• Human Risk Assessment of a Contaminated Site Using Korean Risk-Based Corrective Action (K-RBCA) Software
  • Nam, Taek-Woo;Ryu, Hye-Rim;Kim, Young-Jin;Ko, Seok-Oh;Baek, Ki-Tae;Nam, Kyoung-Phile;
  • Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University;Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University;Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University;Department of Civil Engineering, Kyunghee University;Department of Environmental Engineering, Kumoh National Institute of Technoology;Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University;
  • 한국형 소프트웨어를 이용한 유류.중금속 복합오염지역의 인체위해성평가 및 RBCA Tool Kit과의 비교분석
  • 남택우;류혜림;김영진;고석오;백기태;남경필;
  • 서울대학교 공과대학 건설환경공학부;서울대학교 공과대학 건설환경공학부;서울대학교 공과대학 건설환경공학부;경희대학교 공과대학 토목공학과;금오공과대학교 토목환경공학부;서울대학교 공과대학 건설환경공학부;
Abstract
By using a newly developed Korean risk-based corrective action (K-RBCA) software (K-RBCA) and the RBCA Tool Kit, risk assessment was performed on a site that was contaminated with aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Eight chemicals including benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, naphthalene, benz(a) anthracene, benzo(b) fluoranthene, benzo(a) pyrene, and arsenic that exceeded the US EPA Soil Screening Level were chosen as the target pollutants. A conceptual site model was constructed based on the site-specific effective exposure pathways. According to the RBCA Tool Kit the carcinogenic risk of arsenic was larger than $10^{-6}$, which is the generally acceptable carcinogenic risk level. The K-RBCA estimated the same level of carcinogenic risk for arsenic. With the RBCA Tool Kit, the carcinogenic risk of benzo(a) pyrene was estimated to be about $1.3{\times}10^{-6}$. However, with the K-RBCA benzo(a) pyrene did not exhibit any risk. The inconsistency between the softwares was attributed to the different fundamental settings (i.e., medium division) between the two softwares. While the K-RBCA divides medium into surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater, the RBCA Tool Kit divides medium into only soil and groundwater. These differences lead to the different exposure pathways used by the two softwares. The K-RBCA considers the exposure pathways in surface soil and subsurface soil separately to estimate risk, however, the RBCA Tool Kit considers the surface soil and subsurface soil as one and uses the integrated exposure pathways to estimate risk. Thus the resulting risk is higher when the RBCA Tool Kit is used than when the K-RBCA is used. The results from this study show that there is no significant difference in the risks estimated by the two softwares, thus, it is reasonable to use the K-RBCA we developed in risk assessment of soil and groundwater. In addition, the present study demonstrates that the assessor should be familiar with the characteristics of a contaminated site and the assumptions used by a risk assessment software when carrying out risk assessment.

Keywords: Risk assessment;K-RBCA;RBCA Tool Kit;Heavy metals;Petroleum hydrocarbons;

References
  • 1. ASTM, 1995, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites (E 1739-95), American Society for Testing Materials, PA, USA.
  •  
  • 2. ASTM, 2004, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action (E 2081-00), American Society for Testing Materials, PA, USA.
  •  
  • 3. Connor, J.A., Bowers, R.L., Nevin, J.P., and Fisher, T., 2000, Software Guidance Manual for RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases, Groundwater Services, INC., TA, p. A-12.
  •  
  • 4. DEFRA and EA, 2002, The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical Basis and Algorithms, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Environment Agency, UK.
  •  
  • 5. Khan, F.I. and Husain, T., 2001, Risk-Based Monitored Natural Attenuation-A Case Study, J. Hazard. Mater., B85, 243-272.
  •  
  • 6. MacDonald, J.A., 2000, Evaluating Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Cleanup, Environ. Sci. Technol., 34, 346A-353A.
  •  
  • 7. McGraph, D., Zhang, C.S., and Carton, O., 2004, Geostatistical Analyses and Harzard Assessment on Soil Lead in Silvermines, Area Ireland, Environ. Pollut., 127, 239-248.
  •  
  • 8. RIVM, 2001, Technical evaluation of the Intervention Values for Soil/sediment and Groundwater (report 711701 023), Research for Man and Environment, Netherlands.
  •  
  • 9. TPHCWG, 1999, Human Health Risk-Based Evaluation of Petroleum Release Sites: Implementing the Working Group Approach, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, Amherst Scientific Publishers, MA, p. 60.
  •  
  • 10. US EPA, updated monthly, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environment, USA.
  •  
  • 11. US EPA, 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors (OSWER Directive 9285.6-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., USA.
  •  
  • 12. US EPA, 1991b, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B (EPA/540/R-92/003), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., USA.
  •  
  • 13. US EPA, 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (EPA/600/8-91/011B), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Exposure Assessment Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
  •  
  • 14. US EPA, 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide (EPA/540/R-96/018), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., USA.
  •  
  • 15. US EPA, 1997, Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA/600/P-95/002F), Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., USA.
  •  
  • 16. US EPA, 2009b, Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites, RSL Table Update, Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environment, USA.
  •  

This Article