15 March 2007 - Media
Statement - Minister Announces Decision
on Appeals - THURSDAY, 15 MARCH 2007: Marthinus
van Schalkwyk, Minister of Environmental
Affairs & Tourism, has considered the
appeals lodged against the Record of Decision
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
(ROD) GRANTED FOR THE PROPOSED PHASE 1B
EXPANSION OF THE SISHEN-SALDANHA IRON ORE
EXPORT CORRIDOR, SALDANHA BAY, WESTERN CAPE
1. INTRODUCTION
The Director-General 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. R. 1183 of 5 September
1997, issued a Record of Decision (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 (thirty
eight) million tons per annum (MTPA) to
45 (forty five) MTPA.
2.2 The planned expansion of the current
facility will include:
a) Reclamation of evaporation dams.
b) Reclamation of the oyster farm to 10m
east of the stacker re-claimer slab.
c) Development of 1 new stockyard with stacker
re-claimer and conveyors.
d) Construction of a new deck on the existing
caisson (retaining, water-tight structure)
at the berth.
e) Extension of quay slab by 1 caisson onto
the old quay.
f) Lengthening of conveyor 215 and modifications
to conveyor 114 and 215.
g) Construction of 2-track stacker reclaimers
no. 4 north and no. 4 south.
h) Lengthening of the rails on the quay.
i) Construction of conveyor stacker re-claimer
no. 4 and new sampling building.
j) Construction of direct feed conveyor
from tipper 2.
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 of the Department
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT),
in terms of section 22 of the Environment
Conservation Act, 1989, (ECA) read with
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Regulations published in Government Notice
No. R. 1183 of 5 September 1997, issued
the Record of Decision in this matter on
04 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 authorization 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 2
appeals on behalf of various persons and
organizations, namely:
3.1.1 an appeal lodged by Mr M H Duckitt
on behalf the Cape West Coast Biosphere
Reserve Company (CWCBRC); and
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 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; and that
the
(b) RoD does not embody the provisions of
a letter from Transnet COO, Mr. Louis v
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
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 (thirty
eight) million tons per annum (MTPA) to
45 (forty five) MTPA. I am not convinced
that adequate facts were placed before me
that warrant the setting aside of the original
Record of Decision issued by the Director-General.
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 authorization
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.
MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MP
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
