skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: The National Risk Assessment Partnership’s integrated assessment model for carbon storage: A tool to support decision making amidst uncertainty

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE)
OSTI Identifier:
1396563
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Publisher's Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 52; Journal Issue: C; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-10-04 09:56:25; Journal ID: ISSN 1750-5836
Publisher:
Elsevier
Country of Publication:
Netherlands
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Pawar, Rajesh J., Bromhal, Grant S., Chu, Shaoping, Dilmore, Robert M., Oldenburg, Curtis M., Stauffer, Philip H., Zhang, Yingqi, and Guthrie, George D. The National Risk Assessment Partnership’s integrated assessment model for carbon storage: A tool to support decision making amidst uncertainty. Netherlands: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.015.
Pawar, Rajesh J., Bromhal, Grant S., Chu, Shaoping, Dilmore, Robert M., Oldenburg, Curtis M., Stauffer, Philip H., Zhang, Yingqi, & Guthrie, George D. The National Risk Assessment Partnership’s integrated assessment model for carbon storage: A tool to support decision making amidst uncertainty. Netherlands. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.015.
Pawar, Rajesh J., Bromhal, Grant S., Chu, Shaoping, Dilmore, Robert M., Oldenburg, Curtis M., Stauffer, Philip H., Zhang, Yingqi, and Guthrie, George D. 2016. "The National Risk Assessment Partnership’s integrated assessment model for carbon storage: A tool to support decision making amidst uncertainty". Netherlands. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.015.
@article{osti_1396563,
title = {The National Risk Assessment Partnership’s integrated assessment model for carbon storage: A tool to support decision making amidst uncertainty},
author = {Pawar, Rajesh J. and Bromhal, Grant S. and Chu, Shaoping and Dilmore, Robert M. and Oldenburg, Curtis M. and Stauffer, Philip H. and Zhang, Yingqi and Guthrie, George D.},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.015},
journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control},
number = C,
volume = 52,
place = {Netherlands},
year = 2016,
month = 9
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.06.015

Save / Share:
  • Finding better, more accurate and more reliable estimates of risk has become an increasingly important priority throughout the federal government in recent years. However, within the last year, Congress first began to recognize that better risk assessments are vital to setting national priorities, and determining where and how the obviously limited federal budget can best be spent. As Congress returned from its summer recess, several risk-related bills already had been introduced, and more were anticipated before the first session of the 103rd Congress adjourns. Few experts expect these bills to be enacted this year, but there is little doubt theymore » will receive serious attention when Congress reconvenes in January. Growing congressional interest in risk assessment stems from the realization that risk assessment is the best method for determining a problem's size. It also increasingly is recognized that, unless one has a good estimate of how big or serious a problem is, it is virtually impossible to make intelligent decisions about the amount of attention and financial resources to allocate to its solution.« less
  • This paper is a challenge from a pair of lifelong technical specialists in risk assessment for the risk-management community to better define social decision criteria for risk acceptance vs. risk control in relation to the issues of variability and uncertainty. To stimulate discussion, the authors offer a variety of straw man proposals about where they think variability and uncertainty are likely to matter for different types of social policy considerations in the context of a few different kinds of decisions. In particular, the authors draw on recent presentations of uncertainty and variability data that have been offered by EPA inmore » the context of the consideration of revised ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.« less
  • Selection of remediation alternatives for large groundwater plumes containing chlorinated solvents are often complex and difficult, in part because they involve competing objectives, e.g. reduction of health risk vs. increased cost. The Department of Energy (DOE) supported development of a Decision Tool to provide a risk-based process for evaluating and comparing remedial options fairly and consistently. The Decision Tool is also intended to provide a process for constructive discussion of alternatives among the appropriate stakeholders. To use the Decision Tool, which is implemented in an Excel spreadsheet, a site manager must evaluate each alternative being considered against six objectives usingmore » detailed performance metrics. The impacts of each alternative on the individual objectives are combined through a formal multi-attribute utility analysis. Predetermined or user-specified relative weights for the objectives can be used, and a variety of visual outputs are generated. The usefulness and validity of the Decision Tool was demonstrated through a Pilot Study application for the A-Area Burning Rubble Pits/Miscellaneous Chemical Basin groundwater plume at the DOE Savannah River Site. The Pilot Study results provided a new perspective on the alternatives and objectives by demonstrating: 1) the relatively small public health risks associated with groundwater contamination at this site, 2) that more active approaches had benefits over monitored natural attenuation (MNA) in reducing time required to meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) and maximizing regulatory responsiveness, 3) that MNA has acceptable public and worker health and safety risks, while enabling a reduction in costs. Use of the Decision Tool also promoted valuable discussion among the various stakeholders, and provided options for sensitivity analyses that can quickly be visualized to assess relative benefits of each of the alternatives. (authors)« less
  • Lack of regulations and standards on mineral waste recycling makes Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) useful methods for environmental assessment of recycling scenarios. An unsolved problem arises whenever two scenarios of recycling have to be compared according to both ERA and LCA impact results considered simultaneously. A methodology to combine LCA and ERA results and tools toward Integrated Environmental Assessment (IEA) is proposed together with three application examples based on case studies. The most effective combination approach is to define further impact categories for ERA to be considered with the standard LCA ones. Then, the usemore » of a multicriteria analysis method was proved to be an efficient way to rank alternative scenarios with respect to all the results. The key issues to be further researched are discussed and proposals are suggested.« less