Risk management of waste landfill in operation Phase with Bow-tie technique  (case study: Saravan city of Rasht)

Abdolkhani  Nezhad, Talieh; Monavari, Seyed Masoud

doi:10.22038/jreh.2023.67538.1546

Document Type : Research article

Authors

¹ PhD student in Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,Tehran, Iran

² Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment,

https://doi.org/10.22038/jreh.2023.67538.1546

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The study aims to examine the risks associated with waste landfill projects during the operational phase, with a focus on improving performance and reducing resulting injuries. Conducting environmental risk assessment studies is essential to better comprehend the hazardous criteria and their impact on the environment, as well as to propose effective solutions for control and management. As the central city of Gilan, Rasht receives over 750 tons of waste daily at the Saravan landfill.
Materials and methods: This research utilizes Delphi techniques, network analysis process (ANP), and TOPSIS to prioritize and rank the most significant risks in the operational phase of the Rasht waste landfill. The Bow-Tie model is employed to develop control and mitigation strategies.
Results: Environmental risks pose the greatest challenges in the Saravan Rasht landfill. Prioritization results, based on safety-sanitary criteria, reveal that the excessive use of repellants, such as insecticides, in the Saravan landfill is of utmost priority. Regarding the environmental criterion, seepage from the bottom of the landfill takes precedence, while the economic-social criterion emphasizes the high costs associated with controlling and developing the waste landfill's health engineering.
Conclusion: Identifying and prioritizing risks in the landfill site facilitates the implementation of appropriate solutions for their reduction and control. The criteria influencing risk assessment are subject to constant change. The selection of an appropriate risk identification method enhances the efficiency of the chosen approach and ensures accurate determination of risks within the waste landfill. The bowtie method provides a more realistic understanding of the relationship between factors influencing risk occurrence, resulting consequences, and barriers that can hinder risks during the operational phase.

Keywords

References

1. Van Fan Y, Lee CT, Klemeš JJ, Chua LS, Sarmidi MR, Leow CW. Evaluation of Effective Microorganisms on home scale organic waste composting. Journal of Environmental Management. 2018;15;216:41-8.

2. Bentaleb F, Mabrouki C, Semma A. A multi-criteria approach for risk assessment of dry port-seaport system. InSupply Chain Forum. An International Journal Taylor & Francis. 2015;(16) 4: 32-49.

3. avad Adli, Manouchehr Omidvari, Assessing the risk of crisis in gas distribution networks using the FAHP-PROMETHEE II method (Case study of Qazvin Province Gas Company), Iran Occupational Health, 2020; 17(1): 182-195. magiran.com/p2246905.

4. Vinti G, Bauza V, Clasen T, Medlicott K, Tudor T, Zurbrügg C, Vaccari M. Municipal solid waste management and adverse health outcomes: A systematic review. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021;18(8):4331.

5. Azad Mollaei, Reza Rafiee , Mazaher Moienaddini, Estimation of leachate generation using a water balance approach in Halghe-Dareh landfill, Journal of Natural Environment, 2021; 74(1): 153-165. magiran.com/p2283414.

6. Turskis Z, Goranin N, Nurusheva A, Boranbayev S. Information security risk assessment in critical infrastructure: a hybrid MCDM approach. Informatica. 2019;30(1):187-211.

7. Yazdi M, Khan F, Abbassi R, Rusli R. Improved DEMATEL methodology for effective safety management decision-making. Safety science. 2020;127:104705.

8. Omidvari M, Mansouri N, Nouri J. A pattern of fire risk assessment and emergency management in educational center laboratories. Safety science. 2015;73:34-42.

9. Omidvari M, Mansouri N. Fire and spillage risk assessment pattern in scientific laboratories. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2014;6(2):68-74.

10. A. Fazlollah, I. Mohammadfam, M. J. Hadgiparvaneh, M. Omidvari, Introducing a method for Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) risk assessment, using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques: a case study in power plant construction, Journal of Health and Safety at Work, 2014; 4(1): 55-64. magiran.com/p1265228.

11. Rostamzadeh R, Ghorabaee MK, Govindan K, Esmaeili A, Nobar HB. Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-CRITIC approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;175:651-69.

12. Monavari SM, Tajziehchi S, Rahimi R. Environmental impacts of solid waste landfills on natural ecosystems of southern Caspian Sea coastlines. Journal of Environmental Protection. 2013 Dec 6;2013.

