1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands 4

5. 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

6. 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?

7. 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

8. 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