ZAF Pickling

AIR IMPACT SCREENING ASSESSMENT FOR A PROPOSED
NEW GALVATECH FACILITY, CAPE TOWN
Project done on behalf of Sillito Environmental Consulting
Project Compiled by: Project Review

L W Burger R G von Gruenewaldt
Report No: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 | Date: March 2016
Address: 480 Smuts Drive, Halfway Gardens | Postal: P O Box 5260, Halfway House, 1685
Tel: +27 (0)11 805 1940 | Fax: +27 (0)11 805 7010
www.airshed.co.za
Report Details
Reference No. 15SEC01

Status Rev 0.2
Report Title Air Impact Screening Assessment For A Proposed New Galvatech Facility, Cape Town
Date March 2016
Client Sillito Environmental Consulting
Prepared by Lucian Burger, PhD (Natal) MSc Eng (Chem), BSc Eng (Chem)
Reviewed by Reneé von Gruenewaldt (Pr. Sci. Nat.), MSc (University of Pretoria)
Airshed Planning Professionals (Pty) Ltd is a consulting company located in Midrand, South
Africa, specialising in all aspects of air quality, ranging from nearby neighbourhood concerns to
Notice regional air pollution impacts as well as noise impact assessments. The company originated in
1990 as Environmental Management Services, which amalgamated with its sister company,
Matrix Environmental Consultants, in 2003.
Airshed is an independent consulting firm with no interest in the project other than to fulfil the
Declaration contract between the client and the consultant for delivery of specialised services as stipulated
in the terms of reference.
Unless otherwise noted, the copyright in all text and other matter (including the manner of
presentation) is the exclusive property of Airshed Planning Professionals (Pty) Ltd. It is a
Copyright Warning
criminal offence to reproduce and/or use, without written consent, any matter, technical
procedure and/or technique contained in this document.
Revision Record
Revision Number Date Reason for Revision

Rev 0.0 4 November 2015 Initial Release
Rev 0.1 28 January 2016 Inclusion of Reverse Pulse Filter Unit
Rev 0.2 15 March 2016 Remove Impact Rating Table
Air Impact Screening Assessment For A Proposed New Galvatech Facility, Cape Town
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 i
Executive Summary
Galvatech (Pty) Ltd, a galvanising company that has been operating their existing galvanising plant in Bellville South (Sacks
Circle), proposes to expand their business to establish a new hot dip galvanising plant on a nearby property also in Bellville
South. It is proposed to increase their current throughput capacity of some 12 000 tonnes/annum to 36 000 tonnes/annum.
The hot dip activities at the existing plant will be decommissioned and only the preparation and finishing aspects of the
operation will continue (i.e. grit blasting, spray painting, powder coating and zinc metal spray). All hot dip galvanising work
will instead take place at the proposed new plant.
The Sacks Circle Industria area is a long-established and fully developed heavy industrial area. The site has been
developed for heavy industrial purposes in the form of a precast concrete products facility which has operated on the site for
more than fifteen years. The proposed new Galvatech site is surrounded by industrial premises, including Dietrich Signs
immediately to the north, Reinforced Steel Contractors (RSC) to the northeast, Cape Timber Mouldings to the east, Consul
Glass to the southeast, Actom John Thompson to the south, the existing Galvatech operations to the west and GKN Sinter
Metals to the northwest. Other industries in the Sacks Circle Industria area with atmospheric impacts are Metallurgical,
Glass production, used oil/solvent recovery, Sacks Circle Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) and the Bellville South
Landfill site. The University of Western Cape and the Cape Peninsula University of Technology is situated southwest
(approximately 600 m) and south (approximately 400m), respectively. Tansnet operations are located approximately 1 km,
west and northwest of the proposed site. The residential suburbs within the 5km radius of the plant are Bellville and Bellville
South to the north, Sarepta, De Kuilen and Kuils River to the east. Belhar and Delft are located to the south of the site, and
Ravensmead and Parow to the west of the site.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the current study is to determine the significance of impact on human health, property damage and
environmental loads due to the anticipated atmospheric emissions from the proposed galvanizing plant. Galvanising
operations entail the use of hazardous chemicals, as well as operating with molten zinc at high temperatures. The pickling
bath used in the preparation process consists of hydrochloric acid (HCl), from where HCl fumes are generated and emitted
into the atmosphere. In addition, zinc vaporises off of the galvanizing bath and can escape into the air as inhalable
particulate matter1. Airborne particulate matter and HCl fumes may have associated localised negative health impacts at
sufficiently high concentrations. There is also the possibility for increased corrosion potential which would impact negatively
on the assets of neighbouring facilities.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Based on the comments received from the Western Cape’s Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
(DEAD:P), the following items were requested for inclusion in the Basic Assessment Report:
1 Inhalable particulate matter is that fraction of a dust cloud that can be breathed into the nose or mouth.
 Thoracic particulate matter is that fraction of inhalable coarse particulate matter that can penetrate the head airways and enter
the airways of the lung. Also referred to as PM10, it consists of particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm and
deposit efficiently along the airways. Particles larger than a mean size of 10 µm are generally not inhalable into the lungs.
These particles are typically found near roadways and dusty industries.
 Respirable particulate fraction is that fraction of inhaled airborne particles that can penetrate beyond the terminal bronchioles
into the gas-exchange region of the lungs. Also known as fine particulate matter, it consists of particles with a mean
aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5) can be inhaled deeply into the lungs. These particles can be directly emitted
from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in
the air.
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 ii
1. A description of the input data, including source of data, validity of data and any assumptions must be provided.
2. An emissions inventory using the minimum emissions standards contained in Government Notice No. 893
published in 2013 in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, Act No. 39 of 2004, as
amended.
3. Details of the ambient background levels of pollutants to be used and their source.
4. All emissions resulting from the source site [assumed to be displayed as isopleths] must be overlaid onto a current
aerial photograph or topographic map or a street map which clearly indicates the closest sensitive receptors.
5. A discussion of the accuracy of the results and comparison with appropriate standards must be provided
according to the various averaging periods that are applicable.
6. The impact of the proposed operations on the ambient air quality under normal and any abnormal conditions to be
demonstrated.
7. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has identified SCREEN3 and CTSCREEN atmospheric dispersion
models for use as screening models for regulatory purposes in South Africa. It is therefore; recommended that
SCREEN3 and/ or CTSCREEN be used for this application.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a comparison of worst-case meteorology ground level concentrations of inhalable particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) with the NAAQS for daily an annual averaging times (exposure periods), it is concluded that the PM 10 concentrations
would not likely be exceeded beyond the plant boundary, even under abnormal conditions. A small section of the property of
Dietricht Signs (northern boundary of the proposed Galvatech operation) may experience daily average concentrations
above the limit concentration value contained in the NAAQS for the 13 m stack height option and without filters controlling
particulate emissions.
Assuming the particulate emissions from the proposed plant to all be PM 2.5 (worst-case emission scenario), for a stack of 13
m and no filters, exceedances of the NAAQS for PM2.5 up to distances of 120 m from the point of release could be possible.
The maximum concentration would be reduced significantly if the stack height is increased to 16 m, with a potential
exceedance essentially within the plant boundary only – noting that a portion of Dietricht Signs could still be exposed to
levels above the NAAQS limit value for PM2.5. With the addition of filters to control particulates, this distance to the PM 2.5
limit value would be less than 20 m.
The maximum hourly (acute) average HCl concentration was shown to be an insignificant health risk, with predicted
maximum concentrations orders of magnitude lower than the respective screening concentrator levels for acute and chronic
exposures, respectively. This applied to both 13 m and 16 m stack height options.
Very little information could be obtained in the open literature to estimate the increased corrosion potential due to HCl
emissions from the proposed plant on the surrounding area. Most literature on chloride exposures discusses the corrosion
rates associated with marine environments. Whilst the chemical reactions may be similar, it is not clear whether an
assumption of equivalence may be made between hydrochloric acid and sodium chloride. Whilst both are donors of chloride
ions, the former would also reduce the pH of the moisture layer on the metal surface. Given this limitation, and in an attempt
to provide an indication of the corrosion potential that the proposed facility may have on the surrounding environment, it was
decided to make reference to the International Standard Organisation (ISO) corrosion classification which considers sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and chloride deposition rates, as well as ambient temperature and humidity to establish the rate of corrosion of
a number of different metal types. According to this classification, it was predicted that the corrosion potential beyond the
proposed plant boundary will remain similar to the current corrosion rate potential. The same conclusion was reached by
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 iii
employing the ISOCORRAG atmospheric corrosion model, which also takes these parameters into account. For steel, the
potential maximum corrosion increase is predicted to be 0.07% (13 m release height) or 0.01% (16 m release height) at a
downwind distance of about 40m from the point of release.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The significance impact of particulate and HCl air emissions from the proposed Galvatech the in the vicinity of the proposed
site was shown to be relatively low. However, it was shown that there is the potential of exceeding the PM 2.5 daily average
concentration immediately beyond the plant boundary, albeit within an industrial premises, with a stack height of 13 m.
Increasing the stack height to 16 m would result in ground level concentration compliance with the NAAQS. The proposed
inclusion of a reverse pulse filter unit prior to the vapours being released into the atmosphere will ensure that the Minimum
Emissions Limits stipulated in the NEM:AQA for the proposed plant would be met. The inclusion of the filter unit would also
reduce the emissions so that a stack height of 13 m would be suitable to meet ground level limit values for PM 10 and PM2.5.
It is therefore recommended that a stack height of 13 m would be sufficient for adequate dilution provided a filter unit is fitted
prior to the vapours being released into the atmosphere. It is also anticipated that the filter unit would mitigate emissions
during abnormal operating conditions.
Cognisance of the conservative nature of using SCREEN3 dispersion modelling should be recognised; an improved
calculation (most likely less conservative) result would be achieved if actual local meteorological data be used in an
appropriate dispersion model.
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Objective ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Report Structure ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Site and Process Description ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Process ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3 Regulatory Context........................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Air Pollution Legislative Context ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Minimum National Emission Standards .................................................................................................................. 9

3.3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Ambient Air Concentration Standards ............................................................................................................. 10
3.3.2 The National Dust Control Regulations ........................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Non-criteria Pollutants .......................................................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Corrosion Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ 12
3.5.1 Factors Affecting Corrosion ............................................................................................................................. 12

3.5.2 International Standard Organisation ................................................................................................................ 15
3.5.3 ISOCORRAG Atmospheric Corrosion Model .................................................................................................. 18
4 Meteorology And Baseline Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 19
4.1 Wind Speed and Direction .................................................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Ambient Air Temperature ..................................................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Atmospheric Stability ............................................................................................................................................ 21
4.4 Rainfall .................................................................................................................................................................. 23

4.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................. 24
5 Atmospheric Dispersion Simulations .............................................................................................................................. 27
5.1 Dispersion Model .................................................................................................................................................. 27

5.2 Dispersion Model Input Data ................................................................................................................................ 28
5.3 Dispersion Model Results ..................................................................................................................................... 30
5.3.1 Particulate Matter ............................................................................................................................................. 30

