M van Schalkwyk: Container Terminal Stacking Area

21 September 2007

The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, today authorised the
expansion of the container terminal stacking area in the Port of Cape Town,
after considering various alternatives. The alternative approved was to permit
the reconfiguration of the container terminal whilst staying within the
existing container terminal boundaries. The expansion of the container terminal
stacking area in the Port of Cape Town is subject to the conditions listed in
the Record of Decision.

Record of decision

Record of decision for project reference 12/12/20/459, the proposed
expansion of the Container Terminal Stacking Area in the Port of Cape Town,
Western Cape

By virtue of the power vested in me in terms of section 33(1) of the
Environment Conservation Act, (Act 73 of 1989) ("the Act"), I hereby, in terms
of section 22(3) of the Act, authorise the National Ports Authority of South
Africa, Port of Cape Town, to undertake the activity specified/detailed below
subject to the conditions indicated in this Record of Decision (ROD).

1. Description of the activity

The National Ports Authority applied for the expansion of the container
terminal at the Port of Cape Town. Various alternatives were considered. The
alternative approved to achieve the above mentioned expansion would entail
reconfiguration which involves maximising the potential stack capacity within
the Cape Town Container Terminal (CTCT) while staying within the existing
container terminal boundaries. This will also include the demolition of the
non-essential existing infrastructure and buildings and resurfacing of this
area to increase the stack capacity. The reconfiguration comprises of the
following:

1. The conversion to a Rubber Tyred Gantry operation
2 the relocation of the reefers to the long jetty (behind Berths 600 to
604)
3. The conversion of areas currently occupied by South African Container Depots
(SACD) and South African Port Operations (SAPO) to increase stack area
alongside Duncan Road
4. Increase in reefer points to approximately 5 000
5. Upgrading of the electrical reticulation system and power supply (including
the substation)
6. The conversion of the terminal marshalling yard to a port security and
terminal staging area
7. Minor amendments to the rail lines to maintain continuity to the rest of the
port, the main connection to the port is through Paarden Eiland
8. The relocation of the entrance and exit gates (including the building)
9. The demolition of a part of the existing T-bridge structure
10. The demolition of existing Transnet (National Ports Authority [NPA] and
SAPO) buildings, including the NPA Engineering building, the NPA and SAPO
workshops; the existing terminal gate structures and other smaller NPA and SAPO
offices and buildings
11. The implementation of new communication and operating systems
12. The alteration to the existing and the addition of a new storm water
drainage, sewer and pump stations
13. The provision of new and relocation of existing high mast lighting
14. The provision of new reefer steel access platforms
15. The existing road access from Marine Drive will be maintained.

The proposed activity is captured as listed activity 1 (e) in terms of the
Environment Conservation Act (Act No 73 of 1989) as follows:

1. The construction and upgrading of:
1(e) marinas, harbours and all structures below the high-water mark of the sea;
(Marinas, harbours and all structures below the high-water mark of the sea
means any facility where vessels arrive, depart from, handling cargo or receive
services)

2. Location

The proposed activity will take place at the Cape Town container terminal
(berths 601-604) which forms part of Cape Town harbour in the Western Cape
province. The site in which the proposed activity is located falls within the
boundaries of the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality.

3. Applicant

National Ports Authority of South Africa, Port of Cape Town Private Bag x 4
Gallo Manor
2052

Contact person: Mr Rudy Basson
Fax no: 011 239 5826

4. Consultant

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Environmentek
P.O. Box 320
Stellenbosch
7599

Contact person:
Henry Fortuin
Fax: 021 888 2693

5. Key decision-making factors

5.1 Information considered:

In reaching my decision in respect of this application I have, inter-alia,
taken the following information into consideration:

5.1.1. the final environmental impact report
5.1.2. the concerns raised by appellants, particularly with regard to beach
erosion and the impacts of beach nourishment on nearby communities
5.1.3. the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research's (CSIR's) response
to the appeals
5.1.4. the departments' response to the appeals
5.1.5. the specialist report by external experts, Mr Willem Botes and Mr Pieter
Badenhorst, commissioned by the Minister
5.1.6. the alternative option study investigating the inland port and harbour
redesign options: summary report, in response to my initial appeal
decision.

5.2 Findings

In reviewing the information referred to above, I have made the following
observations:

5.2.1 The National Ports Authority (NPA) has clearly demonstrated the need
to increase the capacity of the container terminal. The NPAs' calculations have
adequately shown the economic feasibility of expanding the container terminal
in order to deal with the current and future container import and export
needs
5.2.2 There was a public participation process undertaken by the CSIR and they
have satisfied the requirements as prescribed in the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) regulations
5.2.3 The option of utilising other ports such as Saldanha is not feasible.

5.3 Alternatives

The National Ports Authority initially explored the following six
alternatives:

1. The expansion of the existing stacking yard through reclamation of an
area 300 metres wide, parallel to and seawards of the existing container
terminal to increase the container terminal size by about 47,5 hectares
(ha)

2. Locations within the inland of port of Cape Town with a minimum extent of
70 ha including the:

* Culemborg site (East of Church Street)
* Culemborg site (West of Church Street)
* Port Industrial Park site
* Transnet land near Century City
* Belcon Intermodal Facility on the Cape Flats

3. Reconfiguration of the existing container terminal and the clearing and
development of the onshore areas of the container terminal to make provision
for stacking areas

4. Remote stacking areas with a minimum extent of 47,5 ha

5. The complete relocation of the container terminal to Duncan Dock which
requires infilling of Duncan Dock and relocation of Duncan Dock facilities to
Ben Schoeman Dock

6. The infilling of Eastern Mole to create new berths on the Ben Schoeman
Dockside and relocation of existing facilities on Eastern Mole to an
alternative location.

5.4. Feasible alternatives

Three potentially feasible alternatives were identified out of the six
alternatives discussed above and these were investigated and compared in
detail. These were:

* The expansion of the existing stacking yard through reclamation of an 300
metres wide area parallel to and seawards of the existing container terminal to
increase the container terminal size by about 47,5 ha
* The reconfiguration of the existing container terminal and the clearing and
development of the onshore areas of the container terminal to make provision
for stacking areas
* The development of an inland port at Belcon Intermodal Facility on the Cape
Flats.

The detailed comparative analysis has shown that the development of the
inland port at the Belcon Intermodal Facility on the Cape Flats is a feasible
option, but that it will have major impacts on the working culture, it has the
highest cost (Net Present Value) in terms of port operations, the logistics of
transporting goods between the port and Belcon will be complex and that the
disruptions to the flow of goods between the Cape Town Container Terminal and
Belcon would have major impacts on the ability of the port to handle the
required through put.

The expansion of the existing stacking yard through reclamation of an area
300 metres wide parallel to and seawards of the existing container terminal to
increase the container terminal size by about 47,5 ha is the best option for
improving operational efficiency. However, this would have an impact on the
wave climate and the coastal processes. This finding is based on the
indications from the investigations that were undertaken for exploring this
option. This option has an alternative borrow site for sourcing reclamation
fill that has far less negative impacts than the original borrow site
identified in the Environmental Impact Report. Notwithstanding its lessened
impact, this option is not recommended.

The reconfiguration of the existing container terminal and the clearing and
development of the onshore areas of the container terminal to make provision
for stacking areas is recommended, although it is not the preferred option with
regard to the efficiency in operations. Nonetheless, it is possible to make it
operationally viable and it is considerably cheaper when compared to inland
port and reclamation alternatives. The most compelling reasons for
recommendation of this option is that it has limited environmental impact as it
eliminates the need for reclamation and other marine construction activities as
well as the fact that it is an existing brown field site used for purposes
similar to the proposed development that does not require additional land
beyond the existing terminal boundaries. The required land for this option
belongs to NPA and this limits the need for additional land negotiations.

5.5. Conclusion

Based on the above, I have concluded that this development, as authorised
according to the provisions and conditions stipulated in Section six of this
record of decision, will not lead to substantial detrimental impact on the
environment, that potential negative impacts resulting from this development
can be mitigated to acceptable levels and that the principles of section two of
National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) can be upheld.

I have accordingly decided to grant National Ports Authority of South
Africa, Port of Cape Town authorisation in terms of regulations under
Government Notice No. R. 1183 (as amended) promulgated under section 22, 26 and
28 of the Environment Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989), subject to the
conditions and provisions stipulated in Section 6 of this record of
decision.

6. Conditions

6.1. Description and extent of the activity

The authorisation applies in respect of the reconfiguration of the existing
container terminal together with the clearing and development of the onshore
areas of the container terminal to make provision for stacking areas as further
described in paragraph one of this record of decision (RoD).

6.2 General conditions

6.2.1. This authorisation is granted in terms of section 22 of the
Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) and does not exempt the
holder thereof from compliance with any other legislation.
6.2.2. One week's notice, in writing, must be given to this department before
commencement of the construction activity. Such notice shall make clear
reference to the site location details and reference number given above.
6.2.3. The applicant must, within seven calendar days of receipt of this record
of decision inform all interested and affected parties of the following that
the authorisation has been issued to the applicant to precede with the
construction and operation of the activity. If requested, provide copies of
this record of decision.
6.2.4. The applicant must notify this department, in writing, within 48 hours
therefore if any condition of the authorisation is not complied with.
6.2.5. A copy of the authorisation should be made available on site during
construction and all staff, contractors and sub-constructors should be familiar
with or be made familiar of the contents of this authorisation. In addition the
applicant must take measures necessary to bind such persons to comply with the
contents of this authorisation.
6.2.6. Records relating to the compliance and non-compliance with the
conditions of this authorisation must be kept in good order. Such records shall
be made available to this department within seven days of receipt of a written
request by the department for such records.
6.2.7. Changes in the project resulting in significant environmental impacts
are only permissible if approved in writing by this department.
6.2.8. This department may add to, change and or amend any of the conditions in
this authorisation if, in the opinion of the department, the addition, change
or amendments are environmentally justified.
6.2.9. This department must be notified, within 30 days thereof, of any change
of ownership and or project developer. Conditions imposed in this authorisation
must be made known to the new owner and/or developer and are binding to
them
6.2.10. This department must be notified of any change of address of the
applicant within 48 hours.
6.2.11 If any conditions imposed in terms of this authorisation are not being
complied with, the authorisation may be withdrawn after 30 days written notice
to the applicant in terms of section 22(4) of the Environment Conservation Act
(Act No. 73 of 1989).
6.2.12. Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall be regarded as an
offence and may be dealt with in terms of sections 29,30,31 and 31A of the
Environment Conservation Act, 1989 ( Act No. 73 of 1989), as well as any other
appropriate legal mechanisms.
6.2.13. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs necessary to comply
with the above conditions unless otherwise specified.
6.2.14. Any complaint from the public during the construction and operation of
the development must be attended to as soon as possible to the satisfaction of
the parties concerned. A complaint register must be kept up to date and shall
be produced upon request.
6.2.15. Any changes to or deviations from the project description set out in
this authorisation must be approved, in writing, by the department before such
changes or deviations may be affected. In evaluating such changes, the
department may request such information as it deems necessary to evaluate the
significance and impacts of such changes.

6.3 Specific conditions

6.3.1. The NPA must appoint or designate an official (environmental control
officer) whose duty will be to ensure that the conditions stipulated in this
record of decision are implemented. The name of such an environmental control
officer shall be made available to the authorities for communication
purposes.
6.3.2. An integrated waste management approach that is based on best practice
that incorporates reduction, recycling, re-uses and disposal should be used.
Any solid waste must be disposed of at a landfill, licensed in terms of section
20 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989).
6.3.3. All provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993 and
any other applicable legislation must be adhered to by the holder of this
authorisation.
6.3.4. Mitigation measures stipulated in the environmental impact report become
part of this authorization. Non-compliance with any of these mitigation
measures constitutes non-compliance with this record of decision.

7. Site visits

Site visits were undertaken on different occasions by:

Mr V Matubane: National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Mr
Fezile Ndema: National Ports Authority of South Africa Ms Marelize Oosthuisen
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning and again
consequent upon the appeal process by Mrs L McCourt
National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Mr W Fourie
National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Mr R Basson - National
Ports Authority

8. Duration and date of expiry

If the activity authorised by this record of decision does not commence
within a period of five years from the date of signature of this record of
decision, the authorisation will lapse and the applicant will need to reapply
in terms of the applicable legislation or any amendments thereto.

9. Consequences of non-compliance

The applicant must comply with the conditions set out in this record of
decision. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions may result in,
inter-alia, the department withdrawing the authorisation, issuing directives to
address the non-compliance including an order to cease the activity as well as
instituting criminal and or civil proceedings to enforce compliance.

Please note that this revised record of decision is issued as part of the
Minister's decision on the appeals lodged in terms of Section 35 (3) of the Act
against the authorisation granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism on 12 November 2004.

Issued by: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
21 September 2007