1. Terry Keep and David Sloan FWRC April 30, 2013 DECIDING TO INCORPORATE ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR POTABLE REUSE IN BIG SPRING, TEXAS

2. The Headlines Drought town to turn to waste water Published: Aug. 11, 2011 at 9:33 PM BIG SPRING, Texas, Aug. 11 (UPI) -- A Texas town in the grip in the third-worst drought in state history says it will collect and treat wastewater and blend it in with regular potable water. Water for the 27,000 residents of Big Spring comes through the Colorado River Municipal Water District, which has broken ground on a plant to capture treated wastewater for recycling, Discover News reported Thursday. 3. EVALUATING OPTIONS FOR MAKING MORE DRINKING WATER 4. Israel reuses over 70% of its WW Singapore reuses 15% with plans to double that by end of 2011 Australia reuses 8%, has a national goal of 30% by 2015 USA reuses 5-6% of WW and growing Source:Guy Carpenter. WateReuse Association 2010 Reuse: Global Progress 5. Source: Marsden Jacob Associates, 2006 Australian Analysis IPR Costs Less $1.68 $1.15 $0.08 $1.30 $2.61 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $/kL 6. Potable Reuse vs. Non Potable (Purple Pipe) IPR is cheaper than desalination and recycled non-potable water reuse Desal: Higher energy costs Purple Pipe: Installing new distribution system Fermian Business and Economic Institute, 2011 7. Purified drinking water affords flexibility in its usage (not just for golf courses, lawn watering) i.e. new building developments = increase tax revenue Sustainable use of limited resource (new source of water) Flexibility in how, when, where water is removed not offered by Purple Pipe Indirect Potable Reuse: Cost Comparison to Purple Pipe 8. No infrastructure cost incurred to establish / expand pumping and pipeline lower installation and maintenance costs All Reuse has positive impact on WWTP costs Plus added benefit to the environment and those living down stream (cost sharing with other municipalities?) Indirect Potable Reuse: Cost Comparison to Purple Pipe contd 9. Why Not Direct Potable Reuse? Direct potable reuse (DPR) uses similar treatment trains as IPR but does not detain highly treated wastewater in a temporary catchment before being made potable. This avoids infrastructure and energy costs associated with pumping water to temporary catchments. In most water stressed regions such as Texas, once water is released to the environment, someone else has a claim to it. (Treat It and Keep It) 10. Superior Disinfection (including Crypto) Removal of compounds destroyed by UV- photolysis (e.g. NDMA and other nitrosamines) Removal of compounds destroyed by UV- Oxidation (e.g. pharmaceuticals, industrial solvents, etc.) An extra measure of protection that builds public confidence in the quality of water. Proven Treatment Train of MF?RO?UV Oxidation (+5 years N/D data from OCWD) UV Oxidation in IPR: Function 11. Energy Components Of IPR 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% IPR Energy Use EnergyUse(%ofTotal) UV-Oxidation Microfiltration Other Energy Use Reverse Osmosis 6.8% 12. Conclusions IPR projects globally use same treatment train of MF/RO and UV- oxidation to remove chemical and microbiological contaminants Membranes-UV/oxidation has become the world standard for IPR UV-oxidation acts as a multi-functional barrier: Successfully disinfects Successfully destroys NDMA and many other contaminants including suspected EDCs Numerous full-scale IPR installations in place that are demonstrating contaminant removal and high-performance disinfection 13. Terry Keep David Sloan TrojanUV Freese & Nichols tkeep@trojanuv.com dws@freese.com 888-220-6118 817-735-7277 QUESTIONS?