|
Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version. If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options. Environmental Evaluation of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum as a BMP for Erosion ControlPublished by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org Citation: International Symposium on Erosion and Landscape Evolution (ISELE), 18-21 September 2011, Anchorage, Alaska 711P0311cd Paper #11069.(doi:10.13031/2013.39263)Authors: L Darrell Norton Keywords: Erosion control, Soil amendments, FGD, Desulfurization byproducts, Mercury, Infiltration, Runoff, Electrolytes, Nutrients, Groundwater, Water quality Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum (FGDG) is produced from pollution control systems reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from thermo-electric coal-fired power plants. Natural gypsum and FGDG both have been shown to be useful in control of soil erosion. However, concerns have been raised recently by environmental groups as to the fate of trace elements in FGDG especially that of mercury (Hg). The most common production practice of FGDG may trap some of the Hg present in the coal that normally would escape as vapor in the stack gases. Some FGDG, especially production from older facilities, may have other trace elements associated with fly ash mixing or contamination. We studied the effect of 2.24 MT ha-1 FGDG gypsum on conventional and long-term no-tillage fields on a Blount soil in DeKalb County IN four years from 2005-2008 and compared it to a control and poultry litter applications using rainfall simulation. We found it effective in reducing runoff and erosion even on no-tilled soil but found a greater effect of reducing soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations particularly when manure was also applied; however, concerns for trace elements fate were expressed by environmental groups. In order to evaluate the fate of Hg and other trace elements, we conducted field studies at two locations where FGDG was compared to commercially available pelletized natural gypsum (PG) and a control. The FGDG used came from modern coal fired power plants producing high purity (wallboard quality) FGDG. The rates used were typical agronomic rates and those used for erosion control and were varied between 0 and 8.98 MT ha-1. Crops were grown in the fields using standard agricultural practices and fertility recommendations. One field experiment was conducted in 2008-2009 on a Yeddo silt loam with a corn/soybean rotation near Kingman, IN and the second at the Arlington, WI field station of the University of Wisconsin with alfalfa in 2009-2010 on a Plano silt loam. In 2008, corn tissue was sampled at silk stage from the ear leaf and at harvest for total plant fodder analysis. Grain was also collected for analyses of Nitrogen (N), Carbon (C), Sulfur (S) and trace elements. In 2009, soybean plant tissues at flowering at Kingman one year following application and alfalfa forage samples at first cutting at Arlington were sampled 2 months after FGDG and PG was applied. The only significant difference in Hg content found was a slight increase in concentration for corn ear leaf samples when 2.24 MT ha-1 FGDG was applied in 2008. At harvest, neither the mature corn fodder nor grain had any significant difference in Hg or other trace element concentrations with FGDG gypsum application. Sulfur increased in alfalfa tissue in 2009 with the rate of FGDG applied but not for PG although yields did not increase. In 2010, similar results were obtained. Although N or C contents were not statistically different, the increase in S content may be the result of higher protein content which improves nutritional quality. Other trace elements did not increase in plants with FGDG or PG application. In both field studies, we sampled the soil before application of materials and following harvest and found no increases in trace elements with application of FGDG or PG. At both sites we collected water at 60 cm depth from suction lysimeters and found no differences in concentrations for any trace elements. We did not find any detectable potential for trace element contamination in soil, plant, surface water or shallow groundwater with FGDG or PG application. Application of FGDG or PG to fields at the rates normally used for erosion control does not represent a significant risk of getting Hg or other trace elements into the food chain or pose abnormal threat of contaminating soil, runoff or shallow groundwater with trace elements. (Download PDF) (Export to EndNotes)
|