VSEP Finishes the Job That Spirals Systems Start
Spiral RO membranes are very good at producing clean water for beverage applications including bottled water. Spring water is typically not treated and is put straight into the bottle. But many bottled water products are called “purified” because they use spiral RO membrane systems to filter town water or well water prior to bottling. In a way, this purified water is cleaner than bottled spring water or town water because it will remove many impurities such as arsenic which can be harmful even at very low levels. The EPA recommended maximum for arsenic is 10 parts per billion, but scientists agree that there really is no completely safe level.
The other issue that has recently come to light is the presence of harmful PFAS chemicals which are found everywhere in the environment now. These come from many consumer products such as Teflon lined pans, consumer packaging, and even tea bags. PFAS chemicals have been detected in 7000 public drinking water systems and have even been found in rainwater in Florida. These are not regulated yet, but are expected to be in the near future. Municipalities are required to test for PFAS in water systems and report the findings to the public. Beverage companies that use town water to make their products may become liable if their product contains PFAS and they do not report this. PFAS chemicals have also been measured in several sparkling spring water products, including Perrier. So for this reason, “purified” bottled water really is safer.
Spiral RO membranes are very good at producing clean water for bottling. However, these systems are limited in what can go into the system and also by solubility limits, which if exceeded can cause fouling and scaling. Spiral systems cannot accept suspended solids, oil, or organic materials feeding into the system. Once these materials can be excluded, the system can remove water and concentrate solids up to the point where dissolved solids would precipitate. Software programs are used to model this solubility and will determine the achievable permeate recovery rate after accounting for the solubility of things like silica, barium, calcium, strontium, sulfate, carbonate, and other sparingly soluble salts. Depending on the dissolved solids of the town water, typically, a spiral system can achieve 75-85% recovery of RO permeate from the feed water. This results in a large volume of brine, which is wasteful.
New Logic has installed many systems where its VSEP vibratory RO membrane is used after a spiral to reduce the volume of the reject from the spiral and increase the yield of clean water. By doing this many VSEP customers are able to achieve 98% recovery of clean water. Due to the agitation and shear created by the oscillation of the VSEP membrane, it is not limited by solubility and can actually precipitate solids during filtration, unlike any other membrane system.
New Logic has recently completed fabrication of a VSEP system that will be used by a major bottled water manufacturing company. A conventional spiral RO system will be used as the primary stage for filtering town water. Then, the VSEP system will take the concentrate from that system which is saturated and near its solubility limit and will volume reduce this further. The system will take 75 gpm of spiral reject and reduce its volume to only about 7 gpm, which will be hauled to a brine disposal point.
A Giant Problem at the Leviathan Mine
Operations at the Leviathan mine in Alpine County, California began in 1863 during the Comstock Lode period. Initially, 500 tons of copper sulfate were removed until 1870. Large sulfur deposits were found there. Between 1935 and 1941, subsurface sulfur mining was conducted, but then halted due to the dangers of mining sulfur underground. Later, in 1951, open pit mining was started and the sulfur was removed and then used for leaching copper at another mine, the Anaconda, in Lyon County, Nevada. 500,000 tons of sulfur were removed. The 400-foot pit containing sulfur bearing ore began to create acid mine drainage water that began contaminating local creeks that flow into the Carson River in Nevada. The Carson River was classified as impaired. In 1984, the State of California acquired the mine and began cleanup. In 1997, the EPA became involved and soon designated it as a Superfund site and added it to the National Priorities List.
Cleanup activities are continuing under the direction of the EPA. The mine site is located in a very remote area at 7,500 feet (2,286 m) elevation. Power, heat, and winter access have been a big obstacle. Because of this, treatment has been seasonal since it is only accessible a few months out of the year. The EPA is developing a plan to run treatment year-round based on the planned 20+ years of monitoring and ecosystem recovery. The Washoe Tribe is also involved in decision making since it is impacted downhill with tribal lands on the Carson River. The EPA is preparing a Feasibility Study for long term remediation. The EPA reports that there has been some overall ecological recovery over the past 25 years, though seasonal declines still occur when treatment is offline.
