Application of probabilistic risk assessment at a coking plant site contaminated by Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Abstract

Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Deterministic Risk Assessment (DRA) at a coking plant site was compared. By DRA, Hazard Quotient (HQ) following exposure to Naphthalene (Nap) and Incremental Life Cancer Risk (ILCR) following exposure to Benzo(a)pyrene (Bap) were 1.87 and 2.12 × 10^-4. PRA revealed valuable information regarding the possible distribution of risk, and risk estimates of DRA located at the 99.59th and 99.76th percentiles in the risk outputs of PRA, which indicated that DRA overestimated the risk. Cleanup levels corresponding acceptable HQ level of 1 and ILCR level of 10^-6 were also calculated for both DRA and PRA. Nap and Bap cleanup levels were 192.85 and 0.14 mg·kg^-1 by DRA, which would result in only 0.25% and 0.06% of the exposed population to have a risk higher than the acceptable risk, according to the outputs of PRA. The application of PRA on cleanup levels derivation would lift the cleanup levels 1.9 times for Nap and 2.4 times for Bap than which derived by DRA. For this coking plant site, the remediation scale and cost will be reduced in a large portion once the method of PRA is used. Sensitivity analysis was done by calculating the contribution to variance for each exposure parameter and it was found that contaminant concentration in the soil (C_s), exposure duration (ED), total hours spent outdoor per day (ET_out), soil ingestion rate (IR_s), the air breathing rate (IR_a) and bodyweight (BW) were the most important parameters for risk and cleanup levels calculations.

Keywords

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) / a coking plant / risk / cleanup level / sensitivity analysis / polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

References

[1] Okx J P, Hordijk L, Stein A. Managing soil remediation problems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1996, 3(4): 229-235

[2] Blum W E H. European soil protection strategy. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2003, 3(4): 242

[3] Medical Research Council, Institute for Environment and Health, Risk Assessment and Toxicology Steering Committee. Risk Assessment Approaches Used by UK Government for Evaluating Human Health Effects of Chemicals. Institute for Environment and Health. Leicester: Institute for Environment and Health, 1999

[4] Elliott P L. Use of Risk-Based Decision-Making in UST Corrective Action Programs. Washington, D C: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1995

[5] Viscusi W K, Hamilton J T, Dockins P C. Conservative versus mean risk assessments: implications for superfund policies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997, 34(3): 187-206

[6] US EPA. Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Mannual. Washington, D C: Office of Emergency and Remedial response, 1989

[7] McKone T E. Alternative modeling approaches for contaminant fate in soils: uncertainty. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1996, 54(2-3): 165-181

[8] Travis C C, Obenshain K R, Regens J L, Whipple C G. Limitations of multimedia models for use in environmental decision making. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2001, 71(1): 51-60

[9] US EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III-Part A. Washington D C, USA: Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment, 2001

[10] Lester R R, Green L C, Linkov I. Site-specific applications of probabilistic health risk assessment: review of the literature since 2000. Risk Analysis : An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2007, 27(3): 635-658

[11] Öberg T, Bergbäck B.A review of probabilistic risk assessment of contaminated land. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2005, 5(4): 213-224

[12] Bogen K T, Cullen A C, Frey H C, Price P S. Probabilistic exposure analysis for chemical risk characterization. Toxicological Sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2009, 109(1): 4-17

[13] Bonomo L, Caserini S, Pozzi C, Uguccioni D A. Target cleanup levels at the site of a former manufactured gas plant in Northern Italy: deterministic versus probabilistic results. Environmental Science & Technology, 2000, 34(18): 3843-3848

[14] Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau. Environmental Site Assessment Guideline. Beijing: Beijing Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision, 2009 (in Chinese)

[15] US EPA. Method 8270D: Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Virginia: National Technical Information Service, 2007

[16] Environment Agency. CLEA Software (Version 1.05) Handbook. Bristol: Environmental Agency, 2009

[17] Oregen Department of Environmental Quality. Guidance for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Human Health Risk Assessments. Portland, Oregen: Oregen Department of Environmental Quality, 1999

[18] California E P A. CalTOX, A Multimedia Total-Exposure Model for Hazardous-Waste Sites Part III: The Multiple Pathway Exposure Model Sacramento: Office of Scientific Affairs, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection Agency, 1993

[19] Jiang L, Jia X Y, Xia T X, Yao J J, Liang J, Wang Q. Research on application of PRA in health risk assessment of soil in a coking plant site. Research of Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(2): 220-226 (in Chinese)

[20] Avagliano S, Parrella L. Managing uncertainty in risk-based corrective action design: global sensitivity analysis of contaminant fate and exposure models used in the dose assessment. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2009, 14(1): 47-57

[21] Kirman C, Budinsky R A, Yost L, Baker B F, Zabik J M, Rowlands J C, Long T F, Simon T. Derivation of soil clean-up levels for 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo- pdioxin (TCDD) toxicity equivalence (TEQD/F) in soil through deterministicand probabilistic risk assessment of exposure and toxicity. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2011, 17(1): 125-158

[22] US EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund VolumeⅠ: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermanl Risk Assessment). Washington, D C: Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, 2004

[23] US EPA. Assessing Dermal Exposure form Soil. Washington, D C: Hazard Waste Management Division Office of Superfund Programs, 1995

[24] BMEPB (Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau). Screening Levels for Soil Environmental Risk Assessment of Sites. Beijing: Beijing Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision, 2011 (in Chinese)

[25] Ma J, Zhou Y Z. Soil pollution by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: A comparison of two Chinese cities. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2011, 23(9): 1518-1523

[26] Juhasz A L, Naidu R. Bioremediation of high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: a review of the microbial degradation of benzo[a]pyrene. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 2000, 45(1-2): 57-88

[27] Cullen A C. Measures of compounding conservatism in probabilistic risk assessment. Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1994, 14(4): 389-393

[28] Kuusisto S M, Tuhkanen T A. Probabilistic risk assessment of a contaminated site. In: International Conference on Practical Applications in Environmental Geotechnology Ecogeo 2000, Finland. Finland: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy Press, 2001, 99-105

[29] Sander P, Öberg T. Comparing deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments. A case study at a closed steel mill in southern Sweden. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2006, 6(1): 55-61

[30] Priha E, Hellman S, Sorvari J. PCB contamination from polysulphide sealants in residential areas—exposure and risk assessment. Chemosphere, 2005, 59(4): 537-543

[31] Bruce E D, Abusalih A A, McDonald T J , Autenrieth R L. Comparing deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments for sites contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/Hazardous substances & environmental engineering, 2007, 42(6): 697-706

[32] Wenning R J. Uncertainties and data needs in risk assessment of three commercial polybrominated diphenyl ethers: probabilistic exposure analysis and comparison with European Commission results. Chemosphere, 2002, 46(5): 779-796

[33] Jager T, Vermeire T G, Rikken M G J, van der Poel P. Opportunities for a probabilistic risk assessment of chemicals in the European Union. Chemosphere, 2001, 43(2): 257-264

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg