Research Article
Case Studies and Evaluation of Green Mining considering Uncertainty Factors and Multiple Indicator Weights
Table 1
Evaluation grades of the qualitative indicators and quantitative indicators.
| | Single evaluating indicator | Unit | Evaluation grades | | | | |
| | Dilution ratio () | % | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | | Recovery ratio () | % | 75 | 80 | 90 | 96 | | Unit power consumption () | kW.h/t | 15 | 13 | 8 | 4 | | Unit fuel consumption () | kg/t | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | | Productivity of labor () | 10000-ton/person | 0.5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | | Unit technical transformation investment () | USD/t | 0.007 | 0.014 | 0.072 | 0.143 | | Unit surrounding community investment () | USD/t | 0.01 | 0.016 | 0.1 | 0.15 | | Casualties per million man hours () | Person/mmh | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | | Employee satisfaction ratio () | | Poor | General | Good | Excellent | | Digital mine level () | | Poor | General | Good | Excellent | | Functional area layout () | | Poor | General | Good | Excellent | | Environmental management system certification () | | Poor | General | Good | Excellent | | Quality management system certification () | | Poor | General | Good | Excellent | | Enforcement of design parameters and measures () | | Poor | General | Good | Excellent | | Environmental monitoring facility () | | Poor | General | Good | Excellent | | PH value of water () | | 9.1 | 8.8 | 7.8 | 7.3 | | SS () | mg/L | 495 | 298 | 98 | 70 | | CODcr () | mg/L | 695 | 495 | 195 | 145 | | SO2 () | mg/m3 | 0.15 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.01 | | NOX () | mg/m3 | 0.15 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.04 | | TSP () | mg/m3 | 0.4 | 0.26 | 0.18 | 0.06 | | Operation noise () | dB | 75 | 65 | 55 | 45 | | Land reclamation ratio () | % | 65 | 75 | 85 | 95 | | Cyclic utilization ratio of waste water () | % | 70 | 80 | 88 | 95 | | Greening ratio of functional area () | % | 20 | 30 | 45 | 50 | | Waste disposal ratio () | % | 80 | 85 | 90 | 95 |
|
|
