The dingy-gray smokestacks and visibly worn tanks at the Farmland nitrogen fertilizer plant east of Lawrence look old and tired.

The nearly 50-year old plant that has pumped through its pipes millions of gallons of ammonia, nitrate and various forms of acid just looks like it could – or has – produced an environmental mess.

The plant has been shut down since May 2001, and officials with bankrupt Farmland Industries Inc. are trying to determine the future of the plant and six others it has put up for sale.

What many in Lawrence are trying to determine is whether the 467 acres the plant occupies is good for anything, or whether decades of fertilizer production has contaminated the property so much that it is destined to remain an empty eyesore.

“I think what everybody hopes is that the private sector will come in and take care of all this,” said Douglas County Commissioner Charles Jones. “But you hear of situations where properties like this set vacant for years and government has to step forward to make anything happen.”

Private possibilities

Jones said he hoped local governments don’t have to play that role with the Farmland property, but he understands how some may look at the plant and worry it is destined to become an environmental headache.

Such a scenario may not necessarily be so.

Kurt Limesand, a Kansas Department of Health and Environment unit chief who has overseen years of cleanup at the plant, said the environmental condition of the property isn’t as bad as many people think.

“I don’t think the property is anywhere near being permanently blighted,” Limesand said. “There’s just a stigma or a negative public perception that is sometimes associated with chemical manufacturing.”

In fact, Limesand said he thought about $2 million worth of cleanup the company already has done at the plant has put the property on track to be successfully redeveloped.

Kurt Limesand, a unit chief with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, assesses the condition of Farmland Industries' Lawrence fertilizer plant. Limesand, who has overseen cleanup at the plant, said he believes the property can be redeveloped.

“I think there are very large portions of the site that could be redeveloped,” said Limesand, a Lawrence resident. “I even think there are parts of it that could be considered for unrestricted use.”

Unseen future

Farmland officials are trying to sell the Lawrence facility to other companies that may be interested in using it as a fertilizer plant. The Kansas City Mo.-based firm accepted bids for all seven of its nitrogen fertilizer facilities in mid-November.

Company officials are still reviewing those bids. They have declined to say how many bids they have received, or whether any of the bidders are interested in purchasing the Lawrence facility. Industry observers have speculated the Lawrence plant will be the toughest of the seven to sell because it is the oldest plant in the Farmland system.

Kevan Vick, a Lawrence resident who is general manager of Farmland’s nitrogen fertilizer operations, said it was possible a fertilizer buyer wouldn’t be found for the plant. But like state officials, he doesn’t think the site’s environmental history will preclude a sale.

“I think it is very feasible to redevelop it,” Vick said. “There obviously will be the need to remove the plant, the equipment and the buildings, and there are some ongoing environmental programs, but we think all that’s fairly easily completed.

“In our thinking, there isn’t anything to preclude it from making it available for economic development and doing it economically. The bottom line is the land is worth more than any cleanup that is left to do.”

Past problems

But there is still work to do, the KDHE’s Limesand said. That’s in part because the plant has had its share of environmental problems.

Shortly after the plant opened in 1954 it began using a chromium-based product to protect its cooling towers from corrosion. Periodically water from those towers were discharged into ponds on the site. Eventually, the soil and groundwater in the immediate area became contaminated with chromium.

Limesand said previous cleanup measures brought the chromium problem under control, but Farmland or its successor may have to monitor the site for as long as 30 years.

These days, contamination of the groundwater by nitrate is a bigger problem at the site, Limesand said. Over the years, nitrate has seeped into the groundwater as spills have occurred at the site, which largely was unpaved until the mid-1990s.

The spills added up over time. Federal guidelines say the maximum amount of nitrate allowable in drinking water is 10 milligrams per liter. In the past, state measurements of the groundwater aquifer directly beneath the Farmland plant found levels as high as 21,000 milligrams per liter.

Exact levels for the site today weren’t immediately available, but Limesand said contamination is still a problem.

“That aquifer is still significantly contaminated with nitrate,” he said.

High stakes

The good news, Limesand said, is the aquifer beneath the plant is not used for drinking water by either humans or livestock. The bad news is that it is very near the Kansas River aquifer, which is a major supply of drinking water for both Lawrence, Eudora and several rural residents who live in the Kansas River valley.

Limesand said the potential exists for water from the aquifer beneath Farmland to seep into the Kansas River aquifer and contaminate it.

Exposure to nitrate-contaminated water can be hazardous to human health, particularly in infants. The most serious problem it can cause is a medical condition commonly known as “Blue Baby Syndrome,” which affects the way an infant is able to process oxygen. The condition can be deadly.

But Limesand said the groundwater problems at the plant haven’t created health problems yet.

“We know of no one who has gotten sick in Lawrence because of any of this,” Limesand said.

Seeking a new solution

And Limesand said state officials expect it to remain that way. The groundwater under the Farmland plant probably will continue to be contaminated for decades to come, but state regulators are confident they’ll be able to stop the contaminated water from spreading into the Kansas River aquifer.

“Our absolute and ultimate goal is to prevent human exposure,” Limesand said. “We won’t allow that to happen.”

In 1995, KDHE ordered Farmland to install a $637,000 system that essentially pumps contaminated water out of the aquifer and into secure, leak-proof, on-site ponds. The pumping activity is designed to ensure the aquifer doesn’t become so full that it begins to seep into the Kansas River.

But closure of the plant has created a problem for the plan. Farmland in the past was able to empty the ponds by using the water stored in them as part of its manufacturing process. Now that the plant is no longer producing, the ponds are beginning to fill up.

“The plan is working for now, but if the plant shutdown becomes permanent we may have to evaluate other alternatives,” Limesand said.

Limesand said there probably were several feasible alternatives. One is that since the water is essentially diluted fertilizer, the water could be pumped from the ground and sold to farmers who want to use it on their crops.

“It actually may end up having an economic value to someone,” Limesand said.

Surviving bankruptcy

The larger issue may be figuring out who will be responsible for implementing the new cleanup plan if Farmland no longer owns the property.

Limesand said the state’s 1995 Corrective Action Decision obligated Farmland to either find a buyer who would abide by the terms of the decision or continue implementing the plan itself.

Vick said Farmland doesn’t disagree with that assessment.

“It’s tough to say exactly what we’ll have to do because we’re still talking with regulators, but we don’t think it will be a problem,” Vick said.

But Limesand admits that the fact Farmland is in bankruptcy does make the issue more challenging.

“We believe that Farmland will financially survive to the extent it will be able to fulfill its obligations,” Limesand said. “But it is difficult because we know the decisions for the plant aren’t entirely in the hands of Farmland anymore.

“I think Farmland probably is as unclear about the future of that plant as we are.”