Post on 07-Aug-2021
The project “Innovation Demonstration for a Competitive and Innovative European Water Reuse Sector” (DEMOWARE) has received funding from the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, theme ENV.2013.WATER INNO&DEMO-1 (Water innova-tion demonstration projects) under grant agreement no 619040
Annual progress report on the
implementation of water reuse
in El Port de la Selva - 2015
i
Deliverable Title Annual progress report on the implementation of water reuse in El Port de
la Selva
Related Work Package: WP1: Demonstrating innovative treatment processes and reuse scheme
operation
WP3: Risk management and environmental benefit analysis
Deliverable lead: KWB
Author(s): Xavier Frigola
Marti Bayer, Amphos 21
Elisenda Taberna, VWSI
David Gracia, EMACBSA
Christoph Sprenger, KWB
Hella Schwarzmüller, KWB
Wolfgang Seis, KWB
Fabian Kraus, KWB
Contact for queries Dr. H. Schwarzmüller, KWB
Dr. U. Miehe, KWB
Dissemination level: Confidential (submission to water authority)
Due submission date: 31/12/2014 (M24)
Actual submission:
Grant Agreement Number: 619040
Instrument: FP7-ENV-2013-WATER-INNO-DEMO
Start date of the project: 01.01.2014
Duration of the project: 36 months
Website: www.demoware.eu
Versioning and Contribution History
Version Date Modified by Modification reason
1 17.12.2015 H. Schwarzmüller full version incorporating partners contributions
ii
Table of contents Versioning and Contribution History .............................................................................................................. i List of figures ................................................................................................................................................. ii List of tables .................................................................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Construction activities ........................................................................................................................... 2 2 Upgrading the WWTP ............................................................................................................................ 5 3 Groundwater flow modelling ................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Model calibration ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Estimation of travel time and dilution effects.............................................................................. 10 3.3 Summary of model results ........................................................................................................... 11
4 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Drilling and pond construction .................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Start of infiltration ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Results from monitoring activities in 2015 .................................................................................. 18 4.4 Planned monitoring activities 2016 ............................................................................................. 19
5 Risk assessment ................................................................................................................................... 20 5.1 Microbial risk assessment ............................................................................................................ 20
5.1.1 Assumptions 21 5.1.2 Results of risk estimate 21
5.2 Chemical risk ................................................................................................................................ 22 5.2.1 Assumptions 22 5.2.2 Results of pharmaceutical estimation in drinking water 23
6 Life cycle assessment ........................................................................................................................... 25 6.1 Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................... 25 6.2 Inventory and data-collection ...................................................................................................... 25 6.3 Model in Umberto NXT LCA software .......................................................................................... 25 6.4 Preliminary results ....................................................................................................................... 26
7 References ........................................................................................................................................... 28 8 Annex ................................................................................................................................................... 29
Annex 1: Site profile for the El Port de la Selva MAR scheme ................................................................ 29
Annex 2: Drill log and well assemply of PZ3 ........................................................................................... 30
Annex 3: Drill log and well assemply of PZ4 ........................................................................................... 31
Annex 4: Drill log and well assemply of PZ5 ........................................................................................... 32
Annex 5: Drill log and well assemply of PZ6 ........................................................................................... 33
Annex 6: Drill log and well assemply of PZ7 ........................................................................................... 34
Annex 7: Organic carbon content and humidity of sediment samples (analysed by CTM) .................... 35
Annex 8: Main ions and metals results of the third sampling campaign (analysed by CTM) ................. 36
Annex 9: Results of trace organic screenings (analysed by CSIC and BWB) ........................................... 37
Annex 10: Monitoring schedule for the infiltration period (November 2015 to April 2016 plus 2 months follow-up time). ........................................................................................................................................... 42
List of figures
Figure 1 Pond design as in the tender procedure [provided by X. Frigola] ............................................. 2
iii
Figure 2 Construction Images ................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3 Ammonia and total nitrogen levels (routine monitoring) in the secondary effluent by updating aeration .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4 Phosphorous level (routine monitoring) in the secondary effluent by dosing ferric chloride ... 6
Figure 5 Closure of seawater intrusion at the sewage overflow by installing a lid .................................. 7
Figure 6 Measured (grey line and squares) vs. computed heads (black line). ......................................... 9
Figure 7 Plume of reclaimed water after 365 days (left), 730 days (middle) and 3100 days (right). .... 10
Figure 8 Top: Hydraulic heads in wells Pz1, AM1 and AM2 (m.a.s.l.). Bottom: Dilution effects in wells AM1 and AM2 (Breakthrough curves of reclaimed water; 0.1 indicates 10% of reclaimed water). ............ 11
Figure 9 Overview of recharge site in El Port de la Selva ...................................................................... 13
Figure 10 Grain size distribution for sediment samples from PZ-6, PZ-7, technical sand and basin excavations (basin 1-3) ................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 11 Recharged water volume and electrical conductivity (EC) of recharge water since beginning of infiltration. ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 12 Model structure for QMRA in El Port de la Selva .................................................................... 20
Figure 13 Estimate of Rotavirus concentrations in drinking water (without chlorination) and related DALYs per person per year (pppy) ............................................................................................................... 22
Figure 14: Estimated pharmaceutical and Acesulfam concentrations in drinking water caused by indirect potable reuse in El Port de la Selva ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 16: Example for one LCIA category: cumulative energy demand of non-renewable energy resources, fossil & nuclear for different scenarios in El Port de la Selva (preliminary results) .................... 27
List of tables
Table 1 Total depth and filter screen intervals for groundwater monitoring wells drilled during DEMOWARE project .................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2 Calculated hydraulic conductivities based on grain size analysis and Corg content of sediment samples 15
Table 3: Effective recharge areas for the infiltration basins 1-3 ........................................................... 16
Table 4: Filter layer specifications ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 5: Extent of analyses for the sampling and monitoring campaigns within DEMOWARE ............. 18
Table 6 Monitoring schedule ............................................................................................................... 19
Table 7 Assumptions for risk calculation .............................................................................................. 21
Table 8 Assumptions for aquifer characteristics .................................................................................. 22
Table 9 Measured concentration in WWTP effluent and assumptions for biodegradation and pH specific logD/logP values ............................................................................................................................. 23
Table 10: Overview of estimated drinking water concentrations of pharmaceuticals and Acesulfam ... 24
1
El Port – Annual report 2015
Executive Summary
This document represents the progress report of the 2015 activities in El Port de la Selva within the frame
of the DEMOWORK project. Following the ACA-permission obtained in October 2014, a yearly progress
report has to be provided.
According to this year’s activities, the progress report summarizes pond construction, the upgrades im-
plemented at the waste water treatment plant (WWTP), the progress of groundwater flow modelling, all
sampling and monitoring activities as well as the started DEMOWARE tasks on risk assessment and life
cycle analysis.
Pond construction followed a tender procedure and comprised connecting the hill deposit with the
ponds via a pipeline as well as excavating, paving and filling three basins for infiltration of reclaimed
water. These activities started in August 2015 and were finished with a progress meeting on site on 26th
October 2015. In parallel, nitrate and phosphate removal at the WWTP were optimized to reduce the
variation of effluent quality and disinfection was switched to UV disinfection only. Electric conductivity
was chosen as threshold parameter for infiltration. Thus, online probes were installed and incorporated
into the SCADA system. With regard to trace organic substances, the WWTP upgrade will be continued
with the addition of granular activated carbon (GAC) to the filters in 2016. The methods of life cycle
assessment will be additionally used to evaluate the environmental impacts of water reuse for the
planned updates compared to staus quo of treatment.
Infiltration of reclaimed tertiary effluent was set into operation on 17th November. Before, a third sam-
pling campaign was conducted to assess the effluent and groundwater chemistry before infiltration and
a monitoring schedule for the infiltration phase itself was agreed on. Monitoring will be carried out by
VWSI and EMACBSA with support of Amphos21 and KWB.
The monitoring schedule involves the effluent quality (secondary and tertiary), ambient groundwater,
infiltrated water from the pond as well as a transect of pre-existing and newly drilled observation wells.
