The Yuma Desalting Plant

Desalination, 30(1979)1S+21 QELwvier9ckMicpUb~ Company, Amstefilam-I%ntedinTheNethe&mds

TRE YUMA DESALTING PLANT MANUELLOPEZ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

(Retired)

ABSTRACT

The 96 million

gallon

per

day

desalting plant is part of a complex pro-

Yuma

ject intended to solve = long-standing water quality problem between the United States and Mexico, irriqation tain

return

a 115 mg/l

Designed to treat flows,

the

plaut

differential

up to

will

betwaen

129,000

deliver

water

acre-feet

283 cg/l

of

3200

product

mg/l

water

to main-

to U. S. users and to

delivered

Mexico. Design

of

the

pretreatnent and

plant

requirements,

instrumentation

lime

softening

Nine

menbrane

Two

spiral

physical

1979

of

with

by au extensive

membraue

perfo-ce, Tut

performance.

systems

(both

reverse

economic

the

pretreatment

for a-d

osmosis

and of

Sumner

osmosis

systems and

the main of

and

were

and

were

chosen

for

as most site

installation

equipment

tested. the

Partial

final

were

from

and

for award of desalting

design.

tested.

efficient

preparation

is scheduled

to detellnine

aud

electrodialysis)

for

basin

plant

was

Program

capacity

systems

chosen

contracts

sedimentation

research

plant

filtration

reverse

viewpoint,

intakes

construction

scheduled

preceded

followedbymulti-media

muud

and

ruction

was

const-

summer equipment

1980_

Based on January 1979 prices, total cost of the desalting conplex is approximately $190 million cost

per

daily

of desalted

gallon

water

(including interest of

(capital

installed

during

capacity

amortization

plus

construction).

is approximately operation

and

The

investment

$2_ per maintenance)

1000

gallons

is $C3.77.

INTRcWCZTION The

1944

United

States-Mexico treaty for the utilization of water of the 15

LOPEZ

16 Colorado annual most

Tijuana

quantity streams

iorate was of

and

of

that

as the

about

are

used

800 mg/l

the Wellton-Mohawk availability

1500

District

of excess Mexico

formally

measures

to improve

the

mesaures

were

undertook The

not

to find

culmination

Water

Commission.

which

for

imately

the

of Norelos million at

totally

Purposes

Dam

(ppm)

of

242

over

of

annual

and

the

which

Like

quality

deter-

quality

of the

increased

from

the

an annual

saline

began

and 242

several

treaty

water

salinity

average

drainage

at the

same

average

and

the

just of

of

from

time

point

for

United

that

the

to this

problem".

most

of Colorado

Boundary

and

significant that

annually

of no more

These in 1972

it provided

irrigators

interim

States

International

delivered

salinity

of

to Mexico.

soiution

the

is that

salinity

a series

available

provisions,

water

average

followed

made

to Mexico

Minute

Dam (the last diversion

Imperial

water

discussion

an annual

the

the

was had

1961,

River

there

definitive

this

acre-feet have

and

acceptable

effort

quantity

River-

to an end.

of

a "permanent,

both

a guaranteed

Colorado

of highly

Colorado

protested

Minute

1,360,OOO

came

quality

of that

the

the

to Mexico

discharge

to Mexico

from

occurred

available

into

allots

Until

events

mq/l:

waters

again,

stream.

two

made

Grande

of water

over

down

waters

Rio

feet

and

Then

to nearly

the

acre

progresses

River

of

over

to Mexico_

Colorado

In 1961

and

l.!iOO.OOQ

river

acceptable the

Rivers

the

of

approx-

to Mexico

upstream

than

115230

River

water

arriving

United

States).

in the

parts

per

IEIPLE~~ENTFJ.TION Several

of the

construction

of works

United

States_

93-320

(PL93-320),

1974.

24,

ing plant of the

the

The

Slough most

or other

the

the

Project, stream

in Mexico, important

for

River

the and factor

Basin

the

plant, plant

necessary

affecting

Salinity

the

water

other

of

funds

by

the

Control

enacted

COLUPleX,

from

of

on

in Public

Act,

including

the Wellton-Mohawk of a bypass drainage

appurtenant size

implementation

is contained

extension and

for

expenditwes

of desalting

of drain

desalting

dependent

expenditures

construction

salinity

are

requiring

these

a pre-treatment

from

242

measures

Colorado

authorizes

to reduce

Gila

of Minute

Authorization

which

reject

Clara

provisions

June a desaltdivision

drain

waters

Law

to carry

to the

Santa

works. the

desalting

plant

(therefore

17

LOPEZ

it's

cost)

is the

also

authorizes

acquisition

that

implementing

the

area

by

Colorado

desalting

PL93-320

River.

plant

STUDIES

would

to the

a series

data_

studies

These

ing,

optimization

more

important 1.

it was be

flows

through

division,

return

preliminary

flows.

fran

75,000

improvement

acres

program

and studies

to 65,000

acres

in cooperation

with

Using

projecting

future

estimated

that

70% recovery for the desalting

the

salinities

of

a 100 million

the

gallon

drain per

water

day

and

(mgd)

required.

studies

Desalting

of

the

were

process

available

studies

desalting

plant

and

undertaken

to provide

selection,

o_perating

equipment,

and

definitive

the need desQn

for

and

procurement

experience,

size

high

field

test-

requirements.

The

were:

process

selection.

distillation,

of advance

reduced

of

size

included

of

including

use

All

major

crystallization,

technology

commercially

desalting

and

processes

ionic.

available,

Since

the

list

were

PL93-320

considrequired

of process

were

to: Distillation-multi-effect.

a) and

vapor

multi-stage

flash,

vertical

tube

evapor-

compression. Ionic-ion

b) though

return

therefore

Wellton-Mohawk

division

efficiency

and

unprecedented

reliability,

ation

of the

of the

PL93-320

irrigation

to minimize

size

treated.

UNDERTAKBN

Due

the

size

of

175,000 acre-feet per year.

plant required

ered,

the

an irrigation

to be

farmers could reduce the drainage from 220,000 acre-feet per ye&r to

approximately

the

the

water

quantities

improvements

reducing

and

of the

to reduce

efficiency

indicated

of drainage

reduction

of lands

irrigation

of

amount

economic

and

exchange,

physical

electrodialysis

evaluation,

and

reverse

electrodialysis

and

osmosis. reverse

Based osmosis

on were

selected_

Membrane Plant

2. ing plants, design. designers ing

ranging

operation

in size and

in avoiding

criteria_

Operating from

Experience. 2,500

maintenance_ problems

and

The

gal/d

Eleven to 2.0

purpose

selecting

Mgal/d

of the

proper

commercial were

analysis

material,

membrane analyzed was

desaltregarding

to assist

equipment

and

the operat-

LOPEZ

18

meet

sizing

Plant

3.

unpredictable

Wellton-Mohawk

drainage

the desaltinq

ditions

and was

feet.

levels

undertaken

It was

treat

167,000

ditionssome

four

of

the

85%

15% of

would

the

have

time

the

quality of

the

drainage

entire

based

on

been

systems

would

replaced

with

By

the

waters

construc-

time

this acre

be adequate

to

hydrloqic

con-

at capacity from

con-

to 167,000

future

operate

and

hydrologic

would

the postulated

to

River

was

reduced

which

life

Colorado

flows.

plant

plant

its

of possible

had

a 96 mgd

and

of both

drainage

desalting

to be bypassed

throughout

13 sequences

for

probable

the

time,

and

model

to procure

of

required

Wellton-Mohawk

estimated

acre-feet

be

quantity

operated

annual

decided

will

A complete

was

therefore

About

drainage

in the

flows. plant

plant

The

variations

ted and

study

study_

the

and

Colorado

River.

4.

Field

wst

Facility

ment

suppliers

Testing-Extensive

since

1974

to provide

with

data

on desalting

Wellton-Mohawk system bids

drainage

parameters.

by the

Several

tested. field

and

pre-treatment

of

testing

and

requirements addition,

more the

membrance

test

been

Bureau

and

faciliate

evaluation

flocculation

were

it could

reliably

less

expensively

testing desalting

2900 was

Roga

2.

Envirogenics

3.

Dupont

4.

Dow

conducted at

test

Universal

Oil

fine

fine

for over the

(spiral

(hollow

(hollow

of

reduced

meet

by

the

earth,

were

threemonths

the pre-treatment

water

the pezmanganate of the

in better

government.

cold-lime

cold-lime

salinity

pre-treatment result

diatomaceous partial

eguip-

on pre-treated

would

Within

than the

desalting

optimize

bids

Desalting

potassium

were

screen

chosen the

for lime

quality

process.

feedwater

from

mq/l.

equipment

Division

1.

process

and

-partial

constructed.

Yuma

operating

of the

and

and

and

developed

filtration.

permanganate

trains

softening

systems

infornntion

that

lime

equipment

the

including

at the

Reclamation

pre-treatment

alum

and

undertaken

of

demonstrated

to approximately

Membrane

would

have

modules

that

potassium

small

process

felt

zeolite,

these,

the

to test

systems,

manganese

Two

softening

mq/l

and

It was

suppliers

permanganate,

tests

wound fiber

fiber

R 0) R 0)

R 0)

four

years.

facility; Products

they

Wine

manufacturers

were:

(spiral

wound

R 0)

tested

In 3200

LOPEZ

The

19

Asahi (sheet

5,

DOW

6.

Ionics

7_

Westinghouse

8.

Aqua

9.

Iiydranautics

(spiral

demonstrated

successful

tests

trodialysis

Chem

units

ing

rejuvenation

E D)

(tubular

R 0)

(sheet

flow

E D) wound

drainage

in May

levels,

design

1978

criteria

after

operation water

and

recovery

elimination

solutions,

and

R 0)

long-term

hexmetaphosphate

units

terminated

path

on pre-treated

sodium

desalting

E D)

(tortuous

minimum and

flow

of

of

provided

rates,

selection

data

and

elec-

on maximum of

materials

All

was

osmosis

evaluation

inadequate

for procurement.

equipment

reverse

testing

and

chemical

formerly on

these

cleanused

units

on were

made.

