The Spanish experience of legal system and industrial development of wastewater reclamation and reuse - Consorci d'Aigües Costa Brava Girona
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Spanish experience of legal system and
industrial development of wastewater
reclamation and reuse
Lluís Sala
lsala@ccbgi.org
International Forum on the Legal System and Industrial Development
of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse
National Taipei University of Technology
Taipei, Taiwan, 15-16 September 2009The Costa Brava • Name given to the coastal strip of the Girona province, in NE Spain • Mediterranean climate: hot, dry summers, mild winters and usually wet autumns and springs (avg. rainfall around 650 mm/year) • Rugged coastline, with beautiful beaches, tourism-oriented area • 27 municipalities, approx. 100 km from north to south (straight line) • Resident population, approx. 240,000 inhabitants. Maximum population in summer estimated at over 1 million inhabitants (Spanish, European)
The Consorci de la Costa Brava (I)
• Water agency created in 1971 by the 27 municipalities of
the coastal area of Girona’s province.
• Deals with the whole water cycle:
– Wholesale purveyor of drinking water to 14 municipalities
(3 of them external to CCB) – 18 million m3/year in 2008
– Biological wastewater treatment to 28 municipalities (2 of
them external to CCB) in 19 WWTP – 31 million m3/year in
2008. The 2 remaining municipalities to be connected to
WWTP by 2010.
– Reclamation and reuse of treated wastewater for non-
potable purposes since 1989 - 5.5 million m3/year in 2008
produced in 14 facilities
• Construction, operation and maintenance of water
treatment facilities funded by the Catalan Water Agency
(regional water authority, tax collecting agency)The Consorci de la Costa Brava (II) • Facilities operated by CCB (as of 2009)
The Empresa Mixta d’Aigües de la Costa
Brava, SA
-Costa Brava Water-
• Created on April 1st, 2006
• Shareholders:
– Public: Consorci de la Costa Brava (33 %)
– Private: Grouping of Economic Interest (67 %),
originally formed by the following companies:
SEARSA, SOREA and AQUALIA.
• Operates all the wastewater treatment
and reclamation facilities owned by the
CCB and some owned by the municipalities
served by the CCB (i.e., pumping stations)Water reuse in the Costa Brava
Reasons to reuse • Over-extraction, depletion and pollution of the small coastal aquifers • Increase in non-potable urban demand (golf courses, private and municipal gardens) • Significant investment for an adequate supply of drinking water (water transfers and desalination) • Significant investment in wastewater collection and treatment to biological, secondary level. Effluent discharged into the sea through submarine outfalls • An additional treatment (reclamation) produces safe water to cope with non-potable demands = more logical resources management in the area
Evolution of reclaimed water production
The Consorci de la Costa Brava (III)
• Volumes treated and reclaimed (2008)
Volume of Volume of
Operational Number wastewater Number of reclaimed Percentage of
area of WWTP treated in 2008, reclamation water produced water
million m3/year facilities in 2008, reclamation,
million m3/year %
Northern 9 6.6 7 1.1 18
Central I 4 4.2 2 1.1 26
Central II 2 11.1 2 0.8 7
Southern 3 9.1 3 2.5 27
Total 18 31.0 14 5.5 18Breakdown of uses
Golf course and
landscape irrigation
19%
Aquifer recharge
34%
Agricultural irrigation
12%
Internal and non-
potable urban uses Environmental uses
3% 32%
2008
Golf course and landscape irrigation Agricultural irrigation
Environmental uses Internal and non-potable urban uses
Aquifer rechargeTypes of reuse according to
reclaimed water pricing
• Non-billable: reclaimed water is used in the public interest.
Expenses covered by the Catalan Water Agency. 77% of the
reclaimed water produced in 2007. Non-demand dependent.
Examples:
– Aquifer recharge for resource augmentation in Blanes
– Seawater intrusion control in Llançà and Port de la Selva
– Environmental reuse at the Aiguamolls de l’Empordà (Empordà
Marshes) Nature Reserve
– Agricultural irrigation for users who have had their resources
reduced to favour the production of drinking water (Torroella
de Montgrí)
• Billable: to a private end user. 23% of the reclaimed water
produced in 2007. Written agreements =contracts.
