Life-Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plant

By

Tuan Muhammad Lukmanul Hakim Bin Tuan Yahya

14791

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
(Chemical Engineering)

JAN 2015

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,

32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar,

Perak Darul Ridzuan.

 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plant

By

Tuan Muhammad Lukmanul Hakim Bin Tuan Yahya

14791
A project dissertation submitted to the
Chemical Engineering Programme
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (Hons)
(CHEMICAL ENGINEERING)

Approved By,

...........................................................

(Dr. Taslima Khanam)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS,

32610 BANDAR SERI ISKANDAR,

PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN.

JAN 2015

ii
 CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the
original work is my own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements, and
that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by unspecified
sources or persons.

___________________________________________

TUAN MUHAMMAD LUKMANUL HAKIM BIN TUAN YAHYA

iii
 ABSTRACT

The life cycle of wastewater treatment plant can have adverse effect on the
environment in term depletion of fossil, climate change, resource depletion, ozone layer
depletion and cause toxicological effect on human health and ecosystem. This can be
resolved using life cycle assessment (LCA) method where the severity of the
environmental burden of the wastewater treatment plant can be evaluated. Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) is a method to calibrate and evaluate the environmental impact
associated with a service, product or process from cradle-to-grave perspective. The
objective of this project is to design the inventory data for the whole process of wastewater
treatment plant and evaluate the environmental impact by using the ReCiPe method to
conduct the LCA. ReCiPe method is definitely chosen since it has additional advantage
compared to other LCA methods. Besides, other LCA methods have a lot of weak points
which resulted in less precision of the whole analysis. The scope of the study for this project
is focused on the cradle-to-grave approached, which is the assessment is take place from
the beginning construction of the wastewater plant until the disposal waste of the
wastewater. For the methodology, the LCA of the whole wastewater treatment plant was
done by using SimaPro software where it illustrated the environmental burden of the
wastewater treatment plant in graphical form. Prior to that, the inventory data for
wastewater treatment plant was designed based on the reliable literature review and input
into database of the software. Designing of the inventories is the data demanding stage in
LCA, as it is the most challenging step in which the data must be evaluated, reviewed and
if necessary, corrected to maintain the quality of the result assessment. The study produced
3 categories of results which are midpoint indicators, endpoint damage indicators and
single score perspectives. Advance particulars of the project will be described in the
subsequent chapters.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All praises to Allah for giving me the opportunity to finally complete this
dissertation in time who without His blessings and permission I would never be able to
finish this project. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Chemical
Engineering Department of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP) for giving me a
chance to commence this remarkable Final Year Project (FYP) course as a platform to
enhance my knowledge and skills concerning my undergraduate studies in Chemical
Engineering all the way through these five years’ time. By undertaking this project, I was
able to understand the process procedure and skill required in order to conduct a project
which has prepared me a better engineering graduate.

Besides, a special thanks to my compassionate supervisor, Dr. Taslima Khanam

who is always willing to spend her precious time in assisting me and gave a virtuous
support since the early beginning of the project until the completion. Through the weekly
meetings and discussions with my supervisor, I have acknowledged various share of insight
on the diverse features to be assessed for this project to become feasible. Her brilliance
support, effective guidance and patience have brought a great impact to my project.
Nevertheless, I would like to thank the Final Year Project (FYP) coordinator and managing
committees for arranging numerous seminars as provision and knowledge transfer to assist
my work progress in the project. Last but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to my family
and friends for giving me endless support all the way through the easy and challenging
times. Thank you all.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL ................................................................................. ii

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY ...........................................................................iii

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................. v

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................viii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Study ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................... 2

1.3 Aim and Objectives ............................................................................................. 3

1.4 Scope of study ..................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 5

2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant ............................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Preliminary Treatment ................................................................................. 5

2.1.2 Primary Treatment ....................................................................................... 5

2.1.3 Secondary Treatment ................................................................................... 6

2.1.4 Tertiary and/or Advance Treatment ............................................................. 6

2.2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ............................................................................ 6

2.2.1 Concept of LCA ........................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 LCA Application to Wastewater Treatment Plant ....................................... 7

2.2.3 The LCA Framework ................................................................................... 7

2.2.4 Life Cycle Assessment Type ....................................................................... 8

2.3 LCA Methods ...................................................................................................... 8

vi
 2.3.1 Eco-indicator 99 ........................................................................................... 8

2.3.2 CML-IA ....................................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 TRACI 2.1.................................................................................................... 9

2.3.4 ReCiPe ......................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND GANTT CHART ............................................. 13

3.1 Research Methodology...................................................................................... 13

3.2 Key Milestone ................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Gantt Chart ........................................................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION .................................................................. 19

4.1 Result................................................................................................................. 19

4.2 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 39

REFERENCES

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Relationship between the inventory and the midpoint categories ..................... 12
Figure 2 Wastewater treatment system with Input and Output........................................ 19
Figure 3 Wastewater treatment system Network ............................................................. 24
Figure 4 Normalized midpoint impact indicator of wastewater treatment plant ............. 25
Figure 5 Normalized midpoint impact indicators for Sub-Assemblies ........................... 26
Figure 6 Normalized damage indicators of wastewater treatment plant.......................... 27
Figure 7 Normalized damage indicators for sub-assemblies ........................................... 28
Figure 8 Single score based on perspective for wastewater treatment plant ................... 29
Figure 9 single score (Hierarchist) for sub-assemblies of wastewater treatment plant ... 30
Figure 10 Single score (Individualist) for sub-assemblies ............................................... 31
Figure 11 Single score (Egalitarian) for sub-assemblies ................................................. 32
Figure 12 Pie chart of contributor of human health damage ........................................... 34
Figure 13 Pie chart of contributor of resource damage.................................................... 35
Figure 14 Pie chart of contributor of Ecosystem damage ................................................ 36

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Classification of impact categories ..................................................................... 10

Table 2 Subsystems included in wastewater treatment plant........................................... 20
Table 3 Inventory data for subsystem 1 ........................................................................... 21
Table 4 Inventory data for subsystem 2 ........................................................................... 22
Table 5 Inventory data for subsystem 3 ........................................................................... 23
Table 6 Inventory data for construction and equipment fabrication ................................ 23

ix
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Study

Wastewater is any kind of water that has been negatively affected in quality by
anthropogenic influence, which is mainly caused by human activities. Municipal
wastewater is usually transmitted in a sanitary sewer, and treated at a wastewater treatment
plant. Wastewater treatment plant basically consists of three phases, primary, secondary
and tertiary which involve mechanical, chemical or biological treatment throughout the
process stages. Most of the treatment stage applies the gravitational sedimentation to
separate the suspended solid which comprised of 70% organic and 30% inorganic solid
from the wastewater. Accurate analytical techniques are normally used to measure the
strength of wastewater.

The most common indicator used to analyze the characteristics of waste entering
and leaving a plant are, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD), Total Suspended Solid (TSS), pH scale, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen.
There are two types of wastewater treatment, Domestic wastewater and Industrial
wastewater. Domestic wastewater comprises sewage from rural area such as homes, offices
and hotels. While, industrial wastewater is the waste discharge from manufacturing
process, as such photo finishing and sugar processes industries. The purposes of
wastewater treatment are to remove the organic and inorganic matter consists in the sewage
which can cause pollution to the environment. Lundin et al. (2000) stated that the main
purposes of wastewater treatment systems are not only to protect the human health and
aquatic ecosystems, it beyond to include reducing loss of insufficient resources,
minimizing the use of energy and water, lessening waste generation and empowering the
recycling of nutrients.

1
 According to Corominas Ll. et al. (2013) Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool or
technique to specify the impact correlated with a product, a process or a service from
cradle-to-grave perspective. LCA had established in 1960s and since then a large number
of approaches have been expanded into advance multiple disciplines. In late 1990s, LCA
methodologies have been commonly standardized in the International Standard
Organization (ISO) 14000 series. LCA analyze the product or service’s life cycle started
from raw material extraction through material processing, manufacture, distribution, repair
and maintenance, until the disposal or recycling phases. There are four basic stages of
conducting an LCA, which are Goal and Scope definition, Inventory analysis, Impact
assessment and Interpretation. The function of LCA is to assist the decision-makers in
selecting the product or process which results in the least impact to the environment.

As a technical approach, LCA for wastewater treatment has been applied in 1990s.
According to Guest et al. (2009) and Larsen et al. (2010) LCA is a beneficial technique to
enlighten the broader environmental impact of design and operation decisions, in the
pursuit of more environmentally sustainable wastewater treatment. Since 1990s, there are
more than forty studies have been published and advertised by using an array of databases,
boundary conditions and impact assessment methods for interpreting the results in the
international peer-reviewed journals (Corominas Ll. et al ,2013). Data for Inventory is
collected from lab as well as real industrial wastewater treatment plant, relevant literature
and LCA database. The beginning life cycle inventory (LCI) data is commonly compiled
straightforwardly from measurements, vendor-supplied information and detailed design
documents (Corominas Ll. et al, 2013).

1.2 Problem statement

In regulating the impact assessment of LCA, there are various Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA) methodologies can be applied. These methods could vary in the impact
categories they cover, in their selection of indicators and in their geographical focus.
Previously in the past years, there have been numerous researches done regarding the life
cycle assessment of wastewater treatment plant using methods like Eco-Indicator 99,

2
CML-IA, and TRACI. However, from the literature review analysis found that there has
never been a research done on the life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment plant using
ReCiPe method. The main reason is, it is a newly developed method which combined the
previous Eco-indicator 99 and CML-IA. According to Bengtsson & Howard (2010),
ReCiPe is a method that translates life cycle inventory data into a single indicator score
value. ReCiPe method has additional advantage in evaluating a process compared to other
methods. ReCiPe method has extra impact indicators which covers about 18 categories,
thus it has a broader range of environmental impact than any other methods. Certain
methodology likes Eco-Indicator 99, CML-IA, and TRACI are very limited in the impact
category. Thus, the assessment only represent in certain range of impact which make the
assessment less accurate.
Furthermore, some LCA methods are too comprehensive which results in difficulty
for government and organizations to evaluate the impacts of process on environment.
ReCiPe method would make the assessment perfectly clear by giving a single score value
indicator. Acero et. al, (2014) stated that, ReCiPe method evaluates each impact category
in 3 different perspectives which are individualist, hierarchist and egalitarian. These
perspectives would contribute into a better analysis on the impact compared to other
methods. However, the ReCiPe method is not widely used in LCA especially for
wastewater treatment plant as compared to other methods. Besides, previous researches
had some challenges and difficulties in providing relevant of inventory data for the
analysis.

1.3 Aim and Objectives

The aim of this project is to develop the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of wastewater
treatment plant by using SIMAPRO software and ReCiPe method.

The objectives of this project are:

i) To evaluate the environmental impact of wastewater treatment plant by using

ReCiPe method.

3
 ii) To design the inventory data for LCA by collecting the data from real
wastewater treatment plant and relevant literature from previous study.

1.4 Scope of study

The scope of this study relies on the method that will be applied to conduct the life cycle
assessment.
 The LCA approach will be the ‘cradle-to-grave’ type.
 LCA will be conducted by using software SIMAPRO version 8 and utilizing the
ReCiPe method which can translate the result in the form of 18 impact categories.

4
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant

Conventional wastewater treatment consists of a combo of physical or mechanical

treatment, chemical and biological processes and operations in order to eliminate the solid
suspended, organic matter and some nutrients from wastewater. The treatment level are
classified according to the different degrees of treatment, in sequence preliminary, primary,
secondary, and tertiary or advanced wastewater treatment.

2.1.1 Preliminary Treatment

The goal for preliminary treatment is to remove the coarse solids and large floating
sludge often found in raw wastewater. This removal process is necessary in order to boost
the maintenance and process operations of subsequent treatment units. Typically, in
preliminary treatment operations might include the grit removal, coarse screening and
sometimes, comminution of huge object. However, in most of small wastewater treatment
plants, grit removal is not included as a preliminary treatment step. Comminutors are
served to reduce the size of large particles sometimes by endorsed to supplement coarse
screening, so that they will be eliminated in the form of sludge in subsequent treatment
process.

2.1.2 Primary Treatment

In primary treatment, sedimentation process is applied to remove the settleable

organic and inorganic solid in wastewater, and the skimming process for removal of
floating material (scum). During the primary treatment, approximately 25% to 50% of the
incoming Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), 50% to 70% of the Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), and 65% of the oil and grease are removed throughout the treatment. Some

5
materials are also removed during the primary sedimentation such as, organic nitrogen and
phosphorus and heavy metals mixed with solids, but colloidal and dissolves constituents
are not affected. The primary effluent classified as the effluent from primary sedimentation.

2.1.3 Secondary Treatment

The aim of secondary treatment is to remove the residual organics and suspended
solids as the further treatment of the effluent from primary treatment. Secondary treatment,
in most of the cases will follows the primary treatment and involves in removal of
biodegradable dissolved and colloidal organic matter using aerobic biological treatment
processes. In this treatment, some of aerobic biological processes are differing primarily in
the behavior in which oxygen is supplied to the microorganisms and in the rate at which
organisms metabolize the organic matter.

2.1.4 Tertiary and/or Advance Treatment

Tertiary and/or advanced wastewater treatment is engaged when specific

wastewater constituents was failed to be removed by secondary treatment. Advanced
treatment or occasionally referred as tertiary treatment when it follows high-rate of
secondary treatment. However, sometimes advanced treatment processes are mingled with
primary or secondary treatment such as, in chemical addition to primary clarifiers or
aeration basin to remove phosphorus.

2.2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

2.2.1 Concept of LCA

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is functioned as a tool to evaluate the potential

environmental impact of a process, a service, or a product. LCA is also known as ‘Life
Cycle Analysis’ or ‘Cradle-to-grave Analysis’ (Crawford, 2011). Generally from the name
‘Cradle-to-grave’ shows the overall process of LCA which comprise the assessment of the
entire life cycle of the product, from the beginning of raw materials extraction, through the
product fabrication to the disposal of waste. LCA contributes both a holistic representation
of comparisons between stages of product life and a product’s environmental impact.

6
 2.2.2 LCA Application to Wastewater Treatment Plant

The connections between the treatment process and environmental impacts are the
relevant inputs and outputs of the product system (Crawford, 2011). Normally, raw
materials and energy are included in the inputs stream. However, outputs may differ
extensively, including products, emission to water and radiation to air, sludge and other
byproducts. Back in the case of wastewater treatment plants, the wastewater from sewage
collection systems, electricity used for mixing and pumping, and other additional chemicals
contributes to the major inputs. Besides, outputs consist of treated effluent to the receiving
water, diversified gas radiations and sludge.

In order to assess the environmental impact of wastewater treatment plant under the
concept of LCA, there are several ways need to be considered. Emmerson et al. (1995)
stated that, commonly the life cycle of wastewater treatment plant engages with the
construction phase of wastewater treatment plant, production of wastewater phase and the
final destruction phase. They also mentioned that both the construction and destruction
phase have only a minor impact on the environment within the entire life cycle of the plant.
Tillman et al. (1998) have prepared alternatives for wastewater treatment plant in Sweden
using the LCA approach. Meanwhile, a case study was conducted by Lassaux et al. (2007)
on the anthropogenic water cycle (“from the pumping station to the wastewater treatment
plant”). The comparison of environmental impacts between different wastewater treatment
plant (Hospido et al., 2008), the assessment of wastewater treatment plant with seasonal
variations and the comparison between different LCA methods for wastewater treatment
plant (Hospido, 2004) also included as the other analyses of this widely popular topic.

2.2.3 The LCA Framework

7
 A complex life cycle assessment involves a few different stages. The framework
for LCA has been standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
which contains four phases, according to the most updated ISO 14040: 2006;
a. Goal and Scope definition
b. Inventory analysis
c. Impact assessment
d. Interpretation
The goal and scope definition, inventory analysis and impact assessment are worked in
sequence, while the interpretation takes place all the way through the process.

2.2.4 Life Cycle Assessment Type

Life cycle philosophy is frequently attributed to as ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach as it

follows a product or a service from sourcing of primary materials (‘cradle’) to ultimate
disposal of waste (‘grave’). The study is using the LCA cradle-to-grave type. The system
boundary to be analyzed in this study is a treatment plant for wastewater, starting after the
influent entrance to the system until before discharge to the receiving body.

2.3 LCA Methods

2.3.1 Eco-indicator 99

Eco-indicator 99 is the replacement of Eco-indicator 95 and has a similarity of

method used which is damage-oriented approach. Eco-indicator 99 methodologies’
development began with the design of weighting procedure. The resource extractions and
emissions are indicated as 10 or more different impact categories include ozone layer
depletion, acidification, eco-toxicity, and resource extraction in LCA. The panel found the
difficulties in giving the meaningful weighting factors for such a huge number and slightly
abstract impact categories.

8
 2.3.2 CML-IA

In 2001, a set of impact categories and characterization methods for the impact
assessment was proposed by a group of scientists under the lead of CML (Center of
Environmental Science of Leiden University. CML-IA methodology is described for the
midpoint approach. Moreover, normalization is presented but there is neither addition nor
weighting. The impact categories focused in CML-IA including, depletion of abiotic
resources, climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, human toxicity, fresh-water
aquatic eco-toxicity, marine eco-toxicity, terrestrial eco-toxicity, acidification and
eutrophication.

2.3.3 TRACI 2.1

TRACI stands for the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and
other environmental Impact. TRACI was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency categorically for the US as a stand-alone computer program by using the input
parameters consistent with US locations. The impact categories highlighted in TRACI,
including global warming, ozone depletion, eutrophication, acidification, tropospheric
ozone (smog) formation, human health criteria-related effect, ecotoxicity, cancer effect
human health non-cancer effect, fossil fuel depletion and land-use effects. TRACI is
classified as a midpoint oriented Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methodology,
persistently with EPA’s decision not to aggregate between environmental impacts
categories.

2.3.4 ReCiPe

ReCiPe method is the successor of the method CML-IA and Eco-indicator 99.
Purposely, ReCiPe method was to integrate the ‘damage oriented approach’ of Eco-
indicator 99 and ‘problem oriented approach’ of CML-IA during earlier development. The
‘problem oriented approach’ represents the impact categories at a midpoint level. The three
impact categories resulted from ‘damage oriented approach’ of Eco-indicator 99 makes the
interpretation of results easier. However, it increases the uncertainty of results. Both

9
highlighted strategies implemented by ReCiPe and had both midpoint (problem oriented)
and endpoint (damage oriented) impact categories. ReCiPe consists of two sets of impact
categories with correlated sets of characterization factors. 18 impact categories are focused
on at the midpoint level. At the endpoint level, three aggregated endpoint categories
resulted from the midpoint impact categories and damage factors.

Table 1 Classification of impact categories

10
 Impact Midpoint Indicator Endpoint Indicator Characterization factors of Characterization factors of Endpoint
Category Midpoint
Climate change Climate change (CC) Damage to human health (HH) 𝐶𝐹𝐻𝐻 = 𝑇𝐹 × 𝐷𝐹𝐻𝐻
Damage to ecosystem diversity 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝑥,𝑇 𝑑𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡
𝑇 = 𝐿𝑇𝐶𝑂2 ×
(ED) ∫0 𝑎𝑥 × [𝑥(𝑡)𝑑𝑡] Σ𝐸𝐶𝑂2
= 𝑇 Δ𝐼𝑀𝑃𝐴𝐶𝑇
∫0 𝑎𝑟 × [𝑟(𝑡)𝑑𝑡] ×
Δ𝑇𝐸𝑀𝑃

𝐶𝐹𝐸𝑆 = 𝑇𝐹 ∙ 𝐷𝐹𝐸𝑆
Ozone Ozone depletion (OD) Damage to human health (HH) ODP 8 2100
∫2007 ∆𝐷𝐴𝐿𝑌𝑗,𝑠 𝑑𝑡
depletion 𝐶𝐹𝑗 = ∑ 2040
𝑆=1 ∫2003 ∆𝑂𝐷𝑗 𝑑𝑡

Acidification Terrestrial acidification (TD) Damage to ecosystem diversity 𝐹𝐹𝑥 𝑑𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠

𝑇𝐴𝑃 = 𝐶𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡,𝑥 =
(ED) 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑂2 𝑑𝑀𝑋
= 𝑆𝐷𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑟
𝑑𝐷𝐸𝑃𝑗
∙ ∑ 𝐴𝑗 ∙
𝑑𝑀𝑥
𝑗
𝑑𝐵𝑆𝑗 𝑑𝑃𝐷𝐹𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑
∙ ∙
𝑑𝐷𝐸𝑃𝑗 𝑑𝐵𝑆𝑗
Eutrophication Freshwater eutrophication (FE) - FEP Unit of endpoint CF : yr / kg
Marine eutrophication (ME) MEP
Toxicity Human toxicity (HT) Damage to human health (HH) 𝜕𝐶𝑗,𝑥
𝐹𝑗,𝑖,𝑥 = 𝐶𝐹𝑗,𝑖,𝑥 = 𝑆𝐷𝑞 ∙ ∑ 𝐶𝐹𝑗,𝑖,𝑥 ∙ 𝑊𝑗 ∈𝑞
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET) Damage to ecosystem diversity 𝜕𝑀𝑖,𝑥 𝑗
Freshwater ecotoxicity (FET) (ED) 𝜕𝑃𝐷𝐹𝑡𝑜𝑥
Marine ecotoxicity (MET)
𝜕𝐶𝑥
𝜕𝑃𝐷𝐹𝑡𝑜𝑥 𝜕𝑇𝑈𝑘
= .
𝜕𝑇𝑈𝑘 𝜕𝐶𝑥

