EPA 600/R-14/377 I October 2014 I www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental and Cost Life Cycle
Assessment of Disinfection Options
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST LIFE CYCLE
ASSESSMENT OF DISINFECTION OPTIONS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
o ooo
Sarah Cashman , Anthony Gaglione , Janet Mosley , Lori Weiss , Troy R.
Hawkins1, Nick J. Ashbolt3, Jennifer Cashdollar3, Xiaobo Xue4, Cissy Ma1, and
Sam Arden5
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development
2Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG)
3National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development
4Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Postdoctoral Research Participant
5 University of Florida Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment
Date: October 13, 2014
-------
ABSTRACT
EPA is evaluating water disinfection technologies in coordination with the Confluence Water
Technology Innovation Cluster (WTIC) and EPA's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL). EPA is developing an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) and
cost analysis to evaluate the environmental outcomes and costs associated with innovative
disinfection technologies. EPA is further interested in establishing an LCA and cost model
framework that could be used to study other technologies or changes to drinking water and
municipal wastewater treatment systems in the future. For each technology, there are associated
differences in pathogen removal, disinfection by-product formation, treatment facility energy use
and operating costs, input chemical requirements, and supply chain impacts.
This document summarizes the data collection, analysis, and results for a base case wastewater
treatment (WWT) plant reference model. The base case is modeled after the Metropolitan Sewer
District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) Mill Creek Plant. The plant has an activated sludge
system but is not removing nitrogen or phosphorus and uses sodium hypochlorite for disinfection
prior to discharge to the Ohio River. Sludge at the Mill Creek Plant is incinerated in fluidized
bed reactors. The Mill Creek plant receives a large amount of industrial waste and UV may not
provide sufficient disinfection. MSGDC's reports were the primary data sources for the life cycle
inventory of wastewater collection and treatment system.
Results of the base case analysis show normalized WWT results are dominated by
eutrophication. Eutrophication impacts are from release of ammonia and phosphorus emissions
in wastewater effluent. Sludge incineration makes the largest contribution to global warming
potential, much of which is related to biogenic CC>2 emissions from combustion of the sludge.
Excluding biogenic carbon dioxide emissions more than halves the overall carbon footprint of
treating wastewater in the base case. Aeration is the life cycle stage that consumes the most
electricity, making it the largest contributor for many impacts including energy demand, fossil
depletion, acidification, blue water use, ozone depletion, human health cancer, and human health
criteria. The impacts driven by electricity consumption are sensitive to the electricity usage and
electricity grid sensitivity analyses conducted. Overall, primary disinfection with sodium
hypochlorite only contributes zero to 6 percent for most impact categories, with the exception of
blue water use, ozone depletion, metal depletion, and human health noncancer. Upstream
processes associated with production of the sodium hypochlorite have relatively high impacts for
these categories. Wastewater collection accounts for 33 percent of the total cost, followed by
plant-wide overhead cost, which accounts for 20 percent of the cost, sludge thickening and
dewatering, which accounts for 19 percent of the cost, and aeration, which accounts for 14
percent of the cost.
This study provides the US specific life cycle datasets for each unit process of wastewater
treatment system. The open-source and process based models built in this study are flexible to
incorporate future development of wastewater treatment technologies and associated datasets.
Although the information in this document has been funded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract EP-C-12-021 to Eastern Research Group, Inc., it does not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY GOAL 1
2. SCOPE 4
2.1 Functional Unit 4
2.2 System Boundaries 4
2.3 Impacts and Flows Tracked 6
2.3.1 Normalized and Weighted Results 7
3. LCA METHOD 8
3.1 Data Collection and Model 8
3.2 Unit Processes 9
3.3 Base Case Data Sources 10
3.4 Infrastructure Modeling 17
3.5 LCA Limitations 21
4. BASE CASE COST ANALYSIS 23
4.1 Base Case Cost Data 23
4.2 Cost Data Quality, Assumptions, and Limitations 24
5. BASE CASE RESULTS 25
5.1 Detailed Carbon Footprint Results 27
5.2 Detailed Infrastructure Results 29
5.3 Base Case Normalized Results 31
6. BASE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 34
6.1 LCA Sensitivity Results 34
6.2 Cost Sensitivity Results 39
7. OVERALL FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS 41
8. REFERENCES 42
List of Tables
Table 1. Incoming and outgoing water quality metrics for MSDGC Mill Creek Plant (per
m3 water) 2
Table 2. Impact and flow results categories 6
Table3. Data sources 11
Table 4. Percent electricity contribution by life cycle stage.3 13
Table 5. WWT LCI model input and output data (per m3 wastewater treated) 16
Table 6. Infrastructure requirements for tanks and buildings at wastewater treatment plant
(per m3 water treated) 19
Table 7. Infrastructure requirements for motors at wastewater treatment plant (per m3
water treated) 19
Table 8. Infrastructure requirements for pumps at wastewater treatment plant (per m3
water treated) 19
Table 9. Infrastructure requirements for piping at wastewater treatment plant (per m3
water treated) 20
Table 10. Infrastructure requirements for sewage pipe network (per m3 water treated) 20
Table 11. Generic pipe lifetimes 21
in
-------
Table 12. Mill Creek plant annual costs.a 23
Table 13. Base Case WWT results perm3 wastewatertreated 27
Table 14. Detailed carbon footprint results for base case WWT 28
Table 15. Contribution of infrastructure to base case results per m3 wastewater treated 30
Table 16. Sensitivity analyses for base case WWT model runs 34
Table 17. LCA electricity sensitivity results for base case WWT model runs 36
Table 18. Sludge carbon content sensitivity analysis 37
Table 19. Cost sensitivity results for base case WWT model runs 40
List of Figures
Figure 1. System boundary of the wastewater treatment base case model 5
Figure 2. System boundaries of wastewater treatment base case showing infrastructure
input 18
Figure 3. Base Case WWT contribution analysis results 26
Figure 4. Infrastructure contribution analysis 29
Figure 5. Base case WWT normalized results 31
Figure 6. Normalized and weighted WWT results by stage and impact category 33
Figure 7. Electricity sensitivity analyses 37
Figure 8. WWTP infrastructure lifetime sensitivity analysis 38
Figure 9. WWT collection system infrastructure lifetime sensitivity analysis 38
Figure 10. Sodium hypochlorite usage sensitivity analysis 39
IV
-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY GOAL
Municipal wastewater treatment systems in the United States are under increasing pressure to
improve performance while maintaining costs, which are amongst the lowest in the developed
world.1 Increasing urbanization, protection of surface waters against increasing nutrient
concentrations, and managing stormwater while avoiding overflow events are all drivers for
modifications to improve system performance. At the same time, the cost structure of providing
municipal wastewater services nationally is shifting from installation of systems to maintenance
of existing infrastructure.2 In 2008, the cost for required improvements to wastewater treatment
facilities and collection systems nationally was estimated to be $300 billion.3 Meanwhile,
municipal operators are considering improvements to system performance and efficiency. This
study provides a baseline environmental and cost life cycle assessment of municipal wastewater
collection and treatment in the Cincinnati Region in coordination with the Confluence Water
Technology Innovation Cluster4 and EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
This baseline study offers context to aid decision-making related to municipal wastewater
systems.
Data were collected from the Metropolitan Sewer of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) Mill Creek
Plant to develop a base case wastewater treatment (WWT) plant life cycle assessment (LCA)
model and cost analysis. The base case plant treats 114 million gallons per day (MOD) and
discharges 97 MOD of treated water to the Ohio River. Mill Creek uses activated sludge
treatment and does not address nutrient removal. The plant uses liquid sodium hypochlorite for
disinfection. Incoming and outgoing water metrics reported for this study by MSDGC at the Mill
Creek Plant are displayed in Table 1. Sludge at the Mill Creek Plant is incinerated in fluidized
bed reactors.
1 Raftelis. '2012 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey.' Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. and the American Water
Works Association. Published by the American Water Works Association. 2013. [ISBN: 9781583219003]
2 U.S. EPA. 'Cost Accounting and Budgeting for Improved Wastewater Treatment.' 1998.
3 U.S. EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress. 2008.
4Confluence is a network of water technology researchers, businesses, utilities, and others in the southwest Ohio,
northern Kentucky, and southeast Indiana region. The group was formed in 2011 with help from EPA and the U.S.
Small Business Administration. See http://www.watercluster.org and http://www2.epa.gov/clusters-program for
more information.
1
-------
Table 1. Incoming and outgoing water quality metrics for MSDGC Mill Creek Plant (per m3
water).
Water Metrics
Ammonia
Dissolved solids
pH
Phosphorus
Suspended solids
Temperature
Turbidity
Incoming Water
Minimum
5.90
46.0
8.00
Maximum
7.60
1,072
23.0
Average
6.80
208
16.0
Outgoing Water
Minimum
2.20
4.90
0.22
13.0
13.4
3.40
Maximum
11.4
5.80
0.88
32.0
23.8
78.0
Average
7.66
5.20
0.55
21.5
18.0
9.20
Unit
g
g
pH
g
g
°C
NTU
Source: Primary data collected from MSDGC for the year 2012
Additional details on the base case plant are provided in Sections 2.2 and 3.2. The goals for the
base case LCA model and cost analysis are to:
1. Evaluate the base case environmental outcomes and costs to provide a baseline for
comparison to alternative disinfection technologies.
2. Establish an LCA and cost framework that could be used to study other
technologies or changes to WWT systems.
The study intends to answer the following research questions5:
1. What are the net life cycle impacts associated with the collection and treatment of
municipal wastewater?
2. What are the contributions of each life cycle stage to the net result for each impact
category? What are the contributions of each step in the wastewater management
system?
3. What are the contributions of specific environmental releases to the net result for
each technology and impact category?
4. What is the effect of plausible parameter variability? What parameters associated
with wastewater characteristics have the greatest effect on net greenhouse gas and
human health impact results?
The remainder of the report provides details on EPA's analysis and is organized into the
following sections:
• Section 2 defines the study scope.
5 This project requires the collection and use of existing data. EPA developed a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) which outlines the quality objectives for this project. The plan is entitled Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Systems-Based Sustainability and Emerging Risks Performance Assessment of Cincinnati Regional Water
Technology Innovations: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Water Treatment Options, and
was prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. for U.S. EPA Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. The plan was approved February 2013.
-------
Section 3 provides details on the LCA method including a description of the unit
processes included in the base case model.
Section 4 describes the cost analysis.
Section 5 presents base case results.
Section 6 presents base case sensitivity results.
Section 7 discusses overall findings and next steps in the study.
Section 8 provides the references for the study.
-------
2. SCOPE
The base case model includes wastewater collection, treatment, waste management, and treated
water release. The base case establishes the reference case for comparison to alternative
wastewater disinfection technologies.
2.1 Functional Unit
The functional unit, which provides the basis for comparison, used in this study is the treatment
of a cubic meter of wastewater to meet or exceed the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements for the MSDGC.
2.2 System Boundaries
Figure 1 illustrates the system boundary for the WWT base case model. The system boundary
starts at collection of wastewater and ends at downstream release of wastewater effluent. In
addition to the processes shown here, electricity for pumping wastewater at the WWT plant
headworks and other miscellaneous pumping is included within the systems boundaries.
Consumption of natural gas and mobile fuel such as diesel and gasoline is also included. Sewer
pipe infrastructure and capital equipment at the WWT plant is within the system boundaries.
Transportation for all inputs to the processes within supply chains, such as transporting waste to
landfill, is also included within the system boundaries.
-------
Household
V Wastewater /
Wastewater
Effluent
Combined Sewage \
and Stormwater I
\from CSO Events/
Figure 1. System boundary of the wastewater treatment base case model.
-------
2.3 Impacts and Flows Tracked
The full inventory of emissions generated in an LCA study is lengthy and diverse, making it
difficult to interpret emissions profiles in a concise and meaningful manner. Life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) helps with interpretation of the emissions inventory. In the LCIA phase, the
inventory of emissions is first classified into categories in which the emissions may contribute to
impacts on human health or the environment. Within each impact category, the emissions are
then normalized to a common reporting basis, using characterization factors that express the
impact of each substance relative to a reference substance.
Table 2 summarizes the complete list of impacts examined for the base case model runs. This
study addresses global, regional, and local impact categories. The LCIA method provided by the
Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Environmental Impacts (TRACI),
version 2.0, developed by the U.S. EPA specifically to model environmental and human health
impacts in the U.S., is the primary LCIA method applied in this work.6 Additionally, the ReCiPe
LCIA method is used to characterize fossil fuel, blue water use (i.e. water depletion) and metal
depletion.7 Energy is tracked based on point of extraction using the cumulative energy demand
method developed by ecoinvent.8 The blue water use impact category represents freshwater use
from surface water or groundwater sources. The blue water use category includes indirect
consumption of water from upstream processes, such as water withdrawals for electricity
generation (e.g., evaporative water losses from coal power cooling water and establishment of
hydroelectric dams). A companion cost analysis is also conducted.
Table 2. Impact and flow results categories.
Category
Cost
Global Warming
Energy Demand
Fossil Depletion
Acidification
Eutrophication
Blue Water Use
Smog
Method
Cost Analysis
TRACI 2.0
ecoinvent
ReCiPe
TRACI 2.0
TRACI 2.0
Custom
TRACI 2.0
Unit
$
kg CO2 eq
MJeq
kg oil eq
H+ moles eq
kgNeq
m3
kg O3 eq
Description
Measures total cost in U.S. dollars.
Represents the potential heat trapping capacity of
greenhouse gases.
Measures the total energy use from point of extraction.
Assesses the potential reduction of fossil fuel energy
resources.
Quantifies the potential acidifying effect of substances on
their environment.
Assesses potential impacts from excessive load of macro-
nutrients to the environment.
Calculates consumptive use of fresh surface or
groundwater.
Determines the potential formation of reactive substances
(e.g. tropospheric ozone) that cause harm to human health
EPA's Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI), see:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/.
7 Goedkoop M.J., Heijungs R, Huijbregts M., De Schryver A.; Struijs I, Van Zelm R, ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle
impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level;
First edition Report I: Characterisation; 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net
8 Ecoinvent Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) Method implemented in ecoinvent data v2.2. 2010. Swiss Centre
for Life Cycle Inventories.
9Pfister, S., Saner, D., Koehler, A. 2011. The environmental relevance of freshwater consumption in global power
production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16 (6): 580-591.
-------
Category
Ozone Depletion
Metal Depletion
Human Health,
Cancer, Total
Human Health,
NonCancer, Total
Human Health,
Criteria
Ecotoxicity, Total
Method
TRACI 2.0
ReCiPe
TRACI 2.0
TRACI 2.0
TRACI 2.0
TRACI 2.0
Unit
kgCFC-lleq
kg Fe eq
CTU
CTU
kg PM10 eq
CTU
Description
and vegetation.
Measures potential stratospheric ozone depletion.
Assesses the potential reduction of metal resources.
A comparative toxic unit (CTU) for cancer characterizes
the probable increase in cancer related morbidity (from
inhalation or ingestion) for the total human population
per unit mass of a chemical emitted.
A CTU for noncancer characterizes the probable increase
in noncancer related morbidity (from inhalation or
ingestion) for the total human population per unit mass of
a chemical emitted.
Assesses human exposure to elevated paniculate matter
less than 10 um.
Assesses potential fate, exposure, and effect of chemicals
on the environment.
2.3.1 Normalized and Weighted Results
Normalization is an optional step in LCA that aids in understanding the significance of the
impact assessment results. Normalization is conducted by dividing the impact category results by
a normalized value. The normalized value is typically the environmental burdens of the region of
interest either on an absolute or per capita basis. The results presented here are normalized to
reflect person equivalents in the U.S. using TRACI v2.1 normalization factors.10 Only impacts
with TRACI normalization factors are shown, some categories like blue water use and energy
demand are excluded due to lack of available normalization factors.
Weighting is an additional optional step in LCA that provides a link between the quantitative
results and subjective choices of decision makers. This study applies weights to the normalized
results described above. The weights utilized here were developed by the National Institute of
Standards and technology (NIST) for the BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic
Sustainability) software.11 This weighting set was created specifically for the buildings sector
context, which may not be completely compatible with the wastewater treatment sector.
However, due to lack of a weighting set specific to the water treatment sector, this NIST
weighting set has been utilized.
10 Ryberg, M., Vieira, M.D.M., Zgola, M., Bare, I, and Rosenbaum, R.K., 2014. Updated US and Canadian
normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Techn Environ Policy, 16: 329-339.
11 Gloria, T.P., Lippiatt, B.C., and Cooper, J. 2007. Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally
preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol, 41, 7551-7557.
7
-------
3. LCA METHOD
Development of an LCA requires significant input data, an LCA modeling platform, and impact
assessment methods. This section provides background on the development of the LCA model.
Section 3.1 discusses the data collection method and model, Section 3.2 describes the unit
processes, Section 3.3 lists the data sources, Section 3.4 covers the infrastructure modeling, and
Section 3.5 describes limitations of the LCA model.
In this study, MSDGC provided much of the LCA input data for the unit processes listed in
Figure 1 for the Mill Creek plant. EPA supplemented this information with data from two
MSDGC reports:
• Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati, 2010 Sustainability Report:
Redefining the Future (Sustainability Report).12
• Metropolitan Sewer District, Mill Creek WWTP Facility Plan (Facility Plan),
Black & Veatch, May 2008.13
This study also used publicly accessible and private databases to provide underlying data sets
describing the supply chains of inputs to the processes modeled here. For example, in addition to
the unit processes described in Section 3.2, an LCA also includes impacts from the production of
any materials required in the process.
3.1 Data Collection and Model
Data were collected electronically using Excel templates designed by the project team to be
completed by MSDGC Mill Creek. Mill Creek operates separate divisions for the collection
system and the WWT plant, and EPA collected data from both divisions to obtain information
for the entire system shown in Figure 1. Data collection was an iterative process, whereby the
project team asked MSDGC multiple rounds of questions to ensure all necessary life cycle and
cost information was being reported and properly interpreted in the assessment. The quality and
objectivity of results was ensured by carefully adhering to the data collection protocols and
quality procedures laid out in the Quality Assurance Project Plan prior to beginning work on the
project.
Each unit process in the life cycle inventory was constructed independently of all other unit
processes. This allows objective review of individual data sets before their contribution to the
overall life cycle results has been determined. Also, because these data are reviewed
individually, assumptions were assessed based on their relevance to the process rather than their
effect on the overall outcome of the study.
The model was constructed in OpenLCA, an open-source LCA software package provided by
GreenDelta.
12 Available at http://projectgroundwork.org/sustainability/index.html
13 Available at http://www.msdgc.org/downloads/wetweather/bundles/Documents_for_LMCPR-Phase_I-
EHRT/Mill%20Creek%20WWTP/MSD%20Mill%20Creek%20Facility%20Plan.pdf
-------
3.2 Unit Processes
Figure 1 shows the WWT base case unit processes beginning with wastewater collection and
ending at discharge to the Ohio River. The plant has an activated sludge system but is not
removing nitrogen or phosphorus and uses sodium hypochlorite for disinfection. Sludge at the
Mill Creek Plant is incinerated in fluidized bed reactors. A description of each unit process
follows. These unit processes align with the unit processes developed for the OpenLCA model.
In the model, infrastructure processes for each of the below unit processes were also developed.
This infrastructure is discussed further in Section 3.4.
Wastewater Collection
1. Collect household, commercial, and municipal wastewater, as well as stormwater,
and transport by sewer to the WWT facility. The collection system is a combined
sewer system, which is designed to collect these different wastewater types
(rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater) in the same sewer
pipe network. Typically, all types of wastewater are treated at the wastewater
plant; however, during heavy rainfall/snowmelt, the water volume exceeds the
capacity of the sewer system or WWTP, in which case the overflow is discharged
directly to nearby surface water. The quantity of combined sewer overflow (CSO)
is tracked in the model. The wastewater collection unit process also includes
pumping to move raw wastewater through the collection system piping. Pipe
infrastructure production, installation and removal, and collection system
maintenance are also covered in this process.
