CPSC ponders regulation of CCA-treated wood playground equipment - United States. Consumer Product Safety Commission - chromated copper arsenate

Dealing with chronic hazards, i.e., those that have long-term rather than immediate health effects, has always proved problematic for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Some suggest CPSC is not well equipped to deal with such hazards.

Nevertheless, through its administration of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), the agency has jurisdiction of such hazards.

On March 17, CPSC will hold a public briefing on the alleged chronic hazards of CCA (chromated copper arsenate) -pressure-treated wood used to build playground equipment. Almost two years ago, in June 2001, CPSC docketed a petition by the pro-regulation Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Healthy Building Network (HBN) to ban CCA treated wood for use in playground equipment. CCA treatment protects wood from rotting due to insect or fungus infestation.

Petitioners charged that CCA is hazardous since it contains arsenic, which has been labeled as a known carcinogen. CPSC's staff briefing package uses Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research to make assumptions leading them to conclude that children playing on playground equipment built with CCA-treated wood could be subject to a minimally increased lifetime risk of lung or bladder cancer.

CPSC's briefing document claims that hand-to-mouth behavior is the source of childhood exposure. In other words, children can touch the wood on the playset, then put their hands in their mouths and potentially ingest arsenic that has leached from the wood.

The staff recommends that the Commission defer the petition pending expected action by the EPA to complete an industry agreement to phase out the sale of CCA-treated wood for residential use by the end of 2003.

CCA has been used as a chemical wood preservative since the 1930s. Pressure-treated wood is resistant to rot caused by insects and fungi. The chemical has been regulated by the EPA and can only be applied by facilities meeting EPA standards. There are also voluntary standards set by the American Wood Preservers Association. ASTM International standards for playground equipment do not specifically address CCA-treated wood, but call for the use of materials that do not expose users to potentially hazardous substances.

CPSC looked at CCA-treated wood about a decade ago, and the Health Sciences staff of CPSC measured arsenic in samples of CCA-treated wood. In five of the tested samples, the staff could detect no arsenic. In two samples, there were small quantities detectable, and the last sample, which did yield a larger amount of arsenic, was rough-sawn lumber--not acceptable for use in playground equipment. (1)

EPA also conducted an eight-year investigation of the treated wood process and the use of CCA. A 1998 EPA report said that the benefits of using CCA outweighed any minimal risks. EPA also set some precautions for its use, and the industry cooperated with a consumer-awareness program. (Information about handling precautions for CCA-treated wood is available at www.ccasafetyinfo.com, or by calling toll-free at 1-800-282-0600.)

As recently as Oct. 24, 2001, Barbara Beck, a toxicologist and principal at Gradient Corp., concluded that CCA-wood poses no significant health risks. The study was presented to a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), a peer-reviewing body for the EPA.

If the preservative has been used for more than 70 years and no adverse health effects have been measured, why the pressure to ban its use now?

Much of CPSC's risk analysis is based upon reports on increased cancers found in persons living in southwestern Taiwan, some of whom were exposed to very high levels of arsenic in drinking water. (2)

This Taiwanese research was the basis for National Research Council (NRC) studies that, in turn, were the basis for EPA's action on arsenic in drinking water.

Some who followed that controversy say that the Taiwanese data is flawed, as the population at risk was exposed to very high levels of arsenic, and estimates of exposure levels were not precise.

Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, commenting on the CPSC risk analysis, writes:

"CPSC estimated the increased cancer risk to range from two cases in every million people to 100 in a million.

"For comparison, about one out of every 10,000 nonsmokers (0.01 percent) gets lung cancer. So based on CPSC estimates, playing on CCA-treated playground equipment might increase someone's lifetime risk of 0.01 percent to between 0.0102 to 0.020 percent." (3)

Milloy said that, according to CPSC estimates, CCA-treated playground equipment exposure might increase lifetime bladder cancer risk for men from about 2 percent to between 2.0002. to 2.010 percent. For women the risk increases from about 0.5 percent to between 0.5002 and 0.510 percent. (4)

Milloy says these increase rates are so small as to be almost meaningless. It should be noted that these numbers are based on CPSC's "worst case" assumptions about CCA.

He noted that the Taiwanese studies examined the extremely high levels of arsenic in drinking water, and that other studies looking at lower levels of arsenic in drinking water showed no increased cancer risk. (5)

The benefits of CCA-treated wood for consumers are that the wood may not rot or incur insect damage for several years, in contrast to untreated wood. Some estimate that "treated wood retains its structural integrity 10 to 20 times longer than untreated woods." (6) In terms of deck or playground equipment's structural safety, treated wood would thus appear to have significant advantages over its untreated counterparts. Since the CCA-treated wood lasts for considerably longer, that also means fewer trees are needed for replacement of untreated wood structures.

If CCA is banned, what are the alternatives for treating wood? According to CSPC, two possibilities are ammoniacal copper quaternary (ACQ) or copper boron azole (CBA). CPSC admits there are no available data to prove the absence of health hazards associated with the use of these two chemicals.

CPSC also admits that those alternatives are more expensive. Use of ACQ or CBA would cost wood preservers three to five times more than CCA. Such a cost increase to manufacturers will increase the price of wood by 10 to 20 percent to consumers.

Other alternatives, such as the use of redwood and cedar, which are naturally pest- and fungus-resistant, are much more expensive than treated wood. Increased demand for redwood could also raise environmental concerns.

The use of composite wood for residential decks as a substitute for CCA treated wood might increase the cost of decks by 10 to 30 percent, again according to CPSC. (7)

There are reports that Home Depot and Lowe's, two of the nation's largest building supplies retailers, have had problems with wood treated with the alternatives. They found that builders would not buy the alternative-treated wood. First, it is more expensive, and secondly, it leaches copper, which is corrosive to screws and nails. Some shipments of the alternative-treated woods were found to be covered with white mold. This necessitated the use of moldicides, which causes the wood to be even more expensive. (8)

The Healthy Building Network, one of the two petitioners to ban CCA-treated wood, is a group of "environmentally friendly" contractors who may stand to gain if consumers decide to replace existing playground equipment or residential decks with non CCA-treated wood.

CPSC staff recommends that the Commissioners vote to defer the petition on CCA-treated wood. They say the agency should wait until EPA completes its work and the industry voluntarily phases out the CCA-treated wood.

But if CPSC continues on the path to regulation of CCA-treated playground equipment, what happens to the products already in consumers' homes? Will playground equipment, residential decks, picnic tables and garden landscaping lumber have to be replaced? Will municipalities be pressured into ripping out the playground equipment and replacing it with the more expensive alternatives or not being able to replace it at all? Will homeowners feel the need to tear out their decks and replace them? Will real estate salesmen have to have home inspections measuring the amount of arsenic in a home's outdoor structures?

Such a scenario is possible unless consumers step up and demand the truth about CCA-treated wood. From all indications, they are not likely to get it from either EPA or CPSC. We look forward to a stimulating meeting on March 17.

(1) "What's the Story?--Pressure Treated Wood." American Council on Science and Health website, reprinted from "Safe, Long-Lasting Pressure Treated Wood" by Craig E. Shuler and Patrick J. Pellicane in cooperation with Garrey Carruthers in Priorities for Long Life and Good Health, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1995.

(2) Briefing Package: Petition to Ban Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)-Treated Wood in Playground Equipment (Petition HP 01-3) by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, February 2003. p. 14.

(3) Milloy, Steven, "Playground Wood: Cancer Cause or Consumer Scare?" Fox News, Feb. 13, 2003.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid.

(6) "What's the Story," American Council on Science and Health website.

(7) Briefing Package, "Petition to Ban Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)-Treated Wood in Playground Equipment (Petition HP 01-3)" Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, February 2003.

(8) Conversation with Angela Logomasini, Competitive Enterprise Institute, March 4, 2003.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Consumer Alert
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group