In addition to three piezometers drilled in October 2014 (documented within this report), two additional
piezometers were drilled near the ponds in order to monitor infiltration dynamics, hydraulics and the
subsurface removal capacity regarding trace organic substances and microorganisms (bacteria, phages
and viruses). The results of the pre-infiltration sampling campaigns were used for an entry-level risk
assessment with regard to micobiological and chemical risks. So far, rotavirus removal was taken for
quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). Chemical risk assessment focused on four selected
pharmaceuticals and acesulfam as these substances were above the limits of quantification (LoQ) in the
effluent samples. Travel times and other aquifer parameters were taken from the groundwater flow
model obtained by Amphos 21 showing a good capability to reproduce measured head responses in the
observation and two nearby drinking water abstraction wells, for which data were obtained from the
owners and used for model calibration.
The DEMOWARE progress and status of activities, as summarized within this report, were further dis-
seminated at different occasions, including the information of the health authority and the local drinking
water supplier SOREA at the on-site meeting in October, a special DEMOWARE session at this year’s Re-
Water conference in Braunschweig as well as an information event for the El Port de la Selva inhabitants
organised by the mayor of El Port de la Selva and CCB.
2
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
1 Final pond design
[H.Schwarzmüller, KWB]
The ponds were dimensioned based on the daily volume of tertiary effluent available for infiltration. Con-
sidering maintenance efforts because of an expected clogging of the infiltration layer, three ponds with
200 m² each were planned to allow for wet-dry cycles in pond operation. The design is based on the fol-
lowing assumptions:
- Flow rate: 200 m³/h
- Minimal infiltration rate: 1 m/d (expected after > 2-5 years of operation due to slow clogging)
- Only one pond is in operation, while one is drying and the third is dry for at least 7 d
- Turbidity of tertiary effluent: < 10 NTU
In order to have a sufficient hydraulic gradient, the pond depth was set to 1 meter. A 50cm sand layer
was planned at the bottom of the ponds facilitating a filter layer to homogenize infiltration rate and pro-
vide a surface material allowing maintenance. For sand specifications, see ch. 5.1. Figure 1 shows the final
pond design, which was then published in the tender procedure.
The actual size of the ponds after construction is slightly lower than initially planned, as the measures to
secure the slopes reduced the available area (see Figure 2). The total area of all ponds is 439 m².
Figure 1 Pond design as in the tender procedure [provided by X. Frigola]
3
El Port – Annual report 2015
2 Construction activities
[Xavier Frigola, criteri]
The construction works for the ponds and the pipe transporting the water from the uphill deposit to the
infiltration site began on 17th August 2015. During construction, the contractor ( Rubau Tarres) , Consorci
Costa Brava (Lluis Sala) and Construction Director ( Xavier Frigola) made weekly visits. In these visits, slight
changes of the approved project were decided, which were in detail:
adjusted pond depth for a better field adaption
alignment of breakwater rock along the pond perimeter
sand thickness reduced to 40 cm
plot fence according to the ACA prescriptions
water inlet to the ponds adjusted.
The photos assembled in Figure 2 sum up the construction activities. After completion, the following tests
were run:
1) Pipeline pressure test
2) Sand characterisation
3) Operating tests
Pond operation was started on 17th November. The start-up phase will be further described within sec-
tion 5.2.
4
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Figure 2 Construction Images
5
El Port – Annual report 2015
3 Upgrading the WWTP
[Elisenda Taberna, VWSI]
Sampling results at the WWTP indicated temporarily high phosphorus, ammonia and total nitrogen levels
resulting in failing the water quality limits for infiltration. Thus, VWSI tested several filter setups for nitro-
gen and phosphorus removal.
3.1 Nitrogen removal
Since October, set points of oxygen probes in the activated sludge reactor have being modified in order
to reduce ammonia values by increasing aeration. With this action, ammonia level < 1 mg N/L and also
total nitrogen < 10 mg N/L could be reached (Figure 3).An exception were the values of December 7th,
most probably due to the bank holiday. This day’s reclaimed water was not infiltrated.
It is planned to install an ammonia online probe to control levels and switch off supply to infiltration if
needed.
Figure 3 Ammonia and total nitrogen levels (routine monitoring) in the secondary effluent by updating aeration
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7
mg
N/L
November December
N-NH4+/NO2 Secondary effluent
N-NH4+
N-NO2
infiltration
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7
mg
N/L
November December
N-NO3/totalN Secondary effluent
N-NO3
total N
infiltration
6
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
3.2 Phosphorous removal
In order to remove phosphorous, several options were tested. The first one was the addition of ferric
chloride and polyaluminium chloride as a coagulant in the first filter of the tertiary treatment and a little
dose of polyacrylamide in the second filter. Results showed that at up to 4 mg Fe/L dosed, there was a
strong increase of pressure loss in the filter and that the dose was insufficient to remove the phospho-
rous content. The second option was the addition of ferric chloride to the biological reactor to co-
precipitate P. Results were that a phosphorous concentration < 2 mg/L total P in the secondary effluent
could be reached by dosing of 20 mg Fe/L . Thus, concentrations before infiltration were < 0,5 mg/L in
most cases (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Phosphorous level (routine monitoring) in the secondary effluent by dosing ferric chloride
Further optimization of phosphorous co-precipitation will include trying to reduce the required dosage
and implementing a flow proportional dosing. Furthermore, it is planned to install a P online probe to
ensure that water with higher concentrations of phosphorus is not infiltrated.
3.3 Disinfection
As chlorination may cause excessive formation of potentially harmful chlorinated disinfection by-
products, the performance of the UV disinfection alone was assessed. After replacement of UV lamps in
March 2014, all values were < 1000 eColi/ 100 ml. Design transmittance of 40% (although actual values
are mostly between 50 and 70%) provides very high disinfection of virus indicator somatic coliphages,
which are < 10 PFU/100 ml after UV.
3.4 Measures against increased conductivity
Two points were identified as sources of seawater intrusion into the sewer lines: i) most likely a small
crack in a section of the smaller sewer network allowing a permanent inflow of external water to the
sewer line, and ii) the overflow pipeline of the pumping station to the sea allowing an inflow of seawater
during stormy/windy events from the North and/or East. The pictures below show the closure of the
overflow pipeline against seawater intrusion, where in early November a valve was installed (Figure 5).
Leak repair of the municipal sewage at the known intrusion point is still pending. Conductivity is further
used as threshold parameter switching off infiltration if needed (see also Figure 11 and Table 6).
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7
Tota
l Ph
osp
ho
rus,
mg
P/L
November December
P Secondary effluent
infiltration
7
El Port – Annual report 2015
Initial cleaning
Assembly tasks
Underwater pneumatic drill
Cementation of lid
Figure 5 Closure of seawater intrusion at the sewage overflow by installing a lid
8
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
4 Groundwater flow modelling
[Marti Bayer, A21]
In order to estimate travel times and dilution rates from the proposed infiltration site to two pre-existing
water supply wells downstream, a Finite Element numerical model was developed using the code
FEFLOW. The model was used so far to analyze the proposed infiltration scheme under steady-state con-
ditions considering given annual averages of recharge and pumping rates of the water supply wells and
will be further used within the project to perform sensitivity analyses for different scenarios..
4.1 Model calibration
Infiltration ponds are located about 1 km upstream of water supply wells AM1 and AM2. Wells AM1 and
AM2 operate for several hours a day (about 10 hours in winter and up to 20 hours in summer); head os-
cillations due to pumping are observed in well HGB, which is 150 m away from AM1 and 130 m from
AM2. Recording of hydraulic heads started in March 2014; and automatic divers measuring head every 8
h were installed in June 2014 (AM1, AM2, Pavelló and HGB), March 2015 (Bolera) and April 2015 (Pz3 and
Pz5). High frequency (time increments of 15 min) head measurements in wells AM1, AM2 and HGB were
recorded from 13/6/2014 to 27/6/2014. All this head measurements were incorporated in the calibration
of a transient flow model for the period 1/1/2013 to 12/4/2015 using rainfall data from two stations
(Portbou 12 km north and Roses 7 km south). Pumping in water supply wells AM1 and AM2 varied from
500 m3/day during the winter months to peaks of 2500 m3/day in summer, data available for daily pump-
ing rates in 2014 provided by the water supply operator were used for the whole simulation. Simulated
and measured hydraulic heads are shown in Figure 6.
