Merck Wants Right to Pollute the Chesapeake Bay
The pharmaceutical manufacturer petitioned the water board to allow its Elkton plant to discharge about 30,000 pounds of nitrogen and about 3,000 pounds of phosphorus per year. That’s about twice as much phosphorus and three times as much nitrogen as allowed by limits the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality set for the plant’s wastewater treatment facility in 2005.
Phosphorus and nitrogen, used to treat wastewater, can create algal blooms and endanger fish and other animals. Strangely — and depressingly predictably — the DEQ recommended the water board approve Merck’s request for extra pollution anyway.
Merck says it’s impossible for the plant to reduce its output enough:
“After we performed our pilot studies, it was seen those numbers were technically impossible for us to achieve,” said Helen Penrod, senior project scientist with the plant’s department of safety and the environment.
Environmentalists want the water board to stand by its decision:
It would be detrimental to the Chesapeake Bay and Shenandoah River if limits were raised for Merck, said Jeff Kelble, Shenandoah riverkeeper for the Waterkeeper Alliance, an environmental advocacy group. “This is our biggest effort yet [to clean up the bay],” he said. “I’d hate to see it get watered down.”
The water board has tabled the issue and asked Merck to come back with “alternatives” that would somehow bring it under the pollution limit.
Jim Edwards, a former managing editor of Adweek, has covered drug marketing at Brandweek for four years, and is a former Knight-Bagehot fellow at Columbia University's business and journalism schools. Follow him on Twitter or send him an email.
BNET User Analysis