduce or eliminate the use of cleaning agents that are themselves hazardous. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) samples that document decontamination effectiveness can be used to modify or enhance decontamination techniques. Decontamination at radiologically contaminated sites should refer to Practice D5608.1.6 This practice is applicable to most conventional sampling equipment constructed of metallic and synthetic materials. The manufacturer of a specific sampling apparatus should be contacted or the manufacturer’s manuals reviewed if there is concern regarding the reactivity of a decontamination rinsing agent or the temperatures that could affect the equipment. Plastic components and gasket materials could be damaged by some of the stronger reagents or high temperatures.1.7 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.8 This practice offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车