SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ
EFFECTIVE PASSIVE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS IN EXTREMELY COLD CANADIAN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
N. Kuyucak, Golder Assoc. Paste Technology Ltd., Ottawa, ON, Canada
F. Chabot, Golder Associates Ltd., Val d’Or, PQ, Canada
ABSTRACT
While Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) occurs naturally, its
management poses challenges especially at the decommissioned
sites. Two passive systems were designed and implemented at two
different decommissioned mining sites in Canada in order to treat the
seepage with ARD characteristics. One seep originating from a
reclaimed tailings pond was neutral mine drainage (NMD) containing
circumneutral pH and dissolved metals (e.g., nickel, zinc) in elevated
concentrations. The other ARD from a tailings stack showed net acid
drainage characteristics with low pH and higher metal concentrations
than regulated limits. Due to the different ARD characteristics occurring
at each site, different types of treatment systems were designed and
implemented. Both sites experience extreme winter conditions.
The NMD has been treated mainly by limestone drain and aerobic
systems since 1997. The acid ARD has been treated by a system
consisting of an anaerobic sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) cell, an
aerobic cell and a limestone filter since 2004. As this site has no
access roads, space, or power, a significant capital cost as well as
sludge disposal/storage requirements would have been required to
institute a chemical (active) treatment system. Both systems have
been successfully treating seepage and producing a water quality year
round that could comply with regulated objectives.
Additional key words: ARD, AMD, neural mine drainage,
anaerobic treatment, aerobic treatment, SRB, limestone drain.
INTRODUCTION
Water characteristics from ARD vary depending on the site
hydrology and its minerals (Ziemkiewicz et al., 2003). Sulfate and
carbonate concentrations in water affect the type of ARD. Acidic
drainage usualy have high sulfate and low carbonate concentrations.
Alkaline rich water, despite of considerable sulfate concentrations, can
produce neutral ARD water.
In genreal, metal precipitation and alkaline addition are necessary
steps for ARD neutralization. Active and passive treatments are
available for these purposes. Active treatment includes continuous
addition of alkaline reagent in a mixed tank and depending on the
degree of sophistication the use of pumps, tanks, clarifiers, thickeners,
instrumentation and automation to the ARD stream which requires
regular access to the site and maintenance. Passive treatment is
usually preferred when possible, especially for decommissioning sites
with limited access to the site or power.
The focus of this paper is to present passive systems for treating
neutral mine grainage and acid pH ARD at extreme cold Canadian
climate. Although passive treatment systems have been proven to be
successful for ARD neutralization, it is a well known fact that cold
operating condition is the challenge for successful operation. Example
sites of NMD and ARD has been successfully operating since 1997
and 2004, respectively. Design insights, construction strategies utilized
during implementation and operation of the systems are provided in
this paper.
PROCESS PRINCIPLES
The main objective of passive water treatment systems is to
accelerate naturally occurring reactions in a confined system rather
1 Copyright © 2010 by SME
Preprint 10-012
than receiving water body such as lakes or streams (Hedin et al.,
1991). They have, in some circumstances, been proven to be feasible
alternative to conventional lime neutralisation/precipitation method.
Drain water characteristics from mines can alter significantly and is
usually unique to each site. Depends on the water characteristics,
several passive treatment systems can be used such as aerobic,
anaerobic, limestone or their combinations.
Aerobic Systems
2+ 3+
In aerobic systems, metals such as iron (Fe , Fe ), manganese
(Mn) and aluminum (Al) can be removed effectively by oxidation and
hydrolysis reactions (USBM, 1994). In oxidizing environments,
adequate aeration, presence of alkalinity and retention time are the
primary design parameters for mine drainage having a neutral pH and
containing iron and/or manganese. Oxygen by aeration stimulates
oxidative reactions, while retention time provides required time for
reactions to occur and precipitation to take place. Abiotic iron oxidation
reaction is faster in alkaline or neutral waters than acidic waters. Rapid
hydrolysis can be ensured pH levels above 3. The reactions for the
removal of Fe are shown below in Eq.1 and 2:
1 1
Fe 2+ + O2 + H + → Fe 3+ + H 2O (1)
4 2
Fe 3+ + 2H 2O → FeOOH + 3H + (2)
In passive systems, the FeOOH precipitates are generated which
are usually less fluffy and voluminous than iron hydroxide (i.e.,
Fe(OH)3) precipitates produced by the straight lime neutralization
process. As a result these precipitates do not occupy a large space.
An adequetly designed system can be operated for a long time (e.g.
>20 years). The area requirements for the treatment is determined
based on the total loading of acidity and/or Fe. The surface of FeOOH
precipitates provides adsorption sites for other metals (e.g., Zn, Cu,
Mn, etc.) which result in removal for these metals to a certain degree.
The reactions of other metals undergo hydrolysis and removed from
the water in aerobic conditions are shown below (Gazea et al., 1996):
Al 3 + + 3H 2O → Al (OH ) 3 + 3H + (3)
1 3
Mn 2+ 0 2 + H 2O → MnOOH + 2H +
4 2 (4)
It should be noted that hydrolysis and precipitation reactions (Eqs
+
2-4) produce proton (H ) acidity which is also called mineral acidity. For
a successful process, the system must contain sufficient amount of
alkalinity to neutralize produced acidity.
Anaerobic Systems
Aerobic-organic substrate system with the presence of sulphate
reducing bacteria (SRB) provides conditions for removal of heavy
metals such as Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd and Pb from mine waters. Conversion of
2-
SO4 in ARD to S by SRB can generate bicarbonate alkalinity as
shown in Eq.5 (Kuyucak et al., 2006). The S
2-
produced forms
insoluble complexes with metals that results in removal of metals
(Eq.6). These systems are often called anaerobic wetlands or
subsurface flow wetlands.
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

2CH 2O + SO 42 − → H 2 S + 2HCO 3− (5)

M 2 + H 2 S + 2HCO 3− → MS + 2H 2O + 2CO 2 (6)
Where CH2O and M refer to organic substrate (nutrient) and
metal, respectively. These systems are more complicated and
expensive than aerated systems; however, removal of heavy metals
from net acid ARD and production of alkalinity resulting in an increase
in pH can only be achievable by these systems. The process kinetics
depends on several parameters such as temperature, pH,
concentration of SO4, redox potential, nutrient availablity, loading of
metals and flow rates.
Limestone Drains
Limestone drain (LD) is used to neutralize the total acidity and to
increase alkalinity and pH. The proton acidity found in ARD dissolves
calcium carbonate and produces bicarbonate alkalinity. The reaction is
illustrated in Eq. 7.
CaCO 3 + H + → Ca 2 + + HCO 3− (7)
3+
Presence of high concentrations of Al, Fe and SO4 (e.g., >2000
mg/L of SO4) is undesirable for LD since their precipitates can clog the
system. LDs can either be used as a pretreatment prior to aerobic or
anaerobic wetland or be placed after a wetland to modify the pH in the
final effluent.
Effect of Cold Weather on Operation
In general, depressed temperatures slow mesophilic bacterial
activity. Sulfate reducing bacteria is also sensetive to temperature;
however, they have been found to adapt to very harsh environments,
including extremely cold (-40°C) water beneath the Antartic ice cap
(Postgate, 1979). At extremely cold climate, the limiting activity in SRB
cells can be due to reduced organic material hydrolysis rate rather than
nutrient utilization by SRB.
Another problem dealing with extreme cold weather is limited
aeration due to water freezing in aeration cells. Insufficient aeration
lowers oxidation.
Non-vegetated surface flow aerobic wetland was selected as the
most suitable passive process for treating this NMD containg some Fe.
Around the waste rock piles a ditch was installed to collect the ARD
which is consist of a layer of limestone including several stone berms.
Alkalinity in ARD is increased in this ditch while it flows through. In a
small pond the alkaline ARD is further mixed/aerated. Then, a settling
pond and a limestone drainage follow the mixed/aerated pond to
remove and sustain precipitates/suspended solids from the down
stream and to modify the final pH, respectively. Figure 1 shows the
schematic diagram of treatment system at the site I.
