Sensitivity Analysis of Risk Assessment at a Petroleum-Hydrocarbon Contaminated Site
Publication: Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Volume 15, Issue 2
Abstract
In this study, sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of input parameters on the calculated risks at a petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated site. Under a risk-based corrective action (RBCA) approach, the risks to human health and the environment associated with this site were evaluated. In addition, risk management strategies and corrective measures were developed to reduce risks to acceptable levels. Results from the sensitivity analysis of all input parameters for risk calculation indicate that the top five factors that play important roles in the risk calculation included emission area of contaminated air, average time for vapor flux, length of emission source, distance of pollutant transport, and width of contamination source. Results from the case study show that the major pollutant exposure pathway at this site was groundwater ingestion. Therefore, the top five most sensitive parameters among the groundwater exposure routes that affect risk calculation included daily water ingestion rate (using groundwater as source water), infiltration rate of water through soil, groundwater flow velocity, groundwater mixing-zone thickness, and distance of pollutant transport. On the basis of risk assessment results and sensitivity analysis, decision makers are required to incorporate remedial activities, including institutional and engineering controls and remediation programs (e.g., natural attenuation, source zone remediation, land-use control, and long-term monitoring) in risk management strategies to meet the minimum target risk levels (cancer risk of and hazard quotient of one). This study provides a streamlined process and guidelines to develop the risk-based decision-making strategies for petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated sites.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Taiwan National Science Council. Additional thanks go to the personnel of CPC and Guan Cheng Environment Technology Protection Co., Ltd., Taiwan, for their assistance throughout this project. The views or opinions expressed in this article are those of the writers and should not be construed as opinions of the organizations they are affiliated with.
References
Albrecht, A., and Miquel, S. (2010). “Extension of sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for long term dose assessment of high level nuclear waste disposal sites to uncertainties in the human behaviour.” J. Environ. Radio., 101(1), 55–67.
ASTM. (1995). “Standard guide for risk-based corrective action applied at petroleum release sites.” E1739-95, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (1998). “Standard provisional guide for risk-based corrective action.” ASTM PS104-98, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2002).“Standard guide for risk-based corrective action applied at petroleum release sites.” E1739-95, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2004). “Standard guide for risk-based corrective action.” E2081-00, West Conshohocken, PA.
Avagliano, S., Vecchio, A., and Belgiorno, V. (2005). “Sensitive parameters in predicting exposure contaminants concentration in a risk assessment process.” Environ. Monit. Assess., 111(1–3), 133–148.
Brink, C., Zaadnoordijk, W. J., Burgers, S., and Griffioen, J. (2008). “Stochastic uncertainties and sensitivities of a regional-scale transport model of nitrate in groundwater.” J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam), 361(3–4), 309–318.
Carlon, C., Pizzol, L., Critto, A., and Marcomini, A. (2008). “A spatial risk assessment methodology to support the remediation of contaminated land.” Environ. Int., 34(3), 397–411.
Chang, S. H., Kuo, C. Y., Wang, J. W., and Wang, K. S. (2004). “Comparison of RBCA and CalTOX for setting risk-based cleanup levels based on inhalation exposure.” Chemosphere, 56(4), 359–367.
Chen, K. F., Wu, L. C., Kao, C. M., Yang, G. C. C., and Chen, T. Y. (2004). “Application of health risk assessment to derive cleanup levels at a fuel-oil spill site.” Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage., 8(2), 99–104.
Cross, F. B. (1998). “Facts and values in risk assessment.” Reliability Eng. Syst. Saf., 59(1), 27–40.
David, T., Williams, G. P., and Butler, J. P. (2001). “Engineering approach for TIER 2 RBCA evaluations at NAPL-contaminated site.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 127(5), 324–332.
Gribb, M. M., Bene, K. J., and Shrader, A. (2002). “Sensitivity analysis of a soil leachability model for petroleum fate and transport in the vadose zone.” Adv. Environ. Res., 7(1), 59–72.
Hamed, M. M. (1999). “Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of public health risk assessment from contaminated soil.” J. Soil Contam., 8(3), 285–306.
Khadam, I., and Kaluarachchi, J. J. (2003). “Applicability of risk-based management and the need for risk-based economic decision analysis at hazardous waste contaminated sites.” Environ. Int., 29(4), 503–519.
Liu, Z. Q., Zhang, Y. H., Li, G. H., and Zhang, X. (2007). “Sensitivity of key factors and uncertainties in health risk assessment of benzene pollutant.” J. Environ. Sci. (China), 19(10), 1272–1280.
Ma, H. W., Wu, K. Y., and Ton, C. D. (2002). “Setting information priorities for remediation decisions at a contaminated-groundwater site.” Chemosphere, 46(1), 75–81.
McIntyrea, N., Jackson, B., Wade, A. J., Butterfield, D., and Wheater, H. S. (2005). “Sensitivity analysis of a catchment-scale nitrogen model.” J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam), 315(1–4), 71–92.
McKone, T. E. (1996). “Alternative modeling approaches for contaminant fate in soils: Uncertainty, variability, and reliability.” Reliability Eng. Syst. Saf., 54(2–3), 165–181.
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S., and Campolongo, F. (2006). “Sensitivity analysis practices: Strategies for model-based inference.” Reliability Eng. Syst. Saf., 91(10–11), 1109–1125.
Seuntjens, P., Mallants, D., Simunek, J., Patyn, J., and Jacques, D. (2002). “Sensitivity analysis of physical and chemical properties affecting field-scale cadmium transport in a heterogeneous soil profile.” J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam), 264(1–4), 185–200.
Slater, D., and Jones, J. (1999). “Environmental risk assessment and the environment agency.” J. Hazard. Mater., 65(1–2), 77–91.
Spear, R. C. (1997). “Large simulation models: Calibration, uniqueness and goodness of fit.” Environ. Model. Software, 12(2–3), 219–228.
Tarantola, S. (2002). “Variance-based methods for sensitivity analysis.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output, Joint Research Center of the European Commission, Venice, Italy.
Thornton, S. F., Lerner, D. N., and Banwart, S. A. (2001). “Assessing the natural attenuation of organic contaminants in aquifers using plume-scale electron and carbon balances: Model development with analysis of uncertainty and parameter sensitivity.” J. Contam. Hydrol., 53(3–4), 199–232.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1996). “Soil screening guidance: User’s guide.” EPA/540/R-96/018, Washington, DC.
Yang, X., and Mannan, M. S. (2010). “An uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of dynamic operational risk assessment model: A case study.” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 23(2), 300–307.
Yu, W., and Harris, T. J. (2009). “Parameter uncertainty effects on variance-based sensitivity analysis.” Reliability Eng. Syst. Saf., 94(2), 596–603.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • April 2011
Pages: 89 - 98
Copyright
© 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 9, 2010
Accepted: Aug 13, 2010
Published online: Aug 31, 2010
Published in print: Apr 1, 2011
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.