Exhibit Q:

V

✧

SEP Filtration of Acid Mine Drainage

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP Filtration of Acid Mine Drainage

A cost-effective and efficient processing solution

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Case

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

Overview

Since their development as lab filters

in the early 1960s, polymeric

membranes have grown in the

number of uses at exponential rates.

Membrane architecture and

process design itself has undergone

significant advancement. A unique

membrane filtration system, known

as V

✧

SEP (Vibratory Shear

Enhanced Process), was developed

by New Logic of Emeryville

California. The technology employs

vibrational oscillation of the

membrane surface to improve the

relative throughput per area of

membrane used. This oscillation is

used to prevent colloidal fouling of

the membrane surface.

One unique benefit of the shear

created by vibrational oscillation is

the resiliency of the membrane

system against fouling from

crystallization of mineral salts.

Studies recently conducted have

shown that crystallization occurs out

in the boundary layer of suspended

solids as filtrate is removed and

solubility limits are reached. Once

precipitated, these insoluble mineral

salts become just another

suspended solid and can be easily

washed from the membrane system

with laminar crossflow of the process

feed.

With conventional static or crossflow

filtration subject to colloidal fouling,

mineral scale formation would

severely inhibit performance. As a

result, these membranes have low

tolerance for mineral hardness and

would

require

elaborate

pretreatment and chemical dosing

to inhibit crystal formation using

antiscalants.

Even

with

pretreatment and chemical dosing,

conventional membranes would be

limited in the % recovery of filtrate

that is possible.

It is because of this key limitation

that membranes have not been

used to a great degree in the

processing of Acid Mine Drainage,

until now. New Logic’s V

✧

SEP has

the ability to perform membrane

separations not possible using

conventional membrane systems.

Wastewater treatment systems that

are compact, economical, and

reliable are now possible for the

mining industry.

Mining Regulation

One of the challenges of today’s

mining operations is that heavy

metals which pose a potential

environmental hazard are naturally

occurring elements in the ore that

is removed for processing. For a

typical Copper mine, one ton of

waste rock can contain several

pounds of copper, five ounces of

zinc, three ounces of lead, and two

ounces of arsenic. On average, the

earth’s crust has background levels

of about 2 ppm of arsenic. Limits

currently exist for heavy metals in

industrial wastewater discharge. As

a result of the Clean Water Act, the

EPA is currently developing new

tighter regulations on these metals.

Since the average soil contains 2

ppm of arsenic, almost any water

that has come in contact with soil

and is then discharged to sewer

could violate the new regulations.

Cadmium

Cd

Molybdenum

Mo

Chromium

Cr

Copper

Cu

Lead

Pb

Manganese

Mn

Current EPA Target Limits for Discharge:

Symbol

Monthly Ave.

0.09 ppm

0.49 ppm

0.55 ppm

0.58 ppm

0.09 ppm

0.10 ppm

Regulated Metal

Zinc

Zn

Arsenic

As

Nickel

Ni

Silver

Ag

Tin

Sn

0.17 ppm

0.05 ppm

0.64 ppm

0.06 ppm

1.40 ppm

The EPA is considering new

industrial discharge regulations as

a result of the “Clean Water Act”

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

The mining industry is one of the

most heavily regulated by the EPA.

Mining does nothing at all to

increase the amounts of naturally

occurring substances in the rock.

Ore removed for processing can

contain nearly all of the 650

elements and chemicals regulated

as hazardous waste by the EPA.

Unfortunately, the simple act of

moving it from one place to another

qualifies as a “release to the

environment.”

If you take the parts per million

concentrations of controlled

substances in the waste rock and

multiply them by an average mine’s

daily tonnage of rock mined, the

amounts increase dramatically. A

copper mine’s total “release” of all

TRI reportable chemicals can be

approximately 450 million pounds of

hazardous materials per year. With

the current laws, it makes no

difference whether the materials

are released to the environment or

are stored in government permitted

waste rock repositories and tailing

impoundments. Either way the

movement of the earth must be

reported as a “release to the

environment”

Many mining companies are forced

to clean up historic wastes from

mining in the 19

th

century. Again,

the act of moving this material

constitutes a “release” according to

the EPA’s method of reporting, even

though the historic mining wastes

are being placed in state or

federally-approved impoundments

that are safer for the environment

than if the wastes remained in their

current location.

The problem can be even more

difficult if the mining involves rare

earth metals where Uranium,

Radium, or other radioactive

elements can be found. As long as

the radioactive elements are not

disturbed, there is not classification

as a hazardous material that needs

superfund attention. But if the rock

is moved from one place to another,

a release of radioactive materials

has occurred and must be reported.

Copper Mining Process

Rocks are blasted to break them

into smaller pieces and loaded into

large trucks for transport to the

processing locations. The ore goes

either to concentrating and

smelting or to leaching and

electrowinning. It depends on how

much copper and the types of

minerals it contains.

In one copper production process,

rock that comes from the mine is

crushed into smaller and smaller

pieces by heavy steel balls in

machinery

called

mills.

The Life Cycle of Acid Mine Drainage

Copper Ore from Arizona

Concentrating Ground up rock is

mixed with water, air bubbles and

small amounts of chemicals. The

chemicals allow copper minerals to

rise to the top and stick to floating

air bubbles. The remaining mixture

of crushed rock and water – called

tailing – separates from the copper

bearing bubbles. The copper

minerals are skimmed off and dried

to form copper concentrate, a

powder-like material.

In the smelter, copper concentrate

is melted and copper is separated

from other substances in the

concentrate. Molten copper is

poured into molds called anodes.

The unwanted material cools to a

glass-like substance called slag. The

natural metals that remain in slag

are reported under EPCRA.

Processed Gold Ingot

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

In an alternate copper production

process, rock is taken from the mine

directly to stockpiles. A solution of

slightly acidic water is dripped on

the stockpiles, percolating down

through the rock and dissolving

copper along the way. The solution

containing the copper is collected

and piped to holding ponds. In

tanks, the copper-bearing solution

is mixed with chemicals that transfer

the copper to a more concentrated

solution called electrolyte. The

electrolyte is pumped to steel tanks.

Starter sheets hang in the solution

and, using an electric current, the

copper is plated from the

electrolyte on to the sheet, forming

99.99 percent pure copper plates.

All solutions used during this process

are recycled. Producing copper

and other hard metals also takes a

lot of water, which is why water

management is such a crucial part

of any mine’s operations.

“Electrowinning” - is electroplating

of dissolved copper onto metal

anodes using electrical current

Finished Copper Anodes

ready for transport as sale

Copper Ore being Loaded

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

Vibratory Shear Process

V

✧

SEP’s

unique

separation

technology is based upon an

oscillating movement of the

membrane surface with respect to

the liquid to be filtered. The result is

that blinding of the membrane

surface due to the build up of solids

is eliminated and free access to the

membrane pores is provided to the

liquid fraction to be filtered. The

shear created from the lateral

displacement caused suspended

solids and colloidal materials to be

repelled and held in suspension

above the membrane surface. This

combined with laminar flow of the

fluid across the membrane surface

keeps

the

filtered

liquid

homogeneous and allows very high

levels of recovery of filtrate from the

feed material. In the case of Acid

Mine Drainage, up to 97% of the

water can be filtered in a single pass

filtration using V

✧

SEP. Flux is inversely

related to % recovery, so the

optimum % recovery may vary for

each application. Other methods

like filter presses are done in batch

mode with operators opening and

cleaning the filter cake on a regular

basis. V

✧

SEP is a continuous

automated process requiring very

little operator attendance.

The industrial V

✧

SEP machines

contain many sheets of membrane,

which are arrayed as parallel disks

separated by gaskets. The disk

stack is contained within a Fiberglass

Reinforced Plastic (FRP) cylinder.

This entire assembly is vibrated in

torsional oscillation similar to the

agitation of a washing machine.

The resulting shear is 150,000 inverse

seconds, which is ten times greater

than the shear in crossflow systems.

High shear has been shown to

significantly reduce the fouling of

many materials. The resistance to

fouling can be enhanced with

membrane selection where virtually

any commercially available

membrane materials such as

polypropylene, Teflon, polyester,

and polysulfone can be used.

Each Series i system contains up to

2000 square feet of membrane

filtration area. A single V

✧

SEP unit

is capable of processing from 5 to

200 U.S. gallons per minute while

producing crystal clear filtrate and

a concentrated sludge in a single

pass.

This large throughput

capability can be accomplished

with a system, which occupies only

20 square feet of floor space and

consumes 15 hp.

Conventional vs. V

✧

SEP

The main difference between

V

✧

SEP and traditional crossflow

membrane

filtration

is

the

mechanism by which the foulants

are prevented from accumulating

on the membrane surface. A

traditional crossflow system relies on

Filter Pack Cross Section

An eccentric weight induces a

wobble that resonates at about 50

Hz giving vibration to the Filter

Pack above

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

An illustration showing the shear energy at the membrane surface for

conventional crossflow systems and for V

✧

SEP

the fluid velocity of the feed

material alone to create shear

forces needed to reduce fouling.

This mechanism assists in slowing the

fouling process but because a thin,

stagnant boundary layer remains on

the membrane surface, the foulants

from the stream will accumulate

over time and deteriorate the

throughput rate. On the other

hand, a V

✧

SEP system utilizes a

patented

vibratory

drive

mechanism that vibrates the

membrane surface creating a shear

force that disrupts the boundary

layer. The resulting motion of the

vibration drive is a 3/4 inch peak to

peak

displacement,

which

constantly repels solids and other

foulants away from the membrane

surface. This mechanism enables

the filter module to maintain higher,

sustained throughput rates and

process larger volumes of material

economically. Rather than simply

preventing fouling with high-velocity

feed, V

✧

SEP reduces fouling by

adding shear to the membrane

surface with vibration. This vibration

produces shear waves that

propagate sinusoidally from the

membrane’s surface. As a result, the

stagnant boundary layer is

eliminated which increases the

filtration rates.

Scaling Resilience of V

✧

SEP

Torsional oscillation is a very

effective method of colloid

repulsion as shear waves from the

membrane surface help to repel

oncoming particles. The result is that

suspended solids are held in

suspension hovering above the

membrane as a parallel layer where

they can be washed away by

tangential crossflow. This washing

away process occurs at equilibrium.

Pressure and filtration rate will

determine the thickness and mass

of the suspended layer. Particles of

suspended colloids will be washed

away by crossflow and at the same

time new particles will arrive. The

removal and arrival rate will be

different at first until parody is

reached and a state of equilibrium

is reached with respect to the

boundary layer.

This layer is permeable and is not

attached to the membrane and is

actually suspended above it. In

V

✧

SEP, this layer acts as a

nucleation site for mineral scaling.

Mineral scale that precipitates will

act in just the same way as any

other arriving colloid. If too many

of the scale colloids are formed,

more will be removed to maintain

the equilibrium of the diffusion layer.

