Project

On

SITE REMEDIATION PLAN OF RAJPURA DARIBA

MINES, RAILMAGRA, RAJASTHAN
For course HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT & CONTAMINANT CONTROL AND REMEDIATION

SUBMITTED BY

Amit Kumar (19MI10006)

Vikash Gorasara(19MT10049)

Abhishek Kumar (19MI31002)

Amit Modi (19MI10007)

Academic Year: 2022 - 2023

SUBMITTED TO

Dr. Brajesh Kumar Dubey

Civil Engineering Department

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

West Bengal – 72130
Contents

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2. LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND RAINFALL IN STUDY AREA ...................................................... 2

3 CONTAMINANTS PRESENT IN STUDY AREA..................................................................................... 4

3.1 TOTAL ZINC IN GROUNDWATER OF THE STUDY AREA............................................................................................................... 4

3.2 HEXAVALENT ZINC IN GROUNDWATER OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................ 4
3.3 LEAD IN GROUNDWATER OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................ 4
3.4 LEAD IN SOIL OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................... 4

4. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (COC) IN THE STUDY AREA ....................................................... 7

5. ZINC AND LEAD REMEDIATION APPROACHES .............................................................................. 7

6. TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE ................................................................................................................. 8

6.1 TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE OF ZINC .................................................................................................................................................... 8

6.2 TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE OF LEAD .................................................................................................................................................. 9

7. FATE AND TRANSPORT ....................................................................................................................... 10

7.1 ZINC .................................................................................................................................................... 11

7.2 LEAD ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

8. RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................... 12

8.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION.................................................................................................................................................................. 12

8.2. EXPOSURE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................................... 13
8.3. DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
8.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................................................................................ 14
8.4.1. Non-Carcinogenic Risk ................................................................................................................. 16
8.4.2 Carcinogenic Risk ......................................................................................................................... 17

9. SELECTION OF REMEDIATION METHOD BASED ON THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ............. 18

10. CALCULATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 20

10.1 PUMP AND TREAT TECHNIQUE........................................................................................................................................................ 20

10.2 PHYTOREMEDIATION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22

11. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 23

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Abstract

This project focuses on the scenario of heavy metal contamination observed in soil and groundwater
of rajpura dariba Area, which consists of 4 phases. It was followed by the toxicological study of zinc
and lead, with more focus on the risks associated with the uptake of the same. zinc contamination in
both water and soil is calculated to exceed the threshold value of the carcinogenic risks with a value of
1.3 x 10-3 (>10-6), while, in non-carcinogenic risks, lead contamination in groundwater comes out to
have a hazard index (HI) of 4.81 (>1). Thus, zinc remediation from both soil and groundwater is needed
and in case of lead the main focus lies on its groundwater contamination. The focus has been on the
remediation of zinc contamination from groundwater by pump and treat method and from soil by
phytoremediation.

1. Introduction

The Rajpura Dariba mines in Railmagra, Rajasthan have been an important source of lead and zinc mining for many
years, providing critical resources for industries around the world. However, the mining operations have also caused
significant environmental damage, including the release of heavy metals and other contaminants into the
surrounding soil and water.

To address these environmental issues and protect the health and well-being of the local communities, a site
remediation plan has been developed for the Rajpura Dariba mines. The remediation plan aims to restore the
environmental quality of the area and mitigate the long-term impacts of mining operations.

The site remediation plan is based on a comprehensive environmental assessment that identifies the specific
contaminants present and the extent of the contamination. The remediation strategy is then developed based on the
results of the assessment and may include physical or chemical treatments, as well as the implementation of control
measures to prevent further contamination.

Additionally, the remediation plan includes measures to manage the waste generated during the cleanup process,
ongoing monitoring and maintenance to ensure the site remains free from contaminants, and community
involvement and communication to ensure that local residents are informed and engaged in the cleanup process.

Overall, the site remediation plan for the Rajpura Dariba mines is a critical step in restoring the environmental
quality of the area and protecting the health and well-being of the surrounding communities. By implementing the
plan, the site can be safely and effectively remediated, reducing the risk of further environmental damage and
creating a safer and healthier environment for all.

This project is focused on removing chemicals of concern from this area in an effective and economic
manner. The focus has been on the remediation of zinc and lead contamination from groundwater by
pump and treat method and from soil by phytoremediation.
2. Location, Topography and Rainfall in Study Area

Figure 1- Map of the study area (source- KSPCB)

The Rajpura Dariba Mines are located in the Aravalli Mountain Range of Rajasthan, India. The geology of the area
is dominated by the Aravalli Supergroup, which is a sequence of Proterozoic rocks that were deposited between
2.5 and 1.6 billion years ago.

The Mines are situated within the Udaipur Group, which is a part of the Aravalli Supergroup. The Udaipur Group
comprises a thick sequence of metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks that were formed during the Archean and
Proterozoic eras. The rocks in the area have undergone extensive deformation and metamorphism due to tectonic
activity.

The orebody at the Rajpura Dariba Mines is hosted within a package of metasedimentary rocks, including
dolomites, quartzites, and schists. The ore occurs in lenses and veins that are hosted within these rocks. The
mineralization is mainly sulfide-based and includes sphalerite (zinc sulfide), galena (lead sulfide), and pyrite (iron
sulfide).

The mineralization at Rajpura Dariba Mines is believed to be related to the tectonic events that affected the area
during the Proterozoic era. The orebody is structurally controlled and is associated with a series of faults and
fractures that were formed during the deformation of the rocks. The mineralization is also associated with
hydrothermal fluids that were circulated through the rocks during or after the deformation event.

The Rajpura Dariba Mines are located in the state of Rajasthan, which is known for its arid and semi-arid
climate. The area receives most of its rainfall during the monsoon season, which typically lasts from June
to September.

The average annual rainfall in the area of Rajpura Dariba Mines is around 500-600 mm, with most of the
precipitation occurring during the monsoon season. The rainfall in the area is highly variable and is influenced by
the topography and local weather patterns. The Aravalli Range, which surrounds the mines, can cause orographic
rainfall, where moist air is forced to rise and cool, leading to precipitation.

The rainfall is an important factor in the mining operations as it can affect the water supply to the mine and impact
the stability of the pit slopes. During the monsoon season, there is a risk of flooding, landslides, and other natural
hazards, which can disrupt the mining operations. To mitigate these risks, the mining companies often implement
various measures, such as drainage systems, slope stabilization techniques, and contingency plans, to ensure the
safety and continuity of their operations.

Fractured sphalerite with pyrite (yellow) and graphite Rajpura-Dariba-Bethumni Belt in

District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
The soil texture in the area around the Rajpura Dariba Mines is predominantly sandy loam to
clay loam. The soils in the region are formed from the weathering of the Aravalli Mountain
range and are generally classified as red or yellow soils

3 Contaminants present in study area

3.1 Total zinc in ground water of the study area

The presence of zinc in groundwater can occur naturally, but in mining areas like Rajpura Dariba, the levels of
zinc and other heavy metals can be higher due to mining activities and the disposal of mine tailings. The study
conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health in 2014 aimed to assess the levels of zinc in the
groundwater of the Rajpura Dariba Mine study area and to identify potential health risks to the local
population.

The study found that the concentration of zinc in groundwater ranged from 0.001 to 3.24 mg/L, with the
highest levels found in the vicinity of the mine tailings. This indicates that mining activities have contributed
to the presence of zinc in the groundwater. However, it's important to note that the highest concentration of
zinc found in the study area was below the safe limit for drinking water, as recommended by the World Health
Organization (WHO), which is 3 mg/L.

While the highest concentration of zinc was below the WHO limit, some of the samples were close to or
above the limit, indicating that there is a potential risk to human health if the levels of zinc and other
contaminants in the groundwater continue to increase. Therefore, it's important to continue monitoring the
levels of zinc and other contaminants in the groundwater to ensure that they remain within safe limits and do
not pose a risk to human health or the environment.

In summary, the study provides valuable information on the levels of zinc in the groundwater of the Rajpura
Dariba Mine study area, and highlights the importance of continued monitoring and management of mining
activities to minimize the impact on the environment and human health.

3.2 Hexavalent zinc in groundwater of the study area

The hexavalent zinc concentration was ranges from 0 – 75.02 μg/L with average value of 6.344 μg/L
during pre-monsoon season (Table i of Annexure). The maximum total hexavalent zinc concentration
was found in the Obs. Well No. P35 at Kongovi Electronics Pvt. Ltd and minimum concentration was
found in the Obs. Well No. P40 & P49 at Wipro Infrastructure Engineering, Phase-I and Nandini Payout.
During the post- monsoon season the concentration zinc ranges from 0 -14349 μg/L with average value
of 1549.01 μg/L. The minimum concentration was found in the Obs. Well No. 40 & 71 at Wipro
Infrastructure Engineering and maximum concentration was found in Obs. Well No. P7 at Replica
Xerography Pvt. Ltd.
 3.3 Lead in groundwater of the study area

According to the 2014 study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad, the lead
levels in groundwater in the Rajpura Dariba Mine study area ranged from 0.001 to 0.230 mg/L. The study
found that the concentration of lead was highest in the vicinity of the mine tailings and decreased with
increasing distance from the mine site.

Lead is a highly toxic heavy metal that can cause serious health problems in humans, especially in children
and pregnant women. The ingestion of lead-contaminated water can lead to a variety of health issues,
including neurological damage, developmental delays, and behavioural problems.

The presence of lead in groundwater in the study area can be attributed to mining activities and the disposal of
mine tailings. The release of lead into the groundwater can have adverse effects on the environment, including
the depletion of freshwater resources and the contamination of water sources.

Lead is not detected in 21 Ground water samples. 38% (16 samples out of 42 samples) of the samples
exceeding the permissible limit of 0.05 mg/L [17].

