robert maxwell (2001)

A hydrochemical study of the

Glenridding Beck catchment in order to

address chemical fluxes entering the

system as a result of past mining activity.

John Robert Maxwell

This thesis is submitted in part fulfilment

of the requirements for the BSc degree in

Environmental Management at the

University of Lancaster.

December, 2000

John Robert Maxwell

Abstract

Extensive lead mining has taken place at Greenside Mine for over 200 years

until its closure in 1962. The mine is located in the centre of the Glenridding

Beck catchment, which is situated in centre of the Lake District National Park

at the southern end of Lake Ullswater in to which the catchment drains. As a

result of mining activities extensive heavy metal pollution has occurred in the

surface waters in the catchment and subsequently Lake Ullswater from which

water is abstracted for water supply. The hydrology of the catchment was

investigated using the methods of dilution and volumetric gauging, monitoring

the effects of rainfall and a flood frequency analysis. In conjunction with the

discharge measurements lead and zinc concentrations were obtained in order to

predict metal fluxes and subsequently outline the main sources of pollution

within the catchment. Discharges and metal concentrations were obtained on

three occasions in order to assess change with changing catchment conditions.

Results indicate that Swart Beck, a tributary of Glenridding Beck, is the main

source of pollution with subsequent inputs also entering the system from the

disused mine and tailings drainage. Results also indicate that during periods of

high discharges, pH is reduced and subsequently lead is mobilised from

sediments leading to elevated concentrations and thus larger metal fluxes.

Combination of discharge and metal concentrations suggested annual inputs of

141.1kg Pb/yr and 271.9kg Zn/yr in to Lake Ullswater. Although metal

concentrations are not excessive potentially high mass have been occurring for

over 200 years. Climate and landuse change could have significant impacts on

lead mobilisation in the future.

John Robert Maxwell

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Location 1

1.2 Geology 2

1.3 Background 4

1.4 Catchment Overview 8

1.5 Aims & Objectives 10

1.6 Organisation 11

2. Experimental Methods 12

2.1 Introduction 12

2.2 Sites Investigated 12

2.3 Hydrological Measurements 21

2.4 Water Sampling & Analysis 25

2.5 Rainfall Event Monitoring 28

2.6 Other Data Sources 31

3. Results 33

3.1 Experimental Results 33

3.2 Hydrochemical Change 33

3.3 Rainfall Event Monitoring 37

3.4 Experimental Errors 44

3.5 Analytical Results 46

4. Flood Frequency Analysis 49

4.1 Introduction 49

4.2 Method 49

4.3 Results 50

4.4 Summary 52

John Robert Maxwell

5. Discussion 54

5.1 Introduction 54

5.2 Hydrochemical Change 54

5.3 Water Quality 68

6. Summary and Conclusions 71

References 73

Acknowledgements 75

Appendix A – Procedures 76

Appendix B – Water Analysis 80

Appendix C – pH and Electrical Conductivity Readings 92

Appendix D – Rainfall Event Monitoring Readings 94

Appendix E – Environment Agency Data 98

Appendix F – Rainfall Readings 103

List of Figures

1.1 The location of the Glenridding Beck Catchment. 1

1.2 Map of the Glenridding Beck Catchment. 3

1.3 Spoil on the site of the High Mill. 5

1.4 The resultant tailings dams and the Low Mill site. 6

1.5 Concerned mining features in the catchment. 7

1.6 Downstream Glenridding Beck. 8

1.7 Upstream Glenridding Beck. 9

1.8 Swart Beck. 9

2.1 Schematic map of the sampling points investigated. 13

2.2 Site 1. 14

2.3 Site 2. 14

2.4 Site 3. 15

2.5 Site 4. 16

2.6 Site 5. 17

2.7 Site 6. 17

2.8 Site 7. 18

John Robert Maxwell

2.9 Site 8. 18

2.10 Site 9. 19

2.11 Site 10. 19

2.12 Site 11. 20

2.13 Site 12. 20

2.14 Gulp injection of the dye Rhodamine WT. 22

2.15 The dilution gauging procedure. 23

2.16 The fluorometer logging Rhodamine concentrations. 24

2.17 Volumetric Gauging. 25

2.18 The components of the Flame AAS. 27

2.19 Typical components & output signal of the Graphite Flame AAS. 27

2.20 Schematic diagram showing the basis of the dilution model. 30

3.1 Lead concentrations obtained by the Environment Agency. 38

3.2 Zinc concentrations obtained by the Environment Agency. 39

3.3 Graph showing daily rainfall. 40

3.4 Rainfall Event Monitoring results obtained between 1/7/00-10/7/00. 41

3.5 Rainfall Event Monitoring results obtained between 1/8/00-11/8/00. 42

3.6 Rainfall Event Monitoring results obtained between 1/9/00 –9/9/00. 43

3.7 Q6/Q7 Flow ratios between 8/8/00-11/8/00. 47

3.8 Q6/Q7 Flow ratios between 5/9/00-8/9/00. 47

4.1 Estimated Flood Frequency Curve for Glenridding Beck. 51

4.2 Estimated Flood Frequency Curve for Swart Beck. 52

5.1 Lead concentrations over the sampling period. 60

5.2 Zinc concentrations over the sampling period. 60

5.3 pH readings over the sampling period. 62

5.4 Solution concentrations of lead as a function of pH. 63

5.5 Lead and zinc concentration in bed sediments. 65

5.6 Western tailings failure. 68

John Robert Maxwell

List of Tables

3.1 Discharges obtained on 20/03/00. 33



3.4 Sampling Results. 35

3.5 Sampling Results. 36

3.6 Qt/Qb dilution factors. 48

4.1 Catchment characteristics for the two catchment. 50

4.2 Regional growth factors for the North West region. 50

4.3 Flood Studies Report Estimates. 51

5.1 Flow proportions over the sampling period. 55

5.2 Lead and zinc chemical fluxes. 58

5.3 Metal concentrations in soil and tailings material. 66

5.4 Drinking water standards. 69

1 John Robert Maxwell

1. Introduction

Extensive lead mining has taken place in the centre of the Glenridding

Beck catchment for over 200 years. During this time and to the present

day the surrounding water courses and subsequently Lake Ullswater

must have been subject to extensive heavy metal pollution.

Water is abstracted from Lake Ullswater by North West Water for the

supply of water to the Manchester area. Ullswater is also important for

a number of other important factors, it is home to the rare Schelly fish

which is protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, the

lake is part of the River Eden SSSI and for recreational purposes. In all

Lake Ullswater is an important water resource.

1.1 Location

Glenridding is a small village situated in the centre of the Lake District

National Park at the southern end of Lake Ullswater. The Glenridding

Beck Catchment drains an area of 8.37km2 including the eastern slopes

of Helvellyn and surrounding high level topography in to Lake

Ullswater. The valley lies adjacent to Glencoynedale to the north and

Grisedale to the south. Fig 1.1 shows the location of the Glenridding

Beck catchment and fig 1.2 shows a map of the catchment area.

The location of

the catchment

Fig 1.1, The location of the Glenridding Beck Catchment.


Situated in the Glenridding Beck catchment is the extensive, but

disused workings of the Greenside Lead Mine. Greenside Mine is

situated approximately 2km west of the village of Glenridding near to

the confluence of Swart Beck with Glenridding Beck, see fig 1.2 for the

catchment area and locations.

1.2 Geology

The bedrock within the Glenridding Beck catchment is made up of

three main rock types, the Borrowdale Volcanics, the Skiddaw Slates

and Granite. It is only the Borrowdale Volcanic that appear on the

surface within the catchment. These were laid down during volcanic

activity on to older sedimentary rock, the Skiddaw Slates. A later

period of geological activity saw the Lake District dome raised by a

large magma chamber, which cooled and crystallised about 390Ma to

form the Granite intrusion. These two volcanic intrusions caused

contact metamorphism on the surrounding country rock to form the

Skiddaw Slates, although both the Skiddaw slates and the Granite are

still deeply buried under the surface within the catchment.

The Caledonian Orgeny and the Hercynian Orgeny, (mountain building

events) caused folding, fracturing and faulting of the rock. These faults

and fractures allowed water to percolate through and if conditions were

right as they must have been at Greenside a variety of minerals were

deposited to form mineral veins. The veins deposited at Greenside were

of considerable value and size and subsequently the mine exists.

Within the valley are extensive areas of superficial deposits. Glacial,

fluvioglacial and fluvial deposits all feature in the valley. Man has also

significantly altered the geomorphology of the catchment; extensive

spoil heaps have been developed as a result of mining activity.

Fig 1.2, Map of the Glenridding Beck Catchment, the catchment boundary is shown by the line. “Reproduced from Ordnance Survey maps by permission of OrdnanceSurvey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright NC/00/1265”

34 35 36 37 3938

15

16

17

18

North1:25000


1.3 Background

Information contained within the background was obtained from

Adams (1988), Murphy (1996) and Tyler (1998).

1.3.1 Mining History

Both Shaw (1970) in Murphy (1996) and Tyler (1998) suggest that lead

mining is thought to have begun in approximately 1690 but

Postlethwaite (1913) suggests the later stages of the eighteenth century

(Murphy 1996). Earliest Mining began in the upper reaches of the

Swart Beck catchment on the Greenside Fell from where its name was

derived. As mining progressed workings moved gradually down the

valley, the main mine entrance was the Lucy Tongue Level located near

to the confluence of Swart Beck with Glenridding Beck at NGR NY

364175 (see fig 1.2). Tyler (pers com, 11/05/00) noted that the mine

was a prolific producer of lead for over two centuries due to the extent

of rich ore veins at Greenside. The mine finally closed in 1962. The

lower part of the Greenside area is now owned and managed by the

Lake District National Park (LDNP) and the upper part of the site is

jointly owned by the Lake District National Park and the National

Trust. After the site was acquired by the LDNP the site was extensively

landscaped, many buildings knocked down and dangerous areas fenced.

1.3.2 Mining operations and Spoil disposal

During the mines life, extraction and crushing procedures continued to

be improved. Ore from early operations was crushed and sorted by

hand on picking floors, which can still be identified today in the upper

Swart Beck catchment. Two mills, the High and Low were developed

as mechanical crushing and washing plants, the high mill was

abandoned as mining operations moved down the valley. Prior to 1940

there was no recognition of any settling ponds at Greenside, both Tyler

(pers comm 11/05/00) and Murphy (1996) both indicate that


watercourses ran white due to suspended solids. This was due to waste

being discharged directly in to Swart Beck from the crushing plants. It

was not until 1940 after numerous complaints that waste was contained.

Tailings dams were constructed on either side of Swart Beck. The dams

consisted of embankments to contain waste slimes and sluges, water

was then allowed to drain off leaving the waste behind.

It is therefore inevitable that extensive heavy metal pollution must have

occurred within the surface water streams below the mine prior to 1940

and to a less extent after this date. It is the tailings dams that are

thought to be the greatest threat water quality today due to their high

heavy metal content and recent failures. Scott Doherty (1999) and Guy

Weller, (Site Manager LDNP pers comm, 09/06/00) suggest a capping

scheme using a geosynthetic clay liner on both of the resultant tailings

dams to prevent water entering the tailings material. Fig 1.3 shows the

spoil, still devoid of any vegetation on the site of the high mill and the

large collapses in the background. Fig 1.4 shows the resultant tailings

dams on either side of Swart Beck.

Fig 1.3, Spoil on the site of the High Mill and the large collapses in the

background. Photo taken at NGR NY 359178 looking North. The

location can be seen on figs 1.2 and 1.5.


Tailings Dam 2 (West). Swart Beck Tailings Dam 1 (East)

.

LucyTonguelevelentrance

Fig 1.4, The resultant Tailings Dams and the site of the Low Mill. Photo

taken at NGR NY 363172 looking North East. The location can be seen on

figs 1.2 and 1.5.

1.3.3 Water Resources

The mine made extensive use of natural water supplies for its source of

power and for mining operations. Three dams were developed for water

supply; the first was the Top Dam, located in the valley floor of the

upper Swart Beck catchment it supplied the High Mill, the LHLM and

the LTLM. The second was an extensive system of Leats and the third

was the damming of Red Tarn, which supplemented the large reservoir

at Kepple Cove to provide hydroelectric power for the mine and the

village. Greenside mine had a poor record with its dams. In 1877 it is

though that the Top dam was breached, in 1927 the Kepple Cove dam

was breached and again, after repairs, in 1931 (Tyler pers comm.

11/05/00). Both Tyler (1998) and Murphy (1996) indicate the extensive

damage caused by these dam failures to the mine and the village, they

must have also had a large impact on pollution in the catchment. The

remains of the top dam, the Kepple Cove dam and the leat systems can

still be seen today. Leats were man made channels used to carry water

to a desired location. The schematic map shown in fig 1.5 outlines the

catchment and the location of mining features discussed.

The site of theLow Mill


Gle

nrid

ding

Bec

k

Sw

art B

eck

Re d

T

arn

Lak

e U

llsw

ater

Red

Tar

n B

eck

Gle

nrid

ding

Bec

k

Cat

chm

ent b

ound

ary

Top

Dam

(di

suse

d)

Kep

ple

Cov

eD

am (

disu

sed)

Red

Ta r

nD

am (

disu

sed)

Hig

h M

ill

Tai

lings

Dam

s

Nor

th

Col

laps

es

Fig

1.5,

Map

of c

once

rned

feat

ures

in th

e ca

tchm

ent.

Scal

e 1:

2 500

0

Hig

h H

ors

e L

evel

Min

e

Lo

w H

ors

e L

evel

Min

e

Lu

cy T

on

gu

eL

evel

Min

e


1.4 Catchment Overview

Glenridding Beck lies in the floor of a large glaciated valley with steep,

rocky valley sides. Glenridding Beck rises from Lake Ullswater

through the village of Glenridding and rises steeply up to Brown and

Kepple Cove. Glenridding Beck has two main tributaries, the Red Tarn

Beck and Swart Beck (in which the mine Greenside is situated), and

many more perennial streams. The Glenridding and Red Tarn Beck

drain the eastern slopes of Helvellyn. Glacial deposits have led to the

development of marshy areas in flat upper valley areas, Red Tarn is a

glacial tarn and the areas of Kepple Cove and the upper Swart Beck

area both feature marshy areas which were used as dam sites during

mining times.

Glenridding Beck and Swart Beck are typical high energy mountain

streams with a wide range of discharges. Their beds are generally rough

and boulder strewn over their entire course, Glenridding Beck has an

average slope of 0.12m/km and Swart Beck 0.11m/km. Figs 1.5 – 1.7

give an indication of the stream types and their characteristics.

