1. PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
AIR QUALITY BILL

2. RMEF: Who are we? OBJECTIVE
Develop, monitor/measure emissions form refinery operations in South Africa. (International Benchmarks!)
Openly report (for continual improvement) on these emissions.
Corporate with all stakeholders, affected and interested parties, NGOs and other indiustry players in our endeavours to minimise emissions or pollution.
Share technological developments that will assist to minimise environmental damage due to our operations.
MEMBERSHIP
Engen and Sapref: Durban, Caltex: Cape Town, PetroSA: Mossel Bay, Natref: Sasolburg, Sasol Synfuels: Secunda
ASSOCIATION with SAPIA
Carrying out work in parallel on fuel standards: re: transport sector.

3. STRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE
Economic:
RMEF members produce all liquid fuels in RSA
They employ approximately people on full time basis
Indirect jobs close to
Significant balance of payment contribution
Environmental:
4% of National SO2 emissions from crude oil refineries (1993)

4. RMEF’s ACHIEVEMENTS: Past 5 years
Common emissions management strategy:
Draft “Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)”
Common reporting standards
Establish liaison forums with interested and affected parties:
Government
NGOs
Emission reductions

5. WHY THE SUBMISSION RMEF fully supports the New Air Quality Bill (AQB).
Long overdue
Compilers showed lots of insights
Integrate approach
Ample room for public participation
Accountabilities clearly assigned
Ambient air quality is the right driver
However
There are causes for concern

6. Causes for Concern GENERAL
Role of National Framework: details not specific
Draft Ambient AQ Standards (SANS 69 & SANS 1929) have good summary which may be incorporated in the framework
Separate provincial AQ standards not removed
Mechanism for co-ordination across municipal & provincial boundaries not provided for. RMEF proposes “air shed management agencies”
Requirements for identification of “priority areas” not clearly specified. Discretionary power should be removed.
Specification of “pollution prevention plans” and “atmospheric impact reports” required

7. Causes for Concern (continued)
LICENSING
No guidance given on magnitude. Propose that guidance be given to prevent discrepancy between different authorities
Streamlining of requirements for EIA and license application required
Time frames for issuing licenses not specified
Transitional period for change over to new licensing regime too short.
Consultation process needs to be specified and extended

8. Concern about Implementation
Financial: budgeting at national level will not be negligible.
Information: information system required for ambient AQ is not in place
Guidance: guidance at local and provincial authorities on implementation required
Capacity: building capacity at provincial and local level must be a priority
Delays: delay from DEAT re: SANS ambient AQ standard setting process
Inclusion of odour and noise: this may be problematic: what is reasonable?

9. QUESTIONS???
RMEF

10. RMEF
THANK YOU!