09575820/00/$10.00+0.

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

USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING

C. E. NOBEL1 and D. T. ALLEN2
1

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 identies cost-optimal water reuse scenarios. The model utilizes a linear programming algorithm within a Geographic Information System (GIS). Specically, the model integrates database operations and optimization methods with the visualization benets 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 modications, 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 efcient 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 efuent 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 modications 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 difculty in identifying users for reclaimed water. These shortfalls have been attributed to insufcient 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 dened as `an organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to efciently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyse, and display all forms of geographically referenced information5. GIS integrates database operations with the unique visualization benets 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 dening 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

296

NOBEL and ALLEN modelling scenario include information about facility location (to determine distance), relative elevation, and facility water characteristics. Thus, this model includes the following themes: Street Map provides the reference for facility location. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) a grid theme that consists of a sampled array of elevations for ground positions. Facility Network a point theme containing data for water source and destination (i.e., sink) facilities in a region. Facility characteristic data include facility address, water quantity and quality information. The facilities are located on the map by `geocoding (the equivalent of pushing a pin into a street map on the wall). These data are imported from a user text le. The GIS framework allows the model the exibility to expand to easily incorporate other types of data such as land use or utility themes. Figure 1 shows an example of a basemap for a small network of facilities including a water treatment plant (WTP), a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and three manufacturing facilities (CHM, GAS and CYC). The corresponding facility feature attributes are shown in Table 1. Each point `contains a row of data in the table that includes address information, used for geocoding, as well as water quantity and quality data important for determining exchange feasibility and optimization. Water Exchange Identication After a basemap of the network is created, the model determines the feasible options for water exchange in the network using the water quality inuent and efuent parameters. To determine feasible water exchanges, the model tests each possible pair of sources and sinks to see if the source facilitys water is clean enough for the destination facility. The model can test any number of quality parameters, as long as both inuent and efuent requirements are imported in the facility characteristic table. When a match is identied, a feasible exchange pathway (arc) is created on the basemap. Along with identifying feasible exchange pathways, the model calculates the distance and elevation change for each arc. Additionally, the model identies the type of water (e.g., fresh, reused) based on source and destination facilities. This information is used to determine the transportation and water costs in the optimization phase of the model. 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, Texas. Test applications are used to analyse the model potential and limitations and application results are analysed to determine their sensitivity to the model parameters. MODEL DEVELOPMENT The water reuse model identies and displays both feasible and optimal reuse water exchange scenarios for regions containing many water users. 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 costjustiable scenarios for water exchange among industries. Additionally, by enhancing water reuse, the model can be used as a tool to promote the goals of reducing raw water consumption, lowering operating costs and reducing environmental impact. The water reuse model was designed using the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) GIS software package ArcView version 3.0a on a personal computer. Avenue, the programming language associated with ArcView, was used to write the program scripts that run the model. The model was designed to use a GUI (Graphic User Interface)-based framework; thus, the model tasks are assigned to buttons. The user need only `point-and-click and respond to the message box prompts in order to run the model. The only input required is a facility characteristics data le. The GIS framework allows for spatial analysis and provides output maps that can be used as effective communication tools. Additionally, the model was designed to be exible to accommodate varying scenarios and incorporate more data sets, as they become available. The creation of the map framework and the subsequent data manipulation and analysis can be broken into three steps: basemap construction, water exchange identication, and exchange optimization. Basemap Construction The rst step in any GIS project is to create a basemap of the area of interest. The basemap provides the geographic framework for the model and contains the data important to the situation. Each data layer included in the basemap is called a `theme. Each theme has a corresponding feature attribute table that contains descriptive information about each element within the theme (e.g., individual facility address, water quantity and water quality.) The themes important to a water reuse

Table 1. Feature attribute table for the small network of facilities; data include location and water quality and quantity information. Each row of data corresponds to a facility point feature. Efuent Characteristics, mg/l Name CHEM GAS CYC WTP WWTP Address 9640 Bayport Bvd. 9950 Chemical Rd. 12222 Port Rd. 11400 Bay Area Bvd. 10800 Bay Area Bvd. Qin , 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 Inuent Requirements, mg/l TOC 50 5 20 0 2000 TSS 100 10 50 0 2000 TDS 500 250 450 0 2000

Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING work presented in Figure 1. Feasible exchange pathways are displayed as arrows on the basemap. Not surprisingly, traditional water exchange routes (supply from the water treatment plant, discharge to the wastewater treatment plant) are identied as feasible exchanges. However, the model also identies new reuse options for water exchange between facilities and from the treated wastewater. Although the pathways identied by the model are theoretical `straight line representations between feasible facility pairs for this illustrative analysis, the GIS framework allows the exibility of including existing pipe networks. Each feasible exchange arc is represented by a row of data in the feasible exchange feature attribute shown in Table 2. Beyond the source and sink information, this table includes distance and elevation data calculated by the model using attribute information from the basemap themes. Although not included in this analysis, additional feasible pathways could be identied if efuents were blended together to create a new source with different water quality characteristics as demonstrated for the Bayport industrial facility by Keckler and Allen6. The model is exible enough to incorporate blending into the feasible exchange identication phase. Additionally, partial treatment at the facility could also be included in the model to create new pathways with cleaner efuent. The treatment costs and blending costs would be added to the optimization formulation. Optimization Given all the possible options from the feasible exchange, the model determines which arcs present the optimal solution for the network. This is accomplished using a linear program. The objectives of the problem are to minimize the cost to purchase, 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, j + Ti, j ) Xi, j
j[J i[I

297

Table 2. Feasible exchange are feature attribute table including distance and change in elevation between facilities. Bold rows represent reuse opportunities. Source GAS CYC WWTP WWTP WTP WTP WTP CHEM GAS CYC Sink CHEM CHEM CHEM CYC CHEM GAS CYC WWTP WWTP WWTP Distance, m 730 916 1389 1712 1786 1066 1625 1389 904 1712

D Elevation, m
0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

same scenario for varying water cost options. The cost of transporting water (Ti,j) is primarily due to pumping (i.e., energy costs). At this point, the model does not include capital costs, but these could be integrated into the model as a function of distance. The model calculates the transport costs as a function of the distance and elevation derived from pump power and energy loss equations: Ti, j ($/1000 gal) = 7.9 10
4

D z + 4.1 10

DL

Minimize water =

The decision variables for the water reuse linear program scenario are represented by Xi, j , the ow rate (in 1000s of gallons per day) of water from source facility i to destination facility j. Minimizing the objective functions shown above determine the optimal set of Xi, j , (i.e., which of the arcs to use in the network and how much water to transport through each arc.) The rst objective function minimizes cost by minimizing the water (Ci,j) and transportation (Ti,j) costs per volume times the volume per day of all of the arcs in the system; the second equation minimizes the ow of water from the water treatment plant (WTP) (i.e., the quantity of water used in the network.) The water cost values (Ci,j) depend on the type of water (i.e., fresh, reclaimed, reused, disposed) and can vary depending on location and situation. Thus, users can use default values or choose to enter their own cost data. This model feature makes it possible to easily test the Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

X
j[J

Xwtp, j

One meter of elevation gain is approximately twice as expensive as one additional meter of distance. The details of the transport cost calculations are given in the thesis describing this research7. Each facility has a demand for water and a quantity it discharges imported from the facility characteristics data le. These ow rate values provide the supply and demand constraints for the network. The objective function and constraints form the linear program that determines the optimal solution for the network. The linear program in the model was written in the General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS) language. Given the parameter inputs for a specic water reuse scenario from the reuse model, a solver within the GAMS software package determines the optimal solution to the linear program. These results are then integrated and displayed on the model basemap. 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. The corresponding feature attributes are given in Table 3. The optimal scenario includes two reuse pathways: from the WWTP to the CYC facility, and from the CYC facility to the CHM facility. The optimal path feature attribute table includes source, sink and ow rate information. The width of the optimal path features on the basemap is graduated in size depending on the ow rate value (i.e., larger ow rates result in thicker lines). Table 4 shows a quantitative summary of the results for the small network. In this scenario, the optimal-cost and the optimal-water conservation solutions are the same. MODEL APPLICATION In order to test the water reuse model, it was applied to various scenarios for selected facilities in the Bayport Industrial Complex in Pasadena, Texas. The Bayport complex basemap for these facilities is shown in Figure 4. The

298

NOBEL and ALLEN

Table 3. Optimal small network feature attribute table including source, sink and ow rate. Source CYC WWTP WTP CYC CHEM GAS Sink CHEM CYC GAS WWTP WWTP WWTP Flow rate, 1000 gal/day 91 300 86 209 91 86

Table 4. Quantitative water and cost savings for the small network optimal water use scenarios.

Figure 1. Layout of the basemap for the small network including a street map and digital elevation map (DEM). Facilities are geocoded by their address.

Scenario Without reuse With reuse Percentage reduction

Fresh water use, 1000 gal/day 477 86 82%

Cost, $/day 4540 3696 19%

Figure 2. Feasible exchanges output for the small network. Blue arrows represent the traditional system, while green arrows show the feasible reuse opportunities.

of requirements for different types of facilities based on Standard Industrial Classication (SIC) Codes adapted from the literature available for reuse inuent requirements8,9. The water cost values used in the optimization program are shown in Table 5. The costs of fresh water and disposed water were obtained from the water and wastewater treatment plants in the Bayport Industrial Complex. 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.

Large Network efuent data used in the case study were provided by the Bayport facility of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority. The Bayport facility provided average 1996 gures for ow rate, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) for 21 process streams and the 5 utility streams. The inuent requirement values were estimated to provide a range First, the model was applied in a manner similar to that outlined for the small network; the entire network was tested to determine feasible exchange pathways based on quality constraints and then optimized for maximum cost and water savings. During the feasible exchange phase, the model identied 74 possible reuse pathways. These numerous pathways are split among the sources with the

Figure 3. Cost-optimal water use network for the small network reuse paths are highlighted, and the width of the line corresponds to ow rate (1000 gpd).

Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING

299

Figure 4. Facility basemap for the large Bayport network.

Table 5. Cost of water based on source and destination. Type of water Fresh Reclaimed Reused Disposed Source Water treatment plant Wastewater treatment plant Industries Industries Sink Industries Industries Industries Wastewater treatment plant Cost, $/1000 gal 0.75 0.50 0.75 7.50

`cleanest efuent; the cleaner the efuent, the more potential destinations. Likewise, facilities with lower inuent standards have more potential sources. Given these feasible pathways, the network was rst optimized to minimize cost. The resulting water use network is shown in Figure 5. Of the 74 possible pathways, the optimal network included 30 reuse pathways in the minimum-cost solution. The majority of the recycled water used in the system is reclaimed water from the WWTP. Next, the network was optimized for maximum water conservation. Modelling this scenario would be applicable in a situation where a limited amount of fresh water is

available. The minimum water use optimal solution also used 30 reuse pathways. However, the optimal water conservation optimization network had more industry-toindustry reuse pathways and fewer originating at the water treatment plant (WTP). Again, 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. Table 6 shows a quantitative summary of the optimal cost and water conservation scenarios in comparison to the traditional water use network.

Figure 5. Cost-optimal pathways for the large network graduated by ow rate (1000 gpd).

Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

300

NOBEL and ALLEN

Table 7. Quantitative cost and water savings for the minimum cost and minimum water use results for the Reclamation Plant Scenario. Scenario 20% 20% Traditional Minimum cost Minimum water use Fresh water use, 1000 gal/day 8708 1105 258 87% 97% Cost, $/day 84336 81262 81306 4% 4%

Table 6. Cost and water savings for the minimum cost and minimum water use network optimization results. Scenario Traditional Minimum cost Minimum water use Fresh water use, 1000 gal/day 8708 850 258 90% 97% 67196 67715 Cost, $/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. In a reclamation plant scenario, the wastewater treatment plant could serve as a potential source for water in a region instead of just as a destination. Thus, in this scenario, the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant are the only possible water sources for the facilities in the Bayport network. The model identied 24 possible pathways for reclaimed water use in the network based on water quality requirements. The optimal water conservation solution takes advantage of all of these possible reuse pathways, leaving only those facilities with stringent inuent requirements to be supplied with fresh water. The cost-optimal model results for the Bayport reclamation plant scenario shown in Figure 6 uses 20 of the 24 possible reuse pathways. As can be seen from Figure 6, 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, even if the reclaimed water costs $0.25 less than fresh water (see Table 5). Obviously, the cost of fresh and reclaimed water has a signicant effect on the costoptimal solution for the network, and the solution could change depending on these water costs. Table 7 contains a quantitative summary of the cost and water savings found for the optimal cost and water conservation solutions. Although the water savings are comparable to the large network that included facility-to-facility reuse, the cost savings are much lower in the reclamation plant scenario. This difference is due to the fact that in the reclamation plant scenario, all efuent goes to the WWTP; thus, no treatment costs are avoided, so the cost savings are lower than when water in the network can be reused without treatment. New Facility Scenario In this model application, it was assumed that a new facility (`NEWFAC) was planning to locate in the Bayport Industrial Complex Area. Given this hypothetical facilitys water requirements and planned location, the model was run to determine the most cost-effective source and destination to meet the facilitys water requirements. The feasible exchange phase of the model identied 5 sources and 12 destinations as NEWFACs feasible water use options; these sources and sinks are shown in Figure 7. The optimal water supply and destination solution is shown in Figure 8 and listed in Table 8. Because most of the feasible pathways contain `reused water, (i.e., facility to facility), the optimal solution was primarily a factor of

