Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o : .; 5 3 8 <br /> <br />ADDITIONAL DESALTING PLANT MODIFICATIONS <br />Additional modifications to the existing Desalting Plant features <br />include: <br /> <br />Replacing portions of theSCR influent pipe with larger <br />pipe to provide needed flexibility in delivering colorado <br />River water to the SCR's. <br /> <br />Providing gates in the filter inlet and effluent channel to <br />allow transition in source of supply to the City and to <br />allow parallel and isolated treatment of'wate~ sources. <br /> <br />Adding lime and chlorine feed equipment for post-treatment <br />of the desalted water prior to entering the product <br />clearwell. <br /> <br />Installing a water sampling and flow metering facility at <br />the clearwell to monitor water quality and quantity. <br /> <br />Adding pre-chlorination facilities for disinfection prior to <br />treatment of the Colorado River source. <br /> <br />...... <br /> <br />storage Adjustment <br />In examining the alternative combinations of Reclamation and city <br />~~atures (that are identified on the following page) it was <br />recognized that the storage being provided in the combinations <br />was not consistent. The Base city Plan provided for a total of <br />22.5 Mgals of storage. Existing storage includes a <br />0.5 Mgal clearwell at the Main street Plant, two 3 Mgal storage <br />tanks, and a 1.5 Mgal elevated tank. Under the Initial Expansion <br />1.5 Mgal of clearwell storage and a 3 Mgal storage tank would be <br />added to the Main street Plant. <br /> <br />However a dis-proportionate share of the storage (10 Mgal) was <br />planned with Phase I of the East Mesa addition while storage of <br />25 percent of the ultimate daily capacity was added to all <br />Desalting Plant options. As features were combined the total <br />storage would change to more or less than the storage of the Base <br />city Plan. Since storage was a significant cost item, a storage <br />adjustment cost was included with Reclamation costs. <br /> <br />Alternate 1 did not require a storage adjustment. Costs in <br />Alternate 2 increased by $1.5 Million to reflect an additional <br />3 Mgals of City storage. Costs in Alternate 4 were' reduced by <br />1 Million to reflect a reduction of 1.65 Mgals of storage at the <br />Desalting Plant. As combined, Alternate 3 has 27.5 Mgal of <br />storage. However, there appeared to be no reasonable way to make <br />an adjustment. <br /> <br />22 <br />