An Investigation of Contamination Risk

at Greenside Lead Mine, Cumbria.

Ghosh, A.
This thesis is submitted in part fulfilment of the
requirements for the B.Sc. degree in Environmental
Science at the University of Lancaster.
January 2001
ABSTRACT
In 1999 the Lake District National Park Authority commissioned Scott Doherty
Associates (SDA) to undertake a geo-environmental and structural engineering
assessment of the site of the disused Greenside Lead Mine and Kepple Cove Dam.
The Environment Agency conducted their own risk assessment of the site in the same
year. The principal risk was identified to be a further failure of the tailings dam to the
west of Swart Beck and the resultant lead contamination of the surrounding water
system. Whilst this report considers the range of risks that are posed by the site, it
focuses on the risk of lead contamination, particularly from the two tailings dams. A
review of the SDA (2000) report was carried out and the use of risk assessment
models such as RISC-Human appraised. In an effort to enhance the assessment of
risk from the mine, Atomic Absorption Spectrometry was used to determine the lead
content of grass samples obtained from the tailings dams. The subsequent data were
included in an ingestion calculation to determine whether there is a risk of
contamination to sheep that graze on the tailings dams. Such a risk was found to be
high and a recommendation made to prohibit grazing on the site. In addition, the lead
content of soil samples obtained from both tailings dams was determined by X-ray
Fluorescence Spectrometry. Elevated levels of lead were found in all the samples.
However, no correlation was found to exist between lead content and (i) depth of the
soil from the surface, (ii) pH, (iii) organic matter content or (iv) percentage of
particles <180m. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the dams and the limited data
available, it is impossible to quantify the overall lead content of either structure.
Consequently, it is not possible to quantify the amount of lead that would be
introduced to the surrounding water system if either tailings dam were to fail. It is the
primary recommendation of this report that both tailings dams should be stabilised in
order to prevent future failure and the associated contamination risk.
CONTENTS
Page
Nos.
Acronyms and Abbreviations i
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iv
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Location 1
1.2 Topography 4
1.3 Geology 5
1.4 Greenside Mining History 6
1.5 Summary of the Legacy of Past Mining Activities 8
1.6 Dissertation Aims 12
Section 2.0 PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOUR OF LEAD 13
2.1 Bioavailability of Lead 14
2.2 Toxicity and the Human Food Chain 15
2.3 Legislation and Lead Standards 16
Section 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND APPLICATION 17
3.1 Definition 17
3.2 Risk Assessment Procedures 18
3.3 Land Exposure Computer Models 19
3.3.1 Probabilistic Models 19
3.3.2 Deterministic Models 19
3.3.3 Fugacity Models 20
3.4 The Application of Risk Assessments to Disused Mining
Sites
20
3.5 Review of the SDA (2000) Assessment of the Greenside
Mine Site
21
3.5.1 Introduction 21
3.5.2 Human Health Assessment 22
3.5.3 Assessment Standards 22
3.5.4 Principal Findings and Recommendations 23
Section 4.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 24
4.1 Sample Collection and Storage 24
4.2 Sub-sampling Procedure 29
4.3 Laboratory Water 30
4.4 Glassware 30
4.5 Sample Handling 30
4.6 Lead Content in Grass 31
4.7 Sheep Ingestion Calculation 31
4.8 Lead Content in Soil 32
4.9 Organic Matter in Soil 33
4.10 Soil pH 33
4.11 Grain Size Analysis 34
Section 5.0 EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS 35
5.1 Grass Samples 35
5.2 Sheep Grazing 38
5.3 Soil Samples 39
5.3.1 Lead Content by XRF 39
5.3.2 Soil pH, Organic Matter and Grain Size Analysis 41
Section 6.0 DISCUSSION 44
6.1 General Risks 44
6.2 The Tailings Dams 45
6.2.1 Geotechnical Stability 45
6.2.2 Physical Characteristics 45
6.2.3 Lead Content 46
6.2.4 Risk Probability Analysis 47
6.2.5 Factors Influencing Lead Bioavailability 49
6.2.6 Groundwater Contamination 50
6.3 Contamination Risk to Sheep 50
6.3.1 Lead Content of Grass Samples 50
6.3.2 Lead Ingestion Calculation 52
6.4 Surface Water Contamination 53
6.5 Sediment Contamination 53
6.6 Water Quality 54
6.7 Instability Risk from Mine Entries and Underground
Workings
55
6.8 Experimental Uncertainty and Errors 55
Section 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 57
REFERENCES 62
Appendix A: The Creation of the Tailings Dams 65
Appendix B: Grass Sample Analysis Procedure and Data 67
Appendix C: Sheep Grazing: Ingestion Calculation 71
Appendix D: Soil Sample Analysis Procedure and Data 74
Appendix E: Method and Data for Organic Matter Analysis 78
Appendix F: Method and Data for Soil pH Analysis 80
Appendix G: Grain Size Analysis 82
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 94
- i -
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAS Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment model
EA Environment Agency
EC European Commission
ECR European Commission Regulation (lll/5125/95 Rev.3)
EQS Environmental Quality Standard
GLC Greater London Council Guidelines
ICRCL Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of
Contaminated Land
IMS Industrial Methylated Spirits
LHLM Low Horse Level Mine
LDNP Lake District National Park
pers. comm. Personal communication
QCA Quality Control Actual
QCD Quality Control Difference
QCE Quality Control Expected
RISC-Human Risk Identification of Soil Contamination - Human
SDA Scott Doherty Associates
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
TD1 Tailings Dam 1
TD2 Tailings Dam 2
UK United Kingdom
WA Walldel Armstrong
XRF X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
- ii -
List of Figures
Description Page Nos.
Figure 1: An Ordnance Survey map (1:10,000 scale) indicating the
mine site boundaries.
2
Figure 2: A sketch map indicating the various mine workings at the
site (Tyler, 1998).
6
Figure 3: Photo of the converted mill buildings and Swart Beck taken
at NGR NY 365174 looking North North East.
8
Figure 4: Photo of collapsed underground workings at Gilgowars
Level taken at NGR NY 359185 looking North North West.
9
Figure 5: Photo of a leat which lies above TD2, taken at NGR
NY364175 looking South.
10
Figure 6: Photo of a leat running between TD1 and the scree slope
behind it. The photo has been taken at NGR NY 366176
looking West.
11
Figure 7: A sketch map of the site to indicate the location of all the
sampling sites.
25
Figure 8: A photo of the control site taken at NGR NY 363173
looking South.
26
Figure 9: A photo of pit D taken at NGR NY 366175. 27
Figure 10: A photo of pit G taken at NGR NY 364175. 27
- iii -
Figure 11: A soil and grass sample chart to indicate the depth from the
surface in cm at which the samples were taken and a brief
description of each.
28
Figure 12: A calibration curve of absorbance against lead concentration. 36
Figure 13: A graph to indicate the range of lead contaminant body
burden on a sheep grazing from 0 to 365 days a year on
either the control site, TD1 or TD2. Lead content limits for
sheep and lamb cuts are displayed.
38
Figure 14: A graph to show the cumulative mass percent for each soil
sample.
43
Figure 15: Three graphs containing data obtained from (A) pit A, (B)
pit D and (C) pit G. The lead content of the soil samples is
displayed together with the organic matter content, the pH
value and the percentage of the sample that contains
<180m particles.
48
Figure 16: A bar chart to compare the lead content of each grass sample
and that of the soil immediately below the root zone.
51
- iv -
List of Tables
Description Page Nos.
Table 1: A summary of maximum lead content levels applicable to
factors under consideration in this investigation.
16
Table 2: Absorbency readings and standard deviations for the
standard lead calibration solutions.
35
Table 3: Content of lead in mg/kg of dry weight grass for each grass
sample and blank.
37
Table 4: XRF derived lead content values in mg/kg of soil samples
from the control site, TD1 and TD2.
40
Table 5: Lead content, pH, percentages of organic matter and grain
size <180m for all the soil and grass samples from the
control site and selected soil and grass samples from TD1
and TD2.
42
Table 6: Remediation measures that need to be taken in order to
address the principal risk of contamination to the water
system and to grazing sheep.
58
Table 7: Recommendations for further work. 60
Table 8: Data relating to lead concentration in grass samples. 69
Table 9: Absorbency readings for calibration standards. 69
Table 10: Data relating to the calculation of lead content in grass
samples.
70
- v -
Table 11: The contaminant body burden on a sheep from contaminant
ingestion depending on how many days in a year it grazes on
either the control site, TD1 or TD2.
72
Table 12: Geological minors content of control site soil samples as
determined by XRF Analysis.
75
Table 13: Geological minors content of TD1 soil samples as
determined by XRF Analysis.
76
Table 14: Geological minors content of TD2 soil samples as
determined by XRF Analysis.
77
Table 15: Organic Matter Content of Soil Samples. 79
Table 16: pH readings obtained for soil samples. 81
Table 17: Mass of beaker and soil sample relating to
procedure followed for grain size analysis.
85
Table 18: Dry Mass of Sediment Fractions. 86
Table 19: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples. 87
Table 20: Cumulative mass finer (%) and spherical diameter ( in m)
for soil samples.
93
- 1 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 1999 the Lake District National Park Authority commissioned Scott Doherty
Associates (SDA) to undertake a geo-environmental and structural engineering
assessment of the site of the disused Greenside Mine and Kepple Cove Dam. The
Environment Agency (EA) conducted their own risk assessment of the site in the
same year. Both reports determined the principal risk to be a further failure of the
tailings dam to the west of Swart Beck and the resultant lead contamination of the
surrounding water system.
Whilst elements of a risk assessment were carried out by SDA (2000), certain
elements were not considered. It is the latter that this dissertation focuses on in an
attempt to enhance the assessment of risk from the mine site. Consequently, the lead
content of the tailings dams and the contamination risk posed to sheep grazing on the
site have both been investigated. This dissertation has been carried out in conjunction
with other Lancaster University Students who focused on the impact of the mine on
the surrounding water system and sediments. Their findings are referred to within this
report.
1.1 Location
Greenside Lead Mine (National Grid Reference NGR NY 365174) is situated to the
west of the Glenridding screes and approximately 1.5km to the west of Glenridding
village within the Lake District National Park (LDNP). The LDNP Authority is
responsible for the management and upkeep of the site having obtained ownership of
it in 1965. The extent of the site is indicated in Figure 1.
As can be seen from Figure 1, Swart Beck flows through the site before feeding into
Glenridding Beck. The latter flows adjacent and to the south of the site before
entering Lake Ullswater.
The majority of the site, including Keppel Cove Dam, is contained within the
Helvellyn and Fairfield Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However the
tailings dams and the adjacent mineral processing areas including the Low Horse
Level Mine (LHLM) are not included in this designation. The mine site, excluding
Tailings Dam 1 (TD1), is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. (SDA, 2000).
- 2 -
Figure 1: An Ordnance Survey map (1:10,000 scale) indicating the site boundaries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey maps by permission of
Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office, Crown Copyright NC/01/021.
- 3 -
1.2 Topography
Greenside Lead Mine is situated within an area of varied topography that includes the
steep, sparsely vegetated Glenridding screes to the east as well as more gentle slopes
leading to Sheffield Pike.
There is a single road access to the site from Glenridding village to the east. The road
forks just to the west of the site into two bridlepaths. One leads to the north of the site
and the early mining workings before heading west to the village of Legburthwaite
(Sticks Pass). The other bridlepath follows Glenridding Beck to the west before passing
to the north of Red Screes and merging with several other bridlepaths.
The impact of Greenside Lead Mine is clearly visible in what could otherwise be
described as an unspoilt area. Due to the extensive impact of past mining activity, the
topography of the site is very much man-made particularly with respect to TD1 and
Tailings Dam 2 (TD2).
At the top of the site there is evidence of early mining activities in the form of extensive
spoil heaps in a level area formed by glacial erosion and on which also exists numerous
mounds of glacial moraine.
- 4 -
1.3 Geology
The Greenside site is underlain by a vast granite intrusion and a layer of sedimentary
rocks known as the Skiddaw Slates. These are overlain with a hard, fine-grained rock
known as the Borrowdale Volcanics which Murphy (1996) states, originated from
volcanic ashes and lavas that over time were buried and subjected to high levels of
pressure and temperature. The rock is predominately of andesitic composition and
contains an intrusive dyke composed of quartz porphyry.
The site contains a large amount of surface deposits that are both naturally occurring (e.g.
glacial till and screes) and anthropogenic (e.g. spoil tips and tailings dams) (Murphy,
1996).
The Greenside Vein strikes almost due north-south. Murphy (1996) estimates that it has
a downthrow to the east of about 15-30m although the horizontal slip on the strike is less
than 3m. The dip of the vein is to the east at an angle of about 70 degrees to the
horizontal but this varies very substantially from place to place. The vein is likely to
have been created from the gradual deposition of minerals dissolved in water percolating
into the fissure. The fissure would have been as a result of geological activity in the area
that involved large crustal movements to cause the rocks to fold and fracture.
- 5 -
1.4 Greenside Mining History
It is a matter of contention as to when mining activity on the Greenside site commenced
with suggested dates varying between 1692 and 1750. What holds no such contention is
the fact that Greenside was Cumbrias richest and deepest lead mine. Within its
operational lifespan, it was mined largely uninterrupted for a 150 year period. In 1962,
mining activities at Greenside ceased after it was decided that all economically
recoverable ore had been abstracted from the site (Murphy, 1996; Tyler, 1998).
Initially the mine was a modest operation but its expansion over the years was reflected
in the growth of the local population. What was a group of a few farms and homesteads
in the area of Glenridding and Patterdale, grew into significant populations with the
arrival of miners and their families.
Murphy (1996) describes how in 1825, the Greenside Mining Company was officially
formed by a group of local businessmen. A lease to carry out mining activities was
obtained from the two landowners of the day, Henry Howard and William Marshall.
Although ownership of the mine inevitably changed during its long history, a common
desire to fulfil the mines full potential encouraged successive owners to adopt new
innovative technology of the day.
In 1891 Greenside was the first mine in Britain to install electrical winding gear at the
shaft top. In 1893 the mine achieved another first by installing an electric locomotive to
run along Lucy Tongue Level, transporting ore to the mill. The electricity was generated
by water from Kepple Cove Tarn which drove turbines coupled to 600 volt dynamos
(Adams, 1995).
The earliest workings are located on some of the highest elevations of the site with new
workings focusing on lower levels, as the mine got deeper. Figure 2 is a sketch map
indicating the various mine workings at the site. The Lucy Tongue Level was the lowest
level to be driven, with work commencing in 1853 and finishing in 1869 (Murphy,
1996). According to Adams (1995), by the time the mine finally closed in 1962, the
deepest workings were 1,420 feet (432m) below the Lucy Tongue Level and 3,000 feet
(912m) below the top of the hill.
- 6 -
Figure 2: A sketch map indicating the various mine workings at the site (Tyler, 1998).
- 7 -
Due to the high silver content of the ore, lead as well as silver was extracted and sold
throughout the mines history; significantly assisting in its financial success. Murphy
(1996) states that nearly all the silver extracted from Greenside was made into coins by
the Royal Mint in London. It has been estimated by Adams (1995) that the Greenside
vein yielded a total of approximately 2,400,000 tons (2 x 10
6
Mg) of ore and 2,000,000
ozs (6 x 10
4
kg) of silver.
The extraction of lead and silver from the Greenside vein was interrupted on a few
occasions by financial crises that resulted in the company of the time going out of
business or into liquidation.
In the late 1920s, in conjunction with a fall in the price of lead, large compensation
claims were paid out following the Kepple Cover Dam burst in 1927 when the village of
Glenridding was flooded. These two factors forced the mine company of the time out of
business and brought about the suspension of mining activity until a new owner could be
found (Murphy, 1996; Tyler, 1998).
In the early 1940s, it became clear that the Greenside vein would not be able to be
economically exploited for much longer. An underground and surface exploration
programme carried out in 1947 failed to locate much needed new deposits. Prior to the
mines final abandonment in 1962, underground seismic tests were carried out by the
Atomic Energy Authority (Adams, 1995; Murphy, 1996; Tyler, 1998).
- 8 -
1.5 Summary of the Legacy of Past Mining Activities
Today, the site is disused in relation to mining activities with the remaining, intact
mining buildings having been converted into private hostels. These buildings are clearly
visible in the foreground of Figure 3.
Figure 3: Photo of the converted mill buildings and Swart Beck taken at NGR NY
365174 looking North North East.
The local area is popular with tourists and walkers although access to areas of Swart
Beck together with the tailings dams, Swart Beck dressing floors and the mine adits are
fenced off and public access denied for health and safety reasons.
Paths used by the miners when the mine was in operation are clearly visible. Other
visible man-made impacts include the spoil heaps, tailings dams and leats. Massive
collapses have occurred of the higher underground workings and Figure 4 shows the
collapse at Gilgowars Level.
- 9 -
Figure 4: Photo of collapsed underground workings at Gilgowars Level taken at NGR
NY 359185 looking North North West.
Further visual impacts have arisen from revegetation schemes designed to increase slope
stability and reduce slope erosion of the tailings dams. The most recent (1965) being the
