Finland ______Report for European Commission 070201/2016/741491/SFRA/ENV.C.4

Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland ______Report for European Commission 070201/2016/741491/SFRA/ENV.C.4

ED 62698 | Issue Number 3 | Date 26/02/2018

Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | i

Customer: Contact:

European Commission – DG Environment Tim Scarbrough Ricardo Energy & Environment Customer reference: 30 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LA, United Kingdom 070201/2016/741491/SFRA/ENV.C.4 t: +44 (0) 1235 75 3159 Confidentiality, copyright & reproduction: e: [email protected] This report is the Copyright of the European Commission. It has been prepared by Ricardo Ricardo-AEA Ltd is certificated to ISO9001 and Energy & Environment, a trading name of ISO14001 Ricardo-AEA Ltd, under contract to the European Commission dated 17/11/2016. The contents of Author: this report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person Sanja Ursanic (BiPRO), Elisabeth Zettl without the specific prior written permission of the (BiPRO), James Sykes (Ricardo), Hetty European Commission. Ricardo Energy & Menadue (Ricardo) Environment accepts no liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or damage arising Approved By: from any interpretation or use of the information contained in this report, or reliance on any views Tim Scarbrough expressed therein. Date:

26 February 2018

Ricardo Energy & Environment reference:

Ref: ED62698- Issue Number 3

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | ii

Table of contents Summary of industrial statistics for Finland ...... 1 1 Introduction and summary of methodology ...... 2 1.1 The industrial emissions policy country profiles ...... 2 1.2 Definition of industrial sectors ...... 2 2 Economic significance of industrial sectors ...... 4 2.1 Economic contribution ...... 4 2.2 Number of IED installations ...... 7 3 Resource use in industrial sectors ...... 10 3.1 Energy consumption ...... 10 3.2 Water consumption ...... 12 4 Emissions from industrial sectors ...... 14 4.1 Emissions to air ...... 14 4.2 Emissions to water ...... 28 5 Waste generated by industrial sectors ...... 34 6 Challenges and Pressures ...... 37 7 References ...... 40

Appendix 1 Mapping industrial sectors across data sources for Finland Appendix 2 Emissions to air by pollutant and industrial sector (detail)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | iii

Abbreviations and units

AOX Adsorbable Organic Halides As Arsenic Cd Cadmium CLRTAP Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

CO2 Carbon Dioxide Cr Chromium Cu Copper DG Directorate-General EEA European Environment Agency E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register EU European Union EUR Euros FI Finland GVA Gross Value Added HCBs Hexachlorobenzenes Hg Mercury HM Heavy Metals IED Industrial Emissions Directive IPPCD Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive kg Kilogram ktoe Kilotonne of oil equivalent MW Megawatts N Nitrogen NACE General Classification of Economic Activities within the European Communities

NH3 Ammonia Ni Nickel NMVOC Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compound

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen P Phosphorus PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Pb Lead PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans PJ Petajoules PM Particulate Matter

SOx Oxides of Sulphur TOC Total Organic Carbon Zn Zinc

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 1

Summary of industrial statistics for Finland

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 2

1 Introduction and summary of methodology 1.1 The industrial emissions policy country profiles Industrial activities play an important role in the economic welfare and development of countries contributing to their economic growth. They can also have a significant impact on their environment. Directive 2010/75/EC on Industrial Emissions (IED) aims to prevent and reduce harmful industrial emissions across the EU while promoting the use of techniques that reduce pollutant emissions and that are energy and resource efficient. This document is part of a series of industrial emissions policy profiles that provide an overview of industrial activities regulated by the IED for each Member State. This profile covers Finland. The profiles show the economic significance of activities regulated by the IED in terms of the number of IED installations, their economic contribution (measured by gross value added and employment), and resources consumed (measured by energy and water consumed) – sections 2 and 3 respectively. The profiles also show the environmental impacts in terms of emissions to air and water (section 4) and waste generated (section 5). The significance is shown both for the latest year of available data (typically 2015), as well as assessing the trends over time of key metrics. The data shown in the profiles is accompanied by descriptive analysis to bring together the various assessments made and draw out the salient messages. EU data sources used for each metric are described in a separate methodology paper together with their data limitations. The specific data sources used in this profile are summarised in Appendix 1. Each of the sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 consider the gaps in these data sources specific for Finland and how they have been addressed. The profile also identifies the impact of industrial sectors or activities in Finland, within the scope of the IED policy, and the importance and political attention paid to this (section 6). 1.2 Definition of industrial sectors The approach taken in the country profiles identifies data and trends wherever possible for a set of industrial sectors. However, in the data sources used to develop the profiles, there are several different approaches to sectoral classification. Since the definition of an ‘industrial sector’ differs across data sources, an approach has been taken to try to consistently report ‘sectors’ as much as possible. This has been aligned with the grouping of activities in Annex I of the IED where possible, but in practice the available datasets limit this. The sectors defined in these profiles are referred to as ‘industrial sectors’. Together these industrial sectors represent activity regulated by the IED, albeit subject to certain limitations as described here. The grouping for the industrial sectors has been chosen to reflect the level of granularity most commonly reported from EU data sources across the different metrics assessed while trying not to lose detail where it is available. The industrial sectors used in the profiles are shown in Table 1. A consistent colour scheme – also illustrated in Table 1 – is used throughout the profile. Where available, the industrial sectors split out the energy, metal, mineral and waste management sectors into subsectors. Where this split is not possible, we refer to the respective IED sector group, e.g. metal in the case of the IED activities iron and steel and non-ferrous metals. Due to the large number and wide variety of activity within the IED sector ‘other activities’, these have also been grouped as ‘other activities’ in this profile, but split out into constituent industries when they are important sectors in the Member State in their own right, and where data are available.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 3

Table 1: Industrial sectors used in the profiles with their corresponding IED Annex I activities

Industrial sectors used in the profiles Corresponding IED Annex I activities Energy industries, Energy: power Combustion of fuels (activity 1.1) split where possible Energy: refining, Refining, gasification and liquefaction, coke ovens (activities into: gasification and 1.2, 1.3, 1.4) liquefaction, coke ovens Production and Metals: iron and steel Iron and steel manufacturing (activities 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4) processing of Metals: non-ferrous Non-ferrous metal production (activity 2.5) metals, split where possible into: Mineral industry, Mineral: Cement, lime Production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide (activity split where possible and magnesium oxide 3.1) into: Mineral: Glass Manufacture of glass (activity 3.3) Mineral: Other Other mineral industries (activities 3.2, 3.4, 3.5) Chemical industry Chemical Chemical industry (activities 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6) Waste management, Waste: hazardous Hazardous waste (activities 5.1, 5.2(b), 5.5, 5.6) split where possible Waste: non-hazardous Non-hazardous waste (activities 5.2(a), 5.3, 5.4, 6.5, 6.11) into: Other activities, split Other activities Pulp, paper and wood production (activity 6.1) when constituent Pre-treatment or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles (activity activities are 6.2) important: Tanning of hides and skins (activity 6.3) Food and drink (activity 6.4) Intensive rearing of poultry and pigs (activity 6.6) Surface treatment (activities 2.6, 6.7) Production of carbon (activity 6.8) Note: No installations operated with IED activity 6.9 in 2015 or before. The limited data available for activity 6.10 means it is excluded from the analysis.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 4

2 Economic significance of industrial sectors 2.1 Economic contribution Gross value added (GVA) and employment are the indicators used to denote the economic contribution of IED activities. Industrial sectors contribute a relatively small share of the total GVA across all economic activities in Finland (amounting to €19 billion in 2015, accounting for 12% of the national total) (Figure 1)1. Of this share, ‘other activities’ account for the largest contribution (accounting for 36% of industry GVA). The GVA data for ‘other activities’ includes the production of food and drink products, and pulp, paper and wood-based products. The energy - power sector followed by the chemical sector are also significant industries in Finland, as measured by GVA. Figure 1: Gross value added of industrial sectors in 2015 (Current prices, billion EUR)

Note: Rest of national total means all NACE activities minus industrial sector activity shown here. Data within ‘other activities’ exclude textiles and tanning (NACE C13-C15) to reflect the fact that no IED installations are reported in Finland. Source: Eurostat (2017a)

The economic significance of industrial sectors shows a similar snapshot for employment, with ‘other activities’ the most significant sector followed by the chemical and energy - power sector (Figure 2). Within ‘other activities’, both the manufacturing of pulp, paper and wood-based panels and the food and drink sector employ similar numbers of people.

