St. Petersburg State University of Refrigeration and Food

Technology

A Case study: Meat Processing Industry in Russia

OLGA SERGIENKO,

St. Petersburg State University

of Refrigeration and Food Technology, Russia

BUP Teachers Conference on Environmental ManagementBorki-Molo, Poland

June 28-July 2, 2006

The case is based on proceedings of the project “IMPROVING ECO-EFFICIENCY IN THE NORTH-WEST RUSSIA” under support of TACIS CBC Program in 2002-2004

Project Purposes:

1. Distribution of information and transfer of knowledge. 2. Research of existing practices in the field of environmental management at the Russian enterprises. 3. Introduction of actions for improving eco-efficiency at the food-processing enterprises of St. Petersburg.

• Employees of local companies and organizations

• Instructors of educational establishments

• Students of local school and university

• Local authorities

• Local community members in the area of competence of the local authorities

Target Groups

Eco-efficiency Tools

• Cleaner Production

• Environment management systems

• International standards ISO 14000, ISO 9000, HACCP

• Eco-labeling

• MIPS-analysis

• Eco-design

Integration of eco-efficiency toolsfor realization of the Project purposes

Learning of processes Cleaner Production

Identificationof environmental

aspects

Descriptionof environmental

aspects

Preliminaryenvironmental audit

Material and energybalances

MIPS-analysis

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

OF

TH

E P

RO

JEC

TS

FO

R IM

PR

OV

ING

EC

O-E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y

Assessmentof recourse

consumption

Definition of «Cleaner Production»

Cleaner Production is– preventive– integrated– continuosupdating strategy for:

Cleaner Production is– preventive– integrated– continuosupdating strategy for:

ReplacementReplacement

Reductionat sources

Reductionat sources

Recourse savings

Recourse savings

EcodesignEcodesign

ProductsProducts ProcessesProcesses ServicesServices

Increase of efficiency, i.e. improvement of environmental perfor-mance and reductionof production costs

Increase of efficiency, i.e. improvement of environmental perfor-mance and reductionof production costs

Reductionof ecological

risks

Reductionof ecological

risksCompetitive advantages

Competitive advantages

• 19 branches, 96 large and medium size enterprises.

• 1500 small companies produce one-fifth part of the total foodstuff output.

• 15% of the industrial labor force of the city.

• The most successful branches: confectionery production

(more then 33% by the previous year), fish, meat processing industries, wine and alcohol beverages production.

• The share of the food sector in the total industrial output of the city: 37,8%.

Food Sector Development in St. Petersburg in 2004–2005

• Average increase of industrial output: 13% by the previous year.

• Foreign investments: 45% of total amount of the city investments (520 million USD).

• The leaders: Netherlands (38.1%), the USA (12%), Finland (11.8%) and Germany (10.2%).

• Non-national ownership: famous transnational corporations, e.g. Rothmans, Coca-Cola, Sinebrychoff, Kraft Jacobs Suchard.

Food Sector Development in St. Petersburg in 2004–2005

Participating CompaniesCompanies’

BranchOwnership Products Total

amount ofemployees

Projects description

1. MeetprocessingPlant

JSC Meat products,sausages andmeat delicacies

62 1. preliminary auditing2. consisting of environmental account3. calculation of MI-factor of meat products4. reducing amount of waste of sausages’ cover5. eco-labelling of the meat products

2. HeatPower Station

JSC Combined heatand powerenergy

180 1. energy balance of the enterprise2. increasing of energy efficiency3. feasibility analysis of equipment modernisation4. calculation of MI-factors of power and heat

energy

3. Bread-bakingcompany

JSC Bread andbread products

120 1. preliminary auditing2. consisting of environmental account3. calculation of MI-factor of bread products4. suggestions for clean-up of sewage5. eco-labeling of bread products6. investigation of consumer’s attitude toward eco-labeled bread products

4. Bread-bakingcompany

JSC Bread andconfectionery

74 1. preliminary auditing in accordance with therequirements of ISO 14001

2. consisting of environmental account3. calculation of MI-factor of bread products4. clean-up of sewage of confectionery production5. increasing of energy efficiency of bread

production

The Meat Processing Company

• Created in 1992 on the basis of large meat processing plant constructed in 1933.

• Area of 96 hectares.

• Located in the Moscow District of St. Petersburg close to the residential area.

• Sanitary-protective zone of the enterprise is 1000 m.

• Production: more than 500 items of meat products, sausages and medical preparations

• Capacity: more than 200 tones of meat products a day.

The Meat Processing Company

– Production units at the company: • Meat Processing Plants # 1 (MPP-1) • Meat Processing Plants # 4 (MPP-4) • Shop of Dry Broth (SDP) • Factory of Medical Preparation (FMP)

– Auxiliary units: • heat power station • repair-mechanical department • compressor shop • automobile and railway transportation stations • construction shop • wastewater treatment station • trading office and factory shops.

Formulated Problems

• Replacement of out-of-date equipment and technologies in the main production

• Modernization of waste waters treatment station

• Decrease of consumption of energy

• Decrease of heat loses in pipelines

The Cleaner Production Project started in the company in 1999.

The Heat Power Station of the company is station with combined generation of both heat and electric power.

The costs of the heat and electricity are common for the plant and not easily calculated for individual products.

Fuel expenses are the largest part of the production costs. They are divided between heat (77%) and electric energy (23%).

The cost for heat during cold period is constant 80 RUR/Gcal (RUR/Gcal = Russian Rubles per Giga calories); during the warm period the cost increases by some 40% to 110 RUR/Gcal.

Energy production and consumption

Heat losses exceeding the norm by 5–25%.

The objectives of the thermal insulation improvements:

reduce the heat losses up to norms maintain the heat produced to the factory create safe conditions for the employees

The project life expectation is 10 years.

The period of the project implementation is 3 months.

Problem to be solved – Poor insulation of heat pipelines

The heat pipelines were transporting: • steam at 3 atm pressure and 265 °C; • steam at 8 atm pressures and 395 °C; • hot water at 60 °C for processes; • hot water for heating the rooms.

Steam at 3 atm is dominating and accounts for about 80% of the heat.

The pipelines in worst conditions amounted for about 40% of the total length.

These losses a total of some 4000 Gcal/year basically.

Cleaner Production Assessment

Table 1. Distribution of Heat Consumption between Production Sites

Production Steam (8 atm),

Gcal/year

Steam (3 atm),

Gcal/year

Hot water, Gcal/year

Heating, Gcal/year

Temperature 395 °C 265 °C 60 °C varying

Meat Processing Plant-1 892 11685 862 633

Meat Processing Plant-4 328 8686 1034 380

Factory of Medical Preparation

– 27 273 1018 1052

Shop of Dry Broth 2831 – 4511 284

Total: 4051 47 644 3368 2349

Heat losses 203 2382 842 587

Losses % above permitted 5% 5% 25% 25%

Scheme of Emergency Sites of Heat Pipelines

SDB

HPS

FMP-1 FMP-2 FMP-3 МPP-1 МPP-4

Designation on the scheme Heat-carrier Temperature, °C

Steam (8 atm) 395

Steam (8 atm) 265

Hot water 60

Table 2. Scheme of Emergency Sites of Heat Pipelines

Diameter of a pipe, mm

Length pipelines 8 atm vapor

Length pipelines 3 atm vapor

Length pipelines of hot water

89 – – 236

100 400 400 –

108 – – 383

150 – – 635

250 – – 400

273 1020 1174 311

385 100 – –

Total length, m 1520 1574 1965

Feasibility Study of CP Project

– Technical Assessment• Characteristics of the Thermal Isolation Materials

• Characteristics of the Outside Isolation Materials

• Calculation of consumption of isolation materials:

Diameter → Length → Diameter → Volume → Mass of isolation of isolation of isolation

Diameter → Length → Surface → Mass of isolation of outside of outside pipeline isolation isolation

Feasibility Study of CP Project

– Ecological Assessment• Natural resources consumption

• MI of alternative isolation materials

• Factor X

– Economic Assessment• Cost of alternative isolation materials

• Required investments

• Project profitability: PB, NPV, IRR

Table 3. The Characteristics of Thermal Isolation Material

Isolation material

Average density , kg/m3

Heat conduc-tivity ,

Wt/m∙K

Tempe-rature of applica-tion, °C

Life expec-tancy years

Price, RUR/m3

Mineral-wadding cylinders Rockwool (TU 361180-85)

125 0.035 +40...+600 (incombustible)

5 700

Mineral-wadding stitched mats (GOST 21880-86, Sort 100)

120 0.057 +180…+450 (incombustible)

5 1050

Mineral-wadding products with goffered structure (TU 36.16.22.8-86)

110 0.050 +60...+400 (incombustible)

5 600

Table 4. The Comparative Characteristics of Thermal Isolation Material

Isolation material

Average density , kg/m3

Heat conduc-tivity ,

Wt/m∙K

Required volume,

m3

Mass, kg Price, RUR/m3

Material costs, RUR

Mineral-wadding cylinders Rockwool (TU 361180-85)

125 0.035 90.51 11 313.8 700 95 036

Mineral-wadding stitched mats (GOST 21880-86, Sort 100)

120 0.057 417.99 50 158.8 1050 250 794

Mineral-wadding products with goffered structure (TU 36.16.22.8-86)

