Mukesh Final Report

THE EFFECT OF PRODUCTION BLASTING ON DUMP SLOPE STABILITY

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF

Doctor of PhilosophyIn

Mining Engineering

ByUnknown

SupervisorProf. B.K Shrivastava

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERINGINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITYVARANASI - 221005

INDIA

Enrollment No. 259426 2009

Dedicated to my

parents

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERINGINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITYVARANASI – 221 005, INDIA

THE EFFECT OF PRODUCTION BLASTING ON DUMP SLOPE STABILITY

Subject Approved:

Prof. B.K Shrivastava

HeadDepartment of Mining Engineering

Institute of TechnologyBanaras Hindu University

Varanasi - 221005

Subject Forwarded

Prof. B.K. Shrivastava

SupervisorDepartment of Mining Engineering

Institute of TechnologyBanaras Hindu University

Varanasi - 221005

Department of Mining EngineeringInstitute of Technology Banaras Hindu University

Varanasi — 221 005, INDIA. 0542-316542 (0). 322921 (R)

CERTIFICATE

It is certified that dissertation entitled “THE EFFECT OF PRODUCTION BLASTING ON DUMP SLOPE STABILITY”, is a bonafied work carried out by him under my supervision and guidance. The results embodied in this work have neither been published before nor submitted to any other institution for the award of other degree or diploma.

Prof. B.K. ShrivastavaSupervisorDepartment of Mining EngineeringInstitute of TechnologyBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasi - 221005

Page No.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: OBJECTIVE OF STUDY AND

PROGRAMME OF WORK

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE SURVEY

3. 1. Definition of EIA

3. 2. Objectives of EIA

3. 3. Major issues in EIA

3. 4. Methodologies of EIA

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGIES

4. 1. The Proposed Approach

4. 2. Parameter Identification

4. 3. Weightage Determination:

4. 4. Quantification of Parameters

4. 4.1. Socio-economic impact

CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 6: RESULT & DISCUSSION

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS &

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

REFERENCES

Abstract:

Exploitation of the mineral resources is essential for improving

the living standards of the growing population. The exploitation of the

minerals and the associated processing activities at a rapid pace has

serious environmental consequences. A need was felt for developing

an assessment technique of environmental impact not only for

assessing the environmental impact of projects but also for comparing

it with other projects from the environmental point of view. The

assessment technique would be helpful for EIA (Environmental

Impact Assessment) experts, developers, decision makers and

members of the public to meaningfully view the project alternatives at

every stage of mining operations.

This work adopted a Quantitative Approach. The parameters to

be included in the EIA were obtained through a nationwide survey of

the stakeholders and experts. The weightages to these parameters were

again obtained through similar survey amongst the same experts. The

quantification of the weighted parameters had been carried out to

know the impact value of the parameters on the environment. The

base line data, permissible limits, observed data and pre-mining

scenario were the sources of the formulation for the parameters

quantification. The multiplication of weightage with the impact value

of particular parameters provided the impact score of that parameter.

The impact score of all the parameters were added up to obtain the

total score.

Here, after quantification of the parameters affecting the surrounding

environment, validating the applicability of quantitative approach for

a hypothetical sample mine was made. This hypothetical case is

presented here for the better appreciation of the methodology of new

approach.

Chapter 1.Introductio

n

Introduction:

Mining as an industry is indispensable for a country. The

exploitation of minerals has the direct and indirect impact on the

many environmental elements causing physical changes in the land,

soil, air and water. While these are associated directly with the

mining, indirectly mining affects the biological environments too.

India has witnessed the formal EIA since 1979 but it received

legal sanction in 1994. Through a clear policy on environment vis-a-

vis development, and the sound legislatory mechanisms in terms of

the Acts, Rules, Regulations and Notifications etc., it expects that the

environmental issues are addressed during project formulation itself.

The principal aim of an EIA study is to ensure that likely

environmental changes are taken into consideration at the planning

and design phase of the project. Efforts are to be made to anticipate

measure and weigh the socio-economic and bio-physical changes that

may result from a proposed project. It assists decision - makers in

considering the proposed project's environmental costs and benefits.

In India, a report - called an Environmental Impact Statement is

prepared at the end of the EIA study. This forms part of the

Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which is submitted to the

Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India, as

part of an application for the environmental clearance of the projects

(Trivedi, 2002).

The present approach of EIA adopts the quantification approach in

which the parameters affecting the surrounding environment due to

opencast mining projects were quantified.

Chapter 3.Literature

Survey

3. 1. Definition of EIA:

There is no universally accepted definition of EIA.

Some commonly used definitions are:

EIA is, in its simplest form, a planning tool that is generally regarded

as an integral component of sound decision making. As a planning

tool it has both information gathering and decision making component

which provides the decision-maker with an objective basis for

granting or denying approval for a proposed development project.

(Forest et al.,1991).

EIA is a planning tool and its main purpose is to give

the environment its due place in the decision making process by

clearly evaluating the environmental consequences of a proposed

activity before action is taken. (Gilpin,1995).

EIA is a tool used to identify the environmental, social

and economical impacts of a project prior to decision-making.

(Kulkarni et al, 2002).

From here, it can be observed that the key elements of EIA are:

(a) Scoping: Identify key issues and concerns of all the stakeholders;

(b) Screening: Deciding whether an EIA is required based on the

information collected;

(c) Identifying and evaluating alternatives: list alternative sites and

techniques and the impacts of each;

(d) Mitigating measures: review proposed actions to prevent or

minimize the potential adverse effects of the project and

(e) Issuing environmental statements: report the findings of the

EIA.

EIA is a process that includes the quantification of selected

parameters and has the objective of providing the information about

the quality of environment before, during and after mining. This

definition forms the basis for the present study (Kulakarni et al.,2002,

Jain et al,1977 & Sinha, 2001 ).This is achieved through impact

identification, prediction, evaluation and mitigation stages which

endeavors to answer the questions: what will happen as a result of

project?, what will be the extent of changes?, do the changes matter?,

and what can be done about them? (Kulkarni et al., 2002).

The greatest contribution of EIA to environmental management

is in reducing adverse impacts by devising measures beyond those

warranted by environmental management regulations. It is now

generally accepted throughout the world that the benefits of project

level EIA considerably outweighs its cost.

In recent years, the outcome of EIA studies have ranged from

simple impact statements to changes in projects sites, extraction

methods, engineering designs, introduction of pollution control

measures, landscaping, manpower training programs, compensation

for restoration of damaged resources, and off-site programmes to

enhance quality of life of the community likely to be affected due to

the proposed mining activity.

Hence it has evolved as very significant process of mining

projects.

3. 2. Objectives of EIA:

Broadly the objective of EIA is to estimate the likely

impacts of any developmental project/activity on the various

environmental components. Hence, it is imperative (Pal et al., 2002):

To find out the suitability of the area for mining operations and

to delineate areas where mining should not be done.

To devise the mining standards to be followed in respect of

suitable mining methods, this can be applied with minimum

degradation.

3. 3. Major issues in EIA:

For all mining projects EIA is mandatory. The major issues

in EIA process for mining industry are:

Identification of impacts to be assessed,

Assessment of impacts,

Completion of an appraisal and

Enabling the objectivity in appraisal.

From the technical point of view, EIA can be considered as a

data management process. It has three components. Firstly, the

appropriate information necessary for a particular decision to be taken

must be identified and, possibly collected. Secondly, changes in

environmental parameters resulting from the implementation of the

project must be determined and compared with the situation likely to

accrue without the project. Finally, actual changes must be recorded

and analyzed. The most important problem in EIA is the availability

of appropriate methodology. More than fifty impact assessment

methodologies have been developed so far but no universal

methodology is yet available for internalizing environmental concerns

in planning process.

3. 4. Methodologies of environmental impact assessment:

EIA methodologies are essentially tools for identification,

prediction and summarization of impacts. EIA methodologies are also

very useful for comparing and evaluating alternatives. Some popular

methodologies are enumerated here.

1. ADHOC procedure

2. Checklists

• Simple checklists

• Descriptive checklists

• Questionnaire checklists

• Scaling checklists

• Scaling and weighing checklists

3. Matrices

4. Networks Approach 5. Overlays

6. Flow diagrams

7. Computer Aided and

8. Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (BEES

Chapter 4.Methodolo

gy

4. 1. The proposed approach:

The present study considers that the, EIA consists of

establishing quantitative values for selected parameters, which

indicate the quality of the environment before, during and after the

proposed development activity.

The proposed technique is an improvement of the

method proposed by Leopold et al. (1971). The Leopold matrix

method poses serious theoretical and practical limitations. Mental

linking of all the target components and a development mining

activity has to be done in order to ascertain whether an impact is

likely. Thus identification is through a discrete two-way linkage

between activities and components of the environment, thereby

indicating the likely direct impacts. This method is very subjective

and quantifying the weighted parameters, and suggesting the

mathematical formulae for getting the impact value for various

parameters have reduced this subjectivity. The multiplication of the

weightages with impact value for the particular parameter gives the

impact score for that parameter and the summation of all impact score

gives the environmental score for the project.

4. 2. Parameter Identification:

The parameters affecting the surrounding environment due

to mining projects were identified through a nationwide survey. The

total parameters affecting the environment due to mining are divided

in to 7 components. They are air, water, land, noise and vibration,

solid waste, flora and fauna and socioeconomics. These components

were further divided into sub-parameters. These have been dealt with

in detail in Kiran, 2002. (Kiran, 2002).

4. 3. Weightage Determination:

The same group of experts assigned weights to these

identified parameters. A sum total of 1000 is distributed to

environmental components. Fuzzy logic was used for arriving at the

weightages for the parameters. The same has been reported in detail in

Das, 2003 (Das, 2003).

4. 4. Quantification of Parameters:

A fundamental step in the environmental impact analysis

is to develop quantitative measures for evaluating the extent of the

impact and evolve formulae for computing these measures. These

formulations are based upon the type of data that is generally

available, or can be easily collected. In the following sections an

illustrative, typical quantitative measures and their corresponding

formulation for impacts in the natural, physical environmental and

social and economic areas have been suggested.

Im pactvalue=(−¿+)Observed concentration of pollutantPermissible limit of pollutant

(Dhar . ,1991)

(-) sign indicates the negative impact on the environment and (+) sign

indicates the positive impact on the environment.

For getting the severity of impact indices there are

two ways. Firstly, calculating "impact on the environment"

considering environment as the main concern. Secondly, calculating

"impact by mining activity" considering the mining activity as the

main concern. The impact formulae given above are the impacts on

environment considering all pollution sources; which are present in

the nearby site and contributing to the environmental degradation of

the area. But to get the contribution of mining activities in the overall

degradation of the environment of the area, the formulae needs to be

based on the pollution level alteration after mining activities

commenced. Obtaining baseline data and then comparing that with the

pollution levels at different phases of mining can provide that

information.

In the present study, the severity of the impact

indices for environmental pollutions is calculated by taking

environment as the main concern.

4. 4.7. Socio-Economic Impact:-

The socio-economic impacts resulting from mining

project are numerous and dramatic. The complexity and variability of

biological and socio-economic systems make precise quantitative

predictions of impact of industrial development impossible (Kulkarni

et al., 2002). Hence, impact on socio-economic environment is

quantified in terms of appropriate indicators.

The assessment of potential environmental impacts

warrants selection of a reference point from which biotic and abiotic

changes can be measured. The reference point is usually an intact

ecosystem or base line data, which is compared with its affected or

stressed counterpart (Jain et al., 1977).

The EIA takes into account assessment of the

various aspects of social and economic changes in the area. This is

one aspect where the advantages of mining activities are most 'visible'.

It is difficult to quantify as no common fixed base for all the

parameters relative to which various parameters may be evaluated is

possible. The ratio of change in a parameter to the initial value of

parameter is considered to evaluate these parameters.

Firstly, I designed a questionnaire whose format is like this

A STUDY OF

QUANTIFICATION AND THEIR WEIGHTAGES

FOR PARAMETERS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PARAMETERIC WEIGHTAGES

Project name: Environmental Impact Assessment “A Quantitative

Approach”

Rizwan Hasim

M. Tech Final Year (Mining Engg.)

Deptt. of Mining Engg. IT-BHU, Varanasi

E-mail: [email protected]

Under the supervision of

Dr. B.K Shrivastava

Professor of Mining Engg. IT-BHU, Varanasi.

E- mail: [email protected]

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

VARANASI – 221005

NAME OF THE PERSON: ................................................... , Signature: ..........................

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

NAME OF THE ORGANISATION: ......................................................

Contemporary methods of EIA are not foolproof. Thus, it is imperative that India evolves an indigenous index for the EIA. On the basis of a brand consensus, arrived after consultations with the academicians, the researchers, the officials of the environmental ministry, consultants, mine operators and environmental mine regulators, it is hereby suggested that in the EIA of an open cast mining project, following parameters may be taken as major parameters. These parameters may then be subdivided into sub parameters. At each stage of subdivision, the maximum possible equivalent weightage should be 100. Under these guidelines, kindly oblige us by assigning weightage to the sub parameters in the boxes provided for the purpose.

NOTE:

The parameters are classified into Common and project Specific parameters. The common parameters are applicable for all mines but project specific ones are restricted to specific types of mines. The project specific parameters are depicted by * mark. If any parameters are considered to be unimportant, then the awarding weigtage to them may be left. However, at each stage all awarded weightages must total 100

QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR

WEIGHTAGES FOR THE IDENTIFIED PARAMETERS OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF OPENCAST MINING PROJECT

As a part of the product – A STUDY OF QUANTIFICATION AND THIER

WEIGHTAGES FOR PARAMETERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACT -:

Socio-economic parameters have huge potential of influencing the

environment. Thus, the focus on this area is imperative for the assessment of

environmental impacts of open cast mines. Following are the some major

parameters, which may be included.

1. REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT

2. ECONOMIC FACTORS

3. EDUCATION/SCIENTIFIC FACTORS/TECHNOLOGY

4. QUALITY OF LIFE

Total 140

The sum total of the above parameters must be 140

1. REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT:

i. No. of villages effected

ii. Population effected

iii. Population to be displaced/Land oustees

iv. Migration

Total 100

1. iii. Population to be displaced/Land oustees :

a. People coming from outside

b. Land

c. Homestead

d. Both Land & Homestead

Total 100



2. ECONOMIC FACTORS :

i. Income generated/Lost

ii. Employment generated/lost

Total 100

2. i. Income generated/Lost:

a. Loss of livelihood

b. Cost of living

Total 100

2. i. a. Loss of livelihood:

i. Agriculture

ii. Small scale industries

a) Dairy farmer

b) Potter

c) Fisheries

d) Dairy

Total 100




3. EDUCATION/SCIENTIFIC FACTORS/TECHNOLOGY:

i. School

ii. College

iii. University

iv. Hospitals

v. Infrastructure facilities

Total 100

3. v. Infrastructure facilities

a.Building

b. Roads

c.Parks

d. Market

Total 100



4. Quality of life:

i. Housing

ii. Sources of water

iii. Quality of food

iv. Road and transport facilities

v. Vehicle possessed

vi. Medical treatment facilities

vii. Fuel and energy used

viii. Entertainment

ix. Education Standard

x. Per capita income

Total 100

4. i. Housing:

a. Pacca

b. Katchcha

c. Mixed


Total 100

4. ii. Sources of water:

a. Tubewell or own wells

b. Public well or village well

Total 100

4. iv. Road and transport facilities:

a. Bus service

b. Railway service

c. Kachcha /pacca road

Total 100

4. v. Vehicle possessed:

a. Cycle

b. Two-wheeler

c. Four-wheeler

Total 100




4. vi. Medical treatment facilities:

a. Availability of dispensaries

b. Doctors

c. Nurses

d. No. of hospitals

Total 100

4. vii. Fuel and energy used

a. Coal

b. Electricity

c. Gas

d. Wood

Total 100




4. viii. Entertainment:

a. Television

b. Cinema halls

c. Theater

Total 100

4. ix. Education Standard:

a. Illiterate

b. Primary Education

c. Matriculation

d. Higher Education

Total 100

4. x. Per capita income:

a. <2000 per month

b. 2000-5000 per month

c. 5000-10,000 per month

d. >10,000 per month



Total 100

MAJOR PARAMETER OF SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACT:

PARAMETER WEIGHTAGE

1. REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT 54.35

2. ECONOMIC FACTORS 31.88

3. EDUCATION/SCIENTIFIC FACTORS/TECHNOLOGY 27.53

4. QUALITY OF LIFE 26.82

39%

23%

20%

19%

R & R EF E/SF/T

QOL

1. Rehabilitation & Resettlement:

I. No. of villages effected

II. Population effected

III. Population to be displaced/Land oustees

IV. Migration


19%

26%40%

15% 1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr

a. Number of villages affected 11.87

Impact value = ±No .of villages beforemining−No.of villages after mining

No .of villages beforemining

Impact score = Impact score × Weightage

b. Population affected 15.50

c. Pollution to be displaced Land / Oustees 23.65

I. People coming from outside 5.56

II. Land 8.00

III. Homestead 5.07

IV. Both Land & Homestead 5.07

I. People coming from outside :

Impact value = no .of people coming¿outsides ¿Total population (Native+Outsider)

Impact score = Weightage × Impact value

II. Land:

Impact value =

no .of native personwhose land is loss−Compensation

Market value×no .of person

Total native population


III. Homestead:

Impact value =

−no .of native personwhose homestead land isloss+CompensationMarket value

×no .of person

Totalnative population


IV. Both Land & Homestead:

Impact value =

−no .of native personwhose bothland∧homestead land isloss+CompensationMarket value

×no .of person

Total native population


d. Migration: 8.8

Impact value =

A.M.R of native population during mining – A.M.R of native population before mining

A.M.R of native population before mining

Where,

A.M.R = annual migration rate


e. Economic Factor: 31.88

I. Income generated/Lost 14.54

II. Employment generated/lost 17.34

Income generated /

lost46%

Employ-ment gen-

erated / lost54%

I. Income generated/Lost 14.54

i. Loss of livelihood 7.92

ii. Cost of living 6.62

Loss of lovelihood54%

Cost of living46%

i. Loss of livelihood 7.92

I. Agriculture 5.12

II. Small scale industries 2.80

Agiculture65%

Small scale indu.35%

Sales

III. Small scale industries 2.80

Dairy farmer .86

Potter .53

Fisheries .62

Dairy .75

Dairy farmer31%

Potter19%

Fisheries22%

Dairy 27%

I. Agriculture

Impact value = −agriculture land beforemining−agriculture land after mining

agriculture land beforemining


II. Small scale industries

Impact value = ±

no .ofsmall scale industriesbeforemining−no . small of scale industries after miningno .ofsmall scale industriesbeforemining

Impact score = Weightage × impact value

d. Cost of Living 6.62

Impact value = ± cost of livivg beforemining−cost of livivgafter mining

cost of living beforemining


e. Education/Scientific factors/Technology 27.53

I. School 8.66

II. College 3.88

III. University 2.51

IV. Hospitals 5.66

V. Infrastructure facilities 6.80

School31%

College14%Univesity

9%

Hospitals21%

Infra-structure facilities

25%

I. School

Impact value =

no. of student during mining – no. of student before mining

no. of student before mining

II. College

Impact value =



III. University

Impact value =



IV. Hospitals

Availability of dispensaries (n1) 0.50

Doctors (n2) 0.20

Nurses (n3) 0.30

Impact value =

n’1×0.5 + n’2 × 0.2+n’3×0.3 – n1×0.5 + n2×0.2 + n3×0.3

n1×0.5 + n2×0.2 + n3×0.3

Where,

n1, n2 & n3 = no. of dispensaries, doctors & nurses before mining.

n’1, n’2 & n’3 = no. of dispensaries, doctors & nurses during mining

V. Infrastructure facilities 6.80

Building 1.92

Roads 2.14

Parks 1.07

Market 1.66

Building28%

Roads32%

Parks16%

Market24%

Building

Impact value = no. of building during mining – no. of building before mining

no. of building before mining

Roads

Impact value = Total length of the road Total length of the road (in km.) during mining (in km.) before mining

Total length of the road (in km.) before mining

Parks

Impact value = Total area of the park Total area of the park (in sqm.) during mining (in sqm.) before mining

Total area of the park (in sqm.) before mining


Market

Impact value = Total area of the market Total area of the market (in sqm.) during mining (in sqm.) before mining

Total area of the market (in sqm.) before mining


e. Quality of life 26.82

i. Housing 3.75

ii. Sources of water 2.63

iii. Quality of food 2.21

iv. Road and transport facilities 2.57

v. Vehicle possessed 1.27

vi. Medical treatment facilities 3.40

vii. Fuel and energy used 2.95

viii. Entertainment 3.14

ix. Education Standard 3.43

x. Per capita income 3.14

13%

9%

8%

9%4%

12%10%

11%

12%

11% HousingSources of waterQuality of foodRoad & Transport facilitiesVehicle possesedMedicle Treatment fa-cilitiesFuel & Energy usedEntertainment

Quality of life

i. Housing 3.75

Pacca

Katchcha

Mixed

Impact value =

totalno .of houses (p+k+m )beforemining−totalno .of houses( p+k+m)after miningtotal no .of housesbeforemining


ii. Sources of water 2.63

Tubewell or own wells 1.30

Public well or village well 1.33

Tubwell or

own well49%Public well or vil-

lage well51%

• Tubewell or own wells

Impact value =

no .of tubwell∨ownwell duringmining−no .of tubwell∨ownwell during beforemining

no .of tubwell∨ownwell during beforemining

• Public well or village well

Impact value =

no .of tubwell∨ownwell duringmining−no .of tubwell∨ownwell during beforemining

no .of tubwell∨ownwell during beforemining

Impact score = Weightage × Impact score

iii. Quality of food 3 Good = 2000 kcal/day

Impact value =

no. of person getting min. cal. no. of person getting min. cal.

requirement before mining requirement before mining

avg. diet standard before mining

Impact score = Weightage × Impact score

iv. Road and transport facilities 2.57

Bus service (n1) .89

Railway service .81

Kachcha /pacca road .87

Bus service35%

Railway service32%

kachcha/pacca road

34%

• Bus service

Impact value = no. of buses during mining – no. of buses before mining

no. of buses before mining


• Railway service

Impact value =

no. of train stoppage on no. of train stoppage on This area during mining this area before mining

no. of train stoppage on this area before mining


• Kachcha /pacca road

Impact value =

Total length of kachcha / pacca Total length of kachcha / pacca road (in km.) during mining road (in km.) during mining

Total length of kachcha / pacca road (in km.) before mining


v. Vehicle possessed 1.27

Cycle (0.5) .51 Two-wheeler (0.3) .49 Four-wheeler (0.2) .27

40%

39%

21%Cycle

Two - wheeler

Four - wheeler

Impact value =

n’1×0.5 + n’2 × 0.3+n’3×0.2 – n1×0.5 + n2×0.3 + n3×0.2

n1×0.5 + n2×0.3 + n3×0.2

Where,

n1, n2 & n3 = no. of cycles, two-wheeler & four-wheeler before mining.

n’1, n’2 & n’3 = no. of cycles, two-wheeler & four-wheeler during mining.

vi. Medical treatment facilities 3.4

Availability of dispensaries (n1) 0.96

Doctors (n2) 1.02

Nurses (n3) 0.78

No. of hospitals (n4) 0.63

Availab-ility of

dis-pensar-

ies 28%

Doctors 30%Nurses

23%

No. of hospitals

19%

Impact value =

n’1×0.4 + n’2 × 0.2+n’3×0.3 + n’4×0.1 – n1×0.4 + n2×0.2 + n3×0.3 + n4×0,1

n1×0.4 + n2×0.2 + n3×0.3 + n4×0,1

Where,

n1, n2, n3 & n4 = no. of dispensaries, doctors, nurses & hospitals before mining.

n’1, n’2, n’3 & n4 = no. of dispensaries, doctors, nurses & hospitals wheeler during mining.


vii. Fuel and energy used 2.95

Coal (n1) .69 Electricity (n2) .94 Gas (n3) .76 Wood (n4) .56

Coal23%

Elec-tricity32%

Gas26%

Wood19%

Impact value =

n’1×0.3 + n’2 × 0.3+n’3×0.2 + n’4×0.2 – n1×0.3 + n2×0.3 + n3×0.2 + n4×0,2

n1×0.3 + n2×0.3 + n3×0.2 + n4×0,2

Where,

n1, n2, n3 & n4 = coal, electricity, gas & wood used before mining.

n’1, n’2, n’3 & n4 = coal, electricity, gas & wood used during mining.


viii. Entertainment 3.14

Television 1.71

Cinema halls .71

Theater .72

Television

54%Cinema halls

23%

Theater

23%

Impact value =

n’1×0.6 + n’2 × 0.1+n’3×0.3 – n1×0.6 + n2×0.1 + n3×0.3

n1×0.6 + n2×0.1 + n3×0.3

Where,

n1, n2 & n3 = no. of television, cinema hall & theater available before mining.

n’1, n’2 & n’3 = no. of television, cinema hall & theater available during mining.


ix. Education Standard 3.43

Illiterate .79 Primary Education 1.14 Matriculation .80 Higher Education .69

Illiterate

23%

Primary Education

33%

Matricula-tion

23%

Higher Education

20%

Impact value =

Total no. of educated person total no.of educated person

during mining before mining

∑n=1

4

Rn

Total no. of educated person before mining

Where,

Rn = education standard factor


x. Per capita income 3.14

<2000 per month .77 2000-5000 per month .71 5000-10,000 per month .78 >10,000 per month .88

<2000 pm 25%

2000-5000 pm23%

5000-10,000 pm

25%

>10,000 pm

28%

Impact value =

Per capita income during mining – per capita income before mining

per capita income before mining


Chapter 5.Data Analysis

Total Impact Score

=∑i=I

n

W i xI i

Where, n = number of parameter Wi = weightage of ith parameter Ii = impact value of ith parameter

Percentage impact can be calculated as:

Final Impact Index

=∑i=1

n

W i xI i

∑i=I

n

W i

x100

The above equation can only be applied for a project when the impact value of all parameters are more than -1 (such as -0.9, -0.8, -0.1, +0.7, +1 etc.) and summation will be carried out. Otherwise the parameters will be listed with their quantification as shown in the given format. For this, the following format has been suggested to list out the parameters which have impact values less than -l(such as -1.1,-1.2-1.3.-1.4 etc.

Sl.No. ParameterWeightage

(Wi)Impact

value (Ii)

Impact score = Wi×

IiRemarks

If Ii < -1

If Ii>-1

Control measures required

Under safe limit

The remarks should be written as either control measures required, if impact value is less than -l or under safe limit, if impact value is more than -1.

The individual parameters, which need control measures , should be given foremost concern to bring the parameters

under safe limit and have to be decided whether to be included in summation with other parameters or not. Then interpretation of final impact index can be carried out after the summation of all parameters has been carried out.

Final Impact Index can be assessed as follows (Goel et al., 2000 & Prasad and Rakesh, 1999):

Final impact index(%) Remarks

> 0% highly recommended

0 to -20%not appreciable impacts on

environment

-20 to -40%appreciable but reversible impacts,

mitigation measures required

-40 to -60%significant impacts mostly reversible

after a short period, Mitigation measures crucial.

-60 to -80%Major impacts, which is mostly

irreversible, site

The assessment layers given above are used for comparing different mining projects.

These proposals should form the basis for suggesting EIA which should be further fine tuned from time to time when

project actually operates. This quantification scheme can be improvised through revisions from time to time till the consensus quantification is achieved. This quantification needs to be deliberated and modifications have to be done based on the opinion of experts.

Chapter 6.Result

& Discussio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

102030405060708090

Rehabilitation & resettlement

MEAN = 54.35

S.D = 13.928

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

10

20

30

40

50

60Economic factors MEAN = 31.88

S.D = 9.949

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Education/scientific factors/technology

MEAN = 27.53

S.D = 12.501

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

10

20

30

40

50

60 Quality of life

MEAN = 26.82S.D = 12.953

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

10

20

30

40

50

60No. Of villages ef-fected

MEAN = 21.76S.D = 12.740

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Population effected

MEAN = 28.53S.D = 10.572

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

10

20

30

40

50

60 Population to be displaced / land oustees

MEAN = 43.53 S.D = 10.532

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 MEAN = 16.18S.D = 8.010

Migration

Chapter 7.

Conclusion

Suggestions for

future work

Conclusions & suggestions for future work:

The quantitative approach is applicable to a mine with available data for the component parameters. The final environmental impact score of the mine is estimated only when all the parameters have scores below permissible limits.

• The present quantitative approach is applicable to opencast

mining project to know its status whether it is environmentally

safe or not.

• The proposals in the present study should form the basis for

suggesting EIA which should be further fine-tuned from time

to time when project actually operates. This quantification can

be improvised through revisions from time to time till the

consensus quantification is achieved.

• The quantitative approach should be applied to the project for

various alternative actions and best alternative should be

accepted. It should be applied for the project while it actually

operates to produce impact values of parameters. It can then

offer the EIA experts, mine developers, decision makers,

members of the public and the other stake holders an opportunity

to meaningfully view the project alternatives at every stage of

mining operations.

• Future studies on EIA should consider adoption of computers

to expedite the parameter impact quantification.

References:

Anjaneyulu, Y. (2002), Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies, Edited by C.A. Sastry.

Baliga, B.P. (1990), Environmental Management in Coal India. Mine Tech, Vol. 11. No.5. pp. 7-13.

Banerjee. S.P. (1995), Environmental Appraisal of Mining Projects- A Review of the Indian Scenario, First World Mining Environment Congress, New Delhi, India, 1995, pp. 437-444.

Banerjee, S.P.(1987), Environmental Practice in Indian Coal mines-A Status Report, Journal of Mines, Metals & Fuels, Vol.35(8). pp. 343-346.

Banerjee, S.P. & Rathore, C.S. (1994), Assessing Environmental Impacts of Mining Projects: A Quantitative Perspective, In Singh, T.N.(ed), Proceedings of the Fourth Asian Mining, International Conference on Geology, Mining, Ecology, Mineral Processing, 24-28, Nov 1993, Kolkata, India, pp. 75-87.

Banerjee S. P. & Singh, G. (1993), Problems of Water Pollution in Mining Areas -Issues Related to its Protection & Control, Proc. of the I" National Seminar on Environmental Policy Issues in Mineral Industry.

Bharghava, D.N.(1997), Environmental Management of Mining operations in India-A Status Report, edited by B.B. Dhar, Vol.11, Status of Mining Activity in India, pp.27-34.

Brawner, C.O. (1986), Ground Water and Coal Mining, Mining Science and Technology, 3, pp. 187198.

Canter, L.W. (1977), Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Chakraborthy, P. (1990), Ecological Balance and Environmental Pollution Control in Mining Area, Part I &2. The Indian Mining & Engineering Journal, Vol, 29, pp. 3-12.

Chakraborty, M.K., Chaulya, S.K., Ahmed. M., Singh, K.K.K., Singh, R.S. (2001), Hydro Geological Conditions Around an Opencast Mine, Mine Tech, Vol. 22, Jan-Feb, pp. 41-53.

Chakraborty, M.K, Chaulya, S.K. (1997), Environmental Impact Assessment and Rejuvenation of a Coal Mining Area, 27 th

International Conference on Safety in Mines Central Mining Research Institute, New Delhi, India. Vol 2, Editors: B.B.Dhar and B.C.Bhowmick, pp. 1033 -1046.

Das, S.K. (1999), An Environmental Management Scheme for a Highly Mechanised Opencast Mine, .Journal of Mines, Metals,

Fuels, July-August, pp. 191-195.

Dhar B.B., Jamal, A. and Ratan, S. (1997), Air Pollution in an Indian Opencast Mine: ACase-study, International Journal of Surface Mining Reclamation, Vol.2. pp.83-88.Dasgupta, M. & t, K.M. (2000), Correlation Co-efficient of Some Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Surface and Ground Waters of Rajgangpur, Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 20, No. 9. September, pp. 681-687.Dhar, B.B.; Jamal , A; Srivastva, B.K. & Ratan, S. (1991), Environmental Impact Assessment of Opencast Coal Mine-A Quantitative Approach, Mine-Tech, Nov-Dec,Vol.12, No.16, pp.17-24.

Dhar, B.B. (1997), Environmental Management of Mining Sites, Environmental Impact Assessment, pp. 2.13-2.15&3.37-3.41.Dowd, P.A. & Li, S.(2000), Knowledge and Geographical Information Based Systems for Noise Impact Assessment of Surface Mining and Quarrying Projects, Transactions Institute ofMining and Metallurgy, Vol. 109, January -April 2000, The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. Al-A13.

Das, B., Panda, S.C., Kar, R.N. and Patra, P. (1996), Environmental and Waste Management in Some Mining Operations in Orissa, Proceeding of the National seminar on Environmental and Waste Management in Metallurgical Industries, Jamshedpur, pp. 166-176.

Das, R.K, (2003), Assignment of Weightages for Parameters of Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Project- A Fuzzy Approach, M.Tech. Thesis, Department of Mining Engineering, BHU, Varanasi, India.

Environmental Protection Act, 1986.

Ghose, M.K.(2000),Assessments of Impacts on Air Quality due to Opencast Mining, Mine Tech,Vol.2I, Jan-Feb.,pp46-50.

Ghose, M.K.& Kundu, N.K.(200I ), Studies on Soil Profile Characteristics of Raniganj Coal Fields Area With a View to Land Reclamation, Mine-Tech, Vol. 22, No.4, Jul-Aug., pp. 49-56.

Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A, (1999), Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. University College, London Press, London.

Goel, P.K.; Kumar, A. (2000), Industry Environment and Pollution, Environmental Impacts of Industrial Pollution, ABD publishers, India, pp. 124-136.

Gupta, K.K. and Jamal, A. (1995), Environmental Assessment and Management of Acid Generation in Pb-Zn Tailing Dam -A Case study, Proc. 1st World Mining Congress, New Delhi , 11-14th Dec., pp. 3 8 1 -390,

Henry, J.G., & Heinke, G.W. (1989), Environmental Impact, Environmental Science and Engineering, pp. 36-38.

Rolling, C.S. (1978), Assessment Techniques, Adoptive Environmental Assessment and Management, pp. 301-305.

Hussain. A. (1998), Surface Mine Environment and Reclamation.

Hu, Z., Caudle, R.D., & Chong, S.K. (1992), Evaluation of Firm Land Reclamation Effectiveness Based on Reclaimed Mine Spoil Properties, International Journal of Surface Mining & Reclamation, Vol.6, pp. 129-135.

Jamal, A. Ratan, S., & Dhar, B.B. (1990), Air Pollution in an Indian Opencast Mine: A case study, International Journal of Surface Mining & Reclamation, Vol. 2, pp. 83-88.

Jain,K.K.(2003), Evolution of Environmental Management in Mining Industry in India, Envis Monograph, No. 11, June,2003,

pp. L :14-16, 27 &Q: 1.

Jain, R.K., Urban, L.V., & Stacey, G.S., (1977), Introduction to Environmental Impact Analysis, Environmental Impact Analysis, pp. 3-4.

John. J. & Schanzjr (1992), Social-legal-political Economic Impacts, SME Mining Engineering Hand Book, 2nd edition, Vol 2, Howard L. Hartman (Ed), pp. 125-130.Keleagetse, S. Sewelo (2001), Exploring the Linkage of Environmental Impact Assessment and Geographic Information System, Ph.D. Thesis, pp. 1-14.

Kumar, S. and Jha P.C. (2003), Ambient Air Quality Monitoring of Mining Projects: Current Scenario and Suggestion for Improvement, SEMMI. 2003, Department of Mining Engg., IT., BHU, Varanasi, and January, 17-18.

Kumaraswamy, N, Subramanyam. B. & Kotaiah, B. (2000), Assessment of Ground Water Pollution in and Around a Solid Waste Disposal Site - A Case Study, Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 20, No. 3, March. pp. 206-208.

Kulkarni, J.R., & Shrivastva, V.S. (2000), Physical & Chemical Investigation for the Assessment of Pollution in an Around Industrial Area, Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 20, No. 4, April, pp 252-256.

Kilmartin, M.P. (1989), Hydrology of Reclaimed Surface Coal Mine Land: A Review, International Journal of Surface Mining, 3(2). Pp. 71-83.

Kulkarni, V.S.; Kaul. S.N.; Trivedy, R.K. (2002), A Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Scientific Publishers, India, Jodhpur. pp. 12-86.

Leopold, L.B. (1971), A Procedure of Evaluating Environmental Impact, United States Geological Survey Circular

645,Washington DC.

Lin, G., Yishvi, W., Feng, G & Wenmin, Z. (2000), Environmental Management & Pollution Control in Mining: A Case Study of Non-Ferrous Metals Industry of China, Environmental Policy in Mining, Warhurst & Naronha (edited), pp. 423-428.

Malhothra, K.K. (1990), Environment & Ecology, Relevance to Coal Mining, Mine Tech, Vol. 11, No.5, pp. 26-40.

Moses, A.A., Ravichandran, C., Sagila. J.C. & Sangeeta R. (2000), Noise Pollution Assessment in Chidambaram Towns, Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 20, No. 12, December, 2000, pp. 881-883.

Munn, R.E. (edited) (1979), Environmental Impact Assessment Principles and Procedures, John Willey and Sons, New York, pp. 1-189.

Mehta, C.S. (1997), Environmental Protection and Law, pp. 132-133.

Noronha, L. (2000), Environmental Policy & Firm Level Environmental Behavior: An Indian Case study. Environmental Policy in Mining, Warhurst & Naronha (edited) pp 481-488.

Pal, D.; Mandal, G.C.; Singh, R.S.: Ahmed. M. (2002), Environmental Impact Assessment-A GIS [lased Approach, Mine-Tech, Vol.23, July-Aug.No.4, pp. 17-21.

Patnaik, N. Lalit. (1990), Environmental Impacts of Industrial and Mining Activities.

Puri, S.C.; Nagpal, H.C. (1987), Importance of Environmental Impact Assessment & EMP for Industrial Projects, Proceedings of Seminar on Impact of Mining on Environment, June 5-6, pp.

1.51-1.54.

Richard, N. L. Andrews, (1978), Elements and Methods of Impact Assessment, Environmental Analysis for Land Use and Site Planning. Edited by William. M. Marsh, pp. 268-287.

Rastogi, P.B. (2003), Environmental Laws and Acts for Mining and Other Industries, National Seminar on Environmental Management in Mining Industry, 2003, BHU, pp. 283-290.

Richard, N.L. Andrews (1978), Application of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Analysis for Landuse and Site Planning. Edited by William. M. Marsh, pp. 196-209

Rau, 1.G., & Wooten, D.C. (1980), Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Ravi Kiran, P. (2002), Identification of Parameters for Environmental Imppct Assessment of Opencast Mining Project, M.Tech. Thesis. Department of Mining Engineering, BHU. Varanasi. India.

Sinha,I.N.(2001).A Frame work of EIA for Environmental Sustainability, ENVISMonograph,No.8,September.Subbaratnam, T. (1988), Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Management and Planning, Edited by Asit.K.Sen, pp. 58-60.Singh, R.D, (1997), Planning of Coal Mines: Principles and Practices of Modem Coal Mining, pp. 67 8-679.

Singh, R.S., Chaulyas, S.K., Tiwary, B.K. & Dhar, B.B. (1996), Restoration of Coal Mine, Over Burden Dump-A Case Study, Coal International, pp. 83-88.

Sassoon, M. (2000), Effective Environmental Impact Assessment., Environmental Policy in Mining, Warhurst & Naronha (edited), pp. 101-106.

Shopley, 1.B., & Fuggle, R.F. (1984), A Comprehensive Review of Current Environmental Impact Assessment Methods and Techniques, Journal of Environmental Management, 18, pp.25-47.

Mohan, Surendra (1988), Coal Mining-and Its Impact on Environment, MINING (MINMAG), Vol.18.

Tripathi, R.K., & Pandey, S.N., (1995), Physico-Chemical Analysis of Water, Water Pollution. Pp. 104-105.

Tripathy, D.P. (2000), Dictionary on Environmental Science and Engineering, A.P.H. Publications, pp. 42-44.

Trivedi, P.R, (2000), Methods of Impact Analysis, Encyclopedia of Environment, Pollution, Planning and Conservation, Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol.2.The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Universal Law Publishing.

Vakil, A.N. (1987), Environmental Impact Assessment. Proceedings of Seminar on Impact of Industry on Environment, Ranchi, India, June 5-6, pp. 1.41-1.47.

Vesilind, P.A.; Durham, N.C. (1975), Environmental Pollution, Evaluation of Environmental Impact, pp. 10-55.

Venkateshwarlu, M.& Sharat Chandra, Y.(2000), Environmental Impact Assessment of an Integrated Iron & Steel factory, Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 20, No. 4., April , pp. 272-274.

Waltham, A.C. (1989), Ground Subsidence, Mining Subsidence, pp. 62-69.

Wilson, G. (1990), Environmental Impact Assessment, Potential Benefits to the Industry and the Environment, Quarry Management, Vol. 17, No.], January, pp. 29-32.

Warhurst, A., Macfarlane, M. & Geof Wood (2000), Issues in the Management of the SocioEconomic Impacts of Mine Closure: A Review of Challenges and Constraints, Environmental Policy in Mining, Warhurst & Naronha (edited), pp. 81-85.

Wilson, E. (1989), Threats to Biodiversity, Scientific American, September, pp. 108-116.

Web references:

www.unece.org.

www.eia.org.

www.gdrc.org.

www.fao.org/docrep.html.

www.coal.nic.in

www.ea.gov.au

www.unescap.org

www.worldbank.com

www.ecology.edu

www.geocities.com

www.environment.about.com

www.epa.gov

www.mines.gov.zm

www.miningindia.com

http://www.mines.gov.zm/

http://www.environment.about.com/

http://www.geocities.com/

http://www.ecology.edu/

http://www.worldbank.com/

http://www.unescap.org/

http://www.ea.gov.au/

http://www.coal.nic.in/

http://www.gdrc.org/

http://www.eia.org/

http://www.unece.org/

Mukesh Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Mukesh Final Report