AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A

PROPOSED FLOATING DRY DOCK

DORMAC A DISVISION OF SOUTHEY GROUP
INVESTMENT (PTY) LTD

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

Checked by L. MacGregor L. MacGregor

Signature

Authorised by B. Keiser B. Keiser

Signature

Project number 39588.2 39588.2

Report number 1 of 1
File reference 39588 – Dormac Tier 1 AQIA Draft 2014 02 18.docx

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18 2
Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.
Air Quality Impact Assessment for a Proposed Floating Dry Dock
DORMAC A DISVISION OF SOUTHEY GROUP INVESTMENT (PTY) LTD

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.

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18 4
Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................7
2 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Regional Wind Patterns ........................................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Local Wind Patterns ..............................................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Rainfall ................................................................................................................................................10
2.3 Brief Description of Local Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................................11
3 Legislative Framework ...............................................................................................................................11
3.1 Overview of South Africa’s Air Quality Legal Framework .......................................................................11
3.2 Health and Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................12
4 Dry Dock Operation ....................................................................................................................................13
5 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................14
5.1 Emissions Inventory................................................................................................................................14
5.1.1 Abrasive Blasting ................................................................................................................................14
5.1.2 Surface Coating ..................................................................................................................................15
5.1.3 Summary of Model Inputs ...................................................................................................................16
5.2 Background Data ....................................................................................................................................17
6 Results and Discussion ..............................................................................................................................17
6.1 Modelled Concentrations Excluding Background Concentrations (Project
Specific) ............................................................................................................................................................17
6.1.1 Abrasive Blasting ................................................................................................................................18
6.1.2 Spray Painting .....................................................................................................................................21
6.2 Modelled Concentrations Including Background Concentrations
(Cumulative)......................................................................................................................................................21
7 Assumptions and Limitations......................................................................................................................22
8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................23
8.1 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................23
8.1.1 Best Management Practices ...............................................................................................................23
9 References .................................................................................................................................................25
 List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of proposed dry dock in relation to surrounding land uses including receptor and monitoring
points. .....................................................................................................................................................................8
Figure 2: Annual wind rose for South Durban (2012). ............................................................................................9
Figure 3: Nocturnal air circulations in Durban abstracted from Diab and Preston-Whyte, 1980. ........................ 10
Figure 4: Graph showing the total rainfall, average temperature and average humidity for 2012. ..................... 10
Figure 5: Predicted annual average PM10 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations. ......................... 18
Figure 6: Predicted 24 hour average PM 10 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations. ....................... 19
Figure 7: Predicted annual average PM2.5 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations. ........................ 20
Figure 8: Predicted 24 hour average PM 2.5 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations........................ 20
Figure 9: Annual downwind benzene concentrations during spray painting ....................................................... 21

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

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18 6
Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.
1 Introduction
The Port of Durban is located along the east coast of South Africa and is the busiest port in Africa. The Port is
currently equipped with dry docking yards to accommodate ship repair and maintenance services. Dormac, a
Division of Southey Group Investment (Pty) Ltd (Dormac from here forward), proposes to modify an existing
embankment to accommodate a proposed floating dry dock adjacent to their existing slipway. The purpose of
the project is to improve ship repair and maintenance services at the Port. The construction and operation of
this dry docking facility has triggered the need for an environmental authorisation process, which WSP
Environmental (Pty) Ltd (WSP hereafter) was appointed to facilitate.
A site visit and client correspondence confirmed that repair and maintenance tasks to be undertaken at the dry
dock include ship overhauls, conversions, cleaning, grit blasting and painting of ship hulls. A specialist air
quality and noise desktop assessment of likely air quality and noise impacts on the surrounding environment
associated with the construction and operation of the dry docking facility was conducted. Findings from the
desktop assessment indicated that air quality impacts during the operational phase required further
investigation through a Screening Level (Tier 1) Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA), while the potential for
noise impacts on the surrounding area and community did not require further investigation. The principle aim of
this AQIA is therefore to evaluate the significance of air quality impacts from the operation of a dry docking
facility in Durban and potential for impact mitigation.
Emissions from abrasive blasting and painting of hulls were calculated using emission factors and equations
listed in the Australian National Pollutant Inventory (NPI, 1999). SCREEN3 was used as the dispersion
modelling platform. Background (existing) particulate matter (PM) and benzene concentrations, were obtained
from the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) monitoring network and a VOC monitoring campaign
completed by WSP (2013) respectively. Predicted worst case ambient concentrations of particulate matter (PM)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (particularly benzene) at various distances from the proposed dry dock
were then compared with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 2009.

