ASSESSMENT OF
POTENTIAL AIR EMISSIONS
OF DIOXINS/FURANS, PARTICULATE MATTER, AND HEAVY METALS FROM VORKUTA
CEMENT PLANT WHEN USING CONVENTIONAL AND COMPLEMENTARY FUELS
Assessment of potential air emissions of dioxins/furans, particulate matter, and heavy metals from
Vorkuta Cement plant when using conventional and complementary fuels
This report exists in two versions.
ISBN 978-82-93600-11-4 (print, A4)
ISBN 978-82-93600-12-1 (digital, PDF)
© Arctic Council Secretariat, 2017
This report is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of the license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Suggested citation
ACAP, 2017, Assessment of potential air emissions of dioxins/furans, particulate matter, and heavy
metals from Vorkuta Cement plant when using conventional and complementary fuels. Arctic
Contaminants Action Program (ACAP). 60 pp.
Authors
Evgenia Barsukova
Olga Cehmister
Dmitry Kuznetsov
Polar Foundation
127025 Moscow, 19
Novy Arbar str.
Russian Federation
Published by
Arctic Council Secretariat
This report is available as an electronic document from the Arctic Council’s open access repository:
oaarchive.arctic-council.org
Cover photograph
Image: iStock
List of content
List of content............................................................................................................ 3
1
2
3
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6
1.1
Background .......................................................................................................................6
1.2
Characteristics and current status of Vorkuta Cement Plant ............................................9
Organization and sampling procedures ...................................................................... 11
2.1
Gas phase samples for PCDD/PCDF analyses ............................................................... 11
2.2
Dust sampling .................................................................................................................15
2.3
Sampling for other pollutants .........................................................................................16
2.4
Gas flow sampling ..........................................................................................................16
2.5
Methods of analyses and instrumentation .......................................................................19
Results and assessment ....................................................................................... 21
3.1
Process parameters during sampling...............................................................................21
3.1.1
3.2
4
Characteristics of cement production during sampling ...........................................21
Dioxins and furans (PCDD/PCDF).................................................................................28
3.2.1
Analytical result of SPA Typhoon...........................................................................28
3.2.2
Analytical results of Umeå University .................................................................... 35
3.3
Heavy metals ...................................................................................................................40
3.4
Black carbon ...................................................................................................................41
3.5
Dust ................................................................................................................................. 41
Modelling of dispersion of pollutants................................................................... 44
4.1
Modelling of local dispersion of dust .............................................................................44
4.2
Modelling of local dispersion of black carbon ............................................................... 49
5
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 56
6
List of references ................................................................................................ 58
3
Appendix 1. Baseline characteristics of the air in the work area
Appendix 2. Certificate of coal quality
Appendix 3. Waste passports used as a complementary fuel
Appendix 4a. Protocols of analytical processing of atmospheric air samples collected in
testing rotary kiln # 2
Appendix 4b. Analytical results from Umeå University
Appendix 5. Calculation to modelling of dispersion of pollutants
Appendix 6. Solid dusty waste passports from dust/gas emissions from Vorkuta Cement
Plant cement kiln # 2
Appendix 7. Illustrations
4
Executive Summary
This project has been started as an initiative by Arctic Contaminants Action Program,
ACAP, Project Steering Group on Reduction/Elimination of Emissions of Dioxins and
Furans in the Russian Federation with Focus on the Arctic and Northern Regions
Impacting the Arctic. Client is NEFCO. The objective of this work is to demonstrate
possibilities to implement environmentally sound and economically effective projects in
Russia within the framework of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs). In this investigation, Vorkuta cement plant has been selected as a
suitable pilot site. After installation of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), reduction of
particular matter emissions (including black carbon, as soot equivalent) was shown by
Rosprirodnadzor to be effective. Estimation of the emission factor of the Vorkuta cement
plant for wet process operating kilns after ESP installation showed that plant emissions
meet the requirements set by Rosprirodnadzor. The negative impact on Barents
environment is likely to be reduced. Applying the alternative fuels has not lead to
exceeding the emission requirements on Dioxins and Furans as stated in the 2000/76/EC
directive of the European parliament and of the council of 4 December 2000 on the
incineration of waste.
5
1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Vorkuta Cement Plant (VCP) is the only cement producing facility in the Republic of
Komi RF. The facility is located above the Arctic Circle, 25 km north of the town of
Vorkuta. The nearest residential area is the settlement of Tsementnozavodskoy located
780 m south-east of the industrial site. The facility is located in the Bolshezemelskaya
tundra in the permafrost zone and the surrounding land is thus not used for any
agricultural purposes.
Construction of the plant started in 1947 and its design was developed by the
Lengiproshakht Institute. The first processing line with an estimated production capacity
of 25.0 thousand tons of cement per year was in operation as early as September 15,
1950.
According to the SanPin 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03 (revised version) classification, the
production of cement (Portland – iron-Portland – pozzolana cement, etc.), as well as local
cements (brick cement, Roman cement, gypsum-slag cement, etc.) may be classified as
hazard class II facility with a 500-m sanitary protection zone (section 7.1.4. item 1).
In terms of emissions, cement production belongs to the category II facilities of (the
category was determined according to the document (OAO NII Atmosphera/ SRI
Atmosphere JSC, St. Petersburg, 2012). The VCP industrial site general map is given in
Figure 1, the schematic map of pollution sources is given in Figure 2.
6
Figure 1
The VCP industrial site general map
7
Figure 2
Schematic map of the atmospheric air pollution sources
8
This investigation was initiated by the ACAP Expert Group on “Reduction/Elimination
of Emissions of Dioxins and Furans in the Russian Federation with focus on the Arctic
and northern regions impacting the Arctic”.
The main reasons for the investigation were:
 To assess the effectiveness of installed filters on the reduction of dioxin
emissions into the atmosphere
 To assess the effects on the emission of dioxins resulting from introduction
complementary fuels into the process
 To assess the compliance of atmospheric pollutant emissions by Vorkuta
Cement Plant with reference to relevant national and international standards and
regulations.
Work was carried out under the Agreement with NEFCO of June 4, 2014 including:
1.
Sampling of pollutant emissions into the atmospheric air after ESP EGBM1-25-96-4 electric filter installation:
- in the course of using conventional fuels,
- in the course of using complementary fuels (waste).
The parameters and characteristics of pollutants measured as well as performance
requirements are given in Appendix 1 “The parameters and characteristics of
pollutants for using in sampling and analyzing pollutant emissions by Vorkuta
Cement Plant into the atmosphere according to the ACAP Working Group
requirements for dioxins and furans.” Work plan for sampling performed by the
SPA Typhoon experts is given in Appendix 2.
2.
Chemical analyses of collected samples by the SPA Typhoon.
3.
Assessment of the results obtained.
1.2
Characteristics and current status of Vorkuta Cement Plant
The facility has totally 3 rotary kilns adapted for a wet process. The kiln # 2 is 89 meter
long.
Exhaust gas from rotary kiln # 2 is delivered to the ESP filter and finally transferred to
having a smoke pipe with a diameter of 3.60 m in the pipe orifice is operated at the
sampling site of Ø 2.19 m and a height of 90 m. The ESP filter (ESP EGBM1-25-9-6-4)
was installed in August 2013.
9
The kiln has the environmental pollution source number 0004 in the schematic map
(Figure 2).
The kiln was fed with coal from the Vorgashorskaya mine (coal brand is GZhO, grade is
SSh, certificate of coal quality is given in Appendix 3). Annual amount of cement
production at VCP is 450000t at 2013-2014.
10
2
Organization and sampling procedures
2.1
Gas phase samples for PCDD/PCDF analyses
The gas phase samples were collected using the SS-1 device on September 3 to 6, 2014.
Sampling location is presented on figure 3.
Sampling, summarised in Table 1 was carried out on four consecutive days:
 03.09.2014 – samples 1 and 2 collected from 15:10 to 18:10. The samples were
collected in the course of conventional fuel combustion, coal.
 04.09.2014 – samples 3, 4, 5 collected from 9:50 to 14:00. Coal was combusted
in the kiln. Sample 6 is a mix of dust samples collected from the ESP during 24
hour with 1 hour interval.
 05.09.2014 – samples 7, 8 and 12 collected from 15:10 to 19:10. The samples
were collected in the course of conventional and complementary fuel joint
combustion.
 06.09.2014 – samples 9, 10 collected 9:50 to 13:30. The samples were collected
in the course of conventional and complementary fuel joint combustion. Sample
11 is a mix of dust samples collected from the ESP during 24 hour with 1 hour
interval.
Each sample collected for PCDD/PCDF analyses consists of three parts: aerosol
filter, condensate and sorbent XAD-2. Extract from these samples has been
obtained and kept in the sealed ampule. Preserved by this way samples have
been moved to SPA Typhoon for further processing.
Samples 5, 10, 6 (part of sample) and 11 (part of sample) have been sent to Sweden for
the parallel analysis for verification of analyses of SPA Typhoon.
Samples 2 and 7 (gas) have been used also for determination of the soot content.