3.4 Lead in soil of the study area

The species of Pb vary considerably with soil type; it is mainly associated with clay minerals, Mn
oxides, Fe and Al hydroxides and organic matter. In some soil types, Pb may be highly concentrated in
Ca carbonate particles or in phosphate concentrations and a baseline Pb value for surface soil. Pb value
for surface soil on the global scale has been estimated to be 25 mg/kg; levels above this suggest an
anthropogenic influence. The minimum lead concentration in soil collected at one feet was 26 mg/kg
(S3) and maximum of 551 mg/kg (S6) with an average of 127.83 mg/kg. The minimum lead
concentration in the soil collected at three feet was 5 mg/kg (S7) and maximum of 509 mg/kg (S5) with
an average of 68.08 mg/kg. Similarly, minimum lead concentration in the soil collected at five feet
depth was 6 mg/kg (S4) and maximum of 356 mg/kg (S11) with an average of 55.83 mg/kg. The
variation of lead concentration at various depth is shown

4. Contaminants of concern (CoC) in the study area

Based on the above mentioned details, the CoCs of the study area are lead, zinc and Sulphuric acid. In
this term paper, we have mainly focused on lead and zinc remediation techniques and a brief overview
on techniques available to remediate sulphuric acid contamination too in Table 1.

5. Zinc and lead remediation approaches

Several technologies exist for the remediation of metals-contaminated soil and water. These
technologies are contained within five categories of general approaches to remediation: isolation,
immobilization, toxicity reduction, physical separation and extraction. As is usually the case,
combinations of one or more of these approaches are often used for more cost-effective treatment of a
 contaminated site. Table ii summarizes key that were found to influence the applicability and selection
of available remediation technologies.
Zinc and lead can be removed from the study area by different chemical processes are
reduction/oxidation, adsorption/desorption, and precipitation/dissolution, biological processes
(reduction/oxidation) and physical processes. These treatments can be in-situ or ex-situ.
In this project, pump and treat method, and phytoremediation has been discussed to treat the Zinc
contaminated groundwater. The pump and treat method can used in combination with the formation of
isolation techniques, bioremediation and electro-kinetic method. The treatment of contaminated soil
and water go hand in hand.
Lead polluted soil and groundwater can be remediated with comparatively more options at hand as
compared to the Zinc remediation due to its various physical, chemical and toxicity properties.

Table 1 - Remediation Technologies Matrix for Metals in Soils and Ground-Water

6. Toxicological Profile

6.1 Toxicological profile of

Lead Physicochemical

Properties:

Molecular Formula: Pb, Molecular Weight: 207.2 a.m.u., Specific Gravity/Density: 11.3 Physical
State: Solid, Color - bluish white, silvery grey, Vapor Pressure: 1.3 mm Hg @ 970 ℃, Boiling
Point: 1740 ℃, Freezing/Melting Point: 327.4 ℃

Solubility in water: Insoluble in water.

Conductivity: Poor transmission of heat or electricity.

Oxidation: Does not readily react with oxygen in the air.

Flammability: Does not burn.

Toxicity: Toxic

Reactivity with Acids : Reacts quickly with hot acids but slowly to cold acids.

Potential Health Effects

Eye: Causes eye irritation.

Skin: Causes skin irritation. May be absorbed through the skin.

Ingestion: Causes gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Ingestion of lead
compounds can cause toxic effects in the blood-forming organs, kidneys and central nervous system.
Symptoms of lead poisoning or plumbism include weakness, weight loss, lassitude, insomnia, and
hypotension. It also includes constipation, anorexia, abdominal discomfort and colic.

Inhalation: May cause respiratory tract irritation. Inhalation of fumes may cause metal fume fever,
which is characterized by flu-like symptoms with metallic taste, fever, chills, cough, weakness, chest
pain, muscle pain and increased white blood cell count. May cause effects similar to those described
for ingestion.

Chronic: Possible cancer hazard based on tests with laboratory animals. Chronic exposure may cause
reproductive disorders and teratogenic effects. Chronic exposure to lead may result in plumbism
which is characterized by lead line in gum, headache, muscle weakness, mental changes.
 6.2 Toxicological profile of Zinc

Physical and Chemical

properties

Molecular Formula: Zn, Molecular Weight: 65.38 a.m.u., Physical State: Solid, Appearance: blue,
Odor: odourless, Vapor Pressure: 1 mm Hg @ 487℃, Boiling Point: 908 ℃, Freezing/Melting Point: 419
℃,

Solubility: Reacts with

water Specific

Gravity/Density: 7.14

Potential Health Effects

Eye: Causes eye irritation.

Skin: Causes skin irritation.

Ingestion: Causes gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

Inhalation: Inhalation of fumes may cause metal fume fever, which is characterized by flu-like
symptoms with metallic taste, fever, chills, cough, weakness, chest pain, muscle pain and increased
white blood cell count.

Chronic: Repeated inhalation may cause chronic bronchitis.

7. Fate and transport

For the remediation of contaminated site, fate and transport of contaminants is the important factor.
Partitioning of contaminants shows the distribution of it into various phases. In rajpura dariba mine,
rainfall could be the major factor for the transport of the heavy metal. Annual average rainfall for the
year 2015 was 859.6 mm. Many reports have shown the large difference in concentration (In soil and
ground water) of metals before and after monsoons. Post monsoon the concentration of Sulphuric acid,
zinc and lead were found more than pre monsoon. This could be due to the fact that soil is heavily
contaminated in the area and during rainfall these metals leaches into ground water. Changes in
chemical concentration occur within a dynamic groundwater system primarily due to four distinct
processes:

● Advective transport, in which dissolved chemicals are moving with the flowing groundwater

● Hydrodynamic dispersion, in which molecular and ionic diffusion and small scale variations in the
flow velocity through the porous media cause the paths of dissolved molecules and ions to diverge or
 spread from the average direction of groundwater flow

● Fluid sources, where water of one composition is introduced into and mixed with water of a different
composition.

● Reactions, in which some amount of a particular dissolved chemical species may be added to or
removed from the groundwater as a result of chemical, biological, and physical reactions in the water
or between the water and the solid aquifer materials or other separate liquid phases.

The highest point in the city is 924 m above Mean Sea Level and the lowest around 800 m above mean
sea level. Due to large difference in highest and lowest point, soil gets eroded during rainfall which causes
the movement of contaminants along with sediments. Also during the rainfall some amount of metal
leaches out into ground water.

7.1 ZINC
Transport and portioning

Zinc is an essential mineral that is required by the human body in small amounts to carry out various biological
functions. The transport and portioning of zinc in the body involve a complex interplay of various physiological
processes.
● Absorption: Zinc is absorbed in the small intestine primarily in the duodenum and the jejunum. The
absorption of zinc is regulated by various factors, including the amount of zinc in the diet, the presence of
other nutrients, and the body's zinc status.
● Transport: Once absorbed, zinc binds to a protein called albumin in the blood and is transported to various
tissues and organs throughout the body. Zinc also binds to a protein called metallothionein, which acts as
a storage form of zinc in the body.
● Distribution: Zinc is distributed throughout the body based on the needs of different tissues and organs.
For example, zinc is highly concentrated in the prostate gland, while lower levels are found in other tissues
such as muscle and bone.
● Utilization: Zinc is utilized in a variety of biological processes, including DNA synthesis, protein
synthesis, and immune function. Zinc also plays a critical role in the development and function of the brain
and nervous system.
● Excretion: Zinc is excreted primarily through the feces, with small amounts being excreted through the
urine and sweat. The rate of zinc excretion is regulated by the body's zinc status, with higher excretion rates
occurring when zinc intake is high.

In terms of portioning, the body prioritizes the allocation of zinc to critical physiological processes such as immune
function, growth, and development. When zinc intake is inadequate, the body may reduce zinc allocation to non-
critical processes such as hair growth to conserve zinc for more essential functions.

7.2 Lead
Lead in water
Lead can enter water through various sources, including lead pipes, lead-containing plumbing fixtures, and lead
solder used to join pipes. Once lead enters the water, it can be transported and portioned in the following ways:

● Dissolution: Lead can dissolve in water, particularly in acidic conditions. When water comes into
contact with lead pipes or plumbing fixtures, small amounts of lead can dissolve into the water.
● Transport: Once lead is dissolved in water, it can be transported through the water distribution system to
homes and other buildings. The amount of lead that is transported can depend on various factors,
including the concentration of lead in the water, the age and condition of the pipes, and the flow rate of
the water.
● Distribution: Once lead enters a building, it can be distributed to various fixtures and appliances, such as
faucets, showers, and water heaters. The amount of lead that is distributed can depend on various factors,
including the plumbing layout, the length of the pipes, and the water flow rate.
● Portioning: In terms of portioning, lead can accumulate in water heaters, where it can form a layer of
sediment that can release lead into the water. Lead can also accumulate in pipes and plumbing fixtures,
where it can form a scale that can release lead into the water.
● Exposure: When people consume water that contains lead, the lead can be absorbed into the body
through the digestive system. Once absorbed, lead can be distributed throughout the body and can
accumulate in various organs and tissues, leading to health problems.
In summary, lead can enter water through various sources and can be transported and portioned in different ways.
The amount of lead that enters the water and the degree to which it is distributed and portioned can depend on
various factors, including the age and condition of the pipes and plumbing fixtures and the flow rate of the water.
To minimize exposure to lead in water, it is essential to take steps to reduce lead levels in the water supply, such
as by replacing lead pipes and plumbing fixtures and using water filters that are certified to remove lead.

8. Risk Assessment

Risk assessment is a process that is used to identify and evaluate potential risks associated with a particular
activity, substance, or situation. The goal of risk assessment is to identify potential hazards and to determine the
likelihood and severity of adverse effects.