5.3.2 Hydrochloric Acid ............................................................................................................................................. 30
5.4 Abnormal Operating conditions ............................................................................................................................ 36
6 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 38
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 v
6.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 38
6.2 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................................. 38
7 References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 vi
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Extraction vent specifications ............................................................................................................................ 7

Table 3-1: Minimum emission standards for hot dip galvanising) ..................................................................................... 10
Table 3-2: Air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants (SA NAAQS) .................................................................... 11
Table 3-3: Acceptable dust fall rates ................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 3-4: International health thresholds for HCl exposure ............................................................................................. 13
Table 3-5: ISO 9223 Classification of the Time of Wetness ............................................................................................. 15
Table 3-6: ISO 9223 classification of pollution by sulfur-containing substances represented by SO2 .............................. 16
Table 3-7: ISO 9223 classification of pollution by airborne chloride containing substances ............................................. 16
Table 3-8: Estimated corrosivity categories of the atmosphere ........................................................................................ 17
Table 3-9: Average and steady state corrosion rates for Different Metals and Corrosivity Categories............................. 17
Table 3-10: ISOCORRAG regression model constants (Knotkova et al, 1995) .................................................................. 18
Table 4-1: Monthly temperature summary at Cape Town International Airport (2004-2014)............................................ 20
Table 4-2: Atmospheric stability classes ........................................................................................................................... 22
Table 4-3: Monthly rainfall summary at Cape Town International Airport (2004-2014) .................................................... 24
Table 5-1: Extraction vent specifications .......................................................................................................................... 28
Table 5-2: Upset operating conditions .............................................................................................................................. 36
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 vii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Current and proposed new locations for Galvatech plant .................................................................................. 1
Figure 2-1: Neighbouring industrial activities to the proposed Galvatech site ..................................................................... 4
Figure 2-2: Land use around the proposed Galvatech site .................................................................................................. 5
Figure 4-1: Period, day- and night-time wind rose for Cape Town International Airport .................................................... 20
Figure 4-2: Seasonal wind rose for Cape Town International Airport ................................................................................ 21
Figure 4-3: Monthly average temperature profile for Cape Town International Airport (2004 – 2014)............................... 22
Figure 4-4: PM10 monthly average concentrations observed in Bellville South (January 2010 – February 2013) ............. 24
Figure 4-5: SO2 monthly average concentrations observed in Bellville South (January 2010 – February 2013)............... 25
Figure 4-6: NO2 monthly average concentrations observed in Goodwood (January 2010 – February 2013).................... 26
Figure 5-1: Model of flow near sharp-edged building (Hosker 1979) ................................................................................. 27
Figure 5-2: Proposed Galvatech plant building dimensions ............................................................................................... 29
Figure 5-3: Estimated highest daily average PM10 ground level concentrations at set distances from the emission source
31
Figure 5-4: Estimated highest annual average PM10 ground level concentrations at set distances from the emission
source 31
Figure 5-5: Predicted worst-case impact zones of emissions without filters exceeding the daily average NAAQS PM2.5
limit value of 40 µg/m³, including estimated background concentrations ................................................................................ 32
Figure 5-6: Estimated highest daily average PM2.5 ground level concentrations at set distances from the emission source
33
Figure 5-7: Estimated highest annual average PM2.5 ground level concentrations at set distances from the emission
source 33
Figure 5-8: Comparison of highest daily average PM10 ground level concentrations for emissions with and without filters
34
Figure 5-9: Comparison of highest daily average PM2.5 ground level concentrations for emissions with and without filters
34
Figure 5-10: Estimated highest hourly average HCl ground level concentrations at set distances from the emission
source 35
Figure 5-11: Estimated highest annual average HCl ground level concentrations at set distances from the emission
source 35
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 viii
1 INTRODUCTION
Galvatech (Pty) Ltd is a galvanising company that has been operating their existing galvanising plant at 53A Sacks Circle,
Bellville South, Cape Town for around 21 years (Figure 1-1). In order to enable Galvatech to expand their business so as to
meet market demand, they are proposing to establish a new hot dip galvanising plant on Erf 38674, which is situated at 52
Sacks Circle (Figure 1-1). Current throughput capacity is some 12 000 tonnes/annum. The new facility will have a
throughput capacity of some 3 000 tonnes/month. The hot dip activities at the existing plant will be decommissioned and
only the preparation and finishing aspects of the operation will continue (i.e. grit blasting, spray painting, powder coating and
zinc metal spray). All hot dip galvanising work will instead take place at the proposed new plant.
Galvanizing is the process of coating steel with a layer of zinc that protects the steel from rusting. There are three main
steps to the galvanizing process, namely preparation, galvanizing, and post-treatment. The preparation step is divided into
degreasing (steel is cleaned by means of immersing the steel in a bath containing an acid degreasing solution), pickling
(steel surface is prepared by means of immersing the steel in a bath containing an 5 – 15% hydrochloric acid solution to
remove rust, surface impurities, etc.) or chemical stripping (steel with an existing galvanized surface is “stripped” by means
of immersing the steel in a bath containing an 2 – 5% hydrochloric acid solution to remove the existing zinc coating), and
fluxing (steel is prepared for galvanizing by immersing the steel in a bath containing a flux solution to promote the zinc/steel
bond). Each step consists of a cleaner, either basic or acidic, that cleans the steel of rust and dirt. After each step, the steel
is then soaked in a water rinse bath.
During the galvanizing step, the steel is immersed in a bath of molten zinc heated to a temperature of 450°C. It takes less
than ten minutes for the chemical reactions to occur that bind the zinc to the steel and form the protective layer. Post-
treatment includes a passivation/quenching process during which the galvanized steel is immersed in a bath containing a
sodium dichromate solution.
The establishment of the new galvanising facility will entail the re-development of the new site to house the following:
 A large warehouse-type building in which the hot-dip galvanising process will take place.
 Appropriate abatement equipment to manage air emissions, including
o A high velocity extraction system (similar to the system currently in operation at the existing Galvatech
plant);
o A scrubber system; or
o Baghouse filtration.
 Enclosed as well as open storage areas for steel articles needing to be galvanised (“black steel”), as well as for
the finished, galvanised articles.
 Loading and offloading areas and parking facilities for delivery vehicles and customer vehicles.
 Appropriately enclosed and / or bunded areas for storage of chemicals and other inputs; and for the storage of
spent acid, sludges, zinc ash and dross and other wastes from the galvanising process prior to removal from site
for recycling or disposal by private contractors.
1.1 Objective
Galvanising operations entail the use of hazardous chemicals, as well as operating with molten zinc at high temperatures.
The pickling bath used in the preparation process consists of hydrochloric acid (HCl), from where HCl fumes are generated
and emitted into the atmosphere. In addition, zinc vaporises off of the galvanizing bath and can escape into the air.
Report No.: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 1
Figure 1-1: Current and proposed new locations for Galvatech plant
The objective of the current study is to determine the significance of impact on human health, property damage and
environmental loads due to the anticipated atmospheric emissions from the proposed galvanizing plant. Airborne particulate
matter and HCl fumes may have associated localised negative health impacts at sufficiently high concentrations. There is
also the possibility for increased corrosion potential which would impact negatively on the assets of neighbouring facilities.
1.2 Scope of Work
Based on the comments received from the Western Cape’s Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
(DEAD:P), the following items have been requested for inclusion in the Basic Assessment Report:
1. A description of the input data, including source of data, validity of data and any assumptions must be provided.
2. An emissions inventory using the minimum emissions standards contained in Government Notice No. 893
published in 2013 in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, Act No. 39 of 2004, as
amended.
3. Details of the ambient background levels of pollutants to be used and their source.
4. All emissions resulting from the source site [assumed to be displayed as isopleths] must be overlaid onto a current
aerial photograph or topographic map or a street map which clearly indicates the closest sensitive receptors.
5. A discussion of the accuracy of the results and comparison with appropriate standards must be provided
according to the various averaging periods that are applicable.
6. The impact of the proposed operations on the ambient air quality under normal and any abnormal conditions to be
demonstrated.
7. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has identified SCREEN3 and CTSCREEN atmospheric dispersion
models for use as screening models for regulatory purposes in South Africa. It is therefore; recommended that
SCREEN3 and/ or CTSCREEN be used for this application.
1.3 Report Structure
The report is a succinct account of screening level mathematical calculations of the air concentrations of particulate matter
and hydrochloric air emissions expected in the vicinity of the proposed galvanising plant. The location, process design and
operating conditions are discussed in Chapter 2.
Relevant regulatory aspects, as well as assessment criteria for airborne particulates and hydrochloric acid is discussed in
Chapter 3. This includes both health risk criteria and corrosion potential.
Chapter 4 is a summary of observed meteorological conditions applicable to the proposed site as well as the current air
quality baseline conditions.
Chapter 5 describes some basic theoretical aspects of dispersion modelling, its application in the current context and the
simulation results.
The conclusions and recommendations are summarised in Chapter 6
2 SITE AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location
The proposed Galvatech Plant (Erf 38674) is situated in the Sacks Circle Industria in Bellville South. The Sacks Circle
Industria is bounded by the Robert Sobukwe Road to the north, Symphony Way to the west, and R300 high way to the east.
The Sacks Circle Industria area is a long-established and fully developed heavy industrial area. The site has been
developed for heavy industrial purposes in the form of a precast concrete products facility which has operated on the site for
more than fifteen years. The proposed new Galvatech site is surrounded by industrial premises (see Figure 2-1), including
Dietrich Signs immediately to the north, Reinforced Steel Contractors (RSC) to the northeast, Cape Timber Mouldings to the
east, Consul Glass to the southeast, Actom John Thompson to the south, the existing Galvatech operations to the west and
GKN Sinter Metals to the northwest. Other industries in the Sacks Circle Industria area with atmospheric impacts are
Metallurgical, Glass production, used oil/solvent recovery, Sacks Circle Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) and the
Bellville South Landfill site.
The University of Western Cape and the Cape Peninsula University of Technology is situated southwest (approximately
600 m) and south (approximately 400m), respectively (see Figure 2-2). Tansnet operations are located approximately 1 km,
west and northwest of the proposed site. The residential suburbs within the 5 km radius of the plant are Bellville and
Bellville South to the north, Sarepta, De Kuilen and Kuils River to the east. Belhar and Delft are located to the south of the
site, and Ravensmead and Parow to the west of the site.
2.2 Process
The process entails the preparation of the steel through a series of steps, and then coating the steel in molten zinc in order
to galvanise the metal. The galvanising process is as follows:
STEP 1: Jigging
“Black” steel (i.e. steel that has not yet been galvanised) is hung from hooks and wire on a frame to enable the articles to be
dipped into baths.
STEP 2: Degreasing
The steel is dipped into a bath filled with an acidic degreasing solution in order to remove grease and fatty substances
STEP 3: Acid Treatment (Pickling) OR Chemical Stripping
The steel is then dipped into room temperature acid baths For articles that are already galvanised, these are
containing a solution of hydrochloric acid (concentration placed overnight (up to 12 hours duration, depending
between 5-15%), this is termed “pickling”. Prior to use the on the amount of zinc to be stripped) in a weak solution
solution is 15% and as it is used the concentration of hydrochloric acid (2-5%) and are acid stripped (as
decreases until it is 5%, after this it is termed spent and opposed to “pickled” with a 5-15% concentration
cannot perform the pickling function solution of hydrochloric acid for a much shorter period
of time).
STEP 4: Rinsing
The “pickled” steel is then rinsed.
STEP 5: Pre-Flux
The rinsed steel is then dipped into a bath containing a pre-flux solution, which prevents oxidation on the steel’s surface
between the rinsing and galvanising steps. The flux solution also promotes the zinc-metal bond during galvanizing.
Figure 2-1: Neighbouring industrial activities to the proposed Galvatech site
Figure 2-2: Land use around the proposed Galvatech site
STEP 6: Drying
There is an area between the flux tank and the galvanising kettle where the prepared steel is dried before being galvanised.
STEP 7: Zinc Coating (galvanising)
The prepared steel is then dipped into a galvanising “kettle”, or bath,
Particulates
which contains molten zinc heated to 450ºC.
STEP 8: Quenching / Passivation
Zinc coated (galvanised) steel is placed inside a quenching bath containing a sodium dichromate solution, which prevents
wet storage stain on the galvanised articles.
The current acid baths have a length 6.6m and width of 1.5 m each and the current zinc kettle is 7.5 m long. With the
infrastructure sizes planned for the site (preparation tanks and a galvanising kettle), i.e. increased production from the
current 12 000 tonnes per annum to 36 000 tonnes per annum, the acid bath and kettle lengths would increase to 14 m.
There will be five acid pickling baths. The pickling acid solution contains between 5% and 15% (10% average) hydrochloric
acid and operates at a temperature of about 20°C.
The amount of zinc used in the process is approximately 8% of the galvanised product. The estimated current usage is
therefore about 960 tonnes per annum, which would increase to about 2 880 tonnes per annum.
Two gaseous waste streams are generated during the process, namely in Steps 3 and 7 above, respectively. These include
 Hydrochloric acid (HCl) fumes which would be released from the pickling baths due to the evaporation of acid in
the five picking tanks.
 Particulate matter in the form of ZnO is generated by the galvanizing kettle.
These vapours would be extracted using extraction hoods and a high velocity extraction system to protect workers from
exposure to excessive HCl and airborne particulate fumes. The current system operates in the same principle with the
fumes emitting directly into atmosphere through a stack of approximately 13 m in height. Whilst the same system is
proposed for the new plant, gas cleaning options include the installation of a scrubber system; or baghouse filtration. One
such option has been proposed, which includes fitting a reverse pulse filter unit prior to atmospheric release to reduce
gaseous fume and particulate emissions (Mercel le Roux, Proposal Reference C56/069, CFW Industries (Pty) Ltd). The
proposed filter unit has been designed to treat the vapours collected over the galvanising units to meet a maximum
particulate emission concentration of 10mg/m³. Lime would be fed into the filter bags to prevent clogging up. The existing
fan will have to be upgraded by fitting a new motor to overcome increased pressure loss. The main items included in the
filter unit would consist of
 Reverse pulse filter unit

 Hopper and structural support
 Lime feeder with hopper and motor for ceding of the filter bags for the sticky, cohesive dust type
 Storage bins below the hoppers
Emissions of acid fumes from the pickling baths depend on the following parameters:
 Bath surface area

 Acid strength
 Acid temperature
 The use and efficiency of evaporation inhibitors
 Airflow over the bath liquid surface
The vapour pressure of the acid, which is a function of acid strength and bath temperature, is the driving force behind the
evaporation. The higher the vapour pressure, the greater the rate of evaporation and, hence, the concentration in the air
extracted over the baths. The vapour pressure of HCl increases with an increase in temperature and acid concentration,
and therefore would result in an increased evaporation rates. A larger bath would result in more HCl being evaporated due
to the larger exposed surface area. An increased airflow over the surface of the bath would also enhance the evaporation
rate. Galvatech makes use of inhibitors to reduce the acid emission rate from the bath. The acid is supplied to Galvatech
with this product already added. Galvatech also makes use of an additional inhibitor to prevent over pickling of the steel.
A summary of the extraction system emission parameters are provided in Table 2-1. The emission rates for particulates and
HCl for the proposed plant were based on isokinetic stack sampling which was conducted on the current Galvatech plant
emissions in Bellville (EXCO 2015). The sampling took place on 26 January 2015.
Table 2-1: Extraction vent specifications
Parameter Current Operation Proposed New Plant
Stack reference Longitude 18.640719°

Latitude -33.926886°
Stack height above mean ground level (AMGL) 12 773.2 mm 13.261 m and 16.261 m (3)
Stack tip diameter 1 250 mm 1 250 mm
Stack gas exit velocity 21.1 m/s (1) 18.0 m/s (4)
Stack gas exit temperature 39.7 °C (1) 39.7 °C (1)
Air pollutant emission rates Particulate Matter 0.422 kg/h (1) 1.266 kg/h (5) without filter
≤0.8 kg/h (6) with filter
Hydrochloric Acid 0.0020 kg/h (1) (2) 0.0042 kg/h (7)
Air pollutant concentration Particulate Matter 5.3 mg/Nm³ (8) 15.8 mg/Nm³ (8) without filter
≤10 mg/Nm³ (6) with filter
Hydrochloric Acid 0.012 mg/Nm³ 0.024 mg/Nm³ (7)
Notes:
(1) - EXCO Stack Monitoring cc, Report No. GAL-15121.02, 23 February 2015.
(2) - In the EXCO report, the authors did not account for the “below detection limit (BDL)” results when calculating the average. Instead, it
is common practice to use either BDL/2 or BDL/√2 for those readings that are BDL. Assuming the latter, the average HCl emission rate is
calculated to be 0.0019 kg/h instead of the 0.0013 kg/h given in the report.
(3) – Given that the simulations should be based on 3m and 6m higher than the current extraction system and building height (i.e. 10 m)
(4) – Used the lower of the original design (18 m/s) and EXCO Report (21.1 m/s) exit gas velocity.
(5) – A linear relationship of particulate emissions with production capacity was assumed. The new plant would have a 3-fold increase in
production rate (increase from12 000 tpa to 36 000 tpa).
(6) – The existing system discharges collected fumes directly into atmosphere via a chimney stack. The new proposal is designed to treat
the collected fumes thereby ensuring that the particulate concentration of the emitted gas would be less than 10mg/m³. Lime will be fed
into the filter bags to prevent clogging up. The existing fan will have to be upgraded by fitting a new motor to overcome increased pressure
loss. The current air volume will be retained.
(7) – HCl emissions are determined by the exposed surface area of the pickling baths. The bath area approximately doubles from the
current operation to the proposed operation, i.e. 6.6 m long x 1.5 m wide = 9.9 m² to 14.0 m long x 1.5 m wide = 21.0 m².
(8) – In calculating the concentrations, it was conservatively assumed that the volumetric flow rate would remain the same. It is most likely
that the volumes extracted per unit time could be larger and therefore the pollutant concentrations lower then these reported in the table.
Isokinetic (particulate) stack sampling was performed in accordance with the procedure documented in ISO 9096:1993. The
monitoring was conducted by means of a calibrated TCR Tecora Isostack Basic Automatic Isokinetic Sampler. The filters
with the collected particulates were subjected to gravimetric procedures to determine their mass by way of a weighing it with
a calibrated Sartorius 2004MP6 Microbalance. Acid mist monitoring and analysis were performed according to US
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Method No. 26 – Hydrogen Chloride, Halides and Halogens.
3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
3.1 Air Pollution Legislative Context
The Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act (APPA) of 1965 was repealed and the new National Environmental Management:
Air Quality Act (NEMAQA) of 2005 was brought into full force on the 1st of April 2010. Previously under APPA, the focus was
mainly on sourced based control with permits issued for Scheduled Processes. Scheduled processes, referred to in this Act,
were processes which emit more than a defined quantity of pollutants per year, including combustion sources, smelting and
inherently dusty industries. Although emission limits and ambient concentration guidelines were published, no provision was
made under the APPA for ambient air quality standards or emission standards. NEMAQA shifted the approach of air quality
management from source-based control to the control of the receiving environment. The new Act has also placed the
responsibility of air quality management on the shoulders of local authorities that will be tasked with baseline
characterisation, management and operation of ambient monitoring networks, licensing of listed activities, and emissions
reduction strategies.
The National Framework for achieving the NEMAQA was published in the Government Gazette on the 11th of September
2007. The National Framework is a medium- to long term plan on how to implement the Air Quality Act to ensure the
objectives of the act are met. The National Framework states that aside from the various spheres of government
responsibility towards good air quality, industry too has a responsibility not to impinge on everyone’s right to air that is not
harmful to health and well-being. Industries therefore should take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution order
degradation form occurring, continuing or recurring. In terms of NEMAQA, certain industries have further responsibilities,
including:
 Compliance with any relevant national standards for emissions from point, non-point or mobile sources in respect
of substances or mixtures of substances identified by the Minister, MEC or municipality.
 Compliance with the measurements requirements of identified emissions from point, non-point or mobile sources
and the form in which such measurements must be reported and the organs of state to whom such measurements
must be reported.
 Compliance with relevant emission standards in respect of controlled emitters if an activity undertaken by the
industry and/or an appliance used by the industry is identified as a controlled emitter.
 Compliance with any usage, manufacture or sale and/or emissions standards or prohibitions in respect of
controlled fuels if such fuels are manufactured, sold or used by the industry.
 Comply with the Minister’s requirement for the implementation of a pollution prevention plan in respect of a
substance declared as a priority air pollutant.
 Comply with an Air Quality Officer’s legal request to submit an atmospheric impact report in a prescribed form.
 Taking reasonable steps to prevent the emission of any offensive odour caused by any activity on their premises.
 Furthermore, industries identified as Listed Activities have further responsibilities, including:
o Making application for an Atmospheric Emission License (AEL) and complying with its provisions.
o Compliance with any minimum emission standards in respect of a substance or mixture of substances
identified as resulting from a listed activity.
o Designate an Emission Control Officer if required to do so.
3.2 Minimum National Emission Standards
The minister, in terms of Section 21 of the NEMAQA, published a list of activities which result in atmospheric emissions and
which is believed to have significant detrimental effects on the environment and human health and social welfare. All
scheduled processes as previously stipulated under APPA were included as listed activities with additional activities being
added to the list. The Listed Activities and Minimum National Emission Standards were first published on the 31 st of March
2010 (Government Gazette No. 33064), with a revision of the schedule on the 22 nd of November 2013 (Government Gazette
No. 37054). In terms of the latest list of minimum emissions standards, the new galvanising plant triggers the following
activity:
 Category 4, Subcategory 4.22: Hot dip galvanising (The coating of steel articles with zinc using molten zinc,
including the pickling and/or fluxing of articles before coating all installations)
The minimum emission standards applicable to proposed operations are summarised in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Minimum emission standards for hot dip galvanising)

