Effect of Nutrient Removal and Resource Recovery on Life Cycle Cost and Environmental Impacts of a Small Scale Water Resource Recovery Facility

Ben Morelli, Sarah Cashman, Xin (Cissy) Ma, Jay Garland, Jason Turgeon, Lauren Fillmore, Diana Bless and Michael Nye
Additional contact information
Ben Morelli: Eastern Research Group, 110 Hartwell Ave., Lexington, MA 02421, USA
Sarah Cashman: Eastern Research Group, 110 Hartwell Ave., Lexington, MA 02421, USA
Xin (Cissy) Ma: United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA
Jay Garland: United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA
Jason Turgeon: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, OEP 5-2, Boston, MA 02109, USA
Lauren Fillmore: Water Research Foundation, 1199 N Fairfax Street, Suite 900, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA
Diana Bless: United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA
Michael Nye: United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA

Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, issue 10, 1-19

Abstract: To limit effluent impacts on eutrophication in receiving waterbodies, a small community water resource recovery facility (WRRF) upgraded its conventional activated sludge treatment process for biological nutrient removal, and considered enhanced primary settling and anaerobic digestion (AD) with co-digestion of high strength organic waste (HSOW). The community initiated the resource recovery hub concept with the intention of converting an energy-consuming wastewater treatment plant into a facility that generates energy and nutrients and reuses water. We applied life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment to evaluate the net impact of the potential conversion. The upgraded WRRF reduced eutrophication impacts by 40% compared to the legacy system. Other environmental impacts such as global climate change potential (GCCP) and cumulative energy demand (CED) were strongly affected by AD and composting assumptions. The scenario analysis showed that HSOW co-digestion with energy recovery can lead to reductions in GCCP and CED of 7% and 108%, respectively, for the upgraded WRRF (high feedstock-base AD performance scenarios) relative to the legacy system. The cost analysis showed that using the full digester capacity and achieving high digester performance can reduce the life cycle cost of WRRF upgrades by 15% over a 30-year period.

Keywords: LCA; LCCA; wastewater treatment; anaerobic digestion; biogas; resource recovery; nutrient removal; water-energy-nutrient nexus (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3546/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3546/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3546-:d:173513

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().