13. avad Adli, Manouchehr Omidvari, Assessing the risk of crisis in gas distribution networks using the FAHP-PROMETHEE II method (Case study of Qazvin Province Gas Company), Iran Occupational Health, 2020; 17(1): 182-195. magiran.com/p2246905.

14. Sajad Saadat, Sayed Mohamad Lari Baqal, Application of Hierarchical Approach in Risk Assessment: Case Study of Ahwaz Health Engineering Landfill, Sixth National Conference and First International Conference on Waste Management, 2012, https://civilica.com/ doc/ 146814.

15. Chou CC. Application of ANP to the selection of shipping registry: The case of Taiwanese maritime industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2018;67:89-97.

16. Sun ZY, Zhou JL, Gan LF. Safety assessment in oil drilling work system based on empirical study and Analytic Network Process. Safety science. 2018;105:86-97.

17. Manouchehr Omidvari , Golamreza Garedaghi, Presentation of Contractor Selection Model by Means of Combined DEMATEL and ANP Methods and Gray Relational Analysis by Safety Approach (A Case Study in Oil Industry), Iran Occupational Health, 2018; 15(1): 1-12. magiran.com/p1835714

18. Tuzkaya G, Önüt S, Tuzkaya UR, Gülsün B. An analytic network process approach for locating undesirable facilities: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Environmental management. 2008 Sep 1;88(4):970-83.

19. Emrouznejad A, Ho W. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: CRC Press; 2017.

20. Navaei AZ, Omidvari M. Development of Failure Mode Effects Analysis Using DEMATEL and ANP Models, Inter. InConference on management Economics and humanities, Istanbul, Turkey 2015.

21. Köne AÇ, Büke T. An Analytical Network Process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy policy. 2007;35(10):5220-8.

22. Ataei M. Exploitation of dimensional stones. Shahrood University of technology publications, Shahrood. 2008.

23. Abdolkhani Nezhad T, Monavari SM, Khorasani N, Robati M, Farsad F. Assessing and prioritizing the risks of urban waste landfill projects in Guilan province using ANP network analysis method, TOPSIS and Bow-tie software. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering. 2022;9(4):221-44.

24. Momeni M, Sharifi Salim AR. Models and software of Kerry multi-criteria decision Tehran: Author. 2012.

25. Anju A, Ravi S P, Bechan S. Water pollution with special reference to pesticide contamination in India. Journal of Water Resource and Protection. 2010.

26. Varshney K. Bioremediation of pesticide waste at contaminated sites. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research. 2019;6:128-34.

27. Boonsrang A, Chotpantarat S, Sutthirat C. Factors controlling the release of metals and a metalloid from the tailings of a gold mine in Thailand. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis. 2018;18(2):109-19.

28. Beck-Broichsitter S, Gerke HH, Horn R. Assessment of leachate production from a municipal solid-waste landfill through water-balance modeling. Geosciences. 2018;8(10):372.

29. Al-Fatlawi AH. Design a leachate collection system for a small camp sanitary landfill. Journal Impact Factor. 2015; (1):07-18.

30. Rotaru A, Răileanu P. Groundwater contamination from waste storage works. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ). 2008;7(6).

31. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Statistical Methods for Evaluating Groundwater Monitoring Data from Hazardous Waste Facilities: Final Rule,” in Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 264. 1988.

32. Tehrani SM, Omidvari M, Nouri J. Risk assessment and crisis management in gas station. International Journal of Environmental Research. 2010;4(1):143-52.

33. Moanvari SM, Malmasi S, Parsai, D, Environmental risk management of Kish Island landfill using RASCL and Entropy AHP, the sixth national conference and the first international conference on waste management, Mashhad, 2012, HTTP: civilica.com / doc / 146518.

34. AbdolkhaniNezhad T, Monavari SM, Khorasani N, Robati M, Farsad F. Comparative analytical study of the results of environmental risk assessment of urban landfills approach: Bowtie, network analysis techniques (ANP), TOPSIS (case study: Gilan Province). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2022;194(12):854.

35. Moghimi Kandlousy A, Mohebbi Tafreshi A, Mohebbi Tafreshi GH.Locating appropriate areas of municipal waste landfill using TOPSIS method (Case study: Langroud County). Iranian Journal of Research in Environmental Health. 2018;4 (2) : 112-128.

Risk management of waste landfill in operation Phase with Bow-tie technique (case study: Saravan city of Rasht)

References

References

Volume 9, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33June 2023Pages 92-107

Volume 9, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33
June 2023
Pages 92-107