Potential Hazards and Reclemation of Uncontrolled Landfill in Kemalpaţa - Izmir
Davut Ozdaglar, Ertugrul Erdin, Sevgi Tokgöz, Haydar Cosar
SUMMARY:
Kemalpasa is located 29 km from IZMIR city it has 660 km2 areas including 35 km river basin on the east-west IZMIR to ANKARA road. Kemalpasa district surrounded by Manisa from north, Bayindir and Torbali from south and finally Turgutlu and Bornova from east and west, respectively.
Kemalpasa county has been passing from agricultural ecosystem to industral ecosystem for long period of time. Today, this situation is still continuing. Industry was constructed on valuable fields and water sources without doing Environmental impact Assessment studies. Therefore, too may thing were destructed, Nowadays Nif Brooks is used as waste water discharge and solid waste receiving media while it was a place to where people were going for picnic and hunting fish for 15 years ago.
Above 167 factories, 200 poultries and l50 cattle farms were constructed with the development of industry since l970. The population was increased rapidly parallel to industrialization.
This event was also happened in one of the most agricultural area in Kemalpasa county. It became nonagricultural area due to rapid industrialization. The water, air and soil pollution caused by industry goes out of Kemalpasa county lines mixed to Gediz River by Nif Brook and then carried to Aegean sea and polluted it.
Polluted soil caused by environmental pollution leads to decrease in the yield and consequently economic loss of farmers.
One of the most important issue in county is absence of perfect completed solid waste projects. The generated wastes, from industries treatment plant sludge and from factories plants toxic - hazardous wastes and domestic wastes disposed arbitrary to land, forest areas and in to Nif Brooks. Solid wastes was collected and disposed without controlling in 67 landfills on 17 ha area.
By investigation the potential of the unorganized landfill sites in Kemalpasa, not only the present situation is important, the accumulated solid waste amount from the passed years should also be taken in to consideration. So there must related the present landfill position with passed years solid waste amount and also with present situation solid waste generation potential. In this paper, it was aimed to show environmental pollution problem of Kemalpasa because of arbitrary dispose of solid wastes and to recount starts for sanitation of landfill areas.
1. INTRODUCTION
Kemalpa¦a county has been passing from agriculture economy to industry economic for long period of time. Today, this situation is still continuing. Industry established arbitrary on productive agricultural areas because of advantageous of getting cheep water, electricity and area around Bornova and Kemalpa¦a/IZMIR.
Industry was constructed on valuable fields and water sources without doing Environmental impact Assessment studies. Therefore, too may thing were destructed, Nowadays Nif Brooks is used as waste water discharge and solid waste receiving media while it was a place to where people were going for picnic and hunting fish for 20 years ago.
Above 160 factory, 200 poultry and l50 cattle farm was constructed with the development of industry since l970. The population was increased rapidly parallel to industrialization.
It is well known, "National Environment Plan" hasn't been done in TURKEY yet. Also environment organization plan for each region is absent. There is only place improvement plan for organization. However, these plans are not mostly applied completely. Therefore unorganized and distorted urbanization was occurred in most places of our country and factories was constructed on agricultural areas (ÝZMÝR ÝL YILLIÐI, 1994).
This event was also happened in one of the most agricultural area in Kemalpa¦a plain. It became nonagricultural area due to rapid industrialization. The water, air and soil pollution caused by industry goes out of Kemalpa¦a county lines mixed to Gediz River by Nif Brook and then carried to Aegean sea and polluted it.
Polluted soil caused by environmental pollution leads to decrease in the yield and consequently economic loss of farmers. High agricultural yield of county depends on limited water sources. The industry without infrastructure aspire to already limited water while it is one which both consumed and pollute water.
Kemalpa¦a Organized Industrial Region "KOSBÝ", which was planed in 1991 and because functional in 1994, was constructed to prevent unorganized industrial development and to plan and to control industrialization. Today, it has 410 ha area of which 69 % is already used. Fortunately, it is thought as to increase its capacity from 410 ha to 1000 ha with 144 % rising in total area due to high industrialization demand. The border of "KOSBÝ" starts from Belkahve and reached to Tetra Pak Nasa¦ Industry line. Yet the area in increasing area capacity is not along but it was planed to enlarge it around Ankara road (TRAV, 1994).
However, when environmental effects of preset industry in this region is considered, it is obviously seen that how capacity increase in "KOSBÝ" will have environmental destruction in Ke
malpa¦a.
It will be a big problem to supply water to new construction in KOSBÝ due to already polluted and un enough water resources. It is compulsory to find new resources beside to reusing and saving water.
One of the most important problems in county is absence of solid waste projects. The product wastes, from industries treatment sludge from plants toxic-hazardous wastes and domestic wastes disposed arbitrary to lad, forest areas and in to Nif Brooks. Solid wastes was collected without controlling in 67 unorganized dumping places on 19 ha area due to absence of planned solid waste landfill.
The Determination of The Hydrologic Situation in the former landfills:
Samples in the groundwater flow direction should be taken from several wells to fix present situation. Then the (Karstic) structure or the aquifers should be investigated. Determination of the infiltration of surface waters into groundwater and their directions determination of antropogen and non-antrapogen parameters. Setting of geohydrochemicals furthermore sample points with high representation capability should be investigated and samples from these points should be taken.
Some groundwater control stations should be established. Observations wells are opened with 50 m intervals (DIN 4022 text 1).
The measurement interval depends on the usage of the groundwater and the pollutants concentration. So the interval can be rendered or rarefied.
Determining the organic and inorganic compound group shows us from which industry the pollutant comes from. Therefore this analyze is very important.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE COUNTY OF KEMALPAÝA
2.1 The Place and Location of Kemalpa¦a in The Region
Kemalpa¦a is located 29 km east of ÝZMÝR city it has 660 km
2 areas including 35 km river basin on the east-west ÝZMÝR to ANKARA road. Kemalpa¦a district surrounded by Manisa from north, Bayìndìr and Torbalì from south and finally Turgutlu and Bornova from east and west, respectively (Kemalpa¦a Municipality, 1994).
2.2 Geological and Geomorphological Structures of The Study Areas
Kemalpa¦a plain can be examined as two parts. One of them is a alluvional plain which is a plateau between Küçük Menderes and Ýzmir areas. The other is Bozdaº which spread towards the east is origin of metamorphic rock.
Slope materials of the Nif mountain are formed by the sediments which were produced by breaking down and depositing in the suitable conditions, formed by the digeneses during the geological periods. Road material formed by the slope wash and stream bold sediments (alluvium) is a type of the weak material. This material is consist of limestone gravel, sandy clays. The faults observed in the study area has been gathered under two groups. One of them trending in E-W direction is older then the second. The second one is trending in N-S direction. There are two litological units generally observation the residential area. While the alluvium and slope wash material observed in north of the state highway located between Kemalpa¦a and Torbalì towns, upper cretaceous aged limestone unit having frequently jointed with high void ration is observed in northern slopes of the Nif mountain. The area is found in strip of the first degree earthquakes.
2.3 Soil Material
Composition of the soil material in the county is formed by the alluvium material and of the sandy clay and sandy silty clay.
Northern and eastern parts of the residential area are formed by the alluvial materials and that of the southern parts area formed by the reddish brown colored soil materials (terra-rosa soils). Western parts of the residential areas are formed by the brown colored soil materials. Alluvial soils are formed by A and B Horizons. This soils are formed by the completely transported materials. Thus, these materials mentioned above are transported and irregularly deposited in the base of the valley and slopes of the mountain.
A-horizon having 53cm. thickness is in deep
B-horizon is located in after the A-horizon.
The compositions of these zones have very kind of materials such as sandy clay silty clay and/or silty, clayey sands. Red colored soils having A and B zones are formed under the "climate conditions of mediterranean".
Soil material of Kemalpa¦a plain which have deep horizons is permeable. Level of groundwater table which hasn't saltiness, acidity and alcality problems is normal in the area.
2.4 Vegetation and Agriculture
Vegetation basically consist of forest, marshy and agricultural areas. Total area of Kemalpa¦a is 66,000 ha of which distribution is given in the following
Forest and Marshy : 37,916 ha (57.40 %)
Agricultural area : 25,714 ha (39.00 %)
River Basin and unusable land : 2,265 ha ( 3.50 %)
Meadow and Pasture : 110 ha ( 0.10 %)
Although economy of Kemalpa¦a depends on agriculture, only 8,500 farmer family earn money by farmising. Developing industry in Kemalpa¦a is food sector which processes agricultural yields of this region. The forest includes ruddy pine and scrub and most frequently growing fruits cherry oil, grape and peach.
After first industry was established in Kemalpa¦a 1970, the number of industry increased rapidly between 1974-1977 years. However, new factories was constructed on the productive agricultural lands. Unfortunately use of most productive areas for construction of new industries still continue. That's why, industrialization effected agriculture of Kemalpa¦a negatively.
There are 4 types of soil (1 th,2 nd, 3 rd, 4 th) in terms of soil guality. South/South-West and North/North-West of Kemalpa¦a consist 4 th and 2 nd class soil. Two times harvesting per year is possible and best cherry of Turkey grows in this region.
300,000 produces, 120,000 cherry three present the climate and the location of Kemalpa¦a is very suitable to grows different types of vegetable and fruit and also presence of vegetation. Natural beauteous and forest regress attract people for touristic purposes.
However vegetation and forest areas are continuously destructed to get field or to construct industry. The number of endogenous plants decreases or they are completely last during these destruction. Natural ecosystem replace industrial ecosystem.
The presence of 27 types agricultural plant, 24 kind fruit and 3 types vegetable, totally 82 plant types was determined in Kemalpa¦a. Developed agriculture is one of the most important effect in the growth of mainly food industry. However the Kemalpa¦a plain because a land on which it is unable to make agriculture due to urbanization and industrialization.
2.5 Climate and Meteorology
Due to geographic position of Ýzmir city, all the district of Ýzmir show same climatic characters. Mediterairon climate is dominant in Kemalpa¦a so 4 season are lived evidently. Tropical air masses are effective in the hat term while it is polar areas in the cold period. The climate in Kemalpa¦a is stranger that Ýzmir because of its location. The temperature is 2-5°C is lover then Ýzmir. Fro
st end snow is very rare. The average predominant wind in eleven month of one year is on south to west direction.
The average temperature in the summer is 17-18°C and 7°C in winter. The average raining of last 30 years is 659.1 mm (and it is 573 mm for last 10 years). 85 % of annual raining is in November, December, January, February and March. Rainy days in Ýzmir as an average is 79.9 day while it is 81.9 day in Kemapa¦a. The minimum amount of rain , which is 19.8 mm, seen on August with on average 64 % moisture.
2.6 Hydrographic Properties
Water resources of Kemalpa¦a divided to surface and groundwater. Most important water source is Nif Stream which comes from Ulucak Village and pass across plain on east to west direction. After that it cross 25 th Ankara road, and linked to Gediz River. Nif Stream is fed by several small surface waters coming from Nif Mountain. However, in summer time, some of the sources of Nif Stream dries which causes decrease in the flow rate of stream.
Sofular and Kaynak are basic brooks mixed to Nif Stream. The name of the stream is Çiçekli around. Ulucak village some of the local brooks are Armutlu, Baºyurdu, Köplüce, Soºukpìnar, Savandaº, Ortabent and Hilal. The plain is very riches in terms of groundwater. There are around 450 artesien well which supplies 90 % of water need it is passible to get water from 200 m deep in some places. While it is 3-10 m deep at the north of the plain. However it is to much sondaged and is polluted by industrial and domestic waste water and solid wastes. Therefore utility of groundwater is now less.
2.7 Population
The population of county is 56,075. The number of people living in the center of Kemalpa¦a Municipality is 16,354, it is 3,605 in Ulucak, 2,075 in Yukarìkìzìlca, 5,804 in Armutlu, 3,476 in Ören and 5,426 in Baºyurdu Municipality. There are total 19,335 people in 31 village of county.
Table 2.1.: Distribution and density of population
┌───────────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬──────────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │Population│
│ │ │ │ │ Area │Density │
│ │Total │ Male │Female │ km2 │ Person │
│ ├───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┤
│ City │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Population│ 16,354│ 8,359│ 7,995│ │ │
├───────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┤ │ │
│ Village │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Population│ 39,721│ 30,370│ 19,351│ 660 │ 85 │
├───────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┤ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Total │ 56,075│ 28,729│ 27,346│ │ │
└───────────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴──────────┘
Every year 10,000 family from all over Turkey, which is above Turkish average, are migrating to Ýzmir. One of the main county in which migrates settle is Kemalpa¦a. The distribution of migrants according to their orients is
as following; firstly 52.9 % is from Eastern Anatolia secondly 20.3 % people from Aegean Region and sequentially from Black sea and Mediterranean Region.
The people coming from different place of Turkey live with their traditional and culture. There aren't important movements in population. Because the number of emigrants and immigrants is close to each other and population doesn't varies seasonal in year (Kemalpa¦a Municipality, 1994).
2.8 Economics
Although economy of Kemalpa¦a was depend on private agriculture and cattle dealing in the near past, developing industry lead to improvement of agriculture to industrial agriculture. There are 140 factories beside to 5 million poultry, 5,000 bee hives, 30,000 sheep and 24,500 cattle (Environmental Control Unit, 1994).
Because of development forward west, presence of waste water treatment plants and agricultural areas in north and presence of drinking water resource Tahtalì Damp and airport in south of ÝZMÝR, new industrial areas are not created. This situation causes industrialization of Kemalpa¦a.
The industry, which was established without infrastructure or Environmental impact assessment on the most productive agricultural areas and on the line of rich groundwater and Nif Brook's, threats natural sources of Kemalpa¦a. The industry was constructed on 90 % productive farming land and they discharged waste water and solid wastes arbitrary and caused presence of unorganized solid waste deponies (Ýzmir Ýl Yìllìºì, 1994).
3. THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SOLID WASTE POTENTIAL IN KEMALPAÝA
3.1 Investigation of Solid Waste Potential
By investigation the potential of the un organized land fill sites in Kemalpa¦a, not only the present situation is important, the accumulated solid waste amount from the passed years should also be taken in to consideration. So there must related the present deponi position with passed years solid waste amount and also with present situation solid waste generation potential.
The daily production of solid waste is examined in two parts;
1- Solid waste from settled population
2- Solid waste from industries
The total amount of 86,726 l/day solid waste consists of 3 part; 80,411 l/day domestic waste, 4,430 l/day commercial wastes and 1,885 l/day is slaughterhouse waste. Commercial wastes consist of wastes collected from the shops, bazaar, street and officiate buildings.
143,351 l/day industrial wastes consist of 3 fractions; 9,704 l/day from employers, 61,715 l/day total product waste and 71,932 l/day total sludge from treatment facilities. The product waste and sludge are consist individual to removed amount and to be disposed amount part.
The 27,000 product waste and 15,696 l/day sludge amount of wastes are removed and benefit to economy and other amount of wastes are pored to disposel area.
The 34,715 amount of product wastes are disposed but it's also consist of 2 parts: 2,351 l/day amount of degradable and 32,364 l/day amount is non degradable.
56,236 l/day amount of disposed sludge is also consist 2 part: the amount of 10,395 l/day is degradable and 45,841 l/day is non degradable sludge.
The amount of 22,450 l/day waste has domestic characteristic and it is coming from employers, product and from sludge degradable wastes.
When the 22,450 domestic characteristic waste accumulate with amount of 86,726 population solid waste for obtaining the total 109,176 l/day domestic solids waste.
When the total 109,176 and 78,205 l/day amount of total non degradable solid wastes accumulate there are obtaining the amount of 187,381 l/day total solid waste formation for dispose in Kemalpa¦a county.
9 industrial sectors solid waste distribution in Kemalpa¦a county. For the 1,249,196 t/year product, there are preparing the amount of 67,625 kg/year total waste. But the 16,980 kg/year part is recover and the other is pour to disposal area.
By the investigation of all these waste potential, there had to make used of questionnaire form, legal documents, some information and literature surveyor sources.
For the population domestic solid waste calculation there had been used (1). and (2). formula (ERDÝN, 1990).
V = 0.28.N(0.14) (1)
G = 0.43.N(-0.013) (2)
V = Specific solid waste volume (l/Ca.day), G = Bulk density (kg/l), N = population (person), Ca = Capita
According to 61,356 peoples solid waste generating 1994 basis, there are considering to used 1.310 l/day special solid waste volume and 0.373 kg/l bulk density.
3.2 Determination of The Distribution of Solid Wastes Between The Years 1965-1995
Solid wastes produced, in the earlier times, have been withdrawn arbitrarily, consequently unorganized landfills are formed. The solid wastes coming to the unorganized landfills are examined as domestic and industrial respectively.
3.2.1 Distribution of The Solid Waste Coming From The Settled
Population
The sources of the solid waste coming from the settled population are houses, shops and slaughterhouse. The domestic waste generation since 1965 and volume reduction 30 % due to biodegradation is given in Table 5.3. For the calculation of Table 5.3 there are used (1). and (2). equations.
If this equations is used it can be seen that the waste volume per capita is increasing with the population increase. The specific waste volume at the beginning of 1994 Vs = 1.31 l/capita.day. As in Table 5.3 the accumulated waste volume of 617,947 m3 has decreased to 432,598 m3 due to degradation. As in Table 5.4 it is explained the commercial waste volume of 34,047 m3 generated in the past decreased 30 % and 23,833 waste remained at the unorganized landfill.
