Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

IMPAIRED. AGAIN, THESE CONCERNS ARE COVERED UNDER NEPA,

THE CLEAN WATER ACT (SECTION 404 CORPS PERMIT, SECTION

[blocks in formation]

REGULATION IS THAT IT ALLOWS THE USE OF THE BEST

APPROACH FOR EACH PROPERTY.

UNDER RECLAMATION IN SECTION 201 (PG. 25), CLAIM HOLDERS

ARE REQUIRED TO RECLAIM TO PRIOR LAND USE.

HOWEVER

EXISTING FEDERAL AND STATE RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

ALREADY APPLY.

THE DEVELOPER MAY PROPOSE A POST-MINING

LAND USE DIFFERENT THAN BUT CONCEIVABLY A BETTER LAND USE, I.E., PRIORITY FOR WILDLIFE, HABITAT, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE, NUCLEAR WASTE SITE USE. WITH ONLY ONE

EXCEPTION, EVERY WESTERN STATE HAS IN PLACE RECLAMATION

LAWS EITHER DIRECTLY OR AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF EXISTING

WATER QUALITY LAWS (I.E. ARIZONA). I HAVE A DOCUMENT I

4

WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECORD WHICH SHOWS HOW

[blocks in formation]

THAT "THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL GENERALLY BEST BE SERVED
IF OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES FOR MINING CONTROL AND

RECLAMATION ARE DEFINED IN LAND USE OR MANAGEMENT PLANS

THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO LOCAL OR REGIONAL REQUIREMENTS".

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ADDITION, IT COULD PREVENT A HIGHER, BEST USE FOR WASTE

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

PLACE OR PROPOSED WHICH COVER THESE CONCERNS ARE RCRA,

CERCLA AND SARA.

UNDER SECTION 202, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT, ANY PERSON WHO

IS OR MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY MINERAL ACTIVITIES MAY

REQUEST INSPECTIONS OR "SUGGEST" VIOLATIONS.

THESE TYPES OF

"PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT" OPPORTUNITIES EXACERBATE UNNECESSARY

DUPLICATION AS PER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, CERCLA AND MOST STATE

[blocks in formation]

UNDER "COMPLIANCE" IN SECTION 202 (PG 29), ENFORCEMENT, WHICH

ALREADY EXISTS, WOULD OCCUR THROUGH THE OFFICE OF SURFACE

MINING, BLM AND FOREST SERVICE.

THE PRESCRIBED PENALTIES ARE

DUPLICATED IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT, RCRA, CERCLA, AND CLEAN

AIR ACT, AMONG OTHERS.

NO TIMEFRAMES ARE PROVIDED FOR

HEARINGS RELATED TO CIVIL PENALTIES.

56–185 O - 92 - 12

6

CAUSATION FOR CITIZEN SUITS, SECTION 202 (PG31) CAN BE IMPROVED BY ADDING SPECIFIC CRITERIA. WE ARE CONCERNED IT CONTAINS AN OPEN INVITATION TO FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION AND AN

UNNECESSARY BURDEN UPON OUR ALREADY CROWDED FEDERAL COURTS. THE ENTIRE SECTION PROVIDES AN ARENA FOR NEGATIVELY IMPACTING SCHEDULES WHERE "DELAY IS A VICTORY" FOR PROJECT OPPONENTS. INJUNCTIONS TO DELAY PROJECT STARTUPS SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN ONLY THE MOST EXTREME CASES WHERE PERMANENT, SIGNIFICANT,

IRRESPONSIBLE DAMAGE WILL RESULT,

MINING WASTES, ALREADY HIGHLY REGULATED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSED UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.

THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MINING

ACTIVITIES.

A BILL APPLICABLE TO LOCATABLE MINERALS ON

PUBLIC LANDS SHOULD DEAL WITH MINING CLAIM PRINCIPLES; IT

SHOULD NOT DIGRESS INTO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.

H.R. 918 ATTEMPTS TO INTERRELATE THE REGULATION OF LOCATABLE

MINERALS WITH MINING WASTE MANAGEMENT. LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON

SUBTITLE D OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT IS

ON THE IMMEDIATE HORIZON,

IT PROMISES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE

SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MINING WASTES AND OTHER

INDUSTRIAL WASTES.

LEGISLATION SEPARATELY ADDRESSING EACH

7

ISSUE IS APPROPRIATE.

IN SUMMARY, THE SECTION ON "STATE

LAWS" (PG 38) REALLY SAYS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

BETWEEN

[blocks in formation]

HAVE ALREADY BEEN COVERED. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THE

[blocks in formation]

A RESPONSIBLE "PARTNERSHIP" BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER, THE

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »