National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill

1. National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill groundWork P.O. Box 2375, Pietermaritzburg, 3200 www.groundwork.org.za groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

2. National Report on Community-based Air Pollution Monitoring in SA • History of problem in SA • What community people are doing, i.e. the Bucket Brigade and GIS monitoring • Impacts of pollutants • Problem areas • Industrial practice • Legislation • What we need from the Bill groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

3. History of AQ Bill • Peoples time and resources • Lawyers, technical people, researchers, campaigners • Always sought to engage with the DEAT and politicians on this issue • May 2002 – DEAT opportunity to engage meaningfully • Reports to DEAT groundWork concerns • Presently no changes can be made groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

4. Positive aspects of the Bill • That a Bill is on the table is a victory for the community campaigners • Development of a Framework which will include the develop ambient and emissions standards • National Air Quality Advisory Committee • Compels reporting on air quality as part of the Chapter 3 of NEMA • IDP must consider air quality • Industry cannot operate without a license groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

5. Health • S 2: Health is not seen as a +ve action, but as a “rear guard”action, i.e. reduce health risk, rather than seek to improve health. • The Bill must be more specific on how government seeks to give a more practical understanding of Section 24 of the Bill of Rights • Health is mentioned on 8 occasions, but only in three context, i)reducing risk ii) identifying substances that pose a threat to health, & iii) activities that have a “significant detrimental effect on health” • No improvement of health is mentioned groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

6. Information • Consensus amongst stakeholder that a Waste Informational System is needed • Bill must indicate the system to be used by polluters and government, such as the Pollution Release and Transfer Registry or the Toxic Release Inventory • The Bill does not guarantee that affected communities, or even national government will get needed info • Does indicate if industry must make information available groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

7. Information • Emission source information – municipality responsibility • Information will remain a contested arena, i.e. National Key Points Act • The Minster must state by when and how information is gathered – if we do not have this basis right the entire Bill is undermined (S 12) • S 9: How the minister identifies substances as critical is NB. • How does one define misleading information 48 g/h can only be defined if information system is defined. groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

8. Time Frames • Deadline for National Framework (NEMA – 6 years and NEAF still not established) • Does not state when national standards will be established by – thus provincial and some local authorities could act sooner with the result that potential industries could migrate – both ambient and emissions groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

9. Time Frames • Provisional certificates have unlimited duration • No timeframes for license as to when they expire • No indication when information management standard/process will be finalised groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

10. Licensing • Must establish minimum emission standards • What are the preconditions for province and national to assume local authorities responsibility? • Bill does not state that practical measure must be taken to protect health - S 36 (b) • Does not include the protection of health groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

11. Licensing • S 40 (1) does not talk about “abnormal conditions” which is becoming plentiful in oil refineries • Review must have a specific time period it must not be left up to “when circumstances demand that a review is necessary.” groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

12. Challenges of Local Authority • How will national government support-lesser resourced local and provincial authorities with pollution monitoring, information and licensing? • The Bill must indicate how authorities are required to do with regards to Bill: • License, Monitor, etc • Capacity to deliver on commitments: • Sasolburg, Richards Bay. • groundWork assisting at local level • Power of industry at a local level: • Shell in south Durban groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

13. Some of our other concerns • Technology standards must be included • Can one have standards if compliance has not been reached • Community “right to know” must be included • Vague statements, i.e. appropriate, reasonable period of time • Exemptions should not be entertained groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

14. In Conclusion • Implementation is critical and even more so considering the vagueness in which the above issues have been presented • PF must urgently request DEAT to give concrete suggestions as to how to address concerns raised • Timeframes must be placed within this process • Some key implementation steps must be included in the Bill groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment

15. .. In Conclusions • Present response of DEAT to concerns raised by community • Present governance: License withdrawal use NEMA Section 28 • Include the principles on which the regulations are developed to ensure that discretion is constrained • Re-apply and customize • We are prepared to work with DEAT and parliament to ensure progress groundWork submission to PF Committee on Environment