Processing the application of Nussir about getting deposit between one and two million of mine waste annually Repparfjorden is currently being considered by the Environment Directorate. They have asked for an assessment of the knowledge base for current conditions from SINTEF and the Norwegian Veritas (DNV).
Both the independent parties pointed out several deficiencies in Akvaplan Nivas report which is the basis for the impact assessment of mining in Repparfjorden.
Now Akvaplan Niva submitted their comments on these considerations the Environment Directorate, which concludes: “We are confident that the conclusions of the impact assessment for the marine environment in Repparfjorden is solid grounded in the work that is done and can not see that criticism from DNV and Pfizer rays at our main conclusions. “
Reviews
Reviews DNV and SINTEF is mainly that measurements Akvaplan Niva has done neither captures water movement throughout Repparfjord, or movements that brings water from the bay and out to the nearest ATM, where it passes strong tidal currents that brings mining waste out in larger areas. This Norwegian wrote when criticism from DNV and SINTEF first came out in late August.
“The missing an overview of how the meters were set up; a harmonic tidal analysis to reveal tidal contribution to the current conditions should have been performed. The most obvious weakness is that the model of current conditions in Repparfjorden not connected to the surroundings outside the fjord. It provides a strong simplification of the current image in the bay. “Stated in SINTEF and the DNV report.
– Could have been done much better
Akvaplan Niva has gone through their feedback ratings from DNV and SINTEF point by point. “DNV and SINTEF have many sensible and constructive criticism, but we also perceive some of the criticism to be of less importance.”
“The parts of SINTEF criticism concerning water exchange and specification of tides on the boundary of the model domain we mean is based off of simple reasoning. “
” The most serious criticism of our work is that which is aimed at validating the model, and we are agree that this could have been done much better. “
Section of Environment Directorate, Harald Sørby would not comment on the opinions from the three parties yet.
– We received the note from Akvaplan Niva earlier last week. We are working on it now and have not come to a conclusion yet.
Meetings Institute of Marine Research Today
Environment Directorate meetings today IMR to review their input on the matter. They have previously stated very critical issue.
When oceanographer Jan Helge Fosså was Kvalsund Hammerfest in late May, he referred to what he thinks is more critical point:
- Much of Repparfjorden bottom ecosystem deployed.
- The copper content is 2.5 times as high as the most severe classification for environmental management.
- In the permitted zoning it is regulated for larger areas than those described in the environmental impact report.
- The modeling of flow in the area is not good enough .
You do not know enough about the consequences of such emissions.
He said the following, “It is a big problem that it is not focused on doing research. The fact that we do not know much, does not mean it’s full steam ahead “and stressed that the government should put the precautionary principle into account.
– Want dialogue
Head of Section, Environment Directorate, Harald Sorby, looking forward to meeting IMR.
– We are interested in having a dialogue with IMR. It is definitely a competent body that may contribute to our affairs, and it is important to have a good relationship with them so that we can have the best possible cooperation.
Sørby shows that they are now considering whether they have obtained all the information they need. They will decide in September. He has previously stated that the Environment Directorate aims to make a decision on the matter during the year.
No comments:
Post a Comment