Evaluation of Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System For Taste and Odor Removal at City of Camden WTP. Jane Gan

Similar documents
Columbus Taste and Odor Event

Submerged Membranes to Replace Media Filters to Increase Capacity 4X for a Small Community. Richard Stratton, PE HDR Engineering, Inc.

UCMR4 Cyanotoxins. What Will You Do If You Find Them? Keith W. Cartnick AWWA PA Annual Conference 2019

Seasonal Source Water Quality and Treatment Challenges Town of Newburgh s Chadwick Lake Filtration Plant

DW Module 23: Organic Removal Answer Key

Ozone for the Removal of Harmful Algal Bloom Toxins and Geosmin & MIB

Removing Algal Toxins from the Toledo Tap

Taste and Odor Mitigation Strategies Laboratory-Based Analysis

biologically active filtration

Does ultrasound work for bluegreen algae control at lower cell counts (1000 cells/ml)? This would be for MIB/G control.

Trials and Tribulations of Building a Pilot Plant:

Side by Side Piloting of Process Alternatives Yields Direct Performance Comparison

Innovative Improvements to a 53-Year Old Water Plant for HABs, Crypto, and Whatever Else the Maumee River Brings

SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS OPTIMIZATION

A Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) Approach to Addressing HABs

Comparing the Leopold Clari-DAF System to Upflow Contact Clarification

Ohio EPA HAB Update. OTCO Workshop March 7, Heather Raymond Ohio EPA HAB Coordinator

Avon Lake Corrosion Control Study and Orthophosphate Implementation. Andrew Skeriotis, Stantec Greg Yuronich, Avon Lake Regional Water

Tiffin Water Treatment Plant. Comprehensive Facility Plan (Audit)

THE USE OF UV/PEROXIDE FOR TREATING ALGAL DERIVED CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER. Terry Keep AWWA NYS Tifft Water Supply Symposium September 21, 2017

Hypolimnetic Aeration System is Breathing New Life Into Aurora Reservoir

Loveland Water and Power: Algal Mitigation Assessment

Cyanobacteria & Cyanotoxins Utility Case Studies and Management Strategies for this Emerging Concern

WEFTEC.06. Lake Okeechobee, Actiflo, peroxone, surface water, Cyanobacteria

DBP Reduction and SCADA Improvements at the SGWASA Water Treatment Plant

Cyanotoxin Evaluation and Treatment in the New York State Finger Lakes Region Pennsylvania AWWA Annual Conference

Optimisation of granular media filtration: impact of chemical conditioning Con Pelekani & Loreline Kerlidou SA Water & Allwater

Integrating Ozone and Ion Exchange into a 40 Year Old Lime Softening Plant

Ferric Sulfate Success Story - OWASA s Switch to Ferric Sulfate Leads to a Reduction in Disinfection Byproducts

Expanding Capacity and Treatment. Treatment Plant

FROM RAW WATER INTAKE TO DISTRIBUTION NETWORK: THE JOURNEY OF DBP CONTROL

Comparing Carbons for Disinfection Byproduct Control. Maggie H. Pierce, EI Sara N. Gibson, PE Mark M. Bishop, PE David S.

Long Point Water Treatment Plant Process Evaluation and Design Upgrades for Performance Enhancement; Dover, DE

Disinfection By-Products Reduction and SCADA Evaluation and WTP Sludge Removal System and Dewatering Facility

Utility Partner Data Report

Best Practice in Sewage and Effluent Treatment Technologies

NEWSLETTER DATE: & A

Village of Skaneateles Cyanotoxin Treatment Evaluation. Edwin C. Tifft Jr. Water Supply Symposium Erica Goldin September 20, 2018

Cary/Apex Water Treatment Facility- Ozone Biofiltration Pilot Study

Ohio Section AWWA NW District Fall Meeting April 20, City of Delaware Water Plant Improvements

CHLORAMINE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts (DBP)

