January 31, 2005

Heather A. Garvie

Office of Pesticide Programs (7510C)

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Attn: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0402

**Preliminary Risk Assessment for Pentachlorophenol (PCP)**

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA's preliminary risk
assessment of pentachlorophenol (PCP). It should be noted for the record
that it continues to trouble the commenters that the agency has taken
five (5) years, since February 1, 1999, to "revise" the earlier draft
risk assessment of PCP. The agency continues to delay its decision on
this critical issue having told the U.S. District Court in *Beyond
Pesticides/NCAMP v. EPA* (filed December 10, 2002) that the final
reregistration eligibility document (RED) would be available in
September 2005, which is now scheduled for the end of 2005 (Preliminary
Risk Assessment Pentachlorophenol: Questions and Answers, December 3,
2004).

EPA has not, as it stated it would, incorporated into this assessment,
which was originally expected in 2000, a review of PCP constituents of
concern, including dioxin and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) \-- both of which
are classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) by the United
Nations[^1] and considered carcinogens by the National Institutes of
Health.[^2] This means that the assessment, as presented to the public,
is seriously deficient in its analysis and wholly inadequate for the
formulation of a PCP RED. Given that PCP is a combination of chemicals
that includes HCB and dioxin, which are known to be hazardous materials,
it is both misleading and improper to permit PCP use based on a
seriously truncated review.

The agency's revision of its assessment is based totally on data
provided to it by the Pentachlorophenol Task Force, a chemical industry
group that has a vested economic interest in the continuing registration
of PCP. The agency states, "The revision is based on EPA's receipt of a
PCP-specific exposure study from the Pentachlorophenol Task Force
entitled 'Inhalation Dosimetry and Biomonitoring Assessment of Worker
Exposure to Pentachlorophenol During Pressure Treatment of Lumber'."

# Dramatic Reductions in Risks Unexplained

The preliminary risk assessment represents a dramatic reversal of the
agency's assessment in 1999. Most striking are changes in exposure
assessments that dismiss out of hand real world realities regarding
common exposure to PCP-treated wood and its contamination. In 1999, EPA
estimated that children's residential post-application exposure
resulting from widespread use of PCP-treated utility poles poses an
unacceptable cancer risk to children as high as 2.2x10^-4^ (2.2 cancer
cases in 10,000).[^3] However, this risk has miraculously disappeared
with a simple unsubstantiated statement that this exposure does not
occur. In fact, the Environmental Exposure/Modeling paper calculates a
PCP concentration at the base of utility poles of 328 ppm, based on
"average" rain intensity (Environmental Exposure/Modeling, p.15), again
assuming that there is no risk of exposure to the public that has this
contaminated ground in their yards. Real world samples have found
concentrations at more than three times this level.[^4]

In the revision, the agency states, "The opportunity for residential
consumer contact is limited since PCP-treated wood is not sold to the
general public. Rather it is predominantly marketed for commercial
installations as utility poles. Where utility poles are installed on
home/school or other residential sites, child contact via the dermal or
oral routes is not anticipated since play activities with or around
these pole structures would not normally occur." With all due respect,
most people have observed children playing near utility poles. In
neighborhood across the country, children can be seen with their faces
against utility poles as they play hide and seek, using PCP-treated
poles as "home base" playing tag, and attempting to climb poles like
trees as they try to inch their way up to the lowest foot post, among
other things.

Utility poles line the streets and backyards of the United States. They
are often next to bus stops where people wait each day. People lean
against them, tack notices on them, and otherwise are exposed because of
their close contact with them. In addition, more than three million
utility poles are removed from service each year and may be sold or
donated by utilities, ending up in people's gardens or other places
around the home. [^5] So, without explanation, EPA's revised position
now is that "post-application residential exposure is expected to be
negligible for utility poles," and therefore no further assessment is
necessary.

The agency was in 1999 even given the example of recycled utility poles
being milled into wood that was used for the construction of bird boxes
and outdoor classrooms by a utility in Kansas, Western Resources, which
was given an environmental award by the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment for donating and converting discarded treated wood poles.
When Beyond Pesticides wrote to 3,000 utilities asking that they
disclose their policies and practices regarding the give-away or sale of
treated utility poles taken out of service, the American Wood Preservers
Institute told utilities, "Cooperating with this survey is not in the
best interests of utilities. NCAMP is extremely biased against the use
of preserved wood and will use the survey results to support their
arguments against wood poles." Some of those that did respond indicated
that poles were widely accessible to the general public. EPA has ignored
this widely known practice and ignored the resulting exposure.

Wood preservatives have been shown to migrate out of poles,
contaminating soil and water. According to the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, 445 hazardous waste sites in the U.S.
have been contaminated with PCP.[^6] PCP is currently banned in 26
countries around the world.[^7]

# The Industry Study and EPA's Risk Revisions Are Flawed

The Human Exposure risk assessment document is filled with questions
that undermine any conclusion derived from the chemical industry study
that continued use of PCP is acceptable, in light of the years of data
that EPA has collected on PCP, going back to its Rebuttable Presumption
Against Registration (RPAR), conducted from 1978 through 1986. What
follows are highlights of the serious flaws in the report:

1\. Underestimated exposure scenarios for residential exposure, as
stated above, which ignores impacts to children and adults.

2\. The use of an "average" dose for calculating long-term risks raises
questions about the assessment, especially because of the small sample
size and the uncertainty of the data. The range of practices cited
indicates that averaging will not capture the full extent of the
exposure.

3\. The conclusion that all the inhalation exposure monitoring data were
below the limit of detection (LOD) (Human Exposure, p. 9) suggests that
the equipment may not have been adequately sensitive. In an staff
memorandum from EPA scientist Siroos Mostaghimi, the following point is
made: "It should also be pointed out that almost all (61/66) personal
air sampling results returned values below the method LOD, and only one
data-point exceeded the IOQ, possibly due to inadequate sensitivity of
the method used. Without supporting inhalation and dermal exposure
monitoring data (the latter was not collected at all), it is difficult
to further assess the biological monitoring data."

4\. "Exposure estimates based on an average 24 hour urine concentration
might underestimate the total PCP exposure for these workers." (Human
Exposure, p. 10) "It has been noted that the results of the urinary
sampling have been corrected for field recovery, however, no raw data
was available, nor were any descriptions of field recovery methods or
results available for review." (Human Exposure, p. 19)

5\. "It is not clear whether the air sampling methodology used was
sensitive enough to successfully detect the very low levels expected in
(largely) outdoor exposure situations." (Human Exposure, p. 10)

6\. The new study does not explain a large difference between a 1984 EPA
absorption study and the industry's new study. "According to a 1984
study conducted by U.S. EPA OPTS (cited in the study report), a typical
87 kg wood treatment worker would be expected to absorb between 112 and
293 micrograms PCP/kg body weight/day by all routes. This range of PCP
exposure was much higher than the highest total absorption of 15.3
micrograms PCP/kg body weight/day reported in this \[industry\] study.
The discrepancy was not explained in the study report." (Human Exposure,
p. 11)

7\. The study underestimates the doses absorbed. The California
Environmental Protection Agency reported this to EPA, citing "PCP cannot
reach a steady-state in an acute toxicity study. Theoretically, a steady
state level cannot be reached until the individual has been working in a
treatment facility for 8 consecutive days (CDPR 1999)." (Human Exposure,
p. 12) Because of this, the agency says that it will increase the
short-term absorbed doses three-fold to account for acute exposure
effects," but offers not explanation for why it is not applying a
100-fold increase. (Human Exposure, p. 21)

8\. The full range of the exposed population at treatment sites was not
considered, including those who transport treated wood and those working
in offices on the premises.

