States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed would have to limit discharges of pollutants that turn large swaths of the bay into biological "dead zones" each summer under plans announced yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA proposal would force sewage treatment plants to spend tens of millions of dollars on technology to reduce discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus - nutrients that in excessive amounts deplete dissolved oxygen that fish, crabs, oysters and other marine life need to survive.
Richard Batiuk, associate director for science at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, said implementation of the plan would be a landmark for the restoration of the bay.
"It's something that we haven't been able to do for 20 years, and that is to connect hundreds of sewage treatment plants and permit levels of nutrients that are necessary for water quality benefits," Batiuk said. "And we can do it scientifically, we can do it legally, and we can do it in a fashion that is cost-effective."
But the plan seemed to please no one. Representatives of municipal sewage treatment plant operators expressed concern about the cost of meeting new discharge standards. Environmentalists worried that the EPA plan would not go far enough to solve one of the bay's most serious problems.
Christopher Pomeroy, whose Richmond, Va., law firm represents associations of municipal treatment plant operators in Maryland and Virginia, said plant operators in both states were reducing pollution effectively through state grant funds and voluntary agreements.
"The track record is undeniable," he said. "Anytime the states have made the funding available, the local governments stepped up to take the funding and make the improvements. If we were to continue on that track, I feel confident that we'd see continued reductions."
But officials at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which had filed a petition to the EPA to strengthen its rules on nutrient pollution, said the agency's plan doesn't go far enough. They point to the fine print in the EPA announcement, which said the recommendations are not binding and that permitting decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
"There's nothing in here that forces anybody to do anything" said Theresa Pierno, a foundation vice president. "It's more of the same delay, delay, delay."
