IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i5p1027-d147865.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity Analysis of Weather Variables on Offsite Consequence Analysis Tools in South Korea and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Min-Uk Kim

    (Department of Health Science, Korea University, Anam-ro 145, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Kyong Whan Moon

    (Department of Health Science, Korea University, Anam-ro 145, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Jong-Ryeul Sohn

    (Department of Health Science, Korea University, Anam-ro 145, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Sang-Hoon Byeon

    (Department of Health Science, Korea University, Anam-ro 145, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea)

Abstract

We studied sensitive weather variables for consequence analysis, in the case of chemical leaks on the user side of offsite consequence analysis (OCA) tools. We used OCA tools Korea Offsite Risk Assessment (KORA) and Areal Location of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) in South Korea and the United States, respectively. The chemicals used for this analysis were 28% ammonia (NH 3 ), 35% hydrogen chloride (HCl), 50% hydrofluoric acid (HF), and 69% nitric acid (HNO 3 ). The accident scenarios were based on leakage accidents in storage tanks. The weather variables were air temperature, wind speed, humidity, and atmospheric stability. Sensitivity analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program for dummy regression analysis. Sensitivity analysis showed that impact distance was not sensitive to humidity. Impact distance was most sensitive to atmospheric stability, and was also more sensitive to air temperature than wind speed, according to both the KORA and ALOHA tools. Moreover, the weather variables were more sensitive in rural conditions than in urban conditions, with the ALOHA tool being more influenced by weather variables than the KORA tool. Therefore, if using the ALOHA tool instead of the KORA tool in rural conditions, users should be careful not to cause any differences in impact distance due to input errors of weather variables, with the most sensitive one being atmospheric stability.

Suggested Citation

  • Min-Uk Kim & Kyong Whan Moon & Jong-Ryeul Sohn & Sang-Hoon Byeon, 2018. "Sensitivity Analysis of Weather Variables on Offsite Consequence Analysis Tools in South Korea and the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:5:p:1027-:d:147865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/5/1027/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/5/1027/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Innes & Arnab Mitra, 2015. "Parties, Politics, And Regulation: Evidence From Clean Air Act Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(1), pages 522-539, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Colmer, Jonathan Mark & Evans, Mary F. & Shimshack, Jay, 2023. "Environmental citizen complaints," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121326, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Dahlvik Julia & Pohn-Weidinger Axel & Kollegger Martina, 2020. "Independence despite Political Appointment ? The Curious Case of the Austrian Ombudsman Board," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 181-210, December.
    3. Karakas, Leyla D. & Mitra, Devashish, 2020. "Believers vs. deniers: Climate change and environmental policy polarization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Jodi L. Short, 2021. "The politics of regulatory enforcement and compliance: Theorizing and operationalizing political influences," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 653-685, July.
    5. Caroline Cecot, 2021. "The Federal Enforcement Threat: The Effect of Overfiling Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 534-568, September.
    6. Beland, Louis-Philippe & Boucher, Vincent, 2015. "Polluting politics," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 176-181.
    7. Suvrat Dhanorkar & Suresh Muthulingam, 2020. "Do E‐Waste Laws Create Behavioral Spillovers? Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from California," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(7), pages 1738-1766, July.
    8. Jung Taek Han & Seo Yeon Kim, 2019. "Debunking myths about oil: A case study of oil subsidies," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 186-200, June.
    9. Bonnet, Paolo & Olper, Alessandro, 2024. "Party affiliation, economic interests and U.S. governors’ renewable energy policies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    10. Mary F. Evans & Scott M. Gilpatric & Jay P. Shimshack, 2018. "Enforcement Spillovers: Lessons from Strategic Interactions in Regulation and Product Markets," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(4), pages 739-769.
    11. Neal D. Woods, 2022. "Regulatory competition, administrative discretion, and environmental policy implementation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 486-511, July.
    12. Niklas Potrafke, 2018. "Government ideology and economic policy-making in the United States—a survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 145-207, January.
    13. Choy, Stacey & Jiang, Shushu & Liao, Scott & Wang, Emma, 2024. "Public environmental enforcement and private lender monitoring: Evidence from environmental covenants," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2).
    14. Cahan, Dodge, 2019. "Electoral cycles in government employment: Evidence from US gubernatorial elections," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 122-138.
    15. Raff, Zach & Meyer, Andrew & Walter, Jason M., 2022. "Political differences in air pollution abatement under the Clean Air Act," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    16. Per G. Fredriksson & Le Wang, 2020. "The politics of environmental enforcement: the case of the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(6), pages 2593-2613, June.
    17. Aaron A. Elrod & Serkan Karadas & Katherine C. Theyson, 2019. "The effect of gubernatorial political parties on monitoring and enforcement of federal environmental regulation: evidence from the Clean Water Act," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(2), pages 171-202, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:5:p:1027-:d:147865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.