Eastern Tailings dam Glenridding Beck

Swart Beck Western Tailings dam

Fig 1.6, Downstream Glenridding Beck. Photo taken at NGR NY

362176 looking South East


Red Tarn Beck Glenridding Beck

Western Tailings dam

Fig 1.7, Upstream Glenridding Beck, also showing the confluence with

Red Tarn Beck. Photo taken at NGR NY 364174 (Top of Western

Tailings dam) looking South West.

Western Tailings dam

Swart Beck

Eastern Tailings dam

Lucy Tongue Level

entrance

Fig 1.8, Swart Beck, the confluence with Glenridding Beck is in the

extreme bottom right. Photo taken at NGR NY 366176 looking North

West.

Locations for figs 1.6-1.8 can be identified on fig 1.2 and 1.5.


The catchment is consisted of relatively impermeable rocks with thin

soil cover and unimproved grassland. This tends to indicate high runoff

rates, little infiltration to groundwater and low evapotranspiration rates.

The climate in the catchment is harsh; the annual rainfall is

approximately 2500mm and during the winter month’s high ground is

often frozen.

In 1992 a hydroelectric scheme was developed to provide electricity for

the village at Glenridding. A weir was constructed at NGR NY 363173

in order for water to be abstracted, water is transferred by pipeline to

the power station situated at NGR NY 378169 where the water is

returned after use to Glenridding Beck. The scheme is only permitted to

operate when the discharge at the weir is greater that 60l/s.

1.5 Aims and Objectives

The purpose of this study is to assess the hydrology of the catchment in

order to assess the relative contribution of polluted inputs in to Swart

Beck and Glenridding Beck and metal fluxes entering Lake Ullswater.

This will be done using the following aims:

• To measure the discharge of watercourses in the catchment under

different climatic conditions.

• To take and analyse surface water samples at the discharge

measurement points and selected others for lead and zinc

concentrations.

• To assess the catchment response to rainfall events.

These aims should allow the main sources of surface water pollution to

be identified, their relative inputs in to Swart Beck and Glenridding

Beck, any changes in water chemistry moving downstream, and most


importantly the effect of heavy metal pollution on Lake Ullswater. In

order to achieve these aims water sampling and discharge

measurements are to be undertaken on three separate occasions in an

attempt to obtain results under different climatic and catchment

conditions.

A number of other studies have been carried out concerning

environment implications of Greenside mine in which their results will

aid those of this study, these are as follows:

• The Environment Agency produced a report for the LDNP on the

impact of discharges from Greenside Mine and spoil heaps into

surrounding watercourses and Lake Ullswater. This report presents

heavy metal concentrations in surface waters in the Glenridding

Beck catchment.

• Scott Doherty Associates produced a report for the LDNP titled

Greenside Mine, Glenridding Geo-environmental and Structural

assessment. This report covers a wide range of heavy metal

concentrations in the Greenside area.

• A BSc dissertation project produced by Kember (2000) investigated

heavy metal concentrations contained within sediments in Swart

Beck, Glenridding Beck and Lake Ullswater.

1.6 Organisation

This report will begin the methods employed in order to identify study

sites and the detailed investigation carried out at each of these sites.

Following sections will outline the results obtained, analytical methods

and a discussion section presenting an interpretation of the results and

findings. Conclusions will be drawn relating to relative heavy metal

pollution in the catchment in the final section.


2. Experimental Methods

2.1 Introduction

The experimental methods used within this study are explained and

discussed in this chapter. The first section identifies the sampling sites

used and their selection criteria, following sections outline methods

used for investigation.

2.2 Sites investigated

The following section gives an account of the sampling sites

investigated. Fig 2.1 shows a schematic map of the sampling locations

used for investigation, following this each site is characterised and its

selection criterior is outlined. A figure is presented with each site

description, these also indicate more specifically some of the catchment

characteristics discussed in section 1.4. Sites 1-12 were sampled on

three occasions and sites 13-16 were only sampled on one occasion in

an attempt to investigate the upper Swart Beck catchment; a general

site description and their selection criterior are outlined. Grid reference

locations can be identified on fig 1.2.

Site 1, is located on Glenridding Beck, above the footbridge and the

hydro dam and upstream of any mining activity at NGR NY362173.

This site was selected for background concentrations as no significant

mining activity has been conducted above this point. Fig 2.2 shows site

1.


12

3

45

67

89

1011

12

1314

1516

Gle

nrid

ding

Bec

kL

ake

Ulls

wat

er

Swart Beck

12

4

5

67

8

Wes

tern

Tai

lings

dam

Eas

tern

Tai

lings

dam

Swar

t Bec

k

Gle

nrid

ding

Bec

k

Hy

dro

Dam

Fo

otB

rid

ge

Fig

2.1,

Sch

emat

ic m

aps

of th

e sa

mpl

ing

poin

ts in

vest

igat

ed.

Nor

th

010

0m

0

100m

200

m


Fig 2.2, Site 1, upstream Glenridding Beck. Photo looking upstream.

Site 2, located at NGR NY 365173 and is situated on Glenridding Beck

immediately above the confluence with Swart Beck. This site was used

to assess the change in the water chemistry of Glenridding Beck as it

passes the western tailings dam and to indicate the impact of the input

of Swart Beck on Glenridding Beck. This site also provides data for

chemical balances. Fig 2.3 shows site 2.

Fig 2.3, Site 2, Glenridding Beck upstream of confluence with Swart

Beck. Photo looking upstream.


Site 3 is located immediately below the Low Horse Level entrance on

Swart Beck at NGR NY 363178. This site was selected to provide metal

concentrations from the upper Swart Beck catchment, the site is also

situated above the tailings dams, this will allow their inputs into Swart

beck to be assessed. Fig 2.4 shows site 3

Fig 2.4, Site, Swart Beck downstream of Low Horse Level. Photo

looking upstream.

Site 4 is the discharge from the Lucy Tongue Level mine situated at

NGR NY 364175. This site was selected to assess the input of metals

from drainage of the mine. The discharge can also be easily obtained

here. Fig 2.5 shows site 4.


Fig 2.5, Site 4, mine drainage from the Lucy Tongue Level. Photo

taken looking West, the foot of the western tailings dam is situated

behind the wall in the distance.

Site 5 is located at NGR NY 365175 and is situated on Swart Beck

immediately before the confluence with Glenridding Beck. This site

was selected to assess the change in the metal concentrations from site

3 as Swart beck passes the tailings dams and the mine drainage, site 4.

This site will provide the total metal inputs of Swart beck in to

Glenridding Beck. This site was also selected due to its suitability for

discharge measurement. Fig 2.6 shows site 5.

Site 6 is located at NGR NY 355174 on Glenridding Beck

approximately 40-50 meters downstream of the confluence with Swart

Beck to allow sufficient mixing before sampling. This site was selected

in order to assess the influence of Swart Beck on Glenridding Beck and

thus the dilution effect of the input. Fig 2.7 shows site 6.


Fig 2.6, site 5, Swart Beck before the confluence with Glenridding

Beck. Photo looking upstream, the confluence is immediately below the

photo.

Fig 2.7, Site 6, Glenridding Beck, downstream of confluence with

Swart Beck. Photo looking upstream, the western tailings dam is

behind the building in the top of the photo.

Site 7 is located at NGR NY 367175 on the eastern tailings dam drain

before it enters Glenridding Beck. This site was selected to address the

effect of the tailings material on surface water, discharge measurements

can also be conducted at this site. Fig 2.8 shows site 7.


Fig 2.8, Site 7, eastern tailings dam drain. Photo looking North, the

eastern tailings dam is above the trees in the background.


approximately 40-50 meters downstream of the confluence with the

eastern tailings dam drain. This site was used to assess the impact of

the eastern tailings dam drain on Glenridding Beck and thus the

dilution affect. Fig 2.9 shows the site.

Fig 2.9, Site 8, Glenridding Beck, downstream of eastern tailings dam

drain. Photo looking upstream.


Site 9 is situated at NGR NY 374172 on Glenridding Beck

approximately 50 meters upstream of the footbridge. This site was

selected to monitor any change in water characteristics as Glenridding

Beck moves away from the mine. Fig 2.10 shows the site.

Fig 2.10, Site 9, Glenridding Beck above footbridge. Photo looking

upstream.

Site 10 is situated at NGR NY 379169 on Glenridding Beck at the

western end of Gillside Farm Caravan site. Again this site was

selected to monitor any change occurring in the water characteristics.

Fig 2.11 shows site 10.

Fig 2.11, Site 10, Glenridding Beck at Gillside Caravan Site. Photo

looking upstream.



immediately prior to the confluence with Lake Ullswater. This site aims

to address the metal concentrations entering Lake Ullswater from

Glenridding Beck. Fig 2.12 shows the site.

Fig 2.12, Site 11, Glenridding Beck before the confluence with Lake

Ullswater. Photo looking upstream, the confluence is just to the right of

the photo.

Site 12 is Lake Ullswater located at NGR NY 392172 approximately

50-60 meters south on the shore line of the confluence of Glenridding

Beck with Lake Ullswater. This site was used to assess the impact of

Glenridding Beck and thus Greenside mine on the water quality in Lake

Ullswater. Fig 2.13 shows the site.

Fig 2.13, Lake Ullswater. Photo looking South West, the confluence of

Glenridding Beck is to the left of the photo.


Site 13 is situated at NGR NY 362179 on Swart Beck, upstream of the

Low Horse Level entrance. This site was selected to assess the input

from the Low Horse Level entrance and inputs form further upstream.

Site 14 is situated on Swart Beck immediately below the site of the

High Mill, (shown on fig 1.3) located at NGR NY 362178. This site

was used to assess the inputs from the spoil left on the site of the High

Mill.

Site 15 is located at NGR NY 362179 on Swart Beck above the site of

the High Mill, this site in conjunction with site 14 will determine the

influence of the spoil on metal concentrations in Swart Beck.

Site 16 is situated on Swart Beck above the top dam and consequently

above most mining activity at NGR NY 361179. This site will act as a

background levels for Swart Beck.

Water sampling and discharge measurements were undertaken on

20/03/00, 23/5/00 and 13/06/00 in an attempt to obtain results under

different catchment conditions. A more specific sampling program took

place on 11/05/00 concentrating on the Swart Beck catchment no

discharge measurements were obtained on this day.

2.3 Hydrological Measurements

In order to assess the hydrology of the catchment the methods of

dilution gauging and volumetric gauging were used measure discharge

at given points. A flood frequency analysis and monitoring the effects

of rainfall were also undertaken to further understand the hydrology in

the catchment.


2.3.1 Dilution Gauging

Dilution gauging is an alternative method to velocity area

measurements; it is more appropriate in high turbulence, high velocity

and in rocky or boulder strewn streams such as Swart and Glenridding

Beck’s as no cross sectional area is required but good mixing properties

are. It was therefore most appropriate to use this method.

Dilution gauging is based on the dilution of a known volume and

concentration of a tracer when applied to the flow. The method can be

carried out using a constant rate method or a gulp method; in this case

the latter was used which is an instantaneous injection. The dye

Rhodamine WT was used as a tracer in this case. The concentration of

Rhodamine WT can be determined using a fluorometer located 30-50

meters downstream of the injection point depending upon the mixing

properties of the stream. The 10AU fluorometer manufactured by

Turner Designs was used. The fluorometer was set to log

concentrations every 2 seconds. A known mass M of the dye

Rhodamine WT (around 100mg mixed with stream water) was injected

approximately 30-40 meters upstream of the fluorometer, see fig 2.14

for the Rhodamine WT gulp injection.

Fig 2.14, The gulp injection of the dye Rhodamine WT. Photo taken

approximately 40 meters upstream of site 1.


Background concentration Cb (ML-3) was previously logged for five

minutes by the fluorometer as is the tracer concentration Ct (ML-3) until

the levels return to those of background, which depending on the

discharge was approximately 30-40 minutes. See fig 2.15 (below) for

the equipment set-up and fig 2.16 for the fluorometer logging

Rhodamine concentrations.

The discharge is then calculated from:

∫ −=

)dtC(C

MQ(l/s)

bt

Where the term ∫ − dtCC bt )( is the area under the graph and is

estimated using the trapezium rule:

++×= ∑

−

= 2

CC

2

CtArea

N1N

2i

i1

Where the time axis is split in to N-1 intervals of time t and Ci is the

concentration (Ct-Cb) at time ti.

Dilution gauging was carried out at sites 1, 5, 6 and 9, during the three

sampling days. At each site two cycles were completed.

Fig 2.15, The dilution gauging procedure for the gulp injection. Source:

Gregory & Walling (1973).


Fig 2.16, The fluorometer logging Rhodamine concentrations on

Glenridding Beck. Photo taken at site 6.

Rhodamine is a toxic chemical and injecting this chemical in to natural

water courses can have negative consequences, but due to the

concentrations used (approx. 100mg) its effect will be minimal.

Considering this, approval had to be gained from the Environment

Agency in order to conduct dilution gauging; this was done through the

regional office at Ghyll Mount, Penrith, who approved the request.

Handling of the Rhodamine had to be done wearing suitable protective

clothing, gloves and safety glasses. A Control Of Substances

Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994 was also carried in

conjunction with the Rhodamine WT. The procedure for this can be

seen in appendix A.

2.3.2 Volumetric Gauging

Volumetric gauging is a direct measurement of discharge suitable for

estimating sites with a low discharge. Using a suitable container and a

stop watch a set volume of water is collected and the time taken is

recorded, the discharge is then simply:

Discharge (l/s)=(seconds) Time

(litres) Volume


Volumetric gauging was used at sites 7, and 4 on the three sampling

days. At both sites three discharges were obtained and the average

taken. fig 2.17 shows volumetric gauging in processes at site 4.

Fig 2.17, Volumetric Gauging at site 4.

2.3.3 Rainfall measurement

Daily rainfall measurements are available from my own personal

records. Rainfall is recorded at 8am for the previous 24 hours in a daily

storage gauge. The raingauge is situated in the catchment near the

village of Glenridding at NGR NY 381172.

2.4 Water sampling and analysis

2.4.1 Water Sampling

Water samples were taken at each of the twelve sites referred to in

section 2.2 on each of the three sampling days. Samples were taken in

60ml acid washed bottles and on return to the lab the sample was made

1% acidic with concentrated nitric acid. This is to preserve the sample

in its original condition i.e. to resist any metals sorbing on to sediments

or the bottle walls. Samples were kept in the fridge prior to analysis.


2.4.2 Water analysis

Water samples taken at each of the twelve sites were analysed for lead

and zinc concentrations. This was done using flame atomic absorption

spectrometry (Flame AAS) to analyse zinc concentrations and graphite

furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS) for lead

concentrations. Spectrometry methods of analysis are based on the

interaction of electromagnetic radiation and the atoms and molecules

that make up the sample. The electromagnetic radiation is passed

through the sample and is absorbed by the sample and thus reduced,

therefore the greater the absorption the greater the concentration of the

desired metal.

