Minimum Emission Standards: compliance roadmap with Industry + NGOs inputs; DEA offsets programmes; Marion Island challenges

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened by expressing condolences on behalf of the Committee to Ms H Kekana (ANC) whose husband has died. He went on to note an apology from the Minister and Ms H Nyambi (ANC), Dr Z Luyenge (ANC), Ms S Muchunu (ANC). He further noted that there was an incident that took place at Marion Island and this incident was covered by the media. He hoped that the DEA would brief the Committee about it and on whether these kinds of incidents would be avoided in the future.

Briefing by DEA on the research work at Marion Island and associated challenges

Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, Director General, DEA, said the DEA would give an overview on issues taking place on Marion as they related to programmes

Ms Judy Beaumont, Deputy Director General: Oceans and Costs, took the Committee through presentation. She first noted the South African National Antarctic Program with reference to research base locations, major infrastructure, Marion Island base, typical field hut, voyage sequence, and pre-departure preparations. The Prince Edward Islands were annexed by South Africa in 1948 and consisted of Marion Island and Edward Island which are accessible by ship. The first scientific expedition took place in 1965 and it was declared special nature reserve in 1996. New research base was commissioned in 2011.

Ms Beaumont noted research projects that were taking place on Marion Island. Research projects included Weather Observations (conducted by SAWS), Monitoring of seabirds (conducted by DEA and UCT), Marine Mammals (conducted by UP), Marine Top Predators (conducted by NMMU), Botany (conducted by Stellenbosch and UP), Space Weather (conducted by SANSA), Geomorphology (Rhodes), Fur Seals (PE Museum), and Engineering (UKZN).

People recruited were provided contracts of 15 months. This had the potential of isolating workers. The isolation had an impact on their behaviours or brought behavioural changes including homesickness, alcohol abuse, personality clashes, interpersonal relations, partnering and love triangles.

Ms Beaumont noted that challenges raised included interpersonal conflict, food shortage and diesel generators. With regard to generators, there were six generators, but three generators were functional at any given time (see attachment).

Discussion

The Chairperson asked the DEA to describe the incident that was covered by the media. It was reported that one worker took an axe and run after his workmate that this took place in December 2017. Was this true?  There was another incident related to mental problems which the DEA was not mentioning. He also asked whether all six generators are not working or how many generators were operational?  There was also a story that foods provided to workers were expired and he asked how the procurement was conducted. Workers were reported to consume excessive alcohol. How did they have access to alcohol? Was there pubs? Who sold alcohol to them?

Mr R Purdon (DA) said the question on alcohol was very important and he asked whether the system of health screening was working. He further asked what the financial implications were for keeping workers on Marion Island for 15 months. Was there any punishment imposed on person who could not stay there for 15 months?

Mr T Hadebe (DA) also raised his concern over the 15 months contracts. He asked whether all generators were running continuously and if not, how it could be reported that excessive oil was used.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) asked when generators started using excessive oil. If they did, it meant that these generators were defect. He further asked how long it took to address the challenges that workers on the island had and how long it took for the senior management to be informed by team leaders of certain incidents. He asked how DEA dealt with those workers who passed the health assessment but whose behaviour or health could change whilst on the island.

Referring to the incident, Ms Beaumont replied that there were two men who were into one woman and it later they became three men. From all statements of the people involved in this case, there were contradictions. There was a series of meetings aimed to establish what really happened. In the Sunday Times, it was reported that one individual took an axe and went to the fire extinguisher where he damaged computer equipment. A case of damage of property had been lodged. There were three concrete facts in support of physical pushing that occurred in the dining room and in the corridor. One of the aggrieved parties sent various emails and this incident started in July 2017. Since September the DEA was in communication with aggrieved parties and their team leader.  With regard to mental problems, the DEA acknowledged that there was a person who was suffering from epilepsy and he was on medication. This emerged through investigation and they were surprised how he went through the health assessment. During the medical or health assessment, he had to fill a form in which he had to declare whether he had epilepsy or not. He indicated that he did not have epileptic conditions and when it was noticed, there was communication with the medical practitioners who made up a follow up with the case.

