Formannskapet i Førde klager sjødeponiet inn til ESA

Jeg fikk ikke linken din til å virke...

Men en oversettelse av Scope punkt 3 i innlegget ditt sier vel egentlig nok om at denne klagen ikke vil føre frem til noe:
3. "Inert avfall og forurenset jord som følge av prospektering , utvinning, behandling og lagring av mineralressurser og utnyttelse av steinbrudd og avfall fra utvinning, behandling og lagring av torv skal ikke være underlagt artikkel 7, 8, 11 (1) og (3), 12, 13 (5), 14 og 16, med mindre avsatt i en kategori A avfallsanlegg . Vedkommende myndighet kan redusere eller frafalle krav til deponering av ikke-farlig avfall fra prospektering av mineralressurser , med unntak av olje og andre enn gips og anhydritt, samt for deponering av forurenset jord og avfall fra evaporitter utvinning, behandling og lagring av torv, så lenge det er tilfreds med at kravene i artikkel 4 er oppfylt. Medlemsstatene kan redusere eller frafalle kravene i artikkel 11 (3), 12 (5) og (6), 13 (5), 14 og 16 for ikke-farlig ikke-inert avfall, med mindre deponert i en kategori A avfallsanlegg ."


I tillegg til det du har skrevet, kan man også merke seg at hverken OSPAR, Londonkonvensjonen eller Londonprotokollen omhandler sjødeponering fra land.

OSPAR, The London Convention & the International Maritime Organization
The "Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972", the "London Convention" for short, is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities and has been in force since 1975. Its objective is to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution and to take all practicable steps to prevent pollution of the sea by dumping of wastes and other matter. Currently 87 States are Parties to this Convention. In 1996, the "London Protocol" was agreed to further modernise the Convention and, eventually, replace it. Under the Protocol all dumping is prohibited, except for possibly acceptable wastes on the so-called "reverse list". The Protocol entered into force on 24 March 2006 and there are currently 45 Parties to the Protocol.

Se også: "Spesifikke retningslinjer for vurdering av inert, uorganisk , geologisk materiale".

Felles for disse avtalene (OSPAR, Londonkonvensjonen og protokollen) er at de omhandler "dumping" og ikke "fra-land-føring". § 22-2. i forurensningsloven (Del 6. Forurensning til vassdrag og det marine miljø fra skipsfart og andre aktiviteter - Kapittel 22. Mudring og dumping i sjø og vassdrag) definerer "dumping":
"dumping: enhver forsettlig disponering av avfall eller annet materiale i sjø eller vassdrag med det formål å bringe det av veien, herunder senking av ammunisjon samt senking og etterlatelse av skip. Dumping omfatter ikke disponering av avfall eller annet materiale som er knyttet til eller skriver seg fra vanlig drift av skip, innretning eller fiskeri- og oppdrettsnæring, unntatt når avfallet eller materialet er fraktet bort fra avfallskilden med det formål å bringe det av veien"

At § 22 ikke gjelder "fra-land-føring" understrekes også av miljødirektoratet:
"Utfylling/dumping fra land reguleres ikke etter disse bestemmelsene. Slik utfylling/dumping reguleres mest hensiktsmessig etter plan- og bygningsloven. Forurensningsloven kan likevel komme til anvendelse for større saker, og/eller der sedimentene på utfyllings-/dumpestedet er forurensede."

Sjødeponi i Førdefjorden anses som en stor sak og derfor gjelder forurensningsloven, men det endrer ikke definisjonen av "dumping". Dermed blir, slik jeg ser det, EU's vanndirektiv ikke brutt. I Norge gjelder dessuten norges nasjonale vannforskrift og evt. krav i EU's vannforskrift skal være tatt høyde for i denne. Eventuelle brudd på EU's vannforskrift vil isåfall kunne føre til endring i vår nasjonale vannforskrift med mindre man f.eks. benytter seg av pkt. 3: "...Medlemsstatene kan redusere eller frafalle kravene i artikkel 11 (3), 12 (5) og (6), 13 (5), 14 og 16 for ikke-farlig ikke-inert avfall, med mindre deponert i en kategori A avfallsanlegg."

Fra ec.europa.eu

- A comprehensive framework for the safe management of waste from extractive industries at EU level is now in place comprising:

• Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from the extractive industries (the mining waste directive).
  
• a Best Available Techniques reference document for the management of tailings and waste-rock in mining activities; and
  
• an amendment of the Seveso II Directive to include in its scope mineral processing of ores and, in particular, tailings ponds or dams used in connection with such mineral processing.

SUSPROC "Sustainable Production and Consumption":

In 2014-2017, SUSPROC will carry out the review process of the BREF on the Management of tailings and Waste-rock in mining activities (MTWR BREF).
- By coordinating the information exchange between stakeholders from industries, Members States and environmental NGOs, the JRC-IPTS provides the Commission with BREFS, short for Reference documents containing information on the Best Available Techniques, and thus contributes to environmental protection and a sustainable development of the industrial sector.

- On 2 September 2015, the Questionnaire exercise finished with 88 questionnaires collected with information on the management of waste from the mining, quarrying and on-shore oil & gas extractive industries. TWG Members were then given until the end of September 2015 to cross-check the completed questionnaires.

- The JRC-IPTS is now in the process of analysing all data and information received from the TWG, through the questionnaires and other channels. This input will serve to elaborate the draft review of the MTWR BREF. This draft review document will be called the 'Draft BREF on the Management of Waste from the Extractive Industries (MWEI BREF)', in order to better reflect the agreed changes between the scope of the former MTWR BREF and the new document. The release of this draft review document is foreseen for the beginning of 2016.

Et lite utdrag fra BREF "Management of Tailings and Waste-rock in Mining Activities": (fra s. 349).
Det er dette dokumentet som skal komme i en revidert utgave i begynnelsen av 2016.

Merk at dette gjelder for reaktivt gruveavfall, noe eklogittavgangen ikke er, da den er definert som inert.

Subaqueous tailings disposal of reactive tailings
Subaqueous tailings disposal means the disposal of tailings under water. The objective of subaqueous tailings disposal is to minimise the contact between atmospheric oxygen and the tailings, and thereby to minimise the oxidation of reactive materials, especially the oxidation of sulphides. The objective is normally to maintain a permanent water cover on the tailings during operation as well as after closure. The effectiveness of the subaqueous tailings disposal is mainly based on four mechanisms, as summarised by Robertson et al. (1997):

1. reduced availability of oxygen, due to two reasons: (1), the saturated oxygen concentration in water is 25000 times lower than in air, (2) the oxygen diffusion coefficient is 10000 times lower in water than in air. This means that very little oxygen is available for oxidation reactions and that the transport process to supply oxygen is very slow
2. sulphide reduction. At low oxygen concentration levels in the water, sulphate reducing bacteria consume sulphate and thereby produce hydrogen sulphide, which easily reacts with most dissolved metals and form a stable precipitate
3. oxide scavenging. This involves the formation of iron and manganese oxides which are effective in absorbing a broad range of dissolve metals
4. sediment barriers. After production has stopped, a sediment layer will naturally develop on top of the deposited tailings which is very effective in minimising the interaction between the tailings and the overlaying water.

The subaqueous disposal method was studied in detail by the Canadian Research Programme MEND. The ultimate result of this research project was the development and release of the Design Guide for the subaqueous disposal of reactive tailings in constructed impoundments (MEND, 1998) which in a detailed way describes all relevant aspects of designing a subaqueous tailings disposal site. Numerous publications focusing on detailed geochemistry in water covered tailings have been produced by the University of Luleå at Stekenjokk and the Kristineberg water covers, mainly by Öhlander, Ljungberg and Holmström (e.g., Ljungberg, 1999; Holmström, 2000).

Subaqueous disposal or submerged tailings disposal can, in principle, be done in constructed impoundments (tailings ponds), flooded open pits, natural lakes or in marine conditions. The environmental and political complexity increases in the same order as the disposal alternatives are listed. Normally one out of two methods of disposal are commonly used:

• a floating pipeline, that discharges the tailings under the water surface into the disposal facility which is normally mobile in order to distribute the tailings over the facility
• a submerged pipeline, that discharges the tailings below the water surface. Applying deep see tailings management, either confined or unconfined, reduces engineering requirements (i.e. no dam needs to be built or maintained), increases the chemical stability and reduces the footprint on land. Therefore deep sea or lake deposition eliminates dam safety issues. Often submarine tailings management is considered risky because of the inability to predict, control or rectify the spread of contaminants throughout the environment. Another concern is that too little is known about the subaqueous environment and therefore an impact assessment is difficult to undertake.

Underwater disposal can provide the most efficient means of preventing the oxidation of sulphides. This will result in better water quality during operation, with eliminated or reduced needs for water treatment. Underwater disposal minimises material demands at closure and eliminates the need for extensive borrow pits to be opened for the cover material. Some aditional advantages with subaqueous disposal are, e.g. the elimination of dust emissions as there is no beach, and on improved visual impression.

Underwater deposition is slightly more costly compared to conventional deposition above the water level, as it requires more day to day adjustments in order to optimise the filling of the pond. Final decommissioning costs are drastically lower.

Several criteria need to be taken into account to determine the applicability of this technique. The hydrological situation is critical, with a need for a positive water balance. The physical capacity for storage under water needs to be sufficient. For large mines, very large and deep lakes or access to the ocean is required or, else large dams need to be constructed, which is not always possible.

The Lökken mine in Norway used continuous underwater deposition. The Lisheen mine currently uses this technique. Water covers, or other techniques to submerge tailings, waste-rock and mines are successfully used as a decommissioning method and are described in literature (e.g., Eriksson et al., 2001; Pedersen et al., 1997; Amyot and Vézina, 1997). A detailed performance study on water covers was carried out within the MiMi research project (http://mimi.kiruna.se).

Underwater tailings management
At the Hustadmarmor calcium carbonate operation in Norway, the tailings are discarded into a fjord, which is sheltered and deep, as no suitable land is available for management of the tailings.
The monitoring programme, used to control the environmental impact inside and around the deposit area, covers the following parameters:

• Water analyses:

    solids content (turbidity)

    salinity (sea water)

    oxygen content

    temperature

• Sediment analyses:

    of calcium carbonate content

    fine particle content

    biological activity

    content of flotation reagents

• Shallow waters:

    biological activity

    visual documentation (photos).

In addition, other measurements are applied in order to be able to develop suitable models etc. in order to predict future development. These include:

• sea current measurements
• depth measurements and volume calculations
• video filming of the seabed
• revegetation of the seabed area after depositing is ended.

Operation of the process and the tailings management system includes:
• washing the fines from the flotation feed
• computer-based process control
• on-line analyses of chemical composition of the flotation feed and tailing, in order to optimise calcite recovery and reagent consumption
• making of saleable by-products from the tailing fines
• recirculation of process water
• high density of tailings slurry to deposit
• seawater used as transport water for slurry tailings
• avoiding air entering the pumping system
• avoiding leaks and spills to sea surface
• utilising a tailings pipe outlet at 20 m below sea level.

Maintenance:
• redundant pumps and piping system to the deposit area
• preventive maintenance of tailing related systems
• regular undersea inspection of tailings pipes
• regular undersea inspection at the pipe outlet area
• evaluation of the necessity to move the tailing pipes.

The advantages, as listed in Section 4.3.1.2.2 are:
• reduction of engineering requirements (no dams are needed)
• increased chemical stability
• reduction of footprint on land.

This technique is applicable where the tailings slurry will form a high density plume that will descend to the bottom of the sea, leaving a clear water area above the pipe outlet.

Men uansett kva oppdateringar som kjem meiner eg at den informasjonen som vi har her tyder på at det ikkje er noko problem med sjødeponi, sett opp mot vassdirektivet, og iallefall ikkje så lenge som ein har gjort ein vurdering av massane som vert deponert (inert eller ikkje) osv.