Final Site Visit Report: 

Drake Water Technologies, Inc. 

Powder River Basin 

Coalbed Methane Detailed Study 

October 29, 2010 

Prepared For: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Prepared By: 

PG Environmental, LLC 

447 B Carlisle Drive 

Herndon, VA 20170 

EPA Contract EP-C-07-029; Work Assignment Numbers 1-01 and 3-01 
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 SITES VISITED AND DATES .................................................................... 1

2.0 ATTENDEES ........................................................................................... 1

3.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 2

4.0 OVERVIEW OF COALBED METHANE PRODUCTION IN THE POWDER RIVER 

BASIN .................................................................................................... 3

5.0 OVERVIEW OF THE DRAKE ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT PROCESS AND 

OCTOBER 16, 2007 TOUR ...................................................................... 5

6.0 OVERVIEW OF THE MAY 20 TO 28, 2009 CONTINUOUS 

DEMONSTRATION .................................................................................. 8

7.0 OVERVIEW OF THE JUNE 16, 2009 DEMONSTRATION AND SITE VISIT .... 9

8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 12

Appendix A MAPS SHOWING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) POINT 

LOCATIONS FOR SITES VISITED 

Appendix B LIST OF ATTENDEES 

Appendix C ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF MONITORING CONDUCTED MAY 27 to 28, 

2009 

Appendix D EPA INFORMATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 10, 2009 

Appendix E MICROSOFT EXCEL® SPREADSHEET TEMPLATE FOR DATA 

SUBMISSION TO EPA ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY 

WASTEWATER SOLUTIONS 
ii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 4-1. Overview Map of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming/Montana ..............................5 

Figure 5-1. Drake Process Flow Diagram ....................................................................................7 

Figure 7-1. Drake Demonstration Process Unit .........................................................................10
1

1.0 SITES VISITED AND DATES

On June 16, 2009, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) met with representatives from 

Drake Water Technologies, LLC (“DWT” or “Drake”) to discuss and observe their coalbed 

methane (CBM) produced water treatment technology. The site visit took place at a 

demonstration project site located at Ricketts Flat reservoir approximately 7 miles south of 

Interstate Highway 90 (I-90) between Gillette and Buffalo, WY (Latitude 44 o 05’ 40.9” North, 

Longitude 106o

 13’ 48.1” West). See Appendix A for a map and GPS coordinates for the site. 

Mr. Ron Drake, DWT; Mr. Mike Drake, DWT; Mrs. Vivian Drake, DWT; and Mr. Doug Hahn, 

DWT; greeted the participants and provided an operational overview of their ion exchange 

treatment system for CBM produced water. 

2.0 ATTENDEES

Meeting participants are listed below. Contact information for the participants is listed in 

Appendix B. 

U.S. EPA Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division 

Carey Johnston, Coalbed Methane Detailed Study Project Lead, 

Washington, D.C. 

Tom Born, Environmental Assessor, Washington, D.C. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ)

Dennis Lamb, CBM Group Supervisor, Casper, WY 

PG Environmental (Contractor to EPA) 

Paul Hanson, Golden, CO 

 DWT 

 Ron Drake 

Mike Drake 

Vivian Drake 

Doug Hahn 

 

 
2

3.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The EPA organized a site visit to the Powder River Basin and Pinedale Anticline in 

Wyoming as part of the data collection efforts for EPA’s Coalbed Methane Detailed Study. The 

CBM sector was identified for additional review in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan.1 EPA is conducting this review to determine if it would be appropriate to revise the 

effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas Point Source Category to control pollutant discharge in 

CBM produced water. EPA is working with a range of stakeholders (e.g., industry 

representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; public interest groups and landowners; 

and water treatment experts) throughout the CBM Detailed Study to obtain the best information 

available on the industry. To initiate stakeholder involvement, EPA conducted seven 

teleconferences in June and July 2007 to identify interested parties and provide an overview of 

the study and data collection needs. During the stakeholder calls EPA provided information on 

the following topics: 

 EPA Regulation Development Process; 

 Initial Review of CBM Sector; 

 CBM Information Collection Request (ICR); and 

 Schedule and Next Steps. 

