Dennis Griesing, a spokesman for the trade group, said the industry lobbied for a uniform effective date for the ban so that companies have time to complete the undertaking of rolling out reformulated products, including building new chemical plants, retooling production facilities and launching marketing and distribution.
Del. Doyle L. Niemann, a Prince George's County Democrat and sponsor of the delay bill in the House of Delegates, said that extending the ban's effective date was a "small price to pay" in exchange for the industry's support for phosphorus reduction. He also said that while other companies will be offering products that meet the lower-phosphate threshold in time, they have a smaller market share.
"It's a question of what makes common sense," he said. "We're dealing with big industries, millions of transactions, and you want it to work smoothly."
Environmental groups point out that Colgate-Palmolive recently unveiled a phosphate-free dishwasher detergent and that other companies will soon be offering similar products. Brad Heavner, director of Environment Maryland, called the proposed delay of implementation a "giveaway to the industry."
Thomas W. Simpson, a professor at the University of Maryland, said in written testimony on the bill that dishwashing detergent contributes about 30,000 pounds of phosphorus to the bay in an average year, and that it would cost $2.2 million to reduce that amount of phosphorus from the bay.
Frosh tried to amend the bill to allow companies to get an extension if they pay for the remediation of the bay necessitated by their detergents, but senators rejected the proposal. Frosh also proposed changing the title of the bill to the Procter & Gamble Relief Act of 2008.
Senators put off action on that idea. A final vote on the bill in that chamber is expected in the coming days. The House has not voted on a companion measure.
laura.smitherman@baltsun.com
