Farmers Appeal TMDL Decision – Right to Determine Land Use Belongs to the States

It is an old story now that the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters have been impaired by the release of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These pollutants are released from waste water treatment plants, agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater facilities, septic systems, air pollution and other sources that enter the tributaries and Chesapeake Bay from the 16 million people living within its vast 64,000 square mile watershed.

There are six Chesapeake Bay states, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York-and Washington DC. For decades these states have been attempting to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and in fact, have made tremendous progress. Nonetheless, a “clean” Chesapeake Bay has alluded them; the cleanup plans hindered by growth in population and the region’s economies and difficulty in controlling the diverse sources of contamination.

In December 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, mandated a contamination limit called the TMDL (total maximum daily load for nutrient contamination and sediment) to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL sets an overall limit for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the 2011 levels. The pollution limits were then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. At this time the TMDL addresses only pollution from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

Population growth and less than consistent remedial actions on the non-point source contamination has challenged efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Non-point source pollution is pollution that does not come out of a pipe, but are carried to rivers and streams by runoff from rain and snowmelt. The way to reduce impact of this non-point source pollution on the environment is to implement what has been called “best management practices” and stormwater management. BMPs minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and that slow stormwater flow to prevent erosion and achieve a desired level of performance and quality while protecting the environment.

Pollution form urban and suburban stormwater runoff and septic systems is the only category of pollution in the region that has been growing in the 21st Century. In order to reduce the stormwater runoff carrying nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and other pollutants from existing suburban residential areas, stormwater best management practices will also have to be implemented in the suburban communities. Counties, towns and cities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed are going to have to implement non-point source nutrient management throughout the watershed not only to stop growth in pollution, but reduce the amount of pollution. Homeowner Associations and individual homeowners will need to individually and as a group reduce the nutrients and sediment run off from their properties. EPA did not allow the states to “grandfather” the nutrient levels from existing homes. Suburban and semi-rural BMPs have the potential to significantly reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, but state regulators and various health departments have struggled to reach, educate and motivate the public to implement, let alone maintain mitigation strategies. States have struggled with something as simple as trying to increase compliance with septic regulations by the public.

Nutrient management and soil and water conservation districts play a pivotal role in preventing such runoff in the agricultural community. In fact, conservation districts have been in the business of fighting erosion (which prevents nutrient and sediment pollution) since the mid-1930s, but conservation districts have met with varying degrees of success from state to state. Agricultural operations are businesses that can see the direct result of maintaining their top soil and that have learned over the years to deal with various regulations, still there are challenges. When dealing with the individual homeowner and the disperse sources of non-point source contamination; septic systems, poor drainage, impervious ground cover, lawn and plant fertilization, and household behaviors the challenges are much greater.

Nonetheless, it was the farmers who challenged the TMDL. In January 2011 American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed a complaint in federal court against the EPA to throw out the TMDL. The two Farm Bureaus were joined by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Turkey Federation, The Fertilizer Institute, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association. This group known collectively as “the Farm Bureau Group” made three complaints: (1) that the pollution limits or TMDL exceeded EPA’s authority, (2) that they were based on faulty science, and (3) that the plaintiff did not have adequate time to participate in the comment process and filed a motion for summary judgment against the EPA.

The EPA was joined by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Defenders of Wildlife, Jefferson County (WV) Public Service District, Midshore River Keeper Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. Several municipal waste water treatment groups were also allowed to intervene on behalf of EPA. The EPA group filed a counter motion for summary judgment against the Farm Bureau Group’s motion for summary judgment and oral arguments were made in October 2012.

Last September the District Court affirmed that the pollution limits that EPA established for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are within the purview of the Clean Water Act and are based on sound science. The Court also found that the Farm Bureau and Homebuilders had ample time to review and comment on the proposed limits. Summary judgment was granted to the EPA.

The Farm Bureau Group is appealing that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and have now been joined by a group of 21 of the nation’s 50 attorneys general who in February filed a friend of the court brief expressing concern that the Bay TMDL would set a precedent for other water bodies, including the Mississippi River basin. This month Thirty-nine members of Congress joined the Farm Bureau Group in their challenge to the EPA mandated TMDL and oversight of the Watershed Implementation Plans, saying the EPA went “far beyond” its authority when it set the TMDL limits and required states to develop the prescribed plans acceptable to the EPA showing how they would meet those limits on the timeline mandated by the EPA. This same structure of overall pollutant reduction with a mandated and supervised plan for implementation is also being used by the EPA to mandate reduction in carbon dioxide from power generation across the United States under the Clean Air Act.

This past spring when the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Choose Clean Water Coalition (CCWC) issued their report reviewing the results of the 2012-13 pollution reduction milestones against the states’ approved plans they found that pollution is being reduced in every state and Washington DC. However, they report that Pennsylvania and Delaware fell short in meeting their overall nitrogen pollution reduction target for 2013. In particular, estimated loads from the agricultural sector actually increased for nitrogen in Pennsylvania. The wastewater sector is already meeting or exceeding 2017 nutrient reduction goals in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington DC and Virginia. Non-point source pollution control on agricultural operations and control of the individual homeowner in urban and suburban areas is proving challenging everywhere, but Maryland. However the CBF and CCWC voiced their concerns about the underlying data for Maryland's calculations on retrofitting stormwater management saying: “There is a lack of transparency concerning both the numbers being reported to the state, as well as how the reductions are calculated.” In addition, while Maryland is tracking dead on target in meeting its pollution reduction milestones they have a long way to go to meet the 2017 and 2025 goals.

Now the Chesapeake Research Consortium and Bay Journal are planning a conference to discuss what they believe is the real policy solution to restoring the Chesapeake Bay. These organizations are looking to discuss and the possibility of and implementation of growth limits on population and the economy to achieve a sustainable Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL stated goal is to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its ecological condition in 1950. The targets of the TMDL are estimates of what those pollution levels were at that time. In 1950 there were approximately 8 million people living and working in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Today there are approximately 16 million people living and working in the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Research Consortium and the Bay Journal are questioning if a restored Chesapeake Bay can be achieved if the population an economy is “allowed” to continue to grow. It is a valid and realistic concern; however, these groups do not seem to question if EPA is can use the Watershed Implementation Plans for the Chesapeake Bay states to control land use, growth and water quality policy decisions. Congress did not grant to EPA the authority to control land use under the Clean Water Act. Growth and sustainability are issues that need to be addressed on the local level.

The EPA, Supreme Court and Carbon Dioxide

On Monday, June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA finding that regulators are not fee to “revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” The practical impact of this decision on current EPA regulations is limited, but the precedent is important.

Back in April 2007 in a decision in Massachusetts v EPA (2007), the Supreme Court had ruled that the Clean Air Act did authorize federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and that the agency was required to issue them for automobiles unless it had a scientific basis for its refusal. That case was brought by several states to force the EPA to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

This decision was followed in December 2009 by EPA finding that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” These greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2) were thus pollutants under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act which deals entirely with mobile sources of pollution.

The EPA then took the next step and went on to address greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, from stationary sources. The problem in regulating CO2 from stationary sources is that the Clean Air Act imposes very specific permitting requirements on stationary sources, that are a “major emitting facility”. The Clean Air Act specifically defines a “major emitting facility” as a stationary source with the potential to emit 250 tons per year of “any air pollutant” (or 100 tons per year for certain types of sources). Facilities seeking to qualify for a permit must, demonstrate that they comply with emissions limitations that reflect the “best available control technology” for “each pollutant subject to regulation under” the Act. In addition, Title V of the Clean Air Act makes it unlawful to operate any “major source,” wherever located, without a permit. A “major source” is a stationary source with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of “any air pollutant.”

The obvious problem is that these thresholds would require virtually any commercial building, school, churches, farm, landfill and some residences to obtain a permit to operate under the Clean Air Act a process that according to the EPA could cost $20,000-$50,000 for each entity. So the EPA attempted to side step this issue by raising the permit triggering limits to 100,000 tons to qualify as a major emitting facility for greenhouse gases and 75,000 tons for a stationary source to require a permit under the law.

The Supreme Court found that the EPA lacked authority to “tailor” the Act’s unambiguous numerical thresholds of 100 or 250 tons per year to accommodate its greenhouse-gas-inclusive interpretation of the permitting triggers. This according to the decision would have been an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s authority, the ability determine carbon dioxide standards and enforcement without congressional authority. Stating that “Agencies must always give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”

The decision states that “the Clean Air Act neither compels nor permits EPA" to require a stationary source to obtain a “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PSD) or Title V permit only on the basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emissions. However, EPA can reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with a “best available control technology” requirement for greenhouse gases.

So, EPA gets to require already regulated stationary sources of pollution to use the “best available control technology” to reduce greenhouse gases and determine the limits. This would cover according to the EPA 83% of the greenhouse gas emission from stationary sources. This decision does not address the recently proposed regulations to create national CO2 emissions standards for new and existing power plants with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions.

Virginia's Chesapeake Bay TMDL Report Card

The Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters have been impaired by the release of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These pollutants are released from waste water treatment plants, agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater facilities, septic systems, air pollution and other sources that enter the tributaries and Chesapeake Bay. These pollutants cause algae blooms that consume oxygen and create dead zones where fish and shellfish cannot survive, block sunlight that is needed for underwater grasses, and smother aquatic life on the bottom.

Since the 1980’s the six bay states- Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York-and Washington DC have been trying to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Though the excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has decreased over the past thirty years, the Bay’s waters remain degraded. As a result, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has mandated a contamination limit called the TMDL (total maximum daily load for nutrient contamination and sediment) to restore the local waters. The TMDL sets a total Chesapeake Bay watershed limit for the six states and Washington DC of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the 2011 levels. The pollution limits were then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. The TMDL addresses only pollution from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

In addition, each of the six states and Washington DC were required to submit and have approved by the EPA a detailed plan of how they intend to achieve the pollution reduction goals assigned to them. These plans are called the Watershed Implementation Plans, WIPs. The Virginia WIP and the other plan) lay out a series of pollution control measures called best management practices, BMPs that need to be put in place by 2025, with 60% of the BMPs completed by 2017. While it will take years after 2025 for the Bay and its tributaries to fully heal, EPA expects that once the required BMPs are in place (and maintained) there will be gradual and continued improvement in water quality as the BMPs reduce the nutrient and sediment run off and better control storm water so that the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem can heal itself.

About half of the 39,490 square mile land area of Virginia is drained by the creeks, streams and rivers that comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and two-thirds of the state's 8.26 million population lives within the watershed. To develop a remediation plan acceptable to the EPA and likely to achieve the goals of the revised WIP, the state legislature passed a series of laws and the state implemented a series of regulations addressing among other items: nutrient management plans, septic regulations, limitations of the sale and use of lawn maintenance fertilizer, banning deicing agents containing urea, nitrogen, or phosphorus intended for application on parking lots roadways, and sidewalks, or other paved surfaces, etc.

Many of these laws and regulations address non-point source pollution (NPS) which is a major factor impacting the quality of the water supply. The rate at which diffuse sources of pollution are generated and delivered to water resources is greatly affected by human activities and natural processes. These pollutants do not come out of a pipe, but are transported to surface water bodies by runoff, which results from rain or snowmelt. The way to reduce impact of this non-point source pollution on the environment is to implement what has been called “best management practices.” BMPs minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. to achieve a desired level of performance and quality while protecting the environment. BMPs are also designed to reduce runoff and  benefit water quality while maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production. EPA has never had the authority to regulate non-point source pollution, but through the TMDL and WIPs that is exactly what they are doing.

Recently, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Choose Clean Water Coalition (CCWC) issued their report reviewing the results of the 2012-13 pollution reduction milestones against the states’ WIPs and found that pollution is being reduced in every state and Washington DC. They report that “Virginia met its overall pollution reduction goals for 2013. Of the eight practices assessed, the Commonwealth met or exceeded its goals for fencing cattle out of streams and urban stream restoration, and was very close to meeting the goal for agricultural practices such as nutrient management, pasture management, and cover crops. Virginia fell short of its goals for forest buffers, conservation tillage, stormwater practices, urban nutrient management, and composite urban practices.”

Virginia remains significantly agricultural and has used the voluntary agricultural cost share program implemented by the state’s conservation districts to reach out to farmers to educate and assist in the implementation of BMPs and verify their maintenance. There has never been a program designed to educate and implement BMPs in suburban communities. In the past several years Virginia has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade wastewater treatment plants and utilized its Soil and Water Conservation Districts to expand the utilization of stream exclusion fencing by offering to have the state pay for the total amount of the fencing. Conservation districts were very successful in giving away fencing to farmers and are working to count the fencing that already exists and is effective and might not meet current cost share program guidelines.

In the first two years of the WIP, Virginia has struggled to build programs and methods for data gathering to address the problems with managing and tracking implementation of what is essentially remedial programs for farming operations both large and small and for individuals. EPA is using the WIPs to reach down and manage what is called non-point source pollution. Much of the urban stormwater management in Virginia is suburban and is a house by house, street by street series of plans that will be implemented by builders and existing homeowners, and maintained by homeowners and some will have to be retrofitted to existing communities. It is not clear how that will be accomplished, nor tracked as the new stormwater regulations have been delayed due to the challenges of implementation. Given these challenges it is not at all surprising that the first steps taken towards the TMDL were the ones that could be most easily implemented and tracked. The steps taken had the programs in place to both implement and track progress.

from CBF

It was noted by CBF and CCWC in their review that conservation tillage acres had actually declined since 2011. This is probably not true; the cost share incentives for conservation tillage have declined as the practice has become more widely adopted by farmers without the need for financial incentives. However, the farming practices that are not part of the cost share program have not been routinely tracked. So, the decline in conservation tillage acres may simply be a reflection that the Commonwealth does not track nor document every activity of every farmer in the state. Though, this may become necessary to satisfy the requirements of the EPA to require the implementation of resource management plans on most agricultural acres.

from CFB

Virginia also has a lot of work ahead to develop the infrastructure for the implementation of Virginia’s new Stormwater Management Regulations especially in smaller communities. Ways to work with existing homeowners and communities to address these diverse small sources of contamination will require the development of programs, education and outreach. The time and difficulty in implementing septic regulations on alternative septic systems and having the homeowners comply with regulations to inspect and maintain their systems is a challenge that is yet to be solved. It is not clear what level of data collection and tracking will be necessary for the individual homeowner. EPA is mandating to counties and towns actions that will raise property taxes, and require changes to properties and behavior. Citizens will first have to be convinced to support these programs.

To meet the demands of the WIP, the total amount of stormwater runoff will have to be reduced. This means that there will have to be implementation of improved stormwater management in existing developments to meet reductions in nutrient and sediment loads. The Commonwealth needs to reduce pollution from stormwater running off urban streets and parking lots by mandating reductions in state permits for large city stormwater systems and requiring some implementation of improved stormwater management in suburban developments. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation stormwater runoff remains the only source of water pollution in Virginia that continues to increase and must be aggressively addressed if restoration of the Bay is to succeed.

Given the challenges of developing programs for addressing non-point source pollution to meet the TMDL pollution reduction goals one home and a few acres at a time, it is not surprising that Virginia has used the big nutrient reduction numbers from waste water treatment plant upgrades and a big push in stream exclusion fencing by having the state pay the full cost to achieve the first round of benchmarks. The CBF Virginia Executive Director, Ann Jennings, says in the report: "Our analysis of the 2012/13 milestones indicate that reductions from wastewater treatment plants will not carry us across the goal line. The McAuliffe Administration has a unique and important opportunity to put Virginia on course for success by taking more aggressive steps to confront agricultural and urban pollution." I am very interested in seeing what those aggressive steps might be.

Plan for the Groundwater Cleanup at Quantico

The Marine Corps Combat Development Command (Base at Quantico) is inviting community residents to a public meeting on June 25, 2014 to discuss the plans for the proposed groundwater cleanup for an area east of Bauer Road within the Mainside of the Base at Quantico along the Potomac River. The area to be cleaned up is designated Solid Waste Management Unit M-13 (SWMU M-13)– Building 2113 Underground Tank Loading/Unloading Area. The public meeting will be held next Wednesday (June 25, 2014) at the Clubs at Quantico, Marine Corps Base Quantico, 3017 Russell Road, Quantico VA from 7-8:30 p.m. to discuss the Proposed Plan for SWMU M-13 – Building 2113 Underground Tank Loading/Unloading Area. The public comment period for this plan began on May 25, 2014 and ends July 8, 2014. The public may comment during the public meeting and/or may send written comments postmarked no later than July 8, 2014.

SWMU M-13 is the former concrete pad, sump, associated underground piping and loading/unloading area that serviced the Building 2113 underground storage tanks. The tanks were part of a fuel supply system for the heating plant located at Building 2113. All tanks have been removed or closed in place. A tank that is closed in place is one where the contents of the tank are removed, the tank cleaned and the wash water removed then the tank is filled with concrete. The area of contaminated groundwater is located approximately 75 feet south of Building 2113. Building 69, a former motor pool, and Building 5108, a flammable materials storage shed, are also located in close proximity to SWMU M-13.

