Pergamon Environment International, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.

33-45, 1997
Copyright 81997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0160-4120/97 $17.00+.00

PIISOl60-4120(96)00075-X

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CONTROL

MEASURES IN CEMENT INDUSTRY IN INDIA

lnamul Haq, S. Kumar, and S.P. Chakrabarti

Central Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, East Ajun Nagar, Delhi 110 032, India

El 91 IO-1 78 M (Received I7 March 1993: accepted 26 September 1996)

A cost-benefit analysis of pollution control equipment installed to contain dust emissions was
undertaken in the Indian Cement Industry. An assessment was also made in large scale cement
plants with production capacity greater than 200 Mg/d to examine the level of compliance with
emission regulations stipulated by the Central Pollution Control Board. The pay-back periods for
different dust control equipment were worked out. For 300, 600, 1200, 1500, and 3000 Mg/d
capacity cement plants, the following economic comparisons were made on the basis of erection
costs and pay-back periods: electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and fabric filter (FF) for kiln, cement
mill, and coal mill; multiclone for clinker cooler; and fabric filter for packing section. The erection
costs in case of electrostatic precipitator in kiln were Rs. 14.15, 18.10, 22.89, 24.97, and 32.46
million, respectively. The pay-back periods in this case (kiln ESP) were found to be about 6.0, 2.5,
2.0, and 1.2 y for the plant capacity 2 600 Mg/d. The pay-back periods for fabric filter in case of
kiln section were found to be high, varying from 14.8 to 118.8 y due to high operational and
maintenance cost as glass fabric being used as filter media is imported. Based on the cost-benefit
analysis, the ESP for kiln (>300 Mgid), fabric filter for cement mill, coal mill, raw mill, and packing
house for the reported capacities were found to be economically viable dust collectors. The
assessment of the status of pollution control measures and compliance with emission regulations
made during the year 1990-9 1, revealed that out of the total number of 97 large scale cement plants,
64 comply with emission norms and most of the remaining plants have a time-targeted schedule to
install the required pollution control equipment. c~~~vY+$I ‘~1~97~1.~sr~,r~rs~,pncr .w

INTRODUCTION

The cement industry contributes to the air pollution
in the form of particulate matter. The emission of dust
from cement industries in India increased with the
increase in cement production from 75 Gg in 19 13 to
the total installed production capacity from small and
large plants targeted at 57.3 Tg for the year 1991
(CMA 1990). Production is expected to further in-
crease to 100 Tg by the turn of the century. The actual
production by the small and large cement plants was
48.7 Tg in 1991, out of which 45.7 Tg was produced by
large plants. The emitted dust pollutes air around the
emission point and ultimately affects biochemical and
physiological reactions in plants by absorbing and re-
fleeting incoming solar radiation (Lendzion and
Unsworth 1983). Various workers have also investi-
gated the effects of cement dust on plant growth,
morphological characteristics, chlorophyll content, and
element concentration in crops (Ricks and Williams
1974; Prasad and Rao 1983; Mishra and Shukla 1986;
Haq et al. 1990). It is reported that dust emission
contains various toxic trace metals, such as lead,
mercury, copper, zinc, chromium, arsenic, vanadium,
and thallium (Sprung et al. 1984). The excessive ge-
neration of dust from various sources in the cement
industry can be reduced to a desired level by adopting
a suitable dust collector.

