WSP07376

• File Number: 8278.100
• Description: Title I - Yuma Desalting Plant
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 8/1/1988
• Author: USDOI/BOR
• Title: Operation and Maintenance Funding for the Yuma Desalting Plant, Draft Special Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

power and there would be shutdowns with a canbined duration of 6 hours per

day. Reject stream requirem;mts would be 55,000 acre-feet annually.

Advantages:

o Saves 70 to 80 percent of power during peak hours.

o Reduces power costs IOOre than either alternative A-lor A-2.

Disadvantages:

In ad::li.tion to the alternatives discussed for alternatives A-l and A-2 it

has the following ad::Iitional disadvantage:
o Nonfinn power interruptions duriIlg peak hours could be IOOre

significant than strictly a peak power interruption.

Status: Until a souroe for reject stream replacarent can be deteonined

this altemative will be "put on hold" since it increases the quant:ity of

water required for reject stream replaClE!!l"ellt.

A4. Install state-of-The-Art Low-pressure Membranes

~}If;
~~

The YDP would use newly developed, low pressure, thin-film c:crlpOsite

rreroranes installed in place of the high-pressure rreroranes now designed

for the plant. These rreroranes would reduce desalting equipnent power

danand by about 40 percent and thereby reduce total YDP power danand by

about 20 percent. The new rnent>ranes would require testing. M::>dification

to the pretreatrrent facility could be required. The estimated annual O&M

costs, including the annualized capital cost of the low-pressure membranes

would be about $25.8 million. Potential savings anticipated would be $1.5

DD<f;:~J;f\,~~ :,~n rr',l
~ ~.\ ::.~~ \. :'~ ::"~1:: ~ ~\j i~'A}\ \

,?" = 0l
.." ?
...~ ;'.. ~. i .

.~.. i~ :~r
',. 'L !

o:?('";
:.J.. .
'E 1_ .:
II '~..3

:....~ ;~;. :J
f\~ \-~ :.J

f' ~n~~
") .. <l \0'
...;' I';..j I '