2 Site Description

2.1 Study Area

Dormac’s Durban facility is located in Bayhead, an industrial area within eThekwini Municipality’s Durban South
Basin, adjacent to the southernmost portion of the Port of Durban. A number of other dry docks, container
yards and storage facilities for port operations can be found within a 500 m radius of Dormac (yellow line in
Figure 1 below). Receptors are identified as discrete sites that may be negatively impacted by emissions from
a specific site. The main receptors in the vicinity of Dormac’s operations are shown as green points in Figure 1
below. These include schools, residential areas, Island View Storage (IVS), Maydon Wharf, storage facilities
and other Transnet Port Terminal (TPT) operations. The Umbilo residential area can be found approximately
1.5 km to the west of Dormac. The locations of the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) air quality
monitoring stations are shown by means of red points on the map.
Figure 1: Location of proposed dry dock in relation to surrounding land uses including receptor and monitoring points.

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18 8
Revised: Klicka här för att ange text.
2.2 Climate
Durban falls within a sub-tropical climate zone and is characterised by warm to hot and humid weather
conditions. This climatic zone has high average annual rainfall, ranging from 760 mm in the northern interior to
1250 mm along the coast, and falling predominantly in the summer months associated with high levels of
convection and atmospheric instability. The region’s intermittent winter rainfall is generally associated with
frontal systems, moving from the south-west to the north-east along the South African coastline. Winter weather
is generally drier and is influenced by dominant high pressure systems over most of South Africa.

2.2.1 Regional Wind Patterns

Dominant wind directions along the east coast of South Africa are north-easterly and south-westerly. The wind
rose in Figure 2 below has been generated using meteorological data from a weather station located at the
former Durban International Airport in the Durban South Basin (DSB). The prevailing north and north-north-
easterly winds are typically associated with high atmospheric pressure and regional geostrophic flow. South-
westerly and southerly winds, associated with the passage of coastal low pressure systems and cold fronts, are
generally stronger and may be accompanied by rainfall. The north-westerly components generally are calmer
topographical winds, induced by discrepancies in temperature between land and ocean and facilitated by flow
up or down local river valleys. These winds reveal a clear diurnal cycle. In both summer and winter months,
wind velocities generally are highest in the afternoon, while on average, wind velocities in winter are lower than
in summer. G:\000 Projects\000 Air Quality\AQ Live Projects\29698 - SAPREF Cleaner Fuels Phase II\4 Technical Info\Met data\Met HT\Durban 2012.met

0°
337.5° 1500 22.5°

315° 1200 45°

900

292.5° 600 67.5°

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)

Figure 2: Annual wind rose for South Durban (2012).

2.2.2 Local Wind Patterns

Diab and Preston-Whyte (1980) described a system of drainage winds that flow down the Umbilo and the
Umhlatuzana valleys at night, across the alluvial flats at the head of the bay to dam up against the Bluff ridge in
the DSB (Figure 3). From here, the air is diverted between the Bluff and Berea ridges as gentle south-westerly
winds towards Durban’s central business district (CBD). The accumulation of cold air in the DSB may lead to
valley inversions at night, limiting vertical dispersion of air pollution. This local wind pattern is regularly
disrupted by the passage of coastal lows and westerly wave frontal systems that clear the boundary layer every
three to five days during the winter months.
 Figure 3: Nocturnal air circulations in Durban abstracted from Diab and Preston-Whyte, 1980.

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.

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
2.3 Brief Description of Local Ambient Air Quality
The DSB is the largest industrial centre in KwaZulu-Natal, comprising a variety of heavy and light industries,
such as petrochemical refineries, chemical processing plants, and a paper and pulp mill. To combat high levels
of air pollution in the region, the Durban South Basin Multi-Point Plan (DSB-MPP) was launched by the
eThekwini Municipality in 2000. The DSB-MPP forms part of Durban’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
as a multi-stakeholder collaboration that was jointly funded by the government, the industrial sector and
international agencies (Roemer-Mahler, 2006). As part of the DSB-MPP, an air quality monitoring network was
established extending from South Durban into the CBD and including a peri-urban background site at
Alverstone. Each station measures a range of pollutants and meteorological parameters in five-minute
intervals. The pollutants measured include sulphur dioxide (SO2), total reduced sulphur (TRS), oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (as PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3) and carbon monoxide (CO). Records
indicate a 45 % reduction in ambient SO 2 between 1997 and 2006 (eThekwini AQMP, 2007) supporting claims
from local government authorities of effective source-based sulphur management strategies.
A combination of meteorological and topographical conditions results in the DSB being conducive to the
accumulation of air pollution. Air pollution tends to be worse during the winter months due to stable high
pressure conditions, frequent radiative inversions and lower rainfall, which together promote the accumulation
of particulates and other pollutants within the topographical basin. In the summer months, higher rainfall and a
greater mixing depth associated with free convection generally reduce ambient pollution concentrations.