9
Health damage Photochemical oxidant Damage to human health (HH) 𝑑𝐶𝑂3 /𝑑𝑀𝑥
𝑂𝐹𝑃 = 𝐶𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡,𝑥 = ∑ (𝐼𝐹𝑝𝑜𝑝,𝑥,𝑖
due to PM10 formation (POF) 𝑑𝐶𝑂3 /𝑑𝑀𝑁𝑀𝑉𝑂𝐶
and ozone Particulate matter formation 𝑖𝐹𝑥 𝑖
(PMF) 𝑃𝑀𝐹𝑃 =
𝑖𝐹𝑃𝑀10 ∙ ∑(𝐸𝐹𝑒,𝑘,𝑖 ∙ 𝐷𝐹𝑒,𝑘 ))
𝑒

Ionizing Absorbed dose Damage to human health (HH) Ionizing radiation potential Damage to Human Health (HH)
radiation (IRP)
Land use Agricultural land occupation Damage to ecosystem diversity Each land type has different Damage to ecosystem diversity (ED)
(ALO) (ED) CF. Unit of endpoint CF: yr / m2
Urban land occupation (ULO)
Natural land transformation
Freshwater Water depletion (WD) - Water depletion potential -
depletion (WDP)
Water: 𝐶𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 (𝑚3 /
𝑚3 ) = 1
Mineral Mineral depletion (MD) Damage to resource cost (RC) 𝑀𝑐 Damage to resource cost (RC)
𝐶𝐹𝑐.𝑘𝑔.𝑚𝑖𝑑 = − × 𝑉𝑐2
resource (𝐶𝑐 )2 Unit of endpoint CF: $/ kg
depletion × 𝑃𝑐.𝑘𝑔
Fossil fuel Fossil depletion (FD) Damage to resource cost (RC) 𝐶𝐸𝐷𝑖 𝐶𝐹𝑘𝑔,𝑜𝑖𝑙,𝑒𝑛𝑑 =
𝐶𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡,𝑖 = 1
depletion 𝐶𝐸𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑀𝐶𝐼𝑘𝑔 𝑥 𝑃𝑘𝑔 𝑥 ∑𝑇 (1−𝑑)𝑡
𝐶𝐹𝑒𝑛𝑑,𝑖 = 𝐶𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑑,𝑖 𝑥 𝐶𝐹𝑜𝑖𝑙,𝑒𝑛𝑑,𝑘𝑔

10
Figure 1 Relationship between the inventory and the midpoint categories (environmental
mechanism) and the endpoint categories, including single score (damage model)

12
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY AND GANTT CHART

3.1 Research Methodology

1. The goal and scope of the LCA were defined.

a. Set the objective of the study.
b. Specify the system boundaries from the studies
2. The scope of study was focused on the wastewater treatment plant in Latin
America based on the literature review. The study assessed the cradle-to-grave
approach.
3. The goal of the study is to evaluate the environmental impact of the wastewater
treatment plant in Latin America utilizing the ReCiPe method to conduct LCA.
4. A preliminary research on wastewater treatment system and methods used for
LCA was conducted to acquire a better understanding throughout the
assessment.
5. The inventories data for the wastewater treatment plant including raw chemical
usage, energy consumed, and environmental emission were collected from
literatures. The inventories were designed according to the balance of system
(BOS) in wastewater treatment system including primary, secondary, and
tertiary and sludge treatment system.
6. The inventories found were designed and converted into plant capacity, m3/year
basis in order to standardize the inventories which contains all raw chemical
usage, energy consumed and environmental emission for wastewater treatment
plant.
7. The conversion was done using the ratio method. The inventories were
calculated based on the plant capacity value.
8. A preliminary study on SimaPro software was done to acquire a better
understanding throughout the assessment.
9. The LCA on whole system of wastewater treatment plant including all the BOS
was done using SimaPro software.
10. The goal and scope ware defined in the software. The preferred library proposed
to be applied in the project was selected.
11. Then, all the inventories of the wastewater treatment plant according to the BOS
were entered into the SimaPro software. The inventories data were entered
according to the process flow of the wastewater treatment system. The output
of the system was key-in first by entering its capacity amount and selecting the
respective unit. Then, the overall data for the input of the system was entered.
12. The emission to environment of the system were then identified in the software.
The inventory for electricity consumed, transport usage and the emission from
electricity, waste and transport were also input into the system.
13. The inventory data for overall system of wastewater treatment plant was
evaluated using the ReCiPe method by creating a midpoint impact assessment
on them. The impact assessment was then translated into 3 damage indicators
which are on human health, ecosystem and resource depletion. From that, the
single score value was generated in the software.
14. Lastly, a documentation comprising all the findings analysis of information and
future recommendations was written.

14
3.2 Key Milestone
 FYP 1

• Understanding the nature of project.

Week 1-2 • Identify the problem statement, objectives and scope of study.

• Conduct preliminary studies on existing researches to

understand the concept of LCA of wastewater treatment plant.
Week 3-4 • Find inventories data for the raw material, energy and
environment emssion of wastewater treatment and convert
them accorrding to plant capacity basis.

• Conduct preliminary studies on SimaPro and familiarizing with

Week 5-6 the software by doing the tutorial provided.
• Preparation and submission of extended proposal.

• Start to conduct LCA of wastewater treatment plant using

Week 7-9 SimaPro software.
• Proposal defense.

• Continuation of project work by using SimaPro software.

Week 9-12 • Preparation of Final Interim Report.

Week 13-14 • Submission of Final Interim Report

15
 FYP 2

• Continue to conduct LCA) wastewater treatment plant.

Week 1-4 • Acquire midpoint impact indicator, endpoint damage
indicator and single score results.

• Summary of full results.

Week 5-7
• Interpretation and evaluation of the result.

• Discuss the results and provide detail reccommendations.

Week 8
• Submission of Progress Report.

• Preparation of Technical Paper and Dissertation .

Week 9 -12
• Pre-SEDEX presentation.

• Submission of Technical Paper and softbound and

Week 13-14 hardbound of Dissertation.
• Project Viva.

16
 3.3 Gantt Chart
 FYP 1

Week
No. Detail
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 Title Selection and Supervisor Allocation

2 Understanding the Project

3 Identifying the Objectives and Scope of Study

4 Conducting Preliminary Studies on the Project

5 Developing Inventories Data

6 Conducting Studies on SimaPro Software

7 Preparation of Extended Proposal

8 Submission of Extended Proposal

9 Start Project Work Using SimaPro Software

10 Proposal Defense

11 Continuation of Project Work

12 Preparation of Interim Report

13 Submission of Interim Report

  FYP 2
Week
No. Detail
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 Conduct LCA On wastewater treatment

2 Evaluation of the result

3 Analysis and Interpretation of Results

4 Conclude the Results with Recommendations

5 Preparation & Submission of Progress Report

6 Preparation of Dissertation

7 Preparation of Technical Paper

8 Pre-SEDEX

9 Submission of Dissertation

10 Submission of Technical Paper

11 Project Viva

18
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Result

The life cycle assessment (LCA) on the wastewater treatment was conducted using
SimaPro software where the inventories of the wastewater treatment were entered into the
software and analyzed. The ReCiPe method was used in this assessment to analyze the
inventories. The inventories data were taken from American literatures. All the inventories
data were calculated in yearly basis as per requirement in SimaPro.

In order to design the inventories data for the system, the most important part in
LCA is to specify the system boundary and analyze the input and output process. The figure
shown below is the system boundary for wastewater treatment plant considering all input
and out process.

Figure 2 Wastewater treatment system with Input and Output

In this project, the inventories data consist of all elements in life cycle of wastewater
starting from construction of wastewater plant and fabrication of equipment, chemical raw
materials, energy requirement and emission. Besides, the inventory for balance of system
(BOS) for the wastewater treatment plant was divided into 3 subsystems: pre-treatment and

19
primary treatment (Subsystem 1), secondary treatment and tertiary treatment (Subsystem
2), sludge treatment (subsystem 3). All subsystems comprise consumption of electricity
and chemical raw material and other waste generated in the wastewater treatment plant.
Table 2 shown below gives a detailed description of the subsystems included in wastewater
treatment plant.

Table 2 Subsystems included in wastewater treatment plant

Subsystem 1 Subsystem 2 Subsystem 3

Input of raw water Thickening of secondary
Secondary treatment
Pre-treatment sludge
Dewatering of sludge with
Primary treatment Tertiary treatment
centrifugation
Discharge of partially
treated water Production and transport of
Discharge of treated water
Transportation and chemical
treatment of waste

i. Inventory Data

The inventories data was compiled and collected from the input and output sources
for every balance of system (BOS) or sub-system. The inputs of the wastewater treatment
plant are wastewater which contains various types of organic matter, nutrients and
minerals. The chemical raw material such as Hypochlorite, Sodium Percarbonate and Lime
(CaO) functioned as the disinfection and bleaching agent for the system process. Electricity
consumed by electrical equipment such as blower and pump. The outputs was measured in
three conditions, emission to air, discharge to soil or water and wastes. Wastewater
treatment results in the emission of all three of the main Green House Gases (GHG):
Carbon dioxide CO2, Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O). The summary of the most
relevant inputs and outputs for the analyzed sub-system were presented in table 3, 4, 5 and
6.

20
 Table 3 Inventory data for subsystem 1
Subsystem 1 (Pre-treatment / Primary Treatment)
Inputs
From background function
Parameters Unit Amount
Electricity consumption KWh 116070
From upstream function
Capacity flow rate m3/year 4.24E+7
BOD5 Kg 3.25E+6
COD Kg 7.95E+6
Nitrates Kg 1.3E+6
Total Nitrogen Kg 7.1E+5
Total Phosphorus Kg 2.5E+5
Total Suspended Solid Kg 2.9E+6
Outputs
To subsystem 2
Capacity flow rate m3/year 4.24E+7
BOD5 Kg 3.25E+6
COD Kg 7.95E+6
Nitrates Kg 1.3E+6
Total Nitrogen Kg 7.1E+5
Total Phosphorus Kg 2.5E+5
Total Suspended Solid Kg 2.9E+6

21
 Table 4 Inventory data for subsystem 2

Subsystem 2 (Secondary / Tertiary Treatment)

Inputs
From background function
Parameters Unit Amount
Electricity consumption KWh 2295850
From subsystem 1
Capacity flow rate m3/year 4.24E+7
BOD5 Kg 3.25E+6
COD Kg 7.95E+6
Nitrates Kg 1.3E+6
Total Nitrogen Kg 7.1E+5
Total Phosphorus Kg 2.5E+5
Total Suspended Solid Kg 2.9E+6
Hypochlorite Kg 1.16E+5
Sodium Percabonate Kg 2.93E+5
Lime Kg 6.6E+3
Outputs
Emission to water
Capacity flow rate m3/year 2.4E+7
BOD5 Kg 1.45E+5
COD Kg 1.27E+6
Nitrates Kg 1.06+6
Total Nitrogen Kg 1.7E+5
Total Phosphorus Kg 1.59E+5
Total Suspended Solid Kg 2.55E+5
Fats & Oils Kg 8.6E+4
Emission to air
CO2 Kg/ year 23531.915

22
 Table 5 Inventory data for subsystem 3

Subsystem 3 (Sludge Treatment)

Inputs
From background function
Parameters Unit Amount
Electricity consumption kWh 1606000
From subsystem 1 & 2
Solid wastes m3/year 1.30E+6
Outputs
Emission to water
Chrome (Cr) Kg 1.76E+3
Iron (Fe) Kg 1.98E+4
Manganese (Mn) Kg 2.2E+3
Lead (Pb) Kg 1.89E+3
Cadmium (Cd) Kg 315.3
Mercury (Hg) Kg 31.5
Arsenic (As) Kg 63.07
Total Calcium Kg 9.65E+5
Total Magnesium Kg 5.7E+5
Total Sodium Kg 2.15E+6
Total Potassium Kg 4.5E+5
Boron Kg 1.67E+4
Carbonates Kg 7.14E+6
Emission to air
Methane (CH4) Kg/year 52395.75
Nitrogen Oxide Kg/year 38454
Carbon Dioxide Kg/year 65681.75
Table 6 Inventory data for construction and equipment fabrication

Construction & Equipment Fabrication

Subject Parameters Unit Amount

Concrete Kg 7.41E+5

Constructions Grave sand Kg 2.85E+7

Diesel Machinery kWh 4.07E+5

Equipment Electricity kWh 8.76E+3

Fabrication
Steel Kg 1.06E+4

23
 ii. Network

Figure 3 below shows the network or the tree of wastewater treatment plant system
where it indicates the combination of plant processes and construction materials to perform
the LCA of wastewater treatment plant. The importance of taking the overall process of
wastewater treatment plant including the construction and equipment fabrication is due to
the cradle-to-grave LCA type.

A complete system of wastewater treatment plant produced about 4.24E+10 kg of

wastewater in sub-system 1, 2.48E+10 kg of wastewater in sub-system 2 and 1.3E+10 kg
of sludge waste in sub-system 3. The system also considered one (1) unit of construction
and equipment fabrication process.

Figure 3 Wastewater treatment system Network

iii. Midpoint Indicator

The midpoint indicator for ReCiPe method contains 18 types of environmental

impact. SimaPro software normalizes the data using European normalization in order to
get magnitude for environmental impact.

In normalization process, the quantity of parameter that contributed towards the

impact category is divided with a normalization reference. The normalization reference

24
value is the average of yearly environmental burden in a country or a continent. After the
normalization process, the impact indicator will be dimensionless figure which specifies
the magnitude if each impact indicator. Resulted from this, the impact indicators can be
simply compared with one another.

Figure 4 shows the graph of normalized midpoint impact indicator for complete
wastewater treatment system with its balance of system (BOS) and construction part. As
refer to figure 4, the life cycle of wastewater treatment contributes highest towards the
fossil depletion which has a value of 572.8 and climate change which has a value of 374.9
compared to other impact indicators. The lowest severity of impact indicators is the
contribution towards ozone depletion which is around 0.0159.

700
600
Normalized Value

500
400
300
200
100
0

Midpoint Impact Indicators

Figure 4 Normalized midpoint impact indicator of wastewater treatment plant

The impact indicators of each sub-system were also evaluated to find out the impact
of each sub-assembly. Figure 5 demonstrates the graph of midpoint impact indicators for
the sub-assemblies. For wastewater output from subsystem 1 (pre-treatment and primary

25
treatment) sub-assembly, it has the highest impact on freshwater eutrophication with value
of 61.2 and then lowest impact on photochemical oxidant formation with value of 0.00019.
For wastewater output subsystem 2 (secondary treatment and primary treatment) sub-
assembly, it has the highest impact on fossil depletion with value of 331.5 and lowest
impact on ozone depletion with value of 0.0092. For wastewater output subsystem 3
(Sludge treatment) sub-assembly, it has the highest impact on climate changes with value
of 176.4 while the lowest impact on ozone depletion with value of 0.0035. Lastly, for
construction and equipment fabrication sub-assembly, it has the highest impact on fossil
depletion with value of 63.73, while the lowest impact on marine ecotoxicity with value of
0.0054.

Construction and Equipment Fabrication

Wastewater Output Subsystem 3 (Sludge Treatment)
Wastewater Output Subsystem 2
Normalized Value

Wastewater Output Subsystem 1

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Midpoint Impact Indicators (Sub-Assemblies)

Figure 5 Normalized midpoint impact indicators for Sub-Assemblies of wastewater

treatment plant

26
 iv. Endpoint Damage Indicator

For endpoint damage, the data will be converged towards the damages of each
impact indicator can cause towards human health, ecosystem and resources. Same as the
midpoint indicator, the damage indicator would go through normalization process due to
damage indicator cannot be compared to one another without normalization. Figure 6
illustrates the graph of damage indicators of complete wastewater treatment system.
Referring to figure 6, the life cycle of wastewater treatment plant has the highest damage
towards human health with value of 777.6, followed by resources with value of 629 while
the lowest damage is towards the ecosystem with value of 375.5.

Wastewater Treatment Plant System

900
800
700
Normalized Value

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Human Health Ecosystems Resources
Endpoint Damage Indicators

Figure 6 Normalized damage indicators of wastewater treatment plant

The damage assessment for each sub-system also was done to find out the damage
of the sub-assemblies cause towards human health, ecosystem and resource. Figure 8
shows the graph of damage assessment for each sub-system. For the damage towards
human health, the wastewater output subsystem 2 has the highest contribution with value
of 371.7 and wastewater output subsystem 1 has the lowest contribution with value of 4.94.

27
For the damage towards ecosystem, the wastewater output subsystem 2 has the highest
contribution with value of 154.6 and construction and fabrication has the lowest
contribution with value of 29.08. Finally for the damage towards resource, the wastewater
output subsystem 2 has the highest contribution with value of 347.6 and wastewater output
subsystem 1 has the lowest contribution with value of 8.14.

Endpoint Damage Indicator

Construction and Equipment Fabrication
Wastewater Output Subsystem 3 (Sludge Treatment)
Wastewater Output Subsystem 2
Wastewater Output Subsystem 1
900
800
700
Normalized Value

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Human Health Ecosystems Resources
Endpoint Damage Indicators

Figure 7 Normalized damage indicators for sub-assemblies of wastewater treatment plant

v. Single score

The damage indicators would then go through weighing process where each of the
damage indicators is combined with the weighing factor to form a single score for the
system. The data is symbolized in the unit of Kilo-point (kPt). The single score is usually
applied to compare one product or process from another. The single score was evaluated
in 3 categories of perspectives which are hierarchist, individualist and egalitarian. These 3

28
perspectives illustrate a set of choices on issues such as expectations on appropriate
management or future technology development that can avoid future damages.
Figure 8 demonstrates the single score of 3 perspectives. Firstly, hierarchist
perspective which is the most common policy principle with regards to time-frame. It has
a total score of 612 kPt. The single score is a summing up of damage score where damage
towards human health has an indicator score of 345 kPt, damage towards ecosystem has
the score of 29 kPt, while the damage score towards resource has a score of 237 kPt.
Next, individualist is based on short term significance, impact types that are
acknowledged, technological optimism as regards human adaption. The figure 8 illustrates
that the individualist perspective has a score of 796 kPt. The damage towards human health
specified the score of 620 kPt, damages towards ecosystem has the score of 28 kPt, and the
damage towards resource has a score of 148 kPt.

The last perspective is egalitarian. Egalitarian is the most precautionary perspective

which considered as the longest time-frame. For egalitarian perspective which has a total
score of 1601 kPt, has the score of 1410 kPt for human health, 32 kPt score for ecosystem
and 158 kPt score for resource. This proves that as the time frame increases, the production
of wastewater treatment system would cause a higher damage towards human health.

Human Health Ecosystems Resources

1800
1600
1400
Single Score (kPt)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Hierarchist Individualist Egalitarian
Perspective

Figure 8 Single score based on perspective for wastewater treatment plant

29
 The single score evaluation for each sub-system also was performed. Figure 9
shows the graph of single score for sub-system. The assessment was prepared based on
hierarchist perspective. Wastewater output sub-system 1 has a score of 10.2 kPt, with a
human health score of 2.2 kPt, ecosystem score of 5 kPt, and resource score of 3 kPt.
Wastewater output subsystem 2 has a score of 308 kPt, with a human health score of 165
kPt, ecosystem score of 12 kPt, and resource score of 131 kPt. For wastewater output
subsystem 3 (Sludge treatment) has a score of 225 kPt, with a human health score of 150
kPt, ecosystem score of 10 kPt, and resource score of 64 kPt. Lastly, construction and
equipment fabrication sub-assembly has a score of 68 kPt, with a human health score of 27
kPt, ecosystem score of 2.3 kPt, and resource score of 38 kPt. The graph indicates that the
wastewater output subsystem 2 has the highest damage score and wastewater output
subsystem 1 has the lowest damage score.

Human Health Ecosystem Resource

350
Hierarchist Single Score (kPt)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Wastewater Output Wastewater Output Wastewater Output Construction and
Subsystem 1 Subsystem 2 Subsystem 3 (Sludge Equipment
Treatment) Fabrication
Sub-Assemblies

Figure 9 single score (Hierarchist) for sub-assemblies of wastewater treatment plant

30
 For individualist perspective, Wastewater output sub-system 1 has a score of 8.56
kPt, with a human health score of 3.3 kPt, ecosystem score of 3.6 kPt, and resource score
of 1.6 kPt. Wastewater output subsystem 2 has a score of 332 kPt, with a human health
score of 247 kPt, ecosystem score of 9.2 kPt, and resource score of 75 kPt. For wastewater
output subsystem 3 (Sludge treatment) has a score of 376 kPt, with a human health score
of 328 kPt, ecosystem score of 13 kPt, and resource score of 34 kPt. Lastly, construction
and equipment fabrication sub-assembly has a score of 79 kPt, with a human health score
of 41 kPt, ecosystem score of 1.6 kPt, and resource score of 36 kPt. The figure 10 indicates
that the wastewater output subsystem 3 has the highest damage score and wastewater
output subsystem 1 has the lowest damage score.

Human Health Ecosystem Resources

400
Individualist Single Score (kPt)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Wastewater Output Wastewater Output Wastewater Output Construction and
Subsystem 1 Subsystem 2 Subsystem 3 (Sludge Equipment Fabrication
Treatment)
Sub-Assemblies

Figure 10 Single score (Individualist) for sub-assemblies of wastewater treatment plant

For Egalitarian perspective, Wastewater output sub-system 1 has a score of 16 kPt,

with a human health score of 11 kPt, ecosystem score of 2.5 kPt, and resource score of 2
kPt. Wastewater output subsystem 2 has a score of 589 kPt, with a human health score of
488 kPt, ecosystem score of 13 kPt, and resource score of 87 kPt. For wastewater output

31
subsystem 3 (Sludge treatment) has a score of 915 kPt, with a human health score of 858
kPt, ecosystem score of 13 kPt, and resource score of 43 kPt. Lastly, construction and
equipment fabrication sub-assembly has a score of 80 kPt, with a human health score of 51
kPt, ecosystem score of 3.2 kPt, and resource score of 25 kPt. The figure 11 indicates that
the wastewater output subsystem 3 has the highest damage score and wastewater output
subsystem 1 has the lowest damage score.

Human Health Ecosystem Resources

1000
900
Egalitarian Single Score (kPt)

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Wastewater Output Wastewater Output Wastewater Output Construction and
Subsystem 1 Subsystem 2 Subsystem 3 (Sludge Equipment Fabrication
Treatment)
Sub-Assemblies

Figure 11 Single score (Egalitarian) for sub-assemblies of wastewater treatment plant

4.2 Discussion

Referring to the figure 4, normalized midpoint impact indicator of wastewater

treatment plant, the largest impact of wastewater toward the environment is fossil
depletion. Word fossil fuel associates to a group of resources that consists of hydrocarbons.
The midpoint characterization factor is based on the energy content in wastewater
treatment plant. The main resources that contribute to the fossil depletion are high voltage
of electricity, sodium percarbonate as surfactant agent, lime (Calcium Oxide), construction

32
steel, diesel machinery and construction concrete. The biggest contribution toward the
fossil depletion is from the wastewater output subsystem 2 which is secondary and tertiary
treatment.

The second highest impact of wastewater treatment plant toward the environment
is climate change. Climate change is a long-term swing in weather circumstances identified
by changes in temperature precipitation, winds and other indicators. This impact can be
caused by human activities such as burning of fossil fuels, and conversion of land for
agriculture and forestry that might release the Green House Gases (GHG) such as Carbon
Dioxide and Methane (CH4). This GHG will build up in the atmosphere and led to an
enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect such as climate change. Sludge treatment
system (subsystem 3) has the highest contribution toward the climate change due to the
high content of solid waste which may led to the release of Methane gas (CH4). Other factor
is the high voltage electricity consumption.

The third largest impact of wastewater treatment plant toward the environment is
human toxicity. Human toxicity is calculated by considering the time-integrated fate,
exposure of a unit mass of chemical released into the environment. The assessment of
effects related to the human toxicity impact category is focused on effect resulting from
direct exposure to chemicals. Secondary and tertiary treatment system (subsystem 2) has
the highest contribution toward the human toxicity due to the present of high dosage of
sodium percarbonate as the surfactant agent for cleaning purposes and detergent in
wastewater treatment plant. The other possible factors are lime (CaO) which present in
detergent during cleaning process and high voltage of electricity consumption in
wastewater treatment plant.

Besides, in endpoint damage indicator point of view, the highest damage caused by
wastewater treatment plant is toward the human health. Life cycle assessments generally
evaluate damage to human health using the theory of ‘disability-adjusted life years’
(DALY). The DALY of a disease is calculated from human health statistics on life years
for both lost and disabled. According to the figure 7 normalized damage indicators for sub-
assemblies of wastewater treatment plant, the highest contributor toward the human health
damage is from secondary and tertiary treatment, followed by sludge treatment. Referring

33
to the figure 12, the biggest contributors toward the human health are high voltage of
electricity consumption for treatment plant, solid waste production in sludge treatment
system and high dosage of sodium percarbonate used as the cleaning agent in secondary
treatment.

Human Health

Electriciy Consumption
Solid waste
Sodium Percarbonate
Concrete construction
Diesel Machinery
Steel Construction
Wastewater Output 2
Lime

Figure 12 Pie chart of contributor of human health damage

The second largest damage caused by wastewater treatment plant is toward the
resource. Often quoted that the mankind will run out of resources for future generations
must be taken as an important issue. Several groups believe resource depletion as the only
matter to be monitored. In order to understand the resource needs, it is important to
differentiate between a material and its function, the necessary property of the material that
is used to supply a certain purpose. According to figure 7, the main contributors to resource
damage are secondary and tertiary treatment and sludge treatment system. Referring to
figure 13, high voltage of electricity consumption in treatment plant, used of high dosage
of sodium percarbonate as cleaning agent in secondary treatment and steel and concrete
construction are the main contributor to the resource depletion damage.

34
 Resource

Electricity Consumption
Sodium percarbonate
Steel Construction
Concrete Construction
Diesel Machinery
Lime

Figure 13 Pie chart of contributor of resource damage

Lastly, the ecosystem damage indicator. Ecosystems are heterogeneous and very
difficult to monitor. An approach to explain ecosystem quality is in term of energy, matter
and information flows. When such flows are applied to characterize ecosystem quality, it
can be understood that a high ecosystem quality is the situation that allows flows to take
place without noticeable disruption by anthropogenic activities. On the contrary, a low
ecosystem quality is the state in which these flows are disrupted by anthropogenic
activities. Therefore, the level of the disruption is the most essential parameter to measure
the ecosystem quality. According to figure 14, high voltage of electricity consumption in
treatment plant, sludge production in sludge treatment system, primary, secondary and
tertiary output are the main contributors toward the ecosystem damage.

35
 Ecosystem

Electriciy Consumption
Solid waste
Wastewater Output 1
Wastewater output 2
Sodium Percarbonate
Concrete construction
Diesel Machinery
Steel Construction
Lime

Figure 14 Pie chart of contributor of Ecosystem damage

Electricity is the most significant source of energy in the United States, especially
used to power the plant industry like wastewater treatment. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency (2012), the combustion of fossil fuels to produce
electricity is the greatest single source of CO2 emissions in the U.S nation, computing for
38% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
in 2012. The different type of fossil fuel needed to produce electricity will emit different
quantity of CO2. In order to generate a given quantity of electricity, burning coal will
produce more CO2 than natural gas and oil.

Methane (CH4) emissions consequence from the metabolism of organic matter by

microorganisms under anaerobic circumstances while the nitrous oxide (N2O) emission
take place as a by-product throughout the conversion of ammonium and organic nitrogen
into nitrogen gas, through nitrification and denitrification process. These emissions mostly
take place in the treatment process, and in the receiving environment after discharge from
the wastewater treatment plant.

36
 Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) and Sodium Percarbonate are used for disinfection
in wastewater treatment plant. Sodium Hypochlorite is a compound that can be efficiently
applied for water purification and disinfection due to simple dosage as well as safe to
transport and storage. However, Sodium Hypochlorite is a corrosive and dangerous
substance. Safety measures should be taken to protect and save the workers and the
environment. Sodium Hypochlorite as well as Sodium Percarbonate should not come in
contact with air as it will cause disintegration process to occur.

The possible remedy that can be applied to reduce the impact and damage of
wastewater treatment plant toward environment is to restrict the consumption of electricity
in treatment plant. Restriction means to reduce the usage of fossil fuel to generate
electricity and utilize the alternative renewable power source such as solar and biomass
energy. Most of the new treatment plant already implement this kind of technology to
generate electricity thus reducing the cost to operate the plant. The excess methane gas
from sludge treatment plant can be further process to be converted into the electricity to
power up the utilities plant. Thus, will also reduce the excessive emission of methane gas
to the environment. Solar energy also can be one of the alternative source to generate
electricity, provided with the suitability of the geographic and weather condition in that
area.

Sewage sludge is one of the end product of municipal wastewater treatment plant.
However, proper sludge management often abandoned in contrast with water-related
parameters such as the leaving load and the degree of discharge of different wastewater
compounds. Sludge is a potential threat and burden for the environment. Foaming sludge
can be gone from the treatment process and may be even intentionally disposed of into
watercourses discharge point. Wastewater sludge treatment is more than only dewatering,
digestion, thickening, and disposal. It has significances for the whole wastewater treatment
plant. A proper sludge management also need to be focused in order to reduce the
environmental burden. For example sludge-originated biogas, it is potential to increase the
energy production to over 100% of the power required in the plant. Energy production and
energy efficiency are very essential issues. It is also promising to increase biogas
production with the certain pre-treatment methods.

37
 Chlorine is used for wastewater disinfection, for example hypochlorite salt.
Chlorine reacts with water to produce hypochlorous acid (HOCl), which quickly
dissociates to form the hypochlorite ion according to the following reaction:

𝐻𝑂𝐶𝑙 ⇌ 𝑂𝐶𝑙 − + 𝐻 +

Effective chlorine disinfection depends on the accurate combination of pH, chlorine,

contact time, concentration as well as the levels of ammonia and suspended solids. One
disadvantage of chlorine disinfection is free and combined chlorine residues being toxic to
aquatic organism as well as the surrounding environment. There is also possible for the
formation of organo-chlorinated derivatives. These derivatives are specific concern, as they
have a tendency to be relatively toxic, bio-accumulative and persistent. The alternative
way to replace the chlorination for disinfection process, is by using UV disinfection and
detention lagoons. The advantage of UV disinfection process is, it is rapid and does not
add to the toxicity of the wastewater. There have been zero report on by-product produced
from UV disinfection process that adversely impact on the receiving environment.

38
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Global awareness on the importance of preserving our Mother Nature is truly

crucial during this day. Continuously development of technologies had caused a trouble to
the environment. The main objective of wastewater treatment is to reduce the
environmental impacts from the wastewater. However, should be emphasized that such
treatment in turn produces the adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, it is clearly
important to conduct this life of cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impact
correlated with wastewater treatment plant. The outcomes of this study can be further
applied in expand the strategies to minimize the adverse impact to the environment.

As a conclusion, this project has achieved its objectives which are to use ReCiPe
method to conduct life cycle assessment (LCA) on wastewater treatment and to evaluate
the environmental impact of the wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater treatment plant is
a present technology facility to treat the sewage, industrial effluent and municipal waste to
achieve minimum allowable discharge quality as per requirement by Department of
Environmental (DOE). Thus, it is important to ensure that the wastewater treatment plant
does not have any major effect on the environment which would lead to massive problems
in the future.

In this project, the inventories data were designed based on literature review on
wastewater treatment plant in Latin America. The treatment system was divided according
to the balance of system (BOS) which is subsystem 1 is from preliminary and primary
treatment, subsystem 2 is from secondary and tertiary treatment and subsystem 3 is from
sludge treatment system. The assessment also involved the construction and equipment
fabrication phases including the transportation for plant purposes. The inventories data
were computed into SimaPro software based on yearly basis calculation.

This project’s outcomes would beneficial to the wastewater treatment industry as it

evaluate the overall environmental impact resulted from the life cycle of wastewater

39
treatment system. The government or private industry were highly recommended to review
and analyze this outcomes prior to the treatment plant development project.

For future recommendations, the life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment

plant can be applied in Malaysia prospect. As the best of our knowledge from the
preliminary study, there has never been a research done for LCA of wastewater treatment
plant in Malaysia. From the preliminary research, there is lack of inventory data for
wastewater treatment plant in Malaysia. Thus, the researcher needs to do the thorough
research from the real plant in order to collect the inventory data. The inventory data is a
very data demanding and the most challenging stage as it requires a technical study on the
nature of wastewater treatment system. Despite of the basic parameter such as BOD, COD
and plant capacity, the construction and equipment fabrication phase also need to be
considered as the life cycle assessment is a study from beginning toward the end of life
process. The laboratory research required to be done as to evaluate the wastewater content
in each and every treatment stage, influent and effluent. The background function such as
electricity consumption and amount of raw chemical material used in plant operations also
the important parameter need to be collected as well.

40
 REFERENCES

Alarcon J.S.G., Martinez A.R., Orozco I.H., (2011) “Life Cycle Assessment to Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plant”.

Corominas Ll., Foley J., Guest J.S., (2013) “Life Cycle Assessment applied to wastewater
treatment: State of the art”. Water Research 47 2013, 5480-5492.

Crawford, G.H. (2011) Life Cycle Assessment in built environment Spon Press. P38-70.
Dong B., (2011) “Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plants”.

Emmerson, R.H.C., Morse G.K., J.N. (1995) “The Life-Cycle Analysis of Small Scale
Sewage- Treatment Processes” Int. J. CIWEM 1995, 9, June.

Gallego A., Hospido A., Moreira M.T., Feijoo G. (2008) “Environmental performance of
wastewater treatment plants for small populations” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 52 (2008) 931–940.

Guest, J.S., Skerlos, S.J., Barnard, J.L., Beck, M.B., Daigger, G.T., 2009. A new planning
and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater.
Environmental Science and Technology 43(16), 6121-6125.

Hospido A., Sanchez I., Garcia G.R., Iglesias A., Buntner D., Reif R., Moreira M.T.,
Feijoo G. (2011) “Are all membrane reactors equal from an environmental point
of view?” Desalination 285 (2012) 263–270

Hospido A., Moreira, M.T., Couto, M.F., Feijoo, G. (2004) “Environmental Performance
of a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant” Int. J. LCA 9(4) 261-271.

41
International Standard 14040 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle
Assessment – Principles and Framework.

International Standard 14044 (2006) Environment Management – Life Cycle Assessment

– Requirement and Guidelines.

Lassax S., Renzoni, R., Germain, A. (2007) “Life Cycle Assessment of Water from the
Pumping Station to the Water Treatment Plant” Int. J. LCA 12(2) 118-126.

Lundin, M., Bengtsson, M., Molander, S., 2000. Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater
system: influence of system boundaries and scale on calculated environmental
loads. Environmental Science and Technology 34(1), 180-186

Ortiz M., Raluy R.G., Serra L., Uche J. (2006) “Life cycle assessment of water treatment
technologies: wastewater and water-reuse in a small town” Desalination 204
(2007) 121–131.

Renou S., Thomas J.S., Aoustin E, Pons M. N. (2006) “Influence of impact assessment
methods in wastewater treatment LCA” Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008)
1098-1105

Tillman, A.M., Svingby, M., Lundstrom, H. (1998) “Life Cycle Assessment Municipal
Waste Water System” Int. J. LCA 3(3) 145-157.

Vlasopoulos N., Memon F.A., Butler D, Murphy R. (2006) “Life cycle assessment of
wastewater treatment technologies treating petroleum process waters” Science of
the Total Environment 367 (2006) 58 –70.

42