MEMORANDUM

TO: Public Record for the Effluent Limitations Guidelin es and Standards for Drinking

Water Treatment Facilities EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 ( www.regulations.gov ), DCN 10002

FROM: Paul Hanson, P.E.

PG Environmental LLC (PG)

DATE: 27 August 2010

SUBJECT: Reverse Osmosis for Produced Water Treatment

EPA requested PG assemble literature data on revers e osmosis. Preliminary responses to the Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Survey (Office of Managem ent and Budget Control No. 2040-0279) indicate that reverse osmosis is the primary desalting membr ane process used in produced water treatment. This memorandum presents an overview of membrane process es before focusing on the reverse osmosis process, performance, and residuals.

Description of the Treatment Process

Overview of Membrane Processes Membrane processes can be classified according to d riving force, membrane type, configuration, and removal capabilities. Membrane processes are classi fied as desalting membranes or low-pressure membranes. Desalting membranes are used to remove dissolved contaminants, both inorganic and organic. Desalting includes the high-pressure-drive n processes of reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltrat ion (NF) and the electrically-driven processes of elect rodialysis (ED) and electrodialysis reversal (EDR). Low-pressure membranes include ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF). Low-pressure membranes are designed for particle removal, and ar e often used as pretreatment prior to desalting. H ighpressure and low-pressure membranes use semipermeab le membranes to remove contaminants from feed water. Pressure is the driving force for these memb ranes. Increased pressure on the feed side of the membrane transports some of the water from the feed side, through the membrane, to the permeate side. The membrane may reject other constituents dependin g on the properties of the particular membrane used and the operating conditions. Water and other const ituents not permeating the membrane flow out of the membrane system as the concentrate stream. ED/EDR m embranes are ion exchange membranes that use an electrical potential to separate impurities from water.

Electrically-Driven Desalting Processes The ED/EDR process is designed for desalting bracki sh water supplies and is not applicable to the removal of non-charged solutes, such as silica, or particles and pathogens. It is inefficient at remov ing dissolved organics, which are weakly charged (AWWA 2004). ED/EDR is applicable to produced water, but only economical up to 7500 mg/L TDS (Mickley 19 93).

ED and EDR use an electrical potential to force dis solved ions through ion-exchange membranes that are virtually impermeable to water. The water is purifi ed by the movement of contaminants, not water, acro ss the membrane. The ED process places alternating pai rs of cation (+) and anion (-) membranes between positively and negatively charged electrodes. When a voltage is applied, a current causes cations to m ove in the direction of the negatively charged electrod e (cathode). The cations move through the cation membrane but are restrained by the anion membrane. The anions move in the direction of the positively charged electrode (anode) through the anion membran e, but are restrained by the cation membrane. Water flows in all channels; flow from channels where con taminants are removed becomes the desalted productstream. Flow from channels to which salts are trans ferred becomes the concentrate. Feed pressures for

ED/EDR are typically between 50 and 70 psi to overc ome head losses in the ED/EDR membrane modules or “stacks.” (AWWA 2004)

With ED, the direction of electrical charge is alwa ys the same. With EDR, the direction of charge is reversed several times hourly by reversing the elec trical polarity, which changes the direction of ion movement through the membranes and "electrically fl ushes" fouling ions from the membrane surfaces to control the buildup of scale, improve recovery, and reduce the need for scale-inhibiting chemicals. (AWWA 2004)

High-Pressure-Driven Desalting Processes

While RO and NF are desalting membranes used in hig h-pressure-driven processes and both are used in applications that require removing dissolved contam inants, RO is used for desalination and NF is typically used for softening (by removing calcium a nd magnesium ions). NF is not considered effective for produced water because it raises the sodium ads orption ratio (SAR). RO and NF are classified based on the size of the material rejected. The followin g is a screening ranking of desalting membranes fro m larger to small species rejected (in microns) (AWWA , ASCE 1996).

