Evaluation of Environmental and Technical Risks in the West Ahvaz Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Project using Hierarchical Analysis Process

Subject Areas : Environmental managment

Pouria Bizhanzadeh ¹ , Katayoun Varshosaz ² , Aslan Egdernezhad ³

1 - M.Sc. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran. *(Corresponding Author)
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

Received: 2022-11-10 Accepted : 2023-09-09 Published : 2023-09-23

Keywords: Risk Assessment, wastewater treatment plant, EFMEA method, AHP method,

Abstract :

Background and Objectives: Considering that urban and industrial sewage are one of the main factors of pollution entering the environment; environmental effects and technical and operational risks resulting from it have always been considered in the operating phase. But its effects and risks are also important in the construction phase. Therefore, the current research was conducted with the aim of evaluating the environmental and technical risks of the wastewater treatment plant construction project in the west of Ahvaz with the hierarchical analysis process (AHP) in 2021. Material and Methodology: After the study phase, information related to the project was collected through the survey method and presence at the site of the treatment plant, and all executive processes, equipment and facilities were examined. For this purpose, the E-FMEA method and the opinions of experts were used to identify environmental and technical risks. Then, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used for weighting and prioritizing the parameters of the used method. Findings: In total, 19 environmental risks and 24 technical risks were identified in the processes of the West Ahvaz treatment plant construction project. Environmental and technical risks were similar in the two stages of construction of buildings and installation of tanks and facilities. In other stages, technical risk was more important than environmental. The number difference between the two technical and environmental risks in the stages of excavation, installation of foundation and skeleton of structures was 50, 25 and 66%, respectively. Discussion and Conclusion: The comparison of all risks showed that technical risks were about 26% more than environmental risks. In general, the results showed that most of the environmental risks were at an acceptable level and 8 technical risks needed to be resolved as soon as possible.

References:

1. He, Z., Weng, W. 2020. A dynamic and simulation-based method for quantitative risk assessment of the domino accident in chemical industry. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 144, 79-92.


2. Sousa, V., Almeida, N. M., Dias, L. A. 2014. Risk-based management of occupational safety and health in the construction industry–Part 1: Background knowledge. Safety science, vol. 66, 75-86.


3. Jozi S, Jafarzadeh Haghighi Fard N, Afzali Behbahani N. 2014. Hazard identification and risk assessment of high voltage power lines in residential areas using failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). ijhe. 7 (1),55-64. (In Persian)


4. Merolla, P. A., Arthur, J. V., Alvarez-Icaza, R., Cassidy, A. S., Sawada, J., Akopyan, F., Modha, D. S. 2014. A million spiking-neuron integrated circuit with a scalable communication network and interface. Science, vol. 345(6197), 668-673.


5. Aven, T. 2016. Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 253(1), 1-13.


6. Jozi, Seyed Ali and Shams Khozani, Narges, 2013, Assessment of environmental risks of the gas unit of Shahid Madhaj Thermal Power Plant, Zergan, Ahvaz, using the failure mode analysis method and its effects on the environment (EFMEA), The fifth national conference on environmental crises in Iran and Solutions to improve them, Ahvaz. (In Persian)


7. Al-Harbi, K. M. A. S. 2001. Application of the AHP in project management. International journal of project management, 19(1), 19-27.


8. Nejad Biglari, Ali and Mohammadizadeh, Mohsen, 2017, risk management evaluation of construction projects by considering the effects of risks on each other, a case study: Gol Gohar Sirjan Mining and Industrial Complex, 2nd National Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Development of the Islamic World Countries, Tabriz. (In Persian)


9. H. 2013. Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects. Journal of safety research, vol. 46, 99-105.


10. Dong, Y., & Hauschild, M. Z. 2017. Indicators for environmental sustainability. Procedia Cirp, vol. 61, 697-702.


11. Tam, V. W., & Tam, C. M. 2016. A review on the viable technology for construction waste recycling. Resources, conservation and recycling, vol. 47(3), 209-221.


12. Tabesh, M., Roozbahani, A., Gadigol, F. Risk Assessment of Water Treatment Plants Using Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (Case Study: Jalaliyeh Water Treatment Plant). Journal of Water and Wastewater; Ab va Fazilab, 2018; 29(4): 132-144. (In Persian)


13. Nikoo, M. R., Kerachian, R., Khoramshekooh, N. A. 2018. Risk Analysis Model for Security Management in Water Treatment Plants, Case Study: Salman Farsi Water Treatment Plant. Iran-Water Resources Research, 14(2): 195-206. (In Persian)


14. Yazdani, A. 2020. Investigation of risk management in construction, operation, transfer (B.O.T) projects case study: Shahrari water treatment plant effluent transfer project to Varamin plain. Civil and Project Journal, 4(1): 29-43. (In Persian)


15. Kwon, Y. T., Lee, C. W. 2019. Ecological risk assessment of sediment in wastewater discharging area by means of metal speciation. Microchemical Journal, vol. 70(3), 255-264.


16. Sui, Y., Ding, R., Wang, H. 2020. A novel approach for occupational health and safety and environment risk assessment for wastewater power plant construction project. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120945.


17. Alvanchi, A., Rahimi, M., Mousavi, M., Alikhani, H. 2020. Construction schedule, an influential factor on air pollution in urban infrastructure projects. Journal of Cleaner Production vol., 255, 120222.


18. Eswaran, H., Lal, R., Reich, P. F. 2019. Land degradation: an overview. Response to land degradation, 20-35.


19. Osmani, M. 2011. Construction waste. In Waste. Academic Press. 207-218


20. Keshavarz, H. 2019. Innovation in sustainable construction management in large drilling projects (case study: stabilization of urban deep pits and underground structures in Ahvaz city). Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 17(5), 1-18. (In Persian)


21. Darwin, D., Dolan, C. W., Nilson, A. H. 2016. Design of concrete structures. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Education.vol. 2.


22. Tadaion, M., honarmand, H., Kalhori, M. 2010. Impact of Plasticizers on the Quality of Concrete and The Reduction of the Cement Content. Concrete Research, 3(2): 49-57. (In Persian)


23. Arianmehr, E., Sabzi, Z., Abbas Gohari, F., Asgari, M. 2022. Investigating Safety Promotion Guidelines in Railway Construction Projects. Occupational Hygiene and Health Promotion Journal, 6 (2) :180-193.