3 Legislative Framework

3.1 Overview of South Africa’s Air Quality Legal Framework

The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 (NEMAQA) introduced a system of
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and corresponding source based emission limits to achieve
them. NAAQS were published in 2009 and 2012 in line with Section 9 of the NEMAQA for sulphur dioxide
(SO2), particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), benzene (C6H6) and carbon
monoxide (CO). Key pollutants of concern with the operation and construction of the dry dock are particulate
matter (PM) and benzene.
Limit and Target Values for PM (expressed in μg/m³) were proposed in SANS 1929:2005. These were
developed by a panel of experts on the basis of best international practice and were promulgated in 2009 for
particulate matter less than 10 micrometres (PM10) and 2012 for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometres
PM2.5. These stipulate a phased approach to implementation. Dust deposition, commonly referred to as dust fall
or nuisance dust, can be a cause for concern at and around dry docking yards but was not considered in this
study due to very low predicted particulate matter (PM) concentrations that consequently would result in low
dust fallout.
Pollutants of concern emitted by the Dormac facility during operation include volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) (from spray painting), and PM (from abrasive blasting). The relevant NAAQS are presented
in Table 1 below. These standards are used to assess the impact of the dry-dock operations on ambient air
quality. Since benzene is the only VOC with a NAAQS, only this VOC was considered for further investigation
in this study.
 Table 1 : Rollout of National Ambient Air Standards relevant to emissions associated with proposed project

Particulate Matter (PM 10)

3
Averaging Period Concentration (µg/m ) Allowable Exceedences Compliance Date

120 4 Immediate – 31/12/2014

Daily
75 4 1 January 2015

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

3.2 Health and Environmental Impacts

3.2.1.1 Particulate Matter (PM)

PM comprises solid or liquid particles suspended in the air. These vary in size from particles that are only
visible under an electron microscope to soot or smoke particles that are visible to the human eye. Ambient
particulates limit visibility and pose health risks since small particles (PM10) can penetrate deep into lungs, while
even smaller particle sizes (PM2.5) can enter the bloodstream via capillaries in the lungs, with the finest material
laid down as plaques in the cardiovascular system or brain. Health effects include respiratory problems, lung
tissue damage, cardiovascular problems, cancer and premature death. Acidic particulates can also damage
buildings, vegetation and acidify water sources (USEPA, 2011).

3.2.1.2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

VOCs are pollutants that easily vaporize from solids or liquids. VOCs are released during fuel (wood, coal,
petrol or natural gas) combustion and are released from solvents, paints, glues and other chemicals. They
consist of a variety of chemicals that have both long term and short term health effects. Exposure to VOCs can
lead to eye, nose and throat irritation; headaches; nausea; dizziness; fatigue; skin allergies; damage to kidneys,
liver and the nervous system; loss of coordination; and some VOCs are suspected to cause cancer. When
combined with nitrogen oxides, VOCs react to form ground level ozone or smog. Ozone in the lower parts of
the atmosphere contributes to climate change (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998; Colls, 2002; US EPA, 2011).

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
4 Dry Dock Operation
The proposed floating dry dock primarily will be used for commercial ship maintenance and preservation work.
A floating dry dock is a type of pontoon for dry docking ships with floodable buoyancy chambers and a ‘U-
shaped’ cross-section. The walls (~10 meters) are used to give the dry dock stability when the floor or deck is
below the surface of the water. When valves are opened, the chambers fill with water, causing the dry dock to
float lower in the water. The deck becomes submerged and this allows a ship to be moved into position inside.
When the water is pumped out of the chambers, the dry dock rises and the ship is lifted out of the water on the
rising deck, allowing work to proceed on the ship's hull.