turfing of TD1 and TD2, together with the planting of conifers at the foot of the former.
The system of leats that were built on the site is still largely visible. Only the leat that is
positioned above TD2 has had any significant maintenance carried out on it since the
mines closure in 1962 (Guy Weller, LDNP Authority, pers. comm., 2000). Figure 5
shows a leat which lies above TD2 and is clearly in some need of repair.
- 10 -
Figure 5: Photo of a leat which lies above TD2, taken at NGR NY 364175 looking
South.
Figure 6 shows the leat running between TD1 and the scree slope. This leat is in a good
condition and enables surface water draining from the scree slope above TD1 to be
diverted to the side of it. This consequently reduces infiltration and related slope
instability.
- 11 -
Figure 6: Photo of a leat running between TD1 and the scree slope behind it. The photo
has been taken at NGR NY 366176 looking West.
The remains of sections of track and buffers, provide evidence of the tramway system
that was implemented at the site for the removal of ore and waste from the mine
workings.
However, the most major and visible legacy of the mine has been the creation of a
number of spoil heaps and tailings dams. Appendix A provides information about the
creation of the two tailings dams.
- 12 -
1.6 Dissertation Aims
A full risk assessment of the Greenside Lead Mine site is too ambitious a task to
encompass in this report given the size of the site, the range of expertise required and the
constraints on both time and finances. Instead, whilst this report will identify the range
of risks that the site poses, it will primarily focus on the issue of lead contamination. The
risk that lead contamination poses to animals grazing on the site, local water systems and
sediment as a direct result of past mining activities will be considered. Findings will be
placed within the context of current legislation.
A review of the SDA (2000) report will enable conclusions to be drawn as to whether all
the risks related to the site were considered and effectively assessed by them. The
suitability and limitations of risk assessment models such as the RISC-Human model
which was adopted in the SDA (2000) assessment, will be appraised.
Herbage tests will be carried out on both major tailings dams and a control site.
Preliminary conclusions as to whether it is advisable for sheep to graze on the site given
their direct exposure to potentially lead contaminated grass will be drawn from the results
of these tests. Evidence of water and sediment contamination will be sought from data
compiled by a variety of sources including SDA, the EA and other Lancaster University
dissertation students.
Finally, recommendations will be made as to how the risks posed by contamination and
other factors should be addressed.
- 13 -
2.0 PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOUR OF LEAD
Lead is a naturally occurring metal that can be found in a variety of forms such as lead
sulphide (PbS), otherwise known as galena. Anthropogenic sources of lead include
activities such as lead mining and smelting both of which took place at the Greenside site
for several hundred years before the mines closure in 1962.
Thornton (1980) estimates that approximately 4000km
2
of land in the United Kingdom is
contaminated with lead largely as a result of past mining and smelting related activities.
According to Radojevi (1999) soils in the vicinity of mines and smelters have been
found to have lead concentrations >10,000mg/kg.
Salomons et al. (1995) state that excessive lead levels in the environment can have an
impact on a number of factors as listed below. Work has been carried out on the first
three of these to assess the risk that lead from the mine site poses to them.
i) Human health (through the consumption of contaminated water or accidental
ingestion of the soil).
ii) Pasture (free grazing access is given to sheep. Ingestion of lead by the sheep may
pose a threat to the food chain if the animals or their young are bred for
consumption).
iii) Surface and ground water quality (seepage of water through the mine workings and
tailings dams into the water systems).
iv) Natural ecosystem (soil degradation, native flora and fauna).
v) Agriculture.
- 14 -
2.1 The Bioavailability of Lead
A number of factors are thought to influence the bioavailability of lead in soils and its
capacity to retain lead. It was these factors that helped determine the type of analysis
carried out on the soil and grass samples collected from the mine site. Possible
influencing factors include:
1. Particle size
Clay sized ions of lead (<2m) have a large specific surface area that enable them
to absorb onto or be incorporated into other particles within the soil. Consequently,
the lead is bound within the soil and is less available for plant uptake or
mobilisation into water.
2. Soil properties
i) pH: A high soil pH may precipitate lead and promote the formation of stable
lead-organic soluble complexes. A low pH may increase the lead solubility
(Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992).
ii) Organic matter content: Davies (1990) states that organic matter binds lead
strongly. However, as Bloomfield (1982) points out, high organic matter
contents can increase lead solubility due to the formation of soluble organo-
metal complexes.
3. Physio-chemical form
During weathering lead sulfides such as galena slowly oxidise and have the ability
to form carbonates and also to be incorporated in clay minerals, iron and
manganese oxides and organic matter (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). These
associations reduce the bioavailability of the lead and its mobility to water is
reduced.
Alloway (1995) states that only a small proportion of the lead in soil is available for
uptake by plants. He has found that lead ions in soil solution are the most readily
available to plants.
- 15 -
Different species of plant have been found by Sieghardt (1990) to vary in their ability to
uptake lead from the soil. It has also been established that different parts of the plant
accumulate lead in different concentrations. The plant roots are usually found to contain
the highest concentrations.
2.2 Toxicity and the Human Food Chain
Lead is not essential to plants or animals and can prove to be toxic to both if taken up in
certain forms and at high enough concentrations. Alloway (1995) states that the normal
range of lead concentration in plants is 0.2-20mg/kg with toxicity being likely when
concentrations are above 30-300mg/kg. Some plants are able to accumulate lead at a
level that although harmless to the plant itself, can be harmful to animals and humans if
ingested by them. This situation poses a risk to the human food chain particularly if
animals destined for human consumption, graze on the contaminated plants.
It was with the risk to the human food chain in mind that herbage tests were carried out
on the tailings dams at the Greenside site. The findings were incorporated into an
ingestion calculation to determine whether a risk of contamination was posed to sheep
grazing on the site and in turn to the human food chain through the consumption of lamb.
According to Radojevi (1999) the ingestion of foods of plant and animal origin is the
primary route by which heavy metals impact on human health. Drinking water and
inhalation of airborne particles have generally been found to make a smaller contribution
to the total intake of toxic metals.
Lead poisoning and detrimental effects relating to exposure of lead can cause a number
of health problems in humans and particularly in children. Salomons et al. (1995) state
that in the latter, these can include nervous system disorders, hyperactivity and learning
difficulties.
- 16 -
2.3 Legislation and Lead Standards
Over time there has been an increased awareness of the health risks posed by elevated
levels of lead. Measures have been taken to reduce its introduction into the environment
from anthropogenic sources. National and international legislation set lead limits up to
which are considered acceptable for human health, different types of food and the
environment. Table 1 below provides a summary of some of the current standards that
are applicable to the lead mine site and this investigation. Information relating to the
assessment standards that were adopted by SDA when analysing soil samples is provided
in the next section of this report.
Table 1: A summary of maximum lead content levels applicable to factors under
consideration in this investigation.
Category Lead Limits Description & Advisory Body
Drinking water 50g/L
50g/L*
10g/L
European Commission standard
UK Government standard
World Health Organisation standard
Salmonid
watercourses
2g/L Environmental Quality Standard (EA, 2000)
Food
Sheep
Lamb cuts
0.05-0.2 mg/kg
0.03 mg/kg
Lead limit range proposed by European
Commission Regulation (lll/5125/95 Rev.3)
(Food Standards Agency, 2000).
Mean lead concentration for lamb cuts
(Food Standards Agency, 2000).
Blood Levels
Adults
Children
2.0 mol/L
1.35 mol/L
Significant exposure to lead is deemed to
have occurred if these levels are reached.
* this maximum level will be reduced to 10ppb within the next fifteen years to come in
line with the World Health Organisations standard for drinking water.
- 17 -
3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND APPLICATION
3.1 Definition
A risk assessment is an evaluation of the potential for exposure to contaminants and the
associated hazard effects (Asante-Duah, 1998). An assessment of risk can assist in the
future management of a site by the identification and quantification of its risks. The
information generated from this process enables the adoption of management strategies
which will either eliminate significant risks or reduce them to what are considered to be
acceptable levels. The strategies whilst meeting relevant legislative requirements should
also be both site specific and cost effective.
Hope (1995) proposes that an assessment of risk for a particular site will involve the
identification of:
1. the risks and the quantification of them whenever possible;
2. the risk receptors e.g. the water environment, grazing animals, human health;
3. the receptors level of exposure to a particular risk;
4. the exposure pathway (a course a chemical takes from a source to an exposed
organism);
5. the exposure routes (the way a chemical comes in contact with a receptor e.g.
ingestion);
6. the adverse effects the receptor may suffer if in contact with a particular risk;
7. preliminary suggestions as to what action could be taken to reduce or remove each
identified risk.
- 18 -
3.2 Risk Assessment Procedures
There has been an increased awareness over the years of the risks posed by disused mine
sites and the associated impacts on the local environment and populations within it.
Increased scientific knowledge coupled with technological advancements has improved
the accuracy of the identification and analysis of these risks.
A variety of computer tools exist to aid the risk assessment process. All have their own
particular limitations and assumptions. It is vital that an understanding be obtained of
these two factors in order that the appropriate tool is chosen for a particular site. The
choice of an inappropriate tool may result in remediation action being taken that is not
required or vice versa.
Regardless of what tool or approach is adopted, the entire risk assessment process needs
to be transparent to ensure consistency and accountability. The Van Hall Instituut
(1999) has developed an exposure model called RISC-Human (RISC: Risk Identification
of Soil Contamination). This model allows for transparency by providing the operator
with the opportunity to include justification for any changes that are made.
Countries differ in their approach to the principal risk receptor. This difference is
reflected in the risk assessment tools developed by other countries. Default exposure and
averaging periods are likely to be appropriate to their own particular policy positions. In
the Netherlands, for example, lifetime exposure and averaging in all situations is
currently the norm and this approach is reflected in RISC-Human (EA, 2000).
The EA are currently developing a probabilistic risk assessment tool which is called
Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment model (CLEA). Documents relating to the
different factors that the EA believes should be incorporated into risk assessments are in
the process of being written and form the basis of this model (EA, 2000).
- 19 -
3.3 Land Exposure Computer Models
Hope (1995) states that modelling cannot produce absolute answers regarding exposure
because of its assumptions and inherent uncertainties. However, it is a cost effective
method that can provide an initial estimate of receptor exposure to site-related
contaminants present in surface water, groundwater, sediment, soil and air media.
3.3.1 Probabilistic Models
Probabilistic or stochastic risk assessment models such as CLEA, involve the derivation
of the range of potential risks for a receptor, or the range of probably risks across a
population, from least to most at risk. This type of method does not, as Richardson
(1996) explains, eliminate the speculative nature of most risk assessments, but does
provide the opportunity to quantify the uncertainty in the chosen model.
CLEA estimates exposure to contamination from soil and other sources, compares this to
acceptable intakes and derives a level for contamination in soil which is considered to be
acceptable for the purposes of protecting human health (EA, 2000).
3.3.2 Deterministic Models
Alternatively, deterministic risk assessment models such as RISC-Human provide a
single point estimate of an individual risk. Richardson (1996) states that this type of
model can be used to derive a worst-case risk scenario.
SDA (2000) used RISC-Human in their assessment of risk at the Greenside site. This
exposure model assesses human exposure risks that are a result of contaminated soil. It
consists of three sub-models that enable human exposure to specific media to be
estimated. The CSOIL sub-model was found to be the most relevant to the Greenside
site. It is used to derive the human toxicological intervention values for soil clean-up
standards in Holland. These intervention values are used as reference values in the
United Kingdom although RISC-Human will soon be superseded in the UK by CLEA
(Van Hall Instituut, 1999).
- 20 -
The Van Hall Instituut (1999) has ensured RISC-Human provides site-specific
information by allowing the operator to change parameters from the default setting to a
value that reflects the actual site. For example, relevant soil properties such as organic
matter content can be included.
Different risk management strategies can be modelled with RISC-Human (Van Hall
Instituut, 1999). This ability allows the impact of strategy to be compared, thereby
assisting with decision-making relating to the current and future management of a
contaminated site.
3.3.3 Fugacity Models
Fate and transport models (fugacity models) predict the behaviour of contaminants based
on their physio-chemical properties e.g. solubility. Whilst other models are based on
observations of a particular substance in a particular situation (EA, 2000).
3.4 The Application of Risk Assessments to Disused Mining Sites
The implementation of the 1974 Mines & Quarries Act introduced for the first time the
idea that responsibility should be taken for disused mining sites. Although risks will
vary between different disused mining sites, common risks include:
i) stability of old workings and tailings dams/spoil heaps;
ii) the contamination of surface waters, ground waters and soil from water leaching
from old workings, tailings dams and spoil heaps;
iii) the impact that has in turn on flora, fauna and human health.
- 21 -
3.5 Review of the SDA (2000) Assessment of the Greenside Mine Site
3.5.1 Introduction
In 1989 a slippage occurred in TD2, causing a large amount of tailings material to enter
Swart Beck, Glenridding Beck and Lake Ullswater. In an attempt to avoid further
unexpected slippages of this kind, the engineering company of Walldel Armstrong (WA)
were commissioned to carry out regular inspections of the site (Guy Weller, LDNP
Authority, pers. comm., 2000).
From 1989 to 1997 WA carried out visual inspections of the surface features of the site
and in particular of TD1 and TD2. However, borehole data from the tailings dams were
not obtained or analysed and consequently the potential for further slippages went
undetected (Guy Weller, LDNP Authority, pers. comm., 2000).
The inadequacy of the WA inspections was highlighted in 1997 when an unpredicted
slippage occurred in TD2 and the slippage of 1989 was further enlarged. Minor
slippages have continued to occur since 1997 in TD2 (Guy Weller, LDNP Authority,
pers. comm., 2000). The second significant failure of TD2 ensured that the need to carry
out a thorough assessment of risks from the site became a priority for the LDNP
Authority. Consequently, SDA were commissioned in 1999 to undertake a geo-
environmental and structural engineering assessment of Greenside Mine and Keppel
Cove Dam (SDA, 2000).
Whilst elements of a risk assessment were carried out by SDA (2000), not all elements
were found upon a review of their report, to have been considered. A recommendation
was made by them to restrict sheep grazing on the site. This advice was based on the
lead content of surface soil on the site rather than herbage lead content. This
investigation has redressed this omission from the assessment of risk at the site. The
lead contamination of sediments though not included in the SDA (2000) assessment has
been investigated by Kember (2000). Her findings are referred to in section 6 of this
report.
- 22 -
3.5.2 Human Health Assessment
A human health risk assessment of the Greenside site was carried out by SDA (2000)
using the RISC-Human model. Data derived from the tailings dams together with that
from the Lucy Tongue Level Mine, Upper Swart Beck Dressing Floor and Lower Horse
Level Mine workings were used.
RISC-Human determined that the main exposure pathways for humans to contaminants
from all the above locations were via soil ingestion and soil inhalation. However,
according to the models findings, none of the areas posed a risk to human health.
Consequently no remedial action relating to human health from soil ingestion or
inhalation was proposed by SDA (2000). The adoption of the CLEA model for this
particular assessment would have provided more information regarding the associated
uncertainty and unreliability of the models findings.
Due to the complex nature of this site, the RISC-Human model would not have been able
to replicate the exact spatial and temporal variation of its contaminant concentrations.
Inevitably assumptions and simplifications would have been made by SDA (2000) in the
absence of detailed and relevant data. In addition to this, the model only provides single
point estimates of a particular risk. This does not allow for uncertainties to be quantified
although the model does allow for explanations to be included when default values are
changed.
3.5.3 Assessment Standards
In order to determine whether a risk is being posed and to what extent, clear and well-
defined assessment standards need to be used. If the standards are exceeded, it is an
