Annual progress report on the implementation of water reuse ......in El Port de la Selva -2015 i...

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

http://www.demoware.eu/

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 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


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


Figure 2 Construction Images

5


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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)



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


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


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


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


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

javascript:void(0)

30


Annex 2: Drill log and well assemply of PZ3

31



32



33



34



35


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


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


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


0,46


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


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


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


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


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


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

Annual progress report on the implementation of water reuse ......in El Port de la Selva -2015 i...

Documents

Transcript of Annual progress report on the implementation of water reuse ......in El Port de la Selva -2015 i...