untitled

Transcription

1 w w m y wz Vol. 14(1), p. 18~28, 2009 m» w» w 1 *Á 2 Á½k 3 1 w y œw, 2 w y w, 3 y w m w Role and Contaminant Selection Methods of Soil Quality Standards in Developed Countries Seung-Woo Jeong 1 *ÁYoun-Joo An 2 ÁTae-Seung Kim 3 1 Department of Environmental Engineering, Kunsan National University 2 Department of Environmental Science, Konkuk University 3 Soil and Groundwater Divison, National Institute of Environmental Research Abstract Many countries have recently established legal regulations and soil quality standards for soil protection. This study investigated the role of soil quality standards in soil protection policy and methods of selecting standard substances from various types of chemicals. In most countries, soil quality standards act as guidance for further detail survey or risk assessment from comparing soil concentration with the soil quality standards. Soil quality standards of Switzerland, Demark and Japan were used as enforcement tools. Priority substances for the standards were first selected from frequently detected chemicals in contaminated sites. Those substances were extensively evaluated for toxic effects, exposure potential and availability in chemical analysis. Key words : Soil contaminant, Soil quality standard, Risk, Soil regulation ƒ m y z w ƒ y ww m» wš. ƒ m y m» w m» w w w w wš w. m» m q w» w Guideline w wwš,» eƒ q w t Standard y wš ù, j,. Guideline Standard y wš. m» x ƒ m,,, ƒ w w š w. ƒ ù m y» y š w p ƒ š. : m, m», w, m 1. ƒ m l y yw» w» š. m y z w ƒ m» w wš. w m» eƒ ƒ, ƒ m» w m» w w. *Corresponding author : swjeong@kunsan.ac.kr š : : : m : ¾ 18

2 m» w» w 19 ù 17 m wš, w m» Á wš ù m» y w 2015 ¾ 30 y w z (y, 2005). z m» y w v w w ƒ v w w w y. m» w y m m y w ƒ š. ƒ m w m y m» w w. w yw m» w w š w wš w. m ( y w, 2007) k» w. 2. m» p Table 1 ƒ m y w ³ w ù Dutch Soil Protection Act k, g j, v, xƒ,,, m m 1983 m y (Interim Soil Remediation Act) w m» A, B, C w w ƒ 1987 m y (Soil Protection Act) w» w» t» (Target value)» (Intervention value) w š ¼ y(urgency of Remediation) w w s. Dutch Soil Protection Act w, w m ƒ (sustainability), m, w» m w m y sww. m y m» t»» w. m» w, w ¼ y w w y eƒ w. ù t» w» w ƒ m m y v q w w sƒ w. 1. Compare to Soil Quality Standards : generic, all land-uses 2. Urgency of Remediation : site-specific 3. Remediation Objectives : land-use specific ¼ y j»ƒ 25 m 3 š ¼ (high urgency) 4 ü y w w m» 1) m» t»» m w p.» (multi-functional) y (generic)» t w w w (potential risk) m š (VROM, 2000). t» k w š wš» k w š w.» m Table 1. National soil protection policies in Europe Established Regulations for Soil Protection 1987 Dutch Soil Protection Act 1989 Italian Soil Protection Act 1992 Czechoslovakian Soil Protection Act 1993 French National Soil Remediation and Clean-up Policy 1997 Hungarian National Environmental Programme 1998 Federal German Soil Protection Act 1998 Swiss Ordinance Relating to Impacts on the Soil, 1999 The Danish Soil Contamination Act 2000 Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990: Contaminated Land (UK) 2004 Soil Action Plan of England and Wales

3 20 Á Á½k Maximum Permissible Risk) eƒ» k. m» w. Fig. 1. Soil quality standard configuration of Netherlands. y» (soil remediation intervention values),» w k ƒw w w. wr w t»» s³» (Intermediate value) š. Fig. 1» m w m q x. ý m < t» : m ý t» < m <» : m. ƒ v w m w w ý» < m <» : m. ƒ ƒ v w. ý» < m : m. m vƒ 25 m w sym m 3 y¼ (the urgency of remediation) w w yv 2)» t» k w MPReco (Maximum Permissible Risk level for ecosystems) 1% w w. MPReco HC5(Hazardous Concentration for 5% of the species in the ecosystem). 95% yw. HC5 1% w w w š w. w r ƒ w added risk approach w HC5 1% w w w m k 95% w w.» k w w š w w. k w HC50 ( ƒ added risk approach w ), m w sƒ CSOIL w w w MPRhuman(Human-toxicological TV( t», k) = (1% of HC5) + BC ( ) IV(», k)=hc50+bc IV(», )=MPR human» (spatial scale) ³ wš p. m 25 m 3 m /n v» e wš š, w w sy 100 m 3 m v» e wš. m»» (indicative values) ƒ. y w RIVM»» k» w» w.» wš w, t y, k w ƒ w w.»» y. w»» w» w w ƒ» q w w w w. w» w w w w s ƒ bioassays w w sƒw ù ƒ x mw w sƒ ww w w w w., m» q w» w» y p. t» w ƒ w sƒ w š,» w y v š y ¼ q w w» y ù p m 1990 y m w ³ m y w š, w Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990 ( w Part 2A) w ƒ š m y wš.

