Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2014/02/18
Final
Quality Management
Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3
Remarks Draft Final – Post
External Review
Date 28 January 2014 18 February 2014
Prepared by H Tularam H Tularam
Signature
2014/02/18
Client
Dormac a Division of Southey Group Investment (Pty) Ltd
1 Belfast Road
Bayhead
Durban
4000
South Africa
Consultant
WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Hasheel Tularam
Klicka här för att ange text.
Klicka här för att ange text.
Klicka här för att ange text.
Klicka här för att ange text.
Klicka här för att ange text.
Tel: +27 31 240 8860
Fax: +27 31 240 8861
www.wspenvironmental.co.za
Registered Address
WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd
1995/008790/07
WSP House, Bryanston Place, 199 Bryanston Drive,
Bryanston, 2191, South Africa
WSP Contacts
Carla Elliott
Carla.elliott@wspgroup.co.za
Sean Doel
Sean.Doel@wspgroup.co.za
Executive Summary
WSP Environmental (Pty) Ltd was appointed to undertake an environmental authorisation process for a
proposed dry docking facility in Durban. Findings from the screening air quality and noise study indicated that
air pollution emissions from abrasive blasting (particulate matter) and spray painting (volatile organic
compounds, VOC) operations required further investigation. The aim of the air quality impact assessment was
to evaluate the significance of the potential impacts on ambient air quality due to the dry docking operations at
the study site and evaluate means of mitigating impacts in line with the eThekwini Municipality’s Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP, 2007) and the drive to reduce emissions within the South Durban Basin.
The following assessment process was carried out:
■ Air pollutant emissions were calculated using emission factors and equations listed in the Australian
National Pollutant Inventory (NPI, 1999) for the expected number of vessels that the dry dock will handle;
■ Background (existing) particulate matter and benzene measurements were obtained from the Transnet
National Ports Authority monitoring network and a VOC monitoring campaign completed by WSP in
summer 2013 respectively;
■ SCREEN3 was used as a dispersion modelling platform;
■ Cumulative ambient concentrations of pollutants were compared with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Findings showed that maximum predicted particulate matter and benzene concentrations from abrasive
blasting and spray painting operations from the proposed dry dock are to remain below their respective
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each averaging period. The cumulative PM10 (annual and
24 hour) and PM2.5 (annual) concentrations are predicted to be above their respective NAAQS in the near field
(i.e. onsite). These particulate matter concentrations are to mainly comprise of shot blasted paint chips and
metal grit which have the potential to fallout in close proximity to their source. The predicted cumulative
benzene concentration as a result of spray painting onsite remains below the current annual average NAAQS.
It is therefore recommended that the dry docking facility at Dormac be considered for environmental
authorisation as the predicted air quality impacts are to remain localised in extent.
Nonetheless, recommendations are made to mitigate potential impacts on the receiving environment as follows:
■ Abrasive blasting and spray painting activities should be enclosed to contain dust and overspray. For
example, by erecting a wall of temporary shade cloth around the dry dock. This is particularly relevant
during windy conditions.
■ Abrasive blasting and spray painting operations must be limited during windy conditions.
■ All abraded material must be promptly collected and stored in sealed containers for appropriate disposal.
■ Employees must be trained on spray painting techniques that result in less overspray.
List of Tables
Table 1 : Rollout of National Ambient Air Standards relevant to emissions associated with proposed project .. 12
Table 2: Summary of chemical properties and emissions calculated for each product. ..................................... 15
Table 3: SCREEN3 input parameters for proposed tanks at the proposed Dry-Dock. ....................................... 16
Table 4: Averaging time conversion factors (USEPA, 1992). .............................................................................. 17
Table 5: Summary of cumulative concentrations (modelled plus background) in the vicinity of Dormac. .......... 22
2 Site Description
0°
337.5° 1500 22.5°
900
300
270° 90°
247.5° 112.5°
225° 135°
202.5° 157.5°
180°
0 3 6 10 16 (knots)
Wind speed
0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)
2.2.3 Rainfall
Figure 4 below presents monthly average temperatures, total monthly rainfall and monthly average humidity in
Durban during 2012 using data from a South African Weather Services (SAWS) station located at the old
Durban International Airport. Durban falls within a summer rainfall region with rainfall predominantly falling in
the period from September to April. The east coast of South Africa typically receives high levels of rainfall
during the summer months as warm, moist air is advected around the South Indian High over the warm Indian
Ocean towards the coast. Rainfall is enhanced by afternoon convectional thunderstorms.
As Figure 4 reveals, the humidity for the region is generally high (annual average 71.5%), due to the humid air
blowing inland from the coast. The highest average monthly temperature was 25.9°C recorded during January
and February (summer) and 16.8°C in July (winter). During 2012, highest rainfall fell in March, September and
October. Rainfall in January and February was lower than expected from long term records. Lowest rainfall fell
over the winter months of April to July. Rainfall removes dust and gases from the atmosphere via a process
called wet precipitation or wet ‘scavenging’. Thus, if all else are the same, higher rainfall regions have lower
pollutant concentrations.
Figure 4: Graph showing the total rainfall, average temperature and average humidity for 2012.
3 Legislative Framework
50 0 Immediate – 31/12/2014
Annual
40 0 1 January 2015
Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)
65 4 Immediate – 31/12/2015
24-hour 40 4 01/01 2016 – 31/12/2029
25 4 1 January 2030
25 0 Immediate – 31/12/2015
Annual 20 0 01/01 2016 – 31/12/2029
15 0 1 January 2030
Benzene (C6H6)
10 0 Immediate – 31/12/2014
Annual
5 0 1 January 2015
As per the Draft Regulations Regarding Air Dispersion Modelling (2012) a Level 1 assessment should be used
for:
■ License / approval decisions for typically single sources;
■ Preliminary identifications of air quality issues associated with proposed new sources or modifications to
existing sources;
■ Identification of the need for more detailed modelling using Level 2 or 3 assessment approaches (if
exceedences of short term objectives are predicted); and
■ Confirmation of refined modelled results that might appear unusually high or low.
A screening level dispersion modelling platform, SCREEN3, was utilised to predict hourly averaged ground-
1
level downwind concentrations of pollutants emitted from the Dormac facility. SCREEN3 is a single source
Gaussian plume model that provides maximum ground-level concentrations for point, area, flare, and volume
sources. The SCREEN3 model results can be summed to conservatively estimate the impact from several
sources (USEPA, 1992). SCREEN3 examines a full range of meteorological conditions, including standard
stability classes and wind speeds, to determine maximum impacts. For this study, the full set of meteorological
conditions (all stability classes and wind speeds) was used to estimate worst case conditions at various
distances (1 m to 5000 m) from the Dormac facility.
Since spray painting and abrasive blasting activities are to take place within the walls of the dry-docking facility,
emissions were modelled as a volume source. The hourly concentrations of volume source emissions
calculated in SCREEN3 were converted to 24-hour and annual concentrations by multiplying the predicted
hourly concentrations by 0.4 and 0.08 respectively, as prescribed in the reference document ‘Screening
procedures for estimating the air quality impact of stationary sources – revised’ (USEPA, 1992). This method is
acknowledged to be environmentally conservative (particularly as it assumes constant emission rates) and is
also recommended by the National Draft Regulations Regarding Air Dispersion Modelling (Notice 1035 of
2012).
1
For the purposes of this assessment, ground-level was used to describe typical receptor breathing height (1.5 m).
Where:
■ E = emissions of pollutant (kg/hour)
■ A = rate of usage of abrasive material (ton/hour)
■ EF = Emission factor for PM10 and PM2.5 (kg/ton)
The rate at which the abrasive material (Blastrite®) is used was obtained from the client. Research suggests
that a level of uncertainty exists as to how much material becomes airborne dust particulate as a result of
abrasive blasting. The uncertainty arises due to the number of independent variables such as meteorological
factors, skill of the workers and type of abrasive media used. As per the USEPA, (1994) most (between 90 to
95%) of the abraded material is typically confined to the docks walls and is recovered at ship yards. For the
purpose of this study, a control efficiency of 95% was selected for the emission calculations due to the dry dock
walls extending up to 10 meters.