11
Figure 3 Scheme of sampling locations
12
Table 1
Sample #
Characteristics from the sampling of gas phase and solid phase samples
at VCP in September 2014
Date
Fuel (1 =
Sampling
Volume
Typhoon
Codes on
coal, 2 =
duration (h)
sampled,
sample code
samples sent
coal +
Nm
3
to Sweden
tires/
sleepers)
1
03.09.14
1
1h 30min
2.52
165-09-14
-
2
03.09.14
1
1h 30min
2.27
166-09-14
-
3
04.09.14
1
1h 20min
2.025
-
-
4
04.09.14
1
1h 20min
2.7
167-09-14
5
04.09.14
1
1h 30min
3.6
-
5 (e+f)
6 (dust)
04.09.14
1
24 h
50 (cm3)
171-09-14
6
7
05.09.14
2
1h 20min
2.7
168-09-14
-
8
05.09.14
2
1h 20min
2.7
169-09-14
-
9
06.09.14
2
1h 50min
2.7
170-09-14
-
10
06.09.14
2
1h 50min
2.7
-
10 (e+f)
11 (dust)
06.09.14
2
24h
50 (cm3)
172-09-14
11
12
05.09.14
2
1h 20min
2.7
-
-
13
Figure 4
The process of sampling
All process of samples analysing have been done according the document "Methods of
measurement of the total content of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
in terms of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in samples of industrial emissions into the
atmosphere by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry" (PND F 13.1.65-08).
This method is allowed for the purpose of state environmental control. It is based on the
capture of PCDD / PCDF from gaseous emissions into the atmosphere by aerosol quartz
filters and polymeric sorbent XAD-2. Features of this method are described below.
Sorption material is coated by isotopically labelled standard PCDD / PCDF compounds
(SIS) for quality control of sampling and subsequent quantitative calculations. The filters
are extracted with organic solvent. Compounds interfering with PCDD / PCDF
determination are removed from the extracts. The isotopically labelled internal standard
(RIS) is added and the extracts are concentrated. After that the content of PCDD / PCDF
is determined by a combination of high performance capillary gas chromatography and
mass spectrometry.
Sampling is done by pumping air through a heated aerosol filter, system of traps and
XAD-2 sorbent. The sample volume is 2-10 m3. Sampling scheme is given in Figure 5.
14
Figure 5
Sampling setup scheme
1 - nozzle, 2 - thermocouple, 3 - Pitot tube, 4 - probe body, 5 – flow meter (or oxygen
analyser), 6 - aerosol filter thermostat 7 - filter holder, 8 - temperature tester and
regulators, 9 - thermostat liquid traps 10 - liquid traps 11 - sorbent XAD-2 cartridge, 12
- receiver, 13 - gas flow meter, 14 – pump
The exposed aerosol filter is folded (front layer should be covered) and placed into
aluminium foil package and the XAD-2 cartridge with is hermetically closed. Trapped
content is transferred into a glass flask and each trap is cleaned twice with acetone. The
acetone washings are combined with the condensate. Condensate is stored at 4°C without
sunlight access. Samples are allowed to transport at room temperature (duration of
transportation should be less 3 days).
2.2 Dust sampling
Solid particles (samples 6 and 11) were sampled selectively at intervals of 1 hour during
two days. These samples have been collected from the ESP (see sample location on
Figure 3). Mixed samples have been prepared from the material collected during 24
hours. Two volumes of 50 cm3 for analysis have been taken from each mixed sample.
Sample 6 has been collected during the pure coal combustion and sample 11 has been
15
collected during combustion of coal with wastes. These samples have been analyzed on
content of heavy metals and content of PCDD / PCDF.
2.3 Sampling for other pollutants
Samples 2 and 7 have been analyzed for content of soot. Soot
content has been
determined according to “Methods of measurements of mass concentration of soot in
industrial emissions and work area air FR.1.31.2001.00384)
2.4 Gas flow sampling
Gas velocity at the point of sampling was measured during the sampling periods by Pitot
tube. The results of these velocity studies are given in Table 2. The scheme of sampling
and velocity distribution in the gas duct is given below in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Distance
between test points did not change during sampling.
Since the velocity field from point 2 to point 3 may change due to a change in the pipe
direction and sampling from point 1 is a more or less constant value, an approximation
for point 1 was given for calculations. The point of 10 cm was omitted as a nearboundary phenomenon.
Figure 6
The scheme of velocity measurements
16
Figure 7
Velocity fields in the gas duct
Table 2
Calculation of velocity fields in the gas duct
SAMPLING POINT HORIZON
Point 1
mi
max
n
Point 2
mediu
V, m/s
m
mi
max
n
Point 3
mediu
V, m/s
Min
max
m
mediu
V, m/s
m
8.5
10
9.2
12.3
9.6
10.0
9.8
12.9
0
0
6.9
7.1
7.0
11.0
6.5
7.4
7.0
11.0
6.9
7.3
7.1
11.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
11.0
8.5
8.6
8.5
11.8
5.8
6.1
6.0
10.3
7.4
7.7
7.5
11.3
9.6
10.3
10.0
12.9
5.9
6.5
6.2
10.4
7.3
8.1
7.7
11.4
9.2
10.0
9.6
12.7
6.2
7.1
6.6
10.6
7.1
8.1
7.6
11.4
9.7
10.1
9.9
12.9
6.0
6.7
6.4
10.5
7.4
8.2
7.8
11.4
8.3
9.5
8.9
12.4
6.4
8.0
7.2
11.1
7.4
8.3
7.8
11.4
8.0
9.1
8.5
11.8
6.6
8.9
7.8
11.4
8.3
8.9
8.6
11.9
8.0
8.3
8.1
11.6
7.8
8.5
8.2
11.7
8.1
8.8
8.4
11.8
Vmed = 11.3 m/s
Vmed = 12.1 m/s
Vmed = 10.8 m/s
A medium velocity in the gas duct Vmed = 11.4 m/s. These data were used to
process testing results.
The diameter of the flue gas duct at the sampling site was 2.19 m.
The total non-normalised gas flow during sampling was calculated as follows:
17
𝑉=
273∙𝑉𝑉 ∙𝑉
(273+𝑉)∙760
, 𝑉𝑉3 /ℎ,
were:
Vt - the volume flow of the exhaust gas at the operating temperature t °C, m3/h;
P - operating pressure during sampling, mmHg;
t - temperature of exhaust gas, °C.
𝑉𝑉 = 3600 ∙ 𝑉, 𝑉3 /ℎ,
where:
W - velocity of the gas (gas-air) flow in the duct, m/s;
F - sectional area of duct, m2. (D=2,19m)
2.192
𝑉 = 3.14 ∙
= 3.764 𝑉2
4
Nm3 has been defined for the next conditions: 101,325 kPa (=1atm), 273,15 К, dry gas
and 11% of oxygen.
Volume gas flow at normal conditions has been calculated for corresponded temperature
of exhaust gas and pressure and presented in the Table 3.
Table 3. Calculation of the normalized gas flow
165-09-14
166-09-14
167-09-14
168-09-14
169-0 9-14
170-09-14
(1)
(2)
(4)
(7)
(8)
(9)
W, m/s
11.40
11.40
11.40
11.40
11.40
11.40
F, m2
3.764
3.764
3.764
3.764
3.764
3.764
Vt, m3/s
42.91
42.91
42.91
42.91
42.91
42.91
P, mmHg
760+89=
760+72=
760+76=
760+96=
760+96=
760+89=
760 +Рadd
846.00
832.00
836.00
856.00
856.00
846.00
t, °C
225.20
216.20
216.00
218.40
218.40
216.30
273+t
498.20
489.20
489.00
491.40
491.40
489.30
Vn, Nm3/s
26.17
26.21
26.35
26.85
26.85
26.65
Рadd – presented in the SPA Typhoon protocols
T, °C – according the temperature regimes data of the furnace
The data on total gas flow is used in the further calculations of total emission and
emission factors.
18
2.5
Methods of analyses and instrumentation
As mentioned, the analysing of the samples was done according the document "Methods
of measurement of the total content of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans in terms of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in samples of industrial
emissions into the atmosphere by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry" (PND F
13.1.65-08). It means that samples were split into filter and condensate and the results are
shown as the sum of the two parts.
The analysis was performed in the mass spectrometry system. We use high-resolution
chromatography mass spectrometer with double focusing DFS (Figure 8).
Figure 8
High resolution mass spectrometer DFS
This device is built on a modern platform. Novelty is provided by high sensitivity, low
detection limits and high level of automation. The design of the device ensures no
aberrations of the image in the analyser. This is achieved by double focusing system
based on high precision toroidal electrostatic and magnetic analysers.
Method described in document RD 52.04.186-89, App. 5.3.8 part. I, section 4.4 is used
for carbon black content determination. The following device has been used: carbon
analyser TOC-L CSN, module SSM-5000A.
19
Method described in documents PND F 16.1: 2.2: 2.3: 3.36-2002, RD 52.18.685-2006 is
used for determination of metal in the solid residue. The following device has been used:
VarianAA 140 AASPerkinElmerZ-3030.
20
3
Results and assessment
A list of compounds measured in samples is given in Appendix 5. All the protocols with
the results of analytical processing of the atmospheric air and solid residue samples are
given in Appendix 5.
3.1 Process parameters during sampling
3.1.1 Characteristics of cement production during sampling
Amount of products produced during sampling
Table 4 presents data on volumes of production of clinker during the sampling September
3-6 2014.
