Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Dave/Phil: Yes, using alluvial ground water; existing water supply. <br />Web: Water rights issues? <br />Dave/Phil: In our pilot case, no. <br />Web: Taking alluvial ground water? <br />Jim Hall: There is not a water rights issue; Brighton owns this water and it is <br />augmented. <br />Marc of Corn Growers: This would mean that the munis would be able to get <br />100% of the water to put into their system; <br />Julio Iturreria: Have you thought about using this membrane as a byproduct for <br />any of the oil and gas storm water? <br />Dave/Phil: No, the industry has thought about using the membranes for produced <br />water. <br />Julio I.: the by-product seems malevolent. <br />Dave/Phil: yes, could be a possibility <br />Mike Shimmin: So the membrane technology is already developed; this is taking <br />it to the next step of production level; this is not pure technology; the technology <br />already exists; it is a question of testing it for economic feasibility, etc.? <br />Dave/Phil: Yes, these technologies have been used in industrial uses but not in a <br />drinking water application; <br />Mike Shimmin: Do we know that this is likely to work and just a question of <br />proving that it will work in this environment. <br />Dave/Phil: Yes, question is to costs; other question has to do with emerging <br />contaminants such as pharmaceuticals <br />Janet: how effective for removing the dissolved alphabetas with uranium in the <br />mountains, is it effective? <br />Dave/Phil: yes, fundamentally, the issue becomes what to do with the concentrate; <br />the focus is not whether we can remove the contaminant, the question is what <br />happens when we increase the concentration of those contaminants... what to do <br />with those? <br />Patron: Any estimate on the costs of the unit of produced water? <br />Dave/Phil: Estimate of costs would increase the cost of treatment by about 50%, <br />thus pre-treatment 1/3cost, membrane treatment 1/3 costs; then add this, another <br />1/3. <br />Patron: So three times the cost of raw water cost? <br />Dave/Phil: You are producing 20% more water, but cost of producing that extra <br />20% is about lJz more; but that is the intent of this study is to obtain a better idea <br />of these costs. Estimates would add $2 per $1000 to treatment; these are purely <br />estimates. <br />Bill Jerke: Need sense of timing; for state funding. <br />Dave/Phil: Want to make an application to state in CWCB and want to include the <br />letter of support in that application. <br />Bill Jerke: This is asking for letter of support before seeing the application. <br />Dave/Phil: We have the application that is ready for the AK valley and we would <br />be glad to share that with this Roundtable; we could suggest that we provide the <br />letter of application in the next few days and then you could vote on this at your <br /> <br />14 <br />