Miljø- og Planlægningsudvalget 2009-10
MPU Alm.del Spørgsmål 131
Offentligt
Large-scale installations in vulnerable and sensitive sea areas surrounded bymany different countriesGeneric questions:whether it is justified to use the criteria and thresholds worked out for open oceanand/or less sensitive areas (that can tolerate much larger pressure);whether it is justified to split an extremely complex system of interacting factors intoseparate analysis of its counterparts;whether it is acceptable to divide the analysis of impacts affecting many countriessimultaneously into a series of bilateral consultations.Key problems in the Baltic Sea basin (for any large-scale installation on seabed)(1) Incomplete (partially classified until today) information on dumped conventional andtoxic munitions, war toxins, and mercury.Probably the largest individual risk component in terms ofconsequences(although apparently small in terms of the probability of occurrence) for the Baltic Sea ingeneral (with substantial remote effect to all coastal states) form leakage of chemicalweapons and war toxins, and damaging of dumped mercury containers resulting frommassive explosion of dumped mines or pipeline installation works.(2) Re-mobilization of hazardous substances from the deeper layers of the seabedThe pipeline is planned to cross sea areas, where certain layers of bottomsediments are highly polluted (e.g. eastern part of the Gulf of Finland). The constructionand the later presence of the pipeline will inevitably lead to the release of certainamounts of extremely toxic substances from these seabed layers into the water column.(3) Cumulative and long-term impactsThe multitude of potential adverse factors and the long-term commission time(~50 years) may give rise to various cumulative and long-term adverse impacts (forexample, remobilization and hydrodynamic re-distribution of contaminants in the Gulf ofFinland and their bio-accumulation in natural processes in Finnish, Russian andEstonian EEZ-s over long time).Particular concerns with respect to the current version of the assessment oftransboundary environmental impacts of Nord Stream (Espoo report)(1) The hydrodynamic model used for reconstruction the flow fields in the Gulf ofFinland is not applicable for this basin. Even suggestions given by Finnish scientistswith respect to the model parameters (MERI, 2006) have been ignored. In situinformation on near-bottom flows (incl. those created by breaking internal waves)that control spreading of sediments and released substances is still missing.
(2) Highly controversial information about the horizontal and vertical distribution oftoxic substances in the upper-layer of bottom sediments of the Gulf of Finland, andthe actual impact of their release on the ecosystem, food web, and human health.(3) Extremely large differences (up to 10,000 times) in risk estimates for ship traffic;probably because of the following issues: (a) major ship lane and the pipeline almostoverlap over several hundred of km; (b) the typical number of people on board isquite large in the Gulf of Finland because of large share of passenger traffic.Large uncertainties in estimates of these issues substantially affect(i)the accuracy of estimates of the release of adverse substances (incl. nutrients)from potentially contaminated sediments into water column both ininstallation and operational phases,(ii)the accuracy of estimates of the concentrations of toxic substances in the foodweb,(iii)the accuracy of estimates of the probability of mechanical damage to thepipeline in operational phase and its structural failure,(iv)with subsequent increase in the uncertainties of the estimates of the risksconnected with gas leaks, including risks for human lives.Based on presentation of Tarmo Soomere (co-author Ivar Puura) to the Estonian Parliament 27.10.2009 andon Communication from Estonian Academy of Sciences 29.04.2009