21
Table 4 The volume of clinker production at the time of sampling
Date
Shift
1
03.09.2014
2
04.09.2015
1
2
05.09.2015
1
2
Time
Volume, t
8 -00
33.4
10-00
33.4
12-00
33.4
14-00
33.6
16-00
33.0
18-00
33.0
20-00
33.4
22-00
33.6
24-00
33.6
2-00
33.4
4-00
33.4
6-00
33.4
8 -00
33.6
10-00
33.6
12-00
33.6
14-00
33.6
16-00
34.1
18-00
33.4
20-00
33.6
22-00
33.6
24-00
33.6
2-00
33.6
4-00
33.6
6-00
33.4
8 -00
33.4
10-00
33.0
12-00
33.4
14-00
33.4
16-00
33.4
18-00
33.3
20-00
33.0
22-00
33.2
24-00
33.2
2-00
33.0
4-00
33.0
22
Volume per 24 h, t
400.6
403.30
398.30
Date
Shift
06.09.2015
1
2
Time
Volume, t
6-00
33.0
8 -00
33.2
10-00
33.4
12-00
33.6
14-00
33.6
16-00
33.6
18-00
33.6
20-00
33.6
22-00
33.4
24-00
33.4
2-00
33.4
4-00
33.6
6-00
33.0
Volume per 24 h, t
401.40
Average volume of clinker production per 24 h is 400,9 t
Temperature regime during sampling
Data of the furnace temperature regimes during the sampling is shown below in Table 5.
The results are given with an interval of 30 minutes.
Table 5 Furnace temperature regime data
Date
Time
Ref.
Value
ESP inlet
ESP outlet
Furnace
ESP
ESP
under-
under-
outlet
inlet
outlet
pressure,
pressure
temp.,
temp.,
temp.,
mmHg
, mmHg
°C
°C
°C
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
03.09.2014
15:10:23
1
58.8
58.8
03.09.2014
15:10:23
2
61.7
03.09.2014
15:10:23
3
229.2
03.09.2014
15:10:23
4
227.5
03.09.2014
15:11:13
5
300.5
03.09.2014
15:30:31
3
227.5
03.09.2014
15:30:31
4
225.3
03.09.2014
15:30:31
2
62.4
03.09.2014
15:30:31
1
69.8
03.09.2014
15:31:21
5
290.8
61.7
229.2
227.5
300.5
227.5
225.3
62.4
69.8
290.8
23
Date
Time
Ref.
Value
1
2
3
4
03.09.2014
16:00:43
3
231.8
03.09.2014
16:00:43
4
222.9
03.09.2014
16:00:43
1
65
03.09.2014
16:00:43
2
56.7
03.09.2014
16:01:33
5
292.6
03.09.2014
16:30:51
3
222.4
03.09.2014
16:30:51
2
58.5
03.09.2014
16:30:51
1
66.9
03.09.2014
16:31:41
5
307.1
ESP inlet
ESP outlet
Furnace
ESP
ESP
under-
under-
outlet
inlet
outlet
pressure,
pressure
temp.,
temp.,
temp.,
mmHg
, mmHg
°C
°C
°C
5
6
7
8
9
231.8
222.9
65
56.7
292.6
222.4
58.5
66.9
307.1
Avrg =
Sample 1
225.2
03.09.2014
17:00:58
2
60.3
03.09.2014
17:00:58
3
224.4
03.09.2014
17:00:58
4
218.6
03.09.2014
17:00:58
1
70.9
03.09.2014
17:01:49
5
309.6
03.09.2014
17:31:09
1
73.2
03.09.2014
17:31:09
2
60.9
03.09.2014
17:31:09
3
221.5
03.09.2014
17:31:09
4
216.1
03.09.2014
17:31:59
5
290.7
03.09.2014
18:00:21
3
221.7
03.09.2014
18:00:21
4
213.8
03.09.2014
18:00:21
1
67.6
03.09.2014
18:00:21
2
61.5
03.09.2014
18:01:11
5
286.4
60.3
224.4
218.6
70.9
309.6
73.2
60.9
221.5
216.1
290.7
221.7
213.8
67.6
61.5
286.4
Avrg
Sample 2
=216.2
04.09.2014
9:50:51
1
67.8
04.09.2014
9:50:51
2
63
04.09.2014
9:50:51
3
208.8
04.09.2014
9:50:51
4
222.5
67.8
63
208.8
222.5
24
Date
Time
Ref.
Value
1
2
3
4
04.09.2014
10:30:09
5
300.7
04.09.2014
10:31:08
4
221.5
04.09.2014
10:31:08
3
202.7
04.09.2014
10:31:08
2
59.4
04.09.2014
10:31:08
1
61
04.09.2014
11:00:20
5
297.3
04.09.2014
11:01:17
2
60.2
04.09.2014
11:01:17
3
200.5
04.09.2014
11:01:17
4
219
04.09.2014
11:01:17
1
60
04.09.2014
11:01:20
5
297.1
ESP inlet
ESP outlet
Furnace
ESP
ESP
under-
under-
outlet
inlet
outlet
pressure,
pressure
temp.,
temp.,
temp.,
mmHg
, mmHg
°C
°C
°C
5
6
7
8
9
300.7
221.5
202.7
59.4
61
297.3
60.2
200.5
219.0
60
297.1
Avrg=
Sample 3
221.0
04.09.2014
11:30:25
4
215.5
04.09.2014
11:30:27
5
289.6
04.09.2014
11:31:25
3
200.8
04.09.2014
11:31:25
4
215.3
04.09.2014
12:00:34
1
64.2
04.09.2014
12:00:34
2
59.4
04.09.2014
12:00:34
3
208.4
04.09.2014
12:00:34
4
217.3
04.09.2014
12:30:46
3
216.1
215.5
289.6
200.8
215.3
64.2
59.4
208.4
217.3
216.1
Avrg =
Sample 4
216.0
04.09.2014
12:30:46
4
228
04.09.2014
12:30:48
5
289.8
04.09.2014
13:00:52
4
230
04.09.2014
13:00:52
1
62.4
04.09.2014
13:00:52
2
59.3
04.09.2014
13:00:52
3
209.8
04.09.2014
13:30:00
5
282.9
04.09.2014
13:30:59
3
211.2
228.0
289.8
230.0
62.4
59.3
209.8
282.9
211.2
25
Date
Time
Ref.
Value
1
2
3
4
04.09.2014
13:30:59
4
229.1
04.09.2014
13:30:59
2
59.6
04.09.2014
13:30:59
1
66.9
ESP inlet
ESP outlet
Furnace
ESP
ESP
under-
under-
outlet
inlet
outlet
pressure,
pressure
temp.,
temp.,
temp.,
mmHg
, mmHg
°C
°C
°C
5
6
7
8
9
229.1
59.6
66.9
Avrg =
Sample 5
229.1
04.09.2014
14:00:06
4
225.3
04.09.2014
14:00:09
5
288.8
04.09.2014
14:01:06
3
209.5
04.09.2014
14:01:06
2
58.6
04.09.2014
14:01:06
1
61.3
06.09.2014
9:50:00
3
226.2
06.09.2014
9:50:00
4
214.5
06.09.2014
9:50:00
2
63.8
06.09.2014
9:50:00
1
69.7
06.09.2014
9:50:14
5
276
06.09.2014
10:31:18
4
216.2
06.09.2014
10:31:18
3
226.1
06.09.2014
10:31:18
2
60.2
06.09.2014
10:31:18
1
73.5
06.09.2014
10:31:32
5
290.3
06.09.2014
11:01:27
2
58.8
06.09.2014
11:01:27
3
231.5
06.09.2014
11:01:27
4
218
06.09.2014
11:01:27
1
63.6
06.09.2014
11:01:41
5
291.6
06.09.2014
11:30:35
1
59.2
06.09.2014
11:30:35
2
58.8
06.09.2014
11:30:35
3
230.4
06.09.2014
11:30:35
4
216.5
06.09.2014
11:30:49
5
291.9
225.3
288.8
209.5
58.6
61.3
226.2
214.5
63.8
69.7
276
216.2
226.1
60.2
73.5
290.3
58.8
231.5
218
63.6
291.6
59.2
58.8
230.4
216.5
291.9
Avrg=
Sample 9
216.3
26
Date
Time
Ref.
Value
ESP inlet
ESP outlet
Furnace
ESP
ESP
under-
under-
outlet
inlet
outlet
pressure,
pressure
temp.,
temp.,
temp.,
mmHg
, mmHg
°C
°C
°C
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
06.09.2014
12:00:44
1
58.9
58.9
06.09.2014
12:00:44
2
59.9
06.09.2014
12:00:44
3
227.3
06.09.2014
12:00:44
4
214.7
06.09.2014
12:00:58
5
287.8
06.09.2014
12:30:55
1
68.3
06.09.2014
12:30:55
2
60.5
06.09.2014
12:30:55
3
231
06.09.2014
12:30:55
4
215.3
06.09.2014
12:31:09
5
290.5
06.09.2014
13:03:05
1
66.4
06.09.2014
13:03:05
2
63.4
06.09.2014
13:03:05
3
232.2
06.09.2014
13:03:05
4
217.5
06.09.2014
13:03:19
5
294.5
06.09.2014
13:30:17
1
50.9
06.09.2014
13:30:17
2
64.5
06.09.2014
13:30:17
3
229.2
06.09.2014
13:30:17
4
217.4
59.9
227.3
214.7
287.8
68.3
60.5
231
215.3
290.5
66.4
63.4
232.2
217.5
294.5
50.9
64.5
229.2
217.4
Avrg=
Sample 10
216.2
Fuels used during sampling
The kiln was fed with coal from the Vorgashorskaya mine (coal brand is GZhO, grade is
SSh, certificate of coal quality is given in Appendix 3).
Waste is used as complementary fuel (Appendix 4a):
 57500203 13 00 4 – used fabric cord tires (composition: chemical rubber – 88%,
textiles – 12%);
 57500204 13 00 4 – used metal cord tires (composition: chemical rubber –
87.65%, metal – 7.60%, textiles – 4.85%);
27
 17120600 13 01 3 – used and sorted out timber railway sleepers impregnated
with antiseptics (composition: timber – 90%, impregnating compound – 10%).
