The Adoption of Risk Assessment Methodology in Exposure Assessment

근로자 노출평가제도 내 위험성평가 방법론의 적용

  • Received : 2015.12.08
  • Accepted : 2015.12.21
  • Published : 2015.12.31


Objectives: Exposure Assessment for workplace hazards where the exposure level is below occupational exposure limits(OELs) has been performed without considering either the degrees of risk or exposure levels and has failed to lead to intervention in many cases. The objective of this study was to suggest and test an application framework for risk assessment methodology under the current exposure assessment system in Korea. Materials: First, we investigated the exposure assessment systems in Korea and other countries. To adopt some risk assessment techniques, we also analyzed risk assessment systems and compared them to exposure assessment systems. A few suggestions were made. We held a public hearing during an industrial hygiene conference and took surveys using a questionnaire. Results: The first suggestion was to implement the risk assessment and exposure assessment through a "one-stop" system. In that case, one expected question would be who has been doing the jobs so far. In most cases, industrial hygiene consulting services or laboratories have been performing exposure assessment for business owners. Business owners are required to perform risk assessment. As two different groups of people will be required to implement two things in a one-stop system, they need to share information. As an information vehicle to share information, commonly filed survey checklists were suggested. The second suggestion was to categorize exposure level into four groups instead of the current binary divisions based on OELs. In the risk assessment system, exposure level is divided into four groups utilizing the cut-points of 10%, 50%, and 100% of OELs. The same schema can be adopted in the exposure assessment system and different levels of requirements can be assigned for each group. The third suggestion was regarding the regulation system. To provide the suggestions some thrust toward being implemented in the field, changes should be made in the legal system. Two different types of new exposure assessment result reporting forms were suggested. Some investigations such as an ergonomic survey are officially accepted as risk assessment under the current legal system. A few items were suggested to be included in the exposure assessment result reporting to be accepted as risk assessment. A pilot study in two small factories was performed and pointed out the strengths and weakness of our suggestions. Conclusions: Discussions and studies on the improvement of the exposure assessment system have been held for decades and no tangible changes have yet been made. We hope this result can help realize healthy lives for workers in Korea.


exposure assessment;exposure level;one-stop system;risk assessment


  1. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. A Conceptual Framework for U.S. EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-09/003. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [online]. Available from: URL: [accessed Sep. 24, 2014].
  2. EU. Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. 1989
  3. ILO. Programme on Safety and Health at Work and the Environment. Chemical Control Banding. 2008. Available from: URL: protection/safework/ctrl_banding/index.htm
  4. Jeong JY, Park SH. A Method for the Determination of Metalworking Fluids in Workplaces. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) Report 2004-11-92; 2004
  5. Kang SK. An outbreak of n-Hexane neuropathy among workers in a LCD manufacturer, 9th International Symposium on Neurobehavioral Methods and Effects in Occupational and Environmental Health. 2005.
  6. Kim JM, Jang JK. A Recommendations for Improvement in Setting up Appropriate Interval of Work Environment Monitoring. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) Report. 2007
  7. Lee E, Kim K, Kim H, et al. Carbon disulfide poisoning in Korea with social and historical background. J Occup. Health 1996;38:155-161.
  8. Lee KM, Roh JH, Paik NW, Yum YT, Lee KN et al. Work Environment Monitoring, How We Can Improve the System. Occupational Health. 1988;3:22-36.
  9. Lee KM. A Speech at the Professor Lee KM Retirement Ceremony; Industrial Hygienist for 40 years, the History of Korean Industrial Hygiene. 1999;1-20.
  10. Bullock WH, Ignacio JS. A strategy for assessing and managing occupational exposures. AIHA, 2006; 239-244.
  11. Byeon SH, Kim YH. A Study of Regulation Compliance of Workplace Environmental Measurement System in Korea. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) Report 2007-64-954. 2007
  12. Ministry of Government Legislation (MoGL). Occupational Safety and Health Act. 1981.
  13. Oh SM, Park JG. Optimization of Work Environment Monitoring Methodology - Enlargement of its Coverage and Optimization of its Intervals. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) Report 1997-03-017; 1997
  14. Park DY. Study on Paradigm Shift of the National OSH Institutions based on Risk Assessment for General Industry. Ministry of Labor. 2004
  15. Park JG. A Study on the Direction of Development in Regulation for Working Environmental Measurement. Kyungin Journal. 1994;3:167-192
  16. Park JS, Kim Y, Park DW, Choi KS, Park SH et al. An outbreak of hematopoietic and reproductive disorders due to solvents containing 2-bromopropane in an electronic factory, South Korea: epidemiological survey. J Occup Health 1997;39:138-143.


Supported by : 산업안전보건연구원