Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment (한국지하수토양환경학회지:지하수토양환경)

Korean Society of Soil and Groundwater Environment (한국지하수토양환경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on the Risk-Based Screening Levels Determined by Various Risk Assessment Tools (I): Variability from Different Analyses of Cross-Media Transfer Rates

다양한 위해성평가 방법에 따라 도출한 오염토양 선별기준의 차이에 관한 연구 (I): 매체 간 이동현상 해석에 따른 차이

  • Jung, Jae-Woong (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Ryu, Hye-Rim (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Nam, Kyoung-Phile (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University)
  • 정재웅 (서울대학교 건설환경공학부) ;
  • 류혜림 (서울대학교 건설환경공학부) ;
  • 남경필 (서울대학교 건설환경공학부)
  • Received : 2010.10.26
  • Accepted : 2011.03.16
  • Published : 2011.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) of some pollutants for residential adults were derived with risk assessment tools developed by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and Korea Ministry of Environment (KMOE) and compared each other. To make the comparison simple, ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, outdoor inhalation of vapors, indoor inhalation of vapors, and inhalation of soil particulates were chosen as exposure pathways. The results showed that the derived RBSLs varied for every exposure pathway. For direct exposure pathways (i.e., ingestion of soil and dermal contact with soil), the derived RBSLs varied mainly due to the different default values for exposure factors and toxicity data. When identical default values for the parameters were used, the same RBSLs could be derived regardless of the assessment tools used. For inhalation of vapors and inhalation of soil particulates, however, different analysis methods for cross-media transfer rates were used and different assumptions were established for each tool, identical RBSLs could not be obtained even if the same default values for exposure factors were used. Especially for inhalation of soil particulates pathway, screening level derived using KMOE approach (most conservative) was approximately 5000~10000 times lower than the screening level derived using ASTM approach (least conservative). Our results suggest that, when deriving RBSL using a specific tool, it is a prerequisite to technically review the analysis methods for cross-media transfer rates as well as to understand how the assessment tool derives the default values for exposure factors.

Keywords

References

  1. 환경부, 2006, 토양오염 위해성평가지침, 환경부예규 제283호.
  2. 환경부, 2009, 토양오염 위해성평가지침, 환경부예규 제383호.
  3. ASTM, 1995, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites (Designation: E 1739-95), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, p. 54.
  4. ASTM, 1998, Standard Provisional Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action (ASTM PS 104-98), Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  5. ASTM, 2002, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites (Designation: E 1739-95 (Reapproved 2002)), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, p. 54.
  6. ASTM, 2004, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action (Designation: E 2081-00 (Reapproved 2004)), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, p. 95.
  7. Cowherd, Jr., C., Muleski, G.E., Englehart, P.J., and Gillette, D. A., 1985, Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface Contamination Sites, USEPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC., USA, 87p, EPA/600/8-85/002.
  8. Eklund, B., Petrinec, C., Ranum, D.p. and Howlett, L., 1991, Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series: Database of Emission Rate Measurement Projects - Technical Note, USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 33p, EPA/450/1-91/003.
  9. Lijzen, J.P.A., Baars, A.J., Otte, P.F., Rikken, M.G.J., Swartjes, F.A., Verbruggen, E.M.J.p. and van Wezel, A.P., 2007, Technical Evaluation of the Intervention Values for Soil/Sediment and Groundwater, RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 147 p, RIVM Report 711701 023.
  10. Oak Ridge National University (ORNL), 2010, Regional Screening Table: User's Guide (May 2010), USEPA Region III homepage, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/usersguide.htm.
  11. USEPA, 1991, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals), Interim, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA, 54 p, EPA/540/R-92/003.
  12. USEPA, 1996a, Soil Screening Guidance, Second Edition, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA, 39 p, EPA/540/R-96/018.
  13. USEPA, 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, Second Edition, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA, 168 p, EPA/540/R-95/128.