wl mm"mm”_——l——fl—-——l-m—-.——_' Delivered-To: mfloe%geg.r(np net - Reverse i-mgg::BIkaist 66.64.194.130=0K:Tony.Greene@greercpw.com=0K X-Modus-RBL: 66.64.194.130=0K X-Modus-Trusted: 66.64.194.130=NO Subject: FW: Question Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:51:22 -0400 From: "Tony Greene" To: ul - " — = m = Pewwugwsys d T N St PRI R T it i TN R B e A Y gy ey B o S ran B et et mak oy e =Y ep—————r e N =gl oA =P b B W PR N P e ey T i ol sy Bef i Sl s S P - e e ol S W s N N iy, S e N = e e e = el o o g e s e il e From: Greg McGlohom [malito:gmaglohem@BPBarber.com] Sent: Saturiiay, Apifl 01, 2006 2:38 PM : To: Tony Greene Subject: RE: Question Thanks Tony. | really appreciate the info. Greg From: Tony Greene [mailm-'rhny Gleme@greempwmm] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 2:07 PM To: Greg McGlohorn Subject: RE: Question Greg we started Sea Quest January 12 Chlorine residuals have averaged 2.35 throughout entire distribution. This took about three to four weeks. Causfic feed has been reduced 10%. Chiorine feed has been reduced considerable yet residuails have increased and stabilized. We had three automatic flushing devicee where residuals were .5 10 .8. These areas are now in the 2.356 range with noflushlng We tried Sea Quest for six months in 2003 and experienced the same results but because of cost we went to an inferior phosphate, Greer Commission of Public Works has under goné an 8.5 million dollar distribufion upgrade. Some 40 coupons | ; taken from mains showed no evidence of phosphate application. in 2003 we also reduced ammonia feed by 15% and residuals | | remained stable. The short time we usad Sea Quest in 2003 we saved about $12,000.00 in chemicals. | requestad that Sea Quest | bid 2006 with savings included in bid document. So far | have been very pleased and our residuals have never been better. Asa side hote, Sea Quest does not make this claim but our TTHM's first quarter were 0.012 and HAA’s were 0.015 and you-kriow from | i past experlema how our first quarter resuits have been. e v el el el ool B ety = ) ———— L T ] i " el A, =y Wl A U Tl S A el " S T o e s T e Pl e S it SO ittt gttty ey . g [ e o Y P ik i U O R iy b e B 2 T e l i I B B el S S s—wa— S e e el S S S o e s 0 e et o T SN e el w0 S e e Sy = R S e i gy gl SR el i e ey e . g ST = Ep— gy SR &g il wl il I A Ry Wil Bnlinlenll R ™ T - From: Greg McGlohorn [malito:gmoglohorn@BPBarber.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 11:35 AM To: Tony Greene " Subject: Question Tony, Do you guys feed Seaquest? One of our clients was thinking about switching to that chemical for mrmsion control. The sales rep. gam:;l:flofda‘nnahnuthowwall it works, but we wanted fo check with some operators that have actuslly been working with it r a whi If you are using Seaquest, are you happy with it? Have you observed any major advaniages or disadvantages? Has it affected yaur chlorine residuals or any other water gisality data (changes that can be directly atll‘ibulad to the chemical)? If you don't use this product, then please disregard this email. Thanks, Greg =~ Greg B. McGlohorn, P.E. Project Engineer B.P. Barber & Associafes, Ing. Printed for Michacl SI4PO06 e — Ll g, — ™ el R 2 oy e s e s e AL SR S e e N — — s i W S Sy s e Sl — Mg B g—— e e e P T e ———————————r— | P ——