MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 782: Spm. om kopi af de dokumenter, der er givet til DR i aktindsigt vedrørende udledning af miljøfarlige stoffer, Cheminova m.v., og som er anvendt af 21Søndag og DR-nyhederne de seneste par uger

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2023-24
MOF Alm.del
Offentligt

Miljøministeriet

Aktoversigt

Sagstitel: Opfølgning på afgørelse fra MFKN fra 23. februar 2023 om

forringelse og merudledning

Sagsnummer: 2023 4492

Akt nr.

Dato

Titel

Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-

cover Transportministeriet

Akt ID

498221

498209

498141

Parter

Kommentar

100 30-05-2023 09:55:41

99 30-05-2023 10:08:32 VS: Tværministeriel Koordination at 0U-

cover Transportministeriet

98 30-05-2023 15:35:00 Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i

marine vandområder

97 31-05-2023 14:32:23 SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar 498208

ad tværministeriel koordination at 0U

cover m.v.

96 31-05-2023 17:20:57 Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk

tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id

nr.: 7672875)

95 31-05-2023 17:29:56 Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk

tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id

nr.: 7673760)

498219

498218

94 01-06-2023 15:46:23 SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar 498207

ad tværministeriel koordination at 0U

cover mv.

93 02-06-2023 10:47:00 Cases/eksempler udledning at

miljøfarlige stoffer

498143

92 02-06-2023 13:49:27 SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar 498206

ad tværministeriel koordination at 0U

cover m.v.

06-06-2023 14:13:03 Eksempler på udfald at afgørelse ved

udledning til et vandområde med

overskridelse at miljøkvalitetskrav (MST

Id nr.: 7702753)

498177

90 07-06-2023 13:25:09 Vs: Eksempler på kompenserende tiltag

indenfor og delvist udenfor projektet

(MST Id nr.: 7714159)

89 09-06-2023 15:25:06 SV: Vejledning til bekendtgørelse om

indsatsprogrammer i VP3-pakken

12-06-2023 14:41:55 SV: Udledningsscenarier til

vandområder, hvor MKK er overskredet

19-06-2023 10:29:03 Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved

udpegning at blandingszoner (MST Id

nr.: 7715868)

498176

498195

498185

498214

86 23-06-2023 16:14:15 Samtale med Kabnietchef forud for

ministerens møde med

miljøkommissæren

85 27-06-2023 12:14:31

VS: Opfølgning på mødet med

Kommissæren i dag

498205

498204

498150

84 08-08-2023 09:45:00 SV: Endelig version at dokument

omkring kompenserende

foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST

Id nr.: 8075217)

83 08-08-2023 10:25:00 SV: Endelig version at dokument

498149

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 782: Spm. om kopi af de dokumenter, der er givet til DR i aktindsigt vedrørende udledning af miljøfarlige stoffer, Cheminova m.v., og som er anvendt af 21Søndag og DR-nyhederne de seneste par uger

omkring kompenserende

foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST

Id nr.: 8075683)

82 31-08-2023 13:12:11

VS: Spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede

fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning

i koncentrationen

498200

06-09-2023 08:45:13 Svar på spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede

fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning

i koncentrationen (MST Id nr.: 8249914)

1 2-09-2023 11:41:15

VS: Forslag til svar på Benjamins sidste

spørgsmål kommentar

498212

498199

498198

79 05-10-2023 17:33:38 Vs: NY SAG: Revideret FAQ 43 i

vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til

udledning af visse forurenende stoffer

(oversendt til DEP) (MST ld nr.:

8521759)

78 06-10-2023 14:36:16 VS: FAQ43 Endelig (MST Id nr.:

8531872)

77 23-10-2023 13:56:34 SV: Faglig Referencegruppe

Dagsorden til kommentering (MST Id nr.:

8627647)

498197

498196

76 02-05-2023 13:58:00 SV: Udledning af vejvand (spildevand

alm. belastet separat

regnvandsudledning)

498016

antal relacerede dokumenter.

Den 22. marts 2024

—

_--_._

r-e-r

—

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover

Transportministeriet

Aktnummer: 100

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498221

30-05-2023 09:55:41

Indgående

[1] Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover Transportministeriet.eml

[2] MFKN afgørelse om udledning til belastet recipient

TRM 30.05.2023.docx (MEDTAGES IKKE)

[3] Bilag 3 oversigt over berørte brancher TRM 30.05.2023.docx (MEDTAGES IKKE)

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498221

[Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover Transportministeriet

]

Dokument I

[Tværmi.

Til:

Cc:

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng ([email protected]), Moheb Sahar ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]),

Maria Aviaja Sander Holm ([email protected]), Charlotte Arp Vibegaard (carpfvm.dk), Johan Garfiel

([email protected]), Kathrine Bløcher ([email protected]), Morten Ejrnæs ([email protected]), Lars Koize (LFST)

([email protected]), Bolette de Roepstorff ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP ([email protected]), jajonoem.dk ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), Jacob Ryholt Schmidt ([email protected]), Dorthe Nielsen ([email protected]), Forsvarsministeriet

([email protected]), FMN-TMB Zlateva Tatiana Margrethe Beck ([email protected])

Fra:

TRM Lene Priess ([email protected])

Titel: Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover Transportministeriet

Sendt: 30-05-2023 09:53

Bilag: MFKN afgørelse om udledning til belastet recipient TRM 30.05.2023.docx; Bilag 3 oversigt over berørte

brancher TRM 30.05.2023.docx;

Kære Rikke.

Tak for fremsendte.

Se vedlagte umiddelbare tilføjelser og kommentarer fra Transportministeriet

Du er velkommen til at tage fat i mig, hvis der er spørgsmål.

mvh

Lene

godkendt på kontorniveau.

Med venlig hilsen

Lene Priess

Chefkonsulent

Transportministeriet

Ministry of Transport

Vej- og Brokontoret

Frederiksholms Kanal

27 F

DK-1220 København K

4523494168

1pr@Irmk

trm.dk

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: VS: Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover

Transportministeriet

Aktnummer: 99

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498209

30-05-2023 10:08:32

Intern

[1] VS Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover Transportministeriet.eml

[21

MFKN afgørelse om udledning til belastet recipient TRM 30.05.2023.docx (MEDTAGES IKKE)

[3] Bilag 3 oversigt over berørte brancher TRM 30.05.2023.docx (MEDTAGES IKKE)

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498209

[VS: Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover

Transportministeriet

]

Dokument I

[VS

...

Til:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt:

Bilag:

Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Cecilie Spanner Rydeng (cespamim.dk)

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

VS: Tværministeriel Koordination af 0U-cover Transportministeriet

30-05-2023 10:08

MFKN afgørelse om udledning til belastet recipient TRM 30.05.2023.docx; Bilag 3 oversigt over berørte

brancher

TRM 30.05.2023.docx;

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø

og Produktion

+45 21 82 28 811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet IVester Voldgade 123 11552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 42

[email protected] Iwww.mim.dk

Eacebook

Twitter I iftstagiam

Youtube

Privatlivspolitik

Fra: TRM Lene Priess <[email protected]>

Sendt: 30. maj 2023 09:53

Til: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Cc: Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>; Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>;

Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <[email protected]>; Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <[email protected]>; Johan Garfiel <[email protected]>;

Kathrine Bløcher <[email protected]>; Morten Ejrnæs <[email protected]>; Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <[email protected]>; Bolette

de Roepstorff <[email protected]>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <[email protected]>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen

<[email protected]>; Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP) <[email protected]>; Jakob Jonassen <[email protected]>; Frederik Olund

Kirkegaard <[email protected]>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt <[email protected]>; Dorthe Nielsen <[email protected]>;

Forsvarsministeriet <[email protected]>; Tatiana Margrethe Beck Zlateva <[email protected]>

Emne: Tværministeriel Koordination af ØU-cover Transportministeriet

Kære Rikke.

Tak for fremsendte.

Se vedlagte umiddelbare tilføjelser og kommentarer fra Transportministeriet godkendt på kontorniveau.

Du er velkommen til at tage fat i mig, hvis der er spørgsmål.

mvh

Lene

Med venlig hilsen

Lene Priess

Chefkonsulent

Transportministeriet

Ministry of Transport

Vej- og Brokontoret

Frederiksholms Kanal

27 F

DK-1220 København K

+45 23 49 41 68

lpr@trntdk

adk

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder

Aktnummer: 98

AktID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498141

30-05-2023 15:35:00

Udgående

[1] Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder.eml

[2] Kort

over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand

marine vandområder.docx

Den

22.

marts

2024

AKT 498141

[

Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder]

Dokument 1

[Kort over

...

Thomas Frank-Gopolos ([email protected]), Bo Skovmark ([email protected])

Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent ([email protected]), Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Cc:

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder

Sendt: 30-05-2023 15:35

Bilag: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder.docx;

Til:

Kære Bo og Thomas

Som nævnt overfor Bo i telefonen vil vi høre, om der er mulighed for at gøre punkterne på vedhæftede kort større

og/eller ændre farverne for at gøre dem tydeligere?

Ville det være muligt at fremhæve større virksomheder (virksomheder MST er miljømyndighed for) eller punktkilder

med stor samfundsmæssig betydning som renseanlæg, eller er det en større opgave? Vi skal desværre bruge kortet

allerede i

morgen.

Ring endelig til mig eller Maria, hvis I har spørgsmål.

Mvh

Lene

Venlig hilsen

Lene Carpentier

Specialkonsulent I Vand og Klimatilpasning

+4524

66 53 16

I [email protected]

Miljoministeriet

Departementet I Slotsholmsgade

11216 København K I Tlf. +4538 1421

I mim@inimdk I vwmirmdk

Eacbxoi

Twitter

I Ijistagiam I UnkeJin I Youlube

AKT 498141

[

Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder]

Dokument 2

[Kort over

Bilag 2 Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine

vandområder

—

30. maj 2023

Rodt: Marine vandområder, hvor mil)omål

ikke

er opfyldt, da et eller flere

miljokvalitetskrav for EU-prioriterede miljofarlige forurenende stoffer er

overskredet.

Grønt: Marine vandområder, hvor miljomål for EU-prioriterede miljofarlige

forurenende stoffer er opfyldt.

Marine vandområder med ukendt kemisk tilstand

Orange:

Virksomheder

(feksodukuon,deponi,

Punktkilder lilla:

renseanlæg

Punktkilder rod: —Overlob.

st2?

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel

koordination af 0U cover m.v.

Aktnummer: 97

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498208

31-05-2023 14:32:23

Udgående

11]

SV Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover m.v..eml

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498208

[SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover mv.

]

...

Til:

Charlotte Arp Vibegaard ([email protected]), TRM Lene Priess ([email protected]), Maria Aviaja Sander Holm ([email protected]), Johan Garfiel

(jogaroem.dk), Kathrine Bløcher ([email protected]), Morten Ejrnæs ([email protected]), Lars Kolze (LFST) ([email protected]), Bolette de

Roepstorif ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), FMN-TMB Zlateva Tatiana Margrethe Beck

([email protected]), Jacob Ryholt Schmidt ([email protected]), Dorthe Nielsen ([email protected]), Forsvarsministeriet ([email protected]), FMN

TMB Zlateva Tatiana Margrethe Beck ([email protected]), Forsvarsministeriet ([email protected])

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng ([email protected]), Moheb Sahar ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Jeanie Sølager Bigler

Cc:

([email protected]), Lars Bødker Madsen ([email protected])

Fra:

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Titel: SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar

tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover m.v.

Sendt: 31-05-2023 14:32

Kære alle

I får lige en statusmelding herfra. Vi arbejder på en opdateret version af materialet, der kommer ud til ny kommentering snarest muligt.

Processen er justeret efter aftale med FM således, at vi planlægger med FØ 13.6 og stadig et ØU 22.6, såfremt FØ vil være enige

dette.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 822881 [email protected]

Miljoministeriet

Oepartementetl Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VITIf. +4538

1421 42

[email protected]

Facehook Twiher

Instagram

Youtube

Privatlivspolitik

Fra: Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <[email protected]>

Sendt: 30. maj 2023 15:03

Til: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>; TRM Lene Priess <[email protected]>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <[email protected]>; Johan Garfiel

<[email protected]>; Kathrine Bløcher <[email protected]>; Morten

Ejrnæs <[email protected]> Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <[email protected]>; Bolette de

Roepstorff <[email protected]>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <[email protected]>; Christine

Aggerstrøm Hansen <[email protected]>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <[email protected]>; Jakob Jonassen <[email protected]>; Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <[email protected]>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt

<[email protected]>; Dorthe Nielsen <[email protected]>; Forsvarsministeriet <[email protected]>; [email protected]

Cc: Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>; Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>; Jeanie Sølager Bigler

<[email protected]>; Lars Bødker Madsen <[email protected]>

Emne: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af

ØU

cover mv.

Kære Rikke

Tak for det tilsendte materiale.

Vi kommenterer muligvis senere og tekstnært

i en revideret udgave af

materialet til ØU-sagen.

Venlig hilsen

Charlotte Arp Vibegaard

Chefkonsulent

Retskontor

+45

50 83 95 73

carpi5Lfl1dk

Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

Department

Holbergsgade 6 11057

København Kl Tlf. +4538 106000

fvm@fvindk

wwJvm.dk

Facebook

Instagram

Linkedln

Privatlivspolitik

Fra: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Sendt: 26. maj 2023 15:37

Til: TRM Lene Priess <1PR@IRtvLdk>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm

<msh@jnijlk>;

Charlotte Arp Vibegaard

<carp@fvrnik>;

Johan Garfiel

<jogariemdk>;

Kathrine Bløcher <katbI@kefmdk>; Morten Ejrnæs

<mejr@fmdk>;

Lars Steenbjerg Kolze

<IAK@IbLdk>;

Bolette de

Roepstorif <[email protected]>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger

<KFH@TRfVLdk>;

Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <[email protected]>; Laura Nielsen

Wester

(EM-DEP)

<1auwesitem.dk>;

Jakob

Jonassen

<jajoii@oenidk>;

Frederik Olund Kirkegaard

<ftüki@fmdk>;

Jacob Ryholt Schmidt

<JARYS@kefrndk>;

Dorthe

Nielsen <&,[email protected]>; Forsvarsministeriet

<fmn@fmndk>; [email protected]

Cc:

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng

<cesa@mimçIk>;

Moheb Sahar

<msaha@mimcJjç>;

Lene Carpentier

<Iecar@mimIk>

Emne: SV: Transportministeriet ang. Tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover (FVM Id nr.: 468197)

Kære alle

Jeg vedhæfter yderligere bilag til sagen om Miljøministeriets fortolkning

vandrammedirektivets forringelsesprincip.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 123 1552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 42 ImimimirndkItmmimdk

Face book

Twiher

Linkedln

Privatlivspolitik

Fra: Rikke Slot Benyahia <ris1bXmimdk>

Dato:

26.

maj 2023 kl. 10.24.16 CEST

Til: kfh@trmdk <[email protected]>,

Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <cagfmdk>, Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP)

<1auwes@emdk>, Maria

Aviaja Sander Holm <msh@jmdk>, Jakob Jonassen

<jajonfoemdk>, Frederik Olund Kirkegaard

<froki@fmdk>, Charlotte

Arp

Vibegaard <[email protected]>, Morten Ejrnæs <mejr@fvmdk>, Johan Garfiel <jgan.oemdk>,

Kathrine Blocher <[email protected]>, Jacob Ryholt Schmidt <1ARYSi?.kfiudk>, Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <[email protected]>, Dorthe

Nielsen <d.cniei@1hstdk>, Bolette de Roepstorff<BOLROkefm.dk>, [email protected] <[email protected]>

Cc:

Lene Kriegbaum Jakobsen <lekja@mimdk>, Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>, Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <cspa@mindk>,

Lene Carpentier <1ccar@inimdk>

Emne:

Tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover

Prioritet: Høj

Kære alle

Tak for jeres deltagelse på sidste statusmøde. Som lovet kommer her udkast til 0U- cover om ‘Håndtering af principiel afgørelse fra Miljø- og

Fødevareklagenævnet”. Neden for er gentaget processen frem mod 0U:

Uge 21: interministeriel koordinering

Uge 22: 30.5: sag lægges til clearing i FM mhp udsendelse 2.6

Uge 23: 6.6: FØU

Uge 25: 22.6 ØU

Jeg skal bede om jeres bemærkninger til sagen senest tirsdag 30. maj kl. 9.00. Vi er fuldt opmærksomme på, at vi absolut ikke giver jer

meget tid til respons, men håber at I qua vores møder har en ok fornemmelse af sagen.

Jeg vil også gerne vide, hvis I ikke har bemærkninger. Bilag 4 om nabotjek eftersendes snarest. I må gerne tage stilling til, hvorvidt de er

oplysende for sagen.

Vi arbejder parallelt med at kvantificere de erhvervsmæssige og samfundsøkonomiske konsekvenser i form af eksempler.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VI Tlf. +4538142142 [email protected]

hitps://urll2.mailanyone.net/scanner?mlg2U8H-0007xR-

3Y&d=4%7Cmail%2F90%2EI80S4fiDD%2E1qaUii000lxR

3Y%7Cin 1 2f%7C57e 1 b682%7021t52947%ZC&387277%7C647081 893B2820DB077A37FEC2CC1 OCA&o=..wwkimdwm&s=8MCQIKY1 RD1 oVEGjgctn7olx6ks

Facebook

Iwitter

lnsta.gram

Linke.dlo

Youtube

Privatlivspolitik

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine

vandområder (MST Id nr.: 7672875)

Aktnummer: 96

AktlD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498219

31-05-2023 17:20:57

Indgående

[11

[31

[41

Sv Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr. 7672875).eml

[2] alle punktkilder.png

punktkilder ekskl RBU.png

RBU.png

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498219

[Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr.: 7672875)]

...

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Thomas Frank-Gopolos ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel:

Sv:

Kort

over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr.: 7672875)

Sendt: 31-05-2023

17:20

Bilag:

alle punktkilder.png; punktkilder ekskl RBU.png; RBU.png;

Til:

Hej Lene.

Hermed mit bud på forbedring af kort over kemisk tilstand i kystvande samt punktkilder.

Du er meget velkommen til at kontakte mig, hvis noget kan forbedres.

Vh Thomas

Thomas Frank-Gopolos

Ingeniør I Miljøstyrelsen Østjylland

Fagdatacenter

for Punktkilder

+45 20 32 04 60 [email protected]

Miljø-

og Fødevareministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen Vasevej

I 8920

Randers NV

I Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00 I [email protected] I www.ms1dk

Til:

Cc:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt: 30-05-2023 15:35

Kære Bo og Thomas

Thomas Frank-Gopolos ([email protected]), Bo Skovmark ([email protected])

Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent ([email protected]), Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Kort over punktkilder

og kemisk tilstand

marine vandområder

Som nævnt overfor Bo i telefonen vil vi høre, om der er mulighed for at gøre punkterne på vedhæftede kort

større og/eller ændre farverne for at gøre dem tydeligere?

Ville det være muligt at fremhæve større virksomheder (virksomheder MST er miljømyndighed for) eller

punktkilder med stor samfundsmæssig betydning som renseanlæg, eller er det en større opgave? Vi skal

desværre bruge kortet allerede i morgen.

Ring endelig til mig eller Maria, hvis I har spørgsmål.

Mvh

Lene

Venlig hilsen

Specialkonsulent

I Vand og Klimatilpasning

+45246653 16

[email protected]

Lene Carpentier

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Slotsholmsgade

12 11216

København K

I Tlf. +45 38 1421

42 [email protected]

w.mim.dk

Facebook

Linkedln

AKT 498219

[Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr.: 7672875)

]

Dokument 2

[alle punktkilder]

Punktkilde r

Jånköping

Cothenburg’

Havbrug

Industri

RB ‘U

Renseanlæg

Saltvandsdambrug

Kystvande kemisk tilstand

•‘•:•

I’

God kemisk tilstand

lLkke-god kemisk tilstand

Ukendt kemisk tilstand

KaIn,ar’

,flJ*

tt.

Halmstad’

4--’

=...

AKT 498219

Dokument 3

[Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr: 7672875)1

GoLhenburg’

Punktkilder

God kemisk tilstand

Ikke-god kemisk tilstand

Ukendt kemisk tilstand

Halmstad•

Havbrug

Industri

Renseanlæg

Saltvandsdambrug

AKT 498219

]änköping’

Cothmiburq’

[Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr.: 7672875)

]

Dokument 4

[R...

Kystvande kemisk

tilstand

•

God kemisk tilstand

• ikke-god kemisk tilstand

Ukendt kemisk tilstand

P u nktkilder

Regnva n d

‘çt

•j.>L.

•

Växjä’

Halmstad’

Ka lrnar’

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine

vandområder (MST ld nr: 7673760)

Aktnummer: 95

AktID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498218

31-05-2023 17:29:56

Indgående

[1] Sv Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr. 7673760).eml

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498218

[Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand i marine vandområder (MST Id nr.: 7673760)1

...

Til:

Fra:

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Thomas Frank-Gopolos ([email protected])

Titel: Sv:

Kort

over punktkilder og kemisk

tilstand

i marine vandområder (MST Id nr.: 7673760)

Sendt: 31-05-2023 17:29

Hej Lene.

Lidt ekstra info: Kortene viser punktkilder, der var aktive i 2021. Størrelsen på punkterne varierer efter den

gennemsnitlige udledning af kvælstof i perioden 2019-2021.

Vh Thomas

Thomas Frank-Gopolos

Ingeniør

Miljøstyrelsen Østjylland

Fagdatacenter for Punktkilder

+45 20 32 04 60 [email protected]

Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Vasevej 7

8920 Randers NV

Tlf.

+45

72 54 40 00

[email protected]

&w.msLdk

Til:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt:

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Thomas Frank-Gopolos ([email protected])

Sv: Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand

marine vandområder

31-05-2023 17:20

Hej Lene.

Hermed mit bud på forbedring af kort over kemisk tilstand i kystvande samt punktkilder.

Du er meget velkommen til at kontakte mig, hvis noget kan forbedres.

Vh Thomas

Thomas Frank-Gopolos

Ingeniør

Miljøstyrelsen Østjylland

Fagdatacenter for Punktkilder

+45 20 32 04 60 [email protected]

Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Vasevej 7

8920 Randers NV

Tlf.

+45

40 00

[email protected]

w.mst.dk

Til:

Cc:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt:

Thomas Frank-Gopolos ([email protected]), Bo Skovmark ([email protected])

Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent ([email protected]), Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Kort over punktkilder og kemisk tilstand

marine vandområder

30-05-2023 15:35

Kære Bo og Thomas

Som nævnt overfor Bo i telefonen vil vi høre, om der er mulighed for at gøre punkterne på vedhæftede kort

større og/eller ændre farverne for at gøre dem tydeligere?

Ville det være muligt at fremhæve større virksomheder (virksomheder MST er miljømyndighed for) eller

punktkilder med stor samfundsmæssig betydning som renseanlæg, eller er det en større opgave? Vi skal

desværre bruge kortet allerede i morgen.

Ring endelig til mig eller Maria, hvis I har spørgsmål.

Mvh

Lene

Venlig hilsen

Lene Carpentier

Specialkonsulent

Vand og Klimatilpasning

+45246653 16 I [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Slotsholmsgade 12 11216 København K

Tlf. +45 38 14 21 42

I mim@mimdk I ww.mimsIk

Facehook

Twitter

I Ir’stagram I

Linkadin

I Youtube

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel

koordination af 0U cover m.v.

Aktnummer: 94

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498207

01 -06-2023 15:46:23

Udgående

[1] SV Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover m.v..eml

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498207

[SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover mv.

]

...

Charlotte Arp Vibegaard ([email protected]), TRM Lene Priess ([email protected]), Maria Aviaja Sander Holm ([email protected]), Johan Garfiel

([email protected]), Kathrine Bløcher ([email protected]), Morten Ejrnæs ([email protected]), Lars Koize (LFST) ([email protected]), Bolette de

Roepstorff ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), FMN-TMB Zlateva Tatiana Margrethe Beck

([email protected]), Jacob Ryholt Schmidt ([email protected]), Dorthe Nielsen ([email protected]), Forsvarsministeriet ([email protected]), FMN

TMB Zlateva Tatiana Margrethe Beck ([email protected]), Forsvarsministeriet ([email protected])

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng ([email protected]), Moheb Sahar ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Jeanie Sølager Bigler

Cc:

(jesob@fvm dk), Lars Bødker Madsen ([email protected])

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel:

SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover mv.

Sendt:

01-06-2023 15:46

Til:

Kære alle

Procesmelding herfra; der kommer

ikke

revideret version i dag. Jeg vender tilbage så hurtigt som muligt i morgen.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 42 [email protected] Iwww.mim.dk

Instagram

Voutube

Privatlivspolitik

Fra: Rikke Slot Benyahia

Sendt: 31. maj 2023 14:32

Til: Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <[email protected]>; TRM Lene Priess <[email protected]>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <[email protected]>; Johan Garfiel

<[email protected]>; Kathrine Bløcher <[email protected]>; Morten Ejrnæs <[email protected]>; Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <[email protected]>; Bolette de

Roepstorff <[email protected]>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <[email protected]>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <[email protected]>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <lauwes@’em.dk>; Jakob Jonassen <[email protected]>; Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <[email protected]>; [email protected]

<[email protected]>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt <[email protected]>; Dorthe Nielsen <[email protected]>; Forsvarsministeriet <[email protected]>;

[email protected]; Forsvarsministeriet <[email protected]>

Cc:

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>; Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>; Jeanie Sølager Bigler

<[email protected]>; Lars Bødker Madsen <[email protected]>

Emne:

SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover mv.

Kære alle

I får lige en statusmelding herfra. Vi arbejder på en opdateret version af materialet, der kommer ud til ny kommentering snarest muligt.

Processen er justeret efter aftale med FM således, at vi planlægger med FØ 13.6 og stadig et ØU 22.6, såfremt FØ vil være enige i dette.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent I Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228811 ris1bmim.dk

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421

Imim@mirmdkl e.w.mimdk

Facebook

Iwitter

I lnslawam I

Linke.dln

I Youtube I Privatlivapolitik

Fra: Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <carp@fvmdk>

Sendt: 30. maj 2023 15:03

Til: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>; TRM Lene Priess <LPR@IRIvLdk>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <msh@jmdk>; Johan Garfiel

<[email protected]>; Kathrine Bløcher <kathI@iefmdk>; Morten Ejrnæs <nieji@t&m.dk>;

Lars Steenbjerg Kolze

<[email protected]>; Bolette de

Roepstorff <[email protected]>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <[email protected]>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <ceg@irrLdk>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <lau [email protected]>; Jakob Jonassen <jajon@oemdk>; Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <frki@Imdk>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt

<J.ARYS@kefmdk>; Dorthe Nielsen <[email protected]>; Forsvarsministeriet <fmn@fmiidk>; tmh@fmrLilk

Cc: Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <c.espa@miindk>; Moheb Sahar <msaha@mimdk>; Lene Carpentier <Iecaritmimdk>; Jeanie Sølager Bigler

4eb@f\tmik>;

Lars Bødker Madsen <lo.d.@&mdjç>

Emne: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover mv.

Kære Rikke

Tak for det tilsendte materiale.

Vi kommenterer muligvis senere

tekstnært

i en revideret udgave af materialet til ØU-sagen.

Venlig hilsen

Charlotte Arp vibegaard

Chefkonsulent

Retskontor

+45 50 83 95 73

carp@Jvmdk

Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

Department Holbergsgade 611057 København K

I Tlf. +4538 1060001 [email protected]

vaww.fvmdk

Facebook

Twiuer

Linkedln

PrivatlivSpolitik

Fra: Rikke Slot Benyahia <risIbttrnirn.dk>

Sendt: 26. maj 2023 15:37

Til: TRM Lene Priess <LPR@IRM..çjk>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <[email protected]>; Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <carp@lfvmd1ç>; Johan Garfiel

<jogar@omdk> Kathrine Bløcher <katbI@kefmdk>; Morten Ejrnæs <mejr@fvmrik>; Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <[email protected]> Bolette de

Roepstorif <BDtRÇ2@kefmdk>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <KEH@IRfvtdk>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <[email protected]>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <[email protected]>; Jakob Jonassen <[email protected]>; Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <froki@fmçIk>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt

<JABYS@kefmjlk>; Dorthe Nielsen <rkniel@Ibstdk>; Forsvarsministeriet <[email protected]>; [email protected]

Cc: Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>; Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>

Emne: SV: Transportministeriet ang. Tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover (FVM Id

nr.: 468197)

Kære alle

Jeg vedhæfter yderligere bilag til sagen om Miljøministeriets fortolkning af vandrammedirektivets forringelsesprincip.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 123 11552 København

Tlf. +4538 1421 42

mim@mimdk

æsw.mimdk

Facebook

Instagram

Yputube

Privatlivspolitik

Fra: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Dato: 26.

maj

2023 kl. 10.24.16 CEST

Til: kfliJtrmdk <k±h@trmdk>, Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <cag@fmdk>, Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP)

<[email protected]>, Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <mshjmdk>, Jakob Jonassen

<jajnoemdk>,

Frederik Olund Kirkegaard

<froki@fmdk>, Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <carp.fvnLdk>, Morten Ejrnæs <[email protected]>, Johan Garfiel <jogaroemdk>,

Kathrine Bløcher <katbk.kcfmdk>, Jacob Ryholt Schmidt <[email protected]>, Lars Steenbjerg Koize <LAK@lbsttlk>, Dorthe

Nielsen <tkmiel@JbsLdk>, Bolette de Roepstorif <[email protected]>, 1pr@irindk <1pr@1rm1k>

Cc:

Lene Kriegbaum Jakobsen <1ekjaniimclk>, Moheb Sahar <msaha@mimdk>, Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>,

Lene Carpentier <lecar@nhinLclk>

Emne:

Tværministeriel koordination af ØV cover

Prioritet:

Høj

Kære alle

Tak for Jeres deltagelse på sidste statusmøde. Som lovet kommer her udkast

til ØU- cover om “Håndtering af principiel afgørelse fra Miljø- og

Fødevareklagenævnet’. Neden for er gentaget processen frem mod 0U:

Uge 21: interministeriel koordinering

Uge 22: 30.5: sag lægges til clearing

FM mhp udsendelse 2.6

Uge 23: 6.6: FØU

Uge 25: 22.6 ØU

Jeg skal bede om jeres bemærkninger til sagen

senest tirsdag

30.

maj kl.

9.00.

fuldt opmærksomme på, at vi absolut ikke giver jer

meget tid til respons, men håber at

qua vores møder har en ok fornemmelse af sagen.

Jeg vil også gerne vide, hvis

ikke har bemærkninger. Bilag

om nabotjek eftersendes snarest.

I må

gerne tage stilling til, hvorvidt de er

oplysende for sagen.

Vi arbejder parallelt med at kvantificere de erhvervsmæssige og samfundsøkonomiske konsekvenser

form af eksempler.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 82

28811

[email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552 København V ITIf. +4538 1421 42 mimmirnd1çhttpsiL1url12.mailanyone.net/scanner?m=1g2U8H-000lxRr

3Y&d=4%7Cmail%2F90%2F1685094600%2F1

g2U8H0U0.ZxRr

3Y%7Cin

1 21%7C57e1 b682%7C21 1 52947%7C8367277%7C647081

893B282008077A37FEC2CC1 OCA&o=..wwkimdwm&s=8MCOIKY1 BDloVEGjgctn7OIx6ks

Facebook

Twiuer

Instagram

Yoitiibe

Privatlivspolitik

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Casesleksempler udledning af miljøfarlige stoffer

Aktnummer: 93

Den 2Z marts 2024

AktiD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498143

02-06-2023 10:47:00

Udgående

[1] Caseseksempler udledning af miljøfarlige stoffer.eml

AKT 498143

[Cases/eksempler udledning af miljøfarlige stoffer]

Dokument i

[Caseseksempler udi...

Til:

Cc:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt:

Jan Reisz ([email protected])

Christina Ellegaard ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Cases/eksempler udledning af miljøfarlige stoffer

02-06-2023 10:47

Kære Jan

Som nævnt har vi brug for nogle eksempler/cases til at illustrere konsekvenser af forskellige tilgange.

Vil I kunne illustrere:

1. Løsning af sag ud fra hidtidige regler og vejledning

2. Løsning at sag ud fra nul-scenarie (der kan ikke tilføres yderligere af et stof, der er overskridelser af

miljøkvalitetskrav for)

3. Løsning af sag ud fra “stigning i koncentration” (der kan ske tilførsel af et stof, som ikke fører til en stigning i

koncentrationen)

Hvor lang tid vil det tage jer at levere sådanne eksempler/cases?

Mvh

Lene

Som aftalt.

Venlig hilsen

Lene Carpeniter

Specialkonsulent

Vand og Klimatilpasning

+45246653 16

Iecarrnim.diç

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Frederiksholms Kanal 26 11220 København K I

Tlf.

+45 38 1421 42 I [email protected] I

wimim.dk

Eacebok

Twier 1aiam

I Linkedin I Youtube Ra

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel

koordination af 0U cover m.v.

Aktnummer: 92

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498206

02-06-2023 13:49:27

Udgående

[1] SV Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover m.v..eml

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498206

[SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover mv.

]

==...

Til:

Cc:

Charlotte Arp Vibegaard ([email protected]), TRM Lene Priess ([email protected]), Maria Aviaja Sander Holm ([email protected]), Johan Garflel

([email protected]), Kathrine Bløcher ([email protected]), Morten Ejrnæs ([email protected]), Lars Kolze (LFST) ([email protected]), Bolette de

Roepstorif ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), FMN-TMB Zlateva Tatiana Margrethe Beck

([email protected]), Jacob Ryholt Schmidt ([email protected]), Dorthe Nielsen ([email protected]), Forsvarsministeriet ([email protected]), FMN

TMB Zlateva Tatiana Margrethe Beck ([email protected]), Forsvarsministeriet ([email protected])

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng ([email protected]), Moheb Sahar ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Jeanie Sølager Bigler

([email protected]), Lars Bødker Madsen ([email protected])

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel: SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af 0U cover m.v.

Sendt: 02-06-2023 13:49

Kære alle

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+45 21 8228 811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 42

[email protected]

www.mim.dk

Facehook

Instagram

I inkedln

Youtube

Privatlivspolitik

Fra: Rikke Slot Benyahia

Sendt: 1. juni 2023 15:46

Til: Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <[email protected]>; TRM Lene Priess <[email protected]>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <[email protected]>; Johan Garfiel

<[email protected]>; Kathrine Bløcher <[email protected]>; Morten Ejrnæs <[email protected]>; Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <[email protected]>; Bolette de

Roepstorif <[email protected]>; ‘TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <[email protected]>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <[email protected]>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <[email protected]>; Jakob Jonassen <[email protected]>; Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <[email protected]>; [email protected]

<[email protected]>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt <[email protected]>; Dorthe Nielsen <[email protected]>; Forsvarsministeriet <[email protected]>;

‘tmbfmn.dk’ <[email protected]>; Forsvarsministeriet <[email protected]>

Cc:

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>; Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>; Jeanie Sølager Bigler

<[email protected]>; Lars Bødker Madsen [email protected]>

Emne: SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af

0IJ

cover mv.

Kære alle

Procesmelding herfra; der kommer ikke revideret version

dag. Jeg vender tilbage så hurtigt som muligt i morgen.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228 811 ris1b@mimdk

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VI TIt. +4538 1421 42

[email protected]

Facebook

wibei

Instagram

Linkedln

Yoiitiibe

Fra:

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Sendt: 31. maj 2023 14:32

Til: Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <car.p.@fvmdk>; TRM Lene Priess <[email protected]>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <m&h@jmdk>; Johan Garfiel

<[email protected]>; Kathrine Bløcher <[email protected]>; Morten Ejrnæs <[email protected]>; Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <IAK@Ibstdk>; Bolette de

Roepstorff <flQLRQ@kefmdk>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <[email protected]>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <[email protected]>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <[email protected]>; Jakob Jonassen

<[email protected]>;

Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <frok[@fmdk>; ‘[email protected]

<tmbfrnn.çik>;

Jacob Ryholt Schmidt <[email protected]>; Dorthe Nielsen <[email protected]>; Forsvarsministeriet <fmn@1inndk>;

tmh@fmmdk; Forsvarsministeriet <fmn@Imndk>

Cc: Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>; Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>; Jeanie Sølager Bigler

<[email protected]>;

Lars Bødker Madsen

<Iamad@fvmdk>

Emne: SV: Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover mv.

Kære alle

I får lige en statusmelding herfra. Vi arbejder

på

en opdateret version af materialet, der kommer ud til ny kommentering snarest muligt.

Processen er justeret efter aftale med FM således, at vi planlægger med FØ 13.6 og stadig et ØU 22.6, såfremt FØ vil være enige i dette.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228811

rislb@mimdk

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552

København VITIf. +4538 1421

42 [email protected]

lvMaw.mifll_dk

Facebook

Twiber

Instagram

I inkedln

Youtube

Fra:

Charlotte Arp Vibegaard <carp@fvnidk>

Sendt: 30. maj 2023 15:03

Til: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>; TRM Lene Priess <LPR@IRMdk>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <mshijrndk>; Johan Garfiel

<jogar@oeindk>; Kathrine Bløcher <katN kefmdk> Morten Ejrnæs <mejrIIfvm.dk>; Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <LAK@ItsIdk>; Bolette de

Roepstorif <BQLRÇkefmJk>; TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <KEH@IRfvLiIk>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <cag@fmdk>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <1auweiem.dk>; Jakob Jonassen <jajonioemdk>; Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <frokiifmdk>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt

<JABYS@Jçeftnjik>; Dorthe Nielsen <rkni.eli1bstdk>; Forsvarsministeriet <fmii@fmndk>; [email protected]ç

Cc:

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <cspa@mimdk>; Moheb Sahar <msaha@mimdk>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>; Jeanie Sølager Bigler

<jesoh@fvnidk>; Lars Bødker Madsen <tamad@fvmdk>

Emne:

Fødevareministeriets foreløbige svar ad tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover mv.

Kære Rikke

Tak for det tilsendte materiale.

—

Vi kommenterer muligvis senere og tekstnært i en revideret udgave af materialet til ØU-sagen.

Venlig hilsen

Charlotte Arp Vibegaard

Chefkonsulent

Retskontor

+45 50 83 95 73

carpindlç

Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

Department I

Holbergsgade 611057 København K

I Tlf. +4538 106000

[email protected]

ss,fvmsJiç

Instagram

Linkedln

Fra:

Rikke Slot Benyahia <risIb@mimdk>

Sendt: 26. maj 2023 15:37

Til: TRM Lene Priess <LPR@IRTVLdk>; Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <msli@jmdk>; Charlotte Arp Vibegaard

<carpfyrndk>;

Johan Garfiel

<jogar@oemdk>; Kathrine Bløcher

<[email protected]>;

Morten Ejrnæs <mejr@1vmdk>; Lars Steenbjerg Kolze <IAK@Jbstdk>; Bolette de

Roepstorif

<BLRQ@iefmdk>;

TRM Kirstine F. Hindsberger <KEH@IRTvtdk>; Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <cagjfnidk>; Laura Nielsen

Wester (EM-DEP) <lau [email protected]>; Jakob Jonassen <jajan@oeIrLdk>; Frederik Olund Kirkegaard <[email protected]>; Jacob Ryholt Schmidt

<JARYS@kefmdk>; Dorthe Nielsen <rioniel@Ihstdk>; Forsvarsministeriet <tmn@frnndk>;

tmb@Imndk

Cc:

Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <[email protected]>; Moheb Sahar

<msaha@mimclk>;

Lene Carpentier

<Iecar@inimclk>

Emne: SV: Transportministeriet ang. Tværministeriel koordination af ØU cover (FVM ld nr.: 468197)

Kære alle

Jeg vedhæfter yderligere bilag til sagen om Miljøministeriets fortolkning af vandrammedirektivets forringelsesprincip.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 8228 811 dslb@minulk

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

I Vester Voldgade 123 11552 København VI Tlf. +4538

1421 42

[email protected]

assmim.dk

Twibei

Instagram

Linkedln

You tube

Fra:

Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Dato:

26. maj 2023 kl. 10.24.16 CEST

Til:

kfh@1rmdk <kffiitrm.dk>, Christine Aggerstrøm Hansen <cag@fmdk>, Laura Nielsen Wester (EM-DEP)

<[email protected]>, Maria Aviaja Sander Holm <msh@jnLdk>, Jakob Jonassen <jajonJüemdk>, Frederik Olund Kirkegaard

<froki@fmdk>, Charlotte

Arp

Vibegaard <carp@fvmdk>, Morten Ejrnæs <mejr@fvmdk>, Johan Garfiel <jogar.oemdk>,

Kathrine Bløcher <katbl@ke±hulk>, Jacob Ryholt Schmidt <1ARYS.kefilLdk>, Lars Steenbjerg Koize <LAK1bsLdk>, Dorthe

Nielsen <doniel@IbsLdk>, Bolette de Roepstorff<RQLRQ.kefndk>, 1prtn1Ldk <[email protected]>

Cc:

Lene Kriegbaum Jakobsen <[email protected]>, Moheb Sahar <[email protected]>, Cecilie Spanner Rydeng <cespa@mimdk>,

Lene Carpentier <lecar@mimdk>

Emne:

Tværministeriel koordination afØU cover

Prioritet:

Høj

Kære alle

Tak for jeres deltagelse på sidste statusmøde. Som lovet kommer her udkast til 0U- cover om ‘Håndtering af principiel afgørelse fra Miljø- og

Fødevareklagenævnet”. Neden for er gentaget processen frem mod 0U:

Uge 21: interministeriel koordinering

Uge 22: 30.5: sag lægges til clearing i FM mhp udsendelse 2.6

Uge 23: 66: FØU

Uge 25: 22.6 ØU

Jeg skal bede om jeres bemærkninger til sagen senest tirsdag

30.

maj kl. 9.00. Vi er fuldt opmærksomme på, at vi absolut ikke giver jer

meget tid til respons, men håber at I qua vores møder har en ok fornemmelse af sagen.

Jeg vil også gerne vide, hvis I ikke har bemærkninger. Bilag 4 om nabotjek eftersendes snarest. I må gerne tage stilling til, hvorvidt de er

oplysende for sagen.

Vi arbejder parallelt med at kvantificere de erhvervsmæssige og samfundsøkonomiske konsekvenser i form af eksempler.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+4521 822881! flSlb@ffllflhfik

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 42

mim.mim.çilçl

https://url12.mailanyone.netIscanner?m1g2U8H-OOO7xR

3Y&d=4%7Cmail%2F90%2F1685094600%2F1 g2U8H-0007xR-

3Y%7Cinl 2f%7C57e1 b682%7C21 1 52947%7C8367277%7C647081 893B2820DB077A37FEC2CC1 OCA&o=..wwkimdwm&s=8MCQIKY1 BDloVEGjgctn7OIx6ks

Fachook

TwiCer

Instagram

Privstlivspolitik

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Eksempler på udfald af afgørelse ved udledning til et

vandområde med overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav (MST Id nr.:

7702753)

Aktnummer: 91

AktID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498177

06-06-2023 14:13:03

Indgående

[1] Eksempler på udfald af afgørelse ved udledning til et vandområde med overskridelse af

miljøkvalitetskrav (MST Id nr. 7702753).eml

[2] Eksempel på udfald af afgørelse ved forskellige forudsætninger for merudledning når der er

overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav.pdf

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498177

[

Eksempler på udfald af afgørelse ved udledning til et vandområde med overskridelse af miljøk...

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Jan Reisz ([email protected]), Ann-Kathrine Aggerholm ([email protected])

[email protected] ([email protected])

Titel: Eksempler på udfald af afgørelse ved udledning til et vandområde med overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav (MST

nr.: 7702753)

06-06-2023 14:12

Sendt:

Bilag:

Eksempel på udfald af afgørelse ved forskellige forudsætninger for merudledning når der er overskridelse af

Til:

Cc:

Fra:

milj økvalitetskrav. pdf;

Hej Lene

Her som lovet en præsentation af udfald på afgørelse til en virksomheds ansøgning, alt efter hvilke

forudsætninger der er for tilladelse til merudledning, når der i forvejen er overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav

i det modtagende overfladevandsområde.

Som jeg fortalte dig i telefonen, så mangler der lidt afklaring omkring kriterierne for eksemplet, hvor

udledningen ikke må give anledning til en koncentrationsstigning.

1. Er det kun i den matrixe, hvor der er målt overskridelse af miljØkvalitetskravet dette gælder

2. Eller må der ikke være koncentrationsstigning i nogen af matrixerne?

Vores vurdering i powerpointet er lavet ud fra både punkt i og 2, da overskridelserne af miljøkvalitetskravet

i casen er i biota.

Miljøstyrelsen, virksomheder vurderer umiddelbart, at det vil være et fåtal af ansøgninger, som potentielt

vil kunne få tilladelse på baggrund af forudsætningerne under punkt i. Det vil være udledninger til

vandområder, hvor overskridelsen af miljøkvalitetskrav kun er målt i vandfasen dvs, primært vandløb og

søer.

