cosors
👀
"The County Administrative Board believes that the graphite mine can be permitted with conditions
- My page
- Because
- The planned graphite mine in Nunasvaara in Norrbotten can coexist with the reindeer industry. That assessment is made by the County Administrative Board in Norrbotten. But Talma Samiby, which is affected by the plans, does not think so.
- Anna-Carin Ohlsson is unit manager in environmental protection at Norrbotten county board says that the mine can be permitted but then the company must follow conditions.
- The Land and Environmental Court's decision in the matter is expected to come on April 5"
cosors
👀
I am glad that I am in agreement with the County Administrative Board.
"The County Administrative Board believes that the graphite mine can be permitted with conditions
Published Friday 24 February at 09.06
- My page
- Because
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/om-gruvan-ska-tillatas-ska-de-folja-villkor-tycker-lansstyrelsen
- The planned graphite mine in Nunasvaara in Norrbotten can coexist with the reindeer industry. That assessment is made by the County Administrative Board in Norrbotten. But Talma Samiby, which is affected by the plans, does not think so.
- Anna-Carin Ohlsson is unit manager in environmental protection at Norrbotten county board says that the mine can be permitted but then the company must follow conditions.
- The Land and Environmental Court's decision in the matter is expected to come on April 5"
I show this to you to support my opinion that there can be a coexistence without problems and protecting all interests.
Life does not have to end here.
I just wanted to look at the impressive pictures of the maps from Sami again.
https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/sweden-home-of-tlgs-graphite-mine-s.31382/post-146600
Also note that the corridor and their territory ends a few kilometres to the east, apart from the fact that the territory is east of the border (dashed line) anyway, which changes things to their disadvantage.
cosors
👀
Thank you and you others!
And thank you for your tip!
My original question was about what the radio station bases its positive statement on. That was in the document what was newly uploaded as I see it. The court will take this view of the state side and weigh it against the view of the opposing party from environmental protection association together with Sami.
Before the decision, we will not know anything that would allow us to draw conclusions about the court's decision. If the SP should possibly rise before the decision it cannot be differentiated for us whether this happens because of bets or smart money.
In any case, we do know the view of the two disputing parties (three) but not what the court will draw from this for a compromise or settlement. I do not see a formal error at the moment even if the lawyer of the other party would like to have that.
I always try to be neutral in the middle or compromise. I don't take an extreme position anywhere as far as I know. So my point was that my post is not considered pushing. Let's stick to the facts. I will go into that later in The Bar as well.
beserk
Regular
Some historical and more recent background to the division of lands and their use in northern Sweden or Sapmi in particular regarding the ruling of the County Administrative Board on the mining activity proposed on the land surrounding Njunisvarri or Nunasvaara.
As rightly pointed out here, there is a border that defines the extent of Talma year around grazing land to the west of Njunisvarri. This border, Odlingsgränsen, was originally drawn to separate the Finnish speaking colonist or squatters, that traveled up Torne river in boats summertime, erected semipermanent fishing camps, and fished in Vittangisuando, and Rovasuando, in the early 17th century, from the Sami and their reindeer.
Vittangi village was finally settled permanently in 1674. Long before the Odlingsgränsen was defined and indeed before the national border separating Sweden from Norway further west was drawn in 1751. So the reason Odlingsgränsen lies where it does 6 km upstream of Vittangi village was so the squatters rights were recognised.
Now my relatives in Vittangi continue fish and hunt along the Torne river upstream of the bridge across the river that takes you across to Njunisvarre ie on Talma traditional lands.
Another Sami village, Girjas, has recently won a land mark case in the Supreme Court of Sweden that acknowledges their full and absolute hunting and fishing rights as part of the land use rights of Girjas Sami village which impacts non Sami hunters and fishers.
My relatives that are part of the Finnish speaking settlers and have lived in the Torne river valley for generations have followed this case closely and are naturally interested to see if Talma Sami village will claim the same all inclusive cultural rights to the natural resources In the area.
However, as you know, the Swedish State own everything underground, so the conflict here is not one of ownership of any minerals ie graphite but of the possible negative impact on the Sami cultural use of the land. And that is the battle we are seeing unfold, ancient cultural use of land between Sami vs the hundreds year old fishing and hunting rights of Finnish speaking colonists of Vittangi vs the green transitioning of the modern world.
IMO the non Sami protesters from Vittangi, who turned up at the Talga Open Days last Northern autumn, were not representative of the Finnish speaking majority of Vittangi but people from elsewhere and some fraction of new age, fly-in Green party voters that are camping out in the Vittangi forests.
- beserk
As rightly pointed out here, there is a border that defines the extent of Talma year around grazing land to the west of Njunisvarri. This border, Odlingsgränsen, was originally drawn to separate the Finnish speaking colonist or squatters, that traveled up Torne river in boats summertime, erected semipermanent fishing camps, and fished in Vittangisuando, and Rovasuando, in the early 17th century, from the Sami and their reindeer.
Vittangi village was finally settled permanently in 1674. Long before the Odlingsgränsen was defined and indeed before the national border separating Sweden from Norway further west was drawn in 1751. So the reason Odlingsgränsen lies where it does 6 km upstream of Vittangi village was so the squatters rights were recognised.
Now my relatives in Vittangi continue fish and hunt along the Torne river upstream of the bridge across the river that takes you across to Njunisvarre ie on Talma traditional lands.
Another Sami village, Girjas, has recently won a land mark case in the Supreme Court of Sweden that acknowledges their full and absolute hunting and fishing rights as part of the land use rights of Girjas Sami village which impacts non Sami hunters and fishers.
My relatives that are part of the Finnish speaking settlers and have lived in the Torne river valley for generations have followed this case closely and are naturally interested to see if Talma Sami village will claim the same all inclusive cultural rights to the natural resources In the area.
However, as you know, the Swedish State own everything underground, so the conflict here is not one of ownership of any minerals ie graphite but of the possible negative impact on the Sami cultural use of the land. And that is the battle we are seeing unfold, ancient cultural use of land between Sami vs the hundreds year old fishing and hunting rights of Finnish speaking colonists of Vittangi vs the green transitioning of the modern world.
IMO the non Sami protesters from Vittangi, who turned up at the Talga Open Days last Northern autumn, were not representative of the Finnish speaking majority of Vittangi but people from elsewhere and some fraction of new age, fly-in Green party voters that are camping out in the Vittangi forests.
- beserk
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Thank you very much for the interesting insight!
If you should find an error among my research and posts somewhere here then please let me know so that I can correct it immediately. There is a lot of work in all the research but I am only human and can make mistakes.
cosors
👀
@WheresTheMonkey
The court of Norrbotten, i.e. the one in Umea, will judge us and the corresponding page is here:
https://www.domstol.se/umea-tingsratt/om-tingsratten/aktuellt/kungorelse/
I think a trading halt is absolutely fair and necessary.
I can't tell if the verdict is only virtual or in persona. I can imagine the latter since it is a common procedure for a court. But I am a complete layman when it comes to jurisprudence. If it is announced in persona and is not openly available on their page beforehand but only after the verdict I can imagine that the fastest ones are, as so often, the journalists of svt NYHETER.
But to search on this page makes no sense because the search function does not work properly. But if you search for example on Google for e.g. "svt+Talga" then I can imagine that they are faster than the court puts the info on their page.
For such searches I recommend to first switch Google to Swedish language ('svenska') top right via the gear icon, to set the search language under search filter ('Verktyg') also to Swedish ('Alla sprak' => 'Sök svenska sidor') and the period to the last 24h or the last day ('Senaste dygnet'). This way you focus the search results very strongly and find things you would not find otherwise. Furthermore, when searching in this way it can help to use the case numbers of the authorities or the court. You can find them in my posts on the subject. They are for example 'M 1573-20'. An overview of our procedures can be found at the Norrbotten County Council here: https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/norrbotten/om-oss/vart-uppdrag/aktuella-tillstandsprocesser.html
But since Sweden is in the same time zone as us I think that day I'll be sure to see what's going on. I would like to say that I have often thought that this body of different people has a great responsibility not to let any information leak out. There must be a lot of pressure not to tell friends or acquaintances beforehand. How this is handled internally is unclear to me. Perhaps it is also in such a way that the judgement is formed live thus all responsible persons of the committee deliver their voice and the judge speaks then the judgement. As I said, I am a layman.
I think on the other hand that it does not really depend on this day if a trading halt comes. We could follow everything at rest.
Last thought: March 14th will be very important for us (CRMA).
Somewhere in this report (link to the PDF) I mean somewhere in a footnote maybe under a graphic it says that NG and criticality needs to be reevaluated. I think that's an ultimately important thing because it's probably the basis for classification as a resource of national interest in Sweden. So my next focus is on this new or updated report.