Subcategory 4.22: Hot Dip Galvanizing
The coating of steel articles with zinc using molten zinc, including the pickling
Description
and/or fluxing of articles before coating
Application All installations
Substance or mixture of substances mg/Nm3 under normal conditions
Plant Status
Common Name Chemical Symbol of 273 Kelvin and 101.3 kPa
New 10
Particulate matter Not applicable
Existing 15
New 30
Hydrogen Chloride HCl
Existing 30
3.3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
3.3.1 Ambient Air Concentration Standards
Air pollution generated at the galvanising plant applies to both “occupational” and “ambient” domains. The former applies to
workers that voluntarily agree to expose themselves to air pollution levels, which are not detrimental to the health of strong,
healthy humans. The latter concentrations are significantly lower, and apply to involuntary exposure of the community. The
current study focuses on community exposures and is governed through compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) which were published in the Government Gazette on the 24th of December 2009. These standards for
air concentration exposures are summarised in Table 3-2.
Air quality guidelines and standards are normally given for specific averaging periods. These averaging periods refer to the
time-span over which the air concentration of the pollutant was monitored (predicted or measured) at a location. Generally,
five averaging periods are applicable, namely an instantaneous peak, 1-hour average, 24-hour average, 1-month average,
and annual average. The application of these standards varies, with some pollutants allowed a certain number of
exceedances of each of the Limit Values per year.
3.3.2 The National Dust Control Regulations
The National Dust Control Regulations (NDCR) was published on 1 November 2013. The purpose of the regulations is to
prescribe general measures for the control of dust in all areas including residential and non-residential areas. The standard
for acceptable dustfall rates is set out in Table 3-3 for residential and non-residential areas. In addition to the dust fall limits,
the NDCR prescribe monitoring procedures and reporting requirements.
Table 3-2: Air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants (SA NAAQS)
Allowed
Averaging Period Concentration Frequency of Compliance Date
Exceedence
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
10 minutes 500µg/m³ (191ppb) 526 Immediate
1 hour 350µg/m³ (134ppb) 88 Immediate
24 hours 125µg/m³(48ppb) 4 Immediate
1 year 50µg/m³ (19ppb) 0 Immediate
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 hour 200µg/m³ (106ppb) 88 Immediate
1 year 40µg/m³ (21ppb) 0 Immediate
Particulate Matter (PM10)
24 hours 75µg/m³ 4 1 January 2015
1 year 40µg/m³ 0 1 January 2015
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
24 hours 40µg/m³ 4 1 Jan 2016 – 31 Dec 2029
25µg/m³ 4 1 January 2030
1 year 20µg/m³ 0 1 Jan 2016 – 31 Dec 2029
15µg/m³ 0 1 January 2030
Ozone (O3)
8 hours (running) 120µg/m³ (61ppb) 11 Immediate
Benzene (C6H6)
1 year 5µg/m³ (1.6ppb) 0 1 January 2015
Lead (Pb)
1 year 0.5µg/m³ 0 Immediate
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 30mg/m³ (26ppm) 88 Immediate
8 hour (calculated from 1 hour averages) 10 mg/m³ (8.7ppm) 11 Immediate
Table 3-3: Acceptable dust fall rates

Dust-fall rate (D) (mg/m²/day,
Restriction Area Permitted frequency of exceeding dust fall rate
30-day average)
Residential D < 600 Two within a year, not sequential months.
Non-residential 600 < D < 1 200 Two within a year, not sequential months
Note:
The method to be used for measuring dustfall rate and the guideline for locating sampling points shall be ASTM D1739: 1970, or
equivalent method approved by any internationally recognized body
In the current assessment, only the standards for particulate matter are applicable, and specifically “PM10” and “PM2.5”
Outdoor air pollution particulate matter has conveniently been divided into the following classes based on their size:
 Total suspended particulates (TSP) refer to all airborne particles and may have particle sizes as large as 150 µm,
depending on the ability of the air to carry such particles. Generally, however, suspended particles larger than 75
to 100 µm do not travel far and deposits close to the source of emission.
 Inhalable coarse particulate matter is that fraction of a dust cloud that can be breathed into the nose or mouth.
o Thoracic particulate matter is that fraction of inhalable coarse particulate matter that can penetrate the
head airways and enter the airways of the lung. Also referred to as PM 10, it consists of particles with a
mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm and deposit efficiently along the airways. Particles larger than a
mean size of 10 µm are generally not inhalable into the lungs. These particles are typically found near
roadways and dusty industries.
o Respirable particulate fraction is that fraction of inhaled airborne particles that can penetrate beyond the
terminal bronchioles into the gas-exchange region of the lungs. Also known as fine particulate matter, it
consists of particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5) can be inhaled deeply
into the lungs. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form
when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air.
o Ultrafine particles (PM0.1), the smallest, consist of particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter smaller
than 0.1 µm and have widespread deposition within the respiratory tract. These particles are typically as
a result of secondary chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
3.4 Non-criteria Pollutants
Health thresholds for various non-criteria pollutants are published by internationally recognised sources. Published criteria
for non-carcinogenic exposures, in order of preference, include:
 WHO guideline values (GVs) for non-carcinogens and unit risk factor guidelines for carcinogens.
 Chronic and sub-chronic inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) and cancer unit risk factors published by the
US EPA in its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
 Reference exposure levels (RELs) published by the Californian Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (CALEPA).
 Minimal risk levels (MRLs) issued by the US Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR).
 Acute, sub-acute and chronic effect screening levels (ESLs) published by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
Health screening criteria for chronic (long term) and acute (short term) exposures to HCl are summarised in Table 3-4.
3.5 Corrosion Impacts
3.5.1 Factors Affecting Corrosion
The most important corrosion stimulators are water (humidity) and air pollutants, such as SO2, ammonia (NH3), and acids
such as HCl and formic acid (HCOOH), as well as aerosols and particles containing chlorides (Cl-), nitrates (NO3-), sulphates
(SO42). The presence of a moisture film on the surface allows these pollutants to dissolve and dissociate into its respective
positive and negative ions, and therefore constitutes the electrolyte for corrosion to take place. The thickness of this
aqueous layer depends on the relative humidity and surface properties, and is typically a few to a few tens of nanometres
(nm) at room temperature (Phipps and Rice 1979).
Table 3-4: International health thresholds for HCl exposure
HCl
Source Period Concentration Date Effect
OEHHA Reference Exposure Level Acute 2100 µg/m³ August 2013 Respiratory system; eyes
(REL) Chronic 9 µg/m³ August 2013 Respiratory system
Inhalation 0.06 ppm (174 µg/m³
Acute (1 to 14 days) July 2013 Final
(Respiratory Uncertainty Factor 3)
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Inhalation 0.002 ppm (5.8 µg/m³)
Disease Registry (ASTDR) Minimal Intermediate (15 to 364 days) July 2013 Final
Risk Levels (MRLs)
Inhalation 0.00005 ppm (0.145 µg/m³)
Chronic (1 year or longer) July 2013 Final
California Environmental Protection
Agency (CALEPA) Inhalation Acute 2100 µg/m³
Reference Concentration
US EPA Integrated Risk Information
Chronic 20 µg/m³
System (IRIS)
Texas Commission on Environmental Short Term ESL 130 ppb (190 µg/m³) 08 October 2009 Health
Quality (TARA) Effects Screening
Long term ESL 5.7 ppb (8.4 µg/m³) 08 October 2009 Health
Levels (ESLs)
Dry deposition near emission sources in urban and industrial areas consists largely of the adsorption of criteria pollutants
such as SO2 and NOx on surfaces, with the deposited amount proportional to the content in air. The deposition rate is high
at elevated humidity, especially on some metals; e.g., steel and zinc (Sydberger and Vannerberg, 1972). Corrosion due to
SO2 exposure is perhaps the most significant. Although NOx may also contribute to corrosion of metals, it is considerably
less significant. Like SO2, this pollutant is mainly emitted from combustion processes such as boilers, power stations, motor
vehicle exhausts, etc. It is predominantly emitted as nitrogen oxide (NO) and oxidised in the atmosphere to nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). This oxidation process is a relatively fast process, but further oxidation of NO2 to nitric acid (HNO3), i.e. the form
conducive for corrosion, occurs at a slow rate and therefore exposure is normally at comparatively low concentrations.
Very little work has been reported on the effect of HCl on the degradation of materials in the environment. This is probably
because HCl, which is present outdoors in markedly reduced concentrations when compared with SO2, has not been
considered to contribute to significant degradation of materials. The first major study of atmospheric degradation of metals
by HCl was carried out by Feitnecht (1952) who exposed zinc, iron and copper to HCl vapours at varying humidities between
50% and 95%. Feitnecht found that HCl reacted with metals only when a critical relative humidity was exceeded, which he
linked to the vapour pressure of a saturated solution of the metal chloride formed during corrosion. He regards the
mechanism as electrochemical, with the oxide-film as cathodes and small areas of metal exposed at breaks as anodes; the
interaction between the hydroxide ions (OH- ions), formed by the cathodic reduction of oxygen, and the metal ions, formed
by the anodic reaction, leads to hydroxide or basic chloride. Barton and Bartonova (1969) carried out a much more
extensive investigation of the corrosive effect of HCl gas at concentrations between 7 and 10 ppm on zinc, mild steel and
copper at temperatures between 20°C and 50°C and at relative humidity’s of 70% and 95%. Two distinct stages were seen
in the behaviour:
 Stage 1 was characterized by a non-linear increase in mass loss with time; termed the “indication period for
steady-state corrosion”.
 Stage 2, after about 16 days’ exposure, showed steady-state corrosion with a linear increase in mass-loss with
time.
The primary corrosion products found on iron were FeO(OH), Fe 3O4 and FeCl2, whilst those found on zinc were 4Zn (OH)2.
ZnCl2, Zn (OH)2 and ZnO. The amount of chloride in the corrosion product tended to decrease slowly with time, during the
initial period of exposure. After the steady state corrosion region had been reached, the composition of the corrosion product
remained unchanged.
Barton and Bartonova (1969) was measured the corrosion rate at different temperatures in the steady state region. For zinc,
the corrosion rate decreased as the temperature increased; for iron, the corrosion rate increased with temperatures up to
40°C, but decreased at 50°C. The rate of the reactions did not appear to depend on the diffusion of HCl to the surface since
the corrosion rate was similar in flowing and stationery atmospheres. The implication is that the corrosion rate is dependent
on chemical reaction rate. The kinetics of corrosion is controlled by the transfer of HCl to the corrosion product atmosphere
interface, its adsorption and the subsequent production of soluble ZnCl2. The corrosion rate also depends on the hydroxide /
chloride ratio in the corrosion product as the hydroxides are more protective than the chlorides.
No literature could be obtained on the combined corrosive effects of gaseous SO2 and HCl pollutant. Furthermore, no dose-
response relationships between hydrochloric acid concentrating or deposition rates and corrosion rates could be obtained.
Most literature on chloride exposures discusses the corrosion rates associated with marine environments. Whilst the
chemical reactions may be similar, it is not clear whether an assumption of equivalence may be made between hydrochloric
acid and sodium chloride. Whilst both are donors of chloride ions, the former would also reduce the pH of the moisture layer
on the metal surface. Given these limitations, and in an attempt to provide an indication of the corrosion potential that the
proposed facility may have on the surrounding environment, it was decided to make reference to the International Standard
Organisation (ISO) corrosion classification which considers SO2 and chloride deposition rates to establish the rate of
corrosion of a number of different metal types.
3.5.2 International Standard Organisation
The ISO provides a classification scheme that can directly be used for technical and economic analyses of corrosion
damage due to atmospheric SO2 and chlorides, and for the rational choice of protection measures. As such, the corrosivity
of the atmosphere is divided into five categories (C1 to C5), ranging from very low to very high corrosivity. These corrosivity
categories are estimated using a combination of the meteorological parameters, sulfate deposition and airborne salinity
(chloride ion). These are discussed below.
3.5.2.1 Time of Wetness
Relative humidity, rain, dew, and temperature are determinants of the so-called time of wetness (TOW), defined (ISO 9223)
as the fraction of time with relative humidity in excess of 80%, at temperatures above freezing (>0°C). The TOW of a
corroding surface is a key parameter, directly determining the duration of the electrochemical corrosion processes. This is a
complex variable, since all the means of formation and evaporation of the surface electrolyte solution must be considered.
The TOW refers to the period of time during which the atmospheric conditions are favourable for the formation of a surface
layer of moisture on a metal or alloy. As pointed in the previous section, this moisture film is extremely important from the
point of view of the chemical mechanisms of the corrosion process.
Meteorological data from the South African Weather Services (SAWS) observed at Cape Town International Airport (CTIA)
for the period January 2004 to September 2015 were used to calculate the TOW. The average TOW is 40% of the year.
According to the ISO 9233 classification (Table 3-5), the TOW class represented by these weather conditions is T4.
Table 3-5: ISO 9223 Classification of the Time of Wetness

