[]{.mark}

February 3, 2004

Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C)

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20460--0001

Bonaventure Akinlosotu

Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 7510C

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20460

Dear PIRIB and Mr. Akinlosotu:

**Subject: Preliminary Risk Assessment for the Creosote Reregistration
Eligibility Decision\
(Docket No. OPP--2003--0248)**

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is
responsible for maintaining water quality in the San Francisco Bay Area
to protect beneficial uses of surface and ground waters. Numerous
scientific studies have demonstrated that use of some registered
pesticides in accordance with Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act requirements may have adverse effects on aquatic
species. As a result of discharges of pesticides registered for use by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), U.S. EPA has found
many water bodies within our jurisdiction to be impaired in accordance
with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act requires
us to prepare resource-intensive total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for
these water bodies. We then must mandate expensive programs to implement
the TMDLs to restore the beneficial uses of pesticide-impaired water
bodies. Through this process, we have recognized the need for U.S. EPA
to minimize the potential for registered pesticides to impair surface
water quality.

Creosote is a coal tar-based wood preservative first registered in 1948.
While creosote mixtures vary, they generally consist of a large number
of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), many of which are toxic to humans
and aquatic life. The creosote products of greatest concern to us are
applied to wood installed in or near aquatic environments, such as
creosote-treated wood piers and pilings. These products directly release
PAHs into the nation's surface waters and may contribute to impairments
of some water bodies.

**Creosote Ingredients Impair California Surface Waters**

California has compiled a list of impaired water bodies pursuant to
Clean Water Act §303(d). PAHs impair 20 California water bodies,
including the following water bodies in our region: Castro Cove, San
Francisco Bay (Central Basin), Islais Creek, Mission Creek, Oakland
Inner Harbor, and San Leandro Bay. Most of these impairments relate to
PAHs in sediment. In addition to the list of impaired water bodies,
California has created a "monitoring list" consisting of water bodies
for which more information is needed to resolve whether water quality
standards are attained. All segments of San Francisco Bay have been
placed on the monitoring list for PAHs. A summary of the rationale for
this decision appears in an attached staff report titled *Proposed
Revisions to Section 303(d) List and Priorities for Development of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the San Francisco Bay Region* (see pages
32 and 33). We request that U.S. EPA review the references cited in this
report and consider this information as it completes the creosote risk
assessment.

While we need more information to determine if PAHs are in fact
impairing San Francisco Bay, the resources to gather this information
are not readily available. We have asked the San Francisco Bay Regional
Monitoring Program (a surface water quality monitoring program funded
primarily by local governments) to assess PAH impacts in San Francisco
Bay, but local government budgets are very tight in this fiscal climate.
Current spatial and temporal coverage does not address areas near the
shoreline that may be more greatly affected by PAHs. Available data
represent the "spine" of the bay and not near-shore concentrations.
While the sources of the impairments and threatened impairments are
unknown, creosote-treated wood---particularly wood submerged in these
water bodies---probably causes or contributes to these impairments,
particularly given the near-shore, near-pier locations of many of the
impaired locations. We believe U.S. EPA and creosote registrants should
ensure that creosote's potential contribution to any PAH-related water
quality impairment is fully evaluated.

**Draft Risk Assessment Misses Most Important Aquatic Risks**

The purpose of the creosote re-registration risk assessment is to
evaluate the potential human health and environmental effects associated
with using creosote products. The variability and complexity of creosote
compositions pose challenges for evaluating toxicity and conducting risk
assessments. However, a proper risk assessment will rely on data for
creosote mixtures, as well as data for individual PAHs listed as
priority pollutants pursuant to the Clean Water Act §307 (33 *United
States Code* 1317).

According to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and
the regulations that implement it, the producers of each pesticide being
re-registered must provide data from chemical and biological tests done
according to U.S. EPA guidelines. According to U.S. EPA materials,
"These tests evaluate whether a pesticide has the potential to cause
harmful effects on humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including
endangered species and nontarget organisms, as well as possible
contamination of surface water or ground water from leaching, runoff,
and spray drift."[^1] Together with high-quality information from
published scientific literature, these tests are the scientific basis
for U.S. EPA re-registration risk assessments. Given this regulatory
requirement, the scientific need for this information, and the fact that
creosote has been registered for more than 50 years, we doubt the draft
risk assessment's statement that no ecotoxicity studies for creosote
have been submitted to U.S. EPA. Since no data are reported, the draft
risk assessment does not describe the environmental effects of creosote
mixtures. It contains no information on which to form a scientific basis
for estimating creosote's risks to most aquatic organisms.