9\. At one point in the Human Exposure assessment, the agency
acknowledges, "Since the pentachlorophenol is not rapidly degraded, and
exhibits moderate toxicity, potential post-application scenarios may be
of concern (ATSDR 1994)." (Human Exposure, p. 17) This is contradicted
in the Environmental Exposure/Modeling paper, which says that,
"Pentachlorophenol . . .has a low persistency in the environment."
(Human Exposure, p. 18)

# Ecological Effects and Environmental Risk Characterization Underestimates Exposure and Contains Data Gaps

The Ecological Effects and Environmental Risk Characterization
demonstrates that PCP is moderately to very highly acutely toxic to many
animals including birds, mammals, freshwater fish, freshwater
invertebrates, estuarine and marine fish, estuarine and marine
invertebrates. In addition, chronic exposure leads to endpoints such as
increased mortality, decrease in size, and reduced survival of offspring
in various species tested. Under the current risk quotient (RQ), the
agency's low estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) result in
risks that do not exceed the levels of concern. However, numerous
studies show that PCP is ubiquitous in the environment and that it is
leaching out of treated wood into soil and water. The Environmental Fate
risk assessment document also reports PCP to be mobile in certain soils.
(Environmental Fate, p. 1) We feel that the agency underestimates the
amount and impact of PCP in the environment.

Two studies demonstrate the ubiquitous nature of PCP in the environment.
In 1989, urine samples from 100 percent of 197 Arkansas children were
shown to be contaminated with PCP.[^8] Similarly, the National Center
for Health Statistics with EPA conducted the Second Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES II) in the late 1980's and found PCP in the
urine of 79 percent of its sample population of 28,000 people
representing a cross-section of the nation.

Other studies show PCP leaching directly into the environment. In 1992,
a study by Environment Canada found PCP at high levels in utility and
railway ditches, including concentrations of PCP averaging 1060 mg/kg at
the base of poles.[^9] In a follow-up study, Environment Canada found
that PCP's contaminants, which EPA has not fully examined in this risk
assessment, were leaching out of PCP-treated utility poles and railroad
ties. A third study conducted for Environment Canada found three poles
treated with PCP that were adjacent to drinking water wells caused water
contamination.[^10]

In 1988, Bell Canada conducted a study to determine whether soil and
groundwater in its storage yards were contaminated by PCP. In Quebec,
where the company uses mostly PCP-treated utility poles, the clean-up
criteria, or levels determined acceptable, were exceeded by factors as
high as 100 at 10 out of 14 sites.[^11] Another Canadian study measured
the amount of PCP leaching out of a pile of 15 Douglas fir poles under
natural rainfall conditions in British Columbia. The level of PCP
released from these poles was relatively constant throughout the study
period of four months, ranging from 1.57-2.85 mg/L rainfall.[^12]

Dioxins also leach out of PCP-treated wood utility poles. Significant
levels of dioxin were measured in soil samples taken from around
PCP-treated poles, with detectable levels of dioxin found 20 centimeters
from the poles.[^13] Many of these poles are in cities, parks,
playgrounds and backyards. Again, contaminants such as dioxin have not
been evaluated in this risk assessment.

Additionally, EPA admits to several data gaps that would only add to
already high and unacceptable risk, including marine/estuarine
invertebrate life cycle testing, marine/estuarine whole sediment
invertebrate acute testing, freshwater whole sediment invertebrate acute
testing, seedling emergence testing using rice, and vegetative vigor
testing using rice. According to EPA, these tests are only required to
support continued use in aquatic environments (guideline #1). However,
considering PCP's ability to contaminate water, these tests could have
been conducted under guideline #2, which states that these tests "may be
required on a case-by-case basis depending on the results of lower tier
ecological studies (e.g., active ingredient or end-use products are
highly toxic to aquatic organisms)\..." In addition, EPA states that it
may require additional tests based upon results of the whole sediment
acute tests, which were also not completed as part of the PRA. This
situation adds to the accumulated body of evidence that EPA has not been
moving forward to fully evaluate the impact of PCP despite existing
scientific evidence that the risks of environmental contamination are
unacceptably high and exceed tolerable standards.

# Conclusion

Despite serious deficiencies in the industry study, many of which are
identified by EPA, the agency proposes to use the data to support the
RED. The agency writes, "Despite the key non-compliance and data gaps
presented in this report, the decision of EPA is that the data are of
sufficient scientific quality to be used in the RED document." (Human
Exposure, p.12)

The identified hazards, unrealistic exposure assumptions, weaknesses in
the industry study, and failure to consider HCB and dioxin in the
context of safer available alternatives to PCP should give EPA pause.
Tortured risk calculations coupled with study weaknesses identified by
EPA should not be used to support a registration eligibility document.

