By Naba Bhattacharjee
The ban imposed by the National Green Tribunal on “rat hole” mining of coal in Meghalaya, has on expected lines triggered an assortment of opinions, views, conclusions and above all interpretation according to one’s comfort and interest. The NGT ruling to-day has set at rest all speculations with the question by the Chairperson of the tribunal during the hearing – ” Is the Constitution and laws of the land including those related to environment and mining applicable here? In essence the NGT bench agreed that the land and minerals may belong to individuals, (in tune with Supreme Court ruling in 2013 on a case related to landowners of Kerala that land owners own minerals not government) but while undertaking mining, environmental and mining laws including regulations and laid down norms/procedures including safety measures will have to be followed besides eliminating health hazards. NGT was of the opinion that mining can be allowed once all such criteria are met and a working mechanism is in place for actual implementation on the ground.
Responding to the appeal of livelihood concerns and the potential environmental threat posed by the extracted coal in stock in different districts, on exposure to heavy rains during the coming monsoon, the NGT allowed transportation subject to inventorization by a High Level Committee duly constituted for the purpose. This Committee shall formulate the terms and conditions of sale with specific advice to the state government not to utilize a single rupee from the royalty for any other purpose other than reclamation, rehabilitation including health improvement measures in mining areas.
The term “rat hole” mining is a misnomer. In mining parlance there are only two principal types of mining – open cast mining where coal is available near the surface and underground mining when coal deposits are available at great depths. Mining in Meghalaya falls under the latter category, with mode of operation being the traditional methods of room and pillar, box and side cutting, long wall etc, since coal deposits are available at great depths and productivity far less than open cast method. In this method over-burden is negligible since surface excavation is less and restricted to opening of a small pit. Conversely, open cast mining entails removal of large quantities of top soil which is precious nutrients for successful rehabilitation, afforestation etc besides clear felling of total forest cover and associated ground vegetation. It is estimated that in open cast mining, depending on extent of scientific mining adopted, around 20 – 25 hectares of land is damaged for every million tonnes of coal mined. In addition air and noise pollution is much higher in open cast system.
The biggest shortcoming of the underground mining is the issue of land subsidence and breaching of ground water which in untreated form affects local water availability and quality like low pH , increase in total solids, total dissolved solids and heavy metal concentration. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is produced by leaching of sulphide minerals in coal with discharge bearing high acidity, hardness, iron, heavy metal, sulphate contents etc. The interim ruling of NGT deals primarily with water pollution resulting from the mode of mining followed without treating the mine water before release, mostly as surface flow ultimately contaminating the water bodies including rivers and streams. Such phenomenon is also evident in case of open cast mining areas of Ledo, Tirap and Tikak areas of Assam – Arunachal Pradesh border where pH value ranges from 3.61 to 3.28 on waste and stream water reflects high acidity. Therefore, to conclude that only underground mining followed in Meghalaya is responsible for water pollution is not a correct assessment.
It is no doubt imperative that the water discharge of the mines has to be treated at all costs to attain normal characteristics before release. This can be undertaken at affordable investment since most coal mining belts in Meghalaya have adjacent huge limestone reserves. Limestone having basic alkaline characteristics can be most affectively used to treat the acid mine discharge through wide variety of low cost innovative processes. Mining has to be associated with simultaneous treatment of water which has to be made mandatory besides full proof safety measures for mine workers.
NGT has erred on two accounts while accounting for the basis in imposing the ban on mining of coal. Firstly, mining is not illegal compared to other states where government grants mining lease for a fixed area and the mining extends much beyond the designated area. Here the land where a mine is situated is usually of individual, clan or community ownership and thus not illegal in nature but definitely not in conformity with environment and mining laws of the land. Henceforth, all mining activities have to be undertaken after obtaining approval of the State Pollution Control Board and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority similar to forest clearance given under FC Act 1980. The immediate necessity is for the State Government to draw a comprehensive environmentally benign mine management plan including mine safety and a health assurance and safeguard scheme on scientific lines.
Secondly, NGT has based its interim order exclusively on a Detailed Project Report submitted by NEEPCO on dangers posed to Kopili Hydro Electric Power Project prepared by one Dr. O.P. Singh of N.E.H.U. The data provided in the report particularly those pertaining to water quality test report and the location of collection is ambiguous. Such data in case of Environment Impact Assessment or other similar studies has to be carried out over all seasons regularly spread over a period of 2-3 years. In this case to cite an example, pH of Umkyrpon, Khliehriat is shown as 3.67. The source, season, month and year of sample collection is not given. Since pH value of any source is never constant a detailed study, spread over a prolonged period is important. Moreover, this report states that all rivers and streams which drain the mining areas of Jaintia Hills finally empty into the Kopili River on which the KHEP is located. According to the report, a number of plants and machineries of this hydel project have been affected due to the acid mine discharge into Kopili. However, the report is totally silent regarding the coal mining belt across Kopili River located in Assam, where mining continues till date. These mines are an extension of the Jaintia Hills coal seams. As environment and water pollution has no geographical boundaries or innate characteristic change with change of State boundary, the report itself is mysterious. A visit to the site reveals that water is directly released to Kopili without treatment unlike the draining from the mining areas in the upper ridges of Jaintia Hills, which passes through various streams and rivulets and is exposed to high rainfall before being discharged into Kopili. It is also pertinent to note that the principal source of acid discharge as far is KHEP is concerned, emanates from the sulphur generated hot spring(named Garampani – derived from this phenomenon) located within the reservoir of this hydel project. Hence, it will not be justified to attribute all the ills and problems of KHEP to the mining upstream in the catchments of Kopili. The effect definitely is localized in Jaintia Hills but gradually gets neutralized and diluted as it drains downstream, with only a major river Kharkor emptying into Kopili. Fishing in troubled hot water of Kopili?
