City Council - Successor Agency - Housing Authority
November 7, 2023

Orange County Water District
PFAS Treatment Systems Planning Study
Producer Report

CITY OF FULLERTON
FINAL | August 2020

Orange County Water District
PFAS Treatment Systems Planning Study
Producer Report

CITY OF FULLERTON
FINAL | —‰—•–ͮͬͮͬ
Digitally signed by Graham J.G. Juby
Contact Info: Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Date: 2020.08.18 09:07:29-07'00'

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | i
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/11719A00/Deliverables/ProdRPT02/Producer Report_Fullerton Contents
Executive Summary 1
Section 1 - Introduction 1

1.1 Service Area 1

1.2 Existing Supply Sources 1

1.3 Potentially Impacted Wells 1
Section 2 - Regulatory and Treatment Objectives 7

2.1 Regulatory Overview 8

2.2 Treatment Considerations and Goals for the Removal of PFAS 9

2.2.1 Granular Activated Carbon 9

2.2.2 Ion Exchange 10

2.2.3 Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration 11

2.2.4 Summary of PFAS Treatment Technologies 12
Section 3 - Alternative Development 13

3.1 Screening Criteria 13

3.2 Alternative 1 - Shut Down Potentially Impacted Wells 13

3.3 Alternative 2 – Blending Without Treatment 14

3.3.1 Alternative 2a - Blending With Imported Water 15

3.3.2 Alternative 2b - Blending With Other Groundwater Wells 15

3.4 Alternative 3 - Pack Part of Potentially Impacted Wells 16

3.5 Alternative 4 - Engineered Treatment 16

3.5.1 Alternative 4a - Individual Wellhead Treatment 17

3.5.2 Alternative 4b - Centralized Treatment 18

3.6 Summary of Initial Alternatives 22
Section 4 - Alternative Assessment 25

4.1 Pretreatment Requirements 25

4.2 Design Criteria 26

4.3 Site Layouts 26

4.3.1 Main Plant Site (Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8) 26

4.3.2 Kimberly Well 1A Site 28

4.3.3 Kimberly Well 2 Site (Options 1 and 2) 28
OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON ii | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

4.3.4 Sunclipse Well 10 Site 30

4.4 O&M Activities 31

4.4.1 General Operational Activities 32

4.4.2 Maintenance 33

4.4.3 Residual Management 33

4.5 Cost (Capital, O&M, and Life Cycle) 34
Section 5 - Preferred Alternative 37

5.1 Design Criteria 37

5.2 Permitting 38

5.3 Construction Duration 38

5.4 Recommended Alternative Cost 41
Appendices
Appendix A Hydraulic Profile
Appendix B Well Water Quality and Impacts to Adsorption Appendix C Existing Site Layouts
Appendix D Cost Estimate
Appendix E Additional Site Layouts
Appendix F References
Tables
Table ES.1 Recommended Alternative Design Criteria 2
Table ES.2 Recommended Alternative Project, O&M, and Life-Cycle Cost Estimates 3 Table 1 Average PFAS Concentrations for Potentially Impacted Wells(5)(6) 2 Table 2 Water Quality Constituents of Concern(2) 3
Table 3 Alternative PFAS Treatment Technologies 12
Table 4 Imported Water Cost Estimate 14
Table 5 Blending With Imported Water Supply – Net Increased Cost Estimate 15 Table 6 Blending With Other Groundwater Wells – Net Increased Cost Estimate 16 Table 7 Individual Wellhead Treatment - GAC Option 17
Table 8 Individual Wellhead Treatment – IX Option 18
Table 9 Centralized Treatment – GAC Option 21
Table 10 Centralized Treatment – IX Option 21
PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | iii
Table 11 Alternative Summary – Net Increased Cost 22
Table 12 Pre-treatment Water Quality 25
Table 13 Site Layout and O&M Design Criteria 26
Table 14 Water Treatment Facility Class 32
Table 15 Capital and O&M Cost Assumptions 34
Table 16 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project, O&M, and Life-Cycle Cost 36 Table 17 Recommended Alternative Design Criteria 37
Table 18 Preliminary Project Schedule 41
Table 19 Recommended Alternative Project, O&M, and Life-Cycle Cost 41 Figures
Figure 1 Potentially Impacted Wells 5
Figure 2 Products Containing PFAS 7
Figure 3 PFAS Regulations or Guidelines and Occurrences 8 Figure 4 PFAS Treatment Technologies 9
Figure 5 Process Flow Diagram – Activated Carbon 10
Figure 6 Process Flow Diagram – Ion Exchange 11
Figure 7 Process Flow Diagram – Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration 11 Figure 8 Individual Wellhead Treatment Alternative 19
Figure 9 Centralized Treatment Alternative 23
Figure 10 Main Plant Wells Treatment Layout 27
Figure 11 Kimberly Well 1A Treatment Layout 28
Figure 12 Kimberly Well 2 Site Option 1 (Kimberly Well 2 Only) 29 Figure 13 Kimberly Well 2 Site Option 2 (Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10) 30 Figure 14 Sunclipse Well 10 Treatment Layout 31
Figure 15 Preferred Alternative 39
Figure 16 Preliminary Project Schedule 41

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | v
Abbreviations
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.

CF cubic feet
cfs cubic feet per second
City City of Fullerton
DDW State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water
EBCT empty bed contact time
EI&C electrical, instrumentation, & controls
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ft feet
ft3 cubic feet
GAC granular activated carbon
gpm gallons per minute
gpm/sf gallons per minute per square foot
HAL health advisory level
IX ion exchange
kWh kilowatt hour
lb(s) pound(s)
MCL maximum contaminant levels
µg/L micrograms per liter
µm micrometers
mgd million gallons per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
ND non-detect
NF nanofiltration
ng/L nanograms per liter
NLs notification levels
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
OCWD Orange County Water District
O&M operations and maintenance
PCE tetrachloroethene
PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON vi | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate
PHA provisional health advisory
ppt parts per trillion
psig pounds per square inch gauge
RL response levels
RO reverse osmosis
RSSCT rapid small scale column testing
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
Study PFAS Treatment Planning Study
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
UCMR3 EPA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Orange County Water District (OCWD), in collaboration with 10 groundwater Producers, contracted with Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) to conduct a Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Treatment Planning Study (Study). The purpose of the study was to evaluate options for individual Producers for the treatment of groundwater wells that are potentially impacted by PFAS throughout the service area, including the City of Fullerton (City), and develop preferred alternatives.

On February 6, 2020, the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) issued revised drinking water response levels (RLs) of 10 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 40 ppt for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which will require the City to remove impacted wells from service, provide treatment, or notify customers. Currently, the City has elected to take one of the affected wells out of production until treatment is installed, and replace groundwater with more expensive imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

In 2019, OCWD performed an initial groundwater modeling analysis based on historic sampling data to identify wells that were potentially impacted by PFAS within the service area. The sampling data and results from the modeling analysis performed were used as a baseline for this Study. Additional wells may be impacted in the future depending on the changes of PFAS concentrations over time. Based on the historical sampling data and modeling analysis performed by OCWD, 9 out of the City’s 11 wells are potentially impacted by PFAS and would require treatment or blending before they can be brought back online. With the nine wells shut down, the City will lose approximately 70 percent of the current supply and will need to supplement the local supply gap with imported water to meet existing demands.

Five initial alternatives were identified for evaluation in this Study, which are:

1. Shutting down the potentially impacted well and replacing with imported water.

2. Blending with imported water.

3. Blending with other groundwater.

4. Packing part of the well to avoid zones with PFAS.

5. Engineered treatment consisting of granular activated carbon (GAC) or ion exchange (IX).

A treatment goal for this Study was set by OCWD in collaboration with the Producers to lower the concentration of PFOS and PFOA to non-detect (ND) levels, which is defined as 2 nanograms per liter (ng/L) or less. With this treatment goal, the blending alternatives were no longer feasible due to the large percentage of blending water needed to meet this goal. The replacement with imported water was not deemed a viable long-term solution because imported water does not promote supply reliability within the region, may be unavailable under drought conditions, and is cost prohibitive. Packing portions of the wells was also eliminated due to the pervasiveness and unpredictability of the PFAS contamination in the groundwater basin. Therefore, the remaining feasible alternative included groundwater treatment with GAC or IX.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON ES-2 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
Based on the individual well water quality, site layouts, and life-cycle costs developed, the following treatment systems are recommended as preferred alternatives to provide treatment for PFOA and PFOS for the City:
• Main Plant Wells (Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8) – Provide GAC treatment using 40,000-pound carbon vessels. This recommendation is based on the fact that many of the Main Plant Wells have the co-occurring contaminants trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE). Rapid small scale column testing (RSSCT) data from the OCWD’s PFAS Treatment Testing Support Services project was not available at the time of this report. When the RSSCT data becomes available, it should be analyzed to determine the impacts of TCE and PCE on the removal of PFOA and PFOS. If these impacts are significant, a treatment train with TCE and PCE pretreatment may be the most economical approach.
• Kimberly Well 1A – Provide IX treatment at this site. The selection of IX is based on the limited space available for treatment.
• Kimberly Well 2 – Provide IX treatment for Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 at this site (Kimberly 2, Option 2). This recommendation is based on the limited space available from the developer of the previous Kimberly Clark site. Purchasing land from the developer is required to keep the Kimberly Well 2 in production. • Sunclipse Well 10 – Pipe flow from Sunclipse Well 10 to the Kimberly Well 2 site for treatment (Kimberly 2, Option 2). As a backup plan, the City should reach out to the businesses near-by to see if space could be leased or purchased at other locations for the IX treatment.

Specific design criteria for each of the recommended treatment systems is summarized in Table ES.1.

Table ES.1 Recommended Alternative Design Criteria
Parameter Main Plant Wells Kimberly Well 1A Kimberly Well 2(3) Flow (gpm) 10,400 3,000 3,900
Number of Trains 10 2 3
Vessels per Train 2 (lead/lag) 2 (lead/lag) 2 (lead/lag) Vessel Diameter (ft) 12 12 12
Max. Vessel Height (ft) 26 16.5 16.5
Working Pressure (psig) 125 at 150 °F 125 at 150 °F 125 at 150 °F Media GAC IX Resin(1) IX Resin(1)
Media/Vessel (ft3 or lbs) 40,000 lbs 425 ft3(2) 425 ft3(2) EBCT per Train (min) 19.6 4.2 4.8
EBCT per Vessel (min) 9.8 2.1 2.4
Hydraulic Loading
(gpm/sf) 9.2 13.3 11.5
System Head Loss (ft) 25 45 35
Pre-Filter N/A 3 (2 duty, 1 standby)
5 µm cartridge
3 (2 duty, 1 standby)
5 µm cartridge
Notes:

Abbreviations: °F - degrees Fahrenheit; EBCT - Empty Bed Contact Time; ft3 - cubic feet; lbs - pounds; µm - micrometers; gpm - gallons per minute; ft - feet; psig - pounds per square inch gauge; gpm/sf - gallons per minute per square foot. (1) Single use IX resin.
(2) Reduced resin fill to limit head loss through the system. (3) Includes flow from Sunclipse Well 10.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | ES-3
The costs for the recommended alternatives are summarized in Table ES.2. These costs represent a Class 5 budgetary estimate defined by the AACE International. Bids would be expected to fall within a range of 50 percent over the estimate to 30 percent under the estimate.

These Class 5 planning level costs represent the Project, operations and maintenance (O&M), and 30-year life-cycle costs for the recommended alternative to treat PFOA and PFOS to less than 2 ng/L.

Table ES.2 Recommended Alternative Project, O&M, and Life-Cycle Cost Estimates Site Project Cost(1) Annual O&M Cost Life-Cycle Cost(2) Main Plant Wells
GAC lead-lag 1240 vessels(3) $26,500,000 $800,000 $49,900,000 Kimberly Well 1A
IX lead-lag 1220 vessels(3) $5,400,000 $400,000 $17,400,000 Kimberly Well 2 (Option 2)(4)
IX lead-lag 1220 vessels(3) $9,400,000 $500,000 $24,400,000 Total $41,300,000 $1,700,000 $91,700,000
Notes:
(1) Project Costs are Class 5 Planning Level estimates and include allowances for engineering, construction management, permitting, legal and administration costs.
(2) Life-Cycle costs assumes a term of 30 years, 3 percent inflation of O&M costs, and a 3 percent discount rate. (3) Vessel model numbers – For 1240 vessels, the 12 represents the vessel diameter in feet and 40 represents the amount of GAC the vessel can hold (40,000 lbs). For 1220 vessels, although these are to be used for IX resin, they can also support GAC, the 12 represents the vessel diameter in feet and 20 represents the amount of GAC the vessel can hold (20,000 lbs). (4) Includes treating Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 at the Kimberly Well 2 site.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 1
Section 1

INTRODUCTION
OCWD, in collaboration with 10 groundwater Producers, contracted with Carollo to conduct a PFAS Study to evaluate options for individual Producers for the treatment of groundwater wells that are potentially impacted by PFAS throughout the service area, including the City, and develop preferred alternatives.

Under the new California law (Assembly Bill 756), water systems are ordered to test for PFOA and PFOS. On February 6, 2020, the DDW issued revised drinking water RLs of 10 ppt for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS. As a consequence of both of the above, water sources that have test results that exceed the respective RLs will be required to be taken out of service, provide treatment, or notify customers. As a result, the City has shut down potentially impacted wells and is currently relying on imported water to meet demands.

This Study develops blending and treatment alternatives to resume production of the potentially impacted wells. The highest ranked alternatives were selected and analyzed in more detail to identify preferred alternatives representing the most cost-effective solutions for PFAS treatment for the City.

1.1 Service Area
The City occupies approximately 22.3 square miles in north Orange County. The City is bounded in the north by the Cities of La Habra and Brea, the east by Placentia, the south by Anaheim, and the west by Buena Park. The City’s Water Utility serves potable water to 137,000 people within its service area, which is contiguous with the City boundary. The City boundary is depicted on Figure 1.

1.2 Existing Supply Sources
The City’s primary water supply includes local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by OCWD, and imported water purchased from the MWD. Groundwater accounts for approximately 75 percent of the City’s water supply during an average year and depending on the basin production percentage (BPP). The City owns 11 groundwater wells located in the southern portion of the City’s boundary with a total design capacity of 17,300 gallons per minute (gpm) (or 24.9 million gallons per day (mgd)) and an average flow of 14,400 gpm (or 20.8 mgd). The City supplements its local groundwater with treated imported water, which accounts for the remaining 25 percent of the City’s water supply.

The City maintains seven imported water connections with a total available capacity of 153 cubic feet per second (cfs) (or 99 mgd).

1.3 Potentially Impacted Wells
In 2019, OCWD performed an initial groundwater modeling analysis based on historic sampling data to identify wells that were potentially impacted by PFAS within the service area. The sampling data and results from the modeling analysis performed were used as a baseline for this Study. Additional wells may be impacted in the future depending on the changes of PFAS OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 2 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
concentrations over time. Based on the historical sampling data and modeling analysis performed by OCWD, 9 out of the City’s 11 wells are potentially impacted by PFAS and would require treatment or blending before the wells can be brought back online. With the nine wells shut down, the City will lose approximately 70 percent of the current supply and will need to supplement the local supply gap with imported water to meet existing demands.

The locations of the potentially impacted wells are shown on Figure 1, while the connectivity of the wells into the distribution system is shown in the hydraulic profile, which is provided in Appendix A and is described below.

The nine potentially impacted wells are located in the southern-most portion of the system and the southeast portion of the system. The well capacities, annual well production, and average PFAS concentrations are listed in Table 1. Other water quality constituents of concern are listed in Table 2. The potentially impacted wells are described as follows:
• Six of the wells (Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) are located at the Main Plant, which is located in the City of Anaheim. All Main Plant Wells, except for Well 3A, pumps into a forebay before disinfection and pumping into Zone 1 of the distribution system.