The slaughterhouse wastes, listed at Table 5.5, as weight and volume, show a increasing from the 1984. The 5,307 m3 carnage wastes generated in lost 11 years biodegraded 80 % and its volume is 1,061 m3 As result, the rest of the residential wastes (657,351 m3) from the biodegradation is 457,492 m3 as landfill volume.
The data about the carnage wastes are reported according to the interview with the carnage directors and the questionnaire results.
3.2.2 The Distribution of The Industrial Solid Wastes
This title is investigated under the subtitles of the solid wastes generated from the working stuff, and the solid wastes generated from the activities of the industries.
3.2.2.1 The Solid Wastes Generated From The Working Stuff
The industries have generated solid wastes since 1974 significantly, and the solid wastes of working stuff is calculated from that date. The generated domestic solid waste of the working stuff is 33,526 m3 until today, and the rest waste from the biodegradation is 24,868 m3.
The calculations are made according to the answers of the questionnaires. The personal domestic solid waste production of the working stuff is found as 0.31 l/capita.day.
3.2.2.2 Manufacturing and Treatment Sludge Wastes
At Table 5.7 and 5.8, the sectoral solid waste distribution of the food, metal, mine, chemistry, textile, rubber and plastic, cellulose and paper, and tannery industries are given.
According to the Table 5.7, 91,348 m3 of the 253,178 m3 solid waste from the manufacturing is recovered, rest of it is tipped at landfills. The 27,865 m3 of the 128,987 m3 treatment sludge is recovered, rest of it is discharged to the landfills. That shows the 119,213 m3 of the 382,165 m3 total solid was recovered,and rest part of 262,952 m3 is tipped at landfills. If the data above is summarized; the 30 % of the biologic wastes decreased by biodegradation and the 20 % of the inert wastes decreased by settlement when the total amount of the solid waste generated at recent years is 955,829 m3.
Because of that, 198,143 m3 solid waste volume is observed instead of 692,722 m3 solid waste indicated at Table 5.9, of part 5.3.1 by the investigation of uncontrolled landfills. So, 494,579 m3 solid waste polluted the environment by transportation by surface water and incineration.
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ uncontrolled waste sites│
└────────────┬────────────┘
┌────────────┴─────────────┐
0 │ possible hazard potential│
└────────────┬─────────────┘
┌────────────┴──────────────┐
┌─────────┴────────┐ ┌────────┴───────┐
│ existing contami-│ │latent contami- │
│ nation potential │ │nation potential│
└─────────┬────────┘ └────────────────┘
┌─────┴──────┬────────────┬────────────┐
┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴───┐
│ gaseous │ │ fluid │ │ solid │ │ direct │
│emissions│ │emissions│ │emissions│ │contacts│
└─────────┘ └────┬────┘ │ (dust) │ └────────┘
│ └─────────┘
┌──────┴────────┐
┌──────┴─────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐
│ground water│ │surface water│
└────────────┘ └─────────────┘
Figure 2.1. Possible hazard potential, contamination of and
emissions from abandoned waste disposal sites
┌───────────────┐
┌───────────────┤ SCREENING ├─────────────────┐
│ │1.Analytic step│ │
│ └─┬───────────┬─┘ │
│ │ │ │
┌───────┴───────┐ ┌───────┴────┐ ┌────┴──────┐ ┌──────────┴───────────┐
│ Canalized │ │ Canalized │ │ Canalized │ │ Canalized │
│ parameters │ │ parameters │ │ parameters│ │ parameters │
│ BOAR │ │ SULPHATE │ │ AOX │ │Gas chromotog. results│
├───────────────┤ ├────────────┤ ├───────────┴─┴──────────────────────┤
│Domestic solid │ │Rubble stone│ │ Chemical waste │
│waste indicator│ │ indicator │ │ indicator │
└───────┬───────┘ └─────┬──────┘ └────────┬───────────────┬───────────┘
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
┌────┴───────────────┴──┐ ┌─────────┴───────┐ ┌─────┴───────────┐
│Emission indicator │ │Hologynic organic│ │Information about│
│old deponi-ground water│ │compounds │ │total organic │
│contact │ ├─────────────────┤ │contamination │
└───────────────────────┘ │ │ ├─────────────────┤
│ Quantitative │ │ Qualitive │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
Figure 2.2. The aim of first elimination steps and canalized parameters
┌──────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMATIC MATTER│ │ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMATIC MATTER│
│ 2. Analytic step │ │ 2. Analytic step │
└───────────────┬──────────────┘ └───────────────┬──────────────┘
┌─────────┴────────┐ ┌────────┴─────────┐
│inorganic matters │ │ organic matters │
└─────────┬────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘
┌──────────────────┴─────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┴─────────────────────┐
│ Group 1 (Germany, AT directive) │ │ Matter which are included in (Black) │
│ Toxic matters │ │ list of European Community, present │
├────────────────────────────────────┤ │ in "Hazardous Waste List" of EPA │
│1. priority : AS, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, CN│ │ and all matters of which measurable │
│2. priority : Be, HG, Sb, Se, V ...│ │ concentration in old deponies is │
│ (Targets) │ │ higher than 1 mg/l │
└──────────────────┬─────────────────┘ └──────────┬───────────────────┬─────────┘
┌──────────────────┴─────────────────┐ ┌──────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐
│ Group 2 (At directive) │ │ Reference matter ││ Reference matter │
│ Unwanted matters │ │ with halogens ││ without halogens │
├────────────────────────────────────┤ └──────────┬────────┘└─────────┬─────────┘
│1. priority : Cu, Zn, Fe (Fe) │ ┌──────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐
│ NO3, NH4, TOC │ │ Group 1 ││ Group 1 │
│2. priority : NO2, F, Co, Ba, Ag ...│ │ ││ │
│ (Targets) │ │Dichlormethan ││ Benzol │
└────────────────────────────────────┘ │Trichlormethan ││ Toluol │
│Tetrachlormethan ││ Ethylbenzol │
Fig 2.3. Content of inorganic Analysis │1,1,1-Trichlorethan││ Xylole │
│Trichlorethen ││ Isopropylbenzol │
│Tetrachlorethen ││ │
│ ││ │
│ Group 2 ││ Group 2 │
│ ││ │
│1,1-Dichlorethan ││ Di-n-butylphthalat│
│1,2-Dichlorethan ││ Diethylphthalat │
│1,1-Dichlorethen ││ 2-ethylhexyl │
│Tribromethan ││ 2-methylphenol │
│Chlodibromethan ││ Naphthalene │
│Chlorbenzol ││ │
└───────────────────┘└───────────────────┘
Figure 2.4. Content of organic analysis
┌────────────────┐
│Detail Analysis │
│3. Analytic step│
└────────────────┘
┌─────┐ ┌────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐
│CC-MS│ │HPLC│ │Other analysis│ │Sediment analysis │
└─────┘ └────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────────┘
┌───────────── ┐┌───────────────┐┌────────────────────┐┌────────────┐┌────────────┐
│Determination ││"Finger prints"││Effect test ││ Organic ││ inorganic │
│of matter ││polar compounds││"Mikrotox" │├────────────┤├────────────┤
│by gas polar ││ ││Acetylcholinesterase││Matters ││Heavy metals│
│chromatography││PAH ││inhibition ││dissolve ││inorganic │
│compounds │└───────────────┘└────────────────────┘│less in ││carbon and │
│ │ ┌─────────────┐ │water and ││in clay │
│2 Step │ │Radionucleids│ │has sorptive│└────────────┘
└──────────────┘ │234U, 238U │ │of finite │
│90Sr, 226Ra │ └────────────┘
└─────────────┘
┌─────────────┐
│Phenolindex ?│
└─────────────┘
Figure 2.5. Detail analyzes of ground water contaminated by old deponies
┌──────────┐
│EVALUATION│
└──────────┘
┌───────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐
│Presence of hidjenic inconvient│ │Hazardous waste load ratio│
│matter and its concentration ├──┤of profit by │
├───────────────────────────────┤ │ (matter balance) │
│Comparison of influent flow │ └────────────┬─────────────┘
│with effluent comparison with │ │
│European community standards │ ┌────────────┴──────────┐
│or drinking water standard ├──┤Estimation of dangerous│
│ │ └───┬────────────────┬──┘
│Comparison with matter list or │ │ │
│with others of AT and EPA │ │ │
│ │ ┌───┴───┐ ┌─────┴─────┐
│Effect test │ │Control│ │Improvement│
└───────────────────────────────┘ └───────┘ └───────────┘
Figure 2.6. Evaluation and interpretation of contamination ground water
CONCLUSIONS
Uncoltrolled industrialization and urbanization is continuing on in the distric without any preventions for environmental pollution and there are totally 67 uncontrolled landfills of which 21 of them are large.
Among these uncontrolled landfills the ones having worst canditions are shown in figure 4,5 and 7, at fife landfills. These covar total 169,820 m² area on the qay of rich ground and surface water resources
Also, for the past years, it was determined that solid wastes were being incinerated under uncontrolled conditions and also solid waste were left to biologically decompose in the open areas. As a result of these hoppenings it was calculated that approximately 29,447 nm3of waste gas was given to the area negatively.
The average precipitation in the district was found to be 659.1 mm/year. As a resolt of this precipitation folling on the uncontrolled lendfill areas where oll kinds of hazardous, organic and inorganic wastes were being deposited, the leaching water having a volume of 22,386-55,964 m3/year, assumed to be polluting the ground and surface waters of the district as explained in section 5.4.2. Also since they were infiltrating to the soil it was thought that they were consumed by the plants and entered the food chain.
As a result, the uncontrolled landfill sites in this district shoul be improved as it was given in and an appropriate solid waste disposal method should be chosen and applied in this region immediately
RECOMMENDATIONS
As it was stated before, the purpose of this study was determining the existing situation in Kemalpa¦a district in terms of environmental pollution caused by solid wastes produced. In order to enlage the scope of the study analytical investigations should also be performed as the second and the therd step. This way it will be possible to determine the source and extent of surface and groundwater pollutions. Then it wilkl be more appropriate to propose a certain improvement method.
In Kemalpa¦a, industrialization and urbanization were both developed in an uncontrolled manner. The pollution problems as a resold of this development were very intense. For example in Kemalpa¦a, a food industry which has waste gas emissions functions next to a chemical industry. If an environmental impact study had been done previously, these two different factories would not be placed next to each other.
Kemalpa¦a Organized Industrial Distric (KOSBÝ), which began functioning in 1994 will enlarge its areas, if possible 1,000 ha by an addition of 590 ha to its already existing area. This will cause industrialization in the region to increase plas 2.5 times which will cause 2.5 times more pollution problems . This may be very dangerous for Kemalpa¦a from environmental point of view. But as a result of it is supposed that the Organized Industrial District, industrialization will continue on in a controlled
manner and the industries will be careful in chosing environmentally friendly technologies.
As it was stated in section 5, the uncontrolled landfill sites in Kemalpa¦a region should be improved as soon as possible and a sanitary landfill site should be formed. Of course site selection for a sanitary landfill is not something that could be done by 2 or 3 people. This kind of decision should be given after an environmental impact report is preparet by a group of scientists. The "Solid Waste Control Regulation" inacted in 14th May 1991 in the official nevspaper number 20814, gives the official
measures to be taken for solid wastes in Turkey. So it is very important to take the advices of various experts in this area in orde to find the best solution.
As a resould of all these aspects, the most appropriate and economic solution for the solid wastes of Kemalpa¦a was found to be sanitary landfill. But in order to increas the operation period of this sanitary lanfill, recycling technologies should be improved for solid wastes also they should be seperated at their sources, and environmentally friendly technologies should be chosen by the industries which minimize wastes while maximiz production.
4.3. INVESTIGATION INFORMATION and DOCUMENTS OF ABOUT UNORGANIZED
LANDFILLS
4.3.1 Investigation All of Unorganized LANDFILLS Position
In this part we have some experience about study of unorganized landfill areas. Firstly prepared unorganized landfill areas maps and then determined volume, weight, and sources of with species of wastes. The study has started from west Kemalpa¦a region and for this study there are using maps and photographs.
As it can be seen the U1 landfill is an area of 1,940 m², which is contain only percentage of 90 % rubble and excavation solid wastes matter. It is located on to Nif Brook which is filled approximately with 350 m3 (480 ton) wastes. May be these wastes transport by water to other sites and this environmental impact is unavoidable. So there is very bad choice for this landfill areas location.
the U2 landfill is an area of 1,420 m² which is located edge of Nif Brook. This deponi has filled only with sources of industrial marble residual matter. It has 3,124 m3 (4,680 ton), natural waste material and it hasn't contaminate waste. Time to time this marble waste transport some other filling sites.
U3. landfill is an area of 600 m² which is located edge of Nif Brook. It has filled usually with domestic waste and animal dung wastes. The unorganized landfill has 240 m3 (144 ton) amount of wastes. In winter the wastes transport to far by precipitation water and it polluted to Nif Brook and in summer it make fly with bad smell.
Ulucak Municipality old landfill (U5) is an area of 2,220 m². It is located close to soil road and Ulucak Brook, has been closed 6 month a go. These landfill had been used only for domestic solid waste nearly 20 years. So these deponi had storaged approximately 4,000 m3 waste. Namely in spite of 1.5 km fare to center of Ulucak the deponi is given pollution to environment such as fly, bad smell, dust and leakage waster etc.
show that the 450 m² areas of the new Ulucak landfill site (U6). It had been used six month only for domestic wastes. But the location of this landfill area is very bad. Because the landfill is located from first class agricultural area. Ulucak Municipality find another alternative new landfill area. It is (40,000 m2 area) located at civciv forrest situation and it is close to residential area like 2 km. If the investigation resuld will be approval for landfill area, the Ulucal Municipality wants to stop using the U6 landfill in the future 6 month. In these deponi there are only 550 m3 waste but usually it is burning by the Ulucak Municipality personal and it gives very bad gas emission to air. The other pollutant is by precipitation water, solid waste and leakage water are transport to other site. So the U6 landfill location is not suitable.
U7 is an area of 4,630 m² and it is located to behind to coca cola industry. Ulucak municipality has find this deponi and gives permeation to marble and construction equipment industry to poured their treat sludge. Some sludge may be have hazarded composition which is description in chapter 5.3.2 is shown the heavy metal laud. This landfill has iron door so the poured waste are controlled. Only some marble and construction industry are uses this landfill and it is like monodeponi form.
The landfill U8 is located to between ݦta¦ industries garden an Nif Brook. It has similar properties like U2 landfill. Only the ݦta¦ firms poured itself product marble wastes
to this area. These landfill particularity has 2,220 m² area and 5,550 m3 value of marble solid waste but there aren't storage treatment sludge.
U9 is an area of 14,860 m² and it has 22,290 m3 wastes. There are percentage of 70 % marble and karo treat sludge and product wastes. But other percentage has consist of tannery treat sludge, metal treat sludge, asbestosis and domestic wastes. The location sites is very bed think. Because it is directly located on to Nif Brook, so this deponi waste is usually transport to Nif and it's contaminate. This position is seem at the Nif Brook surface water laboratory analyses resold compare in chapter 5.3.2.
the U10 landfill site is an area of 2,570 m² lies between "Pìnar Et" and Ankara highways. This landfill looks like a stripe and usually consist of rubble and excavation wastes, industrial wastes and domestic wastes. Due to it's easy place near the highway the deposition of wastes is rather convenient.
Landfill sites K11, which is one of the biggest unorganized landfill, show us that this sites is close to the Ankara highway. Ceramic, tannery, metal and paper industries pores their treatment sludge very frequently to this landfill area and it contains lots of heavy metals. The chemical composition looks like the description of given in chapter 3.3.2. It has an area of 24,200 m² and it is filled with approximately 60,500 m3 solid waste. However this landfill is not used as a disposal area; it's used in an uncontrollable manner as a flattening purposes.
For such purposes a certain method should be applied: First the weight of the incoming solid waste should have been measured and a selection of not hazardous filling material should have been made. In the other words a control at the entrance of the landfill site is essential. If the explained precautions are not provided certain problems will occur in case of building some constructions on this area. These problems are fore example raising of the ground water level and there fore solving of some materials in seem to be unavoidable.
Landfill K12 contains only rubble and excavation materials. Total area of it has 4,000 m² and it is uses more controlled in comparison to other landfill sites.
Kemalpa¦a Municipality landfill is an area of 9,400 m². Usually this landfill is using only for domestic wastes and with industrial sources of domestic species wastes. But time to time metal and tannery factories hazarded treatment sludge (sludge characteristic description in chapter 5.3.2) also have been poured to this landfill. When we looking of all landfill location, the Kemalpa¦a Municipality landfill is the most bad area. Because all of these landfill wastes had been poured to Nif Brook and solid wastes are mix with surface water and it's seem very clearly at photo 5.g.
Nif Brook's water is coming and passing in the Kemalpa¦a Municipality landfill and carry wastes to other sites. Ýt is clearly that some milk cows are eats waste matter. So there are possible to wastes effect harmfully those cows. And than when peoples eats these caws meat and milky product, the harmful matter will be able to move to humans body. So becoming to illness is unavoidable for alive. However in the rain seasons most of waste are transport and contaminate by Nif Brook water way to Gediz River and to Aegean Sea. May be The naturel sources of waters becoming to contaminate. So these K13 landfill must be transport from original site to other site.