• Nanofiltration 0.025 to 0.001 (includes dissolved organics)

• Reverse osmosis 0.002 to 0.0001 (includes dissolve d inorganics)

Reverse osmosis is a proven treatment process for t he removal of TDS and other constituents such as

arsenic and silica. RO water treatment has been use d extensively to convert brackish water/seawater or brine to drinking water, reclaim wastewater, and re cover dissolved salts from various industrial proce sses. The high quality water resulting from the RO proces s could be available for many beneficial uses (ALL 2003). RO systems can also be mobile and modular, w ith a small footprint. The RO treatment process separates dissolved solids or other constituents fr om water by passing the water solution through a semipermeable cellophane-like membrane, leaving beh ind impurities (ALL 2003). Most ions are completely rejected (rejections greater than 99 per cent). The membrane is so tight that even ions of m etals cannot pass through, including radioactive metal io ns such as radium and uranium. The removal of these contaminants is not 100 percent as some ions pass t hrough the membrane, depending on membrane type and quality, water quality, and operational paramet ers. (Khera 2007)

RO Operational Limitations

Pressure / TDS Limitations

Solutions of higher total dissolved solids (TDS) co ncentrations have greater osmotic pressures, and therefore require more hydraulic pressure to produc e permeate. Practical limits are imposed on the process by pump energy and component manufacturing costs associated with operating at hydraulic pressures exceeding 1,000 psig. For this reason, pr essure driven membrane processes are typically util ized

for treatment of saline streams with TDS concentrat ions ranging from 500 to 40,000 mg/L; however, this technology has been utilized to treat water with 50 ,000 mg/L TDS. (CSM 2009)

The New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology P etroleum Recovery and Research Center (PRRC) has developed inorganic membranes for produced wate r treatment focusing on the treatment of high salinity produced waters (>50,000 ppm TDS in the Sa n Juan basin and >100,000 ppm TDS in the Permian basin). (ALL 2006a).Fouling and Scaling

Membrane fouling and scaling are the biggest proble ms in the membrane industry. Membrane fouling and scaling will increase the required pressure to maintain a constant water production and cause an increased permeate rejection rate and increased ope rating costs.

While RO membranes are able to remove solids, a hig h quality of feed water with reduced turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) levels is required to prevent plugging of the flow spacers in the membran e elements. Generally, turbidity levels higher than 0 .3 NTU or silt density index levels higher than 3 u nits can cause plugging and adversely affect the membran e’s performance.

Chemical scaling occurs when the concentration of s cale-forming compounds reaches the solubility limit and begins to precipitate. The desalting membranes produce concentrate on a continuous basis and

chemicals are added to inhibit scale formation. Th ese membranes are typically chemically cleaned ever y 3 to 12 months.

Temperature limits The performance of RO membranes is reduced by highe r temperature; the upper limit for operating temperature is 113 to 122°F, but some spiral wound elements can be used up to 194°F (ALL 2006a).

Performance Data and Costs (What discharge levels c an these treatment systems meet? Do costs vary with levels of discharge? Are final effluent c oncentrations independent from influent concentrations?)

RO accounts for 58 percent of global seawater desal ination (CSM 2009). In the U.S., the ability of

reverse osmosis to treat seawater and brine to drin king water standards (500 mg/L TDS) is well established. Additional treatment is required to t reat to significantly lower TDS concentrations (e.g ., a partial two pass system has been used in Australia to treat seawater to permeate less than 100 mg/L TD S) (UNESCO 2008, Crisp 2008). Additionally, the level of required pretreatment will have a significant impact on cost. If the product water concentration is lower than required, as is often the case with RO, it may be possible to decrease the membrane system cap acity by blending the product water with pretreated feed water. (Wilbert 1999).

Salt water RO membranes treat TDS influent ranging from 20,000 to 47000 mg/L TDS (CSM 2009). SWRO membranes are designed to achieve NaCl rejecti ons in excess of 99% (CSM 2009). As stated previously, the removal of contaminants depends on membrane type and quality, water quality, and operational parameters (Khera 2007). Other inorgani c compounds such as silica and boron are rejected t o a lesser extent and frequently require additional t reatment considerations (such as increasing the pH of the RO feed stream to pH 10 or higher). Rejection of or ganic compounds in salt water RO ranges from very high rejections (greater than 99.7%) to very low re jections (<20%), depending on the organic compound’ s chemical structure and feed solution physicochemica l parameters (Xu 2005). Salt water RO effluent TDS ranges from 100 to 400 mg/L (>99.4% rejection), amm onia rejection is approximately 80%, and boron rejection less than 50% at neutral ph (note that bo ron removal is greater with higher pH) (CSM 2009).

Brackish water RO membranes treat TDS influent rang ing from 500 to 25,000 mg/L TDS (>94% NaCl). Product water quality is dependent on the feed wate r salinity and operating conditions. Typically, pro duct water TDS ranges from 100 to 1500 mg/L, and ammonia rejection from 60 to 80%). (CSM 2009)Potential Data Sources

CBM Detailed Questionnaire

EPA received influent and effluent data from two hi gh-pressure filtration installations in the Powder River Basin (PRB). Both data sets contain Confident ial Business Information.

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) Note for Brian: PG couldn’t find any data from a qu ick literature search but would assume that OGWDW would have performance data on reverse osmosis.

Vendors

See Attachment A for a list of vendor information i n or to be posted to the CBM record.

Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPH E) Gary Beers (CDPHE) referenced a small-scale CBM ope ration exists in western Colorado which utilizes advanced treatment (reverse osmosis) to reduce Tota l Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations in the produced water discharged to surface waters. From the current operator, detailed information is avail able on the treatment process as wells as chemical profi les for the influent and effluent during a multi-ye ar period. From an earlier operator, an economic anal ysis of disposal alternatives (i.e., injection, adv anced treatment, pollutant trading with agricultural disc harger) is available. This information, along with permitting documents, is to be provided to EPA. (US EPA 2010)

Gary Beers also noted that the State of Colorado Wa ter Quality Control Division (WQCD) has issued 3 to 6 permits where advanced tre atment is applied to produced waters before discharge to surface waters. Discussions were held with developers and manufacturers of these technologies with a focus on performance and genera l costs. The information on the various technologie s and provided cost information is to be sent to EPA. (US EPA 2010)

Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ ) MDEQ’s Board of Environmental Review (BER) proposed technology based limits (MDEQ’s Proposed Rule VIII) in 2005 to restrict discharges or CBNG p roduced water.

NEW RULE VIII TRATMENT-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (1) If the department grants a waiver from the zer o discharge requirement for all or a portion of the wastewater pursuant to [New Rules II and III], the amount of wastewater that obtains the waiver shall achieve the following minimum technolo gy based effluent limitations at the end of the pipe prior to discharge: (a) calcium average concentration between 0.1 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L; (b) magnesium average concentration between 0.1 mg/ L and 0.6 mg/L; (c) sodium average concentration of 10 mg/L; (d) bicarbonate average concentration of 30 mg/L an d instantaneous maximum concentration of 115 mg/L; (e) sodium adsorption ratio instantaneous maximum o f 0.5; (f) electrical conductivity average concentration o f 233 μmhos/cm; (g) total dissolved solids average concentration of 170 mg/L; (h) ammonia average concentration of 0.1 mg/L and i nstantaneous maximum concentration of 0.3 mg/L; and (i) arsenic concentration of <0.0001 mg/L.”

Comments on Proposed Rule VIII questioned the achie vability and affordability of the Montana limits,

and noted inconsistent treatment levels for several parameters. Comments also noted that the proposedlimits were below drinking water standards, creatin g water that may be detrimental for beneficial use

(e.g., leaching minerals and metals from soil), as well as noting additional environmental impacts fro m increased waste volumes (e.g., waste hauling traffi c). (ALL 2006b, Sattler 2006, Argonne National Laboratory 2006). One report provided costs, but n oted that the costs for the proposed Montana standa rd may be as much as an order of magnitude greater tha n current costs for treatment and discharge (ALL 2006b).

GE Pilot Study in California A GE pilot study in California for produced water t reatment utilized a treatment train that included R O. The study includes influent and effluent concentrat ions for several parameters (sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, ammonium, chloride, sulfate, and oil) around each stage treatment. Sodium was reduced from 9,610 ppm to 5,250 ppm after NF and do wn to 144 ppm after RO. (ALL 2006a)

Pacerita Canyon Oil Field (California) A pilot scale treatment train for produced water fr om the Pacerita Canyon Oil Field (California) inclu ded RO. The study includes costs and overall removals ( for silica, TDS, boron, and ammonia). (ALL 2006a)

Walsenburg, Colorado Brackish Water Membrane Effect iveness Study RO and NF membranes were tested on CBM produced wat er at 650 mg/L TDS (primarily sodium) (Mondal 2008).

Bureau of Reclamation Desalting Costs The Bureau of Reclamation Desalting Handbook for Pl anners (Watson 2003) and the Water Treatment Estimation Routine (WaTER) User Manual (Wilbert 199 9) provide RO costs.

U.S. Department of Energy Desalting Costs The U.S. Department of Energy provided cost estimat es for desalting in the PRB based on TDS limits of 500 and 1000 mg/L (Bank 2006).

University of Wyoming The University of Wyoming developed a decision mode l for treating CBM water (Sajtar 2008).

Colorado School of Mines The Colorado School of Mines is developing a Produc ed Water Treatment and Beneficial Use Screening Tool. This tool will provide water quality (based o n geographic location), suggest suitable treatment trains, and provide a cost-benefit analysis of diff erent beneficial reuse options for the water.

Typical Disposal Practices of Waste Streams and Vol umes of Waste as Compared to Volumes of

Treated Influent

For desalting membranes, residuals include concentr ate (produced on a continuous basis during normal operation) and spent cleaning solutions (produced p eriodically from off-line chemical cleaning of the membrane train through a cleaning-in-place (CIP) pr ocess). (AWWA 2004). Desalting membrane processes generate a concentrate that contains most ly dissolved contaminants removed from the feed water. In general, the percentage of wastewater pro duced decreases as the size of the water systems increase due to increased efficiencies (US EPA 1993 ). Concentrate is produced continuously while spent cleaning solutions are generated intermittently (ty pically every 3 to 12 months). Also, the volume of concentrate is much greater than the volume of spen t chemical solution. The waste characteristics are highly dependent on the nature of the source water and the treatment processes incorporated.If the liquid waste contains a high total dissolved solid (TDS) content, it is often referred to as br ine

waste. This would apply to membrane processes used to remove salt from seawater or brackish groundwater. Low-TDS wastes are referred to as conc entrate.

Concentrate Because desalting membrane processes produce a high -purity stream by rejecting high percentages of contaminants in the feed stream, the concentrate st ream is primarily a more concentrated version of th e feed water. As such, the characteristics of concent rate are directly related to the feed water quality . For NF and RO, the contaminants and other constituents in the feed water will be rejected by the membrane and will become part of the concentrate stream. Con taminant concentrations depend upon the rejection

characteristics of the membrane and the water recov ery. If pre-treatment is used, the feed water to th e desalting membranes will have lower levels of certa in constituents and particles. However, the pretreatment may add chemical addition constituents. ( AWWA 2004)

Typical source water quality, water recovery, and r esiduals concentrations are included in Table 2, wh ere the values represent the maximum concentrations for residuals streams based on a simplifying assumptio n that all of the salts are rejected (100 percent sal t rejection). Table 2 also presents typical recover ies for the various types of water sources treated by desalting membrane processes and associated concentrate quantity as percent of feed. Brackish water RO syst ems operate at recoveries of 65 to 85 percent; seaw ater RO system recoveries are lower, typically 40 to 60 percent. (AWWA 2004). One report estimates 10 percent brine by volume from RO in the PRB (which i s reasonable considering the relatively low TDS concentrations in the PRB) (ALL 2006b). The percent age of reject water produced also decreases as the size of the water systems increase due to increased efficiencies. (U.S. EPA 1993)

Table 2. Typical Desalting Membrane System Design Parameters (AWWA, 2004)

Parameter Brackish

Groundwater Seawater

Feed TDS (mg/L) 500-10,000 30,000-40,000 Water recovery (% of feed) 65-85 40-60

Concentrate quantity (% of feed) 15-35 40-60

Concentrate TDS (mg/L) (at example recovery) 2,000-40,000 (75%) 60,000-80,000

(50%)

Concentration factor* 2.9-6.7 1.7-2.5

*Ratio of total dissolved solids in concentrate to total dissolved solids in feed, assuming 100 percen t salt rejection

The amount of particles or TSS in desalting membran e concentrates is low, typically <10 mg/L, because of the extensive pretreatment required to control f ouling. The acid and scale inhibitor added to the membrane feed water to control mineral precipitatio n will be concentrated in the desalting membrane

concentrate. Scale inhibitor levels in the concentr ate are typically <20–30 mg/L and consist of phosph ates or organic polymers (such as polyacrylates or dendr imers). (AWWA 2004)

For simplicity, the residuals stream concentration can be estimated based on the feed water quality an d a concentration factor related to the water recovery, as shown in the equation below:

r w

r 

### Q C C =Where:

C

r = Concentration in the rejected water

C

w = Concentration in the raw water Q

r = Fraction of water rejected

Chemical Cleaning (CIP) Residuals Cleaning solutions were developed to address specif ic contaminants that cause fouling and loss of performance, and CIP residuals reflect the chemical characteristics of both the spent cleaning solutio n and material removed from the membrane system during CI P. Reactions with foulants will tend to raise the pH of acid solutions and lower that of basic ones. (AWWA 2004)

The cleaning solution waste will reflects the spent cleaning solution and material removed from the membrane system during CIP. Typically, the "cleanin g solution volumes" generated during a CIP of NF and RO are about 3 gal/100 sq. ft. (1.2 liter/m 2 ). This volume does not include rinse water volume s. Typical cleaning solution volume is estimated by ad ding the total empty vessel volume and pipe volume. Spent cleaning solutions, which may be diluted with rinse water (feed or permeate), can contain detergents, surfactants, acid, caustic, or other ch emicals used to remove foulants from the membrane system. Typically, the spent cleaning solution volu me is an extremely small percentage of the treated flow (<0.1%). (AWWA 2004)

Disposal Disposal of highly concentrated TDS residuals from desalting can be challenging. High-TDS residuals are often disposed via underground injection, or us ed as a deep fracking fluid; however, the availabil ity of disposal options is highly dependent on geographic location and regulatory requirements. Technologies to further concentrate RO residuals include evaporatio n, crystallization, and thermal distillation. POTW’ s are not designed to remove TDS and Region 3 recentl y limited POTW’s to accept no more than 1 percent of their daily flow from fracking water.

References

AWWA, ASCE 1996. American Society of Civil Engineer s, American Water Work Association, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Management of Water Treatment Plant Residuals: Tech nical Transfer

Handbook . April 1996. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0728.

ALL 2003. ALL Consulting, LLC. Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management and Beneficial Use Alternatives. (July). Available online at: http://www.allllc. com/CBM/pdf/CBMBU/CBM%20BU%20Screen.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW- 2004-0032-2483.

ALL 2006a. ALL Consulting. A Guide to Practical Management of Produced Water f rom Onshore Oil and Gas Operations in the United States . October 2006. Prepared for US DOE, National Pet roleum Technology Office. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10000).

ALL 2006b. ALL Consulting. Feasibility Study of Expanded Coal Bed Natural Gas Produced Water Management Alternatives in the Wyoming Portion of t he Powder River Basin, Phase One . Prepared For U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technolog y Laboratory Wyoming State Planning Office, January 2006. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2524.

Argonne National Laboratory 2006. Observations on a Montana Water Quality Proposal. Prepared by Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, January 2006. ANL/EVS/R-06/2. EPAHQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10004).AWWA 2004. AWWA Residual Management Research Commit tee Subcommittee on Membrane

Residual Management, 2004 Committee Report: Residuals Management for Des alting Membranes. Jour. AWWA, 96:12:73. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10005).

Bank 2006. The Economics of Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Development. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy. Prepared by: Gregory C. Bank, Vello A. Kuuskraa. Advanced Resources International, Inc. January 2006. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-00 32-2451.

Crisp 2008. Crisp, G. Seawater desalination in Australia and the Perth ex perience—a sustainable

solution. 2nd International Salinity Forum. Adelaide, Austra lia. 31 March – 3 April 2008. EPA-HQ-OW2008-0517 (DCN 10006).

CSM 2009. An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Managemen t of Produced Water: TECHNICAL

ASSESSMENT OF PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 1st Edition. RPSEA Project

07122-12. November 2009. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10007).

Khera 2007. R. Khera, P.E. U.S EPA OGWDW. SPARRC User’s Manual . March 2007. EPA-HQ-OW2008-0517 (DCN 10008).

Mickley 1993. Mickley, Mike P.E., Ph. D., Mickley & Associates. Membrane concentrate disposal: Practices and Regulation . Bureau of Reclamation. Desalination and Water Pur ification Research and Development Program Report No. 69.September 2001. E PA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10009).

Mondal 2008. S. Mondal, and S.R. Wickramasinghe. Produced water treatment by nanofiltration and

reverse osmosis membranes . Journal of Membrane Science 322 (2008) 162-170. EPA-HQ-OW-2008- 0517 (DCN 10010).

Sajtar 2008, Sajtar, Eric T., M.S.; David M. Bagley Ph.D. P.E. Toolbox to Evaluate Treatment Technologies for PRB CBM Water. Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming. February 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10 017).

Sattler 2006. Allan R. Sattler, Malynda A. Aragon, M. Michael Hightower. Technical Review of Proposed Changes in Montana Water Quality Standards for Coal Bed Natural Gas Produced Water . Printed January 2006, Prepared by Sandia National Laborator ies Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550. SAND2006-0312. EPA-HQ- OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10011).

UNESCO 2008. Emerging Trends in Desalination: A Review . UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology, University of New South Wales. Publ ished November 2008 by the National Water Commission, Canberra Australia. Waterlines report N o 9 - October 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10012).

U.S. EPA. 1993. Large Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposa l Cost Document . EPA 811-D93-002. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10013).

U.S. EPA. 2010. Notes from 29 January 2010 Teleconference with Gar y Beers, Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, on the Colorado Gene ral NPDES Permit for Produced Water Treatment Facilities (COG840000). July 27, 2010. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10014).

Watson 2003. Ian C. Watson, PE.; O.J. Morin, Jr., P E.; Lisa Henthorne, PE. Desalting Handbook for
Planners, Third Edition . July 2003. Bureau of Reclamation, Desalination Re search and Development Program Report No. 72. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0 517 (DCN 10015).Wilbert 1999. Water Treatment Estimation Routine (WaTER) User Manual. Bureau of Reclamation.

Water Desalination Research and Development Report No. 43. August 1999. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (DCN 10016).

Xu 2005. P. Xu, J.E. Drewes, C. Bellona, G. Amy, T. -U. Kim, M. Adam, and T. Heberer, Rejection of emerging organic micropollutants in nanofiltration/ reverse osmosis membrane applications . Water Environment Research 77 (2005) 40-48. EPA-HQ-OW-200 8-0517 (DCN 10075).Attachment A. Reverse Osmosis VendorsTechnologyTypeTechnology NameVendorTechnology in Use orPilot?Operators, if in useSite visitcompleted?ReferenceMaterialsOther InformationMembraneSeparation -Reverse OsmosisCeraMem®CeramicMembrane TechnologyHPD Systems /Veolia WaterIn use. (Sixty commercialinstallations have beenmade and multiple pilottrials conducted with thepresent advances in theCeraMem technology andan earlier, "firstgeneration" product.)No EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1337,EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1710http://www.hpdsystems.com/processes/link/process.htm?site=doc&objectId=1831&reference=2C36twpm46OK6v57lHW1MembraneSeparation -Reverse OsmosisSelf-Cleaning ScreenFiltration for ReverseOsmosis SystemsAmiadFiltrationSystemsIn use. 40 years developinga automatic and manualself-cleaning filtersScottish Water’sMallaig WaterTreatment Works(WTW), UKPetrochemical PlantPre-filtration for ROBoiler feeding system,France, 2006. FPSOSeawater Injection,North Sea, 2001.No EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1346http://www.enerscopesystems.com/pdfs/screengeneral-brochure.pdfhttp://www.enerscopesystems.com/amiad.aspxMembraneSeparation -ElectrodialysisHybrid CDI-EDTechnologySabrex EWP Pilot tested in WY No EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-0883MembraneSeparation -Reverse Osmosisor NanofiltrationandElectrodialysisZero DischargeDesalination (ZDD)Dow, VeoliaWaterSolutions &TechnologiesLarge-scale piloting will becompleted in 2009 tovalidate life cycle costsprior to a 0.5-MGDdemonstration plant beingbuilt. As part of the largerscale piloting, a separatecost analysis willdetermine the marketabilityof beneficial byproductsproduced by the process.No EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2420http://www.veoliawaterst.com/industry/markets/vws-oilgas/upstream/onshore/Attachment A. Reverse Osmosis VendorsTechnologyTypeTechnology NameVendorTechnology in Use orPilot?Operators, if in useSite visitcompleted?ReferenceMaterialsOther InformationMembraneseparation -Ultra-LowPressure andNanofiltrationReverse OsmosisXLE membrane, NF-90membraneDow/Filmtec No EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-0963Membraneseparation -Ultra-LowPressure andNanofiltrationReverse OsmosisTFC-ULP membrane andTFC-S membrane(Koch), TMG-10membrane (Toray), andESNA membrane(Hydranautics)KochMembraneSystems Inc(KMS),TorayAmerica,HydranauticsIn use Koch membrane is usedat a desalination rig atDenton Creek Test Site,Burlington ResourcesNo EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-0963MembraneSeparation -Reverse OsmosisTriwatech, LLCTreatment SystemTriwatech,LLCPilot Plant Yes EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1048MembraneSeparation -Reverse OsmosisReverse Osmosis SandiaNationalLaboratoriesPilot ProgramPilot ConocoPhillips Yes EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1072MembraneSeparation -Reverse OsmosisMFI Zeolite Membranes Unspecified Under researchNo EPA-HQOW-2008-0517(DCN05267)Attachment A. Reverse Osmosis VendorsTechnologyTypeTechnology NameVendorTechnology in Use orPilot?Operators, if in useSite visitcompleted?ReferenceMaterialsOther InformationReverse osmosis(and brinerecovery reverseosmosis) systemsWater treatment forinjection/reinjection;produced watertreatment; SAGDprocess water treatmentSiemens WaterTechnologiesIn use Petro-Canada (PowderRiver Basin, WY)Yes EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2714http://www.energyexposition.com/exhibitor_list.htmhttp://www.water.siemens.com/en/applications/oil_gas_produced_water/Pages/moss_cs_cbm_petrocanada.aspxEPA participated in aconference call withSiemens WaterTechnologies regardingtheir RO facilities in thePRB on January 192010Membraneseparation –Ultrafiltrationand ReverseOsmosisUses conventionalmunicipal wastewatertreatment methods withadditional filtration stepsAnticlineDisposal,LLC, primarilyGE equipmentIn Use Not specified YesEPA-HQOW2008-0517(DCN10038)Anticline Disposal hasbeen awarded USPatent No. 7,527,736on their frac waterprocess, and US PatentNo. 7,510,656 on theirdischarge process.Reverse Osmosis Reverse Osmosis,including Ozonation andCarbon FiltrationTriadIndustries, Inc.Near Completion XTO Energy, Inc. YesEPA-HQOW2008-0517(DCN10035)