Analyse the risks and suggest strategy for remediation for any unacceptable risks if found during the

course of investigation and analysis.

Page

CONTENTS S.No. 1.1 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.5.A. 1.5.B 1.5.B.1 1.6 1.6.B 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 Topic Definition of The Problem Causal relationship and approach Contamination Conceptual Model Qualitative Risk Assessment Quantitative Risk Assessment Identification Of Fate & Transport Mechanism Tier-2 Model Selection of Parameters for Model Comparison With Acceptable Values Up Take Rates Parametric Modeling and Uncertainty Probalistic Approach in Modeling Sensitive Analysis Recommending Remediation List of figures Flowchart showing the approach to the problem O&B worksheet Graph showing C/Co for distance(x) and time(t) O&B Spread sheet showing definition of assumptions and forecast frequency distribution chart showing concentration of dinoseb frequency distribution showing 95% probabily of concentraion above.290 Page No. 3 4 4 6 7 7 9 10 12 13 14 16 19 20

Fig.1A Fig.2A Fig.2B Fig.2C Fig.2D Fig.2E

3-4 11 12 16 18 18

Fig.2F

sensitivity analysis chart

19 17

Fig.3A- Assumptions made for different parameters 3E List of tables Table.1A Table.1B Table.1C Table.1D Conceptual Model Risk Assessment with Impact analysis Health Based Limits for Dinoseb parametric modelling & uncertainty APPENDIX

6 7 13 16

Page

1. 2

Table of value group 1-8 Table of values group 9-16

21 21

3 Table showing data/values 1.1 Definition Of The Problem:

21

An industrial site has been losing chemicals from a tank for several years. Investigation of the sludge at the bottom of one of the storage tank shows that the contaminant is DINOSEB, a contact herbicide banned in many countries mainly for its acute toxicity to humans as it is considered a possible carcinogen and also suspected to be an endocrine disrupter. It is believed that the chemicals have leaked into the soil and has entered the water table. The geology of this site consists of a shallow gravel aquifer with clay underneath. It has been suspected that there may be potential risk of contamination of land on site and ground and surface water more specifically: Water table observations suggest that the groundwater slopes towards a lake 35 metre away from the site and it passes beneath a primary school. The school takes water from a borehole for drinking washing and cooking, located 13 metre from the source.. Our concern here is to analyze the risks and suggest strategy for remediation for any unacceptable risks if found during the course of investigation and analysis. 1.2 The causal relationship and our Methodology and approach to the problem is outlined in following diagram:Definition of the Problem

Conceptual model for Source-Pathway-Transport analysis Initial Qualitative Risk Assessment Using Source-Pathway-Target method Defining an appropriate Fate and Transport Mechanism Y

TIER-2 Modeling for estimation of contaminant concentration at identified targets Validating model against Field observations and public health standards No Page

Yes

Agree

X X

Additional Data Required

Sensitivity Analysis using Probabilistic Approach

Comparison with published guidelines No Agree Yes

Is the model an appropriate predictive tool (sufficiently accurate in meeting objectives)

No Y

Yes Time Scaled Remediation Methods for unacceptable risks Task Accomplished Fig.1A- flow chart showing causal relationship 1.3 Contamination Conceptual Model: The report aims at analyzing and identifying the risk / risks posed by leaking of a chemical known for its toxic nature. As we know by the legal definition of the contamination of land as provided in Section 78A(2) Part II A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, any land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) pollution of controlled water is being, or is likely to be, caused. Page

What includes controlled waters is clarified in section 78A(9) of the ibid act according to which in simple term ground water, coastal water and water in surface courses- rivers, lakes etc. may be considered. Further pollution of controlled water is defined as one of the situation where harm is to be regarded as significant. We have used source pathway target methodology for risk assessment. Which means that if one of the three viz,; 1. source of pollution 2. pathway for the pollutant to move 3. and the receptor that is affected by the pollutant Applying the methodology the risk to the environment can be assessed based on the nature of the source, presence and ability of pathway to carry the pollutant and the degree of exposure of the receptor to the pollutant and the sensitivity of the receptor. It can be assumed safely that if any of the three factors i.e. source-pathway-receptor is missing there is no risk. Source: Primary source here is a tank of chemical Dinoseb which is releasing the chemical into surface soil. Surface soil and ground water may be called secondary source. Pathway: Aerial route is insignificant as the pollutant the groundwater can be identified as potential pathway as the geology under the surface reveals gravels leading to sand stone aquifer resting on clay sloping towards the potential receptor a school well and a lake. Target/Receptors: The main receptor here is water environment as the pollutant is known to have been entered the water table and there is a bored well down-slope the aquifer 14m from source which is used by school children further the aquifer leads to a lake On the basis of available information the conceptual model is visualized as follows:Potential types and spread of contamination Widespread presence of pollutant the likely to be present Dinoseb, in the environment is highly unlikely as the chemical is not known to accumulate in environment. However, pollution of groundwater and water bodies down slope the source is very likely as we believe that the pollutant has reached the water table and the geology favors spread of the polluted towards the potential receptors/targets Vertical and horizontal stratification of Soils below the site consist of shallow soils below the site gravel aquifer lying on clay Variation of strata and their permeability Variation of strata is not observed.

Page

across the site Potential migration routes

Presence of buried features such as service trenches, drains, underground schemes, buried storage tanks Presence of ground water below the site Use of ground water for drinking or other purpose

Presence of surface water bodies on or near the surface of site

permeability of strata is likely to be medium/ high within sand stone aquifer. Under lying geology is classified as gravel aquifer hence a significant migration route. Aerial deposition of the pollutant is not significant. No such under ground features as may influence contamination migration were observed Ground water, not much below the surface, sloping towards a lake has been observed Ground water is observed to be passing beneath a school, which takes water from a bore hole for drinking, washing and cooking purposes Ground water is sloping towards a lake 35 meter from the site which feeds water to Drinking water supply scheme to a town and further to a river which also supplies drinking water to another town Site workers, future residents and plants

Other potential receptors

Table 1A-CONCEPTUAL MODEL 1.4 Qualitative Risk Assessment: As discussed we are basing risk assessment on Source-Pathway-Target model. We examine whether a target( ground water user for example) will be at risk from a contamination source say release of a pollutant (Dinoseb in our case).so first we determine if the source i.e. Release of Dinoseb, is present or not then we investigate if a pathway is present to link the source to the target ( in our case to a ground water user to the exposure to Dinoseb hazard) Target(Receptor) Potential linkage way Estimated Remarks degree of risk to target Site users /future Inhalation of vapors, odours or Low Dinoseb occurs in residents dust solid or liquid state, is less volatile and breaks down slow and is not known to accumulate in environment Ingestion of ,and dermal contact Low There is no with contaminated soil information available of soft land scaping Source-Path

Page

Indirect ingestion (ingestion of Low contaminants in vegetables etc.)

Students and staff of school /ground water/other two bores A&B

Population of the town using water supplied from the lake Population of the town using water supplied from the river feeding partly on lake Surface Ingestion and contact water/Flora and contaminated water fauna of lake and river Buildings structures

There is no information available of gardens and cultivated land near the site Ingestion and skin contact with Moderate - School is known to the polluted ground water high use water for drinking and washing from a bore feeding on ground water down slope the site, which may be contaminated. although the chemical is not readily soluble in water but is known to pollute water Ingestion and contact with water Moderate Possible possibly polluted contamination of lake water through ground water Ingestion and contact with LowWater may be possibly contaminated water moderate contaminated but the concentration is likely to be very low with Moderate Possibility of water pollution. The chemical is known to be toxic to aquatic life Possible contamination of land on site -

and Flow of land fill gas into building

Low

Contaminant penetrating through Lowleaking water supply pipes Moderate

Table 1 B- Table showing comparative risk In this qualitative risk assessment a low risk implies that the remedial action is unlikely to be required. So we have identified contamination of bore wells especially water used by school and lake water as the most important risks which need quantitative risk assessment and further analysis so we proceeded further by discussing Fate and transport mechanism of the contaminant:Page 1.5 Quantitative Risk Assessment: 1.5 A. Identification/definition of Fate & Transport Mechanism:

As discussed we are concerned here primarily with the fate and transport mechanism of the contaminant Dinoseb in the sub surface soil and the ground water. As in this case the contaminant being released directly into subsoil by way of leakage from a storage tank, not being applied as herbicide in the fields. The following three factors determine the fate and transportation of the contaminant: 1. Properties of Contaminant: a. solubility b. adsorption c. persistence 2. Properties of Soil a. texture/permeability b. presence of organic matter c. presence of macropores 3. Site Conditions: a. Permeability of vadose zone b. type of aquifer c. depth of ground water d. climate/ rainfall e. soil temperature We know that Dinoseb occurs mainly in solid state in nature as orange crystals with solubility of about .052g/L at 25degree centigrade; tends to form salts which are highly soluble in water. With Soil sorption coefficient: Koc =124 (measured) ;in a scale of highly mobile-<1 ; immobile>5, the contaminant is classified as mobile. With vapour pressure of 1mm Hg at 151.1 oC. The estimated Henry's Law constant of 5.04 x 10-4 atm cu m/mol , and diffusion rate of 6.25e-006, diffusion in water is insignificant. With a half life of 75 days in soil( estimated to be around 100 in sandy loam vadose region), the chemical is classified as moderately persistent or slow / readily degradable. We can sum up that Dinoseb is expected to biodegrade in slowly and bind weakly to soil. Therefore, leaching in soil is possible. So the leaching of the chemical is highly likely in our case and hence confirms the available information that the chemical has reached water table .Dinoseb has been detected in groundwater in many countries. However, it may bind more strongly to clay soils, especially at acidic pH. Photolytic degradation of Dinoseb from soil surface may be important. Volatilization is not expected to be significant. Bioconcentration is expected to be insignificant. A bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 68 for dinoseb was estimated from its water solubility (50 mg/L) Now we look at property of the surface and sub soil we observe that the vadose zone is not thick followed by shallow gravel aquifer (depth -17-22-21m from the three bores between the tank and the lake).Site is an industrial site and no vegetation has been reported so the presence of organic matter in the soil may be assumed to be insignificant. Hence the sub soil is highly permeable.

Page

And then we examine the site conditions and come to know that the water table observations around the site suggest that the ground water (shallow gravel aquifer resting on impervious clay) is sloping towards the bores and the lake. Hence it is highly likely that the contaminant has leached into the ground water and has been moving towards the identified targets. Other factors that influence the contaminant transport that are required for quantitative assessment and modeling are: 1. Mass of contaminant entering the system/ at source(Co) 2. Recharge (dilution and contaminant loading/leaching) 3. Hydrualic conductivity (K)(rate of contaminant transport and arrival time at receptor, calculated ground water dilution) 4. Hydraulic gradient(i=dh/dx)) (rate and direction of ground water flow, calculated ground water dilution) 1.5 B. Tier 2 Model: So the next step is to assess the concentration of the contaminant at the identified targets and prepare a suitable model. Our goal is to calculate the concentration of the contaminant, Dinoseb in the ground water feeding Bore B,which is being used by school for drinking, cooking and washing purposes.( it is presumed that bore A and C are for investigative purpose and water from these bores is not being used for any purpose).with the problem as defined earlier and the amount of available information/ data Tier- 2 model will be most appropriate approach the meet the Goal. Using this approach we will use Mthematical model based on the Ogata and Banks equation to make estimates of the likely range of contaminant at our identified targets. Goal: Estimation of concentration of Dinoseb at the bore B(11-15M from the source) in order thereby to assess the level of risk to the identified targets viz. students and staff of school using water from bore B. Assumptions: 1. The model is assumed to be at steady-state, where all variables are constant over time. 2. Emissions/leakage from the source of contamination are continuous and result in a constant contaminant concentration in the soil. 3. Contaminat is leaking from the whole surface of the tank in contact with soil surface Equation:

C/Co = e((x(1Where: =(1+4 R

)/2(D/v))

0.5 erfc ((x-(v/R) t)/(4(D/R)t)0.5) Eq. 1.1

L/v)

- Eq.1.2

Page

R = retardation factor x = distance from source(m)

v= true velocity of ground water flow(m/day) C/Co = e((x(1t)/(4(D/R)t)0.5)

)/2(D/v))

0.5 erfc ((x-(v/R)

t = time(days) = decay constant D= dispersion length A spread sheet on MS Excel 2007 was prepared using Ogata and banks Eqaution, as model for calculation/estimation of Concentration. 1.5 B(1) Selection of parameters: Following in put values/parameters were selected:Co(concentration of contaminant at source(not in the tank)) Co= Rate of Leakage in Kg/Year/Flow Rate in M/year Rate of leakage=42 kg/year(taking the mean of 16 values) Flow Rate(Q)=Vd *Y *Z ; where Y=Width of the tank i.e. 30m in our case and Z (mixing Depth )= =(0.0112 L2)0.5 + b(1 -exp[(-L*Inf)/(K*dh/dx*b))] ; where L=Source length/length or Dia of tank i.e. 30m (see appendix-3) b=Aquifer thickness i.e. 20m (taking the mean of the three values) (see appendix-3) Inf=Infiltration rate viz. rainfall-runoff-evaporation= 0.3m/year ( assumed) dh=.8 (given difference of water level between bore A and bore C)(see appendix-3) dx=35 (mean value calculated from the group of 16 ) (appendix-3) hence Z=3.29 FLOW RATE =1.143*30*3.29=112.81 M/year Co =42/112.81=.372 kg/m (see appendix-1&2) K(Hydrualic conductivity)=50m/day (30 to 70 m/day given mean value taken)(A-3) Porosity(n)=.23 (given) (see A-3) D(Dispersion length) D(diffusion coefficient) We can estimate Diffusion/Dispersion combination using DL = L v + D* DL= longitudinal dispersion coefficient m2/day. This is what we use as D in the Ogata and Banks equation, a combination of dispersion & diffusion. L is called the dynamic dispersivity and is the amount of dispersion caused by water flowing around the soil particles L can be estimated very approximately 0.1 x flow path length. L can also be estimated using from L= 0.83 (log L)2.414 for L<3500m. v = True velocity of groundwater flow = (VDarcy/porosity) D* is called the apparent chemical diffusivity . D* is usually in the range 0.5D to 0.01D, where D is the diffusion coefficient of the particular chemical in question, usually available from tables. (note that this is not the same D as in Ogata and Banks) Look at the dispersion part of the equation L v first K=50/day, dh =.8m, dx=35m hence Darcy velocity = 1.143m/day Porosity n =0.23 hence true velocity V = 1.142857/0.23 = 4.97m/day L= 0.1 x 35 = 3.5 , or alternatively L= 0.83 (log L)2.414 =0.83 *(1.54)2.414 = 2.35

L v

is between (3.5 * 4.97) = 17.3m and (2.35 *4.97) = 11.65 As the value of K is very high Diffusion is insignificant and hence can be ignored in this case so we can take the value of D between 11.65 & 17.3 in O&b; Hence

Page

10

D=14
Rf(Retardation Factor)= 1+density of dry soil/porosity(Kd) Where Kd = foc Koc=3.1 Foc=.5*organic matter in soil =.025(assuming the presence of organic matter to be 5 %) Koc=124 (calculated value taken from EPA Literature);hence

Rf=23.913 (1+1.7/.23(3.1)) Density=1.7 (from table)

(decay constant) can be calculated from the half life & vice versa half life of Dinoseb in ground water is estimated to be 100days(decay const=.693/half life ) i.e.

=.00693 L=3 (between 2.35 & 3.5)

Hence we have obtained/selected all the in put values for our model.No value was found to be out side the typical values. Values were fed in to the O&B spread sheet. No inconsistencies were found and the contaminant concentration at the borehole used by school was calculated and found to be .671kg/m , as can be seen below in the fig-1 A

fig. 2. A (Ogata n bank worksheet) we can see here in the fig 1 A above that the concentration of the contaminant at the distance of 13 m from source or at the bore B is .357, interestingly the value is same for 1 year and 22 years.Although the values/concentration diminishes slightly as the distance from the source increases but values are well above MCL(.007) even at the distance of 15m.(if the distance of bore B is taken to be 15 m)

Page

11

Fig.2.B. Graph showing movement of contaminant 1.6.Comparision of results with acceptable standards: Published and legal standards( source EPA) are tabulated below for reference:Health Based Standard Limits for Dinoseb Description Level The enforceable standard which defines the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set Maximum as close to health-based limits (Maximum Contaminant Contaminant Level Goals, or MCLGs) as feasible using the best available 0.007 mg/l Limit (MCL) analytical and treatment technologies and taking cost into consideration. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Maximum A non-enforceable health goal that is set at a level at which Contaminant no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of 0.007 mg/l Limit Goal persons occurs and which allows an adequate margin of (MCLG) safety. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse, noncarcinogenic health Lifetime healtheffects for a lifetime of exposure. The Lifetime health-based 0.007 mg/l based limit, nonlimit (or Health Advisory, HA) is based on exposure for a a cancer risk 70-kg adult consuming 2 liters of water per day. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Page

12

Defined by the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) as the level of contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. For acutely toxic substances, levels are set at which scientific evidence California Public indicates that no known or anticipated adverse effects on 0.014 mg/l Health Goals health will occur, plus an adequate margin-of safety. PHGs for carcinogens or other substances which can cause chronic disease shall be based solely on health effects without regard to cost impacts and shall be set at levels which OEHHA has determined do not pose any significant risk to health. A lifetime exposure concentration protective of adverse, Drinking Water noncarcinogenic health effects, that assumes all of the 0.035 mg/l Equivalent Level exposure to a contaminant is from drinking water. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse, non carcinogenic health Children's healtheffects for up to one day of exposure. The One-Day healthbased limit for 10.3 mg/l based limit (or Health Advisory, HA) is typically set to day exposure protect a 10-kg child consuming 1 liter of water per day. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse, noncarcinogenic effects for up to ten days of exposure. The Ten-Day health-based limit (or Health Advisory, HA) is typically set to protect a 10-kg Children's healthchild consuming 1 liter of water per day. Source: U.S. 0.3 mg/l based limit for Environmental Protection Agency. 10-day exposure Table; 1C- Health base limits for Dinoseb

Comparing the estimated value of concentration i.e. .671g/l with the above tabulated acceptable standards we see that the level of concentration of contaminant alarmingly above the laid down standards. 1.6 B. Uptake rate of targets: As our concern is the school which takes water from borehole B for drinking, cooking and washing purposes(ingestion, dermal contact and contact with eye.) It is known that there are around 200 children aged 5-10 yrs and 10 staff aged 23-45 yrs. The school is open 40 weeks per year. Thus if a child is assumed to intake 1 ltr of water / day by way of direct drinking and in food served in school 7 days a week(assuming the school to be residential school)for 40 weeks in a year average child intake comes to be 280*.357=99.96g and if an adult is assumed to consume 2 ltrs of water daily the avg yearly up take rate can be estimated to be 199.92 g per year respectively. Hence the up take rates are far higher than the acceptable for the targets so the level of risk is not acceptable. Interpreting these results within the meaning of Section 78A(2) Part II A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,

Page

13

any land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) pollution of controlled water is being, or is likely to be, caused. What includes controlled waters is clarified in section 78A(9) of the ibid act according to which in simple term ground water, coastal water and water in surface courses- rivers, lakes etc. may be considered.Further it has been clarified that pollution of controlled water is defined as one of the situation where harm is to be regarded as significant. Here the harm is significant hence it is situation of pollution of controlled waters 1.7 Parametric modelling and uncertainty: As we know uncertainties are attached with the variables we have used as in puts in our model as dislayed in following table:There are various parameters involved in the modelling and the influence of these parameters were seen on the contaminant transport was analysed.

