80 likes | 172 Views
This analysis delves into the potential ambiguities and unintended consequences of newly amended air quality and emission standards under Section 21, focusing on technology forcing, BPEO, industry competitiveness, and cost-effective solutions.
E N D
Representation on Air Quality Act - Emission Standards under Section 21 16 April 2013
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
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
“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”
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
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
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
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?