147154604781765905

This article was downloaded by: [Anna University]
On: 22 January 2015, At: 00:20

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20
A methodology for cumulative impact assessment of

opencast mining projects with special reference to
air quality assessment
a
Pratik Dutta , Sandip Mahatha & Parijat De
Department of Mining and Geology , Bengal Engineering College (Deemed University) ,

Howrah , 711103 , India E-mail:
b
Government Engineering College , Kalyani , 741235 , India

Published online: 20 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Pratik Dutta , Sandip Mahatha & Parijat De (2004) A methodology for cumulative impact assessment of
opencast mining projects with special reference to air quality assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22:3,
235-250, DOI: 10.3152/147154604781765905
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765905
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 22, number 3, September 2004, pages 235250, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK
Opencast mining impact
Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015
A methodology for cumulative impact

assessment of opencast mining projects with
special reference to air quality assessment
Pratik Dutta, Sandip Mahatha and Parijat De
It has been recognized worldwide that consideration of cumulative impacts should be an integral
part of the environmental impact assessment
process and that sector-specific methodologies
should be evolved to address these impacts. A
generic methodology for cumulative impact assessment of opencast mining projects has been
developed with special reference to air quality
assessment. It involved questionnaire checklists
and a geographical information system for scoping of the impact assessment study, and the
ISCST3 air quality dispersion model for the
analysis of impacts. Its use was illustrated by a
case study at an opencast iron ore mine. The
methodology could identify a number of potentially significant cumulative impacts. Also, the
analysis of air quality impact suggested that in
some areas surrounding the mine the cumulative
pollutant levels could be significantly high even
if the effects of project-related impact were low.
Keywords:
cumulative impact assessment; opencast mining;

air quality; India
INCE ITS INTRODUCTION more than 30

years ago, environmental impact assessment
(EIA) has gradually developed into a powerful
planning and decision-making tool. EIA studies the
environmental consequences of a proposed project
so that corrective actions can be taken to ameliorate
the adverse impacts. Historically, the thrust of EIA
has been on the prediction of changes in the natural
and socio-economic environment of single development activities. However, concerns have often been
focused on the combined effects of multiple activities: it became increasingly clear that the conventional approaches to single project assessment would
not necessarily address the broad environmental
degradation over many years; namely, the result of
cumulative effects or cumulative impacts.
As the stress on the environmental resources continue to increase as a result of excessive development pressures, cumulative impact considerations
become even more important in the EIA process. It
has been felt, therefore, that, without incorporating
cumulative effects into environmental planning and
management, it would be impossible to move towards sustainable development (CEQ, 1997).
The United States Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) has defined cumulative effects as
(CEQ, 1978):
Pratik Dutta (corresponding author) is Faculty Member and

Sandip Mahatha Project Fellow, Department of Mining and Geology, Bengal Engineering College (Deemed University),
Howrah-711103, India; E-mail: pkd@mining.becs.ac.in; duttapratik@rediffmail.com. Parijat De is Principal, Government
Engineering College, Kalyani-741235, India.
the impact on the environment which results

from the incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency
or person undertakes such other actions.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004
1461-5517/04/030235-16 US$08.00 IAIA 2004
235
CIA of opencast mining projects
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place
over a period of time. These are not new types of
impact but recognition that impacts from individual
projects and activities can combine together in time
and space. Hence, to address cumulative impacts in
an EIA, it is necessary to perform the key tasks
within the EIA framework by broadening the spatial
and temporal extent of the study (CEAA, 1999).
This broadened scope of the EIA is termed cumulative effect assessment (CEA) or cumulative impact
assessment (CIA).
Cumulative impact considerations have been
required in the EIA process for a long time. For example, CEQ regulations incorporated this requirement back in 1979. This was followed by other
countries such as Canada, Australia, UK, Belgium,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, Hong Kong, where cumulative impact considerations have been made an integral part of the
EIA legislation.
However, incorporation of these considerations
has been minimal in practice because of confusion
over appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries in
impact studies, lack of emphasis by the project proponents and the government agencies, and more importantly, the absence of structured methodologies
(Canter and Kamath, 1995). In recent years, though,
studies have increasingly started to address this issue
and have shown that the existing EIA methodologies
and assessment tools can often be combined effectively to address cumulative impacts (CEQ, 1997;
CEAA, 1999; ECDGXI, 1999). Nevertheless, the
concepts and guidelines developed thus far are
somewhat generic in nature and it is important to
develop sector-specific methodologies.
The main objective of this paper is to present a
methodology for CIA of opencast mining projects.
The manner in which some of the critical activities
within the EIA process could be carried out to address the cumulative impacts is discussed. Opencast
mining projects can have significant impacts on a
variety of environmental resources. Amongst these,
air quality of the surroundings resulting from particulate emission from the mines is a key impact that
needs to be studied in the EIA. Therefore, specific
focus has been put on the methodology for assessing
impacts on air quality.
It has been argued that techniques such as questionnaire checklists, geographical information system (GIS), and impact models can be combined
effectively to carry out the critical activities within
the EIA process. The methodology presented here is
illustrated by a case study of an opencast iron ore
mine in India, for which the CIA was carried out using checklists specifically developed for the purpose,
GIS and an air quality dispersion model. The results
demonstrate the effectiveness of the methodology in
systematically identifying and analyzing the cumulative air quality impacts that may result from the project in combination with other projects.
236
Methodology for CIA

The exact components, staging and the responsibilities for carrying out the EIA process depend, to a
great extent, on the regulatory requirements of the
country. However, most EIA processes have a
somewhat similar structure, which is an aggregate of
a few activities to be implemented at various stages
of the process: screening; scoping; analysis of impacts; identification of mitigation measures; evaluation of the significance of impacts; reporting;
decision-making; monitoring; and follow-up. Of
these, the central activities, comprising screening,
scoping, analysis of impacts, identification of mitigation measures, evaluation of the significance of
impacts and reporting, are normally carried out by
the project proponents. The rest, although essential
to EIA, are usually the responsibility of the environmental agencies.
Screening to decide whether a detail EIA is required or not is normally spelt out clearly by the environmental agencies depending on the size and
complexity of the proposal. For instance, in India,
EIA for mining projects is required when the lease
area exceeds five hectares. Once adverse impacts are
predicted, identification of mitigation measures depends, to a large extent, on the cost and availability
of best practicable management systems. To decide
whether the residual impacts, after implementation
of the mitigation measures, are significant and unacceptable is often a contentious issue and the decision
often occupies a fluid boundary between science and
politics (Sadler, 1996).
The job of the assessor is, therefore, limited to providing the information on the results of the assessment with regard to nature, magnitude, timing, and
duration, as well as the attribution of importance or
value to the findings. This, however, underlines the
importance of the impact analysis activity of the EIA
process. Scoping is the foundation for an effective
EIA that sets up an efficient process by identifying
the right questions for which answers are needed for
decision-making (Sadler, 1996). If scoping is not
carried out properly, the EIA may become voluminous and may address irrelevant or less significant
issues in detail while overlooking the more significant ones (Everitt, 1995). Therefore, the two activities of scoping and analysis of impacts are most
critical to a sound and cost-effective CIA.
Mahatha and Dutta (2003) have explained how
different activities should be performed to address
cumulative impacts within the basic EIA framework.
The key tasks within these activities are given in Figure 1. It is clear from the figure that an essential difference between the project-specific EIA and CIA is
the consideration of larger geographical and temporal
boundaries to include other past, present and reasonably future actions during both the scoping and analysis phases of the process. Therefore, any methodology
for CIA should essentially demonstrate how the other
actions could be considered during these two phases.
An essential difference between the

project-specific EIA and CIA is the
consideration of larger geographical
and temporal boundaries to include
other past, present and reasonably
future actions during the scoping and
analysis phases
Scoping
Scoping involves the identification of key issues of
concern the project-specific EIA and CIA and the affected resources, thereby ensuring that the assessment remains focused and the analysis manageable
and practicable. The larger regional nature and the
complexity in assessment mean that scoping must
be strictly applied to avoid assessing more than is
necessary.
The first step in scoping is to identify the direct
impacts of the project under study on the important
environmental resources. For identification of these
direct project-related impacts it is important to prepare systematically a list of activities that may result
from the construction, operation and closure phases
of the project.
The next job is to identify the environmental impacts of these activities and the resources affected by
them. Identifying other past, present and future actions that have caused, or may cause, impacts and
may interact with those caused by the project under
review is critical to establishing the appropriate geographic and time boundaries for the CIA. Only those
environmental effects of other projects or activities
that may combine with the environmental effects of
the project in question should be included in the
assessment.
Spatial boundaries cannot be the same for all the
environmental resources and can be delineated by
the consideration of project impact zones. The procedure for determining the project impact zone for
air quality is explained in the next section. Air quality impact zones can be generated separately for
different projects and mapped in GIS. When any
overlap between the impact zones of the project under study and that of the other projects occurs, it is
concluded that the area under the overlap zones
could be subjected to cumulative impacts.
How far back in time the information needs to be
considered will depend on the historical use of the
area and the availability of the information.
However, effects of many past activities can be
made available through the examination of baseline
conditions. In setting the future time boundary, five
years is a reasonable time since beyond that there
will be too much uncertainty associated with the
development proposals (CEAA, 1999). For future
Identify significant issues of concern associated with the

proposed project
Scoping
Identity spatial boundaries for the analysis

Identify temporal boundaries for the analysis
Identity other actions that may contribute to cumulative
impacts
Analysis of
impacts
Define a baseline condition for the important regional resources
Assess the impacts of all actions on the resources
Identification of
mitigation measures
Evaluation of
significance of impacts
Follow-up
Recommend mitigation measured
Evaluate the significance of impacts after analysis
Monitor the cumulative impacts through regional monitoring
Figure 1. Tasks within the EIA framework to address cumulative impacts
237
actions, projects that have been approved or are in

the process of being approved should be included.
If certain actions do not require any formal approval but are relevant to the assessment, they should
also be included, especially if there is a high level of
certainty that such actions will take place. Likewise,
actions that may be induced by the project in question
should also be considered. When there is insufficient
information on future projects and activities, best professional judgment should be applied.
A number of impacts may be identified that are
likely to affect cumulatively the important environmental resources, but it is necessary to limit the
study only to those impacts that may be significant.
During scoping, the activityenvironment relationships are only poorly understood, factual information is limited, and/or there is a high degree of
uncertainty regarding the potential impacts. A qualitative approach, drawing on previous understanding
of the project characteristics and impacts, can establish a rational basis for determination of impact
significance (Hilden, 1996).
Table 1 can be used for drawing up the different
columns of the checklist useful for identification of
the project actions for an opencast mining project during various stages of implementation of the project.
The list of actions given in Table 1 is more or less
exhaustive and covers all possible actions of such a
project. depending on the local circumstances additional actions may be added. For identification of projectenvironment interactions any primary impact
Table 1. Checklist of project components for an opencast
mine
-
Land acquisition and creation of new land use

Removal of vegetation
Demolition of important structures
Impoundment, culverting, realignment, or other changes to the
hydrology of the water courses
Closure, diversion, or modification of exiting transport route or
creation of new transport route
Closure, diversion, or modifications of exiting utilities like
power line, pipeline etc. or creation of new utilities
Ground water removal
Civil construction work
Provision of civic amenities like housing, school, medical
facilities, water etc.
Provision of direct and indirect employment opportunities
Surface run off
Top soil and sub soil removal and storage
Overburden removal and loading at pit
Ore removal and loading at pit
Disposal of solid waste
Disposal of liquid effluents
Overburden transportation from pit
Ore transportation from pit
Overburden dumping
Ore storage
Operation of ore handling plant
Operation of other ancillary equipment
Tailings disposal
Reclamation
Post-mining use of site
The checklist should consider whether or not these are involved

and detail actions during each of the three stages of construction,
operation and closure.
238
identification methods, such as matrices, checklists or

networks, may be used. The choice depends on the
familiarity of the assessor with the methods. However, for cumulative impact assessment the most appropriate methodological approach should be one that
is simple and yet comprehensive enough to provide a
broad perspective (Canter and Kamath, 1995).
Accordingly, a questionnaire checklist has been
designed that would be the most suitable for identification and/or summarization of the cumulative
impacts of opencast mining projects. The different
columns of this checklist can be drawn up from Table 2 and will be helpful for identification of direct
project-related impacts, the affected environment,
the projectenvironment interactions, and other
actions likely to affect the same resources affected
Table 2. List of items for drawing up a questionnaire
checklist to identify of project-related and
cumulative impacts
The first column of the checklist should consider the
environmental impacts resulting from the project, looking at:
Physical environment landform
Landslide and land subsidence; soil erosion; change in existing
topography
Land use
Alteration of existing or proposed land use of an area; impact on,
or destruction of, wet land
Air
Impact on air quality due to gases, particulate etc
Surface water
Change in quantity of surface water; alter flow due to construction;
destruction of streams; effects on water quality parameters
Groundwater
Alter the rate or direction of groundwater flow; alter the quality or
quantity of groundwater; impact on recharge area or recharge rate
Solid waste
Impact existing landfill capacity
Noise and vibration
Expose people or wildlife to noise; ground vibrations
Biological flora
Change to the diversity or productivity of vegetation; impact on
rare or endangered plant species; reduce acreage or create
damage to any agricultural crop; impact forests
Biological fauna
Reduce habitat or the numbers of unique, rare or endangered bird
or animal species; entrapment or impingement of animal life;
impact on existing fish population; barrier to the migration or
movement of animal or fish; cause emigration resulting in humanwildlife interaction problems
Recreation
Impact on fishing, boating, picnicking etc; creation of recreation
opportunities
Aesthetics
Impact on scenic views; impact on unique physical features;
impact on monuments
Archeological
Impact on destruction of historical, archeological, cultural and
palaeontological sites or objects
Health and safety
Potential health hazards; risk of accidents from explosion, release
of oil, radioactive materials, toxic substances etc
Socio-economy
Changes in income level; education; health care; change in
existing cultural pattern; alteration of location or distribution of
human population in the area; change in housing
Transportation
Changes in existing pattern of movements of men and materials
The second column in the checklist would note whether these
results would happen and the third column would note the affected
resources. The fourth column would note whether other past,
present or future non- project actions can affect any of the above

Table 3. Checklist for determination of impact significance
during scoping
y, z are standard deviations of lateral and vertical

concentration distribution respectively in meter and
A. An impact will be deemed to be significant if it has any of the

following possible attributes:
- Displacement or danger to any designated or protected
environmental feature
- Affecting many people
- Cause for some proven chronic health effect
H is the effective release height in meters.
B. If the impact does not have any of the possible three attributes
as above, consider the following questions:
- Will there be a large change in environmental condition?
- Will the impact extend over a large area?
- Will it affect many receptors other than people (fauna, flora,
facilities etc.)?
- Will the impact be unusual or unique in the area?
- Will the impact be permanent rather than temporary?
- Will it be difficult to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impact?
- Will it cause cumulative impact?
Sufficient details on these factors should be provided in the

scoping checklist to state why the impact is considered to be
significant or insignificant.
by the project-related impacts. However, the information on these other actions can only be incorporated
into this checklist after taking into account the appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries of the
assessment.
The checklist contains a column that gives the
significance of the identified impacts. The information in this column should be supplied using the
checklist given in Table 3 that qualitatively determines the significance of the identified impacts
based on a set of questions. This checklist has two
components, A and B. Under component A, there
are three questions to be asked for each of the identified impacts. If the impact has any of the attributes
under component A, it is automatically deemed to be
significant. If it does not satisfy any of these attributes, the impact should be evaluated based on the
questions under component B. Sufficient details
should be provided to decide why the impact is
deemed to be significant or not.
Air quality impact zone
If pollutants are emitted from a point source, then
the basic Gaussian plume model gives the concentration of pollutant at a point x meters downwind, y
meters crosswind and at an elevation z meters with
respect to the source as:
C(x,y,z) = [QK/(2uyz )][exp-0.5(y/y)2]
[exp-0.5((zH)/z)2+ exp-0.5((z+H)/z)2]
(1)
where: C(x,y,z) is pollutant concentration at (x,y,z) in

mass per unit volume
Q is pollutant emission rate at (0,0,0) in mass per
unit time
K is a scaling coefficient to convert calculated
concentrations to desired units (default value of
1106 for Q in g/s and concentration in g/m3)
The plume spreads three-dimensionally into the atmosphere, thereby giving progressively reducing
concentration values at increasing downwind and
crosswind distances. When the receptor point is located at ground level (z=0), the concentration at the
plume centerline (y=0) is given by:
C(x,0,0) = [QK/(uyz )]exp[-0.5(H/z)2]
(2)
This concentration value at the plume centerline at

any point on the downwind side is higher than at any
point that is at crosswind distance y from the centerline for the same downwind distance. Therefore, for
the purpose of determining the maximum distance
up to which a pollutant can spread in the atmosphere, making conservative estimates, ground-level
concentration at receptors downwind and on the centerline should be considered.
y and z, the standard deviations of lateral and vertical concentration distribution can be calculated with
the help of the following equations (Martin, 1976):
y = ax0.894
(3)
z = cx d + f
(4)
The values of different constants are given in Table 4.

The values of y and z are functions of the parameter atmospheric stability categories. This parameter influences the movement of pollutants in the
atmosphere and is a function of horizontal wind
speed and vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere. While category A represents highly unstable atmospheric conditions when the greatest
amount of spreading occurs, category F denotes the
least amount of spreading under the most stable
atmospheric conditions.
For any project, the emission rate of suspended
particulate matter (SPM), Q, is calculated following
the emission rate formula for the overall mine as
given in Table 5. The average release height of SPM
above surrounding ground, H, is to be noted from
the mine location details and the values of y, z for
C stability category (which represents the average
stability conditions) calculated using equation 3 and
equation 4 respectively.
With the calculated values of these parameters
at different downwind distances x km, C(x,0,0) is
calculated. When the value of C(x,0,0) becomes nearly
10 g/m3, the corresponding x may be considered as
the radius of the project impact zone. The value of
10 g/m3 is chosen somewhat arbitrarily considering
fact that the actual concentration will be much lower
because of deposition along the pathway of travel
and within vegetation layers. As a result, the air
quality impact zone of the project that is calculated
239

Table 4. Values of parameters for calculating standard deviation of concentration distribution
x 1km
Stability category
A
B
C
D
E
F
213
156
104
68
50.5
34
440.8
106.6
61
33.2
22.8
14.35
1.941
1.149
0.911
0.725
0.678
0.740
x 1km
f
9.27
3.3
0
1.7
1.3
0.35
459.7
108.2
61
44.5
55.4
62.6
2.094
1.098
0.911
0.516
0.305
0.180
9.6
2.0
0
13.0
34.0
48.6
Source: Martin (1976)
by this method would be a conservative estimate

only.
Moreover, due consideration should be given to
prominent wind directions too, since receptors located in the downwind directions of the project are
far more likely to be affected by air pollution than
the receptors located on the upwind side. The identified impact zone of each project may be delineated
using the buffering capability of GIS and overlaid on
Table 5. Empirical formula for emission rate of each activity
in opencast mining projects
Activity
Empirical equation
Drilling
E= 0.0325 [{(100m)su}/{(100s)m}]0.1 (df)0.3
Overburden
loading
E= [0.018{(100m)/m}1.4 {s/(100s)}0.4 (uhxl)0.1]
Coal/mineral
loading
E=[{(100m)/m}0.1{s/(100
s)}0.3h0.2{ul/(0.2+1.05u)}{xl/(15.4+0.87xl)}]
Haul road
E=[{(100m)/m}0.8{s/(100
s)}0.1u0.3{2663+0.1(v+fc)}106]
Transport
road
E=[{(100m)s}/{m(100
s)}]0.1u1.6{1.64+0.01(v+fc)}106]
Overburden
unloading
E=[1.76h0.5{(100m)/m}0.2{s/(100s)}2u0.8(cy)0.1]
Coal/mineral
unloading
E=0.023[{(100m)sh}/{m(100s)}]2(u3cy)0.1
Exposed
overburden
dump
E=[{(100m)/m}0.2{s/(100
s)}0.1{u/(2.6+120u)}{a/(0.2+276.5a)}]
Stock yard
E={(100m)/m}0.1{s/(100
s)}{u/(71+43u)}[{cy/(329+7.6cy)}+{lx/(30+900lx)}]
0.4 2
0.3
Coal handling E=[{(100m)/m} {a s/(100s)} {u/(160+3.7u)}]
plant
Workshop
E=[0.064{(100m)/m}1.8{as/(100
s)}0.1{u/(0.01+5u)}104]
Exposed pit
surface
E=[2.4{(100m)/m}0.8{as/(100s)}0.1{u/(4+66u)}10
4
]
Overall mine
(for SPM)
E=[u0.4a0.2{9.7+0.01p+b/(4+0.3b)}]
Notes:
Source:
240
m=moisture content (%), s=silt content u=wind speed

