The implementation of tertiary treatment at large wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) may be required in many WWTPs in Germany due to water quality targets defined in the Water Framework Directive (EU-WFD) and Bathing Water Directive (EU-BWD) of the European Union. Furthermore, potential environmental risks of organic micropollutants (OMP) from anthropogenic sources (i.a. pharmaceuticals, sweeteners) could require additional treatment steps for tertiary treatment in future. EU-WFD requires a “good ecological status” of all water bodies, which can lead to a need of enhanced phosphorus removal at large WWTP (>100’000 pe), targeting an effluent quality <100µg/L TP. Moreover, if a WWTP discharges upstream of bathing water, EU-BWD requirements have to be met. Hence implementing a disinfection step might be necessary. Different options for enhanced P-removal and disinfection have already been analyzed in their economic and environmental impacts (KWB 2013). Based on these results, both targets can be adequately met by coagulation with subsequent dual media filtration (DMF) and UV-disinfection (UV). On this basis, the present study focusses on the additional integration of a process for OMP-removal into a tertiary treatment scheme. Considered technologies for OMP-removal are oxidation by ozonation and adsorption by activated carbon (AC) either by dosing powdered activated carbon (PAC) or using filtration units with granulated activated carbon (GAC), respectively. These technologies increase the additional demand of energy and chemicals for tertiary wastewater treatment. WWTPs are already one of the major contributors of electricity demand at municipality level (UBA 2008), and further treatment steps may add up significantly in this environmental impact. In the present study, different options and process configurations for OMP-removal are integrated in a tertiary treatment with advanced P-removal and UV-disinfection, and the entire tertiary treatment train is then analysed in its environmental impacts using the methodology of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The goal of the LCA is to reveal the trade-off between local environmental benefits by higher effluent quality and global environmental impacts, e.g. an increasing CO2-footprint. With the methodology of LCA different tertiary treatment schemes are analysed in a holistic approach “from cradle to grave” (ISO 2006), which includes direct effects at water bodies through discharge, and indirect effects resulting from infrastructure, chemical and electricity demand by tertiary treatment and additional sludge treatment. The baseline scenario is defined as treatment of secondary effluent of an existing WWTP located in Berlin, Germany (1’500’000 pe) by DMF with coagulation and UV (Figure 1.1). Sludge from backwash of filtration units is considered in the LCA by a simplified model for sludge treatment and mono-incineration (SMIP). For integration of OMP-removal into tertiary treatment, 7 possible scenarios are compared in their environmental impacts (Figure 1.2): (1) Ozone+DMF+UV, (2) PAC-dosing+DMF+UV, (3) PAC-cycle+DMF+UV, (4) DMF+GAC-filter+UV, (5) DMF w/ GAC-layer+UV, (6) Ozone+DMF w/ GAC-layer+UV, or (7) parallel treatment by ozonation and PAC+DMF+UV, respectively. Each scenario is analysed with a low, medium, and high dosage of ozone or AC, displaying the whole range of economic feasibility and effluent quality targets (Table 1.1). The specific dosage of ozone and PAC are referred to DOC-concentration of the secondary effluent (12.8mg/l DOC). Data used for advanced P-removal and UV-disinfection are based on a previous study (Remy et al. 2014) using planning data from the WWTP operator considering process efficiency, infrastructure, energy and chemical demand. Data for OMP-removal technology are based on pilot plants and planning data from WWTP operator. For LCA, impact categories of ReCiPe Midpoint method are taken into account (Goedkopp et al. 2008), e.g. global warming potential (GWP) or freshwater eutrophication potential (FEP), and cumulative energy demand (CED) of fossil and nuclear resources (VDI 2012), and USEtox indicators (Rosenbaum et al. 2008) freshwater ecotoxicity (ETP) and human toxicity potential (HTP). Environmental benefits of tertiary treatment scenarios on the global scale can be seen in the FEP and ETP indicators. TP from secondary effluent is reduced from 320µg/l to 55µg/l TP after tertiary treatment. The global USEtox indicator ETP includes preliminary impact factors for seven measured OMPs (6 pharmaceuticals, 1 herbicide), neglecting potential toxic effects of metabolites or transformation products as limitation of the multi-fate model. Removal of OMP has a positive effect on ETP in all scenarios. However, background processes and heavy metal loads play a major role in the contribution to the global ecotoxicity indicator. On the contrary, a higher energy and chemical consumption lead to a significant increase of CED and GWP due to OMP-removal (Figure 1.3). Comparing baseline scenario (DMF+UV) with the gross GWP of a large WWTP, the CO2-footprint will increase by +11% (82g CO2-eq/m³). Ozonation increases the GWP by 23% to 37% depending on ozone dosage. Main contributors for GWP are electricity and liquid oxygen demand for ozonation. Highest effects on GWP are detected for the scenario “PAC-cycle+DMF+UV” with an additional CO2-footprint of 36% or 110%, respectively, which is mainly caused by emissions during production of AC. In summary, OMP-removal can double the GWP of an existing large WWTP in the worst case and thus contributes significantly to global environmental effects. Production of AC is a crucial parameter for scenarios using GAC or PAC. Hence, a sensitivity analysis is performed changing raw materials for AC production. AC production is modelled according to available data from Bayer et al. (2005) using 3kg of hard coal as resource for activation process and generating 1kg of virgin AC. Other possible resources for AC production can be lignite or coconut shells. Varying the type of resource reveals a high uncertainty in GWP. Considering scenario “PAC+DMF+UV” a possible reduction of -23% of net GWP using coconut shells or even an increase of net GWP by +32% using lignite is possible. Since specific discharge limits for OMP removal are not defined yet, a direct comparison between the considered scenarios is not possible, as they lead to different effluent qualities in OMP concentration. Thus, in theory a low dosage of PAC (1.0g/gDOC) may be sufficient to achieve certain effluent targets, whereas ozonation could require a high dosage (1.0g/gDOC) for the same quality, or vice versa.