Return of the Phosphates

The surprise announcement was made last week by four key federal agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration and Council on Environmental Quality--and was best summarized by U.S. Surgeon General Jesse L. Steinfeld: "My advice to the housewife at this time is to use a phosphate detergent."

Dangerous Compounds. If the housewife is confused by that advice, she has good reason. For several years, various federal agencies have joined ecologists in stressing that phosphates can cause grave environmental damage. Pouring in a sudsy torrent from washing machines, detergents now account for about half of the growing amount of phosphates in U.S. waters. By overfertilizing algae and other plant life, phosphates start a process that depletes the oxygen supply in the water and eventually results in the eutrophication, or "death," of lakes and ponds. To counter that expanding threat to the nation's waters, four states and several counties and cities have either banned or begun phasing out the use of phosphate-bearing detergents. Manufacturers, under Government pressure, have reduced the phosphate content of their detergents or substituted other chemicals designed to produce a clean, white wash.

Those substitutes, unfortunately, seem to be more dangerous than phosphates. One of the chemicals, nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA), was substituted because it cleans well and usually decomposes soon after use. But it has been found to combine with heavy metals like mercury and cadmium in drinking-water supplies, producing chemical compounds that have been linked to birth defects in animals. Thus the compounds may affect human beings as well. At the Surgeon General's request last year, manufacturers removed NTA detergents from the market.

The other class of widely used phosphate substitutes--caustic alkaline chemicals--can be dangerous if inhaled, swallowed or brought in contact with the eyes. The fact that small children often swallow household cleaning agents increases the threat. Last year alone, 3,900 such poisonings were reported, and last month a 15-month-old Connecticut girl died from eating a non-phosphate detergent. Says an EPA official: "When you weigh the death of a child against the possible death of a lake, there's no choice. The human health factor has to outweigh any environmental damage."

Officials urged that, until better substitutes for phosphates are found, federal and local governments build new sewage-treatment plants and modify existing ones to separate phosphates and keep them from fouling fresh waters. William Ruckelshaus, EPA's administrator, estimates that Washington's share in financing such facilities would total up to $500 million each year. That low estimate is probably realistic; the addition of an inexpensive chemical like lime or alum to even simple sewage-treatment systems will remove phosphates effectively. Furthermore, EPA officials say, the need for such plants is not universal; only 15% of the U.S.'s communities are near lakes in which the detergents in sewage are causing significant ecological harm.

Consumer's Lap. The new federal detergent policy immediately ran into heavy congressional criticism. Wisconsin Representative Henry Reuss charged that the Administration had "capitulated to the soap and detergent makers" by advocating a return to phosphates. Senator Edmund Muskie attacked the decision as "poor public policy" because it offered no real solutions. Instead, Muskie said, it "simply dumps the phosphate problem in the consumer's lap and puts considerable burden on local communities without stipulating that the manufacturers come up with a safe, environmentally clean alternative. At week's end, as confusion mounted, most of the states, counties and cities that have passed laws against the sale and use of phosphate-bearing detergents seemed determined to let the ban stand.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.