Pumping Energy, at Wastewater Plant
2. Electricity used for pumping the wastewater at the headworks of the plant and for
any miscellaneous pumping throughout the plant not attributed to any one of the
unit processes below.
Mobile Fuel Combustion, at Wastewater Treatment Plant
3. Diesel and gasoline fuel used for maintenance activities at the WWT plant.
Screening and Grit Removal, at Wastewater Treatment Plant
4. Screening removes large debris from the wastewater flow through multiple
screens. Grit removal extracts stone, grit, and other settleable debris. Debris from
these processes is transported to a landfill for disposal.
Primary Sedimentation, at Wastewater treatment Plant
5. Removes solids by sedimentation in pre-settling basins and mechanical scraping,
and oil and grease by mechanical skimming.
Aeration, at Wastewater Treatment Plant
-------
6. Remove organics through conventional aerobic activated sludge process including
aeration.
Secondary Clarifiers, at Wastewater Treatment Plant
1. Remove biological solids by gravity settling.
Sludge Thickening and Dewatering, at Wastewater Treatment Plant
8. Sludge is thickened using gravity settling and centrifuges. Sludge is then
dewatered by centrifuge. Centrate is returned to primary or secondary
sedimentation.
Sludge Incineration, at Wastewater Treatment Plant
9. Sludge is incinerated using fluidized-bed incinerators. Ash from incineration is
disposed of in a landfill.
Wastewater Primary disinfection. Sodium Hypochlorite
10. The wastewater effluent is disinfected using sodium hypochlorite as the
disinfectant.
Release of Wastewater Effluent
11. The treated wastewater is released to a river.
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
12. This process aggregates the above processes in the OpenLCA model.
3.3 Base Case Data Sources
Table 3 displays the data sources used for the Mill Creek WWT plant base case, which treats
approximately 114 MGD of wastewater. In general, data from Mill Creek staff were used where
available. EPA supplemented information from Mill Creek staff with information from the
Sustainability Report and Mill Creek Facility Report. The data used from these reports are for
Mill Creek plant processes and therefore meet the criteria for representativeness in the project
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Mill Creek WWT plant staff provided the total electricity used for the entire plant. EPA
distributed the total electricity by unit process by using equipment specification data in the
facility report. Table 4 shows the plant electricity distribution used in this analysis. MSDGC
provided information on electricity use at the collection system separately.
10
-------
Table 3. Data sources.
Life Cycle
Stage
Wastewater
Collection
Pumping, at
WWTP
Mobile Fuel
Combustion
Screening and
Grit Removal
Primary
Sedimentation
Secondary
Clarifiers
Unit
Process/Process
Emission
Stormwater (from
CSO events)
Industrial and
household water
Electricity
(collection system
pumps)
Sewer pipe
infrastructure
Pipe installation
Electricity3
Gasoline-powered
equipment
Diesel-powered
equipment
Landfill waste
disposal
Electricity a
Sodium hydroxide
production
Electricity
Waste quantity
Electricity a
Waste quantity
Required
Data
Volume of
CSO events
Volume
collected
Quantity used
Length and
type of pipe
Length and
type of pipe
Quantity used
Quantity used
Quantity used
Quantity
generated
Quantity used
Quantity used
Quantity used
Quantity
generated
Quantity used
Quantity
generated
Direct Input
from Mill
Creek Staff
•/
•/
•/
•/
•/
S (total
quantity)
•/
•/
S (total
quantity)
•/
S (total
quantity)
•/
S (total
quantity)
Sustainability
Report
•/
•/
•/
Facility Plan
S (percent
used)
S (percent
used)
S (percent
used)
S (percent
used)
Literature
Source
Other Sources/Notes
MSDGC provided the total cost of
electricity used by the collection
system. The corresponding amount
of electricity was calculated using
the cost per kilowatt-hour of
electricity provided by MSDGC.
Mill Creek Collection System staff
provided amount of gasoline used
for collection system activities.
11
-------
Life Cycle
Stage
Sludge
Thickening
and
Dewatering
Aeration
Sludge
Incineration
Disinfection
Infrastructure
attheWWT
Plant
Unit
Process/Process
Emission
Waste quantity
Polymer
(polyacrylamide)
production
Electricity a
Carbon dioxide,
biogenic
Electricity a
Quantity
incinerated
Electricity a
Natural gas
Carbon dioxide,
biogenic
Methane, biogenic
Nitrous oxide
Sodium
hypochlorite
production
Infrastructure
components for all
unit processes at
the WWT plant
Required
Data
Quantity
generated
Quantity used
at plant
Quantity used
Quantity
generated
Quantity used
Quantity
incinerated
Quantity used
Quantity used
Quantity
generated
Quantity
generated
Quantity
generated
Quantity used
Type and
quantity of
component
Direct Input
from Mill
Creek Staff
•/
•/
S (total
quantity)
S (total
quantity)
•/
S (total
quantity)
,/
•/
Sustainability
Report
Facility Plan
S (percent
used)
S (percent
used)
S (percent
used)
•/
Literature
Source
•/
•/
•/
•/
Other Sources/Notes
Monteith et al. (2005)16
IPCC (2006) Chapter 5, pg 5.7 and
Table 5.217
IPCC (2006) Chapter 5, pg 5.201 '
Suzuki Model from Brown et al.
(2010)14
aMill Creek provided the total plant electricity used. EPA used specifications for individual pieces of equipment from the Mill Creek Facility Plan to develop a
percent distribution among the life cycle stages.
12
-------
Table 4. Percent electricity contribution by life cycle stage.3
Life Cycle Stage
Screening and grit removal
Pumping
Primary sedimentation
Aeration
Secondary clarifiers
Primary disinfection
Sludge thickening and dewatering
Sludge incineration
Percent Plant Electricity
0.14%
17.69%
1.95%
62.86%
2.22%
0.00%
13.64%
1.50%
""Distribution for plant electricity only. Collection system electricity was presented
separately.
Wastewater collection data were obtained from MSDGC for the entire collection system, which
serves multiple WWT plants. Therefore, EPA normalized wastewater collection data by the total
length of sewer pipes within MSDGC's jurisdiction. These normalized values were then multiplied
by the length of sewer pipes that serve the Mill Creek WWT plant to allocate the collection data to
only the Mill Creek plant.
As shown in Table 3, EPA also estimated impacts from greenhouse gases (GHG) generated at the
treatment plant. The Mill Creek Plant does not perform nutrient removal processes or anaerobic
digestion and sludge continuously flows through the sludge thickening processes to the
incinerators. Therefore, EPA expects minimal contribution to methane and nitrous oxide emissions
from the aeration and sludge thickening processes.14'15 EPA included biogenic CC>2 emissions from
aeration and all biogenic and fossil GHG emissions from the incineration process in the model.
EPA estimated biogenic CC>2 emissions from aeration using the method proposed by Monteith et
al.16 MSDGC provided information on volume of aerobic reactor volume, annual volume of
influent wastewater, influent and effluent total suspended solids, and solids retention time, while
the paper from Monteith et al. supplied the remaining parameters of a typical conventional
activated sludge treatment system needed for the calculation.
EPA used the following information to estimate GHG emissions from incineration for the base
case:
• For biogenic CC>2 emissions from sludge:
Brown, Beecher, and Carpenter. Calculator Tool for Determining Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Biosolids
Processing and End Use. Environmental Science and Technology. 2010, 44 (24), pp 9509-9515.
15 Foley, J. and P. Lant. Direct Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Full-Scale Wastewater Treatment Systems.
Research by Advanced Water Care Management Center, The University of Queensland Australia for Water Services
Association of Australia, http://www.wsaa.asn.au.
16 Monteith, Sahely, MacLean, and Bagley. A Rational Procedure for Estimation of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions from
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water Environment Research; Jul/Aug 2005; 77, 4; Water Resources
Abstracts pg. 390.
13
-------
o The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006 Guidelines
for GHG Inventories gives a range of 40 to 50% carbon content in dry
sludge.17 EPA used the average of this range (45%) in calculations.
o The IPCC provides a default oxidation rate of 100%.17
o The biogenic CC>2 emissions factor was calculated as 1.65 tons biogenic
CC>2 / dry ton of sludge.
o According to MSDGC, the Mill Creek Plant produces 37,811 metric tons of
dry sludge and treats 157,615,342 m3 of wastewater annually.
o EPA calculated that 0.40 kg biogenic CC>2 is released per cubic meter of
wastewater treated.
• For CFLj emissions from sludge:
o The IPCC 2006 gives a default value of 4.85 10"5 kg CH4 emitted / kg of
dry sludge burned, which converts to 12 g CH4 / m3 of wastewater
treated.14'15'17
• ForN2O emissions from sludge:
o The Suzuki model describes nitrous oxide emissions from continuously
operated fluidized bed incinerators using the equation: r\ = 161.3 - 0.1407/,
where r\ is the percent of total N in the sludge that is volatilized as N2O, and
Tf is the average highest freeboard temperature from the fluidized bed
facilities.
o Based on the average highest freeboard temperature of 1,600 degrees F
provided by Mill Creek Plant, r\ = 0.011034 and emissions of N2O are
6.936 10" tons per dry ton of sludge incinerated.
o The BEAM model uses a default ratio of 0.04 tons nitrogen per ton of dry
sludge.18
o Total nitrous oxide emissions were calculated as 0.17 g N2O per cubic meter
of wastewater treated at the plant.
• For fossil GHG emissions from natural gas combustion:
o Emissions from natural gas combusted in Mill Creek's incinerator are based
on LCI data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's U.S. Life
Cycle Inventory Database (U.S. LCI), a publically available life cycle
inventory source.19
EPA did not model GHG emissions from the wastewater collection system. Although some studies
show that methane can be found in gravity flow sewer systems such as the one used by MSDGC,
very little research has been done to determine how much is produced.15 Thus, there is not enough
17 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 5:
Waste. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. Available at http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
18 The Biosolids Emissions Assessment Model (BEAM): A Method for Determining Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Canadian Biosolids Management Practices (2009) Prepared by SYLVIS for Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment.