Parameter

Source term

Influence on PDF contaminant Transport y Mass of Log triangular contaminant entering the system Uniform y Contaminant concentration in ground water

Main uncertainities

Mass and timing of contaminant of release Source concentration and geometry(borehole investigation may not allow plume geometry to have been defined such that maximum concentration is under estimated). Contaminant transport is sensitive to this parameter. Field measurement can often vary by more than order of magnitude due to natural heterogeneity of most aquifers Minimum three boreholes required, hydraulic gradient

Hydraulic conductivity(K)

Weight of contaminant Log triangular transport and arrival time at receptor

Page

Hydraulic gradient(i)

Rate and direction of Uniform ground water flow

14

Organic partition Used in calculation of Uniform coefficient(Koc) retardation and rate of contaminant migration

Fraction of organic Calculation of partition uniform carbon(Foc) coefficient

Biodegradation

Reduction of Triangular contaminant mass and concentration

Page

and direction of flow can vary with time, it is dependent on K, steep gradients unlikely to occur in zone of high permeability Often based on literature values although a range of different values may be given in literature sources. For low Foc values(<0.001) organic transport may be dependent on mineral surface area Determination of degradation rates often based on literature values which y may not be appropriate to UK conditions(eg aquifer type, water tempertature) y May be for different conditions from those observed at a site(eg anaerobic conditions may occur at a site whereas the literature value may be for aerobic conditions0 y Laboratory values which may not be applicable to field

15

conditions Determination of degradation rates from field observation usually reliant on having time series of monitoring data covering a number of years. Table-1D parametric modelling & uncertainty It looks convenient and effective to change one variable at a time and analyse the result and to test the model for sensitivity towards the values / parameters (variables /uncertainitieslues).But the method has limited exploration in space.Another plausible approach is to in put 20 groups of values in the O&B spread sheet to have a look at the variation in out put vis a vis the input.that too has limited exploration besides being a cumbersome process.Hence the probalistic approach using computerized simulation was adopted.Monte Carlo simulation was used in Crystal ball and result were analysed.

Fig.2. C O&B Spread sheet showing definition of assumptions and forecast 1.8 USING THE PROBALISTIC APPROACH; It can be can seen here that the assumption cells are highlighted in flourecent green and forecast cell in light blue. Page

16

As we have taken mean value of leakage in kg/year we will put min(28). And max(53) using these values min. Co is put as .248 and max.470-(see appendix-1&2)

Fig.3A Since the value of k is given to fall between 30-70 and is expected to be closer to mean rather than the extremities a triangular distribution with 30 and 70 as min and max values and 50 as mean was selected.(see appendix-1&2)
( S(

Fig.3B Similarly min and max from the vailable range of values was selected in uniform distribution for dx

Fig.3.C As discussed in selection of parameters vale of D is slated to fall between 11.65 and 17.3.

Fig.3.D Also the distance of the bore as provided in 16 groups(A-1&2) rangimg from 11 to 15 was selected.

Page

17

Fig.3.E

Fig2D frequency distribution chart showing concentration of dinoseb We can see from the frequency distributin chart (using 5000 runs/trials)that highest probability of concentration ranges from .330-.360. Interestingly the concentration estimated without using the simulation viz..357 falls right within the range

Fig.2E-frequency distribution showing 95% probabily of concentraion above.290

Page

18

Now again the simulation was run to see 95% probability and we can see that there is 95% probability of concentration being .290 at the identified target viz. bore B It is observed that the estimated concentration even if .290 is considered is far above the acceptable limits of .007.especially when the majority of the target group comprises of children with long term exposure extending many years. The estimated concentration of contaminated far exceeds the .3g/l limit for children in case of one day exposure. Hence the ground water shall be termed as contaminated within the meaning of Part II A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Hence the level of risk to the targets is unacceptable. Therefore a strategy to remedy the situation by way of reduction or removal or both needs to be recommended. 1.9 Sensitive Analysis: As discussed the probalistic approach using computerized simulation was adopted.Monte Carlo simulation was used in Crystal ball and result were analysed. Sensitivity analysis chart appended below explains the sensitivity of the variables. We can see that variable k, with huge uncertainty range of 40 has about 50 % effect on the result where as dx (28-42) and distance from source with range of 4 m(11-15) have around 25% sensitivity. It is interesting to note here that the time (in years) of leakage has virtually no effect on the result for the distance from the source is only 13m. Also variation in concentration at source(Co) has little effect on the results. As our primary concern is assessment of risks to the identified targets and the level of concentration is far higher even when the min. values of variables are taken. Hence the data can be considered sufficient to achieve the goal with reasonable accuracy through the model and no need of further data or refinement of existing data was required to arrive at the result and hence further investigation is not recommended/required; Athough the information on location of the site would have immensely helped in understanding the problem better, obtaining relevant data as rainfall, runoff and evaporation values etc. and also in recommendation of treatment/remediation.

Fig. 2 F sensitivity analysis chart

Page

19

1.10

Suggesting remediation:

As discussed the level of risk is unacceptable hence the contamination needs remediation through reduction and removal. As our site meets the most of the requirements for successful implementation of in situ bio remediation identified by by Suflita (1989) : (1) A homogeneous and permeable aquifer;(gravel aqufer with .23 porosity) (2) A contaminant originating from a single source; (storage tank) (3) a lowground-water gradient; (.8/35) (4) no free product; (5) no soil contamination; and (6) an easily degraded, extracted, or immobilized contaminant. Especially high value of K(up to 70) and comparatively less volume with Distance from source(x)=13, Mixing Depth(Z)=3.9 and width of the source(Y)=30 for treatment in situ bio remedial method is suggested. In which chemicals to treat the contaminated soil or water are injected in to the aquifer. Remediation of dinoseb with Zerovalent iron(Fe0) . In a recent case study It was found out that zerovalent iron (Fe0) could remediate dinoseb-contaminated soil. This was accomplished by conducting a series of batch experiments where first Fe0 was used to remove dinoseb in aqueous solutions, then in contaminated soil slurries, and finally, in unsaturated soil microcosms (25 C, g = 0.30 kg H2O kg1). Results have showed quantitative dinoseb removal in the presence of Fe0 in all three media (aqueous solutions, soil slurries, moist soils) and that removal increased by including either ferrous or aluminum sulfate with the iron treatment. Incubating contaminated soils with Fe0 or Fe0 plus salts (FeSO4 or Al2(SO4)3) resulted in 100% removal of dinoseb within 7 d. Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) analysis of degradation products have showed the transformations imposed by the iron treatments were reduction of one or both nitro groups to aminogroups. These amino degradation products were further transformed to quinonimine and benzoquinone and did not persist. These results support the use of zerovalent iron for on-site treatment of dinoseb contaminated soil. Hence an situ remediation using Zerovalent iron(Fe0) is recommended with a time frame of one month allowing time for further investigation required and collection of samples. Immediate closure of bore B till the no trace of contaminant is observed(detectable limit is reached) in the sample and immediate removal of the source is recommended. Enclosed: 2. Table of value group 1-8 3. Table of value group 9-16 4. Table of data/values References: 1.http://www.epa.gov/ 2.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ 3. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/dinoseb.pdf 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Page

20

Appendix-1

Appendix-2

Page

21

Appendix-3