Other data are also missing, such as environmental fate data to estimate
whole creosote and individual PAHs leaching from treated wood in aquatic
environments. However, the most important data gap is the absence of a
risk assessment for shellfish and other invertebrates. Due to their
relative lack of mobility, shellfish, in particular, may have relatively
higher exposures compared to than other types of aquatic life.

**Risk Assessment Should Precede Creosote Re-Registration**

According to U.S. EPA materials, "When EPA approves a particular
pesticide for registration, the Agency has assessed the chemical and
found that, when used according to label directions, it does not pose
unreasonable risk to public health and the environment."[^2] We call on
U.S. EPA to fulfill this promise and its mandates by obtaining necessary
information, conducting complete and scientifically valid risk
assessments, disclosing the risks associated with creosote use to the
public and the environment, and using sound science as the basis for its
Registration Eligibility Decision.

We need U.S. EPA's assistance to carry out our mutual responsibility to
protect water quality. Properly implemented, U.S. EPA's pesticide
registration process can ensure that Clean Water Act water quality
standards are maintained and aquatic species, including endangered and
threatened species, are protected. U.S. EPA should obtain the data
necessary to conduct meaningful environmental risk assessments. In
recent years, we have asked the Office of Pesticide Programs to better
coordinate with the Office of Water to ensure Clean Water Act
compliance. For the creosote re-registration process, we again request
that the Office of Pesticide Programs coordinate with the Office of
Water to ensure that the registered uses of creosote will not impair the
nation's surface waters.

We rely on U.S. EPA to soundly manage pesticide-related water quality
problems at a national level. We believe U.S. EPA should
[prevent]{.underline} Clean Water Act compliance problems, rather than
require states and local governments to undertake expensive TMDLs to
manage U.S. EPA-approved pesticide releases. California's has found that
TMDLs cost, on average, \$600,000 each[^3]---not including
implementation, which can cost millions. California's well-publicized
budget crisis limits the ability of both state and local government (the
majority of our dischargers) to deal with pesticide-related pollution.

Thank you for this opportunity to offer our input regarding the
Preliminary Risk Assessment for the Creosote Reregistration Eligibility
Decision.

Sincerely,

Bill Johnson

Pesticide TMDL Coordinator

c\. Thomas Mumley, Ph.D., Statewide TMDL Program Manager

> Diane Beaulaurier
>
> California Water Quality Control Board
>
> Central Valley Region
>
> 11020 Sun Center Drive \# 200
>
> Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
>
> Stephen Johnson, Assistant Administrator
>
> Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
>
> U.S. EPA Headquarters 7101M
>
> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460
>
> Jim Jones, Director
>
> Office of Pesticide Programs
>
> U.S. EPA Headquarters 7501C
>
> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460
>
> Debbie Edwards, Director
>
> Special Review and Reregistration Division
>
> U.S. EPA Headquarters 7508C
>
> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460

Tina Levine, Acting Director

> Biological and Economic Analysis Division\
> U. S. EPA Headquarters 7503C
>
> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460
>
> Steven Bradbury, Director
>
> Environmental Fate and Effects Division

## U.S. EPA Headquarters 7507C

> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460

Claire Gesalman, Acting Branch Chief

Communication Services Branch

# Field and External Affairs Division

U.S. EPA Headquarters 7506C

> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460
>
> Frank T. Sanders, Director
>
> Antimicrobials Division
>
> U.S. EPA Headquarters 7510C
>
> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460
>
> Benjamin Grumbles
>
> Acting Assistant Administrator
>
> Office of Water

# U.S. EPA Headquarters 4101M

> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460
>
> Diane Regas, Director
>
> Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
>
> U.S. EPA Headquarters 4501T
>
> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
>
> Washington, DC 20460
>
> Geoffrey H Grubbs, Director
>
> Office of Science and Technology
>
> USEPA Headquarters 4301T
>
> Ariel Rios Building
>
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

# Washington, DC 20460

# 

# Wayne Nastri, Administrator, Region IX, U.S. EPA

> U.S. EPA Region IX, ORA-1
>
> 75 Hawthorne Street
>
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> Kathleen Goforth
>
> U.S. EPA Region IX, WTR-5
>
> 75 Hawthorne Street
>
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> Raymond Chavira
>
> U.S. EPA Region IX, CMD-5
>
> 75 Hawthorne Street
>
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> Glenda Dugan
>
> U.S. EPA Region IX, CMD-5
>
> 75 Hawthorne Street
>
> San Francisco, CA 94105

[^1]: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/data.htm

[^2]: *ibid*.

[^3]: California State Water Resources Control Board, *Structure and
    Effectiveness of the State's Water Quality Programs: Section 303(d)
    of the Federal Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads
    (TMDLs),* Report to the Legislature Pursuant to AB 982 of 1999,
    January 2001. Available on the Internet at
    http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/political.html.