19 National Renewable Energy Lab. US LCI Database. See: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/default.asp.
14
-------
information available to provide a good estimate of CH4 generated in the sewer pipes that feed the
Mill Creek WWTP.
For upstream processes that would not be known by Mill Creek staff such as information on
impacts of chemical production, EPA used information from the U.S. LCI Database.19 Where data
were not available from Mill Creek or the U.S. LCI, ecoinvent v2.2, a private Swiss life cycle
inventory (LCI) database with data for many unit processes, was used.20 For some unit processes,
the quantities representative of Mill Creek were used in conjunction with background LCI
processes. For example, EPA obtained electricity quantities from Mill Creek and used U.S. LCI
data to model the impacts of that quantity of electricity. Table 5 presents the WWT LCI data used
in the model on the basis of one cubic meter of wastewater treated. These data represent the
operational inputs and outputs; LCI data for infrastructure components are provided in Section 3.4.
20 Ecoinvent Centre (2010), ecoinvent data v2.2. ecoinvent reports No. 1 -25, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
15
-------
Table 5. WWT LCI model input and output data (per m3 wastewater treated).
Input
Storm water
Industrial and household wastewater
Purchased electricity
Natural gas
Diesel
Gasoline
Sodium hypochlorite
Sodium hydroxide
Polymer (polyacrylamide)
Output
Sludge cake (landfill waste disposal)
Screenings, grit (landfill waste disposal)
Ash (landfill waste disposal)
Carbon monoxide (air emission)
VOC (air emission)
PM2.5 (air emission)
PMio (air emission)
Lead (air emissions)
Organic compounds (air emission)
NOx (air emission)
SO2 (air emission)
Biogenic carbon dioxide (air emission)
Methane (air emission)
Nitrous oxide (air emission)
Phosphorus (water emission)
Ammonia (water emission)
Suspended solids (water emission)
Dissolved solids (water emission)
WWT effluent
Unit
m3
m3
kWh
m3
liters
liters
liters
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
m3
TOTAL
Quantity
0.24
1.00
0.45
0.023
0.0018
0.0015
0.012
0.0020
0.0069
0.0045
0.029
0.054
5.9E-06
2.8E-07
3.6E-06
4.2E-06
1.8E-09
3.1E-06
8.9E-06
1.1E-06
0.50
1.2E-04
1.7E-04
5.5E-04
0.0077
0.021
0.0052
0.85
Quantity by Life Cycle Stage
Wastewater
Collection
0.24
1.00
0.007
3.4E-04
7.8E-04
0.0012
Pumping at
WWT Plant
0.078
Screening and
Grit Removal
6.2E-04
0.029
Primary
Sedimentation
0.0086
0.0020
Sludge
Thickening and
Dewatering
0.060
0.0069
0.0045
Sludge
Incineration
0.0066
0.023
0.054
5.9E-06
2.8E-07
3.6E-06
4.2E-06
1.8E-09
3.1E-06
8.9E-06
1.1E-06
0.40
1.2E-04
1.7E-04
Aeration
0.28
0.099
Secondary
Clarifiers
0.0097
Disinfection
0.012
Mobile Fuel
Combustion, at
Plant
0.001
3.1E-04
Release of
Waste-water
Effluent
5.5E-04
0.0077
0.021
0.0052
0.85
a Sewer pipe and WWTP infrastructure and installation/removal not displayed in table.
16
-------
3.4 Infrastructure Modeling
Infrastructure data for the collection system was calculated based on pipe type and length data
provided by MSDGC, while infrastructure components at the WWT plant were estimated using
the Facility Plan.13 In the Figure 2 system boundaries, infrastructure components modeled are
shown in red. Table 6 through Table 9 display the infrastructure requirements at the plant and for
the collection system on the basis of one cubic meter of wastewater treated. It was assumed that
the lifetime of the buildings and tanks is 100 years. A shorter lifetime of 25 years was estimated
for the pumps and motors. The pipe lifetimes (at the plant and in the collection system) are based
on the data shown in Table 11. Infrastructure was normalized by dividing the total infrastructure
impact by the total lifetime of the component, and then by the water treated per year. It is
assumed that the water treated per year (for every year during the infrastructure component
lifetime) is 157,615,342 cubic meters, which is the volume of drinking water treated in 2012.
17
-------
/ Industrial and
Household
\ Wastewater
MSDGC Mill Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Thickening and
Sedimentation
Return Activated
Sludge Thickening
and Dewatering
Buildings and
Equipment
Aeration Tanks
and Equipment
and Equipment
Primary Process
Infrastructure
Process
Release of
Combined Sewage
and Stormwater
vfrom CSO Events
/ Release of
Wastewater
\ Effluent
Figure 2. System boundaries of wastewater treatment base case showing infrastructure input.
18
-------
Table 6. Infrastructure requirements for tanks and buildings at wastewater treatment plant (per m3
water treated).
Life Cycle Stage
Pumping, at WWT Plant
Screening and Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aeration
Secondary Clarifiers
Sludge Thickening and Dewatering
Sludge Incineration
Primary Disinfection, Sodium Hypochlorite
Material Type
Steel (kg)
3.9E-05
9.8E-05
8.8E-04
6.4E-04
2.7E-04
1.2E-04
5.8E-05
0
HOPE (kg)
0
1.2E-06
5.8E-06
0
0
1.6E-05
0
2.2E-06
Concrete (m3)
6.7E-09
6.8E-07
l.OE-05
7.3E-06
3.1E-06
4.7E-07
5.1E-09
0
Earthworks (m3)
2.6E-06
2.6E-06
6.1E-07
2.4E-06
1.5E-06
4.9E-06
1.9E-06
0
Source: MSDGC Facility Plan
Table 7. Infrastructure requirements for motors at wastewater treatment plant (per m3 water
treated).
Life Cycle Stage
Pumping, at WWT Plant
Screening and Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aeration
Secondary Clarifiers
Sludge Thickening and Dewatering
Sludge Incineration
Material Type
Electrical
Steel (kg)
3.7E-06
1.3E-08
2.4E-08
1.3E-05
5.1E-08
2.4E-06
9.5E-08
Other Steel
(kg)
7.9E-07
3.6E-09
6.0E-09
2.8E-06
1.4E-08
5.2E-07
2.1E-08
Cast Iron
(kg)
3.6E-06
1.8E-08
1.8E-07
1.3E-05
3.2E-07
2.6E-06
1.8E-07
Aluminum (kg)
2.1E-07
3.9E-09
5.4E-09
7.6E-07
1.4E-08
1.6E-07
6.4E-09
Copper (kg)
6.4E-07
2.8E-09
4.6E-09
2.3E-06
LIE-OS
4.2E-07
1.7E-08
Source: MSDGC Facility Plan
Table 8. Infrastructure requirements for pumps at wastewater treatment plant (per m3 water
treated).
Life Cycle Stage
Pumping, at WWT Plant
Screening and Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Clarifiers
Sludge Thickening and Dewatering
Sludge Incineration
Material Type
Cast Iron
(kg)
2.4E-05
5.5E-08
1.3E-07
4.6E-06
2.8E-07
2.2E-07
Stainless
Steel 18/8
Coil (kg)
2.2E-06
8.4E-09
9.1E-08
7.2E-07
1.9E-07
5.7E-08
Source: MSDGC Facility Plan
19
-------
Table 9. Infrastructure requirements for piping at wastewater treatment plant (per m3 water
treated).
Life Cycle Stage
Screening and Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aeration
Sludge Thickening and
Dewatering
Sludge Incineration
Release of Wastewater
Effluent
Diameter
(in)
48
72
90
96
8
16
96
8
10
12
120
6
8
10
12
16
20
48
10
12
16
120
Length by Pipe Type
Ductile Iron (m)
0
0
0
0
5.8E-08
0
0
6.9E-09
1.4E-08
1.9E-08
0
7.3E-09
1.1E-07
4.1E-08
2.6E-09
6.4E-08
4.3E-08
1.6E-08
2.9E-08
3.1E-08
2.8E-08
Reinforced
Concrete (m)
7.9E-09
1.7E-09
1.3E-09
2.0E-08
0
1.3E-08
2.0E-08
0
0
0
1.3E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l.OE-07
Installation
Earthworks
(m3)
4.2E-08
1.5E-08
1.5E-08
2.5E-07
8.9E-08
2.7E-08
2.5E-07
LIE-OS
2.4E-08
3.4E-08
2.2E-07
l.OE-08
1.7E-07
6.9E-08
4.7E-09
1.3E-07
1.1E-07
8.5E-08
4.8E-08
5.6E-08
5.9E-08
1.8E-06
Source: MSDGC Facility Plan
Table 10. Infrastructure requirements for sewage pipe network (per m3 water treated).
Diameter
(in)
8
10
12
15
16
18
20
21
Pipe Material
PVC (m)
1.8E-05
3.6E-08
4.7E-06
1.1E-06
0
9.6E-07
0
4.3E-07
Vitrified
Clay (m)
2.4E-05
2.5E-06
2.6E-05
6.3E-06
0
5.1E-06
6.0E-07
1.1E-06
Concrete
(m)
8.9E-06
4.6E-07
4.6E-05
2.9E-06
0
2.8E-06
0
9.4E-07
Reinforced
Concrete (m)
2.4E-07
1.9E-08
3.8E-06
5.7E-07
0
6.3E-07
0
3.6E-07
Cement-Lined
Ductile Iron (m)
5.4E-07
3.2E-08
6.9E-07
0
1.6E-07
1.1E-07
4.4E-08
0
Earthworks
(m3)
7.8E-05
5.1E-06
1.5E-04
2.2E-05
3.4E-07
2.2E-05
1.6E-06
7.1E-06
20
-------
Diameter
(in)
24
27
30
33
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
96
Pipe Material
PVC (m)
1.5E-06
1.6E-07
8.7E-07
0
4.3E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vitrified
Clay (m)
2.7E-06
2.0E-07
2.2E-07
8.5E-08
2.5E-07
6.7E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
Concrete
(m)
1.7E-06
1.8E-07
1.7E-06
2.3E-07
6.7E-07
7.7E-07
4.3E-07
2.5E-07
3.8E-07
5.6E-08
2.3E-07
8.4E-08
Reinforced
Concrete (m)
4.3E-07
2.9E-07
1.1E-06
9.7E-08
1.3E-06
6.1E-07
7.3E-07
5.1E-07
1.8E-06
5.8E-07
5.4E-07
7.8E-07
Cement-Lined
Ductile Iron (m)
3.1E-07
0
3.2E-07
0
2.4E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Earthworks
(m3)
1.8E-05
2.6E-06
1.4E-05
1.5E-06
1.2E-05
6.7E-06
6.2E-06
4.6E-06
1.5E-05
4.9E-06
6.6E-06
1.1E-05
Source: Primary data collected from MSDGCfor 2012.
Table 11. Generic pipe lifetimes.
Lifetime (Years)
Pipe Material
PVC
55
Vitrified
Clay
100
„ Reinforced
Concrete „
Concrete
105 105
Cement-Lined
Ductile Iron
97.5
Source: American Water Works Association. 2012. Buried No Longer: Confronting America's
Water Infrastructure Challenge.
3.5 LCA Limitations
While limitations of this study are discussed throughout this paper, some of the main limitations
that readers should understand when interpreting the data and findings are as follows:
• Plant Infrastructure and Capital Equipment. The energy and wastes associated with
the following infrastructure components are included in this analysis:
• Collection system piping infrastructure specifications (type, size) - Obtained
information from Mill Creek facility reports.
• Installation and removal of collection system infrastructure.
• Plant infrastructure including buildings, piping, basins, and industrial
machinery - Input data based on estimations from the Mill Creek WWTP
Facility Plan.13
• Collection system and at plant pipe manufacturing information datasets
obtained from Franklin Associates, a Division of ERG.
21
-------
Infrastructure modeling of buildings, tanks, motors, and pumps included material and
installation burdens, but excluded assembly of the components due to lack of available
data. Additionally, the infrastructure burdens are normalized over each component's total
lifetime assuming that the water treated every year is 157,615,448 cubic meters, which
was the volume treated in 2012. In actuality, there would be differences in water
delivered per year over time. The lifetimes assumed for each component are estimates
based on historical information of the MSDGC facility; however, the study does include a
sensitivity analysis to look at a wider range of potential lifetimes of infrastructure
components.
• Support Personnel Requirements. Support personnel requirements are included in the
cost analysis, but excluded from the LCA model. The energy and wastes associated with
research and development, sales, and administrative personnel or related activities are not
included.
• Transferability of Results. While this study is intended to inform decision-making for a
wide range of stakeholders, the data presented here relate to one representative facility.
Further work is recommended to understand the variability of key parameters across
specific situations.
• Representativeness of Background Data. Background processes are representative of
either U.S. average data (in the case of data from U.S. LCI) or European average (in the
case of ecoinvent) data.
• Data Accuracy and Uncertainty. In a complex study with literally thousands of numeric
entries, the accuracy of the data and how it affects conclusions is truly a difficult subject,
and one that does not lend itself to standard error analysis techniques. The reader should
keep in mind the uncertainty associated with LCA models when interpreting the results.
Comparative conclusions should not be drawn based on small differences in impact
results.
22
-------
4.
BASE CASE COST ANALYSIS
The focus of the cost analysis is to understand the contribution of life cycle stages to the overall
cost of treating domestic wastewater and, moving forward, to determine how different
disinfection alternatives impact final consumer sewer rates.
The remainder of this section provides additional details on the cost analysis data and
assumptions.21
4.1 Base Case Cost Data
The cost analysis used actual annual costs from 2012 provided by Mill Creek to allocate costs to
each WWT stage. EPA used information from Table 3 and Table 4 along with the cost
information provided by MSDGC to calculate costs for each WWT life cycle stage. Table 12
summarizes the annual costs by unit process. Many costs, such as operating and maintenance
labor, are incurred on a plant-wide basis. Therefore, a separate line item for these plant-wide
costs is included in Table 12. EPA normalized the total costs to a cubic meter of influent
wastewater in the results presentation in Section 0.
Wastewater collection data were obtained from MSDGC for the entire collection system, which
serves multiple WWT plants. Therefore, EPA normalized wastewater collection data by the total
length of sewer pipes within MSDGC's jurisdiction. These normalized values were then
multiplied by the length of sewer pipes that serve the Mill Creek WWT plant to allocate the
collection data to only the Mill Creek plant.
The cost analysis does not include capital costs for infrastructure. Data on initial installation
dates, costs, and current capital improvement project funding were not available from MSDGC.
Therefore, EPA's cost analysis focuses on the annual operating costs shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Mill Creek plant annual costs.'
Life Cycle Stage
Wastewater Collection
Pumping, at WWTP
Mobile Fuel Combustion, at
WWTP
Screening and Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Clarifiers
Sludge Thickening and
Dewatering
Aeration
Unit Process
Labor
Natural gas
Electricity (for pumping)
Gasoline
Other O&M
Electricity13
Gasoline and diesel-powered
equipment0
Electricity13
Sodium hydroxide
Electricity13
Electricity13
Polymer (polyacrylamide)
Electricity13
Electricity13
Annual Cost
($/year)
$3,310,000
$10,100
$54,800
$199,000
$1,940,000
$639,000
$307,000
$5,080
$94,500
$70,500
$80,000
$2,600,000
$492,000
$2,270,000
21 Data used in the cost analysis is included in the Excel file WWT.BaseCase.Costs.DraftFinal.2014-03-20.xlsx.
23
-------
Life Cycle Stage
Sludge Incineration
Disinfection
Plant wide costs (does not
include disinfection labor
and service)3
Unit Process
Electricity"
Natural gas
Sodium hypochlorite
Materials'1
Serviced
Labord
Materials
Service
Labor
Waste disposal
Total Costs
Annual Cost
($/year)
$54,100
$679,000
$332,000
$17,200
$23,400
$63,300
$991,000
$190,000
$1,380,000
$750,000
$16,600,000
a All costs were provided by MSDGC unless noted.
bEPA used the total plant electricity cost provided by MSDGC and the distribution shown in Table 4 to
calculate electricity costs by unit process.
0 EPA used information on fuel consumption from the Sustainability Report and estimated the amount of
fuel used for all MSDGC operations per the volume of treated water by all MSDGC plants. EPA then
used the volume of treated water by the Mill Creek plant to estimate the Mill Creek apportioned amount
of fuel. EPA used fuel prices from the Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA)
to calculate the total fuel cost for Mill Creek apportioned fuel use (including collection and plant
operations). Because MSDGC provided fuel costs for the collection system portion directly, EPA
subtracted the collection system fuel use from the total fuel costs to determine the fuel used at the Mill
Creek plant.
d Maintenance costs for the disinfection unit process were broken out separately to evaluate potential
changes for the alternative disinfection technology.
4.2 Cost Data Quality, Assumptions, and Limitations
EPA used data provided by MSDGC for calendar year 2012 where possible. As shown in Table
3, EPA also used the Mill Creek Sustainability Report and Facility Plan to supplement the
collected data. EPA also used cost data from the Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Gasoline and Diesel Prices, 2012.22 Wastewater collection costs presented in this study are
calculated as portions of the total wastewater collection costs attributed to the Mill Creek WWT
plant.
EPA used the weekly, Ohio regular all formulations retail gasoline prices and the weekly Midwest No. 2 diesel
retail prices.
24
-------
5. BASE CASE RESULTS
Figure 3 displays the Base Case WWT contribution analysis results and Table 13 provides Base
Case WWT results per functional unit.23
Base case findings of note include:
• Eutrophication impacts are dominated by release of wastewater effluent. This is a result
of ammonia and phosphorus water emissions in the effluent.
• Sludge incineration makes the largest contribution to global warming potential. Much of
this is related to biogenic CO2 emissions from combustion of the sludge. Section 5.1
provides a detailed breakdown of the carbon footprint results and includes a discussion of
biogenic COz accounting.
• Aeration is the life cycle stage that consumes the most electricity, which is the reason it is
the largest contributor for many impacts including energy demand, fossil depletion,
acidification, blue water use, ozone depletion, human health cancer, and human health
criteria.
• Overall, primary disinfection with sodium hypochlorite only contributed zero to 6 percent
for most impact categories, with the exception of ozone depletion, metal depletion, and
human health noncancer. Production of the sodium hypochlorite had relatively high
impacts for these categories.
• Wastewater collection accounts for 33 percent of the cost, followed by plant-wide
overhead cost, which accounts for 20 percent of the cost, sludge thickening and
dewatering, which accounts for 19 percent of the cost, and aeration, which accounts for
14 percent of the cost.
23 The results for the life cycle assessment and cost analysis are presented in a separate Excel file.
25
-------
Percent Contribution by Life Cycle Stage
20% 40% 60% 80%
100%
Cost
Global Warming
Energy Demand
Fossil Depletion
Acidification
Eutrophication
Blue Water Use
Smog
Ozone Depletion
Metal Depletion
Human Health, Cancer
Human Health, NonCancer
Human Health, Criteria
Ecotoxicity
Wastewater Collection
Pumping, at WWT Plant
Mobile Fuel Combustion at
WWT Plant
Screening and Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Clarifiers
Sludge Thickening and
De watering
• Aeration
Sludge Incineration
Primary Disinfection, Sodium
Hypochlorite
Release of Wastewater Effluent
Overhead*
*Overhead is only included for the cost results' category
Figure 3. Base Case WWT contribution analysis results.
26
-------
Table 13. Base Case WWT results per m3 wastewater treated.
