INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES MINERALS DEVELOPMEMT AND REGULATION DIVISION MCDR INSPECTION REPORT Bhubaneshwar regional office

Transcription

1 INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES MINERALS DEVELOPMEMT AND REGULATION DIVISION MCDR INSPECTION REPORT Bhubaneshwar regional office 1. Mine file No : (i) Name of Inspecting : Officer and ID No. (ii) Designation : (iii) Accompaning mine : Official with Designation ORI/IRON-MN/SNG/MCDR-11/BBS (iv) Date of Inspection : 14/07/2017 (v) Prev.inspection date : 28/01/2016 (a) Mine Name : NADIDIH (b) Registration NO. : (g) First opening date : 22/10/1967 S010 ( ) SHRI G.C. SETHI Deputy Controller Mines PART-I : GENERAL INFORMATION (c) Category : A Fully Mechanised (d) Type of Working : Opencast (e) Postal address State : ORISSA District : SUNDARGARH Village : NADIDIH Taluka : BONAIGARH Post office : GUALI(VIA)BARBIL Pin Code : FAX No. : rungta_bbl@yahoo.com Phone : /277441/277481, (f) Police Station : 2. Address for : correspondance KOIRA (h) Weekly day of rest : SAT NADIDIH IRON &MN MINE VILL-NADIDIH,PO-GUALI.DIST-SUNDERGARH ORISSA Mine code : 30ORI13011 Shri Abhijit Sen,AVP(Geo), Shri Ganesh Kr. Sah, Manag IBM/4570/ (a) Lease Number : ORI0126 (b) Lease area : (c) Period of lease : 20 (d) Date of Expiry : 10/12/ Mineral worked : IRON ORE MANGANESE ORE Main Associated

2 2 5. Name and Address of Lessee : Owner : Agent : Mining Engineer Name : Qualification : Appointment/ : Termination date Geologist Name : Qualification : Appointment/ : Termination date Manager Name : Qualification : Appointment/ : Termination date BONAI INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD P.O.BARBIL KEONJHAR ORISSA Phone: FAX : M D RUSTAGI RUNGTA OFFICE, MAIN ROAD BARBIL KEONJHAR, ORISSA KEONJHAR ORISSA Phone: FAX : A S MOHAPATRA RUNGTA OFFICE, MAIN ROAD BARBIL,KEONJHAR ODISHA KEONJHAR ORISSA Phone: FAX : INDRAJIT PANDA,Full Time B.E MINING 01/07/2017 LINGARAJ SAHOO,Full Time M.SC GEOLOGY 15/05/2015 GANESH SAH AMIE ( MINING) 1ST CLASS CERTIFICATE 30/06/ Date of approval of Mining : Mining Scheme rule 12 MCDR1988 Plan/Scheme of Mining Renewal under rule 24 MCR1960 Modif. Mining Plan Modif.approved Mining Scheme 30/05/ /05/ /02/ /01/2016

3 3 Exploration : PART - II : OBSERVATION/COMMENTS OF INSPECTING OFFICERS Sl.No. Item Proposals Actual work Remarks 1a Backlog of previous year In year , it was proposed to drill 14 nos. of bore holes as envisaged in During year , 14 nos. of coring bore holes were drilled as per modfication of approved No deviation in proposed exploration schedule during year b Exploration over lease area for geological axis 1 or 2 No specific proposal in 14 nos. of bore holes were drilled in mine during year c Exploration Agencies and Expenditure in lakh rupees during year The lessee M/s BI Co. Ltd is exploration agenecy for mine and re is no specific proposal for expenditure on account of exploration. During year , 14 nos. of boreholes were drilled in mine & Rs was spend for drilling above stated 14 nos. of bore holes. 1d Balance area to be explored to bring Geological axis in 1 or 2 As per mining, balance area of 2.40ha has not been explored. The balance area of 2.40ha to be explored. In of approved mining, drilling of 42 nos. of core bore holes are proposed during period from to However, balance area of 2.40ha still remains unexplored as per of approved