indication that appropriate remedial action is required. SDA (2000) compared their soil
sample data with three different assessment standards. These were:
1. Trigger concentrations of contaminants as specified in the Department of
Environments Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of
Contaminated Land (ICRCL). These concentrations are set for a number of
different contaminants and vary according to the end uses of the site. If
- 23 -
contaminant values are below the relevant trigger concentrations, the site is
considered to be uncontaminated. In the case of the Greenside site the nearest
equivalent end use was chosen by SDA (2000) to be as parks, playing fields and
open spaces. The trigger concentration for lead for this particular end use is set at
2000 mg/kg (Department of the Environment, 1983 from SDA, 2000).
2. Greater London Council Guidelines (GLC Guidelines) for the Assessment of
Contaminated Land (SDA, 2000).
3. Dutch Guidelines (Moen, 1994).
No UK assessment standards exist for groundwater in the UK and accordingly the SDA
(2000) report, in keeping with the operating practice of the EA, adopted the Dutch
Guidelines.
3.5.4 Principal Findings and Recommendations
The findings of soil lead content by SDA (2000) reflected that of other Lancaster
University dissertation students, namely that those from the tailings dams were lower
than surface samples collected elsewhere on the site. SDA (2000) felt that there was no
adverse levels of contamination in surface waters but acknowledged there to be elevated
levels of metals in groundwater within the tailings dams. Findings relating to the lead
content of soil, surface water and groundwater are referred to in some detail in section 6
of this report.
The principal risk posed by the mine site was found to be a further collapse of the
unstable TD2 and the resultant contamination of surrounding water systems from the
high lead content of the dam. The remedial measures recommended by SDA (2000) to
the LDNP Authority address this principal risk. The structural engineering assessment
which was carried out identified other structures on the site, such as walls, which also
require remedial work. Funding has been secured for the necessary remedial work from
the Environment Agency and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions
(Guy Weller, LDNP Authority, pers. comm., 2000).
- 24 -
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
This section of the report provides an overview of the methods of the experiments that
were adopted as part of this investigation. In order to try to quantify the amount of
contaminant that would enter the water system if either tailings dam were to fail, it was
necessary to gain an understanding of the metal composition of each dam. X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) was adopted to determine the lead content of soil
samples obtained from the tailings dams. The pH, organic matter content and percentage
of particles <180m were calculated for the soil samples to establish whether or not
there was a correlation with lead content.
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS) was used to determine the lead content of grass
samples obtained from the tailings dams. The subsequent data was included in an
ingestion calculation to determine whether there is a risk of contamination to sheep that
graze on the tailings dams.
4.1 Sample Collection and Storage
A control site and three separate locations on each tailings dam were identified for the
collection of soil and grass samples. Control samples were taken in order to provide an
indication of the areas background levels of elements, particularly lead, that were being
analysed. Three locations were chosen on each of the tailings dams in order to obtain
values that were as representative as possible. Figure 7 is a sketch map of the site to
indicate the location of all the sampling sites.
The control site location has been referenced by the letter A, sampling pits on TD1 as B
to D and those on TD2 as E to G. The grass samples are referenced with the relevant
location letter followed by the letter G to denote grass. The soil samples have also
been referenced with the relevant location letter followed by the letter S to denote soil.
In addition to this, each soil sample has its own reference number. The higher the
number, the greater the depth from the surface that the sample was obtained from.
- 25 -
- 26 -
15cm
2
of turf was first removed from each sampling location before pits were dug to
obtain the soil samples. Care was taken to ensure that the root system remained intact
with the turf. The samples were placed in individual and referenced sample bags for later
use in determining the lead content of the grass at each sampling location.
Pits were dug with a shovel at each of the six locations on the tailings dams to a
maximum depth of 0.58m. It was not possible to dig a pit to collect soil samples at the
control location due to the amount of large rock present. Instead, an exposed location
was identified near the footpath (see Figure 8 below).
Figure 8: a photo of the control site taken at NGR NY 363173 looking South.
Soil samples were taken from each distinct soil horizon within each pit and from the
control site. Figures 9 and 10 overleaf are photos showing pit D and pit G respectively.
Figure 11 is a grass and soil sample chart indicating the reference number for each
sample. The depth in cm at which the soil samples were obtained is also provided
together with a brief description of each.
- 27 -
Figure 9: a photo of pit D taken at NGR NY 366175.
Figure 10 a photo of pit G taken at NGR NY 364175.
- 28 -
Depth Contro TD1 TD2
from Site/Pit Pit B Pit C Pit D Pit E Pit F Pit G
Surfac A/G B/G C/G D/G E/G F/G G/G LEGEN
1 A/S1 B/S1 C/S1 D/S1 E/S1 F/S1 G/S1 Root
2 Zon
3 Dark
4 D/S2 soil
5 Brown
soil
6 D/S3 Light
7 A/S2 G/S2 soil
8 C/S2 F/S2 Grey/brow
9 E/S2 soil
10 B/S2 E/S3 Grey
11 F/S3 Coarse
12 B/S3 C/S3 E/S4 grain
13 C/S4 E/S5 Coarse
grains
14 F/S4 G/S3 Coarse
15 G/S4 some
16 length
rock
17 A/S3 fragment
s
18 F/S5 presen
19 Fine
20 Cream
21 coloured
clay
22 C/S5 Brown
23 E/S6 coloured
24 Grey
coloured
25 D/S4 G/S5 clay
26 Cream clay
27 coarse
28 E/S7 F/S6 Ferrous
red
29 colou
r
30
31 A/S4 B/S4
32
33
34
35 G/S6
36
37 D/S5 G/S7
38 B/S5 F/S7
39
40 G/S8
41
42 B/S6 D/S6
43 C/S6
44
45
46
47
48 F/S8
49
50
51
52 D/S7
53
54
55
56 D/S8
57
58
Figure 11: A soil and grass sample chart to indicate the depth from the surface in cm
at which the samples were taken and a brief description of each.
- 29 -
Samples were removed using a small plastic spade and collected in sample bags. The
depth from the surface at which each sample was obtained was determined by use of a
metre rule. Each bag was referenced according to the date of collection, sample
reference and depth in cm. The number of soil samples obtained ranged from four to
eight samples per pit.
Due to time constraints the soil and grass samples were collected from the site on two
separate days but within the same week. The control samples and those from TD1 were
collected on 13 June 2000. The samples from TD2 were obtained on 16 June 2000.
All samples were transported back to Lancaster on the day of collection. Each sample of
soil was removed from the collection bag and placed on a lined tray that was
appropriately labelled. Each sample was air dried for three days to remove excess
moisture. Due to the high moisture content of the clay samples, they were oven dried
overnight at 40C to speed up the drying process.
The samples were stored in a dark (except when samples were added/removed) cold
room at 4C until required for analysis. This measure was taken to help preserve the
integrity of each sample. The samples were stored up to a maximum of six weeks before
analysis.
4.2 Sub-sampling Procedure
All the experiments that were carried out on the soil samples required far less material
than was actually collected. In order to obtain a representative sub-sample a method
known as coning and quartering was adopted.
Firstly, the entire sample was shaken vigorously in the sample bag to avoid any bias due
to settling effects. The sample was poured onto a clean sheet of glass in the form of a
cone. Using a wide, flat spatula, the cone was pressed down until the sample was a flat,
circular shape. The sample was then carefully divided into four equal quarters using a
spatula. Two quarters lying opposite to each other were placed to one side for use in
- 30 -
further experiments. The remaining two quarters on the sheet of glass were retained for
further coning and quartering. This procedure was repeated until the amount of material
remaining was appropriate to the particular experiment being carried out (Radojevi,
1999).
4.3 Laboratory Water
When water was required in the preparation or analysis of samples, Milli-Q water was
used. This measure was taken in order to avoid contamination of the samples from tap
water.
4.4 Glassware
All the glassware used was acid washed in 10% Nitric Acid for a minimum of one and a
half hours except the crucibles. These were instead washed using concentrated washing-
up liquid, rinsed, oven dried at 100C overnight and kept in a drying cabinet until
required.
4.5 Sample Handling
Polyethylene gloves were worn at all times when handling the grass and soil samples for
two main reasons. Firstly, in order to avoid contamination or interference of the samples
and secondly to avoid ingestion of soil.
- 31 -
4.6 Lead Content in Grass
Firstly, soil was rinsed off the grass samples prior to the analysis of the latter. This
procedure was carried out to ensure that only the lead content of the grass and not the soil
was determined. The grass samples were dried overnight in an oven at 30C. Each
sample was digested in nitric acid and filtered prior to the lead content of each being
analysed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). A 280 AAS Perkin-Elmer was used
in this experiment. The slit width was set to 0.7nm and the wavelength of the lamp to
282.3h.
Absorption readings were first obtained by AAS of six standard calibration solutions.
The data were plotted against the known lead concentration of each solution to form a
calibration curve. The lead concentration in each of the grass sample solutions was
obtained from the calibration curve using the absorbency reading obtained by AAS.
The lead concentration of each solution was first multiplied by the volume of that
solution. This value was then divided by the dry mass of the grass to give the lead
content in mg/kg for each grass sample. Detailed information relating to the above
method and this calculation are provided in Appendix B.
4.7 Sheep Ingestion Calculation
The LDNP Authority was advised in the SDA (2000) report that sheep should be
discouraged from grazing on the grass covering TD1 and TD2. The advice was based on
the high levels of lead that had been determined by SDA (2000) to be present in surface
soil of the surrounding area. Neither herbage tests nor sheep grazing ingestion
calculations such as that designed by Hope (1995) had been carried out by SDA.
- 32 -
The LDNP Authority did not consider the root system of the turf to be in contact with the
contaminated tailings material. Consequently, they felt that there was no significant
contamination risk posed to the sheep grazing on the tailings dams. Furthermore, the
LDNP Authority felt that grazing stimulated the root growth of the turf thereby assisting
the stabilisation of the tailings dams (Guy Weller, LDNP Authority, pers. comm., 2000).
The lead body burden on a sheep as a result of lead ingestion due to grazing was
determined from Hopes (1995) ingestion calculation. The lead body burden on a sheep
from lead ingestion due to grazing on the control site, TD1 or TD2 from 0 to 365 days a
year was calculated. Data derived from the analysis of the grass and soil samples was
incorporated into the calculation. Lead content in water from the site was obtained from
SDA (2000) data.
A full breakdown of Hopes (1995) calculation and the data that was incorporated into it
is provided in Appendix C. It was anticipated that the findings from this calculation
would lend weight to either SDAs (2000) argument or that of the LDNP Authority.
4.8 Lead Content in Soil
SDA (2000) determined the thickness of the tailings for TD1 and TD2 from results of
dynamic probe tests. The tailings material of TD1 was found to have a thickness ranging
between 5.8m and 14.1m. A tailings thickness of between 3.2m and 7.4m was found for
TD2. Soil samples obtained for analysis during this investigation were from a maximum
depth below the surface of 0.58m. Consequently, approximately 4-10% and 8-18% of
the tailings thickness of TD1 and TD2 respectively, was investigated. No analysis was
carried out on the foundations of either tailings dam, which for TD1 is an old spoil heap.
- 33 -
The content of lead and other geological minors was determined by XRF for each soil
sample collected from the control site, pit D and pit G. Additional samples (B/S2, C/S2,
E/S3 and F/S2) were tested from what was believed to be the organic layer of the other
four sample pits.
3g of each sample was ground by hand until all the particles could pass through a 100m
sieve. Compressed powdered briquettes were made from each ground sample for
analysis by XRF. A PW 1400 Philips Spectrometer was used to analyse the samples. A
more detailed breakdown of the method that has been outlined above is provided in
Appendix D.
4.9 Organic Matter Content in Soil
The organic matter content was established for all of the soil samples. 2g of each sample
was placed in a crucible and put in a furnace for 2 hours at 500C. The weight of organic
matter in each sample was obtained by subtracting the post-furnace weight of the sample
and crucible from the pre-furnace weight. The weight of organic matter was divided by
the pre-furnace weight of the sample. This value was multiplied by one hundred to
provide the percentage of organic matter in the sample. A more detailed description of
the method followed is provided in Appendix E.
4.10 Soil pH
The pH value was obtained for all soil samples collected from the control site, pit D and
pit G. Additional samples (B/S2, C/S2, E/S3 and F/S2) were tested from what was
believed to be the organic layer of the remaining four sample pits. 10g of each dried soil
sample was made up into a soil suspension and the pH measured using a PHM220 pH
Meter known as a MeterLab. Prior to the testing, the pH meter was calibrated using pH
4.0 and 7.0 buffers. A more detailed description of the method followed is provided in
Appendix F. The data are presented in Table 5 of section 5.0 of this report.
- 34 -
4.11 Grain Size Analysis
A grain size analysis was carried out on all soil samples collected from the control site,
pit D and pit G. Additional samples (B/S2, C/S2, E/S3 and F/S2) were analysed from
what was believed to be the organic layer of the remaining four sample pits.
The distribution of particles ranging between 1-200m was determined using a
Micrometrics Sedigraph 5100. Wet sieving was carried out on those particles between
201-2000m in size.
The dry mass of the sample <200m was calculated and combined with the mass of the
sample between 201m and 2000m. The sieves separated the sample into different size
categories. The percentage of the total sample mass that each sieve retained was
calculated. This enabled the cumulative mass percent of each sample to be calculated for
<2000m. A more detailed description of the method followed is provided in Appendix
G.
Two separate grain size analysis tests were carried out because use of the sedigraph
prohibited the inclusion of particles >200m. As a number of samples consisted largely
of particles <200m, the wet sieving method alone would not have adequately analysed
the full range of grain size present.
- 35 -
5.0 EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS
This chapter of the report provides a summary of the results from experiments that were
carried out on grass and soil samples as detailed in the previous chapter.
5.1 Grass Samples
The mean absorbency reading obtained for each of the standard calibration solutions is
shown in Table 2 below. The standard deviation of each absorbency reading was
calculated and is also included in Table 2.
Table 2: Absorbency readings and standard deviations for the standard Pb calibration
solutions.
Standard Pb
concentration
gcm
-3
Mean
absorbency
readings
Standard
deviation of
absorbency
readings
0 0.000 0
5 0.060 0.0006
10 0.107 0
15 0.158 0.001
20 0.204 0.0012
30 0.298 0.0015
AAS derived absorbency readings of the six standard calibration solutions were plotted
against their known lead concentrations to form a calibration curve (see Figure 12). The
gradient of the curve was calculated to be 0.0102.
- 36 -
y = 0.0102x
R
2
= 0.9966
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Lead concentration (ug/cm
3
)
A
b
s
o
r
b
a
n
c
e
Fi
gure 12: A Calibration Curve of Absorbance Against Lead Concentration
It was noted that, with reference to the Beer-Lambert Law, the calibration curve plotted
indicated a good linear relationship between absorbance and concentration. The R
2
value
was calculated to be 0.9966. Possible causes for the position of plots slightly away from
the line of best fit are referred to in Section 6 of this report.
Some of the sample solutions were diluted to 1:2 or 1:10 depending on the reading
obtained from their initial AAS testing. The dilution factor was taken into account
during the calculation of the lead concentration for each grass sample solution.
The mass of lead per unit mass (dry weight) of grass is shown in Table 3 for each of the
grass samples tested together with the blank. The latter provided a value of zero as
expected. The range of lead contents in the grass samples was 7341mg/kg with the
control site sample providing the lowest value of 299mg/kg and the highest being
7640mg/kg from sample BG of TD1. Full details of the data obtained from this
experiment are provided in Appendix B.
- 37 -
There is a significant difference between the lead content of 299.1mg/kg from the grass
sample obtained from the control site and the average lead content in the grass samples
from TD1 of 3,147.0mg/kg and of 3,035.8mg/kg from the TD2 grass samples.
Table 3: Content of lead in mg per 1kg of dry weight grass for each grass sample and the
blank.
Sample
Nos
Content of lead in mg per
1kg of dry weight grass
A/G 299.1
B/G 572.0
C/G 7,640.2
D/G 1,228.8
E/G 1,385.9
F/G 2,444.1
G/G 5,277.3
Blank 0.0
- 38 -
5.2 Sheep Grazing
A graph (see Figure 13) was drawn to indicate how the lead body burden on a sheep
varied with the number of days a year it grazed at a particular location. In addition to
this, the lead limit range of 0.05-0.2 mg/kg proposed by the European Commission for
sheep and the mean lead content 0.03 mg/kg for lamb cuts (see Section 2.3 of this report)
has also been displayed in Figure 13. The data obtained from the calculations have been
included in Appendix C.
Figure13: A graph to indicate the range of lead contaminant body burden on a sheep
grazing from 0 to 365 days a year on either the control site, TD1 or TD2. Lead content
limits for sheep and lamb cuts are displayed.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 100 200 300 400
Number of days in a year that sheep graze on
the control site, TD1 or TD2
L
e
a
d

c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t

b
o
d
y

b
u
r
d
e
n

i
n

s
h
e
e
p

f
r
o
m

l
e
a
d

i
n
g
e
s
t
e
d
,

m
g
/
k
g
Control Site
TD1
TD2
Linear (Upper
Pb limit for
sheep)
Linear (Lower
Pb limit for
sheep)
Linear (Max Pb
conc for lamb
cuts)
- 39 -
5.3 Soil Samples
5.3.1 Lead Content by XRF
Each pit contained distinct horizons, each differing in grain size, consistency and colour.
It was noted that except for the root zone samples, there was no microbial activity in any
of the samples.
The XRF derived lead content values in mg/kg for each sample briquette tested is
provided in Table 4 overleaf. The high lead content that was present in the soil samples
was thought to have interfered with the arsenic readings from the XRF analysis and
consequently the latter have been ignored. Appendix D contains the full set of data
relating to the content of the geological minors in each sample.
The calibration range for lead was given as 4 to 58mg/kg. As can be seen from Table 4,
all the lead values obtained are significantly beyond this range and have been acquired
from the extrapolation of the calibration values. Consequently, the values may not be
exact but provide a good indication of the lead levels present at the site.
The standard deviation for the quality control value was zero for lead. A range of
28,887mg/kg exists for the lead contents found in the soil samples. The values obtained
from the control site samples (Sample numbers A/S1 to A/S4) are significantly lower
than those taken from the two tailings dams.
The lead content values of the control site samples ranged from 62mg/kg to 675mg/kg
with an average of 340mg/kg. In contrast, the lead content of TD1 soil samples ranged
from 1,993mg/kg to 28,949mg/kg with an average of 13,115mg/kg. The lead content of
TD2 soil samples was also higher than those found in the control site samples. The lead
content values of the former ranged from 1,844mg/kg to 11,950mg/kg with an average
value of 6,025mg/kg.
The lead content in the root soil sample obtained from the control site is 509mg/kg
compared to an average content of 4,152mg/kg from the root soil samples of TD1 and
6,534mg/kg from those obtained from TD2.
- 40 -
Table 4: XRF derived lead content values in mg/kg of soil samples from the control site,
TD1 and TD2.
Pb
mg/kg
QCE* 7.5
Mean QCA** 9.0
QCD*** -1.5
Standard Deviation 0
A/S1 675
A/S2 509
A/S3 115
A/S4 62
B/S2 4,362
C/S2 3,925
D/S1 4,106
D/S2 4,169
D/S3 1,993
D/S4 28,949
D/S5 13,117
D/S6 18,602
D/S7 21,115
D/S8 12,865
E/S3 2,368
F/S2 5,283
G/S1 6,813
G/S2 11,950
G/S3 4,473
G/S4 5,026
G/S5 3,032
G/S6 10,355
G/S7 4,709
G/S8 1,844
All the lead content values were found to be outside of the calibration range.
*QCE: Quality control value that was expected to be obtained;
**QCA: Quality control value that was actually obtained;
***QCD: Quality control difference = QCE QCA;
- 41 -
5.3.2 Soil pH, Organic Matter & Grain Size Analysis
The soil pH, the percentage of organic matter in each sample and the percentage of grain
particles in each sample which was less than 180m in size are detailed in Table 5
overleaf. The lead content for the grass and soil samples which were obtained by AAS
and XRF techniques respectively are also included in Table 5.
The mean percentage of organic material did not significantly vary between pit locations.
The mean percentage contained in the pit A (control site) samples was 8% compared to
10% in the pit D samples and 13% in the pit G samples. However more variation existed
when comparing the range of values present within pit A to that in pits D and G. The
range of organic matter percentages within pit A was 10 compared to that of 41 for pit D
and 38 for pit G. The data that were obtained at the various stages of this procedure are
displayed in Appendix E.
The pH values shown in Table 5 vary from 4.15 to 6.84, a range of 2.69. The pH values
do not appear to correlate with the lead content of the samples nor any other factor which
was considered during this investigation. However, the samples closer to the surface in
both tailings dams are more acidic than those collected from greater depth. This pattern
is not reflected in the control site pH values.
- 42 -
Table 5: Lead content, pH, percentages of organic matter and grain size <180m for all
the soil and grass samples from the control site and selected soil and grass samples from
TD1 and TD2.
Sample
Reference
Lead
Content
(mg/kg)
pH Organic
Matter
Content as
%
% of soil
sample
<180m
A/G 299
A/S1 675 5.64 13.9 20.4
A/S2 509 5.76 8.2 18.5
A/S3 115 5.47 6.3 11.8
A/S4 62 5.69 3.6 40.8
B/G 572
B/S2 4,362 4.41 22.6 65.6
C/G 7,640
C/S2 3,925 4.52 36.7 84.6
D/G 1,229
D/S1 4,106 4.17 42.3 68.3
D/S2 4,169 4.15 29.9 49.4
D/S3 1,993 6.34 2.8 18.5
D/S4 28,949 6.71 2.9 87.4
D/S5 13,117 6.84 1.3 81.9
D/S6 18,602 6.74 1.7 31.4
D/S7 21,115 6.54 0.9 90.8
D/S8 12,865 6.59 1.1 90.7
E/G 1,386
E/S3 2,368 4.56 22.1 92.5
F/G 2,444
F/S2 5,283 4.92 26.2 61.5
G/G 5,277
G/S1 6,813 5.47 17.5 28.7
G/S2 11,950 5.03 39.0 93.5
G/S3 4,473 5.71 3.4 12.3
G/S4 5,026 6.59 35.0 15.2
G/S5 3,032 6.69 1.0 16.5
G/S6 10,355 6.63 1.8 41.1
G/S7 4,709 6.53 1.3 16.4
G/S8 1,844 6.67 1.9 17.4
All the lead content values were found to be outside of the calibration range.
- 43 -
The percentage of each soil sample that was in a particular pre-determined particle size
category, ranging from <180m to >2000m, is contained in Appendix G. This data
has been presented diagrammatically in Figure 14. Only the cumulative mass percent for
soil samples taken from the soil sample immediately below the root zone of each sample
site have been included in the graph. Particles <180m dominate except for samples
A/S2 and D/S2 that are dominated by those >2000m.
The data that were obtained at the various stages of the grain size analysis are displayed
in Appendix G.
Figure 14: A graph to show the cumulative mass percent for each soil sample.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A/S2 B/S2 C/S2 D/S2 E/S3 F/S2 G/S2
Soil Sample Number
G
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

a
s

%

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

s
a
m
p
l
e
>2000um
710-2000um
600-710um
500-600um
212-500um
180-212um
<180um
- 44 -
6.0 DISCUSSION
This section of the report interprets and discusses the findings of this investigation.
Whilst the range of risks that the site poses is outlined, attention has primarily been paid
to the risk of lead contamination. The outcome of the human health assessment carried
out by SDA (2000) determined that there was no contamination risk posed to visitors to
the site from soil ingestion or inhalation. Further information relating to SDAs (2000)
findings has been provided in Section 3 of this report.
The lead content and structural stability of the tailings dams are discussed in this section
of the report together with the contamination risk posed to sheep grazing on the site. The
findings and conclusions of investigations carried out by SDA (2000), the EA (2000) and
other Lancaster University dissertation students into other aspects of lead contamination
are referred to. The section concludes with the identification of sources of uncertainty
and error associated with this investigation. These have been quantified where possible.
6.1 General Risks
There exist a wide variety of risks associated with the Greenside site. Those risks
identified by SDA (2000), EA (2000) and this investigation include:
i) structural failure of the tailings dams;
ii) soil contamination;
iii) sediment contamination;
iv) groundwater contamination;
v) surface water contamination of Swart Beck, Glenridding Beck and Lake Ullswater;
vi) detrimental affect on the health of sheep grazing at the site and in turn the human
food chain;
vii) detrimental affect on the health of the general public;
viii) structural instability of some of the walls on the site;
ix) instability of mine entries and underground workings.
- 45 -
6.2 The Tailings Dams
6.2.1 Geotechnical Stability
The geotechnical stability of both TD1 and TD2 was assessed by SDA (2000) and the
key influence on the slope stability of each was found to be groundwater. No remedial
work was deemed necessary for TD1 providing there was no deterioration in its current
condition. In contrast, investigations carried out on TD2, found it to be structurally
unstable and possessing a high metal content, particularly so for lead.
Lead levels within the tailings dams were found by SDA (2000) to be above ICRCL
threshold levels and Dutch intervention levels. (Section 2 of this report briefly refers to
both of these assessment standards). Other heavy metals that are known to be associated
with galena such as cadmium, copper and zinc were also found to be above these two
levels but to a lesser extent in comparison to lead.
In the event of TD2 failing, a large amount of particulate with high metal content would
be introduced into the water system and ultimately Lake Ullswater. This contamination
risk was deemed by both SDA (2000) and the EA (2000) to represent the principal risk
posed by the site on the surrounding environment. Remediation measures that are
required to address this risk focus on the need to stabilise and cover the tailings dams.
More information relating to these measures are provided in section 7 of this report.
6.2.2 Physical Characteristics
SDA (2000) determined that the outer embankments slopes of the tailings dams consist
of loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand. However the inner core of each
comprise of layers of soft sandy silt and silty clay. During this investigation, discrete
horizontal layers were found to exist in the sample pits from TD1 and TD2 (see Figures 9
and 10 of section 4). SDA (2000) suggest that this could be due to the intermittent
intrusion of ponded water into the sandy beach deposits that the tailings deposition
process is believed to have yielded.
- 46 -
All the soil samples obtained from the tailings dams pits contained particles no larger
than 1cm in size. This is in stark contrast to the boulder-sized fragments that lie
underneath the tailings material of TD1. These larger fragments of waste material are the
result of mining activity that occurred decades earlier, at a time of lower processing
efficiency.
Soil particles from TD1 and TD2 samples are angular suggesting they have undergone
little erosion and confirming they are the product of mining activity. The predominantly
small particle size of the samples could be a result of the crushing that would have taken
place during the processing of the lead ore.
6.2.3 Lead Content
Levels of lead and other contaminants from TD1 and TD2 soil samples were lower than
those found in surface soil and sediment samples which had been collected elsewhere on
the site (Kember, 2000; SDA, 2000).
The lead content of the control site soil samples was found to be significantly lower than
those obtained from the tailings dams. In an effort to better understand the variation in
lead content between and within the sample sites, possible influencing factors such as
soil pH and organic matter were measured.
Figure 15 consists of three graphs containing data obtained from (A) pit A of the control
site, (B) pit D of TD1 and (C) pit G of TD2. The lead content of the soil samples is
compared with the organic matter content expressed as a percentage, the pH value and
the percentage of the sample that contains particles <180m.
The lead content of soil samples obtained from the control site decreased with increased
depth from the surface. The root zone sample had ten times the lead content of the
deepest sample that was obtained between 0.3m-0.55m below the surface.
- 47 -
The uppermost three soil samples from pit D have lower lead contents than the soil
samples taken from greater depth. However, there is a significant variation of lead
content within these two sub-groups. Similar lead content values exist between the soil
samples obtained from immediately below the root zone soil in each of the sample sites
of TD1 (B/S2, C/S2, D/S2). No relationship between depth and lead content appears to
exist in pit G.
6.2.4 Risk Probability Analysis
It is likely that with increasingly efficient processing methods, the lead content of waste
from the mine reduced over time. Therefore the tailings material analysed during this
investigation could contain less lead than waste material at greater depth in the dams or
located elsewhere on the site. Accordingly, the contamination risk associated with the
introduction of particulate into the water system following a failure of TD2 may be
higher than first anticipated.
Whilst initially it may appear that the material analysed presents the least contamination
risk of the entire dam, this need not be the case. This investigation did not incorporate a
risk probability analysis. If this had been considered then it may have found that
although of a lower lead content than material beneath it, the top of the tailings dam may
be the least stable part of the dam. The probability of the collapse of this part of the dam
may be significantly higher when compared to that of the material below it. The
cumulative effect of a number of small slippages of the tailings material over a period of
time may be equal to or in excess of a major one-off slippage of older material that has a
higher lead content. Further investigation is required before this type of probability
analysis can be carried out.
- 48 -
- 49 -
6.2.5 Factors Influencing Lead Bioavailability
It is known that the bioavailability of lead can be influenced by soil parameters such as
the soils organic matter content, pH and particle size. A correlation was expected
between these factors and the lead content values of the soil samples which were
analysed.
It was envisaged that the soil samples immediately below the root zone would contain the
highest percentage of organic matter due to the texture and colour of these samples.
Furthermore, that this would promote the binding of lead to the organic matter and a
positive correlation to exist between the two. However, a positive correlation of this
nature was not found to exist. The organic matter content was the highest in the actual
root zone samples within some of the sample pits. Overall there is a significant decrease
in the percentage of organic matter content of each sample pit with increased depth from
the surface. However, this was expected given the presence of the turf and its associated
natural decomposition processes.
The soil pH values appear to be inversely related to the depth at which the sample was
taken. The greater the depth, the lower the pH value. pH values obtained within the first
6cm of soil from TD2 are lower than those from comparable sample depths in TD1 or the
control site. The soil pH values do not correlate with the lead content values obtained in
each of the samples.
No correlation was found between the lead content of a sample and the percentage of
particles <180m in size. Nor is there any such correlation with the percentage of
particles below other threshold sizes, regardless as to whether the comparison is done by
weight (wet sieving method) or volume (sedigraph method).
The lack of correlation between data sets and variation within, highlights the
heterogeneous nature of the tailings dams. This in turn, presents a difficulty in predicting
the contamination risk posed by them as it is impossible to accurately quantify the
chemical content of either structure. Consequently, the contamination impact that the
failure of either of these tailings dams would have on the surrounding water system is
hard to determine.
- 50 -
6.2.6 Groundwater Contamination
Groundwater samples were obtained from piezometers in probe holes on both TD1 and
TD2 by SDA (2000). Both sets of samples contained significantly higher levels of heavy
metals than samples analysed from the surface waters of the tailings dams and pipe
discharges from the dams.
6.3 Contamination Risk to Sheep
There is a two-fold risk posed by grass containing elevated levels of lead such as that
which was analysed on the two tailings dams. Firstly, there is a direct risk to the health
of sheep grazing on the grass. High lead levels in sheep will potentially be passed on to
their unborn young. Thereby, giving rise to a secondary risk to human health from the
consumption of lamb containing elevated levels of lead.
6.3.1 Lead Content of Grass Samples
In common with the soil samples, the lead content of the control site grass samples was
found to be significantly lower than those obtained from the tailings dams. The lead
content of the control site grass sample was calculated to be 299mg/kg compared to a
mean lead content of 3147mg/kg from the TD1 grass samples and 3036mg/kg for the
TD2 samples.
Whilst the lead content of the grass samples obtained from TD1 is highly variable
between the different sample sites. The values obtained from the TD2 samples decreased
with distance from the slippage area. This reflected the negative correlation between
lead content and distance exhibited by the TD2 root zone soil samples.
- 51 -
All the grass samples have a significantly lower lead content than the soil in which their
root system is in contact with except for the grass sample obtained from pit B. The lead
content of grass was found to increase with increasing lead content in the soil
immediately below the root zone. Figure 16 is of a graph indicating this relationship.
Figure16: A bar chart to compare the lead content of each grass sample and that of the
soil immediately below the root zone.
Jopony and Young (1993) also found that the uptake of lead by plants was poorly
correlated with both pH and the total lead content of the soil. They proposed that the
lead content of the soil solution in the root zone provided a better index of lead
availability. Total lead uptake by plants was found by them to be of the same order of
magnitude as the total lead content of the soil solution in the root zone.
The variation between lead content of grass and root zone soil samples from the same
pits could be due to the influence of a number of soil parameters as well as the physio-
chemical form of the lead itself. Lead is known to bind to iron and manganese oxides,
thereby reducing its bioavailability to plants. The content of these oxides in the soil
samples has not been analysed and consequently it has not been possible to determine
whether they are an influencing factor on the lead content of the soil and grass samples.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
A B C D E F G
Pit Reference
P
b

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
m
g
/
k
g
)
Grass Sample
Sub Root Zone
Sample
- 52 -
6.3.2 Lead Ingestion Calculation
The lead body burden on a sheep as a result of lead ingestion due to grazing was
determined from Hopes (1995) ingestion calculation. It was assumed that the body
burden of a sheep would be the same as that for its young. The findings of this
investigation support the SDA (2000) reports recommendation that sheep should not
graze on the tailings dams. It is estimated that after just several days there is a significant
risk of contamination to sheep from grazing on the site.
Harrison and Laxen (1981) estimate that 99% of all lead ingested is excreted in the
faeces. Consequently, it may be thought that there would be little impact on the food
chain from the ingestion of lead by sheep. However, even with the inclusion of this large
absorption inefficiency, the contaminant body burdens obtained from Hopes (1995)
ingestion calculation, would suggest otherwise.
Only those lead body burden values calculated for the control site grazing were found to
be either below or within the lead limit range proposed by the European Commission
Regulation (lll/5125/95 Rev.3) (ECR) for sheep. It was calculated that the lead body
burden of a sheep would be in excess of the mean lead content set by the Food Standards
Agency for lamb cuts of 0.03 mg/kg if it grazed in excess of 100 days at the control site.
The mean lead content set for lamb cuts was exceeded within a few days for sheep
grazing on either TD1 or TD2. Lead body burden values were very similar from both
sites and exceeded the upper ECR lead limit for sheep after approximately 60 days of
grazing. However TD1 derived values were consistently greater by a matter of 0.01-0.04
mg/kg compared to TD2 derived values.
It is possible that during the course of a year the lead body burden of sheep grazing on
contaminated grass will fluctuate. Mitchell and Reith (1966) found that both the uptake
of lead by plant roots and translocation to the shoots varies seasonally. The collection
and analysis of the grass samples was carried out in June 2000. As June falls in the
period of minimum lead uptake, it is possible that the ECR value for sheep would be
exceeded during the winter months on the control site as well as the tailings dams. This
in turn would lead to the recommendation that sheep are prohibited from grazing
anywhere on the site and not just the tailings dams.
- 53 -
The application of Hopes (1995) ingestion calculation provides only a very rough
estimate of the lead body burden of sheep through soil and grass ingestion. It does not
accurately quantify lead absorption by sheep nor what proportion is passed to its unborn
young. This quantification could however be achieved by analysing either blood samples
whilst the animal is alive or muscle samples when it is dead. The latter is clearly not
ideal for inclusion in a regular monitoring program given its destructive nature.
6.4 Surface Water Contamination
Maxwell (2000) compared the lead concentrations in water samples obtained throughout
the mine site down to Lake Ullswater, against drinking water standards set by the
European Commission (EC) and UK Regulations. The lead concentrations in
Glenridding Beck (downstream of the mine site) and Lake Ullswater were found to be
either approaching or exceeding the EC and UK allowable maximums. However,
Maxwell (2000) suggested that the current concentration levels of lead in the water,
whilst elevated, posed no significant threat to humans, animals or fish.
6.5 Sediment Contamination
Sediments in Glenridding Beck were found by Kember (2000) to increase in lead content
from 1,019mg/kg upstream of the confluence with Swart Beck, to 23,612mg/kg
downstream of the confluence. However, the lead content of sediments from Lake
Ullswater was found to be 6,412mg/kg. Kember (2000) determined that the metal
content of sediment samples taken from above the mine site in Swart Beck and
Glenridding Beck through to Lake Ullswater, decreased with increased distance from the
mine site.
- 54 -
6.6 Water Quality
The contamination of Lake Ullswater is of particular concern with regard to drinking
water quality. It is used as a reserve by North West Water for the Greater Manchester
area (Guy Weller, LDNP Authority, pers. comm., 2000). Accordingly, the water quality
of Swart Beck and Glenridding Beck, as tributaries to Lake Ullswater, is also of
importance.
As a popular location for leisure activity such as sailing and diving, the water quality of
Lake Ullswater is also of significance to the local economy. In addition to this, the lake
supports populations of both salmon and the Schelly. The latter is protected under the
1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and Lake Ullswater is one of the few sites in the
United Kingdom in which it survives. The lead EQS of 2ug/L for salmonid watercourses
such as Glenridding Beck and Lake Ullswater was found to be exceeded in the water
samples analysed by EA ( 2000).
The EA (2000) identified in their report the increasingly eutrophic nature of Lake
Ullswater. Their concern is that in conjunction with increasing eutrophication there is a
lowering of water pH values. The latter results in an increased risk of remobilisation of
heavy metals from the lake sediments. The EA (2000) state that the current secondary
release of selenium from sediments within Lake Ullswater, is a precursor to the release of
other metals such as lead.
During the majority of Greenside Mines long history, waste material was discharged
directly into Glenridding Beck. It is likely, as Kember (2000) states, that the ultimate
sink for sediments contaminated by such waste is Lake Ullswater. Consequently the
secondary release of metals from lake sediments poses a potentially significant
contamination threat to the water quality of the lake.
- 55 -
6.7 Instability Risk from Mine Entries and Underground Workings
A detailed mineworkings risk assessment has not been carried out at the site although the
risk to the general public is considered to be low. The large subsidence features on the
flanks of Greenside represent a potential hazard to the public due to their depth (the
deepest being an estimated 80m deep) and near vertical sides. Remedial works such as
infilling are not considered feasible due to the size of these features. However, it is
recommended that they are adequately fenced to prevent unauthorised access. The risk
of mining induced ground settlements was considered remote SDA (2000).
6.8 Experimental Uncertainty and Errors
Whilst steps were taken throughout this investigation to protect the integrity of the
samples, it is inevitable that errors were introduced. Although it has been possible to
identify a number of sources of errors, it has proved more difficult to quantify them.
Sample contamination could potentially have occurred at any stage of the investigation.
The spade and plastic trowel that were used to respectively dig the pits and collect the
soil samples, may have provided sources of contamination. The same could be said for
the sample storage bags, the steel equipment and substances used during the analysis of
soil and grass samples. However, metal contamination from these sources is likely to be
minimal. For instance, the AnalaR nitric acid that was used during the grass sample
analysis was predicted to have a lead residue on ignition of 5 x 10
-6
%.
The calibration of the XRF machine was carried out using a basaltic rock standard. This
was considered to be the nearest comparison to the material being analysed but by not
being an exact match to it, provides a source of error. In addition to this, the soil lead
content values were all significantly beyond the maximum calibration value of 58mg/kg.
The values were all obtained from the extrapolation of the calibration values and
therefore there is a degree of uncertainty concerning the accuracy of these results.
- 56 -
The root zone soil samples were found to have high lead contents. Therefore, it is likely
that any soil that was not washed off the grass samples prior to analysis would have
affected the grass lead content values. It is not however possible to quantify this error.
Instead, steps could be taken to reduce this source of contamination by adopting a more
rigorous rinsing method. Alternatively, only that part of the plant that is above ground,
and therefore not in direct contact with the soil, could be analysed.
Calibration errors that may have occurred during the measuring out of samples and
solutions are not believed to have significantly impacted the findings of this
investigation. Calibrated equipment was used in all cases and weight measurements
taken to three decimal places. The weighing balance used has an instrumental error of
+/-0.001g, whilst it is +/- 3% for the XRF spectrometer.
Whilst three readings were taken from each solution during the AAS analysis of the grass
samples only a very small proportion of the total solution was sampled. It is possible that
the sampled solution was unrepresentative of the solution as a whole. In addition to this,
only one grass sample was collected from each pit and no duplicate solutions were made.
Inaccuracies in the AAS readings could be as a result of changes in the refractive angle at
higher concentrations of lead and/or scattering of light by particles in the solutions.
Furthermore, it is known that the higher the content levels of lead, the more likely it is
that electrostatic interactions occur between molecules in close proximity. This in turn
also leads to inaccuracies in the readings obtained (Hewitt, 1999).
Only a small proportion of the coefficients of Hopes (1995) ingestion calculation were
derived from the analysis of samples collected at the site. Instead, a large number were
either obtained from scientific papers or their default values adopted. This provided
enormous scope for the introduction of errors and uncertainty. In addition, it highlights
the limitation of using a calculation that includes a large number of coefficients that are
unable to be given site-specific values.
- 57 -
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The principal risk associated with the site has been determined to be one of lead
contamination to the surrounding water system following a further collapse of TD2.
Consequently, the future management of the site and that of the surrounding area,
primarily needs to address this particular risk.
This investigation has provided preliminary evidence of the elevated lead content within
both of the tailings dams. The heterogeneous nature and associated difficulty in
predicting the overall metal content of the dams has also been highlighted. This
difficulty makes it impossible to accurately predict the amount of metals that would be
introduced into the surrounding water system in the event of a further failure of TD2.
Even if further investigations were carried on the waste material contained throughout
the tailings dams, it is unlikely to ever be possible to quantify the overall metal content of
them or for this to be a representative value.
Other investigations have shown there to be elevated levels of a range of metals in soil
throughout the mine site. Downstream of the site, elevated lead concentrations exist in
both the water and sediment of Swart Beck, Glenridding Beck and Lake Ullswater. Such
findings provide evidence of the adverse impact that past and present contaminant
discharges from the mine site have on the surrounding water system. The insoluble
nature of lead and other heavy metals, together with the lack of microbial degradation
within the tailings dams, mean that they are likely to remain indefinitely at the site and in
the surrounding environment.
Primarily, steps need to be taken to ensure the structural stability of the dams and the
reduction of contaminant risk from them. Recommendations have also been made with
regard to the issue of sheep grazing on the site. Remediation measures have been
outlined in Table 6.
In addition to the remediation measures that have been outlined, there is also the potential
for further work to be carried out. Such work would assist in the future management of
the site and enable informed decisions to be taken. Areas requiring further study are
outlined in Table 7.
- 58 -
Table 6: Remediation measures that need to be taken in order to address the principal risk of contamination to the water systems
and to grazing sheep.
Remediation Measure Justification and Expected Outcome
Tailings Dams Monitor groundwater levels within
the tailings dams.
Groundwater was determined by SDA (2000) to be the key influence on the slope
stability of the tailings dams. Monitoring of groundwater levels will enable
significant changes to be detected and prompt action to be taken.
Fill in the collapsed area of TD2 and
flatten the slope profile of both of the
tailings dams.
The lower the angle of the slope, the lower the risk of slippage. Therefore,
flattening the profile of the tailings dams will help to increase their stability.
Repair and maintain the system of
leats around the two tailings dams.
Reducing the infiltration of rainfall and runoff from the screes behind the dams
through improved drainage will increase the stability of the dams.
Diverting water away from the tailings dam will help to prevent the deterioration
of water quality.
Cover the tailings dams with a low
permeability cap and install a
perimeter collector drain on each
(SDA, 2000).
Reducing the amount of surface infiltration through the tops of the dams will
assist in the stabilisation of them.
- 59 -
Table 6 continued: Remediation measures that need to be taken in order to remove the principal risk of contamination to the water
systems and to grazing sheep.
Remediation Measure Justification and Expected Outcome
Remobilisation
of sediments
Addition of lime to Lake Ullswater Increasing the pH of the water will reduce the potential of secondary release of
metals from sediments. However, liming can give problems of disposal of
gypsum and iron hydroxide which precipitate out (Down and Stocks, 1976).
Sheep Grazing Significantly reduce the time the
sheep are allowed to graze on the
site.
Prohibit the grazing of sheep on the
mine site.
Preliminary investigations suggest that after just several days, the risk of
contamination to the sheep from grazing on the site causes their lead content
levels to be in excess of food standards. Reducing grazing (exposure) time
ensures that the lead body burden of the sheep is not in excess of maximum
allowable concentrations in food.
Prohibiting sheep from grazing on grass that is known to contain elevated levels
of lead, removes the risk of significant lead contamination to them.
However, capping and then returfing the tailings dams should remove this risk of
contamination and enable sheep to graze on that area of the site safely.
- 60 -
Table 7: Recommendations of further work.
1. Carry out further investigations to better determine the metal content of the tailings dams. A coring programme would enable analysis
to be carried out on tailings material throughout the depth of the dams. Information concerning metal content as well as stability
could be acquired from this type of test.
2. Carry out a probability analysis for the range of risks that have been identified in connection with the site. Such an investigation
would assist in decision-making and the prioritisation of remedial work at the site.
3. Gain a greater understanding of the factors reducing the mobilisation of lead into surrounding soil and water systems. For instance,
determine by XRF analysis of major elements, whether the iron and manganese oxides content of the soil and its lead content is
correlated.
4. Carry out a human health risk assessment using the CLEA model instead of the RISC-Human model. The former provides a range of
estimates associated with each risk rather than the point measurements of the latter model. Consequently, unlike RISC-Human,
uncertainties are able to be identified in the values, thereby assisting decision-making. In addition to this, the CLEA model is based
on UK directives rather than Dutch ones, unlike the RISC-Human model.
- 61 -
Table 7 continued: Recommendations of further work.
5. Gain a greater understanding of the contamination risk posed to sheep grazing at the site. Firstly, determine whether there is a
positive correlation between the lead content of soil solution and plant uptake. The possible existence of seasonal variation in the
uptake of lead by plants and the associated impact on the lead body burden of sheep should be determined. Quantification of the lead
body burdens of sheep and those of its young also needs to be determined. This could be achieved by incorporating more site-
specific data in Hopes (1995) ingestion calculation or taking blood samples from the animals.
6. Monitor the land use around Lake Ullswater and all discharges to it as well as the actual situation within the lake to ensure inputs are
constantly related to chemistry in the water (EA, 2000).
7. Gain increased understanding of the relationship between lead content in sediments and water system through further monitoring over
a longer period of time Maxwell (2000).
8. Determine the extent of sediment contamination within Lake Ullswater and its associated effect on the lakes water quality.
9. Carry out a study to ascertain impact on fauna from contaminant levels above Environmental Quality Standards (EA, 2000).
In conclusion, it is clear from this investigation and others that a major risk of contamination exists primarily from the potential failure of TD2.
The restabilising and capping of both tailings dams presents the most viable solution to this risk. The adoption of the remediation measures
outlined in Table 6 will ensure future management success of the Greenside Lead Mine site and protection of the surrounding water system.
- 62 -
REFERENCES
Adams, J., 1995, Mines of the Lake District Fells. 2
nd
Edition. Dalesman Publishing Company,
England.
Alloway, B. J. (Ed.), 1995, Heavy Metals in Soils. 2
nd
Edition. Blackie Academic and
Professional, London.
Asante-Duah, K. D., 1998, Risk Assessment in Environmental Management: A Guide for
Managing Chemical Contamination Problems. John Wiley & Sons, England.
Bloomfield, V., 1982, The translocation of metals in soils. In Greenland D. J. and M. H. B.
Hayes (Eds.), The Chemistry of Soil Processes. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.
Davies, B. E., 1990, Lead. In Alloway, B. J. (Ed.), 1995, Heavy Metals in Soils, 2
nd
Edition.
Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
Down, C. G. and J. Stocks, 1976, Research Report 17, Environmental Problems of Tailings
Disposal at Metal Mines. Mining Environmental Research Unit under supervision by Pryor, R.
N., Professor of Mining, Royal School of Mines. Department of the Environment.
Food Standards Agency, 2000, Food Surveillance Information Sheet Number 113.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk
Environment Agency, 2000, Guidance on Site Specific Criteria for Assessing Chronic Risks to
Human Health from Soil Contamination. Project P5-041.
Harrison, R. M. and D. P. H. Laxen, 1981, Lead Pollution, Causes and Control. Chapman and
Hall Ltd., London.
Hewitt, C. N., 1999, ENCH 204: Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, Worksheet 1 for
Laboratory Classes 1999/00. University of Lancaster, England.
- 63 -
Hope, B. K., 1995, A review of models for estimating terrestrial ecological receptor exposure to
chemical contaminants. Chemosphere, vol. 30, nos. 12, 2,267-2,287. Elsevier Science Ltd.,
UK.
Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. 1987. Guidance
on the Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. Guidance Note 59,83.
Department of the Environment. HMSO, London.
Jopony, M. and S. Young, 1993, Assessment of lead availability in soils contaminated by mine
spoil. Plant and Soil, vol. 151, 273-278. Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.
Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias, 1992, Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. 2
nd
Edition.
CRC Press LLC, United States.
Kember, H. M., 2000, A study of metal contamination of sediment within Lake Ullswater and
the Glenridding Beck catchment. Lancaster University, England.
Maxwell, J. R., 2000, A hydrochemical study of the Glenridding Beck catchment in order to
address chemical fluxes entering the system as a result of past mining activity. Lancaster
University, England.
Mitchell, R. L. and J. W. S. Reith, 1966, Journal of Scientific Food Agriculture, vol. 17, 437-
440. In Alloway, B. J. (Ed.), 1995, Heavy Metals in Soils. 2
nd
Edition. Blackie Academic and
Professional, London.
Moen, 1994, Soil Protection and Remedial Actions: Contaminated Soil. Martinus, Nishoff,
Dordrecht, pp 441-448 from Scott Doherty Associates Ltd., 2000, Advisory Report: Greenside
Mine, Glenridding Geo-Environmental and Structural Assessment.
Murphy, S., 1996, Grey Gold: Men, mining & metallurgy at the Greenside Lead Mine in
Cumbria, England 1825-1962. Moiety Publishing, England.
Radojevi, M. and V. N. Bashkin, 1999, Practical Environmental Analysis. The Royal Society
of Chemistry, England.
- 64 -
Richardson, M. G., 1996, Deterministic versus probabilistic risk assessment: strengths and
weaknesses in a regulatory context. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, vol. 2, nos. 1, 44-
54.
Rieuwerts, J. S., M. E. Farago, M. Cikrt and V. Bencko, 2000, Differences in Lead
Bioavailability Between a Smelting and a Mining Area. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, vol. 122,
203-229. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Salomons, W., U. Frstner and P. Mader (Eds.), 1995, Heavy Metals: Problems and Solutions.
Spinger, Germany.
Scott Doherty Associates Ltd., 2000, Advisory Report: Greenside Mine, Glenridding Geo-
Environmental and Structural Assessment.
Sieghardt, H., 1990, Heavy-metal uptake and distribution in Silene vulgaris and Minuartia
verna growing on mining-dump material containing lead and zinc. Plant and Soil, vol. 123,
107-111. Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.
Thornton, I., 1980, Geochemical aspects of heavy metal pollution and agriculture in England
and Wales. Inorganic Pollution and Agriculture, 105-125 from Thornton, I., 1996, Impacts of
mining on the environment; some local, regional and global issues. Applied Geochemistry, vol.
11, 355-361.
Thornton, I. and P. Abrahams, 1983, Soil Ingestion a major pathway of heavy metals into
livestock grazing contaminated land. Science of Total Environment. Vol. 28, 287-294.
Tyler, I., 1998, Greenside and the mines of the Ullswater Valley. Blue Rock, England.
Van der Walt, J. G., E. A. Boomker, A. Meintjes and W. A. Schultheiss, 1999, Effect of water
intake on the nitrogen balance of sheep fed a low or a medium protein diet. South African
Journal of Animal Science, vol. 29, nos. 3, 105-119.
The Van Hall Instituut, 1999, RISC-Human version 3.0 information sheet. The Van Hall
Instituut Business Center, the Netherlands.
- 65 -
APPENDIX A
The Creation of the Tailings Dams
Murphy (1996) estimates from old mining records that in the late 1920s and early
1930s, approximately 44% of the ore and rock milled at the Greenside Lead Mine
went into Glenridding Beck and from there into Lake Ullswater. Through the
introduction of a number of procedures (including a settling tank), this percentage
was reduced to 1% by 1940.
The bulk of this reduction in mine waste flowing into the river system was
brought about by the creation of a tailings dam (TD1) on top of the old Lucy
Level waste tips. This location was far enough away from the smelter so as not to
interfere with its operation but close enough to allow waste material to be
transported to it with relative ease.
Murphy (1996) describes how the tailings in the form of a high water content
slurry, were pumped from the mill building to a settling pond on the top of the
Lucy Level tip. The tailings were then pumped into a ring of perforated 5cm
pipes around the perimeter of the pond. A shallow dam was formed close to the
outlet from the settling out of coarse gravel and sands. The finer, suspended
grains flowed slowly back towards the hillside. This enabled further settling to
occur before water was transported by pipes to Glenridding Beck.
In order that this process could continue, Murphy (1996) describes how when the
dams had been filled to the same level as the pipes, the latter were positioned
further back and at a higher level.
In 1954 a second tailings dam (TD2) was built adjacent and to the west of Swart
Beck and TD1. This was created in a similar way to TD1. Tyler (1998) estimates
that by the time the mine had closed in 1962, approximately a million tons of
mining waste had been dumped at the Greenside site.
- 66 -
Attempts were made as far back as the 1940s to reduce the visual impact of the
tailings dams and to address potential instability problems brought about by poor
drainage, such as slumping. Tyler (1998) states that a series of drains and
drainage columns were positioned inside the dams in an effort to stabilise them.
Other stabilisation attempts which were carried out in the 1940s and 1950s,
included the planting of marram grass and the spreading of manure and sewage
sludge.
However, none of these efforts proved to be enough to prevent large landslips
from occurring in 1989 and 1997 in TD2.
- 67 -
APPENDIX B: Grass Sample Analysis Procedure and Data
Method to Determine the Lead Content in Grass By AAS
1. 500ml of 5% nitric acid was made up from AnalaR nitric acid by adding
25ml of AnalaR to 475ml of deionised water.
2. Grass samples from seven different sites were washed, dried and stored as
described in Section 4.1. A grass sub-sample was then weighed by
difference. A 100ml beaker was placed on the weighing balance and the
balance zeroed. 1g of dried grass sample was transferred to the beaker and
the weight recorded.
3. 10ml of concentrated AnalaR nitric acid was added to each beaker
containing the grass samples as well as an empty beaker (the blank).
4. A watch glass was placed on the top of each beaker and before placing
them on a hot plate. The hot plate was set to a low heat so that the
contents of the beaker were gently boiling but not to such an extent as to
cause the beaker to move on the hot plate. The contents were allowed to
reflux until digestion had taken place (indicated by the contents being a
clear yellow colour).
5. When digestion was complete, the beakers were removed from the hot
plate and allowed to cool.
6. 10ml of 5% nitric acid was added from a volumetric cylinder and the
beakers were returned to the hot plate and warmed gently in order to
dissolve any lead present.
7. The solutions were filtered through No 54 filter paper (to remove silica
material) into 25ml volumetric flasks. The beaker, filter and funnel were
all washed with 5% nitric acid and the washings collected. The volumetric
flasks were made up to the mark with 5% nitric acid.
- 68 -
8. Six standard calibration solutions within the range of 0-30gcm
-3
of lead
were prepared by dilution of the 100gcm
-3
standard with 5% nitric acid.
The standard, sample and blank solutions were run through the atomic
absorption instrument. In between each standard and sample solution
being run through, deionised water was aspirated into the flame. This
procedure repeated after all the samples had been run.
9. A calibration curve of absorbance against lead concentration was drawn
using the readings taken from the six standard calibration solutions. The
concentration of lead in each sample solution and the blank solution were
estimated from this curve.
10. Some of the sample solutions were diluted to 1:2 or 1:10 depending on the
reading obtained from their initial AAS testing. The concentration of each
solution was determined by firstly multiplying the absorbency value of
each grass sample by the appropriate dilution factor. Secondly, the value
obtained was divided by the gradient of the calibration curve.
11. The amount of lead in each grass sample was calculated after subtraction
of the blank and the results noted in terms of mass of lead per unit mass
(dry weight) of grass). Firstly the lead concentration in solution was
multiplied by the volume of solution (which was 25cm
3
in each case). The
value obtained was then divided by the mass of the grass sample. A final
value was accordingly obtained for the concentration of lead in g per 1g
of dry weight grass.
(Information provided in this Appendix has been adapted from Hewitt, 1999.)
- 69 -
Table 8: Data relating to lead concentration in grass samples. Table 9: Absorbency readings for calibration standards.
Sample Dilution Absorbency Average Lead Conc Weight of Conc of lead Standard Absorbency Average
Ref. Readings Absorbency x=y/m * dilution grass in grass conc Readings Absorbency
Readings factor (ug/cm3) sample(g) (ug/g) (ug/cm3) Readings
A/G n/a 0.119 0.118 11.569 0.967 299.086 0 0.000 0.000
0.117 0.000
0.118 0.000
B/G n/a 0.234 0.233 22.810 0.997 571.977 5 0.060 0.060
0.232 0.061
0.232 0.060
C/G 1:10 0.307 0.308 301.634 0.987 7640.172 10 0.107 0.107
0.308 0.107
0.308 0.107
D/G 1:2 0.245 0.245 47.974 0.976 1228.839 15 0.157 0.158
0.246 0.158
0.243 0.159
E/G 1:2 0.27 0.270 52.941 0.955 1385.895 20 0.205 0.204
0.271 0.205
0.269 0.203
F/G 1:10 0.095 0.095 93.464 0.956 2444.144 30 0.3 0.298
0.096 0.297
0.095 0.298
G/G 1:10 0.204 0.204 200.327 0.949 5277.313
0.204
0.205
Blank n/a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
- 70 -
Table 10: Data relating to the calculation of lead content in grass samples.
Sample
Ref.
Dilution Mean of 3 absorbency
readings
Standard deviation of
absorbency readings
Lead concentration of each
sample solution (g/cm
3
)
Weight of grass
sample (g)
Concentration of lead in mg
per kg of dry weight grass
A/G N/A 0.118 0.001 11.569 0.967 299.086
B/G N/A 0.233 0.001 22.810 0.997 571.977
C/G 1:10 0.308 0.001 301.634 0.987 7640.172
D/G 1:2 0.245 0.002 47.974 0.976 1228.839
E/G 1:2 0.270 0.001 52.941 0.955 1385.895
F/G 1:10 0.095 0.001 93.464 0.956 2444.144
G/G 1:10 0.204 0.000 200.327 0.949 5277.313
Blank N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
- 71 -
APPENDIX C
Sheep Grazing: Ingestion Calculation (Hope, 1995.)
Hope (1995) proposed that the applied daily dose to a sheep from ingestion (Di
i
),
expressed in mg/kg/d, can be ascertained by the following equation:

k
Di
i
= [{(Q
i
* EC
sw
) + ( C
j
* F
j
* R
i
) + (EC
sss
* F
sss
* R
i
)}/W
i
] *
i
*
i

j=1
The contaminant body burden on a sheep from contaminant ingestion (Ci
i
) which
in this case is lead is expressed in mg/kg and can be calculated by:
Ci
i
= Di
i
* ( ing/ k
e
)
Where:
C
j
= lead concentration in grass growing on TD1 and TD2 which a sheep grazes
on, unitless. The appropriate AAS derived data were incorporated for this factor.
F
j
= fraction of grass in the diet of a sheep, unitless. A value of 1.0 was used.
R
i
= food intake rate of sheep, wet diet, L/d. Given the location under
consideration, this factor was replaced by the weight of dry weight pasture which
would be consumed by sheep during the course of a day. This was estimated to be
1.5kg (Hope, 1995).
Q
j
= water intake rate of sheep, wet diet, L/d. van de Walt (1999) determined that
the water intake rate of sheep was 2.8 litres per day.
ing = ingestion absorption factor, unitless. This is an estimate of the ratio of the
quantity of lead contaminated material consumed by an organism to the quantity
of lead incorporated into its tissues. Harrison and Laxen (1981) state that
approximately 99% of that which is ingested by a sheep, will be excreted in the
faeces. Accordingly, the 1% of lead that is absorbed in the sheeps alimentary
tract can be represented as an absorption factor of 0.01.
- 72 -
F
sss
= dietary fraction of incidentally ingested soil or sediment, unitless. It has
been suggested that this could be assumed to be 20% of the daily dry weight
pasture that is consumed by the sheep. Consequently F
sss
is assumed to be 0.2
(Dr. Ruth Alcock, pers. comm., 2000).
k = number of food items, unitless. It was assumed that the grass on the control
site, TD1 or TD2 at the mine site would be the only source of food for the sheep
grazing there. Consequently a value of 1.0 was adopted for this factor.
EC
sss
= environmental concentration of lead in root soil, mg/kg. The appropriate
XRF derived data were incorporated for this factor.
EC
sw
= environmental concentration of contaminant in surface water or
groundwater in contact with roots, mg/L. Data obtained from the SDA (2000)
report were utilised.
W
i
= body weight of a sheep, kg. This was assumed to be 50kg (Dr. Ruth Alcock,
pers. comm., 2000).
k
e
= contaminant-specific depuration rate, d
-1
. The rate at which an absorbed
contaminant dose is released from tissues. A default value of 1.0 was used in all
calculations.

i
= area of use factor for a sheep grazing on the mine site, unitless. It was
assumed that the foraging area was less than or equal to the contaminated area and
consequently a default value of 1.0 was incorporated in all calculations.

