Analysis of Selected Metals in Groundwater and Soil on Byers Island near Sunbury, Northumberland Co., PA
BROODY, Al; KITTING, Sarah; WHISNER, Jennifer B., Department of Environmental, Geographical, and Geological Sciences,
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, 400 E. 2nd St., Bloomsburg, PA, 17815, jwhisner@bloomu.edu
ShCr
Silt bank at OW3 (source of high manganese?).
The soil type found on Byer’s Island as described in the Soil
Survey of Northumberland County Pennsylvania is Uf, or Udifluvents and coal overwash (Eckenrode, 1985). Uf soils are
generally deep, have a slope of 0-3 percent and are excessively
drained to moderately well drained. There are 20 to 40 inches
of black, sand/silt size coal particles overlying 1 to 6 inches of
silt or sandy loam. The substratum is composed of loam or
sandy loam and descends to a depth of 60 inches or more. Uf
soils have a moderate to rapid permeability but the available
water capacity is moderate to low. Historical records (Brainerd
et al., 1798) indicate the island was part of a large native
american settlement and aerial photos indicated that the
north half of the island was used as farm land at least through
the late 1930s. Shallow soil in the farmed area was analyzed in
the field with XRF. On the banks of the island, a three-layer
stratigraphy was observed, a steep, silt bank underlain by a 612-inch dark clay-rich layer, followed by more silty sand underlain by a poorly sorted mix of sand and rounded gravel to
cobbles.
This poster presented at the 7th Annual Bucknell Susquehanna River Symposium, October 12-13, 2012
Soil Samples
Peristaltic pump set-up.
250
12
250
200
40000
800
150
35000
700
100
30000
600
50
50
25000
500
0
0
20000
SB
5
)
nk
ba
2
3(
SB
SB
2
DM
3
DM
4
DM
5
SB
1
1
DM
DM
C
DH
n
Co
Q2
Q1
1
SC
nk
ba
2
3(
SB
SB
CQ
1
DM
Q12
DCM
o2n
DDM
H3C
DM
D4M
1
DM
DM
52
SBD
1M
3
SBD
2
M
SB
3( 4
bDa
M
nk5
)
SSB
B51
1
DH
nSC
Co
Q2
Q1
30
OW1
60
20
40
OW1
As
Cd
Cu
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sham. Ck
OW2
20
400
4
350
3.5
5
SB
nk
ba
3(
2
1
SB
5
SB
4
DM
3
DM
2
1
DM
DM
C
DH
n
Co
Q2
Q1
1
SC
SB
OW2
SW2
OW2(2)
SW3
OW5
nk
ba
SB
3(
2
1
SB
5
SB
4
2
1
DM
DM
C
DH
n
Co
Q2
Q1
1
SW5
SW3
OW5
SW5
SW3
OW5
SW5
50
0.5
SW5
OW5
100
1
ND
SW3
150
1.5
ND
OW2(2)
200
2
0.4
SW2
250
2.5
Sham. Ck
OW2
300
3
ND ND
Sham. Ck
Iron (ppb)
4.5
ND
0
OW1
ND
Sham. Ck
ND
OW2
ND ND
SW2
ND ND
ND ND
OW2(2)
SW3
ND ND
ND ND
OW5
SW5
NDND
0
OW1
Sham. Ck
OW2
SW2
OW2(2)
Nickel (ppb)
Manganese (ppb)
60
2500
50
2000
40
30
1000
4
ND
Sham. Ck
OW2
SW2
ND
ND ND
OW2(2)
SW3
ND
OW5
Bottom right: OW1 from a distance.
nk
)
SB
5
ba
SB
3(
2
SB
1
SB
5
3
DM
2
1
DM
DM
C
DH
n
Co
Q2
Q1
1
SC
nk
)
SB
5
ba
SB
3(
2
SB
DH 1
C
Q
DM 1
Q1
DM 2
Co2
n
DM
DH3
DM C
D4M
DM 1
D5M
SB 2
1D
M
SB 3
2
SB DM
3(
ba 4
DnMk
)
SB 5
S5B
1
SC
Co
n
Q2
0
SB
SB 2
3(
ba
n
SC k)
1 SB
5
Q1
Q
DM 1
1Q
DM 2
2Co
n
DM
D3 H
DM C
4DM
DM 1
5DM
SB 2
1D
M
3
SB
SB 2DM
3(
4
ba
nDkM
)5
SB
5SB
1
1
C
DH
OW1
ND
20
500
10
0
0
SW5
OW1
Sham. Ck
OW2
SW2
OW2(2)
SW3
OW5
SW5
OW1
Sham. Ck
OW2
SW2
OW2(2)
Zinc (ppb)
200
180
160
50
SC
0
SW5
1.2
Above right: Al paddles Downstream with a
canoe full of equipment;
100
Co
n
OW5
450
OW1
Zirconium by XRF (ppm)
150
Q2
SW3
5
2
200
Q1
OW2(2)
6
250
SC
1
2
DM
3
DM
4
DM
5
SB
1
SB
SB 2
3(
ba
nk
)
SB
5
1
DM
DM
C
DH
SW2
1500
nk
ba
SB
3(
2
SB
2Co
DM n
3DH
DM C
4D
DM M1
5D
M
SB 2
1
D
SB M3
SB 2 D
3( M4
ba
nDk
M
)
SB 5
5S
B1
DM
1Q
2
DM
DH
C
Q1
1
SC
n
Co
Q2
Q1
SC
1
5
SB
nk
ba
SB
3(
2
SB
1
SB
5
DM
4
DM
3
DM
2
DM
1
DM
C
DH
n
Co
n
Q2
Q1
1
OW2
8
Zinc by XRF (ppm)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Sham. Ck
1.4
0
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
OW1
ND
Copper (ppb)
10
)
0
)
0
SW5
Lead (ppb)
SC
200
OW5
5
40
SW3
ND
0
Cadmium (ppb)
Zn
OW1
SB
60
OW2(2)
)
80
SW2
0.2
DQM
2
1
C
DM
on
2
D
DM
HC
3
DDMM
41
DDMM
52
SDBM
13
D
SBM
SB 2 4
3(D
baM
n5k
)
SSBB1
5
SB
SB 2
3(
ba
nk
)
SB
5
100
DHQ
C1
800
50
10
20
)
)
n
Co
Q2
Q1
5
Q1
80
12
CoS
nC1
120
Q2
1000
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Q1
140
SCSB
15
1200
Titanium by XRF (ppm)
Top: Looking at Southwest end of ridge where Doughty
Mine samples were collected.
Right: Heavily vegetated area where Quarry samples
were collected
100
OW2
Strontium by XRF (ppm)
Rubidium (by XRF (ppm)
400
DHC: Downhill Concrete
Con: Concrete Structure
Q#: Quarry
DM#: Doughty Mine
SB#: Soil boring
SC#: Shamokin Creek
150
0.6
0
DH
n
SC
Co
Q2
SC
Q1
5
)
nk
SB
ba
2
3(
SB
SB
1
5
SB
DM
4
3
DM
DM
DM
2
1
DM
C
DH
n
Co
Q2
Q1
1
Manganese by XRF (ppm)
Dh
Dtr: Trimmer’s Rock Fm.
Dh: Hamilton Gp.
Doo: Onondaga and Old Port Fms.
DSkt: Keyser and Tonoloway Fms
40
0
600
SB4
120
0
Ba
Fe
140
0.8
SB
20
Co
DM4
0
nk
40
2000
Q2
DSkt
0
200
50
1
ba
4000
1
SB3
100
3(
60
0
5000
250
60
100
SB5
Barium (ppb)
70
200
160
300
SB5
200
SB
6000
OW1
Arsenic (ppb)
Aluminum (ppb)
180
400
10000
Al
2
80
S
DH C1
C
Q
DM 1
1Q
DM 2
C2o
DM n
D3H
DM C
4D
DM M1
D5M
SB 2
1
D
SB M3
SB 2DM
3(
ba 4
DnkM)
SB 5
5S
B1
8000
Doo
Q1
Q2
DM1
DM2
DM3
nk
30
Q1
DM5
SB5
ba
100
SC
Con
2
10000
10
DHC
3(
40
0
SB2
SB
120
20
SB1
SB
12000
C
Q
DM 2
1C
DM on
2D
DM HC
3D
DM M1
4D
DM M2
5
D
SB M3
1
D
SB M4
SB 2 D
M
3(
ba
5
nk
)SB
SB 1
5
SB
SB 2
3(
ba
nk
)
SB
SC
5
1
50
140
1
14000
1
SC2
60
OW2
15000
Lead by XRF (ppm)
Iron by XRF (ppm)
SB
Copper by XRF (ppm)
Dh
DMQ
12
DMC
on
2
DM
DH
3C
DMD
4M1
DMD
5M2
SBD
1M
3
SBD
M
SB 2 4
3(
baDM
nk5
)
SBSB
51
CQ1
1
DH
nSC
Co
Q2
Q1
1
1
DM
DM
C
DH
n
Co
Q2
SC1
Q1
SC
1
0
2
DM
3
DM
4
DM
5
SB
1
SB
SB 2
3(
ba
nk
)
SB
5
2
SC
4
)
100
S
SCB5
1
6
5
150
SB
200
)
300
8
Dtr
Selected Soil Metals by SWR
6020/10B (ppm)
Selected Soil Metals by SWR 6020/10B
(ppm)
Cobalt by XRF (ppm)
14
10
Metals Profile ICP-OES
Hawk Mountain Labs
Barium by XRF (ppm)
Arsenic by XRF (ppm)
SC
Soil Conditions
X-Ray Fluorescence (ThermoScientific Niton
XL2 Series handheld XRF):
Any detected constituents
X-Ray Fluorescence
SC
Transporting equipment over the low-head dam
Profile ICP-OES:
Metals: Aluminum, Barium, Arsenic, Iron,
Cadmium, Manganese, Nickel,
Zinc, Copper, Lead
DM
OW4
Ion Chromatography (Dionex ICS 2000):
Anions: Fluoride, Chloride, Nitrite, Bromide
Nitrate, Sulfate, Phosphate
4
ShCr : Shamokin Creek, surface
water
OW1: Observation well 1, surface
and groundwater
OW2 : Observation well 2, surface
and groundwater
OW3: Observation well 3, surface
water, dry well
OW4: Observation well 4, vandalized
OW5: Observation well 5, surface
and groundwater
Alkalinity and Acidity:
For filtered samples using the Hach 8203 and
8201methods respectively
DM
OW3
1. Observation well 4 was vandalized before we could collect our samples, so surface water samples were collected only from observation wells 1, 2, 3 and 5, with a duplicate at OW3. Observation well 3 was too dry to pump a 4L sample, so groundwater
samples were collected only from observation wells 1, 2 and 5, with a duplicate from OW2.
2. To better assess the impact of groundwater, an effort was made to sample during a period of low discharge with maximum contribution from groundwater baseflow. This goal was not achieved, however, as during our first round of samples collected (8/238/24), groundwater samples from OW1 & OW2 and surface water from Shamokin Creek were collected during the initial stages of
fiberdam deflation, so discharge on those days was variable. The second round of samples was collected 9/29/12 when discharge was somewhat higher than average. Due to time constraints from the bald eagle nesting season and the ensuing Fall semester, we could not be more selective about our sampling days.
3. Is the lead from Shamokin Creek? Our analyses indicate that lead levels in the creek are above the EPA Recommended Water
Quality Criteria for aquatic life (Chronic Exposure) (2.5 ppb) at a hardness of 100mg/L , however no other surface water samples
had lead above these criteria.
4. Is the lead from groundwater or surface water contaminated by lead dissolved from tailings or pockets of lead-rich unmined
bedrock around the Doughty mine on the east bank? While XRF screening indicates two quarry soil samples have higher lead
concentrations than other samples, levels are only in the 100 ppm range. Surface water samples along the east side of the river
(Robert Kresch, this symposium) do not show elevated lead levels.
5. Is the lead from possible past use of lead and arsenic pesticides on farm fields on the northern half of Byer’s Island? XRF field
scans indicated lead and arsenic were present in the soil profile, but not at levels substantially higher than other area samples.
6. No smoking gun for elevated lead was found!
7. Elevated manganese levels in surface water, however, may be related to elevated concentrations of manganese in island soil
samples. Groundwater concentrations of manganese are high at two of three groundwater locations, which is consistent with
concentrations detected in glacial outwash northeast of the study area (Williams and Eckhardt, 1987).
D.O., pH, T, and Conductivity (Hach HD40)
In situ
DM
OW5
A hand auger was used to drill sample wells on the shoreline of Byer’s Island. Soil
borings were placed on plastic sheeting as they were removed from the boerehole,
logged, and screened with a hand-held XRF to determine whether any intervals had
elevated metals. At least one soil sample was collected from each boring, with
preference given to those intervals showing elevated metals. Three representative
samples were sent to Hawk Mountain Labs for further analysis. Soil not collected
for sampling was returned to the borehole. Plastic sheeting was bagged and
properly disposed on shore. One-inch diameter PVC pipe with a PVC piezometer
was placed in the hole. The piezometers were located within 2 m of the shoreline,
extended below ground up to approximately 1m, projected up to 1/2m above the
ground surface, had non-locking PVC caps, and were located by GPS so they would
not require flagging. Groundwater samples (4L, conditioned) were collected by the
use of a peristaltic pump and placed on ice in the field. Surface water samples were
also collected at every well and placed on ice. Samples were analyzed for dissolved
oxygen, pH, temperature, and conductivity in the field. Filtering (GFF 0.7µm
effective pore size) took place upon returning to the lab. Nonfiltered and filtered
metal samples were acidified and refrigerated for later testing, and cation/anion
samples were frozen until analysis. A surface water sample was also collected in
Shamokin Creek following the same preparations and procedures. Soil samples
from the adjacent SE ridgeside near the Doughty Pb-Zn mine were also collected
for XRF analysis.
DM
OW2
Analytical
DM
OW1
Background Information and Objectives
The Susquehanna River Heartland Coalition for Environmental Studies has, for
the past several years, funded collection and analysis of water from the
Susquehanna River to determine levels of dissolved constituents and help establish a baseline against which surface water affected by hydraulic fracturing
or flowback water may be identified. Drs. Christopher Hallen and Cynthia
Venn of Bloomsburg University, along with several undergraduate summer
research students, have conducted this sampling in the North Branch, West
Branch, and Main Stem Susquehanna since summer 2009. During their first
round of sampling, elevated concentrations of metals including lead, manganese, and copper were documented (Eyerly et al., 2010) in Susquehanna River
water samples collected near Byers’ Island—a large island in the Susquehanna
between Sunbury and Selinsgrove, Northumberland Co., PA . Additional work
indicated that the island is the most likely source of these metals, but confirmation in the form of groundwater and soil analyses was lacking (Kaldon et
al., 2010, Ochal et al., 2011, Reed et al., 2012). A variety of potential sources of
metals were evaluated for this study. In the initial survey, lead levels were
highest along the east bank of the Susquehanna river south of its confluence
with Shamokin Creek . Aerial photos going back to the 1930s suggest that
input from Shamokin creek may stay relatively unmixed near the east bank of
the river along the length of the island. Recent analyses of fish in Shamokin
Creek (Cravotta and Kirby, 2004), however, did not detect elevated lead levels.
A literature review turned up documentation of an old (mid-late 1800s) leadzinc mine on the east side of the river, across from Byer’s Island (Rogerson,
1976). Exploration of the ridge revealed several locations that may be related
to mining, and soil samples were collected and screened for metals using a
handheld ThermoScientific Niton XL2 Series handheld X-ray Fluorescence instrument.
Sampling
3
A group of faculty and students at Bloomsburg University have been sampling the Susquehanna River near the confluence of the West and North Branch for the past several years. During the first round of sampling, elevated concentrations of metals were documented in Susquehanna River water samples collected near Byers Island—a large island
in the Susquehanna between Sunbury and Selinsgrove, Northumberland Co., PA. Additional work indicated that the
island was the most likely source of these metals, but confirmation in the form of groundwater and soil analyses was
lacking. In late summer 2012, soil, groundwater, and surface water samples were collected in and around Byer’s
Island to identify what could be causing the elevated levels. Due to concerns with nesting bald eagles, the sampling
process could not begin until after the nesting season ended on August 1. Travelling by canoe, we collected water
and soil samples on Byers Island and adjacent surface water samples. Using a hand auger, 5 wells were installed
along the shore of the island; one well was placed above the low-head dam and the subsequent 4 were placed below
the dam, three on the east side of the island, where metals level had been elevated, and one on the west side. Soil
samples were collected from each well drilled; selected samples were sent to Hawk Mountain Laboratories for further
analysis. Surface water samples were also collected at the mouth of Shamokin Creek, and soil samples were collected
on the ridge that rises above the east bank of the river, near entrances to the long abandoned Doughty Lead-Zinc
Mine. Analyses were run for metals, anions and cations in the lab, as well as alkalinity and acidity using the Hach 8203
and 8201 respectively. The soil samples were all analyzed by X-ray Fluoresence (XRF) in the field. A few minor complications were faced when we went out to sample from our well, especially for the second round of sampling. One well
was vandalized before we could sample (OW4) and another was too dry to pump a useful sample from it. Our search
found no obvious sources for elevated levels of lead or copper in the Susquehanna River. Field and lab soil analyses,
however, as well as groundwater samples from Byer’s Island do show moderately elevated levels of manganese.
DM
Abstract
Results and Discussion
Methods
Left: First Byers Island day, looking at the
northern tip
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
ND ND
0
OW1
OW2
SW2
OW2(2)
SW3
ND ND
OW5
SW5
Acknowledgments
References
Berg, T. M., Edmunds, W. E., Geyer, A. R., and others, compilers, 1980, Geologic map of Pennsylvania (2nd ed.): Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 1, scale 1:250,000, 3 sheets [web release].
Brainerd, D., Edwards, J., and Pemberton, E., 1798, An account of the life of Mr. David Brainerd : missionary from the Society for
Propagating Christian Knowledge, & pastor of a church of Christian Indians in New-Jersey. Online Resource:
http://archive.org/details/accountoflifeofm00brairich, accessed, June 26, 2012.
Brown, A. P., and Ehrenfeld, F. E., 1913, Minerals of Pennsylvania, Topographic and Geologic Survey of Pennsylvania Report no. 9,
Topographic and Geologic Survey Commission, 194 p.
Cravotta, C.A., Kirby, C.S., 2004. Effects of abandoned coal-mine drainage on streamflow and water quality in the Shamokin Creek
Basin, Northumberland and Columbia Counties, Pennsylvania, 1999-2001,
Eckenrode, J.J., 1985, Soil survey of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 178.
Eyerly, M.H., Venn, C., Hallen, C.P., and Rier, S., 2010. Will gas production from the Marcellus shale impact water quality in the
Susquehanna River? A snapshot of water quality in the Susquehanna in summer 2009. GSA Abstracts with Programs, NE/SE
Sections Joint Meeting, vol. 42, no. 1, p. 182.
Kaldon, L., Hallen, C.P., Venn C., and Rier, S., 2010. Assessment of the water quality in the North Branch, West Branch, and Main
Stem of the Susquehanna River, Summer 2010. Online resource:
http://www.srhces.org/site/Portals/10/documents/2010_BloomsburgU_Assessment_of%20_the_Water_Quality_in_the_
North_West_and_Main_Susquehanna.pdf. Accessed 4/10/12.
Ochal, K., Hallen, C. P., Venn, C., and Rier, S., 2011. A snapshot of water quality in the Susquehanna in summer 2010: influence of
Byers Island, Shamokin Creek, and the Shamokin Dam power plant on local Susquehanna River water, GSA Abstracts with
Programs, NE/N-C Sections Joint Meeting, vol. 43, no.1, p. 105.
Reed, E. R., Venn, C. and Hallen, C. P., 2012. Attempt #2: Quest for Point Sources of Metals and Sulfate into the Susquehanna River
near Byer’s Island, Shamokin Dam (Northumberland County), Pa. GSA Abstracts with Programs, NE Section Meeting, vol. 44,
no. 2, p. 110.
Rogerson, P. N., 1976, The Doughty Mine, Sunbury, PA. Senior Honors Thesis, Bryn Mawr, PA, 40 p.
Sham. Ck
ND ND
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Skip Wieder and the Susquehanna River Heartland Coalition for Environmental Sciences for project funding and partial support of A. Broody and S. Kitting.
The Bloomsburg University Undergraduate Research Scholarly and Creative Activities Program for partial support of A. Broody and S. Kitting
Dr. Robert Marande, Dean, College of Science and Technology for support of the Institute for Environmental Analysis
Bloomsburg University Department of Environmental, Geographical and Geological Sciences, and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Chad Voorhees, Forest Resource Planner, PA Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry, Resource Planning Section, for overseeing the permitting process
Olivia Mowery, PA Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management, Division of Environmental Planning & Habitat Protection, for assisting with the permitting process
Dr. Christopher Hallen for use of his boat motor and battery, for assistance with laboratory analyses, and for use of the Geochemistry laboratory instruments
and supplies
• Dr. Cynthia Venn for use of Geochemistry laboratory instruments and supplies
• Dr. Michael Pugh, Chair, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, for use of the ThermoScientific Niton XL2 Series handheld XRF analyzer for screening soil samples.
• Caitlin Heller, Kendi Waltemeyer and Derek Weicht for assistance with sample preparation and analysis.
• Robert Kresch for productive discussions
• Sam Pfister for help with data wrangling