[ ]
Where:
■ E = total emissions of VOC species from painting operations for a particular coating type (kg/hr)
■ Q = total quantity of the particular coating type used (l/hr)
■ VOC = total VOC content for particular coating type (kg/l)
■ CE = control efficiency
The total benzene content (mass per volume) of each paint product to be used was obtained from the material
safety datasheet (MSDS) for the product. Paints and thinners with the highest VOC contents were selected for
further analyses. The percentage composition by mass of the benzene component as per the MSDS is a
maximum of 10%. As such, antifouling impacts were modelled in line with an environmentally conservative
modelling approach.
Total VOC emissions were not calculated due to the current absence of a NAAQS for this pollutant. As stated
by the Australian NPI (1998) airless sprayers (to be used by Dormac) can have up to a 90% transfer efficiency
and are much cleaner to operate than compressed air systems. Therefore it is assumed that 10% of the paint
product is emitted to the atmosphere as vapours during the spraying operation. VOC emissions in the hours
that follow spraying as the coating dries are assumed to be lower than during the spraying operation. Thus the
worst case VOC emission scenario (i.e. spraying) was modelled. A summary of emission calculations is
provided below.
Table 2: Summary of chemical properties and emissions calculated for each product.
From Table 2 above it is clear to note that the highest benzene emissions are to stem from the antifouling to be
used by Dormac. As such, it was conservatively assumed that only antifouling was to be applied throughout dry
docking operation.
Figure 5: Predicted annual average PM10 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations.
Worst-case 24 hour average PM10 concentrations as well as the 24 hour NAAQS are presented in Figure 6
below. 24 hour averaged PM10 concentrations were calculated using the USEPA 24 hour conversion factor of
0.4 and then divided by 3 as the dry dock is to operate a maximum of eight hours per day. The maximum
3
predicted 24 hour average PM10 concentrations during abrasive blasting activities is 96.47 µg/m at a distance
of 49 m away from the proposed dry dock. Subsequent to peak concentrations, 24 hour PM10 concentrations
decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the site. All predicted concentrations are below the 24 hour
3
NAAQS for PM10 of 120 µg/m .
Predicted worst-case 24 hour average PM2.5 concentrations are presented in Figure 8 below. The 24 hour
averaged PM2.5 concentrations were calculated using the USEPA 24 hour conversion factor of 0.4 and then
divided by 3 as the dry dock is to operate a maximum of eight hours per day. The maximum predicted 24 hour
3
average concentration during abrasive blasting activities is 0.48 µg/m at a distance of 49 m away from the
proposed dry dock. After this peak, the 24 hour average PM2.5 concentrations decrease rapidly with increasing
3
distance from the site. All predicted concentrations are well below the 24 hour NAAQS for PM2.5 of 65 µg/m .
Figure 8: Predicted 24 hour average PM2.5 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations.
Table 5 below shows the maximum predicted pollutant concentrations for each averaging period during
abrasive blasting and spray painting, background (existing pollutant concentrations in close vicinity to Dormac)
and the cumulative impact of the dry docking facility (modelled emissions plus background). Emissions have
been conservatively summed to estimate the cumulative impact of the dry docking facility. It is important to
note, that emissions modelled using Screen3 do not undergo chemical reactions, and that no other removal
processes (wet or dry deposition) act on the plume during its transportation.
Table 5: Summary of cumulative concentrations (modelled plus background) in the vicinity of Dormac.
Results from Table 4 above, show that all maximum modelled concentrations from the proposed dry dock are
compliant with their respective NAAQS. The annual average background PM2.5 concentrations from TNPA’s
3
Pier 1 monitoring station is slightly above the NAAQS of 25 µg/m . The cumulative PM10 (annual and 24 hour)
and PM2.5 (annual) concentrations are predicted to be above their respective NAAQS. These particulate matter
concentrations are predicted onsite of Dormac’s facility and are to mainly comprise of shot blasted paint chips
and metal grit which have the potential to fallout in close proximity to their source as shown in Figure 5 to 8.
3
In the case of benzene, a background concentration of 4.35 µg/m was used as this was the highest measured
concentration during a VOC monitoring campaign that WSP undertook during 2013. This is considered as a
highly conservative concentration as Settlers School is located close to refineries manufacturing petroleum
3
products. The predicted cumulative benzene concentration (9.68 µg/m ) as a result of spray painting onsite
3
remains below the current (2014) annual average NAAQS of 10 µg/m and above the proposed (2015) annual
3
average NAAQS of 5 µg/m .
