## Final Site Visit Report: SET Corp.

Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Detailed Study

November 9, 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 S ITES 

### V ISITED AND 

### D ATES



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

2.0 A TTENDEES



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

3.0 B ACKGROUND AND 

### O BJECTIVES



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

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 

### SET C ORP



### . T REATMENT 

### P ROCESS 

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

6.0 R EFERENCES



### .................................................. ................................................... ....... 7

Appendix A MAPS SHOWING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM ( GPS) POINT

LOCATIONS FOR SITES VISITED

Appendix B LIST OF ATTENDEES

Appendix C EPA INFORMATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 10, 2009

Appendix D MICROSOFT EXCEL® SPREADSHEET TEMPLATE FO R DATA

SUBMISSION TO EPA ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED B Y

WASTEWATER SOLUTIONS

### ii LIST OF FIGURES

Page

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

Figure 5-1. Influent Pond with Degassing / Aeratio n ................................................. .................5

Figure 5-2. Degasser Tower and IX Tanks ..........

................................................... .....................6

### 1

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 a representative from

Sustainable Environmental Technologies Corporation (“SET Corp.”), formerly known as RG

Global Lifestyles, Inc. (“RGBL”) at the time of the site visit, to discuss and observe their

treatment of produced water from Yates’ coalbed met hane (CBM) operations. The site visit took

place at a treatment facility located approximately 2.5 miles south of Interstate Highway 90 (I90) between Gillette and Buffalo, WY (Latitude 44 o 

### 10’ 40.8” North, Longitude 106 o 

### 09’ 06.7”

West). See Appendix A for a map and GPS coordinate s for the site. Mr. Mike Smith, SET

Corp., greeted the participants and provided an ope rational overview of the treatment technology

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

SET Corp.

Mike Smith

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

### 2

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.

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.

1 See 21 December 2006; 71 FR 76644.

### 3

A representative from SET Corp. led a tour of the t reatment system in operation

approximately 2.5 miles south of I-90 between Gille tte and Buffalo, WY. This report presents an

overview of the 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 is

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

### 4

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).

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

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

### 5

5.0 O VERVIEW OF THE 

### SET C ORP



### . T REATMENT 

### P ROCESS



### Yates conveys CBM production water through a collec tion system pipeline to the SET

Corp. treatment system located approximately 2.5 mi les south of Interstate Highway 90 (I-90)

between Gillette and Buffalo, WY (Latitude 44 o 

### 10’ 40.8” North, Longitude 106 o 

### 09’ 06.7”

West). Production water flows from the collection system pipeline to a degassing/aeration “bell”

into a lined influent pond, as shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1. Influent Pond with Degassing / Aeratio n

( Source: http://www.setcorporation.us/hbd/wp-content/uploads /2010/08/SET_Corp_Wyoming_Plant_Slides.pdf )



### The SET Corp. treatment system has a capacity of 30 ,000 barrels per day and the pump

facility can transfer up to 900 gpm. The typical f low rate is between 20,000 and 26,000 barrels

per day. The treatment system consists primarily o f fixed bed ion exchange (IX), SET Corp.'s

proprietary DynIXTM technology, designed to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days week. All

process equipment is redundant, with one unit opera ting while the other is down. SET Corp. has

the ability to remotely monitor operations, but has an operator on site at all times. In addition,

SET Corp. is planning to add leak detection.

### 6

Influent passes through HEM filters (containing mat erial similar to Zeolite) to remove

algae and particles down to 1 micron (μm). After f iltration, produced water is treated with ion

exchange, weak acid resin and sulfuric acid regener ant. The first ion exchange unit reduces

approximately 50 to 80 percent sodium to 300 to 750 mg/L sodium.

From the first ion exchange unit, treated water is conveyed to a standard packed tower

degassifier to remove CO 2 

### and increase pH. Figure 5-2 shows a degasser towe r and IX tanks.

Water from the degassifier is sent through a second ion exchange system having the same design

as the first IX system. The secondary IX system re duces sodium from 150 to 450 mg/L. Treated

water from the secondary IX system is sent to an ag itation-type degasser to remove additional

CO 2 

### . Degassed water is conveyed to a clearwell, or ba ck to the influent pond if it does not meet

specifications. Water from the clearwell is discha rged to Indian Creek, a Powder River tributary.

The Indian Creek discharge outfall is typically 100 yards from the Powder River, but may

actually be a direct discharge to the Powder River depending on river levels.

Figure 5-2. Degasser Tower and IX Tanks

(Source: http://www.setcorporation.us/hbd/wp-content/uploads /2010/08/SET_Corp_Wyoming_Plant_Slides.pdf )

### 7

Regenerant acid is 60 percent sulfuric acid, and so me acid is reused. The treatment

system typically generates 4 percent (up to 5 perce nt) of the treated water as brine. The primary

IX exchange system is regenerated after treating ap proximately 200,000 gallons. The secondary

IX system is regenerated after every 400,000 gallon s treated. Regenerant waste is routed to a

lined waste pit for hauling approximately 100 miles off site to a Class I injection well. There are

8 regenerations per day, with each approximately 45 00 gallons. Waste is hauled in 4 to 5 truck

loads per day and is their largest operating cost a t approximately $3 per barrel. SET Corp. is

considering options to concentrate residuals and re duce haul costs.

Appendix C is a copy of the EPA information request memorandum regarding the SET

Corp. treatment system. For ease of providing data , EPA prepared a Microsoft Excel®

spreadsheet template for data submission (refer to Appendix D, which includes information

provided by Bob Glasser, SET Corp. on November 4, 2 010). Mr. Glasser provided target water

quality parameters as a separate attachment (see Ap pendix E).

6.0 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 VISITED

### Overview Map

### Detail Map

### Appendix 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

Paul Hanson PG Environmental (contractor to EPA) 303-279-1778 ext.

104 paul.hanson@pgenv.com

### Appendix C

EPA INFORMATION REQUEST MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 10, 2 009

### MEMORANDUM

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 2 , 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 3 – 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).

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

3 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 D

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 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. ABC Methane

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

the data is associated with. Project B

Produced Water Management System

Name/Identifier: Please identify/describe the PWMS that

the data is associated with. PWMS #1 (Equilization -> IX - > UIC)Data Set Parameters

Parameter Description Example Pollutant The pollutant analyzed. Total Dissolved S olids

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. 1124

Analytical Method The analytical method used. EPA M ethod 160.1

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). 10

Sampling Date The date samples were collected. 7/1/ 2006

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). SP-1

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. 130

Link to Analytical Data TemplateTable D-2. Sheet 2—Design Cost TemplateDesign InformationUnit operation / system SET Corp DynIXProject name / identifierInterceptor PlantVendorSET CorpFlow rate to unit operation/ system (bbl/d) 100,000bbl/dayDesign capacity of unit operation/system (bbl/d) 30,000 bbl/dayTargeted water quality parameter name(s) (enter multipleparameters by using columns to the right)See attachmentEstimated removal efficiencyOperating scheduleHours per day 24Days per year 365Basis YearTotal Capital Investment(sum of direct and indirect capital costs)2008Direct capital costsPurchased equipment cost, includingancillary equipment (e.g., piping, valves,controllers);1,250,000Delivery cost 112,000Installation/construction cost (includinglabor and site work)322,000Monitoring equipment 75,000Other (specify)Indirect capital costsEngineering 212,000Secondary containment 240,000Contractor feesOther (specify)Annual Cost (2008 basis year requested)Operating labor - theannual labor directlyassociated withoperation of the processequipmentHours 24/7$/hr $33.61Maintenance labor - theannual labor directlyassociated withmaintenance of theprocess equipmentHours 54$/hr 33.61Chemicals (e.g.,regenerant acid, pHadjustment, membranecleaning)Chemical(s) / concentrationAmount used .04871 gal/bblFrequency 23 bbl/dayCost/unit chemical $746.00/dayAnnual cost $272,071Electrical / energyEnergy source (e.g., grid,diesel generators)GridEnergy demand(e.g., total HP)480V 100KWAnnual fuel or kwh usage 38.4 kwhAnnual cost 18,000Monitoring andanalytical costsParameter(s) monitored Sodium Conductivity PhFrequency 8 times/day 1/hour 1/hourUnit or total costResiduals management/disposal (e.g., mediareplacement, regenerantwastes, backwashes,membrane cleaning)Type (s) Na2SO4Volume700 bbl/dayFrequencyDestination (e.g., direct discharge,POTW, injection)InjectionTransportation distance100 milesManagement/ disposal cost$3.00/bblOther

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

Operator Name/Identifier:
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)

### Appendix E

TARGETED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS

# Parameters used for the SET Corp. DynIX Plant in Wy oming

Table 1: Maximum Contamination Limits

Table 2: Discharge Limits stipulated in WYPDES perm it 

### Effluent Characteristic Daily Maximum Chlorides, mg/l 70
Dissolved Iron, μ g/l 320 pH, standard units 6.5 - 8.5 Specific Conductance, μMhos/cm 1215 Dissolved Sodium, mg/l 420 Sulfate, mg/l 3000 Total Recoverable Arsenic, μ g/l 3.4 Total Recoverable Barium, μ g/l 590 Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l 810 Total Radium 226, pCi/l 5 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) 6 Dissolved Copper, μ g/l 4.9 Dissolved Cadmium, μ g/l 1.1
Dissolved Lead, μ g/l 2.1 Total Recoverable Selenium, μ g/l 2.0 Total Recoverable Aluminum, μ g/l 360

Treatment Process The wastewater from the pond will be pumped to the feed tank located in a building provided. The pump station will pump the wastewater through t he SET Corp. High Efficiency Media (HEMTM) filter columns to remove iron (Fe) and other suspended solids from the stream.

The filtered water will then be directed to the ion exchange columns for removal of cations associated with alkalinity from the stream. The exc hange of alkalinity associated cations with protons (hydrogen ions) will neutralize the alkalin ity (mainly bicarbonate alkalinity in the case of this water) to CO 2 

### and water. The CO 2 

### will be removed in the degasifier by simple aerati on. The

net result will be a reduction in TDS which will be the sum of alkalinity and alkalinity associated

cations. The treated water will be collected in a s torage tank for HEM and IX system backwash and rinsing. Once this tank is full the treated wat er is directed to a two-stage pH adjustment system to assure meeting the discharge limit. Parameter Operating Maximum Sodium 1500 ppm as Na Bicarbonates 3000 ppm as HCO 3 

### EC 6000 μ MHOS/cm Barium 5 ppm

Fe 50 ppm

### The HEMTM system is equipped with differential press ure switches and automatically directs the

process flow to the standby unit and backwash the o ther filter. The backwash water will be directed to the influent pond for reprocessing.

The IX process is a two stage process, each stage b eing configured for continuous operation. The water will be treated by one set of columns, while another set will be on standby, taking over the flow during regeneration of the first set.

The effluent from stage 1 will be processed in a de gasifier to vent the carbon dioxide generated from the treatment process, and then directed to st age 2 of the ion exchange process sequence.

The treated water will be directed to a backwash st orage tank and when the level for the required volume for the backwash is reached, the rest of flo w is directed to a 2-stage pH adjustment
system.

The effluent from the pH adjustment system will be directed to the designated discharge point by gravity.