i
= seasonality factor for a sheep grazing on the mine site, unitless. The fraction
of the number of days per year a sheep spends on the contaminated area. If year-
round then value is 1.0 (365 days/year).
- 73 -
Table 11: The contaminant body burden on a sheep from contaminant ingestion
depending on how many days in a year it grazes on either the control site, TD1 or
TD2.
Days Control Site TD1 TD2
0 0 0 0
50 0.0178356 0.1632837 0.158593
100 0.0356712 0.3265675 0.317186
150 0.0535068 0.4898512 0.475779
200 0.0713425 0.6531349 0.6343719
250 0.0891781 0.8164186 0.7929649
300 0.1070137 0.9797024 0.9515579
365 0.1302 1.1919712 1.1577288
- 74 -
APPENDIX D: Soil Sample Analysis Procedures and Data
Method to Determine Lead Content of Soil Samples by XRF Analysis
1. Each soil sample was dried as mentioned previously in Section 4.1 of this report. 3g of each
dry soil sample was obtained by using the coning and quartering method described in Section
4.2 of this report.
2. In order to ensure that the surface of each briquette was as smooth as possible, each sample
was ground by hand using a pestle and mortar until the whole sample could pass through a
100m sieve. The pestle and mortar were washed and dried between each sample. The sieve
was vigorously brushed between samples to discard material retained within the holes. The
bench surface was covered with bench lining paper that was replaced between each sample
preparation.
3. Each soil sample was mixed in a small beaker with 3 drops (1 or 2 for clay minerals) of a 2%
solution of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) in acetone. The mixture was vigorously stirred using a
glass rod for approximately 30 seconds. Both the beaker and the glass rod were washed and
dried between each sample.
4. The briquette was made by placing the first die in the bottom of the press. The inner ring
was placed on top of this and the ground sample poured into it before being lightly pressed
by hand with the teflon rod. The inner ring was removed and approximately 2-3g of boric
acid powder added to the press. The second die was placed in and the cast was then pressed
at 8 tons for one minute in order to allow the PVA coated grains to weld together and form a
rigid briquette.
5. After one minute, the pressure was released and the casting die inverted before removing the
bottom plate of the cast. In order to remove the briquette for analysis, a protective cap was
placed over the die and the cast repressed in the inverted position. Both dies and the inner
ring were washed between samples. The rest of the cast was wiped clean between each
sample.
Information relating to the above procedure was obtained from Mrs Vicky Burnett who also
carried out the XRF analysis of the briquettes.
- 75 -
Table 12: Geological Minors Content of Control Site Soil Samples as Determined by XRF Analysis
Element
Pb Ba
Cr Cu Nb Ni Rb Sr V Y Zn Zr W Nd Th
ppm
QC Expected 7.5 162 119 113 9.9 75 21.4 186 257 26 84 99 14.6 2.4
QC Actual 9 165.9 121 112.4 8 76.2 21.2 181.6 264.6 22.2 80 100.7 2.4 13.6 2.6
QC Mean 9 171.6 123 112.533 8.06667 76.9667 21.7667 180.833 257.56721.866781.166667 100.3 3.2 14.1667 2.43333
QC Difference -1.5 -9.6 -4 0.46667 1.83333-1.96667-0.36667 5.16667-0.566674.133332.8333333 -1.3 0.43333-0.03333
Standard deviation 0 6.32218 1.73205 0.23094 0.20817 1.00167 0.49329 0.86217 6.125630.30551 1.0408331.0583 0.75498 0.49497 0.28868
A/S1 675 459.3 281 61.5 31.5 73.4 93.7 48.6 199.8 27.1 152.8 373.4 3.7 41.9 14.8
A/S2 509 463 298 66.4 34.2 73.1 95.2 55.4 197.3 29.6 131 420 3.2 46 14.4
A/S3 115 464.3 193 48.5 30.3 78.6 113.2 14.7 210.5 28.8 133.1 322.9 4.3 39.1 16.3
A/S4 62 517.6 195 72.4 31 73.4 101.7 55.8 213.8 32.9 101.9 349.5 4 44.3 15.2
*QCE: Quality control value that was expected to be obtained; **QCA: Quality control value that was actually obtained;
***QCD: Quality control difference = QCE QCA;
LLD: value below lower limit of detection.
Blue lettering signifies when the value is above the calibration range and green lettering when it is below.
- 76 -
Table 13 : Geological Minors Content of TD1 Soil Samples as Determined by XRF Analysis
Element
Pb
Ba Cr Cu Nb Ni Rb Sr V Y Zn Zr W Nd Th
Ppm
B/S2 4362 1066.5 174 389.7 19.5 75.5 128.7 LLD 182.3 LLD 377.7 237.3 LLD 32 117.3
C/S2 3925 839.5 196 470.4 20.8 86 127.2 LLD 178.6 2.4 441.7 296.5 LLD 34.3 124.7
D/S1 4106 1053.5 208 579.4 17.3 87.5 120.3 LLD 163.4 LLD 272.1 237.4 LLD 33.1 152.5
D/S2 4169 1333.6 217 621.4 20 91.8 125.3 LLD 161.9 LLD 325.2 261.7 LLD 34.9 171.2
D/S3 1993 1148.0 26 85.4 18.2 48 175.0 LLD 202.8 7.5 1084.1 173.1 5.0 28.9 18.6
D/S4 28949 3252.1 27 565.1 10.3 676.7 135.9 LLD 240.6 LLD 16806.7 0.2 33 16 36.7
D/S5 13117 3729.0 31 258.0 16.7 217 155.9 LLD 221.7 LLD 4975.8 108.4 13.2 29 28.7
D/S6 18602 2417.2 30 1796.6 9.1 2249.9 61.1 LLD 221 LLD 57935.6 37.1 56.2 18.5 24
D/S7 21115 1102.1 21 578.9 12 557.6 133.6 LLD 212.6 LLD 12870.5 35.3 23.5 27.9 32.2
D/S8 12865 2087.1 29 232.9 17 131.5 130.5 LLD 219.2 LLD 2684.0 110.7 8.4 25.5 25.3
QC sample 9 178.4 124 112.4 8.3 76.6 22.1 181 254.7 21.8 82 101.1 3.3 14.1 2.1
*QCE: Quality control value that was expected to be obtained; **QCA: Quality control value that was actually obtained;
***QCD: Quality control difference = QCE QCA;
LLD: value below lower limit of detection.
Blue lettering signifies when the value is above the calibration range and green lettering when it is below.
- 77 -
Table 14: Geological Minors Content of TD2 Soil Samples as Determined by XRF Analysis
Element Pb Ba Cr Cu Nb Ni Rb Sr V Y Zn Zr W Nd Th
Ppm
E/S3 23681696.3 155 245.1 24.5 67.9 125.8 30.1 191 16.7 468.5 367.4 0.9 43.2 62.9
F/S2 5283 638.5 147 123.8 23.3 58 132.5 LLD 212.5 LLD 310.7 321.5 1.2 31.1 67.7
G/S1 68132219.2 92 243.7 19 77.3 129.7 LLD 193 LLD 1075.0 173.6 5.0 32.5 65.1
G/S2 119501063.9 224 394.4 18.6 91.8 104.0 LLD 177.9 LLD 563.1 204.9 0.9 27.3 152.5
G/S3 44731435.8 63 119.6 19.5 56.5 179.4 LLD 187.2 0.2 926.1 181.8 2.6 33.3 23.4
G/S4 50262802.9 25 128.7 18.8 82 167.2 LLD 207.1 LLD 1838.7 169.9 4.6 32.3 19.2
G/S5 3032 702 10 139.9 20.6 49.8 154.1 LLD 204.3 6.8 709.9 139.1 4.6 34 16.3
G/S6 10355 918.4 9 220.4 17.7 121 136.5 LLD 216 LLD 2043.5 98.4 11.6 28 24.7
G/S7 4709 614.7 11 219.1 18.3 108 136.9 LLD 199.8 LLD 2003.1 117.3 6.1 33.6 17.2
G/S8 1844 506.5 4 161.8 19.5 51.8 147.1 LLD 208.7 7.9 813.1 137.3 2.7 30.3 16.1
QC sample 9 170.5 124 112.8 7.9 78.1 22 179.9 253.4 21.6 81.5 99.1 3.9 14.8 2.6
*QCE: Quality control value that was expected to be obtained; **QCA: Quality control value that was actually obtained;
***QCD: Quality control difference = QCE QCA;
LLD: value below lower limit of detection.
Blue lettering signifies when the value is above the calibration range and green lettering when it is below.
- 78 -
APPENDIX E
Method Followed to Determine the Organic Matter Content of all Soil Samples.
1. Each soil sample was dried as mentioned previously in Section 4.1 of this
report. Approximately 2g of each dry soil sample was obtained by using
the coning and quartering method described in Section 4.2 of this report.
2. A crucible was placed on the balance and the weight noted. The sub-
sample was placed in the crucible and the weight noted again. The first
reading was subtracted from the second reading in order to determine the
initial weight of the sample. This procedure was carried out for each soil
sample. Each crucible was labelled with the number of the soil sample
contained within it.
3. The crucibles were all placed in a furnace set at 500C for two hours. A
sketch map was made of the furnace and the location of each numbered
crucible within it. This was carried out because the ink used burns off at
such a high temperature.
4. After two hours, the crucibles were removed from the furnace and placed
in a drying cupboard to allow them to cool down to room temperature. All
were identified from the map that had been previously made and their
location within the drying cupboard noted.
5. Each crucible in turn was removed from the drying cupboard and
reweighed. The weight of the final sample was obtained by deducting the
initial crucible weight reading away from this one. The weight of organic
matter for each sample was calculated by deducting the post-furnace
weight of the sample from the initial, pre-furnace weight. The percentage
of organic matter for each sample was obtained by dividing the organic
matter weight by the pre-furnace weight and then multiplying by one
hundred.
- 79 -
Table 15: Organic Matter Content of Soil Samples.
Sample Crucible Crucible + Initial Mass Crucible + Final Mass Organic Organic
Reference (g) Sample Of Sample Sample Of Sample Matter Matter
(g) (g) (g) (g) (g) %
A/S1 15.855 17.95 2.095 17.659 1.804 0.291 13.890
A/S2 12.532 14.546 2.014 14.38 1.848 0.166 8.242
A/S3 16.011 18.072 2.061 17.942 1.931 0.13 6.308
A/S4 11.836 13.757 1.921 13.688 1.852 0.069 3.592
B/S1 16.186 18.06 1.874 16.917 0.731 1.143 60.993
B/S2 16.04 18.125 2.085 17.654 1.614 0.471 22.590
B/S3 11.638 13.566 1.928 13.516 1.878 0.05 2.593
B/S4 7.019 9.021 2.002 9.001 1.982 0.02 0.999
B/S5 10.907 12.903 1.996 12.861 1.954 0.042 2.104
B/S6 11.407 13.419 2.012 13.394 1.987 0.025 1.243
C/S1 6.806 8.819 2.013 8.608 1.802 0.211 10.482
C/S2 11.635 13.561 1.926 12.855 1.22 0.706 36.656
C/S3 11.297 13.261 1.964 13.079 1.782 0.182 9.267
C/S4 10.662 12.632 1.97 12.586 1.924 0.046 2.335
C/S5 11.127 13.205 2.078 13.16 2.033 0.045 2.166
C/S6 11.055 12.995 1.94 12.93 1.875 0.065 3.351
D/S1 10.857 12.813 1.956 11.985 1.128 0.828 42.331
D/S2 11.328 13.254 1.926 12.679 1.351 0.575 29.855
D/S3 11.761 13.791 2.03 13.734 1.973 0.057 2.808
D/S4 10.867 12.796 1.929 12.741 1.874 0.055 2.851
D/S5 10.744 12.764 2.02 12.737 1.993 0.027 1.337
D/S6 7.009 8.996 1.987 8.963 1.954 0.033 1.661
D/S7 6.761 8.665 1.904 8.648 1.887 0.017 0.893
D/S8 11.33 13.3 1.97 13.279 1.949 0.021 1.066
E/S1 15.792 17.762 1.97 17.313 1.521 0.449 22.792
E/S2 16.647 18.663 2.016 17.838 1.191 0.825 40.923
E/S3 15.549 17.547 1.998 17.105 1.556 0.442 22.122
E/S4 15.734 17.69 1.956 17.604 1.87 0.086 4.397
E/S5 12.568 14.544 1.976 14.519 1.951 0.025 1.265
E/S6 13.218 15.24 2.022 15.221 2.003 0.019 0.940
E/S7 17.1 19.116 2.016 19.098 1.998 0.018 0.893
F/S1 15.903 17.916 2.013 17.698 1.795 0.218 10.830
F/S2 12.869 14.872 2.003 14.347 1.478 0.525 26.211
F/S3 15.944 17.947 2.003 17.876 1.932 0.071 3.545
F/S4 12.161 14.147 1.986 14.111 1.95 0.036 1.813
F/S5 12.002 14.065 2.063 14.035 2.033 0.03 1.454
F/S6 12.589 14.603 2.014 14.585 1.996 0.018 0.894
F/S7 13.144 15.164 2.02 15.142 1.998 0.022 1.089
F/S8 12.168 14.147 1.979 14.126 1.958 0.021 1.061
G/S1 12.982 14.955 1.973 14.609 1.627 0.346 17.537
G/S2 12.652 13.647 0.995 13.259 0.607 0.388 38.995
G/S3 12.326 14.284 1.958 14.218 1.892 0.066 3.371
G/S4 13.286 16.234 2.948 15.203 1.917 1.031 34.973
G/S5 15.921 17.858 1.937 17.838 1.917 0.02 1.033
G/S6 12.396 14.314 1.918 14.279 1.883 0.035 1.825
G/S7 11.274 13.245 1.971 13.22 1.946 0.025 1.268
G/S8 6.836 8.881 2.045 8.843 2.007 0.038 1.858
- 80 -
APPENDIX F
Method Followed to Determine Soil pH
1. Each soil sample was dried as mentioned previously in Section 4.1 of this
report. Approximately 10g of each dry soil sample was obtained by using
the coning and quartering method described in Section 4.2 of this report.
2. Approximately 10g of each soil sample was accurately weighed by
difference. A 100ml beaker was placed on the weighing balance and the
balance zeroed. 10g of dried soil was transferred to the beaker and the
weight recorded.
3. 25ml of deionised water was added to each beaker from a measuring
cylinder and samples stirred frequently by hand using a glass stirring rod,
over a period of one hour.
4. The pH meter was calibrated using pH 4.0 and 7.0 buffers. The electrodes
were washed and dried with deionised water between buffers.
5. A magnetic stirrer was placed into a beaker and placed on a low speed to
enable the soil particles to remain in suspension whilst the pH was
measured. The pH meter was carefully lowered into the soil suspension
and a pH reading obtained. When the instruments panel displayed the
letters S, T, A and B, it indicated that the pH value was considered stable
and a precise measurement of the pH of that particular soil sample. The
electrodes of the pH meter were washed and dried with deionised water
between each measurement.
- 81 -
Table 16: pH readings obtained for soil samples.
Those values in bold indicate samples obtained
from what was believed to be the organic layer
within each pit.
Sample Weight pH
Number (g)
A/S1 10.019 5.64
A/S2 9.994 5.76
A/S3 10.019 5.47
A/S4 10.014 5.69
B/S2 10.004 4.41
C/S2 9.998 4.52
D/S1 10.007 4.17
D/S2 9.994 4.15
D/S3 10.008 6.34
D/S4 9.993 6.71
D/S5 9.991 6.84
D/S6 9.956 6.74
D/S7 10.005 6.54
D/S8 9.998 6.59
E/S3 10.001 4.56
F/S2 9.966 4.92
G/S1 9.980 5.47
G/S2 9.982 5.03
G/S3 9.965 5.71
G/S4 10.010 6.59
G/S5 10.004 6.69
G/S6 10.016 6.63
G/S7 10.012 6.53
G/S8 10.003 6.67
- 82 -
APPENDIX G
Method Followed to Determine the Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples.
1. Each soil sample was dried as mentioned previously in Section 4.1 of this
report. Approximately 6g of each dry soil sample was obtained by using
the coning and quartering method described in Section 4.2 of this report.
2. A 250ml beaker was placed on the balance and the weight noted. The sub-
sample was placed in the beaker and the weight noted again. The first
reading was subtracted from the second reading in order to determine the
initial weight of the sample. This procedure was carried out for each soil
sample. Each beaker was labelled with the number of the soil sample
contained within it.
3. All the beakers were placed in a fume cupboard and 30ml of hydrogen
peroxide (6%) was slowly added to each one. A few drops of industrial
methylated spirits (IMS) were added to a beaker if there was a need to
control excess effervescence.
4. After two hours, 20ml of hydrogen peroxide was added to each beaker and
left overnight in the fume cupboard.
5. The following day, the beakers were placed on a cold hotplate. The
hotplate was then switched on and set to a low temperature. The
temperature was gradually increased to ensure that the liquid within the
beakers was always bubbling and foaming, indicating that a reaction was
occurring. The temperature was reduced again after five hours and left on
a low setting overnight. Hydrogen peroxide was added at intervals during
the day to ensure that the samples did not go dry.
6. The next day, the beakers were removed from the hotplate when the
reaction was complete and a clear supernatant was present above the
sample; and allowed to cool.
- 83 -
7. The contents of each beaker were transferred to centrifuge bottles that had
previously been labelled with the relevant sample number. A policeman
on a rod was used to wipe the sides of the beaker and ensure that no
particles were left.
8. The centrifuge bottles were loaded into the centrifuge having first ensured
that bottles positioned opposite each other balanced to within 0.1g. Any
imbalance was corrected by the addition of deionised water. The samples
were centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 1 hour.
9. After centrifuging, the supernatant within each bottle was removed using a
pipette and discarded. 25ml of IMS was added to each bottle and it was
vigorously shaken for approximately 10 seconds in order to resuspend the
sample within the bottle. The samples were centrifuged for a second time
at 2500 rpm for one hour and the supernatant was again removed and
discarded from each bottle using a pipette.
10. 30ml of 0.4% Calgon (sodium hexametaphosphate dispersant) was added
to each bottle. Each bottle was then placed in an end over end shaker, the
machine was switched on and the samples left in it overnight.
11. The following day, the end over end machine was stopped and the bottles
transferred to a large beaker in groups of eight. Each large beaker was
filled with water so that the bottles were almost totally submerged in
water. The large beakers were placed in an ultrasonic bath that had been
filled with water up to the half way mark. The bottles were placed in the
bath for five minutes before the samples were poured through a nest of
sieves into a preweighed 250ml beaker. The nest of sieves ranged in size
