1、Designation: E 2205/E 2205M 02 (Reapproved 2009)1Standard Guide forRisk-Based Corrective Action for Protection of EcologicalResources1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2205/E 2205M; the number immediately following the designation indicates theyear of original adoption or, in the
2、 case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of lastreapproval. A superscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1NOTEThe designation and the units of measurement were editorially revised in March 2009.INTRODUCTI
3、ONThis guide for risk-based corrective action for the protection of ecological resources (Eco-RBCA)provides a flexible framework for a tiered approach to ecological risk assessment (ERA) and riskmanagement decision-making at chemical release sites. The framework of the Eco-RBCA guideparallels the fr
4、amework in Guide E 2081 with respect to the tiered approach for data gathering,evaluation and decision-making, and should, when possible, be conducted concurrent with the broaderRBCA process activities. The Eco-RBCA guide directs the user to Guide E 2081 for development andimplementation of a correc
5、tive action program. This guide supplements Guide E 2081 and wasdeveloped after careful consideration of the peer-reviewed published literature and existing federal,regional, and state ecological riskassessment guidance. The user of this guide, as defined in 3.1.44,needs to be familiar with Guide E
6、2081 and the overall RBCA process. The RBCA process providesa flexible, technically defensible framework for corrective action that has applicability to a wide rangeof sites and chemicals of concern.ASTM guides are not federal or state regulations; rather, they are consensus standards that can befol
7、lowed voluntarily. It is not within the scope of this standard to provide the details of specificregulatory requirements. Collectively, the Eco-RBCA and RBCA guides provide an integratedframework to corrective action. Eco-RBCA is intended to complement rather than replace thedecision-making structur
8、es of regulatory programs. In addition, Eco-RBCA is intended to provide aframework for sites not covered under regulatory programs, for sites under regulatory programs thatlack guidance, or for sites under programs with guidance that lack detail. Eco-RBCAmay also providea useful framework to help me
9、rge an approach when multiple regulatory programs apply. Even whena site is not currently governed by a regulatory program, consultation with the appropriate regulatoryagency(ies) will ensure regulatory compliance and provide technical guidance.The Eco-RBCAprocess is intended to accommodate a divers
10、ity of sites and conditions by providinga framework that can address site-specific needs. The appendixes provide useful technical details andcase study examples, although the application of this guide does not require their use. Eco-RBCA isa process for evaluating ecological risk and decision making
11、. To facilitate the implementation ofEco-RBCA, the framework is organized into ten steps and three risk assessment tiers that begin withrelatively simple analyses and progress to more complex assessments as site conditions warrant (seeFig. 1). Although organized into steps and tiers, the user should
12、 recognize that Eco-RBCA progressesconceptually in a linear manner, but may not be implemented in a linear manner. The objective shouldbe to conduct the evaluation in the manner that most appropriately meets the needs and goals of theassessment. Each tier includes five types of activities that incre
13、ase in complexity and level of effortas the evaluation progresses through the RBCAprocess. These activities are (1) planning and scoping,(2) data and information acquisition, (3) analysis and evaluation, (4) decision making, and (5)remedial actions. The details of the activities and how they are imp
14、lemented can vary, depending onthe nature and complexity of the site and the tier level. Early in the Eco-RBCA process, assumptionsare biased toward being overly protective (that is, “conservative”) because of uncertainties inherent innonsite-specific data. Typically, as the site progresses through
15、the tiered evaluation, more site-specificinformation is collected and uncertainty decreases; therefore, less-conservative assumptions can beused in the evaluation. As understanding of site conditions improves, confidence often increases. The1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Bo
16、x C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.progression of the evaluation through the tiered process is accompanied by an increasing degree offormalization that could include the documentation of a screening-level assessment or the use ofFIG. 1 Eco-RBCA Process FlowchartAdapted from the
17、RBCA Flowchart (Guide E 2081)E 2205/E 2205M 02 (2009)12formal ecological risk assessment (ERA) methods. As additional site-specific information isdeveloped, the uncertainty associated with site conditions is reduced. Commensurate with this reducedFIG. 2 Tier 1 Evaluation FlowchartE 2205/E 2205M 02 (
18、2009)131This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and Corrective Action and is the direct responsibilityof Subcommittee E50.04 on Corrective Action.Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2009. Published March 2009. Originally approved in 2002.