Conventional membrane systems

could develop cakes of colloids that

would grow large enough to

completely blind the membrane. In

V

✧

SEP, no matter how many arriving

colloids there are, and equal

number are removed as the

diffusion layer is limited in size due

to the gravitational pull (G forces)

of the vibrating membrane.

Calcium Carbonate Crystals

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

High fluid velocity and shear energy at the membrane surface

inhibits mineral salt crystallization

Tangential Flow Pattern in Crossflow Membrane Systems

Relative

Fluid

Velocity

Open Channel

Bulk Fluid Flow

Permeable

Membrane

Tangential Flow Pattern in Vibratory V✧SEP Membrane Systems

Relative

Fluid

Velocity

Open Channel

Bulk Fluid Flow

Permeable

Membrane

One other significant advantage is

that the vibration and oscillation of

the membrane surface itself inhibits

crystal formation. Just as a stirred

pot won’t boil, lateral displacement

of the membrane help to lower the

available surface energy for

nucleation. Free energy is available

at perturbations and non-uniform

features of liquid/solid interfaces.

With the movement of the

membrane back and forth at a

speed of 50 times per second, any

valleys. Peaks, ridges, or other micro

imperfections become more

uniform and less prominent. The

smoother and more uniform a

surface, the less free energy is

available for crystallization. Crystals

and scale also take time to form.

The moving target of the

membrane surface does not allow

sufficient

time

for

proper

germination and development.

Other stationary features within

V

✧

SEP present a much more

favorable nucleation site. Whereas,

with conventional membranes that

are static, scale formation on the

membrane is possible and has

plenty of time to develop and grow.

Results using V

✧

SEP

V

✧

SEP’s

Reverse

Osmosis

membrane module is capable of

treating Acid Mine Drainage and

providing a filtrate, which is free from

suspended solids and low in Sulfates

and Heavy Metals. The V

✧

SEP

process does not involve any

chemical addition, except for pH

adjustment using Lime, and meets

the process engineers’ needs for

automated

PLC

controlled

production. V

✧

SEP modules

containing about 1300 SF (120m2)

of filtration media are modular and

can be run in parallel as needed to

meet

any

process

flow

requirements.

Each 84" V

✧

SEP module can

produce 20 gpm of clean water

from the leachate pond. Since the

units are modular and can be used

in parallel or in series, the number of

V

✧

SEPs needed can be calculated

based on the amount of material to

be processed, (GPD or GPM). At

40ºC the membrane flux is about 20-

0

2020

4040

6060

8080

100100

1010

1515

2020

2525

3030

3535

4040

% Recovery

GFD (Gallons/SF/Day)

RO Concentration of Copper Mine Leachate

Using VSEP (Vibratory Shear Enhanced Process)

Test Conditions: 450 psi, 40ºC, pH 8.5, Saturated Dissolved Sulfate Slurry

98.5% Recovery

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

30 GFD (Gallons per Square Foot per

Day). System throughput is also a

function of the extent to which the

feed is concentrated.

Process Description

The mining leachate is collected

and stored in holding tanks. Lime is

added to raise the pH and to

precipitate calcium sulfate and

other slightly soluble mineral salts

prior to filtration. After proper

residence time, the Feed Liquor is

pumped into the V

✧

SEP system for

filtration. The viscosity of the material

plays a big part in the rate of

filtration. Heat will help to decrease

the viscosity of the slurry and

therefore improves the throughput

of the V

✧

SEP system. Counter-

current heat exchangers and

recovery boilers are used to warm

the feed material.

The heated leachate is pumped

into the V

✧

SEP Filter Pack at about

450-psi. The contents of the feed

tank are taken out of the side of a

cone bottom tank so that settled

solids are excluded. The resulting

permeate is sent to a process water

storage tank for reuse in the

operations. The reject material,

about 15% of the volume, is sent

back to the leachate pond or on to

evaporation ponds for disposal.

When the permeate rate drops off,

the Filter Pack is cleaned using New

Logic’s formulated membrane

cleaners out of a Clean in Place

tank of about 260 gallons. Cleaning

solution is recirculated with pressure

and vibration to dissolve foulants

that have found their way to the

membrane. Actual site conditions

at various mine locations have

shown that the membrane can be

cleaned easily and the results from

week to week are predictable and

stable.

Process Flow Diagram for a typical V

✧

Table 1: Acid Mine Drainage Sample Analysis

Calcium, Ca

10,000 ppm

2.7

490 ppm

*40ºC, 85% Recovery, 450 psi

pH

3,000 ppm

8.5

600 ppm

TDS

240 ppm

8.5

36 ppm

Manganese, Mn

70 ppm

1,100 ppm

182 ppm

Iron, Fe

70 ppm

0.1 ppm

3.6 ppm

Sodium, Na

6 ppm

<0.1 ppm

<0.1 ppm

Sulphate, SO4

186 ppm

550 ppm

8,000 ppm

Zinc, Zn

<0.1 ppm

<0.1 ppm

2,000 ppm

Copper, Cu

<0.1 ppm

<0.1 ppm

100 ppm

Magnesium, Mg

420 ppm

350 ppm

18 ppm

Untreated

Limed

V

✧

SEP

*

V

✧

SEP

P

Cleaning

Tank

250 Gal.

FM

P

Check Valve

On or Off

P

FM

Throttling

Variable Speed Pump

System Operation:

This process is run almost completely automatically. Miscellaneous recirc lines and instrumentation are not shown for clarity.

Control Valves opening initiates the feed pump at minimum frequency and gradually spins up to set point.

The concentrate valve then throttles to maintain flow. Once pressure reaches 30 psi, vibration initiates.

Once all other functions are operating, the throttling concentrate valve initializes to open and close at preset time intervals.

Shut down reverses all these steps.

Feed Tank

100 Mesh

Prescreen

On or Off

Feed

Permeate

Concentrate

Disposal to Evaporation Pond

Heat Exchanger

Propane

Heat

Boiler

Lime Addition

Blowdown to

Evaporation Pond

On or Off

Clean Water

For Re-use

or Disposal

Mine Pit

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

System Components

The V

✧

SEP system is configurable for

manual mode where the operator

would initiate operating sequences,

or for full automation including

seamless cleaning operations with

round robin cleaning or multiple

units. The V

✧

SEP has a PLC

(Programmable Logic Controller)

which monitors pressure, flow rate,

and frequency. It also provides the

safety in operation by monitoring

conditions and initiating an alarm

shut

down

should

some

configurable parameters be

reached. The control stand contains

the PLC, Operator display and

terminal strips for wiring connections

to instrumentation.

The Filter Pack is mounted on the

V

✧

SEP base unit and contains

about 1300 SF, (120m2), of

membrane area and is constructed

out of high temperature materials.

The V

✧

SEP drive system, which

vibrates the Filter Pack, is

engineered using space age alloys

and materials to withstand the

applied stress from a resonating

frequency of about 50 Hz. Each

base unit is fully stress tested and the

factory prior to shipment. The V

✧

SEP

drive system is made up of the

Seismic Mass, Torsion Spring, Ecentric

Bearing, and Lower Pressure Plate.

Project Economics

The table below shows the

operating costs for the installation of

one V

✧

SEP module as currently

configured. The V

✧

SEP is uniquely

energy efficient. It comes with a 20

HP dive motor and a 10 HP Pump

Motor. Operators interface and

maintenance is limited to starting

and stopping the unit and a

periodical cleaning of the

membrane after an extended run.

The membrane replacement is the

largest operating cost and it is

estimated that the life of each

module is approximately 2 years.

Operator care can improve the life

and additional savings could be

yielded if the Filter Pack lasts more

than 2 years.

Mining Leachate Options

EPA may not even consider data from

treatment systems that exceed 50 mg/L

of total suspended solids (TSS). If your

results are well under 50 mg/L with your

current discharge, a metals spectrum

analysis should be done to determine

compliance.

Wetlands & Natural Bioremediation

Suitable as treatment, but requires large

areas of land and huge amounts of water

that may not be readily available in arid

western states. In addition, there are

environmental risks that still linger as

leaching into groundwater and local

wellwater systems are a considerable

liability. In addition, wildlife and habitat

can be at risk of exposure to heavy metal

poisoning.

Chemical Flocculation/Clarification

The drawbacks with this option will me the

uncertainty of the final discharge amounts

of the various metals over the long term.

Variations in the effectiveness of the

chemical precipitation and throughput to

the clarifier leave open the possibility of

process upsets and fines.

Ion Exchange Resins

An effective treatment system, but cannot

handle more that 500 ppm TDS and

therefore must be used in tandem with

other pretreatment systems.

Conventional Membrane Systems

Also suffer from limits on TDS, TSS, and

organic constituents. Depending on the

process conventional membrane systems

would be a part of a multi stage treatment

process. Also, crossflow systems will require

high fluid velocity to avoid diffusion

polarization of the membrane and

consequently reduced flux. The result of

this is poor % recovery of filtrate, which can

be sewered. The reject from conventional

membrane systems could be further

treated by yet another treatment process

or hauled as waste. Since operating costs

such as hauling are part of any equipment

purchasing decisions, the % recovery with

crossflow filters is not very attractive.

X-20™* Reverse Osmosis Membrane

Composition

Polyamide Urea

Nominal Salt Rejection 99.0%

Operating Pressure

0-600 psi

Continuous pH Range 4-11

Max Flat Sheet Temp

60ºC

*X-20 is manufactured by Trisep corporation under license from Dupont

23.5 GPM

4000 ppm TSS

V

✧

SEP

Feed

Permeate

Concentrate

3.5 GPM

2.7% TSS

20 GPM

0 ppm TSS

X-20 RO Membrane

One - 84" V

✧

SEP (1300SF)

@ 20 GFD

85% Recovery*

40ºC, 450 psi

*Recoveries up to 97% can be done with reduced throughput

V

✧

SEP Operating Costs

Description

V✧SEP System Power Consumption*

System Maintenance & Cleaning

Description

$ 7,180

$ 8,640

*based on 0.05 $/kW electricity cost

Annual Production (at 20 gfd)

10,500,000

gal/yr

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

Installed V

✧

SEP Mining Applications

Acid Mine Drainage

Phosphate Fertilizer

Radioactive Nuclei Removal

Mixed Metals Removal from wastewater

Arsenic Removal

Titanium Dioxide Concentration

Calcium Carbonate Dewatering

Kaolin Clay Concentration

Bentonite Clay

Railcar Washwater

Product Recovery from Wastewater

Company Profile

New Logic is a privately held corporation located in

Emeryville, CA approximately 10 miles from San

Francisco. New Logic markets, engineers, and

manufactures a membrane dewatering and filtration

systems used for chemical processing, waste streams,

pulp & paper processing, mining operations, and

drinking water applications. The V

✧

SEP technology

was invented by Dr. Brad Culkin in 1985. Dr. Culkin holds

a Ph. D. in Chemical Engineering and was formerly a

senior scientist with Dorr-Oliver Corporation. V

✧

SEP was

originally developed as an economic system that

would efficiently separate plasma from whole blood.

The company received a contract to produce a

membrane filtration prototype, which would later be

incorporated into a blood analyzer system.

For more information, contact:

New Logic Research

Emeryville, CA 94608 USA

info@vsep.com

CE

V

V

✧

SEPSEP

BI-TORQBI-TORQ

BI-TORQBI-TORQ

BI-TORQBI-TORQ

---

Copper Mining Glossary

Anode - fire-refined copper cast at the smelter into slabs weighing 600 to 1200 pounds of about 99.5% purity; shipped to an electrolytic refinery for final purification.

Ball mill - a rotating horizontal steel cylinder loaded with steel balls which grind the ore to a fine powder consistency.

Beneficiation - concentrating the copper content of the ore; the crushing, screening and grinding of ore and removal of copper-bearing minerals by a flotation process

prior to smelting the copper concentrates.

Cathode - refined from anodes in the electrolytic refinery into plates of 99.99% pure copper; these are shipped to factories to be melted and cast into shapes ready for

rolling, drawing, or extruding into finished products.

Concentrate - copper-bearing material from the flotation process; contains 15% to 30% copper plus various quantities of sulfur, iron and other impurities.

Elecrowinning - electrolytic winning process, wherein copper from copper sulfate (leach) solution is electroplated onto cathodes, ready for market.

Flotation - the process of mixing powdered ore with water and chemical reagents to separate the metallic particles from the waste rock; the metallic particles are

collected and dried and this concentrate is sent to the smelter for fire refining.

Gangue - undesired minerals associated with ore; that portion of the ore rejected as tailing in the flotation process.

Leaching - a process of using a weak sulfuric acid solution to dissolve copper from low-grade oxide ores; may take place in vats, heaps, dumps or in situ (in place).

Matte - a mixture of sulfur, iron, and copper, containing approximately 20% to 45% copper, tapped from reverberatory furnace in the smelter.

Mill - the facility containing rod mills (if used), ball mills, and flotation cells where the ore is ground and copper concentrate extracted. Also called the concentrator.

Open pit mining - A surface mining method in which overlying rock and soil are removed to expose the ore body, which is then drilled, blasted and loaded into trucks or

railroad cars for haulage from the pit.

Ore - rock containing enough mineral value to warrant the expense of mining it.

Slag - waste rock from the smelter. The black lava-like material is primarily iron and silica.

Smelter - the plant in which fire refining takes place.

Sulfide ore - ore composed of copper, sulfur, and usually iron along with the various other minerals making up the host rock.

Tailings - the finely ground residue or waste materials contained in the ore remaining after floating off the copper- bearing concentrate.

V✧SEP ...

A New Standard in Rapid Separation

Study

NEW LOGIC RESEARCH

Tertiary

Crusher

Secondary

Crusher

Screens

Cyclones

Floatation

Thickener

Stacker

Gyratory

Crusher

Oxide

Sulfide

Pregnant

Solution

Pond

Solvent

Extraction

Raffinate

Tailing Pile

Electrowinning Cells

Copper Cathodes

Tailing Pond

---

Exhibit R

:

October 17, 2008 e-mail from Cindy Skrukrud

---

----- Original Message -----

From:

Cindy Skrukrud

To:

kurt.neibergall@illinois.gov

Cc:

Traci Barkley

; Albert Ettinger ; becki.clayborn@sierraclub.org ; james.gignac@sierraclub.org ; Joyce

Blumenshine ; Cindy Skrukrud

Sent:

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:56 PM

Subject:

Additional materials from Sierra Club for NPDES IL0078727, Hillsboro Energy Deer Run Mine

Dear Kurt,

Because of our concerns about preventing pollution of downstream waters which support

sensitive aquatic life and serve as drinking water sources from toxic constituents found in coal

(such as the bioaccumulative selenium for which USEPA's Current National Recommended

Water Quality Criterion (chronic) is 5 ug/L; whereas Illinois' current water quality standard is 1

mg/L, 2000 times higher and heavy metals like cadmium, lead and zinc.), we believe it is

important that the levels of such pollutants in the runoff from Deer Run be anticipated and

minimized. I wish to place the following documents into the hearing record as they provide

information on the levels of such toxics in Illinois coal, specifically for the Herrin No. 6 coal

seam planned to be mined at Deer Run mine.

Resource Assessment of the Springfield, Herrin, Danville, and Baker Coals in the

Illinois Basin

J.R. Hatch, R.H. Affolter

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625–D Version 1.0, 2002

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625d/

Trace Elements in Coal: Occurrence and Distribution

.

Circular 499 1977

. 154p. Illinois State Geological Survey

Mineral Matter and Trace Elements in the Herrin and Springfield Coals, Illinois

Basin Coal Field

.

C/G 1983-4

EPA-600/7-84-036.

1983

. 162p.

The latter two are both available at http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub/publications/coal-

pubs/quality.shtml

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this additional information.

Sincerely,

Cindy Skrukrud

Clean Water Advocate

Sierra Club, IL Chapter

70 E Lake St. Suite 1500

Chicago, IL 60601

---

Exhibit S:

VSEP Treatment of RO Reject from Brackish Well Water

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

1

Technical Article

VSEP Treatment of RO Reject from Brackish Well Water

A Comparison of Conventional Treatment Methods

and VSEP, a Vibrating Membrane Filtration System.

Greg Johnson

a

, Larry Stowell

a

, Michele Monroe

a

a

New Logic Research, Incorporated

1295 67

th

Street, Emeryville, CA 94608

Presented : 2006 El Paso Desalination Conference, El Paso Texas March 15

th

- 17

th

, 2006

Keywords: Membrane, Fouling, Mineral Scale, Solubility Limits, Scaling Control, Reverse Osmosis, Filtration

Abstract

Conventional spiral wound membrane systems using reverse osmosis or nano-filtration membranes are

increasingly being used to treat well water from underground sources to supplement local drinking

water supplies. Many of the remaining underground water sources are "Brackish" water sources where

the dissolved solids can be 5,000 mg/L or even higher. One of the difficult engineering aspects of

conventional spiral membrane technology is the treatment of the residual concentrated brine left over

from the process. New Logic Research, Emeryville California, has developed and manufactures a new

proprietary vibrating membrane filtration system that is not limited by solubility of sparingly soluble

salts and is capable of extremely high recoveries of treated water from brine. The use of a vibrating

membrane mechanism to avoid membrane colloidal fouling is new and is just the kind of improvement

needed to increase the yield of filtered water from brackish well water.

The Vibratory Shear Enhanced Process, (VSEP), technology has been installed in other areas for

treatment of surface water to make ultrapure water for manufacturing and has also been used in

manufacturing plants to treat the wastewater reject from other membrane systems to assist in Zero-

Discharge. Recent pilot trials have been conducted using the VSEP technology to examine its use in

brackish well water filtration and to volume reduce reject from other spiral membrane systems. This

approach would extend the use of the VSEP technology to the municipal drinking water market in

addition to the chemical processing and manufacturing markets where the technology has been used

for many years. This article will discuss the recent VSEP pilot trial results and then make comparisons

between using VSEP and other methods of brine reject disposal currently being employed or

considered.

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Water Supply Background

With populations rising and water sources becoming stretched, increasing attention is being paid on how water

is used and reused. Industry, agriculture, and domestic water users are all competing for this most precious

natural resource. Many in the Southwestern United States are seeing dramatic population growth rates, while

population levels in the North and Northeast are remaining fairly stable. The problem is that populations are

increasing in areas of the country with the most limited water supplies. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau

[7] estimates that the population of Arizona will double within the next 25 years.

Clearly, the case for retrofits and additional capacity has been made. The EPA’s Office of Water recently

estimated the capital required over the next 20 years for both water and wastewater upgrades is nearly $500

Billion USD (EPA, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis, 2002). These estimates are not adjusted

for inflation and use current value terms. The EPA attributes these costs to retrofitting treatment plants and

infrastructure that are obsolete, more stringent drinking water and wastewater standards, and increasing expense

and controversy associated with capital improvement projects.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the EPA provided more than 60 Billion Dollars for construction of public

wastewater treatment projects through its Construction Grants Program. [1] The Clean Water Act (CWA) of

1987 changed the Construction Grants Program and through an amendment to the CWA, the grant program was

terminated in 1990. Under the new procedure, the EPA initiated the State Revolving Fund (SRF). Through the

SRF, the EPA provides capitalization seed money to the states, which in turn offer low interest loans to local

communities for municipal projects. The net effect is that although local municipal districts receive low cost

loans, they now must pay for 100% of capital improvement projects. Under the Construction Grants Program,

the EPA paid about one-half of these costs directly.

Now that local water utility companies are

responsible for 100% of the cost of capital projects,

the construction of large mega projects such as

Dams and large aqueducts will be greatly curtailed.

Faced with aging infrastructure and limited current

capacity, Municipal water districts are working on

ways to optimize existing systems and supplement

conventional sources of drinking water using

relatively small capital projects. [3] Increasingly,

well water is being used as a source of raw water

for distribution to the Municipal water market.

These relatively small capital projects can be

implemented quickly to supplement water supplies

and the cost of these projects is more in line with

what local water districts are able to manage.

Texas Desalination Plants

There are currently approximately 100 brackish water desalination plants in Texas. Most use brackish well

water, but about one in six uses brackish surface water. There are no seawater desalination plants currently in

Texas. The current output of treated water of these plants totals about 39.6 MGD. From this effort, a waste

stream of 10.5 MGD is produced that must be disposed of. Even though it is a large amount, this is much

smaller than the total amount of Produced Water from Oil drilling already disposed of each day in Texas. [10]

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Well Water Treatment

Most well water and surface waters contain varying amounts of suspended solids, including silt, clay, bacteria,

and viruses. In addition, they may contain many harmful dissolved solids such as Arsenic. It is necessary to

remove these prior to distribution to the domestic or industrial consumer. Suspended solids not only affect the

aesthetic acceptability of the water; they also interfere with the conventional disinfecting process using chlorine.

The principal treatment processes used to remove suspended solids are sedimentation and filtration. In the case

of brackish waters containing large amounts of dissolved solids, membrane filtration must be used. In many

plants that treat surface or well waters, there is a pre-sedimentation reservoir ahead of the treatment units. The

reservoir allows the larger particles to settle as well as to provides a volume buffer against changes in water

quality.

Rapid sand filters or mixed media filters are used next as pre-treatment to conventional spiral membrane

systems. These can remove the larger suspended solids but cannot remove appreciable quantities of colloidal or

sub-micron sized particles without chemical pre-treatment. While these can act as an initial filter, the effluent

from media filters can be as colored or turbid as the incoming water. After media filtration, some chemical

pretreatment is generally done to optimize the spiral membrane system. Finally, a reverse osmosis membrane

system is used to filter the water and provide clean water suitable for drinking water supplies. Often, this water

is blended with other fresh water sources to achieve an acceptable taste.

Water Standards

Drinking water is monitored to conform to acceptable levels of

many harmful chemicals and organisms. Setting of standards is

a continual process as more is learned about the potential

harmful effects of various constituents. In addition to

monitoring for health risks, water quality is controlled for

aesthetic and operational purposes. For example water high in

sulfate levels while not toxic can have a laxative effect. Water

high in iron can lead to hardness and staining in laundering.

Water high in organics can have a foul taste. Recent fatalities

involving toxic microorganisms have renewed a review of the

standards when it comes to monitoring and treatment to

prevent harmful bacteria from entering the distribution

network. The following list summarizes some of the targeted

undesirable ingredients to drinking water.

Arsenic - Arsenic is present at very low levels in all surface

waters. It is a naturally occurring chemical found in mineral

deposits and will go through a natural dissolution process

bleeding it into waterways. Arsenic is a carcinogen and must

be controlled in drinking water sources.

Chromium - Trivalent Chromium is the naturally occurring state of Chromium and is not considered toxic.

However, naturally occurring Chromium can be oxidized in raw water to form the more toxic Hexavalent

Chromium. Other sources of Hexavalent Chromium are from paint and plating wastewater that can contaminate

waterways.

Cyanide - The human body detoxifies small amounts of Cyanide. Lethal toxic effects can occur if the levels are

above certain limits and the detoxification mechanism is overwhelmed. Chlorination is normally sufficient to

oxidize Cyanide and reduce it to appropriately low levels.

EPA Standards for Health

Total Organic Carbon

5.0 mg/L

Arsenic

0.010 mg/L

Barium

2.0 mg/L

Cadmium

0.005 mg/L

Chromium

0.1 mg/L

Cyanide

0.2 mg/L

Fluoride

2.0 mg/L

Lead

0.015 mg/L

Mercury

0.001 mg/L

Selenium

0.05 mg/L

Uranium

0.1 mg/L

Vinyl Chloride

0.002 mg/L

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Selenium - Selenium is an essential trace element for human consumption. The exact toxic effects of it are not

known and its interaction in the human body is very complex. In order to provide safety factor, levels of

Selenium are controlled in drinking water so that over-exposure to Selenium does not occur.

Uranium - The naturally occurring form of Uranium is as the Uranyl Ion UO

2

++

. Uranium, while it may be

radioactive, is actually more serious as a toxin to the kidney. At high enough levels, it can cause permanent

kidney damage.

Membrane Filtration of Drinking Water

The first sand filter used for clarifying drinking water was installed in Paisley Scotland in 1804. Since then some

advances have been made in sand filter design and in the use of coagulation prior to filtration. However, the

basic concept has remained the same for nearly 200 years. There has been a trend in recent years towards the use

of polymer membranes for treatment of potable water for domestic and industrial use. Significant advances in

polymer chemistry within the last 20 years and the use of membranes is becoming more widely accepted. In

addition to the membrane itself, significant advances have occurred with respect to the delivery system. New

technologies are appearing all the time and membrane systems now offer an effective competitive treatment

method option.

There are four basic types of membranes based on pore size

or rejection characteristics. Microfiltration (MF) is the most

open media with pore sizes from 0.1 micron and larger.

Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes have pores ranging in size

from 0.005 micron to 0.1 micron. These are typically rated

according the minimum nominal molecular weight size that

the membrane will reject. This range for UF membranes is

from 2,000 MWCO (molecular weight cut off) to 250,000

MWCO. Nanofiltration (NF) and Reverse Osmosis (RO)

membranes don’t have pores as such and work by diffusion.

Ionic charge and size play a role in the permeation through

the membrane. Monovalent ions will pass more freely than

multivalent or divalent ions. NF membranes are designed

to target multi-valents ions where as RO will remove

monovalent ions.

For the purpose of non-brackish water filtration, Microfiltration is generally good enough. There is a correlation

between pore size and throughput. Generally, the larger the pore, the higher the flow rate through a given area of

membrane. Since filtration of brackish water requires removal of silt, suspended particles, bacteria, and other

microorganisms, a Microfilter is normally used. This type of filter will provide the highest throughput and best

economics for a given flow rate. If the water source is especially colored or turbid or if taste complaints are a

problem, Ultrafiltration can be used which is tighter than Microfiltration. UF membranes can remove very small

organic matter, humic substances, and even viruses. UF membranes can improve color, taste, and odor of the

drinking water. [6]

In the case of commercial bottled water or brackish water filtration, tighter membranes including Nano-filtration

and Reverse Osmosis are used. In the case of brackish water, MF or UF would not reduce the high levels of

dissolved solids and could not provide filtrate meeting the primary drinking water standards. Brackish water is a

term that covers a very broad range of water quality. Brackish water can have anywhere from 1000 ppm to

10,000 ppm of TDS. Above 10,000 ppm is considered Saline Water. The most appropriate membrane for

brackish water still depends on the concentration of TDS. For slightly brackish waters, (1,000 to 3,000 ppm),

nano-filtration would probably yield an acceptable water quality. For high level brackish water, (>3,000 ppm),

reverse osmosis is probably needed as in the case of seawater desalination.

0.1 μm Teflon MF Membrane

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Membrane Technology

Advanced treatment utilizing membranes for drinking water is becoming more popular. Although their use in

generating drinking water has a long history, improvements in membranes lead to increasing acceptance and

better overall economics. Membranes are uniquely capable of precise control of contaminant levels. NF and RO

can be used to remove varying degrees of dissolved solids meeting the strict drinking water guidelines.

Most membranes used today are made of polymeric materials including: polyamide, polysulfone, regenerated

cellulose, kynar (PVDF) and Teflon® (PTFE). The pores on most polymer membranes are so small they cannot

be seen even with a scanning electron microscope. The pore sizes are determined by how well the membrane

rejects particles of a known size. The membrane itself allows water to pass through the physical pores or

through the matrix of the polymer and does not allow larger molecules or suspended solids to pass. Selection of

the proper membrane depends on the separation required. [5]

Limitations of Conventional Membranes

Membrane fouling and scaling can significantly increase the cost of a membrane system as well as reduce its

reliability. As a result fouling, elaborate pre-treatment is used ahead of most membrane systems and the

solubility limits of various constituents are monitored. The concentration of these constituents is controlled so

that the solubility limit is not exceeded causing precipitation of colloidal materials and mineral scaling of the

system. The net effect is that the % recovery of filtered water will be limited by the solubility of sparingly

soluble salts and Silica. This limitation has been the cause of a great deal of recent development in membrane

science. Several approaches have been used to try and minimize the effects of fouling. Polymer chemists are

developing many new membranes that have “low fouling” characteristics. Several techniques are used like

altering the Zeta Potential or amount of ionic charge of the membrane surface. Another method is modifying

the thermodynamic potential of the membrane surface by using low surface energy materials. These materials

reduce the chemical free energy change upon absorption of foulants.

Other developments have focused upon offering the potential foulants an alternate site for chemical attraction, or

limiting their rate of precipitation. These methods ensure foulants are used up or diluted in their effect and thus

will not pose a threat to the membrane itself. Examples of these are “anti-scalants” which can be organic

compounds with sulfonate, phosphonate, or carboxylic acid functional groups. Chelating agents are also used

which sequester and neutralize a particular foulant, especially metals. Carbon, Alum, and zeolites can be used as

an additive. These offer huge surface areas loaded with nucleation sites suitable for absorption or crystallization

to occur spontaneously at relatively low solubility levels.

Most often, the optimum membrane system will employ several of these techniques in order to combat or avoid

fouling. For example, crossflow membrane systems will utilize pre-treatment of the feed water by using a

5.0µm bag filter followed by a 1.0µm Cartridge filter. Then the system will use a “Low Fouling” membrane

with advantageous surface chemistry. An antiscalant will be dosed into the feed to sequester any potential

foulants. And finally, aggressive crossflow is used to keep the membrane clear. This is a suitable treatment

process as long as the feedwater is within specific criteria including: LSI (Langolier Saturation Index), SDI (Silt

Density Index), and concentrations of sparingly soluble salts and other suspended colloids. [6]

Sparingly Soluble Salts

Even with all of these tools, the recovery of these systems can be limited to low levels. This results in a large

volume of rejected brine that must be further treated or disposed. Minerals that will precipitate and foul

conventional membrane systems as they come out of solution are predominantly composed of divalent metal

ions. Monovalent metals such as Sodium and Potassium are nearly completely soluble, whereas, in the presence

of Sulfate, Phosphate, or Carbonate, divalent ions such as Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Barium, Strontium,

Radium, Beryllium, Lead, and Silicon are nearly insoluble. [8]

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

When pressure is applied and reverse osmosis filtration

occurs, nearly pure water is forced through the

membrane thus changing the equilibrium and

consequently the concentration of solutes to solvent. If

this process continues until the solute reaches its limit of

solubility, precipitation is likely to occur. Once

precipitation has begun at appropriate nucleation sites

then as more water is removed more precipitated

materials are created. This will continue, as the system

will attempt to keep the concentration of solutes at or

below the solubility limit. If water is removed by

filtration, but not in enough quantity to reach the

solubility limit of the solutes, no scaling or precipitation

will occur. One primary method used during

conventional membrane filtration is recover water from

the system to the point where solubility limits are not

reached. The second method is to use anti-scalants that

either inhibit the growth of crystals or sequester the reagents and thus reduce the available concentration.

Software programs have been created to calculate the solubility limits based on known feed values. Once you

enter the feed values, the program will calculate solubility and then instruct the user on the highest acceptable

recovery value for sustainable system operation.

Common Forms of Mineral Scales

Calcium Carbonate

Calcium Sulfate

Calcium Phosphate

Barium Sulfate

Strontium Sulfate

Iron Hydroxide

Silicon Dioxide (Silica)

Calculating % Recovery & Solubility Limits

Conventional membrane systems have strict guidelines for incoming feed water composition. The reason for

this is to minimize the potential problem of scaling or precipitating of slightly soluble ions. Precipitated

insoluble materials like mineral scale can foul or blind off crossflow membranes quickly. These must be

controlled in order to operate the system properly. Levels of reagents are measured to insure that they will

remain soluble during the filtration process. These limits can be exceeded to some degree if antiscalants are

used to consume reagents or to inhibit and block growth of scale.

For example:

Well Water is to be treated using membranes for purification. The water contains 30 ppm of dissolved silica

(SiO2). The solubility limit of Silica can be 120 ppm depending on pH and temperature. To figure how much

pure water can be extracted through filtration before the solubility limit of silica is reached the following

equations can be used:

120 ppm (Ksp) ÷ 30 ppm = 4

The Silica can be volume reduced by a factor of 4 before the solubility limit will be reached.

100% ÷ 4 = 25%

Calcium Carbonate Crystals

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

The liquid volume can be reduced by 75% so that a concentrate volume of 25% is left at which point the

solubility limit has been reached. This is also known as a 75% recovery. Since near the solubility limit, there is

a metastable region where precipitation can occur prior to the solubility limit if favorable conditions exist some

safety factor must be used. Slight variations in temperature, pressure, and pH can shift the point of solubility

and cause unexpected scaling. For this reason, conventional membrane systems are not run at the solubility

limit, rather they are run at significantly less than that or anti-scalants are used to insure adequate safety factor.

In the example above, with 30 ppm of Silica, safe operation for conventional membrane systems would be at

50% recovery without pretreatment or 75% recovery with antiscalant addition. If the silica content of the raw

water was 100 ppm, the water is almost not treatable using conventional membranes alone. Water softening

must be used to reduce the hardness and mineral content to sufficiently low levels prior to entry into the

membrane system.

When scaling occurs in a membrane system, colloids of insoluble mineral salts are formed. While some scaling

can occur on the membrane itself, most of it will occur at other more efficient locations and then will become

suspended colloids, which will act as any other suspended solid during the filtration process. Conventional

membranes are subject to colloidal fouling as suspended matter can become polarized at the membrane surface

and obstruct filtration. Crossflow is used to reduce the effects of concentration polarization. The main problem

with scaling for membrane systems is that the process introduces a large amount of potential foulants into the

system, which can reduce flux. Just as conventional membranes have limits on TDS due to the solubility limits

of the various constituents, they also have limits on TSS, as colloidal fouling will occur if these levels are too

high.

V

✧

SEP Advantages

V✧SEP employs torsional vibration of the membrane surface, which creates high shear energy at the surface of

the membrane. The result is that colloidal fouling and polarization of the membrane due to concentration of

rejected materials are greatly reduced. Since colloidal fouling is avoided due to the vibration, the use of

pretreatment to prevent scale formation is not required. In addition, the throughput rates of V✧SEP are 5-15

times higher in terms of GFD (gallons per square foot per day) when compared to other types of membrane

systems. The sinusoidal shear waves propagating from the membrane surface act to hold suspended particles

above the membrane surface allowing free transport of the liquid media through the membrane. [9]

Fluid Dynamics Comparison between VSEP and Conventional Crossflow Filtration

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

The V✧SEP membrane system is a vertical plate and frame type of construction where membrane leafs are

stacked by the hundreds on top of each other. The result of this is that the horizontal footprint of the unit is very

small. As much as 2000 square feet (185 m2) of membrane is contained in one V✧SEP module with a footprint

of only 4' x 4'.

VSEP employs torsional oscillation at a rate of 50 Hz

at the membrane surface to inhibit diffusion

polarization of suspended colloids. This is a very

effective method of colloid repulsion as sinusoidal

shear waves from the membrane surface help to repel

oncoming particles. The result is that suspended

solids are held in suspension hovering above the

membrane as a parallel layer where they can be

washed away by gentle tangential crossflow.

This washing away process occurs at equilibrium.

Pressure and filtration rate will determine the

thickness and mass of the suspended layer. Particles

of suspended colloids will be washed away by

crossflow and at the same time new particles will

arrive. The removal and arrival rate will be different

at first until parity is reached and the system is at a

state of equilibrium with respect to the diffusion

layer. (Also known as a boundary layer) This layer is

permeable and is not attached to the membrane but is

actually suspended above it. In VSEP, this layer acts

as a nucleation site for mineral scaling. Beneath the

hovering suspended solids, water has clear access to

the membrane surface.

Mineral scale that precipitates will act in just the same way as any other arriving colloid. If too many of the

scale colloids are formed, more will be removed to maintain the equilibrium of the diffusion layer. As

documented by other studies, VSEP is not limited when it comes to TSS concentrations as conventional

membrane systems are. Conventional membrane systems could develop cakes of colloids that would grow large

enough to completely blind the conventional membrane. In VSEP, no matter how many colloids arrive at the

membrane surface there are an equal number removed as the diffusion layer is limited in size and cannot grow

large enough to blind the system. In fact VSEP is capable of filtration of any liquid solution as long as it

remains a liquid. At a certain point, as water or solvent is removed, the solution will reach a gel point. This is

the concentration limitation of VSEP.

In the VSEP membrane system, scaling will occur in the bulk liquid and become just another suspended colloid.

One other significant advantage is that the vibration and oscillation of the membrane surface itself inhibits

crystal formation. The lateral displacement of the membrane helps to lower the available surface energy for

nucleation. Free energy is available at perturbations and non-uniform features of liquid/solid interfaces. With

the movement of the membrane back and forth at a speed of 50 times per second, any valleys, peaks, ridges, or

other micro imperfections become more uniform and less prominent. The smoother and more uniform a surface,

the less free energy is available for crystallization. In the absence of any other nucleation sites, this would lead

to a super-saturated solution. In actual fact, what happens is that nucleation occurs first and primarily at other

nucleation sites not being on the membrane, which present much more favorable conditions for nucleation.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Crystals and scale also take time to form. The moving target of the membrane surface does not allow sufficient

time for proper germination and development. The solids in the bulk fluid present a much more favorable

nucleation site. Whereas, with conventional static membranes, scale formation on the membrane is possible and

has plenty of time to develop and grow. Another feature of VSEP is that filtration occurs at a dramatically

higher rate per m

2

than with conventional membranes due to the suspension of colloids above the membrane.

Studies have shown as much as a 15 times improvement in flux per area. The result of this is that as much as

1/15

th

of the membrane area is required to do the same job as a conventional crossflow membrane. This is

beneficial for many reasons one of which is hold-up volume of feed waters.

The result is that filtration occurs quickly and the length of travel of feed waters over membrane surfaces is

reduced by as much as 15 times. This means that there is much less time for scaling and crystal formation

within the membrane system. Crystal formation is a function of time, especially with respect to Silica, which is

very slow to grow. If scaling is to occur within the system, it will more likely occur at high-energy nucleation

points and not on the membrane. In addition to that, the high filtration rate is capable of making a super

saturated solution, which may not even have residence time sufficient to react within the membrane system itself

and may wait until it has been discharge to complete the equilibrium process.

Since VSEP is not limited by solubility of minerals or by the presence of suspended colloids, it can actually be

used as a crystallizer or brine concentrator and is capable of very high recoveries of filtrate. The only limitation

faced by VSEP is the osmotic pressure once dissolved ions reach very high levels. Osmotic pressure is what will

determine the recovery possible with a VSEP system.

Validation Testing

New Logic has pilot tested several projects where the objective was to volume reduce reject from a spiral RO

membrane system. This section will illustrate the performance of pilot tests conducted recently all pertaining to

high TDS brine concentration.

The first example is not a case of spiral reject, rather it is a case of VSEP treating saline water from an oil

production well known as produced water. This test case illustrates the capabilities of the VSEP system. New

Logic conducted onsite pilot trials for several months at an oil production site in Central California. The

objective was to treat the water from the oil production wells using reverse osmosis so that the treated water

could be re-injected into the drinking water aquifer for pressure stabilization.

The results with respect to the primary objective of generating permeate of a quality that reaches the goals for

re-injections to the aquifer were met. The water treated was very high in Chlorides and because of the very low

limits for discharge, two stages of RO filtration were required. In this case, VSEP RO was used as a primary

stage with the RO filtrate being polished in a 2

nd

stage using a conventional Spiral RO system. The following

table shows the analytical results from this test work.

Component:

Chloride

Sulfate

Nitrate

TDS

Boron

Sodium

Initial Feed

3285 mg/L

304 mg/L

4 mg/L

7314 mg/L

23.4 mg/L 2900 mg/L

VSEP Permeate

628 mg/L

25 mg/L

0 mg/L

1617 mg/L

5.4 mg/L

614 mg/L

Spiral Permeate

11 mg/L

0 mg/L

0 mg/L

51 mg/L

0.39 mg/L

25 mg/L

Discharge Limit

127 mg/L

127 mg/L

4.3 mg/L

510 mg/L

0.64 mg/L

85 mg/L

This test illustrates the ability of VSEP to treat water that is very high is TDS and in other scale forming

components. In fact, in this case, Silica, Carbonates, and Sulfates were at saturation with respect to solubility.

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

VSEP for Brackish Water Reject from an Existing Spiral System

New Logic conducted recent pilot trials on reject from an existing membrane system installed in Southern

California. The primary objective was to treat the reject water to minimize reject from the water plant. The result

is that disposal costs would be reduced and the yield of clean water could be increased. The primary objectives

were to meet limits for Color, TOC, and other taste related organics. The customer had previously tested other

Ultrafiltration membrane systems for treating this reject and the results were poor regarding flux rate and

recovery. The purpose of this test was to see how well VSEP could perform as compared to conventional UF

membrane systems.

Since VSEP is not limited by solubility and since

meeting Primary Drinking water standards would be a

benefit, a tight Nano-filtration membrane was used.

The filtrate from the existing plant and the VSEP 2

nd

stage concentrator system would be blended, so the

better the quality from the VSEP, the more flexibility

there would be when it comes to blending.

After scanning several NF membranes, a 90% NaCl

reject NF membrane was chosen for further study.

Concentration and Flux vs. Time studies were

completed and the results were excellent. During a

concentration study, the system was started up first in

"Re-circulation" mode and also set to the Optimum

Pressure and expected process temperature. The

system was run for a few hours to verify that the flux

was stable and the system had reached equilibrium.

Then, the permeate line was diverted to a separate container so the system is in "Batch" mode. The permeate

flow rate was measured at timed intervals to determine flow rate produced by the system at various levels of

concentration. The following Table shows the performance during the “Concentration Study”:

Ave Flux

Initial Flux

Ending Flux

Pressure

Initial Solids

Ending Solids

% Recovery

65.2 gfd

144.5 gfd

11.47 gfd

450 psi

0.3 %

11.8 %

98.8 %

Based on the Data, the NF Membrane was found to be suitable because it provided a high, stable permeate flux

with no solids or color in the permeate. It also met the process objectives for % recovery and demonstrated good

performance over time. In this case, the maximum % recovery achieved was 98.8 %, which yielded an average

flux of 65.2 gfd. (gallons/sq ft/day)

The following table shows the final results of testing:

Membrane

% Total Solids

Conductivity

pH

Volume

Initial Feed

0.3 %

1,570 µS

8.68

100 %

Final Permeate

0.0 %

145.4 µS

8.98

98.8 %

Final Concentrate

11.8 %

44,900 µS

9.35

1.2 %

The results exceeded expectations as the VSEP was able to produce greater than 98% recovery of treated water.

In addition, the customer had previously tested other UF membrane systems that had flux rates of about 20 gfd.

VSEP, using a much tighter NF membrane, was able to achieve a very high flux rate of 65 gfd (gal/sq ft/day).

VSEP Onsite Pilot Trials in California

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

The following table shows the complete analytical results from grab samples collected during the pilot trails.

