Proceedings of the Phosphogypsum Fact-Finding Forum
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PHOSPHOGYPSUM FACT-FINDING FORUM Co-sponsored by FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF PHOSPHATE RESEARCH 1855 West Main Street Bartow, FL and THE FLORIDA CENTER FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Florida State University Tallahassee, FL and held at August B. Turnbull, III Florida State Conference Center Tallahassee, FL December 7, 1995 February 1996 DISCLAIMER The papers in this report are reproduced herein as received from the speakers. Transcripts of the question/answer sessions were made from the actual videotape of the Forum. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, nor does mention of company names or products constitute endorsement by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. PHOSPHOGYPSUM FACT-FINDING FORUM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Institute of Phosphate Research and The Florida Center for Public Management at Florida State University co-sponsored this Fact-Finding Forum on December 7, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. The purpose of the Forum was to expose the audience and a select panel of Florida state and local government decision makers to a scientific discussion of the effects and uses of phosphogypsum. In assembling the best national and international scientific talent for presentations, the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research staff made a determined effort to include scientists with opposing views on the effects of using phosphogypsum. However, it was very difficult to find scientifically-trained speakers, or groups who could recommend such experts, on the negative impacts of phosphogypsum usage. This factor understandably gave the panel and audience the perception that the presentations were unbalanced. We very much regret that, but it should not detract from the quality and value of the information presented at the Forum. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE FORUM PAPERS AND Q & A SESSIONS Environmental Effects of Phosphogypsum (PG) 1. There is no significant risk to human health for those individuals working with or around PG; for example, those building a road or spreading it agriculturally. 2. Whereas shielding materials placed over PG are able to protect people rather completely from the impacts of radon, they are less effective in attenuating gamma radiation, so that the gamma factor must always be considered. 3. There appears to be no significant risk to someone traveling over a phosphogypsum- based road, but only to someone who might build a house on it and occupy that house for 70 years (EPA scenario). 4. The marine studies at Louisiana State University employing PG/cement structures as oyster clutch substrates or artificial reefs have shown no bioaccumulation of toxic materials to date, but these studies need to be extended over longer periods to give confidence in the results. 5. The use of PG as a cover material in municipal waste landfills accelerates the decomposition of a “standard garbage” and has the promise of providing additional landfill space, but it also increases the evolution of hydrogen sulfide. There is technology available to recover economically the sulfur values of the hydrogen sulfide. ix Uses of Phosphogypsum 1. Much structural and environmental data have been accumulated by various researchers in the use of PG in county and secondary roads, but its use in federal and state heavy- duty roads needs additional research. 2. Compelling economic benefits have been calculated for constructing county roads using PG mixtures. 3. Realistic agricultural PG application rates of from 250 to 500 lbs/acre/year constitutes an acceptable risk, even using the USEPA’s conservative limits. 4. Preliminary economics show a distinct cost advantage to farmers or cattle ranchers in using PG to supply soil calcium or sulfur, and in improving the soil structure. 5. The economics of using PG in marine structures, as well as the environmental risks involved, need confirmation before this proposed use can be taken seriously. Miscellaneous Interesting Points Made by the Speakers 1. The Canadian level of concern (action level) on radon is more liberal than USEPA’s (roughly 5 times our 4 pCi limit). 2. The USEPA has set very low limits on acceptable radiation levels - of the order of 70 mrem/year - very close to the average USA background level. 3. Although the USEPA has stated that they are going to relax the present limit of 700 Ibs of PG they allow to be used for research purposes, it is probable that any demonstration-scale experiment will still require a variance. The policy panel and the audience showed great interest in the uses and the effects of using PG. Discussion was often lively about what could be done to liberalize present USEPA rules so as to allow larger, demonstration-type projects using PG. The panel proposed that FIPR and USEPA adopt a cooperative approach to resolving differences about the effects, uses and policies governing PG. Dr. Larry K. Gross Director, Florida Center for Public Management Florida State University x HEARING PANEL POST-FORUM POSITION ON PHOSPHOGYPSUM The Florida Institute of Phosphate Research has concluded from its experimental studies on phosphogypsum (PG) and those of other researchers that much of the official concern about the perceived environmental and public health risks of PG is reasonably debatable. Many of the proposed uses of PG appear to involve levels of risk which are below regulatory concern or which can be mitigated using currently available practices. Therefore, in light of the potential economic advantages of the proposed uses of PG, and the demonstrated environmental and economic penalties of stacking and monitoring PG, the Institute is seeking a partnership with the USEPA to set acceptable standards for current PG use and large scale research and demonstration projects. Further, on completion of such large scale research and demonstration projects and substantial, appropriate peer review, USEPA policy should be reviewed to reflect the scientific consensus of the risk and of demonstrated mitigation measures governing the uses of PG. 1/29/96 xi PHOSPHOGYPSUM FACT-FINDING FORUM DATE: Thursday, December 7, 1995 TIME: 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PLACE: August B. Turnbull, III Florida State Conference Center 555 West Pensacola Street (Four blocks west of the Capitol complex) Tallahassee, Florida RECEPTION: 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 22nd Floor, the Capitol The Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Board of Directors is sponsoring a fact- finding forum concerning phosphogypsum - its potential risks and its potential benefits. Board members are conducting the forum as part, of the Institute’s pro-active phosphogypsum program, which is striving to find the best way to deal with the controversial phosphate processing by-product that now sits in 27 stacks, 10 of which are active. Hundreds of millions of tons of phosphogypsum have been created in phosphate processing and approximately 30 million new tons are created each year. The Environmental Protection Agency has passed regulations that prevent the gypsum from being used because of its trace amount of radium. Research the Institute has funded indicates that the EPA’s risk analysis may be overly cautious and that the economic benefits of putting gypsum to use in agriculture, road building, construction and other proven areas could save money for taxpayers, farmers and the state. The December forum is intended to air the facts before regulators, lawmakers, environmentalists and others in hopes of launching further discussion about putting this waste product to use and solidifying a FIPR position on the issue. xiii PHOSPHOGYPSUM FACT-FINDING FORUM INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY M. JACK OHANIAN CHAIRMAN, FIPR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ******** Author: M. Jack Ohanian - Associate Dean for Research & Administration, College of Engineering, University of Florida Dr. Ohanian, immediate past chairman of the American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) and past president of the American Nuclear Society, has recently been appointed by the Governor of Florida to his second term on the five-member Board of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. He serves as Chairman. Dr. Ohanian’s research interests and his (over 60) technical publications have dealt with nuclear reactor dynamics and safety. More recently he has focused on nuclear energy systems, their safety and public energy policy. He serves on the Review Committee for the Reactor Engineering Division of Argonne National Laboratory and the Safety Oversight Committee of Florida Power Corporation’s Crystal River Nuclear Plant. Dr. Ohanian received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Robert College (Istanbul, Turkey), and a master’s degree in EE and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Science & Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. ******** Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen! I welcome you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. We appreciate the fact that you have taken the time and effort to attend a forum concerning an industrial by-product, phosphogypsum (PG), about which the average Florida citizen is not well-informed or may even be misinformed. Many of those who have heard about PG have heard statements about its impact on public health and the environment. Today, we will present to our “Policy Panel” a number of speakers, each one an expert in one or more aspects of PG: its possible uses, the economic attractiveness of using it, and the environmental/public health risks involved in its use. Chemically, PG is calcium sulfate dihydrate or gypsum, produced by the reaction of phosphate rock with sulfuric acid during the process of producing phosphoric acid, the major ingredient of vital phosphate fertilizers. Gypsum is a very common inorganic compound with a myriad of industrial uses. The term “phosphogypsum” is used to specify the particular gypsum arising from the acidulation of phosphate rock, because it contains trace amounts of many of the mineral impurities that accompany phosphate rock. Of these impurities, perhaps the most notorious is radium, the parent of radon. Other trace impurities found in PG include fluoride, chromium, lead, zinc and uranium.