4.1 Abrasive Blasting

The removal of paint and anti-fouling agents require various abrasive techniques depending on the size and
accessibility of the surface and the type of coating applied (NPI, 1999). Dormac currently make use of
Blastrite® mineral slag as a blasting abrasive. Blastrite® has sharp angular particles that are black in colour
and are particularly resistant to fracturing upon impact. PM emissions from the defragmentation of blasting
abrasives and paint chips are emitted during the abrasive blasting process. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) (1994) emission estimation technique assumes that between 1 and 10% of the
blast media and the abraded paint are emitted to air during the blasting processes. These emissions remain a
potential cause for concern in the occupational environment and off-site if they are blown towards surrounding
receptors.
Dormac expects to service a maximum of 42 ships per a year and is to undertake abrasive blasting activities
from 07h30 to 15h00 (weather dependant) using up to 10 tons of Blastrite® per hour (ship dependant). After
blasting, the Blastrite®, paint chips and surface contaminates that have been scoured are to be completely
removed and collected from the dry dock prior to the dry dock buoyancy chambers being flooded and vessel
entering the harbour waters.

4.2 Surface Coating

Surface coatings limit corrosion and deterioration of the ship structure. Generally, two coats of primer are
applied to the cleaned surface prior to the final coat of paint. Painting is undertaken manually, mainly using
airless spray guns, rollers and brushes. Paint types range from water-based coatings to high performance
epoxy coatings, and application depends on the environment to which the coating is to be applied too.
Antifouling and anticorrosive paints are typically used on ship hulls. Antifouling paints are used to prevent
growth of marine organisms. VOCs from painting activities are a key source of air pollution in the ship repair
and maintenance industry. VOC emissions can be generated when solvents in the paint volatise as the paint
dries. Other sources may include painting equipment such as paint laden spray guns, brushes or open paint
containers.
An analysis of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for the paints to be used at the proposed dock
indicated the following:
■ VOCs within these paints are dominantly benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX);
■ Each substance has the potential to release an odour; and
■ The products should be used in well-ventilated areas to allow for effective dispersion of toxic compounds.
Assuming that a maximum size vessel is to occupy the dry dock (worst case scenario), surface coating
activities may take up to 10 hours per a ship. Coats of antifouling, anticorrosive and topside are generally
applied to each surface. As per the NPI (1999), airless sprayers can have up to 90% transfer efficiency, with
the remainder being completely emitted to air. VOC emissions from painting operations stem from the chemical
content of the paint and most, if not all, of the volatile portion of the coating evaporates during or following
application (USEPA 1994). The solid portion of the overspray however is contained within the walls of the dry
dock.
 5 Methodology
Air pollution dispersion models have been developed to calculate ambient concentrations as a function of
source configurations, emission factors and meteorological characteristics. These provide a useful tool to
ascertain the spatial and temporal patterns of ground level concentrations arising from the emissions of various
point, line, area and volume sources. These outputs are primarily used in environmental and health impact
assessments, risk assessments and emission control requirements. There currently exists a large range of
modelling software available on the market.

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).

5.1 Emissions Inventory

A complete and accurate emissions inventory is imperative for representative predictive modelling outputs.
Various methods exist to calculate emissions inventories, with each approach depending on the availability of
data. Methods include continuous monitoring at source, data extrapolation from short term source emissions
testing, and the combination of published emission factors and equations with known activity levels. For the
purpose of this study, emission factors and equations were selected to develop an emissions inventory from the
main activities at the dry docking facility as outlined below.

5.1.1 Abrasive Blasting

Particulate emissions of blasting abrasive and paint chips etc. (mentioned above) are calculated using an
emission estimation equation and emission factors as presented in the Australian NPI for Shipbuilding Repair
and Maintenance (1999). The emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 are 13 and 1.3 kg respectively per tonne of
abrasive material used. The equation is as follows:

1
For the purposes of this assessment, ground-level was used to describe typical receptor breathing height (1.5 m).

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
 [ ]

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.

5.1.2 Surface Coating

To calculate benzene emissions from painting operations at the facility, the total quantity of antifouling to be
applied was multiplied by the benzene content (percentage by mass) to quantify the total benzene emissions
from the use of that coating. The emission equation used is as follows (NPI 1999).

[ ]

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.

