By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 10, 1998; Page C1

National poultry industry representatives agreed yesterday on a broad, voluntary plan aimed at limiting pollution washing off chicken farms, which has become a major focus of efforts to reclaim despoiled waterways, including the Chesapeake Bay.

"We have made a major step forward," declared John K. Chlada, director of environmental services for Perdue Farms Inc., the country's third-largest chicken producer, who was the chairman of the so-called Poultry Dialogue.

Under the plan agreed to yesterday, poultry processing companies would demand over the coming decade that their growers follow plans for the proper handling of manure, which contains phosphorus and nitrogen, nutrients that, in overabundance, fuel environmental ills such as algae that choke the oxygen in waterways, spawning "dead zones" inhospitable to fish and crabs.

Environmental advocates quickly branded the agreement inconsequential. Senior officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it fell short of ensuring that big chicken companies, rather than small farmers, will bear most of the costs of anti-pollution programs, even as the agency called it a positive step.

"We have ongoing concerns about how the program is going to be paid for and what the impacts on the growers will be," said W. Michael McCabe, EPA regional administrator for the mid-Atlantic. Growers, not companies, are responsible for getting rid of chicken manure. "I'm encouraged, but we need to see the details."

The EPA's reaction is significant because the agency is finalizing a regulatory program – in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture – that would impose stricter rules and inspections on large meat producers. The new rules are part of a clean water initiative announced in February by President Clinton.

Poultry producers had hoped their plan would gain favor as a credible alternative, but McCabe made clear that they missed the mark. He said a recent federal draft of proposed regulations instead would serve as the guiding document, though the EPA will weigh the industry's proposal.

The interplay of regulators and the industry is of keen interest in Maryland, Virginia and Delaware, where about 600 million chickens are produced annually, along with about 800,000 tons of manure.

Outbreaks of the toxic microbe Pfiesteria piscicida in Maryland waters two summers ago greatly intensified scrutiny of the poultry industry, rendering it a primary target in efforts to clean the Chesapeake and its tributaries. Many scientists believe manure washing off fields nurtured the microbe.

Indeed, the industry launched its Poultry Dialogue in part to preempt regulatory initiatives after pfiesteria outbreaks, holding several meetings over more than a year. Yesterday's was at the Washington Dulles Airport Hilton.

Pork producers recently accepted new anti-pollution measures in exchange for technical help from federal agencies and a cap on fines paid when they exceed limits. Environmentalists have complained that the deal was generous to the pork industry, but the EPA signed off, saying a cooperative arrangement was the best means of limiting pollution.

The poultry industry has declined similar deals, declaring that their impact on water pollution is far less than pork's.

Many farmers spread chicken manure as fertilizer. Under the industry plan, farmers would be encouraged to erect manure storage sheds and spread only as much manure as crops require so that extra nutrients won't be left exposed to rain and runoff. The plan also calls for poultry companies to continue research into limiting nutrients in the manure while seeking alternative uses such as burning or composting.

Environmentalists noted that such controls have been in play for years and that the poultry industry frequently boasts that such efforts make it a national leader in protecting the environment.

By packaging many existing practices as a new, voluntarily plan, "they clearly haven't listened to anybody but themselves," said Thomas V. Grasso, Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a representative of the national Clean Water Network. "We're going to have to rely on the federal government to take the lead."

The plan avoids committing the industry to specific spending, while pledging generally that the big companies "will continue to fund projects through their traditional channels and will increase funding as needed" to improve water quality. The plan asserts that the industry hopes to gain millions of dollars in state and federal assistance.

EPA officials had pressed for language committing the companies to pay a certain share of the costs, but the chairman resisted.

"They're still saying, 'We're going to step up and take it on faith,'‚" complained Joseph T. Piotrowski, EPA associate director of the water division for the mid-Atlantic. "How do you know any of this is going to happen?"

The EPA's McCabe suggested that the industry plan reflected the group that crafted it. "The fact that there wasn't more grower representation and there weren't any environmentalists at the table was a shortcoming," he said.