EPA Rejects Known Carcinogen As Wood Preservative For Homebuilding - WP

[hatrack]

This of course raises the question: "What's wrong at the EPA?" :evilgrin:

Federal officials yesterday rejected an industry bid to use a known carcinogen as a preservative in lumber for backyard decks, picnic tables, playgrounds and other household uses. Industry groups had petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency three years ago to use acid copper chromate (ACC), which contains the carcinogen hexavalent chromium, featured in the film "Erin Brockovich," to treat wood sold in hardware and home improvement stores.


EPA Assistant Administrator James B. Gulliford said the agency concluded that the dangers associated with the preservative, which include an increased cancer risk for plant workers and skin irritation among consumers, "outweigh the product's minimal benefits." Among workers handling the preservative, the cancer rate can vary between 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 100,000, according to the EPA. The federally accepted standard is one in a million. Consumers using the product can experience skin irritation that can worsen over time.

EDIT

The debate over whether to approve ACC touched off a spirited lobbying battle inside the Beltway. Forest Products Research Lab, which produces the chromium-based preservative for industrial use and was hoping to supply the residential market, has paid the lobbying firm Alston & Bird, which employs former GOP presidential candidate Robert J. Dole, nearly half a million dollars over the past three years to push for EPA approval. The company's competitors, including Osmose Corp. and Chemical Specialties Inc., also hired Washington lobbyists to try to block the petition.

(Ed. - emphasis added)

Dennis Morgan, president of Forest Products Research Lab, said his company had trouble learning why the EPA opposed its product and retained Dole to tell EPA officials, "Gee fellas, tell this guy what your concerns are." He noted that in May the EPA approved ACC for treating wood used to make railroad ties and telephone ties, and said he does not understand the distinction between industrial and residential use. "I don't understand what changed," Morgan said. "We believe we provided the data to show this was a safe product."

EDIT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801618.html

[Buzz Clik]

1. Some day we'll be wondering why our decks last only 18 months.

We keep ticking off wood preservatives as dangerous (as, indeed, they are). However, to control the rotting of wood exposed to the elements, we need to poison various fungi and other destructive organisms. We cannot do that without putting something disgusting into the wood.

[mongo]

2. Well, I agree that we do need treated lumber

I think we would do better to minimize it's use.

There is the plastic decking material now that is not hazardous. Maybe it's use could be encouraged through tax rebates like we do with energy saving technology.

As the plastic material gets more popular -- hopefully the price will come down to make it on par with treated lumber.