Environmental impact assessment of a steel industry development plan using combined method involving Leopold matrix and RIAM

Abstract

The present study was conducted to determine positive and negative impacts of Sepid-Farab Kavir steel (SKS) complex development plan and to propose suitable managerial strategies by a combined method involving Leopold matrix and Rapid Impact Assessment matrix (RIAM). The SKS complex is located in Aran-Bidgol city, Isfahan, Iran. Two scenarios of project implementation and project cancellation were formulated for SKS complex development plan, which has two sub-phases: construction and operation Using Leopold and RIAM matrices, the direct and indirect impacts of the project on the study area was investigated. The impact analysis for project cancellation scenario showed that the obtained scores of construction and operation phases were -119 and -52, respectively. Also, for project implementation scenario, the obtained scores of construction and operation phases were + 302 and + 382, respectively. The number of positive impacts in the implementation and cancellation scenarios were 354 and 48, respectively, and the number of negative impacts in implementation and cancellation scenarios were 270 and 127, respectively. Also, comparison of positive and negative impacts frequency in the two scenarios, and in the two sub-phases, in RIAM indicated the project implementation will have positive impacts in social-cultural and economic-operational aspects compared to option of prevention, especially in operation phase. The results of environmental impact assessment of the mentioned project indicated the superiority of positive impacts over the negative ones.

Introduction

Industrial development and environmental sustainability are two main dimensions of future planning [1]. The steel industries have a crucial role in the 20-year vision document of Iran to become the first industrial power in the Middle East. In addition, the development steel industry should be in line with sustainable goals as well [2]. Human activities, though provided development and welfare in the recent decades have resulted in environmental issues and steel industry have been recognized as an industry with major environmental impacts [3–5]. The need for a variety of chemicals to treat the wastewater and oil derivatives of the industry, dealing with industrial waste, the high generated heat, consumption of high volumes of water, especially in rolling industry, air pollution caused by hot rolling process, cooling water effluent and hot rolling waste are some of the environmental challenges posed by the steel industry, all of which require special attention and entails utilizing certain tools and techniques to evaluate its environmental impact [6–8].

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an effective tool to manage environmental issues through a generic and regular process, which includes identification and systematic risk assessment of the impacts of a given project or a program on physical, biological, cultural and cultural-economic aspects of the environment and environmental components [1, 2, 8, 9]. Developed and enacted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1970, EIA has been used to inform decision makers and pubic over the prospects of a proposed project on the environment and to reduce the detrimental effects of such projects [1, 9]. The most common methods used in the EIA process are: special expertise method, checklist, network, overlayed maps, decision support system, modeling, Leopold matrix [2], Rapid Impact Assessment matrix (RIAM), AHP and FAHP [10–12]. A modified version of Leopold matrix, known as Iranian matrix has been developed and approved by Iranian experts to analyze environmental impacts of projects in Iran. In this version, the value range was extended from -5 to + 5 [2, 13]. Simple structure and potential for multi-criteria assessment are the benefits of using this approach. However, it should be noted that matrix methods can only evaluate the direct impacts of a project and does not take factors such as timing, period of the impact and synergistic effects into account [13, 14].

Researchers use Leopold matrix to evaluate the environmental impacts of different projects such as construction of industrial estates, residential areas, drainage and irrigation grids, compost factories and steel industry [1, 3, 15–18]. RIAM was first defined by Pastakia in 1998 and became a powerful tool for researchers in environmental impact assessment of various projects owing to its attributes such as simple structure, high potential in deep analysis, repeatability, and the capacity to conduct an objective and accurate assessment [19–21].

Therefore, with regard to article 192 of the fifth national economic and social development plan and the enactment of high council of environmental protection which mandates providing an environmental impact assessment report prior to launching large industrial projects such as a steel rolling factory, this study was conducted with the aim of identification and assessment of positive and negative impacts of Sepid Farab Kavir steel SKS complex development plan in Arab-Bidgol city, Isfahan, Iran. The assessment will be conducted on physio-chemical, biological and cultural aspects of the region and will present appropriate provisional strategies to reduce the negative impacts of the project.

Methodology

This descriptive-analytical study was conducted using Iranian leopold matrix and RIAM from November 2014 to May 2015 in SKS complex, located in Aran-Bidgol city, north of Isfahan province. The designated area for launching the project was a 50-Hectare land with 6.7 km distance from Aran-Bidgol city (Fig. 1). The first phase of the project was a hot rolling unit with the capacity of producing 350,000 ton/year of steel rebar that started its operation in 2007. The development phase is a similar unit but with rebar production capacity of 450,000 ton/year and will be constructed near the first site Fig. 2.