On the functioning of generators, Ms Beaumont replied that there were four generators not in good condition. Only two generators in emergency were working. Three generators were not functional.

On the expired food, Ms Beaumont explained some food could not last for a year and the food was stored in cool place such as fridges. Some people were fine with having the expired food where others were objecting. There was nothing that could be done to change this situation.

Ms Ngcaba stressed that medical assessment was done prior to his placement. There was an arrangement of evacuating and bringing him inland and this could only be done when the navy vessel passed there, including those involved in the incident. They were supposed to be brought in November or December, but due to financial implications, this was impossible. Matters were exaggerated in the media.

Referring to generators, she noted that the responsibility of ensuring that generators were working rested on the Department of Public Works (DPW). On recruitment, she responded that it would be better if DEA came back and reported on the process of health/medical screening, in particular, how it could be improved. It should however be noted that screening process was done by externals. People deployed to the island received certain incentives and incentives had been improved. There was a plan to attract new scientists to work there. The major problem was to recruit the best young scientific researchers as they were not willing to be deployed on Marion Island. Challenges faced in the recruitment of new researchers would be included in the proposed brief on health assessment.

Mr Purdon asked whether the navy vessel was not going to India and why an arrangement was made with India for its vessel to bring those people to inland. He asked why the delay in this process should be placed on the navy vessel.

Ms Ngcaba agreed that it was an Indian vessel that was going to the Antarctic. She also agreed that there was cooperation between South Africa and other foreign vessels. However, there would be a financial implication if their assistance were sought. DEA did not provide alcohol or supply it to workers. Rather, they would make an individual order. DEA had place limitations on the quantity of alcohol that could be ordered, but it was difficult to limit the amount of alcohol that would be consumed per person per day.  Each individual was allowed to make an order of basis needs which did not exceed 100kg. DEA could not allow having luggage of 100kg full of alcohol only and DEA had a right to see what was in the luggage.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would be expecting reports suggested by Ms Ngcaba and stated that Marion Island should be protected from people either who could be fighting due to consuming alcohol or people who were susceptible to illnesses such as epilepsy or mental problems. The conflict management policy should be established and there should be psychological team to provide counselling services to those people who spend a long time away from their families.

Briefing on the postponement of compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) of National Environmental Management Air Quality Act

The Chairperson noted a letter of apology from the Deputy Minister.

Ms Ngcaba said DEA had made presentation on this in their previous briefing. The presentation was merely to provide an overview on compliance.

The Chairperson agreed. There were four concerns that arose from the last discussion: a road map was suggested to provide how the compliance would be met; off sets programme was not very clear on what progress was made and financial implications that could be involved; the full compliance with the SO2 was not clear and it was suggested that a further presentation be made on how SO2 would be complied with without waste; and  there was an issue relating to applications received for further postponements and the question of extending  the time of power stations beyond the time they were expected to be shut down and what could impact of such extension on environment. In a nut shell, the briefing was a progress report based on the previous discussion.

Dr Thuli Khuma, National Air Quality Officer, DEA, said the legal provisions for postponement of compliance timeframes were stipulated in section 21 of the NEM: AQA Act. New plants ought to comply with new plant emission standards immediately; existing plants ought to comply with existing plant standards on 1 April 2015 and existing plants ought to comply with new plant standards on 01 April 2020. AQA provided for the existing plants to apply for postponement with the compliance timeframes. The application for postponement ought to include: (i) an air pollution impact assessment, (ii) a detailed justification and reasons for the application and (iii) a concluded public participation process. The National Quality Air Officer (NQAO), with the concurrence of the Licensing Authority might grant a postponement of the compliance timeframes for an existing plant for a period of, not exceeding five years per postponement. From time to time, they must review any postponement should ambient air quality conditions in the affected area of the plant not conform to ambient air quality standards.

The NQAO, with the concurrence of the Licensing Authority on good grounds, may withdraw any postponement following: (i) representations from the affected plant and (ii) representation from the affected communities. There were 34 applicants received in 2014. From 2015 to 2017, DEA received 20 new applicants.

With regard to sustainable solution for compliance with SO2, meetings were held on 17 January 2018 among DEA, SASOL, and ESKOM to address the issues. Action plans to find a lasting solution was presented as follows. SASOL maintained that an assessment of the commercially available technologies had been done and all approved practically infeasible. Eskom acknowledged that there had been no significant reduction in SO2 emissions from power stations in the past 30 years. However, Eskom maintained that ambient air quality monitoring network showed that there was generally compliance with ambient SO2. Flue-gas desulfurisation (FGD) had been proposed or was being undertaken to deal with SO2 abatement technologies for the other remaining power stations. Emphasis was being placed that agreement had been reached that the lifespan for the affected power stations was guaranteed for 50 years, with eight of the affected power station facing decommissioning  by 2030, thus not worth having FGD as an abatement technology on these. The DEA requested an indication in terms of what would be done to those power stations that would not be decommissioned by 2030 and which power stations had been earmarked for FGD. The DEA was planning to put in place regulatory tools to make postponement a once-off application and thus eliminate rolling postponements.  Finally, compliance statement with postponement conditions was provided as it pertained to Eskom, Shell, PPC, ENGEN, TOTAL, Ango-American Platinum, NATREF and SASOL Synfuels. Offset programmes implementations were provided with respect to SASOL Secunda offsets implementation. There are ongoing discussions between DEA and industry on finding a solution for compliance with SO2, in a sustainable manner, roadmaps towards full compliance by industry and offsets programmes and their progress.    

Discussion

The Chairperson said issues relating to postponements and offsets programme was not articulated in in the presentation. There was need to clarify these issues in a detailed manner. The underlying assumptions were that there should be applications and re-applications for postponements. What could be the rationale behind these postponements?

Ms Ngcaba replied that the law talked about postponements and therefore industries had to apply for postponements, which ought to be considered by the DEA. The DEA would prepare a report, specifically, on what was the problem. The intention of law was not having rolling postponements but to allow industry to pick up and comply with the standards. The intent of the law was to create a transitional period towards full compliance.

Mr Purdon asked to clarify slide five. Who was monitoring these postponements? The Committee was advised that the monitoring system was not working.

Mr Hadebe said there was need to establish a panel of experts to look into these plants. Was it feasible to establish the panel, carry its assessment out, and produce a report containing findings and recommendations before 2020?

Mr Makhubele asked whether DEA was supporting the Eskom position, whether there was an interaction with the NGOs as a part of public participation, whether offsets programme were supported by communities; and how much could be paid on offsets programmes.   

The Chairperson said that it seemed that there was no solution in terms of complying with the SO2 in pollution hot spots because the underlying assumptions were that they would apply and re-apply for postponements. There were still question marks on road maps and he hoped that perhaps Eskom would furnish the Committee with actual details on all plants. He expressed his concern over offset programmes and remarked that the issue of offset programmes were not adequately responded to. Of concern was the time frame of implementation because the timeframe would assist the Committee in monitoring the implementation. Monitoring offsets programme was an aspect that should feature in the Committee’s programme.

Mr Purdon remarked that, based on disturbing report before the Committee, he felt that the Minister was not committed to these matters of concern and suggested that the Committee should establish a panel of experts to look into these matters.

Mr Makhubele agreed. A panel of experts was a must in order to conduct a holistic investigation. There was a need of independent views on how these matters could be resolved.

Ms Ngcaba responded that she would request a timeframe of six months on the work of the panel of experts, but this should not stop DEA from reporting to the Committee on progress of offset programme. The establishment of a panel was subject to advertising the positions and interviewing candidates in that the panel would be established by April 2018. The power was in the hands of the Minister to appoint. In the meantime, DEA will report to the Committee in June and September 2018.

The Chairperson said that it was a good initiative to establish a panel of experts that could conduct an objective assessment of issues of concern; however, the Committee should guard against the possibility of assuming executive responsibilities. It should not play a role in the appointments of members of the panel. Rather, the Committee should monitor the establishment of the panel.  Conducting oversights over these matters was part of the Committee’s programme. He reminded Members that in March/April, there would be a discussion on the same issues. He felt that the panel should consist of individuals of different expertise.

Dr Khuma responded that the monitoring system was working as it pertains to ambient stations. Eskom stations were reporting to the NQAO. On compliance, she said that there was no compliance. In compliance with ambient air quality, there were four standards of compliance: 10 minutes average, one hour, 24 hour and one year average. There was no compliance in terms of one hour and 24 hour standards. This could not be overlooked merely because there was an annual average compliance.

The Chairperson noted that there was divergences in the reports of Eskom and the DEA and asked why they were coming to different conclusions.

Dr Khuma replied that the DEA report came to the same conclusion with regard to annual average reporting, but the report raised concerns on the 10 minutes average, one hour average and the daily average.

Briefing by Eskom

Mr Thava Govender, Group Executive, Eskom, took the Committee through the presentation. He noted that Eskom supported the MESs as they were needed to reduce harmful health effects of air pollution and provide certainty for planning. Eskom had made progress with its “power plant compliance status” but there were some delays being experienced in project execution. It had made progress with the Air Quality offset programme. Eskom’s ambient air quality monitoring network showed that there was generally compliance with ambient SO2 and NOx standards, but non-compliance with PM10 and PM2.5 standards on the Mpumalanga Highveld. There continued to be a challenge for existing plants to meet the new plant standards within the required timelines due to high cost, water use and impact on the electricity tariff. Eskom had initiated the process of applying for new postponements for the next 5 year period. The detail of what postponements would be available once Eskom had completed a thorough review. Public meetings for Tutuka power station postponement began in January 2018. For four coal fired power stations, no postponements were expected to be applied for.

Mr Govender said that high load factors coupled with plant availability challenges at a number of stations led to the sustained high emissions between the 2013 and 2016 financial years. The reduced system demand from 2017 provided for maintenance opportunity to undertake essential repairs at a number of units. This coupled with the start of the retrofit of Grootvlei units 2 to 4 to FFPs plus the completion of refurbishment of the ESP on 4 of the 6 units at Matla resulted in an improving trend.

With regard to Power Plant status to compliance, Mr Govender noted that there had been progress toward meeting the MES for particulates and NOx.  There were potential delays for the first units but efforts would be made to ensure the last units are not delayed. The offset programme rolled out to households will start in October 2018. Medupi FGD was delayed and efforts were being made to reduce the delay period and to avoid delays with the later units. Postponement applications had been initiated for the next five year period however the detail of these was not yet available. It was currently under review and would need to be approved internal to Eskom prior to finalising the application. Eskom had evaluated the technology options available to reduce sulphur dioxide. There were emerging multi-pollutant control-technologies that could be considered once they reached commercial maturity at scale. Eskom would pilot technologies which showed promise of being better options compared with FGD. Meeting the MES for sulphur dioxide presented socio-economic challenges. The current air quality programme would add 3% to the tariff. Alternative mechanisms were required to address the challenge faced for existing plants (especially those 25 years and older) to comply with new plant standards specifically with regard to sulphur dioxide. There were no immediate technical solutions to replace FGD, and according to Prof Gerrit Cornelius at the November 2017 parliamentary colloquium FGD showed negative cost benefit from a socio-economic perspective. 

Discussion

The Chairperson said they were talking about the ARP and he heard that they did not receive the approval of the ARP document even though Cabinet decided on it in December 2017. The Committee was interested in that document, because it talked about how the international commitments with respect to climate change would be met. Eskom should come back and speak on decommissioning and the air quality issues. There was not enough information on the postponements in terms of commissioning of the plants. Was this being reviewed?

On plants, Mr Govender responded that in order to change, a lot of money could be spent and it was not going to be economical. It was more efficient than modern plant. If they were refurbished, they want have efficiency of modern planst. When Medupi and Kusile are done, commissioning of plants could be considered. Eskom wanted to put coal on reserves to see how Medupi and Kusile will materialise.