The use of these complementary fuels in cement kilns is permitted and regulated by
GOST R 55099 – 2012 “Efficient Use of Resources” – item 4.2.4.1. The existence of this
document does not require a special permit to use the above waste as a complementary
fuel.
Complementary fuels, not exceeding 5%, were delivered to the auxiliary kiln feed every
hour. So, every hour 0.1 t of complementary fuel (consisting of 0.085 t of sleepers and
0.015 t of tires) and 1.9 t of coal were fed to the kiln.
3.2 Dioxins and furans (PCDD/PCDF)
Analysis of dioxins and furans in gas and dust samples were performed by SPA Typhoon
and additional analyses were performed by Umeå University, Sweden.
3.2.1 Analytical result of SPA Typhoon
The content of PCDD and PCDF was measured in samples 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
(Protocols ## 165-09-14, 166-09-14, 167-09-14, 171-09-14, 168-09-14, 169-09-14, 17009-14, 172-09-14 respectively. Samples 6 and 11 are dust, PCDD and PCDF was
measured according TOR).
Samples 5 and 10 have been collected and sent to Sweden for the parallel analyzes.
Samples 3 and 12 collected for the reserve.
Dioxin equivalent (DE) is indicated in terms of TEQ (Toxic Equivalency). To obtain the
TEQ content in a dioxin mixture, the amount of each congener in the mixture is
multiplied by its TEF according to Table 6. The sum of these products gives the total
TEQ of the sample. System I-TEQ has been used for the analyses.
Table 6
Comparison toxic equivalent factors with conventional ones
TEQ Congener
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8 TCDD
1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD
OCDD
FURANS
I-TEQ
WHO-TEQ
Nordic-TEQ
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
01
0.01
0.001
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0001
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
28
2,3,7,8 TCDF
2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF
OCDF
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0001
0.1
0.01
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
The data from the laboratory was provided as normalised to an oxygen content of 11% in
accordance with the Russian standard for PCDD/PDCF analysis. However, the EU
Directive 2000/76/EC require that emissions for cement plants with co-incineration of
waste is normalised to an oxygen content of 10%. Consequently data normalised to 11%
and 10%, respectively, has been calculated.
The content of PCDD/Fs normalised to 11% oxygen was calculated as:
C (11%) = Cn  (20.95-11)/(20.95-[O2]),
C (11%) - normalized concentration of PCDD/Fs,
Cn – measured concentration in a real situation
[О2]– concentration of oxygen in the rotary kiln during sampling
(Content of the oxygen into the atmospheric air = 20.95)
Calculation of concentration PCDD/Fs from 11% O2 to 10% O2 by volume was
performed according to:
C (10%) = C (11%)  10.95/9.95
Data of samples presented in Table 7 also have been normalized for pressure and
temperature.
To correct for temperature:
QnormT = Qcorr × (273/(273+ Tm))
Where: QnormT is the normalized volumetric flowrate for temperature
Tm is the measured temperature in degrees centigrade
To correct for pressure:
Cnorm = CnormT × (Pm /101.3)
Where: Cnorm is the normalized volumetric flowrate
Pm is the measured pressure in kPa (1 kPa =7,500637654192ppm)
29
Table 7 Results of PCDD/PCDF analysis of gas samples from SPA Typhoon
Results from SPA Typhoon. Concentration of DE, pg/m3
Component to detect
I-TEQ
165-09-14
166-09-14
167-09-14
168-09-14
169-0 9-14
170-09-14
(Sample 1)
(Sample 2)
(Sample 4)
(Sample 7)
(Sample 8)
(Sample 9)
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm3
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
0.5
4.31
3.92
7.04
6.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
0.837
0.761
1.51
1.37
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
1.12
1.02
2.09
1.90
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
0.1
4.59
4.17
7.80
7.09
1.19
1.08
1.298
1.18
1.31
1.673
1.52
0.851
0.773
2.03
1.85
0.414
0.376
0.181
0.165
0.184
0.267
0.243
0.001
0.0507
0.0461
0.257
0.234
0.029
0.027
-
-
-
-
-
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
12.43
11.3
18.59
16.9
7.13
6.48
6.526
5.93
6.60
7.065
6.42
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF
0.05
1.36
1.24
2.22
2.02
0.539
0.49
0.594
0.54
0.6
0.589
0.535
2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF
0.5
33.02
30
40.0
36.35
11.88
10.8
10.18
9.25
10.3
12.44
11.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
10.87
9.88
16.95
15.4
3.97
3.61
2.916
2.65
2.95
5.183
4.71
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF
0.1
5.39
4.90
8.91
8.10
1.89
1.72
1.365
1.24
1.38
1.849
1.68
2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF
0.1
8.31
7.55
14.42
13.1
2.87
2.61
1.827
1.66
1.85
2.784
2.53
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDF
0.1
-
-
0.367
0.334
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.91
1.74
4.46
4.05
0.807
0.733
0. 341
0. 31
0.345
0.720
0. 654
1,2,3,4,6,7,8HpCDD
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8HpCDF
0.01
0.01
30
Results from SPA Typhoon. Concentration of DE, pg/m3
Component to detect
I-TEQ
165-09-14
166-09-14
167-09-14
168-09-14
169-0 9-14
170-09-14
(Sample 1)
(Sample 2)
(Sample 4)
(Sample 7)
(Sample 8)
(Sample 9)
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm
3
pg/Nm3
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
of 10%
of 11%
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
vol.
0.239
0.217
0.742
0.674
0.0957
0.087
-
-
-
0.055
0.05
0.0524
0.0476
0.226
0.205
0.0303
0.0276
-
-
-
0.00824
0.00749
85.34
77.6
127.61
116
30.845
28.0
24.63
22.9
25.2
32.63
29.6
Other TCDD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other TCDF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other PeCDD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other PeCDF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other HxCDD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other HxCDF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other HpCDD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other HpCDF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-
0.01
HpCDF
OCDF
0.001
Total concentration of DE, pg/m
Measurement error  15%
3
Oxygen – 4.9 %;
Oxygen – 5.2 %;
Oxygen – 5.1 %;
Oxygen – 4.8 %;
CO2 – 9.3 %; P – CO2 – 8.8 %; P –
CO2 – 9.0 %; P –
CO2 – 9.2 %; P –
CO2 – 8.8 %; P –
89 ppm;
76 ppm
96 ppm
89 ppm
72 ppm
Oxygen – 4.8 %
Oxygen – 5.3 %;
Table 7 data shows the absence of excesses (in the sum of 17 dioxin/furan compounds) of the limits established by Directive 2000/76/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council “On the Incineration of Waste” requirements (Brussels, December 4, 2000) requirements for
the emissions of this substance, 0.1×10-6 mg/m3.
31
Protocols 171-09-14 and 172-09-14 are the analyses of solid wastes (dust from the filter) of samples 6 and 11 accordingly. The analyzing
method: PND F-16.1:2:2:2.56-08 (FR. 1.31.2014.17405). These samples have been defined in [pg/g].
Table 8 and Table 9 presented the data of the solid wastes from the filter.
Table 8 Results of Sample 6 analyses.
Component to detect
I-TEQ
Data of analyses
Concentration IConcentration, pg/g
TEQ, pg/g
<0.4
-
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1.0
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
0.5
<0.2
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
<0.2
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
0.27
0.027
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
0.1
<0.2
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0.01
0.79
0.0079
OCDD
0.001
0.46
0.00046
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
0.93
0.093
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF
0.05
5.43
0.271
2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF
0.5
0.75
0.375
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
2.29
0.229
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF
0.1
0.58
0.058
2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF
0.1
<0.2
-
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDF
0.1
0.44
0.044
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF
0.01
0.4
0.004
1,2,3,4,7,8,9- HpCDF
0.01
0.57
0.0057
OCDF
0.001
<0.2
-
32
Component to detect
I-TEQ
Data of analyses
Concentration IConcentration, pg/g
TEQ, pg/g
1.12
<1.0
-
Total concentration of I-TEQ, pg/g
Other TCDD
-
Other TCDF
-
17.5
-
Other PeCDD
-
<0.2
-
Other PeCDF
-
10.7
-
Other HxCDD
-
<0.2
-
Other HxCDF
-
0.79
-
Other HpCDD
-
0.52
-
Other HpCDF
-
0.48
-
Table 9 Results of Sample 11 analyses
Component to detect
I-TEQ
Data of analyses
Concentration IConcentration, pg/g
TEQ, pg/g
<0.4
-
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1.0
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
0.5
<0.2
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
<0.2
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
0.37
0.037
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
0.1
0.49
0.049 7
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0.01
1.25
0.0125
OCDD
0.001
0.9
0.0009
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
0.84
0.084
1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF
0.05
2.82
0.141
2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF
0.5
0.43
0.215
33
Data of analyses
Concentration IConcentration, pg/g
TEQ, pg/g
1.28
0.128
Component to detect
I-TEQ
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF
0.1
0.33
0.033
2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF
0.1
<0.2
-
1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDF
0.1
0.26
0.026
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF
0.01
0.32
0.0032
1,2,3,4,7,8,9- HpCDF
0.01
0.32
0.0032
OCDF
0.001
<0.2
-
Total concentration of I-TEQ, pg/g
Other TCDD
-
<1.0
0.73
-
Other TCDF
-
17.8
-
Other PeCDD
-
<0.2
-
Other PeCDF
-
8.41
-
Other HxCDD
-
<0.2
-
Other HxCDF
-
0.65
-
Other HpCDD
-
1.40
-
Other HpCDF
-
0.41
-
34
Summary
Table 7 gives data on total content of the specific 17 PCDD/PCDF compounds through
general dioxin equivalent TEQ by tonne of product produced.