4 4 1e Balance reserve as on 01/04/20 In mining, reserves/reso urces for iron ore have been estimated as on and same is as fol;lows:- Proved reserves (111): million tonnes, Probable reserves(122) : 8.67 million tonnes & total remaining resources of 11.9 million tonnes. The reserves/ resources for iron ore as on is as given below:- Proved reserves(111):18.79 million tonnes, Probable reserves(122): 8.67 million tonnes & remaining resources of 11.9 million tonnes. The production of iron ore as on has been depleted from reserves estimated in of approved 1f General remarks of inspecting officers on geology, exploration etc In mining, 14 nos. of core bore holes were proposed to be drilled in year The Nadidih Iron & Manganese deposit forms a part of pre-cambrian sedimentary formation known as Iron ore series developed in Singhbhum-Keonjhar-Bonai area. The general strike of formation in Norrn Singhbhum is NNE-SSW but gradually changing over to NW-SE in eastern part and in adjoining area of Mayurbhanj. During year , 14 nos. of coring bore holes were drilled in lease area as per During year , 14 nos. of coring bore holes were drilled in lease area as per of approved

5 5 Development : Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks 2a 2b 2c 2d Location of development w.r.t.lease area Separate benches in topsoil, overburden and minerals (Rule 15) Stripping ratio or ore to OB ratio Quantity of topsoil generation in m3 (i) E/W-125 to -414 & N/S to -836 (ii) E/W 260 to -80 & N/S to There is no top soil in mine. However, separate benches for overburden & mineral zone are envisaged in The proposed Ore:OB ratio is 1: 0.06 (tonnes: cum) as envisaged in mining for year No proposal for topsoil generation in (i) E/W -132 to -414 & N/S -400 to -836 (ii) E/W 260 to -80 & N/S to Separate benches in overburden and in iron ore zone are made in both quarries available in mine. The actual Ore:OB ratio was 1: (tonnes:cum) No top soil was generated during year The actual location of developments with reforence to to proposed locations are by & large okey.

6 6 2e 2f Quantity of overburden generation in m3 General remarks of inspecting officers on development of pit w.r.t. type of deposit etc Only cum of of Over burden material was proposed to be generated in year as per No comments on proposed development of mine for year During year , cum of overburden material was generated. The production & development were lagging behind against proposal envisaged in of approved mining due to lack of market demand for low grade iron ore for aforesaid year. The generation of overburden material was in lower side due to low production from mine during year This is due to lack of market demand for low grade iron ore. The lessee could not develop mine to extent proposed in approved document due to lack of market demand of low grade iron ore. Exploitation: Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks 3a Number of pit proposed for production Two nos. of pits are proposed for production as per Two pits viz. Top pit-2 & Boulder pit were under operation during year b Quantity of ROM mineral production proposed In year , tonnes of ROM was proposed to be produced as envisaged in During year , tonnes of iron ore was produced. The iron ore production was much in lower side of proposed quantities due to lack of market demand for low grade ore as reported during field visit.

7 7 3c 3d 3e 3f 3g 3h Recovery of sailable/usable mineral from ROM production Quantity of mineral reject generation Grade of mineral rejects generation and threshold value declared. Quantity of sub grade mineral generation. Grade of sub grade mineral generation Manual / Mechanised method adopted for segregating from ROM 90% recovery was proposed in In year , cum of mineral reject/low grade was proposed to be generated as envisaged in The grade of mineral rejects/low grade varies from 45-55%Fe. No sub-grade generation proposal in approved document. Not applicable. Mechanised method is proposed to adopted for segregation from ROM. The reported recovery was about 88.07% of ROM. The mineral rejects were considered as low grade fines of 42.50% Fe contains, which were blended with high grade ore in process to make m salable. As such no separate mineral reject/low grade generation was reported during year The mineral rejects were considered as low grade fines of 42.50% Fe contains, which were blended with high grade ore in process to make m salable. As such no separate mineral reject/low grade generation was reported during year No sub-grade was generated during year No sub-grade was generated during year The same practice is being followed in mine. The mineral rejects/low grade ore generated was blended with high grade to make m salable.

8 8 3i Any analysis or beneficiation study proposed and carried out for sub grade mineral and rejects. No benefication study has been proposed in No such study was carried out in mine. 3j Provision of drilling and blasting in mineral benches Provisions for drilling by wagon drills of 110mm dia & blasting by putting explosives in drilled holes in mineral as well as in overburden benches are envisaged. Besides, 6 nos. of rock breakers are proposed to be deployed to break hard rock mass. The drilling & blasting are being practised as per approved document. Besides few rock breakers also in use to break hard rock mass encountered in benches.

9 9 3k 3l Provision of mining machineries in mineral benches Wher height of benches in overburden and mineral suitable for method of mining proposed in MP/SOM The following mining machineries are proposed to be deployed in mine. (i) Hydraulic excavator 3.5cum(4 nos.), Hydraulic excavator 2.5 cum(2 nos.), Hydraulic excavator 1.1cum (13nos.) Dumper 35 tonner (23 nos.), Dozer 300HP (1no.) Loader 1.7cum/2.1cum (14 nos.), Road Grader 150HP (1 no.), Rock breaker 45TPH (6nos.), Wagon drills 110mm dia(1no.), Compressor 750cfm (1 no.) Mobile screening plant 150TPH/300TPH (7 nos.) & Mobile crusher plant 150TPH/250TPH/ 100TPH (6 nos.) etc. The proposed height & width of benches are 8m & 12m respectively. As per annual return submitted by party for year , following mining machineries were deployed in mine. Hydraulic excavator 2.5cum (3 nos.),hydraulic excavator 1.1cum (12nos.), Rock breaker 45TPH (5nos.),Loader 2.1/1.7 cum (10nos.), Tipper/HYVA) 35 tonnes (22 nos.), Tractor mounted compressor 110cfm(1 no.), Motor grader (1 no.) etc. The height & width of benches are restricted to 8m & 12m respectively as per proposal. A good number of mining machineries were deployed in mine even if production & waste handling were in lowere side of proposed quantities.

10 10 3m 3n Total area covered under excavation/pits Ore to OB ratio for pit/mine during year ha at end of as envisaged in The proposed Ore:OB ratio was for 1:0.06 (tonnes: cum) for year An extent of ha area has been degraded by excavation/pits as indicated in annual return submitted by party for year The actual Ore:OB ration was for 1:0.054 (tonnes: cum) during year The achieved Ore:OB ration for year is satisfactory.

11 11 3o Total area put in use under different heads at end of year The item wise land use under different heads at end of year has not been furnished in However, land use at end of period i.e is as given below:- (i) Area to be excavated: ha (ii) Overburden/dum p: 11.94ha (iii) Mineral storage: 4.02ha (iv) Infrastructure & mine camp: 0.769ha (v) Road: 2.513ha (vi) Green belt: 4.575ha (vii) Tailing pond: 6.00ha & (viii) Mineral processing plant: 2.159ha. As per annual return submitted by party for year , land degradation status in different counts is as given below:- (i) Current opencast working: 33.90ha (ii) Reclaimed/rehabilitiated : 0.50ha (iii) Waste disposal: ha (iv) Ore processing unit, buildings etc.: 5.441ha & (v) Green belt etc.: ha.

12 12 3p 3q Production of ROM mineral during last five year period as applicable General remarks of inspecting officers on method of mining etc. As original mining approved for period from to & for to , production proposed for period from to is as given below: : tonnes from mine & cum from dump screening, : tonnes from mine & cum from dump screening, : tonnes from mine & tonnes from dump rehandling & : tonnes from mine & tonnes from dump rehandling. The method of mining was proposed for fully mechanised opencast methods. Actual production achieved during period from to is as given below: : tonnes, : tonnes : tonnes & : tonnes The mining operations were carried out by fully mechanised open cast method as per proposal envisaged in of approved During above four years achievements in production is lagging behind proposal due to lack of market demand for low grade iron ore.