The purpose of testing was to confirm compliance with Primary and Secondary EPA drinking water standards

related to health issues and aesthetic considerations.

RO Reject VSEP Analytical Results

VSEP

VSEP

VSEP

Reporting

Analyte

EPA Limit

Feed

Permeate

Reject

Limit

Aluminum

Al

0.050 mg/L

0.600

ND

27.550

0.100

Arsenic

As

0.010 mg/L

0.008

ND

0.253

0.005

Barium

Ba

2.000 mg/L

0.120

ND

5.706

0.010

Cadmium

Cd

0.005 mg/L

ND

ND

-

0.005

Calcium

Ca

none

45.00

ND

2,235.0

0.500

Chromium

Cr

0.100 mg/L

0.038

ND

1.557

0.010

Copper

Cu

1.000 mg/L

0.029

ND

1.107

0.010

Iron

Fe

0.300 mg/L

2.300

ND

112.55

0.100

Lead

Pb

0.015 mg/L

ND

ND

-

0.003

Magnesium

Mg

none

3.200

ND

147.75

0.500

Selenium

Se

0.050 mg/L

0.008

ND

0.302

0.005

Silver

Ag

0.100 mg/L

ND

ND

-

0.005

Zinc

Zn

5.000 mg/L

0.180

ND

8.510

0.020

Cyanide

CN

0.200 mg/L

ND

ND

-

0.010

Silica

SiO

2

none

23.00

5.300

890.3

1.000

Chloride

Cl

250 mg/L

50.00

8.300

2,093.3

0.200

Fluoride

F

2.000 mg/L

1.500

0.200

65.20

0.100

Sulfate

SO

4

250 mg/L

120.0

1.800

5,911.8

0.500

Total Dissolved Solids

TDS

500 mg/L

2,340

82.0

112,982

10.0

Color

15 color units

13,000

ND

-

5.0

By using VSEP to treat the current reject from the installed NF system, this client will be able to achieve 99%

recovery of treated water, leaving only 1% of the volume to be disposed of as reject. The following is a process

schematic of the final system design.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Other VSEP Water Installations

V

✧

SEP Treats River Water

New Logic installed its Vibratory Shear Enhanced Processing (V✧SEP) in July, 1997 at a major international

electronic disk manufacturing facility at Hokkaido Island in Northern Japan. The V✧SEP system is used for

treatment of river water for ultra-pure water production at this facility. The V✧SEP system uses an

ultrafiltration membrane module and is able to treat river water in order to remove or reduce humic substances,

color, turbidity, permanganate consumption and total iron to below the required limits. The application of

V✧SEP membrane technology to treat river water for ultra-pure water production at electronic disk fabrication

facility was found to be an attractive economic alternative to the conventional sand filter water treatment

technology. Concentration of the raw river water ranges from 5 to 10 mg/L of TSS. Permeate from the V✧SEP

has less than 1 mg/L TSS. VSEP also reduced color from 67 color units to <1 color unit, from 2 NTU turbidity

to <0.1 NTU, and from 0.1 mg/L Iron to <0.05 mg/L of total Iron.

Commercial Drinking Water Case Study

New Logic has installed a nearly 1 Million Gallon per day water filtration system for a major bottling company.

The filtrate from this system is purified and disinfected using an Ultrafiltration membrane and then sent on to

the bottling process where it becomes a consumer product for consumption. In this case, aesthetic improvement

was the goal due to a large number of taste complaints. Reduction of TOC causing poor taste has been

effectively reduced by the use of a 30,000 mwco UF membrane. One other benefit of the filtration is the near

complete removal of all bacteria and other organisms. Normally, Microfiltration could be used with higher

throughput per SF of membrane, but in this case TOC reduction required the use of a UF membrane. The

previous system design consisted of a Multi-Media filter feeding a Carbon filter. Normal operation involved

frequent recharging or disposal of the Carbon media. In addition, the water quality led to numerous taste

complaints. The addition of V✧SEP to the process improves taste, reduces TOC, and allows the Carbon filters

to run trouble free. New Logic has completed several surface water facility installations using this vibrating

membrane system for treatment to produce ultra-pure water. The results have demonstrated many advantages of

this new membrane technology when compared to the conventional treatment methods.

Brine Treatment Method Comparisons

There are many methods of treatment currently being used for Brackish Water RO Reject Disposal. Some of

these methods include:

Evaporation Pond

Deep Well Injection

Disposal at Sea

Reclaimed use for Industry or Irrigation

Blending with POTW Discharge

Advanced Thermal Evaporation Methods

The treatment method selected will vary depending on the site conditions. For example, if a willing party can

take the reject water and benefit from it, this would be the easiest solution. However, willing recipients may be

hard to find. Disposal at Sea would only be possible if in close proximity to the coastline. This option is not

available to places like El Paso. Even if disposal at sea were considered, some discharge limits would apply and

may not be met without further treatment. No one treatment method fits all scenarios, however, the more that the

reject volume can be reduced, the better the choices for final disposal. The primary options for brine reject

disposal are shown below.

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Evaporation Ponds -

Evaporation Pond or Solar Pond use is limited

to regions where the evaporation rate exceeds the annual

precipitation. Desalination plants located in arid areas such as the

Southwestern United States could consider such treatment methods.

The design of the evaporation pond should include liners, leakage

monitoring, and accurate sizing calculations. The sizing calculation

can be complicated as several competing factors must be evaluated

including inflow rate, annual precipitation, and evaporation rates.

Sufficient excess capacity must be provided. The cost of construction

will vary quite a bit depending on the terrain and site conditions. Once installed, the actual operating costs are

relatively small, however, one cost often overlooked is the closure of the pond at the end of the life.

Deep Well Injection -

Deep well injection is used for many difficult to deal

with waste streams. However, the option of Deep Well Injection is limited by

the underlying geology. Any deep well discharge must be protected against

mixing with drinking water aquifer supplies. The permitting process can also

be long and arduous. Usually deep well injection is a last resort since it is more

difficult and time consuming than other methods of disposal.

Costs for disposal wells like the one shown on the right are mostly related to

permitting, drilling, and logistics. Very often, disposal well locations are not in

the same area as well water supply for drinking water. This means that brine

reject would need to be piped and pumped dozens of miles to a suitable

location with porous rock formations. [13] One other factor is that in many

areas of the United States, oil wells are becoming depleted. Such spent wells

are candidates for disposal wells. There are some costs involved in converting

the well to a disposal well, but overall there are cost savings if existing wells

can be used for this purpose. [10]

Advanced Thermal Evaporation Methods -

Thermal Evaporation methods include Brine Concentrators and

Crystallizers. Brine Concentrators are used extensively for wastewater applications and employ a falling film

evaporator with vapor recompression. Once started, operating costs are manageable. The vapor recompression

provides much of the needed thermal energy. The system must be protected against scaling and fouling of the

heat exchange surfaces. These systems are capable of reaching up to 15% total solids in the final brine slurry.

Crystallizers rely on thermal evaporation of dissolved solids. As the water is flashed off, the solids will begin to

crystallize in the unit and are then purged for disposal.

Vibrating Membranes as an Option for Brine Treatment

With new regulations as part of the Clean Water Act and with the advent of new technologies to address this

problem, many municipal facilities are re-evaluating their existing methods. One of the new developments

includes the new open channel plate and frame type polymeric membrane filtration systems. There are several

types including the VSEP (Vibratory Shear Enhanced Process) made by New Logic Research of Emeryville,

California. Competition and scientific advances have greatly reduced the cost of membrane systems making

them more attractive for treating a variety of wastewaters.

Reverse Osmosis was previously not appropriate due to solubility limits. Now with this limitation removed as in

the wide channel flow membrane modules like VSEP, RO membranes offer an excellent alternative to increase

overall yield of drinking water and reduce the reject volume to be handled. RO V✧SEP membranes can be used

in parallel and in series to handle any flow and produce nearly any water quality needed.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

The V✧SEP filtration system incorporates a modular design, which makes it compact. Because the basic design

is vertical rather than horizontal, the needed floor space per unit is inherently less than other types of dewatering

systems. The V✧SEP does require up to 17’ in ceiling clearance. In most industrial applications ceiling

clearance is ample, it is floor space that is limited.

Benefits of the V✧SEP Compact Design:

1] Easily added into an existing system to enhance performance

2] Can be installed in areas where space is at a premium

3] Is easily portable and can be moved from plant to plant

4] Can be installed as multiple stage system or as single stage

5] Can be “chain linked” to any number for any process flow demand.

Very often floor space is so limited, or the system being designed is so

large that a separate structure is built to accommodate the treatment

system. In such cases, the fact that the V✧SEP units are vertical and

compact, it may be able to fit into an existing area of the building or it

will reduce new building costs by requiring less space. Construction

costs of $80 to $120 /square foot for new industrial buildings can add

up and are a consideration when figuring the overall cost burden of a

completed system. In addition to the limited space required for the

mechanical components, the actual filter area has been designed in such

a way as to be extremely compact and energy efficient. In the largest

model, the “Filter Pack” contains 2000 Square Feet of membrane

surface area, about the size of a medium size house. This 2000 SF of

membrane has been installed into a container with a volume of about

15 Cubic Feet.

In the case of Brackish RO Reject treatment, the primary benefits are

the increased treated water yield and the volume reduction of reject for

disposal. In the test case shown earlier, only 3 gpm of reject would be

left out of an initial 600 gpm of feed flow to the treatment plant. The

reject volume would be 150 gpm, without the VSEP. Since the cost of

Zero Discharge will hinge on the final disposal of brine, reduction of

the reject volume is critical.

VSEP Process Conditions

A process schematic for the proposed project related to the test case described above is shown on the following

page. When a VSEP system is added on as a second stage, the well water is fed through the multi-media filter

and then the water is pH adjusted and anti-scalant is added. The water is then fed to a spiral membrane system at

the rate of 600 gpm. The spiral system produces 450 gpm of treated water and 150 gpm of brine reject. This

brine reject would be then sent to the V✧SEP treatment system at a rate of 150 gpm and a pressure of 450 psig.

Industrial scale V✧SEP units, using Nano-filtration membranes are installed to treat the spiral reject flow. The

final reject stream after VSEP of 3 gpm would be discharged to an evaporation pond or other disposal method.

V✧SEP generates a permeate stream of about 147 gpm which is blended with the stage one filtrate from the RO.

The permeate contains approximately 1 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS), and a low level of total dissolved

solids (TDS), all well below the standards for drinking water. Membrane selection is based on material

compatibility, flux rates (capacity) and permeate quality requirements. In this example, the TSS reduction is

over 99%. The permeate quality from the V✧SEP can be controlled though laboratory selection from more than

200 membrane materials available to fit the application parameters.

VSEP Module

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Economic Value

New Logic’s V✧SEP system provides an alternative approach for Brackish RO Reject treatment applications.

In a single operation step, V✧SEP will provide ultra-pure water and reduce TOC, TSS, TDS and color to

provide a high quality filtrate free of harmful microorganisms. The justification for the use of V✧SEP treatment

system in your process is determined through analysis of the system cost and benefits including:

Large land area for evaporation ponds not required as would be without VSEP

Simple automated treatment system requiring little operator involvement

Small system footprint

No chemical pre-treatment addition required

Non-Thermal process with low operating costs

VSEP Membrane

Thermal Brine

Disposal

Capital Cost Ratio

1.00

7.43

11.25

3.93 [13]

Power Consumption

$0.21/1000 gal

$4.44/1000 gal

---

---

Chemical Consumption

$0.02/1000 gal

$0.18/1000 gal

---

---

Membrane Replacement

$0.21/1000 gal

---

---

---

Operation & Maintenance

$0.18/1000 gal

$1.59/1000 gal

---

---

Total Operating Costs

$0.45/1000 gal

$6.21/1000 gal [12] $1.13/1000 gal [11] $0.91/1000 gal [13]

VSEP Process Schematic for Recently Pilot Tested RO Reject Application

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

The VSEP Capital and Operating costs shown above correspond to the case that was recently pilot tested and

described above. Actual VSEP results can vary depending on the make up of the brackish water feed source.

Pilot testing should be done to verify system throughput and the resulting capital and operating costs.

Due to the lack of need for pre-treatment, the VSEP technology has been shown to be competitive with

conventional spiral membrane systems and could even replace the spiral system completely yielding up to 98%

recovery of treated water. A desalination plant composed entirely of VSEP would be a very cost effective

alternative to existing conventional membrane plants. However, in such cases where an existing spiral

membrane system is operating and where additional yield of treated water is desired, VSEP can be used as a

complimentary technology. Compared to all other brine disposal methods, VSEP is much less expensive to own

and operate.

Conclusion

Arid regions of the United States such as the southwest states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas

are rapidly growing in population. Local Water Utilities are scrambling to come up with economical sources of

drinking water. There has been a lot of research on this subject and this prospect poses a challenge for creative

engineers working on the project. Due to competition and scientific advances, membranes are becoming a much

more economical method of delivering drinking water from any source.

New Logic has been contacted by many engineers in the Southwest and is currently working on various research

projects to measure the suitability of using VSEP technology to treat brine reject from brackish water

desalination plants. The initial results are very promising and warrant further consideration. The VSEP

technology has been used for more than a decade in the chemical processing industry. This unique opportunity

for treatment of RO Reject from desalination plants comes at a time when the VSEP technology is mature,

proven, and very cost effective compared to other competing methods.

Addition of a VSEP membrane concentrator system would significantly reduce the volume of brine reject that

needs disposal. The reduction of the volume to be treated greatly simplifies the choices for final disposal. In the

test case described above, an evaporation pond would only need to be 2% of the size it would be without the

VSEP brine concentrator. Reducing the size of the evaporation ponds not only reduces the costs, but has

aesthetic and political benefits as well. In addition to helping to solve the brine disposal problem, addition of the

VSEP system to an existing desalination plant will increase the yield of treated water to as high as 98% as

shown in the case described above.

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

About the Authors:

Greg Johnson is a chemical engineer and is currently CEO of New Logic Research (NLR). Responsible for the

development of the VSEP technology since 1992. Managing research & development, manufacturing, and

engineering with New Logic Research. Education: Chemical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley.

Publications:

Chemical Processing Magazine, March 2003, Industrial Strength Membrane Filtration - VSEP® Vibrating Membrane

System Proves Membranes Aren't Just for Water Anymore

Filtration Separation Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003, Vibratory Shear Guards Against Mineral Scale Fouling

Technical Articles:

Kinetics of Mineral Scale Membrane Fouling - A Comparison of Conventional Crossflow Membranes and VSEP, a

Vibratory Membrane System, Nov 2002

Various Technical Articles Posted at: http://www.vsep.com/downloads

0

Membrane Filtration of Waste Oil - An Economical and Environmentally Sound Solution,

1

Case Study - Membrane Filtration of Hog Manure

2

Technical Summary - Membrane Filtration of Phosphoric Fertilizers

3

Case Study - Membrane Filtration of Colloidal Silica, 2001

4

Case Study - Membrane Filtration of Acid Mine Drainage

5

Using VSEP for Polymer Diafiltration and Desalting

6

VSEP Filtration of Desalter Effluent

7

Membrane Filtration of Metal Plating Wastewater

8

VSEP Filtration for Glycol Recovery

9

Membrane Filtration and Precious Metals Recovery

10 Using VSEP to Treat Produced Water

11 Membrane filtration of Commercial Drinking Water

Larry Stowell is New Logic Research's Eastern United States Sales Manager

Responsible for the marketing and development of the VSEP technology in the Eastern United States since

1994. Managing distributors and representatives for New Logic Research.

Michele Monroe, a senior chemical engineer, is New Logic Research's International Sales Manager

Responsible for the marketing and development of the VSEP technology worldwide since 1994. Managing

international distributors and representatives for New Logic Research. Education: Chemical Engineering,

University of California at Davis.

Publications:

Chemical Engineering Progress, January 1998, Solve Membrane Filtration Problems with High-Shear Filtration

Technical Articles:

Various Technical Articles Posted at: http://www.vsep.com/downloads

•

Membrane Filtration of Landfill Leachate

•

Using VSEP for Filtration of Oily Wastewater from a Waste Hauler

•

Concentrating Carbon Black using Membrane Filtration

•

An Examination of the use of VSEP Technology to Replace Cold, Warm, and Hot Lime Softening

Contact: Greg Johnson, Larry Stowell, or Michele Monroe at New Logic Research Inc, 1295 67th Street, Emeryville, CA

94608, USA. Tel: 1-510 655 7305; Fax: +1-510 655 7307; E-mail: info@vsep.com;

Website: www.vsep.com

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

References

1] EPA – Guidelines for Water Reuse – EPA/625/R-04/108/ - September 2004

2]EPA - Water and Wastewater Pricing – EPA 832-F-03-027 – December 2003

3] AWWA – Dawn of the Replacement Era – May 2001

4] U.S. Census Bureau – Interim Projections of the Total Population for the United States – April 2005

5] Douglas M Ruthven, Separation Technology, Wiley-Interscience 1997

6] J. Mallevialle, I.H. Suffet, Influence and Removal of Oraganics in Drinking Water, Lewis Publishers 1992

7] I. Bremere, M. Kennedy, P Michel, R. Emmerick, G. Witkamp, J. Schippers, Desalinatiuon (1999) 51-62

8] R. J. Bowell, Sulfate and Salt Minerals, Mining Environmental Management May 2000

9] R. Brian, K. Yammamoto, Y. Watanabe, Desalination Publications, ISBN 0-86689-060-2, Oct 2000

10] Jean-Philippe Nicot, Ali Chowdhury, Disposal of Brackish Water concentrate into depleted oil & gas fields

11] Robin Foldager, Economics of Desalination Concentrate Disposal Methods - Fall 2003

12] Charles H. Fritz, Black & Veatch, An Economical Zero Liquid Discharge Approach, December 10-12 2002

13] Edmund Archuleta, Desalination of Brackish Groundwater in El Paso Texas

---

Treatment of Brackish RO Reject using VSEP Technology

2

Glossary:

Batch Concentration

: The machine configuration where a fixed amount of feed slurry is progressively

concentrated by removal of permeate from the system. The concentrate from the system is returned to the feed

tank.

Concentrate

: The part of the fluid solution, which does not permeate through the membrane. Also called

Reject or Retentate.

Feed

: Also called feed slurry. It is the raw solution, which is offered for filtration. It typically has suspended

solids, bacteria, or molecules, which are to be segregated from a clear filtrate, and reduced in size making a

concentrate solution of feed slurry.

Filter Pack

: The filtering module, which contains the membrane, layers and is housed by a fiberglass enclosure

Fouling

: The accumulation of materials on the membrane surface or structure, which results in a decrease in

flux

Flux

: Not the same as flow rate. Flux is a measurement of the volume of fluid, which passes through he

membrane during a certain time interval for a set area of membrane, ie GFD, LMH

Microfiltration

: Filtration of particles suspended in solution, which are ≥ 0.1 µm or 500,000 daltons in size or

weight.

Micron

: A unit of measurement. 1 Micron is equal to one-millionth of a meter (10-6). 1 Micron also equals

12,000 mesh or .0000394”. The limit of human visibility is 40 Microns.

Molecular Weight

: The number that expresses the average mass of the molecules of a compound to the mass of

an atom of Carbon 12 at a value of exactly 12

Nanofiltration

: Filtration of particles suspended in solution which are ≥ 0.01 µm or 1000 daltons in size or

weight.

Percent Recovery

: The ratio of permeate flow rate to the feed flow rate

Permeate

: Also called filtrate. It is the part of the solution, which is able to or allowed to filter through the

membrane. The particle size of solids still suspended is determined by the pore size of the discriminating

membrane.

Reverse Osmosis

: Filtration of particles suspended in solution, which are ≥ 0.001 µm or 100 daltons in size or

weight.

Ultrafiltration

: Filtration of particles suspended in solution which are 0.01 to 0.1 µm or 1000 to 500,000

daltons in size or weight.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

Exhibit T:

Fugitive dust control

---

Fugitive dust control

The problems arising from coal dust emissions can be severe, and the methods to control the emissions can

sometimes be inadequate. However, a recent project undertaken in Germany has overcome these problems,

eliminating the risk of explosions while keeping costs low.

Christopher F. Blazek, Benetech GmbH, Germany, Terry Rogers, Mibrag mbH, Germany

High levels of airborne dust which accumulate during coal mining and power plant operations can be highly

problematic for operators. Difficulties arise for worker health and safety issues, possible violation of operating

parameters, fire and explosion hazards, increased maintenance expenses, and fuel loss during transit. Recent coal-

fired power plant explosions in the USA dramatically illustrate the need for proper coal dust control.

Three types of dust control methods exist - containment, collection and suppression - all of which are widely used with

varying degrees of success. Each also has its own limitations, however, including collection inefficiencies, high

maintenance costs and high installation costs.

To overcome these limitations, Benetech GmbH has introduced a new dust suppression technology to Europe, and

recently installed a residual suppression system at the Mibrag mbH Profen brown coal mine in Sachsen-Anhalt,

Germany. Benetech GmbH, a subsidiary of Benetech Inc., was formed in 1997 to provide dust suppression solutions

to industries in Europe. It entered into an agreement with the Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH (Mibrag)

to supply a dust suppression system at its Profen brown coal open pit mine located in the Sachsen-Anhalt region of

Germany. Mibrag evolved from the 1994 privatization of the Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlenwerke AG and more recent

acquisition by the consortium of Morrison Knudsen, NRG Energy and PowerGen. The Profen mine is capable of

producing 9 to 11 million t of brown coal annually.

The success of the Benetech dust suppression system at Profen led to the award of a second contract to provide dust

suppression systems at Mibrag`s newly refurbished Schleenhain mining operations. Schleenhain is an open-pit brown

coal mine located in the Freistaat Sachsen region of Germany. Mibrag`s DM600 million ($330m) investment in the

unified Schleenhain mine, with fields in Schleenhain, Peres, and Groitzscher Dreieck will have a coal production

capacity of more than 10 million t per year when it begins operation in the summer of 1999.

The principle recipient of the brown coal will be the nearby new Lippendorf power plant to be supplied with coal via a

long distance conveyor system. In addition to this conveyor, Mibrag has installed new mining equipment, conveyor

systems, and coal blending stockyard. Special attention has been given to noise and emission issues, which include

fugitive dust emissions.

Environmental hazards

Because of the friable nature of coal, large amounts of dust can be generated during the mining, transportation,

storage and handling processes. Studies have shown that wind losses alone from a train can reach one to three tons

of dust per car during transit. Coal dust causes the most problems at mines and power plants during handling,

unloading and storage activities. This includes the generation of particulate matter (dust) that drifts and settles on

adjacent property.

Health and safety factors also must be considered along with environmental factors. Safety factors include the

inherent hazard of spontaneous combustion and the explosive nature of coal dust. It is not uncommon for coal piles to

generate hot spots that can ignite coal dust during the handling process. A number of recent coal dust related

explosions have been reported which illustrate the need to control coal dust emissions. High levels of fugitive dust also

increase equipment maintenance and shorten the life of coal handling equipment.

Many countries have adopted environmental standards for fugitive dust emissions and health and safety regulations

pertaining to allowable respirable dust levels. Methods and equipment to control fugitive particulates produced in

handling coal include containment, suppression and collection systems. Containment includes the installation and

proper maintenance of skirtboards, belt scrapers, baffles, and conveyor hoods to contain and limit airborne dust.

However, even well engineered systems have limited success with the dusty lower rank coals and have no impact on

dust control during transport or storage.

Mechanical dust collection systems, such as baghouses, can be used to collect dust from strategic locations along the

material handling system. No moisture is introduced which reduces the heating value of the fuel. Collection efficiencies

can reach nearly 100 per cent, but maintenance costs are high. These systems also have high installation costs, the

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

collected dust must be treated to avoid the risk of fire or explosions, and the system does not control dust generated

downstream of the collection point or at the coal pile.

Dust suppression systems use strategically placed manifolds to introduce a suppressant solution that controls airborne

dust levels. General types of dust suppression systems include wet surfactant systems, foam surfactant systems, and

residual suppression systems that use binders, humectants, and surfactants to provide long-term dust control for coal

storage as well as in handling systems.

The benefits of these systems include reduced equipment costs, reduced power and maintenance costs relative to

mechanical collection systems, and residual dust suppression significantly reduces dusting at downstream coal

transfer points and coal storage piles.

Dust abatement needs are most acute where heavy-duty mining dump trucks or rotary and bottom-dump coal cars

unload. These operations emit clouds of dust. Chemical dust suppression and collection systems are most frequently

used to control dust emissions at these points as well as at conveyor transfer points and during the stack-out and

reclaim process.

Dust suppression involves the application of chemically treated water via sprays or foam to the coal stream to

minimize fugitive dust emissions. Surfactants in the chemical package wet the coal and dust particles, effectively

altering the weight /mass ratio and cohesiveness of the material. By wetting the dust, either as it lies in the material

body or as it escapes off the pile, the mass of each particle is increased, so it is less likely to become airborne. The

suppressant solution also increases the cohesion of the material, making it more difficult for air currents to pick up

small particles adhering to larger particles.

Wet suppression: This technique combines the use of water with an effective wetting agent. After being wetted,

gravity forces the dust particles downward into the coal flow. The technology effectively controls dust at the dumper

area and can provide a degree of residual protection during multi-transfers. This residual effect allows for few

application points which minimizes water addition and equipment and installation costs.

Foam suppression: The foam-spray technology, effective for many coal-handling situations, lays out a heavy spray of

foam that blankets the dust before a cloud can rise. Foam dust suppression works by reducing the surface tension or

"static charge" of individual dust particles and increasing the molecular attraction between fugitive dust particles and

larger coal pieces. Mixing foaming surfactants, water and compressed air in proper proportions generate the foam.

Application of foam dust suppression into transfer chutes and crushers can increase immediate and mid-term dust

suppression through upcoming transfer points. This system has an extra advantage in that it minimizes the amount of

water used and applied to the fuel.

Residual suppression: Residual dust suppression consists of binders, humectants and surfactants applied to coal on

the conveyor belt that transports the fuel from below the dumper to the coal storage stackout. With this technology,

the coal can be treated just once and it maintains residual dust control throughout the conveyor system, stackout,

and during stock piling and the ground movement of coal. Depending on the length of stackout, residual suppression

can reduce airborne dust levels during the reclaim process. There is a second benefit in using the residual dust

suppression system in that it acts as a compaction enhancement agent as the coal is spread into active or reserve

piles.

Comparative studies of water systems with chemical systems find that approximately two to four per cent surface

moisture is added to coal by water spray systems. This compares to 0.15 per cent to 1.0 per cent for chemical

systems. The least amount of moisture addition, typically less than 0.2 per cent, is produced by foam technology.

Added moisture content can pose serious consequences for boilers and the steam generating cycle. Excess water may

promote belt slippage and increase the possibility of wet (and hence sticky) fines accumulating within chutes and

around transfer points.

Excessive moisture can adversely affect the material`s "cold weather" performance, complicate its flow dynamics, add

weight (and hence cost) to material transportation, and reduce the effectiveness of conveyor belt cleaning systems.

The Mibrag project

To control dust emissions at the Profen and Schleenhain mines, Benetech GmbH engineers conducted a detailed site

survey of both mining operations. This included the development of the following site specific dust control goals:

• Address fire and/or explosion potential

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

• Determine when and where dust control is needed (at dumpers, handling, stackout, etc.)

• Anticipate the ease of dust control system changes for possible conveyor modifications or changes in coal properties

• Review costs for equipment and chemicals

• Include the need for a clean and healthy work environment to meet local work regulations and fugitive dust

emission limitations

• Evaluate the degree of fugitive dust from storage piles and transfer points

• Consider system reliability, system maintenance and current work force load

• Establish housekeeping and worker productivity goals.

After the goals were determined, Benetech evaluated the available dust control methods for suitability. As no mining

or power plant operation is the same, Benetech developed a custom solution for each mine. At Profen, Benetech chose

its BT-415 residual dust control system.

The Profen brown coal mine is located near the towns of Zeitz and Weissenfels in the south of the federal state of

Sachsen-Anhalt. Coal is mined from three seams; the Saxon-Thuringian lower seam, the Thurigian main seam, and

the Boehien upper seam, covering an area of roughly 25 km

2

. Nearly 32 km of conveyor belts exist at the site and

Mibrag routinely collects dust and noise readings to ensure that legal requirements are met.

Benetech`s solution included the installation of application systems at stations 5a, 43, and 45. Each application

system consists of an enclosure with a water pressure booster pump and chemical dosing pump. These fully

automated systems precisely meter chemicals from the adjacent chemical storage tank to a stream of metered water.

At station 5a the chemically laced water stream is sent under pressure via 50 mm (outside diameter) high density

polyethylene pipes to six spraybars, operating at 4 bar pressure, to the conveyor transfer points. Station 43 is

similarly equipped, feeding nine spray bars while station 45 feeds six spray points. The effectiveness of this system

prompted Mibrag to select a Benetech dust suppression system for their Schleenhain mining operations.

The Schleenhain mine, located in the Saxony region, was temporarily shutdown in 1995 to convert the mine to full

conveyor belt operation. The mine is now scheduled for start-up in the summer of 1999 to supply brown coal to the

newly constructed adjacent Lippendorf power plant. With a reserve of more than 400 million t of coal, the mine is

expected to operate through 2040. An important element of the mine refurbishment is noise and emission protection,

including fugitive dust control.

At the Schleenhain mine the Benetech site survey indicated a need for both residual and wet dust suppression

systems at a number of locations. A BT-415 based residual dust suppression system was installed near the screen and

breaker station as shown in Figure 1. This system is designed to apply a suppression spray at the discharge of the

sieve, discharge of the crusher, and tail of conveyor 73 following the sieve and crusher chutes.

An example of the manifold placements is presented in Figure 2. Spray locations are placed to maximize penetration

into the moving coal stream. All water, chemical and solution piping and the chemical storage tank is heat traced and

insulated to prevent freezing down to -25 degrees C. To prevent freezing at the spray tip assembly and flexible hose

connections, compressed air is injected at shutdown into these components during cold weather operation.

The Benetech designed control system utilises Siemens` series programmable controller with Profibus communication

network capabilities. Through this network Benetech can retrieve data concerning conveyor belt operations and report

data concerning the functions of the dust suppression system. A Benetech installed ultrasonic level transmitter signals

coal at the head of conveyor 72. Variable speed chemical pumps control the application rate based on the level of coal

on the conveyor. In addition to retrieving data from the communication system, the Benetech control system provides

data indicating various operating parameters such as:

• System operating conditions

• Chemical storage tank level

• Water flow rate and total

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009

* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *

---

• Chemical flow rate and total

• System alarm conditions such as water and chemical pump failures

A Benetech BT-205W wet suppression system is installed at the transfer tower shown in Figure 3 and is designed to

apply a suppression spray at the transfer chute from conveyor 75 to 80 and at the transfer chute from conveyor 76 to

90. An example of the manifold spray points on the conveyors is presented in Figure 4. As can be seen, the spray

points immediately follow the impact areas on the conveyor system. This system is similarly equipped with a water

pressure booster pump and chemical-metering pump. Adjacent to this container is a 25 000 l carbon steel heat traced

and insulated storage tank to store the BT-205W surfactant. The tank is of double wall construction to eliminate the

need for a retaining structure.

An effective approach

Special attention was given to factors such as manifold placement, air velocities, spray penetration into the coal flow,

spray patterns, and chemical effectiveness. Even the best designed dust suppression system will fail if the

suppressant chemical is not formulated correctly and is not delivered to the correct location to allow intimate mixing

with the dust fines.

Chemical dust suppression systems are widely used in the USA to control fugitive dust emissions. The effectiveness of

this approach in treating brown coal has been shown at the Profen mine. A similar system has been installed at the

Schleenhain mine and will be operational this summer. At both locations a major factor in their success is the unique

systems that were design for site specific conditions.

Figure 1. Dust suppression system and chemical storage tank at Schleenhain mine

Figure 2. Example spray manifold placement in chute

Click here to enlarge image

---

Figure 3. Head of conveyor at transfer tower

Figure 4. Example spray manifold placement on conveyor system

Power Engineering International

May, 1999

 

Click here to enlarge image