Fig. 1.

Location and distance of the kavir steel complex from urban and environmentally protected areas of Isfahan Province

Fig. 2.

Impacts in project cancellation scenario

Description of environmental conditions of the study area

Aran-Bidgol is located in north of Isfahan province. The ecosystem of this county is comprised of poor vegetation and has desert-like topography such as sand dunes, sand plains, salt lake, etc. The most notable important environmental issues of the region and of the SKS complex are moving sand dunes of this county, which extended as large as 112,000 hectares and the expanse of its deserts that are spread over 384,000 hectares which results in sandstorms and sand abrasion. The climate of the region is semi-arid, with relatively cold winters and very hot and dry summers. The hottest month of the year is July (with maximum temperature of 48 °C) and the coolest is winter (as low as -5 °C) in January and February. The annual average rainfall is 125 mm, with precipitations mostly taking place in December to May and snow in January. The allocated land for the project covers an area of 50 hectares and has poor vegetation. The soil is dry in most of the year due to rapid evaporation. The soil is comprised of clay and limestone underlaid by a thick layer of gravel. Aquifers can be found in 15 to 20 m below the surface level and the salinity of the waters vary but approximates to 1 g/L, making the soil of the region saline and alkali.

Temperature difference between northern and southern altitudes in Kashan city causes different air currents blowing from various directions. Study of the winds showed that the northern winds are the dominant winds, with the most frequency, and then the west winds. The high velocity distribution range that causes the movement of soil and sand particles is 17–21 m/s and occurs in April from west and 16–16 m/s from the north.

Identifying and predicting impacts

Identification of environmental components

To characterize the impacts of each phase of the project on the environmental components of the region the different phases of the project were surveyed. These components were: physio-chemical, biological, economic, social, cultural aspects and the pollutants emitted from hot rolling processes into the ambient air of the region. After identification of the project aspects and the environmental components, the impacts were investigated on the two phases of construction and operation.

The data for investigation of environmental factors, map of surface and groundwater resources, weather and natural resources were collected from various public organizations of the county including: Iran Meteorological Organization, health departments, department of environment protection, water and wastewater department, ministry of road and urban development, Ministry of Agriculture Jihad, municipality, geological survey and mineral exploration organization, Iran National Cartographic Center, Forests, Range and Watershed Management Organization and Statistical Centre of Iran. Next, the data were analyzed using leopold and RIAM matrixes in RIAM and Microsoft Excel software.

Positive and negative effects on the environment

The positive and negative impacts on physio-chemical aspects of the environment are: impacts on quality and quantity of groundwater resources, air and soil; impacts on plant and animal habitats and impacts on the community, economy and culture. The positive impacts of the project are: using wastewater effluent of Kashan city, retaining groundwater levels unlike the phase one of the industry, employment and job opportunities, saving foreign currencies such as dollar, reduction of rebar import, improving the national markets, extending green space and constructing a green zone in north of the county, preventing soil erosion in the region and manufacturing eco-friendly products (rebars with strong physical properties that can reduce the amount of steel used in construction). On the other hand, the negative impacts are: energy and fuel consumption, noise pollution, excavation and consumption of water during construction period, generation of special waste, dust pollution and vehicular emissions (mainly from transportation trucks).

Weighting factors and environmental impact assessment

In order to score and weigh the environmental factors; a team of environmental, safety, mechanical and technical experts (the rolling industry) and experts in social issues was formed. Then all effective factors and activities of the construction and operation stages of the development phase of Kavir Steel Complex were listed in Tables 1 and  2. Environmental Impacts of the development plan were assessed by combining two methods of Leopold and Pastakia matrices. In the Leopold method, a matrix is formed where the micro-activities of the project in the construction and operation phases (Table 1), as well as the environmental components, with their details, (Table 2) were evaluated and weighted. Then, data analysis was conducted using leopold and RIAM matrixes using RIAM and MS Excel software.

Table 1.

List of activities in construction and operation phases of SKS complex using leopold matrix

Construction phase	Operation phase
Leveling	Vehicle services
Concreting	Inventory
Construction of a green space	Turning
Waste disposal	Welding
Wastewater disposal	Wastewater treatment facilities
Installation of silos	Waste recycling
Supplying construction materials	Waste disposal
Equipment repair	Cooling of equipment
Engine repairs	Rolling
Water consumption	Wastewater effluent reuse
Water supply	Effluent transporting channels
Supplying drinking water	Effluent disposal
Fuel consumption	Effluent collection
Fuel storage	Sanitation facilities
Fuel transportation	Energy consumption
Fuel supply	Gasoline storage
Extending gasoline tankers	Fuel supply
Electricity wiring	Gas pipe installation and supply
Electric power supply	Power supply
Emergency power supply (generator)	Electricity supply
Equipment transportation	Transportation repairs
Transportation of materials	Transportation of products
Unpacking the equipment and installations	Transportation of raw material
Supply of materials	Contractor’s services
Employee transportation service	Workers transport services
Drainage	Staff employment
Asphalting	Water consumption
Construction of structures	Effluent reuse of Kashan wastewater treatment
Construction of roads	Assembly of parts
Fencing	Green space maintenance
Excavation	Civil operations
Recruiting workforce	Ingot heating
Establishing temporary camps	Cooling bed
Installing equipment in the workshops	Loading and unloading
Spraying and baiting operations	Fire station
Office works	Relief and rescue

Table 2.

Reviewed environmental factors

Physical environment	Biological environment	Socio-economic environment	Cultural environment
Microclimate Air quality Ambient noise Water scarcity regiment Regiment of floods Surface water quality Groundwater quality Static water level Surface water consumption Groundwater consumption Shore waters River morphology Advance of saline waters Sedimentation Soil erosion Soil properties Soil stability Draining Land topography Seismicity Flood plains Landslide	Aquatic ecosystem Land ecosystem Rare plant species Rare animal species Animal migration Animal population Animal habitat Plant habitat Vegetation density Wood production Animal behavioral patterns Reproduction areas Food chains Species diversity Disease transmitters conservation areas Recreational moments Safety and security Land use Future development plans Sensitive land-use	Population Migration Specialty Resettlement Income and costs Employment and unemployment Rise of estate prices Agriculture Mining and industry Services Transportation Traffic Welfare Water consumption Waste Wastewater	Social acceptance Tribes and ethnic groups Health index Education index Serious illnesses Drinking water quality Tourism Accommodations and services Educational services Cultural characteristics Religious monuments and buildings Registered cultural heritage Un-registered cultural heritage Landscapes and sceneries

Iranian Leopold matrix method

Leopold matrix, as a most popular EIA tool, was used for this work. In, EIA using leopold matrix, two values were assigned for each cell: one value indicates range or impact severity and the other indicates importance or magnitude. In this method, a 1 to 5 scoring scale, with the score 1 indicating a low positive impact and 5 a highly positive and important impact and a -1 (low negative impact) to -5 (highly negative impact) scoring scale is used. The range and impact of each environmental parameter as follows: Very high positive impact (+ 5), high positive impact (+ 4), Moderate positive impact (+ 3), Low positive impact (+ 2), Very low positive impact (minor) (+ 1), Very high negative impact (-5), high negative impact (-4), Moderate negative impact (-3), Low negative impact (-2), Very low negative impact (minor) (-1).

After estimation of range and level of impact for each cell, the value of each impact was calculated using the scoring factors and then the mean value of positive and negative impact was estimated for each environmental component in the two project phases (i.e. construction and operational phases). At this point, the mean positive score is the indicator of acceptability of the project from environmental perspective. If mean rating score was in the rating range of + 3.1 and + 5, the project will be acceptable and can be implemented. If the mean rating score falls in the range of + 2.1 to + 3.1, the positive impact of project is moderate and if the score ranges from + 2.1 to 0, the project will have minimal positive effects. Otherwise, if the estimated mean score falls in the rating range of -3.1 and -5, the project will be unacceptable based on environmental studies and therefore, will be rejected. If the mean rating score falls in the range of -2.1 and -3.1, the project will feasible by taking corrective actions and if the score ranges from -2.1 to 0, the project will be feasible on condition of improving the options and plans [18]

Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM)

The first step in Pastakia assessment method is to create a separate list of SKS complex developmental activities for each of construction and operation phases and a list of impacted environmental parameters. Next, the data were loaded in the Pastakia model. The most impacted parameters were identified and classified based on model classification, which includes the following environments: physio-chemical (PC), biological-ecological (BE), social-cultural (SC) and economical-operational (EO). The RIAM criteria are generally categorized into two groups: 1. Criteria A, indicating importance and the intensity of the impact and can independently influence the final score. 2. Criteria B, which demonstrate impact continuity, reversibility and cumulativeness of the impact and cannot independently determine the final score.

Lastly, the sum of scores in group 2 were multiplied with the multiplied scores of group 1 to determine the final environmental assessment score for each impact. The score evaluation in Pastakia model can be described as below:

Equation (1):

$$(\mathrm{A}1).(\mathrm{A}2)=\mathrm{AT}$$ 1

$$\left(\mathrm{B},1\right)+\left(\mathrm{B},2\right)+\left(\mathrm{B},3\right)=\mathrm{BT}$$ 2

$$\left(\mathrm{AT}\right).\left(\mathrm{BT}\right)=\mathrm{ES}$$ 3

In which, A1 and A2 are the scores of group 1 and B1, B2 and B3 are the scores of group 2. AT is the result of multiplying all scores in group 1. BT is the result of multiplying all scores in group 2 and ES expresses the final environmental assessment score. Score and importance degree of A1 in the criteria is 4 (National/ international importance), 3 (National/ regional importance), 2 (Regional/ district importance), 1 (Area importance only) and 0 (No importance). Score and intensity of the impact degree of A2 is + 3 (Very positive benefits), + 2 (Considerable improvement compared to current situation), + 1 (Relative improvement compared to current situation), 0 (No change in status quo), -1 (Negative change compared to status quo), -2 (High negative change) and -3 (Very high negative change). Score and continuity degree of B1 in the criteria is 1 (without change), 2 (temporary change), 3 (permanent change). Score and reversibility degree of B2 in the criteria is 1 (without change), 2 (reversible), 3 (irreversible). And Score and cumulativeness degree of B3 in the criteria is 1 (without change), 2 (not cumulative), 3 (cumulative).

After entering parameters in each influenced environmental classification, a matrix was defined for each option of the project in which a score is delegated based on assessment criteria for each cell. Finally, by estimating the ES, the obtained outputs were presented as ranks as in Table 3.

Table 3.

Classification of environmental score ranges

Environmental Score (ES)	Category range	Interpretation
+ 72 to + 108	+ E	Very high positive impact
+ 36 to + 71	+ D	High positive impact
+ 19 to + 35	+ C	Moderate positive impact
+ 10 to + 18	+ B	Low positive impact
+ 1 to + 9	+ A	Minor positive impact
0	N	No change
-1 to -9	-A	Minor negative impact
-10 to -18	-B	Low negative impact
-19 to -35	-C	Moderate negative impact
-36 to -71	-D	High negative impact
-72 to -108	-E	Very high negative impact

The Evaluation of impacts of the plan was examined in Pastakia model in the following two scenarios and in each scenario, the results were separately presented for two phases of construction and operation:

• Project cancellation (the status quo): in the equivalent time with construction and operation phase

• Project implementation: presenting in separate construction and operation phases.

The examined parameters were entered in RIAM software by dividing into different environments. The identical examined environmental parameters were considered for both implementing and not implementing options.

The environmental Parameters of the Physio-chemical (PC) environment include: Land shape, erosion, surface water quantity, surface water quality, groundwater quantity, groundwater quality, soil quality, and air quality and noise level. The environmental parameters of the Biological-ecological (BE) environment include: Vegetation, species and important plant species habitat, important animal species habitat, areas protected by environmental protection organization, the environmental parameters of the Social-cultural (SC) environment include: Population and migration, skill level, health and sanitation, social tensions, prospect, and the environmental Parameters of the Economic-operational (EO) environment include: Income and employment, investment boost and foreign trade, communication and traffic conditions, developmental plans, infrastructures.

After scoring the parameters using rapid assessment software, the impact of the activities of the project on each parameter were evaluated by a group of experts based on the criteria that were applied in Pastakia model. The RIAM matrix was estimated in two phases of construction and operation for two scenarios of project cancellation and project implementation. Based on the phases, the positive and negative impacts were ranked as minor, low, moderate, high and very high. The obtained results were presented as verifiable and assessable tables and figures in which type and intensity of the impact on the environment can be specified in the examined options separately.

Determination of assessment scenarios

Project cancellation scenario

Project cancellation is adopted when the negative impacts of construction and operation phases were assessed and shows that the project can incur detrimental damage to the environment.

Project implementation scenario

Project implementation is adopted when the positive impacts outweighs the negative ones and the project will proceed as planned.

Results

Leopold matrix analysis

According to the surveys on features the environment and the project, the resultant potential environmental impacts including physio-chemical, biological and social-economic components of SKS complex development was predicted and presented for both construction and operation phases. Also, the approaches to reduce the detrimental impacts of construction and operation phases were presented as well.

The impact prediction of the project for either cancellation or implementation was carried out using EIA (leopold matrix). In case of project cancellation, the predicted scores for construction and operational phases were -119 and -52, respectively. However, with implementation of project modifications, the impact scores of construction and operation phases changed to + 302 and + 382, respectively (Table 4 and Figs. 1–3).

Table 4.

Results of environmental impact assessment of SKS complex development plan

Assessment step			Positive impacts			Negative impacts			Mean total	Result
			Number	Sum	Mean	Number	Sum	Mean
Project cancellation	Construction phase	Physical environment	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-2.55
		Biological environment	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
		Social-economic environment	22	+ 39	+ 1.7	63	-142	-2.25	-0.55
		Cultural environment	-	-	-	8	-16	-2	-2
	Operation phase	Physical environment	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-1.33
		Biological environment	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
		Social-economic environment	26	+ 52	+ 2	36	-84	-2.33	-0.33
		Cultural environment	-	-	-	20	-20	-2	-1
Project implementation	Construction phase	Physical environment	-	-	-	26	-34	-1.30	-1.30	+ 2.26
		Biological environment	14	+ 22	+ 1.57	25	-25	-1	+ 0.57
		Social-economic environment	103	+ 424	+ 4.11	50	-107	-2.14	+ 1.97
		Cultural environment	31	+ 82	+ 2.64	27	-60	-1.62	+ 1.02
	Operation phase	Physical environment	7	+ 26	+ 3.71	50	-195	-3.9	+ 0.34	+ 3.41
		Biological environment	34	+ 62	+ 1.82	34	-46	-1.35	-0.19
		Social-economic environment	117	+ 466	+ 3.98	48	-118	-2.45	+ 1.53
		Cultural environment	48	+ 2.16	+ 4.5	10	-29	-2.9	+ 1.6

Fig. 3.

Impacts in project implementation scenario

RIAM analysis

Assessment of Pastakia model in project cancellation scenario

In project cancellation during construction phase, 18 out of 23 parameters were categorized as neutral. Also, 3 parameters positioned in low negative category (-B) and 2 parameters were ranked as moderate negative (-C) (Table 5). In the operation phase, 17 out of 23 parameters were categorized as neutral and project cancellation does not impact them. Also, cancellation in operation phase can lead to negative conditions in 6 parameters: 3 parameters in low negative category (-B), 1 parameter in moderate negative category (-C) and 2 parameters in highly negative (-D) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Results of parameter investigation in construction and operation phase of project cancellation scenario in Pastakia model

Impact range	Phase	-108 -72	-71 -36	-35 -19	-18 -10	-9 -1	0 0	1 9	10 18	19 35	36 71	72 108
Impact category		-E	-D	-C	-B	-A	N	A	B	C	D	E
Physio-chemical environment	Construction	0	0	0	0	0	9	0	0	0	0	0
	Operation	0	0	1	0	0	8	0	0	0	0	0
Natural-biological environment	Construction	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0
	Operation	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0
Social-cultural environment	Construction	0	0	0	2	0	3	0	0	0	0	0
	Operation	0	0	0	2	0	3	0	0	0	0	0
Economic-operational environment	Construction	0	0	2	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
	operation	0	2	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
Total	construction	0	0	2	3	0	18	0	0	0	0	0
	operation	0	2	1	3	0	17	0	0	0	0	0

During the construction phase of the scenario 1, no change was found the existing parameters in terms of physical parameters. From ecological and environmental perspectives, the condition will continue as before. From social and economic aspect, the cancellation of construction phase showed no change in the current condition of accommodations and infrastructures, however, the potentials for employment, stopping migration, individual skills and foreign investments will be unavailable.

In operational phase, project cancellation can lead into more intense negative impacts. The most prominent negative impact can be observed in economic parameters as it can result in loss of foreign investments and employment potentials for 500,000 people in the region. Continuation of groundwater withdrawal is another negative impact of cancellation as the water demand of the complex for cooling process (8.5 L/s) is currently supplied from wells. Since the development plan would increase the water demand of the complex to 20 L/s, the treated water of Kashan municipal wastewater treatment plant was designated to supply the required water, which could stop water withdrawal from the wells and significantly improve the already depreciated condition of aquifers in the region. Therefore, with cancellation of the development project, the opportunity for saving aquifers will be unavailable. Also, loss of potential for increased specialization, immigration prevention, and growth of developmental plans in SKS complex can occur as well.

Assessment of Pastakia model in project implementation scenario

Using Pastakia model, the environmental impacts of project implementation was presented in Table 6 for both construction and operation phases.

Table 6.

Environmental impacts of project implementation in Pastakia model

Row	Impacted parameters	Construction phase		Operation phase
		Environmental score (ES)	Impact range (RB)	Environmental score (ES)	Impact range (RB)
1	Land shape	0	Neutral	0	Neutral
2	erosion	0	Neutral	0	Neutral
3	Quantity of surface water	-14	Low negative	-16	Low negative
4	Quality of surface water	-14	Low negative	-16	Low negative
5	Quantity of groundwater	-14	Low negative	32	Low positive
6	Quality of groundwater	-14	Low negative	-32	Moderate negative
7	Soil quality	-6	Minor negative	-14	Low negative
8	Noise level	-7	Minor negative	-16	Low negative
9	Air quality	-14	Low negative	-16	Low negative
10	vegetation	0	Neutral	-7	Minor negative
11	Plant species and habitats	0	Neutral	-18	Low negative
12	Animal species and habitats	-14	Low negative	-16	Low negative
13	Zones protected by the department of environment	0	Neutral	0	Neutral
14	Population and immigration	10	Low positive	12	Low positive
15	Level of skill	12	Low positive	28	Moderate positive
16	Sanitation and health	-10	Low negative	-12	Low positive
17	Social tensions	0	Neutral	0	Neutral
18	Landscape	0	Neutral	0	Neutral
19	Employment and income	15	Low positive	15	Low positive
20	Prosperity of investments and foreign trade	24	Moderate positive	24	Moderate positive
21	Commute and traffic condition	-16	Low positive	-16	Low positive
22	Development plans	12	Low positive	12	Low positive
23	Infrastructure	0	Neutral	0	Neutral

In the construction phase of the project implementation scenario, 8 out of 23 parameters were categorized as neutral (N), 2 parameters as minor negative (-A), 8 parameters as low negative (-B) and 4 parameters as low positive (+ B) and 1 parameter as moderate positive (+ C) (Table 7).

Table 7.

Results of parameter investigation in construction and operation phase of project implementation scenario in Pastakia model

Impact range	Phase	-108 -72	-71 -36	-35 -19	-18 -10	-9 -1	0 0	1 9	10 18	19 35	36 71	72 108
Impact category		-E	-D	-C	-B	-A	N	A	B	C	D	E
Physio-chemical environment	Construction	0	0	0	5	2	2	0	0	0	0	0
	Operation	0	0	1	5	0	2	0	0	1	0	0
Natural-biological environment	Construction	0	0	0	1	0	3	0	0	0	0	0
	Operation	0	0	0	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Social-cultural environment	Construction	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	2	0	0	0
	Operation	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	1	1	0	0
Economic-operational environment	Construction	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	2	1	0	0
	Operation	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	2	0
Total	Construction	0	0	0	8	2	8	0	4	1	0	0
	Operation	0	0	2	8	1	6	0	1	3	2	0

In the operation phase of the project implementation scenario, 6 out pf 23 parameters were categorized as neutral (N), 1 parameter as minor negative (-A), 8 parameters as low negative (-B), 2 parameters as moderate negative (-C). In assessment of positively impacted parameters, 1 parameter was categorized as low positive (+ B), 3 parameters as moderate positive (+ C), 2 parameters as highly positive (+ D) (Table 7).

The most influenced parameters of construction phase that were predicted and categorized as low negative were of physio-chemical parameters such as pollution of surface water and groundwater resources, rise of noise level and air pollution. The most important cause of air pollution was the vehicle exhaust of transportation machines and vehicles and the most important factor in pollution of soil and water resources was the generation of waste and wastewater during construction phase and possible oil and lubricants spill from the machineries. In case of biological parameters, only animal species of the region might be partially affected due to noise and air pollution. Also, the negative social and economic impacts were associated with health and sanitation of the personnel and road traffic, which were categorized in low negative group. The assessment of environmental scores of those impacts were ranged from low to moderate positive. The initiation of this phase can bring job opportunities, prevent immigration to outside of the region and highly positively influence on the level of skill and income of the people. As for the foreign investment aspect, the project implementation can result in positive impacts.

The most important negative impacts of the project in the operation phase were: increase of industrial waste and wastewater generation, increase of road traffic level. The increase in air pollution due to development was minor and will have no significant impact on the nearby residential areas. However, biological parameters of the environment such as vegetation weighting and outside of the complex and animal species will be fairly negatively influenced by the industrial chimneys. Additionally, out of 23 identified parameters, 6 parameters were categorized in the range of low to high positive ranks. The identified positive scores were mostly belonged to economic and operational parameters. Comparison of positive and negative impacts and their frequencies in the two phases of construction and operation in Pastakia method are presented in Figs. 4 and 5.

Fig. 4.

Comparison of total negative and positive impacts of the project in cancellation and implementation scenarios

Fig. 5.

Comparison of negative and positive impacts of construction phase between project cancellation and project implementation scenarios

Leopold matrix and RIAM results

In Iranian leopold matrix, the total scores for project cancellation in the construction phase was higher than the scores in the operational phase. However, by performing harmful impact reduction and pollution mitigation strategies in the project implementation scenario, the mean score of positive impacts was substantially increased in both construction and operation phases. In RIAM method, by considering the positive impacts of project implementation in social-cultural and economic-operational settings of operation phase, the scenario of project implementation supersedes compared to the scenario of project cancellation (Figs. 4 and 5). Therefore, with regard to the obtained results using the two aforementioned methods, it was found that the positive impacts outweigh negative impacts in construction and operation phases (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.

Comparison of negative and positive impacts of operation phase between project cancellation and project implementation scenarios

Discussion

Industrial development should be in line with sustainable development plans to reduce harmful environmental impacts. Therefore, conducting EIA studies is a key factor in decision to either implement or cancelling a large-scale industrial project. Based on the obtained results for both scenarios of SKS complex development plan using leopold matrix, it was found that the impact scores of the project in the construction and operation phases were -119 and -52, respectively, necessitating the implementation of the project on condition of mitigating harmful impacts. By implementing mitigation strategies, the score of construction and operation phases became + 302 and + 382, respectively, confirming the implementation of the project. In RIAM method, comparison of the frequencies positive and negative impacts in the two scenarios showed that positive impacts in terms of social-cultural, economic-operational aspects of the environment, especially in the operational phase. Therefore, using RIAM method, the project implementation is endorsed.

Several studies have been carried out for environmental impact assessment of establishing and developing of industries using new methods such as AHP and traditional methods such as Leopold, Pastakia and Check List. The approach of developed methods such as data envelopment analysis (DEA) is highlighting the benefits of project development. But, basic methods such as Leopold, Pastakia and Check List can provide a better understanding as they can show the risks and necessitate proposing corrective solutions [12, 22].

Most of the studies are conducted using one method and some studies utilizes several methods with special approaches. However, outcome predicted by those several methods were similar [10, 21, 23, 24]. This was also evident in this study. Hazbavi et al. [1] evaluated environmental impacts of an industrial park in Arak city, Iran, using leopold matrix. They found that the obtained scores for construction and operation phases prior to modifications were -77 and -988, respectively however, by applying the modified project to reduce harmful impacts, the scores of construction and operation phases became + 264 and + 829, respectively. Similar to our study, their findings showed that with the condition of applying corrective measures, the project implementation can be acceptable, which was consistent with the findings of this study [25, 26].

A study conducted by Tavakol et al. [15] on environmental impacts of building a steel factory. In the construction phase, it was found that the project impact on 17 parameters was positive and on 46 parameters was negative. In the operation phase, it was found that the project impact on 34 parameters was positive and on 41 parameters was negative. However, considering the project had many economic and social benefits, the project was implemented on the conditions of practicing sanitation and risk mitigation plans. Also, in study of Padash [20], the majority of negative impacts were minor and were associated to the construction phase and in physico-chemical environment and the majority of the positive impacts were high and were associated to the operation phase and in the social-cultural, economic-technical environments. This finding was also consistent with our study indicating that the project is applicable if the corrective actions take place.

The corrective actions to mitigate the negative impacts can increase the applicability of a project. For example, in the study of Aghil Golipour Shoili, [27], environmental impact of a landfill site in Shahre-Kord city, Iran, was assessed using Leopold and Pastakia matrixes. The results of both analysis methods showed that continuation of waste disposal at the study location is unacceptable in sanitary terms and will result in severe environmental damage. After selecting the optimal option, it was found that the majority of negative impacts of the optimum option were in the construction phase and also it was found that mitigation strategies can greatly improve the negative effects of the operation phase.

In another study on waste transport stations of northeast Tehran using combined methods of Leopold and RIAM matrixes. Comparison of average impact level in each scenario showed that, with the score of + 0.92, the options of loading and unloading in an enclosed place and green space creation around the station had the lowest environmental impact in each of the three study phases (including construction, operation and administration) of the project and confirmed as the most eligible option [21].

With regard to the location and surrounding environment, the most important negative impact of SKS complex in the construction phase was environmental pollution (generation of dust), deformation of the surface landscape, disruption of animal habitats and rise of traffic loads in the roads of Aran-Bidgol and Kashan cities. In the operation phase, the most important impacts were the rise of ambient noise level, air pollution, generation and disposal of waste, generation and disposal of wastewater.

The corrective amending strategies of SKS complex development plan in the construction and operation phases were: adherence to the natural shape the surface landscape and creating minimal changes in the topography of the region, preventing the elongation of operation phase, proper disposal of solid wastes, development of wastewater collection and treatment network, modification to prevent air pollution such as providing maintenance activities and periodical technical examinations machineries and vehicles, green space design and creation, turning off the machineries and vehicles in unnecessary occasions, sound reduction practices, re-using wastewater effluents of Kashan wastewater plant, planning and monitoring practices, control and optimization of water consumption, control and online monitoring of kiln output, application of energy-saving devices, etc.

The most important positive impacts of SKS complex development plan were consumption reduction and decline of aquifer, supplying national demand for given the various applications of rebar in the industry, independence from foreign products, prevention of immigration, employment of 450 people in each phase, social and economic transition of the region, etc.

Project analysis indicates that implementation of the following strategies as prevention principles is necessary for SKS complex (Table 8):

• Holding educational courses concerning the environment for the personnel

• Constructing bypass roads for trucks

• Online monitoring of air pollutants

• Continuous monitoring of water and soil pollutants in form of periodical tests

• Application of air filters in case of replacing natural gas with diesel

• Development of industrial wastewater treatment plant during the operation phase

• Connecting the domestic wastewater network to the existing wastewater plant

• Developing green space with adaptive plant and tree species

• Continuous implementation of waste management plan with coordination and cooperation of the Department of the environment to transport and to dispose sanitary and construction wastes

• Packaging and sale of industrial waste

Table 8.

Environmental monitoring (soil, water, air and industrial effluent quality) in the development plan of SKS complex

Environment	Parameter	Sampling site	Sampling period	Administrator
Groundwater quality	Physical and chemical characteristics, cations, anions and heavy metals	Monitoring well, north of the complex	Seasonal	HSE unit
Industrial and RO effluent quality	Heavy metals, chloride, sulfate, oil and grease, phosphate, EC, COD, BOD, TSS, TDS and nitrate	Tinker outlet, Ro outlet, chamber 03 outlet	Monthly	HSE and water supply units
Wastewater treatment plant sludge quality	Heavy metals	Chamber 04	Annual	HSE and water supply unit
Quality of package effluent	Coliform, nematodes	Package outlet	Seasonal;	HSE unit
Air quality	NOX, H2S, SO2, PM, CO	Kiln exhaust outlet	Every six months	HSE unit

Conclusion

Results of present study could be concluded as below.

• With regard to the results of environmental assessment of SKS complex development plan, it was found that in both Pastakia and leopold methods, the scores of positive impacts were greater than the negative ones.

• The most important cause of this was the high score of positive factors especially in social and economic environment and social acceptance of project implementation.

• Also, the most influential and important positive impact on project implementation was using the effluent of Kashan wastewater treatment plant as it plays a crucial role in reducing the negative impacts caused during the operation phase of SKS complex development plan on the environment.

Therefore, by considering the results of assessments and presented strategies, the project can be implemented.

Our recommendation for future research is to assessment environmental impact of a steel industry development plan using other assessment techniques and models.

Authors contributions

Mohsen Hesami Arani: Investigation, Writing—original draft Writing – review & editing.

Mahdiyeh Mohammadzadeh, Roshanak Rezaei Kalantary, and Shabnam Hooshmand Rad: Writing – review & editing.

Mehrdad Moslemzadeh and Neamatollah Jaafarzadeh: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.