The EPA conducted initial site visits to the Powder River basin (Wyoming and Montana) 

in October 2007 as part of a series of site visits for this industry. During the visits, EPA 

observed a range of CBM operations that show the typical production and water management 

options for that area. Because CBM operations vary by basin, EPA also conducted four other 

site visits in the second half of 2007 to view production in the following basins: 

 Black Warrior (Alabama); 

 Upper Appalachian (southwestern Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, northern 

West Virginia); 

 Lower Appalachian (southern Virginia and West Virginia); and 

 San Juan and Raton (Colorado and New Mexico). 

During the site visits, EPA collected general site information (e.g., location, operator 

name, field name, pooling arrangements, well spacing); produced water reuse and disposal 

methods; treatment methods; and economic information such as descriptions of factors affecting 

decisions to begin production or shut-in a well, lease, or other area. 

 

1

 See 21 December 2006; 71 FR 76644. 
3

EPA returned to the Powder River basin to identify additional technologies to treat CBM 

produced water, to observe changes and similarities in production and treatment in comparison to 

the October 2007 visits, and to gather additional cost information and monitoring data for use in 

developing technology costs and associated pollutant reductions. 

DWT completed a continuous 7-day demonstration of the DWT Process (“Drake 

Process”) under multiple operating regimes from May 20 to 28, 2009. On June 16, 2009, 

representatives from DWT conducted an additional demonstration exercise, provided an 

overview of the Drake Process, and led a tour of their demonstration project in operation at 

Ricketts Flat reservoir with EPA and WY DEQ representatives in attendance. This report 

presents a summary of the original tour conducted on October 16, 2007, the 7-day 

demonstration, and the June 16, 2009 tour, as well as an overview of CBM production in the 

Powder River Basin. 

4.0 OVERVIEW OF COALBED METHANE PRODUCTION IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

The geologic process that progressively converts plant material to coal (coalification) 

generates large quantities of natural gas that are stored in the coal seams. The natural gas 

consists of approximately 92-96 percent methane, 3.5 percent nitrogen, and up to 4 percent 

carbon dioxide. The natural gas contained in and removed from the coal seams is called coalbed 

methane (CBM). The increased pressures from water in the coal seams force the natural gas to 

adsorb to the coal. To extract the CBM, operators remove water from the coal seam to lower the 

hydrostatic pressure in the coal seam, which allows the methane to desorb from the coal and flow 

to the natural gas gathering lines. Typically, large amounts of water are produced during the 

early stages of CBM production and then the amounts of water decrease over the life of the well 

as the methane production increases. The quantity and quality of produced water will vary from 

basin to basin, within a particular basin, from coal seam to coal seam, and over the lifetime of a 

CBM well. 

The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern Wyoming and southern Montana. The 

basin covers an area of approximately 25,800 square miles, approximately 75 percent of which is 
4

within Wyoming. See Figure 4-1. The basin is so named because it is drained by the Powder 

River, although it is also drained in part by the Cheyenne River, Tongue River, Bighorn River, 

Little Missouri River, Platte River, and their tributaries. Fifty percent of the basin is believed to

have the potential for production of coalbed methane. 

Much of the coalbed methane-related activity has been north and south of Gillette in 

northeastern Wyoming. The majority of the potentially productive coal zones range from about 

450 feet to over 6,500 feet below ground surface (EPA, 2004). Estimates of amounts of CBM in 

the Powder River Basin vary as there are several methods to estimate the amount of recoverable 

gas from a coal seam. According to the U. S. Geological Survey (2001), the amount of 

recoverable CBM in the Powder River Basin ranges from 8.24 - 22.42 trillion cubic feet (TCF). 
5

Figure 4-1. Overview Map of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming/Montana 

(Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2004) 