1 Energy - refining is grouped in these profiles with gasification and liquefaction and coke; however as no permitted installations were reported for these IED activities, the sector is referred to as energy - refining for the Finnish profile.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 5

Figure 2: Employment within industrial sectors in 2015 (thousands, aged 15 to 64 years)

Source: Eurostat (2017b)

The main areas of economic growth in Finland, as measured by growth in GVA over the period 2000 to 2015, are the energy - power, chemical, and waste management industrial sectors. The GVA of all these industrial sectors increased over the period 2000 to 2015 (Figure 3). For the other sectors included in this analysis, GVA has either remained approximately the same in 2015 as in 2000 (energy - refining, metal and mineral sectors) or decreased (‘other activities’). In comparison to the other sectors with a constant GVA overtime, the GVA for the metal sector has been subject to several variations over time, including a significant decline in 2009 which is likely to have been as a result of the economic crisis. The decrease in GVA for ‘other activities’ is mainly due to the pulp, paper and wood-based industry for which the GVA fell from €7 billion in 2000 to €4.3 billion in 2015. The sector also accounts for the main drop reported between 2007 and 2009. Trends in employment from 2008 to 2015 are shown in Figure 4. Employment in the energy - power and chemical sectors has remained approximately level which could be an indication that the growth in GVA is not as a result of increased production levels. Conversely, employment in ‘other activities’ (led by the production of pulp, paper and wood-based products) has decreased, which is in line with the falling GVA and a decreased number of permitted IED installations (408 installations in 2011, 379 installations in 2015). Together, these trends indicate that production levels have likely declined in ‘other activities’. Despite the relatively constant GVA reported for the metal sector, employment in the industry has fallen over time (from ~17,000 persons employed in 2008 to ~11,000 in 2015). At the same time, there has been an increased number of installations in this sector (specifically the iron and steel sector with 9 installations reported in 2011, 23 installations in 2015). It has to be taken into account, that GVA and employment data provided by Eurostat do not include data on either surface treatment activities or intensive rearing of poultry and pigs, both of which are significant in Finland when number of IED installations is considered (Table 2). In 2015, 229 intensive poultry and pigs rearing installations and 71 surface treatment installations were in operation within the ‘other activities’ industry (in total 379 installations) – however, it is not possible to determine their potential significance as there is no indication of the scale of their economic contribution.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 6

Figure 3: Gross value added of industrial sectors (2000-2015)

Source: Eurostat (2017a)

Figure 4: Employment in industrial sectors (2008-2015)

Source: Eurostat (2017b) Limitations The use of NACE classifications for reporting has generally led to overreporting for both GVA and employment data against each industrial sector compared to a scope strictly limited to the IED. Overreporting is expected to be greatest for the waste management GVA data because it not only includes waste management, but also water supply, sewerage and waste remediation. No data could be included within ‘other activities’ to reflect the IED activity intensive rearing of poultry or pigs as reporting was not at the appropriate level of NACE classification.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 7

2.2 Number of IED installations The most significant industrial sector in Finland in 2015, according to the reported number of permitted IED installations, is intensive rearing of poultry and pigs (IED activity 6.6), comprising 30% of total IED installations in 2015 (Figure 5, Table 2). It is followed by the non-hazardous waste management industrial sector (IED activities 5.2(a), 5.3, 5.4, 6.5; 16%) and the energy - power industrial sector (IED activity 1.1; 16%). Together, these IED activities are more than 62% of the reported number of permitted IED installations in Finland. Figure 5: Number of installations by industrial sector in 2015, with ‘other activities’ split by IED activity

Source: IPPCD and IED reporting / DG Environment, Personal Communication

Between 2011 and 2015, there was a small decline in the reported total number of permitted IED installations in Finland (comparing IPPCD installations to IED installations in this timeframe), including increases and decreases for specific industrial sectors (Table 2, Figure 6). The main change can be observed in the hazardous waste management industrial sector (IED activities 5.1 and 5.2(b) with an additional four installations permitted in 2015) and in intensive rearing of poultry or pigs (IED activity 6.6; with the number of permitted IED installations decreasing from 263 in 2011 to 229 in 2015).

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 8

Table 2: Number of installations in 2011 and 2015 by industrial sector, with IED activity detail

Change in number of IED Industrial sector, with IED activity detail 2011 2015 installations 2011 to 2015 Energy: power (1.1 combustion of fuels) 124 124 0 Energy: refining (1.2 Refining) 2 2 0 Metals: iron and steel 23 23 0 2.2 Pig iron or steel 3 3 0 2.3 Processing ferrous metals 9 9 0 2.4 Ferrous metals foundries 11 11 11 Metal: non-ferrous 2.5 Non-ferrous metal production 14 13 -1 Mineral: Cement, lime and magnesium oxide (3.1 Cement, lime 8 8 0 and magnesium oxide) Mineral: Glass (3.3 Glass) 4 3 -1 Mineral: Other 12 12 0 3.4 Mineral fibres 7 7 0 3.5 Ceramic 5 5 0 Chemical 66 67 1 4.1 Organic chemicals 36 37 1 4.2 Inorganic chemicals 21 21 0 4.3 Phosphorus-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilisers 1 1 0 4.5 Pharmaceutical products 5 5 0 4.6 Explosives 3 3 0 Waste: hazardous (5.1 Disposal / recovery) 13 17 4 Waste: non-hazardous 124 125 1 5.2 co-/ incineration of hazardous and non-hazardous waste 3 3 0 5.3 Disposal of non-hazardous 17 21 4 5.4 Landfills 86 86 0 6.5 Disposal of animal carcases 18 15 -3 Other activities 408 379 -29 6.1 Pulp, paper, or wood-based products 39 41 4 6.7 Surface treatment using organic solvents 23 23 0 2.6 Surface treatment of metals and plastic 47 48 1 6.4 (a) Slaughterhouses 10 9 -1 6.4 (b) Food and drink 13 16 3 6.4 (c) Milk 13 13 0 6.6 (a) Poultry 142 131 -11 6.6 (b) Pigs 93 68 -25 6.6 (c) Sows 28 30 2 Total 795 773 -22 Note: IED activities are in italics. The IED activity 5.2 (Disposal or recovery of waste in waste incineration plants or in waste co-incineration plants) relates to non-hazardous waste (5.2(a)) and hazardous waste (5.2(b)). Owing to the generally small number of installations reported within this category across the EU, these installations have been categorised as non-hazardous waste management. Data for permitted installations carrying out IED activity 6.11 is not included in the reported data and therefore not included in this table. Source: IPPCD and IED reporting / DG Environment, Personal Communication

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 9

Figure 6: Change in number of installations per industrial sector 2011 to 2015

Source: IED reporting / DG Environment, Personal Communication

Limitations The dataset used to reflect IED activity in Member States has a limited timeseries inherent to the reporting requirement and thus the number of permitted installations is only reported for the years 2011, 2013 and 2015. Table 3: Data gaps in numbers of permitted IED installations for Finland Missing data Suitability Conclusion and actions taken E-PRTR indicates that there is at least one facility for the production of metal ore Reporting (IED activity 2.1) whereas no IED No action taken. inconsistency installations are reported for it. It is likely that the inconsistency is owing to differences in reporting steelworks.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 10

3 Resource use in industrial sectors 3.1 Energy consumption In 2015 Finland’s industrial sectors accounted for 32% of the total energy consumption in Finland (Figure 7). The ‘other activities’ sector consumes nearly two thirds of the energy of all the industrial sectors (283 PJ). The energy consumed by the pulp, paper and wood production (266 PJ) within the sector ‘other activities’ is relatively high in comparison to other industrial sectors in Finland when paired with the overall number of permitted IED installations (41 in 2015) and its contribution to the economy. Most of the remaining energy consumed by industry is by the following three sectors: the energy - refining sector (with 2 IED permitted installations), iron and steel production (with IED permitted 23 installations) and the chemical sector (67 IED permitted installations). Energy consumption by the energy - power sector refers to consumption at electricity plants, combined heat and power plants, and heat plants (own produced energy). With 43 IED installations permitted in 2015, the relative energy consumed was quite low. The relative energy consumed by the non-ferrous metal sector was also quite low; particularly when compared to the iron and steel sector (33 permitted installations for the former compared to 32 for the latter). Note that no data was reported for the waste management sector (explained in Table 4). This is a significant gap in the data in light of the number of installations within this industrial sector operating in Finland. Figure 7: Energy consumption by industrial sector in 2015 (PJ)

Note: Rest of national total relates to gross inland consumption minus industrial sector activity shown here. No data was available for energy consumption in the waste management industrial sectors. Source: Eurostat (2017c)

The time series in Figure 8 shows that energy consumption has remained fairly static across industrial sectors. A slight downward trend between 2000 and 2015 is reported for ‘other activities’, and the iron and steel and mineral sectors. Conversely, energy consumption by the non-ferrous metal, energy- refining and chemical sectors has increased slightly – with the greatest increase reported for the chemical sector. The trend identified for chemical industry, together with the trends identified for GVA, employment and the number of permitted installations is indicative of growth more generally in the sector.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 11

Figure 8: Energy consumption (in PJ) of industrial sectors (2000-2015)

Note: No data was available for energy consumption in the waste management industrial sectors. Source: Eurostat (2017c)

Limitations Generally, the use of energy balance indicators is expected to lead to overreporting against IED activities as no thresholds apply to the economic activities reported against (similar to NACE classifications). The energy consumption data that have been used has only limited coverage of the waste management sector. Data for this sector is therefore expected to be underreported as only one energy balance indicator was identified as relevant to this industrial sector: the energy consumed by gasification plants for biogas. Thus, where no data for the waste management sector is identified, this is rather a limitation that the energy consumption dataset has poor representation of the waste management sector. Table 4: Gaps in energy consumption data for Finland Missing data Description Conclusion and actions No data reported for all waste No data for waste management No action management Respective energy balance Separate energy balance No IED installations reported indicators removed from indicators are reported for this for coke and gasification and energy consumption for energy IED activity within the energy – liquefaction - refining, etc. to avoid over refining sector. reporting.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 12

3.2 Water consumption The availability of data in Eurostat (2017d) on water consumption by industrial sector in Finland is limited. Instead, data have been provided by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) from the VAHTI (2016) system. These data cover the time period 2010 to 2015, and cover selected IED industrial sectors. No data is available for the mineral or waste sectors. Limited reporting covers some non-IED industrial sectors. No recent data is available in Eurostat (2017d) for national total water consumption – the most recent national total water consumption estimate is for year 1999 – and so water use by industry in Finland cannot be robustly compared to the rest of the national total. For reporting the national total water consumption, the non-IED industrial sectors are added to the IED industrial sectors. The reported data for 2015 (Figure 9) and trends over time (Figure 10) shows that the energy - power sector consumes the majority of water by industry in Finland, followed by the combined energy - refining and chemical sector and ‘other activities’ (mainly pulp and paper production). The data for the energy- power sector show a drop by ~50% from 2014 to 2015. For most of the other sectors water consumption has remained at a similar level from 2010 to 2015 as shown in Figure 10. In light of the other data presented in this profile, the lack of water consumption data for the waste management sector and intensive rearing of poultry and pigs within ‘other activities’ is considered to be a major gap. Figure 9: Water consumption (million m3) for selected industrial sectors (2015)

Note: No data is available for the national total. No data is available for waste management, mineral industry and intensive rearing of poultry and pigs. Data for energy – refining and chemicals are aggregated. Source: VAHTI (2016)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 13

Figure 10: Water consumption (million m3) for selected industrial sectors (2010-2015)

Note: No data was reported for the mineral or waste management sectors. Source: VAHTI (2016)

Limitations The data labels in VAHTI (2016) indicate coverage of the chemicals sector. Due to the limited reporting in selected years in Eurostat (2017d) for similar quantities of water consumption but under the NACE code C19, it is assumed that these data for ‘chemicals’ in VAHTI (2016) represent a combined petrochemical sector which is shown in the above graphics as ‘energy-refining and chemicals’. Table 5: Data gaps in water consumption data for Finland Missing data Description Conclusion and actions taken Limited data in Eurostat Incomplete industrial sector Obtained national data from coverage (e.g. missing data for Finnish authorities covering the energy sector which is an industrial sectors. important gap according to the competent authority) and missing national totals. Incomplete coverage of public/self-supply. Limited time series of national Dataset covers the period 2010 No action. dataset to 2015 Limited sector coverage of No data available for national Unable to show industrial national dataset. total, waste management and sector water consumption as a mineral industrial subsectors share of national total.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 14

4 Emissions from industrial sectors 4.1 Emissions to air Data was taken from inventories submitted by Member States under the CLRTAP (EEA, 2017a). Overall, considering the available data, industrial sectors are responsible for a considerable share of the emissions of pollutants emitted to air in Finland in 2015 (Figure 11). SOx, PCDD/F and most heavy metals appear to be more intensely emitted from industrial sectors compared to the rest of the national total (with over 50% of SOx, Cd, As, Cr, Pb, Hg and Pb emissions emanating from industrial sectors). Figure 11: Emissions to air from industrial sectors and rest of national total (2015)

Note: Rest of national total relates to the national total for the entire territory (based on fuel sold) minus the industrial sector emissions shown here. Source: EEA (2017a)

In 2015, the energy-power and energy-refining sectors were the main sources of SOx, NOx, PM2.5, PCDD/F and heavy metals emissions, and ‘other activities’ was the main source responsible for NMVOC and NH3 emissions (Figure 12). With exception of Pb, the metal sector was also a significant source of heavy metal emissions (together with the energy – power sector). Limited emissions data is reported for the mineral sector as the pollutant was found to either not be occurring (as reported in the LRTAP inventory), or the emission was reported as included elsewhere in the inventory. Thus, the lack of data for the mineral sector is not considered a data gap.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 15

Figure 12: Emissions to air from industrial sectors (2015)

Note: Key for this chart is shown in Figure 10 Source: EEA (2017a)

In the following subsections, emissions to air are shown in indexed charts by sector. This was done to compare the development of pollutant emissions with the GVA in specific sectors in the time period 2000 to 2015. The charts show the development of pollutant emissions and GVA over time, the quantitative height of emissions is not presented. Appendix 2 includes full details on the emissions reported by industrial sector and year.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 16

Energy industry

Figure 13 shows that emissions to air from the energy-power sector for SOx, NOx, PM2.5, NH3 and many of the heavy metals in the period 2000 to 2015 generally decreased. NH3 emissions also followed this trend but subject to several fluctuations, peaking in 2004. PCDD/F emissions in the same period have remained fairly stable which is flagged here owing to the quantity of emissions reported which is larger than any other sector in the profile (averaging 4.6 g/ year over the complete timeseries). Another potentially challenging pollutant for the energy – power sector is Zn, where emissions have increased over time, and are quite large in terms of quantity (with 11 t reported in 2000 up to 26 t in 2015). Figure 13: Indexed emissions to air from the energy - power industrial sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: The second chart shows pollutants with NH3 removed to make the detail for the other pollutants more visible compared to the first chart. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 17

Emissions from the energy-refining sector were reported for all the pollutants within the scope of this profile except for NH3 (Figure 14). Emissions to air have slightly increased for SOX, NMVOC and PCDD/F over time, whilst NOx and PM2.5 emissions reduced over the period 2000 to 2015. However, for most of these pollutants, many fluctuations can be observed. Heavy metal emissions increased until 2008, remaining fairly stagnant or slightly decreasing afterwards. Only two IED installations exist in Finland in this sector. Figure 14: Indexed emissions to air from energy - refining (energy industrial sector) sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data was reported for NH3. Zero emissions were reported for NMVOC in 2000. Values were not plotted for NMVOC in this year to avoid misrepresenting the trend. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Metal industry Emissions from the metal industry have generally decreased over time while GVA has remained constant. Despite the increased number of permitted IED installations between 2011 and 2015, economic growth is limited owing to the constant GVA and energy consumption (section 3.1) and fall in employment numbers reported for the period 2000 to 2015. Emissions from the iron and steel production sector are most significant for heavy metals, and to a lesser extent PM2.5 and PCDD/F according to Figure 12. Figure 15 shows that these emissions have generally decreased between 2010 and 2015 over time, except for As, Cr, Cu and Ni which have increased or remained steady in this period (detail is shown in Figure 16). Despite the trend observed, the quantity of emissions reported is generally quite low except for Cr, where emissions were reported as not applicable until 2005 and increased incrementally thereafter with emissions at 4 t/year in 2015.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 18

Figure 15: Indexed emissions to air from iron and steel production (metal industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: In order to make the trend of the other pollutants more visible, SOx and NOx were removed from the second chart. Zero emissions were reported for NOx in 2010, Cd in 2007, and As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn in 2000-2004 and 2006. Values were not plotted for these pollutants in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trends. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 19

Figure 16: Indexed emissions to air of Cr, Ni and Zn from iron and steel production (metal industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: Zero emissions were reported for Cr, Ni and Zn in 2000-2004 and 2006. Values were not plotted for these pollutants in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trends Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 20

Emissions to air from non-ferrous metal production are minor compared to other sectors in Finland. The most significant decrease is reported for Cr (from 12 t in 2000 to 0.4 t in 2015). While no change is observed for PCDD/F emissions, showing only a minor reduction over time, the pollutant is significant for the sector relative to PCDD/F emissions by industry more generally (Figure 12). The trend for SOx and NOx implies a significant decrease, however, prior to 2005, the pollutants were reported as ‘not applicable’ for the sector and included in reporting elsewhere in the CLRTAP inventory for the year 2006; thus it is concluded that the value reported for 2005 is an outlier. Figure 17: Indexed emissions to air from non-ferrous metal production (metal industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: The second chart shows pollutants with SOX and NOx removed to make the detail for the other pollutants more visible compared to the first chart. No emissions were reported for SOx, NOx, Cd, As, Cu, Pb and Ni in 2000- 2004 and 2006, nor for PM2.5 in 2000-2006, shown as breaks in trendlines. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 21

Mineral industry In the mineral industrial sector, pollutant emissions have been reported for the production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide and for glass production. Relative to the emissions reported from the other sectors, PCDD/F and Hg are the most significant emissions from the cement, lime and magnesium oxide industrial sector. Both have decreased over time, subject to fluctuations year on year. While the data shows generally lower emissions in the period after 2010, the fluctuations between years make it difficult to establish a trend for the sector, particularly as the GVA has remained constant through the timeseries presented here (Figure 18). No data was reported for NH3 and heavy metal emissions were reported inconsistently between years so that no trend can be identified – see Appendix 2 for the details. Figure 18: Indexed emissions to air from cement, lime and magnesium oxide production (mineral industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data was reported for NH3. Outliers are removed in the second chart to make detail visible for NMVOC and PCDD/F emissions. Other heavy metal pollutants are reported but reporting is too sporadic between years to allow any trends to be identified – see Appendix 2 for the details. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 22

Emissions form the mineral – glass sector are only available for PM2.5, NMVOC and PCDD/F for the whole time period (Figure 19). For PCDD/F emissions to air the same data was reported from 2000 to 2010 every year. From 2011 to 2015, data was reported in lower magnitude and has slightly decreased over time. However, this time period is too short to identify any real trends. The sharp decrease from 2010 to 2011 could be due to implementation of a emission reduction technique at a single glass installation, given only 3 are reported in the country. Or the reduction may result from changes in monitoring and reporting. Figure 19: Indexed emissions to air from glass production (mineral industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data was reported for As, Cr, Hg and Ni. Limited data with no value in 2015 was reported for NOx, NH3, Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn. Zero values were reported for PM2.5 in 2000-2006. Values were not plotted for PM2.5 in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trend. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 23

Chemical industry Relative to the other industrial sectors in this profile, emissions to air from the chemical sector are most significant for Hg (Figure 12). Over time, reported Hg emissions have remained approximately constant (Figure 20). The constant emission level reported for Hg could be regarded as evidence of decoupling in light of the economic growth reported for this sector (illustrated by the sector GVA trend in the chart below as well as the increased employment by the sector and energy consumption as reported in previous sections). Other important pollutants from the chemicals sector are PM2.5, NMVOC and NH3. Over the assessed period, emissions of PM2.5 and NH3 are reported to have increased (for PM2.5, particularly significantly since 2010). Emissions of NMVOC have fallen steadily over time since 2000. Emissions to air for the other pollutants in Figure 12 show decreases over time and relate to small quantities (see Appendix 2 for the details). Figure 20: Indexed emissions to air from chemical industry (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data was reported for Cd, As, Cr, Pb and Zn. The second chart shows SOx emissions removed to make the detail for the other pollutants more visible compared to the first chart. Zero emissions were reported for NOx in 2010, and Ni in 2001. Values were not plotted for these pollutants in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trends. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 24

Waste management industry Emissions to air from the hazardous waste management sector are comparatively minor to the emissions reported for the other sectors in Finland. Small increases in emissions can be observed for most heavy metals included in the chart below (all except Cd, Cr, Hg and Ni). The increase is most noticeably for Zn; although relative to emissions from other sectors, it is not significant (Figure 21). The gap in the trend for the year 2010 is because the heavy metal emissions were reported elsewhere in the CLRTAP inventory for that year (seemingly under ‘non-hazardous waste, given the spikes in 2010 emissions reported below). The subsequent change in emission levels reported thereafter are therefore expected to be as a result of a change in reporting. Figure 21: Indexed emissions to air from hazardous waste (waste management industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: In the second chart PM2.5 emissions were removed to make the detail for the other pollutants more visible compared to the first chart. Zero emissions were reported for SOx in 2002, Cd in 2006 and 2010, As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg and Ni in 2010, and Zn in 2002. Values were not plotted for these pollutants in these years to avoid misrepresenting of the trends. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 25

Similar to the hazardous waste management sector, emissions to air from the non-hazardous waste management sector represent a minor fraction of the total emissions reported by industrial sectors in Finland. The most significant pollutants in this respect are Hg and PCDD/F. Emissions for the latter have decreased from 2000 to 2004 and as shown in Figure 22 emissions have been increasing since then. This trend indicates that the pollutant could be a challenge in coming years if the current trend continues. Hg emissions have remained approximately constant over 2000 to 2015. Note that the spikes presented in Figure 22 relate to comparatively small quantities of emissions and therefore are not investigated in any detail. Figure 22: Indexed emissions to air from non-hazardous waste (waste management industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: The majority of pollutant emissions for this sector were reported from 2007 onwards. In the second chart PM2.5 emissions were removed to make the detail for the other pollutants more visible compared to the first chart. Zero emissions were reported for SOx, NOx, Cd, As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn in 2000-2006. Values were not plotted for these pollutants in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trends. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 26

‘Other activities’ Relative to the total emissions reported by industry in Finland, ‘other activities’ is a minor source of emissions to air. The most significant pollutants in this respect are NMVOC and NH3, and to a lesser extent PCDD/F and PM2.5. Emissions for both NMVOC and NH3 have decreased overtime (Figure 23). The main sources of these emissions are surface treatment industries (NMVOC) and the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs sector (NH3). PCDD/F emissions were comparatively small between 2000 and 2012, becoming larger from 2013 onwards. For the other pollutants included in the charts below, all emissions decreased over time. The spikes presented in the charts below relate to comparatively small quantities of emissions and therefore are not investigated in any detail. Figure 23: Indexed emissions to air from other activities (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: Heavy metals have a reduced time series to make the detail for all pollutants more visible (outliers were reported for select pollutants in the preceding years). Zero emissions were reported for Cd in 2010, Zn in 2008- 2009 and 2012-2014. Values were not plotted for these pollutants in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trends. Source: EEA (2017a), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 27

Limitations The use of emissions data reported to LRTAP has generally led to overreporting against IED activities as emissions are reported by NFR classification and thus no activity thresholds apply as in the case of IED annex I activities. Table 6: Gaps in emissions to air data for Finland Missing data Description Conclusion and actions taken Data gaps Pollutant coverage within No action. CLRTAP is limited with data gaps for select pollutants across sectors. The significance of these gaps is considered to be of limited relevance. No extrapolation or Partial time series for certain interpolation undertaken as No action. pollutants and sectors explained in the accompanying methodology paper.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 28

4.2 Emissions to water Emission to water data was obtained from the E-PRTR (EEA, 2017), which has a broader industrial scope than the IED but is not a national total. The figures in this section, apart from Figure 24, aggregate the separate metals into a single heavy metals metric based on their relative toxicity (predicted no effect concentrations, PNEC), expressed as Hg equivalents. Pollutant emissions are reported for all important industrial sectors except the mineral and hazardous waste management industrial sectors. The number and type of pollutants for which emissions are reported vary per industrial sector. For the non-ferrous metal sector only one value for total N in 2010 was reported. Only TOC, total heavy metals and total N data was provided consistently for most of the industrial sectors. Therefore, comparison of sectors for one pollutant is difficult. No further data sources for emissions to water were identified to strengthen data reported to the E-PRTR. The available data of emissions to water for the year 2015 are shown in Figure 24. This plot presents, per pollutant, the proportion of emissions to water by the industrial sectors compared to the totals of data reported by Finland to the E-PRTR in 2015. Overall, the industrial sectors in scope of this profile, for which emissions data was reported in 2015, are responsible for the majority of total pollutants emitted to water in 2015 and reported to E-PRTR, except for Hg and total N (both below 30%). The ‘other activities’ industrial sector is a key emitter of the majority of reported pollutants emitted to water in 2015. The iron and steel industrial sector is the second important emitter and sole emitter of cyanides and PCDD/F to water in 2015. It is followed by the non-hazardous waste management sector. No data were reported for the production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide, the manufacture of glass and the hazardous waste management. Figure 24: Pollutant emissions to water from industrial sectors and rest of PRTR (2015)

Note: Rest of PRTR relates to the total for E-PRTR reporting minus the industrial sectors shown here. Source: EEA (2017b)

In the following subsections, emissions to water are shown in indexed charts by industrial sector, with the exception of the mineral and hazardous waste management industrial sectors. The emissions data was indexed to compare the development of pollutant emissions with the GVA in specific industrial sectors from 2007 to 2015. In the graphs heavy metal emissions are presented as total heavy metals, aggregated by toxicity as Hg equivalent. The graphs show the development of pollutant emissions and GVA over time, the absolute quantities of emissions are not presented. Full details on the emissions reported by industrial sector and year are presented in Table 8.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 29

Energy industry Emissions to water from the energy - power industrial sector are available for total heavy metals, TOC, total N, total P and AOX (Figure 25). TOC emissions decreased between 2011 and 2012, remaining at a lower level afterwards until 2015. Other pollutant emissions vary over time showing no specific trend. Heavy metal emissions have increased over time which could present a challenge for the sector. The increases are mainly owing to Cr and Cu which were not reported previously. Figure 25: Indexed emissions to water from the energy-power sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data was reported for PCBs, PCDD/F, diuron and cyanides. Zero emissions were reported for TOC in 2012. Values were not plotted for TOC in this year to avoid misrepresenting the trends. Source: EEA (2017b), Eurostat (2017a)

Emissions to water from the energy-refining sector are reported for total heavy metals and TOC. TOC emissions are among the lowest reported by other sectors but not insignificant. Over time, these emissions have remained constant with a similar trend reported for the GVA. Heavy metal emissions are varied between years with spike in emissions owing to the reporting of Zn and Cu in 2012 and 2013 but not in other years. No trend can be discerned from these emissions and it should be noted that the emissions levels are particularly low. Note that there are two permitted refining installations in Finland. Figure 26: Indexed emissions to water from the energy-refining sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data was reported for total P, PCBs, PCDD/F, AOX, diuron and cyanides. Limited data was provided for total N. Zero emissions were reported for Total HM in 2007-2010. Values were not plotted for Total HM in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trend. Source: EEA (2017b), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 30

Metals industry Emissions to water from the metals industrial sector were reported for both iron and steel manufacturing and non-ferrous metal production. The iron and steel manufacturing time series for reported emissions to water are illustrated in Figure 27. For AOX emissions the dataset is incomplete and includes only data since 2011 and no emissions were reported for total P, PCBs and diuron (Table 5). In general trends for reported emissions are fluctuating over time however when comparing 2007 and 2008 to 2015 data a growth can be observed for most of the pollutants including total heavy metals, TOC, total N, AOX, cyanides and PCDD/F. This could be explained by the sector´s increasing GVA trend after a significant drop in 2009. Figure 27: Indexed emissions to water from iron and steel sector (metal industrial sector) (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data was reported for total P and PCB and diuron. Zero emissions were reported for TOC in 2007 and AOX in 2007-2010. Values were not plotted for these pollutants in these years to avoid misrepresenting the trends. Source: EEA (2017b), Eurostat (2017a) For processing of non-ferrous metals (metal industrial sector) only data over time for heavy metals was reported displaying a continuous decreasing trend over time with a significant peak in 2014 due to high Ni emissions reported (Figure 28). The GVA development shows a similar, but less pronounced trend without the spike in 2014. Figure 28: Indexed emissions to water from non-ferrous metals sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: Only data for total heavy metals available. Source: EEA (2017b), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 31

Chemical industry Emissions to water from the chemical industry are reported by facilities producing organic and inorganic chemicals, and the production of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilisers. There are no reported emissions to water from the production of pharmaceutical products and explosives comprising circa 11% in terms of the number of IED installations in Finland (in 2015 eight installations). The production of organic chemicals is the sole emitter of TOC emissions for the period 2007 to 2015. The time series for reported emissions to water (TOC, total N and total heavy metals) for the chemical industrial sector are illustrated in Figure 29. Both TOC and total heavy metal emissions have decreased in the long term. However, many fluctuations are observed, so that no real trend can be derived. Total N emissions have remained level in the observed time period 2000 to 2015. Figure 29: Indexed emissions to water from the chemical sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data available except for TOC, total N and total heavy metals. Source: EEA (2017b), Eurostat (2017a) Waste management industry Emissions to water from the waste management industry were only reported for the non-hazardous waste management industrial sector. Also in this sector reported pollutant emissions fluctuate over time with no obvious trend. The higher values for aggregated heavy metals in the period 2009 to 2011 can be explained by a full dataset including reported values for all heavy metals (Zn, Ni, Hg, Pb, Cu, Cr, Cd, As). Total P, TOC and AOX emissions to water were reported by the landfill installations in the observed period. There is no obvious correlation with the steadily growing GVA trend of the non-hazardous waste management sector. Figure 30: Indexed emissions to water from the non-hazardous waste management sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data available for PCBs, PCDD/F, diuron and cyanides. Source: EEA (2017b), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 32

‘Other activities’ industry Emissions to water from the ‘other activities’ industrial sector come from the pulp, paper and wood production. The main share of pollutant emissions refers to the pulp, paper and wood production though. In 2015, emissions to water were reported for total heavy metals, total P, TOC, total N and AOX. Emission trends of these pollutants from 2007 onwards are shown in Figure 31. Over time, emissions to water of almost all mentioned pollutants slightly decreased with many fluctuations, which compares to a small increase in the reported number of permitted IED installations in the pulp and paper sector from 39 to 41 between 2011 and 2015. Figure 31: Indexed emissions to water from the 'other activities' sector (indexed to 2015=1)

Note: No data available for PCBs, PCDD/F, diurons and cyanides. Source: EEA (2017b), Eurostat (2017a)

Limitations No limitations arise as a result of the mapping to IED activities as E-PRTR activities are well aligned in this respect. However, it is generally expected that emissions to water reported to E-PRTR will be underreporting against IED activities because of the activity thresholds which apply (as well as inconsistencies between years). E-PRTR also has a limited timeseries. Table 7: Gaps in emissions to water data for Finland Missing data Description Conclusion and actions taken# Gaps in time-series No gap-filling for emissions No action data has been carried out Missing pollutants Often data are only reported for No action a few pollutants per industrial sector Missing activities No data was reported for the No action production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide, the manufacture of glass and the hazardous waste management.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 33

Additional data for emissions to water Additional data reported to E-PRTR for emissions to water are presented in Table 8 – including for pollutants with no time series. Table 8: Emissions to water by pollutant and industrial sector (all available data) (kg)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Energy - power Total HM (kg) 17 8 119 42 61 16 29 31 37 P (t) 13.9 12.3 9.2 14.1 14.0 10.7 9.2 9.2 10.0 TOC (t) 2,927 2,506 2,604 2,600 2,691 - 482 473 440 N (t) 75.6 62.4 56.3 85.3 79.3 87.3 164.0 98.6 91.1 AOX (t) 90.9 74.1 56.2 57.2 64.4 129.9 127.2 90.2 92.3 Energy - refining Total HM (kg) - - - - 1 6 6 2 1 TOC (t) 120.0 124.0 112.0 111.0 87.1 84.0 138.0 112.0 110.0 N (t) - 86.3 62.1 58.6 - - - - - Metals: iron and steel Total HM (t) 106 121 108 140 196 131 226 200 138 TOC (t) - 62.0 55.0 53.7 108.0 81.1 88.3 91.7 86.8 N (t) 169.0 171.9 220.7 159.0 179.0 168.5 394.6 432.8 313.6 PCDD/F (g) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 AOX (t) - - - - 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.7 5.0 Cyanides (kg) 1.952 1.950 2.063 1.852 2.887 2.257 3.959 2.659 2.553 Metals: Non-ferrous Total HM (kg) 140.41 184.59 88.12 95.30 100.85 63.26 56.14 441.95 28.15 N (t) - - - 51.3 - - - - - Mineral: Other Total HM (kg) 8.18 5.48 6.22 1.68 - - 2.08 - - Chemical Total HM (kg) 441.57 211.86 83.71 65.19 156.52 53.31 90.41 52.57 63.50 TOC (t) 248.9 380.0 115.0 184.3 389.0 163.4 240.5 165.0 107.0 N (t) 200.3 237.3 151.3 141.7 145.6 212.9 155.7 113.0 207.6 PCDD/F - - - - 2.1 Waste: non-hazardous Total HM (kg) 71 84 150 150 161 113 98 81 96 P (t) 18.7 16.3 7.1 6.2 6.7 10.7 31.1 11.6 10.1 TOC (t) 5,460 4,500 4,060 4,920 5,673 5,090 5,560 5,320 4,520 N (t) 147.0 145.5 171.5 274.4 305.3 190.4 852.1 330.1 200.5 AOX (t) 267.0 117.0 79.7 78.6 75.3 69.8 70.9 72.0 73.4 Other activities Total HM (kg) 965 1,066 949 958 861 1,044 1,085 820 771 P (t) 104.2 87.6 67.1 105.2 100.6 91.0 74.4 75.6 76.3 TOC (t) 34,875 40,616 28,267 33,636 26,679 32,919 26,196 26,899 34,316 N (t) 1,918 1,605 1,688 1,936 1,860 1,884 1,989 1,954 1,556 AOX (t) 1,015 840.7 685.0 902.0 792.4 754.7 659.6 610.1 606.9 Source: EEA (2017b)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 34

5 Waste generated by industrial sectors The data presented in this section is the generation of waste by waste category (hazardous and non- hazardous) (Eurostat, 2017e). Data is reported by Member States biennially. Industrial sectors account for a significant share (65%) of total hazardous waste generated in Finland. Together with the size of the industrial sector (in terms of the relatively few installations permitted), the hazardous waste generated by the metals industrial sector in Finland (comprising 82% of hazardous waste generated by industrial sectors) is significant (Figure 32). It should be noted that the data for metals includes the production of fabricated metal products which is outside the scope of the IED, and this component cannot be removed. Nevertheless, the proportion this makes up of national totals in 2014 is high, and is reported across years, not just in 2014. Figure 32: Hazardous waste generation by industrial sector in 2014 (kt)

Note: Rest of national total relates to all NACE activities minus industrial sector activity shown here. Data within ‘other activities’ excludes textiles and tanning (NACE C13-C15) to reflect the fact that no IED installations are reported against these activities. Source: Eurostat (2017e)

In contrast, the share of non-hazardous waste generated by industrial sectors only accounts for 11% of the total amount of non-hazardous waste generated in Finland. The largest volume of waste generated is by the ‘other activities’ industrial sector, followed by the chemical and the energy – power industrial sectors (Figure 33). The majority of the reported non-hazardous waste amounts within the ‘other activities’ industrial sector was generated by the food and drink production and pulp, paper and wood production sectors.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 35

Figure 33: Relative importance of non-hazardous waste generation by industrial sector in 2014 (kt)

Note: Rest of national total relates to all NACE activities minus the industrial sectors shown here. Data within ‘other activities’ excludes textiles and tanning (NACE C13-C15) to reflect the fact that no IED installations are reported against these activities. Source: Eurostat (2017e)

Hazardous waste generation has slightly increased by the energy – power and the mineral sector, showing a peak in waste generation for the mineral sector in 2008. The cause of this is unclear, but may be a change in reporting classifications. Within the other industrial sectors, no real trend can be derived as data fluctuate over the years. Non-hazardous waste generation has slightly decreased between 2004 and 2014 within the energy - power and the ‘other activities’ industrial sector. For the other industrial sectors no real trend can be observed in non-hazardous waste generation, as data vary over the years with upwards and downwards trends. Waste generation trends do not appear to be correlated with the GVA developments except for the energy – power industrial sector, in which waste generation as well as GVA have slightly increased and the ‘other activities’ industrial sector in which waste generation and GVA have slightly decreased. Waste generation data for the waste management industrial sector jumps between reporting years for both hazardous and non-hazardous waste generation, with two peaks in 2006 and 2010. It is not clear why there is such variance in the quantity of waste generated between reporting years

Limitations The use of NACE classifications for reporting has generally led to overreporting for waste generation data against each industrial sector compared to a scope strictly limited to the IED. No data could be included within ‘other activities’ to reflect the IED activity intensive rearing of poultry or pigs as reporting was not at the appropriate level of NACE classification.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 36

Figure 34: Hazardous and non-hazardous waste generation by industrial sector relative to GVA (indexed; 2014 = 1)

Note: Data within ‘other activities’ excludes textiles and tanning (NACE C13-C15) to reflect the fact that no IED installations are reported against these activities. Y- axis scale for waste management sector is different to those for the other sectors. Source: Eurostat (2017e), Eurostat (2017a)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 37

6 Challenges and Pressures This section identifies the political and environmental challenges and pressures related to sectors or specific activities which are within the scope of the IED, and in particular whether the impact of these in a region or Member State is substantially above the EU average for that activity or sector. It is about the specific circumstances of the environmental impact of the industrial sectors or activities in that Member State which may have been indicated for example by public complaint, high profile media attention, political intervention, implementation of a specific national policy and/or which are evident from literature or analysis2. As shown in section 2, key industries in Finland in terms of the number of IED installations are intensive rearing of poultry and pigs (30% of total in 2015), followed by non-hazardous waste management (16%) and power generation (16%). The sectors identified as making the largest contribution to the economy as measured by gross value added are ‘other activities’ (food and drinks production, pulp and paper production and wood production) (37%), the energy - power sector (23%) and the chemical sector (18%). The industrial sectors identified in section 4 as contributing the largest burden to the environment for emissions to air were: energy-power (for heavy metals, SOx, NOx and PM2.5), energy-refining (for heavy metals and SOx), the metals sector (for heavy metals) and ‘other activities’ (for NMVOC, NH3 and PM2.5). The industrial sectors of ‘other activities’, metals-iron and steel, and non-hazardous waste management were identified as having significant environmental burdens for emissions to water. The metals industrial sector generates the most hazardous waste of all industrial sectors. In this context, two potential future challenges have been identified: meeting BAT-AELs for peat-using power plants that are in the recently adopted LCP BAT conclusions (the power sector is significant in Finland in terms of GVA as well as for emissions to air); and permitting and control of new types of biorefineries (Table 9). These challenges were identified through consultation with the Finnish competent authority.

2 The challenges and pressures included here do not concern the implementation of the IED.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 38

Table 9: Key challenges identified in Finland

Future challenge: new BAT-AELs for peat-using power plants FI-1 IED 1.1. Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input of 50 MW or activities / more sectors 6.1. Production in industrial installations of: (a) pulp from timber or other fibrous materials; (b) paper or card board with a production capacity exceeding 20 t/day Medium and Emissions to air (key pollutants) pollutants Description Use of peat is a relatively important environmental topic in Finland with its consumption often reviewed in the context of fuel independence which by 2030 is set to reach 55%. In 2015 peat made up 4% of total energy consumed in Finland. Some of the recently adopted new BAT-AELs for LCPs are considered too strict by responsible institutions for combustion plants where peat is used, which are mostly part of pulp/paper producing installations. Several pulp/paper producing plants might need large investments to comply with the new requirements. They also note that in the LCP-BREF, the BAT-AELs for peat are handled differently from the BAT-AELs for coal. Years The challenge is not current, and will begin when the BAT conclusions for large applicable / combustion plants are implemented, following their adoption in 2017. current For some installations, where the main business is production of pulp and paper, the Finnish authorities report that these installations will need to take into account the revised LCP BREF requirements once a revision of the pulp/paper BREF is carried out, rather than four years after adoption of the BATC for LCPs. Related None infringement cases Public None complaints Media The media attention has been in the context of energy independence more than in Attention the context of environmental pollution (see references below) Political In the BREF review process, Finland gave opinions and suggestions for higher BAT- interventions AELs for air emissions in the Forum (IED Article 13), but Finland did not get enough support from other Member States and there was no success in this matter. After publishing the BAT conclusions, the BAT-AELs might become nationally a political issue. Policies None implemented to address challenge Related Air pollution policies, such as NECD; climate policy policies References KSML (2017) Savonsanomat (2014) Osuustoiminta (2014) Talouselama (2014)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 39

Future challenge: permitting and control of the new types of bio- FI-2 refineries IED activities / sectors Biorefineries producing e.g. biofuels Medium and pollutants N/A Description Pulp and paper production sector accounts for approximately 40% of national export revenue of the Finnish forest industry (2015). New types of biorefineries are being developed, which are not included in the BREF document for Production of Paper, Pulp and Board. Finnish responsible institutions have indicated challenges related to management of the sector which is undergoing significant changes. The companies in the pulp and paper industry are developing new type of biorefineries and when environmental permits are applied, it’s not easy to regulate them with the old legislation. A few current examples are biorefinery in Kemi (Kaidi Finland) and Kemijärvi Biorefinery (Boreal Bioref) which are being planned at the moment. The new biorefinery in Äänekoski (Metsä Group) already has an environmental permit as a pulp mill. Years applicable / current Current, becoming a larger issue in the future. Related infringement cases None Public complaints None Media Attention None Political interventions It has been discussed that a Finnish background/expert report on best available techniques in biorefineries could be developed. Large companies have expressed interest in this. Policies implemented to None address challenge Related policies None References http://www.kaidi.fi/ http://www.borealbioref.fi/en/

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 40

7 References AMEC (2016) Supporting the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and its triennial review. CEPI (2016) Key statistics 2016 European Pulp and Paper Industry. http://digibook.digi- work.com/Digibooks.aspx/Get/cepi/1641/KeyStatistics2016_Finalpdf CEPS et al. (2016) Composition and drivers of energy prices and costs: case studies in selected energy-intensive industries. Final Report; EC (2010) BREF: Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries. European Commission. EC (2013) Communication from the Commission (COM/2013/407) Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable steel industry in Europe http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0407 EC (2015) Statistical pocketbook 2015 EU Energy in figures. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/PocketBook_ENERGY_2015%20PDF% 20final.pdf EC (2016) Supporting the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a E-PRTR and its triennial review. European Commission. EEA (2016) EEA country factsheets on industrial emissions. http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/industry/industrial-pollution EEA (2016b) Mapping industry across datasets. https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-industrial- pollution/library/consultations/2016/draft-2016-country-profiles/methodology/mapping-industry- across-datasets/ EEA (2017a) Data on emissions of air pollutants submitted to the LRTAP Convention and copied to EEA https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/national-emissions-reported-to-the- convention-on-long-range-transboundary-air-pollution-lrtap-convention-11 [last update: 12 July 2017] EEA (2017b) European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register [last update: 17 July 2017]. http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/#/home ETC/ACM (2016) Summary report on 2014 E-PRTR data. European Environment Agency. Eurostat (2017a) National accounts aggregates by industry [nama_10_a64] http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10_a64&lang=en Eurostat (2017b) Employment by sex, age and detailed economic activity [lfsq_egan22d] http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lfsq_egan22d&lang=en Eurostat (2017c) Simplified energy balances - annual data [nrg_100a] http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?wai=true&dataset=nrg_100a Eurostat (2017d) Water use in the manufacturing industry by activity and supply category [env_wat_ind] and Water use by supply category and economical sector [env_wat_cat] http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wat_ind&lang=en and http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wat_cat&lang=en Eurostat (2017e) Generation of waste by waste category, hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 activity [env_wasgen] http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?lang=en&dataset=env_wasgen KSML (2017). Translated title: Peat does not take tax revenues but will bring them. http://www.ksml.fi/mielipide/mielipidekirjoitus/Turve-ei-vie-verotuloja-vaan-tuo- niit%C3%A4/927504 Savonsanomat (2014). Translated title: Stubb explained peat u-turn: new jobs and self-sufficiency http://www.savonsanomat.fi/kotimaa/Stubb-perusteli-turvelinjan-muutosta-Ty%C3%B6paikat- ja-omavaraisuus/511034

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland | 41

Talouselama (2014) Translated title: Peat is gaining the honour of the restoration http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/turve-on-saamassa-kunnianpalautuksen-3451017 Osuustoiminta (2014) Esa Härmälä: Translated title: Versatile energy production is Finland's strength http://otlehti.pellervo.fi/2014/03/07/esa-harmala-monipuolinen-energiantuotanto-suomen- vahvuus/ VAHTI (2016) Finnish Water data processing system; Provided by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE).

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Appendices Appendix 1 Mapping industrial sectors across data sources for Finland Appendix 2 Emissions to air by pollutant and industrial sector (detail)

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Appendix 1 - Mapping industrial sectors across data sources for Finland

Industrial sector † GVA Employment Energy consumption ‡ Water consumption Emissions to air Emissions to water ᶺ Waste generated Eurostat (2017a) Eurostat (2017b) Eurostat (2017c) Eurostat (2017d) EEA (2016c) EEA (2017) Eurostat (2017e) Sector classificatio NACE Rev 2 NACE Rev 2 Energy balance indicator NACE Rev 2 NFR14 sector classification E-PRTR NACE Rev 2 Time series available 2000-2015, annually 2008-2015, annually 2000-2015, annually 2000-2015, annually 2000-2014, annually 2007-2015, annually 2004-2014, every 2 years Energy power D (electricity, gas, steam D35 (electricity, gas, B_101301 - Own Use in Electricity, CHP D (electricity, gas, steam 1A1a Public electricity and heat production; Power generation (1c) D (electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply) steam and air and Heat Plants and air conditioning 1A2a-f Stationary combustion in and air conditioning supply) conditioning supply) supply) manufacturing industries and construction Energy - refining C19 (coke and refined C19 (coke and refined B_101307 - Petroleum Refineries; DATASETS COMBINED: 1A1b Petroleum refining; 1A1c Solid fuels Refining (1a) C19 (coke and refined petroleum products) petroleum products) B_101320 - Non-specified (Energy) C19 (coke and refined and other energy industries petroleum products) petroleum products) AND C20 (chemicals) and C21 (pharmaceutical products) Metals: iron and steel C24 (basic metals) C24 (basic metals) B_101805 - Iron and Steel 2C1 Iron and steel Iron and steel C24-C25 (basic metals; manufacturing (2b-d) fabricated metal products, C24 (basic metals) Metals: non-ferrous B_101810 - Non-Ferrous Metals 2C2-7 Non-ferrous metals Non-ferrous metal except machinery and production (2e) equipment) Minerals, in aggregate C23 (non-metallic mineral C23 (non-metallic B_101820 - Non-Metallic Minerals 2A1 Cement; 2A2 Lime; 2A3 Glass; 2A6 Cement, lime and C23 (non-metallic mineral (cement, lime and products) mineral products) Insufficient granularity in Other magnesium oxide (3c); products) magnesium oxide, reported data Glass (3e); Other (3f-g) glass and other) Chemical C20 (chemicals); C21 C20 (chemicals); C21 B_101815 - Chemical and DATASETS COMBINED: 2B1 Ammonia; 2B6 Titanium dioxide; Chemical industry C20-C22 (chemicals; (pharmaceutical products) (pharmaceutical Petrochemical C20 (chemicals) and C21 2B2 Nitric acid; 2B7 Soda ash; 2B3 Adipic (4a-c, e) pharmaceuticals; rubber products) (pharmaceutical acid; 2B10a Other; 2B5 Carbide; 2J and plastic products) products) AND C19 (coke Production of POPs and refined petroleum products) Waste: hazardous E37-E39 (water supply; E38 (waste collection, No indicator 5C1bi Industrial waste incineration 5C1biv Hazardous waste (5a) E37-E39 (water supply; sewerage, waste treatment and disposal Sewage sludge incineration sewerage, waste management and activities; materials Insufficient granularity in 5C1bii Hazardous waste incineration management and reported data remediation) recovery) 5C1bvi Other waste incineration remediation) 5C1biii Clinical waste incineration Waste: non-hazardous B_101318 - Gasification plants for Insufficient granularity in 5A Solid waste disposal on land; Non-hazardous waste (5b- biogas reported data e; g) Other*: C10-C12 (food and drinks C10 (food products); B_101830 - Food and Tobacco DATASETS COMBINED: 2H Food and beverages industry Food and drink (8a-c) C10-C12 (food products; Food and drink and tobacco) C11 (drink products) C10-12 (food and drinks drink products; tobacco) products and tobacco); C13-15 C16 (wood products) C16 (wood products); B_101851 - Wood and Wood Products 2I Wood processing Pulp, paper and wood C16 (wood products) Pulp, paper, and wood- (textiles; wearing apparel; production (6a-c) based products C17 (paper and paper C17 (paper and paper B_101840 - Paper, Pulp and Print leather); C16-17 (paper 2H1 Pulp and paper industry C17-C18 (paper and paper

products) products) and wood products) products; printing) Insufficient granularity in Insufficient granularity No indicators Insufficient granularity in 3B4gi Manure management - Laying hens; Intensive rearing of poultry Insufficient granularity in Intensive rearing of reported data in reported data reported data 3B4gii Manure management - Broilers and pigs (7a) reported data poultry and pigs Insufficient granularity in Insufficient granularity No indicators 2D3d Coating applications; 2D3e Surface treatment (2f; 9c); Insufficient granularity in reported data in reported data Degreasing; 2D3f Dry cleaning; 2D3g Production of carbon (9d) reported data Insufficient granularity in Chemical products; 2D3h Printing; 2D3i reported data Surface treatment Other solvent use; 2G Other product use; 2H3 Other industrial processes National total for all E-PRTR activities All NACE activities plus Rest of national total All NACE activities All NACE activities B_100900 – Gross inland consumption All NACE activities reported households Notes: † Number of IED installations is reported against IED activities for years 2011, 2013 and 2015. ‡ Additional Energy Balance indicators are applicable to the industrial sector categories but not included here as no data reported for Finland (excluded indicators are: B_101312 - Coke Ovens; B_101314 - Gas Works; B_101316 - Coal Liquefaction Plants; B_101317 - Liquefaction (LNG) / regasification plants; B_101319 - Gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants (energy); B_101315 - Blast Furnaces) ᶺ Additional E-PRTR activities are applicable to the industrial sector categories but not included here as no data reported for Finland (excluded activities include: Energy [gasification and liquefaction (1b), coke ovens (1c)]; ‘Other activities’ [Pre-treatment or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles (9a); Tanning of hides and skins]). * Sector mappings not shown for textiles (6.2) and tanning (6.3) as there are no IED installations for these sectors reported in Finland – see section 2.1.

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Appendix 2 - Emissions to air by pollutant and industrial sector (detail) Notes: Emissions rounded to two decimal places except in cases, where more decimal places were necessary to show real values. Source: EEA (2017a)

Pollutant Unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Energy - power

SOx kt 44.80 53.33 52.27 61.35 54.29 38.81 53.90 51.17 37.83 33.08 46.42 40.95 33.11 32.04 29.33 26.34

NOx kt 59.11 75.46 68.96 79.52 72.73 51.99 71.94 68.18 55.62 52.13 67.26 58.79 54.32 54.60 54.84 48.67

PM2.5 kt 6.00 3.71 3.14 3.72 4.02 3.44 3.08 2.86 2.41 1.77 2.09 2.03 2.06 2.01 1.80 1.96 NMVOC kt 0.48 0.33 0.11 0.28 1.33 1.32 1.80 1.65 1.86 1.67 1.87 1.62 1.55 1.71 1.94 1.44

NH3 t 0.92 2.70 42.90 14.91 18.33 11.12 7.52 4.76 2.01 7.14 2.74 0.31 3.38 2.54 5.61 2.16 Cd (HM) T 0.53 0.58 0.54 0.53 0.56 0.51 0.55 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.47 0.41 0.41 0.50 0.47 0.44 As (HM) t 1.11 0.98 1.26 1.08 1.51 0.66 0.99 0.88 0.95 1.17 1.89 1.63 1.24 1.64 1.53 1.01 Cr (HM) t 4.54 9.61 3.42 3.56 3.57 1.82 2.12 2.03 2.26 2.05 3.53 3.47 2.97 5.44 5.97 3.66 Cu (HM) t 3.27 2.95 8.65 8.71 9.09 5.43 7.66 7.46 6.60 7.26 9.38 4.93 4.02 5.22 5.13 3.11 Pb (HM) t 11.49 16.57 12.47 12.50 9.99 8.08 8.97 7.77 7.48 5.96 7.77 7.97 6.84 8.66 9.13 6.99 Hg (HM) t 0.38 0.55 0.44 0.48 0.39 0.32 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.37 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.31 0.29 Ni (HM) t 12.25 14.53 12.80 12.61 25.90 8.98 9.19 8.68 8.01 6.10 7.34 6.61 5.58 6.74 7.28 4.85 Zn (HM) t 11.02 17.05 21.04 23.84 50.03 32.25 42.47 37.71 32.63 36.89 46.85 25.82 29.51 36.77 32.57 26.26 PCDD/F g 3.89 4.34 4.81 4.67 3.78 4.02 4.66 4.51 6.88 4.10 5.00 4.76 4.93 4.31 3.74 4.67

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Pollutant Unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Energy - refining

SOx kt 2.34 2.61 2.76 3.01 3.22 4.00 1.57 1.06 1.08 2.04 7.35 7.19 6.60 6.46 6.62 7.74

NOx kt 2.88 2.91 2.84 2.76 2.37 2.41 2.30 2.54 3.08 3.56 3.34 3.24 2.83 3.21 2.43 2.19

PM2.5 kt 0.12 0.17 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 NMVOC kt - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Cd (HM) t 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 As (HM) t 0.39 0.36 0.45 0.40 0.45 0.57 0.52 0.60 0.61 0.59 0.56 0.60 0.55 0.61 0.61 0.50 Cr (HM) t 2.95 2.76 3.43 3.00 3.40 4.35 3.95 4.62 4.70 4.50 4.28 4.61 4.21 4.65 4.67 3.89 Cu (HM) t 1.05 0.97 1.20 1.06 1.20 1.53 1.38 1.62 1.65 1.58 1.50 1.62 1.47 1.63 1.64 1.43 Pb (HM) t 2.46 2.23 2.76 2.43 2.74 3.48 3.14 3.65 3.72 3.59 3.42 3.67 3.34 3.69 3.71 3.13 Hg (HM) t 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Ni (HM) t 1.23 1.35 1.23 1.61 1.52 2.54 1.94 1.03 1.12 2.52 2.19 2.32 1.99 1.84 2.89 3.14 Zn (HM) t 1.80 1.68 2.08 1.83 5.12 6.55 5.94 6.94 7.05 6.77 6.44 6.93 6.34 7.01 7.04 6.92 PCDD/F g 0.002 0.002 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 Metals: iron and steel

SOx kt 5.47 3.91 2.79 6.26 3.69 1.27 4.55 1.71 2.19 1.47 0.19 0.10 0.04 0.0002 0.003 0.003

NOx kt 0.39 0.45 1.08 2.18 1.41 0.99 1.19 1.22 1.71 1.31 - 0.001 0.0001 0.0001 0.09 0.0001

PM2.5 kt 0.13 0.66 1.28 1.16 0.96 0.99 0.72 0.38 0.62 0.21 0.23 0.37 0.20 0.15 0.23 0.12 NMVOC kt 1.11 1.02 0.92 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.43 0.51 0.48 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.18

NH3 kt 0.0003 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.001 0.0002 - - - Cd (HM) t 0.25 0.51 0.27 0.25 0.45 0.08 0.29 - 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 As (HM) t - - - - - 0.02 - 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.11 Cr (HM) t - - - - - 2.73 - 5.20 2.90 1.23 2.28 3.05 1.99 1.86 3.25 3.95 Cu (HM) t - - - - - 0.26 - 0.61 0.75 0.61 0.77 0.85 0.49 0.98 0.89 0.79 Pb (HM) t 7.59 1.71 7.58 4.97 5.89 1.83 5.45 2.10 0.69 1.61 3.56 2.17 0.36 0.26 0.47 0.24 Hg (HM) t 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.40 0.33 0.29 0.24 0.30 0.07 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.12 Ni (HM) t - - - - - 0.76 - 1.40 0.84 0.86 0.89 1.23 0.84 0.83 1.20 1.03 Zn (HM) t - - - - - 4.39 - 2.08 7.05 6.44 11.55 10.16 5.02 3.58 3.09 2.80 PCDD/F g 3.27 3.24 3.22 1.32 1.32 1.33 0.90 0.89 0.84 0.39 2.87 1.00 1.44 0.75 1.57 0.54

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Pollutant Unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Metals: Non-ferrous

SOx kt - - - - - 2.56 - 3.23 3.53 2.73 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.001

NOx kt - - - - - 0.07 - 0.04 0.04 0.03 - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0003 0.0001

PM2.5 kt - - - - - 0.03 - 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.001 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.09 NMVOC kt 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.07

NH3 kt 0.80 0.60 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.43 0.38 0.39 0.19 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.07 Cd (HM) t - - - - - 0.25 - 0.03 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 As (HM) t 1.99 2.80 1.26 0.98 1.04 0.64 0.42 0.38 0.42 0.28 0.27 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.29 0.21 Cr (HM) t 12.12 5.31 23.97 14.11 10.43 2.51 10.51 8.06 8.09 2.23 8.77 0.55 2.83 2.37 6.03 0.41 Cu (HM) t 8.07 10.02 13.18 7.22 5.93 5.84 6.11 3.05 0.85 0.86 1.01 0.34 0.63 0.58 1.23 0.41 Pb (HM) t - - - - - 0.86 - 0.74 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.28 Hg (HM) t - - - - - 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.07 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 Ni (HM) t 9.69 4.54 10.95 8.78 5.19 4.21 4.96 1.96 1.90 2.12 2.98 1.73 2.30 2.07 1.93 1.78 Zn (HM) t 44.79 36.18 50.70 24.54 20.02 20.54 17.10 8.00 8.78 7.83 8.91 9.68 8.36 6.16 14.23 5.99 PCDD/F g 2.28 2.20 1.99 1.90 1.84 1.80 1.89 1.53 1.77 1.33 1.52 1.57 1.64 1.11 1.24 1.19 Mineral: Cement, lime and magnesium oxide

SOx kt 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.03 0.02 0.005 - - - - 0.0002 -

NOx kt 0.46 0.52 0.18 0.01 0.77 0.80 1.24 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.20 - - - 0.0007 -

PM2.5 kt 0.0003 0.04 0.02 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0037 0.01 0.0004 NMVOC kt 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 Cd (HM) t 0.002 - 0.001 - 0.01 - 0.0001 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - As (HM) t - - 0.003 - 0.002 ------Cr (HM) t - - 0.004 - 0.01 - - 0.0004 0.0047 - - 0.0004 0.001 0.002 0.0009 0.0001 Cu (HM) t - - - - 0.02 ------0.0005 0.0044 0.0021 0.0034 Pb (HM) t - 0.003 - - 0.01 ------0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 Hg (HM) t - - - - 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.0017 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Ni (HM) t 0.01 - - - 0.02 - - - 0.01 0.01 - - 0.0012 0.0009 0.0003 0.0002 Zn (HM) t 0.05 0.09 0.02 ------0.0038 0.01 0.0044 0.0048 PCDD/F g 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.32 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Pollutant Unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Mineral: Glass

SOx kt 4.01 3.69 3.70 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.0024 0.0009 0.0010 0.0003 0.0002 0.00 -

NOx kt 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.28 0.40 0.56 0.37 0.23 0.18 0.13 ------

PM2.5 kt ------0.0003 0.0003 0.0024 0.0016 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 NMVOC kt 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0017

NH3 kt 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - - Cd (HM) t ------0.18 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.26 0.16 - - Cu (HM) t ------0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - Pb (HM) t ------0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 - Zn (HM) t ------0.0025 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0030 0.0009 0.0001 - PCDD/F g 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0017 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0002 Chemical

SOx kt 3.87 3.13 3.54 6.41 3.55 6.53 7.93 7.53 7.40 3.65 0.64 1.92 0.81 0.83 0.56 0.38

NOx kt 0.46 0.35 0.35 0.76 0.89 0.86 1.29 1.56 1.33 1.06 - 0.56 0.56 0.58 0.53 0.57

PM2.5 kt 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.0010 0.11 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.20 NMVOC kt 4.19 4.29 3.67 3.28 3.26 2.70 2.91 2.41 2.71 2.45 2.51 2.46 2.42 2.34 2.58 2.31

NH3 kt 0.20 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.13 0.18 0.33 0.20 0.48 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.32 0.40 0.40 Cr (HM) t - - 0.17 0.42 0.46 0.26 0.31 0.55 0.15 ------Cu (HM) t 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 Hg (HM) t 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.07 Ni (HM) t 0.90 - 1.10 0.50 1.41 0.04 0.17 0.96 0.02 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.04 PCDD/F g 2.80 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.17 0.60 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.15

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Pollutant Unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Waste: hazardous

SOx t 29 13 - 58 86 39 43 36 67 49 64 17 14 7 19 13

NOx t 173 182 213 233 249 236 210 115 214 195 195 192 198 250 274 296

PM2.5 t 10 9 14 9 14 12 12 3 5 4 5 0 0 5 0 0 NMVOC t 1 39 1 2 1 20 6 45 89 101 104 94 75 61 47 38 Cd (HM) t 4.0 4.0 3.6 4.0 0.4 4.7 0.8 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.2 As (HM) kg 2.0 3.0 34.0 27.0 2.8 8.0 0.4 0.3 4.1 2.0 - 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 11.2 Cr (HM) kg 6.0 14.0 39.5 16.0 4.9 16.8 2.4 6.2 6.5 18.5 - 6.4 6.4 12.2 11.6 4.0 Cu (HM) kg 2.0 3.0 35.1 13.0 4.6 33.1 2.4 9.3 13.3 13.5 - 137.0 97.6 192.1 17.8 11.4 Pb (HM) kg 3.0 4.0 34.9 16.0 4.9 24.4 3.7 7.6 13.0 9.7 - 67.0 64.2 55.8 5.8 3.6 Hg (HM) kg 3.8 0.9 21.4 1.7 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 5.5 3.4 - 1.8 3.2 5.4 1.8 3.5 Ni (HM) kg 7.0 13.0 67.6 16.0 45.1 33.5 26.3 23.1 39.8 27.1 - 5.5 4.6 4.6 5.4 5.0 Zn (HM) kg 31 17 - 218 713 214 684 670 1,268 1,433 1,489 1,361 1,506 1,382 960 2,275 PCDD/F g 2.82 1.92 2.54 2.46 1.67 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.37 Waste: non-hazardous

SOx t ------2 4 12 7 8 11 16 15 14

NOx t ------101 103 122 98 109 163 260 273 223

PM2.5 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 NMVOC t 387 373 372 381 384 364 394 396 370 329 341 347 348 325 313 318

NH3 t 85 90 94 98 102 113 122 128 126 123 125 135 125 126 117 101 Cd (HM) kg ------0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 As (HM) kg ------0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 Cr (HM) kg ------4.1 3.5 1.5 8.0 8.8 1.7 2.7 5.3 1.9 Cu (HM) kg ------6.5 7.7 5.6 92.6 26.2 13.7 10.5 47.4 6.0 Pb (HM) kg ------2.0 1.7 3.3 46.9 9.0 3.7 6.9 18.5 3.4 Hg (HM) kg 22.0 13.7 14.4 14.7 14.4 14.0 12.5 13.8 15.4 15.5 18.7 14.7 13.9 14.8 18.4 16.4 Ni (HM) kg ------4.9 2.0 1.4 36.0 3.5 1.6 3.0 5.1 1.7 Zn (HM) kg ------15 14 21 21 22 38 52 25 24 PCDD/F g 0.67 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.45 0.44 0.41

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3 Ricardo Energy & Environment Industrial emissions policy country profile – Finland

Pollutant Unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Other activities

SOx kt 4.56 4.17 3.13 5.46 3.86 2.46 2.70 2.89 2.75 2.16 1.51 1.23 1.19 1.07 1.17 1.06

NOx kt 1.07 0.99 1.23 3.04 2.46 2.52 4.01 4.38 4.06 2.36 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.11

PM2.5 kt 1.50 1.92 1.70 1.68 3.03 2.74 2.35 2.60 2.31 2.01 1.78 1.78 2.01 1.82 1.96 1.03 NMVOC kt 34.60 34.03 31.99 30.44 30.61 28.58 28.87 29.83 25.27 21.10 21.56 19.94 18.39 18.13 17.00 16.47

NH3 kt 5.34 4.96 5.13 5.37 5.56 5.65 5.55 5.63 5.54 5.25 5.24 5.11 4.87 4.95 4.84 4.72 Cd (HM) kg 119.0 106.0 - 3.0 4.0 3.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 0.0011 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 As (HM) kg 24.0 21.0 - 2.0 4.3 0.2 1.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.9 0.0017 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006 Cr (HM) kg 63.0 57.0 1.8 395.0 56.8 49.0 39.1 38.1 0.0 0.0 152.0 22.9 0.0024 0.0013 0.0012 0.0012 Cu (HM) kg 135.0 121.0 4.0 49.0 49.6 7.3 7.6 54.3 0.0 0.0 73.1 157.0 0.0030 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 Pb (HM) kg 149.0 133.0 219.5 - 10.2 10.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.6 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 Hg (HM) kg - - - 5.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0011 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 Ni (HM) kg 27.0 9.0 - 61.0 257.5 77.2 81.0 151.5 - - 54.1 19.7 - - - - Zn (HM) kg 110.0 164.0 39.5 777.0 111.1 96.1 209.5 281.1 - - 295.1 257.8 - - - 0.2 PCDD/F g 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0018 0.0019 0.0021 0.0021 0.0023 0.0014 0.0015 0.0013 0.0013 0.19 0.10 0.72

Ref: Ricardo/ED62698/Issue Number 3

The Gemini Building Fermi Avenue Harwell Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QR United Kingdom t: +44 (0)1235 753000 e: [email protected] ee.ricardo.com