Yukarìkìzìlca Municipality have four landfill which are Y15, Y16, Y17 and Y18. The Y15, is an oldest landfill area of 1,950 m², had been used 10 years. But now it is not use. It had filled only by domestic wastes and than covered by soil. The Y16 landfill is also not using now. It has an area of 1,080 m² and it is similar and close to Y15 landfill. But their location of situation are not available and astatic.
When these Y15 and Y16 landfills closed by the Yukarìkìzìlca Municipality manager, they couldn't find to other suitable landfill area. So they decided to using Y17 and Y18 landfills are sites for disposes their domestic wastes. These areas are located in the pine grove forrest. Y17 andY 18 landfill, all of wastes are storage directly to forrest area but those are cover by soil material time to time for prevent to burning. This position is very harmful for these beautiful trees. During the project we are investigate with Kemalpa¦a Environment Control Department to find other alternative landfill areas for stop to Y17 and Y18 areas using. And for temporary time the A area which is seem from map 8, is suggested inside of to Y17 and Y18 areas. It is known this A, area is also not suitable for waste filling but it is lass harmful to environment health then Y17 and Y18 areas.
The Armutlu Municipality A19 landfill is located to close to Ay Brook. It has 17,580 m² area and only domestic wastes and food industries wastes are storage in these landfill. It is very big area but municipality isn't uses it regularly with their controlling. So all of wastes had been pouring to this landfill during the eight years. The location area has the sources of old gravel bed so it has very disadvantage for infiltration of waste leakage water to ground water. In the rainy seasons some times these landfill filling with water approximately 50 cm high and all of solid wastes mixed with water.
There isn't covering with soil effectively to waste and not doing chemical spraying to disinfection to fly. Because all wastes had been pouring very scattered in this landfill. So there is impossible to controlling the land fill for taking some prevention and improvement.
In these position the 10,550 m3 waste volume is doing very big environment problem such as fly, bad small gases, dust and leakage.
The Ören Municipality Ö20 landfill is an are of 850 m² is located to edge of Ören Brook and 100 m far of the center. These landfill had been used approximately 15 years only for domestic solid wastes filling. The Municipality personals are cover and does chemical spraying to prevention fly regularly. So there is seen very lass fly. But it is not enough. Because, during the filling all of leakage and some solid waste transport by Ören Brook water to other sites and contaminate environment health. The 1,280 m3 waste must be transport to suitable sanitation landfill area. Because, it is very near the residential areas and there is possible to effect humans health.
Baºyurdu Municipality B21 landfill is the most big area of 67,750 m² according to others landfills. It had been using during the 30 years only for domestic wastes, animal dung, slaughterhouses and for excavation wastes are disposed. When we compare with the other landfill there is seen the Baºyurdu landfill is the most scatter area big the volume 54,200 m3 so it had been destroyed very big productivity agricultural areas.
It is very difficult to covering the waste by chemical spraying for prevention to flays because of the big areas. Baºyurdu landfill is located in Hayìtlìk area and on to Sinancìlar Brook with on to old gravel bad. In the rainy season it takes very precipitation and it's grate very big contaminate water. So it is possible to contaminate to environment health.
In this study only 21 of the landfills among the total 67 landfills were studied detailed. The 46 landfills which were not investigated were the ones which had at most 150 m² area in the region of villages or Municipalities. Some of the landfills in the 21 investigated ones were used for depositing only domestic solid wastes and some were used to deposit marble wastes which do not have harmful effects to the environment. The most important polluting landfills among these 21 are the U9, U10, and K11 landfills which have all kinds of solid wastes produced in the region and the K13 Kemalpa¦a landfill which has both domestic originated and hazardous solid wastes. To the K11 landfill area all kinds of domestic and hazardous wastes area disposed in an uncontrolled manner since it is a filling area. So environmental problems of this landfill area are really important.
Essentially these kind of filling areas should be under control by placing some one at the inlet of the area who is responsible from controlling the type of the solid waste brought to the landfill (it must hasn't hazardous properties) and also who will weigh the solid waste before it is disposed to the landfill.
the total area of all 67 landfills in the studied region was found to be 169,820 m², the total solid waste volume was found as 198,143 m3 (233,044 ton). As it was explained in section 5.2, the total solid waste volume in the landfills was determined as 692,722 m3, which is much higher than the solid waste volume determent for today. From the observation done in the landfill areas and from the results of questionnaire studies the reason for this decrease in solid waste volume was determined to be the incineration process applied frequently in the region to the solid wastes in the last years. Also, it was not possible to ratify some of the landfill areas since today there are some buildings over these areas, so the solid waste in these areas was not considered in this study.
Another reason for the decrease of total solid waste volume deposited at landfills is, Nif stream which carries some of solid wastes from the landfills on the route of its own bad. So it can be concluded that the 522,902 m3 difference in the solid waste volume between the past value determined as 692,722 m3 and the value determined by this study 169,820 m3, is the solid waste amount that caused environmental pollution.
4.3.2. The Pollution Load of the Hazardous Treatment Sludge at
Uncontrolled Landfill Sites.
At that part, the treatment sludge of Floor Plate (Qmi2), Ceramic (Qmi4), Tannery (Qta1), Old Paper (Qcp3) and Metal (Qm9) firms, which were operated between 1988 and 1995, are searched as other examples (Appendix 10.4). But any research was not done at the other firms which have hazardous treatment sludge, such as Chemistry (Qc2) firm, Floor Plate (Qmi1) firm, some metal industries and so on. The sampling and the analysis were done by the stuff of Kemalpa¦a Environmental Control Unit and the author by a formal way.
The distribution of 39,023 ton of treatment sludge, which occurred during the operating term by the only 5 firms mentioned above, is represented at Table 3.11 according to the years and firms. This sludge load was poured to the uncontrolled landfill sites, Nif broke and springs during the production term. 2 kg's of composite sludge samples were taken from the accumulated sludge of drying beds which represents the production variations of the firms at 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th month of 1994. During in between 1988-1995 there is assuming for 5 firms manufacturing technology, production capacity and treatment sludge amount had not been chancing. So there is used the years of 1994 laboratory result also for calculation of pollution laud which are represented at Table 5-13, 14,...19.
The analysis of Pp, Cd, Cu, Ni, Zn, Hg and Cr parameters are done at the sludge samples which are mentioned at the Regulations of Solid Waste Control (Türk Çevre Mevzuatì, 1992). The results of the analysis of the samples, which were taken by formal ways and were tested at the laboratories of Hìfzìssìhha, are given at the graphics of the analysis results at Figure 5.2. It show that the concentrations of Pp, Cd, Cu, Ni, Hg, Zn and Cr. In the sludge of metal (Qm9) firm are greater than the total concentrations of other firms. But the greatest Zn concentration is seen in the sludge of Ceramic (Qmi4) firm and the second Zn greater concentration is seen in the sludge of old paper (Qcp3) firm. The lowest heavy metal concentration in the treatment sludge is seen at the Qmi2 firm. These results show that the pollution character of the treatment sludge differs from firm to firm.
In Tables 3.-13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 the quantity and analysis results of the treatment sludge, which are indicated according to the pollution loads, are presented. The Figure 5.3.1-a, b, c, d, e, f, g graphic are gives the pollution loads distributions of each firm for a year of 1994 bases. The most first pollutant two firms of ceramic (Qmi4) and old paper (Qcp3) are respectively and also the less pollutant firms of Qmi2, Qm9 and Qta1 industries are also be seen at graphics.
According to the Tables and Figures, the total pollution load poured during the 7 year by the 5 firm above, is maximum 322 ton Zn and minimum 0.483 kg Hg, which can also be seen at the Table 5.20.
Distribution of the amount of heavy metals which are coming at 5 firms treatment plants are poured with total sludge to dumping area between 1988-1994.
The treatment sludge pollution loads which are description at Figure 5.3.2 had been poured during 7 years to uncontrolled landfills, some agricultural areas and surface waters by 5 firms. That condition continues and the U7, U9, and K11 landfill sites are mostly effected from the heavy metal pollution.
During the studies, the direct discharge of heavy metal contained treatment sludge of some firms to Nif brook was observed.
4.3.3. The Effect of Uncontrolled Landfills to The Environmental Areas
4.3.3.1. General
The landfills, which are indicated at Kemalpa¦a, are occurred at uncontrolled conditions, so they have effected the soil, water, air and natural life negatively. The leakage and biogas which occur in the landfills by biodegradation of organic materials are combined with rain and polluted the environment for long years. The people meet with this pollution as mentioned below.
4.3.3.2 Effect on Surface Waters
During the 30 years, the disposal of the solid waste of the town hasn't done under control and properly, and that caused the evaluation of 67 uncontrolled landfills which cover 169,820 m2 area. The landfills spread out on a wide area and 198,143 m3 solid waste included by these landfills are free to free with the precipitation and air movement. So, landfills are polluted the surface water and groundwater near their surroundings (Nif Brook and its branches). The pollution is carried by Nif Brook, Which likes a savage, to the agricultural areas by irrigation. It passes the boundary of the town by Gediz River and arrives the Aegean Sea.
The movement of the leakage and surface runoff water occurred at landfills can be seen at Figure 5.4. According to these Figure, a part of the waters enter to the landfill from the sides and top and there are occur leakage. The biodegradation of solid wastes is required for the stabilization of landfill sites. However because of the contact of rainwater, surface water, and ground water with un stabilized solid wastes, the products of the biodegradation transfer, to the water and pollute the environment. While these waters transport in the nature, they pollute all water sources at their surroundings.
At the U1, U3, U5, U9, K13, A19, Ö20, and B21 numbered landfills which are indicated at Table 5.21, the places where the directly pollute the surface waters can be seen.
Leakage production at all landfill areas :
The 80% of the precipitation rains in November, December, January, February and March in the town where the approximate precipitation of last 30 years in 659.1 mm/year. At Kemalpa¦a, 81.9 days/year precipitates and the lowest precipitation is in August as 19.8 mm. The yearly precipitation is greater than 40 mm. So the leakage production problem has a very hazardous perspective ( Türkiyenin Çevre Sorunlarì,1991 ).
For the calculation of the quantity of the leakage produced from 169,820 m2 landfill area is utilized from the result of a research done in Germany. At the research, leakage quantity measurement according to the precipitation high is followed in 13 landfill site in Germany. The variation of the quantity of leakage depends the looseness of the landfill. According to the result 20-25 % of the precipitation transforms to the leakage at the landfills which have close solid wastes, and 30-50 % of the precipitation transforms to the leakage at the landfills solid waste which have high looseness ( ERDÝN, 1994 ).
As can be seen at Table 5.22, the leakage is produced from the precipitation of 6,591 m3/ha.year at the landfill sites. However, these minimum leakage production of 22,386-27,987 m3/year occur during the 81.9 days/year rainy period of Kemalpa¦a town. That leakage produced from the landfill sites spread out the surroundings of the town, pollute the surface and ground wasters, and soil with its hazardous substances. This pollution have continued for 30 years. For example, the area which the solid wastes and treatment sludge of marble and floor plate firms are tipped, is set up on the land near Nif Brook that can be seen at Map 4 and Photo 5.e. The result of the analyses of the waster samples taken from Nif Brook before the landfill and after the landfill show ( Appendix 10.5, 10.6 ) the pollution capacity of that landfill. The samples were taken from the downstream of Akdeniz Tekstil (N1), Mopak (N2), Asma¦ (N3) and under the Ansìzca bridge (N4) Nif water and the results of the analyses are given at Figure 5.5-a, b, c, d ( ERAY, 1992 ).
The arithmetical medium of the result of the analysis of the samples taken for each 4 site during the 3 months and those are given at Appendix 10.6, and the result are to be seen at Figure 5.5 ( ERAY,1992 ). The sampling points are represented as N1,N2,N3, and N4, respectively. The analyses of the sample point N2, which was taken before the U9 landfill site have lower parameter concentration results then the sampling of N3 point parameter concentration results which was taken after the U9 landfill site. The concentration of the pollutants tends to be lower again after the sampling point N3, especially for SSM, COD, Cd, and Cr parameters.
At that condition, it can be said that the increasing pollution concentration at the sampling point N3 is caused by the leakage discharge from the U9 landfill site.
The pollution load of the treatment sludge mono-landfill leakage can be seen at Figure 5.4. Further more, it is clear that the combination of K13 landfill site wastes mixed with Nif Brook water which can be seen at photo 5.g, causes surface water pollution.
As can be seen at Figure 5.5, the Nif Brook is the 4th class very pollutant water according to the water pollution Control Regulations Standards. And also the result of the SSM., COD, Cr, Pb, Cd and Zn parameters analysis are much higher then the limiting values (ERAY, 1993). The high Fe, Cr, Pb, and Cd, concentrations indicate that Nif Brook is face to face with a very high industrial pollution. Especially, industrial waste water discharge as the dominant parameter and leakage are mixing and polluted the surface waters.
4.3.3.3. Groundwater Pollution
The pollution of the rain water suddenly increases at the time the droplet touches the soil. Organic and inorganic particles, animal and plant wastes, natural and artificial fertilizers solid waste, pesticides and microorganisms are carried along with water to the groundwater. During filtration the quality of water improves depending on the soil type. Nearly all of the suspended solids are removed by filtration, organic material degraded and mineral compounds are taken by the plant roots. The dissolved oxygen concentration of the water decreases while the CO2 concentration increases (TÜRKMAN, 1985).
Groundwater are much more sensitive to the pollution then the surface waters. Because any pollution occurred at a point of an aquifer goes very slowrly through the point that the water is taken out. By that way, the pollution arriving to the aquifer stays for a long time and it is very difficult to remove. Because the groundwater can not transport easily as the surface waters and keep the pollution in their bodies. So, groundwater source polluted by a toxic and stable substance looses their usable capacity for a long time.
Because of the Kemalpa¦a is an industrial and an agricultural town, the environment is polluted by industrial waste waters, solid waste, air emissions, agricultural pesticides, and savage wastes come from the residential area.
The produced waste waters directly effect the surface and groundwater. However, the CN- concentration is seen at the groundwater of Kemalpa¦a plate, which is unexampled of the industrial pollution. Kemalpa¦a groundwater samples were brought to the Dokuz Eylül University laboratory on january 1988 and many environmental parameters were tested including cyanide. The cyanide concentration of groundwater samples results are seen at Table 5.24 (TÜRKMAN,1988). The groundwater level of the area rapidly decreased because of the drilling of many water wells and excess pumping of irrigation and industrial usage water, of recent years. This situation is accelerated the mixing of polluted waters to
Table 5.24. Cyanide concentrations of groundwater samples in the study areas (TÜRKMAN, 1988).
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Location of the Depth of the Data Cyanide
well well concentration mg/l
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Beverage Industry 27.1.1988 0.04
Zipper Manufacture 13.9.1988 0.02
Coca-Cola 120 20.1.1988 0.04
Coca-Cola 135 20.1.1988 0.04
Chemicals Industry 60 14.1.1988 0.07
Food Industry 27.1.1999 0.03
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
groundwater and made the old wells out of order. The chemical analysis results of the 80 well samples which were tested by the health homes, DSÝ, and other are giving some information about ground water characteristic for Kemalpa¦a. The most of the results are available according to the Turkish Drinking Water Standards, but some of them are not available (COÝAR, 1994).
ERAY have taken three samples at the Mopak garden (Y1), Asma¦ garden (Y2), and near the Ansìzca bridge (Y3) from 153 m depth, during 3 months. The averages of the result at Appendix 10.8, and their arithmetical average are presented at Appendix 5.9. Also all of groundwater sampling points are represented at Map 12.
The graphic at Figure 5.6 are evaluated by comprising these averages with Turkish Drinking Water Standard. The sampling result of the point Y1, Y2, and Y3 which at the up stream and downstream of the landfill U9, are greater then the Drinking Water Standards. The wells which are close to Nif Brook are effected by the Nif Brook contaminate surface waters. It was indicated that the landfill U9, was discharged pollution to the Nif Brook at Figure 5.6. So, the sources of U9 landfill site pollution can be transport to the near and far wells by surface water. As can be seen in the graphic at Figure 5.6, the analyses results of the SSM, HCO3, NO3, NO2, Fe, and Mn parameters are lower at the upstream landfill well Y1, but the concentrations of these parameters tend to be increase at the downstream well Y2 and Y3. There isn't saying only unorganized landfills are pollute groundwater but there is possible to saying the unorganized landfills pollute the surface and groundwater by leaches directly or indirectly.
The nitrite presence at groundwater indicate that the water at not equilibrium. It is important that the nitrate concentration in the water is 42 mg/l, which is near the limit value of 45 mg/l, and the concentrations of nitrate excesses the limit at the samples of 7th November, 1991 and 12th February, 1992 as 66.00 mg/l and 49.41 mg/l, respectively. The nitrate concentration of the sample at 19th December, 1991 is lower then the limit. The nitrate concentrations at the wells of Y1, Y2, and Y3 show a nitrate discharge to groundwater from the agricultural fertilizer usage. However, the septic tanks leaches and landfill leaches can be the source of nitrate (ERAY, 1992).
The leached quantities originated from landfills, which are presented at Table 5.23, are discharged to the nature without any treatment and the mater wells of Kemalpa¦a are polluted.
Table 5.25. Permeability has effected from ground body types
(RODAT2, 1992).