19、Last previous edition approved in 2002 as E 2205 02.FIG. 3 Tier 2 Evaluation FlowchartE 2205/E 2205M 02 (2009)14uncertainty, the user can employ more site-specific and less conservative estimates and assumptionsof exposure and effects. The manner in which uncertainty, conservatism, data quality, and
20、 othertechnical aspects are addressed is by technical policy decisions.Technical policy decisions (TPDs) are an important part of the Eco-RBCA process, and while it isnot within the scope of this standard to identify the TPDs appropriate for a specific site, Appendix X2FIG. 4 Tier 3 Evaluation Flowc
21、hartE 2205/E 2205M 02 (2009)15and Guide E 2081 provide additional insight into their identification, understanding, and development.Technical policy decisions generally fall into three categories: (1) those that are identified as existingprior to the Eco-RBCAassessment and will not change (that is,
22、prescribed and without flexibility suchas regulations or policy), (2) those that are identified as existing prior to the Eco-RBCA assessmentbut may change or be modified based on site-specific information (for example, sampling protocols,selection of models or other tools, or corrective-action goals
23、), and (3) those that are developedspecifically for the Eco-RBCA assessment (for example, development of a site-specific model).Technical policy decisions are typically identified, negotiated (if appropriate), and documented in theinitial site assessment (see 7.1). It is the responsibility of the us
24、er of the Eco-RBCA guide to identifyand consider the TPDs and appropriate stakeholders for a site. These TPDs may need to be reevaluatedeach time the Eco-RBCA evaluation proceeds through an iteration or progresses to a new tier. Boththe RBCA and Eco-RBCA processes encourage user-led initiatives and
25、appropriate stakeholderinvolvement in identifying TPDs and developing the Eco-RBCA program. Laws and regulations mayrequire coordination with federal, state, and natural resource trustees.This guide serves to complement existing guidance for hazardous-waste sites and facilities and toprovide guidanc
26、e for sites not under regulatory programs. This guide does not substitute for applicablefederal, regional, state, local, or other regulatory requirements. This guide is not a regulation itself andmay not apply to a particular situation, based on the circumstances.This guide is not intended to replac
27、e professional judgment or to recommend a specific course ofaction.All aspects of this guide might not be applicable in all circumstances. This guide is not intendedto represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service isjudged, nor should this document b
28、e applied without consideration of a projects many unique aspects.The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approvedthrough the ASTM consensus process.1. Scope1.1 This is a guide to risk-based corrective action for theprotection of ecological resources a
29、nd supplements the RBCAprocess (Guide E 2081). The primary objective of the Eco-RBCA process is to provide a flexible framework for a tieredapproach to ERA and risk management decision making atchemical release sites. To this end, available guidance docu-ments from various federal and state agencies
30、 were reviewedand their common attributes incorporated into this guide,where possible. The Eco-RBCA process complements existingtechnical and regulatory ecological risk guidance (see 4.2). Inparticular, it is intended to be compatible with the USEPAprogrammatic guidelines for ERA (1)2, guidance for
31、theSuperfund program (2), and other USEPA (3) risk assessmentand corrective-action programs. Eco-RBCAmight also be usedin conjunction with corrective action strategies that includehuman health issues (for example, Guide E 2081).1.2 Chemical release sites vary greatly in terms of complex-ity, physica
32、l and chemical characteristics, and the risk that theymight pose to ecological resources. The Eco-RBCAprocess, asdescribed in Guide E 2081, recognizes this variability andincorporates a tiered approach that integrates site assessment,response actions, and remedial actions with ERA. The processbegins
33、 with relatively simple analyses in Tier 1 and, ifnecessary, proceeds to more detailed evaluations in Tier 2 orTier 3. The process of gathering and evaluating data isconducted in such a manner that only those data that arenecessary for a given tiers decision making are collected ateach tier. Hence,
34、this can facilitate effective use of resourcesand reduce initial data requirements.1.3 Eco-RBCA is intended to provide a framework for sitesnot covered under regulatory programs and for sites underregulatory programs that lack specific guidance. Eco-RBCAmay also provide a useful framework to help me
35、rge severalpossible approaches into a single approach when multipleregulatory programs apply. The user should be aware of thefederal, state, and local corrective action programs and policiesthat are applicable for the site and, regardless of the program,that agency approvals might be required to imp
36、lement theprocess for completing ERAs.1.4 Various TPDs will need to be made regarding theaspects of Eco-RBCA. These TPDs may cover both thephilosophical and methodological aspects, from what values toprotect to exactly how the Eco-RBCA process will be per-formed. TPDs may affect every stage of the p
37、rocess, from theinitial site assessment to development and monitoring of theremedy. It is the responsibility of the user to identify theappropriate TPDs. Section 7, Appendix X2, and Guide E 2081provide more detail regarding TPDs in the Eco-RBCAprocess.1.5 The general performance standard for this do
38、cumentrequires that:1.5.1 Applicable TPDs be identified, beginning at the ini-tiation of the Eco-RBCA process, and as appropriate, at laterstages;1.5.2 Data used in the Eco-RBCA process be of sufficientquantity and quality to answer the questions and support thedecisions made at the tier of investig
39、ation;1.5.3 Site assessments be distinguished into tiers of appro-priate levels of evaluation;1.5.4 Actions taken should integrate the Eco-RBCA processfor the protection of relevant ecological receptors and habitatsand RBCA for the protection of human health (see GuideE 2081), as appropriate;2The bo
40、ldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end ofthis standard.E 2205/E 2205M 02 (2009)161.5.5 Applicable federal, state, and local laws and regula-tions be followed; and1.5.6 Potential adverse effects on relevant ecological recep-tors and habitats be considered when select
41、ing remedial actionalternatives. The remedial action alternatives should be con-sistent with the TPDs and the RBCA process (see GuideE 2081).1.6 Ecological resources are the focus of this guide; risks tohuman health are addressed for petroleum releases and chemi-cal releases in other ASTM RBCA stand
42、ards (Guides E 1739and E 2081). There are many features common to all three ofthe RBCA guides. These three guides share the basic elementsof RBCA: (1) site assessment; (2) tiered evaluations ofexposure, effects, and risk; (3) risk-based decision making; and(4) response, remedial action, and monitori
43、ng. There are anumber of distinctions between human health and ecologicalrisk assessments. For example, while human health risk assess-ments focus on individuals, evaluations of ecological risktypically focus on populations, communities, or ecosystems.Exceptions are species or habitats designated fo
44、r specialprotection (for example, endangered species). Biological datato support an ERA are more amenable to direct field observa-tion than are human exposure and epidemiological data.1.7 The Eco-RBCA process addresses current and potentialfuture risks to relevant ecological receptors and habitats a
45、tchemical release sites. It is not intended to apply to currentpermitted releases and permit applications.1.8 Eco-RBCA focuses on chemical stressors. However, theuser may need to consider biological or physical stressors at thesite or effects from chemical sources unrelated to the site.1.9 The proce
46、ss described in this guide integrates theprinciples of current ERA practices with site assessmentactivities and remedial-action selection to ensure that the riskmanagement decision protects ecological resources. Fig. 1illustrates the following activities in Eco-RBCA and thosedescribed in Section 7 (
47、7.1-7.10):1.9.1 Step 1Initial Site Assessment;1.9.2 Step 2Decision Point;1.9.3 Step 3Tier 1 Ecological Risk Assessment;1.9.4 Step 4Tier 1 Decision Point;1.9.5 Step 5Tier 2 Ecological Risk Assessment;1.9.6 Step 6Tier 2 Decision Point;1.9.7 Step 7Tier 3 Ecological Risk Assessment;1.9.8 Step 8Tier 3 De
48、cision Point;1.9.9 Step 9Implementing the Remedial Action Program;and1.9.10 Step 10Monitoring Programs (7.10).1.9.11 The above steps can be applied in a flexible manner.It may not be necessary to conduct a full tier of evaluation ifexisting site information indicates that a subsequent tier ismore ap
49、plicable to address site-specific concerns. Where ex-perience indicates that a more sophisticated assessment iswarranted at a site, the user may elect to proceed conceptuallythrough any earlier tiers to conduct a site-specific assessmenttypical of Tier 2 or Tier 3. Additionally, the decision points inSteps 4, 6, and 8 allow the user to exit the tiered evaluationprocess and select the appropriate remedial action once ad-equate information is available for decision making.1.10 This guide is organized as follows:1.10.1 Section 2 lists referenced ASTM docume
