1. Chamber of Mines Presentation on Air Quality Act - Emission Standards under Section 21
16 April 2013

2. Introduction Voluntary private sector organization Represents:
25% of mines in RSA
85% of employment
90% of production
Leadership & Governance
Office bearers
Council and Principal Committees
Member of the ICMM i.e. Facilitates & encourages the adoption of international best practice measures
Technical Expertise - Policy Committees and Management

3. Background
The NEM AQA Act has brought about a new paradigm shift in terms of air quality management, including moving away from source-based air pollution control to a receiving environment approach.
The Chamber and its members embraces the following key elements of NEM :AQA
– Establishment of air quality standards (Section 21 of the AQA provides a list of activities, which uncontrolled could negatively impact the environment and ambient -S63)
– Air quality management and reporting by government;
– Access to information (SAAQIS) and public consultation
– Regulation by the local authority.
The chamber acknowledges and support the good intentions of the sec 21 listing amendments, however would also like to mention some unintended consequences e.g. quite a few parallel amendments to the Act itself, the detail of this will be presented by member mining companies in the forthcoming presentations.

4. PGM Sector – most impacted sector
South Africa is the major pgm producer.
Platinum demand and prices has remained stagnant.
Escalating input costs, i.e electricity prices to the mining sector has risen from 18c/kWh in 2007 to 61c/kWh in 2012
Illegal strike action and falling productivity
Sustainability of the sector at risk .

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

6. 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?
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

7. “Technology Forcing” Key Issues: Implications: Recommendations:
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) may now prove totally inadequate?
Significantly greater cost (SO2 abatement solution up to R1 billion per smelter)?
Recommendations:
Confirm original April 2010 emission limits ; do not now “shift goal posts”

8. 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, or many unreliable
Implications:
E.g., no single “best”, “demonstrated” or “available” technology to meet smelter 2020 SO2 abatement limits?
Recommendations:
Confirmation of original requirements based on BPEOs that informed them
Confirmation of consistent BPEO adoption by accredited vendors for sampling & monitoring
Make allowance for realistic time-frames to: develop, approve & implement novel cost-effective solutions

9. 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 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

10. 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, provided ambient air conditions continue to meet requirements
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

11. 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/Nm3 Pb
Local refinery has equivalent arithmetic mean 0.06mg/Nm3 Pb limit
Refinery has potentially 33x times more stringent emission limit
Estimated” refinery lead emission annual ambient air impact x lower
Recommendations:
Consider a “Specific Value Residue” alternative to maximise local 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?