(m/s), d=hole diameter (mm), f=frequency (no of
holes/day), h=drop height (m), l=size of loader (m3),
v=average vehicle speed (m/s), c=capacity of dumpers
or unloader (t), a=area (km2), y=frequency of unloading
(no/h), x=frequency of loading (no/h), p=coal/mineral
production (Mt/year), b=OB handling (mm3/year)
E=emission rate (gm/s)
Chakrabarty et al (2002)
the resources map of the area to identify areas or

other resources likely to be affected by air pollution.
Analysis of impacts
Scoping of impacts using the questionnaire checklist
supported by GIS delineates some areas that are potentially vulnerable to cumulative impacts. The next
requirement of CIA is to assess the effects of multiple actions on the resources over these areas. However, it is not necessary to predict the environmental
impacts of future projects and activities in detail.
Such assessments should be limited to the extent that
is feasible and reasonable under the circumstances.
One of the prerequisites of cumulative impact
analysis is that, wherever possible, impacts should be
quantified using some acceptable methods or tools. If
cause and effect cannot be quantified, qualitative
evaluation procedures may be used. This may happen
frequently as many relationships are poorly understood and few site-specific data may be available
(CEQ, 1997). Although mining projects can potentially affect many environmental resources, for the
purpose of quantification of impacts in the current
work, only air quality (SPM) has been considered.
The focus of the current work has been more on
the methodological aspect than on the validity or acceptability of any particular model. However, SPM
concentrations can be best predicted using the Industrial Source Complex Short-term version 3 (ISCST3)
model of the United States Environment Protection
Agency (USEPA), which is a recommended model
for regulatory purposes in simple terrain (USEPA,
2001).
ISCST3 provides options to model emissions
from a wide range of sources that might be present
at a typical industrial source complex, including
point, area, line and open pit sources. The particulate
emissions in a typical opencast mine complex may
result mainly from haul and transport roads, exposed
overburden dumps or mineral stockpiles, drilling and
loading operations in excavated pits and so on.
ISCST3 can model emissions from all these sources
with special provision for modeling of emission
from open pit quarries.
The model should be run twice. The first run
would predict the SPM concentration at the receptors located within the impact zone of the project
under study, while the second run would predict the

concentrations at the receptors located within the
cumulative impact zone.
Operation of the other mining projects

in the vicinity and associated
operations such as increased
frequency of ore transportation were
considered to be those that may
contribute to cumulative impact on air
quality with no consideration given to
non-mining activities
Case study
General information
To illustrate the methodology developed for CIA in
general and cumulative air quality impact in particular, a case study was conducted at Jilling Langalota
(JL) iron ore mine in the Keonjhar district of Orissa in
the eastern part of India. The mine is located in the
thick of a mining belt with a cluster of mines around it
indicating high potential for cumulative impacts. The
lease area of the mine has common boundaries with
Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), Pattanayak Minerals (PMP), and N L Rungta (NLR) mines as shown
in Figure 2. The mine uses a mechanized method of
working drilling and blasting, loading with frontend loaders, and transportation of ore and overburden
in dumpers. An ore handling plant with crusher is installed within the lease area for rehandling of ore.
The scope of the primary assessment was limited
to the impacts arising from the construction, operation and closure of the mine itself along with the associated ore handling and transportation operations.
The principal sources of SPM in a mining area are
the emissions from various working areas in the
mines. Accordingly, operation of the other mining
projects in the vicinity and associated operations
such as increased frequency of ore transportation
were considered to be those that may contribute to
st
re
Fo
ve
er
es
R
o
ar
K
Lakrhaghat Reserve Forest
d
oa
tR
or
p
s
an
Tr
Barbil
e
n
i
yL
a
w
l
ai
R
Thakurani Reserve Forest
st
re
Fo
ev
r
e
s
e
R
ht a mah
ddiS
Joda
JL Mine
r
vie
R
PMP Mine
a
n
u
S
cumulative impact on air quality with no consideration given to non-mining activities.

Although the JL mine is an operating mine, for
the purpose of this work it was assumed to be a new
project for which EIA would be required. The same
also applies to the other mining projects considered
for the assessment of cumulative impacts. This was
necessary for two reasons, first, lack of availability
of mines in the planning stage, and secondly, the
propriety of information for such mines even when
they are available. Consequently, this should be construed not as a full-scale impact assessment for actual projects but only as a demonstration of the
developed methodology. Nevertheless, from the
standpoint of scientific analysis, the study qualifies
to be a representative tool to depict the outcome of
the mining activities involved.
Moreover, the study was based entirely on secondary information and no primary environmental
NLR Mine
B
ai
at
r
n
i
R
e
s
e
vre
F
o
r
e
s
t
OMC Mine
i
nr
ati
a
B
River
LOCATION OF JL MINE
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5 km
Figure 2. Location plan of JL, NLR, PMP and OMC mines
241
data was generated. However, in some cases, the

actual information was not available and some
hypothetical data were considered without sacrificing the basic structure or purpose of the work. All
the plans of the study area were prepared by digitizing the Survey of India topographic sheets of scale
1:50000 using Geomedia Professional 3.0 GIS
software.
Scoping for impact assessment

The scoping process comprised of identifying the
likely impacts of the JL mine, the environmental resources or human communities that can be potentially affected by these impacts, the potential
cumulative impacts resulting from the operation of
the mine in combination with the other mines, and
the significant impacts requiring further attention in
the later stages of the process.
The various project actions that may result from
the development, operation, and decommissioning of
the JL mine were identified by drawing up a checklist using the items given in Table 1 and the resultant
checklist is presented in Table 6. After compilation

of the columns in Table 6, based on the available
secondary information, the following project actions
for JL mine were identified:
change of land use within the lease area;
removal of a small portion of forest in the northern part of the lease;
construction of a power line from Banspani to the
mine site;
groundwater removal for washing and drinking
purposes;
construction of office and other buildings;
provision of water supply, medical as well as welfare facilities;
provision of direct and indirect job opportunities;
surface run off from the hills;
removal and storage of top soil outside the ultimate pit limit;
overburden (OB) removal by drilling-blasting and
loading at pit;
ore removal by drilling-blasting and loading at pit;
disposal of solid waste generated at the colony;
Table 6. Checklist for identification of project components of JL mine
Will the project involve the following major

activities?
Yes/No Details of action
Stage of occurrence
Land acquisition and creation of new land use
Yes
Removal of vegetation
Yes
Demolition of important structures

Impoundment, culverting, realignment or other
changes to the hydrology of the water courses
Closure/diversion of existing transport route or
creation of new transport route
Closure/diversion of other utilities or creation of
new utilities such as power line, pipeline
Ground water removal
No
No
Land acquisition will lead to change of land use within Construction

the lease area
A small portion of forest land on the northern part of the Operation
lease will be removed
No such structures exist
No such changes will be required
No
The road to the area exists
Yes
Power line will be constructed from Banspani
Operation
Yes
Ground water will be drawn for drinking and cleaning

purposes
Office and other buildings will be constructed
Construction/operation
Civil construction work for surface or

underground structures
Provision of civic amenities such as housing,
school, medical facilities, water
Provision of direct or indirect employment
opportunities
Surface run off
Topsoil and subsoil removal and storage
Yes
Yes
Overburden removal and loading at pit
Yes
Ore removal and loading at pit
Yes
Disposal of solid waste