The sight investigation and remediation identified groundwater contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds centered in the vicinity of Building 5108 at concentrations that exceed the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the solvents of concern and requires remediation to reduce future potential risks associated with human exposure to groundwater. The groundwater contamination from chlorinated solvents is believed to be a result of former motor pool repair and maintenance activities and shed chemical storage activities and not the actual SWMU (tank unloading/loading area activities) based on the location of the contamination and shallow depth of the contamination plume. Chlorinate solvents are used for a wide variety of commercial and industrial purposes, including degreasers, cleaning solutions, paint thinners, pesticides, resins, glues, and a host of other mixing and thinning solutions. Their chlorine-containing chemical structure helps them: to efficiently dissolve organic materials like greases.

Several remediation alternatives were evaluated for this site. The alternative proposed by the Navy consists of a combination of in-situ enhanced bioremediation, long-term monitoring of groundwater and land use controls to prevent potential unacceptable exposures to groundwater. Essentially, helping nature breakdown the contamination and making sure that people do not use the contaminated groundwater while the contamination clears up. The Navy has also requested the flexibility to stop groundwater treatment if monitoring data, evaluated through trend and statistical analysis, determines that the time frame for achieving unrestricted use/unrestricted exposure will not be reached within 10 years. If this determination is made, a contingency remedy of groundwater monitoring and land use controls will be implemented as the final remedy and nature will be allowed to take care of the problem.

This site is located within the coastal plain geological province. Natural attenuation of the contamination will probably work eventually as long as the sources of the contamination have been removed. I question the accuracy of modeling of groundwater systems and using statistical analysis. Groundwater models have not been adequately modeled to reliably predict natural attenuation. I believe it is essential to continue monitoring the groundwater after the MCL has been achieved. Confirmation sampling programs are rarely done at Superfund sites and contamination levels can rebound and should be tracked periodically over the coming decades. The proposal is broadly written, but essentially is letting nature dilute and move the contaminants out into the Potomac, doing a risk analysis to ensure that there is not significant risk for human exposure and then confirmation sampling.

The Marine Base at Quantico is located in Quantico, Virginia, 35 miles south of Washington, D.C. along the Potomac River. The base at Quantico is huge covering approximately 56,000 acres in southern Prince William County, northern Stafford County, and eastern Fauquier County.

The Marine Base at Quantico was first established in 1917 on 5,300 acres. During World War II the base was expanded to the west of Route 1 adding another 50,985 acres of land. Like all military bases much of the land was used for training, housing, training, ordnance disposal and vehicle repair, maintenance and fueling operations. Back in 1988 the Navy identified five areas of the base that were potentially contaminated by using historical records. These areas included base landfills, the motor pool and fueling areas, fuel storage areas, and pesticide burial areas.

Ultimately, the Marine Base at Quantico was listed on the National Priority List for Superfund on June 30, 1994. Seven areas or as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, prefers to call them operating units, have been addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. Since the 1990’s the Department of the Navy has been working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, VADEQ, to remediate the contamination at the Marine base at Quantico, bring base current operations incompliance with environmental regulations and maintain base operations according to recommended hazardous material storage best practices.
Solid Waste Management Unit M-13, Building 2113 had an underground storage tank used to store hazardous waste. The tank is underground and has a capacity of 100,000 to 200,000 gallons. The environmental study of the unit reported that the tank was used to store/dispose of used oils, strippers, thinners, and other halogenated solvents which are hazardous wastes as defined under the law. The Base at Quantico did not have good records, the start-up date for this tank is unknown, and it might have once been a fuel tank for the heating plant; however it was in operation as a hazardous waste disposal tank in of July 1988. The contents of the tank were removed and properly disposed of and the contamination with chlorinated solvents is above the base of the tank and believe to be from other sources.

Comments can be sent to:
Commander
NREA Branch, B 046
Attn: Donna Heric, Acting Remediation Program Manager
Marine Corps Base
3049 Bordelon St.
Quantico, Virginia 22134-5001
Phone: 703-432-0521
Fax: 703-784-4953
donna.heric@usmc.mil

In case you'd rather honor a hero than hear about hazardous waste, President Obama will award retired Cpl. William “Kyle” Carpenter, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in a White House ceremony today, June 19. 2014. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James F. Amos, is scheduled to present the Medal of Honor flag to Cpl. Kyle Carpenter in a ceremony June 20 at 10 a.m. at Marine Barracks Washington, D.C. 

Flame Retardants in Your Home and Your Body

Last Thursday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the release of the government’s final report on alternatives to the flame retardant HBCD and an updated draft report on alternatives to the flame retardant pentaBDE.

HBCD (hexabromocyclododecane) was used for decades around the world as a fire retardant before it was identified that it was in reality a whole group of compounds, and all these compound were a health concern. In recent years the European Chemicals Agency found that HBCD persists in the environment and does not break down into safer chemicals. It was also found to be toxic to aquatic invertebrates. According to the EPA, HBCD is also an endocrine disruptor that bio-accumulates in man and animals. In studies it was found in breast milk, breast tissue and fat cells and throughout the food chain.

The flame retardant HBCD may no longer be produced or used. This was decided by representatives from over 160 countries in late May 2012 at a UN conference on chemicals in Geneva. HBCD was formerly used as a flame retardant for plastics, electronics and textiles, and especially for insulation panels in buildings and may exist in buildings built in the last decades of the 20th century. It was more widely used in Europe than the United States where pentaBDE had been the preferred flame retardant for these materials before it began to be phased out in 2004.

HBCD is primarily used in the United States in polystyrene foam insulation. Polystyrene insulation is creates an extremely energy-efficient building envelope and has been used in “green-home” and “green-building” construction to reduce energy use because it helps to cut home energy use which accounts for about 20 % of the greenhouse gases emitted by the United States every year. Unfortunately, polystyrene is flammable. Under National Fire Protection Association nations fire-safety codes, a flame retardant for polystyrene is necessary and HBCD was the flame retardant of choice.