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Ground Body kf (m/second)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Clay 10-12 - 10-8
Mile 10-10 - 10-6
Sand 10-7 - 10-2
Gravel 10-2 - 1
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Table 5.26. Permeability has distribution of depending on to (kf) coefficient (RODAT2, 1992).
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
kf coefficient (m/second) Permeability
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
<10-8 Very lass permeable
10-8 - 10-6 lass permeable
10-6 - 10-4 permeable
10-4 - 10-2 strongly permeable
>10-2 very strongly permeable
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The landfills of Kemalpa¦a on the capillary and permeable ground makes easy the transport of the pollution to the groundwater. But there permeable capacity has depending on to ground body (Table 5.25) and permeability coefficient (kf), (Table 5.26).
4.3.3.4. The Effects to the Soil Matrix
Kemalpa¦a have been as industrial town during the last 20 years while it was only a agricultural town. Most of the agricultural areas were used for constructing industries and residential buildings parallel with the uncontrolled industrialization and urbanization. The solid and liquid wastes generated from that development polluted the natural sources. A controlled landfill site could be operated from 1965 at town. But any controlled solid waste disposal method is not used and the land parts are used for randomly solid waste tipping. By that way, the total 67 landfill sites around the town polluted 169,820 m2 soil part. These uncontrolled landfills are polluted the soil medium as:
a ) Effecting the usage of the soil areas
- The land parts near the landfills lost their values and changed their usage aim.
- The corp yield of the agricultural areas effected from and polluted by the landfill sites are out of order and the farmer lost their economical power.
- The industrial wastes causes the lost of value of the agricultural areas, but then these areas can be used for industrialization.
- It is observed that some of the farms are stopped their activity and not to use their areas.
b ) Effecting the soil quality
- The soil has a capacity to adsorb a kind of pollutant. The sail under the landfill sites can adsorb the pollutants from leaches until its assimilation capacity is full. The pollution in leaches come after the capacity is full, goes directly on the underground water.
- Uncontrolled landfills are polluted the area under themselves by solid wastes and leaches.
- Landfills pollutes the irrigation areas indirectly by discharging their leaches to nearest surface water which is used for irrigation.
- The quality of polluted soil decreases and the crop yield decreases.
- The incinerated solid waste gases and dusts can be transported by air movement and precipitation to the soil and effect the quality. Especially the dissolved materials in the irrigation water can settle and dry in the soil matrix. The acidic rains can dissolve these materials again and carries than to the surface waters and other soil matrices.
- Pollution effects the physicky-chemical structure of the soil
- The pollution can change the nutrient statement and dynamism of the soil.
- The corp yield of the agricultural areas decreases.
- Some toxic material can accumulate in the corps, and can transport by the food chain. That effects the human health.
- Some organic molecules ( Phenols, Linons, Antresen derivatives, detergent molecules, i.c. ) can accumulate in soil matrix and can be carried to the food chair by culture plants.
- Heavy metals and trace elements are riches at the phytotoxic level and plant growth rate quality, and yield decrease.
- All kind of pollutants effect badly the natural material cycles, the microorganisms at the cycles and their activities.
At the soil composition there is present some different elements. It is explanation Table 5.27 the element tolerance limits and dangerous dimension concentration
c ) Effecting the aesthetical view :
Landfills generate are ugly view by the piles at the site. And they can damage the beautiful natural views. The treatment of the polluted soil is technically probable, but it is expensive, and can not be applicated. It is easier to protect the soil from pollution than the treatment of soil.
5.3.3.5 Effects to the Air Quality
The gases emission can not be prevented at the controlled solid waste disposal systems. However, it can be minimized. But at uncontrolled landfills there is not opportunity to control and minimize the biogas emissions. The gases emissions of the landfills are generated from 3 sources.
1. The biodegradation of solid wastes
2. Incineration of wastes
3. Dust of the landfills
1. The solid wastes dispose of gases and liquid and products during the biodegradation. A short time after the tipping, the fats, proteins, and carbohydrates one converted to basic products as acids, alcohols, aldehydes, and CO2 by the microorganisms. After that liquidation step, the side product biogas which includes basically CO2 and CH4 is generated. The rest part of biogas ( 1 % ) includes gases as O2, N2, H2S, and NH3.
The generation of biogas (landfill gases) taken 1-100 years time according to the easily biodegradable, medium biodegradable, and difficulty biodegradable fractions of the solid waste. The easily biodegradable greens and paper wastes one half finished during 1-5
years, the medium biodegradable garden wastes and cardboard are half finished during 5-25 years, and difficultly biodegradable wood wastes are half finished during 20-100 years. So, the gas production continues during the half finishing time (Table 5.28).
The results of a study about landfill gas emissions at Germany is presented at Table 5.29 . At that table the maximum emissions of different landfill gases, typical concentration, the cancerogenic property, and the air emission at working area can be seen from Table 5.29. According to the WHO regulations, it can be said that the risk factor is 1 per million and 3.6 per million. This table MAK represents the landfill working area and TRK represent the
tolerance.
2. The other emission source is the gases generated from the incineration of solid wastes. Very high gas emissions can occur here because of unavailable incineration conditions. The German and Turkish gas emission standards are given at Table 5.30 according to the available incineration conditions. The unavailable incineration gases emissions can excess the standard values.
3. The third one is the dust emission generated from uncontrolled landfills. The gas emissions from biodegradation, dust emissions, and also the incineration emissions are observed at the landfill of Kemalpa¦a uncontrolled landfills. According to the result of the questionnaires study, the incineration is presently applied to the landfill to go in volume. It is known that the observed fumes and disgusting smells at Kemalpa¦a town are generated from the incineration of landfills. The people are complain about the air pollution occurred from the smells of Nif brook and landfill emissions.
The organic material of Kemalpa¦a solid wastes are calculated as 160 kg/ton solid waste by using the fraction tested of 6 month winter season presented at Appendix 10.10. The 80 kg organic matter is taken into account because of the 6 month winter season. The fraction of 6 month season data given at Appendix 10.11 is used to calculate the 126.1 kg organic matter. The 45-49 % of the organic matter is considered as biodegradable organic carbon.
(80 kg OM/ton SW + 126.1 kg OM/ton SW)*0.49 Corg/kg OM
= 101 kg Corg/t S.W.
G = 1.868 * Corg (0.014 T + 0.28) (3)
G = Specific ultimate gas amount (m3/ton.SW)
Corg = Organic biodegradable carbon amount (kg/ton.SW)
T = Temperature (°C)
SW = Solid waste (Garbage)
G =1.868 * 101 (0.014*25 + 0.28)
=119 Nm3/ton.SW
Under the normal conditions, the biogas generated from Kemalpa¦a landfills is 119 Nm3/ton.SW. However, the biogas have generated until 1965 from 247,455 tons of solid waste (which is 247,455*119 Nm3/ton.SW) is spread aut and polluted the atmosphere of Kemalpa¦a. And also, the gas emissions of incineration of solid wastes were polluted the atmosphere. The air quality goes more worse by the industrial gases emissions while the landfill areas emissions pollute the air.
It's fact that, these gas emissions effect the soil and plant cover, ground and surface water quality by acid rains.
5.3.3.6 Effects to the Alive Life
The human, animals, and plants named as living, are effected from the environmental pollution mentioned above. The solid wastes of Kemalpa¦a have been a very available medium for growing the microorganism and pathogens. The main sources of the insects, which can not be prevented by any kind of chemical fighting, are the landfill sites.
The pollution of air, water, and soil sources causes the damage and illness of living. The accumulation of Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu, CN-, Zn, and excess amounts of N, P, K, Ca, Mg and other pollutants in the soil by the solid waste damage the soil matrix. The air emissions given at Table 5.29 and the SO4=, NO2-, NO3-, NH3, organic matter, Pb, As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, and other pollutants discharges to the ground and surface waters and destroyed the natural resources.
While the plants absorb the pollutants taken from the soil and irrigation mater, the human and animals which are fed with that plants are effected from the pollution by food chain.
Some of the agricultural areas are being yieldles and the plants and trees and than dry. An example which represents this effect is observed in a cherry orchard near the Kemalpa¦a Municipality landfill site. The cherry trees dried, because of the irrigation water taken from the dawnflow of the K13 landfill. However, the cherry orchards irrigated by the upflow water of landfill are not effected. So, it can be said that the Kemalpa¦a landfill caused the drying of the cherry trees.
There are important uncertainties of the long term effects of the pollutants in the waste. So, the pollutants, which the human can meet at any time of the life, have effects to the sensitive bodies and chills health. Some metals are necessary at low concentrations, but dangerous at high concentrating for health. The effects of than have complexity when more than one pollutant are being together. Because, each of the organic or inorganic pollutants have different side effects.
Being the NO3-N concentration in drinking water is above 10 mg/l causes methemoglobinemia, which is a lethal blood illness. at the babies smaller than 3 months. That concentration may cause health problems at long term at adults and chills.
For example, Pb and Hg ( methyl Hg ) effect to the central neural system, Ni and Be effect to the lungs, Cd effects to kidneys, and Antimuan effects hard. Cr, Ni, Zn, and As cause poisonings, lungs illness, and cancerogenic effects.
Fecal pollution is reported at the bacteriological analysis of the ground water samples of Kemalpa¦a because of the environmental pollution (HÜRYAÝARKAYA, 1994).
And also, it is possible to observe lungs infections at the people living near the landfills, and to meet all kind of illness at the people, who collect metal, plastic, and paper, in the landfill sites (COÝAR, 1994)
So, all the landfill sites in Kemalpa¦a town are threaded the natural life by pollution the air, mater, and soil body.
REFERENCES
-ANATOLIA, (1993): Environment and Cultural Magazine. Year:4 Press
Number:1
-BURCU, Ö.E., (1993): "Katì Atìk ݦlemleri ve Deponilerin Ömrünün
Uzatìlmasì"; Diploma Project.
-ÇEVRE KORUMA HÝZMETLERÝ MAGAZINE, (1994): Year:2 Press Number:11
-CENSUS OF POPULATION, (1990): Publication by State Institute of
Statistic prime Ministry Republic of Turkey.
-ÇEVRE VE ÝNSAN MAGAZINE, (1988): Publication by
the GeneralEnvironment Manager. Press number 9, 10.
-COÝAR, H. (1994): The Seminar of about the "Kemalpa¦a Counties
Environmental Pollution investigation Results".
-ENVÝRO, (1990): Environmental impeach Assessment Report for
Kemalpa¦a.
-ERAY, Ö.S.,(1992): "Kemalpa¦a'da Yüzeysel Su ve Yeraltìsuyu
Kirliliºi"; Diploma Project.
-ERDÝN, E. (1991): The Solid Waste Lessen Notes.
-ERDÝN, E. (1994): The Solid Waste Lessen Notes.
-FAT, M. (1990): "Kemalpa¦a Ovasì Batìsìnìn Hidrojeolojisi ve Yapay
Kirleticilerin Etkisi".
-HANS, C., FLEMMING, C. (1987): "Altlasten-Handbuch Teil II
Untersuchungsgrundlagen". Heft 19.
-ÝZMÝR ÝL YILLIªI, (1994): Publication by Ýzmir Valiliºi.
-KARACA, Ý. (1987): "Çevre Kirliliºi ve Özellikle Endüstri
Atìklarìnìn Tarìm Alanlarìndaki Olumsuz Etkileri"
-KATI ATIK VE ÇEVRE MAGAZINE. (1991): Katì Atìk Türk Milli Komitesi.
Press Number 3, 4.
-KATI ATIK VE ÇEVRE MAGAZINE, (1992): Katì Atìk Türk Milli Komitesi.
Press Number 5, 6.
-Kerndorf, H., Bril, V., Schleyer, R., Frìesel, P., Milde, G. (1985):
"Erfassung Grundwassergefahrdender Altablagerungen Ergebnisse
Hydrogeochemischer Untersuchungen".
-KURRAZ, (1990): "Kemalpa¦a ve Çevresinin Hidrojeolojisik
Ýncelemesi"; Diploma Project.
-MISIRLI, Ý. (1991): "Çevre Mühendisliºi Açìsìndan Kemalpa¦a
Ekosistemindeki Deºi¦imler".
-MUSLU, Y. (1985): "Su Temini ve Çevre Saºlìºì"; Cilt III.
-ÖZKARAN, S.E.,(1992): "Kemalpa¦a'da Yüzeysel ve Yeraltì Suyu
Kirliliºi".
-RODAT2, W. (1990): "Grundbau und Badenmechanik Dochland".
-RODAT2, W. (1992): "Grundbau Bodenmechanik Unterrdishes Bauen.
Dochland".
-SAVAÝÇI, R. (1990): "Tehlikeli Zararlì Atìk Kaynaklarì"; Diploma
Project.
-SEEGER, K.J.,(1993): "Altablagerungen Unter Dem Aspekt Gasförmigen
Emissionen.
-SUNAR, M.A., ERSAN, L. (1989): "Kemalpa¦a'daki Nif Çayìnìn Kirlilik
Kaynaklarì ve Kontrolü"; Diploma Project.
-THEISEN, H., ELIASSES, R. (1977): "Solid Wastes Engineering
Principles and Management Issues".
-TÜRK ÇEVRE MEVZUATI, (1992): Publication by Türkiye Çevre Vakfì
Book I, II.
-TÜRKÝYE'NÝN ÇEVRE SORUNLARI. (1991): Publication by Türkiye Çevre
Sorunlarì Vakfì.
-TÜRKMAN, A.(1985): "Ýçme ve Kullanma Sularì Arasìnda
Yeraltìsularìnìn Önemi ve Kirlenme Sorunu"; Türkiye'nin Su
Potansìyeli Ýçme ve Kullanma Sularìnìn Kaynaklarìnìn Korunmasì
Seminar, Türkiye Tabiatìnì Koruma Derneºi, Ýstanbul.
-TÜRKMAN, A. (1992): "Cyanide Bcharious in Soil and Groundwater and
its Control"; NATO/CCMS Pilot Study on "Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater"; Find Report, EPA, USA.
-TÜRKMAN, A. (1993): "Çevremiz ve Biz"; Ege Kültür Vakfì DEÜ Çevmer.
-Weiser, G. (1987): "Altlsten-Handbuch, Teil II
Untersuchunsgrundlagen".
In Addition to:
-Kemalpa¦a, Ulucak, Armutlu, Ören, Yukarìkìzìlca, Baºyurdu
Municipalities Sources.
-Kemalpa¦a 2. Health Hospital Heat Doctor.
ÝKemapalpa¦a Organization Industrial Area, (KOSBÝ) Manager.
-Kemalpa¦a Kaymakamlìºì Environment Control Unit.
6. INVESTIGATION OF METHODS FOR AMELIORATION AND REUSE OF UNORGANIZED LANDFILLS
6.1 General
Some of the landfill are constructed to store solid wastes in Kemalpa¦a at the beginning. Some of the others (As number K11, landfill) were open to fill the area by solid wastes. However, they become on unorganized landfill due to arbitrary disposal of solid wastes. There fore except number K12 and U7 landfill areas, 65 landfills become to a dump. As given in Table 5.9 widely spreader wastes in the brooks treat human, animal and plant health, quality of groundwater and surface waters and also air quality.
There fore, the necessary provision must be taken immediately. A general solid waste removing method in Kemalpa¦a as in Turkey is leaving in area. This method must be left as soon as possible. For that purpose firstly old, unorganized deponies must be reorganized and be recreated the possible recreation methods in Kemalpa¦a can be summarized as below.
6.2 Using as Filling Material
The widely used filling areas in brook became a dump due to uncontrolled usage of these areas. However these areas can be filled by nontoxic, biologically nondegradable and suitable to fill can be discharged to these areas. To get a good fulfilled area, necessary provisions must be taken before filling. The material must be weighted before leaving, suitable to filling and must be left to area in an organized plan. In addition, the entrance and exit of area must be continuously controlled.
The number 12 area was now a good fulfilled area (As seen from map 6) with a control mechanism. Number U7, deponi (As seen from map 3) area is filled only by marble and floor plate industry treatment plant sludge wastes. It is a monodeponi filled by controlling. The other 65 deponies are now solid waste discharge area. The wastes in the following deponies U1, U2, U4, U8, U9, and U10, are in filling material is quality but also their location are not suitable places (Table 5.21).
If that 35,000 m3 filling material is removed from their places and transferred to another places that must be filled, the empty areas will be filled and also unorganized deponies will be recreated.
6.3 The Construction of New Building on original location
Generally all station, restaurant, factory and resting places are constructed on left and right side of Ýzmir-Ankara road of Kemalpa¦a. There fore filli
ng is necessary for low level areas compared to road. The filling of the number K11 and K12 deponies, has already been completed. The K12 deponi will not create important problems since it filled with suitable method and filling material. However number K11 deponi is filled by hazardous wastes, treatment sludge at marble, floor plate, ceramic, tannery industry and the rubber and excavations. This area will be used for construction of new buildings. It will be covered by concrete and drainage will be placed sides of area to collect rainfall on the top the area. This, the leaches of storm water to deponi will prevented by constructing like to hat technique covering. However it is only one layer point of the event. As it is seen from Figure 5.7, The floor layer between deponi and groundwater beside to groundwater were polluted by leaches. Therefore, although deponi is covered, the floor layer can be polluted due to leaches and decomposition of organic matter in the deponi. In future the level of groundwater can increase due to only reason. The floor layer will be saturated with water in this case and some of the pollutant in the base of deponi will dissolve and enter to groundwater. As a result it will cause groundwater pollution.
