Testimony
of
Jack
E.
Housenger,
Associate
Director,
Antimicrobials
Division
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Before
the
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission
Hearing
on
Chromated
Copper
Arsenate
(
CCA)
Treated
Wood
March
17,
2003
Introduction
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
Chairman
Hal
Stratton
for
inviting
EPA
to
provide
comments
today
at
the
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission's
(
CPSC)
hearing
on
chromated
copper
arsenate
(
CCA)
treated
wood.
We
have
invested
a
lot
of
effort
into
the
scientific
review
of
CCA
and
we
have
worked
cooperatively
with
the
Commission
on
this
effort.
We
appreciate
your
continued
commitment
to
work
with
the
Agency
on
this
important
issue.

My
comments
today
will
focus
on
three
areas:
first,
I
will
provide
the
regulatory
context
of
EPA's
pesticide
program
and
how
it
relates
to
CCA;
second,
I
will
discuss
the
phase­
out
of
CCA
in
residential
settings;
and
third,
I
will
provide
you
with
the
status
of
our
ongoing
work
at
the
Agency
and
in
cooperation
with
the
Commission.

Regulatory
Context
EPA
regulates
the
sale,
distribution
and
use
of
all
pesticides
in
the
United
States,
including
those
chemicals
that
are
used
in
agricultural
crop
production,
those
that
are
used
around
the
home
to
control
unwanted
pests,
repellents
that
protect
us
from
biting
insects,
and
antimicrobial
products
that
are
used
to
control
the
growth
of
microorganisms
in
our
environment.
Specifically,

the
Antimicrobials
Division
within
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
is
responsible
for
the
registration
and
reregistration
activities
of
all
antimicrobial
pesticides,
including
those
products
that
are
used
as
wood
preservatives.
CCA
falls
into
this
category
of
antimicrobial
pesticides
because
it
is
used
as
a
wood
preservative
to
control
wood­
destroying
microorganisms.
EPA's
legal
authority
to
regulate
pesticides
is
provided
by
two
statutes:
the
Federal
Insecticide,

Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
and
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),

both
of
which
were
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
of
1996.
It
is
under
the
first
statute,
FIFRA,
that
we
are
given
the
authority
to
regulate
wood
preservatives
like
CCA.
The
primary
enforcement
tool
used
to
regulate
pesticide
sale,
distribution
and
use
is
the
EPAapproved
label.
Labels
are
legally
required
to
accompany
every
pesticide
product
sold
or
distributed
in
the
United
States
and
instruct
the
user
about
such
things
as
where
a
pesticide
product
may
be
used,
how
to
safely
apply
the
product,
how
much
product
should
be
used,
as
well
as
warnings
and
safety
precautions
to
protect
health
and
the
environment.
In
other
words,
the
label
is
the
law.

While
FIFRA
regulates
the
sale,
distribution
and
use
of
the
pesticide
CCA,
qualifying
wood
treated
with
CCA
is
exempt
from
regulation
under
FIFRA
(
40CFR152.25(
a)).
However,

the
potential
risks
of
exposure
from
using
treated
wood
is
considered
in
our
risk
evaluation
for
the
pesticide.
The
Agency's
regulatory
approach
focuses
on
ensuring
the
pesticide
can
be
used
safely
and
that
there
will
be
no
adverse
effects
to
people
or
the
environment
provided
the
pesticide
was
used
according
to
label
directions.

CCA,
which
was
first
registered
in
the
1940s,
is
being
extensively
reviewed
by
the
Agency
under
a
rigorous
program
to
evaluate
all
older
pesticides
that
were
registered
for
use
prior
to
November
1984.
This
program,
called
reregistration,
ensures
that
the
older
pesticides
meet
today's
higher
scientific
and
regulatory
standards
for
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
Because
the
information
and
science
about
pesticides,
and
therefore
our
understanding
of
the
potential
risks
posed
by
pesticides,
is
constantly
evolving,
this
program
is
critical
to
ensure
the
decisions
made
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
are
based
on
today's
more
stringent
standards
and
modern
scientific
assessment
methodologies.
The
reregistration
process
includes
a
multi­
phase,
public
participation
process
where
risk
assessment
documents
are
shared
in
a
open
and
transparent
manner
to
afford
opportunities
for
meaningful
input
from
all
interested
stakeholders.