Disposal of liquid effluents
Overburden transportation from pit
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ore transportation from pit
Yes
Overburden dumping
Ore storage
Operation of ore handling plant
Operation of other ancillary equipment
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Tailings disposal
Reclamation
No
Yes
Post-mining use of the site
No
242
Yes
Yes
Yes
Operation
Power, housing, water supply and a small medical

facility shall be provided at the mine
The project will involve creation of direct and indirect
jobs
Rainwater will flow down the hill mainly towards the East Construction/operation
Soil will be removed and stored separately outside
Operation
the ultimate pit limit
Overburden will be removed by drilling and blasting.
Operation
Blasted OB will be loaded into dumpers by shovels
Ore will be removed by drilling and blasting. Blasted
Operation
OB will be loaded into dumpers by shovels
Solid waste will mainly come from the colony
Operation
Effluents will mainly generate from workshop
Operation
Overburden transportation will be limited from the
Operation
working pits to the dumps
Ore will be transported from pit to OHP and from OHP Operation
to railway siding
Separate overburden dumps will be created
Operation
Ore storage facility will be maintained beside the OHP Operation
An OHP will be in operation
Operation
No other ancillary equipment will operate other than the
dozers
No tailings will be generated
Backfilling of the waste will cover a portion of the
Closure
excavated pit and vegetation will grow over it
No such planning has been done
disposal of liquid effluents generated from the

workshop;
overburden transportation from pit to dumps;
ore transportation from pit to railway siding via
ore handling plant (OHP);
dumping of OB;
ore storage facility;
operation of OHP;
backfilling of the waste to cover a portion of the
depression and revegetation;
Almost all the activities arising from construction,
operation, or closure of the JL mine are likely to
cause impacts on the surrounding environment, both
beneficial and adverse. The next step is to identify
these project-related impacts and the affected resources. The items in Table 2 were used to draw up
a questionnaire checklist for identification of direct
project-related impacts, the affected environment
and, for each of the identified impacts, where the
components of the project and environment interact.
The first three columns of the resultant checklist
given in Table 7 contain this information. The fourth
column helped in identification of the actions from
other projects that may cumulatively affect the same
resources affected by the JL mine. The probable project-related impacts of the mine, both adverse and
beneficial, as identified thorough Table 7 are:
soil erosion in the area resulting from removal
of topsoil and vegetation aided by natural precipitation;
temporary change in topography of the area;
change in land use in the area resulting from land
acquisition;
air pollution, mainly from particulate, in the surrounding villages as a result of a number of activities such as top soil removal and storage, OB and
ore removal, loading and transportation, OB
dumping, and the operation of ore handling plant;
destruction of some natural drains resulting
mainly from top soil removal;
deterioration in the water quality of the Dalko
nalla and Baitarani river system as the surface run
off may carry sediments and workshop effluents
may contain oil and grease;
alteration in groundwater availability due to
withdrawal;
noise pollution from the operation of machines
and trucks in the villages and forest areas surrounding the mine and transport road resulting
from ore and OB removal, loading and transportation, and operation of the ore handling plant;
blast-induced ground vibrations;
damage to agricultural crop productivity in the surrounding villages from particulate deposition in agricultural land and degradation of surface water
quality as agriculture is dependent on surface water;
impact to Baitarani forest lying north of the lease
resulting from removal of vegetation;
impingement on animal life in the forest from
increased noise and blast-induced ground

vibrations;
barrier to the migration route of elephants as the
ore transportation through the transport route and
railway line would run through the forests;
emigration of elephant community in the villages
since the migration route and habitat of the elephants would be disturbed;
visual impact from vegetation removal, topsoil
removal and the external dumps;
health hazard to the villagers from air pollution
and increased noise level;
risk of accidents as a result of increased traffic
movement on the road;
increase in the income level of the local community from direct and indirect employment;
access to better health care facilities to the local
population;
alteration in the population distribution in the area
as many outside people may be employed.
In a situation where all the four mines are located in

close proximity, it is likely that the project-related impacts of the JL mine would also lead to cumulative impacts in the area. Accordingly, it is seen from the
fourth column of Table 7 that the impacts of the project actions in the other three mines combine with the
impacts of the JL mine in a synergistic manner resulting in cumulative impacts in the area for most of the
environmental resources. However, all these impacts
may not be significant warranting further attention
during subsequent phases of the EIA process. For
identification of the probable significant impacts the
criteria set out in Table 3 were applied in the last column of Table 7 and the significant adverse impacts
identified through the process are:
large-scale soil erosion in the hills of the region;
air pollution in the villages of the area;
deterioration of the water quality of Baitarani
river;
exposure of villagers to increased noise level;
potential health hazard to the villagers.
The focus of the current work was on air quality
impact assessment. The villages that could be vulnerable to air pollution and those where the effect of
The focus was on air quality impact

assessment: the villages that could be
vulnerable to air pollution and those
where the effect of air pollution could
be cumulative were identified through
the delineation of air quality impact
zones
243

Table 7. Questionnaire checklist for identification of environmental impacts of JL mine and cumulative impacts
Will the project actions

result in any of the
following impacts?
Physical environment
landform
Landslide and land
subsidence
Erosion of soil due to
increased wind, flood,
removal of vegetation
Change in existing
topography
Land use
Alteration of existing or
proposed land use of an
area
Impact on or destruction
of, wetland
Air
Impact of air quality due
to gases, particulate etc
Surface water
Change in quantity of
surface water
Alter flows due to
construction
Destruction of streams
Effect on water quality

parameters
Ground water
Alter the rate and direction
of ground water flow
Alter the quality of ground
water
Alter the quantity of

ground water
Yes/no/maybe and
reasons for the same
If yes or maybe, the

resource or area to be
affected
Other past, present, or Is the impact likely to be

future actions that may
significant? Why?
contribute to the impact
No: available information

does not support this
Yes: removal of vegetation Lease area
and topsoil removal aided
by natural precipitation may
cause erosion of soil
Yes: existing topography of Lease area
the area will change
temporarily
Topsoil removal at other

mines may contribute to
soil erosion
Yes: t he rate of erosion

may be substantial and the
impact is cumulative
Working at other mines

will change the local
topography
Not likely: although the

effect may be large,
regional, and cumulative, it
will be temporary
Yes: land use within the

Lease area
lease area will be affected,
as land will be acquired for
mining purpose
The combined effect of all

the mines will result in
change of existing land
use in the entire area
Not likely: the change may

be regional and cumulative
but does not interfere with
future land use planning in
the area
Area lying within the air

Yes: air quality in the
surrounding area may
quality impact zone
deteriorate due to
particulate emissions from
a number of activities
The villages within the

cumulative air quality
impact zone will
experience cumulative
impact
Yes: the magnitude of the

impact may be large and
may extend regionally or
affect many receptors;
however, mitigation of the
impact is possible with
known environmental
management solutions
No: no surface watercourse

will be harnessed
No: no surface water
system will be diverted
Maybe: some small natural Top and slope of the hills
drains within the leasehold
may be disturbed
The other mines may

contribute to such impact
in the area
No: the change will be very

nominal, affecting only a
part of the plateau; it will
not affect many other
resources
Maybe: the change may be
substantial, affecting the
regional water quality,
though some mitigation is
possible with practicable
management systems
No: no wetland exists in the

area
Baitarani river system

Yes: surface run off and
effluent water will flow
mainly down the hill slopes
and join the Baitarani river
system carrying suspended
particles; moreover, the soil
erosion may also increase
the sediment load in the
streams
No: water table occurs well
below the quarry floor level
No: ground water is
unlikely to be affected by
seepage and leaching of
minerals due to the
presence of an impervious
layer
Maybe: the daily
Water table in the area
requirement of water will be
met entirely from the
ground water withdrawal
Impact on recharge area

or recharge rate
No: ground water recharge

area will not be affected
Solid waste
Impact existing land fill
capacity due to filling by
solid waste
No: the existing land is not

used for filling by other
materials
The other mines may

contribute to the pollutant
load on the river system
Ground water withdrawal

at other mines may affect
groundwater availability in
the area
Maybe: the change may be

substantial, extend
regionally, affect many
people, and may be
cumulative in nature
(continued)
244

Table 7 (continued)
following impacts?
Noise and vibration
Expose people or wildlife
to noise
Ground vibrations
Yes/no/maybe and

affected
Yes: some of the

Noise impact zone
surrounding villages and surrounding the mine and
the animal life in the forests transport road
will be exposed to noise
from the operations of
various machines in the
mine and trucks on the
transport road
Yes: blasting will induce
Structures in the nearby
ground vibrations in the
villages
area
Biological flora
Change to the diversity or No: the vegetation removal
productivity of vegetation is not likely to change the
diversity or productivity of
vegetation in the forestland
Impact on rare or
No: no such species exist
endangered plant species
Agricultural land in the
Reduce acreage or create Yes: some part of the
damage to any agricultural lease area is agricultural villages lying within the
project impact zone
crop
land, and the effect of
particulate deposition and
degradation of water
quality in the Dalko nalla
may result in a reduction in
the crop production
Impact forests
Yes: vegetation removal
Forestland North of the
will cause reduction in the lease
forestland

significant? Why?
Extraction and transport

operations of other mines
will affect some the
receptors
Yes: the change may be

substantial, affecting many
receptors, extending
regionally and may cause
cumulative impacts in
certain areas
Though blasting will be

carried out at other mines
the effects are not
synergistic
Not likely: with modern

blasting technology the
effect is likely to be small,
localized, easy to mitigate,
and non-cumulative
Similar impacts from the

Not likely: the effect of
deposition on the crop yield
other mines may also
affect the agricultural land is expected to be low, and
it will not affect other
resources, will not be
difficult to mitigate at
source
None: other mines will not No: the change is very
be located in forestland
small, localized, easy to
mitigate, and no potential
for cumulative impacts
Biological fauna
Reduce habitat or the
No: the area is not
numbers of unique, rare or inhabited by such wildlife
endangered species of bird
and animals
Entrapment or
Yes: noise and vibrations Reserve forests in the area Similar effects from the
impingement of animal life may affect the animal life in
other mines
the forest
Impact on existing fish
population
Create barrier to the
migration or movement of
animal or fish
Cause emigration
resulting in human
wildlife interaction
problem
No: no fish breeding area

exists nearby
Yes: transportation through Reserve forests in the area
railways and road may
create barrier to the
migration route of
elephants
Yes: habitat reduction and Villages in the area
barrier to their migration
routes may cause
elephants to emigrate into
the villages
Not likely: the combined

level of noise and
vibrations in the forests is
likely to be low, localized,
and easy to mitigate
None, as transportation of Not likely: the effect is

ore from other mines will local, easy to mitigate, and
be through the same
non-cumulative
route
None, as transportation
of ore from other mines
will be through the same
route
Not likely; habitat reduction

is small, localized, and
non-cumulative
Topsoil removal and

dumping in other mines
will contribute to
cumulative impacts in the
area
Not likely: the effect may

be substantial, regional,
and cumulative; however,
the impact is temporary
only
Recreation
Impacts of fishing, boating No: the lease area is not
or picnicking etc
part of a tourist spot
Creation of recreation
No: no such plan exists
opportunities
Aesthetics
Impact of scene views
Yes: vegetation removal, Lease area

topsoil removal, and dumps
will create visual impact in
the area
Impact on unique physical No: no such features exist

features
Impact on monuments
No: no such structures
exist
(continued)
245

Table 7 (continued)
following impacts?
Yes/no/maybe and

affected

significant? Why?
Archaeological
Impact on, or destruction No: no such objects exist
of, historical, archeological,
cultural and
palaeontological sites or
objects
Health and safety
Potential health hazards
Risk of accidents due to

explosion, release of oil,
radioactive materials, toxic
substance etc
Socio-economy
Changes in income level
Education level
Health care
Change in existing cultural

pattern
Alteration of location or
distribution of human
population in the area
Change in housing
Transportation
Changes in existing
pattern of movements of
men and material
Maybe: the health hazards Villagers in the villages

to the villagers may come lying within the air quality
from exposure to dust and and noise impact zones
noise
Similar effects from other

cumulative impacts
Transport road
Maybe: increased
frequency of vehicle
movement in the road may
lead to accidents
Ore transportation from

other mines will also
contribute to increased
traffic flow
Yes: new direct and

indirect job opportunities
will be created
No: no education facility
will be created
Yes: health care facilities
will be provided to the
villagers
Local economy
The other mines will also

contribute to the increase
in income level
Yes: the impact is

beneficial and benefits the
entire local community
Local community
Creation of medical
facilities in some of the
other mines may benefit
the local community
Yes: the impact is

beneficial and benefits the
entire local community
No: no such change is

envisaged
Yes: deployment of outside Local community
laborers may change the
demography of the area
No: housing will be
provided for employees
only
Maybe: if the values of the

particulate concentration or
noise are high enough, this
may affect many receptors,
and cause cumulative
impacts
Not likely: the impact is not
unusual and is not unique
to the area.
Similar deployment in other Not likely: the change

would be small
the change in demography
No: the road already exists
air pollution could be cumulative were identified

through the delineation of air quality impact zones.
The air quality impact zones were calculated
based on the approach explained previously and are
presented for all four mines in Table 8. The impact
zones were delineated using the buffering capability
of GIS software and overlaid on the receptor map as
shown in Figure 3. As seen from the figure, of the 22
villages within the study area, 21 lie within the air
quality impact zone of the JL mine, while 19 fall
within the impact zones of all the mines, that is, the
cumulative air quality impact zone. Since the
boundaries of the impact zones are only approximate

these should serve only as rough estimates.
Although all these villages may be potentially subjected to cumulative impacts, in practice, the level
of impacts may not be significant for villages lying
in the upwind directions. However, no significant Table 7. Questionnaire checklist for identification of
environmental impacts of JL mine and cumulative
impacts prominent wind directions could be identified from the available meteorological data. Hence,
cumulative air quality assessment should be done for
all 19 villages.
Table 8. Calculation of air quality impact zones for JL, OMC, NLR and PMP mines
Mine
name
Average wind
speed (m/s)
Sigma Y
(m)
Sigma Z
(m)
H
(m)
Q
(gm/s)
JL
OMC
NLR
PMP
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
104
104
104
104
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
546.71
592.31
561.96
469.67
330.95
359.10
340.36
283.89
10
10
10
10
17.6
20.6
19.0
12.7
246
C
Impact zone
(microgram/m3)
(km)
9.67
9.63
9.88
9.48
6.4
7.0
6.6
5.4

Kamarjora
Inganijaran
Bicchakundi
Khuntapani
Banshapani
Sargitalia
Air quality impact zone for JL Mine
Chilkapata
Jalhari
JL Mine
Bholberha
Jururhi
Khandabandh
Jajang 1
Jajang 2
Jaribahal
NLR Mine
Bandhuaberha
Gurda
PMP Mine
Palsha 1
Air quality impact zone for NLR Mine

Kamalpur
Guruthan
Bamebari
Palsha 2
OMC Mine
Bhandaridihi
Air quality impact zone for PMP Mine
Air quality impact zone for OMC Mine
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.5 km
Figure 3. Air quality impact zones of JL, NLR, PMP, and OMC
Air quality impact analysis

The SPM concentrations at the villages around the
JL mine were predicted using the ISCST3 model.
The model was run twice, once assuming the functioning of the JL mine alone and then assuming the
functioning of the other mines OMC, PMP, and
NLR jointly with the JL mine. The data input to
the model are:
Source data The source data required as model input are the locations of various sources of SPM in
the mines, their dimensions and emission rates. For
cumulative impact assessment it is sufficient to have
only approximate locational and design information
for the other mines since detailed designs may not be
available at the stage. Location and dimension details were obtained from the digitized maps in GIS.
Emission rates for different types of sources were
calculated using formulae given in Table 5.
Since the ISCST3 model accepts area and open pit
sources as rectangles with aspect ratio not exceeding
10:1, these sources were approximated as rectangles
without much of change in the area or location. Haul
and transport roads were also approximated into a
number of area segments assuming the width to be
around 10 meters for haul roads and 20 meters for
transport roads.
In addition, there are a number of point sources in
the mines. However, these are not true point sources
as per the definition of different sources given in the
model. Rather, they can be assumed to be part of the
emissions from the corresponding area or open pit
sources and calculated emission rates from these
sources were added to the corresponding area or
open pit sources where they are located. The approximated sources for modeling purpose are shown
in Figure 4 for all the mines.
Receptor data Locations of various villages around
the mine were taken from the GIS database while the
data on the intervening terrain were taken from the
Survey of India topographic sheet of the area.
Meteorological data Hourly records of meteorological parameters, such as wind speed and direction,
and temperature, were collected from the environmental data records as available with the mines authority. Data on hourly mixing heights and stability
classes were taken from published literature (NEERI,
1990). However, some special meteorological data
such as Monin-Obukov length, surface friction length
and surface friction velocity are required for modeling
of open pit sources. These were processed from the
basic meteorological data using the PCRAMMET
meteorological data processing utility of USEPA. The
first 24 hours of meteorological data used in the
model are shown in Table 9.
Using all this information, the input runstream
files were created and the model was run. The
predicted emission level information for all the receptors within the study area both for the JL mine
alone and cumulative sources are given in Table 10.
It can be seen that the predicted 24-hour average
SPM concentrations considering emissions from the
JL mine alone at most of the villages would be low.
However, at three of the villages Khuntapani,
Jalhari, and Jururhi situated near the mine these
are expected to be around 299 microgram/m3, 179 microgram/ m3, and 260 microgram/ m3 respectively.
247
Drilling point (15)

OB loading point (10)
OB unload point (9)
Ore loading point (10)
Ore unload point (4)
Railway siding (1)
Haul road (158)
Ore handling plant (4)
Transport road (91)
OB dump (32)
Open pit quarry (14)
Lease area (4)
0.00
0.75
1.50
2.25 3.00
3.75 km
Figure 4. Sources of emission in JL, NLR, PMP, and OMC mines for modeling
Since no baseline data were available for these villages, we used 100 microgram/ m3, which is a typical
value for rural areas in India. This means that the total
concentration at these villages would exceed the
maximum allowable 24-hour average concentration
of 200 microgram/m3 for rural areas set out in the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
However, the cumulative concentration values at
many of the villages would be quite high compared to
their values when the impact of the JL mine alone is
considered. This is more pronounced in the villages of
Banshpani, Khuntapani, Chilkapata, Jalhari, Jurhuri,
Jaribahal, Jajang 1, Bamebari, Palsha 1, Kamarjhora,
and Palsha 2. This is mainly because of a large increase in the regional emission level when all four
mines are in operation. Moreover, at Banshpani, Jaribahal, Jajang 1, Bamebari, and Palsha 1, the concentrations resulting from the JL mine alone are
insignificant, but, when the effects of all the mines are
considered, they become quite significant.
The SPM concentration values given in Table 10
are predicted values only, based on the assumption of
the validity of both the ISCST3 model itself and the
emission rates and other data input into it. Moreover,
the prediction is based on the worst-case scenario,
considering all the possible sources emitting particulate at the same time. Also, the meteorological
248
data were taken for one season only and the deposition of particulate in the intervening terrain was
not considered. All these factors make the prediction
a little pessimistic. Therefore, the actual level of
SPM may be lower than these predicted values.
Nevertheless, this may serve as a representation of
the actual condition.
Discussion
The main objective of the proposed methodology is to
suggest the practical means of addressing cumulative
impacts within the general EIA framework. Application of the proposed methodology to the case study
reveals some of the important benefits and successes
of the methodology in attaining its stated objective.
Scoping, as demonstrated here, was carried out effectively using the questionnaire checklist and GIS. The
process yielded both the project-related impacts and
identified the important resources where potential
cumulative impacts may result. The method could
also identify the more important impacts that would
warrant further attention during the subsequent
phases of the assessment.
The modeling of different environmental components has progressed a great deal during the last few

Table 9. First 24-hour meteorological data for ISCT3 model run
Hour Flow vector

(Degree)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
225
225
225
225
270
270
292.5
360
45
22.5
360
337.5
315
315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Air velocity Temperature

(m/s)
(K)
0.53
1
1.17
1.2
1.17
0.94
0.78
0.92
0.81
0.75
0.78
0.56
0.53
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stability
288
289.5
293
297
303
307
308.5
309
308
307
300
297
294.5
293
293
292.5
292
292
291.5
289.5
288
288
288
288.5
Mixing height
(m)
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
years. The analysis of air quality impacts was facilitated by the proper use of models such as the
ISCST3 model used here because it has provisions
for specifically addressing the emissions from opencast mines. Also, the use of GIS, as demonstrated
here, could be quite beneficial to CIA not only
during scoping for delineation of impact zones but
during the analysis phase as well.
However, the methodology as applied to the case
study has its fair share of shortcomings. First, it requires a set of data for its proper demonstration, but
data availability has been a key factor preventing the
application of the methodology to the case study to
Table 10. Predicted 24-hour average SPM values at different
villages from JL mine alone and all mines
combined
Name of
village
Banshapani
Khuntapani
Sargitalia
Chilkapata
Jalhari
Bholberha
Jururhi
Khandabandh
Jaribahal
Jajang 1
Bandhuaberha
Kamalpur
Gurutuan
Bhandaridihi
Bamebari
Palsha 1
Gurda
Jajang 2
Palsha 2
From JL mine alone