Time of Wetness Example of Occurrence
Category
Hours per Year Percentage
T1 T ≤ 10 T ≤ 0.1 Indoor
T2 10 < T ≤ 250 0.1 < T ≤ 3 Indoor without climate control
Outdoor atmospheres in dry, cold climates and part of

T3 250 < T ≤ 2 500 3 < T ≤ 30
temperate climates
Outdoor atmospheres in all climates except for dry and
T4 2 500 < T ≤ 5 500 30 < T ≤ 60
cold climates
T5 5 500 < T 60 < T Tropical outdoor or surf
3.5.2.2 Air pollutants
As indicated by the ISO standard, corrosion due to atmospheric pollution is dominated by sulfur dioxide (urban
environments) and chlorides (marine environments). This is also evident from open literature where the focus of atmospheric
corrosion of metals has predominantly been described through the impact of these two pollutants. Since the plant is in an
industrial area that is already exposed to elevated levels of sulfur dioxide in the air, it is necessary to consider this as a
baseline condition when estimating the increased potential of corrosion due to hydrochloric acid.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfate ions are formed in the surface moisture layer by the oxidation of sulfur dioxide and their formation is considered to
be the main corrosion accelerating effect from sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide may be expressed either in terms of a deposition
rate or an airborne concentration. The method of determining the deposition rate in this instance followed the ISO 9223
Method, wherewith the corrosion potential due to SO2 is classified according to the long-term deposition rate or air
concentration of SO2, as summarised in Table 3-6. Any concentration of SO2 within category Po is considered to be the
background concentration and is insignificant from the point of view of corrosive attack. Pollution by SO2 within category P3
is considered extreme and is typical of operational microclimates beyond the scope of the International Standard.
Table 3-6: ISO 9223 classification of pollution by sulfur-containing substances represented by SO2
Concentration of SO2 Deposition Rate of SO2
Category
µg/m³ mg/(m².day)
P0 Pc ≤ 12 Pd ≤ 10
P1 12 < Pc ≤ 40 10 < Pd ≤ 35
P2 40 < Pc ≤ 90 35 < Pd ≤ 80
P3 90 < Pc ≤ 250 80 < Pd ≤ 200
Observations of SO2 air concentrations at the City of Cape Town air quality monitoring station in Bellville (Air Quality
Monitoring Laboratory Scientific Services Department City of Cape Town) for the period 2010 to 2013 provide an average
concentration of 14 µg/m³ (see Section 4.5). This places the region in category P1.
Airborne Chloride
The ISO 9223 classification of pollution by chloride containing substances is provided in Table 3-7. The predicted chloride
deposition rates and subsequent classification are discussed in Section 5.3.2.
Table 3-7: ISO 9223 classification of pollution by airborne chloride containing substances
Category Deposition Rate of Chloride (mg/m².day)
S0 S≤3
S1 3 < S ≤ 60
S2 60 < S ≤ 300
S3 300 < S ≤ 1500
3.5.2.3 Corrosivity Potential
Having calculated the TOW, the classification of pollution by sulphate and chloride containing substances, the corrosivity
category (C1 to C5) for individual metals can be estimated according to ISO 9223, as shown in Table 3-8. Once the
corrosivity category has been determined, the corrosion rate for carbon and weathered steel, zinc, copper and aluminium
can be estimated using the rates given in Table 3-9.
Table 3-8: Estimated corrosivity categories of the atmosphere
Unalloyed carbon steel
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
S0-S1 S2 S3 S0-S1 S2 S3 S0-S1 S2 S3 S0-S1 S2 S3 S0-S1 S2 S3
P0-P1 1 1 1/2 1 2 3/4 2/3 3/4 4 3 4 5 3/4 5 5
P2 1 1 1/2 1/2 2/3 3/4 3/4 3/4 4/5 4 4 5 4/5 5 5
P3 1/2 1/2 2 2 3 4 4 4/ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Zinc and copper
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
P0-P1 1 1 1 1 1/2 3 3 3 3/4 3 4 5 3/4 5 5
P2 1 1 1/2 1/2 2 3 3 3/4 4 3/4 4 5 4/5 5 5
P3 1 1/2 2 2 3 3/4 3 3/4 4 4/5 5 5 5 5 5
Aluminium
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
P0-P1 1 2 2 1 2/3 4 3 3/4 4 3 3/4 5 4 5 5
P2 1 2 2/3 1/2 3/4 4 3 4 4/5 3/4 4 5 4/5 5 5
P3 1 2/3 3 3/4 4 4 3/4 4/5 5 4/5 5 5 5 5 5
Note: Corrosivity is expressed as the numerical part of the corrosivity category code (for example: 1 instead of C1).
Table 3-9: Average and steady state corrosion rates for Different Metals and Corrosivity Categories
Average corrosion rate (rav) during the first 10 years for the following corrosivity categories
Metal (µm/annum)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Carbon steel rav ≤ 0.5 0.5 < rav ≤ 5 5 < rav ≤ 12 12 < rav ≤ 30 30 < rav ≤ 100
Weathering steel rav ≤ 0.1 0.1 < rav ≤ 2 2 < rav ≤ 8 8 < rav ≤ 15 15 < rav ≤ 80
Zinc rav ≤ 0.1 0.1 < rav ≤ 0.5 0.5 < rav ≤ 2 2 < rav ≤ 4 4 < rav ≤ 10
Copper rav ≤ 0.01 0.01 < rav ≤ 0.1 0.1 < rav ≤ 1.5 1.5 < rav ≤ 3 3 < rav ≤ 5
Aluminium rav ≈ 0.01 rav ≤ 0.025 0.01 < rav ≤ 0.1 (5) (5)
Steady state corrosion rate (rlin) for the following corrosivity categories
Metal (µm/annum)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Carbon steel rav ≤ 0.1 0.1 < rav ≤ 1.5 1.5 < rav ≤ 8 8 < rav ≤ 20 20 < rav ≤ 90
Weathering steel rav ≤ 0.1 0.1 < rav ≤ 1 1 < rav ≤ 5 5 < rav ≤ 10 10 < rav ≤ 80
Zinc rav ≤ 0.05 0.1 < rav ≤ 0.5 0.5 < rav ≤ 2 2 < rav ≤ 4 4 < rav ≤ 10
Copper rav ≤ 0.01 0.01 < rav ≤ 0.1 0.1 < rav ≤ 1 1 < rav ≤ 3 3 < rav ≤ 5
Aluminium negligible 0.01 < rav ≤ 0.02 0.02 < rav ≤ 0.2 (5) (5)
Notes
(1) The corrosion rate of carbon steel is not constant during the first 10 years.
(2) The corrosion rate of weathering steel is strongly dependent on the combination of various influencing factors (alternation
between wet and dry periods). In atmospheres with sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution, a more protective rust layer is formed. Rain
protected surfaces in marine atmospheres heavily polluted with chlorides may have much higher corrosion rates than freely
exposed surfaces.
(3) Applies also to the copper-zinc, copper-tin and similar alloys with a copper content of at least 60 %.
(4) The rates shown are based on commercially pure aluminium (purity> 99.5%) which, like most aluminium alloys, corrodes in the
atmosphere at a rate that decreases with time. However, these rates are based on average mass loss results while the
corrosion attack is usually manifested as pitting. Consequently, the rates shown do not represent rates of penetration.
Penetration rates for pitting also decrease with exposure time. Commercially pure aluminium, aluminium alloys containing
magnesium, manganese and/or silicon as the major alloying elements, and Alclad products generally have better corrosion
resistance than aluminium alloys containing significant quantities of copper, zinc and/or iron. Alloys with significant quantities of
magnesium, zinc, copper and/or iron may also be subject to other forms of localized corrosion such as stress corrosion
cracking, exfoliation and intergranular attack.
(5) In atmospheres defined by corrosivity categories C4 and C5, a marked increase in corrosion rate may be expected and local
corrosion effects become important. For these two corrosivity categories, the data concerning general corrosion may be
misleading.
3.5.3 ISOCORRAG Atmospheric Corrosion Model
The ISOCORRAG equation was developed to predict the annual corrosion rate resulting from atmospheric corrosion for
several metals. The equation was created by the multiple linear regressions of corrosion data from several sites around the
globe. With ISOCORRAG, the annual corrosion rate is expressed as (Knotkova et al., 1995):
𝐾 = 𝑎 + 𝑏1 [𝑆𝑂2 ] + 𝑏2 [𝐶𝑙 − ] + 𝑏13 [𝑇𝑂𝑊]
Where the constants a, b1, b2, and b3, differ according to the type of metal, shape of the specimen, and exposure
conditions.Table 3-10 is a summary of constants for flat metal specimens. The deposition of SO2 is expressed as an
equivalent concentration, i.e. μg/m³; the deposition of chloride pollutants [Cl-] is expressed in in mg/m²/day, and time of
wetness [TOW] in hours per year.
Table 3-10: ISOCORRAG regression model constants (Knotkova et al, 1995)

