Application of TRI to 

Nanomaterials

Colin Finan and Todd Kuiken

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies
Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars
• An initial review of the TRI authorities
indicate that, in theory, the statute could be
applied to nanomaterials.
• The key question is whether any
nanomaterials are or will be considered by
EPA to be toxic chemicals under TRI.
These decisions will rest, in part, on the
development of additional toxicological data
by EPA and by EPA’s approach to
administering the statute. – PEN Research
Brief #2, February 2008
 Threshold Determinations
• Traditional threshold determinations are not
always a barrier for inclusion on TRI.
– Dioxin limit was set at 0.1 grams
– EPA’s rationale for revising the thresholds of certain
chemicals potentially could apply to nanoparticles
• Issues may surround facility size.
– 10 or more full-time employee equivalents
– Some small firms/labs may not meet this requirement
 Listing Nanoparticles on TRI
• There are already chemicals listed on TRI that
have been manipulated at the nanoscale and
are being used as nanoparticles in products.
– Aluminum oxide
– Silver
• The issue involves whether the nanosized form
of these chemicals will/should be listed
separately as new chemicals or whether the
current listing can be amended to incorporate
lower limits for nanoparticles.
 TRI and Mercury
• Before October 1999 mercury standard was 25,000/10,000 lbs per
year.
– Lowered to 10 lbs per year
• In 2003, 850,000 miles of rivers, 14 million acres of lakes had fish
consumption advisories associated with mercury
– 44 States have some sort of fish consumption advisory associated with
waters within their borders
– 22 States have issued advisories for all of its rivers and lakes
• Mercury is a good case study of how proper risk studies can lead to
better reporting requirements geared towards protecting human
health and the environment.
• No one can say for certain whether or not nanoparticles will have
environmental health and safety concerns associated with them
because the studies have not been done.
 EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program
• In January 2008, EPA launched the NMSP to “ provide a firmer scientific
foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging submission and
development of information including risk management practices for
nanoscale materials.” The program runs through 2010.
• The program has Basic and In-Depth programs for submission, with hopes
of obtaining more information on the toxicity and risks posed by
nanomaterials.
• A year later after the program launched, there were 29 submissions under
the Basic program and four under the In-Depth program.
• The EPA interim report says that 123 unique nanomaterials were addressed
in the Basic program submissions. Expert estimates are that more than
1,600 nanomaterials are already commercially available – which means that
less than 10 percent of all available materials were addressed in the first
phase of the NMSP.
• In the interim report, EPA says it is "considering how to best use testing and
information gathering authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act" to
address the remaining gaps in information.
 Limited risk information
• A PEN assessment of nanotechnology risk-relevant products
identified by the federal government’s National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) for fiscal year 2006 found that only $13 million was
invested in projects highly relevant to addressing possible risks. By
collecting individual project budget data from publicly available
sources, an estimate was made of funding levels for 2006. The
assessment found 62 federally-funded projects that were highly
relevant to understanding nanotechnology risk.
• In contrast, the federal government estimates $37.7 million was
invested in highly relevant research in fiscal year 2006.
• Over the same time period, the PEN analysis found European
countries invested nearly $24 million in projects with the primary aim
of addressing nanotechnology risks.--
http://www.nanotechproject.org/news/archive/ehs-update/
Nanotech in consumer products
• After more than 20 years of basic and applied research,
use of nanotechnologies are gaining in commercial use.
Nanoscale materials now are in electronic, cosmetics,
automotive and medical products. But it has been
difficult to find out how many “nano” consumer products
are on the market and which merchandise could be
called “nano.”
• While not comprehensive, the PEN consumer product
inventory gives the public the best available look at the
800+ manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-based
consumer products currently on the market. --
http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/
 Nanotech across the U.S.
• In May 2007, PEN launched the “Nano Metro” map to help the public better
understand where nanotech research and development was occurring.
• The top 4 nanotechnology states are: California, Massachusetts, New York,
and Texas (each with over 50 entries).
• The top 5 “Nano Metro” areas are: San Jose, CA; Boston, MA; San
Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; and Middlesex-Essex, MA (each with over 20
entries).
• Nanotechnology companies are working in three main sectors: materials,
medicine and health, and tools and instruments (each with over 100
entries).
• The number of universities and government laboratories working on some
aspect of nanotechnology is significant, with 138 identified.
• In all, 47 of 50 states and the District of Columbia contain at least one
company, university, government laboratory, or organization working in
nanotechnology, showing that nanotechnology activity is occurring
throughout the United States.
• http://www.nanotechproject.org/maps/mappage.html
 Now in Congress…
• The House of Representatives approved legislation in February to strengthen and
improve the National Nanotechnology Initiative-the multiagency effort to coordinate
federal nanotechnology research and development. H.R. 554, the NNI Amendments
Act of 2009, is identical to H.R. 5940, passed by the House in the 110th Congress.
• The legislation emphasizes the need for transparency in federal research efforts and
calls for more environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research on the potential risks
of nanotechnology. It requires all federal agencies that participate in NNI to develop a
plan for EHS research, including the specific funding required by each agency. A
Senate companion bill is expected later this year.
• House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer
Protection held a hearing in late February where a panel of industry officials,
environmentalists and policy experts offered testimony on the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), which grants EPA authority to require reporting and testing for
many chemicals. PEN Senior Adviser J. Clarence Davies recommended any updates
to TSCA address nanotechnology and all panelists agreed that TSCA is in need of
updating – in what regard is still up for debate.
 CONTACT
- Colin Finan,
colin.finan@wilsoncenter.org
202-691-4321
- Todd Kuiken,
todd.kuiken@wilsoncenter.org
202-691-4398