Now the EPA has announced three possible replacements. All three alternatives are brominated- a butadiene styrene brominated copolymer, a TBBPA-bis brominated ether derivative, and TBBPA bis-(2,3-dibromopropyl) ether. All brominated flame retardants may pose a health concern. No non-brominated flame retardants are known to be compatible in polystyrene manufacturing and the flame retardant tests. Use of polystyrene in your home should be carefully considered.

Blown-in cellulose, though not as effective as foam, is both affordable and environmentally benign. It is made with recycled newspapers and cotton fibers, and the flame retardant is boric acid, a naturally occurring substance that does not introduce new pollutants into the environment. ICYNENE LD-R-50™ (which I put in the crawl space above my garage as a test sight) according to the manufacturer, does not contain poly-brominated diphenyl ethers or any other brominated compounds. ICYNENE LD-R-50™ is made from castor oil and according to the manufacturer testing does not support fire. Nonetheless, it is a combustible material and it requires a thermal barrier to separate it from the interior occupied space. There has been a poor history of chemical foam insulation and I’ve decided to stick with cellulose despite having to add additional insulation each decade.

HBCD may be released to air, water, soil, and sediment during manufacture, processing, transportation, use, improper storage or containment, product usage, and disposal of products containing HBCD. Consumers have the potential to be exposed to HBCD from the off-gassing from treated textiles, and materials in the home which can be inhaled, ingested as dust, or through dermal contact. However the magnitude of this exposure is highly uncertain. All the EPA really knows is that HBCD has also been shown to be persistent and to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in food chain (U.S. EPA 2010).

The other flame retardants in the EPA announcement, Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) include the commercial versions of pentabromodiphenyl ether (c-pentaBDE), octabromodiphenyl ether (c-octaBDE), and decabromodiphenyl ether (c-decaBDE). Each of these commercial products is also a mixture. PBDEs were used as flame retardants in a number of applications, including textiles, plastics, wire insulation, and automobiles. These chemicals were used to manufacture electronics, furniture, mattresses, automobile seats, textiles, and wire and cable insulation. Many of the products containing these chemicals are still in use today. If you own any furniture manufactured after 1975 it may also contain pentaBDE.

The California Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation is to a large extent responsible for the use of pounds of flame retardants in furniture. In 1975 the California's furniture flammability standard Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117) was issued in response to a state law and as many California standards became the driver of chemical flame retardant use in residential furniture in the United States. With the phase-out of the polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) FR mixture PentaBDE in 2005, alternative flame retardants are increasingly being used to meet TB 117; however, it was not clear if these substitute chemicals were any safer.

California modified TB 117. Effective January 1, 2014, the new standard called TB117-2013, which makes children’s products exempt from California flammability standards and changes the flammability standard for upholstered furniture is now in effect. New baby products like mattresses, care seats, changing mats will not be required to contain added flame retardants. However, the regulation allows for a transition period during 2014 so the foam in baby products is likely to continue to contain flame retardants. You should look for baby products without a TB117 label to protect your baby. Natural products like feathers, down, wool and organic cotton were always exempted from the rule- which would explain my pillows, bedding, and the down cushions on the sofa my husband and cat both love to nap on.

My kitty sleeping on her flame retardant free sofa

CO2 Emissions and Net Generation

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the new regulations that the EPA is proposing under the Clean Air Act to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing electrical power plants. Power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, but still only account for about 32% of greenhouse gas released in 2012 (and slightly more of carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), fluorinated gases, nitrous oxide and methane (CH4). According to the EPA CO2 represents 84% of mass of greenhouse gas emissions and that the climate models indicate to be the cause of climate change.

The proposed regulations will require power plants to cut their CO2 emissions by 30% from 2005 levels or 18% from 2013 levels on average across the United States by using a combination of strategies. The proposed regulation will have a very limited if any impact on the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. If these regulations were implemented and in effect today, the effect would be to reduce overall CO2 emissions of all the nations on earth by about three quarters of a percentage point, and by the time they are actually implemented the impact will be far less as U.S. emissions shrink slightly as China and India grow rapidly. In 2012, the U.S. represented about 16% of world CO2 emissions. These proposed regulations for power plants will not change the fate of the planet.

The approach the EPA is taking is to allocate to each state a CO2 limit. The basic formula for the state limit is a rate:

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants) divided by (state electricity generation from fossil-fuel fired power plants plus certain low- or zero-emitting power sources).

Existing hydropower is excluded from the base calculation, but additional hydropower will be included in the denominator. However the goals for states are very different. For example, the final goal for Virginia is 810 pound of CO2 emitted per net megawatt hours of electricity produce in the state, for Maryland it is 1,187 and for West Virginia 1,620. You may wonder why the targets are different. The existing power plants in the electrical grid and their location determine the basic scale of the numerator. Power and commerce does not stop at state boarders, it moves across state lines. In addition, power plants are built to last generations so the ratio is determined by location of nuclear power plants, coal fired power plant, access to natural gas pipelines to supply natural gas to fire power plants, and history.

Below is data for March 2014 for a few states, the California, New York, and Massachusetts operate versions of cap and trade programs. Of these states only New York generated enough electricity within their borders during March 2014 to satisfy the needs are the state. Those states have become net buyers of electricity. They have outsourced the generation of power and its related CO2 emissions to other states. In addition, it appears that those states have also outsourced much of the industrial sector, importing products from other states and countries. Though I have only listed a few states you can see the pattern, Texas, South Carolina and Pennsylvania are net generators of electricity. Note that the actual capacity of the system is higher; March is a relatively modest demand month (no need for air conditioning).

