URANIUM IN MICHIGAN V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH URANIUM MINING AND MILLING .................................31 REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR A. Land Use Impacts...................................................31 Prepared by the B. Milling and tailings Impact.......................................32 Michigan Department of Natural Resources C. Air Quality Impact ...................................................32 and 1. Mining operations ............................................. 32 Department of Public Health 2. Fugitive dust ..................................................... 33 March 31, 1982 3. Gaseous emissions .......................................... 33 D. Water Quality Impacts ............................................33 1. Mining operations ............................................. 33 Contents 2. Tailings ponds storage ..................................... 33 SUMMARY........................................................................ 1 3. Waste rock storage........................................... 34 E. Postoperational Impacts ........................................34 MAJOR OBSERVATIONS ............................................... 3 1. Underground mines.......................................... 34 CONCLUSIONS................................................................ 4 2. Open-pit mines ................................................. 34 3. Mill site.............................................................. 34 I. INTRODUCTION - PROPOSED METALLIC 4. Tailings basin.................................................... 34 MINERAL LEASE............................................................. 6 F. Health Impacts ........................................................35 A. Public Response To Proposed Lease...................... 7 1. Radioactivity ..................................................... 35 B. Public Response To Inclusion Of Uranium In 2. Sources of radioactivity .................................... 35 Proposed Lease ............................................................ 8 3. Biological effect of radiation ............................. 36 C. Governor’s Response To Public Concern ............. 10 4. Health consequences of radiation .................... 38 a. Dose relationship ..................................................38 D. Scope Of This Report ............................................ 10 b. Carcinogenic and mutagenic effects .....................39 II. URANIUM MINING CONTROVERSY ....................... 10 c. Specific effects associated with uranium mining ...39 A. Eastern States........................................................ 10 d. Risk assessment of low dose of radiation .............40 5. Radiation standards.......................................... 42 B. Western States....................................................... 11 VI. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN MICHIGAN FOR C. Australia and Canada: Two Examples.................. 11 URANIUM MINING AND MILLING .................................44 D. Nuclear Power Controversy and Uranium Mining .13 A. Local Government ..................................................45 E. Commonality of Issues In Uranium Controversy ... 15 B. State Government...................................................45 III. URANIUM IN PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN ............. 17 1. Surface and groundwater protection ................ 45 A. Uranium.................................................................. 17 2. Air protection .................................................... 45 B. Geologic Occurrence ............................................. 17 3. Michigan Environmental Review Board............ 46 C. Uranium Surveys ................................................... 20 4. Worker protection ............................................. 47 D. Uranium Occurrence Conclusion........................... 22 C. Federal Government...............................................47 1. Worker protection ............................................. 47 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND REGULATORY 2. Environmental protection.................................. 47 FRAMEWORK ASSOCIATED WITH URANIUM 3. State-federal agreements................................. 47 EXPLORATION .............................................................. 23 VII. POSTOPERATIONAL REGULATORY Exploration Impacts ..................................................... 23 FRAMEWORK IN MICHIGAN FOR URANIUM MINING 48 1. Aerial surveys ...................................................23 A. Local Government ..................................................48 2. Ground surface surveys....................................23 3. Ground subsurface surveys..............................24 B. State Government...................................................48 4. Health impacts of uranium exploration .............25 C. Federal Government...............................................48 a. Exploration workers...............................................26 REFERENCES ................................................................48 b. General public .......................................................27 C. Groundwater contamination..................................27 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH B. Regulatory Framework In Wisconsin And BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................50 Minnesota For Uranium Exploration............................ 28 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................51 C. Regulatory Framework In Michigan For Uranium Exploration................................................................... 28 1. Local government .............................................28 2. State government..............................................29 3. Federal government..........................................30 D. Exploration Impact Conclusions ............................ 30 Uranium in Michigan – Page 1 of 62 Table 12. United States government and advisory organizations documents describing regulations and List of Figures recommendations on radiation standards. .....................43 Figure 1. General area of interest in Upper Peninsula of Table 13. Array of subject areas covered by federal Michigan to the metallic mineral mining industry for government and advisory organizations in regulation and acquisition of state mineral leases....................................7 recommendations for radiation standards. .....................43 Figure 2. Distribution of lower precambrian sediments, Table 14. Maximum permissible dose equivalent for volcanics, granites and gneisses....................................18 occupational exposure, non-occupational exposure and general population dose limits........................................44 Figure 3. Distribution of middle precambrian chocolay, menominee, baraga sediments and volcanics and paint Table 15. Department of Natural Resources programs river group sediments. ....................................................18 involved in review of uranium mining and milling site specific applications. ......................................................46 Figure 4. Distribution of upper precambrian (Keweenawan) sandstone, volcanics and nonesuch shale. ....................20 Table 16. Department of Public Health regulatory programs involved in uranium exploration, mining and milling. ......46 Figure 5. Distribution of upper precambrian (Keweenawan) Jacobsville sandstone. ...................................................20 Figure 6. A side view of test well drilled into precambrian rock SUMMARY underlying unconsolidated surface deposit.....................24 This report has been prepared at the request of the Figure 7. Example of exploration drilling method in Governor. It’s preparation was stimulated by mining unconsolidated glacial till................................................24 industry interest in leasing approximately 400,000 acres Figure 8. An illustration of a method to seat casing at the of state-owned lands in the Upper Peninsula for base glacial till-precambrian bedrock interface. ......................25 metal exploration and potential mining development. Figure 9. An illustration of the method used to cement the hole Uranium was one of the metals of interest. Uranium, to seal it for abandonment. .............................................25 with its property of radioactivity, has been a socially controversial element or, more accurately, the use of Figure 10. Uranium 238 decay chain.....................................35 uranium in the nuclear power industry and in the military Figure 11. Radiation exposure from different sources...........36 have controversial. Thus, when the DNR held public hearings in July of 1980 to receive comments on a Figure 12. Some proposed models of how the effects of proposed metallic lease, two issues were identified. One radiation vary with doses at low levels............................40 dealt with the adequacy of the proposed lease and the second with the propriety of leasing state land for List of Tables uranium exploration and development. Citizens were concerned with the environmental and Table 1. A summary of mineral leases by the Department of health hazards associated with uranium exploration, Natural Resources from 1944 to 1976, the acres leased and under lease as of December 31, 1979.......................6 mining and milling. Uranium mining had never occurred in Michigan, but they had read or of the environmental Table 2. State mineral ownership (acres) requested by mining and public health problems