110 0.050 411.73 45 290.3 600 288 211

Table 5. Calculation of the Outside Isolation Material Consumption

Diameters of pipes, m

Vapor pipeline

(8 atm), m

Vapor pipeline

(3 atm), m

Hot water pipeline,

m

Outside isolation, m2

Vapor pipeline (8 atm)

Vapor pipeline (3 atm)

Hot water

pipeline

0.089 – – 236 – – 382.38

0.1 400 400 – 703.36 803.24 0

0.108 – – 383 – – 711.95

0.15 – – 635 – – 1515.36

0.25 – – 400 – – 1456.96

0.273 1020 1174 311 4266.13 4910.23 1300.75

0.385 100 – – 558.92 – –

Total (material consumption): 16 609.88 m2

Table 6. The Comparative Characteristics of the Isolation Material

Outside isolation material

Thick-ness, mm

Life expectan-cy years

Density, m3/kg

Surface of mate-rial, m2

Price of material, RUR/m3

Material costs, RUR

Steel zinc-coated (GOST 14918-80)

0.55 10 7800 16 610 66.25 1 100 405

Glass-fiber (TU 6-11-145-80)

0.40 8 186 16 610 25 415 247

Ruberoid (GOST 10923-83, sort 420)

0.30 2 1100 16 610 12 199 319

Table 7. The Comparative Characteristics of the Isolation Material Re-calculated for

the Term of Service of 10 Years

Outside isolation material

Mass of material, kg

MI-factor Natural resources, kg

Material costs, RUR

Steel zinc-coated (GOST 14918-80)

71 2573

(iron-coated)213 770 1 100 405

Glass-fiber (TU 6-11-145-80)

1 5453.6

(polyester fiber)5 561 415 247

Ruberoid (GOST 10923-83, sort 420)

27 4062

(linoleum)54 813 199 319

Economic Results of the Project

Total investments (Io) 27 889 USD

Net annual savings (B) 12 948 USD/year

Payback period (PB) 2.15 year

Net present value (NPV) 55 175 USD

Internal rate of return (IRR) 33 %

Profitability index (PI) 1.98 –

Ecological Results of the Project

MaterialRequiredmass, kg

MI-factor, kg/kg

Natural recourses, kg

Thermal isolation material

Mineral-wadding cylinders Rockwool (TU 361180-85)

22 627.5 4.7 106 349.25

Mineral-wadding stitched mats (GOST 21880-86, Sort 100)

100 317.6 4.7 471 492.72

Mineral-wadding products with goffered structure (TU 36.16.22.8-86)

90 580.6 4.7 425 728.82

Outside isolation lay*

Steel zinc-coated (GOST 14918-80) 71 256.81 3(iron-coated)

213 770.43

Glass-fibre (TU 6-11-145-80) 1544.71 3.6(polyester fibre)

5560.99

Ruberoid (GOST 10923-83, sort 420) 27 406.3 2(linoleum)

27 406.3

*Note: The outside isolation lay is calculated for mineral-wadding cylinders Rockwool.

Ecological Results of the Project

MIMIN = 111 910 kg/kg MIMAX = 685 286 kg/kg

FACTOR X = 111 910 / 685 286 = 6.12

Preliminary results of Russian MI-calculations

Substance/ Product MIPSRUS MIPSFIN/D

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER ENERGY PRODUCTION

Heat energy, kg/kWh 0.53 0.40

Power energy, kg/kWh 0.71 0.41

Wind energy, kg/kWh 0.104 0.07

CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES

Nitrogen, liquid, kg/kg 0.29 2.30

FOOD PRODUCTS

Meat products, kg/kg 35.5 Beef – 28

Pork – 46

Poultry – 48

Vodka, kg/kg 3.44 (2.18)* 2.8

Bread, kg/kg 1.8 2.2

* Usage of recyclable bottles.

• Implemented projects in companies

• 15 students’ course works

• 3 graduate work

• Course syllabi (Environmental Management, Industrial Ecology, International Experience in Environmental Protection, Sustainable Development)

• Selective collecting of waste and creating beds on waste in the area of Local Self-Government “Zvezdnoye”

Projects outcomes

• Teaching materials to the participants of the training sessions

• Pre-Auditing Manual for companies

• The Student’s Case Study book (in English and Russian)

• Book in the Eco-Efficiency theory

• Text book for university students in Industrial Ecology

• Project Proceedings

• Web site (www.eng.tacis.eco-efficiency.spb.ru)

• Translation of MI-values to Russian language

Publication and Dissemination of the Project Materials

Thank you very much!

e-mail: OlgaSergienko@svs.ru

St. Petersburg State University of Refrigeration and Food

Technology