Children close to refineries south of Durban suffer high levels of asthma
Paul Kirk
Top civil society organisations and NGOs are petitioning the government to tackle the massive pollution problem caused by South Africa’s four petrol refineries.
The petition, which is being sent to several government departments and ministries, demands written respon-ses to the memorandum by June 1 2000 explaining what will be done about air pollution from the refineries.
The memo also demands the government ”highlight ways in which civil society and the government can co-operate to allow development to take place within a framework that fosters sustainability, clean production and works towards clean energy production and alternatives for the future”.
The bodies behind the petition include the Wildlife and Environment Society, the Legal Resources Centre and the Western Cape Environmental Justice Networking Forum, and the Pietermaritzburg-based NGO Groundwork, which has co-ordinated the move. Other signatories include the Sasolburg branch of the National Union of Mineworkers, the South African National Civics Organisation and the Sasolburg ANC Youth League.
In South Africa, air pollution is not controlled by legislation. A study by the University of Natal medical faculty found that children in suburbs south of Durban – which have two of South Africa’s four oil refineries – are up to four times more likely to suffer from chest complaints than children from other areas of the city. South Africa’s other two refineries are in Cape Town and Sasolburg.
In Scandinavian countries, a typical oil refinery will produce at the most two tons of sulphur dioxide gas in a day, while in South Africa oil refineries produce as much as 82 tons of the noxious gas every day. Sulphur dioxide helps form acid rain and significantly worsens asthmatic attacks, especially in the young and the elderly.
One of the petition organisers, Bobby Peek, said this week: ”We have been fighting this battle since 1994 and to date the government has not responded in an appropriate way. All we have is self- regulation. Self-regulation is like asking a bulldog not to eat a slice of beef you put in front of it.”
Peek said the bodies are unhappy with the pace at which the government is addressing the air pollution problem and said it is hoped the memo, which addresses specific incidents, will result in some action.
Among the more noteworthy incidents mentioned in the report are:
l In August 1994, the Caltex refinery in Cape Town made a public statement that it would reduce its emissions of sulphur dioxide by 80%. Caltex reneged on this commitment. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism did little to work with Caltex and the community to implement this commitment, which would have resulted in a major improvement of the environmental conditions for residents neighbouring Caltex. The lack of a positive response by the government has resulted in the local community lodging a formal complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
l On February 27 1996, the then deputy minister of environmental affairs and tourism indicated that an independent team of technical experts would evaluate the current guidelines for emissions from oil refineries. Several meetings took place between the chief air pollution control office and the communities, but nothing ever materialised and the commitment by the deputy minister was never implemented.
l In February 2000, after the South African Petroleum Refineries in Durban admitted to incorrectly calculating their sulphur dioxide emissions, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) and GroundWork again called for a review of emission standards for oil refineries. This review should take place at a national level in an inclusive manner to attain agreed-upon standards for emissions and the procedures for the monitoring of these emissions. To date the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has not responded to this request.
l In October 1999, the Legal Resources Centre, the legal representatives of the SDCEA and the Tableview Residents Association, submitted to the minister of environmental affairs and tourism a memorandum: Complaint Concerning Violation of Constitutional Right to Environment with Particular Reference to Failure to Regulate by the Chief Air Pollution Control Office. To date, no formal response has been received from the Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to this detailed historical breakdown of community concerns. Once again, an independent review of refinery emission standards was called for, as well as stronger ambient air quality standards, source emission control, air quality monitoring and pollution movement modelling.
l In October 1999, the Group for Environmental Monitoring mandated the Legal Resources Centre to respond to the plans for expanding the oil refinery at Sasolburg. The centre’s submission raised various concerns, inter alia the environmental risk the expansion project posed for the broader public as a result of already high pollution levels in the Sasolburg and Vaal Triangle area, and the ”failure to adequately investigate and assess the significance of the possible impact of the proposed project”. Although there have been significant exchanges of correspondence and meetings, there have been no substantive solutions forthcoming from the government to address these concerns.
Peek said the group wants legally enforceable air pollution limits to replace the guidelines that date back to the Air Pollution Prevention Act of 1965. ”All we want at the end of the day is environmental justice.”
He said the memo would be delivered to the government by the end of April.