13 13 Solid Waste Management - Dumping: Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks 4a 4b 4c Separate dumping of topsoil, OB and mineral rejects (Rule 32,33) Location of topsoil, OB and mineral reject dumps Number of dumps within lease area and outside of lease area There is no proposal for top soil generation from mine. However, OB & mineral reject (low grade ore) generated from th mine is proposed to dump separately as envisaged in The OB & waste was proposed to be dumped in dump-a. The mineral rejects (low grade) are salable after dry screening & provisions for stacking same also made in approved document. Dump-A is existing waste dump in lease area as per No top soil was generated from mine during year & no separate dump for same was made. The OB & waste generated was dumped in dump-a. The mineral rejects (low grade) generated from mine was salable after dry screening. The OB & waste generated was dumped in dump-a during year The mineral reject so generated was sold out/stacked in designated site as per of approved The existing dump-a is active dump in mine.

14 14 4d 4e 4f 4g 4h 4i 4j Location of dumps w.r.t. ultimate pit limit (Rule 16) Number of active and alive dumps. Number of dead dumps. Number of dumps established. Wher Retaining wall or garland drain all along dumps are re. Length of Retaining wall or garland drain all along dumps Number of settling ponds The dump-a has been proposed beyond ultimate pit limit as per Dump-A is proposed for active/alive dump as envisaged in No such proposal. One. The retaing wall & garland drains of 1.5m height & 1.5m width are proposed around dump as envisaged in No such specific proposal. No specific proposal. The dump-a was found located beyond ultimate pit limit. The lone existing dump viz. dump-a is considered as active dump. Dump-A The concrete retaining wall of above dimension has been constructed around dump as per proposal. The concrete retaining wall of 1.5m height & 1.5m width have already constructed around dump as found during inspection. No settling tank seen.

15 15 4k Specific comments of inspecting officer on waste dump management The waste dumping was proposed in dump-a as per proposal. Dumping is being done in dump-a as observed during inspection. Solid Waste Management - Backfilling: Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e Status of part or full extraction of mineral from mined out area before starting backfilling. Area under backfilling of mined out area Concurrent use of topsoil for restoration or of mineral out area (Rule 32) Total area fully reclaimed and rehabilitated General remarks of inspecting officers on backfilling and reclamation etc. A part of top- 2 pit was proposed to be backfilled in year An extent of 0.50ha of mined out area has been proposed to be backfilled in year No proposal for topsoil generation. No such proposal. An extent of 0.50ha of mined out area was proposed to be reclaimed in year No such backfilling was undertaken during year No backfilling was done during year No restoration has been done during year Not done during year No reclamation has been done during year as per proposal. Violation for not backfilling proposed location has been pointed out under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017. Violation under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017 has been pointed out. Violation for same has been pointed out under rule 11(1) of MCDR, Progressive Mine Clousre Plan: Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks

16 16 6a Wher Annual report on PMCP submitted on time and correctly. Rule 23 E(2). No such proposal in The annual report on PMCP for year has been submitted by party under rule 26(2) of MCDR, b Area available for (ha). No such specific proposal in approved document. 6c afforestation done (ha). In year , re are 10,000 nos. of saplings were proposed to be planted but no specific information about extent of plantation area is available. During year , nos. of saplings were planted within lease area. The actual plantation done during year is in higher side of proposed numbers. 6d No. of saplings planted during year nos. of saplings are proposed for year nos. of saplings were planted during year More plantation has been done during against proposed number. 6e Cumulative no.of plants No such proposal in commulatively, nos. of plantation has been done till end of year f Any or method of No such proposal. 6g Cost incurred on watch and care during year No such proposal. Not available.

17 17 6h 6i 6j 6k 6l 6m Compliance on reclamation and by backfilling (i) Voids available for backfilling ( Lx B x D Compliance on reclamation and by backfilling (ii) Voids filled by waste / tailings Compliance on reclamation and by backfilling (iii)afforestati on on backfilled area Compliance on reclamation and by backfilling (iv) Rehabilitation by making water reservoir Compliance on reclamation and by backfilling (v)any or specific means. Compliance of of waste land within lease (i)afforestation An extent of 0.50ha of mined out area was proposed to be backfilled in year An extent of 0.50ha of mined out area was proposed to be backfilled in year An extent of 0.50ha of mined out area was proposed to be backfilled in year No such proposal. No any or specific proposal nos. of saplings are proposed for year in lease area. No such backfilling was done during year No such backfilling was done during year No such backfilling was done during year No water reservior by way of measures has been made and no such proposal is given in Not applicable nos. of saplings were plantd during year Violation under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017 has been pointed out to party. Violation under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017 has been pointed out to party. Violation under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017 has been pointed out to party. More plantation has been done during year against proposal made in scheme of

18 18 6n 6o 6p 6q Compliance of of waste land within lease (ii)area (ha) Compliance of of waste land within lease (iii)method of Compliance of environmental monitoring (core zone and buffer zone) General remarks of inspecting officers on PMCP compliance and progressive closure operations etc. No such proposal. No such specific proposal for core zone and buffer zone has been furnished in No comments to offer. The ambient air quality, water quality, noise level, vibration level etc. were being monitored in every quarter and found within permissible limits. The reclamation over an extent of 0.50ha of mined out area could not completed as same was proposed for year Violation for not completing reclamation has been pointed out to party under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017. Mineral Conservation: Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks

19 19 7a ROM Mineral dispatch or grade-wise sorting within lease area The ROM produced from mining operation or from dump rehandling are processed through 7 nos. of dry screening units & 7 set of crushing units. The prossed ore (sized ore & fines) are n dispatched to buyers desitnation. The ROM produced from mining operations & re-handing of dumps are processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units and processed ore both sized & fines are supplied to prospective buyers. 7b Method of gradewise mineral sorting i.e. manual or mechanical. The ROM produced from mining operations & re-handing of dumps are processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units and processed ore both sized & fines are supplied to prospective buyers. The ROM produced from mining operations & re-handing of dumps were processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units and processed ore both sized & fines are supplied to prospective buyers. 7c Different grade of mineral sorted out at mines. The grades of ore proposed for +55%Fe, -55%Fe & -455Fe after processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units. The grades of ore obtained for +55%Fe, - 55%Fe & -455Fe after processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units.

20 20 7d 7e Any beneficiation process at mines. General remarks of inspecting officer on Mineral conservation and beneficiation issues The ROM produced from mining operations & re-handing of dumps are processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units to get grades of ore +55%Fe, - 55%Fe & -45%Fe to meet requirement of prospective buyers. No comment is offered. The ROM produced from mining operations & re-handing of dumps are processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units to get grades of ore +55%Fe, -55%Fe & -45%Fe to meet requirement of consuming industries. The ROM produced from mining operations & re-handing of dumps are processed through 7 sets of screening units & 7 sets of crushing units to get grades of ore +55%Fe, -55%Fe & -45%Fe to meet requirement of consuming industries. There is no mineral conservation problems in mine. Environment: Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks 8a 8b Separate removal and utilization of topsoil (Rule 32) Concurrent use or storage of topsoil No topsoil generation was proposed in No such proposal. No topsoil was generated during year

21 21 8c Separate dumps for overburden, waste rock, rejects and fines (Rule 33) Part of over burden material generated was proposed to be dumped in dump-a. During year, dumping was done in dump-a as per proposal. 8d Use of overburden, waste rock, rejects and fines dumps for restoring land to its original use Part of overburden material was proposed to be backfilled in mined out portion of top-2 pit as envisaged in mining for year No reclamation of proposed site was done during year Violation under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017 was pointed out to party. 8e Phased restoration, reclamation and of lands affected by mining operations (Pits, dumps etc) Phased restoration was not proposed. However, a portion of mined out area of of top-2 pit was proposed in The reclamation of proposed location of top-2 pit was not backfilled during year Violation for same was pointed out to party under rule 11(1) of MCDR, f Baseline information on existence of plantation and additional plantation done (Rule 41) There was a proposal to plant nos. of saplings within lease area during year During year , nos. of saplings were planted in lease area. The actual plantation done was in higher side of proposed number given in scheme of 8g Survival rate No specific proposal for survival rate of plantation furnished in approved document. The reported survival rate of plantation was about 90%.

22 22 8h 8i Water sprinkling on roads to control airborne dust General remarks of inspecting officer on aestic beauty in and around mines area Water sprinkling was proposed on haul road to control airborn dust. No comment to offer. Water sprinkling was a regular practice as reported during field visit. Coir matting on inactive portion of dump enhances aestic beauty of mine. Compliance of Rule 45: Sl.No. Item Propasals Actual work Remarks 9a Status of submission of Monthly and Annual returns The party has submitted all monthly & annual returns for year The submission status of all returns has been verified and found in order for year b Scrutiny of Annual return for information on Mining Engineer, Geologist and Manager The employment status of mining engineer, geologist & mine manager have been furnished in annual return submitted by party for year The employment status of mining engineer, geologist & mine manager was verified in field & found in order.

23 23 9c 9d 9e Scrutiny of Annual return on land use pattern for area under pits, reclaimed area, dumps etc. Scrutiny of Annual return on afforestation Scrutiny of Annual return on mineral reject generation (Grade and quantity) The land use pattern in different counts furnished in annual return is as given below:- (i) Covered under current (O/C) workings: 33.90ha (ii) Reclaimed/reha bilitated: 0.50ha (iii) Waste disposal: ha (iv) Ore processing unit, buildings etc.:5.441ha & (v) Used for tailing ponds, settling tanks etc.: ha As per annual return , nos. of saplings were planted in lease area. The generation status of mineral rejects has not been furnished in annual return. However, iron ore grade of 42.50% Fe is considered as mineral rejects. Except extent of area mentioned under item reclaimed/rehabilitated, land use pattern furnished for or items are found to be in order. The same was verified and found in order. The mineral rejects generated from mine was processed through dry screening & made salable as reported during inspection and proposal for such processing also furnished in The extent of area mentioned under item reclaimed/rehabili tated is appears to be not correct as no reclaimation has been done during year & violation for same has already been issued under rule 11(1) of MCDR,2017.

24 24 9f 9g Scrutiny of Annual return on ROM stock and/or graded ore Scrutiny of Annual return on sale value, Ex. Mine price and production cost During year , tonnes of lumps/fines iron ore was produced from mine and grades of ore varies from 55% to - 65% Fe. The ex-mine price for lumps are mentioned to be for Rs & Rs respectively for grades 60 to -62% Fe & 62 to -65% Fe. The exmine price for varied grades of iron ore fines is mentioned to be for Rs , Rs , Rs & Rs respectively in annual return submitted by party for year The production figures of iron ore both lumps & fines furnished in annual return is found in order. The ex-mine price furnished for lumps & fines of diffrent iron ore grades are are appears to be correct.

25 25 9h 9k Scrutiny of Annual return on fixed assets Scrutiny of Annual return on mining machineries The value of fixed assets at beginning of year is mentioned to be for Rs & closing balance at end of year is indicated to be for Rs The mining machineries like excavators 2.5 cum (3nos), excavators 1.1 cum (12 nos.), Rock breakers 45TPH (5 nos.), Tipper/HYWA 35 tonner (22 nos.), Bull Dozer 300HP (1 no.), Tractor mounted compressor 110cfm (1no.), Loader 2.1/1.7 cum (10 nos.), Motor Grader 150HP(1 no.) etc. are mentioned in annual return submitted for year The value of fixed assets furnished in annual return was not available for verification. The deployment status of all above mining machineries are found to be satisfactory.

26 26 Details of violations observed during current inspection and compliance position of violation pointed out Violation observed Show couse position Rule NO. Issued on Compliance on Rule NO. Issued on Compliance on MCDR17 Rule 11(1) 21/07/2017 MCDR17 Rule 11(1 21/07/2017 Date : (SHRI G.C. SETHI) Indian Bureau of Mines