5.0 OVERVIEW OF THE DRAKE ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT PROCESS AND 

OCTOBER 16, 2007 TOUR

Drake developed and patented the Drake Water Technology Process (Drake Process) 

which is an ion exchange system that selectively targets the removal of the sodium ion from 

CBM produced water. Drake representatives noted that Powder River Basin produced water is 

typically high in sodium (making it the dominant ion) and low in calcium and magnesium, which 

yields high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values, see Equation 5-1. Drake has one issued 

patent, one approved patent soon to issue, one patent pending, and others in preparation. Drake 
6

has spent six years optimizing the design of the system.2 In addition to developing a system that 

meets discharge standards, Drake’s goals were to design a system that uses ordinary materials, 

has few moving parts, has a low power requirement, is portable and can be used in remote 

locations, and has a marketable brine stream. 

 Equation 5-1 

The Drake Process uses a fluidized-bed ion exchange system to treat produced water in 

the Powder River Basin. Figure 5-1 shows a schematic of the process. Ion exchange resin beads 

are circulated within a vessel between two separated reaction zones. The Drake Process uses the 

two reaction zones for sodium ion removal from the CBM produced water and resin regeneration 

and brine (sodium sulfate) removal. At the start of the process Drake carefully meters the resin 

beads, with a specific gravity of 1.2, into the reaction zone with the produced water to exchange 

the sodium ion in the produced water with the hydrogen on the resin bead. In this reaction zone 

the resin beads travel approximately 3 cm/sec in the same direction as the CBM produced water. 

The contact time between the resin bead and the CBM produced water in this reaction zone (less 

than 2 minutes) is also carefully controlled to selectively target the removal of the sodium ion. A 

separator is used to remove the resin beads from the flow of CBM produced water to the second 

reaction zone. Drake then uses sulfuric acid (H2SO4) in this second zone to exchange hydrogen 

for the sodium ion on the resin beads. The sodium sulfate brine (Na2SO4) is removed from the 

system and the regenerated resin beads are put back into service in the first reaction zone. 

Drake representatives stated that the key to their technology is that it takes advantage of 

reaction kinetics to selectively remove sodium and leave the calcium and magnesium in the 

water. They noted that in traditional ion exchange, the single valent sodium ions replace the 

hydrogen ions on the resin first. However, as the traditional ion exchange process reaches 

equilibrium the divalent calcium and magnesium ions replace the sodium ions on the resin. This 

leads to more brine waste and the need to add back calcium and magnesium to the final effluent. 

Drake representatives noted that by carefully controlling the produced water/ion exchange resin 

 

2 See http://www.drakewater.com/index_files/page0001.htm
7

contact time (less than two minutes in the contact tank), the Drake Process targets the removal of 

sodium while preserving the calcium and magnesium ions present in the produced water. This 

process reduces the SAR to levels acceptable for beneficial reuse or discharge. 

According to Drake personnel, the system can easily treat produced water with sodium 

concentrations of up to 55 milliequivalents per liter (meq/l), which is approximately equivalent 

to 1,265 mg/L [= meq/L (Na) * 23 mg/meq (Na)]. As sodium concentrations increase to over 

100 meq/l (2,300 mg/L), treatment may be more difficult and less economic because a higher 

brine fraction is needed to maintain proper regenerator operation. The treated CBM produced 

water can be reused or surface discharged. The process also produces a brine stream that 

consists mainly of decahydrate sodium sulfate (Na2SO4·10H2O), which is also known as 

Glauber's salt. This material can be dehydrated to produce the white anhydrous crystalline solid 

form (Na2SO4). Drake is currently looking for a market for the sodium sulfate, which is used in 

detergents, paper products, and as thermal storage media for solar energy applications. The 

volume of the brine is approximately 1 to 3 percent of the influent flow to the treatment units. 

