Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selecting

an Appropriate Fate and Transport Model for Risk-Based

Decision Making at Hazardous Waste Sites
Venkatesh Uddameri1

Abstract: The management and regulation of hazardous waste sites are increasingly being carried out by assessing risks via different
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

exposure pathways. The selection of an appropriate multimedia fate and transport for carrying out screening level risk assessment is a
challenging task given the paucity of data and the need for modeling rigor. The utility of a multicriteria decision-making technique, called
the analytic hierarchy process 共AHP兲, is explored in this study to select an appropriate model that satisfies the needs of the stakeholders
in an optimal manner. The criteria for model selection focused on various issues ranging from scientific credibility to data availability and
end-user requirements, and were compiled from a survey of modeling practices and needs of various agencies of the California/
Environmental Protection Agency that was carried out previously. Seven different public-domain multimedia modeling codes were
evaluated against these criteria using AHP. The study indicated that the highest ranked model 共CalTOX兲 only satisfied about 31% of the
needs of the stakeholders for the site conditions assumed. This result indicates that there is a wide scope for further improvement in all
the models that are considered here. The local priority matrix obtained for each criteria was seen to be useful to identify limitations of
individual models. Certain improvements are suggested to enhance the available public-domain multimedia models to meet stakeholder
needs. AHP is seen as a consistent, flexible, and intuitive approach to assess necessary model complexity and is recommended for use in
similar policy and regulatory applications.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-025X共2003兲7:2共139兲
CE Database subject headings: Hazardous waste; Waste sites; Models; Decision making; Matrix methods.

Introduction vironmental models to develop risk-based cleanup standards 共e.g.,

Risk-based corrective action protocols are increasingly being used
to regulate and manage hazardous waste sites all over the world
today. These approaches 共e.g., ASTM 1998兲 assess the nature and
extent of risk to human health and other ecological receptors via
different exposure pathways due to the release of contaminants.
The necessary cleanup goals and remedial action are then devel-
oped to ensure that the risks posed by these contaminants along
exposure pathways are below generally acceptable levels 共USEPA
1996兲.
Mathematical models are commonly used to characterize the
partition behavior of contaminants into various environmental
compartments and obtain estimates for contaminant concentra-
tions via various exposure pathways. As most organic contami-
nants exhibit the ability to partition into more than one environ-
mental compartment, the application of risk-based corrective
action protocols to these contaminants must be carried out in a
multimedia framework. There has been growing recognition in
recent times among regulatory agencies to utilize multimedia en-
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, MSC 213, Texas A&M
Univ., Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363. E-mail: vuddameri@tamuk.edu
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2003. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on December 12, 2002; approved on December 12,
2002. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic,
and Radioactive Waste Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1, 2003.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-025X/2003/2-139–146/$18.00.
DTSC 1994; ASTM 1995; USEPA 1996; OEHHA 1998兲. Several
different multimedia modeling schemes of varying levels of com-
plexity have also been developed over the last two decades
共Mackay 1979; Cohen et al. 1989; Laniak et al. 1997兲 that can
potentially be used for developing risk-based cleanup standards.
However, the application of multimedia models to develop
risk-based corrective action guidelines is by no means an easy
task. Most multimedia modeling schemes require extensive
amounts of site-specific data that are not readily available at most
sites, especially during the early stages of site investigation 共e.g.,
Daugherty 1993兲. In the absence of site-specific data, the model
inputs are inherently uncertain and this parametric imprecision
gets propagated through the model and contributes to uncertain-
ties in the output. In addition, almost all multimedia modeling
schemes have undergone limited field-scale evaluation and test-
ing, and as such their conceptual adequacy to characterize the fate
and transport has not been sufficiently tested 共e.g., Cowan et al.
1995兲. These conceptual inadequacies translate into uncertainties
in regulatory policies and guidelines that are developed using
these models 共NRC 1999兲. Risk-based corrective action protocols
call for a close collaboration between various stakeholders in-
volved in the cleanup process. Hence, the success of these cor-
rective action guidelines critically hinges upon all parties under-
standing the advantages and limitations of multimedia modeling
schemes 共Uddameri 2002兲. From this standpoint, easy to learn
and use, transparency in model documentation, availability of the
model in the public domain, and friendly graphical user interfaces
may all be useful features that will assist in the model selection
process.

PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003 / 139

Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Schematic of pathways considered during model selection
process
As can be seen from the above discussion, the development
and selection of an appropriate multimedia modeling software for
regulatory applications are confounded by multiple and often-
times conflicting objectives. As an example, incorporating all op-
erative processes may render the model more scientifically cred-
ible, but will also increase the number of necessary input
parameters 共data requirements兲 and associated parametric uncer-
tainties in addition to making the model cumbersome to follow.
Therefore the selection of the final model from a set of alterna-
tives invariably involves a trade-off among objectives governing
the model selection process. Multiobjective decision-making ap-
proaches provide a convenient set of mathematical tools to iden-
tify an optimal alternative given a set of competing objectives
共e.g., Clemens 1997兲. One such multiobjective decision-making
technique, the analytic hierarchy process 共AHP兲, is employed in
this study to demonstrate how it can be employed to identify an
appropriate multimedia modeling scheme for use with a risk-
based decision-making process. AHP was selected for this appli-
cation because it has been used extensively in many selection
applications 共e.g., Lin and Yang 1996; Ramanathan 2001; Lai
et al. 2002兲 and is known to provide reliable results. However, to
the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first applica-
tion of AHP pertaining to the selection of a multimedia fate and
transport model for risk-based decision making.
Methodology
The analytic hierarchy process is an intuitive, pair-wise compari-
son method for analyzing alternatives that was proposed by Saaty
共1980兲 and has since been refined and applied extensively 共Saaty
1986, 1987, 2000; Lootsma 1993; Elkarmi and Mustafa 1993;
Ramanathan 1999; and others兲. The application of AHP entails
the following four steps:
1. Structuring the Decision Problem into a Hierarchical
Model: This includes the decomposition of the decision
problem into elements of different hierarchical states. The
top level corresponds to the focus of the problem or the final
goal 共G兲, the intermediate levels correspond to criteria and
subcriteria, and the lowest level corresponds to ‘‘decision
alternatives’’ 共Fig. 1兲.
140 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003
Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.
2. Development of a Judgmental Matrix: Here the elements of a
particular level are compared in pair-wise fashion with a
specific element of an upper level. First, criteria are com-
pared pairwise to the goal. A judgmental matrix 共A兲 is devel-
oped using the comparisons. Each entry of the judgmental
matrix (a i j ) is formed by comparing row element A i with
column element A j . Pair-wise comparisons of two criteria
C i and C j are made by questions of, ‘‘of the two criteria C i
and C j which one is more important to achieve the goal 共G兲
and by how much?’’ A point scale is typically used to trans-
form verbal judgments into numerical quantities 共Saaty
2000兲. Entries a i j are governed by the following rules: a i j
⬎0 and ⫽1/a ji . Hence, the judgmental matrix is a positive
reciprocal pair-wise comparison matrix 共e.g., in Table 2兲.
3. Local Priorities and Consistency of Comparisons: This step
entails obtaining local priorities of the criteria and evaluating
the consistency of judgments. Local evaluation is estimated
by finding the principal eigenvector (␭ max) of the matrix 共A兲.
The consistency in comparison is evaluated using a measure
called the consistency ratio 共CR兲, defined as
CI
CR⫽
RI
where
␭ max⫺n
CI⫽
n⫺1
where n is the number of alternatives being compared, and
RI is the consistency index of a random reciprocal matrix
from a nine-point scale, with the reciprocals forced 共Saaty
1980兲. Tabulations for RI are readily available in the litera-
ture 共Saaty 1980; Hanna 1996; Ramanathan 2001兲. In gen-
eral, if the computed values of the CR are greater than 0.1,
the judgmental matrix is considered to be unreliable and
must be elicited again.
4. Aggregation of Local Priorities: The local priorities at each
level are aggregated to obtain the final priorities of the alter-
native. The aggregation is based on the principle of hierar-
chic composition 共Saaty 2000兲 and is given by
final priority of alternative A 1
⫽ 兺i 关 local priority of A 1 with respect to criteria C i
⫻local priority of C i with respect to the goal 共 G 兲兴
AHP is a useful tool for ranking and selecting models from an
available pool of formulations under a given set of criteria. It
should be noted here that other multicriteria methodologies such
as multiobjective value theory 共Kirkwood 1996兲 might also be
used for assessing appropriate model complexity. However, AHP
is often the preferred approach since it can combine both quali-
tative and quantitative elements, aggregate the opinions of mul-
tiple stakeholders and experts, and provide mechanisms by which
to check for inconsistencies in the formulation 共Ramanathan
1999兲. Rank reversal is cited as a limitation of AHP 共Belton and
Gear 1983兲, however AHP in the form here has been used exten-
sively and has proved useful in many situations 共see, e.g., Lin and
Yang 1996; Ramanathan 2001; Lai and Wong 2002兲; as such,
reversal of AHP ranking is not addressed in this study. Rank re-
versal may become an issue when two modeling codes based on
the same mathematical formulations 共e.g., two codes for level-III
formulations兲 are being simultaneously considered. Alternatives
such as the concept of absolute measurement 共Saaty 1987兲 and

Fig. 2. Evaluation objective, criteria, and alternatives considered in
this study
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lators of CAL/EPA to the modeling practices and needs survey
共Uddameri and Young 1999a兲 and they are presented in Table 2.
According to Table 2, scientific credibility and regulatory issues
were seen to be relatively more important factors followed by
data availability, end-user needs, and characterization of the ap-
plication domain for assessment of screening levels.
While some multimedia modeling codes are available com-
mercially 共e.g., MEPAS兲 and have been used in risk-assessment
studies 共see, e.g., Laniak et al. 1997兲, the study focused exclu-
sively on codes that are available in the public domain since the
ease in availability of the modeling packages allows for greater
clarity of the regulatory management process and eliminates any
potential bias 共Daugherty 1993兲 共D. Siegel, personal communica-
tion, OEHAA, CAL/EPA, 1999兲. For the same reasons, certain

multiplicative AHP 共Lootsma 1999兲 have been proposed in the legacy multimedia models like UTM-TOX 共Paterson et al. 1984兲
literature as possible remedies and can be used as necessary. were also eliminated from consideration. Seven different ‘‘public-
domain’’ multimedia modeling schemes were identified 共Fig. 2兲
and evaluated using 20 different subcriteria that were categorized
Application under the five evaluation criteria listed above 共Fig. 3兲. Brief de-
scriptions of the models employed in this study are presented in
The overall objective of this study is to identify an appropriate the Appendix. The criteria and subcriteria were used to carry out
multimedia fate and transport model from an available pool of pair-wise comparisons of the alternatives in an objective fashion.
public-domain multimedia modeling schemes for use in risk- Comparison of the models was limited to fate and transport mod-
based corrective action schemes. The study focuses on screening ules and how the models computed exposure concentrations in
level type models that are suitable to carry out preliminary assess- each environmental compartment.
ments. These models are often used to obtain an average exposure In some situations, the models provided additional information
concentration within each environmental compartment that is then such as carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks using additional
coupled with toxicological algorithms to assess risks posed along toxicological parameters. These computations and the associated
different pathways 共e.g., ASTM 1995兲. data requirements were not considered in this evaluation to ensure
A generic conceptual model that describes various contami- all models were assessed on a common platform. The relative
nant pathways typically encountered at a hazardous waste site significance of one model over another was evaluated by assess-
共Fig. 1兲 was used as the basis for model selection. A survey on ing the extent to which the models under consideration satisfied
fate and transport modeling practices, needs and recommended the specified subcriteria. The assignment of weights was based on
criteria for evaluating multimedia, and media specific models in the author’s experience with these models and on previous evalu-
different California/Environmental Protection Agency 共CAL/ ation studies 共e.g., Uddameri and Young 1999b, 2000兲. The pair-
EPA兲 agencies was carried out as part of a previous multimedia wise comparison matrix for each criterion is presented in Table 3
model identification, integration, and development study 共Ud- and the final weight matrix 共priorities兲 along with aggregate
dameri and Young 1999a兲. The results obtained from this survey weights is presented in Table 4. As can be seen from Tables 3 and
were broken down to structure the decision problem into five 4, no single model demonstrates clear superiority across all crite-
hierarchical criteria 共Fig. 2兲. ria.
A nine-point pair-wise comparison scale was developed to fa- CalTOX and level-III models are considered more scientifi-
cilitate the comparison process and it is presented in Table 1. cally credible because they have been developed from first prin-
ciples, conserve mass, and have undergone some sort of evalua-
tion or testing 共e.g., Maddalena et al. 1995; Severnsin et al.
Results and Discussion 1996兲. While MULTIMED and PC-GEMS also provide mecha-
nisms to simulate multiple pathways of interest that are pertinent
The relative importance of the criteria 共judgmental matrix兲 used to hazardous waste sites, global mass balance may not be
in the study was ascertained from answers provided by the regu- achieved by these models since transport equations for individual
compartments are not linked by appropriate boundary conditions.
Level-I and level-II fugacity models rate high from the standpoint
Table 1. Semantic Scale Used in AHP 共Saaty 1980兲 of data requirements because they are capable of producing an
Intensity Definition Remarks estimate for average output concentrations in different compart-
ments using relatively little input data. MULTIMED and PC-
1 Equal importance Ai is as important as A j
GEMS are seen to be better suited when spatial variability within
3 Weak importance Ai is slightly favored over A j
the domain is to be explicitly modeled since the other modeling
5 Essential importance Ai is moderately favored over A j
schemes are box formulations and only provide an average con-
7 Demonstrated Ai is strongly favored over A j
centration within the compartment. Among the box formulations,
importance
CalTOX is placed over level-III, level-II, and level-I models be-
9 Absolute importance A i is most strongly preferred
cause it includes more exposure pathways pertinent to hazardous
over A j
waste sites and also accounts for transient loadings in some com-
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate When a compromise is needed
partments. CalTOX and level-III models rate highly from the
values between judgments
standpoint of end-user requirements since they both run under the
are used
Windows environment and possess intuitive user interfaces and

PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003 / 141

Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.

 Table 2. Pair-wise Matrix for Comparing Factors to Obtain Weights
Scientific credibility Data requirements
Scientific credibility 1.000 4.000
Data requirements 0.250 1.000
Application domain 0.143 0.250
End-user needs 0.167 0.250
Regulatory issues 0.500 4.000
also provide substantial outputs that characterize the transport and
fate of contaminants within the system. Although level-I and
level-II models possess user interfaces similar to that of the level-
III model, they do not compare as well as level-III with respect to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
this criterion because these models provide less output 共informa-
tion兲 about the system than the level-III model. CalTOX, level-III,
and the preliminary endangerment assessment 共PEA兲 tool devel-
oped by the CAL/EPA Department of Toxic Substances and Con-
trol 共DTSC兲 rate high in terms of regulatory issues since they
primarily have been endorsed by regulatory agencies 共e.g., DTSC
1994; USEPA 1998兲 in addition to having other benefits such as
extensive documentation, especially pertaining to model limita-
tions 共Mackay and Patterson 1990; DTSC 1993; McKone et al.
1996兲 and tamper-proof computer codes.
The results of the aggregate matrix presented in Table 4 indi-
cate that if we consider all the criteria used in this study simulta-
neously, the CalTOX model is the most suitable for obtaining
screening-level exposure concentrations in various compartments
within a multimedia framework followed by the level-III multi-
media model and the MULTIMED model. However, the CalTOX
model has an aggregate score of 31%, indicating that all multi-
media modeling schemes and associated computer codes can be
improved substantially to satisfy the needs of regulatory person-
nel and other stakeholders. The local priority matrices 共Tables 3
and 4兲 can be used to identify limitations of the model with regard
to specific criterion and as such are useful for future developmen-
tal work related to refinement of these multimedia codes. As ex-
amples, running box models in Monte Carlo simulation mode and
coupling of the level-III or CalTOX model with a geographic
information system 共GIS兲 would reduce the limitations of these
Fig. 3. Subcriteria used to carry out pair-wise comparison of alternatives
142 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003
Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.
Application domain End-user needs Regulatory issues
7.000 6.000 2.000
4.000 4.000 0.250
1.000 0.250 0.125
4.000 1.000 0.143
8.000 7.000 1.000
models with respect to application domains 共e.g., Wania 1996;
Ares et al. 1998; Woodfine et al. 2002兲. However, unlike
regional-scale applications cited herein, the geographic domain
must capture local scale variability in and around the hazardous
waste site. Similarly, the availability of public-domain level-III
computer codes that incorporate vegetation and groundwater
pathways 共Cousins and Mackay 2001兲, along with a database for
plant–soil and plant–air partition coefficients, will increase the
suitability of the level-III model for hazardous waste site applica-
tions. The inclusion of a separate nonaqueous phase will enable
these models to capture hazardous waste site characteristics in a
more realistic fashion 共MacFarlane and Mackay 1998兲. In addi-
tion field-scale evaluations will enhance the scientific credibility
of all the models 共Cowan et al. 1995兲. Currently PC-GEMS is
undergoing significant revamping including coupling with GIS
共USEPA 2002兲 and this newer model 共IGEMS兲 may satisfy sev-
eral requirements identified in this study. Although not evaluated
rigorously, the evaluation criteria selected and the pair-wise com-
parison process carried out in this study appear to favor a hybrid
compartmental-hybrid multimedia modeling framework that was
proposed recently in the literature 共Cohen and Cooter 2002兲 since
they are able to provide spatial resolution with fewer input pa-
rameters. The availability of such modeling codes in the public
domain may be useful for effective site management in years to
come.
It should be borne in mind that the objective of this study is to
illustrate the utility of AHP to the multimedia model selection
process and, as such, the weights obtained here represent the
views of one set of stakeholders and modelers and the ranking
obtained is indicative of their preferences and are not to be inter-
 Table 3. Local Priorities Matrix for Different Criteria
Model Level-I Level-II Level-III CalTOX MULTIMED DTSC-PEA PC-GEMS
Scientific credibility criterion ␭ max⫽7.72; CR⫽0.09
Level-I 1.00 0.33 0.13 0.11 0.13 2.00 0.17
Level-II 3.00 1.00 0.17 0.14 0.25 3.00 0.25
Level-III 8.00 6.00 1.00 0.25 2.00 8.00 4.00
CalTOX 9.00 7.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 3.00
MULTIMED 8.00 4.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 8.00 4.00
DTSC-PEA 0.50 0.33 0.13 0.11 0.13 1.00 0.14
PC-GEMS 6.00 4.00 0.25 0.33 0.25 7.00 1.00

Data requirement criterion ␭ max⫽7.78; CR⫽0.10

Level-I 1.00 2.00 5.00 6.00 9.00 5.00 9.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Level-II 0.50 1.00 3.00 4.00 8.00 3.00 8.00

Level-III 0.20 0.33 1.00 2.00 4.00 0.50 6.00
CalTOX 0.17 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.25 7.00
MULTIMED 0.11 0.13 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.33 8.00
DTSC-PEA 0.20 0.33 2.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 8.00
PC-GEMS 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.13 1.00

Application domain criterion ␭ max⫽7.53; CR⫽0.07

Level-I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.17 0.50 0.14
Level-II 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.17 0.50 0.14
Level-III 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.17 0.50 0.14
CalTOX 5.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 0.20 3.00 0.17
MULTIMED 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 0.50
DTSC-PEA 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17
PC-GEMS 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 2.00 6.00 1.00

End-user needs criterion ␭ max⫽7.82; CR⫽0.10

Level-I 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.25 6.00 7.00 6.00
Level-II 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.33 7.00 8.00 7.00
Level-III 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 7.00 8.00 7.00
CalTOX 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 8.00 9.00 8.00
MULTIMED 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.13 1.00 6.00 1.00
DTSC-PEA 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.17 1.00 0.17
PC-GEMS 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.13 1.00 6.00 1.00

Regulatory issues criterion ␭ max⫽7.69; CR⫽0.09

Level-I 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.14 0.50 0.33 0.20
Level-II 3.00 1.00 0.25 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.33
Level-III 5.00 4.00 1.00 0.33 2.00 2.00 2.00
CalTOX 7.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 3.00
MULTIMED 2.00 3.00 0.50 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00
DTSC-PEA 3.00 3.00 0.50 0.17 0.33 1.00 4.00
PC-GEMS 5.00 3.00 0.50 0.33 1.00 0.25 1.00

preted in any absolute sense. In addition, the application focused
on screening-level risk assessments; supplementary criteria re-
lated to site heterogeneity may be necessary when model selec-
tion for site-specific risk assessment has to be performed. Also,
additional input from a variety of stakeholders and multiple ex-
perts needs to be considered when region and site-specific policy
decisions with regard to the selection and use of multimedia en-
vironmental models are to be made. Given the availability of such
data, AHP can be readily used to rank and evaluate alternative
multimedia models. However, it may be advantageous to famil-
iarize the stakeholders with the mechanics of the AHP process
prior to its application to avoid any inconsistencies in the appli-
cation 共Lai et al. 2002兲 and this illustrative case study may also be
useful for such familiarization.
Summary and Conclusions
The growing recognition that most contaminants partition and
exist in more than one environmental compartment has prompted
regulators to assess exposure and risk to human health and eco-
logical receptors via different exposure routes. Multimedia mod-
els are necessary to obtain estimates for exposure concentrations
along various pathways. While different multimedia modeling
schemes have been proposed in the literature over the last two
decades and several software codes are readily available in the
public domain, the selection of an appropriate model for regula-
tory use has proved to be a daunting task given the often con-
founding and sometimes conflicting needs and preferences of
various stakeholders and decision makers. In this study, the utility

PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003 / 143

Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.

 Table 4. Aggregate Matrix of Local Priorities
Scientific credibility Data requirement
Level-I 0.03 0.38
Level-II 0.05 0.24
Level-III 0.23 0.10
CalTOX 0.35 0.07
MULTIMED 0.20 0.05
DTSC-PEA 0.02 0.13
PC-GEMS 0.12 0.02
Total 1.00 1.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of a multicriteria decision-making technique, that is, the analytic
hierarchy process, was demonstrated for the selection of an ap-
propriate multimedia model. Five different criteria for model se-
lection were developed from modeling practices and need survey.
Seven different public-domain multimedia models were compared
in pair-wise fashion against the criteria developed using 20 dif-
ferent subcriteria. AHP was used to rank the alternative models
based on their performance versus these criteria.
The results of the study indicate that, among the given models,
the CalTOX and level-III fugacity models were best suited for
carrying out screening-level risk assessments. However all the
models only satisfied less than 31% of the needs of the stakehold-
ers under consideration, indicating a large area for improvement.
Based on the assessment of weight matrices obtained as part of
the AHP process, coupling of CalTOX models with GIS and the
addition of vegetative and groundwater compartments to the
level-III fugacity modeling code and performing field-scale veri-
fication of these models are suggested as some possible improve-
ments.
Acknowledgments
The stimulus for this work came from numerous discussions with
regulatory personnel in CAL/EPA especially the Office of Envi-
ronmental Health Hazard Assessment, whose cooperation is
gratefully acknowledged. The thoughtful comments and sugges-
tions of two anonymous reviewers and Dr. Ni-Bin Chang have
greatly helped improve the readability of the manuscript.
Appendix
The seven different screening-level models used in this study are
briefly described below. The readers are encouraged to refer to the
technical documentation of the models for additional details.
Level-I Fugacity Model: The level-I fugacity model was de-
scribed by Mackay 共1979兲 and it is based on an idealized descrip-
tion of no flow and equilibrium amongst phases. In other words,
all the phases possess equal fugacity and the mass input to the
system is instantaneously partitioned amongst phases according to
their specified volume and fugacity capacity. A version of the
level-I model can be downloaded from http://www.trentu.ca/
cemc/models.html
Level-II Fugacity Model: The level-II fugacity model was de-
scribed by Mackay 共1979兲 and it represents a conceptual improve-
ment over level-I. While the phases are all still assumed to be in
equilibrium with one another, steady-state flow and degradation
of the contaminants can also be simulated. The medium receiving
the emission is unimportant because the chemical is assumed to
144 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003
Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.
Application domain End-user needs Regulatory issues Final weight
0.04 0.13 0.04 0.09
0.04 0.18 0.06 0.09
0.04 0.24 0.18 0.19
0.13 0.35 0.37 0.31
0.29 0.05 0.12 0.14
0.07 0.02 0.13 0.07
0.38 0.05 0.11 0.11
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
become instantaneously distributed to an equilibrium condition.
The level-II model can be downloaded from http://www.trentu.ca/
cemc/models.html
Level-III Fugacity Model: The level-III fugacity model was
described by Mackay and Patterson 共1990兲 and it represents a
significant improvement over level-I and level-II formulations.
The phases are not assumed to be in equilibrium with one another
and as such intermedia transport can be simulated. The flow in
various compartments can also be simulated and assumed to be
under steady-state conditions; degradation reactions assuming
first-order kinetics are also simulated. The level-III model repre-
sents a significant conceptual improvement over level-I and
level-II models and is a more realistic representation of many
environmental systems. The level-III model can be downloaded
from http://www.trentu.ca/cemc/models.html
CalTOX: The CalTOX model was developed by McKone of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the DTSC of the
CAL/EPA. It is a hybrid level-III/level IV fugacity formulation
that has been implemented on a spreadsheet and can be run in
Monte Carlo simulation mode using spreadsheet add-in software
like Crystal Ball and @RISK. This model predicts the time-
dependent concentrations of a chemical in the seven environmen-
tal compartments of air, water, three soil layers, sediment, and
plants at a hazardous waste site. The model is well documented
and is described in a series of technical and user manuals. The
model and pertinent documentation are available from http://
www.cwo.com/⬃herd1/caltox.htm
MULTIMED: simulates the fate and transport of contaminants
that leach from a waste disposal facility into the multimedia en-
vironment. Release to either air or soil including the unsaturated
and saturated zones and possible interception of the subsurface
contaminant plume by a surface stream are included in the model.
The different compartments of the model are not tightly inte-
grated and the model was developed by externally linking various
analytical and semianalytical solutions in various compartments.
The model runs under MS-DOS however, pre- and post-
processors are available to assist users. The model can be down-
loaded from http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/mmedia/multim2/
index.htm
DTSC-PEA: The PEA tool was developed by the DTSC of the
CAL/EPA to determine whether current or past waste manage-
ment practices have caused the release of hazardous substances
that pose a threat to human health and ecological resources. The
threat to public health and/or the environment is assessed in a
multimedia framework using screening-level equations that have
been developed using idealized single-media fate and transport
models that assume uniform flow and equilibrium partitioning.
The equations are designed to provide conservative estimates
using available field data and unlike fugacity models are not
mathematically linked by appropriate boundary conditions. The
 model equations can be easily implemented on a spreadsheet and
further details can be found by consulting the DTSC guidance
manual 共DTSC 1994兲.
PC-GEMS: PC-GEMS is a personal computer version of
EPA’s graphical exposure modeling system 共GEMS兲. It is a col-
lection of several media-specific and multimedia models 共includ-
ing MULTIMED兲. The PC-GEMS system provides a wrapper
framework in which many media-specific models can be imple-
mented. An external linkage between a vadose zone and a subsur-
face model is provided in PC-GEMS. The modeling system pro-
vides tools and programs to simulate the spatiotemporal
distribution of contaminants in air, water, soil, and aquifer sys-
tems. However, PC-GEMS is not a true multimedia modeling
system since these compartments are not tightly integrated by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
appropriate boundary conditions. PC-GEMS is a public domain
code and can be obtained from the U.S. EPA on a CD-ROM
共http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/cahp/actlocal/pcgems.html兲.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共1995兲. ‘‘Standard
guide for risk based corrective action applied at petroleum release
sites.’’ American Society for Testing and Materials, West Consho-
hocken, Pa., 761– 811.
American Society for Testing and Materials 共ASTM兲. 共1998兲. ‘‘Standard
guide for risk based corrective action.’’ American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa., 1130–1230.
Ares, J., Miglierina, A. M., et al. 共1998兲. ‘‘CLFUG: A GIS-scalable
model for pesticide fate in the soil-groundwater system based on
clearance and fugacity paradigms.’’ Environ. Model. Assess., 3, 95–
105.
Belton, V., and Gear, T. 共1983兲. ‘‘On the shortcoming of Saaty’s method
of analytic hierarchies.’’ Omega, 11, 228 –230.
Clemens, R. T. 共1997兲. Making hard decisions—Introduction to decision
science, Duxbury, Belmont, Calif.
Cohen, Y. 共1989兲. ‘‘Multimedia and intermedia transport modeling con-
cepts in environmental modeling.’’ Intermedia pollutant transport—
Modeling and measurement, Y. C. D. T. Allen and I. R. Kaplan, eds.,
Plenum, New York, 3–16.
Cohen, Y., and Cooter, E. 共2002兲. ‘‘Multimedia environmental distribu-
tion of toxics 共Mend-Tox兲. 1. Hybrid compartmental-spatial modeling
framework.’’ Pract. Period. Hazard., Toxic, Radioact. Waste Manage.,
6共2兲, 70– 86.
Cousins, I. T., and Mackay, D. 共2001兲. ‘‘Strategies for including vegeta-
tion compartments in multimedia models.’’ Chemosphere, 44, 643–
654.
Cowan, C. E., Mackay, D., et al. 共1995兲. ‘‘The multi-media fate model: A
vital tool for predicting the fate of chemicals.’’ Society of Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, Fla.
Daugherty, S. J. 共1993兲. ‘‘Hydrocarbon contamination in the subsurface:
Realities, issues and prospects.’’ Hydrocarbon contaminated soils and
groundwater, P. T. Kostecki and E. J. Calabrese, eds., Lewis, Chelsea,
3–18.
Department of Toxic Substances and Control 共DTSC兲. 共1993兲.
‘‘CALTOX, a multimedia total exposure model for hazardous waste
sites.’’ Department of Toxic Substances and Control, Sacramento,
Calif.
Department of Toxic Substances and Control 共DTSC兲. 共1994兲. ‘‘Prelimi-
nary endangerment assessment—Guidance manual.’’ Department of
Toxic Substances and Control, CAL/EPA, Sacramento, Calif.
Elkarni, F., and Mustafa, I. 共1993兲. ‘‘Increasing the utilization of solar
energy utilization in Jordan–Analytic hierarchy process.’’ Energy
Policy, 21, 978 –984.
Hanna, M. 共1996兲. Introduction to management science—Mastering
quantitative approaches, South-Western College Publishing, Cincin-
nati.
Kirkwood, C. W. 共1996兲. Strategic decision making—Multiobjective de-
cision analysis with spreadsheets, Duxbury, Belmont, Mass.
PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003 / 145
Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.
Lai, V. S., Wong, B. K., et al. 共2002兲. ‘‘Group decision making in a
multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software se-
lection.’’ Eur. J. Oper. Res., 137, 134 –144.
Laniak, G. F., Droppo, J. G., et al. 共1997兲. ‘‘An overview of a multimedia