Let us determine the Emission of PCDD and PCDF as mg I-TEQ/ton product from the
formula:
M[mg/ton product]=Cnorm[ng/Nm3]×Vnorm[Nm3/s]×3600×24/G
G – clinker production in t/24h.
Table 10
Sample #
PCDD/DF content in samples under study
Protocol number,
sampling data
Emission of PCDD
and PCDF as
ng I-TEQ/Nm
1.
165-09-14,
Emission of PCDD and
3
Vn, Nm /s
3
PCDF as ng I-TEQ/ton
product
0.0776
26.17
437.67
0.1160
26.21
655.24
0.0280
26.35
159.01
0.0229
26.85
132.51
0.0174
26.85
100.69
0.0296
26.65
170.01
03.09.14
2.
166-09-14,
03.09.14
4.
167-09-14,
04.09.14
7.
168-09-14,
05.09.14
8.
169-09-14,
05.09.14
9.
170-09-14,
06.09.14
According the data of the table 41 “Emission factors for cement production” from
Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin and Furan Releases,
2005, prepared by UNEP Chemicals Geneva, Switzerland the default emission factor for
rotary kilns is with ESP temperature of 200-300 ˚C is 0.6 μg TEQ/t or 600 ng/t. Table 10
shows that all emissions after ESP filter installation is comparable with the default
emission factor.
3.2.2 Analytical results of Umeå University
Method description
The methods applied for preparation, purification and analysis of samples are described
35
more in detail in the report from Umeå University (Annex 4b).
The methods used in the analysis are validated and proven in recurring international
Inter-calibration studies. The analyses are performed according to Swedish and
European Standards SS-EN 1948-2, -3 and -4. The technique is gas chromatography
coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS). A summary of the methods is following below.
Sample Preparation
13
C-labelled standards were added to the sample before extraction. These standards
consist of isotopically labelled substances with the same characteristics as the subjects
analysed, but with different molecular weight. The sample was then Soxhlet extracted
with toluene for 16 hours.
Sample Purification
The
clean-up
of
polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDD),
polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDF) was performed, first by a multistep silica column, followed by a
basic alumina column and finally on a carbon column.
Analysis
Isomer specific analysis was performed using gas chromatography (GC) coupled with
mass spectrometry (MS). An MS (Waters Autospec Ultima) with high mass resolution
was used. The separation of substances was consequently performed on the GC whereas
the detection and quantification was performed with the mass spectrometer. In MS
analysis, the substances with different atomic masses are detected in a selective way. This
enables the use of synthetic
13
C isotopically enriched compounds, which were used as
internal standards. Accordingly, a comparison of the response ratio between “natural”
congeners and
13
C congeners in the sample with the corresponding ratio in the
quantification standard, containing both known amounts of natural and added
13
C-
congeners, was performed. Consequently, the results could easily be compensated for
potential losses during clean-up.
The measurement uncertainty is given in the analysis report is valid at the limit of
36
quantification (LOQ), defined as signals exceeding ten times above the noise level. In the
analysis reports, the values for congeners where this criterion is not met, is given in
italics. In the interval between three and ten times the noise level, measurement
uncertainty is elevated but the values still provide valuable contributions to the results
and the TEQ calculations.
Calculation of the TCDD equivalents (TEQ) was performed as described for the samples
analysed by Typhoon. In many cases all congeners cannot be detected or quantified and
TEQ are therefore often calculated at three levels. A lower concentration limit (lower
bound) where results below LOD are set to zero, a mean concentration (medium bound)
where results below LOD are set to 1/2 LOD and an upper concentration limit (upper
bound) where results below LOD is set to LOD in the calculation of TEQ. In cases where
all congeners are detected the TEQ values from the three bound levels coincide. In the
analysis report column called "I-TEQ", the percentage contribution to the total TEQ was
calculated using the upper bound.
Laboratory blank concentrations are reported separately, no subtraction is made from
actual concentrations in the samples. Normalization has been made to the same unit as for
the samples using the mean of the sample amounts in the series.
The reference materials used in the analysis were the following:
The internal standard, added to the sample prior extraction of the sample or for the
extract that we received prior clean-up contained:
2,3,7,8 13C-TCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 13C-HxCDF
2,3,7,8 13C -TCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8 13C-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8 13C-PeCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8 13C-HxCDD
2,3,4,7,8 13C-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9 13C-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8 13C-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 13C-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8 13C-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 13C-HpCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8 13C-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 13C-HpCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 13C-HxCDF
13
C-OCDF and 13C-OCDD
37
Recovery standard which is added to the samples prior analysis on the GC/MS instrument
were: 1,2,3,4 13C –TCDD; 1,2,3,4,6 13C-PeCDF; 1,2,3,4,6,9 13C-HxCDF; 1,2,3,4,6,8,9
13C-HpCDF and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 13C-HpCDD.
The measurement uncertainty for the analytical methods were determined according to
the Eurachem/CITAC guide ”Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement”. The
measurement uncertainty for combustion related samples was ±29%.
Results
The full results are given in Annex 4b. A compilation of the result is shown in Table 11,
Table 12 and Table 13 below.
Table 11
Summary of the concentration for PCDD/F I-TEQ in the samples
11
06
05
10
05
10
Ash
Ash
Filter
Filter
Flue gas
Flue gas
2.96 g
3.17 g
-
-
-
-
Unit
pg/g
pg/g
ng/sample
ng/sample
ng/m3
ng/m3
I-TEQ (lower bound)
0.03
0.07
0
0
0.024
0.031
Sample #
Sample type
Amount analysed
Table 12
#
Comparison of results of gas analysis PCDD/PCDF by Typhoon and
Umeå University
Sampling
date
Fuel used
Type
(comp. =
complementary
fuel)
4
04.09.14
Coal
Total
5
04.09.14
Coal
Concentration (ng I-TEQ/Nm3)
As reported by
Typhoon
As reported by
Umeå University
0.038
-
Condensate
-
0.024
Coal
Filter
-
0
Coal
- Total
-
0.024
0.033
-
9
06.09.14
Coal + comp.
Total
10
06.09.14
Coal + comp.
Condensate
-
0.031
Coal + comp.
Filter
-
0
Coal + comp.
- Total
-
0.031
38
Table 13
#
Comparison of results of dust analysis PCDD/PCDF by Typhoon
and Umeå University
Sampling
date
Fuel used
(comp. =
complement
ary fuel)
Type
Concentration (pg I-TEQ/g dust)
Lower bound concentrations
As reported by Typhoon,
As reported by Umeå
6
0405.09.14
Coal
Particles
(dust)
1.12
0.07
11
0607.09.14
Coal + comp
Particles
(dust)
0.73
0.03
Discussion of analytical results
Regarding the flue-gas analysis, the results from Umeå show that dioxins could not be
detected on the filters. When comparing the dioxin content in flue-gas as reported by
Typhoon and Umeå it is noted that they are very close to each other. The range is 0.024
to 0.038 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 without any trend to whether complementary fuels were mixed
with the coal or not. The levels are normal with respect to the process but there are also
many examples of cement industries that show considerably lower emission levels. So
even if the absolute dioxin emission level seems to be within the “normal” range, there
could be possibilities for further reductions.
The analytical results on dioxins in the particulate (dust) fraction sampled show some
similarities. The fact that the concentrations reported by Umeå is 15 to 25 times lower
than those reported by Typhoon could be a result from that both calculations are based on
lower bound estimates. This means that results on all congeners below LOD are set to
zero. The LODs reported by the laboratories differ a lot and this could be the main reason
to the discrepancies. In fact, when medium bound (LOD/2) concentrations are calculated
the results from Typhoon and Umeå on sample 6 are 1.0 and 0.8 pg/g, respectively and
the corresponding results from sample 11 are 1.4 and 2.5 pg/g, respectively. It could also
be noted that the results coincides with respect to that lower concentrations are reported
from coal + complementary fuel than coal alone. Of course no certain conclusion can be
drawn on this based on this limited number of samples. On the other hand the results
don’t give indications that coal + complementary fuel could cause increased formation of
dioxins.
39
3.3 Heavy metals
Although initially envisaged, heavy metals emissions from cement kiln # 2 have not been
calculated nor measured prior to the ESP installation in 2014. Besides, the pollutant
emission permit does not contain these substances. The report assesses the current
situation as of the time of study of September 3-6, 2014.
The content of heavy metals in the solid residue was measured in samples 6 and 11
(collected from the ESP dust collector). As pointed out above, sample 6 was collected in
the course of conventional fuel combustion, coal, while sample 11 – in the course of coal
and complementary joint fuel combustion.
The results of analysis are given in Table 14.
Table 14
Results from quantitative chemical analysis of metal content in samples
(mg/kg dry weight)
Sample #
Pb
Cd
Sb
As
Cr
Co
Cu
Mn
Ni
V
Tl
Hg
6
368
0.36
<1.00
37.2
80.8
4.45
103
415
58.0
90.7
0.74
0.062
11
557
0.29
<1.00
59.3
76.8
6.93
106
242
63.2
92.1
0.63
0.148
The results suggest potential emissions of heavy metals during the cement production at
VCP. Most of heavy metals tend to get oxidized or adsorbed by particulate matter, and
then trapped by ESP. However, at the working kiln temperatures mercury in gaseous
form is generally emitted into the atmosphere passing by the ESP with low capture, thus
the numbers presented should represent trace quantities of the metal only.
Dust sample has been collected 13 November 2013 to determine the hazard class of the
residue (waste) on the filter. 3rd hazard class has been defined by calculation method (see
Appendix 6).
The dust is recirculated and used as raw material for the cement production and the nonvolatile heavy metals (i.e. all except Hg) will ultimately end up in the produced cement.
40
3.4 Black carbon
For the purposes of this study soot emissions were considered as equivalent of black
carbon emissions in 1:1 ratio. There is no official definition of black carbon nor any
related measurement/estimation methodology presently adopted in the Russian
Federation. Moreover, terms ‘soot’ and ‘black carbon’ are used interchangeably in this
paper.
The content of black carbon in the gas duct after ESP EGBM1-25-9-6-4 was measured in
samples 2 and 7. The results of soot content measurement are given in Protocol of
quantitative chemical analysis # 173-098-14.
Modelling of local dispersion of dust is further provided in section 4.2.
Table 15
Results of soot (black carbon) test in exhaust gas samples
Soot content
No.
Sample code
(normalized to 10%
of O2), mg/Nm3
1
2
Gas duct after ESP EGBM1 25-9-6-4.
Sample No. 2
Gas duct after ESP EGBM1 25-9-6-4.
Sample No. 7
Measurement error,
%
0.135
2.0
0.347
2.0
Total emission of soot from the VCP:
Sample No. 2 = 0.135 mg/Nm3×26.21 Nm3/s×3600×24/400.9 ton=762.57 mg/ton.
Sample No. 7 = 0.347 mg/Nm3×26.85 Nm3/s×3600×24/400.9 ton=2007.94 mg/ton.
According this data the emission of black carbon increases more than twice if the
complementary fuel used.
3.5 Dust
During the investigation on Vorkuta plant from 3 to 6 September the dust content in the
samples was not determined. However there are some data in the materials provided by
the Vorkuta cement plant administration. These data were obtained during ordinary
inspections of emissions and preparation of the project of the limit emissions for Vorkuta
41
cement plant. Data from this project is used for the calculation of compensation value for
environmental pollution.
Table 16 shows the data of dust content analysis.
Table 16
Emission of dust before and after installation of the electrostatic
precipitator (ESP)
Data for
August 14,
August 26,
sampling
2013
2013
No
Yes
ESP
installed
Sampling
g/s
Emission,
mg/m3
Emission,
kg/h
Yes
Yes
Before
After ESP
site
Emission,
November 12, 2013
After ESP
ESP
May 26, 2014
Yes
Before
ESP
Yes
After ESP
354.708
14.430
459.799
13.546
627.176
8.228
11381.45
334.87
-
662.49
17412.70
397.50
1276.940
51.950
48.765
29.620
76463.47
3110.78
2920.06
1773.65
Emission,
mg/tonne
cement
produced *
g/tonne
*The output of cement is 16.7 t/h
Total emission of dust from the VCP
Annual emission of the dust in VCP has been defined during inventory of objects with
emissions.
Dust emissions (to 20% of SiO2) of 2013 were 129.816 tons according to the statistical
reports of the plant. Annual cement production in 2013 was 160 000 tons. Thus, the dust
emission per ton of cement was 129.816:160000 = 0.00081135 t/t and 811.35 g/t. This
estimation based on the official statistic gives the most correct averaged value of dust
emission per ton of produced cement.
42
Efficiency of ESP
The air using in the manufacturing cycle is impossible to clean to original quality due to
irreversibility of real process. Therefore, treatment facilities cannot protect the biosphere
from industrial emissions. We can talk only about reduction of the contamination level.
The sanitary-hygienic method is used for estimation of the efficiency of cleaning the air.
It is based on a comparison of the level of achieved cleaning with established hygienic
standards (the maximum permissible concentration).
Tests November 12, 2013 showed that the rate of emission of dust reduced from 459.799
g/sec to 13.546 g/sec. The effectiveness of the filter was 97,05% Tests May 26 2014
showed the effectiveness of the filter 98,69%The actual amount of emission reduction of
dust from the Vorkuta cement plant in 2013 (according to statistical reports) compared
with 2012 was 7224.904 tonnes.
Since the study of dioxins and furans performed only after the installation of the filter,
the ecological efficacy of this action have been estimated only for inorganic dust (up to
20% SiO2), code 2909. Installation of ESP filter on the rotating kiln #2 at Vorkuta
cement plant had to reduce emissions including inorganic dust (to 20% of SiO2).
Relevance of this problem is caused by negative influence of SiO2 to the environment
and human health. This substance is very dangerous for the human because leads to the
silicosis. Silicosis is the most frequent lung disease, caused by inhalation of dust
containing SiO2.
The economic benefits for the plant are the reduction of the payments for air pollution.
Modelling of local dispersion of dust is further provided in section 4.1.
43
4
Modelling of dispersion of pollutants
4.1 Modelling of local dispersion of dust
Modelling based on emission data provided by VCP administration. This data have been
obtained during ordinary inspections of emissions and preparation of the project of the
limit emissions for Vorkuta cement plant for Rosprirodnadzor.
Total emission during 4 days – 5 723 kg. Total cement production for the same period –
1 603.6 ton (1 603 600 kg). Volume of clinker activity 03.09.2014 – 400.6 t; 04.09.2014
– 403.3 t; 05.06.2014 – 398.3 t; 06.06.2014 – 401.4 t. Average volume of clinker activity
over 400.9 t/day.
Let us assess the change in inorganic dust concentration up to 20% of SiO 2 in the
residential area and on the sanitary protection zone boundary after the filter installation.
Table 17
Code
Results of pollutant source - 0004 inventory
Name
Pollutant emission
mg/s
t/year
0301
Nitrogen dioxide (nitrogen (IV) dioxide)
140
3.568320
0304
Nitrogen (II) oxide (nitrogen oxide)
1909
48.656592
0330
Sulphur dioxide (sulphurous anhydride)
399
10.169712
0337
Carbon oxide
566
14.426208
2909
Inorganic dust: up to 20% of SiO2
13546
345.260448
One-time maximum emissions were recorded by instrumental measurements. Gross
emissions were calculated according to “Guidelines on the Calculation, Regulation and
Control of Pollutants Emissions into the Atmospheric Air”, item 1.4.2.
Gross emission value (t/year) is determined using the formula:
Myear = Mc ∙ t ∙ 3600 ∙ 10-9 t
where Mc is an average intensity of this pollutant emission from the atmospheric
pollution source in k-m mode of its operation, mg/s;
t is an aggregate duration (hours) of the atmospheric pollution source operation in k-m
mode during a year, t = 7080 hours.
The figures of pollutant emissions given in Table 18 were included in the Pollutant
Emission Permit (Rosprirodnadzor Order # 352 of 16.04.2014 as those achieved in 2013
and planned up to 2017 inclusively. The total volume of solid pollutant emissions was in
44
the amount of about 832 t/year; of inorganic dust – up to 20% of SiO2. Emissions of all
compounds were included as MPE.
Table 18
Figures of pollutant emissions
Code
Name
Pollutant emission
mg/s
mg/day
mg/ton cement
production
Nitrogen dioxide
0301
(nitrogen (IV) dioxide)
Nitrogen (II) oxide
0304
(nitrogen oxide)
Sulphur dioxide
0330
(sulphurous anhydride)
0337
Carbon oxide
Inorganic dust: up to
2909
Table 19
20% of SiO2
140
12096000
30172.1
1909
164937600
411418.3
399
34473600
85990.5
566
48902400
121981.5
13546
1170374400
2919367.4
The data on the emission of inorganic dust that existed before the
filter installation.
Code
Name
Pollutant emission
mg/s
kg/hour
t/year
mg/m3
mg/ton
cement
production
Nitrogen dioxide
0301
(nitrogen (IV)
140
0.504
3.568320
12.32
30172.1
1909
6.872
48.656592
209.04
411418.3
399
1.436
10.169712
248.71
85990.5
566
2.038
14.426208
336.61
121981.5
13546
48.766
345.260448
2857
2919367.4
dioxide)
0304
Nitrogen (II) oxide
(nitrogen oxide)
Sulphur dioxide
0330
(sulphurous
anhydride)
0337
2909
Carbon oxide
Inorganic dust: up to
20% of SiO2
45
According to Appendix 6 to the Explanatory Note to the MPE project, inorganic dust
concentration up to 20% of SiO2 for Vorkuta Cement Plant in the facility’s emissions was
characterized by the data given in Figure 9 and Table 18 and Table 19.
Table 20
#
Type of the points and their location on the map (this report Figure 9)
Point coordinates
Height
(m)
(m)
Type of the point
Comment
X
Y
6
481.00
1542.00
2
on the industrial site boundary
Point 1 from industrial site N1
7
678.95
1688.84
2
on the industrial site boundary
Point 2 from industrial site N1
8
899.67
1414.02
2
on the industrial site boundary
Point 3 from industrial site N1
9
1020.71
1188.35
2
on the industrial site boundary
Point 4 from industrial site N1
10 703.86
1268.92
2
on the industrial site boundary
Point 5 from industrial site N1
1
1811.45
2
on the sanitary protection zone Point 1 from sanitary protection
59.79
boundary
2
834.20
2212.96
2
zone N1
on the sanitary protection zone Point 2 from sanitary protection
boundary
3
1482.23
1485.42
2
zone N1
on the sanitary protection zone Point 3 from sanitary protection
boundary
4
1205.80
702.85
2
zone N1
on the sanitary protection zone Point 4 from sanitary protection
boundary
5
317.20
11 1359.00
951.66
594.00
2
2
zone N1
on the sanitary protection zone Point 5 from sanitary protection
boundary
zone N1
on the residential area
Point 1 from residential area N1
boundary
12 1464.08
662.31
2
on the residential area
Point 2 from residential area N1
boundary
13 1739.31
849.87
2
on the residential area
Point 3 from residential area N1
boundary
14 1889.90
570.23
2
on the residential area
Point 4 from residential area N1
boundary
15 1597.05
428.58
2
on the residential area
boundary
46
Point 5 from residential area N1
Table 21
Pollutant dispersion calculation data using UPRZA Ekolog program
Substance: 2909 Inorganic dust: up to 20% of SiO2
#
Coord.
