Representation on Air Quality Act - Emission Standards under Section 21

1. Representation on Air Quality Act - Emission Standards under Section 21 16 April 2013

2. Core Principles • Potential Ambiguity/Unintended Consequences of Newly Amended Section 21 Sub-categories • Risk of “Technology Forcing” • BPEO (Best Practicable Environmental Option) • Industry Competitiveness – Fair & Consistent Application • Sustainable Cost Effective Solutions • “Hazardous and General Waste” Definition - Overly Broad

3. Potential Ambiguity & Unintended Consequences • Key Issue: • Ambiguous categories - potential for contradictory compliance requirements • E.g., Deletion of the word “Primary” in “Sub-category 7.2 Primary Production of acids” • Implications: • Potential contradiction to existing Sub-categories 4.16 & 4.17? • Potentially place “Metallurgical Industry” in other new categories; e.g., Sub-category 5.2? • Further potential ambiguities on continuous & periodic monitoring & sampling frequencies? • Recommendations: • Confirm Metallurgical operations remain Category 4, Metallurgical Industries • Confirm “annual” as the sampling requirement, especially for complying operators – 1 extra sample = 2x compliance cost

4. “Technology Forcing” • Key Issues: • Unintended “re-categorisation” could force unscrupulous selection of “inferior” environmental solutions by some, to avoid more stringent environmental limits • Implications: • Potential avoidance of “useful” sulfuric acid product generation, with instead increased solid waste & CO2-e generation • Significant process development work since April 2010 (e.g., costing > R60 million per site) may now prove totally inadequate? • Significantly increase cost (SO2 abatement solution up to R1 billion per site)? • Recommendations: • Confirm original April 2010 emission limits ; do not now “shift goal posts”

5. Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) • Key Issues: • BPEO abatement technologies - limited “reputable” vendors, so requires costly & lengthy “own” development • BPEO sampling/monitoring technologies/accredited vendors – currently inadequate to meet demand & many unreliable • Implications: • E.g., no single “best”, “demonstrated” or “available” technology to meet smelter 2020 SO2abatement limits? • Recommendations: • Confirmation of original abatement & monitoring requirements based on BPEOs that informed them • Make allowance for realistic time-frames to: develop, approve & implement novel cost-effective solutions

6. Industry Competitiveness –Consistent & Fair Application • Key issue: • Potential for variable & unfair conditions imposed on individual operations: • More stringent limits (e.g., >30x more stringent than national/international standards?) • More onerous compliance monitoring • Implications: • Potential to impose a specific limit, that is more onerous & effectively anti-competitive relative to local & international peers? • “Single” coherent solutions may prove impossible (given a BPEO does not even exist) – so requiring lengthy development of multiple, novel & costly solutions? • Increased cost of compliance - viability of operations even become questionable? • Recommendations: • Single, non-contradictory National limits – keep “playing field level” • Single, non-contradictory National compliance monitoring requirements

7. Sustainable, Cost-Effective Solutions • Key issue: • Costly “quick fixes” - solutions may not be sustainable? • International experience of similar legislation for SO2 abatement - directly led to public announcement of enforced closure of plant & equipment elsewhere • International regulation permits relaxation of specific point source emission requirements, providedsites continue to meet ambient air conditions • Implications: • Techno-economic review - attainment of some limits may not prove feasible: • By a 2020 timing? • In some specific instances, purely for reasons of unrealistic/unsustainable cost? • Recommendations: • Compliance timeframes for 2015 be relaxed (where necessary); focus on 2020 compliance • Clarify conditions precisely – so operational sustainability can indeed be verified for each individual site

8. Hazardous & General Waste – Case for “Specific Value Residue”? • Key issue: • Classification of a specific highly controlled internal “specific value residue”, currently listed under 8.1 Thermal Treatment of Hazardous & General Waste, which includes medical waste incineration • Implications – refinery “incinerator” example: • Existing Subcategory 4.13 Lead Smelting has standard of 2mg/Nm3Pb • Local refinery has equivalent arithmetic mean 0.06mg/Nm3Pb limit • Refinery has potentially 33x times more stringent emission limit • Estimated” refinery lead emission annual ambient air impact 750 000x lower • Recommendations: • Consider a “Specific Value Residue” alternative to maximiselocal beneficiation (avoid unnecessary tolling overseas) of any contained values derived from well-controlled internal refinery sources • Potential to regulate refinery “consistently” to the same limit as international & other Metallurgical Industry?