Hierarchical prioritization of industrial waste management

system components for the iron and steel industry in

developing African economies
Yolandi Schoeman1, Paul Oberholster1 and Vernon Somerset2
1 Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Centre for Environmental Management, University of the Free State,
South Africa
2 Faculty of Applied Sciences, Chemistry Department, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa

Next Generation Thought Leaders (Next G) Conference on

Environment and Sustainability
28-29 July 2021

T: +27(0)51 401 2863 | cem@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac .za/cem

 Presentation Outline
• Highlights
• Introduction
• Criteria and methods
• Application to the case study
• Results and discussion
• Conclusion
• References
 Highlights of the Study
• A valuable and practical technique to prioritize industrial
waste management system components.
• Prioritization of industrial waste management system and
treatment components.
• The first study to demonstrate the use of Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) for the hierarchical prioritization of industrial
waste management system components as a multi-criteria
decision approach for industrial waste management decision-
making in the iron and steel industry.
• The first complete study to present waste management and
treatment system components important for industrial waste
management in the iron and steel industry.
 Introduction
• The steel industry remains a fundamental global industrial sector as it is
essential in an economy's sectors.

• Developing countries plagued by the inadequate disposal and

management of industrial waste (legacy and new challenge).

• Choosing and prioritizing the right industrial waste management to

develop integrated waste management and treatment systems are
complicated and often fails (Khan & Faisal, 2008; Vego et al. 2008; Nouri et
al. 2016; Schoeman et al. 2021).

• Published waste studies in managing and prioritizing iron and steel waste
in developing countries, especially in Africa, are limited. A clear gap exists
in applying a structured and systematic approach to iron and steel waste
management (Usapein and Chavalparit 2014; Lobato et al. 2015).
 Introduction
• Researchers have focused on applying multiple criteria decision-making
models (MCDMs) as supported by multiple criteria decision analysis
(MCDA) techniques to address complicated decision-making processes
(Nouri et al. 2016).

• MCDMs provide a structured and systematic approach to promote

transparent decision-making (Chitaka et al. 2018) and have been proven to
be extensively compatible with the nature of waste challenges (Melaré et
al. 2017; Coban et al. 2018).

• By applying the AHP to the iron and steel industry, (1) the evaluation can
be broken down into different essential elements, (2) a hierarchy of the
essential elements is listed and, (3) data are processed to obtain a final
result (Achillas et al. 2013).
 Introduction
• The study's purpose: to demonstrate the hierarchical prioritization of
industrial waste management system components by applying an AHP
multi-criteria decision approach for industrial waste management
decision-making.
• The study was divided into waste management system components and
waste treatment components.
• Demonstrated in a case study in the iron and steel industry in Southern
Africa and consisted of eight steps.
 Criteria and Methods
• The AHP analysis was conducted using the software “Super Decisions”
software version 3.0.0.

• Due to industrial waste management system components' complexity,

industrial waste management was divided into two clusters:
- an industrial waste management system cluster (cluster 1) and;
- an industrial waste treatment cluster (cluster 2) to identify essential
criteria and sub-criteria for AHP analysis.

Clusters 1 and 2 consisted of eight steps to complete the AHP to prioritize

essential waste management system components.
 Criteria and Methods
The key steps followed for both clusters 1 and 2 can be summarized as
follows:

1. Criteria and sub-criteria for AHP input were identified;

2. Criteria were weighed;
3. Criteria were compared at the same level;
4. The pairwise comparison matrix was completed;
5. Consistencies were checked;
6. Local priorities were calculated;
7. The waste management system components were synthesized; and
8. A decision matrix was constructed, and the results were interpreted.
 Application to the Case Study
• The case study was based on an iron and
steel facility in South Africa.
• The iron and steel facility was founded in
1957 and is a vertically integrated iron and
steel manufacturing facility that produces
around 1 million tons of steel blocks
annually.
• The case study was selected because of the
availability of quantitative and qualitative
data.
• The industrial waste management system
components included two distinct clusters:
cluster 1- waste management system
components and cluster 2- waste treatment
components.
 Application to the Case Study
• To fulfil Saaty’s pairwise comparison
matrix, data were collected from
completed Environmental Impact
Assessments (EIA’s), consultations
with sustainability consultants and
authorities, completing a desktop
study, professional associations,
environmentalists, metallurgists, and
the researcher's own experience in
managing iron and steel waste
management systems.
• This data collected identified key
waste management systems and
treatment components that were
used to identify the cluster 1 and 2
criteria components.
 Application to the Case Study
• Cluster 1: Waste management system components
 Application to the Case Study
• Cluster 2: Waste treatment components
 Results and Discussion
• Cluster 1 prioritization

Criteria Weights Priority • Company culture as the

Company culture 0.20503 1 top priority in developing a
Cost of waste 0.08832 7 waste management system
Environmental externalities 0.09703 6
followed by regulatory
Plant divisions 0.03755 8
aspects, the waste data
system, and waste
Regulatory requirements 0.17846 2
streams.
Waste data system 0.15698 3
Waste infrastructure 0.1086 5
Waste streams 0.12803 4
 Results and Discussion
• Cluster 1 prioritization
• The pairwise comparisons were also completed for the sub-criteria
components for cluster 1
• The top ten sub-criteria component priorities: accountability (site-wide),
compliance with site legislative requirements (such as environmental
authorizations, notices, and directives, permits, and licenses); understanding
of and being able to quantify baseline environmental conditions; developing
and implementing a complex disposal management plan; compliance to
general legal requirements; the commitment of the CEO of the company;
costs of complying to legal requirements; developing, implementing and
maintaining a waste data system collection and monitoring data protocol;
quantifying environmental contamination and identifying the costs of waste
externalization.
 Results and Discussion
• Cluster 2 prioritization

Criteria Weights Priority

• Management practices are
Contaminant management 0.17227 2 the top priority in
Management practices 0.26178 1 prioritizing waste treatment
Methods 0.05726 7 system requirements,
Regulatory framework 0.13370 5 followed by contaminant
Site remediation 0.07941 6 management, waste
treatment cost, and
Sustainability practices 0.14013 4
sustainability practices
Waste treatment cost 0.15545 3
 Results and Discussion
• Cluster 2 prioritization
• The pairwise comparisons were also completed for the sub-criteria
components for cluster 2.
• The top ten sub-criteria priorities identified: site legal requirements (such as
environmental authorizations, permits, licenses, directives, and notices
applicable to the iron and steel facility); costs associated with land disposal;
quantitative risk assessment; storing, reworking, and selling of waste; general
legal requirements; site and subsurface characterization; industrial ecology
principles, and waste exchange income.
 Conclusion
• Applying the AHP as an MCDA technique proved to be a valuable and
practical technique to prioritize industrial waste management system
components in a structured and hierarchical manner for iron and steel for
several reasons:
- the challenge of prioritizing industrial waste management system and
treatment components can be broken down into sub-criteria components;
- a hierarchy of the main clusters can be listed;
- the cluster criteria and sub-criteria components can be processed to obtain
a final result to promote decision-making in developing industrial waste
management plans based on priorities.
• Promotes the understanding of waste components to prioritize industrial
waste management by integrating all stakeholders' judgments and
concerns. Promotes effective collaboration.
 Conclusion
• Limitations
- Only applied to one case study in the iron and steel industry in Southern
Africa.
- MCDA as a system engineering assessment tool has limitations and
advantages; however, the applicability strongly depends on the context and
required outcome influenced by data availability.
- Data availability is further influenced by the quality and the
representativeness of the data.
 Conclusion
• Future research
- to include demonstrating the methodology implementation in other
manufacturing sectors
- Combined with other system engineering models and systems such as value
stream mapping (VSM) and analytic network process (ANP).
- A need to develop a hybrid approach to support circular integrated waste
management (CIWM) in the form of a sustainable consumption and
production (SCP) tool in developing African economies.
- The hybrid approach can be applied in developing programs to reduce
industrial waste's carbon footprint and optimize waste management
practices as part of CIWM.
 References
• Achillas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Karagiannidis, A., Banias, G. and Perkoulidis, G. 2013. The use of multi-
criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: a literature review. Waste Management
and Research, 31(12):115-129.
• Chitaka, T.Y., Von Blottnitz, H. & Cohen, B. 2018. The role of decision support frameworks in industrial
policy development: A South African iron and steel scrap case study. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 13:113-125.
• Coban, A.; Ertis, I.F. & Cavdaroglu, N.A. 2018. Municipal solid waste management via multi-criteria
decision-making methods: a case study in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production 180, 159–167.
• Khan, S. & Faisal, M.N. 2008. An analytic network process model for municipal solid waste disposal
options. Waste Management, 28, 1500 -1508.
• Lobato, N.C.C., Villegas, E.A., Mansur, M.B. 2015. Management of solid wastes from steelmaking and
galvanizing processes: A brief review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102:49-57.
• Melaré, A.V.D-S., González, S.M., Faceli, K. & Casadei, V. 2017. Technologies and decision support systems
to aid solid-waste management: a systematic review. Waste Management, 59:567-584.
• Nouri, D.; Sabour, M.R. & GhanbarzadehLak, M. 2016. Industrial solid waste management through the
application of multi-criteria decision-making analysis: a case study of Shamsabad industrial complexes.
Journal of Materials Cycles Waste Management, 20(1), 43-58.
• Schoeman, Y.; Oberholster, P.; Somerset, V. 2021. Value Stream Mapping as a Supporting Management
Tool to Identify the Flow Of Industrial Waste: A Case Study. Sustainability, 13,91.
• Usapein, P. & Chavalparit, O. 2014. Options for sustainable industrial waste management toward zero
landfill waste in a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) factory in Thailand. Journal of Material Cycles Waste
Management, 16, 373-383.
• Vego, G., Kucar-Dragicevic, S. & Koporivanac. N. 2008. Application of multi-criteria decision making on
strategic municipal solid waste management in Dalmatia, Croatia. Waste Management, 28(11), 2192-2201.