The Leviathan mine uses a combination of capture, containment, chemical treatment, and biological treatment. Treatment methods are used in different seep locations. A high-density sludge treatment plant is used in one area where lime is added to neutralize the water and precipitate metals (Fe, Cu, Al, Ni, Zn, etc.). Precipitated solids are settled becoming a sludge. For another seep location a sulfate-reducing biological reactor was used. This precipitates metals as metal sulfides and reduces acidity. This method is useful for low-flow but high-strength waters coming from the seep. The capture happens year-round, but the treatment systems can only operate in the summer because they do not work well in winter and also because access is limited. Lime delivery would be especially challenging on the dirt forest road that accesses the property. New Logic has contacted the project managers to offer them a VSEP solution for this cleanup project 60 miles from our factory.
Texas Wastewater Tremblers
Wastewater disposal wells from oil and gas operations in Texas and Oklahoma are linked to human‑induced earthquakes. In the Permian Basin (West Texas), since roughly 2014, the underground injection of wastewater into shallow formations, a mile or two below ground, is associated with faults reactivating and causing hundreds of earthquakes in previously stable regions. Stanford University research indicates these faults remain primed to slip as long as disposal operations continue, potentially triggering ongoing seismicity.
Not all wastewater wells trigger quakes. Of over 150,000 Class II (oil & gas disposal) wells in the U.S., only a small fraction triggers quakes that are large enough to be of public concern. Fluid injection raises pressures in fault zones, reducing friction and making faults more susceptible to slipping. The risk is typically localized and regulators have successfully reduced seismicity by adjusting injection practices, such as reducing volumes and changing injection depths. Proper regulation and depth control can mitigate, but not entirely eliminate, the risk of induced seismicity from wastewater disposal.
At the federal level, treatment zones must be separated from drinking water aquifers. Also, casing/cementing and pressure limits are based on injection and formation depths. At the state level, Texas (RRC), requires seismic risk assessments, real-time data submission, and grants authority to restrict depth/pressure or revoke permits if quakes occur. In essence, injection depth regulation combines engineering safeguards, site-specific reviews, and dynamic policy enforcement tied to seismic activity data. This layered approach ensures wastewater is injected safely, minimizing both groundwater contamination and earthquake risk.
Texas leads the nation in the number of Class II injection and disposal wells by a wide margin due to its oil and gas production infrastructure. Roughly 1/3rd of all disposal wells are located in Texas. There are significant facilities in Oklahoma, California, and Kansas and then smaller numbers in other states. Class II oil and gas disposal wells have a more streamlined permit path, with less engineering intensity and fewer federal-to-state compliance layers. Other types of wastewater injection well permits are much more regulated and complex. Class I wells (industrial, municipal, hazardous) undergo rigorous permitting: deep-bore design, multi-agency reviews, extensive technical evaluation, and RCRA compliance. Class V wells (shallow, non-hazardous) are far easier to permit but still regulated, especially when near groundwater sources.
Much work has been done to find beneficial uses for the water produced during oil production. New Logic has conducted many studies and pilot trials to demonstrate how the brine byproduct of oil production can be cleaned up and used for many applications rather than injecting it underground. This would especially benefit arid regions like West Texas.
Landfill Challenges Ahead
Casella Waste Systems is pursuing a 61-acre expansion of the Juniper Ridge Landfill in Old Town and Alton, Maine. The expansion would add 11.9 million cubic yards of capacity and extend the life of the landfill by 11.3 years. The company is currently working on permits. According to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Casella must show that the expansion provides a substantial public benefit, must hire a third-party company to submit an odor analysis, set up semiannual gas monitoring, establish a public alert system, and install a DEP-approved system to treat and remove PFAS chemicals.
Casella is in the early stages of the permit process and full approval is contingent on meeting all the DEP requirements and resolving some legal challenges. The local Penobscot Nation and an environmental advocacy group are attempting to block the expansion.
Casella is trialing foam fractionation technology for PFAS removal. This is a simple and low cost method of wastewater treatment. It also has minimal waste and a small footprint. However, this technology is targeting only PFAS and will not remove other pollutants such as ammonia, COD, or heavy metals. Also, removal rates for long-chain PFAS chemicals such as PFOA and PFOS are good at about 90-99%, however, removal rates for short-chain PFAS chemicals such as PFBA and PFBS are only about 14-60% removed. The technology uses air or ozone to create foam bubbles which attract the PFAS chemicals due to their surface active nature. Operating costs are low at about $0.35/1000 gallons treated. Therefore, foam fractionation is a partial treatment and may not be sufficient for discharge requirements.
New Logic has installed 25 landfill leachate projects around the world producing clean water that can meet surface water discharge requirements. Only recently have landfill inquiries about VSEP focused on PFAS. The EPA is now developing a rule for landfills regarding PFAS and these companies see this coming and are planning for methods of compliance. The EPA tested 200 landfills and found PFAS in 95% of the samples tested. The new rule will revise current discharge limits for water discharged to surface water or local POTWs. The EPA is also considering designating nine PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances which would impact landfill operations significantly.
New Logic has completed system fabrication for a landfill in Minnesota which will be the first of our installations to focus on PFAS. During pilot testing earlier this year, VSEP demonstrated that it could remove eight PFAS chemicals below non-detect levels. Three were reduced to less than 1 ng/L (parts per trillion). One short chain PFAS chemical, PFBA was reduced to 4 ng/L which was a reduction of 99.8%. Additionally, the final treated water had only 7 mg/L of ammonia and a conductivity of only 175 µS. While there may be rules coming for PFAS, a more complete treatment system would benefit the landfill operator and the local community. Legal challenges to landfills and the permitting process may be ameliorated by installing the VSEP water purification system.
Coal Plant Retirements Delayed Amid Grid Reliability Concerns
In the US, a total of 23 coal-fired units were permanently retired in 2024. Estimates vary, but this represents roughly 3-4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generation. Power plants often have more than one power generation unit, and these can sometimes use different fuel sources. At the beginning of 2024, coal power provided 80.7 GW of electricity. At that time, 49 GW of coal-fired power was slated for retirement by 2029. During 2024, 37.7 GW of additional generation capacity were brought online:
- Solar: 30.8 GW
- Wind: 3.1 GW
- Nuclear: 1.1 GW
- Natural gas: 2.4 GW
- Other: biomass, hydro, geothermal: 0.3 GW
During 2024, U.S. power consumed rose by 85 billion kWh, which represents 9.7 GW of power generation. 30.8 GW of solar power is the nameplate maximum if the sun shined 24 hours per day. The actual output is 20-25% of that rating meaning 6.2 to 7.7 GW of actual electricity is added. Wind power works the same way. 3.1 GW is the maximum that can be produced if it were windy all the time. 40% is the capacity factor used for wind power meaning 1.2 GW of added power. The actual power generation that was added to replace the 3-4 GW of coal power that was retired is:
- Solar: ~7.0 GW
- Wind: 1.2 GW
- Nuclear: 1.1 GW
- Natural Gas: 2.4 GW
- Other: 0.3 GW
This means 12 GW of new generating capacity were brought online to replace the 3-4 GW of coal power that was retired. The net result is that new power added barely kept up with the growth in national consumption of 9.7 GW in 2024. The concern is that the national grid has dangerously low spare capacity in some areas. For this reason, the retirement of many coal-fired power plants is being delayed. The planned retirement of 49 GW of coal power by 2029 could lead to power shortages if alternative power is not brought online to replace it.
Dispatchable power refers to power that can be increased on demand when needed. Coal and natural gas power plants can ramp up when there are times of high electricity demand. Because of the concern about capacity, starting in May 2025, the DOE issued emergency orders to delay retirements at seven coal power plants:
- J.H. Campbell Generating Plant (Michigan)
- Eddystone Generating Station (Pennsylvania)
- Wagner Station (PJM Region)
- F.B. Culley Generating Station (Indiana)
- R.M. Schahfer Generating Station (Indiana)
- Centralia Generating Station Unit 2 (Washington)
- Craig Station Unit 1 (Colorado)
In total, 9 coal-fired units in these seven plants will continue to operate, providing 4.5 GW of capacity. This is only 4.5 GW out of the 80 GW of planned retirement by 2029.
Meat Processing Rule Withdrawn
The EPA establishes wastewater discharge guidelines and regulations for industrial sectors. It is not very often that requirements are relaxed, but it can happen. On January 23, 2024, the EPA proposed a new effluent limitations guideline (ELG) for the meat and poultry processing industry. This rule has since been withdrawn. The proposal went well beyond incremental revisions to the existing rule and would have significantly expanded wastewater control requirements for both direct industrial dischargers and indirect dischargers to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The proposed rule tightened existing limits for nitrogen, total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and fats/oils/grease (FOG). In addition, it introduced new federal discharge limits for phosphorus, chlorides, and Escherichia coli (E. coli).
The proposal also reduced production thresholds, increasing the number of facilities subject to federal ELGs from approximately 180 to between 850 and 1,600 plants. The agency concluded that meat processing facilities contribute to eutrophication, algal blooms, dissolved oxygen depletion, and downstream drinking water impairments. EPA’s technical justification asserted that currently available treatment technologies, including advanced biological nutrient removal systems and membrane‑based processes, were economically achievable and capable of meeting the proposed effluent limits. The rulemaking itself was initiated as part of a settlement agreement stemming from litigation brought by environmental organizations, alleging that the existing ELGs were outdated.
Although POTWs routinely receive high‑strength wastewater containing elevated nitrogen, phosphorus, and microbial indicators and provide secondary or tertiary treatment prior to surface‑water discharge, EPA identified nutrient and pathogen pass‑through as an ongoing concern. This reflects a broader national trend: many POTWs are operating near hydraulic and treatment capacity, and rather than expanding or upgrading, treatment responsibility is increasingly being shifted upstream through stricter industrial pretreatment requirements.
The rule withdrawal does not preclude more stringent state‑level discharge limits or tighter POTW pretreatment standards. Many POTWs may continue to impose lower local limits as they attempt to maintain compliance with restrictive nutrient and pathogen permit requirements. Industry argued that E. coli is already addressed downstream through municipal disinfection processes and that imposing disinfection requirements at the industrial facility level would introduce additional chemical handling, safety concerns, and potential residual disinfectant toxicity that could interfere with biological processes at POTWs.
Most meat and poultry processing facilities rely primarily on biological treatment systems. While these systems are effective at reducing BOD, TSS, and ammonia, they are not designed to provide pathogen control. As a result, biological treatment is not capable of reliably achieving low E. coli effluent concentrations at the levels contemplated in the proposed federal rule. The EPA assumed that a dedicated post‑biological disinfection step would be needed. New Logic has a new web page dedicated to this industry: Meat & Poultry Processing.
10% of the Cost, 100% of the Flavor: VSEP vs Evaporator
Left to right:
4º Brix Coffee Extract
25º Brix Concentrate
0º Brix RO permeate
Many food and beverage products are often dried and then sold, so the consumer can add water to make it complete. Powdered milk is an example. Also, instant coffee has been around for a long time. While there are some savings in packaging and shipping for products where the water is removed, the thermal energy to do this is very expensive. New Logic has installed three projects to dewater coffee extract and another to remove water from black tea extract.
Our local agent in China, Good Earth Agricultural, recently completed pilot testing for a coffee company there. The objective for the test was to use an RO membrane to filter the brewed coffee (extract) and remove as much water as possible to reduce the volume that would go to the existing thermal evaporator. The coffee extract had a starting Brix number of 4º. The VSEP was operated in batch mode and removed 85% of the volume as clean RO permeate leaving only 15% of the original volume to be evaporated. The final Brix of the concentrate was 25º. The test was conducted at low temperatures to keep the flavor components stable, so they could remain in the concentrate. One issue with thermal evaporation is that much of the flavor component is lost in the steam from evaporation.
An analysis was done on the operating cost of the VSEP compared to the thermal costs. It was estimated that the VSEP cost only about 10% of the cost of operation for the thermal evaporator. This would result in a payback period of 1.3 years relative to the capital cost.
Rowan University in New Jersey has also completed several studies for Nestlé where VSEP is used to dewater coffee extract and to treat the wastewater from the end-of-pipe. This is one of many applications where spiral RO membranes cannot be used due to fouling issues and where VSEP is used prior to evaporation to reduce energy costs.
VSEP Tackles High Silica Cooling Tower Blowdown
Cooling towers are used at power plants to discharge heat and keep electricity generators cool. Like the radiator and cooling system in your car, the liquid is circulated to collect heat and then cooled by mechanical fans or natural updraft to exhaust heat. When this happens, water vapor is generated and leaves the system. As this happens, make-up water is added to replace the water that is lost. Also during evaporation, dissolved solids remain and will increase in concentration since they do not evaporate. This cooling water can only be recirculated a limited number of times before it needs to be purged to keep solids from cycling up too high. This is known as cooling tower blowdown.
New Logic has installed several VSEP systems at power plants to treat this blowdown. It can be high in silica and hardness and difficult to treat due to the scaling potential. Because VSEP works like a membrane crystallizer, it can handle this water and recover a large portion of the blowdown as clean water that can be reused as make-up water.
New Logic recently conducted onsite full-scale pilot testing for a southeastern power plant to treat their blowdown and demonstrate the recycled water that could be made. This plant is required to be zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) and had a 15-year-old system in place that was problematic and high maintenance. The VSEP system was pilot tested along with an evaporator to demonstrate ZLD.
The VSEP was operated with two stages in series. The first stage was run at 73% recovery with a flux rate of 30 GFD (51 LMH). The second stage was run at 53% recovery with a flux rate of 15 GFD (25 LMH). This resulted in an overall recovery of 85% of the volume for reuse as make-up water. Only 15% of the volume remained and was sent to the evaporator for final drying. After evaporator solids shown below.
VSEP – The Only Membrane for Oily Wastewater
The saying goes that oil and water don’t mix, but when they actually do, it can be difficult to get them apart. Oily wastewater can exist in many forms and is complex. Oil can reside with water in four ways. Free oil mixtures exist as large globs of pure oil which quickly rise to the surface forming a pure oil slick or sheen. This oil can be removed by oil skimmers, cyclones, or API separators.
Oil dispersions consist of very small spheres of oil in water. When the conductivity is below 2000 µS, naturally occurring charge at the oil/water interface prevents the oil spheres from touching. Chemical flocculants can induce coalescence by adjusting the mutually repellent surface charge toward zero. Without repellent forces, the dispersion forms larger globules that can then float. In seawater with high conductivity, dispersion cannot occur because the Debye length, or the length scale over which surface charge can be felt by another particle is reduced so particles can “touch” together and join by van der Waals forces. This allows for coalescence where the oil can be skimmed.
Though solubility is limited, molecular oil can dissolve in water. At high pH, oil can be highly soluble in water. Oil can be emulsified with water. Emulsion chemistry is more complex than dispersion chemistry because liquid oil can respond to surfactant addition forming small spheres called micelles. ‘Breaking’ an emulsion means causing the oil to separate from the water and rise to the surface as free oil. It is difficult because emulsions are thermodynamically stable. Temperature and pH can be used to change the partition of emulsifier between the oil and water phases. If these methods fail, one must often abandon chemical and thermal breaking strategies. This is where membrane separations technology comes in.
Conventional spiral RO membrane systems cannot accept any amount of oil. Oil adheres strongly to the polypropylene spacers used. The polypropylene spacers are hydrophobic and chemically similar to hydrocarbons. Oil will “wet out” polypropylene which will behave like an oil sponge. Once the spacers are coated with oil, the channel cross section shrinks, dead zones form, differential pressure spikes, and biological fouling occurs. In conventional spiral membranes, concentration polarization occurs, which is where very high concentrations of oil can be present at the membrane surface. When this happens, the oil concentration proximate to the membrane can be 10-50x higher near the membrane.
The VSEP system is completely different in its configuration. It uses a wide channel between the membranes with no netting spacer to become blocked. VSEP also employs torsional oscillation of the membrane creating extremely high shear at the membrane surface. This shear disrupts concentration polarization and prevents oil film formation. The membrane moves back and forth 50 times per second and is pulling 100 g of force with each reversal. The membrane is more hydrophilic than it is hydrophobic and so there is not a strong attraction or advantage in thermodynamics for the oil to wet out the membrane. Rather it will form micelles or small spheres and behave just like any other suspended solid.
Excess Nitrogen and a Fjord in Crisis
The Oslofjord is in poor ecological condition, with elevated nitrogen levels identified as one of the main drivers of environmental degradation. Nitrogen is a nutrient that can cause eutrophication of coastal waters. This leads to increased algal growth, reduced water clarity, and, most critically, oxygen depletion in deeper waters. As oxygen levels fall, large areas of the fjord become uninhabitable for fish, shellfish, and bottom‑dwelling organisms. Scientific assessments show declining fish stocks, shrinking habitats for seaweed and eelgrass, and spreading algal slime that crowds out other species.
Nitrogen enters the Oslofjord from several sources, and municipal wastewater and sewage treatment plants are among the largest controllable contributors. Together with agricultural runoff, they account for roughly three‑quarters of total nitrogen inputs to the fjord. Many sewage treatment plants were historically designed to remove organic matter and phosphorus, but not nitrogen to the level now required to protect sensitive marine ecosystems.
Total nitrogen discharge from municipal wastewater in Norway (including small facilities) is estimated at approximately 20,330 tons per year. According to NIVA monitoring (2019–2023), municipal sewage accounts for around 18–24% of total nitrogen inputs, while agriculture contributes about 41–44%, with the remainder coming from background runoff and forests. Nitrogen loading has increased ~5-fold since pre-industrial times. Several fjord sections, such as Frierfjorden and Drammensfjorden, are classified as “moderate” or “poor” in summer nitrate/nitrite concentration, with no improving trend. In central fjord areas like Breiangen, studies indicate a minimum nitrogen reduction of 10% is required to prevent persistent moderate or poor ecological status.
To address this, the Norwegian government, through the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet), has established a dedicated grant scheme to support nitrogen removal at municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Oslofjord catchment area. In 2025, Parliament allocated over NOK 53 million, supplemented by unused funds from 2024, bringing the total available funding to about NOK 61 million. These funds have been awarded to 32 municipal and intermunicipal projects, selected from more than 40 applications received. The grants are not primarily for full‑scale construction yet, but for planning, piloting, and decision‑making that will enable rapid nitrogen reductions.
Miljødirektoratet has prioritized projects that can deliver fast and measurable reductions in nitrogen discharges, as well as solutions that can be replicated across multiple municipalities. Over time, these projects are expected to lead to large‑scale upgrades of sewage treatment plants, including biological and chemical nitrogen removal processes capable of meeting much stricter discharge limits.
The long‑term goal is a significant and sustained reduction in nitrogen inflows to the Oslofjord, leading to improved oxygen conditions, recovery of marine habitats, and healthier fish populations. The sewage‑treatment grants are a central part of a broader, multi‑year action plan for restoring the fjord, alongside measures targeting agriculture, fisheries, and coastal development.
New Logic will be pilot testing at a biogas facility near the Oslofjord using its VSEP RO technology to treat effluent from an anaerobic digester. These biological systems do not remove nitrogen, and this treated waste is the source of the discharge problem. RO membranes can reject very high amounts of nitrogen and will also remove micro-plastics, PFAS chemicals, phosphorus and other pollutants. VSEP RO would be the ultimate treatment process, providing extremely clean water for discharge. Nitrification/denitrification pilots will likely also be studied, although processes do not remove microplastics or PFAS.
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter. I hope you find it informational and fun. You are one of 3,200 professionals and industry stakeholders who receive this newsletter each month.