Product Antifouling Anti-corrosive Topside Thinners

Specific gravity (g/l) 1735 1480 unknown unknown
VOC content (%) 35 15 unknown unknown
VOC content (g/l) 607.25 222 436 883
Benzene content (%) 10 2.5 10 10
Benzene content (g/l) 60.725 121.45 43.6 88.3
 No of coats applied 2 2 1 1
Quantity of Paint used (l/hr) 300 300 400 200
Benzene Emissions (g/s) 5.06 0.46 4.84 4.91
Control efficiency (%) 90 90 90 90
Final emission rate (g/s) 0.51 0.05 0.48 0.49

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.

5.1.3 Summary of Model Inputs

The SCREEN3 model calculates hourly concentrations at downwind distances from the source, by utilising the
following input parameters:
■ Source type (point, area, flare or volume);
■ Dispersion co-efficient (urban or rural);
■ Receptor height;
■ Emission rate;
■ Source parameters (height of source, exit velocity and exit temperature);
■ Terrain (simple or complex);
■ Meteorology (stability classes and wind speed); and
■ Distance of receptors from the source.
Table 3 below presents the input parameters used in the screening model to generate downwind
concentrations of pollutants from the Dormac facility.
Table 3: SCREEN3 input parameters for proposed tanks at the proposed Dry-Dock.

Grit Blasting Spray Painting

Parameter
PM10 PM2.5 Benzene
Emission Rate (g/s) 1.81 0.18 0.51
Source height (m) 9.50
Initial Lateral Dimension (m) 42.00
Initial Vertical Dimension (m) 9.50
Dispersion coefficient Urban
Receptor flagpole height (m) 1.50
Terrain Flat terrain
Meteorology Full meteorology (All stability classes and wind speeds)
Automated distance (m) 1 to 5000
The SCREEN3 model guidelines (USEPA, 1992) suggest a procedure for estimating lateral and vertical
dimensions for volume sources. For single volume sources the length of the side is to be divided by 4.3 whilst
the vertical dimension of the source is to be divided by 2.15. These were factored into the modelling phases of
the assessment. The release height is 0.5 of the building/ dry dock wall height. Finally, hourly averaged
screening model results need to be converted to longer averaging periods using the factors listed in Table 4
below.

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
Table 4: Averaging time conversion factors (USEPA, 1992).
Averaging Period Multiplying Factor
8 hours 0.7 (± 0.2)
24 hours 0.4 (± 0.2)
Annual 0.08 (± 0.02)

5.2 Background Data

Due to the large number of air polluting industries already present in the DSB, background concentrations
should be combined with modelled concentrations to gauge cumulative ambient levels. The closest air quality
monitoring station (as part of eThekwini Municipality monitoring network) to Dormac is located at the Durban
City Hall (4.17 km north east of Dormac) and is mainly used as a traffic monitoring site. Transnet National Ports
Authority (TNPA) however, operate an air quality monitoring network comprising of three stations each located
at Maydon Wharf (2.2 km north east of Dormac), Pier 1 (2.66 km east south east of Dormac) and at the Durban
Academy (3.15 km south east of Dormac). Pollutants measured at each of these stations (Figure 1 above)
include SO2, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 with the Pier 1 station also measuring a range of meteorological parameters.
Analyses of the PM data from the Maydon Wharf station revealed elevated ambient concentrations that were
largely non-compliant with the respective NAAQS. This is most likely due to the station being located at TNPA’s
grain terminal. As per WSPs past dust fallout and real-time PM monitoring experience in this area of the port,
elevated dust concentrations correspond with the loading of vessels with various break-bulk cargos (example
maize, soybeans etc.). Therefore, data from this station is not seen as representative of the Dormac facility.
Durban Academy station was not used as this station is located in a residential area and serves as a
representation of the residential ambient environment only. PM data from the Pier 1 monitoring station was
therefore chosen to best represent the area surrounding Dormac as it was the next closest continuous
monitoring station to Maydon Wharf. Sources of PM in the vicinity of the Pier 1 monitoring station include, but
are not limited to, the adjacent railways, roads and industrial activities. It is therefore acknowledged that PM
concentrations measured at this monitoring station are likely higher than what would be expected at the
Dormac facility. Due to the absence of significant air pollution sources in close proximity to Dormac, this station
provides an environmentally conservative background concentration. Data from this station was used to
contextualise the increase of PM within the ambient environment due to the proposed project.
The eThekwini Municipality could not provide local ambient benzene data. WSP conducted a VOC monitoring
campaign in 2013. The highest average benzene concentration was measured at Settlers School located 7.85
3
km south of Dormac (Figure 1) of 4.35 µg/m over a one week monitoring period. This value was therefore
used as a conservative background benzene estimate given that monitoring was undertaken during summer
conditions.

6 Results and Discussion

6.1 Modelled Concentrations Excluding Background Concentrations

(Project Specific)
Results obtained from the SCREEN3 dispersion model are graphically presented below. Results were adjusted
to various averaging periods using the USEPA (1992) method described in the methodology for comparison
with the NAAQS.
 6.1.1 Abrasive Blasting

6.1.1.1 Particulate Matter (PM 10)

All atmospheric stability classes were assessed when predicting worst-case PM10 concentrations during
abrasive blasting operations within the dry dock. The annual concentrations were calculated using the highest
hourly PM10 concentrations predicted at each distance (between 1 m and 5 000 m) away from the site using the
USEPA annual conversion factor of 0.08 and then dividing by three as the dry dock only operates for a
maximum of eight hours of a 24 hour day. It was conservatively assumed that blasting takes place for eight
hours per day for 365 days per year. All predicted PM10 concentrations as well as the annual NAAQS are
graphically presented in Figure 5 below.
3
The maximum (19.29 µg/m ) annual PM10 concentrations from abrasive blasting operations are predicted to
occur at approximately 49 m away from the proposed dry docking facility. This predicted peak concentration is
3
well below the current annual NAAQS for PM10 of 50 µg/m . After this maximum concentration, annual average
PM10 concentrations decrease rapidly with increased distance from the proposed dry dock.

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 .

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
Figure 6: Predicted 24 hour average PM10 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations.

6.1.1.2 Particulate Matter (PM 2.5)

As with predicting PM10 concentrations in Section 6.1.1.1, all atmospheric stability classes were assessed when
predicting worst-case PM2.5 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations at the dry docking facility.
Annual PM2.5 concentrations were calculated using the highest predicted hourly PM 2.5 concentrations at each
distance away from the site using the USEPA annual conversion factor of 0.08 and then divided by three as the
dry dock is to only operate eight hours per day. It was conservatively assumed that blasting takes place for
eight hours per day for 365 days per year.
Predicted PM2.5 concentrations are graphically presented in Figure 7 below. The maximum annual average
3
PM2.5 concentrations from abrasive blasting operations is 0.09 µg/m and is predicted to occur at approximately
49 m away from the proposed dry docking facility. This peak predicted concentration is well below the current
3
annual NAAQS for PM2.5 of 25 µg/m . Annual average PM2.5 concentrations decrease rapidly with increasing
distance away from the proposed dry dock.
 Figure 7: Predicted annual average PM2.5 concentrations during abrasive blasting operations.

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.

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
6.1.2 Spray Painting

6.1.2.1 Benzene (C6H6)

Modelled worst-case annual average benzene concentrations from Dormac’s operations are presented in
Figure 9 below. Annual average TVOC concentrations were calculated using the USEPA annual conversion
factor of 0.08 and then divided by 3 as the dry dock is to only operate for a maximum of eight hours per day. It
was conservatively assumed that painting takes place for eight hours per day for 365 days per year. The
3
maximum predicted annual average benzene concentrations from spray painting operations is 5.33 µg/m at a
distance of 49 meters from the dry dock. All predicted annual concentrations of benzene remain below the
3
current annual benzene NAAQS of 10 µg/m . Annual average benzene concentrations decrease rapidly
downwind away from the facility at distances greater than 50 meters from where proposed spray painting will
occur. It must be noted, antifouling with the highest VOC and benzene content was selected for analyses. It
was assumed that spray painting is to continuously occur for eight hours per a day. As such these emissions
can be viewed as a worst-case scenario.

Figure 9: Annual downwind benzene concentrations during spray painting

6.2 Modelled Concentrations Including Background Concentrations

(Cumulative)

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.

Pollutant Averaging NAAQS Maximum Background Cumulative

Period Modelled Concentration Concentration
2014 3 3
Concentration (µg/m ) (µg/m )
3 3
(µg/m ) Onsite (µg/m )
PM10 Annual 50 19.29 33.80 53.09
PM10 24 hour 120 96.47 88.40 184.87
PM2.5 Annual 25 1.91 27.60 29.51
PM2.5 24 hour 65 9.59 53.00 62.59
Benzene Annual 10 5.33 4.35 9.68

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 .