benchmarking analysis for three risk assessment models: RESRAD,
MMSOILS, and MEPAS.’’ Risk Anal, 17共2兲, 203–214.
Lin, Z.-C., and Yang, C.-B. 共1996兲. ‘‘Evaluation of machine selection by
the AHP method.’’ J. Mater. Process. Technol., 57共3– 4兲, 253–258.
Lootsma, F. A. 共1993兲. ‘‘Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and
SMART.’’ J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal., 2, 87–110.
Lootsma, F. A. 共1999兲. Multi-criteria decision analysis via ratio and dif-
ference, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
MacFarlane, S., and Mackay, D. 共1998兲. ‘‘A fugacity-based screening
model to assess contamination and remediation of the subsurface con-
taining non-aqueous phase liquids.’’ J. Soil Contaminat, 7, 17– 46.
Mackay, D. 共1979兲. ‘‘Finding fugacity feasible.’’ Environ. Sci. Technol.,
13, 1218 –1223.
Mackay, D., and Patterson, S. 共1990兲. ‘‘Evaluating the multimedia fate of
organic chemicals: A level III fugacity model.’’ Environ. Sci. Technol.,
25, 427– 436.
Maddalena, R. L., McKone, T. E., et al. 共1995兲. ‘‘Comparison of multi-
media transport and transformation models: Regional fugacity model
vs. CalTOX.’’ Chemosphere, 30, 869– 889.
McKone, T. E., Hall, D. et al. 共1996兲. ‘‘Modifications of CalTOX to
assess the potential health impacts of hazardous wastes landfills
共draft兲.’’ Office of Scientific Affairs, Department of Toxic Substances
and Control, Sacramento, Calif.
National Regulatory Commission 共NRC兲. 共1999兲. Environmental cleanup
at navy facilities—Risk based methods, National Academy, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 共OEHHA兲. 共1998兲.
California’s emerging environmental challenger: A workshop to iden-
tify future issues for CAL/EPA. California Environmental Protection
Agency, Sacramento, Calif.
Paterson, M. R., et al. 共1984兲. An user’s manual for UTM-TOX and uni-
fied transport model, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge,
Tenn.
Ramanathan, R. 共1999兲. ‘‘Selection of appropriate greenhouse gas mita-
gation options.’’ Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy
Dimensions, 9, 203–210.
Ramanathan, R. 共2001兲. ‘‘A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy
process for environmental impact assessment.’’ J. Environ. Manage.,
63, 27–35.
Saaty, T. L. 共1980兲. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority
setting, and resource allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T. L. 共1986兲. ‘‘Axiomatic foundations of the analytic hierarchy
process.’’ Manage. Sci., 18, 259–268.
Saaty, T. L. 共1987兲. ‘‘Rank generation, preservation and reversal in the
analytic hierarchy process.’’ Decision Sci., 18, 157–177.
Saaty, T. L. 共2000兲. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory
with the analytic hierarchy process, RWS, Pittsburgh.
Severinsen, M., Andersen, M. B., et al. 共1996兲. ‘‘A regional chemical fate
and exposure model suitable for Denmark and its coastal sea.’’
Chemosphere, 32, 2159–2175.
Uddameri, V. 共2002兲. ‘‘Knowledge management to support fate and trans-
port modeling efforts in risk-based decision-making frameworks—
Salient issues and paradigm development.’’ Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 4, 140–150.
Uddameri, V., and Young, T. M. 共1999a兲. ‘‘Survey of Cal/EPA fate and
transport modeling practices and needs and recommended criteria for
evaluating media specific models for integration 共draft report to Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment兲.’’ Univ. of California,
Davis, Davis, Calif.
Uddameri, V., and Young, T. M. 共1999b兲. ‘‘An evaluation of various
multimedia and single media fate and transport models.’’ Task 4 Re-
port draft submitted to Office of Health Hazard Assessment, CAL/
EPA, Univ. of California, Davis, Davis, Calif.
Uddameri, V., and Young, T. M. 共2000兲. ‘‘A critical review of fate and
transport models and algorithms used in screening level risk assess-
 ment procedures.’’ Task 4a Report draft submitted to Office of Health
Hazard Assessment, CAL/EPA, Univ. of California, Davis, Davis,
Calif.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 共USEPA兲. 共1996兲. ‘‘Soil screening
guidance: User’s guide.’’ Office of Emergency and Remedial Re-
sponse, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 共USEPA兲. 共1998兲. ‘‘A multimedia
strategy for priority persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic 共PBT兲 pol-
lutants.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PENN STATE UNIV on 08/11/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 共USEPA兲. 共2002兲. ‘‘Integrated
Geographical Exposure Modeling System 共IGMS兲.’’ Information
available online at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/docs/ gem-
s.htm, U.S. EPA.
Wania, F. 共1996兲. ‘‘Spatial variability in compartmental fate modeling—
Linking fugacity models to GIS.’’ Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 3, 39– 46.
Woodfine, D., MacLeod, M., et al. 共2002兲. ‘‘A regionally segmented na-
tional scale multimedia contaminant fate model for Canada with GIS
input and display.’’ Environ. Pollut., 119, 341–345.

146 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2003

Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2003.7:139-146.