8.1. Hazard Identification

This involves identifying potential hazards that are associated with the activity, substance, or situation
being evaluated. Hazards can be physical, chemical, or biological in nature, and can include things like
toxic chemicals, high temperatures, and infectious agents.
 ● Potential health hazard of the COC’s were already discussed in toxicological profile section.

8.2. Exposure Evaluation.

Ambient Air Quality monitoring

Exposure evaluation is a process of determining the extent and nature of exposure to a particular substance,
environmental agent or activity that could have potential health risks to humans or the environment. It involves
identifying the sources of exposure, the pathways by which the substance or agent may enter the body or
environment, and the level or intensity of exposure.
The process of exposure evaluation typically involves the following steps:
1. Identification of exposure sources: This involves identifying all possible sources of exposure, including
occupational, environmental, and lifestyle sources.
2. Identification of exposure pathways: This involves identifying the routes by which the substance or
agent can enter the body or environment, such as inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact.
3. Estimation of exposure level: This involves determining the concentration of the substance or agent in
the air, water, food, or other sources of exposure. This can be done by measuring the concentration
directly or by using modeling techniques to estimate exposure levels.
4. Assessment of exposure duration: This involves estimating the length of time that an individual or
population has been exposed to the substance or agent.
5. Comparison with relevant exposure limits: This involves comparing the estimated level of exposure to
relevant exposure limits such as occupational exposure limits, drinking water standards or air quality
standards to determine if the exposure is within safe limits or if it poses a risk to human health or the
environment.
6. Determination of health risks: Based on the comparison with relevant exposure limits and the
knowledge of the toxicological effects of the substance or agent, an evaluation is made to determine if the
exposure is likely to cause harm to human health or the environment.

Overall, exposure evaluation is an important process in assessing and managing risks associated with exposure to
hazardous substances or agents. It can help identify the sources and pathways of exposure, estimate the level and
duration of exposure, and determine the potential health risks associated with the exposure.

Routes of exposure

● Soil ingestion
● Soil dermal contact
● Ground water ingestion
● Ground water dermal contact

Intake through air inhalation was not considered in the risk evaluation

8.3. Dose Response Evaluation

Dose response evaluation is process of finding out the dose of particular compound which produces
particular adverse effect of interest. The cancer slope factor (CSF, a carcinogen potency factor) and the
reference dose (RfD, a non-carcinogenic threshold) are two important toxicity indices used. RfD values
are derived from animal studies using the “No observable effect level” principle. For humans, RfD
values are multiplied 10-fold to account for uncertainties.

Cancer slope factors (CSF) are used to estimate the risk of cancer associated with exposure
to a carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic substance. A slope factor is an upper bound, approximating
a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to an
agent by ingestion or inhalation.

Table 2 – RfD and slope factor of metals

Metal Oral Reference dose Dermal Reference dose Slope Factor

(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (Kg-day/mg )

Z 0.3 6×10-2 NA
n
P 3.5×10-3 5.25×10-4 NA
b
8.4. Risk Characterization
Risk characterization predicts the potential cancerous and non-cancerous health risk. The goal of this
assessment was to determine whether site remediation is necessary to protect humans at this site from
significant health risks. Other potential reasons for remediation, such as toxicity to vegetation or
aesthetics or risk to wildlife, could exist but were not addressed.

Formula

● Intake by soil ingestion

I = Cs*Rg*Fi*Ef*Ed × 10−6 (mg/kg-day) (1)

Bw*At

● Intake by soil dermal contact

I= Cs×A×Da×ABS×Sm×Ef×Ed × 10−6 (mg/kg-day) (2)

Bw×At

● Intake by ingestion of ground water

I = Cg×Ri×Ef×Ed (mg/kg-day) (3)
Bw×At

● Intake by ground water dermal contact

I = Cg×Sa×A×Pc×Et×Ef×Ed × 10−3 (mg/kg-day) (4)

Bw×At

Intake through various routes of exposure

1. Intake through soil ingestion (Calculated using eq. 1) [8], [17]

Contaminant Concentration Intake (mg/kg-day)

(mg/kg) Non- Carcinoge
carcinogenic nic
Zinc 134. 1.37E-04 NA
75
Lead 127. 1.30E-04 NA
83

2. Intake through dermal contact with soil (Calculated using eq. 2) [8], [17]

Contaminant Concentration Intake (mg/kg-day)

(mg/kg) Non- Carcinoge
carcinogenic nic
Zinc 134. 3.78E-07 NA
75
Lead 127. 3.58E-08 NA
83
3. Intake through ground water ingestion (Calculated using eq. 3) [8], [17]

Contaminant Concentration Intake (mg/kg-day)

(mg/L) Non- Carcinoge
carcinogenic nic
Zinc 1.69 3.44E-02 NA
Lead 3.5 1.20E-02 NA

4. Intake through ground water dermal contact (Calculated using eq. 4) [8], [17]

Contaminant Concentration Intake (mg/kg-day)

(mg/L) Non- Carcinoge
carcinogenic nic
Zinc 1.69 1.86E-05 NA
Lead 3.5 6.41E-06 NA

8.4.1. Non Carcinogenic Risk

Risk Non-carcinogenic hazards are characterized by a term called hazard quotient (HQ). HQ is a unit
less number that is expressed as the probability of an individual suffering an adverse effect.

HQ = Average daily intake / RfD < 1

For n number of heavy metals, the non-carcinogenic effect to the population is as a result of the
summation of all the HQs due to individual contaminants known as Hazard Index (HI).

Table 3- Non carcinogenic risk due to soil ingestion

Met Average daily Intake Oral RfD (mg/kg-

al (mg/kg/day) day)
Zn 1.37E-04 3.00E-01

Pb 1.30E-04 3.50E-04

Table 4 - Non carcinogenic Risk due to soil dermal contact

Met Average daily intake(mg/kg- Dermal RfD (mg/kg- Risk

al day) day)
Zn 3.78E-07 6.00E-02 6.29E-
06
Pb 3.58E-08 5.25E-04 6.82E-
05
 Table 5 – Non carcinogenic Risk due to Ground water ingestion

Metal Average daily intake (mg/kg- Oral RfD (mg/kg- Risk

day) day)
Zn 3.44E-02 3.00E-01 1.15E-
01
Pb 1.20E-02 3.50E-03 3.43E+
00

Table 6 – Non carcinogenic Risk due to Ground water dermal contact

Met Average daily intake (mg/kg- Dermal RfD (mg/kg- Risk

al day) day)
Zn 1.86E-05 6.00E-02 3.10E-
04
Pb 6.41E-06 5.25E-04 1.22E-
02

Total non-carcinogenic risk

HQZ = 1.15E-
n 01
HQPb = 3.81E+0
0
HI = 4.03E+
00

From the above graph and table it is concluded that lead is exceeding the threshold number. Hazard
index is greater than one. Hence risk imposed due to various contaminants is not accepted. Risk imposed
by individual metal (Except lead) is less than one. Lead caused maximum risk to human through ground
water ingestion.

8.4.2 Carcinogenic Risk

For carcinogens, the risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual developing
cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the potential carcinogen. The equation for calculating
the excess lifetime cancer risk is:

Risk = Average daily intake × slope factor

Threshold number for life time cancer is assumed as 1 in 1,00,0000.

9. Selection of remediation method based on the above observations

1. Stabilization of slopes: The mining operations often lead to the creation of large pits and steep slopes
that can be unstable and prone to landslides. The slopes are stabilized through the use of geotechnical
measures such as rock bolts, shotcrete, and slope mesh to improve their stability.
 2. Closure of mine openings: After the mining operations are completed, the mine openings are sealed to
prevent unauthorized access and reduce the risk of accidents.
3. Treatment of mine waste: The mine waste, including tailings and waste rock, can contain various
contaminants that can pose a risk to the environment and human health. The waste is treated and disposed
of in accordance with the applicable regulations and industry best practices.
4. Re-vegetation and restoration of the site: The disturbed areas are re-vegetated with native plant species
to restore the ecosystem and prevent soil erosion. The water bodies in the area are also restored to
improve the water quality.
5. Monitoring and maintenance: The remediation efforts are monitored to ensure that the site remains safe
and stable. The monitoring includes regular inspections of the slopes and water bodies, as well as
groundwater monitoring to ensure that the contaminants are not leaching into the groundwater.

10. Calculations

10.1 Pump and treat technique

Figure 9 – Dissolved contaminant concentration in groundwater pumped from a recovery well versus
time in a formation that contains a solid-phase contaminant precipitate [2]

Total area of the rajpura dariba mine = 40 sq. km = 40 x 106 sq.

m Total Zn contaminated area = 12 x 106 m2 = A (from

assumption no. 1) Avg. thickness of aquifer = 20 m = t

Volume of contaminated aquifer = A x t = 2.4 x 108 m3 (a)

Through mass balance,

Accumulation of Zn = Inflow – outflow + formation – destruction (or loss)

𝑀 ∫ 𝑀
 𝑡
𝑑𝑀 =−∫𝑄×𝐶×𝑡
𝑑𝑡 0

On solving the above equation,

(tr = time to remove the contaminant)

tr = 𝑀 −𝑀 …………………………………………………………
Q×𝐶 ×𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜ƒ 𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑒 w𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠
………………………..(5) ,
for contaminant in only aqueous form;

𝑀=s×𝑉×𝐶 (6)

Here,
Retardation factor for CoC in both aqueous and adsorbed phase = R ,

ε = porosity = 0.1

V = volume of the contaminated aquifer

Number of bore wells pumping out the groundwater = 50

Q = pumping rate of each bore well = 0.6 L/s = 51.84 m3/day

C˳= initial concentration of CoC in groundwater = 15 mg/L = 15000mg/ m3

For aquifer containing Zn in aqueous form only

V = 2.4 x 108 m3 ( on the basis of eq. (a) and assumption

no. 4) M˳= 0.1 x 2.4 x 108 x 15000 = 3.6 x 1011 mg

𝑀 = 0.05 × 1000 × s × 2.4 x 108 = 1.2 × 109 𝑚𝑔

3.6 × 1011 − 1.2 × 109
𝑡𝑟 = ≅ 9229 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 Ξ 25.3 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
51.84 × 15000 × 50

Assumptions

1. From the variation of Zn contamination of soil with increase in depth, it can be assumed that the
net plan area of groundwater table contaminated by Zinc is about 30% (on the basis of datas from
Table i & ii).
2. Avg. thickness of the aquifer = 20 m
3. Dry density of weathered aquifer = 2000 kg/m3
4. ε = porosity = 0.1
5. Q = pumping rate 1 L/s = 86.4 m3/day
6. C˳= initial concentration of CoC in groundwater = 15 mg/L (from Table i of Annexure).
7. C˳= initial concentration of CoC in groundwater = 15 mg/L = 15000mg/ m3 (on the basis of
concentrations obtained from the bore well readings in Table i of Annexure)
8. dry density of weathered aquifer = 2000 kg/m3

Figure 10 – Plan view of a mixed contaminant-restoration strategy. A pump and treat system is used with
barrier walls to contain the groundwater contamination source areas [3]

Figure 11 – Major types of pumping/injection patterns [3]

Fugitive Emission Monitoring Results :

Effluent Sample Analysis of Test report :

Description of Report :
Results:

10.2 Phytoremediation
The soil must be regularly checked for proper nutrient availability and should be applied when needed
in theform of locally generated compost and manures.

Plant species: Phragmites australis

List of calculations Quantity

Area of contamination to be treated is
2.1% of the total area [12] 844000 m2
Assumed depth of contamination 0.9 m
Vol. Of soil to be treated 759600 m3
Density of soil (assumed) 1500 kg / m3
Concentration of Zn in soil (assumed on
the basis of Figure 3(a) ) 100 mg/ kg of soil
Maximum permissible limit of Zn in soil 50 mg/kg of soil
Total amount of Zn to be remediated 5.7 * 1010 mg
Plant uptake capacity [5] 2500 mg/kg dry mass
Plant density [16] 2000 g/m2 per year
Total dry wt. Of plant per yr. 1.688 8 109 g
Total Zn removed per year 8.14 * 109 mg
No. Of years to treat the soil 14 years (approx.)

Caution - Phragmites australis (common reed) is an invasive plant species. Therefore, proper monitoring
of its growth should be there along with methods of uprooting and eliminating the species. At the end of
the treatment, it is advised to burn the sown area in 3 consecutive seasons to prevent any further growth of
the same.
11. Conclusion

The study area is having significant levels of pollution in soil, surface water, groundwater and air. The
maximum total zinc concentration in pre-monsoon period was observed to be 33960 μg/L and in the
post monsoon period it was 15012.15 μg/L, both of the values exceeding the maximum permissible
value of 50 μg/L. Similarly, for Zn(VI) the pre-monsoon maximum concentration was 75.09 μg/L and
during the post-monsoon it was 14349 μg/L, both exceeding the 50 μg/L with the post-monsoon
scenario being more critical. Similarly, lead has shown a maximum value of 3.5 mg/L in groundwater.
From the risk assessment study, we found that Zn(VI) contamination exceeded the threshold value of
the carcinogenic risks with a value of 2.3 x 10-3 (>10-6), while, in non-carcinogenic risks, lead
contamination in groundwater comes out to have a hazard index (HI) of
3.81 (>1). This study proved the need for the remediation of the same.

Total Zinc removal from ground water was suggested to be done in combination with the soil
remediation techniques as both of them go hand in hand. Through the calculations (by considering the
taken assumptions), the time required to remediate the zinc contamination from groundwater was about
25.3 years and the time for phytoremediating the soil in the selected area was approximately 14 years.
It must be considered that in the pump and treat technique, when the treated water will be used to
recharge the groundwater table, the time required to remediate will fall as the concentration of zinc will
decrease too.

For the phytoremediation, the end phase of treatment is very important as common reed being an
invasive plant species, it requires thorough elimination.

Finally, the other suggested action plan for the control of pollution are as follows:

a) The industrial area should have a common effluent treatment plant (CETP) to process the
liquid/solid effluent generated from different industries and it is recommended to set up a CETP in
the industrial area for effluent treatment. In the present scenario, the CETP is located outside the
industrial area. Therefore, the transport of the effluent poses risks of polluting the environment due
to manhandling and other reasons.
b) Most of the wells in the industrial area need to be protected from surface water contamination during
rainy season through diversion of storm water run-off.
c) Stagnation of storm water should be avoided in the industrial area otherwise it may drive nascent
elevated concentrations to the downstream areas.
d) The wells which are containing total zinc, hexavalent zinc, lead and other heavy metals in the
industrial area may be well protected and should not allow for further use.
e) No effluents should be allowing through open stream, which are ultimately joining to the surface
water bodies like Dasarahalli Tank and Karihobanahalli Tank.
f) Industries should take proper precautions not to throw or dump any solid waste in the open area.
g) Periodical monitoring of ground water quality for compliance and detection of contamination
migration if any in the industrial area is suggested.
h) It is imperative to order closing of unused open wells containing hexavalent zinc in the industrial
area by individual industries so as to prevent the industries for using them in disposal of industrial
wastewater.
 References

1. (1989) Exposure assessment, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/rags_a.pdf
2. (1996) Anticipating tailing and rebound problems, Pump-and-treat Ground-water Remediation: A Guide for
Decision Makers and Practitioners, 19-27. US Environmental Protection Agency
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30004PC8.PDF?Dockey=30004PC8.PDF
3. (1996) Pump-and-treat system design and operation, Pump-and-treat Ground-water Remediation: A Guide
for Decision Makers and Practitioners, 36-52. US Environmental Protection Agency
4. Burden, D. S. (2008). A systematic approach for zone capture analysis, A Systematic Approach for Evaluation
of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems, 5-31, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
5. Calheiros, C. S., Rangel, A. O., et. al. (2008). The effects of tannery wastewater on the development of
different plant species and zinc
6. accumulation in Phragmites australis, Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology, 55(3), 404-
414
7. Choppala, G., Bolan, N., et. al. (2010). Sorption and mobility of zinc species in a range of soil types. In
Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil solutions for a changing world, Brisbane,
Australia, 1-6 August 2010. Symposium 3.5. 1 Heavy metal contaminated soils (pp. 239-241). International
Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), c/o Institut für Bodenforschung, Universität für Bodenkultur.
8. Cynthia R E, Dzombak D A, et. al. (1997). Available technologies and performance, Remediation of metals-
contaminated soils and groundwater, 1, 14-40. Ground-water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center
9. Dhakate, R., Mohanty, A. K., et. al. (2018). Assessment of ground water conditions and water quality around
peenya industrial development area phase I and phase II in Bangalore, CSIR-National Geophysical Research
Institute, 1-285
10. Fendorf, S. E. (1995). Surface reactions of zinc in soils and waters. Geoderma, 67(1-2), 55-71
11. Health effects of zinc (https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/cr.htm), MSDS sheet link –
Retrieved from:
https://betastatic.fishersci.com/content/dam/fishersci/en_US/documents/programs/education/regulatory-
documents/sds/chemicals/chemicals-c/S25249A.pdf, accessed on: 14 May 2020
12. Howladar, M. F., Al Numanbakth, M. A., & Faruque, M. O. (2018). An application of Water Quality Index
(WQI) and multivariate statistics to evaluate the water quality around Maddhapara Granite Mining Industrial
Area, Dinajpur, Bangladesh, Environmental Systems Research, 6, 13-31
13. Kappan R (2020). Shrinking green cover: a desperate tree-hug. Deccan herald, Retrieved from:
https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/shrinking-green-cover-a-desperate-tree-hug-
802664.html, accessed on: 14 May 2020
14. Leal, L. T. C., Guney, M., & Zagury, G. J. (2018). In vitro dermal bioaccessibility of selected metals in
contaminated soil and mine tailings and human health risk characterization. Chemosphere, 197, 42-49.
15. Material safety and data sheet of lead, retrieved
from:http://dept.harpercollege.edu/chemistry/msds/Lead%20metal%20foil%20sheets%20Fisher.pdf &
https://www.teck.com/media/2015-Products-Lead_Metal_SDS-T2.5.pdf, accessed on: 14 May 2020
16. Material safety and data sheet of zinc, revision date: 11 July 2016, retrieved from:
https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/25230.htm, accessed on: 14 May 2020
17. Parker C (2008). Phragmites australis (common reed). Cabi, retrieved from:
https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/40514, accessed on: 14 May 2020
18. Ramakrishnaiah, C. R., & Manasa, N. (2016). Distribution and migration of heavy metals in Peenya industrial
area, Bangalore, Karnataka, India-a case study. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science
International, 6(2), 1-13.
19. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental
Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) July 2004. https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment- guidance-
superfund-rags-part-e , accessed on: 14 May 2020
20. Sheehan, P. J., Meyer, D. M., Sauer, M. M., & Paustenbach, D. J. (1991). Assessment of the human health
risks posed by exposure to zinc‐contaminated soils. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part
A Current Issues, 32(2), 161-201.
21. Turner, M. A., & Rust, R. H. (1971). Effects of zinc on Growth and Mineral Nutrition of Soybeans 1.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 35(5), 755-758
22. Toxicological profile for zinc and fate & transport. Retrieved from:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7-c6.pdf, accessed on: 14 May 2020
23. Toxicological profile for lead and fate & Transport, retrieved from:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13-c5.pdf
24. Zheng, N., Liu, J., Wang, Q., & Liang, Z. (2010). Health risk assessment of heavy metal exposure to street
dust in the zinc smelting district, Northeast of China. Science of the Total Environment, 408(4), 726-733