Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01-27-25 Work Session Agenda and Materials
Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA January 27, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers, 201 First Avenue East See the bottom of the agenda to learn how to provide public comment and watch meetings live or later. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. DISCUSSION 1. Emerging Contaminant PFA’s Preliminary Engineering Review D. PUBLIC COMMENT Persons wishing to address the council are asked to do so at this time. See the bottom of the agenda to learn the protocol for providing comment. E. CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL, AND MAYOR REPORTS F. ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING SCHEDULE Next Regular Meeting – February 3, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers Next Work Session – February 10, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers PARTICIPATION When addressing council please give your name and address, see the last page of the agenda for the proper manner of addressing the council, and limit comments to three minutes. Comments can also be emailed to publiccomment@kalispell.com. To provide public comment live, remotely, join the video conference through zoom at: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_J-4CwRFNRLiCOFU1NVDF5Q. Raise your virtual hand to indicate you want to provide comment. Due to occasional technical difficulties, the most reliable way to participate is through in-person attendance. Electronic means are not guaranteed. Watch City Council meetings live with the agenda and documents or later with time stamped minutes at: https://www.kalispell.com/480/Meeting-Videos or live or later on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofkalispellmontana9632/streams. Kalispell City Council Agenda, January 13, 2025 Page 2 of 2 The City does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its programs, services, activities, and employment practices. Auxiliary aids are available. For questions about disability accommodation please contact the City Clerk at 406-758-7756. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Adopted July 1, 1991 Section 2-20 Manner of Addressing Council a. Each person not a Council member shall address the Council, at the time designated in the agenda or as directed by the Council, by stepping to the podium or microphone, giving that person's name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the Council, shall limit the address to the Council to three minutes. b. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member of the Council or Staff. c. No person, other than the Council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. d. No question shall be asked of individuals except through the Presiding Officer. PRINCIPLES FOR CIVIL DIALOGUE Adopted by Resolution 5180 on February 5, 2007 We provide a safe environment where individual perspectives are respected, heard, and acknowledged. We are responsible for respectful and courteous dialogue and participation. We respect diverse opinions as a means to find solutions based on common ground. We encourage and value broad community participation. We encourage creative approaches to engage in public participation. We value informed decision-making and take personal responsibility to educate and be educated. We believe that respectful public dialogue fosters healthy community relationships, understanding and problem solving. We acknowledge, consider and respect the natural tensions created by collaboration, change, and transition. We follow the rules & guidelines established for each meeting. 201 1st Ave E Post Office Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7720 www.Kalispell.com To: Doug Russell, City Manager From: Susie Turner, Public Works Director Re: Preliminary Engineering Report Response to PFAS Meeting Date: January 27, 2025 Enclosed: Kalispell Drinking Water Emerging Contaminant - Response to PFAS: Preliminary Engineering Report – Final Draft The City has been actively addressing the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) detected in the public water supply since 2022. In response to these detections, the City has developed a phased approach to mitigate PFAS contamination and safeguard the community's water supply. In 2024, the City launched Phase 1 of its PFAS response by implementing a full-scale temporary treatment system at the Grandview Wells, which had recorded the highest PFAS levels. This treatment system was designed to provide immediate PFAS removal while allowing the City sufficient time to develop a comprehensive long-term solution under Phase 2. By initiating this proactive measure, the City addressed community concerns and ensured the water supply remained safe, reliable, and adequate to meet current demand. Phase 2 of the PFAS response, which is the focus of this review, begins with the completion of a Preliminary Engineering Review (PER). The PER is a critical step in evaluating alternative solutions to address PFAS contamination. It provides recommendations to ensure long-term regulatory compliance and supports the sustainability of Kalispell’s water system, both now and into the future. The upcoming work session presentation will include a review of the PER findings, including the preferred projects for addressing the PFAS-affected wells. These proposed solutions are designed to achieve three key objectives: 1. Ensuring the water supply meets regulatory standards. 2. Maintain compliance with state and federal regulations regarding PFAS levels in public water systems. 3. Ensure a comparable and sustainable, long-term solution is developed to meet the needs of Kalispell’s water system. Kalispell Drinking Water Emerging Contaminant - Response to PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - Final Draft January 2025 Kalispell Drinking Water Emerging Contaminant - Response to PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - Final Draft January 2025 Prepared by:Robert Peccia & Associates3147 Saddle DriveHelena, MT 59601 Prepared by:The City of Kalispell201 1st Avenue EastKalispell, MT 59901 2 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach The City of Kalispell, with a population of approximately 30,000 residents, relies on a public water system that draws groundwater from the deep alluvial aquifer. This system is divided into two pressure zones: the Upper Pressure Zone (UPZ) and the Lower Pressure Zone (LPZ). Groundwater wells located within city limits serve as the primary sources of drinking water for both zones, supporting the community’s domestic, commercial, and industrial needs. In 2022, the City voluntarily began testing its public water supply for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and in 2023, mandatory testing began as part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). These compounds, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” have been linked to various health risks. Testing revealed the presence of PFAS in the Grandview Wells (serving the UPZ) and the Armory Well (serving the LPZ). On April 10, 2024, the EPA announced new national regulations limiting the permissible levels of specific PFAS compounds in drinking water. Continued monitoring confirmed persistent positive detections of PFAS in these wells. The remaining wells, while free of detectable PFAS, are insufficient to meet water demand and ensure compliance with Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations. This Preliminary Engineering Report has identified preferred projects for both pressure zones to replace the wells affected by PFAS detections. These projects include the development of new source wells in strategic locations, as well as necessary infrastructure upgrades to ensure adequate capacity and system stability. The proposed solutions aim to safeguard public health, comply with regulatory requirements, and provide a sustainable, long-term water supply for Kalispell’s rapidly growing population. OVERVIEW 3 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &% Ü 0 1 2 Miles Grandview Well #1 & 2 Armory Well Upper Pressure Zone Lower Pressure Zone Kalispell City Limits Figure 1: City of Kalispell Water System Map 4 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach PFAS Regulations & Detection of PFAS in City of Kalispell Source Wells PFAS REGULATIONS & KALISPELL TESTING RESULTS • PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in various products since the 1940s. On April 10, 2024 the EPA announced a national regulation limiting the amount of certain PFAS compounds found in drinking water. • The EPA regulations established enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compounds in drinking water. Additionally, the EPA issued non-enforceable health-based Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for these compounds. Table 1 presents the MCLs and MCLGs for each compound, along with the hazard index for the mixture of PFAS compounds. PFAS Compound MCLG (ppt)MCL (ppt) PFOA 0 4 PFOS 0 4 PFHxS 10 10 Hazard Index of 1 for blended compounds PFNA 10 10 HFPO-DA (Gen X)10 10PFBSNANA PFNA 10 PFHxS 10 PFBS 2000 Gen X 10 Hazard index+++= Table 1: Regulated PFAS Compounds 5 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach City of Kalispell PFAS Testing Results PFAS Compound Source Sample Data PFAS Concentration (ppt) MCLG (ppt)MCL (ppt) PFOS Armory Mar-22 2.6 0 4 Jun-22 3.3 Mar-24 3.5 Jul-24 3.5Grandview Jul-23 6.6 Grandview #1 Mar-24 3.5 Grandview #2 13.0 Old School #1 2.0Grandview #1 Jul-24 2.3 Grandview #2 7.6 PFAS Compound Source Sample Data PFAS Concentration (ppt) MCLG (ppt)MCL (ppt) PHxS Armory Mar-22 2.7 10 10 Jun-22 3.3Jul-23 3.6 Mar-24 3.4 Jul-24 3.6 Grandview Jul-23 5.0Grandview #1 Mar-24 3.0 Grandview #2 11.0 Grandview #1 Jul-24 2.0 Grandview #2 7.4 The Grandview Wells have consistently tested positive for PFAS, with levels exceeding the EPA regulatory thresholds. The Armory Well has also consistently tested positive for PFAS, though its levels are very close to the regulatory limits. In contrast, the Old School Wells have had only one positive detection, with subsequent tests showing non-detectable levels. Table 2: PFOS Compound Testing Results Table 3: PFHxS Testing Results 6 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach The City has been proactive and transparent with the public regarding PFAS detections in the Armory and Grandview source wells. On April 17, 2024, the Public Works Department issued a public notice informing residents about the PFAS detections in the drinking water. The notice also announced a public workshop to be held during the June 10, 2024, work session to provide updates and information on the situation. During the workshop, the Public Works Director provided updates, including that a preliminary engineering report was underway to identify a preferred long-term solution for addressing the issue. The director also presented the option of implementing a temporary treatment facility at the Grandview Wells to address public concerns and ensure the provision of safe drinking water while a permanent solution could be determined. Following this discussion, the City Council voted to move forward with temporary treatment of the Grandview Wells. In September 2024, the temporary treatment facility was commissioned and brought online. Subsequent testing of the Grandview Wells has shown non-detectable levels of PFAS in the treated water. PUBLIC OUTREACH 7 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach Upper Pressure Zone Deficiencies without Grandview Wells DEQ regulations require the City to maintain sufficient water supply to meet the Max Day Demand (MDD) with the largest well out of service. The UPZ water demand has been rapidly growing and with the removal of the Grandview Wells, an additional water source is critical to replace this source. REGULATORY Upper Pressure Zone Max Day Demand Historical Max Day Demand Projected Max Day Demand 2.5% Growth Firm Capacity without Grandview MD D ( M G ) Year Figure 2: UPZ Max Pumping Capacity Historical and Projected 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 8 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach Lower Pressure Zone Deficiencies without Grandview Wells DEQ regulations require the City to maintain sufficient water supply to meet the Max Day Demand (MDD). The LPZ water demand has not been growing as rapidly as the UPZ, however an additional source is needed to replace the Armory Well. Lower Pressure Zone Max Day Demand Historical Max Day Demand Projected Max Day Demand 2.5% Growth Firm Capacity without Armory MD D ( M G ) Year Figure 3: LPZ Max Pumping Capacity Historical and Projected 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Projected Max Day Demand 0.5% Growth 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 9 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach Upper Pressure Zone Proposed Project (Estimated Capital Cost $10M) 1. Four new submersible wells are to be constructed with a pumping capacity of 1,000 gpmeach. The wells are manifolded together and water is pumped to the Noffsinger Springs Building. 2. The existing Noffsinger Springs Building will be renovated to house the new process pipingfor the Noffsinger Springs Wells. The existing spring box, wet well, and pumping equipment will be decommissioned to house the new piping to provide chlorine disinfection and meter water usage of the new wells. 3. A new booster station will be constructed to replace existing booster stations that have pasttheir useful lifespan and are under performing their original design flows. The new boosterstation will supply 3,600 gpm to the upper pressure zone replacing the flows lost from theGrandview Wells and existing booster stations 4. New 24” PVC transmission main will be constructed through the golf course replacingexisting 18” cast iron main that is leaking. The main will connect to the Buffalo Hills StorageReservoirs that will supply a new booster station that pumps to the Upper Pressure Zone. PROPOSED PROJECTS Untitled Map Write a description for your map. Legend 1000 ft N ➤➤ N Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus New Wells Rehabilitation of Noffsinger Springs Building New Booster Station New 24” Transmission Main 1 1 2 3 4 10 Overview PFAS Regulations & Kalispell Testing Results Regulatory Proposed ProjectsPublic Outreach Lower Pressure Zone Proposed Project (Estimated Capital Cost $7.95M) 1. Two new submersible well are to be constructed with a pumping capacity of 1,000 gpm each. Thewells are manifolded together and water is pumped to a new pump house for disinfection and flowmonitoring. From there the water will enter the distribution system with the upsizing of a water main in Woodland Avenue. 2. The existing 8” water main in Woodland Avenue needs to be upsized to reduce potential pressurespikes with the new wells. There will be approximately 5,300 feet of 8” asbestos cement water main replaced with 16” PVC main connecting to water main in Center Street and Albina Street. PROPOSED PROJECTS Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus Image © 2025 Airbus New Wells Upsize Existing Water Main to 16” 1 2 Contents 1.A. PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.B. POPULATION TRENDS ........................................................................................................ 1-2 1.C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM ................................................................ 1-4 1.D. EPA PFAS REGULATION SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1-7 1.E. PFAS IN KALLISPELL SOURCE WATER ................................................................................. 1-8 1.F. PFAS TREATMENT OPTIONS ............................................................................................... 1-11 2.A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE UPPER PRESSURE ZONE AND COMPONENTS ................... 2-1 2.A.1. WATER STORAGE TANKS ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.A.2. CONTROL VALVES ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.A.3. CONTROL SYSTEM ................................................................................................ 2-5 2.A.4. UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SOURCES ............................................................ 2-7 2.A.5. BOOSTER STATIONS ............................................................................................ 2-10 2.B. UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER DEMAND ....................................................................... 2-10 2.B.1. UPPER PRESSURE ZONE EXISTING WATER DEMAND AND PROJECTED GROWTH... 2-10 2.B.2. UPPER PRESSURE ZONE AVERAGE DAY AND MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS ................ 2-12 2.B.3. UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER RIGHTS .............................................................. 2-15 2.C. EPA PFAS REGULATION SUMMARY IN THE UPZ.................................................................. 2-16 2.D. TEMPORARY PFAS TREATMENT OF GRANDVIEW WELLS .................................................... 2-17 3.A. APPROACH TO DETECTION OF PFAS IN GRANDVIEW WELLS .............................................. 3-1 3.B. GRANDVIEW PFAS TREATMENT OPTIONS .......................................................................... 3-2 3.B.1. ION EXCHANGE (IX) .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.B.2. GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (GAC) ................................................................ 3-23 3.B.3. REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) ...................................................................................... 3-25 3.B.4. MODIFIED CLAY ADSORPTION ............................................................................. 3-27 3.C. GRANDVIEW REPLACEMENT OPTIONS ............................................................................. 3-31 3.C.1 SPRING CREEK ROAD NORTHWEST REGIONAL STORMWATER FACILITY ................ 3-33 3.C.2. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS – GROUNDWATER SOURCE ............................................. 3-40 3.C.3. ELEVATED TANK SITE ............................................................................................ 3-65 3.C.4. WESTVIEW WELL SITE .......................................................................................... 3-68 3.D. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................... 3-71 3.D.1. NEW SOURCE WATER FOR UPPER PRESSURE ZONE ............................................. 3-71 4.A. PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................... 4-1 4.A.1. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 4-1 4.A.2. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS WATER SUPPLY WELLS ...................................................... 4-1 4.A.3. BOOSTER PUMP STATION ...................................................................................... 4-4 4.A.4. TRANSMISSION MAIN ............................................................................................ 4-7 4.B. PROJECT SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................... 4-7 4.C. TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE ................................................................................................. 4-9 5.A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOWER PRESSURE ZONE AND COMPONENTS .................. 5-1 5.A.1. WATER STORAGE TANKS ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.A.2. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SOURCES .......................................................... 5-2 5.B. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE WATER DEMAND........................................................................ 5-6 5.B.1. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE EXISTING WATER DEMAND AND PROJECTED GROWTH ... 5-6 5.B.2. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE AVERAGE DAY AND MAZIMUM DAY DEMANDS ................. 5-7 5.B.3. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE WATER RIGHTS ............................................................. 5-10 5.C. EPA PFAS REGULATION SUMMARY IN THE LPZ .................................................................. 5-11 6.A. APPROACH TO DETECTION OF PFAS IN ARMORY WELL ...................................................... 6-1 6.B. TREATMENT OPTIONS ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.C. SOURCE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS .................................................................................... 6-2 6.C.1. DRY BRIDGE PARK ................................................................................................ 6-5 6.C.2. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ........................................................................................ 6-13 6.D. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................... 6-16 6.D.1. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON AND SELECTION ...................................................... 6-16 7.A. PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................... 7-1 7.A.1. DRY BRIDGE PARK PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................. 7-1 7.A.2. DRY BRIDGE PARK WATER SUPPLY WELLS .............................................................. 7-1 7.A.3. WOODLAND CONNECTOR MAIN UPSIZING ........................................................... 7-4 7.B. PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 7-4 7.C. TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE ................................................................................................. 7-5 Appendices APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH APPENDIX B: PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES APPENDIX C: PFAS SAMPLE RESULTS IN EXISTING WELLS APPENDIX D: PFAS SAMPLE RESULTS IN TEST WELLS APPENDIX E: WATER CHEMISTRY SAMPLE – GRANDVIEW WELL APPENDIX F: UPPER PRESSURE ZONE COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX G: LOWER PRESSURE ZONE COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX H: RECORD DRAWINGS – NOFFSINGER SPRING APPENDIX I: TEMPORARY TREATMENT APPENDIX J: TEMPORARY TREATMENT City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-1 CHAPTER 1: PROJECT PLANNING 1.A. PROJECT LOCATION Kalispell, the largest city in northwestern Montana, is located in Flathead County and serves as both the county seat and the commercial hub of the area. As the primary city in northwest Montana, Kalispell is a center for retail, professional, medical, and governmental activities in the Flathead Valley and surrounding four counties. The economic landscape of Kalispell and Flathead County is varied with leading industries including wood products manufacturing, microelectronics, metals refining, railroads, agriculture, and tourism. Additionally, the area is popular among retirees, and retirement income constitutes a significant and growing segment of the local economy. The city also offers easy access to a range of outdoor attractions, including Glacier National Park, Flathead Lake, Whitefish Mountain Ski Resort, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and various other state and national forests and parks. The Kalispell area is shown in Figure 1.A.1. Figure 1.A.1: City of Kalispell Location City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-2 1.B. POPULATION TRENDS Over the past few decades, Kalispell has experienced steady population growth, driven by factors such as its scenic beauty, outdoor recreational opportunities, and reputation as a highly desirable place to live. In the early 2000s, Kalispell witnessed significant growth as people were drawn to the area for its quality of life and outdoor amenities. This growth continued through the early 2000s but slowed considerably during the 2008 recession. Growth resumed through the 2010s, although at a somewhat slower pace compared to the previous decade. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 led to significant shifts in population dynamics, with many people choosing to leave densely populated urban areas in favor of suburban or rural areas. This trend was driven by various factors, including concerns about the virus's spread in crowded cities, the implementation of remote work arrangements, and a desire for more space and outdoor amenities. Cities like Kalispell, with their lower population density, became particularly attractive to individuals and families looking to relocate during the pandemic. The ability to work remotely also played a significant role, as it allowed people to choose their living location based on lifestyle preferences rather than proximity to a physical office. As a result, some smaller towns and rural areas experienced population growth during the pandemic, while larger cities saw declines or slower growth rates. While the long-term implications of these population shifts are still unfolding, it is unknown if the current growth rate of Kalispell will return to the moderate historical rate or if the elevated growth rate will continue. Kalispell had low to moderate growth in its early years but as shown in Table 1.B.1., both Flathead County and the City of Kalispell have seen a high growth in population over the last few decades. Table 1.B.1: Population Trends for Flathead County and the City of Kalispell. Census Year Population Data City of Kalispell Flathead County Population Population Growth Annual Population Growth Size of City (Acres) Population Population Growth Annual Population Growth 1960(1) 10,151 n/a n/a 32,965 n/a n/a 1970(1) 10,526 3.7% 0.4% 39,460 19.70% 1.8% 1980(1) 10,648 1.2% 0.1% 51,966 31.69% 2.8% 1990(1) 11,917 11.9% 1.1% 4.4 59,218 13.96% 1.3% 2000(1) 14,223 19.4% 1.8% 5.5 74,471 25.76% 2.3% 2010(1) 19,927 40.1% 3.4% 11.8 90,928 22.10% 2.0% 2020(1) 24,737 24.1% 2.2% 12.4 104,357 14.77% 1.4% 2023(2) 29,886 20.8% 6.5% 12.9 113,679 8.93% 2.9% (1)Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Decennial Census of Population (Title Varies per Census), 1890-2020. Compiled June 2021 by the Census & Economic Information Center, MT Department of Commerce (www.ceic.mt.gov). (2) U.S. Census Bureau estimated population July 1, 2023 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-3 Plotting historical population data on a graph and applying a best-fit polynomial trend line to project future growth indicates an estimated annual growth rate of 2.94%, as shown in Graph 1.B.1. The Kalispell Planning Department uses a 2.50% annual growth rate for future population projections. However, since 2010, the City has experienced an average annual population growth rate of 4.04%. For the purposes of this report, an annual growth rate of 2.50% will be used to estimate future population projections. Table 1.B.2 presents the City of Kalispell's population projections based on different growth rates. Graph 1.B.1: Historical Population and Future Projections for City of Kalispell Table 1.B.2: Population Projections the City of Kalispell Census Year City of Kalispell Population (1) Population (2) Population (3) 2023 29,886 29,886 29,886 2030 35,525 36,606 39,434 2040 45,475 48,910 58,597 2050 58,212 65,349 87,072 2060 74,516 87,313 129,384 (1) Projected population is estimated based upon City of Kalispell Planning Department annual growth rate of 2.50%. (2) Projected population is estimated based upon historical trend line annual growth rate of 2.94%. (3) Projected population is estimated based on an average annual growth rate since 2010 of 4.04%. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 Po p u l a t i o n Year Chart City of Kalispell Population HISTORICAL POPULATION FUTURE 2.5% GROWTH HISTORICAL AVERAGE 2.94% GROWTH AVERAGE GROWTH 4.04% RATE SINCE 2010 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-4 1.C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM The City has an approximate population of 30,000 people served by approximately 9,093 metered residential, commercial, and industrial water service connections. Figure 1.C.1 illustrates the existing water supply and distribution system for the City’s service area, which comprises the following components: • Two Pressure Zones: The system is divided into two pressure zones: the Upper Pressure Zone (UPZ) and the Lower Pressure Zone (LPZ). These zones cover elevations ranging from 3,102 feet to 2,905 feet above sea level, with a dividing boundary at an elevation of 2,996 feet. Each zone operates independently, utilizing its own groundwater source wells and water storage reservoirs. The two pressure zones are interconnected via a pressure- regulating control valve and booster pump stations. During periods of high demand, the LPZ supplies water to the UPZ through booster pumps. • Water Sources: The system is supplied by thirteen municipal wells and one spring. Table 1.C.1 provides details for each source, including the name, year of construction, and the pressure zone it serves. The City’s water is drawn from groundwater wells located within city limits, which supply both the distribution system and storage reservoirs. Water is disinfected at each source using chlorination before it enters the storage and distribution system. It is important to note that Noffsinger Spring is only utilized during emergency situations. More detailed descriptions of each source can be found in Section 2.A.4 (UPZ) and Section 5.A.2 (LPZ) of this report. Table 1.C.1: City of Kalispell Municipal Well Summary Well Year Constructed Pressure Zone Grandview Well # 1 1997 Upper Grandview Well #2 1997 Upper West View Well 2008 Upper Silverbrook Well 2010 Upper Section 36 Well 2018 Upper 4 Mile Well 2024 Upper Tower Well 2024 Upper Armory Well 1964 Lower Depot Park Well 1956 Lower Buffalo Hill Well 1997 Lower Old School Station Well #1 2007 Lower Old School Station Well #2 2007 Lower Noffsinger Spring 1916 Lower North Main Well 2024 Lower City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-6 • 4 Finished Water Storage Reservoirs: The system includes four storage reservoirs that provide both operational and emergency storage, ensuring an adequate water supply and maintaining consistent pressure during peak demand periods. Table 1.C.2 summarizes these storage facilities, detailing their names, construction years, capacities, and the pressure zones they serve. Kalispell is currently constructing a new tank in the UPZ, and as part of this project, an the Buffalo Hill Elevated Tank will be decommissioned. Table 1.C.2: City of Kalispell Finished Water Storage Summary City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-7 • 2 Booster Stations: Located at the Buffalo Hill Site, the two booster stations pump water from the Lower Zone reservoirs to the UPZ distribution mains when water demand is high. • Distribution System: The City’s distribution network includes approximately 141 miles of water mains ranging from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. This network, which features transmission and distribution piping, instrumentation, controls, booster pumping stations, isolation valves, and fire hydrants. 1.D. EPA PFAS REGULATION SUMMARY PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in various products since the 1940s. They are often referred to as "forever chemicals" because of their persistence in the environment and resistance to breaking down. They are resistant to heat, water, and oil, making them useful in products such as non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, firefighting foams, and many others. However, PFAS have been linked to various health concerns, including cancer, liver damage, immune system effects, and developmental issues. On April 10, 2024 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a national regulation limiting the amount of certain PFAS compounds found in drinking water. The EPA has stated there is no safe level of exposure to PFAS without risk of health impacts, and now requires public water utilities test for six different types of PFAS chemicals to reduce exposure in drinking water. Below are the six PFAS chemicals and their definitions. PFOS (Perflurooctane sulfonate): PFOS is a synthetic compound belonging to the class of perfluoroalkyl substances. It has been used in a variety of industrial applications and consumer products, including stain-resistant coatings, firefighting foams, and some food packaging materials – specifically microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes. PFOS is persistent in the environment and can accumulate in organisms over time. Due to concerns about its potential health and environmental effects, its use has been restricted or phased out in many countries. PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid): PFOA is another member of the perfluoroalkyl substances family. It has been used in the production of non-stick cookware, stain-resistant coatings, and other industrial applications. Like PFOS, PFOA is persistent in the environment and can bioaccumulate in living organisms and the environment such as water. It has been linked to various health concerns, including reproductive and developmental effects, as well as potential carcinogenicity. Many countries have taken steps to phase out or regulate the use of PFOA. PFHxS (Perfluorohexane sulfonate): PFHxS is yet another perfluoroalkyl substance, closely related to PFOS. It has been used in similar industrial and consumer applications, although to a lesser extent. Like PFOS and PFOA, PFHxS is persistent in the environment and can accumulate in living organisms such as humans. Studies have suggested potential City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-8 health effects associated with exposure to PFHxS, including impacts on the liver, immune system, and developmental processes. HFPO-DA (Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid): this is a precursor chemical used in the production of certain PFAS, particularly PFOA and PFOS. PFNA (Perfluorononanoic acid): PFNA is a type of PFAS that has been used in the production of a variety of consumer products, including non-stick coatings, firefighting foams, and stain-resistant fabrics. Like other PFAS, PFNA is persistent in the environment and can bioaccumulate in animals and humans, potentially causing adverse health effects. PFBS (Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid): PFBS is another type of PFAS that has been used in similar applications to PFNA, including in the production of non-stick coatings and firefighting foams. It is part of the broader class of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl sulfonates. The EPA regulations established enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the six PFAS compounds in drinking water mentioned above. Additionally, the EPA issued non- enforceable health-based Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for these compounds. Table 1.D.1 below presents the MCLs and MCLGs for each compound, along with the hazard index for the mixture of PFAS compounds. Table 1.D.1: Regulated PFAS compound MCL’s and MCLG’s PFAS Compound MCLG (ppt) MCL (ppt) PFOA 0 4 PFOS 0 4 PFHxS 10 10 Hazard Index of 1 for blended compounds PFNA 10 10 HFPO-DA (Gen X) 10 10 PFBS NA NA 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃10 +𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃10 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃2000 + 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑋𝑋10 =𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝐼𝐼𝑃𝑃𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼𝑋𝑋 1.E. PFAS IN KALLISPELL SOURCE WATER In 2022 the City of Kalispell began voluntarily sampling their public water for PFAS compounds, and in 2023 the City began the required testing under the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). Since Kalispell serves a population over 10,000, the UCMR required the City to sample for suspected contaminates as directed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through this testing two PFAS compounds were detected, PFOS and PFHxS, the other four compounds were non-detect. Table 1.E.1 and Table 1.E.2 below summarize the testing results for PFOS and PFHxS respectively in comparison to the EPA regulations. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-9 Table 1.E.1: PFOS Testing Results Summary PFAS Compound Source Sample Date (2) PFAS Concentration (ppt) MCLG (ppt) MCL (ppt) PFOS Armory Mar-22 2.6 0 4 Jun-22 3.3 Mar-24 3.5 Jul-24 3.2 3.5 3.1 Grandview (1) Jul-23 6.6 Grandview #1 Mar-24 3.5 Grandview #2 13.0 Old School #1 2.0 Grandview #1 Jul-24 2.0 2.2 2.3 Grandview #2 8.3 7.5 7.6 (1) This sample of Grandview was taken as a combined sample of both wells (2) July 2024 sample included 3 samples of each previous PFAS positive detection well. 1st sample at 15min runtime, 2nd sample at 1hr runtime, and 3rd sample at 2hr runtime. Old School came back non-detect levels City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-10 Table 1.E.2: PFHxS Testing Results Summary PFAS Compound Source Sample Date (2) PFAS Concentration (ppt) MCLG (ppt) MCL (ppt) PFHxS Armory Mar-22 2.7 10 10 Jun-22 3.3 Jul-23 3.6 Mar-24 3.4 Jul-24 3.3 3.6 3.2 Grandview (1) Jul-23 5.0 Grandview #1 Mar-24 3.0 Grandview #2 11.0 Grandview #1 Jul-24 ND 1.9 2.0 Grandview #2 7.4 6.7 6.7 (1) This sample of Grandview was taken as a combined sample of both wells (2) July 2024 sample included 3 samples of each previous PFAS positive detection well. 1st sample at 15min runtime, 2nd sample at 1hr runtime, and 3rd sample at 2hr runtime. Old School came back non-detect levels In 2022 the testing was part of a voluntary effort to begin testing, and in 2023 UCMR required testing revealed the presence of PFAS in the Grandview (UPZ) and Armory (LPZ) wells. While the PFAS levels in the Armory Well are below the MCL established by the EPA, the levels in the Grandview Wells exceed the MCL. In response, the City adopted a proactive approach to address the detected PFAS in the Grandview Wells. Although EPA regulations permit initial monitoring until 2027, the City chose to act early. On June 10, 2024, the City Council approved the implementation of temporary PFAS treatment for the Grandview Wells, which was integrated into the water system in September 2024. This measure was taken to address citizen concerns, as removing the Grandview Wells from service was not an option; without these wells, the remaining wells in the UPZ would not be able to meet peak demand. The City Council prioritized maintaining an uninterrupted water supply and avoiding the need for water use restrictions, which led to the decision to treat water from the Grandview Wells for PFAS. This proactive response was intended to ensure regulatory compliance and address the health concerns of the community. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-11 A timeline follows, illustrating the overlap between the EPA's regulatory implementation schedule and the City’s ongoing efforts to monitor PFAS levels and treat water sources with PFAS concentrations exceeding the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). 1.F. PFAS TREATMENT OPTIONS PFAS is a relatively new contaminant, and treatment methods are still developing. EPA researchers have been exploring various technologies at bench, pilot, and full scales to identify the most effective methods for removing PFAS from drinking water. Due to the unique chemical properties of PFAS, certain technologies are more effective at removing specific PFAS compounds, particularly PFOA and PFOS, which are among the most studied. Other PFAS compounds, like Gen-X chemicals, can also be removed, but with varying degrees of success. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 1-12 In the regulations issued on April 10, 2024, the EPA identified "Best Available Technologies" (BATs) for achieving the PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The recommended treatment options include granular activated carbon (GAC), anion exchange (IX), and reverse osmosis (RO). These technologies were selected based on six criteria: removal efficiency, proven performance at full scale, geographic applicability, compatibility with other treatment processes, effectiveness in achieving compliance across the entire water system, and cost-effectiveness for both large and medium-sized systems. While these BATs are recommended, water systems have the flexibility to use any technology or practice to meet the PFAS MCLs and are not restricted to the BATs alone. More discussion on treatment alternatives is discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-1 CHAPTER 2: UPPER PRESSURE ZONE EXISTING FACILITIES The Grandview Wells, which supply the Upper Pressure Zone (UPZ) with water, have tested positive for PFAS compounds, as discussed in Section 1.E of this report. These wells are a critical water source for the UPZ, and the implications of removing them from the system are significant. The following sections of this chapter provide an overview of the existing water system components and source wells within the UPZ. Additionally, they detail the importance of the Grandview Wells and examine the potential impacts of their removal on the overall water system. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE UPPER PRESSURE ZONE AND COMPONENTS The UPZ of the Kalispell water system currently relies on two water storage tanks and six municipal groundwater wells to supply water within the UPZ. The UPZ is undergoing significant improvements, including the addition and decommissioning of various water system components. Key upgrades include the construction of a new one-million-gallon elevated water storage tank, a new groundwater source well, and a new control valve system designed to regulate water levels and optimize the use of the water storage tanks. The following is a detailed outline of the UPZ components, including those that are currently under construction. WATER STORAGE TANKS As previously mentioned, the UPZ is undergoing improvements, including the construction of a new 1-million-gallon elevated water storage tank, which will lead to the decommissioning of the Buffalo Hills Tank. Listed below are the water storage tanks that serve the UPZ. Once the new elevated water storage tank is completed and integrated into the system in the spring of 2025, the existing 100,000-gallon Buffalo Hills elevated water storage tank will be decommissioned. Beginning in the spring of 2025, the UPZ will utilize both the Sheepherder Tank and the new 1 MG Elevated Tank, providing a combined total of 3 million gallons of water storage for the UPZ. • Buffalo Hills Tank – This 100,000 gallon water storage tank is located at the northern end of Buffalo Hill Drive, and is adjacent to the Buffalo Hill Golf Course. It is a welded elevated steel tank that was constructed in 1957. The tank is filled by Upper Zone municipal supply wells through the surrounding distribution system or seasonally supplied by the Lower Zone water via the booster stations. This tank will be decommissioned once the 1.0 MG elevated tank is commissioned in Spring of 2025. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-2 Figure 2.A.1: 100,000 Gallon Buffalo Hills Tank • Sheepherder Tank - This 2-million gallon (MG), buried concrete tank was constructed in 2008 and is located west of the City. It is connected to the distribution system through an 18-inch transmission main that connects to the distribution system near the west end of Three Mile Drive. The Sheepherder Tank has an overflow elevation of 3,216 feet. Figure 2.A.2: Sheepherder Tank • 1 MG Elevated Tank - This composite tank is located on a City owned lot south of Ponderosa Lane, adjacent to Highway 93, within the Eagle Valley Ranch Subdivision. The 1 MG Elevated Tank also has an overflow elevation of 3,216 feet. This tank will be integrated into the water system in the Spring of 2025. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-3 Figure 2.A.3: 1 MG Elevated Tank CONTROL VALVES The UPZ will also be equipped with two control valves, which are to be integrated into the water system in the spring of 2025, coinciding with the completion of the 1 MG Elevation Tank. These valves are essential for regulating the filling of the two tanks and balancing water age. Due to the locations of the wells relative to large-diameter mains, some wells are more hydraulically connected to the Sheepherder Tank, while others are more connected to the 1MG Elevated Tank. Given its location and hydraulic connectivity to high-producing wells and system demands, water tends to flow more readily to and from the Sheepherder Tank. The Sheepherder Control Valve Building, situated adjacent to West Spring Creek Road, contains an 18-inch control valve connected to the 18-inch transmission main feeding the 2 MG Sheepherder Tank. The new 1MG Elevated tank will be equipped with a 16-inch control valve that is connected to 16-inch water main. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-4 Figure 2.A.4: Sheepherder Control Valve Building Mechanical Plan City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-5 CONTROL SYSTEM The control valves are accompanied by a control system designed to manage their operation. To ensure optimal performance, the control system will be operated differently during peak water use seasons compared to average daily demand periods throughout the rest of the year. This strategy allows the system to better accommodate fluctuations in water demand, regulate water age, and minimize pressure differentials within the system. During the winter months and non- irrigation periods, the control valve system will operate in an average day scenario. In contrast, during the summer months, when irrigation activity and water demand are at their highest, the system will be managed under a peak demand operation scenario. Figure 2.A.5 provides a schematic of the control valve system, illustrating the differing sizes and levels at which well pumps activate to fill the tanks. The hydraulic connectivity of each well varies based on its location within the UPZ and proximity to large-diameter mains. For example, the Section 36 Well, Four Mile Drive Well, and West View Well are more hydraulically linked to the Sheepherder Tank. The Grandview Wells are equally connected to both the Sheepherder Tank and the 1 MG Elevated Tank, while the Silverbrook Well is primarily connected to the 1 MG Elevated Tank. Further details about the groundwater source wells that supply the UPZ are discussed in the following section of this report. The following outlines the typical operation of the control valves through the control system. During average day operations, assuming both the Sheepherder Tank and 1 MG Elevated Tank are full, both tanks will begin to draw down to meet the UPZ system demands. Depending on the location of the demands, water will flow more readily from the most hydraulically connected tank, which is typically the Sheepherder Tank. When one of the UPZ tanks reaches its drawdown elevation, its associated control valve will close, forcing water from the alternate tank to meet system demands. Once the second tank reaches its drawdown level, both control valves will open, and well pump operations will begin to refill the tanks. To ensure system demands are met, pressure transducers located on the distribution side of both control valves will signal the control valve to open in the event of low distribution pressure. In certain instances, a single well may not be able to meet system demands and fill the tank, which will trigger the operation of lag well pump(s). Pump operation will rotate through each of the UPZ wells with each new fill cycle. When one of the UPZ tanks reaches its full elevation, its associated control valve will close to prevent overflow. At this point, water will flow to fill the alternate tank until it also reaches its full elevation, causing its control valve to close and pump operations to cease. Once both tanks are full, both control valves will open, and a new tank drawdown cycle will begin. RPA Copyright ãRobert Peccia & Associates 2024 Map Created by: ROBERT PECCIA & ASSOCIATES www.rpa-hln.com CITY OF KALISPELL UPZ CONTROL VALVE OPERATIONS Figure 2.A.5 P P P P P P SHEEPHERDER TANK 1MG ELEVATED TANK (SPRING 2025) FIGURE LEGEND: P City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-7 UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SOURCES The UPZ water supply currently consists of six (6) public water supply wells, with a seventh well slated for commissioning in the spring of 2025. Once operational, the seven wells will provide a total pumping capacity of 7,325 gpm and a firm capacity of 5,525 gpm with the largest well out of service. Currently, the water system alternates well operation among the six existing groundwater wells each time a tank level falls below a specified elevation. However, as outlined in Section 2.A.2, beginning in the spring of 2025, the system will utilize control valves to activate specific wells based on individual tank levels and to open and close tank valves as needed. Chlorination is applied at each well source. The following is a list of the groundwater well sources that serve the UPZ, followed by Table 2.A.1, which provides detailed information about each well. • Section 36 Well (1,525 gpm) - The Section 36 Well was an existing irrigation well that was converted to a public water supply well. It is located on Timberwolf Parkway in an easement on the 911 Center/Office of Emergency Services property. The well located in the pumphouse has a line shaft turbine pump. • West View Well (1,250 gpm) - The West View well is located within the West View Estates subdivision in the north part of Kalispell and is connected directly to the distribution system. The submersible pump is manufactured by Goulds. • Silverbrook Well (250 gpm) - This well is located in the north part of Kalispell north of Tronstad Road near Highway 93 and across from the Silverbrook Estates development. The well is connected directly to the water distribution system. The well and pumphouse were constructed in 2010 and use a submersible pump manufactured by Goulds. • Grandview #1 Well (1,300 gpm) - Grandview #1 well is located on Grandview Drive just south of the Flathead Valley Community College and connects directly to the water distribution system. The submersible pump is manufactured by Goulds. • Grandview #2 Well (700 gpm) - Grandview #2 well is located on Grandview Drive just south of the Flathead Valley Community College and connects directly to the water distribution system. The well located in the pumphouse has a line shaft turbine pump manufactured by Goulds. • Four Mile Drive Well (1,500 gpm) - This well is located on Utility Lot 3 which is adjacent and south of Four Mile Drive. The well is in operation as of July 2024 and part of the project that includes a new 1MG elevated water storage tank. The vertical turbine pump is manufactured by Goulds. • Tower Well (500 gpm) - This well is located on the City owned lot sharing the lot with the elevated storage tank. The submersible pump is manufactured by Goulds. The well has been constructed, but is scheduled for service in Spring of 2025. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-8 Table 2.A.1: UPZ Well Data Summary Well Name Year Constructed Depth (feet) Well Pump Horsepower (HP) Flow Rate (gpm) Water Rights Section 36 Well 2018 220 200 1,525 76LJ 4601 West View Well 2008 400 200 1,250 76LJ 30030092 Silverbrook Well 2010 500 40 250 76LJ 45076, 76LJ 45077, 76LJ 4601, 76LJ 10756, 76LJ 23590, 76LJ 97205, 76LJ 30008765, 76LJ 30008766, 76LJ 30027293, 76LJ 30030092 Grandview #1 Well 1997 457 125 1,300 76LJ 97205 Grandview #2 Well 1997 482 100 700 76LJ 97205 Four Mile Drive Well 2024 445 300 1,800 76LJ 30162755 Tower Well 2024 380 50 500 76LJ 30162754 Figure 2.A.6 shows the location of the wells, storage tanks, and distribution piping within the UPZ. -'o � 0 C. Lii .2l "' 0 a:i N (!) u::: O') 0 '-'"� Tank Sheepherder Elevated Tank (1) Buffalo Hill Elevated Tank (2) UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER TANKS Year Constructed 2008 2025 1957 Pressure Type Size Zone Concrete 2MG Upper Composite 1 MG Upper Elevated 0.1 MG Upper (1)Elevated tank to be commissioned late spring 2025. Picture (2) Buffalo Hill Elevated tank will be decommissioned upon completion of elevated tank late spring 2025. UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WELLS Legend ■PRV -Pressure Reducing Valve♦Booster Pump ® Source Well A Storage Tank Water Main By Diameter --2" Well Name Section 36 Well West View Well Silverbrook Well Grandview #1 Well Grandview #2 Well Four Mile Drive Well Tower Well Year Depth Constructed (feet) 2018 220 2008 400 2010 500 1997 457 1997 482 2024 445 2024'1)380 Flow Rate (gpm) 1,525 1,250 250 1,300 700 1,800 500 --3" (1)Tower Well to be commissioned late spring 2025. --4" --6" --8" --10" --12" --14" --16" 18" --20" --24C:J Upper Pressure Zone N + 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Three Mile Dr West View Well 3129 ft Four Mile Drive Well D.. V\ � Four Mile Drive Connector (Section 3.C.2) US Highway 2 W >, Ill J: Silverbrook Well Tronstad Rd Tower Well (Constructed, Not Yet Online) Elevated Storage Tank Commission 2025 ti_ / I � 0untry Wa'l Buffalo Hill Booster#1 Buffalo Hill Booster#2 UPZ Components Map �L ___________________________________________ c::::::.......1..._....!::::====::I::::::::i:::::I::::I::::I::��::::::I::::::ll City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-10 BOOSTER STATIONS There are two booster stations located near the Buffalo Hills Elevated Water Tank. These stations are occasionally used to pump water from the LPZ to the UPZ. However, the booster pumps are outdated, and changes in water system operating conditions since their implementation have caused issues with water system pressures near the hospital when they are in operation. Table 2.A.2 below provides a summary of the booster pumps. Table 2.A.2: UPZ Well Data Summary Station Pump VFD or Constant Speed Horsepower (Hp) Total Dynamic Head (feet) Design Flow (gpm) Buffalo Hill Booster Station #1 Pump #1 Constant 40 145 700 Buffalo Hill Booster Station #2 Pump #1 Constant 100 145 1200 Pump #2 Constant 100 145 1100 Pump #3 Constant 50 161 700 UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER DEMAND UPPER PRESSURE ZONE EXISTING WATER DEMAND AND PROJECTED GROWTH The Upper Pressure Zone has experienced steady growth over the past decade. The City of Kalispell maintains detailed water production data for each well corresponding to each pressure zone. Table 2.B.1 below summarizes the water production data for the UPZ and the annual growth rate of water produced. Water production was calculated by totaling the recorded pumping volumes from each well listed in Table 2.A.1, along with the booster pump volumes for the year. The City provides water for irrigation, and some of the year-to-year variation in demand is attributable to drought conditions. However, irrigation remains a consistent demand on the system and must be accounted for in future water supply projections. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-11 Table 2.B.1: Annual Water Production and Historical Growth Summary Year Annual Water Production (MG) Annual Water Demand Growth Non-Irrigating Months Water Demand UPZ (MG) Non-Irrigating Annual Water Demand Growth 2012 451 n/a 145 n/a 2013 439 -2.66% 141 -2.76% 2014 441 0.46% 135 -4.26% 2015 584 32.43% 156 15.56% 2016 529 -9.42% 157 0.64% 2017 589 11.34% 150 -4.46% 2018 576 -2.21% 156 4.00% 2019 535 -7.12% 151 -3.21% 2020 579 8.22% 171 13.25% 2021 626 8.12% 178 4.09% 2022 616 -1.60% 175 -1.69% 2023 674 9.42% 183 4.57% Annual Growth Rate 3.72% 2.14% The annual growth rate of water production from 2012 through 2023 was 3.72% when including irrigation months and 2.14% when excluding them. For the purpose of estimating future water demands, this report uses growth rates that include irrigation demand months. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the annual average water production growth rate has increased to 5.19% (2020–2023), compared to a pre-2020 rate of 2.47%. In comparison, the City of Kalispell has observed an annual population growth rate of 6.5% from 2020 to 2023, compared to 2.2% prior to 2020. This data suggests that water usage growth is roughly comparable to population growth, with some variation likely attributable to year-to-year drought conditions. It is important to note that the population growth rate reflects the entire city, not just the area served by the UPZ. It remains uncertain whether Kalispell will continue to experience the elevated post-2020 growth rates or if growth will revert closer to the pre-2020 average of approximately 2.5%. Nevertheless, it is critical to account for the potential continuation of higher growth rates when planning for future water production demand. Graph 2.B.1 illustrates historical water demand and projected water production demand under various growth rate scenarios, while Table 2.B.2 provides the corresponding numerical data represented in the graph. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-12 Graph 2.B.1: UPZ Past and Projected Future Annual Water Production Table 2.B.2: Projected Future Annual Water Production UPZ Year Demand (MG) 2.5% Growth Demand (MG) 3.72% Growth Demand (MG) 5.19% Growth 2023 674 674 674 2028 763 809 868 2033 863 971 1118 2038 976 1166 1440 2043 1104 1399 1854 2048 1250 1680 2388 UPPER PRESSURE ZONE AVERAGE DAY AND MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS Determining the average day demand (ADD) and maximum day demand (MDD) for water usage is important for effective water resource management and infrastructure planning. The ADD reflects the typical daily water usage, providing a baseline for system operation and capacity requirements, while the MDD identifies peak usage periods, which are critical for ensuring that the system can handle peak demand without failure. ADD occurs usually 8 months out of the year 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Ga l l o n s ( M G ) Year UPZ Water Production Water Demand 2.5% Growth Water Demand 3.72% Growth Demand (MG) 5.19% Growth City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-13 while MDD demand occurs during the irrigation months around 4 months. Accurate projections of these demands into the future are essential for designing and maintaining a water supply system that can meet the needs of a growing population and ensure a reliable water supply during peak usage. Table 2.B.3 is a summary of historical ADD and MDD throughout the entire system and the UPZ. Table 2.B.3: Historical Average Day Demand and Max Day Demand with Peaking Factors Year Average Daily Demand Entire City (MG) Max Daily Demand Entire City (MG) Peaking Factor Entire System Average Daily Demand UPZ (MG) Max Daily Demand UPZ (MG) Peaking Factor UPZ 2012 3.45 8.49 2.46 1.23 3.59 2.92 2013 3.49 9.08 2.60 1.2 3.8 3.17 2014 3.36 8.76 2.61 1.21 3.89 3.21 2015 4.07 11.44 2.81 1.59 4.77 3.00 2016 3.7 8.69 2.35 1.44 4.09 2.84 2017 4.17 11.63 2.79 1.61 5.05 3.14 2018 4.05 10.22 2.52 1.57 4.79 3.05 2019 3.77 8.86 2.35 1.46 4.22 2.89 2020 3.92 11.51 2.94 1.58 4.16 2.63 2021 4.13 12.4 3.00 1.71 6.11 3.57 2022 4.03 10.48 2.60 1.68 5.63 3.35 2023 4.17 10.55 2.53 1.84 5.41 2.94 Based on data from 2012 to 2023, the UPZ has a historical average peaking factor of 3.06. This peaking factor was used to project the MDD at five-year increments through the year 2048. To create accurate projections, ADD and Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) were calculated using three different growth rates: 2.5%, 3.72%, and 5.19%. These growth rates reflect different potential scenarios based on historical trends and recent observations of water demand increases as discussed in Section 2.B.1. Table 2.B.4 presents the projected ADD and MDD for the UPZ in five-year increments, offering a clear comparison of how water demand could increase under each growth rate. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-14 Table 2.B.4: UPZ Projected Average Day Demand and Max Day Demand Year ADD (MG) 2.5% Growth MDD (MG) 2.5% Growth ADD (MG) 3.72% Growth MDD (MG) 3.72% Growth ADD (MG) 5.19% Growth MDD (MG) 5.19% Growth 2028 2.08 6.37 2.21 6.76 2.37 7.25 2033 2.36 7.21 2.65 8.12 3.05 9.34 2038 2.66 8.15 3.18 9.74 3.93 12.03 2043 3.02 9.23 3.82 11.70 5.06 15.49 2048 3.41 10.44 4.59 14.04 6.52 19.95 Based on DEQ regulations, the City must maintain sufficient water supply to meet the MDD even if the largest well is out of service. Table 2.B.5 below summarizes the maximum daily production for each well under the following scenarios: 1. Total maximum daily production of all wells. 2. Total maximum daily production without the Grandview Wells. 3. Firm capacity with the largest well out of service. 4. Firm capacity with both the largest well and the Grandview Wells removed from service. Table 2.B.5: UPZ Max Pumping Capacity Well Name Flow Rate (gpm) Max Day Pumping Capacity (MGD) Section 36 Well 1,525 2.20 West View Well 1,250 1.80 Silverbrook Well 250 0.36 Grandview #1 Well 1,300 1.87 Grandview #2 Well 700 1.01 Four Mile Drive Well 1,800 2.59 Tower Well 500 0.72 Total Max Day Pumping 10.55 Total Max Day Pumping without Grandview 7.67 Firm Capacity with Grandview Wells 7.96 Firm Capacity without Grandview Wells 5.08 This table indicates that if the Grandview Wells were removed from the UPZ water system, the City would fall out of compliance with DEQ regulations. The firm capacity would be reduced to 5.08 MGD, which is below the current MDD. This underscores the critical need to either replace the Grandview Wells with a new source well free of PFAS compounds, treat the wells to reduce PFAS levels to meet EPA regulations, or address the issue through a combination of both replacement and treatment strategies. City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-15 Additionally, with the current growth rate of 5.19%, the UPZ will require additional water sources by 2029, even if the Grandview Wells remain in service. This highlights the importance of planning for both immediate compliance and long-term capacity needs. Graph 2.B.2 below provides a graphical representation of the projected MDD under different growth scenarios. As shown, if the Grandview Wells are removed, the firm capacity of the UPZ would fall below the current MDD, emphasizing the urgency of addressing this issue. Graph 2.B.2: UPZ Max Pumping Capacity Historical and Projected Future UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER RIGHTS The City has procured water rights, which are summarized below in Table 2.B.6, along with their associated source wells. It should be noted that there is an interconnection between the two pressure zones at the pressure-reducing valve and booster pump stations that provide water from the LPZ. Therefore, while water rights are associated with individual wells, they collectively cover both pressure zones. 0 5 10 15 20 25 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 MD D ( M G ) Year Historical MDD Projected MDD 2.5% Growth Projected MDD 3.72% Growth Projected MDD 5.19% Growth Firm Capacity with Grandview Firm Capacity withoutGrandview City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-16 Table 2.B.6: UPZ Water Right Summary Well 2023 Pumped Volume (MG) 2023 Pumped Volume (Acre-Ft) Water Right Volume (Acre-Ft) Water Right Flow Rate (gpm) Grandview #1 165.95 509.27 2515.56 2000 Grandview #2 106.80 327.76 West View 154.16 473.08 1294 1200 Section 36 175.92 539.88 4224 1525 Silverbrook 28.85 88.54 120.5 250 Tower Well n/a n/a 540.54 500 Four Mile Well n/a n/a 1665.95 1544 Total Water Rights 10360.55 7019 EPA PFAS REGULATION SUMMARY IN THE UPZ Section 1.D of this report provides a detailed summary and history of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national regulations that limit the amount of certain PFAS compounds in drinking water. In July 2023, the City of Kalispell identified two PFAS compounds, PFOS and PFHxS, in the Grandview Wells during UCMR testing. The initial sample, a combined collection from both Grandview well sources, detected the presence of these compounds. Subsequent individual tests conducted on each well in March 2024 and July 2024 revealed that the Grandview #2 well exceeded the MCLs for both PFOS and PFHxS, as detailed in Table 2.C.1. Based on these testing results, the Grandview Wells must either undergo treatment to reduce PFAS levels below the MCLs or be removed from the water system. Treatment and source replacement alternatives are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. Table 2.C.1: Grandview Wells PFAS Testing Summary Well Sample Date PFOS (ppt) MCL PFOS (ppt) PFHxS (ppt) MCL PFHxS (ppt) Combined Wells Jul-23 6.6 4.0 5.0 10.0 Grandview #1 Mar-24 3.5 3.0 Grandview #2 Mar-24 13.0 11.0 Grandview #1 Jul-24 2.0 ND 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.0 Grandview #2 Jul-24 8.3 7.4 7.5 6.7 7.6 6.7 Three samples were taken at both Grandview Wells in July 2024. The first sample was taken at 15 minutes of runt time The second sample taken after 1 hour, and the third taken after 2 hours City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-17 TEMPORARY PFAS TREATMENT OF GRANDVIEW WELLS As discussed earlier in Section 1.E of this report, the City Council took proactive measures by immediately moving forward with implementing a temporary treatment system for the Grandview Wells. This decision was made in response to citizen health concerns and the recognition that removing the Grandview Wells from service would create significant water capacity supply issues. An additional benefit of the temporary treatment system is that it effectively serves as a full-scale pilot program to evaluate the effectiveness and viability of a permanent treatment solution for the Grandview Wells. Following the City Council’s directive on June 10, 2024, the temporary treatment system was successfully brought into service on September 28, 2024. Approval for the system was obtained from Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) prior to commissioning. The temporary treatment system utilizes ion exchange as its treatment technology. Detailed descriptions of ion exchange and alternative treatment technologies are provided in Chapter 3 of this report. The system consists of skids with treatment vessels procured from the treatment system manufacturer, Water Surplus. Water from the existing Grandview Well pumps is routed through the PFAS treatment system and then returned to the existing piping infrastructure, where chlorine is added before entering the distribution system. The treatment skids are located adjacent to the Grandview Well Building and enclosed within a protective structure to prevent freezing during cold weather. Figure 2.D.1 illustrates the site plan and schematic of the Grandview Wells and the temporary treatment setup. The skids provided are equipped with all necessary components, including tanks, media, piping, filters, valves, controls, and accessories to enable treatment. Piping was installed to connect the existing pump discharge piping to the treatment skids. The treatment vessels contain Lewatit TP 108 DW anion resin, selected by the manufacturer based on the site-specific PFAS types and concentrations. A layer of anthracite is placed in the lower portion of the vessels to fill the annular space with a less expensive medium than PFAS resin. All treatment skids, piping, anthracite, and anion resin meet NSF 61 certification requirements for drinking water system components. PFAS treatment technologies typically utilize either a series (lead/lag) flow configuration or a parallel flow configuration. The implemented system uses a parallel flow design, which provides a lower head loss compared to a series configuration. Initial testing of the temporary treatment system has been successful, as shown in Table 2.D.1, where both PFOS and PFHxS have been treated to non-detect levels. The system includes three treatment trains, each with dedicated sample taps for testing both before and after treatment. These sample locations are identified in the table. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 SI T E P L A N GR A N D V I E W W E L L S PF A S A D D I T I O N Figure 2.D.1 City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-19 Table 2.D.1: Temporary Treatment PFAS Testing Skid Description Analyte Maximum Contaminant Level (ng/L) Upstream of Treatment System (ng/L) Downstream of Treatment System South Treatment System PFOS 4 7.1 No Detections South Treatment System PFHxS 10 6.3 No Detections Center Treatment System PFOS 4 7.1 No Detections Center Treatment System PFHxS 10 6.3 No Detections North Treatment System PFOS 4 7.4 No Detections North Treatment System PFHxS 10 6.5 No Detections It should be noted that some challenges have arisen with the temporary treatment system. Such issues are not uncommon due to the inherent complexities of systems like this. Limited space within the existing easement required the treatment skids to be placed closer together than ideal. Additionally, the space constraints limited the number of bag filters, which has contributed to increased head loss. Due to the urgency of commissioning the temporary treatment system, less-than-ideal effluent filters were installed on each treatment train to prevent treatment media resin from entering the distribution system. These strainers have caused more head loss than anticipated. As a result, the output of the Grandview Wells has decreased from 2,000 gpm to 1,592 gpm due to the head loss introduced by the treatment system. On the following page is Table 2.D.2, which illustrates the system pressure loss at various flow rates from the Grandview Wells. As indicated in the table, the effluent strainer is the largest contributor to pressure loss in the system, with a 11 psi loss out of the total 22 psi treatment system head loss at the maximum pumping rate. Table 2.D.2: Pressure Loss From Temporary Treatment System at Grandview Wells Date 9/25/2024 Time of Test/Readings Pump Hz Amps Well Depth (H20 ft below grade) Exst GV#1 Magmeter (gpm) New Upstream Gauge (psi) New Downstrea m Gauge (psi) Overall System Loss (psi) Exst Press Xmitter (psi) Flow (gpm) Bag Filter Influent (psi) Bag Filter Effluent (psi) Bag Filter Pressure Loss (psi) Skid Influent (psi) Skid Effluent (psi) Skid Pressure Loss (psi) Effluent Strainer Influent (psi) Effluent Strainer Effluent (psi) Effluent Strainer Pressure Loss (psi) Overall System Loss (psi) 10:47 AM GV#1 55 166.5 111.0 842 92 83 9.0 89 North Filters 270 94.0 94.0 0.0 94.0 90.0 4.0 90.0 83.0 7.0 11.0 GV#2 OFF OFF 111.5 0 Center Filters 289 95.0 95.0 0.0 93.0 90.0 3.0 90.0 83.0 7.0 10.0 842 South Filters 289 95.0 95.0 0.0 96.0 93.0 3.0 93.0 83.0 10.0 13.0 848 11:25 AM GV#1 58.6 194 115.0 1147 96 80 16.0 86 North Filters 380 97.0 95.0 2.0 95.0 90.0 5.0 90.0 80.0 10.0 17.0 GV#2 OFF OFF 112.0 0 Center Filters 410 99.0 96.0 3.0 92.0 88.0 4.0 88.0 80.0 8.0 15.0 1147 South Filters 400 99.0 98.0 1.0 96.0 91.0 5.0 91.0 80.0 11.0 17.0 1190 11:43 AM GV#1 56 169.5 114.0 806 103 85 18.0 90 North Filters 455 103.0 99.0 4.0 98.0 94.5 3.5 94.5 85.0 9.5 17.0 GV#2 60 105 126.3 648 Center Filters 495 104.0 99.0 5.0 97.0 92.0 5.0 92.0 85.0 7.0 17.0 1454 South Filters 480 104.0 100.0 4.0 99.0 93.0 6.0 93.0 85.0 8.0 18.0 1430 12:01 PM GV#1 58.7 188.5 114.0 956 106 84 22.0 89 North Filters 508 106.0 100.0 6.0 100.0 95.0 5.0 95.0 84.0 11.0 22.0 GV#2 60 102 126.3 631 Center Filters 544 106.0 100.0 6.0 99.0 94.0 5.0 94.0 84.0 10.0 21.0 1587 South Filters 540 106.0 100.0 6.0 101.0 95.0 6.0 95.0 84.0 11.0 23.0 1592 12:28 PM GV#1 OFF OFF 108.0 0 89 80 9.0 86 North Filters 210 90.0 90.0 0.0 91.0 89.0 2.0 89.0 80.0 9.0 11.0 GV#2 60 103.4 126.4 692 Center Filters 230 92.0 92.0 0.0 88.0 86.0 2.0 86.0 80.0 6.0 8.0 692 South Filters 225 92.0 92.0 0.0 91.0 87.0 4.0 87.0 80.0 7.0 11.0 665 City of Kalispell PFAS Source Water Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 2-21 Below is Figure 2.D.2, which depicts a typical treatment skid, effluent strainer, and bag filters. Figure 2.D.3 illustrates the piping layout of the temporary treatment system currently implemented at the Grandview Wells. Figure 2.D.2: Sheepherder Control Valve Building Mechanical Plan EFFLUENT STRAINER BAG FILTER DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . D A T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S I M P R O V E M E N T S Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . N.L E V A N G B. K O E N I G , P . E . SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 4 PI P I N G L A Y O U T TE M P O R A R Y T R E A T M E N T FIGURE 2. D.3 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-1 CHAPTER 3: UPPER PRESSURE ZONE ALTERNATIVES 3.A. APPROACH TO DETECTION OF PFAS IN GRANDVIEW WELLS The Grandview Wells are a critical component of the UPZ water system, serving as a reliable workhorse and playing a vital role in its overall functionality. These wells are essential sustaining the existing water demands in the UPZ. If the Grandview Wells were removed from the system due to PFAS concentrations exceeding EPA regulatory MCLs, the UPZ would struggle to meet summer time demands during peak demands. This is because the remaining wells lack sufficient pumping capacity to meet maximum day demand. Additionally, the strategic location of the Grandview Wells contributes to system pressure stability and ensures balanced connectivity to both water storage tanks, further underscoring their importance to the UPZ. After detecting PFAS levels in the Grandview Wells that exceeded future regulatory limits, the City initiated a Phase 1 response. This included implementing a full-scale temporary treatment system at the existing Grandview Wells. The system was designed to provide immediate PFAS treatment while a long-term solution is developed. This proactive measure not only addressed citizen concerns but also ensured the safety and quality of the water supplied to consumers. Another significant benefit of the temporary treatment system is its function as a full-scale pilot project. It allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of PFAS treatment technology, assess operational performance, and identify potential issues that may not be apparent until real-world implementation. The focus of the Phase 2 project, which is the subject of this report, is to explore alternative water sources to either replace the Grandview Wells or establish permanent treatment solutions. This phase aims to ensure long-term compliance with regulatory standards and the continued functionality of the UPZ water system. Treatment of Existing Grandview Wells The first permanent solution considered is treating the water from the existing Grandview Wells. The following treatment technologies have been identified as Best Available Technologies (BATs) for treating PFAS, as per the EPA: • Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) • Ion Exchange Resins (IX) • Reverse Osmosis (RO) While these treatment technologies are considered the most effective for PFAS treatment, water providers are not limited to these options. Modified Clay Adsorption has emerged as a promising alternative treatment technology and is being considered as an additional option for the Grandview Wells. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-2 Development of a New Groundwater Source Another approach is to develop new groundwater well sources in locations free from PFAS compounds. Several potential locations for these new wells have been identified and are discussed in detail in Section 3.C of this report. The replacement of the Grandview Wells ensures the City maintains a critical water source meant to serve both current and future water demands in the UPZ. Establishing a new well presents an attractive option, especially as water demand in the UPZ continues to grow. This growing demand necessitates the need to provide a water source capable of meeting the demand function of the Grandview Wells Hybrid Solution: Treatment of Grandview Wells and a New Groundwater Source A hybrid approach combines treating the Grandview Wells for PFAS reduction to levels below EPA MCLs with the development of a new groundwater source free of PFAS. This approach has several advantages. The Grandview Wells are known to be highly productive and are strategically located within the UPZ to efficiently feed both water storage tanks and maintain system pressures. Furthermore, the temporary treatment system currently implemented at the Grandview Wells has shown positive initial results, making a permanent treatment solution a viable option. Considerations When evaluating these alternatives, several factors must be carefully considered, including: • Capital Cost • Operational and Maintenance Cost • Regulatory requirements • Constructability and Implementation Feasibility Selecting the most suitable solution will require balancing these considerations to ensure that PFAS is effectively treated before entering the City’s water distribution system, or that a new, clean water source is developed to enhance the reliability of the City’s drinking water supply—or a combination of both approaches. The following sections provide a detailed discussion of treatment options and potential new groundwater source wells. 3.B. GRANDVIEW PFAS TREATMENT OPTIONS In evaluating treatment options for the Grandview Wells, it is essential to consider both established and proven emerging technologies were considered to address PFAS in the City’s Grandview water supply. The EPA's BATs provide a solid framework, including granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX), and reverse osmosis (RO). These methods have proven success in treating PFAS in drinking water and have been implemented in various systems with demonstrated effectiveness. Utilizing these established treatment methods allows for the continued use of the Grandview Wells while ensuring that PFAS is effectively removed from the water supply. While leveraging existing infrastructure can be cost-effective in the short term, ongoing operational and maintenance costs must be considered, particularly if PFAS levels fluctuate or the price of treatment media resin increases. Temporary treatment has already been implemented at the Grandview Wells, utilizing all available space within the existing easement. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-3 However, limited space at the current site poses a challenge for permanent treatment solutions. To address this, any new treatment system would need to be located offsite or additional area acquired through easement modification. Two locations to the east of the Grandview Wells site have been identified as promising candidates for new treatment facilities, but they will require land acquisition or easement adjustments. Beyond the BATs, modified clay adsorption has emerged as a promising alternative. While not currently classified as a BAT, recent studies have shown its potential for effectively removing PFAS, particularly long-chain compounds, through adsorption. Modified clay offers a potentially cost-effective and scalable solution, making it a compelling option to consider alongside traditional technologies. 3.B.1. ION EXCHANGE (IX) Ion Exchange is a highly effective technology for removing PFAS from water. IX treatment works by using specially designed resin beads that attract and bind charged contaminants, such as PFAS, through a process called ion exchange. This method is particularly useful for removing both long- chain and short-chain PFAS compounds. How Ion Exchange Works Ion exchange resins are composed of small, porous beads made of a polymer matrix with charged functional groups. In the case of PFAS removal, anion exchange resins are used because PFAS molecules are negatively charged. As contaminated water passes through the IX system, PFAS molecules are attracted to and bind with the positively charged sites on the resin. Once the resin beads become saturated with PFAS, they need to be replaced to maintain their efficiency. Effectiveness of Ion Exchange for PFAS Removal IX treatment is effective at removing both long-chain and short-chain PFAS. Unlike GAC, which is more effective for long-chain compounds, IX resins can adsorb shorter-chain PFAS compounds that are more mobile and difficult to capture using other methods. This makes ion exchange an attractive option for comprehensive PFAS removal from water supplies. Factors affecting the performance of IX resins for PFAS removal include: • Resin type: The selection of ion exchange resins to optimize PFAS treatment should take into account the specific PFAS compounds being targeted and the existing water chemistry. Long-chain PFAS compounds, such as PFOS and PFHxS, require resins with high hydrophobicity and strong anion exchange capacity. In water sources with significant levels of iron, manganese, or particulates, pre-treatment is crucial to protect the resin and maintain its effectiveness. Customizing the resin type, such as using strong base or specialty resins, to align with the PFAS profile and water chemistry ensures optimal performance and extends the resin's lifespan. The resin chemistry can be tailored to target adsorption of the specific PFAS compounds present. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-4 • Pretreatment: Pretreatment for ion exchange systems often includes sand separators and bag filters to protect the resin from fouling by particulates and debris. Sand separators effectively remove heavier particles, such as sand or grit, using centrifugal force, while bag filters capture finer particulates, organic matter, and colloidal material. These steps ensure cleaner water enters the ion exchange system, reducing fouling, extending resin life, and optimizing contaminant removal. The Grandview Wells are already equipped with a sand separator, and the temporary treatment system included bag filters. • Water chemistry: The presence of other anions in the water, such as iron or manganese, can compete with PFAS molecules for binding sites, potentially reducing the effectiveness of IX treatment. Understanding water chemistry is critical for the successful application of IX treatment for PFAS removal. The City of Kalispell's water chemistry at Grandview Wells is characterized by, non- detectable manganese, and 0.18 mg/L iron, presents conditions that are favorable to ion exchange performance. Iron concentration is below the critical fouling threshold of 0.3 mg/L, however pretreatment might be warranted in the future if media is fouling quicker than anticipated from iron accumulation on the media. With no detectable manganese, the risk of resin fouling from this source is minimal, allowing the IX process to focus on PFAS removal without significant interference. Detailed water sample results for the Grandview Wells, including the parameters mentioned, can be found in Appendix E. • PFAS concentration PFAS concentration levels play a significant role in determining the design and operation of IX treatment systems. Higher concentrations of PFAS require larger resin bed volumes, frequent media replacement, or advanced resins with high selectivity to manage the contaminant load effectively. Long-chain PFAS, such as PFOs and PFHxS, are generally removed more efficiently by IX resins due to their stronger hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions, whereas short-chain PFAS require specialized resins. The Grandview Wells have detected long-chain PFAS compounds. Advantages of IX Treatment • Broad-spectrum removal: IX resins are effective at removing both long-chain and short- chain PFAS compounds, offering comprehensive protection against a wide range of PFAS contaminants. • High efficiency: Ion exchange can remove PFAS at very low concentrations. • Compact System Design: IX systems have a relatively small footprint, making them suitable for facilities with limited space and modular designs allow for scalability based on treatment capacity needs. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-5 • Empty Bed Contact Time: Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) is a critical design parameter in IX treatment systems, representing the theoretical time that water spends in contact with the resin bed in an empty state. EBCT is expressed in minutes and calculated as the volume of the resin bed divided by the flow rate through the system. Typical EBCT values for IX treatment range from 2 to 3 minutes, depending on resin type, contaminant levels, and water chemistry. Other treatment technologies such as GAC require longer EBCT resulting in larger resin volumes and, consequently, larger vessels, increasing capital and operational costs. Challenges and Limitations • Cost of resins: IX resins can be expensive, especially when treating large volumes of water, and resin replacement adds to operational costs. • Competing ions: The presence of other anions in the water, such as iron and manganese, can reduce the resin’s capacity to bind PFAS by competing for the active sites, potentially lowering the efficiency of PFAS removal. • Disposal: Once the media is saturated with PFAS the media must be disposed of. This can be problematic as there are few disposal sites nationwide that will accept PFAS contaminated material. • Corrosive Water: IX treatment can sometimes alter water chemistry by reducing alkalinity, potentially making the water more corrosive. This typically occurs when bicarbonate ions are exchanged for non-alkalinity-contributing ions like chloride. However, initial tests of the pilot treatment system indicate no measurable change in water pH or alkalinity, suggesting that the IX process in this case is not affecting the corrosivity. 3.B.1.1. TREATMENT OF GRANDVIEW UTILIZING ION EXCHANGE As mentioned earlier, the City of Kalispell has initiated a full-scale pilot treatment system utilizing IX technology to address PFAS contamination at the Grandview Wells. IX treatment was selected due to its low empty bed contact time, which allows for the smallest footprint among the alternatives considered. Additionally, the manufacturer’s strong track record on past projects provided confidence in the system’s effectiveness. The system also offers key advantages, such as minimal water pressure loss compared to other treatment options. The treatment system has been implemented, and the first round of testing yielded non-detect levels of PFAS compounds. However, due to the urgency of bringing the temporary system online within a tight timeframe, some components were less than ideal and could be improved. For instance, the bag filters caused more head loss than we would ideally like, and additional bag filters would have been preferable to reduce this issue. Furthermore, during construction, the water treatment manufacturer recommended including an effluent strainer on the skid as a safeguard to prevent treatment media from entering the distribution system. Due to the short City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-6 timeline, the most readily available strainer was used. If more time had been available, a larger strainer would have been selected to avoid the additional head loss caused by the smaller strainer. As a result of head loss through the bag filters, treatment vessels, effluent strainer, and treatment system piping, the flow rate at Grandview decreased from 2,000 gpm to 1,592 gpm. If this temporary treatment system were to be integrated as a permanent solution, several improvements would be recommended. These include adding more bag filters and larger effluent strainers on the treatment skid. Additionally, including another treatment train on the skids would be desirable to further reduce head loss and add redundancy to the treatment system. However, this is not feasible within the current easement, as there is no additional space available for expansion. The current treatment system layout is shown in Figure 3.B.1, while the preferred changes to the treatment system are depicted in Figure 3.B.2 and discussed in further detail in Alternative 2. ION EXCHANGE ALTERNATIVES The following four alternatives were evaluated for IX treatment at the Grandview Wells. Each of these alternatives is explained in greater detail in the remainder of this section. • Alternative 1 - Permanent Use of Temporary Treatment • Alternative 2 – Modify/Upgrade Temporary Treatment • Alternative 3 - Relocation and Upgrades to Existing Treatment System • Alternative 4 - New Ion Exchange Treatment System ALTERNATIVE 1 – PERMANENT USE OF TEMPORARY TREATMENT In this alternative, the temporary ion exchange (IX) treatment system currently in place would be utilized as a permanent solution for treating PFAS at the Grandview Wells. This approach leverages the existing infrastructure without requiring additional capital investment. However, without improvements to the current setup, the system's flow rate would remain reduced without significant pumping improvements. This reduction is due to head loss through the treatment system, as previously discussed. Because this alternative does not fully replace the original flow capacity of the Grandview Wells, it would need to be implemented alongside a new groundwater source as part of a hybrid approach. Alternatively, the current treatment system could be used as a peaking facility, operating primarily during summer months when water demand is highest in conjunction with a new water source. If this facility were to be utilized as a peaking facility in the summer, no additional upfront costs are associated with this alternative, as all necessary equipment and piping have already been City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-7 purchased and installed. However, there will be ongoing operational and maintenance costs, primarily related to replacing the IX resin. The resin's lifespan will depend on several factors, including usage, PFAS levels, and the presence of other substances in the water that could impact the media. If used as a peaking facility for approximately four months a year, the resin could last three to four years before needing replacement. The cost to purchase the initial resin was $213,828, and the manufacturer estimates a replacement interval of 18 months if the Grandview Wells operate at their current water production levels. However, operating the system seasonally could extend the media’s lifespan to approximately three to four years. Media replacement during non-peak months could also eliminate concerns about reduced flow capacity during skid maintenance. Effective application of IX treatment requires careful consideration of water chemistry. Parameters such as total suspended solids, turbidity, iron, and manganese can affect resin performance and necessitate pretreatment to prevent fouling and optimize efficiency. The Grandview Well water chemistry is characterized by 3 mg/L total suspended solids, 1.26 NTU turbidity, non-detectable manganese, and 0.18 mg/L iron. These presents conditions that moderately influence IX performance. Although the iron concentration is below the critical fouling threshold of 0.3 mg/L, it should continue to be monitored to prevent potential media fouling. The levels of suspended solids and turbidity indicate the presence of particulate matter, requiring pretreatment with bag filters to protect the resin. The absence of detectable manganese minimizes the risk of resin fouling from this source. Media disposal presents another important consideration. The two most common disposal methods for PFAS-laden material are incineration and landfilling. PFAS-contaminated material can only be accepted at Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills, the closest of which to Kalispell is in Spokane, Washington. PFAS incineration requires extremely high temperatures exceeding 1,400°C (2,550°F). These disposal methods pose potential challenges, including rising costs or reduced availability if facilities stop accepting PFAS media resin due to increased demand from new regulations. While this alternative minimizes initial capital expenditures, the reduced flow rate and ongoing maintenance requirements must be carefully evaluated to ensure long-term water supply reliability. Additionally, it could either function as a peaking facility in conjunction with a new well source of 2,000 gpm, or as a full-time water treatment facility with an additional 500 gpm source to compensate for the loss in water production. This alternative is illustrated in Figure 3.B.1. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 AL T E R N A T I V E # 1 GR A N D V I E W S I T E P L A N IX T R E A T M E N T Figure 3.B.1 NOTES: EXISTING GRANDVIEW PUMP BUILDING GRANDVIEW DRIVE PO N D E R O S A S T R E E T GRANDVIEW IX TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE #1 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-9 ALTERNATIVE 1 - PROJECT COST ESTIMATE There are no capital costs associated with this alternative; however, there are ongoing operational and maintenance costs related to media replacement and energy usage. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range between $83,000 and $164,000, depending on whether the facility is operated as a peaking facility or a permanent treatment facility. For a permanent facility, media replacement is estimated to occur every 18 months, whereas for a peaking facility, media replacement is estimated to occur every three years. Annual operating and maintenance cost estimates for this alternative are provided in Table 3.B.1 and Table 3.B.2 below. Table 3.B.1: Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost for Permanent Facility ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ALTERNATIVE 1: PERMANENT TREATMENT FACILITY ITEM QUAN. UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Labor include media replacement time 12 hours $ 60.00 $720.00 Media Replacement 412 CF $ 344.00 $141,728.00 Media Disposal 0.67 LS $ 25,000.00 $16,666.67 Bag Filter Replacements 12 EA $ 300.00 $3,600.00 Annual Energy cost for heating and electrical 10,000 Kw-Hrs/year $0.12 $1,200.00 Total Annual OM Cost $164,000 Table 3.B.2: Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost for Peaking Facility ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ALTERNATIVE 1: PEAKING FACILITY ITEM QUAN. UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Labor include media replacement time 12 hours $ 60.00 $720.00 Media Replacement 206 CF $ 344.00 $70,864.00 Media Disposal 0.33 LS $ 25,000.00 $8,333.33 Bag Filter Replacements 6 EA $ 300.00 $1,800.00 Annual Energy cost for heating and electrical 10,000 Kw-Hrs/year $0.12 $1,200.00 Total Annual OM Cost $83,000 ALTERNATIVE 2 – MODIFY/UPGRADE TEMPORARY TREATMENT This alternative involves upgrading the IX treatment system to restore the pre-existing capacity of 2,000 gpm and enhance the overall efficiency of the treatment process. The proposed upgrades include adding one more treatment skid with four treatment vessels matching the existing treatment skids to reduce head loss and provide system redundancy, double the bag filters to reduce head loss, and larger effluent strainers to improve flow performance. These improvements would also enhance operational reliability by introducing redundancy, ensuring continued treatment capacity in the event of equipment failure and during media replacement. Once sufficient historical data is collected through pilot testing, it may be determined that the City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-10 additional treatment skid is unnecessary if media changes can be completed during the off-peak season. In addition to the treatment system upgrades, the well pumps and motors could be upgraded to accommodate increased pressure requirements caused by head loss in the treatment system. To support the larger motor sizes, the existing backup generator would also need to be replaced. Further modifications include expanding the temporary treatment building to accommodate an additional treatment skid and larger bag filters, as well as modifying the existing easement from the college to allow for a larger building footprint. The foundation slab will need to be extended to match the expanded building, which will increase in size from 28’x32’ to 40’x43’. The additional easement area is estimated to be 2,950 square feet, encompassing the expanded structure and the relocated sidewalk. The increased building size, easement expansion, and additional treatment components are illustrated in Figure 3.B.2. The original structure housing the treatment system was constructed within the constraints of the limited space available in the current easement, which also includes a sidewalk. These spatial limitations posed significant challenges in designing a functional treatment system while adhering to the existing footprint. The current layout reflects the compromises made to fit the equipment within the existing easement, resulting in the treatment skids being placed closer together than ideal and limiting the capacity to add additional components. Figure 3.B.3 illustrates the detailed piping mechanical plan for this alternative. The proposed easement expansion addresses these limitations. By enlarging the footprint, the expanded structure will accommodate the additional skid and larger filters while providing sufficient space for maintenance activities. While this alternative increases both capital and operational costs, it would restore the full system flow rate to 2,000 gpm, improve system efficiency, and provide critical redundancy. These enhancements make this a more robust and reliable permanent solution for addressing PFAS contamination at the Grandview Wells compared to using the current temporary treatment system as a peaking facility. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 AL T E R N A T I V E # 2 GR A N D V I E W S I T E P L A N IX T R E A T M E N T Figure 3.B.2 NOTES: EXISTING GRANDVIEW PUMP BUILDING GRANDVIEW DRIVE PO N D E R O S A S T R E E T GRANDVIEW IX TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE #2 FLATHEAD COMMUNITY COLLEGE DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 AL T E R N A T I V E # 2 GR A N D V I E W T R E A T M E N T PL A N I X T R E A T M E N T Figure 3.B.3 NOTES: EXISTING GRANDVIEW PUMP BUILDING GRANDVIEW IX TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE #2 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY GRANDVIEW DRIVE City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-13 ALTERNATIVE 2 - PROJECT COST ESTIMATE The estimated construction cost associated with this project is $1.58 million with a total project capital cost of $2.3 million. Total capital costs take into consideration land acquisition, engineering, contingency, and inflation costs. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $263,000. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 3.B.3. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. Table 3.B.3: Cost Estimate to Expand Temporary Treatment ITEM DESCRIPTION QUAN. UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $75,218 $75,218 2 Additional Treatment Skid 1 LS $225,000 $225,000 3 Additional Bag Filter Skids 5 EA $50,000 $250,000 4 Additional Treatment Media 206 CF $350 $72,100 5 Additional Piping 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 6 Upgrade Effluent Strainers 4 EA $12,500 $50,000 7 Upgrade Grandview 2 Motor 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 8 Upgrade Grandview 1 Submersible Pump 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 9 Temporary Building Expansion 1 LS $350,000 $350,000 10 Concrete Sidewalk Repair 250 SF $35 $8,750 11 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 12 Upgrade Telemetry and Electrical 1 EA $100,000 $100,000 13 Generator Upgrade 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 14 Seeding, Fertilizing & Mulching 1.0 AC $3,500 $3,500 SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,580,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,200,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $263,000 ALTERNATIVE 3 – RELOCATION AND UPGRADES TO TEMPORARY TREATMENT This alternative builds upon the upgrades outlined in Alternative 2, with the added step of relocating the treatment system to a new site east of the current location. Unlike Alternative 2, this option eliminates the need to expand the existing easement by constructing a new structure at the new site to house the upgraded treatment system. The upgrades include an additional treatment skid, improved bag filters, and modified effluent strainers to reduce head loss and increase system redundancy, as outlined in Alternative 2. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-14 Figure 3.B.4 illustrates the site plan of proposed improvements, with key elements of this alternative including: • Relocation and Upgrades of the Treatment System: The upgraded treatment system would be relocated to a newly identified site to the east, owned by Glacier Church. This relocation will require either land acquisition or securing a new easement. The system upgrades outlined in Alternative 2, including additional treatment skids, improved bag filters, and larger pumps and motors, are included in this alternative. A detailed piping plan is depicted in Figure 3.B.5. • Construction of a New Structure: A new building would be constructed at the new site to house the upgraded system. This includes the additional treatment skids, improved bag filters, and larger pumps and motors. The chlorine disinfection system will also be located at the new facility, as chlorine treatment must occur after the IX treatment. • Easement/Property Procurement and Access Improvements: An easement or property purchase will be required from Glacier Church, as shown in Figure 3.B.4. The approximate easement area needed is 2,950 square feet. While an existing gravel driveway provides access, improvements would be made to enhance accessibility and create sufficient space for media resin delivery. • Demolition of Existing Temporary Building: The current building housing the temporary treatment system would be demolished. However, the Grandview CMU building, which contains the pump controls, would remain intact. The chlorine disinfection unit will be relocated to the new treatment facility to ensure chlorine treatment occurs after the IX treatment. • New Piping Installation: Approximately 310 linear feet of new 12” water main piping would be constructed to connect the Grandview Wells to the relocated treatment system. Additionally, around 40 linear feet of 12” water main would connect the treated water to the distribution system. The existing connection to the distribution system from the Grandview Wells will be modified to direct water to the treatment system before entering the distribution system. The cost of this alternative includes land acquisition or easement procurement, construction of a new building, demolition of the existing structure, and the installation of new piping between the well building and the treatment system. While this option involves higher capital costs due to land-related expenses and construction of a new structure, it offers several advantages. Relocating the system to a less constrained area improves operator access, eliminates the need for expanded easements from the college, and provides greater flexibility for future growth. Additionally, the temporary treatment building was originally constructed within the limitations of the available space. For a long-term solution, additional space would be preferable to enhance functionality and accommodate future needs. Upgrading the treatment system as part of this alternative would restore flow rates to 2,000 gpm. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 AL T E R N A T I V E # 3 GR A N D V I E W S I T E P L A N IX T R E A T M E N T Figure 3.B.4 GRANDVIEW DRIVE PO N D E R O S A S T R E E T GRANDVIEW IX TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE #3 NOTES: DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 AL T E R N A T I V E # 3 GR A N D V I E W S I T E P L A N IX T R E A T M E N T Figure 3.B.5 NOTES: NEW TREATMENT STRUCTURE GRANDVIEW IX TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE #3 FL O W FL O W GRANDVIEW DRIVE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-17 ALTERNATIVE 3 - PROJECT COST ESTIMATE The estimated construction cost associated with this project is $2.6 million with a total project capital cost of $3.8 million. Total capital costs take into consideration land acquisition, engineering, contingency, and inflation costs. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $263,000. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 3.B.4. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. Table 3.B.4: Cost Estimate for Relocation and Upgrade to Temporary Treatment ITE M DECRIPTION QUAN . UNI T UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $125,075 $125,075 2 Additional Treatment Skid 1 LS $225,000 $225,000 3 Additional Bag Filter Skids 5 EA $50,000 $250,000 4 12-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 350 LF $250 $87,500 5 Mechanical Piping 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 6 Upgrade Effluent Strainers 4 EA $12,500 $50,000 7 Upgrade Grandview 2 Motor 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 8 Upgrade Grandview 1 Submersible Pump 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 9 Demo Temporary Building 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 10 Pavement Removal and Replacement 170 SY $250 $42,500 11 Traffic Control 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 12 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 13 Electrical 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 14 Generator Upgrade 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 15 New Treatment Building 2,016 SF $500 $1,008,000 16 Seeding, Fertilizing & Mulching 1.0 AC $3,500 $3,500 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $2,626,575 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,800,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $263,000 ALTERNATIVE 4 – NEW ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT SYSTEM This alternative involves installing a completely new treatment system within a newly constructed structure located on the identified parcel of land to the east of the current Grandview Wells, as shown in Figure 3.B.6. The existing temporary treatment equipment would be salvaged or kept on standby for rapid deployment in case PFAS is detected in other source wells in the future. The key difference in this alternative is the installation of an ion exchange (IX) treatment system in a lead-lag configuration, which offers significant operational benefits compared to the current City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-18 parallel configuration. The treatment vessels are fewer in number but significantly larger and taller. Additional advantages include more efficient media removal and changeout, as the treatment vessels are equipped with optimized piping and hose hookup connections designed for operator- friendly access. The vessels are also equipped with SCADA capabilities, enabling the monitoring of media treatment effectiveness. The treatment system also is equipped with bag filters for media protection. The detailed mechanical layout of this alternative is provided in Figure 3.B.7. Key components of Alternative 4 include the following: • New Treatment System in Lead-Lag Configuration: The new system will consist of a series two treatment vessels arranged in a lead-lag setup. A lead-lag ion exchange system is a water treatment setup that has two ion exchange vessels connected in series. The system is designed to ensure consistent water quality by utilizing a lead vessel and one lag vessel. o Lead Vessel: The influent water first enters the lead vessel. This vessel is responsible for the primary removal of PFAS contaminants. The lead vessel is operated until it approaches exhaustion, meaning a significant amount of the ion exchange resin within it has been used up, and PFAS breakthrough is detected. o Lag Vessel: As the lead vessel media nears exhaustion, the influent water flow is switched to the lag vessel. The lag vessel now takes over as the lead treatment unit, providing continued removal of contaminants while the media is replaced from the prior lead vessel. They cycle repeats as the vessel alternate between lead and lag vessels. o Advantages of Lead-Lag Configuration: Unlike the current parallel configuration, where PFAS breakthrough requires immediate media replacement or shutting down the wells, the lead-lag system provides more safety and system resilience. The lag vessel ensures PFAS is removed even after breakthrough in the lead vessel, reducing the frequency of media replacement and preventing unexpected system downtime. • Decommissioning of Existing Temporary Treatment System: The current treatment system will be decommissioned and salvaged, but it will be retained for future rapid response use if PFAS is detected at other source wells. This ensures that the City remains prepared for future contamination events. • New Building Construction: A new structure will be built to house the treatment system. The building would be 50 feet by 53 feet and 24 feet tall to house the treatment vessels. • Land Acquisition or Easement: As with Alternative 3, this alternative will require either land acquisition or securing an easement for the new treatment facility at the proposed site. • New Piping and Infrastructure: New piping will be installed to connect the existing well building to the new treatment facility, along with a return line to the distribution system, ensuring smooth integration of the new system into the water supply network. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 AL T E R N A T I V E # 4 GR A N D V I E W S I T E P L A N IX T R E A T M E N T Figure 3.B.6 GRANDVIEW DRIVE PO N D E R O S A S T R E E T GRANDVIEW IX TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE #4 NOTES: DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 AL T E R N A T I V E # 4 GR A N D V I E W T R E A T M E N T PL A N I X T R E A T M E N T Figure 3.B.7 NOTES: NEW TREATMENT STRUCTURE GRANDVIEW IX TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE #4 FL O W FL O W GRAVEL DRIVEWAY FRONT VIEW TREATMENT SYSTEM City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-21 Considerations: Additional Capital Costs: Installing an entirely new system, coupled with building a new structure and upgrading the configuration, will involve upfront capital expenses. • Land Acquisition: As in Alternative 3, securing land or an easement for the new facility adds to the project’s complexity and cost. • Demolition of Existing Infrastructure: The existing treatment structure will be decommissioned, which could involve additional demolition costs or left for other purposes. • Operational and Maintenance Efficiency: The treatment system is designed for easy operation, allowing operators to efficiently fill and replace the media. Additionally, the system is equipped with SCADA capabilities, enabling monitoring of media life and performance. Overall, Alternative 4 presents a robust and reliable long-term solution, offering improved operational efficiency and system redundancy while also maintaining preparedness for future PFAS detection events. This option provides the greatest operational flexibility but comes with higher costs compared to the other alternatives. ALTERNATIVE 4 - PROJECT COST ESTIMATE The estimated construction cost associated with this project is $4.7 million with a total project capital cost of $6.9 million. Total capital costs take into consideration land acquisition, engineering, contingency, and inflation costs. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $217,400. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 3.B.5. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-22 Table 3.B.4: Cost Estimate for New Ion Treatment System ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $225,600 $225,600 2 New Treatment Package 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 3 Mechanical Equipment 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 4 12-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 380 LF $250 $95,000 5 Upgrade Grandview 2 Motor 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 6 Upgrade Grandview 1 Submersible Pump 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 7 Demo Temporary Building 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 8 Pavement Removal and Replacement 170 SY $250 $42,500 9 Traffic Control 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 10 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 11 Electrical 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 12 Generator Upgrade 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 13 New Treatment Building 2,915 SF $500 $1,457,500 14 Seeding, Fertilizing & Mulching 2.0 AC $3,500 $7,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $4,738,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $6,850,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $217,400 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-23 3.B.2. GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (GAC) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) is one of the most commonly used and effective technologies for removing PFAS from drinking water. GAC works by adsorbing contaminants onto the surface of activated carbon particles as the water passes through the treatment media. Due to its high surface area and porous structure, GAC is particularly efficient at trapping long chain PFAS molecules. How GAC Works The process involves flowing water containing PFAS through a bed of GAC media. As water flows through the GAC filter, PFAS compounds bind to the carbon granules through adsorption, allowing clean water to pass through the system. Over time, the adsorption capacity of the GAC will become saturated, at which point the carbon media must be replaced to maintain the system’s effectiveness. Effectiveness of GAC for PFAS Removal GAC has proven effective at removing long-chain PFAS compounds, such as PFOA and PFOS. The effectiveness of GAC in removing short-chain PFAS tends to vary because short-chain PFAS are more mobile and less readily adsorbed, but for the short-chain detected in the Grandview Wells (PFHxS) GAC is relatively effective. Factors that affect the efficiency of GAC for PFAS removal include: • Contaminant concentration: Higher PFAS levels generally require more frequent replacement of the GAC. • Water chemistry: The City of Kalispell's water chemistry, with non-detectable manganese, 0.18 mg/L iron, and a pH of 7.6, presents generally favorable conditions for implementing GAC treatment for PFAS removal. However, competing compounds and specific water chemistry factors must still be carefully considered to ensure efficient performance. While the iron concentration below the fouling threshold of 0.3 mg/L, iron can still oxidize and precipitate. Iron oxides or hydroxides can coat the GAC surface, reducing its adsorption capacity for PFAS. The absence of manganese is beneficial since manganese can also precipitate and cause resin fouling in treatment systems. A neutral to slightly alkaline pH is ideal for GAC performance as it avoids extremes that could influence PFAS adsorption or GAC media stability. • PFAS type: Long-chain PFAS compounds are more effectively adsorbed than short-chain variants. • Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) is a critical design parameter that influences the size of treatment vessels, system efficiency, and operational performance. When comparing GAC and IX for PFAS removal, significant differences in EBCT requirements result in varying system sizes, head loss, and associated costs. GAC typically requires 7 to 10 minutes of EBCT to achieve effective adsorption of PFAS. The longer EBCT requires deeper and larger vessels to allow sufficient residence time for water to interact with the GAC media. Larger vessels, combined with deep GAC media beds, create more resistance to City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-24 water flow, resulting in higher head loss. The physical footprint of GAC systems is often larger, making them more space-intensive for treatment facilities. Advantages of GAC Treatment • Proven technology: GAC has been used for decades in water treatment for removing a range of contaminants, including PFAS. • Simplicity and scalability: GAC systems are relatively straightforward to design and implement and can be scaled to meet the needs of small or large water systems. Challenges and Limitations • Size: Compared to IX treatment, GAC treatment requires large vessels, resulting in a larger building footprint both vertically and horizontally, which increases construction costs, and the amount of land required for the facility. The increase in size is a result of the longer EBCT. • Media replacement: Similar to IX GAC media needs to be replaced once the GAC media becomes saturated with PFAS and other contaminants, requiring periodic replacement. This leads to recurring operational and maintenance costs. Estimations on life of media is similar to IX at about every 12 to 18 months depending on PFAS levels and other compounds levels if the fluctuate or not. • Less effective for short-chain PFAS: GAC is less efficient at adsorbing short-chain PFAS. • Disposal of spent GAC: Similar to IX media, once the GAC media is saturated, it must be disposed of, which can involve logistical challenges as there are few disposal sites nationwide that will accept PFAS contaminated media. Similar to IX, GAC media requires replacement once it becomes saturated with PFAS and other contaminants, requiring periodic maintenance. This results in recurring operational costs. The lifespan of GAC media is comparable to IX, typically requiring replacement every 12 to 18 months, depending on PFAS concentrations and the presence of other competing compounds, especially if their levels fluctuate. 3.B.2.1. GRANDVIEW TREATMENT UTILIZING GAC After consulting with several manufacturers specializing in GAC systems, it was determined that GAC treatment would be a less desirable solution for the Grandview Wells. For reference, six treatment vessels, each 12 feet in diameter and 20 feet tall, would be required, resulting in an estimated system cost of $2.7 million for the vessels, associated piping, and media. Additionally, the structure needed to house these vessels would have to be significantly taller and have a larger footprint, further increasing construction expenses. The larger volume of media in the GAC system would also result in increased head loss, necessitating larger pumps and driving up energy costs. While GAC media is less expensive than IX resins, the greater amount of media required would offset any savings, particularly when considering higher energy demands and disposal costs. Due to the significantly larger treatment vessels, increased operational costs, and the overall higher expense compared to IX, GAC was eliminated from further consideration for the Grandview Wells. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-25 Table 3.B.5 below provides a comparison of IX treatment and GAC treatment for the Grandview Wells, supporting the conclusion to dismiss GAC from further consideration. Table 3.B.5: Comparison Table of Ion Exchange and Granular Activated Carbon at Grandview Wells Parameter Ion Exchange (IX) (1) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System Cost $1.5 million $2.7 million Number of Vessels 4 vessels (12' diameter each) 6 vessels (12' diameter each) Media Replacement Cost $141,000 $120,000 EBCT 2–3 minutes 7–10 minutes Estimated Head loss Through System 12–15 psi 20–23 psi Treatment Facility Size 50' x 53', 24' tall 70' x 50', 24' tall Estimated Annual O&M Cost $241,300 $175,000 Operational Efficiency Faster contact time, lower head loss Longer contact time, higher head loss, more power to pump through media Maintenance Frequency Similar media lifespan (12–18 months) Similar media lifespan (12–18 months) (1) IX system used to compare is brand new system described in IX Alternative 4 3.B.3. REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) Reverse Osmosis is one of the most comprehensive treatment options for PFAS removal, offering complete elimination of both long-chain and short-chain PFAS without need for media disposal. RO works by using a semipermeable membrane that allows water molecules to pass through while rejecting contaminants, including both long-chain and short-chain PFAS. How Reverse Osmosis Works RO operates by applying pressure to water, forcing it through a semipermeable membrane. This membrane has pores small enough to block most contaminants, including PFAS, while allowing clean water molecules to pass through. The process separates the feed water into two streams: permeate (treated water) and concentrate (wastewater containing the rejected contaminants). The PFAS in the concentrate, or brine, can be further managed through processes like foam fractionation, while the remaining reject water is disposed of into the sanitary wastewater collection system. The estimated percentage of reject water is 15 to 20%. RO membranes are highly effective at rejecting a wide variety of substances, including PFAS, heavy metals, and other dissolved salts. Since PFAS molecules are larger than water molecules, they cannot pass through the RO membrane and are retained in the concentrate stream. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-26 Effectiveness of RO for PFAS Removal Reverse osmosis is extremely effective in removing PFAS, achieving removal rates of over 90% to 99% for both long-chain and short-chain PFAS. Factors that affect RO performance include: • Feed water quality: High levels of dissolved solids or other contaminants can reduce membrane efficiency and increase the rate of fouling, which affects the long-term effectiveness of the system. • System pressure: RO systems require significant pressure to force water through the membrane, and insufficient pressure can lead to reduced performance. • Membrane maintenance: RO membranes can become fouled over time by organic materials, scaling, or microbial growth, requiring regular maintenance and cleaning to preserve their effectiveness. Membrane typically lasts 5 to 7 years, but with proper maintenance membranes can last as long as 10 years. Advantages of RO Treatment • High removal efficiency: RO can remove over 99% of both long-chain and short-chain PFAS, making it one of the most effective treatment technologies available. • Broad contaminant removal: In addition to PFAS, RO removes a wide range of other contaminants, including heavy metals, salts, and organic chemicals. • Lack of Media Disposal: RO utilizes foam fractionation which effectively destroys PFAS compounds eliminating the need to rely on other entities for medial disposal. Challenges and Limitations • High energy requirements: RO systems require significant energy to maintain the pressure needed to push water through the membrane, making them more energy- intensive compared to other PFAS treatment technologies like GAC or IX. Estimated pressure of 100 psi is required for effective RO treatment resulting in estimated pump horsepower of 125 at 2,000 gpm • Membrane fouling: RO membranes are prone to fouling, which reduces system efficiency over time. Regular maintenance and cleaning are required to keep the system operational, which can increase operational costs. • Initial costs: RO systems, especially those designed for large-scale applications, are expensive to construct. • Large Footprint: The treatment units required are more numerous than IX due to the EBCT required causing a larger footprint. 3.B.3.1. GRANDVIEW TREATMENT UTILIZING RO Reverse osmosis (RO) presented an appealing option for the City, primarily because its treatment process includes foam fractionation, which effectively destroys PFAS compounds. This unique feature eliminates the need for specialized disposal of spent treatment media, a significant advantage over other methods. However, the RO system comes with several limitations, particularly regarding the space required. Preliminary estimates suggest that a building approximately 75 feet by 75 feet would be necessary to accommodate the RO system. Given the City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-27 limited space at the Grandview Wells site, securing the required footprint for such a large facility poses a significant challenge. If the RO treatment facility were to be relocated eastward, where the GAC and IX treatment facilities could also be sited, there is no nearby sanitary sewer connection to manage the reject water, further complicating its implementation. Additionally, the financial aspects of RO treatment proved to be another deterrent. The estimated installation cost for the RO system is approximately $4.5 million, with annual operating costs projected at $175,000, covering electricity and chemicals. These costs, combined with the extensive space requirements, ultimately made RO treatment impractical for the Grandview Wells. Despite its advantage in PFAS disposal through foam fractionation, the high costs and large footprint led to the decision to eliminate RO from further consideration as a viable treatment option. Table 3.B.6 below provides a comparison of IX treatment, GAC treatment, and RO treatment for the Grandview Wells, supporting the conclusion to dismiss RO from further consideration. Table 3.B.6: Comparison Table of Ion Exchange, Granular Activated Carbon, and Reverse Osmosis at Grandview Wells Parameter Ion Exchange (IX) (1) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Reverse Osmosis (RO) System Cost $1.5 million $2.7 million $4.5 million Treatment Facility Size 50' x 53', 24' tall 70' x 50', 24' tall 75' x 75', 20' tall Annual O&M Cost $141,000 $120,000 $170,000 Media Disposal Required Required Not Required Sanitary Sewer Connection Not Required Not Required Required for reject water (1) IX system used to compare is brand new system described in IX Alternative 4 3.B.4. MODIFIED CLAY ADSORPTION Modified clay adsorption is an emerging and promising technology for the removal of PFAS from drinking water. This method involves using natural or engineered clay materials that are chemically modified to enhance their ability to adsorb PFAS compounds. How Modified Clay Adsorption Works Clay materials, such as montmorillonite and bentonite, have a layered structure and a large surface area, which make them inherently capable of adsorbing contaminants. However, their natural form has limited effectiveness for PFAS removal. By chemically modifying the clay City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-28 surfaces, the clays become more hydrophobic and capable of binding to the hydrophobic tails of PFAS molecules. In this process, when PFAS-contaminated water comes into contact with modified clay, the PFAS molecules are adsorbed onto the clay’s surface. Effectiveness of Modified Clay for PFAS Removal Modified clay materials have shown high efficiency in removing long-chain PFAS compounds. Studies indicate that certain modified clays can achieve PFAS removal rates similar to GAC, particularly for larger PFAS molecules. However, the performance for short-chain PFAS compounds is less consistent, as these compounds tend to be more mobile and harder to adsorb. Several factors influence the performance of modified clay adsorption: • Type of clay and modification: The specific clay used and the type of chemical modification determine the adsorption capacity. Organic modifications that make the clay more hydrophobic tend to enhance PFAS removal. • PFAS chain length: Modified clays are more effective at adsorbing long-chain PFAS compounds, similar to other adsorption technologies like GAC. • Water chemistry: The adsorption efficiency of PFAS on modified clay can be influenced by factors such as pH, salinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and the presence of competing compounds like natural organic matter (NOM), chloride, and sulfate. The City of Kalispell's water chemistry, characterized by a pH of 7.6, TSS of 3 mg/L, turbidity of 1.26 NTU, chloride of 3.6 mg/L, sulfate of 5.9 mg/L, and TDS of 230 mg/L, presents favorable conditions for the application of modified clay adsorption. o A near-neutral pH of 7.6 is ideal for PFAS adsorption onto modified clay, as extreme pH values can interfere with the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions that drive adsorption. o With TSS at 3 mg/L and turbidity at 1.26 NTU, particulate matter levels are relatively low, reducing the risk of clogging or fouling of the adsorption media. o Chloride and sulfate concentrations are low, minimizing competition for adsorption sites on the modified clay. Unlike ion exchange resins, which can experience significant efficiency loss in the presence of high anion concentrations, modified clay adsorption is less affected by competing anions at these levels. o The moderate TDS level indicates low salinity, which is beneficial for PFAS adsorption. High salinity can interfere with the adsorption process by competing for active sites on the modified clay. • Empty Bed Contact Time: The EBCT for modified clay adsorption is typically 2 to 3 minutes, which is very comparable to IX systems. This shorter EBCT allows for smaller treatment vessels and faster processing times compared GAC, which requires an EBCT of 7 to 10 minutes. Advantages of Modified Clay Adsorption • Environmentally friendly: Clays are natural materials and, when properly modified, offer an environmentally sustainable solution with lower environmental impact compared to synthetic adsorbents. However, the spent media does still need to be disposed of. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-29 • Simplicity and scalability: Modified clay systems can be implemented in conventional water treatment setups without significant changes to infrastructure, making them easy to scale for various treatment needs. • Reduced Fouling Potential: Compared to GAC and IX resins, modified clay is less prone to fouling from natural organic matter (NOM), iron, or manganese, extending its operational life. Modified clay adsorption is less affected by competing anions, allowing it to maintain high PFAS removal efficiency even in the presence of anionic compounds. • Cost Effective Media: Modified clay is generally less expensive compared to other treatment media like IX resins. Challenges and Limitations • Effectiveness for short-chain PFAS: While modified clays are effective at removing long- chain PFAS compounds, their ability to capture short-chain PFAS is less consistent, making them less suitable for treating water sources with high concentrations of short-chain variants. • Disposal: Once the modified clay becomes saturated with PFAS, it must be disposed of. Similar to GAC and IX the media must be disposed of at one of the few site nationwide that accept PFAS contaminated material. • Elevated Head Loss: It was determined that head loss through clay media is higher than through IX resins, primarily due to the colder water temperature of the Kalispell aquifer. Colder water increases viscosity, leading to greater resistance and higher head loss as water flows through the clay media. • Emerging technology: While promising, modified clay adsorption is still a relatively new technology in comparison to well-established methods like GAC or IX, meaning there is limited long-term data on its performance in real-world applications. 