MEMORANDUM 

TO: Public Record for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines 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 reverse osmosis. Preliminary responses to the Coalbed 

Methane Extraction Sector Survey (Office of Management and Budget Control No. 2040-0279) indicate 

that reverse osmosis is the primary desalting membrane process used in produced water treatment. This

memorandum presents an overview of membrane processes 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 driving force, membrane type, configuration, and 

removal capabilities. Membrane processes are classified as desalting membranes or low-pressure 

membranes. Desalting membranes are used to remove dissolved contaminants, both inorganic and 

organic. Desalting includes the high-pressure-driven processes of reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration 

(NF) and the electrically-driven processes of electrodialysis (ED) and electrodialysis reversal (EDR). 

Low-pressure membranes include ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF). Low-pressure 

membranes are designed for particle removal, and are often used as pretreatment prior to desalting. Highpressure and low-pressure membranes use semipermeable membranes to remove contaminants from feed 

water. Pressure is the driving force for these membranes. 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 depending on the properties of the particular membrane used

and the operating conditions. Water and other constituents not permeating the membrane flow out of the

membrane system as the concentrate stream. ED/EDR membranes 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 brackish water supplies and is not applicable to the 

removal of non-charged solutes, such as silica, or particles and pathogens. It is inefficient at removing 

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 1993). 

ED and EDR use an electrical potential to force dissolved ions through ion-exchange membranes that are

virtually impermeable to water. The water is purified by the movement of contaminants, not water, across 

the membrane. The ED process places alternating pairs of cation (+) and anion (-) membranes between 

positively and negatively charged electrodes. When a voltage is applied, a current causes cations to move 

in the direction of the negatively charged electrode (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 membrane, but are restrained by the cation membrane. Water

flows in all channels; flow from channels where contaminants are removed becomes the desalted product 
stream. Flow from channels to which salts are transferred becomes the concentrate. Feed pressures for 

ED/EDR are typically between 50 and 70 psi to overcome head losses in the ED/EDR membrane modules 

or “stacks.” (AWWA 2004) 

With ED, the direction of electrical charge is always the same. With EDR, the direction of charge is 

reversed several times hourly by reversing the electrical polarity, which changes the direction of ion

movement through the membranes and "electrically flushes" 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 high-pressure-driven processes and both are used in 

applications that require removing dissolved contaminants, RO is used for desalination and NF is 

typically used for softening (by removing calcium and magnesium ions). NF is not considered effective 

for produced water because it raises the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). RO and NF are classified based

on the size of the material rejected. The following is a screening ranking of desalting membranes from 

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 dissolved inorganics) 

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

arsenic and silica. RO water treatment has been used extensively to convert brackish water/seawater or

brine to drinking water, reclaim wastewater, and recover dissolved salts from various industrial processes. 

The high quality water resulting from the RO process could be available for many beneficial uses (ALL 

2003). RO systems can also be mobile and modular, with a small footprint. The RO treatment process 

separates dissolved solids or other constituents from water by passing the water solution through a 

semipermeable cellophane-like membrane, leaving behind impurities (ALL 2003). Most ions are 

completely rejected (rejections greater than 99 percent). The membrane is so tight that even ions of metals 

cannot pass through, including radioactive metal ions such as radium and uranium. The removal of these

contaminants is not 100 percent as some ions pass through the membrane, depending on membrane type 

and quality, water quality, and operational parameters. (Khera 2007) 

RO Operational Limitations 

Pressure / TDS Limitations 

Solutions of higher total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations have greater osmotic pressures, and 

therefore require more hydraulic pressure to produce 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, pressure driven membrane processes are typically utilized 

for treatment of saline streams with TDS concentrations 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 Petroleum Recovery and Research Center (PRRC) 

has developed inorganic membranes for produced water treatment focusing on the treatment of high 

salinity produced waters (>50,000 ppm TDS in the San Juan basin and >100,000 ppm TDS in the Permian 

basin). (ALL 2006a). 
Fouling and Scaling 

Membrane fouling and scaling are the biggest problems 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 operating costs. 

While RO membranes are able to remove solids, a high quality of feed water with reduced turbidity and 

total suspended solids (TSS) levels is required to prevent plugging of the flow spacers in the membrane 

elements. Generally, turbidity levels higher than 0.3 NTU or silt density index levels higher than 3 units 

can cause plugging and adversely affect the membrane’s performance. 

Chemical scaling occurs when the concentration of scale-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. These membranes are typically chemically cleaned every 

3 to 12 months. 

Temperature limits 

The performance of RO membranes is reduced by higher 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 can these treatment systems meet? Do costs 

vary with levels of discharge? Are final effluent concentrations independent from influent 

concentrations?) 

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

reverse osmosis to treat seawater and brine to drinking water standards (500 mg/L TDS) is well 

established. Additional treatment is required to treat 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 TDS) 

(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 capacity 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 rejections 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 inorganic compounds such as silica and boron are rejected to 

a lesser extent and frequently require additional treatment considerations (such as increasing the pH of the 

RO feed stream to pH 10 or higher). Rejection of organic compounds in salt water RO ranges from very 

high rejections (greater than 99.7%) to very low rejections (<20%), depending on the organic compound’s 

chemical structure and feed solution physicochemical parameters (Xu 2005). Salt water RO effluent TDS 

ranges from 100 to 400 mg/L (>99.4% rejection), ammonia rejection is approximately 80%, and boron 

rejection less than 50% at neutral ph (note that boron removal is greater with higher pH) (CSM 2009). 

Brackish water RO membranes treat TDS influent ranging from 500 to 25,000 mg/L TDS (>94% NaCl). 

Product water quality is dependent on the feed water salinity and operating conditions. Typically, product 

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 high-pressure filtration installations in the Powder 

River Basin (PRB). Both data sets contain Confidential Business Information. 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) 

Note for Brian: PG couldn’t find any data from a quick literature search but would assume that OGWDW 

would have performance data on reverse osmosis. 

Vendors 

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

Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) 

Gary Beers (CDPHE) referenced a small-scale CBM operation exists in western Colorado which utilizes 

advanced treatment (reverse osmosis) to reduce Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations in the 

produced water discharged to surface waters. From the current operator, detailed information is available 

on the treatment process as wells as chemical profiles for the influent and effluent during a multi-year 

period. From an earlier operator, an economic analysis of disposal alternatives (i.e., injection, advanced 

treatment, pollutant trading with agricultural discharger) 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 Water Quality Control Division

(WQCD) has issued 3 to 6 permits where advanced treatment 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 general costs. The information on the various technologies 

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 produced water. 

NEW RULE VIII TRATMENT-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

 (1) If the department grants a waiver from the zero 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 technology 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 and instantaneous maximum concentration of 

115 mg/L; 

(e) sodium adsorption ratio instantaneous maximum of 0.5; 

(f) electrical conductivity average concentration of 233 μmhos/cm; 

(g) total dissolved solids average concentration of 170 mg/L; 

(h) ammonia average concentration of 0.1 mg/L and instantaneous maximum concentration of 

0.3 mg/L; and 

(i) arsenic concentration of <0.0001 mg/L.” 

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

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

(e.g., leaching minerals and metals from soil), as well as noting additional environmental impacts from 

increased waste volumes (e.g., waste hauling traffic). (ALL 2006b, Sattler 2006, Argonne National 

Laboratory 2006). One report provided costs, but noted that the costs for the proposed Montana standard 

may be as much as an order of magnitude greater than current costs for treatment and discharge (ALL 

2006b). 

GE Pilot Study in California 

A GE pilot study in California for produced water treatment utilized a treatment train that included RO. 

The study includes influent and effluent concentrations 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 down to 144 ppm after RO. (ALL 2006a) 

Pacerita Canyon Oil Field (California) 

A pilot scale treatment train for produced water from the Pacerita Canyon Oil Field (California) included 

RO. The study includes costs and overall removals (for silica, TDS, boron, and ammonia). (ALL 2006a) 

Walsenburg, Colorado Brackish Water Membrane Effectiveness Study 

RO and NF membranes were tested on CBM produced water at 650 mg/L TDS (primarily sodium) 

(Mondal 2008). 

Bureau of Reclamation Desalting Costs 

The Bureau of Reclamation Desalting Handbook for Planners (Watson 2003) and the Water Treatment 

Estimation Routine (WaTER) User Manual (Wilbert 1999) provide RO costs. 

U.S. Department of Energy Desalting Costs 

The U.S. Department of Energy provided cost estimates 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 model for treating CBM water (Sajtar 2008). 

Colorado School of Mines

The Colorado School of Mines is developing a Produced Water Treatment and Beneficial Use Screening 

Tool. This tool will provide water quality (based on geographic location), suggest suitable treatment 

trains, and provide a cost-benefit analysis of different beneficial reuse options for the water. 

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

Treated Influent 

For desalting membranes, residuals include concentrate (produced on a continuous basis during normal 

operation) and spent cleaning solutions (produced periodically from off-line chemical cleaning of the 

membrane train through a cleaning-in-place (CIP) process). (AWWA 2004). Desalting membrane 

processes generate a concentrate that contains mostly dissolved contaminants removed from the feed 

water. In general, the percentage of wastewater produced 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 (typically every 3 to 12 months). Also, the volume of 

concentrate is much greater than the volume of spent 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 brine 

waste. This would apply to membrane processes used to remove salt from seawater or brackish 

groundwater. Low-TDS wastes are referred to as concentrate. 

Concentrate 

Because desalting membrane processes produce a high-purity stream by rejecting high percentages of 

contaminants in the feed stream, the concentrate stream is primarily a more concentrated version of the 

feed water. As such, the characteristics of concentrate 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. Contaminant concentrations depend upon the rejection 

characteristics of the membrane and the water recovery. If pre-treatment is used, the feed water to the 

desalting membranes will have lower levels of certain constituents and particles. However, the pretreatment may add chemical addition constituents. (AWWA 2004) 

Typical source water quality, water recovery, and residuals concentrations are included in Table 2, where 

the values represent the maximum concentrations for residuals streams based on a simplifying assumption 

that all of the salts are rejected (100 percent salt rejection). Table 2 also presents typical recoveries for the 

various types of water sources treated by desalting membrane processes and associated concentrate 

quantity as percent of feed. Brackish water RO systems operate at recoveries of 65 to 85 percent; seawater 

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 is reasonable considering the relatively low TDS 

concentrations in the PRB) (ALL 2006b). The percentage 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 percent salt rejection 

The amount of particles or TSS in desalting membrane concentrates is low, typically <10 mg/L, because 

of the extensive pretreatment required to control fouling. The acid and scale inhibitor added to the 

membrane feed water to control mineral precipitation will be concentrated in the desalting membrane 

concentrate. Scale inhibitor levels in the concentrate are typically <20–30 mg/L and consist of phosphates 

or organic polymers (such as polyacrylates or dendrimers). (AWWA 2004) 

For simplicity, the residuals stream concentration can be estimated based on the feed water quality and a 

concentration factor related to the water recovery, as shown in the equation below: 

r

w

r Q

C

C =
Where: 

Cr = Concentration in the rejected water 

Cw = Concentration in the raw water 

Qr

 = Fraction of water rejected 

Chemical Cleaning (CIP) Residuals 

Cleaning solutions were developed to address specific contaminants that cause fouling and loss of 

performance, and CIP residuals reflect the chemical characteristics of both the spent cleaning solution and 

material removed from the membrane system during CIP. 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 "cleaning solution volumes" generated during a CIP of NF 

and RO are about 3 gal/100 sq. ft. (1.2 liter/m2

). This volume does not include rinse water volumes. 

Typical cleaning solution volume is estimated by adding 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 chemicals used to remove foulants from the membrane 

system. Typically, the spent cleaning solution volume 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 used as a deep fracking fluid; however, the availability of 

disposal options is highly dependent on geographic location and regulatory requirements. Technologies to 

further concentrate RO residuals include evaporation, crystallization, and thermal distillation. POTW’s 

are not designed to remove TDS and Region 3 recently 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 Engineers, American Water Work Association, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Management of Water Treatment Plant Residuals: Technical 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 from Onshore Oil 

and Gas Operations in the United States. October 2006. Prepared for US DOE, National Petroleum 

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 the Powder River Basin, Phase One. Prepared For 

U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology 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 Committee Subcommittee on Membrane 

Residual Management, 2004 Committee Report: Residuals Management for Desalting 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-2004-0032-2451. 

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

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

CSM 2009. An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Management 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 Purification Research and 

Development Program Report No. 69.September 2001. EPA-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 10017). 

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 Laboratories 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. Published November 2008 by the National Water 

Commission, Canberra Australia. Waterlines report No 9 - October 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

(DCN 10012). 

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

U.S. EPA. 2010. Notes from 29 January 2010 Teleconference with Gary Beers, Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment, on the Colorado General 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., PE.; Lisa Henthorne, PE. Desalting Handbook for 

Planners, Third Edition. July 2003. Bureau of Reclamation, Desalination Research and 

Development Program Report No. 72. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (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-2008-0517 (DCN 10075). 
Attachment A. Reverse Osmosis Vendors 

Technology Type Technology Name Vendor 

Technology in Use or Pilot? Operators, if in use 

Site visit completed? 

ReferMate

Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis 

CeraMem®Ceramic Membrane Technology 

HPD Systems / Veolia Water 

In use. (Sixty commercial installations have been made and multiple pilot trials conducted with the present advances in the CeraMem technology and an earlier, "first generation" product.) 

 No EPA-

OW-20771-EPA-OW-20771-

Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis 

Self-Cleaning Screen Filtration for Reverse Osmosis Systems 

Amiad Filtration Systems 

In use. 40 years developing a automatic and manual self-cleaning filters 

Scottish Water’s Mallaig Water Treatment Works (WTW), UK Petrochemical Plant Pre-filtration for RO Boiler feeding system, France, 2006. FPSO Seawater Injection, North Sea, 2001. 

No EPA-

OW-20771-

Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis 

Hybrid CDI-ED Technology 

Sabrex EWP Pilot tested in WY No EPA-

OW-20771-

Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis or Nanofiltration and Electrodialysis 

Zero Discharge Desalination (ZDD) 

Dow, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies 

Large-scale piloting will be completed in 2009 to validate life cycle costs prior to a 0.5-MGD demonstration plant being built. As part of the largerscale piloting, a separate cost analysis will determine the marketability of beneficial byproducts produced by the process. 

 No EPA-

OW-20032-
Attachment A. Reverse Osmosis Vendors 

Technology Type Technology Name Vendor 

Technology in Use or Pilot? Operators, if in use 

Site visit completed? 

ReferMate

Membrane separation - Ultra-Low Pressure and Nanofiltration Reverse Osmosis 

XLE membrane, NF-90 membrane 

Dow/Filmtec No EPA-

OW-20771-

Membrane separation - Ultra-Low Pressure and Nanofiltration Reverse Osmosis 

TFC-ULP membrane and TFC-S membrane (Koch), TMG-10 membrane (Toray), and ESNA membrane (Hydranautics) 

Koch Membrane Systems Inc (KMS),Toray America, Hydranautics 

In use Koch membrane is used 

at a desalination rig at Denton Creek Test Site, Burlington Resources 

No EPA-

OW-20771-

Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis 

Triwatech, LLC Treatment System 

Triwatech, LLC 

Pilot Plant Yes EPA-

OW-20771-

Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis 

Reverse Osmosis Sandia 

National Laboratories Pilot Program 

Pilot ConocoPhillips Yes EPA-

OW-20771-

Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis 

MFI Zeolite Membranes Unspecified Under research No EPA-

OW-20517 (DCN 05267
Attachment A. Reverse Osmosis Vendors 

Technology Type Technology Name Vendor 

Technology in Use or Pilot? Operators, if in use 

Site visit completed? 

ReferMate

Reverse osmosis (and brine recovery reverse osmosis) systems 

Water treatment for injection/reinjection; produced water treatment; SAGD process water treatment 

Siemens Water Technologies 

In use Petro-Canada (Powder 

River Basin, WY) 

Yes EPA-

OW-20032-

Membrane separation – Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis 

Uses conventional municipal wastewater treatment methods with additional filtration steps 

Anticline Disposal, LLC, primarily GE equipment 

In Use Not specified Yes EPA-

OW20080517 (DCN 1003

Reverse Osmosis Reverse Osmosis, 

including Ozonation and Carbon Filtration 

Triad Industries, Inc. 

Near Completion XTO Energy, Inc. Yes EPA-

OW20080517 (DCN 1003