ATEC Systems Associates, Inc.y ,A Brief Introduction to Our Company

December 17, 2007

Bill Ketchum, Presidentbill@atecwatersystems.com

ATEC Systems Associates, Inc.1329 Broadway, Suite 204-205Longview, Washington 98632Telephone: 360-693-6202Fax: 360-397-0375

© ATEC Systems Associates, Inc. 20071 1

ATEC Systems BackgroundATEC Systems Background We have been building filters since

1982 T i l 1 500 GPM S t1982 We have produced high quality potable

water systems since 1992 ATEC Systems developed high rate

Typical 1,500 GPM System

y p giron & manganese removal system in 1992

Installed first full-scale arsenic removal system using granular ferric hydroxidesystem using granular ferric hydroxide in 2001

Arsenic removal is becoming increasingly important. We are building plants that successfully usebuilding plants that successfully use the same basic process combined with ferric coagulation to remove arsenic at a loading rate of between 5.0 and 8.5 gpm/sfgpm/sf.

2

We Build All Sizes of Treatment SystemsBrewer Creek, Whistler, BC

15 GPMBatavia, Illinois, Central Water Plant

4 500 GPM15 GPM 4,500 GPM

3

ATEC Systems Policies and Obj tiObjectives Provide cost-effective, high performance systems for g p y

the removal of manganese, iron, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic, and radium from groundwater.

We usually compete with the decision to treat not with We usually compete with the decision to treat not with other companies.

Adapt our systems to customers needs not our preferences If what we do isn’t the best solution for thepreferences. If what we do isn t the best solution for the customer, we don’t build it. Find them another option.

Pilot test every installation. Build what we sell including pressure vessels. Guarantee the performance of what we sell, without

exceptionexception

4

Our PhilosophyOur Philosophy Quality Quality Performance Simplicity Simplicity Ease of Operation Customer Service Customer Service Cost Efficiency

Remember: “You can’t build a reputation on what you’re going to do.” Henry Fordgoing to do. Henry Ford

5

Constant, Steady Quality Improvements Manufacturing Processes

Automatic Welding & Cutting Processes Underdrain design

316L SS Underdrain System

Coating Systems Fusion Epoxy Coating

Filter Media Consistency and Particle Size Distribution

Controller PLC or Mechanical PLC or Mechanical

Backwash Control Valves Anchoring Systems

6

S t P f & Effi iSystem Performance & Efficiency Pilot Testing Ensures Success Pilot Testing Ensures Success

Loading Rates Chemical Requirementsq Chemical Feed Rates Chlorine Demand Silica Adsorption Alternate Media Arrangements

7

SimplicitySimplicity Automatic unattended backwash Backwashes with well production finished water without

supplemental water supply Does not go off line to backwash Does not require filter to waste cycle Requires only one controlled valve per vessel Requires only one controlled valve per vessel

8

Customer ServiceCustomer Service We view our customers as partners, not We view our customers as partners, not

as a one-time transaction and we: Minimize our service costs by manufacturing g

well-designed, high quality products Provide the best training we can for our

customerscustomers Ship out replacement parts quickly when

needed Encourage customers to call us immediately

when a question or problem arises

9

ATEC Systems Iron, Manganese, Arsenic, and Radium Removal Plants Treatment Plants by Size Treatment Plants by:

M L l ( /L) 100 gpm or less 10% 101-299 gpm 14 300-499 gpm 12 500 749 gpm 15

Manganese Levels (µg/L) 0-49 3% 50-249 57 250-499 24 500 + 16 Highest level currently being treated at 500-749 gpm 15

750-999 gpm 20 1,001-1,500 gpm 16 1,501+ gpm 13

Highest level currently being treated at high rate is 2.3 mg/L

Iron Levels (µg/L) 0-299 52% 300-999 22 1,000-1,999 16

ATEC Systems has iron, manganese, arsenic and radium treatment systems

2,000 10 Highest level being treated at high rate

is ≈ 5.5 mg/L Arsenic Levels from 10 to ≈100 µg/L H2S Levels range from non-detect to 5

/Larsenic, and radium treatment systems in place with capacities from 15- to-4,500 gpm. Performance of all systems is consistent with pilot test results

mg/L

results.