Therefore, although the hat method seems to be partially successful, it has several risks due to future possible problems. It can be
completely successful if it is applied to all cover the deponi. Otherwise uncovered wastes will continue to pollute environment.
If The other U7, Y14, Y15, Y16, B21 landfills solid waste could be complite and covering with soil, these landfills pollution effect will be prevent.
6.4 Capsuling in its place
Capsuling is used to minimize the emissions from deponies. It is generally last choice in the removal of hazardous solid wastes after all construction methods are considered. Capsuling is made by covering four side of the area to prevent leak out. The method for coverage can be made by metal or concrete. A unleak out material is injected to the bottom of the deponi by a special method. After that the upper part is covered completely by concrete to make it as a box. This unleaking out method inhibits the relations between in and out of landfill Rainfall, air and any other things can't go in to deponi beside to gases on leaches can't go out of it. Since this method can't be applied to biodegradable material containing deponies, leak out of water or gas has already not happened.
The capsuled landfill should be covered with sand and permitted to grow of plants and vegetation. However necessary precautions places must be placed to this area.
Capsulation can be done on separate local places when capsulation will be applied to some hazardous waste containing landfill of Kemalpa¦a, the following titles should be considered firstly. If the volume of hazardous waste in the aimed landfill is too big, and transfer of wastes from this place to organized landfill is more expensive than the capsulation, than it is preferred to capsulate the landfill. On the other hand, in the reverse case, it is better to transfer wastes to an organized landfill. By that way, the area will be completely recreated. There are hazardous waste containing landfills in Kemalpa¦a. The presence of biologically degradable matters in there landfills prevents the capsulation of them. And also capsuling method is not economic because of lass hazardous wastes. So for these places, to hat method and drainage on the sides of area can be placed.
6.5 Transfer to Sanitary Landfills
The Sanitary landfills are suitable solid waste storage places where all the environmental effects are considered, all kind of hazardous and nonhazardous waste can be left and all the control mechanisms are taken.
The construction of on sanitary landfill in Kemalpa¦a will function as both collection of usual wastes and a place to where wastes of unorganized wastes will be transferred. As a result the old area will be recreated. Therefore, it is necessary to carry the wastes from number U3, U5, U6, K13, Y17, Y18, A19, and Ö20 deponies to an unorganized landfill which must be constructed ( Table 5.21). These deponies, same of which close to Nif River or on the agricultural areas, pollute both groundwater, surface water and soil. That's way, they must immediately removed. Actually, these areas are planed as recreation areas in the master plan. If they don't removed today, more problem will be seen and new recreation areas will be used for solid waste left. By tat way, 39,000 m² area will be gained for different purposes while 35,500 m3 solid waste is transferred.
The other small wastes containing places present on the sides of roods and small river or in the county. They don't have too much damage to environment. It is sufficient to cover them by soil or to medicate them. However, to leave the wastes arbitrary in countries must be forbidolen to prevent wide spread of this behavior beside to increasing number of these small of places. Otherwise small area will be big, uncontrollable and problematic big unorganized deponies.
6.6 Use of Recreated Areas
Around 62,200 m² empty area can be obtained if their wastes are collected or transferred to a landfill. These empty areas can be used for agricultural purposes after improving there floors and covering them with productive soil. They can be open to vegetation. Also in condition, kindergartens, spoor complexes, parks and buildings can be constructed on these areas.
Year : 1994
┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTY │
└────────────┬──────────────────────┘
┌───────────────────────────────────────┴──────┐
┌────────┴───────┐ ┌──────────┴───────────┐
│ From present │ │ From Industrial │
│ Population S.W│ │ Sources S.W 143351│
│ 86726 │ └──────────┬───────────┘
├────────────────┘ ┌───────────────────────┬──────────┴────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │ │
│ ┌──────┴───────┐ ┌───────┴────────┐ ┌───────┴────────┐
│ │From Employers│ │Total Waste From│ │Total Treatment │
│ │ 9704│ │Products 61715│ │Sludge 71932│
│ └──────┬───────┘ └───────┬────────┘ └───────┬────────┘
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌───────────┴───────────┐ ┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ ┌──────────┐ │ ┌─────────┴─────────┐ ┌───────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐ ┌─────────┴────────┐
├──┤ Domestic │ │ │Amount of Product │ │Amount of Recovered ││Amount of Recovered│ │Amount of Sludge │
│ │ Waste │ │ │S.W. to be Disposed│ │Waste from product ││Sludge │ │to be Disposed │
│ │ 80411├───┐ │ │ 34715│ │ 27000││ 15696│ │ 56236│
│ └──────────┘ │ │ └──────────────┬────┘ └────────────────────┘└───────────────────┘ └───┬──────────────┘
│ ┌──────────┐ │ │ ┌─────┴──────────────┐ ┌───────────────┴────┐
├──┤Slaughter │ │ │ ┌────────┴────────┐┌──────────┴──────────┐ ┌────────┴────────┐┌──────────┴──────────┐
│ │house │ │ │ │Amount of ││Amount of │ │Amount of ││Amount of │
│ │Waste 1885├───┤ │ │Degradable 2351││Nan degradable 32364│ │Degradable 10395 ││Non Degradable 45841│
│ └──────────┘ │ │ └────────┬────────┘└──────────┬──────────┘ └────────┬────────┘└─────────┬───────────┘
│ ┌──────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │
└──┤ Other │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Waste │ │ │ ┌────────┴─────┐ │ │ ┌───────┴──────┐
│ 4430├───┤ │ │Waste From In.│ │ │ │Total Non │
└──────────┘ │ └─┤With Domestic │ └─────────────────────────┼───────────┤Degradable │
│ │Characteristic├────────────────────────────────────────┘ │Solid Waste │
│ │ 22450│ │ 78205│
│ └──┬───────────┘ └───────┬──────┘
┌──────────┴───────┴─┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ Amount of Total ├───────┤TOTAL SOLID WASTE FORMATION IN COUNTY├────────────────────────┘
│ Domestic Solid │ │ │
│ Waste 109176│ │ 187381 lt/day │
└────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────┘
Figure : The Volume Distribution of Solid Waste from Kemalpa¦a with Industrial and Domestic sources ( lt/day )
Year : 1994
┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│SOLID WASTE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTY │
└────────────┬──────────────────────┘
┌───────────────────────────────────────┴──────┐
┌────────┴───────┐ ┌──────────┴───────────┐
│ From present │ │ From Industrial │
│ Population S.W│ │ Sources S.W 188978│
│ 33120│ └──────────┬───────────┘
├────────────────┘ ┌───────────────────────┬──────────┴────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ ┌──────┴───────┐ ┌───────┴────────┐ ┌───────┴────────┐
│ │From Employers│ │Total Waste From│ │Total Treatment │
│ │ 3704│ │Products 81521│ │Sludge 103753│
│ └──────┬───────┘ └───────┬────────┘ └───────┬────────┘
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌───────────┴───────────┐ ┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ ┌──────────┐ │ ┌─────────┴─────────┐ ┌───────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐ ┌─────────┴────────┐
├──┤ Domestic │ │ │Amount of Product │ │Amount of Recovered ││Amount of Recovered│ │Amount of Sludge │
│ │ Waste │ │ │S.W. to be disposed│ │Waste From Product ││Sludge │ │to be Disposed │
│ │ 29960├───┐ │ │ 55406│ │ 26115││ 20405│ │ 83348│
│ └──────────┘ │ │ └──────────────┬────┘ └────────────────────┘└───────────────────┘ └───┬──────────────┘
│ ┌──────────┐ │ │ ┌─────┴──────────────┐ ┌───────────────┴────┐
├──┤Slaughter │ │ │ ┌────────┴────────┐┌──────────┴──────────┐ ┌────────┴────────┐┌──────────┴──────────┐
│ │House │ │ │ │Amount of ││Amount of │ │Amount of ││Amount of │
│ │Waste 1508├───┤ │ │Degradable 7285 ││Nan degradable 48121 │ │Degradable 13345 ││Non Degradable 70003│
│ └──────────┘ │ │ └────────┬────────┘└──────────┬──────────┘ └────────┬────────┘└─────────┬───────────┘
│ ┌──────────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │
└──┤ Other │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Waste │ │ │ ┌────────┴─────┐ │ │ ┌───────┴──────┐
│ 1652├───┤ │ │Waste From In.│ │ │ │Total Non │
└──────────┘ │ └─┤With Domestic │ └─────────────────────────┼───────────┤Degradable │
│ │Characteristic├────────────────────────────────────────┘ │Solid Waste │
│ │ 24334│ │ 118124│
│ └──┬───────────┘ └───────┬──────┘
┌──────────┴───────┴─┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ Amount of Total │ │TOTAL SOLID WASTE FORMATION IN COUNTY│ │
│ Domestic Solid ├───────┤ ├────────────────────────┘
│ Waste 57454│ │ 175578 kg/day │
└────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────┘
Figure : The Weight Distribution of Solid Waste from Kemalpa¦a with Industrial and Domestic sources ( kg/day )
Table 5.1: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County (m3/year) YEAR:1994
┌─────────────────┬──────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Amount │Amount │
│ │ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │Of Total │of Solid │
│ The Industrial │The Amount│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │of Product│From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 353236│ 5082│ 4227│ 6239│ 5725│ 11321│ 9952│ 1369│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 35360│ 1794│ 1664│ 2│ 0│ 1796│ 1664│ 132│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 664924│ 12220│ 867│ 16064│ 0│ 28284│ 867│ 27417│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 139100│ 812│ 702│ 634│ 0│ 1446│ 702│ 744│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Textile │ 2288│ 108│ 79│ 12│ 4│ 120│ 83│ 37│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber, Plastic │ 7072│ 26│ 25│ 0│ 0│ 26│ 25│ 1│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│cellulose, Paper │ 45084│ 2257│ 2254│ 3280│ 0│ 5537│ 2254│ 3283│
│and Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 2028│ 222│ 37│ 0│ 0│ 222│ 37│ 185│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tannery │ 104│ 5│ 0│ 24│ 0│ 29│ 0│ 29│
├─────────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│The Amount of ├──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Total Solid Waste│ 1249196│ 22526│ 9855│ 26255│ 5729│ 48781│ 15584│ 33197 │
└─────────────────┴──────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
Table 5.2: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County (Ton/year) YEAR:1994
┌─────────────────┬──────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Amount │Amount │
│ │ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │Of Total │of Solid │
│ The Industrial │The Amount│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │of Product│From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 353236│ 6608│ 3950│ 8050│ 7443│ 14658│ 11393│ 3265│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 35360│ 2332│ 2164│ 2│ 0│ 2334│ 2164│ 170│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 664924│ 18330│ 1300│ 24558│ 0│ 42888│ 1300│ 41588│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 139100│ 1057│ 898│ 949│ 0│ 2006│ 898│ 1108│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Textile │ 2288│ 80│ 51│ 16│ 5│ 96│ 56│ 40│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber, Plastic │ 7072│ 18│ 17│ 0│ 0│ 18│ 17│ 1│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Cellulose, Paper │ 45084│ 1128│ 1127│ 4264│ 0│ 5392│ 1127│ 4265│
│end Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 2028│ 198│ 25│ 0│ 0│ 198│ 25│ 173│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tannery │ 104│ 4│ 0│ 31│ 0│ 35│ 0│ 35│
├─────────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│The Amount of ├──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Total Solid Waste│ 1249196│ 29755│ 9532│ 37870│ 7448│ 67625│ 16980│ 50645 │
└─────────────────┴──────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
Table 5.3: The populations domestic solid waste distribution
in between 1965-1995 from settled areas ( m3 )
┌────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Volume Reduce Accumilate │
│ T │ N Vs Vse=Vs*0.7 ΣVse │
│year│ people m3 m3 m3 │
├────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│1965│ 35025 15490 10843 10843 │
│1966│ 35162 15559 10891 21734 │
│1967│ 35299 15628 10940 32674 │
│1968│ 35436 15697 10988 43662 │
│1969│ 35573 15766 11036 54698 │
│1970│ 35710 15835 11084 65782 │
│1971│ 36309 16139 11297 77079 │
│1972│ 36908 16443 11510 88589 │
│1973│ 37507 16747 11723 100312 │
│1974│ 38106 17052 11936 112248 │
│1975│ 38706 17359 12151 124399 │
│1976│ 39663 17849 12494 136893 │
│1977│ 40620 18341 12839 149732 │
│1978│ 41577 18834 13184 162916 │
│1979│ 42534 19329 13530 176446 │
│1980│ 43489 19825 13877 190323 │
│1981│ 44626 20416 14291 204614 │
│1982│ 45763 21011 14708 219322 │
│1983│ 46900 21607 15125 234447 │
│1984│ 48037 22205 15543 249990 │
│1985│ 49175 22805 15963 265953 │
│1986│ 50555 23537 16476 282429 │
│1987│ 51935 24270 16989 299418 │
│1988│ 53315 25007 17505 316923 │
│1989│ 54695 25746 18022 334945 │
│1990│ 56075 26488 18542 353487 │
│1991│ 57351 27176 19023 372510 │
│1992│ 58656 27882 19518 392028 │
│1993│ 59991 28607 20025 412053 │
│1994│ 61356 29350 20545 432598 │
├────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Total Volume 617997 432598 432598 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Table 5.4: The Total commercial waste distribution in
between 1965-1995 year from settled areas
┌──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ │ │
│ The Total Commercial │ Reduce Waste │
│ Waste │ Vrsh=Vsh*0.7 │
├──────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ 34,042 m3 │ 23,833 m3 │
│ │ │
└──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┘
Tablo 5.5: The slaughterhouse to reduce solid waste
distribution in between 1984-1994 from
settled areas
┌────┬──────────────────────────────────┐
│ T │Weight Volume Reduce Volume│
│year│ ton Vs(m3) Vsr=0.2*Vs │
├────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│1984│ 268 335 67 │
│1985│ 290 363 73 │
│1986│ 300 375 75 │
│1987│ 310 388 78 │
│1988│ 340 425 85 │
│1989│ 360 450 90 │
│1990│ 390 488 98 │
│1991│ 440 550 110 │
│1992│ 475 594 119 │
│1993│ 520 650 130 │
│1994│ 550 688 138 │
├────┴──────────────────────────────────┤
│Total 4243 5307 1063 │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘
Table 5.6: The solid waste distribution in between 1965-1995
year from industrial employers.( m3 )
┌────┬─────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Volume Reduce Accum.│
│ T │ N Vp Vsp ΣVsp │
│year│ People m3 m3 m3 │
├────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│1965│ -- -- -- -- │
│1966│ -- -- -- -- │
│1967│ -- -- -- -- │
│1968│ -- -- -- -- │
│1969│ -- -- -- -- │
│1970│ -- -- -- -- │
│1971│ -- -- -- -- │
│1972│ -- -- -- -- │
│1973│ -- -- -- -- │
│1974│ 340 79 55 55 │
│1975│ 1309 365 255 310 │
│1976│ 1785 520 364 674 │
│1977│ 2123 634 444 1118 │
│1978│ 2555 783 548 1666 │
│1979│ 2700 834 584 2250 │
│1980│ 2700 834 584 2834 │
│1981│ 2871 895 626 3460 │
│1982│ 3743 1210 847 4307 │
│1983│ 3764 1218 853 5160 │
│1984│ 4012 1310 917 6077 │
│1985│ 4869 1634 1144 7221 │
│1986│ 5297 1798 1259 8480 │
│1987│ 5797 1993 1395 9875 │
│1988│ 6514 2276 1593 11468 │
│1989│ 7294 2590 1813 13281 │
│1990│ 8266 2987 2091 15372 │
│1991│ 8973 3279 2295 17667 │
│1992│ 9108 3336 2335 20002 │
│1993│ 9288 3411 2388 22390 │
│1994│ 9596 3540 2478 24868 │
├────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│ │ 35526 24868 24868 │
└────┴─────────────────────────────────┘
Table 5.7. The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( m3 )
┌─────────────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Te Amount│The Amount │
│ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │Of Total │of Solid │
│ The Industrial │Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 35785 │ 27686│ 30638│ 27863│ 66423 │ 55549│ 10874 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 25395 │ 24469│ 12 │ 0 │ 25407 │ 24469│ 938 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 161989│ 12134│ 87447│ 0 │ 249436│ 12134│ 237302│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 4471 │ 2779 │ 704 │ 0 │ 5175 │ 2779 │ 2396 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Texstile │ 797 │ 797 │ 34 │ 2 │ 831 │ 799 │ 32 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber , Plastic│ 138 │ 133 │ 0 │ 0 │ 138 │ 133 │ 5 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│celulose, Paper │ 23034 │ 23013│ 10080│ 0 │ 33114 │ 23013│ 10101 │
│end Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 1498 │ 337 │ 0 │ 0 │ 1498 │ 337 │ 1161 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tannery │ 71 │ 0 │ 72 │ 0 │ 143 │ 0 │ 143 │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│The Amount of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Total Solid Waste│ 253178│ 91348│ 128987│ 27865│ 382165│ 119213│ 262952│
└─────────────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
Tablo 5.8: The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( Ton )
┌─────────────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Te Amount│The Amount │
│ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │Of Total │of Solid │
│ The Industrial │Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 46849 │ 35962│ 39829 │ 36222│ 86678 │ 72184│ 14494 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 33212 │ 31619│ 15 │ 0 │ 33227 │ 31619│ 1608 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 242983│ 18200│ 132739│ 0 │ 375722│ 18200│ 357522│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 6025 │ 3530 │ 1040 │ 0 │ 7065 │ 3530 │ 3535 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Texstile │ 584 │ 584 │ 44 │ 3 │ 628 │ 587 │ 41 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber , Plastic│ 95 │ 92 │ 0 │ 0 │ 95 │ 92 │ 3 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│celulose, Paper │ 11514 │ 11506│ 13104 │ 0 │ 24618 │ 11506│ 13112 │
│end Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 1217 │ 225 │ 0 │ 0 │ 1217 │ 225 │ 992 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tannery │ 47 │ 0 │ 94 │ 0 │ 567 │ 0 │ 567 │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│The Amount of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Total Solid Waste│ 342952│ 101718│ 186865│ 36225│ 529817│ 137943│ 391874│
└─────────────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
┌───────────────────────────┬────────────────┬───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ Matter │Maximal Measured│ Typical │ Cancer │Woking Area│ WHO-Canalized │
│ │ Gass Values │Concantrate│Specialies │Concantrate│Values and Risk Units│
│ ├────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┬─────────┤
│ │ mg/m3 │ mg/m3 │ │mg/m3 │ mg/m3 │ Risk │
├───────────────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────┤
│Chlordifluormethan │ 270 │ 20 │ │1800 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Dichlorfluormethan │ 15 │ 5 │ │45 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Dichlordifluormethan │ 700 │ 40 │ │4950 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Trichlorfluormethan │ 500 │ 10 │ │5600 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│1.1.2-Trichlortrifluorethan│ 50 │ 2 │ │3800 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Dichlortetrafluorethan │ 10 │ 3 │ │7000 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Dichlormethan │ 3000 │ 80 │MAK IIIB │360 │ 3 │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Trichlormethan │ 50 │ 10 │MAK IIIB │50 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tetrachlormethan │ 230 │ 2 │MAK IIIB │65 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│1.1.1-Trichlorethan │ 600 │ 10 │ │1080 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chlorethan │ 270 │ 20 │MAK IIIA1 │5 TRK │ │ 1*10-6 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│cis-1.2-Dichlorethen │ 700 │ 40 │ │790 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│1.1-Dichlorethen │ 600 │ 10 │MAK IIIB │8 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Trichlorethen │ 350 │ 20 │MAK IIIB │260 │ 1 │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tetrachlorethen │ 230 │ 10 │MAK IIIB │345 │ 5 │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Benzol │ 500 │ 8 │MAK IIIA1 │16 TRK │ │ 3.6*10-6│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Toluol │ 1700 │ 100 │ │380 │ 7.5 │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Xylole │ 530 │ 50 │ │440 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Isopropylbenzol │ 30 │ 10 │ │245 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Ethylbenzol │ 230 │ 20 │ │440 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mercaptane │ 430 │ 50 │ │1 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Acetaldehyd │ 150 │ 2 │MAK IIIB │90 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Hexan │ 1200 │ 10 │ │180 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Schwefelwasserstoff │ 2300 │ 200 │ │15 │ │ │
└───────────────────────────┴────────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴─────────┘
Table :Some Tolerance and Dangerous Amount Limit
Which are Finding at Soil Elements (SAVAÝÇI, 1990)
┌─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────┬─────────┐
│ │ The often │ Tolerance│Dangerous│
│ Parameters │Finding Amount│ Limit │ Amount │
│ ├──────────────┼──────────┼─────────┤
│ │ (ppm) │ (ppm) │ (ppm) │
├─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┼─────────┤
│AS │ 2-20 │ 20 │ 8000 │
│B │ 5-30 │ 25 │ 1000 │
│Be │ 1-5 │ 10 │ 2300 │
│Br │ 1-10 │ 10 │ 100 │
│Cd │ 0.1-1 │ 3 │ 200 │
│Co │ 1-10 │ 50 │ 800 │
│Cr │ 2-50 │ 100 │ 200000 │
│Cu │ 1-20 │ 100 │ 220000 │
│F │ 50-200 │ 200 │ 8000 │
│Ca │ 0.5-10 │ 10 │ 300 │
│Mg │ 0.1-1 │ 2 │ 500 │
│Ni │ 2-50 │ 50 │ 10000 │
│Pb │ 0.1-20 │ 100 │ 4000 │
│Se │ 0.1-5 │ 10 │ 1200 │
│Sn │ 1-20 │ 50 │ 800 │
│Zn │ 3-50 │ 300 │ 20000 │
└─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────┴─────────┘
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: The Distrìbution of Kemalpa¦a Countys Agrìcultural Areas
Table 3.2: The Distribution and Densìty of County Population
Table 5.1: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County . (m3/yìl) YEAR:1994
Table 5.2: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County. (kg/yìl) YEAR:1994
Table 5.3: The populations domestic solid waste distribution
in between 965-1995 from setlet areas ( m3 )
Table 5.4: The Total commercial waste distribution in
between 1965-1995 year from setlet areas
Tablo 5.5: The slaughterhouse to reduce solid waste
distribution in between 1984-1994 from
Table 5.6: The solid waste distribution in between 1965-1995
year from industrial employers.( m3 )
Tablo 5.7: The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( m3 )
Tablo 5.8: The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( Ton )
TABLO : 1995 yìlìndan sonraki 30 yìllìk sürede yerle¦ik nüfusta ve
sanayi sektöründen olu¦abilecek hacim azalmalì K.Artìk ve Çöp hacmi
┌────┬──────────────────┬────────────────────────────┬───────────────┐
│ │ YERLEÝÝK NÜFUS │ SANAYÝ SEKTÝRÝNDEN GELEN │ DEPOLANABÝLÝR │
│ │ KAYNAKLI D.K.A.M │ DEPOLANABÝLÝR K.A.MÝKTARI │ TOPLAM K.A.M │
├────┼──────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────┤
│ │ EKAM ESA MEA│ SPA ÜKÝA AÇA SEVNA│ TDKAM Σ
TDKAM ││YIL │ m3 m3 m3 │ m3 m3 m3 m3 │ m3 m3 │
├────┼──────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────┬───────┤
│1995│ 21078 1158 140 │ 2962 11047 15648 3807 │ 55840 │55840 │
│1996│ 21626 1184 151 │ 3455 12635 17897 4354 │ 61302 │117142 │
│1997│ 22188 1211 162 │ 3957 14223 20146 4901 │ 66788 │183930 │
│1998│ 22765 1239 173 │ 4467 15811 22394 5449 │ 72298 │256228 │
│1999│ 23356 1267 184 │ 4983 17399 24643 5996 │ 77828 │334056 │
│2000│ 23963 1296 196 │ 5507 18987 26892 6544 │ 83385 │417441 │
│2001│ 24585 1325 208 │ 6037 20575 29141 7091 │ 88962 │506403 │
│2002│ 25224 1356 220 │ 6572 22163 31390 7638 │ 94563 │600966 │
│2003│ 25880 1387 233 │ 7113 23751 33638 8186 │ 100188│701154 │
│2004│ 26552 1418 246 │ 7659 25339 35887 8733 │ 105834│806988 │
│2005│ 27242 1450 258 │ 8210 26927 38136 9281 │ 111504│918492 │
│2006│ 27950 1483 270 │ 8765 28515 40385 9828 │ 117196│1035688│
│2007│ 28676 1517 283 │ 9325 30103 42634 10375│ 122913│1158601│
│2008│ 29421 1552 295 │ 9889 31691 44882 10923│ 128653│1287254│
│2009│ 30185 1587 308 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 134417│1421671│
│2010│ 30970 1623 319 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 135249│1556920│
│2011│ 31774 1660 331 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 136102│1693022│
│2012│ 32600 1697 342 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 136976│1829998│
│2013│ 33447 1737 352 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 137873│1967871│
│2014│ 34316 1776 362 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 138791│2106662│
│2015│ 35208 1816 372 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 139733│2246395│
│2016│ 36122 1858 380 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 140697│2387092│
│2017│ 37061 1900 388 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 141686│2528778│
│2018│ 38024 1943 395 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 142699│2671477│
│2019│ 39012 1987 401 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 143737│2815214│
│2020│ 40025 2033 406 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 144801│2960015│
│2021│ 41065 2078 411 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 145891│3105906│
│2022│ 42132 2126 414 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 147009│3252915│
│2023│ 43227 2175 416 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 148155│3401070│
│2024│ 44350 2224 418 │ 10457 33279 47131 11470│ 149329│3550399│
│ ├──────────────────┼──────┬──────┬───────┬──────┼───────┼───────┤
│ │940024 49063 9034 │256213│831630│1177809│286626│3550399│3550399│
└────┴──────────────────┴──────┴──────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┘
tablo 11:1995-2024 yìlì arasìnda olu¦an 30 yìldakì hacim azalmaì
olarak elde edilen K.A. ve çöp hacmi (m3)
┌────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────┐
│ N │EKKA │SEKA │ÜKKA │AÇM │TOPLAM │Σhacim │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├────────┼────────┴────────┴─────────┴─────────┼─────────┴───────┤
│1995 │20614 2698 9553 15475 │48340 48340 │
│1996 │21055 2928 10264 16627 │50874 99214 │
│1997 │21506 3170 11002 17823 │53501 152715 │
│1998 │21966 3421 11765 19057 │56209 208924 │
│1999 │22437 3683 12550 20330 │59000 267924 │
│2000 │22917 3954 13356 21636 │61863 329787 │
│2001 │23409 4232 14179 22969 │64789 394576 │
│2002 │23910 4518 15016 24326 │67770 462346 │
│2003 │24422 4811 15865 25701 │70799 533145 │
│2004 │24944 5109 16722 27088 │73863 607008 │
│2005 │25479 5409 17581 28480 │76949 683957 │
│2006 │26025 5711 18440 29871 │80047 764004 │
│2007 │26582 6013 19293 31254 │83142 847146 │
│2008 │27151 6313 20137 32620 │86221 933367 │
│2009 │27733 6611 20966 33963 │89273 1022640│
│2010 │28326 6902 21775 35273 │92276 1114916│
│2011 │28933 7186 22560 36544 │95223 1210139│
│2012 │29553 7461 23315 37768 │98097 1308236│
│2013 │30185 7724 24036 38935 │100880 1409116│
│2014 │30831 7975 24718 40040 │103564 1512680│
│2015 │31492 8210 25355 41073 │106130 1618810│
│2016 │32166 8428 25944 42027 │108565 1727375│
│2017 │32855 8627 26481 42896 │110859 1838234│
│2018 │33559 8805 26961 43673 │112998 1951232│
│2019 │34278 8961 27380 44353 │114972 2066204│
│2020 │35011 9094 27737 44929 │116771 2182975│
│2021 │35761 9203 28026 45398 │118388 2301363│
│2022 │36527 9285 28247 45756 │119815 2421178│
│2023 │37309 9342 28398 46000 │121049 2542227│
│2024 │38108 9372 28476 46126 │122082 2664309│
├────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│30 │855044 195156 616098 998011 │2664309 2664309│
└────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────┘
CONCLUSIONS
In the content of this study, dominantly, the uncontrolled landfill sites in Kemalpa¦a were observed and their current states were determined as explained in section 5.3.1. Questionnaire studies were done by 130 firms but among these only 92 of them were found to be correct and these and six municipality questionnaires were used in the study. As a result of this questionnaire study the aspects given below were determined.
Uncontrolled industrialization and urbanization is continuing on in the district without any preventions for environmental pollution and there are totally 67 uncontrolled landfills of which 21 of them are large.
Among these 169,820 m2 uncontrolled landfills areas the ones having worst conditions are shown in Map 4,5 and 7, at the U9, U10, K11., and K13 landfills, These cover way of rich ground and surface water resources
Also, for the past years, it was determined that solid wastes were being incinerated under uncontrolled conditions and also solid waste were left to biologically decompose in the open areas. As a result of these happenings it was calculated that approximately 29,447 nm3 of waste gas was given to the atmosphere which effected the air quality of the area negatively is unavoidable.
The average precipitation in the district was found to be 659.1 mm/year. As a result of this precipitation falling on the uncontrolled landfill areas where all kinds of hazardous, organic and inorganic wastes were being deposited, the leaching water having a volume of 22,386-55,964 m3/year, was assumed to be polluting the ground and surface waters of the district as explained in section 5.3.2. Also since they were infiltrating to the soil it was thought that they were consumed by the plants and entered the
food chain.
As a result, the uncontrolled landfill sites in this district should be improved as it was given in section 6. and an appropriate solid waste disposal method should be chosen and applied in this region immediately. But the most of the important result is that during the end of this theses there is starting improve studies for all of important each un controlled landfill areas by Kemalpa¦a Kaymakamlìk and Municipalities.
DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As it was stated before, the purpose of this study was determining the existing situation in Kemalpa¦a district in terms of environmental pollution caused by solid wastes produced. In order to enlarge the scope of the study analytical investigations should also be performed as the second and the third steps. This way it will be possible to determine the source and extent of surface and groundwater pollution. Then it will be more appropriate to propose a certain improvement method.
In Kemalpa¦a, industrialization and urbanization were both developed in an uncontrolled manner. The pollution problems as a result of this development were very intense. For example in Kemalpa¦a, a food industry which has waste gas emissions functions next to a chemical industry. If an environmental impact study had been done previously, these two different factories would not be placed next to each other.
Kemalpa¦a Organized Industrial District (KOSBÝ), which began functioning in 1994 will enlarge its areas, if possible to 1,000 ha by an addition of 590 ha to its already existing area. This will cause industrialization in the region to increase plus 2.5 times which will cause 2.5 times more pollution problems . This may be very dangerous for Kemalpa¦a from environmental point of view. But as a result of it is supposed that the Organized Industrial District, industrialization will continue on in a controlled manner and the industries will be careful in chousing environmentally friendly technologies.
As it was stated in section 5, the uncontrolled landfill sites in Kemalpa¦a region should be improved as soon as possible and a sanitary landfill site should be formed. Of course site selection for a sanitary landfill is not something that could be done by 2 or 3 people. This kind of a decision should be given after an environmental impact report is prepare by a group of scientists. The "Solid Waste Control Regulation" in acted in 14th May 1991 in the official newspaper number 20814, gives the official measures to be taken for solid wastes in Turkey. So it is very important to take the advice of various experts in this area in order to find the best solution.
As a result of all these aspects, the most appropriate and economic solution for the solid wastes of Kemalpa¦a was found to be sanitary landfill. But in order to increase the operation period of this sanitary landfill, recycling technologies should be improved for solid wastes also they should be separated at their sources, and environmentally friendly technologies should be chosen by the industries which minimize wastes while maximize production.