EPA's
Regulatory
Decision
on
CCA
EPA
is
reviewing
CCA
under
two
different
tracks
which
will
result
in
the
most
rigorous
risk
assessment
ever
done
on
a
wood
preservative
pesticide.
One
risk
assessment
is
specifically
considering
children's
exposure
at
residential
sites,
playground
settings
and
public
parks.
The
completion
of
this
investigation
of
potential
risks
to
children
from
exposure
to
CCA­
treated
wood
is
a
priority
for
the
Agency.
The
other
risk
assessment,
being
conducted
under
the
Agency's
reregistration
program,
focuses
on
the
uses
that
are
not
subject
to
the
phase­
out
agreement.
We
expect
this
risk
assessment
to
be
available
for
public
comment
this
Spring.

EPA
believes
that
all
regulatory
decisions
on
pesticides
must
be
supported
by
the
strongest
scientific
methods
and
the
most
scientifically
sound
information
available
to
ensure
we
have
a
high
level
of
confidence
in
those
decisions.
To
that
end,
we
have
involved
a
number
of
offices
at
the
Agency
to
help
with
the
review
of
CCA
as
well
as
soliciting
peer
review
from
an
independent
FIFRA
Scientific
Advisory
Panel
(
SAP)
to
guarantee
our
risk
assessment
techniques
are
grounded
in
sound
science.
The
SAP
met
in
October
2001
and
recommended
that
the
Agency
conduct
a
probabilistic
risk
assessment
on
CCA
which
provides
for
a
much
more
robust
analysis
than
does
a
deterministic
risk
assessment.
Probabilistic
assessments
have
significantly
strengthened
the
scientific
credibility
of
our
regulatory
decisions.
We
believe
that
the
probabilistic
assessment
that
we
are
conducting
will
significantly
reduce
uncertainties
associated
with
our
risk
estimates.
In
addition,
the
SAP
recommended
that
we
seek
better
quality
data
on
potential
children's
exposure
to
CCA
in
residential
and
playground
settings.
We
have
been
taking
steps
to
implement
their
recommendations
about
our
risk
assessment
and,
in
2001,
the
Agency
began
discussions
with
the
Commission
about
ways
to
enhance
the
data
upon
which
our
exposure
assessment
would
be
based.
The
Agency
is
also
implementing
the
SAP
recommendations
on
exposure
data
which
I
will
discuss
a
little
later.

Transition
to
New
Generation
of
Wood
Treatment
Products
In
early
2002,
the
CCA
manufacturers,
or
registrants
as
we
call
them,
approached
EPA
about
their
individual
decisions
to
voluntarily
phase­
out
virtually
all
CCA
residential
uses,

including
CCA
intended
for
use
in
treating
wood
destined
for
decks,
picnic
tables,
landscaping
timbers,
gazebos,
residential
fencing,
patios,
walkways
and
play
structures.
EPA
accepted
the
registrants'
actions
to
phase
out
the
residential
uses
of
CCA
which
means
that
CCA
will
not
be
used
on
residential
type
wood
after
December
30,
2003.
The
Agency
applauded
the
registrants'

actions
which
will
ensure
that
future
exposures
to
arsenic
are
minimized
in
residential
settings.

Further,
the
voluntary
actions
will
substantially
reduce
the
time
it
otherwise
could
have
taken
for
the
review
of
CCA
to
go
through
the
traditional
regulatory
process.
In
fact,
many
wood
treatment
facilities
are
already
well
along
with
their
transitions
to
products
other
than
those
containing
CCA
for
wood
treatment
purposes.

According
to
the
regulations
governing
pesticide
registration,
the
Agency
is
required
to
issue
a
final
cancellation
order
to
formally
remove
from
CCA
pesticide
labels
those
residential
uses
being
voluntarily
terminated.
[
This
cancellation
order
was
signed
today
and
is
expected
to
be
announced
in
the
Federal
Register
shortly.]
The
final
cancellation
order
makes
it
illegal
to
use
CCA
product
bearing
the
new
restrictive
labels
to
treat
wood
intended
for
most
residential
uses
included
in
the
registrants'
requests
after
December
30,
2003.
Wood
products
that
have
been
legally
treated
with
CCA
will
be
allowed
to
move
through
channels
of
trade,
but
we
believe
that
will
occur
for
a
relatively
short
period
of
time.