Figure 5-1. Drake Process Flow Diagram 

The Drake Process units are housed in a portable enclosure that is approximately 8 feet 

wide, 12 feet long, and 14 feet high. Each treatment module has the ability to treat 

approximately 2,000 barrels per day (bbl/day). According to literature provided by Drake, each 

portable unit – typically housing four treatment modules (~65 gpm each) – can treat up to 

approximately 250 gallons per minute (approximately 8,500 bbl/day). Drake personnel stated 

the unit has minimal electrical requirements, using only 7 kilowatts (kW) of electricity, and has 
8

the smallest footprint of any CBM treatment technology. Half of the electrical requirement is to 

heat the building containing the unit. 

The first commercial deployment of the Drake Process is expected to be with Bill Barrett 

Corporation at their Willow Creek Plan of Development (POD), (where the Drake Process unit 

was previously deployed) which is on the western edge of the Big George coal field. The Big 

George coal bed lies below the Lake DeSmet coal bed near Buffalo on the western edge of the 

Powder River Basin. Big George averages 113 feet thick, often reaching 200 feet. It is in the 

upper part of the Paleocene Fort Union Formation and connects with the Wyodak coal bed across 

the basin at Gillette. 

6.0 OVERVIEW OF THE MAY 20 TO 28, 2009 CONTINUOUS DEMONSTRATION 

Prior to EPA’s site visit, DWT performed a 7-day continuous (24 hours per day) 

demonstration of the Drake Process from May 20 through May 28, 2009. DWT opened the 

demonstration of field operation of a modified Drake Process Unit (DPU) for interested parties, 

including the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); EPA; DEQ; 

and CBM producers. DWT also used the demonstration for parametric testing at various 

throughputs so that design data could be collected for programmable logic controller (PLC) 

programming. The data collection effort was intended to begin the system automation design for 

a full-scale DPU. This demonstration project was performed under a WY DEQ Permit No. 09-

137. 

The semi-scale Drake Process Test and Demonstration Skid (TDS) used only one Drake 

Process Module rather than the four Process Modules installed in a full-scale DPU. 

Consequently, water throughput, reagent use, and brine production were approximately 25% of 

corresponding rates exhibited by a full-scale, 4-module DPU. 

A single module is designed for an average throughput of 60 gpm (~2000 bbl/day). 

During the 7-day operation, 386,400 gallons of water (9200 bbl) were treated, averaging 55,200 

gpd (1314 bbl/day). Throughputs ranged from 30 gpm to 65 gpm, with varying treatment rates 

throughout the demonstration as part of the parametric testing for PLC programming. 
9

Approximately 138 bbl of sodium sulfate brine were produced during the operation, which is 

0.015 brine fraction of total water throughput. The Drake Process TDS operated continuously 

except for an alternator failure in the diesel generator on the evening of May 23, 2009. The 

generator was repaired that same night, and the TDS was again in operation early on the morning 

of May 24, 2009. 

7.0 OVERVIEW OF THE JUNE 16, 2009 DEMONSTRATION AND SITE VISIT 

On June 16, 2009, representatives from DWT conducted an additional demonstration 

exercise, provided an overview of the Drake Process, and led a tour of their demonstration 

project in operation at Ricketts Flat reservoir with EPA and WY DEQ representatives in 

attendance. The DPU was operating at approximately 36 gpm during the visit, slightly more 

than half of the single unit capacity (65 gpm). Figure 7-1 shows the single Drake Process unit 

during the demonstration. A full-scale, 4-module DPU can treat approximately 8,500 bbl/day. 
10

Figure 7-1. Drake Demonstration Process Unit 

The Ricketts Flat reservoir was not actively being fed during the site visit, but was filled 

with produced water generated from the operations of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Bill 

Barrett Corporation. At the time of the EPA site visit, the reservoir had a pH of 9, electrical 

conductivity of approximately 2.5 milli-Siemens/cm (mS/cm), and calcium content of 5 milli 

equivalents per liter (meq/L). 

For demonstration purposes, feed water is pumped from the reservoir using a sump pump 

installed in a water intake buoy, and then to the treatment system located on the shoreline. All 

influent water passes through a strainer/well screen before entering the system. The strainer is 

periodically backflushed or pressure washed. 
11

Because the influent contains dissolved solids such as sodium bicarbonate, a rinse pretreatment system is used to remove carbon dioxide. This pre-treatment system includes a blower 

unit and decarbonation tower. 

The co-current fluidized bed ion exchange chamber contains approximately 96 percent 

water and 4 percent resin. The resin beads are added to the reaction zone as a gravity feed. 

Drake personnel noted that the amount of resin used in the Drake Process is significantly less 

than a typical ion exchange system. Pregnant resin flows downward in the regenerator, under the 

influence of gravity, and is counter-currently contacted with sulfuric acid (93 percent H2SO4), 

which is used as a regenerant for the resin beads. Drake personnel stated that the resin is 30 to 

70 percent regenerated at any given time. The cycling of resin never allows the resin to be 

completely spent or fully regenerated, which was described as the key to controlling contact time 

and selectively removing sodium from the water. The brine, consisting mainly of decahydrate 

sodium sulfate (Na2SO4·10H2O), is removed and held in a storage tank. 

Drake personnel reported the ability to use the Drake Process for partial removal in a 

single pass, or to achieve sodium removals as high as 70 to 89 percent. At the time of the EPA 

site visit, the demonstration unit was pre-treating sodium from approximately 630 to 640 mg/L 

down to approximately 290 mg/L. The Drake personnel cited a need to maintain reduced 

demonstration costs in targeting a pre-treatment removal during the EPA site visit. Water 

samples collected May 27 to 28, 2009 during the previous 7-day continuous demonstration, 

exhibited 77 to 78 percent sodium removal (refer to Appendix C). 

During the demonstration, treated water flowed back to Ricketts Flat reservoir through a 

100 feet of effluent line made from gutter materials. The effluent line entered the reservoir 

approximately 130 feet from the intake. The treated effluent contained approximately 5 meg/L 

sodium bicarbonate and a pH of 5.72. 

Appendix D is a copy of the EPA information request memorandum regarding the Drake 

Treatment System, which was sent to Vivian Drake on June 12, 2009. For ease of providing 
12

data, EPA prepared a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet template for data submission (refer to 

Appendix E), which was completed by Drake representatives on October 20, 2010. 

8.0 REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2004. “Coalbed Methane in the 

US,” Samuel H. Limerick, University of Texas, Dallas, February. DCN 03471. 

U.S. EPA, 2004. “Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by 

Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs,” EPA-816-R-04-003, June. 

U.S. Geologic Survey, 2001. “Coal-Bed Gas Resources of the Rocky Mountain Region,” USGS 

Fact Sheet FS-110-01, November.
 

Appendix A 

MAPS SHOWING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) POINT 

LOCATIONS FOR SITES VISITED 
Overview Map 
Detail Map 
Appendix B 

LIST OF ATTENDEES
First Name Last Name Organization Phone Number Email 

Carey Johnston EPA Office of Water 202-566-1014 Johnston.Carey@epamail.epa.gov

Tom Born EPA Office of Water 202-566-1001 Born.Tom@epamail.epa.gov

Dennis Lamb WYDEQ 307-473-3452 dlamb@state.wy.us

Vivian Drake DWT 406-449-2440 rvdrake@bresnan.net 

Ron Drake DWT 406-449-2440 rvdrake@bresnan.net

Mike Drake DWT 406-449-2440 rvdrake@bresnan.net

Doug Hahn DWT 406-449-2440 Doug@DrakeWater.com 

Paul Hanson PG Environmental 

(contractor to EPA) 

303-279-1778 ext. 

104 

paul.hanson@pgenv.com 
Appendix C 

ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF MONITORING CONDUCTED MAY 27 TO 28, 2009 

 Current Contact Information: 

 Drake Water Technologies, Inc. 

 7492 Commerce Court, Suite B 

 Helena, MT 59602-8790 






Appendix D 

EPA INFORMATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 10, 2009 
MEMORANDUM 

TO: EPA CBM Produced Water Treatment Technology Tour II Participants 

FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E. 

USEPA/OW/OST 

ph: (202) 566 1014 

johnston.carey@epa.gov

DATE: 10 June 2009 

SUBJECT: Coalbed Methane Produced Water Treatment Cost Information Requested for Technical 

Analyses 

This memorandum lists information that EPA would like to collect on coalbed methane (CBM) 

produced water management and treatment systems. As discussed in EPA’s Supporting Statement for the 

Coalbed Methane Extractor Sector Questionnaire3

, EPA will conduct detailed analyses to identify 

applicable and demonstrated technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention approaches that 

would substantially reduce pollutant discharges from CBM produced water. As such, EPA needs to 

collect the following information for each technology to be evaluated: 

• General technology information – What type of technology does the treatment system use (e.g., 

ion exchange, membrane filtration) and what are the design specifications of the equipment? 

• Targeted pollutants and removals – What pollutants are targeted for removal by the system and 

what is the typical percent removal? 

• Capacity information – What is the typical range of flowrates or volumes that can be handled by 

the treatment system? 

• Cost information4

 – What are the capital and operating and maintenance costs associated with the 

treatment system? 

• Performance data – What are influent and effluent pollutant levels associated with the treatment 

system? 

For ease of providing data, EPA prepared a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet template for data 

submission. However, you may submit data in any format that you have readily available. In addition to 

the information listed in the spreadsheet, EPA would like to collect any process flow diagrams or 

treatment system narratives that you may have available. 

EPA will use the collected information in developing technology costs and associated pollutant 

reductions. EPA may supplement the data with information from treatment vendors or by requesting 

follow-up information from questionnaire respondents with treatment technologies of interest. 

Respondents may claim any of this information as Confidential Business Information (CBI) (see 

Attachment 1). 

 

3

 See http://www.epa.gov/guide/304m/ for a copy of EPA’s Supporting Statement

4

 EPA would like to collect data that relate capital and O&M costs to the applicable range of produced water volumes. EPA hopes to translate 

these data into cost curves or a flat ratio (e.g., $/bbl).
Attachment 1

Claiming Business Information to be Confidential 

If no business confidentiality claim accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, 

EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice. 

Regulations governing the confidentiality of business information are contained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40 Part 2, Subpart B. You may assert a business confidentiality claim 

covering part or all of the information you submit, other than effluent data and information or data that is 

otherwise publicly available, as described in 40 CFR 2.203(b): 

“(b) Method and time of asserting business confidentiality claim. A business which is submitting 

information to EPA may assert a business confidentiality claim covering the information by placing on (or 

attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, 

or other suitable form of notice complying language such as ‘trade secret,’ ‘proprietary,’ or ‘company

confidential.’ Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents should be clearly 

identified by the business, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by 

EPA. If the business desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a 

certain event, the notice should so state.” 

You may claim as confidential all information included in the response to this request by clearly noting 

the information that is CBI in your response. Note that you may be required to justify any claim of 

confidentiality at a later time. Note also that facility effluent data are not eligible for confidential 

treatment, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Clean Water Act, and thus will be treated as non-confidential 

even if the CBI box is checked. In addition, information that is publicly-available should not be claimed 

confidential. Note also that information claimed confidential cannot be accessed, verified, or used by the 

industry to evaluate data and analyses supporting the results of the CBM study. 

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent of, and by 

means of, the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. In general, submitted information 

protected by a business confidentiality claim may be disclosed to other employees, officers, or authorized 

representatives of the United States concerned with implementing the Clean Water Act. Exemption 4 of 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) protects from disclosure "trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be made available to EPA contractors and 

subcontractors under EPA Contract Numbers No. 68-C02-095, EP-C-07-029, and EP-C-05-030 to enable 

the contractors to perform the work required by their contracts with EPA. All EPA contracts provide that 

contractor employees use the information only for the purpose of performing the work required by their

contracts and will not disclose any CBI to anyone other than EPA without prior written approval from 

each affected business or from EPA’s legal office. EPA has approved written procedures for each 

contractor on how they will gather, safeguard, and secure CBI. Any comments you may wish to make on 

this issue must be submitted in writing along with your completed survey. 
Appendix E 