Coord.
Height
Concentr.
Wind
Wind
X(m)
Y(m)
(m)
(MPC)
direction
velocity
Backgro Backgro Type
und
und
of the
(MPC)
before
point
excl.
6
481
1542
2
2.94
113
1.07
0.000
0.000
2
8
899.7
1414
2
1.90
280
1.07
0.000
0.000
2
9
1020.7
1188.4
2
1.59
315
2.43
0.000
0.000
2
7
679
1688.8
2
1.37
191
0.71
0.000
0.000
2
10
703.9
1268.9
2
1.25
348
0.71
0.000
0.000
2
1
59.8
1811.5
2
0.92
120
5.51
0.000
0.000
3
3
1482.2
1485.4
2
0.92
261
3.66
0.000
0.000
3
5
317.2
951.7
2
0.82
49
3.66
0.000
0.000
3
4
1205.8
702.9
2
0.75
330
3.66
0.000
0.000
3
2
834.2
2213
2
0.65
181
3.66
0.000
0.000
3
12
1464.1
662.3
2
0.62
317
8.30
0.000
0.000
4
11
1359
594
2
0.61
325
8.30
0.000
0.000
4
13
1739.3
849.9
2
0.59
300
8.30
0.000
0.000
4
15
1597.1
428.6
2
0.47
320
8.30
0.000
0.000
4
14
1889.9
570.2
2
0.44
307
12.50
0.000
0.000
4
Types of the points:
0 – user’s reference point
1 - point on the sanitary protection zone boundary
2 - point on the industrial site boundary
3 - point on the sanitary protection zone boundary
4 - on the residential area boundary
5 - on the residential area boundary
The above calculation data show that no MPC excess has been recorded on the sanitary
protection zone and residential area boundary in inorganic dust emission in the amount of
13546.7 mg/s was observed.
47
The data on the emission of inorganic dust that existed before the filter installation.
Inorganic dust emission amounted to 354708 mg/s at the pipe outlet in Protocol
“Measurement of concentration of pollutants” # 04-ВХ-13 of August 14, 2013. The gas
was not purified during the kiln operation (Appendix 5).
Protocol “Measurement of concentration of pollutants” # 01-ВХ-13 of April 3, 2013 has
dust emission from the rotary kiln of 329123 mg/s; an average value is 341912 mg/s.
Figure 9
Inorganic dust emission before the filter installation
48
Let us determine the gross emission value (t/year) from the formula:
Мyear = Мc ∙ t ∙ 3600 ∙ 10-9
where Мc is an average intensity of this pollutant emission from the atmospheric
pollution source in k-m mode of its operation, mg/s;
t is an aggregate duration (hours) of the atmospheric pollution source operation during a
year in k-m mode during a year, t = 7080 hours.
М year = 341912× 7080×3600×10-9 = 8 714653 t.
Let us calculate the dispersion for inorganic dust concentration given in the above
protocols. Automated calculation has been performed on PC following the unified
computer program of calculation of ground level concentrations of pollutants in the
atmospheric air UPRZA Ekolog agreed upon with A.I.Voeikov Main Geophysical
Observatory. The program builder and holder is the Integral Firm (Saint Petersburg).
Table 21 data permit to state that the filter installation on the rotary kiln # 2 gas duct
allowed achieving the figures of inorganic dust content of MPC <1 on the sanitary
protection zone and residential area boundary. This is the main criterion for the safe life
of the population in the area since MPC is established by the state hygienic standards.
The maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of a pollutant in the atmospheric
air in population locations is the concentration that is not expected to cause negative
effects on present or future generations during the entire life; does not reduce human
performance nor deteriorate human health and sanitary living conditions.
4.2 Modelling of local dispersion of black carbon
Soot emissions were measured in sample 2, coal combustion, and in sample 7,
complementary fuel is used in the amount of not more than 5%.
Data were obtained using the method described in RD 52.04.186-89, Annex 5.3.8 to part
I, item 4.4; tool to be used carbon analyzer TOC-L CSN, module SSM-5000A (Appendix
5).
The following results have been obtained:
49
Table 22
#
1.
2.
Results of soot (black carbon) test in exhaust gas samples
Soot content,
Sample code
mg/Nm3
Gas duct after ESP EGBM1 25-9-6-4.
Sample 2
Gas duct after ESP EGBM1 25-9-6-4.
Sample 7
0.135
2.0
0.347
2.0
According to the materials submitted by the plant and given in the report
50
Measurement error, %
Table 22, soot has not been included in the list of substances emitted by rotary kiln # 2.
The Russian legislation establishes MPC of 0.15mg/m3 in the area of population locations
(GN 2.1.6.1338-03 “The maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of a pollutant in the
atmospheric air in population locations”, Moscow, RF Ministry of Health, 2003 (as
subsequently amended)).
The current situation, which reflects the level of atmospheric air pollution without
accounting for rotary kiln # 2 is given in Figure 10. The; calculations made show that the
level of pollution in the residential area is 0 MPC without accounting for rotary kiln # 2.
Let us make calculation including sample 2 and 7 emission assessments in the data
available. In calculation we assume that the maximum soot content is 0.347 mg/m3.
Calculation is made using UPRZA Ekolog program. Points indicated in Table 23 are
assumed to be reference points.
Data on the rest sources are included in Table 25 of calculation parameters based on MPE
Project. The calculation results are shown in Table 24 and Figure 11.
Figure 10
Results of calculating carbon (soot) emissions without accounting for
rotary kiln # 2.
51
Table 23
#
Reference points
Point coordinates (m) Height Type of the point
(m)
X
Y
16
59.79
1811.45
2
on the sanitary protection zone boundary
17
834.20
2212.96
2
on the sanitary protection zone boundary
18
1482.23
1485.42
2
on the sanitary protection zone boundary
19
1205.80
702.85
2
on the sanitary protection zone boundary
20
317.20
951.66
2
on the sanitary protection zone boundary
1
1359.00
594.00
2
on the residential area boundary
2
1464.00
662.31
2
on the residential area boundary
3
1739.31
849.87
2
on the residential area boundary
4
1889.90
570.23
2
on the residential area boundary
5
1597.05
428.58
2
on the residential area boundary
52
Table 24
Calculation results on substances: (reference points). Substance: 0328
Black carbon (Soot)
#
Coord.
Coord.
Height
Concentr.
X(m)
Y(m)
(m)
(MPC)
Wind
Wind
direction velocity
Backgro
und
(MPC)
Backgro
und
before
excl.
Type of
the
point
19
1205.8
702.9
2
0.02
330
5.24
0.000
0.000
3
1
1359
594
2
0.02
324
5.24
0.000
0.000
4
2
1464
662.3
2
0.02
317
5.24
0.000
0.000
4
16
59.8
1811.5
2
0.01
121
3.38
0.000
0.000
3
3
1739.3
849.9
2
0.01
298
5.24
0.000
0.000
4
20
317.2
951.7
2
0.01
49
3.38
0.000
0.000
3
17
834.2
2213
2
0.01
182
3.38
0.000
0.000
3
18
1482.2
1485.4
2
0.01
261
3.38
0.000
0.000
3
5
1597.1
428.6
2
0.01
320
5.24
0.000
0.000
4
4
1889.9
570.2
2
0.01
306
5.24
0.000
0.000
4
The calculation results showed that when using complementary fuels, soot emissions on
the sanitary protection zone boundary and near the residential area will not exceed
established standards of 0.15 mg/m3, which is clearly seen in Figure 12.
53
Table 25
Emission sources parameters
Accounting:
"%" - source is accounted for with the exclusion from background;
"+" - source is accounted for without the exclusion from background;
"-" - source is not accounted for and its contribution is excluded from background.
If no marks, the source is not accounted for.
Types of sources:
1 - point;
2 - linear;
3 - non-organized;
4 - combination of point sources united in one areal one for calculations;
5 - non-organized with instable emission capacity in time;
6 - point. with umbrella or horizontal emission direction;
7 - combination of point sources with umbrella or horizontal emission direction;
8 - freeway.
Acc. Site #
in
calc.
%
0
Substance
code
0328
%
0
Substance
code
0328
%
0
Substance
code
0328
%
0
Substance
Shop Source Source name
#
#
0
0004 Rotary kiln # 2
Substance
Black carbon (Soot)
0
6012 Parking place # 1
Substance
Black carbon (Soot)
0
6013 Parking place # 2
Substance
Black carbon (Soot)
0
6014 Parking place # 3
Substance
code
0328
Black carbon (Soot)
Vers. Type Source Orifice Volume Velocity Temp. of Ratio
height( diam. (m) of GWM of GWM GWM Rayl.
m)
(cub.m/s) (m/s)
(°C)
1
1
40.0
2.19
24.696 6.55614 278
1.0
Emission
Emission (t/y) F
Sum Cm/MPC Xm
Um
(mg/s)
mer:
347.0000
8.8443360
1
0.013
616.3 3.7
1
3
6.0
0.00
0
0.00000 0
1.0
Emission
Emission (t/y) F
Sum Cm/MPC Xm
Um
(mg/s)
mer:
0.5314
0.0006360
1
0.008
34.2 0.5
1
3
6.0
0.00
0
0.00000 0
1.0
Emission
Emission (t/y) F
Sum Cm/MPC Xm
Um
(mg/s)
mer:
2.8347
0.0015780
1
0.042
34.2 0.5
1
3
3.0
0.00
0
0.00000 0
1.0
Emission
Emission (t/y) F
Sum Cm/MPC Xm
Um
Coord. Coord. Coord.
