water conservation and reuse case study in pharmaceutical industry

ABSTRACT
WATER CONSERVATION AND REUSE CASE STUDY IN
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Joseph G. Cleary, P.E., BCEE
HydroQual, Inc.
1200 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, NJ 07430
A pharmaceutical company in Puerto Rico was facing some uncertainty in the sustainability of
its water supply for new drug products. The plant relies primarily on the Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Sewer Authority (PRASA) water supply for an average of 134,000 gallons per day.
Groundwater was impacted by saltwater intrusion and adjacent property contamination. The
company wanted to develop a water management plan to reduce reliance on the PRASA water
supply in this highly developed industrial/commercial area.
A water conservation and reuse study was conducted using a collaborative approach and project
team. A study approach was developed and utilized to develop a site-wide water balance which
was used to evaluate several alternatives to conserve and reused water. A recommended phase
was developed to reduce reliance on the PRASA water supply by 80 percent and achieve the
sustainability goals and objectives.
KEYWORDS
water conservation, water reuse, stormwater, cooling water, active pharmaceutical ingredients,
wastewater
INTRODUCTION
This pharmaceutical company (Company A) is located in northeast Puerto Rico. The plant
presently uses surface water (with the option to use groundwater) for the manufacture of
pharmaceutical products. Company A was facing some uncertainty in the sustainability of both
the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewerage Authority (PRASA) surface water supply and the site
and local groundwater supply. This uncertainty presented a risk to the production of products at
Company A. A groundwater modeling study concluded that additional groundwater supply at
the site may be limited due to salt water intrusion. Company A wanted to develop a site water
balance and evaluate water conservation and reuse alternatives to reduce reliance on the PRASA
surface water supply. The following summarizes the project drivers and background
information.
� Average water usage is 134,000 gallons per day from PRASA
� Water supply from surface water and groundwater is limited in the area
� Average rainfall is 80 inches per year
� “Sustainability” goal for production
WEFTEC®.06
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
111

� Overall goal was less reliance on public water supply
� Existing wastewater plant discharges to POTW
� Alternatives were needed for water conservation and reuse
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
This project had the following goals and objectives:
� Develop a Sustainability Plan to supply water to the site for two weeks in the event of
supply problems.
� Develop a site water balance for current and future water demands at the site.
� Develop water conservation and reuse alternatives that are cost effective and also meet
effluent permit limits.
� Reduce reliance in PRASA water supply.
STUDY APPROACH
The following sequence of work tasks was utilized:
� Send questionnaire to plant
� Review background information and data
� Conduct on-site survey to work with plant personnel (three days)
� Develop a site-wide water balance
� Fill in data gaps with flow monitoring and sampling of key water and wastewater streams
� Develop alternative evaluation criteria with plant personnel
� Screen alternatives with plant personnel during survey
� Identify alternatives for conceptual design and cost estimates
� Develop recommendations
The following information was provided to the project team prior to and during the kick-off
meeting:
� Groundwater modeling report status
� Current water balance information
WEFTEC®.06
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
112

� Current and future water usage data and projections
� Overall site plan, area maps, and aerial photos
� Water storage and consumption information
� Status of PRASA Water Treatment Supply and Treatment Plant
A review of the facility and key water supply and user facilities was conducted first to prioritize
with client for the site survey.
During and after the site visit, the project team worked with plant staff to develop an updated list
of data gaps and information needs, questions, and action items requiring input from the team.
The Project Director and Project Engineer visited the plant over a three day period to conduct a
site survey of the facility and interview plant personnel. A survey questionnaire was filled out
prior to and during the site visit. The following tasks were included within the scope of this task:
� Review and refine the current and future water balance.
� Survey existing water uses at the facility.
� Identify potential water conservation and reuse projects which may have been identified
before plus others identified by the project team.
� Evaluate water make up system including cooling tower and boiler.
� Evaluate potential use of surface water collected in stormwater basin.
� Evaluate potential reuse of blow downs from cooling tower and other sources.
� Identify potential reuse alternative for wastewater effluent.
During the site visit, the team met with a number of key plant staff to fill in data gaps and discuss
potential water conservation and reuse projects as well as PRASA and groundwater supplies.
Wrap up meetings were conducted on each day of the site visit to digest the information
collected and gather input from key project personnel. Preliminary findings were presented at
the end of the three days. Outstanding issues and data gaps were addressed during follow-up
conference calls.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
WEFTEC®.06
The alternatives evaluation was developed based on the following:
� The current water usage at the facility was estimated to be about 134,000 gallons per day.
The major water usage groups include utilities/cooling tower operations, process water
usage, sanitary/cafeteria and miscellaneous usage.
� Production of a new product is anticipated to increase over the next few years from the
present level of 29 percent to 95 percent by 2008.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
113

� The impact of water reuse alternatives on wastewater treatment operations and regulatory
compliance were taken into account during the evaluation process. This is especially
important when considering the discharge of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs)
from the facility.
� As part of an operating strategy/emergency management plan, Company A wanted to
have the capacity to continue production operations for a period of two weeks at the site
in the event that either energy or water supplies are disrupted.
The following key evaluation criteria were developed with plant personnel:
� Capital and O&M costs
� Technologies common to multiple locations
� User water quality needs
� Sanitation and safety requirements
� Impact on effluent compliance (e.g., TDS, active pharmaceutical ingredients, etc.)
� Acceptance by plant staff
� Potential impacts to facilities businesses operations (e.g., shutdowns for maintenance)
� Contingency water storage requirements (i.e., 14 days)
WATER BALANCE
WEFTEC®.06
A site wide water balance shown in Figure 1, was conducted to develop an understanding of
water usage and water quality at various stages and around various water usage groups. There
are two PRASA water intakes at the facility. Based on available data in early 2004, it was
estimated that the average intake is about 123,000 gallons per day. The total water usage at the
facility will increase as production is ramped up over the next few quarters. The expected
maximum usage of water from PRASA is about 236,000 gallons per day.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
114

WEFTEC®.06
Figure 1. Water Balance
Water usage at Company A’s facility can be broadly categorized into four groups based on usage
category and water quality requirements. The percentage distribution of water consumption is
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Water Usage
Figure 2. Water Usage
Water usage in cooling towers/utilities represents the single largest water usage group accounting
for 65 percent of the total water usage at the facility. Utilities water usage is expected to
continue to remain the largest water usage group in the future (at full production capacity).
Process water usage is presently at about 25 percent of the total water usage, but is likely to
increase as production reaches full capacity. Sanitary usage is expected to remain constant at
about 5,500 gallons per day.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
115

The main water usage groups include:
Utilities/Cooling Tower Water Usage – Cooling towers are the single largest users of water at the
Company A facility. Based on a water balance analysis performed using available plant data and
a GE-Betz model (CycleOps, 4 Cycles), it is estimated that the daily maximum make up water
requirement for the three cooling towers at the facility is 134,000 gallons.
Process Water Usage – Process water usage at Company A’s facility is primarily in the form of
USP water that is produced at various production locations. Pretreated PRASA water is further
treated to meet USP water quality criteria (conductivity ≤ 1 µmhos; resistivity ≥ 1 MΩ) using
multimedia filtration, activated carbon treatment, reverse osmosis and electro deionization.
Typically USP water is used for clean-in-place (CIP) operations for various operations including
dry-milling, dispensing, coating, etc. Water use in these operations is highly production
campaign dependent, and can change frequently based on market demand for finished product.
During normal operations USP water is produced only on demand from the point of use storage
tanks. However, the reverse osmosis system operates continuously either in production or
recycle mode, which generates a constant reject stream of about 10,000 gallons per day (nominal
usage when idling). Based on a mass balance conducted with available data for 2004, it is
estimated that the average process water usage is about 12,000 gallons per day.
Sanitary/Cafeteria Water Usage – Water for sanitary and cafeteria usage is estimated to be about
8,000 gallons per day at Company A’s facility. It is estimated that about 5,500 gallons per day
of water is obtained for sanitary and cafeteria use. Other miscellaneous activities, such as
irrigation, housekeeping, etc., account for less than 1,000 gallons per day.
A summary of the water quality sampling results for the various water sources and water users at
the facility is shown in Table 1. The concept of “water pinch” analysis were used in identifying
water reuse alternatives based on “user” water requirements and the water quality sampling data.
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Alternatives evaluated are described below. A comparison of the alternative capital and O&M
costs is shown in Table 2.
Alternative 1
WEFTEC®.06
In this alternative stormwater/groundwater reject from the USP water treatment system and AHU
condensate is blended with fresh water (from PRASA) to reduce fresh water consumption.
Existing cooling tower operating conditions are retained at 4 cycles with a blow down
conductivity set point of about 1,280 mhos/cm. The concept is shown schematically in Figure 3.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
116

Makeup Wate r
134,000 gpd
66,000 gpd
PRASA
62,000 gpd
39,000 gpd
33,000 gpd
8,000 gpd
AHU
Condensate
WEFTEC®.06
Cooling
Tower 1
Cooling
Tower 2
Cooling
Tower 3
Stormwater /
Groundwater
17,000 gpd
12,000 gpd
10,000 gpd
Figure 3. Alternative 1 - Existing CT Operating Conditions with Stormwater/Groundwater Supplement &
AHU Condensate (4 Cycles)
Table 1. Water Quality Summary
39,000 gpd
Wastewater
Treatment
FLOW KEY PARAMETERS
TYPE
gallons/day
TDS
mg/L
Conductivity
µmhos/
Hardness
mg/L
Silica
mg/L
PRASA 1 Existing Source 31,000 157 274 84 24.40
PRASA 2 Existing Source 92,000 157 274 84 24.40
Well Water Existing Source 50,000 198 317 60 21.40
Stormwater Potential Source 55,000 176 295 68 5.57
R.O. Reject (USP) Potential Source 10,000 388 569 4 32.80
AHU Condensate Potential Source 8,000 9 28 4

Alternative
PRASA
Water
Usage
Reduction
in PRASA
Water
Usage
*Utility
Operations
Only
Contingency
Storage
(14 days)
Groundwater Stormwater 2
Water Sources Cost
AHU
Condensate
Existing 134,000 - 2.0MG - - - - - 4,160,000 24,000
Alternative 1 66,000 50% 1.0MG 50,000 55,000 8,000 - 10,000 2,950,000 87,000
Alternative 2 46,000 65% 0.65MG 50,000 55,000 8,000 - 10,000 2,165,000 82,000
Alternative 3 40,000 70% 0.56MG 50,000 55,000 8,000 26,000 10,000 1,975,000 116,000
Alternative 4 25,000 80% 0.35MG 50,000 55,000 8,000 13,000 10,000 1,675,000 115,000
1 - Utilities / Cooling Tower Operations, gallons/day
2 - Average daily flow – may not be available at all times
3 - Includes contingency storage tank cost
WEFTEC®.06
Table 2. Cost Comparison
Treated
CT
Blow
Down
R.O.
Reject
From
USP
It is estimated that about 134,000 gallons of make up water is required each day for the cooling
towers under existing cooling tower operating conditions. At the present time the entire make up
water is drawn from PRASA as shown in Figure 4. There is potential for reuse of 8,000 gpd of
AHU condensate, 10,000 gpd of reject from the USP water treatment system and 50,000 gpd of
stormwater/groundwater to supplement intake of fresh water from PRASA. Water quality
characterization data for the AHU condensate and stormwater/groundwater indicate that these
sources have the potential to provide high quality water with minimal pretreatment. Water
analysis data was developed for all the streams considered in this study as shown previously in
Table 1.
Figure 4. Alternative 2-Optimized CT Operating Conditions with
stormwater/groundwater supplement & AHU Condensate (6.5 Cycles)
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
118
Capital 2
Annual
O&M

The capital cost of implementing this alternative is estimated to be about $2,850,000 which
includes the cost for providing 14-day contingency storage (1 million gallons) for sustaining
utility operations during any disruption of PRASA water supply. The annual O&M cost for this
alternative is estimated to be about $85,000.
The key advantages of this alternative include:
� Existing cooling tower operating conditions are retained.
� Reuse of AHU condensate and stormwater/groundwater.
� Reuse option results in a 50% reduction in PRASA water usage. The overall water usage
for cooling tower operations remains unchanged at 134,000 gpd.
� Both AHU condensate and stormwater sources provide higher quality water for cooling
tower operations than that available from PRASA. Supplementing PRASA water with
either of these sources can potentially increase the number of effective cycles (which is
based on a conductivity set point).
Alternative 2
In this alternative stormwater/groundwater, reject from the USP water treatment system and
AHU condensate is blended with fresh water (from PRASA) to reduce fresh water consumption.
Conceptually this alternative is similar to Alternative 1, except that the existing cooling tower
operating conditions are optimized for 6.5 cycles. The concept is shown schematically in Figure
4.
It is estimated that about 114,000 gallons of make up water will be required each day for the
cooling towers when they are operated optimally at 6.5 cycles. As discussed in Alternative 1,
there is a potential for reuse of 8,000 gpd of AHU condensate, 10,000 gpd of reject from the USP
water treatment system and 50,000 gpd of stormwater/groundwater to supplement intake of fresh
water from PRASA. Water quality characterization data for the AHU condensate and
stormwater/groundwater indicate that these sources have the potential to provide high quality
water with minimal pretreatment.
The capital cost of implementing this alternative is estimated to be about $2,000,000 which
includes the cost for providing 14-day contingency storage (0.65 million gallons) for sustaining
utility operations during any disruption of PRASA water supply. The annual O&M cost for this
alternative is estimated to be about $80,000.
The key advantages of this alternative include:
WEFTEC®.06
� Existing cooling tower operating conditions are optimized for 6.5 cycles. Optimization
would primarily include pH control of cooling tower recycle water with sulfuric acid.
� Optimization of cooling tower cycles will reduce make up water usage by 15% when
compared to existing water usage at 4 cycles.
� Reuse of AHU condensate and stormwater/groundwater.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
119

� Reuse option when combined with optimized cooling tower operation results in a 65%
reduction in PRASA water usage. Overall cooling tower water usage is 114,000 gpd
compared to 134,000 gpd (Alternative 1).
� Both AHU condensate and stormwater sources provide higher quality water for cooling
tower operations than that available from PRASA. Supplementing PRASA water with
either of these sources can potentially increase the number of effective cycles (which is
based on a conductivity set point) resulting in lower water demand.
Alternative 3
WEFTEC®.06
In this alternative a Reverse Osmosis system is proposed for the treatment of cooling tower blow
down as well as blending stormwater/groundwater, reject from the USP water treatment system
and AHU condensate with fresh water (from PRASA) to reduce fresh water consumption.
Existing cooling tower operating conditions are retained at 4 cycles with a blow down
conductivity se point of about 1,280 μmhos/cm. The concept is shown schematically in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Alternative 3 – Existing CT Operating Conditions with stormwater/groundwater supplement &
AHU Condensate & R.O. Treatment of CT Blowdown (4 Cycles)
It is estimated that about 134,000 gallons of make up water is required each day for the cooling
towers under existing cooling tower operating conditions. There is a potential for reuse of 8,000
gpd of AHU condensate, 10,000 gpd of reject from the USP water treatment system and 50,000
gpd of stormwater/groundwater to supplement intake of fresh water from PRASA. Additionally
about 26,000 gpd of R.O. treated water is available for reuse as make up water for cooling tower
operations. Water quality characterization data for the AHU condensate and stormwater/
groundwater indicate that these sources have the potential to provide high quality water with
minimal pretreatment.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
120

The capital cost of implementing this alternative is estimated to be about $1,875,000 which
includes the cost for providing 14-day contingency storage (0.56 million gallons) for sustaining
utility operations during any disruption of PRASA water supply. The annual O&M cost for this
alternative is estimated to be about $115,000.
The key advantages of this alternative include:
� Existing cooling tower operating conditions are retained.
� R.O. treatment of cooling tower blow down can potentially yield 26,000 gpd of high
quality water for reuse.
� Reuse of AHU condensate and stormwater/groundwater.
� Reuse option results in a 70% reduction in PRASA water usage. The overall water usage
for cooling tower operations remains unchanged at 134,000 gpd.
� The blow down stream after R.O. treatment, the AHU condensate stream and stormwater
sources provide higher quality water for cooling tower operations than that available from
PRASA. Supplementing PRASA water with any of these sources can potentially increase
the number of effective cycles (which is based on a conductivity set point) resulting in
lower water demand.
� This alternative when compared to other alternative evaluated offers a better quality make
up water since PRASA water intake is significantly reduced and at the same time a large
stream of R.O. treated water is supplemented.
Alternative 4
WEFTEC®.06
In this alternative a Reverse Osmosis system is proposed for the treatment of cooling tower blow
down as well as blending stormwater/groundwater, reject from the USP water treatment system
and AHU condensate with fresh water (from PRASA) to reduce fresh water consumption.
Conceptually this alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except that the existing cooling tower
operating conditions are optimized for 6.5 cycles. The concept is shown schematically in Figure
6.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
121

It is estimated that about 134,000 gallons of make up water is required each day for the cooling
towers under existing cooling tower operating conditions. At the present time the entire make up
water is drawn from PRASA as shown in Figure 3. There is a potential for reuse of 8,000 gpd of
AHU condensate, 10,000 gpd of reject from the USP water treatment system and 50,000 gpd of
stormwater/groundwater to supplement intake of fresh water from PRASA. Additionally about
26,000 gpd of R.O. treated water is available for reuse as make up water for cooling tower
operations. Water quality characterization data for the AHU condensate and stormwater/
groundwater indicate that these sources have the potential to provide high quality water with
minimal pretreatment.
The capital cost of implementing this alternative is estimated to be about $1,560,000 which
includes the cost for providing 14-day contingency storage (0.35 million gallons) for sustaining
utility operations during any disruption of PRASA water supply. The annual O&M cost for this
alternative is estimated to be about $115,000.
The key advantages of this alternative include:
WEFTEC®.06
Figure 6. Alternative 4 – Existing CT Operating Conditions with stormwater/groundwater
supplement & AHU Condensate & R.O. Treatment of CT Blowdown (6.5 Cycles)
� Existing cooling tower operating conditions are retained.
� R.O. treatment of cooling tower blow down can potentially yield 13,000 gpd of high
quality water for reuse.
� Reuse of AHU condensate and stormwater/groundwater.
� Optimization of cooling tower cycles will reduce make up water usage by 15% when
compared to existing water usage a 4 cycles.
� Reuse option when combined with optimized cooling tower operations results in a 80%
reduction in PRASA water usage. Overall cooling tower water usage is 114,000 gpd
compared to 134,000 gpd (Alternative 1).
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
122

� The blow down stream after R.O. treatment, the AHU condensate stream and stormwater
sources provide higher quality water for cooling tower operations than that available from
PRASA. Supplementing PRASA water with any of these sources can potentially
increase the number of effective cycles (which is based on a conductivity set point).
� This alternative offers a good quality make up water since PRASA water intake in
significantly reduced and at the same time a large stream of R.O. treated water is
supplemented.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 4 was selected by the projet team to reduce reliance of PRASA water use to 25,000
gpd or 80% reduction by using air handling condensate, groundwater or stormwater and RO
reject water. Figure 7 shows the proposed layout for this alternative.
STORM WATER
(Existing Collection System)
STORM WATER
(New Connection)
Well
Water
UTILITY MAKEUP
WATER
50,000 gpd
(35 gpm on demand)
CONTINGENCY
STORAGE *
TREATED CT BLOWDOWN
R.O. REJECT FROM USP
Water Treatment
(Existing)
10,000 gpd
WEFTEC®.06
50,000
GALLON
TANK
(Existing)
Figure 7. Proposed Layout of Water Reuse
PHARMACEUTICAL ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (APIs)
EXISTING STORM WATER
COLLECTION BASIN
There were two pharmaceutical active ingredients (APIs) which were evaluated for compliance.
Based on the Company’s API Effluent Management Philosophy, the maximum possible loss of
the two compounds from the facility were estimated to be 3 kg/day and 5.9 kg/day, respectively.
A holding and equalization system was designed to ensure corporate receiving water
concentration guideline in the ocean were achieved. The volume of effluent that the facility
55,
000
gp
d
8,000 gpd
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
123
overflow
ON DEMAND
AHU CONDENSATE
PRASA
outfall
* Contingency Storage
Capacity (14 days)
Alternative 1 – 1.00 MG
Alternative 2 – 0.65 MG
Alternative 3 – 0.56MG
Alternative 4 – 0.35 MG

discharges to PRASA did not have any impact on the manner in which the discharge of two
compounds are presently managed as per the Effluent Management Philosophy. Therefore,
reduction in the volume of influent to the wastewater treatment system due to water recycling
and other water conservation efforts had no impact on the mass of compound that may be
discharged from the facility.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were made from the study:
� Existing water usage at the Company A facility is 134,000 gallons per day, which is
entirely obtained from two intakes.
� Utilities/cooling tower operations represent the single largest user group and accounts for
greater than 65 percent of water usage at the facility.
� Process water usage accounts for 25 percent of the water usage at the facility.
� Cooling tower blow down is estimated to be about 39,000 gallons per day at four cycles.
Blow downs are controlled by a conductivity set point of 1,280 µmhos/cm.
� Stormwater is collected in a stormwater collection basin. It is estimated that an average
of 55,000 gallons of stormwater is discharged from the site each day.
� Implementation of a water conservation and reuse plan will have no adverse impact on
effluent management program for APIs.
� Additional storage capacity is needed to sustain utility operations for 14 days if PRASA
water supply is disrupted.
RECOMMENDATIONS
� Installation of a utilities water storage tank
� Collection of air handling condensate and reverse osmosis (RO) reject
� Reduction of the cooling tower’s water demand by increasing cycles of concentration and
reusing part of the blowdowns
� Collection of stormwater for make-up utilities water
� Continue to evaluate the feasibility of using the well water supply and new well field
SUMMARY
� The study approach was successful.
WEFTEC®.06
� Most plants need update of water balance as well as user water quality data.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
124

� Consultant working with plant personnel is critical to project success.
� Plant is implementing design/construction of the recommended facilities.
� The recommended reduced reliance on PRASA water by over 80% met sustainability
goal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WEFTEC®.06
The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Sudhi Mukherjee of the World Bank International
Finance Corporation in Washington, D.C. and Brown and Caldwell, Inc. The author and Dr.
Mukherjee completed this project in 2004 when both were working for Brown and Caldwell, Inc.
Copyright ©
2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved
125