Table 10.4 : Some summary solid waste data about different industrial sectors
which are taken from questionnaire studies in Kemalpa¦a County
┌──────────┬────────┬────────┬───────┬───────────┬────────────┬──────────────┐
│ │ │ │Solid │Amount of │Amount of │Amount of │
│ │ │Amount │Waste │S.W. and │Recovered │Recovered S.W │
│Industrial│Personal│ of │From │Sludge From│Solid Waste│and Sludge │
│Sectors │Number │Product │Product│Treat.Plant│From Product│From Tre.Plant│
│ ├────────┼────────┼───────┼───────────┼────────────┼──────────────┤
│ │People │ton/week│lt/week│ lt/week│ lt/week │ lt/week │
├──────────┼────────┴────────┴───────┴───────────┴────────────┴──────────────┤
│ Food │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qf1 │ 445 1,310 865 20,000 865 20,000 │
│ Qf2 │ 96 112 24,231 1,923 24,231 1,923 │
│ Qf3 │ 10 67 14,538 1,154 14,538 1,154 │
│ Qf4 │ 10 40 12,115 1,538 │
│ Qf5 │ 90 45 438 14,177 438 14,177 │
│ Qf6 │ 130 56 1,308 1,308 │
│ Qf7 │ 206 60 2,308 2,308 │
│ Qf8 │ 190 113 2,173 3,846 2,173 3,846 │
│ Qf9 │ 44 94 1,815 1,815 │
│ Qf10 │ 20 19 769 769 │
│ Qf11 │ 156 283 5,385 5,385 │
│ Qf12 │ 24 192 1,477 1,477 │
│ Qf13 │ 8 2.45 15 │
│ Qf14 │ 162 140 1,615 831 │
│ Qf15 │ 77 231 231 │
│ Qf16 │ 123 95 2,131 5,385 592 │
│ Qf17 │ 99 38 1,548 │
│ Qf18 │ 21 175 231 │
│ Qf19 │ 12 12 218 │
│ Qf20 │ 150 245 2,831 │
│ Qf21 │ 13 30 1,923 438 │
│ Qf22 │ 51 28 4,231 │
│ Qf23 │ 18 6 189 │
│ Qf24 │ 90 90 46 │
│ Qf25 │ 21 400 231 23 │
│ Qf26 │ 24 189 231 2,450 231 12,450 │
│ Qf27 │ 222 1,137 1,438 35,547 1,538 35,447 │
│ Qf28 │ 198 672 600 21,000 600 21,000 │
│ Qf29 │ 160 550 1,077 │
│ Qf30 │ 36 9 15 │
│ Qf31 │ 24 234 6,923 831 6,923 │
│ Qf32 │ 701 375 17,692 15,385 │
│ Qf33 │ 12 14 116 116 │
╘══════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╛
( b )
┌──────────┬────────┬────────┬───────┬───────────┬────────────┬──────────────┐
│ │ │ │Solid │Amount of │Amount of │Amount of │
│ │ │Amount │Waste │S.W. and │Recovered │Recovered S.W │
│Industrial│Personal│ of │From │Sludge From│Solid Waste│and Sludge │
│Sectors │Number │Product │Product│Treat.Plant│From Product│From Tre.Plant│
│ ├────────┼────────┼───────┼───────────┼────────────┼──────────────┤
│ │People │ton/week│lt/week│ lt/week│ lt/week │ lt/week │
├──────────┼────────┴────────┴───────┴───────────┴────────────┴──────────────┤
│ Metal │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qm1 │ 23 146 146 │
│ Qm2 │ 20 100 154 154 │
│ Qm3 │ 10 1,154 1,154 │
│ Qm4 │ 105 │
│ Qm5 │ 32 150 573 573 │
│ Qm6 │ 340 44 8,708 │
│ Qm7 │ 30 5 77 77 │
│ Qm8 │ 25 4 31 31 │
│ Qm9 │ 21 2 3,205 32 3,205 │
│ Qm10 │ 83 5 160 160 │
│ Qm11 │ 10 │
│ Qm12 │ 31 58 802 740 │
│ Qm13 │ 165 115 9,615 8,875 │
│ Qm14 │ 24 4 641 592 │
│ Qm15 │ 11 1 154 154 │
│ Qm16 │ 66 20 1,540 │
│ Qm17 │ 110 30 192 192 │
│ Qm18 │ 98 62 7,212 7,212 │
│ Qm19 │ 54 23 32 32 │
│ Qm20 │ 132 13 96 │
╞══════════╪═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│Mineral │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qmi1 │ 21 71 3,500 48,000 │
│ Qmi2 │ 132 405 80,000 │
│ Qmi3 │ 16 180 │
│ Qmi4 │ 921 6,375 85,000 147,000 │
│ Qmi5 │ 15 19 16,667 4,285 16,667 │
│ Qmi6 │ 490 145 40,000 2,000 │
│ Qmi7 │ 137 4,430 4,167 103,000 │
│ Qmi8 │ 4 1,667 1,308 │
│ Qmi9 │ 124 1,154 4,000 │
╞══════════╪═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│Chemistry │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qc1 │ 4 1,154 923 │
│ Qc2 │ 87 23 208 193 │
│ Qc3 │ 6 3 │
│ Qc4 │ 11 13 969 969 │
│ Qc5 │ 9 5 │
│ Qc6 │ 33 67 1,667 │
│ Qc7 │ 11 6 │
│ Qc8 │ 49 12 75 75 │
│ Qc9 │ 68 626 11,538 12,000 11,538 │
│ Qc10 │ 45 1,923 │
╘══════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╛
( c )
┌──────────┬────────┬────────┬───────┬───────────┬────────────┬──────────────┐
│ │ │ │Solid │Amount of │Amount of │Amount of │
│ │ │Amount │Waste │S.W. and │Recovered │Recovered S.W │
│Industrial│Personal│ of │From │Sludge From│Solid Waste│and Sludge │
│Sectors │Number │Product │Product│Treat.Plant│From Product│From Tre.Plant│
│ ├────────┼────────┼───────┼───────────┼────────────┼──────────────┤
│ │People │ton/week│lt/week│ lt/week│ lt/week │ lt/week │
├──────────┼────────┴────────┴───────┴───────────┴────────────┴──────────────┤
│Textile │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qt1 │ 36 16 231 231 │
│ Qt2 │ 158 7 450 77 450 77 │
│ Qt3 │ 136 1.5 20 154 │
│ Qt4 │ 196 3.5 900 900 │
│ Qt5 │ 149 1 180 180 │
│ Qt6 │ 86 15 300 154 300 │
╞══════════╪═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│Rubber and│ │
│Plastic │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ │ │
│ Qrp1 │ 28 31 175 175 │
│ Qrp2 │ 55 8 95 95 │
│ Qrp3 │ 15 6 126 116 │
│ Qrp4 │ 15 19 │
│ Qrp5 │ 9 0.2 95 95 │
│ Qrp6 │ 48 72 │
│ Qrp7 │ 5 0.2 8 │
╞══════════╪═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│Brake │ │
│lining │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qb1 │ 55 29 1,500 720 │
│ Qb2 │ 57 3 1,700 │
│ Qb3 │ 93 7 1,063 │
│ Qb4 │ 40 │
╞══════════╪═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│Cosmetic │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qc1 │ 70 22 338 338 │
│ Qc2 │ 8 │
╞══════════╪═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│Cellulose,│ │
│Paper and │ │
│Cartoon │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qcp1 │ 8 0.25 60 │
│ Qcp2 │ 31 125 6,250 │
│ Qcp3 │ 48 150 7,500 61,538 7,500 │
│ Qcp4 │ 124 100 5,000 1,538 5,000 │
│ Qcp5 │ 243 200 10,000 10,000 │
│ Qcp6 │ 254 100 5,000 5,000 │
│ Qcp7 │ 80 192 9,600 9,600 │
╞══════════╪═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│Tannery │ │
├──────────┤ │
│ Qta1 │ 30 2 105 462 │
╘══════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╛
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ uncontrolled waste sites│
└────────────┬────────────┘
┌────────────┴─────────────┐
│ possible hazard potential│
└────────────┬─────────────┘
┌────────────┴──────────────┐
┌─────────┴────────┐ ┌────────┴───────┐
│ existing contami-│ │latent contami- │
│ nation potential │ │nation potential│
└─────────┬────────┘ └────────────────┘
┌─────┴──────┬────────────┬────────────┐
┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴───┐
│ gaseous │ │ fluid │ │ solid │ │ direct │
│emissions│ │emissions│ │emissions│ │contacts│
└─────────┘ └────┬────┘ │ (dust) │ └────────┘
│ └─────────┘
┌──────┴────────┐
┌──────┴─────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐
│geound water│ │surface water│
└────────────┘ └─────────────┘
Figure 2.1. Possible hazard potential, contamination of and
emissions from abandoned waste disposal sites
┌───────────────┐
┌───────────────┤ SCREENING ├─────────────────┐
│ │1. Analtic step│ │
│ └─┬───────────┬─┘ │
│ │ │ │
┌───────┴───────┐ ┌───────┴────┐ ┌────┴──────┐ ┌──────────┴───────────┐
│ Canalized │ │ Canalized │ │ Canalized │ │ Canalized │
│ parameters │ │ parameters │ │ parameters│ │ parameters │
│ BOR │ │ SULPHATE │ │ AOX │ │Gas chromotog. results│
├───────────────┤ ├────────────┤ ├───────────┴─┴──────────────────────┤
│Domestic solid │ │Rubble stone│ │ Chemical waste │
│waste indicator│ │ indicator │ │ indicator │
└───────┬───────┘ └─────┬──────┘ └────────┬───────────────┬───────────┘
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
┌────┴───────────────┴──┐ ┌─────────┴───────┐ ┌─────┴───────────┐
│Emission indicator │ │Halogenic organic│ │Information about│
│old deponi-ground water│ │compounds │ │total organic │
│contact │ ├─────────────────┤ │contamination │
└───────────────────────┘ │ │ ├─────────────────┤
│ Quantitative │ │ Qualitive │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
Figure 2.2. The aim of first elimination stepst and canalized parameters
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ uncontrolled waste sites│
└────────────┬────────────┘
┌────────────┴─────────────┐
│ possible hazard potential│
└────────────┬─────────────┘
┌────────────┴──────────────┐
┌─────────┴────────┐ ┌────────┴───────┐
│ existing contami-│ │latent contami- │
│ nation potential │ │nation potential│
└─────────┬────────┘ └────────────────┘
┌─────┴──────┬────────────┬────────────┐
┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴───┐
│ gaseous │ │ fluid │ │ solid │ │ direct │
│emissions│ │emissions│ │emissions│ │contacts│
└─────────┘ └────┬────┘ │ (dust) │ └────────┘
│ └─────────┘
┌──────┴────────┐
┌──────┴─────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐
│geound water│ │surface water│
└────────────┘ └─────────────┘
Figure 2.1. Possible hazard potential, contamination of and
emissions from abandoned waste disposal sites
┌───────────────┐
┌───────────────┤ SCREENING ├─────────────────┐
│ │1. Analtic step│ │
│ └─┬───────────┬─┘ │
┌───────┴───────┐ ┌───────┴────┐ ┌────┴──────┐ ┌──────────┴───────────┐
│ Canalized │ │ Canalized │ │ Canalized │ │ Canalized │
│ parameters │ │ parameters │ │ parameters│ │ parameters │
│ BOR │ │ SULPHATE │ │ AOX │ │Gas chromotog. results│
├───────────────┤ ├────────────┤ ├───────────┴─┴──────────────────────┤
│Domestic solid │ │Rubble stone│ │ Chemical waste │
│waste indicator│ │ indicator │ │ indicator │
└───────┬───────┘ └─────┬──────┘ └────────┬───────────────┬───────────┘
┌────┴───────────────┴──┐ ┌─────────┴───────┐ ┌─────┴───────────┐
│Emission indicator │ │Halogenic organic│ │Information about│
│old deponi-ground water│ │compounds │ │total organic │
│contact │ ├─────────────────┤ │contamination │
└───────────────────────┘ │ │ ├─────────────────┤
│ Quantitative │ │ Qualitive │
└─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘
Figure 2.2. The aim of first elimination stepst and canalized parameters
┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMATIC MATTER│ │ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMATIC MATTER│
│ 2. Analytic step │ │ 2. Analytic step │
└───────────────┬──────────────┘ └───────────────┬──────────────┘
┌─────────┴────────┐ ┌────────┴─────────┐
│inorganics matters│ │ organics matters │
└─────────┬────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘
┌──────────────────┴─────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┴─────────────────────┐
│ Group 1 (Almania, AT directive│ │ Matter whìchare ìncludet ìn (Black) │
│ Toxic matters │ │ list of Eoropean Comminity, present │
├────────────────────────────────────┤ │ in "Hazardous Waste List" of EPA │
│1. priority : AS, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, CN│ │ and all matters of which measurable │
│2. priority : Be, HG, Sb, Se, V ...│ │ concentration in old deponies is │
│ (Targets) │ │ higher than 1 mg/l │
└──────────────────┬─────────────────┘ └──────────┬───────────────────┬─────────┘
┌──────────────────┴─────────────────┐ ┌──────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐
│ Group 2 (At directive) │ │ Referance matter ││ Referance matter │
│ Unwanted matters │ │ with halogens ││ without halogens │
├────────────────────────────────────┤ └──────────┬────────┘└─────────┬─────────┘
│1. priority : Cu, Zn, NO3, NH4 │ ┌──────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐
│ TOC, Fe (Mn) │ │ Group 1 ││ Group 1 │
│2. priority : Ba, F, Co, NO2, Ag ...│ │ ││ │
│ (Targets) │ │Dichlormethan ││ Benzol │
└────────────────────────────────────┘ │Trichlormethan ││ Toluol │
│Tetrachlormethan ││ Ethylbenzol │
Fig 2.3. Content of inorganic Analysis │1,1,1-Trichlorethan││ Xylole │
┌────────────────┐
│Detail Analyzis │
│3. Analytic step│
└────────────────┘
┌─────┐ ┌────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐
│CC-MS│ │HPLC│ │Other analyzis│ │Sediment analyzis │
└─────┘ └────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────────┘
┌─────────────┐┌───────────────┐┌────────────────────┐┌────────────┐┌────────────┐
│Determination││"Finger prints"││Effect test ││ Organic ││ inorganic │
│of matter ││polar compounds││"Mikrotox" │├────────────┤├────────────┤
│by gas polar ││ ││Acetylcholinesterase││Matters ││Heavy metals│
│cromotography││PAH ││inhibation ││dissolve ││inorganic │
│compouns │└───────────────┘└────────────────────┘│less in ││carbon and │
│ │ ┌─────────────┐ │water and ││in clay │
│2 Step │ │Radionucleids│ │has sorptive│└────────────┘
└─────────────┘ │234U, 238U │ │of finity │
│90Sr, 226Ra │ └────────────┘
└─────────────┘
┌─────────────┐
│Phenolindex ?│
└─────────────┘
Figure 2.5. Detail analyzes of ground water contaminated by old deponies
┌──────────┐
│EVALUATION│
└──────────┘
┌───────────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐
│Presence of hidyenic inconvient│ │Hazardous waste load ratio│
│matter and its concantration ├──┤of profit by │
├───────────────────────────────┤ │ (matter balance) │
│Comparison of influent flow │ └────────────┬─────────────┘
│with efluent comparison with │ │
│European community standars │ ┌────────────┴──────────┐
│or drinking water standart ├──┤Estimation of dangerous│
│ │ └───┬────────────────┬──┘
│Comparison with mattr list or │ │ │
│with others of AT and EPA │ │ │
│ │ ┌───┴───┐ ┌─────┴─────┐
│Effect test │ │Control│ │Improvement│
└───────────────────────────────┘ └───────┘ └───────────┘
Figure 2.6. Evaluation and interpration of contamination ground water
┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMATIC MATTER│
│ 2. Analytic step │
└───────────────┬──────────────┘
┌────────┴─────────┐
│ organics matters │
└────────┬─────────┘
┌──────────────────┴─────────────────────┐
│ Matter whìchare ìncludet ìn (Black) │
│ list of Eoropean Comminity, present │
│ in "Hazardous Waste List" of EPA │
│ and all matters of which measurable │
│ concentration in old deponies is │ │ higher than 1 mg/l │
└──────────┬───────────────────┬─────────┘
┌──────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐
│ Referance matter ││ Referance matter │
│ with halogens ││ without halogens │
└──────────┬────────┘└─────────┬─────────┘
┌──────────┴────────┐┌─────────┴─────────┐
│ Group 1 ││ Group 1 │
│ ││ │
│Dichlormethan ││ Benzol │
│Trichlormethan ││ Toluol │
│Tetrachlormethan ││ Ethylbenzol │ │1,1,1-Trichlorethan││ Xylole │
│Trichlorethen ││ Isopropylbenzol │
│Tetrachlorethen ││ │
│ ││ │
│ Group 2 ││ Group 2 │
│ ││ │
│1,1-Dichlorethan ││ Di-n-butylphthalat│
│1,2-Dichlorethan ││ Diethylphthalat │
│1,1-Dichlorethen ││ 2-ethylhexyl │
│Tribromethan ││ 2-methylphenol │
│Chlodibromethan ││ Naphthalin │
│Chlorbenzol ││ │
└───────────────────┘└───────────────────┘
Figure 2.4. Content of organic analysis
Table 5.3: The populations domestic solid waste distribution
in between 965-1995 from settled areas ( m3 )
┌────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Volume Reduce Accumulate │
│ T │ N Vs Vse=Vs*0.7 ΣVse │
│year│ people m3 m3 m3 │
├────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│1965│ 35025 15490 10843 10843 │
│1966│ 35162 15559 10891 21734 │
│1967│ 35299 15628 10940 32674 │
│1968│ 35436 15697 10988 43662 │
│1969│ 35573 15766 11036 54698 │
│1970│ 35710 15835 11084 65782 │
│1971│ 36309 16139 11297 77079 │
│1972│ 36908 16443 11510 88589 │
│1973│ 37507 16747 11723 100312 │
│1974│ 38106 17052 11936 112248 │
│1975│ 38706 17359 12151 124399 │
│1976│ 39663 17849 12494 136893 │
│1977│ 40620 18341 12839 149732 │
│1978│ 41577 18834 13184 162916 │
│1979│ 42534 19329 13530 176446 │
│1980│ 43489 19825 13877 190323 │
│1981│ 44626 20416 14291 204614 │
│1982│ 45763 21011 14708 219322 │
│1983│ 46900 21607 15125 234447 │
│1984│ 48037 22205 15543 249990 │
│1985│ 49175 22805 15963 265953 │
│1986│ 50555 23537 16476 282429 │
│1987│ 51935 24270 16989 299418 │
│1988│ 53315 25007 17505 316923 │
│1989│ 54695 25746 18022 334945 │
│1990│ 56075 26488 18542 353487 │
│1991│ 57351 27176 19023 372510 │
│1992│ 58656 27882 19518 392028 │
│1993│ 59991 28607 20025 412053 │
│1994│ 61356 29350 20545 432598 │
├────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Total Volume 617997 432598 432598 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Table 5.4: The Total commercial waste distribution in
between 1965-1995 year from settled areas
┌──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ │ │
│ The Total Commercial │ Reduce Waste │
│ Waste │ Vrsh=Vsh*0.7 │
├──────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ 34,042 m3 │ 23,833 m3 │
│ │ │
└──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┘
Table 5.5: The slaughterhouse to reduce solid waste
distribution in between 1984-1994 from
settled areas
┌────┬──────────────┐
│ T │Weight Volume│
│year│ ton m3 │
├────┼──────────────┤
│1984│ 268 335 │
│1985│ 290 363 │
│1986│ 300 375 │
│1987│ 310 388 │
│1988│ 340 425 │
│1989│ 360 450 │
│1990│ 390 488 │
│1991│ 440 550 │
│1992│ 475 594 │
│1993│ 520 650 │
│1994│ 550 688 │
├────┴──────────────┤
│Total 4243 5307│
└───────────────────┘
Table 5.6: The solid waste distribution in between 1965-1995
year from industrial employers.( m3 )
┌────┬─────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Volume Reduce Accum.│
│ T │ N Vp Vsp ΣVsp │
│year│ People m3 m3 m3 │
├────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│1965│ -- -- -- -- │
│1966│ -- -- -- -- │
│1967│ -- -- -- -- │
│1968│ -- -- -- -- │
│1969│ -- -- -- -- │
│1970│ -- -- -- -- │
│1971│ -- -- -- -- │
│1972│ -- -- -- -- │
│1973│ -- -- -- -- │
│1974│ 340 79 55 55 │
│1975│ 1309 365 255 310 │
│1976│ 1785 520 364 674 │
│1977│ 2123 634 444 1118 │
│1978│ 2555 783 548 1666 │
│1979│ 2700 834 584 2250 │
│1980│ 2700 834 584 2834 │
│1981│ 2871 895 626 3460 │
│1982│ 3743 1210 847 4307 │
│1983│ 3764 1218 853 5160 │
│1984│ 4012 1310 917 6077 │
│1985│ 4869 1634 1144 7221 │
│1986│ 5297 1798 1259 8480 │
│1987│ 5797 1993 1395 9875 │
│1988│ 6514 2276 1593 11468 │
│1989│ 7294 2590 1813 13281 │
│1990│ 8266 2987 2091 15372 │
│1991│ 8973 3279 2295 17667 │
│1992│ 9108 3336 2335 20002 │
│1993│ 9288 3411 2388 22390 │
│1994│ 9596 3540 2478 24868 │
├────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│ │ 35526 24868 24868 │
└────┴─────────────────────────────────┘
Table 5.7: The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( m3 )
┌─────────────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Amount of│Amount of │
│ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │ Total │ Solid │
│ The Industrial │Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 35785 │ 27686│ 30638│ 27863│ 66423 │ 55549│ 10874 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 25395 │ 24469│ 12 │ 0 │ 25407 │ 24469│ 938 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 161989│ 12134│ 87447│ 0 │ 249436│ 12134│ 237302│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 4471 │ 2779 │ 704 │ 0 │ 5175 │ 2779 │ 2396 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Textile │ 797 │ 797 │ 34 │ 2 │ 831 │ 799 │ 32 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber , Plastic│ 138 │ 133 │ 0 │ 0 │ 138 │ 133 │ 5 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Cellulose, Paper │ 23034 │ 23013│ 10080│ 0 │ 33114 │ 23013│ 10101 │
│end Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 1498 │ 337 │ 0 │ 0 │ 1498 │ 337 │ 1161 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Leather │ 71 │ 0 │ 72 │ 0 │ 143 │ 0 │ 143 │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│The Amount of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Total Solid Waste│ 253178│ 91348│ 128987│ 27865│ 382165│ 119213│ 262952│
└─────────────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
Table 5.8: The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( Ton )
┌─────────────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Amount of│Amount of │
│ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │ Total │ Solid │
│ The Industrial │Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 46849 │ 35962│ 39829 │ 36222│ 86678 │ 72184│ 14494 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 33212 │ 31619│ 15 │ 0 │ 33227 │ 31619│ 1608 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 242983│ 18200│ 132739│ 0 │ 375722│ 18200│ 357522│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 6025 │ 3530 │ 1040 │ 0 │ 7065 │ 3530 │ 3535 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Textile │ 584 │ 584 │ 44 │ 3 │ 628 │ 587 │ 41 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber , Plastic│ 95 │ 92 │ 0 │ 0 │ 95 │ 92 │ 3 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Cellulose, Paper │ 11514 │ 11506│ 13104 │ 0 │ 24618 │ 11506│ 13112 │
│end Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 1217 │ 225 │ 0 │ 0 │ 1217 │ 225 │ 992 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Leather │ 47 │ 0 │ 94 │ 0 │ 567 │ 0 │ 567 │
├─────────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│The Amount of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Total Solid Waste│ 342952│ 101718│ 186865│ 36225│ 529817│ 137943│ 391874│
└─────────────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
Tablo : geçmi¦te
olu¦mu¦ olan mezba
atìk miktar
┌────┬───────────┐
│ T │ G V │ ┌──────────────────────┐
│year│ ton m3 │ │ │
├────┼───────────┤ │ │
│1984│ 268 335 │ │1.08209 8.208954 │
│1985│ 290 363 │ │1.034483 3.448272 │
│1986│ 300 375 │ │1.033333 3.33333 │
│1987│ 310 388 │ │1.096774 9.677422 │
│1988│ 340 425 │ │1.058824 5.882359 │
│1989│ 360 450 │ │1.083333 8.333338 │
│1990│ 390 488 │ │1.128205 12.82052 │
│1991│ 440 550 │ │1.079545 7.95455 │
│1992│ 475 594 │ │1.094737 9.473681 │
│1993│ 520 650 │ │1.080769 8.076918 │
│1994│ 550 688 │ │ ----- ------ │
├────┼───────────┤ │mezba atìklarìnìn │
│ │ 4243 5307 │ │olu¦um │
└────┴───────────┘ │YÜZDESÝ-» % 7.720934│
└──────────────────────┘
Table 5.1: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County . (m3/yìl) YEAR:1994
┌─────────────────┬──────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Te Amount│The Amount │
│ │ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │Of Total │of Solid │
│ The Industrial │The Amount│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │of Product│From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 353236│ 5082│ 4227│ 6239│ 5725│ 11321│ 9952│ 1369│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 35360│ 1794│ 1664│ 2│ 0│ 1796│ 1664│ 132│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 664924│ 12220│ 867│ 16064│ 0│ 28284│ 867│ 27417│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 139100│ 812│ 702│ 634│ 0│ 1446│ 702│ 744│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tekstiyl │ 2288│ 108│ 79│ 12│ 4│ 120│ 83│ 37│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber , Plastic│ 7072│ 26│ 25│ 0│ 0│ 26│ 25│ 1│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Seluloze, Paper │ 45084│ 2257│ 2254│ 3280│ 0│ 5537│ 2254│ 3283│
│end Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 2028│ 222│ 37│ 0│ 0│ 222│ 37│ 185│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Leather │ 104│ 5│ 0│ 24│ 0│ 29│ 0│ 29│
├─────────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│The Amount of ├──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Total Solid Waste│ 1249196│ 22526│ 9855│ 26255│ 5729│ 48781│ 15584│ 33197 │
└─────────────────┴──────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
Table 5.2: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County. (kg/yìl) YEAR:1994
┌─────────────────┬──────────┬────────────┬──────────┬───────────┬──────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ │ │ │Amount of │ │Amount of │ │Te Amount│The Amount │
│ │ │ │Recovered │ │Recovered │ │Of Total │of Solid │
│ The Industrial │The Amount│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Waste│Waste From│Total Solid│Recovered│Waste to be│
│ Sectors │of Product│From Product│Product │From Sludge│Sludge │Waste │Sol.Waste│Disposed │
├─────────────────┼──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Food │ 353236│ 6608│ 3950│ 8050│ 7443│ 14658│ 11393│ 3265│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Metal │ 35360│ 2332│ 2164│ 2│ 0│ 2334│ 2164│ 170│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Mineral │ 664924│ 18330│ 1300│ 24558│ 0│ 42888│ 1300│ 41588│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Chemistry │ 139100│ 1057│ 898│ 949│ 0│ 2006│ 898│ 1108│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tekstiyl │ 2288│ 80│ 51│ 16│ 5│ 96│ 56│ 40│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Rubber , Plastic│ 7072│ 18│ 17│ 0│ 0│ 18│ 17│ 1│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Selüloze, Paper │ 45084│ 1128│ 1127│ 4264│ 0│ 5392│ 1127│ 4265│
│end Carton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Brake Lining │ 2028│ 198│ 25│ 0│ 0│ 198│ 25│ 173│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Leather │ 104│ 4│ 0│ 31│ 0│ 35│ 0│ 35│
├─────────────────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│The Amount of ├──────────┼────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│Total Solid Waste│ 1249196│ 29755│ 9532│ 37870│ 7448│ 67625│ 16980│ 50645 │
└─────────────────┴──────────┴────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: The Distrìbution of Kemalpa¦a Countys Agrìcultural Areas
Table 3.2: The Distribution and Densìty of County Population
Table 5.1: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County . (m3/yìl) YEAR:1994
Table 5.2: Distribution of Solid Waste From Industrial Sector in Kemalpa¦a County. (kg/yìl) YEAR:1994
Table 5.3: The populations domestic solid waste distribution
in between 965-1995 from setlet areas ( m3 )
Table 5.4: The Total commercial waste distribution in
between 1965-1995 year from setlet areas
Tablo 5.5: The slaughterhouse to reduce solid waste
distribution in between 1984-1994 from
Table 5.6: The solid waste distribution in between 1965-1995
year from industrial employers.( m3 )
Tablo 5.7: The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( m3 )
Tablo 5.8: The distribution of solid wastes between the year of 1965-1995 in the industry ( Ton )
Tablo 10: 1995 ba¦langìcì ve 2024 sonuna kadarki 30 yìllìk
süre de meydana gelen EKKA ile SKKA larìn (personel nüfus.)
daºìlìmìnì%30 hacìm azalmasì ile vermektedir.
┌────┬──────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┐
│ T │Nev Vs Vse Σse │Npe Vs Vsp ΣVsp │
│yìl │ki¦i m3 m3 m3 │ki¦i m3 m3 m3 │
├────┼──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│1995│62752 30112 21078 21078 │11222 4232 2962 2962 │
│1996│64180 30895 21626 42704 │12844 4936 3455 6417 │
│1997│65640 31697 22188 64892 │14466 5653 3957 10374 │
│1998│67134 32521 22765 87657 │16088 6381 4467 14841 │
│1999│68662 33366 23356 111013│17710 7119 4983 19824 │
│2000│70224 34233 23963 134976│19332 7867 5507 25331 │
│2001│71822 35122 24585 159561│20954 8624 6037 31368 │
│2002│73456 36035 25224 184785│22576 9389 6572 37940 │
│2003│75128 36971 25880 210665│24198 10162 7113 45053 │
│2004│76837 37932 26552 237217│25820 10942 7659 52712 │
│2005│78586 38917 27242 264459│27442 11729 8210 60922 │
│2006│80374 39928 27950 292409│29064 12522 8765 69687 │
│2007│82203 40966 28676 321085│30686 13322 9325 79012 │
│2008│84073 42030 29421 350506│32308 14127 9889 88901 │
│2009│85986 43122 30185 380691│33930 14939 10457 99358 │
│2010│87943 44243 30970 411661│33930 14939 10457 109815│
│2011│89944 45392 31774 443435│33930 14939 10457 120272│
│2012│91991 46572 32600 476035│33930 14939 10457 130729│
│2013│94084 47781 33447 509482│33930 14939 10457 141186│
│2014│96225 49023 34316 543798│33930 14939 10457 151643│
│2015│98415 50297 35208 579006│33930 14939 10457 162100│
│2016│100654 51603 36122 615128│33930 14939 10457 172557│
│2017│102945 52944 37061 652189│33930 14939 10457 183014│
│2018│105287 54320 38024 690213│33930 14939 10457 193471│
│2019│107683 55731 39012 729225│33930 14939 10457 203928│
│2020│110133 57179 40025 769250│33930 14939 10457 214385│
│2021│112639 58665 41065 810315│33930 14939 10457 224842│
│2022│115202 60189 42132 852447│33930 14939 10457 235299│
│2023│117824 61753 43227 895674│33930 14939 10457 245756│
│2024│120505 63357 44350 940024│33930 14939 10457 256213│
├────┴──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│ 1342896 940024 940024│ 366029 256213 256213│
└───────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┘
not :geometrik yöntem bagìntìsì kullanìldì ilçe nüf. belirlendi.
Tablo 11: 1995 ba¦langìcì ve 2024 sonuna kadarki 30 yìllìk
süre de meydana gelen EKKA ile SKKA larìn (personel nüfus.)
daºìlìmìnì%30 hacìm azalmasì ile vermektedir.
┌────┬───────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ T │Nev Vs Vse Σse │Npe Vs Vsp ΣVsp │
│yìl │ki¦i m3 m3 m3 │ki¦i m3 m3 m3 │
├────┼───────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│1995│59991 28607 20025 20025 │11222 4232 2962 2962 │
│1996│61015 29164 20415 40440 │12844 4936 3455 6417 │
│1997│62039 29723 20806 61246 │14466 5653 3957 10374 │
│1998│63063 30283 21198 82444 │16088 6381 4467 14841 │
│1999│64087 30844 21591 104035│17710 7119 4983 19824 │
│2000│65111 31406 21984 126019│19332 7867 5507 25331 │
│2001│66135 31970 22379 148398│20954 8624 6037 31368 │
│2002│67159 32535 22774 171172│22576 9389 6572 37940 │
│2003│68183 33101 23171 194343│24198 10162 7113 45053 │
│2004│69206 33668 23568 217911│25820 10942 7659 52712 │
│2005│70230 34236 23965 241876│27442 11729 8210 60922 │
│2006│71254 34806 24364 266240│29064 12522 8765 69687 │
│2007│72278 35377 24764 291004│30686 13322 9325 79012 │
│2008│73302 35949 25164 316168│32308 14127 9889 88901 │
│2009│74326 36522 25565 341733│33930 14939 10457 99358 │
│2010│75350 37096 25967 367700│33930 14939 10457 109815│
│2011│76374 37671 26370 394070│33930 14939 10457 120272│
│2012│77398 38247 26773 420843│33930 14939 10457 130729│
│2013│78422 38825 27177 448020│33930 14939 10457 141186│
│2014│79446 39403 27582 475602│33930 14939 10457 151643│
│2015│80470 39983 27988 503590│33930 14939 10457 162100│
│2016│81494 40563 28394 531984│33930 14939 10457 172557│
│2017│82518 41145 28801 560785│33930 14939 10457 183014│
│2018│83542 41728 29210 589995│33930 14939 10457 193471│
│2019│84566 42311 29618 619613│33930 14939 10457 203928│
│2020│85590 42896 30027 649640│33930 14939 10457 214385│
│2021│86614 43481 30437 680077│33930 14939 10457 224842│
│2022│87638 44068 30848 710925│33930 14939 10457 235299│
│2023│88662 44655 31258 742183│33930 14939 10457 245756│
│2024│89686 45244 31671 773854│33930 14939 10457 256213│
├────┴───────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ 1105507 773854 773854│ 366029 256213 256213│
└────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┘
Not : EKK yöntemine göre hesasplanmì¦ ilçe nüfusu kulanìldì.
Tablo : 1995 ile 2024 yìllarì arasìnda
olu¦abilecek Esnef ve Mezba atìklarìnìn daºìlìmì.
┌──────────────────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ ESNAF ATIªI │ MEZBA ATIªI │
│ T Ve Ve*.7 ek. │ G Vm Vm*.2 ek.│
├────┬─────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│ yìl│ m3 m3 m3 │ ton m3 m3 m3 │
├────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│1995│ 1654 1158 1158 │ 562 702 140 140 │
│1996│ 1692 1184 2342 │ 604 755 151 291 │
│1997│ 1730 1211 3553 │ 647 809 162 453 │
│1998│ 1770 1239 4792 │ 692 865 173 626 │
│1999│ 1810 1267 6059 │ 738 922 184 810 │
│2000│ 1851 1296 7355 │ 785 981 196 1006│
│2001│ 1893 1325 8680 │ 833 1041 208 1214│
│2002│ 1937 1356 10036│ 882 1102 220 1434│
│2003│ 1981 1387 11423│ 932 1165 233 1667│
│2004│ 2026 1418 12841│ 982 1228 246 1913│
│2005│ 2072 1450 14291│ 1032 1290 258 2171│
│2006│ 2119 1483 15774│ 1082 1352 270 2441│
│2007│ 2167 1517 17291│ 1132 1415 283 2724│
│2008│ 2217 1552 18843│ 1181 1476 295 3019│
│2009│ 2267 1587 20430│ 1230 1538 308 3327│
│2010│ 2318 1623 22053│ 1277 1596 319 3646│
│2011│ 2372 1660 23713│ 1323 1654 331 3977│
│2012│ 2425 1697 25410│ 1367 1709 342 4319│
│2013│ 2481 1737 27147│ 1409 1761 352 4671│
│2014│ 2537 1776 28923│ 1449 1811 362 5033│
│2015│ 2595 1816 30739│ 1486 1858 372 5405│
│2016│ 2654 1858 32597│ 1521 1901 380 5785│
│2017│ 2714 1900 34497│ 1552 1940 388 6173│
│2018│ 2776 1943 36440│ 1580 1975 395 6568│
│2019│ 2839 1987 38427│ 1605 2006 401 6969│
│2020│ 2904 2033 40460│ 1626 2032 406 7375│
│2021│ 2969 2078 42538│ 1643 2054 411 7786│
│2022│ 3037 2126 44664│ 1656 2070 414 8200│
│2023│ 3107 2175 46839│ 1665 2081 416 8616│
│2024│ 3177 2224 49063│ 1670 2088 418 9034│
│ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│ │70091 49063 49063│36143 45177 9034 9034│
└────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────────┘