X1-ax. Y1-ax.
X2-ax.
(m)
(m)
(m)
795.0
1373.8 795.0
Winte Cm/MPC Xm
Um
r:
0.013
626.3 3.9
661.0
1578.0 636.0
Winte Cm/MPC Xm
Um
r:
0.008
34.2 0.5
589.0
1589.0 560.0
Winte Cm/MPC Xm
Um
r:
0.042
34.2 0.5
938.0
1201.0 946.0
Winte Cm/MPC Xm
Um
(mg/s)
r:
5.8208
mer:
0.0017440
1
54
0.430
17.1
0.5
0.430
17.1
0.5
Coord.
Y2-ax.
(m)
1373.8
Source
width (m)
1611.0
1.00
1624.0
1.00
1208.0
1.00
0.00
Figure 11
Graphic representation of calculation results for detected emission
figures
Table 26
The data on the emission of inorganic dust after the filter installation
Pollutant emission
Code
Name
mg/s
kg/hour
mg/m3
mg/ton cement
production
0301
Nitrogen dioxide (nitrogen (IV) dioxide)
142
0.511
6.84
30603.1
0304
Nitrogen (II) oxide (nitrogen oxide)
1932
6.955
93.35
416374.9
0330
Sulphur dioxide (sulphurous anhydride)
363
1.307
17.556
78231.9
0337
Carbon oxide
546
1.966
26.38
117671.2
2909
Inorganic dust: up to 20% of SiO2
8228
29.621
397.50
1773257.4
55
Inorganic dust concentration in Protocol # 01-ВХ-14 “Measurement of concentration of
pollutants in industrial emissions” of May 26, 2014 at the electric filter inlet was 627 176
mg/s and 8 228 mg/s at the outlet. The treatment efficiency was 98.7%.
All calculations have been done according the respective guidance documents based on
Russian Federation environment protection laws (see references: [2]-[12], [21])
56
5
Conclusion
The tests performed by Polar Foundation in VCP on September 3-6, 2014 to assess the
emissions of dioxins and furans, soot (black carbon) and heavy metals showed as
follows:
1. The installation of ESP EGBM1-25-9-6-4 electrostatic precipitator on the plant’s
rotary kiln # 2 made it possible to reduce pollutant emissions into the atmospheric
air. The actual amount of emission reduction of dust on the Vorkuta cement
factory in 2013 (according to statistical reports) was 7224.904 tonnes (from
11216.754 tonnes to 3991.85).
2. No excess has been detected in the sum of 17 dioxin/furan compounds of the
limits established by Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council “On the Incineration of Waste” requirements (Brussels, December 4,
2000) requirements for the emissions of this substance, 0.1×10-6 mg/m3, in all
samples except for sample 2. In the day of sampling, coal was combusted in the
kiln without adding complementary fuel.
3. Applying waste as alternative fuels has not lead to exceeding the emission
requirements on Dioxins and Furans as stated in the directive 2000/76/EC of the
European parliament and of the council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of
waste.
4. Emissions of heavy metals probably occur, especially in case of highly volatile
mercury. Additional study / control should be considered.
In addition, the results obtained from VCP statistics based on Rosprirodnadzor control,
showed that:
5. emissions from Vorkuta Cement Plant comply with emission requirements
currently applicable in the Russian Federation:
6. the filter installation on the rotary kiln # 2 smoke intake allowed achieving the
figures of inorganic dust content of MPC <1 on the sanitary protection zone and
residential area boundary. This is the main criterion for the safe life of the
population in the area since MPC is established by the state hygienic standards;
57
7. when using complementary fuels, soot emissions on the sanitary protection zone
boundary and near the residential area will not exceed established standards of
0.15 mg/m3.
The results from the additional analyses conducted in the laboratory in Sweden (Umeå
University) are comparable with the results from the sample analyses made in SPA
Typhoon. So we made the conclusion that the technical, methodological capabilities of
SPA Typhoon and qualifications of employees seem to fulfil the basic requirements that
could be requested from a laboratory to be contracted for similar studies at industrial
facilities in the Russian Federation. It is, however, noted that the laboratory could make
its capacity more transparent by taking part in international inter-calibration exercises.
58
6
List of references
 Chief Medical Officer RF, 2007, “Sanitary protection zones and sanitary
classification of facilities, buildings and other facilities”, SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03.
Available at: http://www.kubaneco.ru/standard/sanitarystandard/407/
 Goskomgidromet, 1987, “The methodology for calculating of the concentration of
harmful substances in the atmospheric air in industrial emissions”, OND-86.
Available at: http://ohranatruda.ru/ot_biblio/normativ/data_normativ/2/2826/
 Goskomgidromet, Minzdrav, 2004, “Guidelines for the control of atmospheric
pollution”, RD 52.04.186-89.
Available at: http://www.complexdoc.ru/ntd/546349
 Eurachem, 2012, CITAC guide ”Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement”.
Available at: https://www.eurachem.org/index.php/publications/guides/quam
 European Parliament and of the Council, 2000, Directive 2000/76/EC “On the
Incineration of Waste”
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32000L0076
 Ministry of nature recourses, 2002, Order #786 “About the approval of the federal
classification waste catalogue”
Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/901836411
 Ministry of nature recourses, 2010, Order #579 “About the procedure for establishing
the sources of emissions of harmful substances (pollutants) into the air, subject to
state registration and rationing, and about the List of hazardous substances
(pollutants), subject to government accounting and valuation”
Available at: http://base.garant.ru/12182911/
 Minzdrav, 2003, “Maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of pollutants in the air
of populated areas”, GN 2.1.6.1338-03.
Available at: http://www.gosthelp.ru/text/GN216133803Predelnodopust.html
 NII Atmosfera and other, 2010, “The list and codes of pollutants in the air”.
Available at: http://www.gosthelp.ru/text/PerechenPerechenikodyvesh2.html
 NII Atmosfera, 2012, “Guidelines on the Calculation, Regulation and Control of
Pollutants Emissions into the Atmospheric Air.”.
Available at: http://www.gosthelp.ru/text/MetodicheskoeposobieMetod.html
59
 Rosgidromet, 2015, Methodical instructions “Determination of the mass fraction of
the metals in the samples of soils and sediments. Methods of measurement by atomic
absorption spectrophotometry”, RD 52.18.685-2006.
Available at: http://meganorm.ru/Index2/1/4293800/4293800627.htm
 Rosstandart, 2015, “Nature protection. Atmosphere. Classification of pollutants by
composition”, GOST 17.2.1.01-76.
Available at: http://www.internet-law.ru/gosts/gost/33909/
 Rosstandart, 2004, “Nature protection. Atmosphere. Regulations for establishing
permissible emissions of industrial facilities”, GOST 17.2.3.02-78.
Available at: http://vsegost.com/Catalog/31/31821.shtml
 Rosstandart, 2004, “Nature protection. Atmosphere. Sources and meteorological
factors of pollution, industrial emissions. General terms and definitions”, GOST
17.2.1.04-77.
Available at: http://vsegost.com/Catalog/15/15786.shtml
 Rosstandart, 2012, “Resource saving. Best Available Techniques of waste in the
cement industry. Aspects of effective application”, GOST R 55099 – 2012.
Available at: http://vsegost.com/Catalog/53/53559.shtml
 Rostechnadzor, 2008, “Quantitative chemical analysis of the soils. Methodics of
measurement of the total content of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans calculated as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in ground samples,
soils, sediments by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry”, PND F 16.1:2:2:2.5608.
Available at: http://meganorm.ru/Data2/1/4293777/4293777592.htm
 Rostechnadzor, 2011, “Quantitative chemical analysis of the soils. Methodics of
measuring the total content of cadmium, cobalt, manganese, copper, nickel, lead,
chromium and zinc in the soil, sediment, sewage sludge and waste by flame atomic
absorption spectrometry”, PND F 16.1:2.2:2.3:3.36-2002.
Available at: http://snipov.net/database/c_4294944071_doc_4293797546.html
 Rostechnadzor, 2014, "Methods of measurement of the total content of
polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins
and
dibenzofurans
in
terms
of
2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in samples of industrial emissions into the atmosphere by
gas chromatography-mass spectrometry", PND F 13.1.65-08.
60
Available at: http://meganorm.ru/Index2/1/4293806/4293806900.htm
 Russian federation government, 2000, Resolution #183 “About the norms of
emissions of pollutants into the air and harmful physical impact on it.
Available at: https://www.referent.ru/1/105400
 State Duma of RF, 1999, Federal law #96-FZ “About protection of atmospheric air”.
Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_22971
 State Duma of RF, 2002, Federal law #7-FZ “About environmental protection”.
Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34823/
 UNEP Chemicals Geneva, 2005, Standardized Toolkit for Identification and
Quantification of Dioxin and Furan Releases.
Available at: http://www.chem.unep.ch/POPs/pcdd_activities/toolkit/default.htm
61
Arctic Council Secretariat
Fram Centre
NO-9296 Tromsø, Norway
Tel: +47 77 75 01 40
Email: [email protected]
www.arctic-council.org