TRI authorities indicate that, in theory, the statute could be applied to nanomaterials. Key question is whether any nanomaterials are or will be considered by EPA to be toxic chemicals under TRI. EPA's nanoscale materials stewardship program has Basic and In-Depth programs for submission.
TRI authorities indicate that, in theory, the statute could be applied to nanomaterials. Key question is whether any nanomaterials are or will be considered by EPA to be toxic chemicals under TRI. EPA's nanoscale materials stewardship program has Basic and In-Depth programs for submission.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
TRI authorities indicate that, in theory, the statute could be applied to nanomaterials. Key question is whether any nanomaterials are or will be considered by EPA to be toxic chemicals under TRI. EPA's nanoscale materials stewardship program has Basic and In-Depth programs for submission.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
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