Water supply & consumptive use
How much water the project consumes, against the receiving water's own cited low flows.
- a disclosed cooling method and a metered or contracted water quantity; neither is on the record here.
A real impact study states how much water Project Klondike consumes at buildout. It sets that figure against the the receiving water's own cited design low flows, which are the drought floors a permit writer screens every discharge against. This chapter reports as much of that comparison as the record supports. It names what it cannot compute.
Cooling methodnot disclosed [open] a facility is on the record here; no record says how it rejects heat
Claim vs record · the cooling-cycling reconciliation
Project Klondike claims closed-loop dry / air-cooled (“closed loop”) [reference] Reservation conflict pin kept: undisclosed cooling method
Reserved 2 MGD makeup contradicts the closed_loop_dry claim's ~0 MGD prediction — but a reservation is a ceiling, not a discharge/withdrawal instrument, so keep the archetype pin (no [verified] re-archetype) and sharpen the water lead (→ C2 records request #1688). Back-solved CoC 2 (1.7-2.3) off the reservation ceilings ([inference], not metered use). The reserved figure is an upper-bound ceiling, NOT a headline consumptive. Neither corroborator is on record for Project Klondike (air permit + Tier II) — both are C2 records-request items, not read as confirming the claim.
The records that would test it [open]
- executed water & wastewater service agreement (the instrument text, not a summary)
- metered water-service use (actual makeup withdrawal vs the reserved ceiling)
- cooling-tower blowdown / low-volume-wastewater discharge record — a facility-own INDIVIDUAL NPDES permit + DMR on a direct-discharge path, or the industrial-user (IU) / pretreatment permit + sewer-use agreement on a sanitary-sewer route (OHD000001 was WITHDRAWN 2026-07-21; no general-permit coverage will ever exist)
- industrial pretreatment / indirect-discharge (IU) permit + sewer-use agreement
- facility air permit (PTI/PTIO) — cooling-tower emission-unit list + PM drift limits
- Tier II / EPCRA-312 chemical inventory — cooling-water treatment (biocide, scale / corrosion inhibitor)
Holder: City / municipal water-sewer authority serving troy-piqua; Ohio EPA (INDIVIDUAL NPDES — OHD000001 withdrawn 2026-07-21, no general permit to seek); Ohio EPA / regional air agency (DAPC); SERC / LEPC
Corroborators · secondary, never the outcome air permit · silent · Tier II chemistry · silentNeither corroborator is on record for Project Klondike (air permit + Tier II) — both are C2 records-request items, not read as confirming the claim.
[reference] the City of Piqua's public FAQ describes closed-loop cooling with only an 'initial fill-up' + occasional top-offs (domestic-only ongoing use) — the low-water CLAIM under test here. The profile itself deliberately pins cooling_model=UNKNOWN (the FAQ-vs-reservation conflict is unresolved, lead #1486); this reconciliation TESTS the FAQ's dry framing, it does not adopt it. See data/extracted/troy-piqua/data-centers.md 'Water / hydrology hook'.
- The harness recommends; it never mutates the pinned cooling model — re-archetyping is a reviewed edit with the instrument cited.
- A back-solved cycles-of-concentration is an [inference] bracket, never a headline scalar.
- A gap (no documented makeup or blowdown) is an [open] records-request lead — never read as 'confirmed dry'.
- A reservation ceiling (a will-serve / water-agreement figure) is not a discharge/withdrawal instrument — it keeps the archetype pin and is never collapsed into a headline consumptive figure.
- A reservation conflict survives a blind route: a negotiated ceiling is not something the withdrawal or discharge instruments could ever have metered, so blinding them cannot erase it — and where the operator's own figure conflicts with that reservation, the two are separated by provenance and not by size, with the conflict reported rather than resolved.
- An operator self-report lands on its own disclosed_* slot, never on documented_*, and cannot upgrade the claim's source.
- An instrument that cannot reach a facility returns an absence of jurisdiction, not a measurement — a municipally-supplied, sewer-discharging campus reads ~0 in the withdrawal registry and the discharge record by construction, and that ~0 never corroborates a claim.
- A documented withdrawal that is not the cooling account (construction-phase water) is kept on its own slot, and a prediction the harness could not derive is shown as refused, never as zero.
- Where the facility is invisible to the withdrawal registry but its municipal supplier is not, the system's reported withdrawal is the supplier's account — a total across every customer, carried as the denominator the claim has to be read against, never as the facility's own water.
- The corroborators (air-permit PM, Tier II chemistry) are secondary — recorded and reconciled against the claim, never the sole basis for a re-archetype and never changing the outcome.
data/reference/oepa/cooling-reconciliation.yaml — regenerate: watermark cooling-reconcile --write · reconciled as of 2026-07-21
No water-balance scenario exists for this site — the panels below name the records that would let this chapter compute one. The hydrology annex holds whatever partial record exists.
The record behind this chapter
What this chapter stands on: the records it reads, the inputs its modeled figures rest
on, and the reference data behind its baselines — the same pages the record screens
serve, not a second copy. A figure the record does not support stays [open] and links nothing.
- Permits3 records