1. Progress Report San Angelo City Council August 2, 2011

2. Agenda Overall project progress Radioactivity in the environment Single use Ion Exchange treatment update Pipe loop study Ground water treatment facility site location Other treatment options Questions

4. Overall Project Progress

6. Radioactivity in the environment

7. Radioactivity Is Ubiquitous in the Environment

8. Radioactivity Is Ubiquitous in the Environment

9. Safety Considerations No requirements for personnel badges, air monitors, or shielding Standard OSHA requirements will be sufficient Gloves and boots Wash hands Standard safety equipment Supervisors and personnel should be trained to use radiation monitoring equipment, conduct radiation surveys, and collect soil samples Not Required OSHA-Required Recommended

10. 150’ = 15 Story Building Hickory water can pass through soil without approaching regulatory limit Soil Environmental Impact of Pipe Break

11. Impact on Policies and Procedures Soil, water, pipe scale samples Collect water, soil, and scale samples at site of pipe break Radiation survey instruments on maintenance trucks and in lab Develop standard documentation guide for pipe break events Careful documentation of surveys, samples, and personnel Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (all appropriate inquiry) [munitions dump; oil and gas production facilities; landfill] Guide for Documenting Pipe Breaks Radiation survey instruments Documents, forms, etc.

12. Case Study Central TX Granite Distribution pipe Glazed salt shaker Vaseline glass

13. SINGLE USE ION EXCHANGE UPDATE

14. Simplified Pilot Testing Process Flow Diagram

15. Results Summary Single use ion exchange is effective in removing radium, however, breakthrough occurred more frequently than what was originally estimated using desktop models. Two of the three media proved to be effective

16. Single-Use Media Capital Cost Cost in $ Millions

17. Single-Use Media O&M Cost Cost in $ Millions

18. Pipe loop study

19. Pipe Loop Study Purpose: Evaluate pipe scale and radionuclide deposition using various pipe materials, pipe velocities, and phosphate concentrations.

20. Preliminary Results & Observations of Pipe Loop Study

21. GWTF Site location

22. Groundwater Treatment Facility Location Two locations are considered for the groundwater treatment facility (GWTF) Hickory well site COSA Water Treatment Plant Several factors should be considered when evaluating the locations of the GWTF Decision should be based on what is best for COSA

23. Factors Affecting Treatment Location

24. Results of Groundwater Treatment Facility (GWTF) Location Evaluation Based on the following factors: Capital Cost O&M Cost Operational efficiency Treatment options We recommend that the GWTF be located at the San Angelo Water Treatment Plant

25. Other treatment options

26. Single-Use Media NPV Cost Comparison Cost in $ Millions

27. Why look at other treatment options? NPV analysis of pilot test results indicated that additional treatment options may be viable Results indicated that Nanofiltration or Reverse Osmosis (NF/RO) could become a more competitive option NF/RO offer alternate disposal options thus reducing O&M costs. NF/RO will improve overall City water quality

28. RO at COSA WTP (90% Recovery)

29. NPV of Treatment Technologies at COSA Cost in $ Millions

30. NF/RO Treatment Update Conducted preliminary desktop membrane models based on revised data Nanofiltration Low energy Reverse Osmosis (RO) Brackish RO Low-energy RO may provide good rejection and recovery while minimizing energy needs Next steps: Membrane (RO) pilot plant investigation

31. RO Membrane Schedule

32. Single-Use Media Schedule

33. Questions & Answers San Angelo City Council August 2, 2011