Drawdown caused by pumping in well AM1 is much larger in the measured data (compared to the model)
due to well loss, but the model reproduces reasonably well the response to rain events. As depicted in
Figure 6, the model overestimates, in some cases, the rise in heads after a rain event (modelled heads in
AM1 and AM2 after rainfall in December 2014) while this effect is underestimated in some other cases
(e.g. march 2015 in “Pavelló”).Differences between measured heads and the numerical simulation are
below 1 m for most locations, except for short time periods after rain events. As in Mediterranean cli-
mate rainfall is highly variable in time and space (rain events may affect very small areas), for instance, on
30/9/2015 the station in Portbou measured 66 mm of rainfall while Roses remained dry. Some raises of
head detected in some of the wells (e.g. 4/5/2014 in wells Pz2, Pz1 and Camping) may be caused by rain
events in El Port de la Selva undetected in Portbou and/or Roses.
During the next months (when more measurements are available), it will be possible to test the capabili-
ties of the model to reproduce the behaviour of heads measured in wells Pz3 and Pz5 since at the time of
writing the data set available covered less than 3 months without significant rain events.
9
El Port – Annual report 2015
Figure 6 Measured (grey line and squares) vs. computed heads (black line).
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
01/01/2013 03/05/2013 02/09/2013 02/01/2014 04/05/2014 03/09/2014 03/01/2015 05/05/2015 04/09/2015
AM2
10
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
4.2 Estimation of travel time and dilution effects
After calibrating the flow model, transport parameters to simulate the migration of reclaimed water from
infiltration basins to water supply wells were incorporated. The transport model should answer two ques-
tions:
1) Travel time: How long does it take (for the infiltrated water) to reach the water supply pumping
wells AM1 and AM2?
2) Dilution: What percentage of reclaimed water is extracted in the water supply wells?
It is important to note that the model is used to make predictions on the transport behaviour of the aqui-
fer while it was calibrated for flow conditions only. This is relevant because the solution to the flow equa-
tion does not depend on parameters such as porosity, which have a major influence on the transport
behaviour of the aquifer. In this transport simulation, a porosity of 30% was used. Within the framework
of this project, it will also be analysed whether compounds already present in the reclaimed water can be
used as conservative traces. For instance, caffeine (a widely studied wastewater indicator) has been
found to degrade very fast under certain conditions (Hillebrand et al. 2012) and therefore may not be
suitable to trace reclaimed water at large distances. In future work within the project, the sensitivity of
the model will be tested by solving the transport equation with different (realistic) values of porosity.
Particle velocities and travel times are linearly dependent on porosity; for instance, reducing the porosity
from 0.3 to 0.15 will imply that travel time reduces to half. Taking small values of porosity lead estimates
to be on the safe side, i.e. to formulate answers such as “the travel time to water supply wells will be at
least 12 months”.
The numerical simulation incorporated rainfall data from 1/1/2007 to 2/7/2015 (3100 days) for areal
recharge and lateral inflow from hill slope. Data on pumping rates in wells AM1 and AM2 are only availa-
ble for the year 2014 and first months in 2015; therefore pumping rates as in 2014 were assumed for all
years of the simulation. The infiltration basins were considered with an infiltration rate of 200 m3/day
and start of operation on 1/1/2007 to obtain estimates of travel times and dilution effects under realistic
conditions. The simulated plume of reclaimed water is shown in Figure 3 after 365, 730 and 3100 days.
Contour lines indicate percentage of reclaimed water within the aquifer (line 0.1 corresponds to 10%
content of reclaimed water).
Figure 7 Plume of reclaimed water after 365 days (left), 730 days (middle) and 3100 days (right). (Not to the same scale)
11
El Port – Annual report 2015
After 1 year, the plume reaches the observation well “camping” and it takes approximately 2 years to
reach the water supply wells AM1 and AM2. The plume is not entirely captured by the water supply wells
and extends towards the sea (although the total amount of reclaimed water discharging to the sea is
low). The simulation further shows that concentrations within the plume are strongly correlated to rain-
fall events; because for infiltration at the basins constant in time (200 m3/day) the reclaimed water ac-
cumulated near the basins during dry periods and forms a packet of water. When an important rainfall
event takes place, the packet separates from the basins and migrates downstream towards the water
supply wells. One of those packets of water (originated from a rainfall event at time 366 days) is shown in
Figure 7 (middle) for the plume for 730 days near the observation well “camping” with a dilution ratio
above 0.4 (40%).
Figure 4 shows the evolution of hydraulic heads in wells AM1, AM2 and Pz1 as well as the breakthrough
curves of reclaimed water in wells AM1 and AM2. The total amount of reclaimed water to be abstracted
from the water supply wells is below 35%. Arrows indicate rainfall events associated with packets of wa-
ter causing picks of reclaimed water arrival in water supply pumping wells. The travel time from the infil-
tration basins to the pumping wells is 2 years (e.g. the packet of water shown in the 730 days plume near
the well “camping” corresponds to the second arrow in Figure 4). It is assumed that the oscillations ob-
served in breakthrough curves are overestimated in the model and provide a limiting worst case scenario
for maximum concentration of reclaimed water reaching the water supply wells.
Figure 8 Top: Hydraulic heads in wells Pz1, AM1 and AM2 (m.a.s.l.). Bottom: Dilution effects in wells AM1 and AM2 (Breakthrough curves of reclaimed water; 0.1 indicates 10% of reclaimed water).
4.3 Summary of model results
In order to analyse the migration of reclaimed water infiltrated in the alluvial aquifer in El Port de la Selva,
a numerical model was developed. Despite a number of simplifying assumptions, the numerical model is
capable of simulating aquifer response to rainfall events and drawdown due to pumping in water supply
wells with reasonable accuracy.
Water availability during the summer season depends on aquifer storage and the stored water is incorpo-
rated in the aquifer in just a few events of heavy rain during spring and/or autumn.
12
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
These rain events also have a major influence on the migration of reclaimed water downstream the infil-
tration ponds.
The model is capable of computing the breakthrough curves of reclaimed water in water supply wells.
Estimated travel time from infiltration ponds to pumping wells is
2 years with the initial set of model parameters used here (porosity 30%, longitudinal and trans-
verse dispersivity 5 m and 0.5 m), and
20 months for a porosity of 25%.
Dilution oscillates considerably with time but remains below 35%. Travel time is expected to be highly
sensitive to porosity values used in the model but estimates obtained here (730 days for porosity equal to
30% and 600 days for porosity 25%) with 1000 m travel distance are more than 1 order of magnitude
larger than the minimum residence times reported in the literature for effective SAT treatment. Results
obtained so far are on the safe side since a minimum residence time of 60 days is suggested in CDPH
(2011) while others (Bouwer 1988; Asano and Cotruvo, 2004) indicate at least 50-100 m travel distance
and around 6 months residence time.
Using the model, it will be possible to test the sensitivity of travel time and dilution effects to several as-
pects such as infiltration rates, rainfall scenarios, pumping rates in water supply wells and (uncertain)
aquifer parameters such as porosity and hydraulic conductivity.
13
El Port – Annual report 2015
5 Monitoring
5.1 Drilling and pond construction
[Christoph Sprenger, KWB]
Two drilling campaigns have been carried out in October 2014 and October 2015 to characterize the hy-
drogeology on site and to install five new observation wells for monitoring purposes. The newly drilled
observation wells (PZ-3 to PZ-7) are located in various distances to the recharge basins (Figure 9).
Figure 9 Overview of recharge site in El Port de la Selva
14
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Table 1 summarizes total depth, filter screen intervals and drilling date for the new observation wells.
