1. The Past, Present and Future for Selenium Treatment 2008 WV AMD Task Force Meeting James J. Gusek, P.E., Kevin W. Conroy, P.E., Thomas Rutkowski, P.E.

2. Where is it found?  Health Food Store Shelves  Paint, pigments, dye formulating  Electronics  Glass manufacturing  Insecticide production  Pulp and paper  Ash piles, FGD blowdown,  Coal/oil combustion  Agricultural water  Petroleum processing  Mining operations (1 st noted in ASMR paper, 1988)

3. What’s the problem?  Aquatic life hazard  1983 – Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge - California  Birth defects/death of birds, small animals, fish  Selenium cycle not well understood  Uncertainty on bioavailability  Even if bio-available, what is toxic?  Often times low concentration, high volume - makes treatment expensive

4. How is it regulated?  5 µg/LFreshwater aquatic life  50 µg/LPrimary DWS MCL  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended 2 µg/L to protect fish, waterfowl and endangered aquatic species

5. Chemistry  4 primary oxidation states  elemental selenium Se 0  -2selenide Se -2  +4selenite (HSeO 3 - and SeO 3 - )  +6 selenate (SeO 4 -2 )  Chemical equilibrium principals don’t really apply  Driven by  Redox conditions  Biological activity  Sorption processes

6. Overburden Geochemistry  Dzharkenite (FeSe 2 ) (analogous to pyrite)  An organic diselenide  Selenium-substituted pyrite Three Selenium Mineral Phases ID’d in Western US Phosphate Resource Area Ref: Ryser, et al., 2005 Factoid #2: Se precipitation in treatment systems is typically believed to be Se 0 Factoid #1: Oxidized Se in weathered shale overburden originally started as selenium mineral analogous to pyrite

7. Past and Present - EPA BAT  Ferric coagulation/filtration  Typically pH <7  Co-precipitation effect  Effective removal requires reduction of selenate to selenite  Problem if arsenic present  Lime softening  Rever $ e o $ mo $ i $  Non-preferential process  Pretreatment due to other typical mine water issues may be required

8. Past and Present - EPA BAT  Electrodialysis  Alumina  Selenite adsorbed at pH range of 3 – 8  Silica can interfere at pH >4  Selenate adsorption is poor  Ion exchange  Need oxidized divalent selenate  Competing ion effects can hinder effectiveness  Some specialty resins tested

9. Past and Present - EPA BDAT  Ferrihydrite precipitation with concurrent adsorption of selenium on the ferrihydrite surface  For adsorption – need ferric ion (Fe +3 ) present  Most effective removal at pH 4-6  Somewhat effective up to pH 8  Phosphate, silicate, arsenic, carbonate can interfere

10. Past and Present – EPA/DOE MWTP  Selenium Treatment/Removal Alternatives Demonstration  Report issued in 2001  Three technologies tested in field  Ferrihydrite Adsorption (baseline)  Catalyzed Cementation  Biological Reduction  One technology tested on bench scale  Enzymatic Reduction

11. Past and Present – EPA/DOE MWTP  Objective – treat to <50 µg/L Se  Work done in 1999-2001  Basis – Kennecott Utah Copper Corp’s Garfield Wetlands-Kessler Springs site  10,000 µg/L Se  95%+ selenate  TDS 1,000 - 5,000 mg/L

12. Past and Present – EPA/DOE MWTP  Ferrihydrite  Did not work on a consistent basis  Various iron types, concentrations and ratios used  Could achieve objective but at prohibitive reagent consumption  Questions on TCLP stability

13. Past and Present – EPA/DOE MWTP  Catalyzed cementation  Developed for arsenic, selenium, thallium removal  Removes metals by cementation on the surface of iron particles  Believed to work on both selenite and selenate  Proprietary catalysts used  Bench test work had shown favorable results  Did not work on a consistent basis

14. Past and Present – EPA/DOE MWTP  Biological Reduction (BSeR™)  Used anaerobic solids bed reactors  Selenium reduced to elemental selenium by biofilms and proprietary microorganisms  Molasses used as carbon source  Was able to consistently meet objective  Over 70% of samples less than detection (2 µg/L)

15. Past and Present – EPA/DOE MWTP  Economics BDAT Cementation BSeR™ Capital$1.0M $1.1M $0.6M O&M$2.1M $1.2M $0.14M NPV$17M $9.5M $1.1M $/1,000 gal$13.90 $8.17 $1.32 $/kg Se$1,836 $1,079 $174 Based on 300 gpm plant, 2 mg/L selenium influent 2001 dollars 2005 price for Se = $110/kg

16. Problems With the Past and Present  Non-selective processes  Large amounts of secondary waste  Multiple reagents  Okay for bulk selenium removal with other metals  Can’t consistently get to <10 µg/L

17. Biological Reduction – General  Studied for decades (1994 ASMR)  Microbes degrade/transform contaminant because  Se used as energy source  Detoxification mechanism for bugs  Resembles another ion (sulfate)  Combination of the above  Anaerobic reactors  Reduction to elemental selenium  Nitrate/sulfate interference?  Facilitated with iron presence?  90%+ removal reported

18. Biological Reduction – Ponds/Wetlands  Panoche Drainage District – San Joaquin Valley  74-1,400 µg/L due to Se rich soil  Primarily selenate form  Numerous bioremediation studies  Algal-Bacterial Selenium Removal (ABSR)  Anoxic ponds – reduce selenate to selenite to elemental and settle  Generally about 80% maximum removal

19. Biological Reduction – Ponds/Wetlands  Additional California work - 2005  Constructed wetlands  9 plant species tested  63% - 71% removal  ~20 µg/L influent, 3 – 6 µg/L effluent  Problem with ponds/wetlands  HRT’s in days

20. Biological Reduction – Advances  More selective microbes isolated  Advances in fixed film/biofilm media  Better understanding of operating conditions  Result – retention times have been reduced from days to hours for active systems  Advances also made in passive technology

21. Biological Reduction – Advances ABMet®  Offered by GE Water and Process Technologies  Same as BSeR™ process  Several FGD projects at commercial scale  3,000 – 5,000 µg/L selenium  Up to 20,000 mg/L chloride  98% – 99% removal projected  Effluent as low as 10 µg/L

22. Passive treatment = What Is Passive Treatment?

23. If It’s Not a BLACK BOX, What Is Passive Treatment ? It’s the:  Sequential  Ecological  eXtraction Of metals in a man-made but naturalistic bio-system

24. Early Passive Treatment Data Site/ Date GPMpHInfluent Se ug/L Effluent Se ug/L Percent Removal NV Gold Tailing (Aerobic) 1994 107.5401660% NV Waste Rock (BCR) 1994 62.722<5>78% Brewer Mine (BCR) 1995 121,5005097%

25. Biological Reduction – Advances Passive Selenium Reducing Bioreactor  Tested on Colorado Western Slope  Bureau of Reclamation Science and Technology Program  FIW Influent typically ~20 µg/L  Spike to 70 µg/L  2006-2007  1,000-2,000 mg/L SO 4 -2 background

26. Biological Reduction – 2007 Passive Selenium Reducing Bioreactor  Four reactors with different substrate compositions  Organic substrate composed of wood chips, hay, manure  ZVI incorporated; no advantage  12 hour detention time adequate, optimization possible  Operated for 20 weeks  Effluent typically <2 µg/L  Up to 98% removal  1 gpm pilot to be built June 2008  Full Scale unit costs: $0.26 per 1000 gallons or $115 per kg Selenium  Design similar to sulfate reducing bioreactor

27. BCR Construction in Montana Designed for nitrate, thallium, and selenium

28. Biological Reduction – Advances Active Anaerobic Bioreactor System  Waste rock seepage  250 gpm capacity  Fixed film bioreactor with high surface area media  Molasses used as carbon source  Phosphate/urea added  Reverse osmosis system used during high flow – 700 gpm  Bioreactor feed switched to RO brine

29. Biological Reduction – Advances Active Anaerobic Bioreactor System  18 hour retention time  Low flow (raw seepage)  Se ~30 µg/L  SO 4 -2 ~6,000 mg/L  High flow (RO brine)  Se ~70 µg/L  SO 4 -2 ~13,500 mg/L

30. Biological Reduction – Advances Costs: $5.71 per 1,000 gallons (RO~$4.40?) $50,000 per kg Se removed (v. dilute)

31. Biological Reduction – Advances Building (RO, filters) 50ft x 135ft Bioreactors 160ft x 60 ft Overall 120ft x 200 ft or 0.55 acres

32. Biological Reduction – Advances Active Anaerobic Bioreactor System  Effluent goal is 10 µg/L  Pilot plant operated for 7 months  High sulfide was an issue  Discharge quality  Solids fouling  Full scale system designed and constructed  Operating for about 18 months  Compliant water being produced

33. Future?  Selenium with other metals  Conventional lime-iron based processes for bulk removal  Biological polishing process  Low concentration selenium  Biological reduction  Both active and passive options  Combinations with other processes – i.e. membranes  Reduce costs to <$5.00/Kgal? Maybe down to $0.25/Kgal with passive BCRs?

34. Future? Insitu Selenium Treatment (NOT bugs on Booze)

35. Partial Treatment to Meet Goals?

36. Biological Reduction – Application Keys  Nutrients are vital in establishing microbial population  Understanding of site chemistry and environmental interactions (e.g., hydrogeology)  Analytical methods  Can get discrepancies in total and dissolved  Possibly related to digestion  Volatile selenide  Need for aerobic post-treatment  High COD, P, N

37. Conclusions  There is no silver bullet for selenium removal to low levels  Selenium can be removed to <10 µg/L  All sites must be evaluated individually  Pure “paper” designs are risky – bench & pilot development work always recommended  Cost of selenium reduction to low levels is decreasing

38. Questions?