Frequently asked questions

Why should Finns pay for the treatment of Russian wastewater? Russia is a rich country. Why aren’t the Russians financing the treatment of their water themselves?

Even though Russia has become richer in recent years, the country's infrastructure, including its wastewater treatment plants, are still at a developmental stage. Without the Clean Baltic Sea project, phosphorus removal might not have been taken into use in St. Petersburg until years from now. The Baltic Sea and the inhabitants around it cannot wait that long because the ecological state of the sea is deteriorating at a fast pace.

The project will not pay for wastewater treatment; instead, it will provide "start-up money" to speed up the commencement of phosphorus removal. Once phosphorus removal has begun, the Russians will be responsible for the expenses themselves. Cooperation is also necessary because the Russians do not have the technical expertise required for phosphorus removal, since the method has not been used in Russia before.

 

How can you be sure that the donated funds will be used in Russia for phosphorus removal instead of the money disappearing into wrong hands?

We can be sure about this because we do not send the collected assets to Russia. We cover our part of the project funding by paying checked invoices for the phosphorus removal design work, investments and chemical acquisitions to the suppliers of the goods and services. The cooperation with Vodokanal, the waterworks of St. Petersburg, has been fruitful and confidential.

 

Why haven’t the Russians implemented phosphorus removal earlier?

In the Soviet Union, the construction of wastewater treatment plants started later than in other countries. The break-up of the Soviet Union, for its part, caused economic turmoil, which made it difficult to promote environmental protection.

For a long time, clean potable water has been a priority in Russia and their resources have been allocated to it. Now environmental consciousness has increased, and the Russians want to achieve European standards in the treatment of wastewater. With water rates based on new legislation, the St. Petersburg waterworks now also has the money to implement nutrient removal.

 

Why didn’t the Finnish Ministry of the Environment intervene in the matter earlier?

Groundwork for the commencement of phosphorus removal has been going on since 1989, and the Environmental Administration has also participated in it. Chemical phosphorus removal is not used anywhere in Russia, and the preliminary run and acceptance of the method has taken time. With the lengthy groundwork and opening of the borders, the time is now ripe for phosphorus removal. The Ministry of the Environment supports the Clean Baltic Sea project of the John Nurminen Foundation in St. Petersburg.

 

Shouldn’t society take care of matters like this?

Today, initiatives originating in active citizenship can play a significant role in areas that have traditionally been the responsibility of the public sector. Private sector actors may have expertise, knowledge and approaches that complement public sector activities. The Foundation is a good actor for the implementation of a project of this kind because it is a flexible non-profit organisation with little bureaucracy.

 

Why has the Foundation launched projects in Poland and Riga even though there are closer emission sources as well?

Reducing emissions in Polish targets is also more cost-effective than it is in Finland. The Foundation allocates its environmental operations where the highest emission reduction and the most positive environmental effect can be achieved with the lowest cost. National borders are irrelevant to the contamination of the Baltic Sea, and the sea currents carry emissions to our coasts from farther away as well.

 

What drawbacks or adverse effects does phosphorus removal have?

The project will not have any negative environmental effects. Precisely the same substance and method has been used in Finland for wastewater treatment for 20 to 30 years.

In the purification process, the amount of sewage sludge will increase somewhat and its composition will change, so the sludge will have to be handled appropriately. Opportunities for practical applications of sludge are being studied in various quarters. The PURE project launched in autumn 2009 also has a section studying practical applications for sludge and its recycling.

 

What is the phosphorus removal process like in practice?

Phosphorus can be removed by chemical and biological methods. Chemical phosphorus removal is an established and effective wastewater cleaning method which has been in use in countries such as Finland and Sweden for decades. In Finland, iron sulphate produced as waste from the chemical industry is used as the chemical coagulant in the process. The method can be adapted for existing wastewater treatment plants without any significant additional construction.

 

What happens to phosphorus after it has been removed from wastewater?

The soluble phosphorus in the water reacts with a chemical coagulant, such as iron sulphate, and sinks to the bottom of the treatment plant basins as sludge. All the sludge is collected and appropriately handled, for example, composted or dried and burned. The remaining ash is stabilised and used as construction material or taken to a dump.

 

Does the phosphorus finally end up back in the sea?

Appropriately processed phosphorus removed from wastewater does not end up in the sea. For example, in St. Petersburg the sludge is burnt and the ash is taken to the dump. Phosphorus is a valuable and dwindling non-renewable natural resource, which is why recycling of phosphorus and its utilisation, for example as a fertiliser, is being studied in various quarters.

 

Which is more important to reduce, phosphorus or nitrogen? Which should be reduced first?

Phosphorus and nitrogen each contribute to eutrophication in their own way. Phosphorus is a key factor in blue-green algal blooms in the open sea, whereas nitrogen plays a principal part in blooms occurring in the inner archipelago and coastal areas. Nitrogen also causes the spring bloom of diatoms and dinoflagellates, which is extensive in quantitative terms and therefore accelerates anoxia at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Anoxia, for its part, releases phosphorus, which increases blue-green algal growth. Thus, the nitrogen and phosphorus content are interdependent, and it is unthinkable that only one of them should be reduced.

It makes more sense to implement phosphorus removal immediately in the remaining large point sources because it is inexpensive and will not have any secondary ecological effects. At the same time, nitrogen emissions should continue to be reduced. The reduction of nitrogen only will increase the amount of blue-green algae in the open sea.

 

Isn’t Finnish agriculture the biggest source of loading in the Baltic Sea?

The loading caused by Finnish agriculture affects the condition of closed water exchange areas, that is the inner archipelago and the coast, in particular, but its contribution to the total loading in the Gulf of Finland and the Archipelago Sea is fairly small. Instead of an "either-or" principle, a "both-and" principle should be used when considering the reduction of diffuse pollution from Finnish sources and the Clean Baltic Sea project of the John Nurminen Foundation - all measures are necessary. In the open sea, loads originating in St. Petersburg are in a dominant position, whereas in inner bays and the coast it is the Finnish-based loading that is decisive for the way the situation develops.

 

Are there too many anoxic bottoms; is the Baltic Sea already at an impasse ecologically?

Nobody knows for sure, but most scientists are hopeful that it is not the case yet. In fact, there is reason to act quickly, as the faster the number of anoxic bottoms increase, the more bottom processes begin to dominate the eutrophication process in the Baltic Sea when they release the loads accumulated on the bottom over the course of decades. In any case, it is better to act than to do nothing at all, especially when there still are measures that can be implemented with relative ease.