4 m» w» w 21 Part 2A m ³ wš, ƒ w m wš y ü «w wš. w Part2A m w, z,, s» w m w w ³ wš. Part2A w m ƒw w eš ù e ƒ m» k m ³ wš t Soil Action Plan for England : m z w w m, m,, m x 52 z sw (Defra, 2004). z ƒ 52 y w 2006 sƒ š ƒ (Defra, 2006). sƒ š m y z Action 17-Action 29¾ y z 4 y, ù w sƒ. ƒ ƒ w ü m w š w z w. š p œ y (Environmental Agency) l m y š EA š ÕThe State of Contaminated LandÖ w ü 100,000 ƒ m pƒ d š. œ 2000 l ¾ y w 538 ùkû. ƒ y «w š yƒ Remediation Notice ü. y Part IIA w polluter-pays principle w. ƒ w, x m y ƒ y. m m ƒ y w wš, w m ³ w m w w y w š. Defra ƒ EAƒ w ü m w» w w y w» w 1990 lõcontaminated Land Capital Projects ProgrammeÖ wš, » , 1,020 q ( 204 ) w m» m w ƒ 1983 l ICRCL Guidance 59/83 ƒ š. ù m w š w š ùe û š, m e, SGV(Soil Guideline Values) w 2002 s» (Defra, 2002b). m w sƒ CLEA(Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model) mw w m w š w m ƒ SGV tw. m w, v w w Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990: Contaminated Land w. m q w sƒ w w ³ wš (Annex 3, Chapter B- The Identification of Contaminated Land, Part 4- Determining Whether Land Appears to be Contaminated Land, Defra 2006). Part2A w m x ƒw w eš ( significant harm is being caused ) ƒw w e ƒ ( There is a significant Possibility of significant harm being caused ) swwš. ƒ w sƒ q w w. w š w e Guideline values w w ³ wš, SGV m w. ù SGV w w» w w (B.49) ƒ w sƒ SGV w, x SGV ƒ w sƒw w w ƒ w. SGVƒ w m q w x w sƒ w wš (EA CLR7) j m j 1983 yw w s» w (The Chemical Waste Deposit Act of 1983) z w»» w š, s» s» w w

5 22 Á Á½k š w» w 1990 The Waste Deposit Act. z l y w m wš 1999 The Soil Contamination Actƒ. m œ š m ü wù ü, s. j ( œ) 99.6%ƒ w y w w p wš. m 35% ƒ valuable water abstraction areas, ü w y š. w w j w» wš. j m w y m jy ³ polluter pays principle, w y ü. ù 1990 w m w ƒ, 1992 j m w w 20 q w. z 1999 m z w z w m m w p. w, y w m» 2002 Guidance on Remediation of Contaminated Sites š l tm w 50ƒ m» wš (DEPA, 2002). m» 2 ƒ 0.2 g soil/day w 10 g š w. j EPA Cut-off value» ƒ š p.» w k yƒ v e š m j ƒ sƒ t. ù Cut-off value w, yw ù w w m m Ordinance Relating to Impacts on the Soil(OIS, 1998) w, sƒ, w ³ w y (Contaminated Sites Ordinance of 26 August 1998; Ordinance relating to Charges for the remediation of polluted Sites 5 April 2000) w. ³ wš» ƒ. m OIS m w ƒ» (guide value),» (trigger value), y» (clean up value) ³ wš, y s»» ƒ. y, ü s», ƒ (canton) sƒ y (register). sƒ mw y ü. y š šw, m, œ» ƒ q w š, ƒ zw w w sƒ y w w. sƒ w w, l v, y ü. y w sƒ m m OIS m» ù, ³ w. OIS m» s»» w t e w sƒw. t w ƒ w q» s»» w. x» w p, t w q w y. w d» w, q w w w w» wš. OIS w Swiss National Observation Network for Impacts on the Soil(NABO) m d w w, ƒ m w e w l w w ƒ (OIS, Article 3 & 4). l m y» w m e w sƒw wš. m y» ƒ» (guide value),» (trigger value), y» (clean up value) š. w w.

6 m» w» w m» m OIS w m y» ƒ»,», y». m w ƒ»,» w w m y ƒ ƒ š (Fig. 2 ). ƒ ƒ k e w sƒw» w OIS w ƒ» w. ƒ» w, m e w w w wš 5 ü w w w.» w, w ƒ k y w w eš, k e w y sƒ w wš, w e w» ¾ m ³ w. w y» w, w m ³ w w, y» w m yw w. m w sƒ»w» w w w. 3. m» xy w Fig. 2. Soil quality standard configuration of Switzerland. Table 2 ƒ m» ƒ m» w w. Table 2. Resources and the number of substances of soil quality guidelines USA Resources of soil quality guideline Number of substances USEPA Generic SSLs for The Residential and Commercial/Industrial Scenarios 109 Maryland State of Maryland Department of the Environment Cleanup Standards for Soil and Groundwater (2000) Mississippi Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Risk Evaluation Procedures for Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment of Brownfield Sites (2002) 450 Virginia Universal Treatment Standards 185 Texas Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments At Remediation Sites in Texas (2001) 66 Louisiana Underground Storage Tank Closure/Change-In-Service Guidance Document (2003) 32 Delaware Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste 145 Massachusetts Final Amendments Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 Cmr (2006) 117 New York New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program Development of Soil Cleanup Objectives Technical Support Document (2006) Florida Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material From C&D Debris Recycling Facilities in Florida (1998) 390 Oregon Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment: Levels I, Ii, Iii, Iv (1998) 145 New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria (1999) 108 California Screening for Environmental Concerns At Sites With Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (2005) 45 Illinois Soil Remediation Objectives for Industrial/Commercial Properties/Residential Properties (2007) 126 Netherlands Circular on Target Values and Intervention Values for Soil Remediation (Ministerie Van Volkshuisvesting. Ruimtelijke Ordening En Milieubeheer, 2000) 123 U.K. Guidance on the Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (Icrcl, 1987) 20 Germany Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance (Bbodschv) (1999) 18 Demark Guidelines on Remediation of Contaminated Sites (Danish Environmental 2002) 46 Switzerland Guideline Reuse of Excavated Soils (SAEFL, 2001) 13 Canada Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CCME, 2003) 30 Australia Schedule B(1) Guideline on the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater (NEPC, 1999) 34 Norway Guidelines for the Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sites (SFT, 1999) 46 Japan Soil Contamination Countermeasures (Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan, 2005) 26 Number of substances listed in the soil guidelines

7 24 Á Á½k Tabel 3. Role and uses of soil quality guidelines Country Soil quality criteria Substances Total Netherlands U.K. Germany Demark Switzerland Canada Australia Norway Japan Intervention value 96 Indicative value 27 Guideline Guideline Domestic gardens, allotments 16 Parks, playing fields, open space 13 Any uses where plants are to be grown 7 trigger value Playgrounds 14 Residential areas 14 Parks and recreational facilities 14 Plots of land used for industrial and commercial purposes 12 Trigger value 8 Agriculture, vegetable garden Action value 1 Grassland Action value 8 Precautionary value Standard Standard Guideline Guideline Guideline Standard Clay 9 Loam / Silt 9 Sand 7 Soil quality 46 Eco-toxicological soil quality criteria 15 Background level 2 Guide values 11 Trigger values 7 Clean-up values 8 Agricultural 30 Residential/parkland 30 Commercial 30 Industrial 30 Health Investigation Levels (HILs) 28 Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs) 14 Health related soil quality guidelines (acceptable terskel-dose) 46 Ecotox related soil quality guidelines (acceptable terskel-dose) 43 Designation standard Soil concentration standard < risk for direct ingestion Soil Leachate Standard < Risk of ingestion form groundwater etc. > EPA wš Soil Screening Value 14 w m» wš. šw ƒ 9,,,, j,, eù, y,, w. ƒ ù 14 m» w w 646. Table 3 ƒ m» w w. ù m» m 1 q w» w Guideline w wwš. Guideline» w w w sƒ w, z w sƒ Guideline w.» eƒ q, w t Standard t»w. m» Standards y š ù, j, Guideline Standard swwš. ƒ m» p p w. p z w w» wš š, x SGV w sƒ w w

8 m» w» w 25 p. j cut-off value» m j w w š w m» w p. 4.» w 4.1. USEPA SSL ( ) m» m» USEPA 110 w Soil Screening Level(SSL). USEPA Soil Screening Guidance : User's Guide w rr p(superfund Site) 110 w SSL š š (USEPA, 1996). ATSDR(Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry)/EPA CERCLA (42 U.S.C [i][2], 104(i)(2) of CERCLA) w rr p ƒ w 100 w w š w tw l 1994 ¾ t ù 1995 l t» 2 w. ATSDR 2005 rr p 861 sƒw š 275 w. Table t rr p 25 ¾ ùkü. ƒ w sƒ wš w w w. ƒ sƒ NPL ü,, ƒ. sƒ (1800 ) = NPLü (600 )+ (600 )+ ƒ ( ) x HazDat l Table CERCLA Priority List of hazardous substances (ASTDR, 2005) 2005 TOTAL 2003 SUBSTANCE NAME RANK POINTS RANK CAS # 1 ARSENIC LEAD MERCURY VINYL CHLORIDE POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS BENZENE POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS CADMIUM BENZO(A)PYRENE BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE CHLOROFORM DDT, P,P' AROCLOR AROCLOR DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE TRICHLOROETHYLENE DIELDRIN CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT PHOSPHORUS, WHITE DDE, P,P' CHLORDANE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE COAL TAR CREOSOTE DDD, P,P' ALDRIN Total socre (1800 max.) = Superfund site frequency (600) + Toxicity (600) + Human exposure potential (300 concentration points exposure points)

9 26 Á Á½k w rr p w 3,300 (ASTDR, 20005). 3 rr p œm w CERCLA w w CERCLA Hazardous Substance ³ 2005 sw (,»,», s» t w. ) ). Table 2 ùkü ƒ m» w EPA SSL w 110. ƒ w ü» w EPA t SSL ƒ., (Article 27, Title 14 of the Environmental Conservation Law) w m y» (Soil Cleanup Objectives) w ù,» w ³, Department of Environment Conservation z (Target Compound List: TCL) w. z l p m w š, z ƒ m y (New York State, 2006). x ƒ m z ƒ š acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, barium, beryllium, 2- methylphenol, 3-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, pyrene, selenium, silver, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy) propionic acid (Silvex ), 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(2,3,7,8-tcdd) ü q w w. w Aroclors PCB w w PCBs ƒwš Aroclors w ƒ y» w wš. m w sƒ ƒ w y w v» w w p. x ƒ» w w. š m» w m q w ƒ, z w sƒ y te(primary Remedial Goal)ƒ w z ƒ w w w ƒ» wš ƒ, y» m» ƒ»,» (trigger value) y» (clean-up value). m» ƒ» m l k t w.» y» w kw» w.» v, ³ v» w kw.» v ƒ w. k w e, x ƒ» w v y» v w w. k» e, j, g p,, û,,, f, k (Thallium), 10 kw. ƒ w w kw, e,,, û, f, 6» w (SAEFL, 1998).» w» ³ (Enforceability) v. v w z w ƒ w sƒw ƒ w mw Table 5 ƒ ƒ e» w w.» v w, m ü ƒ k w e sƒw w, ƒ sƒ» +++ t»w š, t»w ƒ w.» v ³ v d sƒ» û, e, 3 š, y» û, e,, 4.» w w» v ³ v d m w ƒw w e dioxins(pcdd) and furans(pcdf), PAHs(16 w ), PCBs(7 w ) w ³ w.»k» w m» w w t w e m w ywš.» w ù w. m»» w w» ƒ j. w m d ƒ w w» e wš š»k w t e y wd w p.

10 m» w» w 27 Table 5. Evaluation of selection criteria for Switzerland clean up value substances Pollutant Legally binding criteria Other evaluation criteria Informaiton on exposure/ dose effect ratio Suitability for trigger and clean-up values Cadmium Copper Fluorine + + Lead Nickel o Zinc Table 6. Criteria for selection of priority contaminants in Englands Priority contaminants Contaminants likely to be present on many sites Contaminants likely to pose a risk Resources - Industry profiles (Department of Environment, ): describe specific industrial processes and the chemicals that are commonly found on industrial land - ICRCL Guidance Note 59/83, (Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land, 1987) Humanbeings Water environment Ecosystem Construction / building maerials Bioaccumulation - The nature of hazard, potential exposure pathways - Toxicity information from the reference (Lewis, 1992) - Environmental Hazard Assessments for a number of substances (Department of Environment ) 4.3. SGV w SGV t w, z y w w tw (DEFRA, 2002a). w», x w w e kw š,» y e w š w.» w contaminant-pathway-receptor w ù, š w Table 6 š ü. ƒ yw w e ƒ w m» w w m» m 1 q w» w ƒ w wwš. Guideline» w w w sƒ w, z w sƒ ƒ w.» eƒ q, w t Standard ù, j, Guideline Standard swwš. ƒ m y p ƒ»» w ƒ š. m w ƒ w m» x ƒ m ƒ w» w wš. m» w z m ƒ v w» wš. contaminant-pathway-receptor y w w w w w. ù m» w» y standard w. z v w ƒ mw m» ƒw w. w z l y wš ƒ ƒ mw v w.

11 28 Á Á½k š x y w, 2007, m :». y, m» z, ATSDR, 2005, 2005 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances That Will Be The Subject of Toxicological Profiles and Support Document, Division of Toxicology, Washington DC., USA. Bbodschv, 1999, Federal Soil Protection And Contaminated Sites Ordinance, Germany. California State, 2005, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, California, USA. CCME, 2003, Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Manitoba, Canada. DEFRA, 2002a, Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Land Contamination: An Overview of the Development of Soil Guideline Values and Related Research, UK. DEFRA, 2002b, Note on The Withdrawal of ICRCL Trigger Values, CLAN 3/02. DEFRA, 2004, The First Soil Action Plan for England: London, UK. DEFRA, 2006, First Soil Action Plan for England: Second Annual Report, London, UK. Delaware State, Identification And Listing of Hazardous Waste, Delaware, USA. DEPA, 2002, Guidelines on Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Department of the Environment, , Industry Profiles. Available for 47 different industrial activities from The Stationery Office, PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN., U.K. Department of the Environment, , Environmental Hazard Assessment for a Range of Substances, Reports TSD/1 to 24, Toxic Substances Division. U.K. EA 2002, Assessment of Risks to Human Health From Land Contamination: An Overview of the Development of Soil Guideline Values and Related Research, CLR 7., U.K. Florida State, 1998, Guidelines For The Management Of Recovered Screen Material From C&D Debris Recycling Facilities In Florida, Florida, USA. Illinois EPA, 2007, Soil Remediation Objectivesa For Industrial/ Commercial Properties/Residential Poperties, Illionis, USA. Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land, 1987 Guidance on the Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land, ICRCL Guidance Note 59/ 83, 2nd edn., U.K. Lewis R.J., 1992, Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 8th edn, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA. Louisiana State, 2003, Underground Storage Tank Closure/ Change-In-Service Guidance Document, Departmen of Environmental Quality, Louisiana, USA. Maryland State, 2000, State of Maryland Department of The Environment Cleanup Standards For Soil And Groundwater, Maryland, USA. Massachusetts State, 2006, Final Amendments Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 Cmr , Massachusetts, USA. MDNR, 2001, Clean up Levels for Missouri-Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Standards, Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Ministry Of The Environment Government of Japan, 2005, Soil Contamination Countermeasures, Japan. Mississippi State, 2002, Department of Environmental Quality Risk Evaluation Procedures For Voluntary Cleanup And Redevelopment Of Brownfield Sites, USA. NEPC, 1999, Schedule B(1) Guideline On The Investigation Levels For Soil And Groundwater, Australia. New Jersey State, 1999, Soil Cleanup Criteria, New Jersey, USA. New York State, 2006, Development of Soil Cleanup Objectives Technical Support Document, New York State Department of Health, USA. Oregon State, 1998, Guidance For Ecological Risk Assessment: Levels I, Ii, Iii, Iv, Oregon, USA. SAEFL, 1998, Derivation of trigger and clean up values for inorganic pollutants in the sol, Switzerland. SFT, 1999, Guidelines For The Risk Assessment Of Contaminated Sites, Norway. Texas State, 2001, Guidance For Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments At Remediation Sites In Texas, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, USA. USEPA, 1996, Soil Screening Guidance : User's Guide, Washington DC, USA. Virginia State, 2006, Universal Treatment Standards, Departmen of Environmental Quality, Virginia, USA. VROM, 2000, Circular On Target Values And Intervention Values For Soil Remediation (Ministerie Van Volkshuisvesting. Ruimtelijke Ordening En Milieubeheer).