For those who want some light reading. So many gems in this !!!!!
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 ordered the county administrative board to give an
opinion on file 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 area of
operations 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.
Postal address: 971 86 Luleå Phone: 010-225 50 00
www.lansstyrelsen.se/norrbotten/personaldata
Email:
[email protected] Web: lansstyrelsen.se/norrbotten
Translated from Swedish to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.com
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
2 (16)
551-11639-2022
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
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 (22:00-07:00) must
not exceed 55 dBA. The county board maintains its position.
C.4 – Reindeer nutrition.
The company opposes consultation with Gällivare Samibyand the
supervisory authority . The county board maintains its position.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
3 (16)
551-11639-2022
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 task 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
includes the following obligations for dangerous activities:"In the case of a facility
where the operation entails a risk that an accident will cause serious damage to
people or the environment, the owner of the facility or the person who carries out
the activities at the facility is obliged to reasonably maintain or pay for
preparedness with personnel and property and otherwise take the necessary
measures for to prevent or limit such damages.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
4 (16)
551-11639-2022
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.
(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.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
5 (16)
551-11639-2022
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. Setting requirements
for the operation 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
water management perspective, it is important to assess the cumulative impact
that both the current applied for 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.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
6 (16)
551-11639-2022
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 i
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.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
7 (16)
551-11639-2022
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 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 abovementioned 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
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
8 (16)
551-11639-2022
clearer excesses of the assessment basis and 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 good ecological status and, if the
activity is permitted, will continue to have good ecological status does not mean
endangering. 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.
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 Weserdomen, the European Court of
Justice has also clarified that if the water quality in the matter of a
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
9 (16)
551-11639-2022
quality factor is already in the worst quality class, any deterioration
within that quality factor shall 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 (NVHandbok 2008:2). However, this means that the assessment
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
10 (16)
551-11639-2022
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.
Because the Water Directive aims to protect water environments and its
ecosystems (protection of water such as
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 attachment 72, the company means“[…] that it is not appropriate to
assess the status of a quality factor or a certain substance only based on a single
annual average, as recipient data from single years will always show some
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.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
11 (16)
551-11639-2022
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 Section 4 HVMFS 2019:25 states that "The water authority
shall classify the physico-chemical quality factor of particular 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 at any
monitoring station representative of the surface water body."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 the 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 must be
emphasized that there are no measurements of mercury in biota from the
Sörbrändöfjärden water body. Data from Harufjärden (approx. 20 km
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
12 (16)
551-11639-2022
east of Sörbrändöfjärden) shows that the average mercury content in the 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.
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.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
13 (16)
551-11639-2022
(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 homes concerned. 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
about the timetable for the implementation of
the construction works and when particularly disruptive work phases 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.
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
14 (16)
551-11639-2022
b) 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 handling 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.
c) 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
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
15 (16)
551-11639-2022
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.
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 hearing, 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.
Contact details
You are welcome to contact the County Administrative Board for questions on
010-225 50 00 or via e-mail
[email protected] . Enter the case diary
number 11639-2022 in the subject line of the email.
Those who participated in the opinion
The decision on the opinion has been taken by unit manager Anna-Carin Ohlsson with
environmental engineer Mikael Larsson as rapporteur, both units for
Norrbotten County Administrative Board Opinion
2023-03-20
16 (16)
551-11639-2022
environmental protection. The County Administrative Board's units for environmental protection and environmental
analysis participated in the preparation of the case.
This document has been digitally approved and therefore lacks a signature.
Copy to
Talga AB through contact person Christin Jonasson,
[email protected] , and agents Joel Mårtensson,
[email protected] , and Albin Gustafsson,
[email protected] .
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,
[email protected]The authority for social security and preparedness (MSB),
[email protected]The Norwegian Sea and Water Authority,
[email protected]Luleå Municipality,
[email protected]
(20min delay)