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

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

3.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 1

4.0 OVERVIEW OF COALBED METHANE PRODUCTION IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN .... 3

5.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SET CORP. TREATMENT PROCESS ............................................. 5

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 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 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 ..............................4 

Figure 5-1. Influent Pond with Degassing / Aeration ..................................................................5 

Figure 5-2. Degasser Tower and IX Tanks ..................................................................................6
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 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 methane (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 106o

 09’ 06.7” 

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

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

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 

 SET Corp. 

 Mike Smith 

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 
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 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. 

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. 

 

1

 See 21 December 2006; 71 FR 76644. 
3

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

approximately 2.5 miles south of I-90 between Gillette 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 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 

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 
4

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). 

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

(Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2004)
5

5.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SET CORP. TREATMENT PROCESS

Yates conveys CBM production water through a collection system pipeline to the SET 

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

between Gillette and Buffalo, WY (Latitude 44 o 10’ 40.8” North, Longitude 106o 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 / Aeration 

(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 flow rate is between 20,000 and 26,000 barrels 

per day. The treatment system consists primarily of 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 operating 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 material similar to Zeolite) to remove 

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

exchange, weak acid resin and sulfuric acid regenerant. 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 CO2 and increase pH. Figure 5-2 shows a degasser tower 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 reduces sodium from 150 to 450 mg/L. Treated 

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

CO2. Degassed water is conveyed to a clearwell, or back to the influent pond if it does not meet 

specifications. Water from the clearwell is discharged 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 some acid is reused. The treatment 

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

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

IX system is regenerated after every 400,000 gallons 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 4500 gallons. Waste is hauled in 4 to 5 truck 

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

considering options to concentrate residuals and reduce 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, 2010). Mr. Glasser provided target water 

quality parameters as a separate attachment (see Appendix E). 

6.0 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

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, 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 Questionnaire2

, 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 information3

 – 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). 

 

2

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

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 Method 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 Template
Table D-2. Sheet 2— Design Cost Template 

Design Information 

Unit operation / system SET Corp DynIX 

Project name / identifier Interceptor Plant 

Vendor SET Corp 

Flow rate to unit operation/ system (bbl/d) 100,000 bbl/day 

Design capacity of unit operation/system (bbl/d) 30,000 bbl/day 

Targeted water quality parameter name(s) (enter multiple 

parameters by using columns to the right) See attachment 

Estimated removal efficiency 

Operating schedule Hours per day 24 Days per year 365 

Basis Year 

Total Capital Investment 

(sum of direct and indirect capital costs) 2008 

Direct capital costs 

Purchased equipment cost, including 

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

controllers); 

1,250,000 

Delivery cost 112,000 

Installation/construction cost (including 

labor and site work) 322,000 

Monitoring equipment 75,000 

Other (specify) 

Indirect capital costs 

Engineering 212,000 

Secondary containment 240,000 

Contractor fees 

Other (specify) 
Annual Cost (2008 basis year requested) 

Operating labor - the 

annual labor directly 

associated with 

operation of the process 

equipment 

Hours 24/7 

$/hr $33.61 

Maintenance labor - the 

annual labor directly 

associated with 

maintenance of the 

process equipment 

Hours 54 

$/hr 33.61 

Chemicals (e.g., 

regenerant acid, pH 

adjustment, membrane 

cleaning) 

Chemical(s) / concentration 

Amount used .04871 gal/bbl 

Frequency 23 bbl/day 

Cost/unit chemical $746.00/day 

Annual cost $272,071 

Electrical / energy 

Energy source (e.g., grid, 

diesel generators) Grid 

Energy demand 

(e.g., total HP) 480V 100KW 

Annual fuel or kwh usage 38.4 kwh 

Annual cost 18,000 

Monitoring and 

analytical costs 

Parameter(s) monitored Sodium Conductivity 

Frequency 8 times/day 1/hour 

Unit or total cost 

Residuals management/ 

disposal (e.g., media 

replacement, regenerant 

wastes, backwashes, 

membrane cleaning) 

Type (s) Na2 SO4

Volume 700 bbl/day 

Frequency 

Destination (e.g., direct discharge, 

POTW, injection) Injection 

Transportation distance 100 miles 

Management/ disposal cost $3.00/bbl 

Other 
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 Wyoming 

Table 1: Maximum Contamination Limits 

Table 2: Discharge Limits stipulated in WYPDES permit 

Effluent Characteristic Daily Maximum 

Chlorides, mg/l 70 

Dissolved Iron, μg/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, μg/l 3.4 

Total Recoverable Barium, μg/l 590 

Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l 810 

Total Radium 226, pCi/l 5 

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) 6 

Dissolved Copper, μg/l 4.9 

Dissolved Cadmium, μg/l 1.1 

Dissolved Lead, μg/l 2.1 

Total Recoverable Selenium, μg/l 2.0 

Total Recoverable Aluminum, μg/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 the 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 exchange of alkalinity associated cations with 

protons (hydrogen ions) will neutralize the alkalinity (mainly bicarbonate alkalinity in the case of 

this water) to CO2 and water. The CO2 will be removed in the degasifier by simple aeration. 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 storage tank for HEM and IX system backwash 

and rinsing. Once this tank is full the treated water 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 HCO3

EC 6000 μ MHOS/cm 

Barium 5 ppm 

Fe 50 ppm 
The HEMTM system is equipped with differential pressure switches and automatically directs the 

process flow to the standby unit and backwash the other filter. The backwash water will be 

directed to the influent pond for reprocessing. 

The IX process is a two stage process, each stage being 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 degasifier to vent the carbon dioxide generated 

from the treatment process, and then directed to stage 2 of the ion exchange process sequence. 

The treated water will be directed to a backwash storage tank and when the level for the required 

volume for the backwash is reached, the rest of flow 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.