Probabilistic Approach to Forecasting of the Risk Caused by Groundwater Contamination

  • Irina Galitskaya
  • Irina Pozdnyakova
  • Gleb Batrak
  • Leonid Toms
  • Alekcandr Palagushin
Part of the Innovation and Discovery in Russian Science and Engineering book series (IDRSE)


In this chapter, a probabilistic approach to forecasting of the risk caused by groundwater contamination is considered. The general conceptual model submitted for consideration includes two parts: (1) a model of the impact of contaminated groundwater resulting from urban sources; and (2) a model of the impact of contaminated groundwater on the recipients. Examples of the probabilistic approach to forecasting of the risk of groundwater contamination are considered in the territories of the leaching fields of domestic wastewater, the gas station and radioactive waste repository. Stochastic modeling was used for risk forecasting. The probability of water intake contamination, damage to the population from contamination of drinking water, and the value of the risk were calculated.


Groundwater contamination Modeling Hydrochemical risk Probabilistic approach 


  1. 1.
    Ayala F. J. (1987). Introducción a los riesgos geológicos. In F. J. Ayala (Ed.), Riesgos Geológicos, IGME, Serie Geologıá Ambiental, Madrid (pp. 3–19).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiang, W. H., & Kinzelbach, W. (2001). 3D-groundwater modeling with PMWIN (1st ed.). New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg ISBN 3-540 67744-5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deutsch, C. V., & Journel, A. G. (1997). GSLIB: geostatistical software library and users guide (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Galitskaya, I. V., Pozdnyakova, I. A., Toms, L. S. (2010). Assessment of hydrogeochemical hazard and risk in the urbanized territories. Global groundwater resources and management. Selected papers from the 33rd International Geological Congress, Oslo (Norway).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mark, R. K., & Stuart-Alexander, D. E. (1977). Disasters as a necessary part of benefit–cost analyses. Science 16, 197(4309), 1160–1162.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petak, W., & Atkinson, A. (1982). Natural hazard risk assessment and public policy. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosen, L., & LeGrand, H. E. (1997). An outline of a guidance framework for assessing hydrogeological risks at early stages. Ground Water, 35(2), 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rowe, W. D. (1977). An anatomy of risk. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samsonovа, L. M., Kochergina, N. V., et al. (2004). Modeling strontium-90 delay by fractured rocks in the halo of groundwater contamination in the area near Lake Karachay. Issues of Radiation Safety, 2, 30–41.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Udias, A., et al. (1999). Principles of seismology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Galitskaya
    • 1
  • Irina Pozdnyakova
    • 1
  • Gleb Batrak
    • 1
  • Leonid Toms
    • 1
  • Alekcandr Palagushin
    • 2
  1. 1.IEG RASMoscowRussia
  2. 2.GidrospetsgeologiyaMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations