1. Timothy K. Tsukamoto, Ph.D.
RCTS™
Overviews of Two Advanced AMD Treatment Technologies: Semi-passive Sulfate Reducing Bioreactors and the Rotating Cylinder Treatment System July 2008
Timothy K. Tsukamoto, Ph.D.

2. Semi-passive Bioreactors Timothy K. Tsukamoto, Ph. D
Semi-passive Bioreactors Timothy K. Tsukamoto, Ph.D. (775)

3. Options for Treatment Advantages Disadvantages
Bioreactor and other passive systems
Mostly Passive
Requires space
Lifetime limited
Higher capital cost
Caustic addition
Semi-passive
Easily implemented
Higher chemical cost
Increased sludge volume
Adds sodium to water
Lime precipitation
Removes sulfate
Decreases TDS
Requires some O&M

4. Types of Bioreactors Passive Bioreactors
-The carbon or energy source is part of the substrate.
-Once the degradable carbon sources are depleted, treatment efficiency falls off.
-Metals are precipitated within the matrix.
-Plugging and short circuiting leads to decreased treatment efficiency.
Semi-Passive Bioreactors
-The carbon source is added to the influent water
-The majority of the metals are precipitated outside of the bioreactor.
-Flushing built into the matrix.
-All three contribute to a longer lasting system
Passive Bioreactors
-The carbon or energy source is part of the substrate.
-Once the degradable carbon sources are depleted, treatment efficiency falls off.
-Metals are precipitated within the matrix.
-Plugging and short circuiting leads to decreased treatment efficiency.
Semi-Passive Bioreactors
-The carbon source is added to the influent water
-The majority of the metals are precipitated outside of the bioreactor.
-Flushing built into the matrix.
-All three contribute to a longer lasting system

5. Sulfate-reducing Activity
Passive Bioreactors
0.3 moles per cubic meter per day
limited to about 1 meter deep
so 0.3 moles per square meter per day
Semi-passive Bioreactor
0.56 moles per cubic meter per day
can go much deeper
So for Leviathan Bioreactor 3 meters deep
1.68 moles per square meter per day

6. Leviathan Mine Original Manure Substrate at the Leviathan Mine.
-down-flow reactor approximately 3ft deep.
-ineffective at treating AMD after 1 year.
-the source of manure substrate for the column experiments that follow.

7. Leviathan Mine Six Weeks of Treatment One Year of Treatment 7-27-93
Six Weeks of Treatment
One Year of Treatment
7-1-94
Influent
Effluent pH
4.78
6.97
4.7
6.45
Temperature C
9.9
15.6
8.4
13.1
alkalinity -
269 Al
41.0
<0.02 48
0.24 As
0.41
0.023
0.28
0.015 Fe
310
2.8
380
260 Ni
1.8
0.01
2.1
Sulfate
1690
1190
2070
1910

8. Leviathan Mine

9. Leviathan Mine Improved flow distribution Improved matrix
Improved sludge capture

10. Leviathan Mine

11. Leviathan Mine

12. Leviathan Mine

13. Leviathan Mine Sodium Hydroxide And Ethanol Delivery Sodium Hydroxide
Bioreactor 1
Bioreactor 2
Settling Pond 1
Settling Pond 2
Pretreatment Pond
Oxidizing Aeration
Trench
Infiltration Pond

14. Leviathan Mine Pretreatment Pond Recycle Line Bypass Line Aspen seep
Bioreactor 1
Bioreactor 2
Settling Pond 1
Settling Pond 2
Ethanol Delivery
Oxidizing Aeration
Trench
Sodium Hydroxide
Delivery
Infiltration Pond

15. Leviathan Mine

16. Leviathan Mine

17. Leviathan Mine

18. Leviathan Mine pH 2.93 6.79 6.86 7.66 6-9 SO4 1530 1090 1080 1170 NA
Constituent
Aspen Seep
Bioreactor 1 effluent
Bioreactor 2 effluent
Discharge
Discharge objectives pH
2.93
6.79
6.86
7.66
6-9
SO4
1530
1090
1080
1170 NA Al 28
<0.5
4.0 Fe 99
0.16
0.13
0.04
2.0 Ni
0.50
0.15
0.05
0.1
0.84 Cu
0.62
0.02
0.01
0.026 Zn
0.73
0.06
0.21

19. Leviathan Mine

20. Leviathan Mine

21. Leviathan Mine

22. Leviathan Mine

23. Leviathan Mine

24. Nacimiento Mine

25. Constituents of Concern for Nacimiento well field.
Nacimiento Mine
Constituents of Concern for Nacimiento well field.
Well ID Al Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Ni Zn
Sulfate pH
MW-2
0.94 ND
2.54
63.3
0.0039
0.777
0.1
8.58
980
5.6
MW-5
0.41
0.065
1.63
0.0057
0.02
1.76
190
6.5
MW-6
1.38
0.79
13.8
0.0119
0.088
0.09
260
5.2
MW-9
3.73
0.74
10.4
0.005
0.304
0.06
3.02
450
3.6
MW-10
28.6
0.01
20.8
124
0.0267
1.53
0.18
13.1
1,960
3.2
MW-11
43.3
0.012
57.6
261
0.0913
2.73
0.25
20.5
1,760
2.7
MW-12
0.36
0.21
9.92
0.0019
11.3
0.17
1,730
6.9
MW-14
0.51
7.62
0.0085
3.27
0.12
860
7.5
MW-21
70.5
0.018
116
324
0.111
16.2
28.2
2,930
2.9
MW-32
0.08
1.61
0.0095
0.084
250
MW-33
9.03
157
159
0.0024
2.71
0.37
25.4
1,630
4.0
MW-35
0.65
0.028
O.41
1.36
3.77
0.146
0.03
2.57 30
6.2
MW-36
3.59
0.0017
0.343
750
7.2

26. Nacimiento Mine

27. The Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™ Timothy K. Tsukamoto, Ph. D
The Rotating Cylinder Treatment System™ Timothy K. Tsukamoto, Ph.D. (775)

28. CONFIDENTIALITY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE
All information delivered in this presentation relating to the Rotating Cylinder Treatment System (“RCTS”), US Patent No. 7,011,745 is patented technology proprietary to Ionic Water Technologies, Inc. The presentation’s content related to IWT’s technologies shall not be used for any purpose by any recipient or viewer hereof without the express written consent of Ionic Water Technologies, Inc.

29. RCTS CONCEPT
Rotating perforated cylinders add oxygen from the atmosphere to the water
Energy efficient 10 hp system treats up to 500 gpm
Aggressive agitation optimal reagent efficiency
Reduced lime costs
Low maintenance rotor maintenance on most sites
2 to 3 times per year (takes 3 to 4 hours)
Small footprint most units are mobile
Effective Aeration and Oxidation
Less Sludge produced
Faster sludge settling

30. Chemistry and Stoicheometry
For Hydrated Lime
Ca(OH)2 + M M(OH)2 (s) + Ca 2+
Ca 2+ + SO CaSO4
Gypsum generally precipitates to ~ 2,000 mg/L
For Sodium Hydroxide
2 NaOH + M M(OH)2 (s) + Na +
Sodium remains soluble

31. Chemistry and Stoicheometry
CaO=1 Na(OH)=1.43 Ca(CO)3=1.78
If 2000 mg/L acidity then need= 1120 mg/L of CaO and 1600 mg/L of NaOH and 920 mg/L will be Na

32. Lime Precipitation Add lime (CaO) or Ca(OH)2 to raise the pH
Precipitate metals as hydroxides
Precipitate sulfate as gypsum
Requires oxygen addition if there is significant dissolved iron, manganese
Oxygen addition is typically accomplished with large compressors and air diffusers and tanks
Lime addition requires thorough mixing due to it’s low
solubility and slow dissolution rate.
Mixing is typically accomplished with large mixers inside
reaction tanks
Labor and energy demanding

33. Iron Hydroxide Solubility with Respect to pH
pH vs Total Iron Solubility Diagram for Ferrous and Ferric Hydroxide Precipitation.
Note the Minimum Solubility for Manganese Precipitation is Between pH 9 and 10.
(Taken from USEPA 1983).

34. Improved Oxygen Addition
Type of Aeration
Pounds of O2 delivered per horsepower-hour
Mechanical surface aeration
Submerged turbine aerators utilizing dual impeller turbines
RCTS 600 gallon four rotor
9.0
O2 = Qw x Fe x x 10 -5
O2 = Theoretical O2 demand (lb O2/hr)
Qw = Acid mine drainage flow rate (gal/min)
Fe = Fe 2+ initial concentration (mg/L)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Design Manual: Neutralization of Acid Mine Drainage. EPA-600/

35. Elizabeth Mine

40. K (sampled from unit and filtered immediately no settling )
Results from Startup
Table 1. Results for samples taken at various pH with and without settling. All samples were taken at an influent flow rate of approximately 32 gpm.
Sample ID
Initial pH
FeT
Fe2+ Mn Al Cu Zn
24 hour pH
Influent
6.13
710
715
A (24 hours settling)
11.35
0.46
0.24
0.50
0.03
0.00
0.35
10.56
B (24 hours settling)
10.29
0.05
0.02
9.12
C (24 hours settling)
9.64
0.38
0.14
0.40
0.01
9.23
D (24 hours settling)
9.45
0.28
8.90
E (24 hours settling)
9.08
0.06
8.42
F (24 hours settling)
8.06
1.18
0.07
3.00
7.85
G (24 hours settling)
7.52
1.44
2.30
7.34
H (24 hours settling)
6.83
3.22
0.08
7.80
6.66
I (24 hours settling)
6.08
84.50
10.65
8.00
5.42
J (24 hours settling)
5.60
54.00
4.42
K (sampled from unit and filtered immediately no settling )
9.80
0.20
Pond 7-26 (not filtered)
7.51
0.36
0.26
1.80
Pond 7-27 (filtered)
0.04
0.70
Pond (not filtered)
7.54
0.10

41. Iron and Manganese Oxidation

42. The Effect of pH on Oxidation Rates for Iron and Manganese
The Effect of pH on Oxidation Rates for Iron and Manganese. All experiments were conducted at dissolved
iron and manganese concentrations of less than 5 x 10-4 M. (a) oxygenation of Fe 2+ in bicarbonate solutions
(b) oxygenation of Mn 2+ in bicarbonate solutions (c) oxidation of Mn 2+ in bicarbonate solutions (autocatalytic plot)
(d) Effect of pH on oxidation rates (taken from Faust and Aly 1981)

43. Sunshine Mine
Residence time in RCTS 1 to 2 minutes

44. LEVIATHAN MINE, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SITE 2007

45. Comparison of RCTS with Conventional System Leviathan Mine
Hydraulic
Capacity
(gallons)
Average
Flow
Rate
(gpm)
System
Residence
Time
(minutes)
Influent pH
Effluent
Filter
Bag
DO mg/l
Lime
per Day
Conventional Tank Reactor System
4000
30.38
131.67
4.73
7.88
8.12
4.22
398
Rotating Cylinder Treatment System
1600 *
includes
dosing tank
27.33
58.54
4.86
8.11
7.86
233

46. EMERGENCY TREATMENT AT THE LEVIATHAN MINE 2006
Plowed the road April 9 and let the road dry.
Mobilized the lime on April 12 and 13 via 4 wheel drive equipment.
Mobilized the entire treatment system on April 13
Started treating on April 14 and by 10 a.m April 15 the average pH of the pond was 8.4.
Treated 24 hours/day with 2 man crew onsite an average of 4.6 hours/day
Met USEPA directives
Treated and actively discharged ~7.5 million gallons of water containing iron as high as 610 mg/L and aluminum as high as 490 mg/L.
Removed ~ 180 m3 of sludge from the lined pond in 2 days

47. Comparison of RCTS with
Conventional System
Leviathan Mine

48. RCTS vs Conventional System Leviathan Mine
Water Treated per ton of lime
RCTS ,000 gallons
Conventional System ,000 gallons

49. Empire Mine HCO3- + H+ H2O + CO2 Goals:
To oxidize and precipitate the iron and co precipitate arsenic from solution.
It was initially proposed that sodium hydroxide would be added to raise the pH from 6.6 approximately 8.0.
The addition of base was not necessary (Degassing of carbon dioxide from the water)
HCO3- + H H2O + CO2

50. Nevada Pit Lake

51. Nevada Pit Lake 6 Billion gallon pit lake pH~2.9
Utilize CaO fed through a silo
Utilize the RCTS and IWT lime grinder to slake the lime and dissolve it
Add CaO at ~ 2.8 lbs/ min and slake with ~ 2 to 10 gpm to obtain a slurry
of 3.5% to 17.5%
Mix with between 50 and 300 gpm of water in the RCTS unit (lime dissolves
Completely)
Reintroduce with the ~6,000 gpm of water feeding the pit lake
It will take ~ 1,000,000 lbs of CaO to neutralize 1 B gallons
2.8 lbs/min ~ 120,000 lbs per month so we would neutralize ~ 1.5 B gallons per year

52. Cost Comparison
= $0.11/1000 gallons neutralized

53. Sludge Settling Elizabeth Mine
5 minutes 10 minutes 15 minutes

54. Sludge Settling
1hour hour hours

55. Sludge Settling
7 hour hour

56. Sludge Settling Grouse Creek Mine RCTS Settling vs Conventional System
A B C D A B C D
1 Minute Settling Minute Settling
A= Conventional System with polymer and sulfide
B= RCTS no polymer no sulfide
C= RCTS with polymer no sulfide
D= RCTS with polymer and sulfide

57. Sludge Settling A= Conventional System with polymer and sulfide
A B C D A B C D
5 Minute Settling Minute Settling
A= Conventional System with polymer and sulfide
B= RCTS no polymer no sulfide
C= RCTS with polymer no sulfide
D= RCTS with polymer and sulfide