Today, less toxic, economical and effective alternatives to PCP-treated
wood products are readily available. Accordingly, the suspension and
subsequent cancellation of PCP will not create serious economic or
social hardships. Ultimately, the risks presented by the continued use
of PCP outweigh any potential benefits, both economic and social. EPA
has sufficient data to support the cancellation of PCP and should move
expeditiously to carry out its mandate to protect public health and the
environment.

Sincerely,

Jay Feldman

Beyond Pesticides

Washington, DC

John Kepner

Beyond Pesticides

Washington, DC

Jay Rasku

Toxics Action Center

Amherst, MA

Ruth Berlin

Maryland Pesticide Network

Annapolis, MD

Amy Goldsmith

New Jersey Environmental Federation

Belmar, NJ

Charlotte Wells

Texans for Alternatives to Pesticides

Houston, TX

Theo Colborn, PhD

President, TEDX, Inc

Paonia, CO

Niaz Dorry

Clean Catch

Gloucester, MA

Caroline Cox

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides

Eugene, OR

Steve Sheffield, Ph.D.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Alexandria, VA

Ginger Souders-Mason

Pesticide Free Zone Campaign

Kentfield, CA

[^1]: United Nations Environment Programe, 1999. Inventory of
    Information Sources on Chemicals: Persistent Organic Pollutants.
    Geneva, Switzerland.
    http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/invsrce/inventpopscomb.pdf

[^2]: National Toxicology Program, 2001. *9th Report on Carcinogens
    Revised January 2001*. Washington, DC.
    http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc9.html

[^3]: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b. Science Chapter for
    the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Penta (PC Code:
    063001, Reregistration Case Number 2505). Washington, DC.

[^4]: Wan, M. 1992. Utility and Railway Right-of-Way Contaminants in
    British Columbia: Chlorophenols. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 225-231.

[^5]: Adam G. Hedayat, 1994. Recycling of utility treated wood poles, in
    Morrell, editor, 1994.

[^6]: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Internet
    HazDat - Site Contaminant Query,
    http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/gsql/sitecontam.script?in_cas=pentachlorophenol&in_cas2=&in_cas3=,
    January 28, 2005.

[^7]: Pesticide Action Network, "1995 Demise of the Dirty Dozen," and
    United Nations, Consolidated List of Products Whose Consumption
    and/or Sale Have Been Banned, Withdrawn, Severely Restricted or Not
    Approved By Governments," Fifth Issue, 1994.

[^8]: Hill, R.H., et al. (1989). Residues of Chlorinated Phenols and
    Phenoxy Acid Herbicides in the Urine of Arkansas Children. Arch.
    Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18: 469-474.

[^9]: Wan, M. 1992. Utility and Railway Right-of-Way Contaminants in
    British Columbia: Chlorophenols. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 225-231.

[^10]: RW Stephens et al., (1996). Draft Final Report, Wood Preservation
    SOP \[Strategic Options Process\] Socioeconomic Background Study.
    Carroll-Hatch (International) Ltd, North Vancouver, B.C. Prepared
    for Environment Canada Regulatory Economic Assessment Branch,
    Contract No. K2231-5-0054. March 31, 1996, p. 52.

[^11]: Marie-Helene Racicot, Bell Canada's Solutions to Pole Storage
    Yards Contamination (Abstract of presentation), Bell Canada,
    Environmental Services, 1993-94 data.

[^12]: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Science Chapter for
    the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED) for Penta (PC
    Code: 063001, Registration Case Number 2505), citing Whiticar, D.M.
    et al. 1994. Evaluation of leachate quality from penta, creosote and
    ACA wood products. Environment Canada DOE FRAP 1993-36.

[^13]: Gurprasad, N, et al., 1995. Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins
    (PCDDs) Leaching from Penta-Treated Utility Poles. Organohalogen
    Compounds, 24: 501-503.