7 Assumptions and Limitations

The following is a list of assumptions and limitations of the study:
■ No meteorological station is presently operating onsite and thus pre-defined wind speed and stability
classes were applied as per the SCREEN3 dispersion modelling methodology.
■ All emission calculations were based on the maximum size vessel the proposed dry dock can
accommodate. It was also assumed that the dry dock is to be fully occupied throughout the year and ship
overhauling activities are to occur continuously during working hours. Both these assumptions may be
considered conservative. The values included in
■ Table 5 for cumulative concentrations can be considered worst-case scenario.
■ It was assumed that 10% of the coating/paint applied evaporates during or following application as per the
Australian NPI (1999). (Airless spray guns have a 90% transfer efficiency)
■ The VOC content of the antifouling coating was obtained from the material safety datasheet. This coating
had the highest VOC content. It was conservatively assumed that the VOC content of other paints and
thinners was as high as this.
■ The USEPA (1994) emission estimation technique assumes that between 1 and 10% of the blast media
and the abraded paint are emitted to air during the blasting processes. It was assumed that 95% of the
abraded material is to be contained within the 10 meter dry dock walls.
■ Background ambient air quality data was acquired from TNPA’s Pier 1 monitoring station which is located
approximately 3 kilometres south-east of the proposed project site. Furthermore, benzene concentrations

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
 measured at Settlers School were obtained from a VOC monitoring campaign completed by WSP in 2013.
These measured concentrations are not entirely representative of the ambient air quality in the vicinity of
Dormac but are considered best available data to be used in the calculation of cumulative ambient
concentrations. It is expected that existing air pollutant concentrations (PM and benzene) at Dormac are to
be lower than those measured at TNPA’s Pier 1 monitoring station and at Settlers School respectively due
to the absence of significant air pollution sources in close proximity to Dormac.
While findings from this AQIA are based on the above assumptions, WSP are of the opinion that these are as
far as possible in line with best practice as presented in the dispersion modelling regulations. It must be
highlighted that the SCREEN 3 modelling interface selected for this study is seen as “fit for purpose” for this
study since emissions stem from a single source and the area of impact remains localised in extent. This report
has undergone strict quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures (refer to Quality Management
section on page 2) to allow the reviewing authority to confidently evaluate implications of the results in terms of
the potential impacts of predicted concentrations.

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

8.1.1 Best Management Practices

■ The following should be considered during surface preparation and abrasive blasting:
 Contain or enclose as much as possible all abrasive blasting activities so as to contain dust. For
example, erecting a wall of temporary shade cloth surrounding the dry dock.
  Prohibit abrasive blasting operations during windy conditions.
 Collect all abraded material and store in sealed containers for appropriate disposal.
 Make use of the least hazardous blasting media that is economically viable.
 Maintain a high level of housekeeping within all areas of the dry dock.
 The onsite Safety Health Environment and Quality (SHEQ) officer should conduct regular inspections of
dust emissions that could trigger the need to modify or halt operations. An example of modifications
include possible switching from grit blasting to water blasting or shifting the working area from high
levels to lower (more protected) levels on the hulls within the dry dock etc. during windy conditions.
■ The following should be considered during painting operations:
 Enclose, cover or contain painting activities. For example, erecting a wall of temporary shade cloth
surrounding the dry dock.
 Overspray can be reduced by training employees on efficient painting and spraying techniques (for
example, appropriate spray gun distance to target surface, spraying angle and spraying time).
 Prohibit spray painting during windy conditions (>15 knots).
 Make use of appropriate clean up media for paint spills as soon as possible.

Project number: 39588.2

Dated: 2014/02/18
Revised:
9 References
■ Buchanan, A and Sanderson, A (2013): Assessment for offshore disposal of excavated materials, Dormac
(Pty) Ltd, September 2013, WSP Environmental 2013.
th th
■ Apex Environmental (2011): Noise Survey - 9 to 10 November 201, Dormac (Pty) Ltd.
th th
■ Apex Environmental (2011): Hazardous Chemical Substance Monitoring Survey - 9 to 10 November
2011, Dormac (Pty) Ltd.
■ Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), 2002: Air Pollution Control Division:
SCREEN3 Stationary Source Modelling Guidance. Available online at:
http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/permits/screen.pdf
■ Colls, J. (2002): Air Pollution, second edition, Taylor and Francis, New York.

■ 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