Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-0141
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-11-23T05:00Z

memorandum
Date:
April
30,
2004
To:
Martha
Segal,
EPA;
Shari
Goodwin,
Tetra
Tech
From:
.
John
Sunda,
SAIC
Subject:
Results
of
Initial
Research
Concerning
Reuse
of
Cooling
Water
at
Industrial
Facilities
in
the
316(
b)
Survey
Database
Identifying
Facilities
Employing
Cooling
Water
Reuse
After
reviewing
the
survey
responses
of
facilities
that
reuse
cooling
water
for
other
uses
that
I
initially
identified
through
review
of
flow
schematics,
I
have
concluded
that
there
is
no
consistent
way
to
identify
these
facilities
by
reviewing
the
survey
data
alone.
In
some
cases,
in
Part
2
Question
4
(
which
asks
for
%
cooling
use
by
activity
category),
"
reuse
in
process"
is
reported
under
Q4e
(
Other)
and
in
some
the
sum
of
all
categories
is
>
100%
reflecting
the
multiple
use
of
the
same
water.
However,
there
is
no
specific
question
or
data
attribute
that
clearly
identifies
cooling
water
reuse.

While
Part
2
Question
26
asks
about
whether
the
facility
ever
implemented
cooling
water
flow
reduction
measures
to
reduce
entrainment,
a
quick
review
those
that
responded
"
yes"
mostly
checked
"
cooling
towers"
as
the
method
under
Q26(
b)(
1)
and
the
example
facilities
described
below
all
checked
"
no"
in
Q26.
I
think
the
reasons
why
reuse
does
not
show
up
in
Q26
are
that
in
many
cases
the
water
reduction
was
not
prompted
by
a
need
to
reduce
entrainment
but
rather
a
requirement
to
reduce
overall
intake
and
discharge
volumes.
Also,
reuse
of
cooling
water
does
not
necessarily
reduce
the
volume
of
water
used
for
cooling
purposes
and
therefore
it
is
not
viewed
as
"
cooling
water"
reduction.
Rather,
the
reuse
result
is
a
reduction
of
overall
plant
water
requirements
where
all
or
a
portion
of
the
process
water
requirements
are
replaced
by
warmed
cooling
water.
In
fact,
in
the
pulp
and
paper
industry
there
are
economic
incentives
in
that
many
processes
require
heated
water
and
thus,
the
presence
of
waste
heat
in
the
spent
cooing
water
reduces
the
heating
(
i.
e.
energy)
requirements
associated
with
using
unheated
raw
water
as
process
water.

Ultimately,
I
found
that
review
of
the
flow
schematic
diagrams
provided
the
only
reliable
means
of
identifying
facilities
that
reused
cooling
water.
In
many
cases
the
diagrams
did
not
provide
sufficient
detail
to
make
a
determination.
I
did
not
review
all
of
the
detailed
survey
responses
from
industrial
facilities.
I
reviewed
approximately
60+
detailed
survey
responses
with
survey
ID
prefixes.

Qualitative
Results
by
Industry
Type
I
was
hoping
to
find
examples
from
several
different
industries.
What
I
found
was
numerous
examples
in
the
pulp
and
paper
industry
and
one
sugar
cane
processor.
Non­
CBI
examples
are
summarized
below,
but
facility­
level
information
was
not
disclosed
to
avoid
"
codebreaker"
information.
In
the
case
of
chemical
manufacturing
and
petroleum
refining,
cooling
water
use
was
almost
always
shown
as
a
separate
flow
path
with
the
use
of
cooling
towers
providing
flow
reduction.
In
the
case
of
metals
manufacturing,
most
showed
separate
flow
paths
or
did
not
distinguish
cooling
water.

Defining
Reuse
I
did
not
consider
a
flow
configuration
as
reuse
of
cooling
water
if
the
reuse
involved
cooling
also.
In
the
metals
industry,
many
of
the
process
uses
where
cooling
water
might
be
directed
for
reuse
involved
contact
cooling,
so
even
if
non­
contact
cooling
water
(
e.
g.,
once­
through
condenser
cooling)
were
reused
as
process
contact
cooling
water,
the
water
is
still
being
used
as
cooling
water.

REUSE
EXAMPLES
Presented
below
is
a
summary
of
the
clear
examples
of
cooling
water
reuse
I
was
able
to
identify
and
that
were
not
claimed
as
CBI.
At
least
seven
additional
examples
in
the
pulp
and
paper
industry
were
identified
but
claimed
technical
data
as
confidential
either
by
checking
the
circle
on
page
vii
of
the
instructions
or
at
the
bottom
of
the
schematic
diagram
page
and/
or
pages
concerning
technical/
flow
data.
In
the
examples
provided
below
it
is
clear
from
the
survey
and
diagram
that
no
claims
of
confidentiality
are
made
regarding
the
technical
information
provided.
As
such,
the
facilities
are
identified
by
name
and
location.
In
addition,
a
copy
of
the
flow
diagrams
will
be
sent
separately.

Cooling
Water
Reuse
in
the
Pulp
and
Paper
Industry
Numerous
examples
of
cooling
water
reuse
were
found
in
reviewing
the
flow
schematics
submitted
with
the
detailed
surveys.
One
example
was
obtained
through
facility
contact
information.
This
facility
had
only
completed
the
screener
survey
and
the
contact
was
prompted
by
questions
concerning
whether
the
facility
was
in­
scope
(
i.
e.,
if
cooling
water
is
reused
for
noncooling
process
purposes,
is
it
process
water
or
cooling
water?).
While
I
did
not
tally
the
number
of
pulp
and
paper
facilities
where
cooling
water
reuse
was
apparent
versus
those
where
it
was
not,
it
appeared
that
a
major
portion
of
those
I
reviewed
reused
at
least
some
cooling
water
as
process
water.
Probably
the
most
common
form
of
reuse
in
the
pulp
and
paper
industry
is
the
reuse
of
noncontact
cooling
water
as
process
water.
In
many
cases,
the
heated
once­
through
non­
contact
cooling
water
is
combined
with
additional
intake
water
and
the
combined
volume
is
then
used
as
the
source
for
all
process
water
and
in
many
cases
some
is
reused
again
as
cooling
water.
In
a
few
cases
all
or
a
portion
of
such
reuse
is
seasonal
with
reuse
decreasing
during
the
summer.
Sic
Codes:
2621,
2611
This
facility
completed
only
the
screener
survey.
The
data
below
was
obtained
from
a
facility
contact
which
was
prompted
by
questions
concerning
whether
the
facility
was
in­
scope.
No
flow
schematic
diagram
is
available
for
this
facility.

provided
the
following
information
about
the
plant:

°
Average
daily
intake
volume
was
mgd
in
2003.
°
Average
NPDES
discharge
volume
was
with
difference
reflecting
evaporative
losses.
This
is
consistent
with
the
intake
volume
of
mgd
reported
in
the
facility
screener
survey
for
a
typical
calendar
year.
°
Of
that
mgd
goes
to
a
recirculating
cooling
system
as
make­
up
water.
°
The
recirculating
system
cools
turbine
condenser
water,
compressors,
hardwood
condensers,
and
gas
condensers.
°
He
did
not
know
the
recirculating
water
flow
rate.
°
mgd
goes
to
once­
through
cooling
systems
for
a
number
of
purposes
including
oil
coolers,
generator
cooling,
lime
kiln
cooling,
etc.
This
water
is
not
discharged
but
rather
is
reused
as
process
water.
In
this
case
the
heated
water
is
returned
and
mixed
with
other
intake
water.
The
added
heat
from
the
reused
water
offsets
some
process
water
heating
requirements,
so
not
only
is
the
cooling
water
being
reused
but
some
of
the
heat
is
recovered
as
well.
°
Through
various
measures,
the
facility
has
reduced
the
water
intake
volume
from
around
mgd
in
the
1970'
s
to
the
current
volume
of
mgd.
The
volume
of
water
use
by
the
plant
is
restricted
in
the
NPDES
permit
to
mgd.
°
This
reduction
from
mgd
to
mgd
is
the
result
of
a
number
of
steps
taken
to
reduce
water
use
including
the
addition
of
the
recirculating
cooling
system
and
the
reuse
of
mgd
of
once­
through
cooling
water
as
process
water.

In
this
example
only
mgd
of
the
mgd
withdrawn
is
used
solely
for
cooling
purposes.
mgd
is
first
used
as
cooling
water
and
then
reused
as
process
water.

