Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />On a total .annual oasis 88.8 percent of Eh.e d.issolved solids of the <br />feed water will be removed by the plant. Correspondingly, 80.2 per- <br />cent of the dissolved solids of the Division drainage will be restricted <br />from being returned to the river (582,700 tons of the annual 656,000 <br />tons) . <br /> <br />9. <br /> <br />During normal operation the desalting plant is designed to remove 91.5 <br />percent by volume of the total dissolved solids of the feed water <br />through the combination of pretreatment and the membrane plant. The <br />Act requires a minimum of 90 percent. <br /> <br />10. <br /> <br />The energy requirement of the desalting plant will be 278,700,000 <br />kilowatthours (kWh) with a demand of 37,000 kilowatts (kW), compared <br />to 276,000,000 kWh and 35,000 kW. The total net energy and demand <br />requirements at the source (Navajo Project) are 296,400,000 kWh and <br />46,230 kW, respectively. <br /> <br />Annual costs (operation, maintenance, replacement sinking fund, and <br />energy) are based on the desalting plant operating at design capacity <br />even though it may be operated at reduced production in some years <br />due to less-than-capacity output requirements. <br /> <br />12. Provision for fish and wildlife mitigation features were not adequately <br />included in the Special Report, or in the Act.* An environmental <br />statement (FES 75-57) was developed based on mitiaation conceots and <br />work has progressed cooperatively with Federal, State, and other <br />interests to develop specific details. These will be presented when <br />completed. <br /> <br />11. <br /> <br />*($300,000 was included for fish and wildlife mitigation in the cost <br />estimate for the Coache11a Canal Unit in the Special Report. No costs <br />were included in the cost estimates or the Act. for the Protective and <br />Regulatory Pumping Unit or Desalting Complex Unit.) <br /> <br />3 <br />