PROCUREMEXP In the ment The

for

spring the

of

Yuma

1976

the

Desalting

FlPP expressed

the

Request Plant,

desire

for

Proposal

Solicitation

of the

(RFP) No,

Government

for Membrane

DS-7186

to award

Desalting

Negotiated,

a contract

or

was

Equip-

issued.

contracts

which

. include city

at least

to one

capacity

l_ perform

at

75%

of

to state Plant

time 3.

rating

and

4_ to verify portion

20

the

RFP

of

for

rated

usable

was

in the

best

were

proposed

Test

performance

data

to award of

which during

to replace

within

24 hours

the membrane plant

the

entire

the

Government.

any

element

plant

capa-

Minimum

plant

storage contractor

submitted

with

which

does

Offerors

cleaning.

not

were

re-

elements_ was

described,

with

probable

desc-ribed.

Rating-for

included

of

operation

parameters

Performance

Unit-each

interest

required

for

in plant

Element

right

were:

Operation-anticipated

and

the

mgd.

lifetime

degradation

Proof

reserved

performance

variations

Train

curve

cleaning,

was

Warranties-Offerors

2. down

if it was

offeror,

features

but

process,

to be offered

Salient

quired

two

purposes

of equipment

allowances

for degradation

of

and

1 year,

is required his

proposal

for

to

and

removable

a safety

furnish shall

design,

a

by

factor.

a proof

test

unit

be a representative

of the plant5.

Evaluation

Criteria-a

list

of elements

(in descending

order

of

importance)

20

ID?EZ

for

evaluating

brane

each

proposal

characteristics,

was

included_

warranties,

(other

desalting

unit

maintenance,

operation,

6.

Cost

Evaluation-a

complete

was

described

economic

impact

items

be

to

of

by

Glass

4.

Fluid

5.

Hydranautics-spiral

6.

Ionics-tortuous

7.

Permutit/Dow-hollow

three

of Goleta,

proof

ing Test

element

properties

down,

with

time,

etc.

economic

evaluation

of

and

variable

components

as well

equipment, were

mem-

charac-

for

Proposals

the pro-

structures

received

as

and

the

other

from:

D

E

R 0 R 0 Universal

Oil

Products-spiral

wound

RO

R 0

fiber

R 0

of negotiation to award

Award

was

unsuccessful 22.4

Products

tests

Facility_

for

site

In the meantime,

units Final

Mgd

of San

and two

delayed

at

until

$7.2

evaluation,

contracts,

million;

California,

the

both

October, The

offerors.

Diego,

in the

schedule

calls

for award

intakes

and

installation with

and

and

plant

intake

to increase plan

of the

of desalting

received

of the the

project

sedimentation

initial

been

design

legislation

changes

the

have

preparation

several

later,

fine

for

membrane

design,

E D

intentions

of the

Oil

wonnd

process

final and

government

for

spiral

1978,

however,

award

was

to Fluid

for

73-3

wound

revof a

because

to Hydranautics

Systems

Mgd

announced

Division

at

$20.6

million.

at

the Yuma

STATUS

The

tions

its

of

path

California,

Universal

CURRENT

Division

membranes.

by

wound

shut

on perpheral

flow

fiber

15 months

1977,

fixed

part,

of membrane

and

procedure both

in

experience,

start-up

Government_

fine

Systems

and

were.

degradation

offered

(Japan)-sheet

Envirogenics-spiral

osmosis

included

the

3.

approximately

itself),

equipment

DuPont-hollow

protest

of

the

2,

in October, erse

which

furnished

I._ Asahi

After

membrane

testing

teristics

posals

than

These

operation

and the

for

in summer

equipment

are

desalting

is being

contracts

basin

and

plant

tested

is pro&ding

sedimentation appropriation considered site 1979_

is scheduled

in 1982,

being

by

and

Desalt-

solicita-

system

has

been

ceiling

and

to authorize

Congress.

preparation

and

Construction to begin

The

issued.

current

construction of the main

approximately

of plant

a year

COST

DATA

Plant

Data

Installed Product

capacity

95.7

water

90,570 or

Plant

2.95

acre-feet/v 10 gal/F

x 10

costs

Investment

costs

(January

1978

Annual

equivalent

investmen$

Annual

operating,

maintenance,

Total

Unit

Mgd

Cost

annual

Annual

investment

Annual

operating Total

costs costs

annual

(50 yrs.-5

replacements

equivalent

of Desalting

prices)

cost

cost

($190,000,000) S/89.) and

energy

11,430,000

11.580.000 $ 23,OlO.OOO

Water per per

1000 1000

equivalent

gallons gallons

cost

$ 0.38 0.39 s 0.77