MEMORANDUM

TO: Brian D’Amico, EPA/EAD

Lisa Biddle, EPA/EAD

FROM: Meghan Camp, ERG

Brent Ruminski, ERG

DATE: 07 March 2012

SUBJECT: Notes on Meeting with Lamnipipe Inc. on 8 February 2012

On 8 February 2012, EPA met with Lamnipipe, Inc. to discuss their technology for 

removing radionuclides from shale gas wastewater. ERG participated by phone. The topics 

discussed included:

 Introductions;

 Background;

 Patent overview; and

 Follow up.

Attachment 1 lists the meeting participants. Attachment 2 is a presentation provided by 

Lamnipipe prior to the meeting.

Introductions

Don Nevin (President, CEO) of Lamnipipe Inc., and inventor of the process, and Fred 

Eames of Hunton and Williams LLP participated in the meeting. Lamnipipe Inc. owns two 

pending patents for the technology discussed. On June 19, 2011, the U.S. Patent Office published 

the application for the patents, but they have not yet been issued. Mr. Nevin noted that the patent

process can take more than four years. 

Background

Mr. Nevin described how he created Lamnipipe. A few years ago, he bought an 

abandoned factory in a small town east of Binghamton, New York and also became aware of 

hydraulic fracturing. He learned that his factory had two large industrial water wells, which 

because of their age, were permitted for supplying water for oil and gas operations. Mr. Nevin

decided to sell his well water to local gas well operators who needed make up water for well

testing and hydraulic fracturing. Mr. Nevin also started looking into problems related to 

hydraulic fracturing, including radionuclides brought to the surface with shale gas extraction 

wastewater. 

In oil and gas operations, companies are required to dispose of materials that reach the 

surface, not materials that remain underground. Therefore, Mr. Nevin developed a concept for 
Memorandum

07 March 2012

Page 2 of 6

treating hydraulic fracturing flowback using DOWEX ion exchange resins within the well to 

remove radionuclides before the wastewater reaches the surface.

1

The novelty in the idea is that 

the process takes place below the earth’s surface and the radionuclides removed by the process 

remain underground. To keep the removed radionuclides underground, the resin is applied to 

piping and proppant, which will contact the wastewater before it flows the surface, but the 

proppant remains underground. Mr. Nevin explained that removing the radionuclides below the 

surface eliminates the possibility of spills or accidents during disposal of treatment residues 

downstream of the extraction process that could result in environmental releases of radioactivity 

(e.g., truck-hauling wastewater for disposal). Therefore, Lamnipipe claims that this technology 

has potential to decrease the threat to the environment and health human health by keeping the 

radioactive material in the ground. 

According to Mr. Nevin, the underground treatment would also reduce potential for

radioactivity-contaminated metal to enter the stream of commerce. He explained that aboveground piping and other equipment can be melted down and used to make other products, such 

as pipes or chains. As a result, above-ground equipment used by the oil and gas industry can

become a part of materials used by the general public (e.g., recreational equipment such as 

chains for swings), resulting in potential exposures to radioactivity if this equipment is 

contaminated with radionuclides.

Patent Overview

Lamnipipe owns two pending patents: Lamnipipe and Lamniproppants. Mr. Nevin

confirmed that neither Lamnipipe nor Lamniproppants have been used on any well to the best of 

his knowledge. He stated that the DOWEX resin has been used in conventional ion exchange

treatment operations for other industries, but was not sure how the wastewater matrix compares 

to oil and gas wastewater.

For Lamnipipe, the resin is applied to the surface of the well casing already in the well. 

The application process requires the use of a “pig” that is sent down the hole to paint the pipe

with resin2. Mr. Nevin noted that the pig is an existing technology he believes can be easily 

retrofitted to apply the resin to the well casing.

3 However, Mr. Nevin did not confirm or point to 

documentation that a pig has been used for this specific application. Using an estimate of 

radionuclide loads in flowback, Mr. Nevin estimated that resin would need to be applied to 

approximately 500 to 600 feet of the pipe. The removal process occurs as the wastewater flows 

up the well and contacts the treated piping. 

For Lamniproppants, the resin is applied to the surface of the proppant used for the 

fracturing job.

4 Mr. Nevin explained that the application of resin to the proppant would likely 

take place during proppant manufacture. Compared to the Lamnipipe concept, Lamniproppants 

 

1

Ion exchange is a wastewater treatment process that uses resins to remove pollutants from wastewater and replace 

them with particles that purify water.

2 Mr. Nevin noted the use of the DOWEX resin from Dow Chemical Company. He proposes using 100 mesh resin 

as opposed to the standard 16 mesh in order to increase exposed surface area 8 fold. 

3 The term pig stands for pipeline intervention gadget. It is typically used to remove undesired materials from 

pipelines.

4 A fracturing job typically requires 200,000 pounds of proppant but can vary well to well. 
Memorandum

07 March 2012

Page 3 of 6

provide greater surface area and contact time with the contaminated wastewater, which should 

increase removal efficiency.

Included in attachment 2 is Mr. Nevin’s computation of radioactivity removal efficiency 

using Lamnipipe in a natural gas well. Mr. Nevin noted that his calculations were “back of the 

hand” estimates for the purpose of creating some ballpark figures. His calculation claims that 

Lamnipipe is capable of reducing radioactivity from 1,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) to 5 pCi/L, 

using the following assumptions:

 Well uses 5 million gallons of water for fracturing job;

 Entire volume of wastewater returns to the surface with 1,000 pCi/L of 

radioactivity; 

 Well total radioactivity is therefore approximately 2 x 1010 pCi;

 Ion exchange resin loading rate of 100 nanocuries per gram (nCi/gm) of resin;

 1,000 pounds (lbs) of resin required (220 lbs actually required x 4.5 for a 

conservative estimate); and

 Final average concentration of radioactivity of wastewater over the lifetime of the 

well would be 5 pCi/L assuming the resin’s capacity is used entirely.

Mr. Nevin acknowledged that this computation is only a ball park and many different 

scenarios are possible. He stated that the typical proppant weight for a well is 200,000 pounds. 

Therefore, only a small portion of the proppant would require coating. He also estimated that the 

above scenario would cost the operator about $10,000 dollars including the cost for application. 

Mr. Nevin and EPA discussed some of the practical considerations for implementing this 

technology:

 Surface Area Contact: Mr. Nevin stated that surface area contact will have a large 

impact on the effectiveness of this treatment process. Therefore, he recommends 

installing disruptors in the piping. EPA noted that Lamnipipe would need to 

demonstrate that the disruptors do not hinder the flow of gas to the well surface 

and decrease production. Wastewater contact times required to achieve removals 

were not discussed.

 Regeneration: Mr. Nevin stated that the DOWEX resin is “one shot” and cannot 

be regenerated. According to Mr. Nevin, this makes it a good match for hydraulic 

fracturing since flowback is a one-time occurrence. Resin capacity was calculated 

to be greater than the amount of radionuclides in flowback.

 Produced Water: EPA noted that Mr. Nevin’s calculations were based on the 

amount of radionuclides in flowback. However, it did not account for produced 

water, which according to data that EPA has reviewed, contains higher 

concentrations of radionuclides. Mr. Nevin stated that, depending on the amount 

of produced water expected for the formation, operators can use excess resin to 

account for the radionuclides in the produced water.

 Coating: EPA also noted that Lamnipipe would need to look into whether the pipe 

coating could result in increased scaling. Mr. Nevin also stated that operators 
Memorandum

07 March 2012

Page 4 of 6

would likely need to find a way to protect the pipe coating when the hydraulic 

fracturing fluid (containing proppant) is injected under high pressure.

Follow Up

Mr. Nevin asked if EPA has any suggestions for reaching out to industry or having this 

technology considered for the rulemaking. EPA made the following suggestions:

 Ask Dow Chemical Company for performance data on the DOWEX or other 

relevant resins. EPA clarified if provided to EPA, this information can be 

maintained as Confidential Business Information. Any specifications of the 

DOWEX or relevant resins would also be helpful.

 Conduct bench scale testing on shale gas wastewater using the technology to 

demonstrate its applicability. 

 Determine how the chemical matrix of shale gas wastewater may affect resin 

performance. 

 Communicate with industry to answer some of the following questions:

 If used as pipe coating, how susceptible is it to scaling?

 If used as pipe coating, how susceptible is it to erosion from proppant 

during fracturing? 

 If used as pipe coating, how would it affect the flow of gas and 

wastewater?

 If used as proppant coating, how would change in size affect the fracturing 

job?
Attachment 1

Table A-1. List of Meeting Participants

Name Affiliation Phone Email

Don Nevin Lamnipipe 800-656-8075 don@mailbdm.com

Fred Eames Hunton & Williams 202-778-2245 feames@hunton.com

Brian D’Amico US EPA 202-566-1069 Damico.Brian@epamail.epa.gov

Lisa Biddle US EPA 202-566-0350 Biddle.Lisa@epamail.epa.gov

Meghan Camp ERG 703-633-1684 meghan.camp@erg.com

Brent Ruminski ERG 703-633-1701 brent.ruminski@erg.com
Attachment 2

Lamnipipe Presentation