Regression Constants for ISOCORRAG model
Metal
a b1 b2 b3
Steel 1.3269 0.4313 0.1384 0.0057
Zinc 0.2098 0.0232 0.0059 0.00027
Copper 0.9556 0.0065 0.00393 0.0000538
Aluminium 0.0069 0.00638 0.000558 0.0000650
4 METEOROLOGY AND BASELINE AIR QUALITY
Meteorological mechanisms govern the dispersion, transformation, and eventual removal of pollutants from the atmosphere.
The analysis of short-term (e.g. hourly) average meteorological data is necessary to facilitate a comprehensive
understanding of the dispersion potential of the site. The South Africa Weather Services operates a weather station at Cape
Town International Airport. The proposed Galvatech site is located approximately 5 km north-east of the airport. Since
there are no major topographical features between the site and the airport, and both are located inland with similar land use
complexities it was considered adequate to use the data from this weather station. For this assessment, data was provided
for a three year period, 2004 to 2014. Parameters useful in describing the dispersion and dilution potential of the site i.e.
wind speed, wind direction, temperature and atmospheric stability, are subsequently discussed.
4.1 Wind Speed and Direction
The period wind field and diurnal variability at the weather station is provided in Figure 4-1 in the form of wind roses. Wind
roses comprise 16 spokes, which represent the directions from which winds blew during a specific period. The colours used
in the wind roses below, reflect the different categories of wind speeds; the red area, for example, representing winds
between 3 m/s and 4 m/s. The dotted circles provide information regarding the frequency of occurrence of wind speed and
direction categories. The frequency with which calms occurred, i.e. periods during which the wind speed was below 1 m/s
are also indicated.
The predominant wind direction was from the south and to a lesser extent, the south-south-east. Southerly winds were also
characterised by fairly strong (> 10 m/.s) wind speeds (the “Cape Doctor”). This wind is caused by a high-pressure system
which sits in the South Atlantic to the west of Cape Town, known as the South Atlantic High. These strong winds tend to
occur more during the day than night-times. Very few occurrences of easterly and westerly winds were noted. Some
occurrences of north-north-westerly and northerly winds were also noted. Northerly winds where very dominant during the
winter period, as shown. Very few occurrences of southerly winds occurred during this period. The shift from southerly
winds with the highest frequency during summer can clearly be observed from autumn to winter and occurring again in
springtime. Generally, summer had more occurrences of strong winds than during the winter season.
4.2 Ambient Air Temperature
Air temperature is important, both for determining the effect of plume buoyancy (the larger the temperature difference
between the emission plume and the ambient air, the higher the plume is able to rise), and determining the development of
the mixing and inversion layers. Cape Town has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate with mild, moderately wet winters
and dry, warm summers. The average monthly temperature trends are presented Figure 4-3. Monthly mean and hourly
maximum and minimum temperatures are given in Table 4-1. Winter, which lasts from the beginning of June to the end of
August, may see large cold fronts entering for limited periods from the Atlantic Ocean with significant precipitation and
strong north-westerly winds. Monthly average temperatures ranged between 12.7°C and 21.7°C. Summer, which lasts
from early December to March, is warm and dry with the highest monthly average during January. Berg Wind conditions
can lead to uncomfortably hot conditions. This occurs when hot air blows from the Karoo interior for a couple of weeks in
February or early March.
The lowest hourly temperature occurred during July (1.1°C), with the highest hourly during March (42.2°C). During the day,
temperatures increase to reach maximum at around 15:00 in the afternoon. Ambient air temperature decreases to reach a
minimum at around 07:00 i.e. just before sunrise.
Figure 4-1: Period, day- and night-time wind rose for Cape Town International Airport
Table 4-1: Monthly temperature summary at Cape Town International Airport (2004-2014)
Minimum, Maximum and Average Temperatures (°C) (2004 - 2014)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Hourly Minimum 11.1 8.9 7.2 1.1 2.8 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.8 3.9 7.2 6.1
Monthly Minimum 17.9 17.8 16.2 13.8 12.2 10.1 9.6 9.7 10.9 12.9 14.7 16.9
Monthly Ave 21.7 21.5 20.1 17.5 15.1 13.0 12.7 12.9 14.4 16.8 18.4 20.6
Monthly Maximum 26.1 26.1 25.0 22.4 19.4 17.2 17.3 16.9 18.6 21.3 22.4 24.8
Hourly Maximum 37.2 37.2 42.2 37.2 32.2 28.9 27.2 28.9 37.2 32.8 32.2 36.1
Figure 4-2: Seasonal wind rose for Cape Town International Airport
4.3 Atmospheric Stability
The extent to which pollution will accumulate or disperse in the atmosphere is dependent on the degree of thermal and
mechanical turbulence within the earth's boundary layer. The horizontal dispersion of pollution in the boundary layer is
primarily a function of the wind field and atmospheric stability, whereas the stability of the atmosphere and the depth of the
surface-mixing layer2 define the vertical dispersion component. The wind speed determines both the distance of downwind
transport and the rate of dilution as a result of plume 'stretching'.
2 The mixing layer ranges in depth from a few metres (i.e. stable or neutral layers) during night-times to the base of the lowest-level
elevated inversion during unstable, daytime conditions. Elevated inversions may occur for a variety of reasons and on some occasions as
many as five may occur in the first 1 000 m above the surface. Typically for South Africa, the lowest-level elevated inversion is located at a
mean height above ground of 1 550 m during winter months with a 78 % frequency of occurrence. By contrast, the mean summer
subsidence inversion occurs at 2 600 m with a 40% frequency.
Figure 4-3: Monthly average temperature profile for Cape Town International Airport (2004 – 2014)
Historically, atmospheric turbulence has been described by having the atmosphere classified into one of six stability
categories, namely “very stable”, “moderately stable”, “stable”, “neutral”, “unstable”, “very unstable” or “convective”. Perhaps
the most widely used classification is known as the Pasquill (also Pasquill-Gifford) stability classes, as provided in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Atmospheric stability classes

Class Stability Description Occurrence
A very unstable calm wind, clear skies, hot daytime conditions 1%
B moderately unstable clear skies, daytime conditions 4%
C unstable moderate wind, slightly overcast daytime conditions 19%
D neutral high winds or cloudy days and nights 41%
E stable moderate wind, slightly overcast night-time conditions 18%
F very stable low winds, clear skies, cold night-time conditions 18%
Wind speed and solar insulation provide some of the information required to predict the atmospheric stability class
Typically, when the wind speed exceeds 5 m/s (day or night) the dispersion potential is good (neutral conditions). During the
night when the wind speed is less than 3 m/s, the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants is poor (stable conditions).
Under unstable conditions, observed as looping plumes during the day (convective conditions), the dispersion potential is
found to be variable depending on the wind speed and release height: low wind speeds 2 to 3 m/s produces high ground
level concentrations from tall stacks, where otherwise, i.e. stable, night-time conditions would result in low ground level
conditions.
The mixing layer is unstable during the day as a result of the turbulence due to the sun's heating on the earth's surface. The
thickness of this mixing layer depends predominantly on the extent of solar radiation, growing gradually from sunrise to
reach a maximum at about 5-6 hours after sunrise. This situation is more pronounced during the winter months due to
strong night-time inversions and a slower developing mixing layer. During the night a stable layer, with limited vertical
mixing, exists.
Neutral (D) conditions occurred most of the time, with a frequency of 41% during the ten-year period. This is followed by
slightly unstable conditions (C-stability) with an occurrence of approximately 19%. Stable and very stable conditions (E and
F-stability) appear to have prevailed for approximately 18% of the time, respectively. Very unstable or convective conditions
(A) and moderately stable conditions (B) occurred 1% and 4%, respectively.
4.4 Rainfall
Cape Town has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate with mild, moderately wet winters and dry, warm summers. Winter,
which lasts from the beginning of June to the end of August, may see large cold fronts entering for limited periods from the
Atlantic Ocean with significant precipitation and strong north-westerly winds. According to the past 10 years’ rainfall data,
the average annual rainfall was 635 mm, with a maximum of 1097 which occurred in 2012. The lowest annual rain occurred
in 2006, with 389 mm.
According to the 10-yesr database, July experiences the highest monthly rainfall, followed by June. The highest monthly
total occurred during July 2008, i.e. 255 mm. The months experiencing the lowest rainfall are January and February.
During 2004 and 2006 no rain was recorded for February and January, respectively.
Table 4-3: Monthly rainfall summary at Cape Town International Airport (2004-2014)
Minimum, Maximum and Average Rainfall (mm) (2004 - 2014)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Minimum 0 0 1 12 4 31 32 52 13 5 4 1 389
Average 16 15 30 50 73 103 104 97 66 30 43 10 635
Maximum 46 85 172 109 136 180 255 167 192 77 92 27 1097
4.5 Air Quality
Air concentrations of SO2 and PM10 have been made at the City of Cape Town air quality monitoring station in Bellville (Air
Quality Monitoring Laboratory Scientific Services Department City of Cape Town). This station does not measure NO/NO2
and NOX. The closest station to the site that monitors these pollutants is located in Goodwood. Although not strictly
applicable, the observations from the latter station are included in the report to reflect the current levels of NOx in the study
area. Since both stations are located in areas of relatively high traffic volume (i.e. major source of NOx emission), it is
expected that the air concentrations of this pollutant would not be too dissimilar.
The average PM10 concentration over the period included in the analysis (January 2010 to February 2013), was calculated
to be 23 µg/m³, with a monthly minimum and maximum of 13 µg/m³ and 33 µg/m³, respectively. The monthly averages for
this period are summarised in Figure 4-4. The higher concentrations were observed during winter period during which the
dispersion potential is worse (increased number of inversion conditions).
Figure 4-4: PM10 monthly average concentrations observed in Bellville South (January 2010 – February 2013)
The average SO2 concentration over the period included in the analysis was calculated to be 14 µg/m³, with a monthly
minimum and maximum of 2 µg/m³ and 26 µg/m³, respectively. The monthly averages for this period are summarised in
Figure 4-5. Similarly to the PM10 observations, higher concentrations were observed during winter period.
Figure 4-5: SO2 monthly average concentrations observed in Bellville South (January 2010 – February 2013)
The average NO2 concentration observed in Goodwood is provided in Figure 4-6. The average concentration over the
period included in the analysis was calculated to be 18 µg/m³, with a monthly minimum and maximum of 4 µg/m³ and 47
µg/m³, respectively. A very distinct increase in air concentrations were observed during the winter period.
Figure 4-6: NO2 monthly average concentrations observed in Goodwood (January 2010 – February 2013)
5 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION SIMULATIONS
5.1 Dispersion Model
With the increasing need to determine ground level air concentrations of airborne contaminants due to atmospheric releases
from manmade activities for regulatory, air quality management or safety design reasons, great reliance has been placed on
numerical models that simulate the dilution, transport (advection) and removal mechanisms (dry and wet deposition,
chemical transformations and radioactive decay) of gases and particles released into the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL).
The ABL, also referred to as the planetary boundary layer (PBL), is the lowest layer of the atmosphere under direct influence
of the underlying Earth surface (Stull 1997). The air movement and turbulence (both mechanical and thermal), within this
layer is responsible for the transport of heat, water vapour, and air pollutants (Stull 1997). Assessing the downwind impact of
these air emissions includes exposures ranging from short-term (minutes and hours) to long-term (annual). In the current
study, only short-term exposures are of interest.
Gases leaving the vent mix with ambient air and undergo three phases namely (a) the initial phase, (b) the transition phase
and (c) the diffusion phase. The initial phase is greatly determined by the physical properties of the emitted gases.
Normally these gases will have momentum due to its vertical velocity and buoyancy due to the gas having a temperature
higher than the surrounding air. In the current scenario, the initial phase would be dominated by the exit velocity (ranging
between 18 and 21 m/s) since the exit gas temperature would be similar than the ambient conditions.
Figure 5-1: Model of flow near sharp-edged building (Hosker 1979)
It was given that the extraction fan vent would be relatively close to the galvanising building. Furthermore, the proposed
stack height options include heights of 3 m and 6 m above the nearby building, respectively. Since there may be the
potential for the building to influence the dispersion of emitted pollutants from the stack, it is necessary to consider the wind
flow effects of the building. We have a fairly good idea of the flow around a simple building, as drawn schematically in
Figure 5-1, as a result of many wind-tunnel and field experiments that have been done (Hanna et al 1982). With the
assumption that the upstream boundary layer is characterised by a turbulent shear flow there is a stagnation point about two
thirds upstream of the face of the building (not shown in figure); downward-moving air is beneath this point (Hanna et al
1982). This is known as the displacement zone, where the incident wind is first influenced by the building. As shown, the
airflow around buildings is often very complicated and may create zones of strong turbulence and downward mixing on the
lee side of a building. The literature on diffusion around buildings is full of “rules of thumb” that are based on practical
experience and wind-tunnel observations (Hanna et al 1982). In some cases these rules of thumb can be verified by
physical reasoning and theoretical derivations. Much research has concentrated on ways to simulate building downwash
using analytical expressions. The four main types of building downwash algorithms include:
 Huber-Snyder (H-S) (Huber and Snyder 1982)