Table 1 Total depth and filter screen intervals for groundwater monitoring wells drilled during DEMOWARE project
Based on the drillings at the recharge area, the subsurface is a relative thin aquifer (13-14 m), composed
of poorly sorted and poorly rounded metamorphic rocks in gravel and block size embedded in a matrix of
sand and silt. At the bottom of the aquifer compact clay lenses have been encountered, before the met-
amorphic basement was drilled. All lithological logs and assemblies for the monitoring wells are shown in
the annex.
Sediment samples have been taken during excavation of the recharge basins and during the second drill-
ing campaign. Grain size distribution, Corg content and soil humidity was determined by CTM according to
standard methods. Figure 10 displays the grain size distribution for the sediment samples, soil humidity is
shown in the annex.
Figure 10 Grain size distribution for sediment samples from PZ-6, PZ-7, technical sand and basin excavations (basin
1-3)
Observation well ID Total depth of well
(m below ground level)
Filter screen interval (m) Drilling Date
PZ-3 11 2-11 Oct. 2014
PZ-4 13 9-13 Oct. 2014
PZ-5 9 4-9 Oct. 2014
PZ-6 10 6-8 and 9-10 Oct. 2015
PZ-7 10 6-10 Oct. 2015
15
El Port – Annual report 2015
The El Port de la Selva aquifer is dominated by gravels and characterized by a high heterogeneity defined
by the coefficient of uniformity (U=d60/d10). Hydraulic conductivity is calculated based on the Hazen equa-
tion (Hazen, 1893). When application range for the Hazen method was not fulfilled, i.e. U>5, a graphical
modification of Hazen was applied as described in Hölting and Coldewey (2009). Hydraulic conductivity
from samples PZ7 and PZ6 range from 4.5 to 608 m/d (Table 2).
Table 2 Calculated hydraulic conductivities based on grain size analysis and Corg content of sediment samples
na = not applicable
It should be noticed that hydraulic conductivity (K) is known to be scale-dependent. In heterogeneous
porous media, K increases by half an order of magnitude with each order of magnitude increase in the
scale of measurement. Due to the scale dependency, each K value is representative only for the scale at
which it was determined. Generally, field-derived K values (e.g. from pumping tests) are considered to be
more meaningful compared to laboratory-derived K values. Therefore, the hydraulic conductivities are
representative only for processes occurring at a similar scale, e.g. percolation through the unsaturated
zone, but do not account for large scale processes such as regional scale flow.
Organic carbon content of sediment samples is 0.1-0.2 weight % measured in drilling samples and slightly
elevated in samples from shallow excavations (0.14-0.23 wt. %). In general, the Corg content is relative low
and it can be concluded that particular organic carbon in sediments will not contribute to reactive pro-
cesses to a large extend.
The construction of the recharge basins started in August 2015 with excavations of approx. 2 m of top soil
according to the design requirements. The resulting effective recharge area for each infiltration basin is
shown in Table 3.
Observation well Depth (m below ground
level)
Hydraulic conductivity
(m/d)
Corg content (wt. %)
loss on ignition (400°C,
16h)
PZ-6 2 608 0.1
5 608 0.1
7-8 na 0.2
PZ-7 2 50 0.1
4 4.5 0.1
7.5-8 na 0.2
13-14 na 0.2
Layer Sand not measured 180 not measured
Basin 1 Shallow excavation
77.5 0.14
Basin 2 6 0.23
Basin 3 21 0.17
16
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Table 3: Effective recharge areas for the infiltration basins 1-3
The embankments of basins have been flattened and big block of rocks were used to stabilize the slopes
(see also photos in section 1). The bed of each infiltration basin is filled with a layer of quartz sand of min-
imum 80% SiO2. This filter layer aims to ensure spatially constant infiltration rates, decreases mainte-
nance efforts, and acts as a filter for cleaning the source water. Clogging will develop mainly on the sur-
face and allows that filter layer material can be removed, washed and filled back in case of infiltration
rates decreasing below a certain threshold. Grain size distribution for the sand layer is characterised by a
steep slope, expressed by the uniformity coefficient (see Figure 10). Technical specifications of the filter
layer material as per requirement and finally realised are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Filter layer specifications
*from grain size distribution (see Figure 10); **calculated; ***estimated
Compared to the required specifications, the final sand layer is quite similar and fulfills the above de-
scribed functions. The sand filter layer was brought into the basins with about 40 cm thickness and equal-
ly distributed (see also photos in section 1).
5.2 Start of infiltration
Data recorded online in the SCADA system of the WWTP and the infiltration ponds are:
Volumetric flow produced by tertiary treatment
Volumetric flow pumped to the reclaimed water tank
Volumetric flow to each infiltration basin
Electrical conductivity, turbidity, suspended solids, pH, temperature, UV absorbance, redox po-
tential and dissolved oxygen of tertiary treated water
Basin ID Recharge Area (m2)
Basin 1 166
Basin 2 142
Basin 3 131
Sum 439
Filter layer Requirement (according to DIN
EN 12904)
Realization
Grain size (mm) d5 = 0.4
d95 = 0.8
d5 = 0.3*
d95 = 0.95*
Uniformity d60/d10 (-) <1.5 1.9**
Bulk Density (t/m³) ~1.55 (1.4 – 1.7) ~1.55***
17
El Port – Annual report 2015
Infiltration started on the 20th of November to basin 1 with an initial flow rate of 2.75 m³/h and total re-
charged volume of 66 m3/d (Figure 11). After some fluctuations both in daily recharged volumes and elec-
trical conductivity of the recharged water, an average electrical conductivity of <1000 µS/cm and about
160 m3/d was found. Since start of infiltration, in total about 3.200 m³ have been infiltrated (status 15th
December). The envisaged infiltration rate of 200 – 240 m3/d will be established in near future.
Figure 11 Recharged water volume and electrical conductivity (EC) of recharge water since beginning of infiltration.
18
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
5.3 Results from monitoring activities in 2015
[Hella Schwarzmüller, KWB]
In 2015, the third sampling campaign to assess the state of effluent and groundwater hydrochemistry
before infiltration was carried out. On Oct. 21st and 22nd, VWSI, A21 and KWB were taking samples from
secondary effluent
tertiary effluent
piezometers 3, 4 and 5 (drilled within DEMOWARE)
municipal wells 1 and 2
monitoring well “Bolera”
The samples were analysed for main cations and anions, dissolved metals, stable isotopes and trace or-
ganics (see Table 5).
Table 5: Extent of analyses for the sampling and monitoring campaigns within DEMOWARE
Parameter group Extent of analysis
Main ions Na, K, Ca, Mg, Cl, ortho-PO4, NO3, NH4, SO4, HCO3, I, Br, F
Metals Al, Fe, Mn, Cu, As, B, Cd, Ni, Zn, Pb, Hg
Sum parameters (partly on site) TOC, DOC, AOX, TDS, UVA254, DO, EC, Eh, pH, temperature
Priority compounds Screening of 89 parameters acc. to EU
Trace organic screening Screening of 51 pharmaceuticals & pesticides
Indicator bacteria & bacteriophages E. coli. Enterococci, total coliforms, Clostridium perfringens, Coliphage
Viruses Adeno-, Rota-, Noro-, Enteroviruses
At current stage, secondary and tertiary effluent were sampled three times in addition to routine moni-
toring, monitoring wells “Hort petit baye”, “Hort grande baye”, “Roqueta” and “Bolera” were samples
once each, the municipal wells were sampled two to three times, and the piezometers drilled within
DEMOWARE two to three times, too. Since November, sampling activities are continued within the moni-
toring of infiltration (see section 0).
All sample results were summarized in excel sheets and groundwater samples were additionally moved to
the geochemical software tool AquaChem for plausibiliy checks and graphical interpretation.
The third campaign represented the situation after the high season and shortly before start of infiltration.
