00 q Institution of Chemical Engineers Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

C. E. NOBEL1 and D. T. ALLEN2

Environmental and Water Resources Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, USA 2 Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, USA


his paper presents a model that identi®es cost-optimal water reuse scenarios. The model utilizes a linear programming algorithm within a Geographic Information System (GIS). Speci®cally, the model integrates database operations and optimization methods with the visualization bene®ts and geographic analysis offered by maps. The model determines the feasible reuse opportunities based on water quality and ®nds the optimal material exchange scenario based on product purchase, treatment, and transportation costs. The results are displayed on a map of the region along with accompanying data tables. The use of the model is illustrated by identifying cost and water savings associated with reuse in the Bayport Industrial Complex in Pasadena, Texas. This model has applicability to water reclamation project planning as well as water management in water-poor regions. Additionally, with minor modi®cations, the water reuse model presented here may be used to quantitatively analyse the use and reuse of other materials. Thus, this model provides a quantitative tool to promote more ef®cient system-based material cycles. Keywords: Geographic Information Systems (GIS); water reuse; Eco-Industrial Parks (EIP); modelling; linear programming.

BACKGROUND Rising water costs, limited water supplies, waste minimization, and pollution control issues are compelling industrial users of water to consider water reclamation, reuse and recycling. Currently, most wastewater is treated and released into receiving waters. However, in many cases it is feasible for treated wastewater to be reused because certain water uses (e.g., irrigation, manufacturing and sanitation) do not require the high-quality water they now receive. If wastewater is reused, then total water demand and ef¯uent treatment load can be lowered. Despite their potential, water reclamation, reuse and recycling technologies remain greatly underused1. Furthermore, most industrial water reuse focuses on recycling and process modi®cations within one facility 2. An extensive amount of research has been conducted on industrial water reuse and wastewater minimization and optimization3. However, very little attention has been given to the possibility of water exchange among industries, even though integrated water reuse management has been recommended as an effective means of water conservation4. Integrating water reuse throughout a region, rather than merely within a single facility, provides economies of scale and more reuse opportunities. Regional integration also provides a systematic framework in which to overcome the legal and public perception impediments to water reuse. However, previous regional reclamation projects have faced dif®culty in identifying users for reclaimed water. These shortfalls have been attributed to insuf®cient planning and design. Planning and design of water reuse programmes at a 295

regional level will require not only traditional information about the quantity and quality of water supply and demand, but also information about the geographical location where the supply and demand occur. Traditional approaches to water reuse have not included explicit quantitative geographical data, even though conveyance and distribution systems make up the principal costs of water exchange projects, and these costs depend primarily on geographic considerations such as distance between distributor and receiver, and elevation differences (for pumping). In this paper, a Geographical Information System (GIS) will be used to incorporate spatial information into a water reuse analysis. GIS is de®ned as `an organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to ef®ciently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyse, and display all forms of geographically referenced information’5. GIS integrates database operations with the unique visualization bene®ts and geographic analysis offered by maps. Thus, GIS is an excellent framework in which to combine industry water characteristics and geographic planning considerations to effectively model water exchange between industries. GIS is not simply a computer system for making maps; rather, GIS is an analysis tool that, unlike any other information system, discerns relative location by de®ning the spatial relationships among all map elements. GIS contains map features (nodes, lines and areas), spatial information in topological data tables, and descriptive information in attribute tables; the power of GIS lies in its link between this spatial and descriptive data. The goal of this paper is to describe the development of

the model identi®es the type of water (e. To determine feasible water exchanges. Test applications are used to analyse the model potential and limitations and application results are analysed to determine their sensitivity to the model parameters. used for geocoding. this model includes the following themes: · Street Map Ðprovides the reference for facility location. Figure 1 shows an example of a basemap for a small network of facilities including a water treatment plant (WTP). was used to write the program scripts that run the model. data include location and water quality and quantity information. thus. the model was designed to be ¯exible to accommodate varying scenarios and incorporate more data sets. individual facility address. water exchange identi®cation. the programming language associated with ArcView. by enhancing water reuse. Feature attribute table for the small network of facilities. a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and three manufacturing facilities (CHM. Basemap Construction The ®rst step in any GIS project is to create a basemap of the area of interest. Each row of data corresponds to a facility point feature. Additionally. The only input required is a facility characteristics data ®le. Facility characteristic data include facility address. reused) based on source and destination facilities. The facilities are located on the map by `geocoding’ (the equivalent of pushing a pin into a street map on the wall). fresh.e. Water Exchange Identi®cation After a basemap of the network is created. the model tests each possible pair of sources and sinks to see if the source facility’s water is clean enough for the destination facility. 10800 Bay Area Bvd. 1000 gpd 91 86 300 n/a n/a TOC 675 18 22 2 7 TSS 106 72 66 0 20 TDS 556 284 488 50 450 In¯uent Requirements. water quantity and quality information. Vol 78.296 NOBEL and ALLEN modelling scenario include information about facility location (to determine distance). as well as water quantity and quality data important for determining exchange feasibility and optimization. These data are imported from a user text ®le. Thus. mg/l Name CHEM GAS CYC WTP WWTP Address 9640 Bayport Bvd. The model can test any number of quality parameters. and exchange optimization. The corresponding facility feature attributes are shown in Table 1. the model determines the feasible options for water exchange in the network using the water quality in¯uent and ef¯uent parameters. 11400 Bay Area Bvd. MODEL DEVELOPMENT The water reuse model identi®es and displays both feasible and optimal reuse water exchange scenarios for regions containing many water users. a feasible exchange pathway (arc) is created on the basemap.. When a match is identi®ed. relative elevation.g. mg/l TOC 50 5 20 0 2000 TSS 100 10 50 0 2000 TDS 500 250 450 0 2000 Trans IChemE. The user need only `point-and-click’ and respond to the message box prompts in order to run the model. The GIS framework allows for spatial analysis and provides output maps that can be used as effective communication tools. This information is used to determine the transportation and water costs in the optimization phase of the model.g. The model was designed to use a GUI (Graphic User Interface)-based framework.. The water reuse model was designed using the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) GIS software package ArcView version 3. 9950 Chemical Rd. Figure 2 shows feasible water exchanges for the net- a GIS-based water reuse model and its application to a case study of the Bayport Industrial Complex in Pasadena.) The themes important to a water reuse Table 1. Along with identifying feasible exchange pathways. as they become available. water quantity and water quality. as long as both in¯uent and ef¯uent requirements are imported in the facility characteristic table.0a on a personal computer. Ef¯uent Characteristics. Avenue. Each theme has a corresponding feature attribute table that contains descriptive information about each element within the theme (e.. The basemap provides the geographic framework for the model and contains the data important to the situation. Additionally. and facility water characteristics. 12222 Port Rd. Each point `contains’ a row of data in the table that includes address information. lowering operating costs and reducing environmental impact. sink) facilities in a region. Texas. The GIS framework allows the model the ¯exibility to expand to easily incorporate other types of data such as land use or utility themes. · Digital Elevation Model (DEM)Ð a grid theme that consists of a sampled array of elevations for ground positions. GAS and CYC). The creation of the map framework and the subsequent data manipulation and analysis can be broken into three steps: basemap construction. Additionally. Qin . Part B. the model can be used as a tool to promote the goals of reducing raw water consumption. July 2000 . Each data layer included in the basemap is called a `theme’. the model tasks are assigned to buttons. · Facility NetworkÐ a point theme containing data for water source and destination (i. the model calculates the distance and elevation change for each arc. It can be used as a quantitative and visual tool to help planners prepare effective water reuse schemes among a network of co-located facilities by allowing the user to systematically create costjusti®able scenarios for water exchange among industries.

reclaimed. which of the arcs to use in the network and how much water to transport through each arc. treat and transport water through the arcs and/or to maximize fresh water conservation by minimizing the ¯ow out of the water treatment plant node: XX Minimize cost = (Ci. Not surprisingly. j ($/1000 gal) = 7. the model does not include capital costs. July 2000 X j[J Xwtp.. Additionally. this table includes distance and elevation data calculated by the model using attribute information from the basemap themes. Minimizing the objective functions shown above determine the optimal set of Xi. Figure 3 shows the optimal water exchange scenario for the small network in which the facilities’ supply and demand constraints are met at minimum cost and water use.e. Each feasible exchange arc is represented by a row of data in the feasible exchange feature attribute shown in Table 2. The Bayport complex basemap for these facilities is shown in Figure 4.e. The optimal scenario includes two reuse pathways: from the WWTP to the CYC facility. partial treatment at the facility could also be included in the model to create new pathways with cleaner ef¯uent. Beyond the source and sink information. The linear program in the model was written in the General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS) language. The model is ¯exible enough to incorporate blending into the feasible exchange identi®cation phase. In this scenario.USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING work presented in Figure 1. Each facility has a demand for water and a quantity it discharges imported from the facility characteristics data ®le.9 ´ 10ê 4 D z + 4. but these could be integrated into the model as a function of distance..) The ®rst objective function minimizes cost by minimizing the water (Ci. the optimal-cost and the optimal-water conservation solutions are the same. MODEL APPLICATION In order to test the water reuse model. users can use default values or choose to enter their own cost data. The cost of transporting water (Ti.) The water cost values (Ci. Thus. sink and ¯ow rate information. fresh. The objective function and constraints form the linear program that determines the optimal solution for the network.e. the model also identi®es new reuse options for water exchange between facilities and from the treated wastewater. Part B. Texas. larger ¯ow rates result in thicker lines). the ¯ow rate (in 1000s of gallons per day) of water from source facility i to destination facility j. Vol 78.j) depend on the type of water (i.e. the quantity of water used in the network. j . Given the parameter inputs for a speci®c water reuse scenario from the reuse model. This is accomplished using a linear program.. Feasible exchange pathways are displayed as arrows on the basemap. and from the CYC facility to the CHM facility.j) is primarily due to pumping (i. Table 4 shows a quantitative summary of the results for the small network. This model feature makes it possible to easily test the Trans IChemE. At this point. m 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 ê 1 ê 1 same scenario for varying water cost options. (i. Source GAS CYC WWTP WWTP WTP WTP WTP CHEM GAS CYC Sink CHEM CHEM CHEM CYC CHEM GAS CYC WWTP WWTP WWTP Distance. The details of the transport cost calculations are given in the thesis describing this research7. The width of the optimal path features on the basemap is graduated in size depending on the ¯ow rate value (i. j ) Xi. The treatment costs and blending costs would be added to the optimization formulation. additional feasible pathways could be identi®ed if ef¯uents were blended together to create a new source with different water quality characteristics as demonstrated for the Bayport industrial facility by Keckler and Allen6. However.1 ´ 10ê 4 DL Minimize water = The decision variables for the water reuse linear program scenario are represented by Xi. reused. The objectives of the problem are to minimize the cost to purchase. a solver within the GAMS software package determines the optimal solution to the linear program. energy costs). disposed) and can vary depending on location and situation. The corresponding feature attributes are given in Table 3..j) and transportation (Ti. These ¯ow rate values provide the supply and demand constraints for the network. j j[J i[I 297 Table 2. it was applied to various scenarios for selected facilities in the Bayport Industrial Complex in Pasadena. Feasible exchange are feature attribute table including distance and change in elevation between facilities. These results are then integrated and displayed on the model basemap.e. Although not included in this analysis. Optimization Given all the possible options from the feasible exchange.. j One meter of elevation gain is approximately twice as expensive as one additional meter of distance. The . the second equation minimizes the ¯ow of water from the water treatment plant (WTP) (i. j + Ti.j) costs per volume times the volume per day of all of the arcs in the system. Although the pathways identi®ed by the model are theoretical `straight line’ representations between feasible facility pairs for this illustrative analysis. j . The model calculates the transport costs as a function of the distance and elevation derived from pump power and energy loss equations: Ti. Bold rows represent reuse opportunities. m 730 916 1389 1712 1786 1066 1625 1389 904 1712 ê D Elevation. the GIS framework allows the ¯exibility of including existing pipe networks. The optimal path feature attribute table includes source. discharge to the wastewater treatment plant) are identi®ed as feasible exchanges. the model determines which arcs present the optimal solution for the network. traditional water exchange routes (supply from the water treatment plant.

The costs of fresh water and disposed water were obtained from the water and wastewater treatment plants in the Bayport Industrial Complex. 1000 gal/day 91 300 86 209 91 86 Table 4. Cost-optimal water use network for the small network reuse paths are highlighted. Total Organic Carbon (TOC). Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) for 21 process streams and the 5 utility streams. Part B. the entire network was tested to determine feasible exchange pathways based on quality constraints and then optimized for maximum cost and water savings. Feasible exchanges output for the small network. These numerous pathways are split among the sources with the Figure 3. The Bayport facility provided average 1996 ®gures for ¯ow rate. sink and ¯ow rate. Quantitative water and cost savings for the small network optimal water use scenarios. 1000 gal/day 477 86 82% Cost. while green arrows show the feasible reuse opportunities. Trans IChemE.9. $/day 4540 3696 19% Figure 2. July 2000 . The values for reused and reclaimed water were selected to make it economical for individual facilities to purchase these types of water in comparison to fresh water. Source CYC WWTP WTP CYC CHEM GAS Sink CHEM CYC GAS WWTP WWTP WWTP Flow rate. Layout of the basemap for the small network including a street map and digital elevation map (DEM). of requirements for different types of facilities based on Standard Industrial Classi®cation (SIC) Codes adapted from the literature available for reuse in¯uent requirements8. Figure 1. During the feasible exchange phase. and the width of the line corresponds to ¯ow rate (1000 gpd). Facilities are geocoded by their address. Large Network ef¯uent data used in the case study were provided by the Bayport facility of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority.298 NOBEL and ALLEN Table 3. Scenario Without reuse With reuse Percentage reduction Fresh water use. the model was applied in a manner similar to that outlined for the small network. Vol 78. Blue arrows represent the traditional system. The in¯uent requirement values were estimated to provide a range First. The water cost values used in the optimization program are shown in Table 5. Optimal small network feature attribute table including source. the model identi®ed 74 possible reuse pathways.

the network was optimized for maximum water conservation. July 2000 . Likewise. Given these feasible pathways. $/1000 gal 0. Trans IChemE. The resulting water use network is shown in Figure 5. However. The majority of the recycled water used in the system is reclaimed water from the WWTP. the cleaner the ef¯uent. The minimum water use optimal solution also used 30 reuse pathways.75 0.50 0. Next. Figure 5. the network was ®rst optimized to minimize cost. Cost-optimal pathways for the large network graduated by ¯ow rate (1000 gpd). Modelling this scenario would be applicable in a situation where a limited amount of fresh water is available.USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING 299 Figure 4. Type of water Fresh Reclaimed Reused Disposed Source Water treatment plant Wastewater treatment plant Industries Industries Sink Industries Industries Industries Wastewater treatment plant Cost. the optimal network included 30 reuse pathways in the minimum-cost solution. Vol 78. Again. the more potential destinations. Facility basemap for the large Bayport network. Of the 74 possible pathways. Cost of water based on source and destination. Table 6 shows a quantitative summary of the optimal cost and water conservation scenarios in comparison to the traditional water use network. the majority of the recycled water is reclaimed water from the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The minimum cost and maximum water conservation results are similar in this scenario because of the minimal elevation changes. Part B.50 `cleanest’ ef¯uent. the optimal water conservation optimization network had more industry-toindustry reuse pathways and fewer originating at the water treatment plant (WTP). Table 5.75 7. facilities with lower in¯uent standards have more potential sources.

July 2000 . the shadow price for the CYC1 in¯uent ¯ow rate demand. As with all models. it was assumed that a new facility (`NEWFAC’) was planning to locate in the Bayport Industrial Complex Area. constraint values and ranges for the ¯ow rate constraints for the small network optimal solution discussed in the Model Formulation section.300 NOBEL and ALLEN Table 7. The effect of each supply and demand constraint can be quanti®ed by its shadow price. Input Data Sensitivity Analysis The ¯ow rates in the system provide the supply and demand constraints for the linear program. the reuse model was able to identify feasible reuse pathways and optimal water use networks for several scenarios along with signi®cant potential cost and water savings. demand) constraint has a negative shadow price while all the other constraints Table 8. (i. Given this hypothetical facility’s water requirements and planned location. but also illustrates how the water reuse model output can be analysed to determine which parameters are the most critical in the model application scenario. Source CYC1 GAS2 NEWFAC NEWFAC Sink NEWFAC NEWFAC INO2 ORG3 Flow rate. Table 9 gives the shadow prices. Scenario Traditional Minimum cost Minimum water use Fresh water use. and the solution could change depending on these water costs.25 less than fresh water (see Table 5). therefore.. the cost savings are much lower in the reclamation plant scenario. Table 7 contains a quantitative summary of the cost and water savings found for the optimal cost and water conservation solutions. Vol 78. 1000 gal/day 300 35 99 236 Trans IChemE. Part B. However. The optimal water conservation solution takes advantage of all of these possible reuse pathways. $/day 84336 Reclamation Plant Scenario Many communities are beginning to recognize the value of reusing the water treated at wastewater treatment plants as `reclaimed’ water. The shadow price. the model was run to determine the most cost-effective source and destination to meet the facility’s water requirements. the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant are the only possible water sources for the facilities in the Bayport network. $/day 84336 81262 81306 4% 4% Table 6. so the cost savings are lower than when water in the network can be reused without treatment. Quantitative cost and water savings for the minimum cost and minimum water use results for the Reclamation Plant Scenario. As can be seen from Figure 6. this case study was intended as a demonstration of the model application and potential. all ef¯uent goes to the WWTP. Because most of the feasible pathways contain `reused’ water. Because NEWFAC had a higher ¯ow rate than the optimal source (CYC1) and sink (INO2).e. DISCUSSION As demonstrated above. p CYC 1in . no treatment costs are avoided. and thus lead to improved modelling and planning results. NEWFAC cost-optimal sources and sinks. In a reclamation plant scenario. it received from and discharged water to two facilities. thus. these sources and sinks are shown in Figure 7. the optimal sources and sinks balance distance and elevation energy costs. represents the cost savings or increase that would occur if the ¯ow rate demand increased by 1000 gal/day. Thus. the results are highly dependent on input parameters and assumptions. Cost and water savings for the minimum cost and minimum water use network optimization results. Although the water savings are comparable to the large network that included facility-to-facility reuse. in this scenario. The cost-optimal model results for the Bayport reclamation plant scenario shown in Figure 6 uses 20 of the 24 possible reuse pathways. The reuse model results are dependent on the facility characteristic data as well as water price and transportation costs.e. rather than to identify speci®c improvements for the Bayport Industrial Complex. Obviously. Table 9 shows that the CHM In (i. 1000 gal/day 8708 850 258 90% 97% 67196 67715 Cost. including ¯ow rate. the wastewater treatment plant could serve as a potential source for water in a region instead of just as a destination. represents the value of one additional unit of resource i. the optimal solution was primarily a factor of transportation cost. the cost of fresh and reclaimed water has a signi®cant effect on the costoptimal solution for the network. This discussion not only evaluates the results of the Bayport case study. 1000 gal/day 8708 1105 258 87% 97% Cost. The optimal water supply and destination solution is shown in Figure 8 and listed in Table 8. even if the reclaimed water costs $0. The model identi®ed 24 possible pathways for reclaimed water use in the network based on water quality requirements. p i .. leaving only those facilities with stringent in¯uent requirements to be supplied with fresh water. Scenario 20% 20% Traditional Minimum cost Minimum water use Fresh water use. New Facility Scenario In this model application. This difference is due to the fact that in the reclamation plant scenario. it costs less for the water treatment plant to supply some the facilities closer to it than the wastewater treatment plant due to reduced transportation costs. The feasible exchange phase of the model identi®ed 5 sources and 12 destinations as NEWFAC’s feasible water use options. facility to facility).

The reclamation plant scenario is unique because it has only two possible sources of water (the WTP and WWTP) and only one possible sink (the WWTP) for each facility. For example. Vol 78. Name CHMIn CHMOut GASIn GASOut CYCIn CYCOut Optimal value 91 91 86 86 300 300 Shadow price 7.j (transportation cost per ¯ow rate) values for each feasible supply pair can be compared to determine which `fresh’ and `reclaimed’ water cost ranges would be optimal.75 7. the route from the GAS to the CHEM facility becomes the optimal choice only if the cost of water drops below $0.21 Allowable increase 209 1E + 1E + 1E + 1E + 1E + 30 30 30 30 30 Allowable decrease 91 91 86 86 300 209 301 have positive shadow prices.76/1000 gal. the ranges indicate that the optimal GAS ! WWTP pathway is somewhat sensitive to water costs.50 0. Part B. j (WWTP) ê Ti.54 7. The water ef¯uent characteristics and in¯uent requirements determine the feasible exchange pathways in the network. j value is positive. A similar analysis can be carried out for the other exchanges in this example and for the distance and elevation parameters. Small network ¯ow rate constraints (1000 gpd) and shadow prices. but the most cost-effective route will be to the WWTP as long as it costs less than $7. it is important to recognize that the in¯uent requirements used in the model application are only estimations applied to wide groups of facilities that may have varying processes and requirements.87 1.50 0. thus. if a facility with a large amount of ef¯uent had relatively clean water except for a high level of TSS.50 0.07 1.01 1E + 30 1E + 30 1E + 30 1E + 30 0. if the T i. In Table 11.71 Upper bound water cost 1E + 30 7.19 7.USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING Table 9. it is more expensive to dispose of water than to acquire it.21 8. j (WTP) Thus. The Ti.65 ê 0.81 ê 0. then the optimal water supply source is from the WTP. Therefore. the in¯uent requirements for the facilities in the network need to be better characterized and quanti®ed. due to high treatment costs. each facility can be examined independently to determine the optimal water cost ranges for its potential supply pathways given the distance and elevation change to the feasible sources. The small network can be used to demonstrate how a sensitivity analysis of the model results can evaluate the model parameters. Figure 9 displays these supply network results on the basemap for the region. Since these values are within $0. it may be worth investing in on-site treatment (such as a settling basin) to lower the TSS level to ensure the ef¯uent meets the requirements for reuse. the optimal source is from the WWTP. the GAS facility can send its water to the CHEM facility or the WWTP. Water and Transportation Cost Sensitivity Analysis The linear program used for the model cost optimization is dependent on water and transportation (a function of distance and elevation) costs. For example.08 ê 8. T i. For example. In each scenario the non-feasible pairs can be examined to determine the limiting parameter(s) and extent of non-compliance to evaluate potential ways to improve the number of feasible matches. As Table 10. The values of particular interest in Table 10 include the upper bound values for those pathways used in the optimal network (represented in bold) and the lower values for the unused pathways.50 ê ê Lower bound water cost 0. These water cost optimal ranges are shown in Table 10.26/1000 gal of the water costs used in the model. Water cost values ($/1000 gal) and ranges for the small network’s water-use solution. Thus.j value for each facility: T i. while increasing the other supplies or demands will increase the costs. j = Ti. j represents the WTP Ti.j). Source GAS GAS CYC CYC WTP WTP WWTP WTP Sink CHEM WWTP CHEM WWTP CHEM CYC CHEM CYC Water cost used in model 0. A similar analysis can be completed on the other facilities in the network as well as other model applications to determine the scenario sensitivity to changes in supply and/or demand. and if the value is negative.49.75 0. in this scenario. This means that increasing the demand for water at the CHM facility will decrease the water-use costs for the network. Bold rows represent optimal pathways.j value subtracted from the WWTP Ti. the optimal ranges for the water costs for each pathway can be determined from the cost component of the objective coef®cient (Ci.49 0. Likewise. preferably on the facility (or even process) level. The higher values for the ef¯uent constraints illustrate that. July 2000 .75 0.71 Trans IChemE. before accurate results can be acquired from the model.76 1. these factors greatly affect the model optimization solutions.75 7. given equal fresh and reclaimed water costs. However.37 1E + 30 ê 0.49 7.

it is a ®rst step. Finally. Reclamation scenario water supply for the cost-optimal water supply network. the model should include capital costs to make the cost-optimization more robust. July 2000 . Trans IChemE. This model provides a quantitative planning tool to promote more ef®cient systems-based material cycles by incorporating geographic elements and providing a ¯exible framework for the systematic evaluation of various regional exchange scenarios. Adding new data themes to the basemap. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This work has integrated water reuse modelling with a Geographic Information System to calculate and display feasible and optimal water exchange scenarios in a region. Vol 78. Part B. cardboard or energy. j values provides a quantitative representation of the sensitivity of the optimal pathway solution to variations in water cost values. however. such as existing infrastructure and land use areas. given equal water cost values from either potential source. low Ti. Additionally. this Figure 7. The concept of coupling reuse analyses with Geographical Information Systems is not limited to water reuse. the absolute value of the T i. facilities need to better characterize their input requirements in order to provide more accurate exchange feasibility results. Future work could include modifying the model to analyse other types of material ¯ows. the optimal network solution is very sensitive to water cost. For example. In the case study application. such as solvents. because the WTP and WWTP have a small distance and no elevation change between them.j values indicate that slight variations in fresh or reclaimed water cost could change the optimal solution. Feasible sources and sinks for NEWFAC water use. the facility’s cost-optimal choice is from the closer option. Additionally. By allowing users to test scenarios easily and display results in a map-based format.302 NOBEL and ALLEN Figure 6. Although there are many opportunities to improve and expand on this research. could provide insight into speci®c piping network locations. expected.

33(10±11): 95±105. Material reuse modeling: A case study of water reuse in an industrial park. Environmental Protection Agency.04 0. and Allen. The University of Texas at Austin. Saving water in Texas Industries.11 0. Oron. Allen.03 0. Understanding GIS: The Arc/Info Method (ESRI. Figure 9.11 0.36 0. 9. Water Science and Technology. Postal. C. E.19 0. CA). Optimal sources and destinations for NEWFAC water use..J.28 ê 0.36 ê 0. 2(4): 79±92. Flow rates are given in 1000gpd. DC). A Model for Industrial Water Reuse: A Geographic Information Systems Approach to Industrial Ecology.36 ê 0. 7. Y. Texas 78758. Norton.24 0. Nobel. New York). Thesis for a Masters of Science in Engineering (The University of Texas at Austin). Part B. G.28 ê 0. given equal water cost values. Bowman.36 303 Figure 8. 1998. REFERENCES 1. Optimal supply network for the reclamation plant scenario given equal fresh and reclaimed water costs. 1996. Vol 78. j .28 0. j is less than zero. and Liu. 8. Redlands. S. Management modeling of integrative wastewater and reuse systems. Pickle Research Campus. A. J. J.14 0.edu/twripubs/WtrResrc/ v20n1/text. Guidelines for Water Reuse. S.17 ê 0.USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING Table 11. 1992.20 ê 0. Texas Water Resources. j values for each facility. 1972. 5. Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity (W. Trans IChemE. ADDRESS Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Professor D.html. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). Environmental Studies Board Committee on Water Quality Criteria.28 0..07 ê 0.19 0.. Facility AGR1 CHM1 CHM2 CHM3 CYC1 INO1 INO2 ORG1 ORG10 ORG2 ORG3 ORG4 ORG5 ORG7 ORG8 ORG9 PLA1 PLA3 PLA4 UCYC1 UGAS2 UINO4 UORG1 UORG2 Optimal source WWTP WWTP WTP WTP WTP WWTP WTP WTP WTP WWTP WWTP WTP WWTP WWTP WTP WTP WTP WWTP WTP WTP WWTP WWTP WTP WWTP ê T i. New York). T. MS R7100. Journal of Industrial Ecology. publication no. 20(1). EPA/625/R-92/004. Water Criteria 1972 (National Academy of Sciences. http://twri.. If T i. D.15 0. 1992.tamu. J. T. 3. Mann.17 ê 0. USA.. A.W. 4. Industrial Water Reuse and Wastewater Minimization (McGraw-Hill. Washington. Keckler. 1995. Austin. July 2000 . Center for Energy and Environmental Resources. 1998.20 ê 0. 1994.. the facility’s optimal source is the WWTP.17 ê 0. G. National Academy of Engineering. The manuscript was received 23 February 1999 and accepted for publication after revision 21 March 2000. 2. model can demonstrate how materials reuse can lead to competitive advantage and improvements in resource and material use. 6.22 0. T i. 1999. 10100 Burnet Road.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful