SAPREF response to SDCEA accusations
of having lied about danger to the community

November 12, 2002

SAPREF welcomes any constructive input from the community regarding our operations and we are committed to working with community organisations to improve conditions in south Durban. This is why SAPREF has engaged in a number of environmental initiatives to dramatically reduce emissions in the past few years. So we are taken aback by the sensationalist accusations leveled at us by SDCEA.

More than R450 million has been invested in environmental improvements since 1993. Last month we successfully commissioned a new R350 million sulphur recovery plant which will almost halve our SO2 emissions, reducing them to an average of 20 tons a day from next year. This means we have reduced SO2 emissions by more than 60 percent in the last seven years.

When incidents that affect the community occur at SAPREF we are always open about this and hence they are a matter of public record. Our constant aim is to improve our environmental performance and we intend to eliminate incidents by learning and moving forward.

On the day of the Metro power failure on 23 October, we said that the hydrocarbon vapours burnt at the flare were mostly propane and butane and this is still true. When we said there was no need for health concerns we meant it. The products flared by oil refineries all over the world are very similar, flaring is generally of short duration and we know of no significant health risks anywhere from this source. We did not lie when we sought to assure residents that they need not be concerned - this is our genuine belief.

SDCEA's air quality results raise more questions than answers and the end result is to confuse the public. SDCEA focus on benzene and phenol in the sample. The results they discuss in the text of their statement contradict the readings in the table attached to the statement. For example there is a zero phenol level in the table compared to their claim of 123ppb. Benzene on the other hand is present in the table but not at the same level as discussed in the text. We cannot understand the figures.

We have no idea where the sample was taken, nor the wind direction at the time, but when SDCEA have provided this information and corrected their figures we will be able to make a more sensible comment.

SDCEA goes on to note that the petrol spill in Angelier Road amounted to three million litres. We have at all times informed the public and the media of progress at the site and it is widely known that our best estimate for that spill is one million litres.

We find this confusing and it gives us little confidence that their figures are correct.
We are awaiting other air sample analysis taken on 23 October and until that arrives it is difficult to make any other observations on this issue.