33
34
Table 1. Source emission data for particulate matter in a typical cement industry.
Industrial
unit
Kiln
Unit 1 7640
Unit 2 644
Unit 3 2740
Unit 4 4438
Unit 5 5400
Unit 6 764
Table 2. Ambient air quality standards.
Area Category
A Industrial and mixed use
B Residential and rural
C Sensitive
According to the provisions of the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, enacted by the Govt. of
India on the 16th of May, 198 1, cement plants are re-
quired to install adequate pollution control devices to
contain emission at the level specified by the Central
Pollution Control Board (COINDS 1984) to protect and
maintain the quality of the ambient environment. On
the basis of techno-economic criteria of selection of
control equipment, the industries were required to put
up the dust control systems to control emission. How-
ever, the pretext being put forward by the industry is
the high cost of control systems. Being aware of the
problem, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
in collaboration with the National Council for Cement
& Building Materials (NCB) took up a study in 1988 of
the costs and benefits of various pollution control
equipment to be installed at different sections in the
manufacturing processes of Indian cement plants. The
findings are presented in this paper.
SOURCES OF PARTICULATE EMISSION IN
MANUFACTURING OF CEMENT AND THEIR
MONITORING
According to the survey conducted by CPCB
(PROBES 1990), there are 97 large plants (installed
capacity >200 Mg/d) which contribute the major pro-
portion of cement production in the country. Stack
emission monitoring in a few cement industries, which
have not adopted adequate pollution control measures,
was conducted, and emission data for different sections
as observed are provided in Table 1. The stack emis-
I. Haq et al.
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Cement mill Coal mill
343 No vent stack
163 No vent stack
1217 2664
1800 No vent stack
316 No vent stack
220 No vent stack
Suspended particulate matter
concentration, pg/Nm3
500
200
100
sion monitoring was conducted following the proce-
dure laid down in USEPA (1977) and COINDS (1984).
The dust laden gas passing through a duct was drawn
to the probe by a high frequency centrifugal pump so
that iso-kinetic sampling condition was obtained. The
particulate matter collected and the amount of gases
drawn per unit time were calculated. According to the
assessment made by the CPCB (PROBES 1990) the
cement industries equipped with electrostatic precipi-
tators (ESP) account for about 38.0 Tg of cement pro-
duction per y, and the balance of production (7.7 Tg
per y) is from the plants without pollution control
systems. It is reported that about 8% of dust is lost if
the plant (dry process) is not equipped with ESP
(Visvesvaraya and Ganapathy 1983; Duda 1976).
Accordingly, the loss of dust out of 7.7 Tg is estimated
to be at 0.616 Tg annually from the kiln section. Du-
ring calcination, there is weight loss due to release of
CO, and other volatile matter. This weight loss is
considered at 1.5 for conversion from lime stone to
clinker (Duda 1976). The clinker loss, therefore, with
conversion factor of 1.5 is about (0.616/1.5) 0.41 Tg
annually. It was estimated that a sum of Rs. 820 million
or US$29.2 millon (at 1 US$ = Rs. 28, and cost of 50 kg
cement = Rs. 100) is lost due to escape of dust at 0.4 1
Tg annually to the environment, which could, other-
wise, be recovered and recycled through application of
pollution control equipment. Due to discharge of such
a high level of stack emission, the ambient air quality
in terms of particulate matter, would be adversely
impacted and, therefore, needs to be controlled to
 Control measures in cement industry in India
comply with the prescribed Standards (CPCB 1982;
Mishra 1990) given in Table 2.
PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL
In order to maintain the ambient air quality within
the stipulated level (Table 2), the CPCB had evolved
(COINDS 1983) the stack emission standards which
are given in Table 3 to control pollution at source
for cement plants. The protected areas mentioned in
Table 3 are national monuments, sanctuaries, national
parks, and health resorts. The other areas referred to in
this table cover industrial and rural areas. The stack
emission limit shall not be exceeded under normal
operation. However, it could be made more stringent
by the State Regulatory Body depending on the pre-
vailing ambient air quality. These standards are
applicable to the emissions from rotary kiln, raw mill,
coal mill, cement mill, clinker cooler, and packing
house. During the implementation of these standards in
1990-9 1, out of 97 large cement plants, 64 were com-
plying with the statutory requirements (PROBES
1990). The remaining cement plants were directed by
the concerned regulatory agency to provide control
equipment and comply with emission standards within
a time-targeted schedule. The State/location distribu-
tion of cement plants in India is shown in Fig. 1.
DUST COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND THEIR
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
In order to reduce the loss of raw materials and
cement in the form of particulate matter emission and
to meet the stipulated emission standards applicable for
cement industries, different types of dust control
devices are available in the market. The cost of the dust
collector is the primary consideration to the industry
for its selection and installation. However, the selection
of pollution control equipment could be based on its
techno-economic viability. The aims of this study con-
ducted in the cement industry were:
1) selection of the appropriate dust collector system to
control emissions from various sections of a cement
plant;
2) establishing the economic viability of various dust
control equipment; and,
3) persuading the cement plants to install high effici-
ency dust collectors.
The cost-benefit analysis for different dust collectors
for each section in a cement plant includes the follow-
ing financial aspects:
35
1) capital cost of the dust collecting system;
2) operating cost of the dust collecting system;
3) savings in terms of dust collected and recycled; and,
4) pay-back period.
Cement plants having capacities of 300, 600, 1200,
1500, and 3000 Mgld production were identified for
the study. The majority of cement plants in the country
lie within this production range. Most of the dust
collection systems installed by cement plants are manu-
factured indigenously. The cost data provided by ce-
ment plants and manufacturers of dust collectors were
used in estimating the capital, erection, and operating
costs of different dust collecting systems.
The total value of dust collected depends upon the
quality of dust collected and the money value of ar-
rested dust. The quality of dust collected, mainly, de-
pends upon the raw material characteristics, fuel cha-
racteristics, process parameters, and particle size distri-
bution.
The values of dust collected were estimated and are
given in Tables 4- 12. The estimates given in these
tables are based on the following norms:
1) Cost of dust collector: This is the basic cost of
equipment provided by the industry.
2) Cost of auxiliaries: Cost figure provided by the in-
dustry. Items included in auxiliaries are given at Note 1
below the tables.
3) Total cost: Addition of cost for 1 and 2.
4) Cost of erection of control system: This is equal to
cost at 3 plus freight and insurance plus erection cost.
Freight and insurance is considered at 24% as per the
industry practice. Erection cost is considered at 10% of
landed cost (total cost plus freight and insurance cost)
as accepted in the Indian cement industry.
5) Quantity of dust collected: The quantity was pro-
vided by the industry.
6) Value of dust collected: Refer to note 4 below each
table. Cost of the dust collected for each individual
section was provided by the industry.
7) Energy cost: Refer to Note 2 below each table. This
figure was obtained from the industry during the study
period and depending on consumption in each dust
collector, total energy cost was calculated. Consump-
tion figure was provided by the industry.
8) Maintenance: This was estimated on the basis of
total cost as given at no. 4 above for individual equip-
ment. Refer to note 5 below each table.
9) Depreciation: This was considered as provided by
the industry at 10.5% of the total cost.
36 I. Haq et al

Table 3. Particulate matter: emission standards for cement plants.

Production capacity Emission standards for particulate

matter, mflm3

Protected area Other area

200 Mg/d or less 250 400
Greater than 200 Mg!d 150 250

LEGEND
0 CEMENT PLANT
A CLINKER GRINDING PLANT
HI! HIMACHAL PRADESH
HR. HARYANA
ML. MEGHALAYA

Fig. 1. Cement plants in India.

‘9
Control measures in cement industry in India 37

Table 4. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Kiln Type of dust collector: reverse air fabric filter

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(MgW (Ma) capacity collector (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Mg/d)
(m3W (Rs x 105) Note 1 (M~/Y)

1. 300 12.50 70 200 68.39 11.48 79.87 108.62 35.25 11 831

2. 600 25.00 140 400 127.76 18.05 145.81 198.30 71.70 23 661

3. 1200 50.00 280 800 239.14 29.99 269.13 366.01 143.40 47 322

4. 1500 62.50 351 000 291.47 36.26 327.73 445.71 179.25 59 153

5. 3000 125.00 701 900 545.14 64.87 610.01 829.61 358.50 118 305

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) cost/y saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x IO’) (Rs x IO’) (Y)
(Rs x 105) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4

‘1. 49.95 32.71 3.75 8.39 8.69 1.20 54.74 -4.78 -ve

2. 95.93 54.05 6.85 15.31 15.86 2.19 94.26 1.67 118.8

3. 183.91 94.49 12.65 28.26 29.28 4.04 168.71 15.19 24.1

4. 227.21 115.73 15.40 34.41 35.66 4.92 206.11 21.09 21.1

5. 436.20 221.97 28.67 64.05 66.37 9.15 380.21 55.99 14.8

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs. 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 4.2% to 4.7% of total cost. Maximum value of 4.7% considered.

10) Interest: This is calculated as 8% of erected cost
given at No. 4 above, considering 16% interest on di-
minishing balance of loan. This was the rate of interest
during the study period.
11) Overhead: This was considered as 1.5% of the total
cost given at 3 above. This was arrived at by averaging
the figure given by the industry.
12) Operating cost: The summation of costs estimated
at 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 above.
13) Net saving: Difference of 5 and 12.
14) Pay back period. Erected cost divided by net saving
and converted to years.
Tables 4 and 5 :;how that the value of dust collected by
ESP and fabric filter (FF), having the same collection
efficiency, is proportionately increased with an in-
crease in capacity of cement production. The value of
dust collected is equal for both collection systems.
The operating cost of the dust collector system was
found to increase with an increase in cement produc-
tion capacity expressed in Mg/d. The operating cost is
lower for ESP compared to FF in kiln section (Tables
4 and 5). However, the same was found to be lower for
FF as compared to ESP for other sections (Tables 6-9).
Therefore, installation of ESP in the kiln section is
more energy-saving compared to otber sections.
The net saving, worked out by subtracting operating
cost from total value of dust collected in a year is
presented for each section (Tables 4-12). The net
saving is higher for ESP (Tables 4 and 5) as compared
to FF in the case of kiln, which increases with an
increase in production capacity. The net saving in the
case of FF for all the production capacities was found
to be low as compared to ESP, and the net saving was
negative only in the plant of capacity 300 Mg/d (Tables
38 I. Haq et al.

Table 5. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Kiln Type of dust collector: ESP

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of Cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(Mti) (MO) capacity collector (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 105)
(m’h) (Rs x 10’) Note 1 (Mg/d) (M~/Y)

1. 300 12.50 38 740 97.92 6.12 104.04 141.49 35.25 11 831

2. 600 25.00 77 480 122.40 10.71 133.11 181.03 71.70 23 661

3. 1200 45.00 154 950 153.00 15.30 168.30 228.89 143.40 47 322

4. 1500 62.50 193 680 164.48 19.13 183.60 249.70 179.25 59 153

5. 3000 125.00 387 370 205.63 33.05 238.68 324.60 358.50 118 305

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) cost/y saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 105) (Y)
(Rs x 10’) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4
1. 49.95 32.71 13.32 10.92 11.32 1.56 45.79 4.17 33.9

2. 95.93 17.33 17.04 13.98 14.48 2.00 64.82 31.11 5.8

3. 183.91 34.66 21.54 17.67 18.31 2.52 94.71 89.20 2.6

4. 227.21 43.37 23.50 19.28 19.98 2.75 108.88 118.33 2.1

5. 436.20 86.62 30.55 25.06 25.97 3.58 171.78 264.43 1.2

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs. 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies between 12.6% and 12.8% of total cost. Maximum value of 12.8%
considered.

4 and 5). The net saving, for example, in case of ESP
was estimated at Rs. 4.17 X lo5 to 264.78 X lo5 per y
for a plant capacity of 600,1200,1500, and 3000 Mg/d
according to price levels of 199 1 (Table 5). However,
for cement mill and coal mill, the savings are higher in
the case of FF. The pay-back periods worked out for
each dust collector in different sections for economic
comparison are provided in Tables 4- 12.
The pay-back period is dependent upon the net
saving. The more the saving, the shorter the pay-back
period. With the increase in capacity of cement pro-
duction from 300 Mgld to 3000 Mgld, the pay-back
period significantly or marginally declined for the dust
collectors ESP and FF, for the kiln, cement mill, and
coal mill. The pay-back period in the case of FF for the
kiln section is high for all production capacities. The
same is true for ESP in the kiln section only for the 300
Mg/d plant. The pay-back period varies from about 0.2
to 7 y depending upon the type of dust collector and
plant capacity. For all capacities in the case of FF and
for a capacity of 300 Mg/d in the case of ESP for the
kiln sector, the pay-back period is high. However, for
Control measures in cement industry in India 39

Table 6. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Coal mill Type of dust collector: pulse jet fabric filter

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(Mg/h) (Mg/h) capacity collector (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’)
(m3W (Rs x 105) Note 1 (Mg/d) (Mg/y)

1. 300 4.00 4020 2.19 1.12 3.30 4.49 1.76 587

2. 600 7.00 7040 2.52 1.48 4.01 5.45 3.11 1026

3. 1200 12.00 12 060 4.15 2.60 6.75 9.18 5.33 1759

4. 1500 18.00 18 090 5.81 3.86 9.67 13.15 7.99 2637

5. 3000 30.00 30 150 8.89 4.93 13.82 18.79 13.32 4396

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) cost/y saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Y)
(Rs x 10’) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4

1. 5.66 0.96 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.05 2.15 3.52 1.3

2. 9.64 1.54 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.06 2.97 6.66 0.8

3. 16.37 2.50 0.88 0.71 0.73 0.10 4.92 11.45 0.8

4. 24.48 3.58 1.26 1.02 1.05 0.15 7.05 17.43 0.7

5. 40.24 5.78 1.80 1.45 1.50 0.215 10.74 27.50 0.6

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 7.9% to 13.0% of total cost. Maximum value of 13 .O% considered.

Table 7. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Coal mill Type of dust collector: ESP

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(MgW (Wh) capacity collector (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 10’) (Mg/d) (Mg/y)
(m3W (Rs x 10’) Note 1

1. 1200 12.00 12 060 18.21 1.38 19.58 26.63 5.33 1759

2. 1500 18.00 18 090 24.63 1.84 26.47 36.00 7.99 2637

3. 3000 30.00 30 150 36.11 2.75 38.86 52.85 13.32 4396

40 I. Haq et al

Table 7. Continued.

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x IO’) (Rs x 105) cost/y saving/y back
collected/y (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) period
(Rs x 105) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3 (Y)
Note 4
1. 16.37 2.62 1.78 2.06 2.13 0.29 8.88 7.49 3.6

2. 24.48 3.91 2.41 2.72 2.83 0.40 12.38 12.10 3.0

3. 40.24 6.53 3.54 4.05 4.23 0.58 18.96 21.28 2.5

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs. 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 8.6% to 9.1% of total cost. Maximum value of 9.1% considered.
6. ESPs are not recommended for 300 and 600 Mg/d plants.

Table 8. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Cement mill Type of dust collector: pulse jet fabric filter

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(MgW (MO) capacity collector (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105)
(m’W (Rs x 105) Note 1 (Mg/d) (Mgjy)

1. 300 16.00 87 500 2.54 1.44 3.98 5.41 7.65 2524

2. 600 35.00 19 130 4.70 2.95 7.65 10.40 16.73 5521

3. 1200 80.00 43 730 9.04 5.65 14.69 19.98 38.24 12 619

4. 1500 115.00 62 850 12.04 8.15 20.20 27.47 54.97 18 140

5. 3000 2 x 95.00 2x51 920 20.72 12.79 33.51 45.571 90.82 29 971

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x ld) costly saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 105) (Y)
(Rs x 10’) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4
1. 23.59 1.97 0.51 0.42 0.43 0.06 3.38 20.21 0.3

2. 49.59 4.34 0.97 0.80 0.83 0.11 7.07 42.52 0.3

3. 108.71 8.95 1.87 1.54 1.60 0.22 14.18 94.53 0.2

4. 154.32 13.13 2.56 2.12 2.20 0.30 20.3 1 134.00 0.2

5. 244.88 20.667 4.26 3.52 3.65 0.50 32.59 212.29 0.2

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 8.5% to 12.7% of total cost. Maximum value of 12.7% considered.
Control measures in cement industry in India 41

Table 9. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Cement mill Type of dust collector: ESP

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(Mm) (MgW capacity collector (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’)
(m3h) (Rs x 105) Note 1 &WV Wgb)

1. 300 16.00 87 500 12.54 1.56 14.20 19.31 7.65 5424

2. 600 35.00 19 130 22.81 3.26 26.07 35.46 16.73 5521

3. 1200 80.00 43 730 42.56 6.89 49.45 67.25 38.24 12 619

4. 1500 115.00 62 850 55.97 8.32 64.29 87.44 54.97 18 140

5. 3000 2 x 95.00 2x51 920 86.88 15.21 112.09 152.44 90.82 29 971

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 105) cost/y saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Y)
(Rs x 105) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4

1. 23.59 2.28 1.25 1.49 1.54 0.21 6.78 16.81 1.2

2. 49.59 5.06 2.29 2.74 2.84 0.39 13.32 36.26 1.0

3. 108.71 Il.35 4.35 5.19 5.38 0.74 27.02 81.69 0.8

4. 154.32 16.03 5.66 6.75 6.99 0.96 36.40 117.92 0.7

5. 244.88 27.14 9.86 11.77 12.20 1.63 62.65 182.22 0.8

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 8.6% to 8.8% of total cost. Maximum value of 8.8% considered,

Table 10. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Packing house Type of dust collector: pulse jet fabric filter

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(MO) (Mg/h) capacity collector (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x IO’)
(m3h) (Rs x 10’) Note 1 (Mg/d) (Mgfy)

1. 300 30.00 12 230 3.21 1.68 4.90 6.66 5.04 1663

2. 600 60.00 24 460 5.51 2.75 8.26 11.24 10.08 3326

3. 1200 2 x 60.00 2 x 24 460 11.02 5.51 16.52 22.47 20.16 6653

4. 1500 2 x 90.00 2 x 36 690 15.30 8.42 23.72 32.25 30.24 9979

5. 3000 2 x 120.00 2 x 48 920 18.57 11.78 30.75 41.82 30.32 13 306

42 I. Haq et al

Table 10. Continued.

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) cost/y saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 10s) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 10’) (Y)
(Rs x 105) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4
1. f 6.22 1.63 0.60 0.51 0.53 0.07 3.35 12.87 0.5

2. 31.15 3.07 1.01 0.87 0.90 0.12 5.97 25.18 0.5

3. 59.76 6.17 2.02 1.47 1.80 0.25 11.96 47.80 0.5

4. 88.56 9.70 2.89 2.49 2.58 0.36 18.02 70.54 0.5

5. 113.19 12.60 3.75 3.23 3.35 0.46 23.39 89.80 0.5

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs. 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 10.6% to 12.2% of total cost. Maximum value of 12.2% considered.

Table 11. Pay back period of dust collector.

Section: Clinker cool Type of dust collector: multicyclone

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(Ma) (Mg/h) capacity collector (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’)
(m3W (Rs x 105) Note 1 (Mg/d) (M~/Y)

1. 300 12.50 54 000 3.27 5.20 8.48 11.53 9.49 3132

2. 600 25.00 108 000 6.58 9.87 16.45 22.37 18.97 6264

3. 1200 50.00 216 000 13.25 18.88 32.13 43.70 38.25 12 623

4. 1500 62.50 270 000 16.60 23.61 40.21 54.68 47.74 15 754

5. 3000 125.00 540 000 33.43 45.24 78.67 106.99 95.47 31505

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) costly saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Y)
(Rs x 105) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4
1. 26.32 8.30 0.48 0.89 0.92 0.13 10.73 15.59 0.7

2. 50.64 16.56 0.94 1.73 1.79 0.25 21.26 29.38 0.8

3. 97.92 33.07 1.83 3.37 3.50 0.48 42.25 55.67 0.8

4. 120.56 41.30 2.29 4.42 4.37 0.60 52.80 67.77 0.8

5. 231.80 82.54 4.48 8.26 8.56 1.18 105.02 126.77 0.8

Control measures in cement industry in India 43

Table 11. Continued.

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 5.4% to 5.7% of total cost. Maximum value of 5.7% considered.

Table 12. Pay-back period of dust collector.

Section: Raw mill Type of dust collector: pulse jet fabric filter

S.N. Plant Equipment Dust cost of cost of Total As erected Quantity of dust
capacity capacity collector dust auxiliaries cost cost collected
(Ma) (Ma) capacity collector (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10’) (Rs x 10’)
(m’/h) (Rs x 10s) Note 1 (Mg/d) (Mg/y)

1. 300 25.00 18 750 4.28 2.30 6.58 8.95 12.31 4062

2. 600 50.00 37 500 8.11 4.28 12.39 16.85 24.61 8121

3. 1200 115.00 86 250 18.51 11.93 30.45 41.41 56.61 18 681

4. 1500 140.50 105 200 21.73 15.15 36.87 50.15 68.92 22 744

S.N. Value of Energy Maintenance Depreciation Interest Overhead Operating Net Pay-back
dust cost cost (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) cost/y saving/y period
collected/y (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 105) (Rs x 10s) (Y)
(Rs x 10’) Note 2 Note 5 Note 3
Note 4

1. 8.02 3.02 0.80 0.69 0.72 0.10 5.33 2.69 3.3

2. 15.41 5.93 1.50 1.30 1.35 0.19 10.26 5.14 3.3

3. 33.72 15.74 3.68 3.20 3.31 0.46 26.39 7.33 5.7

4. 40.71 20.59 4.46 3.67 4.01 0.55 33.49 7.22 6.9

Notes: 1. Auxiliaries include vent fan, rotary air lock, compressor etc. and their electrical drives.
2. Energy cost has been taken as Rs 1.80 per kwh.
3. Operating cost includes energy cost, maintenance cost, depreciation, interest, and overhead etc.
4. Cost of dust at the kiln feed end.
5. Maintenance cost varies from 11.6% to 12.1% of total cost. Maximum value of 12.1% considered.

the clinker cooler and packing house, it was constant at
about 0.8 y for multiclone and at about 0.5 y for FF for
300, 600, 1200, 1500, and 3000 Mg/d production
capacity. From Tables 4 and 5, the erection cost of ESP
is higher than FF for a 300 Mg/d plant. However, the
erection cost of FF increases compared to ESP with an
increase in production capacity in the case of kiln. Side
by side, the pay-back period shows a decreasing trend
(Table 5).
For other sections, such as cement mill, coal mill,
clinker cooler, packing house, and raw mill, the erec-
tion cost of dust collectors (ESP, FF, and multiclone)
increases with an increase in production capacity
from 300 Mg/d to 3000 Mg/d. However, the pay-back
period is higher for ESP as compared to FF in all the
categories except in the kiln section. Moreover, the
pay-back period is almost the same (Tables 10 and
11) for multiclone and FF for the clinker cooler and
44 I. Haq et al.

packing house sections with varying production ca-
pacity.
For the coal mill of 300 to 3000 Mg/d capacity
units, the installation of FF is recommended because
of the lower pay-back period. The net saving and pay-
back period, in the case of FF for the crusher section,
were found to be negative for all production capa-
cities. This suggests that, although FF is not econo-
mical for crusher units from a pay-back point of view,
it should be considered in the interest of environ-
mental protection. However, the pay-back period for
FF in the case of the raw mill section varied from
about 3.3 to 7 y for plant capacity of 300 Mg/d to
1500 Mgld.
On the basis of the study, the installation of ESP in
the kiln section, FF in cement mill, coal mill, raw
mill, and packing house, and multiclone in clinker
cooler and crusher are the most economical and
energy-saving. These dust collectors are also adequate
to reduce the emissions of particulate matter to the
level of 250 mg/Nm3 as prescribed by the CPCB, if
the dust collectors are maintained properly and run at
their design efficiency. It is also beneficial for the
plant to recover the cost of the dust collector in a
limited time by way of recovery of the dust emitted
through the stack. The section-wise recommended dust
collectors with pay-back period in round figures are
given in the table below:

Section Name of dust Pay-back period of dust collector

collector (Y)
300 600 1200 1500 3000
Mgld Mgld Mg/d Mg/d Mgld
Raw mill FF or multiclone 3.3 3.3 5.7 7 -
Kiln (1300 Mg/d) ESP 34 5.8 2.6 2.2 1.25
Coal mill FF 1.25 0.8. 0.8 0.75 0.7
Cement mill FF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Clinker cooler Multiclone 0.75 0.75 0.8 0.8 0.8
Packing house FF 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5

However, depending on the stringent environmental
regulations, the dust collector could be different than
the suggested one.
After the formulation of the emission standards, the
CPCB undertook a performance evaluation study of
control systems during the implementation program-
me only in large scale cement plants. Out of 97 major
cement plants, 64 plants were complying with the
emission standards. The remaining plants had been
directed by the government to install the adequate
pollution control equipment to comply with emission
standards. In the interest of plant management and
environmental protection, the industries need to
install efficient pollution control devices to achieve
the intended objective, i.e., recovery of resources,
capital cost recovery, and reduction in environmental
protection cost by achieving the desired ambient air
quality through control at sources.
Acknowledgment-The project on cost-benefit analysis was sponsored
by CPCB to NCB under the programme objective series. Necessary help
rendered by the NCB Officers, particularly Sh. J.P. Mittal, during the
study period is gratefully acknowledged. Suggestions and information
received from Mr. M.J. Sane, Technical Director, and Mr. B.
Chakrabarti, M/s. Holtec Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, are also
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
CMA (Cement Manufacturer’s Association of India). Annual report.
New Delhi, India: CMA; 1990.
COINDS (Comprehensive Industry Document Series). Emission
regulations, Part-I. COINDS No. 17. Delhi, India: Central
Pollution Control Board; 1983.
COINDS (Comprehensive Indushy Document Series). Emission
regulations, Part-III. Method for management for emissions from
stationary source. COINDS No. 20. Delhi, India: Central Pol-
lution Control Board; 1984.
Control measures in cement industry in India
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). Annual report. Delhi,
India: CPCB; 1982.
Duda, W.H. Cement data book. Wiesbaden, Germany: Bauverlag
GmbH; 1976.Haq, I.; Singh, A.K.; Sanjeev, K.; Markendya, D.K.
Particulate emission pollution control and its effects on plant
growth. In: Proc. international conference on environment and
management. Roorke, India: Civil Engineering Dept., Roorkee
University; 1990: 374-383.
Lendzion, K.J.; Unsworth, M.A. Ecophysiological effects of atmo-
spheric pollution. In: Physiological plant ecology IV. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag; 1983.
Mishra, L.C.; Shukla, K.N. Effect of fly ash deposition on growth,
metabolism and dry matter production of maize and soybean.
Environ. Pollut. 42-A: 1-13; 1986.
Mishra, P.C. Fundamental of air & water pollution. New Delhi,
India: Ashish Publishing House; 1990.
45
Prasad, B.J.; Rao, D.N. Growth response of phaseolus aureus plant
to petro-coke pollution. J. Exp. Bot. 32(13 1): 1343-56; 1983.
PROBES (Programme Objective Series). Pollution control imple-
mentation in cement industry. PROBES No. 41. Delhi, India:
Central Pollution Control Board; 1990.
Ricks, J.R.; Williams, R.J.H. Effect of atmospheric pollution on
deciduous woodland. Environ. Pollut. 6: 87-109; 1974.
Sprung, S.; Kircher, G.; Rechenberg, W. Reactions of poorly
volatile trace elements in cement clinker burning, Zement-Kalk-
Gips (Translation). ZKG 10: 513-518; 1984.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protecton Agency). Standards for
performance for stationary sources. Method No.5. Fed. Reg. 42:
4177-41782; 1977.
Visvesvaraya, H.C.; Ganapathy, R. An overview on environmental
aspects in cement industry. Bangalore, India: Cement Manu-
facturer’s Association; 1983: 53-62.