Absorption is linearly related to concentration, therefore both methods

require the preparation of standard solutions. Diluting with distilled

water a 1000ppm zinc and lead solution in to concentrations covering

the entire range of the samples allows the absorption of set

concentrations to be obtained and thus a linear regression model can be

fitted to calculate the concentrations of the samples from their

absorption values (see appendix A for a full procedure). A set of blank

solution’s (distilled water), 10 for flame AAS and 5 for GFAAS, are

also used to correct the absorbency of the standards.

Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

Flame AAS was used to determine the zinc concentration within the

water samples. Fig 2.18 shows a schematic diagram of the typical flame

AAS. The radiation source is a hollow cathode lamp in which the

cathode is constructed of the same material as the metal being analysed.

The flame evaporates the water leaving the metal containing

compounds, which absorb the radiation, and thus is then detected and

the absorption is recorded.


Fig 2.18, The components of the Flame Atomic Absorption

Spectrometer. Source: Radojevic & Bashkin (1999)

Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

Graphite furnace AAS involves electrothermal atomisation inside a

graphite tube instead of a flame atomisation (Radojevic & Bashkin

1999), fig 2.19 shows a schematic diagram of a typical GFAAS. This

technique is much more sensitive than that of flames AAS; detection

limits are in the region of 100 – 1000 times lower with GFAAS

atomisation (Radojevic & Bashkin 1999). The lowest detection for lead

in flame AAS is 1ppm where as most of the samples only contain 0-

100ppb therefore GFAAS was used to obtain lead concentrations. In

operation (10-100µl) is inserted into the furnace via a transverse hole

on to a platform. This ensures uniform, reproducible heating profile for

the sample and improves the precision of the measurements.

Fig 2.19, Typical components and output signal of a graphite furnace

atomic absorption. Source: Manahan, S.E. (1988). Quantatitive

Analyitical Chemistry in Fifield & Haines (2000)


2.4.3 pH & Electrical Conductivity

At each of the 12 sites, as described in section 2.2 pH and electrical

conductivity readings were taken in conjunction with the water

sampling on each of the sampling days. Readings were obtained on site

using hand held meters, which were calibrated before use. The

Radiometer PHM 201 was used for pH measurements, this has a

resolution of ±0.01 and a WPA CMD 200 electrical conductivity meter

was used with a resolution of ±0.1µs/cm. One pH reading and three

electrical conductivity readings were taken at each site.

pH measures the concentration of H+ ions in the water and is used to

express the acidity or alkalinity of the solution. Electrical conductivity

is a measure of the ability of water to convey an electrical current.

Conductivity is an approximate measure of the concentration of

inorganic substances within the water and thus can be substituted as a

measurements of total dissolved solids (TDS).

2.5 Rainfall Event Monitoring

Further assessment of the hydrology within the catchment was sought

by the monitoring of electrical conductivity, before, during and after

rainfall events. Electrical conductivity is a measure of the concentration

of inorganic substances in the water. The use of electrical conductivity

to monitor a rainfall event appeared appropriate as rainfall contains few

inorganic substances so the net effect of rainfall must be to dilute the

water previously in the beck’s. Monitoring was undertaken at sites 2, 5,

6, 7 and 8 (see fig 2.1 for sampling locations), to allow flow ratio and

dilution factors to be calculated, before, during and after rainfall,

rainfall conductivity was also recorded. Electrical conductivity

measurements followed the same procedure as described in section

2.4.3. This method aims to show the response of Glenridding Beck,

Swart Beck and the eastern tailings dam drain to rainfall events under


different antecedent conditions, rainfall patterns and the dilution effect

of rainfall. The mixing equations (below) will allow the calculation of

flow ratios of Glenridding Beck (Q2) to Swart Beck (Q5) and

Glenridding Beck (Q6) to the Tailings dam drain (Q7) during the

monitoring period. The flow ratios can be calculated using the

following equation:

Firstly the discharges must balance so:

Q6 = Q2 + Q5 (1)

The electrical conductivity must also balance so therefore:

(Q6 × EC6) = (Q2 × EC2) + (Q5 × EC5) (2)

Inserting (1) in to (2) gives the following:

(Q2 + Q5) × EC6 = (Q2 × EC2) + (Q5 × EC5) (3)

Then expansion and rearrangement of (3) gives the following:

(Q2 × EC6) – (Q2 × EC2) = (Q5 × EC5) – (Q5 × EC6)

⇒ Q2 (EC6 – EC2) = Q5 (EC5 – EC6)

⇒ Q2/Q5 = )EC-EC(

)EC-(EC

26

65

Following the same procedure as above you also get:

Q6/Q7 = )EC-(EC

)EC-EC(

68

87


Where the subscript numbers refer to the site numbers and EC is

electrical conductivity. The enlarged schematic diagram in fig 2.1

shows the survey area.

In order to quantify the dilution effect of rainfall from the conductivity

results a simplistic model can be used to give a dilution factor. It

assumes that all rainfall runs directly in to the surface water streams

and no infiltration or evaporation occurs. This has serious limitations,

and as Dingham (1994) outlines there are many other factors such as

land use, soil type, underlying geology and the antecedent catchment

conditions that will have an influencing factor on the quantity of event

water making up the total flow. Although this method is limited in its

approach it should indicate the dilution effect of rainfall within the

different inputs in the catchment. Fig 2.20 shows a schematic diagram

of the model.

Fig 2.20, Schematic diagram showing the basis of the dilution model.

From fig 2.20 we can say that:

Qt = Qb+Qr (1)

Qt ECt(Total effect)

Qr ECr(Rainfall input)Qb ECb

(Background)


And QtECt = QbECb + QrECr (2)

Then r

bbttr

EC

)ECQ EC(Q Q

+= (3)

Insert (3) into (1)r

bb

r

ttbt

EC

EC Q

EC

ECQ Q Q −+=

⇒

−=

−

R

bb

r

tt

EC

EC1 Q

EC

EC1Q

⇒

−

−

=

r

t

r

b

b

t

EC

EC1

EC

EC1

Q

Q

⇒

=

r

tr

r

br

b

t

EC

EC - EC

EC

EC -EC

Q

Q

⇒ )EC - (EC

)EC-EC(

Q

Q

tr

br

b

t=

Results will aid the assessment of the hydrology within the catchment

and allow the dilution effect of rainfall under different catchment

conditions and the flow ratios to be assessed.

2.6 Other data sources

A study in to surface water pollution by the Environment Agency was

made available, this report contains extensive heavy metal

concentrations over the period 7th November 1999 to 27th February

2000 at many of the same sites as in this study. A report by Scott

Doherty produced on behalf of The Lake District National Park in 1999

titled Greenside Mine, Glenridding Geo-Environmental and Structural


Assessment contains extensive data on heavy metal concentrations in

the area. Data from a colleague’s dissertation project (Kember 2000)

based on heavy metal concentrations in sediments in Swart and

Glenridding Beck’s is also available, again many of the sites are the

same as this study.


3. Results

3.1 Experimental Results

The experimental results fit in to two distinct sections. The first section

contains results from the assessment of change in discharge and metal

concentrations over the sampling period relative to changing catchment

conditions. The second section contains the results of the rainfall event

monitoring which attempt to assess short-term catchment change

resulting from individual rainfall events.

3.2 Hydrochemical Change

3.2.1 Discharge measurements

The following tables (3.1-3.3) show individual discharge measurements

obtained on each of the sampling days. Each table shows each

individual measurement, the average and the range, the location of the

sites can be seen on fig 2.1.

Table 3.1, Discharges in ltrs/sec obtained on 20/03/00

Site Run 1 (l/s)

Run 2(l/s)

Run 3 (l/s)

Average(l/s)

Range(l/s)

1 73.7 59.2 66.5 14.54 6.21 5.45 6.33 6.0 0.885 38.4 37.4 37.9 17 0.68 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.079 112.8 109.4 111.1 3.4



Site Run 1(l/s)

Run 2(l/s)

Run 3(l/s)

Average(l/s)

Range(l/s)

4 4.78 4.15 4.12 4.4 0.665 45.6 45.7 45.7 0.16 112.8 119.8 116.3 77 1.02 0.97 1.05 1.0 0.089 101.6 107.3 104.5 5.7


Site Run 1 (l/s)

Run 2 (l/s)

Run 3(l/s)

Average(l/s)

Range(l/s)

4 5.65 5.29 6.21 5.72 0.925 121.3 109.1 115.2 12.26 223.3 219.7 221.5 3.67 3.13 3.53 2.78 3.15 0.75

In general the range of values obtained is small compared with the

discharge. Site 1 (table 3.1) and site 5 (table 3.3) have considerably

larger ranges, both of these are dilution gauging estimates and this

could be due to insufficient mixing in the stream on these occasions.

3.2.2 Water Chemistry

In conjunction with the discharge measurements metal concentrations

were obtained at the same locations and the other sites described in

section 2.1, this will allow the assessment of change in discharge and

metal concentrations to be analysed under different catchment

conditions. Table 3.4 combines lead and zinc concentrations,

discharges (full results shown above), pH and electrical conductivity at

each site. This provides a summary of results obtained on each

sampling day. Table 3.5 shows heavy metal concentrations, pH and

electrical conductivity obtained on 11/05/00; no discharges were

measured on this day. The results are averages where more than one

measurement was made on the sample; full data sets for these are

available in the following appendices:

20/03/00 23/05/00 13/06/00

SiteDischarge

l/sPb

(ppb)Zn (ppb)

pH±0.01

ECµS/cm± 0.05

Dischargel/s

Pb(ppb)

Zn (ppb)pH

±0.01

ECµS/cm± 0.1

Dischargel/s

Pb (ppb) Zn (ppb)pH

±0.01

ECµS/cm± 0.1

1U/S G/Beck 66.5 -0.50 -11.77 6.18 38.2 -1.29 -2.25 4.63 32.8 3.20 17.74 6.28 30.4

2G/Beck before

Confluence2.95 3.11 6.9 40.7

70.77.00 17.74 6.3 36.6 106 13.15 25.73 6.46 31.9

3Swart

Beck,LHL71.32 58.55 5.91 44.8 61.95 91.71 4.9 41.4 67.90 71.71 4.72 35.1

4Mine Drainage 6 82.63 368.24 7.31 298.3 4.3 73.87 265.63 7.01 300.3 5.72 28.58 265.63 6.22 296.7

5S/Beck before

confluence37.9 34.43 131.58 6.12 82.3 45.7 62.99 137.69 6.74 71.3 115.2 102.25 121.69 6.08 52.5

6G/Beck afterconfluence

19.18 54.50 6.65 57.6 116.3 30.33 67.72 6.48 51.1 221.5 52.47 77.71 6.76 41.9

7Eastern tailings

dam drainage0.71 32.95 941.63 6.54 135.0 1 536.6 445.56 6.56 115.5 3.15 38.04 309.62 5.7 71.1

8G/Beck below

site 722.13 62.61 6.32 58.0 40.70 85.71 5.59 54.7 59.94 79.71 5.09 43.2

9Footbridge

G/Beck111.1 29.02 62.61 6.34 58.6 104.5 46.92 97.70 5.22 54.2 77.86 67.72 4.7 44.4

10G/Beck,

Caravan site28.52 66.67 6.35 61.0 53.66 77.71 6.46 57.5 59.44 75.71 4.74 48.1

11G/Beck mouth 22.13 65.32 6.04 63.5 6.04 48.8 35.55 55.72 5.35 41.4

12Lake Ullswater 3.93 17.98 6.51 55.8 33.96 39.73 5.63 58.1 75.87 315.61 5.89 60.5

Table 3.4, Sampling Results obtained on each of the sampling days.


• Appendix B – Water Analysis,

• Appendix C – pH & Electrical Conductivity.

Weather conditions were recorded on each of the sampling days,

conditions were as follows:

• 20/03/00 – Mainly cloudy, light winds.

• 11/05/00 – Sunny and warm, light winds.

• 23/05/00 – Light Rain, light winds.

• 13/06/00 – Rain and windy.

Table 3.5, Water sampling results obtained on 11/05/00

Sample SiteLead(ppb)

Zinc(ppb) pH ±0.01

Conductivityµs/cm ±0.1

2G/Beck before confluence

4.77 -3.02 7 44.2

3S/Beck, LHL

55.73 86.79 5 47.6

4Mine Drainage

60.91 298.76 7.8 291.7

5S/Beck before confluence

54.18 147.87 6.9 94.5

6G/Beck after confluence

18.92 92.18 6.4 68.3

13Above LHL Adit

70.76 77.81 6.6 47.0

14Below foot bridge &

Dressing floor80.61 56.26 6.7 43.7

15Below old Dam

27.22 95.78 6.6 44.0

16Above most Mining

activity6.48 2.37 6.6 45.3

3.2.3 Environment Agency Data

As was indicated earlier the Environment Agency conducted a study,

which covers a wide range of heavy metal concentrations in surface

waters at many of the same sites as studied in this report. Data is shown


in appendix F, the numbered sites refer to the same sites in this study

and the lettered refer to the following sites:

A. Glenridding Beck down stream of Swart beck, NGR NY 367173.

B. Water trough on eastern tailings dam drain, NGR NY 366173.

C. Swart Beck upstream of LHL adit, NGR NY 362179.

D. Western Tailings dam drain, NGR NY 363173.

E. Eastern Tailings dam, white stain, NGR NY 364173.

Site C was sampled on the 11/05/00 during this study.

Fig 3.1 and fig 3.2 graphically represent the lead and zinc

concentrations obtained by the Environment Agency. Although all the

data is shown not all points are shown to their full extent, due to

magnitude of these values these points had an influence on the overall

appearance of the graph. Actual values can be seen in Appendix F.

3.2.4 Rainfall Data

Daily rainfall data from my own personal records is available. Data

covering the period of October 1999 to September 2000 is shown in

appendix F. This covers both the Environment Agency’s and this study

period, fig 3.3 shows the rainfall data graphically.