Sampling showed that the aquifer baseline can be described as being aerobic, with conductivities around
400 to 500 µS/cm and no pesticides or pharmaceuticals present in ambient groundwater. For secondary
and tertiary effluent, the repeated trace organic screening for samples taken in October 2015 confirmed
the previous findings of October 2014. The results table for the third campaign can be found in Annex 8
(main ions) and Annex 9 (trace organics, all pre-infiltration campaigns).
19
El Port – Annual report 2015
5.4 Planned monitoring activities 2016
Main objectives of the monitoring of infiltration are i) to determine travel times and mixing ratio and ii) to
asses the degradation performance of subsurface passage with regards to chemical and microbial risks
(see also section 6). It thus comprises the whole treatment scheme, starting with secondary and tertiary
effluent at the waste water treatment plant (WWTP), ambient groundwater (Piezo-3), infiltrated water
from the pond as well as downstream groundwater along a transect towards the drinking water abstrac-
tion wells. Monitoring is carried out by VWSI, the local partner EMACBSA and KWB following a joint
schedule (Annex 10). Parameters and measurement frequencies are summarized in Table 6:
Table 6 Monitoring schedule
Point of compliance Parameter group Frequency Additional remarks
Secondary effluent/
Tertiary effluent
WTTP-routine
DOC
Priority compounds
Trace organic screening
VIruses
weekly
monthly
quarterly
monthly
quarterly
Ambient groundwater
(Piezo-3)
Main ions
Metals
Stable isotopes
monthly
monthly
monthly
continuous logging of head, temperature and EC
Infiltrated water (Pond) Main ions
Metals
Stable isotopes
Priority compounds
Trace organic screening
Indicator bacteria
Viruses
fortnightly
monthly
monhly
quarterly
monthly
quarterly
quarterly
Salinity of effluent used as threshold parameter to stop infiltration if needed
Monitoring wells
Piezo-7, Piezo-6
Piezo-4, Piezo-5
Piezo-2
Camping
HGB/ HPB
Bolera
Main ions
Metals
Stable isotopes
Priority compounds
Trace organic screening
Indicator bacteria
Viruses
fortnightly
monthly
fortnightly to monthly
quarterly
monthly
quarterly
quarterly
continuous logging of head at Piezo-4, HGB, Pavello and municipal wells
head, temperature and EC at Piezo-6, Piezo-7 and Bolera
20
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
6 Risk assessment
[Wolfgang Seis, KWB]
In DEMOWARE, scenarios for drinking water consumption and private and urban gardening are exam-
ined. Up to now, scenarios for drinking water have been calculated for Rotavirus, pesticides and pharma-
ceuticals. As a basis for chemical selection, the results of previous sampling campaigns have been consid-
ered.
6.1 Microbial risk assessment
Quantitative microbial risk assessment offers an opportunity to make quantitative risk estimates based on
measured data combined with theoretical assumptions based on reviewed literature. Risk assessment is
conducted for so called reference pathogens. Rotavirus was chosen as the first pathogen because:
1) Recent research found out that the highest risk for microbial infection comes from viruses
2) Rotavirus are one of the most frequently detected viruses
3) Rotavirus are highly infectious (worst case)
4) Dose response relations for rotavirus are available
For a first risk estimate, it was assumed that there will be no further chlorination after drinking water
withdrawal. Consequently, if the risk is below tolerable levels under this assumption it definitely will be
with chlorination.
Figure 12 describes the resulting structure of the QMRA approach.
Figure 12 Model structure for QMRA in El Port de la Selva
21
El Port – Annual report 2015
6.1.1 Assumptions
Table 7 shows the assumed values for risk calculation. The assumptions can be regarded as conservative
because:
1) The final chlorination for drinking water production was ignored
2) For performance assessment of the UV disinfection step, the measured values for clostridium
perfringens were used (very resistant again UV)
3) Long reduction time up to 100d / log unit were assumed for virus inactivation
4) Travel time was set to 500d (below modelled travel time from Amphos21)
Table 7 Assumptions for risk calculation
Parameter Distribution Comments
E. Coli influent 10
7
-109
MPN/100 mL
0.1-1 Rotavirus/ 105
E.Coli Conservative (WHO 2006)
Reduction activated Sludge Tri (min = 0, max = 2, mode =1) WHO 2006
Reduction UV disinfection Tri (min = 0.9, max = 3.8, mode = 2.1) Conservative as value for clostridium perfringens is used
Reduction in infiltration pond + un-saturated zone
For first modelling neglected
Reduction during subsurface passage 1 log reduction
(min = 30 d, max = 100 d)
Conservative assumption for aerobic conditions
Reduction chlorination
In DW production Per definition = 0
no reliance on drinking water chlo-rination
6.1.2 Results of risk estimate
Figure 13 shows the calculated results for risk estimation and estimated Rotavirus concentrations in
drinking water. Even under the conservative assumptions made for risk calculation, the risk is well below
the WHO benchmark of 10-6 DALYs per person per year (pppy) (WHO 2006, 2011). Based on these results,
the risk of infection due to indirect potable reuse in El Port de la Selva can be regarded as very low. The
assumptions should however be further validated. Therefore, microbiological sampling campaigns are
planned during monitoring of infiltration.
22
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Figure 13 Estimate of Rotavirus concentrations in drinking water (without chlorination) and related DALYs per per-
son per year (pppy)
6.2 Chemical risk
For risk assessment of micropollutants, measured micropollutant concentrations have been calculated
based on the modelling approaches outlined in the appendices of the Australian Guidelines for Water
Recycling (NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC 2009). Because there are no drinking water limit values for pharmaceu-
ticals defined in Spanish drinking water regulations, the German approach of health-oriented values
(HoV) has been used for the assessment. In this approach, a generic limit value of 0.1µg/L is applied for all
new and unassessed substances. After further toxicity testing, values can become less strict for non-toxic
chemicals as well as stricter (0.01µg/L) for e.g. highly potent carcinogenic chemicals. For the selection of
relevant substances, a screening level monitoring was conducted during the pre-infiltration sampling
campaigns.
6.2.1 Assumptions
For risk assessment of pharmaceuticals, at first, measured concentrations were doubled for making more
conservative assumptions. Further, the following boundary conditions were considered:
• First-order exponential decay, distinction between aerobic and anaerobic conditions
• Sorption is expressed by Koc and Kd, L/kg distribution coefficient for linear isotherm
• Volatilisation is neglected
• Only horizontal flow considered: worst case assumption
Table 8 Assumptions for aquifer characteristics
Parameter Values Unit Data source/ quality
Organic fraction in soil 0.00002-0.00016 - Assumption: 10 % of Berlin Tegel
Density of soil 1675 kg/m³ Berlin Tegel
Porosity 0.2-0.4 - Expert guess:
Dr. Hella Schwarzmueller
Traveltime µ = 500, sd = 100 d Model Marti Bayer, moderate
23
El Port – Annual report 2015
Table 9 Measured concentration in WWTP effluent and assumptions for biodegradation and pH specific logD/logP
values
6.2.2 Results of pharmaceutical estimation in drinking water
The modelled concentrations indicate that residuals of pharmaceuticals and Acesulfam are likely to be
found in drinking water between 100ng and 1 µg /L (Figure 14 and Table 10). The effect of chemical oxi-
dation by the chlorination step of the drinking water supply is currently neglected, but is likely to further
reduce pharmaceutical concentration.
In a recent review by Paranychianakis et_al. (2015) on standards in wastewater reuse, it is stated con-
cerning acute effects of pharmaceuticals that “current data suggests that concentrations of pharmaceuti-
cals in WWTPs are likely below the levels of health concern to humans, thus this class of compounds seems
to have low, if any, relevance to potable recycling systems regardless of treatment process train (Bruce et
al.,2010). In the same publication it says that concerning chronic effects of chemicals “the lack of long-
term exposure data to trace organics constrains the accurate quantification of the health risks. The avail-
able data show great temporal and spatial variations in the concentration of organics as a result of the
source concentrations (Hope et al., 2012) and treatment processes (Rosario-Ortiz et al., 2011; Yuan et al.,
2011; Pisarenko et al., 2012; Reungoat et al., 2012)”.
In conclusion, the current literature agrees that direct health effects from exposure to pharmaceuticals
via drinking water are unlikely to be expected. However, the presence of pharmaceuticals is certainly an
unwanted effect of water reuse.
24
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Figure 14: Estimated pharmaceutical and Acesulfam concentrations in drinking water caused by indirect potable
reuse in El Port de la Selva
Table 10: Overview of estimated drinking water concentrations of pharmaceuticals and Acesulfam
25
El Port – Annual report 2015
7 Life cycle assessment
[Fabian Kraus, KWB]
Technological measures for risk reduction in water reuse may be associated with additional environmen-
tal impacts due to production of required electricity, chemicals and materials for infrastructure. Using the
holistic approach of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the environmental footprint of the implemented water
reuse scheme will be assessed considering different operation scenarios.
7.1 Scenarios
So far, the following scenarios have been discussed between KWB and CCB:
1a. Status-quo summer (JUN-SEP): WWTP + discharge into the sea & partial tertiary treatment (fil-
ter, UV, Cl) + discharge in river bed
1b. Status-quo winter (OCT-MAY): WWTP + discharge into the sea
2a. planned tertiary treatment and reuse (summer JUN-SEP): WWTP + partial discharge into
the sea & tertiary treatment on maximum capacity (filter, UV, Cl2) + storage + distribution net-
work (public/private irrigation)
Tertiary treatment on 200 m³/day (8 h/day on maximum capacity)
Tertiary treatment on 600 m³/day (24 h/day on maximum capacity)
Alternative energy mix (renewable energy for water pumping to storage tank)
2b. planned tertiary treatment and reuse (winter OCT-MAY): WWTP (incl. upgrade by Fe-
dosing & enhanced Denitrification) + tertiary treatment (filter incl. GAC, UV,) + storage + pipe-
line + infiltration ponds (aquifer recharge for indirect potable reuse)
Tertiary treatment on 200 m³/day (8 h/day on maximum capacity)
Tertiary treatment on 600 m³/day (24 h/day on maximum capacity)
Alternative energy mix (renewable energy for water pumping to storage tank)
Alternative scenarios discussed with CBB for reuse scenarios 2a & 2b comprise:
Water Reservoir > Pipeline (? km length) > Tap water (4 Mio EUR invest)
Wastewater > WWTP + UF + RO > deep well injection (aquifer)
Seawater > (UF +) RO > Tap water
7.2 Inventory and data-collection
The inventory started for the scenarios (1a.-2b.). Volumes and standard parameters are already imple-
mented; other data-collection (heavy metals, electricity and chemical demand) is pending; waiting on
reply from Lluis Sala, David Gracia (CBB); expected in January 2016. Then, the inventory for alternative
energy mix-scenarios and alternatives to water reuse will be started, too.
7.3 Model in Umberto NXT LCA software
Up to now, the model has been implemented in the Umberto NXT LCA software for the listed scenarios
(1a.-2b.) with exception of the alternatives for water reuse. These options will be implemented into the
model in January 2016 in close relation to the activities and progress on the inventory.
26
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
7.4 Preliminary results
Validated results are targeted for spring 2016; the report will be completed mid-2016.
LCA will be calculated for several impact categories. These are:
1) Cumulative energy demand of fossil & nuclear resources
2) Global warming potential (100a)
3) Terrestrial acidification potential (100a)
4) Freshwater eutrophication potential
5) Marine eutrophication potential
6) Freshwater ecotoxicity
7) Human toxicity (non-cancer & cancer)
One example of the preliminary results is shown in Figure 15 for the impact category “Cumulative energy
demand of fossil & nuclear resources” for the Scenarios 1a, 1b, 2a (different capacities) & 2b (different
capacities). Figure 15 shows thereby particularly efforts for the planned water reuse scheme (Scenarios
2a & 2b) compared to the status quo (Scenarios 1a & 1b). Currently, the Spanish electricity mix is taken
into account, so these scenarios do not cover suggestions by CBB for alternative energy mixes with re-
newable energy sources. Looking at the additional efforts of the water reuse scheme, especially the
pumping to the storage tank in El Port de la Selva increases the energy demand in total. Within the
planned summer treatment, the pumping of reclaimed water substitutes pumping of tap water, thus
besides the additional efforts, savings of energy compared to the status-quo are taken into account as
well, so the net energy demand is reduced. For winter treatment and aquifer recharge for indirect porta-
ble reuse, comparable savings cannot be taken into account, since no actual water is substituted. The
benefits of the reuse system will be represented in the water footprint, since in summer, the use of water
from the aquifer is reduced or even avoided, and during winter treatment, the artificial recharge of re-
claimed water reduces water stress. The calculations for water footprint will be realized in spring 2016.
27
El Port – Annual report 2015
Figure 15: Example for one LCIA category: cumulative energy demand of non-renewable energy resources, fossil &
nuclear for different scenarios in El Port de la Selva (preliminary results)
28
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
8 References
Asano, T., & Cotruvo, J. A. (2004). Groundwater recharge with reclaimed municipal wastewater: health
and regulatory considerations. Water Research, 38(8), 1941-1951.
Bayer-Raich, M., Vilanova, E. I Jordana S. (2015) Water reuse in El Port de la Selva: Groundwater
modelling of Soil Aquifer Treatment (SAT) for reclaimed water. 5th International Symposium “RE-
WATER Braunschweig” Branuschweig, 2-3/11/2015 ISSN 0934-9731
Bouwer, H. (1988) Groundwater recharge as a treatment of sewage effluent for unrestricted irrigation. In:
Pescod MB, Arar A., editor. Treatment and use of sewage effluent for irrigation. Boston, MA, USA:
Butterworks Publishers.
CDPH (2011): Groundwater replenishment reuse. Draft Regulation, California Department of Public
Health (CDPH): 48 p
Diersch, Hans-Jörg G. (2014) FEFLOW – Finite element modelling of flow, mass and heat transport in
porous and fractured media, Springer, 2014, Berlin Heidelberg, XXXV, 996p., ISBN 978-3-642-
38738-8, ISBN 978-3-642-38739-5 (eBook), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38739-5.
Hazen, A., 1893. Some physical properties of sand and gravel with special reference to the use in filtra-
tion. 4th Annual Report, State Board of Health, Boston.
Hölting, B., Coldewey, W.G., 2009. Hydrogeologie - EInführung in die Allgemeine und Angewandte Hydro-
geologie.
Hillebrand, O., Nödler, K., Licha, T. and Geyer, T. (2012) Multitracer test for the determination of
transport and in-situ degradation of organic micro-contaminants in karst aquifers on the example
of caffeine. EGU General Assembly 2012, held 22-27 April, 2012 in Vienna, Austria. p.17.
NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC (2009) Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling - Managed Aquifer Recharge,
Canberra.
Paranychianakis, N.V., Salgot, M., Snyder, S.A. and Angelakis, A.N. (2015) Water Reuse in EU States:
Necessity for Uniform Criteria to Mitigate Human and Environmental Risks. Critical Reviews in
Environmental Science and Technology 45(13), 1409-1468.
WHO (2006) Guidelines for the safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater, p. 222.
WHO (2011) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, p. 564, WHO.
29
El Port – Annual report 2015
9 Annex
Annex 1: Site profile for the El Port de la Selva MAR scheme
Site name El Port de la Selva
Operator name DEMOWARE
Type of MAR (e.g. Well injection and recovery, Aquifer transfer and recovery, bank filtration etc.)
Infiltration ponds (surface spreading)
Year commenced 2015
Current status pilot (2015/2016)
Map coordinates 42.325399, 3.205133
Operational scale (Mm3/a) -
Objective groundwater replenishment, counteracting seawater intrusion
Influent source (Type of water used for recharge ) treated effluent
Source water treatment before recharge tertiary
No of recharge facilities 3 infiltration ponds
Hydraulic loading rate (m3/m
2 d) -
Recharged volume (m3/a) 40.000-48.000
Residence time of recharged water in the sub-surface until recovery (d)
>500
Aquifer properties
Range of hydraulic conductivity representative for the target aqui-fer (m/d)
250 (50-500)
Lithology of target aquifer Gravel aquifer with clay lenses
Range of thickness of unsaturated zone (m)
6-9
Thickness of target aquifer (m) 10-30
Distance of recovery wells from point of recharge (m)
960
Recovered volume (Mm3/a) -
Recovered infiltrate (%)
Average percentage of recovered infiltrate
10-30
No of recovery facilities (e.g. no. of wells, drains)
2 wells
Water treatment after recovery Desinfection
Final use of water recharged by the facility
Drinking water
30
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Annex 2: Drill log and well assemply of PZ3
31
El Port – Annual report 2015
Annex 3: Drill log and well assemply of PZ4
32
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Annex 4: Drill log and well assemply of PZ5
33
El Port – Annual report 2015
Annex 5: Drill log and well assemply of PZ6
34
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Annex 6: Drill log and well assemply of PZ7
35
El Port – Annual report 2015
Annex 7: Organic carbon content and humidity of sediment samples (analysed by CTM)
Observation well Depth (m below ground level)
Humidity (%)
loss at 105°C
PZ-6
2 3.7
5 2.7
7-8 11.4
PZ-7
2 2.6
4 2.6
7.5-8 11.0
13-14 12.6
Basin 1 Shallow excavation
0.53
Basin 2 0.49
Basin 3 0.62
36
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Annex 8: Main ions and metals results of the third sampling campaign (analysed by CTM)
Sample No. 5 6 7 2 3 1 4
Sampling Site Pz3 Pz5 Pz4 AM1 AM2Hort grand
baye (HGB)Bolera
Sampling date 21.10.2015 22.10.2015 21.10.2015 22.10.2015 22.10.2015 22.10.2015 21.10.2015
Remarksfi ltered on site
0.45µ
filtered on site
0.45µ
filtered on site
0.45µ
filtered on site
0.45µ
filtered on site
0.45µ
filtered on site
0.45µ
filtered on site
0.45µ
Parameter Unit LoQ
Na mg/l 0,5 44,3 35,0 39,5 46,4 45,1 52,9 138,6
K mg/l 0,3 4,4 1,5 1,9 2,2 2,0 2,9 6,5
Ca mg/l 0,5 39,3 20,1 23,4 27,3 26,9 35,2 39,6
Mg mg/l 0,5 10,9 8,1 9,1 10,4 10,3 13,4 26,9
Cl mg/l 0,1 77,9 60,7 69,4 89,4 86,8 114,6 286,9
NO2 mg/l 0,1 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2
NO3 mg/l 0,1 3 3,5 3,9 5 4,9 7,3 5,5
orto-PO4 mg/l 0,1 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2
SO4 mg/l 0,1 24,2 27,2 30,9 32,9 32,4 38,7 54,5
NH4 mg/l 0,1 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1
HCO3 mg/l 0,1 114,9 55,6 59,6 58,5 58,8 64,2 60,2
I
Br mg/l 0,1 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,3 1,0
F mg/l 0,1 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2 < 0,2
Al µg/l 5 42 25 38 27 24 26 41
Fe µg/l 10 77 35 116 60 63 50 138
Mn µg/l 0,1 85 2 15 3 2 4 16
Cu µg/l 0,5 2 2 2 16 15 5 3
As µg/l 0,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B µg/l 5 23 17 19 28 27 31 43
Cd µg/l 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1 < 0,1
Ni µg/l 0,5 3 1 1 2 1 1 1
Zn µg/l 0,5 3 4 5 103 70 35 17
Pb µg/l 0,1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2
DOC mg/l 0,1 1,80 0,90 0,90 0,60 0,50 0,90 0,60
UVA254 Abs units 0,033 0,015 0,014 0,013 0,01 0,016 0,014
pH upH 7,8 6,8 6,8 7,1 7,0 7,0 7,0
EC µS/cm 517 371 408 487 479 590 1170
Plausibility
Ionenbilanzfehler -5,7814 0,3721 -1,3575 -1,1975 -0,9900 -0,5811 -0,8619
pass pass pass pass pass pass pass
37
El Port – Annual report 2015
Annex 9: Results of trace organic screenings (analysed by CSIC and BWB)
1st sampling campaign 2nd sampling campaign 3rd sampling campaign
StaionID Tertiary effluent
Abastament Municipal 1
Secondary effluent
Secondary effluent
Tertiary effluent Piezo 4
Secondary effluent
Tertiary effluent
Abastament Municipal 1 Piezo 7
SampleID TEf-1 AM1-1 SEf-2c SEf-2b TEf-2 Pz4-2 SEf-4 TEf-4 AM1-4 Pz7-4
Sample_Dat 06.05.2014 06.05.2014 30.10.2014 30.10.2014 30.10.2014 30.10.2014 19.11.2015 19.11.2015 19.11.2015 20.11.2015
Sample_Lab CSIC CSIC CSIC BWB BWB BWB BWB BWB BWB BWB
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ng/l
0,28
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ng/l
0,46
1,2,5-Trichlorobenzene ng/l
0,31
1,2-Dichloroethane ng/l
<0,5
2,4,5-T(richlorphenoxyessigsäure) µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
2,4-D(ichlorphenoxyessigsäure) µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
2,6-Dichlorbenzamid µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
4,4'-Diclorobenzophenone ng/l
<0,02
Acenaphthene ng/l
0,66
Acenaphthylene ng/l
1,40
Acesulfam µg/l
0,87 0,53 <0,50 0,53 <0,50 <0,10 <0,10
Aclonifen ng/l
<0,55
Alachlor µg/l
<0,07 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
Aldrin ng/l
<0,005
Amidotrizoesäure µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 0,17 0,15 <0,02 <0,02
Anthracene µg/l
1,05 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15
Atrazin ng/l
<0,07
<0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
BDE-100 ng/l
0,02
BDE-153 ng/l
<0,005
BDE-154 ng/l
<0,005
BDE-183 ng/l
0,01
BDE-197 ng/l
<0,005
BDE-209 ng/l
1,46
BDE-28 ng/l
<0,005
38
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
BDE-47 ng/l
0,07
BDE-99 ng/l
0,07
Bentazon µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Benzene ng/l
13,00
Benzo(a)pyrene ng/l
0,32
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ng/l
0,09
Benzo(g,h,i)]perylene ng/l
0,13
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ng/l
<0,015
Benzo[a]anthracene ng/l
0,12
Benzotriazole ng/l 135,7 <5
Bezafibrat µg/l 3,7 <LOD <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,05 <0,05 <0,01 <0,01
Boscalid µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Bromacil µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Bromoxynil µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
Carbamazepin µg/l 115,2 ng/l <0,05 ng/l 0,19 0,19 <0,10 0,19 0,19 <0,01 <0,01
Chloralkane ng/l
<10
Chlorfenvinphos µg/l
<0,04 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
Chloridazon µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Chlorpyrifos ng/l
5,08
Chlortoluron µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Chrysene ng/l
0,24
Clofibrinsäure µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Cybutrine ng/l
3509,00
Cypermethrin ng/l
<1,65
Desethylatrazin µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Desethyl-s-atrazine (DEA) ng/l
<0,1
Desethylterbutylazin µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Desisopropylatrazin µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phathalate ng/l
222,00
Diazinon ng/l
3,17
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene ng/l
<0,015
Dichlorprop µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
39
El Port – Annual report 2015
Diclofenac µg/l 4,1 ng/l <0,5 ng/l <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 0,24 0,15 <0,01 <0,01
Dicofol p,p ng/l
11,12
Dieldrin ng/l
0,40
Dihydroxydihydrocarbamazepin µg/l
1,5 1,2 <0,15 0,58 0,59 <0,02 <0,02
Dimethoate ng/l
15,10
Diuron µg/l 60,1 ng/l <0,1 ng/l 492,8 ng/l 2,3 1,7 <0,15 0,43 0,42 <0,03 <0,03
Endosulfan sulphate ng/l
<0,05
Endrin ng/l
<0,02
Ethofumesat µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
FAA µg/l
0,63 0,38 <0,01 <0,01
Fluoranthene ng/l
1,05
Fluorene ng/l
1,55
Gabapentin µg/l
1,6 <0,15 <0,15 0,43 0,43 <0,01 <0,01
ɣ-Hexachlorocyclohexane ng/l
1,66
Heptachlor epoxide B ng/l
<0,015
Hexabromocyclodecane ng/l
<0,3
Hexachlorobenzene ng/l
0,11
Hexachlorobutadiene ng/l
<0,18
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ng/l
0,13
Iohexol µg/l
<0,25 <0,25 <0,25 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
Iomeprol µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Iopamidol µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Iopromid µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Isodrin ng/l
<0,005
Isoproturon µg/l
1,17 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Koffein µg/l
<0,50 <0,50 <0,50 n. a. n. a. <0,10 <0,10
Lenacil µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
MCPA µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Mecoprop µg/l <LOD <LOD <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Metalaxyl µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
Metamitron µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Metazachlor µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
40
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Methyldesphenylchloridazon µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Metolachlor µg/l
0,16 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Metoprolol µg/l 55,0 ng/l 0,24 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,05 <0,05 <0,01 <0,01
Metribuzin ng/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
N-Acetyl-sulfamethoxazol µg/l
0,11 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Naphtalene ng/l
<4
Nonylphenols ng/l
<15
o,p'-DDD ng/l
<0,015
o,p'-DDE ng/l
<0,015
o,p'-DDT ng/l
<0,015
p,p'-DDD ng/l
0,07
p,p'-DDE ng/l
0,13
p,p'-DDT ng/l
<0,025
PBSM (neutrale Pestizide) µg/l
2,3 <0,15 <0,15 0,43 0,42 <0,03 <0,03
Pentachlorobenzene ng/l
0,06
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ng/l
<2,5
Perfluorobutanoic acid ng/l
10,60
Perfluorodecanoic acid, ng/l
8,00
Perfluoroheptanoic acid, ng/l
<0,25
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid, ng/l
<0,25
Perfluorohexanoic acid, ng/l
<0,25
Perfluorononaoic acid, ng/l
5,00
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, ng/l
<2,5
Perfluorooctanoic acid, ng/l
7,50
Perfluoropentanoic acid ng/l
<2,5
Phenantrene ng/l
<0,8
Phenazone ng/l <LOD 0,2
Phenobarbital µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
Phenylethylmalonamid µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,05 <0,05 <0,01 <0,01
Phenylsulfonylsarcosin µg/l
<0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,10 <0,02 <0,02
Primidone ng/l <LOD <LOD
<0,05 <0,05 <0,01 <0,01
Pyrene ng/l
2,04
41
El Port – Annual report 2015
Quinmerac µg/l
<0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Quinoxyfen µg/l
<0,1 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
Simazin µg/l
1,95 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Sulfamethoxazol µg/l 7,5 ng/l <0,05 ng/l 0,84 0,1 <0,10 0,42 0,34 <0,02 <0,02
Terbuthylazin µg/l
11,2 ng/l <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,03 <0,03
Terbutryn ng/l
163,50
Tetrachlormethan ng/l
<0,5
Tetrachoroethylene ng/l
5,00
Trichloroethylene ng/l
<0,5
Trichloromethane (chloroform) ng/l
2,00
Trifluralin ng/l
<0,045
Trimethoprin ng/l 32,9 <LOD
n. b. n. b. n. b. n. b.
α-Endosulfan ng/l
<0,025
α-Hexachlorocyclohexane ng/l
0,26
β-Endosulfan ng/l
<0,1
β-Hexachlorocyclohexane ng/l
0,52
δ-Hexachlorocyclohexane ng/l
<0,01
<LOD below limit of detection
< xy below limit of quantification
42
DEMOWARE GA No. 619040
Annex 10: Monitoring schedule for the infiltration period (November 2015 to April 2016 plus 2 months follow-up time). The numbers indicate the parameter groups to be considered.
No Date Raw waste water SE TE Pond Pz7 Pz6 Pz5 Pz2 Camping AM1 HGB HPB Bolera [Intention]
(between
basin 2/3)(basin 3) (SOREA) (Esteve Bayé) (Esteve Bayé) (ACA)
1 calendar week 46 EMACBSA A21+VWSI 3 1,2,4,5,7,8,12 1,2,4,7,8,12 0,1,2,4,6,7,8,120,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,120,1,2,3,4,6,12 0 0 0 0,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,120,1,2,3,4,6,12 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,3,4,6,12 initial complete @site +Br
9.11.-15.11
2 calendar week 48 VWSI A21+EMACBSA 2 0,1,2,12 0,1,2,12 0,1,2,12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1,2,12 basic monitoring/ backup sampling
23.11.-29.11
3 calendar week 50 VWSI EMACBSA 2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 12 basic monitoring/ backup sampling
7.12.-13.12
4 calendar week 52 EMACBSA VWSI 2 0,1,2,12 0,1,2,12 0,1,2,12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1,2 basic monitoring/ backup sampling
21.12.-27.12.
5 calendar week 1 VWSI EMACBSA 2-3 0,1,2,4,8,12 0,1,2,4,8,12 0,1,2,4,8,12 0,1,2,4,12 0 0 0 0 0 0,1,2,6 trace org + DOC @site
04.01.-10.01.2016
6 calendar week 3 VWSI EMACBSA 2 0,1,2,12 0,1,2,12 0,1,2,12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1,2 basic monitoring/ backup sampling
18.1.-24.1
7 calendar week 5 KWB EMACBSA 5 9,10,11 1,2,4,5,9,10,11,121,2,4,7,8,9,10,11,120,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,11,120,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,11,120,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,11,120,1,2,4,12 0,1,2,4,7,8,12 0 0 0 0 0,1,2,6complete @site (prio,
trace, microbio)
1.2.-7.2 11 11 11 11 11 11 (microbio repeated)
8 calendar week 7 EMACBSA VWSI 2 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0 0 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 isotopes @site+Br
15.2.-21.2.
9 calendar week 9 VWSI EMACBSA 3 12 12 0,1,2,4,8,12 0,1,2,4,8,12 0,1,2,4,8,12 0,1,2,4,12 0,1,2,4,8,12 0,1,2,4,12 0 0 0 0 mon / traceorg + DOC @site
29.2.-6.3.
10 calendar week 11 VWSI EMACBSA 2 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2 0,1,2 0,1,2 0,1,2 0 0,1,2,6 isotopes @site+bay
14.3.-20.03
11 calendar week 13 EMACBSA VWSI 2-3 0,1,2,4,8 0,1,2,4,8 0,1,2,4,8 0,1,2,4 0,1,2,4 0 0,1,2,4 0,1,2 0 0,1,2 mon / doc + traceorg
28.3.-3.4.
12 calendar week 15 VWSI EMACBSA 2 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0,1,2,6 0 0 0,1,2,6 0,1,2 0 0,1,2,6 isotopes @site+bay
11.4.-17.04.
13 calendar week 17 KWB EMACBSA 5 9,10,11 1,2,4,5,9,10,111,2,4,7,8,9,10,110,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,110,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,110,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,110,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,11 0,1,2,4,7,8 0,1,2,4 0,1,2,4,7,8,9,10,11 0,1,2 0 0,1,2,4,6complete @ site+Br
at end of infiltration
25.4.-1.5. 11 11 11 11 11 11 (microbio repeated)
14 calendar week 25 KWB VWSI 3 0,1,2,4,6,7,8 0,1,2,4,6,7,8 0,1,2,4,6,7,8 0,1,2,4,6,7,8 0,1,2 0,1,2,4,6,7,8 0,1,2 0 0,1,2,6 final complete
20.6.-26.6.2016
12
Estimated
effort
(days)
Responsible
PartnerSupported by