Personal Protection ratings to be supplied by user depending on use conditions.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REFERENCES

For further information, see Du Pont Sodium Cyanide Storage and Handling Bulletin.

DATE OF LATEST REVISION/REVIEW: 1/87
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR MSDS:

J. C. Watts, Du Pont Co., C&P Dept., Chestnut Run,
Wilmington, DE 19898, (302) 999-4946

SIERRA
CLUB

SIERRA
CLUBI

408 C Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 547-1141
June 23, 1989

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman

Subcommittee on Mineral Resources Development and Production

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman,

We are pleased to respond to your request to provide
additional information for the hearing record regarding the 1872
Mining Law and S. 1126. We understand that similar questions

were sent to the Mineral Policy Center, so to avoid duplication
we will not restate their data here but simply add our own perspective.
In order, the questions were:

1)

What do you think the most critical challenges are for federal land managers in the reclamation area and in terms of environmental protection and mitigation during the life of a mining operation?

At the outset we have to underscore that the most crucial
environmental decision facing the federal land manager regarding
mining is at the point of approval of surface disturbance. While
reclamation is possible in many cases, there are also situations
where the landscape and potential uses of the mined area will be
irretrievably altered. Also, the cumulative impacts of several
mines in an area may overshadow the mitigation measures in place
for an individual project. That's why we believe it is vitally
important that the federal land manager have as much information
before them as possible and have the discretion to modify or even
deny where justified mining projects which would pose unacceptable
consequences for the other multiple uses for which Congress has
mandated our federal lands be managed.

Once the decision is made to allow mining, priority goals for the
federal land manager should include stabilization and cleanup of
waste, permanent restoration of vegetation, recontouring the
disturbed landscape and assuring the long-term visual, air and
water quality of the mined area. Cleanup of waste poses a particu-
lar problem because most old tailing ponds contain large quantities
of toxic wastes, including heavy metals. These huge storage structures
are often in upper watersheds. In the post-mining phase, the sides of
the containment structures tend to erode and fail and threaten to release
toxics into watersheds. There may be no such thing as permanent treatment
and stabilization of many of them. They may require perpetual maintenance.

2)

Should we consider using some of the fees generated by this bill to fund an abandoned mine reclamation fund for hardrock mines?

"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." John Muir National Headquarters: 730 Polk Street, San Francisco, California 94109 (415) 776-2211

Yes. Unreclaimed mine pits litter our countryside in historic mining districts, and often result in acid drainage into the

watersheds and the release and transportation of heavy metals and other toxics.

3) Do you generally agree with the General Accounting Office's figure of $284 million as the total cost to reclaim 281,581 acres of disturbed land?

This figure roughly equals $1000 per acre, which would be a significant help but may be too low in some cases.

4) Please provide information on the effects of using cyanide in heap leaching operations.

The short-term problems with cyanide leaching generally center on poisoning wildlife. Over the long-term, such operations can generate significant hazardous waste products which can get into ground waters.

5) The validity of the March 1989 General Accounting Office report of the Mining Law has been questioned.

Are the examples of the federal government selling lands for $2.50 or $5.00 per acre that later bring much higher prices unusual?

Do you agree with the conclusions of the report?
what grounds?

On

While the examples used by the GAO are clearly startling, it would be even more unusual to find land that could be sold for only $5.00 an acre or less. The GAO report garnered lots of media attention throughout the country, but the examples given were not effectively discounted or denied. Another means to judge the value of mining claims is the cost to the federal government to buy them back when it is in the public interest to acquire them for national conservation units. Inquiries to the National Park Service would probably reveal considerable detail on this point.

Below you will find the answers to the supplemental list of questions submitted to MEC on June 14, 1989. The response has been prepared by the Minerals Exploration Coalition We thank you for this opportunity.

1. Please describe the current test for determining "discovery" of a
valuable mineral deposit.

• Enclosed please find an article which is our answer to this question. The article is entitled "The
concept of discovery: what it is, how it got where it is today, and what can be done about it" by George
E. Reeves, an individual member of MEC. Mr. Reeves is an expert on the General Mining Law, and
especially on the topic of discovery. He wrote the chapter on discovery in volume no. 2 of the 6
volume definitive work entitled American Law of Mining, 2nd edition, 1984.

la. Is the test applied consistently?

• The rigor with which the test was applied in United States v. Pittsburgh Pacific Company, 84 I.D. 282 (1977), contrasted with the liberality with which it was applied in Pacific Coast Molybdenum. Co., 90 1.D. 352 (1983), leaves the claimant uncertain about how the rule will be applied in any particular case. It should be noted however, that in Pacific Coast Molybdenum Co. the Department of the Interior was not contesting the claim, but defending its own decision to issue a mineral patent. Thus, the only consistency seems to be that the government almost always wins.

2. How does the uncertainty inherent in the current test for discovery affect the miner's security of tenure on an unpatented claim?

• The miner never knows until after a contest whether he has a valid claim or not. Even if a claim is held to be valid, it is valid only at the time of the contest. The government can challenge validity at any later time.

• Diligent occupancy or "pedis possessio" is required to avoid overstaking.

• There is continued risk of overstaking based on the assertion of lack of discovery.