MICROSOFT EXCEL® SPREADSHEET TEMPLATE FOR DATA 

SUBMISSION TO EPA 
Table D-1. Sheet 1—Overview of Data Request 

Overview of Data Requested by EPA 

This spreadsheet provides an overview of data that EPA is requesting, as well as Microsoft© Excel 

worksheet templates for submitting data electronically to EPA. Note: If you already have design, cost, 

or water quality data in electronic or hardcopy format, you may submit these data using your own 

reporting method. EPA prefers data be submitted in an electronic format (e.g., Microsoft© Access, 

Microsoft© Excel, non-scanned PDF). 

Design and Cost Information 

The Design Cost Template worksheet requests design information, as well as capital and annual costs. 

Please complete the Design Cost Template for individual unit operations within your treatment system 

or for the entire treatment system, depending on the availability of cost data. 

You may copy the Design Cost Template as many times as needed by right clicking on the Design Cost 

Template worksheet tab, selecting Move or Copy, and checking the Create a Copy box before hitting 

'OK.' You may also re-label worksheet tabs by double clicking on the worksheet tab of interest. 

Within the Design Cost Template, costs are broken down and described as components, you may 

aggregate costs groups or only provide select cost information as available. Any cost data that you can 

provide will help EPA in evaluating CBM treatment technology costs. 

Link to Design Cost Template 

Analytical Data 

For each data set, please provide information to associate the data provided with your projects/produced 

water management systems. You may copy the Analytical Data Template as many times as needed by 

right clicking on the Analytical Data Template worksheet tab, selecting Move or Copy, and checking the

Create a Copy box before hitting 'OK.' You may also re-label worksheet tabs by double clicking on the

worksheet tab of interest. The dictionary below describes each field in the analytical data worksheet in 

detail, along with example entries. 

Data Set 

Identification 

Name/Identifier Description Example 

Operator 

Name/Identifier: 

Please provide the operator name that the 

data is associated with. Drake Water Technologies, Inc. 

Project Name/Identifier: Please identify/describe the projects that 

the data is associated with. Ricketts Flat, PRB, WY 

Produced Water 

Management System 

Name/Identifier: 

Please identify/describe the PWMS that 

the data is associated with. 
Data Set Parameters 

Parameter Description Example 

Pollutant The pollutant analyzed. 

Sodium and other 

cations/anions (see attached 

laboratory analysis) 

Measured Value (mg/L) 

The measured value including units (if 

other than mg/L). If not detected, list the 

detection limit value preceded by a less 

than (<) symbol. 

See attached lab analysis 

Analytical Method The analytical method used. See attached lab analysis. 

Permit Limit (mg/L) 

Permit limit (mg/L) for the pollutant, if 

applicable. Include units (if other than 

mg/L). 

 

Detection Limit (mg/L) 

The detection limit for the specific 

method used. Include units (if other than 

mg/L). 

Sampling Date The date samples were collected. 6/27/2009 to 6/28/2009 

Location 

Where the samples were collected. If 

you have a block flow diagram readily 

available, please attach the block flow 

diagram with sample points labeled on 

the diagram, and enter the sample point 

number/label from the diagram in this 

column. Alternatively, you may provide 

a narrative description of the sampling 

location (e.g., effluent from treatment 

system, influent to primary equalization 

tank). 

Feed samples were collected at 

the main flow control valve 

prior to entering the fluidized 

bed. Treated samples were 

collected at the upper plenum 

of the treatment vessel and at 

the discharge pipe just prior to 

discharge into the reservoir 

Sample Type 

(grab/composite) 

Whether the samples were collected as 

grabs or as composites. Grab 

Flow Rate (gpm) 

Provide flow rate only if flow rate data 

were recorded at the sampling point 

during the sampling period. 

65 gpm 

Link to Analytical Data Template
Table D-2. Sheet 2— Design Cost Template 

Design Information 

Unit operation / system Drake Process for treating CBM produced water 

Project name / identifier Ricketts Flat 

Vendor Drake Water Technologies, Inc. 

Flow rate to unit operation/ system (bbl/d) 65 gpm (25% of full-size commercial Drake Process unit) 

Design capacity of unit operation/system (bbl/d) 8500 bbl/water per day (full-size unit) 

Targeted water quality parameter name(s) (enter multiple 

parameters by using columns to the right) Sodium 

Estimated removal efficiency 77 to 78% 

Operating schedule Hours per day 24 Days per year 300 (~80% availability) 

Basis Year 

Total Capital Investment 

(sum of direct and indirect capital costs) 

Direct capital costs 

Purchased equipment cost, including 

ancillary equipment (e.g., piping, valves, 

controllers); 

$300,000 

Delivery cost $50,000 

Installation/construction cost (including 

labor and site work) $125,000 

Monitoring equipment Included in purchased equipment 

Other (specify) 

Indirect capital costs 

Engineering 

Depending on site specific but 

would most likely range from 

$20,000 to $75,000 

Secondary containment none 

Contractor fees 

Dependent on site specifics (range 

from $10,000 to $50,000 for 

possible electric, earthwork, 

plumbing hookups) 

Other (specify) None currently identified 
Annual Cost (2008 basis year requested) 

Operating labor - the 

annual labor directly 

associated with 

operation of the process 

equipment 

Hours 

There are no operators 

continuously onsite. An operator 

will visit the site approximately 1 

day per week to receive acid 

deliveries and monitor the unit 

That is included in maintenance 

labor below 

$/hr 

Maintenance labor - the 

annual labor directly 

associated with 

maintenance of the 

process equipment 

Hours 55 days per year (approximately 1 man/day per week) 

$/hr $65.00 - fully burdened labor rate 

Chemicals (e.g., 

regenerant acid, pH 

adjustment, membrane 

cleaning) 

Chemical(s) / concentration H2SO4 (93%) Soda Ash briquettes (NaHCO3) 

Amount used 1.03 equivalents per equivalent sodium removal 50 to 100 lbs 

Frequency 

Tank fill of ~3200 gallons once 

per week to once every two 

weeks, depending on sodium 

removal requirements. 

Per day (bunker 

refilled once every 

week) 

Cost/unit chemical ~$165/ton ~$1,000 per ton 

Annual cost 

Electrical / energy 

Energy source (e.g., grid, 

diesel generators) 

Both grid or diesel generator, 

depending on site requirements 

Energy demand 

(e.g., total HP) ~7 kW 

Annual fuel or kwh usage ~50,000 kW-hrs 

Annual cost 
Annual Cost (2008 basis year requested)

Monitoring and 

analytical costs 

Parameter(s) monitored Site and permit specific 

Frequency 

Unit or total cost 

Residuals management/ 

disposal (e.g., media 

replacement, regenerant 

wastes, backwashes, 

membrane cleaning) 

Type (s) Na2SO4 

Volume 1.05 equivalent for every 1.0 eq. Na removed 

Frequency Annual (mine Glaubers Salt crystals from brine impoundment) 

Destination (e.g., direct discharge, 

POTW, injection) Sale to industrial end-user 

Transportation distance Site dependent 

Management/ disposal cost ~$50,000 for solids retrieval 

Other 
Table D-3. Sheet 3— Analytical Data Template 

Operator Name/Identifier: See laboratory analysis in Appendix C. 

Project Name/Identifier: 

 Produced Water Management System Name/Identifier: 

Pollutant 

Measured

Value 

(mg/L) 

Analytical

Method 

Permit 

Limit 

(mg/L) 

Detection

Limit 

(mg/L) 

Sampling

Date Location 

Sample 

Type 

(grab/ 

composite) 

Flow Rate

(gpm)