10

ATEC Systems has an installed base f 250 T t t Pl tof over 250 Treatment Plants Our Clients Include:

C l W t We have treatment plants in:

Cal Water Washington Water Clark Public Utilities Jefferson PUD Kitsap PUD

Arizona Washington Oregon California Kitsap PUD

Lakewood Water District Lakehaven Utility District Ames Lake Water Sammamish Plateau

California Colorado Nevada Idaho

Water & Sewer Golden State Water Company East Bay MUD Colorado Springs Utilities

Sk it PUD

Illinois Texas Alberta British Columbia

Skagit PUD Klickitat PUD Battle Ground North Aurora, IL Batavia IL

Mexico Sri Lanka

Batavia, IL New Mexico Utilities

11

ATEC Systems Background—P ti l Li t f D i E iPartial List of Design Engineers CH2M Hill, Inc. Gibbs & Olson, Inc.

U b S t Ltd Brown and Caldwell URS, Inc. Montgomery Watson Harza Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

Urban Systems, Ltd. Bullock-Baur Carollo Engineers Westech Engineering

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants CHS Engineers Odell Engineering, Inc. Tenneson Engineers

g g Stettler Supply OTAK Rempe-Sharpe Engineers, Inc. Roth Hill Engineering Partners Tenneson Engineers

Gray & Osborne, Inc. Jefferson County PUD Skagit PUD

Roth-Hill Engineering Partners EarthTec, Inc. Whiteley Engineering, Inc. Parametrix, Inc.g

Southern California Water Co. Anthratech Western, Inc. Black & Veatch

EES Consulting, Inc. Cosmopolitan Engineering Klickitat PUD CPU Engineering Department

Coe & Van Loo CPU Engineering Department RBF Engineering

12

Projects in ProcessProjects in Process USAID/CH2M Hill, Pottuvil, Sri Lanka, Ulla Wellfield, 1,650 USGPM, Iron &

M R lManganese Removal

City of Live Oak, CA Well 1 1,000USGPM Manganese and Arsenic Removal Well 1, 1,000USGPM, Manganese and Arsenic Removal Well 2, 1,000 USGPM, Manganese and Arsenic Removal Well 3, 1,000 USGPM, Manganese and Arsenic Removal Well 4, 1,000 USGPM, Manganese and Arsenic Removal

City of Cottonwood, AZ Site 7, 800 USGPM, Arsenic Removal

Sit #8 & #9 1 250 USGPM A i R l Site#8 & #9, 1,250 USGPM, Arsenic Removal Site VSF, 775 USGPM, Arsenic Removal Site C-1, 310 USGPM, Arsenic Removal Wellhead Site, 1,050 USGPM, Arsenic Removal Wellhead Site, 1,050 USGPM, Arsenic Removal

13

Projects in Process (continued)Projects in Process (continued) Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District, Sammamish, WA, Well 4 and 11,

3 500 USGPM M d H S R l3,500 USGPM, Manganese and H2S Removal

Washington Water Service Co., Lacamas Farmstead, Yelm, WA, 345 USGPM, Iron and Manganese Removalg

Saratoga Beach Owners Association., Well 1, Whidbey Island, WA, 110 USGPM, Iron and Manganese Removal

Clark Public Utilities Hayes Road Well, 75 USGPM; Iron, Manganese, & Arsenic Removal Well 36, 1,200 USGPM; Iron & Manganese Removal Well 36, 1,200 USGPM; Iron & Manganese Removal Well 15.1, 1,600 USGPM, Iron and Manganese Removal

Golden State Water Company Doty Street Well, 1,650 USGPM; Iron and Manganese Removal Bissel Well Site, 2,100 USSGPM, Iron and Manganese Removal

14

Things that makes our system diff tdifferent ATEC Systems Builds its Own Equipmenty q p We use Multiple Vessels to reduce peripheral equipment We build vertical filters for one reason—they work better.

If ’t t it ill t b ild it If we can’t guarantee it, we will not build it. We are not a “fab shop” we build treatment water

systems and provide a level of customer support that exceeds customers’ expectations.

We work hard to simplify the operation of our filter systems and to make sure that they perform assystems and to make sure that they perform as advertised.

15

Comparison of Vertical & Horizontal Filters

16

Typical ATEC Systems Vertical Filter (48” Diameter Filter, 60” Sidewalls, 42”Media Bed Depth)

During the production cycle, this configuration provides

l l it d l di

During backwash, velocity and loading rate (26 gpm/sf) is equal th h t th filt hil idiequal velocity and loading

through-out the filter, 10 gpm/sf is typical.

throughout the filter while providing 50% expansion of the media bed, enough to thoroughly clean the media in a short time.

50% Backwash Expansion Area

Typical ATEC Filter42” Media Bed

42” Media Bed

Typical media bed depths—36” toTypical media bed depths 36 to 48”. Selection is dependent on water quality and treatment objectives 17

Operation of an ATEC Backwash V lValve

12In normal operation (1), the

di h i l d d th t1 diaphragm is relaxed and the poppetis positioned to allow water from thesupply line to enter the valve andpass through the filters.

To backwash, water or air is directed

Intermediate Mode

to the diaphragm by a solenoid valve,gradually closing the inlet from thesupply line (2) and opening to thebackwash port to allow water todischarge to the backwash line (3).The water to backwash is normally

3The water to backwash is normallysupplied by treated water from theseveral filters operating normallywhile a single filter is in the backwashmode.

Normal Filter Operation

Backwash Mode18

T i l I t ll ti I d & O tTypical Installations, Indoors & Out

Marysville Well 11Batavia Central WTP

Marysville Well 11

Battle Ground, Well 7 & 8Yuba City, Well 9 19

C St di f E i ti I t ll tiCase Studies of Existing Installations

20

Clark Public Utilities Well 21Clark Public Utilities Well 21

Several different treatment systems were Several different treatment systems wereevaluated using this water source

The water quality is within the normal range ofq y gproblem water

The well’s production is large enough that itp g gapplies to many systems

21

Typical Water Quality at Well 21Typical Water Quality at Well 21

Operating flow (gpm) 1,025p g (gp ) , pH 6.8 Temperature 11o C Iron (mg/l) 0.30 Manganese (mg/l) 0.215

f Hydrogen sulfide present TDS (mg/l) 76

22

Treatment Objectives at Well 21Treatment Objectives at Well 21

Operating flow (gpm) 1,025Operating flow (gpm) 1,025

Finished Water QualityFinished Water Quality Iron (mg/l) < 0.001 Manganese (mg/l) < 0 001 Manganese (mg/l) < 0.001 Hydrogen sulfide non-detect Turbidity (NTU) < 0 50 Turbidity (NTU) < 0.50 Residual free Cl2 (mg/l) 0.60

23

Removal Methods EvaluatedRemoval Methods Evaluated

Manganese greensand filtration Manganese greensand filtration Ultra-filtration (membrane) Mixed media filtration Mixed media filtration ATEC Iron & Manganese Removal System

24

Operating ParametersOperating Parameters

Greensand

Ultra- filtration

Mixed Media

ATEC Systems

Cl2 Dose 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.6

KMnO4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

Flow (gpm/ft2)

5.0 295 7.0 11.0

Head Loss 2-10 150 3-5 2-3Head Loss (psi)

2 10 150 3 5 2 3

25

Comparison of Water QualityComparison of Water Quality

Mn (mg/L)

Fe (mg/L)

H2S

Influent Water 0.25 0.3 Present

Greensand 0.005 0.01 Absent

Mixed Media AbsentMixed Media Absent

Ultrafiltration 0.005 0.01 Absent

ATEC Systems 0.0013 0.01 Absent

Note: Mn and Fe for Mixed Media not completed due to long contact time.26

Summary of Capital CostsSummary of Capital Costs

Greensand $1,160,000 Greensand $1,160,000 Ultra-filtration 1,375,000 Mixed media 1 160 000 Mixed media 1,160,000 ATEC system 355,000

27

Capital Cost ATEC SystemsCapital Cost, ATEC Systems

Filtration equipment $ 108,000q p , Pump & control installation 45,000 Chlorine generator, etc. 25,000 Site work and building 82 000 Site work and building 82,000 Design, permits & other 75,000

Total cost $ 355,000

28

Comparative O & M CostsComparative O & M Costs

Greensand filtration $ 31,000 Greensand filtration $ 31,000 Ultra-filtration 28,000 Mixed media filtration 25 000 Mixed media filtration 25,000 ATEC systems 7,400

Source: Clark Public Utilities 29

Cl k P bli Utiliti W ll 21Clark Public Utilities, Well 21

30

Reasons for Cost DifferenceReasons for Cost Difference More efficient removal of soluble metals results

in higher service flow rates Simple, uncomplicated system, small footprint Mono-media filter beds Flexible, adaptable modular design Rapid installation Less chemical feed and control equipment

ATEC S b ild i fil l d ATEC Systems builds its own filter vessels and related equipment

31

Cl k P bli Utiliti W ll 110Clark Public Utilities, Well 110 Capacity 420 gpm AS-721 06/ 1996 Raw Water

Fe = 0.7 -1.6 mg/L Mn = 0.17 mg/L

Treated Water Fe = <0.001 Mn = <0 001 Mn = <0.001

Loading Rate = 14.9 gpm/sf Backwash--infiltration Cost Cost

Equipment $30,000 Project $100,000

32

CPU Well 110 Cost DetailCPU Well 110 Cost Detail Treatment equipment $ 29,800 Chlorine generator 15,000 Installation & piping 15,000 Building electrical etc 20 000 Building, electrical, etc. 20,000 Design, permits, etc. 15,000 Sales tax 6,000

T t l $100 800 Total $100,800

33

CPU Well 110 Treatment Equipment BidsCPU Well 110 Treatment Equipment Bids

ATEC Systems Bid $ 28,000 ATEC Systems Bid $ 28,000 Bid 2 69,158 Bid 3 165 125 Bid 3 165,125 Bid 4 237,800

Note: Prices do not include freight or sales tax.

34

Well 110 Backwash FactsWell 110 Backwash Facts

B k h f t i ll t b t 16 h Backwash frequency -- typically at about 16 hoursof operation or 375,000 gallons of production(4,400 gallons per cubic foot of media or about 588( , g pbed volumes)

Backwash rate is approximately 30 gpm/ft2 for anaverage of 4 minutes per filter or 4 200 gallons peraverage of 4 minutes per filter or 4,200 gallons percycle. This is less than 0.9 % of total production

35

Backwash (Continued)Backwash (Continued) Backwash rate is the minimum required to properlyq p p y

fluidize the media bed. This is because of comparativelyhigh weight of media which is, for example, similar togarnetgarnet

Our system uses frequent backwash to reduce the totaleffluent volume handled at any one time and, thereby,reduce costs for related items

36

Clark Public Utilities, Well 110 Backwash Cycle June 1996Backwash Cycle, June 1996

37

California Water Service Co.B k fi ld St ti 107 1Bakersfield Station 107-1 Production 575 gpm * AS-721 04/2002 Raw Water

Fe = 0.6 mg/L Mn = 0.31 mg/L

Treated Water Fe = <0.01 Mn = <0 005 Mn = <0.005

Loading Rate = 7.3 gpm/sf Backwash--infiltration Cost Cost

Equipment $75,000 Project $212,000

* Plant capacity is 800 gpm.

38

Bakersfield Station 107-01Schematic Site Plan

39

B k r fi ld St ti 107 01Bakersfield Station 107-01

40

California Water Service CompanyM ill W ll 11 01Marysville Well 11-01 Capacity 1,100 gpm

I t ll d S i 2003 Installed Spring 2003 Raw Water

pH 7.5 Fe 0.025mg/L Mn 0 45 mg/L Mn 0.45 mg/L H2S ND-0.2 mg/L

Finished Water Fe ND Mn <0 01 mg/L Mn <0.01 mg/L

Loading Rate 11 gpm/sf Disposal to Sanitary Sewer Cost

Equipment $115 000 Equipment $115,000 Project $635,000

41

Yuba City Well 9Yuba City Well 9

42

Yuba City Well 9, Pre-Existing 600 gpm Layout

43

Yuba City Well 9N 1 200 T t t Pl tNew 1,200 gpm Treatment Plant

44

Y b Cit W ll 9 C t SYuba City Well 9 Cost SummaryDesign/Build GMP Water QualityDesign/Build GMP

Engineering $ 73,000 Electrical 20,000 Installation Yard Piping

Water Quality Design Flow

GPM 1,200 GPM/SF 7.95

Installation, Yard Piping& Mechanical 67,000

Building & Chlorine 20,000 Filters 180,000

Raw Water Quality (mg/L) Iron 0.150 Manganese 0.277

Sales Tax 26,500 Bonding, OH, Profit

& Contingency 70,000 Total $ 456 500

g Arsenic 0.020 Ferric Chloride Dose 3.000

Treated Water Objective (mg/L) Iron ≤0.003

Total $ 456,500 Manganese ≤0.001 Arsenic ≤0.004

45

City of Lacey WA Well 7City of Lacey, WA Well 7 City’s first and only y y

treatment facility Treats Iron, Manganese

d H Sand H2S City initially required

dechlorinationdechlorination Design/Build Project Project Completed in

Summer of 2001

46

City of Lacey, Well 7Water Quality ParametersWater Quality Parameters Operating flow (gpm) 1,700p g (gp ) , pH 7.8 Temperature 11o C Iron (mg/l) 0.450/<0.001 Manganese (mg/l) 0.445/<0.001

d lf d / Hydrogen sulfide present/<0.001

47

Lacey Well 7, Iron & Manganese WTP Site Schematic

48

Lacey Well 7, Iron & Manganese WTP Supply and Backwash Drain DetailSupply and Backwash Drain Detail

49

Lacey Well 7Lacey Well 7

50

City of LaceyW ll 7 P j t B d tWell 7 Project Budget Engineering/Design $ 85,000 SCADA Design/Fabricate 30,000 Filters & Media 240,000 Chlorine Generation System 61 000 Chlorine Generation System 61,000 Construction 173,000 Sales Tax 40,000

S b t t l $ 629 000 Sub-total $ 629,000 Building (2,400 sf) $ 225,000 City Administration $ 120,000 TOTAL $ 974,000

51

Sample Bid ResultsT t t E i t BidTreatment Equipment Bids King County WD 111 Bayview Beach WD

09/30/2004Iron & Manganese Treatment equipment for four

wells for delivery between 1/15/2005 to8/15/2005

01/22/2007Iron & Manganese Treatment Equipment

for 250 gpm Well for Delivery 04/2007Bid Summary by Vendor

177 GPM Well 450 GPM Well 650 GPM Well 850 GPM Well

Bid Summary by Vendor Bid #1 $140,000 Bid #2 $110,000 ($192K 1st) ATEC Bid $48,000850 GPM Well

Bid Summary by Vendor Bid #1 $410,176

C d $ 8,000

Cottonwood, Arizona12/19/2006

Bid #2 $400,956 ATEC Bid $289,201

Iron, Manganese & Arsenic Treatment Equipment for 11 wells treated on five sites, 5,000 gpm, Late 2007-2008

Bid Summary by VendorBid Summary by Vendor Bid #1 $2,650,000 Basin/ATEC $1,550.000 52

Typical Cost50 GPM A i T t t T i50 GPM Arsenic Treatment Train

5 GPM/SF 18-60-06 $27,000

6 GPM/SF 18-60-05 $22,500

7 GPM/SF 18-60-04 $19,000

These systems all backwash at approximately 50 gpm which corresponds to the well output.

53

Typical Cost100 GPM A i T t t T i100 GPM Arsenic Treatment Train 5 GPM/SF

24-60-07 $37,800

6 GPM/SF 24-60-06 $32,000

7 GPM/SF 24-60-05 $26,500

These systems backwash at i t l 95approximately 95 gpm.

54

Typical Cost500 GPM A i T t t T i500 GPM Arsenic Treatment Train 5 GPM/SF

48-60-08 $124,000

6 GPM/SF 42-60-10 $115,000

7 GPM/SF 42-60-08 $95,000

These filters backwash at 350 GPM.

55

Typical Cost1 000 GPM A i T t t T i1,000 GPM Arsenic Treatment Train 5 GPM/SF

48-60-16 $250,000

6 GPM/SF 48-60-14 $220,000

7 GPM/SF 48-60-12 $186,000

The 48” diameter filters backwash at about 350 GPM while the 42” at about 350 GPM while the 42 diameter filters backwash at 270 GPM

56

Pilot TestingThe Critical First Step

57

Why Pilot Test?Why Pilot Test? ATEC Systems Pilot Tests every installation y y

because: We believe that pilot testing is good science, good

engineering and good businessengineering, and good business It saves our customers money both in the short-run

and over the life of the treatment plant It allows us to control costs by removing the need to

account for probable failure of some installations It can significantly affect how a plant is designed It It can significantly affect how a plant is designed. It

helps engineers do a better job

58

Pilot Testing and Pre-Design Objectives Develop a reliable prediction of full-scale p p

treatment system performance. Develop Basis of Design.

Identify any unusual treatment requirements. Identify any unusual treatment requirements. Optimize flow and oxidant feed rates for specific source

water. Properly size the treatment system and its components. Develop basis for accurate cost estimates.

Develop accurate cost estimates Capital cost O & M expenses

59

Pilot Testing and Pre-Design Objectives (continued) Determine method of waste stream disposal Determine method of waste stream disposal Identify any permit issues that affect project Satisfy Health Department and other regulatory Satisfy Health Department and other regulatory

requirements. Fulfill requirements for ATEC Systems Fulfill requirements for ATEC Systems

performance guarantee.

60

Pilot Testing EquipmentPilot Testing Equipment

ATEC Systems Pilot Filters ATEC Systems Pilot Filters Built to mimic full-scale system Manifold and backwash set up similar to full-scale p

system except that it is manually controlled rather than automatic

Flow rates of up to 20 gpm/sf Flow rates of up to 20 gpm/sf Variable sidewall height for alternative media and

conditions.

61

Pilot Testing EquipmentPilot Testing Equipment Process Equipment and Supplies

Multiple Treatment Trains Flow meters In-line Chlorine Analyzers & pH Meter Data Logging Equipment

Solution metering pumps Solution metering pumps Necessary chemicals Automatic Samplers

Test EquipmentS t h t t d i t t Spectrophotometer and appropriate reagents

pH meter Turbidimeter Digital Titrator/Stir Plate Scales Scales 0.45 micron filter Other Equipment as needed

62

ATEC S t Pil t T t E i tATEC Systems Pilot Test Equipment

63

Pilot Trailers (C ti d)Pilot Trailers (Continued)

64

Site Requirements for TestingSite Requirements for Testing

Access to site Access to site Source water, 15-30 gpm, 35-100 psig Power 110 VAC for injection equipment and Power, 110 VAC for injection equipment and

lighting Disposal of water and backwash effluent Disposal of water and backwash effluent

65

Information Needed from UtilityInformation Needed from Utility Inorganic test results—all available Organic test results—all available Well log * Pump curve * Pump curve Drawing of well building and site * Standard building layout or specifications *

W t i ht it * Water rights permit * Existing electrical capacity *

* Items needed for pre-design report

66

What we test for and WhyWhat we test for and Why Raw Water Treated Water

pH and Temperature Iron Manganese

pH and Temperature Iron Manganese

Manganese Arsenic Hydrogen Sulfide

g Arsenic Hydrogen Sulfide Ammonia

Ammonia Silica Chlorine Demand

Ammonia Silica Chlorine Residual Other parameters as

Other parameters a appropriate

Other parameters as necessary

67

June 5-8, 2000

Table 8Summary of Pilot Study Test Conditions

Lakewood Water District, Angle Lane Well S-1

MediaMeter Average Loading Loading Contact

Sample Reading Flow Rate Rate Time Cl2 DoseNumber Time (Gallons) (gpm) (gpm/ft2) (gpm/ft3) (Minutes) (mg/L)Number Time (Gallons) (gpm) (gpm/ft ) (gpm/ft ) (Minutes) (mg/L)

Star t 11:15 - 8.60 10.95 3.65 2.05 1.42 1 11:20 42.6 8.52 10.85 3.62 2.07 1.43 2 12:00 383.4 8.52 10.85 3.62 2.07 1.64 3 13:00 897.6 8.57 10.91 3.64 2.06 1.63 4 14:00 1,413.9 8.61 10.96 3.65 2.05 1.63 5 15:00 1,924.8 8.52 10.84 3.61 2.07 1.64 6 16:00 2,438.1 8.56 10.89 3.63 2.06 1.64 62 1:00 5,531.4 10.43 13.27 4.42 1.69 1.51 63 2:00 6,160.2 10.48 13.34 4.45 1.68 1.50 64 3:00 6,794.7 10.58 13.46 4.49 1.67 1.49 65 4:00 7,425.3 10.51 13.38 4.46 1.68 1.50 66 5:00 8,054.4 10.49 13.35 4.45 1.68 1.50 67 6:00 8,683.8 10.49 13.36 4.45 1.68 1.50 68 7:00 9,313.5 10.50 13.36 4.45 1.68 1.50 69 8:00 9,944.8 10.52 13.40 4.47 1.68 1.50

Total or Average 35,208 9.50 12.09 3.64 1.86 1.57

Run 1 25,263 8.52 10.85 3.62 2.07 1.64 Run 2 9,945 10.47 13.34 4.45 1.69 1.50

Notes:Run #1 ended at 12:40 on June 7, 2000. Run #2 began at approximately 16:00, June 7, 2000.Sodium hypochlorite concentration was 5,927 mg/L (0.05927%).

68

Table 9

Lakewood Water District, Angle Lane Well S-1Summary of Pilot Test Results

Sample Effluent W ater

June 5-8, 2000

Influent WaterSampleNumber pH NH3-N H2S Fe Mn pH Cl2 H2S Fe Mn

Star t N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.210 0.102 N.T. 0.54 N.T. 0.007 0.007 1 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.220 0.100 N.T. 0.55 N.T. 0.002 0.002 2 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.190 0.101 N.T. 0.58 N.T. 0.001 - 3 N T N T N T 0 160 0 100 N T 0 53 N T 0 002 0 001

Effluent W aterInfluent Water

3 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.160 0.100 N.T. 0.53 N.T. 0.002 0.0014 N.T. 0.011 0.098 0.130 0.099 N.T. 0.53 - - 0.003 5 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.110 0.103 N.T. 0.52 N.T. 0.002 - 6 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.090 0.097 N.T. 0.52 N.T. 0.001 0.002 62 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 N.T. 0.34 N.T. 0.003 0.004 63 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 N.T. 0.38 N.T. 0.003 0.004 64 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 N.T. 0.35 N.T. 0.003 0.004 65 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 N.T. 0.37 N.T. 0.003 0.004 66 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 N.T. 0.39 N.T. 0.003 0.004 67 N.T. N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 N.T. 0.38 N.T. 0.003 0.004 68 7.9 N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 7.8 0.38 N.T. 0.003 0.004 69 7.9 N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 7.8 0.39 0.002 0.003 0.00369 7.9 N.T. N.T. 0.046 0.101 7.8 0.39 0.002 0.003 0.003

Total or Average 7.9 0.08 0.035 0.064 0.101 7.9 0.45 0.001 0.003 0.002

Average as Percent of MCL 21.3% 202.0% 0.89% 4.29%Average Removal Rate 95.81% 97.87%e age e o a ate 95 8 % 9 8 %

Non Detect, indicating the absence of a metal or chemical at or above the method detectionlimit is shown as "-" and calculated in the total or average as zero. 69

Pilot Test ResultsChlorine Dosage & Free Chlorine Residual

Angle Lane Well S-1

2.00

Angle Lane Well S-1June 5 – 8, 2000

1.40

1.60

1.80

00

0.80

1.00

1.20

Cl2 Dose (mg/L)Residual Cl2 (mg/L)

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69

Samp le N umber

70

Pilot Test ResultsManganese Removal Using AS-721 Filter Media

Angle Lane Well S-1

0.12

Angle Lane Well S-1June 5 – 8, 2000

0.08

0.1

0.04

0.06 M CL (0.05 mg/L)50% of M CLRaw WaterTreated Water

0 02

0

0.02

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69

-0.02

Sample N umb er

71

Pilot Test ResultsIron Removal Using AS-721 Filter Media

Angle Lane Well S-1Angle Lane Well S-1June 5 – 8, 2000

0 25

0.3

0.35

)

0 15

0.2

0.25

tratio

n (m

g/L

MCL (0.3 mg/L)50% of MCL

0.05

0.1

0.15

Iron

Conc

ent

Raw WaterTreated Water

-0.05

01 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67

Sample Number

72

Pilot Test ResultsDetailed Flow and Chlorine Dose and Residual Data

Angle Lane Well S-1Angle Lane Well S-1June 5 – 8, 2000

14.00

16.00

8 00

10.00

12.00

Cl2 Dose

Free Cl2

4.00

6.00

8.00 Free Cl2

Flow (gpm)h

-

2.00

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169 175 181

73

Preliminary DesignPreliminary Design Water quality analysis

P i i Pump sizing Preliminary building layout Piping requirements Treatment requirements & calculations Treatment requirements & calculations Site review and site layout List of materials and manufacturers specifications to be

used 30% design drawings Cost estimate Schedule for completion of the project

74