3.B.4.1. GRANDVIEW TREATMENT UTILIZING MODIFIED CLAY Modified clay adsorption was considered as a potential solution for treating PFAS at the Grandview Wells during the temporary treatment/pilot study phase and was very comparable to IX treatment in terms of cost and system size. However, it faced several challenges. The most significant issue was the head loss through the treatment system, which was exacerbated by the cold water temperatures of the Kalispell aquifer, increasing resistance through the clay media. Additionally, the system supplier did not have all the required treatment vessels available in stock, making it infeasible to rapidly deploy the treatment system. While the treatment vessels were taller and wider than those for IX, the overall horizontal footprint was similar. Furthermore, modified clay is not recognized by the EPA as one of the Best Available Technologies (BATs) for PFAS treatment, making it a less appealing option. Given that it offered no significant advantages over IX or other treatment technologies, the decision was made to eliminate modified clay adsorption from further consideration as a treatment solution for the Grandview Wells. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-30 However, if pilot testing reveals that IX does not perform as expected, modified clay could serve as a replacement for IX resins in the treatment vessels, and Alternatives 1 through 3 of the IX options could become viable. Below, Table 3.B.7 provides a comparison of the four treatment technologies considered for PFAS treatment at the Grandview Wells. Table 3.B.7: Comparison Table of Ion Exchange, Granular Activated Carbon, Reverse Osmosis, and Modified Clay Adsorption at Grandview Wells Parameter Ion Exchange (IX) (1) Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Reverse Osmosis (RO) Modified Clay Adsorption System Cost $1.5 million $2.7 million $4.5 million $1.4 million Treatment Facility Size 50' x 53', 24' tall 70' x 50', 24' tall 75' x 75', 20' tall 50' x 53', 24' tall Annual O&M Cost $141,000 $120,000 $170,000 $150,000 Media Disposal Required Required Not Required Required Sanitary Sewer Connection Not Required Not Required Required for reject water Not Required Head Loss through Treatment 12–15 psi 20–23 psi Not Applicable 22-25 psi EPA BAT Yes Yes Yes No Media/Membrane Life ~18 Months ~18 Months ~7 Years ~18 Months (1) IX system used to compare is brand new system described in IX Alternative 4 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-31 3.C. GRANDVIEW REPLACEMENT OPTIONS The Grandview Wells play a critical role in maintaining a reliable water supply to the UPZ, particularly by stabilizing system pressures due to the hydraulic connectivity with the 1MG elevated tank and Sheepherder Tank and their proximity to the hospital are which can experience pressure dips during peak usage. The UPZ experiences greater pressure fluctuations compared to the LPZ, primarily because of the distance between water storage tanks and the significant differences in tank diameters serving the UPZ. Given the anticipated population growth and the recent detection of PFAS in the Grandview Wells, exploring alternative water sources is essential to ensure the long-term stability and reliability of the water system. Figure 3.C.1 highlights potential locations for new groundwater sources within the UPZ that could replace the Grandview Wells. In the following sections, a detailed analysis of each alternative source is provided. Each option will be evaluated based on its potential impact on system pressure and water reliability. Recent groundwater well developments in Kalispell have involved large casing wells. This approach limited the number of qualified well drillers due to the specialized equipment and expertise required for installation. To overcome these challenges, the proposed new wells will feature two wells with smaller casing diameters (12 inches), which offer several advantages. A smaller well diameter allows for increased competition in the bidding process and provides greater redundancy by ensuring that if one pump fails, another can continue operating. The proposed solution will include a minimum of two submersible wells, with an assumed combined capacity of 2,000 gpm to meet the water demands of the UPZ. The following sections will delve into the feasibility, cost implications, and operational benefits of each alternative groundwater source, offering a comprehensive assessment of alternative water source to the Grandview Wells. Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Montana State Library, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS ³± ³± !U!U !> !> &% &% &% &% &% !> !> Spring Creek Road Northwest Regional Stormwater Facility (Section 3.C.1) Grandview Well #2 Westview Well (Section 3.C.4) Grandview Well #1 Tower Well Four Mile Dr Well Section 36 Well Silverbrook Well Noffsinger Springs (Section 3.C.2) Elevated Storage Tank Sheepherder Tank Legend Existing Water Main 16" PVC Main 18" PVC Main ³±Storage Tank &%Existing Well !>Proposed Well !U Existing Well with PFAS Detections Upper Pressure Zone Boundary Ü 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 3.C.1 Upper Pressure Zone New Source Alternatives Four Mile Drive Connector Tank Site Well (Section 3.C.3) Pa t h : F : \ w a t e r \ 2 4 7 0 3 - K a l i s p e l l - P F A S R e p l a c e o r T r e a t W a t e r S o u r c e s \ G I S \ K a l i s p e l l P E R _ P R O \ K a l i s p e l l P E R _ P R O . a p r x | N a m e : L a y o u t - F I G 3 . C . 1 U P Z | D a t e E x p o r t e d : 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 1 7 P M Well Sample Date PFOS (ppt)MCL PFOS (ppt)PFHxS (ppt)MCL PFHxS (ppt) Combined Wells Jul-23 6.6 5.0 Grandview #1 Mar-24 3.5 3.0 Grandview #2 Mar-24 13.0 11.0 2.0 ND 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.0 8.3 7.4 7.5 6.7 7.6 6.7 UPPER PRESSURE ZONE PFAS DETECTIONS 10.0 Three samples were taken at both Grandview Wells in July 2024. The first sample was taken at 15 minutes of run time. The second sample taken after 1 hour, and the third taken after 2 hours. Grandview #1 Jul-24 Grandview #2 Jul-24 4.0 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-33 3.C.1. SPRING CREEK ROAD NORTHWEST REGIONAL STORMWATER FACILITY NEW GROUNDWATER SOURCE The potential new source wells could be at City’s Northwest Regional Stormwater Facility. This area in the UPZ is poised for future development, making it a strategically favorable site for expanding the City's water supply infrastructure. Given the anticipated growth in the area, establishing new wells here could provide a reliable and efficient water source to meet future demand. 3.C.1.1. TEST WELL RESULTS A test well was completed at the Northwest Regional Stormwater Facility to evaluate several factors, including the water quality, aquifer capacity, and the feasibility of using 12-inch diameter casing wells. The objectives were to determine if the water was free of PFAS compounds, if the aquifer could supply 2,000 gpm to replace the Grandview Wells, and if 12-inch diameter casing wells could produce 1,000 gpm each. The test results revealed that the water is free of PFAS compounds and that the aquifer is capable of supplying 1,000 gpm per well. While the proposed 12-inch well casing is effective, it does have limitations. To accommodate the pump, motor, check valves, drop pipe, and motor wiring, the design must account for potential restrictions. Ideally, the well drop pipe and check valves should not exceed 6 inches in diameter to minimize pinch points for the well wiring between the casing and the edge of the drop pipe or check valve. This design constraint limits the pump motors to approximately 150 horsepower, with the ideal range being 100 to 125 horsepower for sizing in the well casing. Design criteria based on the test well data and the existing water system conditions for the two proposed submersible wells are summarized below in Table 3.C.1. Table 3.C.1: Spring Creek Road Well Design Criteria Criteria Notes Ground Elevation 3,032 ft UPZ Tank Water Elevation 3,216 ft Overflow elevation of elevated storage tank Static Water Elevation (bgs)120 ft Determined from test well results Pumping Water Drawdown Rate 15 gpm/ft Based on similar wells in vicinity Pumping Rate 1,000 gpm Actual pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Pumping Water Level 2,845 ft Will be finalized during design Minor Loss 40 ft Pump Efficiency 0.8 Will be finalized during design Pump Horsepower 150 HP Will be finalized during design Value City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-34 3.C.1.2. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Two new wells could be constructed at the City of Kalispell’s Northwest Regional Stormwater Facility off Spring Creek Road, within the parking lot, and in compliance with all regulatory setbacks. These wells are anticipated to have 12-inch diameter casings and would utilize two submersible pumps. In addition to the wells, a well house equipped with disinfection equipment would be constructed, and approximately 4,000 feet of 18-inch water main would be installed along Spring Creek Road to connect to the existing distribution system on Four Mile Drive. An application for new, additional water rights to support increased aquifer extraction would be prepared and submitted to the DNRC for review and approval. The well design would adhere to Circular DEQ-1 standards, and all DNRC requirements would be met to secure new water rights. The location, site plans, and preliminary mechanical layout of the well pump house are shown in Figure 3.C.2. The wells would be located on City-owned property, and the new distribution main would be installed within the road right-of-way, eliminating the need for additional land acquisition. If these new wells are to replace the Grandview Wells, they must match or improve the existing system hydraulics. Water modeling determined that a large-diameter water main would need to be constructed to meet these hydraulic conditions equivalent to the Grandview Wells. Further discussion of the water modeling is provided in the following section. The new connector (referred to as the Four Mile Drive Connector) would consist of a 16-inch PVC main that connects to the existing 18-inch and 14-inch mains. The main would cross DNRC land and a highway, extend into a parking lot requiring an easement, and follow the existing road right-of-way. It would parallel an existing 8-inch main before ultimately connecting to a 12-inch main at Highway 93. These proposed water connector main improvements are shown in Figure 3.C.3. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 EL E C T R I C A L RO O M SP R I N G C R E E K R O A D FA C I L I T Y A L T E R N A T I V E SI T E P L A N Figure 3.C.2 NOTES: SPRING CREEK ROAD FACILITY CIVIL SITE PLAN NEW GRAVEL DRIVEWAY SECTION VIEW INTERIOR PIPING NO SCALE WELL SITE PLAN SP R I N G C R E E K R O A D FOUR MILE DRIVE SP R I N G C R E E K R O A D EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD LEGEND DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 SI T E P L A N F O U R M I L E CO N N E C T O R M A I N Figure 3.C.3 NOTES: LEGEND FOUR MILE CONNECTOR MAIN FOUR MILE DRIVE ST I L L W A T E R R O A D HW Y 9 3 A L T E R N A T E TR E E L I N E R O A D FO X G L O V E D R I V E NO R T H L A N D D R I V E N H A V E N D R I V E US H W Y 9 3 PA R K W A Y D R I V E CHAMPION WAY City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-37 3.C.1.3. EFFECT ON EXISTING UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SYSTEM AN NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE As previously noted, the UPZ is more susceptible to pressure fluctuations, with the hospital experiencing some of the largest variations in the pressure zone. Water modeling results for a 2,000 gpm source at the potential Spring Creek Well site, as well as the effects of adding these wells in conjunction with the removal of the Grandview Wells, are presented in Graph 3.C.1. This graph illustrates three modeled scenarios of the system's performance under maximum day demand over a 120-hour period. • The first scenario establishes a baseline with the Grandview Wells online, reflecting the current system's behavior. • The second scenario examines the impact of removing the Grandview Wells from operation and integrating the potential Spring Creek Road Wells into the distribution system. • The final scenario builds on the Spring Creek Road scenario with the addition of a new large-diameter connector main, referred to as the Four Mile Connector Main, as shown in Figure 3.C.1 and Figure 3.C.3. Graph 3.C.1: UPZ Pressure Fluctuations Min 49 Max 64 Min 44 Max 63 Min 49 Max 64 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) Time (hour) Water Pressure at Hospital Existing System With Grandview Wells (Scenario #1) Stormwater Wells W/O Four Mile Connector Improvements (Scenario #2) Stormwater Wells w/ Fourmile Connector (Scenario #3) City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-38 Table 3.C.2 below is a summary of the modeling scenarios represented in Graph 3.C.1. Table 3.C.2: Water Model Summary Table of Spring Creek Road Wells Scenario Description Hospital Pressure Range (psi) Pressure Swing (psi) Model Scenario 1: Existing System with Grandview Wells Grandview Wells are operational and integrated into the existing system. 49 psi to 64 psi 15 psi Model Scenario 2: Grandview Wells Removed and Spring Creek Road Wells Added Grandview Wells are removed and replaced with the new wells at Spring Creek Road. 44 psi to 63 psi 19 psi Model Scenario 3: Grandview Wells Removed and Spring Creek Road Wells and Four Mile Connector Main Added Grandview Wells are removed, and the system incorporates Spring Creek Road Wells and a Four Mile Connector Main. 49 psi to 64 psi 15 psi 3.C.1.4. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE The estimated capital cost associated with the Spring Creek Wells project is $4.9 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $48,500. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 3.C.3. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. While the Spring Creek Road Wells could be constructed without the Four Mile Drive Connector, system pressures at the hospital would be more susceptible to fluctuations. The Four Mile Drive Connector has been identified in previous water system studies and may be included in future improvement projects. A cost estimate for constructing the connector main is provided in Table 3.C.4, with an estimated capital cost of $6.25 million and minimal additional O&M costs. A detailed cost estimate, including O&M and Present Worth calculations for this alternative, is provided in Appendix F. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-39 Table 3.C.3: Cost Estimate for Spring Creek Road Wells ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $166,000 $166,000 2 12" Submersible Well 2 EA $500,000 $1,000,000 3 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 4 12-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 45 LF $200 $9,000 5 18-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 4,000 LF $300 $1,200,000 6 Pumphouse 480 SF $500 $240,000 7 Electrical, Telemetry, & Controls 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 8 Generator 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 9 Gravel Road Restoration 8,000 SY $30 $240,000 10 Traffic Control 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 11 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 12 Seeding, Fertilizing & Mulching 1.0 AC $3,500 $3,500 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3,479,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,900,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $48,500 Table 3.C.4: Cost Estimate for Four Mile Connector Main ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $207,000 $207,000 2 16-Inch C900 PVC Pipe LF 7,000 $275 $1,925,000 3 24-Inch Jack and Bore LF 300 $1,500 $450,000 4 Utility Conflicts LS 1 $250,000 $250,000 5 Pavement Removal & Replacement SY 6,300 $200 $1,260,000 6 Concrete Sidewalk Replacement LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 7 Traffic Control 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 8 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $4,337,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $6,250,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $500 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-40 3.C.2. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS – NEW GROUNDWATER SOURCE Noffsinger Spring currently supplies water to the LPZ on an emergency basis only. The current configuration consists of a spring box that supplies water to a wet well that pumps water to the Buffalo Hills Reservoirs #1 and #2, which serve the LPZ. Noffsinger Springs has ample existing water rights, with 1,729 acre-feet of volume and 6,100 gpm of flow rate available, which could be transferred to new ground water wells. Figure 3.C.4 provides a schematic of the existing system at Noffsinger Springs, and Figure 3.C.5 illustrates the current site conditions of Noffsinger Springs. There are two existing booster stations adjacent to Buffalo Hills Reservoir #2, as described in Section 2.A.5. These stations are aging and used sparingly, providing a combined flow of 1,100 gpm to the UPZ. The City has identified a need to replace the pumps for better operations. 3.C.2.1. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS TEST WELL RESULTS A test well was completed at Noffsinger Springs to evaluate several factors, including water quality, aquifer capacity, and the feasibility of using 12-inch diameter casing wells. The objectives were to determine if the water was free of PFAS compounds, if the aquifer could supply 2,000 gpm to replace the Grandview Wells, and if 12-inch diameter casing wells could produce 1,000 gpm each. The test results confirmed that the water is free of PFAS compounds and that the aquifer is capable of reliably supplying 1,000 gpm per well. Due to the abundant water rights and the high productivity of the aquifer at Noffsinger Springs, the site could potentially support four submersible wells instead of just two, producing a total of 4,000 gpm. This capacity, combined with the site's location and existing water rights, makes Noffsinger Springs a strong candidate as a replacement for the Grandview Wells. While the proposed 12-inch well casing is advantageous for reasons outlined in Section 3.C, it does have certain limitations. To accommodate the pump, motor, check valves, drop pipe, and motor wiring, the design must account for potential restrictions within the casing. Ideally, the well drop pipe and check valves should not exceed 6 inches in diameter to reduce the risk of pinch points for the motor wiring between the casing and the edge of the drop pipe or check valve. This constraint limits the pump motors to approximately 150 horsepower, with the ideal range being between 100 and 125 horsepower to ensure proper sizing and reliable operation within the casing. Design criteria based on the test well data and the existing water system conditions for the four proposed submersible wells are summarized below in Table 3.C.5. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 NO F F S I N G E R S P R I N G S EX I S T I N G P R O C E S S DI A G R A M Figure 3.C.4EXISTING NOFFSINGER SPRINGS PROCESS DIAGRAM NOTES: DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 NO F F S I N G E R S P R I N G S EX I S T I N G S I T E P L A N Figure 3.C.5EXISTING NOFFSINGER SPRINGS COMPONENTS NOTES: City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-43 Table 3.C.5: Noffsinger Spring Well Design Criteria 3.C.2.2. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Noffsinger Springs, due to its location at the boundary of the pressure zone, presents an opportunity to serve the UPZ. The existing spring box has raised concerns regarding the age and structural integrity of the spring collection system. Consequently, rehabilitating the intake structure is not the preferred solution. Instead, installing groundwater wells is the favored approach, primarily because of historical turbidity issues and the age of the Noffsinger Spring collection box. Its location near the pressure zone boundary, combined with existing infrastructure and ample water rights, makes it an appealing option for groundwater development. With abundant water rights and favorable test well results, the proposed groundwater development is expected to produce up to 4,000 gpm with a firm capacity of 3,000gpm, making it a viable replacement for the Grandview Wells, which currently produce 2,000 gpm. Some of the capacity could supplement the LPZ. Further discussion on the development of Noffsinger Springs to supply the LPZ is provided in Chapter 6 of this report. This section focuses specifically on the analysis of the UPZ. There are numerous alternatives to consider for a potential project at Noffsinger Springs, but some components will remain consistent across all project alternatives. Each alternative will include the following key components: Well Development: Four submersible groundwater wells will be drilled to form a nested well field. Based on the test well report, the approximate depth of each well is 400 feet, and each well is expected to produce approximately 1,000 gpm. The wells will be located northeast of the existing building, as shown in Figure 3.C.7. Location in Floodplain: Since the wells are situated within a 100-year floodplain, their casings will be elevated three feet above the base flood elevation. Additionally, fill material will raise the Criteria Notes Ground Elevation 2,946 ft UPZ Tank Water Elevation 3,216 ft Overflow elevation of elevated storage tank LPZ Tank Water Elevation 3,089 ft Overflow elevation of elevated storage tank Static Water Elevation (bgs)40 ft Determined from test well results Pumping Water Drawdown Rate 15 gpm/ft Based on similar wells in vicinity Pumping Rate 1,000 gpm Actual pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Pumping Water Level 2,839 ft Will be finalized during design Minor Loss 30 ft Pump Efficiency 0.8 Will be finalized during design Pump Horsepower to UPZ 150 HP Will be finalized during design Pump Horsepower to LPZ 100 HP Will be finalized during design Value City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-44 ground two feet above the floodplain, with a gradual slope back to the existing grade for flood protection. Backup Power Considerations: The existing natural gas generator currently powers only one pump, necessitating an upgrade to support the additional wells. However, Northwestern Energy has indicated that the existing gas line is at full capacity, which may require either a gas main upgrade or the use of diesel generators for backup power. While the floodplain may pose challenges, portions of the site outside the floodplain could accommodate a diesel generator. Historic Structure Preservation: The existing Noffsinger Spring building, constructed in 1917 and classified as a historic structure, must be preserved. Planned rehabilitation will include updates to mechanical piping, relocation of chlorine disinfection equipment for better protection, and flow measurement improvements. HVAC and electrical systems will also be updated. Additional work will involve reinforcing the building’s slab, partitioning the electrical space, and relocating the chlorine room to prevent sunlight degradation. Transmission Main Replacement: The existing 18-inch cast iron transmission main connecting the Noffsinger Pump Station to the LPZ and running through the golf course is in poor condition and leaking. This main will be replaced as part of the project. The existing transmission main as it exits the existing Noffsinger Building is on the northwest side of the building as shown in Figure 3.C.5 against a steep hillside. A photo of the area behind the building is shown in the figure. This steep area does not allow for convention open trench installation of a new main and direction drilling would not allow new transmission main in the same location as it is now due to the tight area between the hillside and building. Therefore, the transmission main will have to be replaced by means of directional drilling as shown in Figures 3.C.7 and 3.C.11 There are two alternative projects to consider, with the primary difference being the number of transmission mains through the golf course. One alternative is focused solely on replacing the Grandview Wells, providing a solution for the UPZ. The other is a dual solution that addresses the replacement of both the Armory and Grandview Wells, covering both the UPZ and LPZ. 1. Single Transmission Main: This alternative involves constructing a single transmission main to pump water to the LPZ storage tanks, which would serve as a storage source for a new booster pump station supplying the UPZ. The new station would include three pumps with a combined maximum capacity of 3,600 gpm, replacing the aging booster pump stations described in Section 2.A.5. This would replace the existing booster stations combined capacity of 1,100 gpm and provide a new source capacity of 2,500 gpm. These existing stations, which supply water to the UPZ, have exceeded their useful lifespan and no longer operate at their original design capacity. This alternative is intended solely as a solution for replacing the Grandview Wells and restoring the pumping capacity of the aging booster stations. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-45 2. Two Transmission Mains: In this alternative, two transmission mains would be routed through the golf course. The four wells at Noffsinger would be allocated between the two pressure zones, with two wells serving each zone. Each set of wells would pump directly to its respective pressure zone, operating independently of the other. This alternative is designed to partially address the needs of both pressure zones. 3.C.2.3. NOFFSINGER SPRING ALTERNATIVE 1 – SINGLE TRANSMISSION MAIN This alternative involves using a single transmission main routed through the golf course. This option is appealing because it simplifies the mechanical piping at the well pump house, requiring only one flow meter, one chlorination system, and one set of piping. Four new submersible wells would be constructed and connected via a manifold before reaching the Noffsinger Pump House. The water would enter the building through piping in the existing spring box channel and wet well, where it would be disinfected using a new chlorination system before exiting through the same wet well and spring box channel. The new transmission main would deliver water to the UPZ via a new booster station, with the LPZ storage tanks acting as reservoirs for the station. The proposed process diagram is illustrated in Figure 3.C.6. The new booster station would have the capacity to supply up to 3,600 gpm, effectively replacing the Grandview Wells and the existing booster pump stations. The existing booster pump stations combined currently provide approximately 1,100 gpm during periods of high demand, which is significantly below their original design flow rates. Under this alternative, the new system could supply up 3,600 gpm to the UPZ. However, the UPZ would lose 3,100 gpm from the decommissioning of the Grandview Wells and the existing booster stations. This alternative addresses these losses by providing a higher capacity booster station. TRANSMISSION MAIN INSTALLATION/REHABILIATION ALTERNATIVES As noted previously, the existing 18-inch cast iron main is aging and leaking. Due to its poor condition, reusing this main is not a viable option. Replacement is necessary, and various installation techniques for the new main through the golf course were considered, including trenchless methods, with special consideration given to minimizing disruption to the golf course. Five transmission main installation alternatives were evaluated: open trenching, pipe bursting, slip lining, horizontal directional drilling, and CIPP (cured-in-place pipe). However, replacing the main as it exits the Noffsinger Building is particularly challenging due to the steep terrain and the tight conditions between the building and the hillside, as shown in Figure 3.C.5. Open trenching on the hillside is not feasible, as excavators cannot safely perform pipe installation on the slope. Therefore, directional drilling appears to be the only viable solution for installing the new City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-46 transmission main in this sloped area. Below is further discussion of the transmission main installation alternatives considered across the flatter area of the golf course. Open Dig Replacement: This method involves excavating the ground along the entire pipeline, removing the old cast iron pipe where overlaps occur or abandoning it in place, and replacing it with a new 24-inch PVC main. This approach is highly effective, as it ensures a complete replacement and provides a brand-new water main. Additionally, it is a cost-effective solution. However, it is also disruptive, particularly in a sensitive location such as a golf course. Restoration of the golf course, including irrigation components, would be required. To minimize disruption, the timing of the transmission main installation could be coordinated to occur during the golf course's offseason, reducing the impact on players and daily operations. Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP): CIPP is a trenchless rehabilitation method in which a resin-saturated liner is inserted into the existing pipe. The liner is then inflated and cured, forming a new pipe within the old one. While this method reduces excavation and is faster than open dig replacement, it slightly reduces the pipe’s internal diameter and is unsuitable for pipes with severe structural damage. After consulting with contractors, CIPP was eliminated from consideration because it is typically used for sewer mains or non-potable water systems. Furthermore, only a limited number of CIPP liners are suitable for potable water, making contractors unlikely to bid on the project due to the stringent requirements for potable water compliance. These factors also make CIPP cost-prohibitive for this application. Pipe Bursting: This trenchless technique involves breaking the existing pipe by pulling a bursting head through it while simultaneously installing a new pipe, typically HDPE, in its place. The old pipe fragments are displaced into the surrounding soil. Pipe bursting is effective for upsizing the pipe and requires less excavation compared to traditional methods, but it does have limitations. Receiving and entry pits are required approximately every 600 feet, and all pipe fittings or elbows greater than 11.25 degrees must be excavated. Discussions with pipe bursting contractors confirmed that this is a viable solution, as entry and receiving pits can be strategically located outside of golf course greens and rough areas, using cart paths to minimize disruption. However, it is significantly more expensive than open trench installation. Slip Lining: In this method, a smaller-diameter pipe is inserted into the existing pipeline. While slip lining is simple and cost-effective, it significantly reduces the pipe’s diameter, which can negatively affect flow rates. Similar to pipe bursting, receiving and entry pits are required. This alternative was eliminated because the reduced diameter would not meet the City’s design pipe velocity regulations for the required 4,000 gpm flow rate. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD): This method involves drilling a new 24-inch HDPE pipe through the golf course. A drilling rig creates a small-diameter pilot hole along a pre-determined path using a steerable drill bit, with real-time tracking ensuring precise navigation beneath the ground. The pilot hole is then enlarged by pulling a reaming tool through it, and the pipeline is pulled into place through the enlarged hole. HDD is an appealing option because it eliminates the City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-47 need for receiving or entry pits at midpoints on the golf course, requiring only one pit at each end of the drilling route. However, it is the most expensive installation alternative. Table 3.C.6 provides a comparison of the three viable alternatives considered for the water main installation or rehabilitation. Table 3.C.6: 18” Transmission Main Replacement Comparison Table Factor Open Dig Pipe Burst Directional Drill Main Size New 24" C900 PVC Increases existing 18" main to 20" HDPE main Installs new 24" HDPE main Velocity in Main at 4,000 gpm (fps) 3.15 4.93 3.21 Velocity in Main at 3,000 gpm (fps) 2.35 3.56 2.4 Cost (per lineal foot) ~$250 ~$750 ~$1,000 Golf Course Irrigation System Impact Requires fixes Minimal impact Minimal impact Surface Restoration Significant Receiving pits or fittings greater than 11.25 At Receiving and Entry Pits Receiving/Entry Pits Not applicable Required every 600 feet Every 1,000 feet *City requires water velocity in transmission main to be 3 fps or less PROCESS PIPING The four new 12-inch diameter submersible wells would be connected via an 18-inch pipe manifold before reaching the existing Noffsinger Pump House. Currently, water from the spring box enters the wet well through a 6-foot-wide channel that matches the depth of the existing wet well, which, according to record drawings, appears to be 18 feet deep. This channel is an appealing option for routing the new piping into and out of the building, as it avoids the need for further excavation to create a new water main entry and exit point in the existing foundation. The proposed mechanical piping layout is shown in Figure 3.C.7. The raw water would enter the building in an 18-inch pipe buried at a depth of 8.5 feet along the edge of the 6-foot-wide channel. It would then rise through the existing wet well, pass through a flow meter and chlorine disinfection system, and return to a depth of 6.5 feet via piping through the existing spring box channel. From there, the piping would connect to a new 24-inch HDPE main, which would be directionally drilled down the hill. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-48 The new transmission main routed through the golf course would either deliver water to the LPZ storage reservoirs acting as reserves for the new booster station that pumps to the UPZ. The overall site plan is illustrated in Figure 3.C.8. BOOSTER PUMP STATION TO UPPER PRESSURE ZONE The new booster station would replace the existing problematic booster stations, as shown in Figure 3.C.9. Due to operational concerns, the existing booster stations are rarely used, operating only during emergencies or periodically to maintain their components. Their combined flow rate of 1,100 gpm is far below the original design capacity of 3,700 gpm. The new booster station will be designed to meet the requirements of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular DEQ-1 and the City of Kalispell standards. The station will include three pumps, each capable of supplying 1,000 to 1,200 gpm to the UPZ, connected to a new water main near Buffalo Hills Reservoir #2. This configuration will more than compensate for the 2,000 gpm loss resulting from the decommissioning of the Grandview Wells and the existing booster stations, providing a total capacity of 3,600 gpm. The booster pumps are expected to be split-case pumps, chosen for their reliability and high efficiency. The new pumps will be equipped with variable frequency drive (VFD) motors to minimize energy consumption and mitigate the potential for pressure surges. The SCADA and control system for the City’s water infrastructure is currently housed in Booster Station #2, which is located near the Buffalo Hills elevated storage tank. This tank is scheduled for decommissioning upon the completion of the 1MG Elevated Water Storage Tank in the spring of 2025. The City’s communication antennas, mounted on the existing water tower, will remain in service. During construction, the SCADA controls and antennas must remain operational to ensure uninterrupted system communication. The booster pump site plan is illustrated in Figure 3.C.9, and the design criteria for the new pump station are summarized in Table 3.C.7. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-49 Table 3.C.7: Booster Pump Station Design Criteria Criteria Value or Description Notes Number of Pumps 3 Pump Type Split Case Horizontal Actual pump model will be finalized during design Water Main Diameter 20-inch Maximum Flow Rate per Pump 1,200 gpm, 1.73 MGD Actual maximum pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Minimum Station Flow Rate 1,200 gpm, 1.73 MGD With one pump; actual minimum pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Maximum Station Flow Rate 3,600 gpm, 5.18 MGD With three pumps; actual maximum pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Pump Horsepower 60 hp Will be finalized during design Total Head per Pump 170 feet At total station flow of 3,600 gpm Pump Drives Variable Speed Ramp-up and ramp-down capabilities will be provided for pump start/stop to conserve energy and reduce surge potential Emergency Generator 175 kW Will be finalized during design DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 NO F F S I N G E R S P R I N G AL T E R N A T I V E # 1 P R O C E S S DI A G R A M Figure 3.C.6NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #1 PROCESS DIAGRAM DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 NO F F S I N G E R S P R I N G S AL T E R N A T I V E # 1 W E L L S I T E PL A N Figure 3.C.7 NOTES: SHOP STORAGE ROOM NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #1 WELL SITE PLAN MECHANICAL DUCT ROOM SECTION A DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 SI T E P L A N A L T E R N A T I V E # 1 NO S F F S I N E R S R P I N G S Figure 3.C.8 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #1 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #2 NOTES: LEGEND NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #1 SITE PLAN DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 BO O S T E R S T A T I O N S I T E PL A N A L T E R N A T I V E # 1 NO S F F S I N E R S R P I N G S Figure 3.C.9 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #2 NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #1 BOOSTER STATION SITE PLAN NOTES: LEGEND FLOW FROM WELLS FLOW City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-54 EFFECT ON UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SYSTEM To ensure the proposed booster pump can maintain or improve system pressure if the Grandview Wells are removed, water modeling was conducted to analyze the effects on the UPZ, particularly at the hospital. The following scenarios were evaluated: 1. Baseline Scenario: The existing system with the Grandview Wells online, establishing current pressure levels. 2. 2,000 gpm Booster Station Scenario: The Grandview Wells removed, and the new booster station supplying 2,000 gpm to the UPZ. 3. 3,000 gpm Booster Station Scenario: The Grandview Wells removed, and the new booster station supplying 3,600 gpm to the UPZ. Graph 3.C.1 illustrates these three scenarios over 120 hours during maximum day demand. As shown in the graph this alternative not only maintains the same system pressures at the hospital but improves them. Table 3.C.8 summarizes the three scenarios and corresponding system pressures and swings. Graph 3.C.1: Water Modeling Results Noffsinger Springs Alternative 1 Min 49 Max 64 Min 53 Max 65 Min 56 Max 67 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Wa t e r P r e s s u r e ( p s i ) Time (hrs) Water Pressure at Hospital Existing System With Grandview Wells (Scenario #1) Noffsinger Wells W/O Grandview and 2,000gpm Pump Station (Scenario #2) Noffsinger Wells W/O Grandview and 3,000gpm Pump Station (Scenario #3) City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-55 Table 3.C.8: Water Modeling Results Noffsinger Springs Alternative 1 Scenario Description Pressure Range (psi) Pressure Swing (psi) Scenario 1: Baseline Existing system with Grandview Wells online 48 psi to 62 psi 14 psi Scenario 2: 2,000 gpm Booster Station Grandview Wells removed; new booster station supplying 2,000 gpm 53 psi to 65 psi 12 psi Scenario 3: 3,600 gpm Booster Station Grandview Wells removed; new booster station supplying 3,600 gpm 56 psi to 67 psi 11 psi 3.C.2.4. ALTERNATIVE 1 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE There are three cost estimates associated with the alternative, accounting for the three different transmission main installation methods: open dig, pipe bursting, and directional drilling. Below, in Table 3.C.9, is the cost estimate for each transmission main alternative. As shown in the table, a combination of installation techniques is included in each estimate, as some areas outside the golf course are suitable for open trenching. However, the existing main as it exits the Noffsinger Pump House building is located on a very steep incline, making open trench installation infeasible. Therefore, a trenchless installation method would be utilized in those areas. Table 3.C.9: Cost Estimates for Alternative Transmission Installation GOLF COURSE TRANSMISSION MAIN ALTERNATIVE TABLE INSTALLATION METHOD: OPEN DIG DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 24-INCH C900 PVC 2420 LF $ 350 $ 847,000 DIRECTIONAL DRILL 24" HDPE 90 LF $ 1,000 $ 90,000 PAVEMENT RESTORATION 280 SY $ 150 $ 42,000 GOLF COURSE RESTORATION 1.25 AC $ 75,000 $ 93,750 TOTAL OPEN DIG $ 1,072,750 INSTALLATION METHOD: PIPE BURST DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PIPE BURST 20-INCH HDPE 2300 LF $ 750 $ 1,725,000 OPEN DIG 24-INCH C900 PVC 180 LF $ 350 $ 63,000 PAVEMENT RESTORATION 20 SY $ 150 $ 3,000 GOLF COURSE RESTORATION 0.2 AC $ 75,000 $ 15,000 TOTAL PIPE BURST $ 1,806,000 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-56 INSTALLATION METHOD: DIRECTIONAL DRILL DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL 24" HDPE 2300 LF $ 1,000 $ 2,300,000 OPEN DIG 24-INCH C900 PVC 180 LF $ 350 $ 63,000 PAVEMENT RESTORATION 20 SY $ 150 $ 3,000 GOLF COURSE RESTORATION 0.2 AC $ 75,000 $ 15,000 TOTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL $ 2,381,000 The estimated capital cost associated with Noffsinger Springs Alternative 1 is $9.7 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $135,000. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 3.C.10. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. Table 3.C.10: Cost Estimate for Noffsinger Springs Alternative 1 ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $321,000 $321,000 2 12" Submersible Well 4 EA $325,000 $1,300,000 3 Noffsinger Building Rehabilitation 1 LS $1,500,000 $1,500,000 4 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 LS $350,000 $350,000 5 Electrical Telemetry, Controls 1 LS $350,000 $350,000 6 Generator 350kW 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 7 Site Grading 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 8 Gravel Access Road 70 SY $50 $3,500 9 Transmission Main 1 LS $1,072,750 $1,072,750 10 Booster Pump Mechanical 1 LS $1,017,700 $1,017,700 11 Booster Pump Structure 1350 SF $400 $540,000 12 Traffic Control 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 13 Golf Course Restoration 1.25 Acres $75,000 $93,750 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $6,854,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $10,000,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $135,000 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-57 3.C.2.5. NOFFSINGER SPRING ALTERNATIVE 2 – SEPARATE TRANSMISSION MAINS TO DEDICATED PRESSURE ZONES This alternative involves using two transmission mains routed through the golf course, with two of the four submersible wells dedicated to each specific pressure zone—either the LPZ or the UPZ. The two wells serving each pressure zone would be manifolded together before reaching the Noffsinger Pump House. The water would then enter and exit the building utilize piping through the existing spring box channel and wet well, similar to Alternative 1. It is important to note that the wells supplying the UPZ would require larger motors to compensate for the higher system head associated with the UPZ distribution main connection, compared to the LPZ water storage tanks, which operate at a lower system head. This would necessitate a 150-horsepower pump for the UPZ, while a 100-horsepower pump would suffice for the LPZ. As previously mentioned, 150 horsepower is the maximum pump size that can be housed in a 12-inch casing well, with the ideal size ranging between 100 and 125 horsepower. Table 3.C.11 provides preliminary system head calculations and corresponding pump horsepower sizing required to achieve 1,000 gpm output from each well. Table 3.C.11: Well Pump System Hydraulics of Alternative #2 Noffsinger Springs Noffsinger Ground Elevation 2946 ft Static Water Level (bgs) 50 ft Assumed Drawdown depth 67 ft Pumping Water Elevation 2829 ft Minor Losses 30 ft Brake HP TDH LPZ 290 TDH Pump HP 92 TDH UPZ 417 TDH Pump HP 132 From there, the mains would connect to the directionally drilled main down the steep hill. The LPZ wells would supply water to the Buffalo Hills LPZ storage tanks. For the UPZ, water would be routed through a new transmission main installed through the golf course, connecting to the UPZ distribution main located on Buffalo Hills Drive. This alternative eliminates the booster station component included in Alternative 1, but requires two transmission mains through the golf course. The proposed process diagram is shown in Figure 3.C.10. TRANSMISSION MAIN INSTALLATION/REHABILIATION ALTERNATIVES Five different transmission main construction alternatives were considered in Alternative 1, with detailed descriptions provided for each technique. Slip lining was initially dismissed because it City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-58 reduced the diameter of the 18-inch cast iron main too much to accommodate the required 4,000 gpm flow rate. However, since the flow through the main will be reduced to 2,000 gpm, slip lining now becomes a viable rehabilitation option for the section of the main running through the golf course to the LPZ storage tanks. For the transmission main to the LPZ, three options were considered: open trench, pipe bursting, and slip lining. For the UPZ, the alternatives considered were open trench installation and horizontal directional drilling. Transmission Main Installation Alternative 1: Open trench installation for both the UPZ and LPZ transmission mains. If the UPZ main were installed using open trenching, there would be no benefit to using a trenchless method for the LPZ transmission main. Transmission Main Installation Alternative 2: Directional drilling for the UPZ transmission main and pipe bursting for the LPZ transmission main. Transmission Main Installation Alternative 3: Directional drilling for the UPZ transmission main and slip lining for the LPZ transmission main. Table 3.C.7 provides a comparison of the three viable alternatives considered for the water main installation or rehabilitation. Table 3.C.7: 18” Transmission Main Replacement Comparison Table Factor Open Dig Pipe Burst Slip Lining Directional Drill Main Size New 18" C900 PVC Increases existing 18" main to 20" HDPE main Decreases existing 18" main to 14" HDPE main Installs new 20" HDPE main Velocity in Main at 2,000 gpm (fps) 2.8 2.5 4.8 2.5 Cost (per lineal foot) ~$250 ~$750 ~$500 ~$900 Golf Course Irrigation System Impact Requires fixes Minimal impact Minimal impact Minimal impact Surface Restoration Significant Receiving pits or fittings greater than 11.25 Receiving pits or fittings greater than 11.25 At Receiving and Entry Pits Receiving/Entry Pits Not applicable Required every 600 feet Required every 600 feet Every 1,000 feet City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-59 PROCESS PIPING The four new 12-inch diameter submersible wells would be constructed similar to alternative 1, however the wells will be divided into pairs to serve different pressure zones. Two of the four wells would be connected via a 12-inch manifold before reaching the existing Noffsinger Pump House. The proposed mechanical piping layout is shown in Figure 3.C.11. The raw water for each pressure zone would enter the building in separate 12-inch pipes in the 6-foot-wide channel stacked on top of each other. They would then rise through the existing wet well, pass through separate flow meters and chlorine disinfection systems, and then exit via the existing spring box channel. From there, the piping would connect to separate 18-inch HDPE mains, which would be directionally drilled down the hill. The new transmission mains routed through the golf course would either deliver water to the LPZ storage reservoirs or pump or to the UPZ connect to a main in Buffalo Hills Drive. The overall site plan is illustrated in Figure 3.C.12. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 NO F F S I N G E R S P R I N G AL T E R N A T I V E # 2 P R O C E S S DI A G R A M Figure 3.C.10NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #2 PROCESS DIAGRAM DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 SHOP STORAGE ROOM NO F F S I N G E R S P R I N G S AL T E R N A T I V E # 2 W E L L S I T E PL A N Figure 3.C.11 NOTES: NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #2 WELL SITE PLAN MECHANICAL DUCT ROOM SECTION ALEGEND DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 SI T E P L A N A L T E R N A T I V E # 2 NO S F F S I N E R S R P I N G S Figure 3.C.12 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #1 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #2 NOTES: LEGEND NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #2 SITE PLAN City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-63 EFFECT ON UPPER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SYSTEM In Alternative 1, water modeling scenarios were conducted to determine if supplying 2,000 gpm to the UPZ distribution main near Noffsinger Springs could maintain or improve system pressure following the removal of the Grandview Wells. The analysis focused on the effects on the UPZ, particularly at the hospital. See Chapter 6 of this report for the effect on the LPZ. The results showed that 2,000 gpm from Noffsinger Springs would improve pressure stability in the UPZ and reduce pressure fluctuations at the hospital. Refer to Graph 3.C.1 and Table 3.C.7 for detailed results illustrating how the system improves with the addition of Noffsinger Springs. 3.C.2.6. NOFFSINGER SPRING ALTERNATIVE 2 – COST ESTIMATE There are three cost estimates associated with the alternative, accounting for the three different transmission main installation methods: open dig, pipe bursting, and directional drilling. Below, in Table 3.C.11, is the cost estimate for each transmission main alternative. As shown in the table, a combination of installation techniques is included in each estimate, as some areas outside the golf course are suitable for open trenching. However, the existing main as it exits the Noffsinger Pump House building is located on a very steep incline, making open trench installation infeasible. Therefore, a trenchless installation method would be utilized in those areas. Table 3.C.11: Cost Estimates for Alternative Transmission Installation Installation Method: Open Dig Description Quan Unit Unit Price Total 18-inch C900 PVC UPZ 2510 LF $ 290 $727,900 18-inch C900 PVC LPZ 2320 LF $ 290 $672,800 Directional Drill 18" HDPE 330 LF $ 1,000 $330,000 Pavement Restoration 400 SY $ 150 $60,000 Golf Course Restoration 2 AC $ 75,000 $150,000 Total Open Dig $1,940,700 Installation Method: Pipe Burst Description Quan Unit Unit Price Total Pipe Burst 18-inch HDPE 2300 LF $750 $1,725,000 Directional Drill 20" HDPE 2540 LF $900 $2,286,000 Pavement Restoration 40 SY $150 $6,000 Golf Course Restoration 0.3 AC $75,000 $22,500 Total Pipe Burst $4,039,500 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-64 Installation Method: Directional Drill Description Quan Unit Unit Price Total Slip Line with 14" HDPE 2300 LF $500 $1,150,000 Directional Drill 20" HDPE 2540 LF $900 $2,286,000 Pavement Restoration 40 SY $150 $6,000 Golf Course Restoration 0.2 AC $75,000 $15,000 Total Directional Drill $3,457,000 As shown in the comparison table, the trenchless pipe installations become cost prohibitive, so for the purpose of this cost estimate open trench installation was used for estimating the cost of the transmission main. The estimated capital cost associated with Noffsinger Springs Alternative 2 is $9.5 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $101,700. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 3.C.12. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. Table 3.C.12: Cost Estimate for Noffsinger Springs Alternative 2 ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $291,000 $291,000 2 12" Submersible Well 4 EA $375,000 $1,500,000 3 Noffsinger Building Rehabilitation 1 LS $1,500,000 $1,500,000 4 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 LS $400,000 $400,000 5 Electrical Telemetry, Controls 1 LS $350,000 $250,000 6 Generator 400kW 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 7 Site Grading 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 8 Gravel Access Road 70 SY $50 $3,500 9 Transmission Main 1 LS $1,940,000 $1,940,000 10 Traffic Control 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 11 Golf Course Restoration 1.50 Acres $75,000 $112,500 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $6,352,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $9,500,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $101,700 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-65 3.C.3. ELEVATED TANK SITE The elevated tank site is part of the 2024 water system project, which is nearing completion. A new groundwater well was developed at this site, revealing unexpectedly favorable conditions in both water quality and quantity. During its development, it was discovered that the well could produce more water than initially projected, indicating a larger available volume in the aquifer than anticipated. Notably, the water from this source is of high quality, making it a highly attractive option for further development. Additionally, its proximity to existing infrastructure simplifies integration with the established water distribution system. The existing well at the tank site, known as the Tower Well, is scheduled to come online in the spring of 2025 following the completion of the 1 MG Elevated Water Tank. Located in the northern portion of the UPZ, this well and tank are positioned in an area where water supply faces challenges due to system hydraulics, as water naturally tends to flow south. Adding another well at this site could provide significant benefits by enhancing the water supply to the northern part of the UPZ, where recent growth has been observed and future development is anticipated. 3.C.3.1. ELEVATED TANK SITE ALTERNATIVE While this alternative intuitively seems logical, it does present challenges if it were the sole solution for replacing the Grandview Wells. Water modeling determined that if the Grandview Wells were removed and a new well source near the Tower Well was integrated into the distribution system, it would significantly worsen water pressure fluctuations at the hospital, with pressures dropping as low as 42 psi. Even with the construction of the Four Mile Drive Connector main, as discussed in Section 3.C.1, it would still fail to match the existing system pressures. However, the elevated tank site offers significant advantages, such as proximity to existing infrastructure for integration and its strategic location to supply water to the northern region, making it an excellent component of a hybrid solution. If a new 1,000 gpm source were introduced at the elevated tank site alongside a source at Noffsinger Springs supplying the UPZ, this configuration would greatly improve the existing system. It would increase pressures, reduce pressure fluctuations, and effectively supply both the southern and northern regions of the UPZ. The water modeling scenarios outlined above are summarized in Table 3.C.13, which compares existing system pressures and fluctuations with the projected pressures and swings for each modeled scenario. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-66 Table 3.C.13: Water Modeling Scenarios of the Elevated Tank Site Scenario Description Pressure Range (psi) Pressure Swing (psi) Scenario 1: Baseline Existing system with Grandview Wells online 48 psi to 62 psi 14 psi Scenario 2: 2,000 gpm Elevated Tank Site Grandview Wells removed; new well supplying 2,000 gpm 42 psi to 62 psi 20 psi Scenario 3: 2,000 gpm Elevated Tank Site Grandview Wells removed; new well supplying 2,000 gpm and Four Mile Connector Main constructed 45 psi to 63 psi 18 psi Scenario 4: 1,000 gpm Elevated Tank well and 2,000 gpm to UPZ from Noffsinger Grandview Wells removed; new well supplying 1,000 gpm at Elevated Tank Site and 2,000 gpm at Noffsinger 56 psi to 67 psi 11 psi INTEGRATION INTO WATER SYSTEM The existing Tower Well is currently piped directly into the stem of the elevated tank, which houses the pump control valve, flow meter, and disinfection system. However, to integrate a new well into the distribution system, additional infrastructure would be required. The new well would need its own dedicated disinfection system and piping, as it is not feasible to pass new piping through the tank foundation or stem wall due to structural and logistical constraints. Instead, the well would connect to the distribution system via the existing 16-inch main located outside the tank, as illustrated in Figure 3.C.13. The new well and its associated infrastructure, including the isolation zone, would be located within the property boundary of the elevated tank site. This placement ensures compliance with regulatory setbacks and simplifies integration with existing infrastructure. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 EL E V A T E D T A N K S I T E P L A N Figure 3.C.13ELEVATED TANK WELL SITE PLAN NOTES: 1 MG ELEVATED TANK EXI S T I N G A C C E S S R O A D LEGEND HW Y 9 3 SECTION VIEW INTERIOR PIPING NO SCALE City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-68 3.C.3.2. ELEVATED TANK SITE ALTERNATIVE – COST ESTIMATE The estimated capital cost associated with the Tank Site Well Alternative is $2.6 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $20,500. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 3.C.14. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. Table 3.C.14: Cost Estimate Elevated Tank Site Well DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $78,000 $78,000 12" Submersible Well 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 EA $100,000 $100,000 10-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 175 LF $200 $35,000 Pumphouse 480 SF $500 $240,000 Electrical, Telemetry, & Controls 1 EA $175,000 $175,000 Generator 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 Pavement Removal & Replacement 40 SY $250 $10,000 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $20,000 $20,000 Utility Conflicts 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Connect to Existing Main 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,700,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,600,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $20,500 3.C.4. WESTVIEW WELL SITE This alternative considers the construction of two additional wells at the Westview Park location, which already has one existing source well known for its high water quality and reliable supply. The proximity to existing infrastructure makes this site attractive; however, water modeling has revealed several challenges associated with the 8-inch transmission main in the area and site constraints. With the Grandview Wells offline, the system would experience significant pressure swings. At the hospital, pressures would range from 40 psi to 60 psi. Additionally, the small-diameter mains around Westview Park have current pressures varying between 66 and 76 psi. The addition of the potential new wells would spike pressures and create larger swings, leading pressures to fluctuate between 70 and 90 psi without upsizing the 8-inch water main through a heavily residential and developed area. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-69 To mitigate these fluctuations, the construction of the Four Mile Drive Connector (as described in Section 3.C.1) would be necessary, along with upgrades to the water main size in a heavily residential area. These improvements would come with significant costs and logistical challenges, particularly given the dense development and potential disruption to residents. Another major restriction is the presence of stormwater infiltration basins within Westview Park. Regulations mandate that the 100-foot well isolation zone must be free of infiltration basins to protect groundwater quality. Figure 3.C.14 shows the existing conditions at Westview Park and the surrounding infrastructure. Without the removal or relocation of some of these basins, there is no available space for the new wells and their required isolation zones. Reducing or repurposing park space to accommodate new wells would also be undesirable from a community perspective, as it would diminish recreational areas. While the Westview site offers notable advantages due to its proven water quality, aquifer production capacity, and proximity to infrastructure, the extensive transmission main improvements required to address pressure spikes and fluctuations, combined with the regulatory and spatial constraints, make this alternative less favorable. Given the availability of other, more cost-effective, and efficient alternatives, further well development at Westview has been eliminated from consideration at this time. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 WE S T V I E W P A R K E X I S T I N G CO N D I T I O N S Figure 3.C.14WESTVIEW PARK EXISTING CONDITIONS ST I L L W A T E R R O A D GU C C I W A Y LEGEND AL I L O O P AL I L O O P TA E L O R R O A D OW L L O O P City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-71 3.D. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In this section, the alternatives identified as potentially feasible and cost-effective in the previous sections are compared to determine the best solution. The focus is on evaluating the UPZ alternatives, which include treating the Grandview Wells for PFAS removal, replacing the wells with a new source, or implementing a hybrid solution. While treatment of the Grandview Wells is technically viable using ion exchange (IX) technology, the operational costs and operational complexities associated with this option make permanent PFAS treatment less desirable. Although IX systems are effective at treating PFAS, they require regular media replacement, disposal of spent media, and maintenance of treatment vessels and filters, which adds to operational challenges. These factors are contrary to the goal of maintaining a simple and efficient water supply system. The existing temporary IX treatment system at Grandview could remain as a peaking facility, especially during periods of high water demand, as the capital costs for its installation have already been incurred. However, the long-term reliance on this system is not recommended. Over time, the temporary treatment system will have higher annual operational costs, which will only worsen as the system continues to operate. That said, the temporary treatment system is effectively fulfilling its role by ensuring safe non- detect PFAS levels in the drinking water for the community during the interim period while long- term solutions are evaluated. However, due to the operational challenges and the desire for a reliable and low-maintenance water system, permanent treatment of the Grandview Wells has been eliminated from consideration. With the treatment option ruled out, the focus shifts to replacing the Grandview Wells with new source wells. This alternative offers the advantage of maintaining a straightforward and reliable water supply system without the need for ongoing treatment processes or media management. Additionally, new wells can be strategically located to enhance the overall reliability and pressure stability of the water distribution system. These benefits align with the long-term goals of the water supply system, ensuring simplicity, efficiency, and reliability. 3.D.1. NEW SOURCE WATER FOR UPPER PRESSURE ZONE Section 3.C of this report analyzed various potential locations for new source wells to address the system's long-term water supply needs. Among the alternatives considered, the development of a well at Spring Creek Road, located at the Northwest Regional Stormwater Facility, emerged as a solid option. Testing of the aquifer at this site demonstrated positive results, indicating the potential to supply up to 2,000 gpm of water free from PFAS compounds. Despite these promising results, the infrastructure required to integrate this source into the existing water system and ensure compatibility with current operating conditions comes at a significantly higher cost than other alternatives considered. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-72 The estimated cost for providing a system hydraulically equivalent to the Grandview Wells as the Spring Creek Road site is approximately $11.9 million, whereas Noffsinger Springs offers a more cost-effective solution while also improving system hydraulics. Additionally, the infrastructure required for the Spring Creek Road alternative is more extensive, further increasing its complexity and cost. For these reasons, the Spring Creek Road alternative has been eliminated from further consideration at this time. The Elevated Tank Site Well was also evaluated as a standalone solution but has been eliminated as a primary alternative. While the cost of developing a new source at this site is relatively low, it would need to be paired with one of the Noffsinger Springs alternatives to provide an effective system-wide solution. However, the site offers strategic benefits, as it is well-positioned to supply water to the northern portion of the pressure zone, and its proximity to existing infrastructure simplifies integration. If funding allows, the Elevated Tank Site Well could serve as a good additive alternate to enhance the system's overall capacity and reliability. With the elimination of the Spring Creek Road and Elevated Tank Site alternatives as standalone solutions, the focus narrows to the two alternatives at Noffsinger Springs: Alternative 1 – One Transmission Main with a Booster Pump Station to the UPZ Alternative 2 – Two Transmission Mains, One to Each Pressure Zone (LPZ and UPZ) Table 3.C.15 is a summary table of the alternatives considered with corresponding capital costs and net present values. Table 3.C.15 Summary Table of Compared Alternative Capital Cost and Net Present Values Alternative Capital Cost Net Present Value Treatment Alternative 1: No Change to Temporary Treatment $0 $2,557,000 Treatment Alternative 2: Expand Temporary Treatment Current Location $2,200,000 $6,008,000 Treatment Alternative 3: Expand Temporary Treatment and Relocate Treatment $3,800,000 $7,675,000 Treatment Alternative 4: New Temporary Treatment and Relocate $6,850,000 $9,675,000 Spring Creek Road Wells $4,900,000 $4,765,000 Four Mile Drive Connector (Needed with Spring Creek Road Wells) $6,250,000 $5,421,500 Noffsinger Springs Alternative 1 - One Transmission Main $10,000,000 $10,350,000 Noffsinger Springs Alternative 2 - Two Transmission Mains $9,500,000 $9,526,000 Elevated Tank Site (Not a full replacement to Grandview Wells) $2,600,000 $2,865,000 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-73 3.D.1.1. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON ALTERNATIVE 1 This alternative is appealing due to its simplicity and efficiency. It involves a single transmission main routed through the golf course, connecting the new Noffsinger wells to the UPZ with a booster pump station. Advantages: • Simplified Mechanical Piping: This alternative simplifies the design at the Noffsinger Pump House, requiring only one set of piping components and a single disinfection system. • Higher Flow to the UPZ: It allows for greater water flow to the UPZ compared to Alternative 2, which is advantageous given the increasing water demand in the UPZ, as discussed in Chapter 2. • Reduced Disturbance to the Golf Course: Since only one main is proposed, there is less disruption to the golf course during construction. • Redundancy in Wells: With four wells supplying a single pressure zone, the system has redundancy. If one well goes offline, three others remain operational, ensuring reliability. • Uniformity in Design: All four wells would be designed identically, avoiding the operational complexities of serving two different pressure zones. • Water Mobilization: Water could be mobilized to either pressure zones if needed. • Replacement of Existing Booster Stations: The alternative includes replacing the problematic existing booster stations, improving reliability and reducing operational challenges. Disadvantages: • Higher Project Costs: This alternative has a slightly higher initial capital cost than Alternative 2: Two Transmission Mains, One to Each Pressure Zone. • Additional Pump Maintenance: The inclusion of a booster pump station adds more components to maintain compared to Alternative 2. • Slightly Higher O&M Costs: Because of the additional pumping station there are slightly higher O&M costs to maintain the pumps and supply electricity. Alternative 2: Two Transmission Mains, One to Each Pressure Zone This alternative involves constructing two transmission mains: one for the LPZ and one for the UPZ. Each pressure zone would be supplied independently by two of the four Noffsinger wells. Advantages: • Simplified Operations for Each Pressure Zone: Each pressure zone is supplied independently, the existing booster stations would have to be improved independent of this project. • Lower Capital Cost: The overall project cost for this alternative is slightly lower than Alternative 1. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-74 Disadvantages: • More Complex Piping Layout: The Noffsinger Pump House would require separate piping and disinfection systems for each pressure zone, increasing mechanical complexity. • Reduced Flow to the UPZ: This alternative provides less water to the UPZ, which could pose challenges given its growing demand. • Increased Disturbance to the Golf Course: The construction of two mains would result in greater disruption to the golf course. • Lack of Uniformity: Two of the four wells would be dedicated to the LPZ and two to the UPZ, leading to differences in design and operational requirements. • Not as good Alternative for LPZ: As discussed in Chapter 6, this alternative is not the best solution available to replace the Armory Well. The following provides a non-monetary comparison of each alternative. Each alternative is ranked from 1 to 5 in each category, with a ranking of 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The ranking is then multiplied by the weight assigned to each criterion, which ranges from 1 to 3. A weight of 3 indicates the highest importance. The maximum possible score for any category is 15. The ranking table combines both monetary and non-monetary criteria to provide an overall evaluation of the alternatives. Table 3.D.1 summarizes the rankings of each alternative across several categories. Table 3.D.1: Comparison of Noffsinger Springs Alternatives Criteria Weight Alternative 1: Single Transmission with Booster Pump Station Alternative 2: Dual Transmission Main, One to Each Pressure Zone Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Tech Feasibility 2 4 8 5 10 Reliability 1 5 5 4 4 Regulatory Compliance 1 5 5 5 5 Constructability 2 5 10 4 8 Financial Feasibility 3 4 12 5 15 Replacement Aging Components 1 4 4 5 5 System Flexibility 1 5 5 3 3 O&M 2 4 8 3 6 Public Health 3 5 15 4 12 Impact to Golf Course 1 2 2 1 1 Impact to Pressure Zone Hydraulics 3 5 15 3 9 Total 89 78 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 3-75 As shown in Table 3.D.1, Alternative 1 emerges as the preferred project due to several key advantages over Alternative 2. It offers significantly greater system flexibility, as all 4,000 gpm can be directed to a single pressure zone in case of an emergency. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 6, there is a more suitable solution for replacing the Armory Well in the LPZ than Alternative 2 for Noffsinger Springs. While Noffsinger Springs is the best solution for replacing the Grandview Wells, it is not ideal for replacing the Armory Well. Therefore, Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred project to replace the Grandview Wells. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 4-1 CHAPTER 4: UPPER PRESSURE ZONE RECOMENDED PROJECT 4.A. PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA NOFFSINGER SPRINGS NEW GROUNDWATER SOURCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION As discussed in Chapter 3, the preferred project alternative involves constructing four new 12- inch diameter wells at Noffsinger Springs, targeting a combined water production rate of 4,000 gpm with a firm capacity of 3,000 gpm. The existing Noffsinger Springs Building will be renovated and upgraded with new piping, a flowmeter, and the necessary mechanical equipment. Additionally, a new 24-inch transmission main will be constructed to connect the new wells to the LPZ water storage reservoirs, which will serve as reserves for a new UPZ booster station. This station will pump up to 3,600 gpm into the UPZ, replacing the 2,000 gpm capacity of the Grandview Wells and the 1,100 gpm capacity of the aging booster stations. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS WATER SUPPLY WELLS The preferred alternative is to construct four new 12-inch diameter wells in a nested well field, each targeting a production capacity of 1,000 gpm, with a firm capacity of 3,000 gpm from the Flathead Deep Alluvial Aquifer. Additionally, an application will be submitted to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to amend the existing water rights at Noffsinger Springs, reflecting the change in extraction method to the deep aquifer. The overall site plan is shown in Figure 4.A.1. Replacement production capacity is required to comply with DEQ-1 regulations, which mandate that maximum day demand be met with the largest producing well out of service. This capacity is also necessary to account for the loss of the Grandview Wells. The proposed location for the new wells is shown in Figure 4.A.2. The requirements of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular DEQ-1 Design Standards for Public Water Systems will be adhered to throughout the design and construction of this alternative. New SCADA and control systems will be installed to integrate the new wells into the UPZ. The design criteria used for developing this alternative are presented in Table 4.A.1 below. Table 4.A.1 –Proposed Design Criteria for Noffsinger Springs Wells UPZ Project Criteria Noffsinger Ground Elevation 2946 ft Assumed Drawdown depth 67 ft Pumping Water Elevation 2879 ft Minor Losses 6" 30 ft TDH 235 ft Pump Horsepower 100 hp Pumping flow Rate 1000 gpm DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 SI T E P L A N A L T E R N A T I V E # 1 NO S F F S I N E R S R P I N G S Figure 4.A.1 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #1 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #2 NOTES: LEGEND NOFFSINGER SPRINGS NEW GROUNDWATER SOURCE SITE PLAN DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 NO F F S I N G E R S P R I N G S AL T E R N A T I V E # 1 W E L L S I T E PL A N Figure 4.A.2 NOTES: SHOP STORAGE ROOM NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #1 WELL SITE PLAN MECHANICAL DUCT ROOM SECTION A City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 4-4 BOOSTER PUMP STATION The new booster station would replace the existing problematic booster stations, as shown in Figure 4.A.3. The new booster station will be designed to meet the requirements of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Circular DEQ-1 and the City of Kalispell standards. The station will include three pumps, each capable of supplying 1,000 to 1,200 gpm to the UPZ, connected to a new water main near Buffalo Hills Reservoir #2. This configuration will more than compensate for the 2,000 gpm loss resulting from the decommissioning of the Grandview Wells and the existing booster stations 1,100 gpm, providing a total capacity of 3,600 gpm. The booster pumps are expected to be split-case pumps, chosen for their reliability and high efficiency. The new pumps will be equipped with variable frequency drive (VFD) motors to minimize energy consumption and mitigate the potential for pressure surges. The SCADA and control system for the City’s water infrastructure is currently housed in Booster Station #2, which is located near the Buffalo Hills elevated storage tank. This tank is scheduled for decommissioning upon the completion of the 1MG Elevated Water Storage Tank in the spring of 2025. The City’s communication antennas, mounted on the existing water tower, will remain in service. During construction, the SCADA controls and antennas must remain operational to ensure uninterrupted system communication by temporarily moving and or protecting in a temporary building during construction. The design criteria for the new pump station are summarized in Table 4.A.2. Table 4.A.2: Booster Pump Station Design Criteria Criteria Value or Description Notes Number of Pumps 3 Pump Type Split Case Horizontal Actual pump model will be finalized during design Water Main Diameter 20-inch Maximum Flow Rate per Pump 1,200 gpm, 1.73 MGD Actual maximum pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Minimum Station Flow Rate 1,200 gpm, 1.73 MGD With one pump; actual minimum pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Maximum Station Flow Rate 3,600 gpm, 5.18 MGD With three pumps; actual maximum pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Pump Horsepower 60 hp Will be finalized during design Total Head per Pump 170 feet At total station flow of 3,600 gpm Pump Drives Variable Speed Ramp-up and ramp-down capabilities will be provided for pump start/stop to conserve energy and reduce surge potential Emergency Generator 175 kW Will be finalized during design DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 BO O S T E R S T A T I O N S I T E PL A N A L T E R N A T I V E # 1 NO S F F S I N E R S R P I N G S Figure 4.A.3 BUFFALO HILLS RESERVOIR #2 NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE #1 BOOSTER STATION SITE PLAN NOTES: LEGEND FLOW FROM WELLS FLOW City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 4-7 TRANSMISSION MAIN The 24-inch transmission main from the Noffsinger Pump House to the LPZ Tanks will be designed in accordance to the Department of Environmental Quality Circular DEQ-1 and the City of Kalispell standards. This includes the velocity head of 3ft/sec for transmission mains by the City of Kalispell. The existing 18” cast iron main will be abandoned. The installation method will be open dig, except at the steep slope where it will be directionally drilled. 4.B. PROJECT SCHEDULE There are several important project schedules to consider for successful project completion with other improvements. One key consideration is coordinating the construction of the transmission main through the golf course during the shoulder seasons or during winter. This timing minimizes disruption to golf course patrons and ensures smoother operations for both the construction team and the golf course management. Another critical scheduling factor is the planned replacement of the Buffalo Hills Reservoir #2, which is slated for 2027. This presents an opportunity to align the reservoir replacement with the construction of the new booster station adjacent to the tank. Coordinating these projects can streamline operations, reduce costs, and minimize overall disruptions to the water system. Table 4.B.1 provides a detailed outline of the proposed project improvement schedule. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 4-8 Table 4.B.1 – Implementation Schedule for Noffsinger Springs Development TASK 2025 2026 2027 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Approve Preliminary Engineering Report x Emerging Contaminant Grant Award x Execute Small System Emerging Contaminant Grant x Execute Emerging Contaminant Grant x x PROJECT STARTUP Preliminary Design x x Well Design x x Infrastructure Design x x x MDEQ Plan Review and Approval x PROJECT BIDDING AND AWARD OF IMPROVEMENTS Public Bid Advertisement (Wells) x x Select Contractor and Award Bid (Wells) x Public Bid Advertisement (Infrastructure) x Select Contractor and Award Bid (Infrastructure) x x x PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Well Construction x x x Infrastrucuture Construction x x x x Construction Draws x x x x x x x PROJECT CLOSE OUT OF IMPROVEMENTS Final Inspection (Wells) x Final Inspection (Infrastructure) x Submit Final Certification x Local Government Audit x City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 4-9 4.C. TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE The estimated capital cost associated with this project is $10 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $135,000. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 4.C.1. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. Table 4.C.1: Cost Estimate for Noffsinger Springs UPZ Project ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $321,000 $321,000 2 12" Submersible Well 4 EA $325,000 $1,300,000 3 Noffsinger Building Rehabilitation 1 LS $1,500,000 $1,500,000 4 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 LS $350,000 $350,000 5 Electrical Telemetry, Controls 1 LS $350,000 $350,000 6 Generator 350kW 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 7 Site Grading 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 8 Gravel Access Road 70 SY $50 $3,500 9 Transmission Main 1 LS $1,072,750 $1,072,750 10 Booster Pump Mechanical 1 LS $1,017,700 $1,017,700 11 Booster Pump Structure 1350 SF $400 $540,000 12 Traffic Control 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 13 Golf Course Restoration 1.25 Acres $75,000 $93,750 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $6,854,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $10,000,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $135,000 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-1 CHAPTER 5: LOWER PRESSURE ZONE EXISTING FACILITIES The Armory Well, which supplies the Lower Pressure Zone (LPZ) with water, tested positive for PFAS compounds as discussed in Section 1.E of this report. This well is a critical water source for the LPZ, and the implications of removing it from the system are significant. The following sections of this chapter provide an overview of the existing water system components and source wells within the LPZ. Additionally, they detail the importance of the Armory Well and examine the potential impacts of their removal on the overall water system. 5.A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LOWER PRESSURE ZONE AND COMPONENTS The LPZ of the Kalispell water system currently uses two water storage tanks and six municipal groundwater wells to supply water within the LPZ. The LPZ can also utilize water from the existing Noffsinger Spring. This spring is utilized primarily under emergency situations during periods of extreme high demand. The LPZ has a single pressure zone boundary located at the intersection of Meridian Road and Three Mile Drive that separates the LPZ from the UPZ. 5.A.1. WATER STORAGE TANKS The LPZ water storage components consist of the following two tanks, both of which are currently undergoing rehabilitation scheduled for completion in early 2025: • Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1 - This 1.7-million-gallon (MG) tank is located at the northern end of N. Main Street and is surrounded by the Buffalo Hill Golf Course. The reinforced concrete base was constructed in 1912, and a wood-framed roof was added in 1959. Subsequent improvements have included roof membrane installation and structural upgrades. The reservoir is filled by municipal supply wells in the LPZ through the surrounding distribution system. • Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 - This 2.7 MG buried tank is located at the northern end of Buffalo Hill Drive, adjacent to the Buffalo Hill Golf Course. The reinforced concrete base was constructed in 1952, and a wood-framed roof was added in 1959. As with Reservoir #1, roof membrane installation and structural improvements have been made. The reservoir is also filled by municipal supply wells in the LPZ through the surrounding distribution system. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-2 Figure 5.A.1: Buffalo Hills Reservoir #1 (right) and #2 (left) 5.A.2. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SOURCES The LPZ water supply currently consists of six (6) public water supply wells with a total pumping capacity of 7,300 gpm and a firm capacity of 5,150 gpm when the largest well is out of service (including Noffsinger Spring). Noffsinger Spring, the spring source, can provide an additional 2,100 gpm, but it is only used during emergencies when other pumps cannot meet demand. Further discussion on Noffsinger Spring is provided below. Currently, the water system operates their wells in unison among the six existing groundwater wells when a tank level falls below a specified elevation. Chlorination is applied at each well source. Below is a list of the groundwater well sources that serve the LPZ, followed by Table 5.B.1, which contains pertinent information about each well: • Armory Well (1,450 gpm) – The Armory Well is located in south Kalispell between the municipal airport and US Highway 93, next to the Hilton Hotel. The wellhead and pump facilities are housed in a concrete masonry unit (CMU). This well supplies water directly to the distribution system. • Old School Wells #1 (300 gpm) and #2 (600 gpm) – The Old School Wells are located south of Kalispell on Schoolhouse Loop and connect directly to the distribution system. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-3 • Depot Park Well (1,200 gpm) – This well is located in Depot Park in downtown Kalispell and connects directly to the distribution system. • Buffalo Hill Well (2,150 gpm) – The Buffalo Hill Well is located within and adjacent to the Buffalo Hill Golf Club, northwest of Lawrence Park. It is in the same area as Buffalo Hill Reservoirs #1 and #2, the Buffalo Hill elevated tank, and Booster Stations #1 and #2, collectively referred to as the Buffalo Hill Site. This well supplies water directly to Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 to serve the LPZ. The well and pumphouse were constructed in 1977. • North Main Well (1,600 gpm) – The North Main Well was part of the 2024 water improvements project for the City of Kalispell. It is located near the entrance of Buffalo Hill Golf Course, adjacent to North Main Street. Table 5.A.1 – LPZ Well Data Summary Well Name Year Constructed Depth (feet) Well Pump Horsepower (Hp) Flow Rate (gpm) Water Rights Armory Well 1964 390 200 1,450 761LJ 45077 76LJ 30008766 Depot Park Well 1956 298 200 1,200 761LJ 45076 76LJ 30008765 Buffalo Hill Well 1997 540 40 2,150 76LJ 10756 76LJ 23590 Old School Station Well #1 2007 305 125 300 76LJ 30027293 Old School Station Well #2 2007 418 100 600 76LJ 30027293 Noffsinger Spring 1916 Spring Box 300 2,100 76LJ 45075 North Main Well 2024 450 50 1,600 76LJ 30162753 Noffsinger Spring – Located in Lawrence Park at the base of a bluff, the Noffsinger Spring reportedly receives water from both a shallow aquifer and a deep artesian aquifer (Land and Water Consulting, 1999). Serving the City since 1916, it was classified by the DEQ in 1998 as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDISW). However, further testing in 2010 revealed no direct connection between this water source and the nearby Stillwater River. Despite these findings, the City adheres to DEQ recommendations to avoid pumping the source during the spring runoff season as a precaution. The spring’s capacity is limited to 2,100 gpm, as City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-4 this is considered a safe yield to maintain low turbidity. Water from the spring enters a concrete cistern before flowing by gravity into a wet well, where three vertical turbine shaft pumps send the water to Buffalo Hill Reservoirs #1 and #2. The spring water is chlorinated, and baffles within the reservoirs increase chlorine contact time. As noted above, this source is rarely used. Table 5.B.2 provides a summary of the Noffsinger Spring Pump Station. Figure 5.A.2 shows the location of the wells, storage tanks, and distribution piping within the LPZ. Table 5.A.2: Noffsinger Spring Pump Station Data Pump Pump/Motor Manufacturer Variable or Constant Speed Horsepower (Hp) Design Flow (gpm) Noffsinger Spring Pump No. 1 Layne/US Motor Constant 150 2,800 Noffsinger Spring Pump No. 2 Layne/US Motor Constant 100 2,200 Noffsinger Spring Pump No. 3 Layne/Fairbanks Morse Constant 75 1,600 Total - Nominal Design Pump Capacity 6,600 Limited Pumping Rate 2,100 Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Montana State Library, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1 Buffalo Hill Well Old School Well #2 Armory Well Depot Park Well Noffsinger Springs Old School Well #1 North Main Well &% &% &% &% &% &% &% &%&% &% Legend &%Source Well Storage Tank Water Main By Diameter 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18" 20" 24 Lower Pressure Zone Ü 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet Figure 5.A.2 LPZ Components Map Well Name Year Constructed Depth (feet)Flow Rate (gpm) Armory Well 1964 390 1,450 Depot Park Well 1956 298 1,200 Buffalo Hill Well 1977 540 2,150 Old School Station Well #1 2007 305 300 Old School Station Well #2 2007 418 600 North Main Well 2024 450 1,600 Noffsinger Spring Pump #1 1916 Spring Box 2,800 Noffsinger Spring Pump #2 1916 Spring Box 1,600 Noffsinger Spring Pump #3 1916 Spring Box 2,200 Tank Name Year Constructed Type Size Buffalo Hill Reservoir #1 1912 Concrete 1.7 MG Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 1952 Concrete 2.7 MG City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-6 5.B. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE WATER DEMAND 5.B.1. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE EXISTING WATER DEMAND AND PROJECTED GROWTH The Lower Pressure Zone (LPZ) has not experienced the steady growth in water demand observed in the Upper Pressure Zone (UPZ), as detailed in Section 2.B of this report. While the UPZ recorded an annualized demand growth rate of 3.72%, the LPZ saw only a 0.46% annual growth rate. Water usage for each zone was calculated by totaling the recorded pumping volumes from the wells listed in Table 5.A.1, with the booster pump volumes subtracted from the total. The City of Kalispell maintains detailed monitoring data on water production for each pressure zone, which includes accounting for irrigation—a consistent demand on the system despite some year-to-year variation caused by drought conditions. Irrigation demand must be factored into future water supply projections. Table 5.B.1 below summarizes the water production data for the LPZ, including the annual growth rate of water produced. Table 5.B.1: Annual Water Usage and Growth Summary of the LPZ Year Water Usage (MG) Annual Water Demand Growth Non-Irrigating Months Water Demand UPZ (MG) Non-Irrigating Annual Water Demand Growth 2012 813 n/a 350 n/a 2013 817 0.49% 335 -4.34% 2014 789 -3.43% 341 1.90% 2015 907 14.96% 353 3.39% 2016 828 -8.71% 352 -0.26% 2017 938 13.29% 365 3.68% 2018 905 -3.52% 365 0.20% 2019 847 -6.41% 365 -0.10% 2020 855 0.94% 361 -1.20% 2021 889 3.98% 370 2.57% 2022 860 -3.26% 367 -0.72% 2023 855 -0.58% 344 -6.46% Annual Growth Rate 0.46% -0.17% The City is forecasting a 2.5% growth rate for water demand, which better reflects overall system growth compared to the rates shown in Table 5.B.1 above. Although the annual growth rate is calculated to be 0.46% in the LPZ, the City has been receiving an increasing number of development requests in this zone, which will likely lead to a resurgence in water demand growth in this zone. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-7 Graph 5.B.1 illustrates past water demand and projected water production demand based on both the observed historical growth rate of 0.46% and the forecasted growth rate of 2.5%. while Table 5.B.2 provides the corresponding numerical data represented in the graph. Graph 5.B.1: LPZ Past and Project Water Production Table 5.B.2: Projected Future Annual Water Production UPZ Year Demand (MG) 2.5% Growth Demand (MG) 0.5% Growth 2023 855 855 2028 967 877 2033 1094 899 2038 1238 921 2043 1401 945 2048 1585 969 5.B.2. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE AVERAGE DAY AND MAZIMUM DAY DEMANDS Determining the average day demand (ADD) and maximum day demand (MDD) for water usage is important for effective water resource management and infrastructure planning. The ADD reflects the typical daily water usage, providing a baseline for system operation and capacity requirements, while the MDD identifies peak usage periods, which are critical for ensuring that the system can handle surges without failure. Accurate projections of these demands into the future are essential for designing and maintaining a water supply system that can meet the needs of a growing population and ensure a reliable water supply during peak usage. Table 5.B.3 is a summary of historical ADD and MDD throughout the entire system and the LPZ. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Ga l l o n s ( M G ) Year LPZ Water Production Demand (MG) 2.5% Growth Demand (MG) 0.5% Growth LPZ Water Production City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-8 Table 5.B.3: Historical ADD and MDD with Peaking Factors Year Annual Daily Demand Entire City (MG) Max Daily Demand Entire City (MG) Peaking Factor Entire System Annual Daily Demand LPZ (MG) Max Daily Demand LPZ (MG) Peaking Factor LPZ 2012 3.45 8.49 2.46 2.22 5.26 2.37 2013 3.49 9.08 2.60 2.29 5.48 2.39 2014 3.36 8.76 2.61 2.15 5.08 2.36 2015 4.07 11.44 2.81 2.48 6.67 2.69 2016 3.7 8.69 2.35 2.26 4.93 2.18 2017 4.17 11.63 2.79 2.56 6 2.34 2018 4.05 10.22 2.52 2.48 6.58 2.65 2019 3.77 8.86 2.35 2.31 6.91 2.99 2020 3.92 11.51 2.94 2.34 5.63 2.41 2021 4.13 12.4 3.00 2.42 6.53 2.70 2022 4.03 10.48 2.60 2.35 5.63 2.40 2023 4.17 10.55 2.53 2.33 5.6 2.40 The LPZ has a historical average peaking factor of 2.49 which was used to project MDD in the year 2048 based on the 2.5% growth rate in the LPZ in Table 2.C.4. Table 5.C.4: UPZ Projected ADD and MDD Year ADD (MG) 2.5% Growth MDD (MG) 2.5% Growth 2023 2.56 5.6 2028 2.90 7.21 2033 3.28 8.16 2038 3.71 9.23 2043 4.19 10.45 2048 4.75 11.82 According to DEQ regulations, the City must maintain sufficient water supply to meet the MDD even if the largest well is out of service. Table 5.B.5 below summarizes the maximum daily production for each well under the following scenarios: 1. Total maximum daily production of all wells, including Noffsinger Springs. 2. Total maximum daily production without the Armory Well and Noffsinger Springs. 3. Firm capacity with the largest well out of service. 4. Firm capacity with the largest well, the Armory Well, and Noffsinger Springs removed from service. Noffsinger Springs was excluded from the total pumping capacity and firm capacity calculations because it is considered an emergency source. The City intends to phase out its use due to past City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-9 concerns about the aging spring box structure, which has the potential to allow debris entry. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, Noffsinger Springs is the preferred project location for the UPZ, which would remove it from use in the LPZ. Table 5.B.5: LPZ Max Day Pumping Capacity Well Name Flow Rate (gpm) Max Day Pumping Capacity (MGD) Armory Well 1,450 2.09 Depot Park Well 1,200 1.73 Buffalo Hill Well 2,150 3.10 Old School Station Well #1 300 0.43 Old School Station Well #2 600 0.86 North Main Well 1,600 2.30 Noffsinger Spring 2,100 3.02 Total Max Day Pumping 13.54 Total Max Day Pumping without Armory and Noffsinger 8.42 Firm Capacity with Armory and Noffsinger 10.44 Firm Capacity without Armory and Noffsinger 5.33 This table indicates that if the Armory Well were removed from the LPZ water system, the City would fall out of compliance with DEQ regulations. The firm capacity would be reduced to 5.33 MGD, which is below the current MDD of 5.6 MGD in 2023 and the observed high MDD of 6.91 MGD in 2019. This highlights the critical need to either replace the Armory Well with a new source well free of PFAS compounds, treat the well to reduce PFAS levels to meet EPA regulations, or address the issue through a combination of both replacement and treatment strategies. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-10 Graph 2.B.1 below provides a graphical representation of the projected MDD under different growth scenarios. As shown, if the Armory Well and Noffsinger Springs are removed, the firm capacity of the LPZ would fall below the current MDD, emphasizing the urgency of addressing this issue. Graph 5.B.2: LPZ Max Pumping Capacity Historical and Projected Future 5.B.3. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE WATER RIGHTS The City has procured water rights, which are summarized below in Table 5.B.6, along with their associated source wells. It should be noted that there is an interconnection between the two pressure zones at the pressure-reducing valve and booster pump stations that provide water to the UPZ. Therefore, while water rights are associated with individual wells, they collectively cover both pressure zones. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 MD D ( M G ) Year Historical LPZ MDD MDD (MG) 0.5% Growth MDD (MG) 2.5% Growth Firm Capacity Without Armory and Noffsinger City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-11 Table 5.B.6: LPZ Water Right Summary Well Name 2023 Pumped Volume (MG) 2023 Pumped Volume (Acre-Ft) Water Right Volume (Acre-Ft) Water Right Flow Rate (gpm) Armory Well 248.99 764.12 2661 1651 Depot Park Well 198.83 610.19 2016.3 1252 Buffalo Hill Well 306.03 939.17 3522.5 2200 Old School Station Well #1 143.05 439.00 675 1000 Old School Station Well #2 Noffsinger Springs 0 0.00 1729 6200 North Main Well n/a n/a 1725.25 1600 Total Water Rights 12329.05 13903 5.C. EPA PFAS REGULATION SUMMARY IN THE LPZ Section 1.D of this report provides a detailed summary and history of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national regulations limiting the amounts of certain PFAS compounds in drinking water. In March 2022, the City of Kalispell identified two PFAS compounds, PFOS and PFHxS, in the Armory Well during UCMR testing. While both concentrations were below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), the PFOS levels were approaching the MCL threshold. Additional testing in March 2024 detected PFOS levels below the MCL in the Old School Well #1. However, subsequent testing in July 2024 did not detect any PFAS compounds in the Old School wells. The same round of testing showed negligible changes in PFAS compound concentrations in the Armory Well compared to previous results. Table 5.D.1 summarizes the testing results for the LPZ wells. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 5-12 Table 5.D.1: LPZ Well PFAS Test Results Well Sample Date PFOS (ppt) MCL PFOS (ppt) PFHxS (ppt) MCL PFHxS (ppt) Armory Mar-22 2.6 4.0 2.7 10.0 Jun-22 3.3 3.3 Jul-23 3.6 Mar-24 3.5 3.4 Jul-24 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.1 3.2 Old School #1 Mar-24 2.0 ND Jul-24 ND ND ND ND ND ND Three samples were taken at the Armory Well and both Old School Wells in July 2024. The first sample was taken at 15 minutes of runt time, the second sample taken after 1 hour, and the third taken after 2 hours As the table indicates, the Armory Well has consistently tested positive for PFOS and PFHxS, with PFOS levels approaching the MCL. These persistent detections are concerning, as PFOS levels are dangerously close to exceeding regulatory limits, which would render the well non-compliant with EPA standards for drinking water quality. Given this proximity to the MCL, it is critical to take proactive measures to address the issue. The recommended course of action is to remove the Armory Well from service and either replace it with a new well free of PFAS compounds or implement a treatment system to remove or reduce PFAS levels to acceptable standards. Treatment and source replacement alternatives are discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-1 CHAPTER 6: LOWER PRESSURE ZONE ALTERNATIVES 6.A. APPROACH TO DETECTION OF PFAS IN ARMORY WELL As discussed in the previous chapter, the Armory Well in the Lower Pressure Zone (LPZ) has consistently tested positive for PFAS compounds, specifically PFOS and PFHxS. While these concentrations remain below the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) set by the EPA, the PFOS levels are alarmingly close to exceeding regulatory thresholds. In contrast, the Old School Wells, which has shown a PFAS detection once, are not currently a concern but are being closely monitored for PFAS detection. The concentrations at the Old School Wells are so close to non- detect levels that they are not considered an issue for the time being, and most recent testing revealed non-detect levels. However, the proximity of the Armory Well’s PFOS levels to the MCL has prompted the City to adopt a proactive approach in seeking alternative water sources to replace the Armory Well. The following sections provide a narrative of the alternatives considered for addressing PFAS compounds detected in the Armory Well. These include: • Treating the Armory Well for PFAS using the treatment technologies outlined in Section 3.B such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis. • Replacing the Armory Well with a new source well to supply the LPZ. 6.B. TREATMENT OPTIONS Section 3.B of this report reviewed several treatment options for addressing PFAS in drinking water. While these treatment technologies are effective at treating drinking water for PFAS compounds, they require substantial physical space for installation, operation, and maintenance. Unfortunately, the Armory Well site presents significant spatial constraints that render the implementation of any of these treatment options impractical. The Armory Well is housed in a structure that appears to be part of a nearby hotel; however, it is not affiliated with the hotel itself. The surrounding area is heavily developed, with the hotel building and its adjacent parking lot occupying most of the available space. This leaves no room for expanding the existing well building or adding the necessary treatment equipment. Although the City of Kalispell owns the land on which the Armory Well is located, an easement has been granted to the hotel for use as a parking area. This restricts the City’s ability to utilize the space for treatment infrastructure. Installing treatment equipment would require significant structural modifications or additions to the well site, which are not feasible given these constraints. The required components, such as large treatment vessels, associated piping, and operational equipment, would not fit within the current structure or the small remaining footprint of the property. Additionally, construction of new infrastructure would conflict with the hotel's easement. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-2 After thorough evaluation of these limitations, it was determined that implementing a PFAS treatment system at the Armory Well site is not a viable alternative. The inability to expand the current structure or utilize surrounding land effectively eliminates this option. Figure 6.B.1 illustrates the current conditions at the Armory Well, highlighting the lack of available space for treatment equipment. 6.C. SOURCE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS The Armory Well is the only well located in the center of the LPZ, with all other wells positioned either on the northern or southern edges of the pressure zone. It was initially assumed that removing the Armory Well would cause significant negative effects on surrounding water pressures. However, the LPZ benefits from a more stable water system compared to the UPZ, primarily due to the proximity of water storage tanks, which are located at similar water level elevations and are similar in size. This well is critical however in providing needed water to the LPZ. Water modeling indicates that the system pressures in the LPZ are resilient and would remain relatively stable even if the Armory Well were decommissioned. Current pressures near the Armory Well in the LPZ fluctuate within a range of 56 to 61 psi. This stability provides greater flexibility when identifying a replacement source for the Armory Well. Since treating the Armory Well is not feasible due to space constraints, identifying a suitable replacement source is the only viable option. Figure 6.C.1 highlights potential locations for new water sources within the LPZ that could serve as replacements. As mentioned previously, the LPZ's stability compared to the UPZ offers more flexibility in selecting new well locations. However, it remains strategically important to position the new source well near the center of the pressure zone, similar to the Armory, to maintain system hydraulics as close to the existing conditions as possible. Recent groundwater well developments in Kalispell have utilized large-diameter casings, which limited the number of qualified well drillers due to the specialized equipment and expertise required for installation. To address these challenges, the proposed new wells will feature smaller 12-inch diameter casings. This approach offers several advantages: • Increased Competition: Smaller well diameters enable more drilling contractors to participate in the bidding process, potentially reducing project costs. • Enhanced Redundancy: Installing multiple smaller wells ensures that if one pump fails, others can continue operating without compromising overall system performance. The proposed replacement solution will include a minimum of two submersible wells, with a combined capacity of 2,000 gpm to meet the water demands of the LPZ and replace the Armory Well. This configuration provides sufficient capacity while ensuring reliability and operational flexibility. DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 EX I S T I N G S I T E C O N D I T I O N S AR M O R Y W E L L Figure 6.B.1 NOTES:ARMORY WELL EXISTING CONDITIONS HWY 93 Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Montana State Library, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS &% &% &% &% &% &% &% !> !> Dry Bridge Park (Section 6.C.1) Noffsinger Springs (Section 6.C.2) Buffalo Hill Well Old School Well #2 Armory Well (To Be Decommissioned) Depot Park Well Noffsinger Spring Pump House Old School Well #1 North Main Well Buffalo Hill Reservoir #2 Buffalo Hill Reservoir# 1 Legend Existing Storage Tank &%Existing Well !>Proposed Well Proposed 16" Connector Main Existing Water Main Lower Pressure Zone Ü 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet Figure 6.C.1 Lower Pressure Zone New Source Alternatives Well Sample Date PFOS (ppt)MCL PFOS (ppt)PFHxS (ppt)MCL PFHxS (ppt) Mar-22 2.6 2.7 Jun-22 3.3 3.3 Jul-23 3.6 Mar-24 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.1 3.2 Mar-24 2.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Three samples were taken at the Armory Well and both Old School Wells in July 2024. The first sample was taken at 15 minutes of run time, the second sample taken after 1 hour, and the third taken after 2 hours. Jul-24 Armory Old School #1 Jul-24 10.04.0 Woodland Avenue Connector City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-5 The following sections of this report provide a detailed analysis of each alternative replacement source. For each alternative, the anticipated impacts on the water distribution system are evaluated, taking into account the removal of the Armory Well and the integration of a new source. These sections explore the feasibility, cost implications, and operational benefits of each alternative groundwater source, offering a comprehensive assessment of replacement options for the Grandview Wells. Additionally, the evaluation includes potential changes in pressures near the Armory Well, ensuring that system performance and reliability are maintained. 6.C.1. DRY BRIDGE PARK GROUNDWATER SOURCE Potential new source wells could be located at Dry Bridge Park located near the intersection of Park Place and 11th Street East. This area is located near the middle of LPZ that could potentially fill a void with the Armory Well to be decommissioned in the middle of the pressure zone making it a strategically favorable site for supplying the City's water infrastructure. 6.C.1.1. DRY BRIDGE TEST WELL RESULTS A test well was completed at Dry Bridge to evaluate several factors, including water quality, aquifer capacity, and the feasibility of using 12-inch diameter casing wells. The objectives were to determine if the water was free of PFAS compounds, if the aquifer could supply 2,000 gpm to replace the Armory Well, and if 12-inch diameter casing wells could produce 1,000 gpm each. The test results confirmed that the water is free of PFAS compounds and that the aquifer is capable of reliably supplying 1,000 gpm per well. While the proposed 12-inch well casing is advantageous for reasons outlined in Section 6.C, it does have certain limitations. To accommodate the pump, motor, check valves, drop pipe, and motor wiring, the design must account for potential restrictions within the casing. Ideally, the well drop pipe and check valves should not exceed 6 inches in diameter to reduce the risk of pinch points for the motor wiring between the casing and the edge of the drop pipe or check valve. This constraint limits the pump motors to approximately 150 horsepower, with the ideal range being between 100 and 125 horsepower to ensure proper sizing and reliable operation within the casing. Design criteria based on the test well data and the existing water system conditions for the two proposed submersible wells are summarized below in Table 6.C.1. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-6 Table 6.C.1: Potential Well Design Dry Bridge Park 6.C.1.2. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Two new wells could be constructed at Dry Bridge Park, which is owned by the City. These wells would have 12-inch diameter casings and would utilize two submersible pumps. In addition to the wells, a well house equipped with disinfection equipment would be constructed to disinfect prior to distribution. Based upon the test well results the wells would be equipped with 100 horsepower submersible well pumps. However, the surrounding water infrastructure is old and smaller in diameter, making it insufficient to accommodate the flow from the new wells without causing pressure spikes in the adjacent asbestos cement (AC) pipes. Further discussion about water system pressures is provided in the Section 6.C.1.3. The location, site plan, and preliminary mechanical layout of the wells and well pump house are shown in Figure 6.C.2. The wells would be located on City-owned property, and the new distribution main would be installed within the road right-of-way, eliminating the need for additional land acquisition. To mitigate pressure spikes, an 8-inch main along Woodland Avenue has been identified for upsizing to a 16-inch PVC main, connecting it to larger mains. The proposed pipe upgrade spans approximately 5,300 feet, as shown in Figure 6.C.3. This main upsizing will also enhance fire flows in the southern portion of the pressure zone. Additionally, an intersection on Woodland Avenue is scheduled for a roundabout improvement in 2026, making it crucial to complete the main upsizing at this location either before or in conjunction with these improvements to avoid disturbing the new roundabout. An application for new, additional water rights to support increased aquifer extraction would be prepared and submitted to the DNRC for review and approval. The well design would adhere to Circular DEQ-1 standards, and all DNRC requirements would be met to secure new water rights for the deep aquifer system. Criteria Notes Ground Elevation 2,952 ft LPZ Tank Water Elevation 3,089 ft Overflow elevation of Buffalo Hills Reservoirs Static Water Elevation (bgs)50 ft Determined from test well results Pumping Water Drawdown Rate 15 gpm/ft Based on similar wells in vicinity Pumping Rate 1,000 gpm Actual pump flow will depend on the final pump selection Pumping Water Level 2,835 ft Will be finalized during design Minor Loss 30 ft Pump Efficiency 0.8 Will be finalized during design Pump Horsepower 100 HP Will be finalized during design Value DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 DR Y B R I D G E P A R K W E L L SI T E P L A N Figure 6.C.2DRY BRIDGE PARK ALTERNATIVE EL E C T R I C A L RO O M NOTES: WELL SITE PLAN PA R K P L A C E SECTION VIEW INTERIOR PIPING NO SCALE 11TH STR E E T W O O D L A N D A V E N U E LEGEND NEW GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVEWAY DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 WO O D L A N D A V E N U E CO N N E C T O R M A I N F O R D R Y BR I D G E P A R K W E L L S Figure 6.C.3WOODLAND AVENUE CONNECTOR MAIN NOTES: LEGEND WOOD L A N D A V E N U E CE N T E R S T R E E T 5TH AVENUE PARK P L A C E 11 T H S T R E E T A L B I N A S T S WOODLAND DR WOO D L A N D A V E N U E City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-9 6.C.1.3. EFFECT ON LOWER PRESSURE ZONE WATER SYSTEM As previously noted, the LPZ is a more stable water system with fewer pressure fluctuations compared to the UPZ. While there is existing water infrastructure near the potential Dry Bridge Park Wells, it primarily consists of older, small-diameter mains. Due to the limited capacity of these mains, water modeling predicts pressure spikes if no upgrades are made to the system. Graph 6.C.1 illustrates the pressure fluctuations at an intersection near the Dry Bridge Well site under three scenarios. Water modeling results for a potential 2,000 gpm source at Dry Bridge Park, as well as the effects of adding these wells in conjunction with the removal of the Armory Well and Old School Wells, are presented. This graph models the system's performance under maximum day demand over a 120-hour period. The Old School Wells were included in the analysis to consider the impact if PFAS compounds were detected again, necessitating their removal from the system. The three modeled scenarios are as follows: 1. Existing Conditions: Baseline control to evaluate the current system. 2. Dry Bridge Wells Connected Without Infrastructure Improvements: This scenario assumes the Armory and Old School Wells are removed, with no upgrades to the existing infrastructure. 3. Dry Bridge Wells Connected with the Woodland Connector: This scenario includes the upsizing of the Woodland Avenue main (Woodland Connector) to mitigate pressure spikes, with the Armory and Old School Wells removed. These scenarios provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts on the LPZ, demonstrating how infrastructure improvements, such as the Woodland Connector, can stabilize pressures and maintain existing system hydraulics without big pressure swings when incorporating new wells at Dry Bridge Park. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-10 Graph 6.C.1: Water Model Scenario Graph of Pressure Fluctuations at 11th and Park Place Table 6.C.2 below is a summary of the modeling scenarios represented in Graph 6.C.1. Table 6.C.2: Water Model Summary Table of Dry Bridge Park Model Scenario Description Pressure Range (psi) Pressure Spike Above Scenario 1 (psi) Model Scenario 1: Existing Conditions Armory and Old School Wells are operational and integrated into the existing system. 52 - 55 0 (Baseline) Model Scenario 2: Dry Bridge Wells Connected Without Infrastructure Improvements Armory and Old School Wells are removed and replaced with the new wells at Dry Bridge Park. 49 - 61 +6 (Higher) Model Scenario 3: Dry Bridge Wells Connected with Woodland Connector Armory and Old School Wells are removed, and the system incorporates Dry Bridger Park Wells and Woodland Connector Main. 50 - 56 +1 (Higher) Min 52 Max 55 Min 49 Max 61 Min 50 Max 56 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) Time (hrs) Pressure at 11th Street and Park Place Existing System with Armory and School House Wells (Scenario #1) Dry Bridge Wells W/O Armory and Old School (Scenario #2) Dry Bridge Wells and Woodland Connector W/O Armory and Old School (Scenario #3) City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-11 It is also important to consider the hydraulic impact of the proposed improvements in the distribution system near the Armory Well. Graph 6.C.2 illustrates the pressure fluctuations at an intersection near the Armory Well site, comparing the existing conditions to establish baseline data and the scenario where the Armory and Old School Wells are removed while the Dry Bridge Park Wells and the water main in Woodland Avenue is upsized. The graph shows minimal change to the system, with low pressure decreasing by only 1.5 psi. Graph 6.C.2: Water Model Scenario Graph of Pressure Fluctuations at Highway 93 and Kelly Road (Near the Armory Well) Min 55.5 Max 60.5 Min 54 Max 60 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) Time (hrs) Pressure at HWY 93 and Kelly Road Existing System with Armory and School House Wells (Scenario 1) Dry Bridge Wells and Woodland Connector W/O Armory and Old School (Scenario 2) City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-12 6.C.1.4. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE The estimated capital cost associated with the Dry Bridge Park Wells and Woodland Avenue Main Upsizing project is $7.95 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $35,600. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 6.C.3. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix G. Table 6.C.3: Cost Estimate for Dry Bridge Park Wells and Woodland Connector Main Upsizing ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $186,000 $186,000 2 12" Submersible Well 2 EA $500,000 $1,000,000 3 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 4 12-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 75 LF $200 $15,000 5 16-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 5,300 LF $225 $1,192,500 6 Pumphouse 480 SF $500 $240,000 7 Generator 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 8 Water Service Reconnections 36 EA $750 $27,000 9 Water Main Reconnections 7 EA $5,000 $35,000 10 Fire Hydrant Reconnections 7 EA $2,000 $14,000 11 Traffic Control 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 12 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 13 Electrical, Telemetry, & Controls 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 14 Concrete Sidewalk Replacement 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 15 Exploratory Excavation 20 EA $600 $12,000 16 Temporary Water 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 17 Utility Conflicts 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 18 Pavement Removal & Replacement 9400 SY $200 $1,880,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $5,777,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $7,950,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $35,600 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-13 6.C.2. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS Noffsinger Springs is a current water source for the LPZ, but historically it has been used only during periods of high demand and has not been utilized in recent years due to past turbidity issues and concerns about the age of the spring collection infrastructure. Located at the boundary between the UPZ and LPZ, Noffsinger Springs, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, offers the unique opportunity to serve both pressure zones. Noffsinger Springs could supply up to 4,000 gpm through the development of four wells. An in- depth discussion of two project alternatives, where Noffsinger Springs serves both pressure zones, is provided in Section 3.C.2 of this report. The two alternative projects considered and analyzed in Section 3.C.2 are outlined briefly below, and the main difference between the two alternatives in the number of transmission mains through the golf course. A discussion of the test well results is provided in Section 3.C.2.1. Please refer to that section for additional details. The test well results indicated that the site could produce 1,000 gpm per well. Single Transmission Main: This alternative is proposed as a solution to replace the Grandview Wells in the UPZ but is not intended to replace the Armory Well. It involves constructing a single transmission main to replace the aging 18-inch cast iron main and pumping water to the LPZ storage tanks, which will serve as a storage reservoir for a new booster pump station. The booster pump station would replace the existing Booster Pump Station #2, supplying water to the UPZ. The project includes the construction of four nested wells capable of delivering a combined total of 4,000 gpm. The new booster pump station would be designed to supply up to 3,600 gpm to the UPZ but would typically operate at 2,000 to 3,000 gpm under normal conditions. While there may be some benefit to the LPZ, it would not be sufficient to offset the decommissioning of the Armory Well. For a detailed discussion of this alternative, refer to Section 3.C.2.3. This alternative is not considered a viable solution for replacing the Armory Well. Two Transmission Mains: In this alternative, two transmission mains would be routed through the golf course. The four wells at Noffsinger would be divided between the pressure zones, with two wells providing 2,000 gpm to the LPZ and the other two wells supplying 2,000 gpm to the UPZ. Each set of wells would operate independently, pumping water directly to its respective pressure zone, with completely separate water supply and piping systems. For a detailed analysis and discussion of this alternative, refer to Section 3.C.2.5. The following Section 6.C.1.1 evaluates the effects of removing the Armory Well and supplying the LPZ with 2,000 gpm directly to the Buffalo Hills Reservoirs. This section also includes associated project figures and a summary of the estimated project costs for this alternative. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-14 6.C.2.1. NOFFSINGER SPRINGS ALTERNATIVE 2 EFFECTS ON THE LOWER PRESSURE ZONE To ensure the proposed Noffsinger Springs development can maintain or improve system pressure if the Armory Well is removed, water modeling was conducted to analyze the effects on the LPZ, particularly in the water system near the existing Armory Well. Since the previous section determined that Dry Bridge Park is a suitable replacement source and closely replicates existing hydraulic conditions, it was included in the modeling scenario to compare Noffsinger Springs and Dry Bridge Park. The objective was to determine which solution better replaces the Armory Well and maintains pressures similar to the current conditions. The following scenarios were evaluated: 1. Baseline Scenario: The existing system with the Armory Well online, establishing current pressure levels. 2. 2,000 gpm Dry Bridge Park Scenario: The Armory Well and Old School Wells removed, with the Dry Bridge Park and Woodland water main upsizing supplying 2,000 gpm to the LPZ. 3. 2,000 gpm Noffsinger Springs Scenario: The Armory Well and Old School Wells removed, with Noffsinger Springs supplying 2,000 gpm to the LPZ. Graph 6.C.3 illustrates these three scenarios over 120 hours during maximum day demand. As shown in the Dry Bridge Park better replicates existing conditions with pressures most matching exiting conditions. Table 6.C.4 summarizes the three scenarios and corresponding system pressures and swings. Graph 6.C.3: Water Model Scenario Graph of Pressure Fluctuations at Highway 93 and Kelly Road (Near the Armory Well) Min 55.5 Max 60.5 Min 54 Max 60 Min 52.5 Max 57.5 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) Time (hrs) Pressure at HWY 93 and Kelly Road Existing System with Armory and School House Wells (Scenario 1) Dry Bridge Wells and Woodland Connector W/O Armory and Old School (Scenario 2) Noffsinger Wells W/O Armory and Old School (Scenario 3) City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-15 Table 6.C.4: Water Model Summary Table of Dry Bridge Park and Noffsinger Springs Comparison Scenario Pressure Range (psi) Comparison to Baseline (Scenario #1) Baseline Scenario (Scenario #1) 55.5 - 60 N/A 2,000 gpm Dry Bridge Park (Scenario #2) 54 - 60 Slightly lower minimum pressure by 1.5 psi; same maximum pressure 2,000 gpm Noffsinger Springs (Scenario #3) 52.5 - 57.5 Lower minimum pressure by 3 psi and maximum pressure by 2.5 psi 6.C.2.2. NOFFSINGER SPRING ALTERNATIVE 2 LPZ PORTION OF PROJECT – COST ESTIMATE The estimated capital cost associated with Noffsinger Springs Alternative 2 is $9.5 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $101,700. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 6.C.5. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix F. Table 6.C.5: Cost Estimate for Noffsinger Springs Alternative 2 LPZ Portion ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $291,000 $291,000 2 12" Submersible Well 4 EA $375,000 $1,500,000 3 Noffsinger Building Rehabilitation 1 LS $1,500,000 $1,500,000 4 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 LS $400,000 $400,000 5 Electrical Telemetry, Controls 1 LS $350,000 $250,000 6 Generator 400kW 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 7 Site Grading 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 8 Gravel Access Road 70 SY $50 $3,500 9 Transmission Main 1 LS $1,940,000 $1,940,000 10 Traffic Control 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 11 Golf Course Restoration 1.5 Acres $75,000 $112,500 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $6,352,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $9,500,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $101,700 City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-16 6.D. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In this section, the alternatives identified as potentially feasible and cost-effective in the previous sections are compared to determine the best solution. The focus is on evaluating the LPZ alternatives replacing the Armory well with a new source, since treatment of the Armory Well was eliminated in Section 6.B. With the elimination of the treating the Armory well as solution, the focus narrows to the two alternatives: Alternative 1 – New Wells at Dry Bridge Park with the Woodland Connector Main Upsizing Alternative 2 – Noffsinger Springs Two Transmission Mains, One to Each Pressure Zone (LPZ and UPZ) 6.D.1. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON AND SELECTION As previously discussed, the new wells at Noffsinger do not replicate the existing system hydraulics as effectively as the Dry Bridge Park Well paired with the Woodland Connector Main upsizing. The Dry Bridge Park Well is strategically located within the LPZ, offering a configuration that more closely replicates the hydraulic performance of the Armory Well. This strategic positioning ensures a more seamless integration into the existing pressure zone and enhances system stability. Additionally, the mechanical piping design at Dry Bridge Park is inherently simpler. Unlike the Noffsinger alternative, Dry Bridge Park does not require shared infrastructure with the UPZ, allowing for a more straightforward and efficient design. This reduces mechanical complexity and the potential for operational challenges, making Dry Bridge Park a more practical and reliable solution to replace the Armory Well. Using Noffsinger as a LPZ source reduces the amount that could realistically be provided to the UPZ. The following provides a non-monetary comparison of each alternative. Each alternative is ranked from 1 to 5 in each category, with a ranking of 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The ranking is then multiplied by the weight assigned to each criterion, which ranges from 1 to 3. A weight of 3 indicates the highest importance. The maximum possible score for any category is 15. The ranking table combines both monetary and non-monetary criteria to provide an overall evaluation of the alternatives. Table 6.D.1 summarizes the rankings of each alternative across several categories. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report - 2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 6-17 Table 6.D.1: Comparison of Alternative to Replace Armory Well Criteria Weight Alternative 1: Dry Bridge Park Alternative 2: Noffsinger Springs Dual Transmission Main Score Weighted Score Score Weighted Score Technical Feasibility 2 5 10 5 10 Reliability 1 5 5 4 4 Regulatory Compliance 1 5 5 5 5 Constructability 2 5 10 4 8 Financial Feasibility 3 4 12 5 15 Replicates Existing System Hydraulics 3 4 12 2 6 Location in Pressure Zone 2 5 10 2 4 O&M 2 4 8 3 6 System Complexity 1 5 5 3 3 Total 77 61 As shown in Table 6.D.1, Alternative 1 emerges as the preferred project due to several key advantages over Alternative 2. It provides superior water system hydraulics compared to supply wells at Noffsinger Springs and is centrally located within the pressure zone, much like the Armory Well. Additionally, the UPZ has a more suitable project alternative than Alternative 2. For a more detailed discussion on the UPZ Noffsinger Springs alternatives, refer to Section 3.D of this report. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 7-1 CHAPTER 7: LOWER PRESSURE ZONE RECOMENDED PROJECT 7.A. PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA 7.A.1. DRY BRIDGE PARK PROJECT DESCRIPTION As discussed in Chapter 6, the preferred project alternative involves constructing two new 12- inch diameter wells at Dry Bridge Park, targeting a combined water production rate of 2,000 gpm. A new pump house will be built, equipped with new piping, a flowmeter, and the necessary mechanical equipment. Additionally, the existing 8-inch main on Woodland Avenue will be upsized to a 16-inch transmission main to help reduce pressure spikes in the area. 7.A.2. DRY BRIDGE PARK WATER SUPPLY WELLS The preferred alternative is to construct two new submersible 12-inch diameter wells, each targeting a production capacity of 1,000 gpm from the Flathead Deep Alluvial Aquifer. Additionally, an application will be submitted to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation for new water rights at Dry Bridge Park. The overall site plan is shown in Figure 7.A.1. Replacement production capacity is required to comply with DEQ-1 regulations, which mandate that maximum day demand be met with the largest producing well out of service. This capacity is also necessary to account for the loss of the Armory Well. The proposed location for the new wells is shown in Figure 7.A.2. The requirements of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Circular DEQ-1 Design Standards for Public Water Systems will be adhered to throughout the design and construction of this alternative. New SCADA and control systems will be installed to integrate the new wells into the LPZ control systems. The design criteria used for developing this alternative are presented in Table 7.A.1 below. Table 7.A.1 Proposed Design Criteria for Dry Bridge Park Wells LPZ Project Criteria Dry Bridge Ground Elevation 2952 ft Assumed Drawdown depth 67 ft Pumping Water Elevation 2885 ft Minor Losses 6" 30 ft TDH 235 ft Pump Horsepower 100 hp Pumping flow Rate 1000 gpm DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 WO O D L A N D A V E N U E CO N N E C T O R M A I N F O R D R Y BR I D G E P A R K W E L L S Figure 7.A.1WOODLAND AVENUE CONNECTOR MAIN NOTES: LEGEND WOODL A N D A V E N U E CE N T E R S T R E E T 5TH AVENUE PARK P L A C E 11 T H S T R E E T A L B I N A S T S WOODLAND DR WOO D L A N D A V E N U E DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . DA T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY KA L I S P E L L W A T E R S Y S T E M 20 2 4 P F A S P E R Ka l i s p e l l , M o n t a n a RPA Copyright ã Robert Peccia & Associates 2025 24 7 0 3 P. H E R B S T , P . E . P. H E R B S T B. K O E N I G , P . E . NO V E M B E R 2 0 2 4 DR Y B R I D G E P A R K W E L L SI T E P L A N Figure 7.A.2DRY BRIDGE PARK ALTERNATIVE EL E C T R I C A L RO O M NOTES: WELL SITE PLAN PA R K P L A C E SECTION VIEW INTERIOR PIPING NO SCALE 11TH STR E E T W O O D L A N D A V E N U E LEGEND NEW GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVEWAY City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 7-4 7.A.3. WOODLAND CONNECTOR MAIN UPSIZING The water main in Woodland Avenue will be designed in accordance to Department of Environmental Quality Circular DEQ-1 and the City of Kalispell standards. This improvement will allow water from Dry Bridge Park source to more efficiently enter the distribution system without increased pressure in the around the park. 7.B. PROJECT SCHEDULE There is one important project schedule to consider for this effort. In 2026, Woodland Avenue is scheduled for road improvements, making it crucial to complete the water main improvements in Woodland Avenue either before or in conjunction with the road work. This coordination is essential to avoid disrupting or damaging the newly completed road improvements. Table 7.B.1 provides a detailed outline of the proposed project improvement schedule. City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 7-5 Table 7.B.1 – Implementation Schedule for Dry Bridge Park TASK 2025 2026 2027 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Approve Preliminary Engineering Report x Emerging Contaminant Grant Award x Execute Small System Emerging Contaminant Grant x Execute Emerging Contaminant Grant x x PROJECT STARTUP Preliminary Design x x Well Design x x Infrastructure Design x x x MDEQ Plan Review and Approval x PROJECT BIDDING AND AWARD OF IMPROVEMENTS Public Bid Advertisement (Wells) x x Select Contractor and Award Bid (Wells) x Public Bid Advertisement (Infrastructure) x Select Contractor and Award Bid (Infrastructure) x x x PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Well Construction x x x Infrastrucuture Construction x x x x Construction Draws x x x x x x x PROJECT CLOSE OUT OF IMPROVEMENTS Final Inspection (Wells) x Final Inspection (Infrastructure) x Submit Final Certification x Local Government Audit x 7.C. TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE The estimated capital cost associated with the Dry Bridge Park Wells and Woodland Avenue Main Upsizing project is $7.95 million. Total capital costs take into consideration electrical service City of Kalispell Source Water PFAS Preliminary Engineering Report-2024 Robert Peccia & Associates 7-6 connection, engineering, contingency, water right permitting, and geotechnical investigation. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $35,600. Project costs for this alternative are estimated in Table 7.C.1. A detailed cost estimate that includes O&M and Present Worth estimates for this alternative is provided in Appendix G. Table 7.C.1: Cost Estimate for Dry Bridge Park Wells and Woodland Connector Main Upsizing ITEM DECRIPTION QUAN UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Mobilization Bonding and Submittals 1 LS $186,000 $186,000 2 12" Submersible Well 2 EA $500,000 $1,000,000 3 Mechanical Equipment - Interior Piping 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 4 12-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 75 LF $200 $15,000 5 16-Inch C900 dr18 PVC Pipe 5,300 LF $225 $1,192,500 6 Pumphouse 480 SF $500 $240,000 7 Generator 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 8 Water Service Reconnections 36 EA $750 $27,000 9 Water Main Reconnections 7 EA $5,000 $35,000 10 Fire Hydrant Reconnections 7 EA $2,000 $14,000 11 Traffic Control 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 12 Site Work & Grading 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 13 Electrical, Telemetry, & Controls 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 14 Concrete Sidewalk Replacement 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 15 Exploratory Excavation 20 EA $600 $12,000 16 Temporary Water 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 17 Utility Conflicts 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 18 Pavement Removal & Replacement 9400 SY $200 $1,880,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $5,777,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $7,950,000 ANNUAL O&M COST $35,600 Appendix A – Public Outreach CITY OF KALISPELL AN OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE CITY’S PLAN TO ADDRESS PFAS IN DRINKING WATER SOURCES JUNE 10, 2024 BRIEF HISTORY On April 10, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced PFAS rules that established new maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water. Prior to the Rule adoption,five PFAS Sampling Events for a variety of Well Sources have been completed through March 2024. The City performed voluntary testing for PFAS in March of 2022 (2x), UCMR sampling in 2023 (2X), and voluntary sampling again in2024 (1x). PFAS was detected in 4 of the City’s Well Sources: Grandview Well 1 Grandview Well 2 Armory Well Old School Well 1 Bases on past sampling the Grandview Well Location exceeds the EPA’s MCL for PFAS. •EPA is using the best available science on PFAS to set national standards which are displayed in the table below. •In this final rule, EPA is setting limits for five individual PFAS: PFOA,PFOS,PFNA,PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (known as GENX Chemicals as well as setting a hazard index for the mixture of two or more of these chemicals. THE RULE RULE IMPLEMENTATION •EPA’s Implementation schedule requires the following: CITY OF KALISPELL SAMPLE RESULTS Summary of Detection Results-Kalispell Sampling Location Sample Date PFOS Detected PFHxS Detected Armory Well 3/1/2022 2.6 2.7 Armory Well 6/1/2022 3.3 3.3 Armory Well 7/1/2023 ND 3.6 Grandview Wells-Combined 7/1/2023 6.6 5.0 Old School Well #1 3/1/2024 2.0 0.0 Armory Well 3/1/2024 3.5 3.4 Grandview Well #1 3/1/2024 3.5 3.0 Grandview Well #2 3/1/2024 13 11 PFOS MCL = 4 ppt PFHxS MCL 10 ppt MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level; PPT - Parts Per Trillion Black numbers are passing maximum containment level goals Red numbers are NOT passing maximum contaminant level goals ACTION ITEMS 1. Procure Funding •Use alternate funding resources to minimize expenditures from water fund. Loan Forgiveness and Grant Applications •Complete projects without having to increase rates due to PFAS exposure. 2. Long Term Remove or Reduce PFAS Introduction to Water System •Project Considerations: Effectiveness Completion Timeline (the quicker, the more beneficial) Constructability Operational Costs - short and long term 3. Project Alternatives to Minimize Exposure: •Kalispell is reviewing: Replacing Source Treating Sources Blending Sources Hybrid Alternatives 4.Short Term Remove or Reduce PFAS Introduction to Water System •Grandview Well Operations Minimization. •Treatment Units. 5. Further Evaluation: •Follow-up sampling will be conducted at Kalispell PWS well sites. •The next scheduled sampling will be in the summer of 2024. •The sampling will follow the new rule protocol and procedures. •Additional sampling to identify source or area of influence around wells influenced by PFAS. 6. Maintain Compliance with the Drinking Water Rule: •Sampling, Reporting, Mitigation, Public Information. PFAS INFORMATION REFERENCE LIST •Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | US EPA. This website contains the following: Summary of PFAS Supporting materials such as general information, communications toolkit, and technical information Webinars Background •Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): PFAS | Montana DEQ (mt.gov). This website contains the following: Montana PFAS Action Plan PFAS Sites of Concern Surface and Groundwater Monitoring PFAS in Public Drinking Water PFAS Disposal •City of Kalispell: Consumer Drinking Water Notice - Emerging Contaminants (PFAS) - Updated 04/17/2024 | Kalispell, MT This website contains the following: General information concerning PFAS Health effects due to PFAS exposure PFAS reduction through treatment technology FUNDING UPDATE As a result of discussions with the public, the City moved forward quickly to procure funding to address this issue. The City has completed applications and have funding procured or pending for the following: Small Systems Emerging Contaminant Grant - $5.4M (amount to be confirmed) Emerging Contaminant SRF Forgiveness - $5.4M (amount to confirmed) Planning Grant Upper Pressure Zone Sources - $40,000 Planning Grant Lower Pressure Zone Sources - $40,000 Laboratory and Sampling Grant - $15,000 PROJECT GOALS Comply with EPA Drinking Water Standards for PFAS Provide Drinking Water that Minimizes Exposure to PFAs and Protect Public Health Optimize Factors Such As Effectiveness, Completion Time, Construction, and Operational Cost TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES There are three major treatment technologies in consideration: •Reverse Osmosis/Nanofiltration •Ion Exchange •Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Removal Separation Destruction •Powdered Activated Carbon •Granulated Activated Carbon •Ion Exchange •Reverse Osmosis/ Nanofiltration •Foam Fractionation •Incineration •UV Destruction TREATMENT COMPARISON General PFAS Treatment Comparison Treatment Option Capital Cost Effectiveness (EBCT)Operation and Maintenance Costs Footprint Reverse Osmosis/Nanofiltration $$$2 $$$ Ion Exchange $$3 $$ GAC $$1 $$ *These results may vary depending on factors such as water characteristics, volume of water, and specific types and concentrations of PFAS chemicals. Ranked from highest EBCT to lowest EBCT LOWER PRESSURE ZONE OVERVIEW The Armory Well and Old School Well have tested positive for PFAS but below the MCL established by the EPA for drinking water. To minimize risk, the City is exploring alternatives for replacement sources. The Armory Well is a high producing well that supplies the south Kalispell area with water. This well is in a “strategic” location for the City. A preliminary engineering report is underway that will compare alternatives and further explore several alternatives for source waters in this area. LOWER PRESSURE ZONE ALTERNATIVES New Well Source Alternatives A new well in the Dry Bridge Park Area A new well in the Lawrence Park Modification / Rehabilitation of the Noffsinger Spring Treatment of Armory Well (Tough Location) Other Factors Water transmission/distribution will have to be considered carefully with potential source water locations to confirm that the watered can be “delivered” to the south Kalispell area UPPER PRESSURE ZONE OVERVIEW The Grandview Wells, a combination of two wells next to each other have tested positive for PFAS. Tests for Grandview #2 exceed the MCL established by the EPA for drinking water. The Grandview Wells work together and are a critical supply during summer months when the demand is higher. A preliminary engineering report is underway that will compare alternatives and further explore alternatives for source waters in the Upper Pressure Zone. UPPER PRESSURE ZONE ALTERNATIVES New Well Source Alternatives A new well in Westview Park A new well in or near the City Owned Regional Stormwater Facility Addition of Well(s) at the new Elevated Tank Site Treatment of Grandview Well Source Anion Exchange Reverse Osmosis GAC Other Factors Water transmission/distribution will have to be considered. Sources with a strong hydraulic connection to the new elevated tank are preferred to minimize transmission costs. Treatment alternatives need to have strong consideration for “footprint” as there is limited space available. MAP OF EXISTING WELLS AND ALTERNATIVES SHORT TERM SOLUTION – AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION ITEM 1.The most recent test of water from the Grandview Well #2 had (2) forms of PFAS (PFOS and PFHxS). Both forms of PFAS tested slightly above the MCL established by the EPA. 2.The City will maintain compliance with all rules regarding PFAS and meet MCL within the EPA required timeframes. 3.The City would likely not be able to provide adequate supply during summer months without the Grandview Wells or watering restrictions. 4.Options o Minimize Grandview(s) operation and only operate until necessary, based on demand, and/or o The City could provide temporary treatment through the summer months. SHORT TERM SOLUTION US EXPENSIVE! Temporary Treatment Cost Breakdown Cost 2-Unit (1200GPM)3-Unit (1800GPM) Rental:$84,000 $150,000 Media:$143,000 $215,000 Mob & Setup $22,000 $40,000 Shipping $12,000 $22,000 Media Disposal $20,000 $25,000 Total $281,000 $452,000 *This ONLY includes equipment manufacturer quoted expenses. NEXT STEPS Near Term Complete PER Review with Council- Hear the Public Funding Select Projects Design Short Term Minimize operation of Grandview Install temporary treatment ?? Perform additional sampling o Rule compliance o Influence determination MEETING HISTORY (IF NEEDED) Public meetings and notification dates with topics to address PFAS are as follows: November 14, 2022 – City Council Work Session March 2024 Public Notice – March 1, 2024 Web page created – March 1, 2024 City Council Meeting – Review of Public Notice- March 4, 2024 Open House – March 7, 2024 April 2024 Public Notice - April 17, 2024 Web Page Updated - April 17, 2024 May 2024 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Published and Notification in Utility Bills Appendix B – Public Meeting Minutes Appendix C – PFAS Sample Results Existing Wells From:Brad KoenigTo:Neal Levang; Kaela MurphySubject:FW: Sample Results (from Susie)Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:03:53 AMAttachments:image001.pngimage003.pngIn case you are interested……………………………….. From: Susie Turner <sturner@kalispell.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 12:49 PMTo: Brad Koenig <BKoenig@rpa-hln.com>Subject: Sample Results Compound MCL MCLG PQL (Practical Quantitation Level) SOURCE Sample5 DATES RESULT 1=Below MCL 2= Above MCL PFOS 4 PPT 0 PPT 4 PPT All Sources Armory Armory All SourcesGrandview Old School #1 ArmoryGrandview #1Grandview #2 2014/153/22 6/22 1/237/23 3/24 3/243/243/24 0 PPB 2.6 PPT1 3.3 PPT1 0 PPT 6.6 PPT2 2.0 PPT1 3.5 PPT1 3.5 PPT1 13 PPT2 PFOA 4 PPT 0 PPT 4 PPT All Sources 2014/15, 22,23 & 24 0 PPB & 0 PPT PFHxS 10 PPT 10 PPT 3 PPT All Sources ArmoryArmory Armory All SourcesGrandview Armory Grandview #1Grandview #2 2014/15 3/226/22 7/23 1/237/23 3/24 3/243/24 0 PPB 2.7 PPT1 3.3 PPT1 3.6 PPT1 0 PPT 5.0 PPT1 3.4 PPT1 3.0 PPT1 11 PPT2 HFPO-DA (GENx)10 PPT 10 PPT 5 PPT All Sources 2014/15, 22, 23, & 24 0 PPB & 0 PPT PFNA 10 PPT 10 PPT 4 PPT All Sources 2014/15, 22, 23, & 24 0 PPB & 0 PPT PFBS Hazard Indexof 1 Hazard Indexof 1 3 PPT All Sources 2014/15, 22,23, & 24 0 PPB & 0 PPT Susie Turner, P.E. Public Works Director 406-210-9191 201 1st Ave E, Kalispell, MT 59901 www.Kalispell.com Appendix D – PFAS Sampling Results Test Wells ANALYTICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR Attn: City of Kalispell Public Works City of Kalispell 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59903 Generated 1/14/2025 12:28:22 AM JOB DESCRIPTION Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 JOB NUMBER 810-133703-1 See page two for job notes and contact information. South Bend IN 46617 110 S Hill Street Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 1 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Eurofins Eaton South Bend is a laboratory within Eurofins Eaton Analytical, LLC, a company within Eurofins Environment Testing Group of Companies Job Notes This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. The results relate only to the samples tested. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. The test results in this report relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory and will meet all requirements of the methodology, with any exceptions noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the express written approval of the laboratory. All questions should be directed to the Eurofins Eaton Analytical, LLC Project Manager. Authorization Generated 1/14/2025 12:28:22 AM Authorized for release by Miriam Svoboda, Project Manager Miriam.Svoboda@et.eurofinsus.com (574)233-4777 Page 2 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Table of Contents Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Laboratory Job ID: 810-133703-1 Page 3 of 22 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend1/14/2025 Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Definitions/Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Case Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Detection Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Surrogate Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 QC Association Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Lab Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Chain of Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Receipt Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Definitions/Glossary Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Qualifiers LCMS Qualifier Description J Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value. Qualifier Glossary These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. ☼Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis Abbreviation %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CFU Colony Forming Unit CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re-analysis, Re-extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level" MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) MPN Most Probable Number MQL Method Quantitation Limit NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent POS Positive / Present PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PRES Presumptive QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) TNTC Too Numerous To Count Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 4 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Job Narrative810-133703-1 Analytical test results meet all requirements of the associated regulatory program listed on the Accreditation/Certification SummaryPageunlessotherwisenotedundertheindividualanalysis.Data qualifiers and/or narrative comments are included to explain any exceptions,if applicable. ·Matrix QC may not be reported if insufficient sample is provided or site-specific QC samples were not submitted.In these situations,to demonstrate precision and accuracy at a batch level,a LCS/LCSD may be performed,unless otherwise specified in the method.·Surrogate and/or isotope dilution analyte recoveries (if applicable)which are outside of the QC window are confirmed unless attributed to a dilution or otherwise noted in the narrative. Regulated compliance samples (e.g.SDWA,NPDES)must comply with the associated agency requirements/permits. Receipt The samples were received on 1/9/2025 9:45 AM.Unless otherwise noted below,the samples arrived in good condition,and, where required,properly preserved and on ice.The temperature of the cooler at receipt time was 0.8°C. PFASNoadditional analytical or quality issues were noted,other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Case Narrative Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-133703-1 Project: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Job ID: 810-133703-1 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 5 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Detection Summary Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Client Sample ID: Dry Bridge Test Well Lab Sample ID: 810-133703-1 No Detections. Client Sample ID: Noffsinger Test Well Lab Sample ID: 810-133703-2 No Detections. Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Page 6 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Client Sample Results Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Lab Sample ID: 810-133703-1Client Sample ID: Dry Bridge Test Well Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 01/08/25 12:45 Date Received: 01/09/25 09:45 Method: EPA 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) RL MDL <1.9 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnitDResultQualifier Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoa cetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoac etic acid (NEtFOSAA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.9Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.99-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonan e-1-sulfonic acid 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.911-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecan e-1-sulfonic acid 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1<1.94,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 13C2 PFHxA 93 70-130 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifierLimits%Recovery 13C2 PFDA 92 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 170-130 13C3 HFPO-DA 90 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 170-130 d5-NEtFOSAA 88 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:49 170-130 Lab Sample ID: 810-133703-2Client Sample ID: Noffsinger Test Well Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 01/08/25 13:30 Date Received: 01/09/25 09:45 Method: EPA 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) RL MDL <1.9 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnitDResultQualifier Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoa cetic acid (NMeFOSAA) Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 7 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Client Sample Results Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Lab Sample ID: 810-133703-2Client Sample ID: Noffsinger Test Well Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 01/08/25 13:30 Date Received: 01/09/25 09:45 Method: EPA 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) RL MDL <1.9 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnitDResultQualifier N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoac etic acid (NEtFOSAA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.9Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.99-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonan e-1-sulfonic acid 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.911-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecan e-1-sulfonic acid 1.9 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1<1.94,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 13C2 PFHxA 98 70-130 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifierLimits%Recovery 13C2 PFDA 92 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 170-130 13C3 HFPO-DA 94 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 170-130 d5-NEtFOSAA 98 01/10/25 09:02 01/11/25 00:21 170-130 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 8 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Surrogate Summary Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) Prep Type: Total/NAMatrix: Water Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID (70-130)(70-130)(70-130)(70-130) PFHxA PFDA HFPODA d5NEFOS 93 92 90 88810-133703-1 Percent Surrogate Recovery (Acceptance Limits) Dry Bridge Test Well 104 97 97 92810-133703-1 LMS Dry Bridge Test Well 98 92 94 98810-133703-2 Noffsinger Test Well 100 97 101 90LCS 810-129019/3-A Lab Control Sample 100 100 93 98LLCS 810-129019/2-A Lab Control Sample 88 87 86 97LLCS 810-129038/2-A Lab Control Sample 98 98 95 100MBL 810-129019/1-A Method Blank 95 96 93 102MBL 810-129038/1-A Method Blank Surrogate Legend PFHxA = 13C2 PFHxA PFDA = 13C2 PFDA HFPODA = 13C3 HFPO-DA d5NEFOS = d5-NEtFOSAA Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 9 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: MBL 810-129019/1-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Prep Batch: 129019 RL MDL Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)<0.53 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1 MBL MBL Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedDUnitResultQualifier <0.63 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) <0.63 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) <0.63 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) <0.50 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) <0.60 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) <0.44 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) <0.71 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) <0.52 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) <0.48 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) <0.65 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) <0.60 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) <0.62 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoa cetic acid (NMeFOSAA) <0.65 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoac etic acid (NEtFOSAA) <0.62 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) <0.64 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 19-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonan e-1-sulfonic acid <0.64 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 111-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecan e-1-sulfonic acid <0.49 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 14,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 13C2 PFHxA 98 70-130 01/10/25 17:17 1 MBL MBL Surrogate 01/10/25 06:07 Dil FacPreparedAnalyzedQualifierLimits%Recovery 98 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 113C2 PFDA 70-130 95 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 113C3 HFPO-DA 70-130 100 01/10/25 06:07 01/10/25 17:17 1d5-NEtFOSAA 70-130 Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 810-129019/3-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Prep Batch: 129019 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 200 183 ng/L 92 70 -130 Analyte LCS LCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 200 178 ng/L 89 70 -130 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)200 183 ng/L 91 70 -130 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 200 167 ng/L 83 70 -130 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)200 181 ng/L 90 70 -130 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)200 180 ng/L 90 70 -130 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 200 183 ng/L 91 70 -130 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 200 180 ng/L 90 70 -130 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)200 169 ng/L 85 70 -130 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)200 176 ng/L 88 70 -130 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 10 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 810-129019/3-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Prep Batch: 129019 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 200 163 ng/L 82 70 -130 Analyte LCS LCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 200 167 ng/L 83 70 -130 N-methylperfluorooctanesulfona midoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 200 179 ng/L 89 70 -130 N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonami doacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) 200 173 ng/L 87 70 -130 Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 200 175 ng/L 87 70 -130 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxan onane-1-sulfonic acid 200 183 ng/L 91 70 -130 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaund ecane-1-sulfonic acid 200 179 ng/L 89 70 -130 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 200 180 ng/L 90 70 -130 13C2 PFHxA 70 -130 Surrogate 100 LCS LCS Qualifier Limits%Recovery 9713C2 PFDA 70 -130 10113C3 HFPO-DA 70 -130 90d5-NEtFOSAA 70 -130 Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LLCS 810-129019/2-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Prep Batch: 129019 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 2.00 1.96 J ng/L 98 50 -150 Analyte LLCS LLCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 2.00 2.14 ng/L 107 50 -150 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)2.00 2.14 ng/L 107 50 -150 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 2.00 2.15 ng/L 107 50 -150 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)2.00 1.89 J ng/L 94 50 -150 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)2.00 2.02 ng/L 101 50 -150 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 2.00 1.99 J ng/L 100 50 -150 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 2.00 1.79 J ng/L 89 50 -150 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)2.00 1.98 J ng/L 99 50 -150 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)2.00 1.98 J ng/L 99 50 -150 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 2.00 2.03 ng/L 102 50 -150 Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 2.00 2.09 ng/L 104 50 -150 N-methylperfluorooctanesulfona midoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 2.00 1.85 J ng/L 92 50 -150 N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonami doacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) 2.00 2.07 ng/L 104 50 -150 Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 2.00 1.85 J ng/L 92 50 -150 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 11 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LLCS 810-129019/2-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Prep Batch: 129019 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxan onane-1-sulfonic acid 2.00 1.95 J ng/L 98 50 -150 Analyte LLCS LLCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaund ecane-1-sulfonic acid 2.00 1.91 J ng/L 96 50 -150 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 2.00 1.94 J ng/L 97 50 -150 13C2 PFHxA 70 -130 Surrogate 100 LLCS LLCS Qualifier Limits%Recovery 10013C2 PFDA 70 -130 9313C3 HFPO-DA 70 -130 98d5-NEtFOSAA 70 -130 Client Sample ID: Dry Bridge Test WellLab Sample ID: 810-133703-1 LMS Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Prep Batch: 129019 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) <1.9 1.89 1.94 ng/L 102 50 -150 Analyte LMS LMS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added Sample Result Sample Qualifier %Rec Limits Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) <1.9 1.89 2.02 ng/L 107 50 -150 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)<1.9 1.89 1.97 ng/L 104 50 -150 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) <1.9 1.89 1.87 J ng/L 99 50 -150 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)<1.9 1.89 1.91 ng/L 101 50 -150 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)<1.9 1.89 1.91 ng/L 101 50 -150 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) <1.9 1.89 1.84 J ng/L 97 50 -150 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) <1.9 1.89 1.91 ng/L 101 50 -150 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)<1.9 1.89 2.05 ng/L 109 50 -150 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)<1.9 1.89 1.90 ng/L 101 50 -150 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) <1.9 1.89 1.79 J ng/L 95 50 -150 Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) <1.9 1.89 1.93 ng/L 102 50 -150 N-methylperfluorooctanesulfona midoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) <1.9 1.89 1.90 ng/L 100 50 -150 N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonami doacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) <1.9 1.89 1.95 ng/L 103 50 -150 Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) <1.9 1.89 1.72 J ng/L 91 50 -150 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxan onane-1-sulfonic acid <1.9 1.89 1.71 J ng/L 91 50 -150 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaund ecane-1-sulfonic acid <1.9 1.89 1.77 J ng/L 94 50 -150 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) <1.9 1.89 2.08 ng/L 110 50 -150 13C2 PFHxA 70 -130 Surrogate 104 LMS LMS Qualifier Limits%Recovery Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 12 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) Client Sample ID: Dry Bridge Test WellLab Sample ID: 810-133703-1 LMS Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Prep Batch: 129019 13C2 PFDA 70 -130 Surrogate 97 LMS LMS Qualifier Limits%Recovery 9713C3 HFPO-DA 70 -130 92d5-NEtFOSAA 70 -130 Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: MBL 810-129038/1-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129132 Prep Batch: 129038 RL MDL Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)<0.53 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1 MBL MBL Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedDUnitResultQualifier <0.63 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) <0.63 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) <0.63 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) <0.50 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) <0.60 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) <0.44 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) <0.71 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) <0.52 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) <0.48 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) <0.65 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) <0.60 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) <0.62 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoa cetic acid (NMeFOSAA) <0.65 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoac etic acid (NEtFOSAA) <0.62 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) <0.64 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 19-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonan e-1-sulfonic acid <0.64 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 111-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecan e-1-sulfonic acid <0.49 2.0 ng/L 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 14,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 13C2 PFHxA 95 70-130 01/10/25 23:17 1 MBL MBL Surrogate 01/10/25 09:02 Dil FacPreparedAnalyzedQualifierLimits%Recovery 96 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 113C2 PFDA 70-130 93 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 113C3 HFPO-DA 70-130 102 01/10/25 09:02 01/10/25 23:17 1d5-NEtFOSAA 70-130 Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LLCS 810-129038/2-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129132 Prep Batch: 129038 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 2.00 1.95 J ng/L 98 50 -150 Analyte LLCS LLCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 2.00 1.90 J ng/L 95 50 -150 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)2.00 1.76 J ng/L 88 50 -150 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 13 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LLCS 810-129038/2-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129132 Prep Batch: 129038 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 2.00 1.77 J ng/L 88 50 -150 Analyte LLCS LLCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)2.00 1.84 J ng/L 92 50 -150 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)2.00 1.87 J ng/L 94 50 -150 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 2.00 2.00 ng/L 100 50 -150 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 2.00 1.79 J ng/L 89 50 -150 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)2.00 1.84 J ng/L 92 50 -150 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)2.00 1.83 J ng/L 92 50 -150 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 2.00 1.71 J ng/L 85 50 -150 Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 2.00 1.73 J ng/L 86 50 -150 N-methylperfluorooctanesulfona midoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 2.00 1.94 J ng/L 97 50 -150 N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonami doacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) 2.00 2.11 ng/L 106 50 -150 Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 2.00 1.78 J ng/L 89 50 -150 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxan onane-1-sulfonic acid 2.00 1.86 J ng/L 93 50 -150 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaund ecane-1-sulfonic acid 2.00 1.96 J ng/L 98 50 -150 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 2.00 1.91 J ng/L 95 50 -150 13C2 PFHxA 70 -130 Surrogate 88 LLCS LLCS Qualifier Limits%Recovery 8713C2 PFDA 70 -130 8613C3 HFPO-DA 70 -130 97d5-NEtFOSAA 70 -130 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 14 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Association Summary Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 LCMS Prep Batch: 129019 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Water 537.1 DW810-133703-1 Dry Bridge Test Well Total/NA Water 537.1 DWMBL 810-129019/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 537.1 DWLCS 810-129019/3-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 DWLLCS 810-129019/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 DW810-133703-1 LMS Dry Bridge Test Well Total/NA Prep Batch: 129038 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Water 537.1 DW810-133703-2 Noffsinger Test Well Total/NA Water 537.1 DWMBL 810-129038/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 537.1 DWLLCS 810-129038/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129128 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Water 537.1 129019810-133703-1 Dry Bridge Test Well Total/NA Water 537.1 129019MBL 810-129019/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 537.1 129019LCS 810-129019/3-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 129019LLCS 810-129019/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 129019810-133703-1 LMS Dry Bridge Test Well Total/NA Analysis Batch: 129132 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Water 537.1 129038810-133703-2 Noffsinger Test Well Total/NA Water 537.1 129038MBL 810-129038/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 537.1 129038LLCS 810-129038/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 15 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lab Chronicle Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-133703-1 Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Client Sample ID: Dry Bridge Test Well Lab Sample ID: 810-133703-1 Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 01/08/25 12:45 Date Received: 01/09/25 09:45 Prep 537.1 DW FW129019 EA SB Type Batch Batch MethodPrep Type LabAnalystRun Prepared or Analyzed Batch Number Dilution Factor Total/NA 01/10/25 06:07 Analysis 537.1 1 129128 ZK EA SBTotal/NA 01/10/25 17:49 Client Sample ID: Noffsinger Test Well Lab Sample ID: 810-133703-2 Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 01/08/25 13:30 Date Received: 01/09/25 09:45 Prep 537.1 DW KW129038 EA SB Type Batch Batch MethodPrep Type LabAnalystRun Prepared or Analyzed Batch Number Dilution Factor Total/NA 01/10/25 09:02 Analysis 537.1 1 129132 PP EA SBTotal/NA 01/11/25 00:21 Laboratory References: EA SB = Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend, 110 S Hill Street, South Bend, IN 46617, TEL (574)233-4777 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 16 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-133703-1 Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Laboratory: Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Unless otherwise noted, all analytes for this laboratory were covered under each accreditation/certification below. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Montana (DW)State CERT0026 01-01-26 The following analytes are included in this report, but the laboratory is not certified by the governing authority. This list may include analytes for which the agency does not offer certification. Analysis Method Prep Method Matrix Analyte 537.1 537.1 DW Water 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-s ulfonic acid 537.1 537.1 DW Water 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-s ulfonic acid 537.1 537.1 DW Water Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 537.1 537.1 DW Water Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 17 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Method Summary Job ID: 810-133703-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method Method Description LaboratoryProtocol EPA537.1 Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS)EA SB EPA537.1 DW Extraction of Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids EA SB Protocol References: EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory References: EA SB = Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend, 110 S Hill Street, South Bend, IN 46617, TEL (574)233-4777 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 18 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Sample Summary Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-133703-1 Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received 810-133703-1 Dry Bridge Test Well Water 01/08/25 12:45 01/09/25 09:45 810-133703-2 Noffsinger Test Well Water 01/08/25 13:30 01/09/25 09:45 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South BendPage 19 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page 20 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page 21 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: City of Kalispell Job Number: 810-133703-1 Login Number: 133703 Question Answer Comment Creator: Moffitt, Heather List Source: Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend List Number: 1 TrueThe cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. TrueSample custody seals, if present, are intact. TrueSamples were received on ice. TrueCooler Temperature is acceptable. TrueCooler Temperature is recorded. TrueCOC is present. TrueCOC is filled out in ink and legible. TrueCOC is filled out with all pertinent information. TrueThere are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. TrueSamples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate HTs) TrueSample containers have legible labels. TrueContainers are not broken or leaking. TrueSample collection date/times are provided. TrueThere is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested MS/MSDs TrueContainers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is <6mm (1/4"). TrueSamples do not require splitting or compositing. TrueContainer provided by EEA Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 22 of 22 1/14/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ANALYTICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR Attn: City of Kalispell Public Works City of Kalispell 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59903 Generated 1/1/2025 10:13:14 PM JOB DESCRIPTION Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 JOB NUMBER 810-132203-1 See page two for job notes and contact information. South Bend IN 46617 110 S Hill Street Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Eurofins Eaton South Bend is a laboratory within Eurofins Eaton Analytical, LLC, a company within Eurofins Environment Testing Group of Companies Job Notes This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. The results relate only to the samples tested. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this page. The test results in this report relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory and will meet all requirements of the methodology, with any exceptions noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the express written approval of the laboratory. All questions should be directed to the Eurofins Eaton Analytical, LLC Project Manager. Authorization Generated 1/1/2025 10:13:14 PM Authorized for release by Miriam Venanzio, Project Manager Miriam.Venanzio@et.eurofinsus.com (574)233-4777 Page 2 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Table of Contents Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Laboratory Job ID: 810-132203-1 Page 3 of 20 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend1/1/2025 Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Definitions/Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Case Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Detection Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Surrogate Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 QC Association Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Lab Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Chain of Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Receipt Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Definitions/Glossary Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Qualifiers LCMS Qualifier Description J Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value. Qualifier S1-Surrogate recovery exceeds control limits, low biased. Glossary These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report. ☼Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis Abbreviation %R Percent Recovery CFL Contains Free Liquid CFU Colony Forming Unit CNF Contains No Free Liquid DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference) Dil Fac Dilution Factor DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE) DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re-analysis, Re-extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry) EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin) LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE) LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE) MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level" MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry) MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry) MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level (Dioxin) MPN Most Probable Number MQL Method Quantitation Limit NC Not Calculated ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown) NEG Negative / Absent POS Positive / Present PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PRES Presumptive QC Quality Control RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry) RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry) RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin) TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin) TNTC Too Numerous To Count Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 4 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Job Narrative810-132203-1 Analytical test results meet all requirements of the associated regulatory program listed on the Accreditation/Certification SummaryPageunlessotherwisenotedundertheindividualanalysis.Data qualifiers and/or narrative comments are included to explain any exceptions,if applicable. ·Matrix QC may not be reported if insufficient sample is provided or site-specific QC samples were not submitted.In these situations,to demonstrate precision and accuracy at a batch level,a LCS/LCSD may be performed,unless otherwise specified in the method.·Surrogate and/or isotope dilution analyte recoveries (if applicable)which are outside of the QC window are confirmed unless attributed to a dilution or otherwise noted in the narrative. Regulated compliance samples (e.g.SDWA,NPDES)must comply with the associated agency requirements/permits. Receipt The samples were received on 12/19/2024 9:45 AM.Unless otherwise noted below,the samples arrived in good condition,and, where required,properly preserved and on ice.The temperature of the cooler at receipt time was 0.4°C. PFASMethod 537.1_DW_PREC:Surrogate recovery for sample Spring CK Test Well (810-132203-1)was outside of method 537.1 acceptance limits.d5-NEtFOSAA was recovered at 51%.Limits 70-130%.Sample could not be re-extracted due to no remaining volume. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted,other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Case Narrative Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-132203-1 Project: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Job ID: 810-132203-1 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 5 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Detection Summary Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Client Sample ID: Spring CK Test Well Lab Sample ID: 810-132203-1 No Detections. Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results. Page 6 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Client Sample Results Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Lab Sample ID: 810-132203-1Client Sample ID: Spring CK Test Well Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 12/18/24 13:30 Date Received: 12/19/24 09:45 Method: EPA 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) RL MDL <1.9 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnitDResultQualifier Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoa cetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoac etic acid (NEtFOSAA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.9Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.99-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonan e-1-sulfonic acid 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.911-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecan e-1-sulfonic acid 1.9 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1<1.94,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 13C2 PFHxA 102 70-130 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifierLimits%Recovery 13C2 PFDA 86 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 170-130 13C3 HFPO-DA 100 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 170-130 d5-NEtFOSAA 51 S1-12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:58 170-130 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 7 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Surrogate Summary Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) Prep Type: Total/NAMatrix: Water Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID (70-130)(70-130)(70-130)(70-130) PFHxA PFDA HFPODA d5NEFOS 102 86 100 51 S1-810-132203-1 Percent Surrogate Recovery (Acceptance Limits) Spring CK Test Well 104 99 101 80810-132203-1 MS Spring CK Test Well 96 97 95 92LCS 810-127859/3-A Lab Control Sample 98 100 92 102LLCS 810-127859/2-A Lab Control Sample 98 98 92 95MBL 810-127859/1-A Method Blank Surrogate Legend PFHxA = 13C2 PFHxA PFDA = 13C2 PFDA HFPODA = 13C3 HFPO-DA d5NEFOS = d5-NEtFOSAA Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 8 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: MBL 810-127859/1-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Prep Batch: 127859 RL MDL Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)<0.53 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1 MBL MBL Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedDUnitResultQualifier <0.63 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) <0.63 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) <0.63 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) <0.50 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) <0.60 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) <0.44 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) <0.71 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) <0.52 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) <0.48 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) <0.65 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) <0.60 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) <0.62 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1N-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoa cetic acid (NMeFOSAA) <0.65 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoac etic acid (NEtFOSAA) <0.62 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) <0.64 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 19-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonan e-1-sulfonic acid <0.64 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 111-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecan e-1-sulfonic acid <0.49 2.0 ng/L 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 14,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 13C2 PFHxA 98 70-130 12/27/24 21:27 1 MBL MBL Surrogate 12/27/24 04:29 Dil FacPreparedAnalyzedQualifierLimits%Recovery 98 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 113C2 PFDA 70-130 92 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 113C3 HFPO-DA 70-130 95 12/27/24 04:29 12/27/24 21:27 1d5-NEtFOSAA 70-130 Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 810-127859/3-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Prep Batch: 127859 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 200 185 ng/L 92 70 -130 Analyte LCS LCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 200 180 ng/L 90 70 -130 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)200 176 ng/L 88 70 -130 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 200 180 ng/L 90 70 -130 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)200 182 ng/L 91 70 -130 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)200 179 ng/L 90 70 -130 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 200 185 ng/L 93 70 -130 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 200 163 ng/L 82 70 -130 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)200 176 ng/L 88 70 -130 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)200 180 ng/L 90 70 -130 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 9 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 810-127859/3-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Prep Batch: 127859 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 200 174 ng/L 87 70 -130 Analyte LCS LCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 200 170 ng/L 85 70 -130 N-methylperfluorooctanesulfona midoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 200 180 ng/L 90 70 -130 N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonami doacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) 200 174 ng/L 87 70 -130 Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 200 170 ng/L 85 70 -130 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxan onane-1-sulfonic acid 200 182 ng/L 91 70 -130 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaund ecane-1-sulfonic acid 200 171 ng/L 86 70 -130 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 200 177 ng/L 88 70 -130 13C2 PFHxA 70 -130 Surrogate 96 LCS LCS Qualifier Limits%Recovery 9713C2 PFDA 70 -130 9513C3 HFPO-DA 70 -130 92d5-NEtFOSAA 70 -130 Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LLCS 810-127859/2-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Prep Batch: 127859 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 2.00 1.79 J ng/L 90 50 -150 Analyte LLCS LLCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 2.00 1.94 J ng/L 97 50 -150 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)2.00 1.80 J ng/L 90 50 -150 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 2.00 1.96 J ng/L 98 50 -150 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)2.00 1.74 J ng/L 87 50 -150 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)2.00 1.91 J ng/L 95 50 -150 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 2.00 1.70 J ng/L 85 50 -150 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 2.00 1.60 J ng/L 80 50 -150 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)2.00 1.77 J ng/L 88 50 -150 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)2.00 1.88 J ng/L 94 50 -150 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) 2.00 1.82 J ng/L 91 50 -150 Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) 2.00 1.82 J ng/L 91 50 -150 N-methylperfluorooctanesulfona midoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) 2.00 1.69 J ng/L 85 50 -150 N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonami doacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) 2.00 1.90 J ng/L 95 50 -150 Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) 2.00 1.67 J ng/L 83 50 -150 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 10 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LLCS 810-127859/2-A Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Prep Batch: 127859 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxan onane-1-sulfonic acid 2.00 1.73 J ng/L 86 50 -150 Analyte LLCS LLCS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added %Rec Limits 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaund ecane-1-sulfonic acid 2.00 1.67 J ng/L 83 50 -150 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 2.00 1.82 J ng/L 91 50 -150 13C2 PFHxA 70 -130 Surrogate 98 LLCS LLCS Qualifier Limits%Recovery 10013C2 PFDA 70 -130 9213C3 HFPO-DA 70 -130 102d5-NEtFOSAA 70 -130 Client Sample ID: Spring CK Test WellLab Sample ID: 810-132203-1 MS Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Prep Batch: 127859 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) <1.9 95.5 89.9 ng/L 94 70 -130 Analyte MS MS DUnitResultQualifier %Rec Spike Added Sample Result Sample Qualifier %Rec Limits Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) <1.9 95.5 89.7 ng/L 94 70 -130 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)<1.9 95.5 92.6 ng/L 97 70 -130 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) <1.9 95.5 85.7 ng/L 90 70 -130 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)<1.9 95.5 92.3 ng/L 97 70 -130 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)<1.9 95.5 91.3 ng/L 96 70 -130 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) <1.9 95.5 91.6 ng/L 96 70 -130 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) <1.9 95.5 90.8 ng/L 95 70 -130 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)<1.9 95.5 93.5 ng/L 98 70 -130 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)<1.9 95.5 94.1 ng/L 99 70 -130 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) <1.9 95.5 85.0 ng/L 89 70 -130 Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) <1.9 95.5 82.6 ng/L 86 70 -130 N-methylperfluorooctanesulfona midoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) <1.9 95.5 79.2 ng/L 83 70 -130 N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonami doacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) <1.9 95.5 77.0 ng/L 81 70 -130 Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) <1.9 95.5 91.1 ng/L 95 70 -130 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxan onane-1-sulfonic acid <1.9 95.5 89.5 ng/L 94 70 -130 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaund ecane-1-sulfonic acid <1.9 95.5 81.5 ng/L 85 70 -130 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) <1.9 95.5 95.2 ng/L 100 70 -130 13C2 PFHxA 70 -130 Surrogate 104 MS MS Qualifier Limits%Recovery Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 11 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Sample Results Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method: 537.1 - Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS) (Continued) Client Sample ID: Spring CK Test WellLab Sample ID: 810-132203-1 MS Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Prep Batch: 127859 13C2 PFDA 70 -130 Surrogate 99 MS MS Qualifier Limits%Recovery 10113C3 HFPO-DA 70 -130 80d5-NEtFOSAA 70 -130 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 12 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 QC Association Summary Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 LCMS Prep Batch: 127859 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Water 537.1 DW810-132203-1 Spring CK Test Well Total/NA Water 537.1 DWMBL 810-127859/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 537.1 DWLCS 810-127859/3-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 DWLLCS 810-127859/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 DW810-132203-1 MS Spring CK Test Well Total/NA Analysis Batch: 127899 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch Water 537.1 127859810-132203-1 Spring CK Test Well Total/NA Water 537.1 127859MBL 810-127859/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 537.1 127859LCS 810-127859/3-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 127859LLCS 810-127859/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537.1 127859810-132203-1 MS Spring CK Test Well Total/NA Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 13 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lab Chronicle Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-132203-1 Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Client Sample ID: Spring CK Test Well Lab Sample ID: 810-132203-1 Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 12/18/24 13:30 Date Received: 12/19/24 09:45 Prep 537.1 DW DB127859 EA SB Type Batch Batch MethodPrep Type LabAnalystRun Prepared or Analyzed Batch Number Dilution Factor Total/NA 12/27/24 04:29 Analysis 537.1 1 127899 ZK EA SBTotal/NA 12/27/24 21:58 Laboratory References: EA SB = Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend, 110 S Hill Street, South Bend, IN 46617, TEL (574)233-4777 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 14 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Accreditation/Certification Summary Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-132203-1 Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Laboratory: Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report. Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date Montana (DW)State CERT0026 01-01-25 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 15 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Method Summary Job ID: 810-132203-1Client: City of Kalispell Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Method Method Description LaboratoryProtocol EPA537.1 Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (LC/MS)EA SB EPA537.1 DW Extraction of Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids EA SB Protocol References: EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory References: EA SB = Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend, 110 S Hill Street, South Bend, IN 46617, TEL (574)233-4777 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 16 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Sample Summary Client: City of Kalispell Job ID: 810-132203-1 Project/Site: Kalispell PFAS Testing 2024 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received 810-132203-1 Spring CK Test Well Water 12/18/24 13:30 12/19/24 09:45 Eurofins Eaton Analytical South BendPage 17 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page 18 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page 19 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Login Sample Receipt Checklist Client: City of Kalispell Job Number: 810-132203-1 Login Number: 132203 Question Answer Comment Creator: Moore, Gary List Source: Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend List Number: 1 TrueThe cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact. TrueSample custody seals, if present, are intact. TrueSamples were received on ice. TrueCooler Temperature is acceptable. TrueCooler Temperature is recorded. TrueCOC is present. TrueCOC is filled out in ink and legible. TrueCOC is filled out with all pertinent information. TrueThere are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC. TrueSamples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate HTs) TrueSample containers have legible labels. TrueContainers are not broken or leaking. TrueSample collection date/times are provided. TrueThere is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested MS/MSDs TrueContainers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is <6mm (1/4"). TrueSamples do not require splitting or compositing. TrueContainer provided by EEA Eurofins Eaton Analytical South Bend Page 20 of 20 1/1/2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Appendix E – Water Chemistry Samples Grandview Wells Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 City of Kalispell Montana Environmental Laboratory LLC ANALYTICAL REPORT 1170 N. Meridian Rd., P.O. Box 8900, Kalispell, MT 59904-1900 Phone: 406-755-2131 Fax: 406-257-5359 www.melab.us 00259PWS ID: Project:Grandview Well 1&2 - Alkalinity Joe Schrader WL006, RW006 DRINKING WATER 2409189-01Lab ID: Received: Collected:08/30/202408/30/2024Matrix: Client Sample ID: 12:30 13:35 Result Units Method Analyst Analyzed Analyses RL MCL Prepared Alkalinity - Total mg/L BLW09/04/2024SM2320B1215500 15:58 WL007, RW007 DRINKING WATER 2409189-02Lab ID: Received: Collected:08/30/202408/30/2024Matrix: Client Sample ID: 13:00 13:35 Result Units Method Analyst Analyzed Analyses RL MCL Prepared Alkalinity - Total mg/L BLW09/04/2024SM2320B1182500 15:58 MCL = Maximum Contaminant Limit ND = Not Detected RL = Reporting Limit MEL REVIEW: Page 1 of 2 Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 City of Kalispell Montana Environmental Laboratory LLC ANALYTICAL REPORT 1170 N. Meridian Rd., P.O. Box 8900, Kalispell, MT 59904-1900 Phone: 406-755-2131 Fax: 406-257-5359 www.melab.us 00259PWS ID: Project:Grandview Well 1&2 - Alkalinity Joe Schrader MCL = Maximum Contaminant Limit ND = Not Detected RL = Reporting Limit MEL REVIEW: Page 2 of 2 Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 City of Kalispell Montana Environmental Laboratory LLC ANALYTICAL REPORT 1170 N. Meridian Rd., P.O. Box 8900, Kalispell, MT 59904-1900 Phone: 406-755-2131 Fax: 406-257-5359 www.melab.us 00259PWS ID: Project:Grandview Well No 2 Water Quality Joe Schrader Grandview Well No 2 RW DRINKING WATER 2406297-01Lab ID: Received: Collected:06/21/202406/21/2024Matrix: Client Sample ID: 12:55 14:15 Result Units Method Analyst Analyzed Analyses RL MCL Prepared Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L BLW06/24/2024SM2540D13 9:00 Turbidity NTU NB06/21/2024E180.10.051.26 0.4 16:20 MCL = Maximum Contaminant Limit ND = Not Detected RL = Reporting Limit MEL REVIEW: Page 1 of 2 Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 City of Kalispell Montana Environmental Laboratory LLC ANALYTICAL REPORT 1170 N. Meridian Rd., P.O. Box 8900, Kalispell, MT 59904-1900 Phone: 406-755-2131 Fax: 406-257-5359 www.melab.us 00259PWS ID: Project:Grandview Well No 2 Water Quality Joe Schrader MCL = Maximum Contaminant Limit ND = Not Detected RL = Reporting Limit MEL REVIEW: Page 2 of 2 Appendix F – Upper Pressure Zone Cost Estimates Appendix G – Lower Pressure Zone Cost Estimates Appendix H – Record Drawings Noffsinger Springs Appendix I – Water Use Data Appendix J – Temporary Treatment EXHIBIT A: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM EXHIBIT B: FOUNDATION DESIGN DRAWINGS DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . D A T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY RPA Copyright ãRobert Peccia& Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . N. L E V A N G B. K O E N I G , P . E . JU L Y 2 0 2 4 SI T E P L A N CO N C R E T E S L A B GR A N D V I E W # 2 1 OF 3 DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . D A T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY RPA Copyright ãRobert Peccia& Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . N. L E V A N G B. K O E N I G , P . E . JU L Y 2 0 2 4 SE C T I O N V I E W S CO N C R E T E S L A B GR A N D V I E W # 2 2 OF 3 DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . D A T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY RPA Copyright ãRobert Peccia& Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . N. L E V A N G B. K O E N I G , P . E . JU L Y 2 0 2 4 DE T A I L S CO N C R E T E S L A B GR A N D V I E W # 2 3 OF 3 EXHIBIT C: TREATMENT SKIDS AND PIPING LAYOUT DRAWINGS DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . D A T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY RPA Copyright ãRobert Peccia& Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . N. L E V A N G B. K O E N I G , P . E . JU L Y 2 0 2 4 ME C H A N I C A L P L A N GR A N D V I E W # 2 M-1MECHANICAL PLAN 1 OF 3 DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . D A T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY RPA Copyright ãRobert Peccia& Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . N. L E V A N G B. K O E N I G , P . E . JU L Y 2 0 2 4 PI P E S E C T I O N S GR A N D V I E W # 2 SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION M-2 2 OF 3 NOTES: DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y CH E C K E D B Y DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FIL E SHEET PR O J E C T T I T L E SH E E T T I T L E AP P R . D A T E RE V I S I O N SY M BY RPA Copyright ãRobert Peccia& Associates 2024 24 7 0 3 N. L E V A N G , P . E . N. L E V A N G B. K O E N I G , P . E . JU L Y 2 0 2 4 PI P E S E C T I O N S GR A N D V I E W # 2 SECTION SECTION M-3 3 OF 3 PIPE SUPPORT EXHIBIT D: ANION EXHANGE RESIN CUTSHEETS (LEWATIT TP 108 DW) Lewatit® TP 108 DW is a new gel-type strong base anion exchange resin that is highly efficient for the removal of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). The high selectivity of the resin towards PFAS facilitates production of water with PFAS contents close to detection limits from various contaminated sources. PFAS is a family of highly efficient surface-active agents used in various applications such as firefighting foams, water repellent textiles, cook ware, galvanics, and paints. However, when they are not handled and disposed of thoroughly they can leach into the groundwater where they persist as a result of their high chemical stability. Due to their hazardous potential, drinking water limits have been set very strictly. Recently, the US states of Michigan and New York reduced the perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) limit in drinking water to 6 ppt. Standard technologies such as activated carbon usu- ally cannot comply with the low effluent limits for short-chain PFAS that represent the biggest challenge in remediation. On the other hand, Reverse Osmosis, an alternative technol- ogy for PFAS removal, generates large amounts of aqueous concentrates that have to be handled. Therefore, LANXESS has developed a new type of selective ion exchange resin (IER) that reduces PFAS reliably below the drinking water limits and which can safely be disposed after use. QUALITY DETOXIFIES. Efficient removal of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances from potable water with Lewatit® TP 108 DW Applications Benefits High PFAS selectivity provides up to two-times longer cycle time than conventional ion exchange resins and up to ten-times longer than activated carbon (AC) Long resin lifetime provides savings on capital invest- ment costs High capacity up to 100 g/l even in presence of back- ground constituents such as chloride and sulfate Legal requirements regarding discharge limits are ful- filled in a reliable and cost-efficient manner Lewatit® TP 108 DW is in compliance with the “NSF/ ANSI / CAN Standard 61” for health-related implications of drinking water system components and certified by the Water Quality Association (WQA). For more information please visit www.wqa.org 11 0 4 8 - E N | 1 0 / 2 0 2 1 We will be happy to support your business. Please contact us for additional information: visit www.lewatit.com Health and Safety Information: Appropriate literature has been assembled which provides information concerning the health and safety precautions that must be observed when handling the LANXESS products mentioned in this publication. For materials mentioned which are not LANXESS products, appropriate industrial hygiene and other safety precautions recommended by their manufacturers should be followed. Before working with any of these products, you must read and become familiar with the available information on their hazards, proper use and handling. This cannot be overemphasized. Information is available in several forms, e.g., material safety data sheets, product information and product labels. Consult your LANXESS representative in Germany or contact the Regulatory Affairs and Product Safety Department of LANXESS Deutschland GmbH or – for business in the USA – the LANXESS Corporation Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs Department in Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Regulatory Compliance Information: Some of the end uses of the products described in this publication must comply with applicable regulations, such as the FDA, BfR, NSF, USDA, and CPSC. If you have any questions on the regulatory status of these products, contact – for business in the USA- , the LANXESS Corporation Regulatory Affairs and Product Safety Department in Pittsburgh, PA, USA or for business outside US the Regulatory Affairs and Product Safety Department of LANXESS Deutschland GmbH in Germany. The manner in which you use and the purpose to which you put and utilize our products, technical assistance and information (whether verbal, written or by way of production evaluations), including any suggested formulations and recom-mendations are beyond our control. Therefore, it is imperative that you test our products, technical assistance and information to determine to your own satisfaction whether they are suitable for your intended uses and applications. This application-specific analysis must at least include testing to determine suitability from a technical as well as health, safety, and environmental standpoint. Such testing has not necessarily been done by us. Unless we otherwise agree in writing, all products are sold strictly pursuant to the terms of our standard conditions of sale. All information and technical assistance is given without warranty or guarantee and is subject to change without notice. It is expressly understood and agreed that you assume and hereby expressly release us from all liability, in tort, contract or otherwise, incurred in connection with the use of our products, technical assistance, and information. Any statement or recommendation not contained herein is unauthorized and shall not bind us. Nothing herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with patents covering any material or its use. No license is implied or in fact granted under the claims of any patent. ©2021 LANXESS. Lewatit, LANXESS and the LANXESS Logo are trademarks of LANXESS Deutschland GmbH or its affiliates. All trademarks are registered in many countries in the world. Cost comparison The excellent performance of Lewatit® TP 108 DW leads to a substantial benefit when it comes to a cost compari- son of different PFAS treatment technologies. Due to the lower selectivity towards PFAS, AC breaks through already five times earlier than Lewatit® IER. As a result, custom- ers need to replace the Lewatit® ion exchange resin less frequently and achieve savings in investment costs. For the PFHpA case a cost calculation was performed for a plant operation time of 5 years. By using LANXESS technology for PFHpA removal, only 42% of the cost compared to AC needs to be spent. Competitive resin technology requires 59% of the cost, while the cost of AC was normalized to 100%. (Figure 2). In total, Lewatit® TP 108 DW offers 58% cost savings compared to the traditional AC technology and 29% cost savings versus other available resins from the competition. Figure 2: Cost calculation for PFHpA removal using Lewatit® TP 108 DW, competitor ion exchange resin, and activated carbon. The case is calculated for a traditionally sized PFAS removal plant in Australia, with an operation time of 5 years. Equipment costs (orange), cost of filter medium (black), and disposal costs (red) are considered. Disposal Material (initial filling & refill) Equipment 100 80 60 40 20 0 Activated carbon Competitive IER Lewatit® TP 108 DW Co s t s i n % No r m a l i z e d t o A C c o s t s 32 228 69 23 23 16 4 59 100 4 42 –58% –29% Groundwater purification In order to face this challenge, LANXESS has developed the novel ion exchange resin Lewatit® TP 108 DW, which has a very high selectivity towards different PFAS types (Figure 1). It was tested within a pilot in a column break- through test in which the PFAS effluent concentration was monitored until observation of the breakthrough of PFAS. Lewatit® TP 108 DW can be operated 45% longer than the competitive resin in case of perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA removal. Remarkably, Lewatit® TP 108 DW is still running at the detection limit in cases of PFOA removal, while the competitor’s resin already broke through earlier. Even more pronounced is the cycle time difference in case of PFNA re- moval. In this application, Lewatit® TP 108 DW can be used twice as long as the resin from the competition. Figure 1: Breakthrough curves depicting the concentration of perfluoro-heptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorono-nanoic acid (PFNA) in the effluent of the ion exchange column in depen-dence on the treated water volume. Competitor resin PFOA Competitor resin PFHpA Competitor resin PFNA 80 60 40 20 0 0 20‘40‘60‘80‘100‘120‘140‘ Bed volumes of treatment Lewatit® TP 108 DW PFOA Lewatit® TP 108 DW PFHpA Lewatit® TP 108 DW PFNA Feed composition Specific flow = 20 BV/h [PFHpA] = 25 ppt [PFOA] = 18 ppt [PFNA] = 40 ppt LANXESS Deutschland GmbH Liquid Purification Technologies Kennedyplatz 1 50569 Cologne, Germany Phone: +49-221-888-50 lewatit@lanxess.com 1/5 This document contains important information and must be read in its entirety. Edition: 2021-10-22 Previous Edition: 2021-09-28 Lewatit® TP 108 DW is a gel-type polystyrene-based strong base anion exchange resin with a heterodisperse particle size distribution. In comparison with conventional strong base anion exchange resins its modified functional group facilitates a very selective uptake of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) from industrial and potable water with a high background of chloride and sulphate. Thus Lewatit® TP 108 DW is particularly applicable for the removal of short and long chain PFAS to very low levels, including PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFBS and PFBA. In case Lewatit® TP 108 DW is used for potable water treatment a special start-up procedure has to be applied which is available upon request. Country specific potable water approval certificates can be received as manufacture's declaration. The special properties of this product can only be fully utilized if the technology and process used correspond to the current state-of-the-art. Further advice in this matter can be obtained from Lanxess Corporation. PRODUCT INFORMATION LEWATIT® TP 108 DW 2/5 This document contains important information and must be read in its entirety. Edition: 2021-10-22 Previous Edition: 2021-09-28 Common Description Delivery form Cl- Functional group quarternary ammonium Matrix styrenic Structure gel Appearance white, opaque Specified Data Uniformity coefficient max.1.7 Effective size d10 mm 0.46-0.61 Fines less than 0.315 mm max. vol %1 Total capacity (delivery form) min. eq/L 0.7 PRODUCT INFORMATION LEWATIT® TP 108 DW 3/5 This document contains important information and must be read in its entirety. Edition: 2021-10-22 Previous Edition: 2021-09-28 Typical Physical and Chemical Properties Metric Units Bulk density for shipment (+/- 5%) g/L 690 Water retention (delivery form) approx. weight %33-43 Stability pH range 0-14 Stability temperature range °C 1-80 Storage time (after delivery) max. years 2 Storability temperature range °C -20 - +40 Operation Metric Units Operating temperature max. °C 80 Bed depth for single column min. mm 800 Max. pressure loss during operation kPa 250 Freeboard during backwash min. vol. %80-100 PRODUCT INFORMATION LEWATIT® TP 108 DW 4/5 This document contains important information and must be read in its entirety. Edition: 2021-10-22 Previous Edition: 2021-09-28 Additional Information & Regulations PRODUCT SAFETY INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR SAFE USE OF PRODUCTS MENTIONED HEREIN IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT. BEFORE HANDLING ANY PRODUCT, ALWAYS READ PRODUCT AND SAFETY DATA SHEETS AND CONTAINER LABELS FOR SAFE USE, PHYSICAL AND HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION. Safety precautions Strong oxidants, e.g. nitric acid, can cause violent reactions if they come into contact with ion exchange resins. Disposal In the European Community Ion exchange resins have to be disposed, according to the European waste nomenclature which can be accessed on the internet-site of the European Union. Packaging The experience has shown that the packaging stability for reliable resin containment is limited to 24 months under the storage conditions described within the product safety information. It is therefore recommended to use the product within this time frame; otherwise the packaging condition should be checked regularly. PRODUCT INFORMATION LEWATIT® TP 108 DW 5/5 The manner in which you use and the purpose to which you put and utilize our products, technical assistance and information (whether verbal, written or by way of production evaluations), including any suggested formulations and recommendations are beyond our control. Therefore, it is imperative that you test our products, technical assistance and information to determine to your own satisfaction whether they are suitable for your intended uses and application. This application-specific analysis must at least include testing to determine suitability from a technical as well as health, safety, and environmental standpoint. Such testing has not necessarily been done by us. Unless we otherwise agree in writing, all products are sold strictly pursuant to the terms of our standard conditions of sale. All information and technical assistance is given without warranty or guarantee and is subject to change with notice. It is expressly understood and agreed that you assume and hereby expressly release us from liability, in tort, contract or otherwise, incurred in connection with the use of our products, technical assistance, and information. Any statement or recommendation not contained herein is unauthorized and shall not bind us. Nothing herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with patents covering any material or its use. No license is implied or in fact granted under the claims of any patent. Health and Safety Information: Appropriate literature has been assembled which provides information concerning the health and safety precautions that must be observed when handling the LANXESS Corporation products mentioned in this publication. For materials mentioned which are not LANXESS Corporation products, appropriate industrial hygiene and other safety precautions recommended by their manufacturers should be followed. Before working with any of these products, you must read and become familiar with the available information on their hazards, proper use, and handling. This cannot be overemphasized. Information is available in several forms, e.g., safety data sheets and product labels. Consult your LANXESS Corporation representative or contact the Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs Department at LANXESS Corporation Regulatory Compliance Information: Some of the end uses of the products described in this publication must comply with applicable regulations, such as the FDA, BfR, NSF, USDA, and CPSC. If you have any questions on the regulatory status of these products, contact - for business in the USA - the LANXESS Corporation Regulatory Affairs and Product Safety Department in Pittsburgh, PA, USA or for business outside US the Regulatory Affairs and Product Safety Department of LANXESS Deutschland GmbH in Germany. Note: The information contained in this publication is current as of the date of edition. Please contact LANXESS Corporation Inc. to determine if this publication has been revised. This document contains important information and must be read in its entirety. Edition: 2021-10-22 Previous Edition: 2021-09-28 LANXESS Corporation 111 RIDC Park West Dr 12275-1112 Pittsburgh-Allegheny USA +1-800-678-0020 lewatit@lanxess.com www.lanxess.com www.lpt.lanxess.com PRODUCT INFORMATION LEWATIT® TP 108 DW EXHIBIT E: WATER SURPLUS SKID DRAWING EXHIBIT F: EFFLUENT STRAINER EXHIBIT G: BAG FILTER DRAWING 3 2 DATE: DRAWING NO: APPROVED BY: REV DRAWN BY:TITLE: OF SIZE:SHEET: D 8 A B C D 7 6 5 4 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D SCALE: REV BYDESCRIPTIONDATE CUSTOMER: PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL This drawing and the information contained in it are the sole property of Surplus Management, Inc. Any reproduction in part or as a whole with-out the written permission of Surplus Management, Inc. is prohibited. 1 726 BEACON STREET LOVES PARK, IL 61111 WWW.WATERSURPLUS.COM P: (800) 919-0888 F: (815) 636-8844 FABRICATION & ASSEMBLY DETAILS PFAS QUAD BAG FILTER SKID WATERSURPLUS LOVES PARK, IL SMJ SMJ 7-24-23 NONE 1110027343-DTL 1 REVISED HEADER PIPES TO ADD FLANGED ENDS TO BOTH ENDS OF EACH HEADER1 7-27-23 SMJ EXHIBIT H: EXISTING PUMP CURVES Performance Curve Product Name:VIS - Submersible Vertical Turbine(Borehole) Pumps Product Id:VIS Quote Number 9001-240627-022 Curve & hydraulic data presented is nominal performance based on ANSI/HI 14.6 acceptance grade 1B. Design values are guaranteed within the following tolerances: Flow ± 5%, Head ± 3%, and optionally either Power + 4% or Efficiency - 3% at manufacturer’s discretion. Series VIS Max Power on Design Curve 154.00 Hp Size 9THC Flow at BEP 1,536 USgpm Additional Size -Head at BEP 319 ft Speed 3,460 RPM NPSH Required 27.6 ft Number of Stages 3 Specified NPSH Avail.33.17 ft Frequency 60 Hz Specified NPSH Avail. Margin 1.1 Impeller Trim 5.9375 in Min Flow 384 USgpm Additional Impeller -Shut Off Head 493 ft Specified Flow 1,300 USgpm Shut Off Power 113 Hp Specified Head 355 ft Shut Off Disc Pressure 213 psi Flow at Design 1,300 USgpm Fluid Type Water Head at Design 362 ft Water Temperature 68 °F Run Out Flow 1,887 USgpm Allowable Sphere Size 0.78 in Run Out Head 228 ft Exact Bowl Diameter 9.25 in Run Out Power 146 Hp Thrust K Factor 9 lb/ft Run Out Efficiency 74.8 %Add Thrust K Factor 9 lb/ft Run Out NPSHr 47.6 ft Max Lateral 0.75 in Efficiency at Design 79.00 %Total Flow Derate Factor 1 Best Efficiency 80.7 %Total Head Derate Factor 1 Driver Size 200 Hp Total Efficiency Derate Factor 1 Power at Design 151 Hp Total NPSHr Derate Factor 1 Flow on Design Trim @ Max Power 1,536 USgpm Acceptance Grade 1B Service Factor No Performance Curve Product Name:DWT - Deep Well Lineshaft Turbine Product Id:DWT Quote Number 9001-240627-022 Curve & hydraulic data presented is nominal performance based on ANSI/HI 14.6 acceptance grade 2B. Design values are guaranteed within the following tolerances: Flow ± 8%, Head ± 5%, and optionally either Power + 8% or Efficiency - 5% at manufacturer’s discretion. Series DWT Max Power on Design Curve 103.00 Hp Size 10RJHC Flow at BEP 626 USgpm Additional Size -Head at BEP 443 ft Speed 1,770 RPM NPSH Required 15.8 ft Number of Stages 11 Specified NPSH Avail.33.17 ft Frequency 60 Hz Specified NPSH Avail. Margin 1.1 Impeller Trim 6.3125 in Min Flow 157 USgpm Additional Impeller -Shut Off Head 557 ft Specified Flow 760 USgpm Shut Off Power 54.9 Hp Specified Head 385 ft Shut Off Disc Pressure 241 psi Flow at Design 760 USgpm Fluid Type Water Head at Design 382 ft Water Temperature 68 °F Run Out Flow 857 USgpm Allowable Sphere Size 0.75 in Run Out Head 321 ft Exact Bowl Diameter 9.5 in Run Out Power 103 Hp Thrust K Factor 7 lb/ft Run Out Efficiency 67.3 %Add Thrust K Factor 7 lb/ft Run Out NPSHr 19.7 ft Max Lateral 0.75 in Efficiency at Design 73.60 %Total Flow Derate Factor 1 Best Efficiency 76.5 %Total Head Derate Factor 1 Driver Size 125 Hp Total Efficiency Derate Factor 1 Power at Design 100 Hp Total NPSHr Derate Factor 1 Flow on Design Trim @ Max Power 857 USgpm Acceptance Grade 2B Service Factor No