But I think this already points in the right direction:
'Concerning individual CRMs, even in a less ambitious scenario (consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement goals: climate stabilisation at 'well below2° C global temperature rise'), the IEA estimates that demand for lithium would grow globally 42-fold by 2040 compared with today, graphite 25-fold, cobalt 21-fold and nickel 19-fold.
...
The supply of CRMs is often more concentrated than that of fossil fuels. For instance, primary supply of lithium, cobalt, graphite, REE and platinum group metals are highly concentrated, which represents a risk for market stability (Figure4).'
I hope this helps.
https://thestockexchange.com.au/thr...olicy-10th-mar-2023-1-08pm.160430/post-258337
The court of Norrbotten, i.e. the one in Umea, will judge us and the corresponding page is here:
https://www.domstol.se/umea-tingsratt/om-tingsratten/aktuellt/kungorelse/
I think a trading halt is absolutely fair and necessary.
I can't tell if the verdict is only virtual or in persona. I can imagine the latter since it is a common procedure for a court. But I am a complete layman when it comes to jurisprudence. If it is announced in persona and is not openly available on their page beforehand but only after the verdict I can imagine that the fastest ones are, as so often, the journalists of svt NYHETER.
But to search on this page makes no sense because the search function does not work properly. But if you search for example on Google for e.g. "svt+Talga" then I can imagine that they are faster than the court puts the info on their page.
For such searches I recommend to first switch Google to Swedish language ('svenska') top right via the gear icon, to set the search language under search filter ('Verktyg') also to Swedish ('Alla sprak' => 'Sök svenska sidor') and the period to the last 24h or the last day ('Senaste dygnet'). This way you focus the search results very strongly and find things you would not find otherwise. Furthermore, when searching in this way it can help to use the case numbers of the authorities or the court. You can find them in my posts on the subject. They are for example 'M 1573-20'. An overview of our procedures can be found at the Norrbotten County Council here: https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/norrbotten/om-oss/vart-uppdrag/aktuella-tillstandsprocesser.html
But since Sweden is in the same time zone as us I think that day I'll be sure to see what's going on. I would like to say that I have often thought that this body of different people has a great responsibility not to let any information leak out. There must be a lot of pressure not to tell friends or acquaintances beforehand. How this is handled internally is unclear to me. Perhaps it is also in such a way that the judgement is formed live thus all responsible persons of the committee deliver their voice and the judge speaks then the judgement. As I said, I am a layman.
I think on the other hand that it does not really depend on this day if a trading halt comes. We could follow everything at rest.
Last thought: March 14th will be very important for us (CRMA).
Somewhere in this report (link to the PDF) I mean somewhere in a footnote maybe under a graphic it says that NG and criticality needs to be reevaluated. I think that's an ultimately important thing because it's probably the basis for classification as a resource of national interest in Sweden. So my next focus is on this new or updated report.
But I think this already points in the right direction:
Securing Europe's supply of critical raw materials: The material nature of the EU's strategic goals
Briefing 09-03-2023'Concerning individual CRMs, even in a less ambitious scenario (consistent with meeting the Paris Agreement goals: climate stabilisation at 'well below2° C global temperature rise'), the IEA estimates that demand for lithium would grow globally 42-fold by 2040 compared with today, graphite 25-fold, cobalt 21-fold and nickel 19-fold.
...
The supply of CRMs is often more concentrated than that of fossil fuels. For instance, primary supply of lithium, cobalt, graphite, REE and platinum group metals are highly concentrated, which represents a risk for market stability (Figure4).'
I hope this helps.
Hi Beserk, with your connections in Lulea (your brother I think lives nearby from a previous post?), will you have any people attend the Court decision on 5th April? I’m unsure exactly how/where the decision is delivered and in what capacity the public is privy to hearing such decision, especially with time zones and mammoth ASX regulations to follow.
The exact timing to have Thursday 6th April being the last day of ASX trading prior to Easter weekend which recommences on 11th April (Tuesday) may mean that our calendars require more calendar box ticking
especially if there is also a trading halt and/or a delay in releasing the outcome. Cosors, you are a machine when it comes to researching Court documents/cases, if you happen to have any insight, that would help to know when I exactly write myself at the bar
(no stress if you have zero idea). If it all goes south, MonkeymanDan may not be the only divorcee (or immigrant to Nth Sweden digging up graphite in the night).
cosors
👀
All right, I will see...Hi Beserk, with your connections in Lulea (your brother I think lives nearby from a previous post?), will you have any people attend the Court decision on 5th April? I’m unsure exactly how/where the decision is delivered and in what capacity the public is privy to hearing such decision, especially with time zones and mammoth ASX regulations to follow.
The exact timing to have Thursday 6th April being the last day of ASX trading prior to Easter weekend which recommences on 11th April (Tuesday) may mean that our calendars require more calendar box ticking
Cosors, you are a machine when it comes to researching Court documents/cases, if you happen to have any insight, that would help to know when I exactly write myself at the bar
If it all goes south, MonkeymanDan may not be the only divorcee (or immigrant to Nth Sweden digging up graphite in the night).
Thank you for your words even if these are documents of the SGU. Documents of the court should be found via the search function here and "domstol".
Maybe there is another alternative and someone of the hardliners tweets it directly from the meeting if not some of Talga AB do it. I have to see who comes into question. In case of doubt the lawyer or someone from this group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1454936734890940/?_rdr
They are always good for eerie entertainment too. Every now and then I can't take my eyes off it. As Semmel already remarked it's like an ugly thing where one like me just can't look away - guilty
I recommend the last newspaper article over there, right click on the picture and then choose Google Lens for tanslation and enlarge. These are insights - hui!
I myself am relaxed and expect a TH anyway. But you're right with Easter it's a bit more difficult and could result in a long TH, lots of time to celebrate or cry. An opportunity for the bar I think?
Anyway, in the end we are all in the same boat. The long journey finds its first stopover. Fingers crossed.
Last edited:
Thank you Cosors.All right, I will see...
Thank you for your words even if these are documents of the SGU. Documents of the court should be found via the search function here and "domstol".
Maybe there is another alternative and someone of the hardliners tweets it directly from the meeting if not some of Talga AB do it. I have to see who comes into question. In case of doubt the lawyer or someone from this group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1454936734890940/?_rdr
They are always good for eerie entertainment too. Every now and then I can't apply my gaze. As Semmel already remarked it's like an ugly thing where one like me just can't look away - guilty
I recommend the last newspaper article over there, right click on the picture and then choose Google Lens for tanslation and enlarge. These are insights - hui!
I myself am relaxed and expect a TH anyway. But you're right with Easter it's a bit more difficult and could result in a long TH, lots of time to celebrate or cry. An opportunity for the bar I think?
Anyway, in the end we are all in the same boat. The long journey finds its first stopover. Fingers crossed.
That Facebook link was blinding (particularly Ulrik’s posts). Yes, it’s like a car accident (or ugly face as Semmel stated) where you can’t help but look out of human curiosity.
I’ll leave it there, and just bide the time, as we all are right now. Drinks are occurring before, during and after such date. Enjoy!
catdog
Member
The comments on Graphite are seriously uninformed. They suggest that Lignin or lithium metal could be used instead of graphite to produce EUs anode requirements! There is one company that has just said they have found a way to create anode from Lignin and who knows at what scale and how far away that would be from commercialisation, if at all. The same goes for Lithium Metal anodes.All right, I will see...
Thank you for your words even if these are documents of the SGU. Documents of the court should be found via the search function here and "domstol".
Maybe there is another alternative and someone of the hardliners tweets it directly from the meeting if not some of Talga AB do it. I have to see who comes into question. In case of doubt the lawyer or someone from this group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1454936734890940/?_rdr
They are always good for eerie entertainment too. Every now and then I can't take my eyes off it. As Semmel already remarked it's like an ugly thing where one like me just can't look away - guilty
I recommend the last newspaper article over there, right click on the picture and then choose Google Lens for tanslation and enlarge. These are insights - hui!
I myself am relaxed and expect a TH anyway. But you're right with Easter it's a bit more difficult and could result in a long TH, lots of time to celebrate or cry. An opportunity for the bar I think?
Anyway, in the end we are all in the same boat. The long journey finds its first stopover. Fingers crossed.
There’s also post on this page from 3 days ago saying Kiruna’s Social Democrats just voted no in their members meeting to the mine and a comment on the post says they could vote against the detailed building plan so nothing could be built.
How possible is this?
beserk
Regular
No worries your opinions are valued by many on this forum myself included and based on facts. As a scientist, though in another green field ie plant genetics, I appreciate gedanken experiments but adhere to process of testing a hypothesis, forming an antithesis, and carrying on to the logical conclusion.
-beserk
Last edited:
beserk
Regular
Hi Beserk, with your connections in Lulea (your brother I think lives nearby from a previous post?), will you have any people attend the Court decision on 5th April? I’m unsure exactly how/where the decision is delivered and in what capacity the public is privy to hearing such decision, especially with time zones and mammoth ASX regulations to follow.
The exact timing to have Thursday 6th April being the last day of ASX trading prior to Easter weekend which recommences on 11th April (Tuesday) may mean that our calendars require more calendar box ticking
Cosors, you are a machine when it comes to researching Court documents/cases, if you happen to have any insight, that would help to know when I exactly write myself at the bar
If it all goes south, MonkeymanDan may not be the only divorcee (or immigrant to Nth Sweden digging up graphite in the night).
I have engaged the super sleuths in Northern Sweden ie my brothers in Luleå and Kiruna.
Yes we are a fearsome and fearless trio !!!
-beserk
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Bergsstaten has the word
Besides 19:26
Look at their parliament.)
The Feminists F! are out
Now you know what I've been unleashing on my head for a long time. Thank you. This is sharing and a sign of community. I like you for that!
beserk
Regular
The political meetings up North are usually composed of a band of silent brooding Northerners having fika. Occasionally their quite contemplation is broken by a firebrand from the deep South claiming for revolution and uprising against the foreign capitalists destroying the cultural and sacrosanct practises of reindeer husbandry. The silent majority just continue to chew their peppar kaka and have another sip of kaffe.
-beserk
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Some news about the plant in the Lulean industrial park Hertsöfältet.
I need your help as I do not have enough time. Maybe you can help me with the evaluation.
Thanks again @Manual for your translation tip!
2023-03-20
District Administration
"Opinion on file attachments 72-75 regarding Talga AB's application for permission to establish and operate a facility for the manufacture of battery anode material from graphite concentrate within part of the property Luleå Hertsön 11:1 and 11:1010, Luleå municipality
Case No. M 1826-22
To make our opinion clear, the county administrative board mainly starts from the company's numbering.
Due to the court's order, file attachment 76, the County Administrative Board submits the following.
The company has submitted supplementary information regarding risks associated with large leaks of hydrofluoric acid outdoors within the business. The County Administrative Board shares the company's view that these risks within the operational area are acceptable based on what has now been reported. As regards the transport of hydrofluoric acid (subsidiary companies), this probably entails greater risks than what exists within the area of operation, but it can also be considered permissible provided that the current regulations regarding the transport of dangerous goods are followed.
B.2 – Release to water.
The county board's continued assessment is that further releases of zinc and mercury to Sörbrändöfjärden than what already occurs are not permissible according to ch. 2. Section 3 and Chapter 5 Sections 4 and 5 of the Environmental Code.
In order to enable a final assessment on the issue of admissibility and whether it is possible to limit emissions to a sufficient extent through conditions, it is necessary for the company to supplement the application with information on purification technology and degree of purification so that the emissions from the operation do not risk jeopardizing the current environmental quality standard and/or cause damage or inconvenience to the environment. The County Administrative Board believes that the aforementioned is a basic condition for the company to be considered to have demonstrated that they intend to use the best possible technology (BAT). Before then, it cannot be considered to raise the issue of exemptions from the environmental quality standards according to ch. 4. Sections 9 or 11 and 12 of the Water Management Ordinance (2004:660).
In the event of the above-mentioned scenario, the county administrative board requests that the court request an opinion from the Water Authority in accordance with ch. 22. Section 13 of the Environmental Code and Chapter 4. Section 13 of the Water Management Ordinance.
B.3 – Storm water.
The County Administrative Board has reviewed the company's additions regarding stormwater management and, based on this, perceives that the company's planned stormwater management will be consistent with the system solution for stormwater that was developed for the detailed plan. The County Administrative Board therefore considers that the planned activities are compatible with the current detailed plan.
C.2 – Emissions to air.
The County Administrative Board notes that the company accepts the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed conditions. The County Administrative Board agrees to these terms and conditions.
C.3 – Noise and vibration.
The company opposes the county board's request that the night period should be at 22:00-07:00 and that the instantaneous noise level at night (at 2207) must not exceed 55 dBA. The county board maintains its position.
C.4 – Reindeer nutrition.
The company is opposed to consultation taking place with Gällivare Samiby and the supervisory authority. The county board maintains its position.
C.5 – Energy management.
The County Administrative Board notes that the company has nothing to object to in substance against the authority's proposed conditions, apart from the time interval for the report. The county board maintains its position.
C.7 – Delegations
Dusting . The company opposes the county board's request that the condition should be combined with a delegation to announce the necessary measures and precautions to reduce dusting. The county board maintains its position
Reindeer nutrition . The company opposes the county board's request that the condition should be combined with a delegation to ensure the possibility, if necessary, to decide on the necessary measures and precautionary measures to minimize possible disruption to reindeer husbandry. The county board maintains its position.
Energy management. The company opposes the county board's request for delegation to the supervisory authority regarding the authorization to announce conditions on reasonable energy management measures developed within the framework of the energy management plan. The county board maintains its position.
Risk, chemicals and waste . The company opposes the county board's request for delegation to the supervisory authority regarding staffing, training
etc. regarding the specified input force. The county board maintains its position.
The reasons for the county board's positions are explained below.
The County Administrative Board states that the operation will be covered by the Seveso legislation's higher level of requirements, which means that the operation is also a dangerous operation.
According to ch. 2 Section 4 of the Act (2003:778) on protection against accidents has the following obligations in the case of dangerous activities: " In the case of a facility where the activity involves the risk of an accident causing serious damage to people or the environment, the owner of the facility or the person who carries out the activity at the facility obliged to reasonably maintain or pay for preparedness with personnel and property and otherwise take the necessary measures to prevent or limit such damage.
Whoever carries out the activity is obliged to analyze the risks of such accidents as specified in the first paragraph.
The first and second paragraphs also apply to airports that have been granted an operating permit in accordance with ch. 6. Section 8 first paragraph of the Aviation Act (2010:500) and activities covered by the Act (1999:381) on measures to prevent and limit the consequences of serious chemical accidents. Law (2015:234).”
The County Administrative Board considers that the company has a far-reaching responsibility to reasonably maintain or pay for preparedness with personnel and property and otherwise take the necessary measures to prevent or limit serious damage to people or the environment. This is because the municipality's dimensioning of the municipal rescue service is not dimensioned for the type of large-scale chemical accidents that can occur during the company's operations, and it is also not the municipality's obligation to dimension for this.
Just as the county administrative board previously stated, the authority believes that in light of the substances that will be handled and its inherent dangerousness, it is justified for the court to prescribe a condition for a first response force that must be able to deal with fire, gas leakage, explosion and other serious incidents. Furthermore, the county administrative board understands that a more detailed specification of the task force cannot take place before the final design of the facility has been decided. In light of this, the county administrative board believes that the condition should be combined with a delegation for the design of the task force to ensure that there is an opportunity for the supervisory authority to decide on the measures that may be required based on the final design and operation of the facility.
xxx next pages xxx
I need your help as I do not have enough time. Maybe you can help me with the evaluation.
Thanks again @Manual for your translation tip!
2023-03-20
District Administration
"Opinion on file attachments 72-75 regarding Talga AB's application for permission to establish and operate a facility for the manufacture of battery anode material from graphite concentrate within part of the property Luleå Hertsön 11:1 and 11:1010, Luleå municipality
Case No. M 1826-22
Background
The Land and Environmental Court has instructed the county administrative board to give an opinion on attachments 72-75 regarding Talga AB's, hereinafter the company, application for permission to establish and operate a facility for the manufacture of battery anode material from graphite concentrate within part of the property Luleå Hertsön 11:1 and 11 :1010, Luleå municipality.To make our opinion clear, the county administrative board mainly starts from the company's numbering.
Due to the court's order, file attachment 76, the County Administrative Board submits the following.
The County Board's position
B.1 - Risk and security.The company has submitted supplementary information regarding risks associated with large leaks of hydrofluoric acid outdoors within the business. The County Administrative Board shares the company's view that these risks within the operational area are acceptable based on what has now been reported. As regards the transport of hydrofluoric acid (subsidiary companies), this probably entails greater risks than what exists within the area of operation, but it can also be considered permissible provided that the current regulations regarding the transport of dangerous goods are followed.
B.2 – Release to water.
The county board's continued assessment is that further releases of zinc and mercury to Sörbrändöfjärden than what already occurs are not permissible according to ch. 2. Section 3 and Chapter 5 Sections 4 and 5 of the Environmental Code.
In order to enable a final assessment on the issue of admissibility and whether it is possible to limit emissions to a sufficient extent through conditions, it is necessary for the company to supplement the application with information on purification technology and degree of purification so that the emissions from the operation do not risk jeopardizing the current environmental quality standard and/or cause damage or inconvenience to the environment. The County Administrative Board believes that the aforementioned is a basic condition for the company to be considered to have demonstrated that they intend to use the best possible technology (BAT). Before then, it cannot be considered to raise the issue of exemptions from the environmental quality standards according to ch. 4. Sections 9 or 11 and 12 of the Water Management Ordinance (2004:660).
In the event of the above-mentioned scenario, the county administrative board requests that the court request an opinion from the Water Authority in accordance with ch. 22. Section 13 of the Environmental Code and Chapter 4. Section 13 of the Water Management Ordinance.
B.3 – Storm water.
The County Administrative Board has reviewed the company's additions regarding stormwater management and, based on this, perceives that the company's planned stormwater management will be consistent with the system solution for stormwater that was developed for the detailed plan. The County Administrative Board therefore considers that the planned activities are compatible with the current detailed plan.
C.2 – Emissions to air.
The County Administrative Board notes that the company accepts the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed conditions. The County Administrative Board agrees to these terms and conditions.
C.3 – Noise and vibration.
The company opposes the county board's request that the night period should be at 22:00-07:00 and that the instantaneous noise level at night (at 2207) must not exceed 55 dBA. The county board maintains its position.
C.4 – Reindeer nutrition.
The company is opposed to consultation taking place with Gällivare Samiby and the supervisory authority. The county board maintains its position.
C.5 – Energy management.
The County Administrative Board notes that the company has nothing to object to in substance against the authority's proposed conditions, apart from the time interval for the report. The county board maintains its position.
C.7 – Delegations
Dusting . The company opposes the county board's request that the condition should be combined with a delegation to announce the necessary measures and precautions to reduce dusting. The county board maintains its position
Reindeer nutrition . The company opposes the county board's request that the condition should be combined with a delegation to ensure the possibility, if necessary, to decide on the necessary measures and precautionary measures to minimize possible disruption to reindeer husbandry. The county board maintains its position.
Energy management. The company opposes the county board's request for delegation to the supervisory authority regarding the authorization to announce conditions on reasonable energy management measures developed within the framework of the energy management plan. The county board maintains its position.
Risk, chemicals and waste . The company opposes the county board's request for delegation to the supervisory authority regarding staffing, training
etc. regarding the specified input force. The county board maintains its position.
The reasons for the county board's positions are explained below.
Development of speech
B.1 - Risk and security including delegation C.7 regarding risks.The County Administrative Board states that the operation will be covered by the Seveso legislation's higher level of requirements, which means that the operation is also a dangerous operation.
According to ch. 2 Section 4 of the Act (2003:778) on protection against accidents has the following obligations in the case of dangerous activities: " In the case of a facility where the activity involves the risk of an accident causing serious damage to people or the environment, the owner of the facility or the person who carries out the activity at the facility obliged to reasonably maintain or pay for preparedness with personnel and property and otherwise take the necessary measures to prevent or limit such damage.
Whoever carries out the activity is obliged to analyze the risks of such accidents as specified in the first paragraph.
The first and second paragraphs also apply to airports that have been granted an operating permit in accordance with ch. 6. Section 8 first paragraph of the Aviation Act (2010:500) and activities covered by the Act (1999:381) on measures to prevent and limit the consequences of serious chemical accidents. Law (2015:234).”
The County Administrative Board considers that the company has a far-reaching responsibility to reasonably maintain or pay for preparedness with personnel and property and otherwise take the necessary measures to prevent or limit serious damage to people or the environment. This is because the municipality's dimensioning of the municipal rescue service is not dimensioned for the type of large-scale chemical accidents that can occur during the company's operations, and it is also not the municipality's obligation to dimension for this.
Just as the county administrative board previously stated, the authority believes that in light of the substances that will be handled and its inherent dangerousness, it is justified for the court to prescribe a condition for a first response force that must be able to deal with fire, gas leakage, explosion and other serious incidents. Furthermore, the county administrative board understands that a more detailed specification of the task force cannot take place before the final design of the facility has been decided. In light of this, the county administrative board believes that the condition should be combined with a delegation for the design of the task force to ensure that there is an opportunity for the supervisory authority to decide on the measures that may be required based on the final design and operation of the facility.
xxx next pages xxx
Last edited:
cosors
👀
(The county board, condition 11b.) The company must maintain or pay for a first response force that must be able to deal with fire, leakage of gas, explosion and other serious incidents. For this purpose, the task force must have the ability to prevent or limit serious damage to people and the environment. For the initial handling of fire, gas leakage, explosion and other serious incidents, part of the response force must be located within or directly adjacent to the operational area . The company must consult with the supervisory authority and the municipality to ensure that the business has a time-relevant preparedness and ability to handle accidents.
(Länsstyrelsen) The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be needed in the following respects.
d) Staffing, training etc. regarding the specified task force in condition 11b.
The County Administrative Board considers it important that the authority obtains a delegation to announce additional conditions that may be needed regarding staffing, training, etc. regarding the specified task force.
B.2 – Release to water
The county board's continued assessment is that new emissions of zinc and mercury to Sörbrändöfjärden are not permitted according to ch. 5. Section 4 of the Environmental Code and that the examining authority should therefore obtain a special opinion from the water authority in order to obtain an exemption if possible. To place requirements on the business regarding emission reduction
(cleaning methods) or other measures is important to reduce the impact on the affected water environments in Sörbrändöfjärden.
The reasoning about caution and exceptions above is further motivated by the fact that it is planned for several major industrial operations that are deemed to be able to affect Sörbrandöfjärden with emissions. From a water management perspective, it is important to assess the cumulative impact that both the current requested activity and future planned activities will have on the water environments in the recipient Sörbrändöfjärden. The County Administrative Board notes that there may be an opportunity for the Water Authority for a certain water body to decide on less stringent quality requirements according to ch. 4. Section 10
The Water Management Ordinance (2004:660), but there are very high requirements for far-reaching purification of the emissions to the recipient before this could be relevant.
New classification in Water Information System Sweden (VISS)
After the company's application was received, the County Administrative Board updated the status assessment regarding the Sörbrändöfjärden water body. The old assessment covered data up to 2018. The new assessment covers data between the years 2019 – 2021. Data from 2022 has also been taken into account but omitted at the time of the assessment because the data collector then suspected that the high levels of zinc were due to contamination at the time of sampling. The data collector has returned on March 14, 2023 with information that it is likely not sampling contamination. In addition to data from the coordinated recipient control program (SRK), data from a municipal monitoring station (YS1) has also been used as a basis for the status assessment. Figure 1 below shows the monitoring stations L2, L3 and YS1 in Sörbrandöfjärden.
Figure 1: Map showing monitoring stations in Sörbrandöfjärden.
Data from the coordinated recipient control program show (as already illustrated by the company in Figure 1, file attachment 76) that the assessment basis limit value for zinc is exceeded in 2020 in stations L2 and L3 according to the Norwegian Maritime and Water Authority's regulation HVMFS 2019:25. The County Administrative Board uses calculated annual average values for comparison with this limit value. This is because the limit value in the assessment basis is stated as an annual average value . In 2021, the annual average value of zinc levels (4 measuring occasions) clearly exceeds the limit value (1.1 µg/l) in Luleå Municipality's monitoring station YS1. Overall, the condition for moderate status regarding the quality factor 'special pollutants' is fulfilled according to ch. 2. § 4 HVMFS 2019:25.
The annual average values of zinc, Zn, (µg/l) are illustrated in figure 2. The faintly dotted bars in figure 2 are annual average values that were not the basis for the new status assessment:
The 2020 purple bar is based on data from the municipality's monitoring station, only two samples were taken that year.
The bars with blue and orange color from 2022 are data from SRK, stations L2 and L3. The data collector (SSAB EMEA AB in Luleå) suspected contamination in connection with the sampling this year because the levels are so elevated, but it has turned out afterwards, according to the data collector's information, that it is not a question of lack of sampling hygiene.
Figure 2. Data for dissolved zinc, Zn, (µg/l) from 3 stations in Sörbrändöfjörden in the years 2019 – 2022. L2 and L3 are the SRK stations, YS1 is Luleå municipality's station within the control program for the Hertsö field.
Data regarding zinc (Zn) from Luleå municipality's monitoring station is presented in table 1.
Table 1: Zinc levels from the municipal monitoring station YS1.
The annual average values that form the basis of the status assessment have been calculated by first calculating annual average values for each year and station. Then the background level of 0.55 µg/l has been subtracted.
The County Administrative Board informs that it is possible to perform the above-mentioned calculation in different ways. The subtraction of the background content can also be done for each measurement occasion and then calculate annual average values for each station. But then the question arises of how to deal with negative results. Either negative results can be completely ignored or the original concentration can be used without subtracting the background concentration. In both of these cases, the result is higher annual average values and thus clearer exceedances of the assessment basis as well as a lower reliability in the assessment.
B2.2 Legal starting points
The County Administrative Board perceives that the company seems to mix up the concepts regarding jeopardizing the possibility of achieving the environmental quality standard versus the interpretation of the prohibition of deterioration.
The company states under point 9, file appendix 72, that " An additional pollution in a water body that already has a good ecological status and which will continue to have a good ecological status if the activity or measure in question is permitted does not mean any endangerment. A change within a class boundary, for example within moderate status, should not be considered as a starting point in itself as endangering. There is thus quite a lot of room to allow activities or measures that in and of themselves involve pressures on the work to improve the water environment, or that make it more difficult to achieve the right water quality." and referred to bill 2017/18:243, p. 193.
The County Administrative Board understands that it is an interpretation of a text that deals with jeopardizing the possibility of achieving the environmental quality standard. The County Administrative Board refers to the following quote in bill 2017/18:243, p 193. "Additional pollution in a water that already has a good ecological status and, if the activity is permitted, will continue to have a good ecological status does not mean any endangerment. Furthermore, a change within a class boundary, e.g. within moderate status, is not in itself considered to endanger the possibilities of achieving the right quality of the water environment, at least as long as new practice from the EU Court says otherwise." This text is therefore not about the interpretation of the prohibition of deterioration.
xxx next pages xxx
(Länsstyrelsen) The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be needed in the following respects.
d) Staffing, training etc. regarding the specified task force in condition 11b.
The County Administrative Board considers it important that the authority obtains a delegation to announce additional conditions that may be needed regarding staffing, training, etc. regarding the specified task force.
B.2 – Release to water
The county board's continued assessment is that new emissions of zinc and mercury to Sörbrändöfjärden are not permitted according to ch. 5. Section 4 of the Environmental Code and that the examining authority should therefore obtain a special opinion from the water authority in order to obtain an exemption if possible. To place requirements on the business regarding emission reduction
(cleaning methods) or other measures is important to reduce the impact on the affected water environments in Sörbrändöfjärden.
The reasoning about caution and exceptions above is further motivated by the fact that it is planned for several major industrial operations that are deemed to be able to affect Sörbrandöfjärden with emissions. From a water management perspective, it is important to assess the cumulative impact that both the current requested activity and future planned activities will have on the water environments in the recipient Sörbrändöfjärden. The County Administrative Board notes that there may be an opportunity for the Water Authority for a certain water body to decide on less stringent quality requirements according to ch. 4. Section 10
The Water Management Ordinance (2004:660), but there are very high requirements for far-reaching purification of the emissions to the recipient before this could be relevant.
New classification in Water Information System Sweden (VISS)
After the company's application was received, the County Administrative Board updated the status assessment regarding the Sörbrändöfjärden water body. The old assessment covered data up to 2018. The new assessment covers data between the years 2019 – 2021. Data from 2022 has also been taken into account but omitted at the time of the assessment because the data collector then suspected that the high levels of zinc were due to contamination at the time of sampling. The data collector has returned on March 14, 2023 with information that it is likely not sampling contamination. In addition to data from the coordinated recipient control program (SRK), data from a municipal monitoring station (YS1) has also been used as a basis for the status assessment. Figure 1 below shows the monitoring stations L2, L3 and YS1 in Sörbrandöfjärden.
Figure 1: Map showing monitoring stations in Sörbrandöfjärden.
Data from the coordinated recipient control program show (as already illustrated by the company in Figure 1, file attachment 76) that the assessment basis limit value for zinc is exceeded in 2020 in stations L2 and L3 according to the Norwegian Maritime and Water Authority's regulation HVMFS 2019:25. The County Administrative Board uses calculated annual average values for comparison with this limit value. This is because the limit value in the assessment basis is stated as an annual average value . In 2021, the annual average value of zinc levels (4 measuring occasions) clearly exceeds the limit value (1.1 µg/l) in Luleå Municipality's monitoring station YS1. Overall, the condition for moderate status regarding the quality factor 'special pollutants' is fulfilled according to ch. 2. § 4 HVMFS 2019:25.
The annual average values of zinc, Zn, (µg/l) are illustrated in figure 2. The faintly dotted bars in figure 2 are annual average values that were not the basis for the new status assessment:
The 2020 purple bar is based on data from the municipality's monitoring station, only two samples were taken that year.
The bars with blue and orange color from 2022 are data from SRK, stations L2 and L3. The data collector (SSAB EMEA AB in Luleå) suspected contamination in connection with the sampling this year because the levels are so elevated, but it has turned out afterwards, according to the data collector's information, that it is not a question of lack of sampling hygiene.
Figure 2. Data for dissolved zinc, Zn, (µg/l) from 3 stations in Sörbrändöfjörden in the years 2019 – 2022. L2 and L3 are the SRK stations, YS1 is Luleå municipality's station within the control program for the Hertsö field.
Data regarding zinc (Zn) from Luleå municipality's monitoring station is presented in table 1.
Table 1: Zinc levels from the municipal monitoring station YS1.
| Date | Zn (µg/l) filter |
| 2020-07-20 | 0.5 |
| 2020-08-26 | 2.5 |
| 2021-01-25 | 5.7 |
| 2021-02-24 | 3.7 |
| 2021-07-19 | 1.3 |
| 2021-08-31 | 4.6 |
The County Administrative Board informs that it is possible to perform the above-mentioned calculation in different ways. The subtraction of the background content can also be done for each measurement occasion and then calculate annual average values for each station. But then the question arises of how to deal with negative results. Either negative results can be completely ignored or the original concentration can be used without subtracting the background concentration. In both of these cases, the result is higher annual average values and thus clearer exceedances of the assessment basis as well as a lower reliability in the assessment.
B2.2 Legal starting points
The County Administrative Board perceives that the company seems to mix up the concepts regarding jeopardizing the possibility of achieving the environmental quality standard versus the interpretation of the prohibition of deterioration.
The company states under point 9, file appendix 72, that " An additional pollution in a water body that already has a good ecological status and which will continue to have a good ecological status if the activity or measure in question is permitted does not mean any endangerment. A change within a class boundary, for example within moderate status, should not be considered as a starting point in itself as endangering. There is thus quite a lot of room to allow activities or measures that in and of themselves involve pressures on the work to improve the water environment, or that make it more difficult to achieve the right water quality." and referred to bill 2017/18:243, p. 193.
The County Administrative Board understands that it is an interpretation of a text that deals with jeopardizing the possibility of achieving the environmental quality standard. The County Administrative Board refers to the following quote in bill 2017/18:243, p 193. "Additional pollution in a water that already has a good ecological status and, if the activity is permitted, will continue to have a good ecological status does not mean any endangerment. Furthermore, a change within a class boundary, e.g. within moderate status, is not in itself considered to endanger the possibilities of achieving the right quality of the water environment, at least as long as new practice from the EU Court says otherwise." This text is therefore not about the interpretation of the prohibition of deterioration.
xxx next pages xxx
cosors
👀
For the interpretation of the prohibition of deterioration, the following should apply according to bill 2017/18:243, pp. 192-193. "According to EU law, the impairment ban must mean that the activity or measure must not lead to such a large deterioration in the quality of the water that the water must be characterized to a lower status than the status that the water body has before the activity or measure is started. Through the Weserdomen (see section 4.6), the Court of Justice of the EU has also clarified that an impermissible deterioration already occurs if one of the relevant quality factors deteriorates so much that the water body - if the status was determined solely on the basis of that quality factor - would have to be characterized to a lower status. An impermissible deterioration can thus occur only by a quality factor being degraded to a lower status, even if the water body as a whole with regard to all quality factors does not need to be characterized to a lower status. Through the Weserdom, the European Court of Justice has also clarified that if the water quality in terms of a quality factor is already in the worst quality class, any deterioration within that quality factor must be considered an impermissible deterioration.”
The County Administrative Board understands that the company believes that there is room to allow activities or measures that involve stress on the water environment. However, this only applies to ecological status regarding quality factors other than 'special pollutants'. According to the so-called Weserdom, no further deterioration is permitted when a quality factor is status-assessed to the lowest status class, not even at parameter level. Ecological status regarding the quality factor 'special pollutants' (SFÄ) has only two status classes: good or moderate status. The County Administrative Board has stated in previous statements that the company's documentation shows that the water body has a moderate status and has therefore also changed the VISS to further clarify that assessment. Since the county administrative board assesses that a moderate status prevails for the ecological status/quality factor SFÄ, it is the county administrative board's opinion that no further discharges to the water body are permitted according to ch. 5. Section 4 of the Environmental Code with the support of the Weserdomen. This is because the applied activity increases the load of zinc to the occurrence by 44 kg/year, which would constitute 17% of the total load of zinc via the outlet from Inre Hertsöfjärden and the applied activity's emissions. It is the county board's assessment that this would likely contribute to increased levels of zinc in the Sörbrändöfjärden water body and therefore constitute a deterioration of status at the parameter level. There is thus no further scope for allowing activities that lead to new emissions of zinc.
B.2.3 Recipient conditions
The County Administrative Board has changed the assessment in VISS based on data for the period 2019 – 2021 (see above). The assessment is based on the same data base that the company previously presented. The County Administrative Board sticks to previous assessments.
The minimum requirement for sampling frequency (4 times/year) is met for the data used for the classification. See table 3.3, pp. 30-31 in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's Handbook 2008:2. There, the minimum frequency is indicated on the line next to the bottom (other pollutants).
However, the sampling frequency for prioritized substances (1 g/month) is not met in the SRK monitoring. Zinc is not a priority substance and therefore falls under the heading 'other pollutants'.
In some cases, the county administrative board can use multi-year average values, for example if the sampling frequency was lower than what is specified in
(NV-Handbok 2008:2). However, this means that the assessment
reliability deteriorates because the assessment basis's limit value for zinc is produced as annual average values.
Another argument for not using multi-year averages for status assessment of specific polluting substances is that there is a risk of underestimating the impact of substances designated as environmental toxins. It is about a body of water that is already affected by emissions from existing industry and contaminated land. Since the Water Directive aims to protect aquatic environments and their ecosystems (protection of water as a drinking water resource is not applicable here), the precautionary principle should be applied. Considering that measures for better water environments are central to the water directive, it is important to detect any environmental problems as early as possible in order to be able to point out the need for measures (and hopefully also real measures where needed).
In point 12, file appendix 72, the company believes "[ ...] that it is not appropriate to assess the status of a quality factor or a certain substance only based on a single annual average value, because recipient data from single years will always show a certain variation". The County Administrative Board has assessed the ecological status regarding the quality factor special polluting substances according to the Norwegian Maritime and Water Authority's regulation HVMFS 2019:25. The limit value for good ecological status with regard to special polluting substances regarding zinc is stated in this regulation as an annual average value. The fact that elevated levels have been analyzed in some samples is not surprising considering that Sörbrändöfjärden is already loaded with pollution partly via the outlet from Inre Hertsöfjärden (and probably to some extent also from Sandöfjärden), partly via diffuse leakage from the industrial area on Svartön (ditches and groundwater). Where pollution exactly originates from during various episodes with elevated levels has not been investigated in detail, neither in the basis for the present application nor in any other case. From the county board's perspective, there are currently significant sources of influence on zinc that are already burdening the Sörbrändöfjärden water body (industry, contaminated land areas and stormwater). It is the county board's assessment that episodes with elevated levels of zinc in Sörbrändöfjärden are caused by one or more of these sources of influence.
Item 13, file attachment 72: The County Administrative Board has chosen to disregard data from 2022 (due to possible contamination issues, see above). Excluding deviating (elevated) levels risks rendering misleading annual averages. Whether the measured content of zinc corresponds to reality or not and what content really prevailed at the time of measurement is not known. It is therefore not possible to say whether annual average values from 2022 exceed the limit value for good status regarding zinc or not.
In point 15, file appendix 72, the company writes that it is in fact in good standing to show the number of annual average values that fall below the limit value for zinc. However, what should be assessed is not the number of undershoots. In ch. 2 § 4 HVMFS 2019:25 states that "The Water Authority shall classify the physico-chemical quality factor special polluting substances […] to moderate status or moderate potential if the value in table 1 in appendix 2 and table 1 in appendix 5 for any substance is exceeded in any the surface water body representative monitoring station.” An exceedance at one station is thus enough to assess 'moderate' status. In this case, the county administrative board assesses that exceedances occurred twice in 2020 (SRK stations L2 and L3) and once in 2021 (municipal monitoring station YS1), a total of 3 exceedances.
Commentary on point 17, file attachment 72: Chemical status regarding mercury is nationally assessed as 'does not reach good' with reference to the fact that mercury is assessed to be everywhere in excess. There is no other limit value for mercury in water than the regulation's (HVMFS 2019:25) limit value for maximum permitted content. There are no limit values to compare annual average values based on mercury levels in water. The company presents figures for annual average values for mercury from the years 2020 – 2022, which cannot therefore be assessed against the limit value for the maximum permitted content.
Figure 3: Concentrations in biota (flow) from stations in the Gulf of Bothnia.
The assessment in the entire Gulf of Bothnia shows too high levels of mercury. Measured levels of mercury in biota (figure 3) are generally higher than the limit value for good chemical status in biota (20 µg/kg wet weight). However, it should be emphasized that there are no measurements of mercury in biota from the Sörbrändöfjärden water body. Data from Harufjärden (about 20 km east of Sörbrändöfjärden) show that the average mercury content in stream was 40 µg/kg wet weight (220 samples in total). The limit value was exceeded in 180 out of 220 samples. Overall, the county administrative board assesses that the national status assessment of mercury is strengthened by these data, which show that fish in the Gulf of Bothnia generally have elevated levels of mercury.
Since the chemical status of mercury is assessed to be the lowest possible status class in Sörbrändöfjärden, it is the county board's assessment that no further releases of mercury to the water body are permitted.
B.2.4 Unauthorized status deterioration
The company has presented a detailed dilution model and argues that this shows that the emissions of zinc from the applied for activity will not contribute to unauthorized status deterioration. However, this becomes irrelevant because the ecological status regarding special polluting substances has already been assessed to 'moderate' status according to HVMFS 2019:25, which means that new discharges to Sörbrändöfjörden cannot be allowed.
A dilution model can be valuable in the event that a mixing zone needs to be delineated. If this becomes relevant at any stage, it becomes important that the company reports the assumptions, input values and possibly other decisive parameters that control the model result.
xxx next pages xxx
The County Administrative Board understands that the company believes that there is room to allow activities or measures that involve stress on the water environment. However, this only applies to ecological status regarding quality factors other than 'special pollutants'. According to the so-called Weserdom, no further deterioration is permitted when a quality factor is status-assessed to the lowest status class, not even at parameter level. Ecological status regarding the quality factor 'special pollutants' (SFÄ) has only two status classes: good or moderate status. The County Administrative Board has stated in previous statements that the company's documentation shows that the water body has a moderate status and has therefore also changed the VISS to further clarify that assessment. Since the county administrative board assesses that a moderate status prevails for the ecological status/quality factor SFÄ, it is the county administrative board's opinion that no further discharges to the water body are permitted according to ch. 5. Section 4 of the Environmental Code with the support of the Weserdomen. This is because the applied activity increases the load of zinc to the occurrence by 44 kg/year, which would constitute 17% of the total load of zinc via the outlet from Inre Hertsöfjärden and the applied activity's emissions. It is the county board's assessment that this would likely contribute to increased levels of zinc in the Sörbrändöfjärden water body and therefore constitute a deterioration of status at the parameter level. There is thus no further scope for allowing activities that lead to new emissions of zinc.
B.2.3 Recipient conditions
The County Administrative Board has changed the assessment in VISS based on data for the period 2019 – 2021 (see above). The assessment is based on the same data base that the company previously presented. The County Administrative Board sticks to previous assessments.
The minimum requirement for sampling frequency (4 times/year) is met for the data used for the classification. See table 3.3, pp. 30-31 in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's Handbook 2008:2. There, the minimum frequency is indicated on the line next to the bottom (other pollutants).
However, the sampling frequency for prioritized substances (1 g/month) is not met in the SRK monitoring. Zinc is not a priority substance and therefore falls under the heading 'other pollutants'.
In some cases, the county administrative board can use multi-year average values, for example if the sampling frequency was lower than what is specified in
(NV-Handbok 2008:2). However, this means that the assessment
reliability deteriorates because the assessment basis's limit value for zinc is produced as annual average values.
Another argument for not using multi-year averages for status assessment of specific polluting substances is that there is a risk of underestimating the impact of substances designated as environmental toxins. It is about a body of water that is already affected by emissions from existing industry and contaminated land. Since the Water Directive aims to protect aquatic environments and their ecosystems (protection of water as a drinking water resource is not applicable here), the precautionary principle should be applied. Considering that measures for better water environments are central to the water directive, it is important to detect any environmental problems as early as possible in order to be able to point out the need for measures (and hopefully also real measures where needed).
In point 12, file appendix 72, the company believes "[ ...] that it is not appropriate to assess the status of a quality factor or a certain substance only based on a single annual average value, because recipient data from single years will always show a certain variation". The County Administrative Board has assessed the ecological status regarding the quality factor special polluting substances according to the Norwegian Maritime and Water Authority's regulation HVMFS 2019:25. The limit value for good ecological status with regard to special polluting substances regarding zinc is stated in this regulation as an annual average value. The fact that elevated levels have been analyzed in some samples is not surprising considering that Sörbrändöfjärden is already loaded with pollution partly via the outlet from Inre Hertsöfjärden (and probably to some extent also from Sandöfjärden), partly via diffuse leakage from the industrial area on Svartön (ditches and groundwater). Where pollution exactly originates from during various episodes with elevated levels has not been investigated in detail, neither in the basis for the present application nor in any other case. From the county board's perspective, there are currently significant sources of influence on zinc that are already burdening the Sörbrändöfjärden water body (industry, contaminated land areas and stormwater). It is the county board's assessment that episodes with elevated levels of zinc in Sörbrändöfjärden are caused by one or more of these sources of influence.
Item 13, file attachment 72: The County Administrative Board has chosen to disregard data from 2022 (due to possible contamination issues, see above). Excluding deviating (elevated) levels risks rendering misleading annual averages. Whether the measured content of zinc corresponds to reality or not and what content really prevailed at the time of measurement is not known. It is therefore not possible to say whether annual average values from 2022 exceed the limit value for good status regarding zinc or not.
In point 15, file appendix 72, the company writes that it is in fact in good standing to show the number of annual average values that fall below the limit value for zinc. However, what should be assessed is not the number of undershoots. In ch. 2 § 4 HVMFS 2019:25 states that "The Water Authority shall classify the physico-chemical quality factor special polluting substances […] to moderate status or moderate potential if the value in table 1 in appendix 2 and table 1 in appendix 5 for any substance is exceeded in any the surface water body representative monitoring station.” An exceedance at one station is thus enough to assess 'moderate' status. In this case, the county administrative board assesses that exceedances occurred twice in 2020 (SRK stations L2 and L3) and once in 2021 (municipal monitoring station YS1), a total of 3 exceedances.
Commentary on point 17, file attachment 72: Chemical status regarding mercury is nationally assessed as 'does not reach good' with reference to the fact that mercury is assessed to be everywhere in excess. There is no other limit value for mercury in water than the regulation's (HVMFS 2019:25) limit value for maximum permitted content. There are no limit values to compare annual average values based on mercury levels in water. The company presents figures for annual average values for mercury from the years 2020 – 2022, which cannot therefore be assessed against the limit value for the maximum permitted content.
Figure 3: Concentrations in biota (flow) from stations in the Gulf of Bothnia.
The assessment in the entire Gulf of Bothnia shows too high levels of mercury. Measured levels of mercury in biota (figure 3) are generally higher than the limit value for good chemical status in biota (20 µg/kg wet weight). However, it should be emphasized that there are no measurements of mercury in biota from the Sörbrändöfjärden water body. Data from Harufjärden (about 20 km east of Sörbrändöfjärden) show that the average mercury content in stream was 40 µg/kg wet weight (220 samples in total). The limit value was exceeded in 180 out of 220 samples. Overall, the county administrative board assesses that the national status assessment of mercury is strengthened by these data, which show that fish in the Gulf of Bothnia generally have elevated levels of mercury.
Since the chemical status of mercury is assessed to be the lowest possible status class in Sörbrändöfjärden, it is the county board's assessment that no further releases of mercury to the water body are permitted.
B.2.4 Unauthorized status deterioration
The company has presented a detailed dilution model and argues that this shows that the emissions of zinc from the applied for activity will not contribute to unauthorized status deterioration. However, this becomes irrelevant because the ecological status regarding special polluting substances has already been assessed to 'moderate' status according to HVMFS 2019:25, which means that new discharges to Sörbrändöfjörden cannot be allowed.
A dilution model can be valuable in the event that a mixing zone needs to be delineated. If this becomes relevant at any stage, it becomes important that the company reports the assumptions, input values and possibly other decisive parameters that control the model result.
xxx next pages xxx
cosors
👀
C.3 – Noise and vibration.
Based on the company's argument, the County Administrative Board perceives that there are no work activities that should typically give rise to high instantaneous noise levels at night. If this is the case, the county administrative board cannot but see that there would be no problem in accepting the county administrative board's proposed conditions regarding the instantaneous noise level of a maximum of 55 dBA at night. If, on the other hand, the company opposes this, it can be understood implicitly that the current noise levels at night may exceed 55 dBA. This is not acceptable. With this as a starting point, the county administrative board believes that it is urgent that the noise condition be combined with an instantaneous value at night according to the authority's condition proposal. Furthermore, it is the authority's attitude and experience that the type of heavy industry that the company represents may disturb the surroundings more than what appears in the company's application. The authority has experience with larger establishments in Norrbotten and receives many complaints from residents every year regarding noise disturbances in the morning and evening and therefore believes that it is even more justified that the night period be set to 22:00-07:00. The county board maintains its position.
(The County Administrative Board, condition 4). Noise from operations during operation, including transport within the operational area, must not give rise to a higher equivalent noise level outdoors at homes than:
50 dB(A) non-holiday Monday-Friday (07:00-18:00)
40 dB(A) at night (22.00-07.00)
45 dB(A) the rest of the time
The instantaneous noise level at dwellings must not exceed 55 dB(A) at night (22:07).
The specified values must be checked by measurement at the noise sources (near-field measurement) and calculations at the affected homes. Inspections must take place as soon as the facility has been put into operation, or as soon as there have been changes in the operation that may result in more than insignificantly increased noise levels and when the supervisory authority otherwise considers that an inspection is warranted.
C.4 – Reindeer farming including delegation C.7 regarding measures and precautionary measures.
The County Administrative Board believes that the company's condition of only consulting with Gällivare Samiby is not sufficient. The way the company's proposed conditions are designed, there is no possibility of influencing the timetable if there are different opinions on the issue regarding the impact on reindeer husbandry. Since the county administrative board has the task of bringing legal action and safeguarding environmental interests and other public interests, it is both reasonable and justified that the consultation also takes place with the authority and that the condition is combined with a delegation to the supervisory authority to ensure that it can, if necessary, decide on the necessary measures and precautionary measures to minimize any disruption to reindeer husbandry. The County Administrative Board maintains its proposed conditions with the associated delegation.
(The County Administrative Board, condition 5). Before the construction works begin, the company must carry out consultations with Gällivare Samiby and the supervisory authority regarding the timetable for the implementation of the construction works and when particularly disruptive work steps are planned to be carried out.
The County Administrative Board) The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be necessary in the following respect.
Decide on the necessary measures and precautionary measures to minimize any disruption to the reindeer husbandry based on the consultation carried out in accordance with condition 5.
C.5 – Energy management including delegation C.7 regarding conditions on reasonable energy management measures
The County Administrative Board believes that the company's proposal for terms and conditions regarding energy management is too imprecise and that it only contains a minimum of reporting. The County Administrative Board believes that this is not sufficient and that it does not sufficiently promote the management of energy management issues. The County Administrative Board maintains its proposed terms and conditions regarding energy management, including the proposal for delegation, as the two proposed terms and conditions are connected. The County Administrative Board's proposal for conditions is designed to make it clear which frameworks the supervisory authority can operate within so that it does not go beyond these.
(The County Administrative Board, condition 6). The company must continuously and systematically work with energy efficiency improvements in the business. The company must report its work to the supervisory authority every three years, starting no later than three years after the permit has been used, by drawing up and then revising an energy management plan. The plan must report which energy management measures are technically possible to implement, the effects and costs of the measures, which measures the company intends to take and justification as to why the other reported measures are not reasonable. The company must annually, in connection with the submission of the environmental report to the supervisory authority, report on the past year's work with energy management, how the plan is being followed and any adjustments to the plan that the company intends to make in the coming year.
(County Administrative Board). The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be needed in the following respects.
Additional conditions regarding reasonable energy conservation measures developed within the framework of the energy conservation plan according to condition 6.
The County Administrative Board thus considers that if the energy management plan with associated action plan contains relevant information, which the County Administrative Board specifically pointed out in its proposal for conditions as above, it is possible for the supervisory authority to decide on well-balanced conditions.
Furthermore, the county administrative board believes that the energy issues are so important that the county administrative board's proposal for conditions with the associated delegation is reasonable and justified with the surrounding situation, with a "green" transition that requires a lot of electrical energy combined with the current supply, which is now available to stipulate that the energy mapping should take place with a more frequent interval than the legal requirement, the Act (2014:266) on energy mapping in large companies, which may be considered an absolute minimum level.
The County Administrative Board believes that with the time interval specified by the County Administrative Board regarding the reporting of the energy management plan with associated action plan, there will be even more focus on the energy management issues that are central to the "green" transition. Furthermore, the county administrative board believes that in order to ensure that environmentally justified and reasonable measures are implemented, the permit needs to contain a delegation to the supervisory authority to prescribe which measures the company must take. Such delegations also occur in practice, see MÖD 2009:17, MÖD 2011:23 and MÖD 2014:42. In the latter two cases the delegation was limited to "reasonable measures", in the first the delegation was completely without limitation. The practice has persisted even in recent years. See, for example, the Land and Environment Supreme Court's judgment on August 31, 2020 in case M 2578-19, where the court changed the lower instance's judgment specifically regarding delegation on energy management measures.
C.7 – delegation regarding conditions on dusting
The County Administrative Board notes that the company states that the planned activities are not considered to give rise to dust, but it is the authority's opinion that the substances, especially graphite, that are handled are very prone to dust. The County Administrative Board believes that there is an obvious risk that dusting may occur. The company should therefore, at the latest at the main negotiation, clarify how it intends to limit the generation of dust as far as possible. However, the County Administrative Board believes that it is justified and necessary that the supervisory authority receives a delegation with the tools that may be needed to be able to manage risks with the emergence of dust.
(Länsstyrelsen) The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be necessary in the following respect.
a) Necessary measures and precautions to reduce dust."
https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.3ff98c301869c957bbc69b95/1679392188952/Yttrande%20avseende%20Talga%20AB%20Lule%C3%A5%20bem%C3%B6tande%20av%20aktbil%2076%20i%20m%C3%A5l%20M%201826-22(24168232).pdf
Based on the company's argument, the County Administrative Board perceives that there are no work activities that should typically give rise to high instantaneous noise levels at night. If this is the case, the county administrative board cannot but see that there would be no problem in accepting the county administrative board's proposed conditions regarding the instantaneous noise level of a maximum of 55 dBA at night. If, on the other hand, the company opposes this, it can be understood implicitly that the current noise levels at night may exceed 55 dBA. This is not acceptable. With this as a starting point, the county administrative board believes that it is urgent that the noise condition be combined with an instantaneous value at night according to the authority's condition proposal. Furthermore, it is the authority's attitude and experience that the type of heavy industry that the company represents may disturb the surroundings more than what appears in the company's application. The authority has experience with larger establishments in Norrbotten and receives many complaints from residents every year regarding noise disturbances in the morning and evening and therefore believes that it is even more justified that the night period be set to 22:00-07:00. The county board maintains its position.
(The County Administrative Board, condition 4). Noise from operations during operation, including transport within the operational area, must not give rise to a higher equivalent noise level outdoors at homes than:
50 dB(A) non-holiday Monday-Friday (07:00-18:00)
40 dB(A) at night (22.00-07.00)
45 dB(A) the rest of the time
The instantaneous noise level at dwellings must not exceed 55 dB(A) at night (22:07).
The specified values must be checked by measurement at the noise sources (near-field measurement) and calculations at the affected homes. Inspections must take place as soon as the facility has been put into operation, or as soon as there have been changes in the operation that may result in more than insignificantly increased noise levels and when the supervisory authority otherwise considers that an inspection is warranted.
C.4 – Reindeer farming including delegation C.7 regarding measures and precautionary measures.
The County Administrative Board believes that the company's condition of only consulting with Gällivare Samiby is not sufficient. The way the company's proposed conditions are designed, there is no possibility of influencing the timetable if there are different opinions on the issue regarding the impact on reindeer husbandry. Since the county administrative board has the task of bringing legal action and safeguarding environmental interests and other public interests, it is both reasonable and justified that the consultation also takes place with the authority and that the condition is combined with a delegation to the supervisory authority to ensure that it can, if necessary, decide on the necessary measures and precautionary measures to minimize any disruption to reindeer husbandry. The County Administrative Board maintains its proposed conditions with the associated delegation.
(The County Administrative Board, condition 5). Before the construction works begin, the company must carry out consultations with Gällivare Samiby and the supervisory authority regarding the timetable for the implementation of the construction works and when particularly disruptive work steps are planned to be carried out.
The County Administrative Board) The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be necessary in the following respect.
Decide on the necessary measures and precautionary measures to minimize any disruption to the reindeer husbandry based on the consultation carried out in accordance with condition 5.
C.5 – Energy management including delegation C.7 regarding conditions on reasonable energy management measures
The County Administrative Board believes that the company's proposal for terms and conditions regarding energy management is too imprecise and that it only contains a minimum of reporting. The County Administrative Board believes that this is not sufficient and that it does not sufficiently promote the management of energy management issues. The County Administrative Board maintains its proposed terms and conditions regarding energy management, including the proposal for delegation, as the two proposed terms and conditions are connected. The County Administrative Board's proposal for conditions is designed to make it clear which frameworks the supervisory authority can operate within so that it does not go beyond these.
(The County Administrative Board, condition 6). The company must continuously and systematically work with energy efficiency improvements in the business. The company must report its work to the supervisory authority every three years, starting no later than three years after the permit has been used, by drawing up and then revising an energy management plan. The plan must report which energy management measures are technically possible to implement, the effects and costs of the measures, which measures the company intends to take and justification as to why the other reported measures are not reasonable. The company must annually, in connection with the submission of the environmental report to the supervisory authority, report on the past year's work with energy management, how the plan is being followed and any adjustments to the plan that the company intends to make in the coming year.
(County Administrative Board). The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be needed in the following respects.
Additional conditions regarding reasonable energy conservation measures developed within the framework of the energy conservation plan according to condition 6.
The County Administrative Board thus considers that if the energy management plan with associated action plan contains relevant information, which the County Administrative Board specifically pointed out in its proposal for conditions as above, it is possible for the supervisory authority to decide on well-balanced conditions.
Furthermore, the county administrative board believes that the energy issues are so important that the county administrative board's proposal for conditions with the associated delegation is reasonable and justified with the surrounding situation, with a "green" transition that requires a lot of electrical energy combined with the current supply, which is now available to stipulate that the energy mapping should take place with a more frequent interval than the legal requirement, the Act (2014:266) on energy mapping in large companies, which may be considered an absolute minimum level.
The County Administrative Board believes that with the time interval specified by the County Administrative Board regarding the reporting of the energy management plan with associated action plan, there will be even more focus on the energy management issues that are central to the "green" transition. Furthermore, the county administrative board believes that in order to ensure that environmentally justified and reasonable measures are implemented, the permit needs to contain a delegation to the supervisory authority to prescribe which measures the company must take. Such delegations also occur in practice, see MÖD 2009:17, MÖD 2011:23 and MÖD 2014:42. In the latter two cases the delegation was limited to "reasonable measures", in the first the delegation was completely without limitation. The practice has persisted even in recent years. See, for example, the Land and Environment Supreme Court's judgment on August 31, 2020 in case M 2578-19, where the court changed the lower instance's judgment specifically regarding delegation on energy management measures.
C.7 – delegation regarding conditions on dusting
The County Administrative Board notes that the company states that the planned activities are not considered to give rise to dust, but it is the authority's opinion that the substances, especially graphite, that are handled are very prone to dust. The County Administrative Board believes that there is an obvious risk that dusting may occur. The company should therefore, at the latest at the main negotiation, clarify how it intends to limit the generation of dust as far as possible. However, the County Administrative Board believes that it is justified and necessary that the supervisory authority receives a delegation with the tools that may be needed to be able to manage risks with the emergence of dust.
(Länsstyrelsen) The Land and Environmental Court transfers with the support of ch. 22 § 25 paragraph three of the Environmental Code to the supervisory authority to notify additional conditions that may be necessary in the following respect.
a) Necessary measures and precautions to reduce dust."
https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.3ff98c301869c957bbc69b95/1679392188952/Yttrande%20avseende%20Talga%20AB%20Lule%C3%A5%20bem%C3%B6tande%20av%20aktbil%2076%20i%20m%C3%A5l%20M%201826-22(24168232).pdf