transportation cost; the optimal sources and sinks balance distance and elevation energy costs. Because NEWFAC had a higher ow rate than the optimal source (CYC1) and sink (INO2), it received from and discharged water to two facilities.

DISCUSSION As demonstrated above, the reuse model was able to identify feasible reuse pathways and optimal water use networks for several scenarios along with signicant potential cost and water savings. However, this case study was intended as a demonstration of the model application and potential, rather than to identify specic improvements for the Bayport Industrial Complex. As with all models, the results are highly dependent on input parameters and assumptions. The reuse model results are dependent on the facility characteristic data as well as water price and transportation costs. This discussion not only evaluates the results of the Bayport case study, 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, and thus lead to improved modelling and planning results. Input Data Sensitivity Analysis The ow rates in the system provide the supply and demand constraints for the linear program. The effect of each supply and demand constraint can be quantied by its shadow price. The shadow price, p i , represents the value of one additional unit of resource i; therefore, the shadow price for the CYC1 inuent ow rate demand, p CYC 1in , represents the cost savings or increase that would occur if the ow rate demand increased by 1000 gal/day. Table 9 gives the shadow prices, constraint values and ranges for the ow rate constraints for the small network optimal solution discussed in the Model Formulation section. Table 9 shows that the CHM In (i.e., demand) constraint has a negative shadow price while all the other constraints
Table 8. NEWFAC cost-optimal sources and sinks, including ow rate. Source CYC1 GAS2 NEWFAC NEWFAC Sink NEWFAC NEWFAC INO2 ORG3 Flow rate, 1000 gal/day 300 35 99 236

Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING

Table 9. Small network ow rate constraints (1000 gpd) and shadow prices. Name CHMIn CHMOut GASIn GASOut CYCIn CYCOut Optimal value 91 91 86 86 300 300 Shadow price 7.08 8.07 1.19 7.87 1.21 8.21 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. This means that increasing the demand for water at the CHM facility will decrease the water-use costs for the network, while increasing the other supplies or demands will increase the costs. The higher values for the efuent constraints illustrate that, due to high treatment costs, in this scenario, it is more expensive to dispose of water than to acquire it. 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. The water efuent characteristics and inuent requirements determine the feasible exchange pathways in the network. 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. For example, if a facility with a large amount of efuent had relatively clean water except for a high level of TSS, it may be worth investing in on-site treatment (such as a settling basin) to lower the TSS level to ensure the efuent meets the requirements for reuse. However, it is important to recognize that the inuent requirements used in the model application are only estimations applied to wide groups of facilities that may have varying processes and requirements. Therefore, before accurate results can be acquired from the model, the inuent requirements for the facilities in the network need to be better characterized and quantied, preferably on the facility (or even process) level. 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; thus, these factors greatly affect the model optimization solutions. The small network can be used to demonstrate how a sensitivity analysis of the model results can evaluate the model parameters. For

example, the optimal ranges for the water costs for each pathway can be determined from the cost component of the objective coefcient (Ci,j). These water cost optimal ranges are shown in 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. For example, the GAS facility can send its water to the CHEM facility or the WWTP, but the most cost-effective route will be to the WWTP as long as it costs less than $7.76/1000 gal. Likewise, the route from the GAS to the CHEM facility becomes the optimal choice only if the cost of water drops below $0.49. Since these values are within $0.26/1000 gal of the water costs used in the model, the ranges indicate that the optimal GAS ! WWTP pathway is somewhat sensitive to water costs. A similar analysis can be carried out for the other exchanges in this example and for the distance and elevation parameters. 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. Thus, 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 Ti,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. In Table 11, T i, j represents the WTP Ti,j value subtracted from the WWTP Ti,j value for each facility: T i, j = Ti, j (WWTP) Ti, j (WTP) Thus, given equal fresh and reclaimed water costs, if the T i, j value is positive, then the optimal water supply source is from the WTP, and if the value is negative, the optimal source is from the WWTP. Figure 9 displays these supply network results on the basemap for the region. As

Table 10. Water cost values ($/1000 gal) and ranges for the small networks water-use solution. Bold rows represent optimal pathways. Source GAS GAS CYC CYC WTP WTP WWTP WTP Sink CHEM WWTP CHEM WWTP CHEM CYC CHEM CYC Water cost used in model 0.75 7.50 0.75 7.50 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 Lower bound water cost 0.49 0.37 1E + 30 0.49 7.81 0.54 7.65 0.71 Upper bound water cost 1E + 30 7.76 1.01 1E + 30 1E + 30 1E + 30 1E + 30 0.71

Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

302

NOBEL and ALLEN

Figure 6. Reclamation scenario water supply for the cost-optimal water supply network.

expected, given equal water cost values from either potential source, the facilitys cost-optimal choice is from the closer option. Additionally, the absolute value of the T i, j values provides a quantitative representation of the sensitivity of the optimal pathway solution to variations in water cost values. For example, low Ti,j values indicate that slight variations in fresh or reclaimed water cost could change the optimal solution. In the case study application, because the WTP and WWTP have a small distance and no elevation change between them, the optimal network solution is very sensitive to water cost. 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. The concept of coupling reuse analyses with Geographical

Information Systems is not limited to water reuse, however. Future work could include modifying the model to analyse other types of material ows, such as solvents, cardboard or energy. Additionally, facilities need to better characterize their input requirements in order to provide more accurate exchange feasibility results. Adding new data themes to the basemap, such as existing infrastructure and land use areas, could provide insight into specic piping network locations. Finally, the model should include capital costs to make the cost-optimization more robust. Although there are many opportunities to improve and expand on this research, it is a rst step. This model provides a quantitative planning tool to promote more efcient systems-based material cycles by incorporating geographic elements and providing a exible framework for the systematic evaluation of various regional exchange scenarios. By allowing users to test scenarios easily and display results in a map-based format, this

Figure 7. Feasible sources and sinks for NEWFAC water use.

Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000

USING GIS IN INDUSTRIAL WATER REUSE MODELLING

Table 11. T i, j values for each facility. If T i, j is less than zero, the facilitys optimal source is the WWTP, given equal water cost values. 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 T i, j .28 0.17 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.11 0.28 0.24 0.36 0.20 0.19 0.36 0.28 0.14 0.19 0.36 0.20 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.17 0.28 0.36

303

Figure 8. Optimal sources and destinations for NEWFAC water use.

model can demonstrate how materials reuse can lead to competitive advantage and improvements in resource and material use. REFERENCES
1. Postal, S., 1992, Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity (W.W. Norton, New York). 2. Bowman, J. A., 1994, Saving water in Texas Industries, Texas Water Resources, 20(1), http://twri.tamu.edu/twripubs/WtrResrc/ v20n1/text.html. 3. Mann, J. G. and Liu, Y. A., 1999, Industrial Water Reuse and Wastewater Minimization (McGraw-Hill, New York). 4. Oron, G., 1996, Management modeling of integrative wastewater and reuse systems, Water Science and Technology, 33(1011): 95105. 5. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), 1995, Understanding GIS: The Arc/Info Method (ESRI, Redlands, CA). 6. Keckler, S. and Allen, D. T., 1998, Material reuse modeling: A case study of water reuse in an industrial park, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2(4): 7992. 7. Nobel, C. E., 1998, A Model for Industrial Water Reuse: A Geographic Information Systems Approach to Industrial Ecology, Thesis for a Masters of Science in Engineering (The University of Texas at Austin).

8. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Guidelines for Water Reuse, publication no. EPA/625/R-92/004. 9. Environmental Studies Board Committee on Water Quality Criteria, 1972, Water Criteria 1972 (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC).

ADDRESS
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Professor D. T. Allen, Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, The University of Texas at Austin, J.J. Pickle Research Campus, 10100 Burnet Road, MS R7100, Austin, Texas 78758, USA. The manuscript was received 23 February 1999 and accepted for publication after revision 21 March 2000.

Figure 9. Optimal supply network for the reclamation plant scenario given equal fresh and reclaimed water costs. Flow rates are given in 1000gpd.

Trans IChemE, Vol 78, Part B, July 2000