Assessment of IPPC compliance status of facilities operating in the non-ferrous metal production sector

Abstract

The study aims to determine the compliance status of the companies carrying out non-ferrous production activities in our country with the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) legislation to be regulated and to determine the time required for incompatible facilities to comply fully. For this purpose, a survey was conducted for the facilities within the scope of the best available techniques (BAT) reference document prepared by the EU, the results were analyzed, and the IPPC compliance status of the facilities operating in the non-ferrous metal sector and the periods required for the non-compliant facilities to adapt were determined. According to the results of the analysis, 33% of the companies in the copper sector, 47% of the companies in the aluminum sector, 86.5% of the companies in the lead-tin sector, and 60% of the companies in the precious metals sector have implemented BAT and are in full compliance with IPPC were detected. When the non-ferrous metal sector is evaluated as a whole, it has been determined that 27% of the companies in the sector have implemented BAT and are fully compliant with IPPC, and 24 months will be sufficient for non-compliant facilities to make the necessary investments and improvements.

Keywords

• Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC)
• Environment
• Air pollution
• Non-ferrous metals

Demir dışı metal üretimi sektöründe faaliyet gösteren tesislerin EKÖK uyum durumunun değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Gerçekleştirilen çalışmanın amacı, ülkemizde demir dışı üretim faaliyeti gerçekleştiren firmaların, yeni düzenlenecek olan Entegre Kirlilik Önleme ve Kontrol (EKÖK) mevzuatına uyum durumlarının belirlenmesi ve uyumsuz olan tesislerin tam uyum sağlayabilmesi için gerekli olan sürenin belirlenebilmesidir. Bu amaçla, Avrupa Birliği (AB) tarafından hazırlanmış olan mevcut en iyi teknikler (MET) referans dokümanında belirtilen kapsam içerisine giren tesisler için bir anket düzenlenmiş ve sonuçlar analiz edilerek demir dışı metal sektöründe faaliyet gösteren tesislerin EKÖK uyum durumu ve uyumsuz olan tesislerin uyum sağlayabilmesi için gerekli olan süreler belirlenmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, bakır sektöründeki firmaların %33’ünün, alüminyum sektöründeki firmaların %47’sinin, kurşun-kalay sektöründeki firmaların %86,5’i ve kıymetli metal sektöründeki firmaların %60’ının MET’leri uyguladıkları ve EKÖK ile tam uyumlu oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Demir dışı metal sektörü bir bütün olarak değerlendirildiğinde, sektördeki firmaların %27’sinin MET’leri uyguladıkları ve EKÖK ile tam uyumlu oldukları, bunun yanında uyumlu olmayan tesislerin gerekli yatırım ve iyileştirmeleri yapabilmeleri için 24 aylık sürenin yeterli olacağı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Entegre kirlilik önleme ve kontrol (EKÖK)
• Çevre
• Hava kirliliği
• Demir dışı metaller

Kaynakça

1. M. Li, J. Yao, G. Sunahara, J. Hawari, R. Duran, J. Liu, B. Liu, Y. Cao, W. Pang, H. Li, Y. Li, Z. Ruan, Novel microbial consortia facilitate metalliferous immobilization in non-ferrous metal(loid)s contaminated smelter soil: Efficiency and mechanisms, Environmental Pollution. 313, 120042, 1-11, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022. 120042.
2. B. Liu, J. Yao, B. Ma, Z. Chen, X. Zhu, C. Zhao, M. Li, Y. Cao, W. Pang, H. Li, V.G. Mihucz, R. Duran, Metal(loid)s diffusion pathway triggers distinct microbiota responses in key regions of typical karst non-ferrous smelting assembly, J Hazard Mater. 423, 127164, 1-12, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat. 2021.127164.
3. H. Ran, Z. Guo, L. Yi, X. Xiao, L. Zhang, Z. Hu, C. Li, Y. Zhang, Pollution characteristics and source identification of soil metal(loid)s at an abandoned arsenic-containing mine, China, J Hazard Mater. 413, 125382 ,1-12, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat. 2021.125382.
4. X. Sun, R. Xu, Y. Dong, F. Li, W. Tao, T. Kong, M. Zhang, L. Qiu, X. Wang, W. Sun, Investigation of the Ecological Roles of Putative Keystone Taxa during Tailing Revegetation, Environ Sci Technol. 54, 11258–11270, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.est.0c03031.
5. Environmental Agency, Pollution inventory reporting –ferrous and non-ferrous metals guidance note., 2012. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk.
6. M. Ghosh, P.S. Banerjee, H.S. Ray, Environmental pollution due to gaseous emissions during non-ferrous extraction processes, Russian Journal of Non-Ferrous Metals. 55, 263–269, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3103 /S1067821214030055.
7. K. Fan, My Country’ s Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Based on Third-Party Supervision Evolutionary Game Analysis of Environmental Supervision Mechanism, 10, 83–92, 2022.
8. Q. Wu, X. Sun, Y. Su, M. Wen, G. Li, L. Xu, Z. Li, Y. Ren, J. Zou, H. Zheng, Y. Tang, L. Duan, S. Wang, Q. Zhang, Behavior of Sulfur Oxides in Nonferrous Metal Smelters and Implications on Future Control and Emission Estimation, Environ Sci Technol. 53, 8796–8804, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.est.9b01600.

9. N.P. Cheremisinof, Handbook of Air Pollution Prevention and Control, Butterworth Heinemann, 2002.
10. Z. Jiang, Z. Guo, C. Peng, X. Liu, Z. Zhou, X. Xiao, Heavy metals in soils around non-ferrous smelteries in China: Status, health risks and control measures, Environmental Pollution. 282, 117038, 1-9, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117038.
11. Y. Li, Y. Bin Wang, X. Gou, Y.B. Su, G. Wang, Risk assessment of heavy metals in soils and vegetables around non-ferrous metals mining and smelting sites, Baiyin, China, J Environ Sci, 18, 1124–1134, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60050-8.
12. B. Sarkar, Heavy Metals In The Environment (1st ed.). CRC Press, 2002. https://doi.org/ 10.1201/9780203 909300
13. H. Hu, Q. Jin, P. Kavan, A study of heavy metal pollution in China: Current status, pollution-control policies and countermeasures, Sustainability (Switzerland). 6, 5820–5838, 2014. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su6095820.
14. D. Styles, K. O’Brien, M.B. Jones, A quantitative integrated assessment of pollution prevention achieved by Integrated Pollution Prevention Control licensing, Environ Int. 35, 1177–1187, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.013.
15. A. Cikankowitz, V. Laforest, Using BAT performance as an evaluation method of techniques, J Clean Prod. 42, 141–158, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2 012.10.005.
16. K. Silvo, T. Jouttijärvi, M. Melanen, Implications of regulation based on the IPPC directive - A review on the Finnish pulp and paper industry, J Clean Prod. 17 713–723, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.20 08.11.011.
17. F. Testa, T. Daddi, M.R. De Giacomo, F. Iraldo, M. Frey, The effect of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regulation on facility performance, J Clean Prod. 64, 91–97, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep ro.2013.08.003.
18. M.C. Barros, M.T. Torres, P.M. Bello, E. Roca, J.J. Casares, Integrated pollution prevention and control in the surface treatment industries in Galicia (NW Spain), Clean Technol Environ Policy. 10, 175–188, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-007-0138-z.
19. O. Gökkurt, M. Yakan, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive a nd Turkey ’ s Compliance Entegre Kirlilik Önleme ve Kontrol Direktifi ve Türkiye ’ nin Uyumu, 1, 16-22, 2016.
20. A.M. Kocabas, H. Yukseler, F.B. Dilek, U. Yetis, Adoption of European Union’s IPPC Directive to a textile mill: Analysis of water and energy consumption, J Environ Manage. 91, 102–113, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.012.
21. M. Gülveren, Assessing The Potential Benefits from The Application of Best Available Techniques in The Textile Industry. Master of Science in Environmental Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 2021.