iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EPA, USDA Encourage Farmers To Put Coal Ash That Contains Mercury And Arsenic On Crops

RICK CALLAHAN   12/21/09 08:17 AM ET   AP

Coal Ash

INDIANAPOLIS — The federal government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields to loosen and fertilize soil even as it considers regulating coal wastes for the first time.

The material is produced by power plant "scrubbers" that remove acid rain causing sulfur dioxide from plant emissions. A synthetic form of the mineral gypsum, it also contains mercury, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says those toxic metals occur in only tiny amounts that pose no threat to crops, surface water or humans. But some environmentalists say too little is known about how the material affects crops, and ultimately human health, for the government to suggest that farmers use it on their land.

"Basically this is a leap into the unknown," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "This stuff has materials in it that we're trying to prevent entering the environment from coal-fired power plants and then to turn around and smear it across ag lands raises some real questions."

With coal wastes piling up around the coal-fired plants that produce half the nation's power, the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture began promoting what they call the wastes' "beneficial uses" during the Bush administration.

Part of that push is to expand use of synthetic gypsum – a whitish, calcium-rich material known as flue gas desulfurization gypsum, or FGD gypsum.

The Obama administration has continued promoting FGD gypsum's use in farming even as it drafts a coal waste rule in response to a spill from a coal ash pond near Knoxville, Tenn., one year ago Tuesday. Ash and water flooded 300 acres, damaging homes and killing fish in nearby rivers. The cleanup is expected to cost about $1 billion.

The EPA is expected to announce its proposals for regulation early next year, setting the first federal standards for storage and disposal of coal wastes.

EPA officials declined to talk about the agency's promotion of FGD gypsum before then and wouldn't say whether the draft rule would cover it.

Instead, the agency released a statement saying the heavy metals in the material are far less than the amount considered a threat to human health. Field studies have shown that mercury, the main heavy metal of concern because it can damage development of the human nervous system, doesn't accumulate in crops or run off fields in surface water at "significant" levels, it said.

"EPA believes that the use of FGD gypsum in agriculture is safe in appropriate soil and hydrogeologic conditions," the statement said.

Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which advocates for more effective enforcement of environmental laws, said he's not overly worried about FGD gypsum's use on fields because research shows it contains only tiny amounts of heavy metals. But he said federal limits on the amounts of heavy metals in FGD gypsum sold to farmers would help allay concerns.

"That would give them assurance that they've got clean FGD gypsum," he said. "The farmers don't want to get a bad batch."

Since the EPA/USDA partnership began in 2001, farmers' use of the material has more than tripled, from about 78,000 tons spread on fields in 2002 to nearly 279,000 tons last year, according to the American Coal Ash Association, a utility industry group.

About half of the 17.7 million tons of FGD gypsum produced in the U.S. last year was used to make drywall, said Thomas Adams, the association's executive director. But he said it's important to find new uses for it and other coal wastes because the nation is likely to remain reliant on coal-fired power plants for decades to come.

"If we can find safe ways to recycle those materials, we're a lot better off doing that then we are creating a whole bunch of new landfills," Adams said.

Darrell Norton, a USDA soil scientist, said a predecessor of FGD gypsum produced about 25 years ago often had high levels of heavy metals because it had been mixed with coal fly ash. But FGD gypsum has no fly ash and is "environmentally clean," he said.

FGD gypsum is widely used in the South as a less expensive alternative to mined gypsum, said Glen Harris, a soil scientist at the University of Georgia in Tifton, Ga. Farmers in states such as Georgia, Alabama and the Carolinas have long spread mined gypsum on their fields, where its calcium spurs the growth of peanuts.

Clay McDaniel, 47, who farms about 4,000 acres of peanuts and corn near the southern Georgia town of Newton, has used synthetic gypsum on his peanut fields for more than 20 years. He and other farmers call both FGD and mined gypsum "land plaster." He said he's never worried about the safety of the synthetic version.

"If we buy a chemical that's toxic, it's got a skull and crossbones on it," he said. "But this does not come with any such warning. It's just a calcium source."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

INDIANAPOLIS — The federal government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields to loosen and fertilize soil even as it considers regulating co...
INDIANAPOLIS — The federal government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields to loosen and fertilize soil even as it considers regulating co...
Filed by Katherine Goldstein  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 96
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
10:22 PM on 03/15/2010
Heavy Metal poisoning:
It all came to me yesterday because i do drywall mud and tape for remodeling jobs-i heard last year that almost all drywall products are now made from coal power plant scrubbers-these power plants pew so much mercury that you cannot eat the fish around the great lakes watershed anymore!
i know the soil is toxic all around the midwest and southeast where ever there is a coal fired power plant-no one dares to do a study on the toxic plume and fallout shadow from each plant-there would be superfund sites popping up all over and whole towns would have to be condemned - i breathe in drywall dust from sanding the joint compound for year's. nothing on those bags or buckets tells me there are minute amounts of mercury as well as anti bacterial/ fungal agents that cause cancer-
drywall out-gasses! exposure to mercury in the dust- inhaling ,swallowing and handling it will lead to the largest health crisis in construction AmeriKa has ever seen! no wonder i am sick as well as many others who cannot afford to see a doctor about metal poisoning(insurance will not pay for the tests)it is a crime what big corporate AmeriKa is doing to US its citizens!
wonder i am sick as well as many others who cannot afford to see a doctor about metal poisoning(insurance will not pay for the tests)it is a crime what big corporate AmeriKa is doing to US its citizens!
12:49 PM on 12/25/2009
I wish these f*ckers would stop messing with our food supply. First CODEX, now this?
01:03 AM on 12/24/2009
Pretty soon it will be showing up in our livers, a little goes a long ways, but over years it will build up, is Monsanto behind this too?
11:33 PM on 12/23/2009
I'm ok with it as long as it's regulated. It sounds a lot safer than dumping in one place, then it would be toxic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mike Holland
Environmental toxicologist: I Admit I
10:44 PM on 12/22/2009
@StephenBP: I think they spell out the desulphurization product pretty well. below are copied the comments about it, early on, and the article later equates it to sheetrock, making it seem harmless and the levels of toxins low...

However, even if low, the accumulative build-up of these metals is the KEY POINT, not their acute concentration; given enough time and dumping on farm fields and those fields will be toxic and lost to agriculture, while the electric company benefits by dumping this manufacturing liability on the public.

Regards,

Mike Holland, PhD
SXPHW, NC

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says those toxic metals occur in only tiny amounts that pose no threat to crops, surface water or humans.

Part of that push is to expand use of synthetic gypsum – a whitish, calcium-rich material known as flue gas desulfurization gypsum, or FGD gypsum.

A synthetic form of the mineral gypsum, it also contains mercury, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals."
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
07:16 PM on 12/22/2009
Coal ash and flue gas desulfurization waste are two different things, with totally different toxicities. The failure of this article to point this out clearly is puzzling. Was it an oversight? Its a pretty egregious error and had better be cleaned up fast or this article is going to get taken to the cleaners by the trolls.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LCRover001
04:50 PM on 12/22/2009
Why don't we just go a head and mix it with baby food?

The amount of toxic heavy metals that are in coal ash is shocking. These poisons would be absorbed into the plants. One of these metals thallium was taken off the market as a rat poison because it was so poisonous it harmed people who simply came in contact with it and now they want to use it as fertilizer.

The greed of the ruling class is gradually drifting back to the "good old days" when there was no FDA, OSHA, EPA or any other protection for the American people and the corporations could do as they pleased.

We are watching the reversal of history and it is true those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it.
09:56 AM on 12/22/2009
Why does people leave these comments like anyone cares.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LCRover001
04:53 PM on 12/22/2009
Look up the results of heavy metal poisoning and youns might aught ta worry.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BannedNBoston
Is hemp legal yet?
09:50 AM on 12/22/2009
They cant spray it all in the chemtrail planes there is too much.
01:50 AM on 12/22/2009
Why we don't just dump all coal waste into Lake Erie is completely beyond me.

Perhaps the thinking is to start with crops, then progressively introduce legislation and incrementally build on it to the point where we can just dump directly into large fresh water sources.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WhatDaBleep
Right is Wrong and Left is Correct
07:38 AM on 12/22/2009
I say - dump it in the Grand Canyon - the government doesn't care about national parks anymore and it is a big hole that can be filled up easily!
11:03 PM on 12/21/2009
The use of gypsum (CaSO4) harvested via flue gas desulfurization (FGD) as a soil amendment should be subject to purity regulations, as there are various FGD technologies used in coal plants that produce FGD gypsum of various purities.

There are ash major pollutants from coal combustion: fly ash (metal oxides), nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide -- in addition to carbon dioxide and water.

The solid particulate fly ash contains the stuff we don't want in our soil. This is generally removed using electrostatic precipitation. Of course, the removal isn't 100% effective.

NOx and SO2 are acid rain gases, so they must be scrubbed out of the flue gases.

NOx is typically reduced to N2 by reacting with ammonia or urea.

SO2 is precipitated as CaSO3 by spraying with a limestone (CaCO3) slurry.

The calcium sulfite (CaSO3) is then force oxidized to gypsum (CaSO4).

This process can produce reasonably pure gypsum.

However, some plants use a newer venturi scrubbers that remove fly ash and SO2 simultaneously, which cannot produce reasonably pure gypsum, and other processes mix the limestone slurry with the pulverized coal before combustion, which also produces contaminated gypsum.

Another newer process uses ammonia not only to reduce NOx but also to precipitate the SO2 as ammonium sulfate, an effective nitrogen fertilizer, instead of gypsum.

So the bottom line is to hold FGD gypsum to purity standards for use as a soil amendment, because it can be pure enough, but the only way to know for sure is to test
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
08:47 PM on 12/21/2009
Lisa Jackson is hot and cool, and well qualified, but I'm not afraid to disagree with an expert. I'm concerned about the toxic trace elements in that coal ash. I don't think I'd want to eat it, but I'd have to have a closer look at the studies. It doesn't sound like a great idea, nor an idea she is responsible for approving.

Like the FDA, the EPA is a big and troubled bureaucracy with a lot of problems she is addressing. It's a very big job and it's going to require a lot of constructive and critical feedback. Like the health care bill, the climate change conference in Copenhagen, there are a lot of financial interests and lobbyists at work undermining the standards of scientists. It will take a lot more time and effort to bring the EPA and the FDA up to the level of bureaucratic competence Americans deserve.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:54 PM on 12/21/2009
The EPA also allows the use of the chemicals in fracking in the oil and gas industries, and we have recently read that nearly all water sources in the U.S. are polluted. So if the EPA suggest that heavy metals are in the FGD gypsum, but it is just a little amount why would we be concerned about the possible accumulation over time that may harm us all. Oh yes, federal limits will certainly allay any fears that people may have about a shortened lifespan or neurological problems from having this stuff lying around on the food fields.

It doesn't sound sane to me.
photo
joebaggadonuts
Civilization: Evolutionary pathway of choice.
06:29 PM on 12/21/2009
SO where will the rich people get their food?
01:46 PM on 12/23/2009
Organic food is available to everyone.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
benji85
05:38 PM on 12/21/2009
This is exactly why I want to have enough land to grow my own food and have to trust a farmer didn't put poison on their crops.