Venlig hilsen

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen

Specialkonsulent

Virksomheder

+4572544211 I+4522468625l1obinamsLdk

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

5000 Odense C

Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00

I mst@mstilk I ww.jnsLdk

Sådan håndterer vi dine personoplysninger

‘i..

Eksempel på aktuel ansøgning hos MST; virksomheder

Powerpointet præsenterer udfaldet for afgørelsen for en aktuel

ansøgning under behandling af Miljøstyrelsen, under følgende

forudsætninger for merudledning, når der i forvejen er overskridelser af

et miljøkvalitetskrav i det modtagende vandområde:

• Afgørelse baseret på den suspenderede vejledning

• Afgørelse baseret på, at der IKKE må ud ledes mere af stoffet til

vandområdet

• Afgørelse baseret på, at udledningen ikke må give anledning til en

koncentrationsstigning i vandområdet

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentation]

Side 2

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand

• Jf. tidligere gældende lovgivning, måtte der kun gives tidbegrænset

(8 års) tilladelse til direkte udledning af prioriterede stoffer

• En virksomheds tidsbegrænsede godkendelse til udledning af flere af

de prioriterede stoffer udløber. Virksomheden søger derfor om

fornyet ikke tidsbegrænset tilladelse til udledning af stofferne bly,

cadmium, nikkel og kviksølv.

• Virksomheden udleder til et marint vandområde, hvor udkast til

tilstandsvurdering til Vandområdeplan 3 angiver, at der ikke er god

kemisk tilstand. I vandområdet er der overskridelse af

miljokvalitetskravet for biota for bl.a. stofferne bly, kviksølv og

cadmium.

•

Udover miljøkvalitetskrav til koncentrationen af stofferne i biota, er

der også miljøkvalitetskrav til koncentrationer i vandfasen og i

sediment. Baseret på målinger i det konkrete vandområde af de 4

stoffer i vandfasen og sedimentet, vurderes der

ikke

at være

overskridelse af det generelle, maksimum eller sediment

miljøkvalitetskravet for de 4 stoffer.

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentation

Side 3

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand

I tabellen nedenfor er det angivet i hvilken af de tre matricer i det

modtagende vandområde (vand, sediment og biota), der vurderes

at være overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav (MKK) for de ansøgte

stoffer.

Sediment

Ingen

overskridelse

Ingen

overskridelse

Ingen

overskridelse

Ingen

overskridelse

Parameter

Vandfasen

Biota

Overskridelse af

MKK

Overskridelse af

MKK

Overskridelse af

MKK

Ingen

overskridelse

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel pa præsentation]

Side 4

Bly

Ingen

overskridelse

Cadmium

Ingen

overskridelse

Kviksølv

Ingen

overskridelse

Nikkel

Ingen

overskridelse

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand ud fra den suspenderede vejledning

FAQ 43, der nu er suspenderet, angiver for de tilfælde hvor

miljøkvalitetskravet for biota er overskredet i vandområdet:

Det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand er for de fleste stoffer fastsat til en

værdi, der sikrer samme beskyttelse som miljøkvalitetskravet for biota.

Derfor hvis miljøkvalitetskravet for biota for et givet stof allerede er

overskredet i vandområ det, uden at det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand

er overskredet, kan der ved fastsættelse af udlederkrav for en

udledning ses bort fra overskridelsen af miljøkvalitetskravet for biota,

og udledningen kan anses for at være uden betydning for påvirkningen

af biota, hvis den ikke medfører overskridelse af det generelle

kvalitetskrav for vand ved randen af en eventuel blandingszone.

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel pä præsentation]

Side 5

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand ud fra den suspenderede vejledning

•

Virksomheden får fornyet tilladelse til udledning af de 4 stoffer

•

Der beregnes blandingszoner for de fire stoffer. Størrelsen af de beregnede

blandingszoner overholder vejledning herom i FAQ 51.

•

Det vurderes med udgangspunkt i FAQ 43, at udledningen ikke vil forringe

tilstanden eller hindre målopfyldelsen for vandområdet herunder

miljøkvalitetskravet for biota, hvis den ikke medfører en

koncentrationsforøgelse i blandingszonens rand på mere end 5 % af stoffets

generelle kvalitetskrav for vand

• I tabellen nedenfor er der vist:

Størrelsen af de beregnede blandingszoner i forhold til overholdelse af

miljøkvalitetskravene for vandfasen.

Det generelle og maksimum miljøkvalitetskravet er overholdt

blandingszonens rand ved de beregnede blandingszoners rand

Jnerelt

Miljøkvalitetskrav

[pg/l]

Nødvendig

blandingszone for

Parameter

I forvejen

forekommende

koncentration målt

vandfasen i

vandområder

[p9”]

1,3

0,2

Maksimum

miljøkvalitetskrav

[pgIl]

Nødvendig

blandingszone for

overholdelse af

generelt

miljøkvalitetskrav

j[m]

overholdelse af

maksimum

miljøkvalitetskrav

j[m]

0,45

0,07

Bly

pg/L

<0,1

<0,03

<0,001

0,52

0,5

8,6

0,5

[Titel pä præsentation]

Side 6

Cadmium

pg/L

kviksølv

pg/L

Nikkel

pg/L

________________

______

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand ud fra den suspenderede vejledning

Ud over vurdering af udledningens påvirkning af vandfase og

sediment, skal udledningens påvirkning af sediment også vurderes.

Koncentrationsstigningen i sedimentet beregnes ud fra vejledningen i FAQ 44

Udledningen vil ikke medføre overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav for

sedimentet.

Udledningen vil ikke give anledning til en væsentlig ophobning i sedimentetjf.

vejledningen i FAQ

For stofferne nikkel og bly giver udledningen ikke en koncentrationsstigning i

sedimentet, hvis der ses på antal betydende cifre ift. stoffets

sedimentkvalitetskrav

en beregnede

Lsulterende

oncentrationsstigning

oncentration

redimet grundet

ediment

udledningen

[mg/kg TS]

0,03

0,01

0,003

0,04

mg/kg TS]

0,47

0,269

6,2

Koncentrationsstigning

i forhold til

Lsediment

edimentkvalitetskrav/k

terium eller PNEC

ærdier for

Loncentration i

edimentet målt i

,andområdet

mg/kg TS]

163*

4,275* (38+naturlig

baggrund på 0,475)

9,3***

16,8** (6,8+ naturlig

baggrund på 10)

lSedimentkvalitetskrav*/

riterium** eller PNEC-

frærdier*** for sediment

n g/kg tørstof Lmg/kg

[tS]

[%]

0,02

0,3

0,03

0,2

Miljøstyrelsen

ITitel på præsentation]

Side 7

0,46

0,266

6,2

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand hvis der ikke må ledes et stof ud til et vandområde,

hvor MKK for dette stof vurderes overskredet

• Virksomheden vil få afslag til det ansøgte, da det ikke er muligt at

rense spildevandet tilstrækkeligt for de relevante stoffer.

Spildevandet skal renses så koncentrationen af stofferne ikke kan

måles, altså så koncentrationen er under detektionsgrænsen

• Overvejelser, der skal belyses

• Skal det antages, at afskæringskriteriet er at stoffet ikke må kunne

måles i spildevandet?

• I så fald hvilken detektionsgrænse skal der anvendes?

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel pä præsentation]

Side 8

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand hvis udledningen ikke må give anledning til en

koncentrationsstigni ng

•

Der er miljøkvalitetskrav til 3 matrixer, vand, sediment og biota.

• Det modtagende vandområde har overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav for

biota men ikke for vand og sediment.

—

•

Det ansøgte medfører koncentrationsstigning i vand og sediment, hvor der

altså ikke er overskridelser i forvejen

• Hvis der må udlægges en blandingszone, så medfører

koncentrationsstigningen ikke overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav i

blandingszonens rand.

•

Da der sker en mertilførsel af stof til vandområdet, vil stoffet kunne ophobes i

biota på samme vis, som det gør i sediment.

• Vurdering af påvirkning af biota er hidtil gjort ud fra forudsætningen at det

generelle miljøkvalitetskrav for de fleste stoffer er fastsat så det sikrer

samme beskyttelse som miljøkvalitetskravet for biota. I dette scenarie er

dette princip fortsat suspenderet

• Der er pt ingen vejledning i hvordan myndigheden skal beregne

koncentrationsstigning i biota grundet en udledning.

Det forventes at virksomheden vil få afslag til det ansøgte, da der sker en

mertilførsel af stof til vandområdet, som vil kunne ophobes i biota på samme

vis, som det gør i sediment.

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentationi

Side 9

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand opsamling

• Afgørelse baseret på den suspenderede vejledning

tilladelse til det ansøgte

—

der kan gives

• Afgørelse baseret på, at der IKKE må udledes mere af stoffet til

vandområdet- Afslag til det ansøgte

• Afgørelse baseret på, at udledningen ikke må give anledning

til

koncentrationsstigning i vandområdet- Afslag til det ansøgte

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentation]

Side 10

Tilladelse til fortsat direkte udledning af 4 tungmetaller med

processpildevand opsamling

• Det gennemgåede eksempel er for en direkte udledning af

processpildevand til et kystvandsområde (marint område).

•

De samme antagelser og konklusioner vil være gældende for direkte

udledninger til vandløb og søer, samt for vurdering af deposition af

miljøfarlige stoffer fra virksomhedernes luftafkast på vandområder.

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentation

Side 11

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Vs: Eksempler på kompenserende tiltag indenfor og delvist

udenfor projektet (MST Id nr.: 7714159)

Aktnummer: 90

AktiD:

Dato:

498176

07-06-2023 13:25:09

Type:

Dokumenter:

Indgående

[1] Vs Eksempler på kompenserende tiltag indenfor og delvist udenfor projektet (MST Id nr. 7714159).eml

[2] Eksempler pà neutralisering af nye udledninger af miljøfarlige stoffer.pptx

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498176

[VS: Eksempler på kompenserende tiltag indenfor og delvist udenfor projektet (MST Id nr.: 7714...

Til:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt:

Bilag:

Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Birgitte Skou Cordua ([email protected])

[email protected] ([email protected])

Vs: Eksempler på kompenserende tiltag indenfor og delvist udenfor projektet (MST Id nr.: 7714159)

07-06-2023 13:24

Eksempler på neutralisering af nye udledninger af miljøfarlige stoffer.pptx;

Hej Lene og Birgitte

Her er eksemplerne nu som en powerpoint og ikke som PDF

Venlig hilsen

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen

Specialkonsulent I Virksomheder

+45

42 11 +45 22 46 86 25 I [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen I Tolderlundsvej

I 5000 Odense C I Tlf. +45 72

40 00 I [email protected] I www.mst.dk

S.ådarhånd.terer vi dine personoplysninger

Til:

Cc:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt:

Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Birgitte Skou Cordua ([email protected])

Ann-Kathrine Aggerholm ([email protected]), Dorthe Groth Petersen ([email protected]), Jan Reisz ([email protected])

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen ([email protected])

Eksempler på kompenserende tiltag indenfor og delvist udenfor projektet

26-05-2023 14:02

Hej Lene og Birgitte

Jeg havde et par gode kollegaer, som kunne hjælpe med at få lavet et par præsentationer af nogle cases om

kompenserende tiltag

neutraliserende tiltag indenfor og delvist udenfor projektet.

Vi har været nødt til at lave et tænkt eksempel i eksempel nr. 2, da vi endnu ikke er så langt i

sagsbehandlingen for den konkrete sag, at vi ville kunne gøre tallene helt virkelighedsnære. Men eksemplet

med biofuel anlægget er meget tæt på at være meget lig den case vi sidder med pt.

Sig til hvis I har brug for yderligere eller spørgsmål til det sendte.

Har I fået en tilbagemelding fra jeres chef på på mit spørgsmål omkring anvendelse af muligheden for

neutralisering indenfor det konkrete projekt i vores nuværende sagsbehandling?

Venlig hilsen

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen

Specialkonsulent

I Virksomheder

+45 72 54 42 11

+45 22 46 86 25

I lahm-a@m-stdk

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen I Tolderlundsvej

I 5000 Odense C I Tlf.

+45 72 54 40 00

I msI@mstdk I www.msLdk

Sådan håndterer vi dine oersonoolvsnincier

Eksempler på nye udledninger, der neutraliseres indenfor samme

projekt

1. Udledning af overfladevand fra Biofuel virksomhed (producerer

biofuel ud fra biomasse, f.eks. halm)

2. Udledning af almindelig belastet overfladevand fra

fodevarevirksomhed ved samtidig reduktion i udledt

processpildevand

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentation]

Side 2

Eksempel 1: Udledning af overfladevand fra Biofuel

virksomhed

Beregning af udvalgte indholdsstoffer i det alm. belastede

overfladevand (85.000 m3) før og efter rensning i vådt

reg nva n d s bassin.

Beregnet mængde før

rensning

Stof

Rensegrad i vådt

regnvandsbassin

Virksomheden søger

om direkte udledning af

Ca. 85.000 m3 alm

belastet overfladevand

(vand fra f.eks. veje og

tagarealer) til et marint

vandom råde.

(glår)

Regnkvalitet (DHI 2018)

Zink

Kobber

(Vollertsen et al., 2012)

Estimeret

udlobsmængde til

vandområdet efter

rensning

(g/år)

7700

1000

270

1925

250

67,5

0,6

Overfladevandet renses

ved sedimentation i et

vådt regnvandsbassin

(BAT) inden udledning

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel pà præsentationj

Side 3

Udledning af overfladevand fra Biofuel virksomhed

Stof

(2011-2019)

(pg11)

(g/år)

2,6

338

312

8,45

2,4

0,065

4550

1925

250

67,5

0,6

(glår)

Nøgletal for

udledning f

renseanlæg

Beregnet

mængde stof i

130.000 m3 renset

spildevand

Estimeret

udløbs-

mængde fra

overfladevand

(gr)

Netto-

besparelse

for

udledning af

stoffer

Zink

Kobber

2625

244,5

7,85

Samtidigt modtager

virksomheden Ca. 130.000 m3

renset spildevand fra det

lokale renseanlæg.

Spildevandet fra

renseanlægget ville ellers

være udledt til samme marine

vandområde, som

virksomheden søger om

tilladelse til at udlede

overfladevandet til.

Nøgletal fra: Nøgletal for miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer i spildevand fra

renseanlæg. Miljøstyrelsen. Marts 2021.

https://www2. mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2021 /03/978-87-7038-287-8. pdf

Det rensede spildevand

anvendes i produktionen.

Anvendelse af renset

spildevand i produktionen

reducerer derved udledning

af stoffer til vandmiljøet.

Der er derfor en nettobesparelse for udledning af

stoffer (stofmængden i det rensede spildevand

stofmængden i det udledte overfladevand)

—

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel pà præsentation]

Side 4

Udledning af overfladevand fra Biofuel virksomhed

Der er tilladelse til at rense Ca. 2 mio. m3 spildevand på det offentlige renseanlæg

årligt, hvorfor der også udledes Ca. 2 mio. m3 renset spildevand årligt.

Kapaciteten på det offentlige renseanlæg ændres ikke, og renseanlægget kan

derfor ikke modtage mere spildevand til rensning end hidtil. Det er derfor godtgjort

at genanvendelsen af de 130.000 m3 renset spildevand på Biofuel virksomheden er

en reel neutralisering af den øgede udledning, der stammer fra overfladevand fra

virksomheden.

Før og

efter

projekt tilledes der 2 mio

m3 spildevand til rensning på

renseanlægget

Efter

projekt afledes

der

130.000

m3 renset

spildevand fra det

offentlige renseanlæg

til biofuel

virksomheden

Før projekt: 2 mio m3 renset

spildevand udledes til marint

vandområde

Efter

projekt: 1,87 mio m3 renset

spildevand ledes ud til marint

vandområde

Før projektet er der

ingen udledning af

overfladevand.

Efter projekt er der

udledning af 85.000

m3 renset

overfladevand

Eksempel 2: Udledning af overfladevand fra fødevarevirksomhed

En fødevarevirksomhed udleder 150.000 m3 renset processpildevand pr år til

vandom råde X. Spildevandet renses på virksomhedens eget renseanlæg, og er

belastet med en række tungmetaller.

Virksomheden omlægger dele af produktionen, hvormed mængden at udledt renset

processpildevand reduceres med 7.000 m3lår.

Samtidig etableres der nye parkeringsarealer, hvor der søges om tilladelse til

udledning af årligt 7.000 m3 almindelig belastet overfladevand, som renses via

sedimentation

et vådt regnvandsbassin (BAT) inden udledning til samme

vandområde X.

Før: tidledes der

150.000 m3 renset

processpildevand pr. år

Efter: Udledes der

143.000 m3 renset

processpildevand Pr. år

Før: Ingen udledning af

overfladevand

Efter: Udledning af

7.000 m3

overfladevand pr år.

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentation]

Side 6

Udledning af overfladevand fra fødevarevirksomhed

Processpildevandet

indeholder inden rensning en række tungmetaller, som

reduceres betydeligt via rensning. Det rensede processpildevand udledes til

vandom råde X.

Koncentration inden

rensning

(pgIl)

Koncentration efter rensning

(pgIl)

Årlig udledt mængde i

7.000 m3 til vandområde

X(g!år)

1400

Stoffer i

processpildevand

Zink

2000

200

Kobber

1500

1300

1700

550

170

1190

385

130

910

150

1050

Bly

Cadmium

Arsen

Almindeligt belastet overfladevand

fra virksomheden er belastet med 2 tungmetaller,

som er sammenfaldende med de, som var i processpildevandet. Overfladevandet

renses vha. sedimentation i et vådt regnvandsbassin inden udledning, hvormed

koncentration af tungmetaller reduceres.

Koncentration inden

rensning

(pgIl)

Koncentration efter rensning

i BAT løsning

(pgIl)

Stoffer i almindeligt

belastet overfladevand

190

125

Årlig udledt mængde i

7.000 m3 til vandområde

X (g/år)

Zink

950

625

1330

875

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel pä præsentation]

Side 7

Kobber

Cadmium

Arsen

Udledning af overfladevand fra fødevarevirksomhed

Den eksisterende udledningstilladelse til processpildevand nedskrives med 7.000

m3lår, og der gives tilladelse til udledning af 7.000 m3 almindelig belastet

overfladevand pr. år til samme vandom råde.

Den samlede udledte vandmængde til vandområde X vil således være uændret.

Som følge af det ansøgte projekt, vil der være en nettoreduktion af tilførslen af de 5

tungmetaller til vandområdet.

çJ

Før: Udledes der

150.000 m3 renset

processpildevand pr. år

Efter: Ud ledes der

143.000 m3 renset

processpildevand Dr. år

—_F.

Før: Ingen udledning af

overfladevand

Efter:

Udledning af

7.000

overfiadevand or år.

tto årlIg reduktion til vandområdet grundet projeki

Zink: 0,07 kg

Kobber: 0,2 kg

bly: 0,9 kg

Cadmium: 1,2 kg

Arsen:

0,4 kg

Miljøstyrelsen

[Titel på præsentation]

Side 8

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: SV: Vejledning til bekendtgørelse om indsatsprogrammer i

VP3-pakken

Aktnummer: 89

Akt 10:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498195

09-06-2023 15:25:06

Intern

[1] SV Vejledning til bekendtgørelse om indsatsprogrammer i VP3-pakken.eml (MEDTAGES IKKE)

Den 22. marts 2024

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: SV: Udledningsscenarier til vandområder, hvor MKK er

overskredet

Aktnummer: 88

AktiD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498185

12-06-2023 14:41 :55

Indgående

[11 SV Udledningsscenarier til vandområder, hvor MKK er overskredet.eml

[2] Udledningsscenarier.pptx

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498185

[SV: Udledningsscenarier til vandområder, hvor MKK er overskredet]

Dokument i

[

Til:

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected]), Dorte Balle Harder ([email protected]), Steen Pedersen ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Rune Raun-Abildgaard ([email protected])

Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel: SV: Udledningsscenarier til vandområder, hvor MKK er overskredet

Sendt: 12-06-2023 14:41

Bilag: Udledningsscenarier.pptx;

Nu opdateret med slide om fortolkning af forringelse... jeg håber, det giver noget mening?

Venlig hilsen

Maria I. Benavent

Specialkonsulent Vandforsyning

÷45

÷45 40 22 48 99

[email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

5000 Odense C

Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00

[email protected] www.mst.dk

Sådan håndterer

dine personopLysningei

Fra: Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent

Sendt: 12. juni 2023 14:28

Til: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>; Dorte Balle Harder <[email protected]>; Steen Pedersen <[email protected]>;

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen <[email protected]>; Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>

Emne: Udledningsscenarier til vandområder, hvor MKK er overskredet

Kære alle,

Hermed et forsøg på et visuelt præsentation af problematikkerne. Kom menter endeligt

Venlig hilsen

Maria I. Benavent

Specialkonsulent

Vandforsyning

÷45l÷454O224899ImaiLiLi©msLi1ç

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

5000 Odense C

Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00

m.sI@msLdk

wwmsLdk

Sådan håndterer vi dine personoplysninger

AKT 498185

Dokument 2

[SV: Udledningsscenarier tI vandområder, hvor MKK er overskredet]

[

Udledningsscenarier

M iljøkvalitetskrav

I forvejen forekommende

koncentration i vandområdet

ik.

Ingen koncentrationsstigning

lokalt eller i vandområdet som

helhed

Overskridelse af MKK i

udledningspunktet

Omvendt bland ingszone?

Ingen koncentrationsstigning

lokalt eller vandom rådet som

helhed

Beregnet koncentrationsstigning i

vandom rådet som helhed

(detektérbar i repræsentativ

overvågningsstation?)

Overskridelse af MKK i

udledningspunktet

Blandingszone?

Alm. belastet overfladevand, renseanlæg,

separeringsprojekter, overløb, størstedelen af

virksomheders udledninger...

Overholdelse af MKK i

udledningspunktet

1/ Miljøstyrelsen I Titel på præsentation

Forringelse

der medfører stigning i

koncentration...

•

Enhver merudledning...

MFKNs afgørelse

MFKNs præcisering/mai!

i hele vandområdet, som er

detektérbar i en repræsentativ

overvågningsstation

KOM mund!ig ti!kendegivelse

KJUR

EU domme (Dorte, Lene?)

Miljøstyrelsen

Titel på præsentation

Detektérbar

målbar?

Detektions-/kvantifikationsgrænse?

Måleudsikkerhed?

Andet?

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning af blandingszoner

(MST ld nr.: 7715868)

Aktnummer: 87

AktiD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498214

19-06-2023 10:29:03

Indgående

[1] Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning af blandingszoner (MST Id nr. 771 5868).eml

[2] Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning af blandingszoner.docx

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498214

[Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning af blandingszoner (MST Id nr.: 7715868)]

Doku...

Til:

Fra:

Titel: Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning af blandingszoner (MST Id nr.: 7715868)

Sendt: 19-06-2023 10:28

Bilag: Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning af blandingszoner.docx;

Kære alle

Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Rune Raun-Abildgaard ([email protected]), Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected]),

Jens Christian Pabst Berthelsen (jecpbmim.dk), Dorte Balle Harder ([email protected]), Dorte Balle Harder

([email protected]), Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), Hans Sand Kristensen ([email protected]), Lise Marie Johannessen

([email protected]), Benjamin Kelstrup Turner ([email protected])

Steen Pedersen ([email protected])

Jeg luftede på møde for efterhånden et par uger siden mine spæde tanker om en alternativ måde til

udpegning af blandingszoner i vandområder hvor miljøkvalitetskrav er overskredet i forvejen for

pågældende stoffer. Jeg lovede at vende tilbage på skrift herom når jeg havde fået det tænkt lidt mere

igennem. Det har taget lidt tid ind imellem besvarelse af bestillinger om det ene og det andet, og jeg har

givetvist ikke tænkt på alt, herunder eventuelle praktiske implikationer, men her er i hvert fald hvad jeg er

nået frem til. Det blev til lidt mere end den halve side som Lene efterspurgte, men jeg fandt det vigtigt for

forståelsen at erindre om udgangspunktet for det hele.

Vh. Steen

AKT 498214

[Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning af blandingszoner (MST Id nr.: 7715868)]

Doku...

Alternativ fremgangsmåde ved udpegning afblandingszoner

Direktiv om miljøkvalitetskrav fastsætter i artikel 4, stk.

at medlemsstaterne kan udpege blandingszoner

omkring udledningspunkter, inden for hvilke miljøkvalitetskrav fastsat for prioriterede stoffer kan over

skrides, hvis de ikke påvirker det øvrige vandområdes opfyldelse af disse krav.

Direktivets artikel 4, stk. 3, fastsætter, at udstrækningen af de enkelte zoner skal være a) begrænset til

udledningspunkternes umiddelbare nærhed, og b) afpasset efter koncentrationerne af forurenende stoffer

ved udledningspunktet og efter de betingelser for udledning af forurenende stoffer, der er fastsat i de

forudgående reguleringer om udledning fra punktkilder, i overensstemmelse med anvendelse af de bedste

tilgængelige teknikker og vandrammedirektivets artikel

om den kombinerede fremgangsmåde.

Danmark lagde i forhandlingerne om direktiv om miljøkvalitetskrav

afgørende vægt på,

at der ikke samlet

set skete en forringelse afbeskyttelsesniveauet, og lagde

vægt

på, at det foreslåede overgangsområde

(blandingszonen) omkring punktkildeudledninger, hvor det er tilladt at overskride miljøkvalitetskravene,

blev begrænset til alene at omfatte et snævert område omkring udledningsstedet. Det var regeringens

opfattelse, at begrænsningen af overgangsområdets udstrækning dermed ville svare til, hvad der gjaldt efter

eksisterende danske regler, jf. nedenfor. Det var endvidere regeringens opfattelse, at konkrete situationer,

hvor særlige forhold måtte begrunde udpegning af et overgangsområde af større udstrækning, kunne

håndteres gennem anvendelse af vandrammedirektivets undtagelsesbestemmelser, der blandt andet har til

formål i den slags situationer at sikre en passende afvejning af miljømæssige og socioøkonomiske hensyn.

De daværende danske regler var fastsat i bekendtgørelse nr. 1669 af

14.

december

2006

om miljøkvalitets

krav for vandområder og krav til udledning af forurenende stoffer til vandløb, søer eller havet. Det var blandt

andet fastsat i bekendtgørelsen, at det ved fastsættelse af vilkår for udledninger skulle sikres ved beregning,

at miljøkvalitetskrav for forurenende stoffer kunne opfyldes for det berørte vandområde, og at der i

beregningen kunne indregnes en fortyndingsfaktor, hvis der ved udledning skete en fortynding i det konkrete

vandområde. Det var endvidere fastsat, at miljøkvalitetskravet skulle være opfyldt efter fortyndingen, dog

først ved afgrænsningen af et nærområde med mindre strengt miljømål i relation til udledning af

forurenende stoffer, hvis der i vandplanen var fastsat et sådant område. Miljøstyrelsen vejledte frem til

ultimo

2021

om, at en blandingszone i kystvande som udgangspunkt burde begrænses til et område inden for

50-100

meter fra udledningspunktet, hvilken forståelse lå til grund ved formuleringen af dansk holdning i

forhandlingerne om direktiv om miljøkvalitetskrav.

Ovennævnte bestemmelser om udpegning af blandingszoner omkring udledningspunkter er direktivnært

omsat til dansk lovgivning med § 8 i bekendtgørelse nr.

1433

21.

november

2017

om krav til udledning af

visse forurenende stoffer til vandløb, søer, overgangsvande, kystvande og havområder. Bekendtgørelsens

bestemmelser om udpegning afblandingszoner finder anvendelse på både stoffer med EU-fastsatte miljø-

kvalitetskrav og stoffer med nationalt fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav.

Miljøstyrelsen har som vejledning for miljømyndighedernes administration efter bekendtgørelsen udarbejdet

spørgsmål og svar om udpegning af blandingszoner. Det fremgår heraf blandt andet, at udstrækningen af en

blandingszone bør begrænses til maksimalt

350

meter fra udledningspunktet i åbne kystvande og maksimalt

100

meter fra udledningspunktet i fjorde og lukkede kystvande. Hvis miljøkvalitetskrav for et givet stof er

overskredet i forvejen i det berørte vandområde, må udledningen ikke medføre en forhøjelse af den i forvejen

forekommende koncentration ved kanten af blandingszonen på mere end fem procent af det generelle

kvalitetskrav.

I bekendtgørelsens § 8, stk.

er blandt andet fastsat, at miljømyndigheden ved udpegning af en blandings

zone skal fastsætte nærmere, hvilke miljøkvalitetskrav der kan overskrides inden for blandingszonen i hvilket

omfang. I bekendtgørelsens §

12,

stk. 3, er fastsat, at miljømyndighederne skal underrette Miljøstyrelsen om

udpegningen afblandingszoner og herunder oplyse om de fremgangsmåder og metoder, der er anvendt til at

definere dem. Det er uklart ud fra de underretninger, som Miljøstyrelsen hidtil har modtaget, om miljø-

myndighederne ved udpegning afblandingszonerne konkret har fastsat, i hvilket omfang fastsatte miljø-

kvalitetskrav må overskrides inden for zonerne, jf. nævnte § 8, stk.

Det er endvidere uklart, i hvilket

omfang der er foretaget en konkret vurdering af, hvor stor en påvirkning af vandlevende organismer, der kan

anses som acceptabel inden for de udpegede blandingszoner. Ovenfor nævnte vejledning omhandler ikke

spørgsmålet om, hvad der kan anses som acceptabel påvirkning af vandlevende organismer inden for

blandingszoner.

Der er aktuelt behov for at revurdere Miljøstyrelsens vejledning om udpegning af blandingszoner, herunder

navnlig den del, der vedrører iidpegning af blandingszoner for miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer, for hvilke

fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav er overskredet i forvejen i det berørte vandområde. Det kan her overvejes, om der

ved udpegning af blandingszoner og fastlæggelse af de enkelte zoners udstrækning bør anvendes en anden

fremgangsmåde, som tager udgangspunkt i beskyttelseshensyn og begrænsning af blandingszoners

udstrækning til et snævert område omkring udledningsstedet,

jf.

ovenfor, og som dermed i højere grad

afspejler dansk holdning i direktivforhandlingerne. En sådan fremgangsmåde kunne baseres på følgende

principper:

Miljømyndigheden udpeger én blandingszone omkring udledningspunktet gældende for alle

relevante stoffer i udledningen, som efter begrænsning af udledningen i overensstemmelse med

anvendelse af de bedste tilgængelige teknikker og den kombinerede fremgangsmåde vil give

anledning til overskridelse af fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav.

Miljømyndigheden fastsætter blandingszonens udstrækning

til

et snævert område omkring

udledningsstedet.

Miljømyndigheden fastsætter for hvert af de relevante stoffer, hvilke(t) miljøkvalitetskrav der må

overskrides inden for blandingszonen og hvor meget, dog således at intet stof må forekomme

nogetsteds inden for blandingszonen i en koncentration, som er højere end [X

det generelle

kvalitetskrav] eller maksimumkoncentrationen, alt efter hvilken værdi der er lavest, hvor [X

det

generelle kvalitetskrav] er konsistent med definitionen i vandrammedirektivets bilag V af moderat

økologisk tilstand med hensyn til forekomst af specifikke syntetiske stoffer og specifikke ikke-

syntetiske stoffer.

Fremgangsmåden indebærer, at en påvirkning af vandlevende organismer inden for blandingszonen, der

resulterer i, at værdierne for de biologiske kvalitetselementer svarer til, hvad der er defineret for moderat

økologisk tilstand for pågældende type overfladevand, anses som acceptabel.

Fremgangsmåden forudsætter afklaring af, hvorvidt grænsen mellem moderat og ringe tilstand med hensyn

til forekomst af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer kan fastsættes tilnærmelsesvist med en generel faktor, fx som

en koncentration

5 eller

gange det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand. Det må endvidere afklares, om der

er en sådan sammenhæng mellem principperne

og 3 ovenfor, at fastsættelse af en sådan faktor selvstændigt

sikrer, at blandingszonens udstrækning begrænses til et snævert område omkring udledningsstedet.

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Samtale med Kabnietchef forud for ministerens møde med

miljø kommissæren

Aktnummer: 86

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498205

23-06-2023 16:14:15

Intern

[1] Samtale med Kabnietchef forud for ministerens møde med miljøkommissæren.eml (MEDTAGES IKKE)

[2] DK questions an deterioration in the WFD (MIM Id nr.: 41 5448).eml

[3] Letter to COM with DK questions on deterioration.docx

[4] Translation of Environmental and Food Board of Appeal 22-02461 w ad Astra.docx

[5] Bilag 1

Brev til kommissæren.docx

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498205

[Samtale med Kabnietchef forud for ministerens møde med miljøkommissæren

]

Dokument

...

Til:

Env

[email protected],

[email protected]

Cc:

[email protected] (Katrine Rafn), [email protected] (Paolo Perotti), [email protected] (Rikke Slot Benyahia)

Kirsten Vielwerth ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel: DK questions on deterioration in the WFD (MIM Id nr.: 415448)

Sendt: 16-05-2023 18:35

Bilag: Letter to CCM with DK questions on deterioration.docx; Translation of Environmental and Food Board of Appeal

22-02461 w ad Astra.docx;

Dear Claudia, dear

Enclosed please find the Danish questions on the concept of deterioration in the Water Framework Directive as well as

the English translation of the ruling by the Environment and Food Board of Appeal.

We would appreciate it greatly if you could get back to us urgently, as alI permitting is put on hold for now.

Kind regards,

Kirsten Vielwerth

Water and Climate Adaptation

I Department

+45 41 28 16

761

kirs1fmimsIk>

the Ministry of Environment

Water and Cilmate Adaptation

mimmim.dk

www.mim.dk

Ministry of the Environment

Departement of the Ministry of Environment

Vester Voldgade 123

DK 1552 København

V I

Tlf. +45 38 142 142

AKT 498205

[Samtale med Kabnietchef forud for ministerens møde med miljøkommissæren]

Dokument

çÇj

Ministry of Environment

of Denmark

Department

Water and Climate Adaptation

Case No

2023-4355

Ref. kirst, rurab, limni

May i6

2023

[email protected]

Questions on the Water Framework Directive re. deterioration

Dear Claudia Olazabal, dear Jill Michielssen,

Thank you for taking the time to talk to Head of Division, Katrine Rafn and myself

10.

May

2023

on the concept of deterioration in Articie 4 of the Water Framework

Directive.

As agreed upon in the meeting, we forward our questions in writing, and we would

appreciate to get your view and interpretations back in writing. We would be grate

ful ifyou would send your reply shortly, as this will help inform our assessment of

the way forward. We are aware that the statements will represent the views of the

DG ENV of the Commission, and that the European Court of Justice is the sole

authority on interpretation of the aquis.

.1.

We also forward ruling

22/02461

from the Danish Environment and Food Board

of Appeal in English1. The most relevant part is:

3.2.3

Effect on targeted

surface water bodies, pages 38 43, in particular the three sections on page 43

which we have highlighted.

—

For your information, the Environment and Food Board of Appeal is an indepen

dent court-like institution within the field of nature, environment, agriculture,

fisheries and food. The rulings are binding for state and local authorities’

administration and authorization of plans and projects.

The

questions:

•

Does Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive, as interpreted by the

ECJ, allow for an individual assessment of the significance of an addition

of a substance to a specific water body in order to establish if such addition

constitutes “deterioration of the status”, when the EQS for that substance

has already been exceeded and the water body has thus been classifled in

the lowest class?

o In other words; will it only constitute deterioration contrary to

Article 4 if the discharge will lead to an increase in the

Section

3.2.3

Effect on the targeted surface water body has been translated

professional team of translators, whereas the rest of the ruling is google translated.

Ministry of Environment

Frederiksholms Kanal 26

1220

Copenhagen K Denmark

Phone +4538

14 2142

CVR

12854358

EAN

5798000862005

[email protected].

www.mim.dk

concentration of a given substance in the water body, i.e. because

the discharge contains a higher concentration of the substance

than the current concentration in the receiving water body, or will

any addition of the substance independent of amount/concen

tration be contrary to Articie 4 in this scenario (when the EQS is

already exceeded)?

—

In either case, in the light of the

ECJ

rulings, what is the reasoning

behind the Commission’s interpretation?

—

•

In order to establish an increase in concentration is it a requirement that

it must be measurable? In most situations, it will be possible to calculate

even negligible additions does that constitute an increase and therefore

a deterioration?

—

•

If an assessment is allowed, will it be possible to take the significance of

the impact or discharge on a quality element at water body level into

account when the quality element is already in the lowest class?

What scale shall the assessment be conducted at? (Water body level or

other units?) Is there a distinction between surface water and bodies of

ground water?

•

Should you have any questions, please do flot hesitate to contact us, and thank you

in advance.

Yours sincerely,

Kirsten Vielwerth

Special Consultant

+45

28 16

[email protected]

AKT 498205

[Samtale med Kabnietchef forud for ministerens møde med miljøkommissæren]

Dokument

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vand og Klimatilpasning

J.nr. 2023-4355

Ref. KIRST

Den 16. maj

2023

Translatio& of Environment and Food Board of Appeal

22/02461

Revocation and repatriation of Section

conneeting road

22/02461,

permit for the establishment of a new

The Danish Environment and Food Board of Appeal has made a decision according to section 25, cf.

section 49(1), of the Danish Environmental Assessment Act (miIjØvurderingsIoven).

The Danish Environment and Food Board of Appeal cancels the decision made by the Municipality of

Horsens on 25 January 2022 to grant a section 25 permit for a new Iink road from the Vega industrial

district to motorway E45, exit Horsens C, and remits the case for renewed processing.

The paid appeal fee is not refiinded.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board’s decision is final and cannot be appealed to another

administrative authority, cf. §

of the Act on the Environmental and Food Complaints Board[2] and §

of the Fees Order.[3j Any legal action to review the decision must be brought within 6 months, cf.

section 54, sobsection of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The decision has been taken by the board, cf. §

of the Act on the Environmental and Food Complaints

Board, which jo accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act § 49, subsection

has dealt with

the case in the board’s medical department (department io), cf. § 3, subsection

no.

10,

jo the Act on

the Environmental and Food Complaints Board.

The complaint to the Eovironment and Food Complaints Board 4

The details of the case. 5

2.1

Area 5

2.2

Natural and planning conditions. 5

2.2.1

Natura

2000

area no. 236. 5

2.2.2

The watershed plans.

2.3

The contested decision. 6

Google translation, apart from pages 38

company.

—

43 that has been translated by professional

il;ljoministeriet. Frederikaholrna Kanal

26. 1220

ICobenhavn K

Tlf. 38

14 2142

CVR 12854358

EAN

5798000862005.

[email protected] .,s,sov.mim.dk

Project 6

Section

permit. 7

2.3.3

The basis for the decision.

2.3.4 The Natura

2000

impact assessment.

2.3.5

The environnsental impact report.

2.4

Content of the complaint.

2.4.1

Authority disqualification

2.4.2

Impact of the Natura

2000

area

2.4.3 Provision of the habitat impact assessment.

2.4.4

Annex IV species

2.4.5 Other nature 33

2.4.6 Alternatives 34

2.4.7

Deterniination of terms 34

2.4.8 Other objections 34

2.5

Horsens Municipality’s comments on the complaint. 35

2.5.1

Authority disqualification 35

2.5.2

Natura

2000

habitat impact assessment. 36

2.5.3

Provision of the impact assessment. 37

2.5.4

Annex IV species 38

2.5.5

Other nature 39

2.5.6 Altematives

2.5.7 Determination of terms

2.5.8 Other remarks

2.6 New information

during

the processing of the case.

3. The Environmental and Food Complaints Boards comments and decision

3.1 The Environmental and Food Cornplaints Boards examination.

3.2 The Environmental and Food Complaints Boards commenta 43

3.2.1

The legal framework. 43

3.2.2

Incapacity of authority 48

3.2.3

Impact on targeted surface water areas

3.2.4

Ad 3) Impact on Natura

2000

area. 57

3.2.5

Ad 4) Provision of the impact assessment. 62

3.2.6 Ad 5) Impact on Annex IV species (bats, otters, nesvts and frogs) 63

3.2.7

Ad 6) Other nature 69

3.2.8 Ad 7) Alternatives

3.3 The Environmental and Food Complaints Board’s other comments

3.3.1

Water Framevork Directive

3.3.2 Annex IV species

3.4 Fee.

3.5 Decision of the Environmental and Food Complaints Board.

23.1

2.3.2

The complaint to the Environment and Food Complaints Board

The decision was appealed to the Environment and Food Complaints Board on 9 Februaiy

2022

by a

resident of the area. The complainant submitted supplementaiy comments on 4 May

2022, 13

September

2022

and 26 October

2022.

Complainant has stated in particitlar that

there is disqualification from the authoritv according to Section

Environmental Assessment Ad. 3, at Horsens Municipality,

40,

subsection of the

•

the prepared Natnra2000 impact assessment is flawed and insufficient, inciuding in relation to

groundwater lowering

the consultancy behind the Natura

2000

impact assessment is not impartial,

the assessment of Annex IV species is flawed and insufficient, inciuding in relation to bats,

other nature is flot described sufficiently in the environmental impact report,

the stodies of alternatives to the alignment are insufficient,

there is a lack of a description of ali the project’s characteristics and of intended measures to

avoid, prevent or limit significant harmful effects on the environment, and

The Section

permit is in breach nf a wetlands deciaration registered on part of the area, and

that the connecting road is flot necessaty.

The points of complaint are further elaborated

ifl

sectinn

2.4.

Due to their volume, the sent letters nf

complaint are flot reproduced in hill in the decision. Both the complaint and the suppiementary letters

of complaint are inciuded in the board’s processing of the case in their entirety.

July

2022,

the Environmental and Food ompIaints Board refused to grant the complaint

suspensory effect.

Ifl addition, a complaint has been filed with the Environmental and Food Complaints Board regarding

Horsens Monicipality’s decision on exemption from § 3 and § 16 of the Nature Protection Act, the

muflicipality’s permit for temporary reinjection of groundwater in connectinn with temporary

groundwater lowering and the municipality’s crossing permits for the interim bridge over Hatting Bæk

and the landscape bridge over Bygholm

and Hatting Brook.[4]

The complainant has also lodged a complaint with the Planning Complaints Board regarding the

underlying planning basis for the project and the environmental assessment of the plan. By decision

on 5 December

2022,

the Planning Appeals Board did not uphold the complaints about Horsens

Municipality’s final adoption of municipal plan sopplement no.

20 17-34

with associated

environmental report.[5]

The details of the case

2.1

The area

The project area is located in the rural zone west of Horsens and south of Lund, and the planned

alignment crosses Bygholm Ådal, designated asa landscape worthy of preservation. The project area

includes protected nature according to Section 3 of the Nature Protection Act, incioding the streams

Bygholm

and Hatting Bæk, fresh meadows in the lower parts of the river valley, overgrazing no the

slopes of the river valley, two registered bogs and a small lake. There are also approx.

300

m west of

the project area an area with a south-facing slope with older deciduous trees, as well as approx. 8o m

and approx.

200

m east of the project area are wooded slopes.

The landscape in and around the project area appears as an undisturbed river valley, apart from a few

agricultural and residential properties located on the edge of the river valley, as ;‘ell as two high

voltage lines of

400

kV and

150

kV respectively, which cross the river valley approx.

400

m east of the

landscape bridge, and which runs parallel from east to south through the southern part of the project

area. In addition, the project area consists of cultivated fleids.

2.2

Natural and planning conditions

Natura

2000

area no. 236

The project area is approx.

west of

Natora

2000

area no. 236, Bygholm Ådal, which consists of

habitat area H236. Bygholm

rons through the Natora

2000

area approx.

130

m upstream Hatting

Bæk outlet in Bygholm

Å.

2.2.1

The applicahle designation basis for the habitat area appears from the Natura

2000

basic analysis

2o22-2o27.[6]

From this, it appears that the basis for designation includes the following species:

spring snail, narrow-monthed whorl snail, Desmoolin’s whorl snail, brook lamprey and otter. To

addition, the basis for designation ineludes the following natural types: nutrient-rich lake, stream,

limestone grassland, acidic grassland, oceasionally wet meadow, spring forest, rich heather and alder

and ash forest.

The watershed plans

It appears from MiljoGIS for the water area plans

2015-2021

that both Bygholm

and Hatting Bæk

are targeted for good ecological and chemical condition.[7j

2.2.2

From MiljeGtS on hearing of the water area plans

2021-2027,

it appears[81 that the overall ecological

condition of Hatting Bæk is poor, as the condition of small animals is moderate, the condition of

aquatic plants and environmentally hazardoos pollutants[9] is unknown and the condition of fish is

poor. The chemical state is ooknown.

Furthermore, it appears that the overall ecological condition in Bygholm

downstream of the outlet

from Hatting Bæk is high, as the condition of small animals is high. The other organic quality elements

are unknown, as is the chemical state.

Upstream of the outlet from Hatting Bæk, the overall ecological condition in Bygholm

is poor, as the

condition of aqoatic plants and fish is poor, the condition of small animals is high and the condition of

environmentally hazardous pollotants is not good. The chemical condition is not good, which

according to Vandplandata is doe to exceeding the environmental quality reqoirement for mercury in

biota flsh, anthracene in sediment and nonylphenols in water.[io] In relation to the assessment of the

state of environmentally hazardoos pollutants as not good, it also appears from Vandplandata that this

is doe, among other things, to an excess of the content of copper in the water, as a level of copper of

1.717

pg/l has been measured, and that the general environmental quality requirement is 1.48 pg/l.

The environmental quality requirement for the maximum concentration of 2.48 pg/l has also been

breached, as the highest measured concentration is

2.8

ig/l.

It appears from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency’s FAQ on qoestions and answers about

the discharge ofcertain pollutants into the aquatic environment from

December

2021

that the

background value for copper in watercoorses is 0.48 pg/I.[is] Previoosly, the backgroond value for

copper in streams was calcolated to be 0.66 pg/l.[s2j

The contested decision

2.3.1

The projeet

The project includes the establishment of a connecting road between Vrøndingvej and E45 exit no. 6b

Horsens C. The road conneets to the signal system at Vrondingvej, which gives aecess to the access

2.3

road to a plaooed business area, called VEGA, north ofVrøndingvej. To the south, the road eoorse is

eonneeted with a new ‘leg” io the ronodabont at the E45 exit Horsens C.

The route is approx.

1.3

km long and will be bnilt as a two-lane road with an 8 m ivide carriageway and

a 5.5 m wide diseonnt on each side of the road. Jo the middle of the stretch of road, the road leads over

Bygholm

and Hatting Bæk at an approx.

130

m long landscape bridge designed as a 5-span concrete

bridge with a clearance of 7 m.

In connection with the projeet,

2-4

dead alder trees must also be felled in the alignment of the road,

and an interim bridge most be built over Hatting Bæk to enable work traffic, which is carried ont by

putting dowo wooden or steel poles on both sides of the stream.

Four rainwater basins will be established, and the collected rainwater will be led to foor rainwater

basins with discharge to Bygholm

Å.

Section

permit

Horsens Municipality, Traffic and Roads, applied on 7 October

2020

for the construction of a new road

connection between Vrondiogvej and E45. On the basis ofa hearing from 28 October

2020

to s8

November

2020,

Horsens Mnnicipality, Natore and Environment, sent a delimitation of the sobjects

that were to be included in the environmental impact report. Horsens Municipality, Traffic and Road,

as the developer, has had a draft environmental impact report prepared by an external consoltant.

2.3.2

The environmental impact report, together with the draft §

permit and draft diacharge permit, has

been in public conaultation for 8 weeks from 8 October

2021

to 3 December

2021.

Horsens Municipality, Nature and Environment, has on

Jannaiy

2022

made a decision to issue a

Section

permit to establish a new road connection between Vega-Horsens C as described in the

environmental impact report for the project.

Tt appeara from the Section

permit that Horsens Municipality, Traffic and Road, is organizationally

separate from Horsens Municipality, Natore and Environment. Horsens Municipality, Nature and

Environment, has received assistance from another external consulting company to review the

developer’s environmental impact report, including calcnlatinna and assessmenta of impact no, among

other things, the Natura

2000

area and Annex tV species.

tt appears from the Section

permit that the permit is granted on the condition that the project does

not deviate from what is described in the project deacoption in the environmental impact report and

the developer’s application for the project, and that the road project mnst be establiahed within the

physical and environmental framework and conditions, which appears in the environmental impact

report and within the area allocation specified in municipal plan supplement

2017-34,

Technical

Facility, Horsens Vest.

Tt also appears that the permit is granted on terms that are based on the environmental impacts that

the environmental impact report uncovers, inclnding the proposals for mitigation measures that are

incorporated into the road project under the individual environmental themes and listed together in

the report’s non-technical summary.

The Section

permit stipnlates, among other things, the following conditions:

“Terms in connection with the execution of the work:

Aa far as possible, the work most be carried otfi within normal worldng hours, which means

weekdays between 07:00-18:00. Ramming of sheet piles mtist not take place outside this period.

s8. In connection with the construction of the foundations for the landscape bridge, sheet pile walls for

construction pits must be framed around the foundations next to and between Bygholm

and Hatting

Bæk.

17.

Conditions for consideration of Annex IV species:

35. Removal of older, bat-friendly trees must he avoided as far as possible. tf older, hat-friendly trees

are to be removed, for the sake of hals, this must be done in collaboration with the Danish Nature

Agency. Concrete and carefnl investigations must be carried out before the removal. The trees may

only be felled in the period between

September and

Octnber. Felling at other times requires a

dispensation, which must he applied for at the Danish Environmental Protection Agency

36. For each tree removed, three hat hoxes ofa type corresponding to Schwegler

2FN

ofdark

wooden concrete must he set np. The boxes are set op on suitable trees along, nr in the immediate

vicinity of Bygholm

Å.

The bnxes must be installed and functional hefore the trees are removed.

37. On the bridge, screens in matt material that do not reflect light must be installed at a height nf 1.6

meters abnve the finished road in the full length nf the bridge, for the sake of bats and birds.

38. Alnog the road over the dams in the river valley, a dense planting of trees and shrubs that are

naturally native to East Jntland will be established at a height of min.

2.5

m above the finished road, to

lift low-flying bats above the traffic. South of the landscape bridge, the planting must follow the cnnrse

nf the road for at least ion m, on bnth sides of the road. North nf the landscape bridge, the planting

must fnllnw the course of the road for at least

130

m, on both sides of the road. At the ends of the

bridge, the planting mnst fnllnw the slope tnwards the river valley.

39. Dotil the necessary dense planting has been established, a

2.5

m high game fence/wire fence with

dense mesh must be established, cf. the Road Directorate’s guidance nn fauna passages4, on the

section with planting cf. cnnditions 36. The fence nr planting ninst be established and ftinctional when

the road is put into use.

40.

For the sake of amphibians, the developer must establish a permanent amphibian fence on both

sides of the road, no a

200

meter long stretch from the road bridge no the north side of Bygholm

Å.

The tnad fence must be established, cf. iostnictinns The Road Directorate’s gnide “Fenciog aloog

mads’s and Experience catalog for tosd fences.

41.

If, cnntrary to expectations, linds nf Annex IV species are found io the cnostmnction area, which

have not been Incated in cnnnection with the field investigations and which are therefnre not descmibed

and assessed in the envirnnmental impact report, the work must be stopped imnsediately and Horsens

Municipality must be ontifled immediately.’

It alsn appears from the decisino that the Mnoicipalitv of Horsens has reviewed the environmeotal

impact report in accnrdaoce with §

of the Environmental Assessment Ad with the involvemeot of

the necessary expertise in order to ensure that it meets the requirements of §

20.

Overall, the

Municipality nf Horsens assesses that the project dnes ont entail such a significant impact on the

eovirooment, that it

ca000t

be permitted when the terms of the permit and terms ofsupplemeotary

permits are complied with. Based no the eoviroomeotal impact report, it has been assessed that there

is no oecd for monitoring.

b relation to the impact no Natora nnn areas, it appears from the §

permit that the natore types

that

N236,

Bygholm Ådal, is designated to pmotect, will nnt hc sffected by the prnject, nr cumulatively

with other prnjects neither in the establishment phase nor in the operatinnal phase, as the prnject is

nutside the Natura

2000

area.

Tt also appears from the permit that Horseos Mooicipality assesses that the project will oot affect or

damage the desigoation basis aod integrity of the natural areas, aod the project does oot prevent the

realizatioo of the goal of favorable consen’stioo statos.

Regardiog Anoex IV species, it appears from the Section

permit that there are poteotially sntahle

habitats io the project area for the Aooex IV species field lizard, pointed frog, large

newt,

beach toad

and species of hat. No occorrences of Annex IV species of amphibians and reptiles have been

registered jo the project area, nor have soch species been foond dnring the inspections. In the summer

2025,

a bt

owner

stated that a single individual of a large

newt

was found, just as the bt owoer

sobmitted information in December

2021

abont a frog that Horsens Municipality considers to be a

bott-nosed frog, which is not an Aonex IV species. The municipality has assessed that the constrnction

workers do not pose a threat to these species, as the work takes place during the day ootside the times

of the day when the amphibians migrate to and from their breeding and resting areas.

It also appears from the permit that, doring the inspections, large numbers of a total of nine species of

bats were foond jo the river valley, incbndiog bong-eared hats, sotithern bats, hrown bats, pygmy bats,

troll hats, water hats, pond bats, long-eared bats and pipistrelle hats. Horsens Municipality has noted

that the defonct alder trees in the road ronte must he removed in collaboration

with

the Natnre Agency

and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, and that it has also been assessed that the removal

will not affect the occurrence of hat species’ ecobogical fonctionality. The mnnicipality has also

assessed that the bridge

will

not caose a barrier effect for hats, as the bridge’s clearance between the

river valley and the underside of the middle three bridge spans is approx. 7 m.

The municipality also notes that it appears from the environmental impact report that the planting and

the temporary fence, which is established

the road slopes along the road, ensnres that the hats are

either lcd down into the river valley or lift the bats that may cross the road higher up. Against this

backgronnd, and given that it is a two-lane road, the mimicipality has assessed that the conditions set

are snificient to protect the presence of bats in the area.

Regarding targeted water bodies, it appears from the decision that the discharge of water from the

road constrnction’s rainwater basins

will

not lead to sn increased risk of a deterioration of quality

elements in Bygholm

or the final recipients Bygholm Sø and Horsens Fjord. The discharged water

quantities are relatively small in relation to the water flow in Bygholm

Å,

and the dilution is therefore

high in relation to oxygen-consoming organic matter, harmfnl snbstances and salt.

It also appears that calcolations in the environmental impact report show that there

will

be a net

rednction of leached nutrients from the areas involved in the road constrnction, compared to the

cnrrent leaching from the agricoltural areas, and that the discharge from the rainwater basins

will

result in a limited discharge of copper and zinc.

Since the concentration increases in cumolation

with

other known soorces are pote small, the

discharge is assessed to have no significant overall impact on the water course. The road system’s

rainwater basins effectively dean PAHs and mercury. Horsens Municipality has therefore assessed

that the drainage from the basins to Bygholm

does not lead to a deterioration of the condition of the

surface

water area, does not lead to a risk ofa decline in any of the quality elements, or hinders the

fulflllment of the established environmental target in relation to the snbstances where there are

currently exceedances cf. the Danish Environmental Protection Agency’s studies from

2015.

The basis for the decision

It appears from section

11.1

of the environmental impact report that a separate Natura

2000

impact

assessment called Natura

2000

impact assessment and assessment of Annex tV species for the new

connection road, Vrondingvej

F45,

Horsens (bereafter referred to as the “habitat impact

assessment”), which is attached as appendix 7 to the environmental impact report.

2.3.3

—

It also appears from section

11.2

of the environmental impact report that the possible indirect impact

on the Natura

2000

area, N236, Bygholm Ådal, is examined ifl the Natura

2000

impact assessment.

b the following, the parta of the Natura

2000

hahitat impact assessnsent and the environmental

impact report that are relevant to the case are reprodoced.

2.3.4

The Natura

2000

impaet assessment

Semi-natural dry grassland and scrubland facies on calcareous substratea

Et appears from section

7.1

of the hahitat impact assessment that the light-open habitat natnre types

ifl

the Natnra

2000

area have heen mapped over three study periods, and Et is therefore assumed that the

current designation basis is fair for the distribution and condition of the natore types.

It also appears that the closest light-open nature type in the Natura

2000

area is an area with Semi

natural dry grassland and scrubland facies on calcareoos sobstrates, located approx.

300

m from the

road’s ronte, and that the habitat cannot be phvsically affected, hut can potentially be affected by

nitrogen deposition from the road’s traffic.

Ii also appears that nitrogen deposition from the road’s trafik emissions in cumulation with existing

sources in the area is asaessed on the basis of the annually calculated background deposition for the

area in connection with air nsonitoring in the NOVANA programme.

also appears that, in connection with the preparation of the habitat inipact assessment, specific

calculations of the nitrogen deposition have been made based on the location of the road and several

points of interest. Based on the modeled background bad in the area, which amounts to approx.

12.5

kg N/ha/year, and the calcolsted deposition ofa maximum of

0.2

kg N/ha/vear, the deposition is

assessed, based on the structural and species condition of the grassland, not to pose a threat to the

conservation status of the grassland.

LE has been concluded in the habitat impact assessment that the nitrogen deposition as a result of

emissions from road traffic at the grassland on calcareons sobstrateswill he so low that it will not cause

an impact on the conservation status of the nature type in the Natura

2000

area, not even in

comulation with the edsting backgroond bad, which has been declared to

12.5

kg N/ha/year.

Overall, it is assessed that the establishment of the road will not prevent the achievement ofa

favorable conservation status for the concrete arassland on calcareous suhstrates. Likewise, the road is

not assessed to pose a risk to the nature in the habitat area and the integrity of the area.

Vertigo reven whorl snail. narrow-muuthed whorl snail and Desmoulin’s whorl snail

It appears from section

5.4.1

of the habitat impact assessment that the marsh snail is on the basis of

the designation for habitat area H236 Bygholm Ådal, and that Et is found in stable marshy/wet, open

or lightly shaded stands of heather or similar stands of other plant species, e.g. tall sweet grass or reed

grass. According to the municipality’s § 3 registration, in the habitat area within the study area, which

constitutes an area around the project’s alignment, there are marsh areas with tall perennials/reed

swamps. It appears that these areas can be potential habitats for marsh snails, and that the potential of

the areas as hahitats has been assessed hy the botanical registration. A seareh for the speeies has been

earried oot at ooe location, whieh is assessed to eonstitute a suitable hahitat.

Tt also appears from seetioo

5.4.2

of the hahitat impaet assessmeot that oo Desmoulin’s whorl snails

were found doriog the inspeetions in the study area.

In relation to the vertigo geyeri whorl snail aod oarrow-mouthed whorl snail, it appears from the

habitat impaet assessmeot seetioo

7.1

that the vertigo geyeri whorl snail aod the oarrow-mouthed

whorl soail are lioked to botanically fine, open, caleareous and fairly stable rich sedges, extremely rich

sedges and sedges.

In addition, it appears that the three speeies are registered in eonneetion with springs and sedges in

the central and western part of the Natnra

2000

area, more than

900

m from the project area. It also

appears that no habitat types have been registered that would be able to support the presenee of the

vertigo geyeri whorl snail nr the narrow-monthed whorl snail near the project area, and that dne to the

distance, it is estimated that the projeet will not affect the known populations nf the Desmoulin’s whnrl

snail, the vertigo geyeri whorl snail nr the cronked screw snail. Tt also appears that, should a

population still be fonnd in the project area ontside the habitat area, it is considered not to have a

direct impact on the populations in the habitat area.

Brook lamorey

In relation to the occurrence of the brook lamprey, it appears from seetion

7.1.4

of the habitat impact

assessment that, in the period

2011-2016,

a mapping of the occurrence and distribution of the bronk

lamprey was carried ont with the main focus on the Natura

2000

areas where the species is on the

basis of designation. The species has also been monitored by the general NOVANA control monitoring

of stream fish across the conntry both inside and outside the habitat areas in the period

2010-2016.

also appears that, according to the baseline analysis

20 16-2021

for the Natnra

2000

area, N236,

Bygholm Ådal, the lamprey is not registered by the NOVANA monitoring, and that in the latest

baseline analysis

2022-2027

it is stated that no monitoring has been carried out brook lamprey in the

Natnra

2000

area.

Tt appears that, according to the Article

report in

2019[13j,

there are no signs of a decline in the

popnlations of the Brook lamprey throughont the cnuntiy, and that the conservation status of the

Brook lamprey is assessed to be favorable.

It has also been assessed that the stretch of watercourse around the project area can be a breeding

ground for the species and a migration site when the speciel seeks ont the smaller watercourses to

reproduce. The stretch is not considered to be a likely breeding area, as the bottom is mainly sand)

and there is considerable sand migratinn. However, it appears that there will be suitable breeding sites

at several of the tributaries to Bygholm

Å,

including the Hatting Bæk tributary.

In relation to the impact on the brook lamprey during the cnnstruction phase, it appears that the

project is not assessed to be able to affect a possible population of brook lamprey in the stream system

during the construction phase, as the project does not inclnde physical changes to the slream. Tt is also

ensured dnring the construction phase that, in the event of large rainwater events, surface water with

suspended material does not flow from the project area directly to the watercourse, for example by

establishing rainwater basins and/nr by gutters and culverts. The amount ofsoil particles and

nntrients from surface water during the construction pbase is therefore assessed to be of no

importance to lampreys on

autoecology.[14]

tue

basis of the relatively low amount and the lampreys’ general

tn relation to the impact on the brook lamprey during the operational phase, it appears from the

habitat impact assessment on flnctnations in the oxygen concentration that any very small impact is

not assessed to pose any threat to the brook lamprey, which is not normally considered to he a species

that is particularly sensitive to lower oxygen tensions. The speeies’ natural habitat is also in the areas

of the stream where the oxygen content is not the highest. It also appears that any impaet will be from

isolated events which may cause a potential and short-term impact outside the Natura

2000 area.

tn relation to the influence of salt, which can continue dsiring the winter season, it appears that in

connection with the environmental impact assessment of the project, a worst-case scenario has been

calculated, where at the end of the winter, a maximum total concentration of 667 mg/l can occur at Ml

mixing in Bygholm

Å.

There are no general ecotoxicological limit values for salt in freshwater systems,

but it is far below the LC50 values[s51 that exist for various animal gronps linked to watercourses. It is

also below

3,000

mg/I, which according to studies is the value at which there is significantly increased

drift for species such as those in Bygholm

Å.

The drift rate has been used in some studies as an

expression ofchanged behavior in invertebrates, as they use drift asa way to escape unfavorable

conditions.

It appears that the salt concentrations at the outlet point can uccur in elevated concentrations. Since

salt is relatively easily soluble, and since salt ill thus only be in a modest plume aronnd the outlet

point, it is expected that there will only bea real biological impact of salt in the stream in particularly

severe cases. It is assessed against this backgruund that salt discharge to the pools in Bygholm

will

not affect the brook lamprey to such an extent that it could prevent the achievement of favorable

conservation status.

In relation to the impact of environmental hazardous substances, it also appears from the habitat

impact assessment that today a numher of exceedances are seen at the measuring station immediately

upstream of the new road at twinip Bro. tt sppears that the exceedance is only seen in the priority

substances anthracene (PAH), mercury, nonylphenol, which relate to the chemical state, and copper,

which is monitored under the package of nationally specific substances.

It appears very unlikely there ;sill be measurable discharge of anthracene from the rainwater basins,

that nonylphenol probably originates from sewage treatment plants and domestic waste water and not

from road water, and that there is only a small cuntribution of mercury associated with separate

rainwater and thus also road construction. Mercury, nonylphenol and anthracene are therefore not

considered to pose a threat to the brouk lamprey, which could prevent the achievement of favorable

conservation status.

In relation to copper, it appears that the lamprey’s LC50 value for copper is 46 pg/l, and that the

measured values for Bygholm

are far from the stated LC50 value for the lamprey. tt is therefore

assessed that the presence of copper in the stream, neither under existing nor future conditions, will

pose a threat to the brook lamprey, which may prevent the maintenance of a favorable conservation

status for the brook lamprey.

Otter

tn relation to the occurrence of otters, it appears from section

7.1.3

of the habitat impact assessment

that during the latest monitoring in

2u17,

tracks/excrement from otters were found at Bygholm

Komp Bro immediately west of the project area, and that according to the baseline analysis

2u22-2027

for habitat area H236, it is assessed that the species uses the area to a greater extent thao illustrated by

the mooitoriog earried out

ifl

2011-2012. Based on the oatore of the area

with

watereoorses and

uodisturbed areas, it is also assessed to be a stable presence of otters in the area.

tt also appears that during a specific search carried out in April

2021

io the planfled road roote, elear

traces of otters were foond, but no signs of breeding

aetivity.

Tt appears from the species

ifl

geoeral that otters give bit-th to their youog io a

cave

io a remote,

ondisttirbed lake or marsh area, and that the immediate area around the road roote is grassy aod open

without good opportunities for hidiog.

Oo this basis, it has been assessed that the areas immediately east of the Natora 2000 area are not

sigoifleant as a breediog area for otters, bot that it is

very

likely that iodividoals move aloog the

streams aod possibly roost in hidiog by the streams.

also appears from a possihle impact doriog the constroetion phase that otters are relatively toleraot

of noise when they are at rest, but it is likely that aoy day-restiflg otters io the area

will

prefer to move

to other parts of the territory while particularly noisy eonstruetioo activities are earried out as framing

ofsheet piles or piles. It appears io exteosion of this, sioee the area has flot beeo assessed as soitable as

a breeding area, and sinee there are good opportunities for hiding both opstream and downstream of

the projeet, it is assessed that short-term constroction aetivities

will

not eaose a significant flegative

impact on the population of otters

ifl

the Natura

2000

the area.

tt appears there

will

be a need to establish a passage for eoflstruction traffic over Hatting Bæk. Otters,

whieh travel along the stream, may therefore have to walk fin lafid for a short distance during the

coostruction phase. It appears this is flot coosidered to cofistitute a sigflifieant impact, as the

temporaly eonstruetion activities will flormally take place lvithifl normal working hoors during the day

and flot during the night, whefl otters actively forage io the streams and where otters eao therefore

pass the constniction site.

There is also a stable occorrence of otters

ifl

Bygholm

and a favorable coflservatiofl statos for the

species in Jutland. Disturbances doring the constroction phase of the project are flot coosidered to

cause a flegative impact on the coflservatiofl status of the otter population linked to Natura

2000

area

N236, Bygholm

Å.

tn relation to the impact on otters during the operational phase, it appears that a road construction

over a stream can constitute serioos obstacles for otters if good passage conditions have not been

established, which ensure that the otter can pass under the road along the stream. tt appears that the

new road passes the river valley on a landscape bridge that is

130

m bog afid

wide,

and that the

three middle bridge spans are each approx.

m lofig with a clearance of at least 7 m. It is stated that

the landscape bridge’s width and height meet the minimum staodards for a fauna passage that can be

used by cervids, and that the bridge also creates passage for many species from deer to invertebrates,

as ;‘ell as ensuring a good conuectioo between the habitats and habitats of the animals on each side of

the road construction.

Ifl conclusion, it is assessed that the road construction

will

flot cause a barrier effect on the population

of otters

ifl

the Natura

2000

area, as good passage conditions for otters and other animals are ensured

under the road coflstruction dut-ing the operational phase, and that the projeet overall is not assessed

to hinder the minimum good conservatioo status of otters on regional or national level.

Temporary groundwater lowering

It appears from section 3.6.6 of the habitat impact assessment that a temporary groundwater lowering

must he made at [our of the landscape bridge’s six support pointa in conneetion

with

the construction

of the hridges foufldatiofls afld pillars. Groundwater is lowered into the constructiofl pits ifldividually,

whieh means that the four constructiofl pits are flot pumped at the same time. Groofldwater must be

lowered for tip to [our weeks per coflstructiofl pit, thus a total of up to 16 weeks

ifl

the eonstruction

period. It is estinsated that the total extent of groufldwater lowering is

75,280

3, and asa worat case

scenario

io%

has been added, so that the calculation is based

Ofi

a total water volume of 8s,000 m3. A

conservative model calculation has heefl made of the distributiofl of groundwater lowering around the

construction pits, which caii be seen

ifl

figures 3-7 of the habitat impact assessmeflt. The calculatiofls

show that the spread of the siflkiflg fufiflels is limited to the prmdmity of the coflstructiofl pits, and ii

will

be especially to the florth afld south, where the greatest spread is up to

120

m. The siflldflg fmsflels

will flot extefld into the Natura

2000

area.

It appears from section

7.1

of the habitat impact assessmeflt that the impact from the temporary

groufldwater loweriflg of the groufldwater tahle, which must be earried out

ifl

connectiofl with the

constructiofl of the lafldscape bridge, is assessed to he

very

small and completely insignificant for the

area’s groufldwater interests, ificludifig their vulnerability afid water quality. The impact

local

isatural areas is also assessed to be

very

small. lt also appears that

flO

impact is seefi

ifl

habitat area

11236, afid that it is considered to be excluded that groufldwater-depefldeflt nature types

ifl

the habitat

area as well as stream-dependeflt nature

types

afld species can in any way be flegatively affeeted by the

groufldwater loweriflg.

Annex IV speciel of bats

Survevs

It appears from seetion 5.4 of the habitat impact assessment that,

ifl

connection with the early

planning of the road project, a review of existing data as well aa supplementaty field surveys in the

area aroufid the road route has been carried out. It also appears that, due to uncertaiflty about

individual habitat tvpes and the road’s potential impact

bats, additional studies have subsequently

been earried out. Among other things, a search has been carried out for Annex IV species, including

bats

ifl

summer afld autumu

2020

and spring

2021

respeetively.

It appears frons section

5.4.1

of the habitat impact assessmeflt that, in connection with the study, a

study area has been defined as a

200

m buffer zone around the two proposed alternative alignments.

The area’s hats have been iflvestigated

ifl

accordance

with

the Road Directorate’s guidance

“Bats

and major roads”, and automatic hat detectors have been set up at important stnictures for bata over

three periods

ifl

2020

and

2021.

lt appears that the three periods have been intended to cover the bats’

breeding period, the period

ifl

the autumn, when the bats are typically more mobile, and the spring,

when the bats can potentially seek out other areas than in the autumn. It also appears that

ifl

ali

periods the automatic detectors are supplemented with a manual

review

of the area with a band-held

hat detector.

It appears from the note for the bat mappiflg dated June

2021,

which is included as appendix 7 to the

habitat impact assessment and the environmental impact report, that the three hat studies were

carried out respectively from July

to July 4, and from August

to August

23 ifl

2020

and from 7

May to 16 May

2021.

It appears from section

5.4.2

of the hahitat impact assessment that the hat mapping showed that there

is generally a high activity of bats in the study area. A total of fine apecies of bats have heen recorded,

and there is particnlarly high activity around Bygholm

and the snrrounding meadnws, which sene as

a foraging area for a number ofapecies nfbats.

It also appears from sectinn 8.s of the hahitat impact assessment that the mapping showed that the

study area at Grønhøjvej and Stampemøllevej west of the prnject area as well as Bygholm

contains

significant hat values, and that a hreeding and rooating area west uf Gronhøjvej for pipistrelle bats and

pygmy hats, and pnssibly also brown bata, has been fnund and trnll bata.

appears that the apecifie

area is a steep sonth-faeing slope with many older decidnous trees, inchiding anme nak trees with

cracks and hnllnws, which make them suitable as breeding and rnnsting trees for bats, and that a large

part of the bats from here are estimated to furage beluw in the river valley above the extensively

cultivated meadows around Bygholm

Å.

The breeding and runsting area is drawn nn figure 8-2 in the

habitat impact assessment.

It alsu appears that the meadows are alan considered to be an impurtant furaging area fur snuthern

hats, and that the stream itself is an important fnraging area fur water bats.

Tables 8-s, 8-2 and 8-3 uf the habitat impact assessment show the activity levels, and they indicate the

average recordings per species per night in the three study perinds. Figure 8-i shnws an

overview

the relative distribution of hat

activity

in the study periud in mid-Angnst

2020

and the lncatinn uf

automatic hat detectors. Dnring the investigatiuns, nine different species of bats were recurded

southern, water, pund, brown, trull, pipistrelle, pygmy and long-eared bats.

—

It alan appears from seetinn 8.1 nf the habitat impact asseasment that at the eastern end nf the

meaduws there are several wonded slnpes with putential breeding and runsting trees fur bats, and that

these have nul been mapped mure precisely. The assuciated forest edges and the atream are cunsidered

to cunstitute aignificant gnide lines, and there are several smaller gnide lines that lead

dnwn

tuwards

the stream and the meadnws. It alan appears that in bnth summer mapping perinds, many individuals

nf several species of hat were ubserved furaging over the meadnws, and that the meaduwa are

cnnsidered to constitute a significant fnraging area fur the Incal bats, alan npstream and dnwnstream nf

the study area.

It alan appears from sectiun 8.4.1 uf the habitat impact assessment that there are a few

(2-4)

extinct

alder trees with wnndpecker holes along Bygholm

in the alignment of the road, and that these have

been inspected with a

view

to ascertaining whether there were runsting bats. It appears that dnring the

manual reviewa no bata have been ubseived entering ur leaving, but that it cannnt be rejected un that

basis that the trees are used perindically for daytime ronsting

by,

for example, water bata. It alan

appears that the treea in queatinn, huwever, have a size and cnnditinn that makes them cnnaidered

unlikely as a breeding place and winter roost for bats.

It has been assessed that the remuval nf the treea in qnestinn during the ennatnietiun phaae will nnt

affect the ecnlngical flinetinnality uf hreeding and rousting areas for the apeciea uf bats in the area.

These are

2-4

auboptimal trees, where Incally in the

river

valley there are many and better suitable

breeding and rnnating trees fur bats, aa atated in the mapping note of June

2021.

It alan appears that, in nrder to ensure that the ecnlngical fnnctinnality is maintained at the aame level

as befnre, three hat hoxea are set np for each nf the trees mentinned abnve that are removed. The hat

buxes must he nf a

type

that has been shown, amnng nther things, to accommodate water bats and

must be set np in relative pruximity to Bygholm

Å,

either nn existing trees nr on the bridge

ennstructinn. The bnxes set up must be funetinnal befure the trees are felled, nr alternatively, if the

treea are felled in the winter mnnths, the hnxes muat be funetinnal before next April.

The road course and the landscaye bridge

It appears from section

8.4.1

of the habitat impact assessment that the establishnsent of new road

routes can lead to the destruction of breeding and rooating areaa for bats. It also appears that changed

traffic patterns and new road routes in areas with high hat activity can potentially constitnte barriers

for hats in relation to access to foraging areas, affect the apecies’ ability to apread in the landscape,

deteriorate the quality of the area for hata and pose a risk of traffic-IdIled individuals.

It also appears from the road’s impact on hals during the operational phase that the extent of the

specific road’s impact largely depends on the design of the road, the permitted speed and the location

of the road in the landacape in relation to gnide lines and important areas for bats. The connecting

road in the specific project crosses Bygholm

Å,

which is considered to he an important control line,

and the road goes across Bygholm Ådal, which is considered to he an important foraging site for

several of the local hals.

It appears from section

3.5.1

of the habitat impact assessment that the road construction’s crossing of

the Bygholm Ådal is constrncted as a landscape bridge in accordance with the Road Directorate’s road

mIe on fanna passages, as the ådalen forms an important ecological corridor in the landscape.[s6] It

alan appears that the bridge is designed so that it meets the minimum requirements for high landscape

bridges of the type AiL (wet), which cater for the passage of cervids and deer. The clearance under the

three middle spans of the landscape bridge is 7-9 m, which is sufficient for a large part of the hat

species to prefer to fly under the road. II appears that the landscape bridge’s three middle spans are

each approx.

m long.

It also appears that the landscape bridge will be established without lighting, and that, in accordance

with the road directorate’a guidance, fixed matted screens will he installed on the sides of the bridge

for the sake of birds and bats in the river valley and protective planting along the sides on the edge of

the river valley.

It also appears from section 8.4.1 of the habitat impact assessment that the shielding hass height of

i.6 m above the finished road, and that the shielding will prevent bats from flying low over the road

with the sssociated risk of traffic fatslities. The bats that forage at the height of the hridge ahove the

river valley fly to s lesser extent attached to gnide lines and at a distance from fixed structures, and

they will thus cross the road at s height beyond the bridge’s shielding, and thus above normal car

traffic. tn relation to trucks and bnses, which are signiflcantly higher than s.6 ns, the shielding

contributes to the bats having a higher approach height and therehy minimizes the risk of traffic

fatalities.

It also appears from the habitat impact assessment that the planting along the road will function as a

guide line that can lead low-flying species on the edge of the river valley down into the river valley,

where there is a passage under the bridge, and that the planting will alan lift crossing bat individuals

over the road at a height, which minimizes the risk of traffic fatalities. It appears that the planting is

established so that it becomes dense and reaches a height of at least

2.5

m, w’hereby it becomes

functional to gnide bats down the river valley or “lift” bats that cross the road. The planting is initially

supplemented with a wire fence with a minimum height of

2.5

m, which mnst be finely meshed so that

bats cannot pass through the fence, cf. the Road Directorate’s guidance on fauna passage.

On the north side of Bygholm

Å,

the planting on both sides of the road must extend tip to

130

m from

the road bridge, and on the south side the planting on both sidea of the road must extend tip to

100

from the road bridge.

Table 8-4 of the habitat impact assessment contains an overview of the hat speciea in the area and

their relevant behavior in relation to the impaet from roads. In addition, the table eontains a general

assessment of the speeies’ vulnerability to impact from roads in general.

Noise and light nuisance donna the ooeratine nhase

In relation to noise and light nuisance during the operational phase, it appears from seetion

3.5.1

the habitat impaet assessmeot that the sereens on the sides of the bridge limit the effects of light and

visual disturbance from road traffie. In addition, the screens are made of frosted glass, which does not

refleet the light, to additioo, it appears from seetioo

3.7.2

of the habitat impaet assessmeot that road

lighting will oot be established on the stretch.

It also appears from section 8.4.1 of the habitat impact assessmeot ifl relation to the impact

bats

duriog the operational phase that noise and sound pollution can impair the quality of habitats aloog

roads. Refenence is made to two foreign studies which indicate that a reduced incidence of bats can be

seen more than one kilometer from a busy road, but that the effects have hmvever been seen

roads

with far more traffic than the current road. The planting around the road and screens on the road

bridge are assessed to reduce this potential impact sigflificafltly, to an extent where it is not assessed to

impair foraging and passage opportunities ifl the river valley itself. tt is likely that the area

immediately along the road will become less attractive to the bats in the area, but this is not assesscd

to be to an extent that will significantly affect the ecological functionality or the populations in the

area.

Assessment of impact

bats

It is assessed in section 8.4.1 of the habitat impact assessment that the road and the landscape bridge

will not cause a deterioratioo of the ecological functionality of breeding and roosting areas for alI of the

fine registered speciel ofbats in the study area. The planting around the road and screens on the road

bridge will reduce the potefitial impact significantly to an extent where it is not assessed to impair

foraging and passage opporttmities in the river valley itself. It follows from this that it is likely that the

area immediately along the road will become less attractive for the bats in the area, but that this is not

asseased to be of an extent that will siguiflcantly affect the ecological functionality ur the populations

in the area.

tt appears in relation to water bats that Bygholm

is assessed to constitute an important structure as a

guide line and foraging site. The speciel stays low and closely attached to the stream itself and the

areas cluse around. With the planned road course and the landscape bridge, there is not assessed to he

an increased risk uf traffic fatalities ur negative impact due to the barrier effect, and thereby there is

also not assessed to be an impact on the ecological functioflality of breediog and roosting areas for

water bata.

In relation to pund bats, it appeara that Bygholm

is a potential guide line for the species, and that the

species has the same behavior as water bats and forages low over water surfaces afid flies elosely

asaociated with gnide lines auch as streams. The road is not assessed to pose a Hak of road 1411 of the

species ur to affect it through a barrier effect, as individuals will follow the stream unimpeded and pass

under the landscape bridge. Furthermore, io connection with the surveys in the area, there are only a

few scattered recorda of the species in the spring and autumn. It has been assessed that the road will

not impair the ecological functionality of breeding and roosting areas for pund bats.

to relation to pipistrelle and pygmy bata, it appears that they occur commonly in the area with

breeding sites west of the alignment. Pipistrel bats are mainly recorded foraging relativcly low and

ciose along forest edges and leeward fences west of the alignment and partly out over the open river

valley, although to a mitch lesser extent. There is no impact on the primary structures with which the

species has heen observed. Dwarf bats occur more evenly distributed in the area. The road lies in the

tipper part of the typical foraging height of both species. The majority of hoth species’ crossings of the

facility will take place under the landscape bridge. The fencing along the road will help the bats that

had to cross the road to be forced higher above the roadway, thereby reducing the risk ofcollision

considerably. Tt has been assessed that the area is home to large populations, and that individual

traffic fatalities will therefore not affect the popolation negatively. The road is not assessed to cause a

deterioration of the ecological functionality of breeding and roosting areas for pipistrelle or pygmy

bats.

In relation to the long-eared bat, it appears that the species may be vulnerable to new road

constroctions, hut that the area does not constitute a significant breeding or foraging location for the

species, as there are only very few recordings of it, and that the species is also rarely seen out in open

land areas. It has heen assessed that the road will not impair the ecological functionality of breeding

and roosting areas for the long-eared hat, as the species only has a very rare and sporadic connection

to the area, as structures of importance to the species will not be affected, and as it is not assessed that

be a significantly increased Hak of road kiIl for the species.

Tt appears in relation to southern bats and troll bats that these species typically fly at medium altitudes

between

2-20

m and that they are to a lesser extent closely linked to landscape gnidance lines. Thus,

they are at lesa risk of being affected by the coorse of the road and traffic. It appears that the road is at

a height at which southern bats and troll hata typically forage, and that when crossing the road bridge

the apecies will psas both under and over the road. Tt has been assessed that the screening along the

road helps to force these species to pass the roadway at a greater height and minimize the risk oftrafflc

fatalities, and that a amaller number of the species will poasibly also cross under the road

mit

into the

open river valley. It is therefore assessed that the road will not lead to a deterioration of the ecological

functionality of breeding and roosting areas for southern bats ur troll bata.

Tt appears in relation to brown bats and long-tailed bats that it has been aasessed that the apecies will

not be affected during the operational phase, as tbese speciea normally fly high and without a

particularly close connection to control lines. It is estimated that the species will generally be able to

pass the road without problems. The road is therefore not considered to cause a deterioration of the

ecological functionality of breeding and roosting areas for brown bats and bats.

Annex IV snecies large water salamander and pointed frog

It appeara from section

5.4.5

of the habitat impact aaaeasment that there have been no recorded fods

of large newts or pointed frogs in the immediate vicinity of the stud)’ area, but that there are potential

habitata.

It also appears that large water salamanders and pointed frogs have been mapped in the atudy area in

the summer of

2020

by searcbing for tadpoles in suitable habitats in accordance with the technical

instructions for monitoring amphibiaos.[17]

It alao appeara from sectiun 8.2 of the habitat impact aasessment that large newts and pointed frogs

were not found within the study area in connection with the field survey carried out in

2020,

bid that a

single large newt was found at the end of summer

2025 00

a nearby property, probably

its way to

roost

and that the nearest known find is also more thao 5 km from the atod area.

It also appears from section

8.4.2

of the habitat impact assessment that constructioo works aod work

areas do not affect koown breeding and roosting areas for large water salamanders and sharp-nosed

frogs, hid that the road jo the operational phase may constitote a potential negative impact for the

species if it lies between hreediog and roosting areas

doe to an increased mortality doring migration

and doe to barrier effect. Tt also appears that the establishment of a permaoent toad fence along both

sides of the road on the north side of the Bygholm

will prevent traffic fatal ities and lead migrating

newts down into the river valley, where there is safe passage noder the road bridge.

It has been assessed in the habitat impact assessment that the project, with the establishment of the

descrihed mitigation measore, will not impair the ecological functionality of breeding and breeding

areas for large water salamanders and sharp-nosed frogs.

2.3.5

The environmental impact report

Natura

2000

It appears from section

lt.2

of the environmental impact report that the alignment of the road is

positioned so the Natura

2000

area,

11236

Bygholm Ådal, is not directly affected, bnt the possible

indirect impact is investigated in the Natnra

2000

habitat impact assessment. The project area is

located approx.

m east of the Natora

2000

area.

tt appears from section st.2.6 that the Natora

2000

area has been specially designated to protect the

occurrences of grassland on calcareons snbstrates, spring meadows, sedges and streams, as well as the

associated species otter, brook lamprey and whorl snails. In the Natura

2000

impact assessment, it is

the grassland on calcareous snbstrates habitat and the otter and brook lamprey species that have been

assessed as relevant in relation to a potential impact of the project. Other occurrences of species and

habitat natore types on the basis of the designation are more than

500

m from the road ronte, and in

the Natura

2000

habitat impact assessment it was not found that there would be significant potential

irnpacts on these.

In relation to the grassland habitat, it has been assessed that the establishment of the road will not

lead to increased nitrogen deposition to an extent that will prevent the development of habitat habitat

types on the nearest areas in the Natura

2000

area.

In relation to the brook lamprey, it has been assessed that discharge from the rainwater basins may in

certain cases cause local fluctuations in oxygen concentration immediately downstream of the

discharge points, where the oxygen level in the rainwater basins may be low. However, it is assessed

that the impact will not be significant for the Natura

2000

area’s population of brook lampreys, as this

is not a breeding area, and as any impact is made op of isolated events, which entail a potential local

and short-term impact that is reversible within a short period, outside the Natura

2000

area.

In relation to otters, it has been assessed that the road construction will not cause a significant barrier

effect on the Natnra

2000

area’s population of otters, as good passage conditions for otters and other

animals are ensnred dnring the road construction during the operational phase.

For a more detailed review of the Natura

2000

area, the environmental impact report refers to the

Natnra

2000

habitat impact assessment in the report’s appendix 7.

Appendix TV snecies

Et appears from seetion

11.2.7

of the environmental impact report that there are potentially snitable

hahitata around the road route for species of hats, field lizarda and the amphihian species pointed frog,

large newt and heach toad, ali of which are Annex IV speciea and which may he aensitive to effects of

new traffic facilitiea. Possihie impacta metode road kills, barrier effeets and fragmentation. The

mentioned species are therefore searehed for during the field aurveya in

2020

and

2021.

It appears in relation to large water salamanders that it ja eatimated that it ja likely that the species

occura breeding in one of the river valley’a man)’ waterholes. Based on the ascents in

2020,

the two

waterholes are not assessed aa snitable breeding waterholes for large water salamanders, bnt it cannot

be denied that the)’ have occurred hreeding in

2021.

There are no known occurrencea of field lizard, pointed frog or beach toad near the route of the road,

despite aearching for potentially suitable habitata in

2020.

In relation to bats, it appeara that the mapping in

2020

and

2021

showed that the area eontaina

aignificant hat values, hoth in the form of aignifieant foraging areaa and breeding and roosting areaa. A

hreeding and roosting area has been found west of the project for pipistrelle bats and pygmy hats, and

possibly also hrnwn and troll bats. A large proportion of the bata from here are eatimated to forage

down in the river valley over the extensively managed meadowa around Bygholm

Å.

There are a few defunet alder trees in the alignment of the road on the bank of Bygholm

Å,

which could

potentially bea breeding and roosting area for hata. The size and nature of the trees make them

unsuitable for rnnsting in the winter, and on that basis the trees are assessed as not suitable as

breeding and ronsting areas for bats.

For a more thorough review, the environmental impact assesament refers to the Natura

2000

habitat

impact asseasment in the report’s appendix 7 and the data note for the hat mapping in appendhc 9.

Other nature

It appears from section

11.2.4

of the environmental impact report that Bygholm Ådal is suhject to a

wetlands declaration from

2014,

which stipulates that the area must permanently remain as a wetland.

The declaration also contains a number of restrietions stating that the covered areas may not he

cultivated, converted, fertilized or sprayed, and that ditehes and drains may not be established or

maintained without prior agreement with Horsens Municipality. It appears that the Danish Agency for

Agriculture haa been consulted in conneetion with an official hearing prior to the environmental

impact assessment, but that the Agency had no commenta on the project, as only Horsens Municipality

is entitled to prosecution according to the provisions of the declaration. The estahlishment of the

connecting road and the landseape bridge over the river valley is not considered to he in breach of the

declaration, as there ;sill continue to be a wetland under the landseape bridge.

Tt also appears from seetion

11.2.7

of the environmental impaet report that the nearest find ofa

prnteeted species that is not an Annex EV species is an occurrence of thin-stemmed cnckon grass from

a limeatone meadow west of Grønhajvej. During the inspeetions in

2020,

fry of the butt-nosed frog

were alan ohsened in a waterhole in the Natura

2000

area west of Grunhojvej.

Noise durine the conatnietion uhase

Et appears from seetion 4.6.6 of the environmental impact report that, in conneetion with the

execution of foundations near Bygholm

and Hatting Bæk, there is a need to frame sheet pile walls for

constructinn pits around the fnundations.

Tt also appears from section

7.3.1

that the noise from the ramming of sheet piles nr piles will osnally be

experienced aa particolarly annoying, as it is impolse noise. There are two homes located

200

m from

the impact site, and a simple noise calcolation of the noise propagation has heen made on that basis. It

shnws that noise levels of over

dB(A) can be expected more than

300-400

m from the impact site.

The duration of the framing work is estimated to last

days, and the construction work is only carried

ont doring the daytime between

07.00

and 18.00 on weekdays, as prescribed in Horsens

Monicipalitys regulations for boilding and constroetion work.

It has alan been assessed that there is no need for significant mitigation measures in connection

with

construction noise.

Noise doring the ooerating phase

It appears from the environmental impact report, seetion

7.1.3,

that noise calculations have been

carried out for the operational phase in accordance with the Danish Environmental Proteetion

Agencys guidance on noise from roads.[s8] In additinn, speeds have been entered on the roads

according to the municipality’s traffic model, and the traffic count from Vrandingvej is projected for

2030.

tt alan appears that a noise propagation map has been prepared for the reference scenario, figure

7-1,

which involves a projection of the traffic to

2030

with

the expected expansion of the businesa area

VEGA. In thia acenario, the connecting road north ofVrondingvej is included. ln addition, a noise

propagation map has been prepared for the projected connection road, fignre

7-2,

where the traffic

flgures, as in the reference scenario, are projected

with

planned urban development until

2030.

It appears from the noise propagation map for the reference scenario in Figore

7-1

that the noise level

at the two potential breeding and roosting areas for bats east of the road is between 48-53 dB(A). From

the noise propagation map for the projected eonnecting road in figore

7-2,

it appears that the noise

level at the northernmost potential breeding and roosting area for bats east of the conneeting road

will

lie partly within the noise level 63-68 dB(A) and 58-63 dB(A)

and that the southernmost potential

breeding and resting area east of the road will lie within the noise level of 53-58 dB(A).

Copper

It appears, among other things, from the environmental impact report’s section 4.7.3 on discharge

from the rainwater basins, that the discharge of notrienta, environmentally hazardoos substances, and

oxygen-consuming and suspended subatances from the plant’s rainwater basins is calculated on the

basis of standard concentrations on outlet water from rainwater basins, assuming that the entire

annual discharge is eleaned through the basins. tt appears from table 4-5 in the environmental impact

report that the caleulated average substance concentration of copper in the discharge water from road

basins is calculated to be 0.028 mg/I. It appears that the figure comes from the Handbook published

by Vejregelgruppen Afvanding in

2020,[19]

and that it is sopplemented with some data from

Faktablad on the dimensioning of wet rainwater basins.

[20]

The caleolation of material quantities that

Bygholm

will

be bordened with from the planned new road section is given in Table 4-6, where it

appears that the total contribotion of copper

will

0.39

kg/year.

It appears from the environmental inspact report seetion

10.3.2

nn harmful substances that the

environmental quality reqoirement for copper in water is 1.66 pg/l, and that data from the basie

analysis

2021-2027

show an excess of this sobstanee in Bygholm

Å,

as the concentration is

1.717

pg/ I.

Furthermore, it appears that loss of copper from agricultnral land constitutes a signiflcant source of

the presence of copper in the Danish aquatic environment. According to studies carried oot by DCE,

the environmental quality reqoirement has been exceeded for 67% out of

investigated measoring

stations, which is attributed to an increase in the content of copper in Danish agricultural land.[21]

The above-mentioned report from DCE indicates that by far the largest source of copper in Danish

soils primarily comes from the appiication of pig manure, which makes tip 80-90%. Although there is

knowledge that there is a certain content of copper in brake pads, it must be expected that the reason

for exceeding the environmental quality requirement is primarily due to agriculture.

Furthermore, it appears that it must be assumed that the road water from the new road will be

retained in the basins to a greater extent than is the case with the current road construction

(Grønhajvej/Stampemøllevej), since the water in future will be led through basins dimensioned

according to the best available technology, and the water is thus both cleaned and delayed. This also

resuits in an increase in the residence time, which means some significant degradation of substances

such as eg. nonylphenol, which has a half-life of approx. a month in water. OH the other band,

according to the

report,

the amount of traffic in the area will increase, and the amount of road water

and substances will increase, among other things, due to the greater drainage of the roadway directly

to the basin. Tt is to be expected, however, that the increased cleaning will still mean a smaller

discharge of this.

In relation to the importance for Bygholm

Å,

it also appears from the environmental impact report that

there is a known mean concentration for copper in the outlet water from the rainwater basins.[221 If

the concentration for copper in table 4-5 is maintained as background concentration in Bygholm

Å,

the

resulting concentration of copper at an average water flow of s,6oo l/s in Bygholm

and a discharge of

2.1

l/s from the basins will result in a concentration of copper in Bygholm

1.751

ig/l at a discharge

concentration of 28 pig/l total copper. It is a worst-case scenario, which assumes that ali the copper in

the ontlet water contributes to the dissolved fraction of the copper in Bygholm

Å.

The actiial resulting

concentration in Bygholm

will be less than

1.751

ig/l, as part of the copper will be botind in non- or

hardly-soluble compounds. Although an increase from

1.717

pg/l to less than

1.751

ig/l is a very

limited impact, the limit value bas been exceeded.

Furthermore, it appears fi-om the environmental impact report that, according to § 8, subsection 3, as

a starting point, an increased supply of copper cannot be permitted when the environmental quality

requirement has already been exceeded for copper, unless otber sources are minimized or a concrete

assessment shows that the discharge ;ill not have any significance in practice. [231 In this regard,

reference is made to the guidance for the action order, from which it is evident, among other things,

that the decision on an additional addition of harmful substances is based on a very specific

assessment of the significance of the impact (significance) for the condition of the s’ater area.

[24]

Furthermore, b appeals from the environmental impact report that the very small additional impact of

copper, which here is

0.034

ig/l in an average situation corresponding to a

inspact on the limit

value, will not be decisive for whether the objectives are achieved on the ecological parameters (fish,

small animals and plants), which must also be assessed under the ecological condition. Furthermore, it

appears that the impact is so small that it can be defined as not significant in accordance with the limit

for additional introduction of harmful substances of 5%, which appears in the Danish Environmental

Protection Agency’s FAQ on the discharge of harmful substances.[]

Overall, it is assessed in the environmental impact report that the runoff from the rainwater basins to

Bygholm

does not lead to a deterioration of the condition of the surface water area or hinder the

fulfihiment of the established environmental targetS.

Alternatives

It appears from section

3.1.1

of the environmental impact report that the selected proposal (the main

proposal) and reference scenarios must be examined in the environmental impact report.

The main proposal included in the environmental assessment is the seenario in which the reqoested

permit is graoted. The 0013’ alternative that will be included as a basis for comparison for the main

proposal in the environmental assessment is the reference seeoario, where permission for the main

proposal is ont granted aod the project eannot be realized.

It appears from section

3.2

of the environmental impact report that the refereoce seeoario corresponds

to the existing environmental conditions (the area’s current environmental statos) and the probable

developmeot of the area if the projeet is flot carried oot. If the road projeet is flot realized, the current

land ose will continue onchanged.

In the referenee scenario, the prohable development of the traffic conditions is projeeted until

2030.

The projection includes the expansion of the VEGA business area, with e.g. the transport company

[Vs],

as well as other planned urban development until

2030,

including urban development

ifl

Lund. It

ineludes expansion of the harbour, reconstruction of the Town Hall Campus and Norrestrand. Ifl

addition, New Hattingvej and Riogvej Syd, stage

have been eonstnieted.

It also appears from seetion 3.3 of the environmental impaet report on the seleetion ofalternatives

that, prior to the design of the applied road, three alternative routes in the area, proposed solutions

1,3

and 4, in addition to the seleeted project proposal, solotion

have been assessed. b eonneetion with

the public hearing at the start of the eflvironmental impact report, a number of citizen proposals for

alternative solutions and alignments have also been submitted, solution proposals 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

and

is. The ten proposals and the applied alignment appear in figure

3-1

nf the environmental impaet

report.

Each prnposed solotion is described in more detail in sections

3.3.1,3.3.2

and 3.3.3 of the

environmental impact report, together with an initial assessment of their traffic effect with a focus on

accessibility to the bnsiness area, relief from Ny Silkeborgvej-Silkeborgvej and the rest of the road

network, as well as an assessment of road safety and driving comfort in general. In addition, an nverall

screening of the impact nf the individnal proposals on natural conditions, the landscape and cultural

conditions has been carried nut.

Snlution prnposal 8 invnlves an npgrade nf Silkeborgvej with new intersectinns and expansion of the

sectinn to fnur lanes, which will be able to handle traffic nn the overall road network at an acceptable

level towards the two ramp intersections at mntnnvayjunction 6a (Horsens V). The Swedish Roads

Administration is the authority for the ramp junctinns, which is why an extension is a state decisiun.

Horsens Monicipality cannot therefore develop these two intersectinns. It appears that the solution

will result in reduced accessibility to the husiness area VEGA and the residential areas in Lund and the

Prnvstlund area

The prnposed solution has flot been chnsen, as it dnes nnt fuIflIl the project’s purpose ofincreased

accessibility and rnbustness, bot nn the cnntrary is assessed to worsen existing prnblems with

accessibility alnng Silkeborgvej and at several major intersections on the apprnach mads to Horsens

city centre.

The pruposed solution has not been chosen, as it does nnt fulfill the prnject’s purpose nf increased

accessibility and rnbustness, but on the contrary is assessed to worsen existing problems with

accessibility abong Silkeborgvej and at several major intersections on the approach mads to Horsens

city centre.

Solution proposal

involves an alignment that nina from motorwayjunction 6h (Horsens C) and

parallel to the motorway with connection to Vrendingvej. The nsany aharp corves along the road’s

route do not make it possible for modular vehicle traina to use the section, just as the deaired apeed of

80 km/h cannot he maintained on the section. In addition, the E4j motorway is covered hy a

road conatrnction line, which is why the alignment had to be placed at least

m frons the center line

of the motorway.

The proposed solution has not been selected, as the alignment does not provide the desired traffic

effects, neither in relation to the accessibility to the husiness area VEGA nor in relation to the traffic

relief of Silkeborgvej.

Mapping of protected nature has been carried out for the area around lines

1, 2,

9 and

2020

and

and new areas with protected nature have been registered in this connection. The routes for the

other alignments have not been inspected, as Horsens Municipality has assessed that these alignments

will not have the desired traffic effect, and are therefore not realistic alternatives to the selected project

proposal.

2021,

2.4

Content of the complaint

2.4.1

Authority disqualifieation

The complainant has stated that the Municipality of Horsens is incompetent according to Section

the Environmental Assessment Act in the specific case, as the approval and the concrete routing of the

connecting road is a prerequisite for a conditional purchase agreement with a logistics company in the

area. The mnnicipality thus has a significant financial “private” interest in the sale itself, just as the

municipality has an interest in the sale being carried out, as it will increase investment and local jobs

in the municipality, which is the primary purpose of establishing the road. There is therefore a lack of

authority on

the part of the municipality, which is why the municipality cannot he the case-handling

authority for the EIA investigation and the impact of the connecting road on the environment in

Bygholm Ådal. The completed environmental studies should be rejected, and the impact on the

environment shoold be subject to a stricter assessment by the Environmental and Food Complaints

Board due to Horsens Municipality’s incompetence.

2.4.2 Inapaet on

the

Natura

2000 area

The consplainant has stated that the Natura

2000

habitat impact assessment does not inclnde several

relevant niatters, including that the assessments are not sufficiently concretely formulated.

Fut-thermore, the conclusions are not sufficientlyjustified, and it is not sufficiently descrihed why the

protected natore, including protected habitats and species, will not be affected by the planned

connection road.

In addition, the complainants have stated that the habitat impact assessment reats on a deficient

information base, as it does not relate to or has identifled ali aspects that may affect the conservation

objective for the Natura

2000

area. In this connection, the complainant has referred to the

precautionary principle, which means that an)’ doubt must be given to nature and that the authority

has the burden of proof to document the absence of harmful effects. Compiainants have also pointed

otri that the protection of Natura

2000

areas also applies to activities ootside the area, if the activity

can be expected to affect the area, or if the activity can affect migratory species such as birds and flsh

when they move outside the Natura

2000 area.

The habitat impact assessment therefore suffers from a legal deficiency and cannot form a basis for

approving the project, and the Environment and Food Complaints Board shoold therefore revoke the

Section

permit as invalid.

Semi-natural div grassland and scrubland facies

caicarenus substratescomplainants have

questioned, in relation to Semi-natural dry grassland and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates,

whether the already existing impact with nitrogen disposal from Gronhojvej, which is immediately

next to the overdrive, has been taken into account. The complainant has stated that only nitrogen

deposition from the planned road appears to have been calculated.

The complainant has also questioned whether the additional bad on the Natnra

oftraffic from other expansion of the business area has been taken into account.

2000

area as

resolt

Otter

to relation to otters, the complainant has stated that a temporary bridge is planned to be established

dm-ing the coostruction phase over Hatting Bæk, which will disrupt the movement of otters, as otters

do not swim under bridges.

Brook lamprey

to relation to the brook lamprey, the complainant has referred to the fact that it appears from the

habitat impact assessment that there may be a very local and short-term impact fin individual

individuals of the brook lamprey downstream of the discharge points for the facility’s raimvater basins,

particularly in relation to oxygen and salt, but that this will not harm Natura

2000

area population of

lamprey, as it is not a breeding area. b this connection, the complainant has stated that the ådalen

participated ifl a wetland project ifl

2004

with Vejle County, where, among other things, spawfling

grounds were created for the flsh in several places in the stream and in the meander next to the

planned road.

The complainaot has also questioned how it is ensured that the reinjection of groundwater, which in

the complainant’s opinion is ochreous, which must be carried out during the construction phase, can

be carried out without risk of affecting the brook lamprey, which lives in the fresh water in the stream.

Based

this, the complainants have stated that the assessment of the impact

the lamprey in the

operation and construction phase is not sufficient, including that it is not sufficiently clarified whether

it is a breeding and resting area for the lamprey downstream from the Natura

2000

area.

Source wealth scam snail and skewed scam snail

Complainants have stated in relation to the vertigo geyeri whorl snail and the crooked screw snail that

it appears from the habitat impact assessment that no studies have been carried out on the vertigo

geyeri whorl snail and the crooked screw snail. b this connection, the complainant refers to the fact

that the complainant’s advisor has registered additional alder-ash swamps

ifl

the route of the planned

road, which may constitute a habitat area for the spring snail and the narrow-mouthed whorl snail.

Groundwater lowering

tn addition, the complainant has stated that in the impact assessment, no further investigations have

been carried out iflto what effect the bowering of the groundwater in connection with the construction

of the connecting road will have in interaction with the significant permanent lowering of the

groundwater, which must be carried out during the constniction of the bogic connection center north uf

the connecting road. Nor has it been assessed what significance groundwater bowering in connection

with the expansion of motonvay £45

ifl

interaction with the project will have.

Consplainants have also qnestioned how it can affect the well-heing and spring flow if there is a delay

er if the water level is high during the t6-week period when the grotmdwater is heing lowered.

tn the complainant’s view, a sample that was mistakenly not examined should be inciuded in the

assessment in order to reach a correct conciusion.

2.4.3

Provision of the habitat impact assessment

The complainant has also stated that the consultant who prepared the impact assessment for the road

connection is also a consnltant for the logistics compsny in the area in connection with the

construction of a logistics centre. On this basis, the complainant has ststed that the adviser in question

will not be able to appesr as an impartial adviser, as there are far too man) financial matters involved,

and as the adviser has, among other things, advised on traffic management from the logistics centre.

There will therefore never be sufficient confidence in the investigations and estimates carried ont by

the adviser.

Complainants have referred to the fact that the same does not apply to the habitat assessments as

under the Environmental Assessment Act, according to which it is the developer who prepares the

environmental impact report. In this conneetion, the complainants have referred to the faet that the

habitat regulations are based on EU law, and that in the praetice of the EU Court of Justice, where it

has been determined that the assessment according to the habitat regulations is the responsibility of

the authnrity.[26 The task should have been left to another impartial adviser with no separate

flnancial interests

iii

the matter.

The complainant has also stated that the conelusions of the impact assessment have nnt been verified

and apprnved by a third party, as elaimed by the municipality, as the municipality’s advisor and

external lawyer have only looked at the formal requirements for the impaet assessment and not related

to the material content, ineluding the investigations carried nut assessments and conelusions in the

impaet assessment.

2.4.4

Annex IV species

The consplainant has stated that the prepared assessment of Annex IV species is flawed and

insufficient, and that it also does not meet the requirements of the hahitat order in relation to the

impact on bats and newis. Overall, there is not the necessary and reqtiired high degree of certainty that

the ongoing ecological funetionality of the area, sueh as breeding and resting areas for Annex IV

species, will be able to be maintained by the construetion of a heavily traffieked conneeting road.

Bat

In relation to bats, the complainant has referred to an appendix attached to the complaint, which the

complainant has had drawn tip by an adviser, which states that the distance from the road route to the

nearest potential breeding and roosting area for bats is t6-34 m and not 70-80 m, as stated by the

municipality, whereby the assessment of the road bridge’s impact on bats has not been carried out on

the right basis. The complainant has also stated that this is an important breeding and roosting area

for bats, which is not mapped in the habitat impaet assessment, and that the road will affeet important

guide lines and result in the loss of some extinct alder trees, which mnst be assumed to be of

signifleant importance to the surrounding breeding and resting areas.

Furthermore, complainants have stated that it is not sufficient to only examine the bats in the limited

search field, which appears from the habitat impaet assessment, as hats can move op to

km per

hour. day.

b addition, complaints in relation to the operation phase have stated that replanting as a mitigation

measure is not sofficient to maintain the ecobogical functionality of the hat sites, as ii will take many

years for the trees to grow tall. Furthermore, ii is not enough that a fauna passage has been made

according to the best possible technique, as this does not say anything about whether damage occurs.

The complainant has referred to the fact that in the habitat impact assessment it has been noted that

higher screens have not been chosen, as this would trap bats over the road between the screens.

The complainant has also stated that the bridge is

m wide, and that it appears from the literature

that hop-overs are probably only usable if the distance between the tree crowns is a maximum of 5 m.

Furthermore, there is insufficient knowledge about the effect of the mitigation measures, including in

relation to for screens and hop-overs.

The complainant has also stated that it is contrary to the habitat directive that mitigation measures

have been incbuded, as they can only be taken into account in a deviation case. tn this connection, the

complainant has referred to the practice of the European Court ofJustice.[27] There are also

alternative solutions

the road roote that should have been chosen instead of tising mitigation

measures.

to additioo, the complainant has requested the scientific basis for the assessmeot in the habitat impact

assessmeot that the road in the operatiooal phase will 0013 make the area immediately abong the road

bess attractive for bats, and that this will oot be to an exteot that will sigoificantly affect the ecobogical

functionality ur the populations io the area.

The complaioant has also referred to the noise calculations that have been made aod stated that there

will be a veiy strong noise impact duriog the operational phase aloog the entire road and ioto the

poteotial breediog and roosting area for hals, which is not in accordaoce with the precaotionaiy

priociple io relation to Aooex IV species. b this coooectioo, the complainants have referred to the fact

that it appears from ao English study that bats usually avoid areas with large roads for up to

1.5

km,

and that this is a road between two breediog aod roosting areas respectively approx.

50-75

m and

250-

300 m from the road. Complainants have also stated that the establishment of piles will affect Annex

ty species in the river valley, includiog bats, during the coostntction phase with noise and

disturbances. Complainants have also questiooed whether, in connection with bowering the

groundwater, there will be a noise impact at night which could affect bats.

Large water salamaoder

b relation to the large newt, the complaioaot stated that it was fouod close to the aligoment of the

road and in the areas involved in the constructioo work. It cannot be assessed that large water

salamanders are not affected when a single adult individual has just been found in the barn on a

nearby property, which in the habitat impact assessment is assessed to be

its way to rest.

The complainant has also stated that it has not been assessed whether the road’s route or coostructioo

work may affect breeding ur restiog areas for large oewts in the area, aod that no further investigations

were carried out beyood the survey io the summer of

2020,

even though large newts were later

documeoted in the area. Based on the above, the complaioaot has stated that it can be rejected that the

investigations and assessmeots carried out remove aoy doubt that large water salamaoders are

affected by the bypass.

Otter

In relation to otters, the complainant has stated that a temporary bridge is planned to be established

during the construction phase over Hatting Bæk, which will disrupt the movement of otters, as otters

do not swim under a bridge.

Pointed seed

The complainant has stated that a pointed-nosed frog w’as observed on a nearby property in August

2021

and that it does not appear from the environmental impact report that the species was observed.

In this connection, the complainant has stated that it cannot be ensured that habitats for the sharp

nosed seed are not damaged or destroyed when the habitats have flot been mapped.

2.4.5

Other nature

The complainant has stated that barn owis have

been observed at three surrounding addresses, and

asks whether it has been investigated in more detail ‘hat significance the project may have for barn

owis.

Complainants have stated that at the base of several trees along Bygholm

there are populations of

the moss species buttleaf hair star.

The complainant has stated that a short-nosed frog was observed on a nearby property in August

and that it does flot appear from the environmental impact report that the species was observed.

2021

Complainants have also questioned why no further investigation has been carried out for cuckoo herb,

when it has previously been registered in Vejle County.

2.4.6 Alternatives

The complainant has stated that there has not been areal alternative to the intended rniite, and that

the route in questinn has been agreed from the beginning between the Municipality of Horsens and the

logistics company. The complainant has referred to the fact that an intersection had been established

on Vrondingvej before the impact assessinent was prepared.

The complainant has also stated that the rejection of the alternative routes is flot based on a natural

factuai basis, but solely on a desire to achieve the direct access to the logistics center for optimal

operation. In the complainant’s view, the existing Silkeborgvej, solution proposal 8, will be able to

handle traffic satisfactorily, just as solution proposal

will be gentler oii the natural and landscape

experience in Bygholm Ådal. Solution proposal is should have been investigated more closely, as it is a

realistic proposal from the public.

Determination of terms

The complainant has also stated that there is a lack of a description of ali the projects characteristics

and the measures that are intended to be taken to avoid, prevent or limit and, if possible, neutralize

significant harmfiii effects on the environment, which the developer must implement, and any

monitoring measures, cf. the Environmental Assessment Act Section

27,

subsection

2.4.7

The complainant has also stated that there is no requirement in the §

permit that the lead planting

must consist of nnn-insect pollinating and fruit-bearing shrubs and trees to avoid insects being

attracted, which is otherwise assumed in the habitat impact assessment,

2.4.8 Other complaints

The complainant has stated that the project is in breach ofa registered easement, which stipulates that

the project area most permanently remain as a wetland. The complainant does not believe that it

makes sense to allow a negative impact oo the area wheo there is this wetlands deciaration for the

area. Complainants have also referred to the fact that Horseos Monicipality eaooot restriet the wetland

area.

The complainant has also stated that it is oot oecessary for a new conoectiog road to be established, as

the Roads Directorate has stated that traffic in the area will he able to flow onhiodered in a nomber of

years, regardless of whether the conneeting road is established.

2.5

Horsens Munleipality’s eomments on the complaint

Horsens Monicipality has sobmitted comments to the complaiot on 28 March

18November2022.

2022,4

Joly

2022

aod

Authority disqualification

Horsens Municipality has noted that, in the specific case, the municipality is both the land seller,

developer and authority in relation to the road connection. It is not possible to avoid this dnal role, as

the municipality is, among other things, granted authority by the Environmental Assessment Act.

Snbstitution cannot take place, as one municipal council cannot be replaced by another. The

monicipality has therefore taken a number of measures to ensnre that the authority’s competence does

not influence the decision by having organized itself in the case in a way that ensores handling of

conflicts of interest and honors the requirements of Section

of the Environmental Assessment Act

and Section

of the Environmental Assessment Executive Order.[28]

2.5.1

It also appears that in relation to the handling of the road project, the municipality has had a

functional division, which has been carried out tip to the level of municipal director, after which there

is an authority track and a developer track within the municipality.

It appears that the anthority track mnst issue the relevant permits for the project, and that the track

includes planners, natnre and environmental professionals as well as constniction case handlers. The

track is further divided into an authority part relating to the planning process related to the municipal

plan supplement and an authority part relating to the specific project and the issiung of the necessary

permits in that connection.

It appears that the developer track includes constructors and engineers as far as the construction and

execution of the concrete road project is concerned, as well as the preparation of environmental impact

assessments etc. for the project.

It also appears that stricter assessments have been made with regard to the assessments, permits and

approvals related to the road construction in qoestion, which Horsens Municipality as an authority has

carried out and issued. This has resulted in some very comprehensive assessments, justifications and

stricter conditions in decisions issued by Horsens Municipality as authority for the road project to

Horsens Municipality as developer.

Horsens Municipality has also referred to the fact that the municipality, as part of the municipal power

of attorney and the general operation of a municipality, can boy and sell real estate, and that it is not

unusual for a municipality to be a contracting party in a transaction relating to real estate, to which

there is attached conditions for the finality of the transaction.

Furthermore, regardless of the content of the purchase agreement, the logistics company haa applied

for and received permisaion to estahlish the logistics company, and the condition in question in the

purchaae agreement regarding the establisbment of the road is henceforth without legal significance. It

has not been possible for the logistics company to order a specific route. It is also not unusnal for the

huyer to have wished for an efficient road connection to the hnsiness area.

Natura

2000

habitat impact assessment

Semi-natural dry grassland and scrubland facies on calcareous snbstrates Horsens Municipality has

referred to the fact that in the habitat impact assessment an adequate assessment of the impact from

nitrogen deposition has been carried om, where the cumulative effects with the existing deposition are

also taken into aecount, whicb is consistent with the practice of the EU Court of Justice.

2.5.2

Otter

Horsens Municipality has noted that in the habitat impact assessment, the importance of the road

project for otters in both the constrnction and operational phases has been adequately explained. The

design of the project as a landscape bridge ensures the necessary fauna passage, as described in the

management plan for ntters.[29]

Brook lamyrey

Horsens Municipality has noted that a thorough assessment of the project’s possible impact on the

brook lamprey has been carried ont in the habitat impact assessment and the environmental impact

report, and that there is no assessment of a threat to the brook lamprey.

Horsens Municipality has also noted that the reinjection of the groundwater takes place ina elosed

system, where the groundwater does not come into contact with oxygen, which is why the reinjection

of the groundwater will not eause a negative impact on the fresh water quality in Bygholm

Å.

Vertigo geyeri whorl snail, narrow-mouthed whorl snail and Desmoulin’s whorl snail

Horsens Municipslity has noted that the natural types and habitats of the habitat area have been

mapped by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. On this basis, it has been eoncluded that the

eastern part of the habitat area does not contain habitat types that can support the presence of spring

snails or narrou-mouthed whorl snails, and no snails were found. ln the habitat impact assessment, it

is assessed that there is no risk of impact un the species.

Horsens Mnnicipality has noticed that snails do not migrate between habitats in the same way as

mobile species, since the size of the three species of snails is only approx.

1.5-3

nim.

The municipality has also noted that there is a distance of at least

240

m between the potential habitat

for the Desmonlin’s whorl snail within the habitat area and the pressnrized water-affected bog area

outside the habitat area just east of the northern section of the road trace, and that the areas in

between consist partly ofa road and partly of dry grassland nature, whicb does not constitute a

suitable habitat for species of snails. Should a population of snails still be found in the alleged spring,

the mnnicipality assesses that a possible population of snails cannot interact witb any populations

within the habitat area, as the species will not spread via unsuitable habitat types. The alleged snorce

mass is isolated away from the habitat area, and any populatinn in that snurce mass will not be cnvered

by the possible populations in the Natura

2000

area and therefore not covered by habitat protection.

Grnnndwater lowering

Horsens Mnnieipality has noted that the lowering fnnnel does not affeet the Natnra

2000

area, snd

that it is also a temporary groundwater lowering. The municipality bas alan noted that there are no

cnmulative impacts ft-om other groundwater lowering due to the distance, and that it is not the

intention of the Environmental Assessment Act that conditions which are porely hypothetical are also

ineloded.

Provision of the impact assessnsent

Horsens Monicipality has noted that the consulting company which prepared the impaet assessment is

both an adviser to the logistics company in the area and Horsens Monicipality as the developer of the

connecting road. The adviser has not at any time seted as an sothority adviser for the municipality in

the case and will not do so either. The monicipality, as an aothority, entered into negotiations

with two

other consoltancy firms, which have reviewed the relevant consnitancy firm’s assessments, etc. The

advisers actions or elient relationships

with two

different developers in the same complex of cases

have therefore not infloenced the process, as the consoitancy company in qoestion is not an adviser to

the authorities in the case, which is why questions about the adviser’s disqoaliflcation in that

connection are irrelevant.

2.5.3

Horsens Monicipality has also noted that the mnnicipality has carried ont independent comment

roonds of the consultancy company’s habitat impact assessments to ensore that the Habitats

Directive’s reqoirements for an appropriate assessment have been met before the monicipality has

issned the relevant permits. According to the habitat goidelines,

is Horsens Monicipality’s

responsibility to ensure that the matter is sofficiently informed, and that ali aspects of a plan nr project

are identified and checked, when and if this may affect the conservation objectives, etc. ina Natora

2000

area, which the monicipality has done in this case.[30] The monicipahty does not agree with

complaints that it

can

he inferred from the practice of the Eoropean Coort of Justice that the habitat

impact assessment nsost be prepared in ali details

the responsible aothority.

2.5.4

Annex IV species

Bat

Horsens Municipality has noted that the area has been examined for bats in accordance

with

the Road

Direetorate’s giudance Bats and major roads, as well as the precaotionary principle, according to which

possible breeding and roosting areas have been treated so that the)’ are in fact breeding and roosting

areas. In the monicipality’s

view,

the investigations carried oot, incloding the survey area laid ont, are

folly comprehensive and sufficient in relation to the purposes of the investigations and the scope of the

intended project.

Horsens Monicipality has noticed that the complainant’s measorement of the distance from the road

to the potential breeding and roosting areas for bats is significantly flawed, as it was not measored

from the road roote itself. In addition, the municipality has referred to an accompanying annex,

from

which it appears that doring the processing of the case, the monicipality has stated that the distance

from the road to the potential breeding and resting area is approx. 70-80 m.

Horsens Municipality has noted that the qoestion of the exact distance to the potential breeding and

resting area is not decisive in this case, as the assessment of impact is based on the road’s calculated

traffic bad and pattern and the natore of the resolting potential noise and light impact, and that it thos

does not change the conclusions drawn in the habitat impact assessment and the environmental

impaet report.

In relation to the hat boxes, Horsens Monicipality has noted that they are intended to prevent damage

to potential roosting trees, wbich are assessed as heing of

very

poor quality in relation to use asa

sporadic daytime roosting area and completely unsoitable as a breeding area nr winter roosting area.

Seen in the context of the quality and extent of breeding and roosting trees locally in the river valle)’, ii

is considered very nnlikely that the removal of the extinct alder treea in question can affect the

ecological functionality of the area for bats, especially when hat boxes are set up in the area, which

overcompensate for the highly questionable day rest areas, possibly in the listed

2-4

trees.

Horsens Municipality does not agree with complaints that it follows from the practice of the European

Court of Justice that preventive measures cannot be used in relation to the ecological functionality of

Annex tV species’ breeding and resting areas. The municipality has also noted that it is assumed that

the preventive measnres are functional at the time of the interventions and/or when the road or facility

is put into ilse. It would not be possihle to place roads anywhere

lii

Denmark if the roads are not

allowed to cross areas where there is bat activity, and preventive measures have been used that

sufficiently ensure the maintenance of the local populations.

Horsens Municipality has also noted that the lowering of the groundwater does not cause noise that

could affect Annex IV species.

In addition, Horsens Mnnicipality has noted that if the Environmental and Food Complaints Board

does not helieve that it is sufficiently clear what the lead planting must consist of it has mentioned the

possibility of inserting snch a condition in the Section

permit.

Newt and other amohibians

Horsens Mnnicipality has referred to the fact that, as shown in the habitat impact assessment, detailed

field investigations have been carried out in

2020

and

2021

in relation to large newts and other

amphibians, including the pointed frog.

Horsens Municipality has noted that conditions have been set for the establishment of an amphibian

fence, and that it is adeqoate in relation to preventing population-reducing killings and disturbances of

individual individuals. The complainant’s observations of the newt and the two frogs do not change the

assessment, as the observation was made outside the project area.

Other nature

Horsens Municipality has noticed that the hntt-leaved hair star is red-listed and not covered by the

species protection order or listed as an Annex IV species, which is why the species is not covered by the

strict protection according to the habitat directive. A volnntary agreement has been made with the

developer that the defunct alder trees will be pulled aside in connection with felling, and will remain in

the area as continued habitat for the bntt-leaved hair star.

2.5.5

Horsens Municipality has also noted that the barn owl is a red-listed species and not covcred by the

species conservation order or listed as an Annex IV species. The vast majority of barn owis in Denmark

breed in open farm buildings or nest boxes, and no buildings suitable for nesting barn owls will be

demolished or felled in connection with the project, which is why this is not relevant in this case.

In addition, Horsens Municipality has noted that cuckoo is not an Annex IV species, and that the

occurrence of cnckoo is registered on the limestone outcrop in the Natura

2000

area. The impact of the

chalk overgrazing in qnestion is assessed in its entirety in the habitat impact assessment.

Alternatives

Horsens Municipality has noted that, in connection with the sale of land in the busiuess area, a

number of different alternative road connections were considered, and that the proposed alignment is

the one that is assessed to have the least negative impact on nature and landscape and at the same

time fulfills the purpose of the road

which, among other things, is securing the traffic infrastructure.

2.5.6

The municipahty has assessed that the road is necessary from a socio-economic perspective, and in

weighing tip interests, the socio-economic valoe and necessity as well as local traffic safety have been

central to the chosen route.

Horsens Monicipality has also noted that according to the Environmental Assessment Act there is a

requirement that reasonable alternatives must be described in an environmental impact report, and

that there is therefore no requ rement that ali considered alternatives must be treated in detail. In the

municipahty’s opinion, the assessments carried otft in the environmentai impact report of s total of

alternative alignments are therefore sufficient.

Horsens Monicipality has also noted that the intersection at Vrondingvej has been estabhshed to

ensure smooth flow of traffic in the area and to create access to a rainwater basin. In addition, several

of the alternative alignments deacribed had connections at the crossing.

Horsens Municipality has also noted that the o alternative is described in the environmental impact

report, and that the o alternative will not be able to ensore the flow of traffic in the area.

Determination ofterms

Horsens Monicipality has noted that Section

of the Environmental Assessment Act has been

complied with, and has referred to the Section

permit containing a nomber of conditions. Based on

the environmental impact report, it has been assessed that there is no need to establish separate

monitoring measores.

2.5.7

2.5.8 Othcr remarks

Horsens Municipality has noted that the connecting road does not contravene the provisions of the

wetlands declaration, and that, in addition, it is not a matter that falis under the competence of the

Environmental and Food Complaints Board, as there is no decision in the legal sense in relation to the

question of the declaration.

2.6 New information during the processing of the case

September

2022,

Horsens Monicipality sobmitted a response to the Environmental and Food

Complaints Board’s hearing, where the board asked the mnnicipality to explain in more detail screens

and planting in the project, which prevent damage to bats. II appears from this that the client’s adviser

has drawn op a memorandom, which Horsens Monicipality, Natore and Environment, which the

authority has reviewed and agrees with.

The prerequisites for the assessment of whether the ecological functionality of breeding and roosting

areas for bats will be damaged as a result of the project are, among other things, detailed in the note.

It appears from this that the primary condition for the assessment of the ecological functionality of

breeding and ronsting areas for bats will not be damaged is that the project does not affect suitsble

breeding and roosting areas for bats. In addition, the potential barrier effects between breeding and

resting areas and foraging areas as a result of the road constniction are averted by ensuring the best

possible fauna passage in the Bygholm Ådal, inciuding for bats, by establishing the road construction

as a landscape bridge with large clearance and openness under the bridge, which according to The

Road Directorate’s giudance on fauna passages is important for a well-functioning fauna passage.

The screening on the landscape bridge and the guide planting will alan be established in accordance

with the Road Directnrate’s instructinns to ensure that the faons passage will fiinction as best as

possible in relation to ensuring the ecolngical functionality of breeding and ronsting areas for the bat

species in the area. The screens on the bridge are only installed as an additionai security in relation to

individual protection of the medium-high flying hat species. In this connection, reference ja made to

the fact that it appeara from the Road Directorate’s inatnictions that it may be neeessary to moont

sereens on the sidea of bridgea, hut that the instructiona do not eontain recommendations for apecific

heighta or the design ofacreens. In connection with the project, it has therefore been chosen to

eatablish sereens at a height of 1.6 m, which corresponds to screens on similar newer landscape

bridges.

The goide planting must complement the landacape bridge to enaure the best possible funetion of the

landscape bridge, which ensores that the primary goide line in the area, Bygholm Ådal, will continue to

function as the primary goide line. According to the Road Directorate’s instructiona, the gnide planting

must not be significantly higher than the screens, which is why it has been chosen that the gnide

planting mnst have a height of at least

2.5

ni on both sidea of the road. Until the gnide plants have

grown, fences are set tip that are tightly meshed as recommended in the Road Directorate’s guidance

on faona passages. Leader planting of 5 ni is deliberately not chosen to minimize the Hak of shelter

being formed between the leader planting, where insecta can gather during periods of wind.

In the responae to the conaultation, it is generally assessed that the planned heights of screens and

goide plantings best redoce the riak of traffic fatalities on both the road area and the landscape bridge,

and that a higher height of the goide plantings and screens will very likely increaae the riak of traffic

fatalities to individuala.

tn addition, hased on the flight patterns of the individual speciea, it has been assessed that most

species will use the primary control line under the landscape hridge, and that the lesa atructure-bound

species will fly at such a great diatance from the control plantings and screens that the planned heighta

will reduce the Hak of colliaion conaiderable.

Tt alan appeara from the note that it has been asaesaed that hop-overs are not relevant for the

ecological functionality nf breeding and roosting areas for bata, as it relatea to the individual protection

of bata.

3. The Environmental and Food Cornplaints Board’s coninsents and decision

The following members of the Envirnnment and Food Cnmplainta Board have participated in the

processing of the caae: Birgitte Egelund Olsen (chairman), formerly county judge Eva Staal and county

judge Olaf Tingleif, aa well as the lay members Pelle Andersen-Harild, Lene Hansen, Kristian Pihl

Lorentzen and Jens Vibjerg.

Examination by the Environmental and Food Complaints Board

This appears from §

ii,

subsection

in the Act on the Environmental and Food Complainta Bnard,

that the board can liniit its review of a decision to the circumatances complained of. Hnwever, it

appears frons the drafters of the provision,[31] that the board has the opportunitv and, depending on

the circumatances, the duty to include otiser matters than what has been complained about, e.g. the

question of conipliance with applicable EV law or basie principles of administrative law.

3.1

It alan follows from §

ii,

subaection

in the Act nn the Environment and Food Complainta Bnard, that

the board can limit ita examination to the most significant matters.

In this complaint, the Environnsent and Food Complaints Bnard has found occasion to deal with the

following matters:

Authority capacity

Impact on targeted surface water areas

Impact of Natura

2000

area no. 236, Bygholm Ådal

Provision of the impact assessment

Impact on Annex IV species (hats, otters and newts)

Other natnre

Alternatives

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board has, in continuation of this, found oecasion to state a

number of mattera which the first instance will have to take into aceount in eonneetion with a renewed

examination of the ease, see more in seetion 3.3.

The Environmental and Food Complainta Board notes that matters relating to easements and

deelarations are not regulated in the Environmental Assessment Act, which is why the hoard does flot

have competence to deal with this issue. The board alan does not have competence to consider whether

it is necessary to establish the connecting road, as the hoard cannot deeide whether the projeet itself is

apprnpriate, hut can only assess legal and diseretionary issnes connected with the Seetion

permit.

3.2

The Environinental and Food Complaints Board’s comments

3.2.1

The legal framework

The Envirnnmental Assessment Act

The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act’s rules is to ensure that an assessment of the effects

on the environment is carried ont as the basis for the decision to grant nr refnse permissinn for prnject

types that can significantly affect the envirnnment.

The environmental assessment rnles mean that projects that can be expected to have significant

impacts on the environment may nnt he started before the authority has given written permissiun to

start the project (environmental assessnsent obligatinn).

The developer nfa prnject snbject to an environmental assessment mnst, according to Section

20,

snbsection of the Environnsental Assessment Act.

prepare an environmental impact report that

cnntains an assessment of the project’s impact on the environment. It follows from section

20,

snbsectinn 4, no.

that the information that the developer mnst provide about the applied for project

in the envirnnmental impact rcport, cf. subsection

in an appropriate manner mnst demonstrate,

describe and assess the significant direct and indirect effects of the project on binlngical diversity, with

particular emphasis on species and hahitats prntected under the Hahitats Directive[321 and the Birds

Directive.[33]

This follows from Section

24,

snbsection nf the Environmental Assessment Act. s, that after receiving

the environmental impact report from the client, the authority must review the report with the

involvement of the necessary expertise in order to ensure that it meets the requirements in section

20.

The anthority can, if necessary, obtain additional information from the client to meet the requirements

ifl

section

20,

ÆS.

After reviewing the environmental impact report, the authnrity must send it for consultation with the

authorities concerned and the pnblic, cf. section

24,

subsection of the Environmental Assessment Act.

After the cnnsnltation, the authority must make a decision according to Section

of the

Environmental Assessment Act on whether the project can he apprnved. The decision is made on the

basis of the developer’s appiication, the environmental impact report, any additional information, the

resuits of the hearings that have been carried mit and the anthority’s reasoned conciusion.

According to section 5, no. 5, letter d of the Environmental Assessment Act, cf. letter c, the authority’s

reasoned conclnsion deals with the project’s significant impacts on the environment, taking into

account the resuits of the authority’s investigations of the environmental impact report, any additional

information presented by the ciient, any relevant information received via the hearing and the

authority’s own suppiementary investigation, cL section

24,

suhsection

An §

permit must inciude the reasoned concinsion and contain ali the environmental conditions

attached to the decision, a description of ali the project’s characteristics and the measures that are

intended to be taken to avoid, prevent or limit and, if possible, neutralize significant harmful effects on

the environment to be impiemented by the developer and any monitoring measures. This follows from

section

27,

subsection of the Environmentai Assessment Act. s.

The anthority can, according to §

27,

subsection of the Environmental Assessment Act.

attach

conditions to a §

permit with a view to fuiflhling the purpose of the Act. Terms must be

proportionate to the nature, location and dimensions of the project as weli as the extent of its effects

on the environment.

If the project has significant harmfnl effects on the environment, the authority mnst, according to

Section

27,

snbsection of the Environmental Assessment Act. 3, also set conditions for the ciient’s

monitoring thereof.

The relationship hetween the Environmental Assessment Act and the Water Framework Directive

According to Annex 7 of the Environmental Assessment Act, cf. §

20,

snbsection

no. 6, the

environmental impact report must contain a description of the surronndings which may be

significantly affected by the project, inciuding e.g. water, as wehl as contain a description of the

project’s short-term as weil as long-term effects on the environment.

The Water Framework Directive[34] estahhishes and determines the framework for pianning and

implementing measures and monitoring the water environment in the EU member states. The

directive stipnlates, among other things, that the Member States mnst delimit the individnal river

basins within their national territory and assign them to separate river basin districts for the pnrpnses

of this directive. According to Article s, the overall purpose of the directive is to estabhish a framework

for the prntection of streams and lakes, transitional waters, cnastai waters and gronndwater, which,

amnng other things, prevents further deterioration and protects and improves the condition of aquatic

ecosystems.

According to the directive’s artiche 4, subsection s, letter a, nos. i)-iii), Member States must, when

impiementing the action programs reflected in the watershed plans, i.a. implement the necessary

measnres with a view to preventing the deterioration nf the condition of ali surface water areas,

subject, however, to the application of the options for derogatinn that foilow from subsection 6 and 7.

With corresponding reservations and snhject to possible time extensions pursuant to subsection 4,

Member States are fiirther ohiiged to protect, improve and restore ali surface water areas as wehl as

artificial and heaviiy modifled water areas with a view to achieving good condition or good ecological

potential and gnod chemical condition for surface water by

2015

at the latest.

According to the Water Framework Directive, Article 4, subsection 7, there is no breach of the directive

in i.a. the cases where the failure to prevent the deterioration of the condition of a surface water area is

dne to new changes to the physical characteristics of the surface water area, and provided that a

nnmber of specified conditions are ali met. Among nther things. the changes must be jnstifled by the

fact that significant public interests and/or the beneficial effects for the environment and society upon

achieving the target must he Iess than the beneficial effects resolting from the new changes or changes

for the health of the population, the maintenance of human safety and suatainahle development.

Regarding the relationship with the

ETA

Directive, the Court of Justice of the European Union has

stated in the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen judgment that the provision in Article 6 of the

ELA

Directive,

which relatea to the information that muat be made available during the procedure for a permit for a

project, must be interpreted as followa, that an EIA process must include the information necessaiy to

asaesa the project’s impaet on the water environment, taking into acconnt the criteria and obligationa

laid down in accordance with the water framework directive, cf. water framework directive article 4,

anhsection

[351

The provisinna of the Water Framework Directive are implemented in Danish legislation in particular

in the Water Planning Act[36] and the Environmental Ohjeetives Act.[37]

The Water Planning Act cootains general provisions on water districts, aothorities’ responsibilities,

environmental goals, planning and monitoring, etc. According to section 7 of the Act, sobsection

the

Minister of the Environment and Food lays down rules that determine and specify specific

environmental targets for the watershed districts’ individual surface water bndiea and groundwater

bodiea, including rules on artificial and highly modified surface water bodies, deadlinea for meeting

environmental targets and less atringent environmental targets. Concrete environmental targets for

the individual surface water areas, etc. is laid down in the environmental target order.[38]

With a view to meeting the concrete environmental goals, the Minister for the Environment and Food,

pursuant to §

19,

subsection

on the basis of the basie analysis, monitoring results and other relevant

knowiedge for each waterahed district, an action programme. Action programs for each water area

district are laid down in the action order.[39] The effort programs include, among other things apecific

meaaures aimed at individual water areas. The executive order also contains an overview of the basic

measures and general aupplementary measures of the action programmes.

This appears from aection 8, subsection of the executive order.

that the authority can only make a

decision that involves a direct or indirect impact on a surface water area nr a groundwater body where

the environmental objective is met, if the decision does not result ina deterioration of the condition of

the surface water area nr grnundwater body.

Aecnrding to aectinn 8, subsectinn 3, the authnrity can only make a deeisinn that invnlves a direet nr

indirect impact nn a surfaee water area nr a grnundwater body where the environmental target is not

met, if the decisinn dnes nnt result in a deterinration nf the enndition nf the aurface water area nr

grnundwater body, and dnes not hinder the fulfillment nf the established envirnnmental target,

including through the measures established in the action programme. When assessing whether the

decisinn will hinder the fnlfillment nf the established envirnnmental objective, it must be taken into

accnnnt whether the impaet is neutralized later in the planning perind.

The Danish implementatinn nf the ELA directive alsn ennatitutes a basie meaaure aceording tn the

water area plans. This meana that in ennnection with the prnceedings under the Envirnnmental

Asseasment Act, the environmental nbjectives and w’ater quality must be described, and it must be

assessed whether the prnject will be able to influenee these and, ifsn, whether the prnject ;ill

conatitute an nbstacle tn achieving the set quality nbjeetives. In cnnnectinn with thia asseasment, it is

particularly impnrtant to consider the pnssible cumulative effects.[4n]

tt will also constitute an obstacle to the fulfiliment of environmental objectives ifa municipality grants

a permit which implies that the eatablished environmental ohjectives, which are assumed to he

achieved in the second

(20

15-2021) or third

(2021-2027)

planning period, cannot he achieved hefore

before the deadline.[41]

The relationahin hetween the Environmental Assessment Act and the hahitat regulations

This follows from Article 6, suhsection of the Hahitats Directive.

3,[42]

that the national authorities

only give their approval to a plan or project that may significantly affect a Natura

2000

area, once the)’

have enaured that the plan or project does not damage the integrity of the site.

Article 6, suhsection of the Habitats Directive 3, also applies in cases where the authority’s approval of

the project is given in the form ofa permit pursuant to Section

of the Environmental Assessment

Act. Permission vill thtis not be granted for a project pursuant to Section

of the Environmental

Aasessment Act if the project could damage a Natura

2000

area integrity in violation of Article 6,

subsection of the Habitats Directive. 3.

Article

12,

subsection of the Habitats Directive

also ohliges the Memher States to introduce a strict

protection system in the natural range of the animal species mentioned in Annex IV of the directive.

According to letter (d) of the regulation, the scheme must include, among other things, a prohibition

against damage or destruction of hreeding or resting areas.

Article 6, subsection of the Habitats Directive 3, on the protection of Natura

2000

areas and Article

52,

paragraph s, letter d, on the protection of Annex IV species is in Danish legislation mainly

implemented in the hahitat order. [43)

Section 6 of the Habitats Executive Order, suhsection s, thus states that, before making a decision

pursuant to the provisions nsentioned in § 7, the authority must make an assessment of whether the

project in itself, or in connection with other plans and projects, may affect a Natura

2000

area

significantly. If the authority assesses that the project may significantly affect a Natura

2000

ares,

pursuant to § 6, subsection

a detailed impact assessment of the project’s effects on the Natura

2000

area is carried out, taking into account the conservation ohjective for the area in question. If the

assessment shows that the project will damage the integrity of the internationsl nature protection area,

no permit, dispensation or approval can be granted for the application.

Similarly, it follows from §

10,

suhsection of the habitat order. s, no.

that when administering the

provisions mentioned in § 7 and § 8, a permit, dispensation, approval, etc. cannot he granted if the

applied for could damage or destroy breeding or resting areas in the natural distribution area of Annex

IV- species.

When isauing a permit, the authority must, in accordance with section

25,

subsection of the

Environmental Assessment Act.

then also ensure that the project will not damage or destroy

hreeding or roosting areas in the natural range of Annex IV speciel.

Incapacity ofauthority

Section

40,

subsection of the Environmental Assessment Act.

stipulates that an authority which

prepares plans or programs covered by this Act, or which is both the client and authority for an applied

for project covered by this Act, must carry out its tasks and powers in an objective manner. It also

appears from section

40,

subsection 3, that an authority that is the developer of a project covered by

this Act may not process thé iiIication for the project and make a decision on it, unless an

appropriate separation between incompatible functions has been ensured within the authority in

3.2.2

connection with the performance of these tasks and powers. Snch a conflict of interest can, according

to the EIA directive, i.a. countered throogh a fnnctional separation or at least an organizationally

separate performance oftasks.[44]

According to the drafters, Section

of the Environmental Assessment Act is suppiemented

the

general rules of Danish law on handling official disqualification. It also appears from the processors

that in cases where substitution is not possible and an othenvise incompetent authority participates in

the processing of a case, it shonld be noted on the case that the person in qnestion was foond to be

incompetent, but still contrihuted, and the reason for this shoold also be stated. Depending on the

backgronnd of the disqnaliflcation, particularly high demands shoold be placed on the provision of the

relevant information base in the case, so that others who participate in the processing of the case have

the oppnrtnnity to follow and assess the facts and the premises for the decision of the case.{45J

This is further apparent from § ss, snbsection of the environmental assessment order. s, cf. the

Environmental Assessment Act §

40,

snbsection 4, that in order to prevent official disqnaliflcation, a

municipal council, etc. carry out a separation of tasks and powers when screening and environmental

assessment of plans, programs and prnjects in accordance with the law. Authority disqualification

must, according to section

15,

sobsection

is sought to be resolved by snbstitution, by which it is

understood that a secondary nr superinr anthnrity takes over the case from the disqnalified anthnrity.

It alsn appears from section

15,

snbsectinn 3, that ifsubstitntinn according to snhsectinn

is nnt

possible, the disqoalifled anthority must, taking into account the scnpe and complexity nf the prnject,

by law

ensure as a minimum that the emplnyees and managers whn process applicatinns and make

decisinns on behalf of the EIA authority are not the same as thnse, whn apply for the specific prnject.

The reasnn for authority disqnalification according to snhsectinn 3, and the specific handling therenf

mnst be nnted on the case and appear in the decision, cf. section

15,

snbsectinn nf the Envirnnmental

Assessment Order. 4.

The Environment and Food Cnmplaints Board initially nntes that Horsens Mnnicipality has made a

decision pursuant to §

of the Envirnnmental Assessment Act regarding a project where the

mnnicipality itself is the developer, and that there is therefnre, as a starting point, anthnrity

disqnalification.

The Envirnnmental and Food Cnmplaints Board agrees with Horsens Municipality that, in this

sitnation, snbstitntion cannot take place for another snbsidiary nr snperinr anthnrity. The bnard has

emphasized that the original competence is vested in the municipality, and that it cannnt, as a mIe, be

left to another authority without express statutniy anthnrity. The bnard has also emphasized that the

consideration of ensuring the necessary expertise is hest ensured by handling the case in the

municipality, as there are no nther authorities that have the necessary Incal knnwledge nr that

represent the municipality’s citizens in a similar way. The bnard has alsn emphasized that, accnrding to

the Envirnnmental Assessment Act, it is assnmed that anthnrities can be disqualified, and that the law,

inclnding nu the basis nf it, lays

dnwn

special precautions for cases

with

such a conflict nf interest.

A majnrity in the Envirnnment and Food Cnmplaints Bnard finds that Hnrsens Municipality has

ensured an apprnpriate separatinn between incompatible fnnctinns in cnnnectinn

with

the

performance of tasks and pnwers nnder the Envirnnmental Assessment Act, cf. the Envirnnmental

Assessment Act § 4n, snbsectinn 3, and as embndied in §

15,

subsectinn nf the environmental

assessment order. 3.

The majnrity has placed emphasis nn the fact that it is clear from the §

permit that it is two different

departments in Horsens Municipality that have been respectively the developer whn has applied for

the project and the authority that has processed the project application and made a decision on §

permission for the project. It also appears from the case that two separate authority tracks and a

developer track have been established in the municipality to ensure an appropriate division of

incompatible ftmctions in connection with the road project. The majority has also emphasized that it

appears from the information in the case that the division in Horsens Municipality has been carried

out op to the level of municipal director.

The majority notes that the fact that an advisory company has also carried out tasks for others, s’hich

to a certain extent are related to the specific project, does not in itseif mean that the adviser is

considejed not to be impartial. The majority notes in this connection that the advisor in qtlestion has

been an advisor for the logistics company in the business area and for the municipality as the

developer of the connecting road. The consultant has thus flot advised Horsens Municipality as an

authority in the matter.

A minority (Pelle Andersen-Harrild) flnds that Horsens Municipality has flot ensured an appropriate

separation between incompatible functions in connection with the performance of tasks and powers

under the Environmental Assessment Act, cf. the Environmental Assessment Act §

40,

subsection 3.

The minority has emphasized that the necessary separation between incompatible functions has flot

been ensured, as in practice there is no real and actual division between the incompatible functions

internally in Horsens Municipality.

3.2.3 Ad

hnpact on targeted surface water areas

3.2.3 Re 2) lmpact an monitored bodies of surface water

The Danish Environment and Food Board of Appeal initially establishes that the environmentai

objective for Bygholm

is good ecological and chemical status.

According to Articie 2, no. 21, of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), ecological status is an

expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with

surface waters, classified in accordance with Annex V, and, according to no. 22, good ecological

status is the status of a body of surface water, so ciassified in accordance with Annex V. No. 24 at the

same Article furthermore sets out what is understood by good surface water chemical status.

According to Articie 4(1)(a)(i) of the WFD, member states must impiement the necessary measures to

prevent deterioration of the status ot ali bodies of surface water. The same obligation is stated in

Articie 4(1)(b)(i) in relation to preventing the deterioration of the status of ali bodies

groundwater.

According to Annex V, paragraph 1.1.1 of the WFD, quality elements for the classification at

ecological status for rivers inciudes pollution by other substances identified as being discharged in

significant quantities into the body of water. Paragraph 1.2.1 furthermore includes a table of physico

chemical quality eiements associated by a definition of high, good and moderate ecological status in

rivers. In respect of specific non-synthetic pollutants, this paragraph states that good status is when

the concentration does not exceed the standards set in accordance with the procedure described in

Annex V, paragraph 1.2.6.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established in the Weserjudgment that Article

4(1)(a)(i)-(iii) must be interpreted as meaning that the member states are required to refuse

authorisation for an individual project where it may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of

surface water or where it jeopardises the attainment of good surface water status or of good

ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by the

directivej4ffl Among the reasons for this is that the condition for a derogation as provided for by

Article 4(7) is that ali practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the

body of waterj4fl

The WFD does not specifically define what amounts to a deterioration of the status of a body of

surface water. However, iffollows from the CJEU Weserjudgment that the concept of deteriorotion

of the stotus of a body of surface water must be interpreted as meaning that there is a deterioration

as soon as at least one of the quality elements fails by one class, even if that fall does flot result in a

fall in classification of the body of surface water asa whole. However, if the quality element

concerned is already in the lowest class, any deterioration of that element constitutes a deteriorotion

of the stotus of a body of surface waterj4ffl

In the Association France Nature Environnement judgment, the CJEU furthermore established that a

temporary, short-term deterioration without lasting consequences can also amount to a

deterioration within the meaning of the WFD.j4ffl

Furthermore, the CJEU in its Land Nordrhein-Westfalen judgment concerning the WFD and

monitored groundwater held that a similar understanding must be applied to the concept of

deterioration of the status irrespective of whether it is surface water or groundwaterjffl The CJEU

also held that although the classes provided for in Annex V are decisive for determining whether

there is a deterioration, after a body of surface water has been classified in the lowest class, further

deterioration of the status of that body of water will legally no longer be possible.jJ

The judgment furthermore states that the concept of deteriorotion of the stotus of bodies of water

must be interpreted by reference to a quality element and a substance and that the threshold

beyond which breach of the obligation to prevent deterioration of the status of a body of water is

found must be as low as possible, which entails that the failure to observe one of the quality

elements referred to in the WFD definition of good groundwater chemical status constitutes a

deterioration of the chemical status of the body of groundwater concerned.jj

The CJEU has subsequently held that any subsequent increase in the concentration of a pollutant

that, with reference to Directive 2OO6/118j1, already exceeds an environmental quality standard or

a threshold value set by the Member State also constitutes a deteriorationj4j

The judgment furthermore entails that where a quality element is not observed at a single

monitoring point in a body of groundwater, it must be found that there is a deterioration of the

chemical status of that body of water, for the purposes of Article 4(1)(b)(i) of the WFDjM

The provisions of the WFD are implemented in the Danish Act on Water Planning (lov om

vondplonIægning)jffl As provided for in this act, section 8(3) of the Executive Order on Programmes

of Measures (indsotsbekendtgørelsen) stipulates that the authority can only make a decision

involvirig a direct or indirect impact on a body of surface water for which the environmental

objective is not met If the decision does not lead to a deterioration of the defined environmental

objective, including by the measures defined under the programme of measures.

Pursuantto section 8 of the Danish Act on Water Planning, the minister is authorised to determine

specific rules for environmental objectives, inciuding what is to be understood by good surface water

status, good ecological potential for artificial and heavily modified bodies of water and good surface

water chemical status with a view to the implementation of European Union directives and decisions

concerning the protection of surface water and groundwater. The Executive Order on Establishment

of Environmental Objectives for Inland Surface Water, Transitional Waters, Coastal Waters and

Grou ndwater (bekendtgørelse om fastlæggelse af miljømål for vandløb, søer, overgangsvonde,

kystvand og grundvond) has been issued in pursuance of this provision.jfl Section 3(1), no. 1, of the

executive order states that the establishment of environmental objectives for the individual bodies

of surface water must inciude the normative definitions of quality classes for ecological status and

ecological potential set out in Annex 1.

Section 2 of Annex i to the executive order sets out definitions at high, good and moderate

ecological status in rivers in relation to physico-chemical quality elements. It is stated here that in

relation to specific non-synthetic pollutants, good status is when the concentrations do flot exceed

the environmental quality standards established in Annex 2, part B, sectians land 2jffl Section 1,

part B of Annex 2 states that the general quality standardjj tor copper in inland water bodies is i

pg/l added to the natural background concentration. lt also states that the maximum concentration

for copper in inland water bodies is 2 ig/l added to the natural background concentration.

Section 8(6) at the Executive Order an Programmes at Measures states that the assessment of

whether a decisian can be made in pursuance of subsections (2)-(4) must nclude the normative

definitions ot quality ciasses for ecolagical status and ecological potential for bodies ot surface water,

cf. Annex i to the Executive Order on Establishment of Environmental Objectives for Inland Surface

Waters, Transitional Waters, Coastal Waters and Groundwater, cf. Annex 2, part B at the same

executive order.

The 2015-2021 river basin management plan for River Basin District Jutland and Funen states the

following about environmentally hazardaus substances:&j

“The chemical and ecological status ot a body at water is good in respect at environmentally

hazardous substances when the measured concentrations af substances do nat exceed the

established environmental quality standards. This means that the environmental objective tora body

of water is met when alI measured substances are in compliance with the environmental quality

standards. Conversely, a body of water will flot have achieved the environmental objective if just one

at the measured environmentally hazardaus substances exceeds an established environmental

quality standard, cf. the WFD.”

Ifl addition, the Danish Environmental Protectian Agency’s guidance on the Executive Order an

Programmes at Measures states the following about measures targeted against environmentally

hazardous substances:2j

“The assessment of the chemical status of body of water is based an concentrations at sa-called

priarity substances identified by the EU. Priarity substances are substances that present a significant

risk to the aquatic environment at EU level. The assessment of the ecological status at a body at

water is based an the substances that are monitored because they are assessed to be discharged in

-:fr4

significant quantities at national leveL

Ifl the assessment of ecological and chemical status of environmentally hazardous substances, the

measured concentrations will be compared with environmental quality standards. An environmental

quality standard is the concentration of a particular substance in water, sediment or biota (mussels

and fish) that must not be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment. The

applied environmental quality standards are set out in table 5 (chemical status) and tables 3 and 4

(ecological status) of Annex 2 to the Executive Order on Establishment of Environmental Objectives

for Inland Surface Waters, Transitional Waters, Coastal Waters and Groundwater

For the bodies of water in which one or more substances exceed the established environmental

quality standards, the ecological and/or chemical status is assessed as not good. These are the bodies

of water in which measures must be implemented.”

The guidance also states the following about the framework for the administration by authorities of

legislation in relation to environmentally hazardous substances when the environmental objective

has not been achieved:j3j

“Whether a decision can be made for these bodies of water that involves introduction of

environmentally hazardous substances depends on a specific assessment of the significance of the

impact on the status of the body of water. If the impact is assessed to be significant, a permit cannot

be issued for the impact. If the impact is assessed to be insignificant, a permit may generally be

issued for the impact. The specific assessment should include an assessment of the quantity and

concentration of the substance related to the other introductions (cumulation), including from point

sources, diffuse impact and atmospheric deposition. An assessment is made of what happens to the

substance in the body of water, including its transport (possibly to other bodies of water) and form

(dissolution, binding, chemical reaction, sedimentation, accumulation, immobilisation,

degradation/decomposition, etc.). It may include information about the development over time of

the introduction and/or presence of the substance in the body of water, e.g. a declining trend in

concentrations due to measures/regulation, an assessment of whether the impact is balanced so that

the impact does not deteriorate the status or prevent the achievement of the environmental

objective for the body of water within the established timeframe. This information helps inform the

assessment of whether the impact gives rise to an increase of the concentration in water, sediment

or biota, including whether it might, in principle, be registered by measurements. It is presupposed

that the activity resulting in an impact is based on the use of best available techniques. Also note that

the assessment of achievement of the objectives for environmentally hazardous substances is based

on individual substances subject to environmental quality standards, which means that the specific

assessment of the impact is made at substance level.”

Similar provisions appear from the draft guidance on the Executive Order on Programmes of

Measures from December 2021 .jÇ4l

In addition, question 43 in the Danish Environmental Protection Agency’s FAQ about discharge of

certain pollutants to the aquatic environment states that the discharge may not result in an increase

of the already existing concentration at the boundary of the mixing zone of more than 5% of the

value of the general quality standard for the substance for water when the environmental quality

standard for the substance is already exceeded in the aquatic environment.j5j

ln relation to achieving the objectives set out in the river basin management plan, the Environment

and Food Board of Appeal establishes that the objective has not yet been achieved for the Bygholm

upstream outlet from Hatting Bæk, among other things because the status for environmentally

hazardous substances is flot good. The Board furthermore establishes that the status of flot good in

relation to environmentally hazardous substances is due to an exceedance of the copper content of

0.237 lig/I in relation to the general quality standard of 1.48 ig/l, corresponding to an exceedance of

approximately 16% and an exceedance of 0.32 lig/I in relation to the requirement of a maximum

concentration of 2.48 pg/l, corresponding to an exceedance of approximately 13%.

Concerning the ecological status of the Bygholm

downstream outlet from Hatting Bæk, the

Environment and Food Board of Appeal establishes that the objective for the ecological status has

been achieved. Particularly in relation to environmentally hazardous substances, the Board

furthermore establishes that the status is unknown.

It is the opinion of the Environment and Food Board of Appeal that the case law of the Court of

Justice concerning the concept of deterioration øl the status in the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

judgment, relating to additional introduction of a pollutant

into

groundwater that already exceeds

the environmental quality standard for the substance concerned is also applicable to surface water.

Ifl this connection, the Board has attached importance to the statement by the CJEU that the concept

of deterioration of the status must be understood similarly for surface water and

groundwaterjJ and that the CJEU in the case refers to case law for deterioration of the status in

the Weser judgment concerning surface water.ffl ln addition, the Board is not of the opinion that

the understanding of the concept of deteriorotion of the status is atfected by whether it is a

substance that relates to the ecological status ar to the chemical status, as it is flot found that the

CJEU makes or otherwise indicates such distinction. The Board makes reference to, e.g., the

statement by the CJEU in the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen judgment that

“L...]

»deterioration of the

status» of bodies at water must be interpreted by reference to both a quality element and a

substance”.jj

A majority of the Environment and Food Board of Appeal believes that based an notably the Weser

and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen judgments, deteriaratian of the status in relation to pollutants must

be understood as meaning that when the environmental quality standard tora pollutant has already

been exceeded and the body ot water is consequently in the lowest possible class, any subsequent

increase in the concentration ot the pollutant must be considered a deterioration at the status of the

body of water in contravention of Article 4(1) at the WFD. The majority notes that a similar

understanding must be applied to section 8(3) of the Executive Order an Programmes of Measures,

as the executive order is the Danish implementation ot the obligation to prevent deterioration at the

status of

surface

water and groundwater.

Against this background, a majority at the Enviranment and Food Board at Appeal finds that the

section 25 permit is flot in compliance with section 8(3) of the Executive Order an Programmes of

Measures as the project will result in a deterioration at the ecological status at Bygholm

in the

form of a deterioration of the quality element for environmentally hazardous substances. This means

that the section 25 permit suffers from a material legal deticiency.

The majority has attached importance to the fact that the environmental quality standard for copper

is exceeded, that the status for environmentally hazardous substances is consequently nat good,

which is the lowest possible status, and that according to an environmental impact assessment, the

project will result in additional discharge of copperto the watercourse by up to 0.034 pg/l,

corresponding to approximately 2% of the general quality standard for copper in a medium situation.

Ifl this connection, the majority notes that the case does flot provide a basis for disregarding the

assessment by the Municipality of Horsens that the project will result in additional introduction of

copper into the watercourse, which is why the majority has relied on this fact in the case.

Furthermore, the majority has attached importaflce to the fact that it follows from CJEU case law

that also temporary and locally delimited deteriorations of the status of a body of surface water is in

contravention of the obligation to prevent deterioration of the status and that the threshold beyofld

which breach of the obligation to prevent deterioration of the status of a body of water is found

must be as low as possibIejj

In addition, the majority has attached importance to the fact that the added amoufit of copper

introduced is flot decisive when the quality standard has already been exceeded, as any additional

introduction will result in deterioration of the status when the status is the lowest possible. Further,

the majority has attached importance to the fact that the impact of the additional introduction of

copper on the other ecological parameters is flot

per se

decisive for deterioration of the status, as

any exceedance of the quality standard must in itseif be considered deterioration of the status of the

watercourse, cf. the CJEU judgment in Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.jZ The fact that the

environmental impact report assesses that the additional copper introduced will flot be decisive for

achieving the quality element objectives for fish, small creatures and aquatic plants caflnot result in

allowing the additioflal introduction as the additional introduction of copper resuits in an

indepefldeflt deterioration in relation to the quality element for environmentally hazardous

substances.

Asa consequence of the above, the majority also notes that the majority is of the opinion that it is

not in compliance with the obligation to prevent the deterioration of the status of surface water to

allow additional introduction of copper following a specific evaluation of materiality as stated in the

Environmefital Protection Agency’s guidaflce on the Executive Order on Programmes of Measures

when the quality standard has already been exceeded. The guidance is not in compliance with CJEU

case law to the effect that any subsequeflt increase in the concefitratiofi of a pollutant constitutes a

deterioration when the quality standard has already been exceeded, which is why the case cannot

attach importance to the fact that the Municipality of Horsens has followed the guidance jflj The

Board establishes that the environmental impact report also refers to the Danish Environmental

Protection Agency’s FAQ question 43, which states that an additional discharge may not result in an

increase of the already existing concentration at the boundary of the mixing zone of more than 5%,

but that a mixing zone has not been identified in the case concerned. The Board is consequently of

the opinion that FAQ question 43 is not relevant in the present case. The Board notes that with this

decision, the Board has not decided on the application of the Danish Environmental Protection

Agency’s FAQ question 43 in relation to decisions on identification of mixing zones.L

—

___—rKommenterede

[KV1J: The part

the ruling that

is at

jhe center of our questions

The minority (Jens Vibjerg and Kristian Pihl Lorentzen) finds that the section 25 permit is in

compliance with section 8(3) of the Executive Order on Programmes of Measures.

The minority has attached importance to the fact that the additional introduction of copper into

Bygholm

is so small that it can be defined as non-significant le accordance with the threshold for

additional introduction of xenobiotic substances of 5% as set out in the Danish Environmental

Protection Agency’s FAQ question 43, and that the permit may be granted under this exemption.

3.2.4

Ad3) Impact on Natura

2000 area

This follows from Sectinn

20,

sobaection

of the Environmental Asseasment Aet. 4, no.

that the

environmental impact report must demonstrate, describe and asseas the project’s significant direct

and indirect effects on eg. the binlogical diversity with particnlar emphasis on species and hahitats

protected under the Habitats Directive.

The authority must also observe Natura

the hahitat order.

2000

prntectinn when issuing the §

permit itseif, cf. § 6 of

The EU Court of Justice interprets the provision in the Habitats Directive, Artiele 6, snhsection 3, an

that the authority must make an asseasment of whether it can he ruled ont that a plan nr project in

itseif nr in cnnnection with other plans and projects may significantly affect the aehievement of

favorahie conaervation status for the designated area, including whether the conservation status nf the

species and/nr nature types that the area has heen designated to protect will be significantly affected

(significance assessment).

If such an impact cannot be ruled mit no the basis of objective criteria, if the prnject is to be promoted,

a more detailed asseaament (consequence assesament) must be carried nut. Thia aaaessment must

inciude ali aapecta of the project that may affect the aite in questinn, and the assessment muat he

carried ont on the basis nf the heat scientific knowiedge in the field.[72]

The cnmpetent national authorities only authorize an activity nn the protected site nu the condition

that they have nhtained certainty that the activity will not have harmful effects nu the integrity of the

site in queatinn. This is the caae when, from a scientific point nf view, it can he determined beynnd

reasnnable doubt that there are no such effecta.[73]

b such an assessment, the precautionary principle applies.{74]

The integrity ofa Natura

2000

site includes its basic characteriatics and ecological fiinctinns. II can be

defined as a coherent sum of the area’s ecological structure, functinn and the ecological prncesses

across the area, which enable it to maintain the habitat types, the combination nf habitat types and/nr

species populations for which the area has been designated.[75j

Aa far as species are concerned, the conservatinn status ofa species is defined in Article 1(j) of the

Directive as the result of ali the conditions that affect the species and which may, in the long term,

affect the distrihution and abundance of its populations within the Member States’ area in Europe

where the EU Treaty applies.

The Environment and Fond Complaints Bnard nntes that in the delineation of what cnnstitutes

harmful effects on the integrity nf the site according to the habitat directive’s articie 6, paragraph 3, the

criteria and methods that are expressly stated in the directive’s articie 6, subsection should alan be

included.

According to the Habitats Directive, Articie 6, subsection

Member States shall take

apprnpriate measures to avnid deterinration of the babitats and habitats nf the species in the special

areas nf consen’ation, as well as disturbance of the species for wbich the areas are designated, insofar

as these disturbances have significant cnnsequences for the objectives of this Directive.

The EU Court of Justice has alan determined that the impact assessment must contain complete,

precise and final findings and conciusions about the impact ofa project ons Natura

2000

area with

regard to ali the habitsts and species for which the area has been designated. The impsct assessment

must therefore partly identify and beate alI the habitats and species for which an area is prntected, and

psrtly the sssessment must also include information about species and habitats outside the protected

—

location. Since it must be clear from the assessment why the protected hahitats and species are not

affeeted, in certain cases it may be sufficient to establish that only certain protected habitats and

species in the part of the proteeted area that are affeeted by the project, are affected and that the other

protected hahitats and species on the site are not affected. However, this presupposes that there is

sufficiently precise information about where protected species and nature types are loeated in the

individual Natura

2000

areas, as well aa the interaction with other species in and ciose to the Natura

2000

area.[76]

With regard to the geographical extent of the protection, the Court of Justice of the EU has determined

that the habitat direetive’s requirements for significance and impact assessment also apply to a plan or

project located outside the affeeted Natura

2000

area, when these can significantly affeet species on

the basis of designation. The same applies when the species are outside the Natura

2000

area.[]

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board linds that, in the specifie case, Horsens Municipality

has had a sufficient basis to be able to assess whether the project will cause a significant impaet on

ealcareous meadows, brook lampreys, vertigo geyeri whorl snails, narrow-mouthed whorl snails,

Desmoulin’s whorl snails and otters on the basis of designation for the nearby habitat area H236 The

committee also finds that there is no basis for overriding the municipality’s assessment that the projeet

will not affeet the designation basis for the Natura

2000

area.

Semi-natural dry grassland and serubland facies on calcareous substrates

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has, in relation to semi-natural dry grassland and

serubland facies

calcareoos substrates, emphasized on the basis ofdesignation that the nearest area

in the Natura

2000

area with grassland on ealeareous sobstrates is approx.

300

m from the road’s

roote, and that the grassland on calcareous substrates is thereby not direetly physically affected by the

proj eet.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board has also emphasized that specifie caleolations for

nitrogen deposition have been made in the impact assessment, and that based on the modeled

backgroond bad in the area and the caleulated deposition at the time of the project’s realization, it has

been assessed that the deposition based on the exeessive strnctural and species status does not pose a

threat to the conservation status of the grassland.

Vertigo geyeri whorl snail, narrow-...

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has emphasized, in relation to the vertigo geyeri whorl

snail, the crooked water snail and the swamp water snail, that the three species are registered in

association with spring water and sedge in the central and western part of the Natora

2000

area more

than

900

m from the project area, and that there are no natural types have been registered which will

be able to support the presence of the vertign geyeri whorl snail nr the narrow-mnnthed whorl snail

near the project area.

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has also emphasized that Horsens Municipality has

stated during the appeal that the area with potential habitats for snails outside habitat area H236 lies

approx.

240

m from the potential habitat of the Desmoulin’s whnrl snail within the habitat area. The

areas between the potential habitat and the habitat within the Natura

2000

area cnnsist partI)’ of a

road and partly of dry grassland, which does not constitute a suitable habitat for species of snails. In

this cnnneetinn, the board has also emphasized that snails do not migrate between habitats, as the)’ are

non-mobile species.

The Environmental and Food Complainta Board has, in relation to what was atated in the complaint

regarding the finding of potentially suitable hahitats for snaila in the road route outside the habitat

area, emphasized that the source soorce in queation is isolated from the habitat area, and that a

possible popolation will therefore flot be covered of the possible popolations of anails in the habitat

area and therefore not be covered by hahitat protection.

Brook lamorev

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has emphasized, in relation to the lamprey, that the

project in the constrnction phase is not assessed to be able to affeet a possible population oflamprey

ifl

the Bygholm

watercourse system, as no physical changes are made to the watercourse. tt also

appears that the stretch of watercoorse around the project area can be a breeding ground and

migration site for the species, bot that the stretch of watercourse at the project area is not assessed to

constitute a likely breeding area, as the bottom is mainly sandy and as there is considerable sand

migration.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board has alan, in relation to the impact on the brook

lamprey in connection with the temporary gronndwater lowering in the construction phase,

emphasized that the groundwater is reinjected and thos not discharged into the stream, and that the

groundwater lowering therefore does not cause changes in the stream, including for the brook

lamprey.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board has alan emphasized that in the impact assessment,

calculatinna have been made of the discharge of rainwater during the operational phase, and that on

this basis it has been assessed that there will be no impact on the river lamp in relation to fluctoations

in nxygen conccntration, salt impact and environmentally harmful substances.

Otter

In relation to ottcrs, the Environmental and Food Complainta Board has emphasized the information

that the areas immediately east of the Natura

2000

area are not significant as a breeding area for

otters, and that during the construction phase there will he good oppnrtnnities for hiding bnth

upstream and dnwnatream nf the project area.

In relation to the complaint that the temporary bridge doring the construction phase over Hatting Bæk

will disturb the otter’s movement possibilitiea, the board has emphasized that any impact during the

constrnction phase will be of a temporary nature and that the constructinn activities will take place

within normal working hours during the day and not during the night houra, when ottera actively

forage in the streams.

The Environmental and Food Complainta Board has alan emphasized that the road conatroction

during the operatinnal phase does not caose a barrier effect for ottera, as the constrnction ensures

passage conditions for otters between the Natura

2000

area and any resting areas downstream of the

project area in accordance with the management plan for otters.

Groundwater lowering

To relation to the impact from groondwater lowering, the Environmental and Food Complaints Board

has emphasized that it appears from the model calcolation for the distribution of the lowering funnels

doring groondwater lowering that the lowering funnels for the foor middle support points do not reach

into hahitat area 1-1236, and that on that basis it has been assessed, that the nature types and species

dependent on the stream will not he negatively affeeted by the lowering of the groondwater.

In relation to a possible impaet from the gronndwater lowering in comolation with other projects, the

Environment and Food Complaints Board has emphasized the caleulation of the lowering fonnels and

the distance to the bosiness area.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board forther notes that, in the board’s opinion, it cannot be

reqnired that an enviroomental impact report relate to the comolative effect with ali other projects in

the area. The assessment of the comolative effect must only relate to the other projects in the area that

must he considered relevant in relation to a significant increase in the environmental impacts

compared to the desired project.

3.2.5

Ad 4) Provision of the impact assessment

This appears from section 6, sohsection of the hahitat order.

and par.

that if the aothority assesses

that a project may significantly affect a Natora

2000

area, a detailed impact assessment of the project’s

effects on the Natora

2000

area must be carried oot, taking into account the conservation objective for

the area in qoestion.

It also appears from section 6, suhsection of the execotive order. 4, that assessments according to

sobsection

1-3

most appear in the decision.

tt is therefore assomed in the regolations that an assessment must first be made of whether the project

can significantly affect a habitat area (significance assessment). If this is the case, an assessment of the

impact on the area most be earried oot (consequence assessment), and this assessment must be

inciuded in the decision.

tt appears from the habitat guidance that it is the authority’s responsibility that a case is decided on a

sofficiently informed basis, and that the authority most thos ensure that sofficient information is

provided to determine vhether a plan or project damages a Natora

2000

area’s integrity. According to

the practice of the Eoropean Coort of Justice, it is the aothority that is obliged to ensure that an

assessmeot has been made on a sofficiently informed basis.[781 It is further stated in the habitat

goidance that if an aothority does not have access to the information necessary for the processing of a

specific case, the applicant may he ordered to obtain information relevant to processing the

application. Reference is made to the fact that, among other things, there is authority in the

Environmeotal Assessment Act §

24,

subseetion

to order the applicant to provide additional

information.

The Environmental and Food Compiaints Board finds that Horsens Municipality’s assessment of the

project’s impacts on the nearby Natura

2000

area meets the reqturemeots for an impact assessment

according to the habitat executive order, and that, based on the information in the case, there is no

basis for estabhshing that the impact assessment was not prepared impartially.

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has emphasized that independent comment rounds

have been carried oot in Horsens Municipality on the content of the habitat impact sssessment in

question with the aim of ensoring that the habitat directive’s requirements for an appropriate

assessment have been met hefore the monicipality announced the relevant permits for the project.

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has alan emphasized that it appears from the §

permit that Horsens Municipality, Natore and Environment, has received assistance from an external

consulting company to review the developer’s assessments of the impact on the Natura

2000

area and

Annex IV- species.

The Environmental and Food Cnmplaints Board has alsn placed emphasis oo the faet that no

information has emerged with the complainta that provides a hasia for aasoming that the eontent of

the impaet asseasment or the assessments made were insofficient or ineorreet.

3.2.6 Ad 5) Impact on Annex IV species (bats, otters, newts and toads)

Thia follnws from Sectioo

20,

sobsection of the Environmental Aasessment Aet. 4, no.

that the

environmental impaet report moat demonatrate, deaerihe and asseaa the projeet’s significant direet

and indireet effecta on e.g. the biolngical diversity with partienlar emphasis

speeies and habitats

proteeted onder the Hahitats Directive.

The aothority muat make sore, when issoing the §

permit itself, that the projeet will not damage or

destrny breeding or roosting areaa in the natoral range of Annex IV speeies, ef. §

of the habitat

order.

The EU Commisaion haa published gnidance on the protection of Annex IV species.[79] The provision

in the t-tahitats Directive, Artiele

12,

suhsection

letter d, aceording to the guidance, muat he

understood as an objective that the ecolngieal fnnetion of hreeding and resting areal ia preserved.

Breeding areaa are defined in the guidance as the areaa to he used for mating and birth, and also eover

the area near the neat or birth site if the offapring are dependent on such areas. Reating areaa are

defined as the areas used by an animal or a group of animals when they are not aetive. Ronsting areal

also inelude atruetorea that animals establiah as ronsting areaa, e.g. nests, hnrrowa or hiding

places.[8o]

Likewise, resting areas are defined in the Danish Environmental Prnteetion Agency’s hahitat guidanee

as areas that are important to ensure the survival of individnal animala nr pnpulatinna when they are

at rest. [81] Resting areas are thns areas where the speciel stays dnring nr nutside the breeding season

to rest, sleep nr hibernate (hibernation) and in hiding in larger concentrations (flncks) and to fulfill

impnrtant life fnnctinns (snnbathing nr the like). Breeding and resting areas have in cnmmnn that they

are used regularly by the species.[82]

A breeding nr rnnsting area in the sense of the Hahitats Directive and the Habitats Order means a

cnllectinn (“netwnrk”) of localities where a population ofa species breeds nr ronsts. The importance of

the individnal locations in the netwnrk may depend no the popolation’s density and spread potential.

When assessing whether a breeding nr rnnsting area is damaged nr destroyed, it is decisive whether

the ecological functinnality of the network of sites can be maintained at at least the same level as

befnre.[83]

It is the respnnsibility nf the cnmpetent aothority, in accordance with the general administrative law

investigation principle, to ensure that snfficient information is provided to be able to asscss whether

breediog nr rnnsting areas for Annex IV species are damaged nr destroyed. No clear criteria can be

establishcd for the extent and natnre of the information that is reqnired. It depends no the specific

situation. There can e.g. in the case nf older information, there may he a need to assess whether the

information needs to be npdated to determine whether the species actnally cnntinnes to occnr in the

affeeted areal. Precise criteria cannot he set for when information is too old, as the speciel are very

different,jnst as the natoral development (e.g. nvergrowth) of an area can have an impact on whether a

speciel is present. Therc may he a need for further investigations if decisions are to be made in parts of

the country where the speciel are knowu to nccur and where there is a likelihood that pnssible

hreeding nr ronsting areas may be affected. An)’ investigations must be carried nut in a targeted

manner sising soitable methods, and it must be ensured that the investigations take place at the times

of the year when the speciel in questinn can be expected to otilize a given area. The surveys most

therefore take place at times when there will be a high probability of detecting the species if it occurs in

the area.[84]

In relation to activities that may affect breeding or resting areas, according to the EU Cnmmission’s

goidance, a distinction must be made hetween activities that can he accommodated within Article

the Habitats Directive and activities that require a derogation pursuant to Article 16 of the Directive.

Where a derogation under Article i6, compensatory measores will aim to compensate for specific

negative effects on a species and thos imply that there is nr has been damage nr destruction nf

breeding nr roosting areas. This is not the case for measures to ensure ecnlogical functinnality, which

ensure that the ecological fnnctinnality nf the breeding nr rnnsting area remains cnmpletely intact

(quantitatively and qnalitatively) when the activity has taken place (remedial measnres).[85]

The Eurnpean Cnurt nf Jnstice has stated in the Grand Hamster II judgment, with reference tn the EU

Commission’s gu dance, that according tn the habitat directive’s article

12,

paragraph s letter d, in

particular, it must he ensured that the breeding and rnnsting areas of a prntected animal species are

nnt damaged nr destrnyed by boman activities, sn that these areas cnntinue tn nifer the conditinns

necessary fnr this animal species tn rnnst nr breed within this area success. In such an assessment,

accnunt must be taken nf the ecolngical reqtnrements that apply to each nf the affected animal species

to which the individual in questinn belnngs, as well as to the sitnatinn at individnal level for this

animal species that sises the breeding nr resting area in qnestinn.[86]

The Envirnnmental and Fnnd Cnmplaints Unard is nf the npininn that the assessment nf Annex IV

species at the time nf the decisinn dnes not necessarily have to include a final assessment ofwhether a

given lncatinn actually serves as a breeding nr resting area for Annex tV species, if, nn the basis nf a

precautinnary principle fnr the time being, it is assumed that this is the case.

If, nn the basis of a precautinnary principle, a given Incality can be assumed to serve as a breeding nr

rnnsting area for an Annex IV species, it must then be assessed how the prnject will affect the Incality

immediately. If the immediate impact is harmful, it must be assessed whether the site’s nngning

ecnlngical functinnality as a breeding nr resting area can be maintained with the help of mitigatinn

measures. If the preventive measnres cannnt be expected with a high degree of certainty to work to a

sufficient extent, the prnject must be adapted so that the immediate damage to the site is avnided.

It appears from the Danish Environmental Prntectinn Agency’s habitat guidance that mitigation

measures are suitable fnr species that are quick tn colnnize new lncatinns within a netwnrk nflncatinns

that form a cnmbined area for a stock, and where new suitable habitats can be created nver a shnrter

perind nf time.

It also appears from the Danish Envirnnmental Prntectinn Agency’s habitat giudelines that, where

applicable, there must be a high degree nf certainty that mitigatinn measures will wnrk to a sufficient

extent. The greater the uncertainty in the knnwledge of the speciflc nccnrrence nf the species in an

area, the greater the need fnr preventive measures in the form of securing pnssible new breeding nr

rnosting areas. Where mitigation measures are required, according to the Danish Envirnnmental

Protectinn Agency’s habitat guidelines, clear terms mnst be laid down in the specific cases. The term

must be drafted in such a way that it can be enfnrced.[87]

Bat

The Envirnnmental and Fnnd Complaints Bnard initially states that, in the investigatinns carried nut in

cnnnectinn with the preparatinn nf the habitat impact assessment, a breeding and rnnsting area fnr

pipistrelle and pygmy bata, and possibly also for brown and troll bats, has heen found approx.

300

west of the project area. The board notes that, in addition, it has not heen mapped in detail whether

there are hreeding or resting areas in the wooded area approx. 80 m east of the connecting road, and

that possible breeding and roosting areas have been treated as if the)’ were actually breeding and

roosting areas.

II appears from the environmental impact report that, in connection with the establishment of the

landseape bridge, sheet pile wails for the constroetion pits aroond the foondations for the bridge piers

must be framed. The noise from the framing of sheet piles will usoallybe experienced as psrticularly

annoying, as it is impulse noise. Noise caleolations have been made in relation to neighboring homes,

and on that basis a simple noise caleolation of the noise propagation has been made, which shows that

noise levels of over

dB(A) can be expected more than

300-400

m from the impact site. It appears

that the framing vork is estimated to last

days, and that the work is only carried out during daytime

hours on weekdays. It has also been assessed that there is no need for significant mitigation nieasures

in connection with constniction noise.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board finds that Horsens Municipality did not have a

sofficient basis for assessing that the project will not affect the ecological functionality of breeding and

roosting areas for the nine registered hat species in the area.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board has emphasized that no assessment has been made of

whether the noise during the constrnction phase from the framing of sheet piles coold affeet breeding

and roosting areas for bats. In this connection, the board notes that in the case Horsens Municipality

has chosen to treat the areas east of the connecting road as if they were actually hreeding and resting

areas, but that no assessment has been made of whether the noise could affect the nearby breeding and

resting areas fiinctionality, especially doring the breeding season. In addition to this, the committee

notes that it sppears that noise from hitting is impulse noise, which can be more annoying than other

noise. The board refers to the fact that it appears from the Management Plan for bats on secnring

suitable habitats that distorbances, such as severe noise impact that coold harm the Incal pnpolation of

bats must be avoided.[88]

A majority of the Environment and Food Complaints Board also finds that 1-lorsens Municipality has

had sufficient grounds to assess that the other parts of the project will not affect the ecological

functionality of breeding and roosting areas for the nine registered hat species in the area.

In the assessment, the majority emphasized that, in accordance with the gnidelines in the Road

Directorate’s guidance on bats and major roads, bat snnes were carried out dnring the stated periods,

and that hoth daytime inspections, surveys with aotomatic detectors and reviews of the area with

handheld hat detector. On this basis, it has been determined where in the area there are breeding and

roosting areas for hats, or potential breeding and roosting areas, jost as significant gnide lines and

foraging areas of importance for the ecological functionality of the breeding and roosting areas have

been determined.

The majority has also emphasized that, in connection with the decision, it has been assessed that most

of the registered hat species ‘ill ole the primary control line under the landscape bridge, and that the

smaller structure-boond species will fly at sncb a great distance from the control plantings and screens

that the3’ planned heights of bridge goarding and guide planting isill reduce collision risk for bats.

In addition, the nsajority has emphasized that the road’s crossing of Bygholm Ådal and Bygholm

Å,

which are respectively assessed to be an important foraging area and an important control line for bats

in the area, be

built

as a landscape bridge of the type A1L (wet) in accordance with the Road

Directorate’s road rules about fauna passsges, and that the landscape bridge under each of the three

middle spans has a clearance of at least 7 m and a width of approx.

m, which is in accordance with

the minimum dimensions specified in the guide for the selected

type

of landscape bridge. b this

connection, the majority has emphasized that landscape bridges of the

type

AsL (wet) in the

Nonvegian Road Directorate’s road rules on fauna passsges are indicated as a suitable prevention

measure for species of hats, including water hals, pond hals, pygmy bats, pipistrelle bats, troll bats and

long-eared hats, and that high landscape bridges with large clearance under the bridge, which in this

specific case are also suitable for southern bats. Furthermore, the majority has emphasized that the

risk of collision at road crossings for

brown

bats and long-eared bats is eonsidered low aceording to the

Road Directorate’s road niles.

In additinn, the majority has emphasized that screens are set tip on the sides of the bridge and gude

planting is established in accordance with the Roads Direetorate’s road rtile nn fauna passages in order

to minimize the risk of collision for bats that forage at the height of the bridge above the

river

valley,

and lead low-flying hat species on the edge of the river valley down in the

river

valley, where there is a

passage under the bridge. In the beginning, the gtude planting is also supplemented in accordance

with

the Road Directorate’s road rtile on fauna passages with a flne-mesh wire fence

with

a minimum

height of

2.5

m, so that bats cannot pass through the fence.

Overall, in relation to the preventive measnres deseribed, the majority has emphasized that conditions

have been laid down in the section

permit in accordance with this.

In relation to the disagreement about the distance to the potential breeding and roosting area for bats

east of the connecting road, the majority has emphasized that the actual distance does not deviate

sigoificantly from the previously stated distance.

Finally, the majority has emphasized that any impact from light and visual disttirbances from traffic

during the operational phase is limited by the shielding on the sides of the bridge, and that no road

lighting is established on the stretch, just as the planting aloog the road and the bridge shielding on

the road bridge itself

will

reduce a potential impact of bats in the operating phase significantly.

Particularly in relation to a potential noise impact, the majority has cmphasized that it is a country

road and that the environmental impact report states that the noise in the area

will

not be significantly

increased.

The minority (Pelle Andersen-Harrild) finds that, in relation to noise during the operational phase,

Horsens Municipality has not had a sofficient basis for assessing that the project will not affect the

ecological functionality of breeding and roosting areas for the nine registered hat species in the area.

The minority has emphasized that Horsens Municipality has not taken a position on the habitat

reqoirements of the individual hat species or differeotiated between the species’ auditory sensitivity,

and that there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that there is no impact doring the operational phase.

Other Annex IV species

The Environmental and Fond Complaints Board finds that Horsens Municipality has had a sufficient

basis for assessing that the prnject

will

not affect the ecological fnnctionality of breeding and resting

areas for large water salamanders, pninted frngs and otters. The committee also fods no basis for

nverriding the municipality’s professional assessment that hreeding and resting areas for the species

will

not be affected by the plan.

In relation to the pointed frog and large

newt,

the Environmental and Food Complaints Board has

emphasized that, in connection with the environmental impact report, a search for tadpoles in suitable

habitats has been carried nut in accordance with the technical instnictions fnr monitoring amphibians

and incltided existing data nn the occurrence of the species in the area.

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has also emphasized that an amphibian fence be

established along both sides of the road on the north side of Bygholm

Å,

and that it has been assessed

that the planned establishment of the prevention measure will not inspair the ecological fttnctionality

ofbreeding and resting areas for large newt and pointed fog. In this eonnection, the committee has

emphasized that an)’ individuals of the species will be led under the road bridge.

tn relation to otters, the Environmental and Food Complaints Board initially notes that the section

permit, the environmental impact report nr the habitat impact assessment do not immediately appear

to have assessed whether the plan ill affect the ecological functinnality of breeding and resting areas

for otters. However, the board onderstands the assessment in the habitat impact assessment to mean

that, ifl addition to an assessment of otters on the basis ofdesignation for habitat area H236, the

assessment also contains an assessment of the project’s impact on the ecological functionality of

breeding and resting areas for otters, as the population of otters that reside within and outside the

Natora

2000

area, must he considered to coincide.

b the assessment in relation to otters, the Environmental and Food Complaints Board has

emphasized that the immediate area around the road route is grazed and open withoot good

opportunities for hiding, and that on this basis it has been assessed that the areas immediately east of

the Natura

2000

area are unsuitable as breeding grounds for otters. The committee has also

emphasized that the constroction activities are temporan’ and that the activities xill take place within

normal working hours during the day, and that there are good opportunities for the species to seek

refoge both upstream and downstream where the construction works take place.

The Environment and Food Complaints Board has also emphasized that the landscape bridge in the

operational phase will ensure good passage conditions, which ensures that otters can pass under the

road along the strearn in accordance with the management plan for otters.

Ad 6) Other naturc

According to Annex 7 of the Enviroomental Assessment Act, cf. §

sobsection s, an environmental

impact report must contain a description of the project’s expected significant impacts on the

environment of those in §

20,

subsection 4, mentinoed factors, including the biological diversity that

can be expected to be significantly affected by the project.

3.2.7

The Environment and Food Complaints Board finds no basis for overriding Horsens Municipality’s

assessment pursuant to section

24,

subsection of the Environmental Assessment Act.

according to

which the environ mental impact report folfihls the requirements of the law as far as description of the

project’s expected significant impact on nature is concerned, including butt-nosed frog, cuckon-wort,

butt-leaved hair star and barn owi.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board initially notes that there can be no requirement that

an environmental impact report must contsin an independent assessment of ali species that can

potentially be foond in an area. The committee points oot that it is the project’s expected significant

impacts on the environment that most be described in an environmental inspact report.

The Environmental and Food Compiaints Board has emphasized that it is described in the

environmental inipact report that dead seed was foond in the area, just as it is described in the

environmental impact report that there is an occurreoce of cuckoo grass on a limestone meadow west

of the projeet area. In this connection, the hoard has emphasized that, in conneetion with the projeet,

it has beefl assessed that there will he no impaet from the lime exeess, cf. seetiofi

3.2.4.

In the opinion of the Eflviroflmeflt and Food Complaints Board, it was flot neeessary in the speeifie

case to cariy ont a doser assessment of the short-leaved hair star or barn owl, as the projeet eannot be

assomed to have a signifieant impaet on the popnlatiofl of the speeies in the area. Ifl relation to the

butt-leaved hair star, the board has attaehed importaflee to Horsens Muflieipality’s information that

the extirpated alder trees will remain in the area and can eofltiflne to form a hahitat for the bnt-leaf

hair star. Ifl relation to barn owls, the hoard has emphasized that

110

bnildings will be demolished or

trees felled

ifl

eonnection with the projeet, whieh are suitable for nesting barn owls.

3.2.8 Ad 7) Altensatives

This appears from seetion

20,

subseetiofl of the Eflviroflmefltal Assessment Aet.

no. 4, that the

eflviroflmefltal inspact report is. mnst contain a deseriptiofl of the reasonable alternatives that the

developer has iflvestigated, which are relevaflt to the projeet and its special characteristics, and an

ifidicatiofi of the maifl reasons for the chosen sointiofi, takiflg into accouifit the projeet’s effects on the

eflviroflmeflt. The eflviroflmefltal impaet report mnst according to appefidix 7, point 3, cf. section

20,

subsection

also cofitain a deseription of the relevaflt aspects of the curreflt eflviroflmefltal status (the

reference scenario or the

alterflative) afld a brief description of its likely developflseflt if the project is

flot carried ont.

According to the practice of the Eflviroflmefltal and Food Complaints Board, alternatives, inclnding

those proposed durifig the previons public debate, must be dealt with more or less thoroughly. It is

sufficiefit that the oven’iew of alternatives gives the public and politicians an opportuflity to assess the

desired projeet

ifl

relation to other realistic alterflatives. The decisive factor is whether the necessary

basis for a decision can be said to have been provided. Tht:s, it cannot be rcquired that an in-depth

analysis of (ali) other alternatives be carried out.[89]

The Eflvironment afld Food Complaints Board fifids no basis for overridiflg Horsens Muflicipality’s

assessment pursuant to section

24,

subseetion of the Enviroflmental Assessment Act.

according to

which the environmefltal impact report fulfihis the reqnirements of the law as far as the description of

the investigated reasonable alterflatives is concerned.

The Eflviroflmental and Food Complaints Board has emphasized that the eflvironmefltal impact report

contains a description of the reference scenarin and the likely development of the area if the project is

not carried out.

The Environmental and Fond Cnmplaints Bnard has alsn emphasized that ten alternative alignments

are explained in the environmental impact report, incinding citizen proposals received in the debate

phase, and that there is an initial assessment of the traffic effect of the proposals, and an overall

screening of the individual prnpnsals impact on natural conditions, the landscape and cultural

cnnditinns.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Bnard notes that the bnard cannot take a decision on

whether a decisinn, inclnding the choice between different alternath’es, is appropriate, just as the

bnard cannot take a decision on whether, in connection with the decisinn to apply for the conneetion

road at the specific location irrelevant consideratinns are inclnded.

The environmental assessment rules dn not in tbemselves determine limits on what authorities can

decide for political, economic nr other reasons, but only set reqnirements for the basis for the decisions

and the procedures for this.

3.3 The Environment and Food Complaints Board’s other comments

3.3.1

The Water Framework Direetive

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board notes that Horsens Municipality should pay attention

to a renewed treatment to ensure that the project does not result in an additional supply of copper to

the watercourse. ln this connection, the board also notea how there

will

not he s total additional supply

ofcopper to the watercourse asa result of the project, ifit is documented that the suppiy ofcopper

through road water is less than the reduetion in the supply of copper to the watercourse, which takes

place through other sources, including e.g. from agricultural land.

tf this is not possible, the Environment and Food Complaints Board draws attention to the fsct that the

project then only can he permitted if the derogation conditions in the Water Framework Directive are

met. 4 pcs. 7. The exemption provision has been implemented in the environmental target order,

where it appears from section 4, subsection 3, that the minister, at the request of an authority, has the

opportunity, after a concrete assessment, to decide that the authority under the circumstances and

conditions mentioned in subsection s and

may deviate from the established environmental targets,

cf. section 8 of the executive order.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board draws attention to the fact that the board has not

herewith taken a decision on the conditions for deviating according to section 4, suhsection of the

Environmental Targets Executive Order. 3, is fulfilled.

The Environmental and Food Complaints Board also draws attention to the fact that in 8 of Horsens

Municipality’s executive order on requirements fur the discharge of certain pollutants

mio

streams,

lakea, transitional waters, coaatal waters and sea areas, it is possible to designate a mixing zone around

diacharge points where the environmental quality requirements within this zone can he exceeded.[9u]

The hoard further notes that it is a prerequiaite for determining a mixing zone that the diacharge of

pollutanta has previoualy been reduced as much as possible through the uae of BAT, cf. section 5,

auhaection of the executive order.

and that the environmental quality requirementa are not exceeded

outside the mixing zone. The latter must be ensured by calculation according to § 7, aubaection

cf.

subsection

Annex IV species

Bat

in the event of a renewed treatment, Horsens Municipality should cariy out an assesament of whether

noise from the project in the construction phase in connection with the ramming of sheet piles can

affect Annex IV species of bats, particularly during breeding periods. The Environment and Food

Complaints Board notes in this connection that the breeding periods of the various species are

descrihed in the management plan for bats. If, in a renewed treatment, it is assessed that the inspulse

noise may haves negative impact on breeding and rousting areas for bats, the municipality ma

consider setting conditions in the section

permit regarding when the framing of sheet piles may

take place.

3.3.2

3.4 Fee

Asa result of the decision, the appeal fee paid svill be refunded, cf. section

order.

No.

subseetion of the fee

3.5 Decision of the Environmental and Food Complaints Board

The Environment and Food Complaints Board revokes the decision of

January

2022

on the Section

permit for a new connecting road from the commercial area Vega to Horsens C and remands the

case for renewed consideration.

[i]

Legislative Decree No. 4 of 3 January

2023

on environmental assessment of plans and programs

and of specific projects (ETA).

[2]

Act No.

1715

of 27December2016 on the Environmental and Food Complaints Board, as amended

by Act No.

900

June

2022

on amendments to the Museums Act, Act on the Environmental and

Food Complaints Board and various other laws.

[]

Executive order no.

132

January

2017

on fees for lodging complaints before the

Environmental and Food Complaints Board, etc.

[41

Case no.

22/02909, 22/02917, 22/02922, 22/06815

and 22/06836.

[]

Case no.

22/02446, 22/02414

and

22/02410.

[6] Natura

2000

baseline analysis

2022-2027,

Bygholm Ådal.

[]

https://miljoegis.mim.dk/cbkort?&profile=vandrammedirektiv2-bek-2o19.

[8] https://miljoegis.mim.dk/spatialmap?profile=vandrammedirektiv3hoering2o2l.

[]

In the Environmental GIS for consultation of the water area plans

2021-2027,

environmentally

hazardous pollutants are referred to as nationally specific substances.

[sol https://vandplandata.dk/vp3hoering2o2l/vandomraade/vandloeb/DKRIVER6647.

[ii]

Question no.

21,

https://mst.dk/natur-vand/vand-i-hverdagen/spildevand/hvad-er-spidevand

og-hvorfor-renser-vi-det/spoergsmaal-og-svar- about environmental quality requirernents/ #G.

[12]

https://mst.dk/media/ 121329/52-baggrundsniveau-for-barillm-zinc-kobber-nikkel-og-

vanadium-i-fersk-og-havvand.pdf.

[131 Conservation status of habitat types and species

2019.

Habitats Directive Article

reporting.

Aarhos University, DCE National Center for Environment and Ener’,

pp. Scientific report no.

—

340.

[141 The ecology of the individual organism.

[is]

LC50 value, lethal concentration, expression ofa chemical substance’s toxicity.

[16] Road Directorate, Road mIe: Fauna passages a guide: construction and planning, August

2020.

[17] Amphibian Monitoring, DCE, TA No: A17, Version

2, 2018.

[18] Danish Environmental Protection Agency,

2007.

Noise from roads. Guidance from the Danish

Environmental Protection Agency no. 4.

Environmental

[19]

Vejregelgruppen Drainage,

2020.

HANDBOOK Drainage constructions

conditions and Authority application Construction and Planning. Rules of the road. December

2020.

[20] Vollertsen, J., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. Nielsen, A.H.,

2012.

Fact sheet on dimensioning of wet

rainwater basins. Aalborg University, August

2012.

[21] Jensen, J. & Bak, J.L.

2018.

Zinc and copper in the aquatic environment. Sources, occurrence and

environmental significance. Aarhus University, DCE National Center for Environment and Energy.

[22]

Cf. Vollertsen, J., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. Nielsen, A.H.,

2012,

Fact sheet on dimensioning ofwet

rainwater basins. Aalborg University, August

2012,

and Gregersen, IB., Rasmussen, S.H, Madsen, S. &

Amnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Updating the spreadsheet for Skrift

(October

2016),

Regnrække Version

4.1,

SVK,

https://spildevandskomiteen. dk/skrifters/.

[23]

Executive order no. 449 of 11April

2019

on action programs for watershed districts.

[24]

The Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance for the executive order on action programs for

watershed districts, Jul3’

2017,

https://mst.dk/media/1333o1/bilag-s-vejledning-4-juli-2o17.pdf.

[25]

Danish Environmental Protection Agency,

2021,

draft questions and answers on discharge of

certain pollutants into the aquatic environment, question 43.

—

[26] The judgment of the European Court of Justice of 7November2018

case C-461/s7, Holohan,

and the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 16 July

2020

ifl case

C-411/19,

Italia Onhis.

[27]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 4 March

2021

injoint cases C-473/19 and C-474/19,

Skydda Skogen.

[28]

Executive order no.

1376

June

2021

on environmental assessment of plans and programs

and of concrete projects.

[29]

Management plan for otter (hitra lutra) in Denmark, Forest and Nature Agency, 1996.

[30]

The Habitat Guidelines, guidance no.

9925

November

2020

for executive order no. 1595 of 6

December

2018

on the designation and administration of international nature protection areas and the

protection of certain species.

[31]

Cf. the comments to

in proposal 144 to the Environmental and Food Complaints Board Act

(VI’ 20 16-17).

[32] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of

May

1992

on the conservation of natnre and wild animals and

plants.

[331

Directive

2009/

147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of

Octoher 2009 on the

protection of wild birds.

[34] Directive 2000/6o/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of

October

2000

establishing a framework for Community water policy measures.

[]

Judgment of the Enropean Court of Justice of 28 May

2020 ifl

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraph go.

[36] Legislative Decree No. 126 of 26 Januar)’

2017

on water planning.

[3’] Legislative Decree no. 119 of 26 January

2017

on environmental targets etc, for international

nature conservation areas.

[38] Execntive order no. 448 of

April

2019

on environmental targets for surface water areas and

groundwater bodies.

[c]

Executive order no. 449 of

April

2019

on action programs for watershed districts.

[40]

Guidance diaft for the Act on environmental assessment of plans and programs and of concrete

projects (ELA) Concrete projects, Danish Environmental Protection Agency

2022,

section 3.

[41]

Guideline no. 9627 of 6 July

2017

on executive order on action programs for water area districts,

section

8.1.2.

[42]

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of

May

1992

on the conservation of nature and

wild animals and

plants.

[43] Executive Order No.

2091

November

2021

on the designation and administration of

international nature conservation areas and the protection of

certain speciel.

[zj]

See recital no.

of the EIA Directive.

[]

See the comments to section

no. 28 of the bill, regarding the amendment of section

of the

Environmental Assessment Act,

2020/1

1SF 56 of 8 October

2020.

[46] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of

July

2015 ifl

case C-461/13, Weser, paragraph

51.

[471

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of

July

2015

in case C-461/13, Weser, paragraph 46.

[48] Sec the judgment of the European Court ofJiistice of

July

2015,

case C-461/13, Weser,

paragraphs

and 69.

[491

Judgment of the European Court of

Justice of 5 May

2022,

case

C-525/2o,

Association France

Nature Environnement, paragraphs

and 45.

[50]

Judgment of the European Court

Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraphs 94-96.

[51]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraphs 97-98.

[52]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of

May

2020,

Westfalen, paragraphs

100, 101 and

108.

case

C-535/ i8, Land Nordrhein

[]

Directive

2006/118

December

2006

stipulates according to art.

specific measures to

prevent and control groundwater pollution, cf. art.

17,

subsection iand

of the water framework

directive. The quality requirements for groundwater are laid down in Annex

of the directive, cf. art. 3

pieces.

[j]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraph

110.

[]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraph 118.

[56] Legislative Decree No. 126 of 26 January

2017

on the Water Planning Act.

[]

Executive Order No.

1625

of 19December2017 on the determination ofenvironmental targets for

streams, lakes, transition waters, coastal waters and groondwater.

[58] Elsewhere referred to as Part B, Tables 3 and 4.

[591

Thjs parameter is the environmental quality requirement expressed as an annual average (general

quality requirement).

[60] Thjs parameter is the environmental quality requirement expressed as the highest permitted

concentrat ion (maximum concentration).

[61] Sect ion 4.6, condition assessment, environmentally hazardous pollutants,

https://mst.dk/media/i22i7o/revideret-jylland-1’n-d-28o62oi6.pdf.

[62] Sect ion 4.3, measures for environmentally hazardous pollutants, purpose of the measures and

general conditions surrounding implementation, https://mst.dk/rnedia/1333o1/bilag-1-vejledning-4-

juli-2o17.pdf.

[63] Section 8.3.2, The environmental target has flot been met, environmentally hazardous pollutants,

https://mst.dk/media/1333o1/bilag-1-vejledning-4-juli-2oi7.pdf.

[64] See especially section 8.3.2

ifl

Draft guidance for executive order on action prograns for

watershed districts, December

2021,

https://mim.dk/media/225714/udkast-vejledning-til-

indsatsprogram-vp3.pdf.

[65] Question no. 43 on how requirement values for a

given

substance in an outfall are determined

when environmental quality reqoirements for the substance have already been exceeded jo the aquatic

environment, https://mst.dk/natur-vand/vand-i-hverdagen/spildevand/ what-is-wastewater-and

‘hy-do-we-puri1’-it/questions-and-answers-about-environmental-quality-reqiiirements/#G.

[66] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraphs 94-96.

[67] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, e.g. items

and

101.

[68] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhcin

Westfalen, paragraph

100

[69] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraphs

101

and ii8, and judgment of the European Court of Justice of 5 May

2022,

case C-525/20, Association France Nature Environnement, paragraphs

and 45.

[70]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraph

110.

[71]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 May

2020,

case C-535/18, Land Nordrhein

Westfalen, paragraph

110.

[72] See case

C-127/02

(Hjerte-Muslingejudgment), paragraph 61, and paragraph 4 ofthejudgment.

[731

See e.g. case

C-404/09, Commission v Spain, paragraph 99.

[]

See

the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11April

2013 in

case

C-258/11,

Sweetman,

paragraph 48.

[]

The EU Commission’s announcement “Management of Natura

2000

sites The provisions of

Article 6 of the Irlabitats Directive 92/43/EEC”,

2018,

section 3.6.4.

[761 See the judgment of the European Court of

Justice

of 7 November

2018 ifl case C-461/17

(Holohan), paragraphs 37-40.

[771

See e.g. Judgment of the European Cotirt of Justice of 26 April

2017 ifl

case C-142/16 (Moorburg),

paragraph

29.

[78] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 7November 2018

ifl

case C-46s/17 (Holohan)

paragraphs

41-47.

[79] Guidance on the strict protection of animal species of Community importance under the Habitats

Directive, Commission Commnnication of

October

2021, C(2o2s) 7301

(hereafter EU Commission

Guidance).

[8o] The EU Commission’s guidanee, section

2.52-2.57.

[81] Guidance no. 48 to execntive order no.

1595

of 6 December

2018

on the designation and

administration of international natnre conservation areas and the protection of certain species, Danish

Environmental Protection Agency, December

2020

(hereinafter the Danish Environmental Protection

Agency’s habitat guidance).

[82] The Environmental Protection Agency’s habitat guide, section

9.4.1.

[83] The Environmental Protection Agency’s habitat guide, section

9.7.1.4

and the EU Commission’s

guidance point

2.52,

according to which the habitat directive’s articie

12,

subsection

letter d, should

be understood asa goal of maintaining the ecological function of breeding and resting areas.

[84] Cf. throughout the Environmental Protection Agency’s habitat guidance, section 9.6.4-9.6.6.

[85] The EU Commission’s guidance, section

2.73.

[86] Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 28 October

2021,

2nd section, case C-357/2o,

Magistrate der Stadt Wien (Grand hamster II), paragraph

52.

[87] The Danish Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance for executive order no.

1595

of 6

December 2018 on the designation and administration of international nature protection areas and the

protection of certain species.

[88] Management plan for bats. Protection and management of the

17 Danish

hat species and their

habitats, The Norvegian Nature Agency,

2013, p.

37.

[89] Cf. guidance on EIA in the planning act

(2009), p.

57, on the practice of the former Nature

Cumplaints Board.

[go] Executive Order No.

1433 of 21

November

2017 on requirements for

the discharge of certain

pollutants into streams, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters and sea areas.

Case:

22/02461,

Date:

23 February 2023.

Subjects:

Environmental assessment of specific projects

To-do list:

Add to to-do list

Highlights:

Show/hide highlight

The Environment and Food Complaints Board

•

Nævnenes Hus

•

Toldboden

no.:

72405600

•

CVR:

37795526. [email protected]

Availability Statement

•

88oo Viborg

Tel.

AKT 498205

[Samtale med Kabnietchef forud for ministerens møde med miljøkommissæren]

Dokument

Miljøministeren

Commissioner Virginijus Sinkeviius

Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries

European Commission

J.nr. $dossier_f2casenumber$

Den 16. juni

2023

Dear Commissioner Virginijus Sinkeviéius,

In Denmark, a new mling from the Environment and Food Board of Appeal has

major consequences for a number of activities leading to a discharge of hazardous

substances to water bodies, e.g. Power-to-X, power plants and other projects

regarding transition to green energy etc.

The ruling presents a different interpretation of deterioration in the Water

Framework Directive than the interpretation presented in

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency’s guidance documents. Due to

uncertainty of the legal interpretation, environmental authorities have put new

permits and permit revisions on hold.

Wc would be grateful if you would share the Commision’s view and interpretations

of the concept of deterioration as this will help inform our assessment of the way

forward. I kindly refer to the ministry’s letter to DG ENVI dated 16 May

2023.

Since projects of crucial activities such as critical infrastructure and new

sustainable developments are no longer possible as a consequence of the ruling by

the above-mentioned Board of Appeal, a quick response will be highly appreciated.

We are aware that the statements will represent the views of the DG

ENV

of the

Commission, and that the European Court of Justice is the sole authority on

interpretation of the aquis.

.1.

We enciose ruling

22/02461

from the Danish Environment and Food Board of

Appeal in English1. The most relevant part is:

3.2.3

Effect on targeted

surface water bodies, pages 38 43, in particular the three sections on page 43

which we have highlighted.

—

For your information, the Environment and Food Board of Appeal is an indepen

dent court-like institution within the field of nature, environment, agriculture,

fisheries and food. The rulings are binding for state and local authorities’

administration and authorization of plans and projects.

Section

3.2.3

Effect on the targeted surface water body has been translated by a

professional team of translators, whereas the rest of the ruling is google translated.

Miljoministeriet

Frederiksholms Kanal

1220

København K

•

CVR

12854358

EAN

5798000862005.

[email protected]. www.mim.dk

Tlf.

142142

The questions:

•

When the EQS for a substance has already been exceeded and the water

body has thus been ciassified in the lowest class

o Does any addition of a given substance to a water body constitute

deterioration (regardless of the amount/concentration) or

Will it only constitute deterioration contrary to Articie 4 if the

discharge will lead to an increase in the concentration of a given

substance in the water body?

In order to establish an increase in concentration is it a requirement that

it must be measurable/detectable? In most situations, it will be possible to

caiculate even negligible additions does that constitute an increase and

therefore a deterioration?

—

•

At what scale shall the assessment be conducted at? (Water body level or

other units?) Is there a distinction between surface water and bodies of

ground water?

With reference to the guideline”Techinical Background Document on the

identification of Mixing Zones” published in 2OlOby the Commission

question

page : should the answer to this question be understood in the

sense that it is in accordance with directive 2008/105/EC to establish a

mixing zone in a water body where the EQS for the substance is already

exceeded when this addition does flot lead to an increase in the

concentration at the water body level and thus no further deterioration?

•

Should yoii have any questions, please do flot hesitate to contact

Us,

and thank you

in advance.

Yours sincerely,

Magnus Heunicke

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: VS: Opfølgning på mødet med Kommissæren i dag

Aktnummer: 85

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498204

27-06-2023 12:14:31

Intern

[1] VS Opfølgning på mødet med Kommissæren i dag.eml (MEDTAGES IKKE)

Den 22.

marts

2024

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende

foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id nr.: 8075217)

Aktnummer: 84

AktiD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498150

08-08-2023 09:45:00

Udgående

[1] SV Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id

nr. 8075217).eml

[21

Bilag 3 Kompenserende foranstaltninger_FM.docx (MEDTAGES IKKE)

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498150

[SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet

(...

Til:

Fra:

Titel:

[email protected] ([email protected])

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id nr.:

8075217)

Sendt: 08-08-2023 09:45

Bilag:

Bilag 3

Kompenserende foranstaltninger_FM.docx;

Kære Louise

Jeg er enig i konklusionen.

Vedhæftet er seneste udkast til notat, som har været sendt ud i tværministeriel koordinering, men ikke har været på

ØU endnu.

Mvh

Lene

Fra: Louise Bjerregaard Madsen <[email protected]>

Sendt: 8. august 2023 09:15

Til: Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>

Emne: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id nr.:

8075217)

Hej Lene

Håber du har haft en dejlig sommerferie, og at du har kunne koble helt af fra arbejdet.

Mine kollegaer er begyndt at spørge til status på notatet om kompenserende foranstaltninger ft. MFS.

Det føles jo som lang tid siden vi sad med det, så måtte lige grave i hukommelsen.

Men det seneste jeg har fra dep. omkring dette, er et udkast fra d. 30. maj 2023.

Hvis der er en endelig version, vil vi gerne anmode om at få denne tilsendt.

Mindes I måske allerede har sendt en endelig version rundt til de andre ministerier, men er i tvivl.

På forhånd tak.

Venlig hilsen

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen

Specialkonsulent I Virksomheder

+45 72 54 42 11 I +45 22 46 86 25 I [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen I Tolderlundsvej

I 5000 Odense C I Tlf.

+45 72 54 40 00

I mst@mstdk

iw.rnstdk

Sådan håndterer vi dine personoplysninger

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kom penserende

foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id nr.: 8075683)

Aktnummer: 83

AktiD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498149

08-08-2023 10:25:00

Udgående

[1] SV Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id

nr. 8075683).eml

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498149

[SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet

(...

Til:

Fra:

Titel:

[email protected] ([email protected])

Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id nr.:

8075683)

Sendt: 08-08-2023 10:25

Kære Louise

/Lene

Fra: Louise Bjerregaard Madsen <[email protected]>

Sendt: 8. august 2023 09:50

Til: Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>

Emne: Sv: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST ld nr.:

8075683)

Hej Lene

Tak for tilsendte.

Vil det sige, at vi fint kan agere ud fra notatet. Og såfremt ØU af uforklarlige årsager skulle have en anden

holdning, jamen så bliver det meldt ud efter det har været på ØU, og ås må vi agerer derudfra til den tid.

Venlig hilsen

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen

Specialkonsulent I Virksomheder

+45 72

54 42

11 I

+45 22 46 86 25

I Iohm-a@m-sLdk

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

I Tolderlundsvej

5000 Odense C

I Tlf. +45 72

54 40 00

[email protected]

wt.rnsLdk

Sådan

håndterer

vi dineprsonopLysninQer

Til:

Fra:

Titel:

mailtitel:

Sendt:

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen (IQbma@rnshdk)

Lene Carpentier (Iecar@mirmcik)

SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet

SV: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id nr.:

8075217)

08-08-2023 09:45

Kære Louise

Jeg er enig i konklusionen.

Vedhæftet er seneste udkast til notat, som har været sendt ud i tværministeriel koordinering, men ikke har været på

ØU endnu.

Mvh

Lene

Fra: Louise Bjerregaard Madsen <Iciliina@jnstdk>

Sendt: 8. august 2023 09:15

Til: Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>

Emne: Endelig version af dokument omkring kompenserende foranstaltninger indenfor projektet (MST Id nr.:

8075217)

Hej Lene

Håber du har haft en dejlig sommerferie, og at du har kunne koble helt af fra arbejdet.

Mine kollegaer er begyndt at spørge til status på notatet om kompenserende foranstaltninger ift. MFS.

Det føles jo som lang tid siden vi sad med det, så måtte lige grave i hukommelsen.

har fra dep. omkring dette, er et udkast fra d. 30. maj 2023.

Men det seneste

‘

Hvis der er en endelig version, vil vi gerne anmode om at få denne tilsendt.

Mindes I måske allerede har sendt en endelig version rundt til de andre ministerier, men er i tvivl.

På forhånd tak.

Venlig hilsen

Louise Bjerregaard Madsen

Specialkonsulent

Virksomheder

[email protected]

Mi!jøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

5000 Odense C

Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00

m-st@msLdk

Sàçianiiåndterer vi dine personoplysninger

I wnisLdk

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: VS: Spørgsmål til MST’s foreslåede fremgangsmåde for

vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen

Aktnummer: 82

Akt ID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498200

31-08-2023 13:12:11

Udgående

[1] VS Spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrationeneml

[2] MST Notat om løsningsforslag

ny vejledning til udledning af MFS.docx

Den 22 marts 2024

AKT 498200

[VS: Spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen...

Til:

Jan Reisz ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Jane Hansen ([email protected]), Steen Pedersen

([email protected]), Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent ([email protected]), Dorte Balle Harder ([email protected]),

Rune Raun-Abildgaard ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel: VS: Spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen

Sendt: 31-08-2023 13:12

Bilag: MST Notat om løsningsforslag ny vejledning til udledning af MFS.docx;

Kære alle

Hermed de omtalte spørgsmål.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chelkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+45 21 82 28 81 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 123 11552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 42 I [email protected] lwww.mim.dk

Facehook

mm I Lhkedin I Youiube I PdvaIspolillk

Fra: Lise Marie Johannessen <[email protected]>

Sendt: 30. august 2023 10:17

Til: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Cc: Benjamin Kelstrup Turner <[email protected]>

Emne: Spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen

Kære Rikke

Vi har som nævnt et par spørgsmål til MST’s foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen

(sidste ciffer-metoden), som vi har brug for afklaring på hurtigst muligt.

Vi forestiller os umiddelbart, at det er nemmest at vende på et møde, men sender hermed vores spørgsmål på skrift,

så VAK/MST kan vurdere, hvem der kan hjælpe med at afklare dem.

Vi tager udgangspunkt i MST’s forklaring af sidste ciffer-metoden som beskrevet på side 5 i “Løsningsforslag til

vejledning til udledning af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer til overfladevandområder, hvor der i forvejen er

overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav” af 5. juli 2023, j.nr. 2023-36386 (vedhæftet). Vi forholder os ikke til den del af

metoden, der relaterer sig til FAQ 43-modellen, som MST har foreslået som supplement til sidste ciffer-metoden. De

bedes derfor se bort fra denne del.

Vi har skitseret et tænkt eksempel med udgangspunkt i kobber:

I tabel 3 i vedhæftede notat fremgår det, at

MKK

for kobber er 1 ig/L, og at en tilladt koncentrationsstigning målt på

det repræsentative overvågningspunkt dermed er 0,99 p.g/L.

1. Vi forstår metoden sådan, at hvis den i forvejen forekommende koncentration i vandområdet for kobber er i

tg/L (målt på det repræsentative overvågningspunkt), må godkendelsesmyndighederne i en konkret sag

tillade en koncentrationsstigning af kobber på op til 0,99 ig/L (målt på det repræsentative

overvågningspunkt), uden at der er tale om en forringelse af tilstanden. Hvis godkendelsesmyndighederne

derimod vurderer, at projektet vil medføre en koncentrationsstigning på mere end 0,99 tg/L målt på det

repræsentative overvågningspunkt (fx en koncentrationsstigning på 1,39 .tg/L, hvilket vil medføre en samlet

koncentrationsstigning på 2,39 ig/L), vil dette udgøre en forringelse af tilstanden.

Vi forstår endvidere metoden sådan, at hvis vi antager, at ovenstående godkendelsesmyndighed træffer

afgørelse om at tillade en udledning af kobber, der medfører koncentrationsstigning målt på det

repræsentative overvågningspunkt på 0,99 lg/L, således at der derefter kan måles en koncentration i

vandområdet for kobber på 1,99 ‘ig/I på det repræsentative overvågningspunkt, kan

godkendelsesmyndigheden i en ny konkret sag om udledning af kobber til det samme vandområde tillade en

yderligere koncentrationsstigning målt på det repræsentative overvågningspunkt på op til 0,99 lg/L.

Resultatet for vandområdet efter de to ovenstående tilladelser, målt på det repræsentative

overvågningspunkt, vil være, at den forekommende koncentration i vandområdet for kobber går fra i ig/L til

2,98 lig/I, uden at de enkelte tilladelser har medført en forringelse af tilstanden.

Vi forstår også metoden sådan, at resultatet af ovenstående helt generelt er, at et vandområde aldrig kan

forringes ved en koncentrationsstigning, hvis de enkelte koncentrationsstigninger aldrig overstiger de tilladte

koncentrationer oplistet i tabel 3 på side 5 i nævnte notat. Fx må godkendelsesmyndighederne tillade en

koncentrationsstigning på op til op til 0,99 )ig/L for kobber, selvom den i forvejen forekommende

koncentration i vandområdet for kobber er 5 ig/L.

Er ovenstående korrekt forstået? I så fald kan vi ikke forstå, hvordan dette er i overensstemmelse med den

EU-retlige ramme og vores forståelse af sidste ciffer-metoden, idet vi ikke kan se, hvordan den beskrevne

tilgang vil sikre, at der ikke sker en stigning i det afgørende ciffer og koncentrationen dermed f.eks. går fra

i til 2, i tilfælde hvor der allerede er tilladt en udledning efter denne metode.

—

2. Vi har derudover forstået det således, at i forbindelse med tilstandsvurderingen rundes der op eller ned på de

data, man har, således, at hvis dataene viser en koncentration af kobber i vandområdet på ml. 1,0- 1,49 g/L,

rundes der ned til i g/L, mens der fra 1,5-1,99 kg/I rundes op til 2 g/L. Som vi ser det, bør der anlægges

samme tilgang ved vurderingen af tilstandsændringer efter sidste ciffer-metoden, således at der maksimalt må

kunne tillades en udledning, der ikke fører til, at den forventede koncentration

vandområdet efter tilførslen

vil medføre, at der ved næste måling må konstateres en forringelse, idet der skal rundes op til 2 dvs, i praksis

kan der ikke tillades en udledning, der vil få koncentrationen til at være 1,5 g/L eller derover, idet

koncentrationen efter principperne for tilstandsvurderingen herefter vil skulle angives til 2 g/L.

—

Er I enige i, at der må være denne sammenhæng? Eller kan I forklare, hvordan vi ellers kan sige, at

tilgangenikke “il føre til en stigning efter

çiclçte

riffer-mptnrien?

3. Den eksisterende koncentration i vandområdet, som godkendelsesmyndigheden ifølge vores forståelse får

oplyst som grundlag for vurderingen af nye udledninger, er i ovenstående scenarie 1 ig/L eller 2 g/L,

afhængig af, om der er rundet op eller ned efter sidste ciffer. I første scenarie, hvor der er rundet ned til 1,

risikerer godkendelsesmyndigheden, at de eksisterende koncentrationer er så tæt på grænsen for, hvad vi vil

karakterisere som en stigning (at det betydende ciffer går en værdi op fx fra 1 til 2), at det reelle råderum

kan være meget lille eller ikkeeksisterende, fx hvis koncentrationen allerede er 1,49/1,99 ig/L afhængig af

tilgangen ovenfor.

—

Hvordan sikrer den nye vejledning, at dette indgår i myndighedens vurdering så der i praksis ikke kan

gives en tilladelse, der vil føre til, at der vil blive konstateret en stigning ved næste tilstandsvurdering? Hvis

FAQ43 heller ikke sikrede dette, kan vi da sige, at den nye vejledning ikke vil medføre erhvervsøkonomiske

konsekvenser, idet det for nogle vandområder i piaksis kan betyde, at enhver mertilførsel faktisk ikke kan

till

—

Vil du videreformidle til de relevante med henblik på at afklare snarest muligt, gerne inden udgangen af i dag den 30.

august2023, om vi har forstået metoden korrekt, og om der er behov for at genoverveje elementer af den?

Venlig hilsen

Lise Marie Johannessen

Teamleder I Jura

+4521 57 34 77

+45

57 34 77

[email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

I Frederiksholms Kanal 26 11220 København K I Tlf.

+45 38 14 21 42

I [email protected] I wxi.mimdk

Eacebook

I Twr I Instagiam I Unken I Praspfflk

AKT 498200

[VS: Spørgsmål til MST’s foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentratione...

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

J.nr.

2023-36386

Ref. Virk, VFS, H&V, Erhverv

Den 5. juli

2023

Løsningsforslag til vejledning til udledning

miljøfarlige

forurenende stoffer til overfladevandområder, hvor der i

forvejen er overskridelse afmiljokvalitetskrav

Problemstilling

Departementet har anmodet Miljøstyrelsen om en indledende vurdering af konsekvenser ved

forskellige scenarier (herefter fremgangsmåder) for fremtidig administration af tilladelser og

godkendelser til udledning af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer (MFS) til overfladevandområder, hvor

de udledte stoffers miljøkvalitetskrav er overskredet. Departementet ønsker beregninger ledsaget af en

beskrivelse af forudsætninger og usikkerheder samt fordele og ulemper ud fra både miljømæssige og

erhvervsmæssige betragtninger.

Fremgangsmåderne skal ligge inden for de juridiske rammer for fortolkning af ‘stigning i

koncentrationen’, som departementet har præsenteret.

Departementet har anmodet Miljøstyrelsen om i videst muligt omfang at vurdere, om forslag til

fremgangsmåder for fremtidig administration af meddelelse af udledningstilladelser vil have

konsekvenser for muligheden for at kunne meddele sådanne tilladelser.

Baggrund

Af FAQ

i Miljøstyrelsens vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse forurenende

stoffer1 fremgår det, at det er muligt for en miljømyndighed at udpege en blandingszone omkring

udledningspunktet for en udledning af spildevand med indhold af MFS, for hvilket miljøkvalitetskrav i

forvejen er overskredet i det berørte vandområde. Det fremgår af FAQ’en blandt andet, at “[hivis det

generelle kvalitetskrav eller maksimumkoncentrationen for et givet stof i vand allerede er overskredet i

vandområdet, må udledningen ikke medføre en forhøjelse af den i forvejen forekommende

koncentration ved blandingszonens rand på mere end 5 [procenti af værdien af stoffets generelle

kvalitetskrav for vand.” Hvad påvirkning af sedimentet angår, må udledningen ifølge FAQ 43 ikke

medføre en beregnet forhøjelse af den i forvejen forekommende koncentration i sedimentet på mere

end

procent af stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav for sediment.

Løsning

Miljøstyrelsen har nedenfor beskrevet to alternative fremgangsmåder, hvormed myndighederne kan

fastsætte grænser for udledningens påvirkning af tilstanden i et vandområde med overskridelse af

miljøkvalitetskrav. De alternative fremgangsmåder tager udgangspunkt i, at en

beregnet

tilladt

Bekendtgørelse nr.

1433

21.

november

2017

om krav til udledning af visse forurenende stoffer til vandløb,

søer, overgangsvande, kystvande og havområder.

Miljost)Telsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

•

5000

Odense C

Tlf.

72544000

•

CVR 25798376. EAN 5798000860810

[email protected]. www.mst.dk

koncentrationsstigning ikke må kunne måles i et for overfladevandsområdet repræsentativt

målepunkt:

Fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i analysetekniske muligheder.

Fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i Miljøstyrelsens retningslinjer for klassificering af tilstand.

Miljøstyrelsen har for disse fremgangsmåder vurderet fordele og ulemper og sammenholdt dem med

fordele og ulemper ved fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 ud fra miljømæssige og erhvervsmæssige

betragtninger. Miljøstyrelsen har her for sammenligningens skyld forudsat, at de enkelte

fremgangsmåders rammer for udledning udnyttes fuldt ud.

Miljøstyrelsen har i undersøgelserne lagt til grund, at et målepunkt for at kunne anses som

repræsentativt for det berørte overfladevandområde som helhed må være placeret i en vis afstand fra

eventuelle udledninger. En forhøjelse afkoncentrationen i vandområdet uden for en blandingszone vil

aftage med afstanden fra blandingszonens rand og må derfor være betydeligt mindre i det

repræsentative målepunkt end ved blandingszonens rand. Det følger heraf, at hvis en forhøjelse af

koncentrationen ved blandingszonens rand ikke er målbar, vil koncentrationsforhøjelsen i det

repræsentative målepunkt heller ikke være det.

Selv om de alternative fremgangsmåder tager udgangspunkt i, at koncentrationsstigningen ikke må

kunne måles i et repræsentativt målepunkt i overfladevandområdet,jf. ovenfor, har Miljøstyrelsen for

at kunne sammenligne fremgangsmåderne forudsat i undersøgelserne, at koncentrationsstigningen

ikke må kunne måles ved randen afblandingszonen svarende til, at FAQ 43 sætter en øvre grænse for

koncentrationsstigning ved randen afblandingszonen. De påviste forskelle mellem de alternative

fremgangsmåder og fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 ville være (endnu) mere udtalte ved en vurdering af

koncentrationsstigninger i et repræsentativt målepunkt i vandområdet.

Miljøstyrelsens analyse af de to alternative fremgangsmåder er nærmere beskrevet i bilag

Eksisterende vejledning

FAQ 43

1, 2

og 3.

Beskrivelse

Hvis miljøkvalitetskravet for et givet MFS i forvejen er overskredet i det berørte overfladevandområde,

må udledningen ifølge FAQ 43 ikke medføre en beregnet forhøjelse af den i forvejen forekommende

koncentration i vand ved blandingszonens rand på mere end 5 procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav

(miljøkvalitetskravet for vand udtrykt som årsgennemsnit), jf. eksempel i Tabel

nedenfor. Hvad

påvirkning af sedimentet angår, må udledningen ifølge FAQ 43 ikke medføre en beregnet forhøjelse af

den i forvejen forekommende koncentration i sedimentet på mere end

procent af stoffets

miljøkvalitetskrav for sediment. Er den beregnede koncentrationsstigning mindre end anført, kan den

ifølge FAQ’en anses for ikke at medføre en forringelse af tilstanden.

På grund affortyndingen i vandområdet mellem blandingszonen og det repræsentative punkt vil

koncentrationsstigningen ved det repræsentative målepunkt være lavere end

procent.

Eksempel

Tabel

Tilladt

koncentrationsstigning

for

tre metaller

ved randen

en blandingszone udpeget i et

marint overfladevandområde efter fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43. Den tilladte

koncentrationsstigning i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav er udtryk for det resulterende

beskyttelsesniveau: Jo højere koncentrationsstigning der tillades, jo lavere er

beskyttelsesniveauet.

Parameter

PFOS

Generelt

kvalitetskrav i ug/L

0,00013

1,3

11,3

0,0002

1,067

2100

Tilladt

koncentrationsstigning i

ig/L

0,000007

0,07

0,57

0,00001

0,05

0,1

105

TLlladt koncentrationsstigning i procent af

generelt kvalitetskrav

Bly

Antimon

TBT

Kobber

Naphtalen

Strontium

Fordele

• Det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau er i udgangspunktet ens for alle stoffer.

• Vurdering af, om udledningen

vil

medføre en forringelse af tilstanden i det berørte vandområde,

er uafhængig af afstanden til repræsentative målepunkter.

• Fremgangsmåden er praktisk anvendelig for tilladelsesmyndighederne (Miljøstyrelsen og

kommunerne).

• Fremgangsmåden tilgodeser retssikkerheden, idet den er forudsigelig i praksis i kraft af, at den er

baseret på en fast procentsats af miljøkvalitetskravet og ikke på variable parametre.

Ulemper

•

Miljøstyrelsen har ikke identificeret faglige, juridiske eller erhvervsmæssige ulemper ved denne

fremgangsmåde i forbindelse med denne bestilling.

Fremgangsmåde

Måleusikkerhedsmetoden med udgangspunkt

i analysetekniske muligheder

Beskrivelse

Ved denne fremgangsmåde vurderes en beregnet koncentrationsstigning i et repræsentativt målepunkt

at indebære en forringelse, når den ville kunne måles med sikkerhed med en målemetode, som skal

være i overensstemmelse med de relevante krav fastsat i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen2. At

koncentrationsstigningen skal kunne måles med sikkerhed, indebærer, at koncentrationsstigningen

skal være større end den måleusikkerhed, som den anvendte målemetode er forbundet med. Er den

beregnede koncentrationsstigning mindre end måleusikkerheden, anses den for ikke at medføre en

forringelse af tilstanden.

Analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen anviser målemetoder for en lang række MFS og fastsætter krav til

kvaliteten af de kemiske analyser, som skal overholdes af akkrediterede laboratorier, som anvender

Bekendtgørelse nr.

529

14.

maj

2023

om kvalitetskrav til miljømålinger.

metoderne til miljømålinger. Kravene, som blandt andet vedrører måleusikkerhed3, detektionsgrænse4

og kvantifikationsgrænse5, sikrer, at måleresultaterne er pålidelige.

Eksempel

Tabel

Tilladt

koncentrationsstigning for tre

MFS ved randen af en blandingszone udpeget i et

marint overfladevandområde efter fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i analysetekniske

muligheder. Den tilladte koncentrationsstigning i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav er udtryk

for det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau: Jo højere koncentrationsstigning der tillades, jo lavere er

beskyttelsesniveauet.

Generelt

klitetsba;’ i tg/L

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning

i tg/L

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning i procent af

generelt kvalitetskrav

Parameter

PFOS

0,00013

Ingen analysemetode

Bly

1,3

Minimum

0,7

Minimum

Antimon

TBT

11,3

Ingen analysemetode

0,0001-0,005

50-2.500

0,0002

2100

Kobber

Napthalen

Strontium

Minimum

0,5

Minimum o,6

Minimum

Ingen analysemetode

Fordele

• Fremgangsmåden er fagligt funderet i måleusikkerhederne i overvågningens analysemetoder.

Ulemper

• Måleusikkerheden afhænger af den konkrete analysemetode og kan variere betydeligt fra stof til

stof. Måleusikkerheden er alt andet lige er størst ved måling af lave koncentrationer nær

analysemetodens kvantifikationsgrænse og detektionsgrænse, i hvilket måleområde de mest

giftige stoffer ofte

vil

skulle måles. Fremgangsmåden indebærer derfor, at koncentrations

stigninger i vandmiljøet for de mest giftige stoffer oftest skal være relativt større for at kunne

påvises, end tilfældet er for de mindre giftige stoffer. Beskyttelsesniveauet

vil

derved kunne

variere fra stof til stof alene som følge af forskellige analysemetoder og

vil

alt andet lige blive

lavere, jo mere giftigt stoffet er over for vandlevende organismer.

Kemiske målinger er forbundet mcd en

vis

måleusikkerhed, som er udtryk for, hvor meget måleresultatet med

den anvendte målemetode kan afvige fra den ‘sande’ værdi. Jo lavere koncentrationer der skal måles, jo større er

måleusikkerheden.

Detektionsgrænsen er den laveste koncentration af et givet stof i en prøve, ved hvilken stoffet med sikkerhed kan

siges at være påvist.

Kvantiflkationsgrænsen er den laveste koncentration af et givet stof i en prøve, ved hvilken stoffet med sikkerhed

kan siges at være kvantificeret. Kvantiflkationsgrænse er i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen defineret som tre

gange detektionsgrænsen.

•

Der er ikke i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen anvist analysemetoder for alle matricer (vand, biota

og sediment) og typer afvandområde (fersk og marint) for de MFS, for hvilke der er fastsat

miljøkvalitetskrav. Hvor der ikke er anvist analysemetoder, mangler der måleusikkerheder at

sammenholde beregnede koncentrationsstigninger med.

Fremgangsmåde

Sidste ciffer-metoden med udgangspunkt i Miljøstyrelsens retningslinjer til

klassificering af tilstand

Beskrivelse

Miljøstyrelsen klassificerer vandområdernes tilstand ved at sammenholde målte koncentrationer af de

enkelte stoffer i vand, sediment og biota med de miljøkvalitetskrav, der er fastsat i bekendtgørelse om

fastlæggelse af miljømål6. Den målte koncentration betragtes som værende højere end

miljøkvalitetskravet, når det sidste ciffer i den værdi, som angiver miljøkvalitetskravet for pågældende

stof i den relevante tabel i bilag

til bekendtgørelse om fastlæggelse af miljømål7, er overskredet.

Med udgangspunkt heri vurderes ved denne fremgangsmåde en beregnet koncentrationsstigning i et

repræsentativt målepunkt at indebære en forringelse, når den er lig med eller større end, hvad der

svarer til en stigning på

på sidste ciffer i miljøkvalitetskravet. Det

vil

for eksempel betyde for et givet

stof med miljøkvalitetskrav

2,1

pg/L, at en i forvejen forekommende koncentration i vandområdet på

3,2

ig/L skal forøges til 3,3 pg/L, før der er tale om en forringelse af tilstanden.

Eksempel

Tabel 3 Tilladt koncentrationsstigning ved randen af en blandingszone udpeget i et marint

overfladevandområde efter fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i retningslinjer for klassificering

af tilstand. Den tilladte koncentrationsstigning i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav er udtryk

for det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau: Jo højere koncentrationsstigning der tillades, jo lavere er

beskyttelsesniveauet.

Generelt

kvalitetskrav i ug/L

Tilladt

koncentrationsstigning i

ig/L

Pararneter

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning i procent af

generelt kvalitetskrav

PFOS

0,00013

0,00001

7,7

Bly

1,3

0,1

7,7

Antirnon

11,3

0,1

0,9

TBT

Kobber

Naphtalen

Strontiurn

0,0002

0,0001

2100

0,99

0,006

Hvis

rniljøkvalitetskravet er

0,0999

1,2

jig/l tillades en koncentrationsstigningen i blandingszonens rand på op til

eller

< 0,1

ig/L.

Fordele

• Beregnede koncentrationsstigninger vurderes på grundlag af bekendtgørelsesfastsatte

miljøkvalitetskrav.

• En beregnet koncentrationsstigning, som akkurat indebærer en forringelse af tilstanden, svarer til

den mindste koncentrationsstigning, der ville blive påvist ved Miljøstyrelsens overvågning af

forekomsten af pågældende stof i det berørte overfladevandområde.

Ulemper

• Det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau varierer fra stof til stof afhængigt af antallet af betydende

cifre, hvormed miljøkvalitetskrav for det enkelte stof er fastsat. Antallet af betydende cifre

varierer mellem stoffer uafhængigt af deres giftighed over for vandlevende organismer og dermed

uafhængigt af beskyttelsesbehovet.

Konsekvenser for fremtidig meddelelse af udledningstilladelser

Miljøstyrelsen gennemgår nedenfor resultaterne af den indledende analyse af de testede

fremgangsmåders forventede konsekvenser for meddelelse af udledningstilladelser til virksomheder,

jf.

bilag 3, baseret på analysen af forskellen med den eksisterende FAQ 43 og de to foreslåede

alternative fremgangsmåder, jf. analyse i bilag

af fremgangsmåde

sammenholdt med FAQ

43. Miljøstyrelsen har ikke inden for den givne frist haft mulighed for at foretage en dybtgående

konsekvensanalyse for alle brancher og afgørelser, som er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for FAQ 43.

Virksomheder kan påvirke overfladevandområder med MFS via en punktudledning og via tilførsel fra

luften i form af deposition8. MFS tilføres overfladevandområder fra forskellige brancher, herunder

power to X-anlæg, affaldsforbrændingsanlæg, deponier, mejerier, industrielle renseanlæg, og kemisk

industri.

Punktudlednirig

Med fremgangsmåde

jf. bilag

vil rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning af MFS blive

udvidet i forhold til rammen, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43, fordi beskyttelsesniveauet er

afhængigt af måleusikkerhed, detektionsgrænse og kvantifikationsgrænse og som resultat heraf bliver

lavere end det beskyttelsesniveau, som FAQ 43 resulterer i. Ansøgninger om udledningstilladelse, der i

dag ville blive afslået, vil kunne imødekommes.

Med fremgangsmåde

jf.

bilag

vil rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning af MFS blive

udvidet i forhold til rammen, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43, for etflertal af stofferne.

Kun få af de stoffer, for hvilke rammen indsnævres, er i forbindelse med overvågningen konstateret i

koncentrationer i overfladevandområder, der overskrider miljøkvalitetskravet. Det drejer sig primært

om arsen, nikkel, zink og chrom i vandfasen og bly i sediment. Miljøstyrelsen behandler ofte

ansøgninger om udledningstilladelse med indhold af disse metaller.

Deposition er afsætning af luftbårne forurenende stoffer på overflader som jord og overfladevandområder.

Luftforureningen spredes med vinden, undertiden over afstande på flere tusinde km, før den afsættes og kan gøre

skade på okosystemer, mennesker eller materialer. Den mængde, der afsættes, afhænger både af koncentrationen

i luften og afdepositionshastigheden.

Fremgangsmåde

vil for disse fem metaller i væsentligt omfang at indskrænke mulighederne for at

give tilladelse til punktudledninger til overfladevandområder med begrænset potentiale for fortynding

af det udledte spildevand.

Omvendt vil fremgangsmåde

medføre for kobber, at der kan gives tilladelse til en beregnet

koncentrationsstigning på 99 procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav i de marine vandområder, hvor

fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 kun tillader koncentrationsstigning på 5 procent af det generelle

miljøkvalitetskrav.

Deposition

Hverken fremgangsmåde

eller

vil få konsekvenser for antallet af tilladelser til luftemissioner, der vil

resultere i deposition af MFS til overfladevandområder. Miljøstyrelsen har ikke umiddelbart kendskab

til kilder til luftemission, som vil kunne bidrage med en koncentrationsstigning i et berørt

vandområde, der indebærer en forringelse af tilstanden som vurderet efter fremgangsmåde

jf.

bilag 3.

Sammenfattende vurdering

Fremgangsmåde i FAQ 43

De i bekendtgørelse om fastlæggelse af miljømål fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav for MFS afspejler som

hovedregel de enkelte stoffers giftighed over for vandlevende organismer. Det følger heraf, at den

relative beskyttelse, som i den aktuelle sammenhæng kan udtrykkes ved en tilladt

koncentrationsstigning i procent af det fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav, som udgangspunkt bør være den

samme for alle stoffer. En sådan ensartet beskyttelse for alle stoffer opnås med fremgangsmåden i FAQ

43, således som det fremgår af tabel

ovenfor.

Fremgangsmåde

med udgangspunkt i analysetekniske muligheder

Fremgangsmåde

tager udgangspunkt i måleusikkerheden ved de analysemetoder, som anvendes ved

måling af forekomsten af de enkelte MFS. En beregnet koncentrationsstigning skal være større end

måleusikkerheden for, at påvirkningen anses som en forringelse af tilstanden. Der tages her ikke højde

for, at de giftigste stoffer typisk vil skulle måles i lave koncentrationer, hvor måleusikkerheden ved de

enkelte analysemetoder generelt er stor. Fremgangsmåden indebærer dermed, at der som hovedregel

vil blive tilladt en større koncentrationsstigning målt i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav, jo

giftigere stoffet er,

jf.

eksemplet i tabel

ovenfor. Med fremgangsmåde

vil der kunne tillades en

beregnet koncentrationsstigning på mellem

208.000

procent af stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav ved

en repræsentativ målestation, hvor der med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 vil kunne tillades en beregnet

koncentrationsstigning på 5 procent i blandingszonens rand,jf. bilag

Beskyttelsesniveauet bliver

med fremgangsmåde

dermed ikke det samme for alle stoffer, som tilfældet er med fremgangsmåden i

FAQ43.

Sammenholdt med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 vil fremgangsmåde

for alle MFS, som er indgået i

Miljøstyrelsens analyse, udvide rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning til et

overfladevandområde, hvor milj økvalitetskravet er overskredet.

Det forudsættes for anvendelse af fremgangsmåde

at analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsens liste over

analysemetoder og tilhørende måleusikkerheder suppleres med metoder for de stoffer og matricer, for

hvilke der i dag ikke foreligger sådanne. Dette vil ske ved at involvere referencelaboratoriet i arbejdet,

som udarbejder et notat med anbefalinger til, hvilke metoder der kan anvendes og hvilke

analysekvalitetskrav der skal fastsættes for hver matrice for hver stof.

Fremgangsmåde

med udgangspunkt i retningslinjer til klassificering af tilstand

Fremgangsmåde

tager udgangspunkt i Miljøstyrelsens retningslinjer for klassificering af

overfladevandområdernes tilstand med hensyn til forekomst af MFS. En beregnet

koncentrationsstigning skal være større end

på sidste betydende ciffer i værdien, som angiver

miljøkvalitetskravet i den relevante tabel i bilag

til bekendtgørelse om fastlæggelse af miljømål. Der

tages her ikke højde for, at antallet af betydende cifre (decimaler) ikke er ens for alle stoffer og ikke

nødvendigvis hænger sammen med de enkelte stoffers giftighed over for vandlevende organismer.

Spørgsmålet om, hvor stor en koncentrationsstigning, der med fremgangsmåden vil kunne tillades for

et givet MFS, vil derfor være forbundet et element af tilfældighed, idet antallet af betydende cifre ikke

er konsistent,

jf.

eksemplet i tabel 3 ovenfor. Beskyttelsen bliver dermed ikke ensartet, som tilfældet er

med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

Sammenholdt med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 vil fremgangsmåde

for flertallet af MFS, som er

indgået i Miljøstyrelsens analyse, udvide rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning til et

overfladevandområde, hvor miljøkvalitetskravet er overskredet. For nogle af stofferne udvides

rammen betydeligt: For kobber tillader fremgangsmåden en stigning i blandingszonens rand på 68 og

99 procent af stoffets generelle kvalitetskrav for henholdsvis ferske og marine overfladevandområder,

hvor fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 tillader en stigning på 5 procent af stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav i

blandingszonens rand.

Scenarier

Nedenstående Figur

og Figur

illustrerer forskellen mellem de tilladte koncentrationsstigninger,

som følger af anvendelsen af fremgangsmåde

og fremgangsmåde

sammenholdt med anvendelse af

fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

Det fremgår af Figur

at fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 for kobber tillader en koncentrationsstigning på

op til

0,05

jig/L i blandingszonens rand, mens fremgangsmåde

og fremgangsmåde

tillader

beregnede koncentrationsstigninger i et repræsentativt målepunkt på henholdsvis

0,53

ig/L og

0,99

ig/L.

Det fremgår af Figur

at fremgangsmåde

for strontium tillader en mindre koncentrationsstigning

end fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 og fremgangsmåde

selv når det tages i betragtning, at de tilladte

koncentrationsstigninger gælder i forskellig afstand fra udledningspunktet, henholdsvis i

blandingszonens rand og i et repræsentativt målepunkt. På grund af fortyndingen i vandområdet

mellem blandingszonen og det repræsentative punkt vil koncentrationsstigningen ved anvendelse af

FAQ 43 være lavere ved det repræsentative målepunkt.

Eksempel med merudledning at kobber

Miljøkvalitetskrav: i

ug/L

Novana

neråning,station

F,en,gangn,nde

lift.

mifea,ikkerhd tillade, en

beregnet konrentratior.tignTng p 0,53 ogIL

Fre,ngang,,nde 2 ifl. ftigning p det betydende

ciffer rniljøknnlitetnkrnvel tillader en

konrentrationtigning p 0,99 ug/L

tillader

af merudledning af et stof til et overfladevandsområde, hvor stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav vurderes

at være overskredet. Eksemplet er for udledning af kobber til et marint vandområde, hvor

miljøkvalitetskravet er overskredet, da der er målt en koncentration af stoffet på

g/L i

vandområdet.

Figur

Sammenligning mellem hvad fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 og fremgangsmåde

Eksempel med merudledning

Generelt miljøkvalitetskrav er 2100

at Strontium

II lilli

.. •n••

Novana

vervågningsstation

Fremgangsmåde lift. måleusibberhed tillader en

beregnet lconcent,ationsstigning på 8050 ng/L

Fremgangsmåde 2 ft. stigning på det betydende

ciffer i miljabnalitetshranet tillader en

knnnentrationsstigning på 0,99 ug/L

Figur

Eksemplet er for udledning afstrontium

til

et marint vandområde, hvor

miljokvalitetskravet på er overskredet. Der er ikke anvist en analysemetode for overvågning i

marint vand i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen, hvorfor måleusikkerheden i dette eksempel er

antaget

til

at være lig måleusikkerheden for de andre tungmetaller, der er oplyst analysemetoder

for i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen.

Konklusion

FAQ 43 såvel som de to alternative fremgangsmåder vurderes alle at ligge inden for de juridiske

rammer for fortolkning af ‘stigning i koncentrationen’, som departementet har præsenteret.

Miljøstyrelsens undersøgelse har vist, at de to alternative fremgangsmåder til fastsættelse af grænser

for udledningers påvirkning af tilstanden i overfladevandområder begge har fordele og ulemper. Efter

Miljøstyrelsens vurdering er det et tungvejende argument imod at vælge disse, at det

beskyttelsesniveau, som opnås for begge fremgangsmåder, varierer mellem de enkelte stoffer, og for

fremgangsmåde

er beskyttelsesniveauet generelt lavest for de mest giftige stoffer. Derudover er de

beskyttelsesniveauer, som opnås med de to fremgangsmåder, generelt lavere end det

beskyttelsesniveau, der opnås med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

Hvad erhvervsmæssige konsekvenser angår, viser Miljøstyrelsens undersøgelse, at begge de to

alternative fremgangsmåder generelt udvider rammerne for at give tilladelse til merudledning af MFS i

forhold til den ramme, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43. For visse almindeligt forekommende

stoffer vil fremgangsmåde

dog indsnævre rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning

sammenholdt med rammen, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

Miljøministeriet

Aktd

eta

Akttitel: Svar på spørgsmål til MST’s foreslåede fremgangsmåde for

vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen (MST Id nr.: 8249914)

Aktnummer: 81

AktiD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498212

06-09-2023 08:45:13

Indgående

[1] Svar på spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning

koncentrationen

(MST Id nr. 8249914).eml

[2] MST Notat om løsningsforslag

[3] Notits

ny vejledning til udledning af MFS.docx

Fremgangsmåde til vurdering af stigning i koncentration af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer.docx

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498212

[Svar på spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentratio...

Jan Reisz ([email protected]), Dorte Balle Harder ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Jane Hansen

([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Rune Raun-Abildgaard ([email protected]), Maria Immaculada

Benavent Benavent ([email protected]), Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected]), Benjamin Kelstrup Turner

([email protected])

Steen Pedersen ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel:

Svar på spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen (MST Id nr.:

8249914)

Sendt:

06-09-2023 08:44

Bilag:

MST Notat om løsningsforslag ny vejledning til udledning af MFS.docx; Notits Fremgangsmåde til vurdering af

stigning i koncentration af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer.docx;

Til:

Kære alle

Hermed følger vedlagt notits med forklarende tekst til forståelse af “sidste ciffer-metoden samt svar på

DEP’s tre spørgsmål nedenfor. Jeg har desuden tilføjet præcisering med rød skrift i spørgsmål i nedenfor.

Venlig hilsen

Steen

Steen Pedersen

Cand.scient.

Hav- og vandmiljø

+4572544922

+4593588146

[email protected]

MiljØministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

5000 Odense C

Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00

mst@mstdk

wwwmsLdk

Sineplysninger

Jan Reisz

([email protected]), Dorte Balle Harder ([email protected]), Steen Pedersen ([email protected]), Louise

Bjerregaard Madsen ([email protected]), Jane Hansen ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Rune

Raun-Abildgaard ([email protected]), Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent ([email protected])

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel:

VS: Spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrationen

Sendt: 31-08-2023

13:12

Til:

Kære alle

Hermed de omtalte spørgsmål.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent I Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+45

21 82 28 811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

IVester Voldgade 123 11552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 42 [email protected]

www.mim.dk

Eacebook

Twr

1ntaram

Unkn

Youube Pra1llvspolitik

Fra: Lise Marie Johannessen <[email protected]>

Sendt: 30. august 2023 10:17

Til:

Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Cc: Benjamin Kelstrup Turner <[email protected]>

Emne: Spørgsmål til MST’s foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i

koncentrationen

Kære Rikke

Vi har som nævnt et par spørgsmål til MST’s foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i

koncentrationen (sidste ciffer-metoden), som vi har brug for afklaring på hurtigst muligt.

Vi forestiller os umiddelbart, at det er nemmest at vende på et møde, men sender hermed vores spørgsmål

på skrift, så VAK/MST kan vurdere, hvem der kan hjælpe med at afklare dem.

Vi tager udgangspunkt i MST’s forklaring af sidste ciffer-metoden som beskrevet på side 5 i “Løsningsforslag

til vejledning til udledning af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer til overfladevandområder, hvor der i forvejen

er overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskrav” af 5. juli 2023, j.nr. 2023-36386 (vedhæftet). Vi forholder os ikke til

den del af metoden, der relaterersig til FAg 43-modellen, som MST har foieslået som supplement til sidste

ciffer-metoden. De bedes derfor se bort fra dennedeL

Vi har skitseret et tænkt eksempel med udgangspunkt i kobber:

I tabel 3 i vedhæftede notat fremgår det, at MKK for kobber er i ig/L, og at en tilladt

koncentrationsstigning målt på det repræsentative overvågningspunkt dermed er 0,99 ig/L.

1. Vi forstår metoden sådan, at hvis den i forvejen forekommende koncentration

vandområdet for

kobber er i .tg/L (målt på det repræsentative overvågningspunkt), må godkendelsesmyndighederne i

en konkret sag tillade en koncentrationsstigning af kobber på op til 0,99 g/L (målt på det

repræsentative overvågningspunkt), uden at der er tale om en forringelse af tilstanden. Hvis

godkendelsesmyndighederne derimod vurderer, at projektet vil medføre en koncentrationsstigning på

mere end 0,99 j.tg/L målt på det repræsentative overvågningspunkt (fx en koncentrationsstigning på

1,39 Ig/L, hket-vi1-medfør-ee,-sam1-et-koneentra-tiürtsstign+ng

som vil resultere i en

koncentration på 2,39 lg/L), vil dette udgøre en forringelse af tilstanden.

Vi forstår endvidere metoden sådan, at hvis vi antager, at ovenstående godkendelsesmyndighed træffer

afgørelse om at tillade en udledning af kobber, der medfører koncentrationsstigning målt på det

repræsentative overvågningspunkt på 0,99 ig/L, således at der derefter kan måles en koncentration

det repræsentative overvågningspunkt, kan

vandområdet for kobber på

1,99

lig/I

godkendelsesmyndigheden i en ny konkret sag om udledning af kobber til det samme vandområde tillade en

yderligere koncentrationsstigning målt på det repræsentative overvågningspunkt på op til 0,99 ig/L.

Resultatet for vandområdet efter de to ovenstående tilladelser, målt på det repræsentative

overvågningspunkt, vil være, at den forekommende koncentration i vandområdet for kobber går fra i lig/I til

2,98 jag/I, uden at de enkelte tilladelser har medført en forringelse af tilstanden.

Vi forstår også metoden sådan, at resultatet af ovenstående helt generelt er, at et vandområde aldrig kan

forringes ved en koncentrationsstigning, hvis de enkelte koncentrationsstigninger aldrig overstiger de tilladte

koncentrationer oplistet i tabel 3 på side 5 i nævnte notat. Fx må godkendelsesmyndighederne tillade en

koncentrationsstigning på op til op til 0,99 jag/I for kobber, selvom den i forvejen forekommende

koncentration i vandområdet for kobber er 5 jag/I.

Er ovenståeftdkorrekt forstået? I så fald kan vi ikke forstå, hvordan dette er i overensstemmelse med den

EU-retlige ramme og vores forståelse af sidste ciffer-metoden, idet vi ikke kan se, hvordan den beskrevne

tilgang vil sikre, at der ikke sker en stigning i det afgørende ciffer og koncentrationen dermed f.eks. går fra

1 til 2,

tilfælde hvor der allerede er tilladt en udledning efter denne metode.

—

2. Vi har derudover forstået det således, at

forbindelse med tilstandsvurderingen rundes der op eller

ned på de data, man har, således, at hvis dataene viser en koncentration af kobber

vandområdet på

ml. 1,0- 1,49 jag/I, rundes der ned til 1 jag/I, mens der fra 1,5-1,99 jag/I rundes op til 2 jag/I.. Som vi

ser det, bør der anlægges samme tilgang ved vurderingen af tilstandsændringer efter sidste ciffer-

metoden, således at der maksimalt må kunne tillades en udledning, der ikke fører til, at den

forventede koncentration i vandområdet efter tilførslen vil medføre, at der ved næste måling må

konstateres en forringelse, idet der skal rundes op til 2 dvs, i praksis kan der ikke tillades en

udledning, der vil få koncentrationen til at være 1,5 jag/I eller derover, idet koncentrationen efter

principperne for tilstandsvurderingen herefter vil skulle angives til 2 jag/I.

—

Er I enige

at der må være denne sammenhæng? Eller kan I forklare, hvordan vi ellers kan sige,at

tilgangen ikke vil fSre til en stigning efter sidste ciffer-metoden?

3. Den eksisterende koncentration i vandområdet, som godkendelsesmyndigheden ifølge vores

forståelse får oplyst som grundlag for vurderingen af nye udledninger, er i ovenstående scenarie i

g/L eller 2 1g/I, afhængig af, om der er rundet op eller ned efter sidste ciffer. I første scenarie, hvor

der er rundet ned til 1, risikerer godkendelsesmyndigheden, at de eksisterende koncentrationer er så

tæt på grænsen for, hvad vi vil karakterisere som en stigning (at det betydende ciffer går en værdi op

fx fra i til 2), at det reelle råderum kan være meget lille eller ikkeeksisterende, fx hvis

koncentrationen allerede er 1,49/1,99 .ig/L afhængig af tilgangen ovenfor.

—

Hvordan sikrer den nye vejledning, at dette indgår i myndighedens vurdering så der i praksis ikke

kan gives en tilladelse, der vil føre til, at der vil blive konstateret en stigning ved næste

tilstandsvurdering? Hvis FAQ43 heller ikke sikrede dette, kan vi da sige, at den nye vejledning ikke

vil medføre erhvervsøkonomiske konsekvenser, idet det for nogle vandområder i praksis kan

hpt’,rlp,

pnhør rnprtjifnrçpl fktkk ikk k’ntiIl..

—

Vil du videreformidle til de relevante med henblik på at afklare snarest muligt, gerne inden udgangen af i

daden_3Oaugut_2O23, om vi har forstået metoden korrekt, og om der er behov for at genoverveje

elementer af den?

Venlig hilsen

Lise Marie Johannessen

Teamlecier I Jura

+45 21 57 3477

I +45 21

57 34 77

Miljøministeriet

Departementet I Frecferiksholms Kanal 26 11220 København K I

Tlf.

+45

38 1421 42 I [email protected] I wi.mimdk

Facebook I Iwitter I Instagrarn I

Lirik.edln

PratlbLspoliflk

AKT 498212

[Svar på spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrati..

çfj

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

J.nr.

2023-36386

Ref. Virk,

VFS,

H&V, Erhverv

Den 5. juli

2023

Losningsforslag til vejledning til udledning

miii øfarlige

forurenende stoffer

til

overfladevandområder, hvor der i

forvejen er overskridelse af miijøkvalitetskrav

Problemstilling

Departementet har anmodet Miljøstyrelsen om en indledende vurdering

konsekvenser ved

forskellige scenarier (herefter fremgangsmåder) for fremtidig administration af tilladelser og

godkendelser

til

udledning af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer (MFS) til overfladevandområder, hvor

de udledte stoffers miljøkvalitetskrav er overskredet. Departementet ønsker beregninger ledsaget af en

beskrivelse af forudsætninger og usikkerheder samt fordele og ulemper ud fra både miljømæssige og

erhvervsmæssige betragtninger.

Fremgangsmåderne skal ligge inden for de juridiske rammer for fortolkning af ‘stigning i

koncentrationen’, som departementet har præsenteret.

Departementet har anmodet Miljøstyrelsen om i videst muligt omfang at vurdere, om forslag til

fremgangsmåder for fremtidig administration af meddelelse af udledningstilladelser

vil

have

konsekvenser for muligheden for at kunne meddele sådanne tilladelser.

Baggrund

i Miljøstyrelsens vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse forurenende

Af FAQ

stoffer1 fremgår det, at det er muligt for en miljømyndighed at udpege en blandingszone omkring

udledningspunktet for en udledning af spildevand med indhold af MFS, for hvilket miljøkvalitetskrav i

forvejen er overskredet i det berørte vandområde. Det fremgår af FAQ’en blandt andet, at “[h]vis det

generelle kvalitetskrav eller maksimumkoncentrationen for et givet stof i vand allerede er overskredet i

vandområdet, må udledningen ikke medføre en forhøjelse af den i forvejen forekommende

koncentration ved blandingszonens rand på mere end 5 [procent] af værdien af stoffets generelle

kvalitetskrav for vand.” Hvad påvirkning af sedimentet angår, må udledningen ifølge FAQ 43 ikke

medføre en beregnet forhøjelse af den i forvejen forekommende koncentration i sedimentet på mere

end

procent af stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav for sediment.

Løsning

Miljøstyrelsen har nedenfor beskrevet to alternative fremgangsmåder, hvormed myndighederne kan

fastsætte grænser for udledningens påvirkning af tilstanden i et vandområde med overskridelse af

miljøkvalitetskrav. De alternative fremgangsmåder tager udgangspunkt i, at en

beregnet

tilladt

Bekendtgørelse nr.

1433

21.

november

2017

krav

til udledning af visse forurenende stoffer til vandløb,

søer, overgangsvande,

kystva

nde og havområder.

Miljostyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

•

5000

Odense C

725440 00

•

25798376. EAN 5798000860810

‘lif.

[email protected]. www.mst.dk

koncentrationsstigning ikke må kunne måles i et for overfladevandsområdet repræsentativt

målepunkt:

Fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i analysetekniske muligheder.

Fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i Miljøstyrelsens retningslinjer for klassificering af tilstand.

Miljøstyrelsen har for disse fremgangsmåder vurderet fordele og ulemper og sammenholdt dem med

fordele og ulemper ved fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 ud fra miljømæssige og erhvervsmæssige

betragtninger. Miljøstyrelsen har her for sammenligningens skyld forudsat, at de enkelte

fremgangsmåders rammer for udledning udnyttes fuldt ud.

Miljøstyrelsen har i undersøgelserne lagt til grund, at et målepunkt for at kunne anses som

repræsentativt for det berørte overfladevandområde som helhed må være placeret i en vis afstand fra

eventuelle udledninger. En forhøjelse afkoncentrationen i vandområdet uden for en blandingszone vil

aftage med afstanden fra blandingszonens rand og må derfor være betydeligt mindre i det

repræsentative målepunkt end ved blandingszonens rand. Det følger heraf, at hvis en forhøjelse af

koncentrationen ved blandingszonens rand ikke er målbar, vil koncentrationsforhøjelsen i det

repræsentative målepunkt heller ikke være det.

Selv om de alternative fremgangsmåder tager udgangspunkt i, at koncentrationsstigningen ikke må

kunne måles i et repræsentativt målepunkt i overfladevandområdet,

jf.

ovenfor, har Miljøstyrelsen for

at kunne sammenligne fremgangsmåderne forudsat i undersøgelserne, at koncentrationsstigningen

ikke må kunne måles ved randen af blandingszonen svarende til, at FAQ 43 sætter en øvre grænse for

koncentrationsstigning ved randen af blandingszonen. De påviste forskelle mellem de alternative

fremgangsmåder og fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 ville være (endnu) mere udtalte ved en vurdering af

koncentrationsstigninger i et repræsentativt målepunkt i vandområdet.

Miljøstyrelsens analyse af de to alternative fremgangsmåder er nærmere beskrevet i bilag

Eksisterende vejledning i FAQ 43

1, 2

og 3.

Beskrivelse

Hvis miljøkvalitetskravet for et givet MFS i forvejen er overskredet i det berørte overfladevandområde,

må udledningen ifølge FAQ 43 ikke medføre en beregnet forhøjelse af den i forvejen forekommende

koncentration i vand ved blandingszonens rand på mere end 5 procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav

(miljøkvalitetskravet for vand udtrykt som årsgennemsnit), jf. eksempel i Tabel

nedenfor. Hvad

påvirkning af sedimentet angår, må udledningen ifølge FAQ 43 ikke medføre en beregnet forhøjelse af

den i forvejen forekommende koncentration i sedimentet på mere end

procent af stoffets

miljøkvalitetskrav for sediment. Er den beregnede koncentrationsstigning mindre end anført, kan den

ifølge FAQ’en anses for ikke at medføre en forringelse af tilstanden.

På grund affortyndingen i vandområdet mellem blandingszonen og det repræsentative punkt vil

koncentrationsstigningen ved det repræsentative målepunkt være lavere end 5 procent.

Eksempel

Tabel

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning for

tre

metaller ved randen af en blandingszone udpeget i et

marint overfladevandområde efter fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43. Den tifladte

koncentrationsstigning i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav er udtryk for det resulterende

beskyttelsesniveau: Jo højere koncentrationsstigning der tillades, jo lavere er

beskyttelsesniveauet.

Parameter

PFOS

Bly

Generelt

kvalitetskrav i ug/L

0,00013

1,3

11,3

0,0002

1,067

2100

Tilladt

koncentrationsstigning

ig/L

0,000007

0,07

0,57

0,00001

0,05

0,1

105

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning i procent af

generelt kvalitetskrav

Antimon

TBT

Kobber

Naphtalen

Strontium

Fordele

• Det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau er i udgangspunktet ens for alle stoffer.

• Vurdering af, om udledningen

vil

medføre en forringelse af tilstanden i det berørte vandområde,

er uafhængig af afstanden til repræsentative målepunkter.

• Fremgangsmåden er praktisk anvendelig for tilladelsesmyndighederne (Miljøstyrelsen og

kommunerne).

• Fremgangsmåden tilgodeser retssikkerheden, idet den er forudsigelig i praksis i kraft af, at den er

baseret på en fast procentsats af miljøkvalitetskravet og ikke på variable parametre.

Ulemper

•

Miljøstyrelsen har ikke identificeret faglige, juridiske eller erhvervsmæssige ulemper ved denne

fremgangsmåde i forbindelse med denne bestilling.

Fremgangsmåde

Måleusikkerhedsmetoden med udgangspunkt i analysetekniske muligheder

Beskrivelse

Ved denne fremgangsmåde vurderes en beregnet koncentrationsstigning i et repræsentativt målepunkt

at indebære en forringelse, når den ville kunne måles med sikkerhed med en målemetode, som skal

være i overensstemmelse med de relevante krav fastsat i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen2. At

koncentrationsstigningen skal kunne måles med sikkerhed, indebærer, at koncentrationsstigningen

skal være større end den måleusikkerhed, som den anvendte målemetode er forbundet med. Er den

beregnede koncentrationsstigning mindre end måleusikkerheden, anses den for ikke at medføre en

forringelse af tilstanden.

Analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen anviser målemetoder for en lang række MFS og fastsætter krav til

kvaliteten af de kemiske analyser, som skal overholdes af akkrediterede laboratorier, som anvender

Bekendtgørelse nr.

529

14.

maj

2023

om kvalitetskrav til miljømålinger.

metoderne til miljømålinger. Kravene, som blandt andet vedrører måleusikkerhed3, detektionsgrænse4

og kvantifikationsgrænse5, sikrer, at måleresultaterne er pålidelige.

Eksempel

Tabel

Tilladt

koncentrationsstigning

for

tre

MFS ved randen af en blandingszone udpeget i et

marint overfladevandområde efter fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i analysetekniske

muligheder. Den tilladte koncentrationsstigning i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav er udtryk

for det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau: Jo højere koncentrationsstigning der tillades, jo lavere er

beskyttelsesniveauet.

Parameter

Generelt

kvalitetskrav i ig/L

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning

i jig/L

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning i procent af

generelt kvalitetskrav

PFOS

0,00013

Ingen analysemetode

Bly

1,3

Minimum

0,7

Minimum

Antirnon

TBT

11,3

Ingen analysemetode

0,0001-0,005

50-2.500

0,0002

2100

Kobber

Napthalen

Strontium

Minimum

0,5

Minimum 0,6

Minimum

Ingen analysemetode

Fordele

•

Fremgangsmåden er fagligt funderet i måleusikkerhederne i overvågningens analysemetoder.

Ulemper

•

Måleusikkerheden afhænger af den konkrete analysemetode og kan variere betydeligt fra stof til

stof. Måleusikkerheden er alt andet lige er størst ved måling af lave koncentrationer nær

analysemetodens kvantifikationsgrænse og detektionsgrænse, i hvilket måleområde de mest

giftige stoffer ofte

vil

skulle måles. Fremgangsmåden indebærer derfor, at koncentrations

stigninger i vandmiljøet for de mest giftige stoffer oftest skal være relativt større for at kunne

påvises, end tilfældet er for de mindre giftige stoffer. Beskyttelsesniveauet vil derved kunne

variere fra stof til stof alene som følge af forskellige analysemetoder og

vil

alt andet lige blive

lavere, jo mere giftigt stoffet er over for vandlevende organismer.

Kemiske målinger er forbundet med en vis måleusikkerhed, som er udtiyk for, hvor meget måleresultatet med

den anvendte målemetode kan afvige fra den ‘sande’ værdi. Jo lavere koncentrationer der skal måles, jo større er

niåleusikkerheden.

Detektionsgrænsen er den laveste koncentration af et givet stof i en prøve, ved hvilken stoffet med sikkerhed kan

siges at være påvist.

Kvantifikationsgrænsen er den laveste koncentration af et givet stof i en prøve, ved hvilken stoffet med sikkerhed

kan siges at være kvantificeret. Kvantifikationsgrænse er i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen defineret som tre

gange detektionsgrænsen.

•

Der er ikke i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen anvist analysemetoder for alle matricer (vand, biota

og sediment) og typer af vandområde (fersk og marint) for de MFS, for hvilke der er fastsat

miljøkvalitetskrav. Hvor der ikke er anvist analysemetoder, mangler der måleusikkerheder at

sammenholde beregnede koncentrationsstigninger med.

Fremgangsmåde

Sidste ciffer-metoden med udgangspunkt i Miljøstyrelsens retningslinjer til

klassificering

tilstand

Beskrivelse

Miljøstyrelsen klassificerer vandområdernes tilstand ved at sammenholde målte koncentrationer af de

enkelte stoffer i vand, sediment og biota med de miljøkvalitetskrav, der er fastsat i bekendtgørelse om

fastlæggelse af miljømål6. Den målte koncentration betragtes som værende højere end

miljøkvalitetskravet, når det sidste ciffer i den værdi, som angiver miljøkvalitetskravet for pågældende

stof i den relevante tabel i bilag

til bekendtgørelse om fastlæggelse af miljømål7, er overskredet.

Med udgangspunkt heri vurderes ved denne fremgangsmåde en beregnet koncentrationsstigning i et

repræsentativt målepunkt at indebære en forringelse, når den er lig med eller større end, hvad der

svarer til en stigning på

på sidste ciffer i miljøkvalitetskravet. Det

vil

for eksempel betyde for et givet

stof med miljøkvalitetskrav

2,1

pg/L, at en i forvejen forekommende koncentration i vandområdet på

3,2

ig/L skal forøges til 3,3 ig/L, før der er tale om en forringelse af tilstanden.

Eksempel

Tabel 3 Tilladt koncentrationsstigning ved randen af en blandingszone udpeget i et marint

overfiadevandområde efter fremgangsmåde med udgangspunkt i retningslinjer for klassificering

af tilstand. Den tilladte koncentrationsstigning i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav er udtryk

for det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau: Jo højere koncentrationsstigning der tillades, jo lavere er

beskyttelsesniveauet.

Generelt

kvalitetskrav i ug/L

Tilladt

koncentrationsstigning

Tilladt koncentrationsstigning i procent af

generelt kvalitetskrav

Pararneter

ig/L

PFOS

0,00013

0,00001

7,7

Bly

0,1

7,7

Antimon

11,3

0,1

0,9

TBT

Kobber

Naphtalen

Strontium

0,0002

0,0001

2100

0,99

0,006

Hvis

rniljokvalitetskravet er

0,0999

1,2

jig/l tillades en koncentrationsstigningen i blandingszonens rand på op til

eller

o,i jig/L.

Fordele

• Beregnede koncentrationsstigninger vurderes på grundlag af bekendtgørelsesfastsatte

miljøkvalitetskrav.

• En beregnet koncentrationsstigning, som akkurat indebærer en forringelse af tilstanden, svarer til

den mindste koncentrationsstigning, der ville blive påvist ved Miljøstyrelsens overvågning af

forekomsten af pågældende stof i det berørte overfladevandområde.

Ulemper

• Det resulterende beskyttelsesniveau varierer fra stof til stof afhængigt af antallet af betydende

cifre, hvormed miljøkvalitetskrav for det enkelte stof er fastsat. Antallet af betydende cifre

varierer mellem stoffer uafhængigt af deres giftighed over for vandlevende organismer og dermed

uafhængigt af beskyttelsesbehovet.

