1. Presentation to City Council January 28, 2014

2. Spill Summary January 9, 2014: At least 7500 gallons of an industrial chemical 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) were spilled into the Elk River, a secondary tributary of the Ohio River MCHM is used for Coal Processing to separate impurities from the coal. Spill Location approximately 200 miles upstream of Miller Treatment Plant The MCHM was taken into the Kanawha Valley Drinking Water Plant (1.5 miles downstream) where it is subsequently distributed to drinking water customers “Do Not Use” orders were issued for roughly 300,000 people including Charleston, the capital of West Virginia. Because of the Do Not Use order, media coverage was intense Spill Continued Downstream toward Cincinnati

3. Elk River, Charleston, WV Kanawha River Ohio River Kentucky Ohio Meldahl Dam Beckjord Power Station West Virginia Huntington, WV Cincinnati to Beckjord – 10 miles Meldahl – 25 miles Huntington – 157 miles Elk River - 200 miles

5. GCWW Response GCWW was notified by the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) of the spill on the evening of Thursday January 9 (the same day as the spill). A preliminary “time-of-travel” estimate was performed and we anticipated the spill would arrive the middle part of the following week. An internal task team at GCWW was formed to respond. We initiated further communication with ORSANCO and Northern Kentucky Water District. Michele Ralston coordinated interaction with the media and the Mayor’s office.

6. Initial Research Chemical properties, health effects, and treatability Was GCWW capable of analyzing for the compound (the answer was yes) Began multiple calculation techniques for Estimated Time of Arrival calculation

7. Planning for Intake Shutdown WQM and Supply Divisions coordinated so Supply could fill storage tanks and the settling reservoirs to prepare for an extended intake shutdown Preventative maintenance at the Miller Plant was delayed to ensure we had full capacity to fill up before and after the spill. Production testing at the Bolton groundwater facility was delayed to ensure capacity during the spill. Additional GAC contactor was put into service to increase capacity.

8. Laboratory Analyses WQM analytical staff obtained samples of the actual chemical and worked through the weekend to determine if we could detect the chemical (the answer was yes) GCWW worked with ORSANCO and Huntington WV to refine the in- house analytical method to lower the detection limit from 5% of the CDC-cited safe level down to less than 0.5% of the CDC cited-safe level GCWW provided laboratory standards and technical assistance to other agencies including NKWD, USEPA, Huntington WV, ORSANCO, Louisville, State of Indiana, and State of Kentucky We analyzed samples from Huntington WV and the Kanawha River In addition to the advance analyses, odor tests were employed to ensure no contamination reached our customers.

9. Sampling Plan Developed cooperative sampling plan NKWD sampled our intake, their intake, delivered samples to us GCWW/MSD collected and analyzed samples upstream at Meldahl Dam and Beckjord Power Station (around the clock) ORSANCO collected samples further upstream Upstream data from Huntington was shared with GCWW/NKWD Utilized Staff from both GCWW and MSDGC

10. Treatment Response Researched treatability of the contaminant (just in case) During the preceding weekend, GCWW staff performed jar tests to determine effective dose of powdered activated carbon Fed PAC for 5 hours prior to shutting down the intakes just in case something got by our early warning stations Intakes were shut down For 5 days after the spill, PAC was fed to ensure any undetected trailing contaminants were treated. No additional contamination was detected in the river or through the treatment plant PAC cost approximately $26,000

11. Intake Shut Down

12. Ohio River Data Huntington Meldahl Dam Beckjord Power Station Ohio River at GCWW Louisville Jan 12Jan 13Jan 14Jan 17Jan 16Jan 15Jan 18Jan 19

13. Some of the Agencies Involved The White House USEPA Region 3 (WV) USEPA Region 4 (KY) USEPA Region 5 (Ohio, IN) ORSANCO KDOW OEPA IDEM DEPT of Homeland Security WV DEP CDC Local/State Health Departments National Poison Control Center National Guard ACOE Duke Energy MSDGC NKWD and many other water utilities

14. End Result GCWW’s spill response procedures proved to be effective The spill was effectively detected and tracked Intakes were shut down to ensure no contamination reached our customers Feedback on our response from outside agencies and customers has been positive

15. What Made GCWW’s Spill Response Successful? Existing response plan for river spills Excellent cooperation between GCWW, NKWD, ORSANCO, and others Well-trained, qualified & dedicated staff Advanced in-house analytical capabilities Time to prepare

16. Source Water Protection This spill demonstrates the importance of a well- developed Source Water Protection Program (SWAP) GCWW, NKWD, and ORSANCO work cooperatively on SWAP efforts GCWW has an inventory of potential pollution sources upstream of the treatment plant Monitoring, spill reporting, spill response, communication, and understanding sources of contamination are all components of SWAP and will continue to be enhanced