Oil & Gas
Building & Facility Management
Manufacturing
How a Saskatchewan School Cut Boiler Treatment Chemicals by 56%— Without New Equipment
At a glance
A low-pressure heating boiler at a Saskatchewan high school was losing most condensate to drain, driving high makeup water, energy use, and treatment costs. Guardian worked with facility staff to prioritize condensate reuse and limit soft-water makeup. Return stabilized at 90% and boiler treatment chemical demand fell 56%.
Key metrics
CHEMICAL DEMAND REDUCED BY 56%
90% CONDENSATE RECOVERY
OPTIMIZED TO THE LOWEST OPERATING COST
Why condensate return drives boiler operating cost
In a steam heating system, condensate is hot, already-treated water. When it returns to the boiler, it cuts the amount of fresh makeup water, the energy needed to heat it, and the chemical needed to treat it. When condensate goes to drain, the boiler has to replace all of it with cold, softened makeup water.
This Saskatchewan high school’s low-pressure boiler was returning less than 30% of its available condensate. The rest went to drain. That meant more makeup water, more energy, more sewer discharge, and a higher treatment chemical demand than the system needed.
The fix did not require new equipment. It required a change in how condensate was handled day to day.
Challenges
A school’s low-pressure steam boiler, was returning less than 30% of available condensate. Significant volumes of condensate were routinely sent to drain, while softened water was added as makeup, leading to higher operating costs.
More cold makeup water meant higher energy input, higher sewer discharge, and increased boiler treatment demand.
Solutions
Guardian reviewed condensate handling practices with the facility team and recommended a straightforward operational change: use available condensate as the primary boiler feedwater source and add softened makeup water only when condensate volume was insufficient. Guardian supported the change, verified stable operation, and tracked treatment usage as the system normalized.
Results
Condensate return restored to 90%: Condensate recovery increased by eliminating routine condensate dumping.
Boiler treatment chemical demand reduced 56%: Annual treatment chemical use dropped from 18 pails to 8 pails as makeup water volume declined.
Lower water and energy demand: Hot condensate reuse reduced fresh water intake, sewer discharge, and the need to reheat cold makeup water.
More stable operation: More consistent feedwater conditions reduced manual adjustments and day-to-day oversight.
Data
Operational improvements that lower operating costs and reduce day-to-day boiler attention.
Frequently asked questions
How much condensate was the school returning before the change?
Less than 30% of the available condensate. After the change, return stabilized at 90%.
How much did boiler treatment chemical use drop?
By 56%. Annual use went from 18 pails to 8 pails as makeup water volume came down.
Did the school need new equipment?
No. The change was operational. Available condensate became the primary feedwater source, and softened makeup water was added only when condensate volume was not enough.
What else improved besides chemical use?
Fresh water intake, sewer discharge and the energy needed to reheat cold makeup water all went down. More consistent feedwater also meant fewer manual adjustments.