All data from EIA

Washington DC besides not being a state has no goals from the EPA because it does not generate any power, though the waste water treatment plant at Blue Plaines is expanding its use of generated methane to power the plant as a renewable source of power and looking at the possibility of installing solar panels to supply power to the facility. You can take a look at the data on the U.S. Energy Information Agency, EIA, site to see which states and regions are net generators and which are net users of electricity. Also, you can see by the use of electricity for industry where in the United States we have the most industrial production.

As the  economics writer Robert J. Samuelson recently pointed out in an editorial in the Washington Post that thought we believe that climate change poses a threat to many of the earth’s citizens, we lack the technologies to stop it. The purpose of the EPA regulations seems to be to create the political and economic that fosters the development of technologies that will be needed for mankind to weather the storm and survive. “...But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts.” Both Mr. Samuelson and I are among the supporters of the idea of a carbon tax. Taxing the carbon content of products might be a more direct method to control CO2 generation and more effective method of reducing CO2 production without regulators taking control of a significant segment of the economy and could be applied to imports. Cap and trade schemes have a tendency to export manufacturing and generation. We should all remember when making purchase decisions that when we buy items manufactured in China or India that they were made using the dirtiest coal fired electric power plants on the planet. However, a direct tax must come from the legislature, not regulation. It would certainly generate badly needed revenue for our government that is running at a deficit.

With the CO2 limits imposed on states and management of how to cut them, the EPA is now taking control of the power generation sector of the economy to remake that industry in a less carbon intensive and more efficient vision. These regulations are likely to increase the cost and possibly limit the availability of electricity. These regulations will mark the end of the era of using coal to generate electricity in power plants with the EPA issuing CO2 “budgets” and tightening regulations on other coal burning emissions. Creating regional or national carbon trading market for “carbon credits” has the potential to prevent the reemergence of manufacturing in the United States that has been sparked by cheap natural gas and other favorable conditions. The EPA CO2 regulation for power plants may not be the right plan- my crystal ball is unclear. It is being proposed and will be implemented entirely by regulation without the support of congress as the elected representatives of the American People.

Supply and demand are more balanced on a regional basis, but Texas is still carrying the west

Further Adventures in Home Ownership

What my house looked like all winter

Small water stains on a window sill and around the door were the first indications of my problem. Though I had made three previous attempts in the last few years to locate the source of the moisture, it took ripping off the framing around the front door to get even a hint of the extent of the problem. Last fall while replacing the front walk and covering the front steps with stone I had the trim around the front door alcove pulled off and we discovered some wood rot.

It took removing a whole section of the alcove around the front door to even get an idea of the severity of the problem. The more of the wood clad alcove they pulled off the worse it looked. Without removing the stone facing on the front of the house it was impossible to determine the full extent of the water damage and its source, but it was clear I had a very big problem and what was going to be a very long and harsh winter was on its way. We sealed up the house using house wrap from Lowes in hopes of a mild winter (ha-ha) where we might be able to repair the house. Moisture and water infiltration is the major route of home destruction and needs to be addressed before your home is consumed by the elements and nature. Water stains can be caused by roof leaks, other leaks or condensing moisture. There's a lot of moisture generated inside homes. Small water leaks of all kinds can be ignored for a long time, don’t, they tend to grow into larger and more expensive problems.

It was not until spring that I finally had the entire repair project scoped out and the components ordered. The plan was to remove the stone facing from the front of the house, remove the house wrap, OSB subsiding and insulation and check all sub-structure for rot or other damage and replace and repair as necessary with pressure treated lumber. Once repairs are made, install new r-15 insulation on the main part of the house and insulate the garage then use pressure treated plywood to replace subsiding and wrap all exposed siding with DuPont Tyvek. Tape all joints and properly flash all elements. Over the winter we decided to replace the existing palladium window with a newly purchased Marvin window and the front door, transom and sidelights with a Pella door, so the contractor ordered those components in early spring increasing the cost of the repairs by about $12,500. Finally, after all the structural repairs are made we plan to install a Driwall Rainscreen system by Keene products on top of the Tyvek and then install the new stone facing.

After delivery of the door and windows, they were ready to begin work on my project. (My contractor has several projects underway so had assigned two carpenters and a helper to work on my house.) Earlier this month the work began and the stone facing was removed from the house.

 Section, by section the contractor began removing, repairing the structural elements and rebuilding the walls. The garage actually had no water damage so it was quick work to insulate, install the pressure treated plywood and wrap the wall in Tyvek.

When the carpenter pulled the Tyvek off the main portion of the house he found both beams on the cantilevered floor were rotted as well as the wall below the palladium window and the supports for the window.

Rotten beams the vertical support and moldy insulation had already been removed

Other fun finds were a nicked wire that had charred the insulation on the house. The electrician was sent for to rewire all the outside lights. The electrician suggested that the damage might have been caused by a lightning strike years ago. All the old insulation was removed and trashed, some of it damp and moldy.

Note the nick on the wire and the charred insulation.

The electrician rewiring the front of the house.

This is no HGTV project. We’ve come to a screeching halt. The carpenter had a death in his family back in Texas and headed home. He is going to stay for a bit. It doesn’t really set the project back because the Pella door was ordered incorrectly. We ordered a door for a four inch wall and the front wall of my house is a six inch wall. The good news is Lowes/Pella will take it back (even after being temporally installed in the house), but we have to wait for a new custom door to be made to fit the 6 inch thick wall. Also, the second try on ordering the door allowed me to adjust other elements of the door. So, I should be happier with the end result. The Marvin window salesmen came out to the house to measure the windows and went over all the elements of the order, so that there were no problems with that order and the windows are beautiful.

This is an almost 10 year old home built by Patriot Homes owned by Lennar. Oh, one last comment. If you suffered through the polar vortex last winter you might want to check to see if the pipe on your hose bib burst. One of mine did and the other was broken when the stone was removed.

The beams have been replaced, new insulation installed and pressure treated plywood installed on the first floor.

Top of the temporary front door is visible below the carpenter rebuilding the wall. 

After rebuilding the base of the wall the new flashing comes up a foot beyond the steps.

What the house looks like at the current stopping point thanks to Majestic Lnadscapes

The EPA Puts the Nation on a CO2 Diet

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy announced new regulations that the EPA is proposing to put in place under the Clean Air Act to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants under President Barak Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The details described in the news release summaries were not an entirely accurate reflection of what I read in the proposed regulation.

Power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States accounting for about 33% of greenhouse gas release (and slightly more of carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), fluorinated gases, nitrous oxide and methane (CH4). According to the EPA CO2 represents 84% of mass of greenhouse gas emissions and that the climate models indicate to be the cause of climate change. The proposed regulations will require power plants to cut their CO2 emissions by 30% from 2005 levels or 18% from 2013 levels by using a combination of approaches.

data from EIA

One of the main goals of this proposed regulation is reducing the amount of electricity generated from coal fired power plant and reducing the total number of coal fired power plants in the United States. In the past few years the EPA has implemented tougher regulations for these power plants. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) are two of the latest regulations to address power plants. MATS regulates mercury, arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide and slashes emissions of those pollutants from coal fired electrical generation plants. The CSPR is aimed at coal fired electrical generation plants, too. It slashes smokestack emissions of SO2 and NOX that can travel into neighboring states. Those pollutants react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and ground-level ozone and are transported long distances, making it difficult for other states to achieve their particle requirements under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which have also recently been tightened. Until now there has been no federal rule to prevent power plants from releasing as much CO2 as they want, though several states already have some sort of limitation on CO2; and CO2 generation in the United States has been falling in the past seven years.

President Obama has directed the EPA to create national CO2 emissions standards for new and existing power plants with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Last September the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised their proposed Clean Air Act standards to cut carbon pollution from new power plants. Under the revised proposal, new large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a carbon dioxide (CO2) limit of 1,000-1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour depending on size, while new coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Existing coal –fired electrical generation turbines emit about 2,080-2,180 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of power produced. Natural gas produces about 1,170 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

With Monday’s announcement the EPA is proposing regulation for the existing power plants requiring a reduction in the overall CO2 emitted by the nation. If these regulations if implemented and in effect today, the effect would be to reduce overall CO2 emissions of all the nations on earth by less than 1% and by the time they are actually implemented the impact will be a fraction of a percent. So, these regulations are not going to change the impact of CO2 on the climate.

The approach the EPA is taking is to allocate to each state a CO2 limit. The basic formula for the limit assigned to each state is:

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants) divided by (state electricity generation from fossil-fuel fired power plants plus certain low- or zero-emitting power sources).

It is to be noted that existing hydropower is excluded from the base calculation, but additional hydropower will be included in the denominator. EPA lists the interim and final goal for each state on pages 346-348 of the proposed regulation preceded by the explanation of how they arrived at these goals. According to the EPA, their approach factors in megawatt hours from fossil fuel power plants plus other types of power generation like renewables and nuclear, as well as megawatt-hour savings from energy efficiency in the state. The final goal for Virginia is 810 pound of CO2 emitted per net megawatt hours of electricity produce in the state, for Maryland it is 1,187 and for West Virginia 1,620. The EPA expects the regulations to result in a reduction in the electricity used per capita and in the CO2 generated per megawatt hour of electricity produced, and details how each state will achieve it in the 645 page regulation.

There are expected to be comments and legal challenges to the regulation, since it appears to be an expansion of the scope of existing laws and there are significant fiscal implications of the regulation across the economy. Nonetheless the EPA will mandate the limit and the states must provide a plan for achieving that limit that is acceptable to the EPA by June 30, 2016. States must determine a mix of four overall strategies that the EPA “helps” them pick:

• Make fossil fuel power plants more efficient. Though, it is estimated by the EPA that many coal plants can be upgraded to become slightly more efficient; this will be very cost dependent. Efficiency gains are expected to be 6%.
• Use lower CO2 emitting power plants more. This strategy both encourages the increase in utilization of the existing natural gas fired power plants (as well as construction of gas fired power plants). EPA considers increase utilization of low CO2 emitting power generation in the base load the preferred option of achieving the goal. 
• Use more zero- and low-emitting power sources by expanding renewable energy programs. The EPA is requiring the expansion of states’ Renewable Portfolio Standards, RPS, which require that a portion of energy produced to be by renewable. Within the prosed regulation EPA has assigned each state (with the exception of Vermont) a renewable energy generation goal (pages 202-204 of the proposed regulation). Virginia which currently supplies 3% of electricity from renewable sources is required to supply 16% of electricity from renewable sources. (Maryland currently supplies 2% from renewables and is also required to supply 16% from renewable sources in 2030.) Texas will be required to supply 20% of their electricity from renewable sources and currently supplies 8%. You get the picture. 
• Use electricity more efficiently. EPA is also requiring each state to establish energy savings programs and the amount of savings that utilities must achieve through customer energy efficiency programs. See page 229 of the regulation for each states goal. 
• Utilization of programs such as state cap and trade to put pressure on the CO2 generation and encourage the investment into energy saving and greenhouse gas reducing technologies. EPA looks for expansion of the various cap and trade programs that exist in 10 states. The states can develop a state-only plan or collaborate with other states to develop plans on a multi-state basis and EPA supplies the states your home state is grouped with. Delaware, District of Columbia (despite having no goals), Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia are grouped together in the East Central group. 

Though a national cap and trade law to address CO2 failed to pass the senate in 2009 and died, cap and trade law and regulations for CO2 exist in California and a program exists among nine northeastern states. In addition, cap and trade was used successfully to address the acid rain problem in the 1990’s. That program served as a way to cut pollution without heavy-handed regulations, allowing each business to choose how to reach the mandated goal. Each year the cap would ratchet down, allowing less pollution while market forces drove up the price for permits, creating an incentive for industries to invest in air scrubbers and pollution removal technology. However, that program was a permit trading program among regulated plants and not effectively covering the entire economy. The proposed CO2 regulation covers all electrical generation, its cost and availability in the United States.

One of the challenges in reducing CO2 emissions in the United States has been that there is no economically feasible carbon capture technology that can be retrofitted to a coal fired power plant and too much of the CO2 generated nationally comes from coal fired power plants- almost 13%. In addition, power companies are utilities that are limited by layers of regulations that control pricing and limit flexibility due to technical, business and jurisdictional constraints. The U.S. is the largest producer of natural gas, so we have alternatives. With this regulation the EPA is now taking control of the power generation sector of the economy to remake that industry in a less carbon intensive and more efficient vision. These regulations are likely to increase the cost and possibly limit the availability of electricity, but are also intended to reduce the use of electricity. These regulations will mark the end of the era of using coal to generate electricity in power plants. This era began with the oil crisis in 1972 and will end with the EPA issuing CO2 “budgets” and potentially creates a regional or national carbon trading market for “carbon credits."

I should admit that I am one of the many who prefer a carbon tax to EPA's command and control regulations. Taxing the carbon content of products might be a more direct method to control CO2 generation and more effective method of reducing CO2 production without regulators taking control of a significant segment of the economy and could be applied to imports. However, a direct tax must come from the legislature, not regulation, and would have to be negotiated and vetted by the elected representatives of the people. It would certainly generate badly needed revenue for our government that is running at a deficit.  

12 d-Con Rat and Mouse Poison Unsafe for Consumer Use

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reached agreement with Reckitt Benckiser Inc. (Rickitt) to phase out 12 d-CON mouse and rat poison products that do not currently comply with EPA safety standards. These standards require that rodent poisons sold to consumers be pellets, solid and granular bait be secured in bait stations are tamper proof and to be first generation anticoagulants. EPA prohibits the sale of products containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone and difenacoum to residential consumers because the danger of misuse and the resulting risk to wildlife and children.

There are three types of rodenticide products. First-generation anticoagulants (warfarin, chlorophacinone, and diphacinone), second-generation anticoagulants (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone), and non-anticoagulants (bromethalin, cholecalciferol and zinc phosphide). All the anticoagulants interfere with blood clotting, and death results from excessive bleeding in about 5-7 days. The second-generation anticoagulants are especially hazardous because they are highly toxic, and they persist a long time in body tissues. The second-generation anticoagulants are designed to be toxic in a single feeding, but since time-to-death is still 5-7 days, rodents can feed multiple times before death, resulting in carcasses containing residues that may be many times the lethal dose. Predators or scavengers that feed on those poisoned rodents may then also be poisoned. The non-anticoagulants have differing ways of affecting pests. Bromethalin is a nerve toxicant that causes respiratory distress. Cholecalciferol is vitamin D3, which in small dosages is needed for good health in most mammals, but in massive doses is toxic, especially to rodents. Zinc phosphide causes the release of toxic phosphine gas in the stomach.

The d-CON pellets were a second generation anticoagulant sold loose and often placed in open trays. Open anticoagulant bait products have been responsible for at least 10,000 accidental ingestions by babies and young children over the years. Few of these documented cases were serious because the amounts consumed were often too small to make children very sick and the children could be treated with vitamin K, which can serve as an antidote to first generation anticoagulants and possibly very low doses of second generation anticoagulants. The second generation anticoagulants were also documented to affect wildlife that consume the poisoned mice, including golden eagles, northern spotted owls and San Joaquin kit foxes. The State of California banned these products earlier this year based on that documentation.

Rickitt has agreed to stop production by the end of the year and stop distribution to retailers by March 31, 2015, and replace the existing second generation anticoagulants products with new bait products would continue to using first generation anticoagulants for which Vitamin K is a readily available antidote. The products will not contain neurotoxins. The new products will be housed in protective bait stations. In February 2013 the EPA made the determination that 12 products produced by Reckitt did not meet current safety standards and issued a Notice of Intent to Cancel their registration (which allows sale of the product). Reckitt challenged this determination through the EPA’s administrative hearing process and lost. Reckitt then decided to voluntarily cancel the 12 d-CON products and withdraw its challenge of the Agency’s denials of applications for registration of two other d-CON products.

The cancelled products are:

Remaining on the market are: d-CON Bait Station XIV, d-CON Bait Station XIII, d-Con Bait Station XI, and d-CON Bait Station XII.

Other products that are on the market that meet the EPA standards are:

The major provisions of the agreement between the EPA and Reckitt are:

• Production of the 12 d-CON rat and mouse poison products will be phased out and stop by December 31, 2014.
• Reckitt will cease distribution of existing stocks of these products by March 31, 2015.
• During the phase-out period Reckitt will only produce quantities of these products to satisfy previously existing contracts and agreements.
• Retailers will be permitted keep the products on the shelves until stocks are depleted, and end users will be permitted to use them until exhausted. 

If you have mouse or rat poison checks the product labels to see what you have. It is legal for consumers to use the 12 d-CON mouse and rat poison products, provided they follow all label directions and precautions. If you have small children or pets in the house, just don’t. Certainly, do not use the products outside. Consumers who wish to dispose of any of the d-CON mouse and rat poison products listed above should contact their state or local waste disposal program for collection programs for hazardous materials. In Prince William, the landfill has a hazardous material program. These pesticides are harmful to the wildlife, so consumers who have opened containers should not discard them outdoors or dispose of them in sinks or toilets.