Environmental Impact Assessment on new reactor in Finland

Due to Rosatom taking over e.on's shares in Fennovoima, and thus owning the biggest share of this "Finnish" company, politicians and authorities in Finland required the company to do a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed new reactor in Pyhäjoki. The significant changes in the ownership of Fennovoima as well as the massively changed size of the reactor and the different model to be used make it necessary to submit a completely new application, says the responsible Ministry of Employment and Economy, while the Ministries of Environment and of Foreign Affairs agree with this stance.

Currently, Fennovoima holds a decision-in-principle of the Finnish government and parliament politically supporting the new NPP in Pyhäjoki issued in July 2010. This statement required by Finnish law will remain valid only if the construction of the nuclear power station will be started by July 2015. Otherwise, Fennovoima would have to apply for a new decision-in-principle, too. However, there is a debate in the Finnish public whether Fennovoima anyway needs to apply for a new decision-in-principle due to the massive changes in their concept. A strategy to overthrow this reactor construction attempt is to insist on the qualitative examination of the current concept and plans. Objections, comments and criticism on the EIA can help to reach this approach, if public pressure leads to serious consideration of Fennovoima's application. It is questionable if Fennovoima would try to get a second decision-in-principle, due to their weak economical situation. Thus, sending your statements on Fennovoima's latest EIA will be valuable to prevent another dangerous atomic plant to be built.

key facts:
 * the national EIA procedure for Finnish citizens was open for complaints from February 24th - April 24th, 2014
 * the international deadline for statements in the EIA procedure was May 8th, 2014
 * some countries have other dates, deadline for objections from Germany is May 20th, 2014

Critical aspects of the proposed NPP in Pyhäjoki
A key argument is the Rosatom technology, that poses new additional dangers.

The FlexRISK tool for the assessment of radiation risks to neighbour countries posed by nuclear power plants in Europe provides a brief overview on the Fennovoima NPP and provides a simulator to visualize possible radiation impacts in case of a major accident.




 * objections by Umweltinstitut München (May 20, 2014)

Critical aspects provided by Brigitte Artmann, Germany:
 * 1. The public concerned was not identified at all by the relevant authority.
 * 2. The public concerned did not participate at the EIA scoping process.
 * 3. The public concerned failed completely to participate in the first part of the EIA procedure.
 * 4. What will happen further in this EIA procedure with the public participation? If the German public will participate in the second part of the EIA (report) and will be able to send 100.000 submissions to Finland - after identifying itself as the public concerned (see 2.2.1.A.1 to 7) - the authorities and the European Commission will say: the public participated, that is enough, everything is OK. But this is not true! This is an awful fake and a betraying of the public. It is lobbying the nuclear energy against the interests of the public concerned.
 * 5. The public concerned does not know whether it is possible in Finland to complain an EIA in court as an EIA procedure alone. Or whether this is only possible after the building permission is given. Aarhus 9, access to justice, means access to justice in all parts of the procedure.

EIA Procedure Fennovoima Pyhäjoki - 2.2.1 to 2.6.1.
 * 2.1 Need and objectives of the EIA procedure
 * 2.2.1 EIA program
 * A. "The EIA program was on display for statements and opinions from September 30 to November 13, 2013." -
 * 1. 45 days period - 6 weeks and 3 days means a very short period for the public concerned to participate in the whole of Europe, Swiss and downstream countries. This violated Aarhus 6.3 "reasonable timeframes".
 * 2. The public concerned from Germany found the "notification letter" by luck on a website of a ministry in Sweden and identified itself as public concerned! This can be backed up by the e-mail communication of "the public concerned" with the German Parliament and the following communication of the parliament with the German government and the federal governments.
 * 3. Germany (the states of Schleswig-Holstein and Niedersachsen) and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Germany) became only active and wished to participate under the pressure of the "public concerned" who identified itself - at the end of the period or after the period. Therefore there was no public participation at all.
 * 4. The German Government did not identify the public concerned in time.
 * 5. The Finnish Government did not make sure, that the public concerned was able to participate, and therefore the public concerned was not informed at all. Five foreign persons in an official participation are not much and back this statement up. The few Germans who sent submissions identified themselves as "public concerned" (see point 1). 80.5 million German inhabitants were left outside, because not identified and not informed. In SEA nuclear program Poland 60,000 Germans participated. In EIA Temelin unit 3,4 participated almost the same number.
 * 6. The same as above mentioned is relevant for all other European member states of the Aarhus and Espoo Convention.
 * 7. And for this reasons Finland and Germany violated Aarhus art. 3.1, 3.3 and art. 6 by ignoring the explicit wish of the German public to participate and to facilitate such participation, where the public identified itself as possibly affected. Aarhus 1 (...each party shall guarantee the right to...).


 * B. "Citizens and stakeholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinions and issue statements on the EIA report during the display period determined by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy." –
 * 1. The public concerned is not informed at all.
 * 2. A six week period in March, April 2014 is too short, see Aarhus 6.3 "reasonable timeframes".
 * 3. And there is Aarhus Case Law "not during holidays". In Bavaria there are Easter-holidays from 14-04 to 26-04-2014. Other federal states do have sooner and longer holidays.


 * 2.3 International hearing
 * "The states participating in the EIA procedure have placed the EIA program and report in public display for statements and opinions. The EIA report will also be similarly displayed. Public hearing events may be arranged during the period of display." –
 * 1. The public concerned is not informed at all.
 * 2. How does the public concerned - the natural persons – do know where to search at all?
 * 3. The relevant authorities missed to identify "the public concerned” in “the possible country affected".
 * 4. There are no design based accident and beyond design based accident source term cards, like the flexRISK cards from Boku Vienna. The "public concerned" was not identified at all.
 * 5. The Finnish Government did not identify the public concerned and for that reason is violating Aarhus art. 3.1, 3.3 and art. 6.  Aarhus 1 (...each party shall guarantee the right to...)


 * 2.4 Schedule of the EIA procedure and the international hearing
 * "The international hearing of the EIA program, in compliance with the Espoo Convention, started at the same time as the national hearing of the EIA program in Finland (September 2013), and took 60 days" –
 * 1. The up above under EIA Program 2.2.1 mentioned "from September 30 to November 13, 2013" are no 60 days at all, but only 45 days, inclusive the weekends.
 * 2. The "public concerned" in Germany was at this time not involved at all (see 2.2.1, A).
 * 3. The few Germans who sent submissions identified themselves as "public concerned". 80.5 million German inhabitants were left outside, because not identified and not informed. In SEA nuclear program Poland 60000 Germans participated. In EIA Temelin unit 3,4 participated almost the same number (see 2.2.1, A. 5 and 7)


 * 2.6 Communications and participation
 * "The EIA procedure is an open process in which all residents and other stakeholders can participate. One of the key goals with this interaction is to gather the views of different interested parties and utilize them during the EIA procedure." -
 * 1. "Can" is not the right word. "Have the right to" is correct. Aarhus 1 (...each party shall guarantee the right to...).
 * 2. Therefore the public has the right of participation and access to information.
 * 3. But the public was not actively informed at all. It was posted – only and alone - on a website. In Germany the public searches Easter Eggs on Easter Sunday. May be in other member states of the Aarhus and Espoo Conventions the public does the same. But does the public concerned play the same game with EIA procedures? Does the public concerned have to do this?
 * 4. What about inclusion? What about enabled persons? In the Fukushima accident they were the public concerned. 1600 of them died (ACRO France). How do the relevant authorities identify enabled persons and make sure they will be able to participate? What about blind persons? What about the Convention of Human Rights? Not relevant in an EIA procedure?
 * 5. In the Temelin Legal Expertise of the Greens in Bavarian Parliament it is explained how the public has to be informed, starting on page 12. German is working language in EIA Pyhäjoki. Therefore the public concerned asks the relevant authorities to read it.
 * 6. There are even worse problems in the EIA Pyhäjoki then in the EIA Temelin.
 * Temelin Legal Expertise of the Greens in Bavarian Parliament :
 * Conclusions (Excerpts) of the Legal Expertise:
 * 1. The Czech authority has missed in the scoping procedure to identify the public concerned.
 * 2. On the website of German BMU with date of 12-06-2012 there was no information about the EIA Temelin to be found. Therefore: The German public did know anything about the EIA Temelin. The BMU website did also not contain information about the websites of Bavaria and Saxony either.
 * 3. The entire German public should have been informed about the EIA Temelin. But information was restricted. It is not understandable why only the border districts in Bavaria were informed. For example the districts of Deggendorf or Rottal-Inn are quite as far away from the planned units 3 and 4 of NPP Temelin as the district of Wunsiedel. The decision to only include the border districts is logical and objectively not comprehensible.
 * 4. Much more dramatically than in Bavaria is the case of the Federal State of Saxony's violation of the rights to public information. In Saxony each second person over 50 years is not using internet, but in Saxony the paper version of the EIA documentation was only in one place accessible to public.


 * 2.6.1 Information and discussion events
 * A. "The Ministry of Employment and the Economy arranged a public hearing event in Pyhäjoki on October 17, 2013.The project and the environmental impact assessment program were presented at the event. The participants were able to provide their views on the project and pose questions regarding the project and the EIA procedure. Approximately 40 people attended the event." -
 * 1. 40 persons on a hearing are not really much. For example in Germany there are 80.5 million of possible affected persons. The German public concerned wanted to participate, but could not, because not knowing anything (see 2.2.1).
 * 2. And even if the German public concerned would have known anything, it would have been much too expensive for the public to travel to Finland.
 * 3. The Lufthansa flight from Munich- Helsinki - for example on 18. February 2014 - is between 834.- and 897.- Euro.
 * 4. A journey, with 1800.- euros travel costs and let`s say 100 euro for each night accommodation, two nights stay, in total 2000 euros (only if it is cheap) is under no circumstance reasonable and violates the Aarhus 3(9), Espoo 2(6), EIA Directive 85/337/EC, art. 7 (5).
 * 5. Hearings, also with respect of inclusion, in the other European countries are necessary because of:
 * Text Jan Haverkamp Greenpeace
 * Over European law also stand international treaties - and especially where the EU is party to those treaties, it is the European Commission that has to guard over their implementation. Nevertheless, also European law prescribes that Germans have the right on equivalent access to the public participation procedures in transboundary EIA procedures.
 * Here's the law:
 * Aarhus 3(9): Within the scope of the relevant provisions of this Convention, the public shall have access to information, have the possibility to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile and, in the case of a legal person, without discrimination as to where it has its registered seat or an effective centre of its activities.
 * Espoo 2(6): The Party of origin shall provide, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, an opportunity to the public in the areas likely to be affected to participate in relevant environmental impact assessment procedures regarding proposed activities and shall ensure that the opportunity provided to the public of the affected Party is equivalent to that provided to the public of the Party of origin.
 * EIA Directive 85/337/EC, art. 7(5). The detailed arrangements for implementing this Article may be determined by the Member States concerned and shall be such as to enable the public concerned in the territory of the affected Member State to participate effectively in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) for the project.
 * See also complaint before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee ACCC/C/2012/71


 * B. "A second public hearing event will be arranged in March 2014. Results of the environmental impact assessment will be presented at this event. The participants will be able to provide their views on the environmental impact assessment and its sufficiency." -
 * 1. See Temelin Legal Expertise of the Greens in Bavarian Parliament: and
 * Conclusions (Excerpts) of Legal Expertise:
 * A hearing in Germany would have been necessary on the basis of Espoo 2.6. Nobody of the public concerned was able to reach and to follow the whole formal hearing in Ceske Budejovice on one day. Therefore one has to suppose the venue was chosen to keep as many as possible persons of the concerned public away. The opinion of the MZP cannot be followed.
 * 2. The same can be supposed in EIA Pyhäjoki by only doing a hearing in Finland. The public concerned will not be able to participate because of the above mentioned reasons of travelling costs.
 * 3. International and European Law is clearly violated - the Aarhus 3(9), Espoo 2(6), EIA Directive 85/337/EC, art. 7 (5) - and the German public concerned is clearly discriminated because the Finnish public gets two hearings, both easier and cheaper to reach for the Finnish public than for the German.
 * 4. Also mentioned is: inclusion.


 * C. "Information and discussing events" -
 * 1. What is this? – A legal relevant HEARING? One, the public concerned can complain in court? Or just an informal event to sell the NPP?


 * D. "More specific information about the event will be published in the local newspapers and on the coordinating authority’s website." -
 * 1. Good joke! Does the "possible public concerned" in "possible affected countries" have to order the local newspaper of (which?) towns in Finland?
 * 2. Does the "possible public concerned" in "possible affected countries" have to learn Finnish? Does the "possible public concerned" in "possible affected countries" have to watch the "coordinating Finnish authority's website"?
 * Aarhus 1 (...each party shall guarantee the right to...)
 * Aarhus 3.1 (... shall take the necessary legislative, regulatory and other measures, including measures to achieve compatibility between the provision... in this Convention...)
 * Aarhus 3.2 (... officials and authorities assist and provide guidance to the public in ... facilitating participation in decision making...)


 * 2.7 Coordinating authority’s statement on the EIA program
 * A. "The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Germany), Germany (the states of Schleswig-Holstein and Niedersachsen), participated..." -
 * 1. "They participated after the pressure of the public" is the correct version. All documented by e-mail communication.
 * 2. The public was not identified and informed at all by the authorities as demanded under Aarhus to participate at the EIA scoping (see 2.2.1)


 * B. "Lithuania has opted not to participate in the EIA procedure, but it wants to receive the project's EIA report and the construction licence (when one is granted)" -
 * 1. Then the Lithuanian public concerned should complain about this against their government before ACCC.
 * 2. The German public concerned can submit the Lithuanian public concerned their whole complaint "Hinkley Point C- Artmann against Germany" in an open version to make it easier for the Lithuanian public to demand their rights.
 * 3. The example Hinkley Point C: German Environment Ministry (BMU) refused to let the German public participate on EIA Hinkley Point. The concerned German public was not identified by the relevant German authority. Here is the complaint: and
 * "But the German Government did not identify the public concerned and for that reason is violating Aarhus art. 3.1, 3.3 and art. 6 by refusing the explicit wish of the German public to participate and to facilitate such participation, where the public identified itself as possibly affected."
 * Aarhus 1 (...each party shall guarantee the right to...)
 * Aarhus 3.1 (... shall take the necessary legislative, regulatory and other measures, including measures to achieve compatibility between the provision... in this Convention...)
 * Aarhus 3.2 (... officials and authorities assist and provide guidance to the public in ... facilitating participation in decision making...)
 * Aarhus 3.9 (Within the scope of the relevant provisions of this Convention, the public shall have access to information, have the possibility to participate in decision making and have access to justice in environmental matters without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile and, in the case of a legal person, without discrimination as to where it has its registered seat or an effective centre of its activities.)
 * Aarhus 4.7 (... a refusal shall be in writing...)
 * Aarhus 6.1 - The construction of nuclear power stations is explicitly mentioned in Annex I
 * Aarhus 6.2 – After information from the concerned public in Germany about its wish to participate in the public consultation concerning the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in the United Kingdom, the relevant authorities (e.g. BMU) should have requested from the British authorities the relevant information and have made it available to the German concerned public the relevant information and have made it available to the German concerned public (also in conjunction with art. 3.2)
 * Aarhus 6.4 (... when all options are open...)
 * Aarhus 6.5 – Germany as a party should have encouraged the prospective applicant (e.g. NNB and the British government) to identify the public concerned, including the public that may be affected in case of a beyond design accident of the nuclear power plant. However, the German government (e.g. BMU) accepted the argumentation from the government of the United Kingdom that beyond design accidents were not part of the criteria for public participation and refused with that the only formally possibility to its citizens to participate in the procedures, i.e. in a transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment as prescribed under the Espoo Convention. The public concerned in Germany has no other possibility to participate. The German authorities should have encouraged the authorities of the United Kingdom as well as NNB to include German citizens in the procedure over a transboundary EIA.
 * Aarhus 6.6 – By its refusal to call on the Espoo Convention and instigate a transboundary EIA, the German authorities refused the public concerned de facto access to all information relevant to the decision-making.
 * Aarhus 6.7 –By its refusal to call on the Espoo Convention and instigate a transboundary EIA, the German authorities blocked the possibilities for the public concerned to submit its comments, information, analyses or opinions.

What you can do
Best impact in the Environmental Impact Assessment have individual letters. Thus we will provide no prepared text for copy/pasting, but some relevant arguments that can be used in objections, comments and statements on the EIA.

Citizens from Germany and other affected countries should send their statements to:
 * Ministry of the Environment
 * PO Box 35
 * FIN-00023 Government
 * Finland

The deadline for complaints of German citizens is May 20th, 2014. The Lower Saxony Ministry of Environment provides some information in German on the procedure.

History of Fennovoima's second EIA procedure
On February 13th, 2014 the Finnish Ministry of Employment and Economy announced the Fennovoima environmental report is finished and ready to be published for public evaluation and comments. This 264 page report was prepared by Pöyry company, which has been previously criticized for breaking the European rules of corporate social responsibility. The Ministry is the body responsible one for the EIA process, international EIA (according to the Espoo Convention) is handled through the Ministry of Environment.

So far, there seems to be several additions to the EIA programme, suggested by Swedish organizations. The most important seems to be adding the INES-7 scenario to the EIA. Another one is the effect of pack ice which is said to be included, but it's actually a description of the pack ice itself, no analysis on the reactor behaviour if pack ice prevents cooling etc.

The Lower Saxony Ministry of Environment got the documentation on February 27th, 2014 and published it on March 7th, 2014. The submission period is open until May 20th, 2014. Actually, the public should have been officially informed since 7 March. The whole German public information procedure is violating the Aarhus convention.

Background information
The nuclear company Fennovoima (formerly with the German nuclear company e.on as the biggest shareholder) wants to build a new nuclear power plant (NPP) in Finland. On October 5, 2011 Fennovoima announced their site selection for this location. Fennovoima calls the proposed NPP "Hanhikivi 1 Nuclear Power Project".

Pyhäjoki has been founded a governing county in 1573 by Johan III, the king of Sweden. As a municipality, Pyhäjoki started its operations in 1865. The current borders were set in 1895 when Merijärvi congregation became independent from Pyhäjoki. These days about 3,400 residents are living in this area located in North Ostrobothnia. Active villages are Parhalahti, Yppäri, Pirttikoski, and Liminkakylä. Pyhäjoki is part of Raahe region with approximately 35,000 residents. The total area is 549 km² - including 542 km² land and 7 km² water. It holds 88 km of coastline on the Bothnian Bay and hosts around 150 companies and 130 farms.

In July 2010 the Finnish parliament granted Fennovoima a decision-in-principle for its plans to build a new nuclear power plant, but the company has not been able to apply for a construction license from the Finnish government yet. An attempt to construct a new reactor in Pyhäjoki, on the Hanhikivi peninsula, a mainly untouched area with many endangered natural habitat types, is one of the most arrogant ones in the whole of Europe. Hanhikivi is an important nesting area for almost twenty endangered bird species, especially significant resting area for migrating arctic birds. If the nuclear power project is realized, the area will dramatically change to an industrial area.

The proposed plant site is located in Hanhikivenniemi (Hanhikivi Peninsula) about seven kilometers north from the center of Pyhäjoki. In Summer 2007 the nuclear power company Fennovoima had almost 40 alternative site options. In 2008 the Municipal Council of Pyhäjoki voted 15:6 for the EIA process. One year later, in December 2009, Fennovoima only considered two alternative sites for their NPP, Pyhäjoki and Simo, both with a strongly supporting local government. In 2010 the new regional land use plan for nuclear power was ratified by the Ministry of the Environment, and the municipal council of Pyhäjoki voted again 15:6 for the detailed and partial master land use plans. Also on the decision-in-principle of the Finnish government the municipal council of Pyhäjoki voted 16:5 for the project. Eventually, in October 2011 Fennovoima selected Pyhäjoki to be the NPP site. In June 2013 appeals against the new master and detailed land use plans in Pyhäjoki were rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court.

Hanhikivi is a cape which is located in the municipality of Pyhäjoki, at North Ostrobothnia, on the coast of Bothnian Bay. Minor piece of the capes end belongs to the town of Raahe. The cape is about 5 kilometers long. Hanhikivi means “Goose rock” in English. The name of the area comes from a relic: an erratic block which is located at the capes end.

Hanhikivi area is a significant conservation entity of land uplift coasts. There are none exactly as large unitary forest areas of this kind of coast at North Ostrobothnia. Hanhikivi area includes coast biodiversity, quite representative herb-rich forests of land uplift area, small flood meadows and hardwood-spruce swamps. In addition, the area includes other statutory preserved objects such as sea-shore meadows and gloe lakes. The area of Hanhikivi has been noted in North Ostrobothnia county planning as a nature multipurpose area. There are, also, nationally significant relics and scenically valuable rocky area. Hanhikivi area is partially limited to Parhalahti-Syölätinlahti-Heinikarinlampi-Natura area.

About 63 % of Hanhikivi area has been preserved. About 170 hectares were preserved in Merestä metsäksi project (forest programme) during 2005–2006 by natural values trading, subsidy for preserving ecological values and by buying land to state. There are, also, about 110 hectares preserved in other ways.

Hanhikivi is a very valuable bird migration area. Hietakarinlahti-Takaranta area has been qualified as a nationally important bird area, FINIBA area (Finnish Important Bird Areas). FINIBA areas are remarkable areas for nature conservation. They are nesting and gathering places for threatened species and species for international special responsibility.

Parhalahti-Syölätinlahti and Heinikarinlampi are Natura 2000 areas (code FI110420). It is defined as an nationally valuable bird water area. Also, the sea-shore meadows of Maunus are qualified as a regionally valuable traditional landscape and as the last clear-preserved sea-shore meadows. The surface area is about 275 hectares.

Hanhikivi is also the name of a fixed relic, the delimeter from historical age. It has been qualified as a nationally valuable object and protected by the Antiquities Act (295/63). The Treaty of Nöteborg (Pähkinäsaaren rauha), also known as Treaty of Oreshek, is the peace treaty that set the first east border concerning Finland. The treaty was the first settlement between Sweden and Novgorod Republic regulating their border. The border began at Rajajoki, went to northwest across the Karelian Isthmus and ended to coast of Bothnian Bay. Hanhikivi is found as the delimiter of the Treaty of Nöteborg.

Fennovoima still does not own all the land and water areas they would need for the construction, the land use plans for the nuclear power plant are not legally valid, and the company has not been able to show any solution for the disposal of its nuclear waste, which is prerequisite for granting the construction license. In autumn 2012 the master plan and the more detailed land use plan of the Hanhikivi area were in the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, because of complaints made by the local NGO Pro Hanhikivi.

During the past years the company has faced a number of setbacks. Several of the Finnish shareholders have withdrawn from the project, the company has fired the chairman of the board as well as their CEO, and there is a lot of speculation in Finland about the possible collapse of the whole project. The latest turn at the end of October 2012 was, that the biggest shareholder in Fennovoima, the German energy giant e.on announced they will give up on the project and the interest in Fennovoima. As of February 15, 2013 e.on handed over their Fennovoima shares to Voimaosakeyhtiö, the consortium of Finnish companies now owning 100% of Fennovoima. ) Still, Fennovoima tries to move ahead with its plans at full speed. The company has started an official process through the Ministry of Employment and the Economy in order to expropriate the land areas they are still lacking. This means that the company is trying to take more than 100 hectares of land by force from private persons in Pyhäjoki. In the meantime the local government prepares the infrastructure for the huge construction site - forests have been clearcut, roads built and a big empty site is now waiting to host future construction work companies . The art project CASE PYHÄJOKI in late summer 2013 criticized Fennovoima's image washing attempts in the region.

The Russian atomic power giant Rosatom expressed preliminary interest in supplying a AES-2006 (VVER-1200) reactor for Fennovoima as well as buying a stake in the company in February 2013. On July 3, 2013 Fennovoima announced their intention to join the deal with Rosatom. Already in spring 2013, the boss of the Finnish nuclear safety authority, Jukka Laaksonen, had switched to Rosatom - a couple of months later it was announced that Rosatom would like to take over the Pyhäjoki NPP project.