Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694843014630.pdf (Malaysia)
Phosphogypsum (PG): Uses and Current Handling Practices Worldwide Julian Hilton Chairman, Aleff Group, Lakeland FL, London UK Aleff Group 25th Annual Lakeland Regional Phosphate Conference October 13-14, 2010 You can sometimes move the cheese With profound thanks to fellow cheese movers Mike Lloyd, Brian Birky, Regis Stana, Johnny Johnston, Bhaskar Bandyopadhyay, Karen Stewart, Patrick Zhang, Malika Moussaid, Vinod Bhandari, Rafael García Tenorio, Manzoor Qadir, Peter Waggitt, Denis Wymer and members of the International Phosphogypsum Working Group What is PG?
Waste or Resource Fresh from Florida...How Much PG?

• 5.6 – 7.0 billion tonnes of PG produced in lifetime of industry to date • • • (5 tonnes of PG per tonne of acid) Some 3 - 4 billion tonnes (Hilton 3bn, Birky 4bn... What’s a bn between friends) now available, of which 1.1 bn in Florida “Stacks” identified in some 52 countries, and rising 5 primary types... Full life-cycle approach 1.

Legacy / “lost”/ abandoned 2.

Active/ managed 3.

Closed/ managed 4.

New/ in planning 5.
Fully remediated • PG holding growing at c. 150-200 million tonnes pa at present with • prospect of 250 M tonnes pa by 2015 Total global holding will probably double sometime between 2025 and 2040 • Stacks are taking up an unknown, but increasing quantity of land… • Often in prime, highly sensitive, increasingly populated areas, such as central Florida Some more numbers… • Up to $25 per tonne life-time storage cost • $150m bond or equivalent per new stack • Up to $500m liability for major legacy stacks • $60-120bn potential value swing hangs on the outcome of how we manage PG PG Stacks Whole Life-cycle Management: The Evidence Base n e d a a M – ’ i a b a r A i d u a S ; r a f s a L f r o J – o c c o r o M w e N - d e n n a P l y a B s d r a h c R i – a c i r f A h t u o S n o i s n e t x E – – ) A S U ( a d i r o F l .
N m u i r b i l i u q e e m i t l a e r – % 5 .

0 2 1 - ) A S U ( a d i r o F l .

C d e n i l : s k c a t s i t n o p d n E a b a r e b U - l i z a r B m u i r b i l i u q e e m i t l a e r – % 0 5 k c a t s o n – m u i r b i l i u q e i t n o P y e n P i – ) A S U ( a d i r o F l .

C – - ) A S U ( a d i r o F l .

C d e s o c l d e g a n a M s e i r t n u o C ) ?


( + 0 4 ” t s o l “ / : d e t a d e m e R i l a e G - y l i i c S i n o i t a d e m e r d e c r o f , e r u s o c l d e n n a P l l a v e u H - – s e l i p l i g n v o v e R i ) a d a H ( l a t o k o K l – i a d n I e m i t l a e r – s e l i p i l g n v o v e R Waste or Resource?
• Waste: “Something for which no use is foreseen or foreseeable” • Therefore PG not a waste • Current commercial/ pilot uses – Agriculture – Roads (US, Europe, Middle East, Africa) – Construction – Coastal and Marine – Landfill • Hundreds of possible uses… new ones being developed all the time • There is a spotty but growing global agricultural market – prices from $0 tonne, $8, $12, $75 for a 50kg bag (Brazil)… Constraints • Radionuclides (Ra goes to PG and U goes to the acid; other radionuclides – Pb and Po also go to PG; Th variable but most in the acid (?))
• Heavy metals – usual suspects; would be good to remove these anyway, if viable • Organics • Real waste in stacks • Acidity • P2O5 content • Mechanical and engineering properties – need to be very careful in selecting and using the source materials • Transportation costs • Incoherent, inconsistent regulations Incoherent Inconsistent approaches Selective Comparative Management of PG Life-cycle Full Site Country Remedi- ation PG - Experimental Use Stack (Working) Discharge Legacy PG - Commercial Use (%) (Incentive) 50+ Brazil China India Jordan Kazakhstan Lebanon Morocco X (ceased ?)
X X Netherlands X (stop 1999) Spain Syria Tunisia US UK X (stop 1998) X (Gabes stops 2012) X (stop) X (stop 1998 (40%) X (20%) X (I) X X X X X X (reduced post 1989) X (Taparura) X ?

(Immingham) FIPR Data: The Impact of a Regulation World Phosphogypsum Sources 0.37 Bq/g USEPA Threshold 1 Bq/g Threshold case ) g k q B / ( 6 2 2 - a R 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 3 Billion Tonnes, rising at 150- 250 Million Tonnes Per Year: Waste or Resource?
= Risk of Use vs Risk of Non-Use Why don’t you boys do something useful with PG instead of just looking at it?

Bless my soul, why didn’t we think of that?

...

Send for the cavalry!

The Stack Free Boys Come Boiling Over the Ridge… …the Phosphogypsum Working Group Scouts the Frontier Using a systematic, evidence- based approach… With thanks to FIPR and Aleff Group The Onion Rings Methodology 6.
Knowledge Base/ Dashboard Risk analysis Political Desirability (Win/ Win) 4 Commercial Sustainability (Triple Bottom Line) 3 Public good Incentives Regulatory Acceptability Technical Feasibility 2 Regulations/ Externality 1 Best practices 1.

Literature Review 2.

IAEA Safety Report/ Good PG Management Practices 3.

Market – P Lifecycle/ Resource Conservation 4.

Policy and Planning Framework 5.
Action Plan Stack Free Results: October2010 (1) • Completed R&D Phase and Knowledge Gap Analysis • Initiation of Implementation Phase with associated International Action Plan (proposed) with IAEA • Creation of PG Safety Framework (including radionuclides and heavy metals) • Development of dedicated Competency entre with associated training programme and materials • Ongoing Expert Working Group (PGWG) • Establishment of PG Guide Principles for Good PG Management Practices • Taxonomic list of stacks and estimated stored tonnages • Searchable database of 2,000+ publications on PG use and related topics IAEA Safety Report on Phosphate Industries – Major Chapter on PG • Stack Free Results: October 2010 (2) • Case studies • Comparative regulations • Reports, publications and presentations • Manuals – Agriculture • Crop response (50+ crops) • Soil reclamation • Remediation • Fertiliser/ amendment • Irrigation / water efficiency – Construction – Road Building Meets 2x per year: Meeting 1, 2010 @ NORM VI, Marrakech, March 2010 Using the balanced TBL scorecard, PG would not be classified de facto or de iure as a waste… It would become mandatory to have a long-term plan for use, rather than indefinite containment Working Capital Business Processes Return on Investment Work Force Learning & Growth Competency Centre Performance Efficiency Impact Effectiveness Vision & Strategy Values & Durability Earned Value Profit/ ROI Measure $/€ /Dh Perceived Value Customers Consumers Stakeholders Human Capital TBL Resource Conservation Conventional TBL Sustainable T BL TraditionalROIEconomicRock•Price per processed tonneChemicalProcessing•DAP/ MAP –spot and futuresAgriculture•Food•Feed•Yield per ha•Nutrient conversionWaste•Lost land use•Unused PG•Unrecovered uranium•Pollution•ExternalityProfit / (Loss)Sustainable ROIEconomicSocialEnvironmentalTBL RatingRock•Global reserves•BPL value/ grade•Cost per tonne rock•Beneficiation cost•Jobs•Lost productive land•DisturbanceChemical Processing•Efficient P recovery•Inputs and emissions•Jobs•Acidic water discharges•Fluorides•Atmospheric discharges of ammonia and sulphur compounds•Radionuclides•Heavy Metals•Residue piles/ PGCo-Product•U recovery•PG•Nuclear fuel source•Market for PG in agriculture and construction•Jobs•Aids energy security•Reduced U in fertiliser•Sodicsoils reclaimed to productive conditionAgriculture•Food•Feed•Soil fertility•Crop yield•Protein –body mass•Jobs•Food security•Risk of conflict on land use (food vsenergy)•Pollution of water bodies due to improper application techniques and runoffRecycling•Slows depletion of reserves•Cost of P recovery from waste streams vsvalue of P recovered•Jobs•Social sustainability•Resource conservationLandReclamation•Real estate•Jobs•Increased tax base•Amenities\recreational land•Habitat favoured by endangered speciesWaste•Cost/mass or volume for treatment•Cost/mass or volume for handling/shipping •Cost for vendor disposal•Jobs•Pollution from improperly discharged or contained wasteTBLScore And is it safe?