SIC
Code:
2631
This
is
a
small
facility
with
regard
to
intake
flow
volumes
but
is
included
because
it
provided
detailed
flow
data.
The
flow
schematic
indicates
the
data
below
is
from
1998:

°
A
total
of
gpd
is
withdrawn
from
and
gpd
enters
the
system
with
the
raw
materials.
°
gpd
(
73.4%
of
total)
is
first
used
for
cooling
purposes
as
follows:

All
of
the
above
cooling
water
flows
(
100%)
are
then
used
as
process
water.
Ultimately
gpd
goes
to
the
POTW,
evaporates
from
the
process
operations,.
Item
is
process
feed
water
that
flows
through
a
heat
exchanger
that
recovers
heat
from
spent
process
prior
to
treatment
and
discharge
to
the
POTW.
I
would
not
consider
this
stream
as
cooling
water.
SIC
Code:
2631
The
flow
schematic
shows
the
following:
°
A
total
of
mgd
is
withdrawn
from
the
river
°
A
total
of
mgd
passes
through
#
1
turbine
and
evaporator
condensers
and
then
a
cooling
tower.
mgd
is
then
discharged
as
non­
contact
cooling
water.
°
The
remaining
cooling
tower
effluent
(
mgd)
passes
through
a
process
water
treatment
system
(
reactor/
clarifier)
along
with
an
additional
mgd
of
intake
water.
°
Treated
water
(
mgd)
then
goes
to
mill
water
storage
where
a
total
of
mgd
is
used
as
make­
up
water
in
cooling
water
systems
as
follows:

°
The
remaining
water
from
the
mill
storage
water
(
volume
not
shown
but
calculated
to
be
)
goes
to
the
pulpmill
and
papermill
process.

In
this
example,
mgd
of
the
mgd
initially
used
as
cooling
water
is
discharged
as
non­
contact
cooling
water.
This
(
14%
of
the
total
intake)
is
not
reused.
The
remaining
is
supplemented
with
intake
water
which
means
the
mill
storage
influent
is
62
%
cooling
water.
(
16%
of
total
intake)
is
used
for
cooling
again
as
cooling
tower
make­
up.
The
calculated
of
water
(
62%
of
which
is
reused
cooling
water)
used
in
the
processes
represents
68%
of
the
intake
volume.
The
design
intake
volume
reported
in
Q3(
g)
was
and
Q3(
h)
reported
as
apportioned
to
cooling
water.
Thus,
the
cooling
water
volume
was
estimated
to
be
.

Sic
Code:
2621,
2611
Intake
volume
is
not
shown
on
the
diagram,
Q
25(
m)
shows
an
annual
total
of
.
The
flow
schematic
shows
the
following:
°
The
mill
water
intake
receives:
mgd
of
recycled
non­
contact
cooling
water;

°
The
total
outflow
from
the
mill
water
intake
of
mgd
includes:
°
Of
the
mgd
non­
contact
cooling
water,
°
Of
the
entering
the
papermill,

Of
the
calculated
mgd
inflow
only
(
6%)
passes
through
as
cooling
water
and
exits
without
being
used
as
process
water.
Of
the
total
intake
outflow
(
78%)
is
used
for
non­
contact
cooling.
The
facility
reported
an
intake
design
capacity
of
(
Q3(
g))
with
(
Q3(
h))
apportioned
to
cooling
water.
At
first
the
design
values
appears
off
by
about
a
factor
of
but
which
is
reasonably
consistent
with
the
sum
of
the
mgd
of
non­
contact
cooling
water
plus
the
mgd
of
water
returned
to
the
intake.

SIC
Code:
2621
NOTE
THIS
FACILITY
IS
NOT
INCLUDED
IN
PHASE
III
DATABASE
The
flow
schematic
showed
the
following:
°
Of
the
total
intake
volume
of
(
5.8%)
is
used
for
non­
contact
cooling
of
compressors
and
air
conditioners
prior
to
recombining
with
the
remaining
intake
water
which
is
then
used
as
process
and
cooling
water
within
the
plant.
°
Individual
flow
volumes
to
various
plant
areas
are
not
given.
Yet
at
least
a
portion
goes
to
the
power
house
where
it
is
likely
that
a
portion
of
the
water
is
used
for
cooling
and
is
not
reused.

The
response
to
Q3(
h),
the
estimated
percentage
of
design
capacity
apportioned
to
cooling
water
was
3.8%.
There
are
calculation
notes
in
the
margin
that
indicate
that
only
the
non­
contact
cooling
water
was
included
in
the
3.8%
value
reported.
The
design
flow
Q3(
g)
was
.

SIC
Code:
2611,
2621,
2647
The
flow
diagram
shows
the
following:
°
Intake
volume
was
Cooling
Water
Reuse
in
the
Sugar
Cane
Processing
Industry
SIC
Code:
0133
Q3(
h)
indicates
that
the
facility
considers
100%
of
the
water
withdrawn
from
the
reservoir
as
cooling
water.

The
flow
schematic
shows:

ATTACHMENTS
FLOW
SCHEMATICS
FOR: