Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selecting an Appropriate Fate and Transport Model for Risk-Based Decision Making at Hazardous Waste Sites
Publication: Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management
Volume 7, Issue 2
Abstract
The management and regulation of hazardous waste sites are increasingly being carried out by assessing risks via different exposure pathways. The selection of an appropriate multimedia fate and transport for carrying out screening level risk assessment is a challenging task given the paucity of data and the need for modeling rigor. The utility of a multicriteria decision-making technique, called the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), is explored in this study to select an appropriate model that satisfies the needs of the stakeholders in an optimal manner. The criteria for model selection focused on various issues ranging from scientific credibility to data availability and end-user requirements, and were compiled from a survey of modeling practices and needs of various agencies of the California/Environmental Protection Agency that was carried out previously. Seven different public-domain multimedia modeling codes were evaluated against these criteria using AHP. The study indicated that the highest ranked model (CalTOX) only satisfied about 31% of the needs of the stakeholders for the site conditions assumed. This result indicates that there is a wide scope for further improvement in all the models that are considered here. The local priority matrix obtained for each criteria was seen to be useful to identify limitations of individual models. Certain improvements are suggested to enhance the available public-domain multimedia models to meet stakeholder needs. AHP is seen as a consistent, flexible, and intuitive approach to assess necessary model complexity and is recommended for use in similar policy and regulatory applications.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995). “Standard guide for risk based corrective action applied at petroleum release sites.” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa., 761–811.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1998). “Standard guide for risk based corrective action.” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa., 1130–1230.
Ares, J., Miglierina, A. M., et al. (1998). “CLFUG: A GIS-scalable model for pesticide fate in the soil-groundwater system based on clearance and fugacity paradigms.” Environ. Model. Assess., 3, 95–105.
Belton, V., and Gear, T.(1983). “On the shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies.” Omega, 11, 228–230.
Clemens, R. T. (1997). Making hard decisions—Introduction to decision science, Duxbury, Belmont, Calif.
Cohen, Y. (1989). “Multimedia and intermedia transport modeling concepts in environmental modeling.” Intermedia pollutant transport—Modeling and measurement, Y. C. D. T. Allen and I. R. Kaplan, eds., Plenum, New York, 3–16.
Cohen, Y., and Cooter, E.(2002). “Multimedia environmental distribution of toxics (Mend-Tox). 1. Hybrid compartmental-spatial modeling framework.” Pract. Period. Hazard., Toxic, Radioact. Waste Manage., 6(2), 70–86.
Cousins, I. T., and Mackay, D.(2001). “Strategies for including vegetation compartments in multimedia models.” Chemosphere, 44, 643–654.
Cowan, C. E., Mackay, D., et al. (1995). “The multi-media fate model: A vital tool for predicting the fate of chemicals.” Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, Fla.
Daugherty, S. J. (1993). “Hydrocarbon contamination in the subsurface: Realities, issues and prospects.” Hydrocarbon contaminated soils and groundwater, P. T. Kostecki and E. J. Calabrese, eds., Lewis, Chelsea, 3–18.
Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). (1993). “CALTOX, a multimedia total exposure model for hazardous waste sites.” Department of Toxic Substances and Control, Sacramento, Calif.
Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). (1994). “Preliminary endangerment assessment—Guidance manual.” Department of Toxic Substances and Control, CAL/EPA, Sacramento, Calif.
Elkarni, F., and Mustafa, I.(1993). “Increasing the utilization of solar energy utilization in Jordan–Analytic hierarchy process.” Energy Policy, 21, 978–984.
Hanna, M. (1996). Introduction to management science—Mastering quantitative approaches, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati.
Kirkwood, C. W. (1996). Strategic decision making—Multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets, Duxbury, Belmont, Mass.
Lai, V. S., Wong, B. K., et al. (2002). “Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 137, 134–144.
Laniak, G. F., Droppo, J. G., et al. (1997). “An overview of a multimedia benchmarking analysis for three risk assessment models: RESRAD, MMSOILS, and MEPAS.” Risk Anal, 17(2), 203–214.
Lin, Z.-C., and Yang, C.-B.(1996). “Evaluation of machine selection by the AHP method.” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 57(3-4), 253–258.
Lootsma, F. A.(1993). “Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART.” J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal., 2, 87–110.
Lootsma, F. A. (1999). Multi-criteria decision analysis via ratio and difference, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
MacFarlane, S., and Mackay, D.(1998). “A fugacity-based screening model to assess contamination and remediation of the subsurface containing non-aqueous phase liquids.” J. Soil Contaminat, 7, 17–46.
Mackay, D.(1979). “Finding fugacity feasible.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 13, 1218–1223.
Mackay, D., and Patterson, S.(1990). “Evaluating the multimedia fate of organic chemicals: A level III fugacity model.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 25, 427–436.
Maddalena, R. L., McKone, T. E., et al. (1995). “Comparison of multimedia transport and transformation models: Regional fugacity model vs. CalTOX.” Chemosphere, 30, 869–889.
McKone, T. E., Hall, D. et al. (1996). “Modifications of CalTOX to assess the potential health impacts of hazardous wastes landfills (draft).” Office of Scientific Affairs, Department of Toxic Substances and Control, Sacramento, Calif.
National Regulatory Commission (NRC). (1999). Environmental cleanup at navy facilities—Risk based methods, National Academy, Washington, D.C.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). (1998). California’s emerging environmental challenger: A workshop to identify future issues for CAL/EPA. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, Calif.
Paterson, M. R., et al. (1984). An user’s manual for UTM-TOX and unified transport model, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Ramanathan, R.(1999). “Selection of appropriate greenhouse gas mitagation options.” Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 9, 203–210.
Ramanathan, R.(2001). “A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment.” J. Environ. Manage., 63, 27–35.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, and resource allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T. L.(1986). “Axiomatic foundations of the analytic hierarchy process.” Manage. Sci., 18, 259–268.
Saaty, T. L.(1987). “Rank generation, preservation and reversal in the analytic hierarchy process.” Decision Sci., 18, 157–177.
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process, RWS, Pittsburgh.
Severinsen, M., Andersen, M. B., et al. (1996). “A regional chemical fate and exposure model suitable for Denmark and its coastal sea.” Chemosphere, 32, 2159–2175.
Uddameri, V.(2002). “Knowledge management to support fate and transport modeling efforts in risk-based decision-making frameworks—Salient issues and paradigm development.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 4, 140–150.
Uddameri, V., and Young, T. M. (1999a). “Survey of Cal/EPA fate and transport modeling practices and needs and recommended criteria for evaluating media specific models for integration (draft report to Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment).” Univ. of California, Davis, Davis, Calif.
Uddameri, V., and Young, T. M. (1999b). “An evaluation of various multimedia and single media fate and transport models.” Task 4 Report draft submitted to Office of Health Hazard Assessment, CAL/EPA, Univ. of California, Davis, Davis, Calif.
Uddameri, V., and Young, T. M. (2000). “A critical review of fate and transport models and algorithms used in screening level risk assess-ment procedures.” Task 4a Report draft submitted to Office of Health Hazard Assessment, CAL/EPA, Univ. of California, Davis, Davis, Calif.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1996). “Soil screening guidance: User’s guide.” Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998). “A multimedia strategy for priority persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) pollutants.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). “Integrated Geographical Exposure Modeling System (IGMS).” Information available online at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/ gems.htm, U.S. EPA.
Wania, F.(1996). “Spatial variability in compartmental fate modeling—Linking fugacity models to GIS.” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 3, 39–46.
Woodfine, D., MacLeod, M., et al. (2002). “A regionally segmented national scale multimedia contaminant fate model for Canada with GIS input and display.” Environ. Pollut., 119, 341–345.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management
Volume 7 • Issue 2 • April 2003
Pages: 139 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 12, 2002
Accepted: Dec 12, 2002
Published online: Mar 14, 2003
Published in print: Apr 2003
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.