3.3 Rainfall event monitoring

Rainfall event monitoring was undertaken on three occasions,

08/07/00–10/07/00, 08/08/00–10/08/00 and 05/09/00–08/09/00 when

conditions allowed monitoring. Full results for the rainfall event

monitoring are shown in appendix D. Figs 3.4-3.6 show the electrical

conductivity and rainfall results graphically.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1 2 3 4 5 10 12 A B C D E

Site

Lea

d C

on

cen

trat

ion

(p

pb

)

07/09/99 14/09/99 05/12/99 12/12/99 02/01/00 09/01/00 30/01/00 06/02/00 27/02/00

Fig 3.1, Lead concentrations obtained by the Environment Agency

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 2 3 4 5 10 12 A B C D E

Site

Zin

c co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

pp

b)

07/09/99 14/09/99 05/12/99 12/12/99 02/01/00 09/01/00 30/01/00 06/02/00 27/02/00

Fig 3.2, Zinc concentrations obtained by the Environment Agency.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

07/11

/99

21/11

/99

05/12

/99

19/12

/99

02/01

/00

16/01

/00

30/01

/00

13/02

/00

27/02

/00

12/03

/00

26/03

/00

09/04

/00

23/04

/00

07/05

/00

21/05

/00

04/06

/00

18/06

/00

02/07

/00

16/07

/00

30/07

/00

13/08

/00

27/08

/00

10/09

/00

Date

Dai

ly R

ain

fall

(mm

)

Fig 3.3, Graph showing daily rainfall in Glenridding.


Fig 3.4, Rainfall data (top) and electrical conductivity (bottom) for the period

01/07/00 – 10/07/00

0

5

10

15

20

25

01/0

7/00

02/0

7/00

03/0

7/00

04/0

7/00

05/0

7/00

06/0

7/00

07/0

7/00

08/0

7/00

09/0

7/00

10/0

7/00

Date

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

30/06/00

00:00

01/07/00

00:00

02/07/00

00:00

03/07/00

00:00

04/07/00

00:00

05/07/00

00:00

06/07/00

00:00

07/07/00

00:00

08/07/00

00:00

09/07/00

00:00

10/07/00

00:00

11/07/00

00:00

Date and Time

Ele

ctri

cal c

on

du

ctiv

ity

Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Rainfall



01/08/00 – 11/08/00.

0

246

8

10

121416

18

01/0

8/00

02/0

8/00

03/0

8/00

04/0

8/00

05/0

8/00

06/0

8/00

07/0

8/00

08/0

8/00

09/0

8/00

10/0

8/00

11/0

8/00

Date

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

31/07/00

00:00

01/08/00

00:00

02/08/00

00:00

03/08/00

00:00

04/08/00

00:00

05/08/00

00:00

06/08/00

00:00

07/08/00

00:00

08/08/00

00:00

09/08/00

00:00

10/08/00

00:00

11/08/00

00:00

Date and Time

Ele

ctri

cal c

on

du

ctiv

ity

uS

/cm

Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Rainfall



01/08/00 – 09/09/00.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

01/0

9/00

02/0

9/00

03/0

9/00

04/0

9/00

05/0

9/00

06/0

9/00

07/0

9/00

08/0

9/00

09/0

9/00

Date, ra infa l l recorded at 08:00

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

31/08/00 00:00

01/09/00 00:00

02/09/00 00:00

03/09/00 00:00

04/09/00 00:00

05/09/00 00:00

06/09/00 00:00

07/09/00 00:00

08/09/00 00:00

09/09/00 00:00

Date and Time

Ele

ctri

cal C

on

du

ctiv

ity

uS

/cm

Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Rainfall


3.4 Experimental Errors

3.4.1 Dilution Gauging

Dilution gauging is generally a reliable and accurate method for the

estimation of discharge, especially in high energy, turbulent and

mountainous streams such as Glenridding and Swart Beck’s. Although

generally accurate, errors do occur, firstly the mass of Rhodamine WT

will be subject to error, this will be small, masses were measured to

0.01mg, an error this small will have little impact on the overall

discharge calculations. Secondly some Rhodamine could be lost on

transfer from the pre-weighed storage bottles to the mixing bucket and

on injection to the stream. This would be minimal, the bottle, its top

and protective gloves were thoroughly washed as was the bucket and

any boulders the Rhodamine came in to contact with after injection.

Thirdly, the Rhodamine must be thoroughly mixed before reaching the

fluorometer, injecting to close will result in insufficient mixing and

consequently affect the concentrations logged and the discharge

estimated. In order to avoid this error, sites must be selected carefully,

in order to avoid large pools that will hold the Rhodamine. The

injection location should be located sufficiently upstream of the

Fluorometer to allow full mixing. During the sampling days, discharges

were measured at the downstream sites first to avoid any error from

Rhodamine previously injected moving downstream. Finally logging

longer background concentrations (prior to Rhodamine injection) will

give a more representative average and allowing a longer flushing

period (after injection) may improve the estimation slightly.


3.4.2 Volumetric Gauging

Volumetric gauging can be a crude estimation of discharge. One of the

largest errors in this method will be collection, due to the nature of the

sites not all water would be collected, in order to improve collection

methods, water would need to be deflected in to a more concentrated

area for collection. Volume measurements were measured to the

nearest litre or ±0.5 litres and the time in which it was collected would

also be subject to some error. Lengthening the collection time,

improving the collection method and the accuracy of the volume

measurement would significantly improve the discharge estimation.

3.4.3 Rainfall measurement

Rainfall is measured in a daily storage gauge, which is set above

ground level; this will tend to under estimate the rainfall. Rainfall is

recorded with an accuracy of ±0.25mm. Installing the raingauge at

ground level with an anti splash grid or using a tipping bucket gauge

would significantly increase the accuracy of the measurements.

3.4.4 pH and Electrical conductivity

Calibration of both pH and electrical conductivity meters with standard

solutions before each use will increase the accuracy of the readings.

The resolutions of the readings are as follows, pH ±0.01 and EC ±0.1,

which in the case of this study the error will be small and insignificant.

3.4.5 Water sample analysis

The preparation of the standard solutions is likely to contain the largest

error. Dilution of a standard 1000ppm lead into 10-100ppb and zinc in


to 100-1000ppb could incorporate a number of errors, this was always

done as accurately as possible but errors are inevitable. In general the

regression lines for absorbence and concentration fitted the data well

with r2 values >0.99 which suggests little error in the preparation. The

detection limits of the flame/graphite AAS could also have an impact

on the results, any concentration below the detection limit will be

recorded as a zero absorption and thus a zero concentration. Increasing

the range of standard solutions, blanks and the number of

measurements made on each sample will give increased accuracy.

The water sample itself could introduce error, there is the chance that

some of the metal was lost due to sorption on to either the bottle walls

or any sediment, metals could also be mobilised from any sediment

contained with in the sample. These effects could have an overall

impact on the concentrations obtained although this should be minimal

as acid washed sample bottles were used and each sample was acidified

on return to the lab this will have limited this source of error.

3.5 Analytical Results

3.5.1 Introduction

Analysis of the electrical conductivity results obtained during the

rainfall event monitoring period are analysed using the methods

outlined in section 2.5.

3.5.2 Flow Ratios

Figs 3.7 and 3.8 show the flow ratios of Glenridding Beck (Q6) to the

eastern tailings dam drain (Q7) obtained during the monitoring. The

calculated results for the flow ratio of upstream Glenridding Beck (Q2)

to Swart Beck (Q5) appeared to follow no recognisable patterns during


all three monitoring periods. It is thought that there are a number of

other factors affecting the results such as the abstraction by the

hydroelectric scheme between sites 1 and 2, the calculated ratios can be

seen in appendix D, these results are therefore not presented

graphically.

Fig 3.7, Q6/Q7 flow ratios for the period 08/08/00 – 11/08/00.

Fig 3.8, Q6/Q7 flow ratios for the period 05/09/00 – 08/09/00

3.5.3 Dilution Factors

Table 3.6 below shows the dilution factors of Qt/Qb obtained during

each rainfall event monitored. Results were obtained using the

simplistic model and equations presented in section 2.5.

020406080

100120

08/08/0012:00

09/08/0000:00

09/08/0012:00

10/08/0000:00

10/08/0012:00

11/08/0000:00

Date and Time

Rat

io o

f Q

6/Q

7

0

50

100

150

200

05/09/0012:00

06/09/0000:00

06/09/0012:00

07/09/0000:00

07/09/0012:00

08/09/0000:00

08/09/0012:00

Date and Time

Rat

io o

f Q

6/Q

7


Table 3.6, Qt/Qb dilution factors as a result of rainfall inputs.

Site8/7/00-9/7/00

12.5 mm

8/8/00-10/8/00

9 mm

5/9/00-6/9/00

18mm

7/9/00-8/9/00

12mm

2 1.33 1.28 2.0 2.5

5 1.59 1.6 2.49 3.11

6 1.5 1.31 2.35 2.83

7 1.56 1.21 1.67 1.6

8 1.31 2.36 2.8


4. Flood Frequency Analysis

4.1 Introduction

The Flood Studies Report (1975) provides a method for estimating

flood frequency characteristics from the catchment characteristics.

There is no gauging station within the catchment and therefore to

assess flood magnitudes and their return periods in the catchment it

appeared appropriate to use this method to approximate the flood

characteristics of the catchment.

4.2 Method

The Flood Studies Report (1975) outlines the mean annual flood Qmaf

can be estimated from the following 6 variable equation:

Qmaf=C*area0.94STMFRQ0.27S1085 0.16Soil1.23RSMD 1.03(1+lake)-0.85m3s-1

Where C is a regional coefficient for the North West region, area is the

catchment area (km2), STMFRQ is a stream frequency index

(junctions/km2), S1085 is the stream slope (m/km), Soil is the soil index

based on infiltration and runoff, RSMD is the net 1 day rainfall of a 5

year return period (mm) and Lake is the proportion of lakes in the

catchment. The Standard error for the 6 variable equation estimate for

ln(Qmaf) is approximately 0.168. Using the following equation it is

possible to estimate the uncertainty in the estimate of Qmaf.

Qmaf ± σmaf = exp [ln (Qmaf) ± 0.168]

The catchment characteristics for the Glenridding and Swart Beck

catchments are shown in table 4.1. These estimates can also be used to

create a flood frequency curve for the catchments. This is obtained by

multiplying Qmaf by the regional growth factors shown in table 4.2.


Table 4.1, Catchment characteristics for the two catchments.

Characteristic Glenridding Beck Swart Beck

Area km2 8.37 2.54

STMFRQ j/km2 5.85 8.66

S1085 m/km 0.12 0.11

Soil 0.5 0.5

RSMD mm 96.287 97.132

Lake 0.04 0

Table 4.2, Regional growth Factors for the Northwest region.

Return Period (years) Growth Factor

5 1.19

10 1.38

20 1.58

50 1.85

100 2.08

4.3 Results

Using the six variable equation presented in section 4.2 the mean

annual flood, Qmaf was calculated for Glenridding and Swart Beck’s.

Using the regional growth factors estimates the magnitude of floods for

a given return period are also calculated. These estimates are shown in

table 4.3


Table 4.3, Flood studies report estimates

Return Period Glenridding Beck Swart Beck

1 8.20 3.06

5 9.76 3.64

10 11.32 4.22

20 12.96 4.83

50 15.17 5.66

100 16.10 6.00

These are the best fit estimates, due to the error in the estimation using

the 6 variable equation these estimates have a large range. Fig 4.1

(Glenridding Beck) and 4.2 (Swart Beck) show the flood frequency

curves together with the 95% confidence limits shown by the error bars

for both catchments.

Fig 4.1, The estimated flood frequency curve for Glenridding Beck

with the 95% confidence limits shown by the error bars.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 10 100

Return Period (log)

Pre

dict

ed D

isch

arge

m3/

s


Fig 4.2, The estimated flood frequency curve for Swart Beck with the

95% confidence limits shown by the error bars.

4.4 Summary

The Flood Studies Report estimates indicate the magnitude of flood

discharges in the catchment. Compared to those discharges measured

the mean annual flood in the Glenridding Beck catchment is likely to

be in order of 37 times greater and that of Swart beck is likely to be in

order of 26 times greater. This indicates the huge variation in

discharges within the catchment; it also indicates the high energy

nature of the catchment.

Although these estimates provide an indication of flood magnitudes in

the catchment the error in these estimates has to be considered. The

95% estimate for the mean annual flood on Glenridding Beck has a

range of 5.86-11.47m3s with a best fit estimate of 8.2 m3s and the range

for Swart Beck is 2.18-4.28 m3s with a best fit estimate of 3.06 m3s.

This uncertainty in the estimates is likely to be due to extrapolations in

the model. Firstly the Northwest region covers an area stretching from

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 10 100

Return Period (log)

Pre

dic

ted

Dis

char

ge

m3/

s


Cheshire plane to the Lake District, the spatial variability in physical

characteristics over this area is large and therefore the regional

coefficient and the growth factors could have an influence on the

results. Secondly the catchment characteristics are presented in the

1975 report, over this 25 year period changes in land use and climate

could have altered the nature of the catchment characteristics and

subsequently introduce added error in to the estimate. Although the

method has produced flood magnitude estimates they should only be

treated as predictions due to the error in the estimates.

The Flood Studies has recently been proceeded by the Flood

Estimation Handbook and methods used in the new edition may

produce better estimates, as the report has only recently been published

it was considered appropriate to use the older and wider used Flood

Studies Report method.


5. Discussion

5.1 Introduction

The following chapter will analyse and discuss the results gathered in

this study and attempt to outline the significant sources of pollution and

their relative contributions in the catchment. Combination of all result

should allow patterns and processes concerning heavy metals and the

hydrology in the catchment to be addressed.

5.2 Hydrochemical Change

5.2.1 Introduction

The first section will discuss the nature of the hydrology in the

catchment, emphasising on the discharges measured during the

sampling period, this will lead in to a section concerning chemical

fluxes which will attempt to identify the main pollution sources and

their impact in the catchment.

5.2.2 Hydrology

The hydrology within the Glenridding Beck catchment and especially

around the mine area was assessed by methods previously discussed.

Table 5.1 below shows flow proportions of the relative contributions

on each sampling occasion.

Discharges were lowest on 20/03/00 and increased through the

sampling period to there highest on 13/06/00 (tables 3.1 – 3.4). This is

reflected well in the flow proportions (Table 5.1). It appears that as the

discharges increase so does the proportion of the flow of Swart Beck

and the tailings dam drain to that of Glenridding Beck. This suggests a


Table 5.1, Flow proportions on each sampling day, relative to site 8,

Glenridding Beck downstream on the eastern tailings dam drain.

20/03/00 23/05/00 13/06/00 Average

2 - Upstream

Glenridding Beck63.2% 60.2% 47.2% 56.9%

5 - Swart Beck 30.4% 35.2% 48.8% 38.1%

4 - Mine Drainage 5.7% 3.7% 2.5% 4%

7 - Eastern Tailings

dam drain0.7% 0.9% 1.4% 1%

quicker response of Swart beck to rainfall and thus a flashier

hydrograph. Looking at the catchment characteristics presented in the

Flood Studies Report (1975) the Swart Beck catchment has a higher

STMFRQ indicating a larger drainage density and the Swart Beck

catchment contains no lakes. This could explain the flashier response to

rainfall.

Fig 3.3 shows daily rainfall from 07/10/99 to 10/09/00, this covers the

Environmental Agency’s sampling program and this study. Looking at

the rainfall patterns and discharges the discharges tend to respond to

individual rainfall events rather than wet periods, although the

antecedent condition will have an effect on magnitude of the discharge

and the response rate. This is reflected in the discharges measured on

13/06/00, there was 2mm of rain on that day and 10.5mm over the six

days previous and the discharges were the highest of those measured.

In comparison, discharges measured on 23/05/00 were lower, there had

been no rain for two days but over the six days previous there had been

a total of 55mm. This suggests that the bulk of the discharge is made

up of event water rather than baseflow.

Discharges from the mine drainage (site 4) do not follow the same

pattern. The highest discharge occurred on the 20/03/00, when those of


Swart and Glenridding Beck’s were at their lowest. Looking at the

discharges in comparison with rainfall data (fig 3.3) it appears that the

higher discharges occur after wetter periods rather than individual

rainfall events. This is shown on 20/03/00 where previous month’s

rainfall of 291.5mm resulted in a high discharge and the low discharge

on 23/05/00 followed only 89mm in the previous month. The month

previous to 13/06/00 had 136mm of rainfall and is reflected with a mid

range discharge. This evidence would suggest that the mine drainage

component in made up from groundwater and does not respond to

individual rainfall events. The conductivity also remained constant at

this site throughout the sampling period representing no dilution effects

by rainfall.

The rainfall event monitoring attempted to assess the dilution effect as

a result of rainfall. The results can be seen on figs 3.4-3.6 and in

appendix D. Analysis of results can be seen in section 3.4.

Analysis and calculation of flow ratios and dilution factors has

indicated the effect of rainfall on various sources in the catchment.

Firstly looking at the dilution factors. Driest antecedent conditions

occurred on 8/7/00-9/7/00 and on each monitoring there after

conditions appear to get wetter, see fig 3.3. This suggests that as the

catchment gets wetter so the dilution of the beck’s by rainfall increases,

Swart Beck’s dilution factor is always the greatest, suggesting again

that its response to rainfall is quicker and flashier than any other

sources in the catchment.

The flow ratios of Glenridding Beck to the eastern tailings dam drain

(Q6/Q7) suggest that the tailings dam has a longer lag time than that of

Glenridding Beck, the peak on both graphs (figs 3.4 & 3.5) represents

the increase of flow of Glenridding Beck in comparison to that of the

tailings dam drain. What is noticeable is the flashier peak of fig 3.5,

when the catchment is overall wetter. Looking at the dilution factors


for the tailings dam drain (site 7) they have the smallest dilution

factors, except on 8/7/00-9/7/00. This comparison suggests that the

tailings has a large storage capacity and as it dries out it tends to absorb

rainfall and has little and delayed response or dilution as a result of

rainfall inputs.

The rainfall monitoring has shown that rainfall does have a significant

dilution effect on both Glenridding Beck and Swart Beck but the

response and dilution of the tailings dam drain tends to be slow and

limited. It has again indicated that the majority of the total flow is

likely to be made up from event water rather than baseflow.

5.2.3 Chemical Fluxes

Combining and multiplying the discharges and metal concentrations

allows the estimation of annual fluxes of dissolved lead and zinc in

kg/yr. This will allow the main pollution sources to be identified and

their impacts assessed. Table 5.2 show the chemical fluxes at various

sites, site locations can be seen on fig 2.1. Some of the discharges were

extrapolated to obtain discharges for closely related sites where metal

concentrations were available.

It is clear from the flux values that Swart beck (site 5) is the main

source of pollution. Its impact on Glenridding Beck can be seen by the

increase of the average annual flux of 158.6 Pb kg/yr and 279.4 Zn

kg/yr from sites 2, upstream Glenridding Beck to site 6, downstream of

the confluence with Swart Beck. The mine drainage (site 4) and the

eastern tailings dam drain (site 7) have small mass fluxes but

comparing them with the flow proportions shown in table 5.1 their

fluxes are large when comparing them to the proportion of flow from

site 2. Therefore sites 4 and 7 are also considered to be significant

pollution sources in the catchment. Interestingly the lead and zinc


Table 5.2, Lead and zinc chemical fluxes

20/03/00 23/05/00 13/06/00

Site Pb kg/yr Pb kg/yr Pb kg/yrAverage Pb flux

kg/yrRangekg/yr

2 6.2 15 44 21.7 37.84 15.6 10 5.2 10.3 10.45 41.2 90.8 371.5 167.8 330.36 63.1 111.2 366.5 180.3 303.47 0.74 16.9 3.8 7.1 16.29 101.6 154.6 543.9 266.7 442.3

Site Zn kg/yr Zn kg/yr Zn kg/yrAverage Zn flux

kg/yrRangekg/yr

2 6.5 39.6 86 44.0 79.54 69.7 36 47.9 51.2 33.75 157.3 198.4 442.1 265.9 284.86 179.1 248.37 542.8 323.4 363.77 21.1 14.1 30.6 21.9 16.59 219.4 322 473 338.1 253.6

fluxes increase between site 8 and 9. On a further inspection of the area

below site 8 two small drains similar in nature and size to that of the

eastern tailings dam drain were discovered. Electrical conductivity at

these two sites were 85.9µs/cm and 111.8µs/cm respectively; this may

reflect high metal contents and could explain the increase of metals and

subsequently the fluxes between sites 8 and 9.

In all the effect on Lake Ullswater is large considering that these kind

of inputs (probably greater during mining periods) will have been

occurring now for over 2 centuries. Using the discharges obtained at

site 9 and the metal concentrations at site 11 (using estimated values of

30ppb lead and 60ppb zinc for the 23/05/00 as no sample was obtained

from this site on this day) the average mass fluxes entering Lake

Ullswater from this study are predicted as:

• Lead – 141.6 kg/yr.

• Zinc – 271.9 kg/yr.

These values will be under estimated; the discharge will increase

slightly between site 9 and 11 and thus the flux will also increase. The


annual estimated lead flux is greater than three times that of 44kg/yr

predicted by the Environment Agency (2000). This estimate was

probably obtained by modelling discharges and using metal

concentrations obtained during their study, although the Environment

Agency do not state the method used in their report. It is therefore

considered that the annual metal fluxes predicted in this study will give

a more accurate prediction. One point to note here is the large range of

metal fluxes (see table 5.2) obtained over the three sampling periods

and therefore extrapolating these to predict average yearly estimates

may not give an accurate representation. Considering the magnitude of

floods modelled by the Flood Studies Report (1975) outlined in chapter

4, if the metal concentrations remain at similar levels during winter

months which is likely, the fluxes will increase dramatically during

these events. This is likely to increase the yearly fluxes significantly, as

it is unlikely that the discharge levels will go much lower than those

measured on 20/03/00 in an average year.

5.2.4 Pollution Sources

The previous section has outlined that Swart beck is the dominant

pollution source, figs 5.1 and 5.2 show lead and zinc concentrations

obtained during the sampling, site references can be identified on fig

2.1. Full values for some results at site 7 are not shown to their full

extent as these large values distorted the rest of the graph.

The pollution at site 5 appears to be a cumulative effect over the course

of Swart Beck, figs 5.1 and 5.2 show sites 13, 14 & 15 all have high

lead and zinc concentrations. These sites are all in the upper Swart

Beck catchment around the area of the high mill. These concentrations

combined with the inputs from the Low Horse level (site 3), site 4,

Lucy tongue level mine drainage and drainage from the two tailings

dams make the concentrations at site 5 high and have a subsequent

effect on Glenridding Beck.


Fig 5.1, Lead concentrations obtained over the sampling period.

Fig 5.2, Zinc concentrations obtained over the sampling period.

The results show some recognisable patterns; firstly site 1, upstream of

mining activity shows little sign of containing any metals. This

indicates any increase must be pollution occurring as a result of mining

activity. The increase of lead and zinc concentrations at site 6, from

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Site

Pb

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

pp

b)

20/03/00 11/05/00 23/05/00 13/06/00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Site

Zn

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

pp

b)

20/03/00 11/05/00 23/05/00 13/06/00


those at site 2 shows the result of the input of Swart Beck on

Glenridding Beck. Site 8, Glenridding Beck below the eastern tailings

dam shows an increase in both metals as a result of the input of the

tailings drain.

High metal concentrations at site 3 indicate significant pollution in the

upper Swart Beck catchment. Site 16, above most mining activity in

the Swart Beck catchment little sign of pollution (see fig 5.1 & 5.2),

again this shows background levels and indicates the magnitude of

pollution occurring from mining activities. These results also show the

contribution of the area surrounding the site of the high mill, high

levels in this area will explain the high levels obtained at site 3

throughout the sampling program, it also indicates that Swart Beck has

high lead and zinc concentrations over most of its length as a result of

numerous polluted contributions.

Figs 3.1 and 3.2 show the metal concentrations obtained by the

Environment Agency’s study; their levels obtained tend to have similar

concentrations to those obtained in this study. Sites D and E (see

section 3.5 for their descriptions) have very high lead and zinc levels.

Although these sites have high lead and zinc contents their discharges

are minimal, this is the reason why they were not considered in this

study, this results in a limited impact on the Beck’s and subsequently

Lake Ullswater although they will add to the cumulative effect to

Swart Beck. One point to note here is the increase in the concentrations

of lead on 27/02/00, which is similar the patterns observed on 13/06/00

during this study. In conclusion heavy metal pollution appears to be

occurring mainly in Swart Beck from the sites of the Low and High

Mills, mine drainage’s and the tailings drainage and also in

Glenridding Beck from the eastern tailings dam drainage.


5.2.5 pH and metal concentrations

The previous two sections have looked at metal fluxes and

concentrations, in both of these sections it is apparent that through this

study and that of the Environment Agency there are variations in metal

concentrations, especially that of lead. Fig 5.3 shows pH readings

obtained during the sampling period. This graph shows that the pH was

generally lower on 13/06/00 when the discharge and lead

concentrations were at their highest. This could be due the washing out

of organic material in the catchment during rainfall events and as a

result lowering the pH and thus mobilising lead from sediments.

Fig 5.3, pH readings obtained during the sampling program.

Looking at the results for the 13/06/00, lead concentrations (fig 5.1)

and pH (fig 5.3) sites 6 to 11 show a clear pattern, as the pH is reduced

in the beck the lead concentration increases. This could be the

desorption of lead from bed sediments in to solution. Jain and Ram

(1995) indicate that adsorption of lead rises from 13.8% at pH 4.0 to

42% at pH 6.0 on the River Kali, India. Fig 5.4 shows the desorption of

lead from various sediments at Greenside obtained by Barnes (2000),

results indicate that as the pH of the solution is reduced so the

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Site

pH

20/03/00 23/05/00 13/06/00


desorption of lead from sediments increases, this would explain

patterns observed.

Fig 5.4, Solution concentration as a function of pH. Source Barnes

(2000)

Results obtained by Barnes suggest that at pH 6 almost all lead will be

sorbed on to sediments and as the pH decreases lead is subsequently

mobilised.

Zinc does not appear to follow this pattern, the concentrations appear

to remain constant with only slight variations, Jain and Ram (1995)

indicate that the adsorption of zinc on to bed sediments rises from 2%

at pH 4.0 to 15% at pH 6.0. This little difference in adsorption

indicates that zinc is not readily adsorbed to sediments under differing

pH, this would indicate why zinc concentrations remain at steady

concentrations under different catchment conditions.

Although the Environment Agency did not record pH in conjunction

with their water sampling, looking at the explanation given earlier,

washing out of organic material will be maximised during runoff and

infiltration from rainfall. Applying this theory to the results obtained in

this study to the Environment Agency’s results provides additional

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

pH

So

luti

on

co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

pp

m)

Tailings material Soil Fine bed sediment Coarse bed sediment


support for this hypothesis. The zinc concentrations appear to remain

steady with a few variations over the sampling period. The lead

concentrations obtained on the 27/02/00 are markedly higher than

others obtained during the study. Comparing this to rainfall (fig 3.3 and

Appendix E) there was 52mm of rainfall between 08:00 on 26/02/00

and 08:00 on 27/02/00. As previously discussed this must have resulted

in a high discharge and subsequently if the same patterns were

followed the pH is likely to have been lowered considerably due to

organic material, which would result in mobilisation of the lead, this

again appears to have been the case. The elevated levels obtained

during this study on 13/06/00

There is also evidence to indicate the fact that lead is being adsorbed

on to bed sediments from solution. On the 20/03/00 and 11/05/00 the

lead concentrations are lower at site 5, downstream Swart Beck than at

site 3, upstream Swart Beck (see fig 5.1) even after further inputs of

metals, but the pH increases on both occasions (see fig 5.3). It

therefore appears that as the pH is reduced the lead is mobilised from

the bed sediments, and thus increases the concentration in solution as is

indicated by both Jain and Ram (1995) and Barnes (2000). This

appears to happen during periods of higher discharges resulting from

rainfall inputs.

5.2.6 Sediment chemistry

In conjunction with this study, Kember (2000) studied heavy metal

concentrations in the bed sediments in the surface water courses in the

catchment. Fig 5.5 shows the results obtained by Kember H (2000).


Fig 5.5, Concentrations of lead and zinc in bed sediments, where the

sites refer to the same as this study and site A refers to the Water

trough on eastern tailings dam drain NGR NY 366173. Source:

Kember (2000).

The results show that the concentrations of lead bound to sediments are

highest in Swart Beck, levels also have a tendency to be reduced as

Glenridding Beck moves away from the mining region which links in

with the results of this study to again suggest that Swart Beck is the

main source of pollution. This is shown by the very low level of lead

(9ppb) in the sediments at site 1, upstream Glenridding Beck and the

high levels in Swart Beck, sites 3, 5, 13 & 14, which are the four

highest concentrations. The high levels in sediments at these sites

corresponds well with high levels in the water samples, (see figs 5.1 &

5.2), which is likely to be due to the mobilisation from the heavily

contaminated sediments. Notice here that the sites on the eastern

tailings dam drain and the mine drainage are low in comparison to

those of Swart and Glenridding Becks. Generally zinc levels are low

compared to those of lead which again suggests that zinc is not readily

absorbed to the sediments.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 A

Site

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

pp

m)

Lead Zinc


Scott Doherty (1999) assessed metal concentrations in soil samples

around the High Mill and the Low Horse Level Mine, the Lucy Tongue

Level Mine and in the tailings material. Their results can be seen in

table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3, Metal concentrations in soil and tailings samples in the

Swart Beck catchment. Source: Scott Doherty (1999).

Metal High Mill &

LHLM (ppm)

Lucy Tongue

Level Mine

(ppm)

Tailings

Dams

(ppm)

Arsenic 59 - 203 37-240 75-170

Cadmium 3.6 - 115 2.7 - 50 3 – 46

Copper 92 - 560 97 - 753 46 – 220

Lead 8840 - 80200 8380 - 86400 2390 – 17400

Zinc 697 - 12300 758 - 7460 360 – 5050

Barium 622 - 9330 352 - 1020 71 - 1130

Their report indicates that all concentrations fall in to the contaminated

range in the Greater London Council (GCL) guidelines for

contaminated soils and those of Zinc fall partly in to the heavily

contaminated range. Lead concentrations are significantly elevated and

fall in to the heavily contaminated to unusually contaminated range.

The combination of the results obtained by Kember (2000) and Scott

Doherty (1999) suggest that the tailings material has lower than

expected metal concentrations, but neither do the water sample results

indicate excessive lead concentrations although on 23/05/00 lead

concentration was 536.6µg/l but it was noted that the water had a

cloudy appearance which could be due to the washing out of the

tailings material. Results obtained by Barnes (2000) (see fig 5.4) also

indicate the tailings material has the lowest lead concentrations and

those in soil are the highest.


Although the tailing material have significantly lower lead

concentrations than the surrounding soil, Scott Doherty (1999) indicate

that levels still fall in the heavily to unusually contaminated range.

There have been recent failures in the western tailings dam during

flood events, resulting in tailings material entering both Swart and

Glenridding Beck and subsequently Lake Ullswater (Guy Weller pers

comm 09/06/00). Due to the high energy nature of Glenridding and

Swart Beck tailings material is likely to be transported effectively,

during such events this would pose a major threat to water quality in

the catchment and subsequently Lake Ullswater. Fig 5.6 shows the

result of the 1989 failure on the western tailings dam.

The significantly higher levels recorded in soil samples suggest a threat

from leaching to surface water courses. Scott Doherty (1999)

determined the potential for leaching of metals in to water courses

indicate that lead, cadmium and zinc fall above the Dutch intervention

levels. As results indicated in this study and that of the Environment

Agency, higher discharges resulted in elevated lead concentrations, this

could suggests that metals are also being leached, in addition to

mobilisation from bed sediments as a result of a lower pH. It therefore

appears that the combination of both factors appears to significantly

increase levels in surface waters and subsequently Lake Ullswater

during higher discharge periods.

These higher discharge periods and especially those indicated by the

Flood Studies Report (1975) will allow significant sediment transport.

Transport of contaminated sediments could in turn further contaminate

the sediments and surface waters in Glenridding Beck and

subsequently Lake Ullswater which in turn during higher discharge and

subsequently lower pH, lead mobilisation could significantly elevate

lead concentrations in Glenridding Beck and Lake Ullswater.


Fig 5.6, The result of the 1989 tailings failure on the western tailings

dam the eastern tailings dam is to the right of the photo. Photo taken at

NGR NY 366174 looking North West.

5.3 Water Quality

To put the pollution occurring in the catchment and subsequently Lake

Ullswater into context, this section aims to look at drinking water

quality standards as water is abstracted by North West Water PLC for

water supply from Lake Ullswater. Table 5.4 bellow shows the advised

drinking water standards by various directives and policies.

Although these are the current standards the Department of

Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) will set out tighter

lead standards in the new ‘Drinking Water Directive’. The new

standards will be 25ppb with in five years of the directive and within

15 years the standard will be 10ppb, which bring the UK standards in

to line with the WHO recommendations, see table 5.4.

Although the current directive states 50ppb this is a maximum

allowable concentration, looking at the results, many of the measured

concentrations exceed 50ppb lead, and that of Lake Ullswater also


exceeds the maximum limit on 27/02/00 and 13/06/00. Considering the

WHO recommendations and the new UK Drinking Water Directive, all

but sites 1, 2 and 16 which are upstream of most mining activity,

exceed the recommended concentration of 10ppb lead with the

exeption of Lake Ullswater on 20/03/00. All zinc concentrations fall

well below the recommended levels in this study, although some levels

were recorded above 5000ppb by the Environment Agency but these

were small discharges from the tailings dams. It is likely that Lake

Ullswater will have a lower concentration of metal as it moves away

from Glenridding Beck but this would require further study.

Table 5.4, Drinking Water Standards. Source Twart et al. (1994) &

Fifield & Haines (2000)

Metal World Health

Organisation

(WHO) 1993

recommendation

EC Directive

1980, Maximum

UK Regulations

1989, Maximum

Lead 10ppb 50ppb 50ppb

Zinc 3000ppb 5000ppb 5000ppb

Overall concentrations of lead in Glenridding Beck and Lake Ullswater

approach and exceed the maximum level stated by the EC and UK

directives for drinking water where as zinc levels fall significantly

below the maximum stated concentrations. The higher lead levels,

especially in the sediments could have serious consequences for water

supply and the ecology of Lake Ullswater in the future. Factors such as

land use change, eutrophication and climate change may have

significant effects due to the mobilisation of lead from sediments than

the magnitude of the current problem occurring from the discharges.

Metal concentrations are not currently excessive and although they are

having an impact on the water quality below the mining region.

Although levels are elevated it unlikely that these concentrations will


pose any significant threat to humans, animals or fish at their current

concentrations.


6. Summary and Conclusions

This study in to surface water discharges and chemical fluxes has

provided some useful results. It is clear that previous mining has and is

having a significant effect on the water quality in the Glenridding Beck

catchment. The following points summarise the results and conclusions

from this study:

1. This study has assessed the hydrology outlining a quick flashy

response to rainfall, especially that of the Swart Beck catchment.

2. The study has provided predicted annual metal fluxes of 141.1kg

Pb/yr and 271.9kg Zn/yr in to Lake Ullswater in which the lead

flux exceeds the Environment Agency’s prediction by three

times.

3. It has shown that metal concentrations upstream of mining

activity in both Swart and Glenridding Beck are nearly zero.

4. It has indicated that Swart Beck is the main pollution source with

in the catchment. Mine and tailings drainage are also considered

to be having a significant impacts.

5. The study has indicated that rainfall has an overall dilution effect

on surface waters but due to reduced pH during higher discharge

periods, lead is subsequently mobilised and concentrations

increase.

6. It has shown that the Tailings dams have a limited impact to

rainfall inputs and that metal concentrations are not excessively

high.


7. It has indicated that water quality is generally poor below the

mining region and in Lake Ullswater with levels approaching and

exceeding the maximum allowable concentrations for drinking

water.

8. Factors such as changing land use and climate change could have

adverse impacts on metal concentrations in surface waters and

Lake Ullswater

Although this study has provided an indication of heavy metal

pollution in the Glenridding Beck catchment under different catchment

conditions it has provided a large scope for further study in to heavy

metal concentrations and pollution within the catchment. The following

list provides scope for further investigation as a result of this study:

1. A longer term study of discharges and metal concentrations to

provide a more accurate prediction on metal fluxes patterns and

processes.

2. Link together sampling of surface water and bed sediments in

an attempt to correlate sorption and desorption of lead and zinc

under different catchment conditions.

3. Further assess metal concentrations in, and the dilution effect of

Lake Ullswater.

4. Assess the dilution effect of rainfall over a longer term using

logging probes, and investigate other factors influencing the

results of this study.


References

Abbasi, S.I, Abbasi, N & Soni, R. (1998). Heavy Metals in the Environment.

Mittal Publications, New Delhi.

Adams, J. (1988). Mines of the Lake District. The Dalesman Publishing Co,

Kendal.

Barnes C. E. (2000). BSc Environmental Management Thesis investigating the

desorption of Lead from sediments at Greenside (in progress). Lancaster

University, Lancaster.

Dingham, S.L. (1994). Physical Hydrology, Prentice and Hall, London.

Fifield, F.W. & Haines, P.J. (2000). Environmental Analytical Chemistry.

Blackwell, Oxford.

Herschy, R.W. (1995). Stream flow Measurement. Chapman & Hall, London.

Environment Agency (2000). A Report on the Impact of Discharges from

Greenside Mine and Spoil Heaps into surrounding Watercourses and

Ullswater.

National Environmental Research Council. (1975). Flood Studies Report,

White Friars Press LTD, London.

Gregory, K.J. & Walling, D.E. (1973). Drainage Basin Form and Process.

Edward Arnold, London.

Jain, K. J. & Ram, D. (1995). Adsorption of Lead and Zinc on bed sediments

of the River Kali. Water Resources 31 (1) 154 – 162.


Kember, H.M. (2000). A study of metal contamination of sediments within

Lake Ullswater and the Glenridding Beck catchment, BSc Environmental

Science Thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Moor, J.W. & Ramamoorthy, S. (1984). Heavy Metals in Natural Waters

Applied Monitoring and Impact Assessment. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Murphy, S. (1996). Grey Gold. Men, Mining & Metallurgy at the Greenside

Lead Mine in Cumbria, England 1825 to 1962. Moiety, Warwickshire.

Radojevic, M & Bashkin, V.N. (1999). Practical Environmental Analysis. The

Royal society of Chemistry, Cambridge.

Scott Doherty Associates. (1999). Greenside Mine, Glenridding Geo-

environmental and Structural assessment.

Shaw, E.M. (1994). Hydrology in Practice, Prentice and Hall, London.

Twart, A.C., Law, F.M., Crowley, F.W. & Ratnayaka, D.D. (1994). Water

Supply, Edward Arnold, London.

Tyler, I. (1998). Greenside and the Mines of the Ullswater Valley. Blue Rock

Publications, Threlkeld.


Acknowledgements

My thanks go to numerous people and organisations that have assisted in the

preparation of this study, these are as follows:

Dr. Andrew Binley for his assistance with this study, both during the

fieldwork and his guidance through the preparation of the report, Tristan

Adams and Anita Ghosh and for their assistance during the sampling days and

during the water sample analysis. Helen Kember, also for her assistance during

the fieldwork but mainly for providing the results of her sediment analysis and

to Chris Barnes for allowing use of his data. Thanks must also go to Ann

Wilkinson for her knowledge and assistance during the water analysis and

Charles Blakeley for his help in the preparation for the fieldwork days.

Ian Tyler from Threlkeld Quarry and Mining museum for his valuable

background information and to Guy Weller of the Lake District National Park

for his time and information concerning management of the site. Thanks must

also go to Messrs Lightfoot of Gillside Farm, Glenridding for allowing access

to and over their land for sampling purposes.


Appendix A - Procedures

Information required on the COSHH form

The following section outlines the information required to complete the

COSHH form.

Title of Experiment/Procedure:

Fluorometric stream gauging using Rhodamine WT.

20Y solution to be used (200g/l)

Maximum amount per experiment – 100mg (preweighed) mixed with 5litres

of stream water and injected in to the stream.

Details of Substance:

• Rhodamine WT (20Y. solution) Liquid.

• Hazard category: Medium.

• Exposure potential: low.

• Exposure limit: none.

• Risk category: Low.

Measures to be adopted:

• Rhodamine WT to be stored in pre-weighed bottles and kept closed.

• Rubber gloves and safety goggles to be worn when handling.

• Rhodamine will be applied to river, any unused will be returned.

• In the case of emergency flush eyes, skin, clothing with plenty of water.

• In the case of spillage flush with water.

• Any first aid procedure, flush with water.


Preparation of Standard Solutions and water sample analysis.

The following equation is useful in the preparation. It gives the volume of

standard required to make a standard of a given concentration.

standard ofion Concentrat

flask of volume required ppm take toVolume

×=

E.g. to make 50ml of a 10ppm solution from a 1000ppm solution:

5.01000

5010=

× i.e. take 0.5ml of the 1000ppm solution and add 49.5ml of

distilled water to create the 10ppm standard.

During the preparation of standard solutions use acid washed bottles and

distilled water for dilution ONLY.

Lead standards

From a 1000ppm lead solution dilute it down using 50ml flasks to create a

10ppm solution and then from the 10ppm solution create a 250ppb.

Now using 25ml flasks prepare the following concentrations, 10, 20, 30, 40,

50 & 75ppb from the 250ppb solution.

Also prepare 5 blank solutions using distilled water only.

Analyses takes place on the graphite AAS, set up the machine using the

operation instructions. Firstly analyse the standards and blanks and correct the

standards with the average blank absorbance. Plot absorbance of the standards

against the specific standard concentration and fit a linear regression model

through the data points using the least squares estimate from the following

procedure or by using the function in Microsoft excel:

The linear line has the form, â'xá' +='y

Where 'α and x'β are the best estimates of α and xβ and 'y is the predicted y.


The sum of squared errors is given by:

∑=

−=N

i

ii yy1

)'(SSE 2

The least squares estimates of α and xβ are:

xySS

SSâ

x

xy' and ' βα −==

Where,

2

11

2

1

1)( 2

−== ∑∑∑

===

−

N

i

i

N

i

i

N

i

ix xN

xxxSS

−=−= ∑ ∑∑ ∑

= == =

−

N

i

N

i

ii

N

i

N

i

iiiXixy yxN

yxyyxSS1 11 1

1))((

Then calculating the correlation coefficient will indicate the strength of the

relationship; this is done by the following:

yx

xy

SSSS

SSr =

Where

2

11

2

1

2 1)(

−=−= ∑∑∑

===

N

i

i

N

i

i

N

i

iy yN

yyySS

If the regression line fits with r2 >0.99 continue and analyse samples once, if

not create another set of standard solutions before proceeding. If any sample

has an absorption greater than that the standards, either dilute the sample or

create another standard to cover the entire range. Finally calculate the

concentration of the samples using the linear regression model.

Zinc

From a 1000ppm zinc solution dilute it down using 50ml flasks to create a

100ppm solution and then from the 100ppm solution create a 10ppb.

Now using 25ml flasks prepare the following concentrations, 200, 400, 600,

800 & 1000 from the 10ppm solution.

Also create 10 separate blank solutions using distilled water only.


Analyses takes place on the flame AAS, set up the machine using operation

instructions, firstly analyse the standards and blanks and correct the standards

with the average blank absorbance. Plot absorbance of the standards against

the specific concentration and fit a linear regression model through the data

points using the least squares estimate in order to calculate the sample

concentrations, (using the same procedure as for the lead above). If any

sample has an absorption greater than of the highest standards, either dilute the

sample or create another standard to cover the entire range.


Appendix B – Water Analysis

Lead Analysis: Sampled 20/03/00

StandardsAbs [Pb]/ppb Blanks Standards Corrected

0.021 10 0 Abs (corrected) [Pb]/ppb0.042 20 0 0.0208 100.064 30 0.001 0.0418 200.081 40 0 0.0638 300.103 50 0 0.0808 40

Mean Blank = 0.0002 0.1028 50

Samples

Site Number Abs Absx491.91x-0.4982 = Pb/ppb1 0 -0.502 0.007 2.953 0.146 71.324 0.169 82.635 0.071 34.436 0.04 19.187 0.068 32.958 0.046 22.139 0.06 29.02

10 0.059 28.5211 0.046 22.1312 0.009 3.93

Lead Calibration Graph

y = 491.91x - 0.4982

R2 = 0.99860

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12Absorbance

Pb/

ppb


Zinc Analysis: Sampled 20/03/00

Absorption on standardsConcentration 1st abs 2nd abs 3rd abs mean abs

0 0 0.003 0.002 0.001667200ppb 0.052 0.052 0.051 0.051667400ppb 0.103 0.103 0.101 0.10233333600ppb 0.154 0.149 0.152 0.15166667800ppb 0.206 0.202 0.196 0.20133333

1000ppb 0.253 0.246 0.242 0.247

Blanks Standards correctedBlanks abs Abs

(corrected)[Zn]/ppb

1 0 0.001867 02 -0.002 0.051867 2003 0.001 0.102533 4004 0 0.151867 6005 0.003 0.201533 8006 -0.001 0.247200 10007 -0.0018 -0.0029 0

10 0Mean Blank -0.0002

Zinc Calibration Graph

y = 4057x - 11.767

R2 = 0.9998

-2000

200400600800

10001200

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3Absorbance

Zn/

ppb


SamplesSite Number 1st abs 2nd abs 3rd abs Mean abs Absx4057x-11.767=Zn/ppb

1 0 0 0 0 -11.772 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.00366667 3.113 0.019 0.015 0.018 0.01733333 58.554 0.092 0.096 0.093 0.09366667 368.245 0.034 0.036 0.036 0.03533333 131.586 0.015 0.017 0.017 0.01633333 54.507 0.234 0.236 0.235 0.235 941.638 0.019 0.018 0.018 0.01833333 62.619 0.018 0.019 0.018 0.01833333 62.61

10 0.018 0.02 0.02 0.01933333 66.6711 0.02 0.02 0.017 0.019 65.3212 0.006 0.01 0.006 0.00733333 17.98



Standards Blanks Standards Corrected

Abs [Pb]/ppb Abs Abs (corrected) [Pb]/ppb0.025 10 00.04 20 0 0.025 100.055 30 0 0.04 200.083 40 0 0.055 300.099 50 0 0.083 400.147 75 Mean Blank = 0 0.099 50

0.147 75

SamplesSite Number Abs Absx518.4-1.2938 = Pb/ppb

2 0.0117 4.773 0.11 55.734 0.12 60.915 0.107 54.186 0.039 18.92

13 0.139 70.7614 0.158 80.6115 0.055 27.2216 0.015 6.48


y = 518.4x - 1.2938

R2 = 0.9949

0

20

40

60

80

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2Absorbance

Pb/

ppb



Absorption on standardsConcentration 1st abs 2nd abs 3rd abs mean abs

0 0 0.001 0.001 0.0006667200ppb 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.0390000400ppb 0.077 0.077 0.076 0.0766667600ppb 0.113 0.113 0.114 0.1133333800ppb 0.151 0.152 0.151 0.15133331000ppb 0.186 0.186 0.185 0.1856667

Blanks 1st abs 2nd abs 3rd abs mean abs

1 0 -0.001 -0.001 -0.0006672 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.0013 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 05 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 -0.0013336 0 0 -0.001 -0.0003337 0 0.001 0.002 0.0018 -0.001 0.001 0.002 0.00066679 0.001 0 0.001 0.000666710 -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001333

MeanBlank

-0.000233

Standards CorrectedAbs (corrected) [Zn]/ppb

0.0009 00.039233 2000.076900 4000.113566 6000.151566 8000.185900 1000


y = 5388.9x - 10.206

R2 = 0.9998

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2Absorbance

Zn/

ppb


SamplesSite Number 1st abs 2nd abs 3rd abs Mean abs Absx5388.9-10.206=Zn/ppb

2 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.0013333 -3.023 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 86.794 0.057 0.058 0.057 0.0573333 298.765 0.029 0.03 0.029 0.0293333 147.876 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 92.18

13 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.0163333 77.8114 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.0123333 56.2615 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.0196667 95.7816 0.02 0.019 0.02 0.0023333 2.37



Standards Blanks Standards CorrectedAbs [Pb]/ppb Abs Abs (corrected) [Pb]/ppb

0.025 10 0 0.025 100.04 20 0 0.04 200.055 30 0 0.055 300.083 40 0 0.083 400.099 50 0 0.099 500.147 75 Mean Blank = 0 0.147 75

SamplesSite Number Abs Absx518.4-1.2938 = Pb/ppb

1 0 -1.292 0.016 7.003 0.122 61.954 0.145 73.875 0.124 62.996 0.061 30.337 0.106 53.66, Diluted by 10x, therefore concentration is 536.68 0.081 40.709 0.093 46.92

10 0.106 53.661112 0.068 33.96


y = 518.4x - 1.2938

R2 = 0.9949

0

20

40

60

80

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2Absorbance

Pb/

ppb



Absorption on standardsConcentration 1st Abs 2nd Abs 3rd Abs Mean Abs

0 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.003000200ppb 0.03 0.035 0.034 0.033000400ppb 0.065 0.069 0.067 0.067600ppb 0.102 0.1 0.1 0.1006667800ppb 0.13 0.139 0.133 0.1341000ppb 0.166 0.171 0.17 0.169

BlanksBlanks 1st Abs 2nd Abs 3rd Abs Mean Abs

1 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.00133332 0.002 0.004 -0.001 0.00166673 0.001 0.004 -0.001 0.00133334 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.00166675 0.002 -0.001 -0.002 -0.0003336 0.005 -0.001 0.002 0.0027 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.0038 0.003 -0.002 0.003 0.00133339 0 0.001 0.003 0.001333310 0.001 -0.001 0.001 0.0003333

Mean Blank 0.0013667

Standards correctedAbs (corrected) [Zn]/ppb

0.001633 00.031633 2000.065633 4000.099300 6000.132633 8000.167633 1000


y = 5997.5x + 1.7441

R2 = 0.9996

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2Absorbance

Zn/

ppb


SamplesSite Number 1st Abs 2nd Abs 3rd Abs Mean Abs Absx5997.5+1.7441=Zn/ppb

1 -0.002 0 0 -0.000667 -2.252 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.0026667 17.743 0.014 0.017 0.014 0.015 91.714 0.043 0.043 0.046 0.044 265.635 0.022 0.022 0.024 0.0226667 137.696 0.01 0.016 0.007 0.011 67.727 0.073 0.074 0.075 0.074 445.568 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.014 85.719 0.017 0.015 0.016 0.016 97.7010 0.014 0.012 0.012 0.0126667 77.711112 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.0063333 39.73



Standards Blanks Standards CorrectedAbs [Pb]/ppb Abs Abs (corrected) [Pb]/ppb

0.001 0 0 0.001 00.011 10 0 0.011 100.034 20 0 0.034 200.056 30 0 0.056 300.086 40 0 0.086 400.103 50 Mean Blank = 0 0.103 500.146 75 0.146 750.297 150 0.297 150

SamplesSite Number Abs Absx497.74x+1.2074 = Pb/ppb

1 0.004 3.202 0.024 13.153 0.134 67.904 0.055 28.585 0.203 102.256 0.103 52.477 0.074 38.048 0.118 59.949 0.154 77.86

10 0.117 59.4411 0.069 35.5512 0.15 75.87


y = 497.74x + 1.2074

R2 = 0.9973

020406080

100120140160

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Absorbance

Pb/

ppb



Absorption on standardsConcentration 1st Abs 2nd Abs 3rd Abs Mean Abs

0 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.003000200ppb 0.03 0.035 0.034 0.033000400ppb 0.065 0.069 0.067 0.067600ppb 0.102 0.1 0.1 0.1006667800ppb 0.13 0.139 0.133 0.1341000ppb 0.166 0.171 0.17 0.169

BlanksBlanks 1st Abs 2nd Abs 3rd Abs Mean Abs

1 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.00133332 0.002 0.004 -0.001 0.00166673 0.001 0.004 -0.001 0.00133334 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.00166675 0.002 -0.001 -0.002 -0.0003336 0.005 -0.001 0.002 0.0027 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.0038 0.003 -0.002 0.003 0.00133339 0 0.001 0.003 0.001333310 0.001 -0.001 0.001 0.0003333

Mean Blank 0.0013667

Standards correctedAbs (corrected) [Zn]/ppb

0.001633 00.031633 2000.065633 4000.099300 6000.132633 8000.167633 1000


y = 5997.5x + 1.7441

R2 = 0.9996

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2Absorbance

Zn/

ppb


SamplesSite Number 1st Abs 2nd Abs 3rd Abs Mean Abs Absx5997.5+1.7441=Zn/ppb

1 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.0026667 17.742 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.004 25.733 0.014 0.011 0.01 0.0116667 71.714 0.045 0.046 0.041 0.044 265.635 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 121.696 0.014 0.012 0.012 0.0126667 77.717 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.0513333 309.628 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.013 79.719 0.013 0.01 0.01 0.011 67.7210 0.01 0.013 0.014 0.0123333 75.7111 0.01 0.01 0.007 0.009 55.7212 0.051 0.053 0.053 0.0523333 315.61


Appendix C – pH & Electrical Conductivity readings

Readings obtained on 20/03/00Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC pH

1 39.3 36.5 38.8 38.2 6.182 41.1 40.7 40.4 40.7 6.93 44.2 46.5 43.6 44.8 5.914 297 297 301 298.3 7.315 82 82.3 82.5 82.3 6.126 57.4 57.8 57.7 57.6 6.657 135 135 135 135.0 6.548 58.1 58 58 58.0 6.329 57.4 59.1 59.4 58.6 6.34

10 62.2 60.4 60.4 61.0 6.3511 63.7 62.5 64.2 63.5 6.0412 55 55.8 56.7 55.8 6.51

Readings obtained on 11/05/00 on Swart BeckSite 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC pH

2 45.8 43.2 43.6 44.2 73 47.3 47.9 47.6 47.6 54 289 290 296 291.7 7.85 96.2 94 93.4 94.5 6.96 66.4 69.4 69 68.3 6.4

13 47.7 46.8 46.4 47.0 6.614 44.6 43.8 42.6 43.7 6.715 43.8 43.6 44.7 44.0 6.616 41.8 47.7 46.5 45.3 6.6


1 30.6 33.8 33.9 32.8 4.632 37.1 36.1 36.7 36.6 6.33 42.1 41.1 41.1 41.4 4.94 301 299 301 300.3 7.015 71.9 70.4 71.6 71.3 6.746 52.4 50.9 49.9 51.1 6.487 118 114.3 114.1 115.5 6.568 55.4 54.4 54.4 54.7 5.599 55.1 53.3 54.1 54.2 5.22

10 57.3 57.6 57.6 57.5 6.4611 48.6 48.7 49 48.8 6.0412 59.6 57.3 57.3 58.1 5.63



1 30.8 30.9 29.6 30.4 6.282 31.5 32.1 32.2 31.9 6.463 34.6 35.6 35 35.1 4.724 293 299 298 296.7 6.225 52.5 52.2 52.7 52.5 6.086 41.4 42.1 42.2 41.9 6.76

7 71.9 70.8 70.6 71.1 5.78 43.1 43.3 43.3 43.2 5.099 44 44.2 44.9 44.4 4.7

10 49.5 48.1 46.8 48.1 4.7411 41.7 40.3 42.2 41.4 5.3512 59.2 60.7 61.5 60.5 5.89


Appendix D – Rainfall event monitoring results

All electrical conductivity readings are in µµs/cm

Readings taken on 8/7/00 at 10:30am after a dry period and before rainfall.

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 39.6 39.4 39.5 39.5 Q2/Q5= 0.5902785, Swart Beck 61.9 62.4 62.9 62.46, G/beck d/s S/beck 53.7 54 54 53.97, Spoil Drain 86 86.9 87.1 86.66667

Readings taken on 9/7/00 at 9:30am after 10.5mm of rain overnight starting approx.22:00.Rainfall Electrical Conductivity was 9uS/cm

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 31.8 31.5 32 31.76667 Q2/Q5= 0.6411295, Swart Beck 44.4 45.7 45.9 45.333336, G/beck d/s S/beck 40 40 40.1 40.033337, Spoil Drain 69.8 70.8 70.9 70.5

Readings taken on 9/7/00 at 18:30pm after a further 2 mm of rainfall during the day.Rainfall Electrical Conductivity was 9uS/cm

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 32.2 31.8 32.2 32.06667 Q2/Q5= 0.5291265, Swart Beck 42.6 41.9 43.2 42.566676, G/beck d/s S/beck 38.6 39 39.2 38.933337, Spoil Drain 59.1 58.8 59.1 59

Readings taken on 10/7/00 at 18:30pm after a further 23.5mm of overnight rainfall.Results were obtained approx. 8-10 hours after rainfall had ended.Rainfall Electrical Conductivity was 9.7uS/cm

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 29.2 29.4 29.4 29.33333 Q2/Q5= 0.5287775, Swart Beck 43.4 43.4 43.7 43.56, G/beck d/s S/beck 38.4 38.6 38.8 38.67, Spoil Drain 67.7 67.1 68.1 67.63333



Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 42.6 43 42.4 42.66667 Q6/Q7= 52.263165, Swart Beck 89.6 91 90.8 90.46667 Q2/Q5= 2.3117786, G/beck d/s S/beck 57 57.2 57.1 57.17, Spoil Drain 125.2 124.1 124.4 124.56678, d/s Spoil Drain 58.5 58.1 58.5 58.36667

Readings taken on 9/8/00 at 18:00 during 6mm of rainfall beginning at 9:00.Rainfall Electrical Conductivity was 5.3uS/cm

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.633335, Swart Beck 73.4 73.3 73.4 73.36667 Milky/cloudy look to water6, G/beck d/s S/beck 49.9 50 50.1 50 Q6/Q7= 110.04357, Spoil Drain 134.6 135.5 135.3 135.1333 Q2/Q5= 2.0557188, d/s Spoil Drain 50.9 50.8 50.6 50.76667

Readings taken on 10/08/00 at 7:00 after a further 3mm of rainfall overnight.Rainfall Electrical Conductivity was 5.5uS/cm

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 34.6 34.4 34 34.33333 Q6/Q7= 52.848485, Swart Beck 58.2 58.4 58.4 58.33333 Q2/Q5= 1.3003196, G/beck d/s S/beck 45 44.4 44.9 44.766677, Spoil Drain 104.1 104 103.9 1048, d/s Spoil Drain 45.8 45.9 45.9 45.86667

Readings taken on 10/08/00 at 18:00 after no further rainfall.

