Remediation of the Contaminated Sediments in the River Kymijoki Between Kuusansaari and Keltti

Remediation of the contaminated sediments in the river Kymijoki between Kuusansaari and Keltti

Environmental impact assessment procedure 82128834 15.8.2011 Remediation of the contaminated sediments in the river Kymijoki between Kuusansaari and Keltti

Environmental impact assessment procedure

Contents

SUMMARY 3 PART II: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 35 PART I: THE PROJECT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL 6. IMPACTS ON THE QUALITY OF THE WATER AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 13 SEDIMENTS, MIGRATION OF SUSPENDED 1. INTRODUCTION 15 MATTER AND SEDIMENTATION 37 6.1 Kymijoki River Basin District 37 2. OPERATOR IN CHARGE 16 6.2 Present State 39 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.3 Assessment Methods 50 PROCEDURE 17 6.4 Estimated Impacts 51 3.1 The Main Stages of the Assessment Procedure 17 6.5 Summary of Impacts 56 3.2 Assessment Programme 17 6.6 Reducing Harmful Effects 57 3.3 Statements and Opinions Received for the Assessment Programme 17 6.7 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 57 3.4 Observing the Contact Authority’s Statement 18 7. IMPACTS ON FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC 3.5 Assessment Statement 20 POPULATIONS 59 3.6 The End of the Assessment Procedure 20 7.1 Present State 59 3.7 Organising Participation and Interaction 20 7.2 Assessment Methods 62 3.8 Communications 21 7.3 Estimated Impacts 63 3.9 International Hearing 21 7.4 Summary of Impacts 66 3.10 EIA Procedure and the Project’s Timetable 21 7.5 Reducing Harmful Effects 67 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 22 7.6 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 67 4.1 Background and Previous Stages 22 8. IMPACTS ON THE SOIL, GROUNDWATER AND WATER SUPPLY 68 4.2 Selecting the Remediation Target 22 8.1 Present State 68 4.3 Alternatives Examined in the EIA 23 8.2 Assessment Methods 71 8.3 Estimated Impacts 71 4.4 Technical Implementation of the Remediation 26 8.4 Reducing Harmful Effects 72 4.5 Thermal Treatment and Final Storage 29 8.5 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 72 4.6 Best Available Technology for Remediation 30 9. IMPACTS ON NATURE RESERVES AND 5. STARTING POINT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTED SPECIES 73 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 32 9.1 Present State 73 5.1 Assessment Task 32 9.3 Estimated Impacts 75 5.2 Estimated Environmental Impacts 32 9.4 Reducing Harmful Effects 77 5.3 The Initial Material Used 33 9.5 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 77 5.4 Definition of the Affected Zone 34 10. IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY 78 10.1 Present State 78 10.2 Assessment Methods 78 10.3 Estimated Impacts 79 10.4 Summary and Comparison of the Alternatives 81 10.5 Reducing Harmful Effects 81 10.6 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 81

1 PART III: IMPACTS ON PEOPLE AND THE COMMUNITY 83 PART IV: COMPARING THE ALTERNATIVES AND 11. IMPACTS ON PEOPLE’S HEALTH 85 FURTHER ACTIONS 119 11.1 Assessment Methods 85 18. FURTHER RESEARCH AND IMPACT MONITORING 121 11.2 A0, Health Risks in the Current Situation 86 18.1 Further Research after the EIA 121 11.3 Estimated Impacts 87 18.2 Monitoring During and After the Remediation 11.4 Summary of Impacts 89 Process 121 11.5 Reducing Harmful Effects 90 19. COMPARING THE ALTERNATIVES AND 11.6 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 90 ESTIMATING FEASIBILITY 122 12. IMPACTS ON FISHING 91 19.1 Comparing the Alternatives 122 12.1 Present State 91 19.2 Estimating the Project’s Feasibility 125 12.2 Assessment Methods 94 20. PLANS AND PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE 12.3 Estimated Impacts 95 PROJECT 129 12.4 Reducing Harmful Effects 96 20.1 Planning the Project and Research 129 12.4 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 96 20.2 Environmental Impact Assessment 129 13. PEOPLE’S LIVING CONDITIONS AND COMFORT 97 20.3 The Permit and Environmental Permit Required 13.1 Assessment Methods 97 by the Water Act 129 13.2 Present State of Habitability and Recreational Use 98 20.4 Zoning 129 13.3 Residents’ Views on the Project and Its Effects 100 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 130 13.4 Effects on Living Conditions and Habitability 103 SOURCES 131 13.5 Comparison of the Alternatives 105 CONTACT INFORMATION 133 13.6 Reducing Harmful Effects 105 13.7 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 106 14. IMPACTS ON TOURISM, OTHER INDUSTRIES AND EMPLOYMENT 107 14.1 Present State 107 14.2 Assessment Methods 107 14.3 Estimated Impacts 109 14.4 Reducing Harmful Effects 109 14.3 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 109 15. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC 110 15.1 Present Situation 110 15.2 Assessment Methods 110 15.3 Estimated Impacts 110 15.4 Reducing Harmful Effects 111 15.5 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 111 16. IMPACTS ON LAND USE AND ZONING 112 16.1 Present Situation 112 16.4 Ownership of the Land and Water Areas 115 16.5 Assessment Methods 115 16.6 Estimated Impacts 115 16.7 Reducing Harmful Effects 115 16.8 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 115 17. IMPACTS ON THE LANDSCAPE AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 116 17.1 Present Situation 116 APPENDICES 17.2 Assessment Methods 116 Appendix 1 Contaminated Sediments in the River 17.3 Estimated Impacts 116 Kymijoki, Risk Assessment (Esko Rossi Oy) 17.4 Reducing Harmful Effects 117 Appendix 2 Resident Survey Report 17.5 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment 117 Appendix 3 Fishing Survey Report 17. COMBINED EFFECTS WITH OTHER PROJECTS AND PLANS 118

2 SUMMARY

Introduction

The sediments of the River Kymijoki contain dioxins and The EIA procedure is a prerequisite for the application furans (PCDD/F compounds) and mercury which come for permits for the project and the project’s execution. from industrial use. As far as dioxins and furans are con- Another reason for launching the EIA is to hear what cit- cerned, the River Kymijoki has been rated as one of the izens and various interest groups have to say, which will most polluted rivers in the world. provide additional information about the feasibility of the The reach of the river between the Kuusankoski and remediation project. During the EIA, a risk assessment of Keltti hydropower plants has been found to be the most the remediation work was compiled (Esko Rossi Oy 2011), polluted area of the River Kymijoki in terms of its dioxins as well as a resident survey, which are presented as appen- and furans, although PCDD/F compounds have been dis- dices to the EIA Statement. covered in the sediments throughout the course of the The affected zone of River Kymijoki’s contaminated sed- river. Over the years, several comprehensive reports, cal- iments extends outside the Finnish domestic water area culations, risk assessments, impact studies and plans have into the Gulf of Finland, and therefore also an international been made on the contaminated sediments of the River EIA procedure has been applied to the project, in accord- Kymijoki. ance with the Espoo Convention. After various research and planning phases, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the EIA Procedure and the Project’s Timetable Environment for Southeast Finland decided to launch an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure for the The project’s Environmental Impact Assessment pro- remediation of contaminated sediments in the river sec- gramme was submitted to the contact authority in tion between Kuusaansaari and Keltti, in order to estimate November 2010 and the Environmental Impact Assessment the feasibility and possibilities of such a project. Statement in July 2011. The following table presents the assessment procedure’s timetable. EIA procedure’s timetable.

Timescale Event June–October 2010 Preparation of the assessment, compilation of the initial data, compilation of the assessment programme November–December 2010– The assessment programme is on view and in circulation for comment January 2011 The contact authority’s statement about the assessment programme October 2010 - June 2011 Drawing up the Assessment Statement September - October The Assessment Statement is on view and in circulation for comment December 2011 The contact authority’s statement about the Assessment Statement Beginning of the year 2012 Resolutions about how to proceed

Based on the Environmental Impact Assessment, the If the ELY Centre for Southeast Finland decides to apply ELY Centre for Southeast Finland will decide whether it will for a licence to implement the project, the licence stages begin the process of applying for licences to implement will occur approximately in 2013–2014. Before the licence the remediation work. Before the licence stages there is a stages, the additional investigation and planning stage will research and planning phase during which the details of take place. The realisation of the project, i.e. the actual re- the project’s implementation will be planned in more de- mediation work, may occur during 2015–2017. The remedi- tail. The assessment of impacts will also become more spe- ation work has been estimated to take between 1–3 years, cific in some parts before the licence stage. depending on the technique chosen and the boundaries set for the work.

3 Project and the Alternatives under Assessment

The project concerns the remediation of the contaminat- A1a = The contaminated sediments of the reach of the ed sediments in the River Kymijoki between Kuusaansaari river between Kuusaansaari and Keltti are suction dredged and Keltti. The sediments in the River Kymijoki contain di- through a pipe to the area of the clay pits to be stabilised. The oxins and furans (PCDD/F compounds) created as pol- surface structures are built either as a storage field or park area, lutants during the manufacture of a wood preservative taking into account how easily the stabilising area can be built known as KY-5, as well as mercury which has entered the on and the land use of the surrounding area. water through the activities of a chlor-alkali factory and A1b = A pile planking work basin will be built in the most various woodworking factories. The wood-processing in- strongly contaminated area of the reach of the river and sedi- dustry located by the River Kymijoki abandoned the use of ments will be suction-dredged into the basin from outside it. mercury in 1968. The manufacture of KY-5 in Kuusankoski Contaminated sediments are stabilised in the river area inside was brought to an end in 1984, and the chlor-alkali factory the pile planking, after which erosion protection is constructed closed down in 1994. on top of the sediment. In 2007, the Master Plan for the Remediation of the A2a = A pile planking work basin will be built in the most Contaminated Sediments of the River Kymijoki (Ramboll strongly contaminated area of the reach of the river and sed- Finland Oy 2007) was completed. In the plan’s cost–ben- iments will be removed from inside it by bucket dredging to efit analysis, the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river was be transported away. Sediments are suction-dredged from found to be the most suitable remediation target when outside the work basin into it and then on to be transported compared to the other sub–areas of the river. In the light of away. The removed sediments are transported for thermal present knowledge and on the basis of the risk assessment treatment. made for the River Kymijoki, there is no immediate need to A2b = A pile planking work basin will be built in the most restore the whole river. strongly contaminated area of the reach of the river and sedi- The following alternatives are examined in the EIA: ments will be removed from inside it by bucket dredging to be A0 = The sediments in the River Kymijoki are not restored; transported away. Sediments are suction-dredged from out- instead, the situation will continue as it is. In Alternative A0, side the work basin into it and then on to be transported away. the current loading caused by the contaminated sediments The removed sediments are transported to a landfill for final is examined, as well as the environmental and health effects storage. brought about by the load. The effects are considered over a The following figure displays the way the activities of longer period also in Alternative A0. each option are set in the planning zone.

The location of contaminated sediments and the way the remediation activities are placed in the planning zone.

4 Technical Implementation of the Remediation Dredging methods Hazardous substances on the bottom of the river can be Council’s Regulation 2004/850/EU on persistent organic quickly and efficiently removed by dredging. The method pollutants and the amending Directive 79/117/EEC on the is a multi-stage process that requires the transport of the restriction of hazardous substances. Thermal treatment, i.e. dredged spoil onto land or to a water area elsewhere, the burning, is the primary method of disposal for waste that separation of water from the spoil, as well as the possible contains concentrations of POPs exceeding the levels set drying of the sludge and water treatment. The sediments for hazardous waste. containing hazardous substances are utilised or placed at a Final storage at a landfill for hazardous waste final storage site. No dredging method can entirely prevent According to the POP Regulation, the treatment of some degree of sediment dispersal into the water. Possible waste at a landfill for ordinary waste may be possible for dredging methods include bucket, grab bucket or suction waste that has been polluted by persistent organic pol- dredging. lutants when the concentration of PCDD/F compounds Desiccating the dredged sediments in the POPs is below 15,000 pg/g (TEF). According to the Technically, the simplest way to desiccate sediments is POP Regulation, some types of waste mentioned in the by letting them settle in ponds. During the first stage, the Regulation can be treated, in exceptional cases, by depos- heaviest substance is removed and at later stages the sol- iting them finally, pretreated, on a landfill for hazardous id substances. The desiccation of large quantities of sedi- waste or, untreated, in permanent underground storage. ments requires a large pond capacity. Sediments that have been dug up from a water system Alternatively, the dredged or dug sediments can be are classified according to the criteria for contaminated moved into sacks made out of geo-textiles by pumping. land. The three landfill sites for hazardous waste nearest to The water leaving the sediments is filtered through the the remediation area between Kuusaansaari and Keltti are geo-textile which retains particulate matter but lets wa- in Kouvola, Kotka and Joutseno. ter through. The spoil can also be solidified by stabilisation, in which The Project’s Impacts on the Quality of case the hazardous substances are no longer in a soluble the Water and Sediments, Migration of form and thus cannot re-enter the aqueous phase. In mass Suspended Matter and Sedimentation stabilisation, the substance is left to settle for a moment, allowing extra water to escape and the mass to solidify. The material is stored finally or used as a filling agent. In process A0 stabilisation, a binding agent is blasted into the spoil as In the future, the migration of hazardous substances it travels through a pipe. This agent binds hazardous sub- in the River Kymijoki will lessen from the current quantity stances and fines. even without remediation measures. According to the ero- Water treatment sion and flow modelling, 25–50% of the dioxins and furans In suction dredging, a large quantity of water, in addi- and 20–40% of the mercury in the sediments located be- tion to wet sediment, is removed, which is why large ponds tween Kuusaansaari and Keltti will migrate downstream are required for separating the water and particulate mat- over the next 30 years. ter. In the long run, the differences in dioxin, furan and mer- Water treatment is planned to occur by letting sedi- cury concentrations in the sediments of the River Kymijoki ments settle, during which process chemical coagulants in Kuusankoski and below and in the Gulf of Finland will can be used. The water is treated by passing it through gradually balance out when sediments from the more a sand filter to remove unsettled particulate matter. The strongly contaminated areas are resuspended in the sedi- quality of the water is ensured by analyses before it is dis- mentation areas downstream. charged into the waterway. The decrease in concentrations after the original emis- Thermal treatment sion has ceased is evident already now in the results of the Because of their harmfulness, there has been a deci- sea area’s sediment studies, in which the greatest concen- sion in the EU to get rid of persistent organic pollutants trations have been discovered slightly below the surface (POPs), and for this reason, they must be either destroyed level. or modified permanently into a more harmless form. The legal foundation for this is the European Parliament and

5 Impacts on Fish and Other Aquatic Populations

A1a A0 The concentration of solid substances in the water in In a situation accordant with Alternative Zero, the the Keltti area would double, at most, during remediation PCDD/F and mercury concentrations of the fish in the in comparison to A0, the PCDD/F concentration would in- Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river would slowly decrease 7–22-fold and mercury concentration 9–14-fold, crease in the future as the migration of hazardous sub- when the amount of sediments escaping has been esti- stances lessens. mated at a minimum of 2% and at a maximum of 10 %. The annual PCDD/F load caused by dredging from the A1a Keltti area to the lower reach of the river would almost tri- In practice, dredging does not increase the concentra- ple and the mercury load would almost double in compari- tions of hazardous substances in fish immediately during son to the current situation (A0). dredging, but on an annual level, the PCDD/F concentra- With the highest estimated amount of sediments escap- tion of fish in the reach of the river between Kuusaansaari ing and a low efficiency of water treatment, the compen- and Keltti was estimated to rise, at worst, to 1.4–2.0-fold in sation for the PCDD/F load caused by dredging would take comparison to the current level, depending on the propor- approximately four years and the compensation for mer- tion of emission of particulate matter. The PCDD/F concen- cury load over ten years. Mercury load can be considerably tration in fish would still remain within the limit set for us- reduced with efficient water treatment. ability, even at its highest. Mercury concentrations in the pike of the Kuusaansaari– A1b, A2a and A2b Keltti reach of the river would increase as an annual aver- In Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, the emissions of par- age to approximately three times (2.3 mg/kg) the current ticulate matter and hazardous substances would be ap- quantity, despite the proportion of emission of particulate proximately a third lower than in A1a due to the technolo- matter. With high efficiency of water treatment, the mer- gy (pile planking and bucket dredging), and consequently, cury concentration in pike could be stabilised at approxi- the impacts caused during dredging would also be smaller mately 1 mg/kg. in comparison to A0. The alternatives involve a minor risk of the planking A1b, A2a and A2b pond breaking during the remediation, which might cause a significant, temporary emission. The growth of PCDD/F concentration in fish could be With the highest estimated amount of sediments escap- limited to approximately 1.4-fold in comparison to the cur- ing, the compensation for the PCDD/F compounds’ addi- rent level. tional load caused by dredging would take approximately The mercury concentration of pike would be approxi- four years. mately 0.9–1.3 mg/kg, depending on the efficiency of -wa At best, the additional load of mercury caused by dredg- ter treatment. ing would be compensated for in less than six months in the case of these remediation alternatives. Long-term impacts Over a longer period (30 years), the benefits of remedia- Long-term impacts tion for the concentrations of hazardous substances in fish Over the course of 30 years, the PCDD/F load in the Keltti would probably be equal to the benefits presented for the area, as well as the load ending up in the Gulf of Finland, migration of sediments. would be approximately 26%, on average, of the current load in A0. Impacts on the Soil, Groundwater and During remediation, approximately 50% of PCDD/F Water Supply and 25% of mercury in the reach of the river between Kuusankoski and Keltti would be removed, after which nat- The differences between the alternatives occur in the ural transport will further decrease the amount of hazard- treatment methods of the spoil. The most advantageous ous substances. options in terms of the impacts on groundwater are omit- Over the course of 30 years, the PCDD/F load accord- ting to restore (A0), storing the spoil in the river bed (A1b) ant with remediation alternatives A1 and A2 would be 23 % or burning it (A2a), because these alternatives include no less and the mercury load 7% less than the load in A0 over risk of hazardous substances spreading outside the current the same period. river bed.

6 The advantage of Alternative A1b over the other final threatened nest in the area. If Alternative A1a is imple- storage sites is that the spoil remains in its original location mented, the project may have impacts on the nature val- in the River Kymijoki and new areas are not exposed to the ues of the clay pit area. The location of the nesting areas of hazardous substances. As regards the impacts on ground- the large white-faced darter and threatened birds will have water, the greatest uncertainty concerns the soil condi- to be taken into account when selecting suitable pools for tions of the clay soil area in Alternative A1a. It is possible water treatment and final storage. that, as well as layers of clay, the area also has types of soil which allow the passage of water better, which increases Impacts on Air Quality the risk to groundwater. If the project is not implemented, the area’s traffic vol- Impacts on Nature Reserves and Protected ume will correspond to the current situation (A0) and in the Species long run will develop subject to other factors. In terms of environmental impacts, the most signifi- In the current situation (A0), the River Kymijoki’s con- cant air emissions are created in thermal treatment, i.e. taminated sediments may cause harm to otters, local fish Alternative A2a, because a part of the mercury contained species, water birds and fish-eating birds. The impacts on in the sediments is released into the air with the combus- the otter are greater than those on birds, because otters tion gases that are formed in the process. The efficiency of live in the river area year round. mercury removal depends on the incineration technique The hazardous substances in the lower reach of the and the quality of the material to be burned. River Kymijoki may cause harm also to the species living In the other alternatives, the impacts on air quality in the Natura 2000 area which are included in the Habitats caused by the remediation and treatment of sediments Directive, Annex II, and Birds Directive, Annex I. The impacts are smaller and result mainly from the exhaust discharg- will probably fall most strongly on the otter and local fish es of plant and transport equipment. Vehicle emissions species which are included in the Habitats Directive, such into the air are at their greatest if the thermal treatment is as the asp. No significant effects fall on the salmon, be- performed at the Ekokem plant in Riihimäki, or if the spoil cause it spends only a part of its life in the river. is transported to Joutseno for final storage. Vehicle emis- The remediation of sediments (Alternatives A1 and A2) sions are low if the spoil is transported to Keltinkangas in may cause additional impacts on the species found in the Kouvola for final storage. Some vehicle emissions are also remediation area and its immediate surroundings. The load caused in Alternative A1a, at least during the building of of hazardous substances released through the remedia- the ponds. In Alternative A1b, no vehicle emissions are cre- tion will be at its greatest in the remediation area and its ated at all. surroundings, whereas approximately 20 km away in the Natura area at the lower reach of the river the concentra- Impacts on People’s Health tion level of hazardous substances will be clearly lower. The impacts of the remediation on the Natura area will prob- A0 ably not significantly differ from the harm caused by the In the present situation, young women by the current situation. In the long term, the effects on the spe- Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river, who are poten- cies of the Natura area will probably decrease after the re- tial child bearers, are somewhat more exposed than oth- mediation. er Finnish young women to PCDD/F compounds and the The thick-shelled river mussel, which is a species includ- PCB compounds which are similar to them. However, the ed in the Habitats Directive, Annex IV (a), and therefore pro- health risks caused by PCDD/F exposure in the area of the tected also outside the Natura areas, may occur in the re- River Kymijoki are not great. In addition, children may be mediation area and the flow areas in its vicinity. Its occur- exposed to greater concentrations than others. rence in the remediation area has not yet been established. The probability of health hazards resulting from expo- Surveys will be made on it before the licence stages, if the sure to mercury was estimated as moderately high for those project proceeds after EIA. who eat fish from the River Kymijoki, even in Alternative A0. In the clay pit area, there are habitats for the large white- The calculated mercury supply, including the background faced darter, which is included in the Habitats Directive, exposure, was approximately double that of Finns’ average Annex IV. Also bird species which have been classified as supply and exceeded the limit of acceptable supply determined by WHO by approximately one and a half times.

7 Impacts on Fishing

A0 Exposure to dioxins and furans was estimated to de- In their present state, the River Kymijoki’s contaminated crease naturally to 44% in 30 years and exposure to mer- sediments do not, in practice, impede fishing in the river. cury to 58 % of the current level. The concentrations of hazardous substances in predatory fish in the middle and lower reaches of the River Kymijoki A1a are higher than in the comparison area, but there are no During the remediation year, the supply of PCDD/F obstacles to eating fish as long as Evira’s guidelines are fol- compounds from sources originating in the River Kymijoki lowed. In practice, the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sedi- would grow in the young women’s target group, calculat- ments have no effect on the concentrations of hazardous ed on an annual level, at the most to 1.6 times the present substances in migratory fish, because they spend the ma- quantity. jority of their lives in the sea. In the most disadvantageous situation (10% proportion The River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments will be of emissions), exposed persons’ cumulative supply of diox- slowly transported to the sea along the river’s currents, and ins and furans would balance out to the level that prevailed the river bottoms of the sedimentation areas will be cov- before the remediation in approximately five years. ered with cleaner sediments. In the long term, the concen- The estimated supply of mercury during the remedia- trations of hazardous substances in fish will also decrease tion year is estimated as approximately 1.3 times that of from their current levels. Alternative Zero and approximately double that recommended by WHO. A1 and A2 The limit for tolerable exposure is exceeded if the re- The most central impacts clearly fall on the Kuusankoski moval of soluble mercury from the dredging water is not licensed area for rod-fishing. The turbidity of the water may efficient. harm the fish fauna and fishing. In addition, the hazardous substances released from the sediments may cause tem- A1b, A2a and A2b porary restrictions on the consumption of fish. Fishing may In the most advantageous situation (2% proportion of also be hampered by the underwater noise caused by the emissions), exposed persons’ cumulative supply of dioxins machinery. and furans will balance out to the level that prevailed be- The remediation will probably have no significant ef- fore the remediation in approximately six months after the fects on fishing in the lower reach of the River Kymijoki. project has been completed, depending on the remedia- No fish eating restrictions will probably be necessary in the tion alternative and the success of dredging (remediation river’s lower reach. The remediation will have no practical between Kuusansaari–Keltti). impacts on the fishing taking place in the sea area. When observing the recommendations on the con- In the long term, the effects of the remediation of consumption of fish, compiled by Evira, it is improbable that taminated sediments are positive. Indeed, the effects on the level of tolerable exposure would be exceeded in the fishing at this moment are very slight in practice, and case of these alternatives. therefore no great change will occur between the restored river and its present state even in the long run. Long-term impacts Because mercury occurs over an extensive area in the Impacts on People’s Living Conditions and River Kymijoki and the retention of mercury in fish is long, Comfort the total benefits achieved through remediation will begin to materialise only 1–5 years after dredging has been According to the resident survey, in the case of all the al- completed. ternatives, the neighbourhood’s residents and recreational According to the results, the supply of dioxins, furans users are uncertain and worried about the risks the project and PCB compounds that are similar to dioxins would be poses to the safety of their living environment and activ- 27% lower 30 years after the remediation than in A0 and, ities. Even though, according to the risk assessment, the correspondingly, the supply of mercury would be 19% low- current concentrations of hazardous substances cause no er. health hazards if the restrictions on the consumption of In the long run, the choice of remediation method will fish are followed, the majority of the respondents to the not have an essential effect on exposure, unless the risk of resident survey gave their support for the remediation of structural damage inherent in A1b is taken into account.

8 the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki. It was elsewhere for final storage or to be burned. All the above- thought that the remediation would cause more benefits mentioned stages of work have direct effects on employ- than harm. ment. The best option by far was thought to be Alternative A2a The remediation of sediments may also be important on which involves transporting the spoil to a hazardous waste a wider scale in terms of the area’s development. If the re- plant to be burned. The second most favoured alternative mediation of the sediments is seen to be important for the was A2b which involves storing the hazardous substances area’s image, it may have positive effects on the develop- finally at a landfill for hazardous waste. Correspondingly, ment of the River Kymijoki’s neighbouring areas. the final storage of the spoil in the river area inside pile planking (A1b) contained the greatest risks in people’s Impacts on Traffic minds. The second worst option was considered the placing of the spoil in the clay pit area. If the project is not implemented (A0), the area’s traffic volume will correspond to the current situation and in the Impacts on Tourism, Other Industries and long run will develop subject to other factors. The contam- Employment inated sediments of the River Kymijoki will have no effect on the traffic volume. The traffic volume will be at its lowest if the sediments A0 are stored finally in the river bed (A1b). If the spoil is depos- If the River Kymijoki is not restored, nature and fishing ited in the area of the clay pits (A1a), some traffic will be cre- tourism will remain as it is or develop, despite the con- ated at the building stage of the ponds. taminated sediments, as a result of other factors. In the The transportation distances are at their longest in long run, the contaminated areas will become clean and Alternatives A2a and A2b, if the thermal treatment is per- will become covered with cleaner sediments. The possible formed at the Ekokem plant in Riihimäki or if the spoil is damage to image caused by the contaminated sediments transported to Joutseno for final storage. They are short- will also decrease over the coming decades, although the est if the spoil is transported to Keltinkangas in Kouvola change is likely to be slow. The contaminated sediments of for final storage. The transport quantities are the same in the River Kymijoki may influence the area’s general devel- Alternatives A2a and A2b; i.e. approximately 10 trucks per opment to some degree. day for roughly 175 days.

A1 and A2 Impacts on Land Use and Zoning In the interviews performed with companies in the tourism industry, the entrepreneurs took a critical view of the A0 remediation. A large part of the respondents were of the Omitting to implement the project (A0) does not alter opinion that even temporary changes in water quality will the current land use situation, nor does it cause changes be harmful to their company’s operations. Some of the re- to the valid plans. spondents were willing to accept the remediation, as long as it is absolutely certain that the project will cause no A1a and A1b harm to the water quality or fish fauna. The greatest harm The dredged sludge and sediments are treated and fi- was seen to ensue for companies if the remediation took nally stored in the remediation area or its immediate sur- place during the summer season. roundings. The final storage of sediments in the area has The nature and fishing tourism companies in the area long-term effects on its land use. The area’s use and con- are concentrated in the lower reach of the River Kymijoki, struction in it will be limited. which in practice reduces the effects resulting for tourism In Alternative A1a, sludge is deposited in a stabilised form if a decision is made to restore the river. in the old clay removal pits to the south of the Heinharju Direct effects caused to other business areas besides industrial area. The region is an industrial and warehousing tourism are difficult to estimate accurately at this stage. area in accordance with the non-legally binding general Both remediation alternatives involve dredging, the treat- plan, and a reservation for an recreational route connection ment of sediments and water and planning and research has been assigned to it. There is no valid local detailed plan phases, before the actual remediation can take place. In ad- for the area. The impacts of this alternative are the greatest dition, Alternative A2 involves the transport of sediments on land use. The treatment of hazardous waste will probably require the preparation of a local detailed plan for the area to impose permanent restrictions on its land use.

9 Comparison of the Alternatives and the Project’s Feasibility

In Alternative A1b, sediments are treated and deposited The feasibility of the remediation project has been as- in the River Kymijoki in a stabilised form. The region is a wa- sessed during the EIA on the grounds of the environmental ter area in accordance with the non-legally binding gener- impacts that have unfolded, the opinions people have ex- al plan. There is no local detailed plan for the area. The im- pressed, current legislation and the technique to be used plementation of the project in this area is possible without in implementing the project. In addition, feasibility has zoning with a permit that conforms to the Water Act, if the been estimated from an economical point of view. structure remains completely below water and if there are no restrictions on the use of the water area. If the water ar- Environmental feasibility ea’s use must be restricted or the structure forms an island, All the alternatives examined in the EIA are, in principle, the area will have to be covered by a local detailed plan environmentally feasible. All the alternatives, including A0, which designates it as a waste treatment area. also have impacts on the environment. In all the remediation alternatives, the impacts of reme- A2a and A2b diation in relation to the present situation (A0) are com- The impacts of the alternatives on land use in the pro- paratively small as a whole. During the process, dredging ject areas are temporary, lasting only for the duration of the will impact, for example, water quality and fish fauna in the remediation, and focus, above all, on traffic and the harm it remediation area and its vicinity. In the long term, on the causes. The alternatives do not require zoning. other hand, remediation will help to slightly reduce the discharge of dioxins, furans and mercury to the lower reach of Impacts on the Landscape and Cultural the river and the sea area. The impacts on fish fauna and Environment people’s health will also diminish in the long term, if the remediation is implemented. In Alternative A0, the landscape will continue to change The remediation alternatives examined in the EIA dif- without the effects brought about by the project. fer also in their environmental impacts. The treatment and In terms of the landscape, the dredging methods have final storage of the sediments in the clay pit area (A1a) in- no significant differences and the impacts are directed at volves the greatest amount of suction dredging, which is the time of construction (plant and machinery, etc. will be why the emissions of hazardous substances into the River seen in the landscape). In Alternative A1a, the sludge is Kymijoki caused by the remediation are greater in this pumped to the Heinharju industrial area’s old clay removal option than in the other alternatives under examination. site through a temporary pipe. This affects the landscape Along with the largest emissions of hazardous substances, slightly more than the other alternatives which require no the impacts on water quality, fish fauna and people’s health pipes. are greater than in the other alternatives. In Alternative A1a, The alternatives for the final storage of the dredged the nature values of the clay pit area set limits on the use sludge present more differences in landscape effects. of the pits as sedimentation ponds or final storage sites. Alternative A1a has the greatest effects on the landscape If contaminated sediments are deposited in the clay pit of the project area. Alternative A1b presents very slight ef- area, this will necessitate the construction of base struc- fects on the scenery if the area remains completely under tures which meet the demands of structures required for water. If the site rises above the water surface and is made a landfill for hazardous waste, and taking the final storage into an island, the effects on the cultural landscape are ex- site into account in the area’s land use planning. tremely harmful. The alternatives in which the sludge is Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b involve pile planking transported away include A2b which involves transferring that is driven into the River Kymijoki. In Alternative A1b, the landscape effect somewhere else and A2a which has the spoil that is deposited inside the planking will be fi- practically no landscape effects at all. nally stored in the area in a stabilised form, whereas in Otherwise dredging, final storage or transport has no Alternatives A2a and A2b, the pile planking will function significance for the values of the cultural landscape. as a temporary structure, preventing dispersal through tur- No explorations have been made in the remediation bidity outside the dredging area. The building of pile plank- area to locate underwater relics. If the project proceeds, ing involves some uncertainties. It may have to be built in there may be archaeological studies taking place and these an area where there are contaminated sediments, in which should be prepared for at the research phase before applying for permits.

10 case its installation will cause a short-term load of hazard- the process, the existing landfills for hazardous waste are ous substances. After it has been installed, the pile plank- ready-planned, built and monitored, which is why there are ing will be watertight, and no load will be caused while the not as many risks involved in their operation as there are in process is ongoing. Remediation work will also have to be starting a new operation. done in the area outside the pile planking, and then it will One alternative examined in the EIA is maintaining the not have a protective effect. There is also a small risk in the present situation (A0). In this instance, maintaining the cur- functionality of the pile planking, for example, in the case rent situation also causes some harmful effects. Due to the of accident. In Alternative A1b, contaminated sediments contaminated sediments, the dioxin, furan and mercury are stabilised in the water area, which will cause a small ad- concentrations, for example, in fish are higher in the reme- ditional risk also in the long term. diation area than in the comparison areas. The concentra- In Alternatives A2a and A2b, the spoil is transported tions of hazardous substances in fish decrease slowly as the away from the River Kymijoki and its vicinity, which can quantity of hazardous substances contained by the sedi- be seen to be the better and safer option, in terms of the ments lessens through their discharge. Although the im- neighbourhood’s environment, than its final storage in the pacts of the contaminated sediments are visible, they do river or the clay pit area. Alternative A2a involves treating not prevent the recreational use of the river area. In the the sediments thermally, i.e. by burning. Burning destroys current situation, they do not cause significant health haz- dioxins and furans permanently, whereas a part of the mer- ards either, if the recommendations on the consumption of cury is released into the air during incineration. The pro- predatory fish are observed. Because the harm caused by portion of this air emission depends on the incineration the contaminated sediments is not significant in the pre- technique and the quality of the material to be burned. sent situation, the perpetuation of the current state can When considering only dioxins and furans, thermal treat- also be considered a reasonable option, when considering ment is the best option. However, for mercury the situation the need for remediation. is different, because a part of the mercury that is currently bound to the sediments would turn into air pollution dur- Acceptability from the residents’ point of view ing burning. On the other hand, the mercury load in the During the EIA, an extensive resident survey was im- water after remediation would decrease from its current plemented in order to determine what the people living level also in Alternative A2a. In alternative A2b, the contam- in the vicinity of the remediation area and also along the inated sediments are deposited at an existing authorised lower reach of the River Kymijoki think about the remedia- landfill for hazardous waste. The nearest landfills for hazard- tion project. Based on the replies to the survey, residents ous waste are Ekokem-Palvelu Oy in Kouvola (distance 25 consider the remediation project important and neces- km), L&T in Kotka (60 km) and Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto in sary. The respondents were of the opinion that the best re- Joutseno (110 km). In Alternative A2b, the hazardous sub- mediation alternative would be A2a, i.e. the thermal treat- stances are not permanently destroyed even though they ment of sediments. They thought that the final storage of are transported away from the River Kymijoki and its neigh- the sediments in the river area (A1b) was by far the worst bouring area. option. The other alternatives, including the present situa- In all the alternatives for final storage (A1a, A1b and tion, were estimated to be approximately equal. Residents’ A2b), the basis for examination is that no long-term harm- opinions vary and some of the respondents considered A0 ful effects are caused by the finally-stored spoil in its final the best solution. storage site and the site’s neighbouring area. Impacts over a very long period depend on the durability of structures at Technical feasibility the final storage site and also environmental factors. Final All the alternatives presented in the EIA are technically storage sites are built using the best available technolo- feasible. The bucket and suction dredging techniques to be gy. The existing landfills for hazardous waste have been used in the remediation process are commonly used tech- established in such a way that human settlement, surface niques that have been found to work. The water treatment and groundwater conditions and other sensitive sites have involved in suction dredging contains some more uncer- been taken into account in the choice of their location. As tainties than the more simple bucket dredging. When effi- regards long-term risks, it can be estimated that depositing ciently implemented, suction dredging causes the smallest the spoil at an existing landfill involves less risks than its -fi quantity of load during the dredging itself. nal storage in a river or its final storage in the clay pit area in stabilised form. When considering temporary risks during

11 In flowing waters, bucket dredging causes emissions of particulate matter unless work takes place inside a protec- Because of their harmfulness, there has been a deci- tive structure, such as pile planking or a screen. In addi- sion in the EU to get rid of persistent organic pollutants tion, sunken logs at the bottom of the river may disturb the (POPs), and for this reason, they must be either destroyed functioning of the closing buckets, which can also result or modified permanently into a more harmless form. The in particulate matter loads in the waterway. The greatest legal foundation for this is the European Parliament and challenges of suction dredging are in the treatment of wa- Council’s Regulation 2004/850/EU on persistent organ- ter and the pile planking structures involved in Alternatives ic pollutants and the amending Directive 79/117/EEC on A1b, A2a and A2b. Winter also sets limits on dredging, as the restriction of hazardous substances. Thermal treatment water treatment will probably not be possible then. is the primary method of disposal for waste that contains concentrations of POPs exceeding the levels set for hazard- Legislative feasibility ous waste. Dioxins and furans are POPs, and consequently Alternatives A1a, A2a and A2b are feasible according the best feasible alternative would in principle be A2a, i.e. to current legislation. There is some uncertainty about the thermal treatment, i.e. burning. In this case, however, burn- feasibility of Alternative A1b. If only sediments that are in- ing would release mercury into the atmosphere, and there- side pile planking were stabilised in place in Alternative fore the superiority of this alternative is not unequivocal. A1b, the situation would be equivalent to remediation projects performed, for example, in harbour areas and there Financial feasibility would be no legislative problems. However, the alterna- Before the EIA procedure, the costs of the different re- tive involves also the treatment of sediments that have mediation alternatives were estimated in the Review of been brought from outside the pile planking, in which the Remediation Alternatives (Ramboll 2009) that was case the activity can be interpreted as the transport and compiled for the section between Kuusaansaari and Keltti. treatment of hazardous waste. According to legislation, a The costs of Alternative A1a were estimated as MEUR 8.4 landfill for hazardous waste cannot be established in water, (VAT 0%), of Alternative A1b MEUR 6.2 (VAT 0 %) and of which means that collecting sediments which have been Alternative A2b MEUR 13.4 (VAT 0 %). The costs of thermal brought from outside the pile planking to be finally stored treatment were not estimated in this review, but this alter- behind it is probably not possible. In Finland, contaminat- native is the most expensive to implement. The costs of the ed sediments and soil which remain in place are not clas- alternative involving thermal treatment fall in the category sified as waste. The contaminated sediments and soil that of MEUR 30…40 (VAT 0 %). are removed from their original site are classified as waste, The remediation of the contaminated sediments in the which is why the stipulations of both the Waste Act and River Kymijoki is an environmental investment, and its fi- Environmental Protection Act apply to their placement. nancing will be decided on at a later stage if the project The implementation of the remediation project requires proceeds after the EIA. If it is decided that the project will permits conformable to the Water Act and Environmental be implemented, its financing will probably come from Protection Act. A permit that conforms to the regulations several different sources. The Finnish state will in all prob- of the Water Act is needed because of the large quantity ability have a significant role in the project’s financing. of spoil and, in Alternative A1b, because of the final stor- If it is decided that the present situation will be main- age site that would be built in the river. The temporary pile tained, the contaminated sediments will not cause direct planking in Alternatives A2a and A2b may also require a financial effects. In a merely economic sense, A0 is the permit. If sediments are placed in the project area (A1a or cheapest alternative. A1b), an environmental permit for depositing spoil will be The Environmental Impact Assessment has been real- needed. In Alternative A2b, final storage can be performed ised in such a way that financial issues have had no influ- within the reception site’s existing permit and no new per- ence on the assessment results. When deciding whether mits will be required. to proceed with the remediation project or omit restoring the contaminated sediments, the environmental and health effects are considerably more important than financial circumstances.

Part I: THE PROJECT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

13 14 1. INTRODUCTION

The sediments of the River Kymijoki contain dioxins and This EIA Statement presents the results of the furans (PCDD/F compounds) and mercury which come Environmental Impact Assessment and an estimation of from industrial use. As far as dioxins and furans are con- the project’s feasibility. In the statement, the effects of the cerned, the River Kymijoki has been rated as one of the remediation of contaminated sediments and various pro- most polluted rivers in the world. cessing options, including their possible final storage, are The reach of the river between the Kuusankoski and examined. During the EIA, a risk assessment of the reme- Keltti hydropower plants has been found to be the most diation work has was (Esko Rossi Oy 2011), as well as a resi- polluted area of the River Kymijoki in terms of its dioxins dent survey and fishing survey, which are presented as ap- and furans, although PCDD/F compounds have been dis- pendices to the EIA Statement. covered in the sediments throughout the course of the riv- The affected zone of River Kymijoki’s contaminated sed- er. Over the years, several comprehensive reports, calcula- iments extends outside the Finnish domestic water area tions, risk assessments and impact studies have been made into the Gulf of Finland, and therefore also an international on the contaminated sediments of the River Kymijoki. EIA procedure has been applied to the project, in accord- In 2007, the Master Plan for the Remediation of the ance with the Espoo Convention1. The Espoo Convention Contaminated Sediments of the River Kymijoki (Ramboll is a general agreement of the United Nations Economic Finland Oy 2007) was completed. In the plan’s cost-ben- Commission for Europe in which the participating states efit analysis, the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river was have agreed on the assessment of environmental impacts found to be the most suitable remediation target when that cross state borders. compared to the other sub-areas of the River Kymijoki. In The Environmental Impact Assessment was compiled the light of present knowledge and on the basis of the risk by Ramboll Finland Oy on the assignment of the Centre for assessment made for River Kymijoki, there is no immediate Economic Development, Transport and the Environment need to restore the whole river. for Southeast Finland. The following persons from Ramboll Southeast Finland Regional Environment Centre re- Finland Oy have participated in the work: Matti Hilla, MA; quested a wide array of statements about the Master Kare Päätalo, Deputy Project Manager, MA, CE, and Anne Plan.�� The statements touched subjects such as remedia- Mäkynen, Project Coordinator, MA. Other experts from tion methods and the scope of remediation. On the ba- Ramboll Finland Oy to have taken part in the work include sis of the risk assessment, Master Plan and the statements Joonas Hokkanen, Docent, Ph.D.; Pirjo Isosaari, Ph.D.; Hanna received, the Southeast Finland Regional Environment Tolvanen, MA; Anne Vehmas, MA; Seela Sinisalo, MA; Janne Centre demarcated in its letter on 19 November 2008 Kekkonen, MA; Antti Lepola, MSc (Agriculture and Forestry); the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river as the planning Otso Lintinen, MSc (Agriculture and Forestry); Miia zone for further action. In 2009, on the grounds of the de- Virolainen, MA, and Landscape Architect Hannu Eerikäinen. marcation made, possible remediation solutions for the Dennis Söderholm, MA, has acted as the geographic infor- Kuusaansaari–Keltti section were specified in a report on mation expert in this project, Kirsti Kautto as clicker and remediation alternatives (Ramboll Finland Oy 2009). Kirsi Hakala as technical assistant. The risk assessment com- After various research and planning phases, the piled under Ph.D. Esko Rossi as a part of the EIA has been a Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the central part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Environment for Southeast Finland decided to launch an Watercourse Manager Visa Niittyniemi and Senior Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure for the Inspector Ilkka Närhi from the Centre for Economic remediation of contaminated sediments in the river sec- Development, Transport and the Environment for tion between Kuusaansaari and Keltti. The EIA procedure is Southeast Finland have led the assessment work. a prerequisite for the application for permits for the project and the project’s execution. Another reason for launching the EIA is to hear what citizens and various interest groups have to say, which will provide additional information 1 Parties outside the agreement are entitled to par- about the feasibility of the remediation project. ticipate in the EIA procedure conducted in Finland if the harmful environmental impacts of the project are likely to affect the state in question (Finland as a causing party). Finland is entitled to participate in the EIA procedure of a project taking place in another state’s area if the impacts of the project are likely to affect Finland (Finland as a target party). In the case of the Kymijoki EIA, Finland acts as a causing party. 15 2. OPERATOR IN CHARGE

The operator in charge of this project, in accordance with the Finnish EIA Act, is the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for Southeast Finland (ELY Centre). The Centre’s tasks include environmental protection; steering the use of land and construction; nature protection; monitoring the state of the environment; the usage and management of water resources; advisory, financing and development services for enterprises; employment- based benefits and labour market training; agricultural and fishery issues; immigration matters; EU structural fund projects; road maintenance; road projects; transport permit issues; traffic safety; public transport; island traffic; vocational education; library services; sports and physical training services; the education system and youth services. The ELY Centre for Southeast Finland’s area of responsibility, the environment and natural resources (Y area of responsibility), functions as the contact authority in issues related to EIA in its own area. In this project, the area of responsibility covering the environment and natural resources of the ELY Centre for Southeast Finland includes the function of being the operator in charge of the project, which means that it cannot act as a contact authority. Within this EIA, the Ministry of the Environment has allocated the tasks of the contact authorities to the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for Uusimaa.

16 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

3.1 The Main Stages of the Assessment Procedure 3.2 Assessment Programme

The Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure The assessment programme and public announcement (EIA) came into effect on 1 September 1994. The goal of the were on view from 24 November 2010 to 24 January act is twofold. Besides promoting environmental impact 2011 at the Kouvola City Hall, Kotka City Library, Pyhtää assessment and taking environmental impacts into ac- Municipal Office and Loviisa City Office. The public an- count already at the planning stage, it also aims to increase nouncement was printed in the following newspapers: citizens’ possibilities of obtaining information and their op- Kouvolan Sanomat, Kymen Sanomat, Loviisan Sanomat portunities to participate in the planning of the project. and Östra Nyland. The EIA procedure itself is not a licence application, plan or The assessment programme can also be viewed elec- decision to implement a project, but it is used to produce tronically on the web pages of the ELY Centre for Uusimaa: information for decision making. http://www.ely-keskus.fi > ELY Centres > ELY Centre for The EIA Act is applied to projects which may cause sig- Uusimaa > Environmental Protection > Environmental nificant harmful environmental impacts. Projects of this Impact Assessment > EIA and SOVA > Pending EIA Projects kind are listed in the EIA Decree. In individual cases, other Events for the public concerning the assessment pro- projects may also be required to carry out a similar assess- gramme were organised in the Council Hall of the former ment procedure if the project is expected to have consid- Kuusankoski Town Hall on 7 December 2010, and in the erable adverse environmental impacts. Council Hall of Kotka City Hall on 9 December 2010. The assessment procedure begins when the operator in charge delivers an assessment programme to the 3.3 Statements and Opinions Received contact authorities. This programme is a plan for how for the Assessment Programme the operator in charge intends to implement the actual Environmental Impact Assessment. Ordinarily, the regional A total of 14 statements and two opinions of the assess- ELY Centre functions as the contact authority, but in this ment programme were submitted to the contact authority. EIA, the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and The following operators have provided a statement about the Environment for Southeast Finland is in charge of the the assessment programme: project and therefore the ELY Centre for Uusimaa will act as • City of Kouvola the contact authority. • City of Kotka After receiving the programme, the contact authority • Town of Loviisa will publicly announce the starting of the assessment by • Municipality of Pyhtää proclaiming the assessment programme. This gives those • Regional Council of Kymenlaakso that may be affected by the project an opportunity to give • Regional State Administrative Agency for their opinion on the matters presented in the assessment Southern Finland programme. People’s goals and opinions are important, • ELY Centre for Southeast Finland and the objective of the assessment procedure is to take • National Board of Antiquities these into account. This allows conflicting goals to be high- • Museum of Kymenlaakso lighted at the planning stage so that all views can be con- • Kaakkois-Suomen vapaa-ajankalastajapiiri (the sidered in the decision making. Opinions are to be present- Leisure Fishing Association of Southeast Finland) ed to the contact authority which, in this project, is the ELY • Kuusankosken Kalastusseura ry (Kuusankoski Centre for Uusimaa. Fishing Association) • Kotka-Seura ry (Kotka Society) • Kotkan ympäristöseura ry (Kotka Environment Association)

17 Kymenlaakson luonnonsuojelupiiri ry (Kymenlaakso The project’s environmental impacts were estimated on Nature Protection Society) the basis of the assessment programme and the statement The Kymijoki–Kuusankoski Rod Fishing Area and compiled by the contact authority about the programme. Mzymes Oy have submitted their opinions. The results of the assessment have been amassed into this The Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environmental Impact Assessment Statement. the Environment for Uusimaa, which acts as the contact authority in this project, delivered its statement of the 3.4 Observing the Contact Authority’s Environmental Impact Assessment programme on 24 Statement February 2011. The statement delineates the examinations on which the operator in charge of the project should spe- The following table presents the issues highlighted by the cifically focus when making the assessment of environ- contact authority in their statement, as well as the way mental impacts and which parts of the assessment plan these can be taken into account in the Environmental presented in the assessment programme need to be ex- Impact Assessment Statement, and a possible reference panded on. The statement also presents other reports to the appropriate chapter in the Environmental Impact and opinions about the assessment programme that have Assessment Statement. been obtained from various parties.

Table 3–1. Taking into account the contact authority’s statement about the assessment programme in the EIA.

Section of the contact authority’s statement Treatment in the EIA Statement

No estimate of the project’s timetable or the duration of the stag- The scheduling for the remediation work is presented in Chapter es of the various alternatives has been made in the EIA programme. 3.1 of the statement. It is important for the residents of the neighbouring area to know where the remediation work will begin, how it will proceed and during which season it will occur.

The current pollution load caused by the contaminated sediments is In Alternative A0, the impacts have been assessed also over a long- examined in Alternative Zero, i.e. A0. Because the significance of Al- er period. In the risk assessment, all the alternatives have been ternative A0 is emphasised in this project, it is particularly important evaluated for a period of 30 years. to estimate the pollution load caused by this option, as well as both short-term and long-term environmental and health hazards.

In Sub-alternative 0+, the possibility of stabilising or covering the Experiments have been made in the River Kymijoki to cover con- contaminated sediments and shielding them from erosion and cur- taminated sediments. The follow-up results of covering demonstrate rents in their areas of distribution must be determined and ex- that it is not a suitable alternative. Alternative A0+ is discussed in plained. In such a case, it is not necessary to dredge and transfer Chapter 4.3. the contaminated sediments at all.

In respect of Alternatives 1a (the stabilisation of contaminated sed- The extent of the area required for final storage and the process- iments in the clay pit area) and 1b (the stabilisation of contaminat- ing of sediments, as well as the technical execution, are presented ed sediments in the river bed), the EIA Statement shall present and in the EIA Statement on the grounds of the Master Plan and the Re- describe the protective measures for the soil and groundwater, the view of the Remediation Alternatives. The technical execution has extent of the area required for final storage, the base structures and been investigated in Chapter 4.4 and the impacts of terminal stor- the technical execution of final storage. age on the use of the areas in Chapter 4.16.

The processing methods for contaminated sediments by suction The methods of suction and bucket dredging, stabilisation methods dredging and bucket dredging should be described in more de- and the treatment of water are described in the EIA Statement on tail. For example, can a method be used to prevent the mixing and the basis of the Master Plan and the Review of the Remediation Al- transfer of hazardous substances in the water during the working ternatives. process?

According to the European Parliament and Council’s Regulation No The acceptable methods of final storage according to the POP Reg- 850/2004 (known as the POP Regulation), waste matter containing ulation is discussed in Chapter 4.5 of the statement. persistent organic pollutants (POPs) must be treated in such a way that the POPs are destroyed or transformed irreversibly or, in exceptional cases, deposited in underground storage or landfills for hazardous waste. In respect of Alternative 1b, it must be determined and confirmed that the method of final storage, i.e. the stabilisation of contaminated sediments in the river area inside pile planking, is an acceptable treatment method, mentioned in the POP Regulation, for dredged spoil such as this.

18 Section of the contact authority’s statement Treatment in the EIA Statement

The soil, groundwater and surface water conditions of the clay pit The soil and groundwater conditions of the clay pit areas are pre- areas shall be presented in the EIA Statement, as shall the river bot- sented in the EIA Statement on the basis of the existing data and tom conditions and bottom shapes regarding the river bed’s soil map examination in Chapter 8.1. The conditions of the river bed’s dumping area. soil dumping area are described on the basis of the sediment and probing examinations in Chapter 6.2.

Because the area to be restored and the sites for the treatment of The resident survey was delimited according to the framing of the the spoil and its possible final storage in the river bed or clay pit neighbouring area which conforms to the EIA programme and area are located in the centre of Kuusankoski’s population centre, which has been expanded somewhat around the soil dumping are- and therefore in the middle of a residential area, the immediate af- as (the survey area is presented in Appendix 2). The definition of the fected zone shall be extended to cover the centre and the residents impacts has been examined in the EIA Statement by impact. of the neighbouring area.

In respect of Alternative 1a, other possible uses assigned by plan- The EIA Statement presents the zoning reservations for the clay pits ning for the clay pit area shall be taken into account. If the area is and the estimated effects on land use if sediments are placed in the used for the terminal storage of contaminated sediments, it and its clay pit area. The effects on land use have been discussed in Chap- neighbourhood area become permanently unusable for other pur- ter 16.4. poses.

The impacts on the state of the watercourse are otherwise assessed The impacts and risks caused by the building of pile planking are extensively, but Remediation Alternatives 1b (stabilisation in the taken into account in the risk assessment of the remediation work river bed), 2a (thermal treatment) and 2b (final storage at a land- (Appendix 1). The changes caused by pile planking in the flow are fill) contain a plan to build a pile-planking work basin in the river examined in Chapter 16.4. bed, and the presented estimation of the impacts of these alternatives must be improved. In respect of these alternatives, the effects of building a pile-planking work basin must also be assessed; for example, the quantity of the solid substance load during the building process. In addition, it must be taken into account that building pile planking will probably limit the flow cross-section of the River Kymijoki and thus increase the stream velocity in the channel. This, in turn, may amplify erosion in the reach of the river that is below the pile planking and increase the entry of hazardous substances into the water.

The EIA Statement must also include a separate assessment of the The project’s effects on the water management plan are estimated effects of the project in relation to the River Kymijoki–Gulf of Fin- in the EIA Statement in Chapter 18- land water management plan and the realisation of the goals of its action programme.

The occurrence of the thick shelled river mussel within the planned The occurrence of the thick shelled river mussel will be charted, if area of operation and the affected zone of the project in addition the project proceeds after the EIA to a more detailed planning and to the above mentioned observations has not been established, and additional investigation stage. The matter is examined in Chap- therefore the mussel’s occurrence within the project area and after 9.3. fected zone must be determined.

The endangered mayfly species Ephemera lineata has been discov- The effects of the project on endangered insects are assessed in the ered on the reach of the river to be restored, and the large white- EIA Statement on the basis of existing information. The matter is ex- faced darter that is mentioned in Annex IVa of the Habitats Direc- amined in Chapter 9.3. tive has been observed in the area of the old clay pits. The effects of the project also on these species shall be estimated.

When assessing the effects on fishing in the EIA Statement, com- The effects on commercial fishing are estimated in the EIA State- mercial fishing and fish farming must be taken into account. ment on the basis of existing data in Chapter 12.3

An underwater archaeological assessment must be performed of Archaeological surveys will be made if the project proceeds after the area intended for remediation. The impacts of dredging and soil the EIA to a more detailed planning and additional investigation dumping on underwater relics cannot be estimated until after this stage. The matter is examined in Chapter 17.3 has been done.

19 3.5 Assessment Statement 3.7.1 Planning Group

The contact authority will make a public announce- The Planning Group has been responsible for the practi- ment about the completion of the Environmental Impact cal implementation of the assessment, such as collecting Assessment Statement according to the same principle as initial data and the documents, assessment and commu- in the Environmental Impact Assessment programme. This nications. The following parties were a part of the Planning authority will set a term, between 1–2 months, for deliver- Group: ing opinions and statements to them. • ELY Centre for Southeast Finland They will request statements from the central authori- • Ramboll Finland ties in the same way as during the programme stage. All 3.7.2 Steering Group those who may be affected by the project may provide an opinion of the statement and the adequacy of the surveys The purpose of the EIA Steering Group was to ensure the performed. The authority will aggregate these opinions appropriateness and adequacy of the assessment, as well and statements and write their own report on the grounds as the possibility for citizens to participate. The Steering of these about the Statement and its adequacy. Group has a central role in ensuring the quality of the Environmental Impact Assessment. The group assembled 3.6 The End of the Assessment four times during the EIA process. Procedure The remediation project and the prospective Environmental Impact Assessment procedure was intro- The Environmental Impact Assessment procedure will end duced during the Steering Group’s first meeting. The out- after the ELY Centre for Uusimaa has provided its report line of the EIA programme was discussed in the second on the Assessment Statement within 2 months of the end meeting, and the third concerned the statements received of the viewing time. The Assessment Statement and the for the programme and the risk assessment that had been statement provided by the contact authorities constitute completed. The results of the resident survey and the draft the results of the assessment. These documents will be in- of the EIA Statement were discussed in the fourth meeting. cluded in the licence applications required for the project. • Representatives from the following operators were invited to take part in the Steering Group: 3.7 Organising Participation and • City of Kouvola, Environmental Services Interaction • City of Kouvola, Land Use • City of Kotka, Environment Office All citizens whose circumstances and benefits (such • Town of Loviisa, Environment Office as living, working, movement, recreational activities or • Municipality of Pyhtää, Environment Office other living conditions) may be influenced by the devel- • ELY Centre for Uusimaa, Fishery Group oped project can participate in the Environmental Impact • Regional Council of Kymenlaakso Assessment procedure. • UPM Kymmene Oyj • According to legislation, citizens can: • Kymenlaakson luonnonsuojelupiiri (Kymenlaakso • Comment on the need to survey the impacts of Nature Protection Society) the project when it is announced that the assess- • Etelä-Suomen merikalastajain liitto ry (Marine ment programme is pending Fishing Association for Southern Finland) Comment on the contents of the Assessment Statement, • Kaakkois-Suomen vapaa-ajankalastajapiiri such as the adequacy of the surveys performed, in connec- (Leisure Fishing Association of Southeast Finland) tion with the communications about the Statement / Kuusankosken kalastusseura ry (Kuusankoski People’s goals and opinions are important, and the ob- Fishing Association) jective of the assessment procedure is to take these into • Kuusankoski Society account. This allows conflicting goals to be highlighted at • Representatives of nature tourism entrepreneurs the planning stage so that all views can be considered in • Finnish Environment Institute, expert member the decision making. The following groups have been established for the assessment:

20 3.8 Communications

The contact authority will organise the official hearing, of the Environment reserves the right to comment on the which is a part of the EIA procedure, in the way stipulat- Statement. English translation of Statement will be deliv- ed in the EIA Act. By law, the operator in charge and the ered to Estonia. contact authority can agree on handling communications in addition to this also in another way. Official communi- 3.10 EIA Procedure and the Project’s cations and hearings are necessary at least in connection Timetable with exhibiting the assessment programme and at the handling stage of the Assessment Statement. The project’s Environmental Impact Assessment pro- The documents concerning the EIA procedure can be gramme was submitted to the contact authority in seen in the premises and libraries of the project area’s cities November 2010 and the Environmental Impact Assessment and municipalities and on the web page of the ELY Centre: Statement in July 2011. The following table (Table 3–2) pre- http://www.ely-keskus.fi/fi/ELYkeskukset/uudenmaanely/ sents the assessment procedure’s timetable. Ymparistonsuojelu/YVA/Vireilla/yksittaistapaukset/Sivut/ After the assessment of environmental impacts, the ELY Kymijoenpilaantuneidensedimenttienkunnostus.aspx Centre for Southeast Finland will decide whether it will begin the process of applying for licences to implement the 3.9 International Hearing remediation work. Before the licence stages there is a research and planning phase during which the details of the An agreement has been made about the assessment project’s implementation will be planned in more detail. of environmental impacts that cross state borders in The assessment of impacts will also become more specific what is called the Espoo Convention (Convention on in some parts before the licence stage. Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary If the ELY Centre for Southeast Finland decides to apply Context (67/1997)). A party to the convention has the right for a licence to implement the project, the licence stages to participate in an environmental impact assessment pro- will occur approximately in 2013–2014. Before the licence cedure performed in Finland if the project to be assessed stages, the additional investigation and planning stage will is likely to cause significant harmful environmental impacts take place. The realisation of the project, i.e. the actual re- on the state in question. mediation work, may occur during 2015–2017. The remedi- After the EIA became pending, the ELY Centre for ation work has been estimated to take between 1–3 years, Uusimaa, which acts as the contact authority in this EIA, re- depending on the technique chosen and the boundaries quested the Finnish Ministry of the Environment to inves- set for the work. tigate the need for an international hearing. The Estonian Ministry of the Environment announced that it will not consider it necessary to participate in the EIA procedure. It con- siders that potential environmental impacts on Estonian environment should be assessed. The Estonian Ministry

Table 3–2. EIA procedure’s timetable.

Timescale Event June–October 2010 Preparation of the assessment, compilation of the initial data, compilation of the assessment programme November–December 2010– The assessment programme is on view and in circulation for comment January 2011 The contact authority’s statement about the assessment programme October 2010 - June 2011 Drawing up the Assessment Statement September–October 2011 The Assessment Statement is on view and in circulation for comment December 2011 The contact authority’s statement about the Assessment Statement Beginning of the year 2012 Resolutions about how to proceed

21 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1 Background and Previous Stages

The sediments in the River Kymijoki contain dioxins and contaminated sediments was performed (VTT Technical furans (PCDD/F compounds) created as pollutants during Research Centre of Finland 2000), as well as a test dredging the manufacture of a wood preservative known as KY-5, as of the sediments in Myllykoski (Southeast Finland Regional well as mercury which has entered the water through the Environment Centre 2002). In 2004, a mathematical model activities of a chlor-alkali factory and various woodwork- was compiled for the assessment of the remediation alter- ing factories. The wood-processing industry located by the natives for the River Kymijoki’s contaminated bottom sed- River Kymijoki abandoned the use of mercury in 1968. The iments (Finnish Environment Institute SYKE and Helsinki manufacture of KY-5 in Kuusankoski was brought to an end University of Technology 2004), and in 2005, a risk assess- in 1984, and the chlor-alkali factory closed down in 1994. ment was conducted on the health and environmental im- During the KYPRO project, which was launched in 1996, pacts of the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments (Esko the River Kymijoki sediment and fish samples contained, Rossi Oy 2005). among other things, polychlorinated dioxins (PCDD), polychlorinated furans (PCDF), polychlorinated diphenyl ethers 4.2 Selecting the Remediation Target (PCDE), chlorophenoles (PCP) and mercury. The reach of the river between the hydropower plants of Kuusankoski In 2007, the Master Plan for the Remediation of the and Keltti has been found to be the most badly polluted Contaminated Sediments of the River Kymijoki (Ramboll area in terms of its PCDD/F compound concentrations. Finland Oy 2007) was completed. In the plan’s cost–ben- In the KYPRO project, mercury was investigated in the efit analysis, the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river was surface layers of the sediments throughout the survey found to be the most suitable remediation target when area. The highest concentrations of mercury in the sedi- compared to the other sub-areas of the river. In the light of ment’s surface layer were discovered immediately below present knowledge and on the basis of the risk assessment the Kuusankoski hydropower plant, where concentrations made for the River Kymijoki, there is no immediate need to exceeding the higher guideline values set for polluted restore the whole river. soil were analysed.2 In the area between the Kuusankoski The ELY Centre (former Southeast Finland Regional and Keltti hydropower plants, the concentration of mer- Environment Centre) requested a wide array of statements cury was also determined in deeper sediment layers, and about the Master Plan, and these contain comments on in these, the higher guideline value set for polluted land the remediation methods and the scope of the remedia- was generally exceeded. The fish in the River Kymijoki were tion project. On the basis of the risk assessment, Master also discovered to have concentrations of mercury which Plan and the statements received, the Southeast Finland exceeded the limit set for the nutritional use of fish, but Regional Environment Centre demarcated in its letter on no regional concentrations like those in sediments were 19 November 2008 the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the riv- found in fish. er as the planning zone for further action. In 2009, on the After the KYPRO project, several separate studies and grounds of the demarcation made, possible remediation impact assessments have been made of the contaminated solutions for the Kuusaansaari–Keltti section were specified sediments in River Kymijoki. In the late 1990s, the impacts in a report on remediation alternatives (Ramboll Finland of the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments on the Oy 2009). use of the river were assessed (Southeast Finland Regional On the grounds presented above, the remediation will Environment Centre 1999). At the start of the new millen- be planned and examined for the reach of the river be- nium, an investigation of the treatment alternatives for tween Kuusaansaari and Keltti (Figure 4–1). 2 As yet, there are no threshold values for the assessment of the contamination of inland water sediments. The guideline values for contaminated soil (Finnish Government 214/2007) are applied to sediments only when the sediments are deposited on land. 22 Figure 4–1. The location of the remediation planning area. 4.3 Alternatives Examined in the EIA

As yet, there are no threshold values for the assessment The EIA Act emphasises the importance of clarifying the of the contamination of inland water sediments. The guide- project’s alternatives and comparing them. According to line values for contaminated soil (Finnish Government the decree, an assessment must at least examine the pro- 214/2007) are applied on sediments only when the sedi- ject and the option of omitting to implement the project. ments are deposited on land. In this EIA, the remediation of the most contaminated ar- On the grounds of hazardous substance and echo eas located along the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the riv- sounding investigations, one more extensive area has er will be examined taking into account alternative reme- been discovered in the Kuusaansaari–Keltti area (areas 2 diation solutions. All the remediation options include the and 3), containing significant quantities of extremely high- dredging of contaminated sediments within the planning level contaminated sediments. In addition, the investiga- zone. The main alternatives will deal with locating the sedi- tions of the remediation area have revealed eight other ar- ments in near-by areas (the sub-options include locating eas which have soft sedimentation areas and/or elevated them in the river or in the area of the clay pits), or trans- point concentrations of hazardous substances. porting them elsewhere for further treatment (the sub-op- It is not the intention to restore the entire Kuusaansaari– tions include burning or terminal storage in a landfill for Keltti reach of the river. Instead, the presented areas (1–10) hazardous waste). In this EIA, Alternative A0, i.e. omitting represent possible targets for restoration in the remedia- to implement the project, plays an important part and it tion area between Kuusaansaari and Keltti, if technical and has therefore been examined equally in terms of all possi- economic factors allow it and if the temporary risks occur- ble impacts side by side with the alternatives that involve ring during the project are smaller than the benefits to be the realisation of the project. The end of the EIA Statement gained. The boundaries will become more clear before the contains comparisons of the alternatives and estimations actual remediation work begins. of the project’s feasibility. In areas that are not included in the remediation areas in the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river, there may in places occur sediments that contain hazardous substances. In these areas, the total quantities of sediments and their hazardous substances are comparatively small due to the fact that in chartings no thick layers of sediment have been discovered in the areas in question.

23 The following alternatives are examined in the EIA:

Storing the contaminated sediments in the planning zone: A1a = The contaminated sediments in the whole desig- A2b = A pile planking work basin is built in the most nated reach of the river are suction-dredged and pumped strongly contaminated reach of the river, and from inside it, through a pipe to the area of the clay pits to be stabilised. The sediments are removed by bucket dredging and transported surface structures are built either as a storage field or park area, away. Sediments are suction-dredged from outside the work taking into account how easily the stabilising area can be built basin into it and then on to be transported away. The removed on and the land use of the surrounding area. sediments are transported to a landfill for final storage. A1b = A pile-planking work basin is built in the most The load caused by the remediation alternatives and strongly contaminated reach of the river, and from outside their environmental and health effects were examined it, sediments are suction-dredged into it. Contaminated sedi- both as impacts during the remediation work and over a ments are stabilised in the river area inside the pile planking af- longer period. ter which erosion protection is constructed on top of the sedi- A0 = The sediments of the River Kymijoki are not restored; ment. instead, the situation will remain as it currently is. In Alternative Zero, the current loading caused by the contaminated sedi- Transporting contaminated sediments outside the planning zone ments is examined, as well as the environmental and health A2a = A pile planking work basin is built in the most effects brought about by the load.The effects are considered strongly contaminated reach of the river, and from inside it, over a longer period also in Alternative A0. sediments are removed by bucket dredging and transported The condensed proposal of the comparison of the al- away. Sediments are suction-dredged from outside the work ternatives is presented in the following figure (Figure 4–2). basin into it and then on to be transported away. The removed sediments are transported for thermal treatment.

Figure 4–2. Alternatives examined in the EIA.

24 Figure 4–3. The location of contaminated sediments and the way the remediation activities are placed in the planning zone.

The following figure displays the way the activities of each alternative are set in the planning zone (Figure 4–3).

25 In their statement of the assessment programme, the No dredging method can entirely prevent some de- contact authority required that, in addition to the alterna- gree of sediment dispersal into the water. Using tradition- tives described above, Alternative A0+ is also examined in al bucket dredging techniques, the turbidity area may be the EIA. This option does not involve dredging but, instead, very large, especially in flowing waters. Over the last dec- covering contaminated sediments. Covering has been ades, however, there have been developments which, to tested on the banks of the River Kymijoki in the area of a large degree, make it possible to prevent the escape Koria and has been found to lend itself extremely poorly to of solid substances with certain techniques. In river envi- the remediation of fine, watery sediment. On the grounds ronments, the use of protective screens is not possible in of the monitoring study in Koria on covering sediments strong currents. (Kiirikki and Lindfors 2006), a significant portion of the fine Generally, dredging equipment is divided into three sediments and hazardous substances escaped from under main groups: the covering material during the covering process. • bucket dredgers Because of the experience of covering sediments in the • suction dredgers River Kymijoki and as covering has been found in the moni- • pneumatic dredgers toring study to be poorly suited for a remediation method, 4.4.1.1 Comparison of Dredging Techniques covering as an option is not discussed in this EIA. Dredging techniques can be compared, for example, on the grounds of dredging power and the suspension of par- 4.4 Technical Implementation of the ticulate matter caused by dredging. Remediation Bucket and grab dredging are divided into open and closed buckets. Open buckets can only be used to lift spoil 4.14.1 Dredging Methods if the areas dredged can be protected with a silt curtain. In other cases, what are called closed environment buckets Hazardous substances on the bottom of the river can be can be used to minimise the dispersal of hazardous sub- quickly and efficiently removed by dredging. The method stances and the turbidity of spoil. The dredging power of is a multi-phased process that requires the transfer of the bucket dredgers is moderate, approximately 150…300 spoil to land or another water area where it will cause no m3/h. In dredging contaminated substances, however, harm. Water is extracted from the substance on land, and the dredging power is slightly lower than in conventional the possible desiccating of the sludge and water treatment dredging, due to the precision of the work. take place before the water is piped back into the water- In river conditions, dredging is performed from a float- course. Finally, the sediments containing hazardous sub- ing raft which allows the use of a wheel-mounted or track- stances are utilised or placed at a final storage site. laying excavator. Dredging craft intended solely for water- With dredging it is possible to decontaminate the hot course work are also available. spot areas in different parts of the remediation area in The test dredging performed in the River Kymijoki in which the concentrations of hazardous substances are 2001 led to the conclusion that a grab bucket or pump high. The dredging of contaminated sediments is realised bucket which is based on partial vacuum may be best suit- using methods which disperse the sediments as little as ed for dredging contaminated sediments. possible and which are as reliable as possible in their ac- The following table (Table 4–1) presents the differenc- curacy. By optimising working precision, the dredging of es between an open and closed bucket according to the clean sediments and their unnecessary further treatment research of Pennekamp et al. (1996). The use of a closed can be avoided. In places, for example, rocks and sunken bucket results in a considerably better outcome environ- logs at the bottom of the river may impede dredging. mentally speaking, especially as regards the increase of turbidity and the amount of suspension.

Table 4–1. Comparison of bucket dredgers.

INCREASE IN TURBIDITY BACKGROUND AMOUNT OF CAPACITY DREDGER TYPE TURBIDITY SUSPENSION (In the area of 2,500 m3) m3/h mg/l mg/l kg/m3 Open backhoe/grab bucket 210 40 530 54 Closed backhoe/grab bucket 200 45 170 21

26 4.4.2 Desiccating the Dredged Sediment

4.4.2.2 Desiccation in a Pond With suction dredging, turbidity and suspension are Technically, the simplest way to desiccate sediments is by minimal. Dredging power varies according to dredging letting them settle in ponds. Desiccation in a pond takes a type, remaining at the same level or slightly higher than in year or several years and, in some cases, winter conditions bucket dredging. With contemporary equipment, dredg- may significantly decelerate the process. ing accuracy is on a par with bucket dredging. In both Pond desiccation may be a multiphase process. During techniques, the dredging precision is ± 5…30 cm in depth its first stage, the heaviest material is removed and at later and ± 10…20 cm in the horizontal direction. stages, the solid substances. The desiccation of large quan- The most significant difference between bucket and tities of sediments requires a large pond capacity. suction dredging techniques lies in the water content of 4.4.2.3 Geo-bag the spoil. In principle, bucket dredgers raise the same sub- This method involves transferring the dredged or exca- stance to the surface as lies on the bottom, whereas in vated sediments by pumping them into bags made of suction dredging the water content is considerably high- geo-textiles. This technique has been used, for example, er. This causes significant disparities between the different in the remediation of the sediments in the log pond of the techniques in the space requirement of soil dumping ba- Penttilä sawmill in Joensuu. The bags are typically filled al- sins. ternately up to their maximum capacity so that the extra 4.4.1.2 Qualities Required of a Dredging Method in water has time to leak out during the filling stages. the Circumstances of the River Kymijoki The water leaving the sediments is filtered through the The following is a list of the qualities that are required of geo-textile which retains particulate matter but lets water the dredging equipment used in the River Kymijoki: through. When the filling of the geo-textile bag begins, the • work can be performed both in shallow and deep fabric gets wet and, with the assistance of the suspended water matter, its 240 µm-sized holes form into a filter bed so that • the flow conditions do not interfere with work particles as large in grain size as 10 µm stay in the bag. • accurate scouting out of the sediments to be dredged • the suspension of sediments is as slight as possible during work • the non-homogeneity of sediments does not prevent work

Figure 4–4. Desiccating the sediments in a geo-bag.

27 4.4.2.4 Other Desiccation Methods In addition to sedimentation ponds, sediments and sludge In mass stabilisation, a binding agent, predetermined in can be desiccated using centrifuges, vacuum filters and in- a laboratory, is fed into the spoil which has been placed filtration band clamps. With large quantities of sediment, in a pond. The binding agent is mixed into the spoil with the problem with mechanical desiccation methods is the the mixing tool at the end of an excavator’s arm. The spoil high price of the treatment equipment which is why ponds dredged with mass stabilisation equipment can be stabi- are a better option for large quantities. lised to the depth of 5–6 metres. Geo-grid reinforcement/a 4.4.3 Stabilisation filter cloth is assembled on top of the stabilised layer and an approximately 0.5 m layer of mineral material to func- By solidifying/stabilising the spoil, the sediments’ geo- tion as a work base. technical excavating properties are improved and hazard- When well planned and implemented, mass stabilisa- ous substances are bound so that they are no longer in tion is a functional solution for stabilising contaminated soluble form and thus cannot regain the aqueous phase. spoil. This technique has been used, for example, in treat- Solidifying methods may be based both on chemical and ing the dredged contaminated sediments (approximate- physical methods. Solidifying changes the geotechnical ly 500,000 m3), polluted by organic tin compounds, in properties of the framework material so that its carrying Helsinki’s Vuosaari harbour. capacity improves and hydraulic conductivity decreases. 4.4.3.2 Solidification by Mass Stabilisation in a For example, a quantity predetermined in laboratory tests Temporary Pond (kg/m3) of cement or another binding agent is fed into Mass stabilisation can also be performed in a temporary the framework material in order to achieve the planned pond before the material is finally stored. This technique strength, hydraulic conductivity or the holding capacity of was utilised, for example, in Norway to stabilise the con- hazardous substances. taminated sediments polluted by heavy metals at the In stabilisation, the spoil is utilised in different structures Trondheim port. After stabilisation, the treated material and, at the same time, its hazardous substances are bound can be reprocessed, for example, by compressing it before in a poorly soluble form. its transfer to the actual construction (for example, wharf, 4.4.3.1 Mass Stabilisation breakwater, etc.). The mass can also be used as a filling Mass stabilisation is especially suited for soft materials, such agent in various places. as clay, gyttja and peat. It involves mixing a binding agent 4.4.3.3 Process Stabilisation Method (for example, cement) in the framework material. In this A process stabilisation method has been developed specif- technique, for example, a wharf reinforced with sheet piles ically for the treatment of spoil. It involves blasting a bind- or blasted stone or another basin is first filled with spoil. The ing agent into the spoil, which is moving in a pipe. There spoil is left to settle for a specific time, allowing extra water it mixes with the substances and immediately reacts with to escape from the sediments, which causes the mass to them, binding fines and hazardous substances. The spoil solidify somewhat in the basin. This facilitates the realisa- is pumped directly into the final storage reservoir or con- tion of mass stabilisation and saves on binding agent costs. struction. After this, mass stabilisation is begun from the edges of the In process stabilisation, a binding agent mixture is fed pond as is presented in the figure below (Figure 4–1). into the mass transition pipe system in a special process stabilisation mixing unit.

Figure 4–5. The general principle of mass stabilisation.

28 In process stabilisation: Final storage as an exception to the application of the • The spoil is fed into the process stabilisation unit’s disposal and modification principle feed bin According to the Regulation, the treatment at a landfill • The mass is carried from the feed bin to the mix- of waste that has been polluted by POPs is possible at a ing unit by a spiral conveyor landfill for conventional waste when the concentration of • The binding agent is dispensed into the mixing PCDD/F compounds is below 15,000 pg/g (TEF). In other unit either moist or dry words, this is the limit value, and greater concentrations • The binding agent and spoil are blended efficient- of PCDD/F compounds require persistent organic pollut- ly in the mixing unit ants to be disposed of or permanently modified into a less • The mixed mass is discharged by the spiral con- harmful form. veyor directly into the construction or intermedi- According to Article 7, paragraph 4 of the POP Regulation, ate storage, etc. some types of waste mentioned in the Regulation can be 4.4.4 Water Treatment treated, in exceptional cases, by storing them terminally, pretreated, on a landfill for hazardous waste or, untreated, In suction dredging, a large quantity of water, in addition in permanent underground storage. A member state or to wet sediment, is removed, which is why large ponds are competent authority appointed by a member state can, in required for separating the water and particulate matter. exceptional cases, allow for waste which is listed in Annex Water treatment is planned to occur by letting sedi- V, part 2 and which contains the substances listed in Annex ments settle, during which process chemical coagulants IV or has become polluted by these within the limits of can be used. Before piping it back into the watercourse, concentration established in Annex V, part 2 to be treated the water is treated by passing it through a sand filter to re- according to the method presented in Annex V, part 2. In move unsettled particulate matter. In water treatment, the addition to the above mentioned issues, the following re- quality of the water is ensured by analyses before it is dis- quirements must be fulfilled: charged into the waterway. • The waste holder shall prove to the authorities that The solid substances that separate during sedimenta- the substances cannot be removed from the waste tion contain the hazardous substances in the sediment and that the destruction or irreversible modification which are not water soluble. The solid substances are trans- of the substances, implemented using the best envi- ferred to treatment and/or final storage when the material ronmental practices and the best available technol- is sufficiently dry for transportation. ogy, is not the best option for the environment and In practice, there may be several parallel treatment lines that an authority has authorised the use of an alterna- in order to gain a sufficient sedimentation time for fines tive method and so that solid substances can be cleared away from the • The method is legal and appropriate ponds of the other lines. • The member state has notified the other member states and the Commission on the authorisation and 4.5 Thermal Treatment and Final the grounds for granting it Storage 4.5.2 Thermal Treatment for the Environment

4.5.1 POP Regulation 2004/850/EC 4.5.2.1 The destruction of PCDD/F compounds in the burning process Because of their harmfulness, there has been a decision in Burning at a high temperature destroys polychlorinat- the EU to get rid of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), ed dibenzo-p dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated diben- and for this reason, they must be either destroyed or trans- zofurans (PCDF). It has been discovered, however, that formed permanently into a more harmless form. The le- PCDD/F compounds are reformed in cooling combus- gal foundation for this is the European Parliament and tion gases. According to modern understanding, this re- Council’s Regulation 2004/850/EC on persistent organic forming occurs in burning processes through three dif- pollutants and the amending Directive 79/117/EEC on the ferent mechanisms. The reactions are fairly complex and restriction of hazardous substances. they very much depend on the circumstances dominant Thermal treatment is the primary method of disposal for in the burning process. What is called the de novo mech- waste that contains concentrations of POPs exceeding the anism is considered the most important one and in this, levels set for hazardous waste. PCDD/F compounds are formed in heterogeneous surface reactions on the surface of flue dust particles (such as carbon that is in particle shape) when combustion gases cool

29 4.5.3.2 The Eligibility of Sediments for Landfills down to temperatures of 250–350 °C. The growth of water The concentrations of hazardous substances in the con- content and the reduction of ash particle size in the flue taminated sediments in the Kuusaansaari–Keltti area ex- dust matrix increase the formation of PCDD/F compounds. ceed the prescribed concentrations of hazardous waste in (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland 2002) In Finland, terms of dioxins and furans more than tenfold. The Finnish no more than 0.1 ng/m3 of dioxins are permitted to enter Government’s decision (861/1997) gives limit values for the air during waste burning (Finnish Government’s deci- waste disposed of at landfills for hazardous waste. Waste is sion 842/1997). eligible for landfills intended for hazardous waste when it 4.5.2.2 Mercury in the burning process fulfils the following marginal terms: In burning temperatures, mercury and its compounds • The PCDD/F concentration of the waste is below evaporate in practice completely, and the mercury con- 15,000 pg/g. tained in the waste is transferred to combustion gas. In the • An authorising body may case-specifically triple the hot parts of the firebox (> 700 °C), mercury presumably mercury concentration of individualised waste, i.e. to mainly takes the form of vaporised metal. As the combus- 6 mg/kg, while taking into account the landfill and tion gases cool down, metallic mercury becomes oxidised the features of its environment. This increase is possi- if there is a strong oxidant, such as chlorine, present. If the ble when based on risk assessment. burning material contains sufficient quantities of chlorine, • The total quantity of organic carbon is no more than the majority of the mercury oxidises into the Hg2 form, be- 6%. The total quantity of organic carbon can be tri- coming mercuric chloride. The reactivity of oxygen is usu- pled, making TOC no more than 18%. The total quan- ally only sufficient to oxidise a small part of the mercury. tity of organic carbon can be tripled, if the concen- Metallic and oxidised mercury behave very differently tration of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is no more when combustion gas is cleaned, and this has to be tak- than 1,000 mg/kg. en into account when planning the process. Oxidised mer- • Loss by combustion is no more than 10% in compari- cury is soluble and can be removed from combustion gas son to TOC, alternatively. with an acidic wash. Metallic mercury, on the other hand, • The solubility of various substances remains within does not dissolve in the washer’s water but binds itself fair- the required levels. ly easily to carbonaceous adsorption materials. The binding of oxidised mercury to carbon is slight. It does, how- 4.6 Best Available Technology for ever, seem to react in desulphurisation processes, turn- Remediation ing into solid sulphates and sulphides. (Vesanto 2006) In Finland, no more than 0.05 mg/m3 of mercury and its com- According to the Environmental Protection Act (86/2000), pounds are permitted to enter the air during waste burn- in activities causing the risk of environmental pollution, ing in new refuse disposal plants (Finnish Government’s the person or operator engaged in the action must apply decision 842/1997). the best available technology (the BAT principle). In addi- 4.5.3 Final Storage at a Landfill for Hazardous tion, they must observe in their activities the best prac- Waste tices for the environment which are a combination of different appropriate and cost-effective activities, such as 4.5.3.1 Final Storage Sites for Hazardous Waste working methods and choices of raw material and fuel There are several treatment areas in Southern Finland with (Best Environment Practice i.e. the BEP principle). These environmental permits for the reception and treatment of principles also apply to the remediation and treatment contaminated soil. Sediments dug up from a waterway are of contaminated land and sediments. According to the classified according to the criteria for contaminated soil Environmental Protection Decree (section 9), the person or which is why there is already a reception and treatment operator engaged in the activities shall also present in their network in existence for the sediments discussed here. The environmental permit application their own evaluation of three landfill sites for hazardous waste nearest to the reme- the best available technology for their operations. Section diation area between Kuusaansaari and Keltti are: 37 of the Environmental Protection Decree presents a list of • Keltakangas in Kouvola, the evaluation of the best serviceable technology. Ekokem-Palvelu Oy 25 km No BREF document or BAT report exists on the reme- • Kotka, Heinsuo, L&T 60 km diation of sediments. There are reference documents that • Joutseno, Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto 110 km touch on the subject of waste burning and treatment, which can be used when considering the implementation of the BAT principle in remediation work.

30 According to the waste treatment hierarchy, the hazard- required in the document that dwell times and tempera- ous substances of contaminated soil should primarily be tures conformable to the Waste Incineration Directive are destroyed. If this is not possible, the substances should be used in burning waste, and therefore these at least can be eliminated or modified into a less harmful form. If the det- considered to be in accordance with the BAT requirement rimental substances of contaminated soil cannot be de- at this moment. Binding dioxin and furan compounds to stroyed, eliminated or modified, exposure to the substanc- carbon-rich substances and their catalytic decomposition es must be prevented or restricted and it must be ensured to remove them from combustion gases are both consid- that the substances cannot find their way outside the area. ered methods that are accordant with the best available In the case of other organic hazardous substances, dis- technology. posal is furthered by the international injunctions concern- In reducing the mercury emissions of combustion gas- ing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which, as a main es, the following methods of purification fall within the rule, require the treatment of land which has become pol- principle of best available technology: luted by these substances and whose concentration limit is • Cleaning combustion gas with an acidic washing fluid exceeded, by burning in order to make it harmless. (pH < 1) and after that, binding the residual mercu- In April 2008, the Finnish Government approved the na- ry to activated carbon powder which is fed into the tional waste plan (VALTSU) until 2016 (Towards a Recycling combustion gas and filtered from the combustion gas Society 2008). It illustrates the actions to be taken to pro- through a cloth filter; or mote the logical use of natural resources, to develop waste • Cleansing combustion gas with an acidic washing flu- management and to prevent environmental hazards and id (pH < 1) and after that, filtering the combustion gas nuisances caused by waste. In respect of contaminated through an activated carbon bed; or landmasses, it sets the following goals: • Cleansing combustion gas with a partially dry method • The best available technology (BAT) is used in the in which activated carbon is fed into the combustion treatment of contaminated land. gas before it goes through a cloth filter; or • The primary treatment methods for highly contami- • Cleansing combustion gas with a dry method in nated soil are those which can be used to mostly de- which activated carbon is fed into the combustion stroy hazardous substances, if this does not cause un- gas either as it is or mixed into another sorbent. reasonable expenses. 4.6.2 Best Available Technology for the Final • Mildly contaminated and treated soil will be utilised Storage of Waste either untreated or pretreated at sites where it will not pose a danger to the environment. (Jaakkonen 2008) In August 2005, a BREF document (BAT reference docu- 4.6.1 Best Available Technology for Burning ment) was completed on waste treatment. However, the Waste document does not discuss final storage activities. Generally, the final storage of waste conforms to the According to the European Commission’s BREF document BAT principle when modern, efficient and manageable concerning refuse incineration, the best available waste solutions are applied in the treatment and prevention of burning technology is the organisation and maintenance emissions. Soil and groundwater are protected with struc- of quality control for inbound waste. In addition, the BREF tures that retain or channel water, depending on the ac- document states that following the requirements concern- tivity. Water requiring treatment is gathered together and ing incineration activities (Finnish Government’s decree treated efficiently. Clean water is prevented from mixing 362/2003 and 2000/76/EC) is, as a rule, in accordance with with that requiring treatment in the same way that emis- the best available technology. sions into the air are minimised. The Finnish Government’s The study on the use of the reference document for decision on landfills is observed in the building of landfill the best available technology (BAT) for refuse incineration constructions. within the Finnish operating environment (Jätteenpolton The use of the area and the waste brought to it are mon- parhaan käytettävissä olevan tekniikan (BAT) vertailuasia- itored as an on-going process, as are the environmental kirjan käyttö suomalaisessa toimintaympäristössä) was impacts of the activity. The quality of the water piped out- published in 2006 by the Finnish Environment Institute side the area and its effect on the receiving body of wa- (Suomen ympäristö 27/2006). According to this publica- ter and the soil is monitored through regular tests. The ob- tion, the facility at a waste disposal plant must be such that servation points are located in the immediate vicinity of it achieves conditions in which the dioxin and furan com- the area which means that preventative protection meas- pounds contained in the waste, and what are called their ures can be taken sufficiently early, if the activity is found to pre-stage compounds, disintegrate. At the same time, it is cause an unreasonable load to the environment. The state of the landfill structures is monitored and damage to them is prevented. 31 5. STARTING POINT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 Assessment Task

Environmental impact assessment is a procedure based on The Environmental Impact Assessment procedure has, the law. Its purpose is to evaluate the environmental im- among other tasks: pacts of significant projects, investigate the possibilities to • Defined the implementation alternatives for the area reduce harmful effects and safeguard citizens’ possibility under consideration to participate. If the operator in charge of the project de- • Described the central features, technical solutions and cides to implement it after the assessment, they must ap- phasing of the project ply for and receive the appropriate licences before launch- • Described the current state and characteristics of the ing the project. affected zone In this project, the assessment conformable to the EIA • Assessed the expected environmental impacts Act was necessary because the EIA Decree’s project list re- • Established the mitigation possibilities of the harm- quires it. The project concerns the dredging, treatment and ful effects possible transport of contaminated sediments to be treat- • Estimated the project’s feasibility ed elsewhere or for final storage. • Investigated the licences required for the implemen- Its purpose was to assess the environmental impacts tation of the project caused by the remediation of the River Kymijoki’s contami- • Presented preliminary proposals for the monitoring of nated sediments in the way and with the precision the EIA the project’s impacts Act and Decree require. • Organised participation and listened to residents’ views and to other parties within the project’s range

5.2 Estimated Environmental Impacts

In the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure, the project’s effects were estimated in the scope required by the EIA Act and Decree. The issues under assessment include the impacts and their mutual interaction which are presented in the following figure (Figure 5–1).

Figure 5–1. Estimated environmental impacts (source: the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure, section 2).

32 The following impacts of the remediation of contaminated • Salo et al. 2005. The PCDD/F and Mercury Compounds sediments were identified as issues to be specifically as- Which Have Accumulated in the River Kymijoki’s sessed in this project: Sediments and Their Migration. (Available in Finnish.) Impacts: Finnish Environment Institute. • On the quality of the water and sediment • Vesivalo et al. 2002. Test Dredging of the River • On the fish population and other aquatic populations Kymijoki’s Contaminated Sediments in Myllykoski • On people’s health 2001. (Available in Finnish.) • On fishing and other use of the waterway • Laasonen 2000. Treatment Possibilities of • On people’s living conditions and habitability Contaminated Sediments in the River Kymijoki and • On the tourism industry the Planning of Field Experiments. (Available in • On traffic and noise Finnish.) • On protected areas, especially the Kymijoki Natura • Aunola 2001. The Behaviour of Contaminated Soils 2000 area during the Dredging and Treatment of Polluted • On the existing and planned land use Sediments. The impacts were examined both as temporary and • Karvonen et al. 2004. The Use of a Mathematical long-term ones. In all alternatives, including Alternative A0, Model on the River Kymijoki’s Dioxins and Furans and the reference period of long-term impacts is 30 years. in the Assessment of the Remediation Alternatives for the Bottom Sediments That Have Been Polluted with 5.3 The Initial Material Used Mercury. (Available in Finnish.) • Rossi 2005. Risk Assessment of the Health and 5.3.1 Existing Reports Environmental Impacts of the River Kymijoki’s Contaminated Sediment. (Available in Finnish.) The Environmental Impact Assessment is mainly found- • Verta et al. 2007. Dioxin concentrations in sediments ed on existing research and reports. The following initial of the Baltic Sea A survey of existing data. material, among others, has been used in the assessment: • Verta et al. 2006.Risks of contaminated sediments by • Finnish Environment Institute’s sediment and organ- river Kymijoki. ism population data • Master Plan for the Remediation of the River Kymijoki • The sediment and fish data of the ELY Centre (former 2007, Ramboll Finland Oy. Southeast Finland Regional Environment Centre) • River Kymijoki’s Contaminated Sediments, Review of • The probing results of the River Kymijoki’s depth rates the Remediation Alternatives for Kuusansaari – Keltti and bottom quality (Geological Survey of Finland) 2009, Ramboll Finland Oy. • Determination of the quality of the topography and • City of Kotka’s Management and Utilisation Plan sediments of the river’s bottom by scanning in the (2007), observation of the zoobenthos in the River upper reach of the River Kymijoki, in the section be- Kymijoki’s lower reach in 2008 (2009), fishing industrial tween the Kuusankoski and Keltti power plants collaborative monitoring of the River Kymijoki and its (Kemijoki Aquatic Technology Oy 2005) sea area in 2008 (2009). • The sounding results of the bottom of the river on • The Placement of Screw Traps in the River Kymijoki the upper reach of River Kymijoki (Southeast Finland (2007). Regional Environment Centre, now called the ELY • Development Plan for the Fishing Industry of the River Centre) Kymijoki (2009). • Verta et al. 1999. Organochlorine Compounds and • Concentrations of PCDD/F compounds in fish 2007 Heavy Metals in the Sediments of the River Kymijoki: and 2010. Occurrence, Migration, Impacts and Health Hazards. 5.3.2 Reports Completed during the EIA (Available in Finnish.) The Finnish Environment 334. • Suominen et al. 1999. The Impacts of the During the EIA, the existing research was complement- Contaminated Sediments in the River Kymijoki ed by Esko Rossi Oy’s risk assessment on the remediation on the Use of the River and the Evaluation and work and resident and fishing surveys. The risk assessment Planning of the Necessary Environmental Protection is presented in Appendix 1, the report on the resident sur- Measures. Final report. (Available in Finnish.) Regional vey in Appendix 2 and the report on the fishing survey in Environmental Publications 120. Southeast Finland Appendix 3. Regional Environment Centre.

33 5.4 Definition of the Affected Zone

The area of examination of the impacts has been defined Kuusankoski population centre. A slightly more pre- as sufficiently extensive so that significant environmental cisely defined immediate affected zone was used in impacts cannot be assumed to occur outside the area. The the resident survey, and this definition is presented in impacts have been examined according to the following Appendix 2. basic categories: Long-distance affected zone: Immediate affected zone: River Kymijoki from the remediation area as far as the • The Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river (Figure 5–2) sea (Figure 5–3). The figure displays an area in the Gulf of as far as the first lower reservoir, including the treat- Finland inside of which hazardous substances from the ment and soil dumping areas for the spoil. The im- River Kymijoki have been discovered (Finnish Environment mediate affected zone includes the residential are- Institute SYKE, Matti Verta). The affected zone of the possi- as close to the river and soil dumping areas and the ble remediation is probably considerably smaller than the one presented in the figure.

In practice, the range of the impacts varies by effect. For each of the impacts assessed in the EIA Statement, the scope of the impact has been examined separately, regardless of the determined immediate or long-distance affected zone. The range of the affected zones is presented in connection with the description of each impact assessment

Figure 5–2. Immediate affected zone.

Figure 5–3. Long-distance affected zone.

34 Part II: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

35 36 6. IMPACTS ON THE QUALITY OF THE WATER AND SEDIMENTS, MIGRATION OF SUSPENDED MATTER AND SEDIMENTATION

6.1 Kymijoki River Basin District

6.1.1 General Description of the River Basin District

As regards its drainage basin and discharge , the River depth here is between 3 and 7 m and the river’s width var- Kymijoki is the third largest waterway in Finland, with Lake ies from 50–250 metres. Where the Kuusankoski power Päijänne as its central lake. River Kymijoki belongs in the plant is situated, the quantity of water flowing in the river Kymijoki River Basin District (no. 14). The river’s drainage is on average 300 m3/s. The observed extreme values of basin is approximately 37,200 km2 and its area percentage the discharge are the maximum discharge of 816 m3/s (in of lakes is approximately 20%. In the drainage basin of the 1899) and the low discharge of 65 m3/s (in 1942). River Kymijoki’s lower reach, forests and fields dominate Typical of the roughly five kilometre long reach of the land use, which is partly evident also in the river’s water river which is to be restored are some areas of strong back- quality. The proportion of marshland is small in comparison flow3 where hazardous substances remain fairly firmly due to the whole country’s average. to sedimentation. This area is also the most extensively The actual River Kymijoki begins from the south-eastern studied in terms of the contamination of the river bottom part of Lake Päijänne, in the village of Kalkkinen in Asikkala. and the prevailing flow circumstances. This section of the The distance to the sea from there is approximately 200 river has some bridges, power plants and water and drain kilometres and the head is at roughly 78 metres. From pipes which are owned by Kouvola Water. There is no boat Kalkkinen, the river flows through Lakes Ruotsalainen traffic in the area. The water in this reach is not used for and Konnivesi to Lake Pyhäjärvi in Iitti. The waters of the the acquisition of raw water for the municipal water sup- Mäntyharju lake route empty into the north-eastern part ply services. of Lake Pyhäjärvi. Roughly five kilometres below the district The River Kymijoki is a regulated waterway whose con- of Voikkaa, the waters from the Kivijärvi lake route (other- trol was begun in 1964. The purpose of the regulation is to wise known as the Valkeala lake route) empty into the river. even out the quantity of water that discharges from Lake From there on, the river flows to the sea, meeting hardly Päijänne so that it can be better recovered at the river’s any lakes, with no significant tributaries joining it. Before power plants, to avoid diversions, as far as possible, and to the Gulf of Finland, the river forks into two main branch- protect the riverside areas from floods. es of which the eastern one, the Pernoo branch, empties As a water system and a habitat for organisms, the River into the sea by the city of Kotka and the western one, the Kymijoki is very diverse. It has habitats ranging from shal- Hirvikoski branch, into the Ahvenkoskenlahti Bay on the lows to basins as deep as ten metres and from fast-flowing border of Pyhtää and Loviisa. rapids to lake-like expansions. Biodiverse, mosaic habitats The distance from the remediation area between formed by large sections of rapids and the river pools be- Kuusaansaari–Keltti to the sea is approximately 70 km. low them are characteristic of the lower reach of the river, This reach of the river has several rapids, power plants, as are the zones of structurally varied waterside and aquat- dams and bridges. In the remediation area, the river flows ic vegetation which are in their natural state. (www.ympar- through densely populated regions. In this river section, isto.fi) the discharge and flow rate are great, and the regularly re- curring peak discharge is in the bracket of 500 m3/s. Water

3 In a backflow, water flows in a different direction to the main current. More water flows to the area from a river in the east, causing a distinct main current. The backflow is created on the northern river bank where the fast main current creates an area in which the flow is towards the east, while the main current is westerly. 37 Figure 6–1. Discharge at the Keltti measuring station during 1932-2010. (www.ymparisto.fi)

6.1.2 Monitoring the State of the Watercourse

The quality of the water in the lower reach of the River which are complemented by other biological water qual- Kymijoki is monitored both as official surveillance conform- ity indicators incorporated in the River Kymijoki collabora- able to the nationwide monitoring programme of Finland’s tive monitoring programme, such as the chironomid pupal Environmental Administration, and as collaborative moni- exuvial technique (CPET). toring based on the licences of operators engaged in activ- The collaborative monitoring of the River Kymijoki and ities in the region. The river’s water quality has been moni- its sea area’s fishing industry is founded on the Water Court tored collaboratively since 1973. Finland’s Environmental of Eastern Finland’s decision on the granting of licences, Administration’s water quality register holds information made in 1997 (Raunio and Mäntynen 2009). The current about the River Kymijoki’s water since 1961. monitoring programme is valid until further notice. An important site for monitoring water quality in the The most intensive monitoring activities of the haz- lower reach of the River Kymijoki is located in Huruksela, ardous substances in sediments, water and fish occurred which has been an observation station in accordance between 1996–2004 during and after the KYPRO project. with both the international GEMS agreement (Global After this, only water quality has been monitored annual- Environment Monitoring System) and the EU Fish Directive ly (the Hertta database). The hazardous substances in fish (78/659/EEC). In addition to water quality monitoring and samples were analysed in 2007 and 2010. impact supervision, the results from the observation stations on the lower reach of the river are used to monitor the quantities of substances, carried by the river to the sea, which are reported annually to the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM). The River Kymijoki’s observation stations are included in the monitoring programme of the River Kymijoki–Gulf of Finland water management area which was launched in 2006. In accordance to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EU), they are also included as observation stations of basic and functional monitoring which are reported to the EU. Along with the conventional physico-chemical water quality monitoring, an important part of the surveillance of the River Kymijoki today are biological quality factors (diatoms, the zoobenthos and fish fauna of rapids)

38 Figure 6–2. The monitoring sites for water quality and the wastewater load points on the lower reach of the River Kymijoki during 1985–2009 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

6.2 Present State

6.2.1 Water Quality and the Ecological Status of the Watercourse

The water quality of the River Kymijoki has improved con- According to the long-term monitoring of the lower siderably over the last twenty years. This is a result of the reach of the River Kymijoki, the share of nitrogen load in the significant decrease in the load caused by riverside indus- total point source pollution in the river has remained at the tries in the 1990s when the refinery and process-techno- same level as in 1985, but both the loads of phosphorous logical reforms of the forest industry and communities and particulate matter have clearly decreased. The great- took place. est change between the present situation and that of 1985 has been in the decline of biological oxygen consumption.

39 Figure 6–3. The ecological classification of the River Kymijoki based on the results from 2000– 2008. (www.ymparisto.fi). The categorisations of highly altered sections have been added to the figure. Permission to publish has been granted by the ELY Centre for Southeast Finland.

6.2.1.1 Water’s Oxygen Balance and Concentrations of Nutrients and of Solid Substances In the latest nationwide classification of the usabili- For all practical purposes, the River Kymijoki’s current load ty of surface water in 2000–2003, the River Kymijoki from does not affect its oxygen balance, but nutrient concen- Kuusankoski to the lower reach was rated as moderate trations rise in the river’s lower reach, which is evident es- solely in terms of its water quality, but the toxins that have pecially in the trophic state of the river expansions. With accumulated on the bottom and the increased mercury the decrease in the wastewater load, the diffuse pollution concentrations of fish reduced the grade to poor, and even coming from the drainage basin is more and more clear- bad in the lower reach from Lake Tammijärvi onward. With ly evident in the river’s water quality. In the river’s loaded the legislation on water management, the bases for the reach, the total phosphorus concentration is now only half evaluation of water quality have slightly changed since of what it used to be in the mid 1980s. In the river’s top- then. In the classification established for water manage- most rapids of Rapakoski, the phosphorus concentration ment plans and action programmes, performed in 2009, has declined considerably less. These days, the increase the River Kymijoki is divided, by its hydro-morphologic between Rapakoski and Huruksela is approximately 6 µg/l, properties, into highly altered parts and less altered riv- whereas in the late 80s and early 90s it was 13 µg/l. Total ni- er beds which can be assessed on conventional grounds. trogen concentration remained almost the same between In this classification, the river’s ecological status was as- 1985–2009. Between Rapakoski and Huruksela, the rise in sessed as good in its upper reach and as moderate in its the concentration has been approximately 100 µg/l on lower reach and the main channel which begins in Lake average. In the 2000s, the minimum nutrient of the River Pyhäjärvi. The biological indicators for water play the main Kymijoki has mostly been phosphorous, also in the load- part in the ecological classification which also takes into ed reach. In the 1990s, there were periodically situations account the hydrological and morphologic changes in the where neither of the nutrients was a limiting factor. river bed.

40 Especially after heavy rains and during the spring and autumn maximum run-off seasons, the river water becomes turbid and the concentrations of solid substances and nutrients rise. In the river’s topmost rapids of Rapakoski, the concentration of solid substances is the smallest of all the sample points, varying approximately between 1–3 mg/l. Lower at the Huruksela sample point, the concentration has fluctuated approximately between 3.5–6 mg/l. The largest concentration has occurred at the very lowest sample point in Karhula, fluctuating between 3–7 mg/l. The concentration of solid substances has remained the same year after year. In terms of hygiene, the river’s water has been well suited for swimming. (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011 & Nironen & Vauhkonen 2007).

Figure 6–4. The oxygen saturation percentage of water at the five sample points of the River Kymijoki during 1985–2009 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

Figure 6–5. The annual median of the total phosphorus concentration (µg/l) at the five sample points of the River Kymijoki during 1985–2009 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

41 Figure 6–6. The annual median of the total nitrogen concentration (µg/l) at the five sample points of the River Kymijoki during 1985–2009 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

Figure 6–7. The annual median of the suspended matter concentrations in the water (mg/l) at the five sample points of the River Kymijoki during 1995–2009 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

6.2.1.2 The PCDD/F and Mercury Concentrations of the Water Research shows that the PCDD/F and mercury concen- The average concentration of mercury has been slight- trations between Kuusaansaari and Keltti are higher than ly over 3 ng/l throughout the reach of the river below in the other reaches of the river, both in the water’s sus- Kuusankoski. In the reach between Kuusaansaari and Keltti, pended matter and dissolved into the water. The PCDD/F the mercury concentration of the water is threefold (3.5 concentration of the suspended matter settling in the wa- ng/l) compared to the concentration in the reach above ter between Kuusaansaari and Keltti has been found to be Kuusankoski (1.3 ng/l). Methyl mercury concentration here approximately 1,000 times greater than that of the water increases threefold (0.46 ng/l) in comparison to the con- above Kuusankoski. The PCDD/F concentrations in the wa- centration found above Kuusankoski (0.13 ng/l), but not ter’s suspended matter decrease from Keltti to the river’s until the lower reach of the river by Huruksela. Between lower reach so that, at the lowest observation point, the Kuusaansaari and Keltti, the proportion of methyl mercury quantity of PCDD/F compounds was over 80 times less in mercury was just under 5%, whereas by Huruksela it was than in the reach between Kuusaansaari and Keltti. Parallel just under 15%. (Finnish Environment Institute SYKE 2009a) differences in the various reaches of the river were evident The increase in mercury concentration was mainly in the total concentrations of PCDD/F compounds in the caused by the mercury which has become bound to the aqueous phase (0.12–190 pg/l), as well as in the PCDD/F particulate matter mixed in the water. concentrations that had dissolved in the water (0.01–14 pg/l) (Rossi 2005).

42 6.2.1.3 Euthrophication at the Bottom of the River Kymijoki On the grounds of the results of the obligatory monitoring, Since 2007, trophic level has also been monitored every it appears that although the River Kymijoki’s pool-like areas second year by using diatoms as indicators of the troph- have already become clean enough for the observed zoo- ic state of the river. The majority of the sample points in benthos to indicate a mildly nutrient-poor bottom quality, the lower reach of the River Kymijoki were graded as good the sediments still contain biologically harmful substanc- in the quality classification which is based on the IPS di- es, which is evident in the morphologic mutations of the atom biotic index (Index of Pollution Sensitivity). Water zoobenthos (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki quality was the worst at the sample points below facto- Water and Environment Association, 208/2011). ries and sewage treatment plants and was graded as mod- The chironomid pupal exuvial investigations were ex- erate or poor. Water quality declined fairly evenly in the ecuted in 2006, 2008 and 2010. The state of the River reach between Voikkaa and the Mäkikylä treatment plant. Kymijoki’s lower reach was assessed at its five sample Water quality improved in the reach of the river between points through the chironomid index. According to the Mäkikylä and Myllykoski, but declined again between results, the trophic levels of the river pools of the River Inkeroinen and Myllykoski due to the impact of the fac- Kymijoki’s lower reach are increasing fairly evenly in the tories. No significant deterioration of water quality has oc- area between Voikkaa and Karhula. No significant changes curred between Huruksela and the river mouth areas of had occurred in the ecological status of the sample points the main branches, although the nutrient concentra- during 2006–2010. tions caused by diffuse pollution grow in these sections (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

Figure 6–8. The ratings and grading for the pupal exuvial technique’s chironomid index at the observation points of the River Kymijoki’s lower reach in 2006, 2008 and 2010 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

6.2.1.4 Water Quality in the Sea Area Since 1993, the trophic level of the River Kymijoki’s lower As a result of the eutrophication of the eastern Gulf reach has also been monitored through periphyton stud- of Finland, the general condition of the sea area even on ies. The results of the period between 1993–2010 indicate the side of Southeast Finland is only moderate–poor. On that no significant changes have occurred in the trophic the coast of Southeast Finland, the River Kymijoki and the conditions of the sample points, although the variation be- Kotka–Hamina region, with its community and industri- tween the years is great, especially in the sample points of al wastewater, are the most central polluters. This can be the river’s lower reach. The increase in the amount of algae seen clearly in the state of the coastal waters off Kotka– at the Huruksela sample point over the last few years is sta- Hamina and Ahvenkoskenlahti Bay, the qua lity of which is tistically notable. This is evidently due to the transfer of the poor. In the inner archipelago off Kotka, the affected zone sample points to sites which have more river pools than the previous ones.

43 Figure 6–9. The ecological classification of the sea area. (www.ymparisto.fi). Permission to publish has been granted by the ELY Centre for Southeast Finland.

of the River Kymijoki’s waters, many biological quality fac- The average seawater nutrient concentrations in 2000– tors demonstrate a slightly better grade: moderate. Due to 2009 very clearly differed from those in 1990–1999. The local nutrient pollution and bad water turnover, the condi- total nitrogen concentrations during the summer season tion of shallow bays is also only poor. The ecological class was approximately 7% higher in the late 2000s than in the of the River Kymijoki’s sea area in Ahvenkoskenlahti and off 1990s, and nitrogen concentrations especially had risen at Kotka in Sunilanlahti is poor. In the outer archipelago, es- the points on the open sea. Winter time concentrations pecially the oxygen problems of the deep basins and the had risen off Kotka and Hamina and at the points on the resulting wide, dead bottom zones have reduced the clas- open sea. The total phosphorus concentrations of summer sification to poor (www.ymparisto.fi). time had decreased throughout the monitoring area by According to calculations, 1% of the particulate matter, roughly 12%, as had winter time concentrations in almost 7% of the phosphorous and 6% of the nitrogen carried by all areas. the River Kymijoki to the sea in 2008 came from the point source pollution in the lower reach of the River Kymijoki. The share of wastewater in the load is clearly smaller than before. Nearly half of the amount of solid substances and phosphorous and almost 90% of nitrogen discharges came from the waterways above Kuusankoski.

44 Figure 6–10. The average total nitrogen concentrations of the sea area’s surface water (1 m) during the summer (1 May–30 September) and winter seasons (1 January–31 March) in the monitoring periods during 1990–1999 and 2000–2009. (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

Figure 6–11. The average total phosphorus concentrations of the sea area’s surface water (1 m) during the summer (1 May–30 September) and winter seasons (1 January–31 March) in the monitoring periods during 1990–1999 and 2000–2009. (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

45 6.2.2 Sediment Quality

6.2.1.5 The State of the Seabed 6.2.2.1 River Kymijoki’s Sediments A part of the obligatory monitoring studies, the extensive In the reach of the river between Kuusankoski and zoobenthos research in the Pyhtää–Kotka–Hamina sea Suomenlahti, the estimated quantity of contaminated area was performed in 1981 (Hamina not yet participated), sediments totals approximately 5 million m3. The esti- 1984, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 (the research area expand- mated quantity of mercury in the sediments is 2,800 kg ed to the outer archipelago) and 2007. Whenever possi- and of PCDD/F compounds 6,000 kg which equals the ble, samples of the zoobenthos have been taken from soft toxic equivalent of 15 kg WHO-TEQ (Finnish Environment bottoms. Institute SYKE 2009b). Judging by the zoobenthos, the state of the seabed was The sediments of the River Kymijoki have been exam- clearly better in the deep, soft bottoms of the outer archi- ined in the risk assessments (Rossi 2005 and 2011) with- pelago in 1992 and also in many places closer to the coast in nine sub-areas. The sediments located in different areas than in 2007. In the adjacent area of the River Kymijoki and have been considered using a similar division also in this the immediate load areas of the industry on the coast, the EIA Statement. The river areas conformable to this division state of the seabed in 1992 was clearly worse than in 2007. are:

Figure 6–12. The state of seabed in the sea area during 1992 and 2007 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymijoki Water and Environment Association, 208/2011).

46 Number corre- Sub-area of the River Kymijoki sponding to the The following figure displays the location of the sub-areas sub-area (Figure 6–13). Areas above Voikkaa 0 The occurrence of hazardous substances between The reach between Voikkaa and Kuusankoski 1 Kuusaansaari and Keltti has been examined at a total of 47 The reach between Kuusankoski and Keltti 2 points. According to research, soft sediment bottoms con- The reach between Keltti and Myllykoski 3 taining cellulose and fibre fragments occur in a fairly large The reach between Myllykoski and Inkeroinen 4 area below the Kuusaansaari power plant. Among the fibre The reaches between Inkeroinen and Hirvivuolle 5 gyttja of this type of river bottom, there may also be wood, and Koivukoski and Korkeakoski chips, bark, sand, clay and gravel. The thickness of the sed- Hirvivuolle–Strömfors, Paaskoski, Klåsarö 6 iment profiles vary between 0–240 cm. Chapter 4.3 and The areas of the lowest dams on the side of 9 Figure 4–3 present the areas of soft sediments. the sea

Figure 6–13. River Kymijoki’s dams and the location of the sub-areas. Source: ELY Centre for Southeast Finland.

47 In the project area between Kuusaansaari and Keltti, to the coast, mainly between 100–200 pg/g I-TEQ. Further 23% of the whole river’s PCDD/F compounds are found out to the sea, south of Kaunissaari Island over 40 km from (27% of WHO-TEQ) and 5% of the whole river’s mercu- the coast, the concentrations are slightly over 20 pg/g ry compounds (Figure 6–14). However, only 2% of all the I-TEQ. (Verta et al. 2007) On the basis of samples taken at contaminated sediments in the river are in this stretch, i.e. different sediment depths, the highest concentrations oc- 90,000 m3 (Salo et al. 2005 and the Finnish Environment cur in the deeper sediment layers. This indicates that load- Institute SYKE 2009b). ing has decreased over the last few years. (Verta et al. 2007)

Figure 6–14. The division of the total quantity of mercury and PCDD/F compounds (percentage by weight) and contaminated sediments (percent by volume) in the different reaches of the River Kymijoki (Salo et al. 2005) (PCDD/F summa = PCDD/F total, Kontaminoituneet sedimentit = contaminated sediments).

On the basis of the primary data of the studies made in 6.2.3 Movements of the Sediments and 2003, the average concentration of PCDD/F compounds Hazardous Substances in the profiles was 260,000 pg I-TEQ/g (in the risk assessment the concentration used was 168,600 pg WHO-TEQ/g Solid substances find their way into the river through the = 187,900 pg I-TEQ). The highest concentration (1,060,000 river’s drainage basin. In addition, solid substances are re- pg/g I-TEQ, 966,000 pg WHO-TEQ/g) occurred in the top- leased at the river bottom in areas where changes occur in most, 25 cm thick layer. In other instances, the highest con- the flow or the sediments move, for example, due to slip- centrations varied between 0.5–0.75 m. The PCDD/F con- stream or other such disturbance. The suspended matter centrations exceeded those of the comparison areas by carried by the river settles, i.e. sediments in areas of slower 1,000–100,000 times and those of the river’s lower reach current, such as basins, lake basins and river expansions, in 10–1,000 times. which soft sedimentation areas are formed. The hazardous Similar to the concentrations of PCDD/F compounds, substances carried by the particulate matter also accumu- the mercury concentrations of the surface sediments late in these areas. are higher (<2–7 mg/kg ka) in the reach of the river be- According to the surface water monitoring results of tween Kuusaansaari and Keltti. The highest concentrations 2000–2004, the water’s concentration of solid substanc- have been measured directly below Kuusankoski, in the es above the reach between Kuusaansaari and Keltti is Ruotsula–Keltti area. The vertical distribution of mercury in on average 3.4 mg/l and below it 4.2 mg/l which demon- the sediments proves that the concentration grows with strates that the solid substances carried by water are com- depth. Maximum concentrations occur in the sediments ing from the remediation area. The concentration of the between 0.3–2 m. This means that the Hg concentrations solids grows towards the lower part of the river, and in its of the fines transported in the river are smaller than be- lower reach, the water’s concentration of solid substances fore. The highest concentration discovered in sediments is typically between 5–6 mg/l (Rossi 2005) (Table 6–1). The (33 mg/kg) was measured on the sedimentation bottom sedimentation survey made in 2000 demonstrates that the below the Kuusankoski bridge (Ruotsula-Keltti). (Ramboll quantity of particulate matter carried by the river from the 2006). reach above Kuusaansaari is 24 t/a, in Keltti 30 t/a and in the 6.2.2.2 Sediments in the Sea Area Gulf of Finland 47 t/a (Salo et al. 2005). In the sea area into which the River Kymijoki empties, According to the results from 2001–2006 and Salo et al. the transport of PCDD/F compounds originating in the riv- (2008), the PCDD/F concentration in solid substances sedi- er is evident as elevated concentrations of hazardous sub- menting in Keltti has been on average roughly 250 times stances in sediments. The concentrations are higher closer

48 that of the concentrations above Kuusankoski. The solid Kymijoki above Kuusankoski is 0.68–0.74 g WHO-TEQ/a. In substances coming to the river from the drainage basin the Keltti area, the discharge has been 249–304 g/a, and and other processes dilute this concentration so that the the load transported to the Gulf of Finland has been calcu- PCDD/F concentration of the particulate matter settling in lated as 39.6–67.3 g/a which means that some 16–22% of the lower reach of the river is no more than 17% of the con- the PCDD/F compounds being carried through Keltti find centration in Keltti. their way to the Gulf of Finland (Table 6–3). The good cor-

Table 6–1. The water’s average suspended solids concentration (SS = suspended solids), the PCDD/F compound concentration in sedimented solid substances and water and theoretical soluble concentration in different reaches of the river. (Source: Rossi 2011, the data is based on the research material of 2001 and 2006).

Monitoring area and the reach of SS PCDD/F concentration, WHO-TEQ the river mg/l in suspended solids pg/g total in water pg/l dissolved into water, pg/l Kymintehdas factory; 1 3.4 35 0.12 0.02 Keltti; 2 4.2 8,700 37 4.7 Koskenalusjärvi; 5 5.4 3,100 17 1.7 Tammijärvi; 6 5.9 1,200 7.1 0.7 Ahvenkoskenlahti, Vanhala; 9 5.8 1,500 8.7 0.8

Unlike the concentrations of PCDD/F compounds, con- relation between 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and the toxic equiva- centrations of mercury do not diminish much towards the lent (WHO-TEQ) and, at the same time, the poor correlation lower reach of the River Kymijoki. The total concentration between 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF and WHO-TEQ proves that the ma- of mercury has been slightly over 3 ng/l in the reaches of jority of the PCDD/F compounds come from KY-5. The an- the river below Kuusankoski (Table 6–2). On average, al- nual load directed at the Gulf of Finland is 0.2–0.4% of the most 30% of the mercury has been dissolved in the water, total quantity of dioxins and furans (approximately 12 kg and of the dissolved mercury an average of 15% has been WHO-TEQ, Isosaari et al. 2002) that exists in the sediments dissolved methyl mercury. The proportion of methyl lmer- of the Gulf of Finland in front of the River Kymijoki’s delta, cury in the total mercury concentration, however, has var- and therefore the current load is slight when compared ied greatly from one sample point to another, showing no to the loading that has taken place over the last 50 years. clear trend. The smallest proportion of methyl mercury has been found in the area of the most strongly contaminated sediments (Table 6–2).

Table 6–2. Average concentrations of suspended solids (SS), total mercury and methyl mercury in the water in different reaches of the river in 2000 (source: Finnish Environment Institute SYKE 2009a).

SS Total mercury Methyl mercury Monitoring area and the reach of the river mg/l in total ng/l dissolved ng/l in total ng/l dissolved ng/l Pilkanmaa; 0 3.4 1.3 0.55 0.13 0.09 Kuusaansaari, Keltti upper; 2 3.1 3.5 0.82 0.15 0.11 Huruksela; 5 5.7 3.2 0´.78 0.46 0.15 Ahvenkoski; 9 4.9 3.2 1.09 0.18 0.13

Less hazardous substances end up annually in the sea area Based on the measurements, the transport of PCDD/F than are transported in the area of Keltti which means that compounds to the Gulf of Finland in 2006 has been al- a significant part of the substances become sedimented in most double that of 2001. The average flows were high in the lower reach of the River Kymijoki. On the grounds of the 2004 and 2005 and it is likely that, during these profuse results obtained with sediment trap, the calculated quan- discharges, the contaminated sediments that started their tity of the PCDD/F compounds transported in the River migration between Kuusankoski and Keltti were still being transported towards the Gulf of Finland during 2006,

49 6.3 Assessment Methods

even though the discharge in the Keltti area had dimin- The assessment is mainly based on the risk assessment ished at that time. (Rossi 2011). For this reason, the most on the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments compiled probable estimation of the share of PCDD/F compounds by Esko Rossi (2001). The risk assessment as a whole is pre- being transported to the Gulf of Finland is approximately sented in Appendix 1 of the EIA Statement. In addition, oth- 18%. Making a more accurate assessment would require er supporting research has been used in the assessment. several years of monitoring in different reaches of the river.

Table 6–3. The annual discharge of PCDD/F compounds from the comparison area, Keltti and the river to the Gulf of Finland, based on the results obtained with sediment traps in 2001 and 2006 (Salo et al. 2008).

Discharge Kymintehdas factory (yp)/ Keltti Gulf of Finland (g /a) Saukkola 2001 2006 2001 2006 2001 2006 WHO-TEQ 0.68 0.74 304 249 39.6 67.3 23478-PeF 0.10 0.05 2.32 0.99 1.75 0.68 1234678-HpF 20 21 28,583 23,122 3,585 6,016

The discharge of total mercury, calculated on the ba- In the EIA, the changes in water quality caused by the sis of water analyses, is primarily larger than that calcu- remediation work are estimated and the change has been lated on the basis of sediment trap, which is natural be- compared to the current state. Particular attention is paid cause mercury is transported also when dissolved in water. to the load of hazardous substances (PCDD/F, PCDE, mer- Above Kuusankoski, the discharges of both total mercury cury) caused by the remediation work, but the effects of and methyl mercury appear to have declined since 2000– the work on water turbidity, oxygen consumption and nu- 2001 (Table 6–4). The discharge of total mercury has also trient concentrations are also assessed. Similarly, the sed- declined in Keltti. The quantity of mercury transported to imentation of suspended solids, the solubility and dis- the Gulf of Finland has remained nearly constant (approxi- charge of hazardous substances and the scope of the af- mately 30 kg/a), but the quantity of methyl mercury dis- fected zone are estimated. The impacts are compared to charge in 2006 was less than half of what it was in the early the current state and current load, as well as loading during 2000s, according to the results. the 30 years after the remediation.

Table 6–4. The annual discharge of mercury (Hg) and methyl mercury (MeHg) from the comparison area, Keltti and the river to the Gulf of Finland in 2000, 2001 and 2006, based on water samples (Salo et al. 2008).

Discharge Kymintehdas factory (yp)/ Keltti Gulf of Finland (g /a) Saukkola 2000 2006 2000 2001 2006 2000 2001 2006 total Hg 11 5.0 47 27 12 26 32 27 soluble Hg 5.2 8.4 8.2 11 total MeHg 1.1 0.45 1.1 2.2 0.51 1.8 0.66 soluble MeHg 0.7 1.0 1.6 0.90

50 The emissions of particulate matter caused by the reme- the hazardous substances contained by all the mass dis- diation work are assessed on the basis of the concentra- charge recovered, a specific share will dissolve in the wa- tions of solid substances discovered during the test dredg- ter which will be returned from the sedimentation pond ing of the River Kymijoki and other dredging projects. The to the river after dredging. The quantity of this dissolved impacts on the concentrations of hazardous substances in share was assumed to be 1% for PCDD/F compounds and the water are calculated on the grounds of the available 10% for mercury. The solubility estimate of PCDD/F com- solubility test results and substance properties, as well as pounds is based on the research of Sormunen et al. (2008). sediment quality. (Rossi 2011) The impacts of the different dredging alternatives were The transport of PCDD/F compounds downstream from calculated assuming that the proportions of solid sub- the reach of the river between Kuusankoski and Keltti has stances released during dredging will be 2%, 5% and 10% been assessed in several reports using the concentrations of the total quantity of the spoil (Chapter 4.4). As yet, no of solid substances in water and sediment traps (Verta et decision has been made on the exact dredging technique, al. 1999, Verta et al. 2003). Monitoring results from different and therefore the effect of dredging on the dispersing of reaches of the river were available for this project and they solid substances cannot yet be estimated in more detail. provided data about the total concentrations of the mer- In investigating the different remediation alternatives, cury transported in the River Kymijoki currently, the con- the proportions of sediments to be suction and bucket centrations of dissolved mercury and of methyl mercury. dredged were taken into account, as was the possibility of the pile planking breaking in Alternative A1b. 6.4 Estimated Impacts The length of the pile planking was calculated as 500 m, its height 10 m and the sediment volume of the pond 6.4.1 A0, Impacts without Remediation which is bounded by the pile planking as 60,000 m3 in addition to which 30,000 m3 of contaminated sediments In the future, the migration of hazardous substances would be suction-dredged into it from outside. in the River Kymijoki will lessen from the current quantity In the calculations, the total quantity of the spoil was even without remediation measures. According to the ero- 90,000 m3 and the duration of the work approximately 6 sion and flow modelling, 25–50% of the dioxins and furans months in one part, or three approximately 3 month-long and 20–40% of the mercury in the sediments located be- working periods spread over three years. Based on the typi- tween Kuusaansaari and Keltti will migrate downstream cal output of a suction dredger, the design discharge was over the next 30 years (Karvonen et al. 2005). The smallest estimated as 650 m3/h, which was assumed to contain 25% grades in the range represent a low discharge situation and sediments to be dredged and 75 % water (Ramboll 2007). the greatest one a scenario in which an exceptional peri- Based on the average dry matter concentration of the sed- od of floods recurs two times successively in 30 years. With iments to be dredged, which is 280 kg/m3, the mass dis- the current discharges, the probability of the latter option charge of the suspended matter was 45.5 t/h. The time re- coming true is only one in 500–1,000 years. quired for the actual dredging is approximately 600 h. The In the long run, the differences in dioxin, furan and mer- assumption was that scheduling the remediation work for cury concentrations in the sediments of the River Kymijoki one year or shorter periods over two or three years will not in Kuusankoski and below and in the Gulf of Finland will have a significant effect on environmental risks. Acute im- gradually balance out when sediments from the more pacts are determined according to the emissions during strongly contaminated areas are resuspended in the sed- the work process, whereas possible long-term impacts imentation areas downstream. As the load originating in are formed out of exposure that accumulates over several the most contaminated area lessens, the concentrations in years. (Rossi 2011) the sediment’s surface layers will also decrease in the river’s When assessing the load of hazardous substances lower reach. The decrease in concentrations after the origi- caused by the dredging, the average concentrations of nal emission has ceased is already evident now in the re- the sediments to be dredged were used. For PCDD/F com- sults of the sea area’s sediment studies, in which the great- pounds, these were 168.6 ng WHO-TEQ/g and for mercury est concentrations have been discovered slightly below 5.7 mg/kg. In estimating the concentrations building up the surface level. Nowadays the change is very slow and in the river from the suspended solids and hazardous sub- no trend-like change is discernible in the concentration stance loads, the average discharge for the River Kymijoki, of PCDD/F compounds, for example, in the sedimenting which is 300 m3/s, was used. In addition to the pollutants particulate matter of the Ahvenkoskenlahti Bay between dispersing with suspended matter, it was assumed that of 1995-2008. The perceptivity of the decrease in emissions is

51 6.4.2 A1 and A2, the Effects of the Remediation Work

6.4.3 Load of Solid Substances

weakened by the fact that the annually forming sediment Both remediation alternatives (A1 and A2) contain the risk layers are thin and get easily mixed with older layers. of sedimented solid substances beginning to move dur- The degradation of dioxins and furans is extremely slow ing suction dredging. The amounts of solid substances es- and, deep inside the sediment, it can be practically non-ex- caping into the river were estimated on the basis of the istent. Mercury as a chemical element is completely non- rated values described in the methods section. By using degradable but a large part of it occurs in soluble form. the hypothetical proportions of emissions (2, 5 and 10%) As a result of climate change, the kinds of exception- of the solid substances released from the sediments, the al discharge situations described above may occur more total quantity of sediments escaping during dredging is often in the future. In that case, the River Kymijoki would 504–2,520 tonnes (Rossi 2011). become clean faster than expected, but hazardous sub- In the risk assessment, the concentrations of solid substances would also migrate faster to the Gulf of Finland. stances forming in the river water were estimated using Nevertheless, there will probably be no unexpected peak the River Kymijoki’s average discharge of 300 m3/s. The in- loads. A fundamental factor here is that the most contami- crease of suspended matter in the water during dredg- nated sediments exist in areas of extremely low flow rate. ing was calculated as 0.8–4.2 mg/l on average (Table 6–5). However, the suspended matter does not mix in the water Other water quality impacts evenly, but in places there are higher and lower concentra- On the grounds of the monitoring results, the current tions than average. Coarse particulate matter settle on the load on the River Kymijoki is not considered to have an ef- bottom in the sedimentation areas close to dredging areas, fect on the river’s oxygen condition. The river’s nutrient but fine particles may be transported far. When dredging concentrations rise towards the lower reach. In the river’s is stopped, for example, for the night, the concentration loaded reach, the total phosphorus concentration is now of suspended matter in the water decreases. (Rossi 2011) only half of what it used to be in the mid 1980s. These days, The estimates presented above correspond to a situa- the increase between Rapakoski and Huruksela is approxi- tion in which all the sediments to be removed (90,000 m3) mately 6 µg/l, whereas in the late 1980s and early 1990s are suction-dredged (A1a). it was 13 µg/l. Total nitrogen concentration remained al- Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b involve the construc- most the same between 1985–2009. Between Rapakoski tion of pile planking on the northern bank of the River and Huruksela, the average rise in the concentration has Kymijoki, from inside of which the sediments will be bucket been approximately 100 µg/l on average. It can be as- dredged. No solid substances will be released from inside sumed that nutrient pollution may decline slightly in the the pile planking, but Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b also long term as the management of point source and diffuse involve suction dredging which will be used to deal with a pollution emissions becomes more efficient. As precipita- third of the quantity of the sediments to be treated. In this tion increases, however, climate change may amplify the case, the emission of particulate matter is also a third of the access of nutrients into the River Kymijoki in the future. amount in Alternative A1a.

Table 6–5. The dispersing of suspended matter in the water during suction dredging (Rossi 2011).

Particulate Concentration of solid substances in the river mg/l matter dis- Proportion of Emissions The river’s discharge emissions charge Dredging t/h Background Dredging t/h % m3/s +background 45.5 2% 0.91 300 3.5 0.84 4.3 45.5 5% 2.3 300 3.5 2.1 5.6 45.5 10% 4.6 300 3.5 4.2 7.7

A The average value of the concentrations of solid substances measured in Huruksela in 2009 (Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry – River Kymi- joki Water and Environment Association 2010).

52 In Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, some sedimented of PCDD/F compounds is 210–770 pg WHO-TEQ/l (130– particulate matter will probably be dispersed in the wa- 500 g WHO-TEQ) and that of mercury is 28–46 ng/l (17–28 ter also while mounting the pile planking, but it is evident kg). However, if 90% of the hypothetically soluble mercury that these emissions would be slight in comparison to the (residual concentration approximately 4 µg/l) is removed emissions caused during dredging. During dredging, the from the return water, the concentration of mercury in the possible yielding of the pile planking may cause a large un- river will only rise by 7–26 ng/l. In such a case, the quanti- expected emission (Rossi 2011). The likelihood of it break- tative addition to the mercury load totals 7–19 kg. (Rossi ing, however, is small in reality, because the river’s bottom 2011) quality, discharge fluctuations, ice load and other factors The remediation alternative also affects the estimates that affect structural durability are taken into account in presented above. In Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, the the pile planking structures. share of suction dredging reduces emissions to a third In Alternative A1b, the planking pond remains as a per- (Table 6–6) of the combined concentrations, which in the manent storage option for sediments. The dissolution of case of dioxins and furans results in 70–258 pg WHO-TEQ/l solid substances in the stabilised sediments is probably and in the case of mercury in 9.3–15 ng/l. very slight. The quantities of hazardous substances dispersing in 6.4.4 Concentrations of Hazardous Substances the water during dredging vary according to the concen- in Water during Remediation tration fluctuations of the dredged sediments and the emissions quantity of solid substances. In practice, how- During dredging, hazardous substances escape into the ever, only the long-term impacts of hazardous substances river water both bound to solid substances and dissolved. are significant, which is why average concentrations and With a 2–10% emission proportion of particulate matter emission values were used in the risk assessment calcula- and an average concentration of sediments at 168,6 ng tions. Because dredging is not continuous, the annual aver- WHO-TEQ/g, the total amount of PCDD/F compounds dis- age increase in concentrations remains considerably small- persing in the water with solid substances totals 90–460 g er than has been presented and is of the same magnitude WHO-TEQ (Rossi 2011). Respectively, the total emission of as the concentrations currently occurring in the river. In ad- mercury is 3.1–15 kg with the average concentration of 5.7 dition, the bioavailable concentration of dioxins and furans mg/kg. Depending on the scheduling of the remediation, and the concentration of biologically active mercury (me- this emission will be distributed over 1–3 years. Based on thyl mercury) are significantly smaller than the total con- the average flow of the River Kymijoki, the additional concentrations. (Rossi 2011) centrations due to the load of hazardous substances are It was also noted that Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b 140–710 pg WHO-TEQ/l for PCDD/F compounds and 4.8– include the risk of solid substances becoming dispersed 24 ng/l for mercury (Table 6–6, Rossi 2011). due to the possible breakage of the pile planking during In the risk assessment, it was presumed that the disso- mounting and remediation which would cause the dis- lution of soluble hazardous substances will mainly occur persal of hazardous substances. If the constructions that already in the sedimentation pond. The dissolved hazard- protect the stabilised sediments remaining in the river in ous substances will end up in the river if the water piped Alternative A1b are not maintained, the breakages of the from the sedimentation pond is not treated efficiently. surface structure occurring over a very long time may Together with the additional concentrations formed from gradually increase the emission of especially mercury into solid substances, the combined additional concentration the river. This emission would, nonetheless, represent only

Table 6–6. The dispersal of dioxins, furans and mercury in the water during suction dredging. (Rossi 2011).

Concentration in sediment Additional concentration in Additional concentration in the the river in particulate matter river in return water Emission of particulate matter % WHO-TEQ Hg WHO-TEQ Hg WHO-TEQ Hg ng/g mg/kg pg/l ng/l pg/l ng/l 2 168.6 5.7 140 4.8 70 24 5 168.6 5.7 360 12 67 23 10 168.6 5.7 710 24 64 22

The solubility of PCDD/F compounds in water treatment is 1% and the solubility of mercury is 10%.

53 a fraction of the current load. The solubility of dioxins and caused by dredging in the Keltti area (see Chapter 6.2.3) furans would be lower, but their quantity in proportion to can be assumed to migrate to the Gulf of Finland and, sim- the load of the area downstream from the remediation ilarly, 25% of the mercury load, which means that the di- area would be greater than that of mercury. (Rossi 2011) oxin and furan load in the Gulf of Finland would be four Climate change may advance the damage to the times larger and the mercury load would double in com- structures protecting the stabilised sediments, if the dis- parison to the current situation. The proportion of mercury charges in the River Kymijoki increase significantly. transported to the Gulf of Finland is more difficult to esti- The quantities of hazardous substances transported to mate, as the annual discharges in the reaches of the river the sea area in the different remediation alternatives is es- downstream from Kuusankoski have been stable and no timated in more detail in Chapter 6.4.5. actual source of release can be detected. In addition, the 6.4.5 The Load of Hazardous Substances time of the additional emission of dioxins, furans and mer- Caused by the Remediation cury is difficult to predict, because their transport towards the Gulf of Finland is gradual. The annual fluctuation in the According to the compiled risk assessment (Rossi 2011), flow circumstances may influence the loading that is ob- if Alternative A1a were implemented, the quantities of di- served during the year of dredging more than the actual oxins and furans transported in the river in the Keltti area dredging. would increase annually to 389–804 g (WHO-TEQ), includ- Dredging affects the concentrations of the sediments’ ing the background level, and the quantities of mercury to surface layers in a similar way as it does the quantities of 19–66 kg, assuming that the remediation is completed in hazardous substances transported in the river. However, one year (Table 6–7). Thus the escape of dioxins and furans concentrations are also influenced by the diluting effect of into the river would appear as a higher emission already the cleaner particulate matter originating elsewhere. In the with a 2% emission proportion than if Alternative A0 were Keltti area, practically no diluting effect occurs, and there- applied, whereas the mercury emission with a correspond- fore it is likely that the dioxin and furan concentrations of ing emission proportion would not yet be discernible from the sediments’ surface layers become, approximately, four the observed annual variation in the current situation. In times larger and the mercury concentrations roughly dou- terms of PCDD/F compounds, the annual load of hazard- ble during the remediation year. In the Gulf of Finland, at ous substances caused by dredging would be less than tri- the mouth of the River Kymijoki, the growth of dioxin and ple in comparison to the quantity of hazardous substances furan concentrations will probably remain less than triple transported to the lower reach from the Keltti area, and in and that of mercury concentration barely discernible (ap- terms of mercury, less than double. proximately 1.3-fold) when taking into account the partic- The quantity of the load of hazardous substances de- ulate matter load coming from the River Kymijoki and else- creases towards the river’s lower reach when a part of where. In the sediment samples taken from 1996–2003, the the hazardous substances remain more permanently in dioxin and furan concentrations had decreased to approxi- the sedimentation pools; for example, in Lake Tammijärvi. mately a thousandth part when progressing from the more During the year when the remediation is in progress, ap- contaminated areas to the sea at the mouth of the River proximately 18% of the average dioxin and furan load Kymijoki (Salo et al. 2008).

Table 6–7. The transport of PCDD/F compounds and mercury downstream from Keltti and on from the River Kymijoki to the Gulf of Finland in the current situation (research from 2001 and 2006), during the remediation (A1a) and after it. The proportion of sediment emissions during remediation is 2–10% (Rossi, 2011). Time Keltti Gulf of Finland WHO-TEQ g Hg kg WHO-TEQ g Hg kg

Current situation (annual quantity) 249 – 304 12 – 47 39.6 – 67.3 26 – 32 Year of remediation 389-804 19-66 147 – 174* 37 – 43* Within 30 years without remediation 2,200 80 400* 20 Within 30 years if remediation takes place, in- 1,700 74 310* 20 cluding the year of remediation

*The assessment has been improved after the preparation of the risk assessment.

54 In A1 and A2, the compensation of the emission peak The distribution area of the dioxin and furan emissions caused by dredging in the River Kymijoki with the purifi- in the Gulf of Finland, originating in the River Kymijoki, has cation of the reach of the river between Kuusaansaari and been found to stretch approximately 75 kilometres from Keltti will take some time. A PCDD/F emission with the low- the mouth of the River Kymijoki (Isosaari 2004). This esti- est proportion (2%) of sediment effluent in the remedia- mate is based on the concentration peaks in sediments in tion alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b is equivalent to the nor- the 1960s and 1970s, and therefore the distribution area mal load of approximately two months and, at worst, ap- of fresher and cleaner surface sediments is probably low- proximately two years in Alternative A1a (10% proportion er. Because the highest concentrations of hazardous sub- of emission) (Rossi 2011). As approximately half of all the stances occur in deeper sediment layers, dredging per- PCDD/F load formed in the areas above Keltti come from formed in sea areas causes greater risks of dispersal than the areas to be dredged (Karvonen et al. 2005), the com- the emissions from the dredging planned for the River pensation of the load caused by dredging will take any- Kymijoki. thing from four months to four years. Correspondingly, ap- 6.4.6 Other Impacts from the Remediation on proximately 25% of the total load of mercury was assumed Water Quality to originate in the dredging area which means that the additional load of mercury caused by dredging should be The spoil from the bottom of the River Kymijoki consist of compensated for at best in less than six months in the re- organic sediments and therefore the dredging work may, mediation alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b. Calculated for a in principle, affect the physico-chemical quality of the wa- stretch of high sediment escape rate (10%) and with weak ter. For example, the studies performed during and after water treatment efficiency (residual concentration 20 µg/l), the dredging in the Vuosaari harbour demonstrated that it would take over ten years to compensate for the mercury nutrient concentrations at the work sites and in their im- load caused by dredging in Alternative A1a. mediate vicinity were clearly higher than normal. The con- Considering the river area between Kuusankoski–Keltti, centration of total phosphorus, for example, may tempo- the natural decrease in the hazardous substance load rarily be approximately 50% higher at the work site than caused by dredging would be interrupted according to the in normal situations. The difference in total nitrogen con- above-described calculation, at worst, for approximately 2 centration was clearly smaller. (Publications of the Vuosaari years in the case of dioxins and furans and for approximate- Harbour Project 1/2004 and 1/2005). ly 10 years in the case of mercury. Yet after this the load- The management of the dredging work in dredging ing would decrease faster than in Alternative A0. However, the River Kymijoki’s sediments is extremely important be- because all the highly contaminated sediments between cause of the contaminated sediments, and no large quan- Kuusankoski–Keltti would not be removed, the transport of tities of sediments escaping downstream can be allowed. hazardous substances to lower reaches of the river would If the volume of the emission of particulate matter trans- still continue. ported in the water is 2–10% of the spoil, no massive emis- In the long term, the load of hazardous substances origi- sion of particulate matter will be created in the waterway nating in the non-restored areas will decrease naturally and as a result of dredging, nor can the impacts on the water’s therefore the relative benefit gained from the remediation physico-chemical quality be significant. In practice, slight will diminish. Over thirty years, the dioxin and furan load in elevation in the nutrient concentrations and increase in the Keltti area, as well as the load ending up in the Gulf of the water’s chemical oxygen consumption may occur in Finland in Alternative A0 would be no more than approxi- the dredging area and its immediate vicinity during dredg- mately 26% on average, compared to today, and the load ing. These impacts, however, are local and temporary. Even accordant to the remediation alternatives A1 and A2 would if the quantity of matter which consumes oxygen grows be 77% of the load in Alternative A0. Mercury load, how- slightly in the water during work, in practice it has no ef- ever, would only decrease to 93% of Alternative A0’s load fect on the water’s oxygen conditions, because the mixing in the Keltti area, and no reduction would be discerned in conditions in the river are good. the quantity of mercury ending up in the Gulf of Finland. The increase in nutrient concentrations is estimated to In the long term, an equally great risk-reducing effect be the largest in Alternative A1a, in which also the rise of will be obtained with Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, for all the concentration of solid substances and the quantity of practical purposes. Alternative A1b does, however, involve released organic matter are calculated to be the greatest. the risk of structural damage occurring over a long period In the other alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, the quantity and thus the risk of an emission of hazardous substances of released nutrients is clearly the smallest, because the of some degree directly harming the River Kymijoki. (Rossi amount of released solid substances and organic matter 2011) is estimated to be approximately a third lower than in A1a.

55 6.5 Summary of Impacts

Summary of the impacts caused by the remediation of contaminated sediments:

The impacts of Alternative A0 • In the future, the migration of hazardous substances in the River Kymijoki will lessen from the current quantity even without remediation measures. According to the erosion and flow modelling, 25–50 % of the dioxins and furans and 20–40% of the mercury in the sediments located between Kuusaansaari and Keltti will migrate downstream over the next 30 years. • In the long run, the differences in dioxin, furan and mercury concentrations in the sediments of the River Kymijoki in Kuusankoski and below and in the Gulf of Finland will gradually even out when sediments migrate from the more strongly contaminated areas and settle in the sedimentation areas downstream. • The decrease in concentrations after the original emission has ceased is evident already now in the results of the sea area’s sediment studies in which the greatest concentrations have been discovered slightly below the surface level.

The impacts of Alternative A1a • In Alternative A1a, the concentration of solid substances in the water in the Keltti area would double, at most, during remediation in comparison to A0, the PCDD/F concentration would increase 7–22-fold and mercury concentration 9–14-fold. • The quantity of mercury emission can be substantially influenced by the efficient treatment of the sedimentation pond’s return water. • The annual PCDD/F load caused by dredging from the Keltti area to the lower reach of the river would almost triple and the mercury load would almost double in comparison to the current situation (A0). • If the efficiency of water treatment is low and the amount of sediments escaping high (10%), the compensation for the PCDD/F load caused by dredging would take approximately four years and the compensation for mercury load over ten years.

The impacts of Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b • • In Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, the emissions of particulate matter and hazardous substances would be approximately a third lower than in A1a due to the technology (pile planking and bucket dredging), and consequently, the impacts caused during dredging would also be smaller in comparison to A0. • Alternatives A1b, A1a and A2b involve a minor risk of the planking pond breaking during the remediation which might cause a significant, temporary emission. • The compensation for the PCDD/F compounds’ additional load caused by dredging would take anything from four months (2% proportion of emission) to four years (10% proportion of emission). • At best, the additional load of mercury caused by dredging would be compensated for in less than six months in the case of remediation alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b.

Long-term impacts • During remediation, approximately 50% of PCDD/F and 25% of mercury in the reach of the river between Kuusankoski and Keltti would be removed after which natural transport will further decrease the amount of hazardous substances. • Over the course of 30 years, the PCDD/F load in the Keltti area, as well as the load ending up in the Gulf of Finland, would be approximately 26%, on average, of the current load in A0. • Over the course of 30 years, the PCDD/F load accordant with remediation alternatives A1 and A2 would be 23% less than the load in A0. • Over the course of 30 years, the mercury load accordant with remediation alternatives A1 and A2 would be 7% less than the load in A0.

56 6.6 Reducing Harmful Effects

There are many ways to reduce the harmful effects caused The location, volume and concentrations of hazardous by the remediation of the River Kymijoki. The choice of substances in the sediments to be dredged have been sur- dredging technology probably has the greatest effect on veyed with fairly good accuracy, in terms of environmen- the dispersal of hazardous substances. By favouring buck- tal impact assessment, in several different studies. The ma- et dredging that is performed inside the pile planking as terial in these, however, was collected in 2000–2006, and far as technically possible, the risk of hazardous substanc- more recent measurement results are only available on es escaping during the remediation work can be reduced. the concentrations of solid substances. Thus, up-to-date The load of hazardous substances can also be reduced by studies with more specific information are required for the the choice of dredging method and by scheduling the completion of the actual dredging project. The properties dredging for the time of low discharge. Power plant dams of different sediment layers and areas, such as the concen- may possibly also be used to reduce the discharge but, of tration of solid substances and particle size, should also be course, it cannot be completely stopped. examined for the project. The annual load can be brought down by dividing the More precise information is also needed on the techni- remediation work over several years, but in terms of the cal options concerning the dredging techniques, installa- whole, this hardly decreases the damage. Mercury emis- tion of pile planking, water treatment and sediment stabi- sions can be reduced significantly by the efficient treat- lisation and their functioning. The test dredging has pro- ment of the water that is piped back to the river from the vided some practical experience on successful dredging sedimentation ponds. In any event, the technical imple- in the flow circumstances of the River Kymijoki. From the mentation of water treatment must be determined. point of view of the environmental impact assessment, the The smooth progress of the remediation work accord- hypothetical proportion of particulate matter emission, ing to expectations can be ensured by monitoring water 2–10%, encompasses a broad variance in the functionality quality during the process, for example, through continu- of the technologies but, at the same time, there is a great ous turbidity measurements and frequent analyses of haz- fluctuation range in the emissions of hazardous substances ardous substances. calculated on the basis of this proportion. Due to the great fluctuation range of emission of particulate matter, more 6.7 Uncertainties Concerning the reliable results would not have been achieved in the as- Assessment sessment if, instead of average values, the observed fluctuation ranges were used, for example, in calculating sed- In assessing the impacts of dredging, it was assumed that iments’ concentrations of hazardous substances and the short-term peaks of concentration would be directed River Kymijoki’s discharge. mostly on the reach of the river between Kuusankoski and Most of the dioxin and furan emissions dispersing in the Keltti (referred to as River Reach 2 in the risk assessment). River Kymijoki are bound to solid substances, and estimat- However, in a previous modelling (Malve et al. 2003) it was ing their dissolved or, in the long term, bioavailable pro- proven that, with a 10% proportion of emissions, the im- portion is difficult. The 1% solubility of dioxins and furans pact of dredging might be visible as far as Lake Tammijärvi in the sedimentation pond and, in the long term, their dis- (River Reach 6) fairly quickly and the concentrations of sur- solved proportion of 4–6% in the river water, do not trans- face sediments would be approximately 1/3–1/2 of those late as purely water soluble proportions because of the low in Keltti. After dredging has finished, these concentrations solubility of these compounds, but they correspond to the would quickly decline. Lower proportions of emissions tendency of the compounds to migrate with the water’s would not have a significant impact on the concentrations organic matter and bioaccumulate, for example, in fish. of Lake Tammijärvi’s surface sediments. Based on the re- From the point of view of mercury emissions, on the other sults of the modelling, however, it is clear that the concen- hand, the dissolved proportion of the emissions is probably trations of hazardous substances must be monitored over greater than the emission bound to solid substances, and a large area if the remediation project is carried out. therefore the solubilities of 10% and 30%, used in the assessment, should be specified with studies performed on the sediments to be dredged and with additional analyses of the River Kymijoki’s water samples. Especially the methylation of mercury should be studied.

57 Predicting long-term changes is complicated by the effect of the discharge variation on the quantities of hazardous substances carried by the river. Because the results of the model calculations and the transport estimates for PCDD/F compounds and mercury, performed on the basis of the analyses made using sediment traps, clearly differ from each other in the Keltti area, the proportion of more mildly contaminated sediments in the transport may be significant. These more mildly contaminated areas, however, are not well known and no calculations have been made on their PCDD/F or mercury concentrations. Areas other than those discussed in the modelling contain proportion- ately more sediments which have been contaminated by mercury than PCDD/F compounds. The concentrations and transport of other hazardous substances, especially PCDE compounds, should also be examined. (Rossi 2011) In the long-distance affected zone, the migration rate of hazardous substances from Keltti to the Gulf of Finland and their loss on the way are uncertain, which makes it difficult to estimate the changes in exposure over a long term period. A reduction of the conjectured size in the dioxin and furan load coming from the River Kymijoki has not been detected on the basis of the recent sediment depth profiles. If the natural reduction in load is slower than expected, the benefits obtained from the remediation should not be smaller than expected, at any rate. The benefits can most positively be proven in the immediate affected zone (the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river) where a significant part of the quantities of dioxins, furans and mercury could be removed by remediation.

58 7. IMPACTS ON FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC POPULATIONS

7.1 Present State

7.1.1 River Kymijoki’s Fish Population

It has been estimated that there were originally over 20 In addition to the usual freshwater fish, the River salmon rivers in Finland which emptied into the Baltic Sea, Kymijoki’s original species have included at least salmon, and the River Kymijoki was one of the largest of these and sea trout, whitefish, lampern, eel and vimba bream. one of the most important as a salmon river. The construc- After salmon, the migratory whitefish is the most im- tion and pollution of the river, however, destroyed its mi- portant catch in the river. Like the salmon and sea trout, gratory fish population almost completely. Based on the it has suffered from the damage caused by industrialisa- monitoring of natural populations and electrical test fish- tion. These days, the whitefish population that is able to re- ing of sea trout, the River Kymijoki saw a slight and irregular produce to a slight degree in the river is probably at least increase in its trout population in the 1990s. In the electri- partly a mixed population, because in the 1900s whitefish cal test fishings started in 2004, some wild salmon and sea originating also in other rivers have been used to restock trout fry have been discovered annually (Häkkinen 2007). the River Kymijoki. In the River Kymijoki, the test fishings of obligatory mon- At one time, the River Kymijoki’s lampern migrated at itoring proved that the river is eutrophic and, due to this, least as far as Voikkaa. The lampern is not as loyal to its the structure of the fish fauna grows when going down- home river as the salmon, sea trout and whitefish are and stream. Still in Kuusankoski, below the UPM’s Kymintehdas therefore lampern born in smaller rivers probably also as- factory, the fish fauna and unit catches did not differ from cend the River Kymijoki. the catch of the comparison areas, but in the Keltti area the Before the banking and contamination of the river, the difference was clear (Raunio 2010). waterway of the River Kymijoki has been one of the most The distribution of the fish species that are the most im- important growth zones for eel in Finland. The eel, which portant for the project area are limited to lower reaches. descends to the sea from the lake districts, has been caught Salmon can ascend the river up to the Anjalankoski dam, especially in the western branches of the river. Because the but the dams of Anjalankoski, Myllykoski and Keltti remain dams have closed the routes for eel to ascend to the lake between the project area and the salmon’s highest point areas, the eel population of the river currently depends on of ascent. restocking. To improve the possibilities of migratory fish in the River In places, the vimba bream has been an important catch Kymijoki for reproduction and the production of fry, there fish in the River Kymijoki. Like other migratory fishes, it has are plans to construct fish passes in connection with the suffered from the damage caused by industrialisation. In its river’s numerous dams. The building of a fish pass which present state, the vimba bream breeds in the river, but no will allow fish to bypass the Korkeakoski power plant is information is available on the strength of the population. considered the most important fish pass project. There are The River Kymijoki’s original asp population became ex- also plans pending for other fish passes where there are tinct around the same time as the river’s salmon. The resto- obstacles for ascending fish in other branches of the river. ration restocking of asp was begun in 1987 and was con- If completed, they will allow mature females to pass dams tinued at regular intervals until the end of the 1990s. At during their spawning migration, and for fry during their present, their population in the river is fairly strong. migration downstream, which would multiply the natural Most of the migratory fishes are caught in the sea area. production capacity of the River Kymijoki’s salmonids. The The most important species of migratory fish for commer- building of fish passes is also a cost-effective method of cial fishing are salmon and whitefish. Sea trout is mainly improving the river’s production of fry, because it would caught commercially as a by-product of salmon and white- probably make it possible to gradually abandon the re- fish fishing. (Pautamo and Vanninen 2009) stocking activities (Laine 2006).

59 Signal crayfish were planted in the River Kymijoki in The highest concentrations of PCDD/F compounds the reach of the river below Myllykoski in 1996 and 2000 in fish were discovered in the area between Kuusankoski and below Koria in 2009. In the test crayfishing performed and Keltti, which contains the most severely contaminat- in 2010, signal crayfish were caught in the river below ed sediments. Taking into account the samples from 2010, Anjalankoski (Manumaa 2010). Another test crayfishing the average fat-amended PCDD/F concentration in fish in site was located in Koria, but no crayfish were caught there. this reach of the river amounts to 1.4 pg WHO-TEQ/g. Yet 7.1.1.1 Hazardous Substances in the River as a whole, the effect of contaminated sediments on the Kymijoki’s Fish PCDD/F concentrations of the muscles of fish is relatively The PCDD/F and mercury concentrations in fish were stud- small in comparison to the differences in concentrations ied in connection with the KYPRO project in 1996. Mercury in the sediments. Although the toxic equivalent concen- concentrations have also been studied in the 2000s in trations in the surface layers of the contaminated sedi- connection with a national monitoring project and by the ments have been more than 200-fold in comparison to the Southeast Finland Regional Environment Centre. The lat- background concentrations upstream from Kuusankoski, est analyses of hazardous substances in fish were made in the difference in fish muscle is only approximately double. 2009 and 2010. Nevertheless, on the basis of the congener distribution, The following table (Table 7–1) presents, by the reach of the impact of KY-5 is clearly discernible: in the most con- the river, the average PCDD/F and mercury concentrations taminated area, the ratio of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and TCDD in fish’ muscles per fresh weight. The results include muscle was almost 4, but in other reaches of the river less than 0.5 samples from perch, pike, bream, burbot and pikeperch. In (Rossi 2011). The differences in PCDD/F concentrations be- addition to these, mercury concentrations have also been tween different species can mostly be accounted for by the analysed in roach muscle. differences in fat content.

Table 7–1. Concentrations of PCDD/F and mercury in the muscle samples of different fish from different reaches of the river (Rossi 2005). The table does not include the results from 2009 and 2010. Please note: The concentrations of hazardous substances in different units.

The reach of the river PCDD/F Mercury pg/g-tp, WHO-TEQ mg/kg-tp amemded fat A Upper part of Voikkaa, 0 - 0.21 Voikkaa–Kuusankoski, 1 0.7 0.37 Kuusankoski–Keltti, 2 1.26 - Keltti–Myllykoski, 3 0.52 0.56 Myllykoski–Inkeröinen, 4 0.87 - Inkeröinen–Hirvivuolte 0.57 0.68

Koivukoski–Koreakoski, 5 Hirvivuolle–Strömfors, Paaskoski, Klåsarö, 6 - 0.69

The concentration with amemded fat has been calculated by multiplying it with the average fat content of all the fish included in the material and the average fat content of each fish species. Amended fat was used for calculations because the weights of the fish were not known and the analysis results came from composite samples with fish of different sizes.

60 Based on the 2009 usability studies on the fish in the The concentrations clearly vary by fish species. The River Kymijoki’s sea area, PCDD/F concentrations of the highest concentrations were found in the salmon which fish were within the limit set for usability which is 4 pg/g.4 also has the highest fat content. The PCDD/F concentra- As expected, the highest concentrations were measured tions of most fish species are similar or higher than the av- in bream, whose nutrition includes zoobenthos and thus erage in the River Kymijoki. they accumulate larger quantities of hazardous substances 7.1.3 Other Aquatic Organisms (Raunio & Mäntynen 2010). The mercury concentration of fish grows regularly Zoobenthos from Voikkaa downstream and is at its height around Lake The River Kymijoki’s zoobenthos has been studied through Tammijärvi (River Reach 6, Figure 6–13). The average mer- obligatory monitoring since 1981. Since 2006, the moni- cury concentrations in pike between Kuusaansaari–Keltti toring has followed a new programme in which the sam- have been double or triple those in the background area ple areas are selected in such a way that all the samples are upstream from Voikkaa. The equivalent difference in the taken from a similar river bed, i.e. a soft bottom, in order to concentrations of the sediments’ surface layers was almost ensure the comparability of the results. The sample areas 30-fold and so mercury contamination was not as clearly represent the weakest bottom quality in the river. However, evident in the fish as it was in the sediments. In the 1996 the changes in programme and sample stations make it study, the average mercury concentration in perch in the difficult to study the long-term trends. Lake Tammijärvi area was 0.59 mg/kg (n=10) and in pike During the period 1984–2008, the River Kymijoki’s zoob- 0.82 mg/kg (n=31). The results from 2007 show that the enthos density and biomass have decreased and the varia- average mercury concentration of Lake Tammijärvi’s pike tion between the sample stations has diminished. In 2006 had decresed to 0.57 mg/kg (n=8). The decreasing trend and 2008, the total average numbers of individuals at the in the concentration was also evident in the other reaches river stations varied between 2,000–4,200 individuals/m2 of the river. and the biomass between 2–6 g/m3. The chironomid larvae and the oligochaetes have been the most important Hazardous substance in the sea area’s fish zoobenthos groups of the studies. The dioxin and furan concentrations of different fish The river beds of the sampling areas have become so species were studied in the the Gulf of Finland in 2002 clean that in 2008 they were mildly oligotrophic in all the (Table 7–2, Hallikainen et al. 2003). sample areas. This alteration is connected to the reduction in the River Kymijoki’s wastewater load and the improve- Table 7–2. Concentrations of PCDD/F compounds in fish ment in the state of the river. As the phosphorous load has caught in the Gulf of Finland by fish species and the number decreased, the river beds are no longer as euthrophic as of analysed fish resources. they have been.

Fish species PCDD/F WHO-TEQ number Threatened and protected invertebrates pg/g tp A diverse community that have adapted themselves to Salmon 8.8–9.7 2 flowing water live in the River Kymijoki’s stretches of rap- Baltic herring 0.77–7.5 15 ids. The thick-shelled river mussel (Unio crassus), which is Whitefish 1.2 2 a species included in the EU’s Habitats Directive IVa, can Sprat 0.88–3.0 4 be found in the river’s flow areas. In accordance with the Perch 2.7–4.2 2 Finnish Nature Conservation Act, section 38, it is also a pro- Flounder 1.4–2.3 2 tected species under the Nature Conservation Decree. In the assessment of threatened species, it is still included in Pikeperch 1.7–2.0 2 the category of vulnerable species. According to this clas- Pike 0.45–0.95 2 sification, the near threatened species of the painter’s mus- Burbot 0.26 1 sel (Unio pictorum) and saucer bug (Aphelocheirus aestiva- lis) can also be found in the River Kymijoki and they are very common, for example, in the Pernoonkoski Rapids (Anttila- Huhtinen et al. 2009).

4 The limit of usability has been established in an EU directive (Source: Evira 2009). This limit is applied to the non-fat- amended concentrations in the the fresh weight of fish. The dioxin and furan concentrations in fish which are presented in Table 4.1 cannot be directly compared to the limit in question.

61 7.2 Assessment Methods

Of protected mayflies,Ephemera lineata and the yellow In assessing the impacts of the remediation, the effects of mayfly(Potamanthus luteus) exist by the River Kymijoki. The turbidity and the load of hazardous substances on the fish former has only been found in two rivers in Finland, the fauna and other aquatic organisms were studied. Both the River Kymijoki and the River Hiitolanjoki. It was established acute toxic impacts of hazardous substances and bioaccu- as vulnerable in the 2010 classification of threatened spe- mulation were under examination, especially those on fish. cies, and it is also mentioned as a species to be specifically For each remediation alternative, it was studied to what ex- protected in the Nature Conservation Decree. According to tent the temporary load will increase the exposure of the the recent classification, the yellow mayfly is now a near- aquatic organisms and the organisms that eat them to the threatened species, whereas in 2000 it was classified as vul- hazardous substances in the sediments and water column. nerable. In addition, the magnitude of the ecological risks were examined, as was the expected change in exposure over a Aquatic vegetation longer period (30 years). In areas of strong flow, the aquatic vegetation of the The effects of the hazardous substances and particulate River Kymijoki is often scant and moss-dominated. Moss matter load on the reproduction of fish was also estimat- vegetation is at its most diverse in the rapids where a part ed. In addition, the impacts occurring temporarily on the of the underwater stones are awash (Ulvinen et al. 2002). fish fauna and other aquatic organisms during remediation The river’s vascular plants include, for example, bur-reeds work, such as the effects caused by turbidity, the water’s and alternate water milfoil which occur as sterile, and wa- oxygen concentrations and underwater noise, etc., were ter forget-me-nots which grow underwater (Hamari 1973). assessed. The mosses in the rapids of the River Kymijoki have not The current ecological risks caused by hazardous sub- been extensively studied, and the threatened species in stances in the sediments were studied in the risk assess- them are not known (Nironen and Vauhkonen 2007). ment of 2005 (Esko Rossi). During the preparation of the EIA, a remediation risk assessment (Rossi 2011) was com- The hazardous substances in other aquatic organisms piled in such a way that both the temporary load and the PCDD/F concentrations have also been studied in other change in the load after the remediation work has been organisms besides fish. ��The�� concentration results calculat- completed were investigated. The temporary load dur- ed from the primary material are presented in the following the remediation work was assessed on the basis of ing table (Table 7–3). The concentrations in mussels have the quantity of the spoil, different remediation methods been taken from the live-box test performed in August and the experiences gained from previous dredging pro- 2003 in the surroundings of the sedimentation areas be- jects (Chapter 6). In the risk assessment, the most recent low Kuusaansaari. The PCDD/F concentrations in mussels available research data on the area’s current state was also were 1–3 pg/g-tp, except for one place where they were taken into account. The additional load of hazardous sub- approximately 50 pg/g-tp. stances caused by the remediation was added to the current concentrations and levels of exposure in order to describe the temporary effect. In estimating the longer-term impacts, the prospective load level was taken into account. The completed risk assessment is included as Appendix 1 of the EIA Statement. In addition to the examination of risks, an expert estimation, based on previous experiences and the data collected during the EIA, was used in the assessment work. Additional information about the River Kymijoki’s fish fauna Table 7–3. PCDD/F concentrations determined from and fishing was gained through the resident/recreational aquatic organisms and the common goldeneye in the area of use survey which was implemented during the EIA pro- contaminated sediments. cedure.

Concentration pg WHO-Teq/g Organism group and the reach Fat content % Average per fresh Maximum per fresh Average per fat of the river weight weight Common goldeneye 2,4 7,4 12 300 Chironomid larvae 1,2 25 200 2100 Oligochaetes 1,3 10 31 780 Mussels (River reach 2) 10 55 1800 62 7.3 Estimated Impacts

7.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation

In the future, the decline in the concentrations of hazard- diversified and, in the most recent studies, the chironomids ous substances in the River Kymijoki’s water and surface species of soft river beds evinced a mildly nutrient-poor sediments, even without remediation measures, will cause river bed in all sample stations. In the light of long-term re- the concentrations of hazardous substances in fish to de- search, it can be assumed that this development will con- crease and the differences between the various stretches tinue in the same direction also in the future. With the cur- of the River Kymijoki to be reduced. rent development, no impoverishment of zoobenthos or In terms of the toxic equivalent concentrations of increased trophic levels in the river bed are expected. PCDD/F, this decline in concentrations will be slight, how- 7.3.2 A1 and A2, the Effects of the Remediation ever, because the main PCDD/F compound of the contam- Work inated sediments, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF, has only a little effect on the toxic equivalent concentration. There is as yet In the risk assessment (Rossi 2011), the dioxin and furan insufficient historical monitoring data on the PCDD/F con- concentrations caused in fish by the dredging were esti- centrations of the River Kymijoki’s fish to have detected a mated using the results of the analysis performed between reduction in concentrations so far. Kuusaansaari and Keltti (River Reach 2). In the current situ- Some deformations have been discovered in the mouth ation, the average fat-amended PCDD/F concentration in parts of the chironomid larvae living in the River Kymijoki’s fish was calculated as 1.4 pg WHO-TEQ/g. According to the contaminated sediments (Kiiski et al. 2005 a). The propor- average PCDD/F concentration in the water (37 pg/l/ Table tion of these deformations in the larvae immediately be- 6–1) and the soluble proportion (6%) calculated by the ap- low Kuusankoski is as much as 54%. According to paleolim- proximate concentration of solid substances at 4 mg/l, the nological research, mercury and PCDD/F compounds or ratio of concentrations in fish and sediments, i.e. the bi- the combined effect of different substances can be consid- oaccumulation value, is 630 l/kg. The theoretical increase ered potential causes of deformations (Kiiski et al. 2005 b). in the PCDD/F concentration in the Kuusaansaari–Keltti The decrease in the water’s and sediments’ mercury reach of the river during dredging was calculated as 210– concentrations probably has a greater effect on the level of 774 pg/l (see Chapter 6.4.4), and therefore the concentra- concentrations in fish than the decline in PCDD/F concen- tion increase in fish became 8–20 pg WHO-TEQ/g during trations does. A clear decreasing trend has been evident the dredging time of 600 h/a (Table 7–4). in the mercury concentrations of pike from 2005–2010. At As the dredging is not continuous, the concentration the same time, the development of mercury sources origi- increases calculated for a longer timespan remain consid- nating elsewhere than in the River Kymijoki is difficult to erably smaller. Thus, the PCDD/F concentration of fish dur- predict. ing the remediation year will be, on average, below double Based on zoobenthos studies, the state of the River that of the current situation and will remain below the limit Kymijoki’s river bed has improved with the reduction in set for the nutritional use of fish which is 4 pg WHO-TEQ/g. load. In the 1980s, the densities of zoobenthos and biomass In addition, the concentration increase can be dropped to varied greatly by site, and some research sites lacked a zoo- approximately a third of the above-mentioned quantity, if benthos entirely. In the 2000s, the densities of zoobenthos bucket dredging is applied in part (A1b, A2a and A2b). and biomass have stabilised and the variation between different sample stations has decreased. Communities have

Table 7–4. The concentration increase of dioxins and furans in the fish between Kuusaansaari and Keltti during suction dredging and on an annual level (fat-amended average increase, WHO-TEQ) (Rossi 2011).

Emission of particulate matter, % Soluble concentration increase, pg/l Fish, during dredging, pg/g Fish, annual average, pg/g

2 13 8 0.5 5 21 17 0.9 10 31 20 1.3

63 The component accumulating in fish from mercury com- practice, the concentrations in fish may remain lower than pounds is soluble methyl mercury. According to the re- estimated, because the emission of mercury increases as search data, the mercury concentration of fish appeared to the concentration in fish rises. Because the accumulation correlate with the total concentration of the water’s methyl occurs slowly, mercury adheres itself back into the sedi- mercury. The average bioconcentration factor (BCF) calcu- ment, decreasing the bioavailable proportion. (Rossi 2011) lated for all fish species was 2.1 x 106 l/kg (lgBCF=6.3). On Based on the risk assessment (Rossi 2011), the reproduc- the other hand, the concentration of soluble methyl mer- tion of fish may fall in the remediation area. When the PCB cury in Huruksela’s water samples has been determined as substances that have a similar effect as dioxins are taken 0.15 ng/l and the average mercury concentration of pike into consideration, the adverse effects to fish reproduction as 0.87 mg/kg (the material of 2005, 2007 and 2010), and in the reach of the river between Kuusansaari and Keltti on these grounds, the bioconcentration factor is 5.8 x 106 during remediation are probable. The actual effects on fish l/kg. (Rossi 2011) reproduction also depend on when the remediation takes The soluble mercury load caused by dredging almost place. The remediation area mainly consists of flowing wa- exclusively originates from the return water of the sedi- ter environments, and therefore there may be spawning mentation pond, and the amount of this is 22–24 ng/l at its areas, for example, of sea trout or grayling. Depending on highest (Table 6–6). Based on the monitoring results, an av- the time and duration of the work, the remediation may erage of 15% of the total concentration of soluble mercury, influence the reproduction of these species. Salmon can- measured in different parts of the River Kymijoki, is methyl not migrate as far as the remediation area; instead, salmon mercury, and therefore the soluble methyl mercury load have been discovered to naturally reproduce in the lower during dredging is 3.3–3.6 ng/l and the theoretical con- reach of the River Kymijoki. The lower reach of the river be- centration increase of mercury in the pikes of River Reach low Anjalankoski has been estimated to have a total of 18 2 is approximately 20 mg/kg (Table 7–5). Because mercury ha. of good fry production area and 75 ha. of moderate fry mostly accumulates through food, concentration increase production area (Rinne et al. 2007). Through electrical fish- in fish occurs slowly. When dredging is a fairly short event ing, salmon fry from natural spawn has been discovered in and not continuous, actual concentration increases are almost all the rapids below Anjalankoski. The effects of the considerably smaller. (Rossi 2011) remediation on water quality in the lower reach of the river During the remediation year, the mercury concentra- are estimated to be relatively slight, and therefore no sig- tion will be approximately 1.4 mg/kg which means that nificant impacts on the reproduction of salmon resulting the concentration will approximately triple in compari- from the remediation are expected in the lower reach of son to the average concentration of 0.59 mg/kg in pike, the River Kymijoki. The spawning areas of lotic fish are situ- measured in 1998–2003 in the reach of the river between ated in rapids or areas resembling treeless mires, whereas Kuusaansaari and Keltti. If the residual concentration of 5 the hazardous substances transported to the lower reach µg/l (efficiency of purification with the above-mentioned become sedimented in river pool regions. assumed levels of solubility is approximately 90%), set for The remediation project is estimated to take 1–3 years. industries other than the chlor-alkali industry, are achieved Due to its short duration, the remediation is not estimat- with the removal of mercury, the average mercury concen- ed to collide with the migratory fish project of the River tration of pike would increase on average 0.2–0.3 mg/kg Kymijoki. In the long term, the effects of remediation on per year above the current level, and the consequences of restoring migratory fish to the river are positive. the different remediation alternatives would be slight. In

Table 7–5. The concentration increase of mercury in the pike between Kuusaansaari and Keltti during suction dredging and on an annual level when the operating time is 600 h/a.

Emission of particu- Soluble concentration increase Pike, during dredging Pike, annual average late matter, % in the river’s water MeHg, ng/l Hg, mg/kg Hg, mg/kg

2 3.6 21 1.4 5 3.5 20 1.4 10 3.3 19 1.3

64 The River Kymijoki has a population of signal crayfish on The return of benthos to the dredged areas will take ap- which the remediation has no effects. Signal crayfish have proximately 1–3 years. Based on what has been described been planted in Koria which is approximately 3 km from above, the harmful effects on the aquatic organisms are es- Keltti and approximately 8 km from the upper reach of the timated to be slight. remediation area in Kuusaansaari. Even though no crayfish In the sea area, the impacts of the remediation on fish were caught in the test crayfishings in Koria in 2010, the count and other aquatic organisms are low. The addition- area is likely to have them. No test crayfishings have taken al PCDD/F load caused by dredging was estimated above place in the reach between Kuusaansaari–Keltti, but it is (Chapter 6.4) to have an impact in the Keltti area for a max- possible that crayfish occur also in the remediation area. imum of four years from the completion of the work and, The effects on crayfish are at their height in the remedia- in the case of mercury load, for over ten years. The advec- tion area and still in the Koria area, whereas in the lower tion of sediment, originating from the dredging, towards reach of the river the effects on water quality are smaller, as the river’s lower reach and the Gulf of Finland is slower. It are the impacts on crayfish. was estimated that approximately 16–22% of the PCDD/F As a result of the dredging, benthos will disappear from compounds transported from the Keltti area will in time the area to be dredged. The improvement in the state of end up in the Gulf of Finland. Evidently, significant quan- the river bed will, however, create a possible substrate for tities of mercury have remained in Lake Tammijärvi, and benthos. The return of species or the arrival of new spe- the proportion transported to the Gulf of Finland is difficult cies to the dredging area is estimated to occur roughly 1–3 to estimate due to the more even regional distribution of years after the work has been completed. The effects in the the concentrations and discharge. The suspended matter reaches of the river below the dredging work are calculat- transported by the river and the solid substances formed in ed to be fairly slight due to the brief exposure. the sedimentation areas by a new, more strongly contami- After the remediation, the PCDD/F concentrations of nated surface layer than the current one inflict additional water and, consequently, fish will decrease rapidly in prin- exposure on fish, but due to the diluting effect, this addi- ciple as a result of the decrease in exposure and the elimi- tional exposure will hardly differ from the current situation nation (segregation) occurring in fish. The half-periods de- of the river’s lower reach and the Gulf of Finland in any way. termined, for example, for TCDD are 6–58 days (Branson et Thus remediation probably will not have any effects out- al. 1985, Muir et al. 1986). The cycle in the food chains may, side of the Finnish border either. however, cause a delay in the decline of the concentrations. (Rossi 2011) Mercury exists in fish mostly as methyl mercury which leaves fish slowly. The elimination speed of methyl mercury is influenced by the fish species and size, as well as environmental conditions, such as temperature. The calculated half-periods are 130–1,030 days (Trudel & Rasmussen 1997). Because mercury occurs in the River Kymijoki over an extensive area and the retention of mercury in fish is long, the total benefits achieved through remediation begin to materialise only one to five years after the work has been completed (Rossi 2011). Over a longer period (30 years), the benefits of remediation for the fish count would probably be equal to those presented in Table 6.7 for the transport of sediments. The greatest benefit would be achieved in the reach of the river between Kuusaansaari and Keltti where 50% of the amount of PCDD/F and 25% of mercury would be removed. This would not be sufficient, however, to reach the levels of the cleanest parts of the River Kymijoki.

65 7.4 Summary of Impacts

Summary of the impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms:

The impacts of Alternative A0 • In a situation accordant with Alternative Zero, the PCDD/F and mercury concentrations of the fish in the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river would decrease in the future as the migration of hazardous substances lessens. • Currently, the average PCDD/F concentration of fish in the Kuusaansaari–Keltti section is 1.4 pg WHO-TEQ/g-tp which is approximately double the concentrations of the upper reaches. Mercury concentrations in pike is 0.59 mg/kg on average, which is also 2–3-fold the concentrations of the upper reaches.

The impacts of Alternative A1a • In practice, dredging does not increase the concentrations of hazardous substances in fish immediately during dredging, but on an annual level, the PCDD/F concentration of fish in the reach of the river between Kuusaansaari and Keltti was estimated to rise in A1a, at worst, to 1.4–2.0-fold in comparison to the current level, depending on the proportion of emission of particulate matter. • At its highest, the PCDD/F concentration of fish would be 2.7 pg WHO-TEQ/g, i.e. below the limit of usability which is 4 pg WHO-TEQ/g. • Mercury concentrations in the pike of the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river would increase as an annual average to approximately three times the current quantity, despite the proportion of emission of particulate matter. In such a case, the mercury concentration of pike would be 2.3 mg/kg, but with efficient water treatment, it could be lowered to approximately 1 mg/kg.

The impacts of Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b • With Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, the growth of PCDD/F concentration could be restricted to 1.4-fold at the most in comparison to the current level, i.e. approximately 2 pg WHO-TEQ/g. • In Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, the mercury concentration of pike would be approximately 0.9–1.3 mg/kg, depending on the efficiency of water treatment.

Long-term impacts • After the remediation, the PCDD/F concentrations of water and, consequently, fish will decrease rapidly as a result of the decrease in exposure and the elimination occurring in fish. The half-periods determined, for example, for TCDD are 6–58 days. The cycle in the food chains may, however, cause a delay in the decline of the concentrations. • Mercury exists in fish mostly as methyl mercury which leaves fish slowly. The elimination speed of methyl mercury is influenced by the fish species and size, as well as environmental conditions, such as temperature. The half-periods have been calculated as 130–1,030 days. • Over a longer period (30 years), the benefits of remediation for the concentrations in fish would probably be equal to the benefits presented for the migration of sediments.

66 7.5 Reducing Harmful Effects

The emissions of PCDD/F compounds ending up in the point for estimating the bioaccumulation of PCDD/F com- River Kymijoki through dredging, and consequently the pounds consisted of the concentrations found in fish, the concentrations in fish and other aquatic organisms, can overestimation of solubility does not fundamentally affect best be restricted by the careful selection and implemen- the end result, but by using the solubility calculation, it was tation of the dredging technique. If the solubility of mercu- possible to take into account the effect of solid substances ry and the proportion of methyl mercury are of the mag- on bioaccumulation. (Rossi 2011) nitude expected or larger, the treatment of the dredging A more complex model of bioaccumulation was devel- water plays a key role in terms of environmental impacts. oped for and applied to the River Kymijoki’s fish previously By preventing harmful effects, only the concentration (Verta et al. 2009). However, the selection of the param- increase caused by dredging can be influenced, but not eters in a more complex model may involve even more the current level occurring in fish. The current concentra- uncertainties than the application of simpler, target-spe- tions of hazardous substances are a result of fish becoming cific data. The River Kymijoki’s contamination by hazard- exposed to both background hazardous substances and ous substances has existed for a long time and it has not all the load of hazardous substances of the River Kymijoki’s been perceived to increase the concentrations in fish more contaminated sediments, the movement of which is only than 2–3-fold on average when compared to the concen- temporarily increased by the dredging. trations in the upper reaches of the river. The estimation of the concentration of hazardous sub- 7.6 Uncertainties Concerning the stances in fish regionally was allocated to the reach of the Assessment river between Kuusaansaari and Keltti ,where the effects of both natural purification and dredging will probably mani- In assessing the PCDD/F concentrations in fish, the focus fest themselves most strongly was put on the average edible fish of the River Kymijoki without itemising the species. There is, however, a great deal of variation in the species-specific and individual disposition of fish to accumulate foreign matter, and very extensive information on current concentrations was not available. The estimation of mercury concentrations, on the other hand, was allocated more specifically on the pike as there is more extensive and up-to-date material available on its mercury concentrations. In assessing the impacts of dredging, the observed hazardous substance concentrations of fish in the River Kymijoki’s water was proportioned to the hazardous substance concentrations of the present situation and those occurring after the dredging. A more detailed examination of the food chain was not performed in the risk assessment, and no accurate information existed on the species- specific absorption and elimination kinetics or their relative bioaccumulation through gills and skin or nutrients of hazardous substances. A great many uncertainties also existed in the assessment of the solubility of hazardous substances. The calculated bioconcentration factor for PCDD/F compounds was low, and therefore the solubility of PCDD/F compounds was probably an overestimation. For example, the bioaccumulation value of 2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF for fish in the RAIS database (RAIS 2009) is 2,800 l/kg. Because the starting

67 8. IMPACTS ON THE SOIL, GROUNDWATER AND WATER SUPPLY

8.1 Present State

8.1.1 Soil and Bedrock

In terms of its bedrock, the area is placed in the rapakivi area of Southeast Finland. Rapakivi is a variety of granite that mostly appears in Southeast Finland, but in small areas also elsewhere in the country. In the immediate affected zone of the remediation project for sediments and its surroundings, dirt layers of varying qualities and thickness have become stratified on top of rock. In the remediation project’s Alternative A1a, the intention is to deposit the sediments to be dredged on a clay-coated area on the western bank of the river (Figure 8–1). On the southern side of this clayey soil runs the first Salpausselkä, a ridge formation developed during the last Ice Age. In this part, it consists of small, well-sorted, water transmitting layers of sand and gravel which have been separated from each other by rock sills. The soil consists of sand also on the southeast side of the final storage site. No soil studies have been made in the area of the clay pits, but under the clay there are typically some metres of till on top of basement rock. It is also possible to find layers of sand that transmit water well, especially near sandy areas. There is no information about the depth of the pits that have been dug in the clay or whether they extend to possible layers under the clay which may conduct water better. As a whole, the layer of dirt on top of the rock is fairly thin in this area. Several small exposures of rock attest to this, and on the western side of the clay pits, a till mound has become exposed on the surface of the land. In the long-distance affected zone of the remediation project, the soil is similar to that of the immediate affected zone. The River Kymijoki mostly borders on clay areas and, in places, also on rock. The most important sand for- mations on the riverside have been designated as groundwater areas which are presented in the following figure (Figure 8–1).

68 Figure 8–1. The soil of the remediation area and its immediate surroundings.

8.1.2 Groundwater Conditions

Throughout the riverside area of the River Kymijoki from In Finland, the areas that are important or suitable for a Kuusankoski to the sea, the flow of groundwater occurs community’s water supply are classified as groundwater ar- naturally from the land towards the river, and therefore in eas. On the riverside of the River Kymijoki from Kuusaansaari natural conditions there is no flow from the River Kymijoki to the sea there are seven classified groundwater areas, of to the groundwater. Water from the river, however, may be which the Huuhkajavuori groundwater area is located in absorbed into the groundwater in the soil, if a great deal of the immediate affected zone of the remediation project water is taken from the wells by the riverside (what is called and the others below Anjala, far away from the dredging the bank filtration of artificial groundwater). Bank filtration area. The groundwater areas are depicted in Figure 8–2. is a fairly common way to produce domestic water at municipal water intake plants. The quantities of water taken from private wells are usually so small that they cause no bank filtration.

69 Figure 8–2. The groundwater areas located in the vicinity of the River Kymijoki.

70 8.3 Estimated Impacts

8.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation The extent of the Huuhkajavuori (0530604) groundwater area is 0.91 m2 of which 0.2 km2 is groundwater re- In the current situation, the contaminated sediments have charge area. It is estimated that 131 m3 of groundwater no impact on the soil or groundwater. In this assessment, is recharged there per day. The area has been classified as the sediments of the river bed are not considered soil; in- important for water supply (Class I). The area has coarse- stead, the changes concerning sediments are described in grained well-sorted soil strata which have stratified into de- Chapter 6 with the river’s water quality. pressions in the rock and are partly under layers of clay and 8.3.2 A1 and A2, the Effects of the Remediation silt. The groundwater’s main current direction is towards Work the River Kymijoki. At present, there is no water extraction in the area. The allowed threshold limit values of, for ex- 8.3.2.1 Effects of Dredging ample, mercury and lead are exceeded in the water intake During dredging, the dioxin, furan and mercury concentra- plant’s well. Of all the groundwater areas bordering on the tions of the river water will increase. Dioxins and furans are river in the long-distance affected zone, only the Laajakoski poorly soluble in water and they move in the suspended area has a water intake plant. matter that is transported by the river. In a possible bank The actual dredging area or the soil dumping area of filtration situation, the suspended matter precipitates out Alternatives A1 and A2 are not located in the groundwater of the water, and the dioxins and furans do not migrate to area. From the final storage site for the spoil in Alternative the groundwater. Mercury occurs both in particles and dis- A1a, the main current direction of the groundwater is solved into water. The total concentration of mercury in towards the east or northeast, ending up in the River the river’s water has been calculated at most as approxi- Kymijoki. Discharge locally into the Akanoja stream, which mately 50 ng/l (background concentration 3.5 ng/l, max. runs through the area, is also possible. In the clay area, 46 ng/l from dredging) or 0.05 µg/l. The threshold limit val- groundwater recharge and movements of the groundwa- ue allowed for mercury in the household water supply is 1 ter in the soil are very slight. Most of the precipitation oc- µg/l (Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 461/2000) curring in the area escapes as surface runoff. The till and which is 20 times the amount of the river water’s estimat- the possible layers of sand under the clay may have more ed threshold limit value. No threshold limit value has been groundwater movement. set for dioxins and furans in the household water supply. The final storage site of A1a and its surroundings do not The Huuhkajavuori groundwater area, located in the im- belong within the municipal water management network. mediate affected zone of the dredging work, is not used for The properties in the area use dug and bored wells for their water supply and thus there is no risk of bank filtration in the household water supply. area. The private wells near the banks or their consumption have not been charted because bank-filtered water rarely 8.2 Assessment Methods enters them. If bank filtration should occur, however, the hazardous substances released during dredging are poorly The starting point for assessing impacts on the soil and transported and their quantities are so low that, in prac- groundwater is the estimations of the concentrations of tice, they cause no danger to the water quality of the wells hazardous substances in the river water and in the spoil to near the bank. It can be concluded that no impacts on the be finally stored in the project’s different alternatives. groundwater of the riverside are impending as a result of The concentrations of hazardous substances in water the dredging activities (A1 and A2) in the River Kymijoki or have been compared to the threshold limit values allowed omitting to dredge (A0). for household water supply. The possibilities of hazardous No effects are expected to occur from the project on substances migrating to groundwater have been estimat- the extraction of surface water either. The nearest indus- ed on the basis of the above-described soil and groundwa- trial plant that uses water from the River Kymijoki is in ter conditions. The initial data used comprises soil and bed- Myllykoski. When the concentration of solid substances rock maps (Geological Survey of Finland’s map service at that is critical for the water intake of industry is estimat- geo.fi) and information about groundwater areas (Hertta, ed to correspond to the limit value of 25 mg/l (VnA 1994) Finland’s Environmental Administration’s management which is set for suspended matter in surface water that is system for environmental data). used in making drinking water, it is evident that dredging The project does not affect the bedrock and therefore will cause no hazard for the water intake of industry. the impacts on bedrock have not been separately assessed.

71 8.4 Reducing Harmful Effects 8.3.2.2 Impacts of Final Storage The central possible impacts of the project on the soil and The quantity of hazardous substances in the river water groundwater concern the final storage of the spoil, if it is will be monitored during the dredging process. If the con- deposited outside the river bed (A1a and A2b). These final centrations approach the threshold limit values allowed for storage options include the risk of possible hazardous sub- household water supply, the private wells near the bank stances dispersing into the surrounding environment with can be charted and the possibility of bank filtration, as well the final storage area’s seep water. Dioxins and furans are as water quality, can be monitored with samples, if neces- poorly transported, and therefore mercury is the main con- sary. cern. Because of the risk of dispersal, the spoil will be stabi- The detailed implementations of final storage will ef- lised before its final storage, and protective structures and fect the environmental impacts and risks of hazardous water treatment facilities will be built at the storage sites. substances considerably. If the remediation of the River The storage site will also be under a long-term monitor- Kymijoki is launched, it will be necessary to make more ex- ing obligation. act plans about the selected method of final storage. The In Alternative A1a, if stabilisation and the protective harmful effects of the spoil’s final storage will be prevented structures fail, the possible impacts on the groundwater by stabilising the substances, using protective structures would be directed at a small area between the storage site and monitoring their functionality. and the River Kymijoki, because the groundwater flows towards the River Kymijoki, according to the map. The possi- 8.5 Uncertainties Concerning the ble affected zone for Alternative A2b cannot be calculated, Assessment because the location of the storage site has not been decided. The stabilisation of the spoil in the river bed (A1b) The groundwater conditions of the riverside are clear-cut may have impacts on the surface water, but in practice, it and the impacts of dredging on the groundwater are es- would not influence the groundwater. Burning (A2a) does timated to be extremely low or nonexistent, thus limiting not affect the soil or groundwater. the number of uncertainties. 8.3.3 Summary of Impacts There are uncertainties in the project concerning the treatment of spoil or its final storage, because the storage The differences between the alternatives’ impacts on the sites or their soil and groundwater conditions have not soil and groundwater are in their treatment methods of the been established and stabilisation has not been accurate- spoil. The most advantageous options in terms of the im- ly tested. In particular, the soil conditions of the clay soil pacts on groundwater are omitting to restore (A0), storing area (A1a), the possible water-conducting layers of soil un- the spoil in the river bed (A1b) or burning it (A2a), because der the clay, the depth of the clay pits that have been dug these alternatives include no risk of hazardous substances in the area and the location and use of the area’s private spreading outside the current river bed. wells need to be clarified. More accurate surveys will be The advantage of Alternative A1b over the other final made at the latest during the environmental permit stage, storage sites (A2b) is that the spoil remains in its original lo- if the final storage of the spoil is the alternative to be im- cation in the River Kymijoki and new areas are not exposed plemented. to the hazardous substances.

72 9. IMPACTS ON NATURE RESERVES AND PROTECTED SPECIES

9.1 Present State

9.1.1 Kymijoki Natura Area

The extent of the Kymijoki Natura 2000 area (FI0401001) is The data form for Kymijoki Natura 2000 makes no men- 4,250 hectares. It includes river bed and riverside areas in tion of the thick-shelled river mussel, although it is known the municipalities of Anjalankoski, Elimäki, Kotka, Pyhtää to exist also in the River Kymijoki. and Ruotsinpyhtää. In addition to the River Kymijoki’s water The thick-shelled river mussel is a species that is includ- area, the Natura 2000 area includes numerous islands, river- ed in the Habitats Directive, Annex IV (a), and it is also pro- side and shoreline forests and flood meadows and parts of tected outside the Natura area. Its occurrence in the reach the saline water bays at the river mouths. The base for the of the river between Kuusaansaari and Keltti has not been selection of a Natura area is that it contains natural habitat examined. The occurrence of the thick-shelled river mus- types and/or species which are included in the Habitats sel was, however, studied in the Pernoonkoski Rapids of Directive (SCI). The Kymijoki Natura 2000 area includes the River Kymijoki in autumn 2009 (Anttila-Huhtinen et four SPA regions which are in accordance with the Birds al. 2009). In the geographical survey of the Natura assess- Directive: Muhjärvi, Laajakoskenjärvi, Ahvenkoskenlahti ment, which is connected to the fishery remediation of and Santaniemenselkä-Tyyslahti. the Pernoonkoski Rapids, thick-shelled river mussels were The Water Act and the Rapids Protection Act in the discovered in the rapids. The proportion of thick-shelled water areas and the Nature Conservation Act in land ar- river mussels in all the mussels found was approximately eas ensure the protection of the Kymijoki Natura 2000 2%. In the studies, plenty of painter’s mussels and saucer area. The Rapids Protection Act (35/1987) has been imple- bugs, classified as near threatened, were also found in the mented in protecting four stretches of rapids in the River Pernoonkoski Rapids. Kymijoki from power plant construction: Ahvionkosket, Of protected mayflies, Ephemera lineata and the yellow Kultaankosket and Pernoonkosket and the lower reach of mayfly Potamanthus( luteus) exist by the River Kymijoki. the River Kymijoki as far as below Koivukoski. The former has only been found in two rivers in Finland, According to the target’s Natura 2000 data form, fifteen Kymijoki and Hiitolanjoki. It has been established as vulner- natural habitat types that are included in Annex I of the able in the 2010 classification of threatened species, and it Habitats Directive can be found in the area. The most signif- is also mentioned as a species to be specifically protected icant of these in terms of area are the Fennoscandian river in the Nature Conservation Decree. According to the re- routes in their natural state (71% of the area) and river del- cent classification, the yellow mayfly is now a near threat- tas (15% of the area). The data form mentions four species ened species, whereas in 2000 it was classified as vulner- of the Habitats Directive’s Annex II and 25 species of the able. Birds Directive’s Annex I which are found in the target area. 9.1.1.1 Other Protected Areas and Important In addition, it lists 70 species of birds which are not includ- Targets ed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and 28 other species. There are six nature reserves within the affected zone of the Of the species found in water environments which are River Kymijoki’s planning zone. Most of the established na- listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive, especially the ot- ture reserves are inside the Kymijoki Natura 2000 area. The ter and the Annex’s fish species (for example, salmon and Langinkoski Nature Reserve and the five nature reserves in- asp) will be assessed in this project. For the assessment volved in the protection plan for the white-backed wood- here, the most important species of the Birds Directive’s pecker are nationally valuable areas. The state has acquired Annex I are water birds and fish eating birds. Metsäkylänsaari and the northern part of Suutarinsaari, which belong within the Kymijoki Natura 2000 area, for nature conservation purposes. These areas belonging in the protection plan for the white-backed woodpecker are nationally valuable areas. (Nironen and Vauhkonen 2007)

73 In the summer of 2010, a nature study (Kotkansiipi Oy Table 9–1 presents in a condensed form the importance 2010) was performed in the area of the Keltti clay pits in of the basins for the area’s birds and dragonflies and dam- Kouvola (final storage sites in Alternative A1a). In this study, selflies. According to this study, basins 1, 4, 5 and 7 have the the bird fauna and dragonflies and damselflies of the clay greatest number of nature values. The large white-faced pits were charted. It involved plotting all the area’s 10 clay darter, which is a species included in Annex IV (a) of the quarry pits and the basin that they have formed (Figure Habitats Directive, can be found in basins 1 and 5. 9–1).

Figure 9–1. The basins charted in the nature study (Kotkansiipi 2010).

Table 9–1. The nature values of the clay pit area. The numbering of the basins is presented in Figure 9–1.

Number of the Birds Dragonflies and damselflies basin 1 In terms of birds, the area’s most impor- Diverse set of dragonflies and damselflies; the tant pond large white-faced darter is found in the area 2 Not important in terms of birds Common set of dragonflies and damselflies 3 Not important in terms of birds Common set of dragonflies and damselflies 4 Important staging area for dabbling ducks Common set of dragonflies and damselflies 5 In 2010, the moorhen nested at the basin Diverse set of dragonflies and damselflies; the large white-faced darter is found in the area 6 The basin has been filled with earth 7 The moorhen has nested at the basin in Common set of dragonflies and damselflies many years 8 Not important in terms of birds Common set of dragonflies and damselflies 9 Not important in terms of birds Common set of dragonflies and damselflies 10 Not important in terms of birds Common set of dragonflies and damselflies

74 9.2 Assessment Methods

In the Environmental Impact Assessment, the effects of the lives by the river only during the summer, whereas the ot- remediation project on the nature reserves and the reali- ter lives there throughout the year. If the otter’s exposure sation of their conservation targets have been estimated. time is calculated as 90 d/a, the concentration arrived at is The Kymijoki Natura 2000 area has been specifically under 11 pg/g-tp which is very close to that found in the com- examination. The EIA includes a preliminary estimation of mon goldeneye. When the probable PCB receipt is also tak- the ways the remediation might affect the natural habitat en into account, the total concentration in the otter is ap- types and species of the Habitats Directive in the Kymijoki proximately 100 pg/g-tp (Rossi 2011). Natura area and the birds of the Birds Directive. Especially In the current situation, dioxins and furans may weak- the otter, water birds and fish eating birds are under con- en the possibilities of otters and other vertebrates that sideration in the examination. The species of the Habitats eat aquatic organisms to live by the River Kymijoki. The Directive, Annex I, also include the salmon which is dis- PCDD/F compounds alone probably do not cause harm to cussed in connection with the impacts on fish fauna. The invertebrate aquatic organisms (such as the thick-shelled use of nutrients and the possible accumulation of hazard- river mussel), but the total effects together with other haz- ous substances are estimated in the EIA both in the current ardous substances may be significant. situation and from the perspective of the different reme- In the compiled examination of the risks, the hazards diation alternatives. proved greater with mercury than with dioxins and fu- In connection with the EIA, a means test for the Natura rans. The mercury in fish and other aquatic organisms may assessment has been completed. The actual Natura assess- weaken the possibilities of otters and other vertebrates ment which complies with the Nature Conservation Act, that eat aquatic organisms to live by the River Kymijoki. section 65, will be performed, if necessary, at the stage of In the calculations and model examinations concerning further research before submitting the licence applications. the transport of hazardous substances, it has been estimat- The central tool for the assessment is the risk assessed that the River Kymijoki’s load of contaminated sediments ment of the remediation work (Rossi 2011). will decrease within the next decades. Consequently, also the effect on the protected species in the River Kymijoki’s 9.3 Estimated Impacts Natura area will be mitigated in time. Currently, no visible impacts have been caused by the 9.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation contaminated sediments on the river’s Natura 2000 area. The Natura area is located at the lower reach of the River 9.3.1.1 Concentrations of Hazardous Substances in Kymijoki, between Anjalankoski and the sea area. The haz- Organisms ardous substances accrued at the lower reach of the river In addition to aquatic organisms, concentrations of hazard- may, to some extent, cause harmful effects to the species ous substances have also been established in the common mentioned in the Habitats Directive, Annex II, such as the goldeneye in the River Kymijoki area. The PCDD/F concen- otter or local fish species such as the asp. In contrast, the tration in the common goldeneye between Kuusaansaari contaminated sediments cause no harm in the current sit- and Keltti has been 7.4 pg on average and, at most, 12 uation to the salmon, which is also listed in the Habitats WHO-TEQ/kg per fresh weight. Directive, Annex II, because it spends the majority of its life No figures exist on the concentration of hazardous sub- in the sea. Salmon also reproduce naturally in the lower stances for the otter for the River Kymijoki area. The otter reach of the River Kymijoki. Salmon fry from natural spawn has generally been found to be one of the animals that are exposed to the River Kymijoki’s hazardous substances suffers the most easily from bioaccumulating substances. at an early age, whereas the majority of the dioxin exposure The hazards to the otter have usually been estimated on throughout the fish’s life accumulates from the Baltic dur- the basis of the concentrations of hazardous substances ing its sea phase. measured in the liver. As there were no local research re- In the current situation, the River Kymijoki’s contaminat- sults available on otters, the risks to this animal were ex- ed sediments may cause some level of harm for the birds amined in the risk assessment (Rossi 2011) on the basis of included in the Birds Directive, Annex I, which live in the the PCDD/F concentrations of their nutrition. The concen- Natura 2000 area. The effects may occur mostly in water tration calculated for the otter is higher than that discov- birds, waders and birds that eat fish, such as the common ered in the common goldeneye. The common goldeneye tern. Birds only spend a part of the year in the area, and therefore the effects are probably milder on them than on otters and fish.

75 As the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments do not from the remediation area to the Kymijoki Natura 2000 area affect plant species, they have no impact in the current sit- is over 20 km, and therefore the effects are milder in the uation on the natural habitat types existing in the Natura latter. The majority of the hazardous substances that are 2000 area, mentioned in the Habitats Directive, Annex I. bound to the suspended matter descend to the sedimen- 9.3.2 A1 and A2, the Effects of the Remediation tation areas of the river, while some of the sediments that Work have been released during remediation gradually migrate to the sea. The concentrations of soluble mercury, released In the assessment of the current ecological risks, it was during remediation, are at their highest in the remediation found that dioxins, furans and mercury may weaken the area and its immediate surroundings, but they decrease possibilities of otters and other vertebrates that eat aquatic towards the lower reach of the River Kymijoki as they be- organisms to live by the River Kymijoki. The PCDD/F com- come diluted. pounds or mercury alone probably do not cause harm to The impacts of the remediation on otters and aquatic invertebrate aquatic organisms, but the total effects to- organisms are at their greatest in the remediation area and gether with other hazardous substances and the weak its immediate surroundings. The remediation will proba- general condition of the sediments may be significant. bly not cause significant additional risks to the species of (Rossi 2011) the Habitats Directive living in the Kymijoki Natura 2000 The total additional exposure caused by the remedia- area; instead, the harmful effects caused during the reme- tion measures increases the risks to vertebrates that eat diation will probably be equivalent to the current damage aquatic organisms over a short period. The risk increases in the river’s lower reach. After the remediation work has the most in the situation caused by Alternative A1a. The been completed, the concentrations of hazardous sub- assessment involves a great deal of uncertainty, however, stances in the water and sediments of the river’s lower because there is no target-specific research data about the reach will decrease in the long term, making the situation solubility and methylation degree of mercury. (Rossi 2011) more advantageous than it currently is for the species liv- In the long term, an equally great risk-reducing effect ing in the Natura area, included in the Habitats Directive, will be obtained with Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b, for all Annex II, such as the otter and asp, or the species of the practical purposes. Alternative A1b does, however, involve Birds Directive, Annex I, such as the common gull. the risk of structural damage occurring over a long period The project may have impacts on the thick-shelled riv- and thus the risk of a emission of hazardous substances of er mussel which is protected also outside the Natura 2000 some degree directly harming the River Kymijoki. Because area. The occurrence of the thick-shelled river mussel in mercury occurs in the River Kymijoki over a wide area and the remediation area or its immediate surroundings is not its retention in the food webs is long, the benefits achieved known at present. If the project continues after the EIA, its through remediation, also in terms of ecological risks, will occurrence will be studied in the remediation area and its begin to materialise between 1–5 years after the projects surroundings through geographical surveys. has been completed, depending on the remediation alter- In Alternative A1a, spoil is deposited in the clay pits area. native and the successfulness of the dredging. (Rossi 2011) According to the nature study performed in the area, the In addition to fish, of vertebrates only the common clay pits are an important nesting and staging site for birds. goldeneyes’ dioxin and furan concentrations were ana- For example, moorhen (VU) have nested in the area over lysed. The common goldeneye is a migratory bird and its several years. In addition, some of the clay pits are a habi- dioxin and furan concentrations do not increase by great tat for the large white-faced darter which is included in the amounts during one summer. The accumulation of mer- Habitats Directive, Annex IV (a). Water treatment and final cury is comparatively faster. Of vertebrates, those living by storage may affect the threatened bird and insect species the river throughout the year and eating the organisms in existing in the clay pit area. On the other hand, there are the river are most exposed to pollutants. The otter’s expo- several clay pits in the area, which means that the impacts sure was examined in the risk assessment (Rossi 2011) us- on threatened species can be reduced by selecting the ba- ing theoretical calculations, and the results demonstrate sins for water treatment and final storage which have the that exposure to mercury would cause adverse effects. least number of nature values. The load of particulate matter and hazardous substances caused by the remediation is at its greatest in the remediation area and its immediate surroundings. The distance

76 9.5 Uncertainties Concerning the 9.3.3 Summary of Impacts Assessment

In the current situation (A0), the River Kymijoki’s contami- The assessment is largely based on calculations and risk nated sediments may cause harm to otters, local fish spe- estimations. The assessment includes all the uncertainties cies, water birds and fish-eating birds. The impacts on the that are mentioned in the initial data of the calculations. otter are greater than those on birds, because otters live Also calculations themselves always include some uncer- in the river area year round. The impacts may also fall on tainty. At the same time, the compiled risk assessment has threatened fish species. Of fish species, the local ones, such been performed in such a way that the hypothetical situa- as asp, receive the impacts, whereas no significant effects tion is the worst possible. are directed at the salmon, because it spends only a part The occurrence of the thick-shelled river mussel, which of its life in the river. The hazardous substances in the low- is mentioned in the Habitats Directive, Annex IV (a), in the er reach of the River Kymijoki may cause harm also to the remediation area or its surroundings is not known. The con- species living in the Natura 2000 area which are included in tact authority, in their statement on the EIA programme, re- the Habitats Directive, Annex II, and Birds Directive, Annex quired that the occurrence of the thick-shelled river mus- I. The impacts will probably fall most strongly on the otter sel is charted. If the project proceeds after the EIA, surveys and local fish species, such as the asp. of the thick-shelled river mussel will be performed in the The remediation of sediments (Alternatives A1 and A2) remediation area and the flow areas immediately below may cause additional impacts on the species found in the it. After these surveys, a more accurate Natura assessment remediation area and its immediate surroundings. The load will be completed according to the Nature Conservation of hazardous substances released through the remedia- Act, section 65. tion will be at its greatest in the remediation area and its surroundings, whereas approximately 20 km away in the Natura area at the lower reach of the river the concentration level of hazardous substances will be clearly lower. The impacts of the remediation on the Natura area will probably not significantly differ from the harm caused by the current situation. In the long term, the effects on the species of the Natura area will probably decrease after the remediation. The thick-shelled river mussel is a protected species also outside the Natura area. If the project continues after the EIA, the occurrence of the thick-shelled river mussel will be studied and the results will be used to specify the assessment before the licence stages.

9.4 Reducing Harmful Effects

The impacts caused by the remediation of the contaminated sediments can be reduced by selecting the remediation technique in such a way that the load of particulate matter and hazardous substances caused by the project is as small as possible. The impacts can also be reduced by efficient water treatment. The effects on birds can be cut by performing the remediation work outside the nesting period. The effects on fish species can be limited by performing the remediation work outside the spawning period.

77 10. IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY

10.1 Present State

The air quality of Southeast Finland is a blend of emissions ing transport and vehicle emissions. The impact assess- from the forest industry and through passage, long-dis- ment is based on current traffic volumes and the state of tance transports from Estonia and Russia and all the way the road network, as well as the estimate on the traffic vol- from Central Europe with the south-westerly wind. In terms ume caused by the transportation of the sediments. of acidifying nitrogen and sulphur atmospheric fallouts, The effects of thermal treatment have been estimated Southeast Finland is one of the most contaminated areas in relation to the European Parliament and Council’s regu- in the country. lation 2004/850/EC on persistent organic pollutants. The The greatest load enters the air in Southeast Finland regulation requires that the persistent organic pollutants from the chemical pulp industry and energy production contained by waste are destroyed or irreversibly modified in Kotka, Lappeenranta, Kuusankoski and Imatra. The most in such a way that the remaining waste and emissions have significant air pollutants from the chemical pulp industry no characteristics of persistent organic pollutants. The focal are nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides, created by energy question in the assessment is whether the destruction or production, and the reduced sulphur compounds originat- irreversible modification of the PCDD/F compounds in the ing from production processes. In addition, particles, such sediments conforms to the BAT and BEP principles when as sodium sulphate, calcium oxide and calcium carbonate, completed. The impacts will also be estimated in relation are transferred into the air from chemical pulp factories. to the Finnish Government’s decision on landfills, which Growing traffic affects emissions and, consequently, air has limits also for the refuse that is deposited at a landfill quality. Emissions from road traffic are the highest close for hazardous waste. to highways and in the densely populated areas of Kotka, For the estimation of the impacts of sediment treat- Kouvola, Imatra and Lappeenranta. Compared to the pollu- ment and final storage, the plants were investigated which tion quantities of the whole country, the share of Southeast already have the technical readiness to destroy PCDD/F Finland is small. However, for the nitrogen oxides emissions compounds through burning and to purify mercury-rich of the Southeast Finland area, the share of traffic is signifi- combustion gases. In addition, the plants were charted for cant, except in the more industrialised municipalities, such the assessment which have burning processes that could as Kotka and Lappeenranta, where the discharges of parti- be used to destroy PCDD/F compounds and in which the cles and nitrogen oxides are smaller than other sources of necessary purification of combustion gases could be rea- pollution. The boom in heavy traffic towards the east is the sonably implemented. most important reason for the growth in vehicle emissions. The impacts of thermal treatment were estimated on In addition to road traffic, emissions come from ship- the grounds of the burning and purification technologies ping and air and railway traffic, but their share of the total in use, without binding the impacts to a particular place. vehicle emissions is small. (Southeast Finland, The State of For the purification technology of combustion gases, par- the Environment 2008) ticular attention in the assessment was paid to the recovery of mercury and the disposal of the waste components 10.2 Assessment Methods created in the treatment of combustion gases. In terms of vehicle emissions, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sul-

In the Environmental Impact Assessment, the amount of phur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide traffic created by the thermal treatment or final storage (CO), hydrocarbon (HC) and particle emissions (PM) were of sediments and their effects are estimated. The traffic examined. In addition to these, the traffic will cause some effects caused by transport to final storage and thermal noise and dust emissions. The noise resulting from the traf- treatment are estimated according to five target sites. The fic is not expected to increase the area’s total noise signifi- traffic effects are assessed both in terms of risks concern- cantly. The dust emissions of traffic can be controlled by watering the roads during the dry season, when necessary.

78 10.3 Estimated Impacts

10.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation

If the remediation project for the contaminated sedi- kg of mercury emission (Ramboll Finland Oy 2007, the to- ments is not implemented, the area’s air emissions will cor- tal amount of mercury in contaminated sediments). For respond to the current situation and will develop in the comparison’s sake, let it be noted that in Finland’s scale, long term, depending on other factors. The River Kymijoki’s the mercury emissions into the air in the 2000s have to- contaminated sediments have no direct impact on air talled 600…1000 kg per year (Finland’s Environmental emissions. Administration’s website, retrieved on 16 May 2011). In 10.3.2 A1a and A1b, Final Storage in the Target 2007…2009, mercury emissions into the air amounted Area to 800 kg per year in Finland. These emissions are mainly caused by burning fossil fuels, the production of metals In Alternatives A1a and A1b, the spoil is deposited in the other than iron and steel, and burning waste. The proposed remediation area or its immediate surroundings. In these thermal treatment of sediments would probably be sched- alternatives, the traffic volumes remain relatively small, and uled over some years, in which case the previously men- therefore also the air emissions caused by traffic will be low. tioned 140 kg total emission would form during more than 10.3.3 A2a, Thermal Treatment one year. If the sediments were evenly treated thermally over two years and all the mercury (140 kg) was released 10.3.3.1 Air Emissions Caused by Thermal Treatment into the air with combustion gases, the addition caused by Thermal treatment is the primary method of disposal for the treatment to the annual mercury emissions in Finland waste that contains concentrations of POPs exceeding would be approximately 9%. In practice, all the mercury is the levels set for hazardous waste. The Ekokem hazard- transferred into the combustion gases during burning and ous waste plant in Riihimäki would be able to treat ther- a large part of the mercury is removed with recovery sys- mally the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments. Even tems before releasing the combustion gases into the air at this plant, the thermal treatment of tens of thousands of (van Veizen et al. 2002). In a Japanese study, the efficiency tonnes would take a long time, because wet, mercury-rich of combustion gas recovery systems to eliminate mercury sediments cannot be fed into thermal treatment equip- was examined, using the methods of statistical analysis, in ment without preparation. a total of 534 plants that burn municipal waste (Takahashi The Waste-to-Energy Power Plant of Kotka Energy Ltd et al. 2010). The researchers discovered that a wet scrub- in Kotka treats waste by incineration. Its capacity is almost ber, fabric filter or solid absorbent combined with spraying entirely in use already with its current amount of waste. activated carbon or another dry absorbent into the stream The plant is not at present authorised to treat contaminat- of combustion gas produced a 75-82% efficiency of pu- ed soil or sediments. Another problem is that the plant’s rification in the case of mercury. In contrast, when puri- temperature for burning waste is not sufficient to destroy fied with just an electric filter, the power to separate mer- dioxins and furans. It seems unlikely that operators would cury was 22% at most, according to the study, but there invest in the required technology and apply for a new per- were significant uncertainties involved in the assessment mit for it simply for one remediation project. of this method. If it is hypothesised that the efficiency to The efficiency of combustion gases in purifying mercu- remove mercury in the thermal treatment performed in ry is fairly good when the mercury concentration of the Finland was 80%, the addition to the mercury emissions waste to be burned is low and the quality of the waste is formed in Finland annually would be approximately 2% reasonably even. When mercury concentration is high and which is considerably less than the above-mentioned 9%. the quality of the waste varies, the combustion gases’ effi- The power to separate mercury from combustion gases ciency in purifying mercury decreases intensely (Maderner may be higher than what is presented above, because the et al. 2005). Pretreating the sediments after dredging may thermal treatment in Finland would take place at a plant level the quality of the waste to be burned. The concentra- designed for the treatment of hazardous waste, whereas tion variation is not so significant for dioxins and furans, be- the plants in the study were intended for the burning of cause compounds can be degraded efficiently with ther- municipal waste. On the other hand, as a result of the vari- mal treatment. ation in purification efficiency, caused by the uneven -con If the mercury in the sediments found its way entirely tamination of the sediment material, the separation power into the air with combustion gases during thermal treat- may also be lower than is suggested above. ment, it would translate as approximately a total of 140

79 Thermal treatment would take place at a plant that has number of vehicles chosen is 10 trucks per day. There were an environmental permit which requires the monitoring estimated to be 175 production days per year when the of the concentrations of contaminants in combustion gas- hypothetical quantity of sediments to be treated was esti- es and provides the established substance-specific con- mated as 70,000 tonnes. The 2009 averages for the specific centration limits. At the Ekokem plant in Riihimäki, mer- emissions of the vehicle type in question were used as the cury is removed from combustion gases using wet scrub- vehicles’ substance-specific emissions. bing, fabric filters and activated carbon. In 2007…2009, Table 10–1. The calculated emissions (kg/a) resulting the Riihimäki hazardous waste plant’s specific emissions from the project’s traffic to Ekokem in Riihimäki when the total of mercury were 0.01-0.03 g per treated tonne (Ekokem amount of sediments is 70,000 tonnes. Group’s Environmental Responsibility Report 2009). Of Emission kg/a course, specific emission depends a great deal on the qual- Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 2,184 ity of the hazardous waste to be treated, and taking this Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 1.8

into account, the above-mentioned specific emission de- Carbon dioxide (CO2) 277,200 gree when treating the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sedi- Carbon monoxide (CO) 53.8 ments might very well be higher. In the Riihimäki produc- Hydrocarbon (HC) 21 tion plant’s environmental permit, the average limit value Particles (PM) 21.8 concentration of one-off measurements set for mercury The carbon dioxide emissions of 277,200 kg, caused by emissions is 0.05 mg/m3 in dry combustion gas with a re- transporting sediments to Ekokem, corresponds to the an- duced oxygen concentration of 11%. nual calculated carbon dioxide emissions of approximately If the sediments are transported elsewhere for treat- 40 residents of the Helsinki metropolitan area (7,000 kg/a/ ment, the alternative of thermal burning (A2a) is in accord- resident). ance with the POP Regulation because in this way dioxins The calculation of vehicle emissions to the Waste-to- and furans are permanently destroyed. The volume of mer- Energy Power Plant in Kotka was not considered neces- cury emissions depends on the efficiency of purification sary here, because in practice the plant’s capacity is not achieved in burning, and the quality of the spoil is impor- sufficient at present to treat the sediments from the River tant for purification efficiency. The greatest uncertainty in Kymijoki. The distance to Kotka is approximately half of that thermal treatment concerns precisely the efficiency in re- to Riihimäki and therefore emissions would halve if this op- moving mercury. tion was used. 10.3.3.2 Vehicle Emissions Related to Thermal 10.3.4 A2b, Final Storage at a Landfill for Treatment Hazardous Waste In the Environmental Impact Assessment, two alternative treatment sites for thermal treatment have been con- 10.3.4.1 Emissions Created by the Finally Stored sidered: the Ekokem plant in Riihimäki and the Waste-to- Waste Energy Power Plant of Kotka Energy Ltd. No actual air pollution will be created by the waste that is The transportation distance from the River Kymijoki to stored finally. However, it is important to make sure at the the Ekokem hazardous waste plant in Riihimäki is approxi- final storage site that the dumped spoil cannot dry and mately 120 km, and the distance from the River Kymijoki that the hazardous substances cannot spread with the to the Waste-to-Energy Power Plant of Kotka Energy is ap- wind. proximately 70 km. 10.3.4.2 Vehicle Emissions Related to Final Storage The calculated emissions caused by transportation are The three landfill sites for hazardous waste nearest to the presented in the following table (Table 10–1). The LIPASTO remediation area between Kuusaansaari and Keltti are: system, developed by the Technical Research Centre of • Keltakangas in Kouvola, Finland for the computation of traffic emissions, has been Ekokem-Palvelu Oy 25 km used in the calculation. Conservative assumptions were • Kotka, Heinsuo, L & T, 60 km used as calculation parameters which means that the ac- • Joutseno, Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto 110 km tual vehicle emissions would probably be lower than the The transportation distance from the River Kymijoki to calculated ones. Keltakangas in Kouvola is approximately 25 km, to Heinsuo The hauling distance used in the calculations is 120 km, in Kotka approximately 60 km and to Joutseno 110 km. which represents a one-way journey within the operating The calculated emissions caused by transportation are range. The vehicle chosen is a full trailer combination with presented in the following table (Table 10–2). The hauling a full load on a highway run (load 40 t, rating 60 t) and the distances used in the calculations are 25, 60 and 120 km which represent a one-way journey within the operating range.

80 Table 10–2. The calculated emissions (kg/a) resulting tives, the impacts on air quality caused by the remediation from the project’s traffic to Keltakangas in Kouvola when the total amount of sediments is 70,000 tonnes. and treatment of sediments are smaller and result mainly from the exhaust discharges of plant and transport equip- Emission kg/a ment. Vehicle emissions into the air are at their greatest if Nitrogen oxides (NO ) 455 x the thermal treatment is performed at the Ekokem plant in Sulphur dioxide (SO ) 0.4 2 Riihimäki or if the spoil is transported to Joutseno for final Carbon dioxide (CO ) 57,750 2 storage. Vehicle emissions are at their smallest if the spoil Carbon monoxide (CO) 11.2 Hydrocarbon (HC) 4.4 is transported to Keltinkangas in Kouvola for final storage. Particles (PM) 4.6 The transport to Keltakangas in Kouvola corresponds to 10.5 Reducing Harmful Effects the annual carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 7 residents of the Helsinki metropolitan area (7,000 kg/a/res- The harmful effects of thermal treatment can be reduced ident). by adjusting the combustion circumstances at the treat- Table 10–3. The calculated emissions (kg/a) resulting ment plant to their optimum and by cleaning the com- from the project’s traffic to Heinsuo in Kotka when the total bustion gases formed during burning with recovery sys- amount of sediments is 70,000 tonnes. tems which comply to the best available technology. The purification efficiency of thermal treatment is monitored Emission kg/a according to the treatment plant’s permit conditions and, Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 1,092 when necessary, the pre-treatment and burning process Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 0.9

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 138,600 of the sediments is adjusted in order to achieve a better Carbon monoxide (CO) 26.9 result. The concentrations of hazardous substances in the Hydrocarbon (HC) 10.5 combustion gases are also monitored and, if necessary, the Particles (PM) 10.9 burning conditions and recovery systems are adjusted to The transport to Heinsuo in Kotka corresponds to the an- obtain a sufficient efficiency of purification. nual carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 20 resi- In the other treatment alternatives, it is best to select the dents of the Helsinki metropolitan area (7,000 kg/a/resi- straightest possible route for transport to avoid air pollu- dent). tion as much as possible. Table 10–4. The calculated emissions (kg/a) resulting from the project’s traffic to Joutseno when the total amount of 10.6 Uncertainties Concerning the sediments is 70,000 tonnes. Assessment Emission kg/a The most uncertainty involved in the assessment of air Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 2,002 emissions which are caused by thermal treatment main- Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 1.6

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 254,100 ly concern mercury, because its concentration in the sed- Carbon monoxide (CO) 49.3 iments varies greatly and this variation may weaken the Hydrocarbon (HC) 19.3 power to separate it from the combustion gases formed Particles (PM) 20 in the burning process. In the case of dioxins and furans, The transport to Joutseno corresponds to the annual car- the method is not as sensitive to concentration variations bon dioxide emissions of approximately 36 residents of the and thus there are less uncertainties with these substances. Helsinki metropolitan area (7,000 kg/a/resident). Mercury’s form in combustion gases depends on the material to be burned and the combustion circumstances. As 10.4 Summary and Comparison of the well as concentration, its form in combustion gases effects Alternatives the power to separate it, and this causes some uncertainty for the assessment. In terms of environmental impacts, the most significant air Air emissions were assessed by calculations based on emissions are created in thermal treatment, i.e. Alternative the estimated need for transport. The quantity of the sub- A2a, because a part of the mercury contained in the sed- stances to be transported depends on the final quantity of iments is released into the air with the combustion gas- spoil and its treatment. The duration of dredging also de- es that are formed in the process. A large quantity of the pends on the implementation method. mercury, however, can be recovered from the combustion gases with purification systems. In the other alterna-

81 82 Part III: IMPACTS ON PEOPLE AND THE COMMUNITY

83 84 11. IMPACTS ON PEOPLE’S HEALTH

11.1 Assessment Methods

The risks caused by the sediment’s hazardous substanc- The concentrations in the water and fish that were used in es to people’s health have been examined in a previous- the exposure calculations are based on predicted concen- ly compiled risk assessment (Rossi 2005). The information trations. The results were collated against the results of the concerning Finns’ background exposure was updated in population research performed in the area. the more recent risk assessment (Rossi 2011) that was com- The foodstuffs included in the assessment of the exposure pleted during the EIA and a section concerning children’s routes include fish from the River Kymijoki, burbot roe and exposure was added. In the risk assessment of the reme- liver, water birds and milk. The other exposure routes com- diation work, the effects of the temporary load on the risk prise swallowing bank sediment/soil, bank sediments that were examined. To what extent the temporary load caused stick to the skin, swallowing water while swimming and by remediation increases people’s exposure and health exposure through the skin while swimming. The expo- risks in the different alternatives was inspected. In addition, sure routes were the same in the assessment of Alternative the impacts on people’s possible exposure and health risks A0 and Alternatives A1 and A2, but the additional expo- were estimated in the long term; in other words, whether sure caused by dredging through the water and fish in the the risk is reduced over a longer period if the most contam- Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river was taken into ac- inated sediments are restored. count in estimating the exposure of the different remedia- The same methods were used in the new risk assess- tion alternatives. ment as in that from 2005. In the assessments, the most The target-specific PCDD/F and mercury concentrations sensitive possible targets for exposure were identified as that were used as a starting point for the exposure calcu- young women who have lived close to the river for a long lations are presented in Table 11–1. More detailed infor- time and who are potential child bearers. Another sensitive mation on the concentrations is provided in Rossi’s risk as- target group is children who may be exposed to contami- sessment reports (2005, 2011). Target-specific information nated sediments more than adults due to their behaviour. about mercury concentrations was not available from all These target groups are sensitive to dioxins and furans, as exposure sources. well as mercury. Table 11–1. Concentrations of hazardous substances in In the risk assessment, people’s exposure was calculated different exposure sources (Rossi 2011). using EPA’s�� (1989) generally accepted equations and fol- PCDD/F-TEQ Mercury lowing these routes: Exposure unit concen- concen- source unit • eating fish from the River Kymijoki tration tration • eating water birds 0.69 • swimming (swallowing water, absorbtion through Fish pg/g -tp 1.26 µg/g -tp the skin) 0.82/0.48 • swallowing contaminated bank sediments and Burbot roe pg/g -tp 19.3 skin contact with them Burbot liver pg/g -tp 108 • air (evaporation from water) Water birds pg/g -tp 7.5 • milk (cattle grazing on flood meadows, direct use Milk pg/l 9.5 of milk in the area) Air (breathing) pg/m3 0.3 µg/m3 5.6x10-5 Children’s possible exposure was examined based on the Bank sediment/ pg/g –kp 5,420 µg/g –kp 5.2 relative implication of the various exposure routes (for ex- soil ample, they eat less fish than adults). Water, total pg/l 190 µg/l 3.3x10-3 concentration Water, dissolved pg/l 14 µg/l 8.2x10-4 concentration

85 11.2 A0, Health Risks in the Current Situation

11.2.1 Health Risks Caused by Dioxins and Furans

The health risks caused by the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments were examined in a previously compiled risk assessment (Rossi 2005).�� The aim of the risk assessment was to identify and estimate the hazards resulting from the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments to the residents of the neighbouring area and other users, as well as to the natural environment.�� The assessment was updated in 2011 with a risk assessment of the remediation work (Rossi 2011). In the young women’s target group, based on the ex- Figure 11–1. Supply of dioxins and furans by exposure posure of the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river, the to- routes in the basic calculation (WHO-TEQ): 1= eating fish, tal supply of dioxins and furans was counted with a ba- 2= burbot roe, 3= burbot liver, 4= eating water birds, 5= air sic calculation, i.e. normal quantities of fish use, as 1.6 pg (breathing), 6= swallowing sediment, 7= skin contact with sediment, 8= milk, 9= swallowing water while swimming, WHO-TEQ/kg/d (per 60 kg of body weight). When the 10= exposure through the skin while swimming, 11= back- background exposure from other food than that originat- ground (including PCB compounds). (Rossi 2011). ing in the area of the River Kymijoki (fish, milk) and the supply of PCB compounds from all sources, totalling 0.95 pg/ The health risks concerning dioxin and furan exposure kg/d (Evira 2005), was taken into account the total supply in the River Kymijoki’s area are not great, because the sup- amounted to 2.5 pg/kg/d. When the amount of fish eaten ply (2.2–2.5 pg/kg/d) of dioxins and furans and PCB com- was supposed as 16 g/d, based on 25–34 year old women’s pounds similar to them settled inside the range of fluctu- average use of fish (National Findiet Survey’s team 1998), ation of acceptable supply (1–4 pg/kg/d), established by the total supply amounted to 2.3 pg/kg/d. WHO. Eating fish was found to be the most significant expo- In comparison to the average exposure of Finns, which sure route to the contaminated sediments from the River is 1.6 pg/kg/d (Evira 2005; a person weighing 70 kg), the Kymijoki (Figure 11–1). Eating water birds and the possible exposure calculated for the target group living by the River swallowing of bank sediments may also be significant ex- Kymijoki was at most 1.6-fold, according to the risk assess- posure routes, but for their part, the estimations of expo- ment. This exposure is still less than that of Finns who eat a sure were rough and were not based on actual statistics. lot of Baltic herring (Kiviranta et al. 2002). In the reaches of The importance of exposure through the breathing air and the river below Kuusaansaari–Keltti, the dioxin concentra- swimming is low. (Rossi 2011) tions of the water, sediments and fish decrease, and conse- Limiting the consumption of pike according to the quently exposure is also lower. Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira’s recommendations to Children’s supply of dioxins, furans and PCB com- an average of 1.5 meals per month (12 g/d) decreased the pounds similar to dioxins was calculated in the risk assess- calculated exposure to PCDD/F compounds originating ment as 5.6 pg TEQ/kg/d, without restrictions on eating from the River Kymijoki to 1.3 pg/kg/d, of which the pro- fish and including background exposure, and so the maxi- portion of fish was 0.27 pg/kg/d. When the background mum for tolerable supply was exceeded by 40%. Taking and PCB compounds similar to dioxins were included, the into account the restrictions on eating fish, the calculated exposure amounted to approximately 2.2 pg/kg/d. The as- total exposure amounted to 4.9 pg TEQ/kg/d. The selec- sumption then was, however, that the reduced use of pike tion of the parameters used in the calculations was based would not be compensated with other fish. (Rossi 2011) on the assumption that children’s exposure to dioxins and furans is greater than that of adults through direct contact (swallowing, skin) with the bank sediment. Swimming in itself did not prove to be a fundamental exposure route, and therefore a greater proportion of swimming occasions was not found to affect the total exposure significantly.

86 Additional exposure obtained as a child has no long-term used in many countries is 0.1 μg/kg/d. In addition, the mer- effects, because when compared to those who have been cury concentrations of fish have risen in a wide area, which evenly exposed, the difference in the body’s PCDD/F con- increases the probability of exposure. In the case of mercu- centrations is no more than 6% in 20-year-olds, based on ry, a relatively short period of exposure can raise the body’s the half-period of heptachlor-furan. (Rossi 2011) mercury concentration to a harmful level. (Rossi 2011) 11.2.2 Health Risks Caused by Mercury By observing Evira’s recommendations on eating pike, the exposure diminishes by more than 50% in comparison In the young women’s target group, the average supply to the basic calculation and is clearly below WHO’s limit for of mercury from the River Kymijoki’s exposure sources was acceptable supply. When the recommendations for limit- calculated as 0.33 µg/kg/d in the risk assessment. When ing the consumption of other predatory fish are also ob- the background exposure of 0.03 µg/kg/d (Mustaniemi et served, the probability of health hazards caused by mer- al. 1994), originating in other exposure sources, was tak- cury are small by the River Kymijoki. en into account the total exposure amounted to 0.36 µg/ When children’s exposure was assessed, the fact that kg/d. Eating fish, especially pike, was found to be by far the exposure to mercury may occur through direct contact the most important exposure route to the contaminated with the bank sediments has no bearing on the total expo- sediments from the River Kymijoki (Figure 11–2). Limiting sure, whereas exposure through swimming and eating fish the consumption of pike to an average of 1.5 meals per has. Eating fish and swimming frequency have diverging month reduced the supply of mercury originating from the effects on children and adults, and thus it can be conclud- River Kymijoki to 0.13 µg/kg/d, in which case the total ex- ed that there are evidently no essential differences in chil- posure, including background, was approximately 0.16 µg/ dren’s and adults’ total exposure. (Rossi 2011) kg/d. Eating pike still remained the most important exposure route. In addition to fish and background exposure, 11.3 Estimated Impacts only the mercury obtained through the skin during swimming increased the total supply significantly. (Rossi 2011). The future development of the exposure to hazardous substances obtained by the risk assessment’s target group if no remediation measures are taken (A0) is surveyed in Chapter 8.2. 11.3.1 A1 and A2, the Effects of the Remediation Work

If the remediation project was implemented, the supply of dioxins and furans originating in the sources of the River Kymijoki would increase in the most vulnerable target group, calculated on an annual level, by a maximum of 60% from the present situation (A1a, 10% proportion of emissions) without restrictions on fishing or other use, according to the risk assessment (Rossi 2011). When the Figure 11–2. The supply of mercury by exposure routes: background exposure of 0.95 pg/kg/d and the supply of 1= eating other fish besides pike, 2= eating pike, 3= air PCDD/F and PCB compounds are taken into account, the (breathing), 4= swallowing sediment, 5= skin contact with combined supply would amount to 3.5 pg WHO-TEQ/kg/d. sediment, 6= swallowing water while swimming, 7= skin Even during the remediation year, the exposure will remain contact while swimming, 8= background. (Rossi 2011) SUPPLY OF MERCURY below WHO’s maximum reference value for tolerable supply, 1–4 pg WHO-TEQ/kg/d. Consequently, the remediation The probability of health hazards resulting from expo- will cause no fundamental health risks in terms of dioxins sure to mercury was estimated as moderately high for and furans with any of the remediation alternatives. (Rossi those who eat fish from the River Kymijoki. The calculated 2011) mercury supply was approximately double that of Finns’ The additional exposure caused by dredging is slighter average supply and exceeded the limit of acceptable sup- in the lower reaches of the river, but in relation to the cur- ply determined by WHO (0.23 μg/kg/d) by approximately rent level of exposure, its relative importance may be great- one and a half times. WHO’s limit is relatively high when er and thus the differences between the various stretches compared internationally, and the limit of insignificant risk of the river will even out.

87 In the most advantageous situation (A1b, A2a and A2b; the treatment of the dredging water, it is difficult to make 2% proportion of emissions), exposed persons’ cumulative an accurate estimation of the exposure level, but for exam- supply of dioxins and furans will balance out to the level ple, with a 5% proportion of emissions, the supply of mer- that prevailed before the remediation in approximately six cury can be assumed to approximately double (to 0.47 µg/ months after the project has been completed, depending kg/d) in comparison to tolerable supply (Table 11–2). on the remediation alternative and the success of dredg- In the lower reaches of the river, the mercury emission ing. In the least advantageous situation (A1a, 10% propor- caused by dredging weakens, and therefore its effect on tion of emissions), evening out would take approximately the current level of exposure is lower than in the reach be- five years. After that the concentrations begin to decline in tween Kuusaansaari and Keltti. comparison to the current situation. (Rossi 2011) Because mercury occurs over an extensive area in the When used as sauna water, also the PCDD/F com- River Kymijoki and the retention of mercury in fish is long, pounds bound to the solid substances may vaporise and the total benefits achieved through remediation will begin spread into the sauna’s inside air. In such a situation, ex- to materialise only one to five years after the work has been posure may be considerable if it is repeated frequently. In completed. (Rossi 2011) order to avoid unnecessary exposure, the water from the The long-term effects on exposure were estimated in River Kymijoki should not be used as sauna water during the risk assessment (Rossi 2011) based on Karvonen’s et al. the remediation. (Rossi 2011). (2005) model calculations, according to which 50% of the As far as the supply of mercury is concerned, it was River Kymijoki’s PCDD/F compounds and 25% of mercury discovered that the limit of tolerable supply set by WHO would come from the area to be restored which is included has already been exceeded in the current situation (A0) in the model. It was assumed that the remediation would with a 62% probability. In the risk assessment of the pre- be realised using Alternative A1a, with a 5% proportion of sent situation, it was noted that mercury presents a clear emissions. According to the results of the risk assessment, health risk to those who eat a great deal of fish from the the supply of dioxins, furans and PCB compounds that are River Kymijoki. Exposure accrued from eating fish by more similar to dioxins would be 27% lower 30 years after the re- than 90%, and therefore measures which increase concen- mediation (A1a) than in A0 and, correspondingly, the sup- trations in fish multiply the risk in an almost linear manner. ply of mercury would be 19% lower (Table 11–2). When (Rossi 2011) following the consumption recommendations for pike, the When observing Evira’s recommendations on the use of benefits derived from the remediation would be smaller. In fish for nutrition, it is unlikely that the level of tolerable sup- 30 years, the supply of mercury would be lower than the ply of mercury determined by WHO, 0.23 µg/kg/d, would recommended one even without remediation and con- be surpassed if A1b, A2a and A2b were implemented. In the sumption guidelines. case of A1a, with a hypothesised 10% emission of particu- The reduction in the exposure and, consequently, health late matter, exceeding the level of tolerable supply is pos- risks which are achieved through remediation will be mod- sible even when complying with the recommendations for erate, because only a part of the hazardous substances can the consumption of fish, if the removal of soluble mercury be removed by remediation and it will have no effect on from the dredging water is not efficient. Because of the background exposure. uncertainty concerning the solubility and methylation degree of mercury and the efficiency of removal achieved in

Table 11–2. The exposure of the risk assessment’s target group to PCDD/F compounds and mercury in the present situation, during remediation (A1a, 5% proportion of emissions) and 30 years after the project’s completion. (Rossi 2011).

Timescale Supply Supply with consumption limit for pike WHO-TEQ pg/ Hg µg/kg/d WHO-TEQ pg/ Hg µg/kg/d kg/d kg/d Present Situation 2.5 0.36 2.1 0.16 The year of remediation 3.1 0.47 2.4 0.2 After 30 years without remediation 1.1 0.21 0.7 0.1 After 30 years with remediation 0.8 0.17 0.6 0.09

The background exposure that is independent of the fish is assumed to stay the same.

WHO-TEQ also includes the PCB compounds which are similar to dioxins.

88 11.4 Summary of Impacts

Summary of the impacts on people’s health:

The impacts of Alternative A0 • In the present situation, young women by the Kuusaansaari–Keltti reach of the river are somewhat more exposed than other Finnish young women to PCDD/F compounds and the PCB compounds which are similar to them. • The health risks caused by exposure to PCDD/F compounds in the River Kymijoki’s area are not substantial, because the average total supply of PCDD/F compounds and the PCB compounds which are similar to them is 3.5 pg/kg/d and therefore within the range of fluctuation of acceptable supply determined by WHO (1–4 pg/kg/d), even taking background exposure into account. • Taking into account the variation in individuals’ consumption of fish, the probability for the limit of 4 pg/kg/d being exceeded was calculated as approximately 6% in the target group of young women. • Children may also be exposed to greater concentrations than others. The supply to children of 15 kg or approximately 3–4 years of age was calculated as 5.6 pg/kg/d (WHO-TEQ) in the risk assessment without limitations on fish consumption and including background. • The probability of health hazards resulting from exposure to mercury was estimated as moderately high for those who eat fish from the River Kymijoki, even in Alternative A0. The calculated mercury supply, including the background exposure of 0.36 μg/kg/d, was approximately double that of Finns’ average supply and exceeded the limit of acceptable supply determined by WHO (0.23 μg/kg/d) by approximately one and a half times. • Exposure to dioxins and furans was estimated to decrease naturally to 44% in 30 years and exposure to mercury to 58% from the current level.

The impacts of Alternative A1a • During the remediation year, the supply of PCDD/F compounds from sources originating in the River Kymijoki would grow in the young women’s target group, calculated on an annual level, at the most to 1.6 times the present quantity. • In the most disadvantageous situation (A1a; 10% proportion of emissions), exposed persons’ cumulative supply of dioxins and furans would balance out to the level that prevailed before the remediation in approximately five years. • The estimated supply of mercury during the remediation year is approximately 0.47 μg/kg/d which is 1.3 times that of A0 and approximately double that recommended by WHO. • In Alternative A1a, the limit for tolerable exposure is exceeded if the removal of soluble mercury from the dredging water is not efficient.

The impacts of Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b • In the most advantageous situation (A1b, A2a and A2b; 2% proportion of emissions), exposed persons’ cumulative supply of dioxins and furans will even out to the level that prevailed before the remediation in approximately six months after the project has been completed, depending on the remediation alternative and the success of dredging. • When observing the recommendations on the nutritional use of fish, compiled by Evira, it is improbable that the level of tolerable exposure would be exceeded in the situations created by Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b.

Long-term impacts • Because mercury occurs over an extensive area in the River Kymijoki and the retention of mercury in fish is long, the total benefits achieved through remediation will begin to materialise only 1–5 years after the work has been completed. • According to the results, the supply of dioxins, furans and PCB compounds that are similar to dioxins would be 27% lower 30 years after the remediation than in A0 and, correspondingly, the supply of mercury would be 19% lower. • In the long run, the choice of remediation method will not have an essential effect on exposure, unless the risk of structural damage inherent in A1b is taken into account.

89 11.5 Reducing Harmful Effects

The sequence of measures necessary to control the risks practice, but as a whole, the margin of error involved in the caused by dioxins and furans is greater than for mercu- quantity of fish used nutritionally did not prove to be a de- ry due to the many exposure routes. By limiting the nu- cisive uncertainty factor. (Rossi 2011). tritional use of pike according to Evira’s recommendation, A greater uncertainty factor than the amount of fish eat- the supply of PCDD/F compounds from the River Kymijoki en was the proportion of local fish in the diet, which can is reduced by approximately 20% in the observed target vary considerably. The risk assessment was performed fol- group, but when the background is taken into account, lowing the prudence principle, and all the fish in the ob- the effect on the total exposure is slightly over 10%. In ad- served target group was assumed to come from the most dition to consumption limits on fish, exposure to PCDD/F contaminated part of the River Kymijoki. Only 3% of young substances can be restricted by making sure that strong- women who eat fish more than once a week had a fish diet ly contaminated sediments do not occur on dry land ar- consisting of inland fish (Valsta 2005). eas even when the water level varies. Sediments that are If a part of the River Kymijoki’s fish is replaced by Baltic removed from the river, for example, in connection with herring or salmon, the exposure to dioxins and furans in small-scale dredging must be delivered to an appropri- the present situation (A0) will grow higher than is present- ate place for treatment. Young children’s danger of expo- ed in the risk assessment. Dredging does not, however, sure can be reduced by reconditioning swimming beaches raise the level of exposure as powerfully as for those eat- and recreational areas that have contaminated sediments. ing fish only from the River Kymijoki. In terms of mercury Avoiding eating the area’s water birds and fish roe and liver concentrations, eating Baltic herring reduces exposure to also reduces exposure considerably. During the remedia- it both in the present situation and in the remediation al- tion work, the River Kymijoki’s water should not be used as ternatives. sauna water (Rossi 2011). Otherwise the eating of water birds, oral contact with Exposure to mercury can be reduced by more than 50% bank sediments and exposure during swimming caused by following Evira’s recommendations on consuming pike, the most uncertainty in terms of people’s different ways of in which case the exposure remains clearly below the limit acting and behaving. In exposure to mercury, only the sup- of acceptable supply determined by WHO, except in the ply obtained through eating water birds and swimming worst emissions situation (A1a, 10% proportion of emis- may be significant. sions and poor water treatment efficiency). In the risk assessment, the probability of health hazards emerging was proportioned to the quantities of tolera- 11.6 Uncertainties Concerning the ble supply, determined by WHO, which represent exten- Assessment sive knowledge about the health effects of hazardous substances, but which involve uncertainties. Particularly the The greatest uncertainties in estimating health risks con- significance of short-term exposure is difficult to estimate. cern the observed target group’s nutritional consumption, Dioxins and furans accumulate in an person over a long especially of fish, and the variation in the concentrations period and achieving a balance in the concentration takes of hazardous substances in fish. The behaviour of hazard- approximately thirty years, theoretically. After the exposure ous substances also involves uncertainties, and the signifi- has ended, dioxins and furans leave the body slowly. In the cance of health hazards possibly caused by exposure is dif- case of mercury, both accumulation and removal are con- ficult to assess. siderably shorter events. With mercury, when the limit of The main target group in the risk assessment consisted tolerable supply is exceeded slightly a health risk is possible of young women in the River Kymijoki area. The majority already one year after exposure, whereas with dioxins and of the exposure to the hazardous substances in the River furans the risk becomes considerable when exposure that Kymijoki’s sediments came from fish. Extensive material slightly exceeds the level of tolerable supply has continued was available on the distribution of fish eating in different for decades. (Rossi 2011). population groups, which was used to perform a statistical uncertainty examination. The degree of nutritional use of the River Kymijoki’s fish, which was used in the exposure calculation, represented a worse than average scenario in

90 12. IMPACTS ON FISHING

12.1 Present State

12.1.1 Fishing in the River Kymijoki

The River Kymijoki has been an important destination for caught in the river. More than 10,000 fishing licences are fishing tourists since the turn of the 20th century. The most sold every year. (Pautamo & Vanninen 2009). The remedi- important fishing destinations are currently in Korkeakoski, ation area is located in the River Kymijoki’s Kuusankoski Siikakoski, the area below the Ahvenkoski power plant rod-fishing area. The area extends from the Voikkaa dam to and higher up the river in the Central Kymi Special Fishing the Keltti dam. For example, sea trout, whitefish, pikeperch Licence Area. The most sought after catch are salmon, sea and asp have been planted in the area. Approximately 150 trout and whitefish. Fishing in the River Kymijoki takes fishing licences are sold annually for the Kuusankoski rod- place mostly with rods. Annually 7–15 tonnes of salmon, fishing area. In addition, a considerable number of under 1–2 tonnes of sea trout and 2–5 tonnes of whitefish are 18-year-olds, who do not need a licence, fish in the area.

Figure 12–1. The River Kymijoki’s Kuusankoski rod-fishing area (source: Kymenlaakson Kalatalouskeskus ry – Kymenlaakso Centre for Fishing).

91 According to the 2009 fishing survey, which was imple- tion, it involved charting the fishing areas used. The survey mented in connection with the obligatory monitoring of was implemented in connection with the resident survey. the fishing industry in the whole of River Kymijoki, fishing The survey was delivered to 643 households in the pro- in the Voikkaa–Myllykoski area took place using rod equip- ject’s neighbouring area and the addresses were obtained ment, fish traps and nets (Raunio & Mäntynen 2010). The from the real estate register.To the south along the River fishers’ catch consisted mostly of pike, perch and pike- Kymijoki, 357 residents were picked with random sampling perch. In addition to these, a fair number of burbot and from the population register from among the 18–79-year- roach were also caught. According to fishers’ experience, olds in permanent and holiday residences. All in all, the sur- the river’s pike and pikeperch populations have grown vey was posted to 1,000 households of which 230 returned over the last few years. More than 40% of the respond- the form. Thus the response rate was 23%. ents, however, felt that the numbers of salmonids, such as Of the households that replied, 23% engaged in fishing whitefish and sea trout, have diminished. Fishers’ experi- on the River Kymijoki. The households of the respondents ence was that there were not many factors in the Voikkaa– included 2.9 persons on average of which 1.7 persons par- Myllykoski area which impede fishing. Only wastewater ticipated in fishing activities. and the variation in water level were considered moderate The fishing rights of those who fished (56% of the re- and significant inconveniences for fishing in approximately spondents) were mainly founded on the right to fish and half of the replies. ice-fish based on Everyman’s Right. Of the respondents, 12.1.1.1 Results of the Fishing Survey 29% had a licence sold to them by part-owner municipali- In support of the EIA on the remediation of the River ties or the owner of the fishing grounds. The fishing right Kymijoki’s sediments, the fish fauna and fishing in the riv- of approximately 13% of the respondents was based on er were examined using the fishing survey. The survey ownership of the water area or a share in a part-owner mu- concerned fishing activeness and catch in 2010. In addi- nicipality. The distribution of fishing in the River Kymijoki area was also charted in the fishing survey (Figure 12–2). The majority (66%) of the respondents had fished in the upper reach of the River Kymijoki between Kuusansaari–Keltti. Of the respondents, 16% had fished in the area between Keltti– Myllykoski and the same amount between Inkeroinen and the sea area. The least fishing occurred between Myllykoski–Inkeroinen, only 2% of the respondents. Based on the responses to the fishing survey, the spinning rod was the most used fishing implement in the River Kymijoki in 2010 (Figure 12–3). Fish traps, fishing rods and trolling rods were other important fishing equipment.

Figure 12–2. The distribution of fishing in the sub-areas of the River Kymijoki.

Figure 12–3. The traps used in fishing.

92 The main species caught was cyprinids which com- prised 38% of the total haul (Figure 12–4), and 29% of the catch was perch and 15% pike. The next most caught fish was rainbow trout at 7.5%. The share of whitefish in the haul was 2.1% and that of pikeperch was the same. Almost as much sea trout was caught as whitefish and pikeperch (2.2%). The share of salmon amounted to 1.3%, of burbot to 1.0% and of asp to 0.7%. The share of other fish species (for example, grayling) in the haul was approximately 0.4%.

Figure 12–4. The distribution of catch by fish species.

12.1.1.2 Salmon, Sea Trout and Whitefish Fishing in the Lower Reach of the River Kymijoki The lower reach of the River Kymijoki is an extremely on were caught. The whitefish and sea trout catch from the popular fishing destination. The migratory fishes arriving Korkeakoski spinning jetty has been, at best, slightly below from the sea can ascend up the Korkeakoski fork all the 2,000 fish per year. The Korkeakoski fork of the river below way to the Korkeakoski power plant’s dam. The spinning the Korkeakoski Rapids is also a popular boat fishing area jetty built below the power plant is a popular fishing des- where mainly salmon and sea trout are caught by trolling tination where plenty of salmon, sea trout and migratory from a rowing boat. During the best years, more than 2,000 whitefish are caught annually. According to the haul sta- salmon per year have been caught in the rowing area. tistics (http://www.lohikeskuskotka.fi/en/statistics), over In addition to Korkeakoski, there are several popular 5,000 salmon per year were caught off theKorkeakoski fishing destinations by the fork in the Langinkoski Rapids. spinning jetty during the best years of the 2000s (Figure The Siikakoski fishing area is located 3 kilometres up- 12–5). In the last few years, the salmon haul has been de- stream from the river’s mouth. Together with the rapids of cidedly smaller and in 2010 slightly more than 1,000 salm- Siikakoski, Kokonkoski and Hinttulankoski, the area com-

Figure 12–5. The salmon, whitefish and sea trout haul from the Korkeakoski spinning jetty in 2000–2010. The material for 2009 is missing from these statistics. (Source: http://www.lohikeskuskotka.fi/ fi/tilastot).

93 prises a coherent section of rapids that is more than a kil- Coastal fishers use, for example, nets, fyke nets and salmon ometre in length. According to the haul statistics, at best, traps as pounds, and further out to to the deep sea, their more than 800 salmon and almost 200 sea trout per year principal fishing method is trawling. have been caught in Siikakoski in the 2000s (Figure 12–6). However, the salmon haul in Siikakoski has also been clearly smaller in the last few years than in the mid-2000s.

Figure 12–6. The salmon, whitefish and sea trout haul from the Siikakoski spinning jetty in 2000–2010. The material for 2009 is missing from these statistics. (Source: http://www.lohikeskuskotka.fi/fi/tilastot).

Leisure fishing Migratory fishes can ascend up the River Kymijoki all The majority of leisure fishers’ salmon haul from the the way to Inkeroinen. Between Siikakoski and Inkeroinen, sea area is caught with nets in front of the river mouths there are several fishing destinations where, for exam- of the River Kymijoki’s branches. Leisure fishers catch ap- ple, salmon, sea trout and rainbow trout are caught. After proximately 80–90 percent of the total haul of sea trout in the fishing survey performed during the EIA, information Southeast Finland’s sea area and over half of the whitefish. about hauls was collected from four persons who fish in The majority of leisure fishers’ sea trout and whitefish haul the Inkeroinen area. They mostly fish during the summer is caught using nets. months (June–August), although they engage in fishing throughout the season when the river is not iced over 12.2 Assessment Methods (April–November). Their most common hauls included rainbow trout and pike, but they had also caught, for ex- The impacts on fishing have been estimated on the basis ample, perch, salmon, sea trout and asp. of the information collected during the EIA, water quality 12.1.1.3 Fishing in the Sea Area in Front of the River and the impact assessments focusing on aquatic organ- Kymijoki’s Delta isms and people’s health. The most focal assessment method has been the risk assessment (Rossi 2011) compiled on Commercial fishing the remediation of the River Kymijoki. In it, the effects re- Commercial fishing is engaged in the sea area in front of sulting from the remediation work on fish fauna and the the River Kymijoki’s delta. According to the Finnish Game health risks of eating fish are estimated. and Fisheries Research Institute’s publication, Commercial The effects of the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sedi- Marine Fishery 2009, there are 120 professional fishers in ments on the use of the watercourse have been previ- the sea area of the Centre for Economic Development, ously examined, for example, in the report compiled by Transport and the Environment for Southeast Finland Southeast Finland Regional Environment Centre (1999). (Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute 2010). The report in question has been used in assessing the pre- From the point of view of commercial fishers, the most im- sent state of the river, but also more recent reports, such as portant fish include salmon, whitefish and Baltic herring. the fishing survey and fish haul statistics, have been taken into account.

94 12.3.2 A1 and A2, the Effects of the Remediation Work

More detailed information about individual citizens’ rec- The impacts on fishing caused by the remediation will be reational use of the river and activities on and along it was at their greatest in the remediation area and its immedi- collected with the resident survey that was implemented ate surroundings, where the effects of water quality are at during the EIA. Inquiries about the River Kymijoki’s fish fau- their highest. The turbidity of the water may harm the fish na and fishing were made as a part of the resident survey. fauna and fishing. In addition, the hazardous substances Both enquiries were made with a focus on the project’s im- released from the sediments may cause temporary restric- mediate affected zone. tions on the use of fish for food. As well as turbidity, fishing between Kuusaansaari–Keltti during the remediation 12.3 Estimated Impacts may be impeded by the underwater noise caused by the machinery. 12.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation The most central impacts clearly fall on the Kuusankoski licensed area for rod-fishing. Fishing in the area is mostly In its present state, the River Kymijoki is a valuable recrea- done with rod equipment, and the busiest season is dur- tional fishing destination. Some 10,000 fishing licences are ing the summer. Although fishing still continues late into sold for the River Kymijoki annually. Particularly the river’s autumn in the River Kymijoki, the number of fishers is con- lower reach from the sea to Inkeroinen is a locally as well as siderably less than in the summer. If the remediation work nationally important fishing site for salmon. At the fishing is implemented late in the autumn, the impacts on fishing sites of the River Kymijoki’s lower reach, fishing is well or- will be substantially smaller than if the work took place in ganised, claiming the licence is easy and the sites are easy the summer. to reach. Fishers from all over South Finland come to these The remediation will probably have no significant ef- sites. fects on fishing in the lower reach of the River Kymijoki. In The remediation target, the stretch of the River Kymijoki this part of the river, fishing is concentrated in the areas of between Kuusaansaari and Keltti and the middle reach of Korkeakoski and Siikakoski. There are also other important the river from Keltti to Inkeroinen, are also popular fishing sites for fishing from there to Inkeroinen. In the lower reach areas. Fishers in these areas are mainly local residents. of the river, the majority of fishing is directed at salmon, sea In their present state, the River Kymijoki’s contaminated trout and whitefish which ascend from the sea. Important sediments do not, in practice, impede fishing in the river. fish for fishers in the areas of the rapids include rainbow The concentrations of hazardous substances in predatory trout, and in the river pool areas fishers can catch, for ex- fish in the middle and lower reaches of the River Kymijoki ample, cyprinids, perch and pike. The remediation work are higher than in the comparison area, but there are no will have no impact on the salmon, sea trout and white- obstacles to eating fish as long as Evira’s guidelines are fol- fish which ascend from the sea. The water quality impacts lowed. In practice, the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sedi- diminish towards the river’s lower reach in such a way that ments have no effect on the concentrations of hazardous the effects on local fish species, such as rainbow trout, pike, substances in migratory fish, because they spend the ma- perch and the cyprinids will probably be very slight. No fish jority of their lives in the sea. eating restrictions will probably be necessary in the river’s The River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments will be lower reach. The concentrations of hazardous substanc- slowly transported to the sea along the river’s currents, and es in fish will nevertheless be monitored throughout the the river bottoms of the sedimentation areas will be cov- reach of the river, and more precise decisions will be made ered with cleaner sediments. In the long term, the concen- on the restrictions of fish consumption on the grounds of trations of hazardous substances in fish will also decrease the monitoring results. from their current levels.

95 The remediation will have no practical impacts on the diminish towards the lower reach of the river as the solid fishing taking place in the sea area. The project’s water substances settle and become diluted. However, this de- quality effects will be focused on the remediation area and cline in the level of concentration has not been assessed its immediate surroundings. The distance from the reme- in a calculatory manner or by modelling, and this can be diation area to the sea area is approximately 40 km. There considered an uncertainty factor. The actual impacts of the are several sedimentation areas along this reach of the riv- remediation work on the lower reach of the river will be es- er where the suspended matter that is released during the tablished through follow-up studies while the work is on- remediation will settle. The soluble hazardous substances going. that are released during the remediation work will dilute as they travel down the river and as the quantity of water grows. In the lower reach of the River Kymijoki the concentrations will probably have already reached a harmless level. In the long term, the effects of the remediation of contaminated sediments are positive. Indeed, the effects on fishing at this moment are very slight in practice, and therefore no great change will occur between the restored river and its present state even in the long run.

12.4 Reducing Harmful Effects

The impacts caused on fishing by the remediation in many ways concern the effects on the quality of water. The central method of reducing the effects is to manage the remediation work in such a way that the load of particulate matter and hazardous substances being released during dredging remains as slight as possible. The impacts of water treatment and the treatment and final storage of the spoil (A1a and A1b) can also be reduced with technical solutions. The effects on fishing can be considerably reduced if the remediation work is implemented outside the summer season, which is the most important one for fishing. If the project can be realised in late autumn, the effects are clearly smaller than during the summer season.

12.4 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment

The assessment is based on calculations and risk assessments, as well as on the conclusions made on their basis and expert estimations. The assessment includes all the uncertainties that are mentioned in the initial data of the calculations. Also calculations themselves always include some uncertainty. The risk assessment has been compiled in such a way that the effects on water quality and fish fauna have been estimated in the remediation area. Based on the experience accumulated from previous dredging projects, it can be estimated that the concentration of the hazardous substances that are released during the remediation work will

96 13. PEOPLE’S LIVING CONDITIONS AND COMFORT

13.1 Assessment Methods

Social effects refer to influences a project has on a person, The effects on living conditions and comfort were ex- community or society which cause changes in people’s amined by analysing and comparing both the locals’ ex- welfare or distribution of welfare. The effects of a project periences and measured data. The views of residents and may be concentrated directly on people’s living conditions other parties concerned were examined in relation to the or comfort. At the same time, changes in nature or the eco- assessment results and present-state data of the project’s nomic life also affect people’s well-being albeit indirectly. other effects. By combining subjective and objective infor- Therefore social effects are closely linked to other influenc- mation, it is possible to form a more reliable general view es caused by a project, either directly or indirectly. of the project’s social effects. The worries and wishes of the Effects on people’s living conditions and comfort may locals concerning the project were highlighted in the as- be the result of changes caused by a project in: sessment. At the same time, the importance of the impacts • the habitability and safety of the residential and and the possibilities of relieving and preventing harmful ef- living environment (regular and holiday residents) fects were estimated. • the property value (regular, holiday homes and areas) Resident survey • the possibilities of recreational use (for example, In support of resident participation and impact assess- swimming, boating, canoeing, fishing, berry pick- ment, a resident survey was implemented in the spring of ing, mushroom picking, outdoor activities) 2011. In addition to the respondent’s background informa- • people’s worries and fears, their plans for the fu- tion, their knowledge and use of the project area, how they ture (for example, uncertainty about health ef- have obtained information about the project, the current fects, worry about the state of the environment) state of their living environment and opinions about the • community spirit (for example, the conflicts project and its impacts were investigated in the question- caused by the project or cooperation) naire (Appendix 2). • services and engaging in business. The resident survey was posted to 643 households in Tourism and business effects are discussed in Chapter the project’s neighbouring area, and the addresses were 14. obtained from the real estate register. To the south along In identifying and assessing social effects, the groups on the River Kymijoki, 357 residents were picked with random which the effects specifically fall are examined first. At the sampling from the population register from among the same time, estimates are made on how the harmful effects 18–79-year-olds in permanent and holiday residences. All could be minimised or prevented. in all, the questionnaire was posted to 1,000 households The method used in assessing the effects was the expert and 237 were returned. Thus the response rate was 24%. analysis of the initial data. Information was obtained from The questionnaire was answered most actively in the pro- the following sources, among others: ject’s neighbouring area and especially in the clay pit area • the project’s other impact estimates and the risk where the response rate was 38%. assessment compiled for the remediation of the More men (60%) than women (40%) answered the River Kymijoki questionnaire. The age distribution of the respondents fo- • maps and statistical material cused on over 50-year-olds. Nearly half of them were cou- • resident survey ples, approximately a third lived alone and roughly a quar- • opinions and statements submitted about the EIA ter were families with children. programme • public opinions in the local newspaper.

97 The majority (78%) of the respondents live regularly in The map in Figure 13–1 shows Kouvola’s official exer- the project’s neighbouring area and a fifth live to the south cise routes which are located further from the river, but on of it in the River Kymijoki’s surroundings. Most (66%) of both sides of the river in the land use plan are new planned them live by the river and the majority of them (70%) have routes and there is another route in the park on the north- at least a view of the river. A tenth (11%, 24) of the respond- ern bank of the river. The River Kymijoki has a canoe route ents have a holiday home in the River Kymijoki’s surround- and there are moorings along the bank. Keltti’s clay pit area ings, but less than half of them are located by the riverside. is also used to some extent as an outdoor recreation area. The respondents included both short- and long-term According to the resident survey, the River Kymijoki and residents of the area. Eleven of the respondents have a its bank areas are mostly used for outdoor exercise such a household water supply that is less than half a kilometre walking, jogging and cycling, but also for boating, fishing, away from the river and eight have one that is between half swimming, picking berries and hunting. Of the respond- a kilometre and a kilometre away. ents living in the neighbourhood, 67% take outdoor exercise in the vicinity of the river at least once a month and by 13.2 Present State of Habitability and the lower reach to the south, 38% of the neighbourhood Recreational Use respondents do. More than a tenth of the project area’s neighbourhood respondents engage in boating and/or Habitability fishing and more than a tenth of those living in the neigh- On both sides of the project area is the population centre bourhood to the south do. Approximately ten percent of of Kuusankoski which is a part of the City of Kouvola and the respondents living in the neighbourhood take a sauna has more than 20,000 residents (Figure 13–1). Kouvola’s city by the river and/or swim in it. centre is also near by. The respondents who have a view of the River Kymijoki The majority (64%) of the people living in the neigh- from their regular or holiday home or whose residence is bourhood say that the River Kymijoki in the area between located by the riverside use the river and its bank areas be- Kuusaansaari–Keltti is important to them personally and tween Kuusaansaari–Keltti more often than other respond- familiar to them. Also a fifth of the area’s inhabitants say ents. There are also age group and life situation-specific dif- that the area is important to them, although they do not ferences in the use of the River Kymijoki and its surround- know it well or use it. Half of the respondents living else- ings. Families with children fish and boat on the river more where also consider the section of the river in front of the often than other respondents. Respondents between the Kuusankoski power plant important. ages 31–50 fish and pick berries and mushrooms more of- To the south along the River Kymijoki, the settlement is ten than their younger or older counterparts. concentrated in a few population centres between which In the Kotka area, there are approximately 30 km of there is mostly dispersed development and some holiday canoe and boat routes. No canoe route plan has been homes. Of those living to the south of the target area along made for the River Kymijoki. In the deltas of its estuary’s the River Kymijoki, more than half (56%) consider the river forks, boating activities take place mainly in the sea. The between Keltti and the sea personally important and fa- rapids and power plants cut off connections to the north. miliar to them. Half of those living elsewhere also regard (Nironen& Vauhkonen 2007) the river as important, although they do not know it well. In addition to canoeing expeditions, the River Kymijoki is a popular place to practise whitewater canoeing, and Recreational use canoeists come from as far as the Helsinki area for that. The River Kymijoki and it banks are used in a versatile Several whitewater canoeing courses are organised on the way for both recreation and tourism. Fishing is discussed River Kymijoki every year. For example, the Ahvionkoski separately in Chapter 11 and tourism in Chapter 16. Due to and Pernoonkoski rapids are popular places to practise. In the cleaner water and marketing, the river’s reputation has the Pernoonkoski Rapids, the fluctuating water situation improved. The river’s uniqueness and diversity is evident in creates different kinds of currents and waves during differ- the growth of its recreational use. ent seasons. The canoeing season spans almost the whole year for active enthusiasts. The River Kymijoki is also utilised by companies offering various kinds of event services. They organise, for example, guided canoeing trips and rubber boat rafting on the river.

98 Figure 13–1. Settlement in the neighbourhood, sensitive sites and recreational targets and routes.

99 Figure 13–2. Canoeing in the Pernoonkoski Rapids

13.3 Residents’ Views on the Project and Its Effects Views on effects The River Kymijoki has important nesting, staging and Several studies have proven that the sediments of the feeding sites for water birds where hunting also takes place. River Kymijoki carry dioxins, furans and mercury which The River Kymijoki’s flood meadows by the river bank, lush come from industry. The respondents to the resident sur- islands and riverside forests are important feeding areas for vey know this, because the majority of them estimated the the animals of the deer family. Plenty of hunters visit the quality of the River Kymijoki’s bottom sediments as poor River Kymijoki annually to hunt, for example, for water birds (Figure 13–3). Many of them thought that swimming in the and to catch small carnivores. River Kymijoki and the water supply for riverside saunas, water quality, fish fauna and fishing, tourism and the area’s image are also in a poor state. Boating, canoeing, habitability, the value of the riverside properties and the possibilities for outdoor activities, on the other hand, were considered good. The most important point was considered to be people’s health, which most estimated to be good rather than poor in the present situation. Women regarded the water quality of the River Kymijoki and the current state of the fish fauna and fishing as poorer than men. Men found the present boating and canoeing situation better than women.

100 Figure 13–3. Respondents’ opinions on the present state of different matters.

Figure 13–4. The effects of the implementation of the Remediation Alternative 1a or 1b and their importance.

Figure 13–5. The effects of the implementation of the Remediation Alternative 2a or 2b on different matters.

101 Remediation Alternatives 1a and 1b were thought to By far the best option was thought to be Alternative 2a have more positive than negative effects (Figure 13–4). which involves transporting the spoil to a hazardous waste A large part of the respondents, however, estimated that plant to be burned (Figure 13–8). Placing the spoil for fi- Alternatives 1a and 1b would have a negative effect espe- nal storage in the river area inside pile planking (A1b) was cially on the quality of the water and sediments, fish fauna considered the poorest option. Approximately the same and fishing, as well as swimming and the water supply for amount of support was given for omitting to restore (A0), riverside saunas. The effects of Remediation Alternatives 2a placing the spoil in the clay pit area (A1a) and at the land- and 2b were evaluated all down the line as clearly more fill for hazardous waste (A2b). Statistically, the respondent’s positive than those of Alternatives 1a and 1b (Figure 13–5). place of residence did not make a significant difference to The remediation was thought to have the most positive their attitude towards the remediation. influence on the area’s image and the value of the riverside In the free-form comments, those who endorsed reme- properties. People’s health and the quality of the water and diation proposed that it should be done as soon as pos- sediments were also at the top of the list of positive effects sible: “It should have been done earlier.” Those who were in all the remediation alternatives. against it thought is safer to leave the sediments in place. Those respondents who have a view of the River Kymijoki Some commented that “the experts/authorities must be from their regular or holiday home regard the effects of the able to make the necessary decisions. Residents cannot/ project’s Alternatives 2a and 2b on the value of the river- are not able to answer questions concerning, for example, side properties as more positive than other respondents. In the quality of sediments or people’s health.” addition, women consider the impacts of Alternatives 2a No popular movement has been started for or against and 2b on the quality of the sediments, outdoor activities the project, nor has it inspired people to participate. No by the river bank and on ice, hunting, groundwater areas participants came to the public event organised at the and the Natura areas more positive than men. programme stage. When newspapers wrote that people A larger number of respondents viewed the dredging are not interested in the purification of the River Kymijoki’s measures, the water’s turbidity and traffic during the pro- bottom, a few letters to the editor were written. They ex- ject as tolerable (39%) than as intolerable (22%) (Figure 13– plained the lack of interest in the matter in the following 6). Yet more than half of the respondents (53–54%) con- ways: sider uncertainty about the habitability and health hazards • the matter has been dwelled on for so long that it is intolerable. now time to act • the remediation work involves many difficult technical Attitude to remediation details which are difficult for a layperson to understand, The majority of the resident survey’s respondents (71%) and therefore the decision must be made by experts subscribed to the remediation of the River Kymijoki’s con- • people have become frustrated by participation be- taminated sediments (Figure 13–7). It was thought that the cause the feedback given in other projects has had no remediation would cause more benefits than harm. The influence. harm was considered as greater than the benefits by 18% The lack of interest is probably also accounted for by the of the respondents. One tenth did not give an opinion on fact that the party responsible for the project is a public the remediation. authority. Residents have more confidence in researchers and authorities than in private companies or movements for one cause.

Figure 13–6. Respondents’ opinions about the effects of the remediation activities on living conditions.

102 Figure 13–7. The respondents’ overall view on the reme- Figure 13–8. The opinions of respondents living in differ- diation of the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments. ent areas about the best alternative for the project.

13.4 Effects on Living Conditions and Habitability

13.4.1 Uncertainty and Worry

The most important social effect of the project is the un- may cause cumulative damages. Some people think that certainty and worry of the neighbourhood’s residents and modern science does not even know about all the harm recreational users about the risks to the safety of their liv- that can be caused by the substances in question. Experts’ ing environment and activities in all the alternatives. Worry assessments of the impacts are based on current informa- and uncertainty can be linked both to a threat that is con- tion and norms, but nobody knows when they may have sidered unknown and to information about the possible or to be modified in the light of new research data. Thus res- probable impacts. The results of such anxiety on an indi- idents cannot be sure that the concentrations which re- vidual and community do not depend on whether or not main below the norms cause no harm to people. there is cause for fear on the grounds of an objective ex- Some may fear that they may become exposed to the amination. hazardous substances by accident or may inadvertently Understanding the substances involved in the project through their own action, such as wading or by moving and their effects would require special know-how, and their anchor, set them in motion at the bottom of the river. therefore it is difficult for an ordinary layperson to com- Keeping track of the amount of fish they eat may be stress- ment on them. People may have different attitudes to the ful for someone who is not used to watching what they eat. situation. Generally, the majority of the population trusts in On an individual level, worry and uncertainty decrease the experts’ research results, analyses and conclusions, and well-being and comfort of living. Especially in the long when a project is estimated to cause no harm they do not term, worry may cause stress and even problems with worry about the outcome. More than half of the respond- physical health. Effects such as those discussed here often ents of the resident survey considered uncertainty about influence those that are in a weaker position than others. the habitability and health hazards intolerable. (Kauppinen and Tähtinen 2003) Some residents may suspect that there will be detri- Worry and uncertainty may act as an element in soci- mental effects despite the fact that the calculations do not ety that either connects or separates its members. A com- exceed the concentrations that are estimated to be harm- mon threat may knot a community together, but at the ful. They may think that the limit values have been set too same time different views of a situation may also divide high or that the uncertainties are too great for them to trust it. Uncertainty and worry are created collectively, in social the results. Some may even suspect that information is be- interaction with other members of the community. Ideas ing suppressed. Nevertheless, the concentrations are high- and conceptions mirror more than just an individual’s er than in a clean river, and therefore even small amounts views – the light in which they are discussed in public and

103 among the community also shape them. (Kauppinen and as good and a quarter as poor. Similarly, almost a half esti- Tähtinen 2003.) People may also change their views as time mated the value of the riverside properties to be good and goes by on the grounds of, for example, interaction, the re- a fifth as poor. Half of the respondents were worried about sults of impact assessments, or news or events that are un- swimming, if Alternative Zero were implemented, and ap- related to the project. proximately forty percent were concerned about the wa- 13.4.2 A0, Impacts of the Present Situation ter quality, fishing, groundwater areas, tourism and the area’s image. The contaminated sediments of the River Kymijoki may In the long term, the contaminated sediments of the impair the comfort of living of regular and holiday resi- River Kymijoki will be slowly transported to the sea along dents who fish, swim in the river or use the river water for the river’s currents, and the riverbed will be covered with washing or watering or would like to dredge their shallow cleaner substances. Thus the damage to comfort of living river bank. Especially the meaningfulness of fishing suf- and recreational use will diminish slowly over the coming fers when the catch can only be consumed to a limited decades. The contaminated sediments will probably not extent (EVIRA 2011 Dietary advice on fish consumption). have a great influence on the value of the riverside prop- Monitoring consumption amounts may seem stressful and erties. not everyone eats predatory fish from the River Kymijoki 13.4.3 A1 and A2, the Effects of the at all due to their higher than average concentrations of Remediation Work hazardous substances. Fishers and tourists coming from elsewhere are probably not as worried about eating fish During the dredging project, the concentrations of haz- from the River Kymijoki as the areas residents are, due to ardous substances in the water will rise in the remediation the temporary nature of their exposure. area and its immediate surroundings, but afterwards they Exposure through breathing the air or swimming was will diminish and be lower than in the Alternative A0. The estimated in the risk assessment to be so slight that they remediation involves removing a significant part of the were considered to have no health effects. Thus the con- bottom layers’ hazardous substances. taminated sediments of the River Kymijoki do not pre- Due to the increase in the concentrations of hazardous vent the use of the river for recreation, such as walking, substances in the water, eating fish, swimming and using cycling, jogging, swimming, taking a sauna, boating, ca- the water, for example, as sauna water is not recommend- noeing, fishing and picking berries or mushrooms. Worry ed in the Kuusaansaari−Keltti section while work is ongo- about possible effects may, however, interfere with some ing (Chapter 11.3). The dredging equipment and other ma- people’s enjoyment of their environment and prevent the chinery will restrict movement on the water while the work use of the riverside. Many people may consider the risk of is ongoing. Access will also have to be restricted during the exposure through swimming too great, especially for chil- work in the clay pit area in Alternative 1a and in the load- dren. Most people get water in their mouth when swim- ing and transport area of the spoil in Alternatives 2a and ming. Often when swimming, people like to dive or dip 2b. The plant and machinery, and the turbidity of the water their head under water. Although there are estimated to be caused by dredging may cause aesthetic disadvantages to no health hazards even from swallowing a small amount of the river’s recreational use and the scenery. In Alternatives water, knowledge of the hazardous substances may make 2a and 2b, the transport of the spoil will increase heavy traf- being in the water unpleasant. fic in the city area while the project continues. The possibilities of using the river’s water may cause Dredging significantly reduces the river’s recreational questions and worries. River water is often used for the wa- use and the comfort of living of regular and holiday resi- ter that is thrown on the sauna stove and for washing. If dents who would like to fish or swim in the river or use the the river water is used to water vegetable gardens, it may river water for washing or watering in the Kuusaansaari− be feared that this will expose those who eat, for exam- Keltti section. The harmful effect will only last a few years, ple, salad vegetables. The usability of a shallow river bank however, after which the benefits of the remediation will is weakened if it is felt that it cannot be dredged to make begin to materialise: the proportion of contaminated sedi- it suitable for swimming or boating. The river’s bottom and ments will be clearly less than the current level and will water may be perceived as dangerous and as something to continue to diminish slowly over the coming decades. be avoided, which may interfere with people’s enjoyment Consequently, remediation will improve habitability and of the river view, too. recreational use after a few years. The value of the riverside Approximately half of the respondents to the question- properties can also be assumed to remain the same or pos- naire regarded the comfort of living in the Alternative Zero sibly even rise later.

104 The concentrations of hazardous substances stirred up plant to be burned. The residents preferred the alterna- by dredging will weaken in the lower reaches of the riv- tive which to a layperson seems the safest and most infal- er, and therefore, according to the risk assessment, there lible. The idea is that the damage would be minimised if will be no obstacles for using the water or swimming while the contaminated substances were carefully dredged and the dredging project is underway and limited amounts of burned at a hazardous waste plant using expert methods. fish can be eaten in accordance with the guidelines of the The second most favoured alternative was 2b which in- Finnish Food Safety Authority. However, dredging will re- volves storing the hazardous substances finally at a landfill duce comfort of living and recreational use of the river in for hazardous waste. Correspondingly, the final storage of the lower reaches for those who are worried about even the spoil in the river area inside pile planking (A1b) appears small increases in the concentrations of hazardous sub- to contain the greatest risks, because first the contaminat- stances in the water. Worry about possible health effects ed bottom sediments would be treated but would then be may prevent the river’s recreational use and the utilisation left in the river area, held by mere pile planking. The sec- of the water during remediation. Later there will be clearly ond worst option was considered the placing of the spoil less grounds for worry than in Alternative A0. in the clay pit area. More than a fifth of the respondents considered the dredging activities intolerable, while more than a quarter 13.6 Reducing Harmful Effects objected to the traffic and water turbidity occurring during the project. Respondents estimated habitability and In addition to technical methods, harmful effects can be the value of the riverside properties in Alternatives 1a and reduced by sufficient and clear communication and -in 1b along similar lines as in Alternative A0: half considered structions, restrictions and monitoring. Communications them good and a quarter poor. However, remediation was are necessary for both regular and holiday residents and at estimated to affect the area’s image, the quality of the sedi- least fishing tourists. Pertinent communication may con- ments, swimming, fishing and water quality in a more pos- siderably relieve the worry and uncertainty caused by the itive way than in Alternative A0. Alternatives 2a and 2b project. It is important to also provide possible instructions were considered to have clearly the most number of posi- or advice on how the river’s water, fish and banks can be tive and the least of negative effects. The most important used safely. effects were considered those influencing health and they In the resident survey, 15% of those who presented com- were regarded as more positive in Alternatives 2a and 2b. ments suggested communication as a way of relieving the A few years after the remediation has been completed, harm. More than half of the respondents said they had ob- worry about the risks will decrease. Habitability and recrea- tained information about the contaminated bottom layers tional use will be considerably improved from the present of the River Kymijoki from the local newspaper. The source when a significant proportion of the bottom layers’ hazard- of information for one fifth was the bulletin sent along with ous substances have been removed. the resident survey. People had also heard about the issue from national newspapers, television or radio. 13.5 Comparison of the Alternatives A decidedly larger part of the respondents considered the communications sufficient (46 %) rather than insuffi- In all the alternatives, the neighbourhood’s residents and cient (29 %) (Figure 13–9). Communication was viewed as recreational users are uncertain and worried about the risks difficult to understand by a slightly larger number (36%) the project poses to the safety of their living environment than those who found it easy to understand (30 %). and activities. Even though, according to the risk assessment, the current concentrations of hazardous substances cause no health hazards if the restrictions on the consumption of fish are followed, the majority of the respondents to the resident survey gave their support for the remediation of the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki. It was thought that the remediation would cause more benefits than harm. The best option by far was thought to be Alternative 2a which involves transporting the spoil to a hazardous waste Figure 13–9. Respondents’ opinion about the communication concerning the River Kymijoki’s contaminated bottom sediments.

105 Technical methods were suggested the most times for alleviating harmful effects (28%) and many were of the opinion that the operation should be carefully planned. One fifth stated the opinion that dredging should not be implemented or that the damage cannot be alleviated. Many people said that they do not know how the harm could be abated.

13.7 Uncertainties Concerning the Assessment

There are no limit values for social effects, which emphasises the importance of expert estimations. Expert estimations are inevitably susceptible to subjective interpreta- tions, to some degree. The effects focused on people are not unambiguous. The way the effects caused by the project are experienced is subjective, which makes it difficult, for example, to estimate their importance. The experience is influenced, for example, by the person’s relationship to the area in question and their use of it, as well as personal valuations and tendency to worry. The resident survey has helped to bring out the local residents’ various views on the project and the nature and importance of its effects. If another method or sample area had been chosen, slightly different things might have been emphasised. People can also change their views based on, for example, changes in the remediation plans or their impact assessments, general opinion or other news or events that are unrelated to the project. In other words, social effects are partly tied to the time the assessment takes place.

106 14. IMPACTS ON TOURISM, OTHER INDUSTRIES AND EMPLOYMENT

14.1 Present State

The Kuusansaari–Keltti area has been a part of the city of In the new Kymenlaakso Regional Programme 2011– Kouvola since 2009. The strongest field of specialisation in 2014, the River Kymijoki is also referred to as one of the the area’s industrial structure is the paper industry. Within region’s ‘magnetism areas’. It is stated in the Regional this structure, the proportions of industry and building are Programme that important nature destinations, such as larger and those of private service sectors smaller in this the River Kymijoki, are easily accessible, but strengthening area than in the rest of the country. The most significant of the service structures will be necessary in the future. employer is Health Care and Social Services. . A central operator is the city-owned economic development company 14.2 Assessment Methods Kouvola Innovation Ltd. which is responsible for the city’s tourism services. The remediation of the contaminated sediments of the Fishing tourism, concentrating on the migratory fishes River Kymijoki may have impacts on fishing and nature of the River Kymijoki, has grown in importance ever since tourism. The effects of the River Kymijoki’s remediation on it started. Along the lower reach of the River Kymijoki there the tourist industry were assessed by interviewing eight are some 10 companies which receive a substantial part of companies operating in the region which receive their rev- their revenue from guide activities within the fishing busi- enue from the River Kymijoki’s fish fauna and water envi- ness (Pautamo & Vanninen 2009). ronment. Over a short period, as the water quality has improved, In addition to the interview, the assessment utilised, for interest in the river has grown intensely and companies example, the results of the risk assessment and other im- want to exploit the opportunities this brings for housing, pact assessments (effects on the water quality, fish fauna, recreation, tourism and fishing alike. In many ways, the etc.). River Kymijoki is a unique river in Southern Finland. After 14.2.1 Results of the Survey the Tenojoki and Tornionjoki rivers, the River Kymijoki has been classified as the third most important fishing river in The following table (Table 14–1) presents the questions Finland. that were put to eight fishing/nature tourism enterprises The Regional Council of Kymenlaakso has launched a operating in the area of the River Kymijoki, as well as the survey project on the network of recreational areas in the summaries compiled of the entrepreneurs’ answers. Kymenlaakso region (Regional Council of Kymenlaakso 2009). In the survey, it has been discovered that, together with the sea area and the Repovesi National Park, the River Kymijoki is one of the top destinations that are based on the nature of the Kymenlaakso region. Particularly fishing tourism and waterway tourism in the River Kymijoki have been estimated to have potential. Corporate and group cli- ents are mentioned as a central customer target group.

107 Table 14–1. Questions put to fishing and nature tourism entrepreneurs and the summary compiled of the answers by question.

How many persons work in your company?

The companies employ approximately 1–10 or more persons per company, depending on the season. The number of regular workers varies between 1–4 persons per company. Does you company operate all the year round or seasonally?

Five of the companies operate year round and three seasonally, with an emphasis on the season when the river is not iced over. Where does your company mainly operate?

The companies operate in the immediate vicinity of the River Kymijoki along its banks. What does the River Kymijoki mean to your company?

The significance of the River Kymijoki to the companies was seen as vital for their existence in all the companies. Which are the sub-areas of the River Kymijoki that your company utilises (certain rapids, etc.)?

The companies listed as their most important destination chiefly the areas of the rapids; for example, Myllykoski, Koivukoski, Korkeakos- ki, Siikakoski, Pernoonkosket, Langinkoski, Kultaankosket, the Ahvio rapids and Ahvenkoski, but other parts of the river were also important to the companies. Do you know about the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki?

All the companies that participated in the survey were aware of the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki. Do the contaminated sediments concretely hamper your company’s operations at present?

Seven companies were of the opinion that currently the contaminated sediments do not concretely hamper their operations. One company thought that the River Kymijoki had lost its good reputation a long time ago and it will be difficult to get back, and therefore they do hamper their operations. Do you think the contaminated sediments of the River Kymijoki damage your company’s image?

The contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki were considered to damage the company’s image in five companies, and in three companies it was not seen as actually harmful. Their customers do ask once in a while about the effects of the contaminated sediments. If the remediation of the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki cause temporary impacts on the quality of the water, how great a disadvantage is that to you?

In six companies, the disadvantage caused by the water quality decreasing temporarily was considered extremely great for business. In two companies, the disadvantage was not considered great, provided that the decrease in water quality is very short-term. Decrease in water quality for six months was considered too long a time and a hazard for business. If the remediation of the River Kymijoki’s sediments resulted in temporary restrictions on the use of fish, would this hamper your company’s operations?

In five companies, a temporary restriction on the use of fish was seen as a great disadvantage. In three companies, no actual disadvantage was felt or it was considered very slight, provided that the restriction on use was short-term (less than six months). If the remediation project is implemented, which season (a 3 month period) would be the best time?

Seven companies mentioned winter (November–March) as the best time to implement the remediation, and one company was of the opinion that the remediation should not be performed at all. In your opinion, should the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki be repaired or should the current state be maintained, i.e. should the sediments be left at the bottom of the river?

Three companies were in favour of maintaining the current state and five saw it as a conflict. If it can be guaranteed 100% that the remediation will cause no harm to the quality of the water, the remediation was seen as acceptable. There is a fear that the remediation will fail and the River Kymijoki’s reputation will deteriorate, after which continuing business operations would be difficult or impossible. Do you have anything else to say/comment on?

Some free-form comments from respondents:

“If the remediation project is launched, we must be absolutely sure that no harm will be caused to the water environment. Now is the best time in a long time in terms of fish, and the reputation of the River Kymijoki has been improved bit by bit. Let’s not destroy it again.”

“At long last all the customers are happy with the current situation, because the river is clean. If the remediation is started, customers will go away.”

“Nature has taken care of remediation better than people. I saw the results of the test dredging in Anjalankoski years ago. Filter cloth did no good then and the river’s water became considerably muddier. If there happen to be heavy rains or other circumstances that increase the water flow, the results could be catastrophic.”

108 14.3 Estimated Impacts

14.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation

Based on the interviews with the tourism companies, the The remediation of sediments may also be important on existence of the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments is a wider scale in terms of the area’s development. If the re- known, but at present hardly any concrete harm is caused mediation of the sediments is seen to be important for the by them to their operations. Some of the entrepreneurs area’s image, it may have positive effects on the develop- who replied to the questions felt that the contaminated ment of the River Kymijoki’s neighbouring areas. sediments do some damage to their company’s image. If the River Kymijoki is not restored, nature and fishing 14.4 Reducing Harmful Effects tourism will remain as it is or develop, despite the contaminated sediments, as a result of other factors. In the long The harm caused by the remediation project to the tour- run, the contaminated areas will become clean and will be- ism industry can be reduced by timing the work so that come covered with cleaner sediments. The damage to im- it falls outside the most important season for tourism. In age will also decrease over the coming decades, although the survey directed at tourism entrepreneurs, the respond- the change is likely to be slow. The contaminated sedi- ents stated that the best time to implement the remedia- ments of the River Kymijoki may influence the area’s gen- tion work would be winter. Winter sets challenges for the eral development. It is difficult to estimate the magnitude technical implementation of the remediation, but the im- of these effects without research. pacts can also be reduced if the work takes place late in 14.3.2 A1 and A2, the Effects of the the autumn. Remediation Work As with almost all other impacts, it is most important also for the tourism industry that the escape of hazardous In the interview performed on companies in the tourism substances can be prevented as efficiently as possible dur- industry, the entrepreneurs took a critical view of the reme- ing the remediation. diation. A large part of the respondents were of the opinion The harm caused for tourism by the remediation can that even temporary changes in water quality will be harm- also be reduced by good communication. Tourism compa- ful to their company’s operations. Some of the respond- nies should be informed when the remediation work will ents were willing to accept the remediation, as long as it be underway so that they can plan their operations as ear- is absolutely certain that the project will cause no harm to ly as possible. Monitoring during the remediation work will the water quality or fish fauna. The greatest harm was seen help to demarcate the areas where, for example, the con- to ensue for companies if the remediation took place dur- sumption of fish should be avoided. ing the summer season. The nature and fishing tourism companies in the area 14.3 Uncertainties Concerning the are concentrated in the lower reach of the River Kymijoki, Assessment which in practice reduces the effects resulting for tourism if a decision is made to restore the river. The impacts on Eight companies operating in the area participated in the water quality, sediments and fish fauna presented in the interview directed at tourism entrepreneurs, and their re- risk assessment (Rossi 2011) have been estimated for the plies were utilised in the assessment. The surveys per- reach of the river between Kuusaansaari and Keltti. The ef- formed during the EIA have not reached tourists who use fects are considerably decreased towards the lower reach the services of the tourism enterprises in the area of the of the river. River Kymijoki. Tourists make their decisions on their des- Direct effects caused to other business areas besides tination partly based on images. In principle, it is possible tourism are difficult to estimate accurately at this stage. that the remediation of the River Kymijoki may influence Both remediation alternatives involve dredging, the treat- the selection of destination. ment of sediments and water and planning and research The planning of the remediation of the River Kymijoki’s phases, before the actual remediation can take place. ��In�� ad- contaminated sediments is in its early stages, and therefore dition, Alternative A2 involves the transport of sediments its direct employment effects are still difficult to estimate. elsewhere for final storage or to be burned. All the above- Similarly, the effects of the remediation on the economy mentioned stages of work have direct effects on employ- and development of the River Kymijoki’s neighbouring ar- ment. eas are difficult to predict at this stage.

109 15. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC

15.1 Present Situation 15.2 Assessment Methods

The proportion of Southeast Finland’s traffic is approxi- The traffic volume created through the thermal treat- mately 6% of that of the whole country. The area’s own traf- ment or final storage of sediments is estimated in the fic is amplified by the goods traffic of large-scale industry. Environmental Impact Assessment according to the treat- Southeast Finland’s road, railway and waterborne traffic ment/final storage site. The assessment is based on the connections to the Russian market are important for the current traffic volume and the state of the road network, as whole country’s economic life. More than half of the tran- well as the estimate of the amount of traffic caused by the sit transport through Finland goes through the Kotka and transportation of the sediment. Hamina ports. Transit traffic to the east has grown steadily. In the Kymenlaakso region, the quantity of transit exports 15.3 Estimated Impacts to the east by road in early 2008 grew by 11 % from the corresponding period the previous year. The proportion of 15.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation road transport as transit traffic is 44 %. Since 2006, the volume of bicycle and pedestrian traf- If the project is not implemented, the area’s traffic volume fic has grown in the Kymenlaakso region in Southeast will correspond to the current situation and in the long run Finland by 2.9 % and in South Karelia by 5 %. Heavy traffic, will develop subject to other factors. The contaminated on the other hand, has increased in the whole of Southeast sediments of the River Kymijoki will have no effect on the Finland by an average of 13 %. traffic volume. The growth in traffic volume has both positive and neg- 15.3.2 A1a and A1b, Final Storage in the Target ative effects. Increase in traffic and transit transport is eco- Area nomically positive in as much as transport creates jobs and also influences other functions of traffic. The drawbacks are If the spoil is located in the area of the clay pits (A1a), some the effects on the environment, which include the conse- traffic will be created at the building stage of the ponds. If quent increase in noise and emissions. the spoil is located in the river bed (A1b), the traffic volume (Southeast Finland, The State of the Environment 2008). caused will be very small. On the whole, traffic impacts will The use of water traffic in the River Kymijoki is currently be slight in Alternatives A1a and A1b. During the remedia- limited to Lake Pyhäjärvi in the section above the Voikkaa tion, plant and machinery will cause noise, among other dam and in the south below the Keltti power plant in things, with local effects. Anjalankoski. Presently, water traffic is used for recreation 15.3.2.1 A2a, Thermal Treatment and A2b, Final and tourism. Storage at a Landfill for Hazardous Waste

Transport distances As regards thermal treatment, two alternative treatment sites have been examined in the Environmental Impact Assessment: the Ekokem plant in Riihimäki and the Waste- to-Energy Power Plant of Kotka Energy Ltd.

110 15.4 Reducing Harmful Effects

The transportation distance from the River Kymijoki to The noise nuisance caused by traffic can be reduced by the Ekokem hazardous waste plant is approximately 120 limiting the work and transport to daytime. In terms of air km, and the distance from the River Kymijoki to the Waste- pollution, it is best to select the straightest possible route to-Energy Power Plant of Kotka Energy is approximately 70 for transport. km. The three landfill sites for hazardous waste nearest to 15.5 Uncertainties Concerning the the remediation area between Kuusaansaari and Keltti are: Assessment • Keltakangas in Kouvola, Ekokem-Palvelu Oy 25 km Air emissions were assessed by calculations based on the • Kotka, Heinsuo, L & T, 60 estimated need for transport. The quantity of the sub- km stances to be transported depends on the final quantity of • Joutseno, Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto spoil and its treatment. The duration of dredging also de- 110 km pends on the implementation method. The noise pollution The transportation distance from the River Kymijoki to caused by the remediation is estimated to be low, but the Keltakangas in Kouvola is approximately 25 km, to Heinsuo final noise emissions are also dependent on the implemen- in Kotka approximately 60 km and to Joutseno 110 km. tation method, timing and duration.

Traffic volume When the quantity of spoil to be transported is estimated as 70,000 tonnes, a full trailer combination with a full load (load 40 t) is used as hauling equipment and the number of vehicles is 10 trucks per day, the transportation will take a total of 175 days. The traffic resulting from the remediation may cause a risk of accidents, which cannot be ruled out. However, the number of vehicles per day, approximately 10 trucks, is relatively low. It may have an impact locally on the riverside of the River Kymijoki where attention has to be paid to traffic control, whereas on the public roads, the number of vehicles has no significance. 15.3.3 Summary and Comparison of the Alternatives

The traffic volume will be at its lowest if the sediments are stored finally in the river bed (A1b). If the spoil is located in the area of the clay pits (A1a), some traffic will be created at the building stage of the ponds. The transportation distances are at their longest in Alternatives A2a and A2b, if the thermal treatment is performed at the Ekokem plant in Riihimäki or if the spoil is transported to Joutseno for final storage. They are short- est if the spoil is transported to Keltinkangas in Kouvola for final storage. The transport quantities are the same in Alternatives A2a and A2b; i.e. approximately 10 trucks per day for roughly 175 days.

111 16. IMPACTS ON LAND USE AND ZONING

16.1 Present Situation 16.1.1 Regional plan

The remediation area is a part of the River Kymijoki’s catch- The regional plan called “Urbanised Areas and Their ment area which is used, for example, to produce hydro- Surroundings in the Kymenlaakso Region” is in force in the electric power and for recreation. The remediation area Kuusankoski–Keltti area. The regional plan was validated is surrounded by the population centre of Kuusankoski by the Ministry of the Environment on 28 May 2008 and 18 which is the living environment and habitat of more than January 2010. Outside the regional plan area of “Urbanised 20,000 residents and a part of the city of Kouvola. Areas and Their Surroundings” the Kymenlaakso region’s The Keltti clay pit area, which is one of the final storage regional plan “The Rural Area and Nature” is in force. This sites considered for this project, is today an industrial and was validated by the Ministry of the Environment on 14 warehousing area where a sewage treatment plant is also December 2010. located. The clay pit area is also used to some extent as an In early 2010, what is called the Vastilan Mutka area of outdoor recreation area, although it is not officially a rec- the former Ruotsinpyhtää municipality was incorporat- reation zone. ed in the Pyhtää municipality. This area is covered by the Eastern Uusimaa regional plan which was confirmed by the Ministry of the Environment on 15 February 2010.

Figure 16–1. An extract from the regional plan “Urbanised Areas and Their Surroundings in the Kymenlaakso Region.”

112 The population centres and their neighbourhoods in Next to the industrial area on the eastern river bank the immediate affected zone are recorded in the region- there is a district for private-sector services (PY) and on the al plan as areas that are worth treasuring for their cultural western river bank, the Kymintehdas residential area as a environment or landscape (ma). In the more detailed plan- district for dwellings, which is a nationally important archi- ning of the project, the requirements of land use and land- tectural unity (A/s-1). Buildings that are worth conserving scape and cultural values must be matched. The bank of are also noted in the residential area with target symbols. the River Kymijoki consists mostly of the district for popula- The banks of the River Kymijoki mainly consist of rec- tion centre activities (A), but also contains recreational dis- reational districts with valuable natural areas (V and V/s). tricts (V) and a groundwater district (pv). A route for outdoor activities or an indicated reservation The soil dumping areas for the spoil are located in the for a possible road connection goes along almost the en- water area close to the district for population centre ac- tire planning zone along the river banks. Behind the rec- tivities (A/s), which contains buildings that are considered reational areas, there is a district for dwellings (A) which worth conserving for their cultural value, and in the dis- contains valuable targets and areas for the townscape (A/ trict for population centre activities (A) next to the district s-1 and sk). In the southern part of the general plan there road (st). In the alternative involving the transport of spoil, is also a groundwater area (pv), which does not extend to trucks would be loaded in the industrial and warehousing the river bank. area of the Kuusankoski–Kymintehdas factory (T/s), which The northern soil dumping area, which is an alternative has been registered as a site of architectural culture to be (A1b) of the project plan, is located in the water area (W) in preserved. front of the river bank of the Kymintehdas residential area 16.1.2 General Plan (A/s-1) on the eastern side of the Kuusaa bridge. The eastern soil dumping area in Alternative A1a is The Kuusankoski Town Council approved the legally bind- situated in the old soil removal site to the south of the ing and legally non-binding parts of the Kuusankoski gen- Heinharju industrial area (T) and sewage treatment plant eral plan 2020 on 21 May 2007. (ET), in the district marked as an industrial and warehous- Most of the immediate affected zone is located within ing area (T). A reservation for a connection for a recreation- the legally non-binding area of the general plan, with only al track has been indicated going through the industrial the eastern bank of the lower reach being within the area and warehousing area, as well as a reservation for a railroad of the legally binding general plan. connection, i.e. a ‘crisis railroad reservation’. To the west side In the legally binding general plan, all of the eastern river of the area there is a functioning clay removal site (EO/V) bank of the lower reach is recorded as either a recreational which is intended for recreational use after the current ac- district (V), or a recreational district with valuable natural tivities have finished. areas (V/s). For actions performed in the river bank area, a The loading and transport of spoil in Alternatives A2a landscape-work permit in accordance with the Land Use and A2b would occur through the Kymintehdas industri- and Building Act, section 128, is required. al area (T and T/s-1) which contains historical architectural No soil dumping areas have been planned for the legally targets. binding area of the general plan. In addition to the general plan 2020, the component The regional plan’s area reservations are specified in the master plan 2002–2015 for the central city, which was ap- non-legally binding part of the general plan (Figure 16–2). proved in the Community Council’s meeting on 20 May Conservation targets and areas are marked more precisely. 2002, is in force in the centre of Kuusankoski, as is the al- In the built-up area, the community structure has large- teration to the general plan which became valid on 30 ly been realised already and, for that reason among other July 2008. In the general plan, the riverside area is record- things, the plan has been made without legal effects. ed mainly as a park area (VP-2 and VP-4). The northern soil In the upper part of the immediate affected zone is the dumping area in Alternative A1b is located in the River Kuusaansaari power plant and dam which are marked as a Kymijoki in front of the riverside park in the centre to the district for energy management (EN). The upper part also east of the Kuusaa bridge. contains an industrial and warehousing area (T), plants that manufacture or store hazardous chemicals (T/kem) and their consultation zones. The buildings that are going to be conserved are denoted more precisely in the area of the Kuusankoski–Kymintehdas factory with target and area symbols (T/s-1).

113 Figure 16–2. An extract from the non-binding part of the Kuusankoski general plan 2020.

16.3.3 Local Detailed Plan

The centre of Kuusankoski is mostly covered by a local detailed plan. There is no valid local detailed plan for Keltti. The soil dumping areas planned for the project are situated outside the local detailed plan area. A change (no. 25/001) to the local detailed plan has been planned for the area next to the soil dumping area of the clay pits. The aim of the local detailed plan is to examine the development possibilities of housing construction and water resources management. However, the change to the local detailed plan is not yet included in the zoning programme of 2011.

Figure 16–3. The areas of Kuusankoski that are covered by a local detailed plan (the areas outlined with blue).

114 In Alternatives A1a and A1b, the dredged sludge and sediments are treated and finally stored in the remediation area or its immediate surroundings. The final storage of sediments that are classified as hazardous waste has long- term effects on the area’s land use. When the sediments are stored, they are stabilised in a stationary state which improves the sediment’s structural qualities. However, the area’s use and construction in it will be limited. In Alternative A1a, sludge is pumped into the old clay removal pits located to the south of the Heinharju industrial area where it will be treated and deposited in a stabilised form. The region is an industrial and warehousing area in accordance with the non-legally binding general plan, and a reservation for an recreational route connection has been assigned to it. There is no valid local detailed plan for the area. The impacts of this alternative are the greatest on land use. The treatment of hazardous waste will probably Figure 16–4. The pending local detailed plans of require the preparation of a local detailed plan for the area Kuusankoski in 2010. to impose permanent restrictions on its land use. In Alternative A1b, sediments are treated and deposited 16.4 Ownership of the Land and Water in the River Kymijoki in a stabilised form. The region is a wa- Areas ter area in accordance with the non-legally binding general plan. There is no local detailed plan for the area. The im- The water areas along the reach of the river between plementation of the project in this area is possible without Kuusaansaari and Keltti are owned by UPM Kymmene Oyj. zoning with a permit that conforms to the Water Act, if the The riverside areas are owned by UPM Kymmene Oyj and structure remains completely below water and if there are private persons. Maxit Oy Ab and the city of Kouvola own no restrictions on the use of the water area. If the water ar- the clay pit area examined in the EIA. ea’s use must be restricted or the structure forms an island, the area will have to be covered by a local detailed plan 16.5 Assessment Methods which designates it as a waste treatment area. In Alternatives A2a and A2b, the dredged sediments are The impacts of the project’s alternatives on the current and transported away from the area to be treated and depos- planned land use and zoning have been assessed using ited elsewhere. The impacts of the alternatives on land use valid legislation, plans, maps, pictures and geographical in- in the project areas are therefore temporary, lasting only formation. The examination focuses especially on the re- for the duration of the remediation, and focus, above all, mediation alternatives which involve stabilising the con- on traffic and the harm it causes. Alternatives A2a and A2b taminated sediments in the planning zone. Both the final do not require zoning. storage sites to be assessed are located inside the Kouvola city area. 16.7 Reducing Harmful Effects

16.6 Estimated Impacts Harmful effects can be reduced by taking into account the use of the clay pits or the River Kymijoki as a final storage 16.6.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation site for hazardous waste in future zoning and planning. As regards the other alternatives, harmful effects on land use Omitting to implement the project does not alter the cur- can be reduced by employing protective and other meas- rent land use situation, nor does it cause changes to the ures during remediation. valid plans. 16.6.1 A1 and A2, the Effects of the 16.8 Uncertainties Concerning the Remediation Work Assessment

Dredging, if implemented, will have temporary impacts on With the alternatives requiring a final storage site, some un- the use of the areas. These impacts will be important, for certainty is caused by the lack of a local detailed plan for example, for the area’s recreational use. the storage area. However, the non-legally binding general plan will assist in directing land use and decision making. 115 17. IMPACTS ON THE LANDSCAPE AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

17.1 Present Situation

The River Kymijoki has made its unique mark on the re- 17.2 Assessment Methods gion’s landscape and nature and continues to do so. It has worn its channel through the ridge of rock, forming three The project’s effects on the landscape have been estimat- rapids in Kuusankoski where the clayey flflood ood banks are ex-ex- ed using maps, geographic information and photographs. tremely steep in places, which has made their utilisation difficult. Along the river banks there are nationally valuable 17.3 Estimated Impacts herb-rich forests which, with their fallen, decaying trees, enrich the area’s biodiversity and create a beautiful land- 17.3.1 A0, Impacts in the Current Situation scape. The Kymintehdas area and the northern part of the The landscape will continue to change without the effects Voikkaa industrial area have been given the status of na- brought about by the project. tionally important areas within Finnish industrial history by 17.3.2 A1 and A2, Impacts of Dredging the National Board of Antiquities. The River Kymijoki and its river banks are an essential part of this nationally signifi- In Alternative A1a, sludge is pumped into the ponds which cant whole. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several have formed in the old clay pits. Some of the pools are factory villages were built in the vicinity of the factory ar- sludge treatment areas and water-covered pools. The sedi- eas and many of these have been structurally preserved ments to be finally stored in some of the pits will be stabi- to the present day in almost their original form. The most lised into a solid substance. After the remediation work, the important of these are situated in the Naukio, Tähtee and area will become a final storage site for hazardous waste. Kymintehdas areas. The clay pit area cannot be seen from a distance and it is The largest clay soil area that has been cleared for cul- not visible from the Helsinki road that passes the site (main tivation is in the Keltti area. The Keltti fields form a funda- road 365). The trees and bushes growing on the banks of mental part of the Kuusankoski home district landscape. the ponds obscure them from view. The treatment of sedi- The cultivated expanses of Keltti and Mattila are some ments or their stabilisation in the ponds does not require of the most valuable parts of the cultural landscape of the removal of trees. Kuusankoski. In Alternative A1b, sludge is treated in a pond that is The clay pits which form the final storage site in one built in the River Kymijoki and sediments are stabilised in of the remediation alternatives are located on the north- their treatment site. The stabilised sediments will remain ern side of the Keltti cultivated area. The land in the clay entirely below the river’s surface and cannot be seen un- pit area is fallow, and has thus partly become covered by less the water surface subsides lower than the normal min- bushes. Ponds have formed in the old pits. There are also imum level. some industrial buildings and a sewage treatment plant In Alternatives A2a and A2b, similarly to Alternative A1b, in the area. sludge is collected into a pile planking pool that is built into To the south of Keltinkoski in the Ruotsula area and in the River Kymijoki, but after treatment the sediments are Lauttavalkama there are some historically valuable sites with relics.

116 17.4 Reducing Harmful Effects loaded and transported away. The impacts on the project Harmful effects on the landscape can be reduced in area’s landscape are temporary. In Alternative A2b, the per- Alternative A1b by depositing the stabilised sediments manent effects on the landscape remain in the areas where sufficiently deep under the River Kymijoki’s surface, or in the sediments are deposited. Sediments that are classified Alternative A1a, by depositing them in the clay pit area in as hazardous waste can only be deposited in areas which such a way that the area can continue to be used as an in- have a valid environmental permit for the disposal of haz- dustrial and warehousing area and for outdoor recreation. ardous waste. Alternative A2a does not, in practice, have ef- In Alternative A2b, in which the sediments are transport- fects on the landscape because the sediments are treated ed away, the landscape effects are reduced by depositing by burning. the sediments in areas that are already used for similar pur- 17.3.3 Summary and Comparison of the poses. Alternatives 17.5 Uncertainties Concerning the As regards landscape, there is no significant difference Assessment between the dredging methods. The effects of dredging on the landscape are only temporary whichever method There are always uncertainties involved in assessing land- is used to implement it. All the methods involve the river scape effects, the greatest of which being the passing of landscape being blemished during the implementation by time and the changes this entails in nature, society, cultural the sight of, for example, plant and machinery and other values and the way people think. materials necessary for dredging. Alternative A1a, in which Climate change and the fluctuation in the River sludge is pumped to the Heinharju industrial area’s old clay Kymijoki’s flow volume have an influence on how well the removal site, has a slightly larger influence on the land- spoil that has been stabilised under water can be seen in scape than the other alternatives. In addition to the dredg- the landscape. ing activities taking place in the river, a temporary pipe has The absence of a local detailed plan for the Keltti area to be led to the clay pit area. In the other alternatives, no also causes some uncertainty in estimating landscape ef- pipes are required on land. fects. The area’s land is currently mainly used for agriculture The alternatives for the final storage of the dredged and forestry, but its development will be influenced, for ex- sludge present more differences in landscape effects. ample, by changes in agricultural policies and the econom- Alternative A1a has the greatest effects on the landscape ic structure. of the project area. The effects of Alternative A1b – final storage of the sludge inside a pile planking pond in the River Kymijoki – has little effect on the landscape if the final storage site remains completely below water. If the site rises above the water surface and is made into an island, the effects on the cultural landscape are extremely harmful. Of the alternatives in which the sludge is transported away, Alternative A2b involves transferring the landscape effect elsewhere and Alternative A2a has practically no landscape effects at all. Otherwise dredging, final storage or transport has not significance for the values of the cultural landscape. No explorations have been made in the remediation area to locate underwater relics. If the project proceeds, there may be archaeological studies taking place and these should be prepared for at the research phase before applying for permits.

117 17. COMBINED EFFECTS WITH OTHER PROJECTS AND PLANS

If the project is implemented, its materialisation may influence other projects, plans and programmes. The following is a list of known plans and projects with estimations of whether the remediation of the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki will have combined effects with them.

Programme or plan Connection to the remediation project of the River Kymijoki

The operational programmes and water resourc- In the River Kymijoki–Gulf of Finland water resources management plan es management plans compiled to assist in im- (until 2015), the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments have been taken plementing the Water Framework Directive into account as supplementary information in establishing the ecological status of the waters. In the remediation area, the River Kymijoki was classified as heavily modified and as moderate in terms of its ecological status. Even after the remediation of the sediments, the parts of the River Kymijoki that correspond to the current status will remain heavily modified. The remediation may have an effect on the classification of the river’s ecological status in the future. HELCOM’s recommendation concerning the sea At present, hazardous substances which originate in the contaminated sed- area and the Marine Strategy Framework Di- iments of the River Kymijoki discharge into the Gulf of Finland. The most rective central impacts of the remediation project fall on the River Kymijoki in the Kuusaansaari–Keltti area. The impacts on the sea area have been estimated in the EIA as relatively slight. Natura 2000 nature protection programme In the present state of the river, the River Kymijoki’s contaminated sediments may have effects on the species of the Natura 2000 area which exist in the river, such as the otter. The impacts of the remediation on the Na- tura area, located in the lower reach of the River Kymijoki, have been estimated in the EIA as slight. The thick-shelled river mussel may appear in the remediation area and its existence there will be looked into if the project proceeds. Stockholm Convention The Stockholm Convention aspires to restrict the use and emissions of persistent organic pollutants (otherwise known as POPs). Alternative A2a, i.e. the thermal treatment of sediments, is congruent with the convention, because it involves the permanent destruction of dioxins and furans through burning. Kymenlaakso Regional Programme The Regional Programme guides the use and development of the areas on a general level. In the long run, the remediation may have positive effects on the area’s development. Municipal zoning projects; for example, the The remediation project will necessitate the preparation of a new local de- shore plans that are confined to the River Ky- tailed plan, if the spoil is deposited in the clay pit area. mijoki Development plan for the fishing industry / mi- The impacts on fish fauna will be take place in the remediation area and gratory fish project for the River Kymijoki its immediate surroundings, whereas in the lower reach of the river the impacts have been estimated as slight. The remediation project is not estimated to have effects on the re-establishment project for migratory fish or the development of the River Kymijoki’s fishing industry.

118 PART IV: COMPARING THE ALTERNATIVES AND FURTHER ACTIONS

119 120 18. FURTHER RESEARCH AND IMPACT MONITORING

18.2 Monitoring During and After the 18.1 Further Research after the EIA Remediation Process

If the project proceeds beyond the EIA, a more detailed Detailed monitoring plans for the environmental control research and planning phase will be implemented before of the remediation process will be compiled at the permit the licence stages. application stage before the project’s implementation. As For more detailed planning of the remediation work and an advance estimate, the matters to be specially observed a more accurate environmental impact assessment, some will be the impacts on water quality and fish fauna. The more specific research on the occurrence of hazardous most attention in monitoring the environmental impacts substances and their discharge into the River Kymijoki will will be focused on the time when the remediation process have to be performed, and their behaviour in the reme- is implemented. The monitoring will enable, for example, diation process will have to be established. The purpose the observation of how well the impact assessment made of these further studies is to ensure that the occurrence of corresponds to reality. In addition, it can be investigated contaminated sediments and their concentrations in the whether the construction work will cause such changes in area to be restored have not changed substantially since the state of the environment that actions will have to be the KYPRO charting in the late 1990s and the discharge taken to prevent them. studies in the 2000s. Additional information about the vari- The smooth progress of the remediation work accord- ation in time and place of the hazardous substances which ing to expectations can be ensured by monitoring water are transported with solid substances and in a dissolved quality during the process, for example, through continu- form should be collected using the same methods which ous turbidity measurements and frequent analyses of haz- will later be used in monitoring the impacts of the reme- ardous substances. diation. The concentrations and accumulation of hazardous More specific analyses shall be made on the concentra- substances in aquatic organisms can be monitored also in tions of mercury, especially in the fish samples of the river mussels that have been caught in a sump, of which there area to be restored. The data on mercury concentrations are already good experiences from the area of the River in the population and the quantities of mercury being re- Kymijoki (Koistinen et al. 2010). Rainbow trout which have ceived are outdated. Information is also required about the been raised in string bags have also been previously used mercury concentrations in water birds and the zooben- to prove the decrease of dioxin-type toxicity achieved thos. More extensive information is needed on the con- through the remediation of sediments (Blom et al. 1998). centrations of dioxins, furans and mercury in the river bank The monitoring taking place during the remediation will sediments. be focused on the remediation area and its immediate sur- The dissolution of other organic hazardous substances roundings, but some monitoring will also be performed besides dioxins and furans from the sediments that are to throughout the lower reach of the river all the way to the be restored shall also be studied. The qualities of different sea. sediment layers and areas, such as the concentration of sol- It is important to continue monitoring also after the re- id substances and particle size, shall be established for the mediation has been completed. Remediation follow-up project. will be performed at least on the quality of water and sed- When selecting and testing the remediation tech- iment, the discharge of hazardous substances and con- niques, the intensity of methylation has to be assessed, centrations of hazardous substances in fish. The follow-up and attention has to be paid, for example, to the efficient should also extend all the way to the sea. removal of mercury during water treatment. It is also important to determine the behaviour of dioxins and furans in the sedimentation and water treatment process of the sediments. More precise information will also have to be gleaned on the technical options concerning the dredging techniques, installation of pile planking and sediment stabilisation and their functioning. 121 19. COMPARING THE ALTERNATIVES AND ESTIMATING FEASIBILITY

19.1 Comparing the Alternatives

In the Environmental Impact Assessment, the effects which In the assessment, the following factors influencing the importance constitute a change from the present state were examined of impacts were taken into account: one by one. The environmental impacts of the remediation The impact’s were estimated by comparing them to the corresponding • Importance for interest groups: not important – impacts of Alternative Zero (A0) or, in other words, to the very important project area’s current state and its natural development. • The magnitude of the change that will be caused The importance of the impacts were estimated by con- • The probability of the impact: improbable – defi- sidering the magnitude of the change and comparing the nite effects to the base values and limits for environmental load, • The scope of the impact: local – international environmental quality norms and the area’s current envi- • The duration of the impact: short - permanent ronmental load. Also taken into account was the feedback • Accumulating impacts: none – some received through the resident survey on the impacts which • The reliability of the assessment: very unreliable – residents consider important for the area and the planned very reliable project.

The direction and intensity of the impact were estimated according to the following scale:

4 Extremely significant positive impact

3 Significant positive impact decrease in current damage; for example, decrease in concentrations in comparison to the 2 Medium positive impact present, decrease of risks

1 Minor positive impact

No impacts = the present situation; for example, the cur- 0 rent concentration of hazardous substances

-1 Minor negative impact

-2 Medium negative impact increase in current damage; for example, growth of concentrations in comparison to -3 Significant negative impact the present, increase of risks

-4 Extremely significant negative impact

122 Table 20–1. Comparison of the alternatives by impact. The table includes the most central impacts for the project. The Remediation Alternatives A1a, A1b, A2a and A2b were compared to Alternative A0, which is the current situation.

The direction and intensity of the impact in comparison to the present situation

Alternative A0 Alternative A1a Alternative A1b Alternative A2a Alternative A2b

Contaminated sedi- A significant part of the A significant part of the A significant part of the A significant part of the ments occur in the Riv- hazardous substances are hazardous substanc- hazardous substanc- hazardous substances are er Kymijoki; a signifi- removed and deposited in es are removed and de- es are removed from removed and deposited for cant part of the hazard- the clay pit area in a sta- posited in the river bed the remediation area final storage in a landfill for Occurrence of ous substances occur bilised form. in a stabilised form. and treated by burning. hazardous waste. The haz- contaminated between Kuusaansaa- PCDD/F compounds are ardous substances are not sediments ri–Keltti. permanently destroyed, permanently destroyed. a part of the mercury is released into the air during burning. Present situation: The The water’s PCDD/F con- The water’s PCDD/F Impacts on water quality are the same as in A1b. Impacts during re- concentrations of haz- centration would grow concentration would mediation in com- ardous substances in 7–22-fold and mercury grow 2–7-fold and parison to the pre- the River Kymijoki’s concentration 9–14-fold mercury concentration sent situation sediments are evident in comparison to A0. 3–5-fold in compari- in the water quality of son to A0. the River Kymijoki and also the sea area. Haz- A small temporary risk ardous substances are A small risk would be would be posed by the A small temporary risk would be posed by the pile discharged also into the posed by the sediments pile planking. planking. Gulf of Finland. which have been stabilised in the clay pit area. The discharge of haz- PCDD/F load would be After the remediation, After the remediation, the long-term impacts would ardous substances will 23% and mercury load the long-term impacts be the same as in A1a. In addition, the sediments decrease slowly. Ac- 7% smaller than in A0. would be the same as that have been removed from the bottom of the river Water quality and cording to the models, in A1a. during remediation would be permanently eliminated concentrations of in 30 years 25–50% of from the River Kymijoki or its vicinity, which would de- hazardous sub- the PCDD/F compounds crease the risk of impacts on water quality. stances and 20–40% of the A small risk would be mercury will have disposed by the sediments A small risk would be charged into the Gulf of which have been stabi- posed by the pile plank- Finland. lised in the clay pit area. ing and the sediments Impacts over 30 which have been stabi- years lised in the river.

Present situation: In During remediation, the During remediation, During the remediation, the impacts would be the the Kuusaansaari–Kelt- PCDD/F concentration in the PCDD/F concentra- same as in A1b. Might have an impact on the repro- ti section, the PCDD/F fish between Kuusaansaa- tion in fish would rise duction of fish. A small temporary risk would be posed concentration in fish is ri–Keltti would rise 1.4– approximately 1.4-fold by the pile planking. approximately double 2-fold and the mercu- and the mercury con- Impacts during re- and the mercury con- ry concentration approxi- centration would ap- mediation in com- centration of pike 2–3- mately 3-fold in compari- proximately double parison to the pre- fold in comparison to son to A0. Might have an in comparison to A0. sent situation the concentrations in impact on the reproduc- Might have an impact the upper reach of the tion of fish. on the reproduction river. The mercury con- of fish. centrations in fish are at their highest in the river’s lower reach. In the long run, concen- After remediation, PCDD/F After the remediation, After the remediation, the long-term impacts will be trations of hazardous concentration would de- the long-term impacts the same as in A1a. In addition, the sediments that substances in fish will crease quickly, mercury would be the same as have been removed from the bottom of the river dur- Fish fauna and slowly diminish as the concentration more slow- in A1a. ing remediation would be permanently eliminated other aquatic quantity of hazardous ly. In the long run, the from the River Kymijoki or its vicinity, which would de- organisms substances decreases. PCDD/F and Hg concen- crease the risk of impacts on fish fauna. trations in fish would decrease faster than in A0.

A small risk would be A small risk would be posed by the sediments posed by the pile plank- Impacts over 30 which have been stabi- ing and the sediments years lised in the clay pit area. which have been stabilised in the river.

123 Alternative A0 Alternative A1a Alternative A1b Alternative A2a Alternative A2b

Present situation: The The groundwater condi- No impacts on the If the sediments were transported elsewhere, no im- contaminated sedi- tions of the clay pit area groundwater would be pacts on the groundwater would be caused in the vi- ments have no impacts are not known accurate- caused by the stabilisa- cinity of the River Kymijoki. In Alternative A2b, the im- on the quality of the ly. Water treatment and tion of the sediments in pacts on the groundwater would depend on the struc- groundwater. the final storage of sedi- the river. tures and environment of the reception area. Soil and ground- ments in the clay pit area water might cause impacts on the groundwater. Im- pacts would be prevented with appropriate base structures.

Present situation: Im- The greatest impacts dur- The impacts on water quality would be milder than in Alternative A1a, and con- Impacts during re- pacts on protected ar- ing remediation would sequently the temporary effects on protected species would also be milder. Im- mediation in com- eas and protected spe- fall on the quality of wa- pacts might fall mainly on the thick-shelled river mussel, the occurrence of which parison to the pre- cies in the current situa- ter; impacts might also in the area is not known. sent situation tion are probably slight. be caused to the thick- The occurrence of the shelled river mussel which thick-shelled river mus- is included in the Habitats sel in the remediation Directive, Annex IV (a) (its area is not known. In occurrence in the remedi- the Natura area in the ation area is not known). lower reach of the Riv- In addition, impacts might er Kymijoki, sediments be caused for the large Nature reserves may cause some lev- white-faced darter (also and protected el of harm to the otter a IV (a) species) which is species and fish species which found in the clay pit area. are included in the Hab- itats Directive. Possible harm to pro- In the clay pit area, per- The load of hazardous substances caused to species living in the River Kymijoki’s tected species will di- manent habitat loss- Natura area would diminish in the long term more than in Alternative A0. minish slowly with the es might be caused to migration of sediment. threatened and protected species. Even so, the load of hazardous substances caused to species living in the River Kymijoki’s Impacts over 30 Natura area would dimin- years ish more than in Alterna- tive A0. Present situation: The Final storage in the clay The final storage of the In thermal treatment, di- A small impact on air pol- contaminated sedi- pit area would cause no sediments that have oxins and furans would lution would be caused ments of the River Ky- air pollution. A small risk been stabilised in the be permanently de- by the traffic necessary to mijoki cause no air pol- would exist that the fi- river bed would cause no stroyed. The efficiency transport the sediments lution. nally stored material air pollution. of mercury removal in- away. would dry and become volves some uncertain- airborne dust. ties, which is why burn- Air quality ing might cause some mercury emissions in the air. There would also be a small addition to the air pollution which would be caused when the sediments are transported by road. Present situation: In The supply of PCDD/F The supply of PCDD/F The impacts of the remediation would be the same as Impacts during re- the present situation, compounds would in- compounds would re- in A1b. A small temporary risk would be posed by the mediation in com- PCDD/F compounds crease to 60% at most main below WHO’s ref- pile planking. parison to the pre- cause no health risk. in comparison to A0, erence value. When the sent situation Even in the current sit- but would remain be- recommendations for uation, mercury causes low WHO’s reference val- the consumption of fish an increased health risk ue. After remediation, the are followed, it is im- to those who eat a lot supply of mercury would probable that the tol- of fish from the River be approximately double erable exposure for Kymijoki. in comparison to WHO’s mercury would be ex- recommendation. ceeded.

Impacts on The health risk caused During 30 years, the sup- Long-term impacts After the remediation, the long-term impacts would health by the contaminated ply of PCDD/F compounds would be the same as be the same as in A1a. In addition, the sediments that sediments will dimin- would be 27% smaller in A1. have been removed from the bottom of the river dur- ish slowly as the mercu- and that of mercury 19% ing remediation would be permanently eliminated ry concentrations in fish smaller than in A0. from the River Kymijoki or its vicinity, which would de- decrease. crease the risk of health impacts. A small risk would be A small risk would be posed by the sediments posed by the pile plank- which have been stabi- ing and the sediments Within 30 years lised in the clay pit area. which have been stabi- 124 lised in the river. Alternative A0 Alternative A1a Alternative A1b Alternative A2a Alternative A2b

Present situation: Apart Dredging and the chang- Impacts on water quality would be approximately 1/3 of those in A1a, and con- Impacts during re- from the restrictions on es in water quality would sequently impacts in the remediation area would also be milder. In the low- mediation in com- the use of predatory cause temporary impacts er reach of the river, the impacts would probably be slight; in the sea area there parison to the pre- fish, the contaminated on fishing and possibly would probably be no impacts at all. sent situation sediments of the River also crayfishing in the re- Kymijoki do not affect mediation area and its vi- fishing in the river or cinity. In the lower reach on the coast. The sedi- of the river, the impacts ments may cause slight would probably be con- harm to the image of siderably milder. There the area’s fishing. would probably be no impacts on fishing in the Fishing sea area.

Fishing in the River Ky- In the long term, after remediation, the concentrations of hazardous substances in the water and fish would mijoki will develop de- decrease compared to the current situation, and consequently the remediation would probably have a mild Within 30 years spite other factors. positive effect on the consumption of fish. The remediation itself would have no effect on fishing conditions.

The current situation In the Kuusaansaari–Keltti In the Kuusaansaari–Keltti section, eating fish, swimming and using the water During the reme- will continue; in oth- section, eating fish, swim- would not be recommended. Access restrictions in the dredging and loading ar- diation er words, uncertain- ming and using the wa- eas. Uncertainty and worry would impede habitability and recreational use also ty and worry about the ter would not be recom- in the lower reach. risks will continue es- mended. Access restric- pecially for those who tions in the dredging and fish, swim in the river or clay pit areas. Uncertain- use the river water for ty and worry would im- washing or irrigation. pede habitability and recreational use also in the lower reach. Living conditions Uncertainty and wor- Uncertainty and worry Uncertainty and wor- Uncertainty and wor- Uncertainty and and comfort ry about the risks con- about the risks would de- ry about the risks would ry about the risks would worry about the tinue in the lower reach crease and comfort of liv- decrease and comfort decrease and comfort of risks would de- of the river. The damage ing and the recreation- of living and the recre- living and the recreation- to habitability and rec- al situation would im- ational situation would al situation would im- crease and com- reational use will dimin- prove, but there would be improve, but there prove considerably after fort of living and ish slowly with time. a small risk of the hazard- would be a small risk the hazardous substanc- the recreational ous substances spreading of the hazardous sub- es were destroyed. situation would from the clay pits. stances spreading from Within 30 years behind the pile plank- improve considering. ably. Present situation: The Having final storage in No significant impacts No impacts on land use. remediation area as a the clay pit area would would be caused on whole is a water area; change the area’s land the use of the areas, the clay pit area is an use. The area has been if the stabilised sedi- industrial area. The ar- zoned as an industrial ments and their pro- ea’s land use will de- area; final storage might tective structures re- Land use velop according to the require the preparation of mained under water as current and future land a local detailed plan. planned. If the struc- use plans. tures rose above the water surface, a local detailed plan would be required.

19.2 Estimating the Project’s Feasibility Environmental feasibility The feasibility of the remediation project has been as- All the alternatives examined in the EIA are, in principle, sessed during the EIA on the grounds of the environmental environmentally feasible. All the alternatives, including A0, impacts that have unfolded, the opinions people have ex- also have impacts on the environment. pressed, current legislation and the technique to be used In all the remediation alternatives, the impacts of reme- in implementing the project. In addition, feasibility has diation in relation to the present situation (A0) are com- been estimated from an economical point of view. paratively small as a whole. During the process, dredging will impact, for example, water quality and fish fauna in the remediation area and its vicinity. In the long term, on the

125 other hand, remediation will help to slightly reduce the dis- proportion of this air emission depends on the incineration charge of dioxins, furans and mercury to the lower reach of technique and the quality of the material to be burned. the river and the sea area. The impacts on fish fauna and When considering only dioxins and furans, thermal treat- people’s health will also diminish in the long term, if the re- ment is the best option. However, for mercury the situation mediation is implemented. is different, because a part of the mercury that is currently The remediation alternatives examined in the EIA dif- bound to the sediments would turn into air pollution dur- fer also in their environmental impacts. The treatment and ing burning. On the other hand, the mercury load in the final storage of the sediments in the clay pit area (A1a) in- water after remediation would decrease from its current volves the greatest amount of suction dredging, which is level also in Alternative A2a. In alternative A2b, the contam- why the emissions of hazardous substances into the River inated sediments are deposited at an existing authorised Kymijoki caused by the remediation are greater in this landfill for hazardous waste. The nearest landfills for hazard- option than in the other alternatives under examination. ous waste are Ekokem-Palvelu Oy in Kouvola (distance 25 Along with the largest emissions of hazardous substances, km), L&T in Kotka (60 km) and Etelä-Karjalan Jätehuolto in the impacts on water quality, fish fauna and people’s health Joutseno (110 km). In Alternative A2b, the hazardous sub- are greater than in the other alternatives. In Alternative A1a, stances are not permanently destroyed even though they the nature values of the clay pit area set limits on the use are transported away from the River Kymijoki and its neigh- of the pits as sedimentation ponds or final storage sites. bouring area. If contaminated sediments are deposited in the clay pit In all the alternatives for final storage (A1a, A1b and area, this will necessitate the construction of base struc- A2b), the basis for examination is that no long-term harm- tures which meet the demands of structures required for ful effects are caused by the finally-stored spoil in its final a landfill for hazardous waste, and taking the final storage storage site and the site’s neighbouring area. Impacts over site into account in the area’s land use planning. a very long period depend on the durability of structures at Alternatives A1b, A2a and A2b involve pile planking that the final storage site and also environmental factors. Final is built into the River Kymijoki. In Alternative A1b, the spoil storage sites are built using the best available technolo- that is deposited inside the planking will be finally stored gy. The existing landfills for hazardous waste have been in the area in a stabilised form, whereas in Alternatives established in such a way that human settlement, surface A2a and A2b, the pile planking will function as a tempo- and groundwater conditions and other sensitive sites have rary structure, preventing dispersal through turbidity out- been taken into account in the choice of their location. As side the dredging area. The building of pile planking in- regards long-term risks, it can be estimated that depositing volves some uncertainties. It may have to be built in an area the spoil at an existing landfill involves less risks than its -fi where there are contaminated sediments, in which case its nal storage in a river or its final storage in the clay pit area in installation will cause a short-term load of hazardous sub- stabilised form. When considering temporary risks during stances. After it has been installed, the pile planking will be the process, the existing landfills for hazardous waste are watertight, and no load will be caused while the process ready-planned, built and monitored, which is why there are is ongoing. Remediation work will also have to be done in not as many risks involved in their operation as there are in the area outside the pile planking, and then it will not have starting a new operation. a protective effect. There is also a small risk in the function- One alternative examined in the EIA is maintaining the ality of the pile planking, for example, in the case of acci- present situation (A0). In this instance, maintaining the cur- dent. In Alternative A1b, contaminated sediments are sta- rent situation also causes some harmful effects. Due to the bilised in the water area, which will cause a small additional contaminated sediments, the dioxin, furan and mercury risk also in the long term. concentrations, for example, in fish are higher in the reme- In Alternatives A2a and A2b, the spoil is transported diation area than in the comparison areas. The concentra- away from the River Kymijoki and its vicinity, which can tions of hazardous substances in fish decrease slowly as the be seen to be the better and safer option, in terms of the quantity of hazardous substances contained by the sedi- neighbourhood’s environment, than their final storage in ments lessens through their discharge. Although the im- the river or the clay pit area. Alternative A2a involves treat- pacts of the contaminated sediments are visible, they do ing the sediments thermally, i.e. by burning. Burning de- not prevent the recreational use of the river area. In the stroys dioxins and furans permanently, whereas a part of current situation, they do not cause significant health haz- the mercury is released into the air during incineration. The ards either, if the recommendations on the consumption of

126 predatory fish are observed. Because the harm caused by would be no legislative problems. However, the alterna- the contaminated sediments is not significant in the pre- tive involves also the treatment of sediments that have sent situation, the perpetuation of the current state can been brought from outside the pile planking, in which also be considered a reasonable option, when considering case the activity can be interpreted as the transport and the need for remediation. treatment of hazardous waste. According to legislation, a landfill for hazardous waste cannot be established in water, Acceptability from the residents’ point of view which means that collecting sediments which have been During the EIA, an extensive resident survey was im- brought from outside the pile planking to be finally stored plemented in order to determine what the people living behind it is probably not possible. In Finland, contaminat- in the vicinity of the remediation area and also along the ed sediments and soil which remain in place are not clas- lower reach of the River Kymijoki think about the remedia- sified as waste. The contaminated sediments and soil that tion project. Based on the replies to the survey, residents are removed from their original site are classified as waste, consider the remediation project important and neces- which is why the stipulations of both the Waste Act and sary. The respondents were of the opinion that the best re- Environmental Protection Act apply to their placement. mediation alternative would be A2a, i.e. the thermal treat- The implementation of the remediation project requires ment of sediments. They thought that the final storage of permits conformable to the Water Act and Environmental the sediments in the river area (A1b) was by far the worst Protection Act. A permit that conforms to the regulations option. The other alternatives, including the present situa- of the Water Act is needed because of the large quantity tion, were estimated to be approximately equal. Residents’ of spoil and, in Alternative A1b, because of the final stor- opinions vary and some of the respondents considered A0 age site that would be built in the river. The temporary pile the best solution. planking in Alternatives A2a and A2b may also require a permit. If sediments are placed in the project area (A1a or Technical feasibility A1b), an environmental permit for depositing spoil will be All the alternatives presented in the EIA are technically needed. In Alternative A2b, final storage can be performed feasible. The bucket and suction dredging techniques to be within the reception site’s existing permit and no new per- used in the remediation process are commonly used tech- mits will be required. niques that have been found to work. The water treatment Because of their harmfulness, there has been a deci- involved in suction dredging contains some more uncer- sion in the EU to get rid of persistent organic pollutants tainties than the more simple bucket dredging. When effi- (POPs), and for this reason, they must be either destroyed ciently implemented, suction dredging causes the smallest or modified permanently into a more harmless form. The quantity of load during the dredging itself. legal foundation for this is the European Parliament and In flowing waters, bucket dredging causes emissions of Council’s Regulation 2004/850/EU on persistent organic particulate matter unless work takes place inside a protec- pollutants and the amending Directive 79/117/EEC on the tive structure, such as pile planking or a screen. In addi- restriction of hazardous substances. tion, sunken logs at the bottom of the river may disturb the Thermal treatment is the primary method of disposal functioning of the closing buckets, which can also result for waste that contains concentrations of POPs exceeding in particulate matter loads in the waterway. The greatest the levels set for hazardous waste. Dioxins and furans are challenges of suction dredging are in the treatment of wa- POPs, and consequently the best feasible alternative would ter and the pile planking structures involved in Alternatives in principle be A2a, i.e. thermal treatment, i.e. burning. In A1b, A2a and A2b. Winter also sets limits on dredging, as this case, however, burning would release mercury into the water treatment will probably not be possible then. atmosphere, and therefore the superiority of this alternative is not unequivocal. An exception can be made to the Legislative feasibility principle of destruction or modification if the waste holder Alternatives A1a, A2a and A2b are feasible according proves to the authorities that the substances cannot be re- to current legislation. There is some uncertainty about the moved from the waste and that the destruction or irreversi- feasibility of Alternative A1b. If only sediments that are in- ble modification of the substances, implemented using the side pile planking were stabilised in place in Alternative best environmental practices and the best available tech- A1b, the situation would be equivalent to remediation pro- nology, is not the best option for the environment and that jects performed, for example, in harbour areas and there an authority has authorised the use of an alternative method. In addition, according to the Regulation mentioned

127 above, the EU member state dealing with POPs is required to notify the other member states and the Commission on the authorisation and the grounds for granting the permit. More information about the procedure for derogation and its marginal terms can be found in Article 7, paragraph 4 of the POP Regulation.

Financial feasibility Before the EIA procedure, the costs of the different remediation alternatives were estimated in the Review of the Remediation Alternatives (Ramboll 2009) that was compiled for the section between Kuusaansaari and Keltti. The costs of Alternative A1a were estimated as MEUR 8.4 (VAT 0%), of Alternative A1b MEUR 6.2 (VAT 0%) and of Alternative A2b MEUR 13.4 (VAT 0%). The costs of thermal treatment were not estimated in this review, but this alternative is the most expensive to implement. The costs of the alternative involving thermal treatment fall in the category of MEUR 30…40 (VAT 0%). The remediation of the contaminated sediments in the River Kymijoki is an environmental investment, and its financing will be decided on at a later stage if the project proceeds after the EIA. If it is decided that the project will be implemented, its financing will probably come from several different sources. The Finnish state will in all probability have a significant role in the project’s implementation. If it is decided that the present situation will be maintained, the contaminated sediments will not cause direct financial effects. In a merely economic sense, A0 is the cheapest alternative. The Environmental Impact Assessment has been realised in such a way that financial issues have had no influence on the assessment results. When deciding whether to proceed with the remediation project or omit restoring the contaminated sediments, the environmental and health effects are considerably more important than financial circumstances.

128 20. PLANS AND PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT

20.3 The Permit and Environmental 20.1 Planning the Project and Research Permit Required by the Water Act

A Master Plan (Ramboll Finland 2007) and a Review of the The project’s dredging work and the depositing of sedi- Remediation Alternatives (Ramboll Finland 2009) have ments in the water requires a permit that is in accordance been compiled for the remediation project. The remedia- with the Water Act. An environmental permit is required tion will be planned in more detail after the EIA, if the pro- if contaminated substances are deposited in the river in ject proceeds. the project area or in the clay pit area. Both the permit re- This more precise plan will provide more details on the quired by the Water Act and the environmental permit will way the remediation work is delimited and on its techni- applied for at the Regional State Administrative Agency for cal implementation. More accurate planning is required, Southern Finland. for example, on the dredging methods to be used, as well as on the treatment methods of water and spoil. Also the 20.4 Zoning use of the areas and, for example, the exact location of the sedimentation ponds and possible final storage sites will If contaminated spoil is deposited in the project area, this be planned in more detail after the EIA. will probably require changes also in the zoning symbols. Before the licence stages, a further research phase is also The zoning procedure has been examined in more detail required during which the contamination of the sediments in Chapter 16. will be more accurately defined and a final decision will be made on which areas between Kuusaansaari and Keltti will be the focus of remediation. During this phase, the state of the environment of the remediation areas and their immediate surroundings will also be examined in more detail.

20.2 Environmental Impact Assessment

An Environmental Impact Assessment of the remediation project has been completed according to the EIA Act and Decree. The EIA has been necessary because the EIA Decree’s project list requires it. The project concerns the dredging, treatment and possible transport of contaminated sediments to be treated elsewhere or for final storage.

129 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

ELY Centre Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment Hg mercury PCDD/F polychlorinated dibenzo-p dioxins and furans periphyton the biota (belonging in the plant world) that is attached to the stones, the sur face of vascular plants or another kind of solid base that exists at the bottom of a body of water WHO-TEQ total concentration expressed as the WHO’s toxic equivalent for example, when examining the concentrations of dioxins and furans, it should be noted that this is a group formed by different compounds and that the compounds belonging in this group differ considerably from each other in their levels of toxicity. For this reason, toxic equivalency factors (TEF) are used in estimating the toxicity of the mixtures formed by dioxins and furans and these factors are used to calculate the toxic equivalency quantity (TEQ) of the mixture. The point of comparison is the most toxic compound of the group formed by dioxins and furans: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Toxic equivalency refers to the quantity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD that has the same toxic effect as the total quantity of dioxins and furans contained in the sample. There are several systems for toxic equivalency factors; for example, the international system, the Nordic system, the WHO’s system and the Eadon system. They differ from each other to some extent but not vitally.

130 SOURCES

Allen, H. E., Huang, C. P., Bailey, G. W. & Bowers, A. R. 1995. Kiirikki, M. & Lindfors, A. 2006. Arvio Korian työmalta Kymijo- Metal speciation and contamination of soil. CRC Press, USA. keen irronneen kiintoaineen määrästä 29.9.–20.10.2006. Branson, D.R., Takahashi, I.T., Parker, W.M. & Blau, G.E. 1985. Bio- Kiiski, A., Hämäläinen, H., Honkanen, J., Nyblom, J., Salo, S., concentration kinetics of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Verta, M. & Kukkonen, J. 2005 a. Ecological risk assessment of in rainbow trout. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 4: contaminated river sediments by the incidence on morpho- 779–788 logical deformities in chironomid (Chironomus spp.) larvae. (käsikirjoitus) Brunstrom, B., Lund, B.-O., Bergman, A., Asplund, L., Atha- nassiadis, I., Athanasiadou, M., Jensen, S. & Orberg, J. 2001. Kiiski, A., Hämäläinen, H., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O., Salo, S. & Reproductive toxicity in mink (Mustella vison) chronically ex- Verta, M. 2005 b, A paleolimnological analysis of changes in posed to environmentally relevant polychlorinated biphenyl incidence of midge (Chironomus spp.) larval deformities in concentrations. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 20:2318-2327. response to industrial pollution. (käsikirjoitus) EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Kiviranta, H., Hallikainen, A., Ovaskainen, M.-L., Kumpulainen, J. Volume I – Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. & Vartiainen, T. 2001. Dietary intakes of polychlorinated diben- EPA/540/1-89/002. zo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and polychlorinated biphenyls in Finland. Food Additives and Contaminants 18(11): 945 –953. Evira. 2009. Elintarvikkeiden ja talousveden kemialliset vaarat. Eviran julkaisuja 13/2009. Koistinen, J., Herve, S., Ruokojärvi, P., Koponen, J., Vartiainen, T. 2010. Persistent organic pollutants in two Finnish watercour- Ekokem Group’s Environmental Responsibility Report 2009. ses: levels, congener profiles and source estimation by mussel Finravinto-tutkimuksen työryhmä. 1998. Finravinto 1997 -tut- incubation. Chemosphere. 80:625-633. kimus. The 1997 Dietary Survey of Finnish Adults. Kansanter- Kotkansiipi Oy. 2010. Selvitys Kouvolan Keltin savenottoaltai- veyslaitoksen julkaisuja B8/1998. den luontoarvoista. Hallikainen, A., Parmanne, R., Vuorinen, P. J., Kiviranta, H., Regional Council of Kymenlaakso. 2009. Kymenlaakson virkis- Isosaari, P. & Vartiainen, T. 2003. Kotimaisen järvi- ja merikalan tysalueiden toteuttamisselvitys. B:122 dioksiinien, furaanien, dioksiinien kaltaisten PCB-yhdisteiden ja polybromattujen difenyylieetteriden pitoisuudet. EU-kalat. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry. 2003. Kymijoen alaosan tila Loppuraportti 31.10.2003. Evira, RKTL ja KTL. vuosina 1985–2002. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisu no 110/2003. Hamari, R. 1973. Kymijoen virtapaikkojen kasvillisuus. – Ky- menlaakson Luonto 14:13–18. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry. 2009. Kymijoen alaosan poh- jaeläintarkkailu vuonna 2008: Surviaissääskien kotelonahka- Anttila-Huhtinen, M., Mattila, J., Raunio, J. 2009. Kymijoen Per- menetelmän tulokset. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisu noonkoskien koskikunnostussuunnitelman Natura-vaikutus- no 178/2009. ten arviointi: biologiset tutkimukset syksyllä 2009. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n tutkimusraportti no 116/2009 Kymijoen vesi- ja ympäristö ry. 2010. Kymijoen alaosan vedenlaadun yhteistarkkailu vuonna 2009. Kymijoen vesi ja Häkkinen, H. 2007. Vaelluspoikasruuvin sijoittaminen Kymijo- ympäristö ry:n julkaisu no 200/2010. keen. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisu no 162/2007 Kymijoen vesi- ja ympäristö ry. 2011. Kymijoen alaosan ja Isosaari, P., Kankaanpää, H., Mattila, J., Kiviranta, H., Verta, M., merialueen Pyhtää–Kotka–Hamina tila vuosina 2000–2009. Salo, S. & Vartiainen, T. 2002. Spatial distribution and temporal Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisu no 208/2011. accumulation of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls in the Gulf of Finland. Environ. Sci. Laine, A. 2006. Kymijoen vaelluskalojen nousureittien avaami- Technol. 2002, 36, 2560 – 2565. sen kustannusten ja hyötyjen arviointi. Pro gradu tutkielma. Ympäristöekonomia. Taloustieteen laitos. Helsingin yliopisto. Jaakkonen S. 2008. Kaivettujen pilaantuneiden maa-ainesten käsittely Suomessa. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja Maderner, W., Schachermayer, E., Bauer, G. ja Brunner, P. H. 36/2008. ISBN 978-952-11-3334-3 (PDF) 1995: Messung der Güter- und Stoffbilanz Einer Müllver- brennungsanlage. Monographien Bd. 56. Wien, März 1995. Kannan, K., Kajiwara, N., Watanabe, M., Nakata, H., Thomas, Bundesministerium für Umwelt. N., Stephenson, M., Jessup, D. & Tanabe, S. 2004. Profiles of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners, Organochlorine Pes- Malve, O., Salo, S. & Verta, M. 2003: Modeling the Transport of ticides, and Butyltins in Southern Sea Otters and Their Prey. PCDD/F Compounds in a Contaminated River and the Pos- EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry 23: 49–56. sible Influence of Restoration Dredging on Calculated Fluxes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 3413-3421. Southeast Finland Regional Environment Centre. Kaakkois- Suomi, Ympäristön tila 2008. Muir, D.C.G., Yarechewski, A.L. , Knoll, A. & Webster, G.R.B. 1986. Bioconcentration and disposition of 1,3,6,8-tetrachlo- KAT, Kemijoki Aquatic Technology Oy. 2005. Pohjan topo- rodibenzo-p-dioxin and octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin by rain- grafian ja sedimentin laadun määritys luotaamalla Kymijoen bow trout and fathead minnows. Environmental Toxicology yläosalla, välillä Kuusankosken voimalaitos Keltin voimalaitos. and Chemistry 5: 261-272. Tutkimusraportti. 4.7.2005. 11s. + 1 liite

131 Mustaniemi, A.,Hallikainen,A. & Witick, A.1994. Elohopean Takahashi, F., Kida, A. and Shimaoka, T. 2010: Statistical saanti kalasta ja muusta ravinnosta. Helsinki. Elintarvikeviras- estimate of mercury removal efficiencies for air pollution ton tutkimuksia 13/1994. control devices of municipal solid waste incinerators. Sci Total Environ. 2010. Oct 15; 408(22): 5472-7. Nironen M. & Vauhkonen M. 2007. Kotkan Kymijoen hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma. ENVIRO. Luonnos 3.12.2007. Trudel, M. & Rasmussen, J. 1997. Modeling the elimination of mercury by fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: 1716-1722. Ramboll Finland Oy, 2007. Kymijoen kunnostuksen yleissuun- nitelma . Ulvinen, T., Syrjänen, K. & Anttila, S. 2002. Suomen sammalet – levinneisyys, ekologia, uhanalaisuus. – Suomen ympäristö Parkko, P. 2010. Kouvolan Keltin kevytsoratehtaiden savial- 560:1–354. taiden luontoselvitys. Luontoselvitys Kotkansiipi, luonnos 16.8.2010. Van Veizen, D., Langenkamp, H. ja Herb, G. 2002: Review: mercury in waste incineration. Waste Manag Res. 2002 Pautamo, J. & Vanninen, V. (toim). 2009. Vaelluskalat Kymijoen Dec;20(6):556-68. voimavaraksi. Kymijoen kalataloudellinen kehittämissuunni- telma. Verta, M., Ahtiainen, J, Hämäläinen, H., Jussila, O., Järvinen, H., Kiviranta, H., Korhonen, M., Kukkonen, J., Lehtoranta, J., RAIS 2009. Risk Assessment Information System. Chemical- Lyytikäinen, M., Malve, O., Mikkelson, P., Moisio, V., Niemi, A., Specific Factors. http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/index.shtml. Paasivirta, J., Palm., H., Rantalainen, A.-L., Salo, S., Vartiainen, Ramboll Finland Oy. 2009. Kymijoen pilaantuneet sedimentit, T. & Vuori, K.-M 1999. Organoklooriyhdisteet ja raskasmetallit Kunnostusvaihtoehdot Kuusansaari–Keltti. Kymijoen sedimentissä; esiintyminen, kulkeutuminen, vaikutukset ja terveysriskit. KYPRO-projektin loppuraportti. Suomen Raunio, J. 2009. Kymijoen alaosan pohjaeläintarkkailu vuonna ympäristö No. 334. 2008: Surviaissääskien kotelonahkamenetelmän tulokset. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisu no 178/2009. Verta, M., Salo, S., Malve, O., & Kiviranta, H. 2003. Continued Transport of PCDD/F Contaminated Sediments from River Raunio, J. & Mäntynen J. 2009. Kymijoen ja sen edustan Kymijoki to the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Organohalogen merialueen kalataloudellinen yhteistarkkailu vuonna 2008. Compounds 60–65. Dioxin 2003 Boston, MA. Kymijoen vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisu no 188/2009. Verta M., Salo S., Korhonen M., Assmuth T., Kiviranta H., Raunio, J. & Mäntynen J. 2010. Kymijoen ja sen edustan me- Koistinen J., Ruokojärvi P., Isosaari P., Bergqvist P.-A., Tysklind rialueen kalataloudellinen tarkkailu vuonna 2009. Kymijoen M., Cato I., Vikelsoe J. & Larsen M. 2007. Dioxin concentrations vesi ja ympäristö ry:n julkaisu no 202/2010. in sediments of the Baltic Sea – A survey of existing data. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute. 2010. Ammat- Chemosphere 67, 1762-1775. tikalastus merellä 2009. Tilastoja 4/2010. Vesanto P. 2006. Jätteenpolton parhaan käytettävissä olevan Rinne, J., Tapaninen, M., Vähänäkki, P. 2007. Kymijoen alaosan tekniikan (BAT) vertailuasiakirjan käyttö suomalaisessa koski- ja virtapaikkojen pohjanlaadut sekä lohen ja meritai- toimintaympäristössä. Suomen Ympäristö 27/2006. ISBN 952- menen lisääntymisalueet. Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö 11-2309-5 83/2007. Internet sources: Rossi, E. 2005. Riskinarvio Kymijoen pilaantuneen sedimentin The homepages of the Centre for Economic Development, terveys- ja ympäristövaikutuksista. Transport and the Environment: www.ely-keskus.fi Salo, S., Verta, M., Malve, O., Korhonen, M., Isosaari, P., Kiviranta, Evira 2005 (web page)/(the page contains an excel chart from H. ja Ruokojärvi, P. 2005. Kymijoen sedimentteihin varastoitu- 2005): neet PCDD/Fja elohopeayhdisteet sekä niiden kulkeutuminen. Suomen ympäristökeskus. http://www.evira.fi/portal/fi/evira/asiakokonaisuudet/ vierasaineet/tutkimukset_ja_projektit/dioksiinin_saanti/. Suominen ym. 1999. Kymijoen saastuneiden sedimenttien Updated on 12 Nov. 2010. vaikutukset joen käytölle ja tarpeellisten ympäristönsuoje- lutoimenpiteiden arviointi ja suunnittelu. Loppuraportti. http://www.evira.fi/portal/fi/evira/asiakokonaisuudet/vie- Alueelliset ympäristöjulkaisut 120. Kaakkois-Suomen ympä- rasaineet/tietoa_vierasaineista/kalan_syontisuositukset/. ristökeskus. Updated on 10 Dec. 2010. Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. 2009a. Elohopean ja VTT. 2002. Waste to REF Energy. http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual./ metyylielohopean kulkeutuminen Kymijoessa. waste http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=11617&lan=fi Finland’s Environmental Administration’s web page ‘Air pol- lutant emissions in Finland’: http://www.ymparisto.fi/default. Päivitys 18.12.2009 asp?contentid=82002&lan=f Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. 2009b. Kymijoen saastuneiden sedimenttien ja niiden sisältämien elohopean ja dioksiinien määrät. http://www.ymparisto.fi/default. asp?node=11537&lan=fi Päivitys18.12.2009

132 CONTACT INFORMATION

The party responsible for the project: Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for Southeast Finland Postal address: Salpausselänkatu 22 Contact Person: Visa Niittyniemi, tel. +358 40 518 8985

Contact authorities: Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for Uusimaa Postal address: Asemapäällikönkatu 14 Contact Person: Päivi Blinnikka, tel. +358 40 717 3159

EIA consultant: Ramboll Finland Oy Postal address: Terveystie 2, 15870 Hollola Contact persons: Kare Päätalo, tel. +358 40 519 1567 [email protected]

133 Developer Kaakkois-Suomen ELY-keskus

Consultant of EIA Ramboll Finland Oy