Risk-Cost Analysis Under Uncertainty of the Disposal of Contaminated Dredged Material

  • John Stansbury
  • Istvan Bogardi
  • William E. Kelly
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 29)


Risk-cost analysis can be used as a management tool to help determine which water resource management alternatives best satisfy both ecological and economic concerns. However, risk and cost assessments are often associated with very large uncertainties stemming from such factors as contaminant transport modelling and loss function assessment. If risk-cost analysis is conducted without considering these uncertainties, inappropriate management policies may result. On the other hand, considering these uncertainties may cause difficulties in decision making if they make management alternatives effectively indistinguishable. Disposal of contaminated dredged material is a water resource problem where both risks and costs are important considerations. Risks from disposal of contaminated dredged material may be reduced by incorporating measures to confine the contaminated dredged material; however, these confinement measures may increase disposal costs significantly.

Composite programming, a multicriterion decision making (MCDM) method, is used to trade off the risks to humans and ecological species and costs for a range of disposal alternatives. The composite programming algorithm makes it possible to encode uncertainties by means of fuzzy set membership functions. The final risk-cost trade-off distance for each management option is computed as a fuzzy number allowing the management options with their associated uncertainties to be compared and ranked.


Fuzzy Number Disposal Site Basic Indicator Fuzzy Regression Noncarcinogenic Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ayyub BM, Haldar A (1984) Project scheduling using fuzzy set concepts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 110(21)Google Scholar
  2. Bardossy A, Bogardi I, Duckstein L (1991a) Fuzzy non-linear regression to define dose- response relationships. European Journal of Operations Research, in pressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardossy A, Hagaman R, Duckstein L, Bogardi I (1991b) Fuzzy least squares regression. Working paper 91–8, Systems and Industrial Engineering Department, The University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogardi I, Bardossy A (1983) Application of MCDM to geological exploration. In: Hansen P (ed) Essays and Surveys on Multiple Criterion Decision Making, SpringerVerlag, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Brill ED, Nakamura M (1978) A branch and bound method for use in planning regional wastewater treatment systems. Water Resources Research 14:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chameau J, Santamarina JC (1987) Membership functions: comparing methods of measurement. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 1:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen SH (1985) Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17:113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cothern CR, Coniglio WA, Marcus WL (1987) Uncertainty in population risk estimates for environmental contaminants. In: Proceedings of the Society for Risk Analysis International Workshop on Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong W, Shaw HC (1987) Vertex method for computing functions of fuzzy variables. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 24:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dong W, Shaw HC, Wong FS (1988) Condensation of the knowledge base in expert systems with applications to seismic risk evaluation. In: Adeli (ed) Expert Systems in Construction and Structural Engineering. Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
  11. Dourson ML, Stara FF (1983) Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 3:224–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goichoechea A, Hansen D, Duckstein L (1982) Introduction to Multiobjective Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. ICF Inc (1985) Draft superfund health assessment manual, prepared for US EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Washington DC by ICF Inc. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Keeney RL, Wood EF (1977) An illustrative example of the use of multiattribute utility theory for water resources planning. Water Resources Research 13:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lake JL, Rubenstein N, Pavignano S (1984) Predicting bioaccumulation: development of a simple partitioning model for use as a screening tool for regulating ocean disposal of wastes. In: Dickson K, Maki A, Brungs W (eds) Fate and Effects of Sediment- Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth Pellston Workshop, Pergamon Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Pavlou SP (1984) The use of the equilibrium partitioning approach in determining safe levels of contaminants in marine sediments. In: Dickson K, Maki A, Brungs W (eds) Fate and Effects of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth Pellston Workshop, Pergamon Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Parametrix Inc (1989) Confined disposal of contaminated sediments documentation of standards development (draft report). Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology by Parametrix Inc in association with Ogden Beeman and Associates Inc, Hart-Crowser Inc, Science Applications International Inc, Pacific Groundwater Group, Janet N Knox IncGoogle Scholar
  18. PTI Inc (1989) Multiuser confined disposal sites program study Draft Report. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, Olympia WAGoogle Scholar
  19. Rhoads DC, Boyer LF (1982) The effects of marine benthos on physical properties of sediments: a successional perspective. In: McCall PL Tevesz MJS (eds) Animal- Sediment Relations, Plenum Geobiology Series Volume 2. Plenum, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Rhoads DC, Germano JD (1982) Characterization of organism-sediment relations using sediment profile imaging: an efficient method of Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Seafloor (REMOTS System). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 8:115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SAIC Inc (1990) PSDDA monitoring: post-disposal sediment profile surveys of the Elliott Bay and Port Gardner disposal sites draft report. Submitted to Washington State Department of Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Lands, Olympia WAGoogle Scholar
  22. Saucier RT (1978) Executive overview and detailed summary dredged material research program. Technical Report DS-78–22. Environmental Lab, Vicksburg MSGoogle Scholar
  23. Stansbury J, Bogardi I, Kelly WE (1989) Risk-cost analysis for management of dredging material. In: Haimes YY, Stakhiv EZ (eds) Risk-Based Decision Making in Water Resources. ASCE, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. Stansbury J, Bogardi I, Kelly W, Bardossy A (1991) Risk analysis of dredged material management options part 3: decision-making under uncertainty. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Tetra Tech Inc (1986) A framework for comparative risk analysis of dredged material disposal options Task 5b draft report. Prepared for Resources Planning Associates for US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District by Tetfa Tech Inc, Bellevue WAGoogle Scholar
  26. US Army Corps of Engineers (1983) Dredging and dredged material disposal. EM 1110–2–5025, US COE Office of the Chief of EngineersGoogle Scholar
  27. US Army Corps of Engineers (1988) Disposal site selection: technical appendix -phase I. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis ReportGoogle Scholar
  28. US EPA (1984) Proposed guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment: request for comments. Federal Register. Vol 49 No 227 Part VIII 46304–46312Google Scholar
  29. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1980) Ecological services manual, Implementation of habitat evaluation procedures. Division of Ecological Services US Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Whitmore RW (1984) Methodology for characterization of uncertainty in exposure assessment. Report to Exposure Assessment Group Office of Health and Environmental Assessment US EPA, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  31. Yasunobu S, Sekino S, Toshitsugu H (1987) Automatic train operation and automatic crane operation systems based on predictive fuzzy control. In: Proceedings Second Congress of the International Federation of Fuzzy Sets and Applications, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  32. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zimmerman HJ (1985) Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Hingham, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Stansbury
    • 1
  • Istvan Bogardi
    • 1
  • William E. Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations