Superfund Decision Analysis in Presence of Uncertainty
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 120, Issue 5
Abstract
Environmental decision making (EDM) analysis is developing into a recognized specialty of environmental engineering. One of the major challenges of EDM is to accommodate the high levels of uncertainty that exist in many environmental problems. EDM methods based on absolute or relative, probabilistic, multiattribute utility analysis are presented. Example EDM solutions are presented for the selection of remedial action alternatives for a Superfund site using the Environmental Protection Agency's decision criteria and New York's system for quantifying decision criteria. The advantages and limitations of both are discussed. Results illustrate that the major advantages of EDM analysis are in the need to formalize the decision criteria by which a decision is made and the value judgments that are applied to weigh multiple criteria. EDM analysis can also improve decision process documentation and can sharpen the quality of debate about controversial decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Allert, L., Bennett, T., Lehr, J. H., Petty, R. J., and Hackett, G. (1987). “DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings.” Rep. No. 600/2‐87‐035, U.S. EPA, Ada, Okla.
2.
Call, H. J., and Merkhofer, M. W. (1988). “A multi‐attribute utility analysis model for ranking superfund sites.” Proc., Superfund 88, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 44–54.
3.
Chen, M. T., and Crenca, J. A. (1990). “The cost of remedial action model.” Expert systems for environmental applications, J. M. Hushon, ed., American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 162–175.
4.
Cline, P. V., and McLaughlin, T. (1990). “Modification of the persistence factor in the hazard ranking system.” Proc., Superfund 90, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 153–156.
5.
Droppo, J. G., and Hoopes, B. L. (1990). “Remedial action priority and multimedia environmental pollutant assessment system.” Expert systems for environmental applications, J. M. Hushon, ed., American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 193–205.
6.
Eckenrode, R. T. (1965). “Weighting multiple criteria.” Mgmt. Sci., 12(3), 180–191.
7.
Environmental decision making: a multidisciplinary perspective. (1991). R. A. Chechile and S. Carlisle, eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y.
8.
Expert systems for environmental applications. (1990). J. M. Hushon, ed. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
9.
Federal Register. (1988). U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 53(245), Dec. 21.
10.
Frost, E. B. (1982). “Risk assessment under the revised national contingency plan of superfund.” Risk assessment at hazardous waste sites. F. A. Long and G. E. Schweitzer, eds., American Chemical Society Symposium Series 240, Washington, D.C., 1–8.
11.
Greathouse, D., and Clements, J. (1991). “PAST: the potential ARARs selection tool.” Proc., of Hazardous Mat. Control/Superfund '91, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 632–636.
12.
Guariso, G., and Werthner, H. (1989). Environmental decision support systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
13.
Gum, R. L., Roefs, T. G., and Kimball, D. B. (1976). “Quantifying societal goals: development of a weighting methodology.” Water Resour. Res., 12(4), 617–622.
14.
Harris, R. H., Highland, J. H., and Humphreys, K. (1984). “Comparative risk assessment: tools for remedial action planning.” Haz. Waste., 1(1), 19–33.
15.
Hartz, K. E., and Whelan, G. (1988). “MEPAS and RAAS methodologies as integrated into the RI/EA/FS process.” Proc., of Superfund 88, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 295–299.
16.
Hudson, K. K., and Shangraw, R. F. (1990). “U.S. DOE's program to better understand the cost of environmental restoration projects.” Proc., Superfund 90, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 241–244.
17.
Hushon, J. M. (1990). “The defense priority model for department of defense remedial site ranking.” Expert Systems for Environmental Applications, J. M. Hushon, ed., American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 206–216.
18.
Jennings, A. A. (1988). “Infalliability versus uniqueness in DARE analysis of hazardous waste risk.” J. Haz. Mat., 19(3), 303–319.
19.
Jennings, A. A., Mohan, S., and Mehta, N. (1991). “Incorporating general set membership in DARE analysis of environmental alternatives for superfund sites.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Environmetrics, University of Wisconsin‐Madison, Madison, Wis.
20.
Jennings, A. A., and Sholar, R. L. (1984). “Hazardous waste disposal network analysis.” J. Envir. Engrg., ASCE, 110(2), 325–342.
21.
Jennings, A. A., and Suresh, P. (1986). “Microcomputer implementations of risk assessment of hazardous waste management.” Envir. Software, 1(1), 17–25.
22.
Kalos, M. H., and Witlock, P. A. (1986). Monte Carlo methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
23.
Klee, A. J. (1971). “The role of decision models in the evaluation of competing environmental health alternatives.” Mgmt. Sci., 18(2), 52–67.
24.
Klee, A. J. (1980). Design & management for resource recovery volume 3: quantitative decision making. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Mich.
25.
Knox, R. C., Cantor, L. W., Kincannon, D. F., Stover, E. L., and Ward, C. H. (1986). Aquifer restoration. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, N.J.
26.
Kruger, J., and Hansen, P. (1990). “Total quality management in the site assessment program.” Proc., Superfund 90, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 66–70.
27.
Mehta, N. (1992). “Application of probabilistic environmental decision making tools to the selection of remedial action alternatives,” MSc thesis, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.
28.
Merkhofer, M. W., Cotton, T. A., and Longo, T. P. (1988). “A program optimization system for aiding decisions to fund the cleanup of hazardous waste sites at department of energy defense facilities.” Proc., Superfund 88, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 39–43.
29.
Mohan, S. (1991). “P‐DARE: a comprehensive software package for probabilistic DARE analysis,” MSc thesis, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.
30.
Multiperson decision making models using fuzzy sets and possibility theory. (1990). J. Kacprzyk and M. Fedrizzi, ed., Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, Mass.
31.
Mustalish, R. W., and Costanzo, F. (1991). “An application of the DRASTIC model to the siting of waste facilities.” Proc., Hazardous Mat. Control/Superfund '91, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 51–53.
32.
Record of decision, decision summary, Hagen farm site, source control operable unit, Dane County, Wisconsin. (1990). U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago, Ill.
33.
Richardson, T. L., Dappen, P., and Michael, C. R. (1990). “Estimated versus final costs on hazardous and toxic waste remediation projects.” Proc., Superfund 90, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 230–235.
34.
Rossman, L. A., and Siller, T. J. (1987). “Expert systems in environmental engineering.” Expert systems for civil engineers, M. L. Maher, ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y.
35.
Schroeder, B. R. (1990). “Cost inaccuracies in superfund projects: strategies for building better estimates.” Proc., Superfund 90, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 236–240.
36.
Smith, L. A., Patrick, C. D., and Hudson, C. M. (1987). “Human exposure potential ranking model.” Proc., Superfund 87, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 158–161.
37.
“Technical and administrative guidance memorandum (TAGM) for the selection of remedial actions at inactive hazardous waste sites, technology section, bureau of program management, division of hazardous waste remediation.” (1990). Rep., HWR‐90‐4030, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, N.Y.
38.
Wells, S., and Caldwell, S. (1990). “Overview of the revised hazard ranking system (HRS).” Proc., Superfund 90, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute (HMCRI), Washington, D.C., 71–76.
39.
Wu, J. S., and Hilger, H. (1984). “Evaluation of EPA's hazard ranking system.” J. Envir. Engrg., ASCE, 110(4), 797–807.
40.
Zimmermann, H. J. (1987). Fuzzy sets, decision making, and expert systems. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, Mass.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 120 • Issue 5 • September 1994
Pages: 1132 - 1150
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 9, 1992
Published online: Sep 1, 1994
Published in print: Sep 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.