定价： 1054元

定价： 1643元

定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元

定价： 1323元

定价： 260元 / 折扣价： 221 元

定价： 1620元

1 Scope This International Standard provides guidance on how to conduct an EASO through a systematic process of identifying environmental aspects and environmental issues and determining, if appropriate, their business consequences. This Internationa

定价： 683元 / 折扣价： 581 元

定价： 930元

定价： 385元

定价： 882元

1.1 The purpose of this guide is to provide guidance in determining site-specific conversion factors for translating between dose limits and residual radioactive contamination levels on equipment, structures, and land areas. This guide does not endorse specific levels of allowable residual radioactive contamination, nor does it provide a methodology for population dose calculations. 1.2 Standards prescribing dose limits for decommissioned nuclear facilities or sites and/or private properties contaminated with radioactive materials are necessary to identify decommissioning methods, guide cleanup (remedial action) efforts, determine cleanup costs, identify the amount of radioactive waste to be disposed, and protect the public. Such standards, however, are not yet available for all types of nuclear facilities, sites, or properties. Regulatory Guide 1.86 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (1), as well as specific promulgations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), provide some specific guidance. 1.3 This guide is not intended to establish these federal policies. They will be promulgated by the EPA and other federal agencies. Rather, it is to serve as a guide to acceptable methodology for translating the yet to be determined dose limits into allowable levels of residual radioactive materials that can be left at a site following decommissioning. 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元

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

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

Direct push LIF is used for site investigations where the delineation of petroleum hydrocarbons and other fluorophores is necessary. Generic terms for these investigations are site assessments and hazardous waste site investigations. Continuous LIF is used to provide information on the relative amounts of contamination and to provide a lithological detail of the subsurface strata. These investigations are frequently required in the characterization of hazardous waste sites. This technology provides preliminary results within minutes following the completion of each test. This allows the number, locations, and depths of subsequent tests to be adjusted in the field. Field adjustment may increase the efficiency of the investigation program. The rapid fluorescence data gathering provided by direct push LIF provides information necessary to assess the presence of contamination in soils and associated pore fluids in the field. This method allows for immediate determination of relative amounts of contamination. This allows the number, locations, and depths of subsequent activities to be adjusted in the field. Field adjustment may increase the efficiency of the investigation program. With appropriate sensors, the direct-push investigation program can provide information on soil stratigraphy and the distribution of petroleum and other fluorophores in the subsurface. This method results in minimum site disturbance and generates no cuttings that might require disposal (1). This practice is confirmed using soil samples collected at given depths to confirm the fluorescence readings using a field deployed EPA Method 418.1 (2), EPA method 8015-modified, and a modified EPA 8270 Method (3), or equivalent methodologies, as compared to the fluorescence reading from the same depth from the sensor to verify that the fluorescence correlates with the contamination. The collected samples are also tested on the probe window in the truck to ensure the sample collected is representative of the region tested in situ. This practice may not be the correct method for preliminary or supplemental investigations in all cases. Chemical and physical properties of site specific soil matrices may have an effect on site specific detection limits. Subsurface conditions affect the performance of the equipment and methods associated with the direct push method. Direct push methods are not effective in pushing in solid bedrock and are marginally effective in pushing in weathered formations. Dense gravelly tills where boulders and cobbles are present, stiff and hard clays, and cemented soil zones may cause refusal and potential probe breakage. Certain cohesive soils, depending on their moisture content, can create friction on the cone penetrometer probes which can eventually equal or exceed the static reaction force and/or the impact energy being applied. As with all direct push methods, precautions must be taken to prevent cross contamination of aquifers through migration of contaminants up or down the cone penetrometer hole. The practicing of direct push techniques may be controlled by various government regulations governing subsurface explorations. Certification or licensing regulations, or both, may in some cases be considered in establishing performance criteria. For additional information see (4-15)1.1 This practice covers the method for delineating the subsurface presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and other hydrocarbons using a fiber optic based nitrogen laser-induced fluorescence sensor system. 1.2 The petroleum hydrocarbon sensing scheme utilizes a fluorescence technique in which a nitrogen laser emits pulsed ultraviolet light. The laser, mounted on the cone penetrometer platform, is linked via fiber optic cables to a window mounted on the side of a penetrometer probe. Laser energy emitted through the window causes fluorescence in adjacent contaminated media. The fluorescent radiation is transmitted to the surface via optical cables for real-time spectral data acquisition and spectral analysis on the platform. 1.3 This sensor responds to any material that fluoresces when excited with ultraviolet wavelengths of light, largely the polycyclic aromatic, aromatic, and substituted hydrocarbons, along with a few heterocyclic hydrocarbons. The excitation energy will cause all encountered fluorophores to fluoresce, including some minerals and some non-petroleum organic matter. However, because the sensor collects full spectral information, discrimination among the fluorophores may be distinguished using the spectral features associated with the data. Soil samples should be taken to verify recurring spectral signatures to discriminate between fluorescing petroleum hydrocarbons and naturally occurring fluorophores. 1.4 This practice is used in conjunction with a cone penetrometer of the electronic type, described in Test Method D5778. 1.4.1 The direct push LIF described in this practice can provide accurate information on the characteristics of the soils and contaminants encountered in the vadose zone and the saturated zone, although it does not make a distinction between dissolved and sorbed contamination in the saturated zone. 1.5 This practice describes rapid, continuous, in-situ, real-time characterization of subsurface soil. 1.6 Direct push LIF is limited to soils that can be penetrated with the available equipment. The ability to penetrate strata is based on carrying vehicle weight, density of soil, and consistency of soil. Penetration may be limited; or, damage to sensors can occur in certain ground conditions. 1.7 This practice does not address the installation of any temporary or permanent soil, groundwater, soil vapor monitoring, or remediation devices; although, the devices described may be left in-situ for the purpose of on-going monitoring. 1.8 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The SI units given in parentheses are for information only. 1.9 Direct push LIF environmental site characterization will often involve safety planning, administration, and documentation. This practice does not purport to address the issues of operational or site safety. 1.10 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

定价： 402元