Centre for Environmental Rights – Advancing Environmental Rights in South Africa

Environmental justice organisations have submitted objections to ArcelorMittal South Africa’s (“AMSA”) application for alternative sulphur dioxide emissions limits that are almost three times higher than the legal limit, arguing that the company has failed to demonstrate that it qualifies for the requirements set out in section 12A of the Minimum Emissions Standards.

(JOHANNESBURG, 02 July 2026) The Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) has formally opposed AMSA’s latest attempt to secure weaker pollution limits for its Vanderbijlpark steel plant, warning that the application would further entrench unlawful air pollution and endanger public health in the Vaal Triangle Airshed Priority Area (VTAPA).

Sulphur dioxide emissions from AMSA’s long-term activities are one of the eight pollutants listed as a threat under section 9 of the Air Quality Act. Sulphur dioxide in particular, is not only harmful as a respiratory irritant, but also a major contributor to the creation of hazardous secondary particulate
matter. These fine particles penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream and are associated with serious health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, premature death and lung cancer.

VEJA submitted that AMSA’s application is not based on a technical inability to comply with air pollution laws, but rather on financial considerations. The communities further argue that technologies capable of reducing harmful emissions are available and widely used, but that AMSA has chosen not to
Implement them because of the associated costs.

“AMSA has not shown that compliance is impossible”, the organisation states in its objections. “Instead, the application reflects a decision to avoid the cost of compliance while communities continue to bear the burden of pollution.”

The objections emphasise that residents living in and around the area of AMSA’s facility have endured years of exposure to harmful air pollution, with significant consequences for their health, environmental quality, and constitutional rights. AMSA’s history of seeking exemptions and weaker pollution limits has been the subject of sustained opposition and litigation by affected communities and environmental rights groups.

“It is about protecting the rule of law”

VEJA further submitted that their objections are to protect the rule of law. Mosangoaneng Leteane, Candidate Legal Practitioner at CER, said that should the court grant AMSA’s application, this would undermine the recent gains and ongoing battle in terms of the air quality regulatory framework.

“Section 12A, the legal mechanism relied upon by AMSA, is currently the subject of a constitutional challenge by the VEJA and environmental justice organisation, groundWork,” says Leteane. Mduduzi Tshabalala, Programme Manager at VEJA, adds: “Approving a new alternative emission limit while the legality and scope of section 12A is still in question would undermine the outcome of ongoing litigation. Such a decision could further weaken the enforcement of South Africa’s air quality laws and create a dangerous precedent for continued non-compliance by major polluters.

The polluter, and not the community, pays

The objections note that alternative emission limits were never intended to provide industries with an indefinite pathway to avoid compliance. The communities argue that AMSA has failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary for an alternative emission limit and that granting the application would allow harmful pollution to continue to the detriment of surrounding communities and the environment.

Previous legal challenges have similarly argued that AMSA does not meet the statutory requirements for weaker emission limits and that continued leniency infringes on affected communities and their constitutional rights to an environment that is not harmful to health and well-being as provided in terms of section 24 and other interrelated rights.

A call for accountability

The objections by VEJA call on the relevant authorities to reject AMSA’s application for alternative emissions limits and enforce existing Minimum Emissions Standards. “The state must ensure industrial polluters comply with South Africa’s environmental laws and uphold the constitutional rights of all people to an environment that is not harmful to their wellbeing,” says Tlabole Masike, VEJA steel and decarbonisation team.

FOR EDITORS:

About VEJA

VEJA is a non-profit environmental justice alliance of five environmental justice organisations with a focus on air quality and health, water quality, waste, energy and climate change in the Vaal area. The Centre for Environmental Rights is a non-profit organisation and law clinic based in Cape Town, South Africa. As a group of activist lawyers, the CER helps communities and civil society organisations in South Africa to realise our Constitutional right to a healthy environment by advocating and litigating for environmental justice.

About Centre for Environmental Rights

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is a dynamic and diverse non-profit public interest environmental law organisation of activists and lawyers based in South Africa. We work with communities and civil society organisations to realise the constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to health or wellbeing. Our vision is a more just and equal society where environmental and climate justice is realised, and development prioritises the health and wellbeing of present and future generations. CER defends the right of communities and civil society organisations to an environment that does not harm the health or wellbeing of present and future generations. We do this by advocating, campaigning, and litigating for environmental justice.

www.cer.org.za

MEDIA ENQUIRIES
Siya Nyulu
Communications Coordinator
[email protected] Kayle
Head of Communications
082-827-8429
[email protected]