Results Category
Cost
Global Warming
Energy Demand
Fossil Depletion
Acidification
Eutrophication
Blue Water Use
Smog
Ozone Depletion
Metal Depletion
Human Health, Cancer, Total
Human Health, NonCancer, Total
Human Health, Criteria
Ecotoxicity, Total
Unit
$
kg CO2 eq
MJ
kg oil eq
kg H+ mole eq
kg N eq
m3
kg O3 eq
kg CFCll eq
kg Fe eq
CTU
CTU
kgPMWeq
CTU
Base Case
WWT Plant
0.11
0.96
7.79
0.15
0.15
0.010
3.4E-03
0.026
8.9E-09
0.0099
l.OE-11
9.1E-12
4.5E-04
2.5E-04
5.1 Detailed Carbon Footprint Results
Table 14 displays the detailed carbon footprint results for the base case WWT. Results in this
figure are presented by both overall life cycle stage and by specific unit process. Approximately
51.8 percent of the carbon footprint is attributable to biogenic carbon dioxide. This study starts at
the collection of wastewater, and does not incorporate the production of the wastewater
components. The biogenic carbon dioxide reported here was recently removed from the
atmosphere (e.g., through plant or animal production for food, which is later consumed). This
biogenic carbon is stored in the wastewater until it is released via aeration or incineration of the
sludge back into the atmosphere. Overall, in alignment with the IPCC methodology, there is a net
zero impact for wastewater biogenic carbon in the form of CC»2 emissions since the carbon is
only temporarily removed from the atmosphere. However, since the original uptake of carbon is
outside the system boundaries for this study, the biogenic carbon is included here to show
comprehensive carbon accounting. Impacts associated with the emission of biogenic carbon in
the form of CH4 from sludge incineration are included since CH4 was not removed from the
atmosphere and its GWP is 25 times that of CO2 when applying the IPCC 2007 lOOa LCIA
method. This study found that the carbon footprint of 1 m3 of wastewater treated excluding
biogenic carbon is 0.46 kg CO2 eq.
27
-------
Table 14. Detailed carbon footprint results for base case WWT.
Life Cycle
Stage
Wastewater
Collection
Pumping, at
WWT Plant
Mobile Fuel
Combustion at
WWT Plant
Screening and
Grit Removal
Primary
Sedimentation
Secondary
Clarifiers
Sludge
Thickening
and
Dewatering
Aeration
Sludge
Incineration
Primary
Disinfection
Release of
Wastewater
Effluent
Unit Process/Process Emission
Electricity
Sewer Pipe Infrastructure
Pipe Installation
Gasoline Powered Equipment
Diesel Powered Equipment
Natural Gas
Electricity
Pumping Infrastructure
Gasoline Powered Equipment
Diesel Powered Equipment
Landfill Waste Disposal
Electricity
Screening and Grit Removal
Infrastructure
Sodium Hydroxide
Electricity
Sedimentation Infrastructure
Electricity
Secondary Clarifiers Infrastructure
Landfill Waste Disposal
Polymer (polyacrylamide)
Electricity
Sludge Thickening Infrastructure
Carbon dioxide, biogenic
Electricity
Aeration Infrastructure
Carbon dioxide, biogenic
Methane, biogenic
Nitrous oxide
Electricity
Natural Gas
Landfill Waste Disposal
Sludge Incineration Infrastructure
Sodium Hypochlorite
Primary Disinfection Infrastructure
Piping
kgCO2
eq/m3
water
treated
0.0046
0.0024
9.2E-05
0.0031
0.0025
7.6E-04
0.053
1.3E-04
7.9E-04
0.0032
3.6E-04
4.2E-04
3.6E-04
0.0022
0.0059
4.2E-03
0.0066
1.3E-03
5.5E-05
0.016
0.041
3.7E-04
0.10
0.19
3.1E-03
0.40
0.0029
0.050
0.0045
0.051
0.0011
1.1E-04
0.012
3.8E-06
7.1E-05
Percent
Contribution by
Unit Process or
Process Emission
0.48%
0.25%
0.01%
0.32%
0.26%
0.08%
5.53%
0.01%
0.08%
0.34%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.22%
0.61%
0.44%
0.69%
0.14%
0.01%
1.63%
4.26%
0.04%
10.40%
19.66%
0.32%
41.40%
0.30%
5.19%
0.47%
5.33%
0.11%
0.01%
1.27%
0.0004%
0.01%
Percent
Contribution
by Life Cycle
Stage
1.40%
5.55%
0.42%
0.12%
1.27%
0.83%
5.94%
30.38%
52.81%
1.27%
0.01%
28
-------
Life Cycle
Stage
Unit Process/Process Emission
TOTAL (Including biogenic CO2)
TOTAL (Excluding biogenic CO2)
% Contribution biogenic CO2
kgC02
eq/m3
water
treated
0.96
0.46
51.8%
Percent
Contribution by
Unit Process or
Process Emission
100%
Percent
Contribution
by Life Cycle
Stage
100%
5.2 Detailed Infrastructure Results
Figure 4 and Table 15 display the contribution of infrastructure at the wastewater treatment plant
and in the collection system to the base case results. For the majority of impact categories,
excluding metal depletion and human health noncancer, infrastructure contributes 8 percent or
less to the total impacts. Metal depletion, however, is largely driven by infrastructure, with
infrastructure from the wastewater treatment plant and collection system accounting for
approximately 70 percent of all metal depletion impacts. The remaining metal depletion impacts
are also primarily due to upstream infrastructure impacts, for instance from the construction of
plants which produce chemicals used for wastewater treatment. In general, the collection system
pipe network and features associated with primary sedimentation and aeration are the
infrastructure components with the highest impacts.
i Operational Impacts
I Infrastructure Impacts
20%
40%
60%
80%
Global Warming
Energy Demand
Fossil Depletion
Acidification
Eutrophication
Blue Water Use
Smog
Ozone Depletion
Metal Depletion
Human Health, Cancer
Human Health, NonCancer
Human Health, Criteria
Ecotoxicity
100%
Figure 4. Infrastructure contribution analysis.
29
-------
Table 15. Contribution of infrastructure to base case results per m3 wastewater treated.
Life Cycle Stage
Infrastructure
Wastewater Collection
Pipe Network
Pumping, at WWT
Plant
Mobile Fuel
Combustion at WWT
Plant
Screening and Grit
Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Clarifiers
Sludge Thickening and
De watering
Aeration
Sludge Incineration
Primary Disinfection,
Sodium Hypochlorite
Piping for Release of
Wastewater Effluent
Total
% of Total Impact
Impact Category
. Human Human
Global Energy Fossil Acidific Eutrophi „. . „ Ozone Metal Health, Health, TT ... Ecotoxicity,
,,, . _ j _ . . . . v Water Smog _ . . _ . . „ ,, „ Health, ... J
Warming Demand Depletion ation cation T T Depletion Depletion Cancer, NonCance ,_ . . . total
& y Use v y „ . . ' „ , , Criteria
lotal r, lotal
kgCO2eq MJ kg oil eq ^^ kgNeq m3 kgOSeq ksCFCll kgFeeq CTU CTU kgPMlO cw
0.0025
1.3E-04
0
3.6E-04
0.0042
0.0013
3.7E-04
0.0031
1.1E-04
3.8E-06
7.1E-05
0.012
1.27%
0.042
0.0021
0
0.0040
0.040
0.012
0.0055
0.029
0.0017
1.7E-04
0.0012
0.14
7.77%
8.9E-04
4.2E-05
0
7.9E-05
7.7E-04
2.4E-04
1.1E-04
5.6E-04
3.5E-05
3.7E-06
2.5E-05
0.0028
1.87%
9.4E-04
3.2E-05
0
6.1E-05
6.1E-04
1.9E-04
6.9E-05
4.6E-04
2.3E-05
6.0E-07
2.7E-05
0.0024
1.57%
6.6E-07
2.5E-08
0
5.5E-08
5.9E-07
1.8E-07
5.9E-08
4.4E-07
1.9E-08
2.2E-10
1.6E-08
2.0E-06
0.02%
5.8E-05
1.2E-06
0
4.4E-06
5.5E-05
1.7E-05
4.1E-06
3.9E-05
1.1E-06
5.7E-09
3.1E-07
1.8E-04
5.27%
3.4E-04
7.7E-06
0
1.9E-05
2.0E-04
6.2E-05
2.0E-05
1.5E-04
6.2E-06
1.1E-07
8.2E-06
8.1E-04
3.09%
4.8E-11
6.8E-12
0
1.7E-11
2.0E-10
6.1E-11
1.7E-11
1.5E-10
5.6E-12
2.4E-14
1.3E-12
5.0E-10
5.66%
2.4E-04
2.0E-04
0
3.0E-04
0.0027
8.5E-04
3.9E-04
0.0021
1.8E-04
1.5E-09
4.8E-06
0.0070
70.21%
3.5E-14
2.0E-14
0
2.9E-14
2.9E-13
9.2E-14
3.3E-14
2.2E-13
1.3E-14
5.0E-17
l.OE-15
7.4E-13
7.33%
1.6E-14
1.4E-13
0
5.0E-14
5.0E-13
1.5E-13
1.3E-13
7.9E-13
2.8E-14
1.8E-17
4.4E-16
1.8E-12
19.95%
2.6E-06
5.0E-07
0
7.2E-07
6.7E-06
2.1E-06
8.7E-07
5.1E-06
3.8E-07
2.2E-09
8.5E-08
1.9E-05
¥.26%
9.8E-07
4.7E-07
0
4.3E-07
4.3E-06
1.4E-06
6.2E-07
3.8E-06
2.2E-07
9.0E-10
2.6E-08
1.2E-05
4.93%
30
-------
5.3 Base Case Normalized Results
Figure 5 displays the base case WWT normalized results. Larger sections of the chart indicate
those impacts where WWT makes relatively larger contributions to national per capita impacts.
Eutrophication impacts dominate the WWT normalized results. Eutrophication impacts are due
to ammonia and phosphorus water emissions from release of the wastewater effluent.
HHNC: 0.001% 2%
HHCa:0.07%
OOP: 0.01%
l Global Warming (GWP)
I Acidification (AP)
Eutrophication (EP)
I Smog (SFP)
Ozone Depletion (OOP)
Human Health, Cancer (HHCa)
Human Health, NonCancer
(HHNC)
Human Health, Criteria (HHCr)
Ecotoxicity (ETP)
Figure 5. Base case WWT normalized results.
Figure 6 presents cost results alongside results normalized by life cycle stage and impact
category and results normalized and weighted by life cycle stage and impact category. The
following specific results are shown on this figure:
• Cost by stage: this category displays WWT cost by life cycle stage. Cost by stage are
shown as a percentage of total costs.
• Normalized by stage: this category presents the normalized impact assessment results by
life cycle stage. Life cycle stages have been normalized using TRACT v2.1 normalization
factors.24 Normalized life cycle stage results are shown as a percent of the total
normalized result.
24 Ryberg, M, Vieira, M.D.M., Zgola, M, Bare, I, and Rosenbaum, R.K., 2014. Updated US and Canadian
normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Techn Environ Policy, 16: 329-339.
11
-------
• Normalized and weighted by stage: this category presents the normalized and weighted
impact assessment results by life cycle stage. Life cycle stages have been normalized
using TRACT v2.1 normalization factors and have been weighted using NIST weighting
factors.24, 25 Normalized and weighted life cycle stage results are shown as a percent of
the total normalized and weighted result.
• Normalized by impact: this category presents the normalized impact assessment results
by impact category. Impact categories have been normalized using TRACT v2.1
normalization factors.26 Normalized impact category results are shown as a percent of the
total normalized result.
• Normalized and weighted by impact: this category presents the normalized and weighted
impact assessment results by impact category. Impact categories have been normalized
using TRACT v2.1 normalization factors and have been weighted using NIST weighting
factors.24, 2? Normalized and weighted impact category results are shown as a percent of
the total normalized and weighted result.
Some findings of note from Figure 6:
• Weighting increases the relative importance of global warming potential.
• Results normalized (and normalized and weighted) by stage are dominated by release of
the wastewater effluent. This corresponds to normalized (and normalized and weighted)
results by impact category being driven by eutrophication potential. That is, release of the
wastewater effluent leads to eutrophication through increased ammonia and phosphorus
emissions to the Ohio River.
25 Gloria, T.P., Lippiatt, B.C., and Cooper, J. 2007. Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally
preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol, 41, 7551-7557.
26
Ryberg, M, Vieira, M.D.M., Zgola, M, Bare, J., and Rosenbaum, R.K., 2014. Updated US and Canadian
normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Techn Environ Policy, 16: 329-339.
27
Gloria, T.P., Lippiatt, B.C., and Cooper, J. 2007. Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally
preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol, 41, 7551-7557.
32
-------
Percent Contribution
20% 40% 60%
80%
100%
Cost by Stage
Normalized by Stage
Normalized and
Weighted by Stage
Normalized by Impact
Normalized and
Weighted by Impact
• Global Warming
• Acidification
Eutrophication
• Smog
• Ozone Depletion
• Human Health, Cancer
• Human Health, NonCancer
• Human Health, Criteria
• Ecotoxicity
• Wastewater Collection
• Pumping, at WWT Plant
• Mobile Fuel Combustion at WWT
Plant
• Screening and Grit Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary Clarifiers
• Sludge Thickening and Dewatering
Aeration
Sludge Incineration
Primary Disinfection, Sodium
Hypochlorite
Release of Wastewater Effluent
Overhead*
*Overhead is only included for the cost results' category
Figure 6. Normalized and weighted WWT results by stage and impact category
Impact
Categories
Life
Cycle
Stage
33
-------
6.
BASE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
LCAs inherently involve making assumptions. To see the influence of the assumptions made in
an LCA model, it is important to conduct sensitivity analyses. To carry out such an analysis, the
assumption of interest is changed and the entire LCA is recalculated. In this study, sensitivity
analyses were conducted for key base case assumptions. Table 16 shows the sensitivity analyses
for the base case WWT model, the values used, and whether LCA or cost results were generated
for the sensitivity. Costs results were generated if changes to the LCA parameter could impact
the costs. For example, changing the quantity of electricity used at the plant would change the
costs. On the other hand, varying the electricity grid would not result in cost changes.
Table 16. Sensitivity analyses for base case WWT model runs.
Parameter
Electricity usage at
plant
Electricity usage
during wastewater
collection
Electricity grid
Sodium
hypochlorite
consumption
Carbon content of
incinerated sludge
Lifetime of
collection system
infrastructure
components
Lifetime of WWTP
infrastructure
components
Values
±10% of value obtained from
MSDGC
±10% of value obtained from
MSDGC
Average U.S. grid, ReliabilityFirst
Corporation West (RFCW) North
American Electrical Reliability
Corporation (NERC) regional grid
±10% of value obtained from
MSDGC
IPCC gives range of 40-50% carbon
content of dry sludge.17 Baseline
modeled = 45%, minimum = 40%,
maximum = 50%
±25 years weighted lifetime of
infrastructure per life cycle stage.
Baseline = 100 years at for buildings
and tanks at plant, baseline for piping
shown in Table 11, baseline for pumps
and motors = 25 years
±25 years weighted lifetime of
infrastructure per life cycle stage.
Baseline for piping shown in Table 1 1
LCA
Results
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cost
Results
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
6.1 LCA Sensitivity Results
Table 17 and Figure 7 cover the impact assessment results for the electricity sensitivity analyses.
Changing the total electricity used at the plant changes the impacts at most +9.5 percent/-9
percent. The model is not sensitive to changing the electricity usage during collection, since the
collection system is mostly gravity and requires minimal electricity for operation in comparison
to electricity consumed at the WWTP. Eutrophication is not sensitive to the WWTP electricity
usage, as it is driven by waterborne emissions associated with release of wastewater effluent.
Similarly, global warming only changes +4.2 percent/-2.2 percent with a +/- 10 percent
electricity usage change, since many of the GHG emissions are related to biogenic carbon
dioxide releases during aeration and sludge incineration and nitrous oxide and methane
34
-------
emissions during sludge incineration. The use of the ReliabilityFirst Corporation West (RFCW)
electricity grid, which is the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) region
the Mill Creek Plant is located, results in considerably higher global warming, smog, and
acidification impacts compared to use of the U.S. average grid electricity mix, which is applied
in the base case. This is largely due to the higher use of coal in the RFCW grid compared to the
U.S. average grid. However, use of the RFCW grid electricity mix significantly reduced human
health cancer and ecotoxicity impacts, which is due to the lower natural gas usage in the RFCW
grid mix compared to the U.S. average grid mix.
The base case WWT carbon footprint results vary +/- 4.6 percent when modeling the range of
potential carbon content in the dry sludge that is incinerated at the plant (Table 18). The model is
sensitive to the quantity of biogenic carbon released during incineration (see discussion of
biogenic carbon modeling in Section 5.1).
Results of the infrastructure sensitivity analyses are displayed in Figure 8 and Figure 9.
Weighted average lifetimes of infrastructure components for each life cycle stage were
determined by multiplying the relative mass contribution of different infrastructure components
in each life cycle stage by their associated lifetime and summing these values. The minimum and
maximum lifetimes modeled here vary +/- 25 years from these weighted average lifetimes.
Overall life cycle impacts increase with a decrease in the infrastructure lifetime, since the
infrastructure burdens are normalized over less total water treated. The infrastructure lifetime is
only sensitive to the metal depletion category, since this is the primary impact category in which
infrastructure is a significant component. Since the collection system is primary clay and
concrete pipe, the metal depletion impact is not sensitive to varying the collection system
lifetime. All other impact categories vary approximately less than 5 percent from the base case
for the WWTP lifetime sensitivity analysis.
Impact results vary less than +/-5 percent when varying the sodium hypochlorite used during
WWT primary disinfection +/- 10 percent (Figure 10). Human health, noncancer is the impact
category most sensitive to the usage of sodium hypochlorite. Human health noncancer impacts
are associated with air emissions from production of sodium hypochlorite and the upstream
sodium hydroxide used in sodium hypochlorite production.
35
-------
Table 17. LCA electricity sensitivity results for base case WWT model runs.
Impact Category
Global Warming
Energy Demand
Fossil Depletion
Acidification
Eutrophication
Blue Water Use
Smog
Ozone Depletion
Metal Depletion
Human Health,
Cancer
Human Health,
NonCancer
Human Health,
Criteria
Ecotoxicity
Unit
kgCO2
eq
MJ
kg oil eq
kgH+
mole eq
kgNeq
m3
kg O3 eq
kgCFCll
eq
kg Fe eq
CTU
CTU
kg PM10
eq
CTU
per m3 wastewater treated
Base
Case
0.96
7.79
0.15
0.15
0.010
0.0034
0.026
8.9E-09
0.010
l.OE-11
9.1E-12
4.5E-04
2.5E-04
Minimum
Electricity
Usage at
WWTP
0.93
7.20
0.14
0.14
0.010
0.0031
0.024
8.2E-09
0.0099
9.3E-12
8.9E-12
4.1E-04
2.4E-04
Maximum
Electricity
Usage at
WWTP
1.00
8.37
0.16
0.17
0.010
0.0037
0.028
9.5E-09
0.010
1.1E-11
9.2E-12
4.9E-04
2.6E-04
Minimum
Electricity
Usage at
Collection
System
0.96
7.78
0.15
0.15
0.010
0.0034
0.026
8.8E-09
0.010
l.OE-11
9.1E-12
4.5E-04
2.5E-04
Maximum
Electricity
Usage at
Collection
System
0.96
7.80
0.15
0.15
0.010
0.0034
0.026
8.9E-09
0.010
l.OE-11
9.1E-12
4.5E-04
2.5E-04
RFC
West
Grid
1.04
8.30
0.17
0.19
0.010
N/A
0.034
8.4E-09
0.010
5.5E-12
9.2E-12
5.3E-04
1.9E-04
Minimum
Electricity
Usage at
WWTP %
Change
-2.2%
-7.5%
-7.3%
-8.8%
-0.1%
N/A
-7.2%
-7.5%
-0.8%
-8.0%
-1.6%
-8.4%
-3.2%
Maximum
Electricity
Usage at
WWTP %
Change
4.2%
7.5%
7.2%
8.8%
0.0%
N/A
7.1%
7.5%
0.8%
8.0%
1.6%
9.5%
4.9%
Minimum
Electricity
Usage at
Collection
System %
Change
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.00%
N/A
-0.2%
-0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Maximum
Electricity
Usage at
Collection
System %
Change
0.04%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.04%
N/A
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.6%
0.8%
RFC
West
Grid %
Change
3.9%
6.6%
3.0%
9.0%
0.0%
N/A
14.6%
24.7%
0.5%
-31.4%
0.4%
7.3%
-19.3%
36
-------
-40%
-30%
-20%
I Minimum Electricity Usage at
WWTP % Change
I Maximum Electricity Usage at
WWTP % Change
Minimum Electricity Usage at
Collection System % Change
I Maximum Electricity Usage at
Collection System % Change
RFC West Grid % Change
Percent Change
-10% 0%
10%
20%
30%
Global Warming
Energy Demand
^^^^^H
Fossil Depletion
Bhje Water Use
^^^H
Smog
^^^H
Ozorje Depletion
Human H( alth, Cancer
Human Health
Human Health, Criteria
| Ecotoxicity
Figure 7. Electricity sensitivity analyses.
Table 18. Sludge carbon content sensitivity analysis.
Total WWT
Sludge carbon
incineration kg footprint kg
CO2 per m3
water treated
Total
carbon
CO2 eq per mj footprint %
water treated change
Baseline sludge carbon content
Minimum sludge carbon content
Maximum sludge carbon content
0.40
0.35
0.44
0.96
0.91
1.00
-4.6%
4.6%
37
-------
-20%
Percent Change
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5%
10% 15% 20% 25%
(
^^H
Huma
lumanHt
Humai
E
Global \\
Energy E
Fossil De
Acidi
Eutropl
Blue Wa
3zone De
Metal De
n Health,
;alth, Non
i Health,
cotoxicity
arming |
)emand |
pletion |
fication |
lication
ter Use |
Smog |
)letion H
pletion
Cancer
Criteria g
, Total H
I
I
I
I
•
I
•
^m
•
•
• % Change minimum
lifetime of WWTP
• % Change maximum
lifetime of WWTP
•
Figure 8. WWTP infrastructure lifetime sensitivity analysis.
-0.6%
Percent Change
-0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0%
Global
Energy
Warmin;
Den
Fossil Depletion
Acidifi
Eutrophication
l % Change minimum lifetime of
collection system
I % Change maximum lifetime of
collection system
Human
Hupian Health
EC otoxici
Figure 9. WWT collection system infrastructure lifetime sensitivity analysis.
38
-------
-6%
-4%
Percent Change
-2% 0%
2%
4%
6%
Glo )al Warming
Em rgy Demand'
Fos sil Depletion
Acidification
B itrophication
Bh e Water Use
Smog
Ozoi ie Dep
Me al
Human Health, Cano
ealth, NonCani
Human Health, Criteria
Ecotoxicity
Minimum Sodium
Hypochlorite Usage % Change
Maximum Sodium
Hypochlorite Usage % Change
Figure 10. Sodium hypochlorite usage sensitivity analysis.
6.2 Cost Sensitivity Results
Table 19 summarizes the cost input values and cost results for each life cycle stage for the cost
sensitivity results. Changing the total electricity used at the plant results in a change in the total
annual cost of ±2 percent. Changing the electricity used at the plant does not impact the
wastewater collection costs. If the electricity used for wastewater collection (apportioned for
Mill Creek's portion of sewer pipes) is changed by ±10 percent, the wastewater collection cost
changes by ±0.1% (electricity costs contribute only 1 percent of the wastewater collection costs;
see Table 12).
39
-------
Table 19. Cost sensitivity results for base case WWT model runs.
Life Cycle Stage
Base Case
Value
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Minimum
Value %
Change
Maximum
Value %
Change
Inputs
Total Electricity at
Plant (kWh/yr)
69,281,609
62,353,448
76,209,770
-10%
+10%
Results
Wastewater Collection
Pumping, at WWT
Plant
Mobile Combustion - at
WWTP
Screening and Grit
Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary
Sedimentation
Sludge Thickening and
Dewatering
Sludge Incineration
Aeration
Primary Disinfection,
Sodium Hypochlorite
Facility-Wide Costs
Total Costs ($/yr)
$5,516,869
$638,870
$306,911
$5,078
$164,989
$80,036
$3,092,057
$732,741
$2,270,071
$436,021
$3,315,081
$16,558,726
$5,511,392
$574,983
$306,911
$4,571
$157,940
$72,033
$3,042,817
$727,328
$2,043,063
$400,761
$3,315,081
$16,197,617
$5,522,347
$702,757
$306,911
$5,586
$172,038
$88,040
$3,141,298
$738,155
$2,497,078
$466,733
$3,315,081
$16,919,834
-0.1%a
-10%
0%
-10%
-4.27%
-10%
-1.59%
-0.74%
-10%
-ll%b
0%
-2.2%
0.1% a
10%
0%
10%
4.27%
10%
1.59%
0.74%
10%
9%b
0%
2.2%
aPercent change is for electricity only. The total costs for collection include labor, natural gas, power, gasoline,
O&M. Only the amount of electricity (power) was modified.
bPercent change is for quantity of sodium hypochlorite only. Calculated percent change using kg/m3 values
used in the LCA (base case= 0.013718, min = 0.01226162, max = 0.01498642). Note the total costs for primary
disinfection include sodium hypochlorite, materials, labor, and service. Only the amount of sodium hypochlorite
was modified.
40
-------
7. OVERALL FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS
Results of the base case analysis show normalized WWT results are dominated by
eutrophication. Eutrophication impacts are from release of ammonia and phosphorus emissions
in wastewater effluent. Sludge incineration makes the largest contribution to global warming
potential, much of which is related to biogenic CC>2 emissions from combustion of the sludge.
Excluding biogenic carbon dioxide emissions more than halves the overall carbon footprint of
treating wastewater in the base case. Aeration is the life cycle stage that consumes the most
electricity, which is the reason it is the largest contributor for many impacts including energy
demand, fossil depletion, acidification, blue water use, ozone depletion, human health cancer,
and human health criteria. These impacts driven by electricity consumption were sensitive to the
electricity usage and electricity grid sensitivity analyses conducted. Overall, primary disinfection
with sodium hypochlorite only contributes zero to 6 percent for most impact categories, with the
exception of blue water use, ozone depletion, metal depletion, and human health noncancer.
Upstream processes associated with production of the sodium hypochlorite have relatively high
impacts for these categories. Wastewater collection accounts for 33 percent of the total cost,
followed by plant-wide overhead cost, which accounts for 20 percent of the cost, sludge
thickening and dewatering, which accounts for 19 percent of the cost, and aeration, which
accounts for 14 percent of the cost.
The base case WWT LCA and cost model developed here can serve as a framework for
examining different disinfection technologies and treatment methods. EPA plans to evaluate
alternatives to disinfection with sodium hypochlorite for the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
41
-------
8. REFERENCES
1. American Water Works Association. 2012. Buried No Longer: Confronting
America's Water Infrastructure Challenge.
2. Black & Veatch (prepared for Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati),
MSDGCMill Creek WWTP Facility Plan, May 2008. Available at
http://www.msdgc.org/downloads/wetweather/bundles/Documents_for_LMCPR-
Phase I-
EHRT/Mill%20Creek%20WWTP/MSD%20Mill%20Creek%20Facilitv%20Plan.
p_df
3. Brown, Sally; Beecher, Ned; and Carpenter, Andrew. Calculator Tool for
Determining Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Biosolids Processing and End Use.
Environmental Science and Technology 2010. 44(24), 9509-9515.
4. Ecoinvent Centre, ecoinvent data v2.2. ecoinvent reports No. 1-25, 2010. Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
5. Ecoinvent Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) Method implemented in ecoinvent
data v2.2. 2010. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
6. ERG, Quality Assurance Project Plan for Systems-Based Sustainability and
Emerging Risks Performance Assessment of Cincinnati Regional Water
Technology Innovations: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis
of Water Treatment Options., prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. for U.S.
EPA Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, February 2013.
7. Foley, J. and P. Lant. Direct Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Full-
Scale Wastewater Treatment Systems. Research by Advanced Water Care
Management Center, The University of Queensland Australia for Water Services
Association of Australia, http://www.wsaa.asn.au.
8. Gloria, T.P., Lippiatt, B.C., and Cooper, J., Life cycle impact assessment weights
to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States.
Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, 41, 7551-7557.
9. Goedkoop, M.J.; Heijungs, R; Huijbregts, M.; De Schryver, A.; Struijs, J.; van
Zelm, R.; ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises
harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, First
edition Report I: Characterisation, 6 January 2009. http://www.lcia-recipe.net.
10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Volume 5: Waste, 2006. Available at http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.ip/public/2006gl/index.html.
42
-------
11. Koplow, Doug; Cost Accounting and Budgeting for Improved Wastewater
Treatment; Industrial Economics, Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington, DC, 1998.
12. Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati, 2010 Sustainability Report:
Redefining the Future, 2010. Available at
http ://proj ectgroundwork. org/sustainability/index.html.
13. Monteith, H.D.; Sahely, H.R.; MacLean, H.L.; and Bagley, D.M. A Rational
Procedure for Estimation of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions from Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water Environment Research 2005, 77 (4), 390-
403.
14. Pfister, S., Saner, D., Koehler, A. 2011. The environmental relevance of
freshwater consumption in global power production. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 16 (6): 580-591.
15. Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. and the American Water Works Association
2072 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, 2013. [ISBN: 9781583219003]
16. Ryberg, M., Vieira, M.D.M., Zgola, M., Bare, I, and Rosenbaum, R.K., 2014.
Updated US and Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Techn
Environ Policy. 16: 329-339.
17. SYLVIS (for Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), The Biosolids
Emissions Assessment Model (BEAM): A Method for Determining Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Canadian Biosolids Management Practices, 2009.
18. U.S. DOE, National Renewable Energy Lab. US LCI Database. Available at:
http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/default.asp.
19. U.S. EPA. Cost Accounting and Budgeting for Improved Wastewater Treatment.
1998.
20. U. S. EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress; EPA-832-
R-10-002; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008.
21. U. S. EPA, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/.
43
-------
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |