MINUTES OF 31st EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (EAC) (THERMAL & COAL MINING) MEETING HELD ON 29th-30th AUGUST 2011 HELD IN SCOPE COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

 

COAL MINING PROJECTS

The 31st meeting of the reconstituted EAC (T &C) was held on 29th-30th August 2011 to consider the projects of coal mining sector. The list of participants of EAC and the proponents are given at Annexure-1 and 2 respectively.

Confirmation of minutes

The minutes of the 29th meeting of EAC (T&C) held on 18th -19th July 2011 was confirmed.

 

The agenda items were taken up as given below:

 

1.         West Bokaro Opencast Expansion Coal Mine Project (7 MTPA to 9 MTPA in an ML area of 1740 ha) and expansion of Capacity of Washery II (from 2.9 MTPA to 4 MTPA) of M/s Tata Steel Ltd., located in dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand (TOR)

 

The proponent made a presentation. The proposal is an integrated proposal for expansion of the West Bokaro Opencast coalmine project from 7 MTPA to 9 MTPA and operation of two existing coal washeries within the leasehold of the West Bokaro OCP, of which Washery II is to increase its capacity from 2.9 MTPA to 4 MTPA by augmentation of capacity of coal washery coal feeding system. In addition, washery III also located within the leasehold, which would continue its existing operations with the present capacity of 5 MTPA An FBC based 2x10 MW TPP is also located in the leasehold which operates on the coal rejects generated from the two coal washeries. The West Bokaro OCP was granted an EC on 17.05.2007 for expansion from 5 MTPA to 7 MTPA capacity in ML area of 1740 ha. It was stated that the proposed expansion in capacity of mine and washeries is to meet the increased demand of coal for expansion of its linked steel plant located in Jamshedpur. The two washeries cater to the requirements of a 2x10MW FBC based TPP also located in its leasehold. It is not proposed to expand the capacity of the FBC based TPP.

 

There are no National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuary, Biosphere Reserves found in the 10 km buffer zone. Bokaro River flowing easterly which passes through southern side of project control the drainage of the area. lease. Chuta nadi flows all along the northern boundary of the ML and joins River Bokaro in the south-eastern side of the lease. No embankment is required as the RL of the mine is higher than the HFL of River Bokaro. It was informed that the mine is very old and was not nationalised under the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act 1973. It was informed that of the total ML area of 1740 ha, 1428.86 ha is forest land, (which consists of 596.90 ha of notified forest, 831.96 ha of GM (JJ) land). Of the total forestland, 270.75 ha has been broken prior to 1980 (i.e. before the FC Act came into effect) and the operation of the coal mine in the forestland and in the non-forestland is restricted to already broken area of 270.75 ha as per an Order of Hon’ble High Court Judgment in 2005 and permission of MOEF dated 20.09.2010. The proposal of 222.24 ha and 249.90 ha (which includes 270.75 ha of already broken area) and 4.07 ha of land required for overhead conveyors of forestland (notified forest and JJ land) is under process in State Govt./MOEF, New Delhi. In addition, a proposal for diversion of 157.10 ha of forestland has been submitted with the State Govt, which is required for the expansion project. It was informed that the expansion project would be by deepening the mine beyond 105 m depth. Ultimate working depth is 140m bgl.

 

The proponent presented the status of compliance of the environmental clearance granted for the existing project of 7 MTPA. It was informed that the current production level is 5.2 MTPA (max achieved is 5.63 MTPA), which produced 2.20 MTPA of steel grade coal after washing. It was informed that the company has engaged IUCN expertise for reclamation and plantation activities and for regeneration of ecosystem. Revised Mining plan for expansion project with capacity of 9.00 MTPA is in under preparation.

 

Of the total ML area of 1740 ha, 1292 ha is for the OCP (525 ha is for active quarry area and 767 ha is for additional quarry area to be mined in the expansion project of 9 MTPA), 119 ha is for external dump, 20 ha is area for storing coal fines, 160 ha is for CHP, washery /infrastructure, 20 ha is for road, 33 ha is for green belt, 41 ha is for township and 42 ha is water body. Mining would be opencast by mechanised method using shovel-dumper combination. The mined out coal would be sent to CHP and thereafter to the washeries located within the leasehold. Grade of coal is metallurgical grade. Of the total water requirement of 1470 m3/d, 780 m3/d is for coal washery, 650 m3/d is for dust suppression and 50 m3/d is for workshop. Water table is 2-10m bgl during pre-monsoon and 2-5m bgl during post-monsoon. The total mine discharge is 4873 m3/d. Of the total 839 PAFs, R&R has been completed for 166 PAFs only.

 

It was informed that to support the expansion of production in OCP and augmentation  of washery capacity, the raw coal handling system, workshop, product transportation, aerial ropeway would be augmented by replacing with tubular belt conveyor. Coal transportation to to the railway siding, at Chainpur is by piped conveyor. Clean coal (with ash content of 15%) would be dispatched to linked Steel Plant and middling (with ash content of 38-40%) is sent to Steel Plant and TPP of TATA Power and other utilities such as Bokaro Power (SAIL and DVC JV), HINDALCO, Hindustan Copper, etc. Tailings (coal fines) with ash content of 35-38%% are sent to Brick/lime kilns, etc . Coal Rejects with ash content of 56-60% are sent to FBC based captive Power Plant and for use by miscellaneous users. Middling, coal rejects and coal fines are disposed /utilised as per the approval of MOC. The washeries operate on a closed circuit and there would be no discharge of wastewater from the coal washery outside the ML. 

 

The Committee observed that the changes in the major project parameters for the present project vis-à-vis the proposed expansion is not clear and desired that this should be presented vis-à-vis changes in land use, mining operations including changes in calendar plan of production, balance life of mine, capital cost for existing and balance, plan for dumping of OB (existing – in OB and backfilled and proposed in expansion – in external dump and to be backfilled, water requirement, final mine closure (conceptual), etc. The Committee desired that mine development (existing) and proposed in the expansion project should be shown on a top sheet/ land use map. The Committee observed that the status of clearances/ approvals/permission obtained from  MOEF and the various Orders of the High Court of Jharkhand for mining in forestland and that proposed in the expansion project is not clear and should be presented and supported by documents. The Committee desired that no mining should be carried out beyond the forest area, for which forest clearance/High court order had been obtained earlier. The Committee also desired that the proponent also examine the option of UG mining in the expansion project where forestland is involved, particularly for deeper seams. The Committee observed that photographs of mined out areas and OB dumps reclaimed with plantation shows that plantation is not dense and consists of exotic plant species and also a few weed species. The Committee desired that a 3-tier forest ecosystem consisting of a mix of native species found in the pre-mining ecosystem or in the adjoining natural forests should be developed to restore the original forest ecosystem. The Committee desired that the final depth of mine pit/water body depth left at the final mine closure stage should not exceed 40m. The upper benches of the water body should be stabilised and reclaimed with plantation using native species. The Committee also desired that top soil should be stored at proper designated site and utilised within a year of its generation for reclamation of the mine.  The proponent should submit R&R Action Plan for the balance 673 families and what CSR activities were done by the proponent in the past. The Committee sought details of quantum of washing being carried out in the two washeries along with details of quantum of raw coal along with source, clean coal, middling and rejects along with ash content.

 

The Committee after discussions decided to further consider the project after submission of the details sought above.

 

 

2.         Nimbri Lignite Mining Project (0.5 MTPA) of M/s Binani Cement Ltd.  proposed at Nimbri-Chandwatan Lignite Mine in village Nimbri, Tehsil Jayal-Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan – Environmental clearance based on TOR granted on 22.08.2007

The proposed Nimbri Lignite Mining Project of M/s Binani Cement Ltd.  of 0.5 MTPA production capacity in an area of 350 is to be located in village Nimbri, Tehsil Jayal-Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. The proposal was last considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 22nd -23rd March 2010 wherein the Committee had noted that lignite from Nimbri Chandawatan mine has been earmarked by the company for the 25 MW TPP located within  a Cement Plant located at Sirohi at a distance of about 250km, for which an EC was granted vide MOEF letter dated J-11011/60/2006 dated 18.05.2006. The Committee had also noted that the proponent had obtained a TOR dated 10.09.2008 for another proposed pit head TPP (i.e., the reserves of this mine had been shown for two separate TPPs) which was not clear, since the entire lignite reserves of this mine was insufficient to meet the requirements of the TPP located at Sirohi. The Committee had also observed that the Mining Plan approved by the Ministry of Coal for this mine is for a limited extent of 20% of the reserves and would require modification in view of the fact that the reserves from this block can cater to the requirement of the TPP at Sirohi for  a limited period of only 12 years. The Committee had desired that details of mine development (for every 5 years) until end of mine life and post mining landuse should be presented. The Committee had sought detailed geological cross sections (in addition to litho logs) to be presented. The Committee desired that a detailed Risk Assessment Study and a Disaster Management Plan should be formulated in case mining ruptures the confined aquifer, keeping in view the volume of water and quality. It The Committee had further recommended that mining should be stopped immediately until the Plan is implemented. The Committee desired that use of saline water for dust suppression and green belt development should be avoided as it may contaminate the soil/ecology of area, which would become degraded into a ‘salt pan’. The Committee desired that the mine water with high levels of TDS be treated in a RO Plant or using US based technology and a safe method of disposal of the brine sludge in concrete lined pits or sold to consumers for which a long term MOU should be entered into. The Committee had desired that a provision of Rs 5 crores or 0.4% of the total capital costs (whichever is higher) should be earmarked for CSR and a Corpus Fund created for the maintenance activities.

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that Ministry of coal has allocated Nimbri Lignite Mining Project block to BCL, covering an area of 56.40 sq km for captive use to meet lignite requirement of their TPP at Sirohi, Rajasthan. Of the total block about 80% of the block was yet to be explored. It was informed that the surface geology of the region indicated that there are considerable reserves of lignite present in the lignite bearing zone from Kaparion-ki-Dhani in south to Matasukh Kasnau mines in north of Nimbri-Chandwatan Block. A Mining Plan for an estimated mineable reserve of 5.53 MT with life of 12 years @0.5MTPA lignite production to meet requirement of their TPP at Sirohi, Rajasthan has been prepared. The mining plan for 350 ha has already been approved vide MOC letter no 13016/51/2007 -CA dated 6.05.2010. It was informed that there is sufficient lignite reserve in 52.9 sq. km to enhance the mine life beyond 12 years. It was informed that mining would be carried out in phases with simultaneous backfilling The details of mine development with intervals of 5 years up to end of mine life (12 years) along with the conceptual post mining land use had been furnished. It was informed that as per the approved Mining Plan of the proposed project, the ultimate working depth would be 90m bgl and as per hydrogeological report, the confined aquifer is far below the ultimate working depth of the mine and hence the confined aquifer will not be intersected. A 7-m thick clayey-silicaceous horizon behaves as a confining bed. It was stated that the mine water inflow is brackish as TDS level are ranging between 500-2000mg/l.It was informed that 3D (MODFLW) ground water modelling studies has been prepared and a Report on “Quantitative Risk Assessment and Disaster Management Plan” has been submitted as desired by committee which also covers multiple studies for treatment and disposal of brine water and sludge. Details of economical and environment friendly options for treatment of brine/saline water like Floatation-liquid Liquid Separation Technology, Clear Technology, Evaporation by sprinkler, Reverse Osmosis Plant and Electrolysis contacted M/S Hindustan Salts LTD and M/s Saboo Sodium Chloro for use of sludge/brine consent letters/MOU from these companies have been provided. It was informed that land owners have been paid compensation @3.5 times the District Level Committee (DLC) rates. PP also ensured that the eligible land owners would be trained and employed in mining operation. Proponent also informed that the land would be simultaneously reclaimed and made available for irrigation in cycles of 2 years for agricultural use by villagers/PAPs. It was informed that Rs 5 crores or 0.4% of the capital cost of the project would be spent on CSR activities and a separate amount has been provided for maintenance in the annual budget.

The Committee noted that the Coal Block Allocation letter dated 07.02.2007 of the MOC had  indicated that the reserves of 0.46 MTPA of lignite from the block would meet the lignite requirements of their linked 54MW TPP at Sirohi. The Allocation letter however does not provide details of the total area of the Nimbri-Chandawtan Lignite Block. Mining Plan has been prepared and approved by MOC for a limited area of 350 ha only and for a limited period of 12 years, which is not sufficient to meet the requirement of the linked TPP at Sirohi. The Committee also noted that exploration has not been completed in the Nimbri-Chandawatan Lignite Block even after a period 4 years from date of allocation of the lignite block. The Committee also noted that the proponent had obtained a TOR for another proposed pit head TPP even though 80% of the block is yet to be explored. The Committee observed that the TOR obtained is based on assumptions and on futuristic commitments of availability of lignite for which neither a Mining Plan has been prepared nor the extent of reserves found in the block has been ascertained. The Committee observed that the TOR 10.09.2008 obtained for the pit head PP is not based on actual reserves available. In view of this, the Committee was of the view that the TOR granted by MOEF earlier dated for a proposed pit head TPP may be withdrawn.

The Committee observed that at the end of 12 years of mining, there would be two OB dumps and void of 10 m depth in an area of 49 ha area, which is being left as a water body, which may contain high levels of TDS and would be unsuitable for consumption. The Committee observed that the letter No. 858 dated 25.06.2008 of Assistant Director (Agriculture), Zila Parishad, HQs, Nagaur, Govt. of Rajasthan indicated that the land was good agricultural land with good amount of water where a number of Kharif crops such as Kapas, Moong, Moth, Guvar, Bajra and Til and Rabi crops such Zeera,  Methi, Sarson (Mustard), Wheat, Mint and vegetables were being grown. The Committee recommended that the land should be given back to the villagers for agricultural use after backfilling and reclamation. The Committee desired that dumping may be carried out in mineralised area and there should be no external dump at the end. The Committee observed that the transportation of lignite from the mine to linked TPP at Sirohi is 250km by road and desired that the proponent examine transportation of lignite by rail mode. The Committee desired that bulk loading system should be adopted. The Committee noted that an initial amount of Rs 5.5 crores and recurring annual expenditure of Rs 1.5 crores earmarked should be carried out for the life of the project. The proponent was advised to furnish action plan proposed for CSR activities for record.

The Committee after discussions recommended the project for environmental clearance.

 

3.         Cluster No. 10 of 24 mines (expn. from 2 MTPA to 7.2 MTPA (peak) in a combined ML area of 6349 ha of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., located in Raniganj Coalfields, Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal (TOR)

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the Cluster No. 10 consists of 24 mines of which 21 are UG mines, Of the cluster, 5 new OC patches, 2 are mixed (OC + UG) and rest are underground mines over a combined ML area of 6349 ha. The total combined expansion in production capacity would be from 2 MTPA to 7.7 MTPA (peak). Of these, 19 mines are of pre-nationalisation period. Eight mines of the cluster have been granted environmental clearance covering an area of about 3000ha. It was stated that the production capacity has been increased subsequent to filing the application for TOR, from 7.2MTPA to 7.70 MTPA owing to reassessment of Madhabpur OC Patch from 0.1 MTPA to 0.5 MTY.

It was informed that Cluster No. 10 is situated in the east-central part of Raniganj coalfields in district Burdwan of West Bengal, east of Asansol town ship. The Eastern railway line forms the southern boundary of the cluster and GT Road runs through the cluster. River Damodar flows along the southern side. Drainage of the cluster is controlled by Singaran Nala and its tributaries drain into River Damodar. The Cluster No. 10 presently contains 1 opencast mine, I mixed (UG+OC) mine and rest are under ground mines. Production has been suspended temporarily in two underground mines for safety reasons. No forestland is involved. In certain patches which are uninhabited and free from surface feature, OC mining is planned. Tenancy land is proposed to be acquired and compensation would be made to land oustees as per CIL’s R&R Policy and of the Govt. of W.B. It was informed that mine voids of mines worked out earlier during pre-nationalisation, are serving as water reservoirs for consumption of local people.

Landuse of Cluster No. 10

S.N

Land Use

 

Area (ha)

1.

Cultivable /Fallow

1778

2.

Village/Basti

608

3.

Tanks/Water bodies

423

4.

Danga/Waste land

1081

5.

Road & Railways

150

6.

Plantation/Vegetation

741

7.

Vacant Govt. Land

380

8.

Built up area

257

9.

Colliery infrastructure

461

10.

Quarry

256

11.

OB Dump

81

12.

Others

196

Total

6412

 

 

 

Actual Production from Cluster No. 10

Year

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-2011

 

Total MT

2.17

2.18

2.06

2.21

2.00

 

MINES OF CLUSTER NO. 10

 

S.N

Name of Mines

UG/OC

Existing/ proposed

Working/ production Suspended

Lease hold area (ha)

Peak capacity

(MTY)

Life (years)

1

North Searsole UG

UG

Existing

Working

 

 

360

0.20

 

 

2.0

>25

North Searsole (East) OC Patch

OC

Proposed

0.90

6

North Searsole (West) OC Patch

OC

Proposed

0.90

7

2.

Kunustoria UG

UG

Existing

Working

383

0.24

>25

3.

Amrasota UG

UG

Existing

Working

0.15

>25

4.

Belbaid UG

UG

Existing

Working

384

0.48

0.48

>25

Belbaid OC Patch

OC

Existing

Working

0.20

3

5.

Bansra UG

UG

Existing

Working

611

0.735

0.735

>25

Bansra OC Patch

OC

Proposed

0.15

1

6.

Parasea UG

UG

Existing

Working

481

0.36

0.61

>25

Parasea OC Patch

OC

proposed

 

0.25

4

7.

Parasea 6 &7 UG

UG

Existing

Working

0.06

>25

8.

Jambad OC

OC

Existing

Working

323

0.80

>25

9.

Jambad UG

UG

Existing

Working

0.24

>25

10.

Nambaka jora UG

UG

Existing

Working

 

703

0.30

 

0.80

>25

11.

Madhabpur UG

UG

Existing

Working

>15

Madhabpur OC Patch

OC

Proposed

0.50

>25

12

Lachipur UG

UG

Existing

Working

570

0.06

>25

13.

Central Kajora UG

UG

Existing

Working

291

0.15

>25

14.

Khas Kajora UG

UG

Existing

Working

188

0.35

>25

15.

Moira UG

UG

Existing

Working

455

0.12

>25

16.

Madhusudanpur UG

UG

Existing

Working

338

0.24

>25

17.

Madhujore UG

UG

Existing

Production Suspended

463

0.12

>25

18.

Ghanshyam UG

UG

Existing

Production Suspended

451

0.12

>25

19.

Parascole East & West

UG

Existing

Working

348

0.39

>25

         Total

 

 

 

6349

7.70

 

 

 

The details of Rehabilitation Cluster No. 10

S.N.

Parameter

Details

1.

Total  Nos Voids

 27

2.

Areas of excavation of void

122 ha

3.

Total Unstable Sites

09

4.

Areas of unstable site

47 ha

5.

Affected population

6218

6.

Total  resettlement Cost

Rs 100 crores

7.

Environmental management

@  Rs 7/T of coal

8.

CSR

@Rs 5/T of coal produce

The Committee noted that there are 25 mines (18 UG and 7 OC mines) located in Cluster No. 10 as presented before the EAC. The Committee also noted that there are discrepancies in the details of ML area provided for the cluster. The Committee observed that the rationale for inclusion of 25 mines under one cluster under the cluster approach is not clear. The Committee desired that the environmental advantage of bringing such a large number of mines within the cluster approach requires to be brought out in detail in the EIA-EMP Report. The Committee desired that the status of compliance of EC for the 8 mines included in this cluster, which have obtained EC, should form a part of the EIA-EMP Report along with the rationale for their inclusion in the cluster. The Committee also desired that adequate number of environmental monitoring stations would require to be established to assess the impacts of the total combined cluster area. The Committee also noted that several of the mines of the cluster are not in operation and the legal position of grant of EC for such mines would require to be examined. The Committee also desired that the proponent examine the feasibility of permitting practice of agriculture before depillaring of UG mines. The Committee desired that the Raniganj Action Plan which addresses the issues of subsidence and unstable sites, fire, etc should be dovetailed with the EIA-EMP Report as an Integrated Environmental Management Plan. The Committee desired that the land should be reclaimed as agricultural land during post mining stage.

The Committee after discussions granted TOR with the following specific TOR conditions, which are to be addressed in the EIA-EMP Report along with the TOR for an OC-cum-UG mine given at Annexure 7 read with Annexure-8:

 

(i)            An Integrated EIA-EMP Report for Cluster No. 10 consisting of 25 mines consisting of 18 OC and UG mines (1 UG closed mine) and 7 OC mines for expn. from 2 MTPA to 7.2 MTPA (peak) in a combined ML area of 6349 ha based on the generic structure specified in Appendix III of the EIA Notification 2006. The Integrated EIA-EMP for the Cluster No. 10 mines shall be prepared clearly bringing out the present status of the 25 mines of Cluster No. 10 as above- status of env. quality and the extent of pollution load from each mine and the combined pollution load from the cluster of mines that would be reduced by taking suitable mitigative measures for the individual mines and for the cluster and the expected improvement in the environmental quality of the mines in the cluster and within the coalfield after the implementation of the measures through an Integrated Environmental Plan formulated on the aforesaid basis. A fresh baseline data on the env. quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. shall be generated through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts. Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon. Details of the present land use and post mining land use of the operating and abandoned mines individually and as a cluster shall be furnished as part of the EIA. A detailed Mine Closure Plan and a Mine Reclamation Plan for the abandoned mines (UG and OC)/pits/quarries found in the cluster shall be furnished as a part of EIA-EMP study. The closure of UG mines should ensure that no illegal mining is done thereafter from the mines. Details of long term benefits to environment because of cluster approach of mining shall be clearly addressed in the EIA-EMP study. In addition to the above, details of an Action Plan for project specific R&R and CSR shall also be formulated and presented in the EIA-EMP. The aforesaid Integrated Environmental Management Plan shall be dovetailed with the Raniganj Action Plan and details of its implementation with specific time-lines should be provided. As Asansol is a Critically Polluted Area, the specific Action Plan for mitigation and improvement of env. quality should be presented.

(ii)            An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for Cluster No. 10 consisting of 25 mines consisting of 18 OC and UG mines (1 UG closed mine) and 7 OC mines for expn. from 2 MTPA to 7.2 MTPA (peak) in a combined ML area of 6349 ha and cover the impacts and management plan for the project specific activities on the environment of the region, and the environmental quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts including prediction modelling for expn. from 2 MTPA to 7.2 MTPA (peak). Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon.

(iii)       The Committee observed that the rationale for inclusion of 25 mines under one cluster under the cluster approach is not clear. The Committee desired that the environmental advantage of bringing such a large number of mines within the cluster approach requires to be brought out in detail in the EIA-EMP Report. The Committee desired that the status of compliance of EC for the 8 mines included in this cluster, which have obtained EC, should form a part of the EIA-EMP Report along with the rationale for their inclusion in the cluster.

(iv)       The Committee also desired that adequate number of environmental monitoring stations would require to be established to assess the impacts of the total combined cluster area.

(v)        The Committee also desired that the proponent examine the feasibility of permitting practice of agriculture before depillaring of UG mines.

(vi)       The Committee desired that the Raniganj Action Plan which addresses the issues of subsidence and unstable sites, fire, etc should be dovetailed with the EIA-EMP Report as an Integrated Environmental Management Plan.

(vii)      The Committee desired that the land should be reclaimed as agricultural land during post mining stage.

 

 

4.         Letter No. BSL/MOEF/BS-06/2011-05 dated 25.07.2011 of M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. regarding dumping of flyash in the mine voids of MCL mines in Angul-Talcher, Orissa

 

Director, MOEF informed that a letter dated 25.-7.2011 of M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. has been received in the MOEF regarding proposed dumping of flyash generated from their Power Plant in Angul-Talcher, Orissa in the decoaled voids of Jagannath OCP mine of M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. The letter also states that the company has met all the requirements such as approval of SPCB  vide letter 22.02.2010, and of DGMS vide letter dated 10.02.2011 and has also entered into an MOU with MCL on 03.12.2010. The proponent has also submitted “Environment Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan for Ash disposal in Jagannath OCP, Quarry No. IV of MCL, Talcher”. The issue has been brought before the EAC since environmental issues regarding dumping of flyash was considered in detail by the EAC (T&C) in its 51st meeting held on 21st-22nd July 2009 on the (then) draft Flyash Notification of MOEF. Extracts of the minutes of the meeting are given at Annexure-3.

 

Director, MOEF informed that since the meeting, the MOEF Notification dated 03.11.2009 on Utilisation of Flyash prescribes dumping of flyash into decoaled voids as one of the means of flyash utilisation. While the MOEF considers dumping of flyash into decoaled voids as an option, this, however, requires detailed feasibility studies on the leachability characteristics of heavy metals (if present) in the flyash to be dumped into mine voids as part of the EIA-EMP Study carried out by the concerned coal company for obtaining EC for the mine, where flyash is to be dumped. The matter of dumping of flyash without such studies raises serious environmental concerns especially since the impacts of leaching of heavy metals into the groundwater aquifers can be ascertained only after a period of 15-20 years and therefore undertaking of remedial measures is not possible, i.e. it is an irreversible damage to the groundwater system. Since coal produced in Talcher coalfields are of poor quality (E-F-G grade) and generate about 45% or more of ash, dumping huge quantities of flyash into mine voids as the most favoured option without addressing the environmental concerns appropriately, could lead to severe problems of contamination of groundwater aquifers of Talcher Coalfields after 10-20 years, rendering them unsuitable for consumption of humans and other life forms thereafter. The approval given by DGMS is from safety angle only in specific regard to stability of the dumps and prevention of collapse of side walls where flyash would be dumped along with OB. As far as impacts on the environment are concerned, detailed studies are required as part of the EIA-EMP Study for the environmental clearance for the mine prior to start of flyash dumping.

 

The Committee was further informed that since in the present case, EC was granted to Jagannath OCP which did not have a specific condition permitting dumping of flyash into decoaled mine void as the EIA-EMP study conducted by M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd did not include a feasibility study for dumping of flaysh into its decoaled voids. Hence, the proposed dumping without prior approval of MOEF for changing the scope of the environmental conditions in EC granted to Jagannath OCP constitutes a violation by M/s Mahandai Coalfields Ltd. It was informed that the MOU has been entered without conduct of feasibility studies and trials on leachability characteristics of the flyash and without prior approval of MOEF.

 

Representative, M/s Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. informed that so far, flyash has not been dumped in Jagannath OCP and as desired by the EAC, a study would be got conducted by CMPDI/ or a suitable institution and presented before the EAC. Insofar as dumping of flyash into MCL mines are concerned, the representative of M/s MCL informed that flyash is being dumped in South Bolanda OCP, South Bharatpur and Jagannath OCP of M/s MCL. However, this would be stopped with immediate effect and until approvals are obtained from the EAC/MOEF for modification of EC condition of the concerned coal mine permitting dumping of flyash into its decoaled voids. Further, M/s MCL would incorporate this issue as part of the EIA-EMP whenever an application is made for EC for the mine/expansion of mine/modification of EC granted to any of its mines where it is proposed to dump flyash.

 

The Committee desired that a study of dumping fly ash in Jagannath OCP void should be carried out immediately by an authorised agency. The Committee also desired that pre-feasibility trials/studies should be carried out by CMPDI/ other institution and submit report to ministry. The Committee also desired that MOEF should issue a circular in continuation to the Notification on fly ash utilisation that project proponents of coalmines (where flyash is proposed to be dumped) should submit leachability test /trials and report as part of the EIA/EMP for obtaining environmental clearance. Mining Plans are also required to be suitably modified incorporating this change of dumping and backfilling programme in their calendar plan and in the progressive and final mine closure plans and obtain appropriate approvals from Ministry of Coal/Coal India companies. After obtaining EC, the mining companies must submit half yearly compliance Reports to MOEF, RO and to SPCBs. This procedure would require to be followed by all coal mining companies wherever flyash is proposed to be dumped.

 

 

5.         Establishment of Coal Slurry Plant (35000 TPA) of M/s Royal Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd., village Sarbari, Dist. Purulia, West Bengal (TOR)

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the proposal is for establishing a coal slurry unit of 35,000TPA capacity of coal rejects from existing washeries. The beneficiation activity is categorised as Category B in the EIA Notification 2006. The application has however been submitted to MOEF as the unit is to be established along the WB border with Jharkhand which makes it a Category A project. The plant is to be established within the premises of the company’s coke oven plant and washed coal would be used for manufacture of coke. Coking coal slurry rejects with an ash content of 25-35% or more, which are dumped by major coking coal washeries of Coal India Ltd., Steel Authority of India Ltd., TISCO, etc as rejects would be utilised as raw material for further washing to recover the coal fines. The unit would receive the coal rejects from such coal washeries in the area and beneficiate the coal rejects further to recover coal fines for use. The wet slurry would be transported by covered trucks (7/day). The clean coal (slurry) with an ash content of 12-15% and coal rejects with an ash content of 70% of ash (by blending with high grade coal) or more generated from the slurry unit would be sent for use in the nearby brick kilns situated nearby. The unit would function on a zero-discharge basis. The total land requirement of the Plant is 4.1 acre (1.659 ha) of which 0.25091 ha (0.62 acre) is for process plant, 0.14569 ha (0.36 acre) is for building (office, store station), 0.6475 ha (1.60 acre) is for coal stockyard, 0.53419 ha (1.32 acre) is green belt, 0.04452 ha (0.11 acre) is vacant area. No forestland is involved. The total water requirement for the slurry unit (using froth floatation process) is 15 m3/d of which 11m3/d is for the process plant, 2m3/d is for dust suppression, 0.5 m3/d is for drinking, 1.3/d is for green belt and 0.5 m3/d is for other uses. Source of water is bore well. The project does not involve R&R. Capital costs of the project is Rs 5.85 crores. Total manpower required for the project is 60 for construction phase and 40 in operation phase. Input coal and washed coal and coal rejects would be transported by both road/rail mode.

    

The Committee after discussions recommended TOR with the following specific conditions in addition to the generic TOR given in Annexure 4 read with Annexure-8:

(i)         Letters/ MOU with the companies, from whom the coal slurry/rejects are to be obtained shall be furnished at the time of submission of application of EC.

(ii)        Similarly, the details of units where coal rejects from the slurry unit are to be utilised would also be provided. The Committee desired that a Public hearing would be conducted.

 

 

6.         Letter No. JNIL/RPR/UCM/2011 dated 01.08.2011 of M/s Jayeswals Neco Industries Ltd. regarding conduct of two Public Hearings – (i) for Coal Washery to be established in Gare IV/48 Coalmine project and (ii) P.H. for expansion of Gare IV/4 Coal Mine project, in Tehsil Gharghoda, district Raigarh, Chhattsigarh.

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was explained that the limited issue for which the clarification was sought was regarding conduct of Public Hearing for its two projects located in the Gare Pelma Coal Blocks in Tehsil Gharghoda, district Raigarh in Chhattisgarh – (i) a pit-head coal washery (3 MTPA capacity) to be established within the leasehold of Gare IV/8 Coalmine Project and (ii) expansion of Gare IV/4 Coal Mine Project (0.48 MTPA to 1 MTPA in an ML area 701.512 ha), for which the company had submitted. The company submitted two separate TOR applications for these two projects to the MOEF and based on which, TOR was granted on 08.04.2010 for the proposed pithead coal washery and on 31.05.2010 for the proposed expansion of Gare IV/4 Coal Mine Project. The company ahs submitted that the two projects are integrated since the coal produced from Gare IV/4 Coalmine Project would be sent to the proposed Coal Washery to be established within Gare IV/8 Coalmine Project. It was informed that the minimal distance between the two projects is about 2 km. The proponent requested whether a single combined Public Hearing could be conducted for the two projects, in view of the fact that the two projects are inter-linked, the impact zone of the two projects is almost identical and the villages falling within the impact zone are also almost common.

 

The Committee noted that the proponent had submitted two separate TOR applications and had obtained two TORs – one on 08.04.2010 and the second on 31.05.2010. The Committee observed that a combined Public Hearing may therefore not be feasible, as a single combined EIA-EMP has not been prepared integrating the two projects. The EAC after discussion recommended that two P.H.s could be conducted on the same date and venue, but at different times (one following the other) as per provisions of the EIA Notification 2006. The proponent should publish two separate notices for two separate P.Hs, indicating the details of the projects, venue, time, etc in an area falling between the two projects covering both the impact zones, in consultation with the District Admn,. The second one should be conducted only after the first had been concluded. The process of giving notice, conduct of P.H., etc for both the P.Hs should follow the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006.

 

 

7.         Jampali OCP (3 MTPA in an ML area of 658.10 ha) of M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. located in village Jampali and Singmouza,Tehsil Gharghoda, dist. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh- Further consideration of EC based on TOR granted on 23.10.2008.

 

The proposal was last considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 28th -27th October 2010, wherein the Committee had observed that although the block was a fragmented bit of forest, it may act as a passage for movement of wild animals from the southern side which is continuation of the forest in the buffer zone. The Committee had desired that the proponent could re-examine the extent of reserves in degraded forests, in JJ land and in dense forests and whether some of the reserves falling in good forests could be left undisturbed. The Committee had further desired that details of forest area (dense/open/JJ land) for the various mining operations should be presented in a matrix. The Committee desired that construction of approach roads, electrification of R&R colony, health centre, etc be included and details thereof furnished.

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the proposed Jampali Opencast Project is of 3 MTPA production capacity in an area of 658.10 ha of which forestland is 343.56ha. It was informed that the total reserve of the project are 31.32 MT, out of which 21.52 MT are below forest area. Thus, the reserves falling within the forest area is about 69% of the total mining reserve, which is significant. Of the total quarry area of 398 ha proposed 239.56 ha area is forestland (179 .59 ha is PF and 59.97 ha is RF), i.e.60% of quarry area is under forest. Proponent informed that of the total ML area of 658.10 ha of which 245.803 ha is agricultural land, 343.56 ha is forestland, 46.96 ha is grazing land and 7.409 ha is surface water bodies and 14.368 ha consists of settlements, roads, etc. There are 4 RFs in the core zone. It was informed that four options of OB dumping have been examined for reducing the extent of external dumping and use of forestland, which were presented before the Committee.  

 

It was clarified that by UG mining 60% reserve would be extracted but 30% coal would be left behind, which may catch fire and subsidence may also occur below village houses on surface. It was explained that as per Option IV, a temporary external OB dump of a max. height of 25.45 m above ground level would be created The dump would be about 70-80m away from the river. At the end of mine life, an estimated 73mM3 of OB would be rehandled and backfilled into the decoaled void, so that the agricultural land is brought to ground level for post mining use, and leaving a void of 30 ha area and 20m depth as a water reservoir. Thus, in the post–mining stage, an area of 384 ha (281 ha reclaimed dump, 2 ha is green belt, 103.192 ha safety zone) would be reclaimed as forest vis-à-vis 248.56 ha of forestland diverted for mining. The proponent informed that the land would also be returned for agricultural use as against the 245.80 ha of agriculture land acquired for mining. Thus, in Option-IV, of the total 658.10 ha ML area, forest land would be 384.60, 30 ha water body, 22.5 ha Township/in habited area, 2.6 ha is road, 218.40 ha is Agriculture area. The Proponent informed that the forest (PF) block which falls within mine boundary is not a continuous block so no wild life corridor has been notified/identified in the study area. It was observed from the maps/top sheets presented that the forest block in north-west of proposed project is continuous and more suitable as corridor. It was informed that an application has been made to the State Govt. for forestry clearance. It was informed that the total number of land oustees is 190 from two villages Jampali and Singmouza. R&R involves 114 PAF’S. R&R site has been identified at Phagugram in an area of 14.7 ha, which is about 5 km from project site. R&R of the total 114 PAFS would be completed within 3 years. It was further stated that all the 114 PAF’s would be provided employment in the company.

 

After discussions it was the view that Scenario-IV was the best option and should be adopted, The Committee desired that skill development programme for affected people should be taken up under CSR. Capacity building for mining operation for the newly employed persons and regular refresher programmes/training should be given to the persons who are already employed. The Committee desired that five year plan for CSR activity as proposed should be implemented. The Committee also desired that River Kurket and its tributary flowing in the eastern side of the core zone should not be disturbed and solid waste and effluents from the mine should not be discharged into the river. The Committee after discussions recommended the project for environmental clearance.

 

Chairman EAC also desired a detailed presentation from Mr Gopal Singh, Director (T) regarding best international practices on UG and OC Mines.

 

 

8.         Mahaveer Coal Washery (5 MTPA) of M/s Mahaveer Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd. , located at village Bhengari, Tehsil Gharghora, Dist. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (TOR)

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that Mahaveer Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd (MCWPL) is a subsidiary of Mahaveer Group. The main business of the group has been Coal Trading. The Group entered in power sector in April 2006, by commissioning a 2.5 MW wind turbine generator at Dhule, Maharashtra. In November 2009, a 12MW power plant based on biomass was commissioned at Bhengari village in Chhattisgarh. The project has been registered as CDM project on 13th October, 2010. An additional 12MW biomass based power plant has been granted EC by MOEF on 5th May, 2011.

 

It was informed that the present proposal is for establishing a new coal washery (commercial) of 5.450 MTPA capacity in a land area of 22.20 ha, which is mostly agricultural land. No forestland is involved. There are no ecologically sensitive areas found within 10km of the buffer zone. River Kurket flows at a distance of 3.6 km in the south-eastern side. There are 14 Forest blocks which include Protected Forest (5 PF), Reserve forest (9 RF) and Open Mixed forest block found within 10 km radius from the project boundary. Of the total 22.2 ha area, 12.30 ha is for washery plant, 5.60 ha is stockyard for raw coal, 2.50 ha is for clean coal, middling and rejects, 9.50 ha is for others (internal road,  maintenance shed, office, stores, etc), 18.10 ha is for green belt, 6.84 ha is vacant land. It was clarified that no construction ahs been started on the site. The washery would be two-product washery operated on a wet process using Heavy Media Cyclone (wet process comprising crushing, screening, washing and handling). The washery design has inbuilt flexibility to produce washed coal of quality <34% ash content suitable for the power generation, sponge iron and cement plants. The washery would be operated on zero-discharge. Sources of raw coal would be Chhal and Baroud OCP of M/s SECL, which are located at a distance of 14km and about 15km respectively. The 5 MTPA of raw coal (of ash content of 45-50%) would yield 2.2 MTPA of clean coal (of ash content of 34 %), middling of 2.35 MTPA (of ash content of 58%) and 0.45 MTPA of coal rejects (of ash content of 86.5 %). The use of coal rejects in an FBC based TPP is being identified. The proposed mode of coal transportation of raw coal would be by road – for Baroud: Gharghora-Chhal-Robertson/Bilaspur and for Chhal: Robertson/Bilaspur-Ambikapur. Robertson Siding is about 17km from the proposed site of the washery. The nearest village is about 7km from the washery. Since the washery merely intercepts the existing route of transport of raw coal by road, no additional impacts is envisaged. The clean coal, middling and coal rejects would also be dispatched by the same route to the end users. Of the total water requirement of 59 m3/h (44 m3/h is for process, m3/h is for domestic use and 12 m3/h is for dust suppression and for plantation. The source of the water is tube well. The area is ‘safe’ from ground water development. The project does not involve R&R. Capital cost of the project is Rs 54.15 crores. Total manpower involved is 170 (100 in construction and 70 in operation). Total budget for CSR is Rs 25 lakhs.

 

The Committee desired that the location of washery could be near the Robertson Railway siding or the company could establish a new private railway siding along the propsoed rail route towards Baroud OCP, which is on the anvil. The Committee desired that other suitable sites close to the railway siding may also be explored and presented to the Committee. The Committee also desired that an MOU is required for utilisation of washery rejects in an FBC based TPP at the time of EC.

 

The Committee decided to further consider the proposal after receipt of these details.

 

 

9.         Thesgora Block B Underground Coalmine project (1.5 MTPA in 500 ha ML area) of M/s Thesgora Coal Pvt. Ltd., located in Pench-Kanhan Coalfields, dist. Chindwara, M.P. (Further consideration of TOR)

 

The proponent did not come for the presentation and hence, the proposal was not considered in the meeting.

 

 

10.       Marki-Zari-Jamani-Adkoli Opencast Coalmine Project (1.0 MTPA in an ML area of 459.68 ha) of M/s Maharashtra State Mining Corp. Ltd., Adkoli, Paunar and Ganeshpur Khurd Village, Dist. Yavatmal, Maharashtra (Further consideration of TOR)

 

The proposal was earlier considered in the EAC meeting held on 20th -21st June 2011, wherein it was informed that MSMCL has entered into a joint venture with M/s Sunil HI-Tech to develop and mine coal from Marki-Zari-Jamani-Adkoli Block. The Committee had desired that the proponent furnish a copy of MOU between MSMCL with M/s Sunil HI Tech. The Committee had also desired that a copy of accreditation of Sun-Hi Tech company along with all details of directors, their CV’S and MOA among all the partners of company. The Company had further sought details of MOU with M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. for sharing of the coal vis-à-vis MOC Allocation letter of Coal block to M/s MSMCL. The Committee had desired that all the details in chronological order in the form of case book should be furnished.

 

The proponent began a presentation. The Committee however noted that the details sought had not been received by majority of the members. The Committee directed the proponent to circulate all the information/document sought in the June 2011 meeting, which would be further considered in the EAC meeting.

 

 

11.       Letter dated 01.08.2011 of M/s Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. located in village Amber, 12th Mile, Jorabat, Kamrup, Assam (Internal Consideration)

 

Director, MOEF informed that the proposal for a proposed Coal Washery (0.15 MTPA in an area of 0.4681 ha) of M/s Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd., is to be located in village Amber, Taluka Sonapur, Dist. Kamrup, Assam was considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 20th -21st June 2011 and based on the recommendation of the EAC, a TOR was granted on 14.07.2011. Subsequently, a letter dated 01.08.2011 of M/s Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. has been received which has requested for exemption from preparation of EIA-EMP Report for the project which may be considered as a B2 Category, which does not require preparation of EIA-EMP under the EIA Notification 2006.

 

The Committee noted that Coal Washery, as a Sector, has been brought into the ambit of the EIA Notifictaion2 006 in view of the fact that it is one of the most polluting activity causing severe degradation of environment. Hence it is categorised under Category A or B1 projects requiring preparation of EIA-EMP for which TOR has been granted. The Committee further noted that such projects also require conduct of Public Hearing vide the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006. The Committee decided that both the coal washery proposals of Assam - of M/s Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd and of M/s North East Coal Washery - considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 20th -21st July 2011 would require conduct of Public Hearing and the same should be conveyed to the project proponents.

 

 

12.       Letter No. PSMPL/CB/MP/2011-017 dated 28.07.2011 of M/s Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd. regarding EC for Brahmpuri Underground Coalmine Project located in Pench-Kanhan Coalfields, Dist. Chindwara, M.P. (Internal consideration of letter)

 

The proposed Brahmpuri Underground Coalmine Project M/s Pushup Steels & Mining (P) Ltd.  is to be located in located in Pench-Kanhan Coalfields, Dist. Chindwara, M.P The proposal for EC was considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 18th -19th July 2011,  subsequent to which the project proponent vide letter no PSMPL/CB/MP/2011-017 dated 28.07.2011 has stated that the EAC had sought details of Hydrogeology report and impacts on mining on ground water, whereas this was not specified in TOR issued on 07.07.2009 and has sought exemption from carrying out the Hydrogeological study.  The proponent has further stated in the letter that the proposed Brahmpuri UG coalmine is deep (175-30m bgl) in a  hilly region. A number of coal seams occur in Barakar measures (60-80m thick) which consists mainly of sandstone, shale carb, and shaly coal partings separatingt he seams/sections from each other. The Barakar sandstone provide a sanctuary for confined aquifers. There are no deep tube wells in this area and area drawing from these confined aquifers, for the purpose of irrigation or for industrial or domestic use. There are dug wells in unconfined aquifers which dry up during summer. There are number of seasonal streams in the hilly terrain which become active only during rainy season and dry up afterwards. Agricultural and tree growth are dependent wholly on monsoon rains. The population in the area in scattered villages suffer from acute shortage of water during summer.

 

Director (coal mining) informed that a condition no. xii has been stipulated in the TOR dated 07.07.2009 for conduct of a Hydrogeology study and impacts of mining on the groundwater regime, as given below:

 

(xii)         Impact of mining and water abstraction and mine water discharge in mine on the hydrogeology and groundwater regime within the core zone and 10km buffer zone including long–term modelling studies on the impact of mining on the groundwater regime. Details of rainwater harvesting and measures for recharge of groundwater should be reflected wherever the areas are declared dark/grey from groundwater development.

The Committee therefore, once again reiterated that the hydrogeology study is required as part of the EIA-EMP Report and the proponent should carry out the same as stipulated in TOR condition no xii and as desired by EAC in the meeting held on 18th -19th July 2011.

 

 

13.       Jaganathpur ‘B’ UGP (0.8 MTPA in an ML area of 862 ha) of M/s West Bengal Mineral Development & Trading Corp. Ltd., located in Raniganj Coalfields, dist. Burdwan, W.B. (TOR)

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the proposal is for opening a new Jaganathpur B Underground coalmine project of 0.8 MTPA capacity in an ML area of 862 ha. It was informed that Jaganathpur” B” is adjacent to Jaganathpur” A” coal Block in Raniganj coalfields for which TOR has been already granted earlier. The main drainage of the area comprises Tumni Nala in the West and Ajoy River in the east of Block. It was informed that surface structures including mine entry would be 3m above the MSL (HFL) and 3-4 km away from Ajoy River. It is proposed to carry out the mining below the river with DGMS approval. The mine has a high stripping ratio. There are no surface seams near the river. No forestland is involved. Almost the entire ML is agricultural land. Top most seam is 125m bgl and ultimate working depth is 600m bgl. Of the total ML area of 862 ha, 34.37 ha is under surface rights (1 ha for Essential quarters, 3 ha for surface dump, 0.60ha for settling pond, 0.25 ha is for shaft, 0.13ha is for incline mouth, 1ha for coal stockyard, 18.44 ha for infrastructure, 8.60ha for green belt including around facilities, 0.77 ha for approach road from Jaganathpur A block, 0.58 ha for  road joining shaft to inclines). The entire ML is under Mining Rights. Mining would be by Board & Pillar Method by deploying Continuous Miner as well as LHDs and SDL. Depth of mining is 120-600m bgl. There is no anticipation of subsidence due to depth of the mine working. No of workable seams is 9. Grade of coal is B-G. Total water requirement is 630 m3/d. Life of the mine is 65 years. R&R involves about 120 land oustees. Total manpower requirement is about 950. Coal would be evacuated by two railway sidings which are at the distance of 20 and 12 km from the mine. Mining Plan has been submitted to MOC. Two small surface dumps would be created to store the excavated material form the various mine entries and seams. The targeted production of 0.8 0MTPA would be achieved from 3rd year.

 

The Committee noted that draft guidelines on subsidence and fire control have been prepared by CMRI for Raniganj and Jharia Coalfields along with the Circulars of DGMS on the safety aspects. The Committee desired the guidelines along with the circulars of DGMS should be circulated to the committee for prescribing TORs on this aspect. Issues such as levls of CO, CH4, etc and safety issues regarding these would also be presented. The Committee observed that the levels of TSS are high in the water quality report and desired that the mine water should be treated in settling tank before discharge outside the ML and supply for irrigation. The Committee desired that a one season baseline date on enviroental quality should be collected. The Committee desired that a project specific R&R Plan for the 120 PAFs should be prepared as part of the EIA-EMP study.

 

The Committee after discussions recommended TOR with the aforesaid specific conditions and the generic TOR given at Annexure 5 read with Annexure-8.

 

 

14.       Ashoka Coal Washery (10 MTPA)-cum-2x30MW FBC based TPP in a total area of 69 ha within Ashoka OCP of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., village Benti, Tehsil Tandwa, dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – EC based  TOR granted on 09.06.2009.

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the proposal is for establishing a Coal Washery of 10 MTPA capacity and a 60 MW FBC based pit head TPP within the leasehold of Ashoka OCP. Ashoka OCP was granted EC vide letter no. J-1105/610/2007-IA.II(M) dt. 17.04.2008. The total land requirement for the washery is 24 ha and for the FBC based TPP is 45 ha and the combined land requirement for the washery-cum-FBC based TPP is 69ha. Of the total area of 69 ha, 47.3 ha is Scrub land,6.58 ha is social forestry land,15.2 ha is fallow land. The break-up of land use for 24 ha for the washery is 16 ha for washery plant, 2 ha for road and unused area, 4 ha is for crusher and stockyard, 2 ha for washery green belt. Of the total area of 45 ha for the FBC plant, 6.80 ha for FBC plant, 2.45 ha is for road and unused area, 5 ha for green belt, 1.53ha is for stockyard, 2 ha for crusher house, 3 sites for  water reservoir/ash pond of 2.22 ha, 5 ha and 20 ha have been identified.  The washery is a wet process and based on gravity separation using Jigs and HM technology. Raw coal of 10 MTPA of grade F (with 37% ash content) would be obtained from Ashoka OCP, which would yield 8.96 MTPA of clean coal with an ash content of 33.5 + 0.5% and the balance 1.04 MTPA of coal rejects with an ash content of 70.66% is proposed to be utilised in the FBC based TPP. Washed coal is proposed to be transported by approximately 200m long belt conveyor to railway siding for wagon loading. The rejects are proposed to be transported by approximately 600m long belt conveyor to FBC power plant. An estimated 10500 m3/day {2700 m3/day for washery (2430 m3/day make up water requirement in the plant and losses, 225 m3/day is for dust suppression 5 m3/day  for potable water  and 40 m3/day  for plantation) and 7800 m3/day for FBC TPP} is required for washery-cum-FBC based TPP. Source of water would be mine pit water from Ashoka OCP and about 70% of the mine water would be used. The project does not involve R&R. The total capital and revenue costs for the project is Rs 168.30 crores and Rs 35 lakhs for the Coal Washery and Rs 394.28 crores and Rs 49.20 lakhs for the FBC based TPP. The total manpower requirement is 270 for the washery and 150 for the TPP. A provision of 0.4% of the total capital cost or Rs 5/T of coal has been earmarked for CSR. It was informed that the EIA-EMP was prepared for an integrated Coal washery-cum-FBC based TPP and the Public Hearing was also held on the integrated project. Both the washery and the FBC based TPP would be operated by outsourcing on a B-O-M and B-O-O basis respectively. The entire washed coal would be transported from the railway siding being established alongside the washery and transported by rail to the Rosa TPS. Construction work for the Ashok railway siding has been already started. It was informed that the ash generated from Ashok FBC TPP will be utilised by a cement company for making bricks and MOU has been submitted in the EMP. Thus, the entire project is based on a zero-waste concept. The ash would be initially dumped in a storage area, for which three reservoir/ash pond of 2.22 ha of 0.08mM3, 5.0 ha of 2mM3 capacity and 20 ha of 7.0 mM3 capacity for dumping ash temporarily for 10 days, 8 months and more than 15 months have been provided within the lease which could also serve as water bodies, which may be used for water harvesting. At the end of project, it is proposed to develop plantation on the land and reclaimed.

 

The Committee desired that the complete details of water requirement, quantity of to be collected, water loss by evaporation, total water harvested by rain, etc should be presented on a flow sheet. The Committee further desired that the make–up water needs require being established based on average rainfall of last 50 year in the area. The Committee desired that 3–tier avenue plantation required should be provided along road and around proposed project. The Committee also desired that good house keeping /aesthetic sense should be required for washery and FBC plant area. The Committee desired that all the roads should be made by concrete and maintained properly. The Committee desired that the matter of AAQ levels in different sampling pints vis-à-vis AAQ levels predicted in AQIP modelling study. The Committee sought details of CSR for the project.

 

The Committee decided to further consider the project upon receipt of the aforesaid details/information.

 

 

15.       Dhori Group of 3 Mines – Dhori OCP, New Dhori UGP and Dhori Khas UGP (0.846 MTPA normative and 1.282 MTPA peak) in a total ML area of 918.33 ha) of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., located in dist. Bokaro, JharkhandEC based on TOR granted on 09.02.2009.

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the proposal is for environmental clearance of their existing 3 mines working from pre-nationalisation period constituting the Dhori cluster of a combined production capacity of 0.846 MTPA (normative) and 1.282 MTPA (peak) in a total combined ML area of 918.33 ha. It was informed that of the total ML area  of 918.33ha, 251.68 ha is forest and vegetation cover, 188.26 ha is waste land, 14.29 ha is surface water body, 464.10  ha is others (settlement and mining area). Of the total ML area, 251.72 ha area is for Dhori OC, 456.75 ha is for New Dhori UGP and 209.86 ha area for Dhori Khas UGP. The max. coal production in Dhori OCP is 1 MTPA, Dhori UGP is 0.092 MTPA and Dhori Khas 0.190 MTPA.

The project area lies within the catchment area of Joria nala, Ghoragara nala and Tisra nala. These nalas flows from North and South and joins the master drainage Damodar River, which flows towards east in the south of the property, at about 200m from the block. No nala diversion is required. There are large numbers of abandoned pits in the area filled with water. It was informed that of total 918 ha, 88 ha area is to be excavated, 11.25 ha is for OB dump, 14.02ha is for infrastructure (CHP, Office, incline mouth, etc), 8.50 ha is for road, 3ha is for railways, 588.79ha is for forest, 101.50 ha is for township, 12.83 ha is for river/nala, 90.44 ha is for safety zone and green belt. Joria nalla drains through the mine area in such a way that it separates the OC project into eastern sector and western sector which would be operated as two quarries, which would be worked in sequence. An estimated 7.13 Mm3 of OB would be generated over the balance life of mine. On the western side of quarry-I would be restricted to a distance of 60 m from Joria nala. Quarry-II would work upto a distance of 60m from Joria nala. It was informed that it is proposed to dump OB of Dhori OC in Dhori Khas UG mine area. OB of quarry –I would be dumped in quarry –II and quarry-II would be backfilled up to 30m above ground level and quarry–I would be left as water body of an area of 43 ha with a maximum depth of 90m. It is not feasible to backfill the void as it is steeply dipping.

 

S.N.

PARAMETER

Dhori OCP

New Dhori UGP

Dhori Khas UGP

1.

ML area (ha)

251.72

456.75

209.86

2.

Coal prodn. (MTPA)

1

0.092

0.190

3.

Method of mining

Opencast (shovel-dumper)

Underground by Board & Pillar

Underground by Board & Pillar

4.

Max. Depth of mining (m bgl)

90 in Q-I

130 in Q-II

75

60

5.

Balance life of mine (years)

10

20

1

6.

Water table (m) bgl

6.85-9.94 (pre-monsoon) and 3.36-6.75m (post-monsoon)

 

It was informed that an estimated 0.8m subsidence is anticipated in Dhori Khas UGP. The total water requirement is 1570 m3/d of which 400 m3/d is for mining and 1170 m3/d is for domestic use. A provision of Rs 5/T of coal has been made for CSR. It was clarified that Community Development refers to CSR and does not include welfare measures for the company employees, their colony, maintenance, etc. It was informed that FC for an area of 25.40 ah of forestland has been obtained and no mining is proposed under the balance area of forestland as subsidence is expected.

 

The Committee desired that the water bodies (abandoned pits) should be used for pisci-culture. The Committee desired that no mining should be undertaken below forestland. The Committee sought a copy of Stage-I FC vide MOEF Circular dated 31.03.2011. The Committee observed that coal dust is a major problem in the area and measures to mitigate SPM during blasting and a plan to minimize dust generation along the major approach roads and haul roads is required. Monitoring of SPM is also required at blasting site. The Committee desired that it may be examined whether OB generated during the last 1-2 years of mine life could be rehandled to fill up Q-I to bring it to 40m depth. The Committee desired that a 10-320m green belt should be developed in vacant areas in and around Dhori OCP to reduce fugitive dust emission. Fixed/mobile sprinklers should also be provided to along the avenue plantation to regularly remove dust settled on the vegetation. The Committee desired that approach roads should be cleaned and maintained (black topped). The Committee also desired that dust emission should be reduced /checked at source/generating point by providing physical barriers (if required) along with the plantation of native species.  The Committee desired that the issues raised in Public Hearing should be presented in a tabular form along with the commitment made/action taken. The Committee observed that combined operation of opencast-cum-underground mining, may impact groundwater regime in the area. The Committee desired that a net work of peizometers should be established for regular monitoring of ground water.

The Committee decided that the aforesaid project would be further considered upon receipt of the aforesaid details/information.

 

 

16.       Karo OCP (3 MTPA in an ML area of 570.25 ha) of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., located in Tehsil Bermo, East Bokaro Coalfields, in village Karo, Amlo, & Baidkaro, Block Bermo, District Bokaro, Jharkhand – Further consideration of EC based on TOR granted 10.12.2009.

 

The proposal was last considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 18th -19th April 2011. The proposal is for opening a new Karo OCP of 3 MTPA capacity in an area of 570.25 ha. The proponent made a presentation on issues/clarification sought by the EAC.

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed the mine water shall be treated to meet the prescribed limits. Regular water quality monitoring would be undertaken by CMPDI. Settling tank would be provided. It was informed that there are 160PAF’s and employment to 95 persons and the balance shall be employed within three years. An R&R site has also been selected for rehabilitation at Gutiatand village and some land has been acquired. A provision of Rs 160 lakhs for R&R has been made. It was clarified that Community Development refers to CSR and does not include welfare measures for the company employees, their colony, maintenance, etc. It was informed that Stage –I forest clearance for 226.67 ha of forest land has been obtained from MOEF on 29.09.2010. The Proponent agreed to provide rail transportation on a long term basis.

 

The Committee desired that Rs 160 lakhs should continue for next three years when R&R would be completed. The Committee after discussions recommended the project for EC.

 

 

17.       Jarangdih OCP (0.885 MTPA) + UGP (0.275 MTPA) (total ML area of 493.51 ha) of M/s CCL, to be located village Jarangdih, Block Bermo, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand- Further consideration of EC based on TOR granted on 30.12.2008.

 

The proposed Jarangdih OCP (0.85MTPA) and Jarangdih UGP (0.275MTPA) are in an ML area of 493.51 ha. The proposal was last considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 28th -29th March 2011, wherein the Committee had desired that the matter of reducing Jarangdih OCP mine void depth should be examined, if the area of the void is maintained as 27.52 ha. The Committee had further desired that an amount of Rs 25 lakhs should be earmarked for CSR for the balance 4 years of mine life. It was clarified that Community Development refers to CSR and does not include welfare measures for the company employees, their colony, maintenance, etc.

 

The proponent made presentation. It was informed that for reducing the depth of the final mine void of Jarangdih OCP, it was proposed to re-handle approximately 4.0 Mm3 OB from the internal dump, to be generated in next 3 to 4 years and fill into the dip side mine void. This would raise the level of void floor in the dip side by approximately 40 m (RL+150 to +190) and also increase the void area to 27.52 ha. Of the total 27.52 ha of mine void area, an area of 17.36 ha area would be converted into water body; the average depth of void would be 45 m below ground level and the depth of water body would be 28m. It was  agreed that an amount of Rs 25 lakhs would be earmarked for CSR for the balance 4 years of mine.

 

The Committee after discussions recommended the project for EC.

 

18.       Urimari Expn. OCP (2 MTPA normative and 2.5 MTPA peak in an ML area of 243.09 ha) of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., located in dist. Hazaribagh, JharkhandFurther consideration of EC based on TOR granted on 31.12.2008.

 

The proposed Urimari Expn. OCP is of 2 MTPA normative and 2.5 MTPA peak capacity in an ML area of 243.09 ha and is to be located in dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. The proposal was last considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 28th -29th March 2011.

 

The proponent made a presentation on the clarifications ought in the last meeting. It was informed the option for coal transportation by rail has been examined. The railway siding of North Urimari OCP (3MTPA) which is under construction, situated on the north of Urimari OCP would be used for rail dispatch of coal. The siding is 2-3 km from Urimari OCP. It was informed that the earlier proposal for creating an external dump for storing an estimated 3.92Mm3 of OB, near River Damodar has been dropped. As per revised planning, the entire OB (including the estimated 3.92Mm3 of OB) would be backfilled into the quarry of Urimari OCP and the reclaimed backfilled area would increase to 100.59 ha. As desired by committee, the proponent proposed to carry out the bio-reclamation of mined out area by planting native species. It was informed that one old OB dump of 7.81 ha area towards east of the quarry has been completely stabilised with plantation.

 

The Committee desired that plantation for the balance reclamation should be carried out using mixed type of native species representing the original forest ecosystem. The Committee after discussions recommended the project for environmental clearance.

 

 

19.       Pichri OCP (1.20 MTPA with a peak capacity of 1.50 MTPA in an ML area of 185.44 ha) of M/s CCL, located in dist. Bokaro, JharkhandFurther consideration of TOR

 

The proposal is for opening a new opencast Pichri OCP of a normative capacity of 1.20 MTPA and a peak capacity of 1.5 MTPA in an ML area of 185.44 ha. The proposal was earlier considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 28th -29th March 2011, wherein the Committee had sought details of existing land use, peak rainfall data of IMD over the past 100 years record should be studied for impact of OC mining as the mine is adjoining River Damodar. The Committee had also desired that the proponent examine whether UG mining is a feasible option with justification for social and env. costs.

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that of the total ML area of 185.44 ha, 107.58 ha is agricultural land, 37.18 ha is forestland, 14.65 ha is waste land, 12.76 ha is surface water bodies and 13.27 ha is others (rural settlement land). It was informed that rainfall data of the last 64 years has been collected for the project and records of which are available. It was informed that underground mining would not be feasible because of low percentage extraction of 10-15% and a steep gradient of seam (150-260). It was informed that it would be difficult to approach the main seam Karo VI/VII and Kao VIII/IX/X seam through UG mining as the incrop of Karo VIII/IX/X seam lies very close to river Damodar. It was informed that Rs 60 lakhs per annum has been earmarked for CSR activities. It was clarified that Community Development refers to CSR and does not include welfare measures for the company employees, their colony, maintenance, etc.

 

The Committee observed that the proposed project is in a high rainfall area and desired that  measures should be taken for providing an embankment by stone pitching along the sides of the mine and plantation should be developed on top of the embankment. The embankment should be further strengthened by stone revetment upto HFL level where the earth is loose, and wire meshed in portions along slopes which could collapse. The embankment should be stabilised with plantation and grassing particularly in denuded areas before undertaking plantation using native species. The Committee also desired that the mining operation should be stopped during rainy season.

 

The Committee after discussions recommended TOR subject to the following specific  conditions read with generic TOR given in Annexure 5 read with Annexure-8:

(i)            An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for 1.20 MTPA (normative) with a peak capacity of 1.50 MTPA in an ML area of 185.44 ha based on the generic structure specified in Appendix III of the EIA Notification 2006.

(ii)           An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for 1.20 MTPA (normative) with a peak capacity of 1.50 MTPA in an ML area of 185.44 ha and cover the impacts and management plan for the project specific activities on the environment of the region, and the environmental quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts including prediction modelling for 1.50 MTPA of coal production based on approval of project/Mining Plan for 1.50 MTPA. Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon.

(iii)       Measures should be taken for providing an embankment by stone pitching along the sides of the mine and plantation should be developed on top of the embankment. The embankment should be further strengthened by stone revetment upto HFL level where the earth is loose, and wire meshed in portions along slopes which could collapse. The embankment should be stabilised with plantation and grassing particularly in denuded areas before undertaking plantation using native species.

(iv)       Mining operation should be stopped during rainy season.

 

 

20.       Churi Benti UGP (expansion from 0.16 MTPA to 0.80 MTPA in a total ML area of 244.60 ha) of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL), Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand Further consideration of EC based on TOR granted on 17.01.2008.

 

The proposal is for expansion of Churi Benti UGP from 0.16 MTPA to 0.80 MTPA in a total ML area of 244.60. The proposal was last considered in the EAC (T&C) meeting held on 18th -19th April 2011, wherein the Committee had desired that continuous monitoring of methane, CO, in addition to other AAQ parameters should be carried out. The mine should also have adequate capacity of mine ventilation. The Committee desired that an amount of Rs 5/T of coal should be earmarked for CSR. The Committee had sought a copy of stage-I clearance vide MOEF Circular dated 31.03.2011.

 

The proponent made a presentation. The Committee was informed that continuous monitoring of CO would be carried out with adequate capacity for mine ventilation. It was further informed that as per CIL policy, an amount of Rs 5/T of coal would be earmarked for CSR. It was clarified that Community Development refers to CSR and does not include welfare measures for the company employees, their colony, maintenance, etc. It was stated that stage-II forest clearance for 312.76 ha of forestland has been obtained on 12.10.2010 and a copy of same was furnished.

 

The Committee after discussions recommended the project for EC.

 

 

21.       Cluster VI mines (2 OC mines, 1 UG and 1 mixed mine of a combined production capacity of 5.87 MTPA with a peak capacity of 7.631 MTPA in a combined ML area of 876.55 ha) of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., located in Jharia Coalfields, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand (TOR)

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the cluster VI consists of 4 UG mines of a combined production capacity of 5.87 MTPA with a peak capacity of 7.631 MTPA in a combined ML area of 876.55 ha. It was stated that cluster VI consists of 2 OC mines, 1 UG mine and 1 mixed (1 OC and 1 UG). The cluster is bound in the east by Cluster VII mines of BCCL, in the west by cluster V mines of BCCL, in the North by metamorphic and in the south by cluster V and cluster XI mines of BCCL. NH-32 passes through the cluster and NH-2 passes 6 km north of the cluster lease hold area and connect the mines with Kolkata and New Delhi respectively.

 

MINES IN CLUSTER- VI

 

S.No

Name of Mine

 

OC/UG

Production capacity (MTPA)

ML Area (ha)

Life of Mine (years)

 

Normative

Peak

1

East Bassuriya  Colliery

OC

1.500

1.950

141.07

10

2

Bassuriya  Colliery

UG

0.120

0.156

162.76

>30

3

Gondudih Khas Kusunda Colliery

OC

2.000

2.600

410

25

4.

Godhur Colliery 

OC

2.000

2.6

162.72

18

UG

0.250

0.325

>30

 

 

Total

 

 

5.87

 

7.631

 

876.55

 

 

It was clarified that there is no forestland is involved in the cluster and no additional land is to be acquired. It was stated that no fresh acquisition of additional land is required. The land within the cluster is degraded with presence of voids, dumps unstable sites, due to more than 100 years of mining. The cluster is drained in the west by seasonal Ekra Nala and in the east by seasonal Kari Jore outflowing into River Damodar.  Damodar, Khudia and Katri are 8.5 km, 10 km and 6 km away from cluster VI. It was informed that a plan for effective mitigation of environmental pollution and for development of green belt all around the cluster and along the banks of Ekra Nala and Kari Jore would also be undertaken.

 

COMBINED LAND USE  OF CLUSTER -VI

 

 

S.No

Type Land Use

Present Mining

Land Use ( ha)

Post- mining Land Use (ha)

 

1.

Running quarry

 

 

 

Backfilled

 6.00

0.00

 

Not Backfilled

46.16

0.00

 

2.

Abandoned quarry

 

 

 

Backfilled

92.36

0.00

 

Not Backfilled

41.58

0.00

 

3.

External OB dump

32.84

0.00

 

4.

Service building/

mine infrastructure

25.29

0.00

 

5.

Coal dump

4.66

0.00

 

6.

Rail & Road

84.68

25.32

 

7.

Homestead land

120.12

39.52

 

8.

Agriculture land

0.00

0.00

 

9.

Forest land

0.00

0.00

 

10

Plantation

11.00

445.87

 

11.

Water body

25.25

92.01

 

12

Barren land

386.61

273.83

 

 

 Total

876.55 (851.26)

876.55

 

PRODUCTION IN CLUSTER VI

Year

East Bassuriya  Colliery

Bassuriya  Colliery

Gondudih Khas Kusunda Colliery

Godhur Colliery

 

OC

Existing

UG

Existing

1993-94 (MT)

 

0.014

0.017

0.112

0              

0.142

2010-2011(MT)

 

0.00

0.040

0.711

0             

0.129

 

Details of Rehabilitation in Cluster VI

 S.N

Parameter

Details

 

1.

Total Voids

87.74 Ha

2.

Total OB available

5.247 Mm3

3.

Total OB area

32.84 ha

4.

Total Unstable Sites

18

5.

Total Affected Areas

280710 m2

6.

No. of Houses to be rehabilitated

1387 as per JAP

7.

Land for Resettlement

4.608ha (BCCL land)

18.249 ha (Non-BCCL land)

8.

Total cost of fire dealing

Rs 54.60 Crores

9.

Total  resettlement Cost

Rs 10768.17  lakhs

 

It was informed that of the 595 unstable sites identified in the Jharia Master Plan, 18 sites consisting of 1387 PAFs are affected due to instability of sites. The cluster VI has fire problems in three of its mines. R&R would be implemented at an estimated cost of Rs 107.68 crores. The company has identified land of 4.608 ha area for the BCCL employees and an area of 18.249 ha for the non-BCCL population. It was informed that the Environment Management plan for the cluster VI would be dovetailed with Jharia Action Plan for dealing with fire, subsidence and rehabilitation of people. The affected families would be rehabilitated in an adjacent non-coal bearing area in two phases. It was informed that cluster VI would have common transport network of railways, implementation of rehabilitation as per Jharia Action Plan, establishment of common and effective waste management and reclamation of mines. It was informed that CSR would be taken up @5/T of coal produced amounting to Rs 293.5 lakhs every year.

 

The Committee desired that the fire dousing measures should be adopted and some fire dousing strategy is required. The Committee also desired that skill development and alternate livelihood opportunities should be provided to the project affected people under R&R. The Committee desired that R&R involving 1387 PAFs living in unstable locations within the cluster, for which the Jharia Action Plan has been formulated, should be included. Post-project monitoring of effectiveness of implementation of R&R should also be carried out by PP. The Committee also desired that rehabilitation of people in cluster VI would be dovetailed with Jharia Action Plan. The Committee also desired that large number of youth should be identified between the age group of 25-30 year and train for carrying out mining activity in future. The Committee also desired that a detailed CSR Plan for the entire cluster and @Rs 5/T of coal to be earmarked for activities under CSR. The Committee further desired that for monitoring of the proper implementation of CSR activity the company should create, a dedicated multidisciplinary team of local people including the social scientists/sociologists. The Committee desired that the details of areas under Mining Rights and under Surface rights and their land use should be provided in the EIA-EMP Report.

 

The Committee recommended TOR with the following specific conditions and with the generic TOR given in Annexure -7 read with Annexure-8:

 

(i)         An Integrated EIA-EMP Report for cluster VI consisting of 4 mines consisting of 2 OC I UG and 1 UG-cum-OC mine of which 1 is closed of a combined production capacity of 5.87 MTPA with a peak capacity of 7.631 MTPA in a combined ML area of 876.55 ha based on the generic structure specified in Appendix III of the EIA Notification 2006. The Integrated EIA-EMP for the cluster VI mines shall be prepared clearly bringing out the present status of the 5 mines of Cluster VI as above- status of env. quality and the extent of pollution load from each mine and the combined pollution load from the cluster of mines that would be reduced by taking suitable mitigative measures for the individual mines and for the cluster and the expected improvement in the environmental quality of the mines in the cluster and within the coalfield after the implementation of the measures through an Integrated Environmental Plan formulated on the aforesaid basis. A fresh baseline data on the env. quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. shall be generated through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts. Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon. Details of the present land use and post mining land use of the operating and abandoned mines individually and as a cluster shall be furnished as part of the EIA. A detailed Mine Closure Plan and a Mine Reclamation Plan for the abandoned mines (UG and OC)/pits/quarries found in the cluster shall be furnished as a part of EIA-EMP study. The closure of UG mines should ensure that no illegal mining is done thereafter from the mines. Details of long term benefits to environment because of cluster approach of mining shall be clearly addressed in the EIA-EMP study. In addition to the above, details of an Action Plan for project specific R&R and CSR shall also be formulated and presented in the EIA-EMP. The aforesaid Integrated Environmental Management Plan shall be dovetailed with the Jharia Action Plan and details of its implementation with specific time-lines should be provided. As Dhanbad is a Critically Polluted Area, the specific Action Plan for mitigation and improvement of env. quality should be presented. The grant of EC tot eh closed mine would be examined as per regulations at the time of consideration of EC.

(ii)        An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for cluster VI consisting of 4 mines consisting of 2 OC I UG and 1 UG-cum-OC mine of which 1 is closed of a combined production capacity of 5.87 MTPA with a peak capacity of 7.631 MTPA in a combined ML area of 876.55 ha and cover the impacts and management plan for the project specific activities on the environment of the region, and the environmental quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts including prediction modelling for 5.87 MTPA with a peak capacity of 7.631 MTPA. Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon.

(iii)       Fire dousing measures should be adopted and some fire dousing strategy is required.

(iv)       R&R involving 1387 PAFs living in unstable locations within the cluster, for which the Jharia Action Plan has been formulated, should be included. Skill development and alternate livelihood opportunities should be provided to the project affected people under R&R. Post-project monitoring of effectiveness of implementation of R&R should also be carried out by PP. The Committee also desired that rehabilitation of people in cluster VI would be dovetailed with Jharia Action Plan. The Committee also desired that large number of youth should be identified between the age group of 25-30 year and trained for carrying out mining activity in future.

(v)        The Committee also desired that a detailed CSR Plan for the entire cluster and @Rs 5/T of coal to be earmarked for activities under CSR. The Committee further desired that for monitoring of the proper implementation of CSR activity the company should create, a dedicated multidisciplinary team of local people including the social scientists/sociologists.

(vi)       The Committee desired that the details of areas under Mining Rights and under Surface rights and their land use should be provided in the EIA-EMP Report.

 

 

22.       Proposed Coal Washery (2.5 MTPA) of M/s Fuelco Washeries (India) Ltd., located in dist. Chandrapur, Maharashtra (TOR)

 

The proponent made a presentation. It was informed that the proposal is for establishing a new commercial coal washery of 2.5 MTPA capacity at Chandrapur. The proposed location is outside the critically polluted areas of MIDC (21.1km), Ballarpur (13.3 km), Rajura and Ghuggus (5.5km) and Tadali (8km) River Wardha flows 3.2 km west. The washery is designed on the concept of zero-discharge. Of the total land requirement of 22.40 ha, 17.09 ha is agricultural land and 5.31 ha is wasteland. Agricultural land is single crop. No forestland is involved. Morwa RF is at a distance of 9 km. The proposed site is 48.8 km from Tado-Andheri Tiger Reserve (TATR) Guest House and 28 km from TATR buffer zone in the north-east side. Of the total land area, 3.72 ha is for washery plant and office building, 7.41 ha is for green belt area, 8.88 ha is for Railway siding, 2.39 ha is for open area. The washery is a two-product washery based on wet process using Heavy Media Cyclone. It was informed that raw coal of grade E-F would be obtained from coalmines of M/s WCL on behalf of industrial units such as BILT, Gupta Metallic & Power Ltd. Jubliant Organosys, Loyds Steel, ACC Cement, etc. and clean coal of 2 MTPA of 33% ash content which would be sued in sponge iron industries and coal rejects of  0.45 MTPA would be produced, which would be utilised in CFBC based small TPPs and brick kilns. Coal rejects would be disposed by sale to end users such as Murli Industries, AA Energy, ACC cement Ltd. and surrounding TPP for mixing with imported coal. Raw coal of 40% ash content would be obtained from WCL mines in Ghugghus area to the washery by rail/road siding and transport of washed coal and rejects from the washery would be by closed conveyor to the railway siding and therafter by rail. The total water requirement is 362 m3/d of which 350 m3/d is industrial which would be recycled and reused for green belt development and 12 m3/d is for domestic consumption. The water would be sourced from River Wardha, which flows at a distance of 3.25 km from the washery site. The project does not involve R&R. Estimated capital cost of the project is Rs 57 crores. A total of Rs 410 lakhs and annual recurring costs of Rs 43.5 lakhs for env. management have been provided. Manpower involved is 229. Budgetary capital provision for CSR is Rs 30 lakhs and recurring expenditure would be Rs 6 lakhs/annum.

 

The Committee stated that most of the coal washeries have been observed to be dirty with poor housekeeping practices and desired that this aspect should be given priority. The Committee after discussed recommended TOR as given in Annexure 4 read with Annexure-8.

 

 

23.       Letter dated 20.05.2011 received along with revised TOR application for Fatehpur East Coal Mine Project and Letter dated 03.06.2011 and 10.06.2011 of M/s Fatehpur East Coal Pvt. (Further internal consideration of TOR)

 

Director (MOEF) informed the committee that the above cited Fatehpur East Coal Mine Project of M/s Fatehpur East Coal Pvt. was earlier considered for TOR in EAC meetings held on 21st December 2010 where the proposal was considered for 9.5 MTPA (normative) rated capacity and 10 MTPA peak capacity in an ML area of 1664.563 ha of which protected forest land is 567.563 ha. The Committee sought a clarification whether the block is a “Go area”. In view of the MOEF letter No.282/2010-FC dated 15.3.2011 which stated that the block is a “No-Go” Area and would require certain modification of the lease boundary to make it a “Go Area”, the proposal was further considered in EAC meetings held in March 2011 and April 2011 wherein the proponent informed that based on actual survey, the ML area has increased from 1664.563 ha to 1728 ha, wherein it was decided to recommend the case for TOR with the following specific TOR conditions (i) the proponent analyse the cost of the project in terms of loss of land, permanent change of land use and environmental degradation, permanent change of livelihood, impacts, etc. the proponent analyse the cost of the project etc. and (ii) the proponent present the rationale for choosing mining methods not only based on geo-mining conditions and costs for producing power, but also on socio-economic concerns and costs thereof as a result of the project and the options that are available for further considering the project; after receipt of the revised application for 9.5 MTPA (normative) rated capacity and 10 MTPA peak capacity in a revised ML area of 1728ha, which was awaited from the proponent.

 

The MOEF thereafter received a revised application dated 20.05.2011 from the proponent for a revised ML area of 1728, however, the proponent also revised the rated capacity from 10 MTPA presented to the EAC to 14 MTPA. Further, the proponent also sent two letters dated 03.06.2011 and 10.06.2011 to the MOEF, wherein the proponent informed that one of original allottees of the Fatehpur Coal Block, namely M/s Green Infrastructure had changed its name to M/s Athena Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Director, MOEF informed that a clarification of change of name was sought from the Ministry of coal for which a response has been received from MOC dated 16.08.2011 stating that the change in name of original allottees is in order.

 

The Committee desired that the proponent should be given an opportunity to present before the Committee, the reasons for suddenly revising the production capacity from 10 MTPA to 14 MTPA within a month of their presentation of 10 MTPA. The Committee also desired that the revised application should be circulated to the EAC along with all the relevant documents regarding change in name of original allocattee which are to be circulated to the EAC members before the next meeting of EAC where it should also be presented before the Committee.

 

 

Any Other Issue with the Permission of the Chair:

 

The Chaired desired that the next meeting of the EAC should be held in Nagpur with a visit to some of the coal mines and coal washery in the region and also desired that a meeting should be arranged with WCL and MAHAGENCO on the issue of supply of coal to MAHAGENCO.

 

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.

 

*        *        *


Annexure-1

 

 

PARTICIPANTS IN 31st EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (THERMAL & COAL MINING) IN THE MEETING HELD ON 29th-30th AUGUST 2011 ON COAL SECTOR PROJECTS

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.       Shri V.P. Raja                                                                        Chairman

 

2.       Prof. C.R. Babu                                                                     Vice-Chairman

 

3.       Shri T.K. Dhar                               ……                                     Member

 

4.       Shri J.L. Mehta                                                                      Member

 

5.       Prof. G.S. Roonwal                                                               Member

 

6.       Dr. D.S. Attri, Scientist, IMD     (1st day)…                                       Member

 

7.       Dr. T. Chandini                                                  ..          Scientist F MOEF

 

8.       Dr. Rubab Jaffer                                                      Scientist B, MOEF

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Special Invitees:

 

1.       Shri R.K.Garg,  Advisor, Coal India Ltd. attended the meeting on both days.

 

2.       Dr.Arijit Dey, Ministry of Water Resources, GOI for Items 2 and 4

 


Annexure-2

 

PARTICIPANTS IN 31st MEETING OF EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (THERMAL & COAL MINING) HELD ON 29th -30th AUGUST 2011 ON COAL MINING PROJECTS

 

 

1.         M/s Tata Steel Ltd.

            1.         Sh. Sanjay Bajoria, GM, West Boakro

            2.         Sh. Chankya Chaoudahry, CRE, Delhi

            3.         Shri Manoj K Gupta

            4.         Sh. S.Kumar

 

2.         M/s Binani Cement Ltd. 

            1.         Sh. K. Shah

            2.         Sh. B.R.Choudhary

            3.         Dr.Meeta Khilnani, Director, MCPL, Consultant Hydrogeology

            4.         Sh.Amit Singha, Jt. President

            5.         Sh. S.R.Jami, V.P.

            6.         Sh. Robin Bose, Deputy GM

 

3.         M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd

            1.         Sh.N.Kumar, Dir. (Tech.)

            2.         Sh.G.Prasad, CMPDI

            3.         Sh.Rakesh Pandit, GM (Env.)

            4.         Sh. Anand Shekhar, CMPDI

 

4.         Item No.4 regarding dumping of flyash in the mine voids of MCL mines in Angul-Talcher, Orissa

            1.         Sh. B.N.Shukla, GM (CP&P), MCL

 

5.         M/s Royal Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd.

            1.         Sh. Rajeev Ahuja

            2.         Sh Rana Ravi Singh

 

6.         M/s Jayeswals Neco Industries Ltd.

            1.         Sh. S.K.Moitra, President

            2.         Sh  S.K.Swain, President

            3.         Sh. A.K.Rajan, Sr.Manager

            4.         Sh. J.K. Moitra, Consultant

 

7.         M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

            1.         Sh. Gopal Singh, Dir (T)

            2.         Sh. R.N. Biswas, CMPDI

            3.         Sh. Bhattacharya, GM (Env).

            4.         Sh. D.M. Ghokale, GM

            5.         Sh. Soumitra Singh, Sr.Manager, Env.

 

8.         M/s Mahaveer Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd.

            1.         Sh. Y.P.Ohri

            2.         Sh. Vishal Jain, Executive Director

            3.         Sh.D.S.Rajput, VP

            4.         Sh. M.Janola, VP

 

9.         M/s Thesgora Coal Pvt. Ltd. – Did not come for the meeting.

            No one came for the presentation

 

10.        M/s Maharashtra State Mining Corp. Ltd.

            1.         Sh M.S.Sandhu, Sr. GM

            2.         Sh. N. Choudhary, GM

            3.         Sh AD Jalokhare

            4.         Sh P J Teubhav

            5.         Sh V S Sawakhande

            6.         Sh. M.N.Jha, Advisor

            7.         Dr.C Mary Surya, Project Cooridnator, ANACON Labs

            8.         Sh Sandip Roy

            9.         Sh. S.N. chawla

 

11.        M/s Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd.

            Internal Consideration

 

12.        M/s Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd.

Internal Consideration

 

13.        M/s West Bengal Mineral Development & Trading Corp. Ltd.

            1.         Sh VK Srivastava

            2.         Dr.M.N.Chakroborty

            3.         Sh. S Hazarika

            4.         Sh A Shome

            5.         Sh A P Chatterjee DGM

            6.         Sh Arun Acharya, WB MDTC

 

14.        M/s Central Coalfields Ltd.

            1.         Sh. V K Sahay

            2.         Sh P K Sinha, GM (Env.)

            3.         Sh P Prasad

            4.         Sh Pushkar

            5.         Sh Jayant

            6.         Sh D Ray

            7.         Sh PS Roy, CMPDI

 

15.        M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

            1.         Sh V K Sinha, CMPDI

            2.         Sh P P Gupta, GM (Env.)

            3.         Dr.R.K.Sinha, Chief Manager

 

           

16.        M/s Fuelco Washeies (India) Ltd.

            1.         Sh KC Jain, Group President

            2.         Sh Anshul Agrawal, Director

            3.         Sh Rajesh Srivastava, Consultant

            4.         Sh Shantanu Puranik, Consultant

____


ANNEXURE –3

MINUTES OF 51st MEETING OF EAC (T&C) HELD ON 21st -22nd JULY 2011

 

Item No. 5.    Special Internal Meeting in EAC (T&C) Meeting Held on 21st –22nd July 2009 on “Use of Flyash for dumping in decoaled voids of coalmines”

 

Director, Coal Mining Projects informed that a note had been received by the MOEF from CMD, NTPC by the Ministry on the outstanding issues pertaining to EC and other issues with MOEF to EAC members and in this regard brought to the attention of the EAC (T&C), the specific matter of use of flyash in decoaled voids referred to in para 4. The details of this note were discussed in the context of the MOEF draft Notification dated 06.1.2008 on Flyash.

 

Para 4 of the Note from M/s NTPC is reproduced below:

 

“Ash utilisation Targets for all power plants: 100 % utilisation – As per MOEF draft Notification dated 06.11.2008 – 100% utilisation within 4 years for existing stations and within 3 years for new stations to be achieved and no land for ash dykes envisaged. Only 40 hectares land/500MW will be allowed for emergency ash pond storage. Although, NTPC ha been able to maintain ash utilisation of about 55% so far but gong forward this utilisation rate is not sustainable, because most of the applications such as low lying land filling, ash dyke, etc are one time sue. Further the ash utilisation potential varies significantly from station to station depending on its proximity to metros.”

 

NTPC had therefore suggested that the best success in enhancing the ash utilisation potential would be if MOEF has provisions for compulsory ash utilisation by users in areas such as:

a)                              Backfilling of mines.

b)                              Wasteland development.

c)                              Railways embankment.

d)                             SEZ construction.

e)                              Irrigation/Hydro projects.

f)                               Railway freight concession to transport the ash to any art of the country.

 

The issue of dumping of flyash in voids of mines was discussed. The EAC after detailed discussions observed the following:

 

·                     Flyash is a hazardous substance.

 

·                     The use of flyash is an environmental problem because of the possibility of leaching of heavy metals into the aquifers below the void where it is filled up.

 

·                     A database on the types of flyash generated from the various types of coal produced in the country has to be created which includes the levels of heavy metals such as Hg, Cd, Ni, Pb, etc in the flyash.

 

·                     There are a large number of scientific papers and technical studies, which have shown that flyash cannot be used in an unconfined disposal system.

 

·                     The heavy metal content of flyash has therefore to be firstly determined; and if the heavy metal content is high, then such flyash should not be dumped into mine voids.

 

·                     An effective lining has to be used in voids where flyash is to be dumped. The type and efficacy of the lining material has to be evaluated in field trials before such an exercise is taken up in large-scale as the lining may crack after a few years and the heavy metals may leach in large concentrations into the sub-soil and into the aquifers.

 

·                     Also, the nature of the aquifer where the decoaled void is chosen for dumping has to be studied. If the ground water is shallow, and the strata above the aquifers is hard rock and is also not fractured, then the chances of subsoil leaching of heavy metals into the ground water system may not occur. On the other hand, if the geology is such that leaching is possible, then such decoaled mines are not suitable for flyash dumping.

 

·                     Stringent monitoring is required both of the dumping area for the efficacy of lining and also for monitoring of heavy metals (pre-dumping and thereafter) to discern sudden surge in heavy metals levels in the aquifers and downstream of the project site. 

 

·                     Soil testing need to be undertaken in the areas where the dumping is to be carried out. If the soil chemistry is such that the pH levels may be low (acidic) or may leach the heavy metals into the soil, then such areas should be avoided.

 

·                     Flyash dumping along with overburden (OB) generated from mines should not be permitted (since there is no lining of such dumps).

 

·                     The responsibility of monitoring the impacts of dumping of flyash for long-term effects of dumping of flyash including after the closure of the mine – such as efficacy of lining, levels of heavy metals into the env. systems (soil, water, etc.) is not clear and requires to be clearly spelt out.

 

  • If there is large scale leaching of heavy metals and contamination found in soil and ground water, the costs for the damage require to be assessed and further steps/measures to be taken require to be drawn up, since the populations would require to be moved out from such areas and cannot be permitted to consume the ground water and agricultural production to continue using such water.

 

The EAC (T&C) concluded that:

 

a)                  Flyash dumping should not be permitted compulsorily in mine voids as sought by NTPC.

 

b)                  Field trials should be carried out for the specific mine voids wherein large scale dumping of flyash is proposed along with characterization of the flyash to be dumped particularly with respect to. its leachability characteristics and soil testing of the voids.

 

c)                  NTPC could explore use of flyash in cement plants, in construction of expressways and other such developmental sectors where such possibility of leaching may not be there.

 

d)         TOR on the lines above should be prescribed, for applications received for Thermal Power Projects, which propose to dump flyash into mine voids, as a part of the EIA-EMP study to determine the feasibility of large scale flyash dumping into specific mine voids.

*          *          *


ANNEXURE-4

GENERIC TOR FOR COAL WASHERY

Based on the presentation made and discussions held, the Committee prescribed the following TOR:

(i)         A brief description of the plant, the technology used, the source of coal, the mode of transport of incoming unwashed coal and the outgoing washed coal. Specific pollution control and mitigative measures for the entire process.

(ii)        The EIA-EMP report should cover the impacts and management plan for the project of the capacity for EC is sought and the impacts of specific activities on the environment of the region, and the environmental quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts for the rated capacity. If the washery is captive to a coal mine/TPP/Plant the cumulative impacts on the environment and usage of water should be brought out along with the EMP.

(iii)         A Study area map of the core zone and 10km area of the buffer showing major industries/mines and other polluting sources, which shall also indicate the migratory corridors of fauna, if any and the areas where endangered fauna and plants of medicinal and economic importance are found in the area. If there are any ecologically sensitive areas found within the 15km buffer zone, the shortest distance from the National Park/WL Sanctuary Tiger Reserve, etc should be shown and the comments of the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State Government should be furnished.

 (iv)        Collection of one-season (non-monsoon) primary base-line data on environmental quality – air (PM10, PM2.5, SOx and NOx), noise, water (surface and groundwater), soil. 

(iv)         Detailed water balance should be provided. The break up of water requirement as per different activities in the mining operations vis-à-vis washery should be given separately. Source of water for use in mine, sanction of the competent authority in the State Govt.. and examine if the unit can be zero discharge including recycling and reuse of the wastewater for other uses such as green belt, etc.

(vi)       Impact of choice of the selected use of technology and impact on air quality and waste generation (emissions and effluents). 

(vii)      Impacts of mineral transportation - the entire sequence of mineral production, transportation, handling, transfer and storage of mineral and waste, if any, and their impacts on air quality should be shown in a flow chart with the specific points where fugitive emissions can arise and the specific pollution control/mitigative measures proposed to be put in place.

(viii)     Details of various facilities to be provided for the personnel involved in mineral transportation in terms of parking, rest areas, canteen, and effluents/pollution load from these activities.  Examine whether existing roads are adequate to take care of the additional load of mineral [and rejects] transportation, their impacts. Details of workshop, if any, and treatment of workshop effluents.

(ix)       Impacts of CHP, if any on air and water quality. A flow chart of water use and whether the unit can be made a zero-discharge unit.

(x)        Details of green belt development.

(xi)       Including cost of EMP (capital and recurring) in the project cost.

(xiv)     Public Hearing details of the coal washery to include details of notices issued in the newspaper, proceedings/minutes of public hearing, the points raised by the general public and commitments made in a tabular form. If the Public Hearing is in the regional language, an authenticated English Translation of the same should be provided.

(xv)        Status of any litigations/ court cases filed/pending on the project.

(xvi)       Submission of sample test analysis of:

I     Characteristics of coal to be washed- this includes grade of coal and other characteristics – ash, S and and heavy metals including levels of Hg, As, Pb, Cr etc.

II    Characteristics and quantum of washed coal.

III   Characteristics and quantum of coal waste rejects.

(xvii)    Management/disposal/Use of coal waste rejects

(xviii)   Copies of MOU/Agreement with linkages (for stand alone washery) for the capacity for which EC has been sought.

(xxxvi) Submission of sample test analysis of:

Characteristics of coal to be washed- this includes grade of coal and other characteristics – ash, S

 

 

____


ANNEXURE -5

GENERIC TOR FOR AN OPENCAST COALMINE PROJECT

(i)            An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for …….. MTPA rated capacity in an ML/project area of …… ha based on the generic structure specified in Appendix III of the EIA Notification 2006.

(ii)           An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for ……. MTPA rated capacity cover the impacts and management plan for the project specific activities on the environment of the region, and the environmental quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts including prediction modelling for ………. MTPA of coal production based on approval of project/Mining Plan for ………MTPA. Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon.

(iii)          A map specifying locations of the State, District and Project location.

(iv)         A Study area map of the core zone and 10km area of the buffer zone (1: 50,000 scale) clearly delineating the major topographical features such as the land use, surface drainage of rivers/streams/nalas/canals, locations of human habitations, major constructions including railways, roads, pipelines, major industries/mines and other polluting sources. In case of ecologically sensitive areas such as Biosphere Reserves/National Parks/WL Sanctuaries/ Elephant Reserves, forests (Reserved/Protected), migratory corridors of fauna, and areas where endangered fauna and plants of medicinal and economic importance found in the 15 km area of the buffer zone should be given.

(v)          Land use map (1: 50,000 scale) based on a recent satellite imagery of the study area may also be provided with explanatory note of the land use. Satellite imagery per se is not required.

(vi)         Map showing the core zone delineating the agricultural land (irrigated and unirrigated, uncultivable land (as defined in the revenue records), forest areas (as per records), along with other physical features such as water bodies, etc should be furnished.

(vii)        A contour map showing the area drainage of the core zone and 2-5 km of the buffer zone (where the water courses of the core zone ultimately join the major rivers/streams outside the lease/project area) should also be clearly indicated as a separate map.

(viii)       A detailed Site plan of the mine showing the various proposed break-up of the land for mining operations such as the quarry area, OB dumps, green belt, safety zone, buildings, infrastructure, CHP, ETP, Stockyard, township/colony (within and adjacent to the ML), undisturbed area and if any, in topography such as existing roads, drains/natural water bodies are to be left undisturbed along with any natural drainage adjoining the lease /project and modification of thereof in terms of construction of embankments/bunds, proposed diversion/rechannelling of the water courses, etc., approach roads, major haul roads, etc.

(ix)         In case of any proposed diversion of nallah/canal/river, the proposed route of diversion/modification of drainage and their realignment, construction of embankment etc. should also be shown on the map.

(x)          Similarly if the project involves diversion of any road/railway line passing through the ML/project area, the proposed route of diversion and its realignment should be shown.

(xi)         Break up of lease/project area as per different land uses and their stage of acquisition.

(xii)        Break-up of lease/project area as per mining operations.

(xiii)       Impact of changes in the land use due to the start of the projects if much of the land being acquired is agricultural land/forestland/grazing land.

(xiv)       Collection of one-season (non-monsoon) primary baseline data on environmental quality - air (PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx and heavy metals such as Hg, Pb, Cr, As, etc), noise, water (surface and groundwater), soil along with one-season met data coinciding with the same season for AAQ collection period.

(xv)        Map of the study area (1: 50, 000 scale) (core and buffer zone clearly delineating the location of various stations superimposed with location of habitats, other industries/mines, polluting sources. The number and location of the stations in both core zone and buffer zone should be selected on the basis of size of lease/project area, the proposed impacts in the downwind (air)/downstream (surface water)/groundwater regime (based on flow). One station should be in the upwind/upstream/non-impact/non-polluting area as a control station. The monitoring should be as per CPCB guidelines and parameters for water testing for both ground water and surface water as per ISI standards and CPCB classification wherever applicable. Values should be provided based on desirable limits.

(xvi)       Study on the existing flora and fauna in the study area (10km) carried out by an institution of relevant discipline and the list of flora and fauna duly authenticated separately for the core and buffer zone and a statement clearly specifying whether the study area forms a part of the migratory corridor of any endangered fauna. If the study area has endangered flora and fauna, or if the area is occasionally visited or used as a habitat by Schedule-I fauna, or if the project falls within 15 km of an ecologically sensitive area, or used as a migratory corridor then a comprehensive Conservation Plan should be prepared and submitted with EIA-EMP Report and comments from the CWLW of the State Govt. also obtained and furnished.

(xvii)      Details of mineral reserves, geological status of the study are and the seams to be worked, ultimate working depth and progressive stage-wise working scheme until end of mine life should be reflected on the basis of the approved rated capacity and calendar plans of production from the approved Mining Plan. Geological maps and sections should be included. The progressive mine development and Conceptual Final Mine Closure Plan should also be shown in figures.

(xviii)     Details of mining methods, technology, equipment to be used, etc., rationale for selection of that technology and equipment proposed to be used vis-à-vis the potential impacts.

(xix)       Impact of mining on hydrology, modification of natural drainage, diversion and channelling of the existing rivers/water courses flowing though the ML and adjoining the lease/project and the impact on the existing users and impacts of mining operations thereon.

(xx)        Detailed water balance should be provided. The break up of water requirement for the various mine operations should be given separately.

(xxi)       Source of water for use in mine, sanction of the competent authority in the State Govt. and impacts vis-à-vis the competing users.

(xxii)      Impact of mining and water abstraction use in mine on the hydrogeology and groundwater regime within the core zone and 10 km buffer zone including long–term modelling studies on. Details of rainwater harvesting and measures for recharge of groundwater should be reflected in case there us a declining trend of groundwater availability and/or if the area falls within dark/grey zone.

(xxiii)     Impact of blasting, noise and vibrations.                   

(xxiv)    Impacts of mining on the AAQ, predictive modelling using the ISCST-3 (Revised) or latest model.

(xxv)     Impacts of mineral transportation – within and outside the lease/project along with flow-chart indicating the specific areas generating fugitive emissions. Impacts of transportation, handling, transfer of mineral and waste on air quality, generation of effluents from workshop, management plan for maintenance of HEMM, machinery, equipment. Details of various facilities to be provided in terms of parking, rest areas, canteen, and effluents/pollution load from these activities.

(xxvi)    Details of waste generation – OB, topsoil – as per the approved calendar programme, and their management shown in figures as well explanatory chapter with tables giving progressive development and mine closure plan, green belt development, backfilling programme and conceptual post mining land use. OB dump heights and terracing should based on slope stability studies with a max of 28o angle as the ultimate slope. Sections of dumps (ultimate) (both longitudinal and cross section) with relation to the adjacent area should be shown.

(xxvii)   Progressive Green belt and afforestation plan (both in text, figures as well as in tables prepared by MOEF) and selection of species (local) for the afforestation/plantation programme based on original survey/landuse.

(xxviii)  Conceptual Final Mine Closure Plan, post mining land use and restoration of land/habitat to pre- mining. A Plan for the ecological restoration of the area post mining and for land use should be prepared with detailed cost provisions. Impact and management of wastes and issues of rehandling (wherever applicable) and backfilling and progressive mine closure and reclamation.

(xxix)    Flow chart of water balance. Treatment of effluents from workshop, township, domestic wastewater, mine water discharge, etc. Details of STP in colony and ETP in mine. Recycling of water to the max. possible extent.

(xxx)     Occupational health issues. Baseline data on the health of the population in the impact zone and measures for occupational health and safety of the personnel and manpower for the mine.

(xxxi)    Risk Assessment and Disaster Preparedness and Management Plan.

(xxxii)   Integrating in the Env. Management Plan with measures for minimising use of natural resources - water, land, energy, etc.

(xxxiii)  Including cost of EMP (capital and recurring) in the project cost and for progressive and final mine closure plan.

(xxxiv) Details of R&R.  Detailed project specific R&R Plan with data on the existing socio-economic status of the population (including tribals, SC/ST, BPL families) found in the study area and broad plan for resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement colony, alternate livelihood concerns/employment for the displaced people, civic and housing amenities being offered, etc and costs along with the schedule of the implementation of the R&R Plan.

(xxxv)  CSR Plan along with details of villages and specific budgetary provisions (capital and recurring) for specific activities over the life of the project.

(xxxvi) Public Hearing should cover the details of notices issued in the newspaper, proceedings/minutes of public hearing, the points raised by the general public and commitments made by the proponent should be presented in a tabular form. If the Public Hearing is in the regional language, an authenticated English Translation of the same should be provided.

(xxxvii)In built mechanism of self-monitoring of compliance of environmental regulations.

(xxxx)  Status of any litigations/ court cases filed/pending on the project.

(xxxxi) Submission of sample test analysis of:

Characteristics of coal - this includes grade of coal and other characteristics – ash, S and heavy metals including levels of Hg, As, Pb, Cr etc.

(xxxxii) Copy of clearances/approvals – such as Forestry clearances, Mining Plan Approval,

            NOC from Flood and Irrigation Dept. (if req.), etc. wherever applicable.

 

___


ANNEXURE -6

GENERIC TOR FOR AN UNDERGROUND COALMINE PROJECT

(i)            An EIA-EMP Report should be prepared for a peak capacity of  ………….. MTPA over an area of  ………….. ha  addressing the impacts of the underground coalmine project including the aspects of mineral transportation and issues of impacts on hydrogeology, plan for conservation of flora/fauna and afforestation/plantation programme based on the generic structure specified in Appendix III of the EIA Notification 2006.. Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon.

(ii)           The EIA-EMP report should also cover the impacts and management plan for the project specific activities on the environment of the region, and the environmental quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. through collection of baseline data and information, generation of baseline data on impacts for ……. MTPA of coal production based on approval of project/Mining Plan.

(iii)          A Study area map of the core zone and 10km area of the buffer zone (15 km of the buffer zone in case of ecologically sensitive areas) delineating the major topographical features such as the land use, drainage, locations of habitats, major construction including railways, roads, pipelines, major industries/mines and other polluting sources, which shall also indicate the migratory corridors of fauna, if any and the areas where endangered fauna and plants of medicinal and economic importance are found in the area.

(iv)         Map showing the core zone along with 3-5 km of the buffer zone) delineating the agricultural land (irrigated and unirrigated, uncultivable land (as defined in the revenue records), forest areas (as per records) and grazing land and wasteland and water bodies.

(v)          Contour map at 3m interval along with Site plan of the mine (lease/project area with about 3-5 km of the buffer zone) showing the various surface structures such as buildings, infrastructure, CHP, ETP, Stockyard, township/colony (within/adjacent to the ML), green belt and undisturbed area and if any existing roads, drains/natural water bodies are to be left undisturbed along with details of natural drainage adjoining the lease/project and modification of thereof in terms of construction of embankments/bunds, proposed diversion/rechannelling of the water courses, etc., highways, passing through the lease/project area.

(vi)         Original land use (agricultural land/forestland/grazing land/wasteland/water bodies) of the area. Impacts of project, if any on the landuse, in particular, agricultural land/forestland/grazing land/water bodies falling within the lease/project and acquired for mining operations. Extent of area under surface rights and under mining rights.

(vii)        Study on the existing flora and fauna in the study area carried out by an institution of relevant discipline and the list of flora and fauna duly authenticated separately for the core and buffer zone and a statement clearly specifying whether the study area forms a part of the migratory corridor of any endangered fauna. The flora and fauna details should be furnished separately for the core zone and buffer zone. The report and the list should be authenticated by the concerned institution carrying out the study and the names of the species scientific and common names) along with the classification under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 should be furnished.

(viii)       Details of mineral reserves, geological status of the study area and the seams to be worked, ultimate working depth and progressive stage-wise working plan/scheme until end of mine life should be reflected on the basis of the approved rated capacity and calendar plans of production from the approved Mining Plan. Geological maps should also be included.

(ix)         Impact of mining on hydrology, modification of natural drainage, diversion and channelling of the existing rivers/water courses flowing though the ML and adjoining the lease/project and the impact on the existing users and impacts of mining operations thereon.

(x)          Collection of one-season (non-monsoon) primary baseline data on environmental quality – air (PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx and heavy metals such as Hg, Pb, Cr, AS, etc), noise, water (surface and groundwater), soil along with one-season met data.

(xi)         Map of the study area (core and buffer zone) clearly delineating the location of various monitoring stations (air/water/soil and noise – each shown separately) superimposed with location of habitats, wind roses, other industries/mines, polluting sources. The number and location of the stations should be selected on the basis of the proposed impacts in the downwind/downstream/groundwater regime. One station should be in the upwind/upstream/non-impact non-polluting area as a control station. Wind roses to determine air pollutant dispersion and impacts thereof shall be determined. Monitoring should be as per CPCB guidelines and standards for air, water, noise notified under Environment Protection Rules. Parameters for water testing for both ground and surface water should be as per ISI standards and CPCB classification of surface water wherever applicable.

(xii)        Impact of mining and water abstraction and mine water discharge in mine on the hydrogeology and groundwater regime within the core zone and 10km buffer zone including long–term modelling studies on the impact of mining on the groundwater regime. Details of rainwater harvesting and measures for recharge of groundwater should be reflected wherever the areas are declared dark/grey from groundwater development.

(xiii)       Study on subsidence, measures for mitigation/prevention of subsidence, modelling subsidence prediction and its use during mine operation, safety issues.

(xiv)       Detailed water balance should be provided. The break up of water requirement as per different activities in the mining operations, including use of water for sand stowing should be given separately. Source of water for use in mine, sanction of the competent authority in the State Govt. and impacts vis-à-vis the competing users should be provided.

(xv)        Impact of choice of mining method, technology, selected use of machinery - and impact on air quality, mineral transportation, coal handling & storage/stockyard, etc, Impact of blasting, noise and vibrations.

(xvi)       Impacts of mineral transportation – within and outside the lease/project. The entire sequence of mineral production, transportation, handling, transfer and storage of mineral and waste, and their impacts on air quality should be shown in a flow chart with the specific points where fugitive emissions can arise and the specific pollution control/mitigative measures proposed to be put in place. Examine the adequacy of roads existing in the area and if new roads are proposed, the impact of their construction and use particularly if forestland is used.

(xvii)      Details of various facilities to be provided in terms of parking, rest areas, canteen, and effluents/pollution load from these activities.  Examine whether existing roads are adequate to take care of the additional load of mineral and their impacts.

(xviii)     Examine the number and efficiency of mobile/static water sprinkling system along the main mineral transportation road within the mine, approach roads to the mine/stockyard/siding, and also the frequency of their use in impacting air quality.

(xix)       Impacts of CHP, if any on air and water quality. A flow chart of water use and whether the unit can be made a zero-discharge unit.

(xx)        Conceptual Final Mine Closure Plan along with the fund requirement for the detailed activities proposed there under.  Impacts of change in land use for mining operations and whether the land can be restored for agricultural use post mining.

(xxi)       Occupational health issues. Baseline data on the health of the population in the impact zone and measures for occupational health and safety of the personnel and manpower for the mine should be furnished.

(xxii)      Details of cost of EMP (capital and recurring) in the project cost and for final mine closure plan. The specific costs (capital and recurring) of each pollution control/mitigative measures proposed in the project until end of mine life and a statement that this is included in the project cost.

(xxiii)     Integrating in the Env. Management Plan with measures for minimising use of natural resources – water, land, energy, raw materials/mineral, etc.

(xxiv)    R&R: Detailed project specific R&R Plan with data on the existing socio-economic status (including tribals, SC/ST) of the population in the study area and broad plan for resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement colony, alternate livelihood concerns/employment for the displaced people, civic and housing amenities being offered, etc and costs along with the schedule of the implementation of the R&R Plan.

(xxv)     CSR Plan along with details of villages and specific budgetary provisions (capital and recurring) for specific activities over the life of the project.

(xxvi)    Public Hearing should cover the details as specified in the EIA Notification 2006, and include notices issued in the newspaper, proceedings/minutes of public hearing, the points raised by the general public and commitments by the proponent made should be presented in a tabular form. If the Public Hearing is in the regional language, an authenticated English Translation of the same should be provided.

(xxvii)   Status of any litigations/ court cases filed/pending on the project.

(xxxvii)Submission of sample test analysis of:

(xxxvii) Characteristics of coal - this includes grade of coal and other characteristics – ash, S

            and heavy metals including levels of Hg, As, Pb, Cr etc.

(xxxviii) Copy of clearances/approvals – such as Forestry clearances, Mining Plan Approval, NOC from Flood and Irrigation Dept. (if req.), etc.

 

___


ANNEXURE -7

GENERIC TOR FOR AN OPENCAST-CUM-UNDERGROUND COALMINE PROJECT

 

(i)            An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for a combined rated capacity of…….. MTPA  for OC-cum-UG project which consists of ……. MTPA for OC and ………. MTPA for UG in an ML/project area of …… ha based on the generic structure specified in Appendix III of the EIA Notification 2006.

(ii)           An EIA-EMP Report would be prepared for ……. MTPA rated capacity cover the impacts and management plan for the project specific activities on the environment of the region, and the environmental quality – air, water, land, biotic community, etc. through collection of data and information, generation of data on impacts including prediction modelling for ………. MTPA of coal production based on approval of project/Mining Plan for …….. MTPA. Baseline data collection can be for any season except monsoon.

(iii)          A map specifying locations of the State, District and Project location.

(iv)         A Study area map of the core zone and 10km area of the buffer zone (1: 50,000 scale) clearly delineating the major topographical features such as the land use, surface drainage of rivers/streams/nalas/canals, locations of human habitations, major constructions including railways, roads, pipelines, major industries/mines and other polluting sources. In case of ecologically sensitive areas such as Biosphere Reserves/National Parks/WL Sanctuaries/ Elephant Reserves, forests (Reserved/Protected), migratory corridors of fauna, and areas where endangered fauna and plants of medicinal and economic importance found in the 15 km area of the buffer zone should be given.

(v)          Land use map (1: 50,000 scale) based on a recent satellite imagery of the study area may also be provided with explanatory note of the land use. Satellite imagery per se is not required.

(vi)         Map showing the core zone delineating the agricultural land (irrigated and unirrigated, uncultivable land (as defined in the revenue records), forest areas (as per records), along with other physical features such as water bodies, etc should be furnished.

(vii)        A contour map showing the area drainage of the core zone and 2-5 km of the buffer zone (where the water courses of the core zone ultimately join the major rivers/streams outside the lease/project area) should also be clearly indicated as a separate map.

(viii)       A detailed Site plan of the mine showing the various proposed break-up of the land for mining operations such as the quarry area, OB dumps, green belt, safety zone, buildings, infrastructure, CHP, ETP, Stockyard, township/colony (within and adjacent to the ML), undisturbed area and if any, in topography such as existing roads, drains/natural water bodies are to be left undisturbed along with any natural drainage adjoining the lease /project and modification of thereof in terms of construction of embankments/bunds, proposed diversion/rechannelling of the water courses, etc., approach roads, major haul roads, etc.

(ix)         In case of any proposed diversion of nallah/canal/river, the proposed route of diversion/modification of drainage and their realignment, construction of embankment etc. should also be shown on the map.

(x)          Similarly if the project involves diversion of any road/railway line passing through the ML/project area, the proposed route of diversion and its realignment should be shown.

(xi)         Break up of lease/project area as per different land uses and their stage of acquisition.

(xii)        Break-up of lease/project area as per mining operations.

(xiii)       Impact of changes in the land use due to the start of the projects if much of the land being acquired is agricultural land/forestland/grazing land.

(xiv)       Collection of one-season (non-monsoon) primary baseline data on environmental quality - air (PM10, PM2.5, SOx , NOx and heavy metals such as Hg, Pb, Cr, As, etc), noise, water (surface and groundwater), soil along with one-season met data.

(xv)        Map of the study area (1: 50, 000 scale) (core and buffer zone clearly delineating the location of various stations superimposed with location of habitats, other industries/mines, polluting sources. The number and location of the stations in both core zone and buffer zone should be selected on the basis of size of lease/project area, the proposed impacts in the downwind (air)/downstream (surface water)/groundwater regime (based on flow). One station should be in the upwind/upstream/non-impact/non-polluting area as a control station. The monitoring should be as per CPCB guidelines and parameters for water testing for both ground water and surface water as per ISI standards and CPCB classification wherever applicable. Values should be presented in comparison to desirable limits.

(xvi)       Study on the existing flora and fauna in the study area (10km) carried out by an institution of relevant discipline and the list of flora and fauna duly authenticated separately for the core and buffer zone and a statement clearly specifying whether the study area forms a part of the migratory corridor of any endangered fauna. If the study area has endangered flora and fauna, or if the project falls within 15 km of an ecologically sensitive area, then a comprehensive Conservation Plan should be prepared and furnished along with comments from the CWLW of the State Govt.

(xvii)      Details of mineral reserves, geological status of the study are and the seams to be worked, ultimate working depth and progressive stage-wise working scheme until end of mine life should be reflected on the basis of the approved rated capacity and calendar plans of production from the approved Mining Plan. Geological maps and sections should be included. The progressive mine development and final mine closure plan should also be shown in figures.

(xviii)     Details of mining methods, technology, equipment to be used, etc., rationale for selection of that technology and equipment proposed to be used vis-à-vis the potential impacts.

(xix)       Study on subsidence, measures for mitigation/prevention of subsidence, modelling subsidence prediction and its use during mine operation, safety issues.

(xx)        Impact of mining on hydrology, modification of natural drainage, diversion and channelling of the existing rivers/water courses flowing though the ML and adjoining the lease/project and the impact on the existing users and impacts of mining operations thereon.

(xxi)       Detailed water balance should be provided. The break up of water requirement for the various mine operations should be given separately.

(xxii)      Source of water for use in mine, sanction of the competent authority in the State Govt. and impacts vis-à-vis the competing users.

(xxiii)     Impact of mining and water abstraction use in mine on the hydrogeology and groundwater regime within the core zone and 10 km buffer zone including long–term modelling studies on. Details of rainwater harvesting and measures for recharge of groundwater should be reflected in case there us a declining trend of groundwater availability and/or if the area falls within dark/grey zone.

(xxiv)    Impact of blasting, noise and vibrations.                   

(xxv)     Impacts of mining on the AAQ, predictive modelling using the ISCST-3 (Revised) or latest model.

(xxvi)    Impacts of mineral transportation – within and outside the lease/project along with flow-chart indicating the specific areas generating fugitive emissions. Impacts of transportation, handling, transfer of mineral and waste on air quality, generation of effluents from workshop, management plan for maintenance of HEMM, machinery, equipment. Details of various facilities to be provided in terms of parking, rest areas, canteen, and effluents/pollution load from these activities.

(xxvii)   Details of waste generation – OB, topsoil – as per the approved calendar programme, and their management shown in figures as well explanatory chapter with tables giving progressive development and mine closure plan, green belt development, backfilling programme and conceptual post mining land use. OB dump heights and terracing should based on slope stability studies with a max of 28o angle as the ultimate slope. Sections of dumps (ultimate) (both longitudinal and cross section) with relation to the adjacent area should be shown.

(xxviii)  Impact and management of wastes and issues of rehandling and backfilling and progressive mine closure and reclamation.

(xxix)    Flow chart of water balance. Treatment of effluents from workshop, township, domestic wastewater, mine water discharge, etc. Details of STP in colony and ETP in mine. Recycling of water to the max. possible extent.

(xxx)     Occupational health issues. Baseline data on the health of the population in the impact zone and measures for occupational health and safety of the personnel and manpower for the mine.

(xxxi)    Risk Assessment and Disaster Preparedness and Management Plan.

(xxxii)   Integrating in the Env. Management Plan with measures for minimising use of natural resources - water, land, energy, etc.

(xxxiii)  Progressive Green belt and afforestation plan (both in text, figures as well as in tables prepared by MOEF) and selection of species (local) for the afforestation/plantation programme based on original survey/landuse.

(xxxiv) Conservation Plan for the endangered/endemic flora and fauna found in the study area and for safety of animals visiting/residing in the study area and also those using the study area as a migratory corridor.

(xxxv)  Conceptual Final Mine Closure Plan, post mining land use and restoration of land/habitat to pre- mining. A Plan for the ecological restoration of the area post mining and for land use should be prepared with detailed cost provisions.

(xxxvi) Including cost of EMP (capital and recurring) in the project cost and for progressive and final mine closure plan.

(xxxvii)                Details of R&R.  Detailed project specific R&R Plan with data on the existing socio-economic status of the population (including tribals, SC/ST, BPL families) found in the study area and broad plan for resettlement of the displaced population, site for the resettlement colony, alternate livelihood concerns/employment for the displaced people, civic and housing amenities being offered, etc and costs along with the schedule of the implementation of the R&R Plan.

(xxxviii) CSR Plan along with details of villages and specific budgetary provisions (capital and recurring) for specific activities over the life of the project.

(xxxix) Public Hearing should cover the details of notices issued in the newspaper, proceedings/minutes of public hearing, the points raised by the general public and commitments made by the proponent should be presented in a tabular form. If the Public Hearing is in the regional language, an authenticated English Translation of the same should be provided.

(xxxx)  In built mechanism of self-monitoring of compliance of environmental regulations.

(xxxxi) Status of any litigations/ court cases filed/pending on the project.

(xxxxii) Submission of sample test analysis of:

Characteristics of coal - this includes grade of coal and other characteristics – ash, S and heavy metals including levels of Hg, As, Pb, Cr etc.

(xxxxiii) Copy of clearances/approvals – such as Forestry clearances, Mining Plan Approval,

            NOC from Flood and Irrigation Dept. (if req.), etc.

 

____


 ANNEXURE-8

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL POINTS OF TOR

 

The following general points should be noted:

 

(i)         All documents should be properly indexed, page numbered.

(ii)        Period/date of data collection should be clearly indicated.

(iii)       Authenticated English translation of all material provided in Regional languages.

(iv)       After the preparation of the draft EIA-EMP Report as per the aforesaid TOR, the proponent shall get the Public Hearing conducted as prescribed in the EIA Notification 2006 and take necessary action for obtaining environmental clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006.

(v)          The letter/application for EC should quote the MOEF file No. and also attach a copy of the letter prescribing the TOR.

(vi)         The copy of the letter received from the Ministry on the TOR prescribed for the project should be attached as an annexure to the final EIA-EMP Report.

(vii)      The final EIA-EMP report submitted to the Ministry must incorporate the issues in TOR and that raised in Public Hearing. The index of the final EIA-EMP report, must indicate the specific chapter and page no. of the EIA-EMP Report where the specific TOR prescribed by Ministry and the issue raised in the P.H. have been incorporated. Mining Questionnaire (posted on MOEF website) with all sections duly filled in shall also be submitted at the time of applying for EC.

(viii)     The aforesaid TOR has a validity of two years only.

 

The following additional points are also to be noted:

(i)            Grant of TOR does not necessarily mean grant of EC.

(ii)           Grant of TOR/EC to the present project does not necessarily mean grant of TOR/EC to the captive/linked project.

(iii)          Grant of TOR/EC to the present project does not necessarily mean grant of approvals in other regulations such as the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 or the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

(iv)       Grant of EC is also subject to Circulars issued under the EIA Notification 2006, which are available on the MOEF website: www.envfor.nic.in

______

Untitled Page