The ditch system having 1%-3% gradient to support gravity flow
was constructed on excavated ground. The ditch and the settling pond
have an erosion control layer consists of about 10 cm of coarse
limestone at the bottom. Inclusion of these materials was particularly
useful for high flows. Proper spill ways to pass the maximum probable
flow were included to the system. The depth for the ditch and the
settling pond was about 1.5 m with an additional allowance of about 1
m of free board. Few stone berms were included to divide the long
ditch into smaller compartments which compartments could enhance
the treatment efficiency and could minimize erosion in the system.
Placement of a V-notch weir at the exit of the effluent was also useful.
The size requirements were calculated primarily based on the
total iron loading rate which is a function of flow rate and iron
3
concentration (i.e., 0.6 m /h total flow @ 110 mg/L of average Fe
concentration). As reported by USBM (1994), an average Fe removal
2
rate of 2 g of Fe per m of the aerated wetland per day (or 10 g of
2
acidity/m /day) and a safety factor of 1.5 had been used in the
calculations. This conservative approach could ensure good treatment
of the water which did not contain net alkalinity in spite of its
circumneutral pH and be able to accommodate high flow rates during
peak season.
3
To be able to treat 0.6 m /h of ARD flow containing 110 mg/L of
2
Fe, a total of 1200 m surface area was required. For this, a ditch with
3 m width x 400 m length x 1.5 m depth was designed (Table 2). An
aeration/oxidation pond and a settling pond with 6 m width x 50 m
length provided a holding capacity of more than 20 days for the normal
conditions and more than 7 hours for peak season (e.g., 1000 m /d
3

flow rate).
ARD SITES – BASIS OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
Site I: Neutral Mine Drainage (NMD)
The main contaminants in the seepage samples originating from
the waste rock stockpiles were iron and acidity (Table 1) and Zn and Ni
had to be reduced <0.5 mg/L to meet the regulated standards in the
discharge.
Table 1. Quality and Quantity of ARD Types.
2
1 ARD
Characteristics NMD
ST-1 ST-2
Average flow rate
3 0.6 0.72 0.54
(m /h)
3
Peak flow rate (m /h) 1000
pH 6 5.6 2.7
TSS (mg/L) 22 231
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3) 92 60 13
Acidity (mineral) 268 190 320
Fe total (mg/L) 109 18.5 15
2+ Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the passive treatment system at
Fe (mg/L) 65 >90% of total Fe >90% of total Fe
Site I.
SO4 (mg/L) 2703 636 887
Ni (mg/L) 0.98 0.33 0.46 Site II: Acid pH and net acidic water
Zn (mg/L) 2 0.33 1.2 Due to the site climate, location and available infrastructure the
Mn (mg/L) 25 5.65 5.7 use of a passive treatment system was proposed to this
Al (mg/L) 5.2 50 decommissioned mine site. Due to the acidic nature of water and the
Cu (mg/L) 0.09 0.23 presence of high heavy metal concentrations an anaerobic system cell
Pb (mg/L) <0.01 <0.01 was integrated to the design. The design included a limestone
As (mg/L) 0.009 0.01 seepage collection trench, a vertical anaerobic (SRB) cell with
1
collected and analyzed in 1997. limestone added with discharge to an aerobic flow through oxidation
pond followed by an aerobic limestone ditch. Seepage was occurring
2
collected and analyzed in May 2004. at many different locations around the tailings stock pile. Due to the
topography of the site, small seepage streams would not be routed and
collected all into one location. Two different seepage collection and
2 Copyright © 2010 by SME
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

treatment systems as Station 1 (ST-1) and Station 2 (ST-2) were Table 2. Key Facts- Design of the Anaerobic and Aerobic Treatment
designed and implemented as shown in Figure 2. The design of the Cells
overall system included the following process units: Typical NMD Net Acidic Net Acidic
Design Literature Aerobic SRB Cell, SRB Cell,
Values Cell ST1 ST 2
Hydraulic 3 2 3 2
3 2 0.1m /m /d 0.1m /m /d
loading 0.1m /m /d -
4.7 L/min 7 L/min
Flow rate
9.5-30 L/min 1
Measured 7.3-36 L/min
- - Avg- 12
raw flow Avg-16 L/min
L/min
Residence
~145 h
time in Not directly ~66 h
- (for ~8 L/min
anaerobic specified
treated)
cell
3 3
Acidity 15 g/m /d for ~105 g/m /d
loading winter (total flow)
- - 3
anaerobic (summer ~ 53 g/m /d (for 8
cell >3x ) L/min)
2
2 g/m /d
Aerobic cell 2 2 2
10-20 g/m /d (110 ppm Fe, 42 g/m /d ~1 g/m /d
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the passive treatment system at iron loading
10L/min)
Site II.
Seepage Collection Trench: The acid seepage collection system SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
was designed as an anaerobic limestone drain (ALD) with about 3-5
cm particle size. Trench constructed around the tailings stock pile Site I – Neutral Mine Drainage:
could collect small streams of acid seepage into one stream and feed The system was implemented to the site in October 1997 since
the anaerobic (SRB) cell. then, the system has performed well in treating ARD and meeting the
regulatory standards. It generates an effleunt with Fe, Ni and Zn
Anaerobic (SRB) Cell: The prime purpose of the SRB cell was to concentrations less than 1, 0.5 and 0.5 mg/L, respectively. The pH of
add alkalinity and precipitate many of the heavy metals and it was the effluent has been greater than 6.5.
comprised of a mixture of locally available organic materials (wood
chips, manure and hay) and limestone. The SRB cell was designed as Site II – Net Acid Drainage:
a vertical flow filter bed where the acid water would be introduced from Although they both originate from the same tailings stock piles,
the top and the treated water was collected from the bottom of the cell the characteristics of seepages reporting to ST-1 and ST-2 show
with the help of perforated PVC pipes. The composition of about 60 m
3 differences. The water qualities for ST-1and ST-2 are shown in Table 3
3
organic mixture at ST-2 comprised of about 21 m wood chips, 18 m
3 (Appendix).
3 3
limestone, 6 m hay and 15 m of manure. The design flow rate was to Station I: The SRB treatment cell at ST-1 was implemented later
3 2
be 0.1 m /m /d (or 7 L/min at ST-2). Excess seepage could by-pass the in the season (i.e. closer to the winter season) than ST-2 in 2004. In
SRB cell and could directly flow into the aerobic cell. About 0.7 m thick addition, the biomass substrate at ST-1 was not acclimatized to the
organic layer was sandwiched between inlet and outlet permeable flow raw water prior to use. On November, 2006, additional nutrients in the
distribution systems. form of manure were added to the SRB treatment cell. The results
The basis of the designs was same for both stations. The design obtained are shown in Table 3.
specification of ST-1 and ST-2 are shown in Table 2. ST-2 was On average, final water quality at ST-1 met the regulation for Cu,
implemented first. Organic materials were mixed with acid water and Ni, Pb and Zn, but slightly exceeded for pH (6.32 compared to a lower
left covered during the summer for about two months aiming to limit of 6.5) and TSS (28.5 mg/L compared to a maximum of 25 mg/L).
acclimatize the bacteria and condition the materials before the Although a percent concentration reduction of 77% was obtained for
construction of the ST-2. However, conditioning of the organic Fe, average Fe concentrations at ST-1 after treatment were 17 mg/L
materials could not be practiced for ST-1 due to limited time and arrival which exceeds the limit of 3 mg/L. These results indicates that the use
of winter. The quantity of organic materials used for the construction of of a large aerated cell and limestone drain would be more suitable for
ST-1 was about half the materials used for ST-2 due to limited space treating ARD occurring at ST-1 rather than the use of an anaerobic
available at this location. Acid seepage collection system and SRB cell.
anaerobic cell included a layer of about 10 cm thick Styrofoam on top.
Station II: The SRB treatment cell at ST-2 was implemented first
Aerobic Cell and Aerobic Limestone Drain: The aerobic treatment in the construction season while it was warmer and in addition, the
2+ 3+
cell was designed to oxidize residual Fe to Fe , allow for hydrolysis biomass substrate was also acclimatized to the raw water prior to use.
and precipitation of ferric hydroxide. In order for the cell to function As such, the ST-2 SRB treatment cell has been able to more efficiently
effectively, adequate alkalinity must be present to consume the ferrous reduce metal and sulfate concentrations then ST-1. The performance
iron acidity in the inflow from the anaerobic cell; adequate retention of the system marginally improves during warmer seasons. The
time and oxygen available to oxidize iron (retention time is a function of hydraulic and acidity loading rates are shown in Table 2.
many factors including temperature and pH of the cell.) and adequate
retention time to store and settle iron under all flow conditions. On average, final water quality at ST-2 met the regulated
concentrations for TSS and dissolved metals except Fe (4.67 mg/L
The aerobic cell was a simple horizontal flow through wetland compared to a limit of 3 mg/L) and for pH (~6 compared to a lower limit
without vegetation (e.g., aeration pond) followed by a filter aerobic of 6.5). The water quality meeting the limits after treatment in the SRB
2
limestone drain. It has a surface area of about 150 m , and about 1.5 m cell indicated that expansion of the system could be required to treat all
deep. A geomembrane liner was installed at the bottom of the pond ARD and minimize bypass ARD quantity.
and it was covered with about 0.25m of clay material. Limestone and
rocks were placed at the outflow of the pond to minimize potential Overall: The passive treatment systems have been performing
erosion. A ditch was excavated at the outlet of the pond and filled with reasonably well producing an effluent quality that can meet the
limestone to act as a filter media for the treated seepage. regulations, especially for metal ions such as Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd which are
known to be more toxic ions the environment that other ions such as

3 Copyright © 2010 by SME


Fe and Mn. The pH values are marginally lower than the required limit
of 6.5. These results are in good agreement with the predicted
performance criteria used for the design (e.g., a pH of about 6 to 8 and
2-
Fe of about 4 to 5 mg/L). The SO4 reduction rates obtained in the SRB
cell at ST-2 is very high in comparison to values reported in the
literature for cold climate applications. Preparation and conditioning of
the substrate during warmer season before implementation of the
treatment system is beneficial and should be applied for
implementation of future systems.
CONCLUSIONS
It has been demonstrated that passive treatment systems could
be viable alternatives the active chemical treatment options. The
overall performance of the treatment system at ST-2 has shown
consistently good results, even during cold seasons. The SRB cells
have never frozen and the temperature in the SRB cells are always
above 0°C (e.g., mostly 4-5°C) when the atmospheric temperature was
well below 30-40°C.
Circumneutral pH ARD passive treatment system has been
working successfully and meeting the regulatory limits since 1997. Acid
pH and net acidic ARD system is overall working well removing heavy
metals to lower concentrations than the regulated limits. The loading
rates obtained from the both systems are significantly higher than the
rate values indicated in the literature (Table 2). TSS and pH
concentrations at ST-1 and ST-2 are slightly exceeds the limits but
could not remove Fe to the regulatory limits although Fe removal
efficiency has been 77% on average. The reason for this is the
overflow ARD that does not treated in the SRB cell indicating that the
size of the SRB cell needs to be enlarged.
The temperature in the SRB cells has never been dropped below
4°C even when the atmospheric temperature was well below 30-40°C.
Substrate preparation and biomass acclimatization during warmer
season prior to system start off made it possible for biomass to
embrace the cold conditions better.
It can be concluded that with proper design and preparation
passive water treatment systems can be implemented even in cold
climates successfully. The factors that affect the performance mayt
include followings:
• Good organic mixture preparation.
• Good drainage collection and sizing.
• Good sampling and influent characterization.
• Goos inflow monitoring.
• Inclusion of a valve to divert excess flow that could unexpectedly
fluctuate.
4 Copyright © 2010 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ
• Monitoring wells (piezometers) inside the SRB cell to monitor
water level
• Inclusion of an impermeable liner in design to build water head.
• Inclusion of insulation over collection drainage, piping and SRB
cells.
• Hydrological and geotechnical site investigations; separation of
runoffs.
• Construction by experienced contractor (with water sewage
treatment system)
• Good site surveying to use gravity flow and to install piping at the
right elevation.
• Development and implementation of effective startup strategy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Dr. Isil Toreci, Mr. James McConnell and Ms.
Allison Macdonnald of Golder Associates for their assistance in
preparation of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Mines (USBM) Information Circular. 1994. Supt. of Docs.
No.: I 28.27:9389
Gazea, B., K. Adam and A. Kontopoulos. 1996. A review of passive
systems for the treatment of acid mine drainage. p. 23-42.
Minerals Engineering v. 9 (1)
Hedin, R.S., D.H. Dvorak, S.L. Gustafson, D.M. Hyman, P.E. McIntire,
R.W. Nairn, R.C. Neupert, A.C. Woods, and H.M. Edenborn.
1991. Final Report – Use of a constructed wetland for the
treatment of acid mine drainage at the Friendship Hhill national
historic site, Fayette Country, PA. p. 18-21. Biological Section
Environmental Technology Group U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburg
Research Center, Pittsburg, PA.
Kuyucak, N., F. Chabot and J. Martschuk. 2006 Successful
implementation and operation of a passive treatment system in an
extremely cold climate, Northern Quebec, Canada. 7th ICARD
(March 26-30, St. Louis, MO)
Postgate, J.R. 1979. Sulfate reducing bacteria. p. 155. Cambridge
University press, London, UK.
Ziemkiewicz, P.F., J.G. Skousen and J.S. Simmons. 2003. Long-term
performance and cost benefit analysis of passive acid mine
drainage treatment systems installed in the Appalachian Coal
region of the Eastern United States. P. 855-862. Claims, QLD.
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

APPENDIX
Table 3. Passive water treatment performance for treating net acid ARD at Station I and II.
Station-I Station-II

Average Water Quality % Change Average Water Quality % Change

Parameter Limits
After After
Raw After After (1) (2) Aeration (2) Raw After Aeration
(1) (2) Aeration SRB SRB (2) Final Aeration SRB Final
Water SRB SRB (2) (Final) Water SRB (Final)
(Final) (Final)
pH 6.5 - 9.5 6.12 6.11 6.24 6.32 -0.04 2.12 1.2 3.4 3.56 6.40 5.69 79.9 -11.0 60.0
3
Flow, m /min - 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.009 0.008 0.016
TSS, mg/L 25 82.0 9.40 14.43 28.5 88.5 82.4 -97.6 65.23 840.5 8.61 20.2 99.0 -134.2 97.60
As, mg/L 0.5 0.050 0.012
Al, mg/L - 11.9 9.40 10.36 21.2 13.1 30.08 18.18 39.6
Fe, mg/L 3 72.4 36.60 19.83 17.0 49.4 72.6 14.5 76.56 18.63 0.73 4.67 96.1 -540.0 74.91
Cu, mg/L 0.3 0.014 0.010 0.007 0.010 29.6 50.4 -48.3 26.50 0.152 0.015 0.045 90.5 -211.2 70.36
Ni, mg/L 0.5 0.12 0.037 0.031 0.034 69.7 74.7 -10.0 72.14 0.34 0.041 0.18 87.8 -328.9 47.67
Pb, mg/L 0.2 0.010 0.0033 0.0013 0.0019 67.5 86.7 -44.2 80.77 0.006 0.005 0.004 10.5 21.6 29.82
Zn, mg/L 0.5 0.82 0.011 0.012 0.019 98.6 98.6 -65.4 97.64 0.59 0.026 0.18 95.5 -599.0 68.75
Mn, mg/L - 9.60 7.99 5.94 16.7 38.1 3.93 4.06 -3.4
Alkalinity, as -
- 60.3 113.8 96.2 -88.9 -59.6 13.36 180.56
CaCO3 1251.8
2-
SO4 , mg/L - 898.0 818 791 8.9 12.0 625.41 486.77 22.2
(1) Before nutrient addition to SRB cell in November 2006
(2) After nutrient addition to SRB cell in November 2006.

5 Copyright © 2010 by SME