expansion of the Sishen-Saldanha iron ore export corridor
15 March 2007
Marthinus van Schalkwyk, Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, has
considered the appeals lodged against the Record of Decision (ROD) that was
granted for the proposed phase 1B expansion of the Sishen-Saldanha iron ore
export corridor, Saldanha Bay, Western Cape. The full text of the Minister's
decision relating to the appeals is appended below.
Appeal decision
Appeals against the Record of Decision granted for the proposed phase 1B
expansion of the Sishen-Saldanha iron ore export corridor, Saldanha Bay,
Western Cape
1. Introduction
The Director-General (DG) of the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (DEAT), in terms of section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act,
1989, read with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations published in
Government Notice No R1183 of 5 September 1997, issued a ROD for the proposed
phase 1B expansion of the Sishen-Saldanha iron ore export corridor in Saldanha
Bay, Western Cape. Two appellants lodged appeals against this decision and I am
required to decide this matter on appeal.
2. Background
2.1 The applicant in this matter is Transnet Limited. The development that
is the subject of this appeal entails the increase in the handling capacity of
the bulk terminal at Saldanha Bay from the current 38 million tons per annum
(MTPA) to 45 MTPA.
2.2 The planned expansion of the current facility will include:
a) reclamation of evaporation dams
b) reclamation of the oyster farm to 10 metres east of the stacker re-claimer
slab
c) development of one new stockyard with stacker re-claimer and conveyors
d) construction of a new deck on the existing caisson (retaining, watertight
structure) at the berth
e) extension of quay slab by one caisson onto the old quay
f) lengthening of conveyor 215 and modifications to conveyor 114 and 215
g) construction of two-track stacker re-claimers number four north and number
four south
h) lengthening of the rails on the quay
i) construction of conveyor stacker re-claimer number four and new sampling
building
j) construction of direct feed conveyor from tipper two
k) relocation of infrastructure on oil quay
l) accommodation of oil pipeline
m) construction of new sampling plant
n) replacement of existing rail on ship loader quay.
2.3 The Director-General (DG) of the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (DEAT), in terms of section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act
(ECA), 1989, read with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations
published in Government Notice No R1183 of 5 September 1997 issued the ROD in
this matter on 4 August 2006. Application for the proposed expansion was made
under the ECA and consequently under the EIA regulations and will have to be
finalised in terms thereof.
2.4 The reason that has been put forward by the applicant in this matter is
that there has been a significant increase in international demand for iron ore
and it has been approached by mining companies wishing to increase the volume
of the iron ore currently being exported through Transnet's iron ore handling
facility with their ultimate goal being a maximum of 93 MTPA.
2.5 During 2005, Transnet applied to DEAT for authorisation of the phase 1B
expansion of the port's capacity from 38 MTPA to 45 MTPA and it is this
decision that is being appealed.
3. Appeals
3.1. After the record of decision in this matter was granted, my office
received two appeals on behalf of various persons and organisations namely:
3.1.1 an appeal lodged by Mr MH Duckitt on behalf the Cape West Coast
Biosphere Reserve Company (CWCBRC)
3.1.2 an appeal from Mr M Rothenburg on behalf the Saldanha Bay Action Group
(SBAG).
3.2 Several grounds of appeal emerged from the above appeals that I will
attempt to summarise as far as is possible:
3.2.1 Mr Duckitt on behalf of the CWCBRC
(a) The process does not sufficiently take cognisance of local on the ground
issues.
(b) The function of the environmental compliance officer (ECO) and monitoring
of the project to be done by someone from the area, e.g. CWCBRC members. He
also questions whether the environmental management committee (EMC) actually
functions.
(c) His complaint is that no records have been provided despite requests to do
so. He indicated that the EMC records have specifically not been made
available.
(d) the following concerns were also listed:
(i) dust control
(ii) altering of the seabed and consequences to the adjacent coastline
(iii) oil spillage containment inadequacies.
