10 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

The analysis will consider the following: • The CONSULTANT understands the City prefers to continue operation of Well 5 and 6 at their design capacities. The CONSULTANT will evaluate increasing capacity of Well 8 from 2,500 gpm (current operating capacity) to 3,650 gpm (original design capacity) under Task 3. Well 8 is not operated at its original design capacity due to turbidity issues. • PFAS treatment process design and layout based on the well design capacities. Treatment process design criteria shall be refined for both media options and include hydraulic loading rates, empty bed contact time, and vessel volumes based on City provided design flow rates identified above. Treatment process layout (i.e. number of vessels and major auxiliary equipment) for both media options shall be updated for the alternative of dedicated treatment at Well 5/6 and Well 8, and the alternative of centralized treatment at Well 8. Basic 3D visualizations using Sketchup of both alternatives shall be provided to assist city in selection. • Life -cycle costs (i.e. 30 years) to construct and operate PFAS treatment for both media options. Note that life -cycle costs will be comparative and specific to PFAS treatment with the goal of assisting in selecting a preferred alternative. Rehabilitation items not impacted by PFAS treatment will not be included in the cost comparison. The CONSULTANT will develop Level 4 AACE capital cost estimates. The O&M costs will be based on manufacturer's information, industry standards, and/or the results of Task 5 — PFAS Process Design Confirmation Testing. • Pro and con comparison of qualitative items including, but not limited to: o Operation and maintenance access o Operational redundancy o Room to expand for additional treatment (i.e. future PFAS or non-PFAS related regulations) o Public impacts (i.e. visual impacts, construction disruptions, etc.) o Coordination with rehabilitation recommendations (i.e. ability to simplify electrical and chemical improvements) o Ease of implementation (i.e. schedule duration/risk due to CEQA, permitting, construction sequencing, etc.) o Ability to phase the installation of PFAS treatment facility. It may be beneficial for the City financially to phase the treatment facility installation (i.e. only install a portion of the build- out capacity). This will depend on the future MCL and facility design. The CONSULTANT shall conduct a workshop with City staff to present draft PFAS Treatment Siting Evaluation results prior to receiving City comments and finalizing. Task 2.0 - Deliverables 1. Well 5/6 and Well 8 Site Planning Meeting agenda and minutes. 2. Centralized Treatment Meeting agenda and minutes. pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Pleasanton/_Proposals/Well S, 6 and 8 PFAS Treatment and Well Improvements BODR/Exhibit A_Well S, 6 and 8 PFAS Treatment and Rehabilitation Scope. docx PAGE 5 of 10