Introduction

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, presented in

September 2013, shows new evidence of the effects of
man on the climate system and added a new scenario with
measures to reduce GHG emissions, proving how global
action for reduction of greenhouse gases is possible and
necessary. Estimates put emissions from water sector from
3-10% of the global total (IPCC , 2007).
Main greenhouse gas, CO
2
, CH
4
and N
2
O can be produced
in all phases of operation of a sewage treatment plant.
For wastewater handling category (6B) in Italy ISPRA, in
National Inventory Report 2013, estimates N
2
O emissions
values of 6.25 Gg/ year and CH4 emissions values of 7.04
Gg/year. Direct emissions of the wastewater handling
category is 0.7% of Italian emissions , not including the
indirect emissions from energy consumption and disposal
of sludge.
Research has been conducted to understand the processes
of formation of GHG in wastewater treatment plants
(GWRC, 2011) and to define control strategies to
minimize energy consumption and the GHG emissions
(Flores et al. 2011). Different methodologies, protocols
and tools for GHG accounting and energy assessment in
water sector are available(WRF , 2013). Few studies of
WWTP carbon footprint are available in Italy (Solini,
2010) and there arent national specific protocol. Aim of
this study is to collect operational data of a medium
dimension sewage treatment plant and carry out a study of
the carbon footprint based on international protocols and
available literature data adapted to the specific
characteristics of the plant and its geographical location.


Medio Sarno SC4 WWTP












Medio Sarno SC4 WWTP is located in the municipality of
Nocera Superiore, in the province of Salerno , southern
Italy (40 45 ' 2.355 " N 14 40 ' 18,578 " E) . The
plant treats urban and industrial wastewater (manly tomato
industry)) and has a design capacity of 300,000 PE
(Population Equivalent). Water line, discharging into
Casarzano channel which is a tributary of Sarno River,
includes: a primary treatment section (coarse screening,
fine screening, grit and oil removal), a rainwater section
(primary settling, aerated storage), a secondary treatment
section (nitrification-denitrification, final settling), a
tertiary treatment section (gravity filtration on sand ,
disinfection with peracetic acid). Sludge line includes
dynamic thickening and belt press dewatering . Sludge line
also includes anaerobic digestion with biogas recovery and
heat drying, which are not in operation for technical and
administrative reasons.

Acknowledgments
Ringraziamo il Management del Consorzio Nocera Ambiente ed il
Direttore dellimpianto di depurazione di Nocera Superiore per il
supporto alle attivit di ricerca.
Ringraziamo il Settore Ciclo Integrato delle Acque della Regione
Campania e lIng. Carlo Giri per la disponibilit a fornire Dati ed
informazioni.
Inventory Analysis
The inventory analysis was performed by collecting primary
data relating to the period from November 2011/October
2012. Total annual flow treated was 11,450,610 m
3
, equal to
31,372 m
3
/day, and the characteristics of influent are
summarized in Table 2. Table 3 summarizes the operational
data required for the calculation of GHG emissions. A full
description of the Life Cycle Inventory Analysis is provided
in Pucci et al. (2013).
Conclusions
Operational carbon footprint per m
3
of treated wastewater is
equal to 0.52 kg CO2eq/m
3
. A comparison with studies
performed in the United States, Australia and India is
summarized in Table 5. Hammer et al. (2011) identify
opportunities to reduce the Operational CFP in water
facilities; for sewage treatment plants a neutralization of
GHG emissions up to 82% is assumed. Considering specific
characteristics of the case study, the opportunity to reduce
the Operational Carbon Footprint apply to the following
aspects: energy saving actions (process optimization, energy
efficiency of pumps and compressors), use of renewable
energy (solar, biogas) upgrading of sludge line (activation of
anaerobic digestion and sludge drying line and resulting
decreased transport of sludge); sludge reuse in agriculture
and wastewater reuse (agricultural or industrial).

L. Pucci*, A. Moretto**, G. De Angelis***, S. Mellino*** and S. Ulgiati***
* Consorzio Nocera Ambiente, Via S.Maria delle Grazie 562, 84015 Nocera Superiore (SA), Italy (E-mail: pucci@nocerambiente.it)
** Istituto di Ricerche Ambiente Italia, Via degli Alpini, 6 31030 Carbonera (TV), Italy
*** Department of Environmental Sciences, Parthenope University of Naples, Centro Direzionale Isola C4, 84013 Naples, Italy
Literature cited
ASTEE 2012. Methodology Guide for evaluating
Greenhouse gas emissions by water and sanitation
services. Working Group at ASTEE 3rd edition,
December 2012
De Haas, D., Foley, J., 2011. Energy and greenhouse
footprints of wastewater treatment plants in south-
east Queensland. AWA Ozwater'09 Conference, 16-
19 March 2009, Melbourne Australia.
De Feo, G., De Gisi, M., De Rosa, R., Giuliani, A.,
Pucci, L., 2009 Il primo anno di esercizio
dellimpianto di depurazione di Nocera Superiore,
Ingegneria ambientale 38(6), 310-317.
Flores-Alsina X, Corominas Ll, Snip L, Vanrolleghem
P.A. 2011. Including greenhouse gases emissions
during benchmarking of wastewater treatment plant
control strategies. Water Research 45(16), 4700-
4710.
GLOBAL WATER RESEARCH COALITION, 2011
N2O and CH4 emission from wastewater collection
and treatment systems Technical Report
Hammer, M.J., Hammer, M.J. Jr. 2011 Water and
Wastewater Technology 7th Ed., 431-441
Gupta, D., Singh, S.K. 2012. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from wastewater treatment plants: a case
study of Noida. Journal of Water Sustainability 2(2),
131-139

Methodology
The methodology used in this work is based on "Methodology Guide for Evaluating Greenhouse gas emissions by water and
sanitation services" (2013) prepared by ASTEE and based on IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
(2006) and the GHG Protocol. In the absence of Italian specific protocols, a French methodology was chosen, considering
geography and adapting it to the specific characteristics of the case study.
The boundaries of this study include operation of Medio Sarno SC4 WWTP. GHG emissions, as required by the GHG
Protocol, were quantified in the following order: Scope 1 direct emissions from the sewage process and discharge into
surface water; Scope 2 indirect emissions associated with the consumption of electricity, steam or gas; Scope 3, other
indirect emissions related to production and transport of chemicals, transport and treatment of sludge and by-products.
Scope Operational data Units Value
1 TKN eliminated ton/yr 47.03
1 COD eliminated ton/yr 2,982.38
1 TKN discharged kg/yr 10,090
1 ton of COD discharged ton/yr 367
2 electricity consumption MWh/yr 5,115
3 Peracetic Acid consumption l/yr 36,316
3 Poly consumption kg/yr 17,850
3 sludge landfilled ton TSS/yr 1,878
3 screenings landfilled ton TSS/yr 66
3 grit landfilled ton TSS/yr 209
3 annual transport for peracetic acid t*km/year 116,154
3 annual transport for poly t*km/year 30,769
3 annual transport for biosolids t*km/year 1,470,769
3 annual transport for grit t*km/year 42,308
3 annual transport for screen t*km/year 13,846

Facility Protocol Operational CFP
(kg CO2e/m
3
)
Medio Sarno Sc4 (Nocera Sup.,Italy) ASTEE2013 0.52
Hanover Park (Chicago, US) LGO2008 0.39
35 WWTPs (SE Queensland, Australia) NGA2008 1.0-2.5
Uttar Pradesh (Noida, India) IPCC 2006 0.25

COD
(mg/l)
TKN
(mg/l)
SST
(mg/l)
Influent 289 4.86 117
Effluent 33 0.88 12

GHG Estimates

Scope Description of emission

CH4
(t/yr)
N2O
(t/yr)
Total
(tCO2eq/yr)
1 Emissions linked to the sewage process 0,60 3,43 1038,0
1 Discharges into surface water 9,17 0,08 253,1
Direct emissions (SCOPE 1) Subtotal 1291,1
2 Indirect emissions linked to energy
consumption
3324,6
Indirect emissions associated with energy (SCOPE 2) Subtotal 3324,6
3 Indirect emissions (reagents and consumables) 40,9
3 Indirect emissions (biosolids, screenings&grit) 1275,0
Other indirect emissions (SCOPE 3) Subtotal 1315.9
OPERATIONAL CARBON FOOTPRINT 5931,7