Well according to this excellent Safety Report it is... And it keeps you young too... Safety: International Standards and Studies TBD Phosphate 2006 2011 – Revised BSS 2011 (expected) Safety – National Examples: Benchmark Cases – 1999 onwards SPAIN – AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, EVIDENCE- BASED REGULATION BRAZIL – AGRICULTURE, EXPERIMENTAL RANGE, LANDFILL CHINA – CONSTRUCTION (MATERIALS) FINLAND – FREEZE-THAW ROADS (WITH FLY ASH) KAZAKHSTAN – AGRICULTURE, REMEDIATION, MARKET SOUTH AFRICA – ROADS, HOUSING, EVIDENCE-BASED REGULATION SYRIA - AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT TUNISIA – DISCHARGE TO USE, FULL REMEDIATION UNITED STATES – FULL LIFE-CYCLE STUDY, PARRISH ROAD The Phosphate Manufacturing Complex of Huelva, Spain, including Phosphogypsum Stacks The Agricultural Area Reclaimed and then Treated with PG in SW Spain IAEA Consultation Meeting, Vienna 16-20 November 2009 PG over 70 years of use in Huelva, Spain The short-term radiological impact associated to the use of PG as soil amendement (I) Control plots Three year field experiment Rate of PG supplied : 25 Tons/Ha Year 1 and Year 3 treated with PG IAEA Consultation Meeting, Vienna 16-20 November 2009 DesagueDesagueC1C2C3Y1Y2Y31 ha1 ha1 ha20 m40 m250 mDesagueDesagueC1C2C3Y1Y2Y31 ha1 ha1 ha20 m40 m250 m The short-term radiological impact associated to the use of PG as soil amendement (II) Treatment Number of samples Depth cm 226Ra (Bq/kg) 238U (Bq/kg) 212Pb (Bq/kg) 137Cs (Bq/kg) 40K (Bq/kg) Control Control Control PG 25 Tons/Ha PG 25 Tons/Ha PG 25 Tons/Ha 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 – 30 35.3 ± 0.8 25.3 ± 0.4 33.1 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.6 767 ± 20 30 – 60 27.7 ± 0.4 23.5 ± 0.5 32.3 ± 1.0 0.9 ± 0.5 760 ± 50 60 – 90 26.2 ± 0.7 19.4 ± 1.0 31.9 ± 0.7 N.D. 750 ± 20 0 – 30 39.3 ± 2.3 23.9 ± 1.0 32.2 ± 1.0 2.3 ± 1.0 789 ± 27 30 – 60 29.6 ± 1.8 25.2 ± 2.1 32.8 ± 0.4 1.0 ± 0.2 814 ± 11 60 - 90 24.0 ± 0.9 21.7 ± 2.6 32.3 ± 1.0 N.D. 780 ± 50 -No statistical differences between control and PG treated plots -Higher concentrations of Ra-226 in the uppermost layers of all the plots -
 Ra-226/U-238 activity ratios higher than one in all the plots NO SHORT-TERM RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT IAEA Consultation Meeting, Vienna 16-20 November 2009 Case Study: Brazil Agriculture • Extensive annual use • c.40% of PG produced is used in agriculture Trucks Collecting Phosphogypsum ©Aleff Group 2010 China: PG Use in Construction Wengfu Group’s Demonstration Project Innovative wall structure using PG Florida Institute of Phosphate Research Kazakhstan — Phosphogypsum Cotton Growth and Yield + Phosphogypsum 05001000150020002500ControlPG 3.3-JanPG 8.0-JanPG 3.3-AprPG 8.0-AprCotton yield (kg/ha)Treatments20062007 South Africa: Radiological content and dose assessment of PG Source Total annual effective dose to the critical group due to the application of Phosphogypsum in the agricultural sector.
(mSv/a) (modelled) Phosphogypsum in Agriculture Road Construction o to 2 years 2 to 7 years 7 to 12 years 12 to 17 years Adults 0.0066 0.0047 0.0056 0.0086 0.0031 Total annual effective dose to the members of the public and workers due to the application of Phosphogypsum in the Road construction (mSv/a) 0.0046 (residents) 0.0063 (workers) Cement production Total annual effective dose to the workers during the mining and processing of Phosphogypsum for Cement additives (mSv/a) 0.46 9 South Africa: Regulator’s Conclusions  The economic advantages of PG has made its use to grow rapidly in the past few years (Applications).
 Radiological assessment to the members of the public is shown to be less than 1 mSv/a from identified pathways.

 Material can be exempted from regulatory control if that fulfills the criteria in Section 2.1.1.1 (b) of SSRP Regulation R388 which is explicit about Radon.
11 Syria: ICARDA Case Study, 2001-2005 • Treatments – Control (without application of phosphogypsum) – Soil application of phosphogypsum at 20 t/ha – Soil application of phosphogypsum at 40 t/ha • Phosphogypsum application once at the beginning of the study • Other farm-level practices were same in all treatments • Multi-location trails on 8 sites Syria, Major Results: Crop Yield and Water Productivity • Significant increase in barley grain yield in phosphogypsum treatments; 40 and 49% increase in 20 and 40 t/ha treatments over control • Significant increase in rain-water productivity in the phosphogypsum treatments • Increase in soil moisture storage was the driving factor for crop yield and water productivity enhancement.
TUNISIA: PHOSPHOGYPSUM VALORIZATION Construction of two rooms in scale (4 x 4 m2) with: 1. ordinary cooked bricks 2. bricks containing phosphogypsum.

Installation of 22 radon dosimeters per room and spatial and temporal monitoring of radiation during 72 days along two periods of summer and winter.
GCT 39 TUNISIA: TAPARURA – Stack to Beach... IAEA Vienna 27 September - 1 October 2010 40 UNITED STATES: A New Case • At least one PG road (Parrish Road, Polk County) has been used long enough to undergo repaving • One section of 3 test sections had failed • The rest of the road was still fully functional • The entire road was repaved, but the base was left in place Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute PG Road Base •In mid cost range (materials) •Strengthens over time (5-7% cement mix) •Excellent life-cycle cost performance •Environmentally safe •Conserves up to 60% of virgin resource PG Joint between Phosphogypsum and Conventional Bed Conventional ©Aleff Group 2010 Environmental monitoring since 1992 – radionuclides and heavy metals US EPA (1) • PG was in active but informal commerce in US up to 1989, the year of the PG Rule • Eg California $25 per short ton, FOB; still active demand from farmers.
Good in sodic and sodic/saline soils; excellent for enhancing water efficiency/ irrigation • Still in use in N Florida/ S Georgia for peanuts US EPA (2) • Approach is inconsistent in that PG is variously defined in the Rule as by-product, waste and toxic waste (of no commercial value) • But uses in agriculture are specifically allowed • Activity concentration threshold at the restrictive end of modern practice (typically 1 Bq/g) – EPA says 0.37 (= 10 picocuries/g) • Obstacles to use are significant, especially the very onerous and costly application procedure • But… there are some signs of accommodation US EPA (3) • Attended the IAEA PG TM, September 2010 • Accepted that the body of new scientific evidence is very significant • Considering playing an active part in the 2011- 2014 Action Plan • EPA “blight” well illustrated by country with PG at 0.44Bq/g trying to devise a method to get below 0.37 (10 picocurie per gram) • If that country followed BSS (as it should as an IAEA MS) it would not need that effort at all… Goals of the Action Plan, 2011-2014 • A structured plan for using the entire present and future production of PG, supported by countries and international agencies • New point of equilibrium – use as much as we produce • Preliminary calculations indicate this is feasible focused on agricultural uses – crops, remediation, forage and irrigation/ water management – and construction including roads Summary: From R&D to Implementation 1.
2.

2.

3.

Evidence-based approach, using a vast technical and scientific knowledge base as well as expertise and very well documented Case Studies 1.
Agriculture - over 50 crops studied; generally safe assuming on-label use, with focus on Huelva, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Syria, alluding also to US – Roads - number of case studies, general usability, resource conservation, aggregate shortages, environmental impact - options for US – Construction - resurgence in interest eg for low cost housing China, India, S Africa, Senegal, Landfill - Brazil WIP Coastal and marine - obvious option for US, 4.

5.
5.

Sustainability and resource conservation – themes (and hence encouragement) new BSS and Euratom BSS to encourage recycling and reuse... 3.

Ongoing work plan recent meeting in Vienna, agreed Action Plan for 2011-2014, industry welcome to participate... 1.

Attended by USEPA PGWG: At FIPR, 2007 and IAEA, 2010 PGWG, First meeting: FIPR 2007 - R&D: mapping safe, beneficial uses of PG.

Outcome, Gap Analysis.


“It’s a resource stupid…” Meeting 2, 2010 - IAEA TM: Dialog between industry, academia (CoE) and regulators.

Outcome, Action Plan 2011-2014 focused on PG use.

So what do they think?

So what does he think?

“It’s a resource, stupid…” We’re a resource too… Thank You!

Jhilton@aleffgroup.com Aleff Group