Status
of
Ongoing
Review
of
CCA
Even
though
the
Agency
reached
an
agreement
with
industry
to
phase
out
the
uses
of
CCA
for
treating
wood
used
in
residential
settings,
we
are
continuing
the
children's
risk
assessment
process
as
well
as
our
review
of
those
remaining
uses
that
are
not
part
of
the
voluntary
cancellation/
use
termination.
It
is
important
to
note
also
that
EPA
has
not
concluded
that
CCA­
treated
wood
poses
unreasonable
risks
to
the
public
for
existing
structures
made
with
CCA­
treated
wood.
We
are
continuing
to
evaluate
potential
risks
from
structures
already
in
place
and
will
continue
to
evaluate
those
remaining
uses
that
are
not
included
in
the
voluntary
actions.

We
are
moving
forward
with
our
probabilistic
assessment
of
potential
cancer
risks
to
children
from
exposure
to
CCA
in
residential
settings
and
we
are
enhancing
the
information
upon
which
we
will
base
our
decision
about
such
risks.
In
particular,
three
studies
are
currently
underway
that
will
greatly
benefit
our
understanding
of
the
levels
of
exposure
that
may
be
possible
from
treated
wood.
The
first
study,
a
"
surface
residue
bioavailability
study,"
will
examine
the
surface
residues
of
arsenic
on
wood
and
estimate
how
much
of
that
residue
can
be
absorbed
by
the
body
from
the
wood
surface.
We
expect
final
results
from
this
study
by
the
end
of
April.
The
second
study
is
a
"
soil
residue
bioavailability
study,"
which
will
estimate
the
potential
arsenic
dose
absorbed
from
soil
contact
and
incidental
ingestion
through
the
mouth
by
children.
Those
results
are
expected
this
month.
The
third
study
of
importance
is
a
"
hand
wipe
study"
which
will
estimate
the
potential
exposure
to
arsenic
when
the
hand
comes
in
contact
with
treated
wood
and
correlates
this
physical
activity
with
potential
exposure
to
arsenic.
Results
from
an
interim
pilot
of
this
study
have
been
received,
but
the
complete
study
results
are
not
expected
until
late
May.
These
data
will
be
fully
evaluated
in
developing
a
draft
children's
risk
assessment
which
we
intend
to
take
to
our
SAP
for
comment
in
December.
We
expect
to
release
the
draft
children's
risk
assessment
publicly
several
weeks
prior
to
the
SAP
meeting.
We
intend
to
fully
consider
any
recommendations
made
by
the
SAP
in
finalizing
the
risk
assessment.
An
additional
study
that
we
are
collaborating
on
with
the
Commission
and
our
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD)
is
to
develop
data
on
the
effectiveness
of
sealants
in
preventing
exposure
to
residues
of
CCA
on
treated
wood.

EPA
expects
to
evaluate
those
uses
that
are
not
part
of
the
voluntary
cancellation
through
the
standard
6­
phase
public
participation
process
established
for
pesticide
reregistration.
This
public
process
ensures
active
stakeholder
participation
throughout
and
the
Agency
intends
to
include
the
Commission
in
our
evaluation
process.

The
Agency
highly
values
its
collaboration
with
the
Commission
on
the
assessment
of
CCA.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
began
collaborating
with
the
Commission
in
2001
and
have
maintained
an
open
and
constructive
dialogue
regarding
the
review
of
CCA
since
that
time.
The
Commission
has
provided
valuable
assistance
in
reviewing
the
study
design
protocols
that
will
generate
new
exposure
information
expected
within
the
next
several
months.
We
were
offered
an
opportunity
to
peer
review
the
risk
assessment
prepared
by
the
Commission
and
will
consider
it
along
with
all
the
other
information
we
have
on
CCA
as
we
move
forward
in
completing
our
risk
assessment.
We
fully
intend
to
consult
with
the
Commission
on
our
CCA
risk
assessments,

including
peer
review
prior
to
presenting
the
children's
risk
assessment
to
our
SAP.

Again,
on
behalf
of
EPA,
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
speak
before
you
about
our
review
process
for
CCA.
Given
the
Agency's
rigorous
scientific
and
regulatory
process,
as
well
as
the
actions
to
phase
out
CCA
for
virtually
all
residential
uses,
we
look
forward
to
assisting
the
Commission
in
any
continuing
work
on
CCA
treated
wood.
I
will
be
pleased
to
answer
any
questions
on
EPA
activities.

Thank
you
again
for
inviting
me
here
today.
