Petroleum Pipelines Bill

1

• Petroleum Pipelines Bill
• Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on
  Minerals and Energy
• May 4, 2003

2
Introduction

• groundWork works with civil society groups
  campaigning for improved health and environmental
  performance in the petro-chemical industry.
• Environment is viewed from a justice and human
  rights perspective.
• Environmental injustice is linked to
  environmental racism where we as black people
  have to live with the externalities of industrial
  production, such as health and environmental risk
  and pollution.
• Civil society who is impacted upon, have not
  being involved in the development of this Bill
  extensive consultation with industry.

3
Why Does Civil Society Need to Be Involved?

• History of pipeline management in South Africa is
  poor, and has impacted upon community people.
• The Department via our publications are
  intimately aware of this.
• According to the Department of Transport
  America has 2,271 million kilometers of oil,
  product and gas pipelines.
• 2000 386 incidents which translates to one
  accident for 5885 kilometers.

4
Cont

• South Africa has just over 3000 kilometers of
  pipeline.
• 2001 5 incidents which translates to one
  accident for every 600 kilometers. Odds of
  incidents in SA is much higher.
• People have been relocate and hospitalized
  because of pipeline problems Shell in South
  Durban.
• Shell/BP has admitted to 264 rust defects on
  their transfer pipelines.

5
Cont

• Between 1966 and 1998 there has been 20
  incidents documented for public knowledge.
• The debates on inland versus coastal refinery was
  not clearly answered by industry DME should
  investigate this and provide a neutral
  perspective on this debate.
• The Bill is being debated only from a profit
  perspective only one reference to
  environmental.
• South Africa has no specific law that deals
  with pipeline safety.

6
Pre-amble and Objectives

• Concern is raised over weather the methane gas
  pipeline network of Sasol gas is covered by this
  Bill, unless it is used to produce a fuel.
• Chemical pipelines do not fall within the ambit.
• Both the above therefore are in the wilderness of
  the unregulated.

7
Cont

• (b) neglects to mention the safe development
  and operations of facilities. It is clear from a
  review of current SA legislation that there is a
  deficiency in that little operational controls
  are to be found for this industry. An objective
  of this Act must be to enhance the safety aspects
  and to go beyond promotion. It is suggested
  that promote be replaced with ensure as is
  found in the section relating to transport.

8
Cont

• (c) transport. There is a dire need to provide
  for standardization in the oil industry
  particularly with regard to application of best
  available technology, the safety standards
  applicable to the industry (US EPA, EU, British
  Dutch, Danish etc etc)

9
Cont

• (f) provide for the security. This can be used
  to allow industry to withhold relevant
  environment information in the name of security.

10
Authority and Members

• 4(1)a(i) the construction and conversion of
  petroleum pipelines ...
• It must be incumbent on the authority to attend
  to specific matters relating to the safe and
  orderly operations of the pipeline and related
  facilities. How the licensee reports to the
  authority and what is a reportable incident.

11
Cont

• 4 (2) a expropriate land or any right in, over
  or in respect of such land as is necessary for
  the exercise of a licensees or registered
  persons rights.
• The authority in all likelihood will be
  industrially aligned, and from recent experience
  in South Durban could lead to people loosing
  their property.
• 6 (2) b broadly representative of South
  African society as a whole.
• This section needs to be clearer on involvement
  of people that are directly impacted upon.

12
Cont

• 8(8)b we argue confidential, proprietary or
  commercially sensitive information has, can and
  will be used to seek to exclude community people
  from accessing information that they will need to
  maintain the constitutional rights to a safe
  environment. The onus should also be on the
  holder of the information needed to provide
  substantial reasons as to why the information and
  therefore the meeting should remain confidential.

13
Cont

• There is a possible conflict between 8(8)b and
  10(1)c.
• We contest that the authority should not be
  allowed to take a decision other than at a formal
  meeting and after all interested and affected
  have had the opportunity to submit their views
  and present the relevant facts
• 8(8)b could be challenged to be unconstitutional

14
Licensing

• 16(2)f specific mention must be made here to
  vulnerable populations and ecological sensitive
  areas.
• It is of concern that the EIA was removed from
  the Bill. It is submitted that retrospective EIA
  should be undertaken on all pipelines that have
  been developed before the EIA regs were
  applicable to ensure health and environmental
  safety as well as to assess the risk impact of
  pipelines on community neighbourhoods.

15
Cont

• No specific detail - existing facilities. As it
  is the existing old facilities that are
  significant cause for concern the following is
  recommended-
• That the facility shall cause to be lodged
  within (X) months an environmental impact
  assessment of current operations as contemplated
  in NEMA detailing especially areas currently
  requiring remediation as well as an
  identification and detail of where incidents
  have occurred before.
• A comprehensive Risk Assessment for the
  facilities and pipeline route traverses showing
  especially vulnerable population groups. Details
  of risk minimization procedures and actions
  (technical as well as management) shall be
  attached to the RA.
• Details of social development plans and projects
  for affected communities exposed to (or bearing)
  significant risk associated with the pipeline and
  storage facilities

16
Cont

• Public participation is essentially excluded from
  the Bills mechanisms no mechanism to advertise
  the fact or encourage or solicit public inputs.
• 17(2)f that objections must be substantiated by
  way of an affidavit or solemn declaration
  appears to be an unnecessary and onerous
  requirement. It is usual for objections to be
  heard in meetings (verbal) in writing/per fax or
  emailed. To require affidavit is cumbersome and
  unnecessary.
• 18(b) The may has to be changed to a must
  to give meaning to protect ensure HSE protection.

17
Cont

• 20(j,n,q) discriminates against community
  people seeking change for improved health, safety
  and environment.
• 20 (i,p) these changes must not jeopardize the
  integrity of the pipeline, off-loading and
  storage.

18
Cont

• 20(1)d Division within industry as to how to
  respond to this.
• Viewed from a profit making perspective.
• Not questioning the environmental dangers of
  changing product.
• Most recent events that placed peoples health
  and safety at risk, was on pipelines with product
  change, i.e. Tongaat (Petronet/Sasol) from crude
  to gas, and South Durban (Shell/BP) from HFO to
  mogas (petrol).
• What is the definition of a case of an
  emergency. This needs to be defined as well as
  some sort of indication as to how time frame will
  be developed.

19
Cross Border Pipelines

• SA companies operating pipelines in other
  countries shall maintain SA standards and
  requirements, unless the local standards and
  requirements are more stringent.
• Companies shall be held liable in South Africa
  for damage to health and environment caused by
  pipelines, storage facililities.

20
Conclusion

• Whereas legislation is in place to govern the
  pre-operational development impacts of a pipeline
  or facility that there is no guidance in law to
  ensure that the public is suitably protected once
  the pipeline and storage facility commences
  operation. It appears that these issues are left
  to the company to pursue or neglect as the case
  may be. Noting the considerable environmental
  threat posed by these facilities and
  installations one would have thought that this
  Bill would have made a determined attempt to
  remedy this deficiency by at least identifying
  measures to be adopted. The core objectives to
  the Bill are consequently not met in terms of the
  proposed legislation.