## 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 3-01i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page



### 1.0 S ITES 

### V ISITED AND 

### D ATES



### .................................................. .................. 1

2.0 A TTENDEES



### .................................................. ......................................... 1

3.0 B ACKGROUND AND 

### O BJECTIVES



### .................................................. .......... 2

4.0 O VERVIEW OF 

### C OALBED 

### M ETHANE 

### P RODUCTION IN THE 

### P OWDER 

### R IVER



### B ASIN



### .................................................. .................................................. 3

5.0 O VERVIEW OF THE 

### D RAKE 

### I ON 

### E XCHANGE 

### T REATMENT 

### P ROCESS AND



### O CTOBER 

### 16, 2007 T OUR



### .................................................. .................... 5

6.0 O VERVIEW OF THE 

### M AY 

### 20 TO 

### 28, 2009 C ONTINUOUS



### D EMONSTRATION



### .................................................. ................................ 8

7.0 O VERVIEW OF THE 

### J UNE 

### 16, 2009 D EMONSTRATION AND 

### S ITE 

### V ISIT 

### .... 9

8.0 R EFERENCES



### .................................................. ...................................... 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 CONDUCT ED MAY 27 to 28,

2009

Appendix D EPA INFORMATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 10, 2009

Appendix E MICROSOFT EXCEL® SPREADSHEET TEMPLATE FO R DATA

SUBMISSION TO EPA ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED B Y WASTEWATER SOLUTIONSii 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 .....

................................................... .................101

1.0 S ITES V ISITED AND D ATES

On June 16, 2009, representatives from the U.S. Env ironmental 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 B uffalo, WY (Latitude 44 o 05’ 40.9” North, Longitude 106 o 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. Vivia n Drake, DWT; and Mr. Doug Hahn, DWT; greeted the participants and provided an opera tional overview of their ion exchange treatment system for CBM produced water.

2.0 A TTENDEES

Meeting participants are listed below. Contact inf ormation for the participants is listed in Appendix B.

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

Carey Johnston, Coalbed Methane Detailed Study Proj ect 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 Hahn2

3.0 B ACKGROUND AND O BJECTIVES

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 Sourc e 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 represe ntatives; public interest groups and landowners; and water treatment experts) throughout the CBM Det ailed 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 i nterested parties and provide an overview of the study and data collection needs. During the st akeholder 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 ty pical 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 prod uction in the following basins:

 Black Warrior (Alabama);

 Upper Appalachian (southwestern Pennsylvania, easte rn Ohio, northern West Virginia);

 Lower Appalachian (southern Virginia and West Virgi nia); 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 spacin g); produced water reuse and disposal
methods; treatment methods; and economic informatio n such as descriptions of factors affecting decisions to begin production or shut-in a well, le ase, 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 c ost information and monitoring data for use in developing technology costs and associated pollutan t reductions.

DWT completed a continuous 7-day demonstration of t he DWT Process (“Drake Process”) under multiple operating regimes from May 20 to 28, 2009. On June 16, 2009, representatives from DWT conducted an additional de monstration exercise, provided an
overview of the Drake Process, and led a tour of th eir demonstration project in operation at Ricketts Flat reservoir with EPA and WY DEQ represe ntatives in attendance. This report presents a summary of the original tour conducted o n 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 O VERVIEW OF C OALBED M ETHANE P RODUCTION IN THE P OWDER R IVER B ASIN

The geologic process that progressively converts pl ant 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 r emoved 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, lar ge 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 coa l seam to coal seam, and over the lifetime of a

CBM well.

The Powder River Basin is located in northeastern W yoming and southern Montana. The basin covers an area of approximately 25,800 square miles, approximately 75 percent of which is4

within Wyoming. See Figure 4-1. The basin is so n amed because it is drained by the Powder River, although it is also drained in part by the C heyenne River, Tongue River, Bighorn River,
Little Missouri River, Platte River, and their trib utaries. Fifty percent of the basin is believed to have the potential for production of coalbed methan e.

Much of the coalbed methane-related activity has be en north and south of Gillette in northeastern Wyoming. The majority of the potentia lly productive coal zones range from about 450 feet to over 6,500 feet below ground surface (E PA, 2004). Estimates of amounts of CBM in the Powder River Basin vary as there are several me thods to estimate the amount of recoverable gas from a coal seam. According to the U. S. Geolo gical Survey (2001), the amount of recoverable CBM in the Powder River Basin ranges fr om 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 O VERVIEW OF THE D RAKE I ON E XCHANGE T REATMENT P ROCESS AND

O CTOBER 16, 2007 T OUR

Drake developed and patented the Drake Water Techno logy Process (Drake Process) which is an ion exchange system that selectively ta rgets the removal of the sodium ion from CBM produced water. Drake representatives noted th at Powder River Basin produced water is typically high in sodium (making it the dominant io n) and low in calcium and magnesium, which yields high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values, s ee Equation 5-1. Drake has one issued patent, one approved patent soon to issue, one pate nt pending, and others in preparation. Drake6

has spent six years optimizing the design of the sy stem. 2 In addition to developing a system that meets discharge standards, Drake’s goals were to de sign 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 schemat ic of the process. Ion exchange resin beads are circulated within a vessel between two separate d 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 o f the process Drake carefully meters the resin beads, with a specific gravity of 1.2, into the rea ction zone with the produced water to exchange the sodium ion in the produced water with the hydro gen on the resin bead. In this reaction zone the resin beads travel approximately 3 cm/sec in th e 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 sel ectively target the removal of the sodium ion. A separator is used to remove the resin beads from th e flow of CBM produced water to the second
reaction zone. Drake then uses sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4 ) in this second zone to exchange hydrogen

for the sodium ion on the resin beads. The sodium sulfate brine (Na 2 SO 4 ) 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 contr olling the produced water/ion exchange resin

2 See http://www.drakewater.com/index_files/page0001.htm7

contact time (less than two minutes in the contact tank), the Drake Process targets the removal of sodium while preserving the calcium and magnesium i ons present in the produced water. This process reduces the SAR to levels acceptable for be neficial reuse or discharge.

According to Drake personnel, the system can easily treat produced water with sodium concentrations of up to 55 milliequivalents per lit er (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 diffi cult and less economic because a higher brine fraction is needed to maintain proper regener ator operation. The treated CBM produced water can be reused or surface discharged. The pro cess also produces a brine stream that consists mainly of decahydrate sodium sulfate (Na 2 SO 4 ·10H 2 O), which is also known as Glauber's salt. This material can be dehydrated to produce the white anhydrous crystalline solid
form (Na 2 SO 4 ). 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 en closure that is approximately 8 feet wide, 12 feet long, and 14 feet high. Each treatme nt module has the ability to treat approximately 2,000 barrels per day (bbl/day). Acc ording to literature provided by Drake, each portable unit – typically housing four treatment mo dules (~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 has8

the smallest footprint of any CBM treatment technol ogy. Half of the electrical requirement is to heat the building containing the unit.

The first commercial deployment of the Drake Proces s is expected to be with Bill Barrett Corporation at their Willow Creek Plan of Developme nt (POD), (where the Drake Process unit was previously deployed) which is on the western ed ge 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 t hick, often reaching 200 feet. It is in the upper part of the Paleocene Fort Union Formation an d connects with the Wyodak coal bed across

the basin at Gillette.

6.0 O VERVIEW OF THE M AY 20 TO 28, 2009 C ONTINUOUS D EMONSTRATION

Prior to EPA’s site visit, DWT performed a 7-day co ntinuous (24 hours per day) demonstration of the Drake Process from May 20 thro ugh May 28, 2009. DWT opened the demonstration of field operation of a modified Drak e Process Unit (DPU) for interested parties, including the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bure au 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 intend ed to begin the system automation design for a full-scale DPU. This demonstration project was p erformed 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 br ine production were approximately 25% of corresponding rates exhibited by a full-scale, 4-mo dule DPU.

A single module is designed for an average throughp ut of 60 gpm (~2000 bbl/day). During the 7-day operation, 386,400 gallons of wate r (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 paramet ric 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. Th e Drake Process TDS operated continuously except for an alternator failure in the diesel gene rator 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 O VERVIEW OF THE J UNE 16, 2009 D EMONSTRATION AND S ITE V ISIT

On June 16, 2009, representatives from DWT conducte d 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 wit h 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). Fi gure 7-1 shows the single Drake Process unit during the demonstration. A full-scale, 4-module DP U 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 o f Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Bill Barrett Corporation. At the time of the EPA site v isit, 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 fr om the reservoir using a sump pump installed in a water intake buoy, and then to the t reatment system located on the shoreline. All influent water passes through a strainer/well scree n 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 c ontains approximately 96 percent water and 4 percent resin. The resin beads are add ed 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 cont acted with sulfuric acid (93 percent H 2 SO 4 ), 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 cycl ing of resin never allows the resin to be completely spent or fully regenerated, which was de scribed as the key to controlling contact time and selectively removing sodium from the water. Th e brine, consisting mainly of decahydrate
sodium sulfate (Na 2 SO 4 ·10H 2 O), is removed and held in a storage tank.

Drake personnel reported the ability to use the Dra ke 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 personne l cited a need to maintain reduced demonstration costs in targeting a pre-treatment re moval during the EPA site visit. Water samples collected May 27 to 28, 2009 during the pre vious 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 material s. The effluent line entered the reservoir approximately 130 feet from the intake. The treate d 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 providing12

data, EPA prepared a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet t emplate for data submission (refer to Appendix E), which was completed by Drake represent atives on October 20, 2010.

8.0 R EFERENCES

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Admin istration, 2004. “Coalbed Methane in the US,” Samuel H. Limerick, University of Texas, Dalla s, February. DCN 03471.

U.S. EPA, 2004. “Evaluation of Impacts to Undergrou nd 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 VISITEDOverview MapDetail MapAppendix B

LIST OF ATTENDEESFirst 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.comAppendix C

ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF MONITORING CONDUCTED MAY 27 T O 28, 2009

Current Contact Information: Drake Water Technologies, Inc. 7492 Commerce Court, Suite B Helena, MT 59602-8790Appendix D

EPA INFORMATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 10, 2 009MEMORANDUM

TO: EPA CBM Produced Water Treatment Technology To ur 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 C ost Information Requested for Technical

Analyses

This memorandum lists information that EPA would li ke 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 Questionnaire 3 , EPA will conduct detailed analyses to identify applicable and demonstrated technologies, process c hanges, or pollution prevention approaches that would substantially reduce pollutant discharges fro m CBM produced water. As such, EPA needs to collect the following information for each technolo gy to be evaluated:

• General technology information – What type of techn ology 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 information 4 – What are the capital and operating and maintenan ce costs associated with the treatment system?

• Performance data – What are influent and effluent p ollutant levels associated with the treatment system?

For ease of providing data, EPA prepared a Microsof t Excel® spreadsheet template for data submission. However, you may submit data in any fo rmat that you have readily available. In addition t o the information listed in the spreadsheet, EPA woul d like to collect any process flow diagrams or treatment system narratives that you may have avail able.

EPA will use the collected information in developin g technology costs and associated pollutant reductions. EPA may supplement the data with infor mation from treatment vendors or by requesting follow-up information from questionnaire respondent s with treatment technologies of interest. Respondents may claim any of this information as Co nfidential Business Information (CBI) (see Attachment 1).

3 See http://www.epa.gov/guide/304m/ for a copy of E PA’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 th e information when it is received by EPA, EPA may make the information available to the publi c without further notice.

Regulations governing the confidentiality of busine ss information are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40 Part 2, Subpart B. Y ou may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information you submit, other than effluent data and information or data t hat is otherwise publicly available, as described in 40 CF R 2.203(b):

“(b) Method and time of asserting business confidentiali ty claim. A business which is submitting information to EPA may assert a business confidenti ality claim covering the information by placing on (or attaching to) the information, at the time it is su bmitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed leg end, 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 clea rly identified by the business, and may be submitted se parately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the business desires confidential treatmen t 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 inclu ded in the response to this request by clearly noti ng 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 fac ility effluent data are not eligible for confidenti al treatment, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Clean Water Act, and thus will be treated as non-confiden tial even if the CBI box is checked. In addition, infor mation that is publicly-available should not be cla imed confidential. Note also that information claimed co nfidential cannot be accessed, verified, or used by the industry to evaluate data and analyses supporting t he results of the CBM study.

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality w ill 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 b e disclosed to other employees, officers, or author ized 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 pr ivileged or confidential." See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality w ill be made available to EPA contractors and subcontractors under EPA Contract Numbers No. 68-C0 2-095, EP-C-07-029, and EP-C-05-030 to enable the contractors to perform the work required by the ir contracts with EPA. All EPA contracts provide t hat contractor employees use the information only for t he purpose of performing the work required by their contracts and will not disclose any CBI to anyone o ther 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 EPATable 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 electronica lly to EPA. Note: If you already have design, cost

, or water quality data in electronic or hardcopy for mat, 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 indivi dual unit operations within your treatment system or for the entire treatment system, depending on th e 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 doub le clicking on the worksheet tab of interest.

Within the Design Cost Template, costs are broken d own and described as components, you may aggregate costs groups or only provide select cost information as available. Any cost data that you c an provide will help EPA in evaluating CBM treatment t echnology costs. Link to Design Cost Template

Analytical Data

For each data set, please provide information to as sociate the data provided with your projects/produc ed water management systems. You may copy the Analytic al Data Template as many times as needed by right clicking on the Analytical Data Template work sheet tab, selecting Move or Copy, and checking the Create a Copy box before hitting 'OK.' You may als o re-label worksheet tabs by double clicking on the worksheet tab of interest. The dictionary below des cribes 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 a ttached 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 TemplateTable D-2. Sheet 2—Design Cost TemplateDesign InformationUnit operation / systemDrake Process for treating CBMproduced waterProject name / identifierRicketts FlatVendor Drake Water Technologies, Inc.Flow rate to unit operation/ system (bbl/d)65 gpm (25% of full-sizecommercial Drake Process unit)Design capacity of unit operation/system (bbl/d)8500 bbl/water per day (full-sizeunit)Targeted water quality parameter name(s) (enter multipleparameters by using columns to the right)SodiumEstimated removal efficiency 77 to 78%Operating scheduleHours per day 24Days per year 300 (~80% availability)Basis YearTotal Capital Investment(sum of direct and indirect capital costs)Direct capital costsPurchased equipment cost, includingancillary equipment (e.g., piping, valves,controllers);$300,000Delivery cost $50,000Installation/construction cost (includinglabor and site work)$125,000Monitoring equipment Included in purchased equipmentOther (specify)Indirect capital costsEngineeringDepending on site specific butwould most likely range from$20,000 to $75,000Secondary containment noneContractor feesDependent on site specifics (rangefrom $10,000 to $50,000 forpossible electric, earthwork,plumbing hookups)Other (specify) None currently identifiedAnnual Cost (2008 basis year requested)Operating labor - theannual labor directlyassociated withoperation of the processequipmentHoursThere are no operatorscontinuously onsite. An operatorwill visit the site approximately 1day per week to receive aciddeliveries and monitor the unitThat is included in maintenancelabor below$/hrMaintenance labor - theannual labor directlyassociated withmaintenance of theprocess equipmentHours55 days per year (approximately 1man/day per week)$/hr $65.00 - fully burdened labor rateChemicals (e.g.,regenerant acid, pHadjustment, membranecleaning)Chemical(s) / concentration H2SO4 (93%)Soda Ash briquettes(NaHCO3)Amount used1.03 equivalents per equivalentsodium removal50 to 100 lbsFrequencyTank fill of ~3200 gallons onceper week to once every twoweeks, depending on sodiumremoval requirements.Per day (bunkerrefilled once everyweek)Cost/unit chemical ~$165/ton ~$1,000 per tonAnnual costElectrical / energyEnergy source (e.g., grid,diesel generators)Both grid or diesel generator,depending on site requirementsEnergy demand(e.g., total HP)~7 kWAnnual fuel or kwh usage ~50,000 kW-hrsAnnual costAnnual Cost (2008 basis year requested)Monitoring andanalytical costsParameter(s) monitored Site and permit specificFrequencyUnit or total costResiduals management/disposal (e.g., mediareplacement, regenerantwastes, backwashes,membrane cleaning)Type (s) Na2SO4Volume1.05 equivalent for every 1.0 eq.Na removedFrequencyAnnual (mine Glaubers Saltcrystals from brine impoundment)Destination (e.g., direct discharge,POTW, injection)Sale to industrial end-userTransportation distanceSite dependentManagement/ disposal cost~$50,000 for solids retrievalOtherTable 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)