Konsekvenser for fremtidig meddelelse af udledningstilladelser

Miljøstyrelsen gennemgår nedenfor resultaterne af den indledende analyse af de testede

fremgangsmåders forventede konsekvenser for meddelelse af udledningstilladelser til virksomheder,

jf.

bilag 3, baseret på analysen af forskellen med den eksisterende FAQ 43 og de to foreslåede

alternative fremgangsmåder, jf. analyse i bilag

af fremgangsmåde

sammenholdt med FAQ

43. Miljøstyrelsen har ikke inden for den givne frist haft mulighed for at foretage en dybtgående

konsekvensanalyse for alle brancher og afgørelser, som er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for FAQ 43.

Virksomheder kan påvirke overfladevandområder med MFS via en punktudledning og via tilførsel fra

luften i form af deposition8. MFS tilføres overfladevandområder fra forskellige brancher, herunder

power to X-anlæg, affaldsforbrændingsanlæg, deponier, mejerier, industrielle renseanlæg, og kemisk

industri.

Punktudledning

Med fremgangsmåde

jf. bilag

vil rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning af MFS blive

udvidet i forhold til rammen, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43, fordi beskyttelsesniveauet er

afhængigt afmåleusikkerhed, detektionsgrænse og kvantifikationsgrænse og som resultat heraf bliver

lavere end det beskyttelsesniveau, som FAQ 43 resulterer i. Ansøgninger om udledningstilladelse, der i

dag ville blive afslået, vil kunne imødekommes.

Med fremgangsmåde

jf.

bilag

vil rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning af MFS blive

udvidet i forhold til rammen, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43, for etflertal af stofferne.

Kun få af de stoffer, for hvilke rammen indsnævres, er i forbindelse med overvågningen konstateret i

koncentrationer i overfladevandområder, der overskrider miljøkvalitetskravet. Det drejer sig primært

om arsen, nikkel, zink og chrom i vandfasen og

bly

i sediment. Miljøstyrelsen behandler ofte

ansøgninger om udledningstilladelse med indhold af disse metaller.

Deposition er afsætning af luftbårne forurenende stoffer på

overflader som

jord og overfladevandområder.

Luftforureningen spredes

med

vinden, undertiden over afstande på flere tusinde km, før den afsættes og kan gøre

skade på okosystemer, mennesker eller materialer. Den mængde, der afsættes, afhænger både af koncentrationen

i luften og afdepositionshastigheden.

Fremgangsmåde

vil for disse fem metaller i væsentligt omfang at indskrænke mulighederne for at

give tilladelse til punktudledninger til overfladevandområder med begrænset potentiale for fortynding

af det udledte spildevand.

Omvendt vil fremgangsmåde

medføre for kobber, at der kan gives tilladelse til en beregnet

koncentrationsstigning på 99 procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav i de marine vandområder, hvor

fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 kun tillader koncentrationsstigning på 5 procent af det generelle

miljøkvalitetskrav.

Deposition

Hverken fremgangsmåde

eller

vil få konsekvenser for antallet af tilladelser til luftemissioner, der vil

resultere i deposition af MFS til overfladevandområder. Miljøstyrelsen har ikke umiddelbart kendskab

til kilder til luftemiss ion, som vil kunne bidrage med en koncentrationsstigning i et berørt

vandområde, der indebærer en forringelse af tilstanden som vurderet efter fremgangsmåde

jf.

bilag 3.

Sammenfattende vurdering

Fremgangsmåde i FAQ 43

De i bekendtgørelse om fastlæggelse af miljømål fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav for MFS afspejler som

hovedregel de enkelte stoffers giftighed over for vandlevende organismer. Det følger heraf, at den

relative beskyttelse, som i den aktuelle sammenhæng kan udtrykkes ved en tilladt

koncentrationsstigning i procent af det fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav, som udgangspunkt bør være den

samme for alle stoffer. En sådan ensartet beskyttelse for alle stoffer opnås med fremgangsmåden i FAQ

43, således som det fremgår af tabel

ovenfor.

Fremgangsmåde

med udgangspunkt i analysetekniske muligheder

Fremgangsmåde

tager udgangspunkt i måleusikkerheden ved de analysemetoder, som anvendes ved

måling af forekomsten af de enkelte MFS. En beregnet koncentrationsstigning skal være større end

måleusikkerheden for, at påvirkningen anses som en forringelse af tilstanden. Der tages her ikke højde

for, at de giftigste stoffer typisk vil skulle måles i lave koncentrationer, hvor måleusikkerheden ved de

enkelte analysemetoder generelt er stor. Fremgangsmåden indebærer dermed, at der som hovedregel

vil blive tilladt en større koncentrationsstigning målt i procent af det generelle kvalitetskrav, jo

giftigere stoffet er, jf. eksemplet i tabel

ovenfor. Med fremgangsmåde

vil der kunne tillades en

beregnet koncentrationsstigning på mellem

og 208.000 procent af stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav ved

en repræsentativ målestation, hvor der med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 vil kunne tillades en beregnet

koncentrationsstigning på 5 procent i blandingszonens rand,jf. bilag

Beskyttelsesniveauet bliver

med fremgangsmåde

dermed ikke det samme for alle stoffer, som tilfældet er med fremgangsmåden i

FAQ 43.

Sammenholdt med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 vil fremgangsmåde

for alle MFS, som er indgået i

Miljøstyrelsens analyse, udvide rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning til et

overfladevandområde, hvor milj økvalitetskravet er overskredet.

Det forudsættes for anvendelse af fremgangsmåde

at analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsens liste over

analysemetoder og tilhørende måleusikkerheder suppleres med metoder for de stoffer og matricer, for

hvilke der i dag ikke foreligger sådanne. Dette vil ske ved at involvere referencelaboratoriet i arbejdet,

som udarbejder et notat med anbefalinger til, hvilke metoder der kan anvendes og hvilke

analysekvalitetskrav der skal fastsættes for hver matrice for hver stof.

Fremgangsmåde

med udgangspunkt i retningslinjer til klasscering af tilstand

Fremgangsmåde

tager udgangspunkt i Miljøstyrelsens retningslinjer for klassificering af

overfladevandområdernes tilstand med hensyn til forekomst af MFS. En beregnet

koncentrationsstigning skal være større end

på sidste betydende ciffer i værdien, som angiver

miljøkvalitetskravet i den relevante tabel i bilag

til bekendtgørelse om fastlæggelse af miljømål. Der

tages her ikke højde for, at antallet af betydende cifre (decimaler) ikke er ens for alle stoffer og ikke

nødvendigvis hænger sammen med de enkelte stoffers giftighed over for vandlevende organismer.

Spørgsmålet om, hvor stor en koncentrationsstigning, der med fremgangsmåden vil kunne tillades for

et givet MFS, vil derfor være forbundet et element af tilfældighed, idet antallet af betydende cifre ikke

er konsistent,

jf.

eksemplet i tabel 3 ovenfor. Beskyttelsen bliver dermed ikke ensartet, som tilfældet er

med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

Sammenholdt med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 vil fremgangsmåde

for flertallet af MFS, som er

indgået i Miljøstyrelsens analyse, udvide rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning til et

overfladevandområde, hvor miljøkvalitetskravet er overskredet. For nogle af stofferne udvides

rammen betydeligt: For kobber tillader fremgangsmåden en stigning i blandingszonens rand på 68 og

___________

99 procent af stoffets generelle kvalitetskrav for henholdsvis ferske og marine overfladevandområder,

hvor fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 tillader en stigning på 5 procent af stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav i

blandingszonens rand.

Scenarier

Nedenstående Figur

og Figur

illustrerer forskellen mellem de tilladte koncentrationsstigninger,

som følger af anvendelsen af fremgangsmåde

og fremgangsmåde

sammenholdt med anvendelse af

fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

Det fremgår af Figur

at fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 for kobber tillader en koncentrationsstigning på

op til

0,05

ig/L i blandingszonens rand, mens fremgangsmåde

og fremgangsmåde

tillader

beregnede koncentrationsstigninger i et repræsentativt målepunkt på henholdsvis

0,53

ig/L og

0,99

tg/L.

Det fremgår af Figur

at fremgangsmåde

for strontium tillader en mindre koncentrationsstigning

end fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 og fremgangsmåde

selv når det tages i betragtning, at de tilladte

koncentrationsstigninger gælder i forskellig afstand fra udledningspunktet, henholdsvis i

blandingszonens rand og i et repræsentativt målepunkt. På grund af fortyndingen i vandområdet

mellem blandingszonen og det repræsentative punkt vil koncentrationsstigningen ved anvendelse af

FAQ 43 være lavere ved det repræsentative målepunkt.

Eksempel med merudledning at kobber

d Miljøkvalitetskrav: i ugtL

II ••I••

I• ••i••

—

Novand

erogeiegOntatiOfl

Fremgangno5de i ft.

måleenkkerhed

tillader en

beregnet koocentrationontigning på 0,53 eg/I

Fren,gangernde 2 itt. ttigning på det

betydende

rifter i miljøkvalitetskravet tillader en

koncentrationrtigning på 0,99 eg/I

af merudledning af et stof til et overfladevandsområde, hvor stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav vurderes

at være overskredet. Eksemplet er for udledning af kobber til et marint vandområde, hvor

miljøkvalitetskravet er overskredet, da der er målt en koncentration af stoffet på

ig/L i

vandområdet.

Figur

Sammenligning mellem hvad fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43 og fremgangsmåde

tillader

Eksempel med merudledning af Strontium

Generelt miljØkvalitetskrav er 2100

•I lilli

I• •I•••

Fremgngn,de itt. ,nMeoikkerhed tilbder en

beregnet konrentrtonttg,nng p 8050 ng/L

Fremgnngmåde 2 ft. tigeing på det betydende

rifter i miljøkvnlitetrkravet tf Lader en

konrentrationrtLgning på 0,99 ug/L

—

--jm

Figur

Eksemplet er for udledning af strontium

til

et marint vandområde, hvor

miljøkvalitetskravet på er overskredet. Der er ikke anvist en analysemetode for overvågning i

marint vand i analysekvalitetsbekendtgorelsen, hvorfor måleusikkerheden i dette eksempel er

antaget

til

at være lig måleusikkerheden for de andre tungmetaller, der er oplyst analysemetoder

for i analysekvalitetsbekendtgørelsen.

Konklusion

FAQ 43 såvel som de to alternative fremgangsmåder vurderes alle at ligge inden for de juridiske

rammer for fortolkning af ‘stigning i koncentrationen’, som departementet har præsenteret.

Miljøstyrelsens undersøgelse har vist, at de to alternative fremgangsmåder til fastsættelse af grænser

for udledningers påvirkning af tilstanden i overfladevandområder begge har fordele og ulemper. Efter

Miljøstyrelsens vurdering er det et tungvejende argument imod at vælge disse, at det

beskyttelsesniveau, som opnås for begge fremgangsmåder, varierer mellem de enkelte stoffer, og for

fremgangsmåde

er beskyttelsesniveauet generelt lavest for de mest giftige stoffer. Derudover er de

beskyttelsesniveauer, som opnås med de to fremgangsmåder, generelt lavere end det

beskyttelsesniveau, der opnås med fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

Hvad erhvervsmæssige konsekvenser angår, viser Miljøstyrelsens undersøgelse, at begge de to

alternative fremgangsmåder generelt udvider rammerne for at give tilladelse til merudledning af MFS i

forhold til den ramme, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43. For visse almindeligt forekommende

stoffer vil fremgangsmåde

dog indsnævre rammen for at give tilladelse til merudledning

sammenholdt med rammen, som følger af fremgangsmåden i FAQ 43.

AKT 498212

[Svar på spørgsmål til MSTs foreslåede fremgangsmåde for vurdering af stigning i koncentrati...

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Hav- &Vandmiljø

Ref. SPe

Den 5. september

2023

Fremgangsmåde

til

vurdering af

stigning

i koncentration afmiljøfarlige

forurenende stoffer

Miljøkvalitetskrav er fastsat på EU-niveau eller nationalt med en given præcision, som fremgår af

antallet af betydende cifre, således at et krav på fx

0,023

jig/L er fastsat mere præcist end et krav på

0,02

ig/L, og et krav på

4,0

pg/L er fastsat mere præcist end et krav på 4 ig/L. Hvilken præcision et

givet miljøkvalitetskrav er fastsat med, er bestemt på et fagligt grundlag. Der ligger videnskabeligt

gennemførte undersøgelser af giftigheden af det enkelte stof over for vandlevende organismer til

grund, men eftersom det ikke er muligt at teste alle stoffer over for alle arter, og da man ikke

nødvendigvis ved, om stoffet er testet på den art, der er mest følsom over for det pågældende stof,

indregnes der en sikkerhedsfaktor: Den fundne værdi divideres med

10, 50, 100

eller

1000

afhængigt

af datagrundlaget,

jf.

pkt.

1.2.6

i vandrammedirektivets bilag V. Sikkerhedsfaktorerne er fagligt

funderede, men er reelt et udtryk for utilstrækkelig viden om, i hvilket omfang de enkelte stoffer

påvirker vandlevende organismer, herunder med henblik på beskyttelse af de mest følsomme

arter. Indregning af en sikkerhedsfaktor betyder, at hvis testresultater giver en værdi på fx

4000

ig/L,

og datagrundlagets begrænsede omfang tilsiger, at der skal anvendes en sikkerhedsfaktor

1000,

bliver

miljøkvalitetskravet

4000

[tg/L:

1000

4 tg/L. Man kunne også angive værdien til

4,0

1g/L, men

derved ville man angive en præcision i resultatet, der ikke er fagligt belæg for.

Med den givne præcision repræsenterer et miljøkvalitetskrav fastsat til 4 ig/L alle værdier i intervallet

mellem

3,50

og 4,49 ig/L (idet mindre og større værdier afrundes til henholdsvis 3 og 5 ig/L), mens

et miljøkvalitetskrav på

4,0

ig/L repræsenterer alle værdier mellem

3,950

4,049

(idet mindre og

større værdier afrundes til henholdsvis 3,9 og

4,1

pg/L) ud fra de almindelige regler for afrunding. Når

MST i forbindelse med tilstandsvurderingen skal afgøre, om miljøkvalitetskravet er overskredet eller

ej, giver det ikke faglig mening at sammenholde præcise måleresultater som fx

3,2

ig/L,

4,2

ig/L og

4,7 ig/L for et givet stof med et miljøkvalitetskrav angivet mindre præcist til værdien 4 tg/L, der som

nævnt repræsenterer hele intervallet mellem

3,50

og 4,49 pg/L. I stedet runder MST de målte værdier

af til samme antal betydende cifre og får dermed værdierne 3 ig/L, 4 pg/L og 5 ig/L, som sammen-

holdes med miljøkvalitetskravet 4 pg/L som dermed kun er overskredet i det sidste tilfælde. For at

MST i tilstandsvurderingen ville anse et miljøkvalitetskrav på 4 ig/L for overskredet, skal den målte

koncentration angivet med samme præcision være

pg/L højere, altså 5 ig/L, svarende til en stigning

på

på sidste ciffer. I andre sammenhænge som fx vurdering af udviklingstendenser rundes

måleresultater ikke tilsvarende af.

Den beskrevne alternative fremgangsmåde har taget udgangspunkt i MST’s fremgangsmåde til

vurdering af overholdelse af miljøkvalitetskrav: Miljømyndigheden skal foretage beregninger af

koncentrationsstigninger som følge af den omhandlede udledning. Beregningerne kan foretages med

alle de decimaler, det skal være, men hvis den beregnede koncentrationsstigning er mindre end

på

Miljostyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej

•

sooo Odense

Tlf.

725440 00

•

CVR 25798376• EAN

5798000860810

[email protected].

www.nsst.dk

sidste ciffer i den værdi, som miljøkvalitetskravet er angivet med, regnes det ikke som en målbar

stigning, fordi den ikke er større end det koncentrationsinterval

(3,50-4,49

ig/L, hvis miljøkvalitets

kravet er fastsat til 4 jig/L), som miljøkvalitetskravet repræsenterer,

jf.

ovenfor.

Det er umiddelbart korrekt forstået, og det føjer endnu en ulempe til den alternative fremgangs

måde, som dog vil kunne overkommes: Det kan præciseres, at udledningen ikke må (el. bør) give

anledning til en beregnet koncentrationsstigning i den halve afstand mellem udledningspunktet og et

repræsentativt målepunkt, der er lig med eller større end, hvad der svarer til en stigning på

på sidste

ciffer i miljøkvalitetskravet. Der kan eventuelt som en ekstra sikkerhed tilføjes, at udledningen ikke i

kombination med andre udledninger må (el. bør) give anledning til en beregnet koncentrations

stigning i et repræsentativt målepunkt, der er lig med eller større end, hvad der svarer til en stigning

på

på sidste ciffer i miljøkvalitetskravet. Oplysninger om andre udledninger siden seneste måling af

koncentrationen i overfladevandet findes hos myndigheden selv, andre myndigheder eller i PULS.

Første punktum er korrekt forstået. Hvad andet punktum angår, kunne der her anlægges samme

tilgang, men så ville der være tale om en anden fremgangsmåde end den af MST foreslåede. Sidste

ciffer i et miljøkvalitetskrav fastsat til fx

pg/L repræsenterer et interval

0,50-1,49

ig/L, altså et

spænd på op til

0,99

jig/L. Sidste ciffer-metoden foreslået af MST tillader en stigning i

koncentrationen, der er op til, men ikke større end, hvad sidste ciffer i det fastsatte miljøkvalitetskrav

repræsenterer. Se også forklaring ovenfor.

Ad : Den af MST foreslåede fremgangsmåde er netop uafhængig af, om den i forvejen forekommende

koncentration i vandområder er fx

1,49

ig/L (som i tilfældet kobber rundes ned til

ig/L, og hvor en

koncentrationsstigning på

0,01

jig/L resulterer i koncentration

1,50

ig/L der skal rundes op til

pg/L og dermed forringelse) eller

1,50

ig/L (som i samme tilfælde kobber rundes op til

sg/L,

og hvor en koncentrationsstigning på

0,99

jig/L resulterer i koncentration

2,49

jig/L, der skal rundes

ned til

pg/L og dermed ingen forringelse). MST vil finde det uhensigtsmæssigt, at accepten af en

given koncentrationsstigning afhænger af, om en i forvejen forekommende koncentration, som jo i

øvrigt er målt med den usikkerhed, der knytter sig til den anvendte analysemetode, tilfældigvis ligger

det ene eller det andet sted i intervallet mellem de afrundede værdier, som MST af faglige

årsager vælger at angive måleresultater med. Se også forklaring ovenfor.

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: VS: Forslag til svar på Benjamins sidste spørgsmål

kommentar

Aktnummer: 80

AktID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498199

12-09-2023 11:41:15

Intern

[1] VS Forslag til svar på Benjamins sidste spørgsmål

kommentar.eml

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498199

[VS: Forslag til svar på Benjamins sidste spørgsmål kommentar]

Dokument 1

[VS For...

Til:

Cc:

Fra:

Titel:

Sendt:

Benjamin Kelstrup Turner ([email protected])

Dorte Balle Harder ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

VS: Forslag til svar på Benjamins sidste spørgsmål kommentar

12-09-2023 11:41

Kære Benjamin

Dorte har bedt mig sende hendes svar (i kursiv) til dig vedr. BZ.

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Chefkonsulent

Bæredygtigt Miljø og Produktion

+45 21 82 28 81 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet

Vester Voldgade 123 11552 København V I Tlf. +45 38 1421 42

[email protected]

www.mim.dk

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

Yutube

Rrivallivspdlitik

Fra: Dorte Balle Harder <[email protected]>

Sendt: 10. september 2023 12:56

Til: Lene Carpentier <[email protected]>

Cc: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Emne: Forslag til svar på Benjamins sidste spørgsmål kommentar

Henset til formålet om at begrænse BZ udstrækning vil en BZ i flere tilfælde ikke udlægges sådan, at den når helt op til

det repræsentative overvågningspunkt.

Min forståelse er dog, at man ikke nødvendigvis kan arbejde med en fast størrelse (eller maksimum størrelse) for

udstrækningen af en BZ (som DK hidtil har gjort), da den eneste EU-retlige begrænsning på BZ’s udstrækning er

vandrammedirektivet, og at BZ i stedet skal fastsættes konkret ud fra den opbianding, de enkelte udledninger vil have.

DK har ikke fastsat faste normerende størrelser de er og har været vejledende og fastsættes på baggrund konkret

vurdering..

—

Som skrevet oven for er det vanskeligt at forene både kravene til udpegningen af en blandingszone i artikel 4, stk. 3, i

direktiv om mi(iøkvalitetskrav og bestemmelserne om overvågning og vurdering af tilstand i vandrammedirektivets artikel

8 og bilag V med blandingszoner der rækker ud til en overvågningsstation.

Artikel 4, stk. 3 har følgende ordlyd:

“3. De medlemsstater, der udpeger blandingszoner, skal påse, at udstrækningen af de enkelte zoner er:

a) begrænset til udledningspunkternes umiddelbare nærhed

b) afpasset efter koncentrationerne af forurenende stoffer ved udledningspunktet og efter de betingelser for udledning af

forurenende stoffer, der er fastsat i de forudgående reguleringer, såsom godkendelser og/eller tilladelser, der er

omhandlet i artikel 11, stk. 3, litra g), i direktiv 2000/60/EF og enhver anden relevant fællesskabsforskrift, i

overensstemmelse med anvendelsen af de bedste tilgængelige teknikker og artikel 10 i direktiv 2000/60/EF, navnlig efter

at disse forudgående reguleringer er blevet revideret.”

Udgangspunktet er altså, at blandingszonerne skal være begrænset til en ‘jmiddelbar nærhed”

mindre omfang” både absolut men især relativt.

—

det forstår vi som “af

Som du skriver; skal størrelsen af en blandingszone fastlægges på grundlag af en konkret vurdering. Resultatet af

vurderingen skal være i overensstemmelse med artikel 4, stk. 3, i direktiv om miUøkvalitetskrav og sikre, at der ikke er

påvirkning af opfyldelse af miøkvalitetskrav i så stor en del af overfladevandområdet, at det vil blive vurderet, at

opfyldelse af miUøkvalitetskrav i vandområdet er påvirket samlet set, det er i udgangspunktet en opgave for

ansøger/tilladelsesmyndighed at redegøre for; hvordan dette er sikret.

—

Dorte Balle Harder

chefkonsulent, jurist

Hav- og Vandmiljø, Miljøstyrelsen

Mail dhs@msLdiç

telefon +4541 27 16 50

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen ITolderlundsvei 5

5000 Odense C

telefon +45 72 54 40 00

mst@snsLdk

wwwiiist.dk

Sådan håndterer vi dine personoplysningei

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: Vs: NY SAG: Revideret FAQ 43 i vejledning til bekendtgørelse

om krav til udledning af visse forurenende stoffer (oversendt til DEP)

(MST Id nr.: 8521759)

Aktnummer: 79

AktID:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498198

05-10-2023 17:33:38

Intern

(1] Vs NY SAG Revideret FAQ 43 i vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse

forurenende stoffer (oversendt til DEP) (MST Id nr. 8521759).eml

[2] Departementsforklæde.docx

(3] FAQ 43.docx

Den 22. marts 2024

AKT 498198

[Vs: NY SAG: Revideret FAQ 43 i vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse fo...

Til:

Fra:

Titel:

Jens Christian Pabst Berthelsen ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected])

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Vs: NY SAG: Revideret FAQ 43

vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse forurenende stoffer

(oversendt til DEP) (MST Id nr.: 8521759)

Sendt: 05-10-2023 17:33

Bilag: Departementsforklæde.docx; FAQ 43.docx;

Fra: Direktionssckretariatet <[email protected]>

Dato: 5. oktober2023 kl. 17.31.57 CEST

Til: Rikkc Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>, MIM Ministersager <[email protected]>

i vejledning til bekendtgørelse om

krav

til udledning af visse forurenende

Emne: NY SAG: Revideret FAQ

stoffer (oversendt til DEP) (MST Id nr.: 8521759)

Venlig hilsen

Peter Longsholm Jølbæk

Direktionssekretær

Direktionssekretariatet

+45 24 52 94 81

ie1oj©rnst.dk

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

5000 Odense C

Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00

mst@msLdk

wtinsLdk

Sådan håndterer vi dine personoplysninger

AKT 498198

[Vs: NY SAG: Revideret FAQ 43 i vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse fo...

DEPARTEMENTSFORKLÆDE

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Hav- og Vandmiljø

Vandforsyning

Virksomheder

J.nr. 2023

68121

Ref. maibb/lobma/dbs

Den 5. oktober

2023

Sagsbehandler

Maibb/lobma/dbs

Styrelseschef og dato

LYFEL 5. oktober

2023

JAREI 3. oktober

2023

JAHAN 5. oktober

2023

Direktion i styrelsen og dato

ISNVI

5. oktober

2023

CHBRI 5. oktober

2023

Godkendelse af revideret FAQ

visse forurenende stoffer

i vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning

til departementets videre foranstaltning

LI til departementets orientering

til departementets godkendelse

Sagsfremstilling

Miljø- og Fødevareklagenævnet traf den

23.

februar

2023

en afgørelse om ophævelse og hjemvisning af

Horsens Kommunes tilladelse til etablering af et vejanlæg. I afgørelsen tilsidesatte nævnet afsnit

8.3.2

i Miljøstyrelsens vejledning til bekendtgørelse om indsatsprogrammer

(2017).

Afsnit

8.3.2

muliggjorde

et skøn over, hvorvidt en udledning af miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer (MFS) til et vandområde i ikke

god tilstand for stoffet kunne anses for at være betydelig og dermed en forringelse. I fortsættelse af

afgørelsen suspenderede Miljøministeriet og Miljøstyrelsen primo marts

2023

tilsvarende vejledning

indeholdt i Miljøstyrelsens vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse forurenende

stoffer.

Miljøministeriet og Miljøstyrelsen har siden afgørelsen arbejdet for at tilvejebringe opdateret

vejledning, der følger linjen i EU-Domstolens domme og nævnets afgørelse i forhold til muligheden for

at udlede miljøfarlige forurenende stoffer til overfladevand, hvor miljøkvalitetskrav for disse stoffer

allerede er overskredet. Departementet har forestået den juridiske analyse og har i den sammenhæng

haft dialog med EU-Kommissionen på højt niveau, og der er gennemført et udvidet nabotjek. På den

baggrund har departementet fastlagt den retlige ramme for, hvad der vil udgøre en yderligere

forringelse af overfladevandet, nemlig: En udledning der medfører en målbar stigning i det samlede

overfladevand.

Miljøstyrelsen har analyseret og vurderet en række faglige metoder, der kan præcisere kravene til

vurdering af, hvorvidt en udledning af MFS til overfladevand, hvor koncentrationen af MFS i forvejen

overstiger MKK for stoffet, vil lede til en målbar stigning i koncentrationen for stoffet i det samlede

overfladevand. Den vedlagte udkast til en opdateret FAQ 43 indeholder Miljøstyrelsens vejledning til

miljømyndighederne om hvilke faglige metoder, der kan anvendes til at sikre, at der ikke gives

tilladelse

til

udledninger, der kan medføre en målbar koncentrationsstigning i overfladevandet.

Miljøstyrelsen vil sende udkast til den opdaterede FAQ 43 og andre FAQ’er herunder FAQ 48, der er

rettet som konsekvens af opdateringen af FAQ 43, i høring samtidig med, at Miljøministeriet sender ny

vejledning til bekendtgørelse om indsatsprogrammer i høring. Miljøstyrelsen vil i de kommende uger,

.1.

mens høringen pågår, arbejde på ydereligere at operationalisere vejledningen om, hvad der forstås ved

en målbar stigning.

Parallelt med horingen over de opdaterede FAQ’er vil Miljøstyrelsen fortsætte arbejdet med at

tilvejebringe ny vejledning om håndtering af en række relaterede sagsområder: Direkte udledning af

almindelig belastet overfladevand, frigivelse af MFS ved klapning samt udledning af MFS fra

renseanlæg og overløb. Der vil i den sammenhæng blive nedsat arbejdsgrupper med relevante

interessenter.

Miljøministeriet har tidligere vurderet, at der ikke var behov for at regulere udledning af miljøfarlige

forurenende stoffer fra almindeligt husspildevand, hvilket bl.a. fremgår af tidligere

spildevandsvejledning fra

1999

(VEJ nr.

11058

01/01/1999)

og har været afspejlet i Miljøstyrelsens

vejledning til kommunerne (FAQ nr. 55, 56 og 57). Nøgletal for udledninger fra renseanlæg (baseret på

NOVANA-overvågningen) har efterfølgende indikeret, at nogle MFS er mere almindeligt

forekommende i renset spildevand end tidligere antaget, og at dette potentielt kan medføre

overskridelser af miljøkvalitetskravene i de vandområder, som renseanlægget udleder til. Det er derfor

nødvendigt at udarbejde en ny FAQ for renseanlæg, der forholder sig til dette og er udtryk for en

ændring i administrationspraksis. Der kan i den mellemliggende periode være kommuner, forsyninger

56 og 57, som er utidssvarende og på nogle områder i strid

og rådgivere, der har anvendt FAQ nr.

med andre dele af vejledningen.

Den nye FAQ for renseanlæg vil tydeliggøre, at det ved udarbejdelse af nye tilladelser og revision af

ældre tilladelser skal tages med i vurderingen, at udledninger fra renseanlæg er omfattet af reglerne i

bekendtgørelse

1433

21/11/2017

om krav til udledning af visse forurenende stoffer til vandløb, søer,

overgangsvande, kystvande og havområder. Ændret administrationspraksis i FAQ’en vil kunne kræve

investeringer enten i nye eller forbedrede anlæg for spildevandsselskaberne i forbindelse med

udarbejdelse af nye tilladelser. Derudover kan der blive tale om stigende omkostninger ved tilsyn og

afgørelser, da tidsforbruget hos Miljøstyrelsen og kommunerne forventes at kunne stige som følge af

øget antal parametre i tilladelserne, flere kontroikrav, samt behov for revidering af eksisterende

tilladelser. FAQ 55, 56 og 57 suspenderes midlertidigt, og en revideret vejledning udarbejdes under

sporet om renseanlæg og overløb. Dette forventes i høring primo

2024.

For sporet om almindeligt belastet overfladevand igangsættes arbejdet i en tværministeriel

arbejdsgruppe i efteråret. Processen for en ny vejledning om udledning af almindeligt belastet

overfladevand er forbundet større usikkerheder og kan evt, kræve bekendtgørelsesændringer. Der er

behov for at forbedre vidensgrundlaget om bl.a. sammensætning og koncentrationer af MFS i

overfladevand samt eksisterende renseteknologier for at kunne udarbejde en ny vejledning. Den nye

vejledning forventes i høring medio

2024.

økonomi, finansiering, presse og kvalitetssikring

Økonomi og finansiering: Ikke relevant pt.

Pressestrategi: Miljøstyrelsen udarbejder presseberedskab og kommunikationsplan, der tager

udgangspunkt i ministerens og departementets pressestrategi.

Videre proces

Det forventes pt., at udkast til ny vejledning om indsatsprogrammer og opdateret FAQ’er forelægges

ministeren fredag d. 6. oktober

2023

med henblik på ordførerorientering d.

10.

oktober. Det forventes

yderligere, at relevante interessenter inddrages parallelt med henblik på høring ultimo uge

41.

AKT 498198

[VS: NY SAG: Revideret FAQ 43 i vejledning til bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse fo...

43) Hvordan fastsættes kravværdier for et givet stof i en

udledning, når miljøkvalitetskrav for stoffet i forvejen er

overskredet i overfladevandet?

Der kan kun tillades udledning til et overfladevandområde, hvor et eller flere miljøkvalitetskrav er

overskredet, og hvor miljømålet derfor ikke er opfyldt, hvis afgørelsen ikke direkte eller indirekte

vil kunne medføre en yderligere forringelse af overfladevandområdets tilstand, og/eller ikke vil

kunne hindre opfyldelse af det fastlagte miljømål. Det følger af bekendtgørelse om

indsatsprogrammer § 8, stk. 3, der bl.a. udmønter vandrammedirektivets artikel 4, stk.

En nærmere beskrivelse af, hvordan Miljøministeriet forstår EU-rettens krav om at forebygge

forringelse af overfladevandområdets tilstand samt kravet om ikke at hindre mulighed for

målopfyldelse, fremgår af vejledning til bekendtgørelse om indsatsprogrammer afsnit

8.3.2.

Indsatsbekendtgørelsen gælder kun for de målsatte overfladevandområder, mens bekendtgørelse

om krav til udledning af visse forurenende stoffer også gælder for udledninger til overfladevand,

som ikke er målsat. Miljøstyrelsen vurderer, at EU-rettens krav om at forebygge forringelse af

tilstanden skal forstås på samme måde for målsatte overfladevandområder og for ikke-målsat

overfladevand.

Miljømyndigheden kan ifølge § 8 i bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse forurenede stoffer

udpege blandingszoner omkring udledningspunkter. Koncentrationerne af stoffer kan overskride

relevante miljøkvalitetskrav for stofferne inden for blandingszonen, hvis overskridelsen ikke

påvirker opfyldelse af disse krav i det øvrige overfladevandområde. Miljømyndigheden fastsætter

nærmere, hvilke miljøkvalitetskrav der kan overskrides, herunder i hvilket omfang. Det er ikke

afgørende for muligheden for at udpege en blandingszone for et givet stof, om miljøkvalitetskravet

for det pågældende stof er overholdt eller ej i det berørte overfladevandområde, så længe

koncentrationen af stoffet ikke vil kunne medføre en forringelse af overfladevandområdets tilstand

og ikke vil kunne hindre opfyldelse af det fastlagte miljømål.

Fastsættelse af udlederkrav for stoffer, der i forvejen findes i overfladevandet i koncentrationer, der

overskrider miljøkvalitetskrav, kan ske ud fra nedenstående tilgang. Det bemærkes generelt, at

udlederkravet altid skal vurderes konkret i forhold til udledningen og overfladevandet, og det skal

kunne eftervises ved beregninger, at der er stor sikkerhed for, at udledningen ikke vil medføre

påvirkning af opfyldelsen af miljøkvalitetskravene i overfladevandet uden for blandingszonen.

I. Miljøkvalitetskrav for vand er overskredet i overfladevandet

Hvis det generelle kvalitetskrav eller maksimumkoncentrationen for et givet stof i vand allerede er

overskredet i overfladevandet, kan miljømyndigheden kun give tilladelse til en udledning til vand

eller luft, hvis den ved beregninger kan vise, at udledningen med stor sikkerhed ikke vil påvirke

opfyldelse af miljøkvalitetskravet i overfladevandet eller det målsatte overfladevandområde uden

for den udpegede blandingszone.

For at sikre et tilstrækkeligt og ensartet miljøbeskyttelsesniveau bør miljømyndigheden kun tillade

en koncentrationsstigning på mindst muligt og højst 5 % af værdien af stoffets generelle

kvalitetskrav for vand beregnet i blandingszonens rand, jf. FAQ 67. For udledninger til luft bør en

beregnet koncentrationsstigning som følge af depositionen overalt i overfladevandet være mindst

mulig og ikke mere end 5 % af værdien af stoffets generelle kvalitetskrav.

Miljømyndigheden skal derudover ved beregning sikre, at udledningen til vand eller luft ikke

medfører en stigning i koncentrationen af pågældende stof på et repræsentativt målepunkt. I

beregningen skal indgå den i forvejen forekommende koncentration af stoffet i det modtagende

overfladevand. Ved vurdering af, om en beregnet stigning i koncentrationen vil være målbar, kan

miljørnyndigheden tage udgangspunkt i måleusikkerheden for de ved overvågning af overfladevand

almindeligt anvendte analysemetoder, der opfylder kravene til analysemetoder for kemisk analyse

og kontrol ved overvågning af overfladevand, sediment og biota som fastsat i bekendtgørelse om

kvalitetskrav til miljømålinger.

Miljømyndigheden kan træffe afgørelse ud fra de fortyndingsmodeller, der er henvist til i FAQ 68,

som har en begrænsning i deres rækkevidde. Ansøger kan vælge for egen regning at få udført

supplerende fortyndingsberegninger i større afstand fra udledningspunktet, hvis det

repræsentative målepunkt er placeret længere væk fra udledningspunktet end rækkevidden for

fortyndingsmodellerne anvist i FAQ 68.

II. Miljøkvalitetskrav for biota er overskredet i overfladevandet

Det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand er for de fleste stoffer fastsat til en værdi, der sikrer samme

beskyttelse som miljøkvalitetskravet for biota.

Derfor, hvis miljøkvalitetskravet for biota for et givet stof allerede er overskredet i overfladevandet,

uden at det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand er overskredet, kan miljømyndigheden ved fastsættelse

af udlederkrav for en udledning se bort fra overskridelsen af miljøkvalitetskravet for biota og anse

udledningen for at være uden betydning for påvirkningen af biota, hvis den ikke medfører

overskridelse af det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand ved randen af en eventuel blandingszone.

Hvis både miljøkvalitetskravet for biota og det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand for et givet stof

allerede er overskredet i overfladevandet, kan myndigheden fastsætte udlederkrav for en udledning

som anført ovenfor under (I).

Hvis retningslinjen under (I) er overholdt, kan myndigheden vurdere, at udledningen ikke vil

medføre en væsentlig stigning i koncentrationen af stoffet i biota (se evt. FAO so. Hvordan sikres

det, at en udledning ikke medfører væsentlig koncentrationsstigning i biota. jf. § 6. stk.

nr.

5?)

Hvis miljøkvalitetskravet for biota for et givet stof, for hvilket der ikke er fastsat et generelt

kvalitetskrav for vand, fx kviksølv og hexachlorbenzen, allerede er overskredet i overfladevandet,

kan myndigheden lægge udledningens betydning for koncentrationsstigninger i biota og for

overskridelse af miljøkvalitetskravet for biota til grund for fastsættelse af udlederkrav, se FAQ 46.

Hvad skal inddrages ved fastsættelse af udlederkrav for stoffer uden et generelt kvalitetskrav for

vand, men hvor der er fastsat en maksimumkoncentration for stoffet?

III. Miljokvalitetskrav for sediment er overskredet i overfladevandet

Det generelle kvalitetskrav for vand sikrer ikke nødvendigvis beskyttelsen af sedimentmiljøet.

Hvis rniljøkvalitetskravet for sediment for et givet stof er overskredet i overfladevandet, kan

miljømyndigheden kun give tilladelse til en udledning, som ikke vil medføre en stigning i

koncentrationen af det pågældende stof i sedimentet og dermed påvirke opfyldelsen af

miljøkvalitetskravet.

Den beregnede gennemsnitlige årlige stigning af koncentrationen i sedimentet som følge af en

udledning bør derfor være mindst mulig og ikke mere end

% af værdien for miljøkvalitetskravet

for sediment. For udledninger til luft bør en beregnet koncentrationsstigning som følge af

depositionen overalt i overfladevandet være mindst mulig og ikke mere end

% af værdien af

stoffets miljøkvalitetskrav for sediment.

Miljømyndigheden skal derudover ved beregning sikre, at udledningen til vand eller luft ikke

medfører en stigning i koncentrationen af pågældende stof i sedimentet på et repræsentativt

målepunkt. I beregningen skal indgå den i forvejen forekommende koncentration af stoffet i det

modtagende overfladevand. I vurderingen af, hvorvidt en stigning er målbar, kan inddrages de

almindeligt anvendte analysemetoder, som i bekendtgørelse om kvalitetskrav til miljømålinger er

fastsat for målinger for kemisk analyse og kontrol af overfladevands tilstand, sedimenter og biota

til brug for overvågningen.

Ifølge bekendtgørelse om krav til udledning af visse forurenende stoffer gælder derudover generelt

for stoffer, der har tendens til at ophobes i sedimentet, at uanset om miljøkvalitetskravet for et

givet stof i sediment er overskredet eller ej, skal miljømyndigheden sikre, at udledningen ikke

medfører en

væsentlig stigning

i koncentrationen af pågældende stof i sedimentet,

jf.

FAQ

51.

De nævnte hensyn til beskyttelse af sedimentmiljøet kan medføre, at miljømyndigheden må

fastsætte strengere udlederkrav for et givet stof end det udlederkrav, der følger af hensynet til

beskyttelse af matricerne vand og biota,

jf.

ovenstående retningslinjer (I) og (II).

Hvadforstås ved et repræsentativt målepunkt?

Det repræsentative målepunkt vælges eller placeres fiktivt ud fra følgende:

Trin

Hvis der er en overvågningsstation, der overvåges eller har været overvåget for MFS i det berørte

overfladevandområde, anvendes denne som målepunkL Hvis der er flere overvågningsstationer

med målinger af MFS i overfladevandområdet, vælges den station, der vurderes at være mest

repræsentativ for overfladevandområdet, fx stationen med flest og/eller nyeste data for MFS.

Overvågningsstationer kan fremsøges

via

miljødata.dk (https ://miljoedata.milioeportal.dk/) ved at

filtrere under kemi (f.eks. på Miljøfarlige stoffer i vand vandløb).

—

Trin

Hvis trin

ikke er muligt, men der er andre overvågningsstationer i overfladevandområdet, som

anvendes

til

vurdering af miljøtilstanden, anvendes den station, der vurderes bedst at repræsentere

overfladevandet som helhed.

Trin3.

Hvis der ingen overvågningsstationer er i det berørte overfladevand, kan miljømyndigheden

anvende følgende kriterier for placering af et

fiktivt

målepunkt:

a. Kystvande: Hvis dybdeforholdene kendes, placeres det fiktive målepunkt for vand og

sediment, hvor overfladevandet er dybest. Hvis dybdeforholdene ikke kendes, placeres det

fiktive målepunkt i overfladevandets geografiske midtpunkt.

b. Søer: Hvis dybdeforholdene kendes, placeres det fiktive målepunkt for vand og sediment,

hvor søen er dybest. Hvis dybdeforholdene ikke kendes, placeres det fiktive målepunkt i

søens geografiske midtpunkt.

c. Vandløb: Det fiktive målepunkt placeres i midtpunktet for vandløbsstrækningens eller

vandlobsvandområdets udstrækning under hensyn

til

egnethed og repræsentativitet i

forhold til strækningen eller vandområdet.

Miljøministeriet

Aktdetaljer

Akttitel: VS: FAQ43 Endelig (MST Id nr.: 8531872)

Aktnummer: 78

AktiD:

Dato:

Type:

Dokumenter:

498197

06-10-2023 14:36:16

Intern

[1] VS FAQ43 Endelig (MST Id nr. 8531872).eml

[2] FAQ 43 Endelig.docx

Den 22 marts 2024

AKT 498197

[VS: FAQ43 Endelig (MST Id nr.: 8531872)]

Dokument i

[VS FAQ43 Endeilg (MST Id n...

Til:

Jens Christian Pabst Berthelsen ([email protected]), Lene Carpentier ([email protected]), Lise Marie Johannessen

([email protected])

Paolo Perotti ([email protected]), Cecilie Spanner Rydeng ([email protected])

Cc:

Rikke Slot Benyahia ([email protected])

Fra:

Titel: VS: FAQ43 Endelig (MST Id nr.: 8531872)

Sendt: 06-10-2023 14:36

Bilag: FAQ 43 Endelig.docx;

Venlig hilsen

Rikke Slot Benyahia

Teamleder I Vand og Klimatilspasning

+45 21 82 28 811 [email protected]

Miljøministeriet

Departementet Vester Voldgade 12311552 København VI Tlf. +4538 1421 421

[email protected]

Ea.cebok

Iwitter

Instagram

Youtube

Rrivalllvspolitik

Fra: Maria Immaculada Benavent Benavent <[email protected]>

Sendt: 6. oktober 2023 14:33

Til: Rikke Slot Benyahia <[email protected]>

Cc:

Lykke Feld <[email protected]>

Emne: FAQ43 Endelig (MST Id nr.: 8531872)

Kære Rikke,

Hermed KC godkendt endelig udgave af FAQ 43.

Venlig hilsen

Maria Benavent

Specialkonsulent

Vandforsyning

Dir. tlf.

+45 40 22 48 99

rnamsLdk

Miljøministeriet

Miljøstyrelsen

Tolderlundsvej 5

5000 Odense C

Tlf. +45 72 54 40 00

rnst@msLdk

wLmstdk

Sådan håndterer vi dine personoplysninger

AKT 498197

[VS: FAQ43 Endelig (MST Id nr.: 8531872)]

Dokument 2

[FAQ 43 Endelig]

43) Hvordan fastsættes kravværdier for et givet stof i en

udiedning, når miljøkvalitetskrav for stoffet i forvejen er

overskredet i overfladevandet?

Der kan kun tillades udledning til et overfladevandområde, hvor et eller flere miljøkvalitetskrav er

overskredet, og hvor miljømålet derfor ikke er opfyldt, hvis afgørelsen ikke direkte eller indirekte

vil kunne medføre en forringelse af overfladevandom rådets tilstand, og ikke vil kunne hindre

opfyldelse af det fastlagte miljømål. Det følger af bekendtgørelse om indsatsprogrammer § 8, stk. 3,

der bl.a. udmønter vandrammedirektivets artikel 4, stk.