 Schulman-Scire (S-S) (Schulman and Scire 1980)
 hybrid scheme (a combination of H-S and S-S)
 BUILD model (Hunt and Robins, 1982 and Robins, 1983).
 Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) (Schulman et al. 1997 and 2000).
To provide an indication of the potential distance and significance of impacts from the proposed activities, the US.EPA
screening model (SCREEN3) was selected. This model represents a quick method to calculate and “flag” the “worst-case”
concentration that might occur. Screening models require very little input and have a built-in set of meteorological conditions
based on stability classes. It is a quick screening tool to identify possible sources that might require more detailed modelling.
It is important to note that these models do not use actual meteorological data, but rather set stability classes and
wind speeds that will produce the highest impacts. The impacts are therefore not related to the actual wind
directions or speeds. More sophisticated Gaussian plume and puff models such as the US.EPA regulatory AERMOD and
CALPUFF models use actual meteorological conditions. For the purpose of this study, a screening model is sufficient as the
focus of this study is merely to provide an indication of the potential significance of the operations on the surrounding
environment. This model offers the option of using the S-S or H-S downwash algorithms. The H-S algorithm tends to
overestimate ground-level concentrations in stable, low wind speed conditions (Thistle et al. 1995).
5.2 Dispersion Model Input Data
The stack parameters and emission rates are provided in Table 5-1. The relative position of the stack as well as building
dimensions is given in Figure 5-2.
Table 5-1: Extraction vent specifications
Parameter Specification
Stack reference Longitude 18.640719°

Latitude -33.926886°
Stack height above mean ground level (AMGL) 13.261 m and 16.261 m (3)
Stack tip diameter 1 250 mm
Stack gas exit velocity 18.0 m/s
Stack gas exit temperature 39.7 °C
Air pollutant emissions Particulate Matter 1.266 kg/h without filters
0.8 kg/h with filters
Hydrochloric Acid 0.0042 kg/h
Figure 5-2: Proposed Galvatech plant building dimensions
5.3 Dispersion Model Results
5.3.1 Particulate Matter
Figure 5-3 to Figure 5-7 summarise the maximum predicted ground level concentrations predicted for inhalable particulate
matter, i.e. that fraction of a dust cloud that can be breathed into the nose or mouth. Figure 5-3 represents the highest daily
average thoracic particulate (PM10) at distances up to 1 km from the point of emission for uncontrolled emissions (i.e. no
filters). The plot includes both incremental (i.e. only Galvatech) and cumulative, i.e. including the estimated background
concentration of 33 µg/m³, based on the highest monthly average observation (Section 4.5). Both release heights are
included in the figures. The simulations indicate that the NAAQS for daily average PM 10 concentrations of 75 µg/m³ is not
likely to be exceeded beyond the plant boundary in the public domain (i.e. less than approximately 20 m). The NAAQS may
be exceeded immediately outside the northern boundary, i.e. Dietricht Signs, for the 13 m stack height option. If we analyse
the annual average predictions (Figure 5-4), it is clear that the NAAQS for annual exposures would most likely not be
exceeded, even when including a background concentration based in the average monthly value of 23 µg/m³, for PM10.
Since the respirable fraction (PM2.5 fraction) of the plant emissions is not known, the most conservative assumption would
be to assume that all of the particulate emissions would be 2.5 micron and smaller. Assuming that the observed PM10
background concentration is also all PM2.5; this would be an overly conservative estimate. Instead it would be more realistic
to assume a conservative 70%, as has been shown in urban areas (Gomisceka et al 2004). In this case, a stack of 13 m
could likely result in exceedances of the NAAQS limit value for PM2.5 up to distances of 120 m from the point of release
(Figure 5-6) with an assumed background concentration of 23 µg/m³ (i.e. 70% of 33 µg/m³ PM10). The maximum
concentration would be reduced significantly of the stack height is increased to 16 m, with a potential exceedance
essentially within the plant boundary only – noting that a portion of Dietricht Signs could still exposed to levels above the
NAAQS for PM2.5. The annual average NAAQS for PM2.5 would most likely not be exceeded for the 16 m release height
option, as shown in Figure 5-6. Isopleths representing the distance away from the point of release where the daily average
NAAQS limit value for PM2.5 concentration could potentially be exceeded is shown in Figure 5-5.
With the inclusion of reverse pulse filters, the particulate emissions are expected to reduce, and it is estimated that the PM10
ground level concentrations would be well below the NAAQS limit value, as shown in Figure 5-8. Similarly, it is estimated
that the highest PM2.5 ground level concentrations would be within 20 m from the source (Figure 5-9), and below the NAAQS
limit value outside the plant boundary.
5.3.2 Hydrochloric Acid
The strictest acute HCL exposure concentration level is 174 µg/m³, as recommended by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ASTDR). The most conservative chronic exposure is also a value recommended by the ASTDR of
5.8 µg/m³ (see Section 3.4). The maximum hourly (acute) average concentration was simulated to be less than 0.8 µg/m³
(Figure 5-10), which is significantly lower than the screening concentration level of 174 µg/m³, Similarly, the maximum
chronic exposure predictions were less than 0.06 µg/m³, which is similarly well below the screening level of 5.8 µg/m³
(Figure 5-11).
The potential exists of increasing the corrosion potential of metals in the vicinity of the HCl emissions, as discussed in
Section 3.5. Following the ISO methodology discussed in Section 3.5.2 (Table 3-8) a corrosion potential category of C2 to
C3 is derived. This derivation used a time of wetness of 40% (category of T3, Table 3-5), an average long-term SO2
concentration of 23 µg/m³ (Section 4.3 - Table 3-6: category P1), and ignoring the presence of atmospheric chloride (Table
3-7: category S0).
Figure 5-3: Estimated highest daily average PM10 ground level concentrations at set distances from the
emission source
Figure 5-4: Estimated highest annual average PM10 ground level concentrations at set distances from the
emission source
Figure 5-5: Predicted worst-case impact zones of emissions without filters exceeding the daily average NAAQS PM2.5 limit value of 40 µg/m³, including estimated
background concentrations
Figure 5-6: Estimated highest daily average PM2.5 ground level concentrations at set distances from the
emission source
Figure 5-7: Estimated highest annual average PM2.5 ground level concentrations at set distances from the
emission source
Figure 5-8: Comparison of highest daily average PM10 ground level concentrations for emissions with and
without filters
Figure 5-9: Comparison of highest daily average PM2.5 ground level concentrations for emissions with and
without filters
Figure 5-10: Estimated highest hourly average HCl ground level concentrations at set distances from the
emission source
Figure 5-11: Estimated highest annual average HCl ground level concentrations at set distances from the
emission source
This implies 10-year averaged corrosion rates (Table 3-9) as summarised below:
 Carbons steel : approximately 5 µm/annum

 Weathered steel : approximately 2 µm/annum
 Zinc : approximately 0.5 µm/annum
 Copper : approximately 0.1 µm/annum
 Aluminium : approximately0.01 µm/annum
An estimate of HCl deposition rates were made with the assumption that the pollutant would deposit at a rate of 1.6 cm/s
(Delmelle et al, 2001). Based on the SCREEN3 results for highest daily average ground level concentration, the maximum
daily deposition is calculated to be less than 0.5 mg/m²-day. This deposition is expected to be within 30 m from the point of
release and assuming a stack height of 13 m. For a stack of 16 m, the deposition rate would be less than 0.15 mg/m²-day.
These deposition rates are less than 3 mg/m²-day; which according to the ISO 9223 classification of pollution by airborne
chloride containing substances (Table 3-7) implies category S0. In other words, it is predicted that the corrosion potential
beyond the proposed plant boundary will remain similar to the current corrosion rate potential. For a SO2 category of P1, the
chloride category would increase from S0 to S5 with an increase of deposition rate <3 mg/m²-day to 1500 mg/m²-day (<3,
60, 300 to 1500 mg/m²-day).
Using the ISOCORRAG atmospheric corrosion model (Section 3.5.3), it is estimated that the corrosion potential for steel
could increase by a maximum of 0.07% (13 m release height) and 0.01% (16 m release height) at a downwind distance of
about 40m from the point of release, which may be regarded fairly insignificant. For zinc, the corrosion potential is predicted
to increase by 0.06% (13 m stack) and 0.009% (16 m stack), respectively. For copper, the corrosion potential is predicted to
increase by 0.05% (13 m stack) and 0.008% (16 m stack), respectively, and for aluminium, by 0.02% (13 m stack) and
0.004% (16 m stack), respectively.
5.4 Abnormal Operating conditions
The types of abnormal operating conditions expected for the proposed plant are summarised in Table 5-2. These are
operating conditions other than the unavailability of reverse pulse filters, had these been installed as part of the design.
Excessive release of particulate and vapours may occur from the process if the steel is not completely dry. This may occur
during plant start-up and shutdown. Unless the air filter unit is in place, these emissions would proportionally result in an
increase of emissions into the atmosphere. The inclusion of the revere pulse filter unit would have some control on these
emissions. It was not possible to estimate the emission rate under these conditions.
Table 5-2: Upset operating conditions