Dependent on demand. Average price: 0.12 €/m3. Examples:
– Golf courses (6) & Pitch & Putt facilities (2)
– Corn fields (2) and fruit and vegetable orchards (1)
– Wineries (1)Aquifer recharge • Volume supplied in 2008 = 1,890,000 m3 • Increase in groundwater level in agricultural wells and salinity reduction in Blanes • Prevention of seawater intrusion in Port de la Selva and Llançà
Environmental reuse
• Volume supplied in 2008 = 1,760,000 m3
• Direct supply:
– Environmental reuse at the Aiguamolls de l’Empordà Nature Reserve (coastal
marsh area)
• Indirect supply:
– Environmental reuse at the Tossa Creek (percolation through pond)
– Environmental enhancement at the Ridaura Creek (irrigation flow exchange)
• Cleaner discharges = what is reclaimed and not supplied
Tossa Creek dry
upstream of the
Parc de Sa Riera
pond and with
reclaimed water
percolated
through the soil
(June 2007)
Left: winter image of the 7 ha constructed wetland system used for effluent
polishing. Right: White water crowfoot (Ranunculus aquatilis L.) grown on reclaimed
water produced by the Empuriabrava constructed wetland facility which is used to
restore wet meadows in the Parc Natural dels Aiguamolls de l’Empordà, April 2007Environmental reuse
• Reclaimed water helps to improve local biodiversity
All images taken on the
Empuriabrava
Courtesy of constructed wetland
Ruud Kampf systemGolf course irrigation
• Volume supplied in 2008 = 1,030,000 m3
• First use in 1989. Nowadays, supply to 6 golf courses and 2 pitch & putt
facilities.
Sustainable supply for golf courses
Business as usual during the droughts of 2005 and 2007-2008Agricultural irrigation
• Volume supplied in 2008 = 670,000 m3
• Two situations:
– Full supply for small agricultural areas near large WWTP
– Complementary supply in larger agricultural areas – usually fed by surface
waters from reservoirs
Caves Castell de Peralada, D.O. Empordà
85% Syrah, 15% Cabernet Sauvignon
Price: 100€
Business as usual during the droughts of 2005 and 2007-2008Urban non-potable uses
• Volume supplied in 2008 = 180,000 m3
• Smaller flows but produced and reused in smaller municipalities
• Trend: to be distributed through specific pipelines in small to medium-
sized municipalities – reclaimed water distribution systems
• Reasons: drinking water scarcity and/or high cost (desalinated water)
Simultaneous water and energy savings!Why reuse in Spain?
• Factors that have had an influence on the development of wastewater
reclamation and reuse in Spain over the last 2 decades:
– Mediterranean and semi-arid climate in the east, south and south-east
– Increase in water demand – domestic, touristic, agricultural
– Periodic droughts
– Construction of biological wastewater treatment plants throughout Spain, starting
by those in coastal touristic communities (Costa Brava, Costa del Sol, Valencia, etc.)
– University scholars dealing with the subject of wastewater reclamation and reuse
(i.e., Prof. Rafael Mujeriego, Prof. Miquel Salgot)
– Close contact with foreign experiences, mostly from US (California, Florida), both
at university and water agency levels
• Over the years, these factors have progressively led to the idea that effluents -
specially those discharged into the sea- could turn into valuable new resources
to cope with non-potable demandsSpanish climate
• Reduced and/or irregular rainfall patters in the East and South-
East
400 -700 mm/y
< 300 mm/y
Map source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spain-climate-en.png
(consulted on 13 Aug 2009)Density of population
• High density of population in the East and in the South East –
where climate is nicer
High demand of
drinking water =
effluents are
being produced
= effluents can
be reclaimed
and reused
Map source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EspDens2.jpg
(consulted on 13 Aug 2009)Irregular rainfall (I)
• Percentages of precipitation in Catalonia (NE Spain) in autumn 2007
compared to the climatic average (last big drought): the warmer the colours,
the greater the decrease in precipitation
Barcelona metropolitan area: Area where surface water is obtained for
4.7 million inhabitants the drinking water supply of the Barcelona
metropolitan area
Map source: www.meteocat.comIrregular rainfall (II)
• Consequences:
– Barcelona metropolitan area on the verge of supply cuts
– Serious affection downstream of the reservoirs in the rivers diverted for drinking
water production
– Social unrest
Protests in the city of Girona (June 2008)
because of the excessive diversion of
water from the Ter river, damaging the
Ter river: All the water is irrigated agriculture downstream, the
Sau Reservoir in the Ter river, almost ecological status of the river and
diverted for the supply to the
empty (drought of 2005). Foto source: threatening the supply of the city itself
Barcelona metropolitan area
http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20051009el
and none is left for the river to
pcat_1/SCO250/Ies/antigua_iglesia_Sant
flow (July 2005, photo by
_Roma.jpg (accessed 13 Aug 2009)
Manuel Ibarz)Wastewater treatment
• Construction of state-of-the-art biological wastewater
treatment plants throughout Spain.
• Secondary effluents discharged into the sea –where raw
wastewater was discharged previously
Blanes WWTP, Consorci Arroyo de la Miel WWTP, WWTP in Lanzarote, Canary
Costa Brava (Girona) Benalmádena, ACOSOL Islands
(Málaga)University scholars
• Some scientists have chosen wastewater reclamation and reuse
as their field of work and expertise, creating a unique
environment for its rational development at full-scale
Prof. Takashi Asano with his long-time Prof. Miquel Salgot in a FAO visit
collaborator Prof. Rafael Mujeriego in a at the Blanes (Costa Brava)
visit at a Tossa de Mar (Costa Brava) water reclamation facility that
water reuse site in June 2007. supplies irrigation water to some
agricultural plots. August 2007.Contacts with foreign agencies
• CCB organized the 1st IAWPRC (nowadays, IWA)
International Symposium on Wastewater Reclamation,
Recycling and Reuse in 1991
• Over the last 2 decades, different visits to California and
Florida by CCB, Dept. Of Environment of the Catalan Regional
Government and Spanish Ministery of Environment
• Leadership in IWA Water Reuse Group (Prof. Mujeriego,
Chair, 1995-2000; myself, Secretary and Newsletter Editor, Mr. Josep Arnau (Chair of CCB), Prof.
Takashi Asano and Prof. Rafael
1995-2003) Mujeriego in California in February 1993
• Organization of events (i.e., MED-REUNET program, co-
sponsored by AGBAR –Barcelona Water Company- and EU)
for information exchange at a Mediterranean level
• Organization and participation at national and international
conferences (i.e., AEAS, Adecagua, IWA Water Reuse
conferences)
• Joint applied research with foreign agencies (i.e., CCB with
Waternet, Amsterdam)
Mrs. Raquel Iglesias and Mr. Enrique
Iglesias (CEDEX, Spanish Ministery of
Construction) in a presentation at the
Aquarec conferece, Barcelona, February
2006A new idea takes shape…
• … specially in dry periods:
– Aren’t there better things to do with the treated effluent
rather than discharge it into the sea?Refinement of the idea
• Urban supply is a non-consumptive
activity: availability of water is limited,
but the volumes are predictable and
relatively constant over time.
• If there are no toxic discharges, original
quality can be restored to a great extent.
• If no salt removal is needed, additional Water produced by the Blanes reclamation
processes to reclaim water and make it plant (N/DN + Title-22) and used for the
recharge of the lower river Tordera aquifer by
usable again can be cost-effective percolation, 7 July 2005
compared to other options
– WWTP need to have an optimal Summary of quality in 2007
performance (Percentile 90 of the annual set of data):
– Greater cost is in the new, independent SS = 2.4 mg/L (319 samples)
Turbidity = 2.2 UNT (324 samples)
distribution system, not in the Total nitrogen = 9.2 mg N/L (140 samples)
reclamation treatment itself. Total phosphorus = 1.8 mg P/L (141 samples)
E. coli < 1 cfu/100 mL (116 samples)Steps towards Spanish regulations • The need for regulations appears because of the increasing interest and practice • First draft on wastewater reclamation and reuse proposed by CEDEX in 1999. Idea: halfway between Californian standards and WHO guidelines • Little interest and no further developments until 2005. New draft proposed by AEAS (Spanish Association of Supply and Sanitation), backed by the Ministery of Environment. • Passed in Dec 7th, 2007 (RD 1620/2007). 2-year time for full application. • In the recent months, several issues under review. Meetings with producers arranged by Spanish Ministery of Environment, seeking for improvements and adjustments in some of the requirements.
Basic ideas
• Definitions
– Water reuse: second use of adequately treated wastewaters (biological +
reclamation treatments) before its discharge in the environment
– Reclaimed water: Treated wastewater that has undergone an additional
treatment to achieve a level of quality which is safe for a certain set of uses
(mostly non-potable ones).
• Quality
– Stricter quality levels with increased likelihood of human contact
– Percentile 90 compliance on 3-month periods for key parameters (SS, turbidity,
concentration of E. coli and intestinal nematodes) – regularity & reliability
• Management
– “Concession holder is responsible of the quality of reclaimed water” (Article 5,
#4) – what if the concession holder is not the producer?
– Point of delivery (responsability of producer) vs. Point of use (responsability of
user) – in case of different producer and userPoint of delivery vs Point of use
Required quality
Defined by category of
use No quality loss
WRA (Water Point of Point of use
reclamation plant) delivery
Responsability
Concession holder Reclaimed water user
(reclaimed water
supplier??)Categories of reuse (I)
• Category 1 – Urban uses
– 1.1 – Residential: irrigation of private gardens, toilet flushing
– 1.2 – Municipal and services: irrigation of public gardens, street cleaning, fire-
fighting and car washing
• Category 2 – Agricultural reuse
– 2.1 – Vegetables to be eaten raw
– 2.2 – Vegetables to be eaten after industrial processing, irrigation of pastures
and aquaculture
– 2.3 – Fruits that do not get in contact with reclaimed water, ornamental plants
and industrial crops (fiber, seeds, etc.)
• Category 3 – Industrial reuse
– 3.1 – a) Process and cleaning water, except in food industry, and b) other
industrial uses
– 3.1 – c) Process and cleaning water for food industry
– 3.2 – Cooling towers and evaporative condensers in industriesCategories of reuse (II)
• Category 4 – Recreational uses
– 4.1 – Golf course irrigation
– 4.2 – Ornamental ponds with no public access
• Category 5 – Environmental uses
– 5.1 – Aquifer recharge through percolation
– 5.2 – Aquifer recharge through direct injection
– 5.3 – Irrigation of forests or other vegetated areas closed to public access
– 5.4 – Other environmental uses (maintenance flows for wetlands, rivers, creeks,
etc.)Strictly forbidden • For human consumption, except in catastrophic situations; health authorities will define quality levels • For process and cleaning in food industry, as specified in the Royal Decree 140/2003 that establishes the quality requirements of waters, except for those in category 3.1c – confusion! • In hospitals and health centers • In filter-feeding shellfish aquaculture • As recreational bathing waters • In cooling towers and evaporative condensers, except what is defined for industrial uses –category 3.2- • For ornamental fountains and open surface ponds in public areas or inside public buildings • For any other use that the governmental authorities may deem to be harmful for the public health or the environment
Quality requirements (I)
Translated as appears in the RD 1620/2007
Legionella
Category Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity cfu/L
nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU (+ other require-
ments)
< 1 egg / 10 L 0 10 2 100
1.1
< 1 egg / 10 L 200 20 10 100
1.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 100 20 10 1,000
2.1
< 1 egg / 10 L 1,000 35 No limit -
2.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 10,000 35 No limit 100
2.3Quality requirements (II)
Translated as appears in the RD 1620/2007
Legionella
Category Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity cfu/L
nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU (+ other require-ments
No limit 10,000 35 15 100
3.1 a, b
< 1 egg / 10 L 1,000 35 No limit 100
3.1 c
< 1 egg / 10 L Absence 5 1 Absence
3.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 200 20 10 -
4.1
No limit
No limit 10,000 35 No limit (PT < 2 mg/L)
4.2Quality requirements (III)
Translated as appears in the RD 1620/2007
Legionella
Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity cfu/L
Category nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU (+ other requirements)
No limit
No limit 1,000 35 No limit (NT < 10 mg N/L)
5.1 (Nitrate < 25 mg NO3/L)
No limit
< 1 egg / 10 L 0 10 2 (NT < 10 mg N/L)
5.2 (Nitrate < 25 mg NO3/L)
No limit No limit No limit No limit -
5.3
To be defined case by case
5.4Sampling frequencies
Translated as appears in the RD 1620/2007
Intestinal
Category nematodes E. coli SS Turbidity Legionella NT and PT
1.1 / 1.2 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
2.1 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
2.2 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week ---- 2 / month ----
2.3 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week ---- ---- ----
3.1 ---- 1 / week 1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
3.2 1 / week 3 / week 7 / week 7 / week 3 / week ----
4.1 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
4.2 ---- 1 / week 1 / week ---- ---- 1 / month
5.1 ---- 2 / week 1 / week ---- ---- 1 / week
5.2 1 / week 3 / week 7 / week 7 / week 1 / week 1 / week
5.3 ---- ---- 1 / week ---- ---- ----
5.4Inconsistencies in
quality requirements (I)
Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity Legionella
Category nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU cfu/L
(+ other requirements)
< 1 egg / 10 L 0 10 2 100
1.1
< 1 egg / 10 L 200 20 10 100
1.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 100 20 10 1,000
2.1
< 1 egg / 10 L 1,000 35 No limit -
2.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 10,000 35 No limit 100
2.3Inconsistencies in
quality requirements (I)
Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity Legionella
Category nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU cfu/L
(+ other requirements)
< 1 egg / 10 L 0 10 2 100
1.1
< 1 egg / 10 L 200 20 10 100
1.2
2.1
< 1 egg / 10 L 0?
100 0.0? 0.00?
20 10 1,000
Or 0.00000?
< 1 egg / 10 L 1,000 35 No limit -
2.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 10,000 35 No limit 100
2.3Inconsistencies
in quality requirements (II)
Legionella
Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity cfu/L
Category nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU (+ other requirements)
No limit 10,000 35 15 100
3.1 a, b
< 1 egg / 10 L 1,000 35 No limit 100
3.1 c
< 1 egg / 10 L Absence 5 1 Absence
3.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 200 20 10 -
4.1
No limit
No limit 10,000 35 No limit (PT < 2 mg/L)
4.2Inconsistencies
in quality requirements (II)
Legionella
Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity cfu/L
Category nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU (+ other requirements)
No limit 10,000 35 15 100
3.1 a, b
< 1 egg / 10 L 1,000 35 No limit 100
3.1 c
< 1 egg / 10 L Absence 5 1 Absence
3.2
< 1 egg / 10 L 200 20 10 -
4.1
Process and cleaning No limit
No limit 10,000 35 No limit (PT < 2 mg/L)
4.2 water for food industryInconsistencies
in quality requirements (III)
Legionella
Intestinal E. coli SS Turbidity cfu/L
Category nematodes cfu/100 mL mg/L NTU (+ other requirements)
No limit
No limit 1,000 35 No limit (NT < 10 mg N/L)
5.1 (Nitrate < 25 mg NO3/L)
No limit
< 1 egg / 10 L 0 10 2 (NT < 10 mg N/L)
5.2 (Nitrate < 25 mg NO3/L)
No limit No limit No limit No limit -
5.3
To be defined case by case
5.4Inconsistencies in frequencies
Intestinal
Category nematodes E. coli SS Turbidity Legionella NT and PT
1.1 / 1.2 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
2.1 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
2.2 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week ---- 2 / month ----
2.3 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week ---- ---- ----
3.1 ---- 1 / week 1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
3.2 1 / week 3 / week 7 / week 7 / week 3 / week ----
4.1 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
4.2 ---- 1 / week 1 / week ---- ---- 1 / month
5.1 ---- 2 / week 1 / week ---- ---- 1 / week
5.2 1 / week 3 / week 7 / week 7 / week ---- 1 / week
5.3 ---- ---- 1 / week ---- ---- ----
5.4Inconsistencies in frequencies
Intestinal
Category nematodes E. coli SS Turbidity Legionella NT and PT
1.1 / 1.2 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
2.1 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
2.2
Use 2.2 (Vegetables
2 / month 1 / week
to be
1 / week ---- 2 / month ----
2.3
eaten after
2 / month
industrial
1 / week 1 / week ---- ---- ----
3.1
processing,
----
irrigation
1 / week
of
1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
pastures and aquaculture) is
3.2 1 / week 3 / week 7 / week 7 / week 3 / week ----
not affected by Legionella!
4.1 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
4.2 ---- 1 / week 1 / week ---- ---- 1 / month
5.1 ---- 2 / week 1 / week ---- ---- 1 / week
5.2 1 / week 3 / week 7 / week 7 / week ---- 1 / week
5.3 ---- ---- 1 / week ---- ---- ----
5.4Inconsistencies in frequencies
Intestinal
Category nematodes E. coli SS Turbidity Legionella NT and PT
1.1 / 1.2 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
2.1 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
2.2 2 / month 1 / week 1 / week ---- 2 / month ----
The RD 865/2003 that sets
2.3 2 / month 1 / week
criteria 1and
/ week ---- ---- ----
the quality
3.1 ---- 1 / week 1 / week 1 / week 1 / month ----
procedures for the prevention
3.2
and1 /control
week 3 / week
of 7 / week
the Legionella 7 / week 3 / week ----
4.1 2 / month 2 / week 1 / week 2 / week 1 / month ----
disease establishes a
4.2 minimum
---- frequency
1 / week 1 /of 1
week ---- ---- 1 / month
5.1 sample ---- / 3 months
2 / week for1 / high-
week ---- ---- 1 / week
5.2 risk1 / facilties
week 3(cooling
/ week 7towers
/ week 7 / week ---- 1 / week
5.3 and evaporative
---- ---- condensers)
1 / week ---- ---- ----
5.4Other inconsistencies / flaws (I)
• Analytical requirements not proportional to:
– Reclaimed water flows – same requirements for all kind of flows
– Intensity of reclaimation treatment – same requirements for any kind of
treatment (i.e., after RO, intestinal nematode eggs 2/month is still compulsory)
• P90 as the decision-making value regading supply
– Disensions on its calculation: disinfection results do not follow a normal
distribution
– Once P90 values go above the established limit, it may take several more
analysis of compliance before the supply can be resumed – when you are
already below the standard!
– Still, it is useful:
• to evaluate performance on long periods
• as a concept, to force operators to aim at reliability in the reclamation treatment
• No parameter hierarchy – SS and turbidity of the same importance as the
concentration of E. coliP90 - Practical problems Example: Data from the Tossa de Mar WRP, July 2008
P90 - Practical problems
Example: Data from the Tossa de Mar WRP, July 2008
Turbidity is < 2 NTU
but P90 still > 2 NTU.
Can supply be
resumed?Other inconsistencies / flaws (II)
• Turbidity requirements for uses 1.1, 3.2 and 5.2 stricter than turbidity
requirements in drinking water supply networks
• Difficult to comply as a P90 (specially for category 3.2) when the
reclamation treatment has no membrane filtration step
• Disinfection is still effective at those low turbidity values, even if they are
slightly over the limits
Spanish RD 140/2003 on
quality requirements of
water for human
consumptionOther inconsistencies / flaws (II)
• Esherichia coli
– It is the sole faecal indicator bacteria legally required to assess microbiological
quality of reclaimed waters
– Perfect correlation with faecal pollution but easily inactivated – is this enough in
order to effectively protect public health?
– Absence in P90 in a 3-month period (uses 1.1, 3.2 and 5.2) is extreme; P90 = 1
cfu/100 mL is already noncomformity! – Californian standards require < 2.2 cfu
TC/100 mL in a median value (P50) of the last 7 determinations
– Inactivation of E. coli does neither correlate well with inactivation of viruses nor
with that of Cryptosporidium spp. Oocysts.
– Detemination of one or more additional indicator and surrogate microorganisms
would provide more reliable information on the efficiency of the disinfection
process:
• Sulfite-reducing Clostridium spores – highly resistant, surrogate indicator of disinfectant
activity against Cryptosporidium parvum and other hardy pathogens in water
• Somatic coliphages - surrogate indicator of disinfectant activity against other viruses,
including enterovirusesOther inconsistencies / flaws (III)
• Intestinal nematode eggs:
– Little incidence of intestinal nematode infections in present-day Spain
– No intestinal nematode eggs have been found in Spain in tertiary treated effluents and
96.9% of secondary effluents would already comply the < 1 egg/10 L rule (“Presencia de
Huevos de Helmintos Parásitos en Aguas Residuales: Estudio Cualitativo y Cuantitativo.
Implicaciones Sanitarias de su Reutilización” – Gracenea, M. & Montoliu, I. (2007).
– CCB’s plants: < 1 egg in samples between 25-50 L (2002-2008) (see
http://www.ccbgi.org/reutilitzacio.php)
– Expensive, useless and unrealistic frequencies of monitoring
• Legionella requirements
– Legionella spp. is not a faecal microorganism – related to maintenance and cleanness of
facilities
– Requested limits difficult to assess - greater interferences due to higher counts of
heterotrophic bacteria
– Legionella spp. requested (most of the species are non-pathogenic), instead of Legionella
pneumophila (the real pathogen)
– Need to analyze Legionella spp. even out of summer, when temperatures prevent its
growthOther inconsistencies / flaws (IV)
• User is responsible for the “no deterioration” in reclaimed water quality,
but the concept is not precisely explained (i.e., algae growing in reclaimed
water storage ponds)
• The highest standard of accreditation for labs is required – It will make
control more difficult and expensive.
• No indications on sampling procedures – Labs may be of the highest
standard, but this is useless if sampling procedures are not accurate
• Authorized analytical methods:
– Nutrients: traditional methods (i.e., Standard Methods) not allowed. Examples:
• Nitrate: atomic absorption spectroscopy or ion chromatography (sic)
• Total phosphorus: atomic absorption spectroscopy or inductively coupled plasma
atomic emission spectroscopy (sic)
– E. coli: Culture medium has to detect beta-glucuronidase activity. No
temperature or length of incubation are given.
– Dangerous substances: chromatography, spectroscopy (sic)Summary of the critical review
• On the positive side:
– Request for reliability in the reclamation treatment, which in turn
requires a high standard of performance at secondary level
– Quality criteria for the main uses (1.2, 2.1 and 4.1) are attainable and
effectively protect public health
• On the negative side:
– Conceptual mistakes or uncertainties need to be solved (i.e., use 3.1 c,
“deterioration”, culture media for E. coli)
– User can’t be responsable for providing treatment and for quality
– RD 1620/2007 needs to be harmonized with other regulations (drinking
waters, bathing waters, Legionella)
– Irrational emphasis on control, regardless on the intenstity of treatment
and the size of the facility
– Traditional analytical methods are not acceptedThe standard reclamation treatment
in Costa Brava
• Disinfection is the essential process - aimed at reducing at safe
levels the microbiological risk:
– Wide range disinfection: UV + Cl2
– Inactivation capacity similar or greater than concentration of indicators
(= greater than the concentration of pathogens)
• Preparation processes, ahead of disinfection may be needed
(coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration)
• Combination of disinfectants reduces chlorine doses = lower risk
of THM formation
• On-line probes for the measurement of turbidity and residual
chlorine or redox potential – great reliability to the supply
• Two examples: Blanes and Tossa de MarWhy reuse in Blanes?
• Aquifer of the lower Tordera river overdrafted due to the
increasing demand (urban, industrial and agricultural) and due
to severe drought (1998-2002). Decline in the water table and
loss of quality due to seawater intrusion.
• Measures undertaken by the Catalan Water Agency (ACA) to
reverse the situation:
– Establishment of a plan for the regulation of aquifer extractions
– Promotion of internal recycling in local industries
– Construction of a 10 million m3/year desalination plant for the municipal
supply – lesser extractions from the aquifer (since 2003)
– Construction of a water reclamation facility at the Blanes WWTP to
recharge the aquifer instead of discharging secondary effluent into the
sea (average 3 million m3/year) (since 2003)
– Net gain of resources in the aquifer: + 13 million m3/year
• Increase in groundwater levels
• Decrease in groundwater salinityThe Blanes Reclamation Plant
• Extended aeration biological plant with
chemical phosphorus removal
• Title-22 tertiary treatment (700 m3/h),
with coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration and a wide range
disinfection, performed by a combination N/DN secondary effluent and flocculation tanks
of UV (maximum UV dose estimated at
189 mJ/cm2) and chlorine (210 min
contact time at peak flow)
• In operation since 2003
• Current disinfection settings: UV dose
approx. 80 mJ/cm2 + 1ppm Cl2 (210 mg
Cl2.min/L) Flocculation tanks &
lamella clarifiers (left) and
• Current uses: aquifer recharge and pulsed-bed filters
agricultural irrigation
UV disinfection system (Berson)
and reclaimed water used for
surface aquifer rechargeBenefits of the increased resources (I)
Data from Catalan Water Agency report “Proposta de gestió de la ITAM Tordera i de les extraccions de
l’aqüífer als horitzons 2009 i 2025” (December 2008)
• Higher levels of the water table 4622000
4620000
Tordera S-7
10
8 4618000
6
4
H (msnm)
2 4616000
0
-2
-4 4614000
-6
-8
4612000
-10
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Data 4610000
474000 476000 478000 480000 482000 484000
Sondeig Lloret Sondeig Lloret
10 10
8 8 Tordera
6 6
4 4
river delta
H (msnm)
H (msnm)
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
-10 -10
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Data DataBenefits of the increased resources (II)
Data from Catalan Water Agency report “Proposta de gestió de la ITAM Tordera i de les extraccions de
l’aqüífer als horitzons 2009 i 2025” (December 2008)
• Decrease in groundwater salinity 4622000
4620000
Sr. JOAN FONT
4618000
5000
Clorur (mg/l) 4000
4616000
3000
2000
4614000
1000
0
4612000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Data 4610000
ALENYÀ 2 4608000
5000 474000 476000 478000 480000 482000 484000
Clorur (mg/l)
4000 POU 8 BOHERINGER INGELHEIM ESPAÑA
3000 5000
2000
Clorur (mg/l)
4000
1000 3000
Tordera
0 2000 river delta
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1000
Data 0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
DataWhy reuse in Tossa de Mar?
• Drinking water supply secured through Water
the Blanes desalination plant, but reclamation
facility
overall energy consumption due to
treatment and transportation (aprox. 5
kWh/m3) promoted the development
of reclaimed water – the local supply.
• Until now, used only for municipal non-
potable uses. Will to extend the supply Diagram of the reclaimed water pipeline
to private non-potable uses on the for non-potable municipal uses in
short-mid term. Tossa de Mar (cyan and blue lines)
• In operation in Tossa de Mar and Lloret ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF WATER SOURCES
IN TOSSA DE MAR, COSTA BRAVA
de Mar (both since May 2007) and in
construction in Port de la Selva 6,00
• In Tossa de Mar and Lloret de Mar 5,00
Consumption, kwh/m3
4,00
produce water and energy savings 3,00
• Detailed monitoring has shown no 2,00
1,00
quality problems 0,00
Groundwater (Tordera Groundwater (local Desalination (in Reclaimed water
wells in Blanes) wells) Blanes) (Title-22)
Kind of water
Withdrawal Treatment TransportationThe Tossa de Mar reclaimed water pipeline
Construction
phase
Cleaning of a dog care
center and irrigation of
municipal gardensReclaimed water quality and inactivation
capacity in Tossa de Mar
EVOLUTION OF THE RECLAIMED WATER QUALITY IN
TOSSA DE MAR. PERCENTILE 90 OF THE ANNUAL SET OF
DATA.
25,0 100.000
20,0 10.000
Escherichia coli
Until 2006, faecal coliforms Tossa de Mar
SS, turbidity
15,0 1.000
reclamation
10,0 100 treatment
5,0 10
0,0 1
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
SS, mg/L Turbidity, NTU Escherichia coli, cfu/100 mL
Tossa de Mar
UV disinfectionMonitoring of the Tossa de Mar reclaimed water
distribution network (I)
Number of analysis – June/Dec 2007 (set-up phase)
Months
Parameters
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
SS, mg/L 49 89 56 56 34 31 28 343
Turbidity, NTU 49 108 92 102 50 44 46 491
Transmittance at 254 nm, % 49 108 87 58 50 44 46 442
Electrical conductivity, dS/m 49 89 62 55 32 18 20 325
Temperature, ºC 49 89 57 55 25 18 10 303
pH 49 89 62 55 31 18 20 324
Total residual chlorine, mg Cl2/L 49 98 93 17 0 16 20 293
Redox potential, mV 9 79 62 55 20 13 20 258
Dissolved oxygen, mg O2/L 0 79 57 55 20 8 20 239
Faecal coliforms, cfu/100 mL 20 40 35 40 25 15 15 190
Escherichia coli, cfu/100 mL 20 40 35 40 25 15 20 195
Total aerobic bacteria, cfu/mL 20 39 34 40 19 15 6 173
Pseudomonas spp., cfu/100 mL 20 28 24 38 21 13 6 150
Total 432 975 756 666 352 268 277 3.726Monitoring of the Tossa de Mar reclaimed water
distribution network (II)
Reclaimed water quality – RD 1620/2007 parameters
Percentile 90
Months
2007 SS Turbidity Escherichia coli
mg/L NTU cfu/100 mL
Quality urban use 1.1
(residential) 10 2 0
Quality urban use 1.2
(municipal services) 20 10 200 (2.0 E+02)
June 3.8 1.5 < 1.0 E+00
July 4.0 1.7 < 1.0 E+00
August 4.0 1.7 < 1.4 E+00
September 6.0 3.0 < 1.0 E+00
October 5.0 1.8 < 1.6 E+00
November 3.2 1.1 < 1.7 E+00
December 3.4 1.7 < 1.0 E+00
Overall 5.0 2.0 < 1.0 E+00Monitoring of the Tossa de Mar reclaimed water
distribution network (III)
Reclaimed water quality – Other parameters
Percentile 10 (oxygen) – Range P10-P90 (chlorine)
Months
2007 Total residual chlorine
Dissolved oxygen mg Cl2/L
mg O2/L P10 – P90
June - 0.9 – 1.2
July 7.5 1.4 – 3.3
August 7.6 2.1 – 4.1
September 7.9 3.3 – 4.3
October 8.4 -
November 9.7 1.4 – 3.3
December 10.4 0.8 – 1.8
Overall 7.6 1.0 – 3.6Monitoring of the Tossa de Mar reclaimed water
distribution network (IV)
Reclaimed water quality – Evolution along network
Parameters
Secondary Reclaimed
(arithmetic Period
effluent water XT1 XT2 XT3 XT4
averages)
Jun-Sep 10.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 2.3 2.0
SS, mg/L
Oct-Dec 7.1 2.7 3.6 2.7 2.3 2.2
Jun-Sep 5.4 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.8
Turbidity, NTU
Oct-Dec 2.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.3
Jun-Sep - 2.4 1.9 1.9 0.3 0.1
Total residual
chlorine, mg Cl2/L
Oct-Dec - 1.7 1,5 2,4 0,2 0,0
Jun-Sep 6.9 7.9 7.7 7.8 5.2 5.0
Dissolved oxygen,
mg O2/L
Oct-Dec 7.1 9.6 9.9 10.0 7.1 5.7Monitoring of the Tossa de Mar reclaimed water
distribution network (V)
Reclaimed water quality – Evolution along network
Kind of Sampling point
microorganism and
units Reclaimed
XT1 XT2 XT3 XT4
(P90) water
Faecal coliforms,
< 1.0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00
cfu/100 mL
Escherichia coli
< 1.0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00 < 1,0 E+00
cfu/100 mL
% of samples below
detection level
0 100 100 100 89 92
Faecal coliforms,
cfu/100 mL
Escherichia coli
0 100 100 100 95 97
cfu/100 mLSuccessful water reuse projects in Spain
• Agricultural irrigation
– Vitoria, Spain: Since 1996, Title-22 treatment for 35,000 m3/day (3.25 M€,
0.26 €/m3 of annual capacity) and irrigation network (28 M€, 10,000 ha) to
be used for high value crops, some to be eaten raw and exported abroad.
7,000,000 m3 reservoir only for the storage of winter reclaimed water (11.8
M€, 1.70 €/m3 storage capacity). Facilities financed by Álava Regional
Government (approx. 90%) and local irrigation districts. No adverse health
effects reported. Increase in farmers’ standard of living => from dry farming
(EU subsidies) to modernized agriculture (business mentality).
Photos by courtesy of TYTSA, VitoriaSuccessful water reuse projects in Spain
• Golf course irrigation
– Costa del Sol, Málaga, Spain: 6 reclamation plants on operation. Peak
production of 66,000 m3/day of disinfected effluents supplied to 34 golf
courses (= 7.0 million m3/year). Future: 21 existing golf courses to be
retrofitted with reclaimed water, expected need estimated at 24 million
m3/year.Successful water reuse projects in Spain
• Landscape irrigation and urban non-potable uses
– Madrid, Spain: 2.14 m3/s of reclaimed water (Title-22 treatment train,
Turbidity < 1.5 NTU, FC < 20 cfu/100 ml) to be reused for the irrigation of
17 urban parks (3700 ha) through 108 km of pipelines. Capital costs: 145
million €. Potable water savings, 22.7 million m3/year. Partially in
operation: 4.26 million m3/year supplied through the “Red Centro”
(Central Network) to irrigate 637 ha of parks and landscaped areas.Successful water reuse projects in Spain
• Aquifer recharge, agricultural irrigation and environmental reuse
– Baix Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain: 30 million m3/year project for the delivery of high
quality reclaimed water for several uses in the Baix Llobregat area, south of
Barcelona. Treatment: nutrient removal, physico-chemical, filtration, reversible
electrodyalisis (RE, for agricultural reuse); RO (for deep aquifer recharge). In
operation since summer 2006. Costs: Investment -143 million euros; O&M costs –
0.05 €/m3 basic reclamation treatment; 0.23 €/m3 RE; 0.36 €/m3 RO; 0.008 €/m3
pumping.
Photos by courtesy of the Catalan Water AgencyRO water produced from
Torroella de Montgrí’s
secondary effluent and used
for the EU MODELKEY
project
Thank you for your attention!
Questions?You can also read