(e) he indicates as well that all audit measurements must be to the
requisite International Organisation for Standards (ISO)/SANS standard and be
specifically monitored.
3.2.2 Mr Rothenberg on behalf of SBAG
(a) He intimated that the approval for the listed activities does not
coincide with that set out in the description of the phase 1B upgrade as
presented during the EIA process and he makes reference to paragraph 11 of the
minutes of the public meeting held on 17 November 2005.
(b) ROD does not embody the provisions of a letter from Transnet COO, Mr Louis
van Niekerk, dated 3 March 2006.
(c) #3,6 refers to reducing the dust footprint so as not to extend beyond the
Saldanha Langebaan road.
(d) #4 which refers to the repainting of the affected houses.
In addition to the above appeals, the applicant's consultants have responded
to the allegations made by the respective appellants and their constituencies.
The Department has also made a submission in this regard to my office together
with various other documents that they considered to be relevant to the matter
at hand.
4. Decision
4.1 In reaching my decision, I have considered the information contained in
the following documents:
(a) the project file
(b) the ROD issued for this development dated 4 August 2006
(c) a location map of the port of Saldanha
(d) the appeals lodged in this matter
(e) the response of the applicant to the appeals lodged
(f) e-mail correspondence between one of the appellants and the
Department
(g) the additional information relating to this appeal as received from the
board members of CWCBRC
(h) the response of the applicant to the additional information supplied
(i) the Department's submission in relation to the appeals.
4.2 The appellants appear to be mainly concerned about possible degradation
of the environment as a result of the proposed expansion. In addition, it
appears that there is dissatisfaction on the part of the appellants with regard
to the provision of information as well as with regard to the functioning of
the EMC and also the ECO.
4.3 I have perused the documentation in this matter and I am of the view
that notwithstanding that the proposed expansion will have certain negative
environmental impacts, these impacts can be successfully mitigated, provided
that the conditions in the ROD will be complied with by the applicant. As far
as the functions of the EMC and the ECO are concerned, I direct that they
respectively and collectively ensure that the appellants are made part of
alternatively, aware of their respective processes. I direct further that the
applicant reports on the progress made in this regard on a monthly basis to the
Department, I am of the view that appropriate communication about the
interventions that have been put in place will go a long way to addressing the
fears of the appellants.
4.4 In terms of section 35(4) of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act
No 73 of 1989) and after considering all the information before me, I have
decided to dismiss the appeals lodged against the decision to increase in the
handling capacity of the bulk terminal at Saldanha Bay from the current 38 MTPA
to 45 MTPA. I am not convinced that adequate facts were placed before me that
warrant the setting aside of the original ROD issued by the DG.
4.5 The reasons, in addition to the issues mentioned above for my decision
are inter alia as follows:
a. Despite the environmental risks associated with this project, I am of the
view that they can be successfully mitigated.
b. Furthermore, I am of the view that the environmental impact assessment
complies with the requirements of the EIA regulations in force at the time when
the decision was made. The information submitted by the independent
environmental consultants during the authorisation process and also during the
appeal process is deemed to be sufficient and adequate to make an informed
decision.
c. The public participation process that was followed as part of the EIA
process conformed to most of the requirements of the EIA regulations, albeit
that I have now strengthened this requirement by directing that information be
made available to the appellants.
d. As indicated, negative environmental impacts associated with the project
can be sufficiently mitigated, provided that the conditions contained in this
record of decision are implemented and adhered to.
e. No fatal flaws were identified by me during the EIA process.
f. I am satisfied that this project will not have a significant detrimental
impact on the environment provided that the conditions under which this
activity is authorised are implemented.
g. I have also had to consider during the decision making process the social
and economic impact of the proposed expansion and I am of the view that the
need for this expansion has been adequately demonstrated in relation to these
parameters.
4.6 The reasons that I have set out above are however not exhaustive and
should not be construed as such and I reserve the right to provide
comprehensive reasons for the decision should this become necessary.
Issued by: Ministry for Environmental Affairs and Tourism
15 March 2007