Mr Purdon expressed his concern about the postponements and said it was an issue the Committee heard every time. Was there a timeframe set for the review of the postponements? He asked how the 2019 baseline offsets programme would be met. Eskom was in debt of R5 billion and he asked how these programmes would be implemented if there was no money.

Mr Makhubele said that Eskom should clarify whether it was meeting the 10 minutes, hourly and daily standards; unpack the first slide further; and to state the of impact of inefficiency of running Eskom on offset programmes.

Mr Govender responded that they had to submit application for postponements one year before a decision was taken. In that context, the application would be submitted next year in March 2019. The postponement process would start next month and the timeline for reviewing and being able to publicise what they have been asked for was around six months. He noted that they had to shut down some stations and that the system of operation was run on the basis of codes and regulations known as dispatched rules. Units had to be dispatched based on the lease costs. This was how the plant was run. Some stations were very expensive. With regards of emissions, they could not against conditions attached to their licences. However, they would try to work on reducing emission. Eskom was complying with the annual average in terms of ambient air quality standards. On the question of procurement, the issue of procurement was impacting on the operation of Eskom, resulting in some delays. He accepted that Eskom was facing funding constraints; however, money allocated for offset programmes were still there as they were not transferred to fund other activities.

The Chairperson said that Mr Govender was very technical in his response. He took a note that Eskom was at the stage that it was challenged with governing issues; however they were under obligations to deliver on their work despite internal difficulties. The Committee would be lenient at this time and was expecting Eskom to brief the Committee on decommissioning. On the question of postponements, they would wait for the outcome of the Eskom application. He asked why the Eskom was being engaged in the renewals and thus built new plants. This question should be presented on.

Briefing by SASOL

Ms Wrenelle Stander, Senior Vice President for Corporate Affairs, SASOL, took the Committee through the presentation. She said SASOL’s plants were unique and complex with a highly integrated value chain. SASOL recognised the importance of the environment and continued to understand and mitigate any impact through environmental programmes. It already met most of the MES for existing plants and it was on track to meet most of the new plant standards by 2005 except for SO2. It operated in compliance with its current licence conditions. Air quality roadmaps were aimed at enabling compliance by 2025, except for SO2. While the SASOL was close to meeting new plant standards for SO2, it was not able to meet it. All commercially available technologies for abatement of SO2 to meet new plant standards had been evaluated and would continue to scan for new technologies. While FGD technology was proven, it would be significantly challenging to retrofit on their process on their Brownfields site. Multi-year offset programmes addressed sources of non-industrial pollution in conjunction with their roadmaps.

Ms Stander stated that during the last financial year, R115 billion on capital and operational was spent on South African operations, whereas R1.6 was invested in skills and socio-economic development programmes globally.

Ms Stander concluded by noting that air quality projects completed were aligned to the SASOL’s air quality roadmap commitments. Postponement plans were in place to enable achievement of its compliance roadmap by 2025.

Discussion 

Mr Hadebe asked on how cutting glass could be an offset project. What was the purpose of cutting glasses? He said that burning glasses might be an issue, but what the cutting glasses had to do with reduction of pollution. Was SASOL improving the ambient air quality in terms of offsets programme?

M J Steenkamp (DA) stated that there were standards to be met in accordance of ambient air quality whereby the DEA stated that they were not complying. However, presentations were suggesting that they were complying. Where was she missing a point?

Mr Makhubele remarked that there was a need for transformation at SASOL and ESKOM as well as other considerations related to it. Women should be promoted in senior positions. What were the challenges related to transformation?

Ms Stander responded that, in terms of offset projects, there was a requirement in 2015 to meet offset plan, for example, in Secunda, the Highveld and the Vaal Triangle. SASOL looked at the ambient air quality plan to make certain assessments. It engaged with the licensing authority which was more knowledgeable about the challenges faced by certain areas and they engaged with communities. There was an air quality campaign that was launched which included winter measurements, interviews and assessments. They saw a burning signal in the winter times in accordance with the winter measurements. In its engagement with the DEA, they came to realise that the proposed air quality plan was not workable. In addition, the DEA was not quite comfortable with the proposed plan. The programme that was initiated by SASOL was expected to be completed in 2020.

Dr Khuma responded that SASOL was improving on ambient air quality at local level. There were two kinds of monitoring: The compliance monitoring which was at stake in meeting the standards set out in law and there was ambient air quality monitoring which was done by the DEA and on which the DEA made a presentation. All monitoring outside these two options had their own objectives.

The Chairperson said that this was the reason why he supported the Panel of Experts. The Panel would highlight what challenges were in a comprehensive manner and accordingly furnish stakeholders with findings, proposals and recommendations on how these challenges could be addressed. The SASOL was using that section out of desperation. It was clear that the section could not be used. What needed to be monitored were offset programmes to determine whether they were working and whether the community was happy with offset programmes. The Committee wanted the SASOL to move to the stage where it complied with the MES.

Briefing by the NGOs

Centre for Environmental Rights

Ms Robyn Hugo, Head: Pollution and Climate Change took the Committee through the presentation. She said that she would give an overview of the presentations the NGOs would be making and some updates as to what had happened since they last met the Committee. Prof Cairncross was best placed to make technical inputs into the questions of EMS compliance and technology options for abatement of SO2 emissions. After she presented, Mr Thomas Munguni and Samson Mokoena, who lived in the Highveld and Vaal triangle priority areas, respectively, would present on what was happening on the ground.

Ms Hugo noted that there was no dispute that air pollution in the priority areas (PAs) was above safe levels. This was despite, as Prof Cairncross would explain, South African standards being weak and significantly more lax than the 2005 World Health Organisation guidelines. South Africa’s MES was also substantially less stringent than elsewhere in the world; including other development countries. Multinational companies like Sasol comply with these stricter standards in other jurisdictions. They did not have relevant standards for various harmful pollutants, like mercury.

Ms Hugo stated that, according to Lancert Commission on Pollution and Health, pollution was, in 2015, responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths (representing 16% of all deaths worldwide) and for 268 million disability-adjusted life-years. The number of deaths due to pollution was three times greater than the number due to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined and 15 times more than the number resulting from all wars and other forms of violence. In the most severely affected countries, pollution-related disease (PRD) was responsible for more than 1 death in 4. Household air and water pollution were decreasing, but ambient air, chemical, and soil pollution were all on the rise, and non-communicable diseases caused by these forms of pollution were increasing.

Ms Hugo stated that multiple SA reports on health found that air pollution from Eskom’s CFPSs killed more than 2 200 South Africans every year and caused thousands of bronchitis and asthma in adults and children annually from PM2.5 exposure alone. This cost South Africa more than R30 billion annually, though premature deaths, hospital admission, and lost working days.

Broken Promises was launched on 2 October 2017 and highlighted these health impacts. It made a number of key recommendations that authorities should implement to demonstrate that improving air quality in the PAss was, in fact, a priority for government. In spite of this, Eskom had applied for further postponement of MES compliance for Tutuka for the 2015 limit. It was seeking for further postponements. On the other hand, Eskom delayed Medupi and Kusile plans as they pertained to complying with SO2. Since 2014, given the delays, the Centre had argued that FGD should be integrated into design and construction of as many units as possible. Eskom and SASOL should not be permitted to apply for postponements.

Prof Eugene Cairncross

Prof Eugene Cairncross took the Committee through his presentation. The presentation focussed on the poor and unhealthy air quality in the PAs, the location of all of Eskom’s coal power stations in these areas, and that Eskom coal power stations were the major contributors to pollutant emissions in these areas. He then focused on the MES (for coal power stations) and Eskom’s SO2 emissions, aggregate emissions, and emissions intensities of each plant. He noted that the three PAs surrounded the densely populated metros of Ekhuruleni, Johannesburg and Tshwane, with a combined population in excess of 10 million (Census2011). Since air pollution did not recognise administrative boundaries, we might expect that the emissions from the tall stacks of the power stations located in the PAs impact these metropolitan areas. Measured annual average PM2.5 levels in the Vaal Triangle Priority Area exceeded the lenient National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 20 micro-grams per m3 and far exceed the more health protective WHO guideline value of 10 micro-grams per m3. Annual average SO2 (sulphur dioxide) concentrations were compliant with the extremely lax South African standard of 19 ppb (parts per billion)(50 micro-grams per m3) but exceeded the WHO guideline of 7.4 ppb (20 micro-grams per m3) in Sharpville and Zamdela. As in the case of the Vaal Triangle, the annual average PM2.5 levels in the Highveld PAs exceeded the lenient National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 20 micro-grams per m3, and far exceed the more health protective WHO guideline value of 10 micro-grams per m3. In the HPA, annual average SO2 levels exceeded the South African standard in Witbank and Hendrina, and exceed the WHO guideline at four of the five stations.

Prof Cairncross noted that the WHO daily average guideline of 7.4 ppb was exceeded on what appeared to be most days during the one year period, at all five stations.The health implications for the population exposed to SO2 pollution were described by the WHO. On the question of health effects, he noted that SO2 could affect the respiratory system and the functions of the lungs, and causes irritation of the eyes. Inflammation of the respiratory tract caused coughing, mucus secretion, aggravation of asthma and chronic bronchitis and made people more prone to infections of the respiratory tract. According to WHO, “Hospital admissions for cardiac disease and mortality increase on days with higher SO2 levels.” The WHO also noted that these effects might occur at levels below its guideline values, and that there was no observed safe or ‘no effect’ level. He further noted that in the HPA, power generation was responsible for more than 80% of total SO2 emissions, with industrial sources being the other major contributor. Household fuel burning was responsible for only 1% of SO2 emissions.

Prof Cairncross stated that we were faced with Eskom’s non-compliance, in many cases, with the 2015 existing plant standards of the MES regulations, and Eskom’s multiple applications for postponement of the 2020 new plant standards. In the case of SO2, Eskom appeared to be applying (with the exception of Kusile) for exemption from the 2020 MES. The question arose – was the South Africa MES standards exceptionally strict and unaffordable? South Africa’s ‘existing plant’ emission standard for SO2 is higher (more permissive) than all the countries listed, 17 times higher than the standards of China, Germany and the European Union. South Africa’s new plant standards were also considerably more lenient, up to 14 times, than those of China, Germany, India and the EU. He further stated that Eskom’s coal plants were clustered in two areas, and its cumulative emissions ought to be considered. In order to develop a roadmap to compliance with the SO2 MES, a number of factors had to be considered. Some of these factors might include – the emissions intensity (SO2 emitted per unit of power generated) of each plant, the sulphur content of the coal, the age of each plant. Two plants, inter alia, Medupi and Matimba appeared to be non-compliant with extremely lax ‘existing plant’ standard; all plants would have to reduce SO2 emissions by 80%-90% to meet the 2020 MES.

Prof Cairncross noted possible pathways to achieve compliance and aggregate SO2 emission reductions. Accordingly, he stated that there was a need to aaccelerate the shut-down and decommissioning of the oldest plants (Grootvlei, Komati and Hendrina)(Kriel and Camden  are also candidates) that were already underutilised. They would become increasingly redundant as the most recent rounds and future rounds of the REIPPP came on-stream, within the next two to four years. This clearly required a transparent and properly negotiated process to mitigate the social and labour impacts of the decommissioning of these plants. There was a need to evaluate and expedite the installation of DSI (Direct Sorbent Injection) on both Medupi and Matimba and to expedite the installation of FGD on both Medupi and Matimba. There was a need to develop a plan to bring the rest of Eskom’s coal plants into compliance with all 2020 MES by 2025, or to decommission them on an accelerated basis, based on maintaining security of power supply. Finally, Eskom should consider embarking on its own Renewable Energy build program, both to enable an accelerated decommissioning program and to take advantage of the considerably lower generation costs of modern wind and solar plants.

Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA)

Mr Samson Mokoena said that, at Vaal, they needed a proper contingent air quality plan at local, provincial and national level.  It was concerning that for the last five years there had been no proper contingent plan. He was not in support of the establishment of a panel of experts because he was not sure how independent it would be. What if the panel was not independent? The issue of SO2 came to the attention of VEJA in 2010; the SO2 standards had not been complied with. He said that there were no good answers could be provided with Eskom on what it was doing in terms of meeting ambient air quality standards. The local air quality officer should be capacitated to enable them to conduct the assessments and investigations.

•  

Mr Thomas Mnguni stated that, from the outset, when equity management plan was drafted, they indicated that the local municipality lacked responsibility and that this could have been dealt with as a matter of urgency. As a community, they had written letters sent to various authorities that enough funds should be allocated to ensure that power stations were operational. These power stations should function and should be monitored to see whether they meet ambient air quality standards. They should be talking about stakeholders who would be part of task team to monitor industries to see whether they were compliant. DEA should be on board. He said that he noticed that in the mining areas, nothing had changed for a year. He further indicated that he was unemployed for five years and his son ecame ill simply because he happened to live close to a mining area and he had to relocate. How many people would be able to relocate? People were stuck in those areas with polluted air being exposed to illness. Instead of talking about their health or how lives could be saved, they were talking about considering costs. They were talking about making profit and not about protecting lives. Are we here to ensure that industries do not lose profit, or are we here to ensure that constitutional rights are protected? There was no reason to be here if we were invited to speak about how Eskom and SASOL could maximise their profits. The main question was why SASOL was investing money to comply with these standards in UK and was doing nothing to comply with the standards in South Africa? Most of SASOL’s money was being generated in South Africa. It was South Africans who was paying the costs. They were asked the dates of decommissioning in the previous meeting but these dates had not yet been provided. He said that the question of establishing a panel should be approached with caution because it appeared that some people were not opening up and explaining how people were being affected by pollution. There had been many reports established by experts, such as the Groundwork researchers’ report.

Discussion

Ms Ngcaba welcomed the presentations made by NGOs and stated that the panel of experts was necessary as it would focus on scientific issues independently. DEA had its scientists and NGO’s had their own scientists. They conducted research projects and their views reflecting in these reports were contradictory. They had failed to reach a common consensus. An independent voice was needed for the DEA and NGOs to reach a common consensus. There was a need to have independent scientific researchers who would help in finding a solution to these challenges. The DEA, as a regulator, regulated to all users. However, the DEA was talking to old business people who understood these problems. However to solve these problems they ought to be compromises and the DEA ought to be reasonable in its objective assessment of compliance. In the climate change policy, they had to conduct a comprehensive study from which the policy document was produced. The same approach should be applied. The policy should be drafted and advertised for public participation and comments. If the policy was not drafted, discussions would go and on. On the issue of health impact, it would be difficult to justify that a child’s sickness was caused by the pollution of a particular company. Usually, pollution was blown up by a wind and it might affect people who were in remote or distant area. It was true that pollution had severe impact on health but one could not single out one industry to be a cause of illness of an individual.

Dr Thuli said that there was an ambient air quality review. It looked like the DEA’s interventions were not being directed where the problems were. There was a need of establishment of a panel to determine where these problems really were. The DEA had a monitoring system and the monitoring progress was accessible on line.

Mr Purdon said that he was interested in knowing about compliances and the question of issuing licences

The Chairperson said the Committee was going to have further following discussion as a part of conducting oversight and see whether changes could be brought by new policies. They ought to make sure that existing policies were implemented. He encouraged new development in Eskom and hoped that things that were being done in the past in relation with management would stop. There were a lot of problems in Eskom and these problems should be resolved for the sake of compliance. He thanked SASOL for its presentation. He said he still did not understand why there was no consensus on the offset programmes. SASOL should play its part including consultation of communities. He thanked the NGOs for their presentations and remarked that, today, it was not a workshop, but an ordinary meeting of the Committee. He reiterated that the issue of pollution would continue to be monitored and discussed because it affected the health of the population.

The meeting was adjourned.