Date post: | 19-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | erin-mills |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
1
Case Study : River Vantaa
Matti Verta,Tuomas Mattila, Jukka Mehtonen, Kimmo Silvo, Jaakko Mannio, Susan
Londesborough, Sari Väisänen, Kirsti Lahti
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
2
Introduction case study: River Vantaa
• Catchment area 1 686 km2• Population of 1 milj. inhabitants• Agriculture (24 % cultivated)• Industry (dairy, food, metal, paint, detergent, plastics)• Drinking water source (secondary) to Helsinki
Metropolitan area • Irrigation source• Recreation object• Cultural scenery and objects
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
3
Introduction case study: River Vantaa
• Substances
– PAH, PBDE, Nonylphenol, DEHP, TBT (TPhT)
• Sources– 250 potential plants/sources
• Connected to MWT plants
– Atmospheric sources (PAH)– Harbor activity, source of TBT in the estuary– Diffuse sources (DEHP, PAH, PBDE)/urban run off
• Occasional exceedances of EQS – PAH, DEHP, TBT
• TBT concentrations high in sediments
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
4
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
5
Specific challenges• Most measurements from river mouth
– Compliance upstream?– Use of models
• Source/sector specific emission factors not applicable, – Need for STP data, extrapolation– Use of sewage sludge data
• Overflows and operational problems in pumping stations
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
6
Specific challenges
• Urban run off water – Probably an important source for PAH and
DEHP (PBDE, NP)• No measurements available• Modeling may be used for PAHs (emission estimates
available)
• Sludge use for landscaping, gardens, public parks
• Leakage of PSs?
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
7
Lessons learned from case study
• SOCOPSE tools applicable – DSS, Substance reports
• Stakeholder involvement essential– Local knowledge– Acceptability of measures (inc. costs/benefits)
• Defining complience sometimes difficult– Low EQS compared with analytical uncertainty– Lack of data
– Modeling
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
8
Lessons learned from case study
• Costs of complience hard to estimate for PS– Proposed mangement options serve many
objectives• Improved management of urban run off• Better sewage treatment plant operation• Renovation of sewer systems
• Management (dredging) of TBT-contaminated sediments expensive compared with (uncertain) benefits
• Adaptive monitoring when combined with modeling proved to be cost efficient