8 Conclusions
This AQIA conservatively evaluates cumulative ambient air quality impacts from a proposed dry docking facility
at the Dormac site within the Port of Durban. Air pollutant emissions from abrasive blasting and spray painting
of ship hulls at the dock were identified as key emission sources associated with ship repair and maintenance
tasks. PM10, PM2.5 and benzene emissions were calculated using NPI emission factors and equations, and
SCREEN3 was used as the modelling platform for the study. Background PM concentrations from a TNPA
monitoring station and the highest benzene concentration measured during a VOC monitoring campaign (WSP
2013) were used to contextualise the cumulative impact of the dry docking facility. The background
concentrations selected for this study were seen as environmentally conservative. A control efficiency of 95%
was assumed for the abrasive blasting operation; and 90% for all spray painting operations.
Modelled results show that maximum predicted PM concentrations, as a result of abrasive blasting, remain
below their respective NAAQS, with the highest concentrations being measured within 50m of Dormac’s facility
(within the fenceline). Modelled benzene concentrations are also compliant against the respective annual
NAAQS with peak concentrations also occurring within 50m. The closest residential receptors are located
approximately one kilometre away from the Dormac facility. Predicted benzene and PM concentrations at this
distance away from the site remain very low and are unlikely to impact on surrounding receptors located in
residential areas.
After summing all maximum predicted concentrations to their respective average background concentration,
cumulative PM10 (annual and 24 hour) and PM2.5 (annual) concentrations are predicted to be above their
respective NAAQS. Cumulative PM2.5 (24 hour) and benzene (annual) are predicted to be slightly below their
respective NAAQS. This represents the cumulative air quality impact. It is important to note that this
background data was not entirely representative of the Dormac facility but was the best available dataset at the
time this study was undertaken. These values are, however, environmentally conservative. It is important to
note that the maximum modelled concentrations are predicted onsite and are most likely to be contained within
the dry dock walls.
Based on findings from this air quality impact assessment, the proposed dry docking facility at Dormac should
be considered for environmental authorisation. Furthermore, should Dormac wish to further reduce their impact,
the following recommendations are made.
8.1 Recommendations
■ Diab, R. & Matooane, M. (2003): Health Risk Assessment for Sulphur Dioxide Pollution in South Durban,
South Africa, Archives of Environmental Health, 58(12), 763-770.
■ Diab, R.D. and Preston-Whyte, R.A. (1980): Local Weather and Air Pollution: The Case of Durban,
Environmental Conservation, 7, 241- 244.
■ Haycock, C. and Hart, N (2009). Dormac Dry Dock Soil Report, Dormac (Pty) Ltd, February 2009, WSP
Environmental, Westville.
■ NPI (1999): National Pollutant Inventory: Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Shipbuilding Repair
and Maintenance, Environment Australia.
■ Preston-Whyte, R.A. & Tyson, P.D. (1988): The Atmosphere and Weather of Southern Africa, Oxford
University Press, Cape Town.
nd
■ Preston-Whyte, R.A. & Tyson, P.D. (2004): The Weather and climate of Southern Africa, 2 Ed, Oxford
University press Southern Africa, Cape Town.
■ Republic of South Africa (2004): The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No.
39 of 2004).
■ Standards South Africa (2005): Ambient air quality – Limits for common pollutants. South African National
Standard 1929:2005.
■ WSP (2013): SAPREF Cleaner Fuels Phase 2 – Air Quality Impact Assessment, Project number 29698.
■ USEPA (1992): Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised.
US-EPA. North Carolina.
■ USEPA (1994): Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities – Background
Information for Proposed Standards. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office if Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
■ US EPA (2011): Health Effects of Pollution. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/quality/health.htm.
Klicka här för att ange text.
Klicka här för att ange text.
Klicka här för att ange text.
Klicka här för att ange text.
South Africa
Tel: +27 31 240 8860
Fax: +27 31 240 8861
www.wspenvironmental.co.za