Arsenic-Treated Wood Barks, But Bite is Questioned

Arsenic-Treated Wood Barks, But Bite is Questioned

By Gary S. Mogel

You've abated the asbestos, remediated the mold, stripped the lead paint, blocked the radiation, filtered the tap water and maybe even quit smoking.

But don't head out onto your wood deck for a breath of fresh air, or stroll down to the wooden picnic tables for a celebratory luncheon. The wood in that deck and in those tables may contain arsenic. And you probably haven't done anything about that yet.

Arsenic-treated wood (also known as “chromated copper arsenate” (CCA) or “pressure-treated” wood) is a potential problem that has started seeping into the public's consciousness, as well as into their backyards.

In one often cited case, a woman who complained of intense vomiting and diarrhea was found to have 100 times more arsenic in her body than normal. Local law enforcement suspected that her husband was trying to kill her, and launched an investigation.

But the homicide theory was dropped after the husband was examined and found to have even more arsenic in his body than his wife had. It turns out that the unfortunate (but still happily married) couple had been building a log cabin, and had done every conceivable thing with and to arsenic-treated wood that you shouldn't do, including cutting and burning it.

So how did arsenic find its way into wood, you may be wondering.

“Arsenic acts as an insecticide and is needed to prevent rot,” said Dr. Barbara D. Beck, a principal of Gradient Corporation, a Cambridge, Mass.-based environmental consulting firm. Dr. Beck is a toxicologist specializing in health risk assessment for environmental chemicals and a lecturer in the field of toxicology at Harvard University.

“When used properly, there have been no verified reports of adverse health effects,” Dr. Beck noted. “The only confirmed cases of injury involved burning the wood, and that's not a proper use. The amount of arsenic exposure to children and adults from this type of wood is small, it's not enough to cause serious harm,” according to Dr. Beck.

As with other substances suspected of being toxic, injuries have led to insurance claims and lawsuits. Those lawsuits–as well as publicity generated by local newspaper accounts of toxic playgrounds and frantic parents–have prompted rulemaking and legislation.

Class actions against manufacturers, processors, and sellers of arsenic-treated wood products and structures have arisen in Arkansas, Florida and Louisiana. In addition, suits by individuals have been been filed.

Some of the claims involve environmental and property damage, while others allege bodily injury. In the Florida case, class action status was recently denied because the claims were deemed not similar enough to merit class treatment, according to a federal district court judge.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered a phase-out of arsenic-treated wood in residential construction by the end of 2003. However, the EPA has also concluded that there is no “unreasonable risk” to the public or the environment.

So the wood can still be used for commercial and industrial purposes, and none of what's already out there has to be replaced.

Another federal agency at center stage in this controversy, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has issued a report concluding that children face “an increased risk of lung and bladder cancer” from arsenic-treated wood in playground equipment. The report did not, however, address adult exposure or suggest that the equipment should be removed.

But is there anything to really address?

In a prominently featured statement on the Web site of the Fairfax, Va.-based American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI), Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, refers to the arsenic-treated wood controversy as a case of the media rushing ahead of science.

“The media and trial lawyers are seizing upon the fact that one of the ingredients that goes into CCA is arsenic–an admittedly toxic substance whose reputation has been romanticized in countless murder mysteries,” Dr. Sullivan wrote.

But consumer advocacy organizations such as the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group (EWG) feel that the dangers are real and that government agencies are dragging their feet in protecting the public.

EWG launched a testing program in which consumers used a kit sold through EWG's Web site to test 263 products and structures made of arsenic-treated wood, as well as the soil under those products and structures. The samples obtained by using the kits were analyzed by the University of North Carolina at Asheville's Environmental Institute. Those test results found that a child can pick up more arsenic from rubbing a hand on wood than what the EPA permits in a glass of drinking water.

But Dr. Beck points out that the amount of arsenic found on a child's hand has no relevance. “What's relevant is how much of it gets into the body, and arsenic does not get absorbed readily,” she said. “Pediatricians have looked into this and concluded that they don't see any health risks and they don't see the need to measure or study it any further.”

The study to which Dr. Beck refers was commissioned by the Florida Department of Public Health and conducted by the Physicians Arsenic Work Group, a panel of Florida doctors. The panel concluded that arsenic-treated wood “has never been linked to skin diseases or cancer in children exposed during recreational use.”

Consumer group EWG's testing also found that the soil from 40 percent of backyards containing arsenic-treated wooden equipment exceeds the EPA's Superfund cleanup level of 20 parts per million.

According to Dr. Beck, arsenic-treated decks and other structures can't leach enough arsenic into the soil to create a serious hazard.

“If it got into the soil, it would be a localized phenomenon and indistinguishable from other sources of arsenic, which is a substance that occurs naturally in the environment,” Dr. Beck said. “There would be a modestly elevated level of arsenic, it might be fatal to some earthworms, and the termites that it's supposed to kill, but that's about it.”

Nevertheless, EWG remains adamant that the public is at risk and more and better testing needs to be done. “The EPA's advice has misled millions of consumers about the safety of arsenic-treated wood,” noted Jane Houlihan, EWG's vice president for research.

Some states, including California, Florida and New York, are not waiting for federal agency pronouncements or private studies. They have passed or are considering laws limiting or banning the use of arsenic-treated lumber in playground equipment and other products and structures.

It appears that the insurance industry has yet to be impacted in any significant way by arsenic-treated wood.

Rock Island, Ill.-based Bituminous Casualty Company specializes in programs for the contracting and forest products industries. Bruce Horack, the Bituminous senior vice president of claims, indicated that he had come across “only one or two” claims involving arsenic-treated lumber.

John Crowell, assistant vice president in the claims management division of XL Reinsurance America in Stamford, Conn., and author of an article on arsenic-treated wood in the January 2003 issue of XL Re's Liability Bulletin, recalls working on one claim of this type.

“I haven't heard anyone saying much about arsenic-treated wood; our member companies have not been expressing concern about it,” said Dave Golden, director of commercial lines for the Des Plaines, Ill.-based National Association of Independent Insurers. “It's a good chance it's one of those alarms that turns out to be not worth anything.”

Industry trade group AWPI points out that manufacturers have already found equally effective and less controversial substitutes for arsenic, and that this wood treatment method is being phased out.

Nevertheless, those who know about this possible hazard will likely never again look at their wooden decks and picnic tables in quite the same way.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Edition, March 24, 2003. Copyright 2003 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved. Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.