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 Q6/Q7= 48.057145, Swart Beck 65.1 64.9 65.1 65.03333 Q2/Q5= 1.6358216, G/beck d/s S/beck 46.6 46.8 46.9 46.766677, Spoil Drain 103.7 104 104.3 1048, d/s Spoil Drain 47.9 47.9 48 47.93333



Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 36.2 36.1 36 36.1 Q6/Q7= 44.933335, Swart Beck 66.8 67 67.1 66.96667 Q2/Q5= 1.2313256, G/beck d/s S/beck 49.6 50.2 50 49.933337, Spoil Drain 96.5 95.6 95.5 95.866678, d/s Spoil Drain 51 50.8 51 50.93333

Readings taken on 6/9/00 at 08:30 after 18mm of rainfall starting early morning & finishing07:30Rainfall Electrical Conductivity was 10uS/cm

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 23.2 23.1 22.9 23.06667 Brown tinge to water.5, Swart Beck 32.7 33.1 32.6 32.8 Brown tinge to water.6, G/beck d/s S/beck 26.9 27.1 27 277, Spoil Drain 64.3 65.9 65.5 65.23333 Q6/Q7= 162.85718, d/s Spoil Drain 27.3 27.3 27.1 27.23333 Q2/Q5= 1.474576


Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 27.3 27.3 27.1 27.23333 Q6/Q7= 34.8755, Swart Beck 42.7 42.5 42.5 42.56667 Q2/Q5= 1.7380956, G/beck d/s S/beck 33.1 32.7 32.7 32.833337, Spoil Drain 61.3 61.7 61.6 61.533338, d/s Spoil Drain 33.6 33.5 33.8 33.63333


Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 30.4 30.5 30.4 30.43333 Q6/Q7= 35.857145, Swart Beck 52.9 52.7 52.8 52.8 Q2/Q5= 1.7727276, G/beck d/s S/beck 38.6 38.4 38.5 38.57, Spoil Drain 64.1 64.5 64.3 64.38, d/s Spoil Drain 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2


Readings taken on 7/9/00 at 9:00 after 1mm of rainfall during a rainfall event.

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 34.1 34.1 33.9 34.03333 Q6/Q7= 31.45, Swart Beck 61.8 61.7 61.6 61.7 Q2/Q5= 1.2192516, G/beck d/s S/beck 46.4 46.6 46.5 46.57, Spoil Drain 73.6 73 73.9 73.58, d/s Spoil Drain 47.3 47.3 47.4 47.33333

Readings taken 0n 7/9/00 at 13:30 during rainfall after a further 4 mm.

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 32.4 32.3 32.4 32.36667 Q6/Q7= 52.045, Swart Beck 56.6 56.5 56.3 56.46667 Q2/Q5= 1.8690486, G/beck d/s S/beck 40.8 40.7 40.8 40.766677, Spoil Drain 85 85 84.9 84.96667 Milky/cloudy look to water.8, d/s Spoil Drain 41.5 41.6 41.7 41.6

Readings taken on 7/9/00 at 17:30 at the end of the rainfall event after a further 7mm of rain.Rainfall Conductivity was 12us/cm

Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 20.8 20.8 20.9 20.83333 Brown tinge to water.5, Swart Beck 27.9 28 28 27.96667 Brown tinge to water.6, G/beck d/s S/beck 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 Q6/Q7= 64.833337, Spoil Drain 50.3 50.8 50.5 50.53333 Q2/Q5= 1.1188128, d/s Spoil Drain 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6


Site 1st EC 2nd EC 3rd EC Mean EC2, u/s G/Beck 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 Q6/Q7= 66.444445, Swart Beck 41.8 41.7 41.7 41.73333 Q2/Q5= 0.9107816, G/beck d/s S/beck 33.6 33.5 33.6 33.566677, Spoil Drain 53.5 53.9 54 53.88, d/s Spoil Drain 33.8 33.9 33.9 33.86667

Appendix E – Environmental Agency data

Site Date Sampled Lead ppb Cadmium ppb Chromium ppb Zinc ppb Nickel ppb Copper ppb1 07/09/99 <0.4 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <5 <0.52 07/09/99 6.31 0.326 <0.5 28 <5 <0.53 07/09/99 38.2 0.783 <0.5 73.8 <5 <0.54 07/09/99 92.4 2.67 <0.5 265 <5 2.495 07/09/99 53.4 1.88 <0.5 148 <5 0.684

10 07/09/99 38.3 0.887 <0.5 75.5 <5 0.84312 07/09/99 32.8 0.828 <0.5 71.6 <5 0.817A 07/09/99 31.7 0.845 <0.5 70.1 <5 0.697B 07/09/99 110 6.75 <0.5 297 <5 0.775C 07/09/99 41.5 0.829 <0.5 80.3 <5 <0.5D 07/09/99 259 120 <0.5 10600 23.1 3.2E 07/09/99 13.4 190 <0.5 15200 46.4 1.71

1 14/09/99 <0.4 <0.1 <0.5 <5 <5 <0.52 14/09/99 5.59 0.365 <0.5 33.6 <5 <0.53 14/09/99 41.7 0.873 <0.5 90.1 <5 <0.54 14/09/99 41.4 2.48 <0.5 236 <5 1.855 14/09/99 47.4 1.94 <0.5 155 <5 0.601

10 14/09/99 44.3 1.25 <0.5 110 <5 0.95112 14/09/99 31.8 0.987 <0.5 89.1 <5 0.949A 14/09/99 29.8 1.09 <0.5 85.5 <5 <0.5B 14/09/99 71.4 7.75 <0.5 338 <5 0.563C 14/09/99 41.7 0.827 <0.5 87.8 <5 <0.5D 14/09/99 247 114 <0.5 9510 22.6 4.92E 14/09/99 9.86 204 <0.5 15500 49.9 5.66

Site Date Sampled Lead ppb Cadmium ppb Chromium ppb Zinc ppb Nickel ppb Copper ppb1 05/12/99 <0.4 <0.1 <0.5 <5 <5 <0.52 05/12/99 7.27 0.374 <0.5 33.3 <5 <0.53 05/12/99 48.2 0.79 <0.5 77.6 <5 <0.54 05/12/99 91.2 2.68 <0.5 256 <5 2.195 05/12/99 54.7 1.7 <0.5 141 <5 0.556

10 05/12/99 37.4 0.976 <0.5 84.7 <5 0.87812 05/12/99 27.2 0.873 <0.5 79.1 <5 0.781A 05/12/99 24.8 0.832 <0.5 71.5 <5 0.605B 05/12/99 80.5 8.51 <0.5 335 <5 0.86C 05/12/99 46.3 0.794 <0.5 79.4 <5 <0.5D 05/12/99 180 326 <0.5 30100 58 9.56E 05/12/99 16.2 205 <0.5 17200 52.9 2.33

1 12/12/99 <0.4 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <5 <0.52 12/12/99 36.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <5 <0.53 12/12/99 53.1 0.739 <0.5 68.1 <5 <0.54 12/12/99 88.6 2.88 <0.5 273 6.17 2.015 12/12/99 63.2 1.31 <0.5 108 <5 0.502

10 12/12/99 40 0.835 <0.5 74.1 <5 0.73712 12/12/99 35.7 0.747 <0.5 67.2 <5 0.952A 12/12/99 48.2 0.82 <0.5 69.8 <5 1.02B 12/12/99 63.2 11.1 <0.5 434 <5 1.19C 12/12/99 44.3 0.664 <0.5 64.6 <5 <0.5D 12/12/99 626 160 <0.5 14400 32.8 4.95E 12/12/99 24.5 214 <0.5 1840 60.3 5.08

Site Date Sampled Lead ppb Cadmium ppb Chromium ppb Zinc ppb Nickel ppb Copper ppb1 02/01/00 <0.4 <0.1 <0.5 <5 <5 <0.52 02/01/00 1.49 <0.1 <0.5 <5 <5 <0.53 02/01/00 44.1 0.652 <0.5 63.7 <5 >0.54 02/01/00 87.5 2.58 1.06 250 <5 2.485 02/01/00 58.8 1.23 0.614 110 <5 0.513

10 02/01/00 51.1 1.45 <0.5 126 <5 0.84212 02/01/00 25.8 0.6 <0.5 56.9 <5 0.69A 02/01/00 68 1.97 <0.5 164 <5 0.517B 02/01/00 56.5 7.96 <0.5 341 <5 <0.5C 02/01/00 54.5 0.706 <0.5 72.2 <5 <0.5D 02/01/00 1190 168 <0.5 15200 37.5 5.18E 02/01/00 13.2 244 <0.5 20600 64.5 4.34

1 09/02/00 0.869 <0.1 <0.5 <5 <5 <0.52 09/02/00 1.17 <0.1 <0.5 <5 <5 <0.53 09/02/00 35.9 0.714 <0.5 71 <5 <0.54 09/02/00 82.3 2.71 <0.5 253 <5 1.555 09/02/00 44 1.35 <0.5 122 <5 <0.5

10 09/02/00 51.8 0.958 <0.5 83.7 <5 0.8412 09/02/00 28.9 0.755 <0.5 67.3 <5 0.582A 09/02/00 22.8 0.723 <0.5 60.1 <5 <0.5B 09/02/00 87.9 8.19 <0.5 358 <5 0.629C 09/02/00 44.1 0.781 <0.5 76.4 <5 <0.5D 09/02/00 198 129 <0.5 11400 25.4 1.55E 09/02/00 17.2 230 <0.5 9.66 62.3 2.92

Site Date Sampled Lead ppb Cadmium ppb Chromium ppb Zinc ppb Nickel ppb Copper ppb1 30/02/00 0.584 <0.1 <0.5 >5 >5 <0.52 30/02/00 22.1 0.629 <0.5 54.8 >5 <0.53 30/02/00 51 0.662 <0.5 65.6 >5 <0.54 30/02/00 137 2.88 3.6 273 >5 1.65 30/02/00 90.1 1.73 <0.5 136 >5 0.882

10 30/02/00 41.8 1.1 <0.5 96.8 >5 <0.512 30/02/00 27.2 0.59 0.65 54.5 >5 0.929A 30/02/00 48.5 1.08 <0.5 94.5 >5 0.895B 30/02/00 153 4.82 <0.5 264 >5 0.89C 30/02/00 49.3 0.673 <0.5 66.2 >5 0.612D 30/02/00 320 80.4 9.5 6690 11.9 3.02E 30/02/00 10.7 226 <0.5 19800 57.7 3.85

1 06/02/00 <0.4 <0.1 <0.5 <5 <5 <0.52 06/02/00 24.4 0.552 <0.5 44.1 <5 <0.53 06/02/00 64.3 0.721 <0.5 69.9 <5 <0.54 06/02/00 92.4 2.59 <0.5 258 <5 1.255 06/02/00 66.9 1.26 <0.5 106 <5 0.549

10 06/02/00 65.4 0.934 <0.5 79.6 <5 0.99912 06/02/00 39.5 0.56 <0.5 50.5 <5 0.907A 06/02/00 55.3 1 <0.5 77.5 <5 0.567B 06/02/00 76.5 6.6 <0.5 285 <5 0.671C 06/02/00 44.6 0.584 <0.5 59.2 <5 <0.5D 06/02/00 366 86.8 <0.5 7850 17.7 4.5E 06/02/00 10.2 226 <0.5 20500 53.1 3.88

Site Date Sampled Lead ppb Cadmium ppb Chromium ppb Zinc ppb Nickel ppb Copper ppb1 27/02/00 4.23 0.471 <0.5 6.32 <5 1.032 27/02/00 44.1 11.8 <0.5 13.1 <5 1.293 27/02/00 250 100 <0.5 75.6 <5 1.244 27/02/00 441 342 <0.5 340 <5 1.335 27/02/00 550 81.8 <0.5 104 <5 2.16

10 27/02/00 271 39.5 0.543 50.2 <5 2.0712 27/02/00 172 20.6 0.539 48.5 <5 2.77A 27/02/00 262 38.4 <0.5 49.6 <5 2.58B 27/02/00 2080 67.1 <0.5 432 <5 3.92C 27/02/00 233 43.2 3.94 78.7 <5 1.15D 27/02/00 8590 287 3.94 9110 46.8 54.4E 27/02/00 46.4 12.5 <0.5 17700 53.4 5.24


Appendix F – Rainfall readings taken in Glenridding at NGR NY 381172

Date Oct1999

Nov1999

Dec1999

Jan2000

Feb2000

Mar2000

Apr2000

May2000

Jun2000

July2000

Aug2000

Sep2000

1 18 13 21 4 22 6 0 0 0 0 16 252 38 31 18 2 10 12 1 0 0 1.5 16 4.53 10 12 71 15 3 50 9 0 17 12 7 24 2 20.5 16.5 8 9 2 1 0 4 0 1 05 0 53 2 19 5 0 0.5 0 7 0 0 06 0 40 32 40 10 7 0 0 3.5 1 1 187 2 1 43 8 14 11 0 0 4.5 9 0 18 7 2 21 35 30.5 18 0 0 6 1 1 119 2 1 79 5 10 30 2 0 0.5 10.5 0 3

10 1 0 17 1 45 1 0 0 0 23.5 9 611 4 0 11 13 2 3 7 0 0 1 1 412 1 0 15.5 60 25 0 6 0 2 0 0 013 0 0 5.5 10 1.5 1 6 0 2 1 9 214 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 0 2 2 12 215 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0.5 216 0 5 1 0 25 2 0 0 5 0 9 3.517 0 0 32 0 2 0 6 16 0 0 6 018 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 22 0 0 9 1719 0 0 0 1 15 0 3 12 24 0 18 120 0 1 0 1 0 0 28 3 2.5 0 2 3821 0 0 12 1.5 16 0 17 2 0.5 0 2 022 17 0 3 4 1 1.5 10 0 0 0 7.5 2323 12 3 38 0 1.5 0 7 0 0 0 0 624 14 14.5 66 1 9 24 1 8 0 0 0 125 12 0 37 1 6 6 7 1.5 0 0 0 4526 2 27 20 0 2 0 10 5 0 0 7 327 0 10 15.5 1.5 52 0 13 13.5 15 0 5 19.528 9 38 1 10 32 0 3 0 13 1 0 3729 1 52 0 38 25 0 0 2.5 4 0 0 330 5 7 6 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 231 17 0.5 33 0 4 1 0

Total 174 331 584.5

318 387.5 178.5 148.5 89.5 115.5 64.5 139 279.5

Yearly total= 2810

robert maxwell (2001)

Documents

catchment overview

glenriddingbeck catchment

catchment drains

metal concentrations

experimental results

changing catchment conditions

appendix f rainfall

appendix b water analysis