Amherst, MA, Drinking Water System

Page 1 of 1. Spring Valley Lake Association Operations Report August 31, 2017

GLOBAL TASTE AND ODOR SURVEY OF WATER UTILITIES FINAL REPORT. The American Water Works Association Taste and Odor Committee

SURFACE WATER TREATMENT OF POLY- AND PERFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES

Ready, Set, and Go: Deer Valley WTP East Basins Performance Testing, Start-Up, and Commissioning Toby Teegerstrom Brian Watson

Optimizing Conventional Treatment for the Removal of Cyanobacteria and Toxins [Project #4315]

Process Treatment Selection and. Jeff Macomber, P.E. One Water Conference August 28, 2014

Measure against Algae Bloom in Bangkhen WTP - Optimum chemical dosing rate for Aulacoseira spp. removal -

OKLAHOMA CLEAN LAKES AND WATERSHEDS 23rd ANNUAL CONFERENCE AGENDA. SUCCESS STORY: 20 YEARS of HYPOLIMNETIC OXYGENATION of a RESERVOIR

Meeting Manganese Removal Goals: A Pilot Study

MAKING THE SWITCH FROM LIME TO MEMBRANE SOFTENING: WHEN IS IT THE RIGHT TIME? Introduction

SECTION 6.0 DESIGN CRITERIA, LAYOUTS, & HYDRAULICS

The City of Columbus. Water Quality Monitoring in Central Ohio

EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBONS (PAC) FOR TASTE AND ODOUR REDUCTION. Peta Thiel

Water Treatment Overview. Gabe Sasser December 2016

Lake County WTP Improvements and Capacity Increase. OTCO 9 th Annual Water and Wastewater Workshop. Nick Pizzi Aqua Serv

Rectangular Basin = Volume, gal (Length, ft) x (Width, ft) x (Height, ft) x7.48 gal/cu.ft.

DW Module 21: Chemical Addition Answer Key- Revised Oct 2015

CITY OF SUMNER: CENTRAL WELL DEVELOPMENT

The Impact of Harmful Algal Blooms on Public Drinking Water Systems

Dipti Shah, Town of Gilbert Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Hannibal Chloramine Replacement Evaluation

Summary of Flint s Implementation of Veolia s Recommendations

Online Organics Monitoring for Rapid Process Control of Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Operations

Drinking Water Supply and

Disinfection By-Products Reduction and SCADA Evaluation and WTP Sludge Removal System and Dewatering Facility

In-Lake Water Quality Management for Lake Eureka: Highlights of Third Year (1983) Operation

Improved Membrane Design Addresses Integrity Issues for the City of Yuba City Water Treatment Plant

Matt Leach, P.E. CH2M. Mark Eppich, P.E. City of Columbus Division of Water. S. Dean Ramsey, P.E. CH2M

THE BOSSIER CITY WATER TREATMENT PLANT (Background and Current Process Layout )

REPLACEMENT OF POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON WITH OZONE AND BIOLOGICAL FILTRATION FOR TASTE, ODOUR AND CYANOTOXIN REMOVAL. Dr Craig Jakubowski

Advancing the Design of a New 60 MGD Water Treatment Plant

techcommentary Issues for Ozone for Drinking Water Treatment Introduction Ozone in Drinking Water Treatment

Monitoring, Predicting, Preventing and Controlling of (toxic) Cyanobacteria Blooms

Membrane Technology: From Manufacture to. May Production

Overview Increased Increased federal emphasis emphasis on on filter filter performance Virginia s emphasis emphasis on

Blue-Green Algae Information for drinking water system owners and operators

DBP Treatment Strategies. Learning Objectives. DBP Control Options Optimize existing facilities

Water Treatment Plant Phase 1 Upgrades CMAR Selection Pre-Submittal Meeting

TTHM Reduction Corrective Action Update 1 st Progress Meeting October 18, Robert Horvat, P.E x1501

Optimization of High Rate DAF Process for Removal of Algae in Water Treatment Plant

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LECTURE 3: WATER TREATMENT MISS NOR AIDA YUSOFF

Treatment Processes for Potable Water

DRINKING WATER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATON

Benchmarking Case Studies for Water and Wastewater Facilities

REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS OF USING DYNAMIC SIMULATION SOFTWARE TO OPTIMIZE WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS OPERATIONS

Isabelle Papineau, Ph.D., École Polytechnique de Montréal Yves Dionne (V de G) and Benoit Barbeau (EPM)

OPTIMISATION OF IMAGE FLAT WATER TREATMENT PLANT. Tony Humphries. Tony Humphries, Operator, SEQ Water

Balancing Microbial Control and Stage 2 DBP Rule Compliance (at Ocean City, Maryland)

Government Center Water Treatment Plant Kamphaeng Phet Province, Thailand

Benchmarking, Metrics Assessments, and Gap Analyses for Water and Wastewater

SIMPLE SOLUTIONS TO MANGANESE PROBLEMS. Jeff Roscoe. North East Region Water Authority

VILLAGE OF NORTH BALTIMORE WTP CLEARWELL THM REMOVAL SYSTEM

WRF Webcast Biofilter Conversion Guidance Manual

WATER TECH 2009 BANFF, ALBERTA, CANADA

Lecture 1: Introduction

Utility Partner Data Report

Investigations of Water Treatment Processes for the Removal of Organic Matter from Sparrowfoot Quarry Water, Clinton, Missouri

Transcription:

Evaluation of Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System For Taste and Odor Removal at City of Camden WTP Jane Gan

Outline of the Presentation 2 An Overview of Algae Related T&O Factors affecting algae growth and proliferation Taste & odor control goal setting Algae Source Management Techniques Treatment technologies for algae related T&O control Performance data Case Studies

Overview of Algae Related Taste & Odor 3 Taste & odor can be caused by a wide variety of types and species of algae: Chlorophyta (Green algae), e.g. Pandorina, Volvox Cyanophyta (Blue-Green Algae), e.g. Microcystis, Anabaena Chrysophyta (Yellow-Green Algae), e.g. Dinobryon, Synura Pyrrhophyta (Dinoflagellates), e.g. Ceratium, Peridinium Cryptophyta (Cryptomonads), e.g. Cryptomonas Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) are by far the most well known T&O causing algae metabolites, but by no means the only ones

The proliferation of algae in Ontario's Lakes Blue-green algae Green algae Data from Winter, J. (Ontario MOE)

Gaffney BPW Spartanburg Water Anderson Regional JWS Clinton WTP Camden WTP Lugoff Elgin WA Greenwood CPW Newberry WTP North Augusta WTP Charleston Water System Occurrence of T & O in SC Beaufort Jasper WSA

How do we measure Taste & Odor? 6 Humans have varying sensitivity to tastes and odors in drinking water With so many causes of T&O, a one size fits all approach to measurement is not possible Three main methods are used: 1. Measurement of specific compounds, e.g. MIB or geosmin 2. Threshold Odor Number (TON - Standard Methods) A fixed panel measures the intensity of odor (regardless of type) 3. Flavour Profile Analysis (FPA) A fixed panel measures both type and intensity of flavour

Water Source Ammonia 0.226 mg-n/l Total Phosphorus 0.05 mg-p/l Camden WTP Intake Wateree Dam & Hydro Station Page 7

Concentrations of T&O compounds at Camden Intake 19.3 MIB Geosmin 44.3 2.9 4.9 4.4 6.8 1 1 1 1 1 2.3 4.8 4.8 1 1 3 6.2 5.9 1 2.5 4.4 5.2 4.1 4.9 12.3 1 1 4 1 3.9 8.7 1 3.9 5.5 1 3.3 2.9 6.1 3.5 4.2 3.5 4.6 4.1 3.2 20.5 3.4 3.6

So how do we deal with algae related T&O? 9 Management of Algae Growth at the Source Stop or suppress algae growing in the first place Kill algae at the source Management of Algae T&O at the Water Treatment Plant Remove live algae cells through treatment Kill live algae cells through treatment Directly treat T&O causing compounds after release

Management of Algae Growth at the Source 10 Several techniques have been considered: Select an alternative intake location Reduce nutrient input from point and non-point sources Precipitate nutrients in-lake using alum or lime Dredge sediment De-stratify water with artificial circulation Aerate the Hypolimnion Use algaecides (e.g. copper sulphate) as a growth inhibitor Bio-manipulate at the source Care is needed, as unintended results can occur, e.g.: Other environmental impacts (e.g. toxicity due to algaecide use) Proliferation of other species Enhanced release of intracellular compounds

Water Quality Sampling Plan with Duke Energy Sampling locations Wateree full pond Camden intake Lugoff intake Taste and Odor Occurrence at Camden WTP Page 11 Sampling schedule Low-level (baseline) High-level MIB/geosmin Sampling parameters In-situ Temperature Dissolved oxygen ph Conductivity Chlorophyll a fluorescence Blue-green fluorescence Turbidity Nutrient Total/Ortho phosphate Ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen Additional Analyses Algae Count MIB/Geosmin

226 224 222 220 218 216 214 212 210 11 mi above Camden Intake 4.3 mi above Camden Intake Camden Intake LEWA Intake LEWA & Camden Upper Intake (210.5-213 ft) May 28, 2013 Elevation, ft 208 206 204 202 200 198 196 194 192 Camden Lower Intake (191-195 ft) 190 188 10 15 20 25 30 35 Water Temperature, C

226 224 222 220 218 216 214 212 210 11 mi above Camden Intake 4.3 mi above Camden Intake Camden Intake LEWA Intake LEWA & Camden Upper Intake (210.5-213 ft) September 10, 2015 Elevation, ft 208 206 204 202 200 198 196 194 192 Camden Lower Intake (191-195 ft) 190 188 10 15 20 25 30 35 Water Temperature, C

226 224 222 220 218 216 214 212 210 11 mi above Camden Intake 4.3 mi above Camden Intake Camden Intake LEWA Intake LEWA & Camden Upper Intake (210.5-213 ft) May 28, 2013 Elevation, ft 208 206 204 202 200 198 196 194 192 Camden Lower Intake (191-195 ft) 190 188 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l

226 224 222 220 218 216 214 212 210 September 10, 2015 11 mi above Camden Intake 4.3 mi above Camden Intake Camden Intake LEWA Intake LEWA & Camden Upper Intake (210.5-213 ft) Elevation, ft 208 206 204 202 200 198 196 194 192 Camden Lower Intake (191-195 ft) 190 188 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l

226 224 May 28, 2013 Elevation, ft 222 220 218 216 214 212 210 208 206 204 202 200 198 196 194 192 190 188 LEWA & Camden Upper Intake (210.5-213 ft) 11 mi above Camden Intake 4.3 mi above Camden Intake Camden Intake LEWA Intake Camden Lower Intake (191-195 ft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Fluorometry-estimated Chlorophyll a, µg/l

226 224 September 10, 2015 Elevation, ft 222 220 218 216 214 212 210 208 206 204 202 200 198 196 194 192 190 188 LEWA & Camden Upper Intake (210.5-213 ft) 11 mi above Camden Intake 4.3 mi above Camden Intake Camden Intake LEWA Intake Camden Lower Intake (191-195 ft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Fluorometry-estimated Chlorophyll a, µg/l

Wateree locations 5000 Green Algae Diatoms Blue-green algae Others 4500 4000 3500 Density (units/ml) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 CAMDEN LEWA 115.0 130.0 Location Total Algal Density (units / ml) Sample Date: September 10, 2015

Treatment Techniques 19 Removal of Live Algae Removal or Destruction of Extracellular T&O Compounds Pre-Treatment Techniques Oxidative Techniques Coag./Flocculation/Sedimentation Chlorine Coag./Flocculation/Ballasted Flocculation Potassium Permanganate Coag./Flocculation/DAF Advanced Oxidation Ozonation Filtration Processes Sorptive Techniques Granular Media Filtration Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Low Pressure Membrane Filtration Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Cartridge and Bag Filters Biologically Active Filtration Strainers Reverse Osmosis or Nanofiltration

Treatment Process & Challenge KMnO 4 & PAC Alum, Lime, Polymer Cl 2 Cl 2 NH 3, PO 4, F -, Lime Source Water Pump Station Coag/Floc Sedimentation Filtration Cl 2 Contactor Clearwell Distribution Challenge - Seasonal spikes of Mn in source water - Prolonged periods of taste and odor problem in 2012 Treatment process - Pre oxidation with potassium permanganate - Chlorine on top of the filters - Powder activated carbon at the raw water pump station Page 20

Treatment Process & Challenge KMNO 4 & PAC Alum, Lime, Polymer Cl 2 Cl 2 NH 3, PO 4, F -, Lime Source Water Pump Station Coag/Floc Sedimentation Filtration Cl 2 Contactor Clearwell Distribution Process - KMnO4 and PAC have a neutralizing impact on each other Operation - Batch slurry system for potassium permanganate as well as carbon Page 21

Treatment Process & Challenge KMNO 4 & PAC Alum, Lime, Polymer Cl 2 Cl 2 NH 3, PO 4, F -, Lime Source Water Pump Station Coag/Floc Sedimentation Filtration Cl 2 Contactor Clearwell Distribution Optimization of T&O removal MIB and geosmin occurrence PAC type PAC dose Contact time prior to coagulation Actions Source water monitoring PAC process evaluation Alternative equipment selection Site layout Performance Most effective without interference from oxidant Alternative PAC feed system Capacity PAC feed system Page 22

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation 3-Step Jar Test Select carbon type Generate dose removal curve Pre coagulation contact time Page 23

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation 3-Step Jar Test Select carbon type Generate dose removal curve Pre coagulation contact time Water Characteristics Date 3/24/2015 Raw water ph 7.04 Raw water temperature 15.2 C Raw water TOC 4.54 mg/l Turbidity 10.2 NTU Alkalinity 30 mg/l % Removal 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Set #1 Carbon Type : Best Performance Aqua Nuchar 68% 62% 60% 54% 44% 40% 48% 47% 38% 27% Jar Test Conditions Results Alum dose 49 mg/l (wet dose) Rapid Mix 250 rpm 76 sec Flocculation #1 29 rpm 13 min Flocculation #2 15 rpm 13 min Flocculation #3 12 rpm 17 min Setting 0 rpm 9 min 25 mg/l of Blank (regular coagulation) Price MIB Geosmin TOC $/lb ng/l ng/l mg/l 61.1 68.4 2.58 HydroDarco Ex NA 34.1 26.2 2.38 20 BF NA 36.5 31.8 2.44 0% HydroDarco Ex 20 BF Aqua Nuchar Water Carb Water Carb 800 Aqua Nuchar 1.05 31.9 21.7 2.2 Water Carb 0.76 44.7 42.3 2.69 MIB Removal Geosmin Removal Water Carb 800 0.92 32.4 27.3 2.5 Page 24

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation 3-Step Jar Test Select carbon type Generate dose removal curve Pre coagulation contact time Set #2 MIB & Geosmin Dose Removal Curve by Aqua Nuchar % Removal 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Initial MIB 62 ng/l, Geosmin 69 ng/l. regular coagulation Geosmin Removal MIB Removal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Aqua Nuchar Dose (mg/l) Page 25 What does it mean?? MIB is more difficult to remove. MIB & Geosmin removal is not affected by their initial concentration. Initial MIB in Source Water (ng/l) Target MIB in Finished Water (ng/l) Target % MIB Removal Scenario 1 Required PAC dose without contact time (mg/l) 10 10 0% 4 15 10 33% 14 20 10 50% 27 25 10 60% 40 30 10 67% 53

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation 3-Step Jar Test Select carbon type Generate dose removal curve Pre coagulation contact time Pre Coagulation Contact Time (minute) Flow Rate (MGD) 24 inch pipe (ft) 6 4 2 Pump station to rapid mix 5500 31.0 46.5 93.1 Property Page line 26 to rapid mix 1200 6.8 10.2 20.3

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation 3-Step Jar Test Select carbon type Generate dose removal curve Pre coagulation contact time 30 Set #3 Pre Coagulation Contact Time Initial MIB 46 ng/l 14 Set #3 Pre Coagulation Contact Time Initial Geosmin: 35 ng/l 25 25 ppm 35 ppm 12 25 ppm 35 ppm MIB Concentration (ng/l) 20 15 10 Geosmin Concentration (ng/l) 10 8 6 4 5 2 0 0 6 15 30 0 0 6 15 30 Pre Coagulation Contact Time (Minutes) Pre Coagulation Contact Time (Minutes) Page 27

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation 3-Step Jar Test Select carbon type Generate dose removal curve Pre coagulation contact time 30 Set #3 Pre Coagulation Contact Time Initial MIB 46 ng/l 14 Set #3 Pre Coagulation Contact Time Initial Geosmin: 35 ng/l 25 25 ppm 35 ppm 12 25 ppm 35 ppm MIB Concentration (ng/l) 20 15 10 Geosmin Concentration (ng/l) 10 8 6 4 5 2 0 0 6 15 30 0 0 6 15 30 Pre Coagulation Contact Time (Minutes) Pre Coagulation Contact Time (Minutes) Page 28

Powdered Activated Carbon Process Evaluation 3-Step Jar Test Select carbon type Generate dose removal curve Pre coagulation contact time Selected Powdered Activated Carbon: AquaNuchar Initial MIB in Source Water (ng/l) Target MIB in Finished Water (ng/l) Target % MIB Removal Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Required PAC dose without contact time (mg/l) Required PAC dose with ~30 min contact time (mg/l) 10 10 0% 4 2 15 10 33% 14 9 20 10 50% 27 18 25 10 60% 40 27 30 10 67% 53 35 35 10 71% 64 43 40 10 75% 74 49 45 10 78% 83 55 50 10 80% 90 60 Page 29

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed Equipment Selection Batch Slurry System SuperSack Silo Concrete Slurry Tank Delivery 50-lb bag 500 to 900-lb sack Tanker truck (40,000 lb) Unit Price (AquaNuchar) Examples in SC Tank truck (40,000 lb) dry or slurry $ 1.05/lb $ 1.05/lb $ 1.00/lb $ 1.20/lb Camden WTP Spartanburg R.B. Simms WTP Greenwood W.R. Wise WTP Rock Hill WTP Columbia Canal WTP Page 30

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout Raw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant Site Pump House Control Building PAC, KMnO 4 Page 31

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout Raw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant Site Page 32

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout Raw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant Site Contact chamber Vs. No contact chamber Selected Powdered Activated Carbon: AquaNuchar Initial MIB in Source Water (ng/l) Target MIB in Finished Water (ng/l) Target % MIB Removal Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Required PAC dose without contact time (mg/l) Required PAC dose with ~30 min contact time (mg/l) 10 10 0% 4 2 15 10 33% 14 9 20 10 50% 27 18 25 10 60% 40 27 30 10 67% 53 35 35 10 71% 64 43 40 10 75% 74 49 45 10 78% 83 55 50 10 80% 90 60 Page 33

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout Page 34 (AWWA WR Report: Optimization of Powdered Activated Carbon Application for Geosmin and MIB Removal

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout Design Criteria for Evaluation: 15 occurrences per year Page 35 (AWWA WR Report: Optimization of Powdered Activated Carbon Application for Geosmin and MIB Removal

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout Raw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant Site Contact chamber Vs. No contact chamber Assumptions Duration of T&O Spikes: 15 days per year Plant flow rate during T&O spikes: 2.5 MGD Unit carbon cost if plant uses super sack system: $1.05/lb Initial MIB in Source Water (ng/l) Target MIB in Finished Water (ng/l) Annual Carbon Cost to Treat T&O Spikes Target % MIB Removal Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Saving in PAC Required PAC Required PAC Cost by Annual PAC Annual PAC dose without dose with ~30 building a ~ 30 Cost for T&O Cost for T&O contact time min contact min contact Spikes Spikes (mg/l) time (mg/l) chamber 20 10 50% 27 $ 8,866 18 $ 5,911 $ 2,955 25 10 60% 40 $ 13,136 27 $ 8,866 $ 4,269 30 10 67% 53 $ 17,405 35 $ 11,494 $ 5,911 35 10 71% 64 $ 21,017 43 $ 14,121 $ 6,896 40 10 75% 74 $ 24,301 49 $ 16,091 $ 8,210 45 10 78% 83 $ 27,256 55 $ 18,061 $ 9,195 50 10 80% 90 $ 29,555 60 $ 19,703 $ 9,852 Page 36

Powdered Activated Carbon Feed System Layout Raw Water Pump Station Vs. Treatment Plant Site Contact chamber Vs. No contact chamber Contact Chamber Dimensions (Size similar to third stage flocculation basins at Camden WTP) Initial MIB in Source Water (ng/l) Saving in PAC Cost by building a ~ 30 min contact chamber 20 $ 2,955 25 $ 4,269 30 $ 5,911 35 $ 6,896 40 $ 8,210 45 $ 9,195 50 $ 9,852 Page 37 Stage Length Width Depth Volume G (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft 3 ) (s -1 ) 1 17 17 12.75 3685 27 2 17 17 12.75 3685 27 Contact Time Length of 24 inch pipe (ft) Pre Coagulation Contact Time (minute) Flow Rate (MGD) 6 4 2 Pump station to rapid mix 5500 31 46.5 93.1 Property line to rapid mix 1200 7 10 20 Contact Chamber 13 20 40 Total Contact Time in WTP 20 30 60 Contact Chamber Cost EQUIPMENT DESIGN NOTES QTY Units Mixer Mixer Concrete Vertical Turbine Flocculators VFD and Control Panel Concrete Base (On Grade) EQUIPMENT PRICE (UNIT) EQUIPMENT PRICE (TOTAL) CONST. PRICE (EQ *.50) PRICE 2 EA $ 21,000 $ 42,000 $ 21,000 $ 63,000 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 30,000 10.70 CY $ 350 $ 3,746 $ 1,873 $ 5,619 Concrete Concrete (Walls) 70.5 CY $ 500 $ 35,259 $ 17,630 $ 52,889 Total: 151,500

Powdered Activated Carbon System Design Parameters Carbon type: AquaNuchar Alternative feed system: Supersack system with 900-lb sack Alternative feed system capacity Place alternative PAC system at WTP Extend PAC injection point to the property line Keep KMnO 4 raw water pump station Plant Raw Water Flow (MGD) Powdered Activated Carbon Dry Feed Rate - Pounds per Hour Powdered Activated Carbon, mg/l 2.5 5.0 10.0 25.0 35.0 50.0 70.0 90.0 1.35 1 2 5 12 16 23 33 42 1.75 2 3 6 15 21 30 43 55 2.15 2 4 7 19 26 37 52 67 2.50 2 4 9 22 30 43 61 78 3.00 3 5 10 26 36 52 73 94 3.50 3 6 12 30 43 61 85 109 4.00 3 7 14 35 49 70 97 125 4.50 4 8 16 39 55 78 109 141 5.00 4 9 17 43 61 87 122 156 5.50 5 10 19 48 67 96 134 172 6.00 5 10 21 52 73 104 146 188 Page 38

Estimated Construction Costs for Recommended System $416,000 Item Unit Cost Site Work $25,000 Shed $35,000 Equipment $120,000 Piping/Valves $10,000 Electrical $30,000 SCADA $10,000 Installation $90,000 Contingency (30%) $96,000 Total $416,000

Thank you. We re listening. Page 40