Description of Occurrence Pollutants and associated Briefly Outline Back Up
Unit Process
of Potential Releases amount of emissions Plan
Raw materials delivery (Acid)
Upset conditions Spillage of chemicals (liquid Minimal Hydrochloric Acid Emergency Response Plan
(emergency) and solid) vapour release and Standard Operating
Procedure
Hot dip galvanising
Pickling and stripping
Shutdown / cleaning Spillage of chemicals (liquid Minimal Hydrochloric Acid - Operating procedures,
and solid) vapour including equipment
Description of Occurrence Pollutants and associated Briefly Outline Back Up
Unit Process
of Potential Releases amount of emissions Plan
maintenance schedules,
timing of plant start-up and
shutdown,
- Emergency Response Plan
and Standard Operating
Procedure
Upset conditions Excessive acid addition to the Minimal Hydrochloric Acid - Operating procedures,
(emergency) pickling solution Insufficient vapour including equipment
fume inhibitor added to the maintenance schedules,
pickling solution timing of plant start-up and
shutdown,
Procedure
Galvanising bath
Upset conditions Excessive release of Molten zinc splatter - Operating procedures,
(emergency) particulate and vapours if the Particulate including equipment
steel is not completely dry maintenance schedules,
timing of plant start-up and
shutdown,
Procedure
Waste management
Upset conditions Leak or spill of sludge Minimal Hydrochloric Acid Emergency Response Plan
(emergency) Overfill, spill, leak or tank vapour and Standard Operating
failure relating to spent acid Procedure
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
Based on a comparison of worst-case meteorology ground level concentrations of inhalable particulate matter (PM 10 and
PM2.5) with the NAAQS for daily an annual averaging times (exposure periods), it is concluded that the PM10 concentrations
would not likely be exceeded in the public area. A small section of the property of Dietricht Signs (northern boundary of the
proposed Galvatech operation) may experience PM10 daily average concentrations above the limit concentration value
contained in the NAAQS for the 13 m stack height option and without filters controlling particulate emissions.
Assuming the particulate emissions from the proposed plant to all be PM 2.5 (worst-case emission scenario), for a stack of
13 m and no filters, exceedances of the NAAQS for PM2.5 up to distances of 120 m from the point of release could be
possible. The maximum concentration would be reduced significantly if the stack height is increased to 16 m, with a
potential exceedance essentially within the plant boundary only – noting that a portion of Dietricht Signs could still be
exposed to levels above the NAAQS limit value for PM2.5. With the addition of filters to control particulates, the distance to
the PM2.5 limit value would be less than 20 m.
The maximum hourly (acute) average HCl concentration was shown to be an insignificant health risk, with predicted
maximum concentrations orders of magnitude lower than the respective screening concentrator levels for acute and chronic
exposures, respectively. This applied to both 13 m and 16 m stack height options.
Very little information could be obtained in the open literature to estimate the increased corrosion potential due to HCl
emissions from the proposed plant on the surrounding area. Most literature on chloride exposures discusses the corrosion
rates associated with marine environments. Whilst the chemical reactions may be similar, it is not clear whether an
assumption of equivalence may be made between hydrochloric acid and sodium chloride. Whilst both are donors of chloride
ions, the former would also reduce the pH of the moisture layer on the metal surface. Given this limitation, and in an attempt
to provide an indication of the corrosion potential that the proposed facility may have on the surrounding environment, it was
decided to make reference to the International Standard Organisation (ISO) corrosion classification which considers SO2
and chloride deposition rates to establish the rate of corrosion of a number of different metal types. According to this
classification, it was predicted that the corrosion potential beyond the proposed plant boundary will remain similar to the
current corrosion rate potential. The same conclusion was reached by employing the ISOCORRAG atmospheric corrosion
model, which takes into account SO2 and chloride deposition rates, as well as ambient temperature and humidity. For steel,
the potential maximum corrosion increase is predicted to be 0.07% (13 m release height) or 0.01% (16 m release height) at
a downwind distance of about 40m from the point of release.
6.2 Recommendation
The significance impact of particulate and HCl air emissions from the proposed Galvatech the in the vicinity of the proposed
site was shown to be relatively low. However, it was shown that there is the potential of exceeding the PM 2.5 daily average
concentration immediately beyond the plant boundary, albeit within an industrial premises, with a stack height of 13 m.
Increasing the stack height to 16 m would result in ground level concentration compliance with the NAAQS. The proposed
inclusion of a reverse pulse filter unit prior to the vapours being released into the atmosphere will ensure that the Minimum
Emissions Limits stipulated in the NEM:AQA for the proposed plant would be met. The inclusion of the filter unit would also
reduce the emissions so that a stack height of 13 m would be suitable to meet ground level limit values for PM10 and PM2.5.
It is therefore recommended that a stack height of 13 m would be sufficient for adequate dilution provided a filter unit is fitted
prior to the vapours being released into the atmosphere. It is also anticipated that the filter unit would mitigate emissions
during abnormal operating conditions.
Cognisance of the conservative nature of using SCREEN3 dispersion modelling should be recognised; an improved
calculation (most likely less conservative) result would be achieved if actual local meteorological data be used in an
appropriate dispersion model.
7 REFERENCES
Delmelle P, Stix J, Bourque CP, Baxter PJ, Garcia-Alvarez J, Barquero J. (2001). Dry deposition and heavy acid loading in
the vicinity of Masaya Volcano, a major sulfur and chlorine source in Nicaragua, Environ Sci Technol. 2001 Apr
1;35(7):1289-93.
Gomisceka, H. Haucka,b,*, S. Stoppera, O. Preininga (2004). Spatial and temporal variations of PM1, PM2.5, PM10 and
particle number concentration during the AUPHEP—project, Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 3917–3934
Feitnecht W (1952). Chimia, 6:3.
Hosker, R.P. Jr. (1979), Empirical Estimation of Wake Cavity Size Behind Block-Type Structures, in preprints of Fourth
Symposium on Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Pollution, Reno, Nev., Jan. 15-18, 1979, pp. 603-609, American
Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass.
Huber, A.H. and W.H. Snyder (1982). Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Effects of a Rectangular-Shaped Building on
Dispersion of Effluent from Short Adjacent Stacks. Atmospheric Environment 16, 2837-2848.
Hunt, J.C.R and Robins, A.G. (1982). A model for assessing dispersion of plumes from sources in the vicinity of cuboid
shaped buildings. Proceedings EUROMECH 162 (Ed: AR Janeiro Borges), 110-116, New University of Lisbon, 1982
Knotkova, D., Broschek, P. and Kreislova, K. (1995).‘Results of ISO CORRAG program: Processing of one-year data in
respect to corrosivity classification’, ASTM STP 1239, Atmospheric Corrosion, eds. W.W. Kirk & H.H. Herbert, American
Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1995, pp. 39-55.
Phipps, P. B. P. and Rice, D. W. (1979). The role of water in atmospheric corrosion, in: ACS Symp. Ser., 1979, pp. 235-
261.
Robins, A.G. (1983). Recent advances in the modelling of dispersion near buildings. Proc. 'Heat and Fluid Flow in Nuclear
and Process Plant Safety', I. Mech Engrs., 1983.
Robins, A.G., Carruthers, D.J. and McHugh, C.A. (1997). The ADMS Building Effects Module. Int. J. Environment and
Pollution, Vol 8, Nos. 3-6.
Schulman, L.L. and J.S. Scire (1980). Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) Dispersion Model User’s Guide. Document P-
7304, Environmental Research and Technology Inc.
Schulman LL, Strimaitis DG, Scire JS, 1997. Addendum to ISC3 users guide: The PRIME plume rise and building
downwash model. URL: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/iscprime/useguide.pdf.
Schulman LL, Strimaitis DG, Scire JS, 2000. Development and evaluation of the PRIME plume rise and building downwash
model. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 50: 378–90.
Stull, R.B. (1997), An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Atmospheric Science Library, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Thistle H.W., Murray D.R., Ratte M.R. and Carroll M.R. (1995). Observed downwash concentrations compared to ISCST
predictions in urban core. J Env Eng 121(1).

ZAF Pickling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZAF Pickling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIR IMPACT SCREENING ASSESSMENT FOR A PROPOSED

NEW GALVATECH FACILITY, CAPE TOWN

Project done on behalf of Sillito Environmental Consulting

Project Compiled by: Project Review

Report No: 15SEC01 Rev 0.2 | Date: March 2016

Reference No. 15SEC01

Revision Number Date Reason for Revision

1.1 Objective ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Minimum National Emission Standards .................................................................................................................. 9

3.3.2 The National Dust Control Regulations ........................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Non-criteria Pollutants .......................................................................................................................................... 12

3.5.1 Factors Affecting Corrosion ............................................................................................................................. 12

3.5.3 ISOCORRAG Atmospheric Corrosion Model .................................................................................................. 18

4 Meteorology And Baseline Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 19

4.1 Wind Speed and Direction .................................................................................................................................... 19

4.3 Atmospheric Stability ............................................................................................................................................ 21

4.4 Rainfall .................................................................................................................................................................. 23

5 Atmospheric Dispersion Simulations .............................................................................................................................. 27

5.1 Dispersion Model .................................................................................................................................................. 27

5.3.1 Particulate Matter ............................................................................................................................................. 30

6 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 38

6.2 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................................. 38

Table 2-1: Extraction vent specifications ............................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Scope of Work

1.3 Report Structure

The conclusions and recommendations are summarised in Chapter 6

 Reverse pulse filter unit

 Bath surface area

Table 2-1: Extraction vent specifications

Parameter Current Operation Proposed New Plant

Stack reference Longitude 18.640719°

3.1 Air Pollution Legislative Context

3.2 Minimum National Emission Standards

Table 3-1: Minimum emission standards for hot dip galvanising)

3.3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

3.3.1 Ambient Air Concentration Standards

3.3.2 The National Dust Control Regulations

Table 3-3: Acceptable dust fall rates

3.4 Non-criteria Pollutants

3.5 Corrosion Impacts

3.5.1 Factors Affecting Corrosion

3.5.2 International Standard Organisation

3.5.2.1 Time of Wetness

Table 3-5: ISO 9223 Classification of the Time of Wetness

T2 10 < T ≤ 250 0.1 < T ≤ 3 Indoor without climate control

Outdoor atmospheres in dry, cold climates and part of

T5 5 500 < T 60 < T Tropical outdoor or surf

3.5.2.2 Air pollutants

P3 90 < Pc ≤ 250 80 < Pd ≤ 200

3.5.2.3 Corrosivity Potential

3.5.3 ISOCORRAG Atmospheric Corrosion Model

𝐾 = 𝑎 + 𝑏1 [𝑆𝑂2 ] + 𝑏2 [𝐶𝑙 − ] + 𝑏13 [𝑇𝑂𝑊]

Table 3-10: ISOCORRAG regression model constants (Knotkova et al, 1995)

4.1 Wind Speed and Direction

4.2 Ambient Air Temperature

4.3 Atmospheric Stability

Table 4-2: Atmospheric stability classes

4.5 Air Quality

5.1 Dispersion Model

Figure 5-1: Model of flow near sharp-edged building (Hosker 1979)

 Huber-Snyder (H-S) (Huber and Snyder 1982)

5.2 Dispersion Model Input Data

Table 5-1: Extraction vent specifications