Well 3A is connected to the forebay, however, it typically pumps into an existing transmission line.
• Kimberly Well 1A, Kimberly Well 2, and Sunclipse Well 10 are located in the southeast portion of the system and pump into Zone 1A of the distribution system. Kimberly Well 1A and Sunclipse Well 10 pump directly into the distribution system. Kimberly Well 2 pumps into a forebay before pumping into the distribution system.

Table 1 Average PFAS Concentrations for Potentially Impacted Wells(5)(6) Potentially
Impacted Wells(1)
Well
Capacity
(gpm)
Well
Production
(AFY)(2)
PFOA
(ng/L)
PFOS
(ng/L)
PFBS(4)
(ng/L)
PFHxA(4)
(ng/L)
PFHxS(4)
(ng/L)
Kimberly Well 1A 2,760 2,200 12.7 29.2 4.9 4.0 10.5
Kimberly Well 2 2,030 2,000 14.5 31.8 6.6 4.1 11.2
Sunclipse Well 10 2,450 1,800 14.4 31.5 6. 4.1 11.1
Main Plant Well 3A 2,270 3,700 16.7 45.5 4.5 6.3 15.1
Main Plant Well 4 1,000 100 7.4 18.7 1.1 2.6 6.8
Main Plant Well 5 1,780 800 10.5 23.7 2.6 4.3 9.3
Main Plant Well 6 1,380 200 6.6 14.9 1.6 2.9 5.5
Main Plant Well
7A(7) 3,000(3) 2,900(3) 7.4 18.7 1.1 2.6 6.8
Main Plant Well 8 1,760 2,400 7.9 17.1 2.5 4.9 6.9
Notes:

Abbreviations: AFY - acre-feet per year; gpm - gallons per minute; ng/L – nanograms per liter; PFBS - Perfluoro butane sulfonic acid; PFHxA - Perfluorohexanoic acid; PFHxS - Perfluoro hexane sulfonic acid; PFOA - perfluorooctanoic acid; and PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate.
(1) See Appendix B for additional water quality data.
(2) Average well production from January 2016 to October 2019. (3) Estimated capacity and production.
(4) Water quality data for short chain PFAS compounds are included in this table to indicate potential future water quality issues. DDW has indicated that regulations for up to seven additional PFAS compounds may be issues in 2020 (5) Sample data from April 2019 to May 2019
(6) Red values indicate estimated water quality values. Black values indicate measured water quality values. Estimated values are based on spatial distance to other impacted wells.
(7) Well 7A is scheduled to come online in 2022 and is expected to have a similar water quality profile as Well 3A. Well 7 is scheduled to be destroyed this year, 2020, and has been offline since 2014.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 3
Table 2 Water Quality Constituents of Concern(2)
Potentially
Impacted Wells
TDS
(mg/L)
TOC
(mg/L)
PCE(1)
(µg/L)
TCE(1)
(µg/L)
Kimberly Well 1A 624 0.9 3.2 -
Kimberly Well 2 491.7 0.6 1.2 0.1
Sunclipse Well 10 488.4 0.6 0.2 -
Main Plant Well 3A 561.7 0.6 - -
Main Plant Well 4 550.6 0.8 0.3 1.4
Main Plant Well 5 603.4 0.5 0.3 2.3
Main Plant Well 6 520.3 0.6 0.1 3.2
Main Plant Well 7 677.2 0.7 0.5 2.0
Main Plant Well 8 536.8 0.6 0.5 1.5
MCL - - 5 5
SMCL 500 - - -
Notes:

Abbreviations: TDS - total dissolved solids; TOC - total organic carbon; mg/L - milligrams per liter; µg/L - micrograms per liter; MCL - maximum contaminant level; SMCL - secondary maximum contaminant level. (1) The sample results for TCE range from ND to 8.6 µg/L and the results for PCE range from ND and 4.9 µg/L. Additional water quality data can be found in Appendix B.
(2) TDS and TOC Sample data from February 2000 to July 2019. PCE and TCE Sample data from February 2001 to November 2019.

UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UTUT
UT

UTUTUTUT
"=)"=) "=)"=)"=)"=)"=)
"=)
"=)"=)"=)"=)"=)"=)
"=)"=)
"=)"=)"=)"=)
"=)"=)"=)
"=)"=)"=)
"=)"=)
"=)"=)
"=)"=)
"=)
"=)
"=)"=)"=)"=)
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
!ã
!ã
!ã!ã!ã!ã
!ã !ã
!ã
Main Plant Wells
3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Kimberly
No. 1A
Sunclipse
No. 10
A-42, 43,
44, 52, 58
F-AIRP
F-CHRI2
A-49
Kimberly
No. 1A

DALE ST

BREA BLVD
LA
PALMA
A
VE
BASTA

NCHURY RD
BIRCH
ST

HARBOR BLVD
LAM
BE
RT RD

PLACENTIA AVE

EUCLID ST

PUENTE ST

STANTON AVE

ER BLVD

LA HABRA BLVD

ACACIA AVE

KRAEMER BLVD

EUCLID AVE

IDAHO ST
MI
RALOMA
AVE

RAYMOND AV E
RO
SE
CRA
NS A
VE
CO
MMO

NWEALTH A
VE

BROOKHURST ST

STATE COLLEGE BLVD
ORA
NGETHO
RPE
A
VE

GILBERT ST

CENTRAL AVE

TONNER CANYON RD

MILLER ST

YORBA LINDA BLVD

AGNOLIA ST
VA LE

NCIA DR

MAGNOLIA AVE
KIM
BE

RLY AVE
CR
OWTHER
AVE

INDIANA ST

ACACIA ST
COYOT

E HILLS
DR

BURNING TREE RD
PIN

FONDA ST
CHAPMA
N AVE

MANHA TTAN AVE
EUCLI
D ST

GILBERT ST

LEMON ST
MAL
VERN
AVE
IM
PERIAL
H
WY

BASTANCHURY RD
!"^$ ?»
City of
Anaheim
City of
Buena Park
City of
Placentia
City of
La Habra
?l
Last Revised: March 02, 2020 :pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/11719A00/GIS/MXD/Fullerton_Figure1_PotentiallyImpactedWells.mxd O
01 0.5
MilesDisclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied.

Data Sources: City of Fullerton, OCWD, Caltrans, ESRI
Figure 1 Potentially Impacted Wells
PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT PLANNING STUDY | OCWD Legend
!ã City Potentially Impacted Wells
Anaheim Potentially Impacted Wells
Other Wells
Fullerton
Anaheim
#* MWD Connections
"=) Pump Stations
UT Reservoirs
Pipelines

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 7
Section 2

REGULATORY AND TREATMENT OBJECTIVES
PFAS, which includes PFOA and PFOS, are a large group of synthetic fluorinated organic chemicals that have been used in many industries since the 1940s. The unique chemical structure of PFAS make them exceptional surface-active agents for municipal, consumer, and industrial products, with over 3,000 compounds produced globally. Examples of products containing PFAS are depicted on Figure 2.

The chemical properties of PFAS make them highly soluble, mobile, and difficult to remove through chemical and biological processes employed in conventional water and wastewater treatment. Based on these properties, PFAS have been detected around the globe in groundwater and drinking water sources.

Figure 2 Products Containing PFAS
This section provides an overview of the PFAS regulations as of March 2020 and the best available PFAS treatment options.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 8 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

2.1 Regulatory Overview
When released into the environment, PFAS can lead to groundwater contamination and subsequent public health concerns. The chemical structure of long-chain PFAS causes bioaccumulation in both humans and wildlife and is persistent once it enters the environment. At this time, there is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects.

In 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a provisional health advisory (PHA) of 400 ng/L for PFOA and 200 ng/L for PFOS to assess the potential risk from short-term exposure through drinking water. The EPA later released a non-regulatory health advisory level (HAL) of 70 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS (combined) in 2016.

As a result of the social and institutional concerns over chronic exposure to PFAS as well as the established provisional EPA health advisories, several states have implemented drinking water regulations or guidelines on PFOA and PFOS. As shown on Figure 3, California established notification levels (NLs) of 5.1 ng/L and 6.5 ng/L. In 2019, California set a RL of 70 ng/L for combined PFOA and PFOS. In 2020, California set revised RLs of 10 ng/L and 40 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS, respectively. In addition to these NLs and RLs, California may issue up to seven new NLs for shorter-chain PFAS in the near future.

Figure 3 PFAS Regulations or Guidelines and Occurrences The presence of PFAS was first documented in the Orange County Groundwater Basin during the federal EPA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3) program, which required monitoring for 30 contaminants between 2013 and 2015. Since then, OCWD has been proactive in addressing local challenges and has encouraged the state of California to use sound science as the basis for PFAS drinking water standards.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 9
As the state of California works to establish enforceable standards (i.e., maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)), OCWD has been in the process of conducting pilot wellhead treatment, planning, and engineering design efforts to support Producers, the local retail water agencies, that have PFAS impacted groundwater supplies. Treatment options for removing PFAS from drinking water sources are discussed in further detail in the following sections.

2.2 Treatment Considerations and Goals for the Removal of PFAS As PFAS began emerging as a constituent of concern, a variety of treatment technologies have been evaluated for PFAS removal with consideration to both cost and efficacy. As shown on Figure 4, the treatment processes commonly used in drinking water plants, including filtration and chlorination, are unable to remove PFAS. However, phase-transfer processes, such as GAC, IX resins, and membrane-based separation (e.g., nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO)) have emerged as the leading PFAS treatment options based on their high efficacy. These treatment options were considered for this Study and are discussed in more detail below.

The treatment goal for this Study is to lower the concentration of PFOS and PFOA to 2 ng/L or less, which is the current limit of analytical methods and considered to be ND. Typically, treating to ND levels can result in higher O&M costs due to increased media replacement frequency, which accounts for approximately 60 percent to 90 percent of the overall life cycle costs. For conservative planning purposes, the treatment goal target of 2 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS was selected to protect public health and to meet regulatory requirements that may be established in the future.

Figure 4 PFAS Treatment Technologies

2.2.1 Granular Activated Carbon
GAC is comprised of carbon-based media placed in a pressure vessel and is commonly used to treat drinking water. Fundamentally, GAC is used to remove contaminants through physical adsorption and has demonstrated that it can be effectively used to treat long-chain PFAS contamination with a removal rate of over 90 percent for PFOA and PFOS. However, GAC is proven to be less effective in removing shorter-chain PFAS (e.g., PFBS, PFHxA, and PFHxS), which are used as replacements for PFOA and PFOS in industrial products.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 10 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
The efficiency of GAC adsorption is influenced by factors such as target effluent contaminant concentration, pH, water temperature, contact time, the properties of the selected carbon, concentration of inorganic, natural organic matter in the water, and the presence or absence of chlorine. A typical process flow for a lead/lag GAC treatment system is presented on Figure 5.

When PFAS breaks through the lead vessel, the system configuration is adjusted so that the lag vessel is in the lead position, and treatment continues. The media in the exhausted vessel is then changed out, and it is put back into service as the lag vessel. Using this approach there is very little likelihood of PFAS breakthrough into the treated water.

Figure 5 Process Flow Diagram – Activated Carbon

2.2.2 Ion Exchange
IX treatment is commonly used for the removal of groundwater contaminants, such as nitrate and perchlorate, and consists of pressurized treatment vessels filled with polymer-based IX resin that removes contaminants as water passes over it. The resins consist of very small plastic porous beads with affixed charges functionally balanced by counter ions. Contaminant removal occurs when the counter ion is exchanged for the charged contaminant ion. The rate of removal is dependent on initial concentration of the contaminant, the concentration of competing ions, loading rate, size and types of resin beads, and the water chemistry.

PFAS removal by IX resins occur through classic "exchange" mechanism, but is also influenced by sorptive effects that are dependent on PFAS chain length and configuration. Depending on the presence of co-contaminants (i.e., sulfate, nitrate, and perchlorate), significant competition for IX sites can be observed, lowering the PFAS removal efficiency. Therefore, choosing a resin with a high selectivity for the contaminant of interest is important. Removal efficiencies can vary based on the resin selected and the feed water quality, and removal of PFOA and PFOS down to levels of 2 ng/L or less have been demonstrated. The typical process flow for IX treatment is presented on Figure 6. Like GAC, IX would be applied in a lead/lag configuration.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 11

Figure 6 Process Flow Diagram – Ion Exchange

2.2.3 Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration
RO and NF are advanced water treatment processes that employ semi-permeable polymeric membranes that physically separate dissolved constituents from water. Although these treatment processes were initially developed for desalination, they have been demonstrated to effectively remove a wide variety of organic constituents, including PFAS.

In RO and NF, the feed flow is pumped under high pressure through the membrane elements.

The product water (or permeate) can range from 50 percent to approximately 90 percent of the total flow, depending on the feed water chemistry, and the remainder (or concentrate) that contains the bulk of the dissolved constituents must be managed as a waste product. RO and NF removal efficiencies depend on the membrane selected, and removal of PFOA and PFOS to 2 ng/L or less has been demonstrated. The typical process flow for RO and NF treatment is presented on Figure 7.

Figure 7 Process Flow Diagram – Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 12 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

2.2.4 Summary of PFAS Treatment Technologies
Based on the water quality data presented in Table 1 and Table 2 and the review of various treatment technologies, GAC and IX were considered as the treatment options that would be further developed as part of the alternatives analysis in this Study.

The advantages and disadvantages for each of the potential treatment technologies considered are summarized in Table 3. The selected treatment options for each site for the City are discussed in further detail in Section 3 and Section 4.

Table 3 Alternative PFAS Treatment Technologies
Advantages Disadvantages
GAC
• Effective at removing PFOA and PFOS.
• Good option if the source water also
contains other organic contaminants that
could be removed simultaneously.
• Less energy intensive and easier to
implement compared to RO/NF.
• Not very effective at removing
short-chain PFAS compounds.
• The spent media must be
regenerated or disposed.
• At a minimum, GAC must be
backwashed after each media
change out.

IX
• Effective at selectively removing both
long- and short- chain compounds.
• Has higher PFAS removal capacity per
volume.
• More suitable for treating groundwater
with higher PFAS concentrations.
• Handles higher surface loadings at lower
empty bed contact time (EBCT).

Therefore, requires smaller footprint than
GAC.
• More suitable for wellhead treatment
when space is limited, or height
restrictions apply.
• Less energy intensive and easier to
implement compared to RO/NF.
• Effective at removing organics.
• Less flexible to operate than
GAC due to poor chlorine
resistance of the IX media and
the negative impact of
backwash on the IX mass
transfer zone. This is particularly
true if the well is subjected to
intermittent operation.
• The spent resin must be
incinerated or disposed of.
• DDW would like to have pilot
data as part of the permit
review.

RO/NF
• Removes PFAS at high efficiency,
including shorter chain PFAS.
• RO removes a wide range of other
contaminants, including salinity,
improving overall water quality.
• The PFAS is removed into the
concentrate and this brine
stream must be disposed of.
• RO is energy intensive and more
complex than GAC or IX.
• High life-cycle costs due to high
capital costs and high operating
pressure.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 13
Section 3

AL TERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of this Study is to evaluate potential alternatives that address the concerns relating to PFAS contamination within the Orange County Groundwater Basin and recommend preferred alternatives for the City. Five initial alternatives were identified for evaluation in this Study, which include all of the following:
• Alternative 1: Shutting down the potentially impacted well and replacing with imported water.
• Alternative 2a: Blending with imported water.
• Alternative 2b: Blending with other groundwater.
• Alternative 3: Packing part of the well to avoid zones with PFAS. • Alternative 4: Engineered treatment (GAC or IX).

This section describes the development of the initial alternatives and the screening criteria used to evaluate the feasibility for each alternative considered. The most feasible alternatives were selected for further development, which are described in Section 4.

3.1 Screening Criteria
To evaluate the feasibility of the initial alternatives developed, the following screening criteria was considered:

1. Fatal Flaw: Each alternative was evaluated to identify any fatal flaws, such as not meeting the treatment goal, schedule, or significant aesthetic impacts (i.e., large vessels installed in a neighborhood). If fatal flaws were identified, the option was eliminated.

2. Life-Cycle Cost: Preliminary Class 5 level cost estimates were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for each alternative. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines an Order-of-Magnitude Estimate, deemed appropriate for master plan studies, as an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data. It is normally expected that an estimate of this type would be accurate within plus 50 percent to minus 30 percent. As projects proceed into the preliminary design and design stages, estimates are refined when conditions become known. The life-cycle was based on 30 years and included the treatment and infrastructure required. These cost estimates were further developed in Section 4.

3. Footprint: The available footprint at the potentially impacted wells was evaluated to determine if onsite treatment was feasible. If space was not available at the existing site, treatment at nearby wells or other available land was considered.

4. Available Land: If space was not available onsite or nearby wells, available land in the vicinity was identified.

3.2 Alternative 1 - Shut Down Potentially Impacted Wells Alternative 1 includes shutting down the potentially impacted wells and replacing the supply with imported water, which would be maintaining the status quo. As previously mentioned in OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 14 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
Section 1, the potentially impacted wells equate to approximately 70 percent of the City’s supply. For this initial screening, the MWD connections and the distribution system are assumed to have enough capacity to deliver the water to Zone 1. The imported water costs analysis is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Imported Water Cost Estimate
Well Name
Groundwater
Supply
Replaced(1)
(AFY)
Annual Cost of
Imported
Water(2)
($ Million)
Life-Cycle Cost(3)
($ Million)
Average Annual
Increase
($/AF)(4)
Main Plant Wells 10,100 $10.9 $327 $490
Kimberly Well 1A 2,200 $2.4 $71 $490
Kimberly Well 2 2,000 $2.2 $65 $490
Sunclipse Well 10 1,800 $1.9 $58 $490
Total 16,100 $17.4 $521 $490
Notes:

Abbreviations: AF - acre-feet.
(1) Based on the average flow of the well.
(2) Based on MWD’s current Tier 1 Full Serve Treated Volumetric Cost of $1,078 per acre-foot without escalation. (3) Life-cycle cost assumes a 30-year term, 3 percent inflation of costs, and 3 percent discount rate. (4) Net increase between pumping groundwater (based on $487 per acre-foot OCWD Replenishment fee plus $100 per acre-foot operating cost) and imported water cost ($1,078/AF).

As listed in Table 4, the annual cost to replace all of the potentially impacted wells with imported water supply is estimated to be $17.4 million. The 30-year cost, including operating costs, is estimated to be $521 million, which is well above the cost of the other alternatives and is likely to increase over time. Based on the life-cycle cost estimates, replacing the supply with imported water is cost prohibitive. In addition, imported water supply does not promote supply reliability within the region and may be unavailable under drought conditions. This alternative was eliminated and not considered for further development since the cost of imported water ($1,080/AF) was approximately $490/AF more than the current rate ($550/AF) for local supply.

3.3 Alternative 2 – Blending Without Treatment
Alternative 2 was analyzed by blending potentially impacted wells with imported water from MWD (Alternative 2a) or other non-impacted groundwater wells (Alternative 2b). Since blending down to 2 ng/L is not practical and functionally equivalent to Alternative 1, the blending options assume a water quality goal of 80 percent of the RLs, which does not meet OCWD and the City’s treatment goal of 2 ng/L or less. These alternatives were ultimately screened out of the analysis and were considered to have a fatal flaw since they could not meet the treatment goal. However, if treatment goals change in the future or an interim approach is needed, blending may be re- evaluated.

The imported water supply needed to blend the water down to 80 percent of the RL was calculated based on current PFOA and PFOS concentrations and the average flow of the well.

A new pipeline from the imported water connection or non-impacted wells would be required to convey the water to each site for blending. For this analysis, the pipeline was sized based on the flow needed to blend the well design capacity down to 80 percent of the RL.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 15

3.3.1 Alternative 2a - Blending With Imported Water
The closest MWD connection to all of the City’s well sites is F-1, which is located in Zone 1A. For the purpose of this analysis, the MWD connection F-1 is assumed to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the required blending flow and is hydraulically able to move the water to the well sites. In Alternative 2a, new pipelines are required to convey water from F-1 to the well sites. In addition, the water quality of the imported water from MWD is assumed to have levels of PFAS either at or below 2 ng/L. If other constituents of concern are present, additional treatment or disinfection may be required and is not included as part of this analysis. Table 5 summarizes the net increase of cost for blending with imported water at each site.

Table 5 Blending With Imported Water Supply – Net Increased Cost Estimate Well Name
MWD
Supply
Needed to
Blend(1)
(AFY)
Annual Cost
for Imported
Water(2)
($ Million)
Total Project
Cost(3)
($ Million)
Total
Life-Cycle
Cost(4,5)
($ Million)
Average
Annual
Increase
($/AF)
Main Plant Wells 325 $0.2 $3.8 $9.8 $40
Kimberly Well 1A 810 $0.4 $1.0 $13.0 $210
Kimberly Well 2 900 $0.5 $1.8 $16.8 $300
Sunclipse Well 10 800 $0.4 $1.7 $13.7 $270
Total 2,835 $1.5 $8.3 $53.3 $120
Notes:
(1) Imported water volume needed to blend the average flow of the well to meet the 80 percent RL goal. It is assumed that volume of water currently imported into the system will be used for blending and the distribution system is hydraulically capable of conveying the water throughout the system.
(2) Net increase of imported water cost assumed to be $490 per acre-foot up to the current volume of imported water. If the imported water volume to blend exceeds the current volume imported, the cost for the additional imported water is assumed to be $1,078 per acre-foot.
(3) Includes capital cost for pipelines based on the distance to the closest MWD connection (F-1) to the well site. (4) Life-cycle cost assumes a 30-year term, 3 percent inflation of costs, and 3 percent discount rate. (5) Cost does not include $487 per acre-foot OCWD Replenishment fee and $100 per acre-foot operating cost.

The Main Plant Wells could be blended at the forebay, which would require approximately

3.1 miles of 8-inch diameter pipeline from MWD connection F-1 to the Main Plant Wells. The net increase in life-cycle cost to blend at the Main Plant Wells is approximately $9.8 million.

Kimberly Well 1A, Kimberly Well 2, and Sunclipse Well 10 would require a total of approximately

3.8 miles of 8-inch diameter pipelines from the MWD connection F-1 to each individual well. The net increase in life-cycle cost to blend at Kimberly Well 1A, Kimberly Well 2, and Sunclipse Well 10 is approximately $13 million, $16.8 million, and $13.7 million, respectively.

Since blending with imported water does not meet the treatment goal of 2 ng/L or less, Alternative 2a was eliminated and not evaluated in further detail. In addition, imported water is costly and is not a sustainable long-term solution. Also, imported water may not be reliable during drought conditions.

3.3.2 Alternative 2b - Blending With Other Groundwater Wells In Alternative 2b, the closest groundwater well that is not included in the list of potentially impacted wells is Christlieb 15A, which is located in Zone 1B of the City’s service area. New pipelines will be required to convey the water from Christlieb 15A to the potentially impacted wells. Due to the distance between the wells, estimated pipeline costs were developed to OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 16 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Alternative 2b when compared to other alternatives. Table 6 summarizes the cost of the pipeline and net increased cost of imported water for each potentially impacted site to blend with other groundwater wells.

The total pipeline length required to convey water from Christlieb 15A to each of the sites is

17.2 miles, which equates to approximately $21.1 million. The length of pipeline required will increase the schedule of the project. In addition, though Christlieb 15A is currently not listed as potentially impacted, migration of the PFAS in the groundwater is unknown and may affect the well in the future. Treatment goals will also not be met, as no actual PFAS will be removed from the groundwater system. Thus, Alternative 2b was considered to be an unreliable long-term solution. Therefore, Alternative 2b was eliminated and not evaluated in further detail.

Table 6 Blending With Other Groundwater Wells – Net Increased Cost Estimate Well Name
Supply
Needed to
Blend(1)
(AFY)
Annual Cost for
Supplemental
Water(2)
($ Million)
Total Project
Cost(3)
($ Million)
Life-Cycle
Cost(4,5)
($ Million)
Average
Annual Cost
($/AF)
Main Plant Wells 325 $0.0 $3.3 $3.3 $20
Kimberly Well 1A 810 $0.0 $5.4 $5.4 $130
Kimberly Well 2 900 $0.0 $6.3 $6.3 $160
Sunclipse Well 10 800 $0.0 $6.1 $6.1 $170
Total 2,835(6) $0.0 $21.1 $21.1 $70
Notes:
(1) Supply includes a mix of both imported water and groundwater to maintain existing well production capacity. (2) Net increase of imported water cost assumed to be $490 per AF. (3) Includes capital cost for pipelines. Pipeline diameter calculated based on the flow required to blend down the potentially impacted wells to 80 percent of the RL. If multiple wells require blending, the pipeline length may decrease, and the pipeline diameter may increase.
(4) Life-cycle cost assumes a 30-year term, 3 percent inflation of costs, and 3 percent discount rate. (5) Cost does not include $487 per acre-foot OCWD Replenishment fee and $100 per acre-foot operating cost. (6) Christlieb 15A produces approximately 2,085 gpm (3,363 AFY).

3.4 Alternative 3 - Pack Part of Potentially Impacted Wells Packing part of the well involves blocking a specific screened interval in the aquifer that may be contaminated by PFAS. However, there is no guarantee that PFAS will not migrate to different zones. Additionally, this alternative was evaluated by OCWD and was determined to be ineffective due to the pervasiveness of the PFAS contamination. Thus, Alternative 3 was considered as an unreliable long-term solution and was not evaluated in further detail.

3.5 Alternative 4 - Engineered Treatment
An initial review of GAC and IX treatment options were evaluated as part of Alternative 4, which included decentralized treatment at each well (Alternative 4a) and centralized treatment for a group of wells (Alternative 4b). RO and NF were removed from consideration due to their significantly higher life cycle costs. Both lead-lag and parallel configurations were considered for GAC and IX. However, parallel configurations were eliminated due to potential concerns with obtaining DDW permitting. It is likely that lead-lag will be required by DDW.

To establish the limits of the various treatment locations, the most decentralized and the most centralized options were evaluated as part of this screening process. The most decentralized alternative represents the largest number of treatment sites to bring the wells back online, while PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 17
the most centralized alternative represents the least recommended number of treatment sites to bring the wells back online. These alternatives are discussed in further detail in the sections below.

3.5.1 Alternative 4a - Individual Wellhead Treatment
The most decentralized engineered treatment alternative involves individual wellhead treatment at each potentially impacted site, which would result in the largest number treatment sites. An initial review of each well site layout was performed to determine if space was available for treatment. Existing site layouts and site visit notes for each site can be found in Appendix C. The following sites were identified for this alternative:
• Main Plant Wells is located onsite at the Main Plant and will include treatment for Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8.
• Kimberly Well 1A is located onsite at Kimberly 1A and will include treatment for Kimberly Well 1A
• Kimberly Well 2 is located onsite at Kimberly 2 and will include treatment for Kimberly Well 2
• Sunclipse Well 10 is located in a parking lot on Acacia Avenue and Rosslynn Avenue.

This site will include treatment for Sunclipse Well 10.

Figure 8 shows the locations of the four sites, while Table 7 and Table 8 summarize the cost for the GAC Lead-Lag and IX Lead-Lag treatment options at each site. These estimated costs include O&M cost and capital cost for the water treatment system, onsite construction, transmission mains (if needed), and land acquisition (if needed). Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix D.

Table 7 Individual Wellhead Treatment - GAC Option
Site
Well
Production
(AFY)
Project Cost
for Pipelines
($ Million)
GAC
Lead-Lag
Treatment
($ Million)
Total
Life-Cycle
Cost
($ Million)(1,2)
Average
Annual Cost
($/AF)
Main Plant Wells(3) 10,100 - $32.1 $55.5 $180
Kimberly Well 1A 2,200 - $10.0 $19.0 $270
Kimberly Well 2 2,000 - $7.1 $13.1 $220
Sunclipse Well 10 1,800 - $7.1 $13.1 $240
Total 16,100 - $56.5 $100.7 $210
Notes:
(1) Life-cycle cost assumes a 30-year term, 3 percent inflation of costs, and 3 percent discount rate. (2) Cost does not include $487 per acre-foot OCWD Replenishment fee and $60 per acre-foot operating cost. (3) Includes Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8.

As shown in Table 7, the GAC lead-lag treatment option is approximately $56.5 million with average annual cost of $210/AF. This alternative will be evaluated in further detail in Section 4.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 18 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
Table 8 Individual Wellhead Treatment – IX Option
Site
Well
Production
(AFY)
Capital Cost
for Pipelines
($ Million)
IX
Lead-Lag
Treatment
($ Million)
Total Life-
Cycle Cost
($ Million)(1,2)
Average
Annual Cost
($/AF)
Main Plant Wells(3) 10,100 - $16.8 $50.9 $170
Kimberly Well 1A 2,200 - $5.4 $17.4 $250
Kimberly Well 2 2,000 - $5.2 $14.2 $220
Sunclipse Well 10 1,800 - $5.2 $14.2 $250
Total 16,100 - $32.6 $96.7 $190
Notes:
(1) Life-cycle cost assumes a 30-year term, 3 percent inflation of costs, and 3 percent discount rate. (2) Cost does not include $487 per acre-foot OCWD Replenishment fee and $60 per acre-foot operating cost. (3) Includes Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8.

As shown in Table 8, the IX lead-lag treatment option is approximately $32.6 million with average annual cost of $190/AF. This alternative will be evaluated in further detail in Section 4.

3.5.2 Alternative 4b - Centralized Treatment
The most centralized engineered treatment alternative involves treatment at the fewest number of sites. "K-means clustering" was used to determine the optimal number and location of centralized treatment sites (i.e., clusters). The k-means algorithm identifies k number of centroids and then allocates every potentially impacted well to the nearest cluster while reducing the intra-cluster sum of squares (i.e., distance) and maximizing the inter-cluster distance (i.e., difference between each cluster). The location of the clusters is chosen at the shortest geographic distance (i.e., as a bird flies) between each potentially impacted well to the centroid. This method was used to determine the optimal number of centralized treatment sites and relative locations. The actual treatment site locations were determined based on these estimates and space availability at nearby sites, or potentially available land. Based on the k-means algorithm, the optimal number of centralized treatment sites is two. The following sites were identified for this alternative:
• Main Plant Wells are located onsite at the Main Plant and will include treatment for Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
• Kimberly Well 2 is located onsite at Kimberly 2 and will include treatment for Kimberly Well 1A, Kimberly Well 2, and Sunclipse Well 10.

!ã
!ã
!ã!ã!ã !ã
!ã
!ã
!ã$+
$+ $+
$+
Sunclipse 10
Kimberly 2
Main Plant
Kimberly 1A

HARBOR BLVD
LA

PALMA AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

PLACENT
IA AVE

NORTH ST

ACACIA AVE

RAYMOND AVE

EAST ST

SYCAMORE S
T
CH

APMAN AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

VALENCIA D
R

ROMNEYA DR

KIMBERLY AVE

RICHMAN AVE

ACACIA ST

PATT ST

MALVERN AVE
HIL
L AVE

LEMON ST

LA JOLLA ST

BAKER AV
E

JACARANDA
PL

CITRON ST

ANAHEIM BLVD

VICTORIA DR
LEMON

SUNKIST ST

COMMONWEALTH AVE

DURST ST

CYPRESS

VIA BURTON ST

MANHATTAN AVE

BERKELEY AVE

CROWTHE

HIGHLAND AVE

MAYFAIR AVE

POMONA AVE

DISNEYLAND DR

WALNUT AVE

LEMON ST

LA PALMA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VALENCIA DR

WEST ST

KIMBERLY AVE
?»
?l
Last Revised: August 04, 2020 :pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/11719A00/GIS/MXD/Fullerton_Figure8_Individual Wellhead Treatment Alternatives.mxd O
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are
for planning purposes and represent
approximate locations. Engineering and/or
survey accuracy is not implied.

Data Sources: City of Fullerton, OCWD,
Caltrans, ESRI
Figure 8 Individual Wellhead Treatment Alternatives
PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT PLANNING STUDY | OCWD Legend
$+ Potential Treatment Sites
Proposed Pipelines
!ã Potentially Impacted Wells
Existing Pipelines
Service Area
!"^$ ?»
?l

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 21
Figure 9 shows the location of the two sites, while Table 9 and Table 10 summarize the cost for the GAC Lead-Lag and IX Lead-Lag treatment options at each site. These estimated costs include O&M cost and capital cost for the water treatment system, onsite construction, transmission mains (if needed), land acquisition (if needed). Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix D.

Table 9 Centralized Treatment – GAC Option
Site
Total Well
Production
(AFY)
Capital Cost
for Pipelines
($ Million)
GAC
Lead-Lag
Treatment
($ Million)
Total Life-
Cycle Cost
($ Million)(1,2)
Average
Annual Cost
($/AF)
Main Plant Wells(3) 10,100 - $32.1 $55.5 $180
Kimberly Well 2(4) 6,000 $2.1 $23.6 $41.9 $230
Total 16,100 $2.1 $55.7 $97.4 $200
Notes:
(1) Life-cycle cost assumes a 30-year term, 3 percent inflation of costs, and 3 percent discount rate. (2) Cost does not include $487 per acre-foot OCWD Replenishment fee and $60 per acre-foot operating cost. (3) Includes flows from Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. (4) Includes flows from Kimberly 1A, Kimberly 2, and Sunclipse 10.

As shown in Table 9, the GAC lead-lag treatment option is approximately $57.8 million with average annual cost of $200/AF. This alternative will be evaluated in further detail in Section 4.

Table 10 Centralized Treatment – IX Option
Site
Total Well
Production
(AFY)
Capital Cost
for Pipelines
($ Million)
IX
Lead-Lag
Treatment
($ Million)
Total Life-
Cycle Cost
($ Million)(1,2)
Average
Annual Cost
($/AF)
Main Plant Wells(3) 10,100 - $16.9 $50.9 $170
Kimberly Well 2(4) 6,000 $2.1 $12.0 $37.1 $210
Total 16,100 $2.1 $28.9 $88.0 $180
Notes:
(1) Life-cycle cost assumes a 30-year term, 3 percent inflation of costs, and 3 percent discount rate. (2) Cost does not include $487 per acre-foot OCWD Replenishment fee and $60 per acre-foot operating cost. (3) Includes flows from Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. (4) Includes flows from Kimberly 1A, Kimberly 2, and Sunclipse 10.

As shown in Table 10, the IX lead-lag treatment option is approximately $29 million with average annual cost of $180/AF. This alternative will be evaluated in further detail in Section 4.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 22 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

3.6 Summary of Initial Alternatives
Based on the screening criteria, the following alternatives were eliminated from further consideration:
• Replacement with Imported Water. Imported water is costly and is not a sustainable long-term solution. In addition, imported water may not be reliable during drought conditions.
• Blending with Groundwater or Imported Water. Blending does not meet the treatment goal of achieving a PFAS concentration of 2 ng/L or less. • Packing Part of a Well. Packing part of the well was not determined to be viable because the contamination may move to different zones.

The initial alternatives considered for this Study are summarized in Table 11. The alternatives selected for further consideration are highlighted in red text and will be evaluated in further detail in Section 4.

Table 11 Alternative Summary – Net Increased Cost
Site
Replacement
with
Imported
Water
($/AF)
Blending
with
Imported
Water
($/AF)(2)
Blending
with
Groundwater
($/AF)(2)
Individual
Wellhead
Treatment
GAC/IX
($/AF)(1) (4)
Centralized
Treatment
GAC/IX
($/AF) (1) (4)
Main Plant Wells $530 $40 $20 n/a $180/$170
Kimberly Well 1A $530 $210 $130 $270/$250 -
Kimberly Well 2 $530 $300 $160 $220/$220 $230/$210(3)
Sunclipse Well 10 $530 $270 $170 $240/$250 -
Notes:
(1) Bolded red alternatives were selected for further evaluation. (2) This alternative is not able to meet the treatment goal of achieving a PFAS concentration of 2 ng/L or less. (3) Kimberly Well 2 centralized option includes treatment of flows from Kimberly 1A, Kimberly 2, and Sunclipse 10. (4) For comparison purposes, Average Annual Cost of NF/RO was estimated to be $585/AF for a system producing 2,000 gpm of permeate.

!ã
!ã
!ã!ã!ã !ã
!ã
!ã
!ã$+
$+

HARBOR BLVD
LA

PALMA AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

PLACENT
IA AVE

NORTH ST

ACACIA AVE

RAYMOND AVE

EAST ST

SYCAMORE S
T
CH

APMAN AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

VALENCIA D
R

ROMNEYA DR

KIMBERLY AVE

RICHMAN AVE

ACACIA ST

PATT ST

MALVERN AVE
HIL
L AVE

LEMON ST

LA JOLLA ST

BAKER AV
E

JACARANDA
PL

CITRON ST

ANAHEIM BLVD

VICTORIA DR
LEMON

SUNKIST ST

COMMONWEALTH AVE

DURST ST

CYPRESS

VIA BURTON ST

MANHATTAN AVE

BERKELEY AVE

CROWTHE

HIGHLAND AVE

MAYFAIR AVE

POMONA AVE

DISNEYLAND DR

WALNUT AVE

LEMON ST

LA PALMA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VALENCIA DR

WEST ST
KIMBERLY AVE Kimberly 2
Main Plant
Kimberly 1A
Sunclipse 10
?»
?l
Last Revised: March 03, 2020 :pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/11719A00/GIS/MXD/Fullerton_Figure9_Centralized Treatment Alternative.mxd O
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are
for planning purposes and represent
approximate locations. Engineering and/or
survey accuracy is not implied.

Data Sources: City of Fullerton, OCWD,
Caltrans, ESRI
Figure 9 Centralized Treatment Alternative
PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT PLANNING STUDY | OCWD Legend
$+ Potential Treatment Sites
Proposed Pipelines
!ã Potentially Impacted Wells
Existing Pipelines
Service Area
!"^$ ?»
?l

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 25
Section 4

AL TERNATIVE ASSESSMENT
The feasible alternatives developed in the alternative assessment and screening are further refined in the following sections and a preferred alternative is recommended. The feasible alternatives are evaluated for pretreatment needs, site layouts for GAC and IX systems, and costs, including total construction costs, total project costs, O&M costs, and life-cycle costs.

4.1 Pretreatment Requirements
Prior to developing site layouts for each of the potentially affected wells, an evaluation of water quality was performed to determine if pretreatment was required ahead of the GAC and IX systems. Pretreatment limits were coordinated with media vendors and are summarized in Table 12. The limits shown are based on general rules of thumb for considering pretreatment.

Water quality data in exceedance of the adsorption limit does not necessarily suggest pretreatment is required, but indicates where pilot testing results should be carefully evaluated to determine if pretreatment could benefit the life-cycle cost of the treatment process.

Table 12 Pre-treatment Water Quality
Parameter Units Limit for
Adsorption Minimum Average Maximum
Iron(1) µg/L 1,000 0.1 6.0 12.2
Manganese(1) µg/L 1,000 0.1 0.3 0.9
pH(2) - 9 7.7 7.9 8.0
Turbidity(3) NTU 1 0.1 0.4 1.4
TOC(4) mg/L 1 0.5 0.6 0.9
Notes:

Abbreviations: NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit.
(1) Iron and Manganese are problematic at >1 mg/L (>1,000 µg/L), which is in excess of the secondary MCLs. Above 1 mg/L will require pretreatment to prevent colloidal fouling. (2) Optimal pH is <9. As the pH of zero-point charge for activated carbons is between 7.2 (Calgon F400) and 6.4 (Norit GAC400). Waters with significantly higher pH exhibit lower PFAS removal from electrostatic repulsion with negatively charged polar headgroups on PFAS.
(3) Turbidity higher than 1 NTU can cause colloidal fouling. (4) Both TOC concentration and character influence the extent to which TOC directly competes with contaminants for adsorption sites or indirectly blocks pores via steric hindrance. Values higher than 1 mg/L indicate waters that may need more frequent media replacement. This is applicable to both GAC and IX, but is more problematic for GAC. (5) Sample data from February 2000 to July 2019.

As shown in Table 12, the average water quality data for the potentially impacted wells is well within the acceptable range for GAC and IX treatment. Pretreatment is not recommended for the potentially impacted wells based on the typical water quality parameters. However, several of the Main Plant Wells are also contaminated with TCE and PCE, which may lower PFAS adsorption onto GAC. Results of the RSSCT tests, conducted by OCWD, should be carefully evaluated to determine the requirement of TCE and PCE pretreatment.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 26 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

4.2 Design Criteria
The design criteria used to develop the treatment plant site layouts and O&M costs for GAC and IX systems are summarized in Table 13. Specific design criteria for the recommended alternative are shown in Section 5.

Table 13 Site Layout and O&M Design Criteria
Description Units GAC IX
Flow per System (2 vessels, Lead-Lag)(1,2) gpm 525/1,000 1,600 Vessel Configuration - Lead-Lag Lead-Lag
EBCT per Vessel (per pilot study) min 10 2
Vessel Diameter ft 12 12
Backwash Tank Quantity No. 1 -
Backwash Waste Tank Quantity No. 1 -
Pre-Filter Tank Quantity - - Varies
Pre-Filter Specification - - 5-micron
Bed Volumes Treated(3) - 60,000 150,000
Replacement Frequency(4) days 400 200
Notes:
(1) The GAC vessels used for developing site layouts come in two sizes: to accommodate 20,000 and 40,000 lbs of GAC. The 20,000-lb vessels can treat 525 gpm and the 40,000-lb vessels can treat 1,000 gpm. (2) Only 12-foot diameter vessels were considered for the site layout development. (3) Bed Volumes are estimated based on vendor data and previous testing results for similar water quality. Bed Volumes Treated are being determined for each Producer through RSSCT and pilot testing currently being conducted by OCWD. (4) Replacement frequency assumes a continuous flow of 525 gpm for GAC and 1,600 gpm for IX for the entire replacement frequency, and the stated Bed Volumes treated.

4.3 Site Layouts
This section provides preliminary layouts for the screened treatment alternatives at each well site. The layouts include vessel locations, buried pipeline routes, and major associated system components. The layouts show the equipment needed for both GAC and IX systems. Specific notes are included for each layout describing the size of the GAC vessels included (20,000 lbs or 40,000 lbs). The IX system layouts include 12-foot vessels to represent the vessels that are being prepurchased by OCWD. The following sections present layouts for each of the feasible sites indicated in Table 11. Additional layouts developed as part of the screening phase are provided in Appendix E.

4.3.1 Main Plant Site (Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8)
The layout for treatment at the Main Plant site is shown on Figure 10. This layout is identical for all three of the screened alternatives. Since there are no height restrictions for the site, 40,000-lb GAC vessels, which are 26-feet high, were selected for the layout, and 16 vessels would be required. If 20,000-lb GAC vessels are desired, then an additional four vessels would be required and may be located as indicated in the figure.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 27

Figure 10 Main Plant Wells Treatment Layout
Flow from Main Plant Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A(future), and 8 will enter a new common pipeline that connects to the prefiltration system (needed for the IX option only). Existing connections from the wells to the forebay may be maintained to bypass treatment, if desired. The new common pipeline may be routed between the treatment vessels. Laterals will be constructed to send flow from the common pipeline to the vessels. After treatment, flow will travel into a common pipeline that discharges flow into the existing forebay. From the forebay, the treated well flow will be pumped into the distribution system.

If GAC is selected, a backwash system will be required. The backwash supply and waste tanks may be constructed on a common concrete pad that is easily accessible from the roadway. A connection to an existing sewer along West La Palma Avenue will be required for disposal of backwash waste.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 28 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

4.3.2 Kimberly Well 1A Site
The layout for treatment at the Kimberly Well 1A site is shown on Figure 11. Due to space constraints, only IX treatment was considered. The layout illustrates two lead/lag IX systems.

Figure 11 Kimberly Well 1A Treatment Layout
A new pipeline will be constructed to send flow from the well to the prefilter and vessels. The pipeline carrying treated flow may be connected to the existing well discharge header (downstream of the isolation valve) rather than directly to the distribution system.

Because of the size of the site, installation and maintenance of the vessels will be difficult. There is minimal space to park a crane, or any large vehicle, on-site. In addition, power lines are located over the sidewalk between the treatment site and Kimberly Avenue. For installation of the vessels, the City may work with the neighboring facilities to park a crane and truck bed along the alleyway to the west for placement of the vessel. The tree sitting between the alleyway and the treatment site may require trimming or removal for vessel installation.

4.3.3 Kimberly Well 2 Site (Options 1 and 2)
The Kimberly Well 2 is located within a parking lot owned by Kimberly-Clark. It was indicated by the City that Kimberly-Clark will be moving out, and that parking area around the well could be available for purchase. The treatment layouts generated for the site assume that this land will be purchased by the City.

The treatment layout at Kimberly Well 2 will vary for each option. A layout for Option 1 is shown on Figure 12 and includes flow from the Kimberly Well 2 only. The layout shows a total of four vessels for IX or four 40,000-lb GAC vessels. GAC treatment using 20,000-lb vessels would not fit on the available footprint. In addition, due to other siting constraints, the 40,000-lb GAC vessels

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 29
could not be accommodated on this site either. For Option 2, additional vessels were added to the layout to accommodate flow from both Kimberly Well 2 and the Sunclipse Well 10. A layout for Option 2 is shown on Figure 13. In this case, the layout also assumes either standard IX vessels or 40,000-lb GAC vessels. However, once again, it is only the IX system that can be accommodated on the available site. New pipelines will need to be constructed to convey flow from the Sunclipse Well 10 to the Kimberly Well 2 site.

Figure 12 Kimberly Well 2 Site Option 1 (Kimberly Well 2 Only)

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 30 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

Figure 13 Kimberly Well 2 Site Option 2 (Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10) Similar to the layout for the Main Plant, flow from the wells will enter a common pipeline that connects to the prefiltration system (IX only). The common pipeline may be routed between the treatment vessels. Laterals will be constructed to send flow from the pipelines to the vessels.

After treatment, flow will travel to the north to a common pipeline that sends flow to the forebay. From the forebay, the treated well flow will be pumped into the distribution system. If desired, the booster pump station could be designed to eliminate the forebay from the process flow.

As mentioned for the Kimberly Well 1A site layout, overhead powerlines are located between the treatment site and Kimberly Avenue. Due to potential height restrictions and the space available, only 20,000-lb GAC vessels could be accommodated. These vessels also represent the "worst case" with regards to space required for lead-lag GAC treatment. For access, it was assumed that the existing driveway to the east of the well may be used. Additional space was provided between vessels grids to accommodate a new driveway from Kimberly Avenue. A connection to an existing sewer along Kimberly Avenue will be required for removal of backwash waste if GAC is selected.

A third option was developed for Kimberly Well 2 that included flows from Kimberly Well 1A, Kimberly Well 2, and Sunclipse Well 10. This option was eliminated due to the limited available footprint. A layout is provided in Appendix E.

4.3.4 Sunclipse Well 10 Site
A Layout for Sunclipse Well 10 site is provided for the parking lot surrounding the well (Figure 14). The parking lot surrounding the well is owned by Corru-Kraft. This land would have to be purchased or leased by the City to construct a treatment site.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 31

Figure 14 Sunclipse Well 10 Treatment Layout
The preliminary layout shows a total of four vessels, two lead-lag systems, either GAC or IX, and, to limit the footprint needs, includes the larger 40,000-lb GAC vessels. Smaller 20,000-lb GAC vessels would require significantly more space. A new pipeline would be constructed to send flow from the well to the prefilter and vessels. Laterals will be provided to connect to the treatment vessels. The pipeline carrying treated flow may will be connected to the distribution system. A connection to an existing sewer along East Rosslyn Avenue or South Acacia Avenue will be required for removal of backwash waste if GAC is selected.

4.4 O&M Activities
The operation and maintenance of GAC and IX systems is fairly straightforward. It consists mainly of monitoring pressure and flow and taking samples to determine the progression of the mass transfer zone through the media bed. The following sections discuss the general operation of these systems including labor, monitoring, and shutdowns; general maintenance requirements; and residual management. This section is not intended to be an O&M manual.

Operators should refer to the systems O&M manual to perform any work on the full-scale system.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 32 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL

4.4.1 General Operational Activities
The general operational activities include labor, system monitoring, and shutdown procedures.

4.4.1.1 Operational Certification Requirements
The new treatment facilities will require a certified operator with a treatment operator certificate. An operator with only Distribution Operator certification is not allowed to operate a GAC or IX system. Each treatment facility will be individually classified based on a calculation of total points for the entire facility. The required certificate is based on the total points and shown in Table 14.

Table 14 Water Treatment Facility Class
Total Points Class
Less than 20 T1
20 through 39(1) T2
40 through 59 T3
60 through 79 T4
80 or more T5
Notes:
(1) It is estimated that the required Class will be T2.

DDW does not look at the treatment itself to determine the Treatment Facility Class, but looks at the source type (groundwater or surface water), the contaminant to be treated, the level of the contaminant, flow rate, and type of disinfectant used. So for example, if treating a 100 gpm groundwater source, PFAS only, and downstream chlorination, the required operator class would be T2. It is recommended that the City coordinate with DDW to determine actual operator certification class required for each of the recommended facilities.

4.4.1.2 System Monitoring
Monitoring of GAC and IX systems is established and straightforward. The following is a list of suggested information for an operating log. This information should be recorded each day for each individual GAC or IX system.

1. Record the date and time when each item is logged.

2. Record all maintenance, calibration, cleaning, repairs, and replacement of parts.

3. Record any unusual occurrences such as shutdowns and leaks.

4. Record the flow to and pressure drop across each system to indicate whether there is a buildup of material in the system.

4.4.1.3 System Shutdowns
Two types of shutdowns are discussed: Temporary (≤3 days) and Extended (>3 days).

For temporary shutdowns or intermittent operation, the GAC or IX system should remain completely full of water and the inlet and outlet should be sealed either by a valve or a cap. For GAC systems only, prior to restarting the unit, the GAC system should be backwashed using two to three bed volumes of water. Failure to backwash may result in a temporary presence of contaminated water at the outlet of the system. It is not recommended to backwash IX systems because it could lead to premature breakthrough of the contaminant of concern when the system is restarted.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 33
For extended shutdowns, GAC systems should be backwashed using two to three bed volumes of water and all water should be drained from the system prior to shutdown. Because it is not recommended to backwash IX systems, these systems should just be drained prior to an extended shutdown. There should be no freestanding water left in the IX vessels. All valves, manways, and vents should be tightly sealed for the duration of the shutdown to eliminate any supply of oxygen that would promote biological growth. The system start-up procedure should be followed when bringing a system back online.

4.4.1.4 Media Change Out
The media change out is the most important aspect of GAC and IX system operation. For lead- lag systems a media change out is initiated when a predetermined concentration of a contaminant of concern (in this case PFOA) is detected between the lead and lag vessels. At that point the system is switched so that the lag vessel becomes the lead vessel. When the media change out is initiated, the media service provider is contacted and they will deliver the new media, remove the exhausted media, inspect the empty vessel, fill the vessel with new media, and make any necessary repairs. The vessel with the replaced media is then placed into service in the lag position.

As previously mentioned, media costs contribute 60 percent to 90 percent of the total life-cycle costs of GAC and IX systems. This report has estimated bed volumes treated for GAC and IX systems as shown in Table 13. These estimates are based on internal software and vendor models. It is recommended that anticipated the bed volume values be based on the pilot study currently being performed by OCWD. The results of the RSSCT and pilot study were not available at the time of this report.

4.4.2 Maintenance
Maintenance of GAC and IX systems can be divided into two categories: minor and major. Minor maintenance can be performed by operations to provide continuous and effective operation.

This maintenance includes visual check of pressure gauges and rupture disks, adjustments to valves and regulators, and tightening flanges and connections to eliminate leakage. During scheduled change-out services vessel internal parts should be inspected (underdrain screens, vessel lining, nozzles, etc.) to ensure they are in good working condition. Major maintenance includes equipment repair or replacement for continued system operation. The need for major maintenance would result from a major malfunction causing the system to be inoperative.

4.4.3 Residual Management
Residual management is an important aspect for both GAC and IX treatment systems. For GAC and IX systems the main residual is the spent media generated through the life of the system.

4.4.3.1 GAC Systems
The GAC vessels may be backwashed periodically to remove fines and other particulate that may accumulate, ideally with non-chlorinated water. The backwash waste water may be sent directly to sewer. A backwash waste tank may be required to equalize the flow to the sewer. The need for a backwash system, waste tank, and potential methods for minimizing biological growth on the media should be evaluated further during detailed design.

Although the GAC can be regenerated, it is not practical to do so onsite. As such, the spent GAC would be hauled offsite. The regeneration process heats the GAC to burn off the adsorbed contaminants; however, there is still some discussion whether the temperatures typically used OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 34 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
for regeneration are sufficient for PFAS destruction. At this time, full incineration of the spent media is recommended to destroy the PFAS compounds and limit end-of-life liability.

4.4.3.2 IX Systems
The most significant residual produced by IX systems is the spent resin. The resin will have to be replaced on a periodic basis depending on the target water quality and actual vessel flowrates.

The spent resin would be hauled to a waste disposal facility for landfill or incineration. In Purolite’s case, the resin would be taken to a waste management facility where it would be incinerated, thus destroying the PFAS and limiting end-of-life concerns.

4.5 Cost (Capital, O&M, and Life Cycle)
The opinion of probable construction cost presented in this report represents a Class 5 budgetary estimate as defined by the AACE International. Bids would be expected to fall within a range of 50 percent over the estimate to 30 percent under the estimate. The opinion of probable construction costs is based on preliminary quantity take-offs for GAC and IX systems. The capital cost estimates were developed using all of the following:
• Equipment quotes for major components.
• Quantity takeoffs and unit costs from Carollo’s cost estimating system. • Percentage multipliers for electrical, instrumentation, and mechanical portions of the project based on recently bid projects of similar scope.

A summary of capital and O&M cost assumptions is shown in Table 15.

Table 15 Capital and O&M Cost Assumptions
Project Unit Cost Comment
Capital Costs
GAC/IX Vessels 1220(1) $519,000 per vessel, includes installation, piping, EI&C upgrades, and pipe supports
GAC Vessels 1240(1) $690,000 per vessel, includes installation, piping, EI&C upgrades, and pipe supports
Booster Pump Station $4,500 per hp
Backwash Tanks, 1220(1)(2) $50,000 per tank
Backwash Tanks, 1240(1)(2) $100,000 per tank
Backwash Piping $50,000 Piping to Backwash tank
Pre-filter $57,000 Per 2,300 gpm, includes installation and piping Land Acquisition $1,500,000 per acre
Carbon 1220s(1) $35,000 per 20,000 lbs carbon
Carbon 1240s(1) $70,000 per 40,000 lbs carbon
IX Resin 1220s(1) $110,000 per 425 CF
Site GAC 1220(1)(3) 10% of Direct Cost
Site GAC 1240(1)(3) 13% of Direct Cost
Site IX 1220(1)(3) 17% of Direct Cost
Structural 10% of Direct Cost
E&IC 10% of Direct Cost
PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 35
Project Unit Cost Comment
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Carbon Change Outs 60,000 Bed Volumes
IX Change Outs 150,000 Bed Volumes
Labor $80,000 per year
Power $0.13 per kWh
Analytical $200 per sample per month
Maintenance Cost 2% of equipment cost
O&M Contingency 15%
Imported Water $1,078 per AF
Indirect Costs
Construction Cost
Contingency 15% of Direct Cost
General Conditions 10% of Direct Cost + Contingency
Contractor Overhead and
Profit 15%
of Direct Cost + Contingency + General
Conditions
Sales Tax 7.5% of 75% of Direct Cost + Contingency
Project Costs 20% added to Total Construction Cost
Notes:

Abbreviations: EI&C - electrical, instrumentation, & controls; CF - cubic feet; kWh - kilowatt hour. (1) Vessel model numbers – For 1240 vessels, the 12 represents the vessel diameter in feet and 40 represents the amount of GAC the vessel can hold (40,000 lbs). For 1220 vessels, the 12 represents the vessel diameter in feet and 20 represents the amount of GAC the vessel can hold (20,000 lbs).
(2) Cost includes backwash supply pumps.
(3) Site costs include activities such as earthwork, buried utilities and piping, concrete, paving, and grading.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 36 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
The preliminary opinion of probable Project, annual O&M, and 30-year life-cycle costs are shown in Table 16. The detailed cost development outputs are provided for reference in Appendix D.

Table 16 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Project, O&M, and Life-Cycle Cost Site(3) Project Cost Annual O&M Cost Life-Cycle Cost(1) Main Plant Wells
GAC lead-lag 1220 vessels $32,100,000 $800,000 $55,500,000 GAC lead-lag 1240 vessels $26,500,000 $800,000 $49,900,000 IX lead-lag 1220 vessels $16,800,000 $1,100,000 $50,900,000 Kimberly Well 1A
GAC lead-lag 1220 vessels $10,000,000 $300,000 $19,000,000 GAC lead-lag 1240 vessels $8,000,000 $300,000 $17,000,000 IX lead-lag 1220 vessels $5,400,000 $400,000 $17,400,000 Kimberly Well 2 (Option 1)(2)(4)
GAC lead-lag 1220 vessels $7,100,000 $200,000 $13,100,000 GAC lead-lag 1240 vessels $5,600,000 $200,000 $11,600,000 IX lead-lag 1220 vessels $5,200,000 $300,000 $14,200,000 Kimberly Well 2 (Option 2)(2)(4)
GAC lead-lag 1220 vessels $13,800,000 $300,000 $22,800,000 GAC lead-lag 1240 vessels $12,300,000 $300,000 $21,300,000 IX lead-lag 1220 vessels $9,400,000 $500,000 $24,400,000 Sunclipse Well 10
GAC lead-lag 1220 vessels $7,100,000 $200,000 $13,100,000 GAC lead-lag 1240 vessels $5,600,000 $200,000 $11,600,000 IX lead-lag 1220 vessels $5,200,000 $300,000 $14,200,000 Notes:
(1) Life-Cycle costs assumes a term of 30 years, 3% inflation of O&M costs, and a 3% discount rate. (2) Option 1 includes flow from Kimberly 2. Option 2 Includes flows from Kimberly 2 and Sunclipse 10. (3) Vessel model numbers – For 1240 vessels, the 12 represents the vessel diameter in feet and 40 represents the amount of GAC the vessel can hold (40,000 lbs). For 1220 vessels, the 12 represents the vessel diameter in feet and 20 represents the amount of GAC the vessel can hold (20,000 lbs).
(4) Cost estimates for 20,000-lb GAC vessels were also included for completeness, although the site would not be large enough to accommodate these.

As shown in Table 16, the lowest project costs for all alternatives are the IX systems. These systems require less equipment and therefore have the lower project costs. However, the IX systems have a higher annual O&M cost when compared to the GAC systems. Overall, the GAC systems generally have a slightly lower 30-year life-cycle cost, but there is only a minor difference between the IX and GAC systems. In fact, it takes more than 25 years to payback the initial investment in the additional GAC equipment. Since the overall life-cycle costs are similar, the recommended alternative should be based on project schedule, additional treatment needs, and site constraints, such as available footprint.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 37
Section 5

PREFERRED AL TERNATIVE
Based on the well water quality, site layouts, and life-cycle costs presented, the following treatment systems represent the preferred alternative to provide treatment for PFOA and PFOS for the City’s nine wells:
• Main Plant Wells – Provide GAC treatment using the 40,000-lb carbon vessels. This recommendation is based on the fact that many of the Main Plant Wells have the co-occurring contaminants TCE and PCE. However, RSSCT data was not available at the time of this report, and such data should be analyzed to determine the impacts of TCE and PCE on the removal of PFOA and PFOS. If these impacts are significant, a treatment train providing treatment for TCE and PCE ahead of the PFOA and PFOS treatment may be the most economical approach. This should be assessed during the design phase. • Kimberly Well 1A – Provide IX treatment at this site. This recommendation is based on the minimal space available for treatment at Kimberly Well 1A site. Providing centralized treatment at the Kimberly Well 2 site is not recommended due to site constraints at that site.
• Kimberly Well 2 – Provide IX treatment for Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 at this site (Kimberly 2, Option 2). This recommendation is based on the limited footprint available from the developer. Purchasing land from the developer is an important step to keep the Kimberly Well 2 online.
• Sunclipse Well 10 – Pipe flow from Sunclipse Well 10 to the Kimberly Well 2 site for treatment (Kimberly 2, Option 2). This would require a new pipe to be installed underneath an existing railroad track. As a backup plan, the City should reach out to the business near-by to see if space could be leased or purchased for the IX treatment.

The recommended alternative is shown on Figure 15. Details such as design criteria, permitting, construction duration, and cost for the recommended alternative are discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Design Criteria
Specific design criteria for each of the recommended treatment systems are summarized in Table 17.

Table 17 Recommended Alternative Design Criteria
Parameter Main Plant Wells Kimberly Well 1A Kimberly Well 2(3) Flow (gpm) 10,400 3,000 3,900
Number of Trains 10 2 3
Vessels per Train 2 (lead/lag) 2 (lead/lag) 2 (lead/lag) Vessel Diameter (ft) 12 12 12
Max Vessel Height (ft) 26 16.5 16.5
Working Pressure (psig) 125 at 150 °F 125 at 150 °F 125 at 150 °F OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON 38 | AUGUST 2020 | FINAL
Parameter Main Plant Wells Kimberly Well 1A Kimberly Well 2(3) Media GAC IX Resin(1) IX Resin(1)
Media/Vessel (ft3 or lbs) 40,000 lbs 425 ft3(2) 425 ft3(2) EBCT per Train (min) 19.6 4.2 4.8
EBCT per Vessel (min) 9.8 2.1 2.4
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/sf) 9.2 13.3 11.5
System Head Loss (ft) 25 45 35
Pre-filter N/A 3 (2 duty, 1 standby)
5 µm cartridge
3 (2 duty, 1 standby)
5 µm cartridge
Notes:

Abbreviations: EBCT - Empty Bed Contact Time; ft3 - cubic feet; lbs - pounds; µm - micrometers; gpm - gallons per minute; ft- feet; psig - pounds per square inch gauge; gpm/sf - gallons per minute per square foot. (1) Single use IX resin.
(2) Reduced resin fill to limit head loss through the system. (3) Includes flow from Sunclipse Well 10.

5.2 Permitting
Because DDW approves the permits for drinking water systems, DDW will be a vital partner on these projects. It is recommended that the City, in collaboration with OCWD, engages with DDW early in the project to gain permit approval for the PFAS treatment facilities. Because the project progress will hinge on DDW input, timely meetings, are important to maintaining the project schedule. The preferred alternative includes both GAC and IX systems, which will require differing data sets to work through the permitting process. The application submittal will consist primarily of CEQA documents, design plans and specifications, and the Operations Plan. Most likely, the permit issued for the treatment facilities will be an amendment to the current water supply permits. The following three items should be considered by the City, OCWD, and the design team:

1. The OCWD pilot test data will facilitate DDW review and approval of the recommended alternative. The GAC RSSCT tests on the City’s well should be sufficient data for GAC approval. The IX system may require additional review or testing depending on the results of the OCWD IX pilot test.

2. An initial meeting with DDW would be useful for walking through the design documents and answering any questions they might have.

3. The Operations Plan would need to address the treatment facility and any proposed blending and would be used to establish permit conditions.

5.3 Construction Duration
A preliminary construction schedule was developed for the recommended preferred alternative and is presented in Figure 16. A summary of the construction schedule is also shown in Table 18.

Long lead items may have a significant impact to the construction schedule and should be identified during Preliminary and Final Design. The equipment with the most significant lead time is the pressure vessels. To reduce the overall schedule of these project OCWD has pre-purchased vessels for GAC and IX systems.
!ã
!ã
!ã!ã!ã !ã
!ã
!ã
!ã$+
$+ $+

HARBOR BLVD
LA

PALMA AVE

ORANGETHORPE AVE

PLACENT
IA AVE

NORTH ST

ACACIA AVE

RAYMOND AVE

EAST ST

SYCAMORE S
T
CH

APMAN AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

VALENCIA D
R

ROMNEYA DR

KIMBERLY AVE

RICHMAN AVE

ACACIA ST

PATT ST

MALVERN AVE
HIL
L AVE

LEMON ST

LA JOLLA ST

BAKER AV
E

JACARANDA
PL

CITRON ST

ANAHEIM BLVD

VICTORIA DR
LEMON

SUNKIST ST

COMMONWEALTH AVE

DURST ST

CYPRESS

VIA BURTON ST

MANHATTAN AVE

BERKELEY AVE

CROWTHE

HIGHLAND AVE

MAYFAIR AVE

POMONA AVE

DISNEYLAND DR

WALNUT AVE

LEMON ST

LA PALMA AVE

STATE COLLEGE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VALENCIA DR

WEST ST
KIMBERLY AVE Kimberly 2
Main Plant
Kimberly 1A
Sunclipse 10
?»
?l
Last Revised: March 23, 2020 :pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/11719A00/GIS/MXD/Fullerton_Figure15_Preferred Alternative.mxd O
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are
for planning purposes and represent
approximate locations. Engineering and/or
survey accuracy is not implied.

Data Sources: City of Fullerton, OCWD,
Caltrans, ESRI
Figure 15 Preferred Alternative
PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT PLANNING STUDY | OCWD Legend
$+ Potential Treatment Sites
Proposed Pipelines
!ã Potentially Impacted Wells
Existing Pipelines
Service Area
!"^$ ?»
?l

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020 | 41
Table 18 Preliminary Project Schedule
Task Date Duration
(months)
Design May 2020 – December 2020(1) 8
Bid Phase January 2021 – March 2021 3
Award April 2021 -
Submittals and Procurement April 2021 – June 2021 3
Construction May 2021 – February 2022 10
Mobilization May 2021 1
GAC and IX Systems June 2021 – November 2021 6
Start-Up December 2021 – January 2022 2
Substantial Completion February 2022 -
Pipeline from Sunclipse Well 10 May 2020 – February 2022(2) 22 Notes:
(1) In order to fast track the design process, this has begun in parallel with preparation of this Report. (2) Assumes permitting, design, and construction for the pipeline will be performed in parallel with the treatment facilities.

Figure 16 Preliminary Project Schedule

5.4 Recommended Alternative Cost
Table 19 summarizes the Project, annual O&M, and 30-year life-cycle costs for the recommended alternative to treat PFOA and PFOS to less than 2 ng/L levels.

Table 19 Recommended Alternative Project, O&M, and Life-Cycle Cost Site Project Cost Annual O&M Cost Life-Cycle Cost(1)
Main Plant Wells
GAC lead-lag 1240 vessels $26,500,000 $800,000 $49,900,000 Kimberly Well 1A
IX lead-lag 1220 vessels $5,400,000 $400,000 $17,400,000 Kimberly Well 2 (Option 2)(2)
IX lead-lag 1220 vessels $9,400,000 $500,000 $24,400,000 Total $41,300,000 $1,700,000 $91,700,000
Notes:
(1) Life-Cycle costs assumes a term of 30 years, 3% inflation of O&M costs, and a 3% discount rate. (2) Option 2 Includes flows from Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020
Appendix A

HYDRAULIC PROFILE

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020
Appendix B

WELL WATER QUALITY AND IMPACTS TO

ADSORPTION

APPENDIX B | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | B‐ͭ
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/ͭͭͳͭ͵Aͬͬ/Deliverables/ProdRPTͬͮ/Appendix B Water Quality
Adsorptive processes onto granular activated carbon (GAC) or anion exchange (IX) resins have emerged as the leading Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) treatment technology.

However, breakthrough dynamics vary considerably depending on water quality and the type of adsorbent employed. Therefore, this section highlights the average concentration of inorganic and organic constituents, including ͭͰ PFAS compounds with chain lengths ranging from Ͱ to ͭͬ carbons, in Fullerton’s ͵ wells.

B.1 Water Quality Impact on Adsorption
Adsorption is dictated by a combination of physical adsorption (i.e., van der Waals forces), solubility (i.e., hydrophobicity), compound size (i.e., London dispersion forces), and electrostatic interactions.(Carter and Farrell ͮͬͭͬ). The key water quality indicators governing these adsorbate‐adsorbent interactions are natural organic matter (NOM),(Kothawala et al. ͮͬͭͳ) pH, (Anumol et al. ͮͬͭͱ) and ionic strength, although the target effluent contaminant concentration, concentration of other inorganic constituents, and water temperature also dictate the efficacy of GAC adsorption to a lesser extent (Jeon et al. ͮͬͭͭ) (Al‐Degs et al. ͮͬͬͬ).  NOM: Both NOM concentration and character influence the extent to which NOM directly competes with contaminants for adsorption sites or indirectly blocks pores via steric hindrance.(Shimabuku et al. ͮͬͭͳ).
 pH: As the pH of zero‐point charge for activated carbons is between ͳ.ͮ (Calgon FͰͬͬ)(Al‐Degs et al. ͮͬͬͬ) and Ͳ.Ͱ (Norit GACͰͬͬ),(Anumol et al. ͮͬͭͱ), waters with significantly higher pHs exhibit lower PFAS removal from electrostatic repulsion with negatively charged polar headgroups on PFAS.
 Ionic Strength: Increasing ionic strength decreases the magnitude of electrostatic repulsion observed at high pH and increases hydrophobic attraction due to the Hofmeister salting out effect.

While water quality does impact PFAS adsorption, peer‐reviewed literature and empirical observations from historical data show that PFAS adsorption is more heavily influenced by the PFAS chain‐length and physicochemical properties of the adsorbent (Figure B.ͭ). As adsorbent type, rather than water quality, is more likely to govern breakthrough dynamics and dictate media replacement frequency, selecting the most suitable, site‐specific adsorbent is paramount to ensure utilities minimize media replacement frequency, which comprises between Ͳͬ percent and ͵ͬ percent of life cycle costs. Relative to adsorbent type, volume to breakthrough was less sensitive to matrix composition despite substantial variability in contaminant concentrations, organics, and conductivities.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX B B‐ͮ | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL

Figure B.ͭ  The ͱͬ percent Cʹ PFAS breakthrough volumes for A) four different GAC adsorbents in the same groundwater matrix and B) three groundwater matrices through the same GAC adsorbent.

B.2 Water Quality at Fullerton Wells
Table B.ͭ lists the average water quality for Wells ͯA, Ͱ, ͱ, Ͳ, ͳ, ʹ, Kimberly Well ͭA, Kimberly Well ͮ, Sunclipse Well ͭͬ, and US EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or secondary MCLs (SMCLs). The data for inorganic constituents were based on samples from ͮͬͬͬ to ͮͬͭ͵ with between ͮ to ͭͬͰ samples in total for each parameter. In general, all ͵ wells met current water quality standards except for the secondary MCL for total dissolved solids (TDS), with ͳ of the ͵ wells in excess of ͱͬͬ parts per million (ppm). Temporal data also indicated that these water quality data were consistent over the past ͭ͵ years.

Furthermore, portions of the groundwater in this basin are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including Trichloroethylene (TCE). Although all below the MCL of ͱ micrograms per liter (µg/L), TCE has a high affinity for GAC and therefore will compete with PFAS for adsorption sites.

B.2.1 PFAS at Fullerton’s Wells
Table B.ͮ lists the PFAS concentrations for Wells ͯA, Ͱ, ͱ, Ͳ, ͳ, ʹ, Kimberly Well ͭA, Kimberly Well ͮ, and Sunclipse Well ͭͬ. Data were collected on ͮ sampling events on Ͱ/Ͱ/ͮͬͭ͵ and ͱ/ʹ/ͮͬͭ͵. Several key observations are noted below:
ͭ. Several PFAS species were not measured at Kimberly Well ͭA, Kimberly Well ͮ, Sunclipse Well ͭͬ, Well  Ͱ (offline) and Well ͳ. Values in Table B.ͮ were interpolated using the Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) formula with data from Ͱͳ wells from ͭͬ different producers governed by OCWD.
ͮ. The average measured PFOA concentrations ranged from Ͳ.ͮ (Well Ͳ) to ͭͭ.ͱ (Well ͯA) (see Table B.ͮ), all in excess of the ͱ.ͭ ng/L notification level. Note, the interpolated concentrations are even higher for Kimberly Well ͭA, Kimberly Well ͮ, and Sunclipse Well ͭͬ.
ͯ. The average measured PFOS concentrations ranged from ͭͱ.ͬ ng/L to ͯͮ.͵ ng/L (see Table B.ͮ), all in excess of the Ͳ.ͱ ng/L notification level but below the Ͱͬ ng/L response level.

APPENDIX B | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | B‐ͯ
Ͱ. Relatively high concentrations of PFHxA (CͲ), PFHxS (CͲ), and PFBS (CͰ) were observed in Well ͯ.
ͱ. EtFOSA, MeFOSA, PFDoA, PFTA, PFTrDA, and PFUnA were all below the detection limit at each Well.

Table B.ͭ  Water Quality Data Summary
Water Quality
Parameter
Kimberly Well ͭA
Kimberly Well ͮ
Sunclipse Well ͭͬ
Well ͯA
Well Ͱ
Well ͱ
Well Ͳ
Well ͳ
Well ʹ
MCLs or SMCLs
Alkalinity, mg/L  ͮͬͲ  ͭͰʹ  ͭͱʹ  ͭͲ͵  ͭͲ͵  ͭʹͮ  ͭͲͮ  ͮͬͭ  ͭͲͰ  ‐ Aluminum, µg/L ͯ Ͳ .͵  ʹ .ͯ  ͯ .ͬ  ͯ .ͯ  ͭͬ .ͯ  ͯ .ͭ  Ͳ .Ͱ  ͭͰ .ʹ  Ͳ .ͯ  ͱͬ‐ͮͬͬ (ͭ) Arsenic, µg/L  ͮ.Ͳ  ͬ.ͭ  ͭ.͵  ͭ.ͮ  ͬ.ʹ  ͬ.ͳ  ͬ.ʹ  ͭ.ͭ  ͭ.ͬ  ͭͬ Barium, µg/L ͳ ʹ .ͮ  Ͳͳ .ͮ  Ͳͯ .Ͳ  ͳʹ .Ͱ  ͲͲ .ͬ  ͳͭ .ͬ  Ͳͱ .ͳ  ʹͮ .ͳ  ͲͰ .ͮ  ‐ Calcium, mg/L  ͵Ͱ.ͱ  ͳͳ.ͭ  ʹͭ.ͮ  ͭͬͭ.ͯ  ʹ͵.ͱ  ͵ͱ.Ͳ  ʹͯ.ͯ  ͭͭͬ.ͬ  ʹͰ.ͬ  ‐ Chloride, mg/L ͵ ͵ .ͮ  ͳ͵ .ͬ  ͳͳ .ͮ  ʹͮ .ͯ  ʹͯ .ͮ  ʹʹ .ͱ  ͳʹ .Ͱ  ͵ͱ .ͳ  ʹͬ .ͭ  ͮͱͬ (ͭ) Fluoride, mg/L  ͬ.ͯ  ͬ.ͱ  ͬ.Ͱ  ͬ.ͱ  ͬ.Ͱ  ͬ.ͱ  ͬ.ͱ  ͬ.Ͱ  ͬ.ͱ  ͮ(ͭ) Iron, µg/L ͬ .ͭ  ͮ .ͭ  ͳ .͵  ͱ .ͯ  ͯ .ͳ  ͭͮ .ͮ  ͭͬ .͵  ͳ .ͯ  Ͱ .ͱ  ͯͬͬ (ͭ) Magnesium, mg/L  ͭͳ.ͳ  ͭͰ.ͱ  ͭͱ.ͬ  ͭʹ.ͭ  ͭͲ.͵  ͭʹ.ͬ  ͭͱ.͵  ͮͭ.ͭ  ͭͲ.ͭ  ‐ Manganese, µg/L ͬ .ͭ  ͬ .ͭ  ͬ .ͯ  ͬ .ͭ  ͬ .ͭ  ͬ .ͯ  ͬ .Ͱ  ͬ .͵  ͬ .ͭ  ͱͬ (ͭ) Nitrate, mg/L  ͭʹ.ʹ  ͭͭ.͵  ͭͯ.ͯ  ͭͬ.ͱ  ͭ͵.ͭ  ͮͭ.ͭ  ͭʹ.Ͱ  ͮͱ.ʹ  ͭʹ.Ͱ  ͰͰ PCE, µg/L ͯ .ͮ  ͭ .ͮ  ͬ .ͮ  ‐  ͬ .ͯ  ͬ .ͯ  ͬ .ͭ  ͬ .ͱ  ͬ .ͱ  ͱ pH, pH Units  ͳ.ͳ  ͳ.ʹ  ͳ.͵  ͳ.͵  ͳ.͵  ʹ.ͬ  ͳ.͵  ʹ.ͬ  ͳ.͵  Ͳ.ͱ‐ʹ.ͱ(ͭ) Phosphate, mg/L ‐  ‐   ͬ .ͬ  ‐  ͬ .ͬ  ‐  ͬ .ͬ  ‐  ͬ .ͬ  ‐ Sulfate, mg/L  ͭͱͱ  ͭͮʹ  ͭͮͯ  ͭͲͰ  ͭͰͯ  ͭͱͳ  ͭͯ͵  ͭʹͮ  ͭͰͮ  ͮͱͬ(ͭ) TCE, µg/L ‐   ͬ .ͭ  ‐  ‐  ͭ .Ͱ  ͮ .ͯ  ͯ .ͮ  ͮ .ͬ  ͭ .ͱ  ͱ TDS, mg/L  ͲͮͰ  Ͱ͵ͮ  Ͱʹʹ  ͱͲͮ  ͱͱͭ  Ͳͬͯ  ͱͮͬ  Ͳͳͳ  ͱͯͳ  ͱͬͬ(ͭ) TOC, mg/L ͬ .͵  ͬ .Ͳ  ͬ .Ͳ  ͬ .Ͳ  ͬ .ʹ  ͬ .ͱ  ͬ .Ͳ  ͬ .ͳ  ͬ .Ͳ  ‐ TTHM’s, µg/L  ͬ.Ͱ  ͬ.ͯ  ͬ.Ͱ  ͭ.Ͱ  ͬ.Ͱ  ͬ.Ͳ  ͬ.Ͱ  ͬ.Ͱ  ͬ.Ͱ  ʹͬ Notes:

Abbreviations: µg/L ‐ microgram per liter; mg/L ‐ milligram per liter; ng/L ‐ nanograms per liter; ND ‐ non‐detect; µmhos/cm ‐ microhms per centimeter.
(ͭ) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL).

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX B B‐Ͱ | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL
Table B.ͮ  Average PFAS Concentrations
PFAS Species
Kimberly Well 1A
Kimberly Well 2
Sunclipse Well 10
Well 3A
Well 4
Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Well 8
EtFOSA, ng/L 0.4(1) 0.4(1) 0.4(1) 0.4(1) 0.4(1) 0.4(1) 0.4(1) 0.4(1) 0.4(1) MeFOSA, ng/L 0.4 (1) 0 . 4 01) 0 . 4(1) 0 . 4(1) 0 . 4(1) 0 . 4(1) 0 . 4(1) 0 . 4(1) 0 . 4(1) PFBS, ng/L 4.9(2) 6.6(2) 6.5(2) 5.8 1.1(2) 0.4 0.4 1.1(2) 0.4 PFDA, ng/L 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 .4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
PFDoA, ng/L 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
PFHpA, ng/L 1.0(2) 1 . 2(2) 1 . 2(2) 0.6 0.4(2) 0.4 0.4 0.4(2) 0.4 PFHxA, ng/L 4.0(2) 4.1(2) 4.1(2) 6.1 2.6(2) 2.5 0.4 2.6(2) 4.1 PFHxS, ng/L 10.5(2) 11.2 (2) 11.1 (2) 11.0 6.8(2) 7.6 5.2 6.8(2) 6.7 PFNA, ng/L 0.8(2) 0.9(2) 0.9(2) 0.9 0.5(2) 0.4 0.4 0.5(2) 0.4 PFTA, ng/L 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
PFTrDA, ng/L 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
PFUnA, ng/L 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
PFOA, ng/L 12.7(2) 14.5(2) 14.4(2) 11.5 7.4(2) 8.4 6.2 7.4(2) 7.1 PFOS, ng/L 29.2(2) 31.8 (2) 31.5 (2) 32.9 18.7(2) 19.6 15.0 18.7(2) 17.5 Notes:

Abbreviations: EtFOSA ‐ N‐ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid; MeFOSA ‐ N‐methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid; PFBS ‐ Perfluoro butane sulfonic acid; PFDA ‐ Perfluorodecanoic acid; PFDoA ‐ Perfluorododecanoic acid; PFHpA ‐ Perfluoro heptanoic acid; PFHxA ‐ Perfluorohexanoic acid; PFHxS ‐ Perfluoro hexane sulfonic acid; PFNA ‐ Perfluoro nonanoic acid; PFTA ‐ Perfluorotetradecanoic acid; PFTrDA ‐ Perfluorotridecanoic acid; PFUnA ‐ Perfluoroundecanoic acid.
(ͭ) Below the Level of Quantification (LOQ). Value assigned as ͬ.Ͱ ng/L (i.e., LOD/ͮ). (ͮ) Interpolated value using the IDW formula.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020
Appendix C

EXISTING SITE LAYOUTS

APPENDIX C | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | C‐ͭ
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/ͭͭͳͭ͵Aͬͬ/Deliverables/ProdRPTͬͮ/Appendix C Existing Site Layout
The ͵ potentially impacted wells are located in the southern‐most portion of the system and the southeast portion of the system. Table C.ͭ provides a summary of the existing wells and their site locations. The well design capacity, well total dynamic head (TDH), and well motor size are provided for each well based on documentation provided by the City. Information regarding site locations, site restrictions, and pretreatment requirements was gathered for each well during field visits held on November ͮͮ, ͮͬͭ͵. Based on talks with the City, pretreatment for sand, manganese, and iron will not be required for any well.

Three ranking categories were developed for site size: small, average, and large. These categories are based on the land surrounding the well that is owned by the City and are defined as follows:
 Small Site: ͬ to ͭͬ,ͬͬͬ square feet.
 Average Site: ͭͬ,ͬͬͭ square feet to ͮͬ,ͬͬͬ square feet.  Large Site: ͮͬ,ͬͬͭ square feet and larger.

Table C.ͭ  Existing Wells Information
Well
Name
Well
Capacity
(gpm)
Well
TDH
(ft)
Motor
Size
(hp)
Site
Size
Truck
Access
Shared
Site?
Height
Restrictions?
Pretreatment
Required?
ͯA  ͮ,ͳʹͱ  ͮ͵Ͱ  ͯͬͬ  Large  Good  Y(ͭ)  N  N
Ͱ  ͭ ,ͬͬͬ    ͳͱ  Large  Good  Y(ͭ)  N  N
ͱ  ͭ,ͳͬͬ  ͭͯͮ  ͭͬͬ  Large  Good  Y(ͭ)  N  N
Ͳ  ͭ ,ͱͬͬ    ͭͬͬ  Large  Good  Y(ͭ)  N  N
ͳA  ͯ,ͬͬͬ      Large  Good  Y(ͭ)  N  N
ʹ  ͮ ,ͬͬͬ  ͭͳͬ  ͭͱͬ  Large  Good  Y(ͭ)  N  N
Kim ͭA  ͯ,ͬͬͬ  ͯͮͱ  ͯͬͬ  Small  Average  N  Y(ͮ)  N
Kim ͮ  ͭ ,ʹͳͱ  ͭͲͬ  ͭͬͬ  Small(ͮ)  Good  N  Y(ͮ)  N
Sun ͭͬ  ͮ,ͬͬͬ  Ͱͬͬ  ͯͬͬ  Small(ͮ)  Difficult  N  N  N
Notes:
(ͭ) Main Plant Wells ͯA, Ͱ, ͱ, Ͳ, ͳA, and ʹ are located on a shared site. (ͮ) Well is located on property that is not currently owned by the City. (ͯ) Powerlines are located along or near the perimeter of the well site.

As shown in Figure C.ͭ, Main Plant Wells ͯA, Ͱ, ͱ, Ͳ, ͳA, and ʹ are located at a common well site, known as the Main Plant, along West La Palma Avenue in Anaheim. The land is owned by the City of Fullerton. The site is mostly undeveloped and has a total size of about ͱ acres, making it a favorable location for a centralized treatment site. Main Plant Wells Ͱ‐Ͳ and ʹ discharge into a forebay located on site. Five pumps are provided at the forebay to pump well water into the City’s distribution system. Main Plant Wells ͯA and ͳA can pump either to the forebay or directly into the distribution system. A well and reservoir owned and operated by the City of Anaheim is located less than a quarter mile away.

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX C C‐ͮ | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL

Figure C.ͭ  Main Plant Wells ͯA, Ͱ, ͱ, Ͳ, ͳA, and ʹ at Main Plant Kimberly Well ͭA, Kimberly Well ͮ, and Sunclipse Well ͭͬ are each located within industrial complexes located near the intersection of Kimberley Avenue and South Acacia Avenue.

Kimberly Well ͭA, shown on Figure C.ͮ, is located on a small site owned by the City of Fullerton while Kimberly Well ͮ and Sunclipse Well ͭͬ are both located on privately owned property.

Kimberly Well ͮ, along with a nearby forebay, are located within the property line of the Kimberly‐Clark manufacturing center. Kimberly Well ͮ discharges well water into the forebay. A set of pumps at the forebay sends the collected flow into the distribution system. Sunclipse Well ͭͬ is located within the parking lot of the Corru‐Kraft warehouse. Access to the well is difficult, as you must drive through a portion of the parking lot to reach the well. A portion of the parking lot must be closed if a large vehicle will be parked outside the well for an extended period of time. Pictures of Kimberly Well ͭ, Kimberly Well ͮ, and Sunclipse Well ͭͬ are included on Figure C.ͮ, Figure C.ͯ, and Figure C.Ͱ, respectively.

Figure C.ͮ  Kimberly Well ͭA

APPENDIX C | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | C‐ͯ

Figure C.ͯ  Kimberly Well ͮ

Figure C.Ͱ  Sunclipse Well ͭͬ

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020
Appendix D

COST ESTIMATE

Kimberly 1A - Option 1 (Kim 1A Well)
GAC HP1220
Parallel
GAC HP1220
LeadLag
GAC HP1240
Parallel
GAC HP1240
LeadLag
IX HP1220
LeadLag
Number of Systems (2 vessels/system) 3 6 2 3 2
Design Flow (gpm) 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Vessels 1,600,000$ 3,100,000$ 1,400,000$ 2,100,000$ 1,000,000$ Media 210,000$ 420,000$ 330,000$ 490,000$ 440,000$ Booster Pump Station 220,000$ 220,000$ 220,000$ 220,000$ 220,000$ Backwash Tanks 50,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$ Backwash Pumps 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ Pre-filter -$ -$ -$ -$ 170,000$
Site 300,000$ 550,000$ 400,000$ 570,000$ 510,000$ Structural 300,000$ 550,000$ 310,000$ 440,000$ 300,000$ E&IC 300,000$ 550,000$ 310,000$ 440,000$ 300,000$ Transmission Mains -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Land Acquistion -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Direct Cost 3,000,000$ 5,500,000$ 3,100,000$ 4,400,000$ 3,000,000$ Contingency 400,000$ 800,000$ 500,000$ 700,000$ 400,000$ Subtotal 3,400,000$ 6,300,000$ 3,600,000$ 5,000,000$ 3,400,000$ General Conditions 300,000$ 600,000$ 400,000$ 500,000$ 300,000$ Subtotal 3,800,000$ 7,000,000$ 3,900,000$ 5,500,000$ 3,800,000$ Contractor Overhead and Profit 600,000$ 1,000,000$ 600,000$ 800,000$ 600,000$ Subtotal 4,300,000$ 8,000,000$ 4,500,000$ 6,400,000$ 4,300,000$ Sales Tax 200,000$ 300,000$ 200,000$ 300,000$ 200,000$ Total Capital Cost 4,500,000$ 8,300,000$ 4,700,000$ 6,600,000$ 4,500,000$ Project Costs 900,000$ 1,700,000$ 900,000$ 1,300,000$ 900,000$ Total Project Cost 5,400,000$ 10,000,000$ 5,600,000$ 8,000,000$ 5,400,000$ Media Change Outs (#/yr) 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.7
Replacement Price 230,000$ 180,000$ 270,000$ 210,000$ 360,000$ Labor 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ Power 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Other Maintenance 30,000$ 60,000$ 30,000$ 40,000$ 20,000$ Analytical Cost 10,000$ 30,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ Contingency 60,000$ 60,000$ 70,000$ 60,000$ 100,000$ Online Factor 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Annual O&M 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 400,000$ 30 yr Life-Cycle Cost 14,400,000$ 19,000,000$ 14,600,000$ 17,000,000$ 17,400,000$ Indirect Cost
O&M Cost
Life-Cycle Cost
Capital
Cost
Water Treatment
Other Onsite Costs
Distribution
System Cost
APPENDIX D | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL| AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | D‐ͭ
pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client\CA\OCWD\ͭͭͳͭ͵Aͬͬ\Deliverables\ProdRPTͬͮ\Appendix D.pdf Number of Systems (2 vessels/system)
Design Flow (gpm)
Vessels
Media
Booster Pump Station
Backwash Tanks
Backwash Pumps
Pre-filter
Site
Structural
E&IC
Transmission Mains
Land Acquistion
Total Direct Cost
Contingency
Subtotal
General Conditions
Subtotal
Contractor Overhead and Profit
Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total Capital Cost
Project Costs
Total Project Cost
Media Change Outs (#/yr)
Replacement Price
Labor
Power
Other Maintenance
Analytical Cost
Contingency
Online Factor
Annual O&M
30 yr Life-Cycle Cost
Indirect Cost
O&M Cost
Life-Cycle Cost
Capital
Cost
Water Treatment
Other Onsite Costs
Distribution
System Cost
Kimberly 2 - Option 1 (Kim 2 Well)
GAC HP1220
Parallel
GAC HP1220
LeadLag
GAC HP1240
Parallel
GAC HP1240
LeadLag
IX HP1220
LeadLag
2 4 1 2 2
1,875 1,8 7
5 1,875 1,875 1,875
1,000,000$ 2,100,000$ 700,000$ 1,400,000$ 1,000,000$ 140,000$ 280,000$ 160,000$ 330,000$ 440,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$
50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ 110,000$
200,000$ 370,000$ 220,000$ 390,000$ 470,000$ 200,000$ 370,000$ 170,000$ 300,000$ 270,000$ 200,000$ 370,000$ 170,000$ 300,000$ 270,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
100,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 2,100,000$ 3,900,000$ 1,800,000$ 3,100,000$ 2,900,000$ 300,000$ 600,000$ 300,000$ 500,000$ 400,000$ 2,400,000$ 4,500,000$ 2,000,000$ 3,600,000$ 3,300,000$ 200,000$ 500,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 300,000$ 2,700,000$ 5,000,000$ 2,200,000$ 3,900,000$ 3,600,000$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 300,000$ 600,000$ 500,000$ 3,100,000$ 5,700,000$ 2,600,000$ 4,500,000$ 4,200,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 3,200,000$ 5,900,000$ 2,700,000$ 4,700,000$ 4,300,000$ 600,000$ 1,200,000$ 500,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ 3,900,000$ 7,100,000$ 3,200,000$ 5,600,000$ 5,200,000$

1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0
150,000$ 110,000$ 170,000$ 130,000$ 230,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$
30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
20,000$ 40,000$ 20,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$
10,000$ 20,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$
40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 70,000$

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 300,000$ 9,900,000$ 13,100,000$ 9,200,000$ 11,600,000$ 14,200,000$ OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX D D‐ͮ | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL

Number of Systems (2 vessels/system)
Design Flow (gpm)
Vessels
Media
Booster Pump Station
Backwash Tanks
Backwash Pumps
Pre-filter
Site
Structural
E&IC
Transmission Mains
Land Acquistion
Total Direct Cost
Contingency
Subtotal
General Conditions
Subtotal
Contractor Overhead and Profit
Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total Capital Cost
Project Costs
Total Project Cost
Media Change Outs (#/yr)
Replacement Price
Labor
Power
Other Maintenance
Analytical Cost
Contingency
Online Factor
Annual O&M
30 yr Life-Cycle Cost
Indirect Cost
O&M Cost
Life-Cycle Cost
Capital
Cost
Water Treatment
Other Onsite Costs
Distribution
System Cost
Kimberly 2 - Option 2 (Kim 2 Well, Kim 1A Well)
GAC HP1220
Parallel
GAC HP1220
LeadLag
GAC HP1240
Parallel
GAC HP1240
LeadLag
IX HP1220
LeadLag
4 7 2 4 3
3,875 3,87 5
3,875 3,875 3,875
2,100,000$ 3,600,000$ 1,400,000$ 2,800,000$ 1,600,000$ 280,000$ 490,000$ 330,000$ 660,000$ 660,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$
50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ 170,000$
390,000$ 640,000$ 420,000$ 750,000$ 720,000$ 390,000$ 640,000$ 320,000$ 580,000$ 430,000$ 390,000$ 640,000$ 320,000$ 580,000$ 430,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 4,900,000$ 7,600,000$ 4,100,000$ 6,800,000$ 5,200,000$ 700,000$ 1,100,000$ 600,000$ 1,000,000$ 800,000$ 5,700,000$ 8,700,000$ 4,700,000$ 7,800,000$ 6,000,000$ 600,000$ 900,000$ 500,000$ 800,000$ 600,000$ 6,200,000$ 9,600,000$ 5,200,000$ 8,500,000$ 6,600,000$ 900,000$ 1,400,000$ 800,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,000,000$ 7,200,000$ 11,100,000$ 6,000,000$ 9,800,000$ 7,600,000$ 300,000$ 400,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 300,000$ 7,400,000$ 11,500,000$ 6,200,000$ 10,200,000$ 7,900,000$ 1,500,000$ 2,300,000$ 1,200,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,600,000$ 8,900,000$ 13,800,000$ 7,400,000$ 12,300,000$ 9,400,000$

1.1 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.4
300,000$ 230,000$ 350,000$ 270,000$ 470,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$
60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$
40,000$ 70,000$ 30,000$ 60,000$ 30,000$
20,000$ 30,000$ 10,000$ 20,000$ 10,000$
80,000$ 70,000$ 80,000$ 70,000$ 120,000$

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
300,000$ 300,000$ 400,000$ 300,000$ 500,000$ 17,900,000$ 22,800,000$ 19,400,000$ 21,300,000$ 24,400,000$ APPENDIX D | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | D‐ͯ
Sunclipse Well 10)
Number of Systems (2 vessels/system)
Design Flow (gpm)
Vessels
Media
Booster Pump Station
Backwash Tanks
Backwash Pumps
Pre-filter
Site
Structural
E&IC
Transmission Mains
Land Acquistion
Total Direct Cost
Contingency
Subtotal
General Conditions
Subtotal
Contractor Overhead and Profit
Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total Capital Cost
Project Costs
Total Project Cost
Media Change Outs (#/yr)
Replacement Price
Labor
Power
Other Maintenance
Analytical Cost
Contingency
Online Factor
Annual O&M
30 yr Life-Cycle Cost
Indirect Cost
O&M Cost
Life-Cycle Cost
Capital
Cost
Water Treatment
Other Onsite Costs
Distribution
System Cost
Kimberly 2 - Option 3 (Kim 2 Well, Kim 1A Well, Sunclipse) GAC HP1220
Parallel
GAC HP1220
LeadLag
GAC HP1240
Parallel
GAC HP1240
LeadLag
IX HP1220
LeadLag
6 13 3 6 4
6,875 6,875 6 ,
875 6,875 6,875
3,100,000$ 6,700,000$ 2,100,000$ 4,100,000$ 2,100,000$ 420,000$ 910,000$ 490,000$ 990,000$ 880,000$ 510,000$ 510,000$ 510,000$ 510,000$ 510,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$
50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ 230,000$
590,000$ 1,180,000$ 630,000$ 1,120,000$ 1,000,000$ 590,000$ 1,180,000$ 480,000$ 860,000$ 590,000$ 590,000$ 1,180,000$ 480,000$ 860,000$ 590,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,700,000$ 300,000$ 700,000$ 200,000$ 300,000$ 200,000$ 7,900,000$ 14,200,000$ 6,700,000$ 10,600,000$ 7,800,000$ 1,200,000$ 2,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,200,000$ 9,100,000$ 16,300,000$ 7,700,000$ 12,200,000$ 8,900,000$ 900,000$ 1,600,000$ 800,000$ 1,200,000$ 900,000$ 10,000,000$ 17,900,000$ 8,400,000$ 13,500,000$ 9,800,000$ 1,500,000$ 2,700,000$ 1,300,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,500,000$ 11,500,000$ 20,600,000$ 9,700,000$ 15,500,000$ 11,300,000$ 500,000$ 800,000$ 400,000$ 600,000$ 400,000$ 12,000,000$ 21,400,000$ 10,100,000$ 16,100,000$ 11,700,000$ 2,400,000$ 4,300,000$ 2,000,000$ 3,200,000$ 2,300,000$ 14,400,000$ 25,700,000$ 12,100,000$ 19,300,000$ 14,100,000$

1.3 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.9
540,000$ 400,000$ 630,000$ 470,000$ 830,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$
100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 60,000$ 140,000$ 40,000$ 90,000$ 50,000$
30,000$ 60,000$ 10,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$
120,000$ 120,000$ 130,000$ 110,000$ 210,000$

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
600,000$ 500,000$ 600,000$ 500,000$ 800,000$ 32,400,000$ 40,700,000$ 30,100,000$ 34,300,000$ 38,100,000$ OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX D D‐Ͱ | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL
Number of Systems (2 vessels/system)
Design Flow (gpm)
Vessels
Media
Booster Pump Station
Backwash Tanks
Backwash Pumps
Pre-filter
Site
Structural
E&IC
Transmission Mains
Land Acquistion
Total Direct Cost
Contingency
Subtotal
General Conditions
Subtotal
Contractor Overhead and Profit
Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total Capital Cost
Project Costs
Total Project Cost
Media Change Outs (#/yr)
Replacement Price
Labor
Power
Other Maintenance
Analytical Cost
Contingency
Online Factor
Annual O&M
30 yr Life-Cycle Cost
Indirect Cost
O&M Cost
Life-Cycle Cost
Capital
Cost
Water Treatment
Other Onsite Costs
Distribution
System Cost
Main Plant - Option 1 (Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8)
GAC HP1220
Parallel
GAC HP1220
LeadLag
GAC HP1240
Parallel
GAC HP1240
LeadLag
IX HP1220
LeadLag
10 19 5 10 6
10,400 1
0,400 10,400 10,400 10,400
5,200,000$ 9,900,000$ 3,500,000$ 6,900,000$ 3,100,000$ 700,000$ 1,330,000$ 820,000$ 1,640,000$ 1,320,000$ 780,000$ 780,000$ 780,000$ 780,000$ 780,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$
50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ 340,000$
970,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,010,000$ 1,840,000$ 1,500,000$ 970,000$ 1,720,000$ 780,000$ 1,410,000$ 880,000$ 970,000$ 1,720,000$ 780,000$ 1,410,000$ 880,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
10,100,000$ 17,700,000$ 8,200,000$ 14,600,000$ 9,300,000$ 1,500,000$ 2,700,000$ 1,200,000$ 2,200,000$ 1,400,000$ 11,700,000$ 20,400,000$ 9,500,000$ 16,800,000$ 10,700,000$ 1,200,000$ 2,000,000$ 900,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,100,000$ 12,800,000$ 22,400,000$ 10,400,000$ 18,500,000$ 11,800,000$ 1,900,000$ 3,400,000$ 1,600,000$ 2,800,000$ 1,800,000$ 14,800,000$ 25,800,000$ 12,000,000$ 21,300,000$ 13,500,000$ 600,000$ 1,000,000$ 500,000$ 800,000$ 500,000$ 15,300,000$ 26,800,000$ 12,500,000$ 22,100,000$ 14,000,000$ 3,100,000$ 5,400,000$ 2,500,000$ 4,400,000$ 2,800,000$ 18,400,000$ 32,100,000$ 14,900,000$ 26,500,000$ 16,900,000$

1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.9
810,000$ 610,000$ 950,000$ 710,000$ 1,260,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$
150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 110,000$ 200,000$ 70,000$ 140,000$ 70,000$ 50,000$ 90,000$ 20,000$ 50,000$ 30,000$
180,000$ 170,000$ 190,000$ 170,000$ 310,000$

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
800,000$ 800,000$ 900,000$ 800,000$ 1,100,000$ 42,400,000$ 56,100,000$ 41,900,000$ 50,500,000$ 49,900,000$ APPENDIX D | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL| AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | D‐ͱ
Number of Systems (2 vessels/system)
Design Flow (gpm)
Vessels
Media
Booster Pump Station
Backwash Tanks
Backwash Pumps
Pre-filter
Site
Structural
E&IC
Transmission Mains
Land Acquistion
Total Direct Cost
Contingency
Subtotal
General Conditions
Subtotal
Contractor Overhead and Profit
Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total Capital Cost
Project Costs
Total Project Cost
Media Change Outs (#/yr)
Replacement Price
Labor
Power
Other Maintenance
Analytical Cost
Contingency
Online Factor
Annual O&M
30 yr Life-Cycle Cost
Indirect Cost
O&M Cost
Life-Cycle Cost
Capital
Cost
Water Treatment
Other Onsite Costs
Distribution
System Cost
Sunclipse 10 - Option 1 (Sun 10 Well)
GAC HP1220
Parallel
GAC HP1220
LeadLag
GAC HP1240
Parallel
GAC HP1240
LeadLag
IX HP1220
LeadLag
2 4 1 2 2
2,000 2
,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
1,000,000$ 2,100,000$ 700,000$ 1,400,000$ 1,000,000$ 140,000$ 280,000$ 160,000$ 330,000$ 440,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$
50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ 110,000$
200,000$ 370,000$ 220,000$ 390,000$ 470,000$ 200,000$ 370,000$ 170,000$ 300,000$ 280,000$ 200,000$ 370,000$ 170,000$ 300,000$ 280,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2,000,000$ 3,700,000$ 1,700,000$ 3,000,000$ 2,800,000$ 300,000$ 600,000$ 300,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 2,300,000$ 4,300,000$ 2,000,000$ 3,400,000$ 3,200,000$ 200,000$ 400,000$ 200,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 2,600,000$ 4,700,000$ 2,200,000$ 3,800,000$ 3,500,000$ 400,000$ 700,000$ 300,000$ 600,000$ 500,000$ 3,000,000$ 5,400,000$ 2,500,000$ 4,400,000$ 4,000,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 3,100,000$ 5,600,000$ 2,600,000$ 4,500,000$ 4,200,000$ 600,000$ 1,100,000$ 500,000$ 900,000$ 800,000$ 3,700,000$ 6,800,000$ 3,100,000$ 5,400,000$ 5,000,000$

1.1 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1
160,000$ 120,000$ 180,000$ 140,000$ 240,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$
30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
20,000$ 40,000$ 20,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$
10,000$ 20,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$
40,000$ 40,000$ 50,000$ 40,000$ 70,000$

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 300,000$ 9,700,000$ 12,800,000$ 9,100,000$ 11,400,000$ 14,000,000$ OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX D D‐6 | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL
200,000
200,000
200,000
300,000
200,000
2,200,000
2,500,000
2,800,000
3,200,000
3,300,000
3,900,000
4,000,000
4,600,000
5,000,000
5,700,000
5,900,000
7,100,000
1,900,000
2,300,000
2,400,000
2,700,000
2,800,000
3,300,000
3,200,000
3,600,000
4,000,000
4,600,000
4,700,000
5,600,000
3,000,000
3,400,000
3,700,000
4,200,000
4,400,000
5,200,000
9,900,000
13,100,000
9,300,000
11,600,000
14,200,000
PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020
Appendix E

ADDITIONAL SITE LAYOUTS

APPENDIX E | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | E‐ͭ
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/ͭͭͳͭ͵Aͬͬ/Deliverables/ProdRPTͬͮ/Appendix E Screened Site Layouts
This appendix provides preliminary layouts for the screened treatment alternatives. The layouts include vessel locations, buried pipeline routes, and major associated system components.

E.1 Kimberly Well 2
Kimberly Well ͮ sits within a parking lot owned by Kimberly‐Clark. It was indicated by the City that Kimberly‐Clark will be moving out, and that parking area around the well will be available for purchase. The treatment layouts generated for the site assume that this land will be purchased by the City.

The treatment layout at Kimberly Well ͮ will vary for each option. A layout for option ͯ is shown on Figure E.ͭ. Option ͯ includes flow from the Kimberly Well ͭA and Sunclipse Well ͭͬ and is included in the most centralized alternative. New pipelines will need to be constructed to convey flow from the off‐site wells to the Kimberly Well ͮ site. This option was eliminated due to the required footprint.

Figure E.ͭ  Kimberly Well ͮ Treatment Layout (Option ͯ) Flow from all wells will enter a common pipeline that connects to the prefiltration system (ion exchange only). The common pipeline may be routed between the treatment vessels. For option ͯ, the common pipeline will branch into two pipelines, with each feed a grid of vessels.

Laterals will be constructed to send flow from the pipelines to the vessels. After treatment, flow will travel to the north to a common pipeline that sends flow to the forebay. From the forebay, the treated well flow will be pumped into the distribution system.

Overhead powerlines are located between the treatment site and Kimberly Avenue. Due to potential height restrictions and the space available, ͮͬ,ͬͬͬ lbs granular activated carbon (GAC)

OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX E E‐ͮ | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL
vessels were selected. These vessels also represent the “worst case” with regards to space required for lead‐lag treatment. For access, it was assumed that the existing driveway to the east of the well may be used. Additional space was provided between vessels grids incase a new driveway from Kimberly Avenue is required. A connection to an existing sewer along Kimberly Avenue will be required for removal of backwash waste if GAC is selected.

E.2 Sunclipse Well 10
Layouts for Sunclipse Well ͭͬ were provided at two locations: in the parking lot surrounding the well and in the parking lot of a nearby fire station (Figure E.ͮ). The fire station and its parking lot is owned by the City, and is located about ͭ,ͬͬͬ ft away from the well. A new pipeline would need to be constructed along East Rosslynn Avenue to convey flow from the well to the treatment site. This alternative was eliminated because this land is no longer available for use.

Figure E.ͮ  Sunclipse Well ͭͬ Treatment Layout (Option ͭ – Fire Station Parking Lot) ͮͬ,ͬͬͬ lbs GAC vessels were selected for the layout. These vessels also represent the “worst case” with regards to space required for lead‐lag treatment. A new pipeline will be constructed to send flow from the well to the prefilter and vessels. Laterals will be provided to connect to the treatment vessels. The pipeline carrying treated flow may will be connected to the distribution system. A connection to an existing sewer along East Rosslyn Avenue or South Acacia Avenue will be required for removal of backwash waste if GAC is selected.

PRODUCER REPORT - CITY OF FULLERTON | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST 2020
Appendix F

REFERENCES

APPENDIX F | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | OCWD FINAL | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | F‐ͭ
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/OCWD/ͭͭͳͭ͵Aͬͬ/Deliverables/ProdRPTͬͮ/Appendix F References
(Al Degs et al, ͮͬͬͬ)  Al‐Degs, Y., Khraisheh, M., Allen, S. and Ahmad, M. (ͮͬͬͬ).

Effect of carbon surface chemistry on the removal of reactive dyes from textile effluent. Water research ͯͰ(ͯ), ͵ͮͳ‐͵ͯͱ.
(Anumol et al, ͮͬͭͱ)  Anumol, T., Sgroi, M., Park, M., Roccaro, P. and Snyder, S.A. (ͮͬͭͱ). Predicting trace organic compound breakthrough in granular activated carbon using fluorescence and UV absorbance as surrogates. Water research ͳͲ, ͳͲ‐ʹͳ.
(Arcadis, ͮͬͭͳ)  Arcadis (ͮͬͭͳ) ͮͬͭͱ Urban Water Management Plan. (Carter & Farrell, ͮͬͭͬ)  Carter, K.E. and Farrell, J. (ͮͬͭͬ). Removal of Perfluorooctane and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate from Water via Carbon Adsorption and Ion Exchange. Separation Science and Technology Ͱͱ(Ͳ), ͳͲͮ‐ͳͲͳ.
(CGvL, ͭ͵͵ͳ)  Cathcart Garcia von Langen Engineers (ͭ͵͵ͳ). Schematic Profile of Existing Water System.
(Dixit et al, ͮͬͭ͵)  Dixit, F., Barbeau, B., Mostafavi, S.G. and Mohseni, M. (ͮͬͭ͵).

PFOA and PFOS removal by ion exchange for water reuse and drinking applications: role of organic matter characteristics.

Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology ͱ(ͭͬ), ͭͳʹͮ‐ͭͳ͵ͱ.
(Fullerton, ͮͬͭ͵a)  City of Fullerton (ͮͬͭ͵) GIS Geodatabase. (Fullerton, ͮͬͭ͵b)  City of Fullerton (ͮͬͭ͵). Well Capacity and Well Daily Production Data.
(Grandjean et al, ͮͬͭͳ)  Grandjean, P., Heilmann, C., Weihe, P., Nielsen, F., Mogensen, U.B. and Budtz‐Jørgensen, E. (ͮͬͭͳ). Serum vaccine antibody concentrations in adolescents exposed to perfluorinated compounds.

Environmental health perspectives ͭͮͱ(ͳ), ͬͳͳͬͭʹ.
(Jeon et al, ͮͬͭͭ)  Jeon, J., Kannan, K., Lim, B.J., An, K.G. and Kim, S.D. (ͮͬͭͭ).

Effects of salinity and organic matter on the partitioning of perfluoroalkyl acid (PFAs) to clay particles. Journal of Environmental Monitoring ͭͯ(Ͳ), ͭʹͬͯ‐ͭʹͭͬ.
(Kothawala et al, ͮͬͭͳ)  Kothawala, D.N., Köhler, S.J., Östlund, A., Wiberg, K. and Ahrens, L. (ͮͬͭͳ). Influence of dissolved organic matter concentration and composition on the removal efficiency of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) during drinking water treatment. Water research ͭͮͭ, ͯͮͬ‐ͯͮʹ.
(MWD, ͮͬͭ͵)  Metropolitan Water District (ͮͬͭ͵). Water Rates and Charges. http://www.mwdhͮo.com/WhoWeAre/Management/Financial‐
Information
OCWD | PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY | APPENDIX F F‐ͮ | AUGUST ͮͬͮͬ | FINAL
(OCWD, ͮͬͭ͵)  Orange County Water District (ͮͬͭ͵). Potentially Impacted Wells and All Producer Wells GIS Shapefiles.
(Shimabuku et al, ͮͬͭͳ)  Shimabuku, K.K., Kennedy, A.M., Mulhern, R.E. and Summers, R.S. (ͮͬͭͳ). Evaluating activated carbon adsorption of dissolved organic matter and micropollutants using fluorescence
spectroscopy. Environmental science & technology ͱͭ(ͱ), ͮͲͳͲ‐ ͮͲʹͰ.