(micrograms/m3)
15
299
5
9
179
51
260
71
55
42
6
4
3
1
0
2
5
10
3
All mines combined

(micrograms/m3)
109
409
19
82
277
72
348
76
226
634
13
5
7
5
254
245
64
33
58
600
600
700
800
1000
1100
1200
1400
1400
1400
1200
1000
800
800
700
600
500
500
400
400
500
500
500
500
Friction velocity
(m/s)
0.0367
0.0378
0.0378
0.0378
0.0378
0.0378
0.0367
0.0378
0.2325
0.2479
0.2543
0.2579
0.2557
0.2478
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M-O length Surface roughness

(m)
length (m)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
28.2
16.2
14.2
13.2
13.8
16.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
its fullest extent. The deficiency of data started with

the choice of site. Since no mine in the planning
stage was available for application of the methodology, it was applied on operating mines only. Therefore, the case studies incorporated in the work, while
adequately demonstrating the efficiency of the developed methodology, cannot be treated as a full-scale
impact assessment.
The ISCST3 model used in the study is a model
developed in the USA. Although it has provisions
for predicting the effects of emissions from opencast
mines, it has not been validated in Indian conditions.
The Geomedia Professional software used in the
study is a vector GIS: although it is adequate for carrying out the tasks as detailed, to utilize the full potential of GIS for impact assessment and especially
for visual presentation of the results, software with
raster capability is preferable. With this capability,
digital elevation models or isopleths of the concentration values could have been generated.
Conclusion
The proposed methodology seeks to suggest ways
through which the CIA of opencast mining projects
in general, and cumulative air quality impact assessment in particular, can be carried out in a simple
yet effective manner. Specifically, the method deals
with the practical means of addressing cumulative
impacts within the general EIA framework. Two issues have been given special attention in the process
scoping and analysis of impacts. For identification of cumulative impacts during scoping, the use
of questionnaire checklists has been suggested.
To supplement the impact identification process, a
249
practical way of delineating project impact zones for

air quality using GIS has also been described.
Analysis of air quality impact for opencast mining
projects, it has been argued, should be done through
the proper use of models such as ISCST3.
Cumulative impact assessment has been made an
integral part of EIA legislative requirements in many
nations across the world. However, in India, this requirement has still not been incorporated in the EIA
notifications of the Ministry of Environment and
Forests. As the study reveals, many of the detrimental environmental impacts may occur by not properly
addressing the potential of cumulative impacts. It is
recommended that in future cumulative impacts
should be included in the EIA process in India as it
leads to best practice, enhances the effectiveness of
EIA by aiding in the decision-making process, and
finally contributes to sustainable development.
References
Canter, L W, and J Kamath. (1995), Questionnaire checklist for
cumulative impacts, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, pages 311339.
CEAA, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (1999),
Cumulative effects assessment practitioners guide, Canadian Environmental Agency, Hull, Quebec, Catalogue No
En106-44/1999E.
CEQ, Council on Environmental Quality (1978), National Environmental Policy Act regulations, Federal Register 43(230):
55, 978-56,007.
250
CEQ, Council on Environmental Quality (1997), Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act,
Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the
President, Washington DC, available at <http://www.ceq.eh.
doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.html>, last accessed January
2003.
Chakraborty, M K, M Ahmad, R S Singh, D Pal, C Bandopadhyay
and S K Chaulya (2002), Determination of the emission rate
from various opencast mining operations, Environmental
Modeling and Software, 17, pages 467480.
ECDGXI, European Commission Director General XI (Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection) (1999), Guidelines
for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well
as impact interactions, available at <http://www.europa.eu.
int/comm/environment/eia/eia-support.htm>, last accessed
January 2003.
Everitt, B (1995), Scoping of environmental impact assessments, paper presented to EIA Process Strengthening
Workshop, Canberra, 47 April.
Hilden, M (1996), Evaluation of the significance of environmental
impacts, paper presented to EIA Process Strengthening
Workshop, Canberra, 47 April.
Mahatha, S, and P Dutta (2003), Incorporating cumulative impact
concerns into EIAs, Mining Environmental Management,
11(2), pages 1621.
Martin, D O (1976), Comment on The change of concentration
standard deviations with distance, Journal of Air Pollution
Control Association, 26, pages 145147.
NEERI, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
(1990), Comprehensive environmental impact assessment of
Manuguru coalfields, NEERI, Nagpur, India.
Sadler, B (1996), International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment, Final Report Environmental
assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance, available at <http://www.ea.gov.au/
assessments/eianet/eastudy/final/index.html>, last accessed
January 2003.
USEPA, United States Environment Protection Agency (2001),
Guidelines on air quality models, USEPA, 40 CFR, Part 51,
Appendix W.

147154604781765905

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

147154604781765905

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Anna University]

On: 22 January 2015, At: 00:20

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

A methodology for cumulative impact assessment of

Pratik Dutta , Sandip Mahatha & Parijat De

Department of Mining and Geology , Bengal Engineering College (Deemed University) ,

Government Engineering College , Kalyani , 741235 , India

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Opencast mining impact

Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015

A methodology for cumulative impact

cumulative impact assessment; opencast mining;

INCE ITS INTRODUCTION more than 30

Pratik Dutta (corresponding author) is Faculty Member and

the impact on the environment which results

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

1461-5517/04/030235-16 US$08.00 IAIA 2004

Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015

CIA of opencast mining projects

Methodology for CIA

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

CIA of opencast mining projects

An essential difference between the

Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015

Identify significant issues of concern associated with the

Identity spatial boundaries for the analysis

Define a baseline condition for the important regional resources

Assess the impacts of all actions on the resources

Recommend mitigation measured

Evaluate the significance of impacts after analysis

Monitor the cumulative impacts through regional monitoring

Figure 1. Tasks within the EIA framework to address cumulative impacts

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015

CIA of opencast mining projects

actions, projects that have been approved or are in

Land acquisition and creation of new land use

The checklist should consider whether or not these are involved

identification methods, such as matrices, checklists or

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

CIA of opencast mining projects

y, z are standard deviations of lateral and vertical

A. An impact will be deemed to be significant if it has any of the

H is the effective release height in meters.

Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015

Sufficient details on these factors should be provided in the

where: C(x,y,z) is pollutant concentration at (x,y,z) in

This concentration value at the plume centerline at

The values of different constants are given in Table 4.

CIA of opencast mining projects

Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015

Source: Martin (1976)

by this method would be a conservative estimate

E= 0.0325 [{(100m)su}/{(100s)m}]0.1 (df)0.3

E= [0.018{(100m)/m}1.4 {s/(100s)}0.4 (uhxl)0.1]

m=moisture content (%), s=silt content u=wind speed

the resources map of the area to identify areas or

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2004

CIA of opencast mining projects

under study, while the second run would predict the

Operation of the other mining projects

Downloaded by [Anna University] at 00:20 22 January 2015

Lakrhaghat Reserve Forest

Thakurani Reserve Forest