from 180-2000m. 0.4% Calgon was used to wash out the centrifuge
bottle and to wash the particles through the sieves. Care was taken to
ensure that no more than 30ml of Calgon was utilised. All of the sieves
were washed through between each sample.
- 84 -
12. The beaker was reweighed and the mass of the empty beaker was
subtracted from this value in order to obtain the initial mass of the fine
fraction suspension that was <180m.
13. A magnetic stirrer was placed in each beaker in turn and 10ml of the
suspension pipetted out into a preweighed crucible. The suspension in the
beaker was reweighed in order to determine the mass of the suspension
that had been removed and placed in the crucible.
14. The crucibles were placed in an oven at 100C until the samples were dry.
The crucibles were reweighed in order to calculate the dry mass of
sediment in the known mass of the suspension subsample. It was then
possible to determine the initial dry mass of the fine fraction sediment that
was in the initial total fine fraction suspension.
15. The beakers containing the fine fraction suspension were placed in an
ultrasonic bath for five minutes before being analysed by the Sedigraph.
This analysis was carried out by Mrs Vicky Burnett.
16. The material which was retained in each of the sieves within the nest of
sieves was transferred into preweighed crucibles. Deionised water was
used to ensure that all the particles were removed from each sieve. Excess
water was removed from the crucibles by using a pipette.
17. The crucibles were placed in an oven at 100C until the samples were dry.
The crucibles were then removed from the oven and reweighed. It was
then possible to calculate the dry mass of the sediment.
18. The data obtained from the two techniques (Sedigraph and wet sieving)
was combined in order to determine the grain size distribution of particles
between 1-2000m within each soil sample.
(Information provided in this Appendix has been adapted from procedure
guidelines written by Mike Kelly, 29.9.94).
- 85 -
Table 17: Mass of beaker and soil sample relating to
procedure followed for grain size analysis.
Sample Empty Beaker + Sample
reference beaker (g) sample (g) (g)
A/S1 120.38 125.85 5.47
A/S2 126.14 131.54 5.40
A/S3 120.27 127.62 7.35
A/S4 119.08 125.13 6.05
E/S3 121.85 129.17 7.32
F/S2 121.85 128.29 6.44
G/S1 122.04 127.20 5.16
G/S2 122.93 127.61 4.68
G/S3 120.84 126.69 5.85
G/S4 125.43 130.78 5.35
G/S5 120.09 127.33 7.24
G/S6 126.37 132.80 6.43
G/S7 115.71 122.25 6.54
G/S8 118.91 126.21 7.30
B/S2 119.36 125.55 6.19
C/S2 121.17 126.70 5.53
D/S1 121.44 126.76 5.32
D/S2 119.48 125.26 5.78
D/S3 122.56 128.34 5.78
D/S4 126.64 131.82 5.18
D/S5 123.41 129.78 6.37
D/S6 122.24 127.78 5.54
D/S7 122.96 129.59 6.63
D/S8 125.75 132.13 6.38
- 86 -
Table 18: Dry Mass of Sediment Fractions
Average beaker weight = 48.3374g, therefore this weight was used for beakers 35, 40, 41 and 46 in absence of the actual data.
% dried in subsample = dried sample/10ml of suspension * 100.
Dry mass of initial sample = <180m suspension/100 * % dried in subsample.
Sample Empty 250ml Beaker + <180um Empty Crucible + 10ml of Crucible Dried % dried in Dry mass of
Reference Beaker (g) <180um suspension crucible (g) 10ml of suspension +dried sample (g) subsample initial sample
suspension (g) (g) suspension (g) (g) sample (g)
A/S1 47.7080 88.0160 40.3080 22.4036 32.5189 10.1153 22.7113 0.3077 3.0419 1.2261
A/S2 50.8200 92.9860 42.1660 22.9388 32.9436 10.0048 23.0875 0.1487 1.4863 0.6267
A/S3 48.5230 93.9400 45.4170 23.0243 33.0922 10.0679 23.2378 0.2135 2.1206 0.9631
A/S4 48.5770 88.4570 39.8800 16.6356 26.9634 10.3278 17.1920 0.5564 5.3874 2.1485
B/S2 49.2165 102.8100 53.5935 17.4568 27.6151 10.1583 17.8374 0.3806 3.7467 2.0080
C/S2 50.9996 100.9300 49.9304 22.5619 32.8174 10.2555 23.1263 0.5644 5.5034 2.7479
D/S1 50.8518 97.7650 46.9132 16.3039 26.4716 10.1677 16.7021 0.3982 3.9163 1.8373
D/S2 46.7101 95.3670 48.6569 31.1995 41.3134 10.1139 31.4997 0.3002 2.9682 1.4442
D/S3 47.0920 90.7060 43.6140 17.5482 27.6286 10.0804 17.7695 0.2213 2.1953 0.9575
D/S4 49.7820 100.8400 51.0580 16.1184 26.3847 10.2663 16.7267 0.6083 5.9252 3.0253
D/S5 49.4380 94.3250 44.8870 32.6546 43.0279 10.3733 33.3891 0.7345 7.0807 3.1783
D/S6 50.5500 105.3800 54.8300 30.6777 40.7424 10.0647 30.8899 0.2122 2.1084 1.1560
D/S7 48.3547 98.6920 50.3373 17.6669 28.0421 10.3752 18.6156 0.9487 9.1439 4.6028
D/S8 47.9610 102.6300 54.6690 21.7568 32.3467 10.5899 22.9453 1.1885 11.2230 6.1355
E/S3 50.3017 116.1000 65.7983 15.3977 25.7970 10.3993 16.1654 0.7677 7.3822 4.8574
F/S2 50.5682 101.2100 50.6418 23.0807 33.2749 10.1942 23.4867 0.406 3.9827 2.0169
G/S1 49.9080 95.9280 46.0200 22.0777 32.1686 10.0909 22.4109 0.3332 3.3020 1.5196
G/S2 48.5492 110.6100 62.0608 16.9819 27.1626 10.1807 17.3851 0.4032 3.9604 2.4579
G/S3 50.6610 89.0600 38.3990 23.3514 33.4489 10.0975 23.6364 0.285 2.8225 1.0838
G/S4 39.1240 82.0360 42.9120 16.7478 26.9074 10.1596 17.0397 0.2919 2.8731 1.2329
G/S5 45.6000 97.4630 51.8630 16.4846 26.6380 10.1534 16.7127 0.2281 2.2465 1.1651
G/S6 48.0950 99.6600 51.5650 21.7908 32.0029 10.2121 22.2833 0.4925 4.8227 2.4868
G/S7 46.4230 84.5890 38.1660 21.1110 31.2074 10.0964 21.4061 0.2951 2.9228 1.1155
G/S8 47.8500 90.5670 42.7170 22.6015 32.6641 10.0626 22.8520 0.2505 2.4894 1.0634
- 87 -
Table 19: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples
Sample Size Crucible Crucible + Dry Mass Including Size as %
Reference um (g) Dry Mass (g) (g) Sedigraph of total
Dry Mass (g)
A/S1 <180 16.8452 16.9712 1.3521 2.5782 20.426402
181-212 16.9208 17.029 0.1082 0.8572402
213-500 16.0918 16.7837 0.6919 5.4817421
501-600 17.3092 17.4767 0.1675 1.3270585
601-710 16.8714 17.1189 0.2475 1.9608775
711-2000 16.9849 18.3581 1.3732 10.879503
>2000 16.3116 16.562 7.4554 59.067177
Total Dry Mass = 12.6219 g
A/S2 <180 16.4865 17.9103 2.0505 2.6772 18.51209
181-212 16.3603 16.7053 0.345 2.3855787
213-500 16.9081 17.6256 0.7175 4.9613121
501-600 16.9306 17.2191 0.2885 1.9948969
601-710 16.2215 17.3336 1.1121 7.6898609
711-2000 16.2249 16.3758 0.1509 1.0434314
>2000 17.824 18.0187 9.1707 63.41283
Total Dry Mass = 14.4619 g
A/S3 <180 16.6759 16.7977 1.0849 2.048 11.750261
181-212 16.6886 16.8888 0.2002 1.1486339
213-500 16.9855 18.1472 1.1617 6.6651749
501-600 16.8836 17.1932 0.3096 1.776309
601-710 16.1101 16.4106 0.3005 1.7240984
711-2000 16.4936 18.2965 1.8029 10.344016
>2000 17.868 18.1215 11.6065 66.591506
Total Dry Mass = 17.4294 g
A/S4 <180 17.3022 17.378 2.2243 4.3728 40.822271
181-212 18.0084 18.1123 0.1039 0.9699584
213-500 16.194 16.7412 0.5472 5.1083851
501-600 15.2857 15.4393 0.1536 1.4339327
601-710 17.9634 18.1322 0.1688 1.5758323
711-2000 17.4785 18.6806 1.2021 11.222204
>2000 16.4413 16.6117 4.1634 38.867417
Total Dry Mass = 10.7118 g
- 88 -
Table 19 contd.: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples
Sample Size Crucible Crucible + Dry Mass Including Size as %
Reference um (g) Dry Mass (g) (g) Sedigraph of total
Dry Mass (g)
B/S2 <180 16.6471 16.8949 2.2558 4.2638 65.616103
181-212 21.7559 21.8731 0.1172 1.8036041
213-500 16.3604 16.91 0.5496 8.4578569
501-600 22.9382 23.2487 0.3105 4.7783198
601-710 21.111 21.3045 0.1935 2.9777935
711-2000 16.987 17.7227 0.7357 11.321771
>2000 25.2935 25.3753 0.3278 5.0445515
Total Dry Mass = 6.4981 g
C/S2 <180 18.1637 18.2921 3.0228 5.7707 84.583364
181-212 22.4036 22.4705 0.0669 0.980579
213-500 22.9278 23.1587 0.2309 3.3843899
501-600 22.6006 22.6732 0.0726 1.0641261
601-710 21.7904 21.8397 0.0493 0.722609
711-2000 18.244 18.4238 0.1798 2.6353976
>2000 16.1184 16.1507 0.4523 6.6295346
Total Dry Mass = 6.8225 g
D/S1 <180 16.9312 17.0754 2.0799 3.9172 73.718878
181-212 17.9631 18.0598 0.0967 1.8198242
213-500 23.0238 23.3946 0.3708 6.9781885
501-600 16.4836 16.5843 0.1007 1.8951013
601-710 17.4559 17.5367 0.0808 1.5205977
711-2000 15.3971 15.6692 0.2721 5.1207257
>2000 23.3502 23.3926 0.4754 8.946685
Total Dry Mass = 5.3137 g
D/S2 <180 16.8837 17.0231 1.5353 2.9795 23.920199
181-212 16.203 16.318 0.115 0.9232498
213-500 16.9214 17.4069 0.4855 3.89772
501-600 16.0071 16.105 0.0979 0.7859666
601-710 17.6659 17.7576 0.0917 0.7361914
711-2000 16.2218 16.7624 0.5406 4.3400771
>2000 17.8246 18.0664 8.1458 65.396596
Total Dry Mass = 12.456 g
- 89 -
Table 19 contd.: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples
Sample Size Crucible Crucible + Dry Mass Including Size as %
Reference um (g) Dry Mass (g) (g) Sedigraph of total
Dry Mass (g)
D/S3 <180 16.494 16.5643 1.0278 1.9853 6.9354974
181-212 17.3096 17.6026 0.293 1.0235736
213-500 16.3464 17.85 1.5036 5.2527144
501-600 16.9083 17.3095 0.4012 1.4015623
601-710 16.6764 17.0165 0.3401 1.188114
711-2000 16.9848 18.6794 1.6946 5.9199586
>2000 16.7447 17.0301 22.4074 78.27858
Total Dry Mass = 28.6252 g
D/S4 <180 23.0803 23.096 3.041 6.0663 93.265993
181-212 18.0087 18.0527 0.044 0.6764756
213-500 16.6895 16.8441 0.1546 2.3768891
501-600 15.2863 15.3305 0.0442 0.6795505
601-710 21.1105 21.1457 0.0352 0.5411804
711-2000 16.8722 16.9956 0.1234 1.8972065
>2000 16.6464 16.683 0.0366 0.5627047
Total Dry Mass = 6.5043 g
D/S5 <180 16.9862 17.0645 3.2566 6.4349 84.298159
181-212 17.3026 17.3468 0.0442 0.5790267
213-500 16.1105 16.2171 0.1066 1.3964761
501-600 17.547 17.6037 0.0567 0.7427785
601-710 16.3035 16.3528 0.0493 0.6458374
711-2000 22.0768 22.5107 0.4339 5.6841554
>2000 16.8871 16.916 0.5079 6.6535665
Total Dry Mass = 7.6335 g
D/S6 <180 16.9816 17.171 1.3454 2.5014 45.975702
181-212 16.36 16.6865 0.3265 6.001066
213-500 21.7554 23.014 1.2586 23.133053
501-600 22.9378 23.2811 0.3433 6.3098498
601-710 17.4779 17.6553 0.1774 3.2606098
711-2000 15.3029 15.9898 0.6869 12.625214
>2000 6.4545 6.6011 0.1466 2.6945062
Total Dry Mass = 5.4407 g
- 90 -
Table 19 contd.: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples
Sample Size Crucible Crucible + Dry Mass Including Size as %
Reference um (g) Dry Mass (g) (g) Sedigraph of total
Dry Mass (g)
D/S7 <180 16.6351 16.6769 4.6462 9.249 95.139639
181-212 16.3122 16.3385 0.0263 0.2705344
213-500 16.4413 16.5566 0.1153 1.186031
501-600 16.1176 16.153 0.0354 0.3641413
601-710 16.0919 16.1364 0.0445 0.4577483
711-2000 16.1942 16.3957 0.2015 2.0727254
>2000 16.2248 16.2743 0.0495 0.5091807
Total Dry Mass = 9.7215 g
D/S8 <180 22.9278 22.9872 6.1949 12.3304 95.095015
181-212 22.6006 22.6788 0.0782 0.6030972
213-500 22.4036 22.5418 0.1382 1.0658317
501-600 22.4036 22.596 0.1924 1.4838351
601-710 18.244 18.2887 0.0447 0.3447372
711-2000 18.1637 18.3462 0.1825 1.407484
>2000 n/a
Total Dry Mass = 12.9664 g
E/S3 <180 16.0069 16.2165 5.067 9.9244 92.54469
181-212 16.6462 16.7238 0.0776 0.7236173
213-500 15.3031 15.5932 0.2901 2.7051726
501-600 16.203 16.2511 0.0481 0.4485309
601-710 18.2438 18.3069 0.0631 0.5884053
711-2000 16.346 16.5474 0.2014 1.8780481
>2000 16.8869 16.9231 0.1192 1.1115359
Total Dry Mass = 10.7239 g
F/S2 <180 22.9378 23.0958 2.1749 4.1918 61.451629
181-212 16.7453 16.8279 0.0826 1.2109129
213-500 21.1106 21.5261 0.4155 6.0912143
501-600 23.0799 23.1555 0.0756 1.1082931
601-710 22.0761 22.1509 0.0748 1.0965652
711-2000 22.6008 23.0213 0.4205 6.1645141
>2000 22.561 22.6155 1.5605 22.876871
Total Dry Mass = 6.8213 g
- 91 -
Table 19 contd.: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples
Sample Size Crucible Crucible + Dry Mass Including Size as %
Reference um (g) Dry Mass (g) (g) Sedigraph of total
Dry Mass (g)
G/S1 <180 16.3033 16.4168 1.6331 3.1527 28.712853
181-212 16.6353 16.7795 0.1442 1.3132849
213-500 16.9813 17.7344 0.7531 6.8587718
501-600 21.7555 21.9102 0.1547 1.4089125
601-710 15.3969 15.5882 0.1913 1.7422428
711-2000 17.6662 18.7184 1.0522 9.5827907
>2000 17.5468 17.8057 5.5319 50.381144
Total Dry Mass = 10.9801 g
G/S2 <180 11.8931 11.9404 2.5052 4.9631 93.463523
181-212 6.4547 6.4888 0.0341 0.6421604
213-500 22.4034 22.5425 0.1391 2.619487
501-600 21.7907 21.8151 0.0244 0.4594931
601-710 23.0234 23.0395 0.0161 0.3031901
711-2000 16.4836 16.518 0.0344 0.6478099
>2000 16.8715 16.9705 0.099 1.8643366
Total Dry Mass = 5.3102 g
G/S3 <180 16.1184 16.2135 1.1789 2.2627 12.285398
181-212 22.9281 23.0456 0.1175 0.6379698
213-500 23.3507 24.2197 0.869 4.7182617
501-600 18.1637 18.5147 0.351 1.9057651
601-710 30.6771 31.0856 0.4085 2.2179631
711-2000 17.4564 20.0195 2.5631 13.916429
>2000 31.1981 31.7051 11.846 64.318214
Total Dry Mass = 18.4178 g
G/S4 <180 15.3975 15.4671 1.3025 2.5354 15.244474
181-212 18.2433 18.3718 0.1285 0.7726256
213-500 16.9311 17.6742 0.7431 4.4680007
501-600 17.9632 18.314 0.3508 2.1092378
601-710 22.6008 22.9747 0.3739 2.2481301
711-2000 23.0796 25.4226 2.343 14.08764
>2000 16.1944 16.4193 10.1569 61.069891
Total Dry Mass = 16.6316 g
- 92 -
Table 19 contd.: Grain Size Distribution of Soil Samples
Sample Size Crucible Crucible + Dry Mass Including Size as %
Reference um (g) Dry Mass (g) (g) Sedigraph of total
Dry Mass (g)
G/S5 <180 16.9806 17.123 1.3075 2.4726 16.491256
181-212 16.7449 17.0573 0.3124 2.0835834
213-500 16.4874 18.3291 1.8417 12.283405
501-600 17.302 17.7865 0.4845 3.2314218
601-710 17.6658 18.1732 0.5074 3.3841557
711-2000 16.8717 18.8087 1.937 12.919018
>2000 16.6347 16.8805 7.4378 49.60716
Total Dry Mass = 14.9934 g
G/S6 <180 16.9081 17.0702 2.6489 5.1357 41.116849
181-212 16.8837 17.0928 0.2091 1.6740723
213-500 17.8244 18.4273 0.6029 4.8268684
501-600 16.6765 16.9026 0.2261 1.8101757
601-710 16.9215 17.1325 0.211 1.6892839
711-2000 16.4938 17.8581 1.3643 10.922701
>2000 16.092 16.3784 4.7414 37.96005
Total Dry Mass = 12.4905 g
G/S7 <180 16.0074 16.3939 1.502 2.6175 16.418482
181-212 17.3096 17.616 0.3064 1.9219189
213-500 16.2218 17.3082 1.0864 6.8145323
501-600 16.3461 16.6534 0.3073 1.9275642
601-710 16.2033 16.4823 0.279 1.7500502
711-2000 16.9851 19.0866 2.1015 13.18183
>2000 16.1106 16.8089 9.2443 57.985623
Total Dry Mass = 15.9424 g
G/S8 <180 16.6891 16.7885 1.1628 2.2262 17.427724
181-212 17.4778 17.6758 0.198 1.5500356
213-500 16.3031 17.8876 1.5845 12.404199
501-600 18.0084 18.7965 0.7881 6.1696115
601-710 15.2863 15.9092 0.6229 4.8763494
711-2000 22.0765 24.5906 2.5141 19.681538
>2000 15.303 15.7781 4.8401 37.890542
Total Dry Mass = 12.7739 g
- 93 -
Table 20: Cumulative mass finer (%) and spherical diameter ( in m) for
soil samples.
Reference/
Grain size <5 <10 <20 <50 <100 <200
A/S1 51.1 61.3 72.2 93.3 99.3 98.5
A/S2 Sample contamination meant analysis not possible
A/S3 32.3 40.3 50.4 74.3 93.9 100.8
A/S4 36.9 59.2 95.2 107.9 110.7
B/S2 55.8 66.6 77.1 92.1 99.9 101.6
C/S2 54.5 65.8 76.8 92.4 98.2 99.9
D/S1 39.8 51.9 66.4 91.2 102.9 105.2
D/S2 40.4 53.7 67.4 88.5 100.9 104.1
D/S3 44.2 48.1 54.9 71.4 88.2 89.5
D/S4 53.5 70.1 88.4 99.2 100 0
D/S5 34.8 44.3 55.5 82.2 98.3 102.2
D/S6 22.4 27.7 34.9 59.3 92.5 104
D/S7 53 66.3 81.9 97.3 99.5 99.8
D/S8 27 32.2 43.5 83.7 100.8 104.5
E/S3 48.6 57.6 68.2 87.2 97.7 100.5
F/S2 41 52 64.7 86.9 99.8 103.3
G/S1 57.3 67.8 77.3 91.6 98.5 99.7
G/S2 58.3 69.6 80.1 94.2 100.4 0
G/S3 65.4 70.9 76.4 88.4 98.6 101.1
G/S4 53.1 56.5 60.4 74.3 95.8 102.7
G/S5 36.1 37.5 39.1 57 90.5 0
G/S6 37.3 42.4 49.3 72.1 96.6 105.5
G/S7 46.5 48.8 50.7 65.8 91.7 104.8
G/S8 48.7 52.5 52.9 63.9 85.8 97.2
- 94 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who have
generously offered their time and assistance during the course of this dissertation.
Firstly, Dr. Andrew Binley for his help and advice throughout all the stages of this
piece of work. Vicky Burnett for carrying out the XRF and sedigraph analysis on
the soil samples. Anne Robinson for her help and patience when I was working in
the laboratories. Dr. Ruth Alcock for the information she was able to provide with
regard to adopting a suitable ingestion calculation to determine the contamination
risk posed to sheep grazing on the mine site. The Environment Agency, Helen
Kember and Robert Maxwell for allowing me to reference their investigations into
different aspects of the Greenside Lead Mine. Ian Tyler for his informative and
entertaining tour of the mine site. Guy Weller for offering his time so generously
in order to increase my understanding of the contamination risks associated with
the mine site and the reports he made available for research and reference.
Finally, my thanks go to my family including my uncle Dr. David Burnett, all of
whom have provided unstinting support throughout the duration of this piece of
work.