Every little helps

Adjust font size:

Magazine Article, Source : The Manufacturer
Zone : Sustainable manufacturing
Published : May 2007

As environmental awareness rises up the corporate and national agenda, Debbie Giggle asks whether saving water will be just a drop in the ocean, a financial benefit or a necessity

Electricity and gas are top of the agenda when manufacturers reduce utilities costs. Water efficiency hardly gets a look-in. But why?

Dr Jerry Bryan, managing director of licensed water company Albion Water said: “Often utilities cost-savings are driven by purchasing professionals, and in the case of water supply there is limited opportunity to renegotiate a better deal. There isn’t the same cost incentive as with electricity and gas.”

Claire Holmes, water specialist with EnergyQuote agreed saying: “Deregulation in December 2005 made it possible for large water users, those consuming in excess of 50,000 cubic metres a year, to switch supplier. But customers have stayed put.”

There are other factors at work. In the rain-lashed UK we have always viewed water differently. Domestic users resisted the introduction of water meters but are quite happy to have their energy usage measured. And many manufacturing businesses are happy to let water gurgle down the drain without paying attention to the cost.

“Perhaps it’s the range and complexity of water treatment solutions that deters companies,” continued Bryan. “Many believe that sophisticated equipment is necessary to reduce water costs, but in fact significant benefits can be had by improving practices. Most, if not all, manufacturing businesses who haven’t already addressed this issue, could make savings of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent per year in water and effluent costs without any capital investment.”

Lack of attention to water consumption in itself carries the greatest risk.

“Companies in the food, drink and pharmaceutical sectors, and those with particular emphasis on environmental performance, have a good track record of tackling their water usage,” said Holmes. “But most companies lag way behind and have no sub-metering or data-logging. All they monitor is input and output.

“Without an understanding of how water is being used in your process you can’t easily identify leakage or tackle waste. You might overlook billing mistakes resulting in over-payment. You may have the wrong size meter installed, which has cost implications. And some of today’s energy efficient equipment uses less electricity or gas, but actually consumes more water. A manufacturer needs to be on top of these issues.”

Leakage can indeed be costly and, beyond the incoming water meter, the responsibility lies with the customer not the supplier. A leaky tap will typically waste around 60 litres an hour, between about £5 and £9 of water a week at current standard metered tariffs. But if you’ve got a more serious leak, for example, a fractured 2 inch underground pipe losing around 4.2 cubic metres per hour you could be paying between £372 and £626 per week for water you’re not using.

Inaccurate charging by utilities companies can also land manufacturers in hot water.

Fort Vale Engineering is a manufacturer of ball valves, gas relief safety valves, and discharge valves. As part of a recent expansion it acquired a site in the north west with the intention of demolishing the existing premises and rebuilding. But when an unexpectedly large invoice arrived from United Utilities, and threats ensued from the water supplier’s legal team, they asked EnergyQuote to investigate the disputed amount.

EnergyQuote carried out a site visit and survey. It quantified the basis for charges levied against surface water drainage for the premises and also collated data regarding an underground leak that had occurred on the dedicated fire supply pipework. All aspects of the site’s sewerage system were then investigated, both foul and surface water and an application was made to United Utilities on Fort Vale Engineering’s behalf.

The annual liability of £12,322 and all legal actions were removed through negotiations, and a claim was undertaken for the water lost as a result of the leakage.

Following the project, Fort Vale Engineering asked EnergyQuote to investigate the other sites within its portfolio to identify further opportunities to reduce water expenditure. This involved addressing the method in which charges were levied by United Utilities, rather than making any amendment to the physical supply or practices undertaken on site. EnergyQuote investigated every element of the supplies from incoming metered supply, tracing of the pipework, water quality, assessment of the facilities and mains drainage. Several areas of savings were identified based on amending incorrect charging by the supplier, and pinpointing opportunities within the supplier’s charging scheme for abatements not currently received.

Although the project for Fort Vale Engineering was not geared towards active measures to reduce consumption, this is an area where many businesses can make significant improvements.

“There has been some skepticism about water efficient technology since the miss-selling of equipment like waterless urinals some years ago,” said Holmes. “But water saving equipment has advanced significantly in recent years and deserves serious consideration, especially as it attracts Enhanced Capital Allowances. Opportunities like rainwater harvesting and evaporative condensation should be explored. And systems such as those for aerating water flow can do the same job with only a third of the volume. For equipment cooling it may be something as simple as switching flow on and off rather than having water running all the time. For example an infrared beam broken by the movement of a part of the machine can trigger the flow as it is needed. The sheer range of technology can be confusing though. Often companies seek external advice to determine what kit to use and where.”

For international paper-manufacturing company UPM, water efficiency is an integral part of its continuous improvement programme. Water is an essential resource for pulping and paper production. It is used as a diluting and transporting agent, and for cooling machinery. The water circulates in the processes several times, and only a small part ends up as effluent. All wastewater exiting the pulp and paper processes is treated in multistage effluent treatment plants before being released into water courses. The wastewaters are of course monitored regularly and their impacts are analysed.

The effluent includes organic substances which consume oxygen during biodegradation, and low oxygen content in fresh and sea water can have an adverse effect on plant and animal life. So COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) is a measurement used by the company to analyse its performance in waste management. In addition it measures its water consumption per dried tonne of paper produced.

Over the past five years, the specific volume of effluent per tonne of paper has been decreased by 23 per cent and the average COD load per tonne of paper has been reduced by 24 per cent.

The company’s paper mill at Shotton has worked in close partnership with Albion Water for twelve years to drive down consumption and reduce waste. Dr Jerry Bryan of Albion Water explained: “UPM’s commitment to improving environmental performance is exceptional. The improvements at Shotton are a team effort between UPM personnel and a dedicated project manager from Albion Water. Over the twelve year period the improvements achieved have not come from the installation of new equipment. There is no magic bullet. It has been about hard graft – studying and understanding all aspects of production as they’ve progressed from woodchip based papers through to 100 per cent recycled materials – and looking at how that affects water usage and effluent. Spotting problems that might otherwise be missed. Using best practice. Making small incremental changes.”

With cost-saving not being such a significant driver, it appears to be those companies with the greatest commitment to environmental issues that are leading the way on water efficiency issues – even though this work is not necessarily recognised externally or incentivised yet. But where monopoly water companies have an opportunity to leverage revenue from waste water treatment, and where the Government has the opportunity to introduce additional ‘green’ voter-friendly legislation, there will always be a risk of escalating costs. And whilst it is a little early for overall carbon footprint of a product to be a major issue, companies such as innocent drinks are apparently already trialling a form of labelling which takes entire environmental impact into consideration. In the same way that those businesses which tackled energy efficiency before the introduction of the Climate Change Levy have been the ones laughing all the way to the ‘carbon trading bank’, perhaps the water-conscious ones may turn out to be similarly blessed in future years.

For now, there is plenty of help available to businesses that want to cut water costs, and much of it is free. The envirowise website for example offers four free downloadable tools. A monitoring tool can help you record and track where water is being used in your company and analyse your findings. A water account tool enables you to compare your water consumption with other businesses in your sector. The WaterNet tool provides you with practical advice, materials and publications to help you make changes to how your business uses water. Lastly, the Mogden Formula tool calculates the charges applied to industry for the conveyance and treatment of effluents discharged to sewer.

All a manufacturer needs to do is decide whether to act now to reduce water consumption, or to put it off for a rainy day.

www.envirowise.co.uk/water

